Because the world is a bathtub full of water! excellent Flint, you are perfect.

Atmosphere does use fluid dynamics

There is heat in, heat out. Trust me the method is a good comparison.

Add something to the water that responds to the heat or depth, where it tends to pool lower but has some distribution at all levels. Soap floats so is a bad example, salt might work, but it really is academic.

The added material might take more heat, but very soon everything equals out. Even if we introduce clouding features, water jets, and more... the heat is going to be relatively the same once it gets settled (there might be some heat pooling, but those pools will be constant or near constant sometime after introduction)

I can prove global warming is true

the math is proprietary

but i will read you what is the result of my proprietary math

I will read it to you in person if you pay me $30,000 speaking fee

plus airfare

its worth it you will feel very good about fighting global warming if you fly me to your city and pay me $30,000 you will be a better person than Einstein who doesn't even care

what a jerk

for another $3,000 I will add an Einstein joke to my presentation

$33,000 is a bargain

I am practically giving away the salvation of humanity for that

A new example

Build a climate controlled warehouse with no light inside it what-so-ever.

Now inside it build a Greenhouse with a heater and fill it 100% with Carbon Dioxide (or whatever % you wish).

Now measure the heat hitting the windows. Yes there is long form and short wave infrared waves *yawn*... just measure it all.

Now change the levels of the heat by a little and wait for the variance to work itself out. Repeat a few dozen times.

You will find that the temperature ultimately will be 100% dictated by the heater and that the Carbon, or anything else in there, cannot increase the temp of the Green House past a short while in the case of a lowered heater temperature. This is because there is a constant level of burning off of heat regardless of the material in question (though concrete or stone will burn off differently, of course, but then they still will emit heat at a near constant slowly adjusting for the changes from the source.

If your variance is 10 degrees Celsius you wont find a significant difference in the emitted heat. All of it is going out.

no, not ignoring. Heat in is heat out. There is no change

So where is the warming? Lol

Accumulation will end up going out as well, there is only so much you can rachet up an atom before it is not phased by lesser heat coming at it. which means that heat goes out.

Heat in, Heat Out.

i propose you try repeating the experiment with a ball of molten rock that has a very thin cooled down crust, a small band of gaseous atmosphere, totally close that system and then apply the heat from the outside. Get back to us when you have your findings. In the mean time, use your bath for what it is meant for, this will not be your personal eureka moment.

>>i propose you try repeating the experiment with a ball of molten rock that has a very thin cooled down crust, a small band of gaseous atmosphere, totally close that system and then apply the heat from the outside.<<

If the laws of thermodynamics cannot be deduced from containers of water then someboy got some splaining to do

WHATEVER. Your crew pretended to understand the weather effects of the combined industrial output of the whole human race for fifty years.  After 20 years it's obvious to anybody who can read that you blew it. NOW, we're hearing its too complicated?  It's COMPLICATED because you're making shit up.  Heat is trapped by pollution and then magically sometimes becomes other energy, on a global scale, by an unobserved, unexplained and undefined mechanism?  Bullshit.

I don't have to have a solution to the three-body problem to know the kid who wrote "42" with a crayon got it wrong.

You don't have to have the right answer to prove other people have the wrong answer.  That's SCIENCE. Try it.  Try some science.  Try a defined controlled experiment demonstrating the basic principles of this mystery energy transfer from trapped heat into whatever.

Cause I have a contrary hypothesis:  Pollution doesn't affect climate.  As demonstrated by global climate remaining within observed historical norms, despite constantly increasing pollution.

>>because that is the only important issue really. How that relates to specific weather patterns is not so important, <<

That's a total reversal of the IPCC statements.

In fact, supposedly, this is a global political crisis because specific weather patterns are going to be altered directly, all over, at the same time, and everybody has to pitch in.

>>If you are saying that CO2 doesn't have insulation properties (which seems to be Flin't argument), then science wants a word with you about reality.<<

In the concentrations put out by industry?  No discernable effect.

The lack of global warming, AS PREDICTED, since 1991, is consistent with the notion that pollution doesn't affect climate.

As I said, if you want to assume pollution traps heat energy, you also have to assume that some mysterious global mechanism intermittently transmits heat into some other form of energy.   But only in the cold years!

Remember when 97% of psychologist said homosexuality was a mental disorder?

And I read about when 97% of biologist said blacks were mentally inferior to whites, and 97% of physicists said quantum mechanics was hooey

good times