What role do you think humans play in...
First Prev
of 621
Next Last

Since: Sep 17

Location hidden

#13039 May 13, 2018
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>

It is Sunday morning again bozo! We are all curious as to which Global Warming Church service that you, Big AL and other 'overheaters " be attending today!!!
That's easy...The Church of the TOILET....which sadly contributes to Global Warming...all that methane GAS....+++

Since: Sep 17

Location hidden

#13040 May 13, 2018
Global warming...Go to the BIG Island and see first hand what will cause GLOBAL WARMING...

While your at it jump into a LAVA VENT...one less retard to deal with...
hojo

Minneapolis, MN

#13041 May 19, 2018
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>

Science means nothing to a doofus. When you get an education come back.
On the contrary, "neither (the truth) of science NOR education" means anything to you bozo! That is obvious.......... when it relates to the (myth) of the (so-called) Global Warming Greenhouse effect!

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.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#13043 Jun 2, 2018
hojo wrote:
<quoted text>

On the contrary, "neither (the truth) of science NOR education" means anything to you bozo! That is obvious.......... when it relates to the (myth) of the (so-called) Global Warming Greenhouse effect!

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.
You are right, a greenhouse prevents convection of the hot air inside much like the Earth's atmosphere does not convect to space. A greenhouse however loses some heat due to conduction through the glass but the atmosphere does not conduct to space. However the glass slows the radiation of IR much like the CO2 does in the atmosphere. Not a perfect comparison but close enough for horseshoes.

Since: Aug 15

Seattle, WA

#13044 Jun 3, 2018
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
You are right, a greenhouse prevents convection of the hot air inside much like the Earth's atmosphere does not convect to space.
Actually, it kind of does.

Convection, distributes thermal energy through the atmosphere. All of the atmosphere, like the surface itself, radiates into space.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
A greenhouse however loses some heat due to conduction through the glass
You finally admitting this, or are you arguing one side of an old paradox again?
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
but the atmosphere does not conduct to space.
It effectively does, since it distributes thermal energy throughout itself via convection, conduction, and radiance.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
However the glass slows the radiation of IR much like the CO2 does in the atmosphere.
You can't slow radiance, Bozo. CO2 absorption of IR does not warm the Earth. It's just another way to cool the surface by distributing some thermal energy to the atmosphere. Both the atmosphere and the surface radiate to space.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Not a perfect comparison but close enough for horseshoes.
Ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, Bozo.

You can't reduce radiance and increase the temperature at the same time.

You can't decrease entropy in any system. You can't heat the warmer surface using a colder gas.

The Earth doesn't have a 'lid'. Greenhouses do. The Earth doesn't have walls to stop air from redistributing thermal energy. Greenhouses do. Air is more than a vertical column.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#13045 Jun 3, 2018
Into The Night wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, it kind of does.

Convection, distributes thermal energy through the atmosphere. All of the atmosphere, like the surface itself, radiates into space.
<quoted text>
You finally admitting this, or are you arguing one side of an old paradox again?
<quoted text>
It effectively does, since it distributes thermal energy throughout itself via convection, conduction, and radiance.
<quoted text>
You can't slow radiance, Bozo. CO2 absorption of IR does not warm the Earth. It's just another way to cool the surface by distributing some thermal energy to the atmosphere. Both the atmosphere and the surface radiate to space.
<quoted text>
Ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, Bozo.

You can't reduce radiance and increase the temperature at the same time.

You can't decrease entropy in any system. You can't heat the warmer surface using a colder gas.

The Earth doesn't have a 'lid'. Greenhouses do. The Earth doesn't have walls to stop air from redistributing thermal energy. Greenhouses do. Air is more than a vertical column.
Again you show how little you understand science. Conduction transfers heat via direct molecular collision.(vibrating molecules bump into other molecules transferring some of their kinetic energy directly) Since there are very very few molecules in space for the atmospheric molecules to collide with the conduction of heat from the Earth to space is infinitesimal. Heat is transferred to space through radiation. And yes the atmosphere has a boundary.

When you say that *all* of the atmosphere transfers thermal energy to space you now present a condition where S.B. fails. Stefan-Boltzmann law: the total radiant heat energy emitted from a *surface* is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Formulated in 1879 by Austrian physicist Josef Stefan as a result of his experimental studies, the same law was derived in 1884 by Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann from thermodynamic considerations.

You see, the atmosphere is not a surface.

Since: Aug 15

Seattle, WA

#13046 Jun 4, 2018
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
...deleted unrelated detail...
When you say that *all* of the atmosphere transfers thermal energy to space you now present a condition where S.B. fails. Stefan-Boltzmann law: the total radiant heat energy emitted from a *surface* is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. Formulated in 1879 by Austrian physicist Josef Stefan as a result of his experimental studies, the same law was derived in 1884 by Austrian physicist Ludwig Boltzmann from thermodynamic considerations.

You see, the atmosphere is not a surface.
The atmosphere has a surface. It is mass, Bozo.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#13047 Jun 4, 2018
Into The Night wrote:
<quoted text>

The atmosphere has a surface. It is mass, Bozo.
Make up your mind you old fraud. You say that the atmosphere has no boundary like a greenhouse now you say it has a surface. Also much of the radiation is not from the surface of the atmosphere but from deep within. It all is just your attempt to apply the S.B. improperly. So, it has mass. What is your point?

Since: Aug 15

Seattle, WA

#13048 Jun 4, 2018
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Make up your mind you old fraud. You say that the atmosphere has no boundary like a greenhouse now you say it has a surface.
It has definite upper boundary. It does have a surface. It is mass.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Also much of the radiation is not from the surface of the atmosphere but from deep within.
Welcome to your new paradox, Bozo. The 'surface' of the atmosphere is all throughout the atmosphere, including deep within.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
It all is just your attempt to apply the S.B. improperly.
Nope. It is YOUR attempt to ignore it completely.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
So, it has mass. What is your point?
Mass has a surface to radiate and absorb energy from, even if the mass is a gas.

Since: Aug 15

Seattle, WA

#13049 Jun 4, 2018
Correction: It has NO definite upper boundary.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#13050 Jun 4, 2018
Into The Night wrote:
Correction: It has NO definite upper boundary.
Make up your mind you old fraud! If it has a surface it must have a boundary, doofus.

Since: Aug 15

Seattle, WA

#13051 Jun 4, 2018
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
<quoted text>

Make up your mind you old fraud! If it has a surface it must have a boundary, doofus.
Nope. No boundary needed, Bozo.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#13052 Jun 4, 2018
Into The Night wrote:
<quoted text>

Nope. No boundary needed, Bozo.
Where is the surface of the atmosphere? If it has no surface or boundary then S.B. does not hold. If your definition is the point where no more atmospheric molecules exist then the ocean has no surface because there are water molecules above the ocean.

Since: Aug 15

Seattle, WA

#13053 Jun 4, 2018
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
Where is the surface of the atmosphere?
Throughout the atmosphere.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
If it has no surface or boundary then S.B. does not hold.
It has a surface area. S.B.does hold. It holds for all bodies and all mass.
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
If your definition is the point where no more atmospheric molecules exist
If no molecules exist, there is no atmosphere, is there?
Patriot AKA Bozo wrote:
then the ocean has no surface because there are water molecules above the ocean.
Not talking about the ocean. I am talking about the air.
Patriot AKA Bozo

Wichita, KS

#13054 Jun 4, 2018
Into The Night wrote:
<quoted text>
Throughout the atmosphere.
<quoted text>
It has a surface area. S.B.does hold. It holds for all bodies and all mass.
<quoted text>
If no molecules exist, there is no atmosphere, is there?
<quoted text>
Not talking about the ocean. I am talking about the air.
Senseless gobbledygoup by a doofus..

Since: Sep 17

Location hidden

#13055 Jun 8, 2018
ALL you retards have some delusion of this and that of Global Warming...SO WHAT...

What are YOU and other humans DOING NOW to eliminate the causes of unhealthy anything on a global scale..be it trash...energy waste with obsolete fuels...plastics +++

Where is the discussion of desalination...solar...wind... +++ countless other ways to innovate a GREEN and SAFE engineered existence ? COMPLAIN...and ARGUE with meaningless options for resolution..GO to HELL MORONS...you deserve this polluted nightmare that is festering
..........ALL TALK ..NO ACTION....
hojo

Rock Island, IL

#13056 Jun 10, 2018
Wisdom of Ages wrote:
ALL you retards have some delusion of this and that of Global Warming...SO WHAT...

What are YOU and other humans DOING NOW to eliminate the causes of unhealthy anything on a global scale..be it trash...energy waste with obsolete fuels...plastics +++

Where is the discussion of desalination...solar...wind... +++ countless other ways to innovate a GREEN and SAFE engineered existence ? COMPLAIN...and ARGUE with meaningless options for resolution..GO to HELL MORONS...you deserve this polluted nightmare that is festering
..........ALL TALK ..NO ACTION....
No pollution nightmare, means NO ACTION ,necessary!!!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 621
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Global Warming Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Global warming 'undeniable,' scientists say (Jul '10) 8 min moe 41,278
Global Warming Standup Comedy (Apr '07) 7 hr hojo 5,667
News Extreme weather like Hurricane Florence shows w... 14 hr Solarman 1
News Once slow-moving threat, global warming speeds ... (Dec '08) 16 hr Hillareyfartssnow 64,970
Global Cooling (Apr '15) Wed hojov 2,645
News White House will override Obama's climate plan (Oct '17) Mon hojo 5,888
News Obama paints doomsday scene of global warming i... (Sep '15) Mon Ala Tucky Puck 16