Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[ZenMode]

Climate cannot change.

Climate has no temperature, no precipitation or rain gauge, etc. There is nothing that can change.

There is no such thing as a global climate. Climate cannot change.

You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for yourself. Omniscience fallacy.

Again, you can't just say things and make them true. Climate can most certainly change. Not all gases are impacted by infrared light, as was shown in the YouTube video I posted from MIT. CO2 does cause warming as was shown in the YouTube video experiment.

You can't actually defend your claims, so you seem to think if you just keep repeating them, somehow it's going to change reality.

 

[ZenMode]

Climates, being subjective characterizations, have no numerical values that can change. You know this. This is why you cannot give a single example of a climate that has changed in the last century.

Wait, does that mean there isn't any Climate Change? Why, yes it does! Isn't that great news? We don't have to worry about it anymore!

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Climate is combination of multiple factors like temperature and precipitation. Those two things can be measured and have been measured for decades.

 

[IBDaMann]

Climate is combination of multiple factors like temperature and precipitation.

Nope. There is no data in a climate. Try again. A climate is a subjective, human characterization of a local area, e.g. the climate of Phoenix, Arizona is hot and arid. (Look, mom, no data!)

Those two things can be measured and have been measured for decades.

Weather can be measured, yes. Climate cannot. All warmizombies are supposed to know the difference between weather and climate. You should be embarrassed that this escapes you; you should start brushing up.

 

[IBDaMann]

Again, you can't just say things and make them true.

Why are you somehow allowed to do this but Into the Night cannot?

Climate can most certainly change.

No climate can change. There hasn't been a single climate on earth that has changed within the last century. You only think a climate can change because you embarrassingly confuse climate with weather. Tsk, tsk, tsk ...

Not all gases are impacted by infrared light

What happens to the temperature of a cloud of oxygen as it moves closer to the sun? Why? You've been EVADING this question for weeks.

as was shown in the [indoor parlor trick] video I posted from MIT.

I explained all this previously.

CO2 does cause warming

No substance can cause any warming. Only adding thermal energy can cause warming. If you wish to claim warming, you need to account for additional thermal energy (not merely a redistribution of existing thermal energy), and that thermal energy cannot simply be created out of nothing.

You can't actually defend your claims

He isn't making any affirmative claims. You are the one making the affirmative claim of Global Warming (PBUH). You bear the full burden to support your claim, but thus far you haven't supported anything. All you have provided is one long repeating chain of physics violations and fallacy chants.

Your affirmative claim has always been that Global Warming is the increase in the earth's total thermal energy in the form of an equilibrium temperature increase, resulting directly from a substance. Tell me if I mistaken about what your claim is. If I am not mistaken, my signature explains why your claim violates physics, specifically the 1st LoT. You claim that an increase in thermal energy results from the addition of a substance, not from the addition of thermal energy. This means that energy is being created out of nothing. Yes, you then shift to explanations of convoluted energy redistributions hoping that no one will notice that redistributing existing thermal energy can never result in there being additional thermal energy, i.e. the equilibrium temperature cannot increase. It's all in my signature.

 

[ZenMode]

Nope. There is no data in a climate. Try again. A climate is a subjective, human characterization of a local area, e.g. the climate of Phoenix, Arizona is hot and arid. (Look, mom, no data!)


Weather can be measured, yes. Climate cannot. All warmizombies are supposed to know the difference between weather and climate. You should be embarrassed that this escapes you; you should start brushing up.

How do you define climate?

 

[ZenMode]

Why are you somehow allowed to do this but Into the Night cannot?


No climate can change. There hasn't been a single climate on earth that has changed within the last century. You only think a climate can change because you embarrassingly confuse climate with weather. Tsk, tsk, tsk ...


What happens to the temperature of a cloud of oxygen as it moves closer to the sun? Why? You've been EVADING this question for weeks.


I explained all this previously.


No substance can cause any warming. Only adding thermal energy can cause warming. If you wish to claim warming, you need to account for additional thermal energy (not merely a redistribution of existing thermal energy), and that thermal energy cannot simply be created out of nothing.


He isn't making any affirmative claims. You are the one making the affirmative claim of Global Warming (PBUH). You bear the full burden to support your claim, but thus far you haven't supported anything. All you have provided is one long repeating chain of physics violations and fallacy chants.

Your affirmative claim has always been that Global Warming is the increase in the earth's total thermal energy in the form of an equilibrium temperature increase, resulting directly from a substance. Tell me if I mistaken about what your claim is. If I am not mistaken, my signature explains why your claim violates physics, specifically the 1st LoT. You claim that an increase in thermal energy results from the addition of a substance, not from the addition of thermal energy. This means that energy is being created out of nothing. Yes, you then shift to explanations of convoluted energy redistributions hoping that no one will notice that redistributing existing thermal energy can never result in there being additional thermal energy, i.e. the equilibrium temperature cannot increase. It's all in my signature.

I've posted two videos. One that shows that CO2 absorbs energy and one that shows that temperatures rise faster with a higher concentration of CO2. What is your evidence that the MIT video is a trick? Have you seen an opposing video where the results turn out differently?

"No substance can cause any warming. Only adding thermal energy can cause warming"

Right and when you add thermal energy to CO2, it causes it to behave in a way that produces thermal energy. That thermal energy would have otherwise escaped the atmosphere.

 

[Into the Night]

Again, you can't just say things and make them true.

You are describing yourself again.

Climate can most certainly change.

Climate cannot change.

Not all gases are impacted by infrared light,

ALL gases absorb infrared light.

as was shown in the YouTube video I posted from MIT.

I already know you fell for this parlor trick.

CO2 does cause warming as was shown in the YouTube video experiment.

It is not an 'experiment'. It's a magick trick. It does not show 'warming'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are STILL ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light. You are STILL ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

You don't get to redefine 'climate'. Climate has no temperature. It has no values at all that can change. There is no such thing as a global climate.

You can't actually defend your claims,

I already have. I have even provided you with the equations of each of these laws of science that you simply choose to ignore.

so you seem to think if you just keep repeating them, somehow it's going to change reality.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again. It is YOU ignoring theories of science. It is YOU ignoring mathematics.

 

[Into the Night]

How do you define climate?

RQAA, but I'll answer it AGAIN anyway, since you're especially slow.

A climate is a subjective, human characterization of a local area, e.g. the climate of Phoenix, Arizona is hot and arid. (Look, mom, no data!)

The word 'climate' first appeared in the English lexicon around the 14th century. Stemming from the Greek 'klei' (meaning 'to lean'), it has always referred to 'zones' (originally just latitudes). It is a subjective description only. It has no temperature or any other value associated with it.

A desert climate is always a desert climate. It never changes. It is always a desert climate (even when there are no deserts!).
A marine climate is always a marine climate. It never changes. It is always a marine climate (even when there are no oceans!).
A hot and arid climate is always a hot and arid climate. It never changes. It is always a hot and arid climate, even if a place like Phoenix is covered with snow (which sometimes happens!).

You are STILL trying a redefinition fallacy (weather<->climate).

There is no such thing as a 'global climate'. There is also no such thing as a 'global weather'.

 

[Into the Night]

I've posted two videos. One that shows that CO2 absorbs energy and one that shows that temperatures rise faster with a higher concentration of CO2. What is your evidence that the MIT video is a trick? Have you seen an opposing video where the results turn out differently?

You posted two videos of magick tricks. You fell for them because you're a moron.

"No substance can cause any warming. Only adding thermal energy can cause warming"

Right and when you add thermal energy to CO2, it causes it to behave in a way that produces thermal energy.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Adding thermal energy does not produce thermal energy any more than adding apples to a basket produces apples. Thermal energy does not create itself! You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

That thermal energy would have otherwise escaped the atmosphere.

You cannot trap thermal energy. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

There is always heat.

 

[ZenMode]

You are describing yourself again.

Climate cannot change.

ALL gases absorb infrared light.

I already know you fell for this parlor trick.

It is not an 'experiment'. It's a magick trick. It does not show 'warming'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are STILL ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are STILL ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light. You are STILL ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

You don't get to redefine 'climate'. Climate has no temperature. It has no values at all that can change. There is no such thing as a global climate.

I already have. I have even provided you with the equations of each of these laws of science that you simply choose to ignore.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again. It is YOU ignoring theories of science. It is YOU ignoring mathematics.

Based on what is the experiment a trick? Regardless of what you may believe about climate change, what specifically do you not believe about either experiment?

 

[ZenMode]

RQAA, but I'll answer it AGAIN anyway, since you're especially slow.



The word 'climate' first appeared in the English lexicon around the 14th century. Stemming from the Greek 'klei' (meaning 'to lean'), it has always referred to 'zones' (originally just latitudes). It is a subjective description only. It has no temperature or any other value associated with it.

A desert climate is always a desert climate. It never changes. It is always a desert climate (even when there are no deserts!).
A marine climate is always a marine climate. It never changes. It is always a marine climate (even when there are no oceans!).
A hot and arid climate is always a hot and arid climate. It never changes. It is always a hot and arid climate, even if a place like Phoenix is covered with snow (which sometimes happens!).

You are STILL trying a redefinition fallacy (weather<->climate).

There is no such thing as a 'global climate'. There is also no such thing as a 'global weather'.

So what distinguishes a desert climate from other climates?

 

[ZenMode]

You posted two videos of magick tricks. You fell for them because you're a moron.

Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Adding thermal energy does not produce thermal energy any more than adding apples to a basket produces apples. Thermal energy does not create itself! You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

You cannot trap thermal energy. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

There is always heat.

Based on what is it a trick? If the experiment showing that the container with a higher amount of CO2 has a greater increase in temperature is a trick, why don't we see people doing the same experiment with different results to prove it wrong?

 

[IBDaMann]

How do you define climate?

Climate (noun): a subjective, human characterization of local conditions.

e.g. The summer climate of eastern Qatar is arid and debilitatingly hot. (note: no data, no weather and no numerical values that can change)
e.g. The political climate of Washington, D.C during elections is angry, paranoid and hate-filled. (note: no data, no weather and no numerical values that can change)
e.g. The typical climate of western Colombia is temperate with high precipitation. (note: no data, no weather and no numerical values that can change)
e.g. The pending hostile takeover has made for a very tense working climate at the corporate headquarters. (note: no data, no weather and no numerical values that can change)

Let me know if you have any other questions.

 

[Into the Night]

Based on what is the experiment a trick?

RQAA.

Regardless of what you may believe about climate change,

Climate cannot change.

what specifically do you not believe about either experiment?

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

So what distinguishes a desert climate from other climates?

RQAA.

 

[Into the Night]

Based on what is it a trick?

RQAA.

If the experiment showing that the container with a higher amount of CO2 has a greater increase in temperature is a trick, why don't we see people doing the same experiment with different results to prove it wrong?

RQAA.

 

[IBDaMann]

I've posted two videos. One that shows that CO2 absorbs energy [like all other substances] and one that shows [my favorite parlor trick].

Right, and you continue to avoid recognizing that all substances absorb IR, you continue to avoid answering my question about the temperature of an oxygen and/or nitrogen cloud in close proximity to the sun, you refuse to acknowledge that your favorite parlor trick is based on getting the gullible audience to play pretend that a candle or a lamp somehow "represents" the sun's full range of bandwidth and you continue to delude yourself into denial as to why your favorite parlor trick is never performed outdoors in the sun (i.e. allowing the sun to actually "represent" the sun) because that would totally ruin the trick.

What is your evidence that the MIT video is a trick?

"Evidence" is not the correct word. Magicians don't like to reveal their secrets, and the illusionists who perform your favorite parlor trick similarly don't like the secrets behind the trick being revealed. I'll reveal them anyway. That initial narrative at the beginning that talks about the sun is just setting you up for a bait-and-switch. The magician will not walk you outdoors to perform any demonstration in the sunlight as described. Instead, the magician will perform the parlor trick entirely indoors where no sunlight can inadvertently ruin the trick. Then the magician will use smoke and mirrors to pretend that a lamp or a candle somehow "represents" the sun but only produces a very specific, and very narrowly focused frequency band that is needed to make the trick work. After performing the parlor trick and achieving the desired result, the magician says "See, this is what happens with the sun outdoors! The gullible audience that doesn't know the secret behind the trick is amazed and wants to pay more in taxes to save the planet.

Have you seen an opposing video where the results turn out differently?

Every time a magician performs the "levitate the assistant" trick, the assistant always appears to levitate, every time ... but it's a trick. Nobody can actually levitate.

Right and when you add thermal energy to CO2, it causes it to behave in a way that produces thermal energy.

Nope. Wrong words. When you add thermal energy to CO2, it causes the CO2 to have more associated thermal energy. Of course, whatever quantity of thermal energy the CO2 has is radiating out of it freely, proportionally to its absolute temperature to the 4th power, in the form of thermal radiation (which is electromagnetic radiation).

That thermal energy would have otherwise escaped the atmosphere.

ZenMode Error. You are once again treating the atmosphere as though it is not part of the earth.

 

[ZenMode]

Climate (noun): a subjective, human characterization of local conditions.

e.g. The summer climate of eastern Qatar is arid and debilitatingly hot. (note: no data, no weather and no numerical values that can change)
e.g. The political climate of Washington, D.C during elections is angry, paranoid and hate-filled. (note: no data, no weather and no numerical values that can change)
e.g. The typical climate of western Colombia is temperate with high precipitation. (note: no data, no weather and no numerical values that can change)
e.g. The pending hostile takeover has made for a very tense working climate at the corporate headquarters. (note: no data, no weather and no numerical values that can change)

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Ok, that's your definition which, not surprisingly, supports what you want to believe, but is not the actual definition.

cli·mate
noun
the weather conditions prevailing in an area in general or over a long period.

a region with particular prevailing weather conditions.

the average course or condition of the weather at a place usually over a period of years as exhibited by temperature, wind velocity, and precipitation

The obvious question is why you would intentionally disregard actual definitions of climate in favor of your own, manufactured definition.

 

[ZenMode]

RQAA.

Climate cannot change.
RQAA.

More avoidance.

 

[ZenMode]

RQAA.

Avoidance. Question wasn't answered.