Electric cars [500x500 - 314KB] | Poal: Say what you want.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.

Click here to see all the comments (128).

[–] • 0 pt

Your air conditiioner, which thermodynamically is a heat pump. If you turn your AC off, it will equalize out.

Jesus Christ man.

LOL. Nobody's talking about using the A/C

You've gotten lost again - I was talking about the rate of thermal energy transfer, because that is what defines an adiabatic system (that is: the rate of transfer into and out of the system is 0), which was what I was trying to help clarify for you. In an open system, when they equalize, the temperature no longer changes.

Again, you keep trying to use 'everyday life' examples which are misleading you, and worse, I am starting to believe you are talking the word 'greenhouse' in greenhouse effect literally, hence your repeated return to the car example. We've been over the car thing 3ish times now? Once, you actually tried to argue that adding CO2 inside the car would increase the air temperature inside the car (which is wrong, but difficult to explain, and you should probably take it to physics forums: https://www.physicsforums.com/ ).

So the laws of thermodynamics are just an exercise in pointless philosophy since they involve nothing in the real world?

It's all about precision. When it is 'good enough' to use a simplified model, you use a simplified model and save yourself a lot of time. This is the same reason that lets us ignore CO2, btw.

That doesn't even make sense, though. You can't say something doesn't have an effect because something else has a larger effect. That's nonsensical.

I'm saying exactly what I said, nothing more; nothing less. Saying 'any effect can be ignored' isn't the same as 'there is no effect'. It simply means that the effect doesn't matter / we can disregard it / it is of no interest / etc.

question of whether there is a positive correlation between CO2 and temperature.

This isn't the question, because any possible relation can be safely ignored. Further, what you are attempting is extrapolation, and this assumes the rules of the system hold at the values you extrapolate to, and you don't know that they hold (actually, we know they don't because, IIRC, CO2 was ~10k ppm around the last ice age).

> Your air conditiioner, which thermodynamically is a heat pump. If you turn your AC off, it will equalize out. > Jesus Christ man. > LOL. Nobody's talking about using the A/C You've gotten lost again - I was talking about the rate of thermal energy transfer, because that is what defines an adiabatic system (that is: the rate of transfer into and out of the system is 0), which was what I was trying to help clarify for you. In an open system, when they equalize, the temperature no longer changes. Again, you keep trying to use 'everyday life' examples which are misleading you, and worse, I am starting to believe you are talking the word 'greenhouse' in greenhouse effect literally, hence your repeated return to the car example. We've been over the car thing 3ish times now? Once, you actually tried to argue that adding CO2 inside the car would increase the air temperature inside the car (which is wrong, but difficult to explain, and you should probably take it to physics forums: https://www.physicsforums.com/ ). > So the laws of thermodynamics are just an exercise in pointless philosophy since they involve nothing in the real world? It's all about precision. When it is 'good enough' to use a simplified model, you use a simplified model and save yourself a lot of time. This is the same reason that lets us ignore CO2, btw. > That doesn't even make sense, though. You can't say something doesn't have an effect because something else has a larger effect. That's nonsensical. I'm saying exactly what I said, nothing more; nothing less. Saying 'any effect can be ignored' isn't the same as 'there is no effect'. It simply means that the effect doesn't matter / we can disregard it / it is of no interest / etc. > question of whether there is a positive correlation between CO2 and temperature. This isn't the question, because any possible relation can be safely ignored. Further, what you are attempting is extrapolation, and this assumes the rules of the system hold at the values you extrapolate to, and you don't know that they hold (actually, we know they don't because, IIRC, CO2 was ~10k ppm around the last ice age).

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

Again, you keep trying to use 'everyday life' examples which are misleading you, and worse, I am starting to believe you are talking the word 'greenhouse' in greenhouse effect literally, hence your repeated return to the car example. We've been over the car thing 3ish times now? Once, you actually tried to argue that adding CO2 inside the car would increase the air temperature inside the car

I never argued any such thing. I don't appreciate arguing with liars. The greenhouse effect as it relates to CO2 and glass is literally the same thing. That's why I use the examples. Light passes through the atmosphere and glass because both are transparent to visible light (and lots of other spectrum too). Once that light falls upon a surface under the glass or CO2 some of it is absorbed, depending on the albedo of the surface. The surface warms in direct relation to the energy absorbed. That's why black things get hotter than white things in the sun. If you are as good at physics as your purport to be, you know about blackbody radiation and how much of that is in the infrared. Both glass and CO2 are somewhat opaque to infrared, which means the heat generated by visible light can't efficiently be radiated out of the system. It's trapped. That's why it gets warmer.

You know all of this and are jewing around, but I have to admit you're fairly adept at deploying sophistry and equivocation. It's the outright lying that betrays your jewiness. It can never stay contained for long.

This isn't the question

It is THE question of all questions. If CO2 is positively correlated with warming then it's also positively correlated with water vapor. Increasing CO2 generates additional water vapor, which by your own admission dwarfs CO2 in its capability to warm the atmosphere.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

I never argued any such thing.

Here is your reminder:

You, adding CO2 to a closed system will increase the equilibrium temperature.
Me: This runs afoul of basic thermodynamics.
You, So when you sit in a car parked in the sun with all the windows up it doesn't get hotter because that would run afoul of basic thermodynamics.

You literally used the car as an example to prove that adding CO2 to a system would increase the air temp.

The greenhouse effect as it relates to CO2 and glass is literally the same thing.

I figured you had taken it literally.

Just so you know: it is actually an allegory, as mechanisms don't even resemble each other. The glass is a barrier with a relatively high heat transfer coefficient due to being amorphous. The barrier allows radiation through, while preventing air mixing (convection) and is inefficient through conduction.

None of these things apply to so-called 'greenhouse gases'. The re-emission is just sophistry that literally (and this is using the word correctly) argues that a higher heat transfer coefficient can lead to runaway conditions. Don't forget that these things which is why you will only see 'model suggests' or similar.

blackbody radiation

Again, your knowledge seems to end where Wikipedia ends. Fun fact about blackbody radiation - it only holds for soot, which is why it has been making such a mess of Astrophysics.

That's why it gets warmer.

This has nothing to do with how a greenhouse works, again, because of relative magnitudes. What you describe was the thinking behind why greenhouses were originally green, but we now know that the primary effect has nothing to do with blocking infrared (see above), and worse, colored glass absorbs incident radiation (so you want the barrier to be as clear as possible), which is why they are always clear now. Look it up.

You know all of this [...] can never stay contained for long.

You deflect when you are wrong, and continually move goalposts, while I keep hammering the same points you can't defeat. Who is jewing around here?

Again, you were wrong about:

Whether you did or did not argue about adding CO2 to a container (which you later clarified to a car) would cause the air temp to rise
The actual supposed mechanism behind how greenhouse gases
And even the mechanism behind how greenhouses themselves work

You don't understand blackbody radiation, and then to top it off, you called me a jew - and this is just in your last post. We're done here. I've been tricked into arguing with bots again.

> I never argued any such thing. Here is your reminder: * You, [in this post:](https://poal.co/s/Funny/374487/7f62c4d7-2d18-40a2-aad3-c4fb5df4dbc8#cmnts) adding CO2 to a closed system will increase the equilibrium temperature. * Me: This runs afoul of basic thermodynamics. * You, [in this post:](https://poal.co/s/Funny/374487/240ba9e5-93b3-4da2-a3e3-2110befcd905#cmnts) So when you sit in a car parked in the sun with all the windows up it doesn't get hotter because that would run afoul of basic thermodynamics. **You literally used the car as an example to prove that adding CO2 to a system would increase the air temp.** > The greenhouse effect as it relates to CO2 and glass is literally the same thing. I figured you had taken it literally. Just so you know: it is actually an allegory, as mechanisms don't even resemble each other. The glass is a barrier with a relatively high heat transfer coefficient due to being amorphous. The barrier allows radiation through, while preventing air mixing (convection) and is inefficient through conduction. None of these things apply to so-called 'greenhouse gases'. The re-emission is just sophistry that literally (and this is using the word correctly) argues that a higher heat transfer coefficient can lead to runaway conditions. Don't forget that these things [can be measured empirically,](https://www.engineersedge.com/heat_transfer/thermal-conductivity-gases.htm) which is why you will only see 'model suggests' or similar. > blackbody radiation Again, your knowledge seems to end where Wikipedia ends. Fun fact about blackbody radiation - it only holds for soot, which is why it has been making such a mess of Astrophysics. [More here, if you care.](https://vixra.org/pdf/1502.0007v1.pdf) > That's why it gets warmer. This has nothing to do with how a greenhouse works, again, because of relative magnitudes. What you describe was the thinking behind why greenhouses were originally green, but we now know that the primary effect has nothing to do with blocking infrared (see above), and worse, colored glass absorbs incident radiation (so you want the barrier to be as clear as possible), which is why they are always clear now. Look it up. > You know all of this [...] can never stay contained for long. You deflect when you are wrong, and continually move goalposts, while I keep hammering the same points you can't defeat. Who is jewing around here? Again, you were wrong about: * Whether you did or did not argue about adding CO2 to a container (which you later clarified to a car) would cause the air temp to rise * The actual supposed mechanism behind how greenhouse gases * And even the mechanism behind how greenhouses themselves work You don't understand blackbody radiation, and then to top it off, you called *me* a jew - and this is just in your last post. We're done here. I've been tricked into arguing with bots again.

parent
link

[–] • 0 pt

(edited )

Here is your reminder:

You said:

Which is false, and why I called you a liar. That was being charitable, because the alternative is that you don't even understand what's being discussed. Either way, it's not possible to have a rational discussion with someone who lies or cannot understand the discussion.

If this is happening to you often you should give some consideration to the possibility that the problem is internal rather than external.

parent
link