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

[Into the Night]

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

The answer is no.

The atmosphere has no capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You are again ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

 

[AProudLefty]

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

Be original, Sybil.

 

[ZenMode]

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?"


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.

And the tap dancing continues.....

The average global temperature is what it is. It doesn't matter if the difference between highs and lows is 400 degrees or 4 degrees, but average would be the same.

Are you going to answer the question I asked or just continue to avoid it?

 

[ZenMode]

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.

You already chose to exclude yourself from an intelligent conversation when you claimed the atmosphere has no impact on temperatures.

 

[Into the Night]

I'll ignore the insult


First law of thermodynamics Q = m∆T

Not the 1st law of thermodynamics. It is E(t+1)=E(t)-U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is 'work' (or force over time). The presence of a gas or vapor is not a force, and is not work. Therefore, E(t+1) = E(t) - zero.

Unless the Earth and its atmosphere are at absolute zero,

It is not possible to develop the energy required to take any mass to 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.

At that point the ONLY way to increase the temperature of the Earth is to INCREASE the output of the Sun, or to move Earth closer to the Sun.

If the mass of the atmosphere, or its composition change, that temperature will either rise or fall until it reaches equilibrium again.

There is no 'composition' component in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

If the amount of energy the Sun produces changes, same thing.

The Sun is a remarkably stable star. It is assume the output is constant for the purposes of this discussion.

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

Man did not make the Sun. Man has no control over the orbit of Earth. Those are the only two factors that can change the temperature of the Earth.

I argue that the manmade causes are mostly insignificant.

Man did not make the Sun and has no control over the orbit of the Earth.

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

There is no such thing as 'psuedoscience'. It is either a theory of science, or it is not. You are ignoring several theories of science.

As usual, you completely missed the point.

The Church of Global Warming has made the same points for decades. It routinely ignores the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and also routinely ignores mathematics.

The point I was making was climate scientists

There is no such thing. Climate is not a branch of science.

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

The Church of Global Warming is not the Church of the Ozone Hole, but they both stem from the Church of Karl Marx.

We did and the holes are still there.

No surprise, since CFCs do not affect ozone. You can put them in a tank of ozone and there will be no reaction.

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?

No.

 

[Into the Night]

Seeing is believing.

What are you seeing? What drug are you using?

 

[Into the Night]

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.

You are describing yourself again, Void. DON'T BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!

 

[ZenMode]

You are describing yourself again, Void. DON'T BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON ANYBODY ELSE!

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

Tuesday at 3:05 PM

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.

You already chose to exclude yourself from an intelligent conversation when you claimed the atmosphere has no impact on temperatures.

• ZenMode

 

[Into the Night]

"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.

With no atmosphere, another one will be created, due to the size of Earth.
It makes no difference to the temperature of Earth.

 

[ZenMode]

With no atmosphere, another one will be created, due to the size of Earth.
It makes no difference to the temperature of Earth.

That's your opinion, not a fact and it's especially irrelevant in a hypothetical discussion.

The atmosphere on Earth, just as it does on all planets, directly impacts high and low temperatures. You already know this, but insist on playing dumb.

So, in an effort to further expose your dishonestly and game playing, I'll ask you the same question that others avoid answering.

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?

 

[IBDaMann]

And the tap dancing continues.....

Why continue it?

The average global temperature is what it is.

Well, then this is the answer I will give to you, and the answer I will recommend others give to you.

It doesn't matter if the difference between highs and lows is 400 degrees or 4 degrees, but average would be the same.

So you acknowledge that Global Warming and greenhouse effect are a load of bunk. Great.

Are you going to answer the question I asked or just continue to avoid it?

The answer to your question is what it is.

 

[Into the Night]

It is possible to measure it with reasonable accuracy.

Describe the procedure. Please be sure to show all your work.

You obviously don't even know basic chemistry.

I happen to be a chemist.

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

Dead wrong. Examples:

If an enclosed space has air mixed with propane, the propane will settle in the bottom of the container.
If an enclosed space has air mixed with hydrogen sulfide, the hydrogen sulfide will settle at the top of the container.

CO2 created and destroyed by various forms of life, both plant and animal. That rate varies throughout the year and by the type of plant or animal, and upon the activity of both. Further, CO2 is emitted by volcanic activity (a local point source). CO2 is also absorbed and emitted by water, including seawater. It is also generally heavier than air and tends to settle lower in the atmosphere. It is also emitted by various fires, including internal and external combustion engines (point sources).

That's grade school knowledge.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. If a grade school happens to be teaching that, it's WRONG.

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.

No, it won't.

 

[Trumpet]

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

This statement is just as plausible has believing that Trump is fit to be president.

 

[ZenMode]

Why continue it?


Well, then this is the answer I will give to you, and the answer I will recommend others give to you.


So you acknowledge that Global Warming and greenhouse effect are a load of bunk. Great.


The answer to your question is what it is.

So, no, you aren't going to answer, as I expected.

 

[Into the Night]

Try Fourier's law.

What about it?

Stefan-Boltzmann doesn't apply.

Yes it does.

The later is applied to black body theory for absorbers and emitters.

WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to ALL bodies.

Fourier's applies to thermal conductivity.

Conductive heat is not a factor for the Sun to heat the Earth, or for the Earth to dissipate energy into space.

Different materials, each element, etc., has its own unique thermal conductivity measured as W/m.K (watts per meter-Kelvin).

Irrelevant. Conductive heat is not being discussed and is not radiant heat or absorption.

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

CO2 happens to have better thermal conductivity than most any other common gas.
Irrelevance fallacy. Strawman fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

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?

Your religion is not a 'basic truth'. It's a false religion. The Church of Global Warming is not science.

 

[Into the Night]

Maps & Data

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

www.climate.gov

Climate is not data.

 

[Into the Night]

So, no, you aren't going to answer, as I expected.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. He already answered. So did I.

 

[Into the Night]

Be original, Sybil.

You posted to the wrong person, Lefty.

 

[Into the Night]

And the tap dancing continues.....

The average global temperature is what it is. It doesn't matter if the difference between highs and lows is 400 degrees or 4 degrees, but average would be the same.

Are you going to answer the question I asked or just continue to avoid it?

RQAA. Stop mindlessly repeating your question. It's already been answered multiple times.