Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?
- Thread starter IBDaMann
- Start date
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
I know you are, but what am I?
ZenMode
Well-known member
Correct. CO2 has no ability to care about anything. However, if you had spent any time trying to understand BOTH sides of the climate change argument, you'd know that energy leaving the Earth is different than energy coming from the sun and the energy leaving the earth is invisible to nitrogen/oxygen but is not invisible to CO2.
But, again.... you'd have to venture outside your echo chamber/confirmation bias to know this.
Last edited:
gfm7175
Mega MAGA
Okay, ChatGPT...
What do you mean "both sides of..."?
Look in the mirror.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
If you are aware that the radiated wavelengths differ from the absorbed wavelengths, you have no excuse for using the word "re-radiated."
Now you are performing an imaginary parlor trick with me. You expect me to believe that a candle or a lamp is the earth. Good luck with that.
You keep falling back into this error. The atmosphere is part of the earth. You treat the atmosphere as not part of the earth. The CO2 in the atmosphere is part of the earth. Therefore everything radiating away from the earth is escaping into space. Nothing radiating from earth to the earth is of any concern.
Actually, most warmizombies claim that oxygen and nitrogen is somehow invisible to all IR, and that only greenhouse gases absorb IR. In fact, you made this claim many times until you recently changed to the argument you are presenting here.
... but you always recognized that the earth is in equilibrium, i.e. that the amount of energy out equals the amount of energy in, and you still claimed that your magical greenhouse substance somehow miraculously created/caused the earth to have additional thermal energy/temperature. Are you now claiming that by energy simply changing form from shortwave to longwave, that some quantity of energy is magically created?
The entirety of the equilibrium must be considered.
Balanced? You are saying that the Climate goddess does this "balancing"? If not, who?
I answered every single one of your questions thoroughly. The least you could do is admit that you don't really know the answer. Instead, you EVADE all of my questions; you haven't provided a single response that doesn't egregiously violate physics. We aren't discussing; you are preaching.
Into the Night
Verified User
No single wavelength, dude. Not in either direction.
WRONG. Oxygen and nitrogen absorb infrared. They are not intelligent. They do not choose from where the infrared comes from.
Neither oxygen nor nitrogen is intelligent. They do not choose their source of infrared light that is absorbed. Homunculus fallacy.
Climate cannot change. There is no 'cause' of climate change. There is no 'cause' of something that doesn't exist.
The description is wrong. I've already explained why.
You are MAKING IT AN ISSUE.
There is no 'top of the atmosphere'. The atmosphere has no definite 'top'.
WRONG. The Sun emits light from radio frequencies up to and including X rays. ONLY infrared light converts to thermal energy upon absorption.
The emissivity of Earth is unknown and cannot be measured. These are random numbers. NOAA has no capability to measure the emissivity of Earth. Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy for them just as it is for you.
Evasion. Answer the questions put to you.
Into the Night
Verified User
So you want to try to deny your own post now.
Climate cannot change. There is no 'both sides' of something that does not exist.
There is a wide spectrum of light leaving the surface of Earth. Nitrogen and oxygen absorb infrared light.
Inversion fallacy. YOUR RELIGION is YOUR echo chamber.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
ZenMode
Well-known member
My choice of words is irrelevant.
No. I expect you to believe that the energy from a candle is a wavelength that is absorbed by CO2, as the experiment showed.
Right, the atmosphere, starting at ground level, IS part of the earth. That doesn't change the reality of CO2 and how it interacts with the IR leaving the earth.
I've mentioned varying wavelengths multiple times. Even if I failed to specify, it doesn't change reality as I noted in the Energy In/Out info that was deleted.
Yes, if it were possible for ALL energy radiating from the earth to be captured, and prevented from leaving the Earth's atmosphere, we'd be in trouble. That isn't the claim. The claim, which was recognized in the 1800's, was the CO2 causes warming of the atmosphere because it prevents energy from escaping.
I don't know how it's not being considered. I mean, we should be thankful we have an atmosphere that disallows, or at least slows, the escape of energy, or we'd all be dead.
There is no additional energy being created. I don't know how many times this straw man needs to be put down.
What specifically have I claimed that violates physics?
Last edited:
ZenMode
Well-known member
lol... it was initially fairly annoying that you'd state things as fact, despite all kinds of evidence to the contrary. Now it's just funny. Whatever it takes to keep believing what you WANT to believe, right?
Into the Night
Verified User
Your choice of words is relevant. Words mean things. Word games like you are playing will get you nowhere.
The Sun is not a candle.
Buzzword fallacy. You don't know what 'reality' even means or how it's defined. CO2 is not intelligent. It doesn't select what source of infrared to absorb. Homunculus fallacy. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are still ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are still trying to emit light out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
No, you haven't.
Buzzword fallacy.
It should be. Random numbers are not data. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured. The global atmospheric content of CO2 is unknown. It cannot be measured. The global sea level has no reference point. It cannot be measured. The total ice and snow on Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured. The total storm activity on Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured.
You cannot trap light. You are AGAIN ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
Void argument fallacy.
It is not possible to trap light.
YOU are attempting to create additional energy.
Not a straw man. It is YOUR CLAIM. It is also the claim of the Church of Global Warming.
RQAA.
Into the Night
Verified User
You obviously have no idea what 'fact' means. 'Fact' does not mean Universal Truth. A fact does not require evidence. Learn what 'fact' means.
You just described yourself and the Church of Global Warming again.
ZenMode
Well-known member
I don't know if you are one of the new, far right anti-science people, a troll or just insane, but I'm not going to waste my time responding every unfounded claim and useless declaration you make.
The current composition of the Earth's atmosphere manages temperatures which makes life on Earth possible. It does this without violating any of the laws you have repeatedly mentioned. It stands to reason, if you are able to reason, that if the atmosphere is able to regulate temperatures then changes to the atmosphere could impact the regulation of temperatures. That's really all that there has to be to realize that global warming, climate change or whatever you want to call it is possible.
ZenMode
Well-known member
A good rule of thumb is to not get your news, especially science news and information, from social media. For that matter, you also shouldn't get your science information from any news outlets, vice presidents or teenagers... I'm referring to Al Gore and Greta whatever her name is.
X is currently the single best place to to try to figure out what is going on in the world. My consumption of Regime Media, which includes the Murdock properties, is about down zero now....too many lies.
ZenMode
Well-known member
The fact that one outlet has liars doesn't mean that a different outlet doesn't have liars.
My information sourcing network is top shelf, I neither asked for nor do I require your assistance.
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Your choice of words is everything because this is a discussion forum and words are all we have. You are responsible for writing what you mean and meaning what you write.
Wrong wording, and your job is to write the correct wording for what you wish to express. The energy from a candle is not "a wavelength" but rather "a signature" or "a curve" defined by Wein's law. Your parlor trick appears to have captivated your interest, so you might as well understand the science behind trick. Now that this has been expressly brought to your attention, any future violations of Wein's law will be expressed as "ZenMode Error: Wein's law".
Planck's law establishes the foundation for blackbody science.
Stefan-Boltzmann defines the radiance of a body of matter given its temperature (and emissivity).
Wein's law defines the specific emission signature of a body of matter given its temperature.
Kirchhoff's law establishes the equivalence between a body's radiativity and a body's emissivity.
If you were to brush up on these, you wouldn't make a third of the errors that you make. Of course, you probably wouldn't maintain your particular religious faith on account of its dogma egregiously violating a wide range of science and denying the rest. But think of it, you wouldn't ever have to stammer " ... but, but, ... you're misapplying physics in this case by applying physics in this case!"
Oooops, party foul! The parlor trick is not an experiment. You don't know what an "experiment" is, do you? You think it means "demonstration," don't you? This is another term that you attempt to hijack at the behest of your religion so that you can try to make your religion sound "sciency." So the list of terms you don't understand is now "1. heat, 2. science, 3. experiment". You apply these science terms to your religion to give the false appearance that what you preach is thettled thienth. However, in a forum such as this in which words are all we have, it is an egregious foul to hijack the very words needed to carry a discussion. Your stupid parlor trick fooled you because you are gullible and easily fall victim to any such con. What your parlor trick is not ... is an experiment.
Nope. All IR interacting with atmospheric CO2 is, by definition, not leaving the earth. It is, in fact, flowing specifically from the earth to the earth. We are not concerned with any of that energy; it is merely redistributing itself. Please stay focused on only the energy leaving the earth.
Meaningless. Talk to me about the hypothetical/fictitious scenario in which it would be possible for a non-zero amount of energy to be "captured".
Wrong wording. It cannot have been "recognized" because it is FALSE.
Also, warmizombies such as yourself are gullible, and you willingly regurgitate whatever you are told to believe by your thought-masters. John Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius made no contributions to science. Yes, they both wrote papers on CO2, but all of their conclusions were subsequently falsified. An obedient warmizombie will never wonder why none of their work was ever taught in any science class; all he will know is that he was instructed to preach that they omnisciently "knew" the "truth" of the dogma of Climate Change and that they published sacred "texts" on the matter. You should now begin to get a clearer picture of just how stupid and gullible warmizombies are, and why they are targeted for recruitment by the Church of Global Warming. They will believe anything as long as it is sufficiently absurd. Yes, you are in that category and fortunately you have me to help you snap out of your delerium, but you sure do give me a load of resistance. Why didn't you resist your recruiters to this extent? If you had, you wouldn't be wandering through life in such a confused haze as you are now.
Anyway, one of the glaring warning flags that warmizombies unwarily wave is the absurd pretense of speaking for dead people who can never participate in the conversation and who can never be cross-examined. As such, any future waving of this particular warning flag will be identified as "ZenMode Error: Pretending to Speak for Dead People." If you wish to bring Tyndall's and Arrhenius' papers into the discussion, I will be glad to shred them in short order for you.
ZenMode Error. The atmosphere is part of the earth. There is nothing about the atmosphere that somehow takes the earth out of equilibrium or that somehow slows electromagnetic radiation. I have no idea what you even think you mean by this quip.
I am the one who taught you that, remember? You were the one who had greenhouse gas magically creating thermal energy and who had to subsequently backpedal away from that. I'm glad you learned at least that much. Your problem at this point is your inability to account for the additional thermal energy that you claim is the increase in temperature that you cannot show even exists. Whenever you go down this road, you end up confessing that there is no additional thermal energy (in order to remain within the 1st LoT) and leave the conclusion that there is therefore no increase in temperature, which is what I have been asserting all along. So I appreciate you putting in the extra effort and going the extra mile to make my case. Thank you .
I don't know how many times this chanting of playing dumb needs to be put down but what specifically can you not read in my signature? Maybe yours is more of an English problem than a science problem.
ZenMode
Well-known member
Top shelf based on what, other than they tell you things that are in opposition to mainstream news outlets?
IBDaMann
Well-known member
Good catch! You make a great point and I'd like to build on this for a moment. What you are witnessing is one of the faces of science denial, i.e. pretending that a model/theory never really survived the scientific method and never entered the body of science.
When a model/theory survives the scrutiny of the scientific method, there is no more debate to be had. All that remains at that point is for the model to be falsified, and that has to be shown, not merely claimed.
Enter Climate Change (along with Global Warming and greenhouse effect). These religions venture into falsifiability and claim to be thettled thienth. They are embarrassingly falsified by science for which there is no longer any debate. This leaves warmizombies with only one path, i.e. pretend that science is still being debated and pretend that there is therefore no obligation on their part to actually demonstrate the model/theory to be false ... or they can vaguely claim that other science is somehow being "misapplied". It is here that warmizombies pretend that there are "sides" to the debate; they "debate" any and all of the science that falsified their religion as though it isn't really science ... until they can no longer deny the particular science model they are debating at the time, at which point they state that "no one has ever denied [that particular model]" and they shift to a different physics violation. When they run into a brick wall with the new violation, warmizombies can shift to a third or a fourth, or shift right back to the original.
The point is that warmizombies attempt to undo the scientific method that placed a model, or models, into the body of science and pretend that the theory/model is somehow still debatable. This is science denial.