Is Climate Change Possible Redux

[Joe]

You couldn't pass a sixth grade test in general science.

Afraid I can you silly stooge. Fuck the climate change hoaxers.

 

[IBDaMann]

I doubt anyone here qualifies as "serious" in a discussion of the science concerning climate change.

Stupid comment. There is no science of Climate Change. In fact, there is no science to any religion. Of course, if you'd like to "seriously" discuss any and all science that runs counter to Climate Change and Global Warming, then I'll gladly do that for you, but you can always read my signature to get a good read-ahead.

 

[IBDaMann]

You couldn't pass a sixth grade test in general science.

Too funny! The scientifically illiterate denigrating the science acumen of others who know so much more.

 

[IBDaMann]

BTW, Giuliani admitted he lied about the magical suitcase of Biden ballots.

You're never clear what you are babbling about. Are you saying that the video I posted for you doesn't show what it shows?

 

[Nordberg]

What went wrong with science, medicine , vaccines and climate change was equal time for the antis. They do not merit an equal platform to tell lies that were formed by the wealthy and corporations. The antis do not deserve equal time because they are misinforming a public that the far right has spent a couple decades creating unfounded skepticism in. It is not balance when educated professionals with great experience, have to be given an equal stage with people like Fox "reporters', Alex Jones and other right wing nuts.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

What went wrong with science, medicine , vaccines and climate change was equal time for the antis. They do not merit an equal platform to tell lies that were formed by the wealthy and corporations. The antis do not deserve equal time because they are misinforming a public that the far right has spent a couple decades creating unfounded skepticism in. It is not balance when educated professionals with great experience, have to be given an equal stage with people like Fox "reporters', Alex Jones and other right wing nuts.

So, it's okay if YOUR side lies but the OTHER side in a debate is automatically lying about everything and has to be shut up, hum? Typical Leftist. Can't tolerate an opposed position no matter how factual it may be...

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Nope. Climate cannot change. It's impossible.
Energy from the Sun increases temperature on Earth.
Climate has no temperature.

[*] When energy (generally referred to as "heat" in everyday conversation) leaves the Earth, the temperature decrease.

Climate has no temperature. Heat is not energy.

[*]The Earth's atmosphere impacts energy coming from the Sun and energy leaving the Earth's surface and, therefore, also impacts temperatures.

No gas or vapor is capable of reducing entropy. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

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

Now you are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

[*]The structure/contents of the atmosphere can change and can change and change enough to impact temperatures and, therefore impact climate.

Climate has no temperature. Climate cannot change.

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

Climate is not an hour.

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.

Argument from randU fallacy, and ignoring the temperature data from the space station orbiting Earth, which sees skin temperatures from 250 deg F to -200 deg F.

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

Light has no temperature.

and, slows the loss of energy into space at night, keeping nights warmer.

You cannot slow or trap light. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

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.

You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.

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.

Clouds to not change the temperature of Earth.

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.

Climate has no temperature. You cannot trap light. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. Climate cannot change.

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.

Complexity fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. Climate cannot change. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, which you are ignoring, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you are ignoring, have not been falsified. They are still theories of science (which you deny).

Climate cannot change. Climate has no temperature. There is no such thing as a 'global climate'.

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.

Repetition fallacy (chanting). You are continuing to ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and you are continuing to show your inability to read and understand English. Climate cannot change.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. You conspiracy theories are completely separate from reality.

The Church of Global Warming is a conspiracy. It is no theory.

 

[Into the Night]

"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.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

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.

Climate cannot 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.

You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. You are AGAIN ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

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

Inversion fallacy. DON'T TRY TO BLAME YOUR PROBLEM ON IBDAMANN OR ANYBODY ELSE!

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The 2nd law of thermodynamics has nothing to do with climate change. It describes the energy cycle as shown in the Carnot Cycle or Carnot Heat Engine.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Climate is not weather nor a period of time.

The "long term" part is the important bit.

Climate is not a period of time.

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

Climate has no age.

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

Climate cannot change.

We see it in things like the plant hardiness zones in the US

Plants have no temperature sensors.

which are steadily moving "northwards"

Plants can't walk.

because each of the current bands are getting warmer or changing in other ways.

What do you mean by 'bands'?? Buzzword fallacy.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Systematically and in a specific direction.

What system????

The atmosphere is not in equilibrium.

Yes it is.

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

Wups. Air is also fluid and has conductive and convective heating.

And since the system is not in equilibrium internally it is dynamic.

It is in equilibrium.

heat IS energy, though.

Heat is not energy.

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

Understandable, since it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

They look at what are called "temperature anomalies" which are basically just the DIFFERENCES FROM A BASELINE FOR A SPECIFIC AREA.

Base rate fallacy. You cannot measure a base if you cannot measure the temperature.

These are what are used to show the change.

Of what? You have no data.

And it sort of normalizes the data to a common baseline.

You have no data. Base rate fallacy.

That isn't how climate science works.

Climate isn't a branch of science.

The earth receives short-wavelength, UV-dominated energy which is absorbed the rocks and solid earth

UV does not convert to thermal energy when absorbed. It causes chemical bonds to break or ionization.
Most of the energy from the Sun is in the form of infrared light.

and re-radiated back out as IR (downshifted) which is longer wavelength, lower energy photons.

You cannot re-radiate out what has been destroyed. A photon is DESTROYED when it is absorbed.

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".

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

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.

You cannot slow or trap light. You are ignoring Planck's laws.

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.

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

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

The atmosphere has mass. It absorbs light from the Sun just like any other mass.

Can't stress this enough. No climate scientist

Climate is not a branch of science.

measures climate change

Climate cannot change.

by measuring a single temperature value for the earth.

Climate has no temperature. You cannot establish a base without measuring the temperature of the Earth, which is not possible. Base rate fallacy.

Basically everything you have said is wrong so far.

Argument of the Stone fallacy.

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

Energy is not 'released'.

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

The speed of light is always the speed of light. You cannot trap light.

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)

Refraction is not trapping light.

 

[Into the Night]

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

NONE, since climate cannot change.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Bulverism fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Significantly but not within our lifetimes.

Not in any lifetime. Climate cannot change.

We've spent too many decades debating with non-scientists

You cannot debate with yourself.

trying to convince them that science is real even when it says something they don't like to hear.

You are describing yourself again.

With each additional day we load up the system

What 'load'??? What 'system'??? Cliche fallacy.

with more heat "in the pipeline"

Heat is not a pipeline.

and it will take longer to fix the problem.

There is no problem to 'fix'.

And it will be harder to do so.

There is no problem to 'fix'.

The reason there's a "pipeline"

Heat is not 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.

Obviously you have never heard of the carbon cycle. See "plants".

Unlike extra H2O in the atmosphere which can easily re-equilibrate out in a rainstorm.

Buzzword fallacy (re-equilibriate). There is no such thing as 'extra water' in the atmosphere or in the seas or lakes.

Extra CO2 has to be fixed using the "Carbon cycle" which takes a LOT longer to achieve.

There is no such thing as 'extra CO2'. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2.

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

There is no problem to 'fix'.

 

[Into the Night]

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

So you are panicking because you are illiterate.

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

So you support election fraud. I already knew this.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

He's saying that because it's possible, you should join his religion to save yourself. This is a Pascal's Wager fallacy. It has also been used with other religions, including Christianity; usually by fundamentalists.

 

[ZenMode]

Nope. Climate cannot change. It's impossible.
Energy from the Sun increases temperature on Earth.
Climate has no temperature.

Climate has no temperature. Heat is not energy.

No gas or vapor is capable of reducing entropy. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

Now you are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

Climate has no temperature. Climate cannot change.

Climate is not an hour.

Argument from randU fallacy, and ignoring the temperature data from the space station orbiting Earth, which sees skin temperatures from 250 deg F to -200 deg F.

Light has no temperature.

You cannot slow or trap light. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.

Clouds to not change the temperature of Earth.

Climate has no temperature. You cannot trap light. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. Climate cannot change.

Complexity fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. Climate cannot change. The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, which you are ignoring, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, which you are ignoring, have not been falsified. They are still theories of science (which you deny).

Climate cannot change. Climate has no temperature. There is no such thing as a 'global climate'.


Repetition fallacy (chanting). You are continuing to ignore the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and you are continuing to show your inability to read and understand English. Climate cannot change.

Nobody, including me, has said that the energy from the sun has to increase... Because it doesn't have to. You continue to prove that you are delusional and misinformed. I seen a reason to read past your introductory nonsense.

 

[ZenMode]

The Church of Global Warming is a conspiracy. It is no theory.

I'm sure that is true in Cuckooville

 

[Into the Night]

You support fixing voter ID fraud and there's no evidence that it is actually a problem

Election fraud by Democrats has already occurred in the 2020 election, causing the Presidential election to fault (no one was elected), again in 2022, which caused several elections to fault, and has already been occurring in the 2024 election.

and your 'fix' will cause all sorts of additional problems. So I think you'd be fine with that.

Restoring integrity to the elections is not a 'problem', except for Democrats.

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

You don't get to quote everyone. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy.
Scientists across the globs are NOT independent. They are generally funded with government grant money. The only exception is corporate scientists.

Right now we don't have any real evidence of voter fraud.

Blatant lie. DON'T TRY TO DENY DEMOCRAT ELECTION FRAUD!

If you have some real evidence that thousands upon thousands of independent researcher working over decades have uncovered then maybe we can talk

You don't get to speak for everyone, Twilight. Omniscience fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

I'm not advocating any specific changes.

Blatant lie. You are advocating fascism to 'fix' the climate.

You can believe that climate change is real and not believe in taking ridiculous, and most likely irrelevant, changes.

Climate cannot change. Buzzword fallacy ('real').