The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
What is the NON moron definition of "molecule"? Ask God, via Google!

inquiry: "molecule" definition

Google and God say that: "A molecule is a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds, which can be the same or different elements."

I love watching you squirm. Yes or no, does a gold nugget fit that definition?

HINT: Yes it does, to a "T"

Go ahead. I know you want to blurt out that gold is somehow not a molecule, even though it meets the definition. I'll wait while you snivel and belly-ache.
Tell me how no serious bicyclegeoalchemist worth they/their/them's salt considers a gold nugget that meets the definition of "molecule" to be a molecule.

I'm listening. I know you want to rant. You have an audience, even if you don't have a library.

Oh, I have great news. Swan is totally on your side. That should give you confidence.

.

A Gold nugget of pure Gold would not be a molecule,

It most certainly is. You are ignoring Avogadro again.

Swan wrote:
however pure .999 Gold is rarely found in nature

Irrelevance fallacy.

Swan wrote:
where nuggets are made.

Does nature use union labor to make the gold nuggets?

Swan wrote:
However at least you are consistently wrong

Assumption of victory fallacy.

You should start selling your meth instead of smoking it all

I don't smoke anything, moron. Insults do not change what a molecule is. You simply want to deny English and Avogadro.

Gold is both a molecule and an element.

Does the nurse know that you stole her phone again?

Stupid insult ignored. Mantra 1d.

Swan wrote:
No, pure gold is an element, not a molecule.

It is both.

Swan wrote:
A molecule is typically defined as a group of two or more atoms held together by strong covalent bonds, often involving different elements.

Redefinition fallacy. You are ignoring English and Avogadro again.

Swan wrote:
Pure gold (Au) is a pure substance made up of only one type of atom (gold atoms).

So?

Swan wrote:
In its solid metallic form, these atoms are arranged in a crystal lattice structure held together by metallic bonds, not covalent bonds that form discrete molecules.

Type of bond doesn't matter.

Swan wrote:
Gold compounds, such as gold chloride (\(\text{AuCl}_{3}

) or chloroauric acid (\(\text{HAuCl}_{4}

), do contain gold as part of a molecule, but the pure metal itself is not a molecule.

Pure gold is also a molecule (and an element).

Molecules use covalent bonding, pure Gold uses non molecular metallic bonding. Ask someone who graduated high school like you obviously did not. Or you can keep jerking yourself off here as you like to do so often

Strong, but WRONG!

Yes, covalent bonds make legitimate "molecules". But many molecules on Earth are held together by IONIC bonds, without forming inner sphere complexes between electron orbitals of adjacent atoms. Perhaps you really did graduate high school, but I can't believe you got better than a "C" if you really DID take chemistry.

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Pure gold is also a molecule (and an element).

Molecules use covalent bonding, pure Gold uses non molecular metallic bonding. Ask someone who graduated high school like you obviously did not. Or you can keep jerking yourself off here as you like to do so often

Strong, but WRONG!

Yes, covalent bonds make legitimate "molecules". But many molecules on Earth are held together by IONIC bonds, without forming inner sphere complexes between electron orbitals of adjacent atoms. Perhaps you really did graduate high school, but I can't believe you got better than a "C" if you really DID take chemistry.

Gold is the only thing being discussed, pure Gold is held together by non molecular metallic bonds. Next

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote: Pure gold is also a molecule (and an element).

Molecules use covalent bonding, pure Gold uses non molecular metallic bonding. Ask someone who graduated high school like you obviously did not. Or you can keep jerking yourself off here as you like to do so often

Strong, but WRONG!

Yes, covalent bonds make legitimate "molecules". But many molecules on Earth are held together by IONIC bonds, without forming inner sphere complexes between electron orbitals of adjacent atoms. Perhaps you really did graduate high school, but I can't believe you got better than a "C" if you really DID take chemistry.

Gold is the only thing being discussed, pure Gold is held together by non molecular metallic bonds. Next

So, we all agree that a molecule is two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds. We all agree that a pure gold nugget meets that definition. We also all agree that when something meets the definition, it meets the definition, and those who deny this are likely to be extremely familiar with heavy psychosis medications.

.

Im a BM wrote:
Atoms versus molecules: "Type of bond doesn't matter." - Into the Night

Im a BM wrote:
Once again displaying the infallible chemistry knowledge required to acquire a federal chemist "license".

Im a BM wrote:
Type of bond doesn't matter. A snowflake is bonded together in a rigid crystal structure with geometry arising from the position of the HYDROGEN BONDS that hold it together.
Snowflakes are not held together with hydrogen bonds.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
Snow flakes HAVE to be "molecules" now, because "type of bond doesn't matter".

Im a BM wrote:
Swan's cut and paste skills are hit and miss. Close, but no cigars.

Im a BM wrote:
IONIC bonds count for "molecules", not just covalent bonds. But hydrogen bonds, metallic bonds, hydrophobic attraction (London dispersion forces), GRAVITY, and other forces that hold things together do NOT count as molecular bonding. Just ask Avogrado!

Im a BM wrote:
Let's see how far this "debate" advances over the next year.

Im a BM wrote:
ITN assures that HELIUM atoms are also "molecules", as is gold.

Im a BM wrote:
Because Avogrado says so, and who are WE to defy Avogrado?

Im a BM wrote:
Just to be clear, Avogrado is NOT God!
Avogrado is not even a demi god, such as Google.

Im a BM wrote:
According to reliable sources, Avogadro did NOT fake his own death and has, in fact, been dead longer than all the chemistry textbooks have been defining our common, accepted understanding of what "molecules" are.

Im a BM wrote:
As DISTINCT from "atoms", which are NOT the same thing as it turns out.

Im a BM wrote:
This comes as no surprise to anyone who passed high school chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:
Let the great scientific "debate" continue!

Im a BM wrote:
Because climate CANNOT change.

Im a BM wrote:
Helium "molecules" neutralize the physical impact of greenhouse gases,

Im a BM wrote:
with helium present at such high concentration because it is not light enough to escape the atmosphere when it is in molecular form.

Swan wrote:
Molecules use covalent bonding,

Swan wrote:
pure Gold uses non molecular metallic bonding.

Swan wrote:
Ask someone who graduated high school like you obviously did not.

Swan wrote:
Or you can keep jerking yourself off here as you like to do so often

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:
Molecules use covalent bonding, pure Gold uses non molecular metallic bonding. Ask someone who graduated high school like you obviously did not. Or you can keep jerking yourself off here as you like to do so often

Strong, but WRONG!

Yes, covalent bonds make legitimate "molecules". But many molecules on Earth are held together by IONIC bonds, without forming inner sphere complexes between electron orbitals of adjacent atoms. Perhaps you really did graduate high school, but I can't believe you got better than a "C" if you really DID take chemistry.

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:
Molecules use covalent bonding, pure Gold uses non molecular metallic bonding. Ask someone who graduated high school like you obviously did not. Or you can keep jerking yourself off here as you like to do so often

Strong, but WRONG!

Yes, covalent bonds make legitimate "molecules". But many molecules on Earth are held together by IONIC bonds, without forming inner sphere complexes between electron orbitals of adjacent atoms. Perhaps you really did graduate high school, but I can't believe you got better than a "C" if you really DID take chemistry.

Swan wrote: 1. Gold nuggets are only produced by nature ...

Swan wrote: ... which never produces pure Gold.

Swan wrote:All Gold needs to be processed and smelted multiple times and processed by electrolysis to be pure.

Swan wrote: So what you claim does not exist on Earth.

Swan wrote:2. The metallic bond that holds pure Gold together is metallic not molecular.

Swan wrote:3. Gold can be part of a molecule, pure Gold cannot

Swan wrote:Yes, fire raises pressure, primarily because the heat from the fire causes gases to expand,

Swan wrote:... and combustion turns solids into gases, which take up more volume.

Swan wrote: This expansion and increased volume lead to a rise in pressure, especially in confined spaces.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: 1. Gold nuggets are only produced by nature ...

This is a really stupid thing to say. Humans can make gold nuggets. Humans can make gold jewelry. Humans can make gold plating.

Swan wrote: ... which never produces pure Gold.

Swan wrote:All Gold needs to be processed and smelted multiple times and processed by electrolysis to be pure.

Swan wrote: So what you claim does not exist on Earth.

Swan wrote:2. The metallic bond that holds pure Gold together is metallic not molecular.

Swan wrote:3. Gold can be part of a molecule, pure Gold cannot

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Yes, fire raises pressure, primarily because the heat from the fire causes gases to expand,

Nope. It's the gases' inabilty to expand that causes the increase in pressure. If the gases expand, the pressure remains the same.

IBdaMann wrote:
Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Oh, a nugget of pure gold is a molecule, and seals are amphibious.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:... and combustion turns solids into gases, which take up more volume.

... except when it is turning solids into liquids, or turning liquids into gases.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: This expansion and increased volume lead to a rise in pressure, especially in confined spaces.

Too funny. In combined spaces, there is no expansion. Did you run out of your meds?

Into the Night wrote:


You cannot increase pressure by simply increasing the temperature UNLESS V is fixed in value. In the atmosphere, V is NOT fixed in value.

Im a BM wrote:
Google and God's definition of "molecule": "..a group of two or more atoms held together by chemical bonds.."

CORRECT!

"The bond that holds a gold nugget together is called a chemical bond, which is the kind used to make molecules." - IBdaMann

WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG! WRONG!

[b]Im a BM wrote:
Because Google and God's definition for "chemical bond" is: "a strong force of attraction holding atoms together in a molecule or crystal, resulting from the sharing or transfer of electrons."

Im a BM wrote:
Snowflakes are crystals, but the bonds holding them together are HYDROGEN BONDS,

Im a BM wrote:
which do NOT result from "sharing or transfer of electrons". "Sharing" electrons means electron orbitals of adjacent atoms overlap, which is called a COVALENT bond.

Im a BM wrote:
"Transfer of electrons" means electrons are completely gained or lost from one atom to another, such as sodium chloride salt.

Im a BM wrote:
An electron completely leaves a sodium atom, to be gained by a chlorine atom. Rather than overlap electron orbitals, each ion has a full charge, Na+ and Cl-. This is an IONIC bond holding the crystal structure together.

Im a BM wrote:
Graphite, an organic carbon molecule, can certainly "transfer" electrons as an electrical conductor, as can metals such as gold. But the atoms never take on a full charge, + or -, to become ions, nor do their electron orbitals overlap. A "metallic" bond is not a "chemical bond".

Im a BM wrote:
Gold, no matter how pure, is NOT a "molecule". Deal with it.

Im a BM wrote:
"IBdaMann claims that gold is a molecule". If so, IBdaMann is either ignorant, or IBdaMann knows that he's lying.
[/b]

Im a BM wrote:

Swan wrote:All Gold needs to be processed and smelted multiple times and processed by electrolysis to be pure.

There is no gold with any need to be smelted or processed in any way.

Im a BM wrote:
Gold nuggets exist.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


You cannot increase pressure by simply increasing the temperature UNLESS V is fixed in value. In the atmosphere, V is NOT fixed in value.

Probably mostly wrong.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


You cannot increase pressure by simply increasing the temperature UNLESS V is fixed in value. In the atmosphere, V is NOT fixed in value.

Probably mostly wrong.

So you openly discard the ideal gas law.

Swan wrote: .999 Gold is never produced by nature but is a manmade separation of elements.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: .999 Gold is never produced by nature but is a manmade separation of elements.

Immaterial. When a gold molecule exists, it exists. When humans make other molecules, they exist as well.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Yes, fire raises pressure, primarily because the heat from the fire causes gases to expand,

Nope. It's the gases' inabilty to expand that causes the increase in pressure. If the gases expand, the pressure remains the same.

He seem to think you can create matter out of nothing by using fire.

IBdaMann wrote:
Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Oh, a nugget of pure gold is a molecule, and seals are amphibious.

Both correct, as usual.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:... and combustion turns solids into gases, which take up more volume.

... except when it is turning solids into liquids, or turning liquids into gases.

Obviously he doesn't know how to cook...or even make a pot of tea.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: This expansion and increased volume lead to a rise in pressure, especially in confined spaces.

Too funny. In combined spaces, there is no expansion. Did you run out of your meds?

I assume your typo was to be 'confined'...and correct again, as usual.

Swan apparently never learned the ideal gas law.
PV=nKT

where P=pressure, v=volume, n=is the amount of matter in gaseous form (number of moles), T=temperature, and K=the gas constant, used to convert the relation to our units of measurement.

You cannot increase pressure by simply increasing the temperature UNLESS V is fixed in value. In the atmosphere, V is NOT fixed in value.

You cannot increase matter out of nothing.

You cannot increase pressure by simply fixing V if temperature remains the same.

Swan needs to learn the difference between a tire, a tank of CO2, and an open atmosphere.

A CO2 tank can contain 3000psi, and be at room temperature.

Inflating a tire DOES heat it up. In most cases, you are only going to 30psi or so, so the temperature difference isn't much. When you stop inflating the tire, it returns to ambient temperature (heating by conduction).

Oh...and compressor pumps also can get quite hot when they run. There's usually a warning decal about this. Shutting off the pump allows the pump (and compressed air tank) to return to room temperature.

Heating a portion of the atmosphere simply causes the air to rise (heating by convection). This also produces the Hadley cells, that helps guide where storms form and move.

But Swan and Robert ignore all of this and deny the ideal gas law.

Im a BM wrote:
PV = nRT = The Ideal Gas Law

"Swan apparently never learned the ideal gas law.
PV = nKT" - Into the Night

Nope! "K" is just a generic term for "constant" "C", for example is the constant in Einstein's famous "E = mC2"

If someone insists that Einstein's equation is "E = mK2", technically it's almost correct. "C" IS a "constant". But "C" is TOO constant to be called "K". There is never any other value for it, regardless of what kind of "mass" is measured.

But only someone who never studied physics would use the generic "K" for a "constant" in such a fundamental important equation with only ONE value for the "constant" that EVER applies.

In chemistry, there are many equations where the generic "K" for "constant" is appropriate because there is a different "K" for every different chemical.

"pKa", for example, is appropriate use of the generic "K", because every different acid has a different dissociation constant.

"PV = nKT"? Nope. There is only ONE "constant" that is ever used in the equation, so it is WRONG to use the generic "K".

PV = nRT This is the CORRECT ideal gas law. "R" is the "universal gas constant", and its value is the same for EVERY application of the equation.

People who actually study the stuff know that "K" means a "constant" that can be variable. The "generic" designation of "K" is used because you have to use the specific value of "K" for the "constant" that applies in different cases.

Back to "pKa", a fundamental equation in chemistry used to calculate, for example, the pH at which some particular acid is exactly 50% dissociated.

Acetic acid (vinegar), for example, where "pKa" = 4.76, because acetic acid's (unique) dissociation constant ("Ka") is 1.8 x 10 to the minus 5 power.

And with the pKa for acetic acid, chemists know that at pH 4.76, acetic acid is exactly 50% dissociated. Half is present as intact acetic acid molecules, and the other half is present as acetate ions and hydrogen ions.

Into the Night, if you EVER actually studied this stuff, you would know that physicists just don't use the generic "K" for the ideal gas law. They use "R" for the universal gas constant. Being "universal", there is only ONE value for "R", regardless of what kind of gas is involved. "R" is also the Rydberg constant, but there is never confusion because that "R" applies to different wavelengths of light, not pressure, volume, or temperature.

What do you expect from someone who DENIES PHYSICS? PV = nKT...

Okay, maybe he was hasty with his cut and paste, and he meant the PARTICLE application of the ideal gas law, with the Boltzmann constant as the "K".

But THAT equation is not "nKT". PV = NkT is the correct equation for the ideal gas law that applies to particles with the Boltzmann constant. Capital "N" for number of individual particles. Little "n" is for number of moles. Capital "K" for generic "constant". Little "k" for the specific Boltzmann constant

If Into the Night had written PV = NkT, it would have been correct. PV = nRT would also have been correct for a different application. "PV = nKT" = dumbass.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:Yes, fire raises pressure, primarily because the heat from the fire causes gases to expand,

Nope. It's the gases' inabilty to expand that causes the increase in pressure. If the gases expand, the pressure remains the same.

He seem to think you can create matter out of nothing by using fire.

IBdaMann wrote:
Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Oh, a nugget of pure gold is a molecule, and seals are amphibious.

Both correct, as usual.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:... and combustion turns solids into gases, which take up more volume.

... except when it is turning solids into liquids, or turning liquids into gases.

Obviously he doesn't know how to cook...or even make a pot of tea.

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote: This expansion and increased volume lead to a rise in pressure, especially in confined spaces.

Too funny. In combined spaces, there is no expansion. Did you run out of your meds?

I assume your typo was to be 'confined'...and correct again, as usual.

Swan apparently never learned the ideal gas law.
PV=nKT

where P=pressure, v=volume, n=is the amount of matter in gaseous form (number of moles), T=temperature, and K=the gas constant, used to convert the relation to our units of measurement.

You cannot increase pressure by simply increasing the temperature UNLESS V is fixed in value. In the atmosphere, V is NOT fixed in value.

You cannot increase matter out of nothing.

You cannot increase pressure by simply fixing V if temperature remains the same.

Swan needs to learn the difference between a tire, a tank of CO2, and an open atmosphere.

A CO2 tank can contain 3000psi, and be at room temperature.

Inflating a tire DOES heat it up. In most cases, you are only going to 30psi or so, so the temperature difference isn't much. When you stop inflating the tire, it returns to ambient temperature (heating by conduction).

Oh...and compressor pumps also can get quite hot when they run. There's usually a warning decal about this. Shutting off the pump allows the pump (and compressed air tank) to return to room temperature.

Heating a portion of the atmosphere simply causes the air to rise (heating by convection). This also produces the Hadley cells, that helps guide where storms form and move.

But Swan and Robert ignore all of this and deny the ideal gas law.

Im a BM wrote:
PV = nRT = The Ideal Gas Law

"Swan apparently never learned the ideal gas law.
PV = nKT" - Into the Night

Nope! "K" is just a generic term for "constant" "C", for example is the constant in Einstein's famous "E = mC2"

Im a BM wrote:
If someone insists that Einstein's equation is "E = mK2", technically it's almost correct. "C" IS a "constant". But "C" is TOO constant to be called "K". There is never any other value for it, regardless of what kind of "mass" is measured.

Im a BM wrote:
But only someone who never studied physics would use the generic "K" for a "constant" in such a fundamental important equation with only ONE value for the "constant" that EVER applies.

Im a BM wrote:
In chemistry, there are many equations where the generic "K" for "constant" is appropriate because there is a different "K" for every different chemical.

Im a BM wrote:
"pKa", for example, is appropriate use of the generic "K", because every different acid has a different dissociation constant.

Im a BM wrote:
"PV = nKT"? Nope. There is only ONE "constant" that is ever used in the equation, so it is WRONG to use the generic "K".

Im a BM wrote:
PV = nRT This is the CORRECT ideal gas law. "R" is the "universal gas constant", and its value is the same for EVERY application of the equation.

Im a BM wrote:
People who actually study the stuff know that "K" means a "constant" that can be variable. The "generic" designation of "K" is used because you have to use the specific value of "K" for the "constant" that applies in different cases.

Im a BM wrote:
Back to "pKa", a fundamental equation in chemistry used to calculate, for example, the pH at which some particular acid is exactly 50% dissociated.

Acetic acid (vinegar), for example, where "pKa" = 4.76, because acetic acid's (unique) dissociation constant ("Ka") is 1.8 x 10 to the minus 5 power.

And with the pKa for acetic acid, chemists know that at pH 4.76, acetic acid is exactly 50% dissociated. Half is present as intact acetic acid molecules, and the other half is present as acetate ions and hydrogen ions.

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, if you EVER actually studied this stuff, you would know that physicists just don't use the generic "K" for the ideal gas law.

Im a BM wrote:
They use "R" for the universal gas constant. Being "universal", there is only ONE value for "R", regardless of what kind of gas is involved.

Im a BM wrote:
"R" is also the Rydberg constant, but there is never confusion because that "R" applies to different wavelengths of light, not pressure, volume, or temperature.

Im a BM wrote:
What do you expect from someone who DENIES PHYSICS? PV = nKT...

Im a BM wrote:
Okay, maybe he was hasty with his cut and paste, and he meant the PARTICLE application of the ideal gas law, with the Boltzmann constant as the "K".

Im a BM wrote:
But THAT equation is not "nKT". PV = NkT is the correct equation for the ideal gas law that applies to particles with the Boltzmann constant.

Im a BM wrote:
Capital "N" for number of individual particles. Little "n" is for number of moles. Capital "K" for generic "constant". Little "k" for the specific Boltzmann constant

Im a BM wrote:
If Into the Night had written PV = NkT, it would have been correct. PV = nRT would also have been correct for a different application. "PV = nKT" = dumbass.

Swan wrote:
I also never learned how to snort meth like your mom taught you

Swan wrote:
PS. Pure Gold is not a gas

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
I also never learned how to snort meth like your mom taught you

Ignored.

Swan wrote:
PS. Pure Gold is not a gas

Gold can indeed be gaseous. It boils at 5173 deg F. (standard pressure, or 29.92 inches of mercury).

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
I also never learned how to snort meth like your mom taught you

Ignored.

Swan wrote:
PS. Pure Gold is not a gas

Gold can indeed be gaseous. It boils at 5173 deg F. (standard pressure, or 29.92 inches of mercury).

So retard, if pure Gold is a molecule, post the formula. You dimwits are posting any and every formula except the one being disputed. Typical tenth grade behavior

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
I also never learned how to snort meth like your mom taught you

Ignored.

Swan wrote:
PS. Pure Gold is not a gas

Gold can indeed be gaseous. It boils at 5173 deg F. (standard pressure, or 29.92 inches of mercury).

So retard, if pure Gold is a molecule, post the formula. You dimwits are posting any and every formula except the one being disputed. Typical tenth grade behavior

AUn

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:
I also never learned how to snort meth like your mom taught you

Ignored.

Swan wrote:
PS. Pure Gold is not a gas

Gold can indeed be gaseous. It boils at 5173 deg F. (standard pressure, or 29.92 inches of mercury).

So retard, if pure Gold is a molecule, post the formula. You dimwits are posting any and every formula except the one being disputed. Typical tenth grade behavior

AUn

The atomic symbol for gold is Au.

Swan wrote:[
"AUn" is not the formula for a molecule.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night doesn't even know what the ideal gas law IS.

In fact, there is more than one.

PV = nRT is one of them. P, pressure, V, volume, n, moles of gas particles, R, ideal gas constant, and T, degrees Kelvin.

PV = NkT is another one. P, pressure, V, volume, N, number of individual gas particles, k, Boltzmann constant, T, degrees Kelvin.

Im a BM wrote:
"PV = nKT" is an Into the Night delusion. It purports that the number of MOLES of gas particles times an UNSPECIFIED (generic "K") constant tells you something.

Im a BM wrote:
Google it if you dare!

Or even look it up in a physics textbook, if you know where to find one.

Google knows a LOT more science than Into the Night.

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, this was your very first post here, more than ten years ago.

Im a BM wrote:
It is FAR better than any other post of yours I ever saw here.

It includes no false accusations, such as "You deny science."

It includes no absurd assertions that scientific terms simply don't exist.

Not once does the line "There is no such thing..." appear. No mention of the evils of "buzzwords". Nobody being called a "liar".

Im a BM wrote:
The science presented is straight up STUPID, and Into the Night quickly reversed his position.

Im a BM wrote:
We hear a lot now about "buzzwords" and how there is "no such thing", but Into the Night gave up on his "Phantom Inertial Gases" (PIG) hypothesis. The one time he tried to present something resembling real science.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Into the Night, this was your very first post here, more than ten years ago.

Not my first post.

Im a BM wrote:
It is FAR better than any other post of yours I ever saw here.

It includes no false accusations, such as "You deny science."

It includes no absurd assertions that scientific terms simply don't exist.

Not once does the line "There is no such thing..." appear. No mention of the evils of "buzzwords". Nobody being called a "liar".

It was posted to show how Trafn was denying science. Trafn wasn't spamming the site with as many buzzwords like you do. Science is not buzzwords.

Im a BM wrote:
The science presented is straight up STUPID, and Into the Night quickly reversed his position.

So now you ignore thermal index.

Im a BM wrote:
We hear a lot now about "buzzwords" and how there is "no such thing", but Into the Night gave up on his "Phantom Inertial Gases" (PIG) hypothesis. The one time he tried to present something resembling real science.

So now you reject Black's theory; another theory of science. Trafn went on to ignore the 1st law of thermodynamics again, just as you do.

Im a BM wrote:
I wish I could get you to just once use a dictionary.

Im a BM wrote:
I don't think you understand the definition of the word "you".

Im a BM wrote:
"..you reject Black's theory.." "You" refers to the OTHER person in the conversation. But no other participant has made any claim about Black's theory.

Im a BM wrote:
The person who looks back in the mirror IS "you", but YOU are supposed to know that. He isn't someone else who has been arguing with you about something. He is you.

Im a BM wrote:

"You" are NOT a "chemist". "That much is painfully obvious"

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
I wish I could get you to just once use a dictionary.

I do.

Im a BM wrote:
I don't think you understand the definition of the word "you".

Dictionaries don't define any word. That is not their purpose.

Im a BM wrote:
"..you reject Black's theory.." "You" refers to the OTHER person in the conversation. But no other participant has made any claim about Black's theory.

You reject Black's theory. You cannot blame me or anybody else for your problem. Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
The person who looks back in the mirror IS "you", but YOU are supposed to know that. He isn't someone else who has been arguing with you about something. He is you.

I am not you.

Im a BM wrote:

"You" are NOT a "chemist". "That much is painfully obvious"

I am a chemist. You cannot blame your problems on anybody else, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps in the same universe where "climate cannot change" you really ARE a "chemist".

Im a BM wrote:
Okay, I won't take that one away from you.

But what makes you insist that I am NOT a "chemist"?

Im a BM wrote:
Why did you have to be so obnoxious with insults and false accusations?
You can't blame your problem on me, Robert.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
And why are you so afraid to actually LOOK SOMETHING UP from a credible source?

Im a BM wrote:
There is a whole world of scientific literature you could learn from, if you were just willing to learn what some words actually mean.

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe YOU are just a "buzzword".

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
Perhaps in the same universe where "climate cannot change" you really ARE a "chemist".

There is only one universe, Robert. That's what the uni- means.

Im a BM wrote:
Okay, I won't take that one away from you.

But what makes you insist that I am NOT a "chemist"?

RQAA

Lessee;
* You deny and discard the 1st law of thermodynamics.
* You deny and discard Black's law.
* You make up wacky 'chemicals' that aren't chemicals.
* You are paranoid of carbon dioxide and methane.
* You think 'biogeochemistry' is a branch of science.
* You think climate can somehow 'change', but cannot describe what is changing in climate.
* You post long, boring posts containing numerous buzzwords and seem to have no other purpose.
* You think science is a paper, magazine, journal, book, university, college, experiment, government agency, website, web search engine, AI, degree, license, and is subject to sanctification.
* You think elements are somehow 'organic' or 'inorganic'.
* You can't tell the difference between hydrogen and a proton.
* You seem to think that electrons are somehow 'terminal'.
* You think something that has an extra proton is an 'ion'.
* You don't know what a buffer is.
* You think you can acidify an alkaline.

Shall I go on?

Im a BM wrote:
Why did you have to be so obnoxious with insults and false accusations?
You can't blame your problem on me, Robert.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
And why are you so afraid to actually LOOK SOMETHING UP from a credible source?

You can't blame your illiteracy on me or anybody else, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
There is a whole world of scientific literature you could learn from, if you were just willing to learn what some words actually mean.

Science isn't literature.

Im a BM wrote:
Maybe YOU are just a "buzzword".

Just as much as you, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:I wish I could get you to just once use a dictionary.

Im a BM wrote:But what makes you insist that I am NOT a "chemist"?

Im a BM wrote:Why did you have to be so obnoxious with insults and false accusations?

Im a BM wrote:And why are you so afraid to actually LOOK SOMETHING UP from a credible source?

Im a BM wrote:There is a whole world of scientific literature you could learn from,

Im a BM wrote: if you were just willing to learn what some words actually mean.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:But what makes you insist that I am NOT a "chemist"?

* You don't understand anything about science, nor do you even know what it is.
* You don't understand that water evaporates.
* You can only point to people and "sources" whenever science is required.
* You are totally unable to define your terms, as any scientist would do up front.
* You worship a WACKY religion into which you were conned into believing is thettled thienth because of your profound scientific illiteracy

Shall I continue?

Im a BM wrote:Why did you have to be so obnoxious with insults and false accusations?

That was I, not Into the Night. Into the Night has always been a perfect gentleman. Your beef is with me. I'm the one who first spotted your scientific illiteracy and rudely pointed it out for all to see. Don't blame Into the Night for being a helpful guy who is just trying to be friendly. In fact, you should probably thank him.

Im a BM wrote:And why are you so afraid to actually LOOK SOMETHING UP from a credible source?

And why are you so afraid to actually go with science instead of believing that science is somehow the opinions of others?

Im a BM wrote:There is a whole world of scientific literature you could learn from,

Case in point. Everything that you consider to be "scientific literature" is just literature lacking any science ... because you have no idea what science is. You simply pepper your rhetoric with the word "scientific" in an effort to garner unearned authority for your stupid comments and your WACKY religion.

Im a BM wrote: if you were just willing to learn what some words actually mean.

Exactly. Start with "science".

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:But what makes you insist that I am NOT a "chemist"?

* You don't understand anything about science, nor do you even know what it is.
* You don't understand that water evaporates.
* You can only point to people and "sources" whenever science is required.
* You are totally unable to define your terms, as any scientist would do up front.
* You worship a WACKY religion into which you were conned into believing is thettled thienth because of your profound scientific illiteracy

Shall I continue?

Im a BM wrote:Why did you have to be so obnoxious with insults and false accusations?

That was I, not Into the Night. Into the Night has always been a perfect gentleman. Your beef is with me. I'm the one who first spotted your scientific illiteracy and rudely pointed it out for all to see. Don't blame Into the Night for being a helpful guy who is just trying to be friendly. In fact, you should probably thank him.

Im a BM wrote:And why are you so afraid to actually LOOK SOMETHING UP from a credible source?

And why are you so afraid to actually go with science instead of believing that science is somehow the opinions of others?

Im a BM wrote:There is a whole world of scientific literature you could learn from,

Case in point. Everything that you consider to be "scientific literature" is just literature lacking any science ... because you have no idea what science is. You simply pepper your rhetoric with the word "scientific" in an effort to garner unearned authority for your stupid comments and your WACKY religion.

Im a BM wrote: if you were just willing to learn what some words actually mean.

Exactly. Start with "science".

Well said!

Im a BM wrote:
"Class" of ANIMAL versus "class" of CHEMICAL.

Scientifically illiterate trolls assert that "carbonate is not a chemical".

Im a BM wrote:
They also assert that an alligator IS an amphibian.

Im a BM wrote:
Discussion of the chemical behavior of any ion in solution can be dismissed as irrelevant because the named ion "is not a chemical". They say it is a "class" of chemicals, incapable of having any chemical behavior in solution.

Im a BM wrote:
Technically, nobody in the real world of chemistry divides chemicals into "classes". Or, if so, the most common "class" distinction is between the two "classes" of "organic" chemicals and "inorganic" chemicals. Perhaps second most common would be to divide them into the three "classes" of acids, bases, or salts. In other applications, the "classes" of chemicals according to their most reactive properties - oxidants, reductants, catalysts, free radical scavengers, chelating agents. Polymers versus monomers are also two major "classes" of chemicals.

Im a BM wrote:
Alligators are NOT amphibians because scientists actually DO divide animals into distinct "classes". "Class" is the word everyone agreed to use for it.

Im a BM wrote:
The five "classes" of vertebrates are fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Alligators belong to the CLASS reptilia. That is the ONLY class of animals that alligators belong to. They are absolutely NOT amphibians.

Im a BM wrote:
And they really DO get divided into "classes", unlike the bizarre assertions about why to dismiss and ignore any discussion that only gives the name of a "class" of chemicals that is "not a chemical". "Carbonate is not a chemical" WTF?

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.