Giant 'burp'

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:


I'm still feeling like your arguments are falling flat.

For example, if I put on a jacket, and my skin warms up, your examples won't convince me that my jacket made no difference upon my skin temperature. This example could be a main reason why "warmizombies" never agree with you.

Into the Night wrote:
You are converting chemical energy into thermal energy, just like a furnace does.

Insulation reduces heat.

Spongy Iris wrote:

How is an atmosphere with increasing CO2 concentration so much different than me adding a warming layer of clothing?

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is an insulation. There is no such thing as a one way insulation. Homunculus fallacy.

James said global warming is due to an increase of kinetic energy. Certainly correct.

As air pressure increases inside a container from increased concentration of CO2, kinetic energy increases. That is not creating energy from nothing.

I am not really getting behind the greenhouse gas theory, more like a yellow house made of glass.

You are trying to create energy from nothing again

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:


I'm still feeling like your arguments are falling flat.

For example, if I put on a jacket, and my skin warms up, your examples won't convince me that my jacket made no difference upon my skin temperature. This example could be a main reason why "warmizombies" never agree with you.

Into the Night wrote:
You are converting chemical energy into thermal energy, just like a furnace does.

Insulation reduces heat.

Spongy Iris wrote:

How is an atmosphere with increasing CO2 concentration so much different than me adding a warming layer of clothing?

Into the Night wrote:
No gas or vapor is an insulation. There is no such thing as a one way insulation. Homunculus fallacy.

James said global warming is due to an increase of kinetic energy. Certainly correct.

As air pressure increases inside a container from increased concentration of CO2, kinetic energy increases. That is not creating energy from nothing.

I am not really getting behind the greenhouse gas theory, more like a yellow house made of glass.

You are trying to create energy from nothing again

You may be right, cuz even if kinetic energy increases inside the container, by increasing air pressure, the increase in temp (heat) would not be contained, cuz it would equalize with its surrounding outside the container...

Into the Night wrote:
Popular Mechanics reports:

"The ocean is humanity's greatest ally in the fight against anthropogenic climate change. According to the United Nations, the world's oceans produce 50 percent of the oxygen we breathe, absorb around 30 percent of atmospheric carbon, and capture 90 percent of the excess heat produced by greenhouse emissions. Without the ocean, we'd be well and truly cooked.

However, the ocean's role as a carbon sink is complicated, and new research suggests that even under an ideal climate scenario — one where humanity gets its act together and creates a net-negative carbon world — heat trapped in the Southern Ocean could be "burped" up, producing anthropogenic climate change-like effects for decades or even centuries."

Guess the Church of Global Warming is getting desperate.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Popular Mechanics reports:

"The ocean is humanity's greatest ally in the fight against anthropogenic climate change. According to the United Nations, the world's oceans produce 50 percent of the oxygen we breathe, absorb around 30 percent of atmospheric carbon, and capture 90 percent of the excess heat produced by greenhouse emissions. Without the ocean, we'd be well and truly cooked.

However, the ocean's role as a carbon sink is complicated, and new research suggests that even under an ideal climate scenario — one where humanity gets its act together and creates a net-negative carbon world — heat trapped in the Southern Ocean could be "burped" up, producing anthropogenic climate change-like effects for decades or even centuries."

Guess the Church of Global Warming is getting desperate.

And what happens when "the Church of Global Warming" gets desperate enough?

It is limited only by one's imagination.

Like ANTIFA, the Church of Global Warming should probably be designated as a terrorist "organization". Apparently, they are trying to destroy the world.

According to reliable sources, the Church of Global Warming has trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars to spend on their terrorist activities.

That money should be seized, as soon as someone can figure out where they hide it.

Some of the more gullible followers of the Church of Global Warming may only need a few months in a reeducation camp. Once they are made to understand the simple fact that CLIMATE CANNOT CHANGE, they are usually capable of becoming productive members of society again. With structure and supervision, they can overcome their addiction to incorrect beliefs about climate.

Higher ranking members of the Church of Global Warming bureaucratic hierarchy are TRAITORS who owe a blood debt for all the harm they have done to civilization. If we can just figure out who they are and where they hide...

And maybe when we find those trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars the Church of Global Warming conned us out of, we can use it for the benefit of humanity.

I trust Donald Trump to rule wisely for the benefit of all.

Death to the Church of Global Warming!

They are evil poo poo heads who don't even know what science IS.

Im a BM wrote:
And what happens when "the Church of Global Warming" gets desperate enough?
It is limited only by one's imagination.

Im a BM wrote:
Like ANTIFA, the Church of Global Warming should probably be designated as a terrorist "organization".

Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, they are trying to destroy the world.

Im a BM wrote:
According to reliable sources, the Church of Global Warming has trillions and trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars to spend on their terrorist activities.

Im a BM wrote:
That money should be seized, as soon as someone can figure out where they hide it.

Im a BM wrote:
Some of the more gullible followers of the Church of Global Warming may only need a few months in a reeducation camp. Once they are made to understand the simple fact that CLIMATE CANNOT CHANGE, they are usually capable of becoming productive members of society again. With structure and supervision, they can overcome their addiction to incorrect beliefs about climate.

Im a BM wrote:
Higher ranking members of the Church of Global Warming bureaucratic hierarchy are TRAITORS who owe a blood debt for all the harm they have done to civilization. If we can just figure out who they are and where they hide...

Im a BM wrote:
And maybe when we find those trillions and trillions and trillions of dollars the Church of Global Warming conned us out of, we can use it for the benefit of humanity.

I trust Donald Trump to rule wisely for the benefit of all.

Death to the Church of Global Warming!

Im a BM wrote:
They are evil poo poo heads who don't even know what science IS.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: So then debunk it.

LEARN - TO - READ

I have debunked it hundreds of times, and I told you how you can get ChatGPT to admit that it was in error in things that it previously wrote.

... and what did you do with my sage advice?

That's right, you demanded that I debunk it AGAIN. Not very brilliant. You're not going to get any of your questions answered that way.

If you are happy with your fantasy-land worship of physics violations then I am happy as well. I have no interest in making you unhappy.

If, however, you actually have a physics question, I'm more than happy to answer it for you.


Actually, I'll tell you what I'll do. I'll give you a rundown of the standard "Climate Shuffle" (named after the Curly Shuffle of the Three Stooges) that is the overarching fallacious argument used by warmizombies and climate lemmings to argue the miraculous physics violations of their religion of HATRED and intolerance.

The Climate Shuffle involves perpetually cycling through three obvious fallacies, jumping from one to the next while exclaiming "No one is claiming what I just claimed ..." and the cycle goes on forever and ever and ever. The three fallacious arguments are as follows:

1. The Pizza Slicing Fallacy: Everyone, including small children, know that you can't slice a pizza in such a way as to have more pizza. You can have more slices, and you can have some slices being bigger than others, and you can redistribute those slices throughout the house however you please, but you will never have more pizza. Similarly, the earth's average global equilibrium temperature is determined by its quantity of thermal energy. There is no way to redistribute that thermal energy such the earth's average global equilibrium temperature is somehow higher. The 1st law of thermodynamics guarantees that you will always have the exact same amount of thermal energy because you can't create any out of nothing and you can't destroy any of it into nothing, and this precludes any change whatsoever to earth's average global equilibrium temperature.

2. The Greenhouse Effect Fallacy. This standard fallacy insists that because of the miraculous wonders of greenhouse gas, earth's radiance is somehow magically "trapped" (or even better, it is "slowed" to something below the speed of light), i.e. "prevented or restricted from escaping into space." This decrease in radiance, it is argued, causes an increase in earth's temperature. Unfortunately, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, aka the greenhouse effect killer, the law that makes this argument "the Greenhouse Effect Fallacy", says that radiance and temperature must move in the same direction, never in opposite directions. If you increase earth's temperature, you increase earth's radiance. If you tell me that earth's radiance has decreased, you have told me that earth's temperature has decreased, not increased.

3. The Heating Ice Fallacy. Everyone, including small children, knows that you cannot heat your lukewarm coffee with ice. The second law of thermodynamics specifies that thermal energy flows only from warmer to colder, never from colder to warmer. Ice will make lukewarm coffee colder while melting the ice. Never will ice make coffee hotter while making the ice colder. Yet warmizombies never get tired of insisting that the colder atmosphere somehow warms the warmer earth's surface.

So these are the three fallacies through which warmizombies cycle ad infinitum in order to preach their stupid religion, and they do so in this manner:

1. The warmizombie insists that no one is claiming anything that violates the second law of thermodynamics, (as he previously attempted to do), that the simple fact of the matter is that short-wave thermal radiation is re-radiated by greenhouse gas in the stratosphere and blah, blah, blah ... earth's thermal energy is somehow bandied about and redistributed in an incomprehensible redistribution that results in the "warming" of the earth. The rational, conservative, MAGA, America-loving philanthropist reminds the America-HATING Marxist warmizombie that if he is somehow claiming a new higher earth's temperature, he needs to account for the new, additional thermal energy that wasn't there previously or else he is engaging in The Pizza Slicing Fallacy by trying to create energy out of nothing in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

2. The warmizombie recoils and lashes out with a "No one is claiming that energy is being created in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics" (as he just tried to claim), but that the mystical, magical greenhouse gas somehow "slows" earth's radiance, thus reducing it, by preventing it from escaping into space, and this causes earth's temperature to increase. The rational, conservative, MAGA, America-loving philanthropist reminds the America-HATING Marxist warmizombie that the Stefan-Boltzmann law requires radiance and temperature to move in the same direction, never in opposite directions.

3. The warmizombie hisses and has to take a breather. When he is eventually able to continue, he looks the kind, warm-hearted, MAGA pillar-of-the-community straight in the eye and says "Nobody is claiming any violation of Stefan-Boltzmann" (as he just tried to claim) and then the warmizombie proceeds to say "... as I was saying, greenhouse gas absorbs thermal energy radiating off the ground and re-radiates about half back to the surface, heating it and increasing its temperature. The calm, dispassionate and wise MAGA social exemplar politely asks the warmizombie "Are you claiming that the cooler atmosphere is somehow heating the warmer earth's surface? If so, you are violating the 2nd Law of thermodynamics."

4. Return to step 1.

The warmizombie will keep cycling through so that you never catch him.

[*-ClimateShuffle]

.

Spongy Iris wrote: We shouldn't try to rationalize away the point, that the prevailing greenhouse gas effect theory, does assert that air which is colder than the land is warming up the land. This doesn't make sense.

Spongy Iris wrote: But there is also no denying that Arctic sea ice has significantly decreased, at least since 1980.

Spongy Iris wrote:So we need a new theory to try and prove why Arctic sea ice is melting more than the historical average.

Spongy Iris wrote:An increase of greenhouse gases would make more clouds.

Spongy Iris wrote: Earth is glazed like a donut with 2 panes of Heaven's glass, inside which it is extremely cold. That is Earth's refrigeration.

Spongy Iris wrote: With more clouds forming over the Arctic sea, from the increase in CO2, the cold air from Heaven is obstructed.

Spongy Iris wrote:The Heaven's Glass theory does not require us to create energy from nothing.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: We shouldn't try to rationalize away the point, that the prevailing greenhouse gas effect theory, does assert that air which is colder than the land is warming up the land. This doesn't make sense.

It's a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can't heat your lukewarm coffe with an ice cube.

Spongy Iris wrote: But there is also no denying that Arctic sea ice has significantly decreased, at least since 1980.

Nope. Not only is your assertion completely absurd:
1. the ice melts in the summer and new ice forms the following winter
2. there is no way you can know the volume of Arctic sea ice in any given year from the surface area, i.e. you have zero idea how thick the ice is at any given point
3. the surface area differs every year, and it is not monotone decreasing

Consider your absurd assertion completely denied. You should probably think these things through before posting on them.

Spongy Iris wrote:So we need a new theory to try and prove why Arctic sea ice is melting more than the historical average.

Nope. We need a new theory to explain why people have become so gullible all of a sudden.

Spongy Iris wrote:An increase of greenhouse gases would make more clouds.

The concept of greenhouse gas was created as a joke. There is no such thing. No gas has any magical superpower to cause spontaneous temperature increases without additional energy; that would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

I'll tell you what, you show me how you and I can barbeque without any heat source beyond a mere spray-cannister of greenhouse gas, and I'll show you how we can make $billions.

Certain conditions are needed for cloud formation to increase. It is not merely a simple matter of just increasing a particular magical, thermodynamics-violating gas.

Spongy Iris wrote: Earth is glazed like a donut with 2 panes of Heaven's glass, inside which it is extremely cold. That is Earth's refrigeration.

This is fine, but you still have to show this. It isn't glass, because glass is entirely visible, as you and I have discussed. This matter that you claim is surrounding the earth is entirely invisible, as you have repeatedly confirmed. Also, the floating copper wires and such are also completely invisible, as you have repeatedly confirmed.

Ergo, we just need for you to demonstrate that this invisible matter is actually there, because at the moment, everything appears exactly like there is no glass or copper filaments.

Spongy Iris wrote: With more clouds forming over the Arctic sea, from the increase in CO2, the cold air from Heaven is obstructed.

Nope. Arctic visibility hasn't changed, and your heaven's sphere is still entirely invisible, right?

Spongy Iris wrote:The Heaven's Glass theory does not require us to create energy from nothing.

It requires you to show the glass.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote: We shouldn't try to rationalize away the point, that the prevailing greenhouse gas effect theory, does assert that air which is colder than the land is warming up the land. This doesn't make sense.

It's a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You can't heat your lukewarm coffe with an ice cube.

Spongy Iris wrote: But there is also no denying that Arctic sea ice has significantly decreased, at least since 1980.

Nope. Not only is your assertion completely absurd:
1. the ice melts in the summer and new ice forms the following winter
2. there is no way you can know the volume of Arctic sea ice in any given year from the surface area, i.e. you have zero idea how thick the ice is at any given point
3. the surface area differs every year, and it is not monotone decreasing

Consider your absurd assertion completely denied. You should probably think these things through before posting on them.

Spongy Iris wrote:So we need a new theory to try and prove why Arctic sea ice is melting more than the historical average.

Nope. We need a new theory to explain why people have become so gullible all of a sudden.

Spongy Iris wrote:An increase of greenhouse gases would make more clouds.

The concept of greenhouse gas was created as a joke. There is no such thing. No gas has any magical superpower to cause spontaneous temperature increases without additional energy; that would be a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

I'll tell you what, you show me how you and I can barbeque without any heat source beyond a mere spray-cannister of greenhouse gas, and I'll show you how we can make $billions.

Certain conditions are needed for cloud formation to increase. It is not merely a simple matter of just increasing a particular magical, thermodynamics-violating gas.

Spongy Iris wrote: Earth is glazed like a donut with 2 panes of Heaven's glass, inside which it is extremely cold. That is Earth's refrigeration.

This is fine, but you still have to show this. It isn't glass, because glass is entirely visible, as you and I have discussed. This matter that you claim is surrounding the earth is entirely invisible, as you have repeatedly confirmed. Also, the floating copper wires and such are also completely invisible, as you have repeatedly confirmed.

Ergo, we just need for you to demonstrate that this invisible matter is actually there, because at the moment, everything appears exactly like there is no glass or copper filaments.

Spongy Iris wrote: With more clouds forming over the Arctic sea, from the increase in CO2, the cold air from Heaven is obstructed.

Nope. Arctic visibility hasn't changed, and your heaven's sphere is still entirely invisible, right?

Spongy Iris wrote:The Heaven's Glass theory does not require us to create energy from nothing.

It requires you to show the glass.

The minimum extent of Arctic sea ice is measured every September with Satellites. Since 1980, the minimum extent is shrinking about 12% per decade.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

The minimum extent of Arctic sea ice is measured every September with Satellites. Since 1980, the minimum extent is shrinking about 12% per decade.

The dataset you mention happens to disagree with you.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
everything appears exactly like there is no glass or copper filaments.

Maybe another post we can discuss the copper filaments, gotta run.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Here is the glass. At some point in history it shattered and 1000 tonnes of it are found around the borders of Egypt, Libya & Sudan.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

The minimum extent of Arctic sea ice is measured every September with Satellites. Since 1980, the minimum extent is shrinking about 12% per decade.

The dataset you mention happens to disagree with you.

Ugh, here is the link, if you want to nitpick the numbers, dude.

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/explore/earth-indicators/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-extent/

Let's KISS.

It goes from about 7 to 4.5, from 1979 to 2025. About 35% decline in 45 years.

If you want to get specific and cherry pick the highest and lowest points,

it is 7.54 in 1980 and 3.39 in 2012. That's 55% in 32 years!

Numbers in millions.

The number, 12.2%, looks like the current shrinking compared to its average extent during the period from 1981 to 2010.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

The minimum extent of Arctic sea ice is measured every September with Satellites. Since 1980, the minimum extent is shrinking about 12% per decade.

The dataset you mention happens to disagree with you.

Ugh, here is the link, if you want to nitpick the numbers, dude.

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/explore/earth-indicators/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-extent/

Let's KISS.

It goes from about 7 to 4.5, from 1979 to 2025. About 35% decline in 45 years.

If you want to get specific and cherry pick the highest and lowest points,

it is 7.54 in 1980 and 3.39 in 2012. That's 55% in 32 years!

Numbers in millions.

The number, 12.2%, looks like the current shrinking compared to its average extent during the period from 1981 to 2010.

NASA does not collect such data. False authority fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
How would you know?

Im a BM wrote:
Talk about FALSE AUTHORITY!

Im a BM wrote:
You just make shit up and expect everyone to accept it when you can only cite your own self evident omniscience as the "source" of any "authority".

Im a BM wrote:
Just say, "There is no such thing as.." whatever big words I used, because NOBODY is smart enough to look them up and realize you are a LIAR.

Im a BM wrote:
Besides, I don't even exist. I am a biogeochemist. You have repeated hundreds of times that "There is no such thing as 'biogeochemistry'."

Im a BM wrote:
You, ALONE, know EVERYTHING. You don't need no stinkin' REFERENCES!

Im a BM wrote:
Science is not a "reference"! Science is not a "citation". Science is not "facts".

Im a BM wrote:
If tmiddles comes back, I'm sure he will defend you and IBdaMann, because you guys certainly are not "trolls".

I'm sure he'll explain that this website was WONDERFUL until I ruined it.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

The minimum extent of Arctic sea ice is measured every September with Satellites. Since 1980, the minimum extent is shrinking about 12% per decade.

The dataset you mention happens to disagree with you.

Ugh, here is the link, if you want to nitpick the numbers, dude.

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/explore/earth-indicators/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-extent/

Let's KISS.

It goes from about 7 to 4.5, from 1979 to 2025. About 35% decline in 45 years.

If you want to get specific and cherry pick the highest and lowest points,

it is 7.54 in 1980 and 3.39 in 2012. That's 55% in 32 years!

Numbers in millions.

The number, 12.2%, looks like the current shrinking compared to its average extent during the period from 1981 to 2010.

NASA does not collect such data. False authority fallacy.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

The minimum extent of Arctic sea ice is measured every September with Satellites. Since 1980, the minimum extent is shrinking about 12% per decade.

The dataset you mention happens to disagree with you.

Ugh, here is the link, if you want to nitpick the numbers, dude.

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/explore/earth-indicators/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-extent/

Let's KISS.

It goes from about 7 to 4.5, from 1979 to 2025. About 35% decline in 45 years.

If you want to get specific and cherry pick the highest and lowest points,

it is 7.54 in 1980 and 3.39 in 2012. That's 55% in 32 years!

Numbers in millions.

The number, 12.2%, looks like the current shrinking compared to its average extent during the period from 1981 to 2010.

NASA does not collect such data. False authority fallacy.

Indeed, NASA has no clue how satellites work to collect that data. Nor do I, TBH. I take the numbers on faith.

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

The minimum extent of Arctic sea ice is measured every September with Satellites. Since 1980, the minimum extent is shrinking about 12% per decade.

The dataset you mention happens to disagree with you.

Ugh, here is the link, if you want to nitpick the numbers, dude.

https://science.nasa.gov/earth/explore/earth-indicators/arctic-sea-ice-minimum-extent/

Let's KISS.

It goes from about 7 to 4.5, from 1979 to 2025. About 35% decline in 45 years.

If you want to get specific and cherry pick the highest and lowest points,

it is 7.54 in 1980 and 3.39 in 2012. That's 55% in 32 years!

Numbers in millions.

The number, 12.2%, looks like the current shrinking compared to its average extent during the period from 1981 to 2010.

NASA does not collect such data. False authority fallacy.

Indeed, NASA has no clue how satellites work to collect that data. Nor do I, TBH. I take the numbers on faith.

NASA doesn't own any satellites.
What data?