Evidence supporting AGW

[SSDD]

Because if one only considers earth...and is gullible enough, or willing to prostitute oneself for money, the greenhouse effect and AGW can sound, or be made to sound plausible...like convincing a 4 year old that Santa exists.

But the world's scientists are not 4-year olds. They are quite able to see any falsehoods that you or your sources could produce. But they don't. I don't. Your objections to the greenhouse effect are all based on your insane understanding of several aspects of science. Aspects that any reasonable person would have abandoned having been CLEARLY and SOUNDLY refuted by multiple textbooks ,authoritative references and irrefutable common experience.

the world's scientists are not on board the crazy train...the fact that you keep claiming that they are once again, identifies you as a liar...

No one ever said that the greenhouse effect was the only process that affected temperature. But on all planets with virtually ANY atmosphere, the results of the greenhouse effect may be seen. Your contention that it cannot is simply false.

And you lie yet again....I would like to hear your explanation of how a greenhouse effect as described by climate science can be observed on a planet with virtually no greenhouse gasses.

And to what do you attribute the 33C? Let me guess. Air pressure.

What do I attribute it to?...the same physical process that accurately predicts the temperature of every planet in the solar system with an atmosphere...question is why do you believe it is due to an effect that can't predict the temperature of any other planet in the solar system and can only predict it here if the climate models, and the temperature record are constantly adjusted?

Your descriptions of how you think the universe operates are in complete violation of the ideal gas laws, the First and Second Law of Thermodynamics, Conservation of Energy, Special and General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Your opinion on any scientific topic I can think of is simply complete shit. Complete.

You answered a question I did not ask..You do that a lot....I asked you if you think the ideal gas law equation can be out of balance within the atmosphere? Do you think you can raise T without raising V which will result in a decrease of (n) which must lower T. You are claiming that the greenhouse effect can overcome the ideal gas laws and keep the equation out of balance indefinitely....in short, you are saying that the ideal gas law is nonsense while the greenhouse hypothesis is real science.

 

[Crick]

The greenhouse effect is most DEFINITELY settled science. As I thoroughly demonstrated, the other planets provide no example otherwise. Arguing otherwise is simply ignorant.

And I REALLY have to add that taking seriously your point of view about virtually ANY science topic, is also simply ignorant. Your ideas as to how the universe works are patently absurd and discussing any of these topics with you - save for the purpose of preventing you from misleading children - is a complete waste of time. You are a complete idiot.

 

[SSDD]

The greenhouse effect is most DEFINITELY settled science. As I thoroughly demonstrated, the other planets provide no example otherwise. Arguing otherwise is simply ignorant.

Still no answer...do you think the greenhouse effect is so powerful that it can unbalance the ideal gas law equation? And no science is ever settled...that is a proclamation of faith...not a scientific observation...

Speaking of "settled science" do you side with the consensus regarding salt intake in our diet? Just asking because it seems that another long held consensus is getting ready to fall.

By the way, you haven't demonstrated anything...certainly not demonstrated that any science is settled.

 

[Crick]

The greenhouse effect is most DEFINITELY settled science. As I thoroughly demonstrated, the other planets provide no example otherwise. Arguing otherwise is simply .ignorant.

Still no answer...do you think the greenhouse effect is so powerful that it can unbalance the ideal gas law equation? And no science is ever settled...that is a proclamation of faith...not a scientific observation...

It is pointless discussing any of these questions with you. Your misconceptions leave you unable to participate in any meaningful way. Obvously, there is no conflict between the greenhouse effect and the gas laws.

 

[SSDD]

The greenhouse effect is most DEFINITELY settled science. As I thoroughly demonstrated, the other planets provide no example otherwise. Arguing otherwise is simply .ignorant.

Still no answer...do you think the greenhouse effect is so powerful that it can unbalance the ideal gas law equation? And no science is ever settled...that is a proclamation of faith...not a scientific observation...

It is pointless discussing any of these questions with you. Your misconceptions leave you unable to participate in any meaningful way. Obvously, there is no conflict between the greenhouse effect and the gas laws.

Still no answer? Either you think the ideal gas law is nonsense...or you think that the greenhouse effect is so powerful it can overturn a natural law...

Answer the question ...do you think the greenhouse effect can raise T without raising V which will result in a decrease of (n)....if so, how do you think it happens? You claim no conflict, but you don't seem to be able to answer the question....or perhaps you are to embarrassed.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Here is a bit of research for you. Jupiter...ever hear of it...biggest planet in the solar system...no greenhouse gasses.

Okay, mark down Jupiter as yet another topic you fail totally at.

Jupiter self-generates considerable amounts of heat because it is still contracting. It is not in a steady state; the contraction of the core increases pressure, which makes vast amounts of heat.

Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---
The Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism is an astronomical process that occurs when the surface of a star or a planet cools. The cooling causes the pressure to drop and the star or planet shrinks as a result. This compression, in turn, heats up the core of the star/planet. This mechanism is evident on Jupiter and Saturn and on brown dwarfs whose central temperatures are not high enough to undergo nuclear fusion. It is estimated that Jupiter radiates more energy through this mechanism than it receives from the Sun, but Saturn might not.
---

Seriously, learn the basics before you blather.

You don't even pay lip service to conservation of energy. According to your idiot physics, I could hook up a heat-driven Sterling engine to my fire extinguisher casing, and use the heat generated by the gas under pressure to get free energy forever. Perpetual motion machines aren't possible, except in your kook world.

Let's keep hammering at those basics that you keep running from. If your kook theory is true, why isn't my fire extinguisher warmer than the background temp?

But it's not a Greenhouse effect.

Do you read your own posts?

 

[SSDD]

Here is a bit of research for you. Jupiter...ever hear of it...biggest planet in the solar system...no greenhouse gasses.

Okay, mark down Jupiter as yet another topic you fail totally at.

Jupiter self-generates considerable amounts of heat because it is still contracting. It is not in a steady state; the contraction of the core increases pressure, which makes vast amounts of heat.

Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
---
The Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism is an astronomical process that occurs when the surface of a star or a planet cools. The cooling causes the pressure to drop and the star or planet shrinks as a result. This compression, in turn, heats up the core of the star/planet. This mechanism is evident on Jupiter and Saturn and on brown dwarfs whose central temperatures are not high enough to undergo nuclear fusion. It is estimated that Jupiter radiates more energy through this mechanism than it receives from the Sun, but Saturn might not.
---

Seriously, learn the basics before you blather.

You don't even pay lip service to conservation of energy. According to your idiot physics, I could hook up a heat-driven Sterling engine to my fire extinguisher casing, and use the heat generated by the gas under pressure to get free energy forever. Perpetual motion machines aren't possible, except in your kook world.

Let's keep hammering at those basics that you keep running from. If your kook theory is true, why isn't my fire extinguisher warmer than the background temp?

But it's not a Greenhouse effect.

Do you read your own posts?

He doesn't read...he doesn't think...and he doesn't know jack....he is a AGW propaganda regurgitating dolt..nothing more nothing less.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

SSDD: Jupiter does not have a Greenhouse effect

Mamooth: DENIER!!! Jupiter does not have a Greenhouse effect!!

 

[mamooth]

Frank, just what are you babbling about?

Nobody except SSDD was ever talking about a greenhouse effect on Jupiter. He lied about us claiming there was a greenhouse effect creating the temp profile, and got caught, and now he's crying. The usual.

I pointed out the ongoing compression of the core of Jupiter is what creates the heat. Rather than address that, SSDD fled in terror, flinging out more red herring to cover his retreat. You know, the way he keeps telling us we hold a position that nobody never held, demands we defend that position which nobody ever held, and then declares victory when we don't defend an idiot position that nobody ever held.

I don't need to ask if you approve of such lying, because you obviously do. But since SSDD refuses to actually defend his claims, maybe you can help him out. Do you agree with SSDD's physics which says a gas under constant pressure will constantly generate heat? Presuming your testicles have descended, answer with a simple "yes" or "no", please, and we'll go on from there.

 

[jc456]

Frank, just what are you babbling about?

Nobody except SSDD was ever talking about a greenhouse effect on Jupiter. He lied about us claiming there was a greenhouse effect creating the temp profile, and got caught, and now he's crying. The usual.

I pointed out the ongoing compression of the core of Jupiter is what creates the heat. Rather than address that, SSDD fled in terror, flinging out more red herring to cover his retreat. You know, the way he keeps telling us we hold a position that nobody never held, demands we defend that position which nobody ever held, and then declares victory when we don't defend an idiot position that nobody ever held.

I don't need to ask if you approve of such lying, because you obviously do. But since SSDD refuses to actually defend his claims, maybe you can help him out. Do you agree with SSDD's physics which says a gas under constant pressure will constantly generate heat? Presuming your testicles have descended, answer with a simple "yes" or "no", please, and we'll go on from there.

Explain constant pressure!

 

[SSDD]

Frank, just what are you babbling about?

Nobody except SSDD was ever talking about a greenhouse effect on Jupiter. He lied about us claiming there was a greenhouse effect creating the temp profile, and got caught, and now he's crying. The usual.

You claimed the planet is contracting....even though there is no proof that it is happening, I chose not to argue about it...I moved on to neptune and uranus which are not even thought to be contracting.....have no possibility of a greenhouse effect...and yet, exhibit high temperatures...uranus, the coldest place in the solar system has a temperature of over 300k at the base of its troposphere...warmer than here on earth....explain that temperature in the absence of the possibility of a greenhouse effect....and explain why the same physics at work there, are not at work here...

I

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Frank, just what are you babbling about?

Nobody except SSDD was ever talking about a greenhouse effect on Jupiter. He lied about us claiming there was a greenhouse effect creating the temp profile, and got caught, and now he's crying. The usual.

I pointed out the ongoing compression of the core of Jupiter is what creates the heat. Rather than address that, SSDD fled in terror, flinging out more red herring to cover his retreat. You know, the way he keeps telling us we hold a position that nobody never held, demands we defend that position which nobody ever held, and then declares victory when we don't defend an idiot position that nobody ever held.

I don't need to ask if you approve of such lying, because you obviously do. But since SSDD refuses to actually defend his claims, maybe you can help him out. Do you agree with SSDD's physics which says a gas under constant pressure will constantly generate heat? Presuming your testicles have descended, answer with a simple "yes" or "no", please, and we'll go on from there.

I'll answer. Right after you show us the AGW Lab Experiment

 

[Crick]

No you won't.

 

[SSDD]

No you won't.

Talk about not answering. In your case, you still haven't answered....Either you think the ideal gas law is nonsense...or you think that the greenhouse effect is so powerful it can overturn a natural law...

Answer the question ...do you think the greenhouse effect can raise T without raising V which will result in a decrease of (n)....if so, how do you think it happens? You claim no conflict, but you don't seem to be able to answer the question....or perhaps you are to embarrassed.

 

[Crick]

You're a fucking idiot. There is no conflict between the greenhouse effect and the ideal gas laws - as you contended. The greenhouse effect takes place on all other planets as appropriate. Obviously, the moon would experience none. Venus would expect a great deal. The point is that the temperature profiles of the Solar System's planets produce no conflict with the greenhouse effect. The claim that they refute it is ignorant shite.

 

[SSDD]

You're a fucking idiot. There is no conflict between the greenhouse effect and the ideal gas laws - as you contended. The greenhouse effect takes place on all other planets as appropriate. Obviously, the moon would experience none. Venus would expect a great deal. The point is that the temperature profiles of the Solar System's planets produce no conflict with the greenhouse effect. The claim that they refute it is ignorant shite.

There is no greenhouse effect as claimed by climate science...and no greenhouse effect takes place on uranus...the coldest place in the solar system where the bottom of the troposphere is warmer than here on earth due to pressure...if pressure is at work raising the temperature there....pressure is at work raising the temperature here...

And if there is no conflict between the ideal gas laws then explain how you can raise T without raising V which will result in a decrease of (n)...explain how you think it happens...Simply gibbering that there is no conflict between the greenhouse hypothesis and the ideal gas laws hardly makes your case....The ideal gas laws say that if you change one value....all of the other values change accordingly...so again, do you believe that you can change T without raising V which will result in a decrease of (n)....and do you believe the hypothesized greenhouse effect is so powerful that it can stop the inevitable decrease of T with a decrease of (n).

Come on crick...lets hear some explanations. Do you really believe the hypothesized greenhouse effect is more powerful than the ideal gas laws...or do you believe the ideal gas laws are nonsense...which is it? Because I have pointed out a clear conflict....if you can't see it, then you are even more ignorant than I had thought you were and even more of a poser....This one isn't even complicated...change one value and the others change to balance the equation...happens every time...every observation ever made....just as the law predicts and now you think you can raise T without raising V which must be followed by a decrease of (n).

 

[Crick]

Do you actually believe that the greenhouse effect would be as widely accepted (universal except for you) were it in conflict with the ideal gas laws? Do you actually believe the world is that stupid and that you are that smart?

That's stupider than the rest of your physics fantasies.

 

[jc456]

Do you actually believe that the greenhouse effect would be as widely accepted (universal except for you) were it in conflict with the ideal gas laws? Do you actually believe the world is that stupid and that you are that smart?

That's stupider than the rest of your physics fantasies.

And still no answer!!!!! LoSiNg

 

[mamooth]

You claimed the planet is contracting....even though there is no proof that it is happening,

Yes, yes, we get. You say the past century of science is all fraudulent. Boring.

The Kelvin-Helmholtz mechanism affects all gas/ice giant planets. It's more powerful on bigger bodies, and it decays over time. It's very significant on Jupiter, less significant on Saturn, and has only a small effect on Uranus and Neptune.

I chose not to argue about it...I moved on to neptune and uranus which are not even thought to be contracting.....

Since nobody ever claimed there was a greenhouse effect, why do you keep attempting to prove there's no greenhouse effect? Everyone already agrees with that. You keep declaring victory after disproving your own strawman.

have no possibility of a greenhouse effect...and yet, exhibit high temperatures...uranus, the coldest place in the solar system has a temperature of over 300k at the base of its troposphere...warmer than here on earth....explain that temperature in the absence of the possibility of a greenhouse effect....and explain why the same physics at work there, are not at work here...

Both ice giants generate internal heat from radioactive decay and Kelvin-Hemholtz, so the temp has to get higher as you go deeper. The atmospheric physics at play are not well understood, being they involve ice and ammonia under superhigh pressures, something even the labs can't duplicate. And there are possible interplanetary collisions in the distant past that could still be having effects. However, nobody thinks a greenhouse effect matters. And especially nobody thinks constant pressure constantly generates heat, because that would be insane, being how it wildly violates conservation of energy.

 

[mamooth]

And if there is no conflict between the ideal gas laws then explain how you can raise T without raising V which will result in a decrease of (n)...

But you can raise V. There's no shell around the earth constraining the atmosphere to a constant V.

And hence your theory falls apart.

And yes, an increase in the height of the tropopause has been observed.

9.4.4.2 Changes in Tropopause Height - AR4 WGI Chapter 9: Understanding and Attributing Climate Change