Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[Into the Night]

i'm sure you have. That is widely accepted belief in the scientific community. The question you should ask yourself is why you, and others, want SO badly to not believe it.

The Church of Global Warming is not the scientific community.
I don't need to ask myself why I should believe your wacky religion.

I go with science...the science YOU deny and discard. Until someone comes up with a falsification of them, I hold them to be True for the time being. It is YOU that is denying theories of science.

 

[Into the Night]

You're asking a lot of questions, related to the basics of greenhouse gases, for someone who has taken such a definitive position against climate change.

There are no 'greenhouse gases' or Holy Gas, other than as a religious artifact. Climate cannot change.

Which gasses do not absorb light? Which solids? Which liquids?

For the purposes of this discussion, I'm only going to discuss gases. Of the gases that commonly exist in the Earth's atmosphere, they all absorb light. They just absorb different frequencies of light. The frequency that is the concern with climate change is infrared:

ALL gases absorb infrared light.
Climate cannot change.

For example, oxygen and nitrogen absorb energy that has tightly packed wavelengths of around 200 nanometers or less, whereas infrared energy travels at wider and lazier wavelengths of 700 to 1,000,000 nanometers. Those ranges don’t overlap, so to oxygen and nitrogen, it’s as if the infrared waves don’t even exist; they let the waves (and heat) pass freely through the atmosphere.

Both oxygen and nitrogen absorb infrared light. Light is not heat.

With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’

All gases absorb infrared light. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy.

Smerdon says that the reason why some molecules absorb infrared waves and some don’t “depends on their geometry and their composition.” He explained that oxygen and nitrogen molecules are simple — they’re each made up of only two atoms of the same element — which narrows their movements and the variety of wavelengths they can interact with. But greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane are made up of three or more atoms, which gives them a larger variety of ways to stretch and bend and twist. That means they can absorb a wider range of wavelengths — including infrared waves.

Smerdon is wrong, and not a scientist, for he denies science just as you do.

https://news.climate.columbia.edu/2021/02/25/carbon-dioxide-cause-global-warming/

Trying to claim you have no mind again? You already claimed these priests of your religion.

Correct.
That is described in the exceprt immediately above.

You mean Holy Scripture.

Different atmospheric gases absorb different frequencies of light. As described above, two of the characteristics are, as I referenced earlier, loose molecular bonds and the frequency of light that is absorbed.

Carbon dioxide does not have a 'loose' molecular bond. It takes considerable energy to break it.

Again, it's described above. The term "absorbed" is used. If you like that word better than my word, that's fine. As described above, it's both.

Absorption is not emission.

Again, as I mentioned to start this post, it's odd that someone who is so set against climate change doesn't already understand the basics of greenhouse gases.

Climate cannot change. I understand your stupid religion quite well. It routinely discards the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It also routinely discards statistical, probability, and random number mathematics. I have also seen it routinely discard chemistry, quantum mechanics, Planck's law, fluid dynamics, sound engineering principles, Ohm's law, and even Newton's laws of motion and gravity.

There is no additional energy produced by the sun.

At least you accept this. The Sun is a remarkably stable star.

Less of the energy is escaping into space because of an increase in CO2, which is a greenhouse gas.

You cannot trap heat, light, or thermal energy.

If that's your takeaway from what I've been saying, then there is a serious miscommunication happening here.

Yours.

Greenhouse gases don't exist?

That's right. They don't exist, except as a religious artifact. They are the so-called Holy Gas.

So, you're saying that the science world is just flat-out lying

Religion isn't science.

about different gas molecules absorbing different light frequencies?

All gas molecules absorb infrared light.

 

[Into the Night]

Neither of those, even if true, would impact climate change being real.

Buzzword fallacy. Climate cannot change. Learn what 'real' means.

 

[Into the Night]

The question, as presented to start this thread, is why anyone should believe in climate change. Well, anyone that has a basic understanding of greenhouse gases, and its dramatic impact on other planets, has reason to believe in climate change.

So, anyone that believes in the Holy Gas, and that climate can somehow be 'changed' (which nullifies the word 'climate'), and believes that 'drama' is an impact, is a devout worshiper in the Church of Global Warming. Gotit.

 

[ZenMode]

So, anyone that believes in the Holy Gas, and that climate can somehow be 'changed' (which nullifies the word 'climate'), and believes that 'drama' is an impact, is a devout worshiper in the Church of Global Warming. Gotit.

Explain this experiment with your "holy gas":

 

[Into the Night]

On a side note, I admit that I've ignored the talk about the Stefan-Boltzmann law to this point. To imagine that the entirety of the science community has "missed it" is just silly, IMO, but that's neither here nor there....

Now that I've looked into it, I'm confused as to how a claim that the earths atmosphere is holding more heat due to greenhouse gases like CO2 "violates" a law related to energy emitted from a body, like the Sun. I've never heard any discussion about climate change that references the sun putting off more heat.

It is not possible to 'hold heat'. Climate cannot change. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas' except as a religious artifact.

Since YOU have actually made the silly argument that CO2 is somehow 'smart' and somehow absorbs only infrared light from one source and not another source, YOU are the one I am laughing at!

 

[IBDaMann]

Well described. I am just pointing out there is no reduction of volume going on here. It is all effectively steady-state (ignoring wind and other fluid effects).

Spot on.

 

[IBDaMann]

The question, as presented to start this thread, is why anyone should believe in climate change.

Correct. Specifically, why any rational adult should believe. This requires a rational basis, i.e. science, math, logic, repeatable observation, etc ...

Well, anyone that has a basic understanding of greenhouse gases,

There is no such thing as an "understanding" of greenhouse gases. There are only religious beliefs in greenhouse gases, and those beliefs are not rational.

You can't point to religious beliefs as providing a rational basis for other religious beliefs.

and its dramatic impact on other planets,

Nonexistent substances with magical superpowers are only affecting other planets in science fiction.

Would you care to try again?

 

[Into the Night]

Explain this experiment with your "holy gas":

Yawn. You fell for this parlor trick, and now you actually turn to it as 'proof'.

All it shows is that both bottles absorb infrared light, which you say is not possible.

So you are actually arguing:

1) Earth's surface is warmer because CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infrared light.
2) Earth's surface is cooler because CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infrared light.

Most light from the Sun is infrared light.

Visible light does not heat anything. Absorption of visible light does NOT convert to thermal energy. It usually converts to chemical energy (such as breaking down some plastics or providing energy for photosynthesis (conversion of water and carbon dioxide to carbohydrates and oxygen).

Again, you are literally saying the CO2 heats itself, and you are now trying to argue a paradox. Arguing a paradox is irrational.

 

[ZenMode]

Yawn. You fell for this parlor trick, and now you actually turn to it as 'proof'.

All it shows is that both bottles absorb infrared light, which you say is not possible.

So you are actually arguing:

1) Earth's surface is warmer because CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infrared light.
2) Earth's surface is cooler because CO2 in the atmosphere absorbs infrared light.

Most light from the Sun is infrared light.

Visible light does not heat anything. Absorption of visible light does NOT convert to thermal energy. It usually converts to chemical energy (such as breaking down some plastics or providing energy for photosynthesis (conversion of water and carbon dioxide to carbohydrates and oxygen).

Again, you are literally saying the CO2 heats itself, and you are now trying to argue a paradox. Arguing a paradox is irrational.

Do you think it's a coincidence that the CO2 side has a higher temperature?

No, the light from the sun doesn't impact the atmosphere. It's when that light leaves the earth, in the form of infrared light, that it is absorbed by certain gas molecules.

How does someone so certain that climate change is a lie not know this?

 

[IBDaMann]

You're asking a lot of questions,

Does that bother you?

Of the gases that commonly exist in the Earth's atmosphere, they all absorb light.

Which ones do not absorb infrared.

So, at this point you are simply regurgitating what others have told you to say and you won't call booooooolsch't on any of the absurd crap like you should. Therefore, you are going to claim that neither oxygen nor nitrogen absorb infrared. I will then ask you what would happen to the temperature of a cloud of pure oxygen/nitrogen within close proximity to the sun. You will respond that the cloud will get very hot. I will ask you how that can be if, as you say, it doesn't absorb IR. You will then pivot very unsubtly.

For example, oxygen and nitrogen absorb energy that has tightly packed wavelengths of around 200 nanometers or less,

Did it ever occur to you that "tightly packed" is a totally inappropriate characterization of wavelengths?

... whereas infrared energy travels at wider and lazier wavelengths

Lazier? Do you mean slower than other wavelengths? What is a "wide" wavelength anyway? Does it carry a "Wide Load" warning sign?

As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy,

Soaks up? As in the quicker-picker-upper? Are CO2 puddles common?

it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions.

You blew it here. I have already taught you (several times) that matter emits per Stefan-Boltzmann. Matter never "re-emits" anything. So, you think any given body of matter is a repeater?

About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat,

Your religion sure is WACKY.

Once a photon leaves the earth, it does not turn around and return. You are one gullible moron. You really should have stayed in school instead of running away with the circus.

By the way, the earth's atmosphere is part of the earth.

Smerdon says that the reason why some molecules absorb infrared waves and some don’t “depends on their geometry and their composition.”

All matter/substances absorb IR. Put something, anything, near the sun and it will get very hot.

So, you're saying that the science world is just flat-out lying about different gas molecules absorbing different light frequencies?

I'm saying that you are a chump. Your church is lying to you. All substances absorb IR. That you believe your church is "the thienth community" makes me wonder if you are smoking something illicit.

.

 

[IBDaMann]

Explain this experiment with your "holy gas":

It's a parlor trick intended to puzzle the stupid.

Do you believe every trick you see is real? Do you believe that a man can actually levitate a woman?

Questions to consider:

* Why is the parlor trick always performed indoors, in a dark room, where no sunlight can enter and ruin the trick?
* Why have lamps that "represent" the sun instead of just performing the trick outdoors in the sun?
* When the CO2 absorbs more, why aren't you asking "How is the nitrogen/oxygen absorbing any in the first place?"
* Why is the experiment never repeated with ultraviolet light, which acts on oxygen but not on CO2?

 

[gfm7175]

The Church of Global Warming is a fundamentalist style religion. Like any fundamentalist style religion, the only sermon is attempts to prove that religion is True.
So it's basically the same sermon over and over. They basically figure that if they chant it often enough, you'll believe them. Call it, "forcible assault on the ear".

"forcible assault on the ear" hahaha now THAT'S funny.

 

[Into the Night]

Do you think it's a coincidence that the CO2 side has a higher temperature?

No. CO2 happens to absorb infrared light. So?

No, the light from the sun doesn't impact the atmosphere.

CO2 is in the atmosphere. Which is it, dude? You are locked in another paradox. Your are being irrational.
The Sun warms the atmosphere just like warms any other mass. You probably also have no clue why the sky is blue during the day but not at night, or why the Sun appears red at sunrise and sunset.

It's when that light leaves the earth, in the form of infrared light, that it is absorbed by certain gas molecules.

CO2 molecules are not 'smart'. There is no computer in them. They do not pick the source to absorb infrared light from.

How does someone so certain that climate change is a lie not know this?

Climate cannot change.

 

[ZenMode]

It is not possible to 'hold heat'.

To clarify, when scientists talk about CO2 absorbing infrared light and the emitting it in the form of heat, you're saying that the atmosphere is not "holding" heat, right?

Climate cannot change.

It's a fact that the atmosphere of any moon or planet impacts the conditions on the surface of the planet. If the atmosphere of any given moon or planet were to change, are you saying that the conditions on the surface of that moon/planet would not change?

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas' except as a religious artifact.

Greenhouse gases have specific characteristics, among them is that they absorb infrared light, where other atmospheric gases do not. When you say greenhouse gases don't exist, what do you mean? Are you saying that the characteristics that are associated with greenhouse gases just don't exist?

Since YOU have actually made the silly argument that CO2 is somehow 'smart' and somehow absorbs only infrared light from one source and not another source, YOU are the one I am laughing at!

You don't believe that CO2 absorbs infrared light?

 

[ZenMode]

It's a parlor trick intended to puzzle the stupid.

Do you believe every trick you see is real? Do you believe that a man can actually levitate a woman?



Questions to consider:

* Why is the parlor trick always performed indoors, in a dark room, where no sunlight can enter and ruin the trick?
* Why have lamps that "represent" the sun instead of just performing the trick outdoors in the sun?
* When the CO2 absorbs more, why aren't you asking "How is the nitrogen/oxygen absorbing any in the first place?"
* Why is the experiment never repeated with ultraviolet light, which acts on oxygen but not on CO2?

Why is the parlor trick always performed indoors, in a dark room, where no sunlight can enter and ruin the trick?

You can find many videos of the same experiment, done by different people, under different conditions.

* Why have lamps that "represent" the sun instead of just performing the trick outdoors in the sun?

I've seen it done both ways. Have you ever looked into it?

* When the CO2 absorbs more, why aren't you asking "How is the nitrogen/oxygen absorbing any in the first place?"

Again, you're asking questions that you would know the answer to if you'd made any attempt to understand the science side of the topic.

* Why is the experiment never repeated with ultraviolet light, which acts on oxygen but not on CO2?

Again, questions you would know the answer to if you'd done any kind of research. The suns light leaves the surface of the earth differently than it enters it. The infrared light leaving the earth's surface is what interacts with CO2 to cause warming.

 

[Into the Night]

To clarify, when scientists talk about CO2 absorbing infrared light and the emitting it in the form of heat, you're saying that the atmosphere is not "holding" heat, right?

A climate 'sCiEnCtIsT' is not a scientist. They deny science.
You cannot hold (or trap) heat.
Light is not heat.

It's a fact that the atmosphere of any moon or planet impacts the conditions on the surface of the planet.

The atmosphere is part of the planet.

If the atmosphere of any given moon or planet were to change, are you saying that the conditions on the surface of that moon/planet would not change?

Attempted proof by contrivance.

Greenhouse gases have specific characteristics, among them is that they absorb infrared light, where other atmospheric gases do not.

All gases absorb infrared light.

When you say greenhouse gases don't exist, what do you mean?

They don't exist. There is no Holy Gas.

Are you saying that the characteristics that are associated with greenhouse gases just don't exist?

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

You don't believe that CO2 absorbs infrared light?

It does, just as all substances do. Obviously, you refuse to pay attention.

 

[ZenMode]

No. CO2 happens to absorb infrared light. So?

Now, we're going back to square 1. Awesome.

With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’

CO2 is in the atmosphere. Which is it, dude? You are locked in another paradox. Your are being irrational.
The Sun warms the atmosphere just like warms any other mass. You probably also have no clue why the sky is blue during the day but not at night, or why the Sun appears red at sunrise and sunset.

The part you deleted from that thought clears up the non-existent paradox. Here it is again:

It's when that light leaves the earth, in the form of infrared light, that it is absorbed by certain gas molecules.

CO2 molecules are not 'smart'. There is no computer in them. They do not pick the source to absorb infrared light from.

Correct. CO2 and other greenhouse gases don't have computers. They have characteristics that makes them behave differently than other gases. This is something that has been discussed previously. Here it is again:

Smerdon says that the reason why some molecules absorb infrared waves and some don’t “depends on their geometry and their composition.” He explained that oxygen and nitrogen molecules are simple — they’re each made up of only two atoms of the same element — which narrows their movements and the variety of wavelengths they can interact with. But greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane are made up of three or more atoms, which gives them a larger variety of ways to stretch and bend and twist. That means they can absorb a wider range of wavelengths — including infrared waves.

Climate cannot change.

Link?

 

[Into the Night]

Why is the parlor trick always performed indoors, in a dark room, where no sunlight can enter and ruin the trick?

You can find many videos of the same experiment, done by different people, under different conditions.

No. The same conditions.

* Why have lamps that "represent" the sun instead of just performing the trick outdoors in the sun?

I've seen it done both ways. Have you ever looked into it?

I see you like to be fooled by magic tricks.

* When the CO2 absorbs more, why aren't you asking "How is the nitrogen/oxygen absorbing any in the first place?"

Again, you're asking questions that you would know the answer to if you'd made any attempt to understand the science side of the topic.

There is no science here. Just a magic trick that you obviously completely fell for.

* Why is the experiment never repeated with ultraviolet light, which acts on oxygen but not on CO2?

Again, questions you would know the answer to if you'd done any kind of research. The suns light leaves the surface of the earth differently than it enters it. The infrared light leaving the earth's surface is what interacts with CO2 to cause warming.

Sunlight is not emitted by the Earth. It is emitted by the Sun.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are still ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Sunlight is mostly infrared, and you are actually saying that CO2 is somehow 'smart' or 'intelligent' in picking to absorb infrared from one source and not the other. Humunculus fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Now, we're going back to square 1. Awesome.

No squares.

With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different.

Different from what? There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas' except as a religious artifact.

Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are AGAIN ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The part you deleted from that thought clears up the non-existent paradox. Here it is again:
It's when that light leaves the earth, in the form of infrared light, that it is absorbed by certain gas molecules.

You have not cleared your paradox. You are only stating argument 2) again. You are still locked in paradox.

Correct. CO2 and other greenhouse gases don't have computers. They have characteristics that makes them behave differently than other gases. This is something that has been discussed previously. Here it is again:

Smerdon says that the reason why some molecules absorb infrared waves and some don’t “depends on their geometry and their composition.” He explained that oxygen and nitrogen molecules are simple — they’re each made up of only two atoms of the same element — which narrows their movements and the variety of wavelengths they can interact with. But greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane are made up of three or more atoms, which gives them a larger variety of ways to stretch and bend and twist. That means they can absorb a wider range of wavelengths — including infrared waves.

Smerdon is wrong. I have already shown you why. RAAA.

Link?

Definitions don't need a link. Learn what 'climate' is. Learn what 'heat' is. Your insistence to deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law speaks for itself.