Scientific Method, 2016

[IlarMeilyr]

I enjoy watching the AGW Faith based ministries crowd (like our pal Cricky) deliberately conflate global warming with MAN MADE global warming.

Let's simplify it for guys like Crick:

The "deniers" as you attempt to label the heretics who don't dutifully accept every scrap of fluff you offer to the world, are NOT denying that the climate of planet Earth may be getting warmer. It may very well BE getting warmer.

But, what your opposition numbers DO tend to deny is that YOU are employing good science to support your CLAIM that the global warming is somehow CAUSED by human activity.

Yes, it may also be true that there is such a thing as a "greenhouse effect." It certainly works for plants in actual greenhouses. But those are pretty well closed systems and the atmosphere of planet Earth and its overall climate -- especially over time -- is not so clearly a "closed" system.

You Faith Based AGW Ministries proponents tend to gloss over the part that CrusaderFrank has consistently been pointing to. That is, there is an obvious LACK of scientific rigor in your claims.

And no, it does not suffice to keep shouting "consensus" because the scientific method has NEVER been about majority rule (even if you have a majority).

He has asked you innumerable times. WHAT amount of increase in atmospheric CO2 can be expected to raise the average global temperature over a specified period of time by a specific amount? What would that amount be expected to then be? What tests can you point to (outside of a glass enclosed greenhouse) that might offer some observational data supportive of your predictions?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So you're saying the Second Law is not absolute but deals with averages

Absolutely. The Second Law does not hold at the level of individual molecules. It only describes the behavior of macroscopic systems, where the averaged behavior of gazillions of molecules and photons leads to the overall result of heat flowing from warm to cold.

Everyone who gets a B.S. in physics will study how that works in a Statistical Mechanics course. The field of Statistical Mechanics has been around for 140 years, starting with Boltzmann's work. In all that time, nobody has found a problem with it. If you have, write it up, submit it formally, and collect your Nobel Prize.

Are there another laws that only work on the average, like gravity? Do all of the bowling ball molecules follow the law of gravity or do some of them off into space and it's only on the average that the ball lands on the alley, headed toward the pins?

 

[mamooth]

Frank, why do you think bowling balls will float into space?

You need to work that into your Grand Unified Theory of denialist physics. Floating bowling balls, intelligent photons, Guam tipping over ... now you just need to tie it all together.

 

[Crick]

I enjoy watching the AGW Faith based ministries crowd (like our pal Cricky) deliberately conflate global warming with MAN MADE global warming.

I trust you actually know what the word "conflate" means.

Let's simplify it for guys like Crick:

Oh please do

The "deniers" as you attempt to label the heretics who don't dutifully accept every scrap of fluff you offer to the world, are NOT denying that the climate of planet Earth may be getting warmer. It may very well BE getting warmer.

Au d'contraire. Several of them here absolutely DO deny the world is getting warmer. And many who accept warming claim that it is not warming as fast as scientists say.

But, what your opposition numbers DO tend to deny is that YOU are employing good science to support your CLAIM that the global warming is somehow CAUSED by human activity.

What are my "opposition numbers"? And what "science" am I employing? I am not a scientist.

Yes, it may also be true that there is such a thing as a "greenhouse effect." It certainly works for plants in actual greenhouses. But those are pretty well closed systems and the atmosphere of planet Earth and its overall climate -- especially over time -- is not so clearly a "closed" system.

The greenhouse effect in the Earth's atmosphere - and in the atmosphere of any planet anywhere in the universe that contains greenhouse gases - is not analogous to the effect that causes a greenhouse to warm. And, regarding energy, a greenhouse is most definitely not a "closed system". Since you've obviously never taken a class in thermodynamics, you might want to check yourself regarding terms with which you really have no familiarity.

You Faith Based AGW Ministries proponents tend to gloss over the part that CrusaderFrank has consistently been pointing to. That is, there is an obvious LACK of scientific rigor in your claims.

Frank doesn't get responses from us because the question is so stupid. If you want to see scientific evidence that humans bear primary responsibility for the warming we've experienced, read the five assessment reports produced by the IPCC. If you reject it out of hand, then you have an insurmountable and unsupportable bias and there is no point in discussing this with you as your opinion lacks all merit.

And no, it does not suffice to keep shouting "consensus" because the scientific method has NEVER been about majority rule (even if you have a majority).

It has ALWAYS been about majority rule.

He has asked you innumerable times. WHAT amount of increase in atmospheric CO2 can be expected to raise the average global temperature over a specified period of time by a specific amount? What would that amount be expected to then be? What tests can you point to (outside of a glass enclosed greenhouse) that might offer some observational data supportive of your predictions?

Your question is as stupid as his. Read AR5 if you want to see evidence. WG-I, The Physical Science Basis, if you'd like to hone in on your target.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ol' Ilar is very much on the peer level with Frankie, only uses more words.

 

[IanC]

What would an absolute Second Law look like? Smart photons only emitting toward cooler matter?

Why it's not a law at all according to you and Old Socks. Heat radiates in every direction, what the fuck was Newton babbling about anyway?

energy radiates in every direction. heat only flows from warm to cool. how many times, in how many ways, do you guys need to be told the same thing over and over again?

radiation of a photon is the smallest unit of energy transfer. it cannot be divided up into smaller mechanisms. a photon once emitted from a particle of matter continues on its straight but random direction until it interacts with another particle of matter. the photon remains the same from the moment of its creation until it ceases to exist. nothing affects it. (with the exception of gravity or expansion of space, not an issue under normal conditions)

Isn't heat what the energy converts to? What would be the purpose of radiation if it wasn't to warm something? I mean explain why radiation from cold doesn't warm the warm objects? Or are you saying it does? Why then that would be heat and a violation of the law. Dude, I thought you weren't a warmer, there is no other option if cold warms the surface. And don't tell me it slows the surface cause then that would be magic cause how would the surface know they were there. I mean isn't that smart photons then. Hahahaha you contradict with your thinking. Just saying

every object in the universe is trying to get rid of its energy. while there are several ways to do this, we are specifically discussing radiation. every object radiates! if two objects are in proximity then they radiate towards each other. if they are at the same temperature then the amount radiated equals the amount absorbed, therefore there is no net change in temp. the radiation is still going on but it is balanced out. can you understand that simple idea? for any measurable length of time the radiation going in either direction is exactly the same to a very high degree. does the radiation from one object warm the other? no.

if the two objects are at different temperatures then they both radiate towards each other but the warmer on radiates more, and at a slightly more energetic average wavelength than the cooler object. this preponderance of energy flowing from warm to cold will increase the temperature of the cool object and decrease the temperature of the warm object, until they are both at the same temperature. did the radiation from the cooler object 'heat' the warm object? no. but the radiation was still there.

individual emissions/absorptions of photons are the mechanism of energy transfer. if an object radiating away more photons than it is receiving then it will cool. you can calculate how much is going in either direction but only the net amount will change the temperature. 'heat' is a description of net energy transfer. if there is no net difference then no warming or cooling will take place, but the gross amount of radiation being produced by the individual objects will still be there.

I really hope you try to understand this very simple concept

The more I look at it the less I believe that any of it is "simple"

How hard are black holes really trying to get rid of their energy

Hahahaha, really? Black holes? How is that pertinent.?

While it is certainly interesting to debate whether black holes have hair, it gives no insight about physics under earth like conditions.

 

[IanC]

So you're saying the Second Law is not absolute but deals with averages

Absolutely. The Second Law does not hold at the level of individual molecules. It only describes the behavior of macroscopic systems, where the averaged behavior of gazillions of molecules and photons leads to the overall result of heat flowing from warm to cold.

Everyone who gets a B.S. in physics will study how that works in a Statistical Mechanics course. The field of Statistical Mechanics has been around for 140 years, starting with Boltzmann's work. In all that time, nobody has found a problem with it. If you have, write it up, submit it formally, and collect your Nobel Prize.

Are there another laws that only work on the average, like gravity? Do all of the bowling ball molecules follow the law of gravity or do some of them off into space and it's only on the average that the ball lands on the alley, headed toward the pins?

Sure. Radioactive decay. You cannot determine which atoms will decay but you can predict how many.

Or quantum tunnelling. No matter how unlikely, it will happen if there is the smallest of probabilities.

 

[IanC]

SSDD'S version of physics says internal molecular creation of photons is controlled by macroscopic outside conditions. Classical and quantum physics say that is ridiculous because there is no mechanism for gathering and transmitting the information.

What makes more sense and is more manageable? Objects radiating at all times in proportion to their temperature, or a Maxwell's Demon with perfect knowledge of all conditions in the universe making decisions about which actions will be allowed?

 

[IanC]

I enjoy watching the AGW Faith based ministries crowd (like our pal Cricky) deliberately conflate global warming with MAN MADE global warming.

I trust you actually know what the word "conflate" means.

Let's simplify it for guys like Crick:

Oh please do

The "deniers" as you attempt to label the heretics who don't dutifully accept every scrap of fluff you offer to the world, are NOT denying that the climate of planet Earth may be getting warmer. It may very well BE getting warmer.

Au d'contraire. Several of them here absolutely DO deny the world is getting warmer. And many who accept warming claim that it is not warming as fast as scientists say.

But, what your opposition numbers DO tend to deny is that YOU are employing good science to support your CLAIM that the global warming is somehow CAUSED by human activity.

What are my "opposition numbers"? And what "science" am I employing? I am not a scientist.

Yes, it may also be true that there is such a thing as a "greenhouse effect." It certainly works for plants in actual greenhouses. But those are pretty well closed systems and the atmosphere of planet Earth and its overall climate -- especially over time -- is not so clearly a "closed" system.

The greenhouse effect in the Earth's atmosphere - and in the atmosphere of any planet anywhere in the universe that contains greenhouse gases - is not analogous to the effect that causes a greenhouse to warm. And, regarding energy, a greenhouse is most definitely not a "closed system". Since you've obviously never taken a class in thermodynamics, you might want to check yourself regarding terms with which you really have no familiarity.

You Faith Based AGW Ministries proponents tend to gloss over the part that CrusaderFrank has consistently been pointing to. That is, there is an obvious LACK of scientific rigor in your claims.

Frank doesn't get responses from us because the question is so stupid. If you want to see scientific evidence that humans bear primary responsibility for the warming we've experienced, read the five assessment reports produced by the IPCC. If you reject it out of hand, then you have an insurmountable and unsupportable bias and there is no point in discussing this with you as your opinion lacks all merit.

And no, it does not suffice to keep shouting "consensus" because the scientific method has NEVER been about majority rule (even if you have a majority).

It has ALWAYS been about majority rule.

He has asked you innumerable times. WHAT amount of increase in atmospheric CO2 can be expected to raise the average global temperature over a specified period of time by a specific amount? What would that amount be expected to then be? What tests can you point to (outside of a glass enclosed greenhouse) that might offer some observational data supportive of your predictions?

Your question is as stupid as his. Read AR5 if you want to see evidence. WG-I, The Physical Science Basis, if you'd like to hone in on your target.

Conflate is a good choice of word. Warmers think that the debate is an all or nothing decision. The legitimate skeptics agree that the increase in CO2 is caused in part by fossil fuel usage, and that CO2 causes a warming influence.

What skeptics don't agree with are the overblown and exaggerated predictions of Doom. Warmers claim that you must believe everything otherwise you are a 'denier'. There are many conclusions paraded as scientific fact that I do not believe are supported by the evidence. Even the evidence is collected in a biased fashion in many cases.

 

[Crick]

How many times have you heard us "warmers" say things like "dominant cause" or "primary cause" or "most warming"? Yet how many times have I heard deniers seeming to believe showing that CO2 is NOT the sole cause of climate change or that CO2's warming is NOT indominatable utterly refutes AGW?

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SSDD'S version of physics says internal molecular creation of photons is controlled by macroscopic outside conditions. Classical and quantum physics say that is ridiculous because there is no mechanism for gathering and transmitting the information.

What makes more sense and is more manageable? Objects radiating at all times in proportion to their temperature, or a Maxwell's Demon with perfect knowledge of all conditions in the universe making decisions about which actions will be allowed?

You might need to revise you definition of "Ridiculous" How do the photons "know"? What information is traveling faster than light to make the adjustment?

Spooky! Quantum Action Is 10,000 Times Faster Than Light

 

[Crick]

Quantum entanglement does not convey temperature. It involves SINGLE particles. Temperature is a macroscopic parameter.

 

[jc456]

I enjoy watching the AGW Faith based ministries crowd (like our pal Cricky) deliberately conflate global warming with MAN MADE global warming.

I trust you actually know what the word "conflate" means.

Let's simplify it for guys like Crick:

Oh please do

The "deniers" as you attempt to label the heretics who don't dutifully accept every scrap of fluff you offer to the world, are NOT denying that the climate of planet Earth may be getting warmer. It may very well BE getting warmer.

Au d'contraire. Several of them here absolutely DO deny the world is getting warmer. And many who accept warming claim that it is not warming as fast as scientists say.

But, what your opposition numbers DO tend to deny is that YOU are employing good science to support your CLAIM that the global warming is somehow CAUSED by human activity.

What are my "opposition numbers"? And what "science" am I employing? I am not a scientist.

Yes, it may also be true that there is such a thing as a "greenhouse effect." It certainly works for plants in actual greenhouses. But those are pretty well closed systems and the atmosphere of planet Earth and its overall climate -- especially over time -- is not so clearly a "closed" system.

The greenhouse effect in the Earth's atmosphere - and in the atmosphere of any planet anywhere in the universe that contains greenhouse gases - is not analogous to the effect that causes a greenhouse to warm. And, regarding energy, a greenhouse is most definitely not a "closed system". Since you've obviously never taken a class in thermodynamics, you might want to check yourself regarding terms with which you really have no familiarity.

You Faith Based AGW Ministries proponents tend to gloss over the part that CrusaderFrank has consistently been pointing to. That is, there is an obvious LACK of scientific rigor in your claims.

Frank doesn't get responses from us because the question is so stupid. If you want to see scientific evidence that humans bear primary responsibility for the warming we've experienced, read the five assessment reports produced by the IPCC. If you reject it out of hand, then you have an insurmountable and unsupportable bias and there is no point in discussing this with you as your opinion lacks all merit.

And no, it does not suffice to keep shouting "consensus" because the scientific method has NEVER been about majority rule (even if you have a majority).

It has ALWAYS been about majority rule.

He has asked you innumerable times. WHAT amount of increase in atmospheric CO2 can be expected to raise the average global temperature over a specified period of time by a specific amount? What would that amount be expected to then be? What tests can you point to (outside of a glass enclosed greenhouse) that might offer some observational data supportive of your predictions?

Your question is as stupid as his. Read AR5 if you want to see evidence. WG-I, The Physical Science Basis, if you'd like to hone in on your target.

If you want to see scientific evidence that humans bear primary responsibility for the warming we've experienced, read the five assessment reports produced by the IPCC. If you reject it out of hand, then you have an insurmountable and unsupportable bias and there is no point in discussing this with you as your opinion lacks all merit.

why did AR5 report a 15 year pause while CO2 was increasing? dude, see, you just bring out the jewels of stupid. You know I've posted the paragraph before, and you have never once commented on it. Afraid to answer as I thought you would.

Oh you claim you are not a scientist, so what makes you any more knowledgeable then Judith Curry? I'm just curious where you're at.

 

[jc456]

SSDD'S version of physics says internal molecular creation of photons is controlled by macroscopic outside conditions. Classical and quantum physics say that is ridiculous because there is no mechanism for gathering and transmitting the information.

What makes more sense and is more manageable? Objects radiating at all times in proportion to their temperature, or a Maxwell's Demon with perfect knowledge of all conditions in the universe making decisions about which actions will be allowed?

so what are the distances between the objects, why do the objects not hit other objects in the atmosphere while they are moving? Is there really distance or is the atmosphere actually touching the surface and all done by convection, pressure and conduction. You still haven't exactly stated how the atmosphere can make the surface three times hotter than the sun. And I know you'll say the colder photons keep the warmer ones warmer longer, but the surface doesn't know the cold ones are there so how does that happen? Oh and how many cold photons are coming down compared to warm ones? Isn't there many many more warm ones? Why if CO2 is absorbing and turning the energy to heat, doesn't the atmosphere look warmer? You know, like the sun? See the fact is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep us cool.

The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

"In the frame of physics, a "greenhouse effect" as such, can only be used to describe a mechanism by which heat accumulates in an isolated pocket of gas that is unable to mix with the main body of gas. The elimination of convection within the troposphere by stratification, and the consequent temperature rise at the surface, presents us with a natural, if not hypothetical, example of a "greenhouse mechanism" in the frame of physics. Pseudoscience, popular misconception and political misuse of the term "greenhouse effect" have given it quite a different and unrelated meaning."

 

[jc456]

How many times have you heard us "warmers" say things like "dominant cause" or "primary cause" or "most warming"? Yet how many times have I heard deniers seeming to believe showing that CO2 is NOT the sole cause of climate change or that CO2's warming is NOT indominatable utterly refutes AGW?

what are the other causes in your theory?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SSDD'S version of physics says internal molecular creation of photons is controlled by macroscopic outside conditions. Classical and quantum physics say that is ridiculous because there is no mechanism for gathering and transmitting the information.

What makes more sense and is more manageable? Objects radiating at all times in proportion to their temperature, or a Maxwell's Demon with perfect knowledge of all conditions in the universe making decisions about which actions will be allowed?

so what are the distances between the objects, why do the objects not hit other objects in the atmosphere while they are moving? Is there really distance or is the atmosphere actually touching the surface and all done by convection, pressure and conduction. You still haven't exactly stated how the atmosphere can make the surface three times hotter than the sun. And I know you'll say the colder photons keep the warmer ones warmer longer, but the surface doesn't know the cold ones are there so how does that happen? Oh and how many cold photons are coming down compared to warm ones? Isn't there many many more warm ones? Why if CO2 is absorbing and turning the energy to heat, doesn't the atmosphere look warmer? You know, like the sun? See the fact is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep us cool.

The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

"In the frame of physics, a "greenhouse effect" as such, can only be used to describe a mechanism by which heat accumulates in an isolated pocket of gas that is unable to mix with the main body of gas. The elimination of convection within the troposphere by stratification, and the consequent temperature rise at the surface, presents us with a natural, if not hypothetical, example of a "greenhouse mechanism" in the frame of physics. Pseudoscience, popular misconception and political misuse of the term "greenhouse effect" have given it quite a different and unrelated meaning."

See the fact is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep us cool.

How?

 

[jc456]

SSDD'S version of physics says internal molecular creation of photons is controlled by macroscopic outside conditions. Classical and quantum physics say that is ridiculous because there is no mechanism for gathering and transmitting the information.

What makes more sense and is more manageable? Objects radiating at all times in proportion to their temperature, or a Maxwell's Demon with perfect knowledge of all conditions in the universe making decisions about which actions will be allowed?

so what are the distances between the objects, why do the objects not hit other objects in the atmosphere while they are moving? Is there really distance or is the atmosphere actually touching the surface and all done by convection, pressure and conduction. You still haven't exactly stated how the atmosphere can make the surface three times hotter than the sun. And I know you'll say the colder photons keep the warmer ones warmer longer, but the surface doesn't know the cold ones are there so how does that happen? Oh and how many cold photons are coming down compared to warm ones? Isn't there many many more warm ones? Why if CO2 is absorbing and turning the energy to heat, doesn't the atmosphere look warmer? You know, like the sun? See the fact is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep us cool.

The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

"In the frame of physics, a "greenhouse effect" as such, can only be used to describe a mechanism by which heat accumulates in an isolated pocket of gas that is unable to mix with the main body of gas. The elimination of convection within the troposphere by stratification, and the consequent temperature rise at the surface, presents us with a natural, if not hypothetical, example of a "greenhouse mechanism" in the frame of physics. Pseudoscience, popular misconception and political misuse of the term "greenhouse effect" have given it quite a different and unrelated meaning."

See the fact is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep us cool.

How?

asked and answered.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SSDD'S version of physics says internal molecular creation of photons is controlled by macroscopic outside conditions. Classical and quantum physics say that is ridiculous because there is no mechanism for gathering and transmitting the information.

What makes more sense and is more manageable? Objects radiating at all times in proportion to their temperature, or a Maxwell's Demon with perfect knowledge of all conditions in the universe making decisions about which actions will be allowed?

so what are the distances between the objects, why do the objects not hit other objects in the atmosphere while they are moving? Is there really distance or is the atmosphere actually touching the surface and all done by convection, pressure and conduction. You still haven't exactly stated how the atmosphere can make the surface three times hotter than the sun. And I know you'll say the colder photons keep the warmer ones warmer longer, but the surface doesn't know the cold ones are there so how does that happen? Oh and how many cold photons are coming down compared to warm ones? Isn't there many many more warm ones? Why if CO2 is absorbing and turning the energy to heat, doesn't the atmosphere look warmer? You know, like the sun? See the fact is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep us cool.

The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

"In the frame of physics, a "greenhouse effect" as such, can only be used to describe a mechanism by which heat accumulates in an isolated pocket of gas that is unable to mix with the main body of gas. The elimination of convection within the troposphere by stratification, and the consequent temperature rise at the surface, presents us with a natural, if not hypothetical, example of a "greenhouse mechanism" in the frame of physics. Pseudoscience, popular misconception and political misuse of the term "greenhouse effect" have given it quite a different and unrelated meaning."

See the fact is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep us cool.

How?

asked and answered.

Run away! LOL!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

SSDD'S version of physics says internal molecular creation of photons is controlled by macroscopic outside conditions. Classical and quantum physics say that is ridiculous because there is no mechanism for gathering and transmitting the information.

What makes more sense and is more manageable? Objects radiating at all times in proportion to their temperature, or a Maxwell's Demon with perfect knowledge of all conditions in the universe making decisions about which actions will be allowed?

so what are the distances between the objects, why do the objects not hit other objects in the atmosphere while they are moving? Is there really distance or is the atmosphere actually touching the surface and all done by convection, pressure and conduction. You still haven't exactly stated how the atmosphere can make the surface three times hotter than the sun. And I know you'll say the colder photons keep the warmer ones warmer longer, but the surface doesn't know the cold ones are there so how does that happen? Oh and how many cold photons are coming down compared to warm ones? Isn't there many many more warm ones? Why if CO2 is absorbing and turning the energy to heat, doesn't the atmosphere look warmer? You know, like the sun? See the fact is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep us cool.

The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

"In the frame of physics, a "greenhouse effect" as such, can only be used to describe a mechanism by which heat accumulates in an isolated pocket of gas that is unable to mix with the main body of gas. The elimination of convection within the troposphere by stratification, and the consequent temperature rise at the surface, presents us with a natural, if not hypothetical, example of a "greenhouse mechanism" in the frame of physics. Pseudoscience, popular misconception and political misuse of the term "greenhouse effect" have given it quite a different and unrelated meaning."

See the fact is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep us cool.

How?

asked and answered.

Run away! LOL!

doesn't matter how many times I make the comment, doesn't change the answer, so what is it you think is going to happen? you still have never provided evidence, just someone's math. and how does the .04 of the atmosphere can make the surface three times warmer than the sun? Dude, I also provided a link that had an experiment on cooling, but hey, you stick to your CO2 can triple temperatures on the surface. yep, that's it. Cold cannot make warm warmer as it emits.

BTW, talk about run away, you've been on a marathon.

and how does the .04 of the atmosphere can make the surface three times warmer than the sun?

The surface of the sun is 6000 C, ya halfwit.

 

[jc456]

so what are the distances between the objects, why do the objects not hit other objects in the atmosphere while they are moving? Is there really distance or is the atmosphere actually touching the surface and all done by convection, pressure and conduction. You still haven't exactly stated how the atmosphere can make the surface three times hotter than the sun. And I know you'll say the colder photons keep the warmer ones warmer longer, but the surface doesn't know the cold ones are there so how does that happen? Oh and how many cold photons are coming down compared to warm ones? Isn't there many many more warm ones? Why if CO2 is absorbing and turning the energy to heat, doesn't the atmosphere look warmer? You know, like the sun? See the fact is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep us cool.

The Shattered Greenhouse - How Physics Demolishes the 'Greenhouse Effect'".

"In the frame of physics, a "greenhouse effect" as such, can only be used to describe a mechanism by which heat accumulates in an isolated pocket of gas that is unable to mix with the main body of gas. The elimination of convection within the troposphere by stratification, and the consequent temperature rise at the surface, presents us with a natural, if not hypothetical, example of a "greenhouse mechanism" in the frame of physics. Pseudoscience, popular misconception and political misuse of the term "greenhouse effect" have given it quite a different and unrelated meaning."

See the fact is the CO2 and other greenhouse gases keep us cool.

How?

asked and answered.

Run away! LOL!

doesn't matter how many times I make the comment, doesn't change the answer, so what is it you think is going to happen? you still have never provided evidence, just someone's math. and how does the .04 of the atmosphere can make the surface three times warmer than the sun? Dude, I also provided a link that had an experiment on cooling, but hey, you stick to your CO2 can triple temperatures on the surface. yep, that's it. Cold cannot make warm warmer as it emits.

BTW, talk about run away, you've been on a marathon.

and how does the .04 of the atmosphere can make the surface three times warmer than the sun?

The surface of the sun is 6000 C, ya halfwit.

and the corona is how hot? Greater than 6000 right? hmmmmmmmmmmm on earth the surface is 278K and the atmosphere is less than that right? hmmmmmmmmmm

Why isn't the surface three times hotter than the corona like our magic .04 CO2 makes earth's surface.