[split] Climate Change - General Discussion
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-04-2017, 08:43 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-04-2017 04:20 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  
(13-04-2017 09:02 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  Thread opened, needed to do some housekeeping.

Thanks Mom. Considering I'm not on speaking terms with one sister because of her condescending conspiracy theories about climate change science, I certainly didn't want to deal with that in this discussion.

Undecided

Has this been a productive strategy of yours, putting your fingers in your ears saying "lalalalalala", when someone critizise the scientific validity of your beliefs?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2017, 08:59 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
The "blanket" is such a big part of the arguments from the greenhouse that I have started to call beleivers "blanket-people". It implies that cold, wet air with minute portions of dry ice, acts as insulation between a hot surface and 3 kelvin space (the ultimate heat sink). Of course a ridicolous claim, but I can see how people accept it if they are uneducated. Like how creationists accept that God created earth in 10000years or something. Here you can learn about thermal insulation, how it works and what it takes to "trap heat":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_insulation

"Heat flow is an inevitable consequence of contact between objects of differing temperature. Thermal insulation provides a region of insulation in which thermal conduction is reduced or thermal radiation is reflected rather than absorbed by the lower-temperature body."

Isn´t it really weird, that blanket-people say that the cold, wet air with dry ice acts as insulation, a "heat-trap", by increased absorption in potent heat-absorbers in surroundings with constant and limited supply of solar heat?

It is not a mystery, the theory of thermal energy and relations between different bodies at different temperatures. If there is a consensus that is the master of consensus, it is the theory of blackbody radiation, heat transfer and thermal physics. It is proven right over and over, confirmed in theory, experiments, observation and application of the theory. It never fails.

Why do you choose to believe a faith where the main mechanisms are the opposite of the strongest scientific theory known?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2017, 09:11 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(09-04-2017 10:40 AM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  "The planet is on the brink of the sixth mass extinction, an epoch that scientists say could see humans wiping out at least 75 percent of the Earth’s species. Much has already been made of humans’ impact on wildlife. Last year, a damning World Wildlife Fund report revealed that people were on track to killing off two-thirds of the world’s vertebrates."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/glob...0a02e0c39?

And you believe this crap even if they don´t have a single shred of evidence to back it up? Do you believe in pots of gold at the end of a rainbow as well?

Are you aware of that the climate models have not produced a single accurate prediction for the climate? They barely manage hindcasting, reproducing a graph of temperature anomalies based on assumptions that a state of record-low levels of co2, compared to what earth has experienced earlier, is a state of balance?

Climate science doomsday cult is based entirely on those computer models, which have failed miserably every time. There shouldn`t have been any polar caps by now, for instance. And polar bears are thriving. New theories point to the fact that global warming should increase land-ice mass on antarctica from increased evaporation of sea water and downfall of snow.

I don´t hesitate to say, the climate-terrorist doomsday cult is the biggest scientific failure in human history. It is entirely based un assumptions made from ignorance of the basic physics of thermal radiation. The detailed and precise violation of the laws of nature that is every single argument in the theory is scary. There are two options, either climate science attract very stupid people, or it is a planned deceit. Which one is worse?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-04-2017, 09:20 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-04-2017 08:16 AM)LifeIsThermal Wrote:  
(14-04-2017 05:44 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Nice try at faking scientific ignorance, but these days so many poes and trolls just dont get that its a very thin line you have to walk, and not overdo it. Remember: as a poe you have to have some credibility left for it to work.

Is the line thinner than the one were you lean on heat flowing from cold air by creation of energy? The heat flow from cold air is a violation of the second law of thermodynamics, and the creation of energy is a violation of the first. The whole argument about how the atmosphere heats the surface, is a violation of the foundation of temperature, where Prevost stated:

The emission of a body logically depends on the internal state solely.

Since the atmospheres existance is an expression of an external state exactly.

Sorry, i still didnt probably get it. Please let me ask again.

Are you claiming to have a better grasp about one of the most fundamental priciples of physics than most renowed scientists?
or
Are you claiming it is a global conspiracy trying to sell a theory which violates said principle (by which a clever guy like you can, of course, not be fooled, like the rest of us)?

Which one is it? Drinking Beverage

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
14-04-2017, 09:30 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-04-2017 07:57 AM)LifeIsThermal Wrote:  Do you know the second law of thermodynamics?

Do you understand how it applies to climate change? Judging from your earlier statement about heat flow between a cold atmosphere and a warm surface I doubt you do.

The Earth's climate is an open system. It receives energy from the sun. As such the energy balance principle of the first law of thermodynamics applies. It says that if energy in is greater than energy out warming will occur. That is exactly what we see happening to our climate. Adding greenhouse gasses like CO2 to our atmosphere reduces the amount of thermal energy our planet radiates back into space. That results in an energy imbalance of energy in greater than energy out which causes our climate to get warmer.

You might be surprised to learn that well known anthropogenic climate change skeptic Roy Spencer agrees with this. If you don't believe that just go read the global warming 101 page on his website.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Popeye's Pappy's post
14-04-2017, 09:37 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-04-2017 08:10 AM)LifeIsThermal Wrote:  Anyway, are you sure that it is really getting hotter?

Yes I'm sure.

[Image: 6eljgXf.jpg]

Quote:And if it is, why would air at -18C be the cause of that

It isn't and no one except you and a couple of other nutters claim it is. Otherwise know as a straw man. Either that or you just don't have a fucking clue.

Quote:when we are standing on a glowing ball heated by a glowing enormous ball?

Yep. We are part of an open system with an increasing energy imbalance that is the result of adding greenhouse gasses to our atmosphere.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Popeye's Pappy's post
14-04-2017, 10:03 AM
RE: Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-04-2017 08:40 AM)LifeIsThermal Wrote:  Humanity gains enormous benefits from cheap energy.

Yes it does, but that doesn't imply there can't be negative impacts too if we obtain that energy in certain ways.

Quote:On top of that things grow better with more co2 at the same time as they use less water.


Plants might, but other things don't. For example increasing the CO2 content of our oceans results in increased acidity that is detrimental to many of the organisms that live there.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Popeye's Pappy's post
14-04-2017, 10:14 AM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-04-2017 08:43 AM)LifeIsThermal Wrote:  Has this been a productive strategy of yours, putting your fingers in your ears saying "lalalalalala", when someone critizise the scientific validity of your beliefs?

Facepalm

Something's thermal indeed. Thermonuclear. Your idiocy.

[Image: Irony-Meter-Explode.jpg]

"E se non passa la tristezza con altri occhi la guarderò."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Vera's post
14-04-2017, 11:06 AM (This post was last modified: 14-04-2017 11:28 AM by SYZ.)
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
G'day mate, and welcome to the forum. Smile

(14-04-2017 08:36 AM)LifeIsThermal Wrote:  ...Is this really an atheist forum? I immediately got a feeling of strong religious beliefs in here.

A couple of (minor) points to consider: If you post half a dozen consecutive, unanswered comments in the space of 10 minutes, it's considered bad "netiquette". And thinly disguised insults or ad hominems don't go down well for a newbie.

Further, if you're going to make leading statements such as "global warming is bullshit and 97% of geophysicists or meteorologists don't know what they're talking about; it's all a conspiracy" then you'd better come up with some pretty convincing counter-arguments that support your claims.

Whatever, reading through your comments in this thread persuades me to think that you have very little—if any—true knowledge of thermodynamics. Could you please let us know what academic qualifications you have in order to talk about global warming; do you think the current warming trend since the beginning of the industrial revolution is anthropogenic in its origins, or simply a coincidental fact of mother nature?

Could you also briefly explain why Arctic sea ice is disappearing at 12% per decade, and why the ice-bound area of Antarctica is also decreasing? And do you accept that recent Himalayan glacier loss contributed to catastrophic floods of the Indus, Ganges and Brahmaputra rivers in 2009?

EDIT: Added image for LifeIsThermal to consider and comment.


[Image: Graph_greenhouse_lg.jpg]

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like SYZ's post
14-04-2017, 12:12 PM
RE: [split] Climate Change - General Discussion
(14-04-2017 07:51 AM)LifeIsThermal Wrote:  
(13-04-2017 08:14 PM)Thoreauvian Wrote:  LifeIsThermal -- Another troll added to ignore list.

So... questions about the scientific validity of your claims about the greenhouse and the creation of energy by increasing amounts of dry ice in already cold air, is trolling?

You mean that I should place my faith in the theory, and don´t question it?

Sorry, I thought you were an atheist,

What the actual fuck are you talking about? Dry ice has absolutely nothing to do with climate change.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: