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

[IBDaMann]

The claim ... nay, the prayer of the world's devout warmizombies warns that CO2 and other invisible atmospheric gases simply increase the earth's average global equilibrium temperature simply by existing, i.e. that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature increases because of the addition of these gases to the atmosphere, not because of any additional thermal radiation (increased Wattage) output from the sun.

The debate question is whether such a concept is even possible in physics.

I take the negative position (i.e. it is not possible) and Hume takes the affirmative position (it is possible and is occurring).

Hume, I'll serve first with my signature explaining why it's all a bunch of hooey. The ball is now in your court.

 

[Hume]

I don't give a shit about the topic.

Also, you never debate and disappear after one response. Fraud.

 

[ZenMode]

The claim ... nay, the prayer of the world's devout warmizombies warns that CO2 and other invisible atmospheric gases simply increase the earth's average global equilibrium temperature simply by existing, i.e. that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature increases because of the addition of these gases to the atmosphere, not because of any additional thermal radiation (increased Wattage) output from the sun.

The debate question is whether such a concept is even possible in physics.

I take the negative position (i.e. it is not possible) and Hume takes the affirmative position (it is possible and is occurring).

Hume, I'll serve first with my signature explaining why it's all a bunch of hooey. The ball is now in your court.

"
The claim ... nay, the prayer of the world's devout warmizombies warns that CO2 and other invisible atmospheric gases simply increase the earth's average global equilibrium temperature simply by existing, i.e. that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature increases because of the addition of these gases to the atmosphere, not because of any additional thermal radiation (increased Wattage) output from the sun."

Good to see you finally figured it out.

Now, can you explain how CO2 is believed to do that? I mean, surely you took the time to understand how the warming is believed to work, right?

 

[IBDaMann]

I don't give a shit about the topic.

Nonetheless, you believe in Global Warming based on greenhouse effect. This is another position of yours that you cannot defend, despite your mastery of debate.

Also, you never debate and disappear after one response. Fraud.

Obviously you have mistaken me for someone else, despite your mastery of debate.

 

[IBDaMann]

Now, can you explain how CO2 is believed to do that? I mean, surely you took the time to understand how the warming is believed to work, right?

Yes, absolutely. I have explained this to you many times, as well as to everyone who reads my signature.

Global Warming doctrine holds that greenhouse effect increases Earth's average global equilibrium temperature through miraculous, physics-defying forcings that create energy out of nothing in violation of the 1st LoT, that have a cooler atmosphere increasing the temperature of a warmer lithosphere and hydrosphere in violation of the 2nd LoT, and that have temperature and radiance moving in opposite directions in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

You are kind enough to reaffirm the above religious dogma every time we discuss the topic.

 

[ZenMode]

Yes, absolutely. I have explained this to you many times, as well as to everyone who reads my signature.

Global Warming doctrine holds that greenhouse effect increases Earth's average global equilibrium temperature through miraculous, physics-defying forcings that create energy out of nothing in violation of the 1st LoT, that have a cooler atmosphere increasing the temperature of a warmer lithosphere and hydrosphere in violation of the 2nd LoT, and that have temperature and radiance moving in opposite directions in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

You are kind enough to reaffirm the above religious dogma every time we discuss the topic.

Nope. I mean specifically how carbon dioxide is believed to function to cause warming.

 

[Lao Tse]

"
The claim ... nay, the prayer of the world's devout warmizombies warns that CO2 and other invisible atmospheric gases simply increase the earth's average global equilibrium temperature simply by existing, i.e. that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature increases because of the addition of these gases to the atmosphere, not because of any additional thermal radiation (increased Wattage) output from the sun."

Good to see you finally figured it out.

Now, can you explain how CO2 is believed to do that? I mean, surely you took the time to understand how the warming is believed to work, right?

you people ignore the sun. so stfu.

 

[ZenMode]

you people ignore the sun. so stfu.

We people ignore the sun? WTF does that even mean?

 

[IBDaMann]

you people ignore the sun. so stfu.

you people ignore science. so stfu.

 

[IBDaMann]

Nope. I mean specifically how carbon dioxide is believed to function to cause warming.

Yep. I answered that question directly.

 

[IBDaMann]

Nope. I mean specifically how carbon dioxide is believed to function to cause warming.

By the way, don't ask questions involving the word "warming" without defining it ... if you want an answer, that is.

 

[serenity]

The claim ... nay, the prayer of the world's devout warmizombies warns that CO2 and other invisible atmospheric gases simply increase the earth's average global equilibrium temperature simply by existing, i.e. that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature increases because of the addition of these gases to the atmosphere, not because of any additional thermal radiation (increased Wattage) output from the sun.

The debate question is whether such a concept is even possible in physics.

I take the negative position (i.e. it is not possible) and Hume takes the affirmative position (it is possible and is occurring).

Hume, I'll serve first with my signature explaining why it's all a bunch of hooey. The ball is now in your court.

The claim ... nay, the prayer of the world's devout warmizombies warns that CO2 and other invisible atmospheric gases simply increase the earth's average global equilibrium temperature simply by existing, i.e. that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature increases because of the addition of these gases to the atmosphere, not because of any additional thermal radiation (increased Wattage) output from the sun.

The debate question is whether such a concept is even possible in physics.

I take the negative position (i.e. it is not possible) and Hume takes the affirmative position (it is possible and is occurring).

Hume, I'll serve first with my signature explaining why it's all a bunch of hooey. The ball is now in your court.

Every theory about a hypothetical scenario is always possible until self evident physical absolutes are understood what will never happen within perpetual balancing universe limiting results that have occurred so far being eternally separated as current results exist changing shape from original form in series parallel time since arrival in plain sight adapting uniquely here in spontaneously different simultaneous positions of specific ancestral gaps per lineage.

 

[ZenMode]

Yep. I answered that question directly.

You did? You talked about how energy leaving the earth interacts with CO2 molecules?

Huh... I must have "missed" that. Weird.

If that's true, then I'm confused by your comment about the same amount of energy coming from the sun. If you understand how it's supposed to work, then you shouldn't be confused about the amount of energy not changing.

Are you also confused about why the temperature inside your car is higher when it's sitting in the sun with the windows closed given that there's no more energy coming from the sun?

 

[IBDaMann]

You did?

Yes.

You talked about how energy leaving the earth interacts with CO2 molecules?

No, I answered the question.

In our previous conversations, you repeatedly pivoted to different distributions of the same quantity of thermal energy, which necessarily result in the exact same average global equilibrium temperature, and you repeatedly insisted that you were not discussing the creation of new energy out of nothing. I wasn't talking about any of that; I was simply answering the question presented.

If that's true, then I'm confused by your comment about the same amount of energy coming from the sun.

You mean the same Wattage? That puzzles you? Explain.

 

[ZenMode]

Yes.


No, I answered the question.

In our previous conversations, you repeatedly pivoted to different distributions of the same quantity of thermal energy, which necessarily result in the exact same average global equilibrium temperature, and you repeatedly insisted that you were not discussing the creation of new energy out of nothing. I wasn't talking about any of that; I was simply answering the question presented.


You mean the same Wattage? That puzzles you? Explain.

So, do you agree that you can have an increase in temperature even if the amount of energy doesn't change? If you park your car in the sun and close the windows, will the temperature inside the car increase, when compared to the windows being open, without the sun producing more energy?

 

[Hume]

Nonetheless, you believe in Global Warming based on greenhouse effect. This is another position of yours that you cannot defend, despite your mastery of debate.


Obviously you have mistaken me for someone else, despite your mastery of debate.

you are a fucking troll

 

[IBDaMann]

you are a fucking troll

This now makes two debates in which you crashed and burned.

IBDaMann: 2
Hume: 0

 

[Hume]

This now makes two debates in which you crashed and burned.

IBDaMann: 2
Hume: 0

back to ignore hate troll

 

[ZenMode]

Yes.


No, I answered the question.

In our previous conversations, you repeatedly pivoted to different distributions of the same quantity of thermal energy, which necessarily result in the exact same average global equilibrium temperature, and you repeatedly insisted that you were not discussing the creation of new energy out of nothing. I wasn't talking about any of that; I was simply answering the question presented.


You mean the same Wattage? That puzzles you? Explain.

So, do you agree that you can have an increase in temperature even if the amount of energy doesn't change? If you park your car in the sun and close the windows, will the temperature inside the car increase, when compared to the windows being open, without the sun producing more energy?

 

[IBDaMann]

So, do you agree that you can have an increase in temperature even if the amount of energy doesn't change?

You need to learn to be specific. An increase in temperature is an increase in thermal energy.

If you park your car in the sun and close the windows, will the temperature inside the car increase, when compared to the windows being open, without the sun producing more energy?

Translation: Can thermal energy be redistributed to result in a higher average temperature?
Answer: No.