And is there a long list of peer-reviewed papers somewhere which contradict the “consensus” ? I’m trying to show a scientific-debate-denialist that the science isn’t settled yet…

Thank you.

And is there a long list of peer-reviewed papers somewhere which contradict the “consensus” ? I’m trying to show a scientific-debate-denialist that the science isn’t settled yet…

Thank you.

As a consequence of the Kirchoff’s law, within the clear atmosphere the
downward emittance is approximately equal to the absorbed flux density.
Based on our data set, the global average clear-sky downward atmospheric
emittance is 311.4 W m–2, while the global average of the absorbed
radiation by the clear-sky is 311.9 W m–2. This equivalence – for the highly
variable atmospheric emission spectra and for global scale – was not shown
before with such a high numerical accuracy.

the model presented really does ignore non-radiative fluxes
p3: The net thermal energy to the atmosphere of non-radiative origin is K.

As a consequence of the Kirchoff’s law, within the clear atmosphere the
downward emittance is approximately equal to the absorbed flux density.
Based on our data set, the global average clear-sky downward atmospheric
emittance is 311.4 W m–2, while the global average of the absorbed
radiation by the clear-sky is 311.9 W m–2. This equivalence – for the highly
variable atmospheric emission spectra and for global scale – was not shown
before with such a high numerical accuracy.

the model presented really does ignore non-radiative fluxes
p3: The net thermal energy to the atmosphere of non-radiative origin is K.

And the model presented really does ignore non-radiative fluxes, thus giving a completely wrong answer. Earth’s surface is cooled by two radiative terms (absorption of sunlight in the atmosphere and window radiation) and two non-radiative terms (sensible heat and latent heat). Altogether these mechanisms amount to 209 watts per square meter lost from what would otherwise be the 320 K surface temperature of the Earth. You can’t just ignore those factors if you want to calculate Earth’s surface temperature at all realistically, and Miskolczi does.

And the model presented really does ignore non-radiative fluxes, thus giving a completely wrong answer. Earth’s surface is cooled by two radiative terms (absorption of sunlight in the atmosphere and window radiation) and two non-radiative terms (sensible heat and latent heat). Altogether these mechanisms amount to 209 watts per square meter lost from what would otherwise be the 320 K surface temperature of the Earth. You can’t just ignore those factors if you want to calculate Earth’s surface temperature at all realistically, and Miskolczi does.

“emittance is not really intensive;”

flux density is just as intensive a property as pressure which is also expressed as units/unit area. It follows from the definition of an intensive property which is a property that does not depend on the size of the system. Changing the volume is irrelevant and the area (system size in this case) makes no difference.

Check it out for yourself in wikipedia if you are uncertain. In any case the two words are used interchangeably by enough folks for Merriam-Webster to include one in the definition of the other, and there is a simple linear relationship between the two if used differently.

“emittance is not really intensive;”

flux density is just as intensive a property as pressure which is also expressed as units/unit area. It follows from the definition of an intensive property which is a property that does not depend on the size of the system. Changing the volume is irrelevant and the area (system size in this case) makes no difference.

Check it out for yourself in wikipedia if you are uncertain. In any case the two words are used interchangeably by enough folks for Merriam-Webster to include one in the definition of the other, and there is a simple linear relationship between the two if used differently.