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

[Kafka]

You claim IBdaMann doesn't understand how greenhouse gasses "work". If greenhouse gasses perform work to raise the average equilibrium temperature, where is the additional energy coming from?

The sun. Not sure if you noted the big ball of nuclear fusion in the sky. It's pumping a ton of energy into the atmosphere.

But here's where you and Ibdaman seem to fall down: no one is saying additional warming greater than the energy coming into the system is being generated. All that is happening is that:

1. Shortwavelength, high energy photons come to the earth from the sun
2. When the shortwave photons are absorbed by the body of the earth it re-radiates back out as downshifted long-wave photons (IR)
3. This energy then radiates out from the earth into the atmosphere
4. The CO2 molecules and other greenhouse gas molecules are able to absorb IR photons
5. The IR photons are absorbed and re-radiated out from the CO2 molecules.
6. These IR photons are then absorbed by OTHER CO2 and greenhouse gas molecules etc.
7. Ultimately the IR photon re-radiates back out into space but it happens at higher and higher altitudes as we load up more more greenhouse gases
8. At extremely high altitudes where the IR photon finally makes it back out into space the transfer and re-radiation are less efficient if the level is higher and higher
9. This results in excess heat building up, like a traffic jam. It is all moving out from the earth but it has more absorption-desorption cycles in the atmosphere resulting in more IR being held up near the surface causing warming.

I've read the car windows argument and it's bogus. Same with the greenhouse.

Generally I agree. Most atmospheric scientists will make the point that calling it a "greenhouse" is kind of a misnomer since it doesn't involve the convection component you mentioned.

 

[ZenMode]

So when considering the earth system, ALL of it, it would seem impossible for a non energy gas to raise the average equilibrium temperature.

Do you agree that the Earth's atmosphere, which I agree doesn't function precisely like a greenhouse, slows the cooling of the planet at night? In other words, if the atmosphere didn't exist, the nights would be SIGNIFICANTLY colder.

I've read the car windows argument and it's bogus. Same with the greenhouse. Bogus. Both of these suppress/eliminate convection and there is nothing in the atmosphere that reduces the flow of thermal energy (heat) similar to a greenhouse. Without additional or a reduction in incoming energy, the average equilibrium temperature remains unchanged in a system.

The car example was to make the point that, under certain circumstances and with no increase in energy from the Sun, temperatures can increase significantly.

 

[proud PETA member]

8. At extremely high altitudes where the IR photon finally makes it back out into space the transfer and re-radiation are less efficient if the level is higher and higher

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on this one. Which law of thermodynamics discusses efficiency of heat with altitude?

9. This results in excess heat building up, like a traffic jam.

Do you know what "heat is"?

It is all moving out from the earth but it has more absorption-desorption cycles in the atmosphere resulting in more IR being held up near the surface causing warming.

First it was the CO2 blanket bullshit, then came the majick bouncing photon theory with heat flowing backwards, now we have the "traffic jam" theory. You're fullashit!

 

[proud PETA member]

Do you agree that the Earth's atmosphere, which I agree doesn't function precisely like a greenhouse

It doesn't function at all like a greenhouse.

In other words, if the atmosphere didn't exist, the nights would be SIGNIFICANTLY colder.

...and significantly warmer daytime surface temp, with the same average.

The car example was to make the point that, under certain circumstances and with no increase in energy from the Sun, temperatures can increase significantly.

If it's warmer in one location then it's cooler in another. There is only a certain amount of thermal energy and the average equilibrium temp cannot increase without additional energy. This is where your gullibility allows you to believe the CO2/light bulb/aquarium parlor tricks are actually science defying proof that Satan is warming hell with CO2 as we speak.

 

[IBDaMann]

Again, no matter what I post, you're going to ....

You whine every time you avoid posting science, because you think that whining alleviates your need to post science.

It doesn't.

I'm sure there are people at NASA who oversee contracts ...

The world is sure, because that's what NASA does. It's not the Citadel of Science that you think it is. NASA is just a government bureacracy. There are no NASA scientists. All the scientists, engineers, mathematicians and researchers who support NASA are working in private sector firms with whom NASA contracts for the support that it needs.

People of NASA Science - NASA Science

science.nasa.gov

Too funny. This website lists management in the government bureacracy. It lists directors, deputy directors, managers, etc., not any scientists.

You didn't bother to review it before you posted it, did you?

First, your opinion doesn't create reality.

Your religious delusions do not create reality.

There are climate scientists.

I've covered this. There are Climate Scientists and there are Christian Scientists. None are scientists. Having some derivation of the word "Science" in the name of a religion or in a religious title does not make one a scientist.

Climate is a religious entity/deity of the Climate family of faiths. There is no science of any religion.

In fact, if you looked at the link above, there are scientists who specialize in studying glaciers.

Correction, there is a researcher, Catherine Walker, who spends all day staring at satellite imagery. Her job is a religio-political one, i.e. to find the optimal way to portray polar ice such that it generates maximum panic, whether it appears to be increasing or decreasing. There is no science involved in her position.

On a side note, if you want to apply for any of the non-existent NASA jobs, here's the link:

I see what you did here. You semantically shifted my rebuttal of your WACKY claims from "There are no NASA scientists" to "There are no job openings at NASA." Clever.

 

[ZenMode]

It doesn't function at all like a greenhouse.

It does in that inside and outside have significantly different temperatures.

...and significantly warmer daytime surface temp, with the same average.

Since we know that the atmosphere CURRENTLY keeps the Earth's temperature higher than space, if a change in the atmospheric components (believed to be greenhouse gases) made the atmosphere even better at keeping energy from leaving the atmosphere, it would cause temperatures to rise.

If it's warmer in one location then it's cooler in another. There is only a certain amount of thermal energy and the average equilibrium temp cannot increase without additional energy. This is where your gullibility allows you to believe the CO2/light bulb/aquarium parlor tricks are actually science defying proof that Satan is warming hell with CO2 as we speak.

Again, if the atmosphere was more effective at keeping energy from dispersing into space, the area within the atmosphere would have higher temps.

 

[IBDaMann]

Temperature and energy must move in the same direction, right?

Great post. Whereas this point above is certainly correct, i.e. the more thermal energy there is, the higher the temperature will be, we nonetheless refer to Temperature and Radiance moving in the same direction (re: Stefan-Boltzmann). But Temperature and Energy moving in the same direction is good too.

 

[proud PETA member]

Since we know that the atmosphere CURRENTLY keeps the Earth's temperature higher than space, if a change in the atmospheric components (believed to be greenhouse gases) made the atmosphere even better at keeping energy from leaving the atmosphere, it would cause temperatures to rise.
Again, if the atmosphere was more effective at keeping energy from dispersing into space, the area within the atmosphere would have higher temps.

...and now I see why IBdaMann is constantly calling you out for ignoring science as this is a blatant violation of SB. You are attempting to increase temperature and decrease radiance.

Dismissed.

 

[ZenMode]

You whine every time you avoid posting science, because you think that whining alleviates your need to post science.

It doesn't.


The world is sure, because that's what NASA does. It's not the Citadel of Science that you think it is. NASA is just a government bureacracy. There are no NASA scientists. All the scientists, engineers, mathematicians and researchers who support NASA are working in private sector firms with whom NASA contracts for the support that it needs.


Too funny. This website lists management in the government bureacracy. It lists directors, deputy directors, managers, etc., not any scientists.

You didn't bother to review it before you posted it, did you?



Your religious delusions do not create reality.


I've covered this. There are Climate Scientists and there are Christian Scientists. None are scientists. Having some derivation of the word "Science" in the name of a religion or in a religious title does not make one a scientist.

Climate is a religious entity/deity of the Climate family of faiths. There is no science of any religion.


Correction, there is a researcher, Catherine Walker, who spends all day staring at satellite imagery. Her job is a religio-political one, i.e. to find the optimal way to portray polar ice such that it generates maximum panic, whether it appears to be increasing or decreasing. There is no science involved in her position.


I see what you did here. You semantically shifted my rebuttal of your WACKY claims from "There are no NASA scientists" to "There are no job openings at NASA." Clever.

You continue to prove my point. You stick to what you want to believe and claim that your opinion is fact. You dismiss anything inconvenient to what you want to believe NOW including NASA employees. Not close to the entire list:

Dr. Kate Calvin
NASA’s Chief Scientist and Senior Climate Advisor - NASA Headquarters

Elizabeth MacDonald
Space Physicist

Alicia Joseph
Research Physical Scientist - NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center / Hydrological Sciences Laboratory

Reem Hannun
Assistant Research Scientist - Joint Center for Earth Systems Technology (University of Maryland Baltimore County)

Josh Willis
Project Scientist for Sentinel-6 and Jason-3 - NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Benjamin Hamlington
Scientist - NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory

Qing Liang
Physical Research Scientist - NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

Sabrina Delgado Arias
Senior Research Scientist, ICESat-2 Applications Coordinator - NASA Goddard Space Flight Center (Contractor with Science Systems and Applications, Inc.)

Dalia Kirschbaum
Research Scientist | NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center

 

[ZenMode]

...and now I see why IBdaMann is constantly calling you out for ignoring science as this is a blatant violation of SB. You are attempting to increase temperature and decrease radiance.

Dismissed.

I'm not trying to do anything. I'm not decreasing radiance. The sun's energy enters the atmosphere in a different format than it leaves. If CO2 works in the way it's believed, which is why it prevents night temperatures from being hundreds of degrees below zero NOW, then temperatures would rise as the percentage in the atmosphere increased.

 

[IBDaMann]

It does in that inside and outside have significantly different temperatures.

Are you trying to redefine (read: hijack) the word "greenhouse" to mean "has temperature different from somewhere else"?

This appears really stupid on its face. You should be able to discuss temperature differences without the word "greenhouse" like everyone else.

Since we know that the atmosphere CURRENTLY keeps the Earth's temperature higher than space,

Now we return to your denial of the daytime side of the moon. The International Space Station (ISS) reaches temperatures that far exceed any temperatures within the earth's atmosphere.

The moon has a daytime side. There is an ISS. Both render your argument summarily dismissed.

if a change in the atmospheric components (believed to be greenhouse gases) made the atmosphere even better at keeping energy from leaving the atmosphere, it would cause temperatures to rise.

This is a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. Nothing can reduce Earth's radiance (i.e. keep energy from leaving) except lowering its average global equilibrium temperature. Claiming that said reduction in radiance comes with a corresponding increase in temperature, has radiance and temperature moving in different directions, in direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

Your science denial is dismissed.

Again, if the atmosphere was more effective at keeping energy from dispersing into space, the area within the atmosphere would have higher temps.

Rejected. Science denial.

 

[IBDaMann]

Dr. Kate Calvin
[missing job description]

Elizabeth MacDonald
[missing job description]

Alicia Joseph
[missing job description]

Reem Hannun
[missing job description]

Josh Willis
[missing job description]

Benjamin Hamlington
[missing job description]

Qing Liang
[missing job description]

Sabrina Delgado Arias
[missing job description]

Dalia Kirschbaum
[missing job description]

You didn't include a single job description, much less all of them. Job titles are meaningless when the word "scientist" is used in the title of a job that does not involve science in any way, or for a manager who simply oversees contracts that provide science support from commercial firms.

I'll give you a do-over.

 

[IBDaMann]

I'm not trying to do anything. I'm not decreasing radiance.

Booooolsch't. You are explicitly stating a reduction in radiance, i.e energy escaping earth into space.

The sun's energy enters the atmosphere in a different format than it leaves.

You like to alternate between A) acknowledging that Earth's thermal radiation differs from the solar radiation absorbed by Earth, and B) insisting that all IR is the same.

Anyway, as long as you recognize that the quantity of energy escaping equals the quantity absorbed (i.e equilibrium) then that's all that matters under the 1st LoT. Energy changing form specifically does not matter.

If CO2 works in the way it's believed,

... which is to create energy out of nothing, in violation of the 1st LoT ...

which is why it prevents night temperatures from being hundreds of degrees below zero NOW, then temperatures would rise as the percentage in the atmosphere increased.

Explain the atmosphereless daytime side of the moon being much hotter than the atmosphered daytime side of the earth.

 

[AProudLefty]

NASA having no scientists is one of the funniest thing I have ever heard.

 

[ZenMode]

Are you trying to redefine (read: hijack) the word "greenhouse" to mean "has temperature different from somewhere else"?

This appears really stupid on its face. You should be able to discuss temperature differences without the word "greenhouse" like everyone else.


Now we return to your denial of the daytime side of the moon. The International Space Station (ISS) reaches temperatures that far exceed any temperatures within the earth's atmosphere.

The moon has a daytime side. There is an ISS. Both render your argument summarily dismissed.


This is a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. Nothing can reduce Earth's radiance (i.e. keep energy from leaving) except lowering its average global equilibrium temperature. Claiming that said reduction in radiance comes with a corresponding increase in temperature, has radiance and temperature moving in different directions, in direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

Your science denial is dismissed.


Rejected. Science denial.

Now you're just playing dumb.

For the 5th + time, the greenhouse effect, while it doesn't apply in this case, because there is no plexiglass dome enclosing the earth, shows that temperatures can increase within a specific area with no change in energy.

"This is a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. Nothing can reduce Earth's radiance (i.e. keep energy from leaving)"

Nobody is saying it is. The Earth's radiance is what it is. Why, despite energy radiating from the earth, do we not have huge drops in temperature that we would have if there were no atmosphere? In other words, what does atmosphere do with the energy radiating from the Earth?

 

[ZenMode]

Booooolsch't. You are explicitly stating a reduction in radiance, i.e energy escaping earth into space.

Energy will leave the Earth's surface. You can visually see it on a hot, asphalt road. In no way am I claiming energy won't leave the Earth's surface.

I'm asking you why, despite energy radiating from the earth, do we not have huge drops in temperature that we would have if there were no atmosphere? In other words, what does atmosphere do with the energy radiating from the Earth?

 

[ZenMode]

You didn't include a single job description, much less all of them. Job titles are meaningless when the word "scientist" is used in the title of a job that does not involve science in any way, or for a manager who simply oversees contracts that provide science support from commercial firms.

I'll give you a do-over.

Nope. Doesn't matter what I provide and it's not relevant to the discussion. It's just more misdirect by you.

 

[IBDaMann]

Now you're just playing dumb.

The problem is your scientific illiteracy, your refusal to unambiguously define your terms, your inability to express a valid point, and your need to blame others for your shortcomings.

For the 5th + time, the greenhouse effect, while it doesn't apply in this case

...then move on directly to what applies. State your final, overarching point. I'll let you know if there are any terms you need to better define or items that require greater clarification.

, because there is no plexiglass dome enclosing the earth, shows that temperatures can increase within a specific area with no change in energy.

You have not shown this. You're like Biden, i.e. you don't know what you are babbling.

"This is a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. Nothing can reduce Earth's radiance (i.e. keep energy from leaving)"

... except for reducing it's average global equilibrium temperature.

Nobody is saying it is.

You are insisting that greenhouse gas does this.

The Earth's radiance is what it is. Why, despite energy radiating from the earth, do we not have huge drops in temperature

There is no drop in the average global equilibrium temperature.

Your post said nothing of any value.

 

[ZenMode]

There is no drop in the average global equilibrium temperature.

Your post said nothing of any value.

Stop avoiding the question....

"This is a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. Nothing can reduce Earth's radiance (i.e. keep energy from leaving)"

Nobody is saying it is. The Earth's radiance is what it is.

Why, despite energy radiating from the earth, do we not have huge drops in temperature that we would have if there were no atmosphere? In other words, what does atmosphere do with the energy radiating from the Earth?

 

[Kafka]

Yeah, I'm calling bullshit on this one. Which law of thermodynamics discusses efficiency of heat with altitude?

Here's the best summary of this I could find: "So how does changing the concentration of a Greenhouse gas change how much heat escapes from the upper atmosphere? As we climb higher in the atmosphere the air gets thinner. There is less of all gases, including the greenhouse gases. Eventually the air becomes thin enough that any heat radiated by the air can escape all the way to Space. How much heat escapes to space from this altitude then depends on how cold the air is at that height. The colder the air, the less heat it radiates." (SOURCE)

First it was the CO2 blanket bullshit, then came the majick bouncing photon theory with heat flowing backwards, now we have the "traffic jam" theory. You're fullashit!

Ummm, what do you think happens with IR photons that radiate from the warmed surface of the planet back into the atmosphere. Just take a stab. What happens to them?