There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2

MarcusR wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Marcus,

ITN/IBD actually deny every college textbook on the laws of thermodynamics.

When I went to the university we used Fundamentals of Thermodynamics by Borgnakke/Sonntag. I actually had to mail Claus once so I could show someone at Discuss how extremely wrong he was regarding the 2nd law of thermo. That annoying bugger used that very book as a source to say that the GHE violates the 2'nd law of thermo, and since I had it in my bookshelf I looked it up. He didn't believe me, even though I posted a page with a reference to a chapter, so I mailed Claus as well.

Not that it mattered to the person claiming that the GHE violates the 2nd law though. He had already made his mind up, and in his/her universe the words from the writer of the very source he/she used didn't matter.... Priceless !!

Into the Night wrote:
No book, journal, or magazine falsifies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

tmiddles wrote:

Harry C wrote:
It's an interpolation and not actual.

You do realize that almost all data has to be interpreted right? You cannot "actually" measure most things. Something like temperature for example will always have a range and vary.

tmiddles wrote:
If I'm a doctor and want to know the temperature of your internal organs and your brain (the important bits) I will measure under your tongue as a proxy for those other locations.

tmiddles wrote:
I know they should correlate and it's hardly a "wild ass guess" for me to determine your internal temperature based on that proxy.

tmiddles wrote:
But it seems your premise is that scientists and engineers just don't know what they are doing in general, not just as it relates to the CLIMATE DEBATE ?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
No book, journal, or magazine falsifies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

And how did you learn the 2nd LTD ITN?

tmiddles wrote: You do realize that almost all data has to be interpreted right?

tmiddles wrote: Something like temperature for example will always have a range and vary.

tmiddles wrote: If I'm a doctor and want to know the temperature of your internal organs and your brain (the important bits) I will measure under your tongue as a proxy for those other locations.

tmiddles wrote:But it seems your premise is that scientists and engineers just don't know what they are doing in general, not just as it relates to the CLIMATE DEBATE ?

Into the Night wrote:
A measurement produces a single value, not a range.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
If I'm a doctor and want to know the temperature of your internal organs and your brain (the important bits) I will measure under your tongue as a proxy for those other locations.

Proxies aren't used in science. Measuring under the tongue tells you nothing about any other location.

Into the Night wrote:
Through the study of the history of science and experimentally.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
A measurement produces a single value, not a range.

Reality is range.

tmiddles wrote:
That's why you have to take more than one measurement to establish what it is.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
If I'm a doctor and want to know the temperature of your internal organs and your brain (the important bits) I will measure under your tongue as a proxy for those other locations.

Proxies aren't used in science. Measuring under the tongue tells you nothing about any other location.

Tell a doctor that.

tmiddles wrote:
Do you think they are wondering if your tongue is running a fever?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Through the study of the history of science and experimentally.

Did you read anything? If so what was it?

tmiddles wrote:
You too IBD. Did you read anything that's been published to learn about science?

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Through the study of the history of science and experimentally.

Did you read anything? If so what was it?

You too IBD. Did you read anything that's been published to learn about science?

IBdaMann wrote:
The reason Into the Night recommended reading a history of science

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
The reason Into the Night recommended reading a history of science

Like what? What specifically have either of you read that you find credible?

Scientists go to school.

They read books in school.

What books do you think are credible? We've been over this many times.

TWELVE REFERENCES ON NET RADIANCE ITN/IBD DENY

I know you're not going to answer. I'm just exposing you a liar once again.

Into the Night wrote:
Already answered. RQAA.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Already answered. RQAA.

Lie

tmiddles wrote:

Harry C wrote:
It's an interpolation and not actual.

You do realize that almost all data has to be interpreted right? You cannot "actually" measure most things. Something like temperature for example will always have a range and vary.

If I'm a doctor and want to know the temperature of your internal organs and your brain (the important bits) I will measure under your tongue as a proxy for those other locations. I know they should correlate and it's hardly a "wild ass guess" for me to determine your internal temperature based on that proxy.

But it seems your premise is that scientists and engineers just don't know what they are doing in general, not just as it relates to the CLIMATE DEBATE ?

tmiddles wrote:Like what? What specifically have either of you read that you find credible?

tmiddles wrote: Scientists go to school.

tmiddles wrote: They read books in school.

tmiddles wrote: What books do you think are credible? We've been over this many times.

I know you're not going to answer.

tmiddles wrote: I'm just exposing you a liar once again.

Harry C wrote: Statistics is concerned with the use of data in the context of uncertainty...

Harry C wrote: They have forced the missing data which renders it useless.

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Like what? What specifically have either of you read that you find credible?

...The thorough answer to your question was in there.

tmiddles wrote: The only time there is not [uncertainty] is when what is being measured is abstract.

tmiddles wrote:

Harry C wrote: They have forced the missing data which renders it useless.

What do you mean by that?

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote: The only time there is not [uncertainty] is when what is being measured is abstract.

How about when discussing, say, the relationship between the hypoteneuse of a right triangle and the other two legs?

IBdaMann wrote: How about when determining who is older between parents and children? How about whether or not you are reading these words right now?

IBdaMann wrote: How about whether you are mistaken about the only times there is no uncertainty?

IBdaMann wrote:
He means that they fudged the data to fit their preconceived model, ...

tmiddles wrote:
There is almost always some uncertainty. The only time there is not is when what is being measured is abstract. Like the number of quarters in you pocket. The weight, the temperature, dimensions, always uncertain to some degree.

tmiddles wrote:

Harry C wrote: Statistics is concerned with the use of data in the context of uncertainty...

There is almost always some uncertainty.

tmiddles wrote:
The only time there is not is when what is being measured is abstract.

tmiddles wrote:
Like the number of quarters in you pocket.

tmiddles wrote:
The weight, the temperature, dimensions, always uncertain to some degree.

tmiddles wrote:

Harry C wrote: They have forced the missing data which renders it useless.

What do you mean by that?

tmiddles wrote:
Why don't you contrast that with temperature measurements/data you consider good/kosher.

tmiddles wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

tmiddles wrote:Like what? What specifically have either of you read that you find credible?

...The thorough answer to your question was in there.

Where? What book/books do you recommend IBD? How would a student learn about thermodynamics?

Lectures? OK name a professor a student could go hear a lecture by on thermodynamics.

Schools? Name a school that won't lie to students about thermodynamics.

Why don't you share your own source? Was this a terribly shy teacher who instructed you in the oral tradition?

Harry C wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
There is almost always some uncertainty. The only time there is not is when what is being measured is abstract. Like the number of quarters in you pocket. The weight, the temperature, dimensions, always uncertain to some degree.

The problem is the measure of the uncertainty, ie. standard deviation.

Harry C wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Harry C wrote:
It's a freakin' wag!.

What's a wag?

Literally it's a "wild assed guess", however I didn't mean it literally.
It's an interpolation and not actual. Statistically it diminishes the confidence interval if you wanted to use the data for predictive value.

Harry C wrote:
The problem is the measure of the uncertainty, ie. standard deviation.

tmiddles wrote:And how did you learn the 2nd LTD ITN?

tmiddles wrote:

Harry C wrote:
The problem is the measure of the uncertainty, ie. standard deviation.

So just to get it out of the way that's not what "standard deviation" is.

But yes, the amount of confidence we can have in an answer is important. Generally it's based on our need. Sometimes we need a lot more precision than other times.

"Accuracy", "precision", "exacting" are all relative terms with no specific value.

The question is always "for what purpose/need".

Take "knowing" the temperature in Denver. There is a big difference between the precision required to plan your wardrobe for a Sunday picnic and the precision required to claim a 1/4 degree temperature increase over a 10 year period.

Harry C wrote: Talk about blunting a point, this is nothing but a huge distraction...if that's you're purpose, so be it.

Certain gases in the atmosphere have the property of absorbing infrared radiation.
Infrared radiation strikes a CO2 molecule and causes the bonds to bend and vibrate which is termed the absorption of IR energy.
The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation.
This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere.

Harry C wrote: I'm still looking for the physical properties that climatologist are assigning to CO2.

Harry C wrote: How do they believe it works?

Harry C wrote: The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation. This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere.

Harry C wrote: In either event it's a zero sum.

IBdaMann wrote:

Harry C wrote: I'm still looking for the physical properties that climatologist are assigning to CO2.

I have to ask ... why are you wasting any of your time exploring the "magical superpowers" that political activists assign to CO2 instead of limiting yourself to researching the physical properties that chemists observe in CO2?

Harry C wrote: How do they believe it works?

... and therein lies your violation of thermodynamics ... although I bet you don't realize it. You have allowed yourself to be convinced that CO2 "works." In physics work = energy. If someone can get you to believe that CO2 "works" then they have already got you believing that CO2 creates/produces energy ... which is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

CO2 is inanimate matter. It just sits there until a breeze carries it away. It doesn't "work." If you are talking about absorbing and emitting thermal radiation then you can read up on Stefan-Boltzmann ... but that applies to all matter everywhere.

There is no such thing as any gas that somehow "works" differently than any other gas.

Harry C wrote: The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation. This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere.

You never answered my question the first few times I asked. If I have a baseball in my hand, uniform temperature of 27deg Celsius. Suddenly I throw that baseball at a velocity of 80 kilometers per hour, effectively increasing every single one of the baseball's molecules' average velocity by 80 kilometers per hour, thus greatly increasing the baseball's total kinetic energy ... by how much has the baseball's temperature increased?

The moral of the story is ... if you are being led down the garden path of infinite complexity until you cease to understand ... you are being deceived. Stefan-Boltzmann is all you need.

Harry C wrote: In either event it's a zero sum.

It has to be. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed ... and Temperature cannot increase without additional energy.


.

Harry C wrote:With all due respect to your knowledge and positions, my belief is the way to crack this nut is this. You and ITN just tell people what can't be done. They tell people how something works but can't support the science. There is a definite hole in the communication between the two positions.

My goal is to discover or create a pathway from one to the other that's logical and understandable. Admittedly I don't have it and am still searching.

IBdaMann wrote:

Harry C wrote: I'm still looking for the physical properties that climatologist are assigning to CO2.

I have to ask ... why are you wasting any of your time exploring the "magical superpowers" that political activists assign to CO2 instead of limiting yourself to researching the physical properties that chemists observe in CO2?

Harry C wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Harry C wrote: I'm still looking for the physical properties that climatologist are assigning to CO2.

I have to ask ... why are you wasting any of your time exploring the "magical superpowers" that political activists assign to CO2 instead of limiting yourself to researching the physical properties that chemists observe in CO2?

Harry C wrote: How do they believe it works?

... and therein lies your violation of thermodynamics ... although I bet you don't realize it. You have allowed yourself to be convinced that CO2 "works." In physics work = energy. If someone can get you to believe that CO2 "works" then they have already got you believing that CO2 creates/produces energy ... which is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

CO2 is inanimate matter. It just sits there until a breeze carries it away. It doesn't "work." If you are talking about absorbing and emitting thermal radiation then you can read up on Stefan-Boltzmann ... but that applies to all matter everywhere.

There is no such thing as any gas that somehow "works" differently than any other gas.

Harry C wrote: The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation. This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere.

You never answered my question the first few times I asked. If I have a baseball in my hand, uniform temperature of 27deg Celsius. Suddenly I throw that baseball at a velocity of 80 kilometers per hour, effectively increasing every single one of the baseball's molecules' average velocity by 80 kilometers per hour, thus greatly increasing the baseball's total kinetic energy ... by how much has the baseball's temperature increased?

The moral of the story is ... if you are being led down the garden path of infinite complexity until you cease to understand ... you are being deceived. Stefan-Boltzmann is all you need.

Harry C wrote: In either event it's a zero sum.

It has to be. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed ... and Temperature cannot increase without additional energy.


.

With all due respect to your knowledge and positions, my belief is the way to crack this nut is this. You and ITN just tell people what can't be done. They tell people how something works but can't support the science. There is a definite hole in the communication between the two positions.

Harry C wrote:
My goal is to discover or create a pathway from one to the other that's logical and understandable. Admittedly I don't have it and am still searching.

Harry C wrote:
Please try to follow my lay description. I believe the perceived greenhouse effect works like this. CO2 diffuses heat in the higher portion of the atmosphere. The extra redirected photons minimize the heat that reaches the surface and would raise the temp in upper the atmosphere.

IBdaMann wrote:

Harry C wrote:With all due respect to your knowledge and positions, my belief is the way to crack this nut is this. You and ITN just tell people what can't be done. They tell people how something works but can't support the science. There is a definite hole in the communication between the two positions.

My goal is to discover or create a pathway from one to the other that's logical and understandable. Admittedly I don't have it and am still searching.

By EVADING my question you have spoken volumes.

IBdaMann wrote:

Harry C wrote: I'm still looking for the physical properties that climatologist are assigning to CO2.

I have to ask ... why are you wasting any of your time exploring the "magical superpowers" that political activists assign to CO2 instead of limiting yourself to researching the physical properties that chemists observe in CO2?

With all due respect, you have no such objective. You want to project an appearance of relevance, of pursuing an impossible pipe dream that establishes you as the wise judge/arbiter of Truth. You are pursuing religion as though it is science ... which makes you a dumbass.

So, with all due respect, now that we all know you're a dumbass putting on a clown act, everyone can know what to expect.

Your questions are stupid. You aren't fooling anyone, at least not anymore.

With all due respect, of course.


.

You never answered my question the first few times I asked. If I have a baseball in my hand, uniform temperature of 27deg Celsius. Suddenly I throw that baseball at a velocity of 80 kilometers per hour, effectively increasing every single one of the baseball's molecules' average velocity by 80 kilometers per hour, thus greatly increasing the baseball's total kinetic energy ... by how much has the baseball's temperature increased?

I have to ask ... why are you wasting any of your time exploring the "magical superpowers" that political activists assign to CO2 instead of limiting yourself to researching the physical properties that chemists observe in CO2?

Harry C wrote:I have been very consistent in my purpose here. Let me state it another way. I want to possess the information to falsify the greenhouse effect of CO2 that's assumed to be at work by alarmists.

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Harry C wrote: I'm still looking for the physical properties that climatologist are assigning to CO2.

I have to ask ... why are you wasting any of your time exploring the "magical superpowers" that political activists assign to CO2 instead of limiting yourself to researching the physical properties that chemists observe in CO2?

Harry C wrote: How do they believe it works?

... and therein lies your violation of thermodynamics ... although I bet you don't realize it. You have allowed yourself to be convinced that CO2 "works." In physics work = energy. If someone can get you to believe that CO2 "works" then they have already got you believing that CO2 creates/produces energy ... which is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

CO2 is inanimate matter. It just sits there until a breeze carries it away. It doesn't "work." If you are talking about absorbing and emitting thermal radiation then you can read up on Stefan-Boltzmann ... but that applies to all matter everywhere.

There is no such thing as any gas that somehow "works" differently than any other gas.

Harry C wrote: The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation. This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere.

You never answered my question the first few times I asked. If I have a baseball in my hand, uniform temperature of 27deg Celsius. Suddenly I throw that baseball at a velocity of 80 kilometers per hour, effectively increasing every single one of the baseball's molecules' average velocity by 80 kilometers per hour, thus greatly increasing the baseball's total kinetic energy ... by how much has the baseball's temperature increased?

The moral of the story is ... if you are being led down the garden path of infinite complexity until you cease to understand ... you are being deceived. Stefan-Boltzmann is all you need.

Harry C wrote: In either event it's a zero sum.

It has to be. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed ... and Temperature cannot increase without additional energy.


.

With all due respect to your knowledge and positions, my belief is the way to crack this nut is this. You and ITN just tell people what can't be done. They tell people how something works but can't support the science. There is a definite hole in the communication between the two positions.

There is a reason for this. There is no 'greenhouse effect', so any explanation of it the Church of Global Warming comes up with must describe why it can't be done. There is no way for Earth's temperature to be measure, so any explanation of it the Church of Global Warming comes up with must describe why it can't be done.

The Church of Global Warming is trying to implement fascism by oligarchy.

In the end, the message is, "Don't Panic". There really isn't a problem. Stay with capitalism. It is the only economic system that creates wealth. People really are capable of managing their own affairs.

Harry C wrote:
My goal is to discover or create a pathway from one to the other that's logical and understandable. Admittedly I don't have it and am still searching.

There is no compromise between socialism and capitalism. There is no compromise between liberty and what the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green wants.

In other words, the planet is not the concern with these people. It is just the excuse. It is being used as a pawn to further socialism. You can see it in the way they ignore their own advice. By 'they', i mean the leaders of this movement. The schmuck believers really believe they are trying to 'save the planet'.

Harry C wrote:
Please try to follow my lay description. I believe the perceived greenhouse effect works like this. CO2 diffuses heat in the higher portion of the atmosphere. The extra redirected photons minimize the heat that reaches the surface and would raise the temp in upper the atmosphere.

Actually, CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light which is emitted by the surface. This absorption does not warm the Earth though. Emitting that infrared light by the surface requires energy. That tends to cool the surface.

In just the same way that the atmosphere is heated by the warmer surface by conduction, some gases allow the atmosphere to be heated by the warmer surface by radiance.

Big deal.

All of it radiates into space. The surface radiates far more than the atmosphere into space. This is again according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. If you were to view Earth with an infrared camera (hey...satellites can do this!), you will see a bright surface with very thin 'fog' around it (the infrared from the atmosphere).

The atmosphere is generally colder than the surface, so it cannot heat the surface. That's the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I abhor the Church of Global Warming. I abhor the Church of Green. These are socialists trying to implement an evil agenda. They are out to take your freedom and liberty away. They are both of the Church of Karl Marx. They will deny science and anything else that stands in their way.

I Am the Great Satan when it comes to these religions. I will do everything I can to put them down. They are evil religions. They seek to enslave people, not 'save the planet'.

There is no compromise.

There is no compromise between socialism and capitalism. There is no compromise between liberty and what the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green wants.

Actually, CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light which is emitted by the surface.

IBdaMann wrote: With all due respect, every time you insist that you wish to falsify Greenhouse Effect you profess your devotion to your belief in the existence of just such a falsifiable science model.

IBdaMann wrote:With all due repsect, every time you get irritated that I point out that Greenhouse Effect it is just a WACKY religious dogma you tip your hand that you're all about the religion.

Harry C wrote:
To change what people think they know, you have to substitute it with a better description of what is happening in the atmosphere.

FOURTH You (itn) wrote:

There is no compromise between socialism and capitalism. There is no compromise between liberty and what the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green wants.

I'm not looking for a compromise. What I want is the knowledge to proselytize the same message that you have. I can't do what you can do because I don't possess that body of knowledge. I need more information in order to know rather than just believe.

FIFTH Thank you for the feedback on my version of CO2. I'll restate what you wrote:

Actually, CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light which is emitted by the surface.

My scenario did not include that reality. I had already presumed that whatever had gone back up to the atmosphere was similarly diffused (sorry if it's a poor word choice).
Can or will you comment on what happens to the kinetic energy that is created when the photon is absorbed the the CO2 molecule?

LASTLY: My church includes Jesus Christ and God. My political orientation is Libertarian. I can't see anything that I've written that makes me look like a 'warmazombie'.

I see Mr. Mann has favored me with a reply again. Instead of accepting the olive branch I was trying to hand him, he has decided to poke me with it again. I'm not sure why I deserve it???

IBdaMann wrote:

Harry, you are going about it all wrong.

Let's presume hypothetically that you have given up trying to find science supporting either Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect and you have instead decided to pursue the "data" route. You should be focusing on "margin of error" right at the beginning, not quibbling over whether data exists.

IBdaMann wrote:
If you are going to approach this as a scientist, you would first have to determine what hypothesis you plan to investigate.
[snip]
I wish you the best ...


.

Harry C wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Harry C wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Harry C wrote: I'm still looking for the physical properties that climatologist are assigning to CO2.

I have to ask ... why are you wasting any of your time exploring the "magical superpowers" that political activists assign to CO2 instead of limiting yourself to researching the physical properties that chemists observe in CO2?

Harry C wrote: How do they believe it works?

... and therein lies your violation of thermodynamics ... although I bet you don't realize it. You have allowed yourself to be convinced that CO2 "works." In physics work = energy. If someone can get you to believe that CO2 "works" then they have already got you believing that CO2 creates/produces energy ... which is a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

CO2 is inanimate matter. It just sits there until a breeze carries it away. It doesn't "work." If you are talking about absorbing and emitting thermal radiation then you can read up on Stefan-Boltzmann ... but that applies to all matter everywhere.

There is no such thing as any gas that somehow "works" differently than any other gas.

Harry C wrote: The molecule gains kinetic energy by this absorption of IR radiation. This extra kinetic energy may then be transmitted to other molecules such as oxygen and nitrogen and causes a general heating of the atmosphere.

You never answered my question the first few times I asked. If I have a baseball in my hand, uniform temperature of 27deg Celsius. Suddenly I throw that baseball at a velocity of 80 kilometers per hour, effectively increasing every single one of the baseball's molecules' average velocity by 80 kilometers per hour, thus greatly increasing the baseball's total kinetic energy ... by how much has the baseball's temperature increased?

The moral of the story is ... if you are being led down the garden path of infinite complexity until you cease to understand ... you are being deceived. Stefan-Boltzmann is all you need.

Harry C wrote: In either event it's a zero sum.

It has to be. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed ... and Temperature cannot increase without additional energy.


.

With all due respect to your knowledge and positions, my belief is the way to crack this nut is this. You and ITN just tell people what can't be done. They tell people how something works but can't support the science. There is a definite hole in the communication between the two positions.

There is a reason for this. There is no 'greenhouse effect', so any explanation of it the Church of Global Warming comes up with must describe why it can't be done. There is no way for Earth's temperature to be measure, so any explanation of it the Church of Global Warming comes up with must describe why it can't be done.

The Church of Global Warming is trying to implement fascism by oligarchy.

In the end, the message is, "Don't Panic". There really isn't a problem. Stay with capitalism. It is the only economic system that creates wealth. People really are capable of managing their own affairs.

Harry C wrote:
My goal is to discover or create a pathway from one to the other that's logical and understandable. Admittedly I don't have it and am still searching.

There is no compromise between socialism and capitalism. There is no compromise between liberty and what the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green wants.

In other words, the planet is not the concern with these people. It is just the excuse. It is being used as a pawn to further socialism. You can see it in the way they ignore their own advice. By 'they', i mean the leaders of this movement. The schmuck believers really believe they are trying to 'save the planet'.

Harry C wrote:
Please try to follow my lay description. I believe the perceived greenhouse effect works like this. CO2 diffuses heat in the higher portion of the atmosphere. The extra redirected photons minimize the heat that reaches the surface and would raise the temp in upper the atmosphere.

Actually, CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light which is emitted by the surface. This absorption does not warm the Earth though. Emitting that infrared light by the surface requires energy. That tends to cool the surface.

In just the same way that the atmosphere is heated by the warmer surface by conduction, some gases allow the atmosphere to be heated by the warmer surface by radiance.

Big deal.

All of it radiates into space. The surface radiates far more than the atmosphere into space. This is again according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. If you were to view Earth with an infrared camera (hey...satellites can do this!), you will see a bright surface with very thin 'fog' around it (the infrared from the atmosphere).

The atmosphere is generally colder than the surface, so it cannot heat the surface. That's the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

I abhor the Church of Global Warming. I abhor the Church of Green. These are socialists trying to implement an evil agenda. They are out to take your freedom and liberty away. They are both of the Church of Karl Marx. They will deny science and anything else that stands in their way.

I Am the Great Satan when it comes to these religions. I will do everything I can to put them down. They are evil religions. They seek to enslave people, not 'save the planet'.

There is no compromise.

Thank you for the very thoughtful post. I was composing my reply to IBDM while you must have been posting it. I will respond to a few items.

FIRST. I've made it abundantly clear that I do not believe in the the threat of increased global temperatures over time based upon an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. (Notice how a studiously avoided the use of the words 'Global Warming' and 'Climate Change'.) I think that puts us on the same side.

SECOND. My beliefs:
A. G.H.W. Bush signed on to Agenda 21 in 1992.
B. The same year Representatives Nancy Pelosi, Eliot Engel and William Broomfield spoke in support of HR Concurrent Resolution 353, supporting implementation of Agenda 21 in the United States.
C. Sometime in the middle of his term as Vice President Al Gore got involved and put out his fictional account of climate change.
D. It has been gaining traction and most perceptibly since Trump was elected. Had Trump not been elected, I think the fix was in to have the socialists green agenda rammed down our throat.
E. Consistent with the NIPCC, I beleive climate change is a socialist's agenda to upset and overturn the balance of power in the world.
F. There are too many people in the world that have been willing to accept what news has reported that our world leaders believe about Climate Change.
G. It's time to double down on the challenge to stop this initiative.

THIRD I know there's not a greenhouse effect as used by warmazombies.

Harry C wrote:
There is something going on in the atmosphere that causes the earth to be cooler than the sum of the IR that it receives. I don't know what that is and have no way to explain it.

Harry C wrote:
However, most people grew up thinking they knew what a 'greenhouse effect' was. To change what people think they know, you have to substitute it with a better description of what is happening in the atmosphere.

Harry C wrote:
FOURTH You wrote:

There is no compromise between socialism and capitalism. There is no compromise between liberty and what the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green wants.

I'm not looking for a compromise.

Harry C wrote:
What I want is the knowledge to proselytize the same message that you have. I can't do what you can do because I don't possess that body of knowledge. I need more information in order to know rather than just believe.

Harry C wrote:
FIFTH Thank you for the feedback on my version of CO2. I'll restate what you wrote:

Actually, CO2 does absorb certain frequencies of infrared light which is emitted by the surface.

My scenario did not include that reality. I had already presumed that whatever had gone back up to the atmosphere was similarly diffused (sorry if it's a poor word choice).
Can or will you comment on what happens to the kinetic energy that is created when the photon is absorbed the the CO2 molecule?

Harry C wrote:
LASTLY: My church includes Jesus Christ and God.

Harry C wrote:
My political orientation is Libertarian.

Harry C wrote:
I can't see anything that I've written that makes me look like a 'warmazombie'.

Harry C wrote:
I see Mr. Mann has favored me with a reply again. Instead of accepting the olive branch I was trying to hand him, he has decided to poke me with it again. I'm not sure why I deserve it???

Harry C wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:With all due repsect, every time you get irritated that I point out that Greenhouse Effect it is just a WACKY religious dogma you tip your hand that you're all about the religion.

I'm not irritated. I've been struggling for acceptance and you've been less than respectful. But hey, I understand there's probably been a litany of kooks that have been through the forum through the years.

Harry C wrote:
Perhaps I didn't give this the full consideration you were looking for?

IBdaMann wrote:

Harry, you are going about it all wrong.

Let's presume hypothetically that you have given up trying to find science supporting either Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect and you have instead decided to pursue the "data" route. You should be focusing on "margin of error" right at the beginning, not quibbling over whether data exists.

I haven't given up on the supporting science. Nonetheless, I did make reference to the confidence interval in an earlier post. The post was simply to point out that even the referenced data was inconclusive to proceed with a driven approach.