In Support of the A in AGW

[jc456]

Why don't you

Why don't I post something that you think proves your claim? LOL!

hahahaahahhaahaha yeah post something that proves my claim. Since you are such a little fk why not, seems you can't prove yours.

still waiting on how much sunlight hits the surface of venus. Please enlighten us all on your vast knowledge of feedbacks.

yeah post something that proves my claim.

There is nothing that proves your claim.

still waiting on how much sunlight hits the surface of venus

Don't know, don't care.
How does CO2 absorb and never emit? Durr.

why don't you post the reason why you think CO2 emits. And it isn't just because it absorbs, there are physics involved, what are they?

why don't you post the reason why you think CO2 emits.

It doesn't need a reason. Electrons drop to lower orbits all the time, just because.
If you had actually taken a physics class, and had above a room temperature IQ, you'd know that.

Now why does it absorb, but never emit, in your world?

well there is a reason, but I don't give up mine until you give up yours. It's a gas and not just an electron. So why not explain how it actually works in physics, that term you love to throw around to make it like you don't know anything about it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If it proves any of your claims, post it.

Why don't you

Why don't I post something that you think proves your claim? LOL!

hahahaahahhaahaha yeah post something that proves my claim. Since you are such a little fk why not, seems you can't prove yours.

still waiting on how much sunlight hits the surface of venus. Please enlighten us all on your vast knowledge of feedbacks.

yeah post something that proves my claim.

There is nothing that proves your claim.

still waiting on how much sunlight hits the surface of venus

Don't know, don't care.
How does CO2 absorb and never emit? Durr.

there is nothing that proves your claim. so what do we do? Hell, the sun doesn't even follow your claim of feedback. And it's got the frign hottest corona in the known universe. And the surface isn't as warm. Holy crap, seems to support my claim and not yours.

It seems you throw out magnetic fields, convection, conduction, atmospheric pressures and many other conditions. yep, for you it's feedback and you can't even validate it.

Hell, the sun doesn't even follow your claim of feedback.

Since I never made any claim of feedback, I have to ask, why are you drinking already?

And it's got the frign hottest corona in the known universe. And the surface isn't as warm. Holy crap, seems to support my claim and not yours.

Which claim of yours is supported by the hotter corona and the cooler surface, emitting in all directions, constantly?

It seems you throw out magnetic fields, convection, conduction, atmospheric pressures and many other conditions.

I didn't throw them out. Not even a little.

I need to hear more about CO2 absorbing energy and escaping our atmosphere.

Tell me more about this magic ability of CO2 that you discovered.

 

[jc456]

Why don't you

Why don't I post something that you think proves your claim? LOL!

hahahaahahhaahaha yeah post something that proves my claim. Since you are such a little fk why not, seems you can't prove yours.

still waiting on how much sunlight hits the surface of venus. Please enlighten us all on your vast knowledge of feedbacks.

yeah post something that proves my claim.

There is nothing that proves your claim.

still waiting on how much sunlight hits the surface of venus

Don't know, don't care.
How does CO2 absorb and never emit? Durr.

there is nothing that proves your claim. so what do we do? Hell, the sun doesn't even follow your claim of feedback. And it's got the frign hottest corona in the known universe. And the surface isn't as warm. Holy crap, seems to support my claim and not yours.

It seems you throw out magnetic fields, convection, conduction, atmospheric pressures and many other conditions. yep, for you it's feedback and you can't even validate it.

Hell, the sun doesn't even follow your claim of feedback.

Since I never made any claim of feedback, I have to ask, why are you drinking already?

And it's got the frign hottest corona in the known universe. And the surface isn't as warm. Holy crap, seems to support my claim and not yours.

Which claim of yours is supported by the hotter corona and the cooler surface, emitting in all directions, constantly?

It seems you throw out magnetic fields, convection, conduction, atmospheric pressures and many other conditions.

I didn't throw them out. Not even a little.

I need to hear more about CO2 absorbing energy and escaping our atmosphere.

Tell me more about this magic ability of CO2 that you discovered.

You tell me how co2 emits. Still waiting. Hey, why is it if it emits and is spread equally in the atmosphere are there different temperatures? Hmmm. Still waiting

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why don't I post something that you think proves your claim? LOL!

hahahaahahhaahaha yeah post something that proves my claim. Since you are such a little fk why not, seems you can't prove yours.

still waiting on how much sunlight hits the surface of venus. Please enlighten us all on your vast knowledge of feedbacks.

yeah post something that proves my claim.

There is nothing that proves your claim.

still waiting on how much sunlight hits the surface of venus

Don't know, don't care.
How does CO2 absorb and never emit? Durr.

there is nothing that proves your claim. so what do we do? Hell, the sun doesn't even follow your claim of feedback. And it's got the frign hottest corona in the known universe. And the surface isn't as warm. Holy crap, seems to support my claim and not yours.

It seems you throw out magnetic fields, convection, conduction, atmospheric pressures and many other conditions. yep, for you it's feedback and you can't even validate it.

Hell, the sun doesn't even follow your claim of feedback.

Since I never made any claim of feedback, I have to ask, why are you drinking already?

And it's got the frign hottest corona in the known universe. And the surface isn't as warm. Holy crap, seems to support my claim and not yours.

Which claim of yours is supported by the hotter corona and the cooler surface, emitting in all directions, constantly?

It seems you throw out magnetic fields, convection, conduction, atmospheric pressures and many other conditions.

I didn't throw them out. Not even a little.

I need to hear more about CO2 absorbing energy and escaping our atmosphere.

Tell me more about this magic ability of CO2 that you discovered.

You tell me how co2 emits. Still waiting. Hey, why is it if it emits and is spread equally in the atmosphere are there different temperatures? Hmmm. Still waiting

why is it if it emits

If? LOL!

Does any matter ever emit? How?

 

[Crick]

Good one. How about a list of which materials emit and which ones do not? Then perhaps you could explain how and why?

 

[SSDD]

The greenhouse effect works on every other planet. Your gravity induced nonsense does not.

Really? Lets test that hypothesis...that is what science is all about after all...not that you know jack about actual science having imbibed in pseudoscience for so long.

Applying the ideal gas laws to Venus in the form T = PV/nR where the atmospheric pressure is 92000 mbar, the surface density is 65000 g/m3, and the mean molecular weight is 43.45 we get 739K=92000/(65000/43.45*0.083144621)....the average temperature on Venus is 737 K...the ideal gas laws, WITH NO FUDGE FACTOR put us to with 2degrees K of the actual temperature on venus....

So step on up skid mark and show us what the greenhouse formula says that the temperature on venus should be....and lets see you do it without pseudoscientific fudge factors....I certainly didn't need any....show us what you have.

Prediction.....you won't even make an attempt because you know as well as I (or you do if you are half as smart as you think you are) that the greenhouse hypothesis doesn't work there....not even close.

Come on skid mark...give me a new quote for my sig.

 

[SSDD]

Are you really that dumb? You believe that because he perhaps drew an incorrect conclusion from the results of his experiments, that it alters the result in any way? You really think that? Ever hear of Antoine Lavoisier?...he proposed a theory of acids that held sway well into the 19th century...based on his observations, he hypothesized that oxygen was the acidifying factor in acidic substances....of course his conclusions from what he observed in his experiment were wrong, but that does not alter the fact that what he observed and measured was indeed what he observed and measured....and oddly enough, even though is conclusions and following hypothesis were mistaken, a new element was added to the periodic table...oxygen.

History is rife with examples of scientists misinterpreting what the results of their experiments mean.....this does not in the least change what those results were....in this case, the experiments demonstrate that there is a gravity induced temperature gradient in columns of air...no amount of misinterpretation of what that a might mean alters the fact that the temperature gradient still exists.

I would expect nothing less that complete denial from someone like you even though the gravity induced atmospheric thermal effect does, in fact, accurately predict the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere while the greenhouse hypothesis can't even predict the temperature here without a fudge factor....

Oh for God's sake. Your insults, bluster and irrelevant examples simply will not alter the fact that it wasn't that his conclusions were wrong. First it was his entire experiment that was wrong. Second, the bad experiment lead to bad conclusions. The bad experiment and bad conclusions are inextricably tied.

Sorry guy...not so. The temperature gradient he recorded was real...what he drew from that is irrelevant...deny deny deny...

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy...not so. The temperature gradient he recorded was real...what he drew from that is irrelevant...deny deny deny...

It is rather telling that you believe in an experiment where you really don't know how poorly the instrumentation was handled just so you can promote your misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

There is nothing in the entropy concept of the 2nd law that prevents two objects from radiating energy toward each other, as long as the net radiation energy is from the hotter to the colder object. In radiation exchange, entropy will continually increase and satisfy the 2nd law.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy...not so. The temperature gradient he recorded was real...what he drew from that is irrelevant...deny deny deny...

It is rather telling that you believe in an experiment where you really don't know how poorly the instrumentation was handled just so you can promote your misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

There is nothing in the entropy concept of the 2nd law that prevents two objects from radiating energy toward each other, as long as the net radiation energy is from the hotter to the colder object. In radiation exchange, entropy will continually increase and satisfy the 2nd law.

Set T and Tc to the same number....tell me what P is....you can go on ad nauseum, but you will never get P to be any number other than zero...no matter how much you try and there is nothing there RE net movement...that is nothing but you interpreting...P=0

 

[Wuwei]

Set T and Tc to the same number....tell me what P is....you can go on ad nauseum, but you will never get P to be any number other than zero...no matter how much you try and there is nothing there RE net movement...that is nothing but you interpreting...P=0

Exactly. When the temperatures are the same, both objects are emitting the same amount of energy, and the net radiant energy flow is zero. And entropy is at a maximum.

We went through all that before. Did you forget already?

 

[Wuwei]

Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/physics/laureates/1911/wien-lecture.html
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

 

[Olde Europe]

Applying the ideal gas laws to Venus in the form T = PV/nR where the atmospheric pressure is 92000 mbar, the surface density is 65000 g/m3, and the mean molecular weight is 43.45 we get 739K=92000/(65000/43.45*0.083144621)....the average temperature on Venus is 737 K...the ideal gas laws, WITH NO FUDGE FACTOR put us to with 2degrees K of the actual temperature on venus....

Assume a little black hole were to zoom through our solar system, leaving everything else as is, but transferring Venus to an orbit 100 times its current radius. The SSDD theory of "ideal gas laws rule temperatures" would put the planet's new equilibrium surface temperature at 739°K.

The temperature would still be same, of course, if the orbital radius were halved. The imbecility of that particularly silly sideshow could not be more obvious.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry guy...not so. The temperature gradient he recorded was real...what he drew from that is irrelevant...deny deny deny...

It is rather telling that you believe in an experiment where you really don't know how poorly the instrumentation was handled just so you can promote your misunderstanding of thermodynamics.

There is nothing in the entropy concept of the 2nd law that prevents two objects from radiating energy toward each other, as long as the net radiation energy is from the hotter to the colder object. In radiation exchange, entropy will continually increase and satisfy the 2nd law.

Set T and Tc to the same number....tell me what P is....you can go on ad nauseum, but you will never get P to be any number other than zero...no matter how much you try and there is nothing there RE net movement...that is nothing but you interpreting...P=0

Derp!
Magic photons or magic emitters?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
Wilhelm Wien - Nobel Lecture: On the Laws of Thermal Radiation
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

Come on, you know SSDD understands physics better than some old patent clerk.

 

[SSDD]

Applying the ideal gas laws to Venus in the form T = PV/nR where the atmospheric pressure is 92000 mbar, the surface density is 65000 g/m3, and the mean molecular weight is 43.45 we get 739K=92000/(65000/43.45*0.083144621)....the average temperature on Venus is 737 K...the ideal gas laws, WITH NO FUDGE FACTOR put us to with 2degrees K of the actual temperature on venus....

Assume a little black hole were to zoom through our solar system, leaving everything else as is, but transferring Venus to an orbit 100 times its current radius. The SSDD theory of "ideal gas laws rule temperatures" would put the planet's new equilibrium surface temperature at 739°K.

The temperature would still be same, of course, if the orbital radius were halved. The imbecility of that particularly silly sideshow could not be more obvious.

So you believe that it is just coincidence that the ideal gas laws so accurately predict the temperature on venus? oddly enough, they predict the temperature on every other planet with similar accuracy...guess you think that is coincidence as well.

I can't help but notice that none of you believers are demonstrating how close the greenhouse hypothesis gets to predicting the temperature of venus...probably because have no idea what the math looks like, or could even produce a formula...but more likely because you couldn't bear to see the results...

The fact is that the fudge factor by which the greenhouse effect of CO2 is calculated is a mathematical joke...using that fudge factor will show you the same result no matter how much CO2 is in the atmosphere...if there were but one CO2 molecule in the air, doubling it to two molecules would yield the same 3.7wm2 to the entire surface of the earth because the fudge factor doesn't take saturation into account....in fact, it deliberately leaves out saturation.

But hey...step on up and show how close the greenhouse effect calculations get to the actual temperature of anywhere in the solar system without a fudge factor....a fudge factor, by the way, which is inexplicable, and can not be rationally accounted for.

 

[SSDD]

Set T and Tc to the same number....tell me what P is....you can go on ad nauseum, but you will never get P to be any number other than zero...no matter how much you try and there is nothing there RE net movement...that is nothing but you interpreting...P=0

Exactly. When the temperatures are the same, both objects are emitting the same amount of energy, and the net radiant energy flow is zero. And entropy is at a maximum.

We went through all that before. Did you forget already?

Sorry guy...the equation describes a gross one way flow of energy...not a two way net flow...but you didn't get it the first time either.....you don't seem to be able to grasp that the calculation is describing a thing that is actually happening...a physical process and not some etherial mathematical model construct....it describes a one way transfer of energy because that is all that has ever been observed or measured....were two way energy flow fact, the equation would reflect that fact and the second law would make mention of net energy flows...

 

[SSDD]

Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
Wilhelm Wien - Nobel Lecture: On the Laws of Thermal Radiation
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

Believe what you must....even though it has never been observed or measured....such is the nature of faith.

 

[Wuwei]

Believe what you must....even though it has never been observed or measured....such is the nature of faith.

Believe what I must? All the major figures in science believe that.
The conflation of faith as “unevidenced belief” with faith as “justified confidence” is simply a word trick.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Here let me remind you of what the top physicists and institutions have to say about P = zero. Why do you think you know more than they do?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Wilhelm Wien Nobel Prize speech.
Wilhelm Wien - Nobel Lecture: On the Laws of Thermal Radiation
"[Equilibrium state] ... taken as a whole for many atoms in the stationary state, the absorbed energy after all becomes equal to that emitted..."

Optical Design Fundamentals for Infrared Systems Max J. Riedl
“at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

http://spie.org/publications/optipe...t/tt48/tt48_154_kirchhoffs_law_and_emissivity
Gustav Robert Kirchhoff (1824–1887) stated in 1860 that “at thermal equilibrium, the power radiated by an object must be equal to the power absorbed.”

https://pediaview.com/openpedia/Radiative_equilibrium
In physics, radiative equilibrium is the condition where a steady state system is in dynamic equilibrium, with equal incoming and outgoing radiative heat flux

Thermal equilibrium | Open Access articles | Open Access journals | Conference Proceedings | Editors | Authors | Reviewers | scientific events
One form of thermal equilibrium is radiative exchange equilibrium. Two bodies, each with its own uniform temperature, in solely radiative connection, will exchange thermal radiation, in net the hotter transferring energy to the cooler, and will exchange equal and opposite amounts just when they are at the same temperature.

What Causes the Greenhouse Effect? « Roy Spencer, PhD
Kirchhoff's law is that for an arbitrary body emitting and absorbing thermal radiation in thermodynamic equilibrium, the emissivity is equal to the absorptivity.

http://bado-shanai.net/Map of Physics/mopKirchhoffslaw.htm
Imagine a large body that has a deep cavity dug into it. Imagine further that we keep that body at some absolute temperature T and that we have put a small body at a different temperature into the cavity. If the small body has the higher temperature, then it will radiate heat faster than it absorbs heat so that there will be a net flow of heat from the hotter body to the colder body. Eventually the system will come to thermal equilibrium; that is, both bodies will have the same temperature and the small body will emit heat as fast as it absorbs heat.

Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

This is what Max Planck said in 1914.
http://www.gutenberg.org/files/40030/40030-pdf.pdf
Page 31: The energy emitted and the energy absorbed in the state of thermodynamic equilibrium are equal, not only for the entire radiation of the whole spectrum, but also for each monochromatic radiation.

Page 50: "...it is evident that, when thermodynamic equilibrium exists, any two bodies or elements of bodies selected at random exchange by radiation equal amounts of heat with each other..."

Believe what you must....even though it has never been observed or measured....such is the nature of faith.

Derpboy: Believe what you must....even though it has never been observed or measured....such is the nature of faith.


Albert Einstein: "... Even in thermal equilibrium, transitions associated with the absorption and emission of photons are occurring continuously... "

Gee, who had a better grasp of physics.......tough call.

 

[Olde Europe]

how close the greenhouse effect calculations get to the actual temperature of anywhere in the solar system without a fudge factor....a fudge factor, by the way, which is inexplicable, and can not be rationally accounted for.

Provide a link to the "fudge factor", please. Since you were going on about it for quite some time, you should know.

And yes, BTW, a calculation of a planet's energy content that doesn't in any way refer to the primary source of (surface) energy on planets is such an obvious fraud as to be spotted by a blind man with a stick. Why you would humiliate yourself in such a way by bringing forth such gobbledygook is anyone's guess.