Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[Saint Guinefort]

Why are you constantly trying to derail science conversations by turning them into bizarre declarations of what others supposedly don't know? Can't you just stick to science?

For the same reason you and your socks bring up these topics which you clearly don't understand.

What do YOU think S-B says? Because your sock, Into, thinks it DOESN'T tell us temperature. Despite the fact that it EXPLICITLY states that it is a calculation of T^4?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

RADIANCE is determined by TEMPERATURE, not the other way around. The Stefan-Boltzmann law calculates RADIANCE given a TEMPERATURE. That's why it is always written "RADIANCE = (insert function here)"

You don't understand how to work with equations. It can be re-arranged to give Temperature EXPLICITLY. In fact it is how one calculates the Blackbody temperature of a given item.

Go back and learn how to re-arrange equations. I'd say go back to elementary school math class.

 

[IBDaMann]

You don't understand how to work with equations. It can be re-arranged to give Temperature EXPLICITLY.

The technical term for this is "algebra." Yes, I understand how math works, but you don't understand how physics works. Physics predicts nature via cause -> effect. You can't swap cause with effect. That's why TEMPERATURE is the independent variable and RADIANCE is the dependent variable.

Earth's radiance is caused by earth's temperature. Earth's temperature is not caused by earth's radiance. Telling me that you learned algebra at some point doesn't mean that greenhouse effect suddenly works somehow by having the earth's radiance control the earth's temperature. Your arguments go down in flames and you broadcast that you are a mathematically incompetent moron when you try to argue that nature somehow works differently because you altered science by swapping dependent and independent variables ... and that you did so because you don't understand cause -> effect.

In fact it is how one calculates the Blackbody temperature of a given item.

Incorrect. One uses a thermometer to measure the temperature of a given item. Really. Ask somebody. I don't care who.

If an engineer wishes to calculate what a temperature will be for a given body, he will use conduction, convection and radiativity/absorptivity equations.

... but I have you down as believing that temperatures are somehow computed by measuring their radiance, as though this is somehow done by someone somewhere, and that you believe this because algebra exists.

You are a geniuth.

 

[IBDaMann]

For the same reason you and your socks bring up these topics which you clearly don't understand.

Well, I don't have any socks, but you and your socks keep pretending that you are omniscient and keep trying to declare what others don't know ... and you are always declaring as "not known" topics that you and your socks don't understand at all.

What do YOU think S-B says? Because your sock, Into, thinks it DOESN'T tell us temperature. Despite the fact that it EXPLICITLY states that it is a calculation of T^4?

Stefan-Boltzmann calculates RADIANCE given a TEMPERATURE. You should listen to Into the Night on this one. It will become pretty straightforward once you learn about dependent and independent variables (math) and learn that you can't just swap CAUSE with EFFECT as convenient (science).

I highly recommend learning all of that immediately, but if you want to take the easy way, just go with what Into the Night is telling you. The reason Stefan-Boltzmann is always written RADIANCE = (insert function) is that it computes RADIANCE.

 

[Into the Night]

For the same reason you and your socks bring up these topics which you clearly don't understand.

What do YOU think S-B says? Because your sock, Into, thinks it DOESN'T tell us temperature. Despite the fact that it EXPLICITLY states that it is a calculation of T^4?

He has no sock, Sock. Neither do I. Apparently you can't tell we are two different people.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate temperature.

 

[Into the Night]

You don't understand how to work with equations. It can be re-arranged to give Temperature EXPLICITLY. In fact it is how one calculates the Blackbody temperature of a given item.

Go back and learn how to re-arrange equations. I'd say go back to elementary school math class.

Math error. You cannot use algebra here.
The Earth's emissivity is unknown. The amount of radiance due to the Stefan-Boltzmann law is unknown. The Earth's temperature is unknown. You are AGAIN denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law AND mathematics.

There is a reason temperature is the independent value and the radiance is the dependent one.

You are trying to trap light (reduce radiance) while temperature is increasing. You can't trap light.

 

[ZenMode]

The laws of thermodynamics, Stefan-Boltzman and Planck's law represent the science that kill your Global Warming religion, principally by quashing your greenhouse effect doctrine. Warmizombies cannot make their dogma "work" without violating this science in some way.

1. Global Warming is the Marxist religion that asserts the inexplicable spontaneous increase in earth's average global temperature despite unchanging solar output, i.e. the equilibrium temperature simply increases without any additional energy. This is an egregious violation of Planck's law, the zeroth law of thermodynamics and of all black body science.

2. greenhouse effect is the doctrine that provides the holy mechanism for earth's Global Warming (see point 1) which began during the Industrial Revolution, specifically upon the writing of the sacred Communist Manifesto text. Global Warming, as taught by the Church, is caused by miraculous greenhouse gases which are attributed to human activity (that all points back to conservatives) that have magical superpowers to defy physics, as follows:

- 2a. The force awakens within greenhouse gases, which begin creating additional energy out of nothing, in miraculous violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. This miraculously-created thermal energy increases the earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output. The massive increase in human activity at the hands of GREEDY, fascist, socialist conservatives is the cause of the heavily accelerated increase in global temperatures that we must delude ourselves into seeing.

... when it is pointed out that point 2a is an egregious violation of thermodynamics, the preacher backpedals from 2a with the words "no one is claiming that energy is created out of nothing ..." and then seamlessly pivots to 2b, as such:

- 2b. greenhouse gases act as insulation, like a big, warm, cumfy wool blanket that cradles the earth in Global Warming. This cumfy blanket is totally transparent/non-existent to inbound solar energy, but then "traps" some of earth's "heat" by preventing earth's radiance (thermal radiation) from escaping into space. This causes a direct increase in the earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output.

... when it is pointed out that point 2b is an egregious violation of Stefan-Boltzmann, because radiance and temperature always move in the same direction, i.e. you can't have an increase in temperature with a decrease in radiance, the preacher backpedals from 2b with the words "no one is claiming that radiance is being decreased ..." and then seamlessly pivots to 2c, as such:

- 2c. The earth, in equilibrium, radiates thermally into space exactly what it absorbs, without creating any additional energy out of nothing, which is exactly what has been taught all along. The earth's thermal radiation, however, is simply absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and half of that energy is re-radiated back down to earth, increasing the temperature of the surface, which therefore provides additional thermal radiation to the atmosphere which balances out the quantity of thermal radiation needed to escape into space and maintain equilibrium.

... when it is pointed out that point 2c is an egregious violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because the much warmer lithosphere cannot be heated by the much cooler atmosphere, the preacher backpedals from 2c with the words "no one is claiming that the cooler atmosphere is somehow warming the earth ..." and then seamlessly pivots to 2a, as such:

- 2a. The force awakens within greenhouse gases, which begin creating additional energy out of nothing, in miraculous violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. This miraculously-created thermal energy increases the earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output. The massive increase in human activity at the hands of GREEDY, fascist, socialist conservatives is the cause of the heavily accelerated increase in global temperatures that we must delude ourselves into seeing.

... and the cycle continues forever.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Multiple times you say "additional energy out of nothing". Where in the process, as it's been described, is energy created out of nothing?

 

[IBDaMann]

Multiple times you say "additional energy out of nothing". Where in the process, as it's been described, is energy created out of nothing?

Multiple times you claimed that the resulting effect of additional greenhouse gas is an increase in earth's average global temperature. This is where you are claiming additional energy out of nothing. It is your claim. You insist that with constant solar output but with additional greenhouse gas, the earth's average global temperature increases. It is your claim.

No body of matter anywhere in the universe simply increases in temperature without additional energy. Your claim is that the greenhouse gas causes this increase in temperature. Ergo, you are claiming that greenhouse gas creates the additional energy out of nothing. Of course, as I indicate in my post, that whenever we return to this point in the conversation, you are required to assert that "no one is claiming that energy is created out of nothing ..." as you try to pivot to point 2b, but this time I'm going to stop you. I'm going to confirm that you are now going to insist that greenhouse gas is not providing any additional energy and therefore cannot be increasing the earth's temperature any.

Thank you for walking through that with me. Now would be a good time for you to ditch your stupid religion. It makes you more stupid by the day. There is still time to save yourself.

 

[archives]

Multiple times you claimed that the resulting effect of additional greenhouse gas is an increase in earth's average global temperature. This is where you are claiming additional energy out of nothing. It is your claim. You insist that with constant solar output but with additional greenhouse gas, the earth's average global temperature increases. It is your claim.

No body of matter anywhere in the universe simply increases in temperature without additional energy. Your claim is that the greenhouse gas causes this increase in temperature. Ergo, you are claiming that greenhouse gas creates the additional energy out of nothing. Of course, as I indicate in my post, that whenever we return to this point in the conversation, you are required to assert that "no one is claiming that energy is created out of nothing ..." as you try to pivot to point 2b, but this time I'm going to stop you. I'm going to confirm that you are now going to insist that greenhouse gas is not providing any additional energy and therefore cannot be increasing the earth's temperature any.

Thank you for walking through that with me. Now would be a good time for you to ditch your stupid religion. It makes you more stupid by the day. There is still time to save yourself.

Always humorous how the flat Earthers come up with some supposed overlooked “scientific fact” that they claim invalidates the view of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. They master the semantics, the linguistics, which gives them the appearance they actually know what they are talking about, and then in some semi phenomenological manner present their “arguement” as proof

All an attempt to create a false paradigm, can find the “arguements” everywhere searching flat earther websites, sites usually traced back to some fossil fuel entity

I’ll go with NASA, and the litany of scientific facts they present, rather than a website “scholar” professing contrarian views

 

[gfm7175]

Poor anchovies.......

 

[archives]

Poor anchovies.......

As I said, all attempts to create a false paradigm, not everyone swallows the bullshit

 

[ZenMode]

Multiple times you claimed that the resulting effect of additional greenhouse gas is an increase in earth's average global temperature. This is where you are claiming additional energy out of nothing.

No. I'm claiming that more of the existing energy is not escaping into space.

It is your claim.

No. Nothing I said implies that more energy is being created. If you've ever put your hand over a fire or sat in your car on a sunny day with the windows closed, you will notice an increase in temperature despite there being no additional energy created.

You insist that with constant solar output but with additional greenhouse gas, the earth's average global temperature increases. It is your claim.

Yes. Not because more energy is magically being created, but because less of it is escaping into space.

No body of matter anywhere in the universe simply increases in temperature without additional energy. Your claim is that the greenhouse gas causes this increase in temperature. Ergo, you are claiming that greenhouse gas creates the additional energy out of nothing. Of course, as I indicate in my post, that whenever we return to this point in the conversation, you are required to assert that "no one is claiming that energy is created out of nothing ..." as you try to pivot to point 2b, but this time I'm going to stop you. I'm going to confirm that you are now going to insist that greenhouse gas is not providing any additional energy and therefore cannot be increasing the earth's temperature any.

Thank you for walking through that with me. Now would be a good time for you to ditch your stupid religion. It makes you more stupid by the day. There is still time to save yourself.

Again, nothing I've said was meant to imply, nor should be taken as implying, that energy is being magically created. Temperatures increase and decrease everywhere in the world, on a second by second basis, with no additional energy being created. Are you denying that temperatures change in specific locations, whether it be a garbage can outside your house, your neighborhood, whatever state you live in, etc?

 

[Into the Night]

Always humorous how the flat Earthers come up with some supposed overlooked “scientific fact” that they claim invalidates the view of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists. They master the semantics, the linguistics, which gives them the appearance they actually know what they are talking about, and then in some semi phenomenological manner present their “arguement” as proof

All an attempt to create a false paradigm, can find the “arguements” everywhere searching flat earther websites, sites usually traced back to some fossil fuel entity

I’ll go with NASA, and the litany of scientific facts they present, rather than a website “scholar” professing contrarian views

The Earth is not flat.
Science is not facts. Learn what 'fact' means.
There is no such thing as a 'climate scientist'. Priests are not scientists.
It is YOU ignoring theories of science. It is YOU playing the word games.
Fossils are not used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.
NASA is not science. Science is not a government agency.

The laws of thermodynamics are pretty simple and they've been presented to you. You just choose to ignore them. These are theories of science you are ignoring.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is fairly simply and it's already been presented to you. You just choose to ignore it. This is another theory of science you are ignoring.

NASA did not create any of these theories.

 

[Into the Night]

As I said, all attempts to create a false paradigm, not everyone swallows the bullshit

Poor anchovies.... still trying to deny theories of science. Now he calls them a 'false paradigm'!

 

[Into the Night]

No. I'm claiming that more of the existing energy is not escaping into space.

...annnnnnnd back to argument 2b. No, you cannot trap heat, thermal energy, or light.

No. Nothing I said implies that more energy is being created.

Blatant lie. You claimed that a Holy Gas can heat the Earth simply by being there. You are trying to create energy out of nothing.

If you've ever put your hand over a fire or sat in your car on a sunny day with the windows closed, you will notice an increase in temperature despite there being no additional energy created.

Fire is a source of energy. So is the Sun. The interior of cars get warmer on a sunny day because heat is reduced.

Yes. Not because more energy is magically being created, but because less of it is escaping into space.

No, you cannot trap heat, light, or thermal energy. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Again, nothing I've said was meant to imply, nor should be taken as implying, that energy is being magically created.

You have made that argument (2a), and now you are pivoting to argument (2b).

Temperatures increase and decrease everywhere in the world, on a second by second basis, with no additional energy being created.

The Sun is a source of energy. It does not evenly heat the surface of Earth.

Are you denying that temperatures change in specific locations, whether it be a garbage can outside your house, your neighborhood, whatever state you live in, etc?

No. He (and I) are denying that a Magick Holy gas can cause any of it.

 

[IBDaMann]

Always humorous how the flat Earthers come up with some supposed overlooked “scientific fact” that they claim invalidates the view of the overwhelming majority of climate scientists.

Always humorous how the luddites and the moon landing-deniers come up with some supposedly overlooked “scientific fact” that they claim proves their Climate Change religion and that thettled thienth is somehow determined by a consensus of their scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent clergy ... whom they call "climate thientiths".

They master the semantics, the linguistics, which gives them the appearance they actually know what they are talking about, and then in some semi phenomenological manner present their “arguement” as proof

The word for what is attempted to be explained to you is "science." I get it. You FEAR it, and you HATE it. It destroys your religious beliefs and bursts the warm, protective bubble on your imaginary safe space, and you find that terrifyingly unacceptable. You were taught at your indoctrination that profound, unquestioning belief in Climate Change would transform you into a thienth geniuth. You believed them when they told you this. You trusted them implicitly. Come to find out that they were just using you for the butt sex you would provide for years to come.

All an attempt to create a false paradigm

You probably don't fully understand what a "paradigm" is. It's more likely that, right now, you are simply posting something that was handed to you for you to regurgitate, probably something that traces back to some moon landing denier organization.

I’ll go with NASA, and the litany of scientific facts they present ...

... because you are gullible. NASA doesn't track that data. All of those charts and graphics that you take on face value were created by some pimply-faced teenager in his mother's basement. Oh, and he was sure to slap the NASA logo, the NOAA logo and perhaps the logo for some other space center on it to ensure you were obligated to believe and OBEY. The point is that you fell for it because you are scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent, logically inept, you don't understand what our government agencies do, you have no idea how to apply any sort of critical reasoning, and you are as gullible as they come.

... rather than a website “scholar” professing contrarian views

Wait! That's exactly how you get all of your dogma to regurgitate! Too funny.

 

[gfm7175]

No.

Of course you're not saying what you've already said.

I'm claiming that more of the existing energy

Interesting... because, of course, "you're not saying that" "temperature is increasing without any additional energy".

is not escaping into space.

IOW, you're saying that Earth's radiance is being reduced, as that would be the result of, as you have worded it here, "more of the existing energy is not escaping into space". Here is the Stefan Boltzmann Law in "layman" terms:

[Radiance] = [Temperature^4] * [Boltzmann Constant] * [Emissivity Constant]

Notice that the last two items on the right side of the equals sign are constants, which means that those amounts "are what they are" (they don't differ). The amounts that can differ are the [Radiance] amount and the [Temperature^4] amount.

In an equation, both sides of the equation must equal one other. For example, 162 = [3^4] * 2 * 1. Ergo, IF, as you say, the [Radiance] amount has been reduced ("existing energy is not escaping into space"), THEN the [Temperature^4] amount would actually likewise DECREASE in order to retain the equation. E.g. 100 = (2.659148^4) * 2 * 1

This is but one bit of science that is standing in the way of your moronic religion.

No.

Of course you're not saying what you've already said.

Nothing I said implies that more energy is being created.

You've implied that energy can be created out of nothing... IOW, a spontaneous temperature increase. "Whoomp, there it is".

If you've ever put your hand over a fire or sat in your car on a sunny day with the windows closed, you will notice an increase in temperature despite there being no additional energy created.

I know it's not nice to laugh like that, but... sometimes a person just can't hold it in...



[1] Fire is an energy source.
[2] The interior of your car is warmer due to reduced heat.

In context of this discussion, the Earth is not the Sun nor is it a greenhouse.

Yes. Not because more energy is magically being created, but because less of it is escaping into space.

And this is the part of the discussion in which you reject Stefan Boltzmann as I've explained to you above.

IBDaMann sure has your response sequence down perfectly. It's almost as if he's participated in this particular exchange with warmizombies numerous times before...

So I take it this is where you're going to tell me that "no one is claiming that radiance is being decreased ..." and then pivot over to part '2c' of the sequence??

Again, nothing I've said was meant to imply, nor should be taken as implying, that energy is being magically created. Temperatures increase and decrease everywhere in the world, on a second by second basis, with no additional energy being created. Are you denying that temperatures change in specific locations, whether it be a garbage can outside your house, your neighborhood, whatever state you live in, etc?

Sorry, but this discussion is about YOUR CLAIMS, not any non-existent claims that you're trying to project onto others... Stay focused...

 

[IBDaMann]

No. I'm claiming that more of the existing energy is not escaping into space.

You're too late. I already predicted that you would argue that greenhouse gas creates energy out of nothing, and that when it is pointed out that this is an egregious violation of thermodynamics, that you would assert that you aren't claiming that any energy is being created out of nothing, and that you would pivot to argument 2b, i.e. that greenhouse gas prevents some of earth's thermal radiation from escaping into space, which is an egregious violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. If I were to let you continue, you would repeatedly cycle through all of the specified arguments without end.

Instead, I'm going to have you back up and return to your overarching claim that greenhouse gas somehow causes earth's equilibrium temperature to magically increase without any additional energy. On the one hand you are insisting that the earth's temperature is increasing. On the other hand, you are insisting that there is no additional energy, only additional greenhouse gas. This is not possible. No body of matter anywhere ever spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy.

You don't have any wiggle room. Either you need to eliminate your insistence that the earth's temperature is increasing or you need to account for the miraculous creation of additional energy out of nothing. You're argument is a shitty position to have and will lose every time.

No. Nothing I said implies that more energy is being created.

Exactly, therefore earth's temperature cannot be increasing.

If you've ever put your hand over a fire or sat in your car on a sunny day with the windows closed, you will notice an increase in temperature despite there being no additional energy created.

The car's windows practically eliminate all convection. This does not apply to the vacuum surrounding the earth.

Yes. Not because more energy is magically being created, but because less of it is escaping into space.

This is your pivot to argument 2b and is an egregious violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. Temperature and Radiance always move in the same direction, i.e. if Temperature increases then Radiance increases and if Temperature decreases then Radiance decreases (Radiance is the dependent variable, Temperature is the independent variable). But you are trying to claim that Temperature and Radiance move in opposite directions, i.e. a decrease in Radiance (less lost to space) is somehow accompanied by an increase in Temperature that erroneously has Radiance as the independent variable and Temperature as the dependent variable (you have them backwards).

I'm not going to stick around while you pivot to argument 2c and continue cycling through the arguments just to buy time. Every aspect of your religion violates physics, which is why you don't have any actual scientists on your side except for those who were gullible as you were and who adopted the religion without ever calling booooolsch't.

Again, nothing I've said was meant to imply, nor should be taken as implying, that energy is being magically created.

Not at this point. You will, however state it again like we never had this conversation when you cycle back through argument 2a and when you talk about Global Warming in general. It's inherent in your claim, i.e. earth's temperature increases, not because of any increased output from the sun, but because of the mere existence of greenhouse gas. You insist that the greenhouse gas causes the temperature increase. Ergo, you are claiming that the greenhouse gas is somehow creating the additional energy needed to cause the temperature to increase.

You should just hang it up.

Temperatures increase and decrease everywhere in the world, on a second by second basis, with no additional energy being created.

... but the global average temperature can only increase with additional energy. You claim that greenhouse gas does this.

Are you denying that temperatures change in specific locations, ...

Not at all. Earth's thermal energy distribution changes constantly. Without additional energy, earth's quantity of thermal energy cannot increase and the average temperature will not increase, despite the ever changing local temperatures.

 

[ZenMode]

Multiple times you claimed that the resulting effect of additional greenhouse gas is an increase in earth's average global temperature. This is where you are claiming additional energy out of nothing. It is your claim. You insist that with constant solar output but with additional greenhouse gas, the earth's average global temperature increases. It is your claim.

No body of matter anywhere in the universe simply increases in temperature without additional energy. Your claim is that the greenhouse gas causes this increase in temperature. Ergo, you are claiming that greenhouse gas creates the additional energy out of nothing. Of course, as I indicate in my post, that whenever we return to this point in the conversation, you are required to assert that "no one is claiming that energy is created out of nothing ..." as you try to pivot to point 2b, but this time I'm going to stop you. I'm going to confirm that you are now going to insist that greenhouse gas is not providing any additional energy and therefore cannot be increasing the earth's temperature any.

Thank you for walking through that with me. Now would be a good time for you to ditch your stupid religion. It makes you more stupid by the day. There is still time to save yourself.

We, as humans, heat and cool our homes, cars and businesses every day without creating more energy. I assume you don't disagree with that. So, how do we do that without producing "additional" energy?

All I've ever said is that the existing energy, in the form of infrared light, that would normally mostly leave the earth's atmosphere, could be prevented from leaving by greenhouse gases. You may not like the term "greenhouse gases", I don't care, pick a term that you like to describe certain gas molecules that, as a result of being hit by infrared light, produce heat.

 

[ZenMode]

...annnnnnnd back to argument 2b. No, you cannot trap heat, thermal energy, or light.

How do you heat your car/house if heat can't be trapped, at least temorarily?