Is Climate Change Possible Redux

[ZenMode]

And you still repeat the same error.

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

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

All rocks radiate energy.

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

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

Correct.

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

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.

Now you are ignoring the 0th law of thermodynamics.

The atmosphere does not change the temperature of the Earth.

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.

There is no efficiency.

You cannot blame your problem on me or anybody else.

The atmosphere does not change the temperature of the Earth.

Like I said..... You check out of science when it becomes inconvenient for your beliefs.

You know that the sun doesn't hit all parts of the earth continually, but you can't help but be dumb.

You also know that the part of the Earth that isn't facing the sun gets colder than when it's facing the sun, but you can't help but be dumb.

You also know that all parts of the Earth would not only have higher highs and lower lows if not for the atmosphere....but you insist on being dumb.

So, run along and be dumb and pretend science doesn't exist when it's convenient for you to pretend.

 

[Into the Night]

The atmosphere does not change the temperature of the Earth.

Like I said..... You check out of science when it becomes inconvenient for your beliefs.

You are describing yourself. You can't blame your problem on me or anybody else.

You know that the sun doesn't hit all parts of the earth continually, but you can't help but be dumb.

Never said it did. Mantra 30a. Lame.

You also know that the part of the Earth that isn't facing the sun gets colder than when it's facing the sun, but you can't help but be dumb.

The Earth is simply the Earth. One side is always facing the sun.

You also know that all parts of the Earth would not only have higher highs and lower lows if not for the atmosphere....but you insist on being dumb.

The atmosphere cannot heat the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. You can't create energy out of nothing.

So, run along and be dumb and pretend science doesn't exist when it's convenient for you to pretend.

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

 

[ZenMode]

You are describing yourself. You can't blame your problem on me or anybody else.

Never said it did. Mantra 30a. Lame.

The Earth is simply the Earth. One side is always facing the sun.

The atmosphere cannot heat the Earth. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. You can't create energy out of nothing.

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

When you want to stop being dumb, let me know.

 

[Into the Night]

Oh are you a sock puppet of Into the Night?

He is neither. The science you are ignoring remains the same no matter who states it.

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

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

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

JPP is not a personal message service. This is a forum, where ANYONE can comment.

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

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

Power means there is constant new energy.

No, it doesn't. Power is not energy. Now you are ignoring Watt's law.

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?

Yet according to YOU, the Earth's temperature will increase forever. Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.

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).

So? Blankets work by reducing heat. They are not a form of energy. You cannot heat a rock by putting a blanket on it.

 

[Into the Night]

When you want to stop being dumb, let me know.

Mantra 1a. Lame.

 

[IBDaMann]

Oh are you a sock puppet of Into the Night?

Scientifically illiterate morons always pivot to screaming "SOCK!" whenever two scientifically knowledgeable people discuss the exact same science and use it to come up with the exact same correct answers.

Do you have anything else?

No, that is completely wrong context.

I read the post. It's not my fault if you cannot express yourself clearly in English. Regardless, you did not clarify any misunderstanding that you perceived; you simply fled to the hills. That's on you.

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

Everything I mentioned was directly related to what I read in the post you indicated. If you were pointing to the wrong post, you should correct that error.

Power means there is constant new energy.

Once again, that persistent flow of solar power is already forthwith accounted, and you would know this if you weren't totally beguiled by the subject matter. You have to point to some flow of energy that isn't already forthwith accounted in earth's equilibrium.

What happens to a pan without an egg on it?

There are no eggs to increase in temperature.

Does it keep increasing in temperature forever?

When you finish pivoting, return to the eggs that are increasing in temperature. Those eggs are in the universe and are not in equilibrium. Your assertion is false.

Avoid pivoting and you will see with greater clarity.

 

[ADreamOfLiberty]

I read the post. It's not my fault if you cannot express yourself clearly in English. Regardless, you did not clarify any misunderstanding that you perceived; you simply fled to the hills. That's on you.

Yea, life is too short to deal with people who can't understand metaphor and sarcasm, or keep track of context. So I'll be "running for the hills" from you as well.

 

[IBDaMann]

Yea, life is too short to deal with people who can't understand metaphor and sarcasm, or keep track of context. So I'll be "running for the hills" from you as well.

You are tipping your king in only four moves.

note: the correct spelling for the word you want is "yeah." "Yea" is a "yes" vote.

 

[Into the Night]

Yea, life is too short to deal with people who can't understand metaphor and sarcasm, or keep track of context. So I'll be "running for the hills" from you as well.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaah! Theories of science and mathematics! Run away! Run away!

 

[gfm7175]

I love this thread!

 

[Into the Night]

And so we still have believers in the Church of Global Warming.

Active now:
ZenMode, who still believes that you can create energy out of nothing and keeps attempting to justify a Holy Magick Gas has this property (Phase 1).

Daylight, currently trying to quote some void as a reference and is currently involved in 'expert' worship, and currently trying to deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (Phase 3).

martin, currently arguing the Church of Green, that carbon dioxide is a 'pollutant', and that Global Warming will somehow destroy the Earth; apparently assuming that you can create energy out of nothing (moving into Phase 1 from generic fear mongering).

ADreamofLiberty, currently ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and claiming the only radiative surface is the "top of the atmosphere" (whatever THAT means!).

 

[Daylight63]

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

LOL. Sure. The guy who has no clue what Stefan Boltzmann tells you knows more than I do. Into the Night (and you since you two share SO MUCH in common) knows next to nothing about this topic. Same for you. You don't understand it. You talk big but you are just another science illiterate.

 

[IBDaMann]

LOL. Sure.

You aren't fooling anyone, I'm fairly certain.

The guy who has no clue what Stefan Boltzmann tells you

He understands the Stefan-Boltzmann model and you do not. You are an excellent candidate for asking him (or me) to explain it to you.

Into the Night (and you since you two share SO MUCH in common) knows next to nothing about this topic.

You aren't going to fool me; I have discussed Stefan-Boltzmann with him for over a decade. You, on the other hand, have made only rookie errors.

I get it, you need for other leftists to believe that you are somehow a thienth geniuth. I'm happy to let them believe whatever they wish to believe. You just aren't going to convince anyone who isn't scientifically illiterate as you are.

Same for you.

So why don't you throw it in my face. Explain in detail to JPP the egregious errors that I have made regarding Stefan-Boltzmann. Go on record. It'll be great ... for me.

You can start with my signature. Delve into your dogma Climate Thienth. Give it to me with both barrels. I think you should shut me up, once and for all.

 

[Daylight63]

He understands the Stefan-Boltzmann model and you do not. You are an excellent candidate for asking him (or me) to explain it to you.

This is a cartoon demonstrating your knowledge of Stefan-Boltzmann

You aren't going to fool me; I have discussed Stefan-Boltzmann with him for over a decade.

It doesn't take that long. It's pretty simple and straightforward. And you don't understand it either.

I get it, you need for other leftists to believe that you are somehow a thienth geniuth. I'm happy to let them believe whatever they wish to believe. You just aren't going to convince anyone who isn't scientifically illiterate as you are.

I've forgotten more science than you ever knew.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. Sure. The guy who has no clue what Stefan Boltzmann tells you knows more than I do. Into the Night (and you since you two share SO MUCH in common) knows next to nothing about this topic. Same for you. You don't understand it. You talk big but you are just another science illiterate.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law:
r = C * e * t^4, where 'r' is radiance per square area, 'C' is a natural constant', 'e' is a measured constant 'emissivity' (or how well a surface absorbs and radiates light), and 't' is temperature in deg K.

To measure emissivity, you must first accurately know the temperature of the radiating surface, and compare that to the ideal black body (perfect absorber) and the ideal white body (perfect reflector). Emissivity is expressed as a percentage between the two.

ALL materials radiate according to this law.

You just want to deny this law, Twilight.


2nd law of thermodynamics:
e(t+1) >= e(t), where 'e' is 'entropy' (or available energy for work), and 't' is time. In other words, energy always dissipates. This defines the concept of 'heat' as well (the flow of thermal energy) and gives it a direction (hot to cold, never from cold to hot).

You just want to ignore this law too. You can never decrease entropy...EVER.

 

[Into the Night]

This is a cartoon demonstrating your knowledge of Stefan-Boltzmann

It doesn't take that long. It's pretty simple and straightforward. And you don't understand it either.



I've forgotten more science than you ever knew.

Trivialization fallacy. You can't make the Stefan-Boltzmann law go away that way!

 

[IBDaMann]

This is a cartoon demonstrating your knowledge of Stefan-Boltzmann

You don't get to declare other people's (mis)understandings without explaing how they are somehow demonstrated. You can't explain why you believe my understanding is flawed because you understand neither Stefan-Boltsmann nor my understanding of it.

I notice that you still have not gone on record as explaining what specifically you believe is wrong with my signature. Obviously, doing so will expose you for the fraud that you are.

It doesn't take that long.

Nonetheless, warmizombie errors are as countless as the stars. They have provided over a decade of discussion material.

It's pretty simple and straightforward.

I get it that you have no excuse for not understanding it. You should be availing yourself of the experts who will gladly teach you for free, unless you believe that you are too stupid to learn and that you would only be wasting your time.

I've forgotten more science than you ever knew.

Perhaps you have forgotten everything you ever learned, or you never learned anything in the first place ... either one of those will work.