Climate change is pure bullshit!!

Existing energy is not additional energy, dumbass. Try again. Where is the ADDITIONAL energy coming from that is required to increase Earth's temperature?

Wow. I guess you are completely ignorant of how energy works. We get ADDITIONAL energy from the sun every second. We lose that energy every second to space as it is radiated out. We don't lose the energy the minute we receive it. The side of the earth facing the sun warms and the side not facing the sun cools.

If the earth is receiving 1380 joules per square meter and radiating 1380 joules per square meter then the temperature will remain constant.
If the earth is receiving 1380 joules per square meter and radiating 1300 joules per square meter than the temperature will rise.

The temperature can go up without any additional energy from the sun since we are already receiving ADDITIONAL energy every day. We are simply not losing as much energy as we are getting from the sun when the earth warms.

Repeat after me...

We get ADDITIONAL energy from the sun every day.
Now you can stop asking stupid questions about where the energy comes from and we can talk about how it is retained.
 
He knows this well. As such, all of the sun's energy is forthwith accounted. You need to account for the ADDITIONAL energy that causes the temperature increase you claim. You cannot point to solar energy that has already been forthwith accounted.

The floor is yours.
ROFLMAO.
Thanks for the floor. I needed it.

Care to tell us what happens if we get 1380 joules of energy and only radiate out 1300 joules of energy?
Did we need more than 1380 joules to raise the temperature?
The problem you have is that the energy is retained in the system. You know... that silly thing called the 1st law of thermodynamics which says if you don't lose the energy through radiation, it isn't destroyed.

Since you claim all the sun's energy is accounted for, it would be incumbent on you to prove that the earth is radiating the same amount of energy that it is receiving.
 
@gfm7175, it would seem that Nomad is projecting heavily the extent to which he is licking his wounds after the way I bitch-slapped him back to last Thursday. Was I really that nasty and overbearing? I didn't think I was.
Gossiping about me with your little queer girlfriend isn't going to accomplish anything to un-bitchslap your face.

The best thing you can do with that fucked up mess, is to pick what's left of it up off the ground, wash my piss off of it, sew it back together the best you can, then see if you can glue it back on to that putrified lump of shit you call your head.

And because it was probably nothing to be proud of to begin with, the fact that it's even more fucked up looking now after I slapped it off your head then stomped and pissed on it, shouldn't be that big of a deal for you.
 
I see you failed to address the issue of specific heat of CO2 which allows for a higher temperature with no increase in energy.
The Earth is not heated by conduction, Poorboy.
It must be fun living in a world where furnaces and refrigerators don't work since heat can't be transferred.
Heat cannot be transferred. Heat is not contained in anything. You still don't know what heat is.
Furnaces and refrigerators do not transfer heat.
I said nothing about the earth's radiance is changing.
Blatant lie. Don't try to deny your own posts, idiot.
However, we are left with the fact that it is changing
Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.
since the lower atmosphere is warming and the upper atmosphere is cooling.
You cannot decrease entropy. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
That little thing called Stefan-Boltzmann that requires that you look at the radiation in all directions.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
We are back to you not understanding how conduction,
The Sun does not heat the Earth by conduction.
convection
The Sun does not heat the Earth by convection.
and radiation work when you proceed to your next silly argument that Stefan-Boltzmann only applies to the outer atmosphere.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not discuss absorption. It applies everywhere, all the time. I never said it applies only to the outer atmosphere.
 
Who should we believe? You or Steven Hawking?
It doesn't matter who's name you drop.

You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has this capability. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You cannot decrease entropy for any reason...ever...anywhere. You are still ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You cannot add or change the equation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are still ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap light. Not even a black hole can trap light. Earth is not a black hole.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

Hawking had a brilliant mind with a failing body. It seems you have the opposite.

His black holes exist in space trapping all light so it can't escape. The black hole of your mind seems to be repelling all knowledge so you can't ever grasp it.
Attempted proof by 'expert'. Sorry dude, the laws of thermodynamics that you ignore hasn't been falsified by Hawking or anyone else. You just keep trying to ignore them.
 
This one is pretty funny since you have just violated Stefan-Boltzmann law which says all black bodies radiate electromagnetic radiation.
So?
The earth as a grey body must also radiate electromagnetic radiation.
So?
To fail to radiate would be a violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
I never said they fail to radiate light. You must be hallucinating again.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law also says that if the temperature of the earth changes then the radiation must also change.
Yes. They are proportional.
But here you are claiming the earth doesn't radiate because light can't be trapped.
Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox. I never said Earth doesn't radiate light, liar.
Thanks for showing everyone how little you really know about anything.
You are describing yourself again.
It seems you don't understand how the energy in radiation works.
Energy isn't work.
Do you understand what a shadow is? I'll bet not since your head is a black hole that repels any knowledge.
You are describing yourself again.
I guess you have never been out at dusk.
I have. So?
They are not all the same temperature the minute the sun goes down.
I never said they were. Stop making shit up.
It seems you want to violate Fourier's law.
You are describing yourself again.
And you will never learn what an emissivity coefficient is because of that black hole in your head repelling all knowledge.
You are describing yourself again.
I see you live in the world where furnaces and refrigerators don't function.
They do function and quite well. They do not trap heat. They do not trap light. They do not trap thermal energy. They do not reduce entropy in any way.
I am curious how this is a paradox.
I have already listed your paradoxes. RQAA. You cannot clear any paradox by denying them. You MUST choose one and only one of the conflicting arguments and utterly discard the other. That is the only way to clear 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.
I cook quite a lot. I don't put pans in the oven. I cook in them and then turn off the stove.
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?
Never made any such statement. You are lying again.
Thanks for showing you don't understand the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You are describing yourself again.
Fourier's law helps to define how the entropy happens but it is still entropy even if Fourier's law can be applied.
Fourier's law does not define how entropy happens.
And here you are denying that the earth gets 1380 joules per meter squared per second from the sun.
You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. You cannot measure it. You don't know how much of that light is reflected or refracted away and not absorbed and converted to thermal energy.
Look at you. Bringing up Fourier's law and then completely ignoring it.
I don't ignore it, liar.
The rate of transfer is proportional to the negative temperature gradient.
The Sun does not heat the Earth by conduction, Poorboy.
A warmer atmosphere means the earth's surface will not cool as quickly overnight.
You cannot trap thermal energy.
Lovely strawman.
Fallacy fallacy.
I never said that the sun uses conductive heat to heat the earth.
Blatant lie. Don't try to deny your own posts!
But it seems you are simply ignoring Stefan-Boltzmann yet again which says that ALL objects radiate.
Not at all. All objects above absolute zero convert thermal energy to light.
The type of thermal transfer doesn't change the joules required to raise the temperature of an element.
Converting thermal energy to light COOLS the object, Poorboy. Conversion to light is not a 'thermal transfer'.
It only affects how efficient that transfer might be. (Stefan-Boltzmann again.)
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not describe thermal transfer.
Your ignorance doesn't trump what science can calculate.
You are describing yourself again. You cannot blame YOUR problem on anybody else, Poorboy.
 
The Earth is not heated by conduction, Poorboy.
Strawman that completely fails to address my argument.

Heat cannot be transferred. Heat is not contained in anything. You still don't know what heat is.
Furnaces and refrigerators do not transfer heat.
It's interesting that you would make that argument after bringing up Fourier's law of heat transfer.


Blatant lie. Don't try to deny your own posts, idiot.

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

You cannot decrease entropy. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
It is you that is ignoring the second law and the first law. You are not heating the warmer surface with a colder gas. You are heating the warmer surface with energy from the sun and then when the gas is warmer than before it means that heat transfer is slowed. (Fournier's law for heat transfer shows that a warmer atmosphere prevents the surface from conducting as much energy to the atmosphere.) When the surface can not lose energy as fast as it is receiving it, it must warm or violate the 1st law of thermodynamics.
The Sun does not heat the Earth by conduction.

The Sun does not heat the Earth by convection.
Strawman argument. The earth does transfer heat by conduction, convection and radiation whether it gets that heat from its core or from the sun. If the sun's energy was not transferred by convection and conduction, the bottom of a lake and the ocean would freeze and no plants could grow because the ground would be frozen below the top surface that receives sunlight.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not discuss absorption. It applies everywhere, all the time. I never said it applies only to the outer atmosphere.
How can a black body radiate anything while it is in equilibrium unless it can absorb as well as radiate. Stefan-Boltzmann law says the black body radiates. It doesn't say it simply reflects everything. The random nature of radiation would require it to absorb as well as radiate.
 
Wow. I guess you are completely ignorant of how energy works.
Energy is not work.
We get ADDITIONAL energy from the sun every second. We lose that energy every second to space as it is radiated out. We don't lose the energy the minute we receive it.
You cannot trap thermal energy. You cannot trap light. Not even for a minute. Not even for a second. You cannot set aside any law of physics for ANY length of time.
The side of the earth facing the sun warms and the side not facing the sun cools.
WRONG. Radiance of the Earth is from ALL sides...all the time. You cannot set aside the Stefan-Boltzmann law for 12 hours.
If the earth is receiving 1380 joules per square meter and radiating 1380 joules per square meter then the temperature will remain constant.
If the earth is receiving 1380 joules per square meter and radiating 1300 joules per square meter than the temperature will rise.
Not all of it is absorbed and converted to thermal energy, Poorboy. You cannot trap light.
The temperature can go up without any additional energy from the sun since we are already receiving ADDITIONAL energy every day. We are simply not losing as much energy as we are getting from the sun when the earth warms.
Not possible. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. You cannot trap light.
Repeat after me...

We get ADDITIONAL energy from the sun every day.
Nope. The Sun's output is considered constant here.
Now you can stop asking stupid questions about where the energy comes from and we can talk about how it is retained.
You cannot trap light.
 
It doesn't matter who's name you drop.

You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has this capability. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You cannot decrease entropy for any reason...ever...anywhere. You are still ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You cannot add or change the equation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are still ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

* You cannot trap heat.
* You cannot trap light. Not even a black hole can trap light. Earth is not a black hole.
* You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
* You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.


Attempted proof by 'expert'. Sorry dude, the laws of thermodynamics that you ignore hasn't been falsified by Hawking or anyone else. You just keep trying to ignore them.
It is you that is claiming that when the earth radiates less energy than it receives that energy is lost. It is your argument that violates the first law of thermodynamics.

Gas is not creating energy out of nothing. Gas and vapor absorb energy. When they absorb energy the temperature rises. To claim they don't have this capability is ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Entropy is not a constant. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If the surface cools slower because the atmosphere is warmer that doesn't violate the 2nd law. How does the surface of the earth warm without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics? If you accept that the surface can warm then you must accept that the atmosphere can warm. To accept one and not the other is a paradox.

I have not ignored the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I have ignored your idiotic take on the law where you claim there is no radiation or temperature involved when applying the equation.
 
Do you know what the sun is?
Yes. Do YOU?
Do you know that we get energy from the sun every day?
Yes. Do YOU?
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.
It's funny juuuuuust how triggered and angry you are at this point, having to resort to pretending that I deny the existence of the sun. Take a deep breath and when you're ready, come back and try to hold an intelligent conversation next time.
There's that Marxist "we" again.......
don't need to increase the amount of energy we get from the sun to increase temperature.
Additional energy is required in order to increase Earth’s temperature. WHERE is the additional energy coming from?
We simply can decrease the amount of energy that is lost.
Here, you are attempting to “trap heat”, which cannot be done. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator. Earth doesn't have a magick blanket around it either. Earth's atmosphere is not separate from the Earth; it is a part of the Earth.
[removed a provided example that is based upon the incorrect usage of the word 'heat']
You still refuse to learn what heat is. Until then, there's nothing I can do to explain to you what you are getting wrong about this topic.
There are a couple of things you are ignoring. [removed a provided example that is based upon the incorrect usage of the word 'heat']
See above.
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.
:rofl2:
 
Yes. Do YOU?

Yes. Do YOU?

It's funny juuuuuust how triggered and angry you are at this point, having to resort to pretending that I deny the existence of the sun. Take a deep breath and when you're ready, come back and try to hold an intelligent conversation next time.

There's that Marxist "we" again.......

Additional energy is required in order to increase Earth’s temperature. WHERE is the additional energy coming from?

Here, you are attempting to “trap heat”, which cannot be done. There is no such thing as a perfect insulator. Earth doesn't have a magick blanket around it either. Earth's atmosphere is not separate from the Earth; it is a part of the Earth.

You still refuse to learn what heat is. Until then, there's nothing I can do to explain to you what you are getting wrong about this topic.

See above.

:rofl2:
Impossible to trap heat?
How does the earth not freeze when the sun goes down if it can't "trap heat?"
What keeps the earth from freezing when the sun goes down in your version of physics? Let's see if you can possibly explain no freezing temperatures every night in all parts of the globe.
 
Care to tell us what happens if we get 1380 joules of energy and only radiate out 1300 joules of energy?
I notice your use of Joules instead of Watts ... for a verb of "radiate."

Would you care to tell us what happens if we get 1.3 acres and only pour out 1.1 acres?

Are you asking me a subraction question that isn't related to anything of any relevance anywhere?

Did we need more than 1380 joules to raise the temperature?
You have completely pivoted away from what you need to show to support your argument. Instead of asking questions, you should be answering the questions put to you. As it stands, I don't think you have convinced anyone that your goddess Climate has the magical superpowers to violate physics in the manner I describe in my signature.

The problem you have is that the energy is retained in the system.
One of your many problems is that you are claiming as "retained" energy that has radiated away. Another one of your many problems is that you are treating parts of the earth as though they are not part of the earth.

Let's start over.

You claim a temperature increase. You insist on it. This represents the existence of additional energy beyond what has already been forthwith accounted. Please walk me through, step by step, how Earth's average global quantity Q1 of thermal energy changes to substantively increased thermal energy quantity Q2, without counting twice thermal energy that has already been forthwith accounted in Earth's equilibrium.

Here's the format that will work for me:

Step 1: Earth has Q1
Step 2: Volume V1 of greenhouse gas is released into the atmosphere
Step 3: [you fill these steps in here]
.
.
Step N: Earth has Q2

That's all I need. I won't conclude "a temperature increase" until you show me Q2 > Q1 without violating physics or math or logic.

You know... that silly thing called the 1st law of thermodynamics which says if you don't lose the energy through radiation, it isn't destroyed.
You know... that silly thing called Stefan-Boltzmann that says there is always thermal radiation, and that no thermal energy is ever "trapped" or "contained" or "stored" or "retained" or "held" or "withheld" or "bound" or "caged" ... but is always lost proportionally to the absolute Temperature to the 4th power.

Since you claim all the sun's energy is accounted for, it would be incumbent on you to prove that the earth is radiating the same amount of energy that it is receiving.
Are you using black body science? If so, you carry the operating assumption that the earth is in equilibrium, and it becomes incumbent upon you to show if/when Earth is somehow not. The only way for you to shake your burden is to reject black body science. Are you rejecting/denying black body science?
 
Strawman that completely fails to address my argument.
Fallacy fallacy. I have addressed every point you are trying to make. Believe me, you are not the first idiot to make your arguments.
It's interesting that you would make that argument after bringing up Fourier's law of heat transfer.
The Sun does not heat the Earth by conduction, Poorboy.
It is you that is ignoring the second law and the first law.
You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else, Poorboy.
You are not heating the warmer surface with a colder gas.
Of course I'm not. It's not possible. YOU are attempt to do so however.
You are heating the warmer surface with energy from the sun and then when the gas is warmer than before it means that heat transfer is slowed.
Heat has no speed. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy.
(Fournier's law for heat transfer shows that a warmer atmosphere prevents the surface from conducting as much energy to the atmosphere.)
You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. Earth does not lose energy by conduction.
When the surface can not lose energy as fast as it is receiving it, it must warm or violate the 1st law of thermodynamics.
You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy.
Strawman argument.
Fallacy fallacy.
The earth does transfer heat by conduction, convection and radiation whether it gets that heat from its core or from the sun.
It is not possible to transfer heat. Heat is not contained in anything. The Sun does not heat the Earth by conduction. The Earth does not lose energy to space by conduction.
If the sun's energy was not transferred by convection and conduction,
The Sun does not heat the Earth by convection or conduction.
the bottom of a lake and the ocean would freeze
Ice has less density than liquid water. I guess you don't understand convection or density either.
and no plants could grow because the ground would be frozen below the top surface that receives sunlight.
Ice has less density than soil.

I never said thermal energy doesn't dissipate by conduction. Stop making shit up.
How can a black body radiate anything while it is in equilibrium unless it can absorb as well as radiate.
I never said the Earth doesn't absorb light and convert some of it to thermal energy. Stop making shit up.
Stefan-Boltzmann law says the black body radiates. It doesn't say it simply reflects everything.
I never said it did. Stop making shit up.
The random nature of radiation would require it to absorb as well as radiate.
Radiance isn't random. Radiance is not absorption. Redefinition fallacies.
 
ROFLMAO.
Thanks for the floor. I needed it.

Care to tell us what happens if we get 1380 joules of energy and only radiate out 1300 joules of energy?
Not possible. You cannot trap light.
Did we need more than 1380 joules to raise the temperature?
Joules have no temperature.
The problem you have is that the energy is retained in the system.
You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy.
You know... that silly thing called the 1st law of thermodynamics which says if you don't lose the energy through radiation, it isn't destroyed.
You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.
Since you claim all the sun's energy is accounted for, it would be incumbent on you to prove that the earth is radiating the same amount of energy that it is receiving.
It has to.

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap thermal energy.
 
Back
Top