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

[Into the Night]

There are a lot of models to predict the impact of CO2.

A model isn't a measurement. Argument from randU fallacy. Redefinition fallacy.

Many of the models were way off

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or the global atmospheric content of CO2. Argument from randU fallacy. Attempted proof by randU.

but, again we already know that the atmosphere impacts temperatures in a significant way.

The atmosphere does not increase the temperature of the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

We'd all be dead with no atmosphere.

Strawman fallacy.

So, put aside the people who try to profit from CO2.

CO2 is not money.

Put aside the ridiculous hyperbole we already know was nonsense and just look at what we know - the atmosphere already dramatically impacts temperature

The atmosphere does not change the temperature of the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

and climate on earth,

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

so it stands to reason

You aren't using reason. You are using religion. Redefinition fallacy.

that changes to the atmosphere are likely to impact temperatures and climate on earth.

You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Climate cannot change. There is no such thing as a global climate. Climate has no temperature.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Contrails are incapable of warming the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

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.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

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.

Water is not insulation. Argument from randU fallacy.

 

[IBDaMann]

Sure. I'd guess--and that's largely what it is, a guess--that around 2 to 5% would have significant impact.

Why? Tell me, genius, why would any atmospheric gas have any impact on earth's average global equilibrium temperature? If you could use actual science in your answer it would be great.

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.

Those weren't scientists either. There is no ozone hole that needs to be fixed.

At electrician school, did they teach you that anyone who babbles shit that you don't understand is somehow a scientist?

I'm not buying their bullshit this time.

You are totally buying it. You have allowed yourself to believe in physics violations, the same ones that all the stupidest leftist morons believe. You think that atmospheric gases have magical superpowers to defy thermodynamics, and you are absolutely certain of this because your keen electrician training has made you an expert on the Climate faith.

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.

Why do you HATE science so much? Did science molest you as a child? Jet contrails? You have got to be kidding me.

Anyway, if you were wondering why nobody seeks your input on science issues, just review your delusion tendency.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Why? Tell me, genius, why would any atmospheric gas have any impact on earth's average global equilibrium temperature? If you could use actual science in your answer it would be great.

I'll keep this as grade school as I can so you can grasp it. Does the atmosphere of Earth have mass? Can a mass absorb energy when energy is applied to it?

Those weren't scientists either. There is no ozone hole that needs to be fixed.

There is a hole in the ozone layer. That has been conclusively proven.

It might not be the total depletion of ozone, but it is a region of very low ozone concentration. What the issue is, is why this occurs, and the answer is it isn't because of CFC's.

At electrician school, did they teach you that anyone who babbles shit that you don't understand is somehow a scientist?

Thank you for the gratuitous insult.

You are totally buying it. You have allowed yourself to believe in physics violations, the same ones that all the stupidest leftist morons believe. You think that atmospheric gases have magical superpowers to defy thermodynamics, and you are absolutely certain of this because your keen electrician training has made you an expert on the Climate faith.

Did you take lessons from Cackler Harris on tossing word salads?

Why do you HATE science so much? Did science molest you as a child? Jet contrails? You have got to be kidding me.

So many complex questions... (a fallacy)

Anyway, if you were wondering why nobody seeks your input on science issues, just review your delusion tendency.

And you end with more insults...

 

[AProudLefty]

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.

You are obviously parroting Into The Night. Be original.

 

[IBDaMann]

I'll keep this as grade school as I can so you can grasp it.

You'll keep it grade school because that's as far as you got.

Does the atmosphere of Earth have mass? Can a mass absorb energy when energy is applied to it?

You are a scientifically illiterate moron. Mass is not temperature. I shouldn't be the first person to teach you this.

Let me try again. How do you imagine that the introduction of an atmospheric gas increases earth's average global equilibrium temperature? HINT: your explanation should involve things increasing in temperature.

There is a hole in the ozone layer. That has been conclusively proven.

There are two such holes, one over each pole, that appear during the winter of that pole. Each hole closes completely at the onset of that pole's summer.

As I said, there is no problem that either needs to, or can, be fixed, and there is no danger to anything on this planet.

It might not be the total depletion of ozone,

There isn't any depletion of ozone.

Did you take lessons from Cackler Harris on tossing word salads?

If you hadn't played hooky from school you'd easily understand it.

You've never heard of Chapman cycles, have you?

 

[ZenMode]

A model isn't a measurement. Argument from randU fallacy. Redefinition fallacy.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or the global atmospheric content of CO2. Argument from randU fallacy. Attempted proof by randU.

The atmosphere does not increase the temperature of the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Strawman fallacy.

CO2 is not money.

The atmosphere does not change the temperature of the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

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

You aren't using reason. You are using religion. Redefinition fallacy.

You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. Climate cannot change. There is no such thing as a global climate. Climate has no temperature.

Again, the fact that you can't acknowledge a simple truth, regarding the impact of the Earth's atmosphere on temperature, is why I don't take you seriously.

You are a caricature.

 

[ZenMode]

Why? Tell me, genius, why would any atmospheric gas have any impact on earth's average global equilibrium temperature?

If you had any intellectual curiosity, you would already know the answer to that question.

 

[IBDaMann]

Again, the fact that you can't acknowledge a simple truth, regarding the impact of the Earth's atmosphere on temperature, is why I don't take you seriously.

Again, the fact that you can't acknowledge that a physics violation simply never happens is why you aren't taken seriously. You are a caricature.

 

[IBDaMann]

If you had any intellectual curiosity, you would already know the answer to that question.

My question was rhetorical. I know the answer. Stefan-Boltzmann has no atmospheric composition parameter, i.e. no gas has any effect on the average global equilibrium temperature.

 

[IBDaMann]

Really

Why should any rational adult believe in Global Warming?

 

[anonymoose]

If you had any intellectual curiosity, you would already know the answer to that

My question was rhetorical. I know the answer. Stefan-Boltzmann has no atmospheric composition parameter, i.e. no gas has any effect on the average global equilibrium temperature.

He answered the question.
Your turn.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

You'll keep it grade school because that's as far as you got.

I'll ignore the insult

You are a scientifically illiterate moron. Mass is not temperature. I shouldn't be the first person to teach you this.

Let me try again. How do you imagine that the introduction of an atmospheric gas increases earth's average global equilibrium temperature? HINT: your explanation should involve things increasing in temperature.

First law of thermodynamics Q = m∆T Unless the Earth and its atmosphere are at absolute zero, and there is no energy input from something like the Sun, the Earth's atmosphere has mass and a temperature. The Sun produces energy via nuclear fusion. That energy, in part, is dumped on the Earth and its atmosphere. Therefore, the Earth's atmosphere will rise in temperature until an equilibrium between energy in and out is reached.

If the mass of the atmosphere, or its composition change, that temperature will either rise or fall until it reaches equilibrium again. If the amount of energy the Sun produces changes, same thing. The Earth's atmosphere can therefore rise or fall in temperature due to natural or manmade causes.

I argue that the manmade causes are mostly insignificant. You try to argue this is all some sort of pseudoscience.

There are two such holes, one over each pole, that appear during the winter of that pole. Each hole closes completely at the onset of that pole's summer.
As I said, there is no problem that either needs to, or can, be fixed, and there is no danger to anything on this planet.
There isn't any depletion of ozone.
If you hadn't played hooky from school you'd easily understand it.
You've never heard of Chapman cycles, have you?

As usual, you completely missed the point. The point I was making was climate scientists said these holes wouldn't occur if we stopped using CFC's. We did and the holes are still there. They were wrong and instead of falling on a sword so-to-speak they simply moved on to some other environmental cause of the day, Gorebal Warming.

My position in relation to that is, Why should we believe them this time?

 

[IBDaMann]

It is possible to estimate it with a good degree of precision

It is not possible to measure to any usable accuracy.

How was it explained to you that it was somehow possible? CO2 is not distributed evenly. What is your current belief as to how this is possible. Be as detailed as necessary.

 

[IBDaMann]

I'll ignore the insult

Great. I ignored yours.

If the mass of the atmosphere, or its composition change, that temperature will either rise or fall

Incorrect. The temperature will remain the same. You are supposed to be explaining why you believe that the average global equilibrium temperature will somehow change. (Hint: it won't change if the power received by the sun doesn't change, thus you can't show that it will)

The Earth's atmosphere can therefore rise or fall in temperature due to natural or manmade causes.

Absurd. This assertion right here reveals you to be scientifically illiterate. It is not an insult; it is an observation. Only you know why you are pretending to know what you are talking about.

I argue that the manmade causes are mostly insignificant.

They are zero. Your assertion that they are not zero is stupid.

Why don't you give it one more consideration, focusing on the temperature, noting how it cannot change. (Hint: temperature can only increase per additional thermal energy. Adding anything other than thermal energy cannot increase temperature)

You try to argue this is all some sort of pseudoscience.

You are the scientifically illiterate moron in this equation. Bring it on. I'm trying to help you but you insist on doubling down on stupid. I really don't mind mocking you all day if that's what you want.

BTW, you wouldn't refer to physics as "psuedoscience" if you weren't scientifically illiterate. Again, not an insult; just an observation.

Have you ever pondered why Stefan-Boltzmann has no atmospheric composition component? Did you even know that it doesn't have one?

As usual, you completely missed the point. The point I was making was climate scientists said...

There is no science "Climate Science" just as there is no science "Christian Science." Putting the word "Science" in the name of a religion does not convert it to science.

Ergo ... there are no climate scientists.

these holes wouldn't occur if we stopped using CFC's.

Religions make many claims that require one to accept the religion's dogma to believe. Christians tell me that I will go to heaven if I accept Jesus as my savior. That's certainly tempting; heaven sounds like a pretty neat place. I just need to make that leap of faith first. I haven't accepted the goddess Climate as the planet's savior either.

How were you brought into the Climate faith? Did someone invite you to one of their church services or something? I know it's not because you were ever shown any global climate, or shown any valid data sets for anything, or because you have seen any ocean turning into battery acid, or that you have witnessed the ocean rising, or that you have observed any of the stupid claims that all run counter to science. So ... how were fooled?

They were wrong and instead of falling on a sword so-to-speak they simply moved on to some other environmental cause of the day, Gorebal Warming.

Religious leaders do that when they make falsifiable claims that prove to be false. The question is why do you believe the stupid Global Warming doctrine that earth's average global equilibium temperature is somehow rising? You never observed it.

My position in relation to that is, Why should we believe them this time?

I gathered that. I want to know why you believe that there is any positive global average equilibrium temperature increase, albeit "noncatastrophic," instead of recognizing that zero is the only valid number in this case?

 

[Trumpet]

Why should any rational adult believe in Global Warming?

Seeing is believing.

 

[IBDaMann]

Seeing is believing.

Seeing nothing is not believing.

 

[ZenMode]

My question was rhetorical. I know the answer. Stefan-Boltzmann has no atmospheric composition parameter, i.e. no gas has any effect on the average global equilibrium temperature.

Of course it was rhetorical. As usual, you have no interest in having an honest conversation. You only have a desire to tap dance and Play games, which is why I can ask you the same question a half dozen or more times and never get an honest answer.

 

[Trumpet]

Seeing nothing is not believing.

Apparently you've got some serious problems with your vision, and perception.

 

[ZenMode]

Great. I ignored yours.


Incorrect. The temperature will remain the same. You are supposed to be explaining why you believe that the average global equilibrium temperature will somehow change. (Hint: it won't change if the power received by the sun doesn't change, thus you can't show that it will)


Absurd. This assertion right here reveals you to be scientifically illiterate. It is not an insult; it is an observation. Only you know why you are pretending to know what you are talking about.



They are zero. Your assertion that they are not zero is stupid.

Why don't you give it one more consideration, focusing on the temperature, noting how it cannot change. (Hint: temperature can only increase per additional thermal energy. Adding anything other than thermal energy cannot increase temperature)


You are the scientifically illiterate moron in this equation. Bring it on. I'm trying to help you but you insist on doubling down on stupid. I really don't mind mocking you all day if that's what you want.

BTW, you wouldn't refer to physics as "psuedoscience" if you weren't scientifically illiterate. Again, not an insult; just an observation.

Have you ever pondered why Stefan-Boltzmann has no atmospheric composition component? Did you even know that it doesn't have one?


There is no science "Climate Science" just as there is no science "Christian Science." Putting the word "Science" in the name of a religion does not convert it to science.

Ergo ... there are no climate scientists.


Religions make many claims that require one to accept the religion's dogma to believe. Christians tell me that I will go to heaven if I accept Jesus as my savior. That's certainly tempting; heaven sounds like a pretty neat place. I just need to make that leap of faith first. I haven't accepted the goddess Climate as the planet's savior either.

How were you brought into the Climate faith? Did someone invite you to one of their church services or something? I know it's not because you were ever shown any global climate, or shown any valid data sets for anything, or because you have seen any ocean turning into battery acid, or that you have witnessed the ocean rising, or that you have observed any of the stupid claims that all run counter to science. So ... how were fooled?


Religious leaders do that when they make falsifiable claims that prove to be false. The question is why do you believe the stupid Global Warming doctrine that earth's average global equilibium temperature is somehow rising? You never observed it.


I gathered that. I want to know why you believe that there is any positive global average equilibrium temperature increase, albeit "noncatastrophic," instead of recognizing that zero is the only valid number in this case?

"The temperature will remain the same"

Really? With NO atmosphere, the high temps would be identical and low temperatures would be identical?

Into the Night already exposed his idiocy by making the claim. I just want to verify that you are selling the same idiocy.