How to save the earth according to flat earther and people that believe in the physics of fast and the furious

submitted by Tom_BombadilBombadildo from 9gag.com

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (21 children)

We've been through this. I made some notes to myself about our discussion here.

As far as I can tell, all your points were refuted.

[–]Tom_BombadilBombadildo[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (20 children)

https://climatechangedispatch.com/russia-reels-from-76f-cold-blast-munich-breaks-december-snow-record/

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (19 children)

Are you trying to claim that if a particular 3% of the globe has a low temperature, the global mean surface temperature isn't increasing?

And therefore since the globe isn't warming, CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas?

Because that's about as sound as the physics in the video, proving my point.

[–]Tom_BombadilBombadildo[S] 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (11 children)

You're a dupe for the religion of scientism.

Go get more safe vaccines.
They will effectively rid us of your foolishness, and many like you.

[–]Dregan-yea 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

He's Definitely vaxxed to the max. 🤣

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (9 children)

You're a dupe for the religion of scientism

Meaning think physics is a religious belief?

Again proving my point.

Go get more safe vaccines.

Of course. Soon as more are available. Having an immune system that is trained to combat dangerous infections has no downside.

They will effectively rid us of your foolishness

Hasn't happened yet.

[–]Tom_BombadilBombadildo[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (8 children)

Meaning think physics is a religious belief?

Again proving my point.

Clearly, you can't distinguish the difference.

You made my point for me.

Of course. Soon at more are available.

We've found some common ground.

You and I are both happy, for you to take more vaccines.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (7 children)

Clearly, you can't distinguish the difference.

Between physics and a religion?

You're the one banging on about "religion of scientism" as if science is a religion.

And you're unable to understand the greenhouse effect.

[–]Tom_BombadilBombadildo[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

And you're unable to understand the greenhouse effect.

Lol. The scientism guy thinks absorbtion/emission bands can create the greenhouse effect.

Everyone who believes this greenhouse nonsense is clueless. Literally.

They're just repeating someone else's note cards. You are too.

You saved an argument that you believe was conclusive, which shows your weakness.

People who actually understand the mechanisms of interaction will see through your nonsense. My argument is based in physical reality, and not a greenhouse note card narrative.

Bill Gates should hurry up with another batch of injections for you, and your scientism cult.

Live by the scientism, and die by the scientism.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

Lol. The scientism guy thinks absorbtion/emission bands can create the greenhouse effect.

Yes that's what the greenhouse effect is.

A gas that absorbs more energy from the earth's emissions than the sun's is a greenhouse gas.

My argument is based in physical reality, and not a greenhouse note card narrative.

Which is that absorption can't happen because ... absorption bands are "narrow".

There's detailed numerical methods for transmission of emr through the earth's atmosphere.

Here's one you could play with to improve your intuition about the effect of atmospheric CO2:http://modtran.spectral.com/modtran_home

[–]Tom_BombadilBombadildo[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Yes that's what the greenhouse effect is.

A gas that absorbs more energy from the earth's emissions than the sun's is a greenhouse gas.

You are a clueless retard.

A greenhouse is an enclosed environment, with windows that allow visible light with higher energy to pass through and warm the interior.

The windows are transparent to visible light, but opaque to infrared light. So when the sun goes down, the infrared light is retained within the self-contained greenhouse environment.

Greenhouses don't function properly at night if doors or window are open. They are necessarily enclosed.

Significant cloud cover is similar to the greenhouse effect, because infrared light from the surface is reflected over a large area, which returns the heat to the surface.
Similar to the infrared emission of light from the windows/walls of a greenhouse. Same physical principle.

Gaseous CO2 can never reproduce this effect. It emits what it absorbs, same as everything else that absorbs light energy, and emits it. When the sun sets, the energy dissipates and everything on the surface cools; including the air in every emission band.
The radiated heat is lost to space. Period.

Concrete heats up in the day, and cools at night.
Water heats up in the day, and cools at night.

[FILL IN THE BLANK] heats up in the day, and cools at night.

UNLESS IT'S IN A GREENHOUSE, OR UNDER HEAVY CLOUD COVER AT NIGHT. To address your lame cloud cooling argument.

It's warmer at night, under cloud cover.

It's cold AF at night in the desert, because there are no clouds.
No clouds in a desert in the day, so it gets hot, and the same heat is lost at night. A much higher temp range of max/min in the desert.

Why aren't the global warming goons talking about cloud cover???

You're trying to but a bullshit spin on this fact, because you are clueless.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (6 children)

Are you trying to insinuate that a non acceptance of anthropogenic climate change is equivalent to believing the earth is flat? Because if so that's more fucking retarded than believing the earth is flat.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Are you trying to insinuate that a non acceptance of anthropogenic climate change is equivalent to believing the earth is flat?

Yes.

Because if so that's more fucking retarded than believing the earth is flat.

The arguments against AGW are about as convoluted as those for the earth being flat. And can be refuted as comprehensively if you look at the evidence.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

The are not equivalent. And it's fucking retarded to assume they are for a very simple reason.

The shape of the Earth is something that anyone today yesterday or tomorrow can check for themselves. You can do the same experiments that have been done for thousands of years. They are in no way shape or form reliant on past evidence. If all the writings records and evidence of the past disappeared tomorrow it would be pedestrian to reestablish the roundness of the earth with a simple self contained experiment.

Anthropogenic climate change is different because in order to establish it it does require you to compare current measurements with historical measurements. And you can't "re take" historical measurements. So no individual can in and of themselves establish this without referring to a wider scientific body which opens up far more questions for legitimacy accuracy and motive than a simple experiment to prove the shape of the Earth where all these factors can easily be removed and the experiment redone by literally anyone with any motivation.

This is not an argument for saying that the evidence we do have is necessarily false. But comparing the two issues as if they are the same is beyond retarded and betrays an utter lack of any sort of critical thought. One can just stick pole in the ground and measure it's shadow for themselves. One cannot simply measure the temperature in 1850 and compare that with the temperature today.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

The are not equivalent.

Yeah they are.

Go on. Try a climate change denial argument. It'll be utterly retarded.

The shape of the Earth is something that anyone today yesterday or tomorrow can check for themselves.

Not that immediately overcomes all the daft arguments that flat earthers have. Unless by "anyone" you mean "anyone with a space rocket"

Anthropogenic climate change is different because in order to establish it it does require you to compare current measurements with historical measurements.

You just have to know the absorbance spectrum of CO2, and know that CO2 concentration is increasing.

[–]Alienhunter 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Unless by "anyone" you mean "anyone with a space rocket"

Anyone with a pendulum. Or anyone with two sticks and the ability to travel. Or anyone with a laser and a couple of mirrors.

There's numerous ways to prove it yourself if you want. Only a retard would think going into space is necessary. We've known the earth is round millennia before spaceflight.

I can easily repeat Aristotle's experiment. I can't repeat historical climate records. If you can't see the difference it's because you're being purposely obtuse.

[–]ActuallyNot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Anyone with a pendulum.

https://wiki.tfes.org/Foucault_Pendulum

Or anyone with two sticks and the ability to travel. Or anyone with a laser and a couple of mirrors.

That only shows that there's a curve to the shape of the disc of the earth.

There's numerous ways to prove it yourself if you want. Only a retard would think going into space is necessary. We've known the earth is round millennia before spaceflight.

By the same token, only a retard would think that CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas. We've known that for 50 years before space flight.

I can easily repeat Aristotle's experiment.

What was Aristotle's experiment?

I can't repeat historical climate records.

You can look them up. And there's numerous ways to prove AGW without them.

If you can't see the difference it's because you're being purposely obtuse.

Basic physics denial is basic physics denial. Neither AGW nor the spheroid shape of the planet requires anything that Newton didn't know.

[–]Tom_BombadilBombadildo[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Actuallynot is a pharma+global warming shill.

Probably socks.