Man-Made Global Warming Theory Takes Major Hit

You are much younger than i believed you are.

 

You learned about them too. Everyone does.

 

My first science course, called General Science was in the 9th Grade. But you must be very young

 

That explains why you are always wrong. You don’t remember science in grade school.

 

I do not recall being wrong. Your youth explains why your posts are wrong.

So tell us your background in science.

 

So you understand CO2, and other greenhouse gasses increase surface temperature? Great!

 

By my understanding, heat is not flowing from a colder body to a warmer one and heating it. Instead it is the radiation doing so, which is not the same as heat. The radiation that greenhouse gases emit in all directions is not heat, but just an undifferentiated blob of radiation. It only becomes heat when it is absorbed by a body and converted to kinetic energy.

 

All heat is radiation.

 

Radiation is not heat, just a packet of photons. Radiation only becomes heat when it is absorbed by a body and converted to kinetic energy; only then is it transferred into the motion of atoms and molecules; heat. See the article here on radiative-heat transfer that differentiates between radiation and heat.

 

That's not true. You are confused and conflating heat transfer (conduction, convection, radiation) with heat measured by temperature.

 

And we do not breath air...we breathe a mixture of Oxygen, argon, carbon dioxide and methane amongst other things. The argument you make is for arguments sake.

 

He is correcting your error in understanding.

 

Which might be interesting, were anyone claiming the surface gets hotter at night, rather than merely not cooling as fast as it would otherwise.

Nevertheless, it will slow it down, if neither measurably nor for a measurable period of time; and a sufficient number of BBs will cause measurable deceleration.

Actually it can, at the atomic level, by the re-emission of infrared photons which are then reabsorbed by atoms on the surface.

 

It was not for argument’s sake. I was saying that radiation is not heat, just photons. The AGW-theory suggests that greenhouse gases can warm the Earth by re-emitting radiation back down towards the surface where the radiation will be absorbed and converted to kinetic energy and since radiation is not heat the 2nd law of thermodynamics stipulating heat cannot flow from a cooler body to a warmer body remains intact. The idea that greenhouse gases can warm the surface is (as far as I can make out) not in violation of the 2nd law since radiation and heat are different. I am coming out in defense of the AGW theory.

 

There is no political way that a sufficient amount of BB's can be provided to result in a significant reduction in CO2 emissions. Save your BB's for land fill. Miami is sinking.

 

I never learned a thing about greenhouse gases in grade school. It wasn't until I studied planetary physics at university that I learned about heat regimes, black body radiation, the Combined Gas Law, radiative and convective heat transfer in planetary atmospheres, etc. But that was 45 years ago, when climate research had found the earth was cooling...

 

Ah, actually, we do breathe air, and it is about 78% N2, then almost 21% O2, then water vapor, THEN argon, then CO2, methane, etc. Water vapor is the most unevenly distributed gas, as it is significantly more abundant than Ar in most of the troposphere but less abundant in the stratosphere and higher. Because of this, atmospheric gas composition is often given for "dry air."

 

That is incorrect. On Venus, for example, the atmosphere is so thick that no direct sunlight reaches the surface. The high surface temperature is caused by the extremely dense atmosphere (i.e., the planet's black body temperature and the Combined Gas Law).

 

Solar Radiation (light) does reach the surface of Venus, said radiation cannot escape however due to the dense atmosphere (greenhouse effect)..

 

It's not DIRECT sunlight but light reflected and refracted through thick cloud layers. You may note the lack of shadows in the picture. The ground is not appreciably heated by it, and there is little difference between the ground temperature and the air temperature, unlike on earth.

 

So what caused the water vapor increase? It just doesn't increase by itself. Something has to push it first.

Oh, the CO2 does that. CO2 warms things up, putting more water vapor in the air, so there's a positive feedback.

 

So? None of that refutes the fact that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is what makes Venus so hot.

Your claims about the ideal gas law are bizarre. Gas at a constant pressure does not create heat. A planet with a perfectly IR-transparent atmosphere would have a temperature like the same planet with no atmosphere, no matter how dense that atmosphere was.

Because very detailed ocean temperature records conclusively refute your theory. The oceans did not continue to heat when your theory says they should have. The hard data says your theory is wrong, so your theory is wrong.

 

Wrong. It is definitely not the misnamed "greenhouse effect" (greenhouses actually heat their internal air by blocking convection, not radiation). What makes Venus so hot is the sheer density of its atmosphere at the surface. It would be little different if it was all N2, which has little effect on infrared radiative energy transfer.

I said the Combined Gas Law, with which you are evidently unfamiliar.

Pressure declines with altitude, as does temperature. Google "adiabatic lapse rate" and start reading.

No, that's just false. Convection would transfer heat from the surface to the upper atmosphere, where radiation to space would balance incoming sunlight energy. It's complicated by the interaction between the rarefied upper atmosphere and the solar wind, interplanetary medium, etc., but the surface temperature would still depend on atmospheric density.

No they don't.

Wrong. Unlike anti-fossil-fuel hysteria, my theory does not ignore the decadal ocean circulation cycles.

Sorry, no. What YOU CLAIM my theory says is nothing but a strawman you made up.

 

Nope. Wrong. CO2 can't possibly increase water vapor enough to cause measurable positive feedback because water vapor condenses out so readily and is in a dynamic equilibrium based on ocean surface temperature, which barely budges because of thermal inertia. The tail does not wag the dog, sorry.

 

There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas". It is not possible for any magick gas to warm the Earth's surface. Heat cannot flow backwards. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.