Greenhouse Gases Are Real

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Greenhouse Gases Are Real > Page 3

Page 3 of 4

06-09-2017 05:03
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	ITN wrote; I'm not going to interpret the Bible for you. It is clear you want to quote stuff out of context like any fundamentalist and put your own spin on it. This is a forum on climate, not a forum on resurrection or reincarnation. Amen?
06-09-2017 06:02
GreenMan ★★★☆☆ (661)	Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: [snipped unrelated BS] Sorry. We can talk about that one later. For now we are talking about whether or not CO2 is warmed by surface, or earth radiation. And you have admitted that it does. 'Admitted' that it does? I know it does. There is nothing mysterious about that. All gases absorb light on certain frequencies and warm, just as all substances do. GreenMan wrote: That makes it a Greenhouse Gas. No, it doesn't. All substances absorb light and warm up. GreenMan wrote: Whether or not it warms the planet is a different Theory, called Global Warming. [snipped rant about how no ones knows anything about science, or climate, or anything else for that matter. All gases do not absorb light and warm up. The two most abundant gases, Oxygen and Nitrogen do not absorb any light, and are totally transparent to radiation coming in and leaving the planet. But they will warm up by convection. That's the difference between gases like CO2, as John Tyndall discovered in 1859. The Greenhouse Effect is a different matter, which needs a thread of it's own, to keep this one from getting too convoluted with BS. As far as I am concerned, this issue is resolved, unless you want to stick with your claim that ALL gases absorb light at some wavelength. I don't think you really want to go there, because there has been a lot of research through the years that has determined beyond a doubt which gases absorb which wavelengths. So I am proposing that you drop your stupid, "There is no such thing as Greenhouse Gas," rebuttal line, because you have admitted that CO2 absorbs light and warms, which is what a Greenhouse Gas does. Feel free to continue claiming that there is no Greenhouse Effect if you want to, for now. But if you could, would you please stop interjecting it every 3 lines? ~~ GreenMan ~~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
06-09-2017 06:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: [snipped unrelated BS] Sorry. We can talk about that one later. For now we are talking about whether or not CO2 is warmed by surface, or earth radiation. And you have admitted that it does. 'Admitted' that it does? I know it does. There is nothing mysterious about that. All gases absorb light on certain frequencies and warm, just as all substances do. GreenMan wrote: That makes it a Greenhouse Gas. No, it doesn't. All substances absorb light and warm up. GreenMan wrote: Whether or not it warms the planet is a different Theory, called Global Warming. [snipped rant about how no ones knows anything about science, or climate, or anything else for that matter. All gases do not absorb light and warm up. They sure do. May I suggest you study up on spectral absorption lines as seen by your local spectrometer? GreenMan wrote: The two most abundant gases, Oxygen and Nitrogen do not absorb any light, They sure do. Oxygen will absorb light at approx 995nm (in the infrared band). Nitrogen has a strong absorption band at 4400nm (in the infrared band). GreenMan wrote: and are totally transparent to radiation coming in and leaving the planet. No, they aren't. GreenMan wrote: But they will warm up by convection. Convection doesn't warm a gas. It cools it, by transporting it higher in the atmosphere, where the pressure is less. GreenMan wrote: That's the difference between gases like CO2, as John Tyndall discovered in 1859. Not what Tyndall said. Stop worshiping the guy. All he showed was that gases absorb light. GreenMan wrote: The Greenhouse Effect is a different matter, which needs a thread of it's own, to keep this one from getting too convoluted with BS. Too late! You are already convoluted with your BS. GreenMan wrote: As far as I am concerned, this issue is resolved, Circular argument. You can't even define what 'greenhouse effect' is without using a circular definition related to 'global warming'. GreenMan wrote: unless you want to stick with your claim that ALL gases absorb light at some wavelength. They do. You can even ask Wake. He says he worked on spectrometers. GreenMan wrote: I don't think you really want to go there, because there has been a lot of research through the years that has determined beyond a doubt which gases absorb which wavelengths. Indeed there has. That's how I know you're wrong. GreenMan wrote: So I am proposing that you drop your stupid, "There is no such thing as Greenhouse Gas," rebuttal line, because you have admitted that CO2 absorbs light and warms, which is what a Greenhouse Gas does. It is not what a 'greenhouse' gas does. It's what ALL gases do. Are you saying all gases are 'greenhouse' gases??? GreenMan wrote: Feel free to continue claiming that there is no Greenhouse Effect if you want to, for now. But if you could, would you please stop interjecting it every 3 lines? No. You'll have to suffer with it whenever you repeat this mistake and try to push your religion on people as science. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-09-2017 08:35
GreenMan ★★★☆☆ (661)	Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: [snipped unrelated BS] Sorry. We can talk about that one later. For now we are talking about whether or not CO2 is warmed by surface, or earth radiation. And you have admitted that it does. 'Admitted' that it does? I know it does. There is nothing mysterious about that. All gases absorb light on certain frequencies and warm, just as all substances do. GreenMan wrote: That makes it a Greenhouse Gas. No, it doesn't. All substances absorb light and warm up. GreenMan wrote: Whether or not it warms the planet is a different Theory, called Global Warming. [snipped rant about how no ones knows anything about science, or climate, or anything else for that matter. All gases do not absorb light and warm up. They sure do. May I suggest you study up on spectral absorption lines as seen by your local spectrometer? GreenMan wrote: The two most abundant gases, Oxygen and Nitrogen do not absorb any light, They sure do. Oxygen will absorb light at approx 995nm (in the infrared band). Nitrogen has a strong absorption band at 4400nm (in the infrared band). GreenMan wrote: and are totally transparent to radiation coming in and leaving the planet. No, they aren't. GreenMan wrote: But they will warm up by convection. Convection doesn't warm a gas. It cools it, by transporting it higher in the atmosphere, where the pressure is less. GreenMan wrote: That's the difference between gases like CO2, as John Tyndall discovered in 1859. Not what Tyndall said. Stop worshiping the guy. All he showed was that gases absorb light. GreenMan wrote: The Greenhouse Effect is a different matter, which needs a thread of it's own, to keep this one from getting too convoluted with BS. Too late! You are already convoluted with your BS. GreenMan wrote: As far as I am concerned, this issue is resolved, Circular argument. You can't even define what 'greenhouse effect' is without using a circular definition related to 'global warming'. GreenMan wrote: unless you want to stick with your claim that ALL gases absorb light at some wavelength. They do. You can even ask Wake. He says he worked on spectrometers. GreenMan wrote: I don't think you really want to go there, because there has been a lot of research through the years that has determined beyond a doubt which gases absorb which wavelengths. Indeed there has. That's how I know you're wrong. GreenMan wrote: So I am proposing that you drop your stupid, "There is no such thing as Greenhouse Gas," rebuttal line, because you have admitted that CO2 absorbs light and warms, which is what a Greenhouse Gas does. It is not what a 'greenhouse' gas does. It's what ALL gases do. Are you saying all gases are 'greenhouse' gases??? GreenMan wrote: Feel free to continue claiming that there is no Greenhouse Effect if you want to, for now. But if you could, would you please stop interjecting it every 3 lines? No. You'll have to suffer with it whenever you repeat this mistake and try to push your religion on people as science. You are full of self [shit] as usual. Oxygen and Nitrogen are both diatomic molecules, incapable of absorbing infrared energy and warming up. They show up here, in this handy dandy, nifty chart. From: http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/476/488316/Instructor_Resources/Chapter_05/FG05_10.JPG They are not Greenhouse Gases, and all gases are not Greenhouse Gases. Much research has been done with Infrared spectroscopy, and they know for sure that oxygen and nitrogen do not absorb in the infrared and produce heat. Here's a good article on it, if you want to spend some time getting educated. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_spectroscopy#Theory That guy explains it pretty good: "Simple diatomic molecules have only one bond and only one vibrational band. If the molecule is symmetrical, e.g. N2, the band is not observed in the IR spectrum, but only in the Raman spectrum. Asymmetrical diatomic molecules, e.g. CO, absorb in the IR spectrum. More complex molecules have many bonds, and their vibrational spectra are correspondingly more complex, i.e. big molecules have many peaks in their IR spectra." Of course, you don't want to go there and read that, because it's from Wikipedia, and they are part of the grand conspiracy to bring down capitalism and destroy hard workers like you. So you have anything else to lie about, or shall we move on? ~~ GreenMan ~~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
06-09-2017 11:56
GreenMan ★★★☆☆ (661)	GasGuzzler wrote: ITN wrote; I'm not going to interpret the Bible for you. It is clear you want to quote stuff out of context like any fundamentalist and put your own spin on it. This is a forum on climate, not a forum on resurrection or reincarnation. Amen? Is that because you guys are afraid that the Bible talks about Global Warming too? You should be, because it does. Here you go. I'm sure this is about you guys, who think you should promote business as usual, over protecting the future of humanity. Revelation 11 15 Then the seventh angel sounded: And there were loud voices in heaven, saying, "The kingdoms[f] of this world have become the kingdoms of our Lord and of His Christ, and He shall reign forever and ever!" 16 And the twenty-four elders who sat before God on their thrones fell on their faces and worshiped God, 17 saying: "We give You thanks, O Lord God Almighty, The One who is and who was and who is to come,[g] Because You have taken Your great power and reigned. 18 The nations were angry, and Your wrath has come, And the time of the dead, that they should be judged, And that You should reward Your servants the prophets and the saints, And those who fear Your name, small and great, And should destroy those who destroy the earth." Yup, if you think you are being a good person for arguing against the scientists who say we are burning up the planet, then you better think again. Oh, do you think that isn't talking about burning up the planet? Revelation 8 7 The first angel sounded: And hail and fire followed, mingled with blood, and they were thrown to the earth.[a] And a third of the trees were burned up, and all green grass was burned up. That's how it starts. Don't let the religious nuts fool you into thinking that God is going to do that, so what we are doing must not be what it's talking about. Because it is, and that is why those who are preaching AGW Denial must be destroyed, because they are for destroying the world, even if they deny that it will destroy the world. If you want to know more, the Bible is full of Global Warming warnings and prophecies. That is what the Bible is preparing humanity for. Well, that and a few things that happen after it starts getting hot, like this description here. Revelation 16 17 Then the seventh angel poured out his bowl into the air, and a loud voice came out of the temple of heaven, from the throne, saying, "It is done!" 18 And there were noises and thunderings and lightnings; and there was a great earthquake, such a mighty and great earthquake as had not occurred since men were on the earth. 19 Now the great city was divided into three parts, and the cities of the nations fell. And great Babylon was remembered before God, to give her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath. 20 Then every island fled away, and the mountains were not found. 21 And great hail from heaven fell upon men, each hailstone about the weight of a talent. Men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail, since that plague was exceedingly great. That thing about "every island fled away," is Global Warming on steroids. I think it must be talking about what happens after the axis shift, and Antarctica ends up at the equator. Oh, you didn't know that the Bible talks about an axis shift? Sure it does. Here is an example, found in the book of Isaiah. Isaiah 38 7 And this is the sign to you from the Lord, that the Lord will do this thing which He has spoken: 8 "Behold, I will bring the shadow on the sundial, which has gone down with the sun on the sundial of Ahaz, ten degrees backward." So the sun returned ten degrees on the dial by which it had gone down. The only way the sun could go in reverse is if the planet did a shift on it's axis. Maybe Isaiah was just lying about that? ~~ GreenMan ~~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php

06-09-2017 20:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: [snipped unrelated BS] Sorry. We can talk about that one later. For now we are talking about whether or not CO2 is warmed by surface, or earth radiation. And you have admitted that it does. 'Admitted' that it does? I know it does. There is nothing mysterious about that. All gases absorb light on certain frequencies and warm, just as all substances do. GreenMan wrote: That makes it a Greenhouse Gas. No, it doesn't. All substances absorb light and warm up. GreenMan wrote: Whether or not it warms the planet is a different Theory, called Global Warming. [snipped rant about how no ones knows anything about science, or climate, or anything else for that matter. All gases do not absorb light and warm up. They sure do. May I suggest you study up on spectral absorption lines as seen by your local spectrometer? GreenMan wrote: The two most abundant gases, Oxygen and Nitrogen do not absorb any light, They sure do. Oxygen will absorb light at approx 995nm (in the infrared band). Nitrogen has a strong absorption band at 4400nm (in the infrared band). GreenMan wrote: and are totally transparent to radiation coming in and leaving the planet. No, they aren't. GreenMan wrote: But they will warm up by convection. Convection doesn't warm a gas. It cools it, by transporting it higher in the atmosphere, where the pressure is less. GreenMan wrote: That's the difference between gases like CO2, as John Tyndall discovered in 1859. Not what Tyndall said. Stop worshiping the guy. All he showed was that gases absorb light. GreenMan wrote: The Greenhouse Effect is a different matter, which needs a thread of it's own, to keep this one from getting too convoluted with BS. Too late! You are already convoluted with your BS. GreenMan wrote: As far as I am concerned, this issue is resolved, Circular argument. You can't even define what 'greenhouse effect' is without using a circular definition related to 'global warming'. GreenMan wrote: unless you want to stick with your claim that ALL gases absorb light at some wavelength. They do. You can even ask Wake. He says he worked on spectrometers. GreenMan wrote: I don't think you really want to go there, because there has been a lot of research through the years that has determined beyond a doubt which gases absorb which wavelengths. Indeed there has. That's how I know you're wrong. GreenMan wrote: So I am proposing that you drop your stupid, "There is no such thing as Greenhouse Gas," rebuttal line, because you have admitted that CO2 absorbs light and warms, which is what a Greenhouse Gas does. It is not what a 'greenhouse' gas does. It's what ALL gases do. Are you saying all gases are 'greenhouse' gases??? GreenMan wrote: Feel free to continue claiming that there is no Greenhouse Effect if you want to, for now. But if you could, would you please stop interjecting it every 3 lines? No. You'll have to suffer with it whenever you repeat this mistake and try to push your religion on people as science. You are full of self [shit] as usual. Oxygen and Nitrogen are both diatomic molecules, incapable of absorbing infrared energy and warming up. It doesn't matter. Both oxygen and nitrogen absorb light in the infrared band. That means they warm up when they absorb such light. Oxygen also absorbs some light in the green visible band. That also heats it. Nitrogen has another absorption band near yellow visible light. GreenMan wrote: ...deleted unrelated chart... They are not Greenhouse Gases, and all gases are not Greenhouse Gases. Absorption of light does not make a 'greenhouse' gas. ALL gases absorb light on certain frequencies. GreenMan wrote: Much research has been done with Infrared spectroscopy, and they know for sure that oxygen and nitrogen do not absorb in the infrared and produce heat. None. You really should look at the properties of these materials. GreenMan wrote: ...deleted Holy Link and quote... Of course, you don't want to go there and read that, because it's from Wikipedia, and they are part of the grand conspiracy to bring down capitalism and destroy hard workers like you. Wikipedia is biased, often incomplete, and often just flat wrong. It is discarded on sight as a reference. It is my choice to discard Wikipedia as a source...not yours. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-09-2017 20:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	GreenMan wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: ITN wrote; I'm not going to interpret the Bible for you. It is clear you want to quote stuff out of context like any fundamentalist and put your own spin on it. This is a forum on climate, not a forum on resurrection or reincarnation. Amen? ...deleted lengthy fundamentalist bible quoting... To GasGuzzler: I think we have a Church of Global Warming fundamentalist here. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
06-09-2017 20:41
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: ITN wrote; I'm not going to interpret the Bible for you. It is clear you want to quote stuff out of context like any fundamentalist and put your own spin on it. This is a forum on climate, not a forum on resurrection or reincarnation. Amen? ...deleted lengthy fundamentalist bible quoting... To GasGuzzler: I think we have a Church of Global Warming fundamentalist here. If he believes in God Almighty, great. I have no argument. What is weird is that he seems to think God Almighty needs help from man's SUV to rain fire and hail down on earth. God who created the Earth needs help destroying it? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
06-09-2017 23:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	GasGuzzler wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: ITN wrote; I'm not going to interpret the Bible for you. It is clear you want to quote stuff out of context like any fundamentalist and put your own spin on it. This is a forum on climate, not a forum on resurrection or reincarnation. Amen? ...deleted lengthy fundamentalist bible quoting... To GasGuzzler: I think we have a Church of Global Warming fundamentalist here. If he believes in God Almighty, great. I have no argument. What is weird is that he seems to think God Almighty needs help from man's SUV to rain fire and hail down on earth. God who created the Earth needs help destroying it? I don't think he does. He only believes in reincarnation and is willing to twist bible scripture to support his belief. If he does, you DO point out an interesting paradox in his reasoning. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-09-2017 10:53
GreenMan ★★★☆☆ (661)	GasGuzzler wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: ITN wrote; I'm not going to interpret the Bible for you. It is clear you want to quote stuff out of context like any fundamentalist and put your own spin on it. This is a forum on climate, not a forum on resurrection or reincarnation. Amen? ...deleted lengthy fundamentalist bible quoting... To GasGuzzler: I think we have a Church of Global Warming fundamentalist here. If he believes in God Almighty, great. I have no argument. What is weird is that he seems to think God Almighty needs help from man's SUV to rain fire and hail down on earth. God who created the Earth needs help destroying it? It's not God's intention to destroy the world, idiots. It was God who provided the prophecies to the prophets. The purpose in doing that was to get our attention, when the time came for us to figure out that we are destroying the world. You guys know less about God than you do Physics. Think. God = Physics : Physics = God. Yeah, I know, your stupid preacher didn't mention that to you, so you don't believe it. ~~ GreenMan ~~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
08-09-2017 21:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	GreenMan wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: ITN wrote; I'm not going to interpret the Bible for you. It is clear you want to quote stuff out of context like any fundamentalist and put your own spin on it. This is a forum on climate, not a forum on resurrection or reincarnation. Amen? ...deleted lengthy fundamentalist bible quoting... To GasGuzzler: I think we have a Church of Global Warming fundamentalist here. If he believes in God Almighty, great. I have no argument. What is weird is that he seems to think God Almighty needs help from man's SUV to rain fire and hail down on earth. God who created the Earth needs help destroying it? It's not God's intention to destroy the world, idiots. It was God who provided the prophecies to the prophets. The purpose in doing that was to get our attention, when the time came for us to figure out that we are destroying the world. You guys know less about God than you do Physics. Think. God = Physics : Physics = God. Yeah, I know, your stupid preacher didn't mention that to you, so you don't believe it. We couldn't destroy the world, even if we wanted to. We don't have that power. Physics, being part of science, is based on falsifiable theories. That means each theory in the body of science has been tested against it's null hypothesis, which stems from the model of the theory itself. For example: suppose I develop a theory in my mind that all bunnies in the world are brown. The null hypothesis of that theory is to find an exception to the rule. If I find a white bunny, the theory is destroyed. Science ONLY looks at conflicting evidence. Supporting evidence is not used. It doesn't matter how many brown bunnies I find. I am only looking for a bunny that isn't brown. Of course, the test for this particular theory means I have to examine every bunny in the world, and so succumbs to an argument of ignorance. The test isn't practical if there is only one bunny in the world that is not brown. In that case, the theory fails for that reason. The test is not available on a practical scale. If I limit my theory to a set of bunnies that CAN be practically examine, then the theory holds as long as I don't find any exceptions. It automatically would become part of the body of science. It would be destroyed the instant a different color bunny appeared in my limited set. The test for the null hypothesis must be available, practical, and produce a specific result. It must stem from the model of the theory itself (a world full of nothing but brown bunnies). This is how science filters out junk theories from good ones. Anything can inspire a theory. Making a theory part of the body of science, though, is quite difficult. Note that a theory will remain a theory. It is never proven. It remains a theory until it is destroyed. This process has nothing to do with a god or gods. It is not possible to prove whether such god or gods exist. It is not possible to prove they don't exist. There is no falsifiability test available. Such a theory must therefore remain the circular argument it start out as. It will never become part of the body of science. Thus, ALL religions are based on an initial circular argument, and the other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. The circular argument by itself is not a fallacy. ALL theories begin as circular arguments. It takes a certain amount of faith to push the theory into the kind of testing that will make it more than a circular argument and make it part of the body of science. It IS a fallacy to fail to recognize the circular argument for what it is. This is YOUR problem with the Church of Global Warming. At least Christians have the guts to say their religion is based on faith. You will find science has nothing to do with God, a god, or gods. You will find science isn't the only form of knowledge. It has its limits, defined by science itself. Physics, in particular, formalizes it's theories. Since science is an open system, it by itself does not have the power of prediction. Any theory by itself can only speculate (making it part of the theory) and not predict. To gain the power of prediction, the theory MUST be formalized into a closed system. ONLY in a closed system does the power of prediction exist. The reason is that a closed system is the only one where a formal proof exists. One such closed system is mathematics. The theory is formalized into a mathematical formula. Once this is done, the theory gains the power of prediction. If a theory formalizes into a relationship between pressure, flow, and friction, you can use that theory to predict the value of one term by knowing the two others. Ohms law is one such example. Instead of pressure you use voltage. Instead of flow use current. Instead of friction you use resistance. The relationship happens to be exactly the same. Again, God, a god, or gods are not part of the process. They have nothing to do with it. There is no math formula for God, a god, or gods. The term 'global warming' cannot be defined by anything other than itself. This means you cannot formalize the idea into any kind of usable math formula. There is no falsifiability test for a circular definition. Science has no place here. It is the same with the term 'climate change'. The term 'greenhouse effect' (where the Holy Gas resides) is defined in terms of 'global warming', and therefore suffers from the same problem. It is not a theory at all. It is not internally consistent. Even non-scientific theories MUST be internally consistent. There is nothing else you could call it besides a religion. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-09-2017 12:09
GreenMan ★★★☆☆ (661)	Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: ITN wrote; I'm not going to interpret the Bible for you. It is clear you want to quote stuff out of context like any fundamentalist and put your own spin on it. This is a forum on climate, not a forum on resurrection or reincarnation. Amen? ...deleted lengthy fundamentalist bible quoting... To GasGuzzler: I think we have a Church of Global Warming fundamentalist here. If he believes in God Almighty, great. I have no argument. What is weird is that he seems to think God Almighty needs help from man's SUV to rain fire and hail down on earth. God who created the Earth needs help destroying it? It's not God's intention to destroy the world, idiots. It was God who provided the prophecies to the prophets. The purpose in doing that was to get our attention, when the time came for us to figure out that we are destroying the world. You guys know less about God than you do Physics. Think. God = Physics : Physics = God. Yeah, I know, your stupid preacher didn't mention that to you, so you don't believe it. We couldn't destroy the world, even if we wanted to. We don't have that power. Physics, being part of science, is based on falsifiable theories. That means each theory in the body of science has been tested against it's null hypothesis, which stems from the model of the theory itself. For example: suppose I develop a theory in my mind that all bunnies in the world are brown. The null hypothesis of that theory is to find an exception to the rule. If I find a white bunny, the theory is destroyed. Science ONLY looks at conflicting evidence. Supporting evidence is not used. It doesn't matter how many brown bunnies I find. I am only looking for a bunny that isn't brown. Of course, the test for this particular theory means I have to examine every bunny in the world, and so succumbs to an argument of ignorance. The test isn't practical if there is only one bunny in the world that is not brown. In that case, the theory fails for that reason. The test is not available on a practical scale. If I limit my theory to a set of bunnies that CAN be practically examine, then the theory holds as long as I don't find any exceptions. It automatically would become part of the body of science. It would be destroyed the instant a different color bunny appeared in my limited set. The test for the null hypothesis must be available, practical, and produce a specific result. It must stem from the model of the theory itself (a world full of nothing but brown bunnies). This is how science filters out junk theories from good ones. Anything can inspire a theory. Making a theory part of the body of science, though, is quite difficult. Note that a theory will remain a theory. It is never proven. It remains a theory until it is destroyed. This process has nothing to do with a god or gods. It is not possible to prove whether such god or gods exist. It is not possible to prove they don't exist. There is no falsifiability test available. Such a theory must therefore remain the circular argument it start out as. It will never become part of the body of science. Thus, ALL religions are based on an initial circular argument, and the other word for the circular argument is 'faith'. The circular argument by itself is not a fallacy. ALL theories begin as circular arguments. It takes a certain amount of faith to push the theory into the kind of testing that will make it more than a circular argument and make it part of the body of science. It IS a fallacy to fail to recognize the circular argument for what it is. This is YOUR problem with the Church of Global Warming. At least Christians have the guts to say their religion is based on faith. You will find science has nothing to do with God, a god, or gods. You will find science isn't the only form of knowledge. It has its limits, defined by science itself. Physics, in particular, formalizes it's theories. Since science is an open system, it by itself does not have the power of prediction. Any theory by itself can only speculate (making it part of the theory) and not predict. To gain the power of prediction, the theory MUST be formalized into a closed system. ONLY in a closed system does the power of prediction exist. The reason is that a closed system is the only one where a formal proof exists. One such closed system is mathematics. The theory is formalized into a mathematical formula. Once this is done, the theory gains the power of prediction. If a theory formalizes into a relationship between pressure, flow, and friction, you can use that theory to predict the value of one term by knowing the two others. Ohms law is one such example. Instead of pressure you use voltage. Instead of flow use current. Instead of friction you use resistance. The relationship happens to be exactly the same. Again, God, a god, or gods are not part of the process. They have nothing to do with it. There is no math formula for God, a god, or gods. The term 'global warming' cannot be defined by anything other than itself. This means you cannot formalize the idea into any kind of usable math formula. There is no falsifiability test for a circular definition. Science has no place here. It is the same with the term 'climate change'. The term 'greenhouse effect' (where the Holy Gas resides) is defined in terms of 'global warming', and therefore suffers from the same problem. It is not a theory at all. It is not internally consistent. Even non-scientific theories MUST be internally consistent. There is nothing else you could call it besides a religion. That was a good explanation, for your beliefs, Pigeon Eater. But a few points need to be made. You are trying to use the terms, "Global Warming," and "Climate Change" as undefinable, simply because you refuse to allow either of the words in the terms to be used as a definition. That's laughable, but I do give you credit for trying such a ridiculous argument. I know we can't destroy the world. It's an expression. What we are doing will leave the Rock in place, without all that pretty vegetation, and there won't be a hottie anywhere. Funny that you would mention this: To gain the power of prediction, the theory MUST be formalized into a closed system. ONLY in a closed system does the power of prediction exist. The reason is that a closed system is the only one where a formal proof exists. One such closed system is mathematics. The theory is formalized into a mathematical formula. Once this is done, the theory gains the power of prediction. If a theory formalizes into a relationship between pressure, flow, and friction, you can use that theory to predict the value of one term by knowing the two others. Ohms law is one such example. Instead of pressure you use voltage. Instead of flow use current. Instead of friction you use resistance. The relationship happens to be exactly the same. I would have thought you were a little smarter than that. Here you have been arguing with me about my Climate Model, when it will do exactly as you say it should. Any of the missing values can be accurately determined, if the others are known, with the algorithm I derived for determining the average global temperature. Would you like a demonstration of that? Wait, let me guess. No, you are not interested, because the average global temperature was not known, to compare it to, is what you are going to say, even though we have a good proxy for the average global temperature. And that is because you don't want to know the truth, even though you have demonstrated your knowledge about how to determine it. But if you ever do want to know the truth, let me know. I will be glad to roll it out, show you everything about it, and easily prove its predictability. ~~ GreenMan ~~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
09-09-2017 20:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	GreenMan wrote: That was a good explanation, for your beliefs, Pigeon Eater. But a few points need to be made. You are trying to use the terms, "Global Warming," and "Climate Change" as undefinable, simply because you refuse to allow either of the words in the terms to be used as a definition. That's laughable, but I do give you credit for trying such a ridiculous argument. Only a religion would claim a circular argument doesn't matter. Only a religion needs to. GreenMan wrote: I know we can't destroy the world. It's an expression. Then why do you keep describing it? GreenMan wrote: What we are doing will leave the Rock in place, without all that pretty vegetation, and there won't be a hottie anywhere. We don't have the power to do that even if we wanted to. GreenMan wrote: I would have thought you were a little smarter than that. Here you have been arguing with me about my Climate Model, when it will do exactly as you say it should. WRONG. You MUST follow the rules of math. Models made up from random numbers mean nothing. GreenMan wrote: Any of the missing values can be accurately determined, WRONG. You don't have the necessary information to do it. GreenMan wrote: if the others are known, They are NOT known. GreenMan wrote: with the algorithm I derived for determining the average global temperature. You algorithm has math errors in it. GreenMan wrote: Would you like a demonstration of that? No, you have already demonstrated it. GreenMan wrote: Wait, let me guess. No, you are not interested, because the average global temperature was not known, to compare it to, is what you are going to say, even though we have a good proxy for the average global temperature. Math error: Failure to select independent of aspects of data. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to normalize against a paired randR. One point of measurement is NOT the Earth's temperature, no matter how you do it. GreenMan wrote: And that is because you don't want to know the truth, even though you have demonstrated your knowledge about how to determine it. I know how to determine it. We don't have nearly enough instrumentation to even try. GreenMan wrote: But if you ever do want to know the truth, let me know. I will be glad to roll it out, show you everything about it, and easily prove its predictability. Argument from randU. You are just making up numbers and calling it 'math'. Math has rules, you know. They do not change to accommodate your fake data. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-09-2017 12:05
GreenMan ★★★☆☆ (661)	Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: I know we can't destroy the world. It's an expression. Then why do you keep describing it? GreenMan wrote: What we are doing will leave the Rock in place, without all that pretty vegetation, and there won't be a hottie anywhere. We don't have the power to do that even if we wanted to. So I've been told. It goes something like, "Man does not control the weather, God controls the weather." In reality, it is a matter of physics, which you seem well versed in. Well, maybe not so much in things like the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and that pesky [and hard to memorize the name of] Stefan-Boltzmann Law. You appear to have memorized those laws well enough to get your diploma, but you don't appear to be able to use what those laws are saying to understand the world around you [which is what they went to the effort of writing them down for]. They weren't written down, so you could add words to them and misrepresent what they mean. Nor were they written down so you could use them to prove theories wrong, that were based on understandings gained from them. So, sorry, but you can't use physics to disprove Greenhouse Gases. Seems like you would have tried to use some other Denier claim as your own, since this one was so easy to debunk that a red neck from south Georgia was able to do it. I think I might have neglected to mention how it was that a red neck with no higher education than a technical school managed to become an engineer. You see, I learn from other people the things that I need to know, to solve whatever problem is before me. And I do that well. It doesn't take long before a student becomes the teacher, when the teacher is a moron that just repeats information. Morons can teach, which is where the expression, "If you can do, if you can't, teach," comes from. Morons are quite capable of memorizing information. Their problem is that they can't use that information to rationalize a solution to a problem. So they teach, since most professions involve solving problems, which they can't do. All they can do is stand there and spout memorized lesson plans. You fail to grasp the overall concept of what we are debating, which is why I stripped out everything but the most important aspect of this particular debate. It would be great if you were right, and that we didn't have anything to be concerned about regarding the supposed Global Warming Hoax. But what if you are wrong? And you are wrong [not sure if I mentioned that yet or not]. The temperature of the planet will continue to climb for hundreds of years into the future, if nothing changes to eliminate greenhouse gases, or shield the earth from the sun's rays. People whose parents are not alive yet will have to endure hardships that we are placing on them now. And it will continue to get worse as time goes on, no matter what happens to society. That's from a scientific look into our future. Stephen Hawking summed it up pretty good when he said that humanity's only hope is migration to another planet. I would think that we were really heading toward complete genocide, if not for the prophecies from around the world that speak of this period in time. They describe it quite well, but none of them really expressly say what to do in order to survive the calamities they predict. But quite a lot of calamities are predicted, both by the prophecies, and by the scientific community. None of the predictions sound like much fun, either. Both describe death and destruction everywhere, with the scientific predictions ending with certain death to all. The prophecies give me hope for future generations though, because they say there is a way through the destruction, that some people will find. They also say there is a natural solution to the overheating problem, which sounds just like a Caldera eruption. I choose to believe in the prophecies, and also the sciences. So my understanding comes from both places. And you know what. My understanding is that people like you will eventually stop influencing others, because people like you will cease to exist in the future world. When the dust settles on this little problem we have here, there will be few people left standing. That won't include many people who ignored the threat of Global Warming, and did nothing about preparing for disaster, because well, those people are going to die a very cruel death. They will have to watch their own families deteriorate before their eyes, unless they are lucky enough to die first. Food will become so scarce, that people will begin to eat the bodies of those who have already died. From there, it soon goes to killing each other, just to enjoy a meal, as if people were game animals. And it just keeps getting hotter. And hotter. ~~ GreenMan ~~ https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/leftbehind/index.php
10-09-2017 15:59
James_ ★★★★★ (2211)	GreenMan wrote: So, sorry, but you can't use physics to disprove Greenhouse Gases. . Actually this might be possible. [url]https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/overview-greenhouse-gases [/url] Check out the GWP (global warming potential) of different gases. F-gases easily have the highest. Gases that destroys the ozone layer have the highest GWP yet they seem to be ignored. Then you have some group like the IPCC stating that record levels of CO2 have prevented further depletion of the ozone layer. That's why I'm pursuing some research in my own way. That's trying an actual experiment to test a hypothesis.

10-09-2017 19:43
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: I know we can't destroy the world. It's an expression. Then why do you keep describing it? GreenMan wrote: What we are doing will leave the Rock in place, without all that pretty vegetation, and there won't be a hottie anywhere. We don't have the power to do that even if we wanted to. So I've been told. It goes something like, "Man does not control the weather, God controls the weather." At the least Man certainly can't. Oh...he might be able to get a cloud rain a bit earlier through cloud seeding, but that's not controlling much of anything. The cloud would have rained anyway once it reached any kind of lifting air. GreenMan wrote: In reality, it is a matter of physics, which you seem well versed in. This part is true. GreenMan wrote: Well, maybe not so much in things like the 1st and 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, and that pesky [and hard to memorize the name of] Stefan-Boltzmann Law. I am well versed in these also. GreenMan wrote: You appear to have memorized those laws well enough to get your diploma, but you don't appear to be able to use what those laws are saying to understand the world around you [which is what they went to the effort of writing them down for]. Since I use the laws of thermodynamics in my work quite a bit, and I am successful at my job, I will take this as a vague attempt as an insult. GreenMan wrote: They weren't written down, They were. GreenMan wrote: so you could add words to them and misrepresent what they mean. I have not added words to them. YOU keep doing that. YOU are the one trying to change their equations. Inversion fallacy. GreenMan wrote: Nor were they written down so you could use them to prove theories wrong, Any theory that conflicts with these theories is automatically wrong unless the new theory can show why the old theory should be destroyed. Science MUST be externally consistent. It cannot have two theories that conflict with each other. GreenMan wrote: that were based on understandings gained from them. Theories are not 'understandings'. They are not 'scientific knowledge' or knowledge at all. They are just theories. They will always be theories until they are destroyed. GreenMan wrote: So, sorry, but you can't use physics to disprove Greenhouse Gases. There is no proof in science. I do not have to prove a negative. YOU have to show there is something like a 'greenhouse gas' that is capable of warming the Earth just by itself. You have to do it and still reconcile with existing physics. You have not been able to do so. You have not even been able to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' without using circular definitions. No theory, not even a non-scientific one, can be based on a fallacy such as this. If you want to discuss 'global warming' or 'climate change' as any kind of theory, you MUST define these terms in some way other than using circular definitions. ...or resign yourself to a religion...that religion I refer to as the Church of Global Warming. GreenMan wrote: Seems like you would have tried to use some other Denier claim as your own, since this one was so easy to debunk that a red neck from south Georgia was able to do it. ...deleted remaining discussion of rednecks... So...you are willing to take the opinion of a redneck over science, eh? GreenMan wrote: You fail to grasp the overall concept of what we are debating, which is why I stripped out everything but the most important aspect of this particular debate. We are debating why your opinion is just a religion called the Church of Global Warming. We are debating on your religious belief that the planet is going to hell because of Man's activities. GreenMan wrote: It would be great if you were right, and that we didn't have anything to be concerned about regarding the supposed Global Warming Hoax. But what if you are wrong? And you are wrong [not sure if I mentioned that yet or not]. ...deleted lengthy predictions of doom and gloom... This is known as Pascal's Wager. A fallacy. It is often used by some Christians (and a few other religions) too. GreenMan wrote: That's from a scientific look into our future. Stephen Hawking summed it up pretty good when he said that humanity's only hope is migration to another planet. ...deleted more lengthy predictions of doom and gloom... Stephen Hawking is a talented mathematician. He is not a prophet. He is not a god. On this particular point he is wrong. GreenMan wrote: I choose to believe in the prophecies, and also the sciences. You believe the prophecies of the Church of Global Warming (and a twisted view of the Bible). You completely deny science. GreenMan wrote: So my understanding comes from both places. No. Just the one. GreenMan wrote: And you know what. My understanding is that people like you will eventually stop influencing others, because people like you will cease to exist in the future world. ...deleted more length predictions of doom and gloom... You are reading your chicken entrails again...in case you haven't noticed. GreenMan wrote: And it just keeps getting hotter. And hotter. You don't know the temperature of the Earth. There is nothing to make it hotter and hotter except increasing the output of the Sun more and more. That isn't happening. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-09-2017 20:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James_ wrote: GreenMan wrote: So, sorry, but you can't use physics to disprove Greenhouse Gases. . Actually this might be possible. ...deleted Holy Link... The EPA is a government agency. Science is not a government agency. This particular agency is well known for it's propaganda. They haven't improved the environment in any way since they were created. James_ wrote: Check out the GWP (global warming potential) of different gases. F-gases easily have the highest. Gases that destroys the ozone layer have the highest GWP yet they seem to be ignored. Then you have some group like the IPCC stating that record levels of CO2 have prevented further depletion of the ozone layer. Okay. Let's go around answering the Magick Ozone argument again. This argument from the DuPont corporation never seems to die. Ozone is O3. Oxygen is O2. We have a layer in the atmosphere called the stratosphere. That layer is a temperature inversion (but not an energy inversion). Temperature increases as you increase altitude, while the density decreases (air gets thinner). The Sun puts out UV light. These are roughly separated out into what we call UV-A, UV-B, and UV-C light. UV-C is the more energetic light. Absorption of this light does not cause heating, it causes chemical reactions. UV-C does not penetrate the atmosphere any more than into the top of the stratosphere. UV-B does reach the surface, but in largely reduced intensity. UV-A also reaches the surface but in slightly reduced intensity. When UV-B strikes oxygen (O2), the oxygen disassociates and forms ozone (O3). This is endothermic, cooling the air. When UV-C strikes ozone, it disassociates an reforms oxygen. This is an exothermic reaction, warming the air. As long as you have oxygen and sunlight, you WILL have ozone. You can't stop it or destroy it, even if you wanted to. CFC's are inert. They do not react with ozone. Flourine and chlorine are both VERY reactive substances. They will react with something else long before they get to the ozone layer. NONE of these gases have the ability to warm the Earth. Only the Sun can do that. If the output of the Sun remains constant. Earth's temperature remains constant. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas. 'Holes' in the ozone can appear at the poles during that pole's winter. There is no sun to create the ozone. Ozone is unstable. It self destructs over time. This is why 'holes' don't appear over industrialized nations, but over the poles instead. They are naturally occurring. They've always been there. We discovered them when we were sending up old sounding rockets in the 70's to study the Auroras. DuPont was losing it's patent on R-12 refrigerant at the same time. They concocted the whole story with ozone to keep a monopoly by forcing everyone in the United States to R-134a refrigerant (a new patent) using the force of government. This is the only way a monopoly can stay a monopoly...by use of government force. The ozone layer has nothing to do with carbon dioxide. The ozone layer has nothing to do with CFC's, chlorine, or fluorine. It is time to stop denying the Chapman cycle. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
10-09-2017 23:33
James_ ★★★★★ (2211)	ITN, I think with Tim the plumber and still learning saying someone has to be stupid to post in here might be an accurate statement. After all, you falsified Newton's theory of gravity and now you are explaining to me what you believe. You can't discuss anything. It's like you're bitter about something and need to take it out on someone.
11-09-2017 20:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James_ wrote: ITN, I think with Tim the plumber and still learning saying someone has to be stupid to post in here might be an accurate statement. After all, you falsified Newton's theory of gravity and now you are explaining to me what you believe. You can't discuss anything. It's like you're bitter about something and need to take it out on someone. Newton's theory of gravity has not been falsified. Einstein just added to it. He didn't falsify it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-09-2017 20:44
James_ ★★★★★ (2211)	Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: ITN, I think with Tim the plumber and still learning saying someone has to be stupid to post in here might be an accurate statement. After all, you falsified Newton's theory of gravity and now you are explaining to me what you believe. You can't discuss anything. It's like you're bitter about something and need to take it out on someone. Newton's theory of gravity has not been falsified. Einstein just added to it. He didn't falsify it. I think with what we discussed about Newton's gravity and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity a person would have to find science fascinating to consider there is an angular potential to gravity, kind of why planets orbit the Sun instead of being pulled into it.
11-09-2017 20:58
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	GreenMan wrote: Into the Night wrote: GreenMan wrote: [snipped unrelated BS] Sorry. We can talk about that one later. For now we are talking about whether or not CO2 is warmed by surface, or earth radiation. And you have admitted that it does. 'Admitted' that it does? I know it does. There is nothing mysterious about that. All gases absorb light on certain frequencies and warm, just as all substances do. GreenMan wrote: That makes it a Greenhouse Gas. No, it doesn't. All substances absorb light and warm up. GreenMan wrote: Whether or not it warms the planet is a different Theory, called Global Warming. [snipped rant about how no ones knows anything about science, or climate, or anything else for that matter. All gases do not absorb light and warm up. The two most abundant gases, Oxygen and Nitrogen do not absorb any light, and are totally transparent to radiation coming in and leaving the planet. But they will warm up by convection. That's the difference between gases like CO2, as John Tyndall discovered in 1859. The Greenhouse Effect is a different matter, which needs a thread of it's own, to keep this one from getting too convoluted with BS. As far as I am concerned, this issue is resolved, unless you want to stick with your claim that ALL gases absorb light at some wavelength. I don't think you really want to go there, because there has been a lot of research through the years that has determined beyond a doubt which gases absorb which wavelengths. So I am proposing that you drop your stupid, "There is no such thing as Greenhouse Gas," rebuttal line, because you have admitted that CO2 absorbs light and warms, which is what a Greenhouse Gas does. Feel free to continue claiming that there is no Greenhouse Effect if you want to, for now. But if you could, would you please stop interjecting it every 3 lines? You are a freaking moron. All of would have taken is for you to look it up. But since you are so convinced of your intellect you didn't. And made you usual ignorant comment. http://irina.eas.gatech.edu/EAS8803_Fall2009/Lec6.pdf Edited on 11-09-2017 21:00
11-09-2017 21:38
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: ITN, I think with Tim the plumber and still learning saying someone has to be stupid to post in here might be an accurate statement. After all, you falsified Newton's theory of gravity and now you are explaining to me what you believe. You can't discuss anything. It's like you're bitter about something and need to take it out on someone. Newton's theory of gravity has not been falsified. Einstein just added to it. He didn't falsify it. I think with what we discussed about Newton's gravity and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity a person would have to find science fascinating to consider there is an angular potential to gravity, kind of why planets orbit the Sun instead of being pulled into it. Exactly what do you believe that gravity and celestial motions have to do with the quantum effect of angular momentum? One is an effect of mass motion and gravity whereas the other is an electro-dynamic effect on a atomic level. Apparently you don't even know the travel of the outer valence electrons in large atoms. This is what I complain about when you write this sort of nonsense. You appear to discover a new word and then attempt to explain the universe with it.
11-09-2017 23:23
James_ ★★★★★ (2211)	Wake wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: ITN, I think with Tim the plumber and still learning saying someone has to be stupid to post in here might be an accurate statement. After all, you falsified Newton's theory of gravity and now you are explaining to me what you believe. You can't discuss anything. It's like you're bitter about something and need to take it out on someone. Newton's theory of gravity has not been falsified. Einstein just added to it. He didn't falsify it. I think with what we discussed about Newton's gravity and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity a person would have to find science fascinating to consider there is an angular potential to gravity, kind of why planets orbit the Sun instead of being pulled into it. Exactly what do you believe that gravity and celestial motions have to do with the quantum effect of angular momentum? One is an effect of mass motion and gravity whereas the other is an electro-dynamic effect on a atomic level. Apparently you don't even know the travel of the outer valence electrons in large atoms. This is what I complain about when you write this sort of nonsense. You appear to discover a new word and then attempt to explain the universe with it. Weren't you the person who told GreenMan off and just said this >> You are a freaking moron. << because you consider yourself a scientist ? Why you complain about me is because I have a theory to explain what scientists have observed and have acknowledged. Scientists do accept that something is happening that they do not understand. I'm okay with that because that would allow me to show them something. And that would give them a better understanding of the work that they are doing. And for some reason that bothers you. Could be because you don't see opportunity where scientists say a specific subject has had little research. Edited on 11-09-2017 23:24
11-09-2017 23:39
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James_ wrote: Why you complain about me is because I have a theory to explain what scientists have observed and have acknowledged. Scientists do accept that something is happening that they do not understand. I'm okay with that because that would allow me to show them something. And that would give them a better understanding of the work that they are doing. And for some reason that bothers you. Could be because you don't see opportunity where scientists say a specific subject has had little research. IF you have a theory then by all means explain it in detail.
12-09-2017 02:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: ITN, I think with Tim the plumber and still learning saying someone has to be stupid to post in here might be an accurate statement. After all, you falsified Newton's theory of gravity and now you are explaining to me what you believe. You can't discuss anything. It's like you're bitter about something and need to take it out on someone. Newton's theory of gravity has not been falsified. Einstein just added to it. He didn't falsify it. I think with what we discussed about Newton's gravity and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity a person would have to find science fascinating to consider there is an angular potential to gravity, There isn't. James_ wrote: kind of why planets orbit the Sun instead of being pulled into it. No, it's because an orbiting planet has linear momentum in a gravity field. See Kepler's laws and Newton's laws of motion and gravity. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 12-09-2017 02:07
12-09-2017 02:10
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: ITN, I think with Tim the plumber and still learning saying someone has to be stupid to post in here might be an accurate statement. After all, you falsified Newton's theory of gravity and now you are explaining to me what you believe. You can't discuss anything. It's like you're bitter about something and need to take it out on someone. Newton's theory of gravity has not been falsified. Einstein just added to it. He didn't falsify it. I think with what we discussed about Newton's gravity and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity a person would have to find science fascinating to consider there is an angular potential to gravity, There isn't. James_ wrote: kind of why planets orbit the Sun instead of being pulled into it. No, it's because an orbiting planet has linear momentum in a gravity field. See Kepler's laws and Newton's laws of motion and gravity. You bully you. How DARE you mention real science?
12-09-2017 03:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: ITN, I think with Tim the plumber and still learning saying someone has to be stupid to post in here might be an accurate statement. After all, you falsified Newton's theory of gravity and now you are explaining to me what you believe. You can't discuss anything. It's like you're bitter about something and need to take it out on someone. Newton's theory of gravity has not been falsified. Einstein just added to it. He didn't falsify it. I think with what we discussed about Newton's gravity and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity a person would have to find science fascinating to consider there is an angular potential to gravity, There isn't. James_ wrote: kind of why planets orbit the Sun instead of being pulled into it. No, it's because an orbiting planet has linear momentum in a gravity field. See Kepler's laws and Newton's laws of motion and gravity. You bully you. How DARE you mention real science? Heh. Blame Kepler and Newton. I couldn't help it! The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
12-09-2017 23:11
James_ ★★★★★ (2211)	Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: ITN, I think with Tim the plumber and still learning saying someone has to be stupid to post in here might be an accurate statement. After all, you falsified Newton's theory of gravity and now you are explaining to me what you believe. You can't discuss anything. It's like you're bitter about something and need to take it out on someone. Newton's theory of gravity has not been falsified. Einstein just added to it. He didn't falsify it. I think with what we discussed about Newton's gravity and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity a person would have to find science fascinating to consider there is an angular potential to gravity, There isn't. James_ wrote: kind of why planets orbit the Sun instead of being pulled into it. No, it's because an orbiting planet has linear momentum in a gravity field. See Kepler's laws and Newton's laws of motion and gravity. You bully you. How DARE you mention real science? Heh. Blame Kepler and Newton. I couldn't help it! And yet the Moon slows down the Earth's rotation. Now you and Wake can both say Newton's Law of Motion and you'll be talking real science. I guess the 2 of you missed that just to say I am wrong. And this means that the Sun and the Earth are no different or the Sun and the Earth/Moon. I think this is where Tim the Plumber and that other guy might be right. People making obvious mistakes to attack someone. It's funny that you 2 (Wake and Into the Night) don't acknowledge that momentum is being transferred as a result of gravity's influence on a body in orbit. Scientists accept it but you 2 don't because you can say Newton and Kepler.
13-09-2017 00:52
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: ITN, I think with Tim the plumber and still learning saying someone has to be stupid to post in here might be an accurate statement. After all, you falsified Newton's theory of gravity and now you are explaining to me what you believe. You can't discuss anything. It's like you're bitter about something and need to take it out on someone. Newton's theory of gravity has not been falsified. Einstein just added to it. He didn't falsify it. I think with what we discussed about Newton's gravity and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity a person would have to find science fascinating to consider there is an angular potential to gravity, There isn't. James_ wrote: kind of why planets orbit the Sun instead of being pulled into it. No, it's because an orbiting planet has linear momentum in a gravity field. See Kepler's laws and Newton's laws of motion and gravity. You bully you. How DARE you mention real science? Heh. Blame Kepler and Newton. I couldn't help it! And yet the Moon slows down the Earth's rotation. Now you and Wake can both say Newton's Law of Motion and you'll be talking real science. I guess the 2 of you missed that just to say I am wrong. And this means that the Sun and the Earth are no different or the Sun and the Earth/Moon. I think this is where Tim the Plumber and that other guy might be right. People making obvious mistakes to attack someone. It's funny that you 2 (Wake and Into the Night) don't acknowledge that momentum is being transferred as a result of gravity's influence on a body in orbit. Scientists accept it but you 2 don't because you can say Newton and Kepler. Jim - the Earth isn't effected by quantum angular momentum. It is slowed by the tidal actions of the Moon and Earth. Regardless of what you think I am not bullying you. I am trying to inform you when you fly off on these tangents. You consider it bullying ONLY because you can't stand to be wrong. Try and straighten up and when there's something you really do understand we'll all listen. But when you get these fancy new words in your head and try to use them to explain life the universe and everything people will knock your ideas down. This isn't personal - this is really the way science works.
13-09-2017 01:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: ITN, I think with Tim the plumber and still learning saying someone has to be stupid to post in here might be an accurate statement. After all, you falsified Newton's theory of gravity and now you are explaining to me what you believe. You can't discuss anything. It's like you're bitter about something and need to take it out on someone. Newton's theory of gravity has not been falsified. Einstein just added to it. He didn't falsify it. I think with what we discussed about Newton's gravity and Einstein's General Theory of Relativity a person would have to find science fascinating to consider there is an angular potential to gravity, There isn't. James_ wrote: kind of why planets orbit the Sun instead of being pulled into it. No, it's because an orbiting planet has linear momentum in a gravity field. See Kepler's laws and Newton's laws of motion and gravity. You bully you. How DARE you mention real science? Heh. Blame Kepler and Newton. I couldn't help it! And yet the Moon slows down the Earth's rotation. Now you and Wake can both say Newton's Law of Motion and you'll be talking real science. I guess the 2 of you missed that just to say I am wrong. And this means that the Sun and the Earth are no different or the Sun and the Earth/Moon. It is different. The orbit of the Earth is actually a sine wave path that happens to circle the Sun. The orbit is actually of the Earth-Moon system. The center of that orbital path is the center of gravity of the Earth-Moon pair. That is a point that is still inside the Earth, but not at the center of the Earth. James_ wrote: I think this is where Tim the Plumber and that other guy might be right. People making obvious mistakes to attack someone. It's funny that you 2 (Wake and Into the Night) don't acknowledge that momentum is being transferred as a result of gravity's influence on a body in orbit. I never said momentum can't be transferred to another body. Indeed, Newton's law accounts for it quite nicely. It would make a lousy game of pool or baseball without it! James_ wrote: Scientists accept it Of course they do. James_ wrote: but you 2 don't because you can say Newton and Kepler. Newton allowed for momentum transfer. It is part the effects of his equation F=mA. Now to correct your bad physics: The Earth is not slowing it's rotation (and the Moon gaining in orbital altitude) due to gravity. It is slowing due to drag. At the Moon's present distance, the Earth has two high tides and two low tides each day. Moving all that water takes energy. This is why the tides don't exactly line up with the Moon, but are slightly behind it. The Earth is also lopsided in it's distribution of mass, so the Moon's orbit applies a torque to the Earth. Earth slows down (adding about 13.7 microseconds to the length of a day each year). The Moon gains some of that energy, and Its distance increases. There will theoretically come a point of stability where the Moon is so far away it will move in sync with the Earth and there will be one tide, but the Sun will have exhausted its fuel long before then and will bloat to consume both the Earth and the Moon. Our present ability to see a total eclipse of the Sun will eventually be a thing of the past. There will be a point where it will never happen again because the Moon is too far away. The best we'll get is an annular eclipse of the Sun. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

13-09-2017 02:06
James_ ★★★★★ (2211)	Into the Night wrote: Newton allowed for momentum transfer. It is part the effects of his equation F=mA. Now to correct your bad physics: The Earth is not slowing it's rotation (and the Moon gaining in orbital altitude) due to gravity. It is slowing due to drag. I like what you said in your post; >> The Earth is not slowing it's rotation << Then you say this >> It is slowing due to drag. << I think you just like playing mind games with people.
13-09-2017 02:21
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Newton allowed for momentum transfer. It is part the effects of his equation F=mA. Now to correct your bad physics: The Earth is not slowing it's rotation (and the Moon gaining in orbital altitude) due to gravity. It is slowing due to drag. I like what you said in your post; >> The Earth is not slowing it's rotation << Then you say this >> It is slowing due to drag. << I think you just like playing mind games with people. Why did you just misrepresent what was said? Or can you simply not understand what he stated? I may have my differences with dopey but when he says something that is correct I would expect most people to agree with him.
13-09-2017 03:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Newton allowed for momentum transfer. It is part the effects of his equation F=mA. Now to correct your bad physics: The Earth is not slowing it's rotation (and the Moon gaining in orbital altitude) due to gravity. It is slowing due to drag. I like what you said in your post; >> The Earth is not slowing it's rotation << Then you say this >> It is slowing due to drag. << I think you just like playing mind games with people. I think you enjoy making contextomies. Try reading the post again and not try to take stuff out of context. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-09-2017 03:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	Wake wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Newton allowed for momentum transfer. It is part the effects of his equation F=mA. Now to correct your bad physics: The Earth is not slowing it's rotation (and the Moon gaining in orbital altitude) due to gravity. It is slowing due to drag. I like what you said in your post; >> The Earth is not slowing it's rotation << Then you say this >> It is slowing due to drag. << I think you just like playing mind games with people. Why did you just misrepresent what was said? Or can you simply not understand what he stated? I may have my differences with dopey but when he says something that is correct I would expect most people to agree with him. Heh. You ARE aware of who you are saying this to, right? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-09-2017 17:05
James_ ★★★★★ (2211)	Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Newton allowed for momentum transfer. It is part the effects of his equation F=mA. Now to correct your bad physics: The Earth is not slowing it's rotation (and the Moon gaining in orbital altitude) due to gravity. It is slowing due to drag. I like what you said in your post; >> The Earth is not slowing it's rotation << Then you say this >> It is slowing due to drag. << I think you just like playing mind games with people. Why did you just misrepresent what was said? Or can you simply not understand what he stated? I may have my differences with dopey but when he says something that is correct I would expect most people to agree with him. Heh. You ARE aware of who you are saying this to, right? I get it now. I need to apologize for being so slow to catch on. You 2 are Abbott and Costello, right ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M
13-09-2017 17:36
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Newton allowed for momentum transfer. It is part the effects of his equation F=mA. Now to correct your bad physics: The Earth is not slowing it's rotation (and the Moon gaining in orbital altitude) due to gravity. It is slowing due to drag. I like what you said in your post; >> The Earth is not slowing it's rotation << Then you say this >> It is slowing due to drag. << I think you just like playing mind games with people. Why did you just misrepresent what was said? Or can you simply not understand what he stated? I may have my differences with dopey but when he says something that is correct I would expect most people to agree with him. Heh. You ARE aware of who you are saying this to, right? I get it now. I need to apologize for being so slow to catch on. You 2 are Abbott and Costello, right ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M I asked you a question - WHY did you purposely misrepresent what was said? Why did you commit a lie and present it as what was said? Is that your morals and ethics?
13-09-2017 21:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Newton allowed for momentum transfer. It is part the effects of his equation F=mA. Now to correct your bad physics: The Earth is not slowing it's rotation (and the Moon gaining in orbital altitude) due to gravity. It is slowing due to drag. I like what you said in your post; >> The Earth is not slowing it's rotation << Then you say this >> It is slowing due to drag. << I think you just like playing mind games with people. Why did you just misrepresent what was said? Or can you simply not understand what he stated? I may have my differences with dopey but when he says something that is correct I would expect most people to agree with him. Heh. You ARE aware of who you are saying this to, right? I get it now. I need to apologize for being so slow to catch on. You 2 are Abbott and Costello, right ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M So now you compound your lie with ANOTHER lie by denying it??? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-09-2017 22:01
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	Into the Night wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Wake wrote: James_ wrote: Into the Night wrote: Newton allowed for momentum transfer. It is part the effects of his equation F=mA. Now to correct your bad physics: The Earth is not slowing it's rotation (and the Moon gaining in orbital altitude) due to gravity. It is slowing due to drag. I like what you said in your post; >> The Earth is not slowing it's rotation << Then you say this >> It is slowing due to drag. << I think you just like playing mind games with people. Why did you just misrepresent what was said? Or can you simply not understand what he stated? I may have my differences with dopey but when he says something that is correct I would expect most people to agree with him. Heh. You ARE aware of who you are saying this to, right? I get it now. I need to apologize for being so slow to catch on. You 2 are Abbott and Costello, right ? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M So now you compound your lie with ANOTHER lie by denying it??? When you have nothing else to offer I suppose you don't have any other way to counter BS save by multiplying on a lie.
14-09-2017 18:20
James_ ★★★★★ (2211)	Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: So now you compound your lie with ANOTHER lie by denying it??? When you have nothing else to offer I suppose you don't have any other way to counter BS save by multiplying on a lie. Nah, you 2 have it wrong. I find you guys entertaining. It seems that neither one of you are capable of discussing why the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and the Boltzmann constant applies to 2 different things. It does matter but as I said, you 2 can't discuss it because neither one of you understand why that specific work was done and for what purpose. I think as far as climate change goes it might help but do need to keep things simple for you Wake and ITN.
14-09-2017 18:59
Wake ★★★★★ (4034)	James_ wrote: Wake wrote: Into the Night wrote: So now you compound your lie with ANOTHER lie by denying it??? When you have nothing else to offer I suppose you don't have any other way to counter BS save by multiplying on a lie. Nah, you 2 have it wrong. I find you guys entertaining. It seems that neither one of you are capable of discussing why the Stefan-Boltzmann constant and the Boltzmann constant applies to 2 different things. It does matter but as I said, you 2 can't discuss it because neither one of you understand why that specific work was done and for what purpose. I think as far as climate change goes it might help but do need to keep things simple for you Wake and ITN. Why are you avoiding discussing why you misrepresented what nightmare had to say?

Page 3 of 4

Join the debate Greenhouse Gases Are Real:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist	140	15-04-2024 19:43
What a "REAL" American Brings to the Table	3	05-12-2023 01:14
None Of You Know The Real Intend, Purpose Of Climate Change Issue On The Media	7	04-12-2023 04:02
'Greenhouse' Effect?	49	30-11-2023 06:45
The government now wants everyone to ALWAYYS use their real name when using the net	20	18-11-2023 22:35