Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Mantra 53 Captain Obvious believes he’s saying something intelligent
Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?
- Thread starter IBDaMann
- Start date
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
Dutch Uncle
* Tertia Optio * Defend the Constitution
ZenMode
Well-known member
So, let's break this down one topic at a time.
You say that you can't trap heat. If that is true, why does coffee in an insulated thermos stay hotter longer than coffee in a plastic cup with no lid?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Correct. Heat cannot be trapped. It should be obvious to anyone who knows what heat is.
Wait, you don't know what heat is, do you?
When you imagined this scenario of a thermos reducing the rate of thermal energy loss, did it not occur to you that merely slowing the escape of the thermal energy (that was escaping previously) is absolutely not keeping it trapped? Let's look at a much more illustrative example:
Three identical runners who run at the same speed.
1) Runner #1, we put in a small cage, trapping him. He cannot escape. When it comes time to run the race, he won't be able to move past the starting line.
2) Runner #2, we have him line up at the starting line unencumbered.
3) Runner #3, we put him in some body armor with a 10 kg ruck sack, i.e. like a soldier in a combat zone, accomplishing what? Are we slowing him down or are we trapping him?
I appreciate your thermos example helping me destroy your argument. Now let's destroy your future argument, you know, the one that's coming when we get to greenhouse effect:
Given hot coffee in a thermos, when does its temperature increase?
Have a great day.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Great, another undereducated, leftist troll who imagines that he is a psychiatric professional. Talk about being desperate for attention.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
You bet he does! Into the Night lives in Washington State so he gets a pass.
You are the one doing this. You are the scientifically illiterate moron who doesn't even know what science or heat is, yet you keep preaching your physics violations as thettled thienth. Why did you play hooky from school so regularly?
Nope. Nobody can. Nothing can. Heat is not something that can be trapped. But then again, you don't even know what heat is and you aren't letting that stop you from babbling.
Humans exist because of a physics violation that is thettled thienth? You worship one seriously fucked-up, mathematically-devoid, science-fearing religion. Please don't ask me to come to one of your "services"; I'm somewhat uncomfortable in congregations of the mindless undead.
You're only talking about daytime/nighttime temperature differences between two hypothetical planets that would nonetheless have the same average planetary temperature.
Are you not aware that any given average planetary temperature can have infinite temperature distributions, each with infinite potential temperature change funtions?
Awesome, you are yet another denier of the lunar daytime. So, you say that if the atmosphere were to vanish, the ocean would freeze, not boil, right? Did you never take any astronomy? The moon does, in fact, have a daytime side. I realize that you mindless warmizombies are required to deny this, and you are flogged if you don't, but the moon's daytime side, without an atmosphere, is extremely hotter than the earth's daytime side with its atmosphere.
Your church is lying to you and you aren't smart enough to call booooolsch't when you should.
Too funny.
ZenMode
Well-known member
I know that in a discussion about temperature, particularly when it is increasing, "heat" is the term used. Do you prefer kinetic energy?
Again with the word games.... If you don't like "trap" then pick your word because you know what I'm referring to.
An insulated thermos slows the loss of heat more so than a plastic cup in the same way that the Earth's atmosphere slows loss of heat. The reason that the Earth is inhabitable is because of our atmosphere that slows the loss of heat.
It doesn't increase UNLESS more heat is added. So, now that we've gotten past the word games, can you think of ANY way that MORE heat would be continually added to the Earth's surface? Any idea AT ALL?
Oh, I will.
Last edited:
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Too funny. You refer to science as "bullshit."
Belief has nothing to do with it, although you think it does because this is your religious faith we're talking about here, i.e. a fucked-up religion based on HATE, intolerance and physics violations, one that targets the stupidest losers among us who are so gullible that they can be easily convinced that profound faith in Climate Change will transform them into thienth geniutheth, and who are far too stupid to ever be able to call booooolsch't when they should.
You picked a loser of a religion. I recommend you ditch it immediately and look to, perhaps, Christianity to fill your spiritual voids. There are quite a few devout Christians on JPP who could provide you more information on the matter.
I know, that's what I keep telling him. He's got boxes upon boxes full of stuff, and he either half-understands or misunderstands what he actually has in them because he hasn't opened them in so long. I keep telling him to forget about the stuff in the boxes when he's posting on JPP because nobody wants to hear about it. You know what I'm saying, right? In fact, I'll tell him again while I've got it on my mind:
@Into the Night, forget about the stuff in the boxes already.
There, we told him.
I don't want to speak for Into the Night but frankly, I'm not learning anything about your religious dogma from your sermons because I have heard these sermons before from other warmizombies. If you attend a Christian service, you get a different sermon every time, and it's one that's applicable to daily life. Warmizombies, however, have roughly eight or nine sermons total, all based on physics violations, which they keep regurgitating over and over and over ... scratched record anyone?
Do you think you could possibly learn a new one? It would go a long way to break the mindless monotony of your religion.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
That was a beautiful pivot. You don't know what heat is. You are not capable of discussing it correctly. You think it can be trapped. It's really no wonder you fell for the Global Warming scam.
Too funny. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and this leaves you relegated to being eternally confused and referring to science as "word games." Go learn what heat is.
You are the one who needs to carefully choose his words because you are the one with the affirmative argument, and you are the one who has failed every time just to get out of the starting gate. You are desperate to argue Global Warming and you don't even know what heat is. You are a scientifically illiterate moron who is too stupid to learn, and I am having the time of my life watching you flail uncontrollably.
You don't know what heat is and now you realize that your cause is hopeless. You've been conned by people you trusted because you are simply too undereducated.
Yes, you are referring to your profound faith in a physics violation. That makes you stupid, and now you are faced with having to continue being ignorant of what heat is lest you falsify your own religious dogma. I feel sorry for you, but then again, you should have paid attention in school.
Incorrect. You should learn what heat is. You should learn about conduction and how it doesn't apply to the vacuum of space. Your science acumen is so poor as to be nonexistent.
Nope. Earth is habitable because it has an atmosphere that allows life to breathe oxygen and plants to consume CO2.
You have once again used the word "heat" incorrectly. Temperature only increases if energy is added (thermodynamics), specifically thermal energy.
So we have arrived at why there is no greenhouse effect and thus, no Global Warming. Per your statement above, the earth cannot increase in temperature unless additional energy is added (I know redundant). No substance suffices as energy.
Nope. Considering that the sun was already there, and considering that what is needed is additional energy, I don't see any way for any atmospheric gas to create additional energy out of nothing, i.e. violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics).
Last edited:
Into the Night
Verified User
RQAA. Insulators reduce heat, allowing your coffee to stay warmer longer.
No insulator eliminates heat. Even in a Thermos jug, your coffee will eventually return to room temperature.
You cannot trap heat.
Into the Night
Verified User
With no atmosphere, the Earth's oceans would boil away, helping to establish a 'replacement atmosphere'. Any ice would evaporate away.
One can see the effect of this in any vacuum chamber. You yourself pointed this out to another moron once.
Into the Night
Verified User
Obviously, you have no clue what heat is. Heat has no temperature. It is not kinetic energy either.
The word games are YOURS. YOU are the one playing them.
Heat has no location. It is not contained in anything. Insulators reduce heat. The atmosphere is not an insulator. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
Adding heat doesn't necessarily warm any substance. It may be COOLING it!
No, you still insist on playing word games.
You are ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
The Sun is already there. What you need is additional energy. Where is that energy coming from?
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth.
Last edited:
ZenMode
Well-known member
That was a beautiful pivot. You don't know what heat is. You are not capable of discussing it correctly. You think it can be trapped. It's really no wonder you fell for the Global Warming scam.
Too funny. You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about, and this leaves you relegated to being eternally confused and referring to science as "word games." Go learn what heat is.
You are the one who needs to carefully choose his words because you are the one with the affirmative argument, and you are the one who has failed every time just to get out of the starting gate. You are desperate to argue Global Warming and you don't even know what heat is. You are a scientifically illiterate moron who is too stupid to learn, and I am having the time of my life watching you flail uncontrollably.
You don't know what heat is and now you realize that your cause is hopeless. You've been conned by people you trusted because you are simply too undereducated.
Yes, you are referring to your profound faith in a physics violation. That makes you stupid, and now you are faced with having to continue being ignorant of what heat is lest you falsify your own religious dogma. I feel sorry for you, but then again, you should have paid attention in school.
Incorrect. You should learn what heat is. You should learn about conduction and how it doesn't apply to the vacuum of space. Your science acumen is so poor as to be nonexistent.
Nope. Earth is habitable because it has an atmosphere that allows life to breathe oxygen and plants to consume CO2.
You have once again used the word "heat" incorrectly. Temperature only increases if energy is added (thermodynamics), specifically thermal energy.
So we have arrived at why there is no greenhouse effect and thus, no Global Warming. Per your statement above, the earth cannot increase in temperature unless additional energy is added (I know redundant). No substance suffices as energy.
So, now that we've gotten past the word games, can you think of ANY way that MORE heat would be continually added to the Earth's surface? Any idea AT ALL?
Oh, I will.
You continue word games to avoid addressing the actual issue at hand. The reason for that seems pretty clear. However, I will continue to use terms like heat, temperature, etc because, again, you know exactly what I'm referring to.
The earth would not be habitable without an atmosphere to slow the loss of energy/heat from the sun because, among other things, the oceans would freeze because surface temperatures, on the side not facing the sun, would be about -250 degrees Fahrenheit.. Without word games, because you know exactly what I'm saying, do you disagree with that statement?
ZenMode
Well-known member
The oceans may boil and/or freeze. That's not the point. The point is that without an atmosphere, life isn't possible because of the temperature swings. The atmosphere creates a climate the supports life. Do you agree?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
I don't think the ocean would boil away entirely. There would still be liquid water on the nighttime side that cooled in the cold. I don't know what quantity of atmosphere there would be exactly, but there would certainly be a lot of atmosphere in the form of water vapor.
ZenMode
Well-known member
"The Sun is already there. What you need is additional energy. Where is that energy coming from?"
You can't possible be this obtuse. It comes form the s-u-n. YOU just said that the oceans would boil if we had no atmosphere, so the sun produces more than enough energy to heat the surface of Earth a LOT more than it does. Besides deflecting some energy back into space, the atmosphere ALSO prevents that energy from rapidly leaving when the earth is not facing the sun.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
... and the crucial point that should never be lost is that no matter how much insulation, the coffee's temperature never increases.
Last edited:
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Its temperature increases whenever [magic greenhouse gas] traps heat inside of the thermos... DUH!
** Now PLEASE don't ask me anything about where the additional energy required to increase the hot coffee's temperature is coming from... pretty please??
But for real, let me share a little mostly non-eventful story about the cup of hot chocolate that I had yesterday. I poured some cold milk into a cup. I put that cold milk into the microwave for some time to warm it up (until it wanted to bubble over). Then I put some cocoa mix in with the warmed milk and stirred it... I then put the cup of milk and cocoa powder into the microwave to warm it up some more (until it once again wanted to bubble over). I then took it out and after a short while I proceeded to drink it. It was very good.
Something that I noticed while doing so:
My cup of hot chocolate, after I was done microwaving it, never increased in temperature ever again upon exiting the microwave. I did wait a while for it to do so, but the longer that I left it sitting beside my chair before drinking it, the cooler it kept getting. I eventually decided to start drinking it while it was still warm yet. After all, I wanted 'hot' chocolate, not 'cold' chocolate.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Doh! I totally forgot about that. That's probably why the thermos is habitable.
That's because you didn't use the greenhouse cocoa. You probably used a packet that was not being stored in GasGuzzler's basement. It's not going to increase in temperature without the CTE (chocolate thermal enhancement) emanating from the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO) and the Interdecadal Pacific Oscillation (IPO). If you had taken the time to prepare your beverage with all the proper forcings, you would have correctly noticed that all of it was increasing in temperature faster than all of the rest of it. But this gets into the inverse square law which allows for gravity to bend the rest mass of IR photons.
But your chocolate was good, you say?
Maybe you just got a defective batch. Did you save the receipt?