Question for JPP Climate Enthusiasts

Havana Moon said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Again, you are redirecting and fixating on absorption.

Absorption of surface IR by any gas or vapor in the atmosphere does not warm the Earth. Earth's surface is COOLED by this action. It takes energy to emit IR light. It is the same as if the surface heated the air above it by conduction. It's just radiance instead doing the same thing.

* You cannot create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics).
 
Into the Night said:
Not at all. Again, you are redirecting and fixating on absorption.

Absorption of surface IR by any gas or vapor in the atmosphere does not warm the Earth. Earth's surface is COOLED by this action. It takes energy to emit IR light. It is the same as if the surface heated the air above it by conduction. It's just radiance instead doing the same thing.

* You cannot create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics).
Click to expand...

So how does a microwave oven work then genius? IR and microwave radiation are all part of the electromagnetic spectrum, stop talking bollocks.
 
Havana Moon said:
So how does a microwave oven work then genius? IR and microwave radiation are all part of the electromagnetic spectrum, stop talking bollocks.
Click to expand...

By absorption of electromagnetic energy. In the case of IR, by direct conversion. In the case of microwaves, by indirect conversion (harmonic absorption followed by conduction).

Absorption of surface IR by a gas or vapor does not heat the Earth. The surface is COOLED by this action, not warmed.
 
Into the Night said:
By absorption of electromagnetic energy. In the case of IR, by direct conversion. In the case of microwaves, by indirect conversion (harmonic absorption followed by conduction).

Absorption of surface IR by a gas or vapor does not heat the Earth. The surface is COOLED by this action, not warmed.
Click to expand...

It is exactly the same mechanism in both cases ffs. H2O and CO2 absorb photons which result in vibrational energy due to bending, stretching and rotation of the molecules, this in turn results in heat. This is truly simple shit, which you must know surely. I can only conclude that you're displaying wilful ignorance, as to why is the real question?
 
Last edited:
Havana Moon said:
It is exactly the same mechanism in both cases ffs. H2O and CO2 absorb photons which result in vibrational energy due to bending and stretching of bonds, this in turn results in heat. This is truly simple shit, which you must know surely. I can only conclude that you're displaying wilful ignorance, as to why is the real question?
Click to expand...

I am a lukewarmist, pretty much always have been, I even posted the CO2 radiative forcing equation for CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig). This predicts an extra forcing of approx. 3.7W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2 concentration or 1.2C. Totally unremarkable as much of the warming has occurred already. What is hugely contentious are the gross assumptions made in climate models regarding feedbacks. Alarmists assume the sign is positive without any empirical evidence to justify that. They have virtually no useful data on cloud formation and the causes, yet just make giant leaps in the dark to justify their existence.
 
Havana Moon said:
It is exactly the same mechanism in both cases ffs. H2O and CO2 absorb photons which result in vibrational energy due to bending and stretching of bonds, this in turn results in heat. This is truly simple shit, which you must know surely. I can only conclude that you're displaying wilful ignorance, as to why is the real question?
Click to expand...

Moving goalposts around again? Absorption of surface IR by any gas or vapor in the atmosphere does not warm the Earth. The surface is cooled by emitting IR light.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
 
Last edited:
Havana Moon said:
I am a lukewarmist, pretty much always have been,
Click to expand...
Like I said, a warmazombie.
Havana Moon said:
I even posted the CO2 radiative forcing equation for CO2: RF = 5.35 ln(CO2/CO2_orig).
Click to expand...
Equations based on circular arguments is attempting to prove a circular argument. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
Havana Moon said:
This predicts an extra forcing of approx. 3.7W/m^2 for a doubling of CO2 concentration or 1.2C.
Click to expand...
Random equations mean nothing.
Havana Moon said:
Totally unremarkable as much of the warming has occurred already.
Click to expand...
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Define 'global warming'.
Havana Moon said:
What is hugely contentious are the gross assumptions made in climate models regarding feedbacks.
Click to expand...
Define 'climate model'. Climate is a subject word and is not a quantifiable value. Define 'feedback'. How does something that is unquantifiable 'feedback'?
Havana Moon said:
Alarmists assume the sign is positive without any empirical evidence to justify that.
Click to expand...
'Feedback' is a value? How are you getting a value of any kind out of an unquantifiable and subjective word?
Havana Moon said:
They have virtually no useful data on cloud formation and the causes,
Click to expand...
There is no record of cloud cover of the Earth. Clouds are formed by rising air and sufficient humidity.
Havana Moon said:
yet just make giant leaps in the dark to justify their existence.
Click to expand...
Just like you do.
 
Into the Night said:
Like I said, a warmazombie.

Equations based on circular arguments is attempting to prove a circular argument. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Random equations mean nothing.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Define 'global warming'.

Define 'climate model'. Climate is a subject word and is not a quantifiable value. Define 'feedback'. How does something that is unquantifiable 'feedback'?

'Feedback' is a value? How are you getting a value of any kind out of an unquantifiable and subjective word?

There is no record of cloud cover of the Earth. Clouds are formed by rising air and sufficient humidity.

Just like you do.
Click to expand...

I have concluded that you're a troll and therefore will not engage you further.
 
Darth Omar said:
Seen several clips from CNN’s seven hour Climate marathon that hardly anyone watched.

Yang wants to ban commercial air travel; Harris wants to control how much red meat you eat; Biden, playing the ‘moderate’ said “we’ve got to shut down all coal burning plants”; Mayor Pete says if you eat hamburgers you’re part of the problem.

You get the idea.

But here is my question for the Climate Enthusiasts: is there any solution to global warming that *doesn’t* involve top-down command and control socialism and/or a massive intrusion of government into people’s lives and pocket books?
Click to expand...

No. We're all going to have to change our life-styles. Electing ecocidal politicians will stave off the inevitable short-term- but they're likely to be assassinated as democracy dissolves and people drown, choke, starve, roast, freeze and riot to death.
Get yourself a gun and a cave or accept the truth and vote for your life.
 
moon said:
No. We're all going to have to change our life-styles. Electing ecocidal politicians will stave off the inevitable short-term- but they're likely to be assassinated as democracy dissolves and people drown, choke, starve, roast, freeze and riot to death.
Get yourself a gun and a cave or accept the truth and vote for your life.
Click to expand...

The Church of Global Warming is not the Truth.
 
Into the Night Soil;
200w.webp

YALSA.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top