$1B Climate Change Denial Industry: Getting Rich Telling Lies: open discussion

[Into the Night]

I have tried to explain this to you before, but you seem totally incapable of understanding.

http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new-science-8-applying-the-stefan-boltzmann-law-to-earth/

Nope. This ignores Kirchoff's law. Earth can and should be treated as a single radiating body, including it's atmosphere.

 

[Into the Night]

I am so sorry but you are incorrect, as usual.

You stated the Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply to Earth because Earth is not a perfectly black body.

You are attempting to remove the emissivity constant from the equation. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to all bodies and all mass, including any atmosphere.

 

[Rune]

You stated the Stefan-Boltzmann does not apply to Earth because Earth is not a perfectly black body.

You are attempting to remove the emissivity constant from the equation. The Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to all bodies and all mass, including any atmosphere.

No it doesn't.
First of all it specifically excludes out atmosphere, and there is no fixed place of reference.
Furthermore the Earth is not near enough to a black object to apply.
We have covered this before.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Nope. This ignores Kirchoff's law. Earth can and should be treated as a single radiating body, including it's atmosphere.

Richard Feynman said, and I paraphrase, that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has withstood every attempt to prove it wrong over 150 years, the only possible exceptions are black holes but that is more likely due to observational inexactitude.

The second law does not say a cold object cannot pass heat to a warmer object, it states that NET heat flow is always from warmer to colder. As stated before, any object above absolute zero radiates energy and is radiated in all directions.

 

[Into the Night]

No it doesn't.

You are just denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

First of all it specifically excludes out atmosphere, and there is no fixed place of reference.

You are denying Kirchoff's law.

Furthermore the Earth is not near enough to a black object to apply.

You are attempting to remove the emissivity term from the equation, thus denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

We have covered this before.

And you made the same mistakes then too. Argument by repetition fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

Richard Feynman said, and I paraphrase, that extraordinary claims demand extraordinary proof. The Second Law of Thermodynamics has withstood every attempt to prove it wrong over 150 years, the only possible exceptions are black holes but that is more likely due to observational inexactitude.

Then why do you deny it?

The second law does not say a cold object cannot pass heat to a warmer object,

Yes it does.

it states that NET heat flow is always from warmer to colder.

There is such thing as 'net heat'. There is only heat.

As stated before, any object above absolute zero radiates energy and is radiated in all directions.

You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder substance. You can't do it by conductive heat, you can't do it by convective heat, you can't do it by radiant heat. You CAN'T DO IT.

No molecule or atom will absorb a photon that has energy than what the molecule or atom already has. Such a molecule or atom appears transparent or reflective.

You cannot decrease entropy in any system. You can't heat a warmer object with a colder object. You are attempting to construct a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order.

 

[Into the Night]

Proof? The air in America has been steadily getting cleaner since those horrible tree lovers got clean air bills passed decades ago. Trump is gutting the environmental agencies and now the air quality is dropping. The facts are there. Why rightys like pollution, I will never know.

The government did nothing. What cleaned the air was the invention of the EGR system. More efficient FADEC systems made a bit of a difference too.
Engineers cleaned the air, not the government. The government just passed laws after the fact and claimed credit for it.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello gfm7175,

What's happening?

Climate Change.

Define 'climate change'.

The industrial age.

The 'industrial age' began before the United States was even a nation. What about all that time when no one was worried about 'climate change' or 'global warming'?

When billion humans burn things daily to utilize powered devices, the CO2 level in the atmosphere is raised.

So?

CO2 prevents heat from radiating out into space, thus warming the planet,

Not possible. It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You are also attempting to decrease entropy. You cannot decrease entropy in any system. You are ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

changing the climate.

There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather. Earth has many climates, not one.

 

[gfm7175]

Define 'climate change'.

I've been requesting this as well, to no avail... IF I do get a response, the definition ends up being circular.

 

[moon]

Just another chorus from the Denier Choir.

Look a tad sweaty, don't they ? Haw, haw...........haw.

 

[Into the Night]

Just another chorus from the Denier Choir.

Look a tad sweaty, don't they ? Haw, haw...........haw.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that denies science.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello gfm7175,



I appreciate that you are going to every extent possible to deny climate change.

Define 'climate change'. The phrase is meaningless.

That is your right. And you really do a marvelous job. Looking for every possible thing to dispute, leaving no stone unturned. It is commendable, your knack for knocking it. If there was a medal for finding every little point to beef about, you'd be a prime candidate. Very impressive effort.

You are giving him credit for your own inability to define 'climate change'?

I just happen to think arguing about it is extremely foolish.

Argue about what? Define 'climate change'.

It is absurd to think that 7 billion humans burning things daily would have no effect. For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. It is a law of physics.

There is no such law in physics.

Earth's climate has changed many times over the millennia.

There is no such thing as a global climate. There is no such thing as a global weather.

Each occurrence has resulted in devastation to life and mass species loss.

Occurrence of what? Define 'climate change'.

We are living in the 6th major species loss event, and the first time it has been caused by one species.

No, we aren't.

Over a billion dollars a year is spent on denying climate change.

Argument from randU fallacy.

The reason that is done is because trillions of dollars are made from keeping wasteful energy industry in place.

There is no such thing as a 'wasteful' energy industry.

Too many of the super-rich are obsessed with money, even though they already have way more than a person could even spend in a lifetime of opulence.

So now you want to make an attack on rich people. You are chanting the Marxist lines quite faithfully I see.

I actually feel sorry for the greediest rich people like President Trump, because they have completely lost sight of how to enjoy life, falsely believing that money buys happiness and more money must buy more.

Trump is happy. Apparently you are not.

That is just flatly false.

Obviously you are imagining things.

Once a person has enough money to live a comfortable life,

Who are YOU to decide whether someone as 'enough money'? You are not a dictator.

more money beyond that amount does not increase happiness,

Trump is happy not because of money, but because of what he does with it.

but may even lead to far more stress in life and lack of happiness.

Seems to be YOUR problem. Trump certainly isn't stressed or unhappy.

Such as in Trump's case.

Lie.

It is like they are in a race to be the richest, though none of them can tell you why.

Trump knows why. So do I. Apparently you don't. It's called capitalism.

Bragging rights?

Nope. Capitalism.

They think the old joke about he who dies with the most toys wins? Wins WHAT???

Lie.

There is no medal for being the richest, and bragging about wealth is considered in extremely poor taste.

None needed. Being rich and helping others with that wealth, as Trump does, is in excellent taste.

Just as poor taste as creating gaudy displays of wealth, simply for the sake of showing it off, as if to prove to others they are rich.

Only a poor person would believe this.

If they don't already know they are happy, no amount of glitz will result in any more happiness.

Trump is happy. He knows why.

Happiness is not the result of displaying or bragging about wealth.

Bigotry.

Happiness comes from enjoying life with love and friendship of good people, loved ones, friends and acquaintances.

Which is part of what Trump does. He also uses his wealth to help people. He gives them jobs. He provides a useful product.

Enjoying the passage of time.

He enjoys that too.

Doing things that make you feel good.

Trump again! Why don't YOU feel good?

We only have so much time to be alive as humans, and any time wasted in the pursuit of needless wealth is not spent simply enjoying life.

Who are YOU to decide what is 'needless'? You are not the king.

Trump is an angry man,

Lie. Trump is having a ball, and you aren't part of it.

full of stress and controversy.

Lie.

I have never heard of an individual with so many court cases.

Brought about by miserable sods like you.

Suing and going to court over disputes is definitely not enjoying life.

He isn't suing. He is being sued by sods like you.

I truly feel sorry for him.

Why? He's winning his court cases.

He just wasted the last few years of opportunity to be a dad and spend quality time with his son who is just now becoming a teenager.

Lie.

He could have gone fishing, to the beach, play ball, go camping, play music, listen to it, whatever.

He could have have, and probably did some of these things, but...

He did none of that.

...He took his son to the White House to live there!

He let the opportunity pass him by.

No he didn't! Lie.

Everybody knows what happens when kids become teens.

What? Having trouble with yours?

They are no longer kids you can have fun with like is possible during those pre-teen years. What a waste.

True. You can have MORE fun!

Trump could seriously enhance his happiness with mental counseling,

Psychoquackery.

and could easily afford very high quality counseling,

He doesn't need it.

but his ego won't let him do it because he thinks he is the best at everything.

Lie. He is good at real estate investing, however. He is an even a better President.

What a loser.

What a winner!

One thing is for sure. He is very good at alienating people,

Lie. He's a deal maker.

which is why he is routinely left out of social gatherings, parties, and events.

Lie. He isn't.

People who know better than him how to enjoy life don't want his downer energy spoiling their fun.

Trump is having fun. Apparently you are not, you miserable sod.

Old money shuns him, and there is a reason why.

Bigotry.

He is a drag.

I'm going to call this an inversion fallacy.

He is wrong about how to enjoy life

Lie.

and he is wrong about climate change.

Define 'climate change'. You can't.

 

[Into the Night]

Hello gfm7175,



Anyone who doesn't understand the term Climate Change by now has simply not been paying attention or is determined to avoid recognizing it.

No, you have simply refused to define 'climate change'. There is nothing to recognize. The phrase is meaningless.

This argument is nothing more than an attempt to divert the conversation away from the crux, and instead become mired in unimportant details.

The meaning of 'climate change' is a pretty important detail!

That may be true, but that doesn't tell the whole story. Heat does not flow instantly.

Yes it does.

Rather, the duration required for heat transfer is controlled by the coefficient of thermal conductivity.

One of many factors. CO2 conducts heat better than any other gas or vapor commonly found in the atmosphere.

And never was it claimed that ALL of the heat is trapped by CO2.

It is not possible to trap heat or light.

That is actually a layman's explanation.

No, it's a scientifically inept explanation. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Instead, what is occurring is that the increased CO2 density increases the coefficient of thermal conductivity of the atmosphere, thus resulting in less radiation, and a resultant increase of heat level on the planet.

Now you are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. radiance=Boltzmann constant * emissivity * temperature ^ 4.

You cannot reduce radiance and increase the temperature of Earth at the same time.

If it were not for this effect (which has been raised by industrial activity,) the Earth would instantly radiate all of it's heat out into space,

Heat is not light.

and be so cold that it would be quite uninhabitable.

Did you forget the Sun?

It has been said that we live in a bubble, and that bubble is our heat-'trapping' atmosphere, which does not precisely trap all of the heat, but enough to make life on Earth possible.

It is not possible to trap heat.
Our space station sees a sunlit side of the outer skin regularly reach temperatures of 250 deg F. It has no atmosphere, no CO2, nothing. On Earth, it never gets anywhere near that hot anywhere, yet we have a temperature magick CO2 gas, the works. If CO2 or an atmosphere warms the Earth, why is Earth so much colder?

My, such a penchant for arguing the minutia. By saying '7 billion humans burning things daily,' I was referring to the fact that most of the over 7 billion humans on Earth eat cooked food and/or use energy derived from burning things.

Nuthin wrong with that!

The above is a direct quote from you, which you placed in a quote box claiming I wrote it. Such a disingenuous tactic indicates an inability to directly refute an argument. It is rather evident also by the continual reliance upon dissecting the argument into semantics, parading as technical observations. The real message is there is nothing there to refute that basic concept that the industrial age which has brought is a higher standard of living has come at the terrible price of sacrificing the future habitat for the dirty short-sided luxuries of the present.

Void argument fallacy. What price?

We can have abundant luxuries when we learn to tap into clean renewable energy

Coal, oil, natural gas, hydroelectric, wind, solar, and nuclear power are all clean renewable energy sources.

and to control human population levels at an amount which is sustainable by this finite planet.

You want to reduce the population? You first.

It does not stand to reason that an infinite number of humans can exist on a set of finite resources.

Humans ARE resources.

Such thinking is as illogical as religion.

Religion is logical. The only thing that isn't logical is fundamentalism, and your denial of science.

 

[moon]

Hey, where's your sock, fgm17.17pm ? He's slightly less boring than you.

 

[cancel2 2022]

Then why do you deny it?

Yes it does.

There is such thing as 'net heat'. There is only heat.

You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder substance. You can't do it by conductive heat, you can't do it by convective heat, you can't do it by radiant heat. You CAN'T DO IT.

No molecule or atom will absorb a photon that has energy than what the molecule or atom already has. Such a molecule or atom appears transparent or reflective.

You cannot decrease entropy in any system. You can't heat a warmer object with a colder object. You are attempting to construct a perpetual motion machine of the 2nd order.

I said NET HEAT FLOW, not net heat.

 

[Into the Night]

I said NET HEAT FLOW, not net heat.

Heat IS flow. Redundant. There is no such thing as net heat (or net heat flow). You might as well say thermal energy flow flow. Heat only flows one direction, from hot to cold. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.

 

[Into the Night]

Hey, where's your sock, fgm17.17pm ? He's slightly less boring than you.

So you're one of those morons that think everybody has a sock, eh?

 

[moon]

So you're one of those morons that think everybody has a sock, eh?

I used to think so, at Christmas. Then I found out that the kids of industrialists had a sack. Haw, haw............haw.

 

[gfm7175]

Hey, where's your sock, fgm17.17pm ? He's slightly less boring than you.

If him and I are indeed identical, then how can I be "less boring" than him?

 

[Into the Night]

Your use of a smaller bird?