Climate change is caused by greenhouse gases

Xadoman wrote:

You still haven't defined anything.

Surface of the earth - soil, water etc etc.

The atmosphere is like a heat shield -

Xadoman wrote:
without it the surface of the earth would be much warmer. The more thicker the atmosphere becomes, the more it is going to absorb the energy directly from the sun, leaving less energy to reach to the surface of the earth.

Xadoman wrote:
If bottom layer of the atmosphere would get warmer, as you say, then something needs to get cooler. Otherwise there would be the violation of the conservation of energy.

Into the Night wrote:
]Nope. The atmosphere is not a thermal insulator.

If bottom layer of the atmosphere would get warmer, as you say, then something needs to get cooler. Otherwise there would be the violation of the conservation

Nope. The surface of the Earth is what heats the atmosphere.

Having a lot more of our existing atmosphere would have these effects on the bottom of the atmosphere:

1. Nighttime and daytime temperatures would be closer.
2. Nighttime and daytime temperatures would be somewhat higher.
3. There would be the same weather, just somewhat more pronounced.

Earth is not a closed system, troll, no violation of conservation.

Xadoman wrote:
ITN speaks:

Nope. The surface of the Earth is what heats the atmosphere.

IBdaMann speaks:

Having a lot more of our existing atmosphere would have these effects on the bottom of the atmosphere:

1. Nighttime and daytime temperatures would be closer.
2. Nighttime and daytime temperatures would be somewhat higher.
3. There would be the same weather, just somewhat more pronounced.

If that is true what both of them are saying then a thicker atmosphere ( more CO2 ) would cause a global warming effect ( higher nighttime and daytime temperatures).

Earth is not a closed system, troll, no violation of conservation.

From wiki:

In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work) but not matter, with its surroundings. An isolated system cannot exchange any heat, work, or matter with the surroundings, while an open system can exchange energy and matter.


It seems to me that you are confusing a closed and and isolated system. Earth is not an isolated system.

So Earth is exchanging both energy and matter which makes it an open system.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:Nice little video.
[crap video link deleted]

That guy is often good at clearly explaining some otherwise difficult math concepts ... but he is just another gullible fool who OBEYS when he is ordered to believe crap with no rational basis.

You start well, than you talk about yourself again.

Fallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

You are clearly the reason for abortions

You are clearly the result of Viagra.

Xadoman wrote:If that is true what both of them are saying then a thicker atmosphere ( more CO2 ) would cause a global warming effect ( higher nighttime and daytime temperatures).

Xadoman wrote:From wiki:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:If that is true what both of them are saying then a thicker atmosphere ( more CO2 ) would cause a global warming effect ( higher nighttime and daytime temperatures).

Incorrect. You intentionally omitted the very words that I had placed in bold, i.e:
"at the bottom of the atmosphere."

Correct wording for your statement would be: "Since this is true, what both of them are saying then is that a thicker atmosphere (more CO2) would have no effect on the earth's average global temperature."

Xadoman wrote:From wiki:

You don't know what constitutes an open system vs. a closed system. You rushed to Wikipedia to absorb the errors therein and the result is that you still do not know what constitutes an open system vs. a closed system.

Now I realize that you specifically do not want to know. Your intention is to be dishonest. You specifically omitted the key wording that I highlighted. You still have not defined any of your own terms that I politely requested you define. I have, in fact, explained "open vs. closed systems" to you in the recent past and here you are acting as though I never did.

The result is that you are gibbering nonsense. That Robert Wagner is rushing to support you should be your first clue that you are blurting out from the children's table.

*Could I get you to define your terms?
*Could I get you to acknowledge that what has been discussed only pertained to the bottom of the atmosphere, and that I qualified the scale of the cause/effect?

If not, you are simply being dishonest for the sake of being dishonest. This would not be the first time you have done so.

Xadoman wrote:

So Earth is exchanging both energy and matter which makes it an open system.

And that does not mean the earth could rise its temperature from nothing. The energy comes from the sun which determines the temperature of earth.

Open vs closed systems - I have read that this is simply an accounting problem. The conservation of energy still stands in the grand scheme of things.

Robert Wagner wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

So Earth is exchanging both energy and matter which makes it an open system.

And that does not mean the earth could rise its temperature from nothing. The energy comes from the sun which determines the temperature of earth.

Open vs closed systems - I have read that this is simply an accounting problem. The conservation of energy still stands in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, conservation of energy still stands in the grand scheme of things. The temperature of earth (surface/atmosphere) is determined by the amount of energy received from the sun and the amount radiated out to space.
The difference is called Earth Energy Imbalance.

NASA states the imbalance is increasingly positiv towards the earth.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled

Xadoman wrote:
IBdaMann, you got me wrong. I am simply interested in physics. I want to know why something is the way it is in nature. I like thought experiments , that is why I would like to now what would happen if the atmosphere becomes really thick. You have said that the bottom layer of the atmosphere becomes warmer. Does that mean that the upper layers get cooler or the surface of the earth gets cooler. How does the balance ( average temperature of earth) stay the same, that is my question.

Robert Wagner wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Nope. The atmosphere is not a thermal insulator.

Yes it is, troll.

Robert Wagner wrote:

If bottom layer of the atmosphere would get warmer, as you say, then something needs to get cooler. Otherwise there would be the violation of the conservation

Robert Wagner wrote:
Earth is not a closed system, troll,

Robert Wagner wrote:
no violation of conservation.

Xadoman wrote:
ITN speaks:

Nope. The surface of the Earth is what heats the atmosphere.

IBdaMann speaks:

Having a lot more of our existing atmosphere would have these effects on the bottom of the atmosphere:

1. Nighttime and daytime temperatures would be closer.
2. Nighttime and daytime temperatures would be somewhat higher.
3. There would be the same weather, just somewhat more pronounced.

If that is true what both of them are saying then a thicker atmosphere ( more CO2 ) would cause a global warming effect ( higher nighttime and daytime temperatures).

Xadoman wrote:

Earth is not a closed system, troll, no violation of conservation.

From wiki:

Xadoman wrote:
In thermodynamics, a closed system can exchange energy (as heat or work) but not matter, with its surroundings.

Xadoman wrote:
An isolated system cannot exchange any heat, work, or matter with the surroundings,

Xadoman wrote:
while an open system can exchange energy and matter.

Xadoman wrote:
It seems to me that you are confusing a closed and and isolated system. Earth is not an isolated system.

Xadoman wrote:

So Earth is exchanging both energy and matter which makes it an open system.

And that does not mean the earth could rise its temperature from nothing. The energy comes from the sun which determines the temperature of earth.

Open vs closed systems - I have read that this is simply an accounting problem. The conservation of energy still stands in the grand scheme of things.

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:If that is true what both of them are saying then a thicker atmosphere ( more CO2 ) would cause a global warming effect ( higher nighttime and daytime temperatures).

Incorrect. You intentionally omitted the very words that I had placed in bold, i.e:
"at the bottom of the atmosphere."

Correct wording for your statement would be: "Since this is true, what both of them are saying then is that a thicker atmosphere (more CO2) would have no effect on the earth's average global temperature."

Xadoman wrote:From wiki:

You don't know what constitutes an open system vs. a closed system. You rushed to Wikipedia to absorb the errors therein and the result is that you still do not know what constitutes an open system vs. a closed system.

Now I realize that you specifically do not want to know. Your intention is to be dishonest. You specifically omitted the key wording that I highlighted. You still have not defined any of your own terms that I politely requested you define. I have, in fact, explained "open vs. closed systems" to you in the recent past and here you are acting as though I never did.

The result is that you are gibbering nonsense. That Robert Wagner is rushing to support you should be your first clue that you are blurting out from the children's table.

*Could I get you to define your terms?
*Could I get you to acknowledge that what has been discussed only pertained to the bottom of the atmosphere, and that I qualified the scale of the cause/effect?

If not, you are simply being dishonest for the sake of being dishonest. This would not be the first time you have done so.

Says the idiot who denies that thousands of miles of terminal moraines exist because he denies the entire ice age and the holocaust as well.

Great going Elmer

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:If that is true what both of them are saying then a thicker atmosphere ( more CO2 ) would cause a global warming effect ( higher nighttime and daytime temperatures).

Incorrect. You intentionally omitted the very words that I had placed in bold, i.e:
"at the bottom of the atmosphere."

Correct wording for your statement would be: "Since this is true, what both of them are saying then is that a thicker atmosphere (more CO2) would have no effect on the earth's average global temperature."

Xadoman wrote:From wiki:

You don't know what constitutes an open system vs. a closed system. You rushed to Wikipedia to absorb the errors therein and the result is that you still do not know what constitutes an open system vs. a closed system.

Now I realize that you specifically do not want to know. Your intention is to be dishonest. You specifically omitted the key wording that I highlighted. You still have not defined any of your own terms that I politely requested you define. I have, in fact, explained "open vs. closed systems" to you in the recent past and here you are acting as though I never did.

The result is that you are gibbering nonsense. That Robert Wagner is rushing to support you should be your first clue that you are blurting out from the children's table.

*Could I get you to define your terms?
*Could I get you to acknowledge that what has been discussed only pertained to the bottom of the atmosphere, and that I qualified the scale of the cause/effect?

If not, you are simply being dishonest for the sake of being dishonest. This would not be the first time you have done so.

Says the idiot who denies that thousands of miles of terminal moraines exist because he denies the entire ice age and the holocaust as well.

Great going Elmer

Circular Argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Insult fallacy. Repetition fallacy (chanting).

Robert Wagner wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

So Earth is exchanging both energy and matter which makes it an open system.

And that does not mean the earth could rise its temperature from nothing. The energy comes from the sun which determines the temperature of earth.

Open vs closed systems - I have read that this is simply an accounting problem. The conservation of energy still stands in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, conservation of energy still stands in the grand scheme of things. The temperature of earth (surface/atmosphere) is determined by the amount of energy received from the sun and the amount radiated out to space.
The difference is called Earth Energy Imbalance.

Robert Wagner wrote:
NASA states the imbalance is increasingly positiv towards the earth.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled

Swan wrote:

Robert Wagner wrote:

Xadoman wrote:

So Earth is exchanging both energy and matter which makes it an open system.

And that does not mean the earth could rise its temperature from nothing. The energy comes from the sun which determines the temperature of earth.

Open vs closed systems - I have read that this is simply an accounting problem. The conservation of energy still stands in the grand scheme of things.

Yes, conservation of energy still stands in the grand scheme of things. The temperature of earth (surface/atmosphere) is determined by the amount of energy received from the sun and the amount radiated out to space.
The difference is called Earth Energy Imbalance.

NASA states the imbalance is increasingly positiv towards the earth.

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/joint-nasa-noaa-study-finds-earths-energy-imbalance-has-doubled

NASA ****ed up the American space program so badly that America began using Russian rockets. So really NASA is a fools tool

Xadoman wrote:
IBdaMann, you got me wrong. I am simply interested in physics. I want to know why something is the way it is in nature. I like thought experiments , that is why I would like to now what would happen if the atmosphere becomes really thick. You have said that the bottom layer of the atmosphere becomes warmer. Does that mean that the upper layers get cooler or the surface of the earth gets cooler. How does the balance ( average temperature of earth) stay the same, that is my question.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:If that is true what both of them are saying then a thicker atmosphere ( more CO2 ) would cause a global warming effect ( higher nighttime and daytime temperatures).

Incorrect. You intentionally omitted the very words that I had placed in bold, i.e:
"at the bottom of the atmosphere."

Correct wording for your statement would be: "Since this is true, what both of them are saying then is that a thicker atmosphere (more CO2) would have no effect on the earth's average global temperature."

Xadoman wrote:From wiki:

You don't know what constitutes an open system vs. a closed system. You rushed to Wikipedia to absorb the errors therein and the result is that you still do not know what constitutes an open system vs. a closed system.

Now I realize that you specifically do not want to know. Your intention is to be dishonest. You specifically omitted the key wording that I highlighted. You still have not defined any of your own terms that I politely requested you define. I have, in fact, explained "open vs. closed systems" to you in the recent past and here you are acting as though I never did.

The result is that you are gibbering nonsense. That Robert Wagner is rushing to support you should be your first clue that you are blurting out from the children's table.

*Could I get you to define your terms?
*Could I get you to acknowledge that what has been discussed only pertained to the bottom of the atmosphere, and that I qualified the scale of the cause/effect?

If not, you are simply being dishonest for the sake of being dishonest. This would not be the first time you have done so.

Says the idiot who denies that thousands of miles of terminal moraines exist because he denies the entire ice age and the holocaust as well.

Great going Elmer

Circular Argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Insult fallacy. Repetition fallacy (chanting).

Says the idiot who denies that thousands of miles of terminal moraines exist because he denies the entire ice age and the holocaust as well.

Great going Elmer

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:If that is true what both of them are saying then a thicker atmosphere ( more CO2 ) would cause a global warming effect ( higher nighttime and daytime temperatures).

Incorrect. You intentionally omitted the very words that I had placed in bold, i.e:
"at the bottom of the atmosphere."

Correct wording for your statement would be: "Since this is true, what both of them are saying then is that a thicker atmosphere (more CO2) would have no effect on the earth's average global temperature."

Xadoman wrote:From wiki:

You don't know what constitutes an open system vs. a closed system. You rushed to Wikipedia to absorb the errors therein and the result is that you still do not know what constitutes an open system vs. a closed system.

Now I realize that you specifically do not want to know. Your intention is to be dishonest. You specifically omitted the key wording that I highlighted. You still have not defined any of your own terms that I politely requested you define. I have, in fact, explained "open vs. closed systems" to you in the recent past and here you are acting as though I never did.

The result is that you are gibbering nonsense. That Robert Wagner is rushing to support you should be your first clue that you are blurting out from the children's table.

*Could I get you to define your terms?
*Could I get you to acknowledge that what has been discussed only pertained to the bottom of the atmosphere, and that I qualified the scale of the cause/effect?

If not, you are simply being dishonest for the sake of being dishonest. This would not be the first time you have done so.

Says the idiot who denies that thousands of miles of terminal moraines exist because he denies the entire ice age and the holocaust as well.

Great going Elmer

Circular Argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Insult fallacy. Repetition fallacy (chanting).

Says the idiot who denies that thousands of miles of terminal moraines exist because he denies the entire ice age and the holocaust as well.

Great going Elmer

Circular Argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Insult fallacy. Repetition fallacy (chanting).

Xadoman wrote:IBdaMann, you got me wrong. I am simply interested in physics. I want to know why something is the way it is in nature.

Xadoman wrote:I like thought experiments

Xadoman wrote: that is why I would like to now what would happen if the atmosphere becomes really thick.

Xadoman wrote: You have said that the bottom layer of the atmosphere becomes warmer.

Xadoman wrote: How does the balance

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:If that is true what both of them are saying then a thicker atmosphere ( more CO2 ) would cause a global warming effect ( higher nighttime and daytime temperatures).

Incorrect. You intentionally omitted the very words that I had placed in bold, i.e:
"at the bottom of the atmosphere."

Correct wording for your statement would be: "Since this is true, what both of them are saying then is that a thicker atmosphere (more CO2) would have no effect on the earth's average global temperature."

Xadoman wrote:From wiki:

You don't know what constitutes an open system vs. a closed system. You rushed to Wikipedia to absorb the errors therein and the result is that you still do not know what constitutes an open system vs. a closed system.

Now I realize that you specifically do not want to know. Your intention is to be dishonest. You specifically omitted the key wording that I highlighted. You still have not defined any of your own terms that I politely requested you define. I have, in fact, explained "open vs. closed systems" to you in the recent past and here you are acting as though I never did.

The result is that you are gibbering nonsense. That Robert Wagner is rushing to support you should be your first clue that you are blurting out from the children's table.

*Could I get you to define your terms?
*Could I get you to acknowledge that what has been discussed only pertained to the bottom of the atmosphere, and that I qualified the scale of the cause/effect?

If not, you are simply being dishonest for the sake of being dishonest. This would not be the first time you have done so.

Says the idiot who denies that thousands of miles of terminal moraines exist because he denies the entire ice age and the holocaust as well.

Great going Elmer

Circular Argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Insult fallacy. Repetition fallacy (chanting).

Says the idiot who denies that thousands of miles of terminal moraines exist because he denies the entire ice age and the holocaust as well.

Great going Elmer

Circular Argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Insult fallacy. Repetition fallacy (chanting).

What is your highest grade of ebducationz

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Xadoman wrote:If that is true what both of them are saying then a thicker atmosphere ( more CO2 ) would cause a global warming effect ( higher nighttime and daytime temperatures).

Incorrect. You intentionally omitted the very words that I had placed in bold, i.e:
"at the bottom of the atmosphere."

Correct wording for your statement would be: "Since this is true, what both of them are saying then is that a thicker atmosphere (more CO2) would have no effect on the earth's average global temperature."

Xadoman wrote:From wiki:

You don't know what constitutes an open system vs. a closed system. You rushed to Wikipedia to absorb the errors therein and the result is that you still do not know what constitutes an open system vs. a closed system.

Now I realize that you specifically do not want to know. Your intention is to be dishonest. You specifically omitted the key wording that I highlighted. You still have not defined any of your own terms that I politely requested you define. I have, in fact, explained "open vs. closed systems" to you in the recent past and here you are acting as though I never did.

The result is that you are gibbering nonsense. That Robert Wagner is rushing to support you should be your first clue that you are blurting out from the children's table.

*Could I get you to define your terms?
*Could I get you to acknowledge that what has been discussed only pertained to the bottom of the atmosphere, and that I qualified the scale of the cause/effect?

If not, you are simply being dishonest for the sake of being dishonest. This would not be the first time you have done so.

Says the idiot who denies that thousands of miles of terminal moraines exist because he denies the entire ice age and the holocaust as well.

Great going Elmer

Circular Argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Insult fallacy. Repetition fallacy (chanting).

Says the idiot who denies that thousands of miles of terminal moraines exist because he denies the entire ice age and the holocaust as well.

Great going Elmer

Circular Argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Insult fallacy. Repetition fallacy (chanting).

What is your highest grade of ebducationz

Irrelevance fallacy.

Swan wrote:

Says the idiot who cannot accept that the speed of quantum entanglement is orders of time faster than light. Sheesh even my pet turtle knows this.

PS. You forgot to list your highest grade of education. Not that I blame you as ending up here with a PhD in psych is pretty much a total life failure

Into the Night wrote:You're a moron, denying and discarding quantum mechanics and throwing bullshit 'credentials' around.

If you add a substantial amount to the atmosphere, it would become bigger and there would be more cold atmosphere, but the very bottom of the atmosphere would warm up a little due to the induced higher pressure, exactly enough for the average global temperature to remain exactly the same.

In any given system in thermodynamics, you cannot consider any energy sources or sinks from outside that system. That itself is a closed system.

Xadoman wrote:Does not all matter radiate enery into the space? How can there even be a closed system if energy always radiates into the space.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Says the idiot who cannot accept that the speed of quantum entanglement is orders of time faster than light. Sheesh even my pet turtle knows this.

PS. You forgot to list your highest grade of education. Not that I blame you as ending up here with a PhD in psych is pretty much a total life failure

Mantras 20p1...20p2...1a...12...1d.
It is not possible to measure either the speed of light or anything faster than the speed of light.

You're a moron, denying and discarding quantum mechanics and throwing bullshit 'credentials' around.

Xadoman wrote:Space or universe is a closed system.

Xadoman wrote: All the other systems are not closed because they lose or gain heat via radiation constantly.

Xadoman wrote: Only the space itself does not lose or gain energy as much as I understand.

Xadoman wrote:

If you add a substantial amount to the atmosphere, it would become bigger and there would be more cold atmosphere, but the very bottom of the atmosphere would warm up a little due to the induced higher pressure, exactly enough for the average global temperature to remain exactly the same.

ITN, do you agree with IBdaMann here? Do you agree that the very bottom of the atmosphere would warm up?

Xadoman wrote:

In any given system in thermodynamics, you cannot consider any energy sources or sinks from outside that system. That itself is a closed system.

Does not all matter radiate enery into the space? How can there even be a closed system if energy always radiates into the space.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Says the idiot who cannot accept that the speed of quantum entanglement is orders of time faster than light. Sheesh even my pet turtle knows this.

PS. You forgot to list your highest grade of education. Not that I blame you as ending up here with a PhD in psych is pretty much a total life failure

Mantras 20p1...20p2...1a...12...1d.
It is not possible to measure either the speed of light or anything faster than the speed of light.

You're a moron, denying and discarding quantum mechanics and throwing bullshit 'credentials' around.

Retard alert, if it were not possible to measure/calculate the speed of light, then light would not have a speed in the first place.

Xadoman wrote:
Space or universe is a closed system. All the other systems are not closed because they lose or gain heat via radiation constantly. Only the space itself does not lose or gain energy as much as I understand.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Says the idiot who cannot accept that the speed of quantum entanglement is orders of time faster than light. Sheesh even my pet turtle knows this.

PS. You forgot to list your highest grade of education. Not that I blame you as ending up here with a PhD in psych is pretty much a total life failure

Mantras 20p1...20p2...1a...12...1d.
It is not possible to measure either the speed of light or anything faster than the speed of light.

You're a moron, denying and discarding quantum mechanics and throwing bullshit 'credentials' around.

Retard alert, if it were not possible to measure/calculate the speed of light, then light would not have a speed in the first place.

Argument of ignorance fallacy. False dichotomy fallacy. Word stuffing. Discard of Maxwell's theory. Remainder mantras deleted.
Mantras 20p1...20p2...1d...4f...1e...25g...31...33...

It is not possible to measure the speed of light or of anything faster than the speed of light.
Discard of quantum mechanics and physics including Maxwell's theories, Einstein's theories, Heisenberg's theory, and Schrodinger's theories.

Swan wrote:The speed of light is calculated perfectly, now on the other hand the speed of quantum entanglement is somewhere between three times light speed to 10,000 or more times light speed

IBdaMann wrote:

Swan wrote:The speed of light is calculated perfectly, now on the other hand the speed of quantum entanglement is somewhere between three times light speed to 10,000 or more times light speed

This is where you your argument goes off the rail.

You're claiming that a quantum something somehow exceeds the speed of light in violation of General Relativity and is a variable speed engine that enables Capt Kirk to select his desired warp speed.

On the plus side, now the Vulcans will push for Earth to enter the Federation.