OMFG. How stupid are you.
Lashing out a bit, are we? But then again, liberals ARE typically much angrier people than conservatives. Have fun with your little meltdown. Let me know when you've regained your composure.
There does not need to be additional energy coming from the sun.
Correct, but there DOES need to be additional energy coming from SOMEWHERE in order to increase Earth's temperature. Where is that additional energy coming from?
There only needs to be a change in radiation from the earth.
Who says that Earth's radiation is changing? Where can I see for myself the valid dataset that supports this notion?
Let's do a simple example that even you can probably understand.
Oh Lordie, here we go again.......
On a sunny day, a black asphalt driveway is not the same temperature as a grey concrete driveway and certainly not the same temperature as a green lawn. They are all receiving the same energy from the sun.
Okay.
Why are they not all the same temperature since they are all receiving the exact same amount of energy?
Because they are each unique parts within a whole (the Earth). It doesn't matter how you wish to redistribute the sun's energy within the whole; it's still the same amount of energy in total. This is what IBDaMann has been so eloquently trying to explain to you. I've done it in the past using the example of "baskets of apples".
Basket A (black asphalt driveway) has 5 apples. Basket B (gray concrete driveway) has 3 apples. Basket C (green lawn) has 2 apples. Altogether, a total of 10 apples. Feel free to redistribute those apples within those baskets any way you wish. After doing that to your heart's content, you will still only have 10 apples in total.
You cannot create additional energy via the redistribution of existing energy.
According to you this difference in temperature would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I have never asserted any such thing. Quit being dishonest.
You don't seem to understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. How is heat transferred?
This is YOUR issue, dude, not mine. Heat is NOT transferred. You still haven't learned what heat is.
The atmosphere is not some magic blanket. It is subject to the laws of physics.
Yet, you're still trying to make it into one......
The transfer of heat from a warmer area to a cooler area is directly affected by the difference in temperature and how the transfer can occur.
Yet, you're still trying to heat a WARMER surface using a COLDER gas.
If you decrease the thermal conductivity of the atmosphere, you increase the temperature of the earth.
Continued denial of the 1st LoT. You cannot create energy from nothing.
If you increase the temperature of the atmosphere, you increase the time needed to cool the surface.
??????? Ummmmmm, the atmosphere is COLDER than the surface is..........
Here is another thing you are ignoring - the specific heat of CO2 compared to the specific heat of Nitrogen.
It takes .177 kcal to raise the temperature of 1 kg of Nitrogen by 1 degree (739 joules)
It only takes .152 kcal to raise the temperature of 1 kg of Carbon Dioxide by 1 degree (638 joules)
Irrelevant. Conductive heat is not radiant heat.
As we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the same energy will result in a higher temperature just because of simple physics.
The earth receives approximately 1380 joules per meter per second from the sun.
A made-up number. Meh. Earth's emissivity is an unknown value. Earth's temperature is an unknown value. You cannot redistribute thermal energy within Earth in order to increase Earth's temperature.