David Russell

@_Prinzenrolle @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok You have not explained how you arrived at what you are applying it to and how that relates to the real world.

@BigWaveDaveR3 @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok We showed you. If you know that well, do it better...

Climate Daily: You can't breath natural gas. You can't drink oil. You can't eat coal. You can't burn fossil fuels and not get climate change. A ClimateBrawl Post - author of "Climate Denial in American Politics"

@_Prinzenrolle @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok Explain your model.

@BigWaveDaveR3 @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok Heat transfer by moving mass is in the equation. You keep denying the equations derived from basic physics but you cannot present any argument what specifically could be wrong about the equation. Also you didn't present any own mathematical derivation of what you think is true.

@_Prinzenrolle @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok Explain where you get yours.

@BigWaveDaveR3 @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok Steady state is a result of the pde, not an input. If you know better, provide your pde!

@_Prinzenrolle @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok The geometry mistake is to average insolation over the globe.

@BigWaveDaveR3 @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok The geometry is in the equation. What about it is wrong?

@_Prinzenrolle @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok To measure temperature remotely. Why has no one has ever demonstrated a radiative greenhouse effect causing measurable warming?

@BigWaveDaveR3 @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok Ah interesting. Why iscit measured then?

@_Prinzenrolle @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok No, you confuse your radiative energy fluxes with heat transfer. You ignore heat transfer in mass. You are butchering Physics an mis-applying math. There is nothing that demonstrates the radiative greenhouse effect that you are trying to defend.

@BigWaveDaveR3 @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok No, you confuse heat transfer and radiation and you do not understand radiative energy fluxes. Your textbook equation for two plates is nice for two plates but not to calculate surface emission.

@_Prinzenrolle @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok You apparently don't know how to apply one.

@BigWaveDaveR3 @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok So you don't know how to use a differential equation...

@evenminded512 @_Prinzenrolle @DrKutney @grok T|he matter near the surface includes atmosphere.

@BigWaveDaveR3 @_Prinzenrolle @DrKutney @grok “The matter near the day surface is absorbing an average ~220 W/m^2” Wrong. You continue to deny that the atmosphere absorbs solar radiation. You lose.

@evenminded512 @_Prinzenrolle @DrKutney @grok Obviously you are too stupid to understand heat transfer.

@BigWaveDaveR3 @_Prinzenrolle @DrKutney @grok “Why should I keep providing answers to your stupid questions, when you can't answer one of mine?” I’ve answered your questions you stupid POS. There is no disagreement on what the planet emits to space. The disagreement is on what the SURFACE emits. Get a clue moron.

@evenminded512 @_Prinzenrolle @DrKutney @grok If it is textbook physics, the text books have been corrupted. You need to be looking at heat transfer.

@BigWaveDaveR3 @_Prinzenrolle @DrKutney @grok Wrong! This is textbook physics. What is being emitted is independent of what is being absorbed. That’s just basic radiative heat transfer. You lose.

@_Prinzenrolle @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok You need to subtract what it is emitting into.

@_Prinzenrolle @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok Not the way you are using it.

@_Prinzenrolle @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok No, you are using it wrong.

@BigWaveDaveR3 @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok No. You repeatedly apply it wrong. In the first place, sb law only determines emission at given temperature, not more and not less.

No. Gravitational compression in the atmosphere and thermo-hydraulic buoyancy in the oceans both act to keep the surface warm. That's a fact. Day side insolation is plenty to get the surface warmer than the average measured temperature. That's also a fact. There is no need for a radiative greenhouse effect. What is there, that demonstrates measurable warming from a radiative greenhouse effect?

@BigWaveDaveR3 @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok That's bs.

@_Prinzenrolle @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok No, You are talking about the atmosphere effect that is a function of atmospheric mass and gravity. There is no such thing as a radiative greenhouse effect.

@BigWaveDaveR3 @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok And the only reason the night hemisphere does not cool much faster and to much cooler temperatures is radiativr greenhouse effect. You do not understand that nonlinear radiative effects are different from conduction and your rotary heat exchangers.

@_Prinzenrolle @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok You are up to your eyeballs in BS.

@BigWaveDaveR3 @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok If you correctly want to calculate the diurnal cycle, there is a need to dicretize time, because of nonlinearity of SB law. But then you need to know what a differential equation is...

@evenminded512 @_Prinzenrolle @DrKutney @grok You can't even explain WTF you are talking about. Why should I keep providing answers to your stupid questions, when you can't answer one of mine? How much energy is Earth's night hemisphere emitting to space?

@BigWaveDaveR3 @_Prinzenrolle @DrKutney @grok No you have not. Answer the questions. How much energy does the surface absorb from the sun in a day? How much energy does the atmosphere absorb from the sun in a day? How much energy does the surface emit in a day according to the SB law? You can't answer correctly.

The matter near the day surface is absorbing an average ~220 W/m^2 and releasing it from the night hemisphere. A large portion is carried by water evaporating during the day and condensing at night. The day hemisphere is receiving an after albedo average insolation of ~478 W/m^2. S(1-a)/2

@BigWaveDaveR3 @_Prinzenrolle @DrKutney @grok "Average 478 W/m^2 is more than enough to reach average surface temperature greater than 288K." The surface does not absorb 478 W/m^2 on average you imbecile.

@_Prinzenrolle @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok That is not true. If it were emitting that much, the night surface would cool much faster.

@BigWaveDaveR3 @evenminded512 @DrKutney @grok *Much less than the surface of the night hemisphere emits.