Climate change is pure bullshit!!

[Into the Night]

Impossible to trap heat?

That's what I said.

How does the earth not freeze when the sun goes down if it can't "trap heat?"

The Earth doesn't trap heat.

What keeps the earth from freezing when the sun goes down in your version of physics?

The Sun never sets on Earth.

Let's see if you can possibly explain no freezing temperatures every night in all parts of the globe.

Have you been to Antarctica in the winter?

 

[IBDaMann]

Impossible to trap heat?

Correct. Have I mentioned that you should learn what "heat" is?

How does the earth not freeze when the sun goes down if it can't "trap heat?"

It's sad that a grown adult would need to ask the question you just asked, but if you would only learn what "heat" is you wouldn't ask these really stupid questions.

What keeps the earth from freezing when the sun goes down in your version of physics?

Stupid question. Some parts of the earth do freeze. Other parts don't radiate away (or conduct away) enough thermal energy overnight to freeze before thermal energy resumes being absorbed . Am I the first person to teach you this?

I'd like to give you a heads-up of yet another nail that will be driving into your coffin: the daytime side of the moon. You want to claim that because the atmosphere itself has temperature, that it somehow increases Earth's average global equilibrium temperature. I will then ask you to explain why the daytime side of the earth never gets anywhwere close to the temperatures on the daytime side of the moon, and why the ocean doesn't boil away in daytime. Earth has an atmopshere which should make daytime earth hotter than daytime moon.

Anyway, we'll wait to bitch-slap you until you claim that the atmosphere increases the planet's temperature.

 

[IBDaMann]

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.

@gfm7175 - you can't possibly tell me with a straight face that Nomad isn't winning in any projection category. If he doesn't win something, I'm going to check video of your polling centers for ballot cases under tables.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Try English. It works better.
I am NOT claiming the Earth radiates less energy it receives. YOU ARE!

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.

I never said they don't absorb light and convert it to thermal energy. Stop making shit up.

Entropy is not a constant.

I never said it was. Stop making shit up.

You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You cannot blame your problem on me or anyone else.

If the surface cools slower because the atmosphere is warmer that doesn't violate the 2nd law.

You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. ALL of it radiates to space as light.

How does the surface of the earth warm without violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics?

The Sun.

If you accept that the surface can warm then you must accept that the atmosphere can warm.

It can, but you are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

To accept one and not the other is a paradox.

Fallacy fallacy. Attempted proof by contrivance.

I have not ignored the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

You JUST DID!

I have ignored your idiotic take on the law where you claim there is no radiation or temperature involved when applying the equation.

I never said any such thing. Stop making shit up.

 

[Into the Night]

And you can't even tell the difference between a noun and a verb.

You can't blame YOUR problem on me or anybody else, Poorboy.

 

[IBDaMann]

We get ADDITIONAL energy from the sun every second.

Foul. That additional energy is already forthwith accounted. You know this.

We lose that energy every second to space as it is radiated out.

That loss is already forthwith accounted. You have covered the equilibrium.

Please address the additional energy that is not forthwith accounted, that causes the temperature increase you are concluding. Please connect the dots to your conclusion.

We don't lose the energy the minute we receive it.

Yes, the very moment that Earth is receiving a quantity of energy, Earth is losing that amount of energy. Equilibrium.

The side of the earth facing the sun warms and the side not facing the sun cools.

... and Earth remains in equilibrium, with it's average global equilibrium temperature remaining the same.

The temperature can go up without any additional energy from the sun

Incorrect. You are violating Stefan-Boltzmann. Perhaps you should refresh your understanding of that law.

Earth's average global equilibrium temperature cannot increase while its radiance somehow decreases. If you tell me that Earth's radiance has decreased (i.e. Earth is radiating away less) then you have told me that Earth's temperature has decreased, not increased.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

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?


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.


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 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.


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?

Where has the energy been "forwith accounted for?" You claim it is accounted for but have not presented any evidence of it being accounted for.
You are simply starting with your assumption and claiming your assumption is fact.
How can the earth be in equilibrium if it is warming? That would be evidence it is not in equilibrium. Once again, you make an assumption and claim your assumption is fact.

As to your signature, it is simply buzzword idiocy.
1. No energy is created out of nothing when energy is received from an outside source and there is not equilibrium. Your claim that it is in equilibrium when warming is happening is what violates the first law.
2. Your assumptions about Stefan-Boltzmann is nonsense since it ignores that the earth is not a constant temperature throughout. Stefan-Boltzman only applies to radiation from the surface of the object in question. The lower atmosphere is not the surface of the earth's outer atmosphere.
3. Your assumption violates Fournier's equation.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Foul. That additional energy is already forthwith accounted. You know this.


That loss is already forthwith accounted. You have covered the equilibrium.

Please address the additional energy that is not forthwith accounted, that causes the temperature increase you are concluding. Please connect the dots to your conclusion.


Yes, the very moment that Earth is receiving a quantity of energy, Earth is losing that amount of energy. Equilibrium.


... and Earth remains in equilibrium, with it's average global equilibrium temperature remaining the same.


Incorrect. You are violating Stefan-Boltzmann. Perhaps you should refresh your understanding of that law.

Earth's average global equilibrium temperature cannot increase while its radiance somehow decreases. If you tell me that Earth's radiance has decreased (i.e. Earth is radiating away less) then you have told me that Earth's temperature has decreased, not increased.

Simple ipse dixit buzzwords from you.
The earth is not in equilibrium. Your claiming it is is not supported by any facts.
Stefan-Boltzmann only applies to the surface of the black body that is in equilibrium. The outer atmosphere is radiating less because the outer atmosphere is cooling because the heat is retained lower. Stefan-Boltzmann tells you nothing about the temperature inside a black body. It can only tell you what is happening on the surface.

You have not told us what energy is not forwtih accounted for. You start with a false assumption and then claim your assumption is fact.

 

[Into the Night]

Where has the energy been "forwith accounted for?" You claim it is accounted for but have not presented any evidence of it being accounted for.

The Sun's been around a long time. It's output is pretty constant. It's accounted for.

You are simply starting with your assumption and claiming your assumption is fact.

You DO see the Sun in the sky, right?

How can the earth be in equilibrium if it is warming?

Where is the additional energy coming from. The Sun is accounted for.

That would be evidence it is not in equilibrium. Once again, you make an assumption and claim your assumption is fact.

The Sun has been around along time, Poorboy.

As to your signature, it is simply buzzword idiocy.

Fallacy fallacy.

1. No energy is created out of nothing when energy is received from an outside source and there is not equilibrium. Your claim that it is in equilibrium when warming is happening is what violates the first law.

You don't think equilibrium has been established in a period of thousands of years? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

2. Your assumptions about Stefan-Boltzmann is nonsense since it ignores that the earth is not a constant temperature throughout.

Irrelevance fallacy.

Stefan-Boltzman only applies to radiation from the surface of the object in question.

WRONG. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to ALL materials.

The lower atmosphere is not the surface of the earth's outer atmosphere.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to the atmosphere as well as the surface.

3. Your assumption violates Fournier's equation.

Irrelevance fallacy. Fourier's law of conductive heat has nothing to do with radiance.

 

[Into the Night]

Simple ipse dixit buzzwords from you.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

The earth is not in equilibrium.

It is in equilibrium.

Your claiming it is is not supported by any facts.

It has had thousands of years to reach equilibrium.

Stefan-Boltzmann only applies to the surface of the black body that is in equilibrium.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does NOT require equilibrium. It applies to ALL materials, whether solid, liquid, or gas. It applies all the time. You cannot set it aside for even a moment.

The outer atmosphere is radiating less because the outer atmosphere is cooling because the heat is retained lower.

You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Radiance is NEVER inversely proportional to temperature. You can NEVER reduce entropy.

Stefan-Boltzmann tells you nothing about the temperature inside a black body. It can only tell you what is happening on the surface.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate temperature.

You have not told us what energy is not forwtih accounted for. You start with a false assumption and then claim your assumption is fact.

RQAA. Semantics fallacies.

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot reduce entropy for ANY reason at ANY time.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot set aside ANY law of physics for ANY length of time. There is no sequence.
The Sun does not heat the Earth by conduction.
The Earth does not lose energy to space by conduction.
Radiance is NEVER inversely proportional to temperature.


No gas or vapor is capable of trapping heat, trapping light, reducing entropy, or creating energy out of nothing.
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

 

[IBDaMann]

Where has the energy been "forwith accounted for?"

I'll tell you exactly "where" when you start supporting your argument instead of simply declaring an apparentl physics violation.

Temperature cannot transition from a lower temperature to a higher transition without first being at the lower temperature. Please tell me that you understand this. If you do not grasp this, then we can't proceed until you do.

You claim that Earth, at a lower temperature, gets some greenhouse gas and transitions to a higher temperature. So, you tell me, list everything that comprises the lower temperature.

As to your signature, it is simply buzzword idiocy.

It's why your religion is asinine and why you and your ilk deserve to be mocked.

1. No energy is created out of nothing when energy is received from an outside source

If the energy is already forthwith accounted, you don't get to count it twice. Energy cannot be magically created out of nothing.

and there is not equilibrium.

Then you are not using black body science. With that being the case, you are just another science denier. Actually, I think everybody already figured that out.

2. Your assumptions about Stefan-Boltzmann is nonsense since it ignores that the earth is not a constant temperature throughout.

Say no more, say no more. You don't understand Stefan-Boltzmann, and you don't know what either "heat" is or what science is. This is not a good combination for trying to argue your position.

Stefan-Boltzman only applies to radiation from the surface of the object in question.

... and let me guess, you don't even know what that means or how to interpret those words. Color me not-surprised.

The lower atmosphere is not the surface of the earth's outer atmosphere.

Don't tell what things aren't. The lower atmosphere is not peanut butter. The lower atmosphere is not a kinder schnitzel. Instead, tell me that you know what the earth's "surface" is according to Stefan-Boltzmann.

3. Your assumption violates Fournier's equation.

First, most people understand that Earth is surrounded by a vacuum. Fourier's equation does not apply to a vacuum. You are greatly confused.

Additionally, I have not expressed any assumptions because I'm not supporting any affirmative argument. You are trying to buy time by assigning bogus positions to me and then by surreptitiously changing the subject to an argument that I am not making. Let's reel the topic back to the affirmative declaration that you are making.

You wish for everyone to believe as you do, that Earth's average global equilibrium temperature is somehow increasing, but you expect everyone to just OBEY you, just as you OBEYED those who ordered you to believe without question. It does not appear that you will be making any effort to support your argument anytime soon; if you had any intention of supporting your claim you would have done so already.

You have my signature as rebuttals that you must address. Until you do, you are just another leftist loon.

In addition to overcoming those hurdles, you still need to support your argument by showing step-by-step how Earth transitions from Q1 to Q2 without violating science, math or logic.

Have a wonderful rest of your week.

 

[IBDaMann]

Simple ipse dixit buzzwords from you.

I'll consider your king tipped.

The earth is not in equilibrium.

I'll consider you a science denier, a title you have worked hard to achieve.

Stefan-Boltzmann only applies to the surface of the black body that is in equilibrium.

... and you don't know how to interpret those words because you don't understand the science behind it. You are scientifically illiterate and incapable of contributing in this conversation.

The outer atmosphere is radiating less because the outer atmosphere is cooling because the heat is retained lower.

You are a dismal failure when it comes to thermodynamics. I don't know what to tell you.

Stefan-Boltzmann tells you nothing about the temperature inside a black body.

Stefan-Boltzmann tells me nothing about the temperature of anything. Stefan-Boltzmann calculates RADIANCE given absolute temperature.

It can only tell you what is happening on the surface.

You don't know what the "surface" means.

You have not told us what energy is not forwtih accounted for.

You have not stated your argument.

You start with a false assumption

I have no assumptions. I am not making any sort of affirmative argument.

and then claim your assumption is fact.

This is what you are doing. You are declaring a temperature increase in a manner that violates physics ... and then proclaiming that you are done.

 

[moon]

You have not told us what energy is not forwtih accounted for. You start with a false assumption and then claim your assumption is fact.

You're talking to a troll and two socks.

 

[moon]

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

It is in equilibrium.

It has had thousands of years to reach equilibrium.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does NOT require equilibrium. It applies to ALL materials, whether solid, liquid, or gas. It applies all the time. You cannot set it aside for even a moment.

You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Radiance is NEVER inversely proportional to temperature. You can NEVER reduce entropy.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not calculate temperature.

RQAA. Semantics fallacies.

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot reduce entropy for ANY reason at ANY time.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot set aside ANY law of physics for ANY length of time. There is no sequence.
The Sun does not heat the Earth by conduction.
The Earth does not lose energy to space by conduction.
Radiance is NEVER inversely proportional to temperature.


No gas or vapor is capable of trapping heat, trapping light, reducing entropy, or creating energy out of nothing.
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

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]

I'll consider your king tipped.


I'll consider you a science denier, a title you have worked hard to achieve.


... and you don't know how to interpret those words because you don't understand the science behind it. You are scientifically illiterate and incapable of contributing in this conversation.


You are a dismal failure when it comes to thermodynamics. I don't know what to tell you.


Stefan-Boltzmann tells me nothing about the temperature of anything. Stefan-Boltzmann calculates RADIANCE given absolute temperature.


You don't know what the "surface" means.


You have not stated your argument.


I have no assumptions. I am not making any sort of affirmative argument.


This is what you are doing. You are declaring a temperature increase in a manner that violates physics ... and then proclaiming that you are done.

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.

 

[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.

So, asking you nicely to not spam the board clearly won't work, I see.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

You cannot trap light.

Let's examine your claim and see why it is false.
You have now on more than one occasions claimed that light can't be trapped. Light is simply electromagnetic radiation. If electromagnetic radiation can never be captured then it must reflect every time it hits another surface. If all electromagnetic radiation is reflected from the earth then the earth MUST be at zero degree kelvin in order to not violate the 1st law of thermodynamics. Since the earth MUST be at zero degrees Kelvin then it can't be radiating any electromagnetic radiation according to the Stefan Boltzmann equation since zero to the fourth power is always zero. The reality is that in order for the temperature to go up electromagnetic radiation must be captured in some way to not violate the 1st law.

At this point the biggest unknown seems to be the depths of your stupidity. It can't be measured.

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.

Didn't you just claim that light couldn't be captured and now you are saying it can be absorbed?

At this point the biggest unknown seems to be the depths of your stupidity. It can't be measured.

 

[Into the Night]

You're talking to a troll and two socks.

There are no socks here, Moonbat. You are hallucinating again.

 

[Into the Night]

Let's examine your claim and see why it is false.

You cannot falsify any theory of science that way!

You have now on more than one occasions claimed that light can't be trapped.

I'll say it again. Light cannot be trapped.

Light is simply electromagnetic radiation. If electromagnetic radiation can never be captured then it must reflect every time it hits another surface.

Nope. It can reflect from the surface, refract from the surface, pass right through the material, or be absorbed by the material.

If all electromagnetic radiation is reflected from the earth then the earth MUST be at zero degree kelvin in order to not violate the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Attempted proof by contrivance. Light has no temperature.

Since the earth MUST be at zero degrees Kelvin then it can't be radiating any electromagnetic radiation according to the Stefan Boltzmann equation since zero to the fourth power is always zero.

Conclusion based on attempted proof by contrivance. Light has no temperature.

The reality is that in order for the temperature to go up electromagnetic radiation must be captured in some way to not violate the 1st law.

You cannot capture light. You cannot trap light. Light has no temperature.

At this point the biggest unknown seems to be the depths of your stupidity. It can't be measured.

Insults get you nowhere.

Didn't you just claim that light couldn't be captured and now you are saying it can be absorbed?

You cannot trap light. Light can be absorbed. Light has no temperature.

 

[moon]

So, asking you nicely to not spam the board clearly won't work, I see.

Simply answer the questions;
Who moved Sweden ?
What happened to the science of paleoclimatology ?
How long must we suffer ' Into the Nightsoil 'talking rubbish with his socks ?

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