The real danger of climate change

[Yakuda]

The rabid obsession that the tree hugging idiot leftists have about climate change is becoming a crisis bigger than the climate change they claim to hate so much. Remember leftists don't ever actually care.abiut the things they claim to care about they care only about the leftist agenda. Anyone who thinks leftists actually care about climate change is as dumb as those very same leftists think you are.

I read this and realized how true it all is

https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2022/09/the-deadly-climate-obsession-of-governments/

 

[Into the Night]

The Church of Global Warming (otherwise known as the Church of Climate Change) is a fundamentalist style religion. It routinely discards the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It routinely discards mathematics, particularly statistical mathematics. This religion stems from the Church of Green, which in turn stems from the Church of Karl Marx. Because it is a religion, it needs no further justification than the religion itself. Anyone challenging the religion is a <pick insult string here>. The very nature of fundamentalism is to put down and condemn anyone that is not a true believer.

Yes. This is about implementing fascism and communism in the name of 'saving the planet'.

This is about tyranny.

 

[archives]

Let’s first look at the source, an opinion piece by an obscure Canadian libertarian in a equally curious publication put out by an off shore entity, and no, that is not an ad hominem, common sense, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, no matter what another says, it most likely is a duck

Second, “now that Russia has started a war,” so what if Russia didn’t start a war, guess then her argument about pipelines, and it’s always, “build that pipeline and all is solved,” is questionable

And from there we go to the usual “freedom” bullshit, amazing how wingers don’t understand the concept that freedom and rights are based on reason, not desire, and please, spare us the God given bullshit

 

[Into the Night]

Let’s first look at the source, an opinion piece by an obscure Canadian libertarian in a equally curious publication put out by an off shore entity, and no, that is not an ad hominem, common sense, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, no matter what another says, it most likely is a duck

Second, “now that Russia has started a war,” so what if Russia didn’t start a war, guess then her argument about pipelines, and it’s always, “build that pipeline and all is solved,” is questionable

And from there we go to the usual “freedom” bullshit, amazing how wingers don’t understand the concept that freedom and rights are based on reason, not desire, and please, spare us the God given bullshit

Bulverism fallacy. Pivot fallacy (off topic).

 

[Hawkeye10]

The rabid obsession that the tree hugging idiot leftists have about climate change is becoming a crisis bigger than the climate change they claim to hate so much. Remember leftists don't ever actually care.abiut the things they claim to care about they care only about the leftist agenda. Anyone who thinks leftists actually care about climate change is as dumb as those very same leftists think you are.

I read this and realized how true it all is

https://www.capitalismmagazine.com/2022/09/the-deadly-climate-obsession-of-governments/

You really do need to distinguish between the leaders of this communist revolution and their trained useful idiots.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

The Church of Global Warming (otherwise known as the Church of Climate Change) is a fundamentalist style religion. It routinely discards the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It routinely discards mathematics, particularly statistical mathematics. This religion stems from the Church of Green, which in turn stems from the Church of Karl Marx. Because it is a religion, it needs no further justification than the religion itself. Anyone challenging the religion is a <pick insult string here>. The very nature of fundamentalism is to put down and condemn anyone that is not a true believer.

Yes. This is about implementing fascism and communism in the name of 'saving the planet'.

This is about tyranny.

This is known as the Church of Gorebal Warming...

 

[Lightbringer]

Let’s first look at the source, an opinion piece by an obscure Canadian libertarian in a equally curious publication put out by an off shore entity, and no, that is not an ad hominem, common sense, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, no matter what another says, it most likely is a duck

Second, “now that Russia has started a war,” so what if Russia didn’t start a war, guess then her argument about pipelines, and it’s always, “build that pipeline and all is solved,” is questionable

And from there we go to the usual “freedom” bullshit, amazing how wingers don’t understand the concept that freedom and rights are based on reason, not desire, and please, spare us the God given bullshit

Are they now? Whose reason?

 

[Yakuda]

Let’s first look at the source, an opinion piece by an obscure Canadian libertarian in a equally curious publication put out by an off shore entity, and no, that is not an ad hominem, common sense, if it looks like a duck, sounds like a duck, walks like a duck, no matter what another says, it most likely is a duck

Second, “now that Russia has started a war,” so what if Russia didn’t start a war, guess then her argument about pipelines, and it’s always, “build that pipeline and all is solved,” is questionable

And from there we go to the usual “freedom” bullshit, amazing how wingers don’t understand the concept that freedom and rights are based on reason, not desire, and please, spare us the God given bullshit

I'm not sure if you were born this obtuse or made that way by leftist indoctrination but if you think rights are based solely on "reason" then you're a bigger idiot than i imagined. BTW my imagination about how retarded you leftist are is really amazing.

 

[archives]

Are they now? Whose reason?

Called common sense, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, it sure as hell ain’t an elephant

 

[archives]

I'm not sure if you were born this obtuse or made that way by leftist indoctrination but if you think rights are based solely on "reason" then you're a bigger idiot than i imagined. BTW my imagination about how retarded you leftist are is really amazing.

Pretty obvious you didn’t process the concept, reason not desire, it isn’t solipsism

 

[SmarterthanYou]

And from there we go to the usual “freedom” bullshit, amazing how wingers don’t understand the concept that freedom and rights are based on reason, not desire, and please, spare us the God given bullshit

proof that people on the left have no understanding of freedom or rights.

 

[archives]

proof that people on the left have no understanding of freedom or rights.

If so, it should be easy for you to show how I am wrong, we’ll wait, your turn

 

[SmarterthanYou]

If so, it should be easy for you to show how I am wrong, we’ll wait, your turn

you're wrong because you're wrong. Humans, living beings, have rights and freedoms for simply being alive. You leftist idiots can't fathom that concept because you're too full of hate and fear, so you demand that a governing body 'reasonably' use 'common sense' and write things out for you to feel comfortable and safe.

A prime example is the primary law of nature. Do YOU have the right to defend your life? Does government have the authority to tell you that you can't?

 

[Yakuda]

Pretty obvious you didn’t process the concept, reason not desire, it isn’t solipsism

As I said my imagination of leftist stupid is wild and you have gone past even that. It's amazing how concretely you people think. It must be related to the content of your heads

 

[Saint Guinefort]

It routinely discards the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Well, gosh that sounds SUPER scientific. Care to show us where these violations occur in the science? (Don't worry, I don't think anyone expects you to do so, just noting that it isn't really true).

It routinely discards mathematics, particularly statistical mathematics.

And may I know how you would know this? Especially the "statistical mathematics" (what most of us who actually DO use statistics call "statistics").

This is about tyranny.

No, it's actually about science you may not necessarily understand.

 

[Into the Night]

Well, gosh that sounds SUPER scientific.

Trivializing science doesn't change it.

Care to show us where these violations occur in the science? (Don't worry, I don't think anyone expects you to do so, just noting that it isn't really true).

Neither global warming nor 'climate change' is a theory or branch of science.

The 1st law of thermodynamics states: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U" is work. No gas or vapor is work, therefore 'U' is zero. You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (the randomness of a given system), and 't' is time. This law defines heat and gives it a direction. Heat always flows from hot areas (lots of energy) to cold areas (relative voids of energy). Heat will continue until all temperatures are equal. The Church of Global Warming routinely claims you can heat a warmer surface using a colder gas, violating this law.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law relates temperature to radiance. It states: r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant (known as emissivity or absorptivity), and 't' is temperature in deg K.
In other words, as temperature increases, radiance increases, and more energy is converted to light, which is radiated into space. The Church of Global Warming tries to invert this relation.

And may I know how you would know this? Especially the "statistical mathematics" (what most of us who actually DO use statistics call "statistics").

You do not use statistics. You use random numbers of type randU (the 'psuedo' random number, thought up in someone's head). You deny and discard statistical math.
Using random numbers as 'data' is a fallacy (an error in logic).

No, it's actually about science you may not necessarily understand.

You deny and discard science. It is about tyranny.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Trivializing science doesn't change it.

Neither global warming nor 'climate change' is a theory or branch of science.

The 1st law of thermodynamics states: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U" is work. No gas or vapor is work, therefore 'U' is zero. You cannot create energy out of nothing. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

In order to sound more scientific than you actually are you overstate the case. Nothing in AGW violates the First Law. CO2 doesn't make the warming, CO2 (and other GHG's) merely cause the level at which the incoming radiation re-radiates back out into space higher and higher and higher to regions where it is less and less radiatively efficient. This leads to an increase in temperature in the lower atmosphere at the surface of the earth. Nothing is creating or destroying energy or matter.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics states: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (the randomness of a given system), and 't' is time. This law defines heat and gives it a direction. Heat always flows from hot areas (lots of energy) to cold areas (relative voids of energy). Heat will continue until all temperatures are equal. The Church of Global Warming routinely claims you can heat a warmer surface using a colder gas, violating this law.

Again, your lack of any real appreciation of thermodynamics aside, there is no violation of the Second Law. Unless you don't think you can make ice in a freezer. Why do I say that? Because your freezer is a good example of a place where ENTROPY DECREASES LOCALLY (making ice is an entropically negative thing), but the Second Law still holds because on a universal scale the overall entropy of the universe is increased.

The Second Law really only applies to isolated systems. You may not know this but the earth has a big energy source outside of it that pumps heat into the system, so your attempt to use thermo you don't really understand fails here.

You do not use statistics. You use random numbers of type randU (the 'psuedo' random number, thought up in someone's head). You deny and discard statistical math.
Using random numbers as 'data' is a fallacy (an error in logic).

You are extremely far out of your depth on this.

 

[Into the Night]

In order to sound more scientific than you actually are

So you discard the theories of science I just stated for you.

you overstate the case.

I am not overstating anything. I simply answered your question.

Nothing in AGW violates the First Law. CO2 doesn't make the warming, CO2 (and other GHG's) merely cause the level at which the incoming radiation re-radiates back out into space higher and higher and higher to regions where it is less and less radiatively efficient.

Now you are ignoring Kirchoff's law of equivalence. Emissivity and absorptivity are the same. If something cannot radiate as well, it also cannot absorb as well. Makes no difference.

This leads to an increase in temperature in the lower atmosphere at the surface of the earth.

No. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You are not discarding the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Nothing is creating or destroying energy or matter.

It takes additional energy to increase the temperature. Where is it coming from????!? The Sun's output is assumed to be the same as before.

Again, your lack of any real appreciation of thermodynamics aside,

It is YOU discarding both the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

there is no violation of the Second Law. Unless you don't think you can make ice in a freezer.

This old argument again?????!? No. Making ice in a freezer is NOT a decrease in entropy.

Why do I say that? Because your freezer is a good example of a place where ENTROPY DECREASES LOCALLY (making ice is an entropically negative thing),

WRONG. You cannot compare two different systems as if they were the same system. Freezers don't make ice by themselves. You have to plug them into a power plant to do that. A freezer by itself is one system. The freezer and the power plant is another system. You cannot compare two systems as if they were the same system. False equivalence fallacy.

but the Second Law still holds because on a universal scale the overall entropy of the universe is increased.

There is no 'universal scale'. A system is simply a boundary you declare.

The Second Law really only applies to isolated systems.

It applies to ALL systems. You cannot set it aside even for a moment. It applies even to the known universe.

You may not know this but the earth has a big energy source outside of it that pumps heat into the system, so your attempt to use thermo you don't really understand fails here.

Again, you are comparing the Earth itself to the Sun-Earth-space system. You cannot compare two different systems as the same system. False equivalence fallacy.

You are extremely far out of your depth on this.

No, that would be YOU. You don't understand what a system is when discussing thermodynamics. You continue to compare two different systems as if they were the same system. That's a false equivalence fallacy.

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Heat always flows from hot to cold...never the reverse.
You cannot separate emissivity with absorptivity.
The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no frequency term. ALL frequencies are considered.
Absorption does NOT necessarily result in conversion to thermal energy.
There is no 're-radiation'. A photon that is absorbed is DESTROYED.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

So you discard the theories of science I just stated for you.

First it was abundantly clear you have never had a thermo or pchem class and your statement of the laws were largely predicated on your overall ignorance of thermo.

It takes additional energy to increase the temperature. Where is it coming from????!? The Sun's output is assumed to be the same as before.

It is also clear you don't really understand AGW. Let me try to explain it to you:

The sun puts out energy which the earth absorbs and re-radiates back out in the IR (this is called "down conversion" since most of the energy coming from the sun is in shorter wavelength, high energy photons.) This creates warmth in the form if IR radiation radiating back out of the planet. If we had no greenhouse gases at all in our atmosphere it would all go back out into space quickly and our surface would remain close to the earth's "blackbody radiation temperature" (calculated from Stefan-Boltzmann).

The problem with ADDED greenhouse gas is that with more and more of it the earth remains in balance with regards to energy coming in and energy going out. That's key. Even with AGW the energy budget is still in balance.

So why are we warming? Because as more GHG's go into the atmosphere it pushes the altitude at which the IR photons re-emit back into space. That holds more warmth near the surface for longer.

So energy is NOT being created from nothing. It is perfectly in accordance with the First Law.

And since the earth is NOT an isolated system (open to the sun's energy) it also follows the Second Law of Thermo quite well.

In other words: your understanding of the topic is severely lacking and not related to reality.

This old argument again?????!? No. Making ice in a freezer is NOT a decrease in entropy.

Locally it IS. On the larger scale it is not. Crystallization DECREASES entropy.

There is no 're-radiation'. A photon that is absorbed is DESTROYED.

No. Wrong.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

I really didn't want to do this but...

In simple, easy to understand terms...

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is in regard to what are called white and black bodies. A black body absorbs all energy that contacts it. A white body reflects all energy in the same way. This is described by the term "albedo." Albedo ranges from 0 (white body) to 1 (black body).
The Earth has an albedo between 0 and 1 about .3 ish currently. The sun radiates some amount of energy. The energy that reaches the Earth is either absorbed or reflected. That amount is subject to change dependent on the albedo of the planet and its ability to radiate that energy back into space as opposed to absorb it.
The other source of energy is that created on Earth itself. Humanity creates some of that. See the Kardashev scale for more.

So, changing the albedo of the Earth, or changing the composition of the atmosphere will affect albedo to some degree. How much is open to debate as is the affect humanity has on this versus nature.

As for thermodynamics:

The first law ∆U = Q - W That is, U energy out equals energy put in Q less energy used in the system (work) W.

In terms of planetary climate the energy from the sun less energy absorbed by the planet equals the energy reflected back into space. You can add in energy created on Earth to this, but that's minor by comparison.

The second law is that energy is conserved. That is, energy out + energy converted to work = total energy put into the system.

So, the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann laws are not violated in the least by the temperature of the Earth rising or falling due to changes in albedo or the chemical composition of the atmosphere. The question is, how much is anthropomorphic and how much is natural. The Church of Gorebal Warming erroneously claims that it is human activity that is the significant cause versus nature. They then try their damnedest to find a way to prove this, much like many other religions try to find proof of their God or their Gods.