Equilibrium of Temperature in the Atmosphere.

The temperature of the atmosphere is not determined by the amount of heat entering it nor by the amount of heat leaving it but by an equilibrium between the two which nature establishes and humans cannot comprehend. Heat enters and leaves the planet rapidly creating short-term variations in equilibrium temperature (like night and day), while long term variations are due to change in net energy entering from the sun or oceans.

Even the first 1-10% of the greenhouse gasses did not create significant temperature increase of the planet, because the atmosphere equilibrates at the temperature it wants to settle at independent of how it gets there. It gets there through long wavelength infrared radiation which goes around the greenhouse gasses, not through them. River, not Window
Why does the atmosphere want to settle at a particular temperature? Because the temperature determines the amount of radiation emitted (wavelength does not). As the atmosphere gets colder, it emits less radiation. The amount emitted must equal the amount entering from the sun.

Climatologists replace equilibrium with a fake zone of emissions to explain how the right amount of energy leaves the planet. They claim there is a particular temperature, and thus height, in the atmosphere which emits the same amount of energy as absorbed from the sun based on the Stephan-Boltzmann constant. But the SBC only applies to a surface, not a gas. So the frauds pick a spot about 5 km up where the emissions supposedly occur. Nothing could be more fraudulent. The constant gradient of temperature in the atmosphere shows that radiation is emitted from all points in the atmosphere, not from a imaginary level. If it were all emitted from the same place, how would the energy get there?

Biologists understand equilibrium, because everything in biochemistry involves equilibrium. But physicists seem to be clueless on equilibrium, as there is no accounting for it anywhere in climatology. Since equilibrium cannot usually be reduced to mathematics, it seems to be anathema to physicists.

Equilibrium doesn't mean constant and unchanging temperature; it means long term net effect. And different mediums (oceans and atmosphere) have different influences on the equilibrium. So how can temperatures change drastically for tens of thousands of years through ice ages? Ice ages are due to reflected sunlight off clouds and ice. Little ice ages appear to be caused by variations in solar intensity. Recent changes appear to be caused by oceans heating creating more precipitation but not much real temperature increase.

Rates equilibrate in mysterious ways. An example would be the amount of something in a warehouse. If you know how much is going in and how much is going out, all you know is whether the stored amount is increasing or decreasing. The actual stored amount could be anything.

Say Sony is storing televisions. If 100 per day go into the warehouse, and 90 per day come out, the stored amount increases by 10 per day. But what is the total amount stored? There is no way of knowing by observing what goes in and what comes out. It depends upon the total history. There could be ten thousand televisions in the warehouse; there could be a hundred.

With the atmosphere, the total history is not known. Even if a good estimate could be made for heat entering and leaving in a single day, within a few days, the error would accumulate to a point where the total amount in the atmosphere would be totally unknown. And climatologists cannot make a good estimate of rates entering and leaving, contrary to the claims of fakes.

The primary factor determining the temperature of the atmosphere is the tendency of air to release energy as radiation at any temperature. If more heat entered the atmosphere, the air would release radiation faster. And if less heat entered, radiation would be reduced.

Physicists pretend that they know what temperature the atmosphere must be to radiate the same amount of energy into space as enters from sunlight. They have an equation for this called the Stephan-Boltzmann constant. But it only applies to solid surfaces, not gasses. Gasses don't have a surface. Physicists use the equation for the atmosphere anyway (SBC), which is ridiculous. It shows how arrogant and shameless corrupt scientists have become.

There is no surface to the atmosphere for radiation to depart from. Therefore, it is impossible for physicists to determine at what temperature a given amount of radiation would be emitted. There is a gradient of temperatures in the atmosphere.

And then to complicate things further, some radiation goes partway through the atmosphere and gets re-absorbed by the atmosphere. Some wavelengths of radiation go farther through the atmosphere, and some go less.

Physicists don't have the slightest ability to sort out those complexities. So they have no ability to determine what temperature the atmosphere should be based upon energy going in and energy going out.

Nature defines equilibration in terms of it's required temperature, which humans cannot influence.

Nature must produce a rate of heat outflow which equals the rate of heat inflow from the sun. The rate of heat outflow is precisely, definitively and invariably controlled by temperature. This means the temperature required for equilibrium is defined by the amount of energy entering from the sun. And this means it has absolutely nothing to do with anything humans do.

Physicist/climatologists have the first part of this right. They know that the rate of heat outflow will be determined by temperature. But then they go off the tracks applying the Stephan-Boltzmann constant to determine where that defined temperature is located (SBC).

The defined temperature is not at a specific location—it is distributed throughout the atmosphere, because radiation leaves the planet throughout the atmosphere. And therefore, the defined temperature is a cumulative result of the whole atmosphere, which maintains a temperature gradient.

I would be tempted to say the atmosphere creates an "average" temperature which produces the required result; but there are no averages in nature, and climatologists have perverted the concept of average so grossly that I must avoid using the term average. Instead, I would say that nature produces an "effective cumulative temperature" or "effective gradient of temperatures" which produce the right amount of heat loss.

This effective gradient of temperatures cannot be changed by God or man and still meet the requirements. But perhaps it can be shifted in some way. If the escape zone gets narrower, it would be hotter, because more heat would have to leave from a smaller area (three dimensional volume).

Greenhouse gasses do make the escape zone slightly narrower at the top of the atmosphere as they increase, and it would be of miniscule relevance if the heat were escaping by going through the greenhouse gasses instead of around them. But any real such situation would create bizarre effects which are not occurring. If no radiation went around the greenhouses gasses, all of the cooling would occur at the top of the atmosphere, and the lower atmosphere would be almost undefined, with massive heat accumulation which would shift like the weather, being influenced by convection mostly.

The near perfect gradient of temperatures with height in the atmosphere is the signature of radiation going around the greenhouse gasses instead of through them.

Physicists claim that the temperature gradient with height in the atmosphere is an adiabatic effect. It isn't. The adiabatic effect is cooling which results from expansion, which would require upward convection. There is very little large-scale, vertical convection in the atmosphere. There are physicists who could figure such things out, but frauds take over science and silence their critics.

Physicists pretend (vaguely assume and imply, and peripherally sometimes directly state) that increasing greenhouse gasses reduces the amount of radiation that goes around them by widening the absorption bands. Unspeakable fraud. The width of the absorption bands is determined by the energy state of the molecules. Increasing the concentration of greenhouse gasses does absolutely nothing to change the energy state of the molecules and does not widen the absorption bands, as real graphs, such as produced by Heinz Hug, demonstrate. Therefore, increasing the amount of greenhouse gasses has no influence on the radiation which goes around them and does the actual cooling of the planet.