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

[Into the Night]

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

You could always drop your religion and try to learn something, you know.

 

[Into the Night]

The diagram is wrong. Visible light and UV light do not convert to thermal energy when absorbed.
Infrared light passes through glass.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

There's even a whole forum about it.

After wasting much time debating with people who don't actually want to debate,

You aren't debating.

and trying to have a discussion with people who don't want to have an honest discussion,

Preaching is not discussing. Denying science and mathematics and calling your religion 'science' is not an honest discussion.

I decided to skip to answering that question. Why should anyone believe in climate change?

Climate cannot change.

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

The Democrat party is a conspiracy. It is no theory. The Church of Global Warming is a conspiracy. It is no theory.

We already know

Ah...there's that Marxist 'we'.

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

The atmosphere is not a thermostat. It doesn't regulate anything.

It regulates temperatures

The atmosphere is not a thermostat. It doesn't regulate anything.

by preventing some of the sun's energy from reaching the Earth's surface (keeping the high temps lower than they otherwise would be)

There is no 'should 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).

You cannot trap light. Light always travels at the speed of light. You cannot decrease entropy for any reason at any time. Now you are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

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

Additional energy beyond what it already receives from the Sun.

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

You cannot trap light. Light always moves at the speed of light. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

and we could have warming.

No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

If the atmosphere were more efficient at deflecting some of the incoming energy from the sun, we could have cooling.

The atmosphere does not deflect infrared light.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Inversion fallacy.

You cannot trap light. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
Visible and UV light do not convert to thermal energy when absorbed. You are ignoring quantum mechanics again.

The laws of thermodynamics are not 'concepts'. They are theories of science. I have already posted their equations. You just want to ignore them. You might as well try to ignore Ohm's law.

 

[Into the Night]

You can dice it up all you want, but the truth remains the same -

Your religion is not the truth.

the Earth's atmosphere already directly impacts temperatures/climate on Earth.

The presence of an atmosphere does not change the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing.

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.

You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. There is no 'component' term in that law. The atmosphere is not a thermostat. It doesn't regulate anything.

Climate cannot change. Climate has no temperature.

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

Climate cannot change.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of carbon dioxide or the temperature of the Earth. The effect of CO2 on the temperature of the Earth is precisely ZERO. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Not possible.

 

[IBDaMann]

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

You suppose incorrectly.

 

[Trumpet]

You suppose incorrectly.

Really

 

[IBDaMann]

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

Just for laughs, dazzle JPP with your thermodynamics acumen. I notice that you will pout about my understanding being "flawed" but you can't specify how. I am very specific in my signature but you don't dare go anywhere near it because you aren't aware of any way that I could possibly be mistaken ... because you know that I'm not.

Anyway, you're a moron on the topic, and I understand your concerted efforts to conceal that fact.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

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

Sure. I'd guess--and that's largely what it is, a guess--that around 2 to 5% would have significant impact. .0004 of the total atmosphere is insignificant. It's like putting that much argon in a double pane window and expecting it to have some insulation impact. My view is these same sort of scientists told us if we got rid of CFC's the hole in the ozone layer at the south pole would close. Well, we did, and it didn't.

I'm not buying their bullshit this time. They have a long way to go to convince me that CO2 is the issue and not jet contrails (only being around since the 40's and increasing in number ever since with water vapor as cloud being a massively more potent greenhouse gas) as but one alternative.

 

[ZenMode]

Your religion is not the truth.

The presence of an atmosphere does not change the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor has the capability to create energy out of nothing.

You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. There is no 'component' term in that law. The atmosphere is not a thermostat. It doesn't regulate anything.

Climate cannot change. Climate has no temperature.

Climate cannot change.

There is no reason to take you seriously. You are a caricature of a science denier.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The diagram is wrong. Visible light and UV light do not convert to thermal energy when absorbed.
Infrared light passes through glass.

Light is energy moving at a specific wavelength. When it interacts with other matter it imparts some of that energy into it. Glass by its composition, blocks the passage of most IR light hitting it.

Why doesn't infrared radiation travel through glass

Lower frequency should have an easier time getting through glass than that of visible light. However remote controls for electronic devices to not work when glass is in the way. Then you go down even further into the spectrum to my wireless router and it has no problem going through glass...

www.physicsforums.com

Ultraviolet and Infrared Light Blocked by Glass? Verifying through Simple Experiments

A diagram from Conceptual Physics showed that invisible light [ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) light] cannot pass through the transparent glass.1 When they s

pubs.aip.org

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of carbon dioxide or the temperature of the Earth. The effect of CO2 on the temperature of the Earth is precisely ZERO. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

It is possible to estimate it with a good degree of precision from taking lots of samples. The rest of your post is nonsense as that isn't what's being proposed.

 

[ZenMode]

Sure. I'd guess--and that's largely what it is, a guess--that around 2 to 5% would have significant impact. .0004 of the total atmosphere is insignificant. It's like putting that much argon in a double pane window and expecting it to have some insulation impact. My view is these same sort of scientists told us if we got rid of CFC's the hole in the ozone layer at the south pole would close. Well, we did, and it didn't.

I'm not buying their bullshit this time. They have a long way to go to convince me that CO2 is the issue and not jet contrails (only being around since the 40's and increasing in number ever since with water vapor as cloud being a massively more potent greenhouse gas) as but one alternative.

There are a lot of models to predict the impact of CO2. Many of the models were way off but, again we already know that the atmosphere impacts temperatures in a significant way. We'd all be dead with no atmosphere. So, put aside the people who try to profit from CO2. Put aside the ridiculous hyperbole we already know was nonsense and just look at what we know - the atmosphere already dramatically impacts temperature and climate on earth, so it stands to reason that changes to the atmosphere are likely to impact temperatures and climate on earth.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

There are a lot of models to predict the impact of CO2. Many of the models were way off but, again we already know that the atmosphere impacts temperatures in a significant way. We'd all be dead with no atmosphere. So, put aside the people who try to profit from CO2. Put aside the ridiculous hyperbole we already know was nonsense and just look at what we know - the atmosphere already dramatically impacts temperature and climate on earth, so it stands to reason that changes to the atmosphere are likely to impact temperatures and climate on earth.

The problem is sort of a McNamara fallacy with the unknown unknowns involved. Up to 9/11, contrails weren't considered a source of greenhouse gas and warming at all. Then NASA et al., got good data from the total shutdown of flights over the US for about a week. That resulted in the sudden realization they were a serious source of warming.
The two major gases in our atmosphere are nitrogen and oxygen. Everything else is a trace gas except water which is seen as an add on rather than purely as a gas. Tiny changes in trace gas elements, like CO2 are far less likely to have major impact than changes in a major gas like water vapor. Changing it from moisture (humidity) in the air into steam (clouds) means a major change in the state of energy and also in its albedo and effect on heating of the atmosphere.

Test it yourself. On a clear sky night where you are will cool off faster than if there is a solid overcast. Clouds act as insulation. Contrails are clouds.

 

[Into the Night]

There is no reason to take you seriously. You are a caricature of a science denier.

You are just describing yourself again, Void.

 

[Into the Night]

Sure. I'd guess--and that's largely what it is, a guess--that around 2 to 5% would have significant impact. .0004 of the total atmosphere is insignificant. It's like putting that much argon in a double pane window and expecting it to have some insulation impact. My view is these same sort of scientists told us if we got rid of CFC's the hole in the ozone layer at the south pole would close. Well, we did, and it didn't.

I'm not buying their bullshit this time. They have a long way to go to convince me that CO2 is the issue and not jet contrails (only being around since the 40's and increasing in number ever since with water vapor as cloud being a massively more potent greenhouse gas) as but one alternative.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas' (except as a religious artifact). No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

 

[Into the Night]

Light is energy moving at a specific wavelength. When it interacts with other matter it imparts some of that energy into it. Glass by its composition, blocks the passage of most IR light hitting it.

Why doesn't infrared radiation travel through glass

Lower frequency should have an easier time getting through glass than that of visible light. However remote controls for electronic devices to not work when glass is in the way. Then you go down even further into the spectrum to my wireless router and it has no problem going through glass...

www.physicsforums.com

Ultraviolet and Infrared Light Blocked by Glass? Verifying through Simple Experiments

A diagram from Conceptual Physics showed that invisible light [ultraviolet (UV) and infrared (IR) light] cannot pass through the transparent glass.1 When they s

pubs.aip.org

Glass does not block infrared light.

 

[Into the Night]

It is possible to estimate it with a good degree of precision from taking lots of samples. The rest of your post is nonsense as that isn't what's being proposed.

Math errors: Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error value. Failure to use published unbiased data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Conclusion based on void.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!