| Ice sat 2 launches22-09-2018 16:40 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
A new satellite launches that will be able to measure the heights of ice sheets and the thickness of remaining sea ice with unprecedented accuracy. I wonder if it will finally prove that the autodidact super-geniuses driven to the barely moderated edge of the internet (here) who tell us that the mass of ice is actually increasing is right.
https://www.space.com/41820-icesat-2.html
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/21/nasa-new-satellite-ice-melt-ice-sat-2-launches
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 22-09-2018 22:50 |
Into the Night ★★★★★
(21600) |
spot wrote:
A new satellite launches that will be able to measure the heights of ice sheets and the thickness of remaining sea ice with unprecedented accuracy. I wonder if it will finally prove that the autodidact super-geniuses driven to the barely moderated edge of the internet (here) who tell us that the mass of ice is actually increasing is right.
https://www.space.com/41820-icesat-2.html
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/21/nasa-new-satellite-ice-melt-ice-sat-2-launches
Well, it will have a new satellite that can measure elevation of a surface with greater resolution. Unfortunately, that does not tell you the thickness of the ice. The underlying seas and land moves, you see, and ice has different densities depending on any impurities that are in it, making it float higher or lower in the sea.
This satellite also have another limitation that is significant: It can only measure a spot about 2000ft in diameter. That spot moves with the satellite. It cannot see what is happening elsewhere at the same time to the ice, land, or sea; all of which are moving.
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 |
| 23-09-2018 17:08 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
A new satellite launches that will be able to measure the heights of ice sheets and the thickness of remaining sea ice with unprecedented accuracy. I wonder if it will finally prove that the autodidact super-geniuses driven to the barely moderated edge of the internet (here) who tell us that the mass of ice is actually increasing is right.
https://www.space.com/41820-icesat-2.html
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/21/nasa-new-satellite-ice-melt-ice-sat-2-launches
Well, it will have a new satellite that can measure elevation of a surface with greater resolution. Unfortunately, that does not tell you the thickness of the ice. The underlying seas and land moves, you see, and ice has different densities depending on any impurities that are in it, making it float higher or lower in the sea.
This satellite also have another limitation that is significant: It can only measure a spot about 2000ft in diameter. That spot moves with the satellite. It cannot see what is happening elsewhere at the same time to the ice, land, or sea; all of which are moving.
Bullshit
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 23-09-2018 20:28 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
spot wrote:
Bullshit
Oh that was clever. Apparently you have no counter-argument.
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 |
| 23-09-2018 21:06 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Bullshit
Oh that was clever. Apparently you have no counter-argument.
I don't need a counter argument all one has to do is read the link
CESat-2 will collect 5,000 elevation measurements in each of its six beams," said Tom Wagner, ICESat-2's program scientist at NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C. And each of those measurements is 28 inches (71 centimeters) apart.
Are we to assume that you know more about the capabilities of the satellite then Tom Wagner?
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
|
| 24-09-2018 02:30 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
A new satellite launches that will be able to measure the heights of ice sheets and the thickness of remaining sea ice with unprecedented accuracy. I wonder if it will finally prove that the autodidact super-geniuses driven to the barely moderated edge of the internet (here) who tell us that the mass of ice is actually increasing is right.
https://www.space.com/41820-icesat-2.html
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/sep/21/nasa-new-satellite-ice-melt-ice-sat-2-launches
Well, it will have a new satellite that can measure elevation of a surface with greater resolution. Unfortunately, that does not tell you the thickness of the ice. The underlying seas and land moves, you see, and ice has different densities depending on any impurities that are in it, making it float higher or lower in the sea.
This satellite also have another limitation that is significant: It can only measure a spot about 2000ft in diameter. That spot moves with the satellite. It cannot see what is happening elsewhere at the same time to the ice, land, or sea; all of which are moving.
Bullshit
...Maybe itn would prefer you saying bovine feces ? It's the same thing as bullshit but it doesn't resonate the same emotion. Actually, for it to be correct it would be feces derived from the male bovine. But that's only if we have a desire to be logical. I do believe in this instance that logic misses the attempt of an individual to properly express their sentiments.
Edited on 24-09-2018 02:40 |
| 24-09-2018 18:09 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
spot wrote:
A new satellite launches that will be able to measure the heights of ice sheets and the thickness of remaining sea ice with unprecedented accuracy. I wonder if it will finally prove that the autodidact super-geniuses driven to the barely moderated edge of the internet (here) who tell us that the mass of ice is actually increasing is right.
Which mass are you talking about?
Floating ice on the Arctic ocea? (generally decreasing although we may have seen the low point, hopefully some more melting will happen)
Antarctic ice mass on ground? (Even NASA says that this is increasing)
Greenland ice mass? ( Care to look at the numbers?)
All other ice mass is is small that it is irrelivent to any discussion of impacts to humanity. |
| 24-09-2018 20:17 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Bullshit
Oh that was clever. Apparently you have no counter-argument.
I don't need a counter argument all one has to do is read the link
CESat-2 will collect 5,000 elevation measurements in each of its six beams," said Tom Wagner, ICESat-2's program scientist at NASA headquarters in Washington, D.C. And each of those measurements is 28 inches (71 centimeters) apart.
Are we to assume that you know more about the capabilities of the satellite then Tom Wagner?
I have already described why the link is talking about technology that will not do what is promised. Turning to that won't work.
You have no counter-argument.
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 |
| 25-09-2018 19:41 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
A new satellite launches that will be able to measure the heights of ice sheets and the thickness of remaining sea ice with unprecedented accuracy. I wonder if it will finally prove that the autodidact super-geniuses driven to the barely moderated edge of the internet (here) who tell us that the mass of ice is actually increasing is right.
Which mass are you talking about?
Floating ice on the Arctic ocea? (generally decreasing although we may have seen the low point, hopefully some more melting will happen)
Antarctic ice mass on ground? (Even NASA says that this is increasing)
Greenland ice mass? ( Care to look at the numbers?)
All other ice mass is is small that it is irrelivent to any discussion of impacts to humanity.
This is a new satellite and will use be more accurate then the Icesat-1 Whatever mass you are talking about it will measure them and no I don't want to go through made up numbers you pulled out of your anus with you. The Data is far more interesting to me.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 25-09-2018 20:02 |
Tim the plumber★★★★☆
(1356) |
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
A new satellite launches that will be able to measure the heights of ice sheets and the thickness of remaining sea ice with unprecedented accuracy. I wonder if it will finally prove that the autodidact super-geniuses driven to the barely moderated edge of the internet (here) who tell us that the mass of ice is actually increasing is right.
Which mass are you talking about?
Floating ice on the Arctic ocea? (generally decreasing although we may have seen the low point, hopefully some more melting will happen)
Antarctic ice mass on ground? (Even NASA says that this is increasing)
Greenland ice mass? ( Care to look at the numbers?)
All other ice mass is is small that it is irrelivent to any discussion of impacts to humanity.
This is a new satellite and will use be more accurate then the Icesat-1 Whatever mass you are talking about it will measure them and no I don't want to go through made up numbers you pulled out of your anus with you. The Data is far more interesting to me.
You cowardice in the face of information you just don't want to hear is noted. |
| 25-09-2018 20:02 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
A new satellite launches that will be able to measure the heights of ice sheets and the thickness of remaining sea ice with unprecedented accuracy. I wonder if it will finally prove that the autodidact super-geniuses driven to the barely moderated edge of the internet (here) who tell us that the mass of ice is actually increasing is right.
Which mass are you talking about?
Floating ice on the Arctic ocea? (generally decreasing although we may have seen the low point, hopefully some more melting will happen)
Antarctic ice mass on ground? (Even NASA says that this is increasing)
Greenland ice mass? ( Care to look at the numbers?)
All other ice mass is is small that it is irrelivent to any discussion of impacts to humanity.
This is a new satellite and will use be more accurate then the Icesat-1 Whatever mass you are talking about it will measure them and no I don't want to go through made up numbers you pulled out of your anus with you. The Data is far more interesting to me.
It does not measure ice mass. It can't. There is no 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 |
| 25-09-2018 20:08 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
A new satellite launches that will be able to measure the heights of ice sheets and the thickness of remaining sea ice with unprecedented accuracy. I wonder if it will finally prove that the autodidact super-geniuses driven to the barely moderated edge of the internet (here) who tell us that the mass of ice is actually increasing is right.
Which mass are you talking about?
Floating ice on the Arctic ocea? (generally decreasing although we may have seen the low point, hopefully some more melting will happen)
Antarctic ice mass on ground? (Even NASA says that this is increasing)
Greenland ice mass? ( Care to look at the numbers?)
All other ice mass is is small that it is irrelivent to any discussion of impacts to humanity.
This is a new satellite and will use be more accurate then the Icesat-1 Whatever mass you are talking about it will measure them and no I don't want to go through made up numbers you pulled out of your anus with you. The Data is far more interesting to me.
You cowardice in the face of information you just don't want to hear is noted.
its not cowardice I just have better things to do.
If you really have proved NASA wrong why are posting it here?
Its because you have nothing and anyone remotely competent has you pegged as a timewaster.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 25-09-2018 20:09 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
A new satellite launches that will be able to measure the heights of ice sheets and the thickness of remaining sea ice with unprecedented accuracy. I wonder if it will finally prove that the autodidact super-geniuses driven to the barely moderated edge of the internet (here) who tell us that the mass of ice is actually increasing is right.
Which mass are you talking about?
Floating ice on the Arctic ocea? (generally decreasing although we may have seen the low point, hopefully some more melting will happen)
Antarctic ice mass on ground? (Even NASA says that this is increasing)
Greenland ice mass? ( Care to look at the numbers?)
All other ice mass is is small that it is irrelivent to any discussion of impacts to humanity.
This is a new satellite and will use be more accurate then the Icesat-1 Whatever mass you are talking about it will measure them and no I don't want to go through made up numbers you pulled out of your anus with you. The Data is far more interesting to me.
It does not measure ice mass. It can't. There is no data.
When it becomes operational there will be data.
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 25-09-2018 23:06 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
A new satellite launches that will be able to measure the heights of ice sheets and the thickness of remaining sea ice with unprecedented accuracy. I wonder if it will finally prove that the autodidact super-geniuses driven to the barely moderated edge of the internet (here) who tell us that the mass of ice is actually increasing is right.
Which mass are you talking about?
Floating ice on the Arctic ocea? (generally decreasing although we may have seen the low point, hopefully some more melting will happen)
Antarctic ice mass on ground? (Even NASA says that this is increasing)
Greenland ice mass? ( Care to look at the numbers?)
All other ice mass is is small that it is irrelivent to any discussion of impacts to humanity.
This is a new satellite and will use be more accurate then the Icesat-1 Whatever mass you are talking about it will measure them and no I don't want to go through made up numbers you pulled out of your anus with you. The Data is far more interesting to me.
It does not measure ice mass. It can't. There is no data.
When it becomes operational there will be data.
But not the data you're looking for. Like I said, this satellite doesn't measure ice mass. It can't.
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 |
| 26-09-2018 06:15 |
GasGuzzler★★★★★
(2935) |
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
A new satellite launches that will be able to measure the heights of ice sheets and the thickness of remaining sea ice with unprecedented accuracy. I wonder if it will finally prove that the autodidact super-geniuses driven to the barely moderated edge of the internet (here) who tell us that the mass of ice is actually increasing is right.
Which mass are you talking about?
Floating ice on the Arctic ocea? (generally decreasing although we may have seen the low point, hopefully some more melting will happen)
Antarctic ice mass on ground? (Even NASA says that this is increasing)
Greenland ice mass? ( Care to look at the numbers?)
All other ice mass is is small that it is irrelivent to any discussion of impacts to humanity.
This is a new satellite and will use be more accurate then the Icesat-1 Whatever mass you are talking about it will measure them and no I don't want to go through made up numbers you pulled out of your anus with you. The Data is far more interesting to me.
It does not measure ice mass. It can't. There is no data.
When it becomes operational there will be data.
But not the data you're looking for. Like I said, this satellite doesn't measure ice mass. It can't.
Oh, I don't know...I have a feeling it will have the EXACT "data" he is looking for.
I have found this entire conversation informative and amusing...
Spot, why do you continue to attack ITN and not engage in the argument? Make YOUR case. Do you have one? It's as if your just read something in Science Urinal and then just repeating it without understanding. Is that the the case? Sure looks like it from this side of the pond. ITN says it can't measure mass and has explained why. It makes sense to me that a satellite could only measure a small portion of the surface. Can you tell him WHY he is wrong?
Edited on 26-09-2018 06:18 |
|
| 26-09-2018 06:45 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
A new satellite launches that will be able to measure the heights of ice sheets and the thickness of remaining sea ice with unprecedented accuracy. I wonder if it will finally prove that the autodidact super-geniuses driven to the barely moderated edge of the internet (here) who tell us that the mass of ice is actually increasing is right.
Which mass are you talking about?
Floating ice on the Arctic ocea? (generally decreasing although we may have seen the low point, hopefully some more melting will happen)
Antarctic ice mass on ground? (Even NASA says that this is increasing)
Greenland ice mass? ( Care to look at the numbers?)
All other ice mass is is small that it is irrelivent to any discussion of impacts to humanity.
This is a new satellite and will use be more accurate then the Icesat-1 Whatever mass you are talking about it will measure them and no I don't want to go through made up numbers you pulled out of your anus with you. The Data is far more interesting to me.
It does not measure ice mass. It can't. There is no data.
When it becomes operational there will be data.
But not the data you're looking for. Like I said, this satellite doesn't measure ice mass. It can't.
Oh, I don't know...I have a feeling it will have the EXACT "data" he is looking for.
I have found this entire conversation informative and amusing...
Spot, why do you continue to attack ITN and not engage in the argument? Make YOUR case. Do you have one? It's as if your just read something in Science Urinal and then just repeating it without understanding. Is that the the case? Sure looks like it from this side of the pond. ITN says it can't measure mass and has explained why. It makes sense to me that a satellite could only measure a small portion of the surface. Can you tell him WHY he is wrong?
..This is hilarious. It's straight out of Sun Tzu's The Art of War. I guess you and itn have read it, right ? |
| 26-09-2018 12:19 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
A new satellite launches that will be able to measure the heights of ice sheets and the thickness of remaining sea ice with unprecedented accuracy. I wonder if it will finally prove that the autodidact super-geniuses driven to the barely moderated edge of the internet (here) who tell us that the mass of ice is actually increasing is right.
Which mass are you talking about?
Floating ice on the Arctic ocea? (generally decreasing although we may have seen the low point, hopefully some more melting will happen)
Antarctic ice mass on ground? (Even NASA says that this is increasing)
Greenland ice mass? ( Care to look at the numbers?)
All other ice mass is is small that it is irrelivent to any discussion of impacts to humanity.
This is a new satellite and will use be more accurate then the Icesat-1 Whatever mass you are talking about it will measure them and no I don't want to go through made up numbers you pulled out of your anus with you. The Data is far more interesting to me.
It does not measure ice mass. It can't. There is no data.
When it becomes operational there will be data.
But not the data you're looking for. Like I said, this satellite doesn't measure ice mass. It can't.
Oh, I don't know...I have a feeling it will have the EXACT "data" he is looking for.
I have found this entire conversation informative and amusing...
Spot, why do you continue to attack ITN and not engage in the argument? Make YOUR case. Do you have one? It's as if your just read something in Science Urinal and then just repeating it without understanding. Is that the the case? Sure looks like it from this side of the pond. ITN says it can't measure mass and has explained why. It makes sense to me that a satellite could only measure a small portion of the surface. Can you tell him WHY he is wrong?
..This is hilarious. It's straight out of Sun Tzu's The Art of War. I guess you and itn have read it, right ?
Non-sequitur fallacy. What the hell does this book have to do with this conversation???
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 |
| 27-09-2018 17:42 |
James___★★★★★
(5513) |
Into the Night wrote:
..This is hilarious. It's straight out of Sun Tzu's The Art of War. I guess you and itn have read it, right ?
Non-sequitur fallacy. What the hell does this book have to do with this conversation???[/quote]
...Yet you discuss philosophy as if it were science. I don't think you know very much about science but want people to think you know more than you do. That book also illustrates how tactics like those you use can be used to deceive your opponents.
..With you it's funny how often you say the "Church of Global Warming" when you do not accept any definition of what a climate "is". That's a contradiction. After all you also say we can't measure the temperature of the Earth. So how is it you can say there is a "church" of anything when you say there is no basis for the "church" itself ? Kind of makes posting with you a waste of time. IMHO you're just a little boy who wants to get grown ups to notice them. |
| 27-09-2018 19:46 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
GasGuzzler wrote:
Oh, I don't know...I have a feeling it will have the EXACT "data" he is looking for.
I have found this entire conversation informative and amusing...
Spot, why do you continue to attack ITN and not engage in the argument? Make YOUR case. Do you have one? It's as if your just read something in Science Urinal and then just repeating it without understanding. Is that the the case? Sure looks like it from this side of the pond. ITN says it can't measure mass and has explained why. It makes sense to me that a satellite could only measure a small portion of the surface. Can you tell him WHY he is wrong?
It may make sense to you but that does not make it true, the link I posted shows that ITN is wrong.
Ive had the plesure of trying to debate ITN before he seems to insist that the Laws of thermodynamics are something other then what they actually are. Clearly that is insane. Just because someone writes in a self important and pompous style it does not mean his ideas have merit. If what he posts has any merit explain this; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPRd5GT0v0I
IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.
Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. |
| 27-09-2018 20:06 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
..This is hilarious. It's straight out of Sun Tzu's The Art of War. I guess you and itn have read it, right ?
Non-sequitur fallacy. What the hell does this book have to do with this conversation???
...Yet you discuss philosophy as if it were science.[/quote]
Never have. You're making stuff up again.
James___ wrote:
I don't think you know very much about science but want people to think you know more than you do. That book also illustrates how tactics like those you use can be used to deceive your opponents.
Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is denying science and mathematics here.
James___ wrote:
..With you it's funny how often you say the "Church of Global Warming" when you do not accept any definition of what a climate "is". That's a contradiction.
Not at all. You believe in a meaningless buzzword as a fundamentalist religion.
James___ wrote:
After all you also say we can't measure the temperature of the Earth.
That's right. You can't.
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 |
| 27-09-2018 20:12 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
spot wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Oh, I don't know...I have a feeling it will have the EXACT "data" he is looking for.
I have found this entire conversation informative and amusing...
Spot, why do you continue to attack ITN and not engage in the argument? Make YOUR case. Do you have one? It's as if your just read something in Science Urinal and then just repeating it without understanding. Is that the the case? Sure looks like it from this side of the pond. ITN says it can't measure mass and has explained why. It makes sense to me that a satellite could only measure a small portion of the surface. Can you tell him WHY he is wrong?
It may make sense to you but that does not make it true, the link I posted shows that ITN is wrong.
No, it doesn't. I already described why your Holy Link is wrong. Argument of the stone fallacy.
spot wrote:
Ive had the plesure of trying to debate ITN before he seems to insist that the Laws of thermodynamics are something other then what they actually are.
Never did. You just want to deny them.
spot wrote:
...deleted Mantras 13...13...21...
If what he posts has any merit explain this;
...deleted typical YouTube of the 'warming' parlour trick...
This typical parlour trick (this time by Mythbusters) only shows that CO2 absorbs infrared light. That does not warm the Earth. You cannot warm the Earth by using infrared light from the surface. This is just another way for the surface to be cooled by heating the atmosphere.
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 |
| 27-09-2018 20:53 |
spot★★★★☆
(1323) |
A funny trick where you tell the audience exactly how you did it. It's a demonstration not a trick
fool |
| 28-09-2018 03:17 |
Into the Night★★★★★
(21600) |
spot wrote:
A funny trick where you tell the audience exactly how you did it. It's a demonstration not a trick
fool
No, it's a parlour trick. Absorption of surface IR does not warm the Earth.
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 |