Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[ZenMode]

Nope, that doesn't work. Everything has to be your words. When you inevitably claim "I never said ..." I will say "Yes, you posted X." You can cut-n-paste but if you post it, you are making those words your words.

This is why your only option is to learn and understand the science you pretend to master. Science is what kills your religion dead, regardless of whether you understand how.


The atmosphere doesn't "regulate" anything. I'm going to skip over your explanation of that which does not happen.


Into the Night has already answered this twice. I have also answered this several times in a different way. In what way do you disagree with either of us.


This is absurd. You should have called boooolsch't instead of regurgitating this.


So answer the question: "What would happen to the temperature of an oxygen and/or nitrogen cloud as it comes into close proximity to the sun?"

So, you aren't willing to simply agree or disagree with how the atmosphere limits the high and low temperatures.

Claim: "In order for our atmosphere to absorb any kind of radiation, it needs to have some electrically charged particles for passing electromagnetic waves to push around."

Your response: "This is absurd. You should have called boooolsch't instead of regurgitating this."

Based on what is this absurd?

" "What would happen to the temperature of an oxygen and/or nitrogen cloud as it comes into close proximity to the sun?"

I don't know. How would such a cloud even get close to the Sun?

 

[Into the Night]

I don't remember your answer. Can you explain again? Thanks.

I already did, multiple times. RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

In an effort to move past 'incorrect' wording/phrasing,

In an effort to deny the word games you keep playing:

I've copied an explanation from another source.

You cut and paste mindlessly.

You can complain to them if you'd like but, since nobody seems to want to truly address how the atmosphere regulates temperatures on Earth, here's an explanation.

The atmosphere does not regulate anything.

Now, it stands to reason that there is some characteristic of the atmosphere that keeps some of the energy within the atmosphere so we don't freeze to death at night and bake during the day.

Nothing, other than mass.

That characteristic is the existence of gases.

Gases are mass.

So, without deflecting, changing the topic or knit picking terms you don't like, does anyone disagree with the bolded area below and, if you do, how would YOU explain how the atmosphere prevents the drastic high and low temperatures on the moon?

Mass.

The Earth and the Moon are basically the same distance from the Sun, yet temperatures on the Moon average an unlivable negative 18 degrees Celsius.

The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure either one.

And even deadlier, they range from negative 170 Celsius during lunar night to 100 Celsius at lunar noon, regularly exceeding both the coldest and hottest temperatures ever recorded on Earth.

And very little carbon dioxide around. Yet daytime temperatures on Earth, with the carbon dioxide, is a lot COLDER.

And while the days and nights on the Moon are about 14 times longer than those on Earth, our planet's relatively fast rotation isn't what spares us from those loony temperatures.

Warner Bros. had nothing to do with the temperature of the Moon.

What protects us is our atmosphere.

You can't eat or drink atmosphere. It isn't a gun or any other weapon. It does nothing to stop criminals.

By day, it serves as a shield blocking out the most harmful and energetic of the Sun's rays and about one third of the less intense but visible light. At the same time, it traps the infrared radiation, AKA heat, radiating out from Earth's sun-warmed surface, keeping us from freezing solid at night.

You cannot trap heat. The atmosphere does not choose intensity of light to block.

In order for our atmosphere to absorb any kind of radiation, it needs to have some electrically charged particles for passing electromagnetic waves to push around.

So only lightning strokes can absorb any kind of radiation. Gotit.

And most of our atmosphere is made up of gas molecules that don't have an electric charge. They all have a balanced number of positive protons and negative electrons. But some molecules hold most of their negatively charged electrons closer to one side, lending them a lopsidedness that can jiggle back and forth to absorb the energy of incoming infrared rays.

All gases absorb infrared light.

For example, water, ozone, and nitrous oxide are all electrically lopsided, so they all absorb infrared radiation.

All materials absorb infrared light.

Then there are gases like carbon dioxide and methane. On paper, neither molecule looks lopsided, so doesn't seem like they should be able to absorb any radiating heat.

Heat doesn't radiate.

But in reality, gas molecules aren't motionless. They crash into each other billions of times per second, knocking each other in different directions and also into different modes of rotation and vibration.

Do they have insurance?

And it turns out that both carbon dioxide and methane spend most of their time shaking it in electrically lopsided ways,

Sounds like a rock concert.

allowing them to absorb infrared rays and help insulate the Earth.

The atmosphere is not a thermal insulator.

Even though many different kinds of molecules can absorb infrared radiation, the vast majority of our atmosphere can't because it's made of nitrogen and oxygen,

All gases absorb infrared light.

which don't get lopsided even when they are vibrating.

So they're 'squares', eh. Guess that's why they don't like rock concerts.

Nevertheless, the lopsided 1% are such good infrared absorbers that they manage to intercept about 90% of Earth's outgoing heat.

You cannot intercept heat. You cannot trap heat. You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics again.

Each captured ray gets pinged around the atmosphere, and most end up returning to the surface at least once before escaping to space.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

We don't need to visit the moon during frigid lunar night to know just how important the game of radiation pinball is for Earth.

Earth is not a pinball machine.

Ice records from our own coldest climate show that small, natural variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce relatively big changes in temperature.

Climate has no temperature. Ice cores do not measure temperature or global atmospheric content of carbon dioxide.

They also show that compared to the last 800,000 years, the game today is much, much harder.

There are no measurements from 800,000 years ago.

 

[Into the Night]

So, you aren't willing to simply agree or disagree with how the atmosphere limits the high and low temperatures.

Claim: "In order for our atmosphere to absorb any kind of radiation, it needs to have some electrically charged particles for passing electromagnetic waves to push around."

Your response: "This is absurd. You should have called boooolsch't instead of regurgitating this."

Based on what is this absurd?

RQAA. Evasion. Answer the question put to you.

 

[ZenMode]

In an effort to deny the word games you keep playing:

You cut and paste mindlessly.

The atmosphere does not regulate anything.

Nothing, other than mass.

Gases are mass.

Mass.

The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure either one.

And very little carbon dioxide around. Yet daytime temperatures on Earth, with the carbon dioxide, is a lot COLDER.

Warner Bros. had nothing to do with the temperature of the Moon.

You can't eat or drink atmosphere. It isn't a gun or any other weapon. It does nothing to stop criminals.

You cannot trap heat. The atmosphere does not choose intensity of light to block.

So only lightning strokes can absorb any kind of radiation. Gotit.

All gases absorb infrared light.

All materials absorb infrared light.

Heat doesn't radiate.

Do they have insurance?

Sounds like a rock concert.

The atmosphere is not a thermal insulator.

All gases absorb infrared light.

So they're 'squares', eh. Guess that's why they don't like rock concerts.

You cannot intercept heat. You cannot trap heat. You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics again.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

Earth is not a pinball machine.

Climate has no temperature. Ice cores do not measure temperature or global atmospheric content of carbon dioxide.

There are no measurements from 800,000 years ago.

Based on what?

 

[Into the Night]

[/B]
Based on what?

RQAA

 

[IBDaMann]

So, you aren't willing to simply agree or disagree with how the atmosphere limits the high and low temperatures.

That is not what you asked. You specifically used the word "regulates", i.e. invoking your Climate goddess and her magical superpowers. Regulators are active systems that are engineered, and you specifically referred to the atmosphere as a regulator. Now you admit that you did not write what you meant and did not mean what you wrote, and you are insinuating that it is somehow my fault.

The atmosphere neither "regulates" anything nor does it "balance" anything.

So answer the question: "What would happen to the temperature of an oxygen and/or nitrogen cloud as it comes into close proximity to the sun?"

I don't know. How would such a cloud even get close to the Sun?

First, this is dishonesty on your part. This is a hypothetical question/thought experiment; how it might occur is totally irrelevant. Second, you don't get to claim that you don't know the answer because you have been insisting that neither oxygen nor nitrogen can be warmed by the sun, i.e. that neither absorbs any solar energy due to being transparent to solar energy. You have only one answer if you don't want to abandon your greenhouse effect explanation which is that the temperature of such a cloud would fall to absolute zero no matter how close it approached the sun because, as you insist, the sun cannot heat it. This is why you presented your parlor trick, i.e. to try to fool me into thinking that neither oxygen nor nitrogen absorb solar energy, because your parlor trick proves it, by having a candle/lamp "represent" the sun. This is absurd, of course, because all substances have an IR absorption signature. Such a cloud would become extremely hot as it approached the sun. Your explanation of greenhouse effect, however, asserts that only CO2 and other magical greenhouse substances absorb solar energy. But that can't be the case if a cloud of oxygen/nitrogen will get hot from the sun.

In order for our atmosphere to absorb any kind of radiation, it needs to have some electrically charged particles for passing electromagnetic waves to push around.

This is absurd. You should have called boooolsch't instead of regurgitating this.

Based on what is this absurd?

Planck's law and black body science. There is no such "charged particles" requirement for electromagnetic radiation to be absorbed. This is just more disinformation that was reamed into you while you were bent over furniture by your thought-masters. Why didn't you just ask me about it? The following is more disinformation for which you should have called boooolsch't:

Even though many different kinds of molecules can absorb infrared radiation, the vast majority of our atmosphere can't because it's made of nitrogen and oxygen, which don't get lopsided even when they are vibrating. They're too symmetric. Nevertheless, the lopsided 1% are such good infrared absorbers that they manage to intercept about 90% of Earth's outgoing heat. Each captured ray gets pinged around the atmosphere, and most end up returning to the surface at least once before escaping to space.

We don't need to visit the moon during frigid lunar night to know just how important the game of radiation pinball is for Earth. Ice records from our own coldest climate show that small, natural variations in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce relatively big changes in temperature. They also show that compared to the last 800,000 years, the game today is much, much harder.

All of this is crap; every word of it. The target audience is obviously the undereducated, scientifically illiterate morons of the world who are easily confused and who simply will not be able to call boooolsch't on anything.

 

[ZenMode]

That is not what you asked. You specifically used the word "regulates", i.e. invoking your Climate goddess and her magical superpowers. Regulators are active systems that are engineered, and you specifically referred to the atmosphere as a regulator. Now you admit that you did not write what you meant and did not mean what you wrote, and you are insinuating that it is somehow my fault.

The atmosphere neither "regulates" anything nor does it "balance" anything.



First, this is dishonesty on your part. This is a hypothetical question/thought experiment; how it might occur is totally irrelevant. Second, you don't get to claim that you don't know the answer because you have been insisting that neither oxygen nor nitrogen can be warmed by the sun, i.e. that neither absorbs any solar energy due to being transparent to solar energy. You have only one answer if you don't want to abandon your greenhouse effect explanation which is that the temperature of such a cloud would fall to absolute zero no matter how close it approached the sun because, as you insist, the sun cannot heat it. This is why you presented your parlor trick, i.e. to try to fool me into thinking that neither oxygen nor nitrogen absorb solar energy, because your parlor trick proves it, by having a candle/lamp "represent" the sun. This is absurd, of course, because all substances have an IR absorption signature. Such a cloud would become extremely hot as it approached the sun. Your explanation of greenhouse effect, however, asserts that only CO2 and other magical greenhouse substances absorb solar energy. But that can't be the case if a cloud of oxygen/nitrogen will get hot from the sun.




Planck's law and black body science. There is no such "charged particles" requirement for electromagnetic radiation to be absorbed. This is just more disinformation that was reamed into you while you were bent over furniture by your thought-masters. Why didn't you just ask me about it? The following is more disinformation for which you should have called boooolsch't:


All of this is crap; every word of it. The target audience is obviously the undereducated, scientifically illiterate morons of the world who are easily confused and who simply will not be able to call boooolsch't on anything.

Ok, for the sake of moving up on without discussions about terms, if you don't like the word regulates, what word do you like?

 

[IBDaMann]

Based on what?

ZenMode Error: shifting burden of proof. Obviously there were no measurements taken 800,000 years ago. You don't get to have your presumption of an 800,000 year old data set accepted as TRUE until your opponent somehow proves that no such dataset exists.

ZenMode, produce your dataset of 800,000 years of direct measurements. Paste the data right here in this thread. Otherwise, you can post a link to this data, but the data must be clearly labeled and in one dataset, and it must be directly at the other end of the link that I click. I'm not going to do any more than click on your link and I will then expect to be looking at the complete dataset.

So, share your dataset. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who wants to see it.

 

[ZenMode]

In an effort to deny the word games you keep playing:

You cut and paste mindlessly.

The atmosphere does not regulate anything.

Nothing, other than mass.

Gases are mass.

Mass.

The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure either one.

And very little carbon dioxide around. Yet daytime temperatures on Earth, with the carbon dioxide, is a lot COLDER.

Warner Bros. had nothing to do with the temperature of the Moon.

You can't eat or drink atmosphere. It isn't a gun or any other weapon. It does nothing to stop criminals.

You cannot trap heat. The atmosphere does not choose intensity of light to block.

So only lightning strokes can absorb any kind of radiation. Gotit.

All gases absorb infrared light.

All materials absorb infrared light.

Heat doesn't radiate.

Do they have insurance?

Sounds like a rock concert.

The atmosphere is not a thermal insulator.

All gases absorb infrared light.

So they're 'squares', eh. Guess that's why they don't like rock concerts.

You cannot intercept heat. You cannot trap heat. You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics again.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

Earth is not a pinball machine.

Climate has no temperature. Ice cores do not measure temperature or global atmospheric content of carbon dioxide.

There are no measurements from 800,000 years ago.

Taking this one step at a time, a lot of things have mass. Glass has mass, but it is a terrible insulator.. How does the mass of atmospheric gases impact the energy leaving the Earth's surface that results in the Earth's temperatures?

 

[IBDaMann]

Ok, for the sake of moving up on without discussions about terms, if you don't like the word regulates, what word do you like?

Are you only talking about the small difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures? If so, Into the Night has answered that. The mass of the atmosphere requires time to heat and cool. It also takes time for thermal energy to flow via convection and conduction.

On the moon, where there is no atmospheric mass, the surface relatively instantly achieves the temperature dictated by the amount of received solar output (from 100% at midday to 0% at nighttime). Ergo, the answer is the atmosphere's mass and the relatively quick 24-hour rotation speed.

 

[ZenMode]

ZenMode Error: shifting burden of proof. Obviously there were no measurements taken 800,000 years ago. You don't get to have your presumption of an 800,000 year old data set accepted as TRUE until your opponent somehow proves that no such dataset exists.

ZenMode, produce your dataset of 800,000 years of direct measurements. Paste the data right here in this thread. Otherwise, you can post a link to this data, but the data must be clearly labeled and in one dataset, and it must be directly at the other end of the link that I click. I'm not going to do any more than click on your link and I will then expect to be looking at the complete dataset.

So, share your dataset. I'm sure that I'm not the only one who wants to see it.

The 800k years claim is very much second to the other claims about how IR energy interacts with CO2. Do you disagree with those claims? Of so, based on what?

 

[IBDaMann]

The 800k years claim is very much second to the other claims about how IR energy interacts with CO2.

Let's be clear. You are being EVASIVE. Your claim is none other than an increase in earth's average equilibrium temperature. You are on tap to explain how the earth goes from an average equilibrium temperature T(e) of thermal energy quantity THERM(global) to a higher average equilibrium temperature T(e)+delta(temp) of thermal energy quantity THERM(global)+ delta(therm) upon the introduction of greenhouse substance.

Please walk me through this.

Do you disagree with those claims? Of so, based on what?

I will let you know if I disagree with your explanation. Go ahead and explain how the earth's temperature, and the corresponding amount of earth's thermal energy, increases.

 

[Into the Night]

Taking this one step at a time, a lot of things have mass. Glass has mass, but it is a terrible insulator.. How does the mass of atmospheric gases impact the energy leaving the Earth's surface that results in the Earth's temperatures?

RQAA.

 

[ZenMode]

Let's be clear. You are being EVASIVE. Your claim is none other than an increase in earth's average equilibrium temperature. You are on tap to explain how the earth goes from an average equilibrium temperature T(e) of thermal energy quantity THERM(global) to a higher average equilibrium temperature T(e)+delta(temp) of thermal energy quantity THERM(global)+ delta(therm) upon the introduction of greenhouse substance.

Please walk me through this.


I will let you know if I disagree with your explanation. Go ahead and explain how the earth's temperature, and the corresponding amount of earth's thermal energy, increases.

This is something that I've explained, either myself or taking info from other sources, multiple times. The way I described very, very early on in this discussion is that the type of IR energy leaving the Earth's surface is "absorbed" by greenhouse gases, which cause the molecules to "vibrate" and emit thermal radiation.

The description I copied explains it this way:

Then there are gases like carbon dioxide and methane. On paper, neither molecule looks lopsided, so doesn't seem like they should be able to absorb any radiating heat. But in reality, gas molecules aren't motionless. They crash into each other billions of times per second, knocking each other in different directions and also into different modes of rotation and vibration. And it turns out that both carbon dioxide and methane spend most of their time shaking it in electrically lopsided ways, allowing them to absorb infrared rays and help insulate the Earth.

What do you disagree with?

 

[Into the Night]

This is something that I've explained, either myself or taking info from other sources, multiple times. The way I described very, very early on in this discussion is that the type of IR energy leaving the Earth's surface is "absorbed" by greenhouse gases, which cause the molecules to "vibrate" and emit thermal radiation.

The description I copied explains it this way:

Then there are gases like carbon dioxide and methane. On paper, neither molecule looks lopsided, so doesn't seem like they should be able to absorb any radiating heat. But in reality, gas molecules aren't motionless. They crash into each other billions of times per second, knocking each other in different directions and also into different modes of rotation and vibration. And it turns out that both carbon dioxide and methane spend most of their time shaking it in electrically lopsided ways, allowing them to absorb infrared rays and help insulate the Earth.

What do you disagree with?

RQAA. You really ARE especially slow. You keep asking the SAME QUESTION over and over and over and over and over, even though it's ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED multiple times!

Mindless.

Your Stone fallacy isn't going to work. Your burden fallacies aren't going to work. Your false authority fallacies aren't going to work. Your homunculus fallacy isn't going to work.
Your gobbledegook is not science and denies chemistry, black body science (the Stefan-Boltzmann law and quantum mechanics), and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Cutting and pasting mindlessly isn't going to work.

You cannot create energy out of nothing.
Gases are not intelligent.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
You cannot just arbitrarily change the absorption signature of any gas (or any material). ALL gases absorb infrared light.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no frequency term. You cannot add one.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no materials term. You cannot add one.
Science is not a website or your gobbledegook. It is not a paper, pamphlet, book, government agency, society, debate, data, observation, voting bloc, academy, school, college, university, degree, license, consensus, or even scientists. It is not people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all. That's it. There is nothing more. You just want to deny theories of science.

Yes, it's about YOU. It's about your religion. YOU are being stupid and mindless. YOU are denying theories of science and mathematics. YOU have to deal with that. YOU cannot blame others for YOUR problems. YOU cannot force a negative proof either. The burden of proof is YOURS. YOU cannot shift it to anyone else.

 

[IBDaMann]

This is something that I've explained, either myself or taking info from other sources, multiple times.

You have not "explained" anything multiple times. You have merely chanted your dogma that when CO2 or any other greenhouse substance redistributes a quantity of thermal energy, somehow there ends up being a greater quantity of thermal energy which performs "warming", as if additional thermal energy is somehow created by magic. You are quick to say "See, I never said 'energy is created out of nothing'." You describe energy being created out of nothing, and state that you aren't saying that energy is being created out of nothing. gfm7175 has tried repeatedly to get you to see your error (apples and baskets). You can't slice a pizza in such a way that you end up with more pizza. Yet when CO2 changes the form of a quantity of energy, i.e. from electromagnetic to thermal, via absorption, somehow a greater quantity of energy results, in violation of the 1st LoT.

So once again, I am aware that you vehemently deny ever having stated the words "greenhouse substances create energy out of nothing." You nonetheless insist that the quantity of thermal energy is increasing, and you refuse to explain when and how the quantity of energy increases. You will only mention energy changing form and energy being redistributed, neither of which increases the quantity of the energy. You then claim that "warming" then occurs ... which translates into a mysterious, unexplained increase in energy, and a violation of the 1st LoT.

To save us both time, don't repeat the idea that a greenhouse substance converts IR into thermal energy. All substances do this. All this does is change the form of energy, not the quantity. If all of the CO2 were removed from the atmosphere, all of the IR that would have otherwise been absorbed by the CO2 would be absorbed by the ocean or the lithosphere and converted to thermal energy, i.e. the earth would still have the exact same quantity of thermal energy and would remain at the exact same global average equilibrium temperature. As it stands now with the quantity of CO2 that we have in the atmosphere, some solar IR is absorbed directly in the atmosphere before it would otherwise be absorbed by the ocean or lithosphere and convected into the atmosphere. The net result is that the ocean surface and the lithosphere are cooled by receiving (negligibly) less solar IR instead of a (negligibly) warmer ocean surface and lithosphere being cooled by a (negligibly) cooler atmosphere. Again, the existence of CO2 in the atmosphere (atmospheric composition) merely serves to affect the distribution of earth's existing surface thermal energy and does not alter the quantity.

Since you claim an increase in the quantity of thermal energy, all "explanations" need to pinpoint precisely when and where the quantity of energy is increasing and account for the additional energy that causes the temperature increase in question. Like I said, all you have done is mention the occurrences of energy changing form. Whoop-tee-dooo.

The way I described very, very early on in this discussion is that the type of IR energy leaving the Earth's surface is "absorbed" by greenhouse gases, which cause the molecules to "vibrate" and emit thermal radiation.

What you just wrote is that greenhouse substance absorbs one form of energy (IR at one wavelength) and converts it to another form of energy (IR at a different wavelength). As we know from the 1st LoT, energy can change form all the live-long day, but can never be created nor destroyed. No greenhouse substance can cause warming, i.e. create thermal energy out of nothing, despite being able to alter the form of energy. But wait, that makes all substances greenhouse substance because all substances absorb IR, even oxygen and nitrogen, despite warmizombie dogma to the contrary.

The description I copied explains it this way: [crap deleted] What do you disagree with?

Where in the description is the increase in energy specified? Answer: it never is. Nonetheless, it mesmerized you into not asking any questions.

Every single time, I am going to ask you to account for the additional energy that causes the increase in temperature that you claim. Temperature can only increase via an increase in thermal energy. Matter can, at most, change the form of energy and can never actually increase its quantity.

 

[ZenMode]

RQAA. You really ARE especially slow. You keep asking the SAME QUESTION over and over and over and over and over, even though it's ALREADY BEEN ANSWERED multiple times!

Mindless.

Your Stone fallacy isn't going to work. Your burden fallacies aren't going to work. Your false authority fallacies aren't going to work. Your homunculus fallacy isn't going to work.
Your gobbledegook is not science and denies chemistry, black body science (the Stefan-Boltzmann law and quantum mechanics), and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Cutting and pasting mindlessly isn't going to work.

You cannot create energy out of nothing.
Gases are not intelligent.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
You cannot just arbitrarily change the absorption signature of any gas (or any material). ALL gases absorb infrared light.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no frequency term. You cannot add one.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no materials term. You cannot add one.
Science is not a website or your gobbledegook. It is not a paper, pamphlet, book, government agency, society, debate, data, observation, voting bloc, academy, school, college, university, degree, license, consensus, or even scientists. It is not people at all.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's all. That's it. There is nothing more. You just want to deny theories of science.

Yes, it's about YOU. It's about your religion. YOU are being stupid and mindless. YOU are denying theories of science and mathematics. YOU have to deal with that. YOU cannot blame others for YOUR problems. YOU cannot force a negative proof either. The burden of proof is YOURS. YOU cannot shift it to anyone else.

So many straw men....

You cannot create energy out of nothing. -

"Nobody is trying to" he stated for the 10th time. All we need is for less of the IR energy leaving the Earth's surface to escape into space to see higher temperatures on Earth.

Gases are not intelligent.

Thanks. Nobody is saying they are. Gases, or gas molecules, have characteristics.... as is true for every single thing that has ever existed. Lighter colored surfaces reflect more light than dark surfaces. That doesn't mean either surface is 'intelligent', it just means that they have characteristics. Why am I having to explain this? Oh, that's right... you're a troll.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

Correct. Nobody is saying that gas is heating itself or the Earth's surface.

You cannot just arbitrarily change the absorption signature of any gas (or any material). ALL gases absorb infrared light.

Correct. Gases and other materials have whatever absorption signature they have. To my knowledge, we have no way to change it. As noted above, dark surfaces absorb more light than light surfaces. We can't change that characteristic and, despite your best attempts, you also can't "declare away" the absorption characteristics of gases when their characteristics are inconvenient to what you want to belief.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no frequency term. You cannot add one.

Nobody is trying to.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no materials term. You cannot add one.

Nobody is trying to.

Science is not a website or your gobbledegook. It is not a paper, pamphlet, book, government agency, society, debate, data, observation, voting bloc, academy, school, college, university, degree, license, consensus, or even scientists. It is not people at all. Ok??

 

[Into the Night]

So many straw men....

Fallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

You cannot create energy out of nothing. -

"Nobody is trying to" he stated for the 10th time.

YOU are. You keep trying to increase the temperature of the Earth using nothing more than a Magick Holy Gas. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

All we need is for less of the IR energy leaving the Earth's surface to escape into space to see higher temperatures on Earth.

You cannot trap light. You are STILL ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Gases are not intelligent.

Thanks. Nobody is saying they are.

YOU are. YOU are trying to say that a gas chooses it's source of infrared to absorb from. Don't try to deny your own posts. ANYONE can go read them.

Gases, or gas molecules, have characteristics.... as is true for every single thing that has ever existed. Lighter colored surfaces reflect more light than dark surfaces. That doesn't mean either surface is 'intelligent', it just means that they have characteristics. Why am I having to explain this? Oh, that's right... you're a troll.

Emissivity is not determined by the color of the emitting surface. Absorption is not either. It is the same as emissivity. Now you call theories of science a 'troll'.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

Correct. Nobody is saying that gas is heating itself or the Earth's surface.

YOU are. Don't try to deny your own posts. It won't work.

You cannot just arbitrarily change the absorption signature of any gas (or any material). ALL gases absorb infrared light.

Correct. Gases and other materials have whatever absorption signature they have. To my knowledge, we have no way to change it.

But YOU are trying to. Don't try to deny your own posts.

As noted above, dark surfaces absorb more light than light surfaces.

Emissivity and absorption is not determined by color. ALL frequencies of light are considered.

We can't change that characteristic and, despite your best attempts, you also can't "declare away" the absorption characteristics of gases when their characteristics are inconvenient to your what you want to belief.

Inversion fallacy. This is YOUR problem. You cannot shove YOUR problem into anyone else.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no frequency term. You cannot add one.

Nobody is trying to.

YOU are. Don't try to deny your own posts.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no materials term. You cannot add one.

Nobody is trying to.

YOU are. Don't try to deny your own posts.

Science is not a website or your gobbledegook. It is not a paper, pamphlet, book, government agency, society, debate, data, observation, voting bloc, academy, school, college, university, degree, license, consensus, or even scientists. It is not people at all.

Ok??

You say the word, but you don't agree with it.

You're just a liar, trying to cover up for YOUR own problems.

 

[ZenMode]

Fallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

Meaningless labels meant to distract from the topic.

YOU are. You keep trying to increase the temperature of the Earth using nothing more than a Magick Holy Gas. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Yes, if less of the energy radiating from the Earth's surface escaped into space, the temperatures on earth would increase. No additional energy created. I'm hoping this straw man can be put down once and for all.

You cannot trap light. You are STILL ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Right. Nobody is trying to trap light. Light can impact liquids, solids and gases without being trapped. I'm hoping this straw man can be put down once and for all.

YOU are. YOU are trying to say that a gas chooses it's source of infrared to absorb from. Don't try to deny your own posts. ANYONE can go read them.

Nope. Gas can't make choices. Another straw man.

Emissivity is not determined by the color of the emitting surface. Absorption is not either. It is the same as emissivity. Now you call theories of science a 'troll'.

Provide your source for the claim that darker surfaces don't absorb more light than lighter surfaces.

YOU are. Don't try to deny your own posts. It won't work.

Nope. All heating of the Earth's surface is being done by the Sun. Some part of the atmosphere is also being heated by the Sun. IR energy leaving the earth's surface is also heating the atmosphere.

But YOU are trying to. Don't try to deny your own posts.

Nope. Gases have whatever absorption signature they're going to have. I'm not claiming to be able to change anything. Unlike you, I'm just acknowledging that different gases have different absorption signatures.

Emissivity and absorption is not determined by color. ALL frequencies of light are considered.

As requested above, what is your source for this?

Inversion fallacy. This is YOUR problem. You cannot shove YOUR problem into anyone else.

I have no problems. Different gases absorb different wavelengths of IR energy. That fact doesn't negatively impact me in any way.

YOU are. Don't try to deny your own posts.

Nope.

YOU are. Don't try to deny your own posts.

Nope.

You say the word, but you don't agree with it.

You're just a liar, trying to cover up for YOUR own problems.

It's a bunch of babbling nonsense, meant to distract from the discussion.