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

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