Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[IBDaMann]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs light,

You are saying then that all substances are greenhouse gases, to include all solids and liquids. Your religion is stupid. Your idiotic faith requires you to believe that all substances in the universe are greenhouse gases because they absorb thermal radiation. S - T - U - P - I - D. Let me guess, you didn't call booooolsch't because you didn't see anything wrong with that statement, right? You are such the thienth geniuth!

... which causes an eventual increase in temperature.

Please explain to me how any substance can cause a body of matter that is in equilibrium to spontaneously increase in temperature as you state right here, without any additional energy? Please explain using physics instead of your Climate voodoo gibber-babble.

Venus is the hottest planet because it’s atmosphere is so dense and full of greenhouse gasses that trap light/energy.

So we're effectively done on this point. You know nothing other than you firmly believe that light and heat can somehow be trapped, even though you have been informed that they cannot. You have officially tipped your king and become a science denier.

It’s honestly baffling that you fail to grasp something so basic.

It shouldn't be surprising that I reject something so absurd. I'm not gullible, I'm not scientifically illiterate or mathematically incompetent, I'm not afraid to call booooolsch't when I should and I will never let others do my thinking for me. You, on the other hand, are due for another reaming from your thought-masters. Enjoy.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

implications are worth little.

all your greeny dire predictions have been wrong.

LOL. You don't even know what Stefan-Boltzmann is or what it means. Stop making me laugh so hard!

 

[IBDaMann]

You talked a lot about Stefan-Boltzmann a few months back.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not change over a few months, a few years or even a few decades. What do you want to know about it?

Guess this shows you don't really know what it implies.

Your guess is incorrect. LOL. Figures.

You don't know anything about the Stefan-Boltzmann law, do you? You tried looking it up on Wikipedia so you could find out what you are supposed to believe but you only became confused. Too funny. If you had understood Stefan-Boltzmann, you would have noted that Into the Night understands it just fine. If you truly thought there was an error in what Into the Night had written, you would have tailored an example from the law and thrown it in his face. But look, no mention of the law on your part. It's no mystery why not, i.e. you don't understand a thing about Stefan-Boltzmann.

The guy that doesn't even fucking know the difference between the blackbody temperature of the earth (from Stefan-Boltzmann) and the temperature at the surface.

Before I mock the shit out of you, I'd like to relish the moment. This "difference" to which you allude ... what do you think that is? I always get a kick out of warmizombies who, in their final acts of desperation before tipping their kings, resort to declaring what others supposedly "don't know." Often, as in your case here, you made an egregious error of which you are unaware (because you don't understand the material of which you are pretending to sit in judgement over others) and I'm going to have a lot of fun with you over it. But first, I want to ensure you are afforded every opportunity to show that you know what this substantive difference is, which you should know if you are going to mock someone else over it, right?

I'm all ears.

 

[IBDaMann]

LOL. You don't even know what Stefan-Boltzmann is or what it means. Stop making me laugh so hard!

I know all about it. Did you have any questions? I'm going to be ripping you to shreds in an up-and-coming post over something stupid that you wrote about Stefan-Boltzmann, so stay tuned; it will be fun.

 

[IBDaMann]

Well, I showed Ibdaman an FTIR absorption spectrum which featured a HUGE CO2 peak (showing significant absorption by CO2 of IR radiation) and he didn't really know what it meant.

Excuse me, you threw up a chart like you were my professor giving me a pop quiz. To your surprise, I told you exactly what it was. Nonetheless, you promptly pretended to declare that I was incorrect ... and you fled to the hills with your tail between your legs.

Let's just keep the record straight.

It's also hilarious to get IBDaMan to try to talk science. It's clear they haven't got more than maybe a high school science background, probably. more likely junior high.

It's hilarious to try to get Oscillator and ZenMode to try to talk science. Anyone with a high school science background ... probably more like anyone with a junior high science background, can easily spot all of the errors peppering their respective egregious misunderstandings. Their only responses are their own declarations of what others don't know.

Too funny.

 

[ZenMode]

You are saying then that all substances are greenhouse gases, to include all solids and liquids. Your religion is stupid. Your idiotic faith requires you to believe that all substances in the universe are greenhouse gases because they absorb thermal radiation. S - T - U - P - I - D. Let me guess, you didn't call booooolsch't because you didn't see anything wrong with that statement, right? You are such the thienth geniuth!

I am not saying all gasses are greenhouse gasses, much less all substances. Substances that are liquid or solid can’t, by definition, be greenhouse gasses.

The characteristics of some gasses make them “greenhouse”. CO2, because of its ability to trap light/energy, because of its loose molecular bonds, is a GH gas.

Please explain to me how any substance can cause a body of matter that is in equilibrium to spontaneously increase in temperature as you state right here, without any additional energy? Please explain using physics instead of your Climate voodoo gibber-babble.

Again, there is more than enough energy from the sun. Venus atmosphere, because it traps more light/energy, I considerably hotter than the earth. Sure, there’s a “max” temperature because the sun has a max output, but if Venus atmosphere were even MORE dense, it would be even hotter on the surface.

So we're effectively done on this point. You know nothing other than you firmly believe that light and heat can somehow be trapped, even though you have been informed that they cannot. You have officially tipped your king and become a science denier.

For the sake of moving past this straw man, I will be glad to admit that energy can’t be PERFECTLY trapped, even by the most dense atmosphere. But it is a fact that the composition of an atmosphere determines how much light/energy, and there for heat, is trapped.

It shouldn't be surprising that I reject something so absurd. I'm not gullible, I'm not scientifically illiterate or mathematically incompetent, I'm not afraid to call booooolsch't when I should and I will never let others do my thinking for me. You, on the other hand, are due for another reaming from your thought-masters. Enjoy.

Please, don’t take my word for it:

How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?

Greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere absorb light, preventing some of it from escaping the Earth. This heats up the atmosphere and raises the planet’s average temperature.

What do CO2, methane, and water vapor have in common? If your first thought was “greenhouse gases,” you’d be correct! Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere, in a process called the “greenhouse effect.”1 But how do these molecules actually warm our planet?

We’ll start our exploration of greenhouse gases with a single carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule. Let’s say this CO2 molecule came from the exhaust in your car. From your tailpipe, it drifts up into the atmosphere, diffusing among the other gases. There, particles of light—photons—hit our molecule.

So what happens to those photons? “Greenhouse gas molecules will absorb that light, causing the bonds between atoms to vibrate,” says Jesse Kroll, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering and Chemical Engineering at MIT. “This traps the energy, which would otherwise go back into space, and so has the effect of heating up the atmosphere.” Basically, the bonds between the carbon and oxygen atoms in our CO2 molecule bend and stretch to absorb photons. (With other greenhouse gases, the molecular bonds are different, but in all cases, they absorb photons, stopping them from leaving the atmosphere.)

Eventually, our CO2 molecule will release these photons. Sometimes, the photons continue out into space. But other times, they rebound back into the Earth’s atmosphere, where their heat remains trapped.

And importantly, greenhouse gases don’t absorb all photons that cross their paths. Instead, they mostly take in photons leaving the Earth for space. “CO2 molecules absorb infrared light at a few wavelengths, but the most important absorption is light of about 15 microns,” says Kroll. Incoming light from the sun tends to have much shorter wavelengths than this, so CO2 doesn’t stop this sunlight from warming the Earth in the first place. But when the Earth re-emits this light,2 it has a longer wavelength, in the infrared spectrum.

And the range of wavelengths around 15 microns is a particularly crucial window. The most common greenhouse gas, water vapor, doesn’t efficiently absorb photons in this range. So when CO2 grabs photons with wavelengths around 15 microns, it’s selecting for the same light that normally has the easiest time escaping Earth’s atmosphere.

There’s another reason why CO2 is such an important greenhouse gas: it has a long atmospheric lifetime. This has to do with the way CO2 reacts (or rather, doesn’t react) with the atmosphere. “The atmosphere is a very oxidative environment due to the presence of oxygen and ultraviolet radiation,” says Kroll. Oxidation occurs when oxygen steals electrons from another atom—it’s the same chemical reaction that causes iron to rust. Methane, another greenhouse gas, reacts easily with oxygen, which removes it from the atmosphere within around 12 years. That’s long enough to affect the climate, but nowhere near the lifetime of CO2, which does not react with oxygen and can last over a century.

CO2’s long lifespan is the key reason that human activities are leading to climate change. As we keep taking carbon-based compounds like coal and oil out of the ground, and put that carbon in the atmosphere in the form of CO2, the added CO2 piles up much faster than it can be naturally removed.

https://climate.mit.edu/ask-mit/how-do-greenhouse-gases-trap-heat-atmosphere

 

[Kamala Trump]

LOL. You don't even know what Stefan-Boltzmann is or what it means. Stop making me laugh so hard!

I know c02 is not a pollutant.

and that the green agenda is to lie to justify anti-human policies.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I know c02 is not a pollutant.

and that the green agenda is to lie to justify anti-human policies.

You may have a point, AssHat.

Earl keeps talking about the Green Reefer coming to see me.

 

[Uncensored2008]

There are many religions in our world and they are all different. Each one has a unique dogma that affords comfort to the believer and helps him cope with a chaotic and confusing world ... each one except for Global Warming that is. This religion seems only to instill fear and panic. Most religions are portrayed as a form of "good news" to be celebrated whereas everything about Global Warming is hyped as "bad news" that might already be "too late" and "past the tipping point."

Further, most religions are honest matters of faith whereas the Church of Global Warming specifically targets for recruitment the gullible and the scientifically illiterate because its dogma mandates the belief that egregious violations of physics are "Settled Science."

Question: why would any rational adult adopt the Global Warming faith?

Good post, except that the AGW cult isn't unique.

It's just a recasting of the "Volcano God" grift that has gone on for 10,000 years.

As a refresher,

One day Og awoke and wandered out of his lean to only to discover that the mountain to the east was billowing smoke. Og became very frightened. He turned to his wife and said "mountain smoke, Og scared."

The wife met with all the other women while chewing hides and none of them could figure out why the mountain was smoking. So Og went to Algore, the village Shaman and said "why mountain smoke?" Algore shook a rattle and chanted some mumbo jumbo and then declared "The volcano god is angry because Og has too much food and life is too easy."

Algore went on "Og must make a sacrifice - as must every other villager. Bring me 9/10ths of all food and furs that you have, and I must also have your virgin daughters to appease the gods. If you do not give these to me, you will die, and not only you but EVERYONE in the village."

Og was very afraid. He loved his daughter, but how could he let everyone die? Besides, if he gave the Shaman 9/10th of his food to throw in the volcano, along with his daughter, he would have no food to feed his children and she would starve to death anyway.

So Og and the villagers gave Algore what he demanded. Algore gorged himself on the food and raped the girls for a month, then trudged up the mountain, raped Og's daughter again, murdered her, and threw her in the volcano. He did the same to the daughters of the other villagers.

Then Algore went back to the village and said that the gods were pleased, but in a year they would have to do it all again to keep pleasing the gods.

The next day, the volcano erupted and killed everyone in the village.

MORAL:

The volcano was real. Algore the Shaman had no more understanding of it than Og did, but he saw an opportunity to get the wealth and children of the villagers by leveraging their fear.

None of the sacrifices made by Og did anything - other than satiate Algore's lust and greed.

And THIS is what Anthropogenic Global Warming is today, Shamans taking everything from suckers based on fear.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It is not a religion. There is no deity in Climate Science.

Gaia.

AGW is Gaia worship. The idiocy that the planet is somehow alive and sentient - and punishing us for our carbon sins.

 

[AProudLefty]

Gaia.

AGW is Gaia worship. The idiocy that the planet is somehow alive and sentient - and punishing us for our carbon sins.

I know you want that cigar so badly. But sorry no cigar for you.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I know you want that cigar so badly. But sorry no cigar for you.

After it's been up your butt? No thank you.

As for you being a moron - well, that's why you're a Marxist, and a follower of the AGW cult.

{[COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)][FONT=__Source_Sans_3_f9cc9d]Simply put, the Gaia hypothesis says that Earth is a living system and uses similar mechanisms that living creatures use to stay alive, by constantly regulating temperature, chemical and physical inputs and outputs and adaptation through evolution.

[/FONT][/COLOR][COLOR=rgba(0, 0, 0, 0.87)][FONT=__Source_Sans_3_f9cc9d]Lovelock, who turned 101 in 2021, came up with his idea in the 1960s, when NASA asked him to see if his inventions in chemical analysis could detect life on other planets by looking at their atmospheres.}

https://theworld.org/stories/2021-05-20/imagining-gaia-earth-one-great-living-organism[/FONT][/COLOR]

https://theconversation.com/scientists-finally-have-an-explanation-for-the-gaia-puzzle-99153

Gaia theory is the HEART of the AGW idiocy.

 

[Into the Night]

what does outside heat mean.

That IS the question. There is no such term in physics.

Well if you have a thermos of coffee, that is losing heat,

You cannot lose heat.

you could set it on a stove or put it on a very hot sidewalk.

It's not a good idea to put a Thermos jug on the stove.

Doing so would either slow the cooling or raise the temperature of the contents of the thermos of the outside heat waa high enough.

Heat has no speed. You cannot 'slow' it or 'speed it up'.
There is no such thing as 'outside heat'.

None that weren't already there to begin with, and thus cannot represent additional energy. The sun, for example, can only account for the energy that was already there. There are no other substantive sources of additional thermal energy.

Had no point was I imagining that CO2 was a source of energy.

But you are. You are literally claiming that CO2 heats itself.

 

[Into the Night]

Again. Play all the word games you want.

YOU are playing the word games. You are describing yourself.

The atmosphere acts like the insulated walls of a thermos.

The atmosphere is not an insulator. You are AGAIN ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

That is why we don't have huge swings in temperature that planets with no atmosphere have.

All planets have an atmosphere, just as all moons do.

And, a more effective insulated lining of a thermos would slow, even more, the loss of heat.

You cannot slow heat or speed it up. Heat has no speed.

Venus has an atmosphere that is much more efficient at slowing the loss of heat.

Heat has no speed. An atmosphere is not an insulator.

Venus' atmosphere is 95% CO2 and, as scientists know, more CO2 means heat is lost more slowly.

You don't get to speak for all scientists. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy. You cannot slow heat. Heat is not contained in anything.

That's why the surface of Venus is over 400 degrees.

Heat has no temperature. Void unit. Argument from randU fallacy. The temperature of Venus is unknown. A temperature of 860 deg F was measured at the point a spacecraft landed on the Venusian surface (until it failed a few minutes later). Venus happens to be closer to Sun. CO2 is not a source of energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. CO2 has NO capability to warm any planet.

Your word games, deflections and denials don't change any of that.

YOUR games. You are describing yourself.

You are ignoring science.

YOU are ignoring science, including the three theories of science called the 1st law of thermodynamics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You don't know what 'heat' is. You don't know where Venus is. You think an atmosphere is a vacuum. You think CO2 can heat itself.

 

[IBDaMann]

I am not saying all gasses are greenhouse gasses, much less all substances.

Yes you did say that. When you, or any warmizombie for that matter, is asked why CO2 is a greenhouse gas, the response is invariably something along the lines of "because it absorbs infrared electromagnetic/thermal radiation." You have been informed that all bodies of matter and all substances everywhere in the universe absorb infrared electromagnetic/thermal radiation. Using Logic 101, all bodies of matter and all substances are therefore greenhouse gases, and that includes all liquids and solids.

Again, your religion is stupid, and it has made you stupid ... presuming that you weren't stupid at some point previously in your life.

Substances that are liquid or solid can’t, by definition, be greenhouse gasses.

This is a really stupid thing for you to say. By your definition, i.e. absorbs IR electromagnetic/thermal radiation, all substances absolutely are greenhouse gases because all substances and all bodies of matter absorb IR.

The characteristics of some gasses make them “greenhouse”.

The characteristics that you claim make "some gases" (not spelled "gasses") "greenhouse" are shared by all substances and all bodies of matter, everywhere in the universe.

CO2, because of its ability to trap light/energy,

Light cannot be trapped. You have a serious science-denial problem that kills every angle you take when you try to proselytize your faith.

Again, there is more than enough energy from the sun.

But greenhouse gas does not create any additional energy. In fact no substance can violate thermodynamics in this way. You have a serious science-denial problem, but I'm repeating myself.

Venus atmosphere, because it traps more light/energy

To save time, I'm going to skip over this insistence that Venus somehow has the magical superpower to trap light.

Sure, there’s a “max” temperature because the sun has a max output,

Not when you have magical substances that have the magical superpower to create energy out of nothing, i.e. there is no limit to the possible temperature.

I will be glad to admit that energy can’t be PERFECTLY trapped,

We can't move on. The wording you need to use if you don't want to be flagrantly denying science is that thermal energy is never trapped/contained/held/stored, and that thermal energy always radiates away freely from all matter exactly according to Stefan-Boltzmann.

We do not refer to a spaghetti strainer as trapping water; we note that water pours right through it freely. If you put the spaghetti strainer under a faucet and allow water to flow, the rate of the water flowing out of the strainer will equal the flow of water entering the strainer, i.e. equilibrium. If you open the faucet more for a greater flow of water into the strainer, the flow of water out of the strainer will increase to match the new inflow of water, and equilibrium will be maintained. All bodies of matter are like different types of strainers for thermal energy, which pours right out of them freely according to Stefan-Boltzmann, always maintaining equilibrium with any source of thermal energy. When I say that all substances are like different strainers, that difference is their respective emissivities, which is like describing the different size and shape holes a strainer has.

You have to be discussing how thermal energy is flowing per Stefan-Boltzmann. If you are using imagery of thermal energy being trapped/contained/held/stored ... then you are implicitly not adhering to Stefan-Boltzman and everything you say will be wrong.

But it is a fact that the composition of an atmosphere determines how much light/energy, and there for heat, is trapped.

It is not a "fact." It is ZANY religious dogma and it violates physics. This particular physics violation is funny because at the end of it all, you have to deny that the moon has a daytime side, which despite having no atmosphere to "trap" any "heat", is so much hotter than the earth's daytime side. This point moreso than any other forces you to face the realization that your church clergy has taken you for a fool and has lied to you brazenly. These were people that you trusted you and all they ever did for you was to bend you over furniture and ream you with disinformation. You have been humiliated by your religion and your utter shame is obvious to anyone watching you struggle to EVADE the issue of the moon's daytime side.

C'mon, break free of your slavery. Announce to everyone that the earth's atmosphere makes the earth's daytime side far, Far, FAR colder than the moon's daytime side. C'mon, say it! Say it with pride! It's totally true! You can do it! Everybody, please give ZenMode some encouragement to speak truth to power. ZenMode, the floor is yours ...

Please, don’t take my word for it:

Who do you imagine would do such a thing?

How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?

Heat cannot be trapped. You know this. Say it: "The earth's atmosphere cools the earth's daytime side and without it, the earth would be so hot that the oceans would quickly exceed the boiling point and boil away."

Say it.

Greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere absorb light, preventing some of it from escaping the Earth.

Are you trying to claim that the earth does not reach equilibrium? Are you saying that less energy leaves the earth than is absorbed? This is going to be good. I am definitely all ears.

... preventing some of it from escaping the Earth. This heats up the atmosphere and raises the planet’s average temperature.

You have just egregiously violated Stefan-Boltzmann.

As an object's temperature increases, its radiance increases (proportionally to the fourth power). However here you are saying that the earth's temperature increase is accompanied by a reduction in radiance, i.e. an egregious violation. Go directly to jail. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200. Nevermind that you have swapped cause <--> effect by claiming that the reduction in radiance somehow causes the temperature change. It's the other way around. Changes in the temperature change the radiance, and they always move in the same direction, i.e. if you tell me that the earth's radiance has decreased, you have told me that earth's temperature has decreased, not increased. However, confusing your dependent variables with your independent variables is a matter of mathematical incompetence.

We’ll start our exploration of greenhouse gases with a single carbon dioxide (CO2) molecule.

I noticed that "gases" is spelled correctly here, so you must have copy-pasted this directly from the MIT Climate Portal. I am therefore going to ignore it. I've already read it all and it's wrong.

Eventually, our CO2 molecule will release these photons.

Eventually? ... like CO2 takes its sweet time to "release" the photons that it has "trapped"? You didn't call booooolsch't on this; instead you mindlessly regurgitated this. Do you HATE mankind?

Sometimes, the photons continue out into space. But other times, they rebound back into the Earth’s atmosphere, where their heat remains trapped.

What if Anthony Davis gets the rebound, and shoots, and SCORES!? ... Really? ... they "rebound" back to earth?

 

[Into the Night]

Nothing broadcasts that you are a science denier moreso than referring to science as "word games" just because it runs counter to your religious dogma.


Only a completely scientifically illiterate moron would say something that stupid. I have already directed your attention to conduction and pointed out to you that the earth is surrounded by the vacuum of space, i.e. neither insulation nor conduction apply ... but once again you have shown that you have no intention of learning any of the science that you fear, lest you lose your ability to maintain your self-delusion.


You just pivoted. Yes, the atmosphere reduces the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures, but that has nothing to do with "insulation." Do you even know what insulation is? You don't know what science is, you don't know what heat is, and you don't understand conduction/insulation. Remind me why anyone should listen to you. You have me here offering you all the correct answers for free and you reject everything I'm teaching you because it destroys the stupid, loser religion you gullibly embraced.

I got it! You're a masochist who enjoys being raked over the coals after allowing yourself to be bent over furniture for your slave-masters to ream ever more disinformation into you. I'm pretty clever that way.


Now you are using the term "slow" instead of "reduce." Who is playing the word games? (Answer: you are).

The correct answer is that cooling is not measured in speed/velocity. Yes, all speed/velocity measures are rates, but not all rates are speed/velocity. This is going to be a key point you should anticipate when you claim that greenhouse gas somehow "slows" infrared light's escape into space ... to something below the speed of light. I always enjoy when warmizombies insist that CO2 somehow "slows" earth's thermal radiation, despite knowing full well that light can only travel at the speed of light. Ahhhh, slowing light, too funny. I know that you want to insist the same thing, and you will ... I'm just letting you know in advance how I'm going to chop you off at the knees when you do, with a reminder that you are a preeminent science denier.

Here's the next lesson for you to not learn: Increasing the insulation of the thermos will reduce the loss of thermal energy and will increase the loss of heat. Aha! You didn't expect that, did you? That doesn't make sense to you, does it? Of course not. You don't know what heat is and you refuse to learn. You'd rather use all the wrong words and then accuse me of playing word games. You're a lot of fun when you are confused, and you are confused often.

By the way, you'll notice that this thread is completely devoid of any Global Warming or Climate science, because no such science exists. There can't ever be any such thing as science of a religion, especially of your contradictory religion of HATRED and intolerance. It's the leftist undereducation, scienctific illiteracy and mathematical incompetence that get leftists targeted for indoctrination, which entails instilling great fear and HATRED of science. That's why you refuse to learn anything that I teach you, leaving me to enjoy totally spanking you over material that I just taught you.


Nope. Venus radiates per Stefan-Boltzmann, i.e. proportional to its absolute temperature to the fourth power, just as every other body of matter in the universe. Venus' atmosphere cannot change that. Just what kind of magical superpowers do your slave-masters order you to believe that atmospheres supposedly have?


Amaze me with your chemistry.


Nope. Scientists know what heat is. Scientists know that atmospheric composition does not alter any planet's adherence to Stefan-Boltzmann. Scientists don't ascribe a velocity to heat. Scientists understand the Ideal Gas law. Scientists know that no substance has any magical superpower to defy thermodynamics.

Let's jump to the chase. You don't understand any of this, and all of this is necessary to discuss Venus which has become a pitfall for you. Don't hesitate to let me know when you want to discuss Venus again.


Nope. It's the intense atmospheric pressure that is responsible for that. This will be my third or fourth mention of the Ideal Gas law. You should learn it because it explains most of the physics you are trying to explain as being the magical superpowers of greenhouse gas. Notice that I said that you should learn it; you and I both know that you won't, and that your refusal to learn it will provide me amusement without end.


I get a thorough kick out of your mischaracterizations of science, but heck, you are a religious fanatic and a science denier. What else should anyone expect?

No compression. No increase in temperature. You cannot heat anything simply because it remains under high pressure. Example: a tank of CO2, at 3000psi sitting in an ordinary room is at room temperature. Just because it's 3000psi in that tank doesn't heat the contents of that tank.

You have to be actively reducing the size of the container (or actively compressing the gas) to increase the temperature according to the ideal gas law.

Release the gas in that tank though, and you expand the gas, reducing the temperature of that gas that escaped a LOT (creating dry ice!). The temperature in the tank is only cooling a little by comparison, as internal tank pressure slowly drops.

So you cannot use the ideal gas law to explain high temperatures on Venus.

There IS another factor though, that you are not considering:
A thick atmosphere easily couples to the surface by conductive heating. The hot surface more easily heats the atmosphere near that surface. The thicker atmosphere is also more tightly coupled to atmosphere above it, allowing conductive heat to be increased overall. The atmosphere, being a fluid, also has convective heating and radiant heating, both of which help to carry that thermal energy aloft. ALL of it, of course, also radiates energy out into space according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The Earth is exactly the same way. At lower altitudes, particularly around places below sea level such as Death Valley, the atmosphere is a better thermal conductor against the hotter surface.

Thus, thermal energy in the atmosphere is reduced with altitude pretty consistently throughout the atmosphere, even where there are temperature inversions in the stratosphere and thermosphere. Even there, thermal energy is reduced as it is dissipated higher and higher into the atmosphere. Again, radiance of all of it dissipates energy into space.

 

[Into the Night]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs light, which causes an eventual increase in temperature.

Everything absorbs light. Nothing special about CO2. Anything absorbing infrared light such as the land, the oceans, the clouds, any gasses in the atmosphere (including CO2), will convert that light into thermal energy.
Most of the light radiated from the Sun is infrared light.

Venus is the hottest planet because it’s atmosphere is so dense and full of greenhouse gasses that trap light/energy.

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and Planck's law now.
The temperature of Venus is unknown.

It’s honestly baffling that you fail to grasp something so basic.

YOU are the one ignoring the laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and Planck's law.
YOU are the one ignoring statistical, probability, and random number mathematics.

 

[Into the Night]

Well, I showed Ibdaman an FTIR absorption spectrum which featured a HUGE CO2 peak (showing significant absorption by CO2 of IR radiation) and he didn't really know what it meant. So it's quite understandable that they don't grasp something this basic.

It's also hilarious to get IBDaMan to try to talk science. It's clear they haven't got more than maybe a high school science background, probably. more likely junior high.

Most anything absorbs infrared light. Perhaps you haven't seen a burger under a heat lamp before?

Science is not a high school, or any school for that matter. It is not a degree, license, certification, or any other sanctification. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You are ignoring quite a few of these theories, including the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law and Planck's law.

 

[Into the Night]

You talked a lot about Stefan-Boltzmann a few months back. Guess this shows you don't really know what it implies. LOL. Figures.

The guy that doesn't even fucking know the difference between the blackbody temperature of the earth (from Stefan-Boltzmann) and the temperature at the surface.

Why am I not surprised that you'd be scientifically illiterate? LOL.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate temperature.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. You don't even know what Stefan-Boltzmann is or what it means. Stop making me laugh so hard!

You are describing yourself again. I have already posted a copy of this law for you.