GLOBAL WARMING -- Everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else!!!!!!

[gfm7175]

Systemic change in the overall climate. Hope that clarifies it for you.

Circular definition fallacy. You cannot define a word with itself.

The sun. There is no "additional" energy.

How is Earth increasing in temperature without any additional thermal energy?

Here's how global warming works:

HERE is how "global warming" is commonly preached, via cycling back and forth between "three sermons"... (credit goes to IBDaMann for summing up this preaching sequence so eloquently) ---

2. greenhouse effect is the doctrine that provides the holy mechanism for earth's Global Warming (see point 1) which began during the Industrial Revolution, specifically upon the writing of the sacred Communist Manifesto text. Global Warming, as taught by the Church, is caused by miraculous greenhouse gases which are attributed to human activity (that all points back to conservatives) that have magical superpowers to defy physics, as follows:

- 2a. The force awakens within greenhouse gases, which begin creating additional energy out of nothing, in miraculous violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. This miraculously-created thermal energy increases the earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output. The massive increase in human activity at the hands of GREEDY, fascist, socialist conservatives is the cause of the heavily accelerated increase in global temperatures that we must delude ourselves into seeing.

... when it is pointed out that point 2a is an egregious violation of thermodynamics, the preacher backpedals from 2a with the words "no one is claiming that energy is created out of nothing ..." and then seamlessly pivots to 2b, as such:

- 2b. greenhouse gases act as insulation, like a big, warm, cumfy wool blanket that cradles the earth in Global Warming. This cumfy blanket is totally transparent/non-existent to inbound solar energy, but then "traps" some of earth's "heat" by preventing earth's radiance (thermal radiation) from escaping into space. This causes a direct increase in the earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output.

... when it is pointed out that point 2b is an egregious violation of Stefan-Boltzmann, because radiance and temperature always move in the same direction, i.e. you can't have an increase in temperature with a decrease in radiance, the preacher backpedals from 2b with the words "no one is claiming that radiance is being decreased ..." and then seamlessly pivots to 2c, as such:

- 2c. The earth, in equilibrium, radiates thermally into space exactly what it absorbs, without creating any additional energy out of nothing, which is exactly what has been taught all along. The earth's thermal radiation, however, is simply absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and half of that energy is re-radiated back down to earth, increasing the temperature of the surface, which therefore provides additional thermal radiation to the atmosphere which balances out the quantity of thermal radiation needed to escape into space and maintain equilibrium.

... when it is pointed out that point 2c is an egregious violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because the much warmer lithosphere cannot be heated by the much cooler atmosphere, the preacher backpedals from 2c with the words "no one is claiming that the cooler atmosphere is somehow warming the earth ..." and then seamlessly pivots to 2a, as such:

- 2a. The force awakens within greenhouse gases, which begin creating additional energy out of nothing, in miraculous violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. This miraculously-created thermal energy increases the earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output. The massive increase in human activity at the hands of GREEDY, fascist, socialist conservatives is the cause of the heavily accelerated increase in global temperatures that we must delude ourselves into seeing.

... and the cycle continues forever.

The sun shines on the earth and fires primarily short-wave high energy photons at us. The earth absorbs those photons and "downconverts" them to lower energy, longer wavelength IR photons which radiate back out of the solid surface of the earth. Without any greenhouse gases the blackbody radiative temperature of the surface of the earth is something like 30degC LOWER than the current surface temperatures. Even if the globe were surrounded by an atmosphere of O2 and N2 without any greenhouse gases these gases lack a dipole moment to absorb IR photons, so even that atmosphere wouldn't allow the earth to be as warm as it is today.

Once those IR photons radiate back out of the surface they are absorbed by greenhouse gases like CO2 or CH4. These compounds have a dipole moment which allows them to absorb IR photons. Once absorbed the photons are re-radiated back out of the molecule and continue on their way up toward the top of the atmosphere. Only to run into greenhouse gas molecules over and over and over again. Ultimately the IR photon makes it back out to space so that the overall energy balance of the earth is net zero.

But the key is that the level at which the IR photons re-radiate back out into space gets higher and higher in the atmosphere the MORE CO2 you put in the atmosphere which pushes the re-radiation level out to more and more inefficient spaces (where there's fewer gas molecules). This temporarily creates a sort of "backlog" of IR in the atmosphere, keeping the surface warmer.

See? If you actually UNDERSTAND the science it makes sense.

No, that doesn't make ANY sense at all. For starters, there's no such thing as "re-radiation" of IR photons... Photons, upon absorption, are completely and utterly DESTROYED. You seem to be preaching sermon 2c here, and NO, the COOLER atmosphere CANNOT heat the warmer surface, and NO, redistributing existing thermal energy does NOT increase Earth's temperature.

Stefan Boltzman is how you calculate the blackbody temperature of the earth, or the temperature of the earth's surface in the absence of any greenhouse gases.

Wrong again. BOY are you woefully misinformed!

That doesn't happen.

You JUST argued that it did (see your sermon 2c above). But yes, this is the portion of the sermon in which you DENY 2c and pivot to 2a.

Now YOU try posting some science.

Already did.

 

[ZenMode]

That is your mistake. You should not trust anyone in matters of science. You trust the science. If someone tells you that something is settled science and that you should just believe him because he claims to be a settled-scientist with credentials that can bully an ox, you should nonetheless tell him to take a flying leap and to show you the science. No science, no discussion.


False. Science is not an endeavor. Science is a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature, and is available to all, free of charge. No one has any excuse for falling for the Global Warming scam when all the science that debunks the entire religion is at everyone's disposal.


Qualifications have nothing to do with anything. You are right for giving little (it should be zero) weight to Climate preachers and warmizombies but you err when you give any weight to any human's opinion. Science is not a subjective matter of opinion. Either the science says that a given assertion is true/correct, or there is no science supporting the given assertion. Nobody's opinion enters the equation. If you are trusting anyone's opinion regarding matters of science then you are making a huge mistake. If some preacher of mystical magical physics miracles isn't explaining the science to you such that the assertion becomes clear and intuitive, then you have no reason for believing any of it as being true. If you feel a high-pressure sales pitch revolving around "if you don't believe as I am so ordering, I will call you theriouthly thtupid and lot's of other names" then you know that there is no science involved in the predicate.


Nearly zero? Your implication that there is some science at all takes me aback. Don't fall for it. There is no science involved anywhere, only science denial.


It would appear that you wasted hours of your life that you will never get back. The moment you noticed that the speaker in question did not open with an unambiguous definition of the global climate that did not violate physics and did not contain obvious contradictions, you should have immediately changed your plans and instead spent that time with friends and family.


... and you are babbling. Look at you, talking about climate changes like that even means anything. What is your unambiguous definition of the global climate? That was a rhetorical question, obviously you don't have one. No such unambiguous definition exists. Global Warming and Climate Change are zany religions, and religions never define their terms.

Look, you fell for it. Just watch out for it next time. You only live once, and you shouldn't be wasting your time listening to religious sermons hailed as settled sceince. If there is no unambiguous definition of the global climate (devoid of contradictions and physic violations) right up front, you are wasting your time from that moment on.


It would. CO2 is plant food.


Nope. Ice cores are terribly deformed and stretched and altered by the extreme weight of the ice above. All trapped atmospheric gases seep over the milennia and there is next-to-nothing that can be concluded. Also, climate preachers often fool gullibles into believing that the entire planet was however they are describing the one spot of the ice core. Stupid.


One would be gullible to believe that there are actually any climate models. Nothing that isn't formally and unambiguously defined can be modeled, and nobody has ever formally and unambiguously defined the global climate without violating physics or without imposing logical contradictions.

There are no climate models.


Congrats. This is all you need. Notice that nothing about your good stewardship requires you to babble and gibber about the global climate.


I like it. Not a single mention of the global climate. Excellent! You aren't bullying anyone either, or demanding that we tax the shit out of ourselves in order to save the planet. You've got a solid program.


I see that you clued-in on that word "climate" and immediately recognized it for the boooooolsch't that it is.


Not scientists ... scheisters.


The you need to start demanding science instead of begging for the opinions of every yahoo who has your ear.


Sign me up.


I like your perspective. Your slogan should be "Show me the science!" or "Environmentalism talks, Climate crap walks."

"You trust the science."

Should I trust the science, but not trust my doctor?

Should I trust the science, but not trust my mechanic?

What does trusting the science look like in everyday life?

 

[Tobytone]

So no science on your side?

Got it.

Nice try, though, Cletus. Next time bring a gun to a gunfight, not your penis.

Nailed it, didn't I? Reading comprehension's clearly not your strong suit, so I'll dumb it down for you. The world's awash in doomsday theories and grim environmental predictions, but I've learned one thing. A large number of scientists are just partisan shills who kick off their "research" with the conclusion already inked. Bias much?

You, my friend, are a textbook educated idiot, your judgment fogged by the same dogma you worship. Everything's political, yep, even your sacred science, but you're too busy preening to admit it. Take your last reply. Just a sad volley of cheap shots, no substance. I asked for your favorite scientist who's cracked the code, silence. I asked for a model with a shred of predictive cred, tumbleweeds.

For someone who acts like they've got the universe figured out, you're awfully quiet when pressed. Probably too busy framing your sustainability certificate, skimming that exclusive eco-newsletter, or patting yourself on the back for "saving the planet." Newsflash. You're not a free thinker, you're a pompous pawn of the hive masters, and it shows.

 

[Daylight63]

Circular definition fallacy. You cannot define a word with itself.

How is Earth increasing in temperature without any additional thermal energy?

HERE is how "global warming" is commonly preached, via cycling back and forth between "three sermons"... (credit goes to IBDaMann for summing up this preaching sequence so eloquently) ---

2. greenhouse effect is the doctrine that provides the holy mechanism for earth's Global Warming (see point 1) which began during the Industrial Revolution, specifically upon the writing of the sacred Communist Manifesto text. Global Warming, as taught by the Church, is caused by miraculous greenhouse gases which are attributed to human activity (that all points back to conservatives) that have magical superpowers to defy physics, as follows:

- 2a. The force awakens within greenhouse gases, which begin creating additional energy out of nothing, in miraculous violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. This miraculously-created thermal energy increases the earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output. The massive increase in human activity at the hands of GREEDY, fascist, socialist conservatives is the cause of the heavily accelerated increase in global temperatures that we must delude ourselves into seeing.

... when it is pointed out that point 2a is an egregious violation of thermodynamics, the preacher backpedals from 2a with the words "no one is claiming that energy is created out of nothing ..." and then seamlessly pivots to 2b, as such:

- 2b. greenhouse gases act as insulation, like a big, warm, cumfy wool blanket that cradles the earth in Global Warming. This cumfy blanket is totally transparent/non-existent to inbound solar energy, but then "traps" some of earth's "heat" by preventing earth's radiance (thermal radiation) from escaping into space. This causes a direct increase in the earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output.

... when it is pointed out that point 2b is an egregious violation of Stefan-Boltzmann, because radiance and temperature always move in the same direction, i.e. you can't have an increase in temperature with a decrease in radiance, the preacher backpedals from 2b with the words "no one is claiming that radiance is being decreased ..." and then seamlessly pivots to 2c, as such:

- 2c. The earth, in equilibrium, radiates thermally into space exactly what it absorbs, without creating any additional energy out of nothing, which is exactly what has been taught all along. The earth's thermal radiation, however, is simply absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and half of that energy is re-radiated back down to earth, increasing the temperature of the surface, which therefore provides additional thermal radiation to the atmosphere which balances out the quantity of thermal radiation needed to escape into space and maintain equilibrium.

... when it is pointed out that point 2c is an egregious violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because the much warmer lithosphere cannot be heated by the much cooler atmosphere, the preacher backpedals from 2c with the words "no one is claiming that the cooler atmosphere is somehow warming the earth ..." and then seamlessly pivots to 2a, as such:

- 2a. The force awakens within greenhouse gases, which begin creating additional energy out of nothing, in miraculous violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. This miraculously-created thermal energy increases the earth's average global temperature in conjunction with the sun's constant output. The massive increase in human activity at the hands of GREEDY, fascist, socialist conservatives is the cause of the heavily accelerated increase in global temperatures that we must delude ourselves into seeing.

... and the cycle continues forever.

No, that doesn't make ANY sense at all. For starters, there's no such thing as "re-radiation" of IR photons... Photons, upon absorption, are completely and utterly DESTROYED. You seem to be preaching sermon 2c here, and NO, the COOLER atmosphere CANNOT heat the warmer surface, and NO, redistributing existing thermal energy does NOT increase Earth's temperature.

Wrong again. BOY are you woefully misinformed!

You JUST argued that it did (see your sermon 2c above). But yes, this is the portion of the sermon in which you DENY 2c and pivot to 2a.

Already did.

May I just say your post is fractally wrong on so many topics it's not even funny.

You and I both know you have never even sat through a thermo lecture let alone ever taken a P chem class. YOu don't even know what the P in P Chem means.

And your inability to understand how the greenhouse effect works is truly astounding to behold.

You honestly think photons, upon absorption, simply disappear? The energy doesn't go anywhere? It just disappears?

Who doesn't know the First law of Thermo now?

LOL.

 

[Daylight63]

Nailed it, didn't I? Reading comprehension's clearly not your strong suit, so I'll dumb it down for you. The world's awash in doomsday theories and grim environmental predictions, but I've learned one thing. A large number of scientists are just partisan shills who kick off their "research" with the conclusion already inked. Bias much?

You, my friend, are a textbook educated idiot, your judgment fogged by the same dogma you worship. Everything's political, yep, even your sacred science, but you're too busy preening to admit it. Take your last reply. Just a sad volley of cheap shots, no substance. I asked for your favorite scientist who's cracked the code, silence. I asked for a model with a shred of predictive cred, tumbleweeds.

For someone who acts like they've got the universe figured out, you're awfully quiet when pressed. Probably too busy framing your sustainability certificate, skimming that exclusive eco-newsletter, or patting yourself on the back for "saving the planet." Newsflash. You're not a free thinker, you're a pompous pawn of the hive masters, and it shows.

In the past 3 posts to GFM/Into the Night I have presented more science than you have ever had in your entire "education".

You have provided nothing but bloviating. That's easy. Which is why you can do it.

Science is hard. You don't have what it takes.

 

[Tobytone]

In the past 3 posts to GFM/Into the Night I have presented more science than you have ever had in your entire "education".

You have provided nothing but bloviating. That's easy. Which is why you can do it.

Science is hard. You don't have what it takes.

You’re pulling the classic dumbass libtard move, strutting around like you’re Einstein reincarnated but dodging any chance to prove it. Please, for the love of all that’s holy, just once, dazzle us with that towering intellect you claim overshadows us MAGA rubes. Drop something brilliant, anything, to show that big brain isn’t just a prop. I’m waiting, popcorn ready.

Name the real problem with our environmental policies, or cough up one critical policy we should adopt. Who’s the scientist with actual solutions? What’s the most accurate model or forecast with a proven track record? For once, answer something.

We get it, you’re a pompous ass, no need for more proof. Just give us something real. Don’t bother dumbing it down, I’ll find someone to read it to me.