Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[IBDaMann]

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

That is what you do with thermal energy.

There are other sides to some theories/research results.

ZenMode Error.

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.

Of that list, only subatomic particles have science models. Quantum Chromodynamics has a model but it really isn't falsifiable.

Nobody is ignoring any laws.

The first thing warmizombies do when ignoring laws of nature is to insist that "Nobody is ignoring any laws."
The first thing warmizombies do when claiming the creation of energy out of nothing is to insist that "Nobody is claiming that energy is being created out of nothing."
The first thing warmizombies do when claiming the cooler atmosphere heats the warmer earth's surface is to insist that "Nobody is claiming that the cooler atmosphere heats the warmer earth's surface."
The first thing warmizombies do when claiming the a reduction in earth's radiance causes an increase in earth's temperature is to insist that "Nobody is claiming that a reduction in earth's radiance causes an increase in earth's temperature."

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

You are chanting. You well know that the laws of thermodynamics, Planck's law and Stefan-Boltzmann apply always and everywhere. Also, you can't question anything about any of the laws because you don't understand any of them.

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

All scientists say both "yes" and "no."

 

[ZenMode]

YOUR problem. Inversion fallacy.

Theories have no 'sides'.

A question, not a theory.

A question, not a theory.

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

YOU are.
I will call this argument 1.

I will call this argument 2. Paradox. Irrational.

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

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

Questioning whether or not laws are being applied correctly isn't a paradox. It's the crux of why there is so much push back against the two scientists. If I tried to apply Pythagorean Theorem to a circle, and other mathematicians pushed back, that's not their fault. Again, had you actually educated yourself, not just participated in confirmation biasz this wouldn't be unknown to you.

 

[ZenMode]

That is what you do with thermal energy.


ZenMode Error.


Of that list, only subatomic particles have science models. Quantum Chromodynamics has a model but it really isn't falsifiable.


The first thing warmizombies do when ignoring laws of nature is to insist that "Nobody is ignoring any laws."
The first thing warmizombies do when claiming the creation of energy out of nothing is to insist that "Nobody is claiming that energy is being created out of nothing."
The first thing warmizombies do when claiming the cooler atmosphere heats the warmer earth's surface is to insist that "Nobody is claiming that the cooler atmosphere heats the warmer earth's surface."
The first thing warmizombies do when claiming the a reduction in earth's radiance causes an increase in earth's temperature is to insist that "Nobody is claiming that a reduction in earth's radiance causes an increase in earth's temperature."


You are chanting. You well know that the laws of thermodynamics, Planck's law and Stefan-Boltzmann apply always and everywhere. Also, you can't question anything about any of the laws because you don't understand any of them.


All scientists say both "yes" and "no."

Nobody is creating energy out of nothing. The sun is producing the energy.

Nobody is claiming the cooler atmosphere is heating anything. The claim is that the energy from the sun is heating things.

How do you not know this?

 

[Into the Night]

Questioning whether or not laws are being applied correctly isn't a paradox.

The laws of thermodynamics apply always, everywhere, at all times.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies always, everywhere, at all times.

No, you don't get to set aside any theory of science for ANY length of time for ANY reason.

It's the crux of why there is so much push back against the two scientists.

Void argument fallacy. Science has no politics and does not use consensus.

If I tried to apply Pythagorean Theorem to a circle,

The Pythagorean theorem DOES apply to a circle. Obviously, you never learned trigonometry.

and other mathematicians pushed back, that's not their fault.

Mathematics has no politics and does not use consensus. Mathematics is not science either.

Again, had you actually educated yourself, not just participated in confirmation biasz this wouldn't be unknown to you.

Psychoquackery. Mathematics is not defined by 'comfirmation bias' and neither is any theory of science.

 

[Into the Night]

Nobody is creating energy out of nothing. The sun is producing the energy.

YOU are. The Sun is assumed to be unchanged, yet you claim Earth has more energy than before.

Nobody is claiming the cooler atmosphere is heating anything. The claim is that the energy from the sun is heating things.

YOU are. It is YOU that is claiming that a colder gas is heating the warmer surface.

How do you not know this?

Your pivot won't work.

 

[IBDaMann]

Nobody is creating energy out of nothing.

That is exactly your claim, and you gave yourself no wiggle room.

The sun is producing the energy.

The sun is not somehow producing any more energy than it was prior to the introduction of your magical greenhouse substance. You specify that your magical greenhouse substance causes the additional thermal energy, in the form of a temperature increase. This is your argument and I'm just repeating it back to you.

You keep trying to claim that your magical greenhouse substance traps light, but that is absurd and is dismissed.
You keep trying to claim that your magical greenhouse substance redistributes the existing thermal energy in such a way that there is somehow more of it. Absurd. Dismissed.

Let me know when something changes.

Nobody is claiming the cooler atmosphere is heating anything. The claim is that the energy from the sun is heating things.

You need to say the crucial part, i.e. "The claim is that there is a temperature increase."

This is your problem. A "temperature increase" = additional thermal energy. You must account for this new, additional energy. You absolutely must explain from where this new, additional thermal energy comes. To this end, you respond "mystical magical greenhouse gas substances cause this increase in temperature/thermal energy." Bam! 1st LoT violation! You're done.

 

[ZenMode]

The laws of thermodynamics apply always, everywhere, at all times.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies always, everywhere, at all times.

No, you don't get to set aside any theory of science for ANY length of time for ANY reason.


Void argument fallacy. Science has no politics and does not use consensus.

The Pythagorean theorem DOES apply to a circle. Obviously, you never learned trigonometry.

Mathematics has no politics and does not use consensus. Mathematics is not science either.

Psychoquackery. Mathematics is not defined by 'comfirmation bias' and neither is any theory of science.

"The Pythagorean theorem DOES apply to a circle. Obviously, you never learned trigonometry."

Lol. Great! Show me how you apply the Pythagorean theorem to a circle.

Nobody is saying the laws of thermodynamics don't apply all the time. Nobody is saying there is politics in the laws of thermodynamics or mathematics. What is being claimed is that the laws of thermodynamics are being applied incorrectly. It would be like trying to use Pythagorean theorem to find the length of a side of a circle. The misapplication does not change the laws or mathematics. The misapplication just means that the laws or equations are being applied incorrectly.

 

[ZenMode]

YOU are. The Sun is assumed to be unchanged, yet you claim Earth has more energy than before.

Nope. Nobody has ever claimed that there is more energy coming from the sun or being created in any way. If you sit in your car on a sunny day and close your windows, you will notice that the temperature on the inside of your car is higher than if the windows are all open. This happens despite the fact that there is no additional energy from the sun.

YOU are. It is YOU that is claiming that a colder gas is heating the warmer surface.

Nope. The surface of the Earth is still being heated by the sun.

Your pivot won't work.

It's a question. You can either answer it or you can't.

 

[ZenMode]

That is exactly your claim, and you gave yourself no wiggle room.


The sun is not somehow producing any more energy than it was prior to the introduction of your magical greenhouse substance. You specify that your magical greenhouse substance causes the additional thermal energy, in the form of a temperature increase. This is your argument and I'm just repeating it back to you.

You keep trying to claim that your magical greenhouse substance traps light, but that is absurd and is dismissed.
You keep trying to claim that your magical greenhouse substance redistributes the existing thermal energy in such a way that there is somehow more of it. Absurd. Dismissed.

Let me know when something changes.


You need to say the crucial part, i.e. "The claim is that there is a temperature increase."

This is your problem. A "temperature increase" = additional thermal energy. You must account for this new, additional energy. You absolutely must explain from where this new, additional thermal energy comes. To this end, you respond "mystical magical greenhouse gas substances cause this increase in temperature/thermal energy." Bam! 1st LoT violation! You're done.

"The sun is not somehow producing any more energy than it was".

Correct. You can make the inside of your car warmer by simply closing your windows. Do you believe that closing windows is increasing the amount of energy from the sun OR do you believe that the energy is the same?

"The claim is that there is a temperature increase." Yes.

 

[IBDaMann]

"The sun is not somehow producing any more energy than it was".

Correct. You can make the inside of your car warmer by simply closing your windows.

Correct. You can keep the outside of the car cooler by simply closing your windows. You are simply altering the distribution of the thermal energy, not adding any more. The average temperature of the combined inside of the car and the outside of the car remain exactly the same. This is the second time this has been explained to you but you were too stupid to understand it the first time, I suppose.

Anyway, when you consider the combined inside the car and outside the car, the average temperature remains the same, just that the closing of the car windows prevents much of the convection, thus preventing the inside of the car from heating the outside of the car, and preventing the outside of the car from cooling the inside of the car.

If you are claiming an increase in average global temperature, you are talking about all of the planet's surface, to include the atmosphere and the hydrosphere. Simply altering the distribution of the existing quantity of thermal energy keeps the average temperature exactly the same.

 

[ZenMode]

"The sun is not somehow producing any more energy than it was".


Correct. You can keep the outside of the car cooler by simply closing your windows. You are simply altering the distribution of the thermal energy, not adding any more. The average temperature of the combined inside of the car and the outside of the car remain exactly the same. This is the second time this has been explained to you but you were too stupid to understand it the first time, I suppose.

perfect. I'm glad we can agree that, without any additional energy from the Sun, a specific area can see a significant increase in temperature. Hopefully I don't have to hear about the first law of thermodynamics again during this conversation.

Anyway, when you consider the combined inside the car and outside the car, the average temperature remains the same, just that the closing of the car windows prevents much of the convection, thus preventing the inside of the car from heating the outside of the car, and preventing the outside of the car from cooling the inside of the car.

but, of course, that does not change the fact that it is still considerably hotter inside the car. Thanks for confirming.

If you are claiming an increase in average global temperature, you are talking about all of the planet's surface, to include the atmosphere and the hydrosphere. Simply altering the distribution of the existing quantity of thermal energy keeps the average temperature exactly the same.

The warming that would be caused by greenhouse gases would occur in the atmosphere. As has been discussed previously, the Earth's atmosphere begins at ground level and spans several miles into the sky. The atmosphere of Venus is about 95% carbon dioxide. That's why, despite being millions of miles further from the Sun than Mercury, the temperature's Venus reach 900° F.

 

[IBDaMann]

Hopefully I don't have to hear about the first law of thermodynamics again during this conversation.

You aren't out of the woods. You insisted in the preceding post that you are, in fact, claiming an increase in the earth's average global temperature. You further clarified that your magical greenhouse substance causes this addition of thermal energy (temperature increase). Let's jump to where you claim that the atmosphere is what increases in temperature ...

The warming that would be caused by greenhouse gases would occur in the atmosphere.

How are you claiming that your magical greenhouse substance causes more thermal energy to be in the atmosphere without creating it out of nothing? Does it pull thermal energy out of the ground or does it cool the ocean?

The atmosphere of Venus is about 95% carbon dioxide. That's why, despite being millions of miles further from the Sun than Mercury, the temperature's Venus reach 900° F.

So you are back to insisting that an atmosphere's composition, not the Ideal Gas law, determines temperatures within an atmosphere. I see you decided to compare Venus' extremely thick atmosphere in which the Ideal Gas law is heavily at play, with Mercury's absence of any atmosphere and any Ideal Gas law impact. It would appear that you have no intention of learning any of this because it threatens your religious faith.

I feel sorry for you.

 

[ZenMode]

You aren't out of the woods. You insisted in the preceding post that you are, in fact, claiming an increase in the earth's average global temperature. You further clarified that your magical greenhouse substance causes this addition of thermal energy (temperature increase). Let's jump to where you claim that the atmosphere is what increases in temperature ...

Correct. The atmosphere, at several levels, would see an increase in temperature.

How are you claiming that your magical greenhouse substance causes more thermal energy to be in the atmosphere without creating it out of nothing? Does it pull thermal energy out of the ground or does it cool the ocean?

If you had any intellectual curiosity, and not just a thirst for confirmation bias, you wouldn't be asking this question.

So you are back to insisting that an atmosphere's composition, not the Ideal Gas law, determines temperatures within an atmosphere. I see you decided to compare Venus' extremely thick atmosphere in which the Ideal Gas law is heavily at play, with Mercury's absence of any atmosphere and any Ideal Gas law impact. It would appear that you have no intention of learning any of this because it threatens your religious faith.

I feel sorry for you.

Venus' atmosphere, again, is 95% carbon dioxide. That is what makes it "thick", It's also what prevents the thermal energy from escaping into space. Oxygen and nitrogen molecules are invisible to infrared energy. Carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases, are not.

 

[IBDaMann]

If you had any intellectual curiosity, and not just a thirst for confirmation bias, you wouldn't be asking this question.

Nope. I am curious, and I am asking the question. Please provide the answer.

Phoenix's atmosphere, again, is 95% carbon dioxide.

Too funny.

That is what makes it "thick",

Nope. The quantity alone is what makes it "thick."

It's also what prevents the thermal energy from escaping into space.

First, you meant thermal radiation, which is electromagnetic energy.
Second, to not violate black body science, the equilibrium requires exactly the same amount of thermal radiation to radiate away.
Third, if you are telling me that the earth's radiance has decreased, then you have told me that the earth's temperature has decreased (Stefan-Boltzmann)

Oxygen and nitrogen molecules are invisible to infrared energy.

This is the third time you have returned to this crap after it has been explained to you otherwise. In fact, you totally EVADED my question on this topic because you knew that answering would pull the rug out from under your argument, so you simply waited for sufficient time to have passed so you could return to the lie.

If a large cloud of oxygen and nitrogen were to exist in close proximity to the sun, would it get hot, or would it drop in temperature until it was close to absolute zero?

 

[Into the Night]

"The Pythagorean theorem DOES apply to a circle. Obviously, you never learned trigonometry."

Lol. Great! Show me how you apply the Pythagorean theorem to a circle.

Grab a math book with trigonometry and study it.

Nobody is saying the laws of thermodynamics don't apply all the time.

YOU are.

Nobody is saying there is politics in the laws of thermodynamics or mathematics.

YOU are.

What is being claimed is that the laws of thermodynamics are being applied incorrectly.

There is no 'applied incorrectly'. You just want to ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

No matter how you try to argue it, you CANNOT HEAT A WARMER SURFACE USING A COLDER GAS as you claim.

It would be like trying to use Pythagorean theorem to find the length of a side of a circle.

You can. Go learn some math.

The misapplication does not change the laws or mathematics.

Not a misapplication.

The misapplication just means that the laws or equations are being applied incorrectly.

There is no 'applied' here. You just want to ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. Nobody has ever claimed that there is more energy coming from the sun or being created in any way.

YOU did.

If you sit in your car on a sunny day and close your windows, you will notice that the temperature on the inside of your car is higher than if the windows are all open. This happens despite the fact that there is no additional energy from the sun.

Because of reduced heat. RAAA.

Nope. The surface of the Earth is still being heated by the sun. It's a question. You can either answer it or you can't.

No one has said otherwise.

 

[Into the Night]

"The sun is not somehow producing any more energy than it was".

Correct. You can make the inside of your car warmer by simply closing your windows. Do you believe that closing windows is increasing the amount of energy from the sun OR do you believe that the energy is the same?

The atmosphere is not a car and there are no windows.

"The claim is that there is a temperature increase." Yes.

Then you are attempting yet again to create energy out of nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

perfect. I'm glad we can agree that, without any additional energy from the Sun, a specific area can see a significant increase in temperature. Hopefully I don't have to hear about the first law of thermodynamics again during this conversation.

You will continue to hear about the 1st law of thermodynamics as long as you try to ignore it.

but, of course, that does not change the fact that it is still considerably hotter inside the car. Thanks for confirming.

The atmosphere is not a car. There are no windows.

The warming that would be caused by greenhouse gases would occur in the atmosphere.

You can't create energy out of nothing. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

As has been discussed previously, the Earth's atmosphere begins at ground level and spans several miles into the sky.

So?

The atmosphere of Venus is about 95% carbon dioxide.

So?

That's why, despite being millions of miles further from the Sun than Mercury, the temperature's Venus reach 900° F.

The temperature of Venus is unknown. It is not possible to measure it.
The temperature of Mercury is unknown. It is not possible to measure it.

 

[Into the Night]

Correct. The atmosphere, at several levels, would see an increase in temperature.

You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are AGAIN ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

If you had any intellectual curiosity, and not just a thirst for confirmation bias, you wouldn't be asking this question.

So you refuse to answer.

Phoenix's atmosphere, again, is 95% carbon dioxide.

Phoenix's atmosphere is not 95% carbon dioxide.

That is what makes it "thick",

Phoenix's atmosphere is no thicker than any other city.

It's also what prevents the thermal energy from escaping into space.

You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You are now ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

Oxygen and nitrogen molecules are invisible to infrared energy.
Carbon dioxide, and other greenhouse gases, are not.

Blatant lie. ALL gases absorb infrared light. So what?

 

[IBDaMann]

Lol. Great! Show me how you apply the Pythagorean theorem to a circle.

How do you show that sin^2(x) + cos^2(x) = r in all cases? [hint: Pythagorean Theorem]

Trigonometry is about right triangles in a unit circle. The hypotenuse of the right triangle is also the radius of the circle.

Nobody is saying the laws of thermodynamics don't apply all the time.

I think you meant to write that nobody is saying that anymore, right.

Nobody is saying there is politics in the laws of thermodynamics or mathematics.

Correct. All of the politics are built into the Global Warming religion.

What is being claimed is that the laws of thermodynamics are being applied incorrectly.

Meaningless gibberish. There is only one way to apply a science law, i.e. ... apply it. There are no substitute ways with optional features.

It would be like trying to use Pythagorean theorem to find the length of a side of a circle.

Nope. Bad example. Applying the 1st law of thermodynamics to any claims of "average temperature increase" would be like a bartender checking a photo ID.

You don't get to claim misapplication; you must show misapplication.