4 Reasons Why 'Climate Change' Is a Flat-Out Hoax

[Toddsterpatriot]

I warn ANYONE considering taking SSDD as a source for valid scientific information that he is as bad a source as could be found. Try Wuwei, Old Rocks or Toddsterpatriot.

Says the good who can't produce a shred of observed, measured data that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability....or a single piece of observed, measured data which establishes a coherent link between the absorption of IR by a gas and warming in the atmosphere......or a single published, peer reviewed study in which the hypothetical, warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG.

What's the matter crick...frustrated because you can't find anything like actual observed, measured, empirical data to support your beliefs so you feel the need to lash out?....can you possibly be any more impotent?

Holding up wuwei, old rocks, or toddster as good sources for science? Really? A guy prone to jumping on crazy trains like the light from a flashlight being spontaneous? Or a known political whore? Or a guy who has never actually defended or discussed an idea with anything more than inane one liners? Those qualify in your mind as good sources for science? You never fail to show people exactly why you are such a good little dupe.

Go look for some non existent empirical evidence to support your beliefs...that should take you a life time..and you will eventually die a failure.

A guy prone to jumping on crazy trains like the light from a flashlight being spontaneous?

Or the light from the Sun's surface not being spontaneous.

It wasn't necessary, but thanks for making my point.

I'm happy to point out your confusion.

 

[Wuwei]

What he is saying is exactly that the gas law precludes the greenhouse gas hypothesis...He states in no uncertain terms that if the greenhouse gas hypothesis is right, then the ideal gas law must be wrong...and vice versa.

I know what he is stating in no uncertain terms, but it is certain he is wrong.

The only way that is possible, if the greenhouse gas hypothesis is correct and these gases are special and cause strong warming, is that changes in the greenhouse gases’ percentage in an atmosphere must alter the pressure and/or density anomalously; - in such a way as to make formulae 5 fit.

Any temperature change from any source will alter the density. It has been carefully observed and measured. Planes can't take off when the temperature is high because the density is too low for lift. It is not an anomaly. It is applied physics.

Note that although terms for insolation intensity and auto-compression are not used in the formula, it is proposed that these two are still what virtually determine an average near-surface

What he is saying here is that the gas law parameters are not enough to compute the temperature. You need to know the sun energy, etc, but he has no formula to compute the average near surface energy or temperature. Therefore the gas law alone is not complete in computing the temperatures of planets. So his theory has no meaning in computing temperature which is supposedly his goal. What he has done is simply show atmospheric data follow the ideal gas law. Of course it does. So what. There is no prediction given.

Actually, he is dead on. But do feel free to apply the greenhouse hypothesis to the other planets and lets see how close it is. Looking forward to seeing it work on saturn and jupiter where there are no so called greenhouse gasses to speak of.

It's simple. Don't make it complicated. Greenhouse gas models are not applicable if there are no greenhouse gases. That should have been obvious.

You were taken in by a charlatan. No question about that.

I wondered how a published paper could be so bad. Look at the upper left corner. It was published by Science Publishing Group. It's a web site. All you have to do is pay them $400 and they will publish your paper for everyone to read free of charge. Sort of like a diploma mill you pay the money they give you a diploma. Their papers are not peer reviewed. They are possibly internally reviewed but not by leading experts.

A professional journal never never charges the author. They charge the reader. It costs $10 to over $40 dollars for a reader to download a single professional journal paper or a $500 to over $900 a year for a subscription.

It is true that just because a paper is published for a price by a web mill, the paper still may be correct and informative, but the paper you cited is definitely not.

 

[SSDD]

I know what he is stating in no uncertain terms, but it is certain he is wrong.{/quote]

Really? Based on what observed, measured evidence. Lets see it. We both know no such evidence will be forthcoming so why not just admit that the thought of him being right is just to terrible for you to bear?

Any temperature change from any source will alter the density. It has been carefully observed and measured. Planes can't take off when the temperature is high because the density is too low for lift. It is not an anomaly. It is applied physics.

But CO2 is not an energy source. It is the temperature it is because N2 and O2 keep it that temperature by exchanging energy via collision. You are assuming that CO2 is an energy source and can cause a temperature change on its own. Lets see the evidence to support that claim as well.

What he is saying here is that the gas law parameters are not enough to compute the temperature. You need to know the sun energy, etc, but he has no formula to compute the average near surface energy or temperature. Therefore the gas law alone is not complete in computing the temperatures of planets. So his theory has no meaning in computing temperature which is supposedly his goal. What he has done is simply show atmospheric data follow the ideal gas law. Of course it does. So what. There is no prediction given.

No...what he is saying is that the molar version of the gas law is all you need to compute the temperature...you really are in denial.

Your cherry picking and presenting what he said out of context is an ever present demonstration of your dishonesty. Here is what he said, in context:

This formula proves itself here, to be not only more accurate than any other method heretofore used but is far simpler to calculate. It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential for the calculation of atmospheric temperatures, such as; solar insolation, albedo, greenhouse gas content, ocean circulation and cloud cover among many others. The reason these are not required, is because they, (and all others) are already automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three gas parameters mentioned. Note that although terms for insolation intensity and auto-compression are not used in the formula, it is proposed that these two are still what virtually determine an average near-surface.

When he says that the parameters that he isn't using are "baked in" he is pointing out that the gas law isn't just a convenient means of calculating the temperature...they are the reason that the temperature is what it is.

Now read the entire thought and tell me what he said...

It's simple. Don't make it complicated. Greenhouse gas models are not applicable if there are no greenhouse gases. That should have been obvious.

So I can't help but note that you didn't even attempt to apply the greenhouse formula to earth...much less any of the other planets. Is that an admission that you know it won't work, or an admission that you don't know how?

You were taken in by a charlatan. No question about that.

And yet, his proposition is supported by physical laws, is completely quantified, works every where it is tried, and is supported by literal mountains of experimental, observational evidence, while the hypothesis you believe in is supported by no observational, or experimental evidence, runs afoul of physical laws at every turn, doesn't even work here without an ad hoc fudge factor, and has never been quantified.

I wondered how a published paper could be so bad. Look at the upper left corner. It was published by Science Publishing Group. It's a web site. All you have to do is pay them $400 and they will publish your paper for everyone to read free of charge. Sort of like a diploma mill you pay the money they give you a diploma. Their papers are not peer reviewed. They are possibly internally reviewed but not by leading experts.

So at this point, you turn to logical fallacy. Good one. If you can't tear down the discussion, then start with the ad homs. That just lost you the discussion...congratulations. You haven't managed to present a single rational argument against this paper...thus far, all you have done is take sentences out of context and present poor arguments against them....you can't seem to argue against anything in the paper when it is in its full context. It is easy to se how you came to be duped and how you maintain your duped status in the face of so much real world, observed evidence that calls your belief into question. You pick and choose what gets into your brain and anything that calls what you believe into question gets rejected out of hand without even the least bit of thought.

 

[Wuwei]

I know what he is stating in no uncertain terms, but it is certain he is wrong.{/quote]

Really? Based on what observed, measured evidence. Lets see it. We both know no such evidence will be forthcoming so why not just admit that the thought of him being right is just to terrible for you to bear?

Any temperature change from any source will alter the density. It has been carefully observed and measured. Planes can't take off when the temperature is high because the density is too low for lift. It is not an anomaly. It is applied physics.

But CO2 is not an energy source. It is the temperature it is because N2 and O2 keep it that temperature by exchanging energy via collision. You are assuming that CO2 is an energy source and can cause a temperature change on its own. Lets see the evidence to support that claim as well.

What he is saying here is that the gas law parameters are not enough to compute the temperature. You need to know the sun energy, etc, but he has no formula to compute the average near surface energy or temperature. Therefore the gas law alone is not complete in computing the temperatures of planets. So his theory has no meaning in computing temperature which is supposedly his goal. What he has done is simply show atmospheric data follow the ideal gas law. Of course it does. So what. There is no prediction given.

No...what he is saying is that the molar version of the gas law is all you need to compute the temperature...you really are in denial.

Your cherry picking and presenting what he said out of context is an ever present demonstration of your dishonesty. Here is what he said, in context:

This formula proves itself here, to be not only more accurate than any other method heretofore used but is far simpler to calculate. It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential for the calculation of atmospheric temperatures, such as; solar insolation, albedo, greenhouse gas content, ocean circulation and cloud cover among many others. The reason these are not required, is because they, (and all others) are already automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three gas parameters mentioned. Note that although terms for insolation intensity and auto-compression are not used in the formula, it is proposed that these two are still what virtually determine an average near-surface.

When he says that the parameters that he isn't using are "baked in" he is pointing out that the gas law isn't just a convenient means of calculating the temperature...they are the reason that the temperature is what it is.

Now read the entire thought and tell me what he said...

It's simple. Don't make it complicated. Greenhouse gas models are not applicable if there are no greenhouse gases. That should have been obvious.

So I can't help but note that you didn't even attempt to apply the greenhouse formula to earth...much less any of the other planets. Is that an admission that you know it won't work, or an admission that you don't know how?

You were taken in by a charlatan. No question about that.

And yet, his proposition is supported by physical laws, is completely quantified, works every where it is tried, and is supported by literal mountains of experimental, observational evidence, while the hypothesis you believe in is supported by no observational, or experimental evidence, runs afoul of physical laws at every turn, doesn't even work here without an ad hoc fudge factor, and has never been quantified.

I wondered how a published paper could be so bad. Look at the upper left corner. It was published by Science Publishing Group. It's a web site. All you have to do is pay them $400 and they will publish your paper for everyone to read free of charge. Sort of like a diploma mill you pay the money they give you a diploma. Their papers are not peer reviewed. They are possibly internally reviewed but not by leading experts.

So at this point, you turn to logical fallacy. Good one. If you can't tear down the discussion, then start with the ad homs. That just lost you the discussion...congratulations. You haven't managed to present a single rational argument against this paper...thus far, all you have done is take sentences out of context and present poor arguments against them....you can't seem to argue against anything in the paper when it is in its full context. It is easy to se how you came to be duped and how you maintain your duped status in the face of so much real world, observed evidence that calls your belief into question. You pick and choose what gets into your brain and anything that calls what you believe into question gets rejected out of hand without even the least bit of thought.

I'm not assuming a particular source of energy is required. It is a simple fact that any temperature change from any source will alter atmospheric density. It has been carefully observed and measured.

I didn't cherry pick a quote. These are two sentences in the same paragraph that you fully quoted:

Authors second sentence:
It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential for the calculation of atmospheric temperatures, such as; solar insolation etc.

Authors last sentence:
it is proposed that these two [solar insolation, auto-compression] are still what virtually determine an average near-surface planetary atmospheric temperature.​

Do you see the self contradiction? The first sentence says the amount of sun energy is not necessary to calculate temperatures. In the last sentence he says it virtually determines the temperature.

He needs to rigorously clarify what "baked-in" means in a physics equation. That is very sloppy science which makes no sense. Your interpretation of "baked-in" is contrary to the authors last sentence.

The author states his gas model alone does not calculate temperatures of any planet. Unless you can find it for me, he has no calculation of near-surface planetary atmospheric temperature. So the author is in essence saying that he has not achieved his goal of computing the temperatures of planets. It is much more complicated than he thinks.

As I said before, the only thing he accomplished is simply to show atmospheric data follow the ideal gas law. Of course it does. So what. There is no prediction given.

.

 

[IanC]

The Ideal Gas Law operates under a set assumptions, idealized conditions.

The mechanics of GHG theory violate those assumptions.

This does not mean that IGL or GHG theory is necessarily wrong, but simply incomplete.

Physics is often an exercise in using the least amount of parameters to give an estimate that is close enough for the purpose. Factoring in the curvature of the earth is foolish for building a house but it would be foolhardy to ignore if you were constructing a two kilometre suspension bridge.

 

[Wuwei]

The Ideal Gas Law operates under a set assumptions, idealized conditions.

The mechanics of GHG theory violate those assumptions.

This does not mean that IGL or GHG theory is necessarily wrong, but simply incomplete.

Physics is often an exercise in using the least amount of parameters to give an estimate that is close enough for the purpose. Factoring in the curvature of the earth is foolish for building a house but it would be foolhardy to ignore if you were constructing a two kilometre suspension bridge.

I didn't want to complicate the discussion with the points you are making because it would lead to endless quibbling by SSDD who jumps at any chance for a distraction. But you are right, the IGL may work well for some planets, but the earth has a major un-ideal substance: Water changes phase right and left (or should I say up and down.)

The paper SSDD cited ignores water phase changes which are not trivial, but air for the most part acts ideally very locally as in a cubic meter, except in a thunderstorm, etc.

 

[SSDD]

The Ideal Gas Law operates under a set assumptions, idealized conditions.

The mechanics of GHG theory violate those assumptions.

Laughable ian...absolutely laughable. The "assumptions" are things like the gas consists of a large number of molecules, which are in random motion and obey Newton's laws of motion, and the volume of the molecules is negligibly small compared to the volume occupied by the gas. The mechanics of the greenhouse gas hypothesis are entirely and completely composed of assumptions. There is no empirical evidence to demonstrate a relationship between CO2 and warming in the atmosphere.

All you have is a piss poor hypothesis which only works here, and only with the application of an ad hoc fudge factor, and can't even come close to predicting the temperature of any other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere, and the opinions of scientists who have been seduced by money.

You don't even have a single published, peer reviewed study in which the hypothetical, warming due to man's burning of hydrocarbon fuels has never actually been empirically measured, quantified and then attributed to GHG.

In reality, what do you have ian?

Those "assumptions" the ideal gas LAW makes are applicable here and don't change a thing. The fact is that the molar version of the ideal gas law is not just a handy means of predicting the temperature of a planet with an atmosphere, it is the reason the planet is that temperature.

This does not mean that IGL or GHG theory is necessarily wrong, but simply incomplete.

The greenhouse gas hypothesis, and its red headed, bastard stepchild, AGW are wrong in every manner that you would expect a pair of interlocking piss poor hypotheses to be....beginning with the fact that there isn't the first whit of empirical evidence to support either despite billions upon billions of dollars having been spent on the boondoggle.

Physics is often an exercise in using the least amount of parameters to give an estimate that is close enough for the purpose. Factoring in the curvature of the earth is foolish for building a house but it would be foolhardy to ignore if you were constructing a two kilometre suspension bridge.

What physics isn't is fabricating a hypothesis out of whole cloth about an observable, measurable entity such as the atmosphere without the first piece of actual observational evidence to support it...especially for no better reason than political power and money. You really want to se science prostitute itself out to the highest bidder?

Rejecting that the factors included in the molar version of the ideal gas law are the reason that the planets with atmospheres are the temperatures they are in in spite of the fact that it accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere in favor of a piss poor hypothesis without the first piece of empirical evidence in support of it even though it has been in dispute since its inception and billions upon billions upon billions of dollars having been spent isn't science ian...and it simply is not rational.

 

[SSDD]

I didn't want to complicate the discussion with the points you are making because it would lead to endless quibbling by SSDD who jumps at any chance for a distraction.p.quote]

He had no point other than that the assumptions the ideal gas law make apply here and in every other planet in the solar system with an atmosphere dense enough to compress.

But you are right, the IGL may work well for some planets, but the earth has a major un-ideal substance: Water changes phase right and left (or should I say up and down.)

And yet, it works here as well...in fact, it works exactly as you would expect a physical law to work...that is flawlessly while the world still awaits some actual observed, measured evidence that even supports the greenhouse hypothesis.

The paper SSDD cited ignores water phase changes which are not trivial, but air for the most part acts ideally very locally as in a cubic meter, except in a thunderstorm, etc.

As the author explained..all that is "baked in" The molar version of the ideal gas law isn't just a means to predict temperature...it is the reason the temperature is what it is. You don't need to account for water vapor because water vapor is subject to the ideal gas law as well. It behaves as it does because of the factors the ideal gas law deals with.

 

[SSDD]

I'm not assuming a particular source of energy is required. It is a simple fact that any temperature change from any source will alter atmospheric density. It has been carefully observed and measured.

CO2 is not an energy source and therefore any assumption based on an energy source can not include CO2.

I didn't cherry pick a quote. These are two sentences in the same paragraph that you fully quoted:

Authors second sentence:
It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential for the calculation of atmospheric temperatures, such as; solar insolation etc.​

Of course you cherry picked...are you really daft enough to believe that you didn't? By leaving out the next sentence, you are guilty of both cherrypicking, and changing the context of the statement. The next sentence reads:

The reason these are not required, is because they, (and all others) are already automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three gas parameters mentioned.

Now if you can manage just a wee bit of intellectual honesty, compare the meaning of the sentence you posted, with the idea the sentence was part of expressing. Think you can manage even that much intellectual honesty?

Authors.

last sentence:
it is proposed that these two [solar insolation, auto-compression] are still what virtually determine an average near-surface planetary atmospheric temperature.

Again, refer to the sentence you deliberately left out in your impotent attempt to change the context of the statements. Isn't it interesting how you man made climate change believers must invariably resort to such tactics?

Again..the author said:
​

It requires no input from parameters previously thought to be essential for the calculation of atmospheric temperatures, such as; solar insolation, albedo, greenhouse gas content, ocean circulation and cloud cover among many others.The reason these are not required, is because they, (and all others) are already automatically ‘baked-in’ to the three gas parameters mentioned. It is proposed that these two [solar insolation, auto-compression] are still what virtually determine an average near-surface planetary atmospheric temperature.[/quote]

It does not require parameters like solar insolation, albedo, greenhouse gas content etc because?

And solar insolation and auto compression are what determine an average near surface temperature because?

Do you see the self contradiction? The first sentence says the amount of sun energy is not necessary to calculate temperatures. In the last sentence he says it virtually determines the temperature.

I don't see a contradiction because there is no contradiction...of course, I am reading the entire thoughts the author is putting forward rather than reading for the purpose of cherry picking and taking individual sentences out of context. The whole idea, explains, and demonstrates that the precise amount of energy coming in from the sun is not necessary because the parameters of the gasses are what they are because of the precise amount of energy coming in from the sun. Needing the precise amount of energy incoming from the sun would be redundant because the parameters of the gasses are what they are because of the amount of energy incoming from the sun.

And of course it determines the temperature...and the parameters of the gasses prove it. Move to a planet with a different atmospheric composition, and different density and different incoming solar energy and it still predicts the temperature because the precise amount of incoming solar energy is the reason that the parameters of the gasses on this different planet are what they are. Add more solar energy or take away solar energy and the parameters of the gasses change. It would, I suppose, be possible to determine the precise change in incoming solar energy by the change in those parameters.

He needs to rigorously clarify what "baked-in" means in a physics equation. That is very sloppy science which makes no sense. Your interpretation of "baked-in" is contrary to the authors last sentence.

He did...you were just so busy cherry picking and determining which sentences you could take out of context that you missed the larger point. And how much more rigorous can you get than the precise application of a physical law? Are you kidding?

The author states his gas model alone does not calculate temperatures of any planet. Unless you can find it for me, he has no calculation of near-surface planetary atmospheric temperature. So the author is in essence saying that he has not achieved his goal of computing the temperatures of planets. It is much more complicated than he thinks.

You really didn't read the paper did you? Refer to pages 110 - 113. He calculates the temperatures for all the planets with sufficient atmospheres...and no, he didn't calculate the near surface temperature for saturn or jupiter for obvious reasons so are you going to discount the entire paper for that reason? If so, then you must discount the greenhouse gas hypothesis for those very same reasons as well as a host of others.

As I said before, the only thing he accomplished is simply to show atmospheric data follow the ideal gas law. Of course it does. So what. There is no prediction given.

And you don't see the significance of the fact that atmospheric data are what they are because of the parameters established in the ideal gas law? Those parameters tell you every thing you need to know about why the temperature is what it is. You don't see any significance in that versus a hypothesis that has been in dispute since it was first voiced and after 122 years still doesn't have the first piece of empirical evidence to provide as support? You really aren't worth the effort of talking to....are you?

 

[Wuwei]

So this is what you think “baked in” means?

The whole idea, explains, and demonstrates that the precise amount of energy coming in from the sun is not necessary because the parameters of the gasses are what they are because of the precise amount of energy coming in from the sun.

I don't see how you can say that with a straight face. It is circular logic. It is as ludicrous as saying, It is what it is because that's what it is. That is not science. That is why I left it out of my "cherry picking." That idea of "baked in" is "half baked".

Planetary probes into a reasonable atmosphere will always find the gas law works. Have we learned anything new that explains atmospheric science on a planet or earth? Not by a long shot. It only shows that the gas law works as advertised. The author did not create a model of the physics of the atmosphere. It cannot compute what the temperatures might be if insolation changes. If that happens the author's "theory" can only remeasure and re-verify the state variables and again say "it is what it is."

It would, I suppose, be possible to determine the precise change in incoming solar energy by the change in those parameters.

No, no, that is opposite of what an earth atmospheric theory should attempt to do. Why would you want to compute the solar energy when you can actually see it. If the energy influx is expected to change because of some event such as an asteroid or massive volcano, or back radiation, you want to be able to estimate and then predict what the temperature would be, not the incoming energy flux.

You should start with the things you know or can easily find out. The insolation can be estimated. The pressure and molar fractions are already known. Use that to compute the temperature due to an energy influx change.

.

 

[IanC]

The Ideal Gas Law only ''works" for totally elastic collisions of non reacting molecules under conditions of relatively low density and high temperature. It also assumes no outside long range forces acting on the cohort being observed. Only kinetic energies are considered and potential energies like the gas containment vessel formed by gravity on large enough planets is ignored.

A step up is the Equipartition Theorum, which acknowledges long range forces and the back and forth conversion of energy between kinetic, potential and radiation forms.


Why is SSDDs IGL method of determining surface temperature correct but useless? It is circular reasoning. The information is already there before you manipulate the terms. Not only that but there is a wide range of temperatures possible for any one amount of energy inputted from the Sun. And all of those temps would satisfy the IGL within the accepted accuracy.

Eg...If there was no CO2 in the atmosphere then a fairly large fraction of surface radiation would directly escape to space instead of being aabsorbed by the air. The atmosphere would be cooler and it would sink towards the surface causing the density to increase. The IGL would still be fufilled even though the surface temperature had dropped by roughly 5K.

Edit. I will .respond to a counter point to something that I said, so please include the quoted price.

 

[SSDD]

So this is what you think “baked in” means?

The whole idea, explains, and demonstrates that the precise amount of energy coming in from the sun is not necessary because the parameters of the gasses are what they are because of the precise amount of energy coming in from the sun.

I don't see how you can say that with a straight face. It is circular logic. It is as ludicrous as saying, It is what it is because that's what it is. That is not science. That is why I left it out of my "cherry picking." That idea of "baked in" is "half baked".

You are funny...saying what is and isn't science arguing for a hypothesis which after 120 years still hasn't a single shred of observed measured evidence to offer up as support. You think that is science?

I contacted the author and asked him what was implied by the term "baked in" His response is as follows"

Hi XXXX,

Thanks for your interest in the paper.
"Baked-In" simply refers to the fact that all influences (whether long term or short term) which affect gas density, pressure and molar mass are automatically, instantly and fully represented in thick atmospheres. If they weren't, an accurate gas temperature could not be calculated by the use of these three parameters alone - as it clearly is.
Kind Regards,

Robert Holmes
Email; [email protected]

Now, do such things as incoming solar energy, albedo, etc., etc have any effect on gas density, pressure, and molar mass?

You can deny as much as you like....but failing to offer up any observed, measured evidence that the greenhouse gas hypothesis is right, and the ideal gas law is wrong leaves you wanting. Sorry.

 

[SSDD]

The Ideal Gas Law only ''works" for totally elastic collisions of non reacting molecules under conditions of relatively low density and high temperature. It also assumes no outside long range forces acting on the cohort being observed. Only kinetic energies are considered and potential energies like the gas containment vessel formed by gravity on large enough planets is ignored.

Just like in our atmosphere huh...and every other atmosphere in the solar system with sufficient pressure.

Why is SSDDs IGL method of determining surface temperature correct but useless? It is circular reasoning. The information is already there before you manipulate the terms. Not only that but there is a wide range of temperatures possible for any one amount of energy inputted from the Sun. And all of those temps would satisfy the IGL within the accepted accuracy.

Do you deny that if you know the parameters necessary for the molar mass version of the ideal gas law to work, that it would be possible to work backwards and calculate, with reasonable accuracy the forces which are affecting the density, pressure, and molar mass of the atmosphere in question?

Eg...If there was no CO2 in the atmosphere then a fairly large fraction of surface radiation would directly escape to space instead of being aabsorbed by the air. The atmosphere would be cooler and it would sink towards the surface causing the density to increase. The IGL would still be fufilled even though the surface temperature had dropped by roughly 5K.

There are several planets in the solar system which have essentially no greenhouse gasses within their atmosphere and yet, they are home to some of the hottest atmospheric temperatures in the solar system...if, as you say, so called greenhouse gasses are what hold the heat in the atmosphere, why have those planets which have no greenhouse gasses not turned to blocks of ice?

You have a piss poor hypothesis which works nowhere but here and only works here if you apply an ad hoc fudge factor which has been in dispute for 120 years and still doesn't have the first piece of observed, measured evidence to offer up in support. In short...you have exactly squat.

 

[Wuwei]

"Baked-In" simply refers to the fact that all influences (whether long term or short term) which affect gas density, pressure and molar mass are automatically, instantly and fully represented in thick atmospheres. If they weren't, an accurate gas temperature could not be calculated by the use of these three parameters alone - as it clearly is.

That first sentence simply says, it is what it is because of something unknown.
His second sentence is another way of saying that the ideal gas law works. It would be a contradiction if it didn't.

I totally agree with Holmes, but he does not add any physics insight to anything. It is a vacuous paragraph. That is still circular. He is saying the gas parameters result from the insolation, and the insolation drives the gas parameters. A full circle.

Ask Holmes how would he predict a new resulting temperature if a massive super volcano or large asteroid radically changed the nature of the global atmosphere chemically and physically.

That is what climate science should do: attempt to predict the nature and resulting temperature of a solar influx disaster so efforts can be taken to survive it. All his "theory" can do is measure the gas parameters weeks or months after it's too late, again ignore the cause, and again say, it is what it is. It's vacuous science.

 

[IanC]

50,000 years from now, when we are in the middle of the next ice age, the Ideal Gas Law will still be functioning, still giving the right surface temperature.

So what?

 

[SSDD]

That first sentence simply says, it is what it is because of something unknown.
His second sentence is another way of saying that the ideal gas law works. It would be a contradiction if it didn't.

You really aren't very bright are you? What do you suppose are the factors that might influence gas density, pressure and molar mass? Any guesses? Are those factors really unknown to you?

Ask Holmes how would he predict a new resulting temperature if a massive super volcano or large asteroid radically changed the nature of the global atmosphere chemically and physically.

This really is all just way over your head...isn't it. If a volcano, or an asteroid radically changed the nature of the atmosphere, do you think that perhaps it would have an effect on the incoming solar energy...albedo...etc..and do you think changes in those parameters might have an effect on the gas density, pressure, and molar mass of the altered atmosphere?

You just don't seem to get past the fact that those parameters aren't just for predicting the temperature...they are the reason for the temperature..no matter the nature of the energy source, or the composition of the atmosphere.

 

[SSDD]

50,000 years from now, when we are in the middle of the next ice age, the Ideal Gas Law will still be functioning, still giving the right surface temperature.

So what?

And the ice age, or warming will have absolutely nothing to do with greenhouse gasses. You still have exactly squat. Unobservable, untestable, unmeasurable, unsupportable models and nothing else.

 

[Wuwei]

That first sentence simply says, it is what it is because of something unknown.
His second sentence is another way of saying that the ideal gas law works. It would be a contradiction if it didn't.

You really aren't very bright are you? What do you suppose are the factors that might influence gas density, pressure and molar mass? Any guesses? Are those factors really unknown to you?

Ask Holmes how would he predict a new resulting temperature if a massive super volcano or large asteroid radically changed the nature of the global atmosphere chemically and physically.

This really is all just way over your head...isn't it. If a volcano, or an asteroid radically changed the nature of the atmosphere, do you think that perhaps it would have an effect on the incoming solar energy...albedo...etc..and do you think changes in those parameters might have an effect on the gas density, pressure, and molar mass of the altered atmosphere?

You just don't seem to get past the fact that those parameters aren't just for predicting the temperature...they are the reason for the temperature..no matter the nature of the energy source, or the composition of the atmosphere.

Holmes still made a circular argument. He is sure no Sherlock. You are thinking in circles too.

Yep, the changed atmosphere of global disasters sure does change the atmospheric parameters, but how does Holmes try to compute those changes without waiting for the dystopian changes to occur. Did you ask him yet?

 

[SSDD]

Holmes still made a circular argument. He is sure no Sherlock. You are thinking in circles too.

Sorry, but alas it is you who is thinking in circles...nothing can explain the temperature of the earth except the greenhouse effect because the greenhouse effect is responsible for the temperature of the earth...without regard for the fact that there is no physical evidence for the greenhouse effect.

Yep, the changed atmosphere of global disasters sure does change the atmospheric parameters, but how does Holmes try to compute those changes without waiting for the dystopian changes to occur. Did you ask him yet?

Which dystopian change are you talking about? If you know the change in incoming energy then you can know the effect it is going to have on the parameters necessary to calculate the temperature with the molar version of the ideal gas law. Unlike the models of the greenhouse hypothesis which have an absolutely miserable record for predicting anything.

The fact is that there is no greenhouse effect as described by climate science. If you are so sure there is, then lets see some actual observed, measured evidence that supports it, and lets see it predict the temperature somewhere other than here.

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry, but alas it is you who is thinking in circles...nothing can explain the temperature of the earth except the greenhouse effect because the greenhouse effect is responsible for the temperature of the earth...without regard for the fact that there is no physical evidence for the greenhouse effect.

You are digressing. What I personally think is immaterial to the subject. The subject is Holmes and you thinking in circles.

Which dystopian change are you talking about?

The dystopian change was clear: the aftermath of a cataclysmic event.

If you know the change in incoming energy then you can know the effect it is going to have on the parameters necessary to calculate the temperature with the molar version of the ideal gas law.

Right, but Holmes does not give a way of even attempting to do that. He says the result is already half-baked in.

The rest of your post is digression away from Holmes paper.