Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: More garbage

There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.

If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.

Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.

I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: More garbage

There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.

If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.

Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.

I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: More garbage

There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.

If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.

Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.

I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: More garbage

There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.

If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.

Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.

I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

You are correct that he has no scientific training and little to no understanding of mathematics. He is a fool with a Big Book of Words to Use to Sound Intelligent.

But that doesn't make the idea of man-made global warming any less false.

Nightmare's OWN Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows HOW climate change could happen if CO2 had the effect it was claimed to have by people like Dr. Michael Mann. But it doesn't operate that way.

In order for CO2 to heat the atmosphere there much be energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't. This should have been plain to anyone who would stop and think that at one time some 46% of the atmosphere of this planet was CO2 and life formed. There was an ice age when CO2 levels were above 1,000 ppm.

Moreover what the media is presenting to the population of this country is a runaway heating - a positive feedback mechanism - that does not meet a single criteria of science or the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

This "science of climate change" is being presented by people who are mentally deranged. By those who think that we should murder a third or more of the human race in order to save a jellyfish's habitat.

Here are some quotes and these are not from some nutcase on the street - these quotes are from some of the leading lights of the climate change community.

https://www.infowars.com/enviroment-eugenics-quotes/

If you support the belief in AGW and you think that they would bypass you simply because you supported them you are not playing with a full deck. This gun is aimed straight at your head. So why don't you help them pull the trigger.

India has evicted many charities that were helping to feed the poor. South America has many countries looking the other way as people starve to death on the streets. These bodies are treated the same as in the NAZI death camps.

Russia and China are seeing this for what it is. Changes that they are making to the Environment are for their OWN improvements and not one step beyond.

We already know that you wish death to the human race and you should keep that well hidden. You are going to say that to people that have less than you and they will take all you have including your ability to walk and talk. They you can see how much you want the weak and poor to die wh[img][/img]en you are permanently in a wheelchair.

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: More garbage

There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.

If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.

Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.

I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

You are correct that he has no scientific training and little to no understanding of mathematics. He is a fool with a Big Book of Words to Use to Sound Intelligent.

But that doesn't make the idea of man-made global warming any less false.

Nightmare's OWN Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows HOW climate change could happen if CO2 had the effect it was claimed to have by people like Dr. Michael Mann. But it doesn't operate that way.

In order for CO2 to heat the atmosphere there much be energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't. This should have been plain to anyone who would stop and think that at one time some 46% of the atmosphere of this planet was CO2 and life formed. There was an ice age when CO2 levels were above 1,000 ppm.

Moreover what the media is presenting to the population of this country is a runaway heating - a positive feedback mechanism - that does not meet a single criteria of science or the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

This "science of climate change" is being presented by people who are mentally deranged. By those who think that we should murder a third or more of the human race in order to save a jellyfish's habitat.

Here are some quotes and these are not from some nutcase on the street - these quotes are from some of the leading lights of the climate change community.

https://www.infowars.com/enviroment-eugenics-quotes/

If you support the belief in AGW and you think that they would bypass you simply because you supported them you are not playing with a full deck. This gun is aimed straight at your head. So why don't you help them pull the trigger.

India has evicted many charities that were helping to feed the poor. South America has many countries looking the other way as people starve to death on the streets. These bodies are treated the same as in the NAZI death camps.

Russia and China are seeing this for what it is. Changes that they are making to the Environment are for their OWN improvements and not one step beyond.

We already know that you wish death to the human race and you should keep that well hidden. You are going to say that to people that have less than you and they will take all you have including your ability to walk and talk. They you can see how much you want the weak and poor to die wh[img][/img]en you are permanently in a wheelchair.

Jellyfish are doing just fine, shows what you know.

Wake wrote:

Actually it is the jellyfish that are invading other habitats and destroying quite large sections of coastal ocean habitat for other species.

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

Actually it is the jellyfish that are invading other habitats and destroying quite large sections of coastal ocean habitat for other species.

I know why are you telling me that.

I know more then you about this subject remember I have read a book on it and you obviously have not.

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

Actually it is the jellyfish that are invading other habitats and destroying quite large sections of coastal ocean habitat for other species.

I know why are you telling me that.

I know more then you about this subject remember I have read a book on it and you obviously have not.

Who exactly do you think you're kidding? You couldn't understand any book with words of more than four letters.

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

Actually it is the jellyfish that are invading other habitats and destroying quite large sections of coastal ocean habitat for other species.

I know why are you telling me that.

I know more then you about this subject remember I have read a book on it and you obviously have not.

Who exactly do you think you're kidding? You couldn't understand any book with words of more than four letters.

Nuk nuk,

Learn that insult in primary school?

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: More garbage

There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.

If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.

Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.

I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

James_ wrote:
Greenman,
The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant applies to steel.

James_ wrote:
It's about black body radiation

James_ wrote:
and can be used with Planck's constant as well.

James_ wrote:
This could possibly include Ohm's Law which all ties into how we generate and use electricity.

James_ wrote:
If you've noticed most of this work is focused around 1900 when electricity was just starting to be used.

James_ wrote:
The Stefan-Boltzmann constant does not apply to atmospheric gases.

James_ wrote:
However the Boltzmann constant does. That can also predict emissivity as well.

James_ wrote:
But it seems Abbott and Costello are to busy entertaining us with their sense of humor ;-)

Into the Night wrote:

But it seems Abbott and Costello are to busy entertaining us with their sense of humor ;-)

Into the Night wrote: I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.

Wake wrote:
You are correct that he has no scientific training and little to no understanding of mathematics.

Wake wrote:
He is a fool with a Big Book of Words to Use to Sound Intelligent.

Wake wrote:
But that doesn't make the idea of man-made global warming any less false.

Wake wrote:
Nightmare's OWN Stefan-Boltzmann equation

Wake wrote:
shows HOW climate change could happen

Wake wrote:
if CO2 had the effect it was claimed to have by people like Dr. Michael Mann.

Wake wrote:
In order for CO2 to heat the atmosphere there much be energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't.

Wake wrote:
This should have been plain to anyone who would stop and think that at one time some 46% of the atmosphere of this planet was CO2 and life formed.

Wake wrote:
There was an ice age when CO2 levels were above 1,000 ppm.

Wake wrote:
Moreover what the media is presenting to the population of this country is a runaway heating - a positive feedback mechanism - that does not meet a single criteria of science or the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Wake wrote:
This "science of climate change" is being presented by people who are mentally deranged.

Wake wrote:
By those who think that we should murder a third or more of the human race in order to save a jellyfish's habitat.
...deleted off topic rant...

spot wrote:
I'm going to go out on a limb and say that most people don't know what the stefan-bolzmann law is. By name dropping it you might convince stupid people that you are clever, and that is why he keeps going on about it.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

But it seems Abbott and Costello are to busy entertaining us with their sense of humor ;-)

So you consider physics a sense of humor, do you?

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: More garbage

There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.

If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.

Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.

I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

You are correct that he has no scientific training and little to no understanding of mathematics. He is a fool with a Big Book of Words to Use to Sound Intelligent.

But that doesn't make the idea of man-made global warming any less false.

Nightmare's OWN Stefan-Boltzmann equation shows HOW climate change could happen if CO2 had the effect it was claimed to have by people like Dr. Michael Mann. But it doesn't operate that way.

In order for CO2 to heat the atmosphere there much be energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't. This should have been plain to anyone who would stop and think that at one time some 46% of the atmosphere of this planet was CO2 and life formed. There was an ice age when CO2 levels were above 1,000 ppm.

Moreover what the media is presenting to the population of this country is a runaway heating - a positive feedback mechanism - that does not meet a single criteria of science or the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

This "science of climate change" is being presented by people who are mentally deranged. By those who think that we should murder a third or more of the human race in order to save a jellyfish's habitat.

Here are some quotes and these are not from some nutcase on the street - these quotes are from some of the leading lights of the climate change community.

https://www.infowars.com/enviroment-eugenics-quotes/

If you support the belief in AGW and you think that they would bypass you simply because you supported them you are not playing with a full deck. This gun is aimed straight at your head. So why don't you help them pull the trigger.

India has evicted many charities that were helping to feed the poor. South America has many countries looking the other way as people starve to death on the streets. These bodies are treated the same as in the NAZI death camps.

Russia and China are seeing this for what it is. Changes that they are making to the Environment are for their OWN improvements and not one step beyond.

We already know that you wish death to the human race and you should keep that well hidden. You are going to say that to people that have less than you and they will take all you have including your ability to walk and talk. They you can see how much you want the weak and poor to die wh[img][/img]en you are permanently in a wheelchair.

Jellyfish are doing just fine, shows what you know.

You have been making comments implying that you have actually been studying the problem. That's can't have any good effects from the AGW True Believers.

Actually it is the jellyfish that are invading other habitats and destroying quite large sections of coastal ocean habitat for other species.

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

spot wrote:

Wake wrote:

Actually it is the jellyfish that are invading other habitats and destroying quite large sections of coastal ocean habitat for other species.

I know why are you telling me that.

I know more then you about this subject remember I have read a book on it and you obviously have not.

Who exactly do you think you're kidding? You couldn't understand any book with words of more than four letters.

Nuk nuk,

Learn that insult in primary school?

That is not an insult - that is a conclusion as to your intelligence based on your entries here.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:
You are correct that he has no scientific training and little to no understanding of mathematics.

Inversion fallacy.

Science doesn't require 'training'. No university owns science. Science isn't a degree or a credential. Anyone can use or even create science...even kids, if the requirements of a scientific theory are satisfied. Education helps, of course, but it is not required for science.

Wake wrote:
He is a fool with a Big Book of Words to Use to Sound Intelligent.

Heh. I have no such book.

Wake wrote:
But that doesn't make the idea of man-made global warming any less false.

Wake wrote:
Nightmare's OWN Stefan-Boltzmann equation

Wake wrote:
shows HOW climate change could happen

Wake wrote:
if CO2 had the effect it was claimed to have by people like Dr. Michael Mann.

Wake wrote:
In order for CO2 to heat the atmosphere there much be energy in the absorption bands of CO2 and there isn't.

Wake wrote:
This should have been plain to anyone who would stop and think that at one time some 46% of the atmosphere of this planet was CO2 and life formed.

Wake wrote:
There was an ice age when CO2 levels were above 1,000 ppm.

Wake wrote:
Moreover what the media is presenting to the population of this country is a runaway heating - a positive feedback mechanism - that does not meet a single criteria of science or the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Wake wrote:
This "science of climate change" is being presented by people who are mentally deranged.

Wake wrote:
By those who think that we should murder a third or more of the human race in order to save a jellyfish's habitat.
...deleted off topic rant...

Into the Night wrote: Heh. Guess the jellyfish are doing just fine then!

Jellyfish do not destroy habitat.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.

At what point will you make a plain explanation of your nut ideas?

Wake wrote:
You've already told us that radiation goes in ALL directions.

Wake wrote:
If that is so then indeed a colder surface can warm a warmer one.

Wake wrote:
IR radiation is not "light".

Wake wrote:
It is an electro-magnetic wave of a frequency below that of light.

Wake wrote:
Look, making your close minded statements simply shows that you don't understand what you're talking about.

Wake wrote:
Photons are ALL the same.

Wake wrote:
The only difference between them is the amount of energy they carry.

Wake wrote:
Tell me - is your car different when it has a full gas tank than when it is half empty?

Wake wrote:
Photons are zero mass quantum particles.

Wake wrote:
An electron going at near the speed of light is no different than an electron going at a relative zero motion. But the amount of energy they carry is different.

Wake wrote:
You do not understand simple mathematics

Wake wrote:
and your idea that you cannot cross correlate the two variables in Stefan-Boltzmann equation proves it.

Wake wrote:
That you don't believe that you can tell the mean global temperature

Wake wrote:
from direct measurement from space

Wake wrote:
is another point that demonstrates a complete lack of knowledge of science.

Wake wrote:
There's nothing wrong with being ignorant but there's plenty bad about being stupid and holding your position.

Wake wrote:
Or is that another of your definitions of bigot?

Wake wrote:
Anyone that notices that none of your speeches make any sense?

Wake wrote:
Enough of your foolish crap - science does require training.

Wake wrote:
There is a means

Wake wrote:
and a method to it.

Wake wrote:
You have neither.

Wake wrote:
Again you prove your inability to understand emission and absorption.

Wake wrote:
No, IR isn't light.

Wake wrote:
And just any light isn't enough.

Wake wrote:
Because you don't understand science you don't understand the scientific method

Wake wrote:
and how it is controlled by nothing more than a series of theories that can be or may not be true but that MUST be used until a better more explanatory theory comes along.

Wake wrote:
Time after time you show your inability to understand science

Wake wrote:
and think that you can prove you do by happening to know one thing that could POSSIBLY be true.

Wake wrote:
Tell us how you radiate energy into an area of higher energy?

Into the Night wrote: Ad hominem fallacy, Bulverism, and an argument of the Stone.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Ad hominem fallacy, Bulverism, and an argument of the Stone.

More from the Big Book of Words to Sound Intelligent. Believe me, you don't.

Wake wrote:
Again - explain to me how an electron at near the speed of light and one at relative zero motion are different.

Wake wrote:
Then explain how this is ANY different than photons with different energy levels.

Wake wrote:
I'm waiting.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Ad hominem fallacy, Bulverism, and an argument of the Stone.

More from the Big Book of Words to Sound Intelligent. Believe me, you don't.

You seem to like to use this phrase when you don't understand a term that is used. Since you use this phrase so much, it only indicates you actually understand very little.

Wake wrote:
Again - explain to me how an electron at near the speed of light and one at relative zero motion are different.

They aren't. They have the same energy, the same rest mass, the same everything.

Wake wrote:
Then explain how this is ANY different than photons with different energy levels.

They have different energy levels.

Wake wrote:
I'm waiting.

Still?

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Ad hominem fallacy, Bulverism, and an argument of the Stone.

More from the Big Book of Words to Sound Intelligent. Believe me, you don't.

You seem to like to use this phrase when you don't understand a term that is used. Since you use this phrase so much, it only indicates you actually understand very little.

Wake wrote:
Again - explain to me how an electron at near the speed of light and one at relative zero motion are different.

They aren't. They have the same energy, the same rest mass, the same everything.

Wake wrote:
Then explain how this is ANY different than photons with different energy levels.

They have different energy levels.

Wake wrote:
I'm waiting.

Still?

They have the same rest mass and different energy levels. The same as a photon.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: More garbage

There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.

If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.

Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.

I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.

James_ wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: More garbage

There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.

If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.

Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.

I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Greenman,
The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant applies to steel. It's about black body radiation and can be used with Planck's constant as well. This could possibly include Ohm's Law which all ties into how we generate and use electricity. If you've noticed most of this work is focused around 1900 when electricity was just starting to be used.
The Stefan-Boltzmann constant does not apply to atmospheric gases. However the Boltzmann constant does. That can also predict emissivity as well. But it seems Abbott and Costello are to busy entertaining us with their sense of humor ;-)

GreenMan wrote:

I think you are right, James. As far as I can tell, Greenhouse Gases simply absorb electrical energy at a certain frequency, and heat up. I don't see that as any kind of magic.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: More garbage

There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.

If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.

Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.

I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.

I am sure that my "version" does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law, because even if my "version" was what you just said, it has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which simply gives us an equation for determining what the radiance should be, at a given temperature, with a known emissivity. Here it is again, as you stated it:
"radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4"

We will get back to my "version" of Global Warming, and how Greenhouse Gases heat the earth, but for now, can you answer just this question?

Why do you think that earth radiation has to be observed [whether from space or wherever], to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? Why does it have to be observed, period?

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: More garbage

There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.

If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.

Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.

I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.

I am sure that my "version" does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law, because even if my "version" was what you just said, it has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which simply gives us an equation for determining what the radiance should be, at a given temperature, with a known emissivity. Here it is again, as you stated it:
"radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4"

We will get back to my "version" of Global Warming, and how Greenhouse Gases heat the earth, but for now, can you answer just this question?

Why do you think that earth radiation has to be observed [whether from space or wherever], to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? Why does it have to be observed, period?

He doesn't understand how radiant energy works and never will. Heat goes from the warmer to the colder. It doesn't go in all directions as he presupposes with his misunderstanding of radiation. Or rather it does but more energy goes from hot to cold than the other way around.

Remember - he sees radio waves as light.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: More garbage

There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.

If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.

Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.

I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.

I am sure that my "version" does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law, because even if my "version" was what you just said, it has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which simply gives us an equation for determining what the radiance should be, at a given temperature, with a known emissivity. Here it is again, as you stated it:
"radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4"

We will get back to my "version" of Global Warming, and how Greenhouse Gases heat the earth, but for now, can you answer just this question?

Why do you think that earth radiation has to be observed [whether from space or wherever], to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? Why does it have to be observed, period?

GreenMan wrote:

James_ wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: More garbage

There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.

If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.

Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.

I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

Greenman,
The Stefan-Boltzmann Constant applies to steel. It's about black body radiation and can be used with Planck's constant as well. This could possibly include Ohm's Law which all ties into how we generate and use electricity. If you've noticed most of this work is focused around 1900 when electricity was just starting to be used.
The Stefan-Boltzmann constant does not apply to atmospheric gases. However the Boltzmann constant does. That can also predict emissivity as well. But it seems Abbott and Costello are to busy entertaining us with their sense of humor ;-)

I think you are right, James. As far as I can tell, Greenhouse Gases simply absorb electrical energy at a certain frequency, and heat up. I don't see that as any kind of magic.

James_ wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

I think you are right, James. As far as I can tell, Greenhouse Gases simply absorb electrical energy at a certain frequency, and heat up. I don't see that as any kind of magic.

Thanks GreenMan. I've tried explaining to some people that just as ozone is a rare gas in our atmosphere it reflects a lot of UV-B radiation back out into space.

James_ wrote:
And many scientists believes that CO2 reflects electromagnetic radiation back into the lower troposphere.

James_ wrote:
What I think is missing is how efficient is CO2 at doing this.

James_ wrote:
It might be they haven't been able to realize it's specific value just yet. And this would be why computer generated models will vary when it comes to warming.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: More garbage

There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.

If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.

Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.

I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.

I am sure that my "version" does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law, because even if my "version" was what you just said, it has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which simply gives us an equation for determining what the radiance should be, at a given temperature, with a known emissivity. Here it is again, as you stated it:
"radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4"

We will get back to my "version" of Global Warming, and how Greenhouse Gases heat the earth, but for now, can you answer just this question?

Why do you think that earth radiation has to be observed [whether from space or wherever], to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? Why does it have to be observed, period?

He doesn't understand how radiant energy works and never will.

Wake wrote:
Heat goes from the warmer to the colder.

Wake wrote:
It doesn't go in all directions as he presupposes with his misunderstanding of radiation.

Wake wrote:
Or rather it does but more energy goes from hot to cold than the other way around.

Wake wrote:
Remember - he sees radio waves as light.

James_ wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote: More garbage

There are only two variables in the Stefan-Boltzmann equation and they are dependent upon one another temperature and irradiance. If you know ONE you can calculate the other.

If and ONLY if you know the emissivity. You don't.

Write the Stefan-Boltzmann equation for all of us to see.

I already have several times. You even responded to it. Are you THAT forgetful?

radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4

The question of whether Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law comes up quite a bit, with one member in particular trying to use it to dismiss the reality of Greenhouse Gases and the Global Warming theory completely.

We have the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, provided by Into the Night, aka. Parrot Killer, and he [or she] is also the member who tries to use it quite often. Some background on Parrot Killer is that he [or she] is quite knowledgeable in the field of Physics and Statistics. He is also the most active AGW Denier in the forum.

Parrot Killer contends that if anything absorbs earth's radiation [as Greenhouse Gases are thought by most scientists to do] before that radiation makes it into space, that that is a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I contend that the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is not violated by things that absorb earth's radiation. The Law just says that the earth should produce so much radiation, based on its emissivity and temperature. The Law has no bearing on what happens to radiation after being emitted.

Yet Parrot Killer, for some unexplained reason [that I know of] contends that the radiation has to make it to space, as if the Stefan-Boltzmann law has a few more words in it than can be found with a quick search on the Internet. Because no one besides Parrot Killer even remotely mentions that the radiation of a Black [or Grey] Body has to reach outer space to be counted.

So, if you will, Parrot Killer. Could you please explain why you think that earth's radiation has to make it all the way to outer space to be counted, and not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law.

I already have. You observe the whole Earth from space.

Absorption does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. YOUR version does, because you try to make emission of light from CO2 go back down and warm the surface again. You have also tried to warm the surface using a colder gas by conduction.

I am sure that my "version" does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law, because even if my "version" was what you just said, it has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, which simply gives us an equation for determining what the radiance should be, at a given temperature, with a known emissivity. Here it is again, as you stated it:
"radiance = SBConstant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4"

We will get back to my "version" of Global Warming, and how Greenhouse Gases heat the earth, but for now, can you answer just this question?

Why do you think that earth radiation has to be observed [whether from space or wherever], to comply with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law? Why does it have to be observed, period?

He doesn't understand how radiant energy works and never will. Heat goes from the warmer to the colder. It doesn't go in all directions as he presupposes with his misunderstanding of radiation. Or rather it does but more energy goes from hot to cold than the other way around.

Remember - he sees radio waves as light.

Wake says >> He doesn't understand how radiant energy works and never will. Heat goes from the warmer to the colder. <<
You mean like from the tropopause at -74° to the troposphere where today (where I live) it is currently 69° for a net increase of 143° F. I am glad you cleared that up for me Wake

@GreenMan,
I think that I've thought of a way to show that our atmosphere is acted upon by outside forces. Just as the Moon is responsible for tides it can also effect atmospheric pressure. And with pressure, if you scroll down you'll see where it says Ideal Gas Law with Restraints. http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/idegas.html
With me I do believe that the van Allen Radiation Belts expand our atmosphere. If CO2 "robs" momentum from lighter gases then it would have the potential to cause them to store more electro-magnetic radiation which in turn would be observed as heat. Wake and ITN I don't think accepts that conservation of angular momentum can allow for a more energetic environment. They don't accept angular momentum as having anything to do with atmospheric chemistry. One of the reasons I think there here to provide some comedic relief

Into the Night wrote:


I find it hilarious that you quote from the hyperphysics website and then claim that angular momentum has anything to do with temperature or chemistry.

Maybe you should study the site some more.

James_ wrote: You mean like from the tropopause at -74° to the troposphere where today (where I live) it is currently 69° for a net increase of 143° F. I am glad you cleared that up for me Wake

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


I find it hilarious that you quote from the hyperphysics website and then claim that angular momentum has anything to do with temperature or chemistry.

Maybe you should study the site some more.

That does seem to be all you know about science isn't it ? You allude to knowing something. You and Wake do it quite well and I find it comical how insulted the both of you act sometimes.

al·lude
əˈlo͞od/Submit
verb
suggest or call attention to indirectly; hint at.
synonyms: refer to, touch on, suggest, hint at, imply, mention (in passing), make an allusion to