Challenging Hume to a Debate #2 - Physics of the Global Warming Faith : Is Greenhouse Effect Even Possible?

[Into the Night]

Where is the topic is temperature of any kind mentioned?

It's not.

You have no interest in conversation. You have interest in confirmation bias, avoiding and apparently jerking off.

So 'warming' has no change in temperature???

 

[ZenMode]

The energy from the Sun is different form than the energy leaving the Earth

Nope. They are both light.

I didn't say they weren't both light, you dunce.

 

[Into the Night]

What is there to discuss if you are both unwilling to admit, despite evidence to the contrary, that average global temperature can change?

You can't create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

 

[Into the Night]

I have no evidence because you deny anything inconvenient for your argument. There's an obvious reason that Mercury has a much lower temp than Venus, despite being closer to the sun, but you dismiss that fact because it's inconvenient to your argument.

Argument from randU fallacy. The temperature of Mercury is unknown. The temperature of Venus is unknown.

 

[Into the Night]

"You don't know that it does. Nobody does."

Like I said, you dismiss anything that runs contrary to what you want to believe. Nevermind the fact that multiple scientific bodies will tell you the same thing about the average temps on both planets, you will dismiss all of them because - confirmation bias.

Random numbers used as 'data' is not science. It's a fallacy. Science does not use consensus. Science is not data.
IBDaMann is not making a positive statement. YOU ARE. The confirmation bias is YOURS. DON'T TRY TO BLAME IBDAMANN OR ANYBODY ELSE FOR YOUR PROBLEM!

 

[Into the Night]

"That which is not true" is anything that runs contrary to what you want to believe. You are continuing to prove my point by dismissing things that run contrary to what you want to believe as "religious beliefs". Sure. I'll reach out to NASA right now and let them know that message board poster IBDaMann disagrees with their assessment of the average temperature on Venus and Mercury and wants to cross examine them.

NASA cannot measure the temperature of any planet. Mathematics is not a government agency. Science is not a government agency. False authority fallacy. 'Expert' worship.

 

[Into the Night]

So, do we agree that the Earth's atmosphere, which includes several gases including CO2, does impact temperature on Earth. If we didn't have an atmosphere, the highs would be much higher and the lows would be much lower, right?"


So, basic statements about planetary atmosphere's impact on temperatures is "word games".

Word games won't work, Void.

 

[Into the Night]

The energy from the Sun is different form than the energy leaving the Earth



I didn't say they weren't both light, you dunce.

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

 

[ZenMode]

Argument from randU fallacy. The temperature of Mercury is unknown. The temperature of Venus is unknown.

That is opinion, not fact. Nice try, though!

 

[Into the Night]

"After you reach out to NASA, be sure to reach out to HUD, and then reach out to the Department of Commerce and the Department of Transportation. They get touchy when they are snubbed"

You continue to prove my point. In your world, you know more about planet temperature than NASA scientists. Is it because you ACTUALLY know more than they do? No. It's because you have to write them off to continue believing what you WANT to believe.

Science is not a government agency. Mathematics is not a government agency. NASA has no ability to measure the temperature of any planet, including Earth.

 

[Into the Night]

Of course NASA is just a bureaucracy. If they were actual scientists and engineers, sending people into space, working on cutting edge technology and studying the earth and climate, you might have to reconsider your position. We both know that's not going to happen.

There is nothing to study about climate. Climate cannot change.
NASA has no ability to measure the temperature of the Earth or any other planet.

 

[ZenMode]

Word games won't work, Void.

You go, boy!!!

 

[ZenMode]

There is nothing to study about climate. Climate cannot change.
NASA has no ability to measure the temperature of the Earth or any other planet.

 

[Into the Night]

There are both private and government employees at NASA. Either way, if you don't dismiss them then, again, you might have to question what you WANT to believe.....and we can't have that because obviously you know more than the scientists working at/for NASA.

Science isn't data. Random numbers are not data. Science is not a government agency.

 

[ZenMode]

Science is not a government agency. Mathematics is not a government agency. NASA has no ability to measure the temperature of any planet, including Earth.

 

[ZenMode]

DON'T TRY TO DENY YOUR OWN POSTS!

 

[Into the Night]

The sun. Not sure if you noted the big ball of nuclear fusion in the sky. It's pumping a ton of energy into the atmosphere.

Assuming the sun is putting out a constant rate of energy, where is the additional energy coming from?

But here's where you and Ibdaman seem to fall down: no one is saying additional warming greater than the energy coming into the system is being generated. All that is happening is that:

YOU are.

1. Shortwavelength, high energy photons come to the earth from the sun

Buzzword fallacy.
UV does not convert to thermal energy when it's absorbed. Visible light does not convert to thermal energy when it's absorbed. Only infrared energy and below have that capability. You are ignoring quantum mechanics now.

2. When the shortwave photons are absorbed by the body of the earth it re-radiates back out as downshifted long-wave photons (IR)

An absorbed photon is not reradiated. It is DESTROYED.

3. This energy then radiates out from the earth into the atmosphere

Conclusion based on void.

4. The CO2 molecules and other greenhouse gas molecules are able to absorb IR photons

Just like any substance.

5. The IR photons are absorbed and re-radiated out from the CO2 molecules.

An absorbed photon is DESTROYED. It is not re-radiated. Any radiated photon is CREATED.

6. These IR photons are then absorbed by OTHER CO2 and greenhouse gas molecules etc.

Nope. You cannot heat the surface using a colder gas. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

7. Ultimately the IR photon re-radiates back out into space but it happens at higher and higher altitudes as we load up more more greenhouse gases

Nope. You cannot decrease entropy...ever. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law again.

8. At extremely high altitudes where the IR photon finally makes it back out into space the transfer and re-radiation are less efficient if the level is higher and higher

Nope. You cannot trap light.

9. This results in excess heat building up, like a traffic jam.

Nope. No traffic or road.

It is all moving out from the earth but it has more absorption-desorption cycles in the atmosphere resulting in more IR being held up near the surface causing warming.

You cannot trap light. There is no sequence.

Generally I agree. Most atmospheric scientists will make the point that calling it a "greenhouse" is kind of a misnomer since it doesn't involve the convection component you mentioned.

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy. Science is not an atmosphere.

 

[Into the Night]

Do you agree that the Earth's atmosphere, which I agree doesn't function precisely like a greenhouse, slows the cooling of the planet at night? In other words, if the atmosphere didn't exist, the nights would be SIGNIFICANTLY colder.

The car example was to make the point that, under certain circumstances and with no increase in energy from the Sun, temperatures can increase significantly.

Earth is not a car. Radiant heat is not convective heat. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

 

[ZenMode]

Earth is not a car. Radiant heat is not convective heat. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

 

[Into the Night]

It does in that inside and outside have significantly different temperatures.

A vacuum has no temperature. You are ignoring the 0th law of thermodynamics again.

Since we know that the atmosphere CURRENTLY keeps the Earth's temperature higher than space,

A vacuum has no temperature.

if a change in the atmospheric components (believed to be greenhouse gases) made the atmosphere even better at keeping energy from leaving the atmosphere, it would cause temperatures to rise.

You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

Again, if the atmosphere was more effective at keeping energy from dispersing into space, the area within the atmosphere would have higher temps.

You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.