Carbon losses from soil predicted to enhance climate change

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If thermal energy is flowing from earth out to space, YOU explain how heat is somehow "lost".

I suspect you are again conflating heat and hot.

Simply put...

The Earth is radiating.

Can you explain how the energy from Earth's radiation is not lost to space?

Zero Heat Loss

That is a major point of your position isn't it? I'm rooting for you, that you will be able to explain how there is no such thing as Heat Loss.

Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. As thermal energy FLOWS out and away from earth, that is called heat. How is it somehow lost when it is in progress?

The prevailing idea is that heat is lost to space.

Surely you can feel, when the Sun sets, however you want to analyze it, the flow of energy or the temperature, they both decrease.

That shows there is heat loss in your local area.

But it seems to me, your position is, looking at the whole system, there is no such thing as heat loss, correct?

So I am looking for more support for your position that there is no such thing as heat lost to space.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If thermal energy is flowing from earth out to space, YOU explain how heat is somehow "lost".

I suspect you are again conflating heat and hot.

Simply put...

The Earth is radiating.

Can you explain how the energy from Earth's radiation is not lost to space?

Zero Heat Loss

That is a major point of your position isn't it? I'm rooting for you, that you will be able to explain how there is no such thing as Heat Loss.

Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. As thermal energy FLOWS out and away from earth, that is called heat. How is it somehow lost when it is in progress?

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If thermal energy is flowing from earth out to space, YOU explain how heat is somehow "lost".

I suspect you are again conflating heat and hot.

Simply put...

The Earth is radiating.

Can you explain how the energy from Earth's radiation is not lost to space?

Zero Heat Loss

That is a major point of your position isn't it? I'm rooting for you, that you will be able to explain how there is no such thing as Heat Loss.

Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. As thermal energy FLOWS out and away from earth, that is called heat. How is it somehow lost when it is in progress?

So heat that is not flowing is not heat. Look retard that is literally the same thing as saying that water that is not flowing is not water.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If thermal energy is flowing from earth out to space, YOU explain how heat is somehow "lost".

I suspect you are again conflating heat and hot.

Simply put...

The Earth is radiating.

Can you explain how the energy from Earth's radiation is not lost to space?

Zero Heat Loss

That is a major point of your position isn't it? I'm rooting for you, that you will be able to explain how there is no such thing as Heat Loss.

Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. As thermal energy FLOWS out and away from earth, that is called heat. How is it somehow lost when it is in progress?

The prevailing idea is that heat is lost to space.

Surely you can feel, when the Sun sets, however you want to analyze it, the flow of energy or the temperature, they both decrease.

That shows there is heat loss in your local area.

But it seems to me, your position is, looking at the whole system, there is no such thing as heat loss, correct?

So I am looking for more support for your position that there is no such thing as heat lost to space.

For you to grasp the concept, you have to unwrap your head from the idea that heat and hot are the same thing.

If you look up the definition of heat, you can easily find a wrong definition worded something like "the value of being hot". So my follow up question for this definition and to you is this; At what temperature does something become heat?

Do you see how muddy this quickly becomes? Hot is at best, an opinion.

So to correctly describe the process you would say that "thermal energy is transferred from the Earth's solid surface to space by
heat, either by conduction, convection, or by radiation.

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If thermal energy is flowing from earth out to space, YOU explain how heat is somehow "lost".

I suspect you are again conflating heat and hot.

Simply put...

The Earth is radiating.

Can you explain how the energy from Earth's radiation is not lost to space?

Zero Heat Loss

That is a major point of your position isn't it? I'm rooting for you, that you will be able to explain how there is no such thing as Heat Loss.

Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. As thermal energy FLOWS out and away from earth, that is called heat. How is it somehow lost when it is in progress?

The prevailing idea is that heat is lost to space.

Surely you can feel, when the Sun sets, however you want to analyze it, the flow of energy or the temperature, they both decrease.

That shows there is heat loss in your local area.

But it seems to me, your position is, looking at the whole system, there is no such thing as heat loss, correct?

So I am looking for more support for your position that there is no such thing as heat lost to space.

For you to grasp the concept, you have to unwrap your head from the idea that heat and hot are the same thing.

If you look up the definition of heat, you can easily find a wrong definition worded something like "the value of being hot". So my follow up question for this definition and to you is this; At what temperature does something become heat?

Do you see how muddy this quickly becomes? Hot is at best, an opinion.

So to correctly describe the process you would say that "thermal energy is transferred from the Earth's solid surface to space by
heat, either by conduction, convection, or by radiation.

I don't feel like I need this lecture about the difference between heat and temperature.

Is heat lost to space or not?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If thermal energy is flowing from earth out to space, YOU explain how heat is somehow "lost".

I suspect you are again conflating heat and hot.

Simply put...

The Earth is radiating.

Can you explain how the energy from Earth's radiation is not lost to space?

Zero Heat Loss

That is a major point of your position isn't it? I'm rooting for you, that you will be able to explain how there is no such thing as Heat Loss.

Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. As thermal energy FLOWS out and away from earth, that is called heat. How is it somehow lost when it is in progress?

The prevailing idea is that heat is lost to space.

Surely you can feel, when the Sun sets, however you want to analyze it, the flow of energy or the temperature, they both decrease.

That shows there is heat loss in your local area.

But it seems to me, your position is, looking at the whole system, there is no such thing as heat loss, correct?

So I am looking for more support for your position that there is no such thing as heat lost to space.

For you to grasp the concept, you have to unwrap your head from the idea that heat and hot are the same thing.

If you look up the definition of heat, you can easily find a wrong definition worded something like "the value of being hot". So my follow up question for this definition and to you is this; At what temperature does something become heat?

Do you see how muddy this quickly becomes? Hot is at best, an opinion.

So to correctly describe the process you would say that "thermal energy is transferred from the Earth's solid surface to space by
heat, either by conduction, convection, or by radiation.

I don't feel like I need this lecture about the difference between heat and temperature.

Is heat lost to space or not?

No. Heat is something that happens, not something that gets lost.
Remember, heat isn't warm or hot.

Not a lecture. "Heat" is probably the most misused and abused word across all languages.

I'll ask you again. At what temperature do you believe something become heat?
Hint: temperature does not determine heat and how it flows. Temperature differential does.

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If thermal energy is flowing from earth out to space, YOU explain how heat is somehow "lost".

I suspect you are again conflating heat and hot.

Simply put...

The Earth is radiating.

Can you explain how the energy from Earth's radiation is not lost to space?

Zero Heat Loss

That is a major point of your position isn't it? I'm rooting for you, that you will be able to explain how there is no such thing as Heat Loss.

Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. As thermal energy FLOWS out and away from earth, that is called heat. How is it somehow lost when it is in progress?

The prevailing idea is that heat is lost to space.

Surely you can feel, when the Sun sets, however you want to analyze it, the flow of energy or the temperature, they both decrease.

That shows there is heat loss in your local area.

But it seems to me, your position is, looking at the whole system, there is no such thing as heat loss, correct?

So I am looking for more support for your position that there is no such thing as heat lost to space.

For you to grasp the concept, you have to unwrap your head from the idea that heat and hot are the same thing.

If you look up the definition of heat, you can easily find a wrong definition worded something like "the value of being hot". So my follow up question for this definition and to you is this; At what temperature does something become heat?

Do you see how muddy this quickly becomes? Hot is at best, an opinion.

So to correctly describe the process you would say that "thermal energy is transferred from the Earth's solid surface to space by
heat, either by conduction, convection, or by radiation.

I don't feel like I need this lecture about the difference between heat and temperature.

Is heat lost to space or not?

No. Heat is something that happens, not something that gets lost.
Remember, heat isn't warm or hot.

Not a lecture. "Heat" is probably the most misused and abused word across all languages.

I'll ask you again. At what temperature do you believe something become heat?
Hint: temperature does not determine heat and how it flows. Temperature differential does.

The Earth is a system that both creates heat and absorbs heat. The Earth also loses heat to space in the process the Earth becomes cooler and space becomes hotter. If the Earth did not radiate heat to space no life as we know it could inhabit the Earth

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If thermal energy is flowing from earth out to space, YOU explain how heat is somehow "lost".

I suspect you are again conflating heat and hot.

Simply put...

The Earth is radiating.

Can you explain how the energy from Earth's radiation is not lost to space?

Zero Heat Loss

That is a major point of your position isn't it? I'm rooting for you, that you will be able to explain how there is no such thing as Heat Loss.

Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. As thermal energy FLOWS out and away from earth, that is called heat. How is it somehow lost when it is in progress?

The prevailing idea is that heat is lost to space.

Surely you can feel, when the Sun sets, however you want to analyze it, the flow of energy or the temperature, they both decrease.

That shows there is heat loss in your local area.

But it seems to me, your position is, looking at the whole system, there is no such thing as heat loss, correct?

So I am looking for more support for your position that there is no such thing as heat lost to space.

For you to grasp the concept, you have to unwrap your head from the idea that heat and hot are the same thing.

If you look up the definition of heat, you can easily find a wrong definition worded something like "the value of being hot". So my follow up question for this definition and to you is this; At what temperature does something become heat?

Do you see how muddy this quickly becomes? Hot is at best, an opinion.

So to correctly describe the process you would say that "thermal energy is transferred from the Earth's solid surface to space by
heat, either by conduction, convection, or by radiation.

I don't feel like I need this lecture about the difference between heat and temperature.

Is heat lost to space or not?

No. Heat is something that happens, not something that gets lost.
Remember, heat isn't warm or hot.

Not a lecture. "Heat" is probably the most misused and abused word across all languages.

I'll ask you again. At what temperature do you believe something become heat?
Hint: temperature does not determine heat and how it flows. Temperature differential does.

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If thermal energy is flowing from earth out to space, YOU explain how heat is somehow "lost".

I suspect you are again conflating heat and hot.

Simply put...

The Earth is radiating.

Can you explain how the energy from Earth's radiation is not lost to space?

Zero Heat Loss

That is a major point of your position isn't it? I'm rooting for you, that you will be able to explain how there is no such thing as Heat Loss.

Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. As thermal energy FLOWS out and away from earth, that is called heat. How is it somehow lost when it is in progress?

The prevailing idea is that heat is lost to space.

Surely you can feel, when the Sun sets, however you want to analyze it, the flow of energy or the temperature, they both decrease.

That shows there is heat loss in your local area.

But it seems to me, your position is, looking at the whole system, there is no such thing as heat loss, correct?

So I am looking for more support for your position that there is no such thing as heat lost to space.

For you to grasp the concept, you have to unwrap your head from the idea that heat and hot are the same thing.

If you look up the definition of heat, you can easily find a wrong definition worded something like "the value of being hot". So my follow up question for this definition and to you is this; At what temperature does something become heat?

Do you see how muddy this quickly becomes? Hot is at best, an opinion.

So to correctly describe the process you would say that "thermal energy is transferred from the Earth's solid surface to space by
heat, either by conduction, convection, or by radiation.

I don't feel like I need this lecture about the difference between heat and temperature.

Is heat lost to space or not?

I see now, your answer is yes.

Therefore can you not theoretically say that greenhouse gases slow down the energy transfer from Earth to Space?

Swan wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If thermal energy is flowing from earth out to space, YOU explain how heat is somehow "lost".

I suspect you are again conflating heat and hot.

Simply put...

The Earth is radiating.

Can you explain how the energy from Earth's radiation is not lost to space?

Zero Heat Loss

That is a major point of your position isn't it? I'm rooting for you, that you will be able to explain how there is no such thing as Heat Loss.

Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. As thermal energy FLOWS out and away from earth, that is called heat. How is it somehow lost when it is in progress?

The prevailing idea is that heat is lost to space.

Surely you can feel, when the Sun sets, however you want to analyze it, the flow of energy or the temperature, they both decrease.

That shows there is heat loss in your local area.

But it seems to me, your position is, looking at the whole system, there is no such thing as heat loss, correct?

So I am looking for more support for your position that there is no such thing as heat lost to space.

For you to grasp the concept, you have to unwrap your head from the idea that heat and hot are the same thing.

If you look up the definition of heat, you can easily find a wrong definition worded something like "the value of being hot". So my follow up question for this definition and to you is this; At what temperature does something become heat?

Do you see how muddy this quickly becomes? Hot is at best, an opinion.

So to correctly describe the process you would say that "thermal energy is transferred from the Earth's solid surface to space by
heat, either by conduction, convection, or by radiation.

I don't feel like I need this lecture about the difference between heat and temperature.

Is heat lost to space or not?

I see now, your answer is yes.

Therefore can you not theoretically say that greenhouse gases slow down the energy transfer from Earth to Space?

Everything with a temp above absolute zero has been heated by some means.

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If thermal energy is flowing from earth out to space, YOU explain how heat is somehow "lost".

I suspect you are again conflating heat and hot.

Simply put...

The Earth is radiating.

Can you explain how the energy from Earth's radiation is not lost to space?

Zero Heat Loss

That is a major point of your position isn't it? I'm rooting for you, that you will be able to explain how there is no such thing as Heat Loss.

Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. As thermal energy FLOWS out and away from earth, that is called heat. How is it somehow lost when it is in progress?

The prevailing idea is that heat is lost to space.

Surely you can feel, when the Sun sets, however you want to analyze it, the flow of energy or the temperature, they both decrease.

That shows there is heat loss in your local area.

But it seems to me, your position is, looking at the whole system, there is no such thing as heat loss, correct?

So I am looking for more support for your position that there is no such thing as heat lost to space.

For you to grasp the concept, you have to unwrap your head from the idea that heat and hot are the same thing.

If you look up the definition of heat, you can easily find a wrong definition worded something like "the value of being hot". So my follow up question for this definition and to you is this; At what temperature does something become heat?

Do you see how muddy this quickly becomes? Hot is at best, an opinion.

So to correctly describe the process you would say that "thermal energy is transferred from the Earth's solid surface to space by
heat, either by conduction, convection, or by radiation.

I don't feel like I need this lecture about the difference between heat and temperature.

Is heat lost to space or not?

No. Heat is something that happens, not something that gets lost.
Remember, heat isn't warm or hot.

Not a lecture. "Heat" is probably the most misused and abused word across all languages.

I'll ask you again. At what temperature do you believe something become heat?
Hint: temperature does not determine heat and how it flows. Temperature differential does.

You already said energy is transferred to Space from Earth.

If you want to call it Energy Transfer, and not Heat Loss, fine.

But now the point becomes, how can you debunk the idea, that greenhouse gases slow down this Energy Transfer?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If thermal energy is flowing from earth out to space, YOU explain how heat is somehow "lost".

I suspect you are again conflating heat and hot.

Simply put...

The Earth is radiating.

Can you explain how the energy from Earth's radiation is not lost to space?

Zero Heat Loss

That is a major point of your position isn't it? I'm rooting for you, that you will be able to explain how there is no such thing as Heat Loss.

Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. As thermal energy FLOWS out and away from earth, that is called heat. How is it somehow lost when it is in progress?

The prevailing idea is that heat is lost to space.

Surely you can feel, when the Sun sets, however you want to analyze it, the flow of energy or the temperature, they both decrease.

That shows there is heat loss in your local area.

But it seems to me, your position is, looking at the whole system, there is no such thing as heat loss, correct?

So I am looking for more support for your position that there is no such thing as heat lost to space.

For you to grasp the concept, you have to unwrap your head from the idea that heat and hot are the same thing.

If you look up the definition of heat, you can easily find a wrong definition worded something like "the value of being hot". So my follow up question for this definition and to you is this; At what temperature does something become heat?

Do you see how muddy this quickly becomes? Hot is at best, an opinion.

So to correctly describe the process you would say that "thermal energy is transferred from the Earth's solid surface to space by
heat, either by conduction, convection, or by radiation.

I don't feel like I need this lecture about the difference between heat and temperature.

Is heat lost to space or not?

No. Heat is something that happens, not something that gets lost.
Remember, heat isn't warm or hot.

Not a lecture. "Heat" is probably the most misused and abused word across all languages.

I'll ask you again. At what temperature do you believe something become heat?
Hint: temperature does not determine heat and how it flows. Temperature differential does.

You already said energy is transferred to Space from Earth.

If you want to call it Energy Transfer, and not Heat Loss, fine.

But now the point becomes, how can you debunk the idea, that greenhouse gases slow down this Energy Transfer?

One more time..

The greenhouse gas theory states that the solid surface of the Earth is warmed by the sun and then thermal energy is transferred to the greenhouse gases. All correct so far.

This theory goes off the rails when it claims thermal energy can transfer back to the surface. If the surface warmed the gas then the surface was warmer than the gas. Remember heat must flow from hotter to cooler.

The greenhouse gas theory attempts to make heat flow backwards from cooler to warmer. This is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If thermal energy is flowing from earth out to space, YOU explain how heat is somehow "lost".

I suspect you are again conflating heat and hot.

Simply put...

The Earth is radiating.

Can you explain how the energy from Earth's radiation is not lost to space?

Zero Heat Loss

That is a major point of your position isn't it? I'm rooting for you, that you will be able to explain how there is no such thing as Heat Loss.

Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. As thermal energy FLOWS out and away from earth, that is called heat. How is it somehow lost when it is in progress?

The prevailing idea is that heat is lost to space.

Surely you can feel, when the Sun sets, however you want to analyze it, the flow of energy or the temperature, they both decrease.

That shows there is heat loss in your local area.

But it seems to me, your position is, looking at the whole system, there is no such thing as heat loss, correct?

So I am looking for more support for your position that there is no such thing as heat lost to space.

For you to grasp the concept, you have to unwrap your head from the idea that heat and hot are the same thing.

If you look up the definition of heat, you can easily find a wrong definition worded something like "the value of being hot". So my follow up question for this definition and to you is this; At what temperature does something become heat?

Do you see how muddy this quickly becomes? Hot is at best, an opinion.

So to correctly describe the process you would say that "thermal energy is transferred from the Earth's solid surface to space by
heat, either by conduction, convection, or by radiation.

I don't feel like I need this lecture about the difference between heat and temperature.

Is heat lost to space or not?

No. Heat is something that happens, not something that gets lost.
Remember, heat isn't warm or hot.

Not a lecture. "Heat" is probably the most misused and abused word across all languages.

I'll ask you again. At what temperature do you believe something become heat?
Hint: temperature does not determine heat and how it flows. Temperature differential does.

You already said energy is transferred to Space from Earth.

If you want to call it Energy Transfer, and not Heat Loss, fine.

But now the point becomes, how can you debunk the idea, that greenhouse gases slow down this Energy Transfer?

One more time..

The greenhouse gas theory states that the solid surface of the Earth is warmed by the sun and then thermal energy is transferred to the greenhouse gases. All correct so far.

This theory goes off the rails when it claims thermal energy can transfer back to the surface. If the surface warmed the gas then the surface was warmer than the gas. Remember heat must flow from hotter to cooler.

The greenhouse gas theory attempts to make heat flow backwards from cooler to warmer. This is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

You are only debunking a minor part of the theory.

Can you debunk the idea, that greenhouse gases slow down the Energy Transfer from Earth to Space?

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If thermal energy is flowing from earth out to space, YOU explain how heat is somehow "lost".

I suspect you are again conflating heat and hot.

Simply put...

The Earth is radiating.

Can you explain how the energy from Earth's radiation is not lost to space?

Zero Heat Loss

That is a major point of your position isn't it? I'm rooting for you, that you will be able to explain how there is no such thing as Heat Loss.

Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. As thermal energy FLOWS out and away from earth, that is called heat. How is it somehow lost when it is in progress?

The prevailing idea is that heat is lost to space.

Surely you can feel, when the Sun sets, however you want to analyze it, the flow of energy or the temperature, they both decrease.

That shows there is heat loss in your local area.

But it seems to me, your position is, looking at the whole system, there is no such thing as heat loss, correct?

So I am looking for more support for your position that there is no such thing as heat lost to space.

For you to grasp the concept, you have to unwrap your head from the idea that heat and hot are the same thing.

If you look up the definition of heat, you can easily find a wrong definition worded something like "the value of being hot". So my follow up question for this definition and to you is this; At what temperature does something become heat?

Do you see how muddy this quickly becomes? Hot is at best, an opinion.

So to correctly describe the process you would say that "thermal energy is transferred from the Earth's solid surface to space by
heat, either by conduction, convection, or by radiation.

I don't feel like I need this lecture about the difference between heat and temperature.

Is heat lost to space or not?

No. Heat is something that happens, not something that gets lost.
Remember, heat isn't warm or hot.

Not a lecture. "Heat" is probably the most misused and abused word across all languages.

I'll ask you again. At what temperature do you believe something become heat?
Hint: temperature does not determine heat and how it flows. Temperature differential does.

You already said energy is transferred to Space from Earth.

If you want to call it Energy Transfer, and not Heat Loss, fine.

But now the point becomes, how can you debunk the idea, that greenhouse gases slow down this Energy Transfer?

One more time..

The greenhouse gas theory states that the solid surface of the Earth is warmed by the sun and then thermal energy is transferred to the greenhouse gases. All correct so far.

This theory goes off the rails when it claims thermal energy can transfer back to the surface. If the surface warmed the gas then the surface was warmer than the gas. Remember heat must flow from hotter to cooler.

The greenhouse gas theory attempts to make heat flow backwards from cooler to warmer. This is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

You are only debunking a minor part of the theory.

Can you debunk the idea, that greenhouse gases slow down the Energy Transfer from Earth to Space?

That would be a violation of the SB law we discussed.

SB law states that temperature and radiance must move in the same direction. You are attempting to reduce radiance and increase temperature. That is a violation of the SB law.

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what do you say to this counter point?

If greenhouse gases reduce the amount of infrared radiation escaping, Earth's surface must warm (increase temperature) so that σT to the power of 4 again balances the incoming solar energy.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what do you say to this counter point?

If greenhouse gases reduce the amount of infrared radiation escaping, Earth's surface must warm (increase temperature) so that σT to the power of 4 again balances the incoming solar energy.

I'm calling bullshit. IR is converted to thermal energy upon striking the earth. It has changed form. Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The IR is now in the form of thermal energy, so how is the IR supposedly trying to escape?

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what do you say to this counter point?

If greenhouse gases reduce the amount of infrared radiation escaping, Earth's surface must warm (increase temperature) so that σT to the power of 4 again balances the incoming solar energy.

I'm calling bullshit. IR is converted to thermal energy upon striking the earth. It has changed form. Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The IR is now in the form of thermal energy, so how is the IR supposedly trying to escape?

Are you now saying no IR is ever transferred to space?

Further elaboration for you to try to debunk:

Greenhouse gases don't reduce the Stefan–Boltzmann radiance at a given temperature.
They intercept and delay the loss of energy to space.
Earth's surface increases in temperature until
P=σT^4
again equals the energy it's now receiving (sunlight + delayed radiation to space).

The Key Insight

Stefan–Boltzmann still holds locally at all points.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what do you say to this counter point?

If greenhouse gases reduce the amount of infrared radiation escaping, Earth's surface must warm (increase temperature) so that σT to the power of 4 again balances the incoming solar energy.

I'm calling bullshit. IR is converted to thermal energy upon striking the earth. It has changed form. Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The IR is now in the form of thermal energy, so how is the IR supposedly trying to escape?

Are you now saying no IR is ever transferred to space?

Further elaboration for you to try to debunk:

Greenhouse gases don't reduce the Stefan–Boltzmann radiance at a given temperature.
They intercept and delay the loss of energy to space.
Earth's surface increases in temperature until
P=σT^4
again equals the energy it's now receiving (sunlight + delayed radiation to space).

The Key Insight

Stefan–Boltzmann still holds locally at all points.

No, this is a violation of the Stefan Boltzmann law. If I am dumping 8 cups of hot coffee on your head per day, one cup every 3 hours, and then I decide to delay my schedule and only dump one cup of hot coffee on your head every 2 hours... Am I dumping more or less hot coffee on your head?

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what do you say to this counter point?

If greenhouse gases reduce the amount of infrared radiation escaping, Earth's surface must warm (increase temperature) so that σT to the power of 4 again balances the incoming solar energy.

I'm calling bullshit. IR is converted to thermal energy upon striking the earth. It has changed form. Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The IR is now in the form of thermal energy, so how is the IR supposedly trying to escape?

Are you now saying no IR is ever transferred to space?

Further elaboration for you to try to debunk:

Greenhouse gases don't reduce the Stefan–Boltzmann radiance at a given temperature.
They intercept and delay the loss of energy to space.
Earth's surface increases in temperature until
P=σT^4
again equals the energy it's now receiving (sunlight + delayed radiation to space).

The Key Insight

Stefan–Boltzmann still holds locally at all points.

No, this is a violation of the Stefan Boltzmann law. If I am dumping 8 cups of hot coffee on your head per day, one cup every 3 hours, and then I decide to delay my schedule and only dump one cup of hot coffee on your head every 2 hours... Am I dumping more or less hot coffee on your head?

What does this have to do with greenhouse gases delaying energy transfer from Earth to Space?

Again, decreasing radiance of outer layer, and increasing radiance from inner layer, effectively holds radiance of Earth steady, and does not violate the SB law.

I don't see how you have debunked this.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what do you say to this counter point?

If greenhouse gases reduce the amount of infrared radiation escaping, Earth's surface must warm (increase temperature) so that σT to the power of 4 again balances the incoming solar energy.

I'm calling bullshit. IR is converted to thermal energy upon striking the earth. It has changed form. Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The IR is now in the form of thermal energy, so how is the IR supposedly trying to escape?

Are you now saying no IR is ever transferred to space?

Further elaboration for you to try to debunk:

Greenhouse gases don't reduce the Stefan–Boltzmann radiance at a given temperature.
They intercept and delay the loss of energy to space.
Earth's surface increases in temperature until
P=σT^4
again equals the energy it's now receiving (sunlight + delayed radiation to space).

The Key Insight

Stefan–Boltzmann still holds locally at all points.

No, this is a violation of the Stefan Boltzmann law. If I am dumping 8 cups of hot coffee on your head per day, one cup every 3 hours, and then I decide to delay my schedule and only dump one cup of hot coffee on your head every 2 hours... Am I dumping more or less hot coffee on your head?

What does this have to do with greenhouse gases delaying energy transfer from Earth to Space?

Again, decreasing radiance of outer layer, and increasing radiance from inner layer, effectively holds radiance of Earth steady, and does not violate the SB law.

I don't see how you have debunked this.

There is no "delay". Gasses will emit thermal energy, just as they absorb. They cannot emit back to the warmer surface. This is the part where your gullibility has caused you to believe that CO2 is some kind of magic gas that violates physics and produces the magic bouncing photons required for a heat flowing backwards rise in temperature without additional energy.

You have to think for yourself a little bit. If you believe Google does not have an agenda, you'd be wrong about that too.

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what do you say to this counter point?

If greenhouse gases reduce the amount of infrared radiation escaping, Earth's surface must warm (increase temperature) so that σT to the power of 4 again balances the incoming solar energy.

I'm calling bullshit. IR is converted to thermal energy upon striking the earth. It has changed form. Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The IR is now in the form of thermal energy, so how is the IR supposedly trying to escape?

Are you now saying no IR is ever transferred to space?

Further elaboration for you to try to debunk:

Greenhouse gases don't reduce the Stefan–Boltzmann radiance at a given temperature.
They intercept and delay the loss of energy to space.
Earth's surface increases in temperature until
P=σT^4
again equals the energy it's now receiving (sunlight + delayed radiation to space).

The Key Insight

Stefan–Boltzmann still holds locally at all points.

No, this is a violation of the Stefan Boltzmann law. If I am dumping 8 cups of hot coffee on your head per day, one cup every 3 hours, and then I decide to delay my schedule and only dump one cup of hot coffee on your head every 2 hours... Am I dumping more or less hot coffee on your head?

What does this have to do with greenhouse gases delaying energy transfer from Earth to Space?

Again, decreasing radiance of outer layer, and increasing radiance from inner layer, effectively holds radiance of Earth steady, and does not violate the SB law.

I don't see how you have debunked this.

There is no "delay". Gasses will emit thermal energy, just as they absorb. They cannot emit back to the warmer surface. This is the part where your gullibility has caused you to believe that CO2 is some kind of magic gas that violates physics and produces the magic bouncing photons required for a heat flowing backwards rise in temperature without additional energy.

You have to think for yourself a little bit. If you believe Google does not have an agenda, you'd be wrong about that too.

Please identify any false statements from the below points?

Earth absorbs sunlight (mostly in the visible and ultraviolet spectrum), warming the surface.

Earth's surface re-emits energy as infrared (IR) radiation, because it's cooler than the sun.

Greenhouse gases (like CO₂, H₂O vapor, CH₄) in the atmosphere absorb some of this IR radiation.

These gases re-radiate that energy in all directions.

This slows the net escape of infrared energy to space — like a thermal blanket — causing the lower atmosphere and surface to retain more heat.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what do you say to this counter point?

If greenhouse gases reduce the amount of infrared radiation escaping, Earth's surface must warm (increase temperature) so that σT to the power of 4 again balances the incoming solar energy.

I'm calling bullshit. IR is converted to thermal energy upon striking the earth. It has changed form. Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The IR is now in the form of thermal energy, so how is the IR supposedly trying to escape?

Are you now saying no IR is ever transferred to space?

Further elaboration for you to try to debunk:

Greenhouse gases don't reduce the Stefan–Boltzmann radiance at a given temperature.
They intercept and delay the loss of energy to space.
Earth's surface increases in temperature until
P=σT^4
again equals the energy it's now receiving (sunlight + delayed radiation to space).

The Key Insight

Stefan–Boltzmann still holds locally at all points.

No, this is a violation of the Stefan Boltzmann law. If I am dumping 8 cups of hot coffee on your head per day, one cup every 3 hours, and then I decide to delay my schedule and only dump one cup of hot coffee on your head every 2 hours... Am I dumping more or less hot coffee on your head?

What does this have to do with greenhouse gases delaying energy transfer from Earth to Space?

Again, decreasing radiance of outer layer, and increasing radiance from inner layer, effectively holds radiance of Earth steady, and does not violate the SB law.

I don't see how you have debunked this.

There is no "delay". Gasses will emit thermal energy, just as they absorb. They cannot emit back to the warmer surface. This is the part where your gullibility has caused you to believe that CO2 is some kind of magic gas that violates physics and produces the magic bouncing photons required for a heat flowing backwards rise in temperature without additional energy.

You have to think for yourself a little bit. If you believe Google does not have an agenda, you'd be wrong about that too.

Please identify any false statements from the below points?

Earth absorbs sunlight (mostly in the visible and ultraviolet spectrum), warming the surface.

Earth's surface re-emits energy as infrared (IR) radiation, because it's cooler than the sun.

Greenhouse gases (like CO₂, H₂O vapor, CH₄) in the atmosphere absorb some of this IR radiation.

These gases re-radiate that energy in all directions.

This slows the net escape of infrared energy to space — like a thermal blanket — causing the lower atmosphere and surface to retain more heat.

Ah! The inevitable pivot to the magic blanket theory. CO2 is an excellent conductor of thermal energy. A blanket works because it is not a good conductor, it's an insulator. It works by reducing heat. That's right, a blanket keeps you warmer by reducing heat.

Do you see now how it's so important not to conflate heat and hot?

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what do you say to this counter point?

If greenhouse gases reduce the amount of infrared radiation escaping, Earth's surface must warm (increase temperature) so that σT to the power of 4 again balances the incoming solar energy.

I'm calling bullshit. IR is converted to thermal energy upon striking the earth. It has changed form. Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The IR is now in the form of thermal energy, so how is the IR supposedly trying to escape?

Are you now saying no IR is ever transferred to space?

Further elaboration for you to try to debunk:

Greenhouse gases don't reduce the Stefan–Boltzmann radiance at a given temperature.
They intercept and delay the loss of energy to space.
Earth's surface increases in temperature until
P=σT^4
again equals the energy it's now receiving (sunlight + delayed radiation to space).

The Key Insight

Stefan–Boltzmann still holds locally at all points.

No, this is a violation of the Stefan Boltzmann law. If I am dumping 8 cups of hot coffee on your head per day, one cup every 3 hours, and then I decide to delay my schedule and only dump one cup of hot coffee on your head every 2 hours... Am I dumping more or less hot coffee on your head?

What does this have to do with greenhouse gases delaying energy transfer from Earth to Space?

Again, decreasing radiance of outer layer, and increasing radiance from inner layer, effectively holds radiance of Earth steady, and does not violate the SB law.

I don't see how you have debunked this.

There is no "delay". Gasses will emit thermal energy, just as they absorb. They cannot emit back to the warmer surface. This is the part where your gullibility has caused you to believe that CO2 is some kind of magic gas that violates physics and produces the magic bouncing photons required for a heat flowing backwards rise in temperature without additional energy.

You have to think for yourself a little bit. If you believe Google does not have an agenda, you'd be wrong about that too.

Please identify any false statements from the below points?

Earth absorbs sunlight (mostly in the visible and ultraviolet spectrum), warming the surface.

Earth's surface re-emits energy as infrared (IR) radiation, because it's cooler than the sun.

Greenhouse gases (like CO₂, H₂O vapor, CH₄) in the atmosphere absorb some of this IR radiation.

These gases re-radiate that energy in all directions.

This slows the net escape of infrared energy to space — like a thermal blanket — causing the lower atmosphere and surface to retain more heat.

Ah! The inevitable pivot to the magic blanket theory. CO2 is an excellent conductor of thermal energy. A blanket works because it is not a good conductor, it's an insulator. It works by reducing heat. That's right, a blanket keeps you warmer by reducing heat.

Do you see now how it's so important not to conflate heat and hot?

I don't see how you have debunked the point that CO2 delays energy transfer from Earth to Space.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what do you say to this counter point?

If greenhouse gases reduce the amount of infrared radiation escaping, Earth's surface must warm (increase temperature) so that σT to the power of 4 again balances the incoming solar energy.

I'm calling bullshit. IR is converted to thermal energy upon striking the earth. It has changed form. Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The IR is now in the form of thermal energy, so how is the IR supposedly trying to escape?

Are you now saying no IR is ever transferred to space?

Further elaboration for you to try to debunk:

Greenhouse gases don't reduce the Stefan–Boltzmann radiance at a given temperature.
They intercept and delay the loss of energy to space.
Earth's surface increases in temperature until
P=σT^4
again equals the energy it's now receiving (sunlight + delayed radiation to space).

The Key Insight

Stefan–Boltzmann still holds locally at all points.

No, this is a violation of the Stefan Boltzmann law. If I am dumping 8 cups of hot coffee on your head per day, one cup every 3 hours, and then I decide to delay my schedule and only dump one cup of hot coffee on your head every 2 hours... Am I dumping more or less hot coffee on your head?

What does this have to do with greenhouse gases delaying energy transfer from Earth to Space?

Again, decreasing radiance of outer layer, and increasing radiance from inner layer, effectively holds radiance of Earth steady, and does not violate the SB law.

I don't see how you have debunked this.

There is no "delay". Gasses will emit thermal energy, just as they absorb. They cannot emit back to the warmer surface. This is the part where your gullibility has caused you to believe that CO2 is some kind of magic gas that violates physics and produces the magic bouncing photons required for a heat flowing backwards rise in temperature without additional energy.

You have to think for yourself a little bit. If you believe Google does not have an agenda, you'd be wrong about that too.

Please identify any false statements from the below points?

Earth absorbs sunlight (mostly in the visible and ultraviolet spectrum), warming the surface.

Earth's surface re-emits energy as infrared (IR) radiation, because it's cooler than the sun.

Greenhouse gases (like CO₂, H₂O vapor, CH₄) in the atmosphere absorb some of this IR radiation.

These gases re-radiate that energy in all directions.

This slows the net escape of infrared energy to space — like a thermal blanket — causing the lower atmosphere and surface to retain more heat.

Ah! The inevitable pivot to the magic blanket theory. CO2 is an excellent conductor of thermal energy. A blanket works because it is not a good conductor, it's an insulator. It works by reducing heat. That's right, a blanket keeps you warmer by reducing heat.

Do you see now how it's so important not to conflate heat and hot?

I don't see how you have debunked the point that CO2 delays energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I didn't make the claim. I also haven't seen you support this claim in your own words. Are you able to tell me, in your own description, how thermal energy is emitted more slowly from CO2 than from oxygen?

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
So what do you say to this counter point?

If greenhouse gases reduce the amount of infrared radiation escaping, Earth's surface must warm (increase temperature) so that σT to the power of 4 again balances the incoming solar energy.

I'm calling bullshit. IR is converted to thermal energy upon striking the earth. It has changed form. Remember, energy cannot be created or destroyed. The IR is now in the form of thermal energy, so how is the IR supposedly trying to escape?

Are you now saying no IR is ever transferred to space?

Further elaboration for you to try to debunk:

Greenhouse gases don't reduce the Stefan–Boltzmann radiance at a given temperature.
They intercept and delay the loss of energy to space.
Earth's surface increases in temperature until
P=σT^4
again equals the energy it's now receiving (sunlight + delayed radiation to space).

The Key Insight

Stefan–Boltzmann still holds locally at all points.

No, this is a violation of the Stefan Boltzmann law. If I am dumping 8 cups of hot coffee on your head per day, one cup every 3 hours, and then I decide to delay my schedule and only dump one cup of hot coffee on your head every 2 hours... Am I dumping more or less hot coffee on your head?

What does this have to do with greenhouse gases delaying energy transfer from Earth to Space?

Again, decreasing radiance of outer layer, and increasing radiance from inner layer, effectively holds radiance of Earth steady, and does not violate the SB law.

I don't see how you have debunked this.

There is no "delay". Gasses will emit thermal energy, just as they absorb. They cannot emit back to the warmer surface. This is the part where your gullibility has caused you to believe that CO2 is some kind of magic gas that violates physics and produces the magic bouncing photons required for a heat flowing backwards rise in temperature without additional energy.

You have to think for yourself a little bit. If you believe Google does not have an agenda, you'd be wrong about that too.

Please identify any false statements from the below points?

Earth absorbs sunlight (mostly in the visible and ultraviolet spectrum), warming the surface.

Earth's surface re-emits energy as infrared (IR) radiation, because it's cooler than the sun.

Greenhouse gases (like CO₂, H₂O vapor, CH₄) in the atmosphere absorb some of this IR radiation.

These gases re-radiate that energy in all directions.

This slows the net escape of infrared energy to space — like a thermal blanket — causing the lower atmosphere and surface to retain more heat.

Ah! The inevitable pivot to the magic blanket theory. CO2 is an excellent conductor of thermal energy. A blanket works because it is not a good conductor, it's an insulator. It works by reducing heat. That's right, a blanket keeps you warmer by reducing heat.

Do you see now how it's so important not to conflate heat and hot?

I don't see how you have debunked the point that CO2 delays energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I didn't make the claim. I also haven't seen you support this claim in your own words. Are you able to tell me, in your own description, how thermal energy is emitted more slowly from CO2 than from oxygen?

I wanted to see if anybody could debunk the claim that greenhouse gases would delay heat loss from Earth to Space. It doesn't look like you can.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:
The question goes to Gas Guzzler, again, or anybody else, can you please explain how there is no such thing as heat loss, meaning radiation from the Earth being lost to space?

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. If thermal energy is flowing from earth out to space, YOU explain how heat is somehow "lost".

I suspect you are again conflating heat and hot.

Simply put...

The Earth is radiating.

Can you explain how the energy from Earth's radiation is not lost to space?

Zero Heat Loss

That is a major point of your position isn't it? I'm rooting for you, that you will be able to explain how there is no such thing as Heat Loss.

Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. As thermal energy FLOWS out and away from earth, that is called heat. How is it somehow lost when it is in progress?

The prevailing idea is that heat is lost to space.

Surely you can feel, when the Sun sets, however you want to analyze it, the flow of energy or the temperature, they both decrease.

That shows there is heat loss in your local area.

But it seems to me, your position is, looking at the whole system, there is no such thing as heat loss, correct?

So I am looking for more support for your position that there is no such thing as heat lost to space.

For you to grasp the concept, you have to unwrap your head from the idea that heat and hot are the same thing.

If you look up the definition of heat, you can easily find a wrong definition worded something like "the value of being hot". So my follow up question for this definition and to you is this; At what temperature does something become heat?

Do you see how muddy this quickly becomes? Hot is at best, an opinion.

So to correctly describe the process you would say that "thermal energy is transferred from the Earth's solid surface to space by
heat, either by conduction, convection, or by radiation.

I don't feel like I need this lecture about the difference between heat and temperature.

Is heat lost to space or not?

No. Heat is something that happens, not something that gets lost.
Remember, heat isn't warm or hot.

Not a lecture. "Heat" is probably the most misused and abused word across all languages.

I'll ask you again. At what temperature do you believe something become heat?
Hint: temperature does not determine heat and how it flows. Temperature differential does.

You already said energy is transferred to Space from Earth.

If you want to call it Energy Transfer, and not Heat Loss, fine.

But now the point becomes, how can you debunk the idea, that greenhouse gases slow down this Energy Transfer?

One more time..

The greenhouse gas theory states that the solid surface of the Earth is warmed by the sun and then thermal energy is transferred to the greenhouse gases. All correct so far.

This theory goes off the rails when it claims thermal energy can transfer back to the surface. If the surface warmed the gas then the surface was warmer than the gas. Remember heat must flow from hotter to cooler.

The greenhouse gas theory attempts to make heat flow backwards from cooler to warmer. This is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

You are only debunking a minor part of the theory.

Can you debunk the idea, that greenhouse gases slow down the Energy Transfer from Earth to Space?

That would be a violation of the SB law we discussed.

SB law states that temperature and radiance must move in the same direction. You are attempting to reduce radiance and increase temperature. That is a violation of the SB law.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

I don't see how you have debunked the point that CO2 delays energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I didn't make the claim. I also haven't seen you support this claim in your own words. Are you able to tell me, in your own description, how thermal energy is emitted more slowly from CO2 than from oxygen?

I wanted to see if anybody could debunk the claim that greenhouse gases would delay heat loss from Earth to Space. It doesn't look like you can.

I've debunked it six ways to Sunday. It appears you don't understand the topic very well or at all.

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

I don't see how you have debunked the point that CO2 delays energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I didn't make the claim. I also haven't seen you support this claim in your own words. Are you able to tell me, in your own description, how thermal energy is emitted more slowly from CO2 than from oxygen?

I wanted to see if anybody could debunk the claim that greenhouse gases would delay heat loss from Earth to Space. It doesn't look like you can.

I've debunked it six ways to Sunday. It appears you don't understand the topic very well or at all.

Like I said, I'm hoping you can debunk the claim that just a bit more CO2 can delay energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I feel like it's a bogus claim. I also feel like it's a bogus claim that gravity can hold down O2 and N2 from being scattered all across the Universe. But I digress.

Your points haven't debunked anything.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

I don't see how you have debunked the point that CO2 delays energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I didn't make the claim. I also haven't seen you support this claim in your own words. Are you able to tell me, in your own description, how thermal energy is emitted more slowly from CO2 than from oxygen?

I wanted to see if anybody could debunk the claim that greenhouse gases would delay heat loss from Earth to Space. It doesn't look like you can.

I've debunked it six ways to Sunday. It appears you don't understand the topic very well or at all.

Like I said, I'm hoping you can debunk the claim that just a bit more CO2 can delay energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I feel like it's a bogus claim. I also feel like it's a bogus claim that gravity can hold down O2 and N2 from being scattered all across the Universe. But I digress.

Your points haven't debunked anything.

Your comprehension of the subject matter, specifically heat, is dreadfully terrible. You have no understanding of my points and you have no standing to make any claim.

Continue on letting AI do your thinking for you. It is your right as an American.

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

I don't see how you have debunked the point that CO2 delays energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I didn't make the claim. I also haven't seen you support this claim in your own words. Are you able to tell me, in your own description, how thermal energy is emitted more slowly from CO2 than from oxygen?

I wanted to see if anybody could debunk the claim that greenhouse gases would delay heat loss from Earth to Space. It doesn't look like you can.

I've debunked it six ways to Sunday. It appears you don't understand the topic very well or at all.

Like I said, I'm hoping you can debunk the claim that just a bit more CO2 can delay energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I feel like it's a bogus claim. I also feel like it's a bogus claim that gravity can hold down O2 and N2 from being scattered all across the Universe. But I digress.

Your points haven't debunked anything.

Your comprehension of the subject matter, specifically heat, is dreadfully terrible. You have no understanding of my points and you have no standing to make any claim.

Continue on letting AI do your thinking for you. It is your right as an American.

Says the idiot who literally claims that the Earth does not radiate heat

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

I don't see how you have debunked the point that CO2 delays energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I didn't make the claim. I also haven't seen you support this claim in your own words. Are you able to tell me, in your own description, how thermal energy is emitted more slowly from CO2 than from oxygen?

I wanted to see if anybody could debunk the claim that greenhouse gases would delay heat loss from Earth to Space. It doesn't look like you can.

I've debunked it six ways to Sunday. It appears you don't understand the topic very well or at all.

Like I said, I'm hoping you can debunk the claim that just a bit more CO2 can delay energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I feel like it's a bogus claim. I also feel like it's a bogus claim that gravity can hold down O2 and N2 from being scattered all across the Universe. But I digress.

Your points haven't debunked anything.

Your comprehension of the subject matter, specifically heat, is dreadfully terrible. You have no understanding of my points and you have no standing to make any claim.

Continue on letting AI do your thinking for you. It is your right as an American.

Says the idiot who literally claims that the Earth does not radiate heat

It doesn't. It radiates thermal energy. Learn the difference.

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

I don't see how you have debunked the point that CO2 delays energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I didn't make the claim. I also haven't seen you support this claim in your own words. Are you able to tell me, in your own description, how thermal energy is emitted more slowly from CO2 than from oxygen?

I wanted to see if anybody could debunk the claim that greenhouse gases would delay heat loss from Earth to Space. It doesn't look like you can.

I've debunked it six ways to Sunday. It appears you don't understand the topic very well or at all.

Like I said, I'm hoping you can debunk the claim that just a bit more CO2 can delay energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I feel like it's a bogus claim. I also feel like it's a bogus claim that gravity can hold down O2 and N2 from being scattered all across the Universe. But I digress.

Your points haven't debunked anything.

Your comprehension of the subject matter, specifically heat, is dreadfully terrible. You have no understanding of my points and you have no standing to make any claim.

Continue on letting AI do your thinking for you. It is your right as an American.

Says the idiot who literally claims that the Earth does not radiate heat

It doesn't. It radiates thermal energy. Learn the difference.

Heat and thermal energy are different ways of expressing the same thing. Though an inebriated fool who spent 500,000 grand on a diploma will always say thermal energy instead of heat because in their delusion this makes them intelligent.

130

Bill Gates says heat because he is a dropout

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

I don't see how you have debunked the point that CO2 delays energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I didn't make the claim. I also haven't seen you support this claim in your own words. Are you able to tell me, in your own description, how thermal energy is emitted more slowly from CO2 than from oxygen?

I wanted to see if anybody could debunk the claim that greenhouse gases would delay heat loss from Earth to Space. It doesn't look like you can.

I've debunked it six ways to Sunday. It appears you don't understand the topic very well or at all.

Like I said, I'm hoping you can debunk the claim that just a bit more CO2 can delay energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I feel like it's a bogus claim. I also feel like it's a bogus claim that gravity can hold down O2 and N2 from being scattered all across the Universe. But I digress.

Your points haven't debunked anything.

Your comprehension of the subject matter, specifically heat, is dreadfully terrible. You have no understanding of my points and you have no standing to make any claim.

Continue on letting AI do your thinking for you. It is your right as an American.

Says the idiot who literally claims that the Earth does not radiate heat

It doesn't. It radiates thermal energy. Learn the difference.

Heat and thermal energy are different ways of expressing the same thing. Though an inebriated fool who spent 500,000 grand on a diploma will always say thermal energy instead of heat because in their delusion this makes them intelligent.

130

Bill Gates says heat because he is a dropout

Sure, just like water and current are different ways of expressing the same thing. Have you had your anal glands expressed lately? You might be overdue.

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

I don't see how you have debunked the point that CO2 delays energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I didn't make the claim. I also haven't seen you support this claim in your own words. Are you able to tell me, in your own description, how thermal energy is emitted more slowly from CO2 than from oxygen?

I wanted to see if anybody could debunk the claim that greenhouse gases would delay heat loss from Earth to Space. It doesn't look like you can.

I've debunked it six ways to Sunday. It appears you don't understand the topic very well or at all.

Like I said, I'm hoping you can debunk the claim that just a bit more CO2 can delay energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I feel like it's a bogus claim. I also feel like it's a bogus claim that gravity can hold down O2 and N2 from being scattered all across the Universe. But I digress.

Your points haven't debunked anything.

Your comprehension of the subject matter, specifically heat, is dreadfully terrible. You have no understanding of my points and you have no standing to make any claim.

Continue on letting AI do your thinking for you. It is your right as an American.

Says the idiot who literally claims that the Earth does not radiate heat

It doesn't. It radiates thermal energy. Learn the difference.

Heat and thermal energy are different ways of expressing the same thing. Though an inebriated fool who spent 500,000 grand on a diploma will always say thermal energy instead of heat because in their delusion this makes them intelligent.

130

Bill Gates says heat because he is a dropout

Sure, just like water and current are different ways of expressing the same thing. Have you had your anal glands expressed lately? You might be overdue.

Heat or thermal energy
Thermal energy (also called heat energy or heat for short) is produced when a rise in temperature causes atoms and molecules to move faster and collide with each other.

So how many years did you study just to be my pet monkey

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

I don't see how you have debunked the point that CO2 delays energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I didn't make the claim. I also haven't seen you support this claim in your own words. Are you able to tell me, in your own description, how thermal energy is emitted more slowly from CO2 than from oxygen?

I wanted to see if anybody could debunk the claim that greenhouse gases would delay heat loss from Earth to Space. It doesn't look like you can.

I've debunked it six ways to Sunday. It appears you don't understand the topic very well or at all.

Like I said, I'm hoping you can debunk the claim that just a bit more CO2 can delay energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I feel like it's a bogus claim. I also feel like it's a bogus claim that gravity can hold down O2 and N2 from being scattered all across the Universe. But I digress.

Your points haven't debunked anything.

Your comprehension of the subject matter, specifically heat, is dreadfully terrible. You have no understanding of my points and you have no standing to make any claim.

Continue on letting AI do your thinking for you. It is your right as an American.

Says the idiot who literally claims that the Earth does not radiate heat

It doesn't. It radiates thermal energy. Learn the difference.

Heat and thermal energy are different ways of expressing the same thing. Though an inebriated fool who spent 500,000 grand on a diploma will always say thermal energy instead of heat because in their delusion this makes them intelligent.

130

Bill Gates says heat because he is a dropout

Sure, just like water and current are different ways of expressing the same thing. Have you had your anal glands expressed lately? You might be overdue.

Heat or thermal energy
Thermal energy (also called heat energy or heat for short) is produced when a rise in temperature causes atoms and molecules to move faster and collide with each other.

So how many years did you study just to be my pet monkey

Straight from AI copy and paste. Wow. I worry about our future. So sad.

This answer is so wrong I barely know how to unpack it.

So a rise in temperature causes heat....do you suppose heat causes a rise in temperature? Can they both be right?

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

I don't see how you have debunked the point that CO2 delays energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I didn't make the claim. I also haven't seen you support this claim in your own words. Are you able to tell me, in your own description, how thermal energy is emitted more slowly from CO2 than from oxygen?

I wanted to see if anybody could debunk the claim that greenhouse gases would delay heat loss from Earth to Space. It doesn't look like you can.

I've debunked it six ways to Sunday. It appears you don't understand the topic very well or at all.

Like I said, I'm hoping you can debunk the claim that just a bit more CO2 can delay energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I feel like it's a bogus claim. I also feel like it's a bogus claim that gravity can hold down O2 and N2 from being scattered all across the Universe. But I digress.

Your points haven't debunked anything.

Your comprehension of the subject matter, specifically heat, is dreadfully terrible. You have no understanding of my points and you have no standing to make any claim.

Continue on letting AI do your thinking for you. It is your right as an American.

Says the idiot who literally claims that the Earth does not radiate heat

It doesn't. It radiates thermal energy. Learn the difference.

Heat and thermal energy are different ways of expressing the same thing. Though an inebriated fool who spent 500,000 grand on a diploma will always say thermal energy instead of heat because in their delusion this makes them intelligent.

130

Bill Gates says heat because he is a dropout

Sure, just like water and current are different ways of expressing the same thing. Have you had your anal glands expressed lately? You might be overdue.

Heat or thermal energy
Thermal energy (also called heat energy or heat for short) is produced when a rise in temperature causes atoms and molecules to move faster and collide with each other.

So how many years did you study just to be my pet monkey

Straight from AI copy and paste. Wow. I worry about our future. So sad.

This answer is so wrong I barely know how to unpack it.

So a rise in temperature causes heat....do you suppose heat causes a rise in temperature? Can they both be right?

No a rise in temp does not cause heat, because heat is a rise in temp, if there were no temp deviation, no heat could be observed.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

I don't see how you have debunked the point that CO2 delays energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I didn't make the claim. I also haven't seen you support this claim in your own words. Are you able to tell me, in your own description, how thermal energy is emitted more slowly from CO2 than from oxygen?

I wanted to see if anybody could debunk the claim that greenhouse gases would delay heat loss from Earth to Space. It doesn't look like you can.

I've debunked it six ways to Sunday. It appears you don't understand the topic very well or at all.

Like I said, I'm hoping you can debunk the claim that just a bit more CO2 can delay energy transfer from Earth to Space.

I feel like it's a bogus claim. I also feel like it's a bogus claim that gravity can hold down O2 and N2 from being scattered all across the Universe. But I digress.

Your points haven't debunked anything.

Your comprehension of the subject matter, specifically heat, is dreadfully terrible. You have no understanding of my points and you have no standing to make any claim.

Continue on letting AI do your thinking for you. It is your right as an American.

Says the idiot who literally claims that the Earth does not radiate heat

It doesn't. It radiates thermal energy. Learn the difference.

Heat and thermal energy are different ways of expressing the same thing. Though an inebriated fool who spent 500,000 grand on a diploma will always say thermal energy instead of heat because in their delusion this makes them intelligent.

130

Bill Gates says heat because he is a dropout

Sure, just like water and current are different ways of expressing the same thing. Have you had your anal glands expressed lately? You might be overdue.

Heat or thermal energy
Thermal energy (also called heat energy or heat for short) is produced when a rise in temperature causes atoms and molecules to move faster and collide with each other.

So how many years did you study just to be my pet monkey

Straight from AI copy and paste. Wow. I worry about our future. So sad.

This answer is so wrong I barely know how to unpack it.

So a rise in temperature causes heat....do you suppose heat causes a rise in temperature? Can they both be right?

No a rise in temp does not cause heat, because heat is a rise in temp, if there were no temp deviation, no heat could be observed.

Oh please tell us all what you see when you observe heat. I had no idea you can actually see thermal energy. Popcorn...

GasGuzzler wrote:
Oh please tell us all what you see when you observe heat. I had no idea you can actually see thermal energy. Popcorn...

Swan wrote:
You had no idea that thermal energy is visible because you are a jerkoff with a degree that means nothing.

More visible heat

Swan wrote:
PS. You are so pathetically stupid that you can't even use your own joke but need to pliagerize my popcorn joke.

GasGuzzler wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
Oh please tell us all what you see when you observe heat. I had no idea you can actually see thermal energy. Popcorn...

Swan wrote:
You had no idea that thermal energy is visible because you are a jerkoff with a degree that means nothing.

You think this is thermal energy you're seeing?! Too funny!! Thermal imaging yes. The flow of thermal energy....um, no.

More visible heat

Optical illusion caused by air density differential. This is not heat. With your 65 IQ you should have known this.

Swan wrote:
PS. You are so pathetically stupid that you can't even use your own joke but need to pliagerize my popcorn joke.

You are seriously claiming the popcorn joke?! I suppose you also invented the internet.