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

[Into the Night]

You continue to prove my point. You stick to what you want to believe and claim that your opinion is fact. You dismiss anything inconvenient to what you want to believe NOW including NASA employees. Not close to the entire list:

Dr. Kate Calvin
NASA’s Chief Scientist and Senior Climate Advisor - NASA Headquarters

Elizabeth MacDonald
Space Physicist

Alicia Joseph
Research Physical Scientist - NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center / Hydrological Sciences Laboratory

Reem Hannun
Assistant Research Scientist - Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology (University of Maryland Baltimore County)

Josh Willis
Project Scientist for Sentinel-6 and Jason-3 - NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Benjamin Hamlington
Scientist - NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Qing Liang
Physical Research Scientist - NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

Sabrina Delgado Arias
Senior Research Scientist, ICESat-2 Applications Coordinator - NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (Contractor with Science Systems and Applications, Inc.)

Dalia Kirschbaum
Research Scientist | NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

Science is not name dropping. Science is not a government agency. Science does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in science.
Mathematics is not name dropping. Mathematics is not a government agency. Mathematics does not use consensus. There is no voting bloc in mathematics.

You are simply denying both. You can't 'vote' away the 1st law of thermodynamics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, or the Stefan-Boltzmann law, or statistical mathematics, ALL of which you are denying.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not trying to do anything. I'm not decreasing radiance.

Blatant lie.

The sun's energy enters the atmosphere in a different format than it leaves.

Light is not a format.

If CO2 works in the way it's believed, which is why it prevents night temperatures from being hundreds of degrees below zero NOW, then temperatures would rise as the percentage in the atmosphere increased.

You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
You are also ignoring Kirchoff's law. The Earth consists of land, oceans, and atmosphere. You can't call separate components the whole.

 

[Into the Night]

Now you're just playing dumb.

For the 5th + time, the greenhouse effect, while it doesn't apply in this case, because there is no plexiglass dome enclosing the earth, shows that temperatures can increase within a specific area with no change in energy.

"This is a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. Nothing can reduce Earth's radiance (i.e. keep energy from leaving)"

Nobody is saying it is. The Earth's radiance is what it is. Why, despite energy radiating from the earth, do we not have huge drops in temperature that we would have if there were no atmosphere? In other words, what does atmosphere do with the energy radiating from the Earth?

Nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

Here's the best summary of this I could find: "So how does changing the concentration of a Greenhouse gas change how much heat escapes from the upper atmosphere? As we climb higher in the atmosphere the air gets thinner. There is less of all gases, including the greenhouse gases. Eventually the air becomes thin enough that any heat radiated by the air can escape all the way to Space. How much heat escapes to space from this altitude then depends on how cold the air is at that height. The colder the air, the less heat it radiates." (SOURCE)



Ummm, what do you think happens with IR photons that radiate from the warmed surface of the planet back into the atmosphere. Just take a stab. What happens to them?

A photon is not temperature and has no temperature.

 

[Into the Night]

Ummmmm......what do you think is causing the effect in refraction of which you speak? Yeah, that would be HOT air vs cooler air. How did the air get HOT? Do you think energy was involved?


The speed of light you are referencing is in a vacuum. So the light already passing through the atmosphere is slowed to less than the speed of light. (It slows in water as well, which is why you see refraction in water!)

Light always travels at the speed of light.

"Temperatures on Mercury are extreme. During the day, temperatures on the surface can reach 800 degrees Fahrenheit (430 degrees Celsius). Because the planet has no atmosphere to retain that heat, nighttime temperatures on the surface can drop to minus 290 degrees Fahrenheit (minus 180 degrees Celsius)." NASA

It is not possible to measure the temperature of Mercury. Argument from randU fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

You aren't arguing with me....you are arguing with NASA. If you honestly think you are smarter than the folks at NASA I have a very sad bit of news for you.

You seem to be on here playing a stupid game of just gainsaying whatever you see without thinking. Sure you lard it with a lot of "Trashtalk" but any of us with actual science degrees can see through it.

Just so ya know. You aren't fooling the people who actually know science. You just aren't.

Mathematics is not NASA or any other government agency. Science is not NASA or any other government agency. Science is not a degree or title. Mathematics is not a degree or title.

'Expert' worship.

I have already posted the equations you ignore. Those ARE the theories of science you ignore.
You also ignore statistical mathematics. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, Venus, Mercury, or any other planet.

NASA is no magickal crystal ball that can measure any temperature of any planet.

 

[Into the Night]

And what causes convection? Any ideas?

Different temperature in different areas of fluid.

That isn't how it read. But if you need to save face I'll understand


Actually no one is really talking about the speed of light in this conversation except you and it really doesn't relate to the larger topic.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

So you go ahead and blather on about this. We can wait if you want to talk about global climate change.

Climate cannot change. There is no such thing as a 'global climate'.

Heat is something that can be absorbed.

Heat cannot be trapped.

Sorry you deny science.

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

IR photons (sensible heat)

Photons have no temperature.

are absobed by greenhouse gases.

Infrared light can be absorbed by any material.

If you don't know that you are about 150 years too late to the game since we've known this fact for that long if not longer.

'We'? Who is this 'we'??
Theories of science do not expire due to age. You are simply ignoring them.

 

[Into the Night]

How do you do this? You make a big post and get nearly everything wrong. It's amazing.

You'd almost have to be really good at science to know how to get literally 99% of everything you say WRONG. A moron would accidentally stumble and say something correct from time to time. But you never do. How is that????

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

The lonely house-bound "day trader/gamer" is more educated on this topic than NASA. Imagine how far we would be if only IBDaMann could get that crucial first job!

'Expert' worship. Science is not a government agency. Mathematics is not a government agency.

 

[Into the Night]

You lost when you said there's no scientists at NASA.

Science isn't a government agency, moron.

 

[Into the Night]

You are trying so hard to avoid this topic.

If the atmosphere doesn’t deflect some of the suns energy, why doesn’t the earth’s temperature get as high as it would WITHOUT an atmosphere?



For reasons that we both recognize, you continue to intentionally avoid answering questions. No problem. I have plenty of time.

Trying again….. for probably the 10th time.

Yes, it (atmosphere) brings daytime and nighttime temperatures closer together. One component of that is the atmosphere stopping some of the suns energy from getting to the earth’s surface. The other part is that it “distributes” thermal energy as it leaves the earth’s surface.

What components of the atmosphere perform this function.

The atmosphere does not stop infrared light from reaching the Earth's surface.

 

[Into the Night]

For the 11th time....

What component of the atmosphere prevents the high temperatures from being as high and the low temperatures being as low and how does the aforementioned component do this?

RQAA. Stop mindlessly repeating a question that's already been answered.

 

[Into the Night]

So, instead of you just showing us over and over again, how little YOU know about science, why don't you tell us a RESOURCE YOU WOULD TRUST on the topic. Ie someone NOT YOURSELF. An authority.

Science has no 'authority'. No one owns science.

I have already stated the equations and theories of science you continue to ignore.
A theory of science is the ONLY authoritative reference of that theory of science.

 

[Into the Night]

You've confirmed that you're crazy.

Mantra 1d. Lame.

 

[Into the Night]

So you are self-taught? Cool. Explains why you seem to get so much stuff wrong.

Science has no authority. Science isn't a school or a classroom. Science isn't a book, paper, magazine, title, degree, university, government agency, or website.

Unlike you I've actually been in the field studying earth systems.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
It is not possible to create energy out nothing.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

Why on earth would I do that? You don't know the science.

It is YOU that is denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, Kirchoff's law, Planck's law, and quantum mechanics. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!

So you can't point to any citations or references or authorities to support your position.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. I already have. So has IBDaMann.

OK, fair enough. I'm OK with you being full of shit. If that's what you like, you like it.

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

 

[Into the Night]

Why is an internal combustion engine with an efficiency around 25-30% "more appropriate" than an EV with an efficiency of about 60-70%?

Argument form randU fallacy. Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is invalid. Attempted proof by contrivance.

Do you simply like wasting energy?

EVs use about twice the energy of simply burning the gasoline in the car. Most of that wasted energy is lost in the power plant and power lines and connecting equipment. The EV is also much heavier for the same size car.

F=mA. Now you are ignoring Newton's law of motion, Ohm's law, Henry's law, and Watt's law.

EVs also cost about three times the cost of a new gasoline car.

Today's FADEC gasoline engines achieve an efficiency close to 50%. An EV wastes so much energy to charge and discharge the battery, and move that extra weight at the same speed the same distance, that it's efficiency is quite low.

EVs also require specialized equipment to maintain them. Gasoline cars don't. Fairly common tools are all that's required for gasoline cars.

EVs are also inconvenient with limited range and long charge (refuel) cycles. Gasoline cars can be refueled in a few minutes, effectively giving them infinite range.

EVs do not 'save the Earth'. The Earth doesn't need 'saving'. It's quite bit enough to take care of itself.

The EV market has collapsed (again). Less than 1% of the cars on the road are EVs'. There's a reason.

Carbon dioxide has NO capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

 

[ZenMode]

RQAA. Stop mindlessly repeating a question that's already been answered.

 

[Into the Night]

are you factoring in all the energy wasted on mining minerals for all the batteries that all go bad over time?

Obviously he's not. Nor is he factoring in the cost of movement of that material across the globe several times.

and the grid couldn't even handle everyone charging cars.

Very true. Fortunately, the EV market has already collapsed (again).

you people are bugfuck stupid green fascists.

Yup. That's what they are.

profiting off solutions that will fail, so you get richer and rest of us get fucked.

Nah. They don't own the EVs'. They are in it for the religious aspect of it. The Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green are both fundamentalist style religions.

run along and fuck off now with your bad ideas?

Unfortunately, you won't break them of their religion.

 

[ZenMode]

The atmosphere does not stop infrared light from reaching the Earth's surface.

 

[Into the Night]

I've driven for 4 years now for free.

Bullshit.

I charge on my solar at home

Bullshit. That takes days to charge an EV purely off of solar cells.

so I don't pay a red cent to drive my car.

Bullshit. You paid for the car. You pay for the dealer to maintain it. You pay for tires, brakes, coolant and oil changes, and of course, that expensive battery and the higher insurance premiums because of it.

The amount of maintenance on an EV is much lower than that for an ICE vehicle.

Bullshit. Only a dealer has the specialized equipment to maintain an EV. I maintain all of my own internal combustion engine vehicles, using fairly common tools.

Are you factoring in all the additiona motor oil and maintenace that you need for YOUR car?

Yes. I change my engine oil once or twice a year as needed. Ten minutes and about $30. I inspect my brakes and tires as needed, just as you should. That's about it.

I'd say I'm livin' the dream.

Maybe you just like giving money away to corporations.

You are describing yourself.

You cannot maintain your own car. You spent a ton of money to buy it. You spend a ton of money to insure it. You spend a ton of money on your solar array (assuming you actually have one!). You spend far more money than I do on cars.