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

[Into the Night]

I don't give a shit about the topic.

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

There are no debates here, Hugo. Just conversations.

 

[Into the Night]

"
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?

It doesn't. It can't. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

 

[Into the Night]

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

It doesn't. It can't.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

You can't increase temperature without increasing thermal energy, Void.

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?

Because of reduced heat.

The atmosphere is not a closed car.

 

[Into the Night]

So, the temperature inside your car, with the windows closed, won't be higher than outside the car. Is that what you're saying?

Because of reduced heat.

I said nothing about average temperature.

Now you just denied the 0th law of thermodynamics. You don't know what temperature is.

 

[Into the Night]

It may. It may not. I don't think anyone is claiming to know with absolute certainty if CO2 in the atmosphere impacts climate or weather events.

It doesn't. See the laws of thermodynamics. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

Ok. Nobody that actually matters is going to claim anything with certainty.

Extremists' opinions don't matter. Neither to talking heads on cable news channels.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

 

[ZenMode]

It doesn't. It can't. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Yawn.

 

[ZenMode]

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

The funny part is that you believe you create truth just by saying things..... because you're insane.

 

[Into the Night]

YOu have got to be kidding.

The NASA paper is "crafted to sway the most scientifically illiterate..."

You are dismissed as a loon.

And a weird one at that.

Science is not a government agency or a paper.

 

[Into the Night]

IBDaMoron.

Your insults are useless here, Hugo.

 

[Into the Night]

The irony in some bloody tRumpling calling Democrats a "hive mind" is positively mind blowing.

LIF. Grow up.

 

[Into the Night]

The funny part is that you believe you create truth just by saying things..... because you're insane.

Mantra 1d. Lame.

 

[Into the Night]

The thread title references greenhouse effect. How do you define or describe greenhouse effect that would not include temperature differences, or increases, in to separate locations?

He simply grabbed the buzzword from the Church of Global Warming, which claims a 'greenhouse effect'.
He is not trying to justify your religion.

 

[Into the Night]

Not at all. I'm trying to clarify because, as of now, you're not making sense.



Yes.... that's how the term "greenhouse effect" originated....actual greenhouses that restricted airflow, causing the internal temperatures to exceed the external temperature.

So, again, we agree that the greenhouse effect is real, meaning it actually happens, and doesn't violate any laws of anything... because if the greenhouse effect DID violate any laws of physics, then it simply wouldn't occur.

Clarifying again.... we agree that it is possible for Area A to have a higher temperature than Area B with no additional energy from the sun because it literally happens around the world, billions of times a day...basically every time someone closes their car doors/windows in the sun.

False equivalence fallacy. The atmosphere is not a greenhouse. No car or greenhouse limits radiant heating.
Cars get hotter in the sun due to reduced heat.

 

[Into the Night]

This indicates you don't really understand how greenhouse gases work.

The Earth is not a closed building.

A greenhouse gas acts to absorb IR photons (absorbs energy) which they then re-radiate back out as another IR photon which is then absorbed by another molecule of CO2 and the cycle continues. The goal is to ensure that the energy coming INTO the earth from the sun and the energy GOING BACK OUT are in balance.

BUT as you load up the atmosphere with more greenhouse gases (gases that are ABLE to absorb an IR photon) the IR photons have to go higher and higher in the atmosphere to re-radiate back out. The higher they go the less efficient is the radiation-reradiation process and this results in a warming at the surface.

You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You cannot increase the temperature of anything and reduce it's radiant heat.

Think of it like a traffic jam. The traffic is moving but suddenly there are a LOT more cars at 4th and Monroe.

There is no 'traffic jam'. There is no restriction in the 'road'.

As you state it, no. But as it exists in REALITY, yes.

Buzzword fallacy. Go learn what 'reality' means and how it's defined.

Yeah, this isn't something Hume is able to debate. He doesn't understand enough science and he is clearly too limited in his general intellectual behavior so save your time.

You are denying science. You have already denied the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Into the Night]

Actually quite the opposite. S-B tells us what the blackbody temperature of the earth should be.

WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate temperature. There is no 'should be'.

But since we have greenhouse gases our surface temperatures are something like 30deg C HIGHER than the blackbody temperature of the earth.

No gas or vapor has the capability to heat the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

S-B is how we know that greenhouse gases function as advertised.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate temperature.

* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You cannot create energy out of nothing.

 

[ZenMode]

False equivalence fallacy. The atmosphere is not a greenhouse. No car or greenhouse limits radiant heating.
Cars get hotter in the sun due to reduced heat.

Sigh.....if you want to jerk off, try an old sock. I'm not interested.

 

[Into the Night]

That has no bearing on the greenhouse effect as it applies to the earth.

There is no 'greenhouse effect' of Earth.

Climate scientists are more interested in temperature anomalies. If you actually read any of the real science you'd focus on that.

Climate is not a science. There is no such thing as a 'climate scientist' (except as a title for a priest in the Church of Global Warming). Go learn what 'real' means. True Scotsman fallacy.

The 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (force over time).
No gas is 'work'. Therefore, E(t+1) = E(t) - zero. You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has the magickal property of doing so.

The 2nd law of thermdynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is 'entropy', or the amount of available work to perform, and 't' is time. In other words, you can never decrease entropy. It must always stay the same or increase. No magick gas or vapor has the capability to decrease entropy.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law states: r = C*e*t^4, where 'r' is radiant energy (light), 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant 'emissivity', or how well a surface radiates or absorbs light, and 't' is temperature. In other words, radiant energy (radiant heating) is always proportional to temperature, NEVER THE INVERSE. No magick gas or vapor has the ability to change this equation.

It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth, just as it is not possible to measure the temperature of Earth.

These three equations are theories of science. You are just denying them.

 

[Into the Night]

Sigh.....if you want to jerk off, try an old sock. I'm not interested.

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!