03-06-2020 18:11 | |
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
tmiddles wrote:gfm7175 wrote:Give me a definition of a temperature you do not consider circular?tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:An increase in the mean temperature of Earth at ground level. We are talking about "global warming" (whatever that is), not temperature. Temperature has already been defined for you. tmiddles wrote: You cannot define a word with itself. You are doing the equivalent of defining 'water' as "water". tmiddles wrote: You're getting side-tracked from attempting to define "global warming"... Stay focused! tmiddles wrote: Not playing games, and I already have. tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...This attempt of yours to define Global Warming is going to smack right into the 2nd law of thermodynamics ...Great and maybe you'll debate me on it this time. I know ITN won't They've already debated you about it. So have I. tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Does Global Warming involve an increase in the planet's entire average global temperature or does the earth's lower atmosphere increase in temperature and the upper atmosphere cool exactly enough to offset the increase below so as to maintain the earth's average global temperature?It very well could be that the upper atmosphere get's colder, that there is a temperature trade off. I don't know. But the title "global warming" refers to the spherical zone of Earth that humans are focused on: ground level (or the bottom of the atmosphere). You have not defined "global warming" in any usable meaningful way. Try again. tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:Why is it a closed system?tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:An increase in the mean temperature of Earth at ground level. This has already been explained to you. tmiddles wrote: What is a "closed system", according to tmiddles? A system containing a lid? A system that is no longer operating? |
03-06-2020 20:20 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14373) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...This attempt of yours to define Global Warming is going to smack right into the 2nd law of thermodynamics ...Great and maybe you'll debate me on it this time. Have you, by any chance, learned it yet? tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Does Global Warming involve an increase in the planet's entire average global temperature or does the earth's lower atmosphere increase in temperature and the upper atmosphere cool exactly enough to offset the increase below so as to maintain the earth's average global temperature?It very well could be that the upper atmosphere get's colder, that there is a temperature trade off. I don't know. But the title "global warming" refers to the spherical zone of Earth that humans are focused on: ground level (or the bottom of the atmosphere). The way you have framed Global Warming it must be summarily dismissed, as in you have stripped away all the information I would need to even tell you what and where your error is. I won't rehash my explanation; you know that you cannot subdivide the atomic unit of a science model and still expect to use that model. The earth is the body in question and your model of Global Warming resides entirely within a subdivision of the earth ... ergo, it's just wrong. When I attempted to pan out and to look at the entirety of the body (earth), i.e. "Does Global Warming involve an increase in the planet's entire average global temperature or does the earth's lower atmosphere increase in temperature and the upper atmosphere cool exactly enough to offset the increase below so as to maintain the earth's average global temperature?" ... your response of "I don't know" was just another way of saying "I'm not budging from my subdivision of the atomic unit." If we cannot discuss what is happening with the body (earth) then we cannot apply science and we are left with only voodoo as an explanation for anything. So we're done. When you do get around to telling me what Global Warming does to the average global temperature, i.e. to the body (earth) then I will explain to you what science you are violating. Until then I don't have enough information to consider. tmiddles wrote: Does it change the results of global warming, There are no results of anything that is completely undefined. tmiddles wrote: as defined above, It's not defined above. You are trying to make the argument that a largely undefined volume has largely undefined magical superpowers. You are then trying to claim that your vague assertion is somehow a definition, ... one that supposedly supports your argument ... which serves as the definition ... that supports your argument ... which serves as the definition ... ad infinitum. Do you see the problem here? I'll be succinct. This is your starting gate, out of which you still have not gotten: 1. What effect do you claim Global Warming has on the earth's average global temperature? 2. Why should any rational person believe your answer to question #1? Just those two questions you need to answer before there can really be any other discussion. . Attached image: Edited on 03-06-2020 20:25 |
Threads | Replies | Last post |
Pro-Palestinian protester arrested in death of Jewish man Paul Kessler. Told you so. | 0 | 16-11-2023 21:56 |
More evidence that climate change is FAKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! | 117 | 28-03-2023 18:11 |
BREAKING NEWS- Woody Harrelson voted in as new Worlds smartest man | 0 | 03-03-2023 15:29 |
Man freed from jail for committing a crime that never even happened. LOL they tried that with me too | 3 | 16-02-2023 19:01 |
Man's energy use actually does explain climate change | 18 | 09-02-2023 03:27 |