Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[gfm7175]

You honestly believe that the average temperature of the earth has been exactly consistent for as long as it has existed?

Yes or no, do we or do we not heat and cool our homes without creating energy?

These words highlight how your position is a faith-based belief rather than one based in any sort of science. They also highlight the fundamentalist nature of your religion.

I see no reason to believe that Earth's global average temperature has changed in any perceptible manner.

Yes or no, Do you insist that the earth's average global temperature is increasing? Do you insist that greenhouse gas causes this increase in temperature?

 

[gfm7175]

Temperatures [of around 32,000 specific locations on Earth at varying specific moments of time] are tracked by around 32,000 temperature stations, weather balloons, buoys and ships in the ocean

That's not the Earth, dude. That's just a few specific locations of Earth at varying specific times. Attempting to (magically) make those measurements into "Earth's average global temperature" results in a whole host of mathematical errors that render the final result summarily dismissible as a "value pulled out of one's ass". E.g. data biases are present (location bias, time bias), no declared margin of error value, no declared variance value, no calculated margin of error value, etc. etc...

and satellites.

Satellites are not "magic". How do you suppose that a satellite is measuring the temperature of Earth?

There might be more, but those are the items that come to mind. I doubt that you have the necessary tools to measure the Earth's average temps on your own.

Well, I'm not the one who is making extraordinary physics-denying claims re: Earth's temperature, now am I?

I know I don't.

Thus, you can't measure Earth's global average temperature. Thus, your "knowledge" claims about Earth's global average temperature "rising" due to "greenhouse gases" [acting as a one-way magic blanket] amount to nothing more than physics-denying faith.

Even if you doubt the ability to track [Earth's global average] temps, as I'm sure you do,

... ummm, you literally just admitted that you can't track it (see above). You said, and I quote, "I know I don't [have the necessary tools to measure Earth's global average temperature]".

the sun's 11 year cycle, where the north/south poles flip-flop, impact overall temperatures, storm frequency and moisture levels. You've heard of El Nino and La Nina?

blah blah blah... Let's stay on topic.

Yes or no:
Do you insist that the earth's average global temperature is increasing?
Do you insist that greenhouse gas causes this increase in temperature?

 

[ZenMode]

That's not the Earth, dude. That's just a few specific locations of Earth at varying specific times. Attempting to (magically) make those measurements into "Earth's average global temperature" results in a whole host of mathematical errors that render the final result summarily dismissible as a "value pulled out of one's ass". E.g. data biases are present (location bias, time bias), no declared margin of error value, no declared variance value, no calculated margin of error value, etc. etc...


Satellites are not "magic". How do you suppose that a satellite is measuring the temperature of Earth?


Well, I'm not the one who is making extraordinary physics-denying claims re: Earth's temperature, now am I?


Thus, you can't measure Earth's global average temperature. Thus, your "knowledge" claims about Earth's global average temperature "rising" due to "greenhouse gases" [acting as a one-way magic blanket] amount to nothing more than physics-denying faith.


... ummm, you literally just admitted that you can't track it (see above). You said, and I quote, "I know I don't [have the necessary tools to measure Earth's global average temperature]".


blah blah blah... Let's stay on topic.

Yes or no:
Do you insist that the earth's average global temperature is increasing?
Do you insist that greenhouse gas causes this increase in temperature?

This is the rabbit hole that I see no reason to go down. If you want to believe something, then you can deny, deny, deny for as long as you want to continue believing. We have been measuring the earth's temperature, accurately, for decades and our ability to measure is only improving, but when you want to believe something, and don't understand the science behind it, you can always find reason to deny.

You don't believe we can use satellite information to determine temperature or temperature trends. Nobody is going to prove to you otherwise.

You don't believe that other methods, on land and sea, can measure temperature and nobody can prove to you otherwise because you don't want to believe we can measure temperature.


BTW, satellite don't directly measure temperature. They record atmospheric brightness which is used to determine temperature, but I'm sure you don't believe that either because all of science is in on the grand conspiracy to lie to us.

 

[IBDaMann]

When you sit in a car, on a sunny day with the windows closed, you aren’t adding any more energy than normal to witness the dramatically increased temperature inside the car.

Correct. You are also not adding any more energy to keep the air outside the car cool. The average temperature of the combined air (both inside and outside the car) remains the same. Having the windows rolled up prevents the convection that would heat the outside air.

Returning to the topic of how your clergy lies to you, the deception absolutely depends upon your scientific illiteracy and inability to apply any critical reasoning. Only part of the scenario is ever presented, never all of it. In the case above, you thought it was perfectly logical to only consider the car's interior as thought nothing outside the car existed or had any effect on the interior of the car. But let's examine more of your religion:

Your religious dogma teaches all to believe the following conclusions and to not ask any questions or apply any critical reasoning:

* that earth's ice is somehow disappearing ... by pointing to all the dying glaciers ... without ever making any mention of the equivalent number of glaciers that are growing or that are nascent.
* that the ocean is somehow becoming more acidic ... by pointing to atmospheric CO2 being absorbed by the ocean ... without ever mentioning the ocean's massive, persistent evaporation that far exceeds the paltry rate of CO2 absorption, that releases all absorbed CO2 back into the atmosphere.
* that extreme weather is somehow increasing, by simply pointing to each individual disaster somewhere, without mentioning all the lacks of disasters when and where there aren't any, without keeping tabs on excellent weather or nice weather, without ever mentioning that all such activity is completely normal within the context of weather, and without mentioning that there is absolutely no basis for claiming that disasters are somehow increasing in either severity or frequency.
* that atmospheric CO2 is somehow increasing, by pointing to "human activity" without ever mentioning that humans are not capable of generating quantities of CO2 that will not be readily and greedily consumed by the earth's burgeoning plant life, both on land and over the ocean's carpet of algae, seaweed, phytoplankton and many others.

... i.e. it's all one big lie of omission, and stupid people fall for it. This is why the stupidest among us are the ones targeted for indoctrination and why when you encounter a warmizombie, he will be scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent. I routinely encounter warmizombies who claim to hold PhDs in physics. I immediately know from their belief in the all of the above that their PhDs are honorary degrees bestowed by Climate clergy for demonstrating profound faith.

Religions offer hope and comfort in a chaotic world. One of the great puzzles of modern times is how Climate Change and Global Warming somehow offer any hope. Everything about the religion is catastrophic doom-n-gloom, and it might already be too late! The answer is that the Climate family of faiths offers hope on an individual level. The catastrophic doom-n-gloom panic is what generates the "chaotic world". The religion tells the stupid losers of the world that if only they will believe profoundly and unquestioningly that Climate Change is real, they will transform into science genius superheroes who will be initiated into the Climate Justice League, deputized to lay down the law with those evil, blood-sucking conservatives, and empowered to save the planet by whatever means they deem appropriate.

So, please explain how the scientific explanation for CO2 being impacted by infrared light violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics,

The topic is your affirmative argument that the earth's average global temperature is somehow increasing, as you and others have been claiming since the start. You bear the full burden to support this. From that perspective, please explain how creating energy out of nothing, as denoted by a spontaneous increase in average global temperature without any additional energy from the sun, somehow does not violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

 

[gfm7175]

This is the rabbit hole that I see no reason to go down. If you want to believe something, then you can deny, deny, deny for as long as you want to continue believing.

Projection. You are trying to falsely assign your own issues as "my issues".

We

Who is "We" / "our"? You've already admitted that it's not yourself, and I've never made any claim to doing so.

have been measuring the earth's temperature, accurately, for decades and our ability to measure is only improving,

How so? You've so far only mentioned "around 32,000 thermometers [at specific locations at varying specific moments of time]". That's not Earth, dude. That's not a valid statistical summary, dude.

but when you want to believe something, and don't understand the science behind it, you can always find reason to deny.

Projection. You are trying to falsely assign your own issues as "my issues". It's all you have left because your physics-denying religion is completely and utterly stupid on its face. Why should any rational adult believe that "greenhouse gas" is "warming Earth" when said belief stands in complete opposition to Planck, Boltzmann, and thermodynamics?

You don't believe we can use satellite information to determine temperature or temperature trends. Nobody is going to prove to you otherwise.

Ummmm, no. Let's get this correct.

You believe that "We" can use satellite information to determine Earth's average global temperature. Nobody is going to rationally convince you otherwise.

You don't believe that other methods, on land and sea, can measure temperature and nobody can prove to you otherwise because you don't want to believe we can measure temperature.

Ummmm, no. Let's get this correct.

You believe that other methods, on land and sea, can measure Earth's average global temperature and nobody can rationally convince you otherwise because you don't want to believe the laws of thermodynamics, stefan boltzmann, planck, or believe logic, or believe statistical mathematics. You throw all of that to the curb in favor of your wacky physics-denying logic-denying math-denying religion that "greenhouse gas" can somehow "warm Earth".

BTW, satellite don't directly measure temperature.

BTW, I never claimed that a satellite does. Pay attention.

They record atmospheric brightness which is used to determine temperature, but I'm sure you don't believe that either

There's issues here.

For starters, what is Earth's emissivity? How do you know that value? How can I verify that value for myself?

 

[Into the Night]

You aren’t adding any more energy than normal cycles of the sun dictate.

Yet YOU claim there is more energy.

When you sit in a car, on a sunny day with the windows closed, you aren’t adding any more energy than normal to witness the dramatically increased temperature inside the car.

Because of reduced heat.

So, please explain how the scientific explanation for CO2 being impacted by infrared light violates the 1st Law of Thermodynamics, as you and others have been claiming since the start.

YOU are claiming CO2 violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. Not me.

 

[Into the Night]

No, I didn’t because I don’t believe it does because the science doesn’t bear it out. I’ve been clear on this multiple times.

You are discarding science.

 

[Into the Night]

The repeated claim is that there is a violation of the First Law of Thermodynamics because the apparent belief is that you need to "create" more energy for the Earth's climate to be impacted.

It is YOU making this claim, dumbass.

Yes, but light impacts things it comes in contact with.
So we can stop talking past each other, what word/description of heat coming into existence would you like to use?

Light is not heat.

 

[Into the Night]

Link?

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. He doesn't need to provide a link to what does not exist.

 

[Into the Night]

Temperatures on earth are tracked by around 32,000 temperature stations, weather balloons, buoys and ships in the ocean and satellites. There might be more, but those are the items that come to mind. I doubt that you have the necessary tools to measure the Earth's average temps on your own. I know I don't.

You are just making up numbers again.

Satellites do not measure the temperature of the Earth.
You are using biased numbers, and even making up numbers.

Location grouping is a significant biasing factor. It must be eliminated. Thermometers MUST be uniformly distributed. They aren't.
Time is a significant biasing factor. Storms move. The Sun moves across the sky, unevenly heating the Earth. All thermometers MUST be read at the same time by the same authority.

Math error. Failure to provide unbiased raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error value.

You are AGAIN ignoring statistical math.

Even if you doubt the ability to track temps, as I'm sure you do, the sun's 11 year cycle, where the north/south poles flip-flop, impact overall temperatures, storm frequency and moisture levels. You've heard of El Nino and La Nina?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
The sunspot cycle is not the temperature of the Earth.
The navigation charts are still valid. The magnetic north and south poles haven't flipped.
It is not possible to measure all the storms on Earth.
It is not possible to measure the humidity of Earth.
Neither El Nino nor La Nina is a warming of the Earth.

You are also ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. You cannot create energy out of nothing. There are not enough thermometers. The ones we do have are not uniformly distributed nor read at the same time.

 

[IBDaMann]

We have been measuring the earth's temperature, accurately, for decades

Nope. No human has ever known the earth's temperature to any usable accuracy. Just for laughs, how did your clergy explain to you that the earth's temperature is somehow measured? How much do you want to bet that it involves total mathematical incompetence?

Other things that are equally unknown: earth's emissivity, earth's atmospheric CO2 content, the ocean's average pH, how much taxation is required for governments to solve Global Warming, others ...

and our ability to measure is only improving,

In what way?

You don't believe we can use satellite information to determine temperature or temperature trends.

Too funny. You strangely believe that if you want to know the accurate temperature of something, that you don't need to apply a thermometer directly to it; that you should instead let a camera take its temperature from hundreds to thousands of miles away. Have I mentioned lately how much of a thienth geniuth you are?

You don't believe that other methods, on land and sea, can measure temperature

What other methods do you believe exist for measuring temperature than applying a thermometer? Are you aware of any method for measuring the quantity of thermal energy in an individual molecule or atom?

BTW, satellite don't directly measure temperature. They record atmospheric brightness which is used to determine temperature,

Nope. It determines relative temperature, i.e. that something in the image is hotter/colder than something else in the image. What those temperatures are remain unknown. For example, a satellite tracking air traffic can create IR imagery clearly showing the unique thermal signatures of the various types of engines used by different jets, regardless of the altitude. Even though different altitudes cause the specific temperatures of the exhaust to differ, any given jet will always maintain the same relative temperature signature.

Sorry, there is no magical way to just "know" something's temperature.

 

[ZenMode]

Correct. You are also not adding any more energy to keep the air outside the car cool. The average temperature of the combined air (both inside and outside the car) remains the same. Having the windows rolled up prevents the convection that would heat the outside air.

Returning to the topic of how your clergy lies to you, the deception absolutely depends upon your scientific illiteracy and inability to apply any critical reasoning. Only part of the scenario is ever presented, never all of it. In the case above, you thought it was perfectly logical to only consider the car's interior as thought nothing outside the car existed or had any effect on the interior of the car. But let's examine more of your religion:

Your religious dogma teaches all to believe the following conclusions and to not ask any questions or apply any critical reasoning:

* that earth's ice is somehow disappearing ... by pointing to all the dying glaciers ... without ever making any mention of the equivalent number of glaciers that are growing or that are nascent.
* that the ocean is somehow becoming more acidic ... by pointing to atmospheric CO2 being absorbed by the ocean ... without ever mentioning the ocean's massive, persistent evaporation that far exceeds the paltry rate of CO2 absorption, that releases all absorbed CO2 back into the atmosphere.
* that extreme weather is somehow increasing, by simply pointing to each individual disaster somewhere, without mentioning all the lacks of disasters when and where there aren't any, without keeping tabs on excellent weather or nice weather, without ever mentioning that all such activity is completely normal within the context of weather, and without mentioning that there is absolutely no basis for claiming that disasters are somehow increasing in either severity or frequency.
* that atmospheric CO2 is somehow increasing, by pointing to "human activity" without ever mentioning that humans are not capable of generating quantities of CO2 that will not be readily and greedily consumed by the earth's burgeoning plant life, both on land and over the ocean's carpet of algae, seaweed, phytoplankton and many others.

... i.e. it's all one big lie of omission, and stupid people fall for it. This is why the stupidest among us are the ones targeted for indoctrination and why when you encounter a warmizombie, he will be scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent. I routinely encounter warmizombies who claim to hold PhDs in physics. I immediately know from their belief in the all of the above that their PhDs are honorary degrees bestowed by Climate clergy for demonstrating profound faith.

Religions offer hope and comfort in a chaotic world. One of the great puzzles of modern times is how Climate Change and Global Warming somehow offer any hope. Everything about the religion is catastrophic doom-n-gloom, and it might already be too late! The answer is that the Climate family of faiths offers hope on an individual level. The catastrophic doom-n-gloom panic is what generates the "chaotic world". The religion tells the stupid losers of the world that if only they will believe profoundly and unquestioningly that Climate Change is real, they will transform into science genius superheroes who will be initiated into the Climate Justice League, deputized to lay down the law with those evil, blood-sucking conservatives, and empowered to save the planet by whatever means they deem appropriate.


The topic is your affirmative argument that the earth's average global temperature is somehow increasing, as you and others have been claiming since the start. You bear the full burden to support this. From that perspective, please explain how creating energy out of nothing, as denoted by a spontaneous increase in average global temperature without any additional energy from the sun, somehow does not violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

For purposes of staying somewhat focused on one aspect of climate change, my takeaway from this post is:

a) we agree, per your first sentence, that no additional creation of energy is needed to make the temperature in a given area higher.


b) Based on that, anyone who has claimed that climate change, as scientifically explained, violates the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong.

Admittedly, I haven't posted here long, but I have to wonder how long this disproven claim has been propagated here and how any person educated on climate change and the First Law could get this so incredibly wrong.

 

[Into the Night]

This is the rabbit hole that I see no reason to go down. If you want to believe something, then you can deny, deny, deny for as long as you want to continue believing. We have been measuring the earth's temperature, accurately, for decades and our ability to measure is only improving, but when you want to believe something, and don't understand the science behind it, you can always find reason to deny.

You are denying science. You are denying mathematics as well.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

You don't believe we can use satellite information to determine temperature or temperature trends. Nobody is going to prove to you otherwise.

Satellites are incapable of measuring the temperature of the Earth. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

You don't believe that other methods, on land and sea, can measure temperature and nobody can prove to you otherwise because you don't want to believe we can measure temperature.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You are denying statistical mathematics again.

BTW, satellite don't directly measure temperature. They record atmospheric brightness which is used to determine temperature,

Light is not temperature. You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. Atmospheric brightness is not temperature.

but I'm sure you don't believe that either because all of science is in on the grand conspiracy to lie to us.

You are denying science and mathematics. Your religion is not science.

 

[Into the Night]

For purposes of staying somewhat focused on one aspect of climate change, my takeaway from this post is:

a) we agree, per your first sentence, that no additional creation of energy is needed to make the temperature in a given area higher.


b) Based on that, anyone who has claimed that climate change, as scientifically explained, violates the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong.

Admittedly, I haven't posted here long, but I have to wonder how long this disproven claim has been propagated here and how any person educated on climate change and the First Law could get this so incredibly wrong.

Climate cannot change. There is no science of 'climate change'.
At least you admit that your claim is wrong, but you are only doing it by pivot.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. It determines relative temperature, i.e. that something in the image is hotter/colder than something else in the image. What those temperatures are remain unknown. For example, a satellite tracking air traffic can create IR imagery clearly showing the unique thermal signatures of the various types of engines used by different jets, regardless of the altitude. Even though different altitudes cause the specific temperatures of the exhaust to differ, any given jet will always maintain the same relative temperature signature.

Sorry, there is no magical way to just "know" something's temperature.

Quite right. No satellite can even measure the temperature of the jet engine of such aircraft. On board sensors monitor that, and they are only accurate to +-100 deg F. That's good enough to give a good indication of conditions inside the engine though.

All the satellite can see is that "it's hot" and moving about the speed of a jet.

 

[IBDaMann]

my takeaway from this post is:

a) we agree, per your first sentence, that no additional creation of energy is needed to make the temperature in a given area higher.

This statement really says nothing about what was discussed. Your takeaway should be:

Takeaway #1. To increase temperature, there must be additional energy, specifically additional thermal energy.

b) Based on that, anyone who has claimed that climate change, as scientifically explained, violates the First Law of Thermodynamics is wrong.

I tried multiple times to parse this sentence and it is just too poorly written. Let me rewrite it for clarity and correctness:

Takeaway #2: Understanding the above, i.e. that only additional thermal energy can increase temperature, any claims that a mere substance can somehow cause a temperature increase are FALSE because they necessarily imply that the substance is creating the needed thermal energy out of nothing, in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

 

[gfm7175]

Sorry, there is no magical way to just "know" something's temperature.

97% of rational adults agree with you.

 

[gfm7175]

This statement really says nothing about what was discussed. Your takeaway should be:

Takeaway #1. To increase temperature, there must be additional energy, specifically additional thermal energy.

This is yet another example of the "one big lie of omission" agenda of his religion.

 

[ZenMode]

Yet YOU claim there is more energy.

Nope. The science of climate change/increasing temperatures is based on infrared light interacting with CO2 molecules which, as a result of the light, produce heat. No energy lost or gained in that process. YOU brought up Thermodynamics laws, not me.

Because of reduced heat.

The temperature in the car increases, not because the any additional energy is magically coming into existence, but because of the nature of where the sun light is going or not going.

YOU are claiming CO2 violates the 1st law of thermodynamics. Not me.

My description is the first response above. Explain how that description violates the first law.

 

[ZenMode]

This statement really says nothing about what was discussed. Your takeaway should be:

Takeaway #1. To increase temperature, there must be additional energy, specifically additional thermal energy.

Nope. My original sentence is exactly the point. The temperature in a given location can increase without there being any magical creation of energy in the universe. Just the existing energy from the sun will suffice.

I tried multiple times to parse this sentence and it is just too poorly written. Let me rewrite it for clarity and correctness:

Takeaway #2: Understanding the above, i.e. that only additional thermal energy can increase temperature, any claims that a mere substance can somehow cause a temperature increase are FALSE because they necessarily imply that the substance is creating the needed thermal energy out of nothing, in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

No additional thermal energy is needed. If you sit in your car, on a sunny day, with all the windows open, the temperature in the car will be lower than if you close all the windows in the car. There is no additional energy coming from the sun into your car, the energy is just being handled differently because the windows are closed.