freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2023 at 3:33pm:



Exactly what I said. Do you disagree? If so, why?

lee wrote on Aug 29^th, 2023 at 4:11pm:


Which doesn't change the fact that pressure from gases released into the atmosphere are negligible when it comes to AGW.

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2023 at 5:35pm:



What part of "is not to say his model is correct, it is just one of many", didn't you understand?

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2023 at 5:35pm:


In any model?

"The problem with AGW theory in relation to the Ideal Gas Law.

AGW theory proposes that an increase in GHGs causes an increase in T which then causes an equal increase in V so as to keep the two sides of the equation balanced.

So far so plausible.

However, an increase in V results in a reduction of density throughout an atmosphere which must REDUCE the product of nRT.

Normally a reduction in density would be accompanied by a reduction in P as well because less mass in an atmosphere results in reduced pressure at the surface if the strength of the gravitational field stays the same but there is no reduction in P at the surface from mere expansion even though the density of the entire atmosphere reduces when V increases.

Therefore we cannot look to a reduction in P to correct the imbalance caused by the reduction in density.

According to the Ideal Gas Law it is not possible for PV to fail to equal nRT yet that is just what happens if one holds P steady whilst increasing T and V equally but reducing density.

There would only be balance with PV continuing to equal nRT :

if more mass were added to the atmosphere so as to avoid reducing the average density of the atmosphere when expansion occurred.

or, if the strength of the gravitational field increases to pull V back down to restore density to the previous value

Since no extra mass or gravity is being added AGW theory cannot be right because of the residual imbalance."

https://www.newclimatemodel.com/greenhouse-gases-and-the-ideal-gas-law/

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2023 at 5:50pm:



Oh a walkback. Now it is MAINSTREAM climate science. With the MAINSTREAM  models, which are a MAINSTREAM failure. The only model close is the Russian one, and that doesn't have a tropospheric hotspot.

But no, MAINSTREAM climate science doesn't posit that. Which doesn't make it wrong...or right.

lee wrote on Aug 29^th, 2023 at 5:54pm:


Sorry for the "walkback". I thought it would fall into the category of the bleeding obvious.

Do you agree with the LNP senator that mainstream climate change theory is based on released gasses compressing the atmosphere into a fixed volume?

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2023 at 6:05pm:



Wow. Thick as...

lee wrote on Aug 29^th, 2023 at 5:54pm:



lee wrote on Aug 29^th, 2023 at 5:54pm:



capiche?

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2023 at 6:18pm:



Wow. Now you want me to work out what other sceptics think.

I see the garudian even got Mike "Hide the decline" Mann into the argument. Along with Steve Sherwood. They really must be hard up.

How much did Rennick calculate, the garudian carefully didn't say. How much is the mainstream climate science predicting? I have seen an ECS from about 1.2 to 7.0C, although the IPCC says from 2.5 to 4C.

Edit: From the underlying 2021 paper -

"We show that independent satellite and in situ observations each yield statistically indistinguishable decadal increases in EEI from mid-2005 to mid-2019 of 0.50 ± 0.47 W m−2 decade−1 (5%–95% confidence interval). "

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2021GL093047

The error bars are nearly as big as the posited increase.