Challenge to the Warmers: What's your Theory?

[sparky]

"I'd post the Theory of ManMade Global Warming but I have other, more important things to do right now"

well there's always that closed container theory Frank....

 

[CrusaderFrank]

"I'd post the Theory of ManMade Global Warming but I have other, more important things to do right now"

well there's always that closed container theory Frank....

Day 8: still no theory.

 

[RWatt]

If the radiation is not moving in a given direction, the heat isn't moving in that direction either....This equation represents a subtraction of two EM fields.

Unnecessary detail. The disagreement is fundamental about the behavior of light. We don't need to talk about "EM fields".

Please explain what you are arguing in simple terms. Here's an example:

Two stars A and B a distance apart in space but with no obstructions between them.

Both stars are emitting light in all directions, as stars do. This is how energy is carried from stars. Star B is warmer than Star A so it is emitting more light (more energy) in all directions than star A.

I say that some of the light from the cooler star A must reach the warmer star B and be absorbed, thus representing a flow of energy from star A to star B.

You say this is impossible. What you haven't made clear is why this is impossible. So I'll make it easy for you by giving you the choices and you can tell me which one you are arguing for:

1) Star A never emits light towards star B in the first place.

2) Star A does emit light towards star B, but it changes direction immediately after emission

3) Star A does emit light towards star B, but it changes direction before it reaches star B (say when)

4) Light from star A reaches star B, but bends round it

5) Light from star A reaches star B, but passes straight through it

Not a very good choice is it? There are massive problems with each of these. You have made for yourself a false dilemma because you won't accept the obvious, which is that the light from cooler objects will travel and be absorbed by warmer ones.

 

[skookerasbil]

Even if they delivered their theory...........doesnt matter. Nobody cares anymore. Too, their "science" theories converge with their fcukked up economic theories that dont work for shit and never have in the history of the world. Their whole shit is on a steep decline and I couldnt be happier.

ps..........Obama was out on the campaign trail today talking about "jobs".........talked about Americans making windmills, solar panels, cfls, as a way of bringing our economy back!!!

 

[wirebender]

Unnecessary detail. The disagreement is fundamental about the behavior of light. We don't need to talk about "EM fields".

Of course you do but do feel free to describe the law of physics that says that IR may behave independently from EM fields.

I say that some of the light from the cooler star A must reach the warmer star B and be absorbed, thus representing a flow of energy from star A to star B.

Of course you do. You can say it till you are blue in the face but it will not make it true. Describe the law of physics that allows heat to move spontaneously from cool to warm. I note that you are big on "saying" but damned short on proof.

You say this is impossible. What you haven't made clear is why this is impossible.

I have made it perfectly clear. It is not my fault that the math is way over your head. Now again, describe which law of physics supports your claim. The 2nd law of thermodynamics makes it perfectly clear that what you clam can not happen. Upon which law of physics do you claim that it can happen? Please be specific.

“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”

I will try and explain in more simple terms why light from the cooler star will not be absorbed by the warmer star. My explanation will hinge on the three following laws of nature.

1. The Law of Conservation of energy - Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

2. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - Energy may only move from warm to cool.

3. The Stephan-Boltzmann Law - Objects that absorb energy will increase in temperature and radiate all the energy that was absorbed.

Rather than try and make an example with stars, lets keep the same principles but move a bit closer to home. Lets look at lightbulbs.


Lets start with a light bulb. Lets make it one of the clear ones so that we can see what is going on and not have to deal with the effect of frosted glass. OK, our light is turned off but you can see the filament inside the bulb because the background light in the room is shining on it. Now according to you, if you turn on the lightbulb, the background light in the room will still be shining on the filament and as such, the filament will be absorbing some amount of the background light.

Sorry guy, but it isn't happening. If it were, you would have a violation of both the Law of Conservation of energy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because you have the cooler background light of the room being absorbed by the very hot filament in the light bulb.

If the lightbulb were to absorb any of the background light from the room, then the filament would have to, in turn, heat up and radiate more energy according to the Stefan-Boltzman Law. Now watch closely because here is where your argument falls apart.

If the filament absorbs light from the room it will heat up and radiates more energy, which would make the light in the room become brighter which, in turn, would cause the light bulb to absorb more light from the room and as a result, burn brighter, which would cause the light in the room to become brighter which would cause the lightbulb to absorb more light from the room and burn brighter, which would make the light in the room brighter which would cause the lightbulb to absorb more energy and burn brighter which would cause the room to be brighter which would cause the light bulb to absorb more light from the room and burn brighter which would cause the light in the room to be brighter which would cause the light bulb to absorb more energy and burn brighter which would cause the room to be brighter.... Do you see where this is going? If the warmer object can absorb energy from the cooler object, you make the warmer object even warmer which will in turn warm up the cooler object which then warms the warmer object which then warms the cooler object and you end up in a perpetual, ever growing loop moving towards infinity.

This is a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy because clearly, energy has been created. The light bulb would be putting out more energy than it was receiving from its light socket. Left on long enough, the filament of the light bulb would increase to infinity and put out an infinite amount of light. Do you really not see a problem with claiming that the less lightbulb can absorb light from the less bright (cooler) backround light of the room? It would work the same way with stars. Your claim requires that energy be created and you can not create energy.

The laws of nature are all tied to each other. You can't violate just one. When you violate one, violations of others soon follow.

 

[newpolitics]

"I'd post the Theory of ManMade Global Warming but I have other, more important things to do right now"

well there's always that closed container theory Frank....

Day 8: still no theory.

Jesus Christ Frank, stop being so blind. The theory has been posted before you several times. It's simple... carbon dioxide and other man-made chemicals are greenhouse gases. Since the industrial revolution, we have pumped out enough to create an artificial warming effect because heat radiation is allowed into our atmosphere but not allowed out. This property of greenhouse gases has been demonstrated in laboratories repeatedly . What more do you need to know? Use your brain, you can figure it out. It's a pretty simple concept. Then, when you get a handle on it, use Ocum's Razor to slice away that other fantasy theory you have.

I asked you. What is YOUR theory on global warming? I don't mean to butt in, but it's just so annoying how you demand a theory as if we owe you an explanation that has already been stated to you by someone else on this board. It's like a misplaced narcissism that deniers have. The burden of proof is on you to prove your theory.

 

[wirebender]

The radiation at a longer wave from the surface of the earth then light waves being that earth is cooler then the sun as the sun is 11,000f and earth is 59f(sun mostly visible because is hotter) this radiation then hits the green house gases and get reflected in all directions, meaning some of it gets forced back the surface of the earth, which creates a surplus of "energy" within earth climate system then that otherwise would occur if allowed to all come from the sun. More or less 117% give or take at the surface to 100% coming from the sun.(maybe not the numbers, but close) Why because some of the energy is transported back to the surface of the earth because of green house gases. NOT made, but not allowed to escape into space. That is why water vapor and other green house gases cause a warming...Yes pressure=density of the Atmosphere and molecules close to each other=higher temperatures. You can have a shit load of energy, but if you don't have the density you have a mars. That is why mars is cold.

Didn't mean to ignore you but I have not had a great deal of time to post. Let me answer with a question.

Do you believe you can set a heater in a room in your home that is radiating 1000 watts of energy and take a reflector, or two reflectors, or 10 reflectors, or 1000 reflectors and put them around your heater and cause it to radiate more than 1000 watts of energy? Do you believe you could get even 1001 watts of energy output without having to pay your electric company for that extra watt? Do you believe you could gain a watt of energy that didn't show up on the meter outside your home?

If we could do such a thing, why don't we simply use reflectors and make use of that free energy to solve our energy needs? The idea that greenhouse gasses could make the earth radiate more than twice as much energy as it receives from the sun makes about as much sense as claiming that you can get a surplus of energy that you don't have to pay for out of your heater by putting reflectors around it.

 

[wirebender]

It's simple... carbon dioxide and other man-made chemicals are greenhouse gases. Since the industrial revolution, we have pumped out enough to create an artificial warming effect because heat radiation is allowed into our atmosphere but not allowed out.

And how is a gas that can not trap and hold energy going to prevent this radiation which is moving at the speed of light from getting out of the atmosphere? Which law of physics do you base this belief on? Describe the mechanism by which it happens in the context of the law of physics that you claim makes it possible.

but it's just so annoying how you demand a theory as if we owe you an explanation that has already been stated to you by someone else on this board.

You can believe anything you want. That is your right. BUT when you expect me to go along, and more than that, to PAY for changes you want to see happen, you take a heavy burden of proof upon your shoulders. If you can't prove your claims and back them up with iron clad physics, then you have no right to even expect that I might consider what you are saying, much less give up the fruits of my labor to help you make changes based on ideas that you are unable to prove.

 

[RWatt]

Rather than try and make an example with stars, lets keep the same principles but move a bit closer to home. Lets look at lightbulbs.

The star example is actually a lot simpler because there is nothing other than two bodies in a vacuum. All you have to do is tell me which numbered choice below you are arguing, because so far I have been left having to guess what you are claiming only to have you turn round and say I am misrepresenting you.

So why not make it crystal clear and explain why if colder star A is emitting light in all directions, light from star A is not absorbed by warmer star B? Here are the options:

1) Star A never emits light towards star B in the first place.

2) Star A does emit light towards star B, but the light changes direction immediately after emission

3) Star A does emit light towards star B, but it changes direction before it reaches star B (say when)

4) Light from star A reaches star B, but bends round it

5) Light from star A reaches star B, but passes straight through it

OK, our light is turned off but you can see the filament inside the bulb because the background light in the room is shining on it. Now according to you, if you turn on the lightbulb, the background light in the room will still be shining on the filament and as such, the filament will be absorbing some amount of the background light.

This exactly what I think. The background light will still be radiating light towards the bulb and that light travels in a straight line. A stream of photons is traveling in a straight line toward the bulb. It hits it. The energy of those photons now has to go somewhere. It's absorbed by the bulb. Where else would it go?

I guess I can reword the star example here and give you the options to explain what alternative you are arguing

1) The background light doesn't emit light towards the bulb in the first place

2) The background light does emit light towards the bulb, but the light changes direction immediately after emission

3) The background light does emit light towards the bulb, but it changes direction before it reaches the bulb (say when)

4) Light from the background light reaches the bulb, but bends round it

5) Light from the background light reaches the bulb, but passes straight through it

Sorry guy, but it isn't happening. If it were, you would have a violation of both the Law of Conservation of energy

Energy is conserved, all the energy in this system is coming from the background light and the bulb. I am not proposing any energy is created or destroyed.

and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because you have the cooler background light of the room being absorbed by the very hot filament in the light bulb.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't forbid that. The 2nd law of thermodynamics only states that more energy will be flowing from the hot bulb to the background light than from the background light to the hot bulb. It doesn't state that no energy will be flowing from the background light to the hot bulb.

If the lightbulb were to absorb any of the background light from the room, then the filament would have to, in turn, heat up and radiate more energy according to the Stefan-Boltzman Law. Now watch closely because here is where your argument falls apart.

If the filament absorbs light from the room it will heat up and radiates more energy, which would make the light in the room become brighter which, in turn, would cause the light bulb to absorb more light from the room and as a result, burn brighter, which would cause the light in the room to become brighter which would cause the lightbulb to absorb more light from the room and burn brighter....and you end up in a perpetual, ever growing loop moving towards infinity.

It doesn't run to infinity, it converges on a solution because the stefan-boltzmann law dictates that energy emitted is proportional to the fourth power of temperature, therefore each needed increase in energy output can be achieved with a smaller and smaller temperature rise.

Such like a series like this:

1 + 1/2 + 1/4 + 1/8 + 1/16 + 1/32 ....etc

goes on forever but it converges on 2 not infinity.

This is a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy because clearly, energy has been created. The light bulb would be putting out more energy than it was receiving from its light socket.

Yet I am not creating any energy. It all comes from either the background light or the socket.

The laws of nature are all tied to each other. You can't violate just one. When you violate one, violations of others soon follow.

Indeed and I am convinced your proposal violates the conservation of energy because you are destroying energy somehow. That's why I ask you to answer the star question so I can find out where you are proposing the energy is going.

I am sure you accept the cooler star emits light towards the warmer star. And I am sure you accept that light carries energy. What I want to know is if you claim it never reaches the warmer star, where does the energy go considering conservation of energy demands it must end up somewhere and cannot disappear.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

well there's always that closed container theory Frank....

Day 8: still no theory.

Jesus Christ Frank, stop being so blind. The theory has been posted before you several times. It's simple... carbon dioxide and other man-made chemicals are greenhouse gases. Since the industrial revolution, we have pumped out enough to create an artificial warming effect because heat radiation is allowed into our atmosphere but not allowed out. This property of greenhouse gases has been demonstrated in laboratories repeatedly . What more do you need to know? Use your brain, you can figure it out. It's a pretty simple concept. Then, when you get a handle on it, use Ocum's Razor to slice away that other fantasy theory you have.

I asked you. What is YOUR theory on global warming? I don't mean to butt in, but it's just so annoying how you demand a theory as if we owe you an explanation that has already been stated to you by someone else on this board. It's like a misplaced narcissism that deniers have. The burden of proof is on you to prove your theory.

Why can't you get a copy of this "Settled Science" Theory from MIT or East Angelia?

So is your theory that a 100PPM increase in atmospheric CO2 causes measurable warming? Has this ever been demonstrated experimentally even once to your knowledge?

The MIT Warmers have doubled down on this losing bet and seem to say that a 200PPM increase in CO2 will cause a 5-7 degree increase.

You owe us a Theory because you're the ones who tell us the science is "Settled" and you need to take control of civilization as a direct consequence and I'm saying, Not so fast"

My Theory is that the planet has been in a general Warming Trend for at least 14,000 years. This didn't start with Tyndall and certainly didn't start when Al Gore declared Earth was in a balance. My Theory is that the Warmers are running a bluff.

Before Global Warming

 

[wirebender]

The star example is actually a lot simpler because there is nothing other than two bodies in a vacuum. All you have to do is tell me which numbered choice below you are arguing, because so far I have been left having to guess what you are claiming only to have you turn round and say I am misrepresenting you.

None of your numbered choices has anything to do with what I have said.

This exactly what I think. The background light will still be radiating light towards the bulb and that light travels in a straight line. A stream of photons is traveling in a straight line toward the bulb. It hits it. The energy of those photons now has to go somewhere. It's absorbed by the bulb. Where else would it go?

I have showed you precisely why it doesn't happen that way. I have showed you by example and have showed you the math. The fact that you don't get either pretty much ends the discussion. I can't make it any more simple for you.

The photons go in the direction in which the EM field is propagated, IE from warm to cool.

Energy is conserved, all the energy in this system is coming from the background light and the bulb. I am not proposing any energy is created or destroyed.

Of course yoiu are. I showed you a clear example of how your claim is actually one of increasing energy. Sorry you don't get it.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't forbid that. The 2nd law of thermodynamics only states that more energy will be flowing from the hot bulb to the background light than from the background light to the hot bulb. It doesn't state that no energy will be flowing from the background light to the hot bulb.

Second Law of Thermodynamics - Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.

Which part of that sounds like it is stating anything about more energy. It states pretty clearly there that NO energy will flow spontaneously from a cold body to a warmer body. The laws of physics are not up for compromize. Either energy flows or it does not. In the case of the 2nd law, no energy flows from cold to warm unless there is an input of work.

It doesn't run to infinity, it converges on a solution because the stefan-boltzmann law dictates that energy emitted is proportional to the fourth power of temperature, therefore each needed increase in energy output can be achieved with a smaller and smaller temperature rise.

Sorry guy, there is no built in "cut off" switch. what you describe would result in what I described. Sorry you are unable to get it. And I am still waiting for you to describe a law of physics that allows a cold to flow to warm. Not to worry, I knew before hand that you would not be able to cite any such law.

 

[RWatt]

 

[rdean]

I've asked numerous times and you've managed to fly under the radar and never once provide a direct answer.

Once and for all, please state in a single sentence this "theory" of yours

Doesn't matter. Yours is better. "God did it!".

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So the SUV is 12,000 years old?

 

[Toronado3800]

Unnecessary detail. The disagreement is fundamental about the behavior of light. We don't need to talk about "EM fields".

Of course you do but do feel free to describe the law of physics that says that IR may behave independently from EM fields.

I say that some of the light from the cooler star A must reach the warmer star B and be absorbed, thus representing a flow of energy from star A to star B.

Of course you do. You can say it till you are blue in the face but it will not make it true. Describe the law of physics that allows heat to move spontaneously from cool to warm. I note that you are big on "saying" but damned short on proof.

You say this is impossible. What you haven't made clear is why this is impossible.

I have made it perfectly clear. It is not my fault that the math is way over your head. Now again, describe which law of physics supports your claim. The 2nd law of thermodynamics makes it perfectly clear that what you clam can not happen. Upon which law of physics do you claim that it can happen? Please be specific.

“Second Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object.”

I will try and explain in more simple terms why light from the cooler star will not be absorbed by the warmer star. My explanation will hinge on the three following laws of nature.

1. The Law of Conservation of energy - Energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

2. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics - Energy may only move from warm to cool.

3. The Stephan-Boltzmann Law - Objects that absorb energy will increase in temperature and radiate all the energy that was absorbed.

Rather than try and make an example with stars, lets keep the same principles but move a bit closer to home. Lets look at lightbulbs.


Lets start with a light bulb. Lets make it one of the clear ones so that we can see what is going on and not have to deal with the effect of frosted glass. OK, our light is turned off but you can see the filament inside the bulb because the background light in the room is shining on it. Now according to you, if you turn on the lightbulb, the background light in the room will still be shining on the filament and as such, the filament will be absorbing some amount of the background light.

Sorry guy, but it isn't happening. If it were, you would have a violation of both the Law of Conservation of energy and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It violates the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics because you have the cooler background light of the room being absorbed by the very hot filament in the light bulb.

If the lightbulb were to absorb any of the background light from the room, then the filament would have to, in turn, heat up and radiate more energy according to the Stefan-Boltzman Law. Now watch closely because here is where your argument falls apart.

If the filament absorbs light from the room it will heat up and radiates more energy, which would make the light in the room become brighter which, in turn, would cause the light bulb to absorb more light from the room and as a result, burn brighter, which would cause the light in the room to become brighter which would cause the lightbulb to absorb more light from the room and burn brighter, which would make the light in the room brighter which would cause the lightbulb to absorb more energy and burn brighter which would cause the room to be brighter which would cause the light bulb to absorb more light from the room and burn brighter which would cause the light in the room to be brighter which would cause the light bulb to absorb more energy and burn brighter which would cause the room to be brighter.... Do you see where this is going? If the warmer object can absorb energy from the cooler object, you make the warmer object even warmer which will in turn warm up the cooler object which then warms the warmer object which then warms the cooler object and you end up in a perpetual, ever growing loop moving towards infinity.

This is a violation of the Law of Conservation of Energy because clearly, energy has been created. The light bulb would be putting out more energy than it was receiving from its light socket. Left on long enough, the filament of the light bulb would increase to infinity and put out an infinite amount of light. Do you really not see a problem with claiming that the less lightbulb can absorb light from the less bright (cooler) backround light of the room? It would work the same way with stars. Your claim requires that energy be created and you can not create energy.

The laws of nature are all tied to each other. You can't violate just one. When you violate one, violations of others soon follow.

Perhaps I'm getting in the middle of someone saying something incorrectly but don't greenhouse gasses just slow the rate of heat loss?

If you somehow misunderstood me saying CO2 or water vapor creates heat my apologies for making you do all that typing. Them font commands are not the easiest thing to type.

 

[Toronado3800]

Day 8: still no theory.

Jesus Christ Frank, stop being so blind. The theory has been posted before you several times. It's simple... carbon dioxide and other man-made chemicals are greenhouse gases. Since the industrial revolution, we have pumped out enough to create an artificial warming effect because heat radiation is allowed into our atmosphere but not allowed out. This property of greenhouse gases has been demonstrated in laboratories repeatedly . What more do you need to know? Use your brain, you can figure it out. It's a pretty simple concept. Then, when you get a handle on it, use Ocum's Razor to slice away that other fantasy theory you have.

I asked you. What is YOUR theory on global warming? I don't mean to butt in, but it's just so annoying how you demand a theory as if we owe you an explanation that has already been stated to you by someone else on this board. It's like a misplaced narcissism that deniers have. The burden of proof is on you to prove your theory.

Why can't you get a copy of this "Settled Science" Theory from MIT or East Angelia?

So is your theory that a 100PPM increase in atmospheric CO2 causes measurable warming? Has this ever been demonstrated experimentally even once to your knowledge?

The MIT Warmers have doubled down on this losing bet and seem to say that a 200PPM increase in CO2 will cause a 5-7 degree increase.

You owe us a Theory because you're the ones who tell us the science is "Settled" and you need to take control of civilization as a direct consequence and I'm saying, Not so fast"

My Theory is that the planet has been in a general Warming Trend for at least 14,000 years. This didn't start with Tyndall and certainly didn't start when Al Gore declared Earth was in a balance. My Theory is that the Warmers are running a bluff.

Before Global Warming

Frank, perhaps you are misunderstanding the debate. No one is doubting the planet has warmed since the last ice age. Folks are just concerned we are or will make it warm more than it should.

 

[newpolitics]

It's simple... carbon dioxide and other man-made chemicals are greenhouse gases. Since the industrial revolution, we have pumped out enough to create an artificial warming effect because heat radiation is allowed into our atmosphere but not allowed out.

And how is a gas that can not trap and hold energy going to prevent this radiation which is moving at the speed of light from getting out of the atmosphere? Which law of physics do you base this belief on? Describe the mechanism by which it happens in the context of the law of physics that you claim makes it possible.

but it's just so annoying how you demand a theory as if we owe you an explanation that has already been stated to you by someone else on this board.

You can believe anything you want. That is your right. BUT when you expect me to go along, and more than that, to PAY for changes you want to see happen, you take a heavy burden of proof upon your shoulders. If you can't prove your claims and back them up with iron clad physics, then you have no right to even expect that I might consider what you are saying, much less give up the fruits of my labor to help you make changes based on ideas that you are unable to prove.

It's the exact same idea as an actual greenhouse, except in Greenhouses the glass warms from Convection and not IR. The light comes in as visible radiation, and then dissipates as heat radiation and is unable to pass through the glass in the same amount that it came through. Hence, you get HEATING in a greenhouse, which I am sure you are familiar with.

It is proven, and is farely simple in scope. Here ya go:

(I seriousy can't believe you are doubting this science. This is not what is usually called into question. It is usually the cause of rising carbon dioxide, not whether or not they produce the greenhouse effect. That is rather accepted)

Wikipedia:

The greenhouse effect is a process by which thermal radiation from a planetary surface is absorbed by atmospheric greenhouse gases, and is re-radiated in all directions. Since part of this re-radiation is back towards the surface, energy is transferred to the surface and the lower atmosphere. As a result, the temperature there is higher than it would be if direct heating by solar radiation were the only warming mechanism.[1][2]

Solar radiation at the high frequencies of visible light passes through the atmosphere to warm the planetary surface, which then emits this energy at the lower frequencies of infrared thermal radiation. Infrared radiation is absorbed by greenhouse gases, which in turn re-radiate much of the energy to the surface and lower atmosphere. The mechanism is named after the effect of solar radiation passing through glass and warming a greenhouse, but the way it retains heat is fundamentally different as a greenhouse works by reducing airflow, isolating the warm air inside the structure so that heat is not lost by convection.[2][3][4]
The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1824, first reliably experimented on by John Tyndall in 1858, and first reported quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.[5

----

So basically, the visible light radiation (which contains thermal radiation) hits the earth and is dissipated as thermal radiation, like when you wear something black, and it gets really hot because black absorbs light. The thermal radiation is then blocked by the clouds. If you think a cloud can't block it because of the speed of the radiation, then you know absolutely nothing about phsyics or the electromagnetic spectrum.

 

[wirebender]

Perhaps I'm getting in the middle of someone saying something incorrectly but don't greenhouse gasses just slow the rate of heat loss?

The heat (infrared radiation) at issue here is an electromagnetic wave travelling at the speed of light. There is no "slowing down" of an EM wave. Either the energy is trapped (as what happens with water vapor) or it is not in which case it moves on in the direction of the EM wave at the speed of light.

If you somehow misunderstood me saying CO2 or water vapor creates heat my apologies for making you do all that typing. Them font commands are not the easiest thing to type.

If you are suggesting that radiation from CO2 reaches the surface of the earth, and is absorbed and therefore increases the amount of energy the earth radiates, then you are making the claim of created energy. The sun is the only source of energy the earth has so it can radiate no more than it receives from the sun. In order to radiate more energy than is received from the only source of power energy must be created somehow.

 

[wirebender]

Frank, perhaps you are misunderstanding the debate. No one is doubting the planet has warmed since the last ice age. Folks are just concerned we are or will make it warm more than it should.

But without a shred of hard observed evidence that proves unequivocally that man is responsible for the changing climate, where does this concern come from? What motivates it? If there were hard evidence, that would be one thing, but there is none.

 

[newpolitics]

Frank, perhaps you are misunderstanding the debate. No one is doubting the planet has warmed since the last ice age. Folks are just concerned we are or will make it warm more than it should.

But without a shred of hard observed evidence that proves unequivocally that man is responsible for the changing climate, where does this concern come from? What motivates it? If there were hard evidence, that would be one thing, but there is none.

While you wait for the hard evidence and neglect to use common sense, the world heats up and alters the conditions in which we were created... It must be comfortable to believe humans can do whatever we want to this earth and it will all just 'be okay.' It's wishful thinking that allows no consideration or responsibility for our actions as a species, instead encouraging the indulgence on everything that benefits us short term.