What? That's ridiculous. It's not on me to prove it isn't. You can't prove a negative.Prove it isn't pseudoscience. You can't, because there's no proof out there.
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
What? That's ridiculous. It's not on me to prove it isn't. You can't prove a negative.Prove it isn't pseudoscience. You can't, because there's no proof out there.
Jesus ****ing christ dude, that doesn't prove SHIT. Koch brothers are involved in a lot of things. That in no way at all proves they funded disinformation.
Five key ways the Koch brothers pushed their rightwing agenda
Charles and David Koch spent millions to promote conservative candidates and causes, provoking anger – and devotionwww.google.com
You're seriously disputing that this guy was part of the Cato Institute, of which the Kochs we're a major benefactor? Sorry, I'm right and you're not.
No, yours is laughably inaccurate. According to the greenhouse effect theory, the Sun can only heat the surface of the Earth to -18 C. The only way it gets to 30 C is from the grenhouse effect, thus heat gets back radiated to the Earth and warms it. That's breaking the laws of thermodynamics.Your understanding of the greenhouse effect is laughably inaccurate. Nobody claims energy is magically created. Heat from the sun is trapped under a layer of CO2 and can't reflect back into space.
Just look at the history of temperature graphs. They've changed past temps down and more recent temps up. The 1974 NCAR graph vs a more recent one is blatant proof. They downplayed the 1930's heat and almost completely erased the 1970's cold.Where's your proof of this? If that were the case, medications wouldn't work. You VERY CLEARLY don't have a technical degree of any kind.
But how do you explain the reduced sickness and death for those who are vaccinated? No doubt this has been politicized but vaccines have been a successYou sure about that? I just saw an undercover video of a Pfizer scientist that said they did at test of the vaccine on someone early on and the person didn't produce any antibodies. Later his boss just said it didn't work and he didn't care.
Say you don't understand radiation without saying you don't understand radiation.According to this diagram the Sun only has 161 w/m^2 hitting the surface (clearly seen on the left). On the right you can see where it says "back radiation" that is getting absorbed by the surface at 333 w/m^2. That's against the laws of thermodynamics. You cannot get a cooler object to heat a warmer one. The air is always cooler than the surface.
Well, I'm not saying the vaccines don't work at all. However, a ton of people already had Covid. Studies are showing that if you had Covid then your immunity is ~7x better than the vaccine.But how do you explain the reduced sickness and death for those who are vaccinated? No doubt this has been politicized but vaccines have been a success
Gotcha, so you don't understand what I'm saying so you deflect. Nice.Say you don't understand radiation without saying you don't understand radiation.
You are DANGEROUSLY ignorant. Your climate change denial is absolutely insane. Your "I saw a video of a Pfizer scientist ..." post is obviously legitimate. No possible way it's complete bullshit.Well, I'm not saying the vaccines don't work at all. However, a ton of people already had Covid. Studies are showing that if you had Covid then your immunity is ~7x better than the vaccine.
You are DANGEROUSLY dramatic, even on a Saturday morning! Another mentally ill white liberal. Look at the data.You are DANGEROUSLY ignorant. Your climate change denial is absolutely insane. Your "I saw a video of a Pfizer scientist ..." post is obviously legitimate. No possible way it's complete bullshit.
You VERY CLEARLY are a mentally ill white liberal.Where's your proof of this? If that were the case, medications wouldn't work. You VERY CLEARLY don't have a technical degree of any kind.
How about we stick to the topic. Look at that image I gave you and tell me where I'm wrong. The Sun only inputs 161 w/m^2 yet the atmosphere is emitting back 333 w/m^2. How is this possible? In order to understand this you need to start with a cold Earth with no heat. 161 w/m^2 comes in. How do we get to 333 w/m^2 being emitted back to the surface if they aren't breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Heat only travels from hot to cold. How is a cold object warming a warmer one?You are DANGEROUSLY ignorant. Your climate change denial is absolutely insane. Your "I saw a video of a Pfizer scientist ..." post is obviously legitimate. No possible way it's complete bullshit.
How about we stick to the topic. Look at that image I gave you and tell me where I'm wrong. The Sun only inputs 161 w/m^2 yet the atmosphere is emitting back 333 w/m^2. How is this possible? In order to understand this you need to start with a cold Earth with no heat. 161 w/m^2 comes in. How do we get to 333 w/m^2 being emitted back to the surface if they aren't breaking the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Heat only travels from hot to cold. How is a cold object warming a warmer one?
Specifically pointing which part of your position is wrong is anything but a deflection. You’re conflating the direction of net heat transfer (hot to cold) with one of the mechanisms of heat transfer (radiation). You want me to explain how thermal radiation works or do you want to look it up?Gotcha, so you don't understand what I'm saying so you deflect. Nice.
I don't know what that means.You sure about that? I just saw an undercover video of a Pfizer scientist that said they did at test of the vaccine on someone early on and the person didn't produce any antibodies. Later his boss just said it didn't work and he didn't care.
No doubt natural immunity should be considered but do you want to take the chance on getting it naturally? IMO if we hadn't had the vaccine we would be in a worse situationWell, I'm not saying the vaccines don't work at all. However, a ton of people already had Covid. Studies are showing that if you had Covid then your immunity is ~7x better than the vaccine
Let me simplify it for you.It's hard to argue with a post so full of inaccuracies and anecdotes. Do you have proof that anthropogenic climate change isn't real, or just this inane drivel? Do you support the unfettered polluting of the environment in the name of "the 'conomy"?
The atmosphere absorbs 78 by the Sun directly (supposedly) but the atmosphere releases 169. So it's releasing more than twice than what is absorbed directly. So once again, we are violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics to make our climate system work.The atmosphere is a blanket that sits on top of Earth. Most of the heat content from the atmosphere originates from Earth's surface, with the exception the 78w/m^2 from the sun that gets absorbed by the atmosphere directly. The sun isn't the only source of heat...Earth also releases heat, and the amount of absorption in the atmosphere is dependent on the makeup of greenhouse gasses. If there was no atmosphere, there'd be no back radiation.
No, I'm not conflating anything. Doesn't matter what mechanism heat is transferred, it will only transfer from hot to cold. Radiation from an object of equal temperature/energy will not warm the other object more.Specifically pointing which part of your position is wrong is anything but a deflection. You’re conflating the direction of net heat transfer (hot to cold) with one of the mechanisms of heat transfer (radiation). You want me to explain how thermal radiation works or do you want to look it up?
What? WTF is this rant all about? I didn't say anything about Fauci or any of the crazy shit your saying here. I simply said that there is some noise out there that the effectiveness isn't as high as they originally claimed.I don't know what that means.
Don't confuse the points or try to change the topic. I'm saying that the scientists have changed their recommendations many times as the data has been accumulated and analyzed. That's NORMAL. It's 100% true that people like you regularly bring up something Fauci said a year ago or the effectiveness of the vaccine etc.
Hell, the scientists still aren't sure. We're now getting a vaccine for kids. But sure, let's pull out shit they said 6 months ago and point out how they were wrong when we know more now. Makes no sense. Just a political talking point.
I did get it naturally AND I took the vaccine.No doubt natural immunity should be considered but do you want to take the chance on getting it naturally? IMO if we hadn't had the vaccine we would be in a worse situation
Per the graphic you linked, surface radiation of the Earth is 356. That is heat being released from Earth into the atmosphere.The atmosphere absorbs 78 by the Sun directly (supposedly) but the atmosphere releases 169. So it's releasing more than twice than what is absorbed directly. So once again, we are violating the 2nd law of thermodynamics to make our climate system work.
The Earth isn't the source of heat. It's releasing heat from the Sun. The Sun is the only source...
Don't play the stupid routine. Fauci was an EXAMPLE.What? WTF is this rant all about? I didn't say anything about Fauci or any of the crazy shit your saying here. I simply said that there is some noise out there that the effectiveness isn't as high as they originally claimed.
This is now what the model says happens. Even the graphic you provided shows MORE radiation from the surface to the atmosphere than from the atmosphere to the surface. In that situation, the surface is warming the atmosphere, not the other way around. You don't understand the model, nor how thermal radiation works.No, I'm not conflating anything. Doesn't matter what mechanism heat is transferred, it will only transfer from hot to cold. Radiation from an object of equal temperature/energy will not warm the other object more.
Yes, and where does that radiation come from? The Sun is the only source of input and it's only giving 161 so how is the Earth emitting 356?Per the graphic you linked, surface radiation of the Earth is 356. That is heat being released from Earth into the atmosphere.
The temperature of Earth's core is about the same as the surface of the sun.
Yes exactly, but where is that radiation from the surface coming from? The Sun is the source of input. How is the radiation from the Earth more than twice the input from the Sun?This is now what the model says happens. Even the graphic you provided shows MORE radiation from the surface to the atmosphere than from the atmosphere to the surface. In that situation, the surface is warming the atmosphere, not the other way around. You don't understand the model, nor how thermal radiation works.
I'm not doing this with you. You're putting words in my mouth that I didn't say. Lumping me in with what others may have said...Don't play the stupid routine. Fauci was an EXAMPLE.
Thank you for making my point. The effectiveness may not be as high as they originally claimed. No shit. Because as data comes in, scientists change their recommendations and treatments and predictions. That's what I've been saying. It's you people that keep bringing up what the experts were saying at earlier stages and trying to discredit them for it.....when all they were doing was reacting to the info they had at the time.
You SAY you understand the model, but repeatedly demonstrate that you, in fact, do not.Yes exactly, but where is that radiation from the surface coming from? The Sun is the source of input. How is the radiation from the Earth more than twice the input from the Sun?
I understand the model. I'm trying to get you to open your eyes a bit.
The Earth isn't warmer than the moon... at least not the area of the moon that is in the Sun. The area of the moon that is in the Sun is 260 F.You SAY you understand the model, but repeatedly demonstrate that you, in fact, do not.
I'll ask a simple question that you should be able to answer in one sentence: why is the Earth warmer than the moon?
One thing at a time, because that’s the only way we’re going to get anywhere. Why would you give the the temperature of HALF the moon to argue that it’s not colder than the Earth? At lunar night, the temperature is -280F. Why would you leave that out?The Earth isn't warmer than the moon
The reason why I only mentioned that the moon was 260 F in the Sun is because I wanted to show how powerful the Sun is at our distance from it. This temperature shows that our atmosphere actually cools the Earth more than anything. Think about that. The Sun unfiltered would make the surface of the Earth 260 F but because of our atmosphere only enough Sun gets through to heat us to about 60 F. That''s HUGE and actually quite the opposite of a "greenhouse" effect.One thing at a time, because that’s the only way we’re going to get anywhere. Why would you give the the temperature of HALF the moon to argue that it’s not colder than the Earth? At lunar night, the temperature is -280F. Why would you leave that out?
The moon’s average surface temperature is -23C, Earth’s is 15C. Explain why they are different if both are black bodies that are an equal distance from the sun, thus receiving the same amount of solar energy per square meter.
So our atmosphere only reflects or keeps the heat out when it comes from the sun.......but not from the earth? Only goes one way? I don't know.......but that's what you're saying.The reason why I only mentioned that the moon was 260 F in the Sun is because I wanted to show how powerful the Sun is at our distance from it. This temperature shows that our atmosphere actually cools the Earth more than anything. Think about that. The Sun unfiltered would make the surface of the Earth 260 F but because of our atmosphere only enough Sun gets through to heat us to ~60 F. That''s HUGE and actually quite the opposite of a "greenhouse" effect.
I don't understand what you mean by not keeping out heat from the Earth. Where in my quoted statement did I say that? Or am I not understanding what you're trying to say?So our atmosphere only reflects or keeps the heat out when it comes from the sun.......but not from the earth? Only goes one way? I don't know.......but that's what you're saying.
You didn't answer the question, and I'm not going to move on until you do. So, either answer it or we're done. Explain why the average surface temperature of the Earth is hotter than the average surface temperature of the moon if both receive the same amount of solar energy relative to their size.The reason why I only mentioned that the moon was 260 F in the Sun is because I wanted to show how powerful the Sun is at our distance from it. This temperature shows that our atmosphere actually cools the Earth more than anything. Think about that. The Sun unfiltered would make the surface of the Earth 260 F but because of our atmosphere only enough Sun gets through to heat us to about 60 F. That''s HUGE and actually quite the opposite of a "greenhouse" effect.
Since nobody has answered this question directly, I feel it is my duty to do so:No, yours is laughably inaccurate. According to the greenhouse effect theory, the Sun can only heat the surface of the Earth to -18 C. The only way it gets to 30 C is from the grenhouse effect, thus heat gets back radiated to the Earth and warms it. That's breaking the laws of thermodynamics.
Here, here's proof:
Climate System – Energy Balance | Mathematics of Planet Earth
mpe.dimacs.rutgers.edu
According to this diagram the Sun only has 161 w/m^2 hitting the surface (clearly seen on the left). On the right you can see where it says "back radiation" that is getting absorbed by the surface at 333 w/m^2. That's against the laws of thermodynamics. You cannot get a cooler object to heat a warmer one. The air is always cooler than the surface.
The average temperature of the moon is lower than that of earth, so how does that show that the atmosphere cools the earth?The reason why I only mentioned that the moon was 260 F in the Sun is because I wanted to show how powerful the Sun is at our distance from it. This temperature shows that our atmosphere actually cools the Earth more than anything. Think about that. The Sun unfiltered would make the surface of the Earth 260 F but because of our atmosphere only enough Sun gets through to heat us to about 60 F. That''s HUGE and actually quite the opposite of a "greenhouse" effect.
We have an atmosphere of a certain density.You didn't answer the question, and I'm not going to move on until you do. So, either answer it or we're done. Explain why the average surface temperature of the Earth is hotter than the average surface temperature of the moon if both receive the same amount of solar energy relative to their size.
You're still assuming that the back radiation is possible. Again, according to the law of thermodynamics, you cannot have heat from a cooler source (the air) heating a warmer object (the surface).Since nobody has answered this question directly, I feel it is my duty to do so:
Energy balance of surface:
Into surface:
Absorbed by surface: 161
Back radiation: 333
Total: 494
Out of Surface:
Thermals: 17
Evaporation: 80
Surface radiation: 396
Total: 493
This is internally consistent.
Energy balance of earth system:
Into earth system:
Incoming solar radiation: 341.3
Out of earth system:
Reflected solar radiation: 101.9
Outgoing long wave radiation: 238.5
Total: 240.4
This is also internally consistent.
Energy balances of this figure are consistent with all the laws of thermodynamics.
I also don't understand why you think back radiation is against the laws of thermodynamics. All objects with a temperature emit radiation, including the earth. How much radiation the earth emits is dependent on the temperature of the earth and has nothing to do with how much it absorbs from the sun. Some of the radiation emitted from the earth is absorbed by molecules in the atmosphere which puts them into an excited state. Those molecules then remit that radiation to go back to their original energy state. That radiation is emitted in a random direction, some of which goes back to the surface and some goes up and is absorbed by molecules higher in the atmosphere which then re-emit them in a random direction. After iterating this process a large number of times, eventually some of the radiation is re-emitted back into space.
You're making the mistake of taking the average. Of course the average will be less. First of all the moon doesn't have an atmosphere. Second, the moon doesn't rotate so the dark side of the moon never sees sunlight, thus it's very cold. You're missing the point that I was making, and that point is that the Sun has MORE than enough energy given to us to account for any amount of warming, especially if the Earth's albedo goes down.The average temperature of the moon is lower than that of earth, so how does that show that the atmosphere cools the earth?
Another example of this is to compare Venus and Mercury. Venus is way hotter than Mercury despite being farther from the sun.
Agreed. The fact that the Earth has an atmosphere makes it warmer than it would be if it didn't have an atmosphere. You have just acknowledged an observed effect of the atmosphere on the surface that has been labeled the "greenhouse effect" by scientists.We have an atmosphere of a certain density.