Pekka, that was a non-rebuttal consisting of lots of words filled with appeals to authority, vague & totally false claims of me inventing “new physics,” false claims about basic physics/physical chemistry/basic radiative & quantum physics, and completely devoid of any evidence, mathematics, or published references.
1. Clearly, as Stephen Wilde pointed out, you don’t understand basic meteorology, adiabatic processes, the Poisson relation, Maxwell’s gravito-thermal GHE, barometric formulae, physical chemistry, etc. Both the US & International Standard Atmospheres, and the HS greenhouse equation use these exact same mathematical relations well-known since the 1800s, and thousands of other references. These are apparently “new physics” to you, but not to science. Not one single radiative transfer equation exists in the mathematics of the US or International Standard Atmospheres, and you still continue to not answer my question why not. You instead made another absolutely false claim above that the Standard Atmosphere utilizes radiative transfer calculations. The reason is that radiation from GHGs is the effect, not the cause (gravito-thermal GHE) of the 68K temperature gradient of the troposphere from 220K to 288K. You also refuse to answer why the Std Atm states the effect of CO2 upon atmospheric temperatures 0-100km is negligible and completely discarded it from their mathematical model.
2. The one and only “new” concept added by HS to mathematics of the barometric formulae & Poisson relation is using the atmospheric center of mass concept with Newton’s Second Law of Motion F=ma=mg, which is not “new” at all and is critical in application of Newton’s 2nd Law to a system of particles (i.e. the atmospheric adiabatic processes). Unlike you, I provide references to every scientific statement I assert:
http://www.colorado.edu/physics/phys1110/phys1110_sp01/Notes/Chap10.htm
3. You continue to ignore very inconvenient questions such as if my mathematics/physics are “new” or “totally wrong,” how is it possible the HS greenhouse eqn perfectly replicates the US Std Atm, the temperature profiles of Earth, Triton, and overlapping parts with Venus. You apparently believe this is just one huge, amazing, incredible coincidence despite the step-by-step mathematical proof and output that matches the US Std Atmosphere, and observations.
You also apparently believe it’s just one huge, amazing, incredible coincidence that the ERL, center of mass, and equilibrium temperature with the Sun all happen to be at the exact same geopotential altitude of ~5.5km, on both Earth and Triton, and close with a small tweaking factor of on 1.17 on Venus.
4. For the 3rd or 4th time, the absolute maximum possible emitting temperature of a 15 micron line-emitter is 193K by Wein’s Law, which is derived from Planck’s Law for blackbodies. I’ve asked you several times for a published reference that a line-emitter’s emitting temperature can ever under any circumstance exceed that of a true blackbody at the same wavelength, and you have repeatedly failed to do so. I wonder why you just want me to take that falsehood on your authority.
You also apparently don’t understand that a maximum emitting temperature of 193K (CO2) can only transfer HEAT to bodies colder than 193K (2nd LoT), falsely claiming if you have a lot more CO2 & 193K line-emitters, that will transfer more HEAT to bodies warmer than 193K. Absolutely false! The HEAT transferred by a 193K emitter to a body warmer than 193K is ZERO, whether we are talking about one molecule of CO2 or one million molecules of CO2 all emitting at 193K.
I’ve also pointed out 3 or 4 times above that climate scientists falsely assume CO2 is a true blackbody for which SB & Planck’s Law apply, and constantly & incorrectly use SB Law for GHG calculations, even though CO2 is far from a true blackbody and emits LESS ENERGY E=hv than a BB at 193K. Not only is CO2 not a BB, it behaves the opposite of a BB in that emissivity decreases with increasing temperature, OPPOSITE to a TRUE BB:
Sad you don’t understand basic radiative, atmospheric, chemical, and quantum physics, and that YOU are the one inventing “new physics.”
Please provide published references, mathematics, & observational evidence to back up your claims, as I have done.
