Joel Shore
Ive just been reading some early history of thermodynamics.
The belief in the caloric theory was almost universal , even Carnot subscribed to it.
It wasn’t a stupid theory.
It explained a lot of observable phenomena.
Count Rumford and the mechanical equivalent of heat must have seemed like “vodoo science” when first aired.
However the greenhouse theory has almost no facts to back it up!
You say
” However, the temperature of the surface is due to greenhouse gases.”
Instead of being at 255K the surface is at 288K because of greenhouse gases.
On a dry cloudless day with still air (little or no convection) then CO2 making up 0.037% of the atmosphere accumplises this herculean feat.
It does…….. if you believe in fairy tales.
Instead Postma points out the Earth surface which at 30C overall sun facing average is responsible.
The solar energy is retained in the surface and oceans and atmosphere by several mechanisms.
The thermodynamically derived lapse rate gives the temperature profile at some point on the troposphere the equivalent radiation level to space is to be found.
It seems possible to have a rational discussion on whether more CO2 would have a significant effect or not .
These discussions are usually labelled the TOA effect and your paper briefly touched on this point.
However you gray slab model is preposterous and should be ditched it does not have the more useful aspects of say the caloric theory to excuse it.
I read a quote by Ray Pierrehumbert and it would seem he is closer to Postmas model than to your gray slab nonsense.
You say that G&T were claiming that a theory that has been around for a century violates the Second Law when it doesn’t is a very big mistake.
There are some greenhouse theories that describe the atmosphere as being like a heat pump.
For instance Nullis in Verba has such ideas and perhaps also Nick Stokes.
Nobody is daft enough to say of course that their own pet theory violates the second law.
Some people like Halpern et al by a clumsy use of language have inadvertently contradicted the second law.
Whose fault is it that G&T accepted that when you said heat can travel spontaneously from a cold object to a hotter object that you really meant it.
You say
“Another important question is whether one acknowledges, corrects and learns from one’s mistakes.”
Very commendable
So you intend to write to IJMP to correct your paper.
I think that your reputation with the readership would be improved.
In pages 1317 to 1321 you reject the influence of gravity on the temperature profile of the troposphere this is despite the DALR formula being -g/Cp
You say
“The notion that somehow gravity determines the surface temperature doesn’t even satisfy the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, i.e., it violates conservation of energy.”
It influences the temperature profile, is what I said.
Real physics, as opposed to grey slab nonsense
The solar contribution, lapse rate and radiative emissions to space are the major factors that determine the temperature profile from surface to emission to space.
You say
“One doesn’t subscribe to one model or another model. One uses models for different purposes. A simple model of the greenhouse effect is useful for basic illustrative purposes. A more complicated model, considering convection and radiation and looking at the energy balance at the top of the atmosphere is useful for a more advanced understanding of the greenhouse effect and for quantitative calculations. The models are not incompatible; they are different degrees of approximation to the real world useful for different purposes.”
Notice how your obsession with radiation and particularly the radiative effects of CO2 distort reality.
No mention of conduction effects in the atmosphere.
No mention of the thermal inertia of the Oceans Land Mass or the insulative properties of N2 and O2.
Its as if you have swallowed hook line and sinker the sales pitch of George Soros and other carbon trading hedge funds.
Windfarm and Solar Panel salesmen supply the “science” and you cannot see though the transparent nonsense that is the greenhouse theory