rabett.blogspot.com/2008/10/believing-ten-impossible-things-before.html

He has graciously invited questions on his paper and I plan to ask for some clarification. If you have any questions, pass them on, or I’ll send you info on how to do it.

The evidence is that you are not aware of your limitations you have been most vocal in you pretence that you understand it despite the fact that neither you nor the person you are defending have ever done any work in heat management and control nor have any knowledge of or experience in systems identification. Smith doesn’t even correctly identify system in his own model and tries to shoehorn parameters from a different (potential divider) model into an equilibrium model and gets wrong results.

it just looks that way to you because you are not too bright.

Pompe’s law

The observed complexity is inversely proportional to the brightness of the observer. It’s really a subjective measure.

Did you notice everyone who makes the same mistake as you do the Nathan (NT) posted up including the wikipedia explicitly say their model assumes thermal equilibrium.

I may not be too bright, but the “black body” model is not the one that Arthur is using, his is more complex.

Wait, so you don’t claim that Riedi’s rod is in thermal equilibrium? Then you are making no sense whatsoever.

Why are you saying the rod it is in thermal equilibrium? Reidl says it isn’t I agree with him. You isolate the rod an the temperature gradient will disappear do it’s not a case of thermal equilibrium.

I do not treat the incoming radiation as if it were averaged over the sphere. The model in my paper specifically assumes there is a “sun angle” along which the incoming radiation appears, for example the angle given in eq. 17 for the simple rotating planet.

You map the solar constant (a single value) to a single number that allows no room for gradients either vertically, horizontally or temporally i.e. it’s an average and with no temperature gradients with your assumption of a zero sum radiation it’s in thermal equilibrium because if you isolate the earth in your model no flux enters no flux leaves the zero sum doesn’t change and since there is no gradient like Reidls rod there is no gradient to equalise so nothing changes and there has been and remains thermal equilibrium.

B is not even wrong.

Why do have a problem with it?

Did you notice everyone who makes the same mistake as you do the Nathan (NT) posted up including the wikipedia explicitly say their model assumes thermal equilibrium.

http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_body#Assumptions

Assumption thermal equilibrium but absorptivity != emissivity as required by Kirchoff’s law.

http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_equilibrium#endnote_Barbieri2007

Formula given for “Equilibrium temperature” by Barbieri 2007 fails to equate absorptivity and emissivity.

http:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan-Boltzmann_law#Temperature_of_the_Earth
Surprise here one that gets it right recognise the equation? They don’t say the assume equilibrium but absorptivity=emissivity in that one.

So the articles pointed to by NT actually support me NT thought the supported you goes to show how much he understands this so do you think I should pay him any attention?