Why Should Anyone Believe in Global Warming?

[IBDaMann]

Nope. The science of climate change/increasing temperatures is based on infrared light interacting with CO2 molecules which, as a result of the light, produce heat.

Houston, we have a problem. The sun was already there "interacting" with CO2 molecules. You are claiming a magical appearance of additional thermal energy, i.e. increased temperature ... or are you no longer claiming the increase in temperature.

By the way, the word "faith" is not spelled "science."

No energy lost or gained in that process.

So there is no additional thermal energy? In that case, the temperature doesn't increase. I'm glad we got that ironed out.

YOU brought up Thermodynamics laws, not me.

Thermodynamics must be forthwith adhered always. The laws of thermodynamics should always be mentioned.

The temperature in the car increases, not because the any additional energy is magically coming into existence, but because of the nature of where the sun light is going or not going.

Nope. I explained this to you. Perhaps you were too stupid to learn what I was teaching you. The windows prevent convection, and prevent the hot air inside the car from heating the cooler air outside the car.

Explain how that description violates the first law.

You claim a spontaneous increase in thermal energy, i.e. a temperature increase. You are on center stage to explain this miraculous addition of thermal energy.

.

 

[ZenMode]

You are just making up numbers again.

Over the past 140 years, we’ve literally gone from making some temperature measurements by hand to using sophisticated satellite technology. Today’s temperature data come from many sources, including more than 32,000 land weather stations, weather balloons, radar, ships and buoys, satellites, and volunteer weather watchers.

Satellites do not measure the temperature of the Earth.

Correct, they don't measure it directly.

You are using biased numbers, and even making up numbers.

They aren't my numbers, so any biases i have are irrelevant.

Location grouping is a significant biasing factor. It must be eliminated. Thermometers MUST be uniformly distributed. They aren't.

Based on what information?

Time is a significant biasing factor. Storms move. The Sun moves across the sky, unevenly heating the Earth. All thermometers MUST be read at the same time by the same authority.

Do you have any details on how the thermometers are being read that leads you to believe they are being read incorrectly?

Math error. Failure to provide unbiased raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error value.

You are AGAIN ignoring statistical math.

I'm not claiming to have raw data. I'm not claiming to be a scientist studying this. I'm saying that the infrared light leaving the earth is interacting with CO2 molecules and resulting in them putting off heat, some of which is directed back toward the earth and, as the CO2 in the atmosphere increases, this will process will

increase.



It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Link? You can't just say things and make them true.

The sunspot cycle is not the temperature of the Earth.

I never said it was. straw man.

The navigation charts are still valid. The magnetic north and south poles haven't flipped.

Wrong:

The Sun is busy, but one of the exciting developments is the reversal of its magnetic poles. Like Earth, the Sun has two magnetic poles, one positive and one negative. These poles change polarity, or magnetically flip, but unlike Earth’s poles that reverse roughly every 300,000 years, the solar poles flip about every 11 years!

The Sun’s polar field reversal is the major hallmark event that signals the end of a solar cycle’s Maximum period and ushers in the transition to Minimum. After the reversal, the newly established polar field will determine the strength of the next solar cycle. While the polar field reversal doesn’t happen in a dramatic display of firepower, it is an enormous global change with many consequences. For example, this is the only instance where activity like filament eruptions and CMEs – known to negatively impact Earth’s power and communication networks – can happen at any latitude on the Sun, including its poles.

https://nso.edu/blog/polar-magnetic...nge polarity, or,in the transition to Minimum.

It is not possible to measure all the storms on Earth.

Based on what?

It is not possible to measure the humidity of Earth.

Based on what?

Neither El Nino nor La Nina is a warming of the Earth.

Not permanently. Both temporarily impact the earth's climate. The point of bring them up was to make the point that the average temperature on earth are not static throughout time.

You are also ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. You cannot create energy out of nothing. There are not enough thermometers. The ones we do have are not uniformly distributed nor read at the same time.

I'll just keep saying it.... nothing in the process of infrared light leaving the earth and interacting with CO2 molecules violates that law.

 

[ZenMode]

Houston, we have a problem. The sun was already there "interacting" with CO2 molecules. You are claiming a magical appearance of additional thermal energy, i.e. increased temperature ... or are you no longer claiming the increase in temperature.

yes, the infrared light leaving the earth interacts with the current CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. We are talking about, despite you playing dumb, what happens when the CO2 in the atmosphere increase.

By the way, the word "faith" is not spelled "science."

I know. Thanks.

So there is no additional thermal energy? In that case, the temperature doesn't increase. I'm glad we got that ironed out.

The total energy in the universe doesn't change. Energy can't be created or destroyed.
The current energy from the sun is enough.

Thermodynamics must be forthwith adhered always. The laws of thermodynamics should always be mentioned.

When it's relevant to the discussion, yes.

Nope. I explained this to you. Perhaps you were too stupid to learn what I was teaching you. The windows prevent convection, and prevent the hot air inside the car from heating the cooler air outside the car.

Explain the science of how/why it happens is secondary to the fact that the temperature in the car does increase DESPITE the fact that there is no additional energy coming from the sun. Do you actually read what I type and take in into consideration when responding or do you just type out canned responses you've memorized?

You claim a spontaneous increase in thermal energy, i.e. a temperature increase. You are on center stage to explain this miraculous addition of thermal energy.

.

Does closing car windows constitute magic to you? If not, explain what you're talking about.

 

[IBDaMann]

Nope. My original sentence is exactly the point.

Then you are not just wrong, but you are stupid-wrong, and you apparently are taking great pride in just how stupid you are making your responses, so it appears your stupidity is convenient and deliberate. Fair enough.

The temperature in a given location can increase without there being any magical creation of energy in the universe.

Physics is never violated, so all temperatures change without violating physics. But that's not what you are claiming. You are specifically claiming a temperature change resulting from a physics violation. Let's be clear, whenever you claim a change in temperature, you necessarily refer to an initial temperature at time T(I), and a final temperature at time T(F). If the temperature has increased, the amount of thermal energy has increased. You insist that CO2 causes this increase in thermal energy. You give yourself no wiggle room. You have revealed your religion for the physics violation that it is.

The really stupid part of all this is your belief that you are somehow fooling rational adults.

Just the existing energy from the sun will suffice.

Nope. I saw what you did there, i.e. you surreptitiously pivoted away from talking about the earth's average global temperature and without notice, suddenly began talking about "the temperature in a given location" in the hope that nobody would notice. Would you care to take a guess at whether or not I noticed? I'm going to reel you back in. The unaltered energy flow from the sun absolutely cannot be the explanation for any spontaneous increase in the earth's average global temperature, which is what you are trying to claim ... without success I might add.

No additional thermal energy is needed.

Additional thermal energy is absolutely required for the earth's average global temperature to increase. You are now denying science in order to meet the demands of your faith.

If you sit in your car, on a sunny day, with all the windows open, the temperature in the car will be lower than if you close all the windows in the car.

This has been explained to you multiple times. You can affect earth's distribution of its existing quantity of thermal energy (which maintains the exact same average global temperature) but you can't change the earth's average global temperature without changing the earth's existing quantity of thermal energy. Nonetheless, you are claiming that Global Warming (another deity in the Climate pantheon) accomplishes this central miracle of your faith by wielding the magical superpowers of greenhouse gas. Hey, Christians claim that a man came back from the dead after walking on water that he could have turned to wine. That's pretty miraculous as well. Christians have the advantage, however, of not rendering their sacred miracles absurd by claiming that they are thumhow thettled thienth.

 

[Into the Night]

Nope. The science of climate change/increasing temperatures is based on infrared light interacting with CO2 molecules which, as a result of the light, produce heat. No energy lost or gained in that process. YOU brought up Thermodynamics laws, not me. The temperature in the car increases, not because the any additional energy is magically coming into existence, but because of the nature of where the sun light is going or not going. My description is the first response above. Explain how that description violates the first law.

There is no science of 'climate change'. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You cannot trap heat or thermal energy or light.
You are currently trying to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law now; now making argument 2b.
A car is not the Earth. False equivalence fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Over the past 140 years, we’ve literally gone from making some temperature measurements by hand to using sophisticated satellite technology.

Satellites don't measure the temperature of the Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to measure it.

Today’s temperature data come from many sources, including more than 32,000 land weather stations, weather balloons, radar, ships and buoys, satellites, and volunteer weather watchers.[/I]

Argument from randU fallacy. Radar does not measure temperature. Satellites do not measure temperature. Making up numbers and using them as 'data' is a fallacy, dude.
Math errors: Failure to provide unbiased raw data. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error value.

Correct, they don't measure it directly.

They don't measure it at all.

They aren't my numbers,

There are no numbers.

so any biases i have are irrelevant.

There are no numbers.

Based on what information?

Mathematics, which you ignore.

Do you have any details on how the thermometers are being read that leads you to believe they are being read incorrectly?

RQAA.

I'm not claiming to have raw data.

Yes you are, liar.

I'm not claiming to be a scientist studying this.

Not science.

I'm saying that the infrared light leaving the earth is interacting with CO2 molecules and resulting in them putting off heat, some of which is directed back toward the earth and, as the CO2 in the atmosphere increases,

You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.

Link? You can't just say things and make them true.

Attempted force of negative proof. YOU are making the claim. Burden fallacy.

I never said it was. straw man.

Yes you did, liar. Fallacy fallacy.

Wrong:

The Sun is busy, but one of the exciting developments is the reversal of its magnetic poles. Like Earth, the Sun has two magnetic poles, one positive and one negative. These poles change polarity, or magnetically flip, but unlike Earth’s poles that reverse roughly every 300,000 years, the solar poles flip about every 11 years!

The Sun’s polar field reversal is the major hallmark event that signals the end of a solar cycle’s Maximum period and ushers in the transition to Minimum. After the reversal, the newly established polar field will determine the strength of the next solar cycle. While the polar field reversal doesn’t happen in a dramatic display of firepower, it is an enormous global change with many consequences. For example, this is the only instance where activity like filament eruptions and CMEs – known to negatively impact Earth’s power and communication networks – can happen at any latitude on the Sun, including its poles.

https://nso.edu/blog/polar-magnetic...nge polarity, or,in the transition to Minimum.

Magnetic poles are not temperature.

Based on what?

Mathematics.

Based on what?

Mathematics.

Not permanently.

Not even temporarily.

Both temporarily impact the earth's climate.

There is no such thing as a global climate. Climate cannot change.

The point of bring them up was to make the point that the average temperature on earth are not static throughout time.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You are not ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are back to argument 2a. And round and round you go.

I'll just keep saying it.... nothing in the process of infrared light leaving the earth and interacting with CO2 molecules violates that law.

Yes it does. You are trying to create energy out of nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

...repairing damaged quoting...

yes, the infrared light leaving the earth interacts with the current CO2 molecules in the atmosphere. We are talking about, despite you playing dumb, what happens when the CO2 in the atmosphere increase. I know. Thanks. The total energy in the universe doesn't change. Energy can't be created or destroyed.
The current energy from the sun is enough.

Nope. You need additional energy. The Sun is already there. You can't create energy out of nothing.

When it's relevant to the discussion, yes.

It is always relevant. You just want to ignore and discard the laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and mathematics.

Explain the science of how/why it happens is secondary to the fact that the temperature in the car does increase DESPITE the fact that there is no additional energy coming from the sun. Do you actually read what I type and take in into consideration when responding or do you just type out canned responses you've memorized?

RQAA. He has already answered this question. So have I. Stop asking it over and over like a moron.

Does closing car windows constitute magic to you? If not, explain what you're talking about.

RQAA

 

[gfm7175]

Nope. I saw what you did there, i.e. you surreptitiously pivoted away from talking about the earth's average global temperature and without notice, suddenly began talking about "the temperature in a given location" in the hope that nobody would notice.

You've probably noticed that he's also been doing that same pivot strategy with regard to the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

When you were talking to him specifically about thermal energy (re: his utterly stupid "spontaneous temperature increase" claim that he "never claimed"), he pivoted away from thermal energy and over to energy in general (not just thermal).

I usually notice that sort of thing too.

 

[ZenMode]

...repairing damaged quoting...

Nope. You need additional energy. The Sun is already there. You can't create energy out of nothing.

No, you don't need additional energy. The current energy, if radiated as heat back toward the earth, is what is believed to cause warming. You don't need additional energy to make your car hotter. In the case of the atmosphere, all that is believed to be happening is that less of the infrared energy is escaping into space but is being redirected toward earth, by CO2 molecules, in the form of heat. Again, NO additional energy needed. Just different conditions for existing energy. Closing your car windows doesn't create additional energy, it just impacts how the EXISTING energy is handled.

On a side note, I'll post as i please. That may mean referencing the same point or asking the same question multiple times. You'll be ok. Nobody is making you read my posts. If you can't handle it, feel free to skip them.

 

[gfm7175]

The total energy in the universe doesn't change. Energy can't be created or destroyed.

You know full well that he asked about thermal energy specifically and not energy in general. Stop being dishonest.

Of course, dishonestly is all you have because your religion is completely and utterly physics-denying-stupid on its face.

 

[IBDaMann]

yes, the infrared light leaving the earth interacts with the current CO2 molecules in the atmosphere.

Aha! You have finally gotten around to pivoting to argument 2c. Congratulations! I think we all knew you just had to, but for a moment there I was beginning to wonder if maybe, just maybe, you were going to abandon the stupid, endless cycle. Anyway, argument 2c is the one that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics by claiming that the warmer surface is somehow heated by the much cooler atmosphere. It's way too funny! But let's examine where you stand in the obligatory endless cycle:

- 2c. The earth, in equilibrium, radiates thermally into space exactly what it absorbs, without creating any additional energy out of nothing, which is exactly what has been taught all along. The earth's thermal radiation, however, is simply absorbed by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and half of that energy is re-radiated back down to earth, increasing the temperature of the surface, which therefore provides additional thermal radiation to the atmosphere which balances out the quantity of thermal radiation needed to escape into space and maintain equilibrium.

... when it is pointed out that point 2c is an egregious violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, because the much warmer lithosphere cannot be heated by the much cooler atmosphere, the preacher backpedals from 2c with the words "no one is claiming that the cooler atmosphere is somehow warming the earth ..." and then seamlessly pivots back to argument 2a ...

Just for the record, we all assume you fully intend to argue the creation of energy out of nothing while maintaining that you never said energy is created out of nothing, so there is really no need for you to actually pivot back to 2a, but you can officially tell your thought-masters that you were nonetheless faithful to the end.

Just FYI, you really groove on the "car interior on a sunny day" example, so let's use that to bitch-slap your religion. During the daytime, why do you think it is even possible for the car interior to get hot with the windows rolled up? Why is the atmosphere outside always much cooler and why does it always cool the interior of the car when the windows are rolled down? Because the atmosphere is always cooler than the earth's surface. The atmosphere can never heat the earth's surface. Thermal energy never flows from the atmosphere to the surface, it only flows from the surface into the atmosphere using conduction (and convection). Your religion can't get enough of the physics violations so it adds yet another here by claiming that cooler atmospheric CO2 somehow heats the much warmer earth's surface. Warmizombies love it! This is the physics violation to which you must pivot at this point in the cycle ... and I'm still not buying it because it is, above all else, an egregious physics violation, ... but you certainly checked the box. I give you that.

 

[ZenMode]

There is no science of 'climate change'.

Your beliefs about wording and terms changes nothing. You can't just say "There is no climate science" and make it so. Climate science does exist. At one point in time, there was no molecular science but at some point studying molecules became a thing. You can't make molecular science disappear, either.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Again, you can't just say things and make them true.... despite your best efforts to do so.

You cannot trap heat or thermal energy or light.

Forever? No. But, your car gets hot for a reason when the windows are closed.

You are currently trying to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law now; now making argument 2b.

You still haven't figured out the 1st law of Thermodynamics as it relates to climate change. Maybe walk before you try to run?

A car is not the Earth. False equivalence fallacy.

Correct and nobody said it was. The comparison to a car isn't even meant to compare the process by which temperatures can change in a specific environment. It's to show that, under the right conditions, even if they aren't identical, temperatures CAN change with no additional energy.

 

[IBDaMann]

You can't just say "There is no climate science" and make it so.

You are under the mistakenly impression that Into the Night is trying to declare reality into something else. Into the Night is simply making the observation that there is no science for any of the Climate faiths. In some future post, Into the Night might very well make the observation that there are no purple lunar leprechauns in his closet. Anyway, if you check, you'll find that you don't have any Climate science either, and this is why.

Climate science does exist.

There's a reason you can't provide any examples, i.e. no Climate science exists. This thread was created to serve as a repository for all existing Climate science. You'll notice that this thread is totally devoid of any Climate science whatsoever. Nobody has any. Warmizombies are scientifically illiterate so they don't have any science of any type anyway.

At one point in time, there was no molecular science but at some point studying molecules became a thing.

At one point in time, there was no Christianity but at some point worshiping Jesus Christ as the Son of God became a thing. You can't make Christianity just disappear, either.
At one point in time, there was no goddess Climate but at some point warmizombies began popping up and multiplying like Marxists. You can't make warmizombies just disappear, either.

You still haven't figured out the 1st law of Thermodynamics as it relates to climate change.

There is no global climate; it's a contradiction in terms.

 

[ZenMode]

Aha! You have finally gotten around to pivoting to argument 2c. Congratulations! I think we all knew you just had to, but for a moment there I was beginning to wonder if maybe, just maybe, you were going to abandon the stupid, endless cycle. Anyway, argument 2c is the one that violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics by claiming that the warmer surface is somehow heated by the much cooler atmosphere. It's way too funny! But let's examine where you stand in the obligatory endless cycle:



Just for the record, we all assume you fully intend to argue the creation of energy out of nothing while maintaining that you never said energy is created out of nothing, so there is really no need for you to actually pivot back to 2a, but you can officially tell your thought-masters that you were nonetheless faithful to the end.

Just FYI, you really groove on the "car interior on a sunny day" example, so let's use that to bitch-slap your religion. During the daytime, why do you think it is even possible for the car interior to get hot with the windows rolled up? Why is the atmosphere outside always much cooler and why does it always cool the interior of the car when the windows are rolled down? Because the atmosphere is always cooler than the earth's surface. The atmosphere can never heat the earth's surface. Thermal energy never flows from the atmosphere to the surface, it only flows from the surface into the atmosphere using conduction (and convection). Your religion can't get enough of the physics violations so it adds yet another here by claiming that cooler atmospheric CO2 somehow heats the much warmer earth's surface. Warmizombies love it! This is the physics violation to which you must pivot at this point in the cycle ... and I'm still not buying it because it is, above all else, an egregious physics violation, ... but you certainly checked the box. I give you that.

If you cover yourself with a thick, wool blanket do you eventually feel warmer?

 

[IBDaMann]

If you cover yourself with a thick, wool blanket do you eventually feel warmer?

On a cold day, if you leave a thick, wool blanket outdoors to acclimate, and then you use it to wrap around a cold stone from the ground, does the stone get warmer?

 

[AProudLefty]

Good analogy. The Sun is the body.

 

[ZenMode]

On a cold day, if you leave a thick, wool blanket outdoors to acclimate, and then you use it to wrap around a cold stone from the ground, does the stone get warmer?

Is that a yes or a no?

To clarify, let's say you're in a 75 degree room and covered with a thick wool blanket. Would you eventually feel warmer than you would uncovered?

 

[ZenMode]

Good analogy. The Sun is the body.

Not exactly

 

[AProudLefty]

Not exactly

Dyson sphere.

 

[Into the Night]

Your beliefs about wording and terms changes nothing. You can't just say "There is no climate science" and make it so. Climate science does exist.

Inversion fallacy. There is no branch of science called 'climate'. It is YOU making shit up.

At one point in time, there was no molecular science but at some point studying molecules became a thing. You can't make molecular science disappear, either.

There is no branch of science called 'molecule' either. You are still making shit up.

Again, you can't just say things and make them true.... despite your best efforts to do so.

Yet you do so all the time, including in this post of yours.

Forever? No.

Not even for a millisecond. You cannot trap heat, light, or thermal energy. You cannot just set aside the laws of thermodynamics for even a moment.

But, your car gets hot for a reason when the windows are closed.

RAAA. Already explained quite well by IBDaMann. You are mindlessly chanting again.

You still haven't figured out the 1st law of Thermodynamics as it relates to climate change.

Climate cannot change. You are describing yourself.

Maybe walk before you try to run?

Cliche fallacy.

Correct and nobody said it was.

You did.

The comparison to a car isn't even meant to compare the process by which temperatures can change in a specific environment.
It's to show that, under the right conditions, even if they aren't identical, temperatures CAN change with no additional energy.

Paradox. Irrational. You cannot argue both sides of a paradox.