Help! Climate denying father
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
07-12-2016, 05:53 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(07-12-2016 05:49 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  The greenhouse effect is nonsense:

Mind telling us where you got your PhD Mr Climate Scientist? And what its topic was? 'Cos you sure have a lot to say for a guy who spends his time arguing that Jesus was Horus because the words sound similar.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
07-12-2016, 05:56 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(04-12-2016 06:44 PM)Aractus Wrote:  I still do not know how you think objects that contain no matter contain heat. Have you ever observed the heat of a photon?

Where does the CMB thermal radiation come from? Dark matter? .... not being flippant this time.

There is only one really serious philosophical question, and that is suicide. -Camus
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2016, 07:10 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(07-12-2016 03:49 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Fuck you. Tongue Big Grin

I don't know. How's it done these days? Do people like, film it and then stick it on Youtube?

NOTE: Member, Tomasia uses this site to slander other individuals. He then later proclaims it a joke, but not in public.
I will call him a liar and a dog here and now.
Banjo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
07-12-2016, 10:32 AM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Maybe it will help those of you who are having trouble with the whole greenhouse analogy to think of the top of the atmosphere as the "glass" trapping the hot air inside the greenhouse. The air gets hot in the greenhouse because of light sending IR energy in, but not back out in as high an amount as goes in... that's why one uses glass instead of wood (non-transparent) to build a greenhouse.

The whole planet is the greenhouse.

The atmosphere no longer allows as much infrared to go out as it did before, causing a net increase in the amount of energy "trapped" in the atmosphere.

Get it now?

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
07-12-2016, 11:23 AM (This post was last modified: 07-12-2016 11:28 AM by Deesse23.)
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(07-12-2016 05:49 AM)Deltabravo Wrote:  Now just to make the distinction for new or unfamiliar readers, this short preamble, then I’ll continue:

Real greenhouses function because there is no atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect that is discussed by climate science for the atmosphere is an entirely different thing than the greenhouse effect of a real physical greenhouse. This is a very convenient hijack of definitions and concepts for creating confusion. A real greenhouse gets warm because it traps hot air. It prevents air which has been heated by the surfaces inside the greenhouse which have themselves been heated by sunshine, from convecting away (hot air rises, the glass roof stops this) and being replaced by cool air from above. That is the physical mechanism of a real greenhouse (because of its solid glass roof) and it has nothing to do with the supposed radiative greenhouse effect in our atmosphere. The underlying physical mechanisms are completely different, and so the term “greenhouse effect” which should correspond to a factual physical greenhouse and the physical trapping of warm air, gets hijacked and contorted and ambiguated with this other atmospheric radiative conception for the atmosphere. It’s a total disaster for clarity, definitions, conceptualization, logic, language, etc.

However the most ironic thing about this, is that the supposed radiative greenhouse effect (which is postulated for the atmosphere) should actually be found and exist in a real physical greenhouse too, because the physics should translate over – but it isn’t!

The only place the supposed radiative greenhouse mechanics exists is within climate alarm – it exists nowhere else in all of industry and all of science and all of physics, etc. It should exist everywhere else because as a basic principle of physics, it has to be universal, and it has to be applicable anywhere else that similar situations exist. Alas, it is nowhere else to be found. It should be seen in a real greenhouse of all places for goodness’ sake! But the radiative greenhouse effect isn’t even found there. Only the real greenhouse effect is found in a real greenhouse.

There literally exists no empirical evidence for the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect version anywhere. Tests that have been performed to empirically demonstrate it have always and consistently failed to find it, among both critics of the atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect and its supporters. Real physical greenhouses exist; the idea of a radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect is a fiction which hijacks the name of the real thing in a real greenhouse.

The radiative atmospheric greenhouse effect was invented to stand-in for what the lapse rate already naturally explains about the atmosphere – that the bottom of the atmosphere has to be warmer than the blackbody average of the whole system (planet Earth) as seen from outer-space. This radiative greenhouse idea was invented because the lapse rate of the atmosphere, which is a fundamental physical characteristic of all atmospheres around all planets, is left out of the energy accounting and mathematical models that climate science and climate alarm uses for modelling the Earth.

The atmospheric greenhouse effect (AGHE) depends solely upon one of two alternative ideas. And yes please note this, that the supposedly scientific theory of the atmospheric greenhouse effect doesn’t even have a consistent explanation. In any case, we either have that 1) the colder atmosphere heats up the surface, or 2) the atmosphere acts like a mirror and sends surface radiation back to the surface to heat itself up above its own temperature.

Option 1) is a plain falsity because of the Laws of Thermodynamics. Cold doesn’t heat up hot, heat doesn’t flow from cold to hot, hot in heating cold doesn’t become hotter still because it heated the cold. QED. This option doesn’t need to be considered any further. To be sure, this used to be the most common argument and used the phraseology of “backradiation” to “justify” the heating. However, thermal backradiation heating is simply thermal heating from cold going to hot. This is the argument that some organizations still use, but people who are involved in this debate with me have abandoned it because it is so plainly absurd and anti-scientific, and they’ve gotten badly trashed for using it.

Option 2) can be used to develop much more complex sounding mechanics, that usually revolves around a phraseology of “trapping” radiation or heat. All you need to do to figure this one out is take the postulate to the perfect limit, where the atmosphere was a perfect mirror and reflected 100% of the thermal electromagnetic radiation from the surface back to the surface. Again, the Laws of Thermodynamics: a temperature can not increase its own temperature; a temperature can not heat itself; a temperature can not transfer heat to the same temperature or itself. What happens to your temperature when you stand in front of a mirror and get your radiant heat reflected back to you? Nothing. Does shining a flashlight into a mirror make the flashlight shine brighter? No. (Children know this).

So, that’s it. All of the arguments for this atmospheric radiative greenhouse effect (which hijacks the name of the real thing of a completely different process in a real physical greenhouse) fall under one of those two options. Many of the posts on this blog are an analysis of the variations on the arguments, but the summary here is basically all you need to debunk the atmospheric greenhouse effect of climate science and climate alarm.

Without this fake atmospheric radiative version of the greenhouse effect, climate alarm has no basis and no validity whatsoever. Carbon dioxide is plant food and nature wants us to bump it back up to healthier levels of concentration in the atmosphere that are better matched to the evolutionary development and geological history of life. What is a healthier level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Four to five times the concentration it is now – from a scant 400 parts per million of the atmosphere, to a healthier and more robust 2000 parts per million of the atmosphere. If you want to help save the planet, then help figure out a way to get carbon out of the ground and back into the atmosphere and into the biosphere where it originally was and belongs. If the carbon in the ground can be used for producing energy for improving the standard of life of man along the way, then it is a mutual, circle-of-life, Gaiaesque benefit for all. from https://climateofsophistry.com/2013/11/1...se-effect/

Your first paragraph clearly showed that you have no clue what you are talking about. A lot of babbling about hot and cold. Not even sciency. the rest is
Copy pasta from 2013.

I dont think that will improve your credibility.

Oh, and you know how much water the arguments from 2nd law of thermodynamics hold when presented by scientific ignorant people, right?

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Deesse23's post
07-12-2016, 01:13 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(07-12-2016 01:48 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I kinda feel sorry for Aliza.

I appreciate the sentiment, but you don't need to feel sorry for me. I've got a very good relationship with my dad. He's really smart and often gets me to think of different sides to political, social and religious arguments. He's also provided me with opportunities that so many other people don't have access to. I love my dad even if he is turning into a right-wing nutter. Heart

I have to catch up on reading this thread because I'll be seeing him this weekend and I plan to trounce his silly climate denial argument. Smartass
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Aliza's post
07-12-2016, 01:41 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(07-12-2016 01:13 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(07-12-2016 01:48 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I kinda feel sorry for Aliza.

I appreciate the sentiment, but you don't need to feel sorry for me. I've got a very good relationship with my dad. He's really smart and often gets me to think of different sides to political, social and religious arguments. He's also provided me with opportunities that so many other people don't have access to. I love my dad even if he is turning into a right-wing nutter. Heart

I have to catch up on reading this thread because I'll be seeing him this weekend and I plan to trounce his silly climate denial argument. Smartass

The rationalwiki climate article was good. I found it after going down a rabbithole off one of the links RS posted.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like morondog's post
07-12-2016, 01:46 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(07-12-2016 01:13 PM)Aliza Wrote:  
(07-12-2016 01:48 AM)Banjo Wrote:  I kinda feel sorry for Aliza.

I appreciate the sentiment, but you don't need to feel sorry for me. I've got a very good relationship with my dad. He's really smart and often gets me to think of different sides to political, social and religious arguments. He's also provided me with opportunities that so many other people don't have access to. I love my dad even if he is turning into a right-wing nutter. Heart

I have to catch up on reading this thread because I'll be seeing him this weekend and I plan to trounce his silly climate denial argument. Smartass

Good luck Thumbsup

Being nice is something stupid people do to hedge their bets
-Rick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheBeardedDude's post
07-12-2016, 02:52 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
Even if the deniers where right. Why deter progress? Because you like your car to make the vroom sound? Because you don't like your energy to come freely to you? (Wind, sun, ocean currents) You don't like the idea that your hairspray is using compressed air?

If I was told the damn was cracking I rather be the guy that buys a boat, then the guy that kicks the damn.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Commonsensei's post
07-12-2016, 04:00 PM
RE: Help! Climate denying father
(07-12-2016 02:52 PM)Commonsensei Wrote:  Because you don't like your energy to come freely to you? (Wind, sun, ocean currents)
A co-worker of mine recently bought a house and started equipping it with kickass tech to be as "clean" and being self sustainable energy wise as possible. Solar panels, a 1t (!) lead battery buffer in the basement, electronic charge control (self made, i helped him, we are electronics engineers for fucks sake Smartass ), a heat exchanger, etc,). He said he even can feed the power grid!
On monday i -jokingly- asked him, how much he *earned* by producing electricity rather than consuming it. He laughed and said that he fed the power grid with 30kwh this weekend, and in summer with fair weather it will be probably in the range of 70kwh. He went so far to run feeding the power grid as an official *business*, with paying taxes for his income and all, because -according to his calulations- it will fucking work. He estimated to earn several hundred € a year by producing net energy rahter than consuming it and paying for it!

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Deesse23's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: