Challenging Hume to a Debate #2 - Physics of the Global Warming Faith : Is Greenhouse Effect Even Possible?

IBDaMann said:
I don't see any questions or statements about the earth's average global equilibrium temperature. All I see is you perpetually repeated question about the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures at the bottom of the atmosphere being inversely proportional to the amount of atmosphere. It doesn't seem to matter how many times we discuss this, you begin your tap-dancing cycle over again by asking the same question that never supports anything about the Climate Change religion and that never explains why any rational adult should believe in the Global Warming faith.

So let's review the questions you are supposed to be answering: "Why should any rational adult believe in Global Warming?" and "Why should any rational adult believe in greenhouse effect?"


For the 73rd time, less atmosphere means less solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and more solar radiation absorbed by both the hydrosphere and the lithosphere, resulting in a different distribution of the same quantity of thermal energy, i.e. the same average global equilibrium temperature.
Click to expand...
And the tap dancing continues.....

The average global temperature is what it is. It doesn't matter if the difference between highs and lows is 400 degrees or 4 degrees, but average would be the same.

Are you going to answer the question I asked or just continue to avoid it?
 
T. A. Gardner said:
I'll ignore the insult


First law of thermodynamics Q = m∆T
Click to expand...
Not the 1st law of thermodynamics. It is E(t+1)=E(t)-U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is 'work' (or force over time). The presence of a gas or vapor is not a force, and is not work. Therefore, E(t+1) = E(t) - zero.
T. A. Gardner said:
Unless the Earth and its atmosphere are at absolute zero,
Click to expand...
It is not possible to develop the energy required to take any mass to absolute zero.
T. A. Gardner said:
and there is no energy input from something like the Sun, the Earth's atmosphere has mass and a temperature. The Sun produces energy via nuclear fusion. That energy, in part, is dumped on the Earth and its atmosphere. Therefore, the Earth's atmosphere will rise in temperature until an equilibrium between energy in and out is reached.
Click to expand...
At that point the ONLY way to increase the temperature of the Earth is to INCREASE the output of the Sun, or to move Earth closer to the Sun.
T. A. Gardner said:
If the mass of the atmosphere, or its composition change, that temperature will either rise or fall until it reaches equilibrium again.
Click to expand...
There is no 'composition' component in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
T. A. Gardner said:
If the amount of energy the Sun produces changes, same thing.
Click to expand...
The Sun is a remarkably stable star. It is assume the output is constant for the purposes of this discussion.
T. A. Gardner said:
The Earth's atmosphere can therefore rise or fall in temperature due to natural or manmade causes.
Click to expand...
Man did not make the Sun. Man has no control over the orbit of Earth. Those are the only two factors that can change the temperature of the Earth.
T. A. Gardner said:
I argue that the manmade causes are mostly insignificant.
Click to expand...
Man did not make the Sun and has no control over the orbit of the Earth.
T. A. Gardner said:
You try to argue this is all some sort of pseudoscience.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as 'psuedoscience'. It is either a theory of science, or it is not. You are ignoring several theories of science.
T. A. Gardner said:
As usual, you completely missed the point.
Click to expand...
The Church of Global Warming has made the same points for decades. It routinely ignores the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and also routinely ignores mathematics.
T. A. Gardner said:
The point I was making was climate scientists
Click to expand...
There is no such thing. Climate is not a branch of science.
T. A. Gardner said:
said these holes wouldn't occur if we stopped using CFC's.
Click to expand...
The Church of Global Warming is not the Church of the Ozone Hole, but they both stem from the Church of Karl Marx.
T. A. Gardner said:
We did and the holes are still there.
Click to expand...
No surprise, since CFCs do not affect ozone. You can put them in a tank of ozone and there will be no reaction.
T. A. Gardner said:
They were wrong and instead of falling on a sword so-to-speak they simply moved on to some other environmental cause of the day, Gorebal Warming.

My position in relation to that is, Why should we believe them this time?
Click to expand...
No.
 
ZenMode said:
Of course it was rhetorical. As usual, you have no interest in having an honest conversation. You only have a desire to tap dance and Play games, which is why I can ask you the same question a half dozen or more times and never get an honest answer.
Click to expand...
You are describing yourself again, Void. DON'T BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!
 
Into the Night said:
You are describing yourself again, Void. DON'T BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!
Click to expand...

ZenMode

Post in thread 'Challenging Hume to a Debate #2 - Physics of the Global Warming Faith : Is Greenhouse Effect Even Possible?'

Into the Night said:
The atmosphere has no ability change the temperature of the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are again ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Click to expand...
You already chose to exclude yourself from an intelligent conversation when you claimed the atmosphere has no impact on temperatures.
 
ZenMode said:
"The temperature will remain the same"

Really? With NO atmosphere, the high temps would be identical and low temperatures would be identical?

Into the Night already exposed his idiocy by making the claim. I just want to verify that you are selling the same idiocy.
Click to expand...
With no atmosphere, another one will be created, due to the size of Earth.
It makes no difference to the temperature of Earth.
 
Into the Night said:
With no atmosphere, another one will be created, due to the size of Earth.
It makes no difference to the temperature of Earth.
Click to expand...
That's your opinion, not a fact and it's especially irrelevant in a hypothetical discussion.

The atmosphere on Earth, just as it does on all planets, directly impacts high and low temperatures. You already know this, but insist on playing dumb.

So, in an effort to further expose your dishonestly and game playing, I'll ask you the same question that others avoid answering.

Why/how does the Earth's atmosphere keep overnight temperatures from being as low as they normally would be? In other words, without an atmosphere, much more of the suns energy would get to the surface of the Earth, creating significantly higher high temperatures, but that energy would leave the Earth's surface, back into space, more quickly, resulting in much colder evenings.

So, how does the atmosphere do that?
 
ZenMode said:
And the tap dancing continues.....
Click to expand...
Why continue it?

ZenMode said:
The average global temperature is what it is.
Click to expand...
Well, then this is the answer I will give to you, and the answer I will recommend others give to you.

ZenMode said:
It doesn't matter if the difference between highs and lows is 400 degrees or 4 degrees, but average would be the same.
Click to expand...
So you acknowledge that Global Warming and greenhouse effect are a load of bunk. Great.

ZenMode said:
Are you going to answer the question I asked or just continue to avoid it?
Click to expand...
The answer to your question is what it is.
 
T. A. Gardner said:
It is possible to measure it with reasonable accuracy.
Click to expand...
Describe the procedure. Please be sure to show all your work.
T. A. Gardner said:
You obviously don't even know basic chemistry.
Click to expand...
I happen to be a chemist.
T. A. Gardner said:
One of the properties of a gas is any mixture will diffuse and mix homogeneously.
Click to expand...
Dead wrong. Examples:

If an enclosed space has air mixed with propane, the propane will settle in the bottom of the container.
If an enclosed space has air mixed with hydrogen sulfide, the hydrogen sulfide will settle at the top of the container.

CO2 created and destroyed by various forms of life, both plant and animal. That rate varies throughout the year and by the type of plant or animal, and upon the activity of both. Further, CO2 is emitted by volcanic activity (a local point source). CO2 is also absorbed and emitted by water, including seawater. It is also generally heavier than air and tends to settle lower in the atmosphere. It is also emitted by various fires, including internal and external combustion engines (point sources).

T. A. Gardner said:
That's grade school knowledge.
Click to expand...
You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. If a grade school happens to be teaching that, it's WRONG.
T. A. Gardner said:
With something as large as a planetary atmosphere, there will be gradients depending on the weight of each element in a gas that stratifies top to bottom to some degree and it does take time for a gas formed locally to diffuse, but it will in time.
Click to expand...
No, it won't.
 
IBDaMann said:
Why continue it?


Well, then this is the answer I will give to you, and the answer I will recommend others give to you.


So you acknowledge that Global Warming and greenhouse effect are a load of bunk. Great.


The answer to your question is what it is.
Click to expand...
So, no, you aren't going to answer, as I expected.

be68baf9-4930-40bc-b97e-d32699b967fd_text.gif
 
T. A. Gardner said:
Try Fourier's law.
Click to expand...
What about it?
T. A. Gardner said:
Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply.
Click to expand...
Yes it does.
T. A. Gardner said:
The later is applied to black body theory for absorbers and emitters.
Click to expand...
WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to ALL bodies.
T. A. Gardner said:
Fourier's applies to thermal conductivity.
Click to expand...
Conductive heat is not a factor for the Sun to heat the Earth, or for the Earth to dissipate energy into space.
T. A. Gardner said:
Different materials, each element, etc., has its own unique thermal conductivity measured as W/m.K (watts per meter-Kelvin).
Click to expand...
Irrelevant. Conductive heat is not being discussed and is not radiant heat or absorption.
T. A. Gardner said:
Change the composition of a gaseous mixture--the atmosphere--and you get a different thermal conductivity.
Click to expand...
CO2 happens to have better thermal conductivity than most any other common gas.
Irrelevance fallacy. Strawman fallacy.
 
ZenMode said:
Is this the same science that makes you unable to acknowledge a basic truth about the impact of the Earth's atmosphere on high and low temperatures, or is this a different science?
Click to expand...
Your religion is not a 'basic truth'. It's a false religion. The Church of Global Warming is not science.
 
ZenMode said:
And the tap dancing continues.....

The average global temperature is what it is. It doesn't matter if the difference between highs and lows is 400 degrees or 4 degrees, but average would be the same.

Are you going to answer the question I asked or just continue to avoid it?
Click to expand...
RQAA. Stop mindlessly repeating your question. It's already been answered multiple times.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top