-15 votes

Proving Agenda 21 supports it doesn't disprove climate change

I think we all agree that the environmental movement is being taken over by globalists in an attempt to tax people globally and gain some kind of complete governance over the world. That much is a given.

However, that has nothing to do with the science behind climate change or global warming. The two are unrelated.

Global warming is the trend of the entire planet's average temperature slowly rising. This has virtually no DIRECT impact on either people or ecosystems.

Climate change is a result of global warming (even a portion of a degree) and it's the combined effect of different-than-normal climate has on both people and ecosystems. It includes variances in periodic and intensity changes in weather which could be both warmer and colder, wetter or dryer, more extreme or less, more catastrophic or more docile. This being what we really care about is why the term was changed from global warming although the former still applies.

Both of these terms are virtually scientifically uncontested among expert scientists in the relevant fields. Members of DP should take another look at this topic to understand how they and the rest of the world are being misled into a full out trap.

Below is a playlist of videos that does the best I've seen at organizing the science in one place in simple terms for all to understand. I encourage members to watch it before commenting. Once that's done, consider that big energy wants people to stay dependent on them while banks want to make money on a new bubble and governments want people more involved in 'commerce'. What better way to accomplish all three than to scare people on a valid concern and then get them hooked on only faux solutions?

Honestly, it's very simple to fix. We make our own energy and stop making CO2 while stop spending money at the same time.

Enjoy. Video 1 (10:41)


And here's the full playlist.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I couldn't agree with your more.

You've perfectly nailed the progress of the last century and yes, it is dismal.

I would suggest, however, that we're under yet another conspiracy that's not being addressed. Basically, the media and fossil fuel industries are keeping from you the very knowledge that genuine alternatives do exist.

I'm not talking about Tesla's model x or my better liked model s. I'm talking about completely different ways of doing things.

When you talk to people on this and drill down to their most efficient method of travel, they stop at maglev trains. They have nearly zero knowledge of anything better. (except blimps! LOL) But the people forgot to put any serious thinking into that. If you make a maglev train larger and larger (supposedly to gain efficiency), you then must make the entire supporting infrastructure strong enough to hold it. At that point, we're back to 10 tons of concrete per 20 foot of track. Didn't save a thing. Not to mention the last mile problem or the impending problem of keeping each train full or scheduled best.

Looking at this one isolated problem in the big picture, we would ultimately settle on www.skytran.net instead. Infrastructure is either very cheap or already in place. Benefits top every other transport in every measurable way (except storing stuff in your car's trunk at work???). Feel free to comment but it's an illustration of how we've been misdirected to looking at the problem the wrong way.

Sure, most people agree that battery cars aren't perfect (as you cite). But did you know that we have the option of actually condensing hydrogen gas into powder flakes called a hydride for storage at even higher densities than gasoline? That storage density problem is why we can't get away from gas so this should be much better. Unfortunately, it's now a political problem to get a certain material because it's indirectly connected to the nuclear industry.

I could cite these type of examples for days but my point is that until we begin accepting the problem, it will be much harder for these new technologies to get a foot hold. Trust me on that because I'm doing one myself and I know a few others in the same boat. In short, the solutions all exist already but because of attitudes like many of the commenters in this thread, the demand doesn't give them a fair comparison.

SteveMT's picture

This is nothing but globalist propaganda, IMO.

Agenda 21 was an afterthought once the globalists realized just how submissive people are and just how much people have been dumbed down. An agenda from hell itself was tacked onto bad science. This stuff is like the Apollo moon landing pictures. They look o.k. at first glance, but when studied in detail, there are big problems.

There have been four major ice ages that have come and gone. There have also been CO2 levels triple what they are now. These ice ages and CO2 levels occurred prior to man's appearance on this planet. With that information alone, all of the global warming/climate change/carbon taxes crap can all be thrown out.

I agree that Agenda 21 is

I agree that Agenda 21 is being used against us by way of an opportunity. I'm just as concerned as everyone else and I'm doing everything I know to stop it or inform others on it. I also agree they're using the mask of climate change to fear-monger people into accepting carbon taxes and other globalist crap. However, that's not the whole picture.

The way I see it, there's two possibilities.

Number 1 is that GW is human caused and a problem that's causing CC. In this case, regardless of A21, we need to fix it. The fix is to get off fossil fuels which reduces our foreign dependence, our dependence on certain price-gouging monopolies and brings many benefits. So why not start now.

Number 2 is that GW is either natural or not causing CC. In this case, we're not going to win against A21 but getting off fossil fuels will still benefit in the ways mentioned above.

So either case leads us to getting off fossil fuels, right? The only two counters to that argument are the following:

Number 1 is that it's too expensive. This is true of the solutions offered in the MSM and BP commercials but not true of all of them. There are many that have stayed under the radar so far (so as not to attract industry opposition) which are cheaper and better suited to our needs.

Number 2 is that there are no viable renewable solutions to solve the problem so this leads to A21 becoming justified in beginning their takeover. This is completely false because many people know of the solutions but even if they didn't exist, that would mean we simply caved in to taxes by an international body and didn't stand up and fight. I don't buy that at all. The American people are not going to allow taxes on breathing, cows, grass compost, lawn mowers or even cars, based on the very fact that they're being used correctly. We are starting to get our voice warmed up (SOPA, PIPA, ACTA, SYRIA, OBAMACARE, etc.) and I highly doubt they'll even try anything like that.

To be clear, the only taxes I can see the people allowing to get passed (and only on a national basis) are carbon taxes for coal, oil, NG and nuclear. I'm not completely convinced this would be a bad thing. ...not because I'm ok with taxes - I'm not. Just because it'll result in exposing the fact that the US government already taxes us on energy and then just gives it to those industries as subsidies. If those subsidies were removed, we would see competition kick in and renewables' prices would plummet way below them very quickly. And with economies of scale, those prices would steadily fall for quite a while.

Besides, I personally doubt that it'll be too long before some major changes take place in the federal and global organizations we are under today. The FED is trying their best to ensure that will happen.

SteveMT's picture

O.K., tamckissick.

I'm getting a better understanding of what you want. The problem with this is that these changes should be done worldwide in a unified way. You haven't mentioned the "C" word that I can see. That "C" word is CHINA. They do nothing. Their air is so polluted that people wear gas masks. Their water is so polluted that thousands of pigs and other animals are dying. If you magically did all of the things that you wanted, all of those implementations would be negated by China not doing anything. The problem would be solved if China only did what the rest of the West is during, and we did nothing more. Problem solved, IMO.

For years now no one has grasped...

For years now no one has grasped and still keep confusing the difference between Carbon monoxide (CO) and Carbon Dioxide (Co2). It really hurts both sides of the argument folks. There is a great difference between the two. This is what needs to be discussed.

If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.

Fine. Discuss.

What are your concerns? Here's the current stance on comparing the two from Wikipedia...

"Methane has a number of indirect effects in addition to forming CO2. Firstly, the main chemical which destroys methane in the atmosphere is the hydroxyl radical (OH). Methane reacts with OH and so more methane means that the concentration of OH goes down. Effectively, methane increases its own atmospheric lifetime and therefore its overall radiative effect. The second effect is that the oxidation of methane can produce ozone. Thirdly, as well as making CO2 the oxidation of methane produces water; this is a major source of water vapor in the stratosphere which is otherwise very dry. CO and NMVOC also produce CO2 when they are oxidized. They remove OH from the atmosphere and this leads to higher concentrations of methane. The surprising effect of this is that the global warming potential of CO is three times that of CO2."

So, while it doesn't increase GW, it does increase other gasses that do.


However, CO concentrations in the atmosphere are 1/3970th as high as CO2 so it doesn't even register in the list of significant factors.

So I have to ask why...

So I have to ask why in the Automotive Emissions industry a high Co2 content is a good thing and means an efficiently running engine? What we look for as bad would be HC, Co and NoX.


If I disappear from a discussion please forgive me. My 24-7 business requires me to split mid-sentence to serve them. I am not ducking out, I will be back later to catch up.


Their goal is to eliminate the pollution that was identified during the energy crisis of the early 70's as being related to gas guzzlers. In other words, an overly rich engine will produce too much HC and CO while a too-lean engine (usually) will produce too much NoX. In either case, the mixture is not correct for a stoichiometric burn (14.7:1) and results in reduced gas mileage.

At some point way down the road, the EPA may include CO2 to their list but since that's the product of a perfect mixture, it basically correlates to power produced so the end result would be a tax on fossil fueled power. Sound familiar?

Me thinks we should transition away from fossil fueled power before they get to that point.

Global Warming, Climate

Global Warming, Climate Change, Sustainable Development, Smart Growth, all psychological psychobabble terminology with double Entendre meaning, to trick people out of their own free will.

Global Warming

It's natural and happening for eons.

That said, see what NH is doing to fight Agenda 21 in our nine 'regions'. It is being imposed by unelected soviet style boards who are coming in and using HUD grants to change our zoning.

Pinardville just told then to take a hike. But you should see the NGOs, corporations and commercial interests like TPUDC that are sucking off the taxpayers while working against them. It's a scam of the highest order and highway robbery.

Every state rep should be fighting this.. It's the UN in our own back yard.


Jane Aitken, 35-Year Veteran Teacher
Ron Paul 2008 Consultant
GOP Woman of the Year 2009
Founder NH Tea Party Coalition (NOT AFFILIATED WITH ANY FAKE 2009 GROUP)
Founder USPEINetwork @ Yahoo (Nat'l Edu Activism Group)
Board Coalition of NH Taxpayers


It is natural and has been happening since we got an atmosphere. It's the very reason our planet isn't an ice ball at -18 degrees C. And for that, you can thank CO2 which is the most powerful of the various regulators of that temperature. Just don't abuse it by dumping too much in the atmosphere and then complain the temp goes higher. And then, don't complain that you didn't think such a tiny change in world temperature would cause such drastic changes in ocean thermal currents, river flooding, desertification, droughts and torrential rains.

Instead of complaining about what the AG21 people are trying to do to you (in the name of solving the climate change problems), why not accept the word of people informing you that the problems can be solved on our own, thereby eliminating the need to have anyone step in and mandate rules on us? If the world's CO2 emissions dropped by 90% in the next decade, how much power do you think people would give these leeches? I'm betting none.

And say you did fight them off and win. What then? You'll sill have the climate problem to deal with. Why not solve the problem and get away from the fossil fuel monopoly too?

ROFL You believe the Club of Rome scam?

From The First Global Revolution, pg 75:

"The common enemy of humanity is Man

In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill. In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together. But in designating these dangers as the enemy, we fall into the trap, which we have already warned about, namely mistaking symptoms for causes. All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behaviour that they can be overcome. The real enemy then is humanity itself."

Do yourself a favor, read the pdf and anything on http://wattsupwiththat.com/ and get yourself a real education.

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.
James Madison

Did you even read my OP on this topic?

I clearly stated that the elites have their agenda and we shouldn't fall for it. Why would you then accuse me of believing in it?

Unless you are accusing me of believing that they want to push it. In which case, yes they do. They definitely believe that there are problems cause by overpopulation and resource mismanagement that they should force changes in.

In that, I agree. We do have problems but their cause is still a symptom. The fact that we exist is not the cause of us using too many resources and causing too much pollution. The fact that the elites have controlled markets for a century is why we haven't eliminated these problems yet.

If you read CoR, you'd find that they weren't the first to identify these problems. They noticed the public was becoming concerned and they thought it was one factor in the 60's people's uprising. That's when they decided to coopt the issues and make a grand global plan for us.

"Global average temperature" is a useless statistic

It measures nothing of importance or applicability.

It can't practically be acted upon or influenced.

It doesn't "tell" you anything about climate.

Climate is NOT global - it is local.

And to top ALL of that off, ALL data so far on "average global temperature" is ADULTERATED and FRAUDULENT.

Thus, any 'scientist' relying on it is a pure loon that I'm not going to place any stock in.

IF, big IF, you can manage to collect some REAL and unadulterated and manipulated data showing a temperature rise in MY area, or better yet in ALL areas of the planet (not just an average) THEN and ONLY THEN might I even pay attention, and even then, more in the sense of how to cope with it and what it might mean.

I place zero stock, at least at this time, on any temperature rise being even remotely the "fault" of humans, or even within our capacity to lower it even a smidgen, until your so-called "scientists" seriously address that giant FIRE BALL in the sky which any kid who paid the slightest attention in high school knows drives our weather.

Wow, you really don't know any science at all, do you?

How can you comment on a science related topic (let alone it's viability) when every single statement you just made is exactly opposite of globally accepted, peer-reviewed, proven fact?

You sound like a little kid screaming that you can't have all the cookies when someone told you to share. I'm not sure which is worse... you saying it or you getting 6 votes for doing so.

Come on back when you can talk rationally.

"globally accepted" and "peer reviewed fact" are both

nonsense newspeak.

"Globally accepted" cannot be proven and is in fact impossible. The mere fact that I do not accept it, means it is not "globally accepted" and I'm certainly not the only one - not by a long shot.

"peer reviewed fact" is also bunk.

There is no such thing as 'peer reviewed fact' — ever. If you think there is, you don't understand science, what it is, and what it is not.

Peer review is designed to review conclusions based on observable events, described in data and statistics. Its purpose is to go over methodology and look for logical errors with a fine toothed comb.

It does NOT exist to "declare as fact" anything. Anyone using it for that purpose is without question doing so with an agenda that has little regard for science at all, and is likely geared to make someone money, if not seize power over someone or something.

Not only is the traditional peer review process fraught with unscientific pressures already, usually tending to discount other's works, but THIS particular data and conclusions did NOT undergo even the usual process and was fraudulent from the start. There are known emails hacked from the IPCC tards that prove they colluded to fraudulently "review" these works to give them legitimacy. Look to see who reviewed what and you'll see it's one giant circle jerk - everyone reviewing each other and "agreeing" magically where they rarely if ever agree on anything else. Why? They said so in their emails—money.(grants that is)

I also notice you didn't address the issue that the ONLY set of data which purports in the slightest to show "average global temperature rise" has been proven to be adulterated and fraudulent.

Thus ALL conclusions drawn from that data are void.

As are all derivative conclusions. And ALL conclusions and related theories on the subject point back to that same fraudulent data.

Try reading one of those journal articles and check their sources and so on up the chain. You'll find ALL of them circle back to the same flawed data report of temperature measurements taken ONLY in ASIA and where they failed to include in their "average" locations that would make the math show the "average" had not in fact gone up, and that even those that did, were ALL located in areas that demonstrated the "heat island" effect or some similar nonsense - like the measuring device being located near an A/C exchanger.

You must have accurate DATA first.

Without that - don't even bother talking to me as everything you say after that and based on the bad data, is meaningless and a waste of everyone's time.

THAT is very rational.

You aren't speaking rationally, you are speaking with emotion laden catch phrases.



"globally accepted" was my label in the context of speaking to an obvious layman which you proved before hand. "Peer reviewed" is an accepted term which raises the bar on any papers released. This is the reason the IPCC is so far behind - because they only accept sufficiently peer reviewed research which obviously takes a while longer than the blogs you get info from. "Fact" is my term, again abridged for the layman context of the current discussion. Done picking nits yet?

"Declare as fact" is what laymen do when presented with "significant" consensus that a given piece of research has no flaws. It is not a 100% guarantee of accuracy like the verbiage implies but in science, it is saying that more than 85% (if memory serves) of the scientists reviewing it believe it to be accurate.

I didn't address the issue that the only set of data which purports in the slightest to show "average global temperature rise" has been proven to be adulterated and fraudulent" because I have no idea where that's coming from. There are more than one source for the temperature record and they all agree (withing an accepted percentage) and I know of no one that has successfully debunked them. That simply sounds like conjecture on your part (or that of another bought-off reporter).

CO2 is not a Green House Gas


The entire premiss of the Green House Effect and/or Anthropogenic Global Warming is severely flawed.

Calling a reduction in the emissivity of a planet's surface or atmosphere a Green House Effect is like calling gravity the Magnetism Effect. Increasing an object's mass does not increase its Magnetism.

The video gets that part correct. What it does not address is CONVECTION. It also does not address the elasticity of the Atmosphere. The Earth's atmosphere is not static. You can see this in the height of the Tropopause at the Equator 18 kilometers, and at the poles 6 km. Increasing the volume of the atmosphere decreases the Temperature. It also does not address Latent Heat of Vaporization. It also does not address the Specific Heat of the Oceans, Land, and Atmosphere.

I always smile when I see a 'basic' explanation of AGW. These are not Fundamental observations, they are basic in an undeveloped way.

I would love to debate the presenter in the video, so you know who it is? Perhaps you know the material well enough to defend it?

Not sure why you're going down this path

The Earth doesn't lose heat due to convection. It only loses due to radiation. It's the balance between incoming energy and outgoing energy that determines the stasis temp (the equalibrium) which the Earth settles to. As with any closed system, if re-radiation is equal to incoming energy, there will be no rise in temperature. As temp rises, the radiation losses rise proportional to the 4th power of the absolute temperature. Because of this very powerful factor (the 4th power changes dramatically with very little forcing), this is why the GHGs are so powerful in their ability to regulate the Earth's temperature.

...unless there's something blocking it. This is where the so-called greenhouse gasses come in. In a way similar to a greenhouse's plastic roof stops thermal radiation (not convection) from leaving after it allowed infrared (mostly) radiation in (light), these gasses (water vapor, CO2, methane, etc.) block specific wavelengths of thermal radiation from being emitted back out to space.

There is no convection involved, but that's not to say that convection doens't play it's part. As the warmer air rises and concentrates at the equator, I'm sure it affects the concentration of GHGs at that location, further "affecting" the re-radiation of the thermal energy.

The collective body of science worldwide, definitely does address most all the specific and latent heats involved, and more are being found and researched very often.


Sorry, here are the questions, I thought I posted in another response.

The Earth transfers heat from the Surface to the Atmosphere via conduction and some radiation. True or False?

From just above the surface, energy is transferred to the Tropopause via convection, point at which convection is no longer possible due to temperature inversion. True or False?

If an object's temperature increases, does the rate at which it cools increase? Will that cooling take the path of least resistance?

The average temp at the Surface is 15C, the average temp at the Tropopause is -56C. Why?

Is radiation or convection a more efficient means of transferring energy?

I'm not sure what you're heading towards but I'll play

Yes, the Earth transfers heat from the surface to the atmosphere via conduction and some radiation.

Yes, the tropopause stops convection due to temp inversion.

Yes, as temp (delta T) increases, heat transfer increases (all else being equal). Yes, that heat takes all paths in proportion to their resistance.

The average surface temp is 15C and tropopause is -56C. (taking your word) This is probably because air pressure drops. The universal gas law (PV = nRT) shows that as pressure drops, temp drops in proportion. With a smaller column of air above it, the higher altitude air is under less pressure from above (lower P) so it expands some (smaller increase in V) and so T must drop.

Which is more efficient between convection and radiation? That depends on the situation. Radiation goes right through a vacuum while it stops convection. Low temps have a dramatically lower heat transfer rate than higher temps so convection may win out if there's a free gas involved. Either way, radiation has by far the more magnitude of change when surrounding conditions are changed by a small amount.

Not looking at the big picture

The planet cannot ultimately cool via convection, but from the Surface to the Tropopause, Convection is the primary medium for cooling. The Earth cools from an Average 15C to -56C between the surface and Tropopause.

There are NO closed systems in nature, only on paper. Unless you consider the Universe closed, and that can be debated.

"As temp rises, the radiation losses rise proportional to the 4th power of the absolute temperature." Huh? Are you taking about the Radiative Transfer Rate? Stefan Boltzman Law? q = σ T4 A

There is not more air at the Equator, than the poles, the air is just stretched out more because of the temp and humidity. It is less dense. You can tell by the pressure. The average air pressure at the Equator is 1 atm or 14.7 lbs/in^2, it is the same at the poles.

What exactly is re-radiation? Is that 'Back' Radiation (radiation is that 'trapped' and emitted back towards Earth)?

Can you point to 1 (or more) Pro-AGW sources that address Convection or LHV?

Not trying to put you down, but there are no closed thermodynamic systems, save possibly the Universe. Re-Radiation, or back radition, means there is Back-back radiation, and back-back-back radiation, back-back-back-back and so on. It's meaningless.

I'm not sure if you didn't answer my questions on purpose, or you simply cannot answer them, but they are quite relevant. You can't answer them correctly, less you show a formidable flaw in AGW. That is why I asked them.

Did you read the EndisFar link? I am the author, if you found fault with anything, I'd be pleased to address it.

If you agree the planet

If you agree the planet cannot ultimately cool via convection, why do you even consider convection in the equation? All convection does is move the heat around inside the system. In other words, the Earth with its atmosphere is a closed system with regard to convection (and conduction) so I don't know of anyone, nor would I expect to find anyone, who addresses this in the context of total energy balance. That's only a player in WHERE our total heat energy is actually hiding on an ongoing basis, so it does come into play for measuring that total heat casually called 'average global temp'.

The only way the Earth's overall temperature (average for some people) can change is via radiation. There's light radiation coming in (plus some less major players like gamma, etc.) and there's thermal (infrared or heat) radiation coming out (mostly - including some light reflection). Those are the two main ways energy comes or goes. For clarity's sake, as I understand it, the radiation leaving is often labeled re-radiation just to keep track of which direction we're referring to.

And yes, the equation is Boltzman's. It shows that as you raise the temp of the Earth, it automatically radiates more energy out to space. That loss increases much faster than the temp needs to so the result is a very stable temp setting. (Just plop in some minor temp changes (absolute temps) and watch the heat loss change.) This is how the Earth reaches it's temperature but instead it happens to be much hotter than it should be. Why?

It's hotter because the atmosphere contains gasses that absorb some of the exiting thermal radiation energy and then re-emit that energy out in all directions as heat via convection, keeping it from exiting to space. In short, this means it insulates the Earth from losing as much energy as Boltzman would calculate it should. It also means that we live in an environment that's 33 degrees C warmer than if we had no atmosphere.

So global warming via greenhouse gasses is already keeping us warm by acting like a variable insulation. Why is it so hard for people to grasp that changing the concentration of those gasses would change that insulation value?

Yes, there is more air at the equator for the same reason the Earth's crust bulges at the equator. Centrifugal force from the Earth spinning pulls both in at the poles and out at the equator. This force counters the gravity exactly (because it has reached a balance) and causes the pressure to remain the same between the two locations.

I read your link. Good write-up and technically correct. The problem is that the emissivity effect, as you call it, only causes the greenhouse effect to kick it up a bit. It's the cause of the effect that heats things up and not the actual thing that does the heating. If the history of its origin had been different, you may have gotten your way but It doesn't change what's really going on. The greenhouse effect is heating the Earth and it is being affected by our increase of CO2 and methane emissions. This much is not flawed and has been proven since 1859.

If you still have a relevant question that I didn't answer, do clarify it and I'll try again.

Your logic is flawed

It is very similar to how a radiator cools an Engine. The Cooling System has more than one part. I can go into detail if the correlation doesn't make sense to you.

Convection moves energy from the Surface to the highest point possible, then Radiation takes over as the primary means for the planet to cool. That point is dictated when the decrease in temp as altitude rises reaches Zero. Convection requires a cooler region to move towards. We have to recognize that Thermodynamic Systems are not static, and they employ the most efficient means or combination of means to heat and cool different regions. The surface cools by bother Radiation and Convection, but Convection being a more efficient means to transfer energy (in an atmosphere) will carry more energy.

Can you describe where Radiation is more efficient than Convection where Convection is available? This would go a long way in supporting a Green House Effect where no Green House exists.

Re-radiation is flawed concept. If a photon is absorbed and re-emitted back towards earth, it will travel a shorter distance back than it did going out due to the atmosphere being thicker the closer you get to the Earth. We must also recognize that when CO2 at altitude absorbs a photon, it barely raises the temp, so a photon being emitted back towards Earth is at a lower energy than one that entered. Stefan Boltzman shows this quite accurately.

Boltzman's Law is for Black body objects which don't actually exist in nature, save arguably Black Holes. The Law is useful as bodies can be 'near' black body when they are in a vacuum. When an object has an atmosphere, the Black body equations are quite useless. If we add an atmosphere, we essentially add a Dimension to the surface and make it 3 dimensional and give it a volume, where it once only had an 'area'. Using the equation to understand what is going on here on Earth can be useful, but we have to understand that where Convection is available as a means to cool, it will dominate the cooling process.

Are you familiar with PV=nRT? You need to get comfortable using before making statements about the atmosphere having more air at the equator than poles, especially with regards to centrifugal force. Where did you get that? Just because something has a larger volume, does not mean it has a larger mass. Think Hot Air Balloon. A cubic meter of air at 15C with 9.8 m/s force (gravity) placed upon it has a smaller mass that the same cubic meter of air at 0C. The Volume remains the same. Now if you take the same Mass and Increase the Volume, then the altitude must increase if your surface is fixed.

A greenhouse works by preventing CONVECTION. You may have read the article, but you failed to understand it. Not being mean, but the only way to Increase a Green House Effect is to seal an imperfect Green House. The last paragraph is nonsensical.

Ok, lots to dispute so here goes

You said that convection moves energy from the surface to the highest point possible, then radiation takes over. This is a faulty connection. The energy incumbent in the gas that just left the surface, stays in that gas or becomes an atmospheric event. As it rises, due to the pressure drop (and your gas law quote), it expands and the temperature falls. At this point, it has traded sensible heat for potential energy. As it now displaces other cold air at the top of this rising column, that air moves to the side and creates a downdraft. This falling, denser air reverses the process by converting potential energy back into thermal. So, regardless of what the atmosphere does via convection and conduction, diffusion or even advection, none of this energy actually leaves our planet. It's just moving it around.

Very little energy is lost from a gas due to radiation. And since radiation is the only means to transfer heat away from the closed system that is out Earth/atmosphere system, this means radiation from the trace gasses is relatively minute. (N2 and O2 do not radiate any thermal heat and they make up most of the air.)

This takes me back to my original point. The Earth's close system (everything inside the vacuum of space) CANNOT lose heat by any means other than radiation. Since very few things are hot enough to incandesce(sp?), most of this radiation is in the wavelength of infrared.

You ask, "Can you describe where RAdiation is more efficient than Convection where Convection is available?" Yes. That is when you have a vacuum to traverse. As I said above, convection does move lots of heat AROUND from the surface to the atmosphere but none of that (ok, a minute amount) ultimately leaves into space.

I don't understand your "Re-radiation is flawed concept..." paragraph. I stated "re-radiation" was my term for the Earth emitting IR radiation out to space so that was used only for that path. I'm not sure what path you're referring to when you say "if a photon is absorbed and re-emitted". Please clarify.

I do agree with, "We must also recognize that when CO2 at altitude absorbs a photon, it barely raises the temp, so a photon being emitted back towards Earth is at a lower energy than one that entered. Stefan Boltzman shows this quite accurately." This, in fact, is the entire concept behind the greenhouse effect. Certain gases (termed GHGs) do intercept specific wavelengths of thermal (or other) radiation and get hotter in the process. By 'getting hotter', they now effectively trap heat from leaving to space because this hotter molecule only has convective heat loss capability so nothing gets outside the planet's system.

It's well known that the atmosphere is taller at the equator. Lower density air takes up more volume to have the same mass. This is why the troposphere is 17 km tall at the equator and only 10 km tall at the poles. Same mass above equals the same sea level pressure, even though volume is increased. (My apologies if you thought I meant mass is greater ON THIS POINT. It is greater, but only slightly due to the obliqueness of the planet and centripetal force.)

Either way, I'm still not sure why this is in play in a discussion of what keeps our planet 33 degrees warmer than it would be without an atmosphere and how we're affecting that mechanism.

Regarding your last paragraph, the greenhouse effect on Earth works the same but with different actors playing the roles. Instead of plastic stopping convection while allowing all light to exit (radiation), the Earth is in a vacuum to stop all convection while the atmosphere minimally regulates the radiation that's leaving. Your plant shop controls this by venting convection through the plastic while the Earth controls this by the radiation absorption of the atmosphere.

If you disagree with this principle, then please describe why you think the Earth (the whole closed system including atmosphere) is so much warmer than it should be without an atmosphere.

heat is transferred from the surface to the upper atmosphere.

via latent heat of vaporization. for every one pound of rain that falls, 970.3 BTU's are transferred from the surface.

radiant heat does not heat gasses. (air) it heats surfaces. the sun heats the earth radiantly. the sun shines on the surface and changes the state of water from a liquid, to a gas. it then rises, condenses and falls to the surface. lather, rinse, repeat.

water regulates the earths temperature 2 different ways, sensibly and latently. of the 2 latent heat transfer means. vaporization is by far the most powerful.
you can see radiant heaters in garages and other places with frequent large door openings and such.
they look like pipes running along the ceiling with reflectors behind them.
since they do not heat the air directly, they are far more efficient.
HVAC/R is Heating,Ventilating, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration.

As I wrote above

yes, this does affect where the heat is stored but it has no effect on how much heat is lost back out to space. The vacuum of space acts as a barrier to convective and conductive heat transfer so those two can't cause the Earth/atmosphere system to cool down. They can only move heat around (between the air, oceans, ice, land, etc.)

There definitely are gasses that absorb radiant energy. Namely, they are the ones we call greenhouse gasses. As you know, they include CO2, methane and most prevalent, water vapor.

When you boil down what happens with the interaction between them, you find that CO2 and temp both have a large effect on water vapor. In other words, they drive it. This means that even though water vapor is more nominally a factor (larger total quantity), it's not as powerful as related to its concentration. A small concentration change in CO2 can ultimately have a larger result.

Think of a president changing policy and all he has to do is tell a few generals. Those generals magnify the result by commanding the army (water vapor) to do the heavy lifting.

you are grasping at straws.

I said NOTHING about storage effect.
are you NOT aware that it is cold up on a mountain? are you not aware that it is VERY hot at levels below sea level on land?
(death valley)

"The vacuum of space acts as a barrier to convective and conductive heat transfer so those two can't cause the Earth/atmosphere system to cool down."

really? then why does it get cold at night?
our atmosphere is composed of nitrogen and oxygen. everything else is a TRACE gas.

the dew point of water vapor is a function of the temperature/pressure relationship. not TRACE gasses.

"The vacuum of space acts as a barrier to convective and conductive heat transfer so those two can't cause the Earth/atmosphere system to cool down."
how is this statement NOT a direct violation of the laws of thermodynamics Oh, wise one?
a higher pressure does not flow to a lower one? a higher temperature does not flow to a lower one?

please explain.

You're very accusational

for someone who doesn't understand radiative energy transfer.

All energy gained from space or lost to space happens via radiation.

When a piece of metal is white hot, you can see how it radiates light away, right? Red hot, less so but still losing energy, right? Well, you may not realize it but every object above absolute zero degrees radiates energy away from it all the time. How much is determined by a few factors (see the Stefan Boltzman equation) but mostly it's based on an object's temperature.

If the temp is 1 degree, it may radiate 1 watt. If so and you raise it's temp to 2 degrees, it should lose 2 watts, right? Nope. It now radiates 16 watts. 3 degrees = 81 watts and so on. That's just an example but it shows that the 4th power of the temperature explodes in radiation losses as temperature rises.

When the Earth receives 1350 watts of solar energy on every square meter of its surface facing the sun, it must also get rid of that back to space. If it doesn't, it will store it and the Earth's temp will rise. (Look up stasis temp) So the temp rises until there's a point where it now loses 1350 watts back to space via this thermal radiation. At that point, the temp will stabilize (hence the name).

Should you block that process of losing heat, the temp will just go up more and more until it can finally overcome the blockage. By increasing CO2, you can intercept (block) some of it before it leaves and cause it to heat the CO2. This low temperature heat (specific heat) now stays in the atmosphere and is subject to convection and conduction which ultimately cannot be lost to space.

Water vapor has very specific wavelengths of radiation that it blocks in this way. CO2 has another band. Together they regulate the planet's temp. However, CO2 and temp also both affect how much water vapor is in the air. So, if you raise either one, the temp will rise. However, if CO2 increases, it will also cause the water vapor to rise which will cause the temp to rise even more. This is called a positive feedback and there are dozens (at least) of these interactions that make the problem much worse that it first appears.

So, why does it get cold at night? Because the Earth always radiates energy away from it (day and night - since it's temp is above zero) and at night the sun no longer adds an equivalent amount of energy to balance those losses. So it gets colder because we're losing more energy than we're gaining.


you are a fraud. and yes, that is in fact an "accusation"

I not only know about "radiative energy transfer."
I am licensed to both install and maintain them. you on the other hand. talk spit and try to confuse people.

I did not pick HVACTech on a lark.