Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?

  • 31 Replies
  • 1831 Views
*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« on: May 05, 2020, 02:49:24 AM »
In numerous places Sandokhan refers to the "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX" for example in:
The barometric pressure paradox does prove that our entire atmosphere does not obey an attractive gravitational law.

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m. The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations. If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.
And he quotes this in support Diurnal pressure variation by E. Linacre 11/'98
It is not a good idea to argue with me ;D about gravity...  :o

The so called Barometric Pressure Paradox is nothing of the sort.  It's well understood and easily explained by science why it is that gases do not settle into layers within the atmosphere.  Gravity survives intact upon scrutiny of the atmosphere and the various gases.

BUT IT IS. The barometric pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL BY SCIENCE.

BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX data:

http://www-das.uwyo.edu/~geerts/cwx/notes/chap01/diurnal.html
Now there certainly is such a variation and before much was known about the upper atmosphere its cause was a somewhat of a mystery as reported in NATURE on MAY 30, 1918 on p 253:

Quote
Diurnal Variation of Atmospheric Pressure, W. W. B. Nature volume 101, pages253–254(1918)
Abstract
THE effect of geographical latitude on the semidiurnal wave of atmospheric pressure is fairly regular and well marked, but the variation of the diurnal wave has attracted less attention since Angpt in 1887, and also Hann, showed conclusively its dependence on secondary local conditions. Three Japanese investigators from the Geophysical Seminary of the Physical Institute, Tokyo, contribute an account of a preliminary attempt to trace more detinitely the mechanism of these local influences, one of the most obvious of which, under the name of “continentality,” has recently been attracting the attention of Mr. C. E. P. Brooks in this country in connection with climate, and with a purely geographical theory of the Ice age.
W. W. B. was, however, somewhat premature in claiming that "the variation of the diurnal wave has attracted less attention since Angpt in 1887, and also Hann etc".

Sandokhan is so audacious that he claims "CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL BY SCIENCE".

But is it any longer any mystery with the following more recent references?
Modern meteorologists, knowing far more about the upper atmosphere, seem to find no such paradox.
Quote
ScienceDaily: Why Atmospheric Pressure Peaks At 10am And 10pm In The Tropics
For over two centuries, meteorologists were puzzled by the observation that atmospheric pressure in the tropics peaks at 10 a.m. and 10 p.m. nearly every day. In the late 1960s, a theory was proposed that these surface pressure variations result from waves that are generated by the sun's heating of the upper atmosphere.

And other references to the same explanation so there is no "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX".

Sandokhan, of course, might have some difficulty accepting such an explanation because it relies on the daily rotation of the Globe.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6763
Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #1 on: May 05, 2020, 03:25:51 AM »
You should have posted this on April 1st.

You have the audacity to challenge me on the BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX?

https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008JD010115

Not even a joke.

The authors DO NOT even attempt to solve the paradox, they are presenting pressure variations in relation to the topography.

In fact, they wholeheartedly subscribe to the FAILED Chapman and Lindzen hypothesis that the wave is caused by solar heating.

It is not.

Here are the errors inherent in Hamilton's approach:

ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/glazer/Chen%2520References/Papers1/Eich%25202004.pdf

All of the claims made by the main author of the paper amount to nothing at all.

Is this what you bothered me for?

Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #2 on: May 05, 2020, 04:30:57 AM »
The authors DO NOT even attempt to solve the paradox, they are presenting pressure variations in relation to the topography.
Why don't you try to clearly explain what you think the paradox is.
No mountains of spam nor links, just a nice simple explanation of what you think the problem is and why you think it is a problem.

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #3 on: May 05, 2020, 05:05:38 AM »
You have the audacity to challenge me on the BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX?
Yes, your Excellency ;D, I "have the audacity to challenge YOU on the BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX".

There is no "BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX" any longer!

Quote from: sandokhan
https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1029/2008JD010115
Not even a joke.

The authors DO NOT even attempt to solve the paradox, they are presenting pressure variations in relation to the topography.
Sure, they are showing that there are pressure variations due to terrain on top of solar heating of the upper atmosphere.

Quote from: sandokhan
In fact, they wholeheartedly subscribe to the FAILED Chapman and Lindzen hypothesis that the wave is caused by solar heating.
It is not.
And what makes you think that the "Chapman and Lindzen hypothesis" is a FAILURE?

Quote from: sandokhan
Here are the errors inherent in Hamilton's approach:
ftp://ftp.soest.hawaii.edu/glazer/Chen%2520References/Papers1/Eich%25202004.pdf
All of the claims made by the main author of the paper amount to nothing at all.
Since I cannot access that document a simply get "This site can’t be reached" I'll ignore until you post a link that works.

In the meantime, I have seen no reason to believe that there is any "BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX".

Quote from: sandokhan
Is this what you bothered me for?
I did not ask for you be "bothered" but I don't know what delusion makes you think that you are so superior to us mere mortals.

Get of your silly high horse and try to pretend to be a normal human being!




*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6763
Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #4 on: May 05, 2020, 05:48:46 AM »
Your thread is a failure to begin with.

Just as is the Chapman/Lindzen model.

Which means you haven't got a clue as to the barometer pressure paradox.

Currently, the barometer pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL.

Richard Lindzen tried, some 40 years ago, to include the effects of ozone and water absorption in the atmospheric tide equations; notwithstanding that in his original paper he did express some doubts, the scientific community happily concluded that the barometer pressure paradox has been solved.


Not by a long shot.

Here is S.J. Woolnough's paper detailing the gross error/omission made by Lindzen.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAS3290.1

While the surface pressure signal of the simulated atmospheric tides in the model agree well with both theory and observations in their magnitude and phase, sensitivity experiments suggest that the role of the stratospheric ozone in forcing the semidiurnal tide is much reduced compared to theoretical predictions. Furthermore, the influence of the cloud radiative effects seems small. It is suggested that the radiative heating profile in the troposphere, associated primarily with the water vapor distribution, is more important than previously thought for driving the semidiurnal tide.


The paper referenced in my last message is easily accesible (direct download).

*

sokarul

  • 18767
  • Extra Racist
Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #5 on: May 05, 2020, 06:27:13 AM »
So what is the FE explanation that proves “the atmosphere isn’t moving” at the same time?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #6 on: May 05, 2020, 06:35:28 AM »
Shit, this thread is going to be massacre

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6763
Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2020, 07:19:28 AM »
Shit, this thread is going to be massacre

You got that right.

In fact, he tried to do the same thing, some ten months, using the same link.

His arguments were obliterated, since I was able to link the semidiurnal atmospheric tides to the semidiurnal oscillations of atmospheric electricity (and thus to Weyl's exact formula).


There is only one other element of weather which features a semidiurnal oscillation: atmospheric electricity.

Since terrestrial gravity is directly linked to electricity, the barometer pressure phenomenon is in direct relationship to the electric potential.

The potential variation is the cause of the barometer pressure oscillations:

https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/atmospheric-science-burying-beals-barometer/

Here is the data gathered in the period 1898-1904 on the Kew electrograph:

https://ia800107.us.archive.org/14/items/philtrans07216443/07216443.pdf


*

sokarul

  • 18767
  • Extra Racist
Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2020, 07:28:34 AM »
So what is the FE explanation that proves “the atmosphere isn’t moving” at the same time?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6763
Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2020, 07:56:36 AM »
gps signals semidiurnal atmospheric tides (google search)

The first two pdfs carefully analyze the influence of semidiurnal atmospheric tides on GPS signals.

This means that we can immediately connect the MISSING ORBITAL SAGNAC EFFECT with the atmospheric tides, and with the semidiurnal oscillations of atmospheric electricity.


*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6763
Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2020, 08:51:18 AM »


https://ia800107.us.archive.org/14/items/philtrans07216443/07216443.pdf (the appendix provides definite proofs that the semidiurnal barometric tide is caused by the semidiurnal atmospheric electricity oscillations)

*

sokarul

  • 18767
  • Extra Racist
Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #12 on: May 05, 2020, 09:20:20 AM »
And this means the earth is stationary how?
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #13 on: May 05, 2020, 11:14:39 AM »
Your thread is a failure to begin with.

Just as is the Chapman/Lindzen model.

Which means you haven't got a clue as to the barometer pressure paradox.

Currently, the barometer pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL.

Richard Lindzen tried, some 40 years ago, to include the effects of ozone and water absorption in the atmospheric tide equations; notwithstanding that in his original paper he did express some doubts, the scientific community happily concluded that the barometer pressure paradox has been solved.


Not by a long shot.

Here is S.J. Woolnough's paper detailing the gross error/omission made by Lindzen.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAS3290.1

While the surface pressure signal of the simulated atmospheric tides in the model agree well with both theory and observations in their magnitude and phase, sensitivity experiments suggest that the role of the stratospheric ozone in forcing the semidiurnal tide is much reduced compared to theoretical predictions. Furthermore, the influence of the cloud radiative effects seems small. It is suggested that the radiative heating profile in the troposphere, associated primarily with the water vapor distribution, is more important than previously thought for driving the semidiurnal tide.


The paper referenced in my last message is easily accesible (direct download).

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAS3290.1
Did you notice that much of the data is collected from satellite observations, how do you explain this?
The the universe has no obligation to makes sense to you.
The earth is a globe.

Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #14 on: May 05, 2020, 12:01:49 PM »
And this means the earth is stationary how?

Missing Solar gravitational effect and no orbital saganac detected by sattlites prove geocnetric spinning Earth
« Last Edit: July 23, 2020, 03:03:59 AM by Code-Beta1234 »

*

sokarul

  • 18767
  • Extra Racist
Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #15 on: May 05, 2020, 01:13:46 PM »
I don’t know what you mean by “Solar gracitational effect“.

The sagnac effect has been cover. Plus there is no evidence it’s simply blanked out with the ground base corrections.


When was the last tine you felt gravity change when there was a thunderstorm outside?

I don’t why you want to lap up what he spews out.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #16 on: May 05, 2020, 02:11:07 PM »
Currently, the barometer pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL.
Again, explain just what you think this paradox is.
What observations are being made?
How do these observations contradict the mainstream model?


The paper referenced in my last message is easily accesible (direct download).
You mean is unavailable?

Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #17 on: May 05, 2020, 02:21:33 PM »
I don’t know what you mean by “Solar gracitational effect“.

Read Sandokahn's post on Tunguska thread, he linked article

*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #18 on: May 06, 2020, 04:36:07 AM »
Shit, this thread is going to be massacre
You got that right.

In fact, he tried to do the same thing, some ten months, using the same link.

His arguments were obliterated, since I was able to link the semidiurnal atmospheric tides to the semidiurnal oscillations of atmospheric electricity (and thus to Weyl's exact formula).
Really? What total garbage!

Quote from: sandokhan
There is only one other element of weather which features a semidiurnal oscillation: atmospheric electricity.
So what? Correlation does not prove causation and it just as easily be caused by similar causes.
In this case those could be: solar radiation, light, heat and possibly charges from the solar wind.

Quote from: sandokhan
Since terrestrial gravity is directly linked to electricity, the barometer pressure phenomenon is in direct relationship to the electric potential.
Not on the Globe it's not! Possibly in your weird world of woo-science with its tiny Sun magically floating onerhead.

Quote from: sandokhan
The potential variation is the cause of the barometer pressure oscillations:
And it could just as easily be caused by the variations in Solar Radiation.

Quote from: sandokhan
https://malagabay.wordpress.com/2014/07/27/atmospheric-science-burying-beals-barometer/

Here is the data gathered in the period 1898-1904 on the Kew electrograph:

https://ia800107.us.archive.org/14/items/philtrans07216443/07216443.pdf
But, rant and rave all you like, Mr Sandokhan, but there is no longer any

It is now just accepted as explained in any book or paper on climatology such as:
Improved representation of the diurnal variation of warm-season precipitation by an atmospheric general circulation model at a 10 km horizontal resolution.

The simple fact is that the is no longer any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX".

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6763
Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #19 on: May 06, 2020, 04:44:37 AM »
In fact, there is.

All of the authors mentioned by you present the Chapman-Lindzen model.

Which has been debunked.

Here is S.J. Woolnough's paper detailing the gross error/omission made by Lindzen.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAS3290.1

While the surface pressure signal of the simulated atmospheric tides in the model agree well with both theory and observations in their magnitude and phase, sensitivity experiments suggest that the role of the stratospheric ozone in forcing the semidiurnal tide is much reduced compared to theoretical predictions. Furthermore, the influence of the cloud radiative effects seems small. It is suggested that the radiative heating profile in the troposphere, associated primarily with the water vapor distribution, is more important than previously thought for driving the semidiurnal tide.


Here is the absolute proof that the atmospheric tide is caused by the atmospheric electrical tide (both semidiurnal):

https://ia800107.us.archive.org/14/items/philtrans07216443/07216443.pdf (the appendix provides definite proofs that the semidiurnal barometric tide is caused by the semidiurnal atmospheric electricity oscillations)




In your haste to troll your second thread, in a single day, you posted this:

It is now just accepted as explained in any book or paper on climatology such as:
Improved representation of the diurnal variation of warm-season precipitation by an atmospheric general circulation model at a 10 km horizontal resolution.


The barometer pressure paradox is related to the SEMIDIURNAL ATMOSPHERIC TIDE.

Which means you haven't got a clue as to what we are debating.


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #20 on: May 06, 2020, 05:46:00 AM »
In fact, there is.

All of the authors mentioned by you present the Chapman-Lindzen model.
So? And where have YOU successfully debunked:
       ATMOSPHERIC TIDES by R. S. Lindzen from Ann. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 1979. 7: 199-225/b]
And
       NOTES AND CORRESPONDENCE: Theory of Atmospheric Tides By R. S. Lindzen revised 25 April 1980

Quote from: sandokhan
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
It is now just accepted as explained in any book or paper on climatology such as:
Improved representation of the diurnal variation of warm-season precipitation by an atmospheric general circulation model at a 10 km horizontal resolution.


The barometer pressure paradox is related to the SEMIDIURNAL ATMOSPHERIC TIDE.
So? It's "related to the SEMIDIURNAL ATMOSPHERIC TIDE".

Quote from: sandokhan
Which means you haven't got a clue as to what we are debating.
Whether I've got a clue is neither here nor there! I am not a meteorologist and neither are YOU!

And you don't even believe the things that this depends on so you're in no position to debunk this.
Things like the gravitational tidal effect of the Sun and Moon etc:
       
Quote
MITOpenCourseWare: Earth, Atmospheric, and Planetary Sciences, Atmospheric tides
One of the most straightforward and illuminating applications of internal gravity wave theory is the explanation of the atmosphere’s tides.  In any real problem, we must adapt the theory to the specific problem at issue.
For tides, we must consider the following:
1. We are on an unbounded atmosphere; and
2. We are on a rotating sphere.


By atmospheric tides, we generally mean those planetary-scale oscillations whose periods are integral fractions of a solar or lunar day (diurnal refers to a period of one day, semidiurnal refers to a period of half a day, and terdiurnal refers to a period of one-third of a day). These periods are chosen because we know there is forcing at these periods. Gravitational forcing is precisely known; thermal forcing (due in large measure to the absorption of sunlight by O3 and water vapour) is known with less precision.

I fail to see your problem. I'm claiming no particular explanation, just that it is no longer a paradox.

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6763
Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #21 on: May 06, 2020, 05:59:35 AM »
The BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX stands true.

"It has been known now for two and a half centuries, that there are more or less daily variations in the height of the barometer, culminating in two maxima and two minima during the course of 24 hours. The same observation has been made and puzzled over at every station at which pressure records were kept and studied, but without success in finding for it the complete physical explanation."

One maximum is at 10 a.m., the other at 10 p.m.; the two minima are at 4 a.m. and 4 p.m.

The heating effect of the sun can explain neither the time when the maxima appear nor the time of the minima of these semidiurnal variations.

If the pressure becomes lower without the air becoming lighter through a lateral expansion due to heat, this must mean that the same mass of air gravitates with changing force at different hours.


Lord Rayleigh: ‘The relative magnitude of the latter [semidiurnal variations], as observed at most parts of the earth’s surface, is still a mystery, all the attempted explanations being illusory.’


Currently, the barometer pressure paradox CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AT ALL.


Richard Lindzen tried, some 40 years ago, to include the effects of ozone and water absorption in the atmospheric tide equations; notwithstanding that in his original paper he did express some doubts, the scientific community happily concluded that the barometer pressure paradox has been solved.


Not by a long shot.

Here is S.J. Woolnough's paper detailing the gross error/omission made by Lindzen.

https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/JAS3290.1

While the surface pressure signal of the simulated atmospheric tides in the model agree well with both theory and observations in their magnitude and phase, sensitivity experiments suggest that the role of the stratospheric ozone in forcing the semidiurnal tide is much reduced compared to theoretical predictions. Furthermore, the influence of the cloud radiative effects seems small. It is suggested that the radiative heating profile in the troposphere, associated primarily with the water vapor distribution, is more important than previously thought for driving the semidiurnal tide.


There are ONLY two phenomena which exhibit overall SEMIDIURNAL OSCILLATIONS: barometric pressure and atmospheric electricity.

One is the cause for the other, again using Weyl's electrogravitational formula.

The atom is a capacitor.


*

rabinoz

  • 26528
  • Real Earth Believer
Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #22 on: May 06, 2020, 06:13:53 AM »
The BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX stands true.
Incorrect! It is no longer a mystery now a paradox - get used to it!

Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #23 on: May 06, 2020, 06:25:48 AM »
The BAROMETER PRESSURE PARADOX stands true.
Incorrect! It is no longer a mystery now a paradox - get used to it!

You say that when you are defeated. Debunk his points, not deny!

*

sokarul

  • 18767
  • Extra Racist
Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #24 on: May 06, 2020, 06:41:02 AM »
.

The atom is a capacitor.

Nope. Atoms do have charges but they are not capacitors. Their charge is used all the tie in chemistry. You need to understand your spam fest not disprove people’s jobs. It doesn’t disprove my job.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #25 on: May 06, 2020, 06:42:53 AM »
.

The atom is a capacitor.
Nope. Atoms do have charges but they are not capacitors. Their charge is used all the tie in chemistry. You need to understand your spam fest not disprove people’s jobs. It doesn’t disprove my job.


What is your job? And did he finaly admit light does split? Why did he have to deny it spliting?

*

sandokhan

  • Flat Earth Sultan
  • Flat Earth Scientist
  • 6763
Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #26 on: May 06, 2020, 07:03:05 AM »
Atoms are capacitors. Here is the latest viewpoint:

http://www.mitre.org/sites/default/files/pdf/06_1074.pdf

Neutral Atoms Behave Much Like Classical Spherical Capacitors (published in the Physical Review)

https://vixra.org/pdf/1501.0094v1.pdf

Quantized Capacitance and Energy of the Atom


Einstein's relativity cannot explain the barometer pressure paradox.

Only the introduction of Weyl fields, Weyl's extended relativity, can: the exact formula for electrogravity.

*

sokarul

  • 18767
  • Extra Racist
Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #27 on: May 06, 2020, 12:51:21 PM »
I stand corrected on the capacitance.

Obviously the other stuff is spam. Plus you don’t even believe those papers as that means your atom model is wrong.
ANNIHILATOR OF  SHIFTER

It's no slur if it's fact.

Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #28 on: May 06, 2020, 02:08:23 PM »
I stand corrected on the capacitance.

Obviously the other stuff is spam. Plus you don’t even believe those papers as that means your atom model is wrong.

So, snadokhan was better at your job than you ;D ???

Re: Is there any "BAROMETRIC PRESSURE PARADOX"?
« Reply #29 on: May 06, 2020, 02:48:07 PM »
In fact, there is.
Again, explain just what you think it is.
So far you have just repeatedly asserted that there is some paradox without justifying that there is any.
Again, what do you think the paradox is?
What observations are made, and how does that contradict with what should be happening?

A model being imperfect is not a paradox. A paradox is where 2 contradictory statements need to be true at the same time, like the sun being above Earth and below Earth at the same time, or a statement which contradicts itself like "this statement is false".

So far what we actually have is an observation which is being modelled to various extents, but with some limitations of those models.
You then latch on to them and pretend that means there is some massive problem.
It is really no better than saying the weather saying it will rain while it didn't rain is a massive paradox which refutes the RE.

So there is no paradox.

All of the authors mentioned by you present the Chapman-Lindzen model.
Which has been debunked.
Where?
Showing a model is incomplete is not debunking it.

Here is the absolute proof that the atmospheric tide is caused by the atmospheric electrical tide (both semidiurnal):
You might want to learn what absolute proof is.
That article does not contain it.
If you think it does, why don't you provide exactly where?
Especially note that correlation (especially such an imperfect one) does not indicate causation.
Have you considered if the atmospheric tide CAUSES the electrical tide?
Or if they both have a common cause?

In fact, if you bother reading what they say, you will see they suggest exactly that:
"change of barometric pressure may influence potential gradient, by modifying the rate at which this ionized air escapes into the atmosphere"
But they also show it really isn't likely to be the case that either of these cause the other. That is because while the amplitude of the variation of one increased, it decreased for the other.
If they were in fact causing each other, you would expect them to follow the same trend.

So what that really shows is that there is some common causal element causing them both.