Hvorfor tror du stadig på den globale opvarmning?
| 15-04-2019 17:28 | |
| Christoffer Bugge Harder★★★★☆ (1801) |
Jordens temperatur kan ikke øges uden ekstra energi. That is indeed true. Out of sheer curiosity: Do you realise that you can add extra energy to a cold object in two basic ways: 1) Increase the transfer of energy from an external source to that object 2) make that object lose less of the energy provided (e.g. by isolation preventing convection and/or decreasing conductivity) ? Når du hævder en stigning i planetens temperatur, bryder du den første lov af termodynamik. Seriously, I´d love to hear you elaborate on how 2) above violates the 1st law of thermodynamics in your imagination. Please try to do a more thorough job than just repeating the words fed to you by your cute little "storyboard"-roleplaying site. Do you honestly believe that improved retention of energy by an object violates some of the laws in physics? And if so, how did you seriously come up with this? Again, out of sheer curiosity, I do love exploring the tangled paths the human mind follows sometimes. |
| 15-04-2019 17:28 | |
| Christoffer Bugge Harder★★★★☆ (1801) |
Jordens temperatur kan ikke øges uden ekstra energi. That is indeed true. Out of sheer curiosity: Do you realise that you can add extra energy to a cold object in two basic ways: 1) Increase the transfer of energy from an external source to that object 2) make that object lose less of the energy provided (e.g. by isolation preventing convection and/or decreasing conductivity) ? Når du hævder en stigning i planetens temperatur, bryder du den første lov af termodynamik. Seriously, I´d love to hear you elaborate on how 2) above violates the 1st law of thermodynamics in your imagination. Please try to do a more thorough job than just repeating the words fed to you by your cute little "storyboard"-roleplaying site. Do you honestly believe that improved retention of energy by an object violates some of the laws in physics? And if so, how did you seriously come up with this? Again, out of sheer curiosity, I do love exploring the tangled paths the human mind follows sometimes. |
| 15-04-2019 18:37 | |
| IBDaMann★★★☆☆ (999) |
Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev: Ukorrekt. Du kan ikke tilføje energi ved at reducere tab. Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev: Seriously, I´d love to hear you elaborate on how 2) above violates the 1st law of thermodynamics in your imagination. Du lyver. Du er ikke interesseret i at lære. Hvorfor har du endnu ikke lært den første lov om termodynamik? Du ville ikke stille dette spørgsmål, hvis du havde lært det. For andre, der kunne være interesserede: Temperaturen kan ikke øges uden ekstra energi. Hvis du hævder, at temperaturen er steget, hævder du, at der er ekstra energi. Hvis det eneste der har ændret sig er, at der er mere CO2, hævder du, at CO2 skaber ekstra energi. Dette er en overtrædelse af termodynamikens første lov, Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev: Do you honestly believe that improved retention of energy by an object violates some of the laws in physics? Jeg ved meget godt, at reduceret stråling og øget temperatur er en overtrædelse af Stefan-Boltzmann. Redigeret d. 15-04-2019 18:40 |
| 15-04-2019 19:31 | |
| Christoffer Bugge Harder★★★★☆ (1801) |
Ukorrekt. Du kan ikke tilføje energi ved at reducere tab. The wanting keyword in your sentence is "to the system". Again, there is no new energy "created" to the system of sun, space and earth. With a constant solar output of 342 W/m2, the Earth receives the same amount of energy with and without a greenhouse effect - there is no extra energy "created", nor does there need to be. The difference with a greenhouse effect is simply that a fraction of the energy generated by an insolation of 342 W/m2 - again, for the hard of understanding, that same amount of energy - is retained in the Earth part of the Sun/space/Earth system instead of getting lost to space. This is no more in violation of the 1st law than somebody putting on a jacket and thus retaining more of the same amount of external energy supplied close to his body rather than losing it to the surrounding airspace. Hvis det eneste der har ændret sig er, at der er mere CO2, hævder du, at CO2 skaber ekstra energi. No. For the umpteenth time, more CO2 does not "create" any energy, it radiates part of the outgoing radiation back to Earth instead of it getting lost to space. No new energy is created in the system, the energy which ultimately originates from the sun is merely redistributed between two net recipients (Earth and space). And no, also for the umpteenth time, this does not mean that the radiation leaving the Earth system is decreased - it merely means that the point where there is balance between in- and outgoing radiation is elevated further up into the heights. At equilibrium, there is 240 W/m2 coming in, and 240 W/m2 leaving in any case. The only place where new energy is supposedly "created" is inside your own head. Jeg ved meget godt, at reduceret stråling og øget temperatur er en overtrædelse af Stefan-Boltzmann. Indeed. But you are apparently unable to grasp the very simple fact that no single person, except for yourself, is claiming or has ever claimed that an increasing greenhouse effect would lead to increased temperature and reduced emission from the surface simultaneously. It is simply your own straw man that you keep knocking triumphantly down while the rest of the people who understand senior year high school/entry level college physics stands by watching in part amusement, part disbelief. :/ Redigeret d. 15-04-2019 20:03 |
| 15-04-2019 21:50 | |
| IBDaMann★★★☆☆ (999) |
Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev: The wanting keyword in your sentence is "to the system". Again, there is no new energy "created" to the system of sun, space and earth. With a constant solar output of 342 W/m2, the Earth receives the same amount of energy with and without a greenhouse effect - there is no extra energy "created", nor does there need to be. Dette er, hvad videnskabelig analfabetisme ligner. Energi skal bestemt skabes for temperaturen at stige over ligevægtstemperaturen. Gennemgå den første lov om termodynamik. Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev:The difference with a greenhouse effect is simply that a fraction of the energy generated by an insolation of 342 W/m2 - again, for the hard of understanding, that same amount of energy - is retained in the Earth part of the Sun/space/Earth system instead of getting lost to space. Du skrev mange ord her. Du skulle kun have skrevet "det reducerer en smule jordens udstråling." Mit svar er kort: Du overtræder Stefan-Boltzmann Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev: For the umpteenth time, more CO2 does not "create" any energy, it radiates part of the outgoing radiation back to Earth instead of it getting lost to space. For den milliontid, hvis du hævder at Jordens temperatur stiger, hævder du, at der skabes energi. Jeg er ligeglad med hvor mange gange du benægter dette. Du undgår ikke at krænke fysik simpelthen ved at insistere på, at du ikke har krænket fysikken. Endnu en gang: Hvis du hævder at Jordens temperatur stiger, hævder du, at der er ekstra energi. |
| 15-04-2019 22:23 | |
| Christoffer Bugge Harder★★★★☆ (1801) |
Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev: The wanting keyword in your sentence is "to the system". Again, there is no new energy "created" to the system of sun, space and earth. With a constant solar output of 342 W/m2, the Earth receives the same amount of energy with and without a greenhouse effect - there is no extra energy "created", nor does there need to be. OK. Lets indeed review the First law of thermodynamics: The First Law of Thermodynamics states that heat is a form of energy, and thermodynamic processes are therefore subject to the principle of conservation of energy. This means that heat energy cannot be created or destroyed. It sure seems like you have not read the first law yourself. That fits with you not being able to actually use the Stefan-Boltzmann-law either, despite going on and on about it. The reason is, of course, that all you do is regurgitate some sentences you have been fed on the "storyboard" tinfoil hat page. Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev:The difference with a greenhouse effect is simply that a fraction of the energy generated by an insolation of 342 W/m2 - again, for the hard of understanding, that same amount of energy - is retained in the Earth part of the Sun/space/Earth system instead of getting lost to space. I could have put it simpler indeed: it does not reduce the Earth´s radiation, it merely moves the point of radiative balance between in- and outgoing radiation higher up in the atmosphere. And once again, could you perhaps try doing a little math to show that you have any clue as to what the SB-equation is actually about? Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev:For the umpteenth time, more CO2 does not "create" any energy, it radiates part of the outgoing radiation back to Earth instead of it getting lost to space. "Creation" of new energy violates the First law, so no. But again per the First law, extra energy from the sun has indeed been transferred from one location to another (from the sun through space to the earth) and converted from one form of energy to another (from electromagnetic energy (radiation) to thermal energy). If the greenhouse effect increases, this simply means that relatively more of the constant energy supplied by the sun to the system is added to the Earth and its atmosphere rather than to space. Energy is transferred and redistributed, not created. Again, read a text book - the only violations occur inside your own head. And of course, being yet another poor monolingual venturing far outside his comfort zone aided only by Google Translate does not exactly help you either. Redigeret d. 15-04-2019 22:27 |
| 16-04-2019 05:10 | |
| IBDaMann★★★☆☆ (999) |
Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev:OK. Lets indeed review the First law of thermodynamics: Ordet "varme" anvendes ikke i fysikken. Ja, ordet "varme" bruges nogle gange til at forklare begreber til mennesker. "Kold" er ikke brugt fysik. "Wet" bruges ikke. Ordbogen er ikke en fysik lærebog. Du misforstod det, jeg skrev. Du skal faktisk lære den første lov af termodynamik. Du forstår ikke konceptet. Du er ikke klar over, når du overtræder det. Det var korrekt at sige, at du ikke har til hensigt at lære noget. I stedet for at lære, vil du insistere på at din fejl er korrekt .. |
| 16-04-2019 07:12 | |
| Christoffer Bugge Harder★★★★☆ (1801) |
Ordet "varme" anvendes ikke i fysikken. I honestly have no idea why or where you conceived this, but anyway, it is just plain wrong. I already quoted you one of Einstein´s 1905 papers: Über die von der molekularkinetischen Theorie der Wärme geforderte Bewegung von in ruhenden Flüssigkeiten suspendierten Teilchen. While I did, of course, realise that you were too stupid to understand simple German, I did think you would be capable of google translating the word "Wärme" (heat, "varme" in Danish). But apparently, I was wrong. Anyway, that is your problem, not mine. Du misforstod det, jeg skrev. Du skal faktisk lære den første lov af termodynamik. Du forstår ikke konceptet. At the very least, please don´t blame me for you being yet another monolingual idiot making ridiculous google translate-mistakes when writing in a language you have no clue about. What you wrote literally was that: Energy must certainly be created for the temperature to rise above the equilibrium temperature. Review the first law on thermodynamics. Unless you think that the Earth is now at its equilibrium temperature of 255K (in which case you would not be sitting here with your tinfoil hat in your basement collecting your welfare and writing on a computer), temperature of Earth has been above its equilibrium for pretty much its entire existence. And look up any definition of the first law stating how energy cannot be created in the very first sentence - every single time. And now, once and for all: Just as when Earth is heated by enhanced solar irradiance, heating by an enhanced greenhouse effect requires transfer of energy which ultimately originates from the sun, not "creation" of energy (which does not exist). If you think otherwise, you are wrong. And no, I don´t intend on "learning" from you, as this would spell an end to any hope of doing actual scientific research on this planet. If you are honestly too dumb to grasp this, then I think you need to just accept that you need to go home and focus on spending your time on something where you can make a better use of your life and skills. How about finishing high school, getting a day job, and finding a girlfriend and some friends? Redigeret d. 16-04-2019 07:33 |
| 18-04-2019 16:08 | |
| IBDaMann★★★☆☆ (999) |
Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev:Ordet "varme" anvendes ikke i fysikken. Du forventer, at jeg lærer dig den videnskab, du burde have lært, da du var barn. Selvfølgelig bruger folk "varme" for at forklare begreber ... til børn og andre, der ikke har lært de rigtige tekniske ord. Jeg har ofte sagt, at "varme" er et naturligt sprogord som "våd", "trist", "kold", "regn" og andre. Du insisterer på, at der er en videnskabsmodel for "varme". Vis mig modellen. Jeg vil ikke spilde mere tid, før jeg ser denne fysikmodel af "varme". På den anden side prøver mange mennesker som dig at skjule deres videnskabelige analfabetisme bag dette ord: Fra MANUALEN Heat: noun In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient. Det er skrevet på engelsk. Jeg formoder, at du er for dum for at finde ud af, hvordan det beskriver dig. Vis mig modellen. Lad os tale fysik. Og lad os løfte diskussionen ovenfor, hvad dine børn lærer dig. |
| 18-04-2019 17:24 | |
| Christoffer Bugge Harder★★★★☆ (1801) |
Ordet "varme" anvendes ikke i fysikken. So let me get this straight: When Einstein used the word "Wärme" (heat) in his seminal 1905 paper which he wrote to the editor and fellow Nobel Laureate Max Planck for publication in "Annalen der Physik" (the then leading scientific journal in the world), then he was merely trying to "explain concepts for children and others unfamiliar with the correct scientific terminology"? I realise that you are merely a troll in need of attention, but I am still amused by the levels of disconnect to reality people who have read one holy book and nothing else are capable of involuntarily displaying. Your "storyboard" manual writes some jaw-droppingly ignorant rubbish about "heat", and you just lap it up rather than actually consult one simple physics textbook. Had you done that, the book would have informed you that heat has a very specific meaning: transfer of energy (not matter or thermodynamic work) between two thermodynamic systems. It can be through conduction (between bodies in contact), radiation between distant bodies, Ohmian heating through an electric current, or some mechanical work. The sun and the greenhouse effect heats the Earth through radiation, and the Earth loses energy again also primarily through radiation and through adiabatic transfer of work by expanding air (convection). FYI, "work" in physics also has a very precise and specific meaning, besides also being an everyday term for something you ought to go out and try someday. Just like the word "nut" in biology is a very precise definition of one type of fruit, even if it can also have a broader meaning in colloquial English when referring to certain types of bloggers. The world is indeed fascinating, isn´t it? Redigeret d. 18-04-2019 17:26 |
| 18-04-2019 19:36 | |
| IBDaMann★★★☆☆ (999) |
Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev: Jeg vidste, at du ville gøre det her. Du er absolut forudsigelig. Hvilken del af "udgivelse" forstår du ikke? Hele verden var publikum for det pågældende papir. Vis mig nu fysikmodellen. |
| 18-04-2019 20:01 | |
| Christoffer Bugge Harder★★★★☆ (1801) |
Hvilken del af "udgivelse" forstår du ikke? Hele verden var publikum for det pågældende papir. Yeah, sure, as we all know, the entire world, and particularly children and uninformed laymen, is the intended audience for technical papers on molecular kinetics, quantum mechanics and DNA sequencing technology. This must be the reason why scientific journals always admonish us scientists on page one in their instructions about how we should never use technical terminology, equations or large numbers when reporting our results. Or something. And of course, it goes without saying that just because you are yet another monolingual English-speaker who could not possibly pass a middle school physics test, it would be unwise to think that this should preclude you from being included in the intended audience of a German-language scientific paper on advanced physics. Vis mig nu fysikmodellen. OK. Here is a model of heat transfer that I think might be for you. Let me know if you have any trouble. "Strahlung" is radiation, "Leitung" is conduction, and "Konvektion" I will let you try through google translate. 
Redigeret d. 18-04-2019 20:04 |
| 18-04-2019 23:24 | |
| IBDaMann★★★☆☆ (999) |
Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev: Yeah, sure, as we all know, the entire world, and particularly children and uninformed laymen, is the intended audience for technical papers Ja. Jeg læste dem, da jeg var teenager. Disse papirer er skrevet til offentligheden. Tak for at bekræfte, at du ikke læste dem. Du har stadig ikke givet en "varme" fysik model. |
| 19-04-2019 06:49 | |
| Christoffer Bugge Harder★★★★☆ (1801) |
Just a tip, before the administrator kicks you out of klimadebat.dk for trolling in a language you don´t understand and disrupting meaningful discussions: For the next blog you choose as subject for your trolling, you will want to come up with a more convincing story than how a poor monolingual English-speaker struggling with understanding the basics of heat transfer, heat capacity and the first law of thermodynamics read through Einstein´s German-language science papers, let alone understood them. This is the only model you of heat transfer you really need to get started: You may then expand upon it with this, which includes a totally crazily scientific formula:  Radiation that hits an object is turned into heat energy - or thermal energy, if you prefer this word. "Thermal energy" is not a shred more precise or scientific a term than "heat energy", and judged by the physicists but since its etymology is Greek, I guess is does sound more "sciencyish" to the average imposteur who wishes to appear knowledgeable. Actually, more than 1000 scientific papers have been published in the last 4 years featuring "heat energy" prominently in the title. So, apparently a whole lot of physicists have failed to learn the "correct technical terms". Maybe you could offer a scientific course? Just let me know your real name and academic affiliation. Oh yes, and where and when did you get your PhD? Redigeret d. 19-04-2019 07:32 |
| 21-04-2019 01:00 | |
| IBDaMann★★★☆☆ (999) |
Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev: Dette er roden til dit problem. Du har aldrig lært videnskab. I stedet stolede du på nogle religiøse fanatikere, der løj til dig. Du tror, at videnskaben ikke er nødvendig for at diskutere videnskaben. Du tror, at videnskaben er andres mening. Når jeg beder dig om videnskab, henviser du altid til andres meninger. Du giver ikke videnskab. Jeg venter stadig på videnskaben om "varme". Nu, i stedet for at give videnskab, spørger du mig om legitimationsoplysninger. Du mener at legitimationsoplysninger omdanner meninger til videnskab. Ingen meninger er videnskab. Einsteins yndlingsfarve er ikke videnskab. Du siger "varme" er videnskab. Nu er det tid til at give videnskaben om "varme". Giv mig modellen. Jeg vil ikke have nogen meninger. Jeg vil ikke vide, hvor mange papirer der er skrevet. Du behøver ikke mine legitimationsoplysninger. Bare skriv videnskaben her. |
| 24-04-2019 07:53 | |
| Flemming☆☆☆☆☆ (4) |
IBDaMann skrev:Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev: Det er klart, at det er let at kalde andre for videnskabsfornægtere, nå man har sin helt egen definition af, hvad videnskab er. Ib, du er en klokkeklar troll - sorry. Du har intet (ægte) videnskabeligt bidraget med i denne tråd - og bare overskriften på tråden stinker jo langt væk af troll. Jeg nægter at tro på, der findes mennesker, som er så fjernt fra den virkelige verden, som du foregiver at være - - - For mig faldt kæden helt af ved nægtelse af termen Heat capacity, som jo er hele grundlaget for al beregning af transport af termisk energi. Men hyg dig med dit trolleri, jeg håber, du får dig et godt grin over dem, der hopper på limpinden, når du nu ikke har bedre ting at tage dig til. Jeg hopper i hvert fald af her - der er kun en ting, der er dummere end at trolle, og det er at forsøge at bekæmpe troll'en, men: Du er gennemskuet mvh Flemming |
| RE: Klima "gone religious"29-04-2019 22:47 | |
| Oilwell☆☆☆☆☆ (1) |
Sørgeligt!! Desværre, nationens tilstand....Hvordan er vi alle pludseligt nedsunket i fælles dommedags traumer? Bringer tilbage minder om den sorte middelalder og tider hvor kætteriske tanker opfattede planeten som rund. Klimaet er såvidt vides, med nogen form for sikkerhed, kun statisitisk at regne med i de sidste 100-150 år. Hvordan kan man her lave en lineær fremskrivning der i så fald dækker de sidste 4 mia år? Men når man nu gør sig den politiske umage og manglen på information og oplysning er så åbenlys, vil jeg da opfordre alle "Rasmus Nordquister" derude til at oplyse mig. Hvorfor opstod "den lille istid", hvor Svensken gik over Øresund. Og iøvrigt.... hvorfor forsvandt den igen ca 500 år senere? Næppe meneskelig indblanding. Da Krakatoa eksploderede i 1883 faldt den globale middel temperatur med 1.2 grader og normalen vendte først tilbage 5 år efter. Vulkaners effekt er håbløst nedprioriteret i tidens religiøse klimadebat, på trods af at mængden af CO2 udledt fra et par af disse bæster, langt overgår hvad mennesket endnu har fundet på. Endelig er der solens effekt....Med så tamt et statistisk grundlag, hvordan kan man så med nogen form for ovebevisning fortælle borgerne, at vi skal være parate til at betale mere for strøm, fjernvarme, biler etc., uden nogen som helst påviselig effekt. Forstår venstrefløjens desperation efter murens fald, men lad nu ikke nationen eller "kloden" falde i uføre. |
| 30-04-2019 08:11 | |
| Flemming☆☆☆☆☆ (4) |
Når man opretter en profil med navnet "Oilwell" på en klimadebatside - og derefter poster et indlæg, som er så faktaresistent, er man så debattroll? |
| 23-10-2019 17:19 | |
| Peter Poulsen☆☆☆☆☆ (20) |
Christoffer Bugge Harder skrev: Ja, det er jo lidt træls når folk efter en 6. forklaring alligevel ikke tror på 150 år gammel primitiv forskning. Ikke desto mindre har Tyndall ikke vist at CO2 absorberer IR, men blot at den spreder den ud i alle retninger. Hvor en del spredes tilbage til Jordoverfladen, er der tilsvarende en del af den indgående IR stråling, der med øget CO2 aldrig vil nå Jordoverfladen. Varmen på Jorden er forbigående, hvilket enhver sensibel person kan konkludere en stjerneklar nat, og enhver nogenlunde sensibel person kan konkludere efter at have mærket forskellen på en stjerneklar nat og en skyet nat. Forskellen her er ikke CO2, men de komplekse vandformationer på himlen med isolerende effekt, som kaldes skyer. Ja, man behøver end ikke et termometer for at skyde Tyndall-konklusionen om CO2 ned. |
| 24-10-2019 08:53 | |
| Peter Poulsen☆☆☆☆☆ (20) |
Her er en frisk artikel fra Frank Lansner, med henvisning til en artikel han skrev til Wattsupwiththat for 10 år siden om, hvorfor CO2 ikke kan være en "main climate driver". https://klimarealisme.dk/2019/10/23/co2-temperatures-and-ice-ages/ |
Deltag aktivt i debatten Hvorfor tror du stadig på den globale opvarmning?:
Lignende indhold
| Artikler |
| Global opvarmning |