Oh, Really? Which professors? Names? Nobody who understand physics says that. Perhaps the fools listening think they do.

Not even the barely scientifically literate “climate scientists” who program models to prove things for grant funding say CO2 or other GHGs get heated by the greenhouse effect. Only fuckwits. I may do explaing the facts to people unable to understand them because they forgot to learn basic physics before having opinions on it.

The simple and abolute reality is that energy must be conserved, unless there is a conversion between mass and energy, such as in a chemical or nuclear reaction, whose energy release comes from mass loss or whose greater mass is from nergy aborbed.

Otherise, in thermal relationships, enegry is always balanced, but in different forms, so solar light energy in becomes LWIR out via several pathways, the largest being latent heat, that is released as thermal radiation on condensation and is ultimately lost to space as photonic radiation. All of this means the proportions of intensity and entropy of the energy are changed.

NB: When writing my paper this essential reality became clearer, that any mass in the universe at a partocular temperature is continuouly absorbing and radiating the same amount of energy to maintain this tempertaute. So the energy leaving is constanly replaced by new energy arriving, at whatver rate that must be. 122PW in the case of earth’s troposphere, whose 288K GMST is maintained by the gain of 240W/m2 as Soloar EMR at 6,300K and the loss of the same enrgy as LWIR at 288K to space at 3K. Obs.

Claimte scienec isn’t rocket science. Its a simple energy balnce in space. The rpoblem is climate scientists who really aren’t scientists and can not visuaise this absolute reality. Th enrgy comes and goes as it must, it doesn’t even circulate much, its always going somewhere colder.

And that masn the earth has no thermostatic control. THe control is its dynamic energy equlibirum in space, by changing its losses, its only response to imbalnce, as with reptiles, thermoregulation.

Because earth cannot generate energy to maintain a temperature. Nature simply imposes an enrgy balance, at whatever temperature is required to keep energy in equal to energy out. The incident enrgy must continue its journey through the temperaure gradient to the microwave background.

FInally, the nature of the enrgy is changed by this process. Nobody much mentions entropy, which can only be positive.

Energy in is high intesity and low entropy, energy out is low intensity and high entropy, as desribed by the FIrst Law of thermodynamics, and this process is one way and irreversibe, per the 2nd Law. How hard can this be? It’s High School science.

Summary: To comment on the science , you must first understand every part of the science involved in your opinion, not just a tiny bit rattling around in an enpty brain with no holistic context. As with the authors of this moronic word salad. Mr Beavis and Mr Butthead. It’s really not that hard to follow. Unless you’re stupid, but convinced you understand things without very doing the work. The lower ability side of Dunning Kruger. I did check for some quick wprds because I got tired of this Sh**

sic:

Entropy Production

Irreversible Processes: This conversion is driven by irreversible processes within the Earth system, such as the absorption and scattering of light by the surface, atmosphere, and clouds. 

Entropy Flux Increase: The entropy flux of Earth’s emitted longwave radiation is approximately one order of magnitude greater than the entropy flux of the incident solar radiation.

Mechanism of Increase: This massive increase in entropy occurs because a small number of high-energy (low-entropy) shortwave photons arriving from a single direction (the Sun) are converted into a much larger number of low-energy (high-entropy) longwave photons emitted almost isotropically (in all directions) from the planet.

ENDS

That clear enough?

It is quite clear from the outgoing longwave radiation that less radiation is lost to space at the vibrational frequencies of the carbon dioxide molecule. This means that everything within the atmopsheric system beneath the Tropopause has to get warmer to keep energy out equal to energy in ,which is the indirect warming result of increase in CO2.

Nobody, but nobody, who understands how the system balances itself suggests that carbon dioxide is getting heated by LWIR leaving for space. That claim can deservedly be labelled as stupidly ignorant of the people who wrote this nonsnese.

A false premsie to justfy a nonsense claim.

Numpties of no academic abiity.

Again, The GHE is caused when carbon dioxide molecular bonds are excited and then relax at characteristic frequencies, which inhibits the transfer of energy from the surface to space at the characteristic frequencies. This is clearly observed in the notch in the OLR sepctrum at ythe unqiue freqencies assocaiated with CO2. Denying it is as daft as saying CO2 causes all the observed chage.

REPEAT: No serious physicst suggests there is a direct heating effect associated with CO2 absorbing and releasing electron binding energy at quantum levels, which process does not involve the gain or loss of thermal energy. This is nonsense based in ignorance. I could be more direct….

The author says:
We say to academics, measure it like real scientists. Build a laboratory like ours or Thomas Edison’s. Try to get CO2 to retain temperature from day to day.

It is a simple test. We used precision instruments. However, this is a repeatable test that anyone can perform with hardware-store instruments.
– – –
Whether the results prove anything is up for debate.

On the simulator the conjunction date advances about a week in 3000 years.

Narrow bands of ocean covering just over one-third of the world’s seas are responsible for absorbing nearly three-quarters of the carbon dioxide that oceans pull from the atmosphere, new research shows. The study, published in Nature Climate Change, reveals ocean fronts play a far larger role in regulating Earth’s carbon cycle than previously understood.
. . .
“Where fronts are intensifying, carbon dioxide uptake is strengthening at twice the global average rate. Where they’re declining, carbon absorption is weakening,” Dr. Yang said. “Current climate models struggle to represent the fine-scale dynamics of ocean fronts because their resolution is often too coarse to capture these relatively narrow zones.” [bold added]

https://phys.org/news/2026-01-ocean-fronts-revealed-key-players.html

Thanks, Ray. Get well, stay well.

w.