Absolute certainty isn't a random phrase any more than 'ambient cold' is a random phrase.
It should be pretty obvious once you see the similarities between your posts and saltydancin's posts.
Both have meaning [as distractions] and i'm using both intentionally.
I think we can all back you up on that.
You have been taught otherwise. Were you planning on providing an unambiguous definition of the global climate?
[if something that will never happen were to happen then] ... the Earth's climate would change dramatically.
How do you know? How are you unambiguously defining the global climate?
"Work" is a physics term. What work are you claiming that jackets accomplish?
... slow the transfer of the body's energy to the cooler atmospheric air [i.e. reducing heat].
All you need to do now is insist that this was never explained to you!
They keep you warm by reducing heat?
Oh look, it
was explained to you, as was everything else.
The transfer of the body's energy/heat away from the body toward the atmosphere IS the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics at work.
Here you are describing heat, and somewhat correctly defining it as a transfer, not as energy. By the way, heat cannot be the transfer of heat. Also, heat is not a "transfer" unless you can point to the body of matter to which the thermal energy is being transferred. When thermal radiation is emitted off into space, it is therefore
not a transfer.
This is exactly what the atmosphere does with energy from the earth's surface.
Incorrect. The atmosphere is part of the earth. The atmosphere becomes the earth's "surface" in the scenario you described. Try again.
It not only slows how quickly infrared light from the earth is carried away by the cooler atmosphere
Too funny! You actually returned to the "slows light" argument. How much below the speed of light is the light slowed? Tell me you're not embarrassed that you said something that stupid.
but so-called greenhouse gases actually redirect some of the energy back toward the earth.
Tell me when you believe that the earth is somehow not in equilibrium. The atmosphere is part of the earth and becomes the "surface" for black body science. Whatever happens under the surface is of no consequence and is not considered.
As greenhouse gases in the atmosphere increase, that redirecting becomes more prevalent and less net energy escapes.
So you have gone through the entire cycle, returned to argument 2a with
Global Warming and just now pivoted to a combined argument 2b+2c, presumably to save time.
- 2b. greenhouse gases act as insulation, like a big, warm, cumfy wool blanket that cradles the earth in Global Warming. This cumfy blanket is totally transparent/non-existent to inbound solar energy, but then "traps" some of earth's "heat" by preventing earth's radiance (thermal radiation) from escaping into space. This causes a direct increase in the earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output.
- 2c. The earth, in equilibrium, radiates thermally into space exactly what it absorbs, without creating any additional energy out of nothing, which is exactly what has been taught all along. The earth's thermal radiation, however, is simply absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and half of that energy is re-radiated back down to earth, increasing the temperature of the surface, which therefore provides additional thermal radiation to the atmosphere which balances out the quantity of thermal radiation needed to escape into space and maintain equilibrium.
This is an egregious violation of Stefan-Boltzmann, because radiance and temperature always move in the same direction, i.e. you can't have an increase in temperature with a decrease in radiance.
There. It has been said. You may now pivot when ready, Gridley.
Energy flows from the Sun, to the Earth and back continually.
In what way does energy flow to the sun from the earth? Does the earth, because it is small compared to the sun, heat the sun only a little per the 2nd law of thermodynamics?
There is no violation of either the first or second law of thermodynamics in the explanation of climate change.
You misworded that. Allow me to correct:
Corrected Statement:
There is no unambiguous definition of Climate Change in the violation of either the first or second law of thermodynamics.
