Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[gfm7175]

If you can't come up with a actual answer as to why it matters, just say so.

I've already told you why it matters. You can't falsely equate part of the car with the whole car. You can't falsely equate part of the Earth with the whole Earth.

Because we are talking about the warming effects of greenhouse gases in the Earth's atmosphere.

You cannot increase Earth's temperature by altering the distribution of existing thermal energy. You have yet to explain how, given seven apples and two baskets, altering the distribution of the apples within the baskets somehow increases the average number of apples per basket.

The fact that it is much colder in space isn't really relevant if there is warming in our atmosphere.

What temperature do you believe space has?

You are assuming that greenhouse gases don't retain energy like the closed windows of a car do. You don't know this for a fact.

Closed car windows do NOT retain energy. If so, then why does the interior of the car become COOLER as (and after) the sun "sets"? Apparently energy isn't being retained after all, eh?

No idea what you are talking about, but have at it!

 

[ZenMode]

Too funny.

If my objective is to determine the radius of a circle, and I use the Pythagorean theorem to accomplish that, I am applying the Pythagorean theorem, and perhaps other mathematical theorems, to the circle. Yes, there must be a right triangle involved to enable the computation, i.e. a calculation is performed on the triangle, but the Pythagorean theorem is applied to the circle. If you are at all familiar with geometry proofs, you will recognize that one of the steps in the proof will contain, for example, "r = 12; Pythagorean theorem"

"but the Pythagorean theorem is applied to the circle"
No, it's not. That's why you can completely remove the circle and still do the calculation. The calculation may indirectly apply, because one side of the triangle happens to be the diameter, radius, etc but the circle is irrelevant for actually doing the calculation.

 

[gfm7175]

I don't really know how many times I need to address this. There is no additional energy needed, beyond what is already produced by the sun, to heat the inside of a car. There is also no additional energy needed, beyond what is produced by the sun, for the Earth's atmosphere to become warmer.

... yet there IS additional energy required in order for EARTH to become warmer. Sorry, but I'm not going to let you run away from this no matter how many times you wish to repeat your same lies of omission in order to get me to agree with an unrelated matter so that you can claim "see, that's all 'global warming' really is" and then slither away into the darkness.

I'll have the same response each time you drag out this straw man.

I'll keep asking you the same line of questioning each time you drag out this lie of omission.

Given a constant energy output from the Sun, how can altering the distribution of existing thermal energy result in anything other than Earth's average global temperature remaining exactly the same?

 

[ZenMode]

1. Do you agree that there is never an average temperature increase wherever the existing thermal energy is merely redistributed?

Nope, no additional conditions. Answer the question as stated, with a "yes" or a "no." If you deny science and answer "no" then you may add whatever commentary you wish thereafter.

Well then my answer would be no, because there would be an average temperature increase. If you have a car sitting in the sun, with the windows down, then the temperature in the car and outside the car would be relatively equal. The inside of the car may be a little bit warmer - let's say 87 degrees in and 85 degrees out = average of 86. If you close the windows, and keep the energy from the sun the same, the inside of the car would increase - let's say it gets to 100. (100 + 85)/2 = 92.5

2. Do you agree that wherever thermal energy is flowing, altering the redistribution of that thermal energy by altering and/or restricting that particular flow will cause the new end node of that flow to increase in temperature while lowering the temperature of the previous end node which is now no longer receiving that thermal energy?

This answer is problematics as well. You are implying that there are conditions when #1 is somehow FALSE. Please explain such conditions.

Explained above.

To what? Your comments are always vague, with the more tangible parts being ambiguous.

There's always energy being added to the earth - 24 hours a day/7 days a week.

In such a case, one would still be modifying the flow of thermal energy, but in this case it a flow of roughly half the magnitude.

If you're saying the thermal energy is still flowing from inside to outside the car, then yes.

Nope. The sun's output remains the same, i.e. no Wattage has been added. There is no additional energy provided by the sun from what had been provided all along.

I'm not saying there's more gross energy, I'm just saying that energy is constantly being added to the earth, even if it's not where you are, it's still happening somewhere all the time.

 

[ZenMode]

... yet there IS additional energy required in order for EARTH to become warmer.

Yes. It comes from the Sun.

Sorry, but I'm not going to let you run away from this no matter how many times you wish to repeat your same lies of omission in order to get me to agree with an unrelated matter so that you can claim "see, that's all 'global warming' really is" and then slither away into the darkness.

I'm saying that the current amount of energy from the sun is sufficient for global warming/climate change to happen under the right conditions, just as the current amount of energy from the sun is sufficient to heat the inside of a car.

I'll keep asking you the same line of questioning each time you drag out this lie of omission.

Given a constant energy output from the Sun, how can altering the distribution of existing thermal energy result in anything other than Earth's average global temperature remaining exactly the same?

In the same way that the "global" temperature on the inside of a car can change as conditions change the distribution of energy. If you have a car with no glass at all, sitting in the sun, and you then add a windshield... rear window and start closing individual windows, one at a time, you will see an increase in temperature inside the car AND you will see an increase in the average temperature between the inside/outside of the car.

 

[ZenMode]

You cannot increase Earth's temperature by altering the distribution of existing thermal energy. You have yet to explain how, given seven apples and two baskets, altering the distribution of the apples within the baskets somehow increases the average number of apples per basket.

:

Yes, you can. I've posted the examples of a car with windows closed and/or a tent sitting in the sun. The energy from the sun does not change, but there is a significant increase in temperature.

 

[IBDaMann]

Well then my answer would be no, because there would be an average temperature increase.

There is no increase in the average, but you mistakenly believe that there would be. This is your underlying error.

On a hot day (on every day, in fact) the ground and the ocean are heated by the sun. The ground and the ocean then heat the cooler/colder atmosphere. This causes convection, i.e. the atmosphere at ground/sea level increases in temperature, expands and rises. This rising air cools as it rises and stops rising when it achieves ambient temperature.

This is part of the defining properties of the troposphere. This does not occur in the stratosphere, nor is there any weather at all, one level up.

When you roll up the car windows, you are preventing that particular warming air from rising (and preventing cooler air from descending to take its place). The now warmer air remains inside the car, continuing to be heated and its temperature continues to increase (up to a point). Meanwhile, the air outside the car is being heated in exactly the same way, but rises immediately, with cool air descending to take its place, i.e. convection.

Returning to your "average temperature," if you were to suddenly roll down the windows, the car would immediately cool as the much warmer air rises out of the car. That warmer air certainly heats up the cooler air outside the car as it rises. The descending cooler air cools the interior of the car. Yes, there is a much greater quantity of air outside the car compared to the inside of the car, but the same quantity of thermal energy is simply being redistributed and the average temperature remains unaffected. gfm7175's example of apples in baskets is brilliant and spot-on, but would be even more relevant in this case if instead of baskets, it involved one basket and one canyon, and the measure were average apple per volume, which would remain the same. Nonetheless, I think we should stick with the original apples/basket distribution scenario.

 

[IBDaMann]

Yes, you can.

Nope. You cannot.

I've posted the examples of a car with windows closed

I provided an explanation, however just the word "convection" covers it all. The same quantity of thermal energy is merely being redistributed. Apples and baskets.

 

[gfm7175]

Well then my answer would be no,

@IBDaMann --- Well, there you have it.

because there would be an average temperature increase.

There is no average temperature increase. Average temperature remains the same.

If you have seven apples (four in Basket A, three in Basket B), what is the average number of apples per basket? Let's call this 'Result A'.

If you move two of the apples from Basket B into Basket A (so now there are six in Basket A, one in Basket B), what is the average number of apples per basket? Let's call this 'Result B'.

Is 'Result A' different than 'Result B'? If not, then why do you falsely claim that moving your apples between baskets somehow creates additional apples?

If you have a car sitting in the sun, with the windows down, then the temperature in the car and outside the car would be relatively equal. The inside of the car may be a little bit warmer - let's say 87 degrees in and 85 degrees out = average of 86.

... and the less drastic difference in 'interior car' vs 'exterior car' temperature is due to the increased flow of thermal energy (windows rolled down).

If you close the windows, and keep the energy from the sun the same, the inside of the car would increase - let's say it gets to 100. (100 + 85)/2 = 92.5 Explained above.

Physics denial.

Here you are still attempting to create additional thermal energy out of nothing. Since you have now closed the windows, you have now decreased the flow of thermal energy from 'interior car' to 'exterior car'. Because of that, and this is the part that you keep purposely omitting, 'exterior car' has now cooled from 85 to 76. (100 + 76)/2 = average of 86, same as with the windows open.

IOW, here you are attempting to create additional apples out of nothing. You claim that "windows open" is four apples in Basket A and three apples in Basket B (3.5 apples per basket), then you claim that "windows closed" is six apples in Basket A and three apples in Basket B (4.5 apples per basket), yet you pretend that you are still making use of the same seven total apples in each of your examples (when there are actually seven in the first example and nine in the second example). Where did the two additional apples come from? Where did the additional thermal energy come from?

If you "close the windows", which alters the distribution of the apples, e.g. moving two of them from Basket B into Basket A, then you have six apples in Basket A and one apple in Basket B, still a total of seven apples, still an average of 3.5 apples per basket. The "energy from the sun" has not changed. The "average temperature of the car" has not changed. The "average temperature of the Earth" has not changed.

There's always [thermal] energy being added to the earth - 24 hours a day/7 days a week.

There's always [thermal] energy being subtracted from the earth - 24 hours a day/7 days a week.

If you're saying the thermal energy is still flowing from inside to outside the car, then yes.

Ahhhhh, no no no..... You don't get to deny science for your whole post and then pretend at the very end that you're accepting it.

I'm not saying there's more gross energy,

Yes, you are. You spent this whole post trying desperately to create additional thermal energy out of nothing while pretending that you weren't doing so.

I'm just saying that [thermal] energy is constantly being added to the earth, even if it's not where you are, it's still happening somewhere all the time.

You're just purposely OMITTING that [thermal] energy is constantly being subtracted from the earth, even if it's not where you are, it's still happening somewhere all the time.

 

[ZenMode]

There is no increase in the average, but you mistakenly believe that there would be. This is your underlying error.

On a hot day (on every day, in fact) the ground and the ocean are heated by the sun. The ground and the ocean then heat the cooler/colder atmosphere. This causes convection, i.e. the atmosphere at ground/sea level increases in temperature, expands and rises. This rising air cools as it rises and stops rising when it achieves ambient temperature.

This is part of the defining properties of the troposphere. This does not occur in the stratosphere, nor is there any weather at all, one level up.

When you roll up the car windows, you are preventing that particular warming air from rising (and preventing cooler air from descending to take its place). The now warmer air remains inside the car, continuing to be heated and its temperature continues to increase (up to a point). Meanwhile, the air outside the car is being heated in exactly the same way, but rises immediately, with cool air descending to take its place, i.e. convection.

Returning to your "average temperature," if you were to suddenly roll down the windows, the car would immediately cool as the much warmer air rises out of the car. That warmer air certainly heats up the cooler air outside the car as it rises. The descending cooler air cools the interior of the car. Yes, there is a much greater quantity of air outside the car compared to the inside of the car, but the same quantity of thermal energy is simply being redistributed and the average temperature remains unaffected. gfm7175's example of apples in baskets is brilliant and spot-on, but would be even more relevant in this case if instead of baskets, it involved one basket and one canyon, and the measure were average apple per volume, which would remain the same. Nonetheless, I think we should stick with the original apples/basket distribution scenario.

I disagree because the apples are a static quantity. Nobody is constantly adding apples that then have to be moved to equalize quantities. The sun is constantly adding energy which creates warmer air.

I don't think I disagree with anything you said above. The point is that, with an unchanging amount of energy from the sun, the inside of a car CAN dramatically increase in temperature under specific circumstances.

The belief for how climate change works is that CO2, and other greenhouse gases, create the "specific circumstances" that heat the atmosphere more as the CO2 level increases because of how CO2 interacts with the wave length of infrared light leaving the earth, to warm the atmosphere.

As I mentioned earlier, it's not a coincidence that Venus, with an atmosphere that is 95% CO2, has double the average temperature of Mercury, which is millions of miles closer to the sun.

As far as how it works:

When sunlight reaches Earth, the surface absorbs some of the light’s energy and reradiates it as infrared waves, which we feel as heat. (Hold your hand over a dark rock on a warm sunny day and you can feel this phenomenon for yourself.) These infrared waves travel up into the atmosphere and will escape back into space if unimpeded.

Oxygen and nitrogen don’t interfere with infrared waves in the atmosphere. That’s because molecules are picky about the range of wavelengths that they interact with, Smerdon explained. For example, oxygen and nitrogen absorb energy that has tightly packed wavelengths of around 200 nanometers or less, whereas infrared energy travels at wider and lazier wavelengths of 700 to 1,000,000 nanometers. Those ranges don’t overlap, so to oxygen and nitrogen, it’s as if the infrared waves don’t even exist; they let the waves (and heat) pass freely through the atmosphere.

With CO2 and other greenhouse gases, it’s different. Carbon dioxide, for example, absorbs energy at a variety of wavelengths between 2,000 and 15,000 nanometers — a range that overlaps with that of infrared energy. As CO2 soaks up this infrared energy, it vibrates and re-emits the infrared energy back in all directions. About half of that energy goes out into space, and about half of it returns to Earth as heat, contributing to the ‘greenhouse effect.’

Smerdon says that the reason why some molecules absorb infrared waves and some don’t “depends on their geometry and their composition.” He explained that oxygen and nitrogen molecules are simple — they’re each made up of only two atoms of the same element — which narrows their movements and the variety of wavelengths they can interact with. But greenhouse gases like CO2 and methane are made up of three or more atoms, which gives them a larger variety of ways to stretch and bend and twist. That means they can absorb a wider range of wavelengths — including infrared waves.

There are any number of videos demonstrating how CO2 interacts with infrared energy:

 

[ZenMode]

@IBDaMann --- Well, there you have it.


There is no average temperature increase. Average temperature remains the same.

If you have seven apples (four in Basket A, three in Basket B), what is the average number of apples per basket? Let's call this 'Result A'.

If you move two of the apples from Basket B into Basket A (so now there are six in Basket A, one in Basket B), what is the average number of apples per basket? Let's call this 'Result B'.

Is 'Result A' different than 'Result B'? If not, then why do you falsely claim that moving your apples between baskets somehow creates additional apples?


... and the less drastic difference in 'interior car' vs 'exterior car' temperature is due to the increased flow of thermal energy (windows rolled down).


Physics denial.

Here you are still attempting to create additional thermal energy out of nothing. Since you have now closed the windows, you have now decreased the flow of thermal energy from 'interior car' to 'exterior car'. Because of that, and this is the part that you keep purposely omitting, 'exterior car' has now cooled from 85 to 76. (100 + 76)/2 = average of 86, same as with the windows open.

IOW, here you are attempting to create additional apples out of nothing. You claim that "windows open" is four apples in Basket A and three apples in Basket B (3.5 apples per basket), then you claim that "windows closed" is six apples in Basket A and three apples in Basket B (4.5 apples per basket), yet you pretend that you are still making use of the same seven total apples in each of your examples (when there are actually seven in the first example and nine in the second example). Where did the two additional apples come from? Where did the additional thermal energy come from?

If you "close the windows", which alters the distribution of the apples, e.g. moving two of them from Basket B into Basket A, then you have six apples in Basket A and one apple in Basket B, still a total of seven apples, still an average of 3.5 apples per basket. The "energy from the sun" has not changed. The "average temperature of the car" has not changed. The "average temperature of the Earth" has not changed.


There's always [thermal] energy being subtracted from the earth - 24 hours a day/7 days a week.


Ahhhhh, no no no..... You don't get to deny science for your whole post and then pretend at the very end that you're accepting it.


Yes, you are. You spent this whole post trying desperately to create additional thermal energy out of nothing while pretending that you weren't doing so.


You're just purposely OMITTING that [thermal] energy is constantly being subtracted from the earth, even if it's not where you are, it's still happening somewhere all the time.

"Physics denial.

Here you are still attempting to create additional thermal energy out of nothing."

"I'm" not doing anything but stating what we ALL know to be true, or do you disagree that the inside of a car gets hotter with windows closed, when sitting in the sun?

 

[ZenMode]

Nope. You cannot.


I provided an explanation, however just the word "convection" covers it all. The same quantity of thermal energy is merely being redistributed. Apples and baskets.

Correct. The EXISTING energy (meaning NO additional energy being magically created) warms the air inside the car.

Again, NO ADDITIONAL ENERGY BEING MAGICALLY ADDED.

 

[IBDaMann]

I disagree because the apples are a static quantity. Nobody is constantly adding apples that then have to be moved to equalize quantities.

The apples must be a static quantity to be in equilibrium. Someone eats an apple and another is tossed into one of the baskets.

Presume that people are constantly eating the apples and replacement apples are constantly being added to baskets to maintain the equilibrium.

The sun is constantly adding energy which creates warmer air.

The earth is in equilibrium, i.e. constantly radiating exactly the amount of energy that it is receiving.

The belief for how climate change works is that CO2, and other greenhouse gases, create the "specific circumstances" that heat the atmosphere more as the CO2 level increases because of how CO2 interacts with the wave length of infrared light leaving the earth, to warm the atmosphere.

I get it, but this is gibberish within the context of science. It would be the same if you had said that Climate Change works by Our Father, who art in heaven, whose name is hallowed, has His kingdom come and His will be done on earth as it is in the atmosphere. It has deep meaning to many people, yes, but within a science context it carries no meaning.

As I mentioned earlier, it's not a coincidence that Venus, with an atmosphere that is 95% CO2, has double the average temperature of Mercury,

You are chanting. It's no coincidence that a planet with an atmosphere has different dynamics from a planet with no atmosphere.

Instead, try comparing Mercury to the moon, and Venus to earth. When comparing Venus to earth, consider that atmospheric composition has no bearing on temperature, but sheer quantity of atmosphere does, per the Ideal Gas law, and then you'll have taken many steps closer to having a much better understanding of atmospherics.

As far as how it works: When sunlight reaches Earth, the surface absorbs some of the light’s energy and reradiates it as infrared waves, which we feel as heat.

When discussing physics, take all life forms out of the scenario. Don't discuss "what we feel" because that is subjective and irrelevant. Also, life forms have countless factors that must be eliminated. Also, no electromagnetic radiation is ever "re-radiated." Every time you use that term you will get an immediate "ZenMode error." I realize that other warmizombies have told you to use that term, but it will get your argument summarily rejected because matter is never a repeater. If you don't know what a repeater is, ask Into the Night for an explanation.

(Hold your hand over a dark rock on a warm sunny day and you can feel this phenomenon for yourself.)

This is Stefan-Boltzmann in action. All matter radiates proportionally to its absolute temperature to the fourth power.

These infrared waves travel up into the atmosphere and will escape back into space if unimpeded.

Here you are treating the atmosphere as though it is not part of the earth. When you correctly treat the atmosphere as part of the earth, you don't worry at all about thermal energy being redistributed; it doesn't alter the average temperature.

Oxygen and nitrogen don’t interfere with infrared waves in the atmosphere.

All substances absorb IR. You know this. You deliberately EVADE my question about the temperature of a cloud of oxygen and/or nitrogen in close proximity to the sun because you know that your point is totally FALSE.

Different substances have different absorption signatures. You shouldn't fall for parlor tricks as readily as you do. All someone needs to do to get you to believe something is to concoct a YouTube video. Don't be so gullible.

 

[IBDaMann]

Correct. The EXISTING energy (meaning NO additional energy being magically created) warms the air inside the car.

By closing the windows, you alter the flow of thermal energy. You agreed that altering the flow of thermal energy alters the distribution of thermal energy. In this case, convection is impeded and the temperature inside the car is elevated while the outside is not heated as it otherwise would. The average temperature overall remains the same.

Again, NO ADDITIONAL ENERGY BEING MAGICALLY ADDED.

... and you have eliminated any possible increase in the average temperature.

 

[gfm7175]

"Physics denial.

Here you are still attempting to create additional thermal energy out of nothing."

"I'm" not doing anything but stating what we ALL know to be true, or do you disagree that the inside of a car gets hotter with windows closed, when sitting in the sun?

@IntotheNight

Continued QED re: your broken record comment.

 

[gfm7175]

Correct. The EXISTING energy (meaning NO additional energy being magically created) warms the air inside the car.

Again, NO ADDITIONAL ENERGY BEING MAGICALLY ADDED.

... and round and round ZenMode goes ...

 

[ZenMode]

By closing the windows, you alter the flow of thermal energy. You agreed that altering the flow of thermal energy alters the distribution of thermal energy. In this case, convection is impeded and the temperature inside the car is elevated while the outside is not heated as it otherwise would. The average temperature overall remains the same.


... and you have eliminated any possible increase in the average temperature.

Yes, which is what greenhouse gases do. The infrared energy is "absorbed" by CO2 and other greenhouse gases, they then radiate that energy, some of which goes back into the atmosphere and toward the earth, which warms it.

NOTE: No magical creation of energy is needed or implied. The video I posted above demonstrates that CO2 absorbs infrared light. Other videos, of which there are many, show how CO2 increases temperature when hit with infrared light.

Surprising that no ambitious climate change denier has posted their own video proving all of them wrong.

"... and you have eliminated any possible increase in the average temperature."

I already posted an example, using the car example, of how average temperature increases can happen.

 

[ZenMode]

... and round and round ZenMode goes ...

Yep, well when people keep implying there's some type of violation of the first law of thermodynamics, I'm inclined to repeatedly point out the fact that there's no magic happening.

It's no my fault you and others stick to your misguided guns.

I've pointed out probably over a dozen times how the inside of a car get considerable warmer by closing the windows, despite the fact that there is NO additional energy brought into existence. Closing car windows does NOT change the amount of energy entering/hitting the car.

 

[ZenMode]

@IBDaMann --- Well, there you have it.


There is no average temperature increase. Average temperature remains the same.

If you have seven apples (four in Basket A, three in Basket B), what is the average number of apples per basket? Let's call this 'Result A'.

If you move two of the apples from Basket B into Basket A (so now there are six in Basket A, one in Basket B), what is the average number of apples per basket? Let's call this 'Result B'.

Is 'Result A' different than 'Result B'? If not, then why do you falsely claim that moving your apples between baskets somehow creates additional apples?


... and the less drastic difference in 'interior car' vs 'exterior car' temperature is due to the increased flow of thermal energy (windows rolled down).


Physics denial.

Here you are still attempting to create additional thermal energy out of nothing. Since you have now closed the windows, you have now decreased the flow of thermal energy from 'interior car' to 'exterior car'. Because of that, and this is the part that you keep purposely omitting, 'exterior car' has now cooled from 85 to 76. (100 + 76)/2 = average of 86, same as with the windows open.

IOW, here you are attempting to create additional apples out of nothing. You claim that "windows open" is four apples in Basket A and three apples in Basket B (3.5 apples per basket), then you claim that "windows closed" is six apples in Basket A and three apples in Basket B (4.5 apples per basket), yet you pretend that you are still making use of the same seven total apples in each of your examples (when there are actually seven in the first example and nine in the second example). Where did the two additional apples come from? Where did the additional thermal energy come from?

If you "close the windows", which alters the distribution of the apples, e.g. moving two of them from Basket B into Basket A, then you have six apples in Basket A and one apple in Basket B, still a total of seven apples, still an average of 3.5 apples per basket. The "energy from the sun" has not changed. The "average temperature of the car" has not changed. The "average temperature of the Earth" has not changed.


There's always [thermal] energy being subtracted from the earth - 24 hours a day/7 days a week.


Ahhhhh, no no no..... You don't get to deny science for your whole post and then pretend at the very end that you're accepting it.


Yes, you are. You spent this whole post trying desperately to create additional thermal energy out of nothing while pretending that you weren't doing so.


You're just purposely OMITTING that [thermal] energy is constantly being subtracted from the earth, even if it's not where you are, it's still happening somewhere all the time.

"Physics denial.

Here you are still attempting to create additional thermal energy out of nothing."

"I'm" not doing anything but stating what we ALL know to be true, or do you disagree that the inside of a car gets hotter with windows closed, when sitting in the sun?

No response?

 

[Into the Night]

"but the Pythagorean theorem is applied to the circle"
No, it's not. That's why you can completely remove the circle and still do the calculation. The calculation may indirectly apply, because one side of the triangle happens to be the diameter, radius, etc but the circle is irrelevant for actually doing the calculation.

Yet the Pythagorean theorem does apply to a circle.