"Smug and stupid is not a good combination."

You got that right.

Cohenite, I can see you are saying that light reaches the surface of Venus, which means that the atmosphere allows the passage of light to it, and yet also saying that the atmosphere does not allow the passage of light back out, which obscures observations of it.

Does this somehow support the idea that csteele quoted?:
“On the one hand, since the venusian atmosphere is opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypotheses is not obeyed.”
Gerlich and Tscheuschner, On The Barometric Formulas page 12..13

Where does the energy go if visible light enters, but does not exit? and why does this not support the greenhouse hypothesis?

csteele.
Although we can say with absolute certainty, that measurable irrefutable climate change is real, we can't say with equal certainty that it is man made?
Or what percentile is the actual product of human activity?
And or, should that matter?
With the appropriate conditioning, a subject can be made to believe, the piece of chalk held against his/her skin is hot! In fact, in some instances it will leave a blister?
Conversely, various groups have apparently walked on hot embers, without leaving any physical trace of heat trauma? And Pavlov's dogs salivated at the sound of a bell?
Likewise, it may be argued that denialism; or preferred Ideology, is part of conditioning; or a fundamental belief system, and clung to, even when every available or marshalled fact, says otherwise.
[There are Idealogs in this world, who manifestly BELIEVE that you can achieve economic growth via austerity and or, alleged reporters, who will never let the facts get in the way of a good story?]
Others will behave like the proverbial warm and comfortable frog, in a pot of water being slowly brought to the boil; and die before the penny drops.
Others with vested interest will argue against anything that harms that interest?
[An investment property in a popular seaside resort or mining shares etc?]
Is climate change real?
Well the ice is melting at an alarming rate and far faster than anyone predicted?
Is it man-made or just part of the natural cycle?
Does that really matter?
Either way, there are things we can and should do to ameliorate against its effect, preferably before our coastal cities are inundated by the rising oceans?
Which according to fish fossil finds, apparently rose around seventy metres, the last time we had a major melt down?
The very best solutions will be ones that walk out the door and confer liberty; and much cheaper energy on a still captive energy market, currently held hostage by a few private players, who simply don't give a rats, if their greed eventually destroys the economy; or indeed, lifeboat planet earth?
Cheers, Rhrosty.

Bugsy, if you are interested in a very good discussion of Venus's temperature profile, includng the details of what sunlight reaches the surface of Venus and Albedo factors, it is here:

http://scienceofdoom.com/2010/06/22/venusian-mysteries-part-two/#comment-4481

The comments of Dr leonard Weinstein of NASA are particularly informative; at July 22, 2010 at 12:57 pm he says:

"The albedo of Venus is about 0.75. That means 75% of sunlight is reflected. Of the remaining, 25%, I think that only about 10 to 20 W/m2 reach the ground near the equator at mid day (someone please correct this if I am wrong). If that is correct, the average would be about 1/4 of that due to latitude variation and night. In fact, the ground does not absorb all of this but reflects a portion.Thus the average solar heating of the ground is probably less than 5 W/m2."

It also means that only a very small proportion of the sunlight striking the outer atmosphere of Venus actually reaches the ground and it is that small amount of sunlight which is reemitted from the surface which makes the atmosphere opaque; it doesn't mean, as csteele suggests that you can't see things on the surface.

"It also means that only a very small proportion of the sunlight striking the outer atmosphere of Venus actually reaches the ground and it is that small amount of sunlight which is reemitted from the surface which makes the atmosphere opaque; it doesn't mean, as csteele suggests that you can't see things on the surface."

While I didn't see csteele suggesting such a thing (in fact I thought the exact opposite was suggested), how does this invalidate the central assumption of the greenhouse effect as G&T suggest? If sunlight enters atmosphere, sunlight reaches surface etc., why no greenhouse effect?

Dear Bugsy,

Well put and far more forgiving than what I had prepared. Thank you.

Oh dear Cohenite,

Now I'm feeling a touch sorry for you my friend.

You really should have cut the Germans loose and left well enough alone. The whole premise of the argument “since the venusian atmosphere is opaque to visible light, the central assumption of the greenhouse hypotheses is not obeyed.” has to be predicated on the idea that no light reaches the planet's surface. But you went right ahead, compounding their ignorance about Venus' atmosphere by illustrating your own lack of understanding about the physics and mechanics of the atmospheric greenhouse effect.

Extending your argument would mean that there is no greenhouse effect under a cloud on earth since although light can pass through it it is indeed opaque to light from the surface for an observer in space. That is just stupid.

But visible light from the surface is not even the issue rather it is the infra-red spectrum that is reflected from it and absorbed by GHGs. The Venusian atmosphere is 96.5% CO2 causing trapped heat to elevate its surface temperature to the hottest of all the planets.

Sigh.

My problem mate is this. I will readily admit to failing Year 12 Physics but even a cursory look at the German's paper revealed a gaping hole. You however are writing articles on this issue published in places like OLO and being read by I assume thousands. I asked earlier about one of your posts whether you understood even half of it. Based on your latest offering I feel I was generous. This worries me and should worry others.

When you double down after it is shown a paper is so obviously incorrect then your ability to examine evidence with any kind of objectivity has to be seriously questioned. In my opinion this unfortunately labels you firmly as a denier.

Dear Rhrosty, Leo and Don,

Thank you for your posts addressing me. I am under the pump today but hope to get to them tomorrow if I may.

"But visible light from the surface is not even the issue rather it is the infra-red spectrum that is reflected from it"

You raised visible light, not me; and:

"has to be predicated on the idea that no light reaches the planet's surface."

That is not true; the spectrum of radiation emitted from a surface depends on the temperature of that surface, but even a very hot surface such as the sun's emits over the full range of the spectrum; read Wien's law and Stefan-Boltzman.

Venus's surface is very hot even though light and IR barely reach it; the reason for this is that the UV part of the spectrum still warms the surface. That surface is so hot CO2 only exists as a super critical fluid; how can a fluid block any IR which leaves the surface; the short answer is it doesn't but clouds of sulphuric acid will.

The greenhouse effect on Venus is at the characteristic emission level [CEL] for CO2, which is about 50 klms above the surface; this again is based on the fact that surfaces emit a spectrum which is based on their temperature; the CEL for CO2 is much cooler than the surface and accordingly that is where CO2 emission occurs.

A couple of points;

Venus is temperature stable; if it were being warmed by a Greenhouse effect it would keep getting hotter; it isn't so it isn't.

Venus's temperature profile is consistent with its pressure profile; so is Earth's and tellingly, so is Mar's which has an atmospheric concentration of CO2 about the same as Venus's; if CO2 were the super greenhouse agent asserted by AGW, wouldn't Mars be as hot as Venus?

csteele has adopted a supercilious tone which defines the AGW advocates; also typically he has shown he does not have even the basic idea of the science which is being misrepresented by AGW; in this he is in good company; in Halpern's alleged rebuttal of G&T the 'Greenhouse Effect' is not even defined.