Climate change is pure bullshit!!

[serendipity]

NASA did not dictate the specs. They provided a few vague goals.
NASA doesn't build or design anything.
The space program started BEFORE NASA even existed.

NASA that went to the Moon is not the NASA of today either. Today, NASA is just another religious front for the Church of Global Warming.

NASA makes up numbers claiming them to be the 'temperature of the Earth'.
NASA ignores the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, just like you do.
NASA makes up numbers claiming them to be the atmospheric content of CO2'.

NONE of this has anything to do with space travel and is more to do with just echoing the IPCC bullshit.

Science is not a government agency.

0

 

[IBDaMann]

Let's explain this in simple terms.

Nope. Instead, explain it correctly. Use the correct terms to do so, even if they might be complex in nature.

Electromagnetic radiation is energy.

This depends on whether the context is the energy or the power. You must specify if your expression is in a natural language, e.g. English.

You have not specified. Please do.

Heat transfer occurs with radiation.

Nope. Learn what "heat" is. You have had over a year to do so, but have not. Shall I assume that you are simply not intelligent enough to grasp the concept?

The first law of thermodynamics says that energy can not be created or destroyed but can be transferred.

Too funny. Nope. The 1st LoT states that while never being created or destroyed, energy may change form.

By changing the composition of the atmosphere we know we can change the energy that is absorbed by that atmosphere when electromagnetic radiation passes through it.

There's that Marxist "we" again, implying that there is a "we" that is more than just you individually for whom you nonetheless speak. In this case, I notice that this "we" for whom you speak ascribes superhero status to humanity and the magical ability to change the energy that is absorbed by the atmosphere! Wow! How do I buy stock in this "we"? We the People should elect this "we" President!

I also thought you were going to keep it simple.

This is clear because of spectroscopy

Nope. Spectroscopy does not equate to greenhouse effect. You need to show that redistributing thermal energy in the atmosphere somehow creates more of it ... in violation of the 1st LoT. So far, you have set up this magical superhero "we" who can do so with magical superpowers. If you'd like, you can just jump to that part.

and also because of Stefan-Bolzmann law which says that different materials have different emissivity coefficients.

Incorrect. Learn Stefan-Boltzmann.

Wait, better yet, learn how to derive Stefan-Boltzmann...then look back on the stupid things that you've claimed about it and have a good hearty laugh as I have. You, however, might want to throw back a couple shots of Jack first.

The warming of the atmosphere does not violate the first law of thermodynamics.

Your natural language, i.e.English, expression here is ambiguous and you need to be unambiguous. Either express this in math or unambiguously define "warming".

Any claim that the gas can't warm

Define "warm" unambiguously. Use math if you must..

That was just the opening of your post and it quickly became the most convoluted, fukked-up "keep it simple" I have seen this summer. Please fix and repost.

 

[IBDaMann]

These are ' Into the Nightsoil's statements '

"Sweden is not to the east of the UK "
" There is no such science as paleoclimatology "

Dumbass or troll ?
Both.

Will you stop spamming the board if I ask nicely?

 

[IBDaMann]

Thanks for proving you don't know what you are talking about since your next post confirms that different molecules have different radiation wavelen

Into the Night is correct and you are not. Stefan-Boltzmann has neither a wavelength parameter nor a material composition parameter. You really should ask Into the Night to teach you the basics of Stefan-Boltzmann.

You just proved that a change in the composition of the atmosphere can create an increase in temperature

Nope. Into the Night has shown that altering atmospheric composition can change the distribution of thermal energy.

You are still on tap to show that altering the distribution of thermal energy somehow creates more of it, in violation of the 1st LoT, resulting in your claimed temperature increase.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Light is not heat.

So?

I think what you are looking for is the word 'converted'.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not talk about conversion of light to thermal energy, Poorboy. You are denying that theory of science again.

Assuming the same sun output, where is the additional energy coming from?

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

There is no 'materials' factor in the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and it doesn't discuss absorption of light.

There is no frequency term in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not discuss absorption of light.

You just denied the 1st law of thermodynamics again and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are denying theories of science.

The Earth is a closed system. The Sun-Earth-space system is another closed system. You cannot compare two different systems as if they were the same system. False equivalence fallacy.

You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics now. No gas or vapor allows entropy to decrease...ever. You are also denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law by saying the Earth does not radiate light.

It's good to know you think that light (electromagnetic radiation) has nothing to do with heat in direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann law.

The energy from the sun can be the same and the atmosphere can heat up if it absorbs more electromagnetic radiation since energy is energy.
Saying the gas can't heat up is what violates the 1st law since you are saying the increase in absorbed radiation doesn't result in increase in temperature.

 

[moon]

Will you stop spamming the board if I ask nicely?

Singing - 'I will if you will so will I '
......along with Into the Nightsoil and his dumbass socks.


Haw, haw....................................haw.

Meanwhile, some non-spam factualities;

These are ' Into the Nightsoil's statements '

"Sweden is not to the east of the UK "
" There is no such science as paleoclimatology "

Dumbass or troll ?
Both.

 

[moon]

Hey- ' Into the Night soil '- repeat your statement that ' There is no such science as paleoclimatology '

Or retract it.
Then affirm Sweden's position

Haw, haw..........................................haw.

 

[moon]

Into the Night is correct and you are not. Stefan-Boltzmann has neither a wavelength parameter nor a material composition parameter. You really should ask Into the Night to teach you the basics of Stefan-Boltzmann.

You mean the moron that doesn't know where Sweden is ? You are one hopeful sock


Haw, haw......................................haw.

 

[serendipity]

I see you are unable to answer a simple question.

E = ε’σT4
What is ε' in the Stefan Boltzmann equation?
Is the ε’ for CO2 the same as the ε’ for O2?


Hint - "RQAA" will prove you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

I've been over the same ground with him many times, it's a futile exercise.

 

[gfm7175]

You're never going to say anything remotely intelligent

I already did.

I already explained to you how you are wrong about private contractors needing the "guidance" of Alphabet Soup agencies in order to perform the work that they already regularly perform without said agencies. It was at that very moment, especially because I happened to openly mock you while I explained this truth to you, that you officially tipped your king.

or interesting either.

"Interesting" is a subjective term.

 

[gfm7175]

@gfm7175 - someone is projecting. If you had to guess about Nomad's appearance, social standing and past experience with copiers, on what would you place your money?

I'd bet that he's a complete fat-ass loser who has had more than one nasty run-in with an office copier at his part-time job, of which is forced by law to pay him more than what he deserves to make.

 

[IBDaMann]

I'd bet that he's a complete fat-ass loser who has had more than one nasty run-in with an office copier at his part-time job, of which is forced by law to pay him more than what he deserves to make.

... more than what he otherwise should be making, but it might already be too late.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Into the Night is correct and you are not. Stefan-Boltzmann has neither a wavelength parameter nor a material composition parameter. You really should ask Into the Night to teach you the basics of Stefan-Boltzmann.


Nope. Into the Night has shown that altering atmospheric composition can change the distribution of thermal energy.

You are still on tap to show that altering the distribution of thermal energy somehow creates more of it, in violation of the 1st LoT, resulting in your claimed temperature increase.

This isn't about changing the distribution of thermal energy. It is about energy transfer from radiation. If the atmospheric composition changes so a wavelength that used to pass through and radiate into space now starts to be absorbed by the atmosphere the 1st law says the atmosphere must heat up.
You continue to promote something that violates the laws of physcis.

You might want to tell Planck that he can't use wavelengths when determining the radiation from a black body. I'm sure he will be surprised by your intimate knowledge of physics.

 

[gfm7175]

The result is that the warming of the earth doesn't violate either the first law of thermodynamics

Yes, it does. Where is the ADDITONAL energy coming from that is required to increase Earth's temperature?

of Stefan-Boltzmann law.

It violates the SB Law as well. You cannot decrease Earth's radiance (via the "trapped heat" position) while simultaneously increasing Earth's temperature. That's not how a mathematical equation works.

Any claim that they do violate them is not supported by science.

The exact opposite is true, actually. Claims of such violations are rooted firmly within the very science that you outright deny in favor of your religious belief.

Global warming can happen because the earth is an open system

WRONG, but I'm not going to get hung up on this.

that gets energy from the sun.

Yes, Earth is getting its energy from the sun, which results in Earth being a certain temperature, but where is the ADDITIONAL energy coming from that is required to increase Earth's temperature?

Uh oh... Your religion is now in opposition to science, but you must keep up the pretense that your religion somehow IS science, so this is where you backpedal from your 'Argument 2a' with the obligatory "but... but no one is claiming that energy is created out of nothing" statement while seamlessly pivoting into 'Argument 2b' by squawking at me about how greenhouse gas is some magick blanket that "traps heat". Go ahead... SAY IT!

To claim that gas can't warm

WHOA there bucko!! How great thou dishonesty!!!! FINISH THE SENTENCE...... "gas"..... what KIND of gas?? Oh, that's right, a COLDER gas. Now, let's continue... "a COLDER gas can't warm"... warm WHAT, exactly? Oh, that's right, a HOTTER body. Now, let's put the whole thought together... a COLDER gas cannot warm a HOTTER body. 2nd LoT...???

denies the first law of thermodynamics

No... To claim that the Earth can spontaneously increase in temperature without any additional energy is what denies the first law of thermodynamics... That's where YOU'RE at right now........

since the earth is an open system

Already addressed above.

with a continuous energy source providing energy to the earth.

Right, but where is the ADDITIONAL energy coming from in order to increase Earth's temperature?

You're hereby stating that the "continuous energy source" provides X amount of energy to the Earth, resulting in Earth being Y temperature. So how can the Y value suddenly increase even though the X value has remained unchanged? THAT'S where you're at right now........

 

[gfm7175]

Will you stop spamming the board if I ask nicely?

Unfortunately not. That's all that moon knows how to do.

Haw, haw......................................haw. ???

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Yes, it does. Where is the ADDITONAL energy coming from that is required to increase Earth's temperature?

It violates the SB Law as well. You cannot decrease Earth's radiance (via the "trapped heat" position) while simultaneously increasing Earth's temperature. That's not how a mathematical equation works.

The exact opposite is true, actually. Claims of such violations are rooted firmly within the very science that you outright deny in favor of your religious belief.

WRONG, but I'm not going to get hung up on this.

Yes, Earth is getting its energy from the sun, which results in Earth being a certain temperature, but where is the ADDITIONAL energy coming from that is required to increase Earth's temperature?

Uh oh... Your religion is now in opposition to science, but you must keep up the pretense that your religion somehow IS science, so this is where you backpedal from your 'Argument 2a' with the obligatory "but... but no one is claiming that energy is created out of nothing" statement while seamlessly pivoting into 'Argument 2b' by squawking at me about how greenhouse gas is some magick blanket that "traps heat". Go ahead... SAY IT!

WHOA there bucko!! How great thou dishonesty!!!! FINISH THE SENTENCE...... "gas"..... what KIND of gas?? Oh, that's right, a COLDER gas. Now, let's continue... "a COLDER gas can't warm"... warm WHAT, exactly? Oh, that's right, a HOTTER body. Now, let's put the whole thought together... a COLDER gas cannot warm a HOTTER body. 2nd LoT...???

No... To claim that the Earth can spontaneously increase in temperature without any additional energy is what denies the first law of thermodynamics... That's where YOU'RE at right now........

Already addressed above.

Right, but where is the ADDITIONAL energy coming from in order to increase Earth's temperature?

You're hereby stating that the "continuous energy source" provides X amount of energy to the Earth, resulting in Earth being Y temperature. So how can the Y value suddenly increase even though the X value has remained unchanged? THAT'S where you're at right now........

OMFG. How stupid are you. There does not need to be additional energy coming from the sun. There only needs to be a change in radiation from the earth.

Let's do a simple example that even you can probably understand. On a sunny day, a black asphalt driveway is not the same temperature as a grey concrete driveway and certainly not the same temperature as a green lawn. They are all receiving the same energy from the sun. Why are they not all the same temperature since they are all receiving the exact same amount of energy? According to you this difference in temperature would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You don't seem to understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. How is heat transferred? If a metal ball heated to 300 degrees is placed in an oven where the air temperature is 150 degrees it will not cool at the same rate as the same metal ball placed in a refrigerator at 32 degrees. That is explained by the 2nd law. That tells you why the earth's surface will be warmer if the atmosphere is warmer.

The atmosphere is not some magic blanket. It is subject to the laws of physics. The transfer of heat from a warmer area to a cooler area is directly affected by the difference in temperature and how the transfer can occur. If you decrease the thermal conductivity of the atmosphere, you increase the temperature of the earth. If you increase the temperature of the atmosphere, you increase the time needed to cool the surface.

Here is another thing you are ignoring - the specific heat of CO2 compared to the specific heat of Nitrogen.
It takes .177 kcal to raise the temperature of 1 kg of Nitrogen by 1 degree (739 joules)
It only takes .152 kcal to raise the temperature of 1 kg of Carbon Dioxide by 1 degree (638 joules)
As we increase the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, the same energy will result in a higher temperature just because of simple physics.
The earth receives approximately 1380 joules per meter per second from the sun.

 

[IBDaMann]

This isn't about changing the distribution of thermal energy.

That is exactly what it is, and you will never get a "temperature increase" out of it ... without violating physics, of course.

It is about energy transfer from radiation.

That's one of the many components comprising the distribution of thermal energy.

If you would prefer to not waste time, start with your conclusion, i.e. temperature increases, and work backwards.

You claim an increase in Earth's average global equilibrium temperature.
This implies Earth has a greater amount of thermal energy.
How do you account for this additional energy? Earth is in equilibrium so no additional power is coming from the sun.

I'll tell you how you are going to attempt to explain the additional thermal energy: The Semantic Shuffle

1. You will first make the standard, obligatory opening claim that greenhouse gas somehow traps more heat in a grand, virtue-signaling illumination to JPP warmizombies that you have no idea what "heat" means.
2. Once I remind you that heat cannot be trapped, and you try desperately to argue that "heat" is something that it isn't, you will abandon this doctrine for the moment and shift to claiming that what you meant to say was that greenhouse gas "reradiates" long-wave infrared, and causes a temperature increase, nevermind that this conclusion does not follow from "reradiating" long-wave infrared.
3. Once I remind you that asserting a spontaneous temperature increase is asserting the creation of thermal energy out of nothing, which violates the 1st LoT, you will immediately assert that "no one is claiming" energy is being created out of nothing, i.e. what you had just claimed, but that what you meant to say is that what you were saying previously about greenhouse gas trapping heat is that it prevents some of Earth's thermal radiation from decreasing into space, which increases Earth's temperature.
4. Once I remind you that this is an egregious violation of Stefan-Boltzmann, which specifies that Radiance and Temperature always move in the same direction, which means that if you tell me that Earth's Radiance has decreased then you have told me that Earth's Temperature has decreased, not increased, you will immediately assert that "no one is claiming" that Radiance and Temperature are moving in different directions, i.e. what you had just claimed, but that I need to understand what is going on in the atmosphere, i.e. where the Global Warming is taking place, that greenhouse gas is "reradiating" roughly half of all absorbed energy back down to the surface.
5. Once I remind you that this is an egregious violation of the 2nd LoT, because the cooler atmosphere can never heat the warmer earth's surface, and that you have cycled through my entire signature, you will assure me that "no one is claiming" that "reradiation" back down to earth is warming the surface, i.e. what you had just claimed, but that the absorption of the infrared by the atmospheric greenhouse gas is increasing the temperature of the atmosphere beyond what it otherwise should be. Jump to statement 3 and repeat ad infinitum.

So, anytime you are ready, we can get started. Please begin at statement #1

If the atmospheric composition changes so a wavelength that used to pass through and radiate into space now starts to be absorbed by the atmosphere the 1st law says the atmosphere must heat up.

This starts the process at Statement #3.

You might want to tell Planck that he can't use wavelengths when determining the radiation from a black body.

You have much to learn, grasshopper. Learn how to derive Stefan-Boltzmann and then let's talk.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

The science can be settled
The earth is round
We are seeing warming over the last 100 years. (No skeptic can deny this and be credible.)
Both of those things exist and no one can refute them with any science or facts. The only argument seems to be to simply say, "it isn't settled."

The exact why of the warming of the earth isn't settled to exact percentages but there is little question that can be raised as to possible causes. Burying your head in the sand by claiming, "It isn't settled." isn't science. Your problem seems to be that when scientists disagree with the skeptics and point out the problems with their arguments, you think that is trying to silence questioning. It is a simple case of pointing out they have no valid arguments supported by facts or science.

no.

the argument is that killing billiions of humans isnt the answer, and your proferred solution extends from a mass murder psychosis and not science.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

OMFG. How stupid are you. There does not need to be additional energy coming from the sun.

but there is radiation from the sun.

this fucks up your whole model.

 

[IBDaMann]

OMFG. How stupid are you. There does not need to be additional energy coming from the sun.

Fine, but there needs to be additional energy. You are claiming an increase in temperature. Account for that additional energy.

There only needs to be a change in radiation from the earth.

Apparently, you are declaring that the earth's radiance is changing. Why should any rational adult believe this?

You don't seem to understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. How is heat transferred?

Heat isn't transferred. You still haven't learned what "heat" is.

By the way, in what sense are you asserting that the Earth-sun/moon system is "open."