Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is not anthropogenic



Page 26 of 26<<<242526
16-03-2022 07:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21511)
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
I'll have to check out your posts.
I'm curious how would you describe your stance?

I'm would say I'm skeptical that global warming is as much of an emergency as is claimed. But that the stakes or so high we should take great care anyway.


How do you know the globe is warming? From when to when? It's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-03-2022 07:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21511)
sealover wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
sealover wrote:
I'll have to check out your posts.
I'm curious how would you describe your stance?

I'm would say I'm skeptical that global warming is as much of an emergency as is claimed. But that the stakes or so high we should take great care anyway.


------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes I'm cautious about sharing all the reasons to be terrified.

Like being paranoid, eh?
sealover wrote:
It's not yet too late, but the window is closing fast.

What 'window'?
sealover wrote:
Now that someone wants to LEARN something, and not just bully and heckle, I'll pick up on the many worst-case scenario changes that arrived sooner than even worst-case scenarios predicted.

We know the Doom and Gloom predicted by the Church of Global Warming already. You aren't hiding anything.
sealover wrote:
And the many vicious feedbacks.

Buzzword fallacy.
sealover wrote:
Disastrous wildfires

Where? The SDTC? They have wildfires because they don't maintain their grasslands and forests, and because wet spring weather grows a lot of grass that burns later when it dries out in the summer.
sealover wrote:
and tundra methane release

Where? What's wrong with methane? It's a fuel.
sealover wrote:
are just two examples of non-anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gas emissions

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics, which you are ignoring again.
sealover wrote:
that climate change itself causes to increase.

Define 'climate change'.
sealover wrote:
And the ocean is the mother lode of CO2

No, it isn't. What's wrong with CO2? It can't increase the temperature of the Earth either. No gas or vapor has that capability.
sealover wrote:
ready to start going the wrong direction.

Define 'the wrong direction'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-03-2022 07:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
sealover wrote:...I'll pick up on the many worst-case scenario changes that arrived sooner than even worst-case scenarios predicted...


I think clarity it tough with this stuff in general.

Like my first post here was pure skepticism about that:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/tangier-island-should-it-be-used-as-an-example-d11-e2689.php

Where it was presented that an island was sinking due to AGW (a decidedly post 1900 issue it's fair to say). Yet in the middle of the report they mentioned the other half of the island had already sunk in the late 1800s.

Because no human climate changes are mixed with our own influence.

This would be especially hard to sound alarm bells about if by dumb luck we happened to be heading into an ice age and everything was being offset temporarily.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN[/quote]
Edited on 16-03-2022 07:39
17-05-2023 20:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14324)
Guess what everybody ... John Niclasen, a regular on the Danish mirror site, is arguing ATE, except that he doesn't call it that, and he's not directly claiming gravity as the cause of the increase in temperature. He has created 5 lengthy posts aimed at explaining why Venus is so hot. He starts out with an explanation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. He then goes into the Ideal Gas law. After three lengthy posts of confusing overconvolution, he opens the fourth post with:

I concluded that a good 350 kJ of work was done by the surrounding atmosphere on the 1 kg of gas in this example. The work was calculated to be 353 kJ, and the change in internal energy was calculated to be 351 kJ. Let's take 352 kJ for further calculation.

... and then goes into a convoluted mess concerning "heat capacity."

This is where Niclasen's denomination of ATE differs cosmetically. He magically creates a whole lot of energy out of nothing and thinks his bad math is actually science genius. He doesn't rely on conflating English tenses (He does everything in Danish). He wedges the Ideal Gas law into the formula for kinetic energy (you know, it's all about the kinetic energy of the molecules), as such:

The kinetic energy is given as E_kin = 1/2 * m * v^2, where m is the mass and v is the speed. The speed of the molecules in a gas follows a Maxwell distribution, where the average speed is given by v = sqrt (3 * R * T / M)
where R is the gas constant, T is temperature and M is the molar mass, which is 43.45e- 3 kg/mol in this example.

At a temperature of 737 K, the speed becomes: v = sqrt (3 * R * 737 K / 43.45e-3 kg/mol) = 650 m/s

Thus the kinetic energy for 1 mol becomes: E_(kin, mol) = 1 /2 * 43.45e-3 kg/mol * (650 m/s)^2 = 9 kJ

In 1 kg of gas consisting of 96.5% CO2 and 3.5% N2 there is 1 kg / 43.45e-3 kg/mol = 23 mol . Thus the total kinetic energy for 1 kg becomes: 9 kJ * 23 = 212 kJ

.....

That is, of the 352 kJ the internal energy has increased by, 212 kJ - 91 kJ = 121 kJ have gone to raise the temperature. The rest, i.e. 231 kJ, can be found as vibrations and rotations.

I recommend you all marvel at the "proof" and bask in the awesomeness of the magically created energy!

https://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/hvad-fortaeller-venus-os-om-co2-som-drivhusgas-paa-jorden-igen--d12-e3087-s80.php#post_89892
18-05-2023 01:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
IBdaMann wrote:...explaining why Venus is so hot.


But you don't believe Venus is hot.

https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710.php

You refused here to accept a 200 degree margin of error on Venera probe data.

So you simply don't know.

But you're the only one that doesn't know.

To correct you false understanding of the laws of thermodynamics as applied to planets in our solar system: the SUN is a constant source of "new" energy.

But you know that.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
18-05-2023 07:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14324)
tmiddles wrote:But you don't believe Venus is hot.

tmiddles, it's good to see you back. Nobody "carried the torch" in your absence; nobody assigned to me a daily bogus position. Too long have I gone with people more or less getting my positions correct. This assertion of yours that I somehow don't believe that Venus is hot ... is refreshing. Let me take a moment to just thank you before I address your comment.

Thank you.

So, actually, yes, I think that Venus is hot. Did you have any questions?

tmiddles wrote:You refused here to accept a 200 degree margin of error on Venera probe data.

Are you asking me to teach you the difference between something being hot and an erroneous margin-of-error calculation? You made bogus errors. I think most of Venus is hot. Let me know if you need any clarification.

tmiddles wrote:To correct you false understanding of the laws of thermodynamics as applied to planets in our solar system: the SUN is a constant source of "new" energy.

The word "new" is not the correct word. The word "additional" is the word you seek. The sun never provides additional energy beyond what the sun provides. If the sun is currently providing a certain level of radiance, and then you add "greenhouse gas" and claim an increase in temperature, you cannot claim that the sun is now providing additional energy beyond what it was providing. You must account for additional energy ... and the sun is not it.

You were hoping that I would have somehow forgotten, weren't you?

One more time, it is good to see you back. Can I anticipate another bogus position tomorrow? I hope so. Now I have a reason to get out of bed in the morning.
18-05-2023 08:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
IBdaMann wrote:...claim an increase in temperature, you cannot claim that the sun is now providing additional energy beyond what it was providing. You must account for additional energy ... and the sun is not it.


A shiny steel metal planet has a nitrogen atmosphere, with oxygen trapped below the surface. Oxygen is released into the atmosphere and the surface rusts. The planet gets hotter, a lot hotter. Yet the Sun the planet orbits hasn't changed. How can this be?

An object can change the way it's surface will interact with incoming radiance. This can raise or lower it's temperature without any change being made to the radiance it is receiving.

This is the entire theory of the greenhouse effect.
18-05-2023 08:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14324)
tmiddles wrote:A shiny steel metal planet ...the surface rusts.

We've been over this many times. You are a squatter and never want to move forward.

Case A: We consider a shiny steel planet with a low emissivity.
Case B: We consider a rusty planet with a high emissivity.

I ask you "Do you see how the different cases have different emissivities?"

You respond "Yes, I see the planets in the two cases are very different."

I say "Then we do the math for each case."

You say "No wait, I want to call them the same case, and the same planet so that I can redefine emissivity to be a variable and not a measured constant."

I say "I'm sorry, I can't help you. I didn't create black body science."

Then you pout like a fuquing baby.

Repeat.

How do we get you over the hump where you can consider two scenarios and just press forward? You insist on squatting on your "It's the same planet, only it's different in both cases, but the same planet" just like you squat on infusing living things into your thought experiments to make it unnecessarily overconvoluted. I'm happy to let you squat, and you can let me know when you want to move forward.
18-05-2023 09:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3979)
Case A: We have a planet with a first surface composition
Case B: We have the same planet with a second, different surface composition

Yep, it's that simple

If you want to say it's no longer the same planet go ahead. It doesn't matter.
Edited on 18-05-2023 09:23
18-05-2023 09:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14324)
tmiddles wrote:If you want to say it's no longer the same planet go ahead. It doesn't matter.

But it does matter to you. It's everything to you. I already refer to the separate cases as separate cases for comparison. You and I both know that this topic would be fully discussed by examining both cases and comparing them.

Let's try that. Let's get over this hump.

The scenario is one of two planets in equivalent circular orbits around a barycenter practically in the dead center of a star. Planet A is a smooth, shiny steel planet, always was, always will be. Planet B is a rusty, rough dark color planet, always was, always will be.

Let's compare. Well, you already know what the differences are. Hey, check this out, we're done!

I'll entertain any questions you might have.
19-05-2023 22:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21511)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...explaining why Venus is so hot.


But you don't believe Venus is hot.

https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710.php

Neither IBDaMann nor I have said Venus is not hotter than Earth. It's close to the Sun, after all.
tmiddles wrote:
You refused here to accept a 200 degree margin of error on Venera probe data.

So you simply don't know.

The temperature of Venus is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown. One thermometer cannot measure the temperature of a planet.
tmiddles wrote:
But you're the only one that doesn't know.

Mantra 31.
tmiddles wrote:
To correct you false understanding of the laws of thermodynamics as applied to planets in our solar system: the SUN is a constant source of "new" energy.

Semantics fallacy. You need additional energy, not 'new' energy. Assuming a constant Sun, it puts out the same energy. You need additional energy to increase the temperature of a planet. Where is that coming from?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
19-05-2023 23:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(21511)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...claim an increase in temperature, you cannot claim that the sun is now providing additional energy beyond what it was providing. You must account for additional energy ... and the sun is not it.


A shiny steel metal planet has a nitrogen atmosphere, with oxygen trapped below the surface. Oxygen is released into the atmosphere and the surface rusts. The planet gets hotter, a lot hotter. Yet the Sun the planet orbits hasn't changed. How can this be?

An object can change the way it's surface will interact with incoming radiance. This can raise or lower it's temperature without any change being made to the radiance it is receiving.

This is the entire theory of the greenhouse effect.


False equivalence fallacy.
Attempted proof by contrivance.
There is no such thing as 'incoming radiance'.
Radiance is not 'received'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
Edited on 19-05-2023 23:03
Page 26 of 26<<<242526





Join the debate Global warming is not anthropogenic:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Liberals have mental disease caused by anthropogenic chemicals103-02-2017 20:30
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact