The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect"

Im a BM wrote:
In October 2015, Trafn responded to new member Into the Night's first post.

In the Spring of 2022 I got to see how Into the Night responded to new members. For two years I got to see many examples of how differently Into the Night behaved, compared to how Trafn did in this post. But then new members stopped joining about two years ago. 100% STOP, no new members attempting to discuss climate in two years now. Google stopped showing climate-debate.com prominently among search results for climate discussion websites.

Im a BM wrote:
Members who displayed common decency in discussion, such as Trafn, left the website. There used to be a lot of them.

Im a BM wrote:
Trafn didn't ridicule Into the Night's first post. Didn't accuse him of being a liar. Didn't tell him that he denies science. Didn't tell him that he is a scientifically illiterate moron. Common decency was the rule until about ten years ago.

Im a BM wrote:
It would have been EASY for Trafn to ridicule the "science" presented in Into the Night's first post. Trafn's reply DOES reference the "phantom" greenhouse gases in ITN's hypothesis. Into the Night never did publish his discovery.

Im a BM wrote:

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.

Air has mass, Robert. It takes time to heat or cool it, like any mass.

Im a BM wrote:
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:

Climate cannot change. The presence of a gas or vapor is not chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
1. The sun will continue to radiate more energy onto our planet, while...

Im a BM wrote:
2. The atmospheric concentrations of phantom/GHG molecules continue to rise, causing...

Im a BM wrote:
3. The phantom/GHG molecules to retain even more solar energy through their atomic absorption-emission cycles, resulting in...

Im a BM wrote:
4. Melt all the ice and snow on the planet, after which...

Im a BM wrote:
5. All the planet's liquid water will evaporate up and off of the planet, leaving...

Im a BM wrote:
6. Earth as dry and lifeless as Venus.

Im a BM wrote:
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.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
In October 2015, Trafn responded to new member Into the Night's first post.

In the Spring of 2022 I got to see how Into the Night responded to new members. For two years I got to see many examples of how differently Into the Night behaved, compared to how Trafn did in this post. But then new members stopped joining about two years ago. 100% STOP, no new members attempting to discuss climate in two years now. Google stopped showing climate-debate.com prominently among search results for climate discussion websites.

New members won't join to listen to your spamming, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
Members who displayed common decency in discussion, such as Trafn, left the website. There used to be a lot of them.

Trafn didn't leave. He was banned.

Im a BM wrote:
Trafn didn't ridicule Into the Night's first post. Didn't accuse him of being a liar. Didn't tell him that he denies science. Didn't tell him that he is a scientifically illiterate moron. Common decency was the rule until about ten years ago.

Trafn denied the same science you do. You are a scientifically illiterate moron, pretending to be a scientist, all while denying theories of science.

Im a BM wrote:
It would have been EASY for Trafn to ridicule the "science" presented in Into the Night's first post. Trafn's reply DOES reference the "phantom" greenhouse gases in ITN's hypothesis. Into the Night never did publish his discovery.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Im a BM wrote:

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.

Air has mass, Robert. It takes time to heat or cool it, like any mass.

Im a BM wrote:
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:

Climate cannot change. The presence of a gas or vapor is not chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
1. The sun will continue to radiate more energy onto our planet, while...

Fine.

Im a BM wrote:
2. The atmospheric concentrations of phantom/GHG molecules continue to rise, causing...

No such thing as a greenhouse gas, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:
3. The phantom/GHG molecules to retain even more solar energy through their atomic absorption-emission cycles, resulting in...

No gas or vapor has the capability to override the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you are now ignoring.
3. The overall retained-energy content of the planet to rise, which will...

Im a BM wrote:
4. Melt all the ice and snow on the planet, after which...

Im a BM wrote:
5. All the planet's liquid water will evaporate up and off of the planet, leaving...

Im a BM wrote:
6. Earth as dry and lifeless as Venus.

Im a BM wrote:
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:

Into the Night wrote:
The atmosphere of Venus is not destroyed.

You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy.
You cannot heat a warmer object with a cold one.

Spam on, Brother! Spam on!

As soon as you drop another parrot poop on this thread you will have once again achieved a typical state for this website. There will be only one member name visible on the home page. Spamming across all 15 most recently active threads.

No wonder you are Branner's favorite. More spam than ANYONE.

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:
This thread will serve as a repository and discussion of the science of the "Greenhouse Effect."

The rules:

1) Anything claimed to be "science" must be supported with the corresponding falsifiable model that resides in the current body of science.

1a) Papers and "studies" don't qualify as science, even if they are said to be "peer reviewed" ...or even "poor reviewed" ...because anyone can write a paper.

2) You must directly answer questions that are asked about your science (no dodges, no evasion) and answers to questions that are not asked don't count as answers

2a) Wikipedia citations and other non-authoritative sources don't count as "answers"

So who will start this show?

IBdaMann wrote: (deleted spam)

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: (deleted spam)

Stop spamming.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: (deleted spam)

Stop spamming.

(deleted spam)

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: (deleted spam)

Stop spamming.

This thread remains devoid of science supporting the Climate religion, just as you do.

Robert, why do you refer to yourself as a chemist? Why don't you just refer to yourself as an avid ecology buff?

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: (deleted spam)

Stop spamming.

This thread remains devoid of science supporting the Climate religion, just as you do.

Robert, why do you refer to yourself as a chemist? Why don't you just refer to yourself as an avid ecology buff?

Indeed, Robert seems devoid of any topic at all, for the moment!

sealover wrote:Stop spamming.

climate scientist wrote:
Nope

Still waiting for you to post a link that shows that the greenhouse effect violates the 1st LoT.

Im a BM wrote: We are STILL waiting for IBdaMann to cite that legitimate SOURCE that actually AGREES with IBdaMann's assertions about thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote: (deleted spam)

Stop spamming.

This thread remains devoid of science supporting the Climate religion, just as you do.

Robert, why do you refer to yourself as a chemist? Why don't you just refer to yourself as an avid ecology buff?

Indeed, Robert seems devoid of any topic at all, for the moment!

Whining gets you nowhere.

Your word games won't help you.

IBQR. Dryxium fallacy.

climate scientist wrote:
IBdMann - you did not comment on my post yet. Do you have nothing to say about the two examples I described of how the greenhouse effect is falsifiable?

Here is another example:

In 1896, Arrhenius proposed that if atmospheric CO2 increased by 2.5-3 times, then Arctic temperatures would rise by 8-9 deg C.

This theory was not based on atmospheric measurements at the time, and is entirely falsifiable. Just because modern atmospheric measurements have not been able to prove Arrhenius wrong, does not mean that his theory is not falsifiable.

And now for a basic physics lesson on 1st LoT, from the I-physics text book, section 12.

"Thermal energy can be increased either by doing work, or by adding heat to a system. Thus, the total increase in the thermal energy of a system is the sum of the work done on it, and the heat added to it."

This is called the first Law of Thermodynamics, and is essentially the same as the Conservation of Energy, applied to thermal systems.

The equation for the 1st LoT is:

deltaQh = W + Ql, where W is the work done on the system, Ql is the heat added to a system, and deltaQh is the change in thermal energy.

It is easy to see from this equation that one does not require work to increase the thermal energy of the system. If W is 0, but Ql is not 0, then deltaQh will not be 0. Similarly, if Ql is 0, but W is not 0, then deltaQh will not be 0.

There are many examples of the 1st LoT in the real world, some of which show only heat being added to a system with no work done, and others that show work being done with no heat added.

For example:

If a person rubs their hands together, they are warmed, but they did not come into contact with a warmer body. This is an example of an increase in thermal energy resulting only from work done, with no heat added to the system.

A car engine, is an example of thermal energy being increased by the addition of heat only to a system, with no work done. A mixture of air and gasoline vapour is ignited to produce a very hot flame. Heat flows from the flame to the air inside the cylinder. The hot air expands, due to the increase in thermal energy of the system. This expanding air pushes on a piston, which converts the thermal energy into mechanical energy.

Another example would be heating up food using a gas hob. The thermal energy of the food increases because one adds heat (via the burning gas flame), not because there is any work done on the food.

So you see, there is plenty of technology in existence today, where thermal energy is increased by the addition of heat alone, without requiring any work to be done, and this technology is not in violation of the 1st LoT.

IBdaMann - you stated in another post that "You insist that energy is created without work being performed".

Firstly, I never stated that energy is created. The law of conservation of energy states that energy is never created or destroyed, but is instead transferred from one form to another.

Secondly, do you have any evidence/examples/reasoning to explain why you think that thermal energy can only be increased by work being done on a system?

Given the above explanation of 1st LoT, it is clear to see that the greenhouse effect does not violate the 1st LoT. As I stated before, greenhouse gases in the atmosphere emit infrared radiation upwards and downwards. The downwards radiation is absorbed by the Earth's surface. Therefore, via the 1st LoT, the Earth's surface warms. If the downwards radiation did not heat the Earth's surface, then this would be a violation of the 1st LoT, and the Law of Conservation of Energy.

As I have demonstrated, one does not require work to change the thermal energy of a system. Are you going to try and argue that cars and gas hobs, as well as numerous other technologies, which I have not described here, violate the 1st LoT?

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
It looks like Patricio isn't even lurking here anymore. Sigh....

So, I'll resurrect "climate scientist".

Yes, he tried to pin IBdaMann down on his "thermodynamics" related assertions.

But you can't pin down a greased pig.

Climate scientist VERY POLITELY asked IBdaMann to please provide just ONE reference other than IBdaMann's not-so-self-evident omniscience to support his claim that anything accepted in mainstream climate science somehow violates ANY "Law of Thermodynamics".

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
No, just keep making the unsupported contrarian assertion regarding the Gospel Truth of "thermodynamics", as if he EVER studied the subject or was capable of comprehending it in the slightest.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Neither IBdaMann nor Into the Night has EVER offered anything other than their not-too-apparent omniscience to support their assertions.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
There is no scientist who they deem to be credible who has ever published it where it could be found in the public domain by anyone.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
So, just take their word for it!

The process by which all but a handful of kooks agree was responsible for leaving underground deposits of petroleum, coal, and natural gas does NOT violate any actual law of thermodynamics. That's why they will never have even ONE "white paper" or anything else to support the troll claims.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Their made up shit cannot be supported by any evidence published by actual scientists.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
They have NO IDEA what the "Laws of Thermodynamics" actually say.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
But after eleven years of dumping their shit all over this website, it's hard to kick the TROLLING habit.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
It looks like Patricio isn't even lurking here anymore. Sigh....

So, I'll resurrect "climate scientist".

Yes, he tried to pin IBdaMann down on his "thermodynamics" related assertions.

But you can't pin down a greased pig.

Climate scientist VERY POLITELY asked IBdaMann to please provide just ONE reference other than IBdaMann's not-so-self-evident omniscience to support his claim that anything accepted in mainstream climate science somehow violates ANY "Law of Thermodynamics".

Cliche fallacy.
Climate is not science.
Science is not 'mainstream'.
You cannot just discard the laws of thermodynamics.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
No, just keep making the unsupported contrarian assertion regarding the Gospel Truth of "thermodynamics", as if he EVER studied the subject or was capable of comprehending it in the slightest.

Science is not a religion.
Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Neither IBdaMann nor Into the Night has EVER offered anything other than their not-too-apparent omniscience to support their assertions.

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
There is no scientist who they deem to be credible who has ever published it where it could be found in the public domain by anyone.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
So, just take their word for it!

The process by which all but a handful of kooks agree was responsible for leaving underground deposits of petroleum, coal, and natural gas does NOT violate any actual law of thermodynamics. That's why they will never have even ONE "white paper" or anything else to support the troll claims.

Science is not a paper.
Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Their made up shit cannot be supported by any evidence published by actual scientists.

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
They have NO IDEA what the "Laws of Thermodynamics" actually say.

Inversion fallacy.
Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
But after eleven years of dumping their shit all over this website, it's hard to kick the TROLLING habit.

Inversion fallacy.

You cannot blame your problems on anybody else, Robert.
You deny the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. You cannot gather energy without expending energy.
You deny the 0th law of thermodynamics. You don't even understand what temperature is.
You deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
It looks like Patricio isn't even lurking here anymore. Sigh....

So, I'll resurrect "climate scientist".

Yes, he tried to pin IBdaMann down on his "thermodynamics" related assertions.

But you can't pin down a greased pig.

Climate scientist VERY POLITELY asked IBdaMann to please provide just ONE reference other than IBdaMann's not-so-self-evident omniscience to support his claim that anything accepted in mainstream climate science somehow violates ANY "Law of Thermodynamics".

Cliche fallacy.
Climate is not science.
Science is not 'mainstream'.
You cannot just discard the laws of thermodynamics.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
No, just keep making the unsupported contrarian assertion regarding the Gospel Truth of "thermodynamics", as if he EVER studied the subject or was capable of comprehending it in the slightest.

Science is not a religion.
Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Neither IBdaMann nor Into the Night has EVER offered anything other than their not-too-apparent omniscience to support their assertions.

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
There is no scientist who they deem to be credible who has ever published it where it could be found in the public domain by anyone.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
So, just take their word for it!

The process by which all but a handful of kooks agree was responsible for leaving underground deposits of petroleum, coal, and natural gas does NOT violate any actual law of thermodynamics. That's why they will never have even ONE "white paper" or anything else to support the troll claims.

Science is not a paper.
Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
Their made up shit cannot be supported by any evidence published by actual scientists.

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
They have NO IDEA what the "Laws of Thermodynamics" actually say.

Inversion fallacy.
Argument of the Stone fallacy.

Im a BM and sealover and Patricio wrote:
But after eleven years of dumping their shit all over this website, it's hard to kick the TROLLING habit.

Inversion fallacy.

You cannot blame your problems on anybody else, Robert.
You deny the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. You cannot gather energy without expending energy.
You deny the 0th law of thermodynamics. You don't even understand what temperature is.
You deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

pHalsified pHeces pHallacy!

In other words, your bullshit is just made up shit.