Nope... not a single one. "Greenhouse gas" is nothing more than a buzzword created to peddle a science-denying, math-denying, logic-denying religion.[/quote
The Greenhouse Effect has been talked about since the mid-19th century -- first identified by Fourier. John Tyndall, in the 1850s, conducted experiments to measure how much various gases absorb infra-red radiation, contributing to that effect. Since then, there's been a massive amount of research into the area, and the idea that certain gases absorb infrared radiation and thereby slow their exit from our planet is not at all controversial among scientists.
Here is where you define your terminology and provide the specific mechanism by which "greenhouse effect" "occurs" without violating science, math, or logic.
What makes you think it violates science, math, or logic?
Here is where you provide me with a valid dataset with regard to "greenhouse gas concentrations" over the last century and a half.
Here you go:
https://earth.org/data_visualization/a-brief-history-of-co2/
More recently:
https://www.climate.gov/news-featur...ate/climate-change-atmospheric-carbon-dioxide
That's just CO2, but if you Google, you can find the others tracked, as well.
I suggest that you take a look at, and learn about, the laws of thermodynamics
I know a lot about it. What, specifically, do you think I'm missing? The Stefan-Boltzmann law is pretty elementary stuff, and I don't know why you think it contradicts the mainstream scientific understanding of the role of greenhouse gases in climate change. It deals with radiant heat from surfaces -- basically just saying it's proportional to absolute temperature.
What I find is that a lot of conservatives with no real scientific education will be handed these terms by right-wing blogs (often run by non-scientists like Anthony Watts) and they'll assume they're things that would overturn climate science if only the climatologists understood them. But, of course, the kinds of concepts that trickle all the way down to the professionally ignorant Anthony Watts types are so elementary that they're understood by absolutely everyone actually doing work in the field.
For example, you'll see Stefan-Boltzmann is expressly used in mainstream climate science research papers, and by the IPCC's synthesis reports:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/downloads/report/IPCC_AR6_WGI_Chapter_07.pdf
https://journals.ametsoc.org/view/journals/clim/32/2/jcli-d-17-0603.1.xml
https://www.jstor.org/stable/90013263
https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/climatescience/atmosphericwarming/climatsensitivity.html
https://web.meteo.mcgill.ca/~mhenry/files/henry_linear_rad.pdf
Anyway, the implication of Stefan Boltzmann is what I said earlier: that we are altering the atmosphere in a way that will bring us to a new equilibrium point for temperature. At some point the Earth, understood as a huge black body, will be warm enough that it will be radiating at a rate great enough to reach a balance with incoming radiation, and the temperature will stabilize at that new point. Mainstream climate science understands that. The issue is that the new point will be a lot warmer than anything civilization has every coped with, which will cause humanity and ecosystems catastrophic problems:
https://cen.acs.org/articles/84/i51/Earths-atmosphere.html
In fact, an understanding of Stefan Boltzmann is key to spotting where the right-wing amateurs go wrong when they argue the second law of thermodynamics makes it impossible for the (cooler) atmosphere to warm the (warmer) Earth. The point is that the speed at which the warmth of the ground travels into the atmosphere is altered by the temperature differential between them, so with the sun continually contributing more energy to the ground, if you slow that transfer to the atmosphere, because the atmosphere gets warmer, you wind up with the ground being warmer, too. Eventually you reach a new equilibrium point, but you may not like where it lies.