GLOBAL WARMING -- Everywhere is warming twice as fast as everywhere else!!!!!!

[archives]

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law is not pseudoscience. Anyone can look them up. You simply deny them.

Formal fallacy

 

[archives]

Which system? Earth itself, or the Earth-Sun-space system? They are two completely different systems.

No. No energy source from outside the chosen system boundaries cannot be considered. No energy sink can be considered from outside the chosen system boundaries. The system must remain closed.

To illustrate: let's take a typical home electric refrigerator.

You can consider the system of the refrigerator and the room its in by itself. Does entropy decrease? No. You cannot consider the power source the refrigerator is plugged into. You must treat the refrigerator as if its unplugged. Given the initial low entropy conditions of a warm room and a cold refrigerator, entropy will increase as the thermal energy of the room is expended to warm the interior of the refrigerator, until both are the same temperature.

Let's assume a magick refrigerator that has perfect insulation. Does entropy decrease? No. It simply stays the same. The refrigerator is still unplugged. The interior of the refrigerator will remain completely unchanged, and therefore entropy itself remains unchanged.

If you consider a different system that includes the power plant to run the refrigerator, does entropy decrease? No. The power plant is expending energy that your refrigerator can now harness to cool its interior. Entropy in that system is still increasing.

Equilibrium is achieved at maximum entropy. After that, entropy simply stays the same. It does not continue to increase.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that entropy always increases or stays the same in any system. It never decreases.

Well, neither you nor I can speak for every scientist, professional or not. A theory of science, such as the 1st law of thermodynamics, stands on its own. It needs no one to support it. It is the theory, not any scientist, that is science.

These are professionally paid 'scientists'. They cannot explain how it would because they deny science and mathematics. Specifically, they deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I've found some that deny Kirchoff's and Planck's laws as well. They also deny statistical mathematics, probability mathematics, and random number mathematics. I've seen some of them even deny algebra.

This is the argument a climate 'scientist' must support. They are effectively paid high priests in the Church of Global Warming. To make this argument, of course, means denying the very things I spoke of as well as the very meaning of 'heat'.

That little cartoon is itself an egregious violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. It attempts to heat the warmer surface using a colder gas.

If the Church of Global Warming wasn't so desperately trying to become a federal religion, it would be laughable. Unfortunately, this is its goal, despite the 1st amendment.

Which makes it a closed system.

A closed system cannot consider any energy source or sink from outside that system, so yes...the universe itself is a closed system

The key thing to remember is that you get to choose the boundaries of the system. Those boundaries must remain the same, however, through your arguments. The Church of Global loves to change these boundaries mid-sentence, treating two different systems as if they were the same system (a goalpost fallacy).

It is the same trite over and over again peppered with the correct science semantics to make it appear legitimate, he actually thinks that people are going to abandoned the views of say NASA and nearly every major Science entity, or as he refers to them as "professionally paid 'scientists," amazing all those "professionally paid scientists" just completely overlooked whatever "into" is preaching

As I said, merely an effort to create a false paradigm

 

[Litmus]

It is the same trite over and over again peppered with the correct science semantics to make it appear legitimate, he actually thinks that people are going to abandoned the views of say NASA and nearly every major Science entity, or as he refers to them as "professionally paid 'scientists," amazing all those "professionally paid scientists" just completely overlooked whatever "into" is preaching

As I said, merely an effort to create a false paradigm

you gave an unflattering characterization, but not a rebuttal.

 

[archives]

you gave an unflattering characterization, but not a rebuttal.

Rebuttal to what?

One can't rebutal, as soon as you've proven him incorrect he'll dismiss it as some bogus "fallacy" and won't carry it any further, as I said before, he's solipsistic, anything other than his explanation is incorrect

 

[RB 60]

...and I was looking forward to driving my convertible in January and February...

 

[Into the Night]

It is the same trite over and over again peppered with the correct science semantics to make it appear legitimate,

Thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law isn't trite. It isn't 'peppering'. These theories are what they are. No one at NASA or any scientist or group scientists can change what they are.

he actually thinks that people are going to abandoned the views of say NASA

NASA is not science. It is a government agency.

and nearly every major Science entity,

Argument from randU fallacy. False authority fallacy.

or as he refers to them as "professionally paid 'scientists,"

I am referring to climate 'scientists', that deny science and mathematics.

amazing all those "professionally paid scientists" just completely overlooked whatever "into" is preaching

Yes, there are a LOT of climate 'scientists' out there. None of them can change what these theories are. Neither can you.

As I said, merely an effort to create a false paradigm

These three theories are not a false paradigm. They are what they are.

You are just desperate to deny science.

 

[anonymoose]

Rebuttal to what?

The application of physical laws to [CO2]atmos and it's overall effect on Tatmos where T = temperature as a function of Δt(time). (This is overly simplistic but used for purposes of JPP).

One can't rebutal, as soon as you've proven him incorrect

You can't prove him incorrect because he's just stating physical laws. He is the messenger. The physical laws are what you must prove incorrect.

he'll dismiss it as some bogus "fallacy" and won't carry it any further, as I said before, he's solipsistic, anything other than his explanation is incorrect

He is incorrect equating an isolated system and a closed system. They have two different definitions. A closed system does not allow the exchange of matter but allows energy (or heat) to be transferred between systems. In isolated systems neither matter nor heat can be exchanged between systems. There is no fallacy in stating well accepted definitions and pointing out the error. So yes, if you provide an acceptable rebuttal there is no fallacy.
E.g., if you incorrectly apply Newton's Laws of Motions and state that if you hold a lead weight during a full moon at shoulder height and let go of it, it will "drop" in the direction of the moon, I'm sure he'd find a fallacy in that.

 

[gfm7175]

It is the same trite over and over again peppered with the correct science semantics to make it appear legitimate, he actually thinks that people are going to abandoned the views of say NASA and nearly every major Science entity, or as he refers to them as "professionally paid 'scientists," amazing all those "professionally paid scientists" just completely overlooked whatever "into" is preaching

As I said, merely an effort to create a false paradigm

NASA is not a "Science entity". It is a governmental agency. Government agencies are not science.

Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

 

[Into the Night]

The application of physical laws to [CO2]atmos and it's overall effect on Tatmos where T = temperature as a function of Δt(time). (This is overly simplistic but used for purposes of JPP).
You can't prove him incorrect because he's just stating physical laws. He is the messenger. The physical laws are what you must prove incorrect.

Bingo.

He is incorrect equating an isolated system and a closed system. They have two different definitions. A closed system does not allow the exchange of matter but allows energy (or heat) to be transferred between systems. In isolated systems neither matter nor heat can be exchanged between systems.

Not correct. For the purposes of thermodynamics, you cannot consider any energy source outside the chosen system, and you cannot consider any energy sink outside the chosen system. To do so is to use a different system. Two systems are not the same system.

There is no fallacy in stating well accepted definitions and pointing out the error. So yes, if you provide an acceptable rebuttal there is no fallacy.

An acceptable rebuttal can only result in falsification of these laws of physics. If he can do so, you are correct...there is no fallacy. His only other option is to describe how 'greenhouse effect' works without violating any of these laws of physics.

E.g., if you incorrectly apply Newton's Laws of Motions and state that if you hold a lead weight during a full moon at shoulder height and let go of it, it will "drop" in the direction of the moon, I'm sure he'd find a fallacy in that.

Not in and of itself. It would simply be a denial of Newton's law of gravitational attraction (not of motion).

 

[anonymoose]

Not correct. For the purposes of thermodynamics, you cannot consider any energy source outside the chosen system,

Ridiculous. The earth is a closed system that get's loads of nrg from the sun, a different system. How can you possibly not consider that? Maybe you should review the definition of thermodynamic systems.

To do so is to use a different system.

Correct. Two systems are not the same system.

 

[Litmus]

nerd alert.

 

[Into the Night]

Ridiculous.

Not at all.

The earth is a closed system that get's loads of nrg from the sun, a different system.

No. You cannot consider the energy of the Sun or the space around Earth if you consider Earth itself the system. Both the Sun and the space around Earth are ignored and cannot be considered. The ONLY way to consider them is to use the Sun-Earth-space system, which is a completely different system.

How can you possibly not consider that?

Easy. You just don't.

Maybe you should review the definition of thermodynamic systems.

This is incorrect. Thermodynamic systems are described in the theories themselves. That is the ONLY authoritative reference.

Correct. Two systems are not the same system.

That's right. You cannot consider the two system as the same system.

 

[gfm7175]

I saw this thread of mine from years ago pop up under "similar threads", and I thought that it would be prudent to remind people of this issue once again...

How can everywhere be "warming twice as fast as" everywhere else?

Why should any rational adult believe this illogical tripe??

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

I saw this thread of mine from years ago pop up under "similar threads", and I thought that it would be prudent to remind people of this issue once again...

How can everywhere be "warming twice as fast as" everywhere else?

Why should any rational adult believe this illogical tripe??

How can a video that doesn't exist be relevant to anything?

 

[gfm7175]

How can a video that doesn't exist be relevant to anything?

[1] The video existed in 2019 when I made this thread. YouTube has obviously, since then, thrown the account down the memory hole for being too truthful.

[2] The video isn't necessary (it was supplemental) to discuss the topic. BTW, you can still click on my Google link and still see all of the search results that I make reference to.

Stop being a coward and answer the questions asked in my prior post.

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

[1] The video existed in 2019 when I made this thread. YouTube has obviously, since then, thrown the account down the memory hole for being too truthful.

[2] The video isn't necessary (it was supplemental) to discuss the topic. BTW, you can still click on my Google link and still see all of the search results that I make reference to.

Stop being a coward and answer the questions asked in my prior post.

Russian disinformation removed from YouTube. Hmm.... Sure.. You couldn't possibly be stupid enough to fall for Russian propaganda?

 

[gfm7175]

Russian disinformation removed from YouTube. Hmm.... Sure.. You couldn't possibly be stupid enough to fall for Russian propaganda?

Hahahahahahahahaha you're such a moron........ Russia has absolutely nothing to do with this hahahahahahahahaha

You're obviously too much of a coward to answer two simple questions......

How can everywhere be "warming twice as fast as" everywhere else?

Why should any rational adult believe this illogical tripe??

 

[Poor Richard Saunders]

Hahahahahahahahaha you're such a moron........ Russia has absolutely nothing to do with this hahahahahahahahaha

You're obviously too much of a coward to answer two simple questions......

How can everywhere be "warming twice as fast as" everywhere else?

Why should any rational adult believe this illogical tripe??

How can you be so stupid that you are stupider than everyone else? (I saw it on YouTube but it doesn't exist any more.)

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Here's the ultimate stupidity of Gorebal Warming.

The world is warming naturally. It has been for centuries. Let's say for sake of argument, that it warms 1 degree per century, and at some point it will begin to cool again.

Along comes the Gorebal warming theorists and they claim human activity is warming the planet to the same point it will cool again only doing so at 1.2 degrees per century.

That is to say, the world will warm to the same point for about the same amount of geologic time--centuries to millennia--then cool. All humanity is doing is very slightly speeding things up. That is, and it is likely completely and utterly unprovable otherwise, is that at worst human activity is having a slight effect on planetary average temperatures and in the long run will make zero difference.

 

[Into the Night]

I confess that I've never paid much attention to the AGW controversy, except to note that the overwhelming majority of climatologists say there is evidence of global warming, and at least part of it could be anthropogenic.

Do your guys say there is no global warming? Or if there is, that none of it is man-made, so there's nothing we can do about it? And what makes them so sure they're right?

In 2014 an open letter from the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry called on the media to stop using the term "skepticism" when referring to climate change denial. They contrasted scientific skepticism—which is "foundational to the scientific method"—with denial—"the a priori rejection of ideas without objective consideration". They said: "Not all individuals who call themselves climate change skeptics are deniers. But virtually all deniers have falsely branded themselves as skeptics. By perpetuating this misnomer, journalists have granted undeserved credibility to those who reject science and scientific inquiry."

A 'climatologist' is nothing more than a priest.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, and even the term 'global warming' remains undefined.
To a fundamentalist, they are ALWAYS right. It is inherent on being a fundamentalist believer in any religion.
Climate cannot change.
The Church of global warming routinely discards and ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Science is not 'inquiry'. It is a set of falsifiable theories.