Linear functions versus exponential functions

Here's another reason to dispute the AGW theory. Heat involves motion. Motion requires work, or is related to work. So, the temperature of the system is actually the measurement of the motion of atoms within that system. Something has to get those atoms moving. Because of the fact that atoms have mass, this energy requirement is an exponential function of its velocity.

An exponential function means that its "slope" rises much faster than a the slope of a linear function. This has to be so, because it takes a lot more energy to accelerate than it takes to maintain a velocity. In every day life, try to verify it the next time when you press down hard on the accelerator pedal. Notice how the miles per gallon sinks very fast when you accelerate fast. The energy requirements are the square of the velocity. Same thing for raising the temperature of a system. You have to get those atoms and molecules moving faster, and that means an exponential function of the energy requirements.

The temperature gauge may appear to be rising slowly, but the energy requirement rises much faster than than what it may seem. If you accelerated all the time, your gas mileage would be very poor indeed. They'll tell you to take it easy on that gas pedal if you want better gas mileage.

This may not seem to correlate very well with AGW theory. It may be hard to see the connection. But any temperature rise must involve more mass. Thus, those who say they believe the AGW theory will tell you that the planet Mars doesn't have enough atmosophere to get a greenhouse effect. The only way to get more atmosphere on Mars is to add more mass. It already has 95% carbon dioxide in its atmosphere. But carbon dioxide doesn't make it a hot planet. You need more mass or you need more energy. But increasing mass would increase energy requirements at a linear rate, whereas the energy requirements would need to increase at an exponential rate. Consequently, even if Mars had an atmosphere like Venus, it still would be a cold planet. That's because there's a lot less energy getting to Mars, because Mars is much further from the sun. If adding a lot more atmosphere to Mars won't make it much warmer, then why would adding a little more carbon dioxide make it significantly more hot on Earth? The reason that the mass increase is a linear function, and we won't get any more energy from the sun even if we doubled the carbon dioxide concentration on Earth. The temperature on the surface of any planet is related more closely to its energy input from the sun than the composition of its atmosphere. Increasing the mass only increases the energy requirements at a linear rate, you see.

For energy requirements require an exponential function of velocity. That's because an increase in mass is only a linear function for energy requirements. This is why atom bombs are much more powerful than chemical bonds. Einstein's famous equation shows this. The square of the velocity ( in Einstein's equation) means that for any expenditure of mass would yield a great amount of energy. This is one of the most basis facts of physics. It is the same for the calculations for the expenditures of energy to do work, which is also an exponential function. The expenditure of energy for work increase much more rapidly for the velocity ( it's the square of the velocity) than for the mass being moved. Increasing mass doesn't increase energy requirements as much because it is a linear function.

Consequently, changing the mass of the atmosphere doesn't raise temperature nearly as much as the climate warmists would have you believe. No matter how much you add mass, it won't be nearly as much at it would require in energy requirements because that would be a linear function. Even if you concede that it would raise temperatures, it still would not be nearly enough to make a noticeable difference. After all, were talking about parts per million of the Earth's atmosphere. That's not much mass, and even if that number were much much larger, it still wouldn't be enough. For that you need an exponential function, and that isn't the case here. It's not possible to move Earth's distance from the sun. Not yet, at least. The energy requirements for that would be astronomical. That's the whole point.