Why CO2 does not govern the earth's surface temperature

It also provides a soothing sound.

 

Mantra 12 (accusation of deficient education).

Mantra 8 (logic redefinition fallacy).
Mantra 23 (argument of the stone fallacy).

Mantra 38a (cops & robbers fallacy).

Mantra 38a.

Yes, because the blanket ACTS AS A COUPLING REDUCER between the colder outside air and the trapped air underneath the blanket where YOUR BODY is located, aka the THERMAL ENERGY SOURCE.

You said that the blanket warms the person. That is just plain INCORRECT. The blanket, instead, allows the person to easier warm themselves.

No, you are dead wrong.

Correct. Thus, a blanket CANNOT WARM SOMEBODY...

No, it doesn't. You continue to remain locked in your paradox, arguing irrationally. Try putting a blanket over a rock and see what it does. Does the blanket warm the rock? No, it doesn't, yet you are trying to tell me that it does... You are just plain dead wrong. The blanket is not warming anything.

No. Heat is still dissipating.

No, you are.

Let me guess: you voted for Biden, right?

What does this have to do with anything?

This was a poor wording on my part. I'll amend my statement there to accept your rebuttal.
Agreed. They are, rather, subject to the temperature of their surroundings, such as the ground that they are on and the sun that they are in.

Correct. A second oversight on my part. While it is not food in a human sense, it is food for a plant as hamburger is food for us.

No it doesn't. I've already explained how blankets work, and how CO2 cannot warm the Earth's surface.

Thermal energy is NOT heat, dude. Heat is, rather, THE FLOW OF thermal energy. Heat is not thermal energy itself.

Thermal insulation is not trapping heat. It is not possible to trap heat. There is always heat, as there is no such thing as a perfect insulator.

Blankets trap air, not heat. It is not possible to trap heat. A blanket is not a perfect insulator.

CO2 does not trap heat. It is not possible to trap heat. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator.

WRONG. The SB Law is a mathematical equation, and both sides of an equation MUST equal each other.

The SB Law is as follows:
Radiance = Temperature^4 * SBoltzmann_Constant * Emissivity_Constant.
*** radiance is in watts per square meter of radiating surface
*** the Boltzmann constant (a natural constant, essentially converting the equation to our units of measure), or 5.670373 * 10 ^ -8 when using meters and kelvins.
*** emissivity is a measured constant of how well the surface radiates, compared to a perfect radiator (an ideal black body, or one that has no ability to reflect light at all), and a perfect reflector (an ideal white body, or one that has no ability to absorb light at all), expressed as a percentage. 100% is the ideal black body.
*** temperature is in deg K.

Since the other two variables on the right hand side of the equation are constants, that means that radiance (left side of equation) and temperature (right side of equation) are proportional to each other. If radiance decreases (due to "heat trapping"), then temperature MUST also decrease. To claim that "heat trapping" warms the Earth is in direct violation of this SB Law equaton.

No, the SB Law applies to ALL matter, ALL the time, EVERYWHERE, whether that be a single atom or an entire planet with an atmosphere.

Yes, it is. A "black body" is any body in which thermal activity is occurring.

It is not possible to measure Earth's temperature to any usable accuracy with our current infrastructure. You would need many hundreds of millions of thermometers in order to do so.

CO2 does not warm the surface. In order to increase the temperature of Earth, ADDITIONAL energy is needed. Where is this ADDITIONAL energy coming from? Violation of 1st LoT. Colder CO2 cannot heat warmer surfaces. Violation of 2nd LoT. A decrease in Earth's radiance and an increase in Earth's temperature cannot occur simultaneously. Violation of SB Law.

You are denying science in exchange for your religious beliefs, dude.

Venus is no warmer than Mercury. This is why:
[1] Apparently Venus has a higher emissivity than Mercury does, allowing it to absorb sunlight more efficiently.
[2] Venus has a very long day.
[3] Surface temperatures are not necessarily at the same pressure. The atmosphere on Venus is VERY thick.

In contrast, Mercury has lower emissivity, a short day, and very little atmosphere.

For Venus, one would simply be measuring the temperature lower down into the planet than they would be for Mercury, since Venus has A LOT more atmosphere than Mercury does, and it is going to be hotter way down deeper into a planet like that. Yes, a planet's atmosphere IS a part of the planet. It cannot be ignored.

... and that part (the atmosphere) IS A PART OF THE PLANET ITSELF. It cannot be ignored.

No, I was correct.

You are making up numbers. There is no way to accurately measure Earth's temperature to any usable margin of error with our current infrastructure. We don't have near enough thermometers! Earth experiences a much narrower temperature swing due to its atmosphere, whereas the moon and the ISS have HUGE temperature swings because of their lack of an appreciable atmosphere, or any atmosphere.

Because a temperature measurement anywhere on the surface of Venus would be taken at a much DEEPER location than anywhere on the surface of Mercury, due to Venus having a very thick atmosphere compared to Mercury. Please refer to my above detailed explanation regarding these planets.

No, it can't be and isn't measured that way. The emissivity of Mars and its moons are unknown. One is simply guessing!

 

No, it was accurate.

Yes, it does. If one is only considering Earth as "the closed system", then Earth is the closed system, as the boundaries of Earth are the boundaries of the system.

The Sun is outside of the Earth system. It cannot be considered when speaking specifically about the Earth system, which is a closed system defined by the boundaries of Earth itself. If one were to introduce the sun into the discussion, then one is speaking of an entirely different system (the Sun-Earth-Space system), which would also be a closed system, as it is defined by its boundaries.

The Earth is a closed system. So is the Sun-Earth-Space system. I have described why this is.

Conclusively refuted above.

Yes, but that's not what we are talking about when we are talking about what constitutes a "closed" system. A "closed" system is merely a system that has specific boundaries. You can use any system you wish in such a discussion, but you cannot switch between systems during the same discussion. You must pick one system and stick with it.

No, it treats Earth as a part of the Sun-Earth-Space system (a closed system).

No, I am correct.

You are the one denying science. You are the one who has fervent beliefs in the Church of Global Warming and its dogma.

 

But I am right: you have no science education past high school, if that.

<yawn> Mantra 1: silliness.

Much as CO2 does between infrared radiation from the earth's surface and the cold of outer space, as I already explained to you so very clearly and patiently, but you refuse to understand.

<sigh> Fine. To adopt your idiosyncratic (and ungrammatical) phraseology, CO2 "allows the sun to easier warm the earth's surface."

I am objectively correct.

<yawn> Would putting another blanket on your bed make you warmer at night?

As they say in Japan, "It's mirror time!"

I stated explicitly that it doesn't.

Then why is the effect of a blanket on a rock's temperature different from its effect on a person's skin temperature. hhhmmmmm? Blank out.

But more slowly, proving me right and you wrong.

Wrong.

It is consistent with your demonstrated pattern of not knowing what you are talking about, yet believing that you do know.

You were wrong and I corrected your error.

No, I explained it to you, and drew the accurate and valid analogy with how CO2 warms the earth's surface.

Yes, dude, it is:

"Heat energy, also called thermal energy, is the energy an object has because of the movement of its molecules, and heat can be transferred from one object to another object."

https://study.com/academy/lesson/heat-energy-lesson-for-kids-definition-examples.html

Heat and thermal energy both consist of the kinetic energy of molecules.

Yes, it is, and yes, it is.

Irrelevant. The degree of heat trapping is merely less than 100%.

<yawn> You just never tire of exposing your lack of scientific understanding, do you? Saran Wrap traps air much more efficiently than a blanket, but it does not do much to warm you up. You stand refuted again.

Irrelevant. It merely traps less than 100% of heat.

Insulation does not have to be perfect to be insulation.

That is in mathematics, not physics. In science, there are dependent and independent variables. You don't know any science, so you don't understand that.

Nope. Your lack of scientific education is showing again. Radiance is proportional to the fourth power of temperature.

External temperature at the radiant surface, not internal temperature. You merely do not understand the difference.

It warms the earth's SURFACE, which is INSIDE the atmosphere, not the external radiating layer of the atmosphere where the S-B Equation applies. You merely do not understand the difference.

<yawn>

"The law applies only to blackbodies, theoretical surfaces that absorb all incident heat radiation."

https://www.britannica.com/science/Stefan-Boltzmann-law

This seems to be your basic error: you do not understand that the S-B Equation is only relevant to the earth's EFFECTIVE RADIATING SURFACE high in the troposphere, NOT to the solid/liquid surface where people live and whose temperature we are concerned with.

Wrong again:

"black body: an ideal body or surface that completely absorbs all radiant energy falling upon it with no reflection and that radiates at all frequencies with a spectral energy distribution dependent on its absolute temperature"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blackbody

Wrong. Satellites do it quite nicely. You just don't know any science, so you don't understand how statistical sampling can accurately measure the characteristics of a much larger population.

Yes, it does.

Not to increase its SURFACE temperature. That is where you are going wrong. Just as a blanket increases a person's SKIN temperature despite not supplying any additional energy, CO2 increases the earth's SURFACE temperature despite not supplying any additional energy. The energy to heat the earth comes from the sun, just as the energy to heat a person's body comes from their food. CO2 does not stop visible light energy from the sun from reaching the earth's surface, but stops IR radiation from from the earth's surface from dissipating so quickly into outer space, just as a blanket does not stop a person from eating food, but stops the heat from their body from dissipating so quickly. You are just confusing yourself with quibbles about what it means to "warm" something.

All the energy comes from the sun. CO2 only changes its distribution, just as the blanket does.

Nope.

Already refuted.

Nope. Wrong. You are just confused between the EFFECTIVE RADIATING SURFACE in the upper troposphere and the EARTH'S surface where people live, and care about the temperature. Two different places, two completely different sets of thermodynamic processes going on.

You are denying science in exchange for your religious beliefs, dude.

It is indisputably warmer:

https://solarsystem.nasa.gov/resources/681/solar-system-temperatures/

False. Mercury is quite dark, Venus very bright:

https://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/a/Albedo

Mercury absorbs more than three times as much of its incident sunlight as Venus does.

How many more times, and in how many more independently conclusive ways, do I have to prove you flat, outright wrong as a matter of objective physical fact before you will become willing to consider the possibility that you actually ARE wrong?

So does Mercury, and it is irrelevant.

Which is why I am right and you are wrong.

False.

Effectively none.

Yet you are ignoring the earth's atmosphere, pretending that the surface where people live, and whose temperature we care about, is the same as the effective radiating layer of the upper troposphere.

But it also cannot be treated as if it is the same as the solid surface of the earth where people live, and whose temperature they care about.

You were objectively wrong.

I have provided the urls of credible sources.

Satellites do a good enough job. Because you have no science education beyond high school, if that, you don't understand how statistical sampling can provide an accurate picture of a population much larger than the sample.

Their AVERAGE temperature is much lower than the average temperature of the earth's surface.

Your explanation??? Your "explanation" proved you don't know the first thing about them.

It can be and is.

They can be estimated accurately based on what we know of their composition.

False. It is you who are self-evidently simply guessing.

 

Do you have any scientific studies to support your disagreement with the entire scientific community besides this blanket analogy?

 

Repetition and holy links are not valid arguments, dude. As I have shown, you have absolutely ZERO clue what you are talking about.

As to the satellites bit, they don't work for measuring Earth's temperature either (via converting light readings into temperature readings) because Earth's emissivity IS UNKNOWN because Earth's temperature IS UNKNOWN... To know Earth's emissivity, one must first know its temperature...

 

False.

No one who knows any science would imagine that considering the earth's temperature or energy budget would involve considering it a closed system. You do not know any science, so you consider it a closed system.

You have only revealed that you do not understand why the earth's temperature cannot be understood by considering it a closed system.

Which is why all your bloviation about global warming being a violation of the 2nd Law is nonscience.

Then why did you pretend the Earth is a closed system for the purposes of the 2nd Law?

You are objectively wrong.

<yawn> Read a few of my posts in the AGW threads, and try to at least minimally inform yourself.

 

That is a strawman fallacy, as Jack's many, many posts in these threads referencing peer-reviewed science prove.

Do you even understand the analogy?

 

Analogies aren't a valid part of science. They just aren't. If you don't have a peer review study that refutes the CO2 greenhouse effect, then no amount of blankets will save you.

 

But facts and logic are.

No. That appears merely to be a delusional belief on your part, like your belief that Trump won the 2020 election.

Nope. The measured radiation is from specific molecules whose emission characteristics are well known.

Nonscience with no basis in fact.

 

Sure they are. Models are essentially analogies.

That's not the gravamen of my analogy, which just shows why the effect is much greater at the effective emission altitude than at the surface.

In related threads, Jack has been posting links to lots of peer-reviewed studies that call high ECS estimates into question. Rather than duplicate his efforts, I thought I would try to explain what is wrong with the alarmist anti-fossil-fuel narrative in easily understandable terms.

 

It IS... BUT if one is going to use the Earth as the closed system for that purpose, then one CANNOT appeal to things outside of the boundaries of that system, such as space and the sun. One MUST stay WITHIN the confines of the Earth system (iow, one can consider the Earth's surface and its atmosphere, but not space or the sun).

In an Earth system, heat [the FLOW of thermal energy, NOT thermal energy itself] flows from hot to cold (from it's surface to the edges of its atmosphere). Heat does NOT flow from Earth's atmosphere to its surface, as heat does not flow from cold to hot.

In a Sun-Earth-Space system, heat flows from hot to cold (from the sun to Earth's surface to its atmosphere and out into space). It does NOT flow from Earth's atmosphere to its surface, as heat does not flow from cold to hot.

The 2nd LoT applies to ANY and EVERY closed system.

 

Here is where we can start.
How Climate Change Pseudoscience Became Publicly Accepted
Solar Debunking Arguments are Defunct
Forbes censored an interview with me

 

No, models are taking the laws of nature and estimating what would happen. That isn't an analogy. Science is based on collecting evidence and proposing theories, not talking about blankets. Specifically did Jack post links to peer reviewed studies that refute the greenhouse effect of CO2?

 

None of these refute the existence of the greenhouse effect by CO2 itself.

 

No, but they show clearly that CO2 is not the sole major climate driver and, in some circumstances, is quite secondary.

 

Right but that isn't the claim in the OP. The OP claims that the greenhouse effect basically isn't there on the surface because the climate system is like blankets.

 

The laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law do, though.

 

I thought the second law of thermodynamics refutes evolution. I guess it refutes the greenhouse effect too!

 

It doesn't.

It does.

 

It is most definitely an analogy. Just not a very imaginative one.

Many scientific theories are based on analogies.

I already informed you that that is a strawman fallacy on your part.

 

It is true that analogies are used to build a theory. But the theory itself is based on real science and requires a mountain of evidence. Your blanket analogy has zero supported peer review support at this point. It works better in a laundry room than in real life.

 

No it isn't. Not even close.

That is an absurd strawman fallacy. The effect of CO2 and other greenhouse gases is to retard the flow of heat from the warm surface of the earth to the cold of outer space, not to make heat flow from outer space to the earth's surface. Just as with a blanket, it is the reduction of heat loss that warms the surface, not a transfer of heat from cold to warm. I am not sure there is any clearer or simpler way of explaining that to you.

Of which the earth is not one.

 

No. I think you have that wrong.

 

No, many theories have been devised with only the evidence of ordinary perception and logic. The Atomic Theory of Matter, for example, is thousands of years old, and was first advanced by people with no access to any evidence but that of their own senses.

What are you talking about? The basic facts I identified are well known and not controversial. The blanket analogy is accurate, valid, and IMO illuminating. It's only its logical implication that CO2 has minimal effect on the earth's surface temperature that is not widely accepted because people have not thought through the physics -- or because they don't want to know the truth.