Global Warming

syncster31 wrote:
Hello guys. Just want to share my overview about global warming.
Please see it here http://www.milesofinfo.net/2016/05/12/global-warming/

I also have a post about some things on how to help minimize global warming in the future.

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]syncster31 wrote:
Hello guys. Just want to share my overview about global warming.
Please see it here http://www.milesofinfo.net/2016/05/12/global-warming/

You claim an increase in temperature. According to thermodynamics, this is only possible with additional energy. How do you account for the additional energy REQUIRED to increase the temperature?

.

JamesTankard wrote:
Increases in heat trapping gases like carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, or near earth ozone act to trap long-wave radiation, or back radiation, leaving the earth's surface. That is, they more readily absorb and store radiative energy from the sun in the form of heat than air with lower concentrations of these gases do. I hope this answer your question, as I cannot put it more simply.

JamesTankard wrote:
Btw_Increases in these heat trapping gases, or green-house gases, has been observed

JamesTankard wrote:
as well as projected to increase both air

JamesTankard wrote:
and ocean water temperatures

JamesTankard wrote: Increases in heat trapping gases like carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, or near earth ozone act to trap long-wave radiation, or back radiation, leaving the earth's surface.

JamesTankard wrote: That is, they more readily absorb and store radiative energy from the sun in the form of heat than air with lower concentrations of these gases do.

JamesTankard wrote: I hope this answer your question, as I cannot put it more simply.

JamesTankard wrote:Btw_Increases in these heat trapping gases, or green-house gases, has been observed as well as projected to increase both air and ocean water temperatures

spot wrote:
FFS this again, Its not worth responding to this shit, this forum is dead.

MK001 wrote:
I am not a big fan of the argument for anthropamorphic climate change and yes the terms climate / weather / change and the like are all questionable. I certainly have issues with the dire forcasts with regard to sea-level rise and the numerous others, but why is it that so many "scientists" do proport to believe in Global Warming / Climate Change as a concept. Most importantly why don't they see the connection to your often voiced opinion on the laws of thermodynamics and Plancks Law? Is there something that you have missed or perhaps don't understand?

MK001 wrote: I certainly have issues with the dire forcasts with regard to sea-level rise and the numerous others, but why is it that so many "scientists" do proport to believe in Global Warming / Climate Change as a concept.

MK001 wrote:Most importantly why don't they see the connection to your often voiced opinion on the laws of thermodynamics and Plancks Law?

spot wrote:
MK001 I wouldn't bother this pair of clowns are trolls and the only reason why they are allowed to post here is because there is no moderation at all.

According to thermodynamics, this is only possible with additional energy. How do you account for the additional energy REQUIRED to increase the temperature?

Leafsdude wrote:

According to thermodynamics, this is only possible with additional energy. How do you account for the additional energy REQUIRED to increase the temperature?

Do you even know the first thing about the theory of greenhouse gases?

The additional energy is from heat emitted from the Sun which, when reflected off the Earth's surface, causes radiated energy to be absorbed and then re-emitted back to the ground by greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere.

This was all described and confirmed in the late 1800s. Where have all of you been?

Leafsdude wrote:
Here's a video showing CO2's reflective "mirror properties":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5n9m4whaw

So, as you were saying?

I also hope that, assuming it's accurate, you're not saying 0.0004% can't be a significant amount...

And, again, you're completely misunderstanding the whole idea behind greenhouse gas theory. It's not about "heat[ing] the surface using colder air", it's about heating the surface by trapping radiated energy from the Sun that would otherwise reflect off our planet's surface and return to space.

To trap energy as you describe a substance would have to be capable of decreasing entropy without the use of an energy source.

Leafsdude wrote:

To trap energy as you describe a substance would have to be capable of decreasing entropy without the use of an energy source.

Based on what, exactly?

And there is an energy source: the Sun.

Leafsdude wrote:
But Earth is not a closed system. Even the Earth and the Sun isn't a closed system. Heat from the Sun that enters the Earth's atmosphere doesn't all remain on Earth. Some of it leaves. In fact, most of it leaves.

Leafsdude wrote:
If some of the energy that would leave gets absorbed by CO2 or other greenhouse gases, temperature rises. None of this violates the 2nd law.

Leafsdude wrote:
But beyond that, if it did violate the second law, then it's the second law that's wrong.

Leafsdude wrote:
Remember, laws aren't absolute.

Leafsdude wrote:
They're observations.

Leafsdude wrote:
So, if we observe something that violates the law, the law is what's wrong, not the observation.

Leafsdude wrote:
Hence, the observation that increased CO2 levels (and other greenhouse gases) results in an increase in temperature supersedes the law of thermodynamics if they conflict.

Leafsdude wrote:
And CO2 is an energy source. Just ask plants.

Leafsdude wrote:
Just a quick add/clarification:

The only natural system that thermodynamic laws apply to, being the only one naturally closed to external energy sources, is the universe as a whole. Lab conditions that tightly control the input of energy are pretty much the only other place where thermodynamic laws are observed and applied, though only in a relatively lose manner. They also could potentially be used successfully on, for example, rogue planets, though energy input in such cases may still be too high for the laws to be observed within reasonable error.

ALL of it leaves. What goes in MUST come out. That's the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Yes it does.

It also is not an accurate representation of what happens when CO2 absorbs electromagnetic energy.

An interesting claim. What is your mechanism for change?

That would change the mathematics of the law. What is the mechanism of change?

Correct. Every theory of science remains a theory, even if we use them often enough to call them laws.

No, they are theories. In the case of the laws of thermodynamics, these are theories that have been formalized into mathematics.

First, no such observation exists. It is not possible to measure global temperature.

Second, no such conflict exists.

Third, rising global temperature could be caused by only one thing, increased sun output.

Plants do NOT use CO2 as an energy source. They use light. Carbon dioxide is broken down by this energy source so the plant can use the carbon and some of the oxygen. The excess oxygen is vented.

Without light, the process doesn't work. The plant dies.

Leafsdude wrote:

ALL of it leaves. What goes in MUST come out. That's the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Well, yes, but not instantly. The real question is whether it leaves faster than it enters. The fact is it does not when greenhouse gases are high enough. Hence why the greenhouse effect happens.

Leafsdude wrote:

Yes it does.

Nope. If you actually understand what the 2nd law is saying, you would know it doesn't.

Leafsdude wrote:

It also is not an accurate representation of what happens when CO2 absorbs electromagnetic energy.

Why not?

Leafsdude wrote:

An interesting claim. What is your mechanism for change?

What do you mean?

Oh, you mean...

That would change the mathematics of the law. What is the mechanism of change?

No, it would mean the mathematics of the law are incorrect and require correcting.

Asking for a mechanism of change is a nonsense question.

Leafsdude wrote:

Correct. Every theory of science remains a theory, even if we use them often enough to call them laws.

No, they are theories. In the case of the laws of thermodynamics, these are theories that have been formalized into mathematics.

Uh. No.

I suggest you look up the definitions of the words theory and law as used scientifically. Theories do not become laws. Laws are parts of the body of work used to create theories. This is Creationist-level misunderstanding.

Leafsdude wrote:

First, no such observation exists. It is not possible to measure global temperature.

Of course you can. It's been done.

The accuracy of course is not absolute, but no measurement is or ever will be. But a reasonably accurate measurement is possible and has been done.

Leafsdude wrote:

Third, rising global temperature could be caused by only one thing, increased sun output.

Nope. If that was the case, then historical temperature readings would match Sun output exactly. Even if you were to claim that it's the only significant possible cause, the match between Sun output and temperature would be significant, but that's also not the case.

Leafsdude wrote:
The fact is, though the Sun is absolutely the primary driver of climate on our planet, it's not the only significant one, and all evidence strongly supports CO2 and other greenhouse gases as the second largest driver of climate on our planet and a significant one that can radically alter it.

Leafsdude wrote:

Plants do NOT use CO2 as an energy source. They use light. Carbon dioxide is broken down by this energy source so the plant can use the carbon and some of the oxygen. The excess oxygen is vented.

Use the carbon and some of the oxygen for, what...?

Leafsdude wrote:
It's like saying they don't use water, they use some hydrogen and some oxygen.

Leafsdude wrote:
Well, yes, but neither statement is contradictory to the other. Both are true. One is just a little more descriptive than the other.

Leafsdude wrote:
Kind of like saying I'm a human and then you saying I'm wrong because I'm actually a bipedal, highly intelligent great ape.

Leafsdude wrote:

Without light, the process doesn't work. The plant dies.

Same with CO2. Without it, the process of photosynthesis doesn't work and the plant dies. *shrug*

ANYTHING that causes a substance to become warmer increase the rate of energy loss. That is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I do. Go look it up.

I never said a theory 'graduates' into law.

We do not have sufficient instrumentation. It has not been done...ever.

If you understood statistics, you would understand the error produced by any form of averaging of existing thermometers produces an error far higher than the temperature being measured.

You would also understand the fallacy of installing weights of elements to be averaged.

You have no way of knowing. We can't measure it.

CO2 has no power to do this.

It is not a magick gas that provides energy or magically absorbs or reflects energy in only one direction.

As material for their tissues...like bricks.

False equivalence and the use of a straw man as a trivializing argument.

No, it is a series of fallacies all wrapped up in one sentence.

Same fallacies.

You are confusing the brick with the guy laying it.

Leafsdude wrote:

ANYTHING that causes a substance to become warmer increase the rate of energy loss. That is the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Yes, but it doesn't necessarily keep the two in balance.

Leafsdude wrote:
When something increases in temperature, it doesn't always cool back to any baseline temperature instantly.

Leafsdude wrote:
Some can actually maintain increases in temperature without external input of energy for millions of year; for example, our planet's mantle core, which maintains energy via pressure as opposed to input from the Sun.

Leafsdude wrote:
Same with our atmosphere.

Leafsdude wrote:
Even though increased temperature results in more energy loss, it doesn't mean the increased temperature can't be maintained for significant periods.

Leafsdude wrote:
If it did, there would be no day-to-day temperature fluctuations

Leafsdude wrote:
and every Milankovitch Cycle would maintain a constant temperature cycle.

Leafsdude wrote:
But, alas, here where I live, the last 4 days has seen temperatures of 22, 25, 26 and 24*C and the next 4 days are forecasted to be 31, 34, 33 and 30*C. That's because other factors other than Sun output drive temperatures, both short term and long term.

Leafsdude wrote:

I do. Go look it up.

I have. I also understand what it says. You clearly do not.

Leafsdude wrote:
Again, the first law of thermodynamics clearly states that all of the laws only apply to systems with no outside energy available to effect it, ie: a closed system (more accurately an isolated system, but most of the time it's simplified to closed system). Earth has outside energy available from the Sun, and the Sun and the Earth have outside energy from the rest of the universe, so thermodynamic laws do not apply to them.

Leafsdude wrote:
As such, the fact that the energy and temperature of our planet goes up does not violate said laws.

Leafsdude wrote:
Now say I'm wrong because you say so. 'Cause I'm pretty sure that's all you can muster in response.

Leafsdude wrote:

I never said a theory 'graduates' into law.

You said, quote:

"Theories [become] formalized into mathematics"

Leafsdude wrote:
That's absolutely not true.

Leafsdude wrote:
It goes the other way around.

Leafsdude wrote:
Laws get formalized as a section in a greater theory that explains, in part, the laws in question as well as other observations and mechanisms.

Leafsdude wrote:
For example, the laws of thermodynamics are partially explained by (and also expanded within) quantum mechanics.

Leafsdude wrote:
Theories do not become mathematically explained.

Leafsdude wrote:
Instead, they explain how mathematical laws effect our universe.

Leafsdude wrote:

We do not have sufficient instrumentation. It has not been done...ever.

We absolutely do. Among others, there are basic weather stations, satellites, weather balloons and ocean buoys. They're definitely sufficient, widespread and accurate enough to definitely give a reasonably accurate picture and dataset for the entire Earth, especially when all the different methods are combined.

Leafsdude wrote:

If you understood statistics, you would understand the error produced by any form of averaging of existing thermometers produces an error far higher than the temperature being measured.

I'll assume you're saying the same as you have been so far, which is that scientific instruments are not accurate, but feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in that assumption, as I'm not totally sure that is what you mean.

Leafsdude wrote:
Errors in sophisticated scientific thermometers are not significant. Hell, the error in the thermometers you buy from your local Wal-Mart isn't significant. Maybe a full degree celsius, if you get a cheap enough model. Of course, there are external factors (for example, shade) that can effect accuracy, but these can also be measured, corrected for and mostly eliminated to insignificant levels as well.

You clearly completely underestimate our ability to measure temperature, something that can be easily debunked directly on your own, without relying on any scientific sources.

Leafsdude wrote:

You would also understand the fallacy of installing weights of elements to be averaged.

Installing weights of elements? What?

Please explain that to me. I admit I have not the slightest clue what you mean by that.

Leafsdude wrote:

You have no way of knowing. We can't measure it.

Of course we can, on both ends. We have measured Sun output directly for the last 40 years, via Earth-based reading and also by orbital and near-Sun satellites. We can also infer Sun output historically both by observing ocean sediments and also by observing other stars of similar makeup at different times in their life-cycles.

Leafsdude wrote:
I've explained how we measure temperatures above.

Leafsdude wrote:
But even if you were right, then claiming that the only possible source of temperature increase for our planet is Sun output would be an argument from ignorance (as is, an argument with no knowledge/evidence to support it), just as claiming that CO2 can also effect temperature would be.

Leafsdude wrote:

CO2 has no power to do this.

You can repeat such mantras as much as you want, the evidence to the contrary, not just experimentally and theoretically but also via direct observation, is overwhelming.

Leafsdude wrote:

It is not a magick gas that provides energy or magically absorbs or reflects energy in only one direction.

It's not magic, it's basic physics.

Leafsdude wrote:
And who says it reflects energy in only one direction?

Leafsdude wrote:
Again, I think you're caught in a completely faulty understanding where you think energy radiated out from CO2 and other greenhouse gases are a part of the sum total of all energy that heats the Earth. It's not.

Leafsdude wrote:
Most energy that reaches the Earth from the Sun does not give its energy into our atmosphere as heat.

Leafsdude wrote:
Most of it instead bounces off our planet due to the albedo of the surface of most of our planet (actually, most of the energy from the Sun is absorbed by vegetation, but of course the amount of heating that does to the planet is negligible and therefore not relevant to the statement) and escapes our atmosphere.

Leafsdude wrote:
In fact, just look at the moon as to what the Earth would look like if we had no greenhouse gases in our atmosphere.

Leafsdude wrote:
The fact is almost all of the energy used in our atmosphere to generate heat is kept within it by greenhouse gases.

Leafsdude wrote:
Again, all of this is basic physics and something that has been hypothesized, tested and confirmed repeatedly for about the last 100-150 years.

Leafsdude wrote:

As material for their tissues...like bricks.

Mmm, well, yes, partially, but it's as a part of photosynthesis. You know, the process that plants use to create sugars. As in energy.

Leafsdude wrote:

False equivalence and the use of a straw man as a trivializing argument.

It's not a false equivalence fallacy. It's a completely sound argument. Saying that CO2 is not an energy source because carbon and oxygen is what's used for energy is just like saying H2O is not an energy source for plants because they use hydrogen and oxygen for energy. And I highly doubt anyone would ever say water is not a source of energy for plants.

Leafsdude wrote:
And it's definitely not a strawman argument, as I never falsely restated your argument, I responded to and then expanded on it via reducto ad absurdum.

Leafsdude wrote:

No, it is a series of fallacies all wrapped up in one sentence.

Mmm, nope, definitely not.

Leafsdude wrote:

Same fallacies.

Do clearly don't even know what a strawman fallacy or false equivalence fallacy is. Seems like you just picked a couple of phrases from a list of fallacies and pasted them...

Leafsdude wrote:

You are confusing the brick with the guy laying it.

What does that even mean?

"Yes, it does. It always tends to return to the same equilibrium as before, assuming the same energy input.

It doesn't heat up instantly either. This is due to the thermal index.

The core is a source of energy, generated from the nuclear reactions in the core. It is not sufficient to make a major difference in global temperatures since it's shielded by solid rock.

Our atmosphere is not radioactive.

That's exactly what it means.

Fluctuations in one location is not the global average or the global median. They are different from the fluctuations in other areas.

This cycle changes the orbital dimensions. Apogee and perigee are different due to this cycle, it is theorized.

You are making a compositional error. Your location is not the global temperature.

By attempting to build perpetual motion machines of the 1st and 2nd kind, you clearly do not have any clue.

You are ignoring Thevenin's Theorem. The Sun-Earth-Space system is a valid system for thermodynamics.

Assuming a constant source of energy from the sun, it does.

Since you refuse to look it up, I happen to be your only source at the moment. Sucks to be so lazy as you.

Formalizing into mathematics is not making a theory law. It is the translation of a theory into mathematical form. The theory remains a theory. Some people refer to it as a 'law' simply out of convention. No theory becomes a law.

Theories start for many reasons.They be be inspired by an observation, they may be inspired out of a mathematical proof, they may be inspired by staring at the wall.

When the mechanism of change is shown, a theory may be modified.

They do all the time.Consider F=mA.

Mathematics is an artificially created closed system. It is a tool, nothing more. It does not effect our universe. It can help describe it though.

As I've said before, the margin of error is too great. There is no meaningful average or median possible, even when combining all the instruments we have.

There is also no synchronization of the dataset. You are starting already with bias in the dataset from that alone.

Not what I am saying. I build instrumentation for a living. I know what these instruments can do.

This is because you do not understand statistics. Go read some books on it.

We can measure to a point. We can't measure everything about the sun.

Which is ignoring the margin of error generated by the averaging process using insufficient sampling, and that biased.

You are aware of another source of energy?

No experiment has changed what we know about the properties of CO2.

It simply does not have the properties you claim.

We know a lot about CO2, too.

There is no falsifiable theory that would cause CO2 to raise the global temperature. All scientific theories must be falsifiable and testable for the null hypothesis using closed tests.

There is no direct observation possible. We have insufficient instrumentation for it.

Consensus does not exist in science. It is a political or religious term. There is no overwhelming anything.

No, it's magick. Claiming it's physics by violating laws of physics isn't going to wash. Indeed, it's worse than magick. It's a Religion.

You do.

I agree. It's not. I never said it did.

True.

We don't even know what the albedo of the Earth is.

There is no way to measure it or calculate it.

Absorption also occurs on many different frequency bands.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. All gases of the atmosphere conduct and convect heat in almost exactly the same way.

There is nothing remarkable about carbon dioxide in this regard.

No such experiments. None of this type are possible to conduct.

Science has no proofs. You cannot use an experiment to confirm anything.

That energy comes from the light the plant is exposed to, not the materials to make the sugars and other substances for the plant.

Read up on the photosynthesis process. You will find quite a few people say exactly this.

Through the use of a strawman and trivialization. At least you admit to this fallacy.

Yup. Your entire argument is riddled with various fallacies, that particular sentence used several of them.

I know what they are and how they apply back to formal logic.

You are confusing light with the materials the plant uses to store energy from that light, and to construct bits of itself.

Leafsdude wrote:

"Yes, it does. It always tends to return to the same equilibrium as before, assuming the same energy input.

Yes, but it's possible for that to take long periods of time to achieve.

And, again, the energy input can remain constant, but if the energy output decreases, the temperature can still increase without violating the 2nd law. This is what's happening on our planet.

It doesn't heat up instantly either. This is due to the thermal index.

Of course not. It's taken about 100 years to increase even 1*C. It's estimated to take another 100 years and an exponential rising of the primary effect causing the increase (CO2) to cause 2-4*C more of warming.

The core is a source of energy, generated from the nuclear reactions in the core. It is not sufficient to make a major difference in global temperatures since it's shielded by solid rock.

While, yes, radioactivity also provides some energy to the core (just how much is uncertain), pressure is also a very significant cause of heat generation for our planet's core.

Our atmosphere is not radioactive.

Well, duh...

That's exactly what it means.

Based on what, exactly?

Fluctuations in one location is not the global average or the global median. They are different from the fluctuations in other areas.

I'm not saying otherwise.

This cycle changes the orbital dimensions. Apogee and perigee are different due to this cycle, it is theorized.

Your point being...?

You are making a compositional error. Your location is not the global temperature.

Once again, I'm not saying it is. You're completely missing the point.

The point is, there are effects on our planet that affects weather beyond the Sun. Since climate is weather on a larger scale, it stands to reason that if there's effects on weather beyond the Sun, there's effects on climate beyond the Sun. Scientific research has proven this reasoning to be reasonably correct.

By attempting to build perpetual motion machines of the 1st and 2nd kind, you clearly do not have any clue.

No perpetual motion machine. Just basic physics.

You are ignoring Thevenin's Theorem. The Sun-Earth-Space system is a valid system for thermodynamics.

Assuming a constant source of energy from the sun, it does.

Sure. I said as much, since the Sun + Earth + Space = the universe.

The Sun and Earth do not equal a valid closed/isolated system to allow for accurate use for thermodynamics.

But regardless, this doesn't matter, as even if you view the Sun and Earth as a closed/isolated system, that doesn't mean that temperature cannot change on the Earth without increased output from the Sun unless you erroneously assume near 100% of the Sun's energy to the Earth is absorbed and used or a constant release of energy.

Since you refuse to look it up, I happen to be your only source at the moment. Sucks to be so lazy as you.

It's cute that you think I don't look things up.

Formalizing into mathematics is not making a theory law. It is the translation of a theory into mathematical form. The theory remains a theory. Some people refer to it as a 'law' simply out of convention. No theory becomes a law.

No theory is simplistic enough to be translated into mathematical form. Theories are way too complex and contain way too much information for such a possibility. Theories contain mathematical concepts, most of which are only applicable in very precise conditions. Those are called scientific laws.

Theories start for many reasons.They be be inspired by an observation, they may be inspired out of a mathematical proof, they may be inspired by staring at the wall.

Sure, but they don't graduate to theories from any of those. They graduate from a collection of repeatedly successful experiments that eventually result in only one possible concordant explanation.

When the mechanism of change is shown, a theory may be modified.

So "mechanism of change" = experiment with results that provide new information for accepted theories?

They do all the time.Consider F=mA.

F=ma is not a theory. The theory of relativity is a theory, which, along with F=ma, includes multiple laws, but is much more than just laws. F=ma is definitely not an explanation of the theory of relativity, what with the fact that it doesn't hold to be true in special relativity (the law in special relativity is related as F=dp/dt).

Mathematics is an artificially created closed system. It is a tool, nothing more. It does not effect our universe. It can help describe it though.

Mathematics is not an energy system, therefore describing it as a "closed system" is nonsensical.

And yet you accuse me of not understanding what these words mean?

But regardless of whether the above is true, which, if you used a phrase other than closed system, it very well could be, it's all completely irrelevant to my point.

As I've said before, the margin of error is too great. There is no meaningful average or median possible, even when combining all the instruments we have.

Do you even know what the margin of error is? According to NASA (source (under the question "How accurate are the GISS results (tables, graphs)?"), the margin of error on average is about 0.05 to 0.1, with more recent estimates being on the low end and older ones being on the high end.

There is also no synchronization of the dataset. You are starting already with bias in the dataset from that alone.

Define "synchronization".

Not what I am saying. I build instrumentation for a living. I know what these instruments can do.

The fact that you build them hardly gives you qualification in knowing what they can do. I can build Ikea furniture, for example, but that doesn't give me any qualification to estimate how much weight that furniture can hold.

This is because you do not understand statistics. Go read some books on it.

Would rather not waste my time when I have someone as qualified as you to explain it to me.

We can measure to a point. We can't measure everything about the sun.

We can't measure everything about anything. It doesn't mean we don't have an accurate representation of it.

Which is ignoring the margin of error generated by the averaging process using insufficient sampling, and that biased.

Nope. Margins of error are always included in temperature estimates and are always significantly lower than the actual estimated temperatures.

And what basis do you use to claim that temperature readings do not contain a sufficient sample?

You are aware of another source of energy?

Gamma ray radiation from distant stars, for one. Not significant, I'll grant you, but it's still enough to make thermodynamic law calculations significantly inaccurate.

Regardless, though, even if we do assume absolutely no other energy but the Sun, the increase of temperature on the Earth based on other methods outside of increased Sun energy input is still allowed under thermodynamics unless you assume either near 100% absorption of that energy or a constant release of energy.

No experiment has changed what we know about the properties of CO2.

Wait, what? All knowledge we have about CO2 was gained from experimentation. All knowledge of any chemical compounds or elements we've gained from experimentation. That's how we gain knowledge.

More specifically, an experiment in 1864 by John Tyndall showed that CO2 absorbed infrared radiation. That is when our knowledge of the properties of CO2 changed, well over 100 years ago, and well before even the first greenhouse and climate theories were developed.

It simply does not have the properties you claim.

I don't make the claim, scientists do, and you can find the properties I've stated in any textbook or from any basic scientific experiment.

We know a lot about CO2, too.

We probably know more about CO2 than just about any other chemical compound, I'd wager. Perhaps water would be the only exception.

There is no falsifiable theory that would cause CO2 to raise the global temperature. All scientific theories must be falsifiable and testable for the null hypothesis using closed tests.

Of course there is. If you add CO2 to a controlled environment and temperatures do not increase, then the theory is falsified. As well, if you see an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere and don't see an increase in temperature even while there's no mitigating factors that would explain a constant temperature, it would also be falsified.

I encourage you to find me an example of such an experiment of either not causing temperature increase. If you can find a reputable one, I will cede that you are correct and CO2 is not a greenhouse gas.

Good luck!

There is no direct observation possible. We have insufficient instrumentation for it.

Your assertions don't make it fact.

Consensus does not exist in science. It is a political or religious term. There is no overwhelming anything.

Of course it does. Consensus is the key principle in the acceptance of a gathering of hypotheses into a theory. The word "concordance" is often used instead, but the meaning is the same.

Now, if you're talking about consensus by scientists, you're correct. But unless you subscribe to the idea that the 97% consensus stated multiple times is from a poll of scientists, which anyone with any ability to skeptically assess claims, especially ones from media sources, should know is a complete misrepresentation of the datapoint, you should know that none of the climate change consensus is based on the belief of scientists. In reality, the 97% consensus is from a meta-analysis of scientific papers making implicit or explicit statements for or against human-caused climate change. If it's changed to explicit statements only, it drops to around 94% consensus in the scientific literature (meaning not just from stated opinions of scientists).

You seem to be knowledgeable enough to know all that, though, right?

No, it's magick. Claiming it's physics by violating laws of physics isn't going to wash. Indeed, it's worse than magick. It's a Religion.

Nope. Basic physics. No laws violated.

But keep plugging your ears and going la la la. It's cute.

You do.

Mmm, nope, never said that.

Feel free to find the quote where I do.

I agree. It's not. I never said it did.

True.

Never said you did say it. I simply am inferring such a thought from your claims.

If you agree, though, that not all energy from the Sun that reaches the Earth heats it, then the concept where additional energy from the Sun is trapped on Earth would at least be theoretically possible, as in it doesn't violate any known laws. Do you agree with that? I can't see how you can, considering your strict adherence to the idea that such a statement violates thermodynamic law, even though it clearly doesn't, since it's not adding any energy into the system, it's just keeping energy from leaving that would otherwise leave.

We don't even know what the albedo of the Earth is.

Of course we do. It's estimated at a range of 0.1 to 0.4 with an overall average around 0.3 (1 is perfect reflection of all light).

There is no way to measure it or calculate it.

Unless you think 99+% accuracy is required to measure or calculate something, there definitely is.

Absorption also occurs on many different frequency bands.

Agreed.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. All gases of the atmosphere conduct and convect heat in almost exactly the same way.

Mmm, nope. Some gases radiate at different frequencies. Some don't radiate at any frequency while some radiate more than others. CO2, methane, H2O and O3, among others, are the most efficient radiators of heat from frequencies of wavebands after energy is reflected off the Earth's surface. This is the basic concept of greenhouse gases and has been not only proven beyond a reasonable doubt but accepted for over 100 years.

There is nothing remarkable about carbon dioxide in this regard.

It's definitely not remarkable. Just basic physics.

No such experiments. None of this type are possible to conduct.

Of course they are. They're conducted in classrooms, labs and homes all the time. They're among the most simple and safe experiments we conduct in science. All you need is some CO2, some bottles, a lamp and some time. There are videos online of such experiments all over youtube. I've already linked you to one.

Science has no proofs. You cannot use an experiment to confirm anything.

Only if you need 100% certainty to state confirmation.

Is that what you believe?

That energy comes from the light the plant is exposed to, not the materials to make the sugars and other substances for the plant.

Nope. It comes from both. Not everything is an either-or situation. You can get energy from two different sources.

Read up on the photosynthesis process. You will find quite a few people say exactly this.

I can find quite a few people who say many things, including incredibly stupid ones. The fact is, the science says that photosynthesis gains energy from both heat from light and from CO2 being added to H2O and converted into sugars.

Through the use of a strawman and trivialization. At least you admit to this fallacy.

Hardly.

Do you even know what a strawman is?

And trivialization isn't a fallacy.

Yup. Your entire argument is riddled with various fallacies, that particular sentence used several of them.

Feel free to point them out and explain exactly what makes them fallacious.

I know what they are and how they apply back to formal logic.

I'm skeptical of this claim.

You are confusing light with the materials the plant uses to store energy from that light, and to construct bits of itself.

How, exactly, am I doing that?

All of this adds up to one kind of fallacy. The argument of the Stone.

All of this has been explained to you already.

Leafsdude wrote:

All of this adds up to one kind of fallacy. The argument of the Stone.

Well, aren't you just ironic.

Argumentum ad lapidem is "a logical fallacy that consists in dismissing a statement as absurd without giving proof of its absurdity".

I haven't dismissed any statement as absurd, let alone all of them.

Leafsdude wrote:
But you just did by trying to falsely accuse me of doing it. *laugh*

All of this has been explained to you already.

Ignoring that it absolutely has not, explain it again. Or is all that information too much for your little brain to handle?

The information has been explained. You responded to it. Personally, I don't see the point of rehashing the same thing again to your wall of text.

Leafsdude wrote:

The information has been explained. You responded to it. Personally, I don't see the point of rehashing the same thing again to your wall of text.

Considering I was pointing out flaws in your explanation that you've failed to account for, I disagree.

But keep running away. It looks good on you.

Nah. You were just discarding them out of hand. Seems to be your style.

Leafsdude wrote:

Nah. You were just discarding them out of hand. Seems to be your style.

Mmm, nope. I either asked for explanations on your unsupported assertions or provided reasoning to refute your claims.

Run, Forrest, run!

You spent the bulk of your wall of text simply discarding arguments.

If you want to address things one at a time, we might get somewhere.

Leafsdude wrote:I multitask. I can keep up with multiple arguments at the same time with my eyes closed. What makes it so difficult for you to do the same?