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

[ZenMode]

Nope. You are EVADING the concept of "average temperature" in your lame attempt to make it about "temperature can change."

Do you really think I'm going to fall for that?


You have to define "warming."


If you want to debate whether the temperature somewhere can change, start your own thread. That is not the thread topic here.

The thread title references greenhouse effect. How do you define or describe greenhouse effect that would not include temperature differences, or increases, in to separate locations?

 

[IBDaMann]

How do you define or describe greenhouse effect that would not include temperature differences, or increases, in to separate locations?

greenhouse effect does not refer to specific locations; it refers to an overall general effect that violates thermodynamics wherever and whenever its mystical, magical marvel of miracles happens to occur.

 

[ZenMode]

greenhouse effect does not refer to specific locations; it refers to an overall general effect that violates thermodynamics wherever and whenever its mystical, magical marvel of miracles happens to occur.

So, you're saying the greenhouse effect isn't possible? If something violates theaw of thermodynamics , then it would be impossible, would it not?

We just discussed, and agreed, that a car sitting in the sun, with closed windows, would have a significantly higher temperature inside than outside.

Is that not due to the greenhouse effect?

 

[IBDaMann]

So, you're saying the greenhouse effect isn't possible?

Random irrelevant distractionary pivot question.

If something violates theaw of thermodynamics , then it would be impossible, would it not?

Correct. My point exactly.

We just discussed, and agreed, that a car sitting in the sun, with closed windows, would have a significantly higher temperature inside than outside. Is that not due to the greenhouse effect?

Nope. It is due to restricting airflow.

 

[ZenMode]

Random irrelevant distractionary pivot question.

Not at all. I'm trying to clarify because, as of now, you're not making sense.

Correct. My point exactly.


Nope. It is due to restricting airflow.

Yes.... that's how the term "greenhouse effect" originated....actual greenhouses that restricted airflow, causing the internal temperatures to exceed the external temperature.

So, again, we agree that the greenhouse effect is real, meaning it actually happens, and doesn't violate any laws of anything... because if the greenhouse effect DID violate any laws of physics, then it simply wouldn't occur.

Clarifying again.... we agree that it is possible for Area A to have a higher temperature than Area B with no additional energy from the sun because it literally happens around the world, billions of times a day...basically every time someone closes their car doors/windows in the sun.

 

[gfm7175]

I don't give a shit about the topic.

Also, you never debate and disappear after one response. Fraud.

Blatant lie.

Look at his "Challenging Hume To A Debate #1" thread... he's made responses all throughout that one, and I'm willing to bet that he's doing the same in this thread too.

YOU LIE!

 

[gfm7175]

Are you also confused about why the temperature inside your car is higher when it's sitting in the sun with the windows closed given that there's no more energy coming from the sun?

Are you seriously going to pretend that this question of yours hasn't been directly answered countless times already?

 

[gfm7175]

back to ignore hate troll

Stop pretending that you put people on ignore, Hume...

 

[gfm7175]

Yes.... that's how the term "greenhouse effect" originated....actual greenhouses that restricted airflow, causing the internal temperatures to exceed the external temperature.

So "greenhouse effect" = restricting airflow?

If that's the case, then what exactly are you claiming is surrounding Earth that is restricting airflow within Earth?

Clarifying again.... we agree that it is possible for Area A to have a higher temperature than Area B with no additional energy from the sun because it literally happens around the world, billions of times a day...basically every time someone closes their car doors/windows in the sun.

Clarifying again.... This thread isn't about "can a temperature somewhere change" ... This thread is about Earth's average global equilibrium temperature.

 

[IBDaMann]

Yes.... that's how the term "greenhouse effect" originated....actual greenhouses that restricted airflow, causing the internal temperatures to exceed the external temperature.

... except that the earth is surrounded by the vacuum of space. The term greenhouse effect originated as a violation of Stefan-Boltzmann, i.e. as restricting the earth's radiance ... resulting in a higher earth's average global equilibrium temperature, in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

This is where gullible scientifically illiterates were abused with the bogus concept of "trapping heat" (which cannot happen), knowing that they are too stupid and too spineless to question anything they were being told to believe.

So, again, we agree that the greenhouse effect is real,

So, again, there is no greenhouse effect that can violate Stefan-Boltzmann by causing earth's temperature to increase while earth's radiance decreases. Read my signature.

... it is possible for Area A to have a higher temperature than Area B with no additional energy from the sun because it literally happens around the world, billions of times a day...basically every time someone closes their car doors/windows in the sun.

This belongs in the other thread you are creating to debate whether temperatures can change and whether thermal energy can be redistributed.

 

[IBDaMann]

So "greenhouse effect" = restricting airflow? If that's the case, then what exactly are you claiming is surrounding Earth that is restricting airflow within Earth?

Clarifying again.... This thread isn't about "can a temperature somewhere change" ... This thread is about Earth's average global equilibrium temperature.

Great question. You've got a real stumper there.

 

[Kafka]

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.

This indicates you don't really understand how greenhouse gases work.

A greenhouse gas acts to absorb IR photons (absorbs energy) which they then re-radiate back out as another IR photon which is then absorbed by another molecule of CO2 and the cycle continues. The goal is to ensure that the energy coming INTO the earth from the sun and the energy GOING BACK OUT are in balance.

BUT as you load up the atmosphere with more greenhouse gases (gases that are ABLE to absorb an IR photon) the IR photons have to go higher and higher in the atmosphere to re-radiate back out. The higher they go the less efficient is the radiation-reradiation process and this results in a warming at the surface.

Think of it like a traffic jam. The traffic is moving but suddenly there are a LOT more cars at 4th and Monroe.

The debate question is whether such a concept is even possible in physics.

As you state it, no. But as it exists in REALITY, yes.

I take the negative position (i.e. it is not possible) and Hume takes the affirmative position (it is possible and is occurring).

Yeah, this isn't something Hume is able to debate. He doesn't understand enough science and he is clearly too limited in his general intellectual behavior so save your time.

 

[IBDaMann]

Stop pretending that you put people on ignore, Hume...

You're not supposed to be catching on to them.

 

[Kafka]

... except that the earth is surrounded by the vacuum of space. The term greenhouse effect originated as a violation of Stefan-Boltzmann, i.e. as restricting the earth's radiance ... resulting in a higher earth's average global equilibrium temperature, in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

Actually quite the opposite. S-B tells us what the blackbody temperature of the earth should be. But since we have greenhouse gases our surface temperatures are something like 30deg C HIGHER than the blackbody temperature of the earth.

S-B is how we know that greenhouse gases function as advertised.

 

[Kafka]

This now makes two debates in which you crashed and burned.

IBDaMann: 2
Hume: 0

At least he isn't simply trolling your thread now as he usually does.

 

[Kafka]

So "greenhouse effect" = restricting airflow?

That has no bearing on the greenhouse effect as it applies to the earth.

This thread is about Earth's average global equilibrium temperature.

Climate scientists are more interested in temperature anomalies. If you actually read any of the real science you'd focus on that.

 

[ZenMode]

So "greenhouse effect" = restricting airflow?

If that's the case, then what exactly are you claiming is surrounding Earth that is restricting airflow within Earth?

Clarifying again.... This thread isn't about "can a temperature somewhere change" ... This thread is about Earth's average global equilibrium temperature.

The greenhouse effect slows the equalizing of temperature inside the greenhouse vs outside. Our atmosphere, since the earth doesn't exist in a vacuum, does the same. If we had no atmosphere, the earth would be uninhabitable because of the temperature swings that would occur when facing the sun vs facing away from the sun.

So, now that we know that a) temperature can increase with no additional energy and b) our atmosphere functions similarly to a greenhouse, in that it slows the equalizing of temperature of the earth's atmosphere with the cooler air outside the earth's atmosphere, it stands to reason that some component of the atmosphere is slowing the equalization, right?

 

[ZenMode]

... except that the earth is surrounded by the vacuum of space. The term greenhouse effect originated as a violation of Stefan-Boltzmann, i.e. as restricting the earth's radiance ... resulting in a higher earth's average global equilibrium temperature, in violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

This is where gullible scientifically illiterates were abused with the bogus concept of "trapping heat" (which cannot happen), knowing that they are too stupid and too spineless to question anything they were being told to believe.


So, again, there is no greenhouse effect that can violate Stefan-Boltzmann by causing earth's temperature to increase while earth's radiance decreases. Read my signature.


This belongs in the other thread you are creating to debate whether temperatures can change and whether thermal energy can be redistributed.

"So, again, there is no greenhouse effect that can violate Stefan-Boltzmann by causing earth's temperature to increase while earth's radiance decreases. Read my signature."

The Earth's atmosphere slows the equalizing of air temperatures within the atmosphere and outside the atmosphere. If it didn't, we'd all be dead.

That means that some component of the Earth's atmosphere is doing the "slowing". If the atmosphere were different, the equalizing could happen more quickly or more slowly, right?

 

[IBDaMann]

This indicates you don't really understand how greenhouse gases work.

This indicates that you live in a fantasy world of science fiction and expect everything to work as it does in Star Trek. There is no warp speed or any dilithium crystals.

A greenhouse gas acts to absorb IR photons (absorbs energy) which they then re-radiate back out as another IR photon which is then absorbed by another molecule of CO2 and the cycle continues.

Without getting bogged down in the myriad of errors in this above sentence alone, just tell me at what point the average temperature thusly increases. We'll go from there.

The goal is to ensure that the energy coming INTO the earth from the sun and the energy GOING BACK OUT are in balance.

Do you mean to say that the two energy quantities are absolutely equal, or that they are unequal such that they are somehow "balanced"?

BUT as you load up the atmosphere with more greenhouse gases (gases that are ABLE to absorb an IR photon)

All gases absorb IR. I know you were ordered to believe that oxygen and nitrogen somehow don't absorb IR, and you picked a bad moment to be really gullible.

Anyway, you are greatly mistaken, and I have debunked your assertion previously, causing you to pivot away from the subject matter. However, your error is an integral part of your religion so you always return to regurgitate it.

@ EVERYONE ELSE - Obtenebrator claims, as do many warmizombies, that oxygen and nitrogen somehow do not absorb IR. This is a necessary doctrine of his faith, because otherwise all atmospheric gases must then be recognized as greenhouse gases. Ergo, he insists that if a hypothetical cloud of nitrogen were placed in very close proximity to the sun, that the nitrogen cloud's temperature would fall to absolute zero, not become very, very hot. Everyone should drink a few beers and listen to the stupid warmizombie attempt to babblexplain the "physics" of why this is the case.

the IR photons have to go higher and higher in the atmosphere to re-radiate back out.

You're killing me.

Yeah, this isn't something Hume is able to debate. He doesn't understand enough science and he is clearly too limited in his general intellectual behavior so save your time.

Nobody can debate this because it is a religion that violates science while claiming to be science. That's completely contradictory.

 

[gfm7175]

That has no bearing on the greenhouse effect as it applies to the earth.

....... and now you've returned ZenMode's (very poor) attempt at defining "greenhouse effect" back into a meaningless buzzword. CONGRATS!

Climate scientists

There is no such thing.

are more interested in temperature anomalies.

You cannot calculate any anomaly value re: Earth's temperature without first having a valid dataset of measurements re: Earth's temperature.

If you actually read any of the real science you'd focus on that.

Would it be satisfactory if I subscribe to the "gold level" of "real science", or should I pay the extra fee for "platinum level"?