Wait a sec, back in the Middle Ages science WAS in the church. All work on genetics, astronomy, etc. was done by religious people because that's how humans have always worked. We can't limit smart people to stick to just one topic. Just as many religious people are concerned w/ science, many scientists are outspoken on social and religious issues also --today as well as in the past.
Books to read here The Last Question, by Isaac Asimov (Short Story) The Phenomenology of Man by Teilhard de Chardin (Science/theology)
As I understand it, sort of. It is "observable" in background radiation which can be tracked by some instruments I don't know the name of. I don't know if this qualifies.
Yeah I suppose I would have to read up on it. Not sure radiation could prove or disprove anything of this nature but I would be willing to read about it.
... yet you repeated yourself on multiple assertions in your prior post. This is a form of retreat since you've been outwitted on the issue. Many scientists do NOT understand how it works, and neither do you apparently. It's okay to not understand how it works (as one can always learn how it works), but you seem uninterested in learning how it works.
I thought you "didn't have time for this" and "had better things to do".... ??? Hmmm.... Anyway.... False Authority Fallacy. NASA is a government agency, not science. --- I additionally do not accept NASA as a source, so you cannot use NASA as a source with me; it will be summarily dismissed on sight in the future. There is no such thing as a "greenhouse effect", and the proposed mechanism for it violates numerous laws of science as I have already described for you in prior responses. It is not possible to trap heat (the flow of thermal energy). If it was, then there would be perfect insulators in existence. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator. Anytime you see the words "than it [otherwise] would/should be" (or some variation thereof), it is plain as day that there is absolutely ZERO science involved regarding the topic. The "Greenhouse Effect" theory also creates a paradox: The International Space Station outer skin temperature on it's 'daylit' side reaches 250 deg F. There is no appreciable atmosphere, no CO2, nothing. It is in space, and in the vicinity of Earth (orbiting Earth). Here on the surface, where there is CO2 and an atmosphere, there has never been any temperature reading even remotely that hot from any weather station. Ergo, IF CO2 warms the Earth, then why is Earth so much colder during the day? False Authority Fallacy. National Geographic is a publication, not science. There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas", as already explained. The atmosphere is not a "magick one-way blanket". It is a part of Earth. Heat cannot be trapped. Heat flows from the surface, to the atmosphere, and out into space (from hot to cold). I'm not. Peer review is not science. I have already told you what it is. No, it isn't. It is gobbly-gook garbage.
Well clearly you are playing a game of tennis. If you don't recognise NASA or NG as being a credible sources of meteorology and the environment, I can do no more for you. Addendum...I never said peer reviews are science. I said it is how facts are confirmed. Of course as further science is discovered and peer reviewed, the "facts" change. I am not surprised you are posting misinformation. You can't be bothered to read.
Ah, my bad. Maybe where I got turned around was I made the mistake of responding to your post that read: --and I somehow got the impression that u were also talking about the "medieval church". I won't let it happen again.
The concept "observable" can be a bit hairy in this case as what is and what is not observable. Most folks who've thought about it take the red-shift, the Hubble constant, the cosmic background radiation, altogether as evidence that everything in the universe came into being at a given place and time. AKA the "big bang". Let's be clear that I'm talking about "most" of us, and that leaves many others who do not subscribe to this interpretation. So what we're dealing with here is that what most of us see that in the beginning time in the entire universe was infinitely slow to the point where there was no "before". No cause, at least not from within our observable space/time. OK, so that means that the cause of of our universe has to be OUTSIDE our space/time. [cue the spooky music]
The international space station does not have an atmosphere, so the side facing the sun gets the full solar radiation. Earth has an atmosphere, so solar radiation is filtered by that atmosphere before hitting Earth's surface. So, we don't feel solar radiation like satellites do. From there, the heat of Earth can escape back to space. But, our atmosphere also filters that. So, the concern is the balance between arriving radiation and departing heat - which is not the same kind of radiation. The catch is that CO2, methane and other chemicals do a better job of inhibiting the departing radiation than they do at limiting arriving solar radiation. This is a simple chemical property difference. Thus, when CO2, methane, etc. collect in our atmosphere in increasing concentrations, it changes the amount of heat that escapes back to space. Thus, Earth warms. This is not somebodies wild assed guess. It is totally measurable. The only doubts involve the exact contribution of various components of our atmosphere and how they interact.
So CO2 is not warming the Earth. Got it. What you are describing is a simultaneous decrease in radiance and increase in temperature. That is in violation of the Stefan Boltzmann Law. If Earth's radiance really were reduced, as you are claiming, due to "the inhibiting of departing radiation" and "less heat escaping back into space", then Earth would actually be COLDER, not warmer. The temperature of Earth is not measurable to any usable accuracy (we don't have near enough thermometers). What gets spouted around as "Earth's temperature data" is quite literally someone's wild ass guess. The theory is in conflict with the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law, for starters. It is thus summarily discarded.
The problem with your thinking is the simple fact that.....a greenhouse sitting in the sunlight wouldn't get hotter. This violates the law of common sense.
No, there are not laws broken here. Radiance from the sun and the infrared of the Earth that is leaving Earth are not the same wavelength. Solar heating is not slowed by greenhouse gases as much as heat leaving Earth is slowed. Thus more greenhouse gas slows heat leaving Earth more than it slows warming from the sun. So, more greenhouse gas causes Earth to retain more heat.
CO2 helps our atmosphere retain a greater percent of the heat that radiates toward space. And, it does so without blocking a similar percent of the solar radiation that heats Earth. Thus Earth warms due to that difference. It's a balancing act between arriving radiation and the heat radiation returning to space. Greenhouse gas changes that balance.
Thank you for your rethink. The medieval period of the Christian church is fascinating. It was when many if not most of the great cathedrals were built. When monasteries and abbey were huge flourishing communities and and acted as hospitals, which is why the study of medicinal plants and primitive surgery flourished. It is a bit unfortunate that this history was not part of American history but Europe is steeped in the impact of it. Even as Henry VIII destroyed many of them (look up Fountains Abbey for instance) a great deal of the original buildings still exist...ie Notre Dame in Paris and Salisbury Cathedral in the UK. (altered and added to of course, but onto the old skeletons).
Mine does. IMO the problem is that GFM takes his logic from his immovable idea of whether the sun is getting hotter while in fact the truth lies in how the earth's atmosphere deals/copes with that heat.
Yes, there are. Irrelevant. The Stefan Boltzmann Law is derived from Planck's Law and is an integration of it over ALL wavelengths. Heat (the flow of thermal energy) cannot be slowed. It can be increased or reduced, but it cannot be trapped or slowed. See above. The SB Law applies to ALL wavelengths. There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas". Heat cannot be slowed. You continue to describe a situation in which Earth's radiance is simultaneously reduced while Earth's temperature is increased, in violation of Stefan Boltzmann. You continue to describe a situation in which Earth's temperature is increasing without any change in Earth's environment (ie, the sun isn't getting hotter), in violation of the 1st LoT. You continue to describe a situation in which COLDER atmospheric CO2 heats Earth's WARMER surface, in violation of the 2nd LoT. Global Warming is a religion of science denial, mathematics denial, and logic denial. It is a rather loony religion in my opinion. There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas". Heat is not thermal energy.
In order for Earth to increase in temperature, there must be additional energy coming from somewhere. You (nor Will for that matter) have yet to tell me where this additional energy is coming from.
Continued violations of the Stefan Boltzmann Law and the laws of thermodynamics, as already explained in prior responses. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot. You cannot decrease entropy. You cannot reduce Earth's radiance while simultaneously increasing its temperature. The "greenhouse effect" is not possible. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth. The Global Warming faith is a bunch of BS.
The SB law has to do with black body radiation. Earth's heating is a dynamic that includes both arrival and radiation - it is the balance of those that is the issue. This balance can be affected by various changes. For example, Earth's albedo is a factor, as are other changes that can affect the arrival of solar heating. This doesn't have to do with the SB law. The next issue is that SB applies to a black body. So, one needs to consider what the black body actually is. I don't believe it is accurate to call Earth without its atmosphere to be the black body in question. The black body needs to be Earth plus its atmosphere. Let's remember that our atmosphere is a blanket that absolutely DOES retain heat. We measure that all the time. It's part of weather reports, for example. When there is moisture in the air, heat is retained nearer Earth's surface. On clear nights, more heat escapes to space, thus causing far lower temperatures. Plus, moisture in our atmosphere is NOT the only factor that changes heat transmission to space. Again, this isn't a guess. Our weather forecasting system understands this very well.
The SB Law applies to all bodies all the time. That includes the Earth (which includes its atmosphere). You've also exposed yourself as not knowing what you are talking about by using the term 'albedo' (the inverse of emissivity) rather than just using the term 'emissivity', which is the term that is used in science. The emissivity of the Earth is unknown.
