Phred-> [Arguing semantics? Potential energy and kinetic energy? You're saying the same things I'm saying with different words. Why? Is there some point to what you're doing?]
Yes, there's a point to me doing it because exact understanding of physical dynamics is necessary in order to "see the picture clearly". For instance, you keep talking about CO2 in the atmosphere "trapping heat" ... which is technically incorrect and totally misleading when it comes to what ACTUALLY occurs with CO2 in the atmosphere. While it's true that CO2 in a 100% dense blanket over the surface covering WILL act as an insulator and trap heat ... it's quite impossible for that to occur with .00038 CO2 content in the sky.
Light from the sun coming through the atmosphere and striking the earth's surface ... causes the EARTH to warm up. It's then the EARTH emitting infrared,
which goes back out through the sky to space -a particular band of infrared frequency- which is captured by CO2 molecules, causing those molecules to warm up and then radiate their heat in all directions.
What's important to note here is that sunlight COMES IN through our atmosphere and CO2 isn't warmed up by the incoming rays (according to the global warming theory). It's the EARTH sending OUT infrared at particular frequency bands ... that's then captured by the CO2 molecules, causing them to warm up. (Whether this is totally accurate, I do not know but it's how the warmist scientists explain it. This is the heart of the "anthropogenic warming" theory. It gives them a "one way valve" to support heat coming in and then not being able to get back out into space.)
If we're going to prove or disprove the anthropogenic warming theory ... we have to stick precisely to THEIR explanation in order to rationally, reasonably and logically embrace or refute it.
The "fine" point I was differentiating is that -according to the anthropogenic theory- it is the EARTH warming up the CO2 molecules in the sky via the special spectrum infrared rays ... and NOT the sun. So, to be technically accurate here, the sunlight doesn't "become heat" and it's not the sun heating the CO2 molecules; it is the EARTH. Sunlight heats the earth but it's the EARTH which emits the IR that is then captured by CO2 molecules in the sky.
Again ... you might think this is quibbling but it's not. The second law of thermodynamics states that heat may be transferred from a warmer body to a cooler body ... but not from a cooler body to a warmer body. If you think about a staircase ... an object can fall downstairs in steps and then stop on one of the steps. That object is now at a LOWER potential energy than it was when it was at the top of the stairs. That object can fall to a lower step or steps ... but it can never fall UP the steps.
Same thing is true for energy from sunlight. It hits the earth and falls to a lower energy level. the earth then emits heat at a lower energy level than it received from the sun. (The earth's emitted infrared can NOT go back to the sun and warm the sun ... right?)
Ok, so it's the EARTH heating the CO2 molecules in the sky via emitted earth infrared rays.
So now ... if the earth is warming the CO2 molecules, the CO2 molecules can NOT turn around and warm the earth because the earth is the source of the emitted heat. Heat can always ONLY be transferred to a cooler body.
Phred-> [CO2 STOPS heat from being radiated into space as it would if the gas were not there. ]
If it "stops heat" ... what happens to it? Is the sky warm? Can we see infrared radiation coming out of the sky ... even with special sensitive equipment? No. It's pitch black at night.
Phred-> [Ok, Venus. Light DOES get through the clouds.]
Yes, a bit of light comes through ... but how much? Those pictures come from the Soviet Venera 14 lander
... from about 1985.
You need to be aware that these images aren't your ordinary camera point-and-shoot shots. They've been painstakingly reconstructed, enhanced, sharpened, brightened ... etc. As a photo manipulator ... you'll appreciate how that's possible to do ... to take an extremely dark picture and get the details out of it and even make it look almost normal.
When Venus was being mapped by orbiters ... they had to use microwave frequencies to be able to penetrate the atmosphere. It's impossible to look down to the surface in the visible light frequencies -ie, our eyes or a normal camera.
[Information about the topography has been obtained exclusively by radar imaging.]
Phred-> [This increase in atmospheric temperature leads to the atmosphere being able to hold more water vapor--->oceans evaporate.
And so on.....--->Runaway Greenhouse. ]
It's not possible to get runaway greenhouse effect if the sun's rays become so heavily reflected by sulfurous gases in the atmosphere.
Remember the second law of thermodynamics: heat can only transfer from a warmer object to a cooler object. The heavy CO2 atmosphere can't heat the planet; it can only insulate the planet to keep it from cooling down as fast as it would with a clear sky. Remember the thermos bottle: the vacuum insulation can only preserve heat already inside the bottle. It can't HEAT the coffee any hotter than it was when poured in.
Phred-> [Oh, and Venus does NOT always face the same way. It rotates, just slowly. ]
I know. I never said it always faced the same way.
Phred->[And since you pointed out that greenhouse gases ABSORB heat earlier, shouldn't you have taken that into account later?]
I have no idea what you're trying to say there.
Yes, greenhouse gases absorb heat ... just like a frying pan on a burner absorbs heat. Once the gases are warming up, they emit the heat they absorb, just like a frying pan gets hot and then emits the heat it has absorbed. This is all infrared dynamics.