Giant 'burp'

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.

Swan 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.

Popular mechanics, reporting on what the united nations says about the oceans. Who cares?

Into the Night wrote:

Swan 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.

Popular mechanics, reporting on what the united nations says about the oceans. Who cares?

Apparently Popular Mechanics magazine and the UN.

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.

There is no such thing as "the Church of Global Warming".

Into the Night wrote:

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.

There is no such thing as "the Church of Global Warming".

Yes there is. Like any religion, the Church of Global Warming is based on an initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. The Church of Global Warming is based on the initial circular argument that the Earth is somehow warming.

This religion is fundamentalist by nature, attempting to prove it's circular argument (or argument of faith) True.

It routinely denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, as well as statistical and probability mathematics.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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.

There is no such thing as "the Church of Global Warming".

Yes there is. Like any religion, the Church of Global Warming is based on an initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. The Church of Global Warming is based on the initial circular argument that the Earth is somehow warming.

This religion is fundamentalist by nature, attempting to prove it's circular argument (or argument of faith) True.

It routinely denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, as well as statistical and probability mathematics.

You are a LIAR.

Im a BM wrote:

There is no such thing as "the Church of Global Warming".

Im a BM wrote:

"Global Warming" does not own a building that can be called a "church".

Im a BM wrote:

"Global Warming" is not an institution that can be called a "church".

Im a BM wrote:

"Global Warming" has no political power structure or hierarchy that can be called a "church".

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night has been doing this for at least ten years, with the same stupid lies about some "Church of Global Warming".

Im a BM wrote:

There is NO SUCH THING as the "Church of Global Warming".

Im a BM wrote:

Ask ChatGPT! "Is there such a thing as 'the Church of Global Warming'?"

Im a BM wrote:

You don't need some kind of fake, federal chemist "license" to know this.

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

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.

There is no such thing as "the Church of Global Warming".

Yes there is. Like any religion, the Church of Global Warming is based on an initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. The Church of Global Warming is based on the initial circular argument that the Earth is somehow warming.

This religion is fundamentalist by nature, attempting to prove it's circular argument (or argument of faith) True.

It routinely denies the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, as well as statistical and probability mathematics.

You are a LIAR.

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:

There is no such thing as "the Church of Global Warming".

Denial of self religion.

Im a BM wrote:

"Global Warming" does not own a building that can be called a "church".

A church is not a building, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:

"Global Warming" is not an institution that can be called a "church".

I call any religion a church, Robert.

Im a BM wrote:

"Global Warming" has no political power structure or hierarchy that can be called a "church".

It certainly does.

Among the Holy Priests you idiots claim are so-called 'scientists', that routinely deny science and mathematics.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night has been doing this for at least ten years, with the same stupid lies about some "Church of Global Warming".

Inversion fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:

There is NO SUCH THING as the "Church of Global Warming".

Denial of self religion.

Im a BM wrote:

Ask ChatGPT! "Is there such a thing as 'the Church of Global Warming'?"

Once informed of how the Church of Global Warming ignores theories of science and the mathematics, ChatGPT does indeed conclude it's a religion. I guess that makes you dumber than AI.

Im a BM wrote:

You don't need some kind of fake, federal chemist "license" to know this.

It ain't fake, idiot.

Into the Night wrote:

Once informed of how the Church of Global Warming ignores theories of science and the mathematics, ChatGPT does indeed conclude it's a religion. I guess that makes you dumber than AI.

Im a BM wrote:There is no such thing as "the Church of Global Warming".

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Once informed of how the Church of Global Warming ignores theories of science and the mathematics, ChatGPT does indeed conclude it's a religion. I guess that makes you dumber than AI.

Let's play with ChatGPT.

***It is true, said ChatBot — greenhouse gases delay the transfer of infrared radiation (heat) from Earth to space.

Here's how it works in physical terms:

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, including back toward the Earth's surface.

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

Important clarification:
The energy still leaves the Earth system eventually — it's not "trapped" forever — but the rate is reduced, which raises the equilibrium surface temperature needed to radiate the incoming solar energy back out.
This is not a violation of the Stefan–Boltzmann Law, which states that total emitted radiation is proportional to T^4

The system still obeys it — the surface just becomes warmer so that the outgoing radiation matches incoming energy, even with the delay introduced by greenhouse gases.

Stefan–Boltzmann Law Refresher:
The Stefan–Boltzmann Law applies to a single object and says:

P=σT^4

That is: An object at temperature T emits power P according to that fourth-power law.

for a given object:
If P decreases, then T must decrease.
And vice versa —

But the Greenhouse Effect Involves a System, Not a Single Object

Let's look at Earth's surface + atmosphere + space as a multi-layered energy system.

Sunlight enters ->Earth absorbs ->Earth re-emits IR.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb some of that outgoing IR.

Those gases re-emit IR in all directions, including back down to the surface.

This adds additional incoming energy to the surface beyond just sunlight.

The Earth's surface must then warm up until it emits enough total radiation to balance the original solar input plus this "back-radiation."

So What Actually Happens?

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 + back-radiation).

The Key Insight

Stefan–Boltzmann still holds locally at all points.
What changes is the effective radiating layer — in a greenhouse atmosphere, the radiation escaping to space comes from higher, colder parts of the atmosphere.

So:
The top of the atmosphere radiates less (because it's cold). The surface must warm up to restore energy balance — it emits more IR, but not all of it escapes immediately.

Conclusion:
The greenhouse effect doesn't violate Stefan–Boltzmann — it just modifies the system's energy flow, causing Earth's surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature in order to radiate enough total energy to match what's coming in.***

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Once informed of how the Church of Global Warming ignores theories of science and the mathematics, ChatGPT does indeed conclude it's a religion. I guess that makes you dumber than AI.

Let's play with ChatGPT.

***It is true, said ChatBot — greenhouse gases delay the transfer of infrared radiation (heat) from Earth to space.

Here's how it works in physical terms:

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, including back toward the Earth's surface.

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

Important clarification:
The energy still leaves the Earth system eventually — it's not "trapped" forever — but the rate is reduced, which raises the equilibrium surface temperature needed to radiate the incoming solar energy back out.
This is not a violation of the Stefan–Boltzmann Law, which states that total emitted radiation is proportional to T^4

The system still obeys it — the surface just becomes warmer so that the outgoing radiation matches incoming energy, even with the delay introduced by greenhouse gases.

Stefan–Boltzmann Law Refresher:
The Stefan–Boltzmann Law applies to a single object and says:

P=σT^4

That is: An object at temperature T emits power P according to that fourth-power law.

for a given object:
If P decreases, then T must decrease.
And vice versa —

But the Greenhouse Effect Involves a System, Not a Single Object

Let's look at Earth's surface + atmosphere + space as a multi-layered energy system.

Sunlight enters ->Earth absorbs ->Earth re-emits IR.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb some of that outgoing IR.

Those gases re-emit IR in all directions, including back down to the surface.

This adds additional incoming energy to the surface beyond just sunlight.

The Earth's surface must then warm up until it emits enough total radiation to balance the original solar input plus this "back-radiation."

So What Actually Happens?

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 + back-radiation).

The Key Insight

Stefan–Boltzmann still holds locally at all points.
What changes is the effective radiating layer — in a greenhouse atmosphere, the radiation escaping to space comes from higher, colder parts of the atmosphere.

So:
The top of the atmosphere radiates less (because it's cold). The surface must warm up to restore energy balance — it emits more IR, but not all of it escapes immediately.

Conclusion:
The greenhouse effect doesn't violate Stefan–Boltzmann — it just modifies the system's energy flow, causing Earth's surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature in order to radiate enough total energy to match what's coming in.***

You specifically said "Let's play with ChatGPT." Guess what you didn't do.

I, on the other hand, challenged ChatGPT on every single one of its errors, forcing it to admit that every part of what you just printed out in your "not playing with ChatGPT" is totally bunk.

I recommend you try actually "playing with ChatGPT" and tell it to stop making rookie errors and to stop being scientifically illiterate.

.

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Once informed of how the Church of Global Warming ignores theories of science and the mathematics, ChatGPT does indeed conclude it's a religion. I guess that makes you dumber than AI.

Let's play with ChatGPT.

***It is true, said ChatBot — greenhouse gases delay the transfer of infrared radiation (heat) from Earth to space.

Here's how it works in physical terms:

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, including back toward the Earth's surface.

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

Important clarification:
The energy still leaves the Earth system eventually — it's not "trapped" forever — but the rate is reduced, which raises the equilibrium surface temperature needed to radiate the incoming solar energy back out.
This is not a violation of the Stefan–Boltzmann Law, which states that total emitted radiation is proportional to T^4

The system still obeys it — the surface just becomes warmer so that the outgoing radiation matches incoming energy, even with the delay introduced by greenhouse gases.

Stefan–Boltzmann Law Refresher:
The Stefan–Boltzmann Law applies to a single object and says:

P=σT^4

That is: An object at temperature T emits power P according to that fourth-power law.

for a given object:
If P decreases, then T must decrease.
And vice versa —

But the Greenhouse Effect Involves a System, Not a Single Object

Let's look at Earth's surface + atmosphere + space as a multi-layered energy system.

Sunlight enters ->Earth absorbs ->Earth re-emits IR.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb some of that outgoing IR.

Those gases re-emit IR in all directions, including back down to the surface.

This adds additional incoming energy to the surface beyond just sunlight.

The Earth's surface must then warm up until it emits enough total radiation to balance the original solar input plus this "back-radiation."

So What Actually Happens?

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 + back-radiation).

The Key Insight

Stefan–Boltzmann still holds locally at all points.
What changes is the effective radiating layer — in a greenhouse atmosphere, the radiation escaping to space comes from higher, colder parts of the atmosphere.

So:
The top of the atmosphere radiates less (because it's cold). The surface must warm up to restore energy balance — it emits more IR, but not all of it escapes immediately.

Conclusion:
The greenhouse effect doesn't violate Stefan–Boltzmann — it just modifies the system's energy flow, causing Earth's surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature in order to radiate enough total energy to match what's coming in.***

You specifically said "Let's play with ChatGPT." Guess what you didn't do.

I, on the other hand, challenged ChatGPT on every single one of its errors, forcing it to admit that every part of what you just printed out in your "not playing with ChatGPT" is totally bunk.

I recommend you try actually "playing with ChatGPT" and tell it to stop making rookie errors and to stop being scientifically illiterate.

.

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Once informed of how the Church of Global Warming ignores theories of science and the mathematics, ChatGPT does indeed conclude it's a religion. I guess that makes you dumber than AI.

Let's play with ChatGPT.

***It is true, said ChatBot — greenhouse gases delay the transfer of infrared radiation (heat) from Earth to space.

Here's how it works in physical terms:

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, including back toward the Earth's surface.

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

Important clarification:
The energy still leaves the Earth system eventually — it's not "trapped" forever — but the rate is reduced, which raises the equilibrium surface temperature needed to radiate the incoming solar energy back out.
This is not a violation of the Stefan–Boltzmann Law, which states that total emitted radiation is proportional to T^4

The system still obeys it — the surface just becomes warmer so that the outgoing radiation matches incoming energy, even with the delay introduced by greenhouse gases.

Stefan–Boltzmann Law Refresher:
The Stefan–Boltzmann Law applies to a single object and says:

P=σT^4

That is: An object at temperature T emits power P according to that fourth-power law.

for a given object:
If P decreases, then T must decrease.
And vice versa —

But the Greenhouse Effect Involves a System, Not a Single Object

Let's look at Earth's surface + atmosphere + space as a multi-layered energy system.

Sunlight enters ->Earth absorbs ->Earth re-emits IR.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb some of that outgoing IR.

Those gases re-emit IR in all directions, including back down to the surface.

This adds additional incoming energy to the surface beyond just sunlight.

The Earth's surface must then warm up until it emits enough total radiation to balance the original solar input plus this "back-radiation."

So What Actually Happens?

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 + back-radiation).

The Key Insight

Stefan–Boltzmann still holds locally at all points.
What changes is the effective radiating layer — in a greenhouse atmosphere, the radiation escaping to space comes from higher, colder parts of the atmosphere.

So:
The top of the atmosphere radiates less (because it's cold). The surface must warm up to restore energy balance — it emits more IR, but not all of it escapes immediately.

Conclusion:
The greenhouse effect doesn't violate Stefan–Boltzmann — it just modifies the system's energy flow, causing Earth's surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature in order to radiate enough total energy to match what's coming in.***

You specifically said "Let's play with ChatGPT." Guess what you didn't do.

I, on the other hand, challenged ChatGPT on every single one of its errors, forcing it to admit that every part of what you just printed out in your "not playing with ChatGPT" is totally bunk.

I recommend you try actually "playing with ChatGPT" and tell it to stop making rookie errors and to stop being scientifically illiterate.

.

So then debunk it. Are you not the one asserting the Stefan Boltzmann law debunks the global warming theory? So let's see how you debunk ChatGPT's assertion that the Boltzmann law fits neatly into the global warming theory.

Im a BM wrote:
Definitions are paramount.

Im a BM wrote:
What is "the Church of Global Warming".

Im a BM wrote:
What is a "church"?

Im a BM wrote:

Google, which is NOT God, says: "A 'church' can refer to a building for Christian worship, a Christian religious organization, or the global body of all Christians. The term can also refer to a specific denomination, a local congregation, or the followers of Christ in a particular area."

The "Church of Global Warming" therefore would have to be a Christian thing... a building, a religious organization, a specific denomination or congregation of CHRISTIAN... something. Church means its Christian. Not a mosque or synagogue.

What, in the name of Christ, is his "Church of Global Warming"?

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Once informed of how the Church of Global Warming ignores theories of science and the mathematics, ChatGPT does indeed conclude it's a religion. I guess that makes you dumber than AI.

Let's play with ChatGPT.

Spongy Iris wrote:

***It is true, said ChatBot — greenhouse gases delay the transfer of infrared radiation (heat) from Earth to space.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Here's how it works in physical terms:

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.

Spongy Iris wrote:
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, including back toward the Earth's surface.

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

Spongy Iris wrote:
Important clarification:
The energy still leaves the Earth system eventually — it's not "trapped" forever — but the rate is reduced, which raises the equilibrium surface temperature needed to radiate the incoming solar energy back out.

Spongy Iris wrote:
This is not a violation of the Stefan–Boltzmann Law, which states that total emitted radiation is proportional to T^4

Spongy Iris wrote:
The system still obeys it — the surface just becomes warmer so that the outgoing radiation matches incoming energy, even with the delay introduced by greenhouse gases.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Stefan–Boltzmann Law Refresher:
The Stefan–Boltzmann Law applies to a single object and says:

P=σT^4

That is: An object at temperature T emits power P according to that fourth-power law.

for a given object:
If P decreases, then T must decrease.
And vice versa —

But the Greenhouse Effect Involves a System, Not a Single Object

Spongy Iris wrote:
Let's look at Earth's surface + atmosphere + space as a multi-layered energy system.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Sunlight enters ->Earth absorbs ->Earth re-emits IR.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb some of that outgoing IR.

Those gases re-emit IR in all directions, including back down to the surface.

This adds additional incoming energy to the surface beyond just sunlight.

Spongy Iris wrote:
The Earth's surface must then warm up until it emits enough total radiation to balance the original solar input plus this "back-radiation."

Spongy Iris wrote:
So What Actually Happens?

Greenhouse gases don't reduce the Stefan–Boltzmann radiance at a given temperature.

Spongy Iris wrote:
They intercept and delay the loss of energy to space.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Earth's surface increases in temperature until P=σT^4 again equals the energy it's now receiving (sunlight + back-radiation).

Spongy Iris wrote:
The Key Insight

Stefan–Boltzmann still holds locally at all points.

Spongy Iris wrote:
What changes is the effective radiating layer — in a greenhouse atmosphere, the radiation escaping to space comes from higher, colder parts of the atmosphere.

Spongy Iris wrote:
So:
The top of the atmosphere radiates less (because it's cold). The surface must warm up to restore energy balance — it emits more IR, but not all of it escapes immediately.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Conclusion:
The greenhouse effect doesn't violate Stefan–Boltzmann — it just modifies the system's energy flow, causing Earth's surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature in order to radiate enough total energy to match what's coming in.***

Im a BM wrote:
Spongy Iris points out how IBdaMann claims to "debunk" conventional wisdom without presenting anything that resembles proof.

Im a BM wrote:
"SB Law" is inviolable Gospel, and SO WHAT if there is NEVER any clear explanation for why it is allegedly relevant?

Im a BM wrote:
At least IBdaMann doesn't just LIE with "RQAA" and pretend that some time in the past he actually DID present such an explanation.

Im a BM wrote:
If he were capable of having such a discussion, rather than drive existing members away, he would have made the site more attractive for new members.

Im a BM wrote:
"You won't be here long", he told me within a day of my first post.

He certainly did all he could to make it unpleasant to stay here.

"Only a scientifically illiterate moron would.." say the things he says.

Im a BM wrote:

The authority of "SB Law" must be respected!

Im a BM wrote:
And what is CHRISTIAN about the "Church of Global Warming"?

Im a BM wrote:

The unambiguous definition of "Church" could be a building, organization, or specific denomination, but it has to be CHRISTIAN to be a "church". They aren't calling it the TEMPLE of Global Warming or the Alter of Global Warming. They are calling it the CHURCH of Global Warming.

Im a BM wrote:

According to IBdaMann, Into the Night, and the other members of the troll team, there is a CHURCH of Global Warming.

What, in Christ's name, does a "church" have to do with Global Warming?

Into the Night wrote:
Not possible. There is not 'delay factor' in any law of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You cannot trap light.:[/b].

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Once informed of how the Church of Global Warming ignores theories of science and the mathematics, ChatGPT does indeed conclude it's a religion. I guess that makes you dumber than AI.

Let's play with ChatGPT.

***It is true, said ChatBot — greenhouse gases delay the transfer of infrared radiation (heat) from Earth to space.

Here's how it works in physical terms:

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, including back toward the Earth's surface.

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

Important clarification:
The energy still leaves the Earth system eventually — it's not "trapped" forever — but the rate is reduced, which raises the equilibrium surface temperature needed to radiate the incoming solar energy back out.
This is not a violation of the Stefan–Boltzmann Law, which states that total emitted radiation is proportional to T^4

The system still obeys it — the surface just becomes warmer so that the outgoing radiation matches incoming energy, even with the delay introduced by greenhouse gases.

Stefan–Boltzmann Law Refresher:
The Stefan–Boltzmann Law applies to a single object and says:

P=σT^4

That is: An object at temperature T emits power P according to that fourth-power law.

for a given object:
If P decreases, then T must decrease.
And vice versa —

But the Greenhouse Effect Involves a System, Not a Single Object

Let's look at Earth's surface + atmosphere + space as a multi-layered energy system.

Sunlight enters ->Earth absorbs ->Earth re-emits IR.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb some of that outgoing IR.

Those gases re-emit IR in all directions, including back down to the surface.

This adds additional incoming energy to the surface beyond just sunlight.

The Earth's surface must then warm up until it emits enough total radiation to balance the original solar input plus this "back-radiation."

So What Actually Happens?

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 + back-radiation).

The Key Insight

Stefan–Boltzmann still holds locally at all points.
What changes is the effective radiating layer — in a greenhouse atmosphere, the radiation escaping to space comes from higher, colder parts of the atmosphere.

So:
The top of the atmosphere radiates less (because it's cold). The surface must warm up to restore energy balance — it emits more IR, but not all of it escapes immediately.

Conclusion:
The greenhouse effect doesn't violate Stefan–Boltzmann — it just modifies the system's energy flow, causing Earth's surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature in order to radiate enough total energy to match what's coming in.***

You specifically said "Let's play with ChatGPT." Guess what you didn't do.

I, on the other hand, challenged ChatGPT on every single one of its errors, forcing it to admit that every part of what you just printed out in your "not playing with ChatGPT" is totally bunk.

I recommend you try actually "playing with ChatGPT" and tell it to stop making rookie errors and to stop being scientifically illiterate.

.

So then debunk it. Are you not the one asserting the Stefan Boltzmann law debunks the global warming theory? So let's see how you debunk ChatGPT's assertion that the Boltzmann law fits neatly into the global warming theory.

Spongy Iris points out how IBdaMann claims to "debunk" conventional wisdom without presenting anything that resembles proof.

"SB Law" is inviolable Gospel, and SO WHAT if there is NEVER any clear explanation for why it is allegedly relevant?

At least IBdaMann doesn't just LIE with "RQAA" and pretend that some time in the past he actually DID present such an explanation.

If he were capable of having such a discussion, rather than drive existing members away, he would have made the site more attractive for new members.

"You won't be here long", he told me within a day of my first post.

He certainly did all he could to make it unpleasant to stay here.

"Only a scientifically illiterate moron would.." say the things he says.

The authority of "SB Law" must be respected!

And what is CHRISTIAN about the "Church of Global Warming"?

The unambiguous definition of "Church" could be a building, organization, or specific denomination, but it has to be CHRISTIAN to be a "church". They aren't calling it the TEMPLE of Global Warming or the Alter of Global Warming. They are calling it the CHURCH of Global Warming.

According to IBdaMann, Into the Night, and the other members of the troll team, there is a CHURCH of Global Warming.

What, in Christ's name, does a "church" have to do with Global Warming?

Swan wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Once informed of how the Church of Global Warming ignores theories of science and the mathematics, ChatGPT does indeed conclude it's a religion. I guess that makes you dumber than AI.

Let's play with ChatGPT.

***It is true, said ChatBot — greenhouse gases delay the transfer of infrared radiation (heat) from Earth to space.

Here's how it works in physical terms:

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, including back toward the Earth's surface.

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

Important clarification:
The energy still leaves the Earth system eventually — it's not "trapped" forever — but the rate is reduced, which raises the equilibrium surface temperature needed to radiate the incoming solar energy back out.
This is not a violation of the Stefan–Boltzmann Law, which states that total emitted radiation is proportional to T^4

The system still obeys it — the surface just becomes warmer so that the outgoing radiation matches incoming energy, even with the delay introduced by greenhouse gases.

Stefan–Boltzmann Law Refresher:
The Stefan–Boltzmann Law applies to a single object and says:

P=σT^4

That is: An object at temperature T emits power P according to that fourth-power law.

for a given object:
If P decreases, then T must decrease.
And vice versa —

But the Greenhouse Effect Involves a System, Not a Single Object

Let's look at Earth's surface + atmosphere + space as a multi-layered energy system.

Sunlight enters ->Earth absorbs ->Earth re-emits IR.

Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere absorb some of that outgoing IR.

Those gases re-emit IR in all directions, including back down to the surface.

This adds additional incoming energy to the surface beyond just sunlight.

The Earth's surface must then warm up until it emits enough total radiation to balance the original solar input plus this "back-radiation."

So What Actually Happens?

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 + back-radiation).

The Key Insight

Stefan–Boltzmann still holds locally at all points.
What changes is the effective radiating layer — in a greenhouse atmosphere, the radiation escaping to space comes from higher, colder parts of the atmosphere.

So:
The top of the atmosphere radiates less (because it's cold). The surface must warm up to restore energy balance — it emits more IR, but not all of it escapes immediately.

Conclusion:
The greenhouse effect doesn't violate Stefan–Boltzmann — it just modifies the system's energy flow, causing Earth's surface to reach a higher equilibrium temperature in order to radiate enough total energy to match what's coming in.***

You specifically said "Let's play with ChatGPT." Guess what you didn't do.

I, on the other hand, challenged ChatGPT on every single one of its errors, forcing it to admit that every part of what you just printed out in your "not playing with ChatGPT" is totally bunk.

I recommend you try actually "playing with ChatGPT" and tell it to stop making rookie errors and to stop being scientifically illiterate.

.

So then debunk it. Are you not the one asserting the Stefan Boltzmann law debunks the global warming theory? So let's see how you debunk ChatGPT's assertion that the Boltzmann law fits neatly into the global warming theory.

Spongy Iris points out how IBdaMann claims to "debunk" conventional wisdom without presenting anything that resembles proof.

"SB Law" is inviolable Gospel, and SO WHAT if there is NEVER any clear explanation for why it is allegedly relevant?

At least IBdaMann doesn't just LIE with "RQAA" and pretend that some time in the past he actually DID present such an explanation.

If he were capable of having such a discussion, rather than drive existing members away, he would have made the site more attractive for new members.

"You won't be here long", he told me within a day of my first post.

He certainly did all he could to make it unpleasant to stay here.

"Only a scientifically illiterate moron would.." say the things he says.

The authority of "SB Law" must be respected!

And what is CHRISTIAN about the "Church of Global Warming"?

The unambiguous definition of "Church" could be a building, organization, or specific denomination, but it has to be CHRISTIAN to be a "church". They aren't calling it the TEMPLE of Global Warming or the Alter of Global Warming. They are calling it the CHURCH of Global Warming.

According to IBdaMann, Into the Night, and the other members of the troll team, there is a CHURCH of Global Warming.

What, in Christ's name, does a "church" have to do with Global Warming?

Is the Earth a black body?

Let me get some popcorn before you babble

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Not possible. There is not 'delay factor' in any law of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You cannot trap light.:[/b].

How about looking at air versus soil?

Spongy Iris wrote:
In the winter soil is warmer than air.

Spongy Iris wrote:
In the summer air is warmer than soil.

Spongy Iris wrote:
It shows the ground is blocking light in the summer, and retaining light in the winter.

Spongy Iris wrote:
Often it seems scientific laws do not account well for time.

Spongy Iris wrote:
You can't bury the light forever.

Swan wrote:
Is the Earth a black body?

Im a BM wrote:
Black Bodies Matter as a model for introducing students to theoretical physics.

Last time I checked, the Earth was a planet of color, but not black.

Theoretical black bodies have no ice or liquid water on the surface, no clouds to interact with light, and no gaseous atmosphere. "SB Law" can be King in this tiny theoretical world. Mastery of "SB Law" makes you a Wizard in this world.

Into the Night wrote:

A 'black body' is a body where the emissivity is 100%. It perfectly absorbs and radiates light.
A 'white body' is the other reference point, where the emissivity is zero. It perfectly reflects light. None is absorbed or radiated.


All real bodies,including Earth itself, are 'gray', with an emissivity somewhere between 0% and 100%.

Into the Night wrote
There is no 'greenhouse effect'. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You CANNOT reduce radiance while temperature increases.
You CANNOT decrease entropy EVER.

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot decrease entropy.
Radiance NEVER decreases with increasing temperature

The top of the atmosphere radiates less (because it's cold). The surface must warm up to restore energy balance — it emits more IR, but not all of it escapes immediately.

Spongy Iris wrote:

Into the Night wrote
There is no 'greenhouse effect'. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

You CANNOT reduce radiance while temperature increases.
You CANNOT decrease entropy EVER.

You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot decrease entropy.
Radiance NEVER decreases with increasing temperature

Bro, again, ChatBot was pretty clear:

The top of the atmosphere radiates less (because it's cold). The surface must warm up to restore energy balance — it emits more IR, but not all of it escapes immediately.

See? The top radiates less and bottom radiates more... Sounds like the net emissivity is still the same, ya?

I'm still hoping you can debunk the house made of gas theory, but looks to me like you are failing just as bad as GasGuzzler when we had this same discussion a while back.

Spongy Iris wrote: So then debunk it.

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]

.

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:There is no such thing as "the Church of Global Warming".

Of course there is. How did you miss it? Their prayers are wild, being a doomsday cult that is anticipating a WACKY "end of the world" at the hand of Climate, punishing humanity for the carbon sins of evil conservatives.

Please don't tell me that you are one of those scientifically illiterate warmizombies who thinks that magical gases "trap" heat, that water doesn't evaporate and that the ocean doesn't have enough water to dilute anything.

Too funny!

Spongy Iris wrote:

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]

.

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.

Spongy Iris wrote:

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

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.

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.

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. Earth is not a container. Carbon and oxygen weigh the same whether they are part of the compound carbon dioxide or not. You cannot create matter out of nothing.

It requires energy to compress anything. That's why you have to plug in your refrigerator. Where is that additional energy coming from?

If you put your jacket on a rock, it does not make the rock warmer.

Swan 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. Earth is not a container. Carbon and oxygen weigh the same whether they are part of the compound carbon dioxide or not. You cannot create matter out of nothing.

It requires energy to compress anything. That's why you have to plug in your refrigerator. Where is that additional energy coming from?

If you put your jacket on a rock, it does not make the rock warmer.

All theoretical BS.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan 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. Earth is not a container. Carbon and oxygen weigh the same whether they are part of the compound carbon dioxide or not. You cannot create matter out of nothing.

It requires energy to compress anything. That's why you have to plug in your refrigerator. Where is that additional energy coming from?

If you put your jacket on a rock, it does not make the rock warmer.

All theoretical BS.

Theories of science aren't BS, moron.

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan 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. Earth is not a container. Carbon and oxygen weigh the same whether they are part of the compound carbon dioxide or not. You cannot create matter out of nothing.

It requires energy to compress anything. That's why you have to plug in your refrigerator. Where is that additional energy coming from?

If you put your jacket on a rock, it does not make the rock warmer.

All theoretical BS.

Theories of science aren't BS, moron.

Science is knowledge. A theory is the lack of knowledge and a lack of knowledge is not science.

Into the Night wrote:

Swan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Swan 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. Earth is not a container. Carbon and oxygen weigh the same whether they are part of the compound carbon dioxide or not. You cannot create matter out of nothing.

It requires energy to compress anything. That's why you have to plug in your refrigerator. Where is that additional energy coming from?

If you put your jacket on a rock, it does not make the rock warmer.

All theoretical BS.

Theories of science aren't BS, moron.

Science is knowledge. A theory is the lack of knowledge and a lack of knowledge is not science.

Science is not a proof or Universal Truth. A theory is an explanatory argument. A theory of science MUST be falsifiable.

Science is not religion.