Remember me
▼ Content

The cause of global warming explained



Page 1 of 212>
The cause of global warming explained20-06-2020 14:30
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(248)
Here is an excellent video that breaks down the relative contributions from the main factors that can affect our climate on the timescales that we have observed the recent increases in global temperatures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxvrVS_rTb8

It does it quantitatively over the last 150 years. Enjoy!
20-06-2020 14:41
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2060)
DRKTS wrote:
Here is an excellent video that breaks down the relative contributions from the main factors that can affect our climate on the timescales that we have observed the recent increases in global temperatures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxvrVS_rTb8

It does it quantitatively over the last 150 years. Enjoy!


I lost sound on this computer a couple weeks ago, when I swapped out the power supply, so watching video, probably a waste of time. The recent increase in global temperature, is traditionally called 'Summer'...
20-06-2020 17:20
James___
★★★★★
(2835)
DRKTS wrote:
Here is an excellent video that breaks down the relative contributions from the main factors that can affect our climate on the timescales that we have observed the recent increases in global temperatures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxvrVS_rTb8

It does it quantitatively over the last 150 years. Enjoy!



The graph they use is wrong. It showed deforestation as a yearly event like global temperature when it is a cumulative effect. This decreases the amount of solar radiation that is converted into glucose.
It also omitted ozone depletion in the stratosphere as well but did mention ozone in the troposphere.
20-06-2020 21:08
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
The forests are just fine.

The ozone layer is just fine.
20-06-2020 22:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
DRKTS wrote:
Here is an excellent video that breaks down the relative contributions from the main factors that can affect our climate on the timescales that we have observed the recent increases in global temperatures.

...deleted Holy Video Link...

It does it quantitatively over the last 150 years. Enjoy!


It is not possible to determine where any CO2 comes from.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There are simply not enough thermometers. There is no data. No one has observed the temperature of the Earth.

Climate has no quantitative value.
'Timescale' is unspecified. Meaningless buzzword.

CO2 has absolutely no magick ability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does.


The Parrot Killer
20-06-2020 22:57
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
The sun warms the earth, not co2. Why is that even an issue?
21-06-2020 00:16
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2060)
gfm7175 wrote:
The forests are just fine.

The ozone layer is just fine.


Except California...
21-06-2020 01:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
DRKTS wrote:
Here is an excellent video that breaks down the relative contributions from the main factors that can affect our climate on the timescales that we have observed the recent increases in global temperatures.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxvrVS_rTb8

It does it quantitatively over the last 150 years. Enjoy!

Is there a reason you can't just define it yourself and then explain what you believe is the science that supports whatever you happen to be claiming?

Let's just assume that I'm not going to waste any of my life watching what is surely a STUPID video.

I'll read what you have to say, however. Just write it here. Define and then give us the science.

It's all you need.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-06-2020 01:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
keepit wrote: The sun warms the earth, not co2. Why is that even an issue?

Because warmizombies claim that CO2 increases the earth's temperature. The only way for CO2 or anything to increase temperature is to provide additional energy. Since the sun was already taken into account when the CO2 began increasing the temperature, the sun cannot be the reason for the additional energy; only the CO2 can be the source. Ergo, warmizombies are claiming that CO2 manufactures energy in violation of the first law of thermodynamics, often denying their own argument in the same or following sentence.

Warmizombies sure are crazy folk.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
21-06-2020 02:03
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
You got this co2 thing wrong again.
21-06-2020 02:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
keepit wrote: You got this co2 thing wrong again.

You are babbling again.

.
Attached image:

21-06-2020 02:36
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
IBD,
I've read a lot of posts from you and itn and gfm. A lot of name calling, false accusations, and huffing and puffing. A lot of buzzwords too but i've never seen a single post where any one of you have demonstrated a working knowledge of things like statistical math, sb law , 1st and 2nd law, etc. Not one.
21-06-2020 03:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
keepit wrote: IBD, I've read a lot of posts from you and itn and gfm. A lot of name calling, false accusations, and huffing and puffing.

Show me even a single post in which I have huffed.

keepit wrote: A lot of buzzwords too but i've never seen a single post where any one of you have demonstrated a working knowledge of things like statistical math, sb law , 1st and 2nd law, etc. Not one.

What constitutes a "working knowledge" of say, the 1st LoT?

How does one demonstrate a "working knowledge" on an internet forum?

I take it you missed my thorough explanations of Stefan-Boltzmann. Your not having seen my posts is whose fault?

Now let's talk about you. In all your posts, you have a grand total of getting one thing correct. Why should anyone be surprised that you can't comprehend the posts that answer your questions?

What color is the Climate? Moron.

.
Attached image:

21-06-2020 17:11
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2060)
I work with electronics, hobby, mostly. The only way to amplify a signal, is to add energy to it, from a separate source. The sun is the only source, and only half the planet is facing it, at any moment. CO2 might do some stuff, in a jar, in a lab, but quickly stops, when the lights are turned off. It's a trace gas out in the wild, and not trapped in a jar. It gets to move around freely, and interact with everything else on this wonderful planet. When those few CO2 molecules warm during the day, they quickly cool at night, as everything else does. If it's warming anything, then it's cooling as well. If the surface is warming the CO2, then the surface is cooling. CO2 wouldn't re-warm the planet surface, without getting additional energy from some where. When the sun comes up in the morning, it warms everything, surface and CO2. Planet earth isn't trapped inside a jar.
21-06-2020 18:06
James___
★★★★★
(2835)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I work with electronics, hobby, mostly. The only way to amplify a signal, is to add energy to it, from a separate source. The sun is the only source, and only half the planet is facing it, at any moment. CO2 might do some stuff, in a jar, in a lab, but quickly stops, when the lights are turned off. It's a trace gas out in the wild, and not trapped in a jar. It gets to move around freely, and interact with everything else on this wonderful planet. When those few CO2 molecules warm during the day, they quickly cool at night, as everything else does. If it's warming anything, then it's cooling as well. If the surface is warming the CO2, then the surface is cooling. CO2 wouldn't re-warm the planet surface, without getting additional energy from some where. When the sun comes up in the morning, it warms everything, surface and CO2. Planet earth isn't trapped inside a jar.



And yet our atmospheric gases don't go somewhere else but goes wherever the Earth goes. Kind of supports us living in a jar.
21-06-2020 22:58
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2060)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I work with electronics, hobby, mostly. The only way to amplify a signal, is to add energy to it, from a separate source. The sun is the only source, and only half the planet is facing it, at any moment. CO2 might do some stuff, in a jar, in a lab, but quickly stops, when the lights are turned off. It's a trace gas out in the wild, and not trapped in a jar. It gets to move around freely, and interact with everything else on this wonderful planet. When those few CO2 molecules warm during the day, they quickly cool at night, as everything else does. If it's warming anything, then it's cooling as well. If the surface is warming the CO2, then the surface is cooling. CO2 wouldn't re-warm the planet surface, without getting additional energy from some where. When the sun comes up in the morning, it warms everything, surface and CO2. Planet earth isn't trapped inside a jar.



And yet our atmospheric gases don't go somewhere else but goes wherever the Earth goes. Kind of supports us living in a jar.


Sort of true, except the atmosphere is moving around the planet, and there is a lot of interaction, not possible in a lab jar...
22-06-2020 00:39
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(189)
The atmosphere of earth weighs 1000 times less that the water in the oceans. It is estimated that the temperature of the atmosphere should be 4000 degrees celsium to rise the temperature of water in the oceans just one degree. CO2 is a trace gas. I cannot even imagine at what kind of temperature it should be to heat up atmosphere to 4000 degrees. If you think about those numbers a little bit then the whole thought of global warming becomes laughable.
22-06-2020 15:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
Xadoman wrote:
The atmosphere of earth weighs 1000 times less that the water in the oceans. It is estimated that the temperature of the atmosphere should be 4000 degrees celsium to rise the temperature of water in the oceans just one degree. CO2 is a trace gas. I cannot even imagine at what kind of temperature it should be to heat up atmosphere to 4000 degrees. If you think about those numbers a little bit then the whole thought of global warming becomes laughable.

If you are thinking about those numbers then you are accepting the underlying principle that CO2 has the magical superpower to violate physics, which is the whole point in the first place.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-06-2020 03:03
Xadoman
★★☆☆☆
(189)
IBdaMann wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
The atmosphere of earth weighs 1000 times less that the water in the oceans. It is estimated that the temperature of the atmosphere should be 4000 degrees celsium to rise the temperature of water in the oceans just one degree. CO2 is a trace gas. I cannot even imagine at what kind of temperature it should be to heat up atmosphere to 4000 degrees. If you think about those numbers a little bit then the whole thought of global warming becomes laughable.

If you are thinking about those numbers then you are accepting the underlying principle that CO2 has the magical superpower to violate physics, which is the whole point in the first place.

.


I just wanted to show how silly the whole concept of co2 heating up the earth is. It is a trace gas and has not enough mass to influence earth even if heated up to silly high temperature. It is like lighting up a candle and trying to heat up a 2 ton water tank with it.
23-06-2020 03:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
Xadoman wrote: I just wanted to show how silly the whole concept of co2 heating up the earth is. It is a trace gas and has not enough mass to influence earth even if heated up to silly high temperature.

I understand what you are saying. The argument you are making causes me to cringe because your basis is simply that there isn't enough CO2, not that CO2 can't violate physics in the manner described.

The logical conclusion of your argument is that CO2 would be heating the planet through amazing violations of the first law of thermodynamics if only there were enough of it. Of course that is false. CO2 cannot violate thermodynamics in any quantity.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-06-2020 04:21
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
Since you asked for an example of you not having a working knowledge i'll just point out that what you said about co2 demonstrates your lack of knowledge of GHG's. Noone i know except you and ITN and gfm say that co2 is the impossible culprit in global warming. The truth is that it is he sun that supplies the thermal energy to the earth and co2 holds it in.
23-06-2020 04:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
keepit wrote:
Since you asked for an example of you not having a working knowledge i'll just point out that what you said about co2 demonstrates your lack of knowledge of GHG's. Noone i know except you and ITN and gfm say that co2 is the impossible culprit in global warming. The truth is that it is he sun that supplies the thermal energy to the earth and co2 holds it in.


You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Mantra 20a2.
You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law Mantra 20b5.
It is not possible to trap thermal energy. You cannot reduce entropy in any system.
It is not possible to trap light. You cannot reduce radiance without reducing temperature.

Truth is not what you say it is. These are theories of science. You can't just discard them.


The Parrot Killer
23-06-2020 05:13
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
ITN,
Theories of science you mentioned are true. It is what you say about them that is false.
23-06-2020 05:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
keepit wrote: Since you asked for an example of you not having a working knowledge i'll just point out that what you said about co2 demonstrates your lack of knowledge of GHG's.

That's not an example of a "working knowledge" as opposed to just "knowledge." In fact, it's not an example of anything except an example of you not being able to read.

Besides, there is no such thing as GHGs except in the WACKY religious dogma of the Global Warming faith. There is no such thing as familiarity of religious mythological beings but rather of understanding that specific doctrine of the church. There is no such thing as any gas that has the divine superpower to perform miracles involving defying thermodynamics. There just is no such thing in reality ... which is probably why you don't want to define "reality," because you don't want to face the prospect of losing your reigion ... which is not Christianity.

keepit wrote: Noone i know except you and ITN and gfm say that co2 is the impossible culprit in global warming.

I don't believe any of us have ever said that. The reason should be obvious. What you wrote doesn't make sense, and we all make sense when we write.

However I would like to take a moment to relish your belief that reality is somehow determined by consensus of those you know. Too funny.

So what makes you think that CO2 can somehow create energy in violation of the first law of thermodynamics?

keepit wrote: The truth is that it is he sun that supplies the thermal energy to the earth and co2 holds it in.

Nope. Your belief is that CO2 has the magical superpower defy Stefan-Boltzmann. Sorry. Do not pass GO, do not collect $200


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-06-2020 05:40
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
IBD,
Just another pile of conjecture and baloney.

ITN,
Let me say again. I'm not discarding scientific theories. It is you that are misusing them and misinterpreting them.
Edited on 23-06-2020 05:44
23-06-2020 06:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
keepit wrote: IBD, Just another pile of conjecture and baloney.

You are going to laugh quite heartily when you finally learn what "conjecture" and "baloney" actually mean.

keepit wrote: ITN, Let me say again. I'm not discarding scientific theories.

Of course not ... you just don't know what those are.

keepit wrote: It is you that are misusing them and misinterpreting them.

Yes, you are going to laugh ever so heartily some day.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-06-2020 10:33
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2060)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
Theories of science you mentioned are true. It is what you say about them that is false.


That exactly how Climate Change works! Most of the stuff they cite, actually is real research, just not studying in regards to climate science. It just sort of overlaps, just needs to be used appropriately by the IPCC. It isn't used as intended, or really means, what is implied either.
23-06-2020 18:10
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
keepit wrote:
IBD,
Just another pile of conjecture and baloney.

ITN,
Let me say again. I'm not discarding scientific theories. It is you that are misusing them and misinterpreting them.

Okay then green gomer... Explain specifically what ITN is "misusing" and "misinterpreting" regarding the theories that he keeps bringing up to you. I'll be awaiting your detailed presentation.
23-06-2020 18:14
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
GHG's effects don't negate the 1st,2nd, sb, plank, etc.
23-06-2020 18:20
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
keepit wrote:
GHG's effects don't negate the 1st,2nd, sb, plank, etc.

Okay. Go through each law and specifically explain how GHG's are not denying each law. You will need to define GHG's first.

Good luck!
23-06-2020 18:40
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
You have it backwards. You claim that GhG's violate these laws. Explain how.
GHG law says that GHG's hold back the flow of thermal energy back into outer space. They also prevent about half of the sun's IR from reaching the surface of earth.
23-06-2020 19:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7051)
keepit wrote: You have it backwards. You claim that GhG's violate these laws. Explain how.

I point out that all PEOPLE who try to explain Greenhouse Effect always require violations of physics. Explanations differ from person to person because that's the nature of religious dogma, i.e. each person tailors his accepted dogma to make it more personal and meaningful to himself.

So you start by offering your personal explanation of Greenhouse Effect and I will detail all the violations.

keepit wrote: GHG law says that

You mean "GHG dogma mandates the belief that ..."

keepit wrote: ... GHG's hold back the flow of thermal energy back into outer space.

That's what the WACKY religious dogma orders the congregation to believe, however in nature no substance can violate Stefan-Boltzmann as you are indicating, nor can any substance regulate the flow of thermal energy any differently from what standard conduction indicates for those substances.

keepit wrote: (Step 1) They also prevent about half of the sun's IR from reaching the surface of earth.

Stupid comment (Step 2). All atmospheric gases are part of the earth. When the sun's IR reaches them, it reaches the earth. The bottom of the earth's atmosphere is just another part of the earth, as is the atmosphere and the hydrosphere.

Step 1:
Step 2:

... just waiting for you to sign off on Step 3.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-06-2020 20:23
keepit
★★★★☆
(1519)
You response amounts to nothing more than "no". What a waste of time.
23-06-2020 21:04
James___
★★★★★
(2835)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote: You have it backwards. You claim that GhG's violate these laws. Explain how.

I point out that all PEOPLE who try to explain Greenhouse Effect always require violations of physics. Explanations differ from person to person because that's the nature of religious dogma, i.e. each person tailors his accepted dogma to make it more personal and meaningful to himself.

So you start by offering your personal explanation of Greenhouse Effect and I will detail all the violations.

keepit wrote: GHG law says that

You mean "GHG dogma mandates the belief that ..."

keepit wrote: ... GHG's hold back the flow of thermal energy back into outer space.

That's what the WACKY religious dogma orders the congregation to believe, however in nature no substance can violate Stefan-Boltzmann as you are indicating, nor can any substance regulate the flow of thermal energy any differently from what standard conduction indicates for those substances.

keepit wrote: (Step 1) They also prevent about half of the sun's IR from reaching the surface of earth.

Stupid comment (Step 2). All atmospheric gases are part of the earth. When the sun's IR reaches them, it reaches the earth. The bottom of the earth's atmosphere is just another part of the earth, as is the atmosphere and the hydrosphere.

Step 1:
Step 2:

... just waiting for you to sign off on Step 3.



You're so busy being anal retentive that you miss what is unique about a greenhouse. As O2 levels increase and CO2 levels decrease, it actually becomes warmer. Why is it that you climate change deniers refuse to accept that it's the BARRIER?
As for physics, CO2 stores heat while O2 is reactive. See how easy it is to play with science son? What do I want it to mean? With me, I haven't seen the research that I'd like to see.
It is possible that scientists are using CO2 in the same way that a nurse uses a thermometer. This would suggest that scientists think that people are complete morons. People aren't. A lot are but not all.
Aerosols might actually be the real problem but unless they have the same source as CO2, then targeting CO2 is a mistake. And this brings us full circle to why there is a debate. CO2 is basically being promoted as a singular cause while science doesn't support this scenario.
And if you are not illiterate son, supporters of global warming/climate change (scientists) say that there is a 95% chance that AGW is caused by man. This includes but is not limited to;
Deforestation ; https://www.britannica.com/science/deforestation
Fresh Water Shortage ; https://www.britannica.com/topic/water-scarcity
Aerosols ; http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/ATOC3500_Fall1998/Lecture25.pdf
Heat Island Effect ; https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/urban-heat-island.htm

Basically, if cities are putting out sufficient heat to cause a feedback mechanism to increase it"s warming potential, that is AGW. When you consider this, also consider that 25% of the US population lives between Washington, D.C. and Boston, Mass. That's over 80 million people generating heat that flows into the Arctic. How much heat can 80,000,000+ people generate? And yes, that is AGW if it's only in the heat generated by human activity.
This important message has been brought to you by Facts Are Fun

Edited on 23-06-2020 21:08
23-06-2020 21:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
Theories of science you mentioned are true. It is what you say about them that is false.


I am not saying anything about them other than the theories themselves. You are simply denying them.

Mantras 15c...20a1...20a2..20b...20m...

No argument presented. Denial of science.


The Parrot Killer
23-06-2020 21:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
keepit wrote:
IBD,
Just another pile of conjecture and baloney.

Mantra 23.
keepit wrote:
ITN,
Let me say again. I'm not discarding scientific theories.

Lie.
keepit wrote:
It is you that are misusing them and misinterpreting them.

Mantras 20m...20a1...20a2...20b...


The Parrot Killer
23-06-2020 21:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
keepit wrote:
GHG's effects don't negate the 1st,2nd, sb, plank, etc.


Lie. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. There is no such thing as 'greenhouse effect' in any science. 'Greenhouse effect' violates the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan Boltzmann law. So do all of your arguments to date.


The Parrot Killer
23-06-2020 21:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
keepit wrote:
You have it backwards. You claim that GhG's violate these laws. Explain how.

Already done. RQAA.
keepit wrote:
GHG law says that GHG's hold back the flow of thermal energy back into outer space.

Nope. You cannot trap thermal energy. Thermal energy is not light. You cannot trap light. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. Mantras 20b..20w1...
keepit wrote:
They also prevent about half of the sun's IR from reaching the surface of earth.

Made up number. It would also result in a COLDER surface, not a warmer one, dumbass. Mantra 25g...20a1...

No argument presented. Denial of science. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
23-06-2020 21:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12779)
keepit wrote:
You response amounts to nothing more than "no". What a waste of time.


Argument of the stone fallacy. Void argument fallacy. Mantras 23...39n...


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 23-06-2020 21:37
23-06-2020 21:38
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(920)
keepit wrote:...deleted Mantra 17, Mantra 20e2 (and various other Mantra 20s that I don't have ITN's diligence to enumerate)...


No valid argumentation presented.
Edited on 23-06-2020 21:40
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate The cause of global warming explained:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse gases, explained224-03-2019 04:43
▲ 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