Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[AProudLefty]

Yes or no?

 

[AProudLefty]

Well, we're waiting.

BTW, what is the answer to your question?

 

[AProudLefty]

Which part of the oven decreases in temperature, Deaf-Boy?

Well Doc Dummy, what is the answer?

 

[IBDaMann]

Well Doc Dummy, what is the answer?

Too funny! I asked AProudLefty the easiest question possible, i.e. When you turn on an oven, i.e. adding new thermal energy, where inside the oven does the temperature decrease?, and this guy who claims to have minored in physics nonetheless comes groveling to me for the answer.

Would anyone care to help him out. He's deaf and can't read so you might have to answer in sign language, I don't know.

 

[AProudLefty]

Too funny! I asked AProudLefty the easiest question possible, i.e. When you turn on an oven, i.e. adding new thermal energy, where inside the oven does the temperature decrease?, and this guy who claims to have minored in physics nonetheless comes groveling to me for the answer.

Would anyone care to help him out. He's deaf and can't read so you might have to answer in sign language, I don't know.

So you have no answer? That's what I thought. You're too easy.

 

[IBDaMann]

I know your point. What I am not understanding is why it takes you so long to arrive at your point. Zen and I understood your point long time ago. The constant radiation and distance are irrelevant.

It's totally relevant, but you are desperate to EVADE it. You claim that the earth's average temperature is somehow increasing but it is a complete violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics and you have absolutely no way of convincing a rational, intelligent adult to believe as you believe.

Perhaps if your deaf studies curriculum had included some critical reasoning, you wouldn't be blowing chunks in every thread in which you post.

 

[AProudLefty]

It's totally relevant, but you are desperate to EVADE it. You claim that the earth's average temperature is somehow increasing but it is a complete violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics and you have absolutely no way of convincing a rational, intelligent adult to believe as you believe.

Perhaps if your deaf studies curriculum had included some critical reasoning, you wouldn't be blowing chunks in every thread in which you post.

Does the temperature of a pizza increase in an oven when turned on?

Yes or no?

Hint: the distance to the heat source is not relevant and the heat is constant.

 

[gfm7175]

I know your point. What I am not understanding is why it takes you so long to arrive at your point. Zen and I understood your point long time ago. The constant radiation and distance are irrelevant.

Thank you.

Ergo, the Sun is not the source of the claimed additional thermal energy. So where is the additional thermal energy coming from?

 

[AProudLefty]

Thank you.

Ergo, the Sun is not the source of the claimed additional thermal energy. So where is the additional thermal energy coming from?

The Sun.

 

[Into the Night]

Translation: I'm going to ignore the english language.

You already do. You don't have to declare you do. Illiteracy: proper nouns are capitalized.

The atmosphere is among the factors that determines the Earth's atmosphere.

That's rich. Congratulations. You made to my sig line with that one!

Any significant change in a determiner of the climate would change the climate.

There is no 'determiner of climate'. You cannot change climate.

If the Sun vanished tomorrow, the Earth's climate would change.

There is no such thing as a global climate.

If the atmosphere disappeared tomorrow, the Earth's climate would change.

There is no such thing as a global climate. Climate cannot change.

You can't make things true by repeatedly saying them.

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

Correct. I never said it was.

Blatant lie.

The atmosphere is not a coat or jacket. It performs the same role as a jacket or coat...which you already know.

Paradox. Irrational.

I'm not trying to heat the Earth with cold gas.

Blatant lie.

I'm heating the Earth with the Sun.

Blatant lie. The Sun is not CO2 in the atmosphere.

Again, you already know this. The sun is not colder than the earth. There is no violation.

Trying to dodge your doctrine, eh?

As we know, energy from the sun is constantly flowing back toward the colder atmosphere. i never said it could. I said their is a back and forth flow of energy. It would be impossible for some of the infrared energy from the earth to not flow toward the Sun. Correct, the Earth can't heat itself. Luckily, I've never said it could. I'm not trying to trap light any more than putting on a jacket or blanket "traps" light.

Paradoxes. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
The Earth cannot heat the Sun.
Blatant lies.

 

[Into the Night]

No, it can be a "blanket".

You just said it wasn't. Which is it, dude?

The atmosphere is not a thermal insulator. It does not behave like a blanket, coat, or any other thermal insulator.

It is the reason the Earth is habitable.

No 'blanket'. Earth is habitable.

I've been told a lot of incorrect things.

You certainly have. All of the scripture from the Church of Global Warming, for example.

No, it's not. The sun and cosmos are part of the entire system. Without the sun, the earth is cold and lifeless.

The Sun and cosmos is a closed system.

I don't think you know what "closed" system means.

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

You've shown no understanding of Thermodynamics laws.

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

I've no reason to believe you have any understanding of another law.

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

Trying to project YOUR problems on to someone else is never going to work. It is childish. Grow up.

 

[AProudLefty]

You already do. You don't have to declare you do. Illiteracy: proper nouns are capitalized.

That's rich. Congratulations. You made to my sig line with that one!

There is no 'determiner of climate'. You cannot change climate.

There is no such thing as a global climate.

There is no such thing as a global climate. Climate cannot change.

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

Blatant lie.

Paradox. Irrational.

Blatant lie.

Blatant lie. The Sun is not CO2 in the atmosphere.

Trying to dodge your doctrine, eh?

Paradoxes. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
The Earth cannot heat the Sun.
Blatant lies.

Define climate.

 

[Into the Night]

Correct. I never said it was.

Paradox. You just said it was. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

You also don't know what closed system means.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself. Heck, you don't even know what a thermal system even is.

The second law says that energy flows toward the cooler atmosphere. I've never denied that happens. Energy flows from your body to the cooler atmosphere. We slow that process with jackets and blankets. The Earth's atmosphere slows that flow just....like.....a.....jacket.

You just said it wasn't. You are still locked in paradox on this one. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

Not sure how many more times I need to say this.

You can try to argue both sides of your paradoxes as long as you want. It's quite irrational, though.

 

[gfm7175]

Unbelievable! @Into the Night, how did you manage to get top billing? Tell me your secret. Did you bitch-slap them a few times when I wasn't looking?

Could it be because he makes the most posts?

 

[Into the Night]

There is net energy movement. If you put a 100 degree rock in a 70 degree room, there will be a net energy movement....which, again, you already know.

There is no such thing as 'net energy movement'. You cannot heat a 100 degree rock with a 70 degree room.

 

[AProudLefty]

There is no such thing as 'net energy movement'. You cannot heat a 100 degree rock with a 70 degree room.

What will the temperature of the rock be?

 

[IBDaMann]

Define climate.

Sorry, that's for you to do if you wish to declare your religion to be "thettled thienth." If you are happy with your religion being recognized for the religion that it is, don't bother defining the global climate unambiguously, and instead do something fun, like perhaps learn what a thermometer is.

 

[IBDaMann]

What will the temperature of the rock be?

So, no rebuttal on your part. That's not unusual.

 

[AProudLefty]

Sorry, that's for you to do if you wish to declare your religion to be "thettled thienth." If you are happy with your religion being recognized for the religion that it is, don't bother defining the global climate unambiguously, and instead do something fun, like perhaps learn what a thermometer is.

Define climate.

Pro-tip: do not devolve into incomprehensible rant.

 

[Dutch Uncle]

There is no such thing as 'net energy movement'. You cannot heat a 100 degree rock with a 70 degree room.

If you weren't such a dumbass, Sybil, you'd understand that's not what is being said.

Do you understand that the room would warm up and, conversely, the rock would cool down until both the room and the rock were the same temperature?