You like to open FALSE statements with the word "Clearly." You are one very confused individual. You are the one who didn't read my post that thoroughly explaining this cheap, two-bit circus act that targets the gullible, like all Global Warming recruiters do.
Why are you asking me about something I already explained thoroughly? Why do you think that all IR is the same? Have you even learned what "heat" is? What about what "science" is?
For the record, and to expose the level of dishonesty here, since October 31st I started the process of getting agreement from ZenMode on something WE ALL KNOW to be true. What we all know is that if the windows of a car are closed, the air inside of the car cannot flow/rise out of the car and heat the outside air. The air remains trapped inside. For some reason, ZenMode refuses to acknowledge that the air remains trapped in the car and that convection therefore does not heat the outside air because it's not rising out of the car.
Do you believe there are objective characteristic differences between subjective characterizations? What does that even mean? Recall that I gave you an example of a disagreement between two people in an office in which I worked wherein a man was complaining that it was too hot and demanded the thermostat be turned down. A woman was complaining that it was far too cold in that same office and demanded that the thermostat be turned up. When discussing a climate, since it is a subjective characterization, the person so characterizing must be taken into account. Is he a machinist from Yekaterinburg, he isn't likely to refer to too many things as being "very cold", applying a bit of a warm-shift to all of his characterizations. Somebody from Southern California is likely to consider everywhere to be cloudier and more overcast than you consider it. It takes a lot for a Saudi or a Qatari to consider a place to be "very hot," considering most places to be at most "temperate" or cooler/colder.
I believe that everywhere, the precipitation and temperature change regularly, as do all other weather parameters.
That can't happen. That would be a "pattern" and there is no such thing as a weather pattern. Weather is random.
My explanation was thorough and accurate ... and you had no questions, so you resumed shifting between physics violations. You did not ask for any clarifications.
It's the entire issue because there are no other substantive energy sources at play.
The earth is in equilibrium. Exactly the same amount of energy is emitted by the earth as is absorbed.
I care nothing about the flows involved in the distribution of thermal energy. None has any effect on the average temperature.
If you would have read my post, I belabored the point that different substances have different absorption signatures.
Like you ever have anything intelligent to say.
If you're aware that different substances have different absorption signatures, then you should also know that the energy leaving the earth is a much different wavelength than the energy coming to the earth. The energy leaving the earth is an IR wavelength that is invisible to oxygen and nitrogen, but is absorbed by CO2.
Correct, energy from the sun is absorbed by Oxygen and Nitrogen. That has never been disputed and has never been pointed to as the cause of climate change. I've heard it described as the energy from the sun comes in as one currency and leaves as another. In - shortwave. Out - longwave. There would be no reason to perform the experiment as you described, because the IN energy isn't the issue.
I know you are, but what am I?
