The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Can you give an example of gravity accelerating a dead weight?

Drop a bowling ball on your foot.

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

Not unless your name is gravity.

Your concession is noted

What 'concession'?

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

Not unless your name is gravity.

LOL, in reality gravity functions the same no matter what my name is.

If you ate fewer magic mushrooms, you would comprehend more.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Can you give an example of gravity accelerating a dead weight?

Drop a bowling ball on your foot.

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

Not unless your name is gravity.

Your concession is noted

What 'concession'?

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

Not unless your name is gravity.

LOL, in reality gravity functions the same no matter what my name is.

If you ate fewer magic mushrooms, you would comprehend more.

I never said gravity functions differently. Must be YOU taking the magic mushrooms, or maybe your tomatoes went bad.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Can you give an example of gravity accelerating a dead weight?

Drop a bowling ball on your foot.

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

Not unless your name is gravity.

Your concession is noted

What 'concession'?

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

Not unless your name is gravity.

LOL, in reality gravity functions the same no matter what my name is.

If you ate fewer magic mushrooms, you would comprehend more.

I never said gravity functions differently. Must be YOU taking the magic mushrooms, or maybe your tomatoes went bad.

It's like one of his friends said in another forum, he doesn't see how energy can be made out of this air. You know, like with wind turbines.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
Can you give an example of gravity accelerating a dead weight?

Drop a bowling ball on your foot.

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

Not unless your name is gravity.

Your concession is noted

What 'concession'?

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

Not unless your name is gravity.

LOL, in reality gravity functions the same no matter what my name is.

If you ate fewer magic mushrooms, you would comprehend more.

I never said gravity functions differently. Must be YOU taking the magic mushrooms, or maybe your tomatoes went bad.

It's like ...

Swan wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Swan wrote:
Can you give an example of gravity accelerating a dead weight?

Drop a bowling ball on your foot.

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

Not unless your name is gravity.

Your concession is noted

What 'concession'?

Again does gravity pick stuff up and drop it?

Nope

Not unless your name is gravity.

LOL, in reality gravity functions the same no matter what my name is.

If you ate fewer magic mushrooms, you would comprehend more.

I never said gravity functions differently. Must be YOU taking the magic mushrooms, or maybe your tomatoes went bad.

It's like ...
Neither...

Into the Night wrote:


It's like ...
Neither...

Into the Night wrote:

I never said gravity functions differently. Must be YOU taking the magic mushrooms, or maybe your tomatoes went bad.

Swan wrote:Then how does science explain the 85-missing percent of the universe, that is missing without which science totally fails?

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

I never said gravity functions differently. Must be YOU taking the magic mushrooms, or maybe your tomatoes went bad.

I've never really understood why scientists say that gravity has no energy. The
Moon slowing the Earth's orbit while it is accelerated should be an example of conservation of energy but it isn't.
This allows for momentum = mv = 1/2mv^2 = KE (kinetic energy). What this allows for is a far more interesting (IMO) way that the Earth's atmosphere works.
It actually makes gravity more interesting. With what I'm working on I know how
I'll consider the Earth's atmosphere and will ask if your legs are shrinking, is that the same as sea levels rising in the Salish Sea?
I'll probably stay offline while I finish my build. It's a lot of work with a lot of
details and I want to enjoy working on it some. And who knows, I might start refreshing maths I've learned so I can continue on in my Calculus 1 book. And with my build I need to show a little math and some conjecture. I must admit that I did learn a lot posting in here.

HarveyH55 wrote:

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

I never said gravity functions differently. Must be YOU taking the magic mushrooms, or maybe your tomatoes went bad.

I've never really understood why scientists say that gravity has no energy. The
Moon slowing the Earth's orbit while it is accelerated should be an example of conservation of energy but it isn't.
This allows for momentum = mv = 1/2mv^2 = KE (kinetic energy). What this allows for is a far more interesting (IMO) way that the Earth's atmosphere works.
It actually makes gravity more interesting. With what I'm working on I know how
I'll consider the Earth's atmosphere and will ask if your legs are shrinking, is that the same as sea levels rising in the Salish Sea?
I'll probably stay offline while I finish my build. It's a lot of work with a lot of
details and I want to enjoy working on it some. And who knows, I might start refreshing maths I've learned so I can continue on in my Calculus 1 book. And with my build I need to show a little math and some conjecture. I must admit that I did learn a lot posting in here.

Bessler didn't have power tools, Home Depot, Amazon, or Social Security Disability. Certainly it didn't take 6 years to build his wheel, in primitive times.

James_ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

I never said gravity functions differently. Must be YOU taking the magic mushrooms, or maybe your tomatoes went bad.

I've never really understood why scientists say that gravity has no energy. The
Moon slowing the Earth's orbit while it is accelerated should be an example of conservation of energy but it isn't.

James_ wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:Bessler didn't have power tools, Home Depot, Amazon, or Social Security Disability. Certainly it didn't take 6 years to build his wheel, in primitive times.

With me, with this concept, it can work.

Into the Night wrote:
Of all the gasses commonly accepted with the name 'greenhouse gas', the most prevalent is water vapor. By various estimates the effect of water vapor is at least 70% of all 'greenhouse gas' effects, so it's worthwhile to consider the conditions surrounding it.

It is well known that areas with marine environments are colder during the day and warmer during the night than equivalent low moisture environments such as deserts at the same latitude and near the same altitude. The mean temperature is not altered, but the range of temperature sweep is. Examples of this phenomenon can be found in California, Oregon, and Washington. It can be extended by compensating by altitude the temperature differences (using the adiabatic rate of standard air).

Therefore the following model and hypothesis are proposed:

If these observations concerning water vapor are valid, then it is possible to look at water vapor as a stabilizing effect on the atmospheric temperatures. Rather than adding or subtracting energy, water vapor simply absorbs the available energy when it is available, leaving a cooler daytime temperature, and releases it when energy is not available, leaving warmer nighttime temperatures. The mean temperature stays the same.

The atmosphere in general possesses an inertial effect as well. We know this because it takes greater than a zero amount of time to heat and cool it. We can shorten the time by applying more work, but the time can never be reduced to zero.

We know that energy is introduced into the atmosphere through the infrared (and other) radiation from the Sun, which is converted to inertial energy as it strikes the ground, then spreading upward through the atmosphere as heat.

Comparing surface (ground or water) temperature to the air above it, water vapor acts as a heat sink during the day and as a heat source at night. This is the same as the rest of the atmosphere, but in marine environments this seems more pronounced than in dry environments.

If this can be done with water vapor, it can be done with carbon dioxide, methane, or any other 'greenhouse' gas. If this is so, calling them a 'greenhouse' gas is a misnomer. It would be better to call them 'phantom inertial gas' since they only act to enhance the inertial effects of atmosphere in general.

If there were no atmosphere at all, the mean temperature should not change. The temperature swings around it, however, would. Since there is no inertia of an atmosphere to consider, temperature would swing much wider. If there were a thicker atmosphere than we have, the mean temperature again would not change. The temperature swings around it, do. There is more matter per volume, and the temperature swing would be narrower.

The effect of a 'greenhouse' gas, therefore, is no different than to act as if the atmosphere had more of this inertial effect than the regular atmosphere would account for.

The 1st law of thermodynamics is satisfied since no energy is being gained or lost from the Earth.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is satisfied since increased loss from excess energy (from whatever source) increases as predicted.
The 3rd law of thermodynamics is satisfied since all energy gains and losses from the Sun-Earth-Space system take place above absolute zero.
Newton's law is satisfied since all matter such as the atmosphere has mass, and therefore inertia.

It is possible to conjecture from this point the possible causes of this behavior in a phantom inertial gas. One such possibility may reside within the shape of the molecules themselves which may be able to store inertial energy in more than one mode of vibration. The water molecule, which is not symmetrical, could easily fit this model. Carbon dioxide, with it's more symmetrical shape would have less opportunity for different vibration modes. Methane even less so, since this molecule is symmetric in three dimensions. Nevertheless, there may be some opportunity for multiple vibration modes that are not available to the typical pairs of atoms comprising most of our atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote: Guess which member I am imitating with this response:

Into the Night wrote:
Of all the gasses commonly accepted with the name 'greenhouse gas', the most prevalent is water vapor. By various estimates the effect of water vapor is at least 70% of all 'greenhouse gas' effects, so it's worthwhile to consider the conditions surrounding it.

It is well known that areas with marine environments are colder during the day and warmer during the night than equivalent low moisture environments such as deserts at the same latitude and near the same altitude. The mean temperature is not altered, but the range of temperature sweep is. Examples of this phenomenon can be found in California, Oregon, and Washington. It can be extended by compensating by altitude the temperature differences (using the adiabatic rate of standard air).

Therefore the following model and hypothesis are proposed:

If these observations concerning water vapor are valid, then it is possible to look at water vapor as a stabilizing effect on the atmospheric temperatures. Rather than adding or subtracting energy, water vapor simply absorbs the available energy when it is available, leaving a cooler daytime temperature, and releases it when energy is not available, leaving warmer nighttime temperatures. The mean temperature stays the same.

The atmosphere in general possesses an inertial effect as well. We know this because it takes greater than a zero amount of time to heat and cool it. We can shorten the time by applying more work, but the time can never be reduced to zero.

We know that energy is introduced into the atmosphere through the infrared (and other) radiation from the Sun, which is converted to inertial energy as it strikes the ground, then spreading upward through the atmosphere as heat.

Comparing surface (ground or water) temperature to the air above it, water vapor acts as a heat sink during the day and as a heat source at night. This is the same as the rest of the atmosphere, but in marine environments this seems more pronounced than in dry environments.

If this can be done with water vapor, it can be done with carbon dioxide, methane, or any other 'greenhouse' gas. If this is so, calling them a 'greenhouse' gas is a misnomer. It would be better to call them 'phantom inertial gas' since they only act to enhance the inertial effects of atmosphere in general.

If there were no atmosphere at all, the mean temperature should not change. The temperature swings around it, however, would. Since there is no inertia of an atmosphere to consider, temperature would swing much wider. If there were a thicker atmosphere than we have, the mean temperature again would not change. The temperature swings around it, do. There is more matter per volume, and the temperature swing would be narrower.

The effect of a 'greenhouse' gas, therefore, is no different than to act as if the atmosphere had more of this inertial effect than the regular atmosphere would account for.

The 1st law of thermodynamics is satisfied since no energy is being gained or lost from the Earth.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is satisfied since increased loss from excess energy (from whatever source) increases as predicted.
The 3rd law of thermodynamics is satisfied since all energy gains and losses from the Sun-Earth-Space system take place above absolute zero.
Newton's law is satisfied since all matter such as the atmosphere has mass, and therefore inertia.

It is possible to conjecture from this point the possible causes of this behavior in a phantom inertial gas. One such possibility may reside within the shape of the molecules themselves which may be able to store inertial energy in more than one mode of vibration. The water molecule, which is not symmetrical, could easily fit this model. Carbon dioxide, with it's more symmetrical shape would have less opportunity for different vibration modes. Methane even less so, since this molecule is symmetric in three dimensions. Nevertheless, there may be some opportunity for multiple vibration modes that are not available to the typical pairs of atoms comprising most of our atmosphere.

trafn wrote:
Very nice summary Into The Night. The vibrational model of atoms, with electrons jumping into different orbital shells (farther out for energy absorption, closer in for energy release) does account for the their ability to hold and then emit energy during these diurnal-nocturnal cycles.

The problem with M2C2 (man-made climate change) is that we're playing with the chemistry of the atmosphere by raising the concentration of these gases which are in the air: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and water. In the meantime:

1. The sun will continue to radiate more energy onto our planet, while...
2. The atmospheric concentrations of phantom/GHG molecules continue to rise, causing...
3. The phantom/GHG molecules to retain even more solar energy through their atomic absorption-emission cycles, resulting in...
3. The overall retained-energy content of the planet to rise, which will...
4. Melt all the ice and snow on the planet, after which...
5. All the planet's liquid water will evaporate up and off of the planet, leaving...
6. Earth as dry and lifeless as Venus.

FYI - keeping in mind that water vapor is a more powerful phantom/GHG than CO2, there is good reason to believe that this is exactly the kind of out of control process which destroyed Venus' atmosphere, and there's no reason it couldn't happen here.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote: Guess which member I am imitating with this response:

Guess which member I am indicating:

* The reason that earth has so little atmospheric helium is not because earth didn't start out with any and only has what is produced by geological activity, but because previous massive amounts of atmospheric helium somehow achieved escape velocity.

* As such, helium and water can break free of earth's gravity and simply float away because the 2nd law of thermodynamics says so.

* Since black body science is the branch of science that explains why changing the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, or nitrous oxide in the atmosphere cannot change earth's average global equilibrium temperature, I'm going to mention that thermodynamics does NOT explain this.

* Since black body science shows that changing the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, or nitrous oxide in the atmosphere cannot change earth's average global equilibrium temperature, I'm going to make the stupid claim that changing the concentration of carbon dioxide, methane, or nitrous oxide in the atmosphere somehow changes earth's average air temperature at the surface, whatever that means.

* I'm such an expert in thermodynamics that I know that you really can increase the temperature of hot coffee with ice, and that carbon dioxide is the main gas responsible for warming the troposphere while COOLING the stratosphere.

* Today's wildfires may appear to be equivalent to yesterday's wildfires, but today's wildfires are actually UNPRECEDENTED, thanks to Global Warming.

* Carbon dioxide absorbed by sea water is the source of weak acid (carbonic acid) that is depleting the alkalinity of the ocean, and because sea water never evaporates and thus never releases the absorbed carbon dioxide back into the atmopshere, it never returns to its prior alkalinity. If sea water could evaporate then we'd have a totally different ballgame.

* It was an unprecedented climate event in the Arctic when, just a little less than 23 years ago, the north pole became completely ice free BEFORE all the sea ice had melted.

* The SEVERE depletion of sea water alkalinity due to increased emissions of carbon dioxide ... isn't severe, because of the buffering effect of bicarbonate and carbonate ions.

* Submarine groundwater discharge from coastal wetlands is the major source of alkalinity for many marine ecosystems ... unless you count the weathering of rocks and silicates which provides the ocean with its alkalinity.

* Within hours of this first post, the dominant troll said: "You are a liar. You came to this site to preach non-science gibber babble."

* "Warming trends across Nepal have increased to 0.2 degrees C per decade" This rate is a bit higher than the global average, yet gfm7175 claims that everywhere is getting warmer faster than everywhere else.

* But the ice ages we know in recent geologic history didn't begin until carbon dioxide concentrations in the atmosphere decreased by orders of magnitude, something like 3 million years ago, according to the globally dispersed prehistoric weather stations and the Mauna Loa observatory data.

* And there is the "wobble" of the Earth's axis, which makes a big difference to a sphere.

Im a BM wrote:
From October 10, 2015

Oh the irony!

trafn was the first to respond to Into the Night's first post.

Im a BM wrote:
Fluoride is not a chemical. Fluoride is not a chemical. Fluoride is not a chemical. Fluoride is not a chemical. Fluoride is STILL not a chemical.

Into the Night wrote:
Of all the gasses commonly accepted with the name 'greenhouse gas', the most prevalent is water vapor. By various estimates the effect of water vapor is at least 70% of all 'greenhouse gas' effects, so it's worthwhile to consider the conditions surrounding it.

It is well known that areas with marine environments are colder during the day and warmer during the night than equivalent low moisture environments such as deserts at the same latitude and near the same altitude. The mean temperature is not altered, but the range of temperature sweep is. Examples of this phenomenon can be found in California, Oregon, and Washington. It can be extended by compensating by altitude the temperature differences (using the adiabatic rate of standard air).

Therefore the following model and hypothesis are proposed:

If these observations concerning water vapor are valid, then it is possible to look at water vapor as a stabilizing effect on the atmospheric temperatures. Rather than adding or subtracting energy, water vapor simply absorbs the available energy when it is available, leaving a cooler daytime temperature, and releases it when energy is not available, leaving warmer nighttime temperatures. The mean temperature stays the same.

The atmosphere in general possesses an inertial effect as well. We know this because it takes greater than a zero amount of time to heat and cool it. We can shorten the time by applying more work, but the time can never be reduced to zero.

We know that energy is introduced into the atmosphere through the infrared (and other) radiation from the Sun, which is converted to inertial energy as it strikes the ground, then spreading upward through the atmosphere as heat.

Comparing surface (ground or water) temperature to the air above it, water vapor acts as a heat sink during the day and as a heat source at night. This is the same as the rest of the atmosphere, but in marine environments this seems more pronounced than in dry environments.

If this can be done with water vapor, it can be done with carbon dioxide, methane, or any other 'greenhouse' gas. If this is so, calling them a 'greenhouse' gas is a misnomer. It would be better to call them 'phantom inertial gas' since they only act to enhance the inertial effects of atmosphere in general.

If there were no atmosphere at all, the mean temperature should not change. The temperature swings around it, however, would. Since there is no inertia of an atmosphere to consider, temperature would swing much wider. If there were a thicker atmosphere than we have, the mean temperature again would not change. The temperature swings around it, do. There is more matter per volume, and the temperature swing would be narrower.

The effect of a 'greenhouse' gas, therefore, is no different than to act as if the atmosphere had more of this inertial effect than the regular atmosphere would account for.

The 1st law of thermodynamics is satisfied since no energy is being gained or lost from the Earth.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is satisfied since increased loss from excess energy (from whatever source) increases as predicted.
The 3rd law of thermodynamics is satisfied since all energy gains and losses from the Sun-Earth-Space system take place above absolute zero.
Newton's law is satisfied since all matter such as the atmosphere has mass, and therefore inertia.

It is possible to conjecture from this point the possible causes of this behavior in a phantom inertial gas. One such possibility may reside within the shape of the molecules themselves which may be able to store inertial energy in more than one mode of vibration. The water molecule, which is not symmetrical, could easily fit this model. Carbon dioxide, with it's more symmetrical shape would have less opportunity for different vibration modes. Methane even less so, since this molecule is symmetric in three dimensions. Nevertheless, there may be some opportunity for multiple vibration modes that are not available to the typical pairs of atoms comprising most of our atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
From October 10, 2015, The "Phantom Inertial Gas" (PIG) Hypothesis. This truly scientific falsifiable hypothesis was presented nine years ago.

Into the Night wrote:
Of all the gasses commonly accepted with the name 'greenhouse gas', the most prevalent is water vapor. By various estimates the effect of water vapor is at least 70% of all 'greenhouse gas' effects, so it's worthwhile to consider the conditions surrounding it.

It is well known that areas with marine environments are colder during the day and warmer during the night than equivalent low moisture environments such as deserts at the same latitude and near the same altitude. The mean temperature is not altered, but the range of temperature sweep is. Examples of this phenomenon can be found in California, Oregon, and Washington. It can be extended by compensating by altitude the temperature differences (using the adiabatic rate of standard air).

Therefore the following model and hypothesis are proposed:

If these observations concerning water vapor are valid, then it is possible to look at water vapor as a stabilizing effect on the atmospheric temperatures. Rather than adding or subtracting energy, water vapor simply absorbs the available energy when it is available, leaving a cooler daytime temperature, and releases it when energy is not available, leaving warmer nighttime temperatures. The mean temperature stays the same.

The atmosphere in general possesses an inertial effect as well. We know this because it takes greater than a zero amount of time to heat and cool it. We can shorten the time by applying more work, but the time can never be reduced to zero.

We know that energy is introduced into the atmosphere through the infrared (and other) radiation from the Sun, which is converted to inertial energy as it strikes the ground, then spreading upward through the atmosphere as heat.

Comparing surface (ground or water) temperature to the air above it, water vapor acts as a heat sink during the day and as a heat source at night. This is the same as the rest of the atmosphere, but in marine environments this seems more pronounced than in dry environments.

If this can be done with water vapor, it can be done with carbon dioxide, methane, or any other 'greenhouse' gas. If this is so, calling them a 'greenhouse' gas is a misnomer. It would be better to call them 'phantom inertial gas' since they only act to enhance the inertial effects of atmosphere in general.

If there were no atmosphere at all, the mean temperature should not change. The temperature swings around it, however, would. Since there is no inertia of an atmosphere to consider, temperature would swing much wider. If there were a thicker atmosphere than we have, the mean temperature again would not change. The temperature swings around it, do. There is more matter per volume, and the temperature swing would be narrower.

The effect of a 'greenhouse' gas, therefore, is no different than to act as if the atmosphere had more of this inertial effect than the regular atmosphere would account for.

The 1st law of thermodynamics is satisfied since no energy is being gained or lost from the Earth.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is satisfied since increased loss from excess energy (from whatever source) increases as predicted.
The 3rd law of thermodynamics is satisfied since all energy gains and losses from the Sun-Earth-Space system take place above absolute zero.
Newton's law is satisfied since all matter such as the atmosphere has mass, and therefore inertia.

It is possible to conjecture from this point the possible causes of this behavior in a phantom inertial gas. One such possibility may reside within the shape of the molecules themselves which may be able to store inertial energy in more than one mode of vibration. The water molecule, which is not symmetrical, could easily fit this model. Carbon dioxide, with it's more symmetrical shape would have less opportunity for different vibration modes. Methane even less so, since this molecule is symmetric in three dimensions. Nevertheless, there may be some opportunity for multiple vibration modes that are not available to the typical pairs of atoms comprising most of our atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:

Fluoride is not a chemical. Fluoride is not a chemical. Fluoride is not a chemical. Fluoride is not a chemical. Fluoride is STILL not a chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
From October 10, 2015, The "Phantom Inertial Gas" (PIG) Hypothesis. This truly scientific falsifiable hypothesis was presented nine years ago.

Im a BM wrote:
From October 10, 2015

The "Phantom Inertial Gas" (PIG) Hypothesis.
...

Into the Night wrote:
Of all the gasses commonly accepted with the name 'greenhouse gas', the most prevalent is water vapor. By various estimates the effect of water vapor is at least 70% of all 'greenhouse gas' effects, so it's worthwhile to consider the conditions surrounding it.

It is well known that areas with marine environments are colder during the day and warmer during the night than equivalent low moisture environments such as deserts at the same latitude and near the same altitude. The mean temperature is not altered, but the range of temperature sweep is. Examples of this phenomenon can be found in California, Oregon, and Washington. It can be extended by compensating by altitude the temperature differences (using the adiabatic rate of standard air).

Therefore the following model and hypothesis are proposed:

If these observations concerning water vapor are valid, then it is possible to look at water vapor as a stabilizing effect on the atmospheric temperatures. Rather than adding or subtracting energy, water vapor simply absorbs the available energy when it is available, leaving a cooler daytime temperature, and releases it when energy is not available, leaving warmer nighttime temperatures. The mean temperature stays the same.

The atmosphere in general possesses an inertial effect as well. We know this because it takes greater than a zero amount of time to heat and cool it. We can shorten the time by applying more work, but the time can never be reduced to zero.

We know that energy is introduced into the atmosphere through the infrared (and other) radiation from the Sun, which is converted to inertial energy as it strikes the ground, then spreading upward through the atmosphere as heat.

Comparing surface (ground or water) temperature to the air above it, water vapor acts as a heat sink during the day and as a heat source at night. This is the same as the rest of the atmosphere, but in marine environments this seems more pronounced than in dry environments.

If this can be done with water vapor, it can be done with carbon dioxide, methane, or any other 'greenhouse' gas. If this is so, calling them a 'greenhouse' gas is a misnomer. It would be better to call them 'phantom inertial gas' since they only act to enhance the inertial effects of atmosphere in general.

If there were no atmosphere at all, the mean temperature should not change. The temperature swings around it, however, would. Since there is no inertia of an atmosphere to consider, temperature would swing much wider. If there were a thicker atmosphere than we have, the mean temperature again would not change. The temperature swings around it, do. There is more matter per volume, and the temperature swing would be narrower.

The effect of a 'greenhouse' gas, therefore, is no different than to act as if the atmosphere had more of this inertial effect than the regular atmosphere would account for.

The 1st law of thermodynamics is satisfied since no energy is being gained or lost from the Earth.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is satisfied since increased loss from excess energy (from whatever source) increases as predicted.
The 3rd law of thermodynamics is satisfied since all energy gains and losses from the Sun-Earth-Space system take place above absolute zero.
Newton's law is satisfied since all matter such as the atmosphere has mass, and therefore inertia.

It is possible to conjecture from this point the possible causes of this behavior in a phantom inertial gas. One such possibility may reside within the shape of the molecules themselves which may be able to store inertial energy in more than one mode of vibration. The water molecule, which is not symmetrical, could easily fit this model. Carbon dioxide, with it's more symmetrical shape would have less opportunity for different vibration modes. Methane even less so, since this molecule is symmetric in three dimensions. Nevertheless, there may be some opportunity for multiple vibration modes that are not available to the typical pairs of atoms comprising most of our atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night's first post was his BEST.
...

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night's first post was his BEST.
...

Stop spamming.

Im a BM wrote:
For an unambiguous definition of the term "spamming",
...

Im a BM wrote:
TEXTBOOK REALITY CHECK

Im a BM wrote:
Atmospheric physics textbooks NEVER have a chapter titled "Phantom Inertial Gases" or "Inertial Effects" or anything with the term "inertia". "Greenhouse Gases" (GHGs) DO get included because all the physicists agree what they do.

Im a BM wrote:
Water chemistry textbooks OFTEN have a chapter titled "The Carbonate System". The pH buffering capacity of sea water arises from the carbonate system. Water chemistry textbooks NEVER claim that "Water itself is a buffer for acid"

Im a BM wrote:
Science may not be a textbook, but a textbook can at least teach someone the difference between carbolic acid and carbonic acid.

trafn wrote:
Very nice summary Into The Night. The vibrational model of atoms, with electrons jumping into different orbital shells (farther out for energy absorption, closer in for energy release) does account for the their ability to hold and then emit energy during these diurnal-nocturnal cycles.

The problem with M2C2 (man-made climate change) is that we're playing with the chemistry of the atmosphere by raising the concentration of these gases which are in the air: CO2, methane, nitrous oxide, and water. In the meantime:

1. The sun will continue to radiate more energy onto our planet, while...
2. The atmospheric concentrations of phantom/GHG molecules continue to rise, causing...
3. The phantom/GHG molecules to retain even more solar energy through their atomic absorption-emission cycles, resulting in...
3. The overall retained-energy content of the planet to rise, which will...
4. Melt all the ice and snow on the planet, after which...
5. All the planet's liquid water will evaporate up and off of the planet, leaving...
6. Earth as dry and lifeless as Venus.

FYI - keeping in mind that water vapor is a more powerful phantom/GHG than CO2, there is good reason to believe that this is exactly the kind of out of control process which destroyed Venus' atmosphere, and there's no reason it couldn't happen here.

Im a BM wrote:
[quote]trafn wrote:
...

Im a BM wrote:
A PhD climate scientist

Im a BM wrote:
posted some excellent atmospheric physics information on this very thread,...

Im a BM wrote: "Greenhouse Gases" (GHGs) DO get included because all the physicists agree what they do.

Im a BM wrote: Water chemistry textbooks OFTEN have a chapter titled "The Carbonate System".

Im a BM wrote: The pH buffering capacity of sea water arises from the carbonate system.

Im a BM wrote: Water chemistry textbooks NEVER claim that "Water itself is a buffer for acid"