Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

IBDaMann said:
Stop. Your question is stupid. You have finally exhausted all of your religious thettled thienth and have found that it doesn't hold up to actual science. So now you are pretending that merely controlling the temperature in one location equates to an increase in earth's average global temperature without additional energy.

... AND ... you don't understand why one doesn't equate to the other because you are scientifically illiterate. You stupidly believe that acknowledging that windows attenuate convection is an acknowledgement of Global Warming and recognition of the TRUTH of Climate Change! Nope, not going to happen. Your stupid question has been answered. I have answered it several times myself. Yes, windows reduce the extent the inside of the car heats the outside of the car and reduce the extent to which the outside of the car cools the inside of the car. Global Warming and Climate Change are still stupid and violate physics.


What is "this" that is happening? Are you talking about the constancy of the average combined temperature of "inside the car" and "outside the car"?
Click to expand...

So I'm just trying to establish that temperature in one area can be higher than the temperature in an adjacent area without magically creating energy and violating the 1st rule of thermodynamics.

Do you agree or disagree?
 
ZenMode said:
Where in either example is there the implication or requirement that extra energy is being created out of nowhere or being created by the sun to cause the increase in temperature/discrepancy between the temperature inside/outside?
Click to expand...
ZenMode Error. Already explained multiple times. Refusal to learn. Your confusion is not my error.
 
ZenMode said:
So I'm just trying to establish that temperature in one area can be higher than the temperature in an adjacent area without magically creating energy and violating the 1st rule of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...
This is completely false. You are trying to establish acceptance of Global Warming without seeing the magical creation of energy violating the 1st LoT. Do you agree or disagree?
 
IBDaMann said:
ZenMode Error. Already explained multiple times. Refusal to learn. Your confusion is not my error.
Click to expand...

Sybil, where are you on this list? What about gfm and ITN?

2eyfkaH.jpg
 
IBDaMann said:
This is completely false. You are trying to establish acceptance of Global Warming without seeing the magical creation of energy violating the 1st LoT. Do you agree or disagree?
Click to expand...

I'm trying to establish that the temperature inside a car can be different than a temperature outside of a car without any additional energy being magically created or violating the first law of thermodynamics. Do you agree that what we both know happens millions of times per day, does happen without violating the first law of thermodynamics?
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
JFC.... if you remove the circle, the equation/calculation still works BECAUSE THE CALCULATION HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE CIRCLE. ¿Comprendé?
Click to expand...
False. The circle is defining the points in question. If I am thus trying to determine the radius of this circle, I can use the Pythagorean theorem because it applies in this case.

But math is a closed functional system and not every theorem applies in all cases. In science however, which is an open functional system where the laws apply always and everywhere, you need to show a misapplication/error if you claim it.


p.s. - The question "Do you understand?" in Spanish is properly written "¿Comprende, Ud.?" or more commonly "¿Entiende, Ud.?" What you wrote, i.e. "¿Comprendé?", reads "Did I understand?" ... to which the answer is "No, not really."
 
ZenMode said:
I'm trying to establish that the temperature inside a car can be different than a temperature outside of a car without any additional energy being magically created or violating the first law of thermodynamics. Do you agree that what we both know happens millions of times per day, does happen without violating the first law of thermodynamics?
Click to expand...
Let's go back to what you are trying to accomplish. You could ask "Do you agree that ice will melt if left sitting in the sun?" You are just trying to get me to agree to one unrelated but obviously true point, so that you can then say "See, that's all Global Warming is; I'm glad we all agree" ... and out from under your bogus arguments you slip.

You can read my signature. You know what you have to show. If you are claiming a spontaneous increase in earth's average global equilibrium temperature then you are claiming the existence of additional thermal energy. In an attempt to not violate the 1st LoT, you pivot to claiming that your magical greenhouse substance doesn't create any energy out of nothing, and that it simply redistributes the existing thermal energy. Oooops, there goes the temperature increase. Gone. If you take away the magical creation-of-energy-out-of-nothing, you take away the Global Warming. It looks like you need to bring back the violation of the 1st LoT for your dogma to work.

Bummer, dude.
 
IBDaMann said:
False. The circle is defining the points in question. If I am thus trying to determine the radius of this circle, I can use the Pythagorean theorem because it applies in this case.

But math is a closed functional system and not every theorem applies in all cases. In science however, which is an open functional system where the laws apply always and everywhere, you need to show a misapplication/error if you claim it.


p.s. - The question "Do you understand?" in Spanish is properly written "¿Comprende, Ud.?" or more commonly "¿Entiende, Ud.?" What you wrote, i.e. "¿Comprendé?", reads "Did I understand?" ... to which the answer is "No, not really."
Click to expand...

No. The angles of the triangle define find the points in question. Without the triangle within the circle, the Pythagorean theorem is absolutely useless. If I'm wrong, then show me how the Pythagorean theorem is used on just a circle, with no other shapes involved.

And, no, comprende is perfectly acceptable. The fact that I said comprende and not comprendes automatically implies usted vs tu.
 
Last edited:
IBDaMann said:
Let's go back to what you are trying to accomplish. You could ask "Do you agree that ice will melt if left sitting in the sun?" You are just trying to get me to agree to one unrelated but obviously true point, so that you can then say "See, that's all Global Warming is; I'm glad we all agree" ... and out from under your bogus arguments you slip.

You can read my signature. You know what you have to show. If you are claiming a spontaneous increase in earth's average global equilibrium temperature then you are claiming the existence of additional thermal energy. In an attempt to not violate the 1st LoT, you pivot to claiming that your magical greenhouse substance doesn't create any energy out of nothing, and that it simply redistributes the existing thermal energy. Oooops, there goes the temperature increase. Gone. If you take away the magical creation-of-energy-out-of-nothing, you take away the Global Warming. It looks like you need to bring back the violation of the 1st LoT for your dogma to work.

Bummer, dude.
Click to expand...

Every day, around the world, the interior of hundreds of millions vehicles have a higher temperature than the exterior of those same vehicles. Do you agree that there is no additional energy required for this to happen and therefore, does not violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?
 
MoronMode said:
I'm trying to establish that the temperature inside a car [with the windows closed] can be different than a temperature outside of a car [with the windows closed] without any additional energy being magically created or violating the first law of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...
Since calling you out on the fact that Earth does not have any windows around it, you've now been leaving out this part from your stupid questioning. Now you're being vague as to whether or not the windows of the car are open or closed. Is this because you wish to be dishonest and switch back and forth between the two whenever it is convenient for you?

Regardless, the whole 'windows closed' vs 'windows open' discussion is only addressing the topic of reducing vs increasing the flow of thermal energy, IOW altering the distribution of thermal energy. Nowhere here is any additional thermal energy being added. Ergo, the average combined temperature of 'inside the car' and 'outside the car' remains the same.

MoronMode said:
Do you agree that what we both know happens millions of times per day, does happen without violating the first law of thermodynamics?
Click to expand...

** MoronMode has two baskets sitting on his table.
** Basket #1 has two apples inside of it.
** Basket #2 has five apples inside of it.
** MoronMode has a combined seven apples sitting on his table.

** MoronMode alters the distribution of his apples so as to remove three apples from Basket #2 and add those three apples into Basket #1.
** Now, Basket #1 has five apples inside of it (instead of two).
** Now, Basket #2 has two apples inside of it (instead of five).
** Now, MoronMode erroneously proclaims to the high heavens that he has a combined ten apples sitting atop his table.


Why should any rational adult believe that MoronMode, after a bit of apple distribution altering, now miraculously has ten apples sitting atop his table instead of the same seven that he has always had?
 
Last edited:
gfm7175 said:
Since calling you out on the fact that Earth does not have any windows around it, you've now been leaving out this part from your stupid questioning. Now you're being vague as to whether or not the windows of the car are open or closed. Is this because you wish to be dishonest and switch back and forth between the two whenever it is convenient for you?

Regardless, the whole 'windows closed' vs 'windows open' discussion is only addressing the topic of reducing vs increasing the flow of thermal energy, IOW altering the distribution of thermal energy. Nowhere here is any additional thermal energy being added. Ergo, the average combined temperature of 'inside the car' and 'outside the car' remains the same.



** MoronMode has two baskets sitting on his table.
** Basket #1 has two apples inside of it.
** Basket #2 has five apples inside of it.
** MoronMode has a combined seven apples sitting on his table.

** MoronMode alters the distribution of his apples so as to remove three apples from Basket #2 and add those three apples into Basket #1.
** Now, Basket #1 has five apples inside of it (instead of two).
** Now, Basket #2 has two apples inside of it (instead of five).
** Now, MoronMode erroneously proclaims to the high heavens that he has a combined ten apples sitting on his table.


Why should any rational adult believe that MoronMode, after a bit of apple distribution altering, now miraculously has ten apples sitting atop his table instead of the same seven that he has always had?
Click to expand...

What happens to the temperature of the interior of a car during a hot day?
 
ZenMode said:
Every day, around the world, the interior of hundreds of millions vehicles have a higher temperature than the exterior of those same vehicles. Do you agree that there is no additional energy required for this to happen and therefore, does not violate the 1st Law of Thermodynamics?
Click to expand...
Every day, around the world, the combined interior and exterior of hundreds of millions [of] vehicles have not increased in temperature without any additional thermal energy being added. Do you agree that altering the distribution of thermal energy in a manner of subtracting X from the exterior of the car and adding that same X into the interior of the car has not resulted in any addition of thermal energy re: the combined interior and exterior of said car?
 
Last edited:
AProudLefty said:
What happens to the temperature of the interior of a car during a hot day?
Click to expand...
Wrong question.

Correct question: During a hot day, what happens to the average temperature of the combined interior and exterior of a car after merely altering the distribution of thermal energy from one part of a car to another part of a car instead of adding additional thermal energy to the combined interior and exterior of a car?
 
gfm7175 said:
Wrong question.

Correct question: During a hot day, what happens to the average temperature of the combined interior and exterior of a car after merely altering the distribution of thermal energy from one part of the car to another part of it?
Click to expand...

Answer the question please.
 
AProudLefty said:
I asked you a question. You do not reply to a question with another question. It indicates you're evading.
Click to expand...
Nope. You asked the WRONG question (purposely leaving out important details). I responded by asking you the CORRECT question (to include the important details that you purposely left out).

IBDaMann summed it up SOOOOOO well in his post #544, in which he concluded: "... i.e. it's all one big lie of omission, and stupid people fall for it."

You and ZenMode purposely word your questions in a dishonest manner so as to only include the INTERIOR of the car, and to purposely OMIT the exterior of it.

"One big lie of omission" is SPOT ON.
 
gfm7175 said:
Every day, around the world, the combined interior and exterior of hundreds of millions [of] vehicles have not increased in temperature without any additional thermal energy being added. Do you agree that altering the distribution of thermal energy in a manner of subtracting X from the exterior of the car and adding that same X into the interior of the car has not resulted in any addition of thermal energy re: the combined interior and exterior of said car?
Click to expand...

Multiple chances, and multiple days, to answer a simple yes/no question and yet it goes unanswered. The reason why should be clear to everyone involved.

So, now we know that Environment A can have warmer temperatures than Environment B, without violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics because a car with windows closed is getting the same amount of energy as a car with windows closed, yet the temperature inside/outside are obviously different.

Given that fact, there's nothing related to how climate change is believed to work that would inherently violate the 1st Law, either.
 
Last edited:
ZenMode said:
Multiple chances, and multiple days, to answer a simple yes/no question and yet it goes unanswered. The reason why should be clear to everyone involved.
Click to expand...
Oh, it is. You wish to be dishonest via lying by omission, but "too bad so sad" for you, some of us around here are too well-equipped to let you get away with it... Your omission-riddled chanting is better directed towards your fellow physics deniers and towards stupid people who can easily be conned by it.

ZenMode said:
So, now we know that Environment A can have warmer temperatures than Environment B, without violating the 1st Law of Thermodynamics because a car with windows closed is getting the same amount of energy as a car with windows closed, yet the temperature inside/outside are obviously different.
Click to expand...
:seenoevil::hearnoevil:

What about the average temperature of the combined interior and exterior of a car? Does that average temperature change at all after altering the distribution of thermal energy from one part of a car to another part of it?
 
gfm7175 said:
Nope. You asked the WRONG question (purposely leaving out important details). I responded by asking you the CORRECT question (to include the important details that you purposely left out).

IBDaMann summed it up SOOOOOO well in his post #544, in which he concluded: "... i.e. it's all one big lie of omission, and stupid people fall for it."

You and ZenMode purposely word your questions in a dishonest manner so as to only include the INTERIOR of the car, and to purposely OMIT the exterior of it.

"One big lie of omission" is SPOT ON.
Click to expand...

You refuse to answer a simple question? Why is that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top