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

[gfm7175]

You are obviously parroting Into The Night. Be original.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

It is not possible to measure to any usable accuracy.

It is possible to measure it with reasonable 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.

You obviously don't even know basic chemistry. One of the properties of a gas is any mixture will diffuse and mix homogeneously. That's grade school knowledge. With something as large as a planetary atmosphere, there will be gradients depending on the weight of each element in a gas that stratifies top to bottom to some degree and it does take time for a gas formed locally to diffuse, but it will in time.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

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?

Try Fourier's law. Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply. The later is applied to black body theory for absorbers and emitters. Fourier's applies to thermal conductivity. Different materials, each element, etc., has its own unique thermal conductivity measured as W/m.K (watts per meter-Kelvin).
Change the composition of a gaseous mixture--the atmosphere--and you get a different thermal conductivity.

Thermal Conductivity of Chemical Elements - Material Properties

Thermal Conductivity of Chemical Elements. The heat transfer characteristics of a solid material are measured by a property called the thermal conductivity, k (or λ), measured in W/m.K.

material-properties.org

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?

Cackler Harris would be proud of the word salad you produced here.

 

[IBDaMann]

As usual, you have no interest in having an honest conversation.

You are the eternally dishonest one. You are forever engaging without any intention of having an honest discussion. You are scientifically illiterate and yet you refuse to learn anything.

Your only tactic is to ask the same invalid question, over and over, while completely disregarding all explanations of why your question is invalid and while refusing to modify your question to make it valid.

... which is why I can ask you the same question a half dozen or more times and never [adjust it to make it valid] .

FTFY

Learn what heat is. Learn what science is.

 

[IBDaMann]

It is possible to measure it with reasonable accuracy.

Nope, and you know this, which is why you don't entertain JPP by explaining how you imagine this can be done. You know that doing so would reveal your mathematical incompetence, specifically your complete ignorance of statistical math.

So, no, your absurd assertion is discarded.

You obviously don't even know basic chemistry.

Says the guy who doesn't even know what science is and who believes that becoming religious clergy makes one a scientist.

Please explain what I don't know about chemistry, but that you do, so that I can get right to the business of picking you apart.

One of the properties of a gas is any mixture will diffuse and mix homogeneously.

Too funny! T. A. Gardner never learned that heavier gases will settle/descend amidst lighter gases, and he apparently never learned that an exact homogenous horizontal mixture will never be achieved, and that the dynamics of, say, the CO2 cycle work against homogenous mixtures.

Don't you think it's odd that you spent your entire life in the dark, only to finally learn this from me on JPP? You can thank me if you wish.

That's grade school knowledge.

So why don't you know it?

With something as large as a planetary atmosphere, there will be gradients

... and they won't be linear, and you won't be able to see them, or measure them. All you can do is speculate, i.e. guess wildly. I know that you don't know this, but whenever you guess, your margin of error skyrockets.

Oh, because you don't know these things, I'll let you know that taking CO2 measurements right at an active volcano will completely skew your results, potentially by an order of magnitude. Oh, and if your measurements are provided by dishonest political activists who routinely cook the books in order to "show" temperature increases per a Marxist agenda, e.g. Mauna Loa, your conclusions immediately go right out the window.


So, if it's not too much trouble, explain to the board exactly how you believe any rational adult can compute the earth's atmospheric CO2 content to within, say, +/- 1%.

 

[ZenMode]

You are the eternally dishonest one. You are forever engaging without any intention of having an honest discussion. You are scientifically illiterate and yet you refuse to learn anything.

Your only tactic is to ask the same invalid question, over and over, while completely disregarding all explanations of why your question is invalid and while refusing to modify your question to make it valid.


FTFY

Learn what heat is. Learn what science is.

Is this the same science that makes you unable to acknowledge a basic truth about the impact of the Earth's atmosphere on high and low temperatures, or is this a different science?

 

[IBDaMann]

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

Either that or you wander the earth in a delusional state. Show me this Global Warming that you claim is "real."

 

[IBDaMann]

"The temperature will remain the same"

Really? With NO atmosphere,

Correct. The earth's average global equilibrium temperature will remain the same. I'm still waiting for you to explain how it would somehow change.

 

[IBDaMann]

Try Fourier's law.

I'm not going to "try" anything. You need to explain what you are asserting.

Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply.

Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all bodies of matter, always, everywhere.

Fourier's applies to thermal conductivity.

Explain how this works in the vacuum of space.

Once you've done that, explain how redistributing thermal energy somehow increases the average temperature.

Change the composition of a gaseous mixture--the atmosphere--and you get a different thermal conductivity.

... then you can recall what you just explained above, that a differing thermal conductivity only alters the distribution of the thermal energy and cannot alter the average temperature.

Cackler Harris would be proud of your previous word salads.

 

[Trumpet]

Either that or you wander the earth in a delusional state. Show me this Global Warming that you claim is "real."

Maps & Data

The Maps & Data section featuring interactive tools, maps, and additional tools for accessing climate data.

www.climate.gov

 

[ZenMode]

Correct. The earth's average global equilibrium temperature will remain the same. I'm still waiting for you to explain how it would somehow change.

More dishonesty and word games. I have repeatedly made it clear that I am referencing the highs and lows.

So, since I'm sure you are done playing word games now, do you agree that the Earth's atmosphere has an impact on the high and low temperatures, meaning that it limits the range. Highs aren't as high and lows aren't as low.

 

[IBDaMann]

More dishonesty and word games. I have repeatedly made it clear that I am referencing the highs and lows.

We've been over this many times. You are aware that the Global Warming you are supposed to explain involves the increase in the earth's average global equilibrium temperature. However, at some point you realized that Global Warming is a load of hogwash that violates physics. You became desperate to redefine Global Warming as something other than what it is, without explaining what that is ... for the purpose of always being able to say "I never said that."

You and your tap dancing are finished until I see you explaining an increase in the earth's average global equilibrium temperature.

 

[IBDaMann]

[gullibility demonstration omitted]

So ... you really do believe in Santa Claus and that he lives at the North Pole.

 

[ZenMode]

We've been over this many times. You are aware that the Global Warming you are supposed to explain involves the increase in the earth's average global equilibrium temperature. However, at some point you realized that Global Warming is a load of hogwash that violates physics. You became desperate to redefine Global Warming as something other than what it is, without explaining what that is ... for the purpose of always being able to say "I never said that."

You and your tap dancing are finished until I see you explaining an increase in the earth's average global equilibrium temperature.

Why/how does the Earth's atmosphere keep overnight temperatures from being as low as they normally would be? In other words, without an atmosphere, much more of the suns energy would get to the surface of the Earth, creating significantly higher high temperatures, but that energy would leave the Earth's surface, back into space, more quickly, resulting in much colder evenings.

So, how does the atmosphere do that?

 

[gfm7175]

Why/how does the Earth's atmosphere keep overnight temperatures from being as low as they normally would be?

WTF?!?!?!?

In other words, without an atmosphere, much more of the suns energy would get to the surface of the Earth, creating significantly higher high temperatures, but that energy would leave the Earth's surface, back into space, more quickly, resulting in much colder evenings.

So, how does the atmosphere do that?

Redistributing existing thermal energy does not add any additional thermal energy.

 

[ZenMode]

WTF?!?!?!?

Redistributing existing thermal energy does not add any additional thermal energy.

You're responding to something I never said.

I asked how the Earth's atmosphere prevents overnight low temperatures from being AS LOW as they otherwise would?

The Earth isn't a greenhouse or a tent, so we know that there isn't a solid physical barrier in outer space. All we have is the atmosphere.

So, What function does it perform to cause that end result?

 

[IBDaMann]

Why/how does the Earth's atmosphere keep overnight temperatures from being as low as they normally would be?

I don't see any questions or statements about the earth's average global equilibrium temperature. All I see is you perpetually repeated question about the difference between daytime and nighttime temperatures at the bottom of the atmosphere being inversely proportional to the amount of atmosphere. It doesn't seem to matter how many times we discuss this, you begin your tap-dancing cycle over again by asking the same question that never supports anything about the Climate Change religion and that never explains why any rational adult should believe in the Global Warming faith.

So let's review the questions you are supposed to be answering: "Why should any rational adult believe in Global Warming?" and "Why should any rational adult believe in greenhouse effect?"

In other words, without an atmosphere, much more of the suns energy would get to the surface of the Earth,

For the 73rd time, less atmosphere means less solar radiation absorbed by the atmosphere and more solar radiation absorbed by both the hydrosphere and the lithosphere, resulting in a different distribution of the same quantity of thermal energy, i.e. the same average global equilibrium temperature.

 

[Into the Night]

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?

Yes. All mass also emits energy.

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

The so-called 'hole' is a naturally occurring phenomena.

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.

Try English. It works better.

The ozone 'hole' is a result of natural forces, not CFC's.
Ozone is created by the action of sunlight on Earth's atmosphere. During the summer in the northern hemisphere, it's winter at the South Pole, so a 'hole' forms. There is no sunlight. The same thing happens at the North Pole during it's winter.

The size of the 'hole' varies slightly from year to year depending on upper air winds in the area that year.

Thank you for the gratuitous insult.

He's happy to provide them, since he's tired of constantly explaining this to people like you that just don't get it.

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

Theories of science are NOT 'word salads'. You can blame the Church of Global Warming and the Church of the Ozone Hole for that!

So many complex questions... (a fallacy)

Fallacy fallacy. No complex question.

And you end with more insults...

You are completely overlooking the arguments he made.

 

[Into the Night]

You are obviously parroting Into The Night. Be original.

Pointing out your inversion fallacies is not 'parroting', Lefty.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

The atmosphere has no ability change the temperature of the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are again ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.