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

[Kafka]

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 fact that the present surface temperature of the earth is about 30degC higher than the earth's blackbody temperature says greenhouse gases work as advertised.

This is not even a question anymore. We've literally known how greenhouse gases work for about 150 years now.

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

They are very very close to equal. It's more about delaying the escaping IR photons.

All gases absorb IR.

Nope. But then I've spent about 3-4 years solid working with an IR spectrometer and seeing how indoor air absorbs IR.

The fact of the matter is O2 and N2 do not have a dipole moment (they are two identical atoms attached, so no dipole) so they cannot 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.

Then you'll be able to explain how molecules with no dipole moment are capable of this feat.

@ EVERYONE ELSE - Obtenebrator claims, as do many warmizombies, that oxygen and nitrogen somehow do not absorb IR.

Maybe you'll show me the absorption bands for O2 and N2.

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

Wouldn't you have to know some science before you can tell what is or isn't violating science?

 

[Kafka]

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

There is no such thing.

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

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

Sorry, Into the Night, not interested in the schtick today.

 

[IBDaMann]

The greenhouse effect slows the equalizing of temperature inside the greenhouse vs outside.

Nope. Airflow is what is affected. Convection is what is restricted.

Our atmosphere, since the earth doesn't exist in a vacuum, does the same.

Your argument assumes that the earth's atmosphere is somehow not part of the earth. Your argument assumes that the atmosphere is not surrounded by the vacuum of space.

Both are false assumptions. Your argument is summarily rejected.

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.

I notice how you just pivoted completely away from earth's average global equilibrium temperature to earth's habitability.

Your pivot is rejected.

So, now that we know that a) temperature can increase with no additional energy

What we know is that every temperature increase implies an increase in thermal energy, not "no additional energy."

and b) our atmosphere functions similarly to a greenhouse,

The atmosphere does not function as a greenhouse.

Your denial of the daytime side of the moon, of the atmosphere's powerful cooling effect, and of the daytime ocean not boiling away, gets your argument discarded immediately.

 

[gfm7175]

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.

Your attempt to EVADE my questions won't work... Let's try again:

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?

Remember, I am a stupid moron who is completely inept at science, so you're gonna have to explain "greenhouse effect" to me like I am a first grader... and yes, I WILL have questions along the way. The above two questions are my first questions that I have in making sure that I am understanding you correctly. You need to answer those two questions before we move on with your lesson about what "greenhouse effect" is.

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?

Ahhhhh, no no no. You don't get to push forward with your attempt to EVADE the thread's OP, trying to change it into a thread about "temperature somewhere increasing" instead of a thread about "Earth's average global equilibrium temperature increasing".

Answer my questions.

 

[IBDaMann]

The fact that the present surface temperature of the earth is about 30degC higher than the earth's blackbody temperature says greenhouse gases work as advertised.

Subjunctive fallacy and bad math.

This is not even a question anymore. We've literally known how greenhouse gases work for about 150 years now.

Aaaaah, the Marxist "we" again. There is no greenhouse gas and there is no greenhouse effect.

Redistributing thermal energy results in exactly the same average temperature.

They are very very close to equal. It's more about delaying the escaping IR photons.

Violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. Read my signature.

Nope. But then I've spent about 3-4 years solid working with an IR spectrometer and seeing how indoor air absorbs IR.

Just declare for the official record that you insist that a cloud of nitrogen in close proximity to the sun will fall to absolute zero. Please use complete sentences and make it unequivocal, in your very own post.

The fact of the matter is O2 and N2 do not have a dipole moment (they are two identical atoms attached, so no dipole) so they cannot absorb IR.

Thank you for providing others on JPP that particular Global Warming doctrine.

Then you'll be able to explain how molecules with no dipole moment are capable of this feat.

Then you'll be able to explain how a cloud of nitrogen in close proximity to the sun will fall to absolute zero.

Maybe you'll show me the absorption bands for O2 and N2.

Maybe you'll show how absolute zero can be achieved by suspending nitrogen or oxygen in a fusion reactor vacuum.

 

[Kafka]

Subjunctive fallacy and bad math.


Aaaaah, the Marxist "we" again. There is no greenhouse gas and there is no greenhouse effect.

Redistributing thermal energy results in exactly the same average temperature.


Violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. Read my signature.


Just declare for the official record that you insist that a cloud of nitrogen in close proximity to the sun will fall to absolute zero. Please use complete sentences and make it unequivocal, in your very own post.


Thank you for providing others on JPP that particular Global Warming doctrine.


Then you'll be able to explain how a cloud of nitrogen in close proximity to the sun will fall to absolute zero.


Maybe you'll show how absolute zero can be achieved by suspending nitrogen or oxygen in a fusion reactor vacuum.

As I suspected: you can neither explain how molecules lacking a dipole moment can absorb IR nor can you show me the absorption spectra.

Another easy win for me! Thanks! I'm liking the wins today. It's especially fun when the opponent just throws in the towel as you just did.

 

[IBDaMann]

Sorry, Into the Night, not interested in the schtick today.

So that's your king-tipping "tell".

 

[IBDaMann]

[distractionary material omitted]

Where's your declaration insisting that a cloud of nitrogen in close proximity to the sun will fall to absolute zero?

 

[IBDaMann]

That means that some component of the Earth's atmosphere is doing the "slowing".

There is no "slowing." Earth radiates into the vacuum of space per Stefan-Boltzmann, i.e. proportionally to the absolute temperature to the fourth power. Nothing can change that. You can't violate Stefan-Boltzmann.

If the atmosphere were different, the equalizing could happen more quickly or more slowly, right?

Nope. Stefan-Boltzmann governs this. Nothing can alter it.

 

[ZenMode]

Nope. Airflow is what is affected. Convection is what is restricted.


Your argument assumes that the earth's atmosphere is somehow not part of the earth. Your argument assumes that the atmosphere is not surrounded by the vacuum of space.

Both are false assumptions. Your argument is summarily rejected.


I notice how you just pivoted completely away from earth's average global equilibrium temperature to earth's habitability.

Your pivot is rejected.


What we know is that every temperature increase implies an increase in thermal energy, not "no additional energy."


The atmosphere does not function as a greenhouse.

Your denial of the daytime side of the moon, of the atmosphere's powerful cooling effect, and of the daytime ocean not boiling away, gets your argument discarded immediately.

Yes or no does the impact of the Earth's atmosphere impact temperatures to make it habitable?

 

[IBDaMann]

As I suspected: ...

At what point in your greenhouse gas function does temperature increase?

 

[ZenMode]

There is no "slowing." Earth radiates into the vacuum of space per Stefan-Boltzmann, i.e. proportionally to the absolute temperature to the fourth power. Nothing can change that. You can't violate Stefan-Boltzmann.


Nope. Stefan-Boltzmann governs this. Nothing can alter it.

So, if the earth had no atmosphere, nothing would change in regard to high and low temperature at any given position on the planet?

 

[Kafka]

Where's your declaration insisting that a cloud of nitrogen in close proximity to the sun will fall to absolute zero?

You will show me the N2 IR absorption spectrum. Easy peasy.

 

[AProudLefty]

You are required to react that way to anything that does not align with your mindless thought-collective.

You're the scientifically illiterate moron in this equation, not I.


... and it swayed you, yes.

You are dismissed as a scientifically illiterate loon.

Dumb Studies graduate.

 

[AProudLefty]

There is no "slowing." Earth radiates into the vacuum of space per Stefan-Boltzmann, i.e. proportionally to the absolute temperature to the fourth power. Nothing can change that. You can't violate Stefan-Boltzmann.


Nope. Stefan-Boltzmann governs this. Nothing can alter it.

Take a look at Venus.

 

[Kafka]

So, if the earth had no atmosphere, nothing would change in regard to high and low temperature at any given position on the planet?

If the earth had NO atmosphere OR if the earth had an atmosphere that was ONLY made up of N2 and O2 (or any gases lacking a dipole moment) the temperature of the earth would be the blackbody radiation temperature as the sun's UV hits the surface and re-radiates back out as down-shifted IR photons.

Stefan Boltzmann is merely a means of showing the blackbody temperature and comparing with the actual surface temperature and it is clear something ELSE is in the mix.

That something else is greenhouse gases.

 

[Kafka]

At what point in your greenhouse gas function does temperature increase?

I don't understand that question. Since greenhouse gases account for the fact that the earth's surface temp is something like 30degC higher than blackbody radiation temp of the earth without greenhouse gases it's hard to answer your strangely worded question.

 

[ZenMode]

If the earth had NO atmosphere OR if the earth had an atmosphere that was ONLY made up of N2 and O2 (or any gases lacking a dipole moment) the temperature of the earth would be the blackbody radiation temperature as the sun's UV hits the surface and re-radiates back out as down-shifted IR photons.

Stefan Boltzmann is merely a means of showing the blackbody temperature and comparing with the actual surface temperature and it is clear something ELSE is in the mix.

That something else is greenhouse gases.

It seems like the term "greenhouse gasses" is an issue, but we know that with no atmosphere (however you choose to describe the gasses) regulating the highs and lows, earth would be uninhabitable.

 

[IBDaMann]

So, if the earth had no atmosphere, nothing would change in regard to high and low temperature at any given position on the planet?

Did you just ask, in very poor fashion, if the earth's average global equilibrium temperature would change if the atmosphere were removed?

The average global equilibrium temperature would remain the same. Of course, a new atmosphere of water vapor would replace the oxygen-nitrogen atmopshere.

 

[IBDaMann]

I don't understand that question.

Of course not. It requires you to pinpoint the physics violation in your religious dogma.

Walk me through how earth's average temperature increases because of the addition of greenhouse gas, and how it doesn't merely redistribute thermal energy present.

Since greenhouse gases account for the fact

It's not a fact.

... that the earth's surface temp is something like 30degC higher than blackbody radiation temp of the earth without greenhouse gases

This is nothing but bad math performed on fabricated numbers.