Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law

Wake wrote:
Why are you arguing with nightmare about this?

Wake wrote:
I note that one of your mistakes is that you think that CO2 absorbing energy on the way out is somehow permanent. It is not. All of the energy that falls on the Earth is radiated back out again. Otherwise two days after the Earth was formed it would be a ball of cinders.

All CO2 does is pick up heat via conduction the same as other atmospheric gases. This it passes on just like all the other gases.

Wake wrote:
As for absorbing radiated heat we've already gone through that. Though my estimate is that all of the Earth's radiation in the 5 um wavelength is absorbed within a meter
I would be willing to settle for your reference of 10 meters to "near" complete absorption. It makes no difference since the end result is the same

Wake wrote:
- heat is passed through the troposphere via conduction.

Wake wrote:
It is conveyed into the stratosphere where it radiates entirely off of this planet though perhaps in a rather complicated way that we gain nothing by discussing.

Wake wrote:
Energy in = energy out. Increasing CO2 makes no difference whatsoever.

Wake wrote:
And since it was in saturation from 220 ppm on it doesn't even warm the atmosphere.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Nothing on Earth can possibly "heat space," because there is no matter in space for thermal energy to transfer to.

There actually is. Space is not empty. But for now we can ignore that part.

GreenMan wrote:
It's more correct to say that everything on earth is trying to illuminate space, because that's what's really going on, though it's not visible light, so it's not really illuminating anything. It just warms whatever it strikes eventually, the further away the less warmth whatever it is gets though.

Fine. If you want to look at this way, I can work with that (of course that means you are observing from space again, aren't you?).

Nothing at all wrong with considering earth from space. As long as you understand that some of the surface ir radiation is being absorbed on its way up to space. And that radiation that is being absorbed increases the temperature of its surrounding air mass, and thus causing the surrounding air mass to emit a little more ir radiation.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Absorption of radiation AFTER it has been emitted by the surface of earth is not preventing emission. The radiation is obviously being emitted, or the "Magick Holy Gas" would have nothing to absorb. And what about airplanes? Aren't they breaking the law, according to your interpretation of it? Do they not block radiation, before it gets to space also?

Of course "Magick Holy Gases" and the other ones too, emit radiation. Everything emits radiation based on its temperature. I thought you knew that. As far as I can tell, the atmosphere emits most of the radiation required to satisfy Mr. Boltzmann, because it absorbs most of what the surface emits.

Absorption isn't blocking energy. It is converting it. You can't trap heat.

GreenMan wrote:

I didn't mean to imply that absorption was "blocking radiation." Whether or not you can "trap heat" is another thread regarding thermodynamics. This one is about trying to figure out why you think the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is violated by what you call Magick Gas, or Greenhouse Gases in the rest of the Universe.

Into the Night wrote:

Ok, once and for all.
1) The surface emits radiation based on it's temperature.
2) Greenhouse gases absorb most of that radiation and convert it to thermal energy, warming the surround air molecules.
3) The air emits radiation based on it's temperature.
4) The lower air warms the higher air through convection and radiation, because the higher air gets to absorb some of the lower air's radiation.
5) The air eventually gets so thin that most radiation is now allowed to escape.

The air does not have to get thin to allow light to escape. MOST of the light escaping the earth is reflected light (you can see the Earth from space! It's bright and shiny!). Planck radiance is also brightest from the surface. That radiance include infrared light. It also includes many other frequencies. Earth is not all the same temperature, and it is not emitting harmonic light, but a band of light with the peak centered in the infrared band (a very wide band). Some of that light happens to be a frequency that can be absorbed by CO2 or some other Holy Gas.

Wait a minute, did I read that sentence incorrectly, or did you just agree that some ir emissions are absorbed by CO2?

You see, that is what this thread is about. Your contention has been that absorption of radiation by CO2 or other Greenhouse Gases violated the Stefan-Boltzmann Law. So are you standing down on that now?

Into the Night wrote:

The surface is brightest. It is the densest material emitting light. It reaches space generally unimpeded by anything. What is absorbed is simply part of the radiance of the atmosphere instead of the surface.

GreenMan wrote:
6) That radiation must match what the Stefan-Boltzmann Law specifies.

Plus any reflected light, plus any light we generate such as city lights, heating systems, headlights, even an indicator LED. Planck radiance isn't the only source of light from the Earth.

GreenMan wrote:

Into Night Flight wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
I said it is emitting, as it should, and that greenhouse gases are absorbing part of what is being emitted.

Now you are saying Magick Holy Gas is NOT emitting again.

They can emit and absorb simultaneously. In fact, they have to admit and absorb simultaneously, or the would blow up. We would see little flickers of light everywhere.

Into the Night wrote:

No I'm not, and stop trying to twist what I'm saying around, so you can act like you are right.

You are fixated on CO2 absorption of infrared light. What you are missing is that CO2 is NOT capable of warming the Earth. It's just another material being heated by the surface just like heating by conduction to the rest of the atmosphere is. It is how the surface COOLS.

Well yes, I am fixated on CO2 absorption, in this thread. I started this thread because you keep saying that Greenhouse Gases somehow violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and the 1st and 2nd Laws of Thermodynamics. We will discuss the thermal energy laws next, because to be honest with you, I'm tired of hearing that the S-B Laws are broken, when they aren't. In fact, you admitted that you understand that CO2 does absorb ir emissions and convert those emissions to heat. So you know that it is not a violation of the S-B Laws. So now your only recourse is to change the focus to the Laws of Thermodynamics. But those laws are not relevant in this discussion, because we aren't discussing how Greenhouse Gases heat the earth. We are just discussing why you think they violate the S-B Laws. Now it is clear they don't. And that is what I was trying to accomplish. So thank you for your wisdom, which is slowly sinking in.

Into the Night wrote:

Warm air rises, cooling it. Air also emits, cooling it. It cannot warm the already warmer surface. It can't do it by conduction, it can't do it by convection, it can't do it by radiance.

GreenMan wrote:
Just because Greenhouse gases can absorb radiation, it doesn't mean they can't emit radiation. They have mass, so they should emit radiation based on their temperature.

Absorption does not prevent emission. That's a stupid argument. If there were no emission, there would be no absorption. And if there is absorption, there had to be emission.

You ARE trying to use absorption without emission. You are trying to say that hotter air STAYS hotter in order to slow down heat loss from the surface.

No, I am not saying that hot air stays hotter. I am saying that it gets a little hotter than it would without the presence of Greenhouse Gases. And that additional thermal energy is slowing down conduction from the surface to the air. And that happens even though the warmer air at the surface is constantly being replace by cooler air from above.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Radiance is not heat.

Radiance is heat. Heat can occur due to conduction, convection, or RADIANCE.

Yeah, ok, I looked it up, and radiance is heat. But that's no reason to consider thermal energy and radiance as the same thing. They aren't.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Heat is the transfer of thermal energy from a warmer object to a cooler one. It is all about THERMAL ENERGY, not ELECTRO-MAGNETIC ENERGY.

This part is correct.

GreenMan wrote:
They are two different forms of energy, and don't share the same units, and they don't even talk to each other. Strange that, since they both appear to thrive in the same general areas.

Energy doesn't talk at all. You can easily convert from one to the other though. They DO interact. They also have the same units. Energy is measured in terms of work...in other words what it could do if were transferred to something else. That common unit of energy is the Joule. It covers all forms of energy. The Joule is also a direct unit of heat, since heat is talking about the transfer (in the case of thermal energy) itself.

So we measure thermal energy using a thermometer. We measure light using a photometer (for visible ranges, through the use of absorption like our eyeballs do), or by measuring the effect of absorption of other materials and the increased temperature they have, or the chemical change that occurs, or the ionization level reached in a material. This gives us the amount of light for a limited band of frequencies.

Another way to measure light is to integrate all tuned wire antenna measurements over all frequencies. Not a practical instrument.

Most people are interested, like Wake, in only a certain band of frequencies of light. That makes it easier to measure it. There actually is no practical way to measure all of the light.

I'm not really interested in any of it, in this thread, unless it is in violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, and apparently, it isn't.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
Heat is what you feel when you walk across an asphalt parking lot barefoot in the summer time. You are feeling thermal energy being transferred from the parking lot to your feet. You are actually cooling the parking lot a little by walking across it. Thank you.

You are describing heat by conduction. No problem here.

GreenMan wrote:
But you know what, that parking lot is emitting radiation like crazy, because of the heat.

No, because of its temperature. Emission IS heat.

GreenMan wrote:
Fortunately for you, it doesn't affect you at all.

Actually it does. Each molecule in the outer areas of your body is affected by that radiance. They absorb it, and pass it on as part of the Planck radiance each molecule of your body is normally putting out, even on a cold day. You feel overall slightly warmer, since your nervous system is somewhat sensitive to this effect. You feel outright hot on such a day because of the air temperature, a function of heating by conduction and radiance from the surface. That is in addition to the radiance coming directly from the surface affecting you.

Surely you've seen the heat waves coming off such a parking lot? That is air being heated by the partking lot. The wavy effect is the effect of convection in the air as it rises, temporarily changing its density, and thus its ability to scatter light. That air is also emitting and losing energy, as well as losing energy by convection.

GreenMan wrote:
Yes, I am allowing for emission by that gas. In fact, I'm demanding it, because Mr. Boltzmann, whom I have the utmost regard for, said that it must emit, based on it's temperature.

You say you do, but then you don't. You keep changing your position on this. That is why you are in paradox. You are still continuing to justify that paradox. It is an irrational argument that you are making.

You keep couching how you don't in some way that tries to justify heating the Earth with a Holy Gas.

There is nothing holy about any gas. No gas has the ability to warm the Earth. ALL of them are simply part of the atmosphere, and a part of the overall radiance of Earth. ALL of them combined radiate less than the surface itself. A lot less.

The radiance of the Earth is the sum of the two.

Your only argument for why Greenhouse Gases violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law is that they violate the Laws of Thermodynamics. As far as I am concerned, that means there is no violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, because the Laws of Thermodynamics have nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann Law, even though they are both about heat. One is about heat from Thermal Energy, and the other is from heat from Electro-Magnetic Radiation.

We will see in a subsequent thread how Greenhouse Gases do not violate the Laws of Thermodynamics next, on another thread.

Thank you for your expertise.

James_ wrote:
I'm, kind of hate to disappoint you but I doubt they have any understanding of what electronic-magnetic radiation is. This probably includes what refracted solar system radiation is as well.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
No, I am not saying that hot air stays hotter. I am saying that it gets a little hotter than it would without the presence of Greenhouse Gases.

This statement is a paradox. The remainder of the discussion is deleted for brevity because of the presence of this paradox. You must choose one or the other dude. The irrationality of continuing to claim both sides of the argument at the same time is your problem.

Once you choose which argument you want to use and discard the other, then we can talk about how well this fits with the S-B law or the laws of thermodynamics.

Until then, the rest of your discussion is useless, since it is based on this paradox.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]GreenMan wrote:
No, I am not saying that hot air stays hotter. I am saying that it gets a little hotter than it would without the presence of Greenhouse Gases.

This statement is a paradox. The remainder of the discussion is deleted for brevity because of the presence of this paradox. You must choose one or the other dude. The irrationality of continuing to claim both sides of the argument at the same time is your problem.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
No, I am not saying that hot air stays hotter. I am saying that it gets a little hotter than it would without the presence of Greenhouse Gases.

This statement is a paradox. The remainder of the discussion is deleted for brevity because of the presence of this paradox. You must choose one or the other dude. The irrationality of continuing to claim both sides of the argument at the same time is your problem.

Once you choose which argument you want to use and discard the other, then we can talk about how well this fits with the S-B law or the laws of thermodynamics.

Until then, the rest of your discussion is useless, since it is based on this paradox.

I don't see the paradox that you do, but that might be because I know what I meant to say, and you could be reading things that I didn't mean to imply.

What I am saying is pretty simple to understand, when broken down a bit.

For starters, if there was no atmosphere, the surface of the earth would warm up to something comparable to what the Space Station does. At least on the sunny side. The atmosphere blocks part of the energy from the sun though, so it doesn't get that warm here.

Some genius guy a few hundred years ago figured out that it is warmer on earth than it should be, based on the distance the earth is from the sun, and the amount of energy reaching the planet. I'm not sure how he figured it out, but his figuring has apparently withstood the test of time, because it isn't really disputed that the earth would be about 33C colder if not for something going on besides "just the sun."

So, for the purpose of understanding, start with an atmosphere that was void of any water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O, or the other Greenhouse Gases. Consider that it is quite a bit colder now, because there is no Magick Gas to keep things toasty.

Now, introduce some Greenhouse Gas into the atmosphere. All of the sudden, the temperature of the atmosphere begins to rise. The sun's output is the same as it was, but the earth's surface is not conducting as much energy to the air as it was, due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. [The rate of transfer is dependent on the difference in temperature between the two]

Surface Cooling has slowed down, but the same amount of energy is still coming in, so the surface gets warmer.

There are a lot of intricate details that I left out, for sure, but that is the gist of how I understand Global Warming to be about.

None of that breaks the LoT, or S-B Law.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
No, I am not saying that hot air stays hotter. I am saying that it gets a little hotter than it would without the presence of Greenhouse Gases.

This statement is a paradox. The remainder of the discussion is deleted for brevity because of the presence of this paradox. You must choose one or the other dude. The irrationality of continuing to claim both sides of the argument at the same time is your problem.

Once you choose which argument you want to use and discard the other, then we can talk about how well this fits with the S-B law or the laws of thermodynamics.

Until then, the rest of your discussion is useless, since it is based on this paradox.

I don't see the paradox that you do,

...deleted repetition of paradox...

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]GreenMan wrote:
No, I am not saying that hot air stays hotter. I am saying that it gets a little hotter than it would without the presence of Greenhouse Gases.

This statement is a paradox. The remainder of the discussion is deleted for brevity because of the presence of this paradox. You must choose one or the other dude. The irrationality of continuing to claim both sides of the argument at the same time is your problem.

Nightmare invents what he wants you to say and then acts as if you said it.

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
No, I am not saying that hot air stays hotter. I am saying that it gets a little hotter than it would without the presence of Greenhouse Gases.

This statement is a paradox. The remainder of the discussion is deleted for brevity because of the presence of this paradox. You must choose one or the other dude. The irrationality of continuing to claim both sides of the argument at the same time is your problem.

Once you choose which argument you want to use and discard the other, then we can talk about how well this fits with the S-B law or the laws of thermodynamics.

Until then, the rest of your discussion is useless, since it is based on this paradox.

I don't see the paradox that you do, but that might be because I know what I meant to say, and you could be reading things that I didn't mean to imply.

What I am saying is pretty simple to understand, when broken down a bit.

For starters, if there was no atmosphere, the surface of the earth would warm up to something comparable to what the Space Station does. At least on the sunny side. The atmosphere blocks part of the energy from the sun though, so it doesn't get that warm here.

Some genius guy a few hundred years ago figured out that it is warmer on earth than it should be, based on the distance the earth is from the sun, and the amount of energy reaching the planet. I'm not sure how he figured it out, but his figuring has apparently withstood the test of time, because it isn't really disputed that the earth would be about 33C colder if not for something going on besides "just the sun."

So, for the purpose of understanding, start with an atmosphere that was void of any water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O, or the other Greenhouse Gases. Consider that it is quite a bit colder now, because there is no Magick Gas to keep things toasty.

Now, introduce some Greenhouse Gas into the atmosphere. All of the sudden, the temperature of the atmosphere begins to rise. The sun's output is the same as it was, but the earth's surface is not conducting as much energy to the air as it was, due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. [The rate of transfer is dependent on the difference in temperature between the two]

Surface Cooling has slowed down, but the same amount of energy is still coming in, so the surface gets warmer.

There are a lot of intricate details that I left out, for sure, but that is the gist of how I understand Global Warming to be about.

None of that breaks the LoT, or S-B Law.

The only problem with your theory is that none of it works. Adding a tiny amount of these gases does cause a slight but measurable warming. Adding more does nothing additional. Since the natural sources for these "greenhouse gases" removed the Earth's emissions there is nothing further to absorb and to heat anything.

We have already gone through this and you were forced to face it. Now you want to pretend that it never happened and that if you close your eyes tight enough that you can pretend that the world isn't the way it is.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
No, I am not saying that hot air stays hotter. I am saying that it gets a little hotter than it would without the presence of Greenhouse Gases.

This statement is a paradox. The remainder of the discussion is deleted for brevity because of the presence of this paradox. You must choose one or the other dude. The irrationality of continuing to claim both sides of the argument at the same time is your problem.

Once you choose which argument you want to use and discard the other, then we can talk about how well this fits with the S-B law or the laws of thermodynamics.

Until then, the rest of your discussion is useless, since it is based on this paradox.

I don't see the paradox that you do, but that might be because I know what I meant to say, and you could be reading things that I didn't mean to imply.

What I am saying is pretty simple to understand, when broken down a bit.

For starters, if there was no atmosphere, the surface of the earth would warm up to something comparable to what the Space Station does. At least on the sunny side. The atmosphere blocks part of the energy from the sun though, so it doesn't get that warm here.

Some genius guy a few hundred years ago figured out that it is warmer on earth than it should be, based on the distance the earth is from the sun, and the amount of energy reaching the planet. I'm not sure how he figured it out, but his figuring has apparently withstood the test of time, because it isn't really disputed that the earth would be about 33C colder if not for something going on besides "just the sun."

So, for the purpose of understanding, start with an atmosphere that was void of any water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O, or the other Greenhouse Gases. Consider that it is quite a bit colder now, because there is no Magick Gas to keep things toasty.

Now, introduce some Greenhouse Gas into the atmosphere. All of the sudden, the temperature of the atmosphere begins to rise. The sun's output is the same as it was, but the earth's surface is not conducting as much energy to the air as it was, due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. [The rate of transfer is dependent on the difference in temperature between the two]

Surface Cooling has slowed down, but the same amount of energy is still coming in, so the surface gets warmer.

There are a lot of intricate details that I left out, for sure, but that is the gist of how I understand Global Warming to be about.

None of that breaks the LoT, or S-B Law.

The only problem with your theory is that none of it works. Adding a tiny amount of these gases does cause a slight but measurable warming. Adding more does nothing additional. Since the natural sources for these "greenhouse gases" removed the Earth's emissions there is nothing further to absorb and to heat anything.

We have already gone through this and you were forced to face it. Now you want to pretend that it never happened and that if you close your eyes tight enough that you can pretend that the world isn't the way it is.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas can add energy to the Earth.

Here is a great example of where the Church of the Warmzombie agrees with the Church of Global Warming.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
No, I am not saying that hot air stays hotter. I am saying that it gets a little hotter than it would without the presence of Greenhouse Gases.

This statement is a paradox. The remainder of the discussion is deleted for brevity because of the presence of this paradox. You must choose one or the other dude. The irrationality of continuing to claim both sides of the argument at the same time is your problem.

Once you choose which argument you want to use and discard the other, then we can talk about how well this fits with the S-B law or the laws of thermodynamics.

Until then, the rest of your discussion is useless, since it is based on this paradox.

I don't see the paradox that you do, but that might be because I know what I meant to say, and you could be reading things that I didn't mean to imply.

What I am saying is pretty simple to understand, when broken down a bit.

For starters, if there was no atmosphere, the surface of the earth would warm up to something comparable to what the Space Station does. At least on the sunny side. The atmosphere blocks part of the energy from the sun though, so it doesn't get that warm here.

Some genius guy a few hundred years ago figured out that it is warmer on earth than it should be, based on the distance the earth is from the sun, and the amount of energy reaching the planet. I'm not sure how he figured it out, but his figuring has apparently withstood the test of time, because it isn't really disputed that the earth would be about 33C colder if not for something going on besides "just the sun."

So, for the purpose of understanding, start with an atmosphere that was void of any water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O, or the other Greenhouse Gases. Consider that it is quite a bit colder now, because there is no Magick Gas to keep things toasty.

Now, introduce some Greenhouse Gas into the atmosphere. All of the sudden, the temperature of the atmosphere begins to rise. The sun's output is the same as it was, but the earth's surface is not conducting as much energy to the air as it was, due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. [The rate of transfer is dependent on the difference in temperature between the two]

Surface Cooling has slowed down, but the same amount of energy is still coming in, so the surface gets warmer.

There are a lot of intricate details that I left out, for sure, but that is the gist of how I understand Global Warming to be about.

None of that breaks the LoT, or S-B Law.

The only problem with your theory is that none of it works. Adding a tiny amount of these gases does cause a slight but measurable warming. Adding more does nothing additional. Since the natural sources for these "greenhouse gases" removed the Earth's emissions there is nothing further to absorb and to heat anything.

We have already gone through this and you were forced to face it. Now you want to pretend that it never happened and that if you close your eyes tight enough that you can pretend that the world isn't the way it is.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas can add energy to the Earth.

Here is a great example of where the Church of the Warmzombie agrees with the Church of Global Warming.

I think it is on you to prove that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. This in my opinion shows your lack of understanding when it comes to science.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
No, I am not saying that hot air stays hotter. I am saying that it gets a little hotter than it would without the presence of Greenhouse Gases.

This statement is a paradox. The remainder of the discussion is deleted for brevity because of the presence of this paradox. You must choose one or the other dude. The irrationality of continuing to claim both sides of the argument at the same time is your problem.

Once you choose which argument you want to use and discard the other, then we can talk about how well this fits with the S-B law or the laws of thermodynamics.

Until then, the rest of your discussion is useless, since it is based on this paradox.

I don't see the paradox that you do, but that might be because I know what I meant to say, and you could be reading things that I didn't mean to imply.

What I am saying is pretty simple to understand, when broken down a bit.

For starters, if there was no atmosphere, the surface of the earth would warm up to something comparable to what the Space Station does. At least on the sunny side. The atmosphere blocks part of the energy from the sun though, so it doesn't get that warm here.

Some genius guy a few hundred years ago figured out that it is warmer on earth than it should be, based on the distance the earth is from the sun, and the amount of energy reaching the planet. I'm not sure how he figured it out, but his figuring has apparently withstood the test of time, because it isn't really disputed that the earth would be about 33C colder if not for something going on besides "just the sun."

So, for the purpose of understanding, start with an atmosphere that was void of any water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O, or the other Greenhouse Gases. Consider that it is quite a bit colder now, because there is no Magick Gas to keep things toasty.

Now, introduce some Greenhouse Gas into the atmosphere. All of the sudden, the temperature of the atmosphere begins to rise. The sun's output is the same as it was, but the earth's surface is not conducting as much energy to the air as it was, due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. [The rate of transfer is dependent on the difference in temperature between the two]

Surface Cooling has slowed down, but the same amount of energy is still coming in, so the surface gets warmer.

There are a lot of intricate details that I left out, for sure, but that is the gist of how I understand Global Warming to be about.

None of that breaks the LoT, or S-B Law.

The only problem with your theory is that none of it works. Adding a tiny amount of these gases does cause a slight but measurable warming. Adding more does nothing additional. Since the natural sources for these "greenhouse gases" removed the Earth's emissions there is nothing further to absorb and to heat anything.

We have already gone through this and you were forced to face it. Now you want to pretend that it never happened and that if you close your eyes tight enough that you can pretend that the world isn't the way it is.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas can add energy to the Earth.

Here is a great example of where the Church of the Warmzombie agrees with the Church of Global Warming.

I think it is on you to prove that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. This in my opinion shows your lack of understanding when it comes to science.

GasGuzler wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
No, I am not saying that hot air stays hotter. I am saying that it gets a little hotter than it would without the presence of Greenhouse Gases.

This statement is a paradox. The remainder of the discussion is deleted for brevity because of the presence of this paradox. You must choose one or the other dude. The irrationality of continuing to claim both sides of the argument at the same time is your problem.

Once you choose which argument you want to use and discard the other, then we can talk about how well this fits with the S-B law or the laws of thermodynamics.

Until then, the rest of your discussion is useless, since it is based on this paradox.

I don't see the paradox that you do, but that might be because I know what I meant to say, and you could be reading things that I didn't mean to imply.

What I am saying is pretty simple to understand, when broken down a bit.

For starters, if there was no atmosphere, the surface of the earth would warm up to something comparable to what the Space Station does. At least on the sunny side. The atmosphere blocks part of the energy from the sun though, so it doesn't get that warm here.

Some genius guy a few hundred years ago figured out that it is warmer on earth than it should be, based on the distance the earth is from the sun, and the amount of energy reaching the planet. I'm not sure how he figured it out, but his figuring has apparently withstood the test of time, because it isn't really disputed that the earth would be about 33C colder if not for something going on besides "just the sun."

So, for the purpose of understanding, start with an atmosphere that was void of any water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O, or the other Greenhouse Gases. Consider that it is quite a bit colder now, because there is no Magick Gas to keep things toasty.

Now, introduce some Greenhouse Gas into the atmosphere. All of the sudden, the temperature of the atmosphere begins to rise. The sun's output is the same as it was, but the earth's surface is not conducting as much energy to the air as it was, due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. [The rate of transfer is dependent on the difference in temperature between the two]

Surface Cooling has slowed down, but the same amount of energy is still coming in, so the surface gets warmer.

There are a lot of intricate details that I left out, for sure, but that is the gist of how I understand Global Warming to be about.

None of that breaks the LoT, or S-B Law.

The only problem with your theory is that none of it works. Adding a tiny amount of these gases does cause a slight but measurable warming. Adding more does nothing additional. Since the natural sources for these "greenhouse gases" removed the Earth's emissions there is nothing further to absorb and to heat anything.

We have already gone through this and you were forced to face it. Now you want to pretend that it never happened and that if you close your eyes tight enough that you can pretend that the world isn't the way it is.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas can add energy to the Earth.

Here is a great example of where the Church of the Warmzombie agrees with the Church of Global Warming.

I think it is on you to prove that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. This in my opinion shows your lack of understanding when it comes to science.

CO2 is most certainly a greenhouse gas when it is pumped into a greenhouse. Levels from 400-1000 ppm are quite optimum.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
No, I am not saying that hot air stays hotter. I am saying that it gets a little hotter than it would without the presence of Greenhouse Gases.

This statement is a paradox. The remainder of the discussion is deleted for brevity because of the presence of this paradox. You must choose one or the other dude. The irrationality of continuing to claim both sides of the argument at the same time is your problem.

Once you choose which argument you want to use and discard the other, then we can talk about how well this fits with the S-B law or the laws of thermodynamics.

Until then, the rest of your discussion is useless, since it is based on this paradox.

I don't see the paradox that you do, but that might be because I know what I meant to say, and you could be reading things that I didn't mean to imply.

What I am saying is pretty simple to understand, when broken down a bit.

For starters, if there was no atmosphere, the surface of the earth would warm up to something comparable to what the Space Station does. At least on the sunny side. The atmosphere blocks part of the energy from the sun though, so it doesn't get that warm here.

Some genius guy a few hundred years ago figured out that it is warmer on earth than it should be, based on the distance the earth is from the sun, and the amount of energy reaching the planet. I'm not sure how he figured it out, but his figuring has apparently withstood the test of time, because it isn't really disputed that the earth would be about 33C colder if not for something going on besides "just the sun."

So, for the purpose of understanding, start with an atmosphere that was void of any water vapor, CO2, CH4, N2O, or the other Greenhouse Gases. Consider that it is quite a bit colder now, because there is no Magick Gas to keep things toasty.

Now, introduce some Greenhouse Gas into the atmosphere. All of the sudden, the temperature of the atmosphere begins to rise. The sun's output is the same as it was, but the earth's surface is not conducting as much energy to the air as it was, due to the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. [The rate of transfer is dependent on the difference in temperature between the two]

Surface Cooling has slowed down, but the same amount of energy is still coming in, so the surface gets warmer.

There are a lot of intricate details that I left out, for sure, but that is the gist of how I understand Global Warming to be about.

None of that breaks the LoT, or S-B Law.

The only problem with your theory is that none of it works. Adding a tiny amount of these gases does cause a slight but measurable warming. Adding more does nothing additional. Since the natural sources for these "greenhouse gases" removed the Earth's emissions there is nothing further to absorb and to heat anything.

We have already gone through this and you were forced to face it. Now you want to pretend that it never happened and that if you close your eyes tight enough that you can pretend that the world isn't the way it is.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas can add energy to the Earth.

Here is a great example of where the Church of the Warmzombie agrees with the Church of Global Warming.

I think it is on you to prove that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. This in my opinion shows your lack of understanding when it comes to science.

No one needs to prove a negative.

YOU need to show why and which theories of science must be modified to accommodate your views. YOU need to show why your theory is internally consistent, externally consistent, and falsifiable.

So far you can't even define 'global warming' without using circular definitions. So far you have not been able to show a theory at all, since no theory, whether scientific or otherwise, can exist based on a fallacy (such as the fallacy of the void argument).

If you want anyone to take your 'theory' seriously, you must FIRST define what 'global warming' is without using circular definitions.

James_ wrote:
Since you have stated that greenhouse gases do not exist you do need to show something.

James_ wrote:
Science is not based on someone like yourself saying "Because I Said So". In a debate you need to give an explanation as to why you are right.

James_ wrote:
You keep placing the emphasis on people proving you wrong.

James_ wrote:
They are not obligated to do so.

James_ wrote:
Yet while you should be obligated to make known why you have such an opinion you maintain that people have to accept that you right Because You Say So.

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Since you have stated that greenhouse gases do not exist you do need to show something.

Nope. No one needs to prove a negative. You are also denying all the explanations why I have made that statement.

James_ wrote:
Science is not based on someone like yourself saying "Because I Said So". In a debate you need to give an explanation as to why you are right.

Science is not a debate. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

James_ wrote:
You keep placing the emphasis on people proving you wrong.

Inversion fallacy. YOU have to show why science must be changed.

James_ wrote:
They are not obligated to do so.

They ARE obligated to do so.

James_ wrote:
Yet while you should be obligated to make known why you have such an opinion you maintain that people have to accept that you right Because You Say So.

Inversion fallacy. I am not saying anything. YOU have failed to produce any theory of science.

Want to produce one? Begin with defining 'global warming' without using any circular definitions.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Since you have stated that greenhouse gases do not exist you do need to show something.

Nope. No one needs to prove a negative. You are also denying all the explanations why I have made that statement.

James_ wrote:
Science is not based on someone like yourself saying "Because I Said So". In a debate you need to give an explanation as to why you are right.

Science is not a debate. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

James_ wrote:
You keep placing the emphasis on people proving you wrong.

Inversion fallacy. YOU have to show why science must be changed.

James_ wrote:
They are not obligated to do so.

They ARE obligated to do so.

James_ wrote:
Yet while you should be obligated to make known why you have such an opinion you maintain that people have to accept that you right Because You Say So.

Inversion fallacy. I am not saying anything. YOU have failed to produce any theory of science.

Want to produce one? Begin with defining 'global warming' without using any circular definitions.

into the night,
You're a waste of time. You claim to understand the Stefan-Boltzmann constant yet will say you don't understand what a climate is or what is meant by climate change.
This is what let's me know that you only want to play mind games.

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
No, I am not saying that hot air stays hotter. I am saying that it gets a little hotter than it would without the presence of Greenhouse Gases.

This statement is a paradox. The remainder of the discussion is deleted for brevity because of the presence of this paradox. You must choose one or the other dude. The irrationality of continuing to claim both sides of the argument at the same time is your problem.

Once you choose which argument you want to use and discard the other, then we can talk about how well this fits with the S-B law or the laws of thermodynamics.

Until then, the rest of your discussion is useless, since it is based on this paradox.

I don't see the paradox that you do,

...deleted repetition of paradox...

Because the Church of Global Warming has clouded your ability to discern such things.

1) The lower atmosphere gets hotter and remains hotter due to 'greenhouse effect'.
2) The lower atmosphere does not get hotter.

Which one is it, dude? You have to choose one and discard the other to clear your paradox.

If you say the lower atmosphere does not remain hotter, then there is no 'greenhouse effect'. Nothing is warming.

On the other hand, if you say the lower atmosphere is hotter and remains hotter, then you are violating both the 2nd LoT and the S-B law.

If you choose both, you remain in paradox and the resulting irrationality.

The paradox must be cleared if you want to discuss this. Remaining in irrationality will get you nowhere.

You so far have some sixteen paradoxes you have never cleared. If you decide to try to clear this one, then we can work on the others.

Into the Night wrote:

Stefan-Boltzmann has nothing to do with climate. It has to do with the amount of light radiating from a surface according to its temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant has nothing to do with climate. It is a constant of nature that essentially puts the Stefan-Boltzmann law into our units of measure.

Now, do you want to try to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular arguments?

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Since you have stated that greenhouse gases do not exist you do need to show something.

Nope. No one needs to prove a negative. You are also denying all the explanations why I have made that statement.

James_ wrote:
Science is not based on someone like yourself saying "Because I Said So". In a debate you need to give an explanation as to why you are right.

Science is not a debate. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

James_ wrote:
You keep placing the emphasis on people proving you wrong.

Inversion fallacy. YOU have to show why science must be changed.

James_ wrote:
They are not obligated to do so.

They ARE obligated to do so.

James_ wrote:
Yet while you should be obligated to make known why you have such an opinion you maintain that people have to accept that you right Because You Say So.

Inversion fallacy. I am not saying anything. YOU have failed to produce any theory of science.

Want to produce one? Begin with defining 'global warming' without using any circular definitions.

into the night,
You're a waste of time. You claim to understand the Stefan-Boltzmann constant yet will say you don't understand what a climate is or what is meant by climate change.
This is what let's me know that you only want to play mind games.

Non sequitur.

Stefan-Boltzmann has nothing to do with climate. It has to do with the amount of light radiating from a surface according to its temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant has nothing to do with climate. It is a constant of nature that essentially puts the Stefan-Boltzmann law into our units of measure.

Now, do you want to try to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular arguments?

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Since you have stated that greenhouse gases do not exist you do need to show something.

Nope. No one needs to prove a negative. You are also denying all the explanations why I have made that statement.

James_ wrote:
Science is not based on someone like yourself saying "Because I Said So". In a debate you need to give an explanation as to why you are right.

Science is not a debate. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

James_ wrote:
You keep placing the emphasis on people proving you wrong.

Inversion fallacy. YOU have to show why science must be changed.

James_ wrote:
They are not obligated to do so.

They ARE obligated to do so.

James_ wrote:
Yet while you should be obligated to make known why you have such an opinion you maintain that people have to accept that you right Because You Say So.

Inversion fallacy. I am not saying anything. YOU have failed to produce any theory of science.

Want to produce one? Begin with defining 'global warming' without using any circular definitions.

into the night,
You're a waste of time. You claim to understand the Stefan-Boltzmann constant yet will say you don't understand what a climate is or what is meant by climate change.
This is what let's me know that you only want to play mind games.

Non sequitur.

Stefan-Boltzmann has nothing to do with climate. It has to do with the amount of light radiating from a surface according to its temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant has nothing to do with climate. It is a constant of nature that essentially puts the Stefan-Boltzmann law into our units of measure.

Now, do you want to try to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular arguments?

Why still the mind games?
You've always have maintained that the emissivity of our atmosphere according to the Stefan - Boltzmann constant cannot change.
One day people will clue in to the fact that you're only here to play games.
When that day comes hopefully they'll quit posting with you as other people do have an actual opinion.

GreenMan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

James_ wrote:
Since you have stated that greenhouse gases do not exist you do need to show something.

Nope. No one needs to prove a negative. You are also denying all the explanations why I have made that statement.

James_ wrote:
Science is not based on someone like yourself saying "Because I Said So". In a debate you need to give an explanation as to why you are right.

Science is not a debate. Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

James_ wrote:
You keep placing the emphasis on people proving you wrong.

Inversion fallacy. YOU have to show why science must be changed.

James_ wrote:
They are not obligated to do so.

They ARE obligated to do so.

James_ wrote:
Yet while you should be obligated to make known why you have such an opinion you maintain that people have to accept that you right Because You Say So.

Inversion fallacy. I am not saying anything. YOU have failed to produce any theory of science.

Want to produce one? Begin with defining 'global warming' without using any circular definitions.

into the night,
You're a waste of time. You claim to understand the Stefan-Boltzmann constant yet will say you don't understand what a climate is or what is meant by climate change.
This is what let's me know that you only want to play mind games.

Non sequitur.

Stefan-Boltzmann has nothing to do with climate. It has to do with the amount of light radiating from a surface according to its temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant has nothing to do with climate. It is a constant of nature that essentially puts the Stefan-Boltzmann law into our units of measure.

Now, do you want to try to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular arguments?

Why still the mind games?
You've always have maintained that the emissivity of our atmosphere according to the Stefan - Boltzmann constant cannot change.
One day people will clue in to the fact that you're only here to play games.
When that day comes hopefully they'll quit posting with you as other people do have an actual opinion.

James, I think you are right about this. And you point out something that I have been trying to get at. I recall Parrot Killer [not too good at it though, because Wake is still alive and doing well] saying something about the emissivity changing, but I wasn't quite sure what he was bitching about, because it wasn't me saying it. He was just twisting something around that I was saying, to make it look like that. But anyway, I don't think the emissivity has to change at all, to accommodate the Global Warming Theory. It stays the same because it is just a number that represents the proportionality between radiation and temperature. It does vary from object to object, due to the amount of radiant energy the object is transforming into thermal energy.

The object has to get rid of the incoming energy somehow, or it would simply cease to exist rather quickly. Ok, it would still exist, but it would just be an ash. The earth's emissivity like everything else has to do with how much energy is being absorbed, so it wouldn't change one bit, if you are talking about the earth, and not the earth/atmosphere duo [Let's call that Heaven and Earth's] emissivity. When I look at the radiance of H&E, I see the result of a combination of their temperature, as if the atmosphere was the surface. [So now it's just a bigger earth, because of the soft spongy cushion all around it] Due to Global Warming, I see the temperature of both the earth and atmosphere rising slightly, so I see more radiation being emitted from H&E as it should. I do not see a reason the emissivity has to change to accommodate that.

Unless he is saying that if the H&E is absorbing more incoming radiation [it has to be, because emissivity is based on how much radiation is transformed into thermal energy versus emitted as electro-magnetic radiation. So what he is saying is that the emissivity is changing, and it obviously is, when you take them both into consideration [H&E] because they are converting more energy into thermal than they were before. You know that because the temperature is rising over time. So the emissivity of the atmosphere is decreasing sightly. [I'm thinking an emissivity of 1 = perfect and 0.1 = emitting only 10% (sue me if I got it bassackwards)]

So, if he is saying that the emissivity of earth is decreasing then he would be correct. But if he is saying the other, then he is crazier than my second wife [and dumber than me for marrying her].

Ok, so here is you opportunity, Parrot Killer [who isn't too good at killing parrots, as evidenced by Wake], to explain what you think is wrong about that, since you apparently forgot to mention it in this thread so far. And that is a little surprising, since you have been invited to explain why the Global Warming Theory [or Hoax] violates the Stefan-Boltzmann Law [I'm getting so familiar with him, that I think it's time we move to first name basis, and just call it Stefan's Law.]

GasGuzler wrote:

James_ wrote: I think it is on you to prove that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. This in my opinion shows your lack of understanding when it comes to science.

CO2 is most certainly a greenhouse gas when it is pumped into a greenhouse. Levels from 400-1000 ppm are quite optimum.

GreenMan wrote:
The lower atmosphere does get hotter. And I can't figure out where you got the notion that I said the lower atmosphere doesn't. But it doesn't stay hotter, as you suggest it should. It cools off when the sun goes down, just like everything else.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Stefan-Boltzmann has nothing to do with climate. It has to do with the amount of light radiating from a surface according to its temperature.

The Stefan-Boltzmann constant has nothing to do with climate. It is a constant of nature that essentially puts the Stefan-Boltzmann law into our units of measure.

Now, do you want to try to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular arguments?

Ok, so can we stop hearing from you that Greenhouse Gases [which do affect climate] violate the Stefan-Boltzmann Law?

GreenMan wrote:
And no, no one can define global warming for climate change to your satisfaction, because they have to use the words in the term to define them.

GreenMan wrote:
And that pisses you off.

GreenMan wrote:
But if you look up the meaning of the individual words in the terms, you will find that the terms define themselves.

GreenMan wrote:
So could you stop it with that one too?

James_ wrote:
Why still the mind games?

James_ wrote:
You've always have maintained that the emissivity of our atmosphere according to the Stefan - Boltzmann constant cannot change.

James_ wrote:
One day people will clue in to the fact that you're only here to play games.

James_ wrote:
When that day comes hopefully they'll quit posting with you as other people do have an actual opinion.

GreenMan wrote:
James, you point out something that I have been trying to get at. I recall Parrot Killer [not too good at it though, because Wake is still alive and doing well] saying something about the emissivity changing, but I wasn't quite sure what he was bitching about, because it wasn't me saying it. He was just twisting something around that I was saying, to make it look like that. But anyway, I don't think the emissivity has to change at all, to accommodate the Global Warming Theory. It stays the same because it is just a number that represents the proportionality between radiation and temperature.

GreenMan wrote:
It does vary from object to object, due to the amount of radiant energy the object is transforming into thermal energy.

GreenMan wrote:
The object has to get rid of the incoming energy somehow, or it would simply cease to exist rather quickly.

Ok, it would still exist, but it would just be an ash.

James_ wrote:
With Stefan's Law, it actually applies to metal just as Planck's black body radiation (hv) does. It is applied to suns as well.

James_ wrote:
This is where to consider refracted solar radiation we would need to consider the Sun's emissions as well as what the Van Allen Radiation Belts are absorbing. with me, I think those belts help to excite our atmosphere during the day.

James_ wrote:
this link shows water being attracted to static electricity (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VhWQ-r1LYXY. I think the radiation belts around our planet have a similar effect on atmospheric gases.

James_ wrote:
I have an experiment that I am pursuing which would allow me to say that needs to be considered.

James_ wrote:
With our atmosphere I think the Boltzmann constant https://www.universetoday.com/51383/boltzmann-constant/ would actually be applicable. With that however our atmosphere would need to be considered as 4 different ideal gases mixing.

Wake wrote:

GasGuzler wrote:

James_ wrote: I think it is on you to prove that there is no such thing as a greenhouse gas. This in my opinion shows your lack of understanding when it comes to science.

CO2 is most certainly a greenhouse gas when it is pumped into a greenhouse. Levels from 400-1000 ppm are quite optimum.

Do you see this pattern here? You provide complete data on how CO2 cannot be a greenhouse gas and then we have this "you have to prove it" yet again. Do you suppose this is from Alzheimer's causing memory loss?

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
The lower atmosphere does get hotter. And I can't figure out where you got the notion that I said the lower atmosphere doesn't. But it doesn't stay hotter, as you suggest it should. It cools off when the sun goes down, just like everything else.

So the lower atmosphere is not on average getting hotter. Fine. No 'global warming'.

Into the Night wrote:

Or are you saying the lower atmosphere on average IS getting hotter? Fine. You are violating the 2nd LoT and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Into the Night wrote:

Which is it dude? You are still in paradox. You have not yet cleared it.
...deleted remaining reiteration of paradox...

b]Greenman wrote:[/b]
According to temperature gauges spread all over the world, the lower atmosphere is getting warmer on average, so there is global warming.

GasGuzzler wrote:
[

b]Greenman wrote:[/b]
According to temperature gauges spread all over the world, the lower atmosphere is getting warmer on average, so there is global warming.

Except for in Michigan, right? You still haven't shown the effect of which cause you're trying to prove.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

GreenMan wrote:
The lower atmosphere does get hotter. And I can't figure out where you got the notion that I said the lower atmosphere doesn't. But it doesn't stay hotter, as you suggest it should. It cools off when the sun goes down, just like everything else.

So the lower atmosphere is not on average getting hotter. Fine. No 'global warming'.

According to temperature gauges spread all over the world, the lower atmosphere is getting warmer on average, so there is global warming.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Or are you saying the lower atmosphere on average IS getting hotter? Fine. You are violating the 2nd LoT and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Yes, the lower atmosphere is on average getting warmer.

GreenMan wrote:
You have yet to show why the 2nd Lot and the S-B Law are violated by that.

GreenMan wrote:
Your constantly repeated outbursts regarding such do not constitute any kind of validation.
1) You can't warm the earth with a cooler gas - 2nd Lot
But you can slow down the transfer of thermal energy from the earth by raising the temperature of the air, per the 2nd Lot. That causes more thermal energy to warm deeper dirt, raising the overall temperature of the planet.

GreenMan wrote:
2) Something about violating the S-B Law.
You have never really explained why the S-B Law is violated.

GreenMan wrote:
You just lump it in with the 2nd Lot, as if by doing so you are attempting to overwhelm people with facts,

GreenMan wrote:
which are irrelevant.

GreenMan wrote:
The S-B Law merely expresses how to determine the amount of electromagnetic energy emitted from an object at a certain temperature.

GreenMan wrote:
That has absolutely nothing to do with the temperature of the earth, whether it is rising or falling, or if it can rise or fall.

GreenMan wrote:
That is unless you have some kind of data from when electromagnetic radiation was measured, and it is not what it should be. Of course, you don't, because then you would know the temperature of the earth, and you are too thick skulled to know the temperature of the earth.

GreenMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Which is it dude? You are still in paradox. You have not yet cleared it.
...deleted remaining reiteration of paradox...

Nope, I'm not in a paradox.

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
[

b]Greenman wrote:[/b]
According to temperature gauges spread all over the world, the lower atmosphere is getting warmer on average, so there is global warming.

Except for in Michigan, right? You still haven't shown the effect of which cause you're trying to prove.

Not in Iowa either. How are you Jizzy.
Seems like I did go around the world looking for where the local average temperatures were rising, and found some. Of course, reporting that turned into a big fiasco, and did nothing to help you understand that it is getting warmer at the poles, while the rest of the planet is basically staying unchanged.
So stop worrying about your region. It's fine for now. It's when most of the ice disappears from the poles that they stop cooling the lower parts, and it starts getting toasty down here. In fact, you will die first. So unless you are concerned about the future people that want to live here, don't even worry about it. Whether or not you are concerned about future people is a spiritual, not a political concern, so go with your conscience. Consider the consequences of what happens if those who are leading you are going in the wrong direction.

GreenMan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
[[quote]b]Greenman wrote:[/b]
According to temperature gauges spread all over the world, the lower atmosphere is getting warmer on average, so there is global warming.

Except for in Michigan, right? You still haven't shown the effect of which cause you're trying to prove.

Not in Iowa either.

How are you Jizzy?

Seems like I did go around the world looking for where the local average temperatures were rising, and found some.

Of course, reporting that turned into a big fiasco, and did nothing to help you understand that it is getting warmer at the poles, while the rest of the planet is basically staying unchanged.

So stop worrying about your region. It's fine for now. It's when most of the ice disappears from the poles that they stop cooling the lower parts, and it starts getting toasty down here.

In fact, you will die first.

So unless you are concerned about the future people that want to live here, don't even worry about it. Whether or not you are concerned about future people is a spiritual, not a political concern, so go with your conscience.

Consider the consequences of what happens if those who are leading you are going in the wrong direction.

ITN wrote:
1) Lower atmosphere stays hotter due to greenhouse effect.
2) Lower atmosphere does not stay hotter.

Which is it, dude?


Oh...and while we're at it: Feel free to clear any of your OTHER paradoxes you have made so far.

1) Surface does not emit.
2) Surface does emit.

1) Thermal resistance is storage (inertia is energy).
2) Thermal resistance is why we can change temperature.

1) Lower air does not heat upper air or space.
2) Lower air DOES heat upper air and space.

1) Agreed with O2 and N2 absorb and emit infrared light.
2) We are not talking about O2 and N2, just substances that absorb and
emit infrared light.

1) Climate change has occurred in the last 60 years.
2) Records are not long enough to observe climate change since the
industrial revolution.

1) The only place to observe the Earth is from space.
2) The S-B law for Earth does not have to be observed from space.

1) Water vapor warms the Earth.
2) Water vapor cools the Earth by blocking the Sun.

1) only urban temperatures are used.
2) There are no cities in Alaska to provide heat islands.

1) No one told me what to believe in.
2) My religion originated with someone initially telling me.

1) There is no way to measure absolute temperature.
2) We can measure absolute temperature with thermometers around the
world.

1) I don't force my views on others.
2) People like you should all eat a plate of shit and die.

1) Give me a quote of <whatever>
2) You simply copy and paste.

1) The warmer it gets the more clouds we get.
2) the colder it gets the more clouds we get.

1) same radiation goes into space
2) less radiation goes into space

1) Those who fight global warming will be allowed to reincarnate to
some existing body on Earth.
2) The planet will become uninhabitable.

GreenMan wrote:

According to temperature gauges spread all over the world, the lower atmosphere is getting warmer on average, so there is global warming.

Yes, the lower atmosphere is on average getting warmer.
You have yet to show why the 2nd Lot and the S-B Law are violated by that.
Your constantly repeated outbursts regarding such do not constitute any kind of validation.
1) You can't warm the earth with a cooler gas - 2nd Lot
But you can slow down the transfer of thermal energy from the earth by raising the temperature of the air, per the 2nd Lot. That causes more thermal energy to warm deeper dirt, raising the overall temperature of the planet.
2) Something about violating the S-B Law.
You have never really explained why the S-B Law is violated. You just lump it in with the 2nd Lot, as if by doing so you are attempting to overwhelm people with facts, which are irrelevant. The S-B Law merely expresses how to determine the amount of electromagnetic energy emitted from an object at a certain temperature. That has absolutely nothing to do with the temperature of the earth, whether it is rising or falling, or if it can rise or fall. That is unless you have some kind of data from when electromagnetic radiation was measured, and it is not what it should be. Of course, you don't, because then you would know the temperature of the earth, and you are too thick skulled to know the temperature of the earth.

Nope, I'm not in a paradox. I'm just working through the process of exposing yet another fly by night Climate Change Denier for what he is worth.

What I can determine about you is that you are very educated. You are as much a conservative Republican as you are educated though, which puts a blinder on your eyes to reality. So you can't be open to the possibility that the human race is in trouble due to Global Warming. That goes against the grain of your religion [the Republican Party's objectives], so instead of using your talents to solve the problem, you are using your talents to deny the problem. It's sad that you are so emotional.

James_ wrote:
@GasGuzzler,

Kind of need to remember they say Global Warming is happening at the rate of about 0.15 degrees Celsius a decade.

Maybe 0.2.

This disagrees with annual global temperature graphs.

The amount of warming from 1910 - 1940 was well recorded.

The warming since the mid 1970's is /was following the same trend.

Where I'm different I'm concerned about the glacier on Greenland and the Gulf Stream. I think how we influence the heating of those 2 things will determine how warm it gets.

GasGuzler wrote:

James_ wrote:
@GasGuzzler,

Kind of need to remember they say Global Warming is happening at the rate of about 0.15 degrees Celsius a decade.

Who is they?

Maybe 0.2.

Which is it?

This disagrees with annual global temperature graphs.

Who made those? I've seen hundreds and they're all different.

The amount of warming from 1910 - 1940 was well recorded.

Where? Link?

The warming since the mid 1970's is /was following the same trend.

I've seen some good US data that says quite differently, others data is flat, and then other data shows a rise, depending on location.

Where I'm different I'm concerned about the glacier on Greenland and the Gulf Stream. I think how we influence the heating of those 2 things will determine how warm it gets.

How do we influence the gulf stream? Wasn't it you showing ocean floor volcanoes? I take some interest in that.