This is going nowhere , so this is my last post .

First , Why is anybody continuing to parrot the 33c bogeyman ? How can anyone defend using anything other than the unweighted energy impinging on the planet as the null hypothesis ? That's about 9 or 10c , NOT 33c . I challenge anybody to show me the spectrum which will produce that extreme an "anti-greenhouse" effect .  If you can't follow those highschool level computations , further discussion is pointless .

In any conservative system like energy , computations in which are in fact linear , the average over a cycle is the equilibrium value . Any particular spectrum will come to an equilibrium temperature determined by its correlation with its source and sink spectra .

It is absolutely absurd to contend as MS does  that sink spectra don't matter . I suggest a simple experiment for him : Take 2 identical incandescent bulbs . Paint one of them . Plug them into the same voltage . Explain why the painted bulb burns out first . And , by the way , one of the most elementary exercises in heat flow is to show that Fourier's heat equation , which essentially says heat "pimples" will flatten out , is to show that the temperature of a plate between a hot boundary and a cold boundary will come to  a flat temperature gradient between them . So the temperature of the cold edge will affect the temperature of all warmer points on the plate . MS never has replied to even my assertion that if the cosmic background temperature were 200k instead of 3k , we would be about 16k warmer . He rejects StefanBoltzmann but offers nothing quantitative in its stead .

Neither a greenhouse effect nor the static pressure gradient can explain the extreme surface temperature of Venus . I don't claim to understand the vertical structure of atmospheres very well , which is one reason why the initial blog post here interested me, and the post did help my getting a better understanding of the parameters . But one convenient attribute of dealing with a Gaussian surface like a sphere is that certain constraints can be asserted over them . Most importantly , the energy density within an externally heated sphere cannot exceed that of the surface without an internal source . Any spectrum , like that of CO2 has a calculable equilibrium temperature dependent on its correlation with the spectra of its heat sources and sinks . It's not open ended , subject to runaways .

If an atmosphere is such that it effectively absorbs a large enough fraction of incoming radiation to be warmer at some level than its "lapse rate" , convection will stop . It will come to a uniform temperature inside that shell . It will NOT continue getting hotter and hotter within that shell unless there is an internal source of heat . It is known Venus has substantial geothermal activity and a very thick insulative atmosphere . That , as I have seen more precisely stated in other blogs , not some infinitely cascading "back radiation" , not some constant pressure gradient , is the only possible cause of Venus's extreme surface temperature .
 
Sorry if I come across a little rough , but when no-one puts in the work to get their heads around even the most basic computation of the temperature of a ball in our orbit , they clearly have never put the work in to understand how to "think" physics at a useful level .