Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[Into the Night]

Third try.... maybe fourth.... There are two scientists who claim that climate change, as it is believed to be happening, violates 2 laws of Thermodynamics. Many other scientists have disputed their claims because they believe the laws aren't being applied correctly.

Why do you believe the two scientists and not the many other scientists.

How much time have you spent trying to understand both sides.

Sorry, dude. You cannot falsify the 1st or the 2nd laws of thermodynamics by using a voting bloc. Theories of science has no 'sides'.

 

[Into the Night]

Right. So, you've spent zero time. Thanks for confirming.

The fallacies are YOURS, dumbass.

 

[ZenMode]

I already explained how you need to reword your questions. You can't present your religion as though it is science, you can't present your religious clergy as "scientists," and you can't present your church material as "information."

Fix your questions if you want serious answers.

No thanks. My question is valid. There are two sides to this discussion. One side is a total of two scientists claiming something. The other side is many scientists who see obvious flaws in how the two scientists are applying the laws of Thermodynamics.

Why do you believe the two and not the many?

How much time have you spent educating yourself of the side you don't want to believe?

 

[ZenMode]

Sorry, dude. You cannot falsify the 1st or the 2nd laws of thermodynamics by using a voting bloc. Theories of science has no 'sides'.

For the second time, nobody is falsifying the laws of Thermodynamics. Had you ACTUALLY educated yourself, you'd see that the other side is saying the laws are being applied incorrectly.

So, how long until you make a 3rd attempt at wrongly claiming there is an attempt to falsify the laws of thermodynamics?

 

[IBDaMann]

No thanks. My question is valid.

Nope. You just don't want serious answers.

There are two sides to this discussion. One side is a total of two scientists claiming something.

Correction: One side has two scientists explaining actual science that falsifies a particular religious doctrine. Go on ...

The other side is many scientists who see obvious flaws in how the two scientists are applying the laws of Thermodynamics.

Correction: The other side has many religious clergy who feel their faith threatened by the falsification explained by the scientists.

Why do you believe the two and not the many?

When the scientific method falsifies a null hypothesis, the hypothesis is discarded as FALSE. If the clergy wish to get the hypothesis reinstated as NOT FALSE, they need to fix whatever error caused they hypothesis to be FALSE. That's how science works.

 

[Flash]

Word games. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That is all.
A theory is an explanatory argument. That's all.

Don't try to redefine words with word games.

Established scientific terms are not word games. A theory is an explanatory argument based on proven hypotheses. The theory might be incomplete or not in proper order, but it is based on established facts.
If a theory is falsifiable it is not scientific but somebody's speculation not based on proven facts.

 

[IBDaMann]

For the second time, nobody is falsifying the laws of Thermodynamics.

Correct. Thermodynamics falsifies your stated faith.

Had you ACTUALLY educated yourself,

... says the scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent, logically inept moron who has no intention of discussing honestly. Go on ...

... you'd see that the other side is saying the laws are being applied incorrectly.

If you weren't scientifically illiterate, you'd know that there is no such thing as "manner of application." The laws of thermodynamics apply, as stated, always and everywhere. So yes, thermodynamics applies to the earth and renders your religion FALSE. See my signature.

 

[IBDaMann]

A theory is an explanatory argument based on proven hypotheses.

According to your (il)logic, there are no science theories because there are no proven hypotheses. Nothing in science is ever somehow proven/confirmed/verified.

... it is based on established facts.

Incorrect. Science is independent of anyone's agreement or subjective opinion.

If a theory is falsifiable it is not scientific but somebody's speculation not based on proven facts.

Hang it up. You don't know what you're talking about.

 

[ZenMode]

Correct. Thermodynamics falsifies your stated faith.


... says the scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent, logically inept moron who has no intention of discussing honestly. Go on ...


If you weren't scientifically illiterate, you'd know that there is no such thing as "manner of application." The laws of thermodynamics apply, as stated, always and everywhere. So yes, thermodynamics applies to the earth and renders your religion FALSE. See my signature.

Thanks for confirming you have no understanding of the other side of the discussion.

 

[Flash]

According to your (il)logic, there are no science theories because there are no proven hypotheses. Nothing in science is ever somehow proven/confirmed/verified.

Gravity has no proven hypotheses? You are still dealing with philosophy, not science.

 

[IBDaMann]

Gravity has no proven hypotheses?

What part of "nothing in science is ever proven/confirmed/verified" do you not grasp?

Gravity has not been proven. There is a huge difference between proving the Pythagorean theorem and providing a mountain of examples that conform to the relationship A^2 + B^2 = C^2

 

[ZenMode]

In case any of the Big 3 deniers has an ounce intellectual curiosity...

Martin Singh, a senior lecturer in the School of Earth, Atmosphere & Environment at Monash University, said the posts are false because they misrepresent how the greenhouse effect works – the process slows the energy being radiated to space, but doesn’t stop it completely, so remains consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.

“The claim is nonsense,” Dr Singh told AAP FactCheck in an email.

“The idea that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics crops up now and then in discussions of climate change, but it is not true.

“The claim is based on the idea that a colder body (the atmosphere) cannot heat a warmer body (the surface). But this is not how the greenhouse effect works; the greenhouse effect works by reducing the energy being radiated to space by the earth system.

“This results in an imbalance in energy which warms up the whole system (including surface and atmosphere). At all times the surface is losing heat to the atmosphere (when all forms of energy transport are taken into account), consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.”

Dr Singh said there is an entire sub-field of research applying the second law of thermodynamics to climate questions.

Dr Milton Speer, a visiting fellow at the School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences at UTS, agreed the claim is false.

“There is supposed to be a balance between incoming radiation from the sun and outgoing radiation, a fact established centuries ago,” he said via email. “But greenhouse gases such as CO2 trap some of the outgoing radiation which gradually heats up the oceans, atmosphere.”

Dr Mehdi Seyedmahmoudian, an associate professor at Swinburne University’s School of Science, Computing and Engineering Technologies, agreed that the claim misunderstands the processes involved.

“According to this law, the earth (warmer object) is transferring its heat to its surrounding open space (cooler object) via thermal radiation.

“The problem appears when the CO2 obstructs this radiation and emits this heat back to the lower atmosphere. Adding this to the fact that conduction and convection are negligible at higher altitudes, it is a no-brainer fact that the lower atmosphere remains warm while the outer layers are cold.”

The Gerlich and Tscheuschner journal article has also been challenged. A comment on the article claimed their methods, logic and conclusions were in error. The original authors then published a reply to the comment.


It argues: “The Second Law does not state that the only flow of energy is from hot to cold but instead that the net sum of the energy flows will be from hot to cold. That qualifier term, ‘net’, is the important one here. The Earth alone is not a ‘closed system’, but is part of a constant, net energy flow from the Sun, to Earth and back out to space. Greenhouse gases simply inhibit part of that net flow, by returning some of the outgoing energy back towards Earth’s surface”.

This blog article also argues there are many errors in the original Gerlich and Tscheuschner article, and says of the second law of thermodynamics in relation to the greenhouse effect: “there is no scientific problem with radiation from a colder to a hotter body – so long as there is a higher radiation from the hotter to the colder”.This blog article argues the Gerlich and Tscheuschner journal article was largely responsible for the “myth that the greenhouse effect is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics”.

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/climate-sceptics-on-wrong-side-of-thermodynamics-law/

 

[Saint Guinefort]

There is no debate. Only conversations. He is accurate.

LOL. I love how you either think it's true or you think that by doubling down on this silliness someone will believe it to be true.

Either way you shouldn't try it in public. Especially around people who understand science. You'll be laughed out of the room.

 

[Into the Night]

No thanks. My question is valid. There are two sides to this discussion. One side is a total of two scientists claiming something. The other side is many scientists who see obvious flaws in how the two scientists are applying the laws of Thermodynamics.

Why do you believe the two and not the many?

How much time have you spent educating yourself of the side you don't want to believe?

Argument by repetition fallacy (chanting).

Science does not use consensus. You haven't even named the 'two scientists'. You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. You only get to speak for you.
You are STILL trying to ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

 

[Into the Night]

For the second time, nobody is falsifying the laws of Thermodynamics.

Correct. YOU are attempting to deny them though.

Had you ACTUALLY educated yourself, you'd see that the other side is saying the laws are being applied incorrectly.

There is no 'applying'. The theories simply exist. You simply choose to ignore them.

So, how long until you make a 3rd attempt at wrongly claiming there is an attempt to falsify the laws of thermodynamics?

I didn't.

 

[Into the Night]

Established scientific terms are not word games.

You are playing word games.

A theory is an explanatory argument based on proven hypotheses.

WRONG. It is not possible to prove a theory True.

The theory might be incomplete or not in proper order, but it is based on established facts.

Learn what 'fact' means. 'Fact' does NOT mean Universal Truth.

If a theory is falsifiable it is not scientific

If a theory is falsifiable is it a theory of science.

but somebody's speculation not based on proven facts.

Science has no proofs. Science is an open functional system. Learn what 'fact' means. 'Fact' does not mean 'proof' or 'Universal Truth'.

 

[AProudLefty]

Proof is for mathematics.

 

[Into the Night]

Thanks for confirming you have no understanding of the other side of the discussion.

Science has no politics. There is no 'other side' of any theory of science.

 

[Into the Night]

Gravity has no proven hypotheses? You are still dealing with philosophy, not science.

Gravity is not a theory of science. It is not a hypothesis either.
You deny both philosophy and science.

Stop playing your word games.

 

[Into the Night]

In case any of the Big 3 deniers has an ounce intellectual curiosity...

Martin Singh, a senior lecturer in the School of Earth, Atmosphere & Environment at Monash University, said the posts are false because they misrepresent how the greenhouse effect works – the process slows the energy being radiated to space, but doesn’t stop it completely, so remains consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.

“The claim is nonsense,” Dr Singh told AAP FactCheck in an email.

“The idea that the greenhouse effect violates the second law of thermodynamics crops up now and then in discussions of climate change, but it is not true.

“The claim is based on the idea that a colder body (the atmosphere) cannot heat a warmer body (the surface). But this is not how the greenhouse effect works; the greenhouse effect works by reducing the energy being radiated to space by the earth system.

“This results in an imbalance in energy which warms up the whole system (including surface and atmosphere). At all times the surface is losing heat to the atmosphere (when all forms of energy transport are taken into account), consistent with the second law of thermodynamics.”

Dr Singh said there is an entire sub-field of research applying the second law of thermodynamics to climate questions.

Dr Milton Speer, a visiting fellow at the School of Mathematical and Physical Sciences at UTS, agreed the claim is false.

“There is supposed to be a balance between incoming radiation from the sun and outgoing radiation, a fact established centuries ago,” he said via email. “But greenhouse gases such as CO2 trap some of the outgoing radiation which gradually heats up the oceans, atmosphere.”

Dr Mehdi Seyedmahmoudian, an associate professor at Swinburne University’s School of Science, Computing and Engineering Technologies, agreed that the claim misunderstands the processes involved.

“According to this law, the earth (warmer object) is transferring its heat to its surrounding open space (cooler object) via thermal radiation.

“The problem appears when the CO2 obstructs this radiation and emits this heat back to the lower atmosphere. Adding this to the fact that conduction and convection are negligible at higher altitudes, it is a no-brainer fact that the lower atmosphere remains warm while the outer layers are cold.”

The Gerlich and Tscheuschner journal article has also been challenged. A comment on the article claimed their methods, logic and conclusions were in error. The original authors then published a reply to the comment.


It argues: “The Second Law does not state that the only flow of energy is from hot to cold but instead that the net sum of the energy flows will be from hot to cold. That qualifier term, ‘net’, is the important one here. The Earth alone is not a ‘closed system’, but is part of a constant, net energy flow from the Sun, to Earth and back out to space. Greenhouse gases simply inhibit part of that net flow, by returning some of the outgoing energy back towards Earth’s surface”.

This blog article also argues there are many errors in the original Gerlich and Tscheuschner article, and says of the second law of thermodynamics in relation to the greenhouse effect: “there is no scientific problem with radiation from a colder to a hotter body – so long as there is a higher radiation from the hotter to the colder”.This blog article argues the Gerlich and Tscheuschner journal article was largely responsible for the “myth that the greenhouse effect is contrary to the second law of thermodynamics”.

https://www.aap.com.au/factcheck/climate-sceptics-on-wrong-side-of-thermodynamics-law/

Paradox. Irrational.
You cannot claim you are not warming a warmer surface with a colder gas and claim you are at the same time.