Remember me
▼ Content

the greenhouse effect, total junk science


the greenhouse effect, total junk science30-12-2015 02:30
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8B1Af4ncKU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-5PsoF7Vp0
Edited on 30-12-2015 03:18
30-12-2015 03:05
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy can only be converted from mass or converted from other forms of energy. Greenhouse gases in the air are not sources of heat. Therefore they do not increase Earth's temperature. Think about that. And think about the theory of greenhouse effect. It's pretty clear why the title is appropriate

Edited on 30-12-2015 03:06
30-12-2015 03:09
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
A greenhouse is not warmer than the outside because of the glass. The glass is not a source of heat, so the glass cannot add heat to a greenhouse. The only reason a greenhouse is warmer than the outside is because the operator adds heat to it through the use of a generator and light sources.
Edited on 30-12-2015 03:37
30-12-2015 03:11
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
If anyone can increase Earth's temperature using a non heating source, give that person a Nobel prize because surely he / she would have debunked the law of the conservation of energy

Edited on 30-12-2015 03:14
30-12-2015 13:28
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy can only be converted from mass or converted from other forms of energy. Greenhouse gases in the air are not sources of heat. Therefore they do not increase Earth's temperature. Think about that. And think about the theory of greenhouse effect. It's pretty clear why the title is appropriate


Have you become IBDaman???

How does a normal glass greenhouse work? Why is the temperature inside higher than that outside?

Here in Britian, if you wish to grow tropical plants you use a polly tunnel with another polly tunnel inside it. Why is the one in the middle of the first one even hotter?

If you cannot explain this you should not debate the basic of th ephysics of the atmospheric greenhouse idea. That's because you have no clue about it.
30-12-2015 15:20
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Energy can only be converted from mass or converted from other forms of energy. Greenhouse gases in the air are not sources of heat. Therefore they do not increase Earth's temperature. Think about that. And think about the theory of greenhouse effect. It's pretty clear why the title is appropriate


Have you become IBDaman???

How does a normal glass greenhouse work? Why is the temperature inside higher than that outside?

Here in Britian, if you wish to grow tropical plants you use a polly tunnel with another polly tunnel inside it. Why is the one in the middle of the first one even hotter?

If you cannot explain this you should not debate the basic of th ephysics of the atmospheric greenhouse idea. That's because you have no clue about it.


There is no such thing as the greenhouse effect. It's a misnomer. It's a Marxist ideology invented in the early 1990s after the end of the Cold War.

In science, it is common knowledge, anything that is not a heat source, cannot add heat to any object.
Edited on 30-12-2015 15:21
30-12-2015 17:14
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
A simple analogy is this. If a person wears clothes, clothes is not a source of heat, and so clothes does not add heat to the person. Greenhouse gases are not sources of heat, so how can greenhouse gases add heat to Earth? It's preposterous.
30-12-2015 17:40
Barts
★☆☆☆☆
(52)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
A simple analogy is this. If a person wears clothes, clothes is not a source of heat, and so clothes does not add heat to the person. Greenhouse gases are not sources of heat, so how can greenhouse gases add heat to Earth? It's preposterous.


So, what you're saying is that it doesn't matter how you dress in the summer, right? Short sleeve or pullover and winter coat, your temperature will be the same.

Right, that makes sense.
30-12-2015 19:53
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
Barts wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
A simple analogy is this. If a person wears clothes, clothes is not a source of heat, and so clothes does not add heat to the person. Greenhouse gases are not sources of heat, so how can greenhouse gases add heat to Earth? It's preposterous.


So, what you're saying is that it doesn't matter how you dress in the summer, right? Short sleeve or pullover and winter coat, your temperature will be the same.

Right, that makes sense.


That's right. No matter how much clothes you wear, your body temperature stays at 36 C. Clothes only insulate skin from the outside air. Clothes do not add temperature.
30-12-2015 19:57
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Barts wrote:So, what you're saying is that it doesn't matter how you dress in the summer, right?

No, that's not what he's saying.

What you are saying, however, is that you are scientifically illiterate. Why you are even involving yourself in a science discussion is a puzzle.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
30-12-2015 20:12
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:Energy cannot be created or destroyed.

Tai Hai chen, you are completely correct. The 1st LoT, or the Law of Conservation of Energy, is very clear.

You have to forgive Tim the Plumber. He is deeply religious in the Global Warming religion and he feels threatened by any science that reveals his faith to be false. Tim the Plumber intentionally refuses to understand the idea of cause and effect and instead chooses to believe that "greenhouse gases" have the magical superpower to regulate the thermal radiation of other substances and thereby control their temperature. Planck's Law is very easy to understand: Temperature determines thermal radiation. Tim has sworn an oath to believe the opposite, i.e. that thermal radiation controls temperature. If you try to explain this to him he plugs his ears and screams "La la la la la la la...I can't hear you." He firmly believes that thermal radiation is somehow regulated by "greenhouse gas" allowing thermal energy to "accumulate" and to therefore increase temperature. That cannot happen, of course, but if you ask him, he'll admit that this is exactly what he believes and this is what he considers to be "greenhouse effect" that is going on right now.

Also, ignore Barts. He doesn't know the difference between thermal convection and thermal radiation. He doesn't even have the fundamental building blocks of science upon which to construct an understanding of, well, anything, so discussion with him is rather pointless.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
30-12-2015 20:19
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
The fatal flaw of the greenhouse effect theory is the assumption of CO2 gas being ABOVE the surface and reflects IR light back to the surface like a mirror. The reality is different from this model. In reality, CO2 covers the surface and turns heat energy into kinetic energy during the day when there is light and turns kinetic energy into heat energy during the night when there is no light. CO2 does moderation, not heating, in that it makes days cool and nights warm, enabling Earth to sustain life. Contrast Earth with the moon, which has boiling days and freezing nights.
Edited on 30-12-2015 20:20
30-12-2015 20:23
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
In science, it is common knowledge, anything that is not a heat source, cannot add heat to any object.

You need to be careful with your wording. All substances have thermal energy, this includes CO2. CO2 can certainly be a heat source to another body, e.g. if the CO2 is of a higher temperature then heat will flow into the other body.

Refrigeration shows us that thermal energy can be transferred from a cooler substance to a warmer environment.

What you should assert is the 1st Law of Thermodynamics which is always true and which always applies, i.e. energy can neither be created nor destroyed, but can change forms.

This means that if someone claims the earth is increasing in temperature then that person must also account for the additional energy. From where did it come? If the answer is "because of the 'greenhouse gas'" then we know that the assertion is false because no substance can create additional energy.

Follow-on note: When the assertion is modified to say that "greenhouse gas" restricts thermal radiation causing thermal energy to 'accumulate' and thus causing temperature to increase, then we know the assertion is false because the "effect" is being listed as the "cause" and the "cause" is being identifies as the "effect".


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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
30-12-2015 20:26
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4265)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
The fatal flaw of the greenhouse effect theory is the assumption of CO2 gas being ABOVE the surface and reflects IR light back to the surface like a mirror.


I recommend you review this thread:
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/just-how-many-greenhouse-effects-are-there-d6-e811.php


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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




Join the debate the greenhouse effect, total junk science:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law32020-08-2019 04:43
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
There is no greenhouse effect1513-08-2019 23:33
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
Objectivity of Environmental Science109-08-2019 02:13
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact