Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[ZenMode]

... and the crucial point that should never be lost is that no matter how much insulation, the coffee's temperature never increases.

Correct. That is unless you continue to add outside heat to it. Are there any large, glowing heat sources close to the earth?

 

[IBDaMann]

You continue word games to avoid addressing the actual issue at hand.

Nope. You are the one who refuses to define any terms and who continues to use terms that he admits he doesn't understand. You are the one playing word games. As a result, all of your posts are nothing more than meaningless gibberish.

However, I will continue to use terms like heat, temperature, etc

... because you have nothing but word games, specifically buzzword games.

... because, again, you know exactly what I'm referring to.

Yes, you are referring to the holy physics violations that form the basis for your stupid religion.

The earth would not be habitable without an atmosphere ...

... because nothing would be able to breathe.

to slow the loss of energy/heat from the sun

The atmosphere does not do this. All bodies of matter, to include the earth, the sun, Venus, comets, baseballs, cotton candy, etc ... radiate thermally proportionally to the absolute temperature of the body to the fourth power (per Stefan-Boltzmann). No atmosphere changes this. Learn some physics.

because, among other things, the oceans would freeze

You are chanting. Say it, the oceans would boil. Say it, the daytime side of the earth would become so incredibly hotter without an atmosphere to keep it cool. C'mon, say it.

Are you saying that you'll get flogged if you say this publicly, even though it's absolutely true? Are you saying you must OBEY your slave-masters and remain in total denial that there is a daytime side of the moon? Are you telling me that you can't afford to be honest, even for a second?

Well, OK then.

because surface temperatures, on the side not facing the sun,

Nope. Ignored. Stay focused on the daytime side.

 

[Into the Night]

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?

The atmosphere is not a climate.

The atmosphere doesn't change the temperature of the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

At the least!

 

[Into the Night]

"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.

The Sun is already there. Where is the additional energy coming from?
The atmosphere does not block radiant heat. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

 

[Into the Night]

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??

Heh. If you fill the thermos with coffee and replace all the air in it with CO2, all you get is carbonated coffee!

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.

Nice. I wonder how he would explain the fact that a soda kept in the refrigerator stays cold despite all the CO2 in it, and left out on the table stays at room temperature despite the CO2 in it.

 

[Into the Night]

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?

 

[ZenMode]

The atmosphere is not a climate.

The atmosphere doesn't change the temperature of the Earth.

Yes, atmosphere is not climate. But, as YOU said, the atmosphere prevents the oceans from boiling so, that being YOUR claim, explain how the the atmosphere doesn't change the temperature of the earth.

 

[ZenMode]

The Sun is already there. Where is the additional energy coming from?
The atmosphere does not block radiant heat. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

That question is addressed in the the post you replied to because the atmosphere DOES reflect some heat, hence the oceans not boiling.

 

[IBDaMann]

That is unless you continue to add outside heat to it.

What does "outside heat" mean? In physics, that would mean you aren't affecting it thermally whatsoever. That's not what you meant, right? You never learned what heat is, did you? You've had plenty of time.

Are there any large, glowing heat sources close to the earth?

None that weren't already there to begin with, and thus cannot represent additional energy. The sun, for example, can only account for the energy that was already there. There are no other substantive sources of additional thermal energy.

I imagine that you were thinking that atmospheric CO2 was a source of energy, because your slave-masters ordered you to believe such and you OBEYED, but it turns out that CO2 is neither a form nor a source of thermal energy.

 

[ZenMode]

What does "outside heat" mean? In physics, that would mean you aren't affecting it thermally whatsoever. That's not what you meant, right? You never learned what heat is, did you? You've had plenty of time.

what does outside heat mean. Well if you have a thermos of coffee, that is losing heat, you could set it on a stove or put it on a very hot sidewalk. Doing so would either slow the cooling or raise the temperature of the contents of the thermos of the outside heat waa high enough.

None that weren't already there to begin with, and thus cannot represent additional energy. The sun, for example, can only account for the energy that was already there. There are no other substantive sources of additional thermal energy.

I imagine that you were thinking that atmospheric CO2 was a source of energy, because your slave-masters ordered you to believe such and you OBEYED, but it turns out that CO2 is neither a form nor a source of thermal energy.

Had no point was I imagining that CO2 was a source of energy.

 

[IBDaMann]

what does outside heat mean. Well if you have a thermos of coffee, that is losing heat,

I'm imagining a thermos losing heat, and it isn't what you intend because you are using the word "heat" incorrectly. Why won't you just learn what it means? Then, perhaps, you can quit babbling and start posting sentences that have meaning.

you could set it on a stove or put it on a very hot sidewalk.

Great, let's just say you utilize something of a significantly higher temperature to add thermal energy per the second law of thermodynamics. Please proceed.

Doing so would either slow the cooling or raise the temperature of the contents of the thermos ...

Yes, doing so would greatly increase the cooling by increasing the temperature of the contents, per Stefan-Boltzmann.

... of the outside heat waa high enough.

I still have no idea what you mean. You should be able to express everything without the word "heat." Just learn what heat is. For what are you waiting?

 

[ZenMode]

I'm imagining a thermos losing heat, and it isn't what you intend because you are using the word "heat" incorrectly. Why won't you just learn what it means? Then, perhaps, you can quit babbling and start posting sentences that have meaning.


Great, let's just say you utilize something of a significantly higher temperature to add thermal energy per the second law of thermodynamics. Please proceed.


Yes, doing so would greatly increase the cooling by increasing the temperature of the contents, per Stefan-Boltzmann.


I still have no idea what you mean. You should be able to express everything without the word "heat." Just learn what heat is. For what are you waiting?

Again. Play all the word games you want. The atmosphere acts like the insulated walls of a thermos. That is why we don't have huge swings in temperature that planets with no atmosphere have. And, a more effective insulated lining of a thermos would slow, even more, the loss of heat. Venus has an atmosphere that is much more efficient at slowing the loss of heat. Venus' atmosphere is 95% CO2 and, as scientists know, more CO2 means heat is lost more slowly.That's why the surface of Venus is over 400 degrees. Your word games, deflections and denials don't change any of that. You are ignoring science.

 

[IBDaMann]

Again. Play all the word games you want.

Nothing broadcasts that you are a science denier moreso than referring to science as "word games" just because it runs counter to your religious dogma.

The atmosphere acts like the insulated walls of a thermos.

Only a completely scientifically illiterate moron would say something that stupid. I have already directed your attention to conduction and pointed out to you that the earth is surrounded by the vacuum of space, i.e. neither insulation nor conduction apply ... but once again you have shown that you have no intention of learning any of the science that you fear, lest you lose your ability to maintain your self-delusion.

That is why we don't have huge swings in temperature that planets with no atmosphere have.

You just pivoted. Yes, the atmosphere reduces the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures, but that has nothing to do with "insulation." Do you even know what insulation is? You don't know what science is, you don't know what heat is, and you don't understand conduction/insulation. Remind me why anyone should listen to you. You have me here offering you all the correct answers for free and you reject everything I'm teaching you because it destroys the stupid, loser religion you gullibly embraced.

I got it! You're a masochist who enjoys being raked over the coals after allowing yourself to be bent over furniture for your slave-masters to ream ever more disinformation into you. I'm pretty clever that way.

And, a more effective insulated lining of a thermos would slow, even more, the loss of heat.

Now you are using the term "slow" instead of "reduce." Who is playing the word games? (Answer: you are).

The correct answer is that cooling is not measured in speed/velocity. Yes, all speed/velocity measures are rates, but not all rates are speed/velocity. This is going to be a key point you should anticipate when you claim that greenhouse gas somehow "slows" infrared light's escape into space ... to something below the speed of light. I always enjoy when warmizombies insist that CO2 somehow "slows" earth's thermal radiation, despite knowing full well that light can only travel at the speed of light. Ahhhh, slowing light, too funny. I know that you want to insist the same thing, and you will ... I'm just letting you know in advance how I'm going to chop you off at the knees when you do, with a reminder that you are a preeminent science denier.

Here's the next lesson for you to not learn: Increasing the insulation of the thermos will reduce the loss of thermal energy and will increase the loss of heat. Aha! You didn't expect that, did you? That doesn't make sense to you, does it? Of course not. You don't know what heat is and you refuse to learn. You'd rather use all the wrong words and then accuse me of playing word games. You're a lot of fun when you are confused, and you are confused often.

By the way, you'll notice that this thread is completely devoid of any Global Warming or Climate science, because no such science exists. There can't ever be any such thing as science of a religion, especially of your contradictory religion of HATRED and intolerance. It's the leftist undereducation, scienctific illiteracy and mathematical incompetence that get leftists targeted for indoctrination, which entails instilling great fear and HATRED of science. That's why you refuse to learn anything that I teach you, leaving me to enjoy totally spanking you over material that I just taught you.

Venus has an atmosphere that is much more efficient at slowing the loss of heat.

Nope. Venus radiates per Stefan-Boltzmann, i.e. proportional to its absolute temperature to the fourth power, just as every other body of matter in the universe. Venus' atmosphere cannot change that. Just what kind of magical superpowers do your slave-masters order you to believe that atmospheres supposedly have?

Venus' atmosphere is 95% CO2

Amaze me with your chemistry.

and, as scientists know, more CO2 means heat is lost more slowly.

Nope. Scientists know what heat is. Scientists know that atmospheric composition does not alter any planet's adherence to Stefan-Boltzmann. Scientists don't ascribe a velocity to heat. Scientists understand the Ideal Gas law. Scientists know that no substance has any magical superpower to defy thermodynamics.

Let's jump to the chase. You don't understand any of this, and all of this is necessary to discuss Venus which has become a pitfall for you. Don't hesitate to let me know when you want to discuss Venus again.

That's why the surface of Venus is over 400 degrees.

Nope. It's the intense atmospheric pressure that is responsible for that. This will be my third or fourth mention of the Ideal Gas law. You should learn it because it explains most of the physics you are trying to explain as being the magical superpowers of greenhouse gas. Notice that I said that you should learn it; you and I both know that you won't, and that your refusal to learn it will provide me amusement without end.

Your word games, deflections and denials

I get a thorough kick out of your mischaracterizations of science, but heck, you are a religious fanatic and a science denier. What else should anyone expect?

 

[ZenMode]

Nothing broadcasts that you are a science denier moreso than referring to science as "word games" just because it runs counter to your religious dogma.


Only a completely scientifically illiterate moron would say something that stupid. I have already directed your attention to conduction and pointed out to you that the earth is surrounded by the vacuum of space, i.e. neither insulation nor conduction apply ... but once again you have shown that you have no intention of learning any of the science that you fear, lest you lose your ability to maintain your self-delusion.


You just pivoted. Yes, the atmosphere reduces the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures, but that has nothing to do with "insulation." Do you even know what insulation is? You don't know what science is, you don't know what heat is, and you don't understand conduction/insulation. Remind me why anyone should listen to you. You have me here offering you all the correct answers for free and you reject everything I'm teaching you because it destroys the stupid, loser religion you gullibly embraced.

I got it! You're a masochist who enjoys being raked over the coals after allowing yourself to be bent over furniture for your slave-masters to ream ever more disinformation into you. I'm pretty clever that way.


Now you are using the term "slow" instead of "reduce." Who is playing the word games? (Answer: you are).

The correct answer is that cooling is not measured in speed/velocity. Yes, all speed/velocity measures are rates, but not all rates are speed/velocity. This is going to be a key point you should anticipate when you claim that greenhouse gas somehow "slows" infrared light's escape into space ... to something below the speed of light. I always enjoy when warmizombies insist that CO2 somehow "slows" earth's thermal radiation, despite knowing full well that light can only travel at the speed of light. Ahhhh, slowing light, too funny. I know that you want to insist the same thing, and you will ... I'm just letting you know in advance how I'm going to chop you off at the knees when you do, with a reminder that you are a preeminent science denier.

Here's the next lesson for you to not learn: Increasing the insulation of the thermos will reduce the loss of thermal energy and will increase the loss of heat. Aha! You didn't expect that, did you? That doesn't make sense to you, does it? Of course not. You don't know what heat is and you refuse to learn. You'd rather use all the wrong words and then accuse me of playing word games. You're a lot of fun when you are confused, and you are confused often.

By the way, you'll notice that this thread is completely devoid of any Global Warming or Climate science, because no such science exists. There can't ever be any such thing as science of a religion, especially of your contradictory religion of HATRED and intolerance. It's the leftist undereducation, scienctific illiteracy and mathematical incompetence that get leftists targeted for indoctrination, which entails instilling great fear and HATRED of science. That's why you refuse to learn anything that I teach you, leaving me to enjoy totally spanking you over material that I just taught you.


Nope. Venus radiates per Stefan-Boltzmann, i.e. proportional to its absolute temperature to the fourth power, just as every other body of matter in the universe. Venus' atmosphere cannot change that. Just what kind of magical superpowers do your slave-masters order you to believe that atmospheres supposedly have?


Amaze me with your chemistry.


Nope. Scientists know what heat is. Scientists know that atmospheric composition does not alter any planet's adherence to Stefan-Boltzmann. Scientists don't ascribe a velocity to heat. Scientists understand the Ideal Gas law. Scientists know that no substance has any magical superpower to defy thermodynamics.

Let's jump to the chase. You don't understand any of this, and all of this is necessary to discuss Venus which has become a pitfall for you. Don't hesitate to let me know when you want to discuss Venus again.


Nope. It's the intense atmospheric pressure that is responsible for that. This will be my third or fourth mention of the Ideal Gas law. You should learn it because it explains most of the physics you are trying to explain as being the magical superpowers of greenhouse gas. Notice that I said that you should learn it; you and I both know that you won't, and that your refusal to learn it will provide me amusement without end.


I get a thorough kick out of your mischaracterizations of science, but heck, you are a religious fanatic and a science denier. What else should anyone expect?

CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs light, which causes an eventual increase in temperature. Venus is the hottest planet because it’s atmosphere is so dense and full of greenhouse gasses that trap light/energy.

It’s honestly baffling that you fail to grasp something so basic.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

CO2 is a greenhouse gas because it absorbs light, which causes an eventual increase in temperature. Venus is the hottest planet because it’s atmosphere is so dense and full of greenhouse gasses that trap light/energy.

It’s honestly baffling that you fail to grasp something so basic.

Well, I showed Ibdaman an FTIR absorption spectrum which featured a HUGE CO2 peak (showing significant absorption by CO2 of IR radiation) and he didn't really know what it meant. So it's quite understandable that they don't grasp something this basic.

It's also hilarious to get IBDaMan to try to talk science. It's clear they haven't got more than maybe a high school science background, probably. more likely junior high.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

The atmosphere doesn't change the temperature of the Earth.

You talked a lot about Stefan-Boltzmann a few months back. Guess this shows you don't really know what it implies. LOL. Figures.

The guy that doesn't even fucking know the difference between the blackbody temperature of the earth (from Stefan-Boltzmann) and the temperature at the surface.

Why am I not surprised that you'd be scientifically illiterate? LOL.

 

[Kamala Trump]

You talked a lot about Stefan-Boltzmann a few months back. Guess this shows you don't really know what it implies. LOL. Figures.

The guy that doesn't even fucking know the difference between the blackbody temperature of the earth (from Stefan-Boltzmann) and the temperature at the surface.

Why am I not surprised that you'd be scientifically illiterate? LOL.

implications are not enough for dipshit policy.

you greenies have been wrong for 60 years and you're getting dumber and more totalitarian.

it's not a good trend.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

implications are not enough for dipshit policy.

you greenies have been wrong for 60 years and you're getting dumber and more totalitarian.

it's not a good trend.

LOL. Look at you highlight ONE WORD and not understand the post at all! Very interesting.

 

[Kamala Trump]

LOL. Look at the moron highlight ONE WORD and not understand the post at all! Very interesting.

implications are worth little.

all your greeny dire predictions have been wrong.