Is Climate Change Possible Redux

[Into the Night]

The earth isn't a dead body.

You can't warm a rock by putting a jacket on it either, Void.

There is energy radiating from it's surface as a result of the energy from the Sun hitting it.

And yet you say there isn't. Which is it, dude?

So, why do you wear a jacket? How does it make you feel less cold?

RQAA

 

[Into the Night]

Why do you think yourself smarter than NASA?

Yup. Science isn't a government agency.

I mean you clearly have no real education in any of this stuff, so why do you think you are smarter than they are?

Oh, I understand your religion quite well...better than you do even. I know it's history. I know how it infected NASA, NOAA, and many other government agencies.

Your priests aren't 'experts', Twilight.
They ignore the same theories of science that you do.

 

[Daylight63]

Yup. Science isn't a government agency.

But it has a lot of scientists and people who know so much more about this topic than you do. Yet you think you are smarter than they are.

Oh, I understand your religion quite well...better than you do even.

No you don't. You are a shitposter. That's all you are. You understand next to nothing. I doubt you even have a job that requires thought.

I know it's history. I know how it infected NASA, NOAA, and many other government agencies.

Your priests aren't 'experts', Twilight.
They ignore the same theories of science that you do.

LOL. Thinks himself smarter than actual experts. And comes on here to loudly let everyone know that he doesn't know a THING.

The stuff you say daily lets everyone know you don't know what you are talking about. You are the ONLY ONE who thinks your posts make sense scientifically.

The ONLY One.

 

[ZenMode]

You can't warm a rock by putting a jacket on it either, Void.

And yet you say there isn't. Which is it, dude?

RQAA

You can't warm a rock by putting a jacket on it either, Void.

And yet you say there isn't. Which is it, dude?

RQAA

"And yet you say there isn't. Which is it, dude?"

Stop lying. We have discussed the infrared energy radiating from the earth more than once.

So, a person puts in a well insulated jacket to feel warmer. How specifically does that happen?

 

[Daylight63]

Yup. Science isn't a government agency.

Oh, I understand your religion quite well...better than you do even. I know it's history. I know how it infected NASA, NOAA, and many other government agencies.

Your priests aren't 'experts', Twilight.
They ignore the same theories of science that you do.

 

[Into the Night]

But it has a lot of scientists and people who know so much more about this topic than you do. Yet you think you are smarter than they are.

Nope. They deny the same theories of science that you do. 'Expert' worship. Science is not a government agency.

No you don't.

Yes, I do. I know how NASA became infected with your Global Warming religion.

You are a shitposter.

Argument of the Stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

You can't get away with denying theories of science as you do by insulting people, Twilight.

That's all you are. You understand next to nothing.

I have already explained the theories of science to you multiple times. You just want to desperately ignore them.

I doubt you even have a job that requires thought.

How wrong you are on that one!

LOL. Thinks himself smarter than actual experts.

'Expert' worship. Void reference fallacy.

And comes on here to loudly let everyone know that he doesn't know a THING.

Bulverism fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. You can't bluff your denial of theories of science that way!

The stuff you say daily lets everyone know you don't know what you are talking about. You are the ONLY ONE who thinks your posts make sense scientifically.

The ONLY One.

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

I have already shown you the theories of science you ignore. You can't make them go away by insulting people.

 

[Into the Night]

"And yet you say there isn't. Which is it, dude?"

Stop lying. We have discussed the infrared energy radiating from the earth more than once.

So now you want to deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You cannot trap light either.

So, a person puts in a well insulated jacket to feel warmer. How specifically does that happen?

Thermal insulation reduces heat. RQAA. It's entertaining watching you conveniently ignore the food people eat (chemical energy) or the furnace in your home.

Putting a jacket on a dead body or over a rock does not make either warmer. You cannot create energy out of nothing, not even with the best built jacket. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

 

[Into the Night]

No matter how you try to trivialize it, you cannot get rid of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Daylight63]

No matter how you try to trivialize it, you cannot get rid of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

My cartoon is pretty much how you understand S-B. LOL.

 

[IBDaMann]

Exactly. Yet the air is warmer under a blanket, inside a greenhouse, etc. That happens without ANY additional energy or magical creation of energy.

You have said nothing but a nonsequitur. Yes, thermal energy flows, with or without additional energy.

 

[IBDaMann]

Why do you think yourself smarter than NASA?

Why do you think you sopmehow speak for NASA?

Pro Tip: Before you try to make some comment about NASA or NOAA, try making the same statement with HUD in place of NASA or NOAA. If it sounds stupid with HUD, then it will be equally stupid with NASA or NOAA.

I mean you clearly have no real education in any of this stuff,

This conversation will not go well for you. You are clearly ignorant of what the US government is or how it operates.

You really should allow Into the Night to point you in the right direction. He's doing you a favor.

so why do you think you are smarter than they are?

Into the Night is much smarter than you are. You should heed his words.

 

[Into the Night]

My cartoon is pretty much how you understand S-B. LOL.

No matter how you try to trivialize it, you cannot get rid of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[IBDaMann]

My cartoon is pretty much how you understand S-B. LOL.

I am an authority on the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I can tell you that Into the Night is correct, and that you don't appear to even understand the fundamentals. If you have any questions, don't hesitate to ask.

 

[ZenMode]

So now you want to deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You cannot trap light either.

Thermal insulation reduces heat. RQAA. It's entertaining watching you conveniently ignore the food people eat (chemical energy) or the furnace in your home.

Putting a jacket on a dead body or over a rock does not make either warmer. You cannot create energy out of nothing, not even with the best built jacket. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

"Putting a jacket on a dead body or over a rock does not make either warmer."

We already discussed this also. Stop repeating nonsense. The earth radiates infrared energy that comes from the Sun. In other words, the earth isn't just a rock. It radiates energy.

Unfortunately, we've now reached the point where you start denying science. Science being the fact that the Earth, where there is no sunlight hitting (aka night), doesn't get as cold as it normally would BECAUSE of the atmosphere. The surface of the earth radiates infrared energy even though the sun is no longer visible. The reason night's aren't -200 degrees fahrenheit is because the atmosphere slows how quickly the energy radiating from Earth dissipates into space.

So, what is the atmosphere made of that causes this? Some of it is believed to be caused by water vapor....and some caused by - you guessed it! - so-called greenhouse gases.

In other words, for the average temperature on Earth to increase, and with all other things being equal, all that would need to happen is for the atmosphere to be more effective at doing what it already does.

No additional energy needed. Just being more efficient with the energy that already exists.

But as I already mentioned, you conveniently become anti-science at the point that we get to close to dissolving your beliefs.

 

[IBDaMann]

I wouldn't know, I put him on ignore.

What I do know is that there is something wrong with his thought process and it's a waste of time to try and debate him. (hence the ignore)

What makes you think there is something wrong with his thought process? All of his responses were correct. You responses to him did not acknowledge that he was correct.

Take a look at my signature and let me know if you have any questions.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

What makes you think there is something wrong with his thought process?

The exchange about bronze:

Nope. It's a mechanical problem. Battery packs are HEAVY.

Well there goes that idea. The species that build the pyramids without access to bronze has never been able to handle heavy objects before.

You don't bronze to handle a heavy object. You don't need metal of any kind. You should research the art of rigging.

Ok, you're either a bot or autistic. No ability to comprehend metaphor. Well I guess this isn't going anywhere.

Got physics facts wrong didn't care, makes some bizzare allusion to "energy density of storage":

Wikipedia disagrees

Energy density - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Propane: 49.6 MJ/kg
Gasoline: 46.4 MJ/kg
Kerosene: 43 MJ/kg

False authority fallacy. You are forgetting energy density of storage again. You cannot use Wikipedia as a source.

Final straw was "Space is not a planet" when the context was obviously antarctic mining:

A

Post in thread 'Reality check on electric cars'

Nov 10, 2024

Space is not a planet.

Yea... time for the ignore.

• ADreamOfLiberty

Take a look at my signature and let me know if you have any questions.

Since you asked, I don't have questions. You're just wrong.

1.) The power source is the sun. There is no need to claim the atmosphere is the source of energy. If the theory that carbon dioxide is warming the planet is wrong, it's not wrong because of conservation of energy.

2.) The earth's temperature and the temperature of everything in this universe is the result of dynamic equilibrium of power in and power out. If the power out was less than the power in energy density of the Earth would continue to increase indefinitely. Blackbody physics tells you nothing about the temperature maps of complex objects.

If the surface of the Earth needs to be 1000F to have a thermal radiation emission equal to the power absorbed from the sun then that is what will happen because there is plenty of power in the sun to make it happen.

The radiative surface of the Earth is not the sea or Earth, it is the upper atmosphere and always has been.

3.) Same as (1), the claim is that solar radiation heats the surface, not that it heats the atmosphere and then the atmosphere heats the surface.

 

[Into the Night]

"Putting a jacket on a dead body or over a rock does not make either warmer."

We already discussed this also.

And you still repeat the same error.

Stop repeating nonsense.

Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else.

The earth radiates infrared energy that comes from the Sun.

No, it doesn't. It simply radiates energy. Reflection isn't radiance.

In other words, the earth isn't just a rock. It radiates energy.

All rocks radiate energy.

Unfortunately, we've now reached the point where you start denying science.

Inversion fallacy. You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else.

Science being the fact that the Earth, where there is no sunlight hitting (aka night), doesn't get as cold as it normally would BECAUSE of the atmosphere.

The Earth is always lit on one side by the Sun. The atmosphere does not change Earth's atmosphere.

The surface of the earth radiates infrared energy even though the sun is no longer visible.

Correct.

The reason night's aren't -200 degrees fahrenheit is because the atmosphere slows how quickly the energy radiating from Earth dissipates into space.

Earth isn't in night. Earth is always lit on one side by the Sun. The atmosphere does not heat the Earth.

So, what is the atmosphere made of that causes this? Some of it is believed to be caused by water vapor....and some caused by - you guessed it! - so-called greenhouse gases.

No gas or vapor is capable of heating the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

In other words, for the average temperature on Earth to increase,

Now you are ignoring the 0th law of thermodynamics.

and with all other things being equal, all that would need to happen is for the atmosphere to be more effective at doing what it already does.

The atmosphere does not change the temperature of the Earth.

No additional energy needed.

You cannot increase the temperature of Earth without additional energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Just being more efficient with the energy that already exists.

There is no efficiency.

But as I already mentioned, you conveniently become anti-science at the point that we get to close to dissolving your beliefs.

You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else.

 

[Into the Night]

The exchange about bronze:

What bronze??

Final straw was "Space is not a planet" when the context was obviously antarctic mining:

What antarctic mining??

A

Post in thread 'Reality check on electric cars'

Nov 10, 2024

Space is not a planet.

Yea... time for the ignore.

• ADreamOfLiberty

Ah. So you want to discuss the link between the Church of Global Warming and the Church of the EV. Very well.

Since you asked, I don't have questions. You're just wrong.

Random phrase.

1.) The power source is the sun.

Generally correct. The Sun emits mostly infrared light.

There is no need to claim the atmosphere is the source of energy.

The atmosphere of Earth is heated by the Sun.

If the theory that carbon dioxide is warming the planet is wrong, it's not wrong because of conservation of energy.

No gas or vapor has the capability of heating the Earth by it's mere presence. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.

2.) The earth's temperature and the temperature of everything in this universe is the result of dynamic equilibrium of power in and power out.

This is correct.

If the power out was less than the power in energy density of the Earth would continue to increase indefinitely.

This ignores the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Blackbody physics tells you nothing about the temperature maps of complex objects.

This is correct.

If the surface of the Earth needs to be 1000F to have a thermal radiation emission equal to the power absorbed from the sun then that is what will happen because there is plenty of power in the sun to make it happen.

WRONG. The temperature of the Earth is obviously not 1000 deg F.

The radiative surface of the Earth is not the sea or Earth, it is the upper atmosphere and always has been.

WRONG. ALL mass has radiance. There is no 'upper atmosphere' surface or cutoff point. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

3.) Same as (1), the claim is that solar radiation heats the surface, not that it heats the atmosphere and then the atmosphere heats the surface.

The Sun heats both the atmosphere and the surface of Earth. The surface absorbs infrared light better than the air does, and is therefore warmer.
You cannot heat the warmer surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

 

[IBDaMann]

The exchange about bronze:

1. If you are going to claim that there was a misunderstanding due to your having been utilizing a metaphor, then clarify the misunderstanding instead of simply fleeing to the hills.
2. You did not investigate rigging as was mentioned, nor did you ask any questions about it. You simply fled to the hills because you didn't understand the material.

Got physics facts wrong didn't care, makes some bizzare allusion to "energy density of storage":

Into the Night made a valid point. You have to take into account how much propane, for example, you can feasibly store in a given tank. You apparently didn't understand this concept. Hydrogen fuel cells have a fatal drawback in this regard, i.e. to be commercially viable, very large "tanks" must be filled to dangerously-near-explosive pressure, and thus aren't likely to ever be approved for commercial purposes. You can't get anywhere near the same "energy density" with hydrogen that you get with hydrocarbons.

Final straw was "Space is not a planet" when the context was obviously antarctic mining:

Obviously you both were talking past each other. You specified that you were talking about space and Into the Night asked you how you were planning on mining in it. You dodged somewhat and referred back to the Arctic, at which point Into the Night pointed out that space isn't anything planetary.

Since you asked, I don't have questions. You're just wrong.

You don't have any questions about the material in my signature because you don't understand the material in my signature.

1.) The power source is the sun.

That power is already forthwith accounted. You have to identify the new/additional energy that accounts for the temperature increase you are claiming. You don't get to simply claim a spontaneous temperature increase with no new/additional energy.

If the theory that carbon dioxide is warming the planet is wrong, it's not wrong because of conservation of energy.

Global Warming / greenhouse effect absolutely violates the 1st LoT if you are claiming both an increase in temperature and no new/additional energy.

2.) The earth's temperature and the temperature of everything in this universe is the result of dynamic equilibrium of power in and power out.

Nope. When you fry some eggs, all the while the eggs' temperature is increasing, that temperature is not a result of any equilibrium, but of a lack of any equilibrium.

If the surface of the Earth needs to be 1000F

Semantic error.

1. What do you mean by "surface"?
2. Does whatever you mean have many temperatures?
3. If you are referring to an "average temperature" then how can you pretend to know what it is when it has never been calculated to any usable accuracy?

The radiative surface of the Earth is not the sea or Earth, it is the upper atmosphere and always has been.

Nope. You should learn black body science before you pretend to cite it. The "surface" has a specific meaning, and it is not "the top of the atmosphere."

3.) Same as (1), the claim is that solar radiation heats the surface, not that it heats the atmosphere and then the atmosphere heats the surface.

Were you trying to make a point here? This is not a complete sentence. What are you saying?

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

2. You did not investigate rigging as was mentioned, nor did you ask any questions about it. You simply fled to the hills because you didn't understand the material.

Oh are you a sock puppet of Into the Night?

Into the Night made a valid point. You have to take into account how much propane, for example, you can feasibly store in a given tank. You apparently didn't understand this concept. Hydrogen fuel cells have a fatal drawback in this regard, i.e. to be commercially viable, very large "tanks" must be filled to dangerously-near-explosive pressure, and thus aren't likely to ever be approved for commercial purposes. You can't get anywhere near the same "energy density" with hydrogen that you get with hydrocarbons.

No, that is completely wrong context. Indicates reading comprehension failure of the exact same nature as Into the Night.

Obviously you both were talking past each other. You specified that you were talking about space and Into the Night asked you how you were planning on mining in it.

No, that did not occur. Into the Night was replying to a post I made which did not quote him at all.

You dodged somewhat and referred back to the Arctic, at which point Into the Night pointed out that space isn't anything planetary.

No, that is completely wrong context. Indicates reading comprehension failure of the exact same nature as Into the Night. Mmmmmm what a coincidence.

That power is already forthwith accounted. You have to identify the new/additional energy that accounts for the temperature increase you are claiming. You don't get to simply claim a spontaneous temperature increase with no new/additional energy.

Power means there is constant new energy.

Nope. When you fry some eggs, all the while the eggs' temperature is increasing, that temperature is not a result of any equilibrium, but of a lack of any equilibrium.

What happens to a pan without an egg on it? Does it keep increasing in temperature forever? Does it reach the temperature of the gas plasma?

Neither. It reaches an equilibrium between the energy added by the flame and the power dissipated through convection and radiation.

If you put an insulating fiberglass blanket over the pan (without blocking the airflow for the fire) that equilibrium temperature can be increased without turning the flame up (the input power).