Is Climate Change Possible Redux

[ZenMode]

Rather than spending my time trying to get people to the point I'm trying to make, I figure it would be easier just to get to the point.

There are only a few things that any one person has to believe are possible to believe that man-made climate change is possible. Not saying it's definitely true, just possible.

1. Energy from the Sun increases temperature on Earth. When energy (generally referred to as "heat" in everyday conversation) leaves the Earth, the temperature decrease.
2. The Earth's atmosphere impacts energy coming from the Sun and energy leaving the Earth's surface and, therefore, also impacts temperatures.
3. A change in the structure/contents of the atmosphere would impact #2.
4. The structure/contents of the atmosphere can change and can change and change enough to impact temperatures and, therefore impact climate.

Regarding #1: This should be uncontroversial. It's basically a reference to day and night. Days are warmer. Nights are cooler.

Regarding #2: It's estimated that, without an atmosphere, the lowest temperatures on Earth would be negative ~ -350° f and the high temperatures would reach up to ~250° f. This is the case because the atmosphere blocks some of the Sun's energy from reaching the earth, keeping days coooler, and, slows the loss of energy into space at night, keeping nights warmer. You can experience something similar on cloudy nights. Cloudy nights tend to remain warmer because clouds act as a barrier, not allowing the energy radiating from the Earth to escape into space. The clouds actually absorb the energy and emit it towards the Earth's surface.

Regarding #3: assuming that #2 is correct, then it stands to reason that a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere would would impact temperatures in the same way a cloudy night impacts temperatures. If the atmosphere became more efficient at preventing energy from escaping the surface of the Earth, that is really all that would be needed to see an increase in temperatures and/or climate.

Regarding #4: This is the part that is unknown. The Earth's ecosystem is so complex, with so many "moving parts", that it can't be known for certain that the atmosphere can change, and can change enough, to truly impact climate. But, this isn't a question of what is known. This is a question of whether or not it's reasonable to believe that climate change is possible.

Basically, if you believe that the atmosphere can change and more effectively slow the rate of energy escaping onto space, specifically based on the actions of man, then you are acknowledging that climate change is possible.

 

[ZenMode]

@Damocles I meant to put this in the general politics forum. Can it be moved?

 

[IBDaMann]

There are only a few things that any one person has to believe are possible to believe that man-made climate change is possible.

This assumes an unambiguous definition of Climate Change.

Ooooops. Guess what's missing.

Ooooops. Guess what's still not possible.

Not saying it's definitely true, just possible.

Not anything that you've defined.

Energy from the Sun increases temperature on Earth.

Not when the earth has reached equilibrium ... which it has. Once Earth's equilibrium temperature is reached, the sun ceases to increase Earth's temperature. Sorry.

When energy (generally referred to as "heat" in everyday conversation)

The problem with referring to everyday conversation is that many things are erroneously referred to as "heat." Energy is not heat. You need to fix this error in your underlying assumptions.

When energy leaves the Earth, the temperature decrease.

It is so absolutely amazing that you are suddenly able to hone in on Earth's temperature (singular) after insisting that you could only refer to Earth's temperatures (plural). Hmmmmm.

Stick with Earth's average global equilibrium temperature or you are wrong. Good luck.

The Earth's atmosphere impacts energy coming from the Sun and energy leaving the Earth's surface

You just said nothing. If you aren't going to specify exactly and unambiguously how the atmosphere "impacts" energy coming from the sun, you merely wasted the bandwidth.

and, therefore, also impacts temperatures.

Ooooops, you're back to temperatures (plural) again, so you're wrong. You created a nonsequitur. To have followed the line of reasoning, you would have had to state that therefore Earth's average global equilibrium temperature (singular) remains the same, i.e. no impact.

A change in the structure/contents of the atmosphere would impact #2.

Ergo, since the atmosphere has no impact on Earth's average global equilibrium temperature (singular), changes to the atmosphere have no impact on Earth's average global equilibrium temperature either.

The structure/contents of the atmosphere can change and can change and change enough to impact temperatures

Nope. See above.

and, therefore impact climate.

Not by anything you've defined.

This should be uncontroversial.

Correct. You are wrong.

It's basically a reference to day and night. Days are warmer. Nights are cooler.

Only if you have less atmosphere, but Earth's average global equilibrium temperature remains the same. You are referring to distribution of thermal energy, which necessarily results in the same temperature average.

Regarding #2: It's estimated that, without an atmosphere, the lowest temperatures on Earth would be negative ~ -350° f and the high temperatures would reach up to ~250° f.

Similar to the moon. Of course, the specific corresponding temperature values (plural) are speculation, the average global equilibrium temperature (singular) would remain the same.

This is the case because the atmosphere blocks some of the Sun's energy from reaching the earth,

ZenMode Error. The atmosphere is part of the earth. Make that the ninth time you screwed that up.

slows the loss of energy into space at night,

How much slower than the speed of light through the medium does the resulting light travel once it is slowed?

Cloudy nights tend to remain warmer

Nope.

because clouds act as a barrier, not allowing the energy radiating from the Earth to escape into space.

Too funny!

Wrong. Energy in the clouds still radiates as well.

The clouds actually absorb the energy and emit it towards the Earth's surface.

The clouds absorb energy from all directions and radiate thermally in all directions. They are part of the atmosphere just as the rest of the air is.

Regarding #3: assuming that #2 is correct,

It isn't, so we can skip #3.

Regarding #4: This is the part that is unknown. The Earth's ecosystem is so complex, with so many "moving parts", that it can't be known for certain that the atmosphere can change, and can change enough, to truly impact climate.

Notice that you use Climate as a name, i.e. singular with no articles. You are referring to the goddess Climate but are leaving the name uncapitalized so as to be subtle. This is why you can never define your terms, i.e. they are unfalsifiable religious doctrines. This is why you need to treat the goddess Climate as Christians do God, i.e. infinitely complex and incomprehensible. After all, everybody is supposed to simply accept everything you are saying without asking any questions.

This is a question of whether or not it's reasonable to believe that climate change is possible.

What is this Climate Change that you worship but haven't ever defined?

 

[Lao Tse]

Rather than spending my time trying to get people to the point I'm trying to make, I figure it would be easier just to get to the point.

There are only a few things that any one person has to believe are possible to believe that man-made climate change is possible. Not saying it's definitely true, just possible.

1. Energy from the Sun increases temperature on Earth. When energy (generally referred to as "heat" in everyday conversation) leaves the Earth, the temperature decrease.
2. The Earth's atmosphere impacts energy coming from the Sun and energy leaving the Earth's surface and, therefore, also impacts temperatures.
3. A change in the structure/contents of the atmosphere would impact #2.
4. The structure/contents of the atmosphere can change and can change and change enough to impact temperatures and, therefore impact climate.

Regarding #1: This should be uncontroversial. It's basically a reference to day and night. Days are warmer. Nights are cooler.

Regarding #2: It's estimated that, without an atmosphere, the lowest temperatures on Earth would be negative ~ -350° f and the high temperatures would reach up to ~250° f. This is the case because the atmosphere blocks some of the Sun's energy from reaching the earth, keeping days coooler, and, slows the loss of energy into space at night, keeping nights warmer. You can experience something similar on cloudy nights. Cloudy nights tend to remain warmer because clouds act as a barrier, not allowing the energy radiating from the Earth to escape into space. The clouds actually absorb the energy and emit it towards the Earth's surface.

Regarding #3: assuming that #2 is correct, then it stands to reason that a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere would would impact temperatures in the same way a cloudy night impacts temperatures. If the atmosphere became more efficient at preventing energy from escaping the surface of the Earth, that is really all that would be needed to see an increase in temperatures and/or climate.

Regarding #4: This is the part that is unknown. The Earth's ecosystem is so complex, with so many "moving parts", that it can't be known for certain that the atmosphere can change, and can change enough, to truly impact climate. But, this isn't a question of what is known. This is a question of whether or not it's reasonable to believe that climate change is possible.

Basically, if you believe that the atmosphere can change and more effectively slow the rate of energy escaping onto space, specifically based on the actions of man, then you are acknowledging that climate change is possible.

this is all retarded bullshit designed to justify mass murder and totalitarianism.

you're dumb and evil for thinking and perpetuating this nonsense.

 

[ZenMode]

this is all retarded bullshit designed to justify mass murder and totalitarianism.

you're dumb and evil for thinking and perpetuating this nonsense.

Nope. You conspiracy theories are completely separate from reality.

 

[ZenMode]

This assumes an unambiguous definition of Climate Change.

Ooooops. Guess what's missing.

Ooooops. Guess what's still not possible.


Not anything that you've defined.


Not when the earth has reached equilibrium ... which it has. Once Earth's equilibrium temperature is reached, the sun ceases to increase Earth's temperature. Sorry.


The problem with referring to everyday conversation is that many things are erroneously referred to as "heat." Energy is not heat. You need to fix this error in your underlying assumptions.


It is so absolutely amazing that you are suddenly able to hone in on Earth's temperature (singular) after insisting that you could only refer to Earth's temperatures (plural). Hmmmmm.

Stick with Earth's average global equilibrium temperature or you are wrong. Good luck.



You just said nothing. If you aren't going to specify exactly and unambiguously how the atmosphere "impacts" energy coming from the sun, you merely wasted the bandwidth.


Ooooops, you're back to temperatures (plural) again, so you're wrong. You created a nonsequitur. To have followed the line of reasoning, you would have had to state that therefore Earth's average global equilibrium temperature (singular) remains the same, i.e. no impact.


Ergo, since the atmosphere has no impact on Earth's average global equilibrium temperature (singular), changes to the atmosphere have no impact on Earth's average global equilibrium temperature either.


Nope. See above.


Not by anything you've defined.


Correct. You are wrong.


Only if you have less atmosphere, but Earth's average global equilibrium temperature remains the same. You are referring to distribution of thermal energy, which necessarily results in the same temperature average.


Similar to the moon. Of course, the specific corresponding temperature values (plural) are speculation, the average global equilibrium temperature (singular) would remain the same.


ZenMode Error. The atmosphere is part of the earth. Make that the ninth time you screwed that up.


How much slower than the speed of light through the medium does the resulting light travel once it is slowed?


Nope.


Too funny!

Wrong. Energy in the clouds still radiates as well.


The clouds absorb energy from all directions and radiate thermally in all directions. They are part of the atmosphere just as the rest of the air is.

It isn't, so we can skip #3.


Notice that you use Climate as a name, i.e. singular with no articles. You are referring to the goddess Climate but are leaving the name uncapitalized so as to be subtle. This is why you can never define your terms, i.e. they are unfalsifiable religious doctrines. This is why you need to treat the goddess Climate as Christians do God, i.e. infinitely complex and incomprehensible. After all, everybody is supposed to simply accept everything you are saying without asking any questions.


What is this Climate Change that you worship but haven't ever defined?

There's very little that's actually relevant to the topic and is worth responding to. For some reason you pretend to be confused about simple things like the difference between the Earth's surface and the atmosphere and, in typical troll fashion, knit pick the fact that I use "heat" which, as I stated, is a commonly used term in everyday conversation... a reference that would be familiar to anyone.

However, as is often the case, it appears that you've gone full troll/liar by saying that the atmosphere doesn't impact temperatures on earth. (#2) and denying what probably every person here, including you, has experience - temperatures remain higher on cloudy nights because the clouds absorb and radiate energy back to Earth, rather than allowing it to escape into space.

That being the case, I see no reason to engage in conversation, since it's clear you have no interest in having an honest one.

Hopefully other honest and curious people will find my post useful.

 

[Daylight63]

This assumes an unambiguous definition of Climate Change.

Climate is usually defined as a long-term weather conditions which prevail over a set area. The "long term" part is the important bit. This means it has characteristics which can be expected to be relatively constant year over year. Climate change is when that relatively constant set of characteristics start to change.

We see it in things like the plant hardiness zones in the US which are steadily moving "northwards" because each of the current bands are getting warmer or changing in other ways. Systematically and in a specific direction.

Not when the earth has reached equilibrium ... which it has.

The atmosphere is not in equilibrium.

Once Earth's equilibrium temperature is reached, the sun ceases to increase Earth's temperature. Sorry.

The sun provides the energy but the atmosphere and ocean move the heat around within the system. And since the system is not in equilibrium internally it is dynamic.

The problem with referring to everyday conversation is that many things are erroneously referred to as "heat." Energy is not heat.

heat IS energy, though.

It is so absolutely amazing that you are suddenly able to hone in on Earth's temperature (singular)

Scientists don't look at the earth's temperature. They look at what are called "temperature anomalies" which are basically just the DIFFERENCES FROM A BASELINE FOR A SPECIFIC AREA. These are what are used to show the change. And it sort of normalizes the data to a common baseline.

Stick with Earth's average global equilibrium temperature or you are wrong.

That isn't how climate science works.

You just said nothing. If you aren't going to specify exactly and unambiguously how the atmosphere "impacts" energy coming from the sun, you merely wasted the bandwidth.

The earth receives short-wavelength, UV-dominated energy which is absorbed the rocks and solid earth and re-radiated back out as IR (downshifted) which is longer wavelength, lower energy photons. These photons as they leave the surface interact with those gases which are capable of absorbing the IR photon. Only a few gases have that capability in any real amount. Things like CO2, CH4, and the other "greenhouse gases".

The amount of energy coming INTO the earth from the sun is essentially in balance with the amount going out. The difference is that the atmosphere with its greenhouse gases is able to delay the release of the IR photons. As more greenhouse gases are put in the atmosphere it moves the level in the atmosphere where the IR photons get released back out into the vacuum of space. This causes a warming at the surface.

That's how the atmosphere impacts the energy from the sun.

Ooooops, you're back to temperatures (plural) again, so you're wrong. You created a nonsequitur. To have followed the line of reasoning,

Can't stress this enough. No climate scientist measures climate change by measuring a single temperature value for the earth.

Ergo, since the atmosphere has no impact on Earth's average global equilibrium temperature (singular), changes to the atmosphere have no impact on Earth's average global equilibrium temperature either.

Basically everything you have said is wrong so far.

How much slower than the speed of light through the medium does the resulting light travel once it is slowed?

It isn't the speed of the photon but rather the "speed" of the release of the energy. (Also surely you know that the speed of light is dependent on the medium through which it passes, though, right? I mean that's why you have that effect of a pencil in a glass of water looking like it is bent. But that doesn't have anything to do with this conversation)

 

[IBDaMann]

There's very little that's actually relevant to the topic and is worth responding to.

This is your admission that you cannot get around physics and logic, even with your word games. It is not rational to believe in something that violates physics.

For some reason you pretend to be confused about simple things

Most physics violations are simple, and they are wrong. Your religion screwed the pooch the moment it claimed to be "thettled thienth."

like the difference between the Earth's surface and the atmosphere

Nope. You routinely refer to energy that has not left earth as having left earth. You are simply wrong whenever you do that. You routinely alternate between treating the atmosphere as part of the earth and as not part of the earth, as convenient ... and you are simply wrong every time that you do.

I have repeatedly pointed out this error and you repeatedly make it nonetheless.

and, in typical troll fashion, knit pick the fact that I use "heat" [incorrectly]

You consider any nonbeliever of your WACKY religion to be a troll. You are one of the many mindless warmizombies who inserts the word "heat" wherever convenient, even though it's completely wrong. You still have not learned what "heat" is despite having been told a bajillion times of your repeated grade-school errors.

which, as I stated, is a commonly used term in everyday conversation.

... which I have pointed out is no excuse for getting science wrong.

Use "heat" correctly ... or you are wrong.

.. a reference that would be familiar to anyone.

A misconception common to many.

However, as is often the case, it appears that you've gone full troll/liar by saying that the atmosphere doesn't impact temperatures on earth.

It appears you are still full troll/liar and are avoiding admitting that there is no impact to Earth's average global equilibrium temperature, which is the entire point you are claiming is "possible" and happen to be failing miserably. Your pivot is discarded.

(#2) and denying what probably every person here, including you, has experience - temperatures remain higher on cloudy nights because the clouds absorb and radiate energy back to Earth, rather than allowing it to escape into space.

Correct, I deny this. This does not happen. Warmer evenings bring with them the clouds they formed, but the entering warm air was already warm, and the clouds were already formed.

That being the case, I see no reason to engage in conversation,

Yes, flee to the hills yet again. I'm already tasting the dust in the air that you are kicking up as you high-tail it. I won't be chasing after you.

 

[IBDaMann]

Climate is usually defined as a long-term weather conditions which prevail over a set area.

There is no such thing as any long term weather, anywhere. I notice that you made a long post that specifically AVOIDS a simple, straightforward and unambiguous definition of the global climate ... that doesn't violate physics, math or logic right out of the starting gate. Please go ahead and do that, and once you express this unambiguous definition, tell me what the global climate is, e.g. "freezing hot", "humidly arid", "foggy clear", etc ... What is the global climate?

The "long term" part is the important bit.

Nope. The climate is whatever the climate is at this very moment. If I go Phoenix, Arizona in the middle of July, and for some freak reason, I catch the first few days of an Arctic cold wave, the climate is Arctic freeze.

So, no, your premise of "long term" anything is totally bunk and is not a component of any climate.

This means it has characteristics which can be expected to be relatively constant year over year.

No geographic location has any control over, nor is bound by, anyone's expectations. The climate of a place you and I might be visiting won't somehow be confused as to what to be just because you and I have differing expectations.

A climate is completely independent of any and all expectations.

Climate change is when that relatively constant set of characteristics start to change.

You have not defined any characteristics of "climate". Make sure to list every single one in your definition of the global climate.

We see it in things like the plant hardiness zones in the US which are steadily moving "northwards"

"We" don't see anything. What I see is that your problem seems to be conflating an environment with a climate. You should learn what those two separate words mean.

because each of the current bands are getting warmer or changing in other ways. Systematically and in a specific direction.

Aaaaah, so any change whatsoever is Climate Change. Got it. When everything is Climate Change then nothing is Climate Change.

Your argument is dismissed.

The atmosphere is not in equilibrium.

Sure it is. You just don't know in what way.

The sun provides the energy but the atmosphere and ocean move the heat around within the system.

You are introducing a "system" that you have not defined. I have no idea about what you are talking.

heat IS energy, though.

Nope. Learn what heat is.

Scientists don't look at the earth's temperature.

... because nobody knows what it is to any usable accuracy.

They look at what are called "temperature anomalies"

That's what warmizombies do, because on the one hand, they have to claim that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature is increasing, but they can't admit to not knowing the earth's average global equilibrium temperature to any usable accuracy because then they would be rightfully asked "Well then how do you know it's increasing?"

So, they fabricate temperature charts that they label as "anomalies" and pretend that the data points are offsets of some "norm/baseline" ... that they don't know! It just as absurd.

These are what are used to show the change.

You can't show the change of something you can't measure. Your gullibility has been leveraged and yoiu have been duped.

That isn't how climate science works.

There is no science "Climate Science" any more than there is a science "Christian Science." They are both WACKY religions and their congregations are scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent.

The earth receives short-wavelength, UV-dominated energy which is absorbed the rocks and solid earth and re-radiated back out as IR (downshifted) which is longer wavelength, lower energy photons.

I'll let you drone on, but you need to pinpoint exactly where temperature increases, because that implies there is suddenly more energy than there was previously. You need to account for that increase in energy.

These photons as they leave the surface interact with those gases which are capable of absorbing the IR photon.

Up to this point, we are still talking about the exact same quantity of energy, which means that the average global equilibrium temperature is the same; the energy is simply redistributed.

Only a few gases have that capability in any real amount.

False. All matter absorbs infrared.

Things like CO2, CH4, and the other "greenhouse gases".

What is the purpose of creating a class "greenhouse gas"? Does it have some magical superpower to create energy out of nothing?

The amount of energy coming INTO the earth from the sun is essentially in balance with the amount going out.

In fact it is exactly equal. The earth is in equilibrium.

The difference is that the atmosphere with its greenhouse gases is able to delay the release of the IR photons.

Nope. Your argument is discarded until you fix this error.

By the way, how long are you claiming this silly "delay" lasts? Does greenhouse gas supposedly have a timer?

As more greenhouse gases are put in the atmosphere it moves the level in the atmosphere where the IR photons get released back out into the vacuum of space.

This is stupid. Good luck finding an actual scientist who won't laugh at this.

This causes a warming at the surface.

What do you mean by "warming"? The word is used to mean many things, and you seemingly refuse to define your terms. That should be your first clue that you have a religion on your hands.

What do you mean by the "surface"? Are you talking about the bottom of the atmosphere? Are you talking about the top of the ocean? Neither of those are the "surface" in black body science.

That's how the atmosphere impacts the energy from the sun.

You haven't detailed any impact and more importantly, you haven't pinpointed when and where the temperature supposedly increases.

Can't stress this enough. No climate scientist measures climate change by measuring a single temperature value for the earth.

There are no Climate scientists. There are only Climate preachers.

Basically everything you have said is wrong so far.

Basically everything you have written thus far is totally wrong, to the point of being absurd.

It isn't the speed of the photon but rather the "speed" of the release of the energy.

What was the "before" speed of the release of the energy and what was the "after" speed?

(Also surely you know that the speed of light is dependent on the medium through which it passes, though, right?

I do. But the speed of light through any medium is the speed of light through that medium. You are claiming that greenhouse gas somehow slows light escaping into space, i.e. whereas it was previously escaping at the speed of light through the earth's atmosphere, it is supposedly slowed ... to something below the speed of light through the earth's atmosphere. How much are you claiming the light is "slowed"?

I mean that's why you have that effect of a pencil in a glass of water looking like it is bent. But that doesn't have anything to do with this conversation)

I'm glad to see that you at least understand some elements of refraction, but you have fallen far short of adequately supporting your religious doctrine.

 

[ZenMode]

This is your admission that you cannot get around physics and logic, even with your word games. It is not rational to believe in something that violates physics.


Most physics violations are simple, and they are wrong. Your religion screwed the pooch the moment it claimed to be "thettled thienth."


Nope. You routinely refer to energy that has not left earth as having left earth. You are simply wrong whenever you do that. You routinely alternate between treating the atmosphere as part of the earth and as not part of the earth, as convenient ... and you are simply wrong every time that you do.

I have repeatedly pointed out this error and you repeatedly make it nonetheless.


You consider any nonbeliever of your WACKY religion to be a troll. You are one of the many mindless warmizombies who inserts the word "heat" wherever convenient, even though it's completely wrong. You still have not learned what "heat" is despite having been told a bajillion times of your repeated grade-school errors.




... which I have pointed out is no excuse for getting science wrong.

Use "heat" correctly ... or you are wrong.


A misconception common to many.


It appears you are still full troll/liar and are avoiding admitting that there is no impact to Earth's average global equilibrium temperature, which is the entire point you are claiming is "possible" and happen to be failing miserably. Your pivot is discarded.


Correct, I deny this. This does not happen. Warmer evenings bring with them the clouds they formed, but the entering warm air was already warm, and the clouds were already formed.


Yes, flee to the hills yet again. I'm already tasting the dust in the air that you are kicking up as you high-tail it. I won't be chasing after you.

"Correct, I deny this. This does not happen."

Thanks for continuing to make my point. You deny science when it's convenient for what you want to believe, which is why it's impossible to have a real discussion.

Just like you wouldn't invite Alex Jones to a discussion about honesty in reporting news, or you wouldn't invite Jeffrey Dahmer to a discussion about the correct way to structure a moral society, there's no reason to invite you to a discussion about the science behind climate change. You deny that the atmosphere impacts high and low temperatures on Earth and you deny that cloud cover has the effect of radiating energy back to Earth that would have otherwise escaped into space.

And, when you aren't denying science, you are playing dumb and knit-picking irrelevant points to avoid having a real discussion.

 

[Yakuda]

Rather than spending my time trying to get people to the point I'm trying to make, I figure it would be easier just to get to the point.

There are only a few things that any one person has to believe are possible to believe that man-made climate change is possible. Not saying it's definitely true, just possible.

1. Energy from the Sun increases temperature on Earth. When energy (generally referred to as "heat" in everyday conversation) leaves the Earth, the temperature decrease.
2. The Earth's atmosphere impacts energy coming from the Sun and energy leaving the Earth's surface and, therefore, also impacts temperatures.
3. A change in the structure/contents of the atmosphere would impact #2.
4. The structure/contents of the atmosphere can change and can change and change enough to impact temperatures and, therefore impact climate.

Regarding #1: This should be uncontroversial. It's basically a reference to day and night. Days are warmer. Nights are cooler.

Regarding #2: It's estimated that, without an atmosphere, the lowest temperatures on Earth would be negative ~ -350° f and the high temperatures would reach up to ~250° f. This is the case because the atmosphere blocks some of the Sun's energy from reaching the earth, keeping days coooler, and, slows the loss of energy into space at night, keeping nights warmer. You can experience something similar on cloudy nights. Cloudy nights tend to remain warmer because clouds act as a barrier, not allowing the energy radiating from the Earth to escape into space. The clouds actually absorb the energy and emit it towards the Earth's surface.

Regarding #3: assuming that #2 is correct, then it stands to reason that a change in the composition of the Earth's atmosphere would would impact temperatures in the same way a cloudy night impacts temperatures. If the atmosphere became more efficient at preventing energy from escaping the surface of the Earth, that is really all that would be needed to see an increase in temperatures and/or climate.

Regarding #4: This is the part that is unknown. The Earth's ecosystem is so complex, with so many "moving parts", that it can't be known for certain that the atmosphere can change, and can change enough, to truly impact climate. But, this isn't a question of what is known. This is a question of whether or not it's reasonable to believe that climate change is possible.

Basically, if you believe that the atmosphere can change and more effectively slow the rate of energy escaping onto space, specifically based on the actions of man, then you are acknowledging that climate change is possible.

If we instituted every measure to deal with climate change how much would that effect the problem?

 

[Daylight63]

There is no such thing as any long term weather, anywhere. I notice that you made a long post that specifically AVOIDS a simple, straightforward and unambiguous definition of the global climate ... that doesn't violate physics, math or logic right out of the starting gate. Please go ahead and do that, and once you express this unambiguous definition, tell me what the global climate is, e.g. "freezing hot", "humidly arid", "foggy clear", etc ... What is the global climate?


Nope. The climate is whatever the climate is at this very moment. If I go Phoenix, Arizona in the middle of July, and for some freak reason, I catch the first few days of an Arctic cold wave, the climate is Arctic freeze.

So, no, your premise of "long term" anything is totally bunk and is not a component of any climate.


No geographic location has any control over, nor is bound by, anyone's expectations. The climate of a place you and I might be visiting won't somehow be confused as to what to be just because you and I have differing expectations.

A climate is completely independent of any and all expectations.


You have not defined any characteristics of "climate". Make sure to list every single one in your definition of the global climate.


"We" don't see anything. What I see is that your problem seems to be conflating an environment with a climate. You should learn what those two separate words mean.


Aaaaah, so any change whatsoever is Climate Change. Got it. When everything is Climate Change then nothing is Climate Change.

Your argument is dismissed.


Sure it is. You just don't know in what way.


You are introducing a "system" that you have not defined. I have no idea about what you are talking.


Nope. Learn what heat is.



... because nobody knows what it is to any usable accuracy.


That's what warmizombies do, because on the one hand, they have to claim that the earth's average global equilibrium temperature is increasing, but they can't admit to not knowing the earth's average global equilibrium temperature to any usable accuracy because then they would be rightfully asked "Well then how do you know it's increasing?"

So, they fabricate temperature charts that they label as "anomalies" and pretend that the data points are offsets of some "norm/baseline" ... that they don't know! It just as absurd.


You can't show the change of something you can't measure. Your gullibility has been leveraged and yoiu have been duped.


There is no science "Climate Science" any more than there is a science "Christian Science." They are both WACKY religions and their congregations are scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent.


I'll let you drone on, but you need to pinpoint exactly where temperature increases, because that implies there is suddenly more energy than there was previously. You need to account for that increase in energy.


Up to this point, we are still talking about the exact same quantity of energy, which means that the average global equilibrium temperature is the same; the energy is simply redistributed.


False. All matter absorbs infrared.



What is the purpose of creating a class "greenhouse gas"? Does it have some magical superpower to create energy out of nothing?



In fact it is exactly equal. The earth is in equilibrium.



Nope. Your argument is discarded until you fix this error.

By the way, how long are you claiming this silly "delay" lasts? Does greenhouse gas supposedly have a timer?


This is stupid. Good luck finding an actual scientist who won't laugh at this.


What do you mean by "warming"? The word is used to mean many things, and you seemingly refuse to define your terms. That should be your first clue that you have a religion on your hands.

What do you mean by the "surface"? Are you talking about the bottom of the atmosphere? Are you talking about the top of the ocean? Neither of those are the "surface" in black body science.


You haven't detailed any impact and more importantly, you haven't pinpointed when and where the temperature supposedly increases.


There are no Climate scientists. There are only Climate preachers.


Basically everything you have written thus far is totally wrong, to the point of being absurd.


What was the "before" speed of the release of the energy and what was the "after" speed?


I do. But the speed of light through any medium is the speed of light through that medium. You are claiming that greenhouse gas somehow slows light escaping into space, i.e. whereas it was previously escaping at the speed of light through the earth's atmosphere, it is supposedly slowed ... to something below the speed of light through the earth's atmosphere. How much are you claiming the light is "slowed"?


I'm glad to see that you at least understand some elements of refraction, but you have fallen far short of adequately supporting your religious doctrine.

Sorry I engaged you. I didn't realize you weren't a serious poster on this subject.

 

[Daylight63]

If we instituted every measure to deal with climate change how much would that effect the problem?

Significantly but not within our lifetimes. We've spent too many decades debating with non-scientists trying to convince them that science is real even when it says something they don't like to hear. With each additional day we load up the system with more heat "in the pipeline" and it will take longer to fix the problem. And it will be harder to do so.

The reason there's a "pipeline" is that when a bunch of additional CO2 is put in the atmosphere it takes a long time to get the level back down. Unlike extra H2O in the atmosphere which can easily re-equilibrate out in a rainstorm. Extra CO2 has to be fixed using the "Carbon cycle" which takes a LOT longer to achieve.

So the longer we wait the worse it gets and the hard it is to fix it.

 

[Yakuda]

Significantly but not within our lifetimes. We've spent too many decades debating with non-scientists trying to convince them that science is real even when it says something they don't like to hear. With each additional day we load up the system with more heat "in the pipeline" and it will take longer to fix the problem. And it will be harder to do so.

The reason there's a "pipeline" is that when a bunch of additional CO2 is put in the atmosphere it takes a long time to get the level back down. Unlike extra H2O in the atmosphere which can easily re-equilibrate out in a rainstorm. Extra CO2 has to be fixed using the "Carbon cycle" which takes a LOT longer to achieve.

So the longer we wait the worse it gets and the hard it is to fix it.

How significantly? 5%? 10% 20? 50? 75?

 

[Daylight63]

How significantly? 5%? 10% 20? 50? 75?

I don't know. I don't think anyone could really know.

Let's just say it would be a better return on our investment than say "fixing" voter ID fraud.

 

[Yakuda]

I don't know. I don't think anyone could really know.

Let's just say it would be a better return on our investment than say "fixing" voter ID fraud.

So we should pursue a course of action even though we have no idea what if any effect that action will have.

We should just take your word for it just like we should take your world that voter fraud doesn't exist. Not everyone is a stupid leftist.

 

[Daylight63]

So we should pursue a course of action even though we have no idea what if any effect that action will have.

You support fixing voter ID fraud and there's no evidence that it is actually a problem and your 'fix' will cause all sorts of additional problems. So I think you'd be fine with that.

We should just take your word for it

Not me. Rather the thousands upon thousands of independent earth, atmospheric and oceanic scientists working across the globe for the last 70 years.

just like we should take your world that voter fraud doesn't exist. Not everyone is a stupid leftist.

Right now we don't have any real evidence of voter fraud. If you have some real evidence that thousands upon thousands of independent researcher working over decades have uncovered then maybe we can talk

 

[ZenMode]

If we instituted every measure to deal with climate change how much would that effect the problem?

I'm not advocating any specific changes. You can believe that climate change is real and not believe in taking ridiculous, and most likely irrelevant, changes.

 

[Yakuda]

You support fixing voter ID fraud and there's no evidence that it is actually a problem and your 'fix' will cause all sorts of additional problems. So I think you'd be fine with that.



Not me. Rather the thousands upon thousands of independent earth, atmospheric and oceanic scientists working across the globe for the last 70 years.





Right now we don't have any real evidence of voter fraud. If you have some real evidence that thousands upon thousands of independent researcher working over decades have uncovered then maybe we can talk

Oh course there's evidence for it that's why the DOJ is suing VA. Stop being an idiot

 

[ZenMode]

Oh course there's evidence for it that's why the DOJ is suing VA. Stop being an idiot

Huh? What are you talking about?