Question for JPP Climate Enthusiasts

Into the Night said:
It isn't. Currently, the moon is half full (waxing phase). Half the 'dark side' is lit by the Sun right now.

Like the ISS, the Moon reaches temperatures of 250 deg F during the day (or sunlit side of the station). There is no appreciable atmosphere, no carbon dioxide.
Here on Earth, we have an atmosphere and carbon dioxide, yet daytime temperatures on Earth never get that high (thankfully!) If CO2 warms the Earth, why is the Earth so much COLDER during the day?
Click to expand...

Good question lol.

Though I don’t think CO2 ‘warms the earth’ or has much to do with anything in terms of climate. Clearly, the Sun warms the earth.
 
Cypress said:
^^^ This is exactly why a lot of scientifically literate people metaphorically conflate Climate Deniers with Holocaust Deniers.
Click to expand...

False equivalence fallacy. No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't warm a warmer surface using a colder gas.
* You can't trap heat.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.

There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas.
 
Into the Night said:
Climate is not a system. It is not weather either. It is a descriptive term, like 'desert climate'. It matters not whether a desert becomes a rainforest, 'desert climate' still means the same thing. Climate does not change. Earth has many climates, there is no global climate. This buzzword was created to mask the other buzzword that people were no longer accepting as well, 'global warming', also undefined.

Weather is simply that: weather. The study of weather patterns and their cause is what meteorology is all about. Some of it is science, some of it is not.


This particular buzzword is a favorite of the Church of Global Warming, trying to argue that visible light is 'shortwave' (it isn't), and infrared light is 'longwave' (it isn't). It is their attempt to say two things which are egregiously wrong:
1) the Sun only puts out visible light (it puts out a wide spectrum of light, ranging from radio waves all the way up to X rays. The bulk of the Sun's output is infrared.
2) that visible light absorption results in conversion to thermal energy (it doesn't. It results conversion to chemical energy, which has no temperature).

No, there is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using infrared light emitted from the surface of the Earth.

* You can't create energy out of nothing. (1st law of thermodynamics)
* You can't warm a warmer surface using a colder gas. (2nd law of thermodynamics)
* You can't trap light. (Planck's law)
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. (Stefan-Boltzmann law)

No. The Church of Global Warming does when they are attempting to move goalposts around.

Part of quantum physics, which most people don't know. A molecule carries a certain amount of energy. So does a photon. If the photon has more energy than the molecule, the molecule might absorb it. If it has less, no chance of it. The molecule appears reflective or transparent to the photon.

Kind of like trying to stop an incoming truck with a BB gun. The BB's just bounce off.
Click to expand...

So, to you, the global weather system is like ... Voldemort, lol.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using infrared light emitted from the surface of the Earth.
Click to expand...

Is there a reason the microwave band is excluded in that infrared light?
 
Cypress said:
^^^ This is exactly why a lot of scientifically literate people metaphorically conflate Climate Deniers with Holocaust Deniers.
Click to expand...

No, that is what happens when you let liberals run the education system.

You are one of the most scientifically illiterate people on the board. Constantly tossing out your appeal to authority, your cults icons constant lies, your refusal to have any type of honest discussion.
 
Into the Night said:
Methane has NO capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does.

* You can't slow or trap heat.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't warm a warmer surface using a colder gas.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.
Click to expand...

Who the fuck is teaching you all of the nonsense you spew?
 
Superfreak said:
No, that is what happens when you let liberals run the education system.
Click to expand...
Correct.

Superfreak said:
You are one of the most scientifically illiterate people on the board.
Click to expand...
You seem to be just as illiterate in science as he is.

Superfreak said:
Constantly tossing out your appeal to authority, your cults icons constant lies, your refusal to have any type of honest discussion.
Click to expand...
Correct, but you're doing the same thing towards ITN...
 
Superfreak said:
Who the fuck is teaching you all of the nonsense you spew?
Click to expand...

Methane has NO capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does.

* You can't slow or trap heat. (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics)
* You can't trap light. (Planck's law)
* You can't warm a warmer surface using a colder gas. (2nd law of thermodynamics)
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. (Stefan-Boltzmann law)

Since you just called these theories of science 'nonsense', I must assume you deny science.
 
Into the Night said:
Methane has NO capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does.

* You can't slow or trap heat. (1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics)
* You can't trap light. (Planck's law)
* You can't warm a warmer surface using a colder gas. (2nd law of thermodynamics)
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. (Stefan-Boltzmann law)

Since you just called these theories of science 'nonsense', I must assume you deny science.
Click to expand...

Superfreak is right, where did you learn about that bollocks? Here is a diagram that might help you think straight


A pot of water warming on a gas stove is useful for demonstrating basic concepts of energy gain and energy loss, which together determine temperature of the water in the pot.

If we view the pot of water as a simple analogy to the climate system, with a stove flame (solar input) heating the pots, we can see that two identical pots can have the same temperature, but with different rate of energy gain and loss, if (for example) we place a lid on one of the pots.


Pot-of-water-example-of-same-temp-different-energy-fluxes-900x675.jpg
 
Last edited:
Havana Moon said:
Superfreak is right, where did you learn about that bollocks? Here is a diagram that might help you think straight


A pot of water warming on a gas stove is useful for demonstrating basic concepts of energy gain and energy loss, which together determine temperature of the water in the pot.

If we view the pot of water as a simple analogy to the climate system, with a stove flame (solar input) heating the pots, we can see that two identical pots can have the same temperature, but with different rate of energy gain and loss, if (for example) we place a lid on one of the pots.


View attachment 11871
Click to expand...

Neither pot has trapped heat. Neither pot has caused heat to slow. You cannot trap or slow heat.
Climate is not a pot of water. It is a subjective word used to describe prevailing conditions, such as 'desert climate', 'marine climate', 'mountain climate', etc. There is no such thing as a 'global climate'. Climate is not quantifiable.
The Earth is not a pot of water either. False equivalence fallacy.
 
Into the Night said:
And if a molecule is already so excited, it will not be further excited again by a photon that has less energy than that molecule. You left that rather important part out.
Click to expand...

You do realise of course that you're also denying that microwave ovens work by absorbing microwave energy and heating the water molecules present in food.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top