What would the world be like if every molecule in the atmosphere is a CO2?

Surface Detail wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
This is how an atmosphere transports heat upwards and into space from the surface of the planet by convection. There is no way the atmosphere can generate heat, purely as a function of its pressure. That would defy the first law of thermodynamics.

I beg to differ. If you ever visit a ski area you know the higher mountain is much colder than the village at the bottom. A plateau is also much colder, for instance, Tibet. The higher the ground, less pressure, less temperature. The lower the ground, higher pressure, higher temperature.

This is because the troposphere is heated from the bottom by the ground. The warm air that is heated by the ground rises, cooling as it expands. At least until you reach the stratosphere, at which point it starts to warm again with height (due to the absorption of incoming UV radiation by ozone).

One Punch Man wrote:

Your poor math would explain it.

Post your calculation so we can see where your error resides.

What? Seriously? You're actually asking me this?

One Punch Man wrote: Everything in his post was factual?

One Punch Man wrote: Really? Including the bit when he says that if the temperature of Venus and Saturn were due to pressure then that means the bottom of the oceans would be boiling hot?

One Punch Man wrote: I have already calculated the estimated surface temperature of Venus above, based on pressure, molecular mass and density, and got the temperature of 739K.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
This is how an atmosphere transports heat upwards and into space from the surface of the planet by convection. There is no way the atmosphere can generate heat, purely as a function of its pressure. That would defy the first law of thermodynamics.

I beg to differ. If you ever visit a ski area you know the higher mountain is much colder than the village at the bottom. A plateau is also much colder, for instance, Tibet. The higher the ground, less pressure, less temperature. The lower the ground, higher pressure, higher temperature.

This is because the troposphere is heated from the bottom by the ground. The warm air that is heated by the ground rises, cooling as it expands. At least until you reach the stratosphere, at which point it starts to warm again with height (due to the absorption of incoming UV radiation by ozone).

That's not true. The Tibetan plateau is cold compared to the plain below it because it has less pressure. Both high ground and low ground are heated by the sunlight. High ground is colder. Low ground is warmer. This is because high ground has less pressure and low ground has more pressure.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html

One Punch Man wrote:

This is how an atmosphere transports heat upwards and into space from the surface of the planet by convection. There is no way the atmosphere can generate heat, purely as a function of its pressure. That would defy the first law of thermodynamics.

On the contrary, it is your CO2 back-radiation theory that contravenes the 1st law of thermodynamics. Not mine. As already mentioned, pressure heat is real and is how stars are formed. The gravity of stars compact gases together and as these gases compact they increase in temperature. This process requires no outside source of radiation and all that is required are gases and gravity. The star must increase in temperature from -273K to 10 million K without any external source of radiant-energy and it does so principally through gravity. The gases inside the star are forced to the centre by gravity and as they compact thermal pressure works in the opposite direction forcing the gases outwards in proportion to the amount of compression exerted upon them. The gravity is doing the 'work' and the compacted super-heated molecules at the core are expanding and pushing outwards trying to escape the gravitational compression. The same process happens on other planets with gaseous atmospheres too, albeit to a lesser extent, most notably on Jupiter, Uranus and Venus. All of these planets achieve temperatures far in excess of solar isolation and the prime candidate for this cause is gravitationally-induced pressure heat. Once again, if Jupiter (dubbed 'The Failed Star') had 70 times more mass it would be able to generate enough heat through gravitational compression to become a star and this is commonly accepted. No radiant-energy is added whatsoever, only mass, and gravity does the rest.

On the other hand, your CO2 greenhouse back-radiation theory does violate the 1st law of thermodynamics because Venus is only getting a maximum of 2,613 W/m2 and the surface is radiating at almost 17,000 W/m2 and an inert body of course cannot radiate more energy than it absorbs. I am sorry you do not understand that. (Earth is different of course, since solar isolation is 1368 W/m2 and the planet is radiating at only 390 W/m2).

A blackbody, by definition, has an albedo of 0, so the blackbody temperature of Venus is indeed 54C or 327K.

The terms 'blackbody temperature' and 'effective temperature' of a planet are used interchangeably and simply mean the expected temperature of the planet if it were heated by solar radiation and both include the albedo of a planet. If you go and Google 'blackbody temperature of Earth' and 'effective temperature of Earth' you will get 255K in both instances (and that number includes albedo). However, I just re-read your comment and saw that you said 'no clouds' which I must have missed on my first read-through.

That doesn't make sense. How can the atmosphere radiate energy that has been absorbed by the surface?

You do understand that when a body absorbs radiation it also emits radiation, right? That fact is not lost on you, is it? Therefore if the surface of Venus absorbs short-wave solar radiation it will emit long-wave radiation and be absorbed by the CO2 molecules in the atmosphere which will then radiate some of that energy in all directions. That is the basic idea of the greenhouse effect. I am surprised you seem unaware of it considering the fact that you have been zealously championing it for the last several days. I should not be surprised though. This is a guy who thinks that if Venus were hot due to pressure then the bottom of the oceans must be boiling! Priceless.

How so? As you've pointed out, the contribution that solar radiation makes to the energy arriving at the surface of the planet is minuscule. The vast majority is back radiation from the atmosphere.

I should correct an error in my last post. The albedo of 0.9 for Venus should be 0.1 of course. So you are suggesting that CO2 back-radiates the energy it absorbs from the atmosphere? I should point out that the albedo factor of 0.1 that NASA uses (which may be wrong) allows us to calculate the radiation that is reflected by the entire planet (i.e. the surface and the atmosphere). Without albedo, incoming solar radiation for Venus averaged out over the planet would be about 650 W/m2. However with albedo factored in it comes out as 65 W/m2. Hence almost 600 W/m2 is reflected and not absorbed. Essentially all you have to work with is 65 W/m2, according to NASA. Now, I will only say this once as repeating it would be pointless. An inert body like a gas cannot emit more radiation than it absorbs. Therefore, CO2 cannot back-radiate 17,000 W/m2 when it is only absorbing 65 W/m2. Can it now? No, it can't.

Are you sure that you can apply Arrhenius formula directly to Venus like that?

Why not? Unless pressure broadening increases the ability of a CO2 molecule to absorb radiation by a factor of one-hundred (and unless a CO2 molecule can emit more radiation than it absorbs).

Which is, of course, nonsensical.

Nonsensical to you perhaps.

The surface temperature of a planet depends on its distance from the sun, the radiative properties of its atmosphere and the albedo of its surface, not the pressure of its atmosphere.

I'm afraid that narrative merely expresses the simplistic nature of your thinking. The real-world has a far more complicated story to tell. If that were true then non-greenhouse gas planets such as Jupiter would not be able to reach temperatures of 24,000K deep within its atmosphere and the tropospheric temperatures of Uranus would not be able to reach temperatures of 320K.

Harry who?

Harry Dale Huffman. This will be my last reply for sure. Too much.

Harry Dale Huffman

This design, involving a re-formation of the Earth and solar system, invalidates the principle of uniformitarianism underlying evolution theory, and invalidates the assumptions behind plate tectonics. These, the two central theories of all the life and earth sciences, are overturned wholesale, and science knows nothing about it, refuses to even hear of it.

The person who claims a design of the world is widely considered a crazy fool by the many defenders of science today, both scientists and laypersons; identifying oneself as a scientist does not guarantee respect even from the unlearned, much less from the many self-sure scientific amateurs and experts.

spot wrote:

Harry Dale Huffman

This guy??

http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.co.uk/

Let's take a look at some of his musings shall we?

This design, involving a re-formation of the Earth and solar system, invalidates the principle of uniformitarianism underlying evolution theory, and invalidates the assumptions behind plate tectonics. These, the two central theories of all the life and earth sciences, are overturned wholesale, and science knows nothing about it, refuses to even hear of it.

Not only has he an issue with all the long established theories in climate but evolution and plate tectonics as well, fascinating.

Full disclosure here; I don't think he's credible, at all.

The person who claims a design of the world is widely considered a crazy fool by the many defenders of science today, both scientists and laypersons; identifying oneself as a scientist does not guarantee respect even from the unlearned, much less from the many self-sure scientific amateurs and experts.

Well he got that right.

spot wrote:.

The person who claims a design of the world is widely considered a crazy fool by the many defenders of science today, both scientists and laypersons; identifying oneself as a scientist does not guarantee respect even from the unlearned, much less from the many self-sure scientific amateurs and experts.

Well he got that right.

IBdaMann wrote:

One Punch Man wrote:

Your poor math would explain it.

Post your calculation so we can see where your error resides.

What? Seriously? You're actually asking me this?

Yes. You read correctly. I can't tell you where your error resides until you show me your specific erroneous calculation.

Post it here.

Ignorance plus arrogance equals the Dunning Kruger effect.

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:.

The person who claims a design of the world is widely considered a crazy fool by the many defenders of science today, both scientists and laypersons; identifying oneself as a scientist does not guarantee respect even from the unlearned, much less from the many self-sure scientific amateurs and experts.

Well he got that right.

Agreed. All the unlearned who try to play "climatologist" by throwing the word "scientific" into every instance of religious dogma about Global Warming's grand plan and trends for every one of us ...are truly counterproductive in furthering actual science.

Imagine if all the money spent on providing paychecks to those writing church literature praising predetermined "climate" conclusions had actually gone towards science research. Imagine what benefits we might have today. Imagine if that funding had gone towards completing the first fusion reactor. Imagine what we might know if that money had been invested in space exploration instead of being wasted on preaching / imposing a dying religion on the world

One Punch Man wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

One Punch Man wrote:

Your poor math would explain it.

Post your calculation so we can see where your error resides.

What? Seriously? You're actually asking me this?

Yes. You read correctly. I can't tell you where your error resides until you show me your specific erroneous calculation.

Post it here.

This is incredible! My mind is blown! I show you the calculation and you reply by demanding that I show you the calculation! Seriously?

Here is is for the last time. The surface of Venus has a temperature of 737K and has an emissivity close to 1 and thus is radiating at approximately:

(1)737^4*0.000000056704 = 16,700 W/m2

This is not uncontroversial. If you can find any source that says the surface of Venus is not radiating between 16,000 W/m2 and 17,000 W/m2 I will eat my socks! It is a straightforward application of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

We're not going to get anywhere here until you are able to comprehend that a gas at a constant pressure cannot generate heat! It is compression, not pressure that produces heat.

Neither Venus nor its atmosphere are collapsing. Any gravitational potential energy gained by rising packets of gas is balanced by that lost by descending packets of gas. Venus's atmosphere cannot generate energy from nowhere

One Punch Man wrote:

We're not going to get anywhere here until you are able to comprehend that a gas at a constant pressure cannot generate heat! It is compression, not pressure that produces heat.

Neither Venus nor its atmosphere are collapsing. Any gravitational potential energy gained by rising packets of gas is balanced by that lost by descending packets of gas. Venus's atmosphere cannot generate energy from nowhere

And I have acknowledged this multiple times. In fact I pointed this out in my very first post stating that the idea was dependent on "a constant cycle of convective overturning and re-compression of the atmosphere".

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

Tai Hai Chen wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
This is how an atmosphere transports heat upwards and into space from the surface of the planet by convection. There is no way the atmosphere can generate heat, purely as a function of its pressure. That would defy the first law of thermodynamics.

I beg to differ. If you ever visit a ski area you know the higher mountain is much colder than the village at the bottom. A plateau is also much colder, for instance, Tibet. The higher the ground, less pressure, less temperature. The lower the ground, higher pressure, higher temperature.

This is because the troposphere is heated from the bottom by the ground. The warm air that is heated by the ground rises, cooling as it expands. At least until you reach the stratosphere, at which point it starts to warm again with height (due to the absorption of incoming UV radiation by ozone).

That's not true. The Tibetan plateau is cold compared to the plain below it because it has less pressure. Both high ground and low ground are heated by the sunlight. High ground is colder. Low ground is warmer. This is because high ground has less pressure and low ground has more pressure.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-temperature-d_461.html

Surface Detail wrote:
I was just thinking about this. Surely the rate at which temperature drops with height must depend to some extent on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I was just thinking about this. Surely the rate at which temperature drops with height must depend to some extent on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

Surface Detail, are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

"Greenhouse gas" is an unnecessary construct. Occam's Razor cuts it away. Every attempt to explain something with "greenhouse gas" is correctly explained without it.

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:.

The person who claims a design of the world is widely considered a crazy fool by the many defenders of science today, both scientists and laypersons; identifying oneself as a scientist does not guarantee respect even from the unlearned, much less from the many self-sure scientific amateurs and experts.

Well he got that right.

Agreed. All the unlearned who try to play "climatologist" by throwing the word "scientific" into every instance of religious dogma about Global Warming's grand plan and trends for every one of us ...are truly counterproductive in furthering actual science.

Imagine if all the money spent on providing paychecks to those writing church literature praising predetermined "climate" conclusions had actually gone towards science research. Imagine what benefits we might have today. Imagine if that funding had gone towards completing the first fusion reactor. Imagine what we might know if that money had been invested in space exploration instead of being wasted on preaching / imposing a dying religion on the world.



.

Surface Detail wrote:Well, how would you explain how temperature could drop with altitude without the presence of IR-radiating gases in the atmosphere?

There is no cyclic process of this kind that can create energy. Convective overturning merely transfers energy from one place to another. Any part of the atmosphere that is being heated by compression will be balanced by another part that is cooling through expansion. There is no net release of energy.

And could one of the Harry Dale Huffmanists explain how Titans atmosphere works, it seems to defy the "Laws of physics".

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I was just thinking about this. Surely the rate at which temperature drops with height must depend to some extent on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

Surface Detail, are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

"Greenhouse gas" is an unnecessary construct. Occam's Razor cuts it away. Every attempt to explain something with "greenhouse gas" is correctly explained without it.

Well, how would you explain how temperature could drop with altitude without the presence of IR-radiating gases in the atmosphere?

One Punch Man wrote:

Ignorance plus arrogance equals the Dunning Kruger effect.

I am not concerned with your opinions Ceist. I might get over-heated but at least I contribute something to these discussions which is more than what you ever do.

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I was just thinking about this. Surely the rate at which temperature drops with height must depend to some extent on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

Surface Detail, are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

"Greenhouse gas" is an unnecessary construct. Occam's Razor cuts it away. Every attempt to explain something with "greenhouse gas" is correctly explained without it.

Well, how would you explain how temperature could drop with altitude without the presence of IR-radiating gases in the atmosphere?

Simple. You are further away from the surface, which absorbs energy better than the air, and the pressure is dropping for any air that rises due to unevenly heated air.

One Punch Man wrote:
It seems to me that the two most popular theories for the high surface temperature on Venus is pressure and CO2 back-radiation. Personally the pressure theory makes more sense to me since I am unable to comprehend how a CO2 molecule can emit more radiation than it absorbs, which is a requirement of the greenhouse theory on Venus, and I would think that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

You can stick with your CO2 back-radiation theory and I'll go with pressure.

One Punch Man wrote:

There is no cyclic process of this kind that can create energy. Convective overturning merely transfers energy from one place to another. Any part of the atmosphere that is being heated by compression will be balanced by another part that is cooling through expansion. There is no net release of energy.

I disagree. Going back to your previous comment when you said "Neither Venus nor its atmosphere are collapsing". Whether we say "the atmosphere is collapsing" or "the gases at the surface are compacting as the mass of gases above fall in the star's gravitational field" the principle is the same. The gases are falling in the star's gravitational field and as they fall they become increasingly more compacted at the surface and get hotter. I see no reason why this process should apply to star's exclusively and not to any body with a large enough gravitational field. Do remember that a would-be star must increase in temperature from essentially -273K and all it has at its disposal is gravity and gases. Until you acknowledge that temperature can be created from gravity and gases alone then I do not see how this discussion can go further. I am sure Steve Goddard and Stephen Wilde would explain things better, but by my understanding, it is the sheer mass of the atmosphere pressing down on the molecules at the surface that increases their temperature by decreasing volume. Decrease volume and temperature must rise. Imagine a gas molecule at the surface compressed by the weight of the atmosphere above. It essentially has nowhere to go and pings around faster and faster until it manages to escape upwards, by which time it has more kinetic energy than the kinetic energy it had previously acquired by descending in the planet's gravitational field.

And could one of the Harry Dale Huffmanists explain how Titans atmosphere works, it seems to defy the "Laws of physics".

Well Titan is small and so I would imagine that its gravitational field would be correspondingly small. Nevertheless, the temperature of Titan, as with other planets, can apparently be calculated with nothing more than solar irradiance and pressure, as Stolk et al 2003 points out. Quote from the paper:

"Applying the Dimensional Analysis (DA) methodology to a well-constrained data set of six celestial bodies representing highly diverse physical environments in the solar system, i.e. Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Twelve prospective relationships (models) suggested by DA are investigated via non-linear regression analyses involving dimensionless products comprised of solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables, and two temperature ratios as dependent (state) variables. One non-linear regression model is found to statistically outperform the rest by a wide margin.

Our analysis revealed that GMATs [Global Mean Atmospheric Temperatures] of rocky planets can accurately be predicted over a broad range of atmospheric conditions [0% to 96% greenhouse gases] and radiative regimes only using two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure [a function of atmospheric mass and gravity]."

It seems to me that the two most popular theories for the high surface temperature on Venus is pressure and CO2 back-radiation. Personally the pressure theory makes more sense to me since I am unable to comprehend how a CO2 molecule can emit more radiation than it absorbs, which is a requirement of the greenhouse theory on Venus, and I would think that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

You can stick with your CO2 back-radiation theory and I'll go with pressure.

spot wrote:
And could one of the Harry Dale Huffmanists explain how Titans atmosphere works, it seems to defy the "Laws of physics".

Ceist wrote:
Sssshhh. Don't mention Titan.

Didn't you see how the "important new paper!" (aka an unpublished manuscript which was Withdrawn from publication in a low impact Open Journal that One Punch quoted from the Hockeyschtick blog and got the authors names and publication year wrong), conveniently left out Titan in their physics-free curve fitting? It didn't fit their flawed hypothesis, so they.... ignored it.

Surface Detail wrote: The currently accepted theory of greenhouse warming doesn't violate the 1st LoT;

Surface Detail wrote: indeed greenhouse warming is an inevitable consequence of the sun shining on a ball of rock surrounded by an atmosphere that is transparent to visible light but partially opaque to IR radiation. Look again at the diagram that I posted earlier:

Surface Detail wrote: The arrows (not drawn to scale) represent the energy flows between the surface and the atmosphere, and between the atmosphere and outer space. The total energy flows balance at both interfaces as is required for energy conservation.

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Surface Detail wrote:
I was just thinking about this. Surely the rate at which temperature drops with height must depend to some extent on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere?

Surface Detail, are you familiar with Occam's Razor?

"Greenhouse gas" is an unnecessary construct. Occam's Razor cuts it away. Every attempt to explain something with "greenhouse gas" is correctly explained without it.

Well, how would you explain how temperature could drop with altitude without the presence of IR-radiating gases in the atmosphere?

Simple. You are further away from the surface, which absorbs energy better than the air, and the pressure is dropping for any air that rises due to unevenly heated air.

Yes, but convection is constantly carrying energy upwards; the rising gas parcels release energy as they expand, and the falling ones absorb energy as they are compressed. What happens to the energy that is transported upwards? The only way it can be dissipated is through IR radiation, and only greenhouse gases are able to emit IR radiation. So if you had no greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, the temperature wouldn't fall with height and you'd have very little convection.

Surface Detail wrote:

One Punch Man wrote:
It seems to me that the two most popular theories for the high surface temperature on Venus is pressure and CO2 back-radiation. Personally the pressure theory makes more sense to me since I am unable to comprehend how a CO2 molecule can emit more radiation than it absorbs, which is a requirement of the greenhouse theory on Venus, and I would think that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

You can stick with your CO2 back-radiation theory and I'll go with pressure.

The currently accepted theory of greenhouse warming doesn't violate the 1st LoT; indeed greenhouse warming is an inevitable consequence of the sun shining on a ball of rock surrounded by an atmosphere that is transparent to visible light but partially opaque to IR radiation. Look again at the diagram that I posted earlier:



The arrows (not drawn to scale) represent the energy flows between the surface and the atmosphere, and between the atmosphere and outer space. The total energy flows balance at both interfaces as is required for energy conservation.

What would the diagram for your "pressure" theory look like?

Ceist wrote:

One Punch Man wrote:

There is no cyclic process of this kind that can create energy. Convective overturning merely transfers energy from one place to another. Any part of the atmosphere that is being heated by compression will be balanced by another part that is cooling through expansion. There is no net release of energy.

I disagree. Going back to your previous comment when you said "Neither Venus nor its atmosphere are collapsing". Whether we say "the atmosphere is collapsing" or "the gases at the surface are compacting as the mass of gases above fall in the star's gravitational field" the principle is the same. The gases are falling in the star's gravitational field and as they fall they become increasingly more compacted at the surface and get hotter. I see no reason why this process should apply to star's exclusively and not to any body with a large enough gravitational field. Do remember that a would-be star must increase in temperature from essentially -273K and all it has at its disposal is gravity and gases. Until you acknowledge that temperature can be created from gravity and gases alone then I do not see how this discussion can go further. I am sure Steve Goddard and Stephen Wilde would explain things better, but by my understanding, it is the sheer mass of the atmosphere pressing down on the molecules at the surface that increases their temperature by decreasing volume. Decrease volume and temperature must rise. Imagine a gas molecule at the surface compressed by the weight of the atmosphere above. It essentially has nowhere to go and pings around faster and faster until it manages to escape upwards, by which time it has more kinetic energy than the kinetic energy it had previously acquired by descending in the planet's gravitational field.

And could one of the Harry Dale Huffmanists explain how Titans atmosphere works, it seems to defy the "Laws of physics".

Well Titan is small and so I would imagine that its gravitational field would be correspondingly small. Nevertheless, the temperature of Titan, as with other planets, can apparently be calculated with nothing more than solar irradiance and pressure, as Stolk et al 2003 points out. Quote from the paper:

"Applying the Dimensional Analysis (DA) methodology to a well-constrained data set of six celestial bodies representing highly diverse physical environments in the solar system, i.e. Venus, Earth, the Moon, Mars, Titan (a moon of Saturn), and Triton (a moon of Neptune). Twelve prospective relationships (models) suggested by DA are investigated via non-linear regression analyses involving dimensionless products comprised of solar irradiance, greenhouse-gas partial pressure/density and total atmospheric pressure/density as forcing variables, and two temperature ratios as dependent (state) variables. One non-linear regression model is found to statistically outperform the rest by a wide margin.

Our analysis revealed that GMATs [Global Mean Atmospheric Temperatures] of rocky planets can accurately be predicted over a broad range of atmospheric conditions [0% to 96% greenhouse gases] and radiative regimes only using two forcing variables: top-of-the-atmosphere solar irradiance and total surface atmospheric pressure [a function of atmospheric mass and gravity]."

It seems to me that the two most popular theories for the high surface temperature on Venus is pressure and CO2 back-radiation. Personally the pressure theory makes more sense to me since I am unable to comprehend how a CO2 molecule can emit more radiation than it absorbs, which is a requirement of the greenhouse theory on Venus, and I would think that violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

You can stick with your CO2 back-radiation theory and I'll go with pressure.

When someone quotes a paper, I'll go read it to see if it supports what they are claiming. So I tried to find the "Stoke et al 2003" paper you say are quoting.

You made it more difficult by not giving the title of the paper or the authors full names.

Searching by the text content of the quote you posted lead me to the abstract of a 2015 manuscript submitted to an Open online journal by Den Volokin - which has been Withdrawn from publication:

"Emergent model for predicting the average surface temperature of rocky planets with diverse atmospheres"
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0273117715005712

As it was not available in a published Journal, I tried to see if someone had a copy of the manuscript submission somewhere online. I was able to see a copy posted on the Hockeyschtick junk-science blog and found the reference to the paper you named.

Stolk, H., Gates, K. and Hanan, J., 2003, October. Discovery of emergent natural laws by hierarchical multi-agent systems. In Intelligent Agent Technology, 2003. IAT 2003. IEEE/WIC International Conference on (pp. 75-82). IEEE.

This was an article in a book from the proceedings from a 2003 Computer Technology conference:

TITLE: Intelligent agent technology (IAT 2003); proceedings.

AUTHOR: IEEE/WIC International Conference on Intelligent Agent Technology (3rd : 2003: Halifax, Canada) Ed. by Jiming Liu et al.

PUBLISHER: Computer Society Press

"An October 2003 conference brought together researchers and practitioners in fields such as artificial intelligence, software engineering, Internet computing, and robotics, to encourage discussion on the underlying logical, cognitive, physical, and biological foundations and technologies of intelligent agents."

So perhaps you'd like to tell us more about what "Stolk et al 2003 points out" about planetary temperatures?

PS: You don't seem to be aware that "Steve Goddard" is not actually a real person.

It's the conspiracy blog pseudonym of faker called Tony Heller who pretended to be a climate scientist on his blog until he was exposed as a fraud.

Steven Wilde is a solicitor who runs the junkscience conspiracy blog "The Hockeyschtick"

You stick with parroting junk-science from non-scientists who run conspiracy blogs. I'll stick with published science by scientists who have a relevant background in the subject.

Into the Night wrote:

The sun is much more than visible light.

Into the Night wrote: ALL gases are able to emit IR radiation. ALL materials are able to do so. This is Planck's law, which describes such radiation is dependent only on temperature, regardless of the substance.

IBdaMann wrote:
Where you happen to err is in stating that your energy balance somehow results in a temperature increase. It cannot. It's just that you are simply drawing an incorrect conclusion whereas almost all other "greenhouse effectionaries" never get out of the starting gate because they begin with erroneouse assumptions.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

The sun is much more than visible light.

Who is arguing that it isn't?

Into the Night wrote:
You really should go study the difference between static and dynamic pressure.

Surface Detail wrote:Simple molecules, such as O2 and N2, don't have any possible molecular vibrational transitions corresponding to IR radiation and are therefore unable to emit IR radiation. This is a simple fact of quantum physics.

spot wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

The sun is much more than visible light.

Who is arguing that it isn't?

Surface Detail wrote:

Into the Night wrote: ALL gases are able to emit IR radiation. ALL materials are able to do so. This is Planck's law, which describes such radiation is dependent only on temperature, regardless of the substance.

Blimey, it's groundhog day all over again!

Quantum mechanics dictates that gas molecules can only emit radiation at certain wavelengths corresponding to the available energy transitions. Radiation in the IR part of the spectrum corresponds to transitions between molecular vibrational energy levels. Simple molecules, such as O2 and N2, don't have any possible molecular vibrational transitions corresponding to IR radiation and are therefore unable to emit IR radiation. This is a simple fact of quantum physics.

Planck's Law refers to the distribution of emission wavelength when all possible emission energies are available, i.e. blackbodies. This is pretty much the case for most solids; it is most definitely not true for atmospheric gases!