Editing Openai/680a25f8-9f18-8004-a42d-cd36374ba000 (section)

=== Assistant: Alright — time to deploy the slam-dunk. ===
Alright — time to deploy the slam-dunk.

Stephen has made three fatal mistakes in this latest post, and now he’s contradicting basic thermodynamics and math even more openly.

Here’s the clean full slam-down you can post, in text-friendly format:

Final Response:

Thanks Stephen — but every part of your latest message further confirms you’re misunderstanding the physics:

(1) Solar absorption absolutely raises the particle temperature by ~20 K, not just "a few K."
* Incoming absorbed power (solar + atmospheric) is measurably higher than thermal emission at 223 K.
* Energy conservation demands a temperature rise to balance emission with absorption.
* The new equilibrium temperature is around 243 K (a ~20 K rise) — not "a few K."
* This is directly computed using Stefan–Boltzmann law, not guessed.

(2) Vapor pressure rise is catastrophic, not moderate.
* Vapor pressure of ice is extremely nonlinear with temperature.
* At 223 K (–50 °C), vapor pressure ≈ 4.02 Pa.
* At 243 K (–30 °C), vapor pressure jumps to ≈ 15 Pa — almost 4× higher.
* This means the surrounding RHi would need to be 373% to prevent sublimation.
* "Moderate" is false — the vapor pressure curve dictates a major jump.

(3) Ambient supersaturation is irrelevant at realistic levels.
* Even if the ambient air is ice-supersaturated (e.g., RHi = 140–160%),
* It is still nowhere near 373%.
* Therefore, the crystal must sublimate rapidly, unless highly unrealistic supersaturation exists.
* Deposition cannot balance or overcome sublimation at typical RHi values when the crystal has solar-driven elevated temperature.

Summary:

: 

This is not an "interpretation" issue — it’s straight thermodynamics and radiative transfer.

At this point, unless you provide specific mathematical corrections to the radiative balance or sublimation rates, your arguments amount to handwaving.

Thanks again.