Discussion Anthropic global warming is bunk science

[nash]

Anthropic global warming is illogical and breaks the laws of physics.
1. The Law of Conservation of Energy; Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Climatefags would like you to believe that heat is appearing out of thin air simply by "bouncing" IR radiation back and forth.
2. Heat always flows from a warmer body to a colder body. Even if the above were possible, it would not be possible for heat to magically transfer from the colder upper atmosphere to the warmer earth.
3. Radiative heat loss is very slow
Even if it were possible to magically create heat out of thin air, and for heat to transfer both ways, radiative heat loss is so slow that any affect this would have in the overall system would be very minimal. This is why space heaters and furnaces need fans, because heat radiation is a very slow method of transferring heat, especially as atmospheric pressure goes up.

 

[nash equilibrium]

1. We can get energy/heat from the radiation (including light) of the sun. Obviously we can absorb more or less of that energy. The energy of the radiation goes away if it turns into energy as heat, so obviously it isn't created out of nothing.
2. This obviously isn't valid if you think about pressure, temperature and equilibria for a few minutes. I tend to think of pressure/temperature just in terms of particle motion to simplify it.
3. If you want to start argue something based on a "slowness", you need to include some napkin math to even start to be convincing. But, this is the only way you could start to convince me because it is obviously possible for a planet to be more or less able to absorb radiation and heat up from it.

No clue if global warming is real, but your arguments are unconvincing to the point I suspect you are baiting for some reason.

 

[nash]

1. We can get energy/heat from the radiation (including light) of the sun. Obviously we can absorb more or less of that energy. The energy of the radiation goes away if it turns into energy as heat, so obviously it isn't created out of nothing.
2. This obviously isn't valid if you think about pressure, temperature and equilibria for a few minutes. I tend to think of pressure/temperature just in terms of particle motion to simplify it.
3. If you want to start argue something based on a "slowness", you need to include some napkin math to even start to be convincing. But, this is the only way you could start to convince me because it is obviously possible for a planet to be more or less able to absorb radiation and heat up from it.

No clue if global warming is real, but your arguments are unconvincing to the point I suspect you are baiting for some reason.

1. The current climate change model is based on "backradiation" warming the earth. What you said is completely irrelevant. Backradiation cannot add more heat than is already in the system.
2. This is textbook thermodynamics. Heat always flows from warm to cold without work. Adding a cold cup of water to a warm bowl of water will not add the temperature of the cold water to the hot water, the hot water will transfer its energy to the newly introduced cold water until it reaches equilibrium.
3. The perspective of modern climate scientists is that heat radiation is what is responsible for most of the heat flow on earth. The video below is an experiment demonstrating that convection, not radiation, is the primary driver of heat flow.

 

[thermos pal]

1. Where are you drawing the boundaries of the system? We are talking about a hypothetical difference between world A and world B where the distinction makes A absorb more light instead of reflecting it like B does. You could consider sunlight as part of both systems, as you could with any radiation allowed to escape from the worlds. At what step do you see world A create energy not found in world B? You would understand the difference is possible if it were black asphalt vs styrofoam or even a mirror, why is it thermodynamically impossible for a system to accomplish a similar feat by trapping light in a layer and absorbing it over a series of steps?
2. Is the cold upper atmosphere unable to interface with the rest of the atmosphere by way of pressure and temperature? Can you explain why it is cold even though the air touches the hot earth?

 

[FrogKing]

Anthropic global warming is illogical and breaks the laws of physics.
1. The Law of Conservation of Energy; Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Climatefags would like you to believe that heat is appearing out of thin air simply by "bouncing" IR radiation back and forth.

the heat is from the sun. Greenhouse gases capture more heat from it

 

[FrogKing]

the heat is from the sun. Greenhouse gases capture more heat from it

Also

1. Heat flows from warmer to colder bodies in net terms, but that doesn't stop radiation from going both ways

2. Space heaters and furnaces need fans because they rely on convection, not radiation. The analogy doesn't apply. Greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit radiation from the Earth

 

[ILoveCoals]

>Anthropic global warming is bunk science
Shit everybody knew about

 

[Stephen]

We need oil to leave the civilian market so it can be used for good things like fighter jet fuel

 

[nash]

the heat is from the sun. Greenhouse gases capture more heat from it

The heat is from the sun, I agree. However in climate change models, they claim that radiation is responsible for causing the heat increase, not the sun. Their claim is that reradiation of heat already provided by the sun will magically add more heat to the system.

Also

1. Heat flows from warmer to colder bodies in net terms, but that doesn't stop radiation from going both ways

2. Space heaters and furnaces need fans because they rely on convection, not radiation. The analogy doesn't apply. Greenhouse gases absorb and re-emit radiation from the Earth

Heat flows from warmer to colder bodies in absolute terms. There isn't a picosecond where a colder body would send heat to a warmer one, unless work is involved (such as phase change). This applies to radiation as well. If you were to put a hot coal and an icecube into a vacuum chamber, the radiative heat from the hot coal would eventually melt the ice cube. The ice cube will not heat the hot coal. Heat flow applies to all forms of heat transfer, radiation does not bypass the laws of physics.

As for the analogy, it definitely does apply. It demonstrates that convection, not radiation, is responsible for the majority of heat flow, in stark contrast with NASA climate models which claim that the climate is primarily driven through radiative heat transfer. Any additional heat that may have magically been generated through "back radiation" would be whisked away through convection and would not slow or replace the amount of radiation coming from the earth. Heat transfer from radiation is too slow to make any difference.

 

[nash]

1. Where are you drawing the boundaries of the system? We are talking about a hypothetical difference between world A and world B where the distinction makes A absorb more light instead of reflecting it like B does. You could consider sunlight as part of both systems, as you could with any radiation allowed to escape from the worlds. At what step do you see world A create energy not found in world B? You would understand the difference is possible if it were black asphalt vs styrofoam or even a mirror, why is it thermodynamically impossible for a system to accomplish a similar feat by trapping light in a layer and absorbing it over a series of steps?
2. Is the cold upper atmosphere unable to interface with the rest of the atmosphere by way of pressure and temperature? Can you explain why it is cold even though the air touches the hot earth?

The additional heat that may be captured would be captured in the upper atmosphere. This does not slow down heat loss from the earth's crust via convection and radiation, nor can it transfer any additional heat down back to the earth. Black asphalt becomes hotter because it absorbs more solar heat, though if you put a black blanket around the earth, it would make the upper atmosphere very hot, and the surface crust very cold. It's a matter of where and how that heat energy is absorbed and transferred. More heat would be transferred to the atmosphere, sure, but the upper atmosphere would have to be warmer than the earth's crust in order to warm the earth. Heat from the earth will always travel from the earth to the outer atmosphere, and eventually space because the earth is warmer, and the upper atmosphere is colder, and space is colder than the upper atmosphere.
What prevents heat from escaping is atmosphere, and the type of gas absorbing that heat. The amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere is a fraction of a fraction of a percent of the total atmospheric gasses, meaning any increases of temperature due to this would be extremely minimal.

 

[niggers smell]

ballsack

 

[Jakomir]

Duh, it's good old fear-mongering.