Climate change agenda is being driven by hysteria, not facts

[piezoe]

This is contradictory to what I know of radiation heating in a greenhouse. I need less energy to warm up the interior of an automobile up to some temp.

You need more energy unless your car or greenhouse is undergoing a nuclear reaction in which matter is being converted to energy. Then you will need more matter because your car will weigh less after it heats up. If this happens to you, definitely let FOX News know. The additional energy that heats up your car interior or your greenhouse is supplied by the sun. Do this experiment. roll your car windows up sit in the dark in your car. the interior will not heat higher than the surroundings. No sunlight no green house effect. The effect is coming from conversion of visible light to infrared. Your car windows are transparent to visible light but opaque to infra red. The some total of energy and matter are conserved. By the way, you might be interested to know that the fundamental dimensions of Temperature and the same as the fundamental dimensions of energy. Higher temperature = higher energy and vice versa. The dimensions of either Temperature or Energy are M(L**2/T**2) (I think, its been 60 years since I took a physics course, )

Let's see if I'm right: E = mc**2 so E = M(L**2/T**2) Looks like I remembered it correctly.. M = mass ; L = length ; T = time ( the fundamental dimensions of the universe and everything in it. Sorta profound when you think about it.)

 

[Nine_Ender]

Ok so an all time record heat wave in BC and the fires literally burned a town down. But the minute anywhere in the world has a temporary cold spell the climate deniers will be all over it. Anyone truly paying attention knows that weather is getting warmer.

 

[Cuddles]

You need more energy. Thea additional energy is supplied by the sun. Do this experiment. roll your car windows up sit in the dark in your car. the interior will not heat higher that the surroundings. No sunlight no green house effect. The effect is coming from conversion of visible light to infrared. Your car windows are transparent to visible light but opaque to infra red.

???
There's clearly a disconnect here. I need less energy to raise the temp in a vehicle w/closed windows (no uv/tint treatment) than I do open windows in direct sunlight even if we could confine convection w/in the cabin (no air escaping out of the cabin w/open windows). Of course a vehicle in the shade w/no radiation gain will remain cooler, that's not the point. The comparison that needs to be made is an enclosed space gaining temperature through radiation and losing none to an enclosed space gaining radiation and losing some/all.

This is basically analogous to conventional insulation. You need less energy to bring a house up to temperature if it's losing less energy through insulated walls than uninsulated walls.

 

[piezoe]

There's clearly a disconnect here. I need less energy to raise the temp in a vehicle w/closed windows

No , you need more energy. The additional energy is supplied by the sun. You forgot about the sun. Of course the Suns energy is free, if that's what you mean. So you don't need to go out and buy a heater, you get to use the suns energy for nothing. Kind of bargain I would say, unless it gives you skin cancer at the same time, then it's not that great a deal.

If you roll your windows up in the dark your car won't heat up because you did not use the additional energy from the sun that you needed to heat up your car. .

 

[Cuddles]

No , you need more energy. The additional energy is supplied by the sun. You forgot about the sun. Of course the Suns energy is free, if that's what you mean. So you don't need to go out and buy a heater, you get to use the suns energy for nothing. Kind of bargain I would say, unless it gives you skin cancer at the same time, then it's not that great a deal.

I think I understand why you're on the denialist camp now.

 

[Ricter]

Quick work to discover that Shaviv's work is an outlier and has long been disputed by most scientists. Doesn't mean he must be wrong, but I gotta go with the pilot and flight crew on this one, they're flying the plane and are instrument rated.

 

[Cuddles]

Quick work to discover that Shaviv's work is an outlier and has long been disputed by most scientists. Doesn't mean he must be wrong, but I gotta go with the pilot and flight crew on this one, they're flying the plane and are instrument rated.

well, with the exception of Galileo at the time who was under threat of excommunication, Darwin and Einstein had their detractors but also a growing army of colleagues as smart as them confirming/validating their theories. I don't doubt Shaviv's brilliance, and perhaps his contributions are of note on the climate dilemma, but I've met quite a few very smart narcissists who can admit no wrong because they take a stubborn position that disallows detraction from their thesis. I don't know the guy, his association to that lobby group doesn't really make me want to read up on him either.

 

[piezoe]

???
There's clearly a disconnect here. I need less energy to raise the temp in a vehicle w/closed windows (no uv/tint treatment) than I do open windows in direct sunlight even if we could confine convection w/in the cabin (no air escaping out of the cabin w/open windows). Of course a vehicle in the shade w/no radiation gain will remain cooler, that's not the point. The comparison that needs to be made is an enclosed space gaining temperature through radiation and losing none to an enclosed space gaining radiation and losing some/all.

This is basically analogous to conventional insulation. You need less energy to bring a house up to temperature if it's losing less energy through insulated walls than uninsulated walls.

You need exactly the same energy to warm your house whether it is insulated or not. You just need more total energy to get it up to the temperature you want if it isn't insulated because while you are heating your house you're also heating up the outside. The squirrels will appreciate that.

X is the amount of heat you need to get your living room up to 72 deg on a january day provided you don't lose any to the surroundings. y is the amount of heat you lose through the walls if it it insulated and y' is the amount you lose if it is not insulated. y' > y for an insulated home the total amount of heat needed is x + y for an uninsulted home the amount of heat needed is x + y'. x is not affected by insulation. only y is affected by the amount of insulation.

 

[piezoe]

Quick work to discover that Shaviv's work is an outlier and has long been disputed by most scientists. Doesn't mean he must be wrong, but I gotta go with the pilot and flight crew on this one, they're flying the plane and are instrument rated.

You got Al Gore in the Cockpit. What could go wrong.

 

[Cuddles]

You need more energy unless your car or greenhouse is undergoing a nuclear reaction in which matter is being converted to energy. Then you will need more matter because your car will weigh less after it heats up. If this happens to you, definitely let FOX News know. The additional energy that heats up your car interior or your greenhouse is supplied by the sun. Do this experiment. roll your car windows up sit in the dark in your car. the interior will not heat higher than the surroundings. No sunlight no green house effect. The effect is coming from conversion of visible light to infrared. Your car windows are transparent to visible light but opaque to infra red. The some total of energy and matter are conserved. By the way, you might be interested to know that the fundamental dimensions of Temperature and the same as the fundamental dimensions of energy. Higher temperature = higher energy and vice versa. The dimensions of either Temperature or Energy are M(L**2/T**2) (I think, its been 60 years since I took a physics course, )

Let's see if I'm right: E = mc**2 so E = M(L**2/T**2) Looks like I remembered it correctly.. M = mass ; L = length ; T = time ( the fundamental dimensions of the universe and everything in it. Sorta profound when you think about it.)

OMG dude seriously? I need less energy in comparison to a vehicle losing radiation through an open space. I didn't think I'd need to clarify that raising a temperature requires energy input.

Hell I did spell it out:

???
There's clearly a disconnect here. I need less energy to raise the temp in a vehicle w/closed windows (no uv/tint treatment) than I do open windows in direct sunlight even if we could confine convection w/in the cabin (no air escaping out of the cabin w/open windows). Of course a vehicle in the shade w/no radiation gain will remain cooler, that's not the point. The comparison that needs to be made is an enclosed space gaining temperature through radiation and losing none to an enclosed space gaining radiation and losing some/all.

This is basically analogous to conventional insulation. You need less energy to bring a house up to temperature if it's losing less energy through insulated walls than uninsulated walls.