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

[ZenMode]

You can simply call me 'gfm7175', or 'gfm' for short.

You cannot make your issues go away by blaming them on me.

Yes. Obviously YOU don't.

Right.

Right, HOWEVER, now there IS additional thermal energy located within the specific area being referred to as the interior of the greenhouse due to the glass enclosure that is now surrounding the interior of the greenhouse. Same amount of sunlight. More thermal energy located internally. Less thermal energy located externally.

IOW, you have increased the amount of thermal energy inside of the greenhouse in order to increase the temperature inside of the greenhouse. Thus, you failed because there IS additional thermal energy present (inside of the greenhouse).

See above.

Again, the point is that temperatures CAN be higher, in a specific area, with no additional energy from the sun. Do you agree with that or do you not agree with that? The claim this entire time is that climate change cannot happen because, among other claims, it violates the first law of thermodynamics:

Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical substance magically creates thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase.

So, we agree that the earth is not a greenhouse, but do you agree that greenhouses do NOT violate the first law of thermodynamics despite the fact that temperatures inside a greenhouse are higher than those outside the greenhouse?

 

[Into the Night]

re: post #432...QED

 

[Into the Night]

For the third time, I never said the earth was a greenhouse.

Yes you did. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

The comparison was to make the point that temperatures can change/rise in a specific area WITHOUT ADDITIONAL ENERGY? Do you understand that? There is no glass enclosure around the earth. The atmosphere is not like the insulation found in the walls of a house. Is there anything you'd like to pretend to not understand that I can "clear up" for you.

You just did again. You are now locked in another paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

So YOU believe that I think insulation radiates energy? That is what you believe?

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

Again, either you WANT to have an honest conversation or you don't. So far, neither you, Into the Night or IBDaMann has shown any desire to have an honest conversation.

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ME, IBDAMANN, GFM7175, OR ANYBODY ELSE!

 

[gfm7175]

Again, the point is that temperatures CAN be higher, in a specific area, with no additional energy from the sun.

The only way that this point would be relevant is if Earth had a glass enclosure around it, but you've already admitted that it doesn't, so your point here is irrelevant. Apples and oranges comparisons are not valid.

Once again, the point is that the temperature within a specific area can ONLY be higher if additional thermal energy is present within that same specific area. Without any additional thermal energy present (within the specific area), there is no "higher temperature" present (within the specific area).

Where is the additional thermal energy coming from that is increasing Earth's temperature?

Do you agree with that or do you not agree with that?

See above.

The claim this entire time is that climate change cannot happen because, among other claims, it violates the first law of thermodynamics:

The theory of "climate change" DOES violate the 1st LoT. You cannot create additional energy out of nothing.

Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical substance magically creates thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase.

Right.

So, we agree that the earth is not a greenhouse,

Correct, thus the Earth has no "glass enclosure" around it, thus there is no "additional thermal energy" present within Earth if the Sun's output remains the same.

but do you agree that greenhouses do NOT violate the first law of thermodynamics despite the fact that temperatures inside a greenhouse are higher than those outside the greenhouse?

Greenhouses don't violate the 1st LoT. The erection of a glass enclosure around a particular area reduces heat (aka the flow of thermal energy), thus increasing the interior temperature (and reducing the exterior temperature).

If you have two baskets (A and B), and they both initially have 5 apples inside of them, but then you relocate two apples from A to B, while A now has 3 apples and B now has 7 apples, there are still 10 apples in total.

You cannot relocate apples between baskets in order to generate additional apples within the system of apple trees, baskets, and "apple eaters". You cannot relocate thermal energy between different sections of Earth in order to generate additional thermal energy within the system of the sun, earth, and space.

 

[ZenMode]

The only way that this point would be relevant is if Earth had a glass enclosure around it, but you've already admitted that it doesn't, so your point here is irrelevant. Apples and oranges comparisons are not valid.

Once again, the point is that the temperature within a specific area can ONLY be higher if additional thermal energy is present within that same specific area. Without any additional thermal energy present (within the specific area), there is no "higher temperature" present (within the specific area).

Where is the additional thermal energy coming from that is increasing Earth's temperature?

See above.

The theory of "climate change" DOES violate the 1st LoT. You cannot create additional energy out of nothing.

Right.

Correct, thus the Earth has no "glass enclosure" around it, thus there is no "additional thermal energy" present within Earth if the Sun's output remains the same.

Greenhouses don't violate the 1st LoT. The erection of a glass enclosure around a particular area reduces heat (aka the flow of thermal energy), thus increasing the interior temperature (and reducing the exterior temperature).

If you have two baskets (A and B), and they both initially have 5 apples inside of them, but then you relocate two apples from A to B, while A now has 3 apples and B now has 7 apples, there are still 10 apples in total.

You cannot relocate apples between baskets in order to generate additional apples within the system of apple trees, baskets, and "apple eaters". You cannot relocate thermal energy between different sections of Earth in order to generate additional thermal energy within the system of the sun, earth, and space.

Perfect, so we agree that the temperature inside the greenhouse can be higher than temperatures outside the greenhouse, which means that a higher temperature, within a specific area, does NOT inherently require any additional energy and is NOT inherently a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. What is required is that the energy is essentially manipulated in some way such that it is unable to equalize with the adjacent area, in this case, the outside of the greenhouse to bring temperatures even.

Moving on.....

Do you agree that:

• The earth rotates approximately one time in a 24 hour period.
• During that rotation, a given spot on the Earth will be warmer when facing the sun than it is when not facing the sun

 

[ZenMode]

Perfect, so we agree that the temperature inside the greenhouse can be higher than temperatures outside the greenhouse, which means that a higher temperature, within a specific area, does NOT inherently require any additional energy and is NOT inherently a violation of the first law of thermodynamics. What is required is that the energy is essentially manipulated in some way such that it is unable to equalize with the adjacent area, in this case, the outside of the greenhouse to bring temperatures even.

Moving on.....

Do you agree that:

• The earth rotates approximately one time in a 24 hour period.
• During that rotation, a given spot on the Earth will be warmer when facing the sun than it is when not facing the suni

I guess @gfm7175 doesn't want to talk any more.

 

[ZenMode]

Yes you did. DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

You just did again. You are now locked in another paradox. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

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

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ME, IBDAMANN, GFM7175, OR ANYBODY ELSE!

 

[gfm7175]

Perfect, so we agree that the temperature inside the greenhouse can be higher than temperatures outside the greenhouse,

There is no "the temperature inside the greenhouse". Different locations inside the greenhouse will have different temperatures. But yes, you can have a thermometer somewhere inside of a greenhouse and the temperature reading on it CAN be higher than another thermometer that is located somewhere outside of the greenhouse.

which means that a higher temperature, within a specific area, does NOT inherently require any additional energy

This is one of numerous areas where you are in error re: this discussion. There is no "higher temperature within a specific area" without first having additional thermal energy present within that area. Do you know what temperature is?

and is NOT inherently a violation of the first law of thermodynamics.

Right. Energy can (and does) change form. However, you are violating it because you are attempting to create additional thermal energy out of nothing.

What is required is that the energy is essentially manipulated in some way such that it is unable to equalize with the adjacent area, in this case, the outside of the greenhouse to bring temperatures even.

Moving on.....

Good, because I have no idea what you were trying to say there.

Do you agree that:

• The earth rotates approximately one time in a 24 hour period.
• During that rotation, a given spot on the Earth will be warmer when facing the sun than it is when not facing the sun

You need to explain where the additional thermal energy that is required to increase Earth's temperature is coming from.

 

[gfm7175]

I guess @gfm7175 doesn't want to talk any more.

I'm still here.

 

[ZenMode]

There is no "the temperature inside the greenhouse". Different locations inside the greenhouse will have different temperatures. But yes, you can have a thermometer somewhere inside of a greenhouse and the temperature reading on it CAN be higher than another thermometer that is located somewhere outside of the greenhouse.

This is one of numerous areas where you are in error re: this discussion. There is no "higher temperature within a specific area" without first having additional thermal energy present within that area. Do you know what temperature is?

Right. Energy can (and does) change form. However, you are violating it because you are attempting to create additional thermal energy out of nothing.

Good, because I have no idea what you were trying to say there.


You need to explain where the additional thermal energy that is required to increase Earth's temperature is coming from.

"Right. Energy can (and does) change form. However, you are violating it because you are attempting to create additional thermal energy out of nothing."

Okay, I guess we will have to backtrack because the word games are starting.

If you have a greenhouse sitting in the sun, will the temperature inside the greenhouse eventually be higher than the temperature outside the greenhouse?

 

[gfm7175]

Okay, I guess we will have to backtrack because the word games are starting.

If you have a greenhouse sitting in the sun, will the temperature inside the greenhouse eventually be higher than the temperature outside the greenhouse?

Your line of questioning here leads to a whole bunch of nowhere because Earth doesn't have a glass enclosure around it. What happens inside of a greenhouse is completely irrelevant to the Sun/Earth/Space system.

 

[Kafka]

"Right. Energy can (and does) change form. However, you are violating it because you are attempting to create additional thermal energy out of nothing."

Okay, I guess we will have to backtrack because the word games are starting.

If you have a greenhouse sitting in the sun, will the temperature inside the greenhouse eventually be higher than the temperature outside the greenhouse?

Couple of points from the Cheap Seats:

1. Arguing science with gfm and Into the Night will NOT result in any value. They don't know enough and they seem to get a real charge out of simply denying basic science. I don't understand how someone can derive as much entertainment as they do from that sort of thing but it never changes with them.

2. The Greenhouse example might be flawed to some extent because it is dominated more by convection as I understand it. Yes it "traps" IR but it is a weak metaphor for the greenhouse effect. The National Center for Science Education has a brief explainer of the criticism of the greenhouse metaphor in relation to the greenhouse effect. It is HERE

 

[ZenMode]

Your line of questioning here leads to a whole bunch of nowhere because Earth doesn't have a glass enclosure around it. What happens inside of a greenhouse is completely irrelevant to the Sun/Earth/Space system.

As I have said repeatedly, referencing a greenhouse is SPECIFICALLY to make the point that temperature in one area can be higher than an adjacent area with NO additional energy from the sun and a glass enclosure isn’t required. The tent we camp in, once the sun hits it, is much warmer inside than outside.I can’t get to the actual point because you insist on playing word games.

 

[Into the Night]

"Right. Energy can (and does) change form.

Of course it can. You cannot create it out of nothing, though.

Okay, I guess we will have to backtrack because the word games are starting.

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR WORD GAMES ON ANYBODY ELSE!

If you have a greenhouse sitting in the sun, will the temperature inside the greenhouse eventually be higher than the temperature outside the greenhouse?

Special pleading fallacy.

* The Sun shines on only one side of the Earth.
* The Earth is not a greenhouse.
* A greenhouse works by reducing heat. At night, all that accumulated thermal energy is dissipated just the same. The greenhouse has the SAME TEMPERATURE in the morning.
* All greenhouses still have radiant heat. You cannot set aside the Stefan-Boltzmann law, even for greenhouses.
* The Earth has no convective heat to space. Only radiant heat.
* Not all light is converted to thermal energy upon absorption. Only infrared light and below converts to thermal energy.

You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot use a colder gas in the atmosphere to heat a warmer surface.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

Couple of points from the Cheap Seats:

1. Arguing science with gfm and Into the Night will NOT result in any value.

He is not arguing any theory of science. He is simply trying to deny them, just like you do.

They don't know enough and they seem to get a real charge out of simply denying basic science.

I have already shown you the theories of science you ignore, and their equations. You just simply want to ignore them. Your religion is NOT science.

I don't understand how someone can derive as much entertainment as they do from that sort of thing but it never changes with them.

Pointing out your wacky religion in all it's glory is entertainment.

2. The Greenhouse example might be flawed to some extent

Full extent. Earth is not a greenhouse. It's a false equivalence fallacy.

because it is dominated more by convection as I understand it.

No. It is reduced heat.

Yes it "traps" IR but it is a weak metaphor for the greenhouse effect.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse effect' in science.

The National Center for Science Education

Science is not a government agency.

has a brief explainer of the criticism of the greenhouse metaphor in relation to the greenhouse effect. It is HERE

There is not such thing as a 'greenhouse effect' in science.

No gas or vapor is capable of creating energy out of nothing.
No gas or vapor is capable of heating anything warmer than itself.
No gas or vapor is capable of trapping light.

 

[Into the Night]

As I have said repeatedly, referencing a greenhouse is SPECIFICALLY to make the point that temperature in one area can be higher than an adjacent area with NO additional energy from the sun and a glass enclosure isn’t required. The tent we camp in, once the sun hits it, is much warmer inside than outside.I can’t get to the actual point because you insist on playing word games.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU playing word games. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!

Such a tent is warmer (temporarily) because of reduced heat.

Earth is not a tent, greenhouse, or any other 'enclosure'.

You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

 

[ZenMode]

Of course it can. You cannot create it out of nothing, though.

DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR WORD GAMES ON ANYBODY ELSE!

Special pleading fallacy.

* The Sun shines on only one side of the Earth.
* The Earth is not a greenhouse.
* A greenhouse works by reducing heat. At night, all that accumulated thermal energy is dissipated just the same. The greenhouse has the SAME TEMPERATURE in the morning.
* All greenhouses still have radiant heat. You cannot set aside the Stefan-Boltzmann law, even for greenhouses.
* The Earth has no convective heat to space. Only radiant heat.
* Not all light is converted to thermal energy upon absorption. Only infrared light and below converts to thermal energy.

You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot use a colder gas in the atmosphere to heat a warmer surface.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.

This was a yes or no question. If you'd like to answer the question, and not deflect, feel free to do so.

If you have a greenhouse sitting in the sun, will the temperature inside the greenhouse eventually be higher than the temperature outside the greenhouse?

 

[ZenMode]

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU playing word games. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!

Such a tent is warmer (temporarily) because of reduced heat.

Earth is not a tent, greenhouse, or any other 'enclosure'.

You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

Again....for the ESL posters like yourself, the reference to a greenhouse was to show that temperatures in a specific area CAN BE HIGHER THAN AN ADJACENT AREA with no additional energy. Since we both know that greenhouses have a higher temperature inside than outside, do you believe that greenhouses violate the first law of thermodynamics?

Simple yes or no question....no tap-dancing or deflecting necessary.

 

[Into the Night]

This was a yes or no question. If you'd like to answer the question, and not deflect, feel free to do so.

If you have a greenhouse sitting in the sun, will the temperature inside the greenhouse eventually be higher than the temperature outside the greenhouse?

A fallacy is not a question, Void.

 

[Into the Night]

Again....for the ESL posters like yourself, the reference to a greenhouse was to show that temperatures in a specific area CAN BE HIGHER THAN AN ADJACENT AREA with no additional energy. Since we both know that greenhouses have a higher temperature inside than outside, do you believe that greenhouses violate the first law of thermodynamics?

Simple yes or no question....no tap-dancing or deflecting necessary.

Thermodynamics isn't tap dancing, Void. Your word games are 'tap dancing'. A fallacy is not a question. Redefinition fallacy.