Remember me
▼ Content

Thwarting the Warmizombies' Rush to Wikipedia



Page 1 of 212>
Thwarting the Warmizombies' Rush to Wikipedia23-07-2021 15:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)
We all understand why warmizombies rush to cite Wikipedia. It is a nonauthoritative source that can read whatever they need it to read.

At least we can talk about HOW WE MIGHT FIX IT.


.


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
23-07-2021 16:23
Harry CProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(157)
On the subject of fighting Warmazombies, check out this news item.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientists-understood-physics-climate-change-120935295.html

And I can understand your hesitation to click on a link, here's a synopsis:
Scientists understood physics of climate change in the 1800s – thanks to a woman named Eunice Foote. The year was 1856. Foote's brief scientific paper was the first to describe the extraordinary power of carbon dioxide gas to absorb heat – the driving force of global warming. Foote conducted a simple experiment. She put a thermometer in each of two glass cylinders, pumped carbon dioxide gas into one and air into the other and set the cylinders in the Sun. The cylinder containing carbon dioxide got much hotter than the one with air, and Foote realized that carbon dioxide would strongly absorb heat in the atmosphere.

Why, oh why do those who know better in the scientific community not debunk this?
23-07-2021 17:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)


Harry C wrote:She put a thermometer in each of two glass cylinders, pumped carbon dioxide gas into one and air into the other and set the cylinders in the Sun.

1. This is an extraordinarily common parlor trick.
2. Nobody performs this parlor trick in the sun.
3. The trick is always performed in an enclosed, indoor location where no sunlight can ruin the trick. Instead some infrared lighting is claimed to "represent" sunlight.
4. This parlor trick targets children, the scientifically illiterate, the logically inept and the extremely gullible ... because the promulgators of Climate Change A) need for society to believe that infrared light is a suitable equivalent to sunlight and
need for the world to believe Global Warming is miraculously causing the "magic" to happen. The audience must accept whatever claims are made on face value and are not supposed to know enough to call boolsch't, otherwise the trick won't work.

Parlor Trick A. Pay close attention at the 1:16 mark.

Parlor Trick B. Pay close attention to the beginning.

Parlor Trick C. Pay close attention at the 0:50 mark.

Parlor Trick D. Notice the NOAA reference and the instructions for this to be performed indoors (in a classroom setting), not out in the sun.

Parlor Trick E. Pay close attention at the 1:57 mark.

Parlor Trick F. Pay close attention at the 0:52 mark.

I have only posted six videos here. I could have easily filled this post to its size limit. This parlor trick should be explained to all school-age children, not used to indoctrinate them into a WACKY leftist religion as is currently being done.



[*find-Parlor_Trick_Greenhouse_Gasses]
Edited on 23-07-2021 17:39
23-07-2021 18:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)
I was negligent in not posting this treatise on the PARLOR TRICK.

Whether or not you have watched any of the other similar videos, I recommend you listen to this one. What is key in all of the Global Warming messages is that greenhouse gases' have the magical superpower to "trap heat" while regular/normal atmosphere does not. Notice at the 0:32 mark how this clown claims that a sealed jar full of CO2 represents earth's atmosphere while an open jar full of air represents a vacuum.

Once again, all such parlor tricks target the scientifically illiterate who will believe as they are instructed.

23-07-2021 18:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)
Harry C wrote:
On the subject of fighting Warmazombies, check out this news item.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientists-understood-physics-climate-change-120935295.html


Long before the current political divide over climate change, and even before the U.S. Civil War (1861-1865), an American scientist named Eunice Foote documented the underlying cause of today's climate change crisis.

The idea that the atmosphere trapped heat was known, but not the cause.


Question: What do warmizombies enjoy even more than referencing dead people who cannot be cross examined? What do warmizombies enjoy even more than pretending to be omniscient?

Answer: Warmizombies love to reference dead people who they pretend were omniscient.

Show me someone who believes in Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect and I will show you someone who is scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent and logically inept.



.


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
23-07-2021 18:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16050)
Harry C wrote:
On the subject of fighting Warmazombies, check out this news item.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/scientists-understood-physics-climate-change-120935295.html

And I can understand your hesitation to click on a link, here's a synopsis:
Scientists understood physics of climate change in the 1800s – thanks to a woman named Eunice Foote. The year was 1856. Foote's brief scientific paper was the first to describe the extraordinary power of carbon dioxide gas to absorb heat – the driving force of global warming. Foote conducted a simple experiment. She put a thermometer in each of two glass cylinders, pumped carbon dioxide gas into one and air into the other and set the cylinders in the Sun. The cylinder containing carbon dioxide got much hotter than the one with air, and Foote realized that carbon dioxide would strongly absorb heat in the atmosphere.

Why, oh why do those who know better in the scientific community not debunk this?


Many do.

Science isn't a paper. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You cannot trap heat.


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
24-07-2021 02:00
Harry CProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(157)
In this day and time, it is deplorable that a person of some authority who should know better makes such pronouncements. The problem is not me but Sylvia G. Dee, Assistant Professor of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences at Rice University. I would love to witness the exchange that [fill in the blank gender pronoun] would have here.

Oh look, she has a website too. https://sylviadeeclimate.org/
Edited on 24-07-2021 02:50
24-07-2021 02:42
Harry CProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(157)
IBdaMann wrote:
Nobody performs this parlor trick in the sun.


Would you mind answering a follow up question? If so, quit reading.

Since the article says the experiment was performed in the sun, what is the significance of your quoted statement? Also, would the result vary whether it was carbon dioxide or carbonic acid? Thank you.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
24-07-2021 03:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)


Harry C wrote:Since the article says the experiment was performed in the sun, what is the significance of your quoted statement?

Frankly, I'm not sure how you could miss the significance of my statement but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. Nonetheless, if you could enlighten me as to what part of my statement is confusing you, especially since I explained my response in detail in my post, it would help me tailor my response to best answer this question of yours that I am not fully understanding.

So I'll just spell out for you the first major, glaring problem with this parlor trick. If you bothered to watch the videos that I presented, all are "demonstrations" that are performed indoors where nary a photon of sunlight can affect the results ... all claiming to be "simulations" of direct sunlight. Why are none of these demonstrations actually performed outdoors in direct sunlight instead of being performed indoors with lamps? They all claim to be demonstrating the effects of sunlight on earth but none will simply take the bottles outside and just perform the damn demonstration in the sun. Why is that? Could it be that the lamps do not simulate the full spectrum of sunlight and that the trick won't work in the sun?

In one video, a woman explains that she cannot bring the sun into her dark, indoor laboratory so she uses lamps to simulate the sun. Of course she could say that because she cannot bring the sun into her dark, indoor laboratory that she will take her bottles outside where the sun is ... but she doesn't.

Are you starting to see the problem here? In science, if you wish to model the effects of the sun then you have to use the sun. You don't get to say "I'm going to use a frisbee instead" ... or any other proxy device.

This parlor trick in question is performed for the amazingly stupid who simply won't ask any questions but who will simply obey and believe what they are told to believe. You should have noted immediately that all of the "demonstrations" are performed indoors, without exception. So when the article claims that a dead person actually performed the demonstration outdoors in the sun and got the same results, you have to realize that the statement itself is intended for the amazingly stupid, gullible target audience who won't question what they are being told to believe.

Harry C wrote:Also, would the result vary whether it was carbon dioxide or carbonic acid? Thank you.

No difference at all. Watch the videos. Each one is a slight variation on the same theme, i.e. show CO2 absorbing a particular frequency band that O2 does not and claim that the viewer is witnessing a miracle that will unfortunately destroy the earth if we don't tax the shit out of ourselves.

... and that is the point of it all, i.e. not to teach any physics but to manipulate the gullible and the stupid into drawing an erroneous political conclusion that advances a Marxist agenda.

Let me know if you remain unclear on any part of this.
Attached image:

24-07-2021 03:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)
Harry C wrote:Oh look, she has a website too. https://sylviadeeclimate.org/


From the Website: Welcome! The Climate, Water, and Energy lab is headed by Dr. Sylvia Dee, a climate scientist specializing in atmospheric modeling, water isotope physics, and paleoclimate data-model comparison.


There is no such thing as a climate scientist because there is no such thing as a global climate in science.

There is no such thing as paleoclimate data and as such, there are no models based on nonexistent data ... therefore there are no such models for her to "compare."



.


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
24-07-2021 14:39
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1350)
Harry C wrote:
In this day and time, it is deplorable that a person of some authority who should know better makes such pronouncements. The problem is not me but Sylvia G. Dee, Assistant Professor of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences at Rice University. I would love to witness the exchange that [fill in the blank gender pronoun] would have here.

Oh look, she has a website too. https://sylviadeeclimate.org/


I would like to share my personal observations
If you fill a closed clear container with extra CO2 and put both in the sun the CO2 enriched container will get warmer than the one that is air.Two problems
.How much extra CO2 do you need to put in to detect any difference and does it keep going up?
I saw a myth busters show where they had 2 standard greenhouses set up and a CO2 concentrated green house and it did get warmer than the standard by .8 C. 2 problems
.It was warmer by .8 C but it capped out.it did not keep getting warmer
.When the concentration was calculated it was 75,000 ppm.What a lot of people are not aware of is the reality it is going to be very hard to get CO2 levels to 500ppm even though this would be a good thing.plants and sea life all benefit from more CO2 we are at 400ppm plus minus 20ppm.I am still taking regular readings so what that means is how things are now is how it is going to stay


duncan61
24-07-2021 16:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)
duncan61 wrote:I would like to share my personal observations
If you fill a closed clear container with extra CO2 and put both in the sun the CO2 enriched container will get warmer than the one that is air.

How did you manage to surround the containers in a vacuum to equate to the vacuum of space?

duncan61 wrote:Two problems

Yep:

1. If I perform your test with containers that are as opaque as the earth's crust, I don't get the results you get. Therefore you are either doing something wrong or you are lying.

2. If I place two open transparent side-by-side containers outdoors in the sun (to most accurately emulate the atmosphere) with nothing but air in them, they are both at the surrounding temperature. If I pour surrounding-temperature CO2 into one of the containers it nonetheless remains at the surrounding temperature. Therefore you are either doing something wrong or you are lying.


.


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
24-07-2021 17:22
Harry CProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(157)
IBdaMann wrote:

Nonetheless, if you could enlighten me as to what part of my statement is confusing you...

Let me know if you remain unclear on any part of this.


First and foremost thank you for indulging my inquiry. I watched everyone of those videos.

My field of endeavor is business. I have minimal education in science, just what was required to get through public schools and college business.

I do not believe in the concept of anthropogenic global warming or climate change or all the other buzzwords such as greenhouse gas. If I use the term it's not in the form of advocacy.

The reason for the post was because I considered the linked opinion piece as part of the propaganda of "warmazombies" and sincerely wanted to know how to debunk it. I'm amazed at the surreal push that is on this issue. This Sylvia Dee should know better. Why is she complicit in perpetuating a myth using a test published in 1856?

I read the original published paper that was in the article. It said it was performed in the sun. However you went out of the way to point out that it was never performed in the sun. I was, therefore, simply looking for a reconciliation of the terms of the experiment to see what difference it would make. In other words, I didn't know enough to make the distinction.

My only thought on the matter was something to do with ideal gas law and the effect of pressure on the experiments. I will say that two vessels, one under pressure and the other in a vacuum are not a reasonable comparison on the effect of temperature. That's all I have.

The actual experiment can be seen here.
https://images.theconversation.com/files/411988/original/file-20210719-21-1jtbsop.jpg


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
24-07-2021 18:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16050)
duncan61 wrote:
Harry C wrote:
In this day and time, it is deplorable that a person of some authority who should know better makes such pronouncements. The problem is not me but Sylvia G. Dee, Assistant Professor of Earth, Environmental and Planetary Sciences at Rice University. I would love to witness the exchange that [fill in the blank gender pronoun] would have here.

Oh look, she has a website too. https://sylviadeeclimate.org/


I would like to share my personal observations
If you fill a closed clear container with extra CO2 and put both in the sun the CO2 enriched container will get warmer than the one that is air.Two problems
.How much extra CO2 do you need to put in to detect any difference and does it keep going up?
I saw a myth busters show where they had 2 standard greenhouses set up and a CO2 concentrated green house and it did get warmer than the standard by .8 C. 2 problems
.It was warmer by .8 C but it capped out.it did not keep getting warmer
.When the concentration was calculated it was 75,000 ppm.What a lot of people are not aware of is the reality it is going to be very hard to get CO2 levels to 500ppm even though this would be a good thing.plants and sea life all benefit from more CO2 we are at 400ppm plus minus 20ppm.I am still taking regular readings so what that means is how things are now is how it is going to stay


Mythbusters used an infrared light to heat both containers. We already know that CO2 will absorb certain frequencies of infrared light. So does water. So do rocks.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.

The Sun heats the Earth. I guess you missed the memo.


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
Edited on 24-07-2021 18:55
24-07-2021 20:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)


Harry C wrote:First and foremost thank you for indulging my inquiry. I watched everyone of those videos.

I hope you saw the common theme along with the total absence of the scientific method.

Harry C wrote:My field of endeavor is business. I have minimal education in science, just what was required to get through public schools and college business.

All scams involve impelling people to act on emotion without understanding clearly any technical details of what is supposedly being discussed. In your case, you should always be amazingly skeptical of any person who is using plausible-sounding but somewhat unclear (to you) physics principles to get you to believe/accept some underlying assumption. Warmizombies know that there are many people like you who want to do the right thing and who are smart but who studied other things besides physics and math. Warmizombies simply use "science" as their angle of attack to confuse/fool you. The same goes for cryptocurrency scams. The world is full of people who simply have not studied economics to proficiency yet desire to become rich quickly. If you have never listened to someone explain the "tokenomics" of Safemoon then you should download a podcast and be prepared to being totally confused yet totally convinced that you need to get yourself "summa-dat" so that you can retire wealthy before lunchtime tomorrow.

Harry C wrote:The reason for the post was because I considered the linked opinion piece as part of the propaganda of "warmazombies" and sincerely wanted to know how to debunk it.

There is nothing to debunk, only a logical fallacy to declare invalid. A demonstration of CO2 absorbing infrared is performed. We all know that CO2 absorbs infrared particularly well. So does a cheesburger. The warmizombies then tell their scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent and logically inept target audience to conclude ... Global Warming! They don't tell their audience to simply conclude that CO2 readily absorbs infrared, as a teacher would in a science classroom.

This is why I asked you to pay close attention to various points in the videos, specifically where they reveal their deception and assert that "lamps equate to the sun" and "bottles equate to the earth," etc... Their audience is not supposed to question what they are told to believe. Do you understand how religions work? This is the same principle. I can verify the truth of Christianity for you with a quick demonstration you can do at home. The next time it rains, just look for a rainbow and notice that the earth does not flood or that the ocean level does not rise ... with God's promise being the only explanation. Just don't question.

Harry C wrote:This Sylvia Dee should know better. Why is she complicit in perpetuating a myth using a test published in 1856?

There are two parts to this answer. The first part I answered above ... pay close attention:

Question: What do warmizombies enjoy even more than referencing dead people who cannot be cross examined? What do warmizombies enjoy even more than pretending to be omniscient?

Answer: Warmizombies love to reference dead people who they pretend were omniscient.

I will add to this that the reason warmizombies are so apt to reference dead people is because time moves in only one direction, i.e. from the past into the future. Science is continually being improved, by falsifying existing theories and either discarding them or fixing them. Warmizombies love to point to the discredited results/conclusions of dead people and claim that their conclusions were "known" back in that time period. Warmizombies are fully cognizant that there just aren't any people who will research how and when those results/conclusions were discarded from the body of science. Whenever someone says that Arrhenius Svante "knew" about Greenhouse Effect back in the late 1800s, just counter with "Aristotle knew that an object's natural state is at rest back in 360 b.c." Neither exists in the body of science today.

Rule: On matters of science, only science is acceptable. No testimony from dead people is acceptable.

The second part of the answer involves human psychology. Warmizombies are losers who do not see themselves as important. In a world they do not understand and in which they feel helpless, they are desperate to be smart, powerful and relevant. Global Warming affords such losers the ability to live out a fantasy whereby they transform into superheroes who are loved and respected by all because they are fighting to save humanity and the planet. Additionally, the Marxist basis of the religion legitimizes their mindset that they know what is best and that they must intervene to save you from yourself. Global Warming is a service that enables mindless idiots to convince themselves that they are geniuses who speak for the world's scientists and who are going to use their physics brilliance to save humanity from itself. Now that they are members of the Climate Avengers, they have overpowering feelings of relevance rushing through their veins. When they speak, it's like superheroes warning the public of imminent danger. Superheroes are to be heeded, not questioned.

There is no reasoning with warmizombies, hence the name Any discussions that would require a warmizombie to admit that he is totally wrong about his underlying assumptions threaten to turn Cinderella's chariot into a pumpkin, forcing the loser to abandon his fantasy addiction and to go from a great high directly into a cold turkey withdrawal. The most for which you can hope is for the warmizombie to make some lame excuse for why he cannot/will not continue talking to you while blaming you for derailing the discussion.

Harry C wrote: My only thought on the matter was something to do with ideal gas law and the effect of pressure on the experiments.

The Ideal Gas law is often inappropriately thrown into the mix for purposes of confusing people ... and it is often omitted when it needs to be mentioned, also for purposes of confusing people.

The Ideal Gas law is simple. It predicts the instantaneous change in pressure and temperature, i.e. if you increase the pressure then you will increase the temperature and if you increase the temperature you will increase the pressure. But this relationship only applies when there are changes. If you compress a gas in a cannister, you change both its temperature and its pressure. The Ideal Gas law says that the gas' temperature will increase along with its pressure. If you then store the cannister in your basement, the compressed gas will nonetheless cool over time to the temperature of its surroundings despite remaining compressed. Of course, as it cools within the cannister, its pressure will nonetheless decrease per the Ideal Gas law.



[*find-warmizombie_psychology]
[*find-discredited_dead_people]

.


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
25-07-2021 03:17
Harry CProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(157)
IBdaMann wrote:


Harry C wrote:First and foremost thank you for indulging my inquiry. I watched everyone of those videos.

I hope you saw the common theme along with the total absence of the scientific method.

Harry C wrote:My field of endeavor is business. I have minimal education in science, just what was required to get through public schools and college business.

All scams involve impelling people to act on emotion without understanding clearly any technical details of what is supposedly being discussed. In your case, you should always be amazingly skeptical of any person who is using plausible-sounding but somewhat unclear (to you) physics principles to get you to believe/accept some underlying assumption. Warmizombies know that there are many people like you who want to do the right thing and who are smart but who studied other things besides physics and math. Warmizombies simply use "science" as their angle of attack to confuse/fool you. The same goes for cryptocurrency scams. The world is full of people who simply have not studied economics to proficiency yet desire to become rich quickly. If you have never listened to someone explain the "tokenomics" of Safemoon then you should download a podcast and be prepared to being totally confused yet totally convinced that you need to get yourself "summa-dat" so that you can retire wealthy before lunchtime tomorrow.

Harry C wrote:The reason for the post was because I considered the linked opinion piece as part of the propaganda of "warmazombies" and sincerely wanted to know how to debunk it.

There is nothing to debunk, only a logical fallacy to declare invalid. A demonstration of CO2 absorbing infrared is performed. We all know that CO2 absorbs infrared particularly well. So does a cheesburger. The warmizombies then tell their scientifically illiterate, mathematically incompetent and logically inept target audience to conclude ... Global Warming! They don't tell their audience to simply conclude that CO2 readily absorbs infrared, as a teacher would in a science classroom.

This is why I asked you to pay close attention to various points in the videos, specifically where they reveal their deception and assert that "lamps equate to the sun" and "bottles equate to the earth," etc... Their audience is not supposed to question what they are told to believe. Do you understand how religions work? This is the same principle. I can verify the truth of Christianity for you with a quick demonstration you can do at home. The next time it rains, just look for a rainbow and notice that the earth does not flood or that the ocean level does not rise ... with God's promise being the only explanation. Just don't question.

Harry C wrote:This Sylvia Dee should know better. Why is she complicit in perpetuating a myth using a test published in 1856?

There are two parts to this answer. The first part I answered above ... pay close attention:

Question: What do warmizombies enjoy even more than referencing dead people who cannot be cross examined? What do warmizombies enjoy even more than pretending to be omniscient?

Answer: Warmizombies love to reference dead people who they pretend were omniscient.

I will add to this that the reason warmizombies are so apt to reference dead people is because time moves in only one direction, i.e. from the past into the future. Science is continually being improved, by falsifying existing theories and either discarding them or fixing them. Warmizombies love to point to the discredited results/conclusions of dead people and claim that their conclusions were "known" back in that time period. Warmizombies are fully cognizant that there just aren't any people who will research how and when those results/conclusions were discarded from the body of science. Whenever someone says that Arrhenius Svante "knew" about Greenhouse Effect back in the late 1800s, just counter with "Aristotle knew that an object's natural state is at rest back in 360 b.c." Neither exists in the body of science today.

Rule: On matters of science, only science is acceptable. No testimony from dead people is acceptable.

The second part of the answer involves human psychology. Warmizombies are losers who do not see themselves as important. In a world they do not understand and in which they feel helpless, they are desperate to be smart, powerful and relevant. Global Warming affords such losers the ability to live out a fantasy whereby they transform into superheroes who are loved and respected by all because they are fighting to save humanity and the planet. Additionally, the Marxist basis of the religion legitimizes their mindset that they know what is best and that they must intervene to save you from yourself. Global Warming is a service that enables mindless idiots to convince themselves that they are geniuses who speak for the world's scientists and who are going to use their physics brilliance to save humanity from itself. Now that they are members of the Climate Avengers, they have overpowering feelings of relevance rushing through their veins. When they speak, it's like superheroes warning the public of imminent danger. Superheroes are to be heeded, not questioned.

There is no reasoning with warmizombies, hence the name Any discussions that would require a warmizombie to admit that he is totally wrong about his underlying assumptions threaten to turn Cinderella's chariot into a pumpkin, forcing the loser to abandon his fantasy addiction and to go from a great high directly into a cold turkey withdrawal. The most for which you can hope is for the warmizombie to make some lame excuse for why he cannot/will not continue talking to you while blaming you for derailing the discussion.

Harry C wrote: My only thought on the matter was something to do with ideal gas law and the effect of pressure on the experiments.

The Ideal Gas law is often inappropriately thrown into the mix for purposes of confusing people ... and it is often omitted when it needs to be mentioned, also for purposes of confusing people.

The Ideal Gas law is simple. It predicts the instantaneous change in pressure and temperature, i.e. if you increase the pressure then you will increase the temperature and if you increase the temperature you will increase the pressure. But this relationship only applies when there are changes. If you compress a gas in a cannister, you change both its temperature and its pressure. The Ideal Gas law says that the gas' temperature will increase along with its pressure. If you then store the cannister in your basement, the compressed gas will nonetheless cool over time to the temperature of its surroundings despite remaining compressed. Of course, as it cools within the cannister, its pressure will nonetheless decrease per the Ideal Gas law.



[*find-warmizombie_psychology]
[*find-discredited_dead_people]

.

Thank you. A great deal more than I expected.

I wish I had the knowledge base to correspond with Sylvia Dee on the subject. It outrages me. Oh well.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
25-07-2021 03:42
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1350)
I would like to do this test myself.If I go buy 2 plastic greenhouses and place them against the wall outside and monitor the temperature during the day.One will be standard and I can buy a small can of CO2 at the same store.I will increase the CO2 to 800ppm and monitor it for an hour.Then I will crank it up to 1600ppm and keep doubling till the can runs out.I doubt I will get any difference in temperature till it gets up in to 5 figures.2 things.I wish to have the greenhouses as we grow herbs anyway and if I post my results will anyone care
Edited on 25-07-2021 03:43
25-07-2021 04:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)


Harry C wrote:I wish I had the knowledge base to correspond with Sylvia Dee on the subject.

She appears to be a dumbass. What makes you think she has any sort of "knowledge base"? Did she fool you with plausible-sounding gibber-babble? What makes you think that she knows any more than you do? She certainly fantasizes about being a smart important person, sure, but I haven't seen anything that indicates that she isn't a scientifically illiterate moron.

I looked her up on the internet and I don't consider Rice University to be an actual institute of learning. It's more of a "Will write studies for food"-type of popsicle stand.

Is there something that I am missing?
Attached image:

25-07-2021 12:41
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1350)
I went to https://sylviadeeclimate.org/ the twitter link which I do not do was Greta and micheal Mann and a bunch of clowns tweeting about how its to late and we are all doomed.Its got to get warmer to **** us up and it is not warmer.Clowns!!!
25-07-2021 20:05
Harry CProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(157)
IBdaMann wrote:
What makes you think she has any sort of "knowledge base"? Did she fool you with plausible-sounding gibber-babble? What makes you think that she knows any more than you do?
Is there something that I am missing?


Where I'm from Rice University has been acknowledged as a paragon of education. So it was a simple affiliation to Rice that brought her a first blush of knowledgeability. Before I knew she was from Rice, having just read her article I immediately thought the headline was bunk. The only thing I would give her credit for at this point is her well rehearsed talking points and how to stick to them in the face of a challenge by someone who doesn't know better than her in every dimension. That's all I got...but I'm getting more.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
25-07-2021 20:11
Harry CProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(157)
duncan61 wrote:
I would like to do this test myself.If I go buy 2 plastic greenhouses and place them against the wall outside and monitor the temperature during the day.One will be standard and I can buy a small can of CO2 at the same store.I will increase the CO2 to 800ppm and monitor it for an hour.Then I will crank it up to 1600ppm and keep doubling till the can runs out.I doubt I will get any difference in temperature till it gets up in to 5 figures.2 things.I wish to have the greenhouses as we grow herbs anyway and if I post my results will anyone care


I would too. In my version all of the independent variables would be measured and documented. Then it would be reproduced changing the fixtures and locations to eliminate bias in the configuration. Maybe add a representative from the other side to observe.

I'd love to see it go viral and be the standard retort for every time someone trots out the "parlor-trick". Why hasn't this been done.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
Edited on 25-07-2021 20:14
26-07-2021 00:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)
Harry C wrote:
duncan61 wrote: I would like to do this test myself.
I would too.

Before you do, you should make sure you are not wasting your time, effort and money.

Before you begin you really should determine your hypothesis, as is done with any valid experiment seeking to draw a conclusion, and then ensure your demonstration illustrates that principle. Otherwise your result will have no valid point, just as the parlor trick has no valid point.

Harry C wrote:I'd love to see it go viral and be the standard retort for every time someone trots out the "parlor-trick". Why hasn't this been done.

... because you first must have a valid point that is intended to be made. If you just perform a demonstration, the only response you'll get is "Great, but that doesn't prove anything."

I can see that you get energized over the idea of falsifying a particular narrative. Kudos. Outstanding. Let me know when you want to do this and I'll help you ensure you succeed. At the moment, however, it looks like you are headed towards not accomplishing anything.




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
26-07-2021 04:30
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1350)
Its my time effort and money and at the end of it I will have 2 $6 desktop thermometers and 2 greenhouses I can use anyway.
My hypothesis is that to raise the temperature in a greenhouse outside it will take many thousands ppm to get .1C
My first run I will use pure CO2 out the can and the second run I will use a small 2 stroke generator I have running inside the greenhouse
26-07-2021 04:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)


duncan61 wrote: Its my time effort and money

I know. You are always welcome to waste your time, effort and money solidifying in your own mind your own WACKY religious beliefs ... and Xadoman is welcome to waste his time, effort and money chasing a bizarre sense of belonging by joining a pyramid scheme.

You have no intention of pursuing anything scientific but I was thinking that perhaps Harry C just might.

26-07-2021 04:52
Harry CProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(157)
IBdaMann wrote:

Before you begin you really should determine your hypothesis, as is done with any valid experiment seeking to draw a conclusion, and then ensure your demonstration illustrates that principle.

I can see that you get energized over the idea of falsifying a particular narrative.

Let me know when you want to do this and I'll help you ensure you succeed.


I think what I would like to do is to be able to demonstrate the predictability of temperature change by replicating the most common "parlor tricks" and reconciling the change in temperature exclusively to the known & verifiable variables using the laws of physics. The objective would be to neuter the use of "parlor tricks" to eliminate the attribution of increased temperature to the existence of CO2. It would also be desirable to measure the change in CO2 specifically over a range of 200 to 1000 ppm to measure the effect. Is that possible?


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
26-07-2021 05:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)
Harry C wrote:I think what I would like to do is to be able to demonstrate the predictability of temperature change

We already have physics. Physics predicts temperature change very nicely.

You need to be specific. Instead of thinking in terms of what you would like to demonstrate, think in terms of what you want others to conclude.

Imagine devising a demonstration that clearly demonstrates some physics principle, but your target audience does not arrive at your desired conclusion. Would you be OK with that? ... or is an inescapable conclusion a necessary part of your project?

If it is, then take a moment to reflect on the key point you wish to make. If you cannot express your desired conclusion clearly and succinctly, i.e. your eventual hypothesis, then you are not ready to devise a demonstration.




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
26-07-2021 14:40
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1350)
I am looking forward to running the little generator as I have had it for a long time and it will need a heap of maintenance to get it to go
26-07-2021 18:54
Harry CProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(157)
IBdaMann wrote:

We already have physics. Physics predicts temperature change very nicely.

You need to be specific. Instead of thinking in terms of what you would like to demonstrate, think in terms of what you want others to conclude.

Imagine devising a demonstration that clearly demonstrates some physics principle, but your target audience does not arrive at your desired conclusion. Would you be OK with that? ... or is an inescapable conclusion a necessary part of your project?

If it is, then take a moment to reflect on the key point you wish to make. If you cannot express your desired conclusion clearly and succinctly, i.e. your eventual hypothesis, then you are not ready to devise a demonstration.



Is it too broad to state that the conclusion is: CO2 cannot increase the temperature in a simulation to imitate the effect of a greenhouse gas? Or, the increase of temperature in a CO2 simulation is predictable using known scientific methods?

I know you're trying to lead me and I appreciate it.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
26-07-2021 18:54
Harry CProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(157)
IBdaMann wrote:

We already have physics. Physics predicts temperature change very nicely.

You need to be specific. Instead of thinking in terms of what you would like to demonstrate, think in terms of what you want others to conclude.

Imagine devising a demonstration that clearly demonstrates some physics principle, but your target audience does not arrive at your desired conclusion. Would you be OK with that? ... or is an inescapable conclusion a necessary part of your project?

If it is, then take a moment to reflect on the key point you wish to make. If you cannot express your desired conclusion clearly and succinctly, i.e. your eventual hypothesis, then you are not ready to devise a demonstration.



Is it too broad to state that the conclusion is: CO2 cannot increase the temperature in a simulation to imitate the effect of a greenhouse gas? Or, the increase of temperature in a CO2 simulation is predictable using known scientific methods?

I know you're trying to lead me and I appreciate it.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
26-07-2021 21:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16050)
Harry C wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Before you begin you really should determine your hypothesis, as is done with any valid experiment seeking to draw a conclusion, and then ensure your demonstration illustrates that principle.

I can see that you get energized over the idea of falsifying a particular narrative.

Let me know when you want to do this and I'll help you ensure you succeed.


I think what I would like to do is to be able to demonstrate the predictability of temperature change by replicating the most common "parlor tricks" and reconciling the change in temperature exclusively to the known & verifiable variables using the laws of physics. The objective would be to neuter the use of "parlor tricks" to eliminate the attribution of increased temperature to the existence of CO2. It would also be desirable to measure the change in CO2 specifically over a range of 200 to 1000 ppm to measure the effect. Is that possible?


It is already known that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light.
So does water, asphalt, dirt, grass, trees, cheeseburgers (as IBD pointed out
), and pretty much anything else.

When infrared light is absorbed it usually results in conversion to thermal energy.
When visible light is absorbed, it usually results in conversion to chemical energy (why your eyes work, and how plants grow).

Repeating the parlor trick experiment (as IBD likes to call it, and justifiably so), will only repeat the same observations already measured.

You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.


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
27-07-2021 00:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)


Harry C wrote:Is it too broad to state that the conclusion is: CO2 cannot increase the temperature in a simulation to imitate the effect of a greenhouse gas?

It's not that your statement is too broad, it's just not correct.

CO2 is matter with chemical properties. It happens to readily absorb certain infrared frequencies very well. This means that CO2 converts certain electromagnetic frequencies to thermal energy ... and this increases the temperature of the CO2. If the CO2 were not there to absorb the infrared, the infrared would continue onward and be absorbed by the next thing which might very well be the earth's solid surface.

So if I were to demonstrate this principle, I would take two soda bottles, insert thermometers into each one and shine lamps of the proscribed infrared frequency band onto the bottles ... and then I would add CO2 to one of the bottles and ... oh wait! I think you've actually seen this already.

However, if I were a dishonest Marxist pushing a political agenda, instead of telling my audience that I was demonstrating CO2's chemical ability to convert infrared electromagnetic into thermal energy, I would brazenly lie with a straight face and tell my audience that what they are witnessing is CO2's evil superpower to cause the earth to spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy ... and that they should be afraid, very very afraid.

I would simply ignore as not being part of my intended scientifically-illiterate target audience those few who point out that my lie is a direct violation of thermodynamics. If I were particularly evil, I would claim that mankind is to blame because humans are inherently bad and animals are highly moral and wholesome ... and they are actually smarter than humans because they know enough to not destroy their only planet. That's why you don't find any animals practicing capitalism, drilling for oil or making lame excuses to cling to their guns.

On the other hand, if I were bent on exposing the stupid parlor trick for the dishonest mindfúCk that it is, I would perform the exact same parlor trick ... except I would use UV lamps instead of infrared lamps ... and of course I would claim that the bottles "represent the earth" and that my UV lamps "represent the sun." I would also have three bottles, one in which I would add oxygen, one in which I would add CO2 and a "control" bottle in which nothing would change.

When the bottle with the additional oxygen increases in temperature but the bottle with additional CO2 does not, I would tell my viewing audience that CO2 must not be a greenhouse gas and that everyone seems to have had it horribly wrong all this time. O2 has apparently been the greenhouse gas in question all along so we can stop blaming hydrocarbons, coal, and other things that produce CO2.

Note: If you perform this version of the parlor trick, make sure to do so in a cool, dark basement. The UV lamps will suffice for the entirety of the sun, right?


.


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
27-07-2021 04:16
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1350)
Note: If you perform this version of the parlor trick, make sure to do so in a cool, dark basement. The UV lamps will suffice for the entirety of the sun, right?

Wrong.I am doing my test outside and will monitor both greenhouses for a day and note any difference.Then add CO2 from the can.
My reading this morning of atmospheric CO2 where I live was 249ppm so I will try to get the greenhouse to around 500ppm and see what happens.I am quietly confident there will be no discernable temperature increase.
.I note on all the parlor trick demonstrations there is never a mention of the ppm increase just that they have added CO2
Edited on 27-07-2021 04:17
27-07-2021 06:55
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)


duncan61 wrote:Wrong.I am doing my test outside and will monitor both greenhouses for a day and note any difference.

I'll use all the fingers on my left thumb to count the number of people you convert with your "demonstration."

Your only objective is to construct a shrine to your own beliefs and it won't convince anyone who doesn't already believe your WACKY dogma.




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
27-07-2021 10:59
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1350)
I am a selfish prick and only care for me so what reason would I have to convert any one else.This excersize is all for me
27-07-2021 15:14
Harry CProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(157)
I don't want to gloss over this point.

CO2 converts certain electromagnetic frequencies to thermal energy ... and this increases the temperature of the CO2.


So before going any further, is the simulated atmospheric presentation a side show to the real issue? In other words, and please forgive my misuse of a term as I assure you it is not intentional, the thermal energy created by CO2 in the atmosphere is simply diverted rather than amplified? Warmazombies require an amplification effect for their doomsday mechanism to be true, otherwise there is no pending apocalypse.
27-07-2021 16:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)
duncan61 wrote:I am a selfish prick and only care for me so what reason would I have to convert any one else.This excersize is all for me

I see that we are singing from the same sheet of music.

27-07-2021 17:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)


Harry C wrote: ... the thermal energy created by CO2 in the atmosphere is simply diverted rather than amplified? Warmazombies require an amplification effect for their doomsday mechanism to be true, otherwise there is no pending apocalypse.

You are absolutely correct. What you reference as an "amplification effect" is actually the warmizombie's final stand and indicates that their argument is DOA.

Walk through the logic with me.

1) Only matter can have temperature, ergo only matter can "have" thermal energy. All matter has temperature (i.e. there is no matter at absolute zero) and all matter radiates per the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This means that all matter radiates RADIANCE based on its temperature (to the fourth power).

2) The 1st law of thermodynamics, also called "Conservation of Energy" states that energy can change form all day, all night, all week and you can never create any more of it or destroy any of it. If you have 5 joules of electromagnetic energy and you convert 3 joules to thermal energy then you have exactly 2 joules still in electromagnetic form, i.e. you still have 5 joules of energy total.

3) No body of matter can somehow spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. If you set a rock on a table and do not afford it any additional energy, its temperature cannot increase. If anyone claims that the earth (as a body of matter) somehow increases in temperature then he is implying directly some amount of additional energy and he must specify it and account for it.

4) Warmizombies are locked into claiming that the earth's temperature is increasing. Per #3 above, warmizombies are on tap to account for the additional energy necessary to explain this claimed increase in temperature. Warmizombies don't get to simply claim an increase in temperature without accounting for the additional energy that causes that increase in temperature. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy.

5) Per #4, warmizombies absolutely spin their wheels trying to come up with additional energy to account for the increase in temperature that they claim. Unfortunately they run into the brick wall of #2 above, i.e. the law conservation of energy. They can't create additional energy without someone like me immediately laughing "violation of thermodynamics right there."

6) Therefore, as a last ditch effort before the final nail is hammered into the coffin of their argument, they shift to wording describing some imaginary mechanism that "amplifies" the existing energy instead of "creating" additional energy. The obvious problem is that there is no difference between the two.

... and so all Greenhouse Effect arguments bite the dust.

Let me know if you have any questions.




[*find-warmizombie_logic]


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
27-07-2021 18:07
Harry CProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(157)
Thank you for the generous explanation. I'm not afraid to admit that I had the correct side of the issue, but for the wrong reason. I sincerely didn't understand the 'amplification' issue the way that you confirmed.

So, yes I have a couple of follow up questions.
1. If I understand correctly, the effect of CO2 could keep less heat from making it's way to the earth's surface.

2. If CO2 had the property attributed to it, logic would dictate that we could use CO2 as an energy source and have a "CO2 powered engine" with sunlight. Hell solar panels then ought to be "charged" with CO2. Just writing that made me feel absurd.

3. I was thinking about the reason that the ubiquitous 'they' shifted away from "Global Warming" and to "Climate Change". I've always thought it was ludicrous to believe man has the ability to effect his own climate. If that were true, we'd have an awesome secret weapon. So I have to ask, does increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere in a specific area of the globe cause any kind of observable shift to weather patterns (ie. It used to be colder/wetter, windier, etc. here than it is now.)?

4. Since the sun is constantly providing heat to the earth, what mechanism regulates how much heat stays in the atmosphere? I know there is a 'cooling effect' when the earth's surface is turned away from the sun. Looking for the governing factor. Again, I hope I haven't used an improper term and hope you can see if for what I intended.

I don't like to quote the whole message to get to specific points. I'm sorry if I step out of bounds in so doing.
27-07-2021 19:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)


Harry C wrote:1. If I understand correctly, the effect of CO2 could keep less heat from making it's way to the earth's surface.

No. This is not correct.

Your statement is "gibber-babble" since you are using the wrong words. I would recommend you avoid the word "heat" since you don't know what that means and you are likely to only confuse yourself. The word "heat" is not a physics term but rather a colloquial "common use" word that almost everyone uses incorrectly.

From THE MANUAL:

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. Its meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

I will gladly explain to you what "heat" is ... but I would still recommend you avoid it unless you are using it in this specific manner:

Heat is the FLOW of thermal energy from one body of matter to another. It is not a measure of energy, i.e. joules, but is a measure of power (i.e. joules per second) ... just as a river's current is not the water itself and is not measured in liters but is in fact the FLOW of the water and is measured in liters per second.

If you instead focus on thermal energy flowing from one body of matter to another, and simply use those terms, then it will go a long way to eliminating a lot of gibber-babble.

Also, minimize the use of the word "surface." You could mean several things with that word. If you mean the bottom of the atmosphere then specify "the bottom of the atmosphere." If you mean "sea level" then write "sea level."

So now that I have written all that, the best answer I can give to the question you asked above as you have worded it is no, there is nothing in the atmosphere that can alter the amount of thermal energy that flows from the sun to the earth. Any solar radiation that is not absorbed by the atmosphere is absorbed by the earth's lithosphere or earth's hydrophere.

It is also possible that you are asking whether some atmospheric CO2 over the Pacific ocean might absorb some solar photons thus preventing them from reaching sea level. The answer is yes ... but so what? The issue is not the distribution of the thermal energy at any given moment. The issue is that there is exactly the same amount of thermal energy distributed across the earth's lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere ... thus retaining the exact same average planetary temperature. When your car's interior gets hot on a sunny, summer day and you open all the doors and windows to let it cool off, you are not affecting the earth's average temperature in any way. You are simply affecting the distribution of the thermal energy.

The golden rule on this matter is that you cannot subdivide the atomic unit which, in this case, is the planet. Earth is the body of matter in question and trying to break down the distribution of thermal energy between the atmosphere, the lithosphere and the hydrosphere until you somehow arrive at the earth having a different temperature is only going to result in someone like me pointing out where you screwed up the math.

Harry C wrote:2. If CO2 had the property attributed to it, logic would dictate that we could use CO2 as an energy source and have a "CO2 powered engine" with sunlight.

Yes, if CO2 could create energy in defiance of the 1st law of thermodynamics so as to increase temperature then yes, it would become a free energy source from which we could power engines and charge batteries.

This is why I often mention to argumentative warmizombies that if they ever become correct then I will publish my "Cooking with CO2" recipe book. Why pay for kitchen utilities like gas and electricity when you can just spray on the CO2 and cook to perfection?

Harry C wrote:3. I was thinking about the reason that the ubiquitous 'they' shifted away from "Global Warming" and to "Climate Change".

"They" never shifted away. Global Warming and Greenhouse Effect are fundamental and mandatory dogmas of Climate Change.

Global Warming obviously becomes falsified when the Greenhouse Effect argument fails ... but Climate Change is the higher-level religion in which everything remains undefined and contradictory to ensure all bases are covered and nothing can ever be falsified.

What you were referring to is the warmizombie's inevitable retreat to Climate Change whenever the Global Warming dogma fails. Once in the safety of the Climate Change refuge, the warmizombie peers out the window until it is safe to begin preaching Global Warming again.

Harry C wrote: I've always thought it was ludicrous to believe man has the ability to effect his own climate.

Don't Christians believe that man has the ability to achieve salvation? There is no such thing in science as a global climate. In fact, it is a contradiction in terms. That is just a term in the Climate Change theology. Warmizombies believe they can affect it, whatever it is.

Harry C wrote: So I have to ask, does increased concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere in a specific area of the globe cause any kind of observable shift to weather patterns

There is no such thing as a weather pattern.

Let me guess, you want to insist that of course there are weather patterns, right? Flip a coin a few hundred times and let me know what its pattern is.

The term "weather patterns" is an insidious one. It implies that there is some controlling design or rule or higher power that governs the weather ... like a Climate goddess perhaps, i.e. something that exists that we humans can affect.

Nope. There are no Climate goddesses and there are no weather patterns.

There is only the weather and nobody controls it.

Harry C wrote:4. Since the sun is constantly providing heat to the earth,

Since thermal energy is constantly flowing from the sun to earth, and since that exact same amount of energy is radiating away into space per the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the earth remains in a thermal equilibrium.

Harry C wrote: ... what mechanism regulates how much heat stays in the atmosphere?

Heat is a flow of thermal energy therefore there is no heat that stays in the atmosphere.

Harry C wrote: I know there is a 'cooling effect' when the earth's surface is turned away from the sun.

The earth is always facing the sun. The earth is always facing away from the sun. What are you trying to say?

Let me know if you have any other questions.




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
28-07-2021 18:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16050)
duncan61 wrote:
I am a selfish prick and only care for me so what reason would I have to convert any one else.This excersize is all for me

If so, then why are you posting about it??


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
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Thwarting the Warmizombies' Rush to Wikipedia:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Wikipedia is Locked Down by Marxists3228-04-2020 03:37
wikipedia accuracy9605-02-2020 05:56
▲ 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