Climate change is pure bullshit!!

It's good to know you think that light (electromagnetic radiation) has nothing to do with heat in direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Light is not heat. That does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You have already tried to modify the Stefan-Boltzmann several times an still call it the 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.
So where is the additional energy coming from?

* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
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.
What 'increase in absorbed radiation'???!?
 
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 cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You continue to promote something that violates the laws of physcis.
You cannot blame YOUR problem on me or anybody else.
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.
You don't get to speak for the dead, Poorboy.
 
Heat isn't transferred. You still haven't learned what "heat" is.

Screenshot-20240710-123504-2.jpg


Idiot.

This is just one of too many reasons to list, why nobody takes you or your science bloviation seriously.

https://letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/backgrounders/introduction-heat-transfer

Dumbass. :palm:
 
OMFG. How stupid are you. There does not need to be additional energy coming from the sun.
Yes there does.
There only needs to be a change in radiation from the earth.
You cannot trap light.
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.
So...how are you measuring the temperature of the Earth? What about asphalt in the shade of a tree or building?

BTW, at night, they are all the same temperature.
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?
Someday you'll learn what emissivity is.
According to you this difference in temperature would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Never said any such thing.
You don't seem to understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
That is YOUR problem. You cannot blame YOUR problem on me or anybody else.
How is heat transferred?
Heat is never transferred. Heat is not contained in anything. Learn what 'heat' means.
If a metal ball heated to 300 degrees is placed in an oven where the air temperature is 150 degrees
Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
it will not cool at the same rate as the same metal ball placed in a refrigerator at 32 degrees.
You want to try to learn Fourier's law now?
That is explained by the 2nd law. That tells you why the earth's surface will be warmer if the atmosphere is warmer.
No. It's explained by Fourier's law.
The atmosphere is not some magic blanket.
You are trying to make it just that.
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.
And you are trying to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Not possible, Poorboy.
If you decrease the thermal conductivity of the atmosphere,
You can't.
you increase the temperature of the earth.
Nope. You cannot create energy from nothing.
If you increase the temperature of the atmosphere, you increase the time needed to cool the surface.
The atmosphere is colder than the surface. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
Here is another thing you are ignoring - the specific heat of CO2 compared to the specific heat of Nitrogen.
Conductive heat is not radiant heat. The Sun does not heat the Earth using conductive heat.
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)
Only for conductive heat. The Sun does not heat the Earth by conductive heat. False equivalence fallacy.
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.
The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured.
You don't know how much of that light is reflected or refracted away again, or how much passes through material without being absorbed.
 
Screenshot-20240710-123504-2.jpg


Idiot.

This is just one of too many reasons to list, why nobody takes you or your science bloviation seriously.

https://letstalkscience.ca/educational-resources/backgrounders/introduction-heat-transfer

Dumbass. :palm:
Science is not a website. False authority fallacy. This diagram is wrong.
Heat is never transferred. It is not contained in anything. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

The Sun does not heat the Earth by conduction.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
Heat is not energy.
 
Fine, but there needs to be additional energy. You are claiming an increase in temperature. Account for that additional energy.



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


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."
I see you failed to address the issue of specific heat of CO2 which allows for a higher temperature with no increase in energy.

It must be fun living in a world where furnaces and refrigerators don't work since heat can't be transferred.

I said nothing about the earth's radiance is changing. However, we are left with the fact that it is changing since the lower atmosphere is warming and the upper atmosphere is cooling. That little thing called Stefan-Boltzmann that requires that you look at the radiation in all directions. We are back to you not understanding how conduction, convection and radiation work when you proceed to your next silly argument that Stefan-Boltzmann only applies to the outer atmosphere.
 
Light is not heat. That does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You have already tried to modify the Stefan-Boltzmann several times an still call it the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

So where is the additional energy coming from?

* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

What 'increase in absorbed radiation'???!?
Says the long-winded troll who denies that there is a science of paleoclimatology.

Haw, haw............................................haw.
 
Yes there does.

You cannot trap light.

So...how are you measuring the temperature of the Earth? What about asphalt in the shade of a tree or building?

BTW, at night, they are all the same temperature.

Someday you'll learn what emissivity is.

Never said any such thing.

That is YOUR problem. You cannot blame YOUR problem on me or anybody else.

Heat is never transferred. Heat is not contained in anything. Learn what 'heat' means.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

You want to try to learn Fourier's law now?

No. It's explained by Fourier's law.

You are trying to make it just that.

And you are trying to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Not possible, Poorboy.

You can't.

Nope. You cannot create energy from nothing.

The atmosphere is colder than the surface. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

Conductive heat is not radiant heat. The Sun does not heat the Earth using conductive heat.

Only for conductive heat. The Sun does not heat the Earth by conductive heat. False equivalence fallacy.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured.
You don't know how much of that light is reflected or refracted away again, or how much passes through material without being absorbed.
Says the extremely long-winded troll who claims that Sweden is not to the east of the UK


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



Treat him accordingly.
 
Yes there does.
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.
You cannot trap light.
This one is pretty funny since you have just violated Stefan-Boltzmann law which says all black bodies radiate electromagnetic radiation. The earth as a grey body must also radiate electromagnetic radiation. To fail to radiate would be a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Stefan-Boltzmann law also says that if the temperature of the earth changes then the radiation must also change. But here you are claiming the earth doesn't radiate because light can't be trapped. Thanks for showing everyone how little you really know about anything.

So...how are you measuring the temperature of the Earth? What about asphalt in the shade of a tree or building?
It seems you don't understand how the energy in radiation works. Do you understand what a shadow is? I'll bet not since your head is a black hole that repels any knowledge.

BTW, at night, they are all the same temperature.
I guess you have never been out at dusk. They are not all the same temperature the minute the sun goes down. It seems you want to violate Fourier's law.


Someday you'll learn what emissivity is.
And you will never learn what an emissivity coefficient is because of that black hole in your head repelling all knowledge.
Never said any such thing.

That is YOUR problem. You cannot blame YOUR problem on me or anybody else.

Heat is never transferred. Heat is not contained in anything. Learn what 'heat' means.
I see you live in the world where furnaces and refrigerators don't function.
If a metal ball heated to 300 degrees is placed in an oven where the air temperature is 150 degrees
Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
I am curious how this is a paradox. Clearly you have never cooked anything since it is possible to cook something in a pan on the stove and get it to 300 degrees and then transfer the pan to an oven at 150 to keep it warm for a period of time.

You want to try to learn Fourier's law now?

No. It's explained by Fourier's law.
So your argument is that the 2nd law has nothing to do with the transfer of thermal energy from a higher state region to a lower state region? Thanks for showing you don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Fourier's law helps to define how the entropy happens but it is still entropy even if Fourier's law can be applied.

You are trying to make it just that.

And you are trying to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Not possible, Poorboy.

You can't.

Nope. You cannot create energy from nothing.
And here you are denying that the earth gets 1380 joules per meter squared per second from the sun.
The atmosphere is colder than the surface. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
Look at you. Bringing up Fourier's law and then completely ignoring it. The rate of transfer is proportional to the negative temperature gradient. A warmer atmosphere means the earth's surface will not cool as quickly overnight.

Conductive heat is not radiant heat. The Sun does not heat the Earth using conductive heat.
Lovely strawman. I never said that the sun uses conductive heat to heat the earth. But it seems you are simply ignoring Stefan-Boltzmann yet again which says that ALL objects radiate. The type of thermal transfer doesn't change the joules required to raise the temperature of an element. It only affects how efficient that transfer might be. (Stefan-Boltzmann again.)
Only for conductive heat. The Sun does not heat the Earth by conductive heat. False equivalence fallacy.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured.
You don't know how much of that light is reflected or refracted away again, or how much passes through material without being absorbed.
Your ignorance doesn't trump what science can calculate.
 
OMFG. How stupid are you.
Lashing out a bit, are we? But then again, liberals ARE typically much angrier people than conservatives. Have fun with your little meltdown. Let me know when you've regained your composure.
There does not need to be additional energy coming from the sun.
Correct, but there DOES need to be additional energy coming from SOMEWHERE in order to increase Earth's temperature. Where is that additional energy coming from?
There only needs to be a change in radiation from the earth.
Who says that Earth's radiation is changing? Where can I see for myself the valid dataset that supports this notion?
Let's do a simple example that even you can probably understand.
Oh Lordie, here we go again.......
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.
Okay.
Why are they not all the same temperature since they are all receiving the exact same amount of energy?
Because they are each unique parts within a whole (the Earth). It doesn't matter how you wish to redistribute the sun's energy within the whole; it's still the same amount of energy in total. This is what IBDaMann has been so eloquently trying to explain to you. I've done it in the past using the example of "baskets of apples".

Basket A (black asphalt driveway) has 5 apples. Basket B (gray concrete driveway) has 3 apples. Basket C (green lawn) has 2 apples. Altogether, a total of 10 apples. Feel free to redistribute those apples within those baskets any way you wish. After doing that to your heart's content, you will still only have 10 apples in total.

You cannot create additional energy via the redistribution of existing energy.
According to you this difference in temperature would violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
I have never asserted any such thing. Quit being dishonest.
You don't seem to understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics. How is heat transferred?
This is YOUR issue, dude, not mine. Heat is NOT transferred. You still haven't learned what heat is.
The atmosphere is not some magic blanket. It is subject to the laws of physics.
Yet, you're still trying to make it into one......
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.
Yet, you're still trying to heat a WARMER surface using a COLDER gas.
If you decrease the thermal conductivity of the atmosphere, you increase the temperature of the earth.
Continued denial of the 1st LoT. You cannot create energy from nothing.
If you increase the temperature of the atmosphere, you increase the time needed to cool the surface.
??????? Ummmmmm, the atmosphere is COLDER than the surface is..........
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)
Irrelevant. Conductive heat is not radiant heat.
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.
A made-up number. Meh. Earth's emissivity is an unknown value. Earth's temperature is an unknown value. You cannot redistribute thermal energy within Earth in order to increase Earth's temperature.
 
Light is not heat. That does not violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You have already tried to modify the Stefan-Boltzmann several times an still call it the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
You seem to be completely unfamiliar with radiant heat or the fact that light is energy that can be transformed to other forms of energy.


So where is the additional energy coming from?
It's called the sun. You might want to go outside during the day some time and look up at the sky. We get energy from the sun every day. The earth as a whole is always getting energy from the sun. If the earth no longer radiates the same energy it is getting from the sun then the earth has to warm or it would violate the 1st law of thermodynamics.

* You cannot trap light.
* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
Buzzword fallacy
What 'increase in absorbed radiation'???!?
It seems you don't know anything about spectroscopy after all. CO2 doesn't absorb the same wavelengths as O2 does. If you increase the amount of CO2 in a gas mixture, you change which wavelengths are absorbed. It's simple physics.
 
Idiot.

Dumbass.
I never said you couldn't find equally ignorant 7th-graders on the internet. Heck, we've got you here on JPP. Citing other erroneous information from the internet doesn't make you correct; it reveals you for not being able to filter the correct from the incorrect, and that you are one of those scientifically illiterate morons who believes that everything he reads on the internet is TRUE.

People, such as myself, mock the shit out of people like you, i.e. people who naturally assume that everything on the internet must be true and correct. If you're embarrassed, that's OK. You should be.

Learn what "heat" is. Learn what science is.

On second thought, remain stupid. You are proving to be a lot of fun.
 
I never said you couldn't find equally ignorant 7th-graders on the internet. Heck, we've got you here on JPP. Citing other erroneous information from the internet doesn't make you correct; it reveals you for not being able to filter the correct from the incorrect, and that you are one of those scientifically illiterate morons who believes that everything he reads on the internet is TRUE.

People, such as myself, mock the shit out of people like you, i.e. people who naturally assume that everything on the internet must be true and correct. If you're embarrassed, that's OK. You should be.

Learn what "heat" is. Learn what science is.

On second thought, remain stupid. You are proving to be a lot of fun.

:rofl2: :lolup:

Your sad, pathetic attempt to save face after I smacked it right off your head then took a piss on it, is laughable.
 
Lashing out a bit, are we? But then again, liberals ARE typically much angrier people than conservatives. Have fun with your little meltdown. Let me know when you've regained your composure.

Correct, but there DOES need to be additional energy coming from SOMEWHERE in order to increase Earth's temperature. Where is that additional energy coming from?

Who says that Earth's radiation is changing? Where can I see for myself the valid dataset that supports this notion?

Oh Lordie, here we go again.......

Okay.

Because they are each unique parts within a whole (the Earth). It doesn't matter how you wish to redistribute the sun's energy within the whole; it's still the same amount of energy in total. This is what IBDaMann has been so eloquently trying to explain to you. I've done it in the past using the example of "baskets of apples".

Basket A (black asphalt driveway) has 5 apples. Basket B (gray concrete driveway) has 3 apples. Basket C (green lawn) has 2 apples. Altogether, a total of 10 apples. Feel free to redistribute those apples within those baskets any way you wish. After doing that to your heart's content, you will still only have 10 apples in total.

You cannot create additional energy via the redistribution of existing energy.

I have never asserted any such thing. Quit being dishonest.

This is YOUR issue, dude, not mine. Heat is NOT transferred. You still haven't learned what heat is.

Yet, you're still trying to make it into one......

Yet, you're still trying to heat a WARMER surface using a COLDER gas.

Continued denial of the 1st LoT. You cannot create energy from nothing.

??????? Ummmmmm, the atmosphere is COLDER than the surface is..........

Irrelevant. Conductive heat is not radiant heat.

A made-up number. Meh. Earth's emissivity is an unknown value. Earth's temperature is an unknown value. You cannot redistribute thermal energy within Earth in order to increase Earth's temperature.
Do you know what the sun is? Do you know that we get energy from the sun every day? Until you understand that, there isn't much to discuss because you are just in denial about something man has been aware of for millennia.

We don't need to increase the amount of energy we get from the sun to increase temperature. We simply can decrease the amount of energy that is lost.



In a home on a winter's day, it is colder outside than inside. If we get a certain amount of energy from our furnace and the home is still not keeping up with energy loss, we can simply add double paned windows to change how quickly we lose heat. The temperature of the window is still colder than the room but the room will be warmer because we have changed the rate of how quickly heat is lost. There is no need to add energy at a faster rate than you were before. The reverse is also true. We can change how quickly a home heats up through the windows in summer by using polarized glass to cut out UV that is entering. Insulation is not the only way to reduce energy loss since there are 3 ways for heat to transfer. You can reduce transfer by convection by reducing air movement. You can reduce transfer by radiation by reducing the radiated energy or increasing the temperature of the heat sink.

There are a couple of things you are ignoring.
1. Specific heat means that some molecules require fewer joules to raise 1 degree than others. When we had CO2 to the atmosphere it takes less energy to increase the temperature of the atmosphere. That means the same energy will result in a higher temperature.
An increase in atmospheric temperature results in an increase in land and ocean temperatures since heat transfer is proportional to the reverse of the temperature difference. This happens with all 3 types of heat transfer.
2. When a molecule absorbs electromagnetic energy its thermal energy increases. Different molecules absorb at different wavelengths. When we add more CO2 to the atmosphere, wavelengths that would have been lost to space are now absorbed by CO2 molecules which heats them up. Those molecules in turn heat up the rest of the atmosphere.


Saying the only way something that is constantly receiving energy from an outside source will heat up is if you add more energy is nonsense. The energy is already there. The only thing that needs to change is retaining more energy.
 
I never said you couldn't find equally ignorant 7th-graders on the internet. Heck, we've got you here on JPP. Citing other erroneous information from the internet doesn't make you correct; it reveals you for not being able to filter the correct from the incorrect, and that you are one of those scientifically illiterate morons who believes that everything he reads on the internet is TRUE.

People, such as myself, mock the shit out of people like you, i.e. people who naturally assume that everything on the internet must be true and correct. If you're embarrassed, that's OK. You should be.

Learn what "heat" is. Learn what science is.

On second thought, remain stupid. You are proving to be a lot of fun.
There you go. Tipping your king as usual.
 
I see you failed to address the issue of specific heat of CO2 which allows for a higher temperature with no increase in energy.
I see you just pivoted to get out of everything I wrote.

Specific heat is totally immaterial and does not save you in your egregious physics violations.

At which statement are you starting?



It must be fun living in a world where furnaces and refrigerators don't work since heat can't be transferred.
Your statement shows that you have no idea what "heat" is.

I said nothing about the earth's radiance is changing.
You were going there. I just openend the door for you, as a courtesy.

However, we are left with the fact that it is changing
What did I say.

It's not a "fact." You need to explain why any rational adult should believe this.

since the lower atmosphere is warming and the upper atmosphere is cooling.
There's no reason any rational adult would have to believe either that the atmosphere is egregiously violating the 2nd LoT in that way, or that you (or any human for that matter) has ever know the average global equilibrium temperature of the earth.

That little thing called Stefan-Boltzmann that requires that you look at the radiation in all directions.
Nonsequitur. Bizarre, in fact.

We are back to you not understanding how conduction, convection and radiation work when you proceed to your next silly argument that Stefan-Boltzmann only applies to the outer atmosphere.
You are supposed to be explaining your apparently bogus position, not stalling for time by assigning bogus positions to me.
 
Back
Top