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

[gfm7175]

Couple of points from the Cheap Seats:

Your "points" aren't even worth the two cents..........

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

You'd first need to START "arguing science". Religion is not science.

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.

You can't fix your own issues by blaming them on others.

2. The Greenhouse example might be flawed to some extent because it is dominated more by convection as I understand it.

It's not just flawed to "some extent"... it is flawed entirely. There is no glass enclosure around Earth.

Yes it "traps" IR

Greenhouses do not "trap" IR.

but it is a weak metaphor for the greenhouse effect.

There is no "greenhouse effect". Earth is not a greenhouse. Earth has no glass enclosure around it.

The National Center for Science Education

NOT science, btw...

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

I don't care about some organization's propaganda. It is not science.

 

[gfm7175]

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.

There is no tent around Earth either.

 

[gfm7175]

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?

RQAA

 

[gfm7175]

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.

RQAA

 

[gfm7175]

Still more lies


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

2. Since we both know that greenhouses have a higher temperature inside than outside, do you believe that greenhouses violate the first law of thermodynamics?

RQAA

 

[gfm7175]

To clarify, a couple posts ago, I wasn't asking a question.....the same non-existent question that you now claim to have already answered?

Tell me, how do you answer a question I didn't ask?

You've asked the same tired (already answered) questions over and over and over and over again.

 

[Into the Night]

RQAA

Isn't it amazing how Void can get so fixated on such a contrivance? He has heard nothing.

He still does not seem to realize that greenhouses do not trap light or heat or thermal energy.

You quite correctly pointed out that a greenhouse does not trap infrared light. Void is just trying to ignore the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

 

[ZenMode]

Watching a group of posters putting such effort into playing dumb is truly a sight to see.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

 

[ZenMode]

There was a thread titled "Why should anyone believe in climate change?" or something similar. In fact, there are a LOT of threads about climate change/global warming. After wasting much time debating with people who don't actually want to debate, and trying to have a discussion with people who don't want to have an honest discussion, I decided to skip to answering that question. Why should anyone believe in climate change?

It's actually quite simple when you remove the conspiracy theories and politics from the question: We already know that the Earth's atmosphere makes the Earth habitable by regulating temperatures. It regulates temperatures by preventing some of the sun's energy from reaching the Earth's surface (keeping the high temps lower than they otherwise would be) and it slows the process of infrared energy leaving the earth's surface and returning to space (keeping the low temperatures higher than they otherwise would be).

So, what would it take for the earth to warm? All it would take is for the atmosphere to be more effective/efficient at slowing the movement of energy from the Earth's surface into space and we could have warming. If the atmosphere were more efficient at deflecting some of the incoming energy from the sun, we could have cooling.

 

[Trumpet]

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.

I suppose that you're going to use the pseudoscience that big oil funded to argue your point.

 

[Trumpet]

So, what is this suppose to prove?????

 

[gfm7175]

Watching a group of posters putting such effort into playing dumb is truly a sight to see.

Ummmmmm, you and Obtenebrator aren't just "playing dumb"............

 

[gfm7175]

There was a thread titled "Why should anyone believe in climate change?" or something similar.

Yup. There are MANY threads here on JPP about "climate change", yet I haven't seen a single post within any of them that has detailed (without denying science) how "climate change" is supposedly happening.

In fact, there are a LOT of threads about climate change/global warming.

Yep, and not a single one of them explains (without denying science) how "climate change" is supposedly happening.

After wasting much time debating with people who don't actually want to debate, and trying to have a discussion with people who don't want to have an honest discussion,

You cannot fix your own issues by blaming others for them.

I decided to skip to answering that question.

No... the problem is that you have no answer for the question that adheres to logic, science, and mathematics. Your religion requires you to DENY those things.

Why should anyone believe in climate change?

Or, as IBDaMann likes to word it, why should any rational adult believe in climate change?

It's actually quite simple when you remove the conspiracy theories and politics from the question:

It truly is! The answer is: A rational adult SHOULDN'T believe in climate change because it requires a complete and utter rejection of logic, science, and mathematics.

We

There's that Marxist "we" again......

already know that the Earth's atmosphere makes the Earth habitable by regulating temperatures.

I thought that this was the job of the Climate Goddess........

It regulates temperatures by preventing some of the sun's energy from reaching the Earth's surface (keeping the high temps lower than they otherwise would be) and it slows the process of infrared energy leaving the earth's surface and returning to space (keeping the low temperatures higher than they otherwise would be).

Same ol' tired Church of Global Warming sermon preaching........... You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. There is no enclosure (glass or otherwise) around Earth.

So, what would it take for the earth to warm?

Additional thermal energy.

All it would take is for the atmosphere to be more effective/efficient at slowing the movement of energy from the Earth's surface into space and we could have warming. If the atmosphere were more efficient at deflecting some of the incoming energy from the sun, we could have cooling.

"The atmosphere" IS PART OF THE EARTH, remember? There is no "slowing the movement of energy". Earth doesn't have any enclosure around it.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

So, what is this suppose to prove?????

That most of what IBDM and ITN have been saying is garbage.

 

[Trumpet]

That most of what IBDM and ITN have been saying is garbage.

It quite apparent that you don't understand what you posted; judging by the way you answered the question.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It quite apparent that you don't understand what you posted; judging by the way you answered the question.

Oh, I understand perfectly, it's IBDM and ITN that don't. Their concept of things like thermodynamics is badly flawed.

 

[ZenMode]

Yup. There are MANY threads here on JPP about "climate change", yet I haven't seen a single post within any of them that has detailed (without denying science) how "climate change" is supposedly happening.

Yep, and not a single one of them explains (without denying science) how "climate change" is supposedly happening.

You cannot fix your own issues by blaming others for them.

No... the problem is that you have no answer for the question that adheres to logic, science, and mathematics. Your religion requires you to DENY those things.

Or, as IBDaMann likes to word it, why should any rational adult believe in climate change?

It truly is! The answer is: A rational adult SHOULDN'T believe in climate change because it requires a complete and utter rejection of logic, science, and mathematics.

There's that Marxist "we" again......

I thought that this was the job of the Climate Goddess........

Same ol' tired Church of Global Warming sermon preaching........... You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. There is no enclosure (glass or otherwise) around Earth.

Additional thermal energy.

"The atmosphere" IS PART OF THE EARTH, remember? There is no "slowing the movement of energy". Earth doesn't have any enclosure around it.

You can dice it up all you want, but the truth remains the same - the Earth's atmosphere already directly impacts temperatures/climate on Earth. If there were a significant change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, specifically regarding the components that currently regulate energy from the sun and away from earth, it could impact temperatures/climate on Earth.

There's your reason to believe that man-made climate change could be real.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You can dice it up all you want, but the truth remains the same - the Earth's atmosphere already directly impacts temperatures/climate on Earth. If there were a significant change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere, specifically regarding the components that currently regulate energy from the sun and away from earth, it could impact temperatures/climate on Earth.

There's your reason to believe that man-made climate change could be real.

But there hasn't been a significant change in the Earth's atmosphere. The percentage of CO2 is so small as to be almost insignificant.

Currently it is 421 ppm, give or take, or about 0.04%. That's up from it being about 250 ppm or about 0.03%. That's nothing in terms of the planetary atmosphere.

 

[ZenMode]

But there hasn't been a significant change in the Earth's atmosphere. The percentage of CO2 is so small as to be almost insignificant.

Currently it is 421 ppm, give or take, or about 0.04%. That's up from it being about 250 ppm or about 0.03%. That's nothing in terms of the planetary atmosphere.

Right, but IF it were to continue increasing, at some point it could impact temperatures, right?