Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[Into the Night]

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.

Science has no politics. I don't care how loud you laugh. You cannot just discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics like you are doing.

 

[Into the Night]

Proof is for mathematics.

You actually something partially right for once.

Mathematics (and logic) are both closed functional systems. That means you can have proofs in them.

Of course, you have already denied both mathematics and logic.

 

[AProudLefty]

You actually something partially right for once.

Mathematics (and logic) are both closed functional systems. That means you can have proofs in them.

Of course, you have already denied both mathematics and logic.

See Godel's Incompleteness Theorem for further study.

 

[ZenMode]

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

And yet you clearly and intentionally avoid educating yourself on the opposing argument. I wonder why that is.

#sarcasm

 

[Into the Night]

And yet you clearly and intentionally avoid educating yourself on the opposing argument. I wonder why that is.

#sarcasm

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

 

[IBDaMann]

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

Sorry, he failed to specify exactly how greenhouse effect was misrepresented. Dismissed.

- the process slows the energy being radiated to space,

1. What process?
2. He failed to explain how thermal radiation can somehow be slowed. It can't be slowed. It always travels at the speed of light.
Dismissed.

“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.

Here he has simply pivoted away from argument 2c (which violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics) to argument 2b which violates Stefan-Boltzmann. Still dismissed.

“There is supposed to be a balance between incoming radiation from the sun and outgoing radiation,

This is called equilibrium and is part of the foundation of black body science.

“But greenhouse gases such as CO2 trap some of the outgoing radiation which gradually heats up the oceans, atmosphere.”

Thermal radiation cannot be trapped. Stefan-Boltzmann is being violated egregiously. Dependent and independent variables are being conflated. Dismissed.

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.

Failure to explain the processes that are supposedly misunderstood. Dismissed.

“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.”

Yep, they have just stealthily pivoted back to 2c and are back to violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

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.

This is wrong. Warmizombies have been trying to legitimize this "net flow" argument for at least a decade. The bottom line is that the 2nd law of thermodynamics states that thermal energy only flows exclusively from hot to cold and nobody, least of all any warmizombie, has ever demonstrated any occurrence of thermal energy flowing from cold to hot. The 2nd law of thermodynamics remains intact and the warmizombie "net flow" crap remains discarded. Dismissed.

That qualifier term, ‘net’, is the important one here.

It's what gets this argument summarily discarded.

The Earth alone is not a ‘closed system’,

Irrelevant. Global Warming violates the 1st law of thermodynamics and no "closed system" requirement exists.

... but is part of a constant, net energy flow from the Sun, to Earth and back out to space.

False. Dismissed.

Greenhouse gases simply inhibit part of that net flow, by returning some of the outgoing energy back towards Earth’s surface”.

No substance has any magical superpowers to inhibit part of a FALSE argument, by violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics through the heating of the warmer surface by a colder gas.

This blog article also argues there are many errors in the original Gerlich and Tscheuschner article, ...

... because that's what warmizombies do, i.e. they simply declare others to be wrong and to not understand the material, when the whole time it is the warmizombies themselves who are wrong and who do not understand any of the material.

“there is no scientific problem with radiation from a colder to a hotter body

Intentional deception. Of course there is no problem with electromagnetic radiation flowing anywhere. The egregious problem is with thermal energy. It can only flow from hot to cold. Argument 2c is an irreconcilable violation of this nature.

 

[ZenMode]

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

You are trying to create a paradox where one does not exist. A cooler surface heating a warmer surface is not the same as a cooler surface slowing the movement of energy from a warmer to cooler surface.

 

[Into the Night]

You are trying to create a paradox where one does not exist. A cooler surface heating a warmer surface is not the same as a cooler surface slowing the movement of energy from a warmer to cooler surface.

You cannot slow or trap heat.
There is no such thing as 'net heat'.

The surface of Earth is generally warmer than the atmosphere.
You are still trying to heat the surface using a colder gas. You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You cannot clear your paradox by denying it.

 

[IBDaMann]

You are trying to create a paradox where one does not exist.

You are trying to deny a paradox where one exists.

A cooler surface [increasing the temperature of] a warmer surface is not the same as a cooler surface [increasing the temperature of a warmer surface].

You are a geniuth.

 

[ZenMode]

You cannot slow or trap heat.
There is no such thing as 'net heat'.

The surface of Earth is generally warmer than the atmosphere.
You are still trying to heat the surface using a colder gas. You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You cannot clear your paradox by denying it.

I'm not going to allow you to play the word games anymore. I'm using terms like energy, heat, thermal radiation etc mostly interchangeably. You're just going to have to learn to adjust.

So, if you can't slow the movement of heat, why do you bother heating your house on a cold night? Shouldn't the heat leave your house as fast as Your heater adds it?

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm not going to allow you to play the word games anymore.

He wasn't the one playing word games. You were.

I'm using terms like energy, heat, thermal radiation etc mostly interchangeably.

That's what you have been doing and it is the source of your errors.

I'll tell you what, I'll make a new category of error: "ZenMode Error." It is the error that results when different technical terms are deliberately used as though they are interchangeable. It will make it easy for you to adjust.

So, if you can't slow the movement of heat, why do you bother heating your house on a cold night?

ZenMode Error.

Shouldn't the heat leave your house as fast as Your heater adds it?

ZenMode Error.

I appreciate you helping me make this so much easier.

 

[ZenMode]

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

Of course there is sometimes an other side. That's the entire purpose of peer reviewing of research papers. It's not uncommon to have research papers that contradict each other. When that happens, the difference is researched further and explained.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not going to allow you to play the word games anymore.

I'm not playing word games. YOU are.

I'm using terms like energy, heat, thermal radiation etc mostly interchangeably.

They are not interchangeable.

You're just going to have to learn to adjust.

No, you're going to have to learn what they mean.

So, if you can't slow the movement of heat, why do you bother heating your house on a cold night?

Heat has no speed.

Shouldn't the heat leave your house as fast as Your heater adds it?

Heat is not contained in anything, and it has no speed.

 

[Into the Night]

Of course there is sometimes an other side. That's the entire purpose of peer reviewing of research papers. It's not uncommon to have research papers that contradict each other. When that happens, the difference is researched further and explained.

Science has no politics. There is no 'other side' of any theory of science. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
Science isn't papers or a 'research'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You are still trying to deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No matter how you try to redefine 'science', you cannot just get away with discarding these theories of science.

 

[ZenMode]

I'm not playing word games. YOU are.

They are not interchangeable.

No, you're going to have to learn what they mean.

Heat has no speed.

Heat is not contained in anything, and it has no speed.

So, again, why do you heat (yes, that universally used term) your house at night? Shouldn't the warm air move to the colder air making warming your house impossible? That's how the 2nd Law is being applied and being applied correctly according to you.

 

[ZenMode]

Science has no politics. There is no 'other side' of any theory of science. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
Science isn't papers or a 'research'.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You are still trying to deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. No matter how you try to redefine 'science', you cannot just get away with discarding these theories of science.

You can't claim things and magically make them true. There are other sides to some theories/research results. How the universe came into existence. What, if anything, makes up protons and neutrons. Strong theory and quantum chromodynamics are opposing theories related to gravity.

Nobody is ignoring any laws. The laws exist on their own. What IS being questioned is whether or not the laws are being applied correctly. There are two scientists who say yes. There are many others who say no. Once again, this is NOT a question of whether or not the laws exist and are true.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Science has no politics. I don't care how loud you laugh. You cannot just discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics like you are doing.

You don't know the first or second law of thermo. Sorry, but this has got to stop. Just. Stop.

 

[Into the Night]

So, again, why do you heat (yes, that universally used term) your house at night? Shouldn't the warm air move to the colder air making warming your house impossible? That's how the 2nd Law is being applied and being applied correctly according to you.

You obviously have no idea how HVAC works either. No matter how you pivot, you are still trying to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You can't do it. You are still trying to create energy out of nothing. You can't do it. You still don't know what heat is.

 

[Into the Night]

You can't claim things and magically make them true.

YOUR problem. Inversion fallacy.

There are other sides to some theories/research results.

Theories have no 'sides'.

How the universe came into existence.

A question, not a theory.

What, if anything, makes up protons and neutrons.

A question, not a theory.

Strong theory and quantum chromodynamics are opposing theories related to gravity.

Nonscientific theories. They are no falsifiable. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science.

Nobody is ignoring any laws.

YOU are.

The laws exist on their own.

I will call this argument 1.

What IS being questioned is whether or not the laws are being applied correctly.

I will call this argument 2. Paradox. Irrational.

There are two scientists who say yes. There are many others who say no.

This is more of argument 2. Paradox. Irrational. Science does not have a voting bloc. Consensus is not used in science.

Once again, this is NOT a question of whether or not the laws exist and are true.

Back to argument 1. Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

 

[Into the Night]

You don't know the first or second law of thermo. Sorry, but this has got to stop. Just. Stop.

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is 'work', or force over time. No gas or vapor is work by it's mere presence. Therefore, 'U' is zero, leaving E(t+1) = E(t). You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot destroy energy into nothing. You cannot warm the Earth simply because a gas or vapor is present. The Earth cannot heat itself.

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (or available work), and 't' is time. This defines the concept of heat and gives it a direction. Heat always flows from hot to cold. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = c*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance (light) in watts per square area, 'c' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant 'emissivity' or how well a surface absorbs and emits light, and 't' is temperature in deg K. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

You continue to ignore all three of these theories of science. You cannot just set these theories aside. They operate all the time, everywhere.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.