Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[Into the Night]

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.

Since all substances absorb infrared light, all substances are, by your definition, 'greenhouse gases'.

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.

You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. CO2's bonds are not 'loose'.

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

For what?

Venus atmosphere, because it traps more light/energy, I considerably hotter than the earth.

You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy.

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

The temperature of Venus is unknown. The temperature of the Earth is unknown.

but if Venus atmosphere were even MORE dense, it would be even hotter on the surface.

Not because of CO2. The surface would be no hotter, but the atmosphere would be warmer near the surface simply because it's dense.

For the sake of moving past this straw man, I will be glad to admit that energy can’t be PERFECTLY trapped,

Fallacy fallacy. There is no straw man here. You cannot trap thermal energy.

even by the most dense atmosphere.

An atmosphere is not an insulator. Oh, and CO2 happens to conduct thermal energy better than any other gas in the atmosphere.

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

You cannot trap heat. Heat is not light. Heat is not energy.

Please, don’t take my word for it:

I don't believe me. I know you cut and paste this shit from others in the Church of Global Warming, such as your example below.

How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?

They don't. You cannot trap heat.

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

You cannot trap light.

This heats up the atmosphere and raises the planet’s average temperature.

TANSTAAFL. CO2 does not heat itself.

What do CO2, methane, and water vapor have in common?

They have mass. They are all compounds.

If your first thought was “greenhouse gases,” you’d be correct!

No such thing.

Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere,

You cannot trap heat.

in a process called the “greenhouse effect.”

No such thing.

1 But how do these molecules actually warm our planet?

They don't.

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?

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,

He's dead wrong, just like you are. You are listening to idiots that deny science. You cannot trap thermal energy.

and so has the effect of heating up the atmosphere.”

He is ignoring the cooling effect of the surface emitting infrared light. You know, it takes energy to do that. He is ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

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.)

Not how a molecule absorbs a photon. All substances absorb infrared light.

Eventually, our CO2 molecule will release these photons.

It can't. An absorbed photon is DESTROYED. It no longer exists.

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

Light is not heat.

And importantly, greenhouse gases don’t absorb all photons that cross their paths. Instead, they mostly take in photons leaving the Earth for space.

Humunculus fallacy. No molecule is 'smart', picking through photons to determine which way they are headed.

“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,

Wrong. Most sunlight is made up of infrared light.

so CO2 doesn’t stop this sunlight from warming the Earth in the first place.

Visible light does not convert to thermal energy when absorbed. Only infrared light does. Now you (and he) is ignoring quantum mechanics.

But when the Earth re-emits this light,

It can't. The any absorbed photon is DESTROYED, utterly. It no longer exists.

it has a longer wavelength, in the infrared spectrum.

And now he (and you) are ignoring Planck's law and the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

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.

You cannot trap light.

There’s another reason why CO2 is such an important greenhouse gas: it has a long atmospheric lifetime.

Irrelevant. Strawman fallacy.

“The atmosphere is a very oxidative environment due to the presence of oxygen and ultraviolet radiation,” says Kroll.

Dead wrong. The atmosphere simply has oxygen. It is not a particularly 'oxidative environment'.

Oxidation occurs when oxygen steals electrons from another atom—it’s the same chemical reaction that causes iron to rust.

Oxidation is not oxygen.

Methane, another greenhouse gas, reacts easily with oxygen, which removes it from the atmosphere within around 12 years.

You are ignoring swamps, compost piles, dogshit, oil and gas wells, the fact the methane is a fuel (and a 'green' fuel at that!), and your own farts.

That’s long enough to affect the climate,

So you ate beans and farted. You just destroyed the Earth.

but nowhere near the lifetime of CO2, which does not react with oxygen and can last over a century.

So...no plants, eh? No grass, no trees, no bushes or brush, ..... riiiiiiight.

CO2’s long lifespan is the key reason that human activities are leading to climate change.

Climate cannot 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.

Oil is a renewable fuel. One of the source materials for that process is CO2.

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

So this clown is a priest in the Church of Global Warming. Too bad MIT has him teaching subjects he knows nothing about.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Heh. An interesting piece of mythology. Here's mine:

The Church of Global Warming is old, stretching back to the days of poor ole' Arrhenius who noted that CO2 can absorb infrared light and start to plot the absorption spectra of different substances. This religion is fundamentalist, worships the goddess Gaia, Al Gore the Son (put to death by hanging chad and resurrected from time to time to say something stupid, and the Holy Gas Carbon Dioxide, capable of identifying all of your sins and roasting you over a Lake of Fire for them. Therefore, you must atone by flagellating yourself, cast away all you own to the Church, and chant with the holy priests.

Any mention of any actual theory of science or mathematics is grounds for being named an Agent of the Devil and cast out to suffer your Eternal Doom.

 

[IBDaMann]

No compression. No increase in temperature.

Allow me to explain it a little differently. When we discuss this topic, we tend to simplify by just referring to "the temperature" however when discussing an atmosphere we absolutely must discuss the pressure. Conduction increases when the contact force increases. Think of putting a steak weight on a steak being grilled. In the upper mesosphere, there is almost no atmospheric pressure to provide any contact force. Molecules can get extremely hot, but the gas' effective temperature is very cold, and this gas of very hot molecules would feel very cool if they were to touch your skin, and a thermometer would similarly read a very cold temperature because without pressure behind them, they won't move the mercury much. Also, you can think of these molecules as radiating very little thermal radiation because there are so few of them, effectively simulating the thermal radiation of a much colder gas of more molecules (and greater pressure).

This is why the atmosphere seems to get colder with altitude. The decrease in pressure results in a commensurate decrease in the thermal energy transferred to any body of matter.

The confusion on this matter stems from our customary simplified way of discussing the atmosphere. We speak only of the temperature that we read off the thermometer and we don't include the air pressure where the reading was taken ... because we can't be bothered or we don't realize that's an issue.

Hypothetically, if the earth's atmosphere were doubled, the pressure at sea level would increase, and that would increase the temperature at sea level. Not because the atmosphere's molecules are themselves any hotter, just like the steak weight doesn't somehow make the grill any hotter, but there is greater contact force with that increased pressure resulting in greater conduction, greater flow of thermal energy, higher temperature readings on thermometers, ... exactly what you would get if you hadn't doubled the atmosphere but simply increased the temperature.

... and of course, we don't talk about it that way, but we should. If you don't mention the atmospheric pressure, at least have it on the mind and know how it affects the resulting "feels like" temperature.

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.

Yes. However, what I described above is what causes the "temperature" to appear to increase in the Ideal Gas law. The individual molecules aren't increasing in temperature. The increased pressure causes more mercury to be moved, making the gas appear just like a gas of lower pressure but higher temperature. Of course, in a lab, the compressed gas increases in temperature at first, but immediately begins to cool due to the surrounding cooler air. If you were to hypothetically double the atmosphere, the sun would still keep the molecules at the same temperature, but the new increased pressure would bring about a greater atmospheric temperature, as measured by the thermometer, and it would not "cool off." The sun would keep it just as it is.

I hope that helps.

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

Yes, when discussing an atmosphere, you must always consider the pressure. Whenever we discuss an atmosphere's pressure, we are actually rolling two concepts together, i.e. 1. the temperature of the molecules and 2. the pressure, to get an "effective temperature" that we use just to keep things simple. When we try to discuss Venus, however, and the topic is why Venus is so hot, ... well, simplifying will not avail you. You have to note the intense pressure of the uber-thick atmosphere is applying the steak weight while the sun keeps doing what it does.

Let me know if you have any questions.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

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

But clearly you don't understand the implications of it. Why does the earth's surface differ from the blackbody temperature as derived from S-B? Take a stab at it.

 

[ZenMode]

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.

There is something special about CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases and it's been mentioned multiple times.

With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’


https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

You cannot trap light.

Again focusing on words/word games. The science of how light and greenhouse gas particles is covered above. What is stated above is fact. Scientists know how specific gas molecules and light ranges interact.

You cannot trap heat.

Again with word games. Pick the word you like so we can move on and you can stop hiding behind words.

You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and Planck's law now.

You can stop light/energy from escaping the Earth's atmosphere, as was referenced above. That process can generate more heat when the on the planet if the amount of greenhouse gasses increases..

The temperature of Venus is unknown.

No, it's not and repeating untruths doesn't make them truths.

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.

Well, shit! Now you tell me! You might want to let the thousands upon thousands who have spent their lives studying gasses, the earth, the sun planets, etc that they missed it too!!

 

[gfm7175]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs light, which causes an eventual increase in temperature. Venus is the hottest planet because it’s atmosphere is so dense and full of greenhouse gasses that trap light/energy.

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

Oh wow... I've never heard THAT Church of Global Warming sermon before.......


At least when I listen to my pastors preach a sermon, they preach a different sermon every Sunday and it applies to my daily life.

 

[ZenMode]

Oh wow... I've never heard THAT Church of Global Warming sermon before.......


At least when I listen to my pastors preach a sermon, they preach a different sermon every Sunday and it applies to my daily life.

i'm sure you have. That is widely accepted belief in the scientific community. The question you should ask yourself is why you, and others, want SO badly to not believe it.

 

[gfm7175]

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.

Which gasses do not absorb light? Which solids? Which liquids?

Remember, you just got done telling us that "greenhouse gases" are defined by their ability to "absorb light".

The characteristics of some gasses make them “greenhouse”.

What characteristics?

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

How can light be "trapped"? Can you provide me with an example?

because of its loose molecular bonds, is a GH gas.

I thought you just got done saying that "greenhouse gas" is defined by its ability to absorb light rather than its loose molecular bonds??

How can you expect me to learn from you when you keep contradicting yourself every other sentence?

At least what IBD is saying re: the subject matter is both consistent and makes sense.

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

... but not any MORE energy from the sun than there already was BEFORE...

The real question is: Where is the ADDITIONAL energy coming from?

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.

IOW, you're admitting that [insert pseudorandomly-selected word here that you don't understand the meaning of] can't be trapped.

Yet, you're going to immediately pull a 'Chat GPT' on us all and, in your very next sentence, claim "but [repeat of the same religious dogma from before], therefore [religion masquerading as "science" = true].

BOOOOOOOOOOOOORINGGGGGGGGGGGGGG..........

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

Heat cannot be trapped. You just got done admitting that it can't.

Please, don’t take my word for it:

Believe me, I'm not... I mean, how can I learn anything from you when your word contradicts itself every other sentence... and your terminology constantly changes from sentence to sentence...

How do greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere?

Answer: They can't. Greenhouse gases don't exist, and heat cannot be trapped.

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

Holy link summarily dismissed. You obviously cannot think for yourself. You obviously cannot form your own arguments, instead relying on the erroneous arguments of others. You obviously didn't read through nor comprehend any of the material that you blindly copy/pasted here, so why should I?

I'll leave it to others to destroy this holy link line by line if they wish to do so. I'm not interested atm.

 

[ZenMode]

Which gasses do not absorb light? Which solids? Which liquids?

Remember, you just got done telling us that "greenhouse gases" are defined by their ability to "absorb light".


What characteristics?


How can light be "trapped"? Can you provide me with an example?

You're asking a lot of questions, related to the basics of greenhouse gases, for someone who has taken such a definitive position against climate change.

Which gasses do not absorb light? Which solids? Which liquids?

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm only going to discuss gases. Of the gases that commonly exist in the Earth's atmosphere, they all absorb light. They just absorb different frequencies of light. The frequency that is the concern with climate change is infrared:

For example, oxygen and nitrogen absorb energy that has tightly packed wavelengths of around 200 nanometers or less, whereas infrared energy travels at wider and lazier wavelengths of 700 to 1,000,000 nanometers. Those ranges don’t overlap, so to oxygen and nitrogen, it’s as if the infrared waves don’t even exist; they let the waves (and heat) pass freely through the atmosphere.

With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’

Smerdon says that the reason why some molecules absorb infrared waves and some don’t “depends on their geometry and their composition.” He explained that oxygen and nitrogen molecules are simple — they’re each made up of only two atoms of the same element — which narrows their movements and the variety of wavelengths they can interact with. But greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane are made up of three or more atoms, which gives them a larger variety of ways to stretch and bend and twist. That means they can absorb a wider range of wavelengths — including infrared waves.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

Remember, you just got done telling us that "greenhouse gases" are defined by their ability to "absorb light".

Correct. That is described in the exceprt immediately above. Different atmospheric gases absorb different frequencies of light.

What characteristics?

As described above, two of the characteristics are, as I referenced earlier, loose molecular bonds and the frequency of light that is absorbed.

How can light be "trapped"? Can you provide me with an example?

Again, it's described above. The term "absorbed" is used. If you like that word better than my word, that's fine.

I thought you just got done saying that "greenhouse gas" is defined by its ability to absorb light rather than its loose molecular bonds??

As described above, it's both.

How can you expect me to learn from you when you keep contradicting yourself every other sentence?

At least what IBD is saying re: the subject matter is both consistent and makes sense.

Again, as I mentioned to start this post, it's odd that someone who is so set against climate change doesn't already understand the basics of greenhouse gases.

... but not any MORE energy from the sun than there already was BEFORE...

The real question is: Where is the ADDITIONAL energy coming from?

There is no additional energy produced by the sun. Less of the energy is escaping into space because of an increase in CO2, which is a greenhouse gas.

IOW, you're admitting that [insert pseudorandomly-selected word here that you don't understand the meaning of] can't be trapped.

Yet, you're going to immediately pull a 'Chat GPT' on us all and, in your very next sentence, claim "but [repeat of the same religious dogma from before], therefore [religion masquerading as "science" = true].

BOOOOOOOOOOOOORINGGGGGGGGGGGGGG..........


Heat cannot be trapped. You just got done admitting that it can't.

If that's your takeaway from what I've been saying, then there is a serious miscommunication happening here.

Believe me, I'm not... I mean, how can I learn anything from you when your word contradicts itself every other sentence... and your terminology constantly changes from sentence to sentence...

Answer: They can't. Greenhouse gases don't exist, and heat cannot be trapped.


Holy link summarily dismissed. You obviously cannot think for yourself. You obviously cannot form your own arguments, instead relying on the erroneous arguments of others. You obviously didn't read through nor comprehend any of the material that you blindly copy/pasted here, so why should I?

I'll leave it to others to destroy this holy link line by line if they wish to do so. I'm not interested atm.

Greenhouse gases don't exist? So, you're saying that the science world is just flat-out lying about different gas molecules absorbing different light frequencies?

 

[ZenMode]

I know c02 is not a pollutant.

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

Neither of those, even if true, would impact climate change being real.

 

[IBDaMann]

That is widely accepted belief in the scientific community.

Too funny. You think science is a religious dogma to be "believed". The scientific community is denoted by science, not beliefs. Why do you view science as a competing religion?

The question you should ask yourself is why you, and others, want SO badly to deny science. Does it burn your eyes?

 

[IBDaMann]

Neither of those, even if true, would impact climate change being real.

Your insistence that Climate Change is "real" is sufficient confirmation that it is not. In religions, one must first believe; in science, there is no requirement to first believe anything.

 

[ZenMode]

Your insistence that Climate Change is "real" is sufficient confirmation that it is not. In religions, one must first believe; in science, there is no requirement to first believe anything.

The question, as presented to start this thread, is why anyone should believe in climate change. Well, anyone that has a basic understanding of greenhouse gases, and its dramatic impact on other planets, has reason to believe in climate change.

 

[ZenMode]

On a side note, I admit that I've ignored the talk about the Stefan-Boltzmann law to this point. To imagine that the entirety of the science community has "missed it" is just silly, IMO, but that's neither here nor there....

Now that I've looked into it, I'm confused as to how a claim that the earths atmosphere is holding more heat due to greenhouse gases like CO2 "violates" a law related to energy emitted from a body, like the Sun. I've never heard any discussion about climate change that references the sun putting off more heat.

 

[gfm7175]

i'm sure you have.

Obviously you are just as illiterate in sarcasm as you are in science.

That is widely accepted belief in the scientific community.

Ahhhh, yup... the mysterious holy "scientific community". 97% of them agree, am I right?? WTH is wrong with those other 3% who disagree?? I guess they don't count...

The question you should ask yourself is why you, and others, want SO badly to not believe it.

It's not about 'wanting' or 'having faith'... Science doesn't require any sort of faith as religion does...

 

[Into the Night]

Allow me to explain it a little differently. When we discuss this topic, we tend to simplify by just referring to "the temperature" however when discussing an atmosphere we absolutely must discuss the pressure. Conduction increases when the contact force increases. Think of putting a steak weight on a steak being grilled. In the upper mesosphere, there is almost no atmospheric pressure to provide any contact force. Molecules can get extremely hot, but the gas' effective temperature is very cold, and this gas of very hot molecules would feel very cool if they were to touch your skin, and a thermometer would similarly read a very cold temperature because without pressure behind them, they won't move the mercury much. Also, you can think of these molecules as radiating very little thermal radiation because there are so few of them, effectively simulating the thermal radiation of a much colder gas of more molecules (and greater pressure).

This is why the atmosphere seems to get colder with altitude. The decrease in pressure results in a commensurate decrease in the thermal energy transferred to any body of matter.

The confusion on this matter stems from our customary simplified way of discussing the atmosphere. We speak only of the temperature that we read off the thermometer and we don't include the air pressure where the reading was taken ... because we can't be bothered or we don't realize that's an issue.

Hypothetically, if the earth's atmosphere were doubled, the pressure at sea level would increase, and that would increase the temperature at sea level. Not because the atmosphere's molecules are themselves any hotter, just like the steak weight doesn't somehow make the grill any hotter, but there is greater contact force with that increased pressure resulting in greater conduction, greater flow of thermal energy, higher temperature readings on thermometers, ... exactly what you would get if you hadn't doubled the atmosphere but simply increased the temperature.

... and of course, we don't talk about it that way, but we should. If you don't mention the atmospheric pressure, at least have it on the mind and know how it affects the resulting "feels like" temperature.


Yes. However, what I described above is what causes the "temperature" to appear to increase in the Ideal Gas law. The individual molecules aren't increasing in temperature. The increased pressure causes more mercury to be moved, making the gas appear just like a gas of lower pressure but higher temperature. Of course, in a lab, the compressed gas increases in temperature at first, but immediately begins to cool due to the surrounding cooler air. If you were to hypothetically double the atmosphere, the sun would still keep the molecules at the same temperature, but the new increased pressure would bring about a greater atmospheric temperature, as measured by the thermometer, and it would not "cool off." The sun would keep it just as it is.

I hope that helps.


Yes, when discussing an atmosphere, you must always consider the pressure. Whenever we discuss an atmosphere's pressure, we are actually rolling two concepts together, i.e. 1. the temperature of the molecules and 2. the pressure, to get an "effective temperature" that we use just to keep things simple. When we try to discuss Venus, however, and the topic is why Venus is so hot, ... well, simplifying will not avail you. You have to note the intense pressure of the uber-thick atmosphere is applying the steak weight while the sun keeps doing what it does.

Let me know if you have any questions.

Well described. I am just pointing out there is no reduction of volume going on here. It is all effectively steady-state (ignoring wind and other fluid effects).

 

[Into the Night]

But clearly you don't understand the implications of it. Why does the earth's surface differ from the blackbody temperature as derived from S-B? Take a stab at it.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate temperature. I have already shown this equation to you, and you STILL choose to ignore it.

 

[gfm7175]

You're asking a lot of questions, related to the basics of greenhouse gases, for someone who has taken such a definitive position against climate change.

Which gasses do not absorb light? Which solids? Which liquids?

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm only going to discuss gases. Of the gases that commonly exist in the Earth's atmosphere, they all absorb light.

Let's pause right here and recap what you have claimed. I suggest that you review it and if you had a brain then you'd understand why anyone attempting to follow you will only end up thoroughly confused with your nonsensical gibberbabble...

ZenMode: "CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs light"

When pressed about that response (because all substances absorb light), you responded:

ZenMode: "I am not saying all gasses are greenhouse gasses"

When pressed about that response, asking you to specifically name a gas that doesn't absorb light, you responded with this:

ZenMode; "Of the gases that commonly exist in the Earth's atmosphere, they all absorb light."

So, to recap:

[1] A "greenhouse gas" is a "greenhouse gas" because it can absorb light.
[2] Not all gases are "greenhouse gases".
[3] All gases absorb light.

Can you see what the issue is here?

[... deleted mindlessly parroted Church literature ...]
There is no additional energy produced by the sun.

Right. Ergo, there is no ADDITIONAL ENERGY present that is required to increase Earth's temperature. Given this, why should any rational adult believe that Earth's temperature is increasing?

Less of the energy is escaping into space because of an increase in CO2, which is a greenhouse gas. If that's your takeaway from what I've been saying, then there is a serious miscommunication happening here.

No there isn't. You're once again in violation of the Stefan Boltzmann Law... If Earth is actually radiating less, as you are claiming here, then Earth's temperature would actually be DECREASING, not increasing, as radiance and temperature are directly proportional.

Greenhouse gases don't exist?

Correct.

So, you're saying

These words are always followed by something that I am not saying and have in fact NEVER said... EVER.

that the science world is just flat-out lying about different gas molecules absorbing different light frequencies?

No. It is your Church of Global Warming that is flat-out lying, even rejecting science at every turn.

Don't think that I didn't notice your subtle shift from the topic at hand over to "different gas molecules absorbing different light frequencies" ... I do notice those things most of the time...

 

[Into the Night]

There is something special about CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gases and it's been mentioned multiple times.

There is nothing special about any gas in terms of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are just denying both again. CO2 is not a Holy Gas.

With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’

An absorbed photon is DESTROYED. It no longer exists. It cannot be 're-emitted.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.
Light is not heat.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

Quoting Holy Priests in your church does not prove anything.

Again focusing on words/word games.

You are describing yourself again.

The science of how light and greenhouse gas particles is covered above.

There is no science of 'greenhouse gas particles'. You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

What is stated above is fact.

Buzzword fallacy. Learn what 'fact' means. It does NOT mean 'proof' or 'Universal Truth'.

Scientists know how specific gas molecules and light ranges interact.

And you don't. ANYONE that denies theories of science is no scientist.

Again with word games.

YOUR problem. Not mine.

Pick the word you like so we can move on and you can stop hiding behind words.

You WANT to hide behind words.

You can stop light/energy from escaping the Earth's atmosphere, as was referenced above.

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

That process can generate more heat when the on the planet

Heat is not 'generated'. Heat is not energy.

if the amount of greenhouse gasses increases..

There is no such thing, except as a religious artifact. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.

No, it's not and repeating untruths doesn't make them truths.

Hilarious. You just described the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law 'untruths'.

Well, shit! Now you tell me! You might want to let the thousands upon thousands who have spent their lives studying gasses, the earth, the sun planets, etc that they missed it too!!

You don't get to speak for everybody. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.

Science is not people. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You are STILL ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. These are theories of science. You cannot just discard them without discarding science.

Which is what you are doing.

 

[Into the Night]

Oh wow... I've never heard THAT Church of Global Warming sermon before.......


At least when I listen to my pastors preach a sermon, they preach a different sermon every Sunday and it applies to my daily life.

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. Like any fundamentalist style religion, the only sermon is attempts to prove that religion is True.
So it's basically the same sermon over and over. They basically figure that if they chant it often enough, you'll believe them. Call it, "forcible assault on the ear".