Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

I've provided my detailed argumentation already.

Fallacy Fallacy.

 

I am not going to discuss science with a guy who thinks he alone knows the "real" science.

Find me a single scientist that agrees with you.

 

Just a couple things. What caused the Sahara to become a desert? It appears that what was once grassland is now arid sand. But what caused this? Man kind didn't for sure. So, geographical, geological, astrophysical, which was it? Same conversation could be made about why SoCal and the neighboring deserts there were formed.

On the "invented fire".. clearly fire existed without cavemen inventing it. They did harness it. Quite a difference really.

 

Which is somewhat correct except that it doesn't take into account the limits of it. At what point does the irradiative property of CO2 stop having an effect? Because it does. At that is why even the proposal that 560 PPM will only indicate at most a 1C change in localized temperatures on a general or global level. So, why again do we care?

 

I find that point somewhat suspect given that we have seen a 1C increase from 1900 to 2000 when the CO2 concentration went from ~300 to ~370.

Do you have a source?

 

Yes. And frankly, your assertion is inaccurate. It also fails to account for any possibility of naturally occurring rebound. The math surrounding the CO2 potential is pretty straight forward, but the empirical results don't just reflect the modification of just one variable. To asset otherwise is stupid.

 

Bringing up the Sahara was in response to this:
"Climate does not change, as it is merely a subjective word with no quantitative value. A desert climate does not "change" into a marine climate. A desert may become a sea, but a desert climate is still a desert climate and a marine climate is still a marine climate. Nothing has changed. There is nothing quantitative about climate TO change..." (gfm7175) http://www.politicalforum.com/index...mperature-ever.567973/page-51#post-1071462002

You don't buy that crap?

I don't know what caused the change for the Sahara, It's not like I study every freaking thing, just like that really huge valley known as the Mediterranean Sea now, maybe that had something to do with it, because the Sahara is like after that. We have no idea either what it would be like to have lived in what was before the Black Sea flood, man probably did not have enough explosives to make that happen either.

Inventing fire? Dude, everyone knows blacks invented fire, murder, rape, incest, and probably racism when the first albino popped out; maybe it was that Geico one that did it. From the perspective of the chief Hotel Twit cave manager he invented fire, and the chimney.

 

I had a habit of getting new books, and keeping them. So I got curious about what I may have highlighted with regard to Stefan’s law and "black body" in one of my books. I took three physics classes; dean’s list, but now I’m brain dead in comparison. Still, I highlighted Stefan’s law… What is interesting is what comes right after the various bits highlighted in the section on radiation, like “hindering heat transfer,” and that is where one finds “The Greenhouse Effect.”

The core curriculum changes based upon what the Hotel Twit is studying, your average person who went to college maybe has one science class required (that probably doesn’t mention Stefan’s law). I once bought a math book that was used for business and economic classes; I was not going that route so the books for classes I took take up a lot more space on the shelf.

Sometimes we study stuff totally unrelated to any work, just out of curiosity.

A person might take a class at work on optics, a class filled with guys from the robotics lab…because a comet is coming and they might want to build their own telescope (have book, but want a little more). That person might also want to check out the library at work, get some info on reflectivity of various alloys; could not check stuff out because of security reasons (nuclear propulsion stuff…).

We could debate and demand math, proofs, it doesn’t matter. I think the whole point of any website even mentioning Stefan’s law to dismiss climate change is to awe and commit fraud on the business major, Hotel Twit, nurse, kindergarten teacher, shadetree mechanic, or those who have forgotten.

The effectiveness of denying climate change using terms the casual observer is unfamiliar with is compounded by the hatred of the Global Warming messenger being a socialist…

I have never voted for a Democrat for president or congress, climate change is one issue out of many that can kill us quicker, but for those who vote Socialist (Bernie, or whatever) because of climate change, considering what I see coming out of Republican mouths (Foxy Blonde Legs Channel…) it looks like we deserve to lose.

 

your argument consists of making bald assertions. It's why I called you on it. You have provided exactly zero evidence to support any of the claims you have made.

 

If you have a source for the notion that a 560ppm will only equate to a 1 degree Celsius increase despite the fact that we saw a 1 degree Celsius increase over the last 100 years while the CO2 rose by ~80 points, then link it.

You take issue with the fact that my proof fails to account for other variables, but I challenge you to prove that increasing the CO2 to 560ppm would not also result in other feedback loops that would exacerbate or decrease the temperature increase.

 

We are still on the steep part of the curve.


Some of the effects.
https://interactive.carbonbrief.org...degrees/?utm_source=web&utm_campaign=Redirect

 

Appeal to Popularity Fallacy.
randU Fallacy.
I've presented my argumentation already.

Describe Greenhouse Effect without violating those laws of science.

YOU are the one claiming that the Earth is warming. YOU are the one with the burden of proof. I've already told you precisely how Greenhouse Effect violates thermodynamics and stefan boltzmann.

Science is not a paper.

You're attempting to compare apples and oranges, without knowing what you're even measuring to begin with. For starters, the moon has virtually no atmosphere compared to the Earth's thicker atmosphere (Earth has much more atmospheric pressure at the surface than the moon does). Thus, you're just measuring the temperature much deeper into Earth than you are into the moon (comparatively). The presence of an atmosphere does not increase the temperature of a planet.

No. It is based on VIOLATING those laws. Define "global warming". Describe Greenhouse Effect without violating those laws.

Satellites cannot measure Greenhouse Effect. They can't measure the temperature of Earth either.

Describe Greenhouse Effect without violating laws of science. Define "global warming".

What "chemical pollution"?

No such thing as a "greenhouse gas". It is not possible to measure the temperature of Earth's surface with our current infrastructure. Not enough thermometers.

What "data"?

It is not possible to measure global CO2 concentration (or global concentration of other "greenhouse gases") with our current infrastructure. Not enough stations.

randU Fallacy. Made up numbers are not data.

CO2 can only absorb a very limited frequency of that IR emitted from the surface. It doesn't absorb all of it. It doesn't even absorb a lot of it. But okay, CO2 has now absorbed some of this IR and the CO2 molecule is now warmed somewhat. Whoopity doo. This action actually COOLS the surface.

Again, CO2 only absorbs a very limited frequency of that IR, not all of the IR. Also, a violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. It is not possible to trap heat. Heat always flows from hot to cold in any closed system (one with defined boundaries).

Violation of Stefan Boltzmann. Now you are attempting to decrease the radiance of Earth WHILE increasing the temperature of Earth.

...let the false equivalencies ensue...

Doesn't even have to be a cold winter night. Any time will do.

No. We keep ourselves warm. The blanket simply acts as a coupling reducer between us (and the trapped air underneath the blanket) and the outside air.

Body heat is not trapped. That heat is still flowing from us to the outside air. Rather, that heat has been reduced due to the blanket acting as a coupling reducer between our bodies (and the trapped air underneath the blanket) and the outside air.

...and here's the false equivalences. First of all, heat is not thermal energy. Second of all, a thermal energy source is not a non-thermal energy source.

It is not possible to trap heat. It is not possible to trap light.

Oh no, here comes the Magick Blanket Argument... you know, the blanket that easily allows energy in yet somehow traps it from escaping again.

The presence of an atmosphere does not warm a planet.

No, it is made up BS that denies those laws.

Correct. And neither does any other gas in the atmosphere.

Nope. Those aren't "greenhouse gases" either.

Nope. No such thing.

randU Fallacy. Made up numbers are not data. It is not possible to measure global CO2 concentration, nor any other gas in the atmosphere.

Good so far.

Made up numbers are not data.

No. You're just violating the laws of thermodynamics and stefan boltzmann, as explained.

Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one in this position, not me.

Already told you why.

The sun keeps shining on it.

Inversion Fallacy.

I'm not the one claiming that the Earth is warming. YOU are. YOU need to show your work. YOU need to explain Greenhouse Effect in a way that doesn't violate laws of science. I've already provided mathematics for why we cannot measure the Earth's temperature with any usable accuracy.

Already addressed.

Yes they do.

...which is light...

...and those measurements are meaningless, as we do not know what the emissivity of Earth is. We don't know how much of that IR is emitted from Earth nor how much is reflection of sunlight, starlight, moonlight, etc...

 

Tell that to my planting pots in the window, where I also have a shade I can raise that is made of barn insulation covered on both sides with reflective foil. Oh, but wait, you are talking about some crap about a black body that doesn't exist in perfection because we have the pinpricks of light coming through the veil of night. Maybe we should go back to celestial orbs and stuff, no CO2 there. What is in the atmosphere can change in concentration, gases or particles, harmful or beneficial to climate depending upon what. We could have some fancy glitter, or machines of creation (nanomachines, invented in some Chinese lab), floating around up there and they change reflectivity depending upon signal from the Hive Mind Socialist collective; it's all a plot to tax you till your eyes bleed.

I better quit there, you might buy part of that.

 

That's kind of the point isn't it?

Sure there are greenhouse gasses.
You need only measure the relative temperature with a significant number of thermometers.

Same answer.

I call BS.

Not to nit pik, but it's not a closed system.
​

You are almost right with this one.
The blanket does not make you warmer, just like the CO2 does not make the surface warmer.
It instead slows the loss of heat from your body or the surface.
No laws have been broke in this test.

Most of the suns energy passes right thru the CO2 to heat the surface.
But most of the energy emitted from earth is IR. And yes CO2 loves it.

 

You're fine up until here. Remember, this action is possible via the Earth COOLING via radiation. This action has now warmed the CO2 molecule somewhat.

Nope. Once a photon is absorbed by CO2, it is destroyed and converted into thermal energy. That thermal energy is then conducted and convected upward and out into space with the rest. As the air thins, radiation becomes the main way of losing energy.

CO2 cannot heat the Earth's surface. Heat always flows from hot to cold. You can't heat 70degF water with an ice cube.

 

Not all of the energy is lost to space. Some of it heats the cooler air around it.
That's why the earth doesn't lose its heat as fast.
That's why your hot water stays hot longer if you don't put ice cubes in it.

 

So just as I thought no evidence whatever to back up any of your claims that overturn over a century of empirical experimental evidence on the greenhouse effect. You are making the exceptional claim. It is up to you to prove the greenhouse effect which is supported by so much empirical experimental evidence is invalid but of course you can provide nothing but the same meaningless one-liners. Nothing! Nada!

Nothing to explain how the greehouse effect violates thermodynamics or even Boltzmann - Stefen or why it is impossible to measure CO2 in the atmosphere. Nothing!

You have not provided any mathematics to prove anything let alone why we can't measure the Earths average global temperature.

There is no other peer-reviewed science that agrees with you or you would have posted it. I don't know how to have a discussion with someone who is living in a non-factual world and who just makes things up without any effort to show evidence or experimental support.......

.......so carry on, I guess.

 

Well, yeah. You can tell he is trying to use big "sciency" words and bluster to throw off the average reader and try to convince the someone that he has some body of knowledge on the subject. Truthfully, I've taken a few physics courses back in university but I have forgotten so much over the years that I am always having to go back and relearn materials on the odd occasion that a denier throws something at me I haven't seen before.

But in truth, how do you have a discussion with someone who makes a statement like "the presence of an atmosphere doesn't warm a planet" or thinks a blanket doesn't trap heat.

I was trying to get him to take a single derivation of an equation arising from Stepen-Boltzmann and show how it did not come to zero if there was no greenhouse effect but of course he just blew it off as "just numbers" or whatever and wouldn't address the question.

This is exactly like the Electric Universe guy I was describing earlier. He hung around for years injecting the same nonsense into any scientific discussion and driving the mods crazy. Eventually you realize that there is no point in trying to have a discussion because they will simply not in any way acknowledge anything that does not support their fantasy no matter how robust the scientific evidence or how much written research you show them.

I think that's where I am at on this thread.

Lol, vote Bernie!!!!! You know you want to...

 

We appear to be at a crossroads then, as you wish to discuss scientists, while I wish to discuss science.

 

I am not going to discuss science with a guy who thinks he alone knows the "real" science.

Find me a single scientist that agrees with you.

 

Relative to what, exactly? Why relative to that?
How many thermometers would be a "significant number"? Why is that number enough?

Not BS. Earth's surface is quite literally losing energy when it radiates IR. It also loses energy via conduction. That loss of energy cools it down.

Yes it is. A closed system is simply any system with a defined boundary. That could be Earth and it's atmosphere. That could be a Sun-Earth-Space system. That could even be the whole universe. To close a system simply means to put a boundary around it.​

Correct.

Heat cannot be slowed or trapped. Violation of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

CO2 is not a magick blanket. I have already explained why.

 

...and then that air heats cooler air, and that air heats cooler air, and that air heats cooler air, which eventually "heats" space. This action is continuous. You cannot slow or trap heat.

You cannot slow or trap heat. See the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

Introducing an ice cube into a glass of hot water increases the temperature difference between the hot water and its surroundings, thus increasing heat, thus the water doesn't stay warm as long.

Without the ice cube, there is a smaller temperature difference, thus less heat, thus the water stays warmer longer.

 

Relative to the last measurement.

At least four.

But it may not be cooling. The sun could still be heating it.

Including space would be enough for this discussion.​

Sure it can. The transfer from molecule to molecule takes time.
Your hot water didn't get instantly cold when you dropped the ice cube in it.

You have not explained much of anything. You have tried to make statements. Many of which are incorrect.

 

But not all heat is lost every day.

doesn't your next statement contradict this?
The word eventually does the same.

Yep. Just like the earth with more CO2.

 

With regard to the second law of thermodynamics, he is totally unaware of what the spectrum of electromagnetic energy is, or how it works. A person learning to troubleshoot and repair electronics systems like radios and radar, will have to know something about the spectrum beyond visible light and know stuff about propagation, and certainly heat sinks… A person studying optics will have to learn a lot more about light than the average person worried about a sunburn does. A person building their own house may pay more attention to where the sun is than someone who only rents or lives with mommy.

He seems to be saying in his interpretation of the second law that energy can’t reflect from planet to cold atmosphere then back, to impart more heat, because somehow it must all be lost in entropy going from hotter to colder.

It seems as if he is saying that the reflecting of energy cools the reflector, like he said, “Earth's surface is quite literally losing energy when it radiates IR,” as if it is in constant energy loss from hotter planet to colder clouds (atmosphere) and not gaining anything from the reflections of energy back and forth.

Certainly, with his interpretation of thermodynamics, nothing is stored and nothing can be gained for an increase beyond the goldilocks zone.

Nothing perfectly reflects energy in the earth's climate system, anything that reflects in this instance absorbs some energy but not necessarily all of it. Then like with any greenhouse and passive solar house (like say rock wall or even tubes of water), we have absorption of energy, at some point you have to open the fracking window and if Julianne Moore may die. If too much energy is lost we freeze to death at night, but for some reason he thinks we are a goldilocks planet held in god like “planetary equilibrium,” hence Stefan’s law prevents greenhouse effect.

My father used to say all the time, “If the student hasn’t learned, the instructor hasn’t taught,” so he literally cried when he had to flunk a student once. I once made more than 100 percent on a final once, professor was actually funny about it, the super hot blonde that would make Morgan Fairchild and Heather Locklear jealous needed a curve. Remember “administrative passing?” There was that thing where the loaded question (worth say 25%) on a math test was deemed racially discriminatory, and the calculus teacher basically said right after the administrator left the class having informed him of their decision, “If they can’t do the math, I don’t want them building my bridges.” {everyone laughed}

Things have to make sense otherwise it is rote learning, and rote is simply not the way to learn physics; the person who learned physics by rote, because that was the only way they could get it, would just keep throwing out the same talking points regardless of any further input. It is like the AI’s program is fixed by the Three Laws so as to limit rational thought and deal with the corruption of the goldilocks zone. Even if you forgot something, the way you learned it the first time helps you to identify fraud.

All you can do is try to teach.