(continuation)
Yes I have a disagreement with the basic premise of climate science. The fudged, fabricated, and altered data are not the real problem; they are only symptoms of a more fundamental flaw. A flaw that exists at the very heart of the hypothesis of anthropogenic climate change. Fudging, fabrication, and altering data will continue to be necessary till the physical flaws in the hypothesis are corrected, and when that happens, there will no longer be a hypothesis of global anthropogenic climate change.
Look at the first twp sentences in your wiki article. Thet go off the reails there and everything that comes after must be, by defnintion flawed.
The so called greenhouse gasses absorb IR and emit it in all directions. To begin with, that represents a cooling, not a warming effect. It is interesting to note that when the earth is modelled as a rotating sphere receiving the actual amount of incoming radiation from the sun, the temperature is slightly higher than the actual temperature of earth but this scattering of IR by so called greenhouse gases corrects that slight temperature difference. Sorry to go off on a tangent. So some of this IR is radiated back down towards the surface where it is then absorbed and causes the earth to be warmer than its only energy source can make it. Free energy. The creation of energy. Perpetual motion. Imagine that. Out atmosphere is a demonstration of a perpetual motion machine and we are worried about energy.
Take an electric heater capable of an output of 1000 watts and put it in your living room. Now surround it with the most perfect reflectors possible. Run if for as long as you like and then tell me that you get one nanowatt out of that system that you didn't pay the electric company for. According to greenhouse theory, the atmosphere which is certainly nothing like a perfect reflector can radiate energy back down to the surface of the earth (it's energy source insofar as IR goes) and warm that energy source but you can't coax out a single nanowatt of energy from your electric heater using the most perfect reflectors known to man.
The second law of conservation of energy, the second law of thermodynamics, and the stefan boltzman laws all predict that you won't be able to get any extra energy from your electric heater. The law of conservation of energy says that you can't create energy and it predicts that no matter how many reflectors you put up, you are never going to get more power out of your system than you put into it. Your heater is capable of putting out 1000 watts using the energy it is receiving from its source and 1000 watts is all you get. Even with the most perfect reflectors known to man, there is going to be some energy loss in that reflecting process so less than 1000 watts will be reflecting back. As such, the reflected energy will not be as hot as the heater element.
The second law of thermodynamics is a pretty specific statement. It speaks in absolute terms. It says "It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object."
That is a pretty explicit statement regarding energy flows. "not possible" "will not flow". No wiggle room there; you ether accept the second law as true, or you don't. The atmosphere is cooler than the surface of the earth and yet, the greenhouse effect hypothesis requires that energy flow from the cooler atmosphere to the warmer earth where it is absorbed warming the earth to a higher temperature than it can be warmed by its only energy source even though you couldn't possibly acheve that feat with the most advanced reflecting material known to man. If you could, that extra bit of energy, no matter how small would represent the possibility of a perpetual motion.
So back to my original challenge. Describe a mechanism by which you believe CO2 to be capable of causing warming without violating a law of physics.
