You agreed to proceed in a respectful manner
Yet you
do not procced in a respectful manner
What is the value of your words if you do not keep an agreement?
Now pay attention
You continue to start with the assumption there must a driver for 1.0 C increase in surface temperature based on a data set which is far too short, incomplete , filled with data errors and has been manipulated.
and you desperately want that driver to be anthropogenic
You will never learn anything of value in science if you start with a conclusion and try to wrap the science around that preconceived conclusion.
You need to stop doing that !
Oh and stop misquoting me as well
Again you are confusing Total Solar Irradiance with trends or changes in irradiance
Dr. Holmes used the relative solar irradiance as a factor in temperature calculations as Venus is a lot closer to the sun than earth
He made no mention of trends in solar irradiance over time ???
You mentioned trends and somehow wrote off "Total Solar Irradiance" all together. It is the energy source
You have been chasing your own tail
now that we have that straightened out .................
The probes measured the temperature and pressure as they descended through the atmosphere of Venus.
These are actual physical measurements you are disputing out of blind allegiance to your ideology
you need to explain this:
It is constant CO2 concentration (96.5%) all the way from one atmosphere down to 90 atmospheres at the surface as per the recordings from multiple probes
So how does 96.5% CO2 cause a temperature of 340K at one atmosphere and the same 96.5% CO2 results in a temperature of 740K at 90 atmospheres ?
No change in CO2 concentration yet a 400K change in temperature????????
This is physically impossible if Co2 is the driver of temperature