Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[Into the Night]

Yup, you are here to preach, not to learn. You refuse to address any of the science that is being shared with you. You discard it on sight in favor of your wacky religion that believes that putting enough ice cubes into room temperature water will bring that water up to a boil...

While it IS possible to boil water at room temperature (and even lower!), I assume you mean also under normal atmospheric pressure (14.7APSI) and temperature (71 deg F).

That is colloquially put, but yes. He is trying to do the same thing as make hot coffee with ice cubes. He is trying to heat a warmer object (the surface) with a colder one (a Magick Holy Gas).

He somehow thinks you can do this by using Holy Links or by insulting people.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Yup, you are here to preach, not to learn. You refuse to address any of the science that is being shared with you. You discard it on sight in favor of your wacky religion that believes that putting enough ice cubes into room temperature water will bring that water up to a boil...

LOL. Nothing I've said is that stupid. I honestly wish you and your socks would take a science class. Just one. At your local community college or something. Just get some expertise in the field.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Science is not a class. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You are ignoring several of them.

And you seem to have had NO SCIENCE CLASSES WHATSOEVER which is why you don't know anything about this topic. And why you insist on violating the First Law of Thermo.

 

[Trumpet]

And you seem to have had NO SCIENCE CLASSES WHATSOEVER which is why you don't know anything about this topic. And why you insist on violating the First Law of Thermo.

What, not oscillating anymore????

 

[Saint Guinefort]

While it IS possible to boil water at room temperature (and even lower!), I assume you mean also under normal atmospheric pressure (14.7APSI) and temperature (71 deg F).

That is colloquially put, but yes. He is trying to do the same thing as make hot coffee with ice cubes. He is trying to heat a warmer object (the surface) with a colder one (a Magick Holy Gas).

He somehow thinks you can do this by using Holy Links or by insulting people.

I love how stupid this post is. It is fractally wrong. I never said anything of the sort and clearly the poster has ZERO clue how thermodynamics works. Which is probably why they can't understand the First Law.

 

[Into the Night]

And you seem to have had NO SCIENCE CLASSES WHATSOEVER which is why you don't know anything about this topic. And why you insist on violating the First Law of Thermo.

Science is not a class. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You are ignoring several of them.

 

[AProudLefty]

Science is not a class. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You are ignoring several of them.

Science is classy.

 

[Into the Night]

I love how stupid this post is. It is fractally wrong. I never said anything of the sort and clearly the poster has ZERO clue how thermodynamics works. Which is probably why they can't understand the First Law.

'Fractal' is a Domain of mathematics, not a 'right' or a 'wrong'.
You are denying your own posts again. You tried to warm a warmer surface using a colder gas. You might as well try to make hot coffee using ice cubes.

The 1st law of thermodynamics:
E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is 'work', or force applied over time. The presence of a Holy Gas is not work. Therefore U is zero. You insist the Earth is getting warmer because of the presence of a Holy Gas. That violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, dude. You insist that infrared light radiating from the surface does not cool the surface. That violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, dude.

 

[AProudLefty]

You discard it on sight in favor of your wacky religion that believes that putting enough ice cubes into room temperature water will bring that water up to a boil...

Uh what.

 

[IBDaMann]

You obviously have no clue what constitutes a religion.

You are obviously so stupid and undereducated that the only way you feel you can compete in the arena of ideas is to delude yourself into believing that you are somehow omnipotent and that you can magically declare others to not know things that they know.

 

[AProudLefty]

You are obviously so stupid and undereducated that the only way you feel you can compete in the arena of ideas is to delude yourself into believing that you are somehow omnipotent and that you can magically declare others to not know things that they know.

Irony.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

'Fractal' is a Domain of mathematics, not a 'right' or a 'wrong'.
You are denying your own posts again. You tried to warm a warmer surface using a colder gas. You might as well try to make hot coffee using ice cubes.

The 1st law of thermodynamics:
E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is 'work', or force applied over time. The presence of a Holy Gas is not work. Therefore U is zero. You insist the Earth is getting warmer because of the presence of a Holy Gas. That violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, dude. You insist that infrared light radiating from the surface does not cool the surface. That violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, dude.

You keep tryin' little guy. I'm sure SOME DAY you'll figure it all out.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

He's expressed all sorts of correct information about this topic, even posting the mathematical formulas themselves and explaining them for you.

You haven't expressed anything outside of copy/pasting words from holy links. You are here to preach, not to learn.

LOL.

Socky sock sock socks for socks.

 

[ZenMode]

You cannot heat the warmer surface using a colder gas.

No, they absorb infrared light too.

No, they absorb infrared light too.

Did you know the surface is COOLED by emitting infrared light? So is every gas that emits infrared light. You don't get something for nothing. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

They all absorb solar radiation. None emit solar radiation since they are not in the Sun.

All gases absorb infrared light. Most of the light from the Sun is infrared light.

So all gases are 'greenhouse gases'. Why not just say 'gases'?

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

So you consider water is a pollutant?

So you consider CO2 is a pollutant?


So you consider methane as a pollutant?

The 'impact' is zero, so 10,000 times zero is zero. You're must making up numbers now.

NO gas or vapor is capable of warming anything that is already warmer than itself. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.


So you consider nitrogen a pollutant?

What 'pollutants'? Do you now consider oxygen a pollutant? O3 is made from the action of ultraviolet light on oxygen. Hydrocarbons are: heavier than air, and have no oxygen.


This this is where you are cut and pasting from? It's wrong.

Absorption of visible light does not convert to thermal energy. Only the absorption of infrared light converts to thermal energy. That's quantum mechanics that you are denying.
The infrared light the surface emits COOLS the surface. It requires energy to convert thermal energy into electromagnetic energy. It doesn't come for free. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
EVERYTHING emits light according to it's temperature. There are no exceptions. There are no changes due to what that substance is. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
You cannot use a colder gas to heat a warmer surface. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

NASA isn't science, dude. They are a GOVERNMENT AGENCY. They cannot set aside these theories of science any more than you can.

Water is not a pollutant. It naturally occurs. Do you want to get rid of the oceans, lakes, and rivers because of 'climate change'?
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant. It naturally occurs. Do you want to get rid of plants and yourself?
Methane is not a pollutant. It naturally occurs. Do you want to get rid of wetlands, compost piles, animals, and yourself?
CFC's are not manufactured today due to idiocy from the Church of the Ozone Hole. Where are THEY coming from??
Ozone is not a pollutant. It naturally occurs. Do you want to get rid of thunderstorms, sunlight, air fresheners, and the ozone layer now???

ALL gases and materials absorb infrared light. Good thing, too. It is the ONLY way Earth is warmed by the Sun. An absorbed photon is utterly DESTROYED. It cannot be 're-emitted'. No molecule or atom will absorb a photon that has less energy than the molecule or photon already has.

ALL gases and materials also emit light in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Yes, the surface emits primarily infrared light. So does EVERY GAS MOLECULE. Not every frequency of infrared light is equal. Not every photon is equal in energy. You are ignoring Planck's law again.

Infrared light from the Sun heats the Earth. That's EVERYTHING that sunlight reaches, including all gases in the atmosphere. All of these things are also above absolute zero in temperature, so they therefore also convert the thermal energy they have into light. Like a 'glowing coal', Earth is snuggled up fairly close to the 'fire' of the Sun, and like a glowing coal, it cannot heat itself. It loses every bit of energy that it receives from the Sun.

Remember that Earth spins once per day. Only half of the Earth receives infrared light from the Sun at a time. Earth, however, radiates infrared light in ALL DIRECTIONS, just as any gas molecule does. The key thing you are leaving out (except in your stupid link that you copped out to using instead of explaining it yourself) is that you are literally trying to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

YOU CAN'T.

You clearly have your own science. I suspect it's the same people who were going to the feed store for Ivermectin to treat their covid. Either way, there's no rationalizing with crazy. Enjoy your time in Crazyville, Mr. Jones.

 

[Flash]

Let's see your philosophy of what defines 'religion' for you then.

One distinguishing element is that science is observable, verifiable, and can be duplicated while religion cannot be observed or proven. It is simply a set of beliefs which cannot be verified.

 

[IBDaMann]

You keep tryin' little guy. I'm sure SOME DAY you'll figure it all out.

But you, on the other hand, really should hang it up. You gave it your best bluff, but unfortunately after raising and raising, you were called ... and it's over. I'm sure there are some other sites that will actually believe that you are a coal PhD who will beg you to give them pop quizzes and to grade all their papers.

 

[AProudLefty]

But you, on the other hand, really should hang it up. You gave it your best bluff, but unfortunately after raising and raising, you were called ... and it's over. I'm sure there are some other sites that will actually believe that you are a coal PhD who will beg you to give them pop quizzes and to grade all their papers.

Assumption of victory fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

One distinguishing element is that science is observable, verifiable, and can be duplicated while religion cannot be observed or proven. It is simply a set of beliefs which cannot be verified.

Science is not observation. Religion is observable. For example, it is easy to observe a pagan dance or a Christian worship service.
Science does not verify or prove anything. Religions try to 'verify' and prove themselves as the Truth.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Religion simply assumes a Truth.

I asked you to define religion, not science.

Here is mine:

The best way to define 'religion' is by describing a common characteristic that all of them have.

The core of any religion is some initial circular argument. The other name for this type of argument is an Argument of Faith. You simply assume the argument to be True.
ALL other arguments for that religion stem from that initial circular argument.

For example: In Christianity, the initial circular argument is that Christ exists and that He is who He says He is, namely, the Son of God.
EVERYTHING else about Christianity stems from that initial circular argument.

In Shinto, the spirits and demons occupying various objects are simply assumed to be there. EVERYTHING else about Shinto stems from that initial circular argument.

In the Church of No God, they simply assume that no god or gods exist. EVERYTHING else about the Church of No God stems from that initial circular argument.

Thus: The definition of a religion is any belief based on some initial circular argument that simply assumed to be True, and with other arguments extending from that.

Therefore, the following are religions:

Christianity.
Buddhism.
Shinto (including it's American and African forms).
Islam.
Judaism.
The Church of No God.
The Church of the Big Bang.
The Church of the Continuum.
The Church of Creation.
The Church of Abiogenesis.
The Church of the Ozone Hole.
The Church of Global Warming.
The Church of Covid.
The Church of Hate.
The Church of Karl Marx.
The Church of Green.
Hinduism.

Some of these have a god or gods, some do not.

You seem to think that science is a proof of some kind, or that a theory can be proven True. That is fundamentalism. It is not possible to prove any theory True.

 

[Into the Night]

But you, on the other hand, really should hang it up. You gave it your best bluff, but unfortunately after raising and raising, you were called ... and it's over. I'm sure there are some other sites that will actually believe that you are a coal PhD who will beg you to give them pop quizzes and to grade all their papers.

Heh. I guess I win the pot again.

 

[AProudLefty]

Heh. I guess I win the pot again.

Assumption of victory fallacy.