Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[ZenMode]

YOU did.

I have specifically said the opposite... repeatedly. That's why I referenced the inside of a car with windows closed. No additional sun energy; increased temperature inside the car.

Because of reduced heat. RAAA.

Ok.

No one has said otherwise.

 

[ZenMode]

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.


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


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


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


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.

Right, so now show how Pythagorean Theorem is applied to a circle.... without adding additional lines to create triangles. You can't and as I was saying, doing to would be an incorrect application of the PT. That is the issue here. It's not that the laws of Thermodynamics don't apply constantly. It's that they are being applied incorrectly, not only by the two scientists but by you and Into the Night.

 

[ZenMode]

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

So you refuse to answer.

Phoenix's atmosphere is not 95% carbon dioxide.

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

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

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

At no point is additional energy needed or being magically created. The sun is going to produce what it produces. As such, there is no issue with the first law of Thermodynamics.

Phoenix= Venus. Talk-to-text is imperfect.

No all gases don't absorb infrared light. Oxygen and nitrogen are invisible to the wave length of infrared light leaving the earth.

 

[gfm7175]

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

@IBDaMann --- QED

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.

Yes, and the reason why that is the case has already been explained to you (it is because of reduced heat when the windows are closed), however, you refuse to learn what heat is (because doing so would destroy your wacky physics-denying religion). You also refuse to acknowledge that Earth (which includes its atmosphere) doesn't have any windows around it (because doing so would destroy your stupid false equivalence).

 

[gfm7175]

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

Correct.

Ergo, your physics-denying religion is stupid because you are claiming an increase in temperature without any corresponding increase in thermal energy.

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

Irrelevant. Earth (which includes its atmosphere) does not have any windows around it.

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?

Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what I believe. Earth (which includes its atmosphere) does not have any windows around it.

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

... which means that there must be additional thermal energy that came from somewhere, yet you seem completely unable to account for it.

 

[ZenMode]

@IBDaMann ---


Yes, and the reason why that is the case has already been explained to you (it is because of reduced heat when the windows are closed), however, you refuse to learn what heat is (because doing so would destroy your wacky physics-denying religion). You also refuse to acknowledge that Earth (which includes its atmosphere) doesn't have any windows around it (because doing so would destroy your stupid false equivalence).

The point, again, is that the temperature in the car rises despite there being no additional energy from the sun. Therefore, there is no conflict between the 1st law of thermodynamics and climate change (he stated for the 5th time)

 

[ZenMode]

Ergo, your physics-denying religion is stupid because you are claiming an increase in temperature without any corresponding increase in thermal energy.


Irrelevant. Earth (which includes its atmosphere) does not have any windows around it.


Irrelevant. It doesn't matter what I believe. Earth (which includes its atmosphere) does not have any windows around it.


... which means that there must be additional thermal energy that came from somewhere, yet you seem completely unable to account for it.

The point, once again, (and as I also referenced above) is that no additional energy is needed to see an increase in temperature in a given area, THEREFORE there is no conflict between climate change and the 1st Law of Thermydynamics....

(he stated for the 6th time....)

 

[gfm7175]

The point, again, is that the temperature in the car rises despite there being no additional energy from the sun. Therefore, there is no conflict between the 1st law of thermodynamics and climate change (he stated for the 5th time)

The point, again, is that Earth does not have any windows around it. Additionally, altering the distribution of thermal energy is not equivalent to adding more thermal energy.

You really need to stop with the false equivalences... I do understand that they're all that you have so you're going to continue clinging onto them for dear life, but there is absolutely nothing rational about them, so your false equivalences are not going to convince any rational adult to believe in your physics-denying religion.

 

[gfm7175]

The point, once again, (and as I also referenced above) is that no additional energy is needed to see an increase in temperature in a given area, THEREFORE there is no conflict between climate change and the 1st Law of Thermydynamics....

(he stated for the 6th time....)

Continued chanting. Chanting does not transform your false equivalences into logical statements.

 

[ZenMode]

The point, again, is that Earth does not have any windows around it. Additionally, altering the distribution of thermal energy is not equivalent to adding more thermal energy.

You really need to stop with the false equivalences... I do understand that they're all that you have so you're going to continue clinging onto them for dear life, but there is absolutely nothing rational about them, so your false equivalences are not going to convince any rational adult to believe in your physics-denying religion.

Windows aren't the only method existing energy can be used to increase temperature in a given area. Do you agree that closing windows on a car does not change the amount of energy from the sun or change the amount of energy entering the car, even though the temperature inside the car increases?

 

[gfm7175]

Windows aren't the only method existing energy can be used to increase temperature in a given area. Do you agree that closing windows on a car does not change the amount of energy from the sun or change the amount of energy entering the car?

EARTH. DOES. NOT. HAVE. ANY. WINDOWS. AROUND. IT.

 

[ZenMode]

EARTH. DOES. NOT. HAVE. ANY. WINDOWS. AROUND. IT.

I've never said it does, but your straw man is acknowledged.

Do you, or do you not, agree that the temperature inside a car can increase without a change in the amount of energy coming from the sun or entering the car?

 

[IBDaMann]

Right, so now show how Pythagorean Theorem is applied to a circle.

Are you telling me that you didn't fully grasp Into the Night's example of "trigonometry" as an entire branch of mathematics that applies the Pythagorean theorem to a circle as an example of the Pythagorean Theorem being applied to a circle, and that my additional example and clarification wasn't of any help either?

You can't ...

I can. I suppose you didn't like my example. Do you recognize any terms on this list? Sine, Cosine, Tangent, Cotangent, Secant, Cosecant, Arcsine, Arccosine, Arctangent, Arc cotangent, Arc secant, Arc cosecant ... They are all defined via the relationship between angles of a circle and the right triangles thusly formed. The right triangles enable the Pythagorean theorem to be applied to establish the circle's radius. Why does this not count?

and as I was saying, doing to would be an incorrect application of the PT.

If I use the Pythagorean theorem to determine the radius of a circle, how would that be an incorrect application?

That is the issue here. It's not that the laws of Thermodynamics don't apply constantly. It's that they are being applied incorrectly, not only by the two scientists but by you and Into the Night.

As I have mentioned elsewhere, you have to show the error in the application. You don't get to just claim it. Get to it.

 

[Into the Night]

I have specifically said the opposite... repeatedly.

Blatant lie.

That's why I referenced the inside of a car with windows closed. No additional sun energy; increased temperature inside the car.

You can't create energy out of nothing. RAAA. Earth has no windows.

 

[ZenMode]

Are you telling me that you didn't fully grasp Into the Night's example of "trigonometry" as an entire branch of mathematics that applies the Pythagorean theorem to a circle as an example of the Pythagorean Theorem being applied to a circle, and that my additional example and clarification wasn't of any help either?


I can. I suppose you didn't like my example. Do you recognize any terms on this list? Sine, Cosine, Tangent, Cotangent, Secant, Cosecant, Arcsine, Arccosine, Arctangent, Arc cotangent, Arc secant, Arc cosecant ... They are all defined via the relationship between angles of a circle and the right triangles thusly formed. The right triangles enable the Pythagorean theorem to be applied to establish the circle's radius. Why does this not count?


If I use the Pythagorean theorem to determine the radius of a circle, how would that be an incorrect application?


As I have mentioned elsewhere, you have to show the error in the application. You don't get to just claim it. Get to it.

You're putting a triangle inside a circle. That means your applying PT to a triangle, not a circle. If you remove the circle, nothing changes because the circle is irrelevant.

 

[ZenMode]

Blatant lie.

You can't create energy out of nothing. RAAA.

At what point in my car example was there an implication of energy increase?

 

[Into the Night]

Right, so now show how Pythagorean Theorem is applied to a circle.... without adding additional lines to create triangles.

So you want him to describe trigonometry without using trigonometry. Go get a math book and study it.

You can't and as I was saying, doing to would be an incorrect application of the PT.

The Pythagorean theorem does apply to circles.

That is the issue here.

Nah. You are just denying mathematics again.

It's not that the laws of Thermodynamics don't apply constantly.

According to YOU, they don't. Which is it, dude? You are locked in paradox on this one!

It's that they are being applied incorrectly, not only by the two scientists but by you and Into the Night.

Science doesn't use consensus. There are no politics in science. There is no 'apply'. The laws of thermodynamics that YOU choose to ignore does not make them magickally go away.

 

[Into the Night]

At no point is additional energy needed or being magically created. The sun is going to produce what it produces. As such, there is no issue with the first law of Thermodynamics.

There is with you. You are trying to magickally create energy out of nothing, all while saying you aren't. You are locked in paradox, dude.

Phoenix= Venus. Talk-to-text is imperfect.

Phoenix is not on Venus. I guess you can't enunciate very well either.

No all gases don't absorb infrared light.

ALL gases absorb infrared light.

Oxygen and nitrogen are invisible to the wave length of infrared light leaving the earth.

Homunculus fallacy. There is no magickal creature or entity telling a gas where to absorb infrared light from. ALL gases absorb infrared light. There are many frequencies of light leaving Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

The point, again, is that the temperature in the car rises despite there being no additional energy from the sun. Therefore, there is no conflict between the 1st law of thermodynamics and climate change (he stated for the 5th time)

The Earth has no windows. It is not a car. Climate cannot change.

 

[Into the Night]

Windows aren't the only method existing energy can be used to increase temperature in a given area. Do you agree that closing windows on a car does not change the amount of energy from the sun or change the amount of energy entering the car, even though the temperature inside the car increases?

Earth has no windows. False equivalence fallacy. RAAA.