Climate Change: You can deny, but you can't hide.

Name one. I’ve named a plethora. NASA. Johns Hopkins...Even some dictators aren't stupid enough not to believe in AGW. He does have a reputation.

 

LOL.. dang you're on a roll today. Help me understand how Johns Hopkins would be a climate authority in any way? NASA struggles to get anything useful done these days, well, except to suck loads of funds out of the general till that is. Isn't that why we have to rely on private industry to do the actual work? Now, don't get too distracted and admit that your fascination with NASA is a direct result of your comicon predilections....

 

The science that dagosa is denying.

Even if true, this means little on an internet forum.

Physics is but one part of science.

I'm not seeing that knowledge being put on display in this forum. I'm also not seeing any knowledge of logic being put on display, as evidenced below...

You're committing (at least) three logical fallacies with just these few words of yours:

False Authority Fallacy. A "credible" physicist is not science.
randU Fallacy. Random numbers ("no physicists in the whole world") are not data.
Appeal to Purity Fallacy. ("but, but he's not a REAL physicist...")

We do not use fossils for fuel. They don't burn very well. Instead, we use carbon based fuels such as coal, oil, and natural gas. Oil and natural gas are even renewable!!

Define "global warming" without making use of a circular definition.

Regarding the theory that the Earth is warming via IR emitted from its surface (due to "greenhouse gases"), it denies the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law. It also denies statistical mathematics, as it falsely claims that the temperature and emissivity of Earth are known.

 

Climate science is a branch of physics. All of the climate scientists that are telling us the the Earth is warming due to the burning of fossil fuels, are physicists.

Global warming is occuring in the atmosphere at the surface of the Earth. If the Earth had no atmosphere, the energy from the sun would be reflected back into space. This can be seen on the Moon and on Mars. When the surface faces the Sun, it gets very hot, yet when the surface turns away from the sun it gets very cold. It is the atmosphere that captures the heat and keeps us warm at night. The atmosphere's involvement can be seen in that the hottest part of the day is not when the sun is shining directly overhead, as it is at noon, but rather at four or five, as the heat from the Sun has already begun to fade. Venus's atmosphere is saturated with greenhouse gases. It is hot all the time, with the daily cycles of hearing and cooling barely making a difference.

The mechanism at play is certain atmospheric particles tend to absorb infrared radiation. CO2 is one such particle, as is H2O. When it is said that a particle absorbs radiation it means that the particle gains in kinetic energy. It vibrates, it spins, it flys about. As it does this it occasionally bangs into another particle, giving that particle more kinetic energy, only to absorb more radiation and continue the cycle.

Microwave ovens heat by causing water molecules to absorb microwave radiation. It is the increased motion of water molecules that heats.

Heat is the motion of particles. The more particles move, the more energy, the more energy, the more heat. The more particles, the more heat. Greenhouse gases absorbing infrared radiation increases motion, thus heat. Thus, the more greenhouse gasses, the warmer the Earth.

By the way, global warming is but one ill effect of air pollution.

 

Really ? Do some research. Why even ask if you don’t know. This is your one free one.

https://advanced.jhu.edu/academics/graduate-degree-programs/energy-policy-and-climate/

So all of a sudden, they are experts in medicine but not climate change ? That’s laughable. Evolution, the cornerstone of all biology is central to understanding AGW and it’s affects in our species. Pandemic frequency is like wise related to AGW.

That you would even ask such a question indicates science is really not in your radar as much as conservative tripe.

I see no reference, just blather.

 

There is no such thing as "climate science". Climate is merely a subjective word that is used to describe the prevailing weather conditions of a particular location. Climate is not quantifiable.

No such thing exists. See above. Also, a False Authority Fallacy, as "climate scientists" are not science itself.

Warming from when to when? Why is that time period significant as opposed to any other time period? How do they know that the Earth is "warming" even though it is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth, seeing as we do not have anywhere near enough thermometers to do so?

We don't burn fossils for fuel. We burn carbon based fuels.

Not very good ones, obviously...

Buzzword Fallacy. Define "global warming". Circular definitions are not acceptable.

This theory that the Earth is warming via IR emitted from Earth's surface is in direct contrast to science and mathematics.

But the Earth DOES have an atmosphere, so to ponder what would happen if it didn't have one is irrelevant. Also, if it didn't, we wouldn't be typing responses back and forth to each other, so again, irrelevant.

The Moon and Mars both have atmospheres, albeit not appreciable.

Yup. It will be this way for any planet/moon with a very thin atmosphere.

Heat cannot be captured/trapped/slowed. It is actually our bodies that keep us warm at night, since they are their own source of thermal energy.

The "hottest part of the day" could happen anytime. It could even happen at midnight.

... and here comes what I dub the Venus Argument...

There is no such thing as a "greenhouse gas". The whole theory of "greenhouse gases" is a denial of science, specifically the laws of thermodynamics. It is not possible for a colder gas to heat a warmer surface (such as the Earth's surface).

Venus is very efficient at absorbing sunlight. It has a very thick atmosphere, thus to measure the temperature of Venus (which we don't have enough thermometers to do) would be to measure it much DEEPER into the planet than it would be if you were to do the same thing on Mercury. That thick and high pressured atmosphere also conveys thermal energy to the nighttime side very well (why Venus stays about the same temp whether day or night). Also, the Ideal Gas Law states that higher pressure gas is hotter gas.

I'll leave this part be.

Nope. That is closer to the definition of temperature than of heat. Temperature is the average amount of thermal energy per mass. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.

... but the energy coming from the sun is still the same, so where is this additional energy coming from that is "warming the Earth"? You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st Law of Thermodynamics.

Also, this theory of "the more "greenhouse gases" the warmer the Earth" results in a paradox. The ISS has NO atmosphere at all, yet it can reach temperatures as high as 250degF on the sunny side of it. Earth, which HAS an atmosphere, has never reached a temperature anywhere near that high. If it is true that the presence of an atmosphere full of "greenhouse gases" increases temperature, then why is the daytime temperature of the Earth so much COLDER than that of the ISS?

Even more Buzzword Fallacies...

Define "global warming". Define "pollution".

 

Only correct when used as a word by itself. Together with “change”, it is not that simple.

 

It isn't so much that the world is warming as it is freezing less.

Plants gain most of their mass from the atmosphere. As such, during the Summer, most carbon is removed from the atmosphere. Yet in Autumn, as leaves fall and annuals die off, the carbon is released back into the atmosphere. It is in the winter that greenhouse gases are absorbing the energy that would normally radiate into space. It is that absorbed energy that is preventing glaciers and ice caps from freezing as much as they used to, thus less new ice is being added each Winter, to replace the ice that melts in the Summer. It is January, in the northern hemisphere that is warming the most, or more precisely, freezing less.

Pumping more CO2 into the atmosphere causes plants to grow bigger in the Spring and Summer, and causes less freezing in the Winter.

 

Appeal to Complexity Fallacy.

The word 'climate' does not change in definition simply because the word 'change' is added after it.

Describe for us all precisely how a climate, as I have defined it in my prior response, "changes"... What exactly is "more climate" as opposed to "less climate" or "equal climate"? Climate is NOT quantifiable, dude...

 

I will note that none of my questions nor arguments were addressed from my last response.

You need to quantify your terminology in order to give it any meaning. You can't just say that Earth is "warming" or "freezing less". You need to specify a specific time period and then justify the usage of that specific time period as opposed to any other time period.

It still radiates into space all the same. Here, you are now denying the Stefan Boltzmann Law, as you are now attempting to decrease radiation (by "trapping" heat) WHILE increasing temperature.

As I said above, you need to quantify your terminology. You need to specify what time period "as much as they used to", "warming", and "freezing less" are referring to, and then justify why that specific time period as opposed to any other.

The ice caps are just fine. There is no "climate crisis".

There is no "climate crisis".