Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[ZenMode]

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.


"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.



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.

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).


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

Cleanly you didn't watch the MIT video where the amount of energy that reaches the thermopile at the end of the tube is being measured.

When air is pushed into the tube, there is no change in the amount of energy reaching the thermopile. When CO2 is pushed into the tube, there is a measurable change in the amount of energy reaching the thermopile. We should expect that to be the case because CO2 absorbs the energy, unlike air (primarily nitrogen and oxygen).

So if you are correct that everything absorbs energy, why is there a change when CO2 is introduced into the tube?

In case you care to actually watch the video:

 

[gfm7175]

Explain how closing the windows in a car creates energy out of nothing?

Here, ZenMode attempts to slither away via pretending that his own burden of proof now somehow belongs to me.

You are speaking of YOUR position, dude, not mine. YOU are the one who believes that closing a car's windows can somehow increase the "interior car" temperature while NOT decreasing the "exterior car" temperature. (IOW, how simply redistributing existing thermal energy can somehow create additional thermal energy). The onus is on YOU to explain how that supposedly happens.

The outside of the car doesn't get cooler because the windows are closed.

Yes it does. This has already been explained to you.

The outside of the car is what it's going to be.

... which is cooler because the flow of thermal energy from the "interior car" to the "exterior car" has been reduced by closing the windows.

The inside of the car is hotter.

... because the flow of thermal energy from the "interior car" to the "exterior car" has been reduced by closing the windows.

Period. There's no way around it.

As already explained, you are simply redistributing existing thermal energy from "exterior car" to "interior car" and then claiming that this redistribution somehow creates additional thermal energy (IOW a "warmer car"). Yes, the "interior car" is warmer, but you're purposely ignoring that the "exterior car" is cooler. The entire car remains the same temperature as it was before because there's no additional thermal energy.

Closing the windows on a car doesn't create energy.

Correct, so why do you keep desperately trying to create additional thermal energy out of nothing by closing the windows on a car? Why do you keep desperately trying to pretend that a car is in any way comparable to Earth (Earth has no windows around it)?

I already know why you're doing it, but I'm just asking you to be honest about it... a futile effort, I know.

 

[gfm7175]

Which part of this do you disagree with:

I already told you, but I'll tell you again.

85 degrees outside of the car. 87 degrees inside the car with the windows open. Average temperature is 86 degrees.

85 degrees outside the car. 100 degrees inside the car with the windows closed. Average temperature is (100+85)/2 = 92.5.

This part is wrong because you are ignoring part of the effects of reducing the flow of thermal energy via closing the car's windows. You recognize that the "interior car" becomes warmer, but you purposely ignore that the "exterior car" becomes COLDER. The temperature of the ENTIRE car remains exactly the same.


And don't forget that Earth is not a car (Earth has no windows around it), so any such comparison is a false equivalence from the very start.

 

[gfm7175]

Nice try. A great example of REPLYING to a question while intentionally avoiding ANSWERING the question.

Here's the question I asked:

do you disagree that the inside of a car gets hotter with windows closed, when sitting in the sun?

Question was already answered.

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?

 

[gfm7175]

The level of tap dancing here is pretty amazing.

That it is. You're representing the amount of tap dancing of MULTIPLE physics deniers all by yourself. Bravo!

We ALL know

Stick to speaking for yourself.

that the inside of a car gets hotter when the windows are closed without magically creating any energy,

Right, yet you keep purposely ignoring that the OUTSIDE of a car gets COLDER when the windows are closed without magically DESTROYING any energy.

yet the spin/avoidance around that simple acknowledgement continues.

yet the spin/avoidance around that simple acknowledgement continues.

Desperation is an ugly color.

Is it this color by any chance?

No problem, though. I'm very patient. Keep the dishonesty going. It's not hurting me at all.

It's your issue, not mine.

BTW, Earth is not a car (Earth doesn't have any windows around it).

 

[gfm7175]

Like you know what you're talking about.

Like you ever have anything intelligent to say.

 

[gfm7175]

For probably the 8th time, I never said the earth was a car.

Yes you have (for probably the 8th time already). You keep bringing up this "car WITH THE WINDOWS CLOSED" example as if it somehow relates to Earth (which doesn't have any windows around it). While doing so, you can't even get your false equivalence example correct with how it relates to the car, let alone with how it doesn't relate to the Earth.

I'm just trying, as I said pages ago, to establsh a very simple truth: It is possible, without magic creating energy, for one area (inside a car) to be warmer than an adjacent area and, therefore, there is no violation of the 1st Law.

For some reason, this simple truth has been impossible to establish for about FOUR pages.....

Ever though EVERYONE involved in the conversation knows it's true!

IOW, you're just trying to create a false equivalence and you can't even make the false equivalence work without denying physics at every turn.

 

[ZenMode]

Here, ZenMode attempts to slither away via pretending that his own burden of proof now somehow belongs to me.

You are speaking of YOUR position, dude, not mine. YOU are the one who believes that closing a car's windows can somehow increase the "interior car" temperature while NOT decreasing the "exterior car" temperature. (IOW, how simply redistributing existing thermal energy can somehow create additional thermal energy). The onus is on YOU to explain how that supposedly happens.


Yes it does. This has already been explained to you.


... which is cooler because the flow of thermal energy from the "interior car" to the "exterior car" has been reduced by closing the windows.


... because the flow of thermal energy from the "interior car" to the "exterior car" has been reduced by closing the windows.


As already explained, you are simply redistributing existing thermal energy from "exterior car" to "interior car" and then claiming that this redistribution somehow creates additional thermal energy (IOW a "warmer car"). Yes, the "interior car" is warmer, but you're purposely ignoring that the "exterior car" is cooler. The entire car remains the same temperature as it was before because there's no additional thermal energy.


Correct, so why do you keep desperately trying to create additional thermal energy out of nothing by closing the windows on a car? Why do you keep desperately trying to pretend that a car is in any way comparable to Earth (Earth has no windows around it)?

I already know why you're doing it, but I'm just asking you to be honest about it... a futile effort, I know.

Again, for the sake of keeping this simple......

We both know that the temperature inside of a car increases when the windows are closed, and the car is sitting in the sun.

Do you agree that there is no additional energy being created, by the sun, for that to happen?

 

[ZenMode]

Yes you have (for probably the 8th time already). You keep bringing up this "car WITH THE WINDOWS CLOSED" example as if it somehow relates to Earth (which doesn't have any windows around it). While doing so, you can't even get your false equivalence example correct with how it relates to the car, let alone with how it doesn't relate to the Earth.


IOW, you're just trying to create a false equivalence and you can't even make the false equivalence work without denying physics at every turn.

We both know that the inside of a car experiences a significant temperature increase when the windows are closes and the car is sitting in the sun. This happens without there being any additional energy coming from the sun. What law of physics does that violate?

 

[gfm7175]

Of course climate can change.

By what measure? Climate is a subjective characterization of something (e.g. "hot and dry", "wet and humid", "calm and honest", "loud and chaotic"). There is no unit of measure for climate.

 

[gfm7175]

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

You should take your own advice.

Climate can most certainly change.

By what unit of measure?

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.

Parlor trick already explained by IBDaMann.

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.

Your issue, not his.

 

[ZenMode]

Question was already answered.

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?

As mentioned before, this is not an accurate comparison because energy from the sun is constantly flowing to and hitting the Earth. What you're comparing would be if we turn on the sun for an hour, made the car temperature increase, then turned the sun off and watching the energy equalize inside/outside the car.

That doesn't happen. The sun's energy is hitting the Earth 24/7.

 

[gfm7175]

Climate is combination of multiple factors like temperature and precipitation.

What do temperature and precipitation have to do with a chaotic and argumentative political climate within the House of Representatives?

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

Yup, but those two things are not climate.

 

[ZenMode]

By what measure? Climate is a subjective characterization of something (e.g. "hot and dry", "wet and humid", "calm and honest", "loud and chaotic"). There is no unit of measure for climate.

Once you understand the actual definition of climate, you will not ask such silly questions.

 

[gfm7175]

How do you define climate?

QED that you don't even read and comprehend anyone's posts and are only here to preach.

He quite literally provided a definition of 'climate' for you... His words: "A climate is a subjective, human characterization of a local area."

 

[ZenMode]

QED that you don't even read and comprehend anyone's posts and are only here to preach.

He quite literally provided a definition of 'climate' for you... His words: "A climate is a subjective, human characterization of a local area."

So, there are no objective characteristics that differentiate, for example, a desert climate from a tropical climate? All differences are made up in our minds?

 

[ZenMode]

Yes you have (for probably the 8th time already). You keep bringing up this "car WITH THE WINDOWS CLOSED" example as if it somehow relates to Earth (which doesn't have any windows around it). While doing so, you can't even get your false equivalence example correct with how it relates to the car, let alone with how it doesn't relate to the Earth.


IOW, you're just trying to create a false equivalence and you can't even make the false equivalence work without denying physics at every turn.

Nope. I've never said the Earth was a car. I'm just trying to establish what we all know, which is that the inside of a car WILL see an increase in temperature DESPITE there being no additional energy magically created by the sun.

 

[gfm7175]

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 thinks that dictionaries define words and that all dictionaries are the same

 

[gfm7175]

Again, for the sake of keeping this simple......

We both know that the temperature inside of a car increases when the windows are closed, and the car is sitting in the sun.

Do you agree that there is no additional energy being created, by the sun, for that to happen?

Do you ever feel like you're beating a dead horse?

 

[ZenMode]

Do you ever feel like you're beating a dead horse?

Agree or disagree? I'm just trying to establish agreement on a v e r y simple truth.

Why is it so difficult to agree that the inside of a car sees a significant increase in temperature with no magical creation of energy? Does that fact the you don't believe climate change is real somehow mean you can't acknowledge other scientific realities.