Leftists don't give a damn about the environment... change my mind

[mamooth]

Crick, in his AGW faith, is making claim to Earth's temperature increasing. Additional energy is required in order for this to happen. What Crick can't answer you is "Assuming constant energy from the sun, where is this additional energy coming from?"

According to Einstein here, a coat or blanket can't make a person warmer, because there's no addition energy being added to the system.

That's what passes as "thought" among denier cult imbeciles.

The problem? These idiots vote, and their vote counts as much as a normal person's.

 

[bodecea]

How do I know that leftists don't give a damn about the environment??

Just look at the environmental conditions present within their big cities.

Seattle
Portland
Los Angeles
Austin
Chicago
Baltimore
DC
NYC

Drugs and used needles on the ground everywhere... homeless everywhere... human feces everywhere... graffiti tags everywhere... broken windows... abandoned buildings... trash (incl disposable masks) littered everywhere...

Yeah, tell me with a straight face that leftists give any sort of a damn about the environment.

All MAGAts should move to Florida since there's no environmental issues.

 

[mamooth]

This is where AGW proponents deny science (specifically the laws of thermodynamics and the stefan boltzmann law). In a closed system, such as the sun-earth-space system, colder CO2 cannot heat a warmer surface of Earth.

This one seems to think CO2 heats the surface by conduction.

Paging Mr. Dunning and Mr. Kruger ...

 

[gfm7175]

They set liquid vinyl chloride burning to produce deadly phosgene gas that was outlawed in WW1. What were they thinking? The short answer is that they weren't thinking.

... and FEMA wasn't going to assist the people of East Palestine Ohio, saying that they "didn't qualify for assistance", at least not until hours after Trump announced he was going to East Palestine... THENNNNNNNN all of a sudden they magically "qualified for assistance" and FEMA is going to rush over there and help hahahahahahaha

Hmmmmmmm wonder why the sudden change of heart hahahahahahaha the Biden Regime is soooooooo pathetic hahahahahahaha

 

[gfm7175]

This one seems to think CO2 heats the surface by conduction.

Paging Mr. Dunning and Mr. Kruger ...

CO2 doesn't heat the surface, moron. The direction of heat is hot to cold, not cold to hot. CO2 does negligibly heat the atmosphere though, which then dissipates into space.

It's funny that you believe that ice cubes can make coffee hotter hahahahahaha

 

[gfm7175]

All MAGAts should move to Florida since there's no environmental issues.

There is a stark contrast between cities run by Democrats and cities run by Republicans.

In Wisconsin, Milwaukee and Madison are both shitholes, both run by Democrats since seemingly forever. Same with Kenosha and Racine. Same with Beloit.

Sun Prairie used to be a small conservative-leaning farming community completely separate from Madison. It was a nice small town with no big city issues. Nowadays, it is yet another suburb of Madison, is much more "diverse", now has shootings, homelessness, littered garbage, crime, and all the other typical big city problems. It is now, of course, completely run by Madison liberals, hence the same problems that Madison has.

In contrast, take a trip to Horicon, to Mayville, to Hartford, Slinger, Hustisford, and numerous other conservative-controlled small towns across the State. There is a STARK contrast between the two.

 

[Crick]

There is a stark contrast between cities run by Democrats and cities run by Republicans.

In Wisconsin, Milwaukee and Madison are both shitholes, both run by Democrats since seemingly forever. Same with Kenosha and Racine. Same with Beloit.

Sun Prairie used to be a small conservative-leaning farming community completely separate from Madison. It was a nice small town with no big city issues. Nowadays, it is yet another suburb of Madison, is much more "diverse", now has shootings, homelessness, littered garbage, crime, and all the other typical big city problems. It is now, of course, completely run by Madison liberals, hence the same problems that Madison has.

In contrast, take a trip to Horicon, to Mayville, to Hartford, Slinger, Hustisford, and numerous other conservative-controlled small towns across the State. There is a STARK contrast between the two.

Can you identify some specifics regarding the environmental differences you see in these different cities. Just saying they're shitholes with big city problems is not particularly meaningful. Big cities have big city problems no matter who runs them. Of course, because big cities are typically populated with a larger number of minorities, most big cities elect democrats which allows folks like you to claim that the big city problems are the result of democrats. Unfortunately for you, there is a wealth of historical evidence that shows such problems occur regardless of the party in charge.

How about this? Can you identify the specific policies or the specific TYPE of policies that democrats enact or avoid enacting that cause the differences you claim you see?

 

[gfm7175]

Can you identify some specifics regarding the environmental differences you see in these different cities. Just saying they're shitholes with big city problems is not particularly meaningful.

I already did.

Big cities have big city problems no matter who runs them.

Except that liberals have been almost exclusively running all of these big cities for as long as I can remember, especially in recent times. Maybe they should give conservatives a chance for a change. The only time in recent history that NYC had crime under control was when they had a Republican mayor. Maybe they should give that a shot again...

Of course, because big cities are typically populated with a larger number of minorities, most big cities elect democrats which allows folks like you to claim that the big city problems are the result of democrats.

They ARE the result of Democrats (and their shitty policies).

Unfortunately for you, there is a wealth of historical evidence that shows such problems occur regardless of the party in charge.

Idk... NYC was pretty well under control when Rudi was mayor...

How about this? Can you identify the specific policies or the specific TYPE of policies that democrats enact or avoid enacting that cause the differences you claim you see?

low income housing, legalized marijuana, legalized hard drugs, no/low cash bail (and other soft on crime policies), for starters...

 

[Crick]

I already did.

You have not.

Except that liberals have been almost exclusively running all of these big cities for as long as I can remember, especially in recent times. Maybe they should give conservatives a chance for a change. The only time in recent history that NYC had crime under control was when they had a Republican mayor. Maybe they should give that a shot again...

Folks are free to make this argument to the voters of these cities and I imagine they already have. If they continue to vote for democrats, perhaps they're not buying what you're selling.

They ARE the result of Democrats (and their shitty policies).

What "shitty policies"?

Idk... NYC was pretty well under control when Rudi was mayor...

Environmentally? Environmentally, the city is in demonstrably better shape now than when Rudy was mayor.

low income housing, legalized marijuana, legalized hard drugs, no/low cash bail (and other soft on crime policies), for starters...

Your claim was that the so-far unidentified policies that democrats have put into place have harmed the environment in these cities. But you have not yet mentioned a single environmental issue. This thread is misplaced. This is not an environmental discussion.

And, until you actually pass a class in thermodynamics, I advise you not to attempt to debate it with people who have. Your comment that CO2 can't heat the Earth because the sun's output is constant is one of the more ignorant things I've heard in a great while.

 

[gfm7175]

And, until you actually pass a class in thermodynamics, I advise you not to attempt to debate it with people who have. Your comment that CO2 can't heat the Earth because the sun's output is constant is one of the more ignorant things I've heard in a great while.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you can't even express my argumentation accurately HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why must you be such a dishonest fugggg?

 

[Crick]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA you can't even express my argumentation accurately HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Why must you be such a dishonest fugggg?

The problem here is your themodynamic ignorance, not my honesty. That you think global warming requires an additional energy source indicates a SEVERE ignorance of what's going on here. I don't think there is anyone on this board who COULDN'T explain what FUNDAMENTAL mistake you've made there.

 

[Ordinary Guy]

There is a stark contrast between cities run by Democrats and cities run by Republicans.

In Wisconsin, Milwaukee and Madison are both shitholes, both run by Democrats since seemingly forever. Same with Kenosha and Racine. Same with Beloit.

Sun Prairie used to be a small conservative-leaning farming community completely separate from Madison. It was a nice small town with no big city issues. Nowadays, it is yet another suburb of Madison, is much more "diverse", now has shootings, homelessness, littered garbage, crime, and all the other typical big city problems. It is now, of course, completely run by Madison liberals, hence the same problems that Madison has.

In contrast, take a trip to Horicon, to Mayville, to Hartford, Slinger, Hustisford, and numerous other conservative-controlled small towns across the State. There is a STARK contrast between the two.

In Baton Rouge now, its a shit hole, New Orleans tomorrow, another shit hole, Detroit last week, a huge shithole

 

[gfm7175]

The problem here is your themodynamic ignorance, not my honesty. That you think global warming requires an additional energy source indicates a SEVERE ignorance of what's going on here. I don't think there is anyone on this board who COULDN'T explain what FUNDAMENTAL mistake you've made there.

An increase in temperature requires an increase in thermal energy.

Assuming constant energy from the sun, where is the additional energy coming from that is supposedly "increasing Earth's temperature"?

 

[Moonglow]

How do I know that leftists don't give a damn about the environment??

Just look at the environmental conditions present within their big cities.

Seattle
Portland
Los Angeles
Austin
Chicago
Baltimore
DC
NYC

Drugs and used needles on the ground everywhere... homeless everywhere... human feces everywhere... graffiti tags everywhere... broken windows... abandoned buildings... trash (incl disposable masks) littered everywhere...

Yeah, tell me with a straight face that leftists give any sort of a damn about the environment.

Why do you try to pigeonhole human beings you have no idea who they are or how they think?

 

[Moonglow]

In Baton Rouge now, its a shit hole, New Orleans tomorrow, another shit hole, Detroit last week, a huge shithole

That is what humans do and always have.

 

[Ordinary Guy]

That is what humans do and always have.

only in blue cities

 

[Moonglow]

only in blue cities

Oh no, out here in the sticks we burn tires and drain our oil straight to the ground.

 

[Crick]

An increase in temperature requires an increase in thermal energy.

Assuming constant energy from the sun, where is the additional energy coming from that is supposedly "increasing Earth's temperature"?

Okay, here goes.

First, all matter whose temperature is above absolute zero - which is to say, ALL matter - radiates electromagnetic radiation (light). Most of the time, particularly under the conditions we have on Earth, that light is in the infrared (IR) spectrum but the actual spectrum getting radiated is determined by the temperature of the matter and is described by the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation.

The Earth is constantly chasing thermal equilibrium. At equilbrium, the amount of energy comng in to the planet from the sun would equal the amount going out via IR radiation. If the amount coming in or the amount going out change for some reason, the Earth is pushed away from equilibrium and tries to get back to it by changing the other paramters.

The path that most of that incoming energy takes is that it comes in as visible light and is either absorbed or reflected. The absorbed energy will raise the temperature of whatever absorbs it. The reflected light will either hit something else or get bounced right back to space. The energy that is absorbed raises the temperature of the gas, the ground or the oceans that absorbed it. That increased temperature will cause increased IR radiation from the stuff, which will carry that energy away. Some of that IR will hit the Earth or the seas somewhere else and get absorbed again. Some will head upwards for space. On a planet with no greenhouse gases, that energy would shoot right out to space and be gone. But greenhouse gases (GHGs) absorb IR, so the IR that the earth and the seas radiate upwards, gets absorbed by the GHGs, at the surface, almost completely within 10 meters. But, just like any other matter, that warms them up and makes them radiate more IR. So, the IR skips from CO2 molecule to water molecule to nitrous oxide molecule back to a CO2 molecule and so forth. It's direction is random so some of it gets turned around and strikes the Earth or the ocean once again and the whole thing has to start over. But some works its way higher and higher in the atmosphere.

The longer and more complex is the path that IR has to take to escape to space, the slower that energy leaves. That causes the temperature of the atmosphere, the surface of the Earth and the water in the oceans to rise.

There is a good analogy. Imagine a big tank of water that has a pipe filling it at a constant rate. That represents the sun and the energy it is constantly pouring on the Earth. The tank has a drain but there is a valve in the drain's pipe that can restrict waterflow. If that drain pipe is wide open, almost no water builds up in the tank. If we close that drain valve a bit, water will build up to some level in the tank. That level will produce enough pressure that the drain pipe and its partially open valve will let out just as much water as is coming in. But if we close the valve a little more, the water level in the tank will rise. This is like heat and CO2. Added CO2 slows the escape of IR and the planet will warm until it is pushing IR out hard enough that it once again equals the incoming solar energy. Raise the CO2 level and the temperature will go up again.

I know this is a pretty crappy explanation. I should have been able to do better but I've been doing some projects at the same time and did this sort of piecemeal, hit-or-miss. Sorry. The internet is full of people explaining how it works, better than this. Give them a shot. Point is, global warming does not require extra energy input. It's just like you warming yourself up at night by getting under a blanket.

 

[ReinyDays]

Okay, here goes.

First, all matter whose temperature is above absolute zero - which is to say, ALL matter - radiates electromagnetic radiation (light). Most of the time, particularly under the conditions we have on Earth, that light is in the infrared (IR) spectrum but the actual spectrum getting radiated is determined by the temperature of the matter and is described by the Stefan-Boltzmann Equation.

The Earth is constantly chasing thermal equilibrium. At equilbrium, the amount of energy comng in to the planet from the sun would equal the amount going out via IR radiation. If the amount coming in or the amount going out change for some reason, the Earth is pushed away from equilibrium and tries to get back to it by changing the other paramters.

The path that most of that incoming energy takes is that it comes in as visible light and is either absorbed or reflected. The absorbed energy will raise the temperature of whatever absorbs it. The reflected light will either hit something else or get bounced right back to space. The energy that is absorbed raises the temperature of the gas, the ground or the oceans that absorbed it. That increased temperature will cause increased IR radiation from the stuff, which will carry that energy away. Some of that IR will hit the Earth or the seas somewhere else and get absorbed again. Some will head upwards for space. On a planet with no greenhouse gases, that energy would shoot right out to space and be gone. But greenhouse gases (GHGs) absorb IR, so the IR that the earth and the seas radiate upwards, gets absorbed by the GHGs, at the surface, almost completely within 10 meters. But, just like any other matter, that warms them up and makes them radiate more IR. So, the IR skips from CO2 molecule to water molecule to nitrous oxide molecule back to a CO2 molecule and so forth. It's direction is random so some of it gets turned around and strikes the Earth or the ocean once again and the whole thing has to start over. But some works its way higher and higher in the atmosphere.

The longer and more complex is the path that IR has to take to escape to space, the slower that energy leaves. That causes the temperature of the atmosphere, the surface of the Earth and the water in the oceans to rise.

There is a good analogy. Imagine a big tank of water that has a pipe filling it at a constant rate. That represents the sun and the energy it is constantly pouring on the Earth. The tank has a drain but there is a valve in the drain's pipe that can restrict waterflow. If that drain pipe is wide open, almost no water builds up in the tank. If we close that drain valve a bit, water will build up to some level in the tank. That level will produce enough pressure that the drain pipe and its partially open valve will let out just as much water as is coming in. But if we close the valve a little more, the water level in the tank will rise. This is like heat and CO2. Added CO2 slows the escape of IR and the planet will warm until it is pushing IR out hard enough that it once again equals the incoming solar energy. Raise the CO2 level and the temperature will go up again.

I know this is a pretty crappy explanation. I should have been able to do better but I've been doing some projects at the same time and did this sort of piecemeal, hit-or-miss. Sorry. The internet is full of people explaining how it works, better than this. Give them a shot. Point is, global warming does not require extra energy input. It's just like you warming yourself up at night by getting under a blanket.

How much? ... and show your math ...

 

[Ordinary Guy]

Oh no, out here in the sticks we burn tires and drain our oil straight to the ground.

Springfield, Van Buren?