Scientific Consensus

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Davros wrote:
I only know this CO2 is a greenhouse gas and we are thickening the blanket around the earth and the vast majority of our brightest and best have told us this will be bad for both us and those who come after us, so I'm off to seek a solution so my grandkids won't think to badly of me, I really can't be bothered with those who deny the science.

H2O in it's three phases - gas, liquid and solid is 100 times more common and 1000 times more effective.

Can you explain what effect CO2 could possibly have?

Neither water nor CO2 have the capability to warm the Earth.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

Will you please stop that? No one is saying that this is actually "warming" the Earth.

Wake wrote:
They mean that it slows the loss of heat absorbed from Sunlight.

Wake wrote:
This in turn means that the temperature in the atmosphere has to rise to a higher level so that "energy in equals energy out".

Wake wrote:
This is nothing more than the second law of thermodynamics.

Wake wrote:
These effects are both spontaneous at night and non-spontaneous during the day.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.

As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.

Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.

James___ wrote:

StarMan wrote:
A lion does not turn his head when a small dog barks. - Nigerian Proverb

Excellent proverb. After all, it's probably wake anyway LMAO !!!!


...@All,
..What wake (what happens when someone dies, you go to wake
hold a vigil beside (someone who has died).
"we waked Jim last night"
https://www.google.com/search?q=wake&oq=wake&aqs=chrome..69i57j0l5.991j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8) doesn't understand is that a near earth asteroid or comet could change the earth's orbit. This is because it would effect it's gravitational field as it passes through it.
..In astronomy they can use a Sun's wobble to determine what planets can be expected to be orbiting it, this includes both mass (size) and orbit in some cases.
..If astronomers can't see the planets, how do they know that they are there at all? According to astronomers, some stars appear to wobble back and forwards. Yes that's right, wobble! But stars don't move...do they?
http://www.planet-science.com/categories/over-11s/space/2010/09/it%E2%80%99s-in-the-shake-and-wobble!-.aspx
..If a planet can cause a star to wobble then why can't an asteroid or comet effect our planet ? Because wake said so, that's why.

I kind of wonder if itn and wake will ever read actual books on physics. It's not the same as surfing the next, it takes time and you have to consider things from the author's perspective first.

..Yep, I got "waked" LMAO!!!

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.

As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.

Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.

Irrelevant. We are talking about surface radiance, not that of the Sun.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.

As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.

Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.

Irrelevant. We are talking about surface radiance, not that of the Sun.

So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.

As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.

Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.

Irrelevant. We are talking about surface radiance, not that of the Sun.

So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?

Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.

As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.

Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.

Irrelevant. We are talking about surface radiance, not that of the Sun.

So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?

Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Styrofoam or any other "insulator" doesn't "reduce" heat.

Wake wrote:
It slows the transmission of it.

Wake wrote:
Obvious you think that a thermos bottle reduces the heat of the hot water inside.
...deleted usual insults...

James___ wrote:
wake and itn,
..The reason thermoses are slow to lose heat is because of vacuum. There's a shell around the part of the thermos that gets filled. With fewer air molecules to transfer heat from the contents the rate of entropy is slowed. This last part is something it said can't happen.
..In newer windows they'll use double panes for this same reason. Helps to stay cooler inside during the summer and warmer during the winter.
..In fact some of the more expensive windows might have steel that it's thickness is measured in microns between the 2 panes of the window.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.

As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.

Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.

Irrelevant. We are talking about surface radiance, not that of the Sun.

So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?

Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Styrofoam or any other "insulator" doesn't "reduce" heat.

Yes it does.

Wake wrote:
It slows the transmission of it.

You cannot slow or trap heat.

Wake wrote:
Obvious you think that a thermos bottle reduces the heat of the hot water inside.
...deleted usual insults...

Hot water is not heat.

Thermos bottles (proper name) reduce heat. That's why the hot water in them stays hot longer.

James___ wrote:
wake and itn,
..The reason thermoses are slow to lose heat

James___ wrote:
is because of vacuum. There's a shell around the part of the thermos that gets filled. With fewer air molecules to transfer heat

James___ wrote:
from the contents the rate of entropy is slowed.

James___ wrote:
This last part is something it said can't happen.

James___ wrote:
..In newer windows they'll use double panes for this same reason.

James___ wrote:
Helps to stay cooler inside during the summer and warmer during the winter.

James___ wrote:
..In fact some of the more expensive windows might have steel that it's thickness is measured in microns between the 2 panes of the window.

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
wake and itn,
..The reason thermoses are slow to lose heat is because of vacuum. There's a shell around the part of the thermos that gets filled. With fewer air molecules to transfer heat from the contents the rate of entropy is slowed. This last part is something it said can't happen.
..In newer windows they'll use double panes for this same reason. Helps to stay cooler inside during the summer and warmer during the winter.
..In fact some of the more expensive windows might have steel that it's thickness is measured in microns between the 2 panes of the window.

James perhaps you really ought to read what the hell is going on before commenting. It is nightmare who is telling us that you can't slow the transmission of heat. This is so bizarre that your adding anything about "vacuum" no matter how accurate is staggering.

Wake wrote:
He said that Styrofoam "reduces heat".

Wake wrote:
"Styrofoam is a good insulator because the plastic foam contains billions of trapped gas bubbles. Gases hinder heat conduction because their molecules are very far apart making it difficult for other molecules to collide with them. When molecules DO collide, they either give or take away energy."

In other words it slows the transmission of heat

Wake wrote:
and in no way reduces it

Wake wrote:
other than the general way that a center source of heat spreads

Wake wrote:
and while doing each individual molecule consecutively receives less heat.

Wake wrote:
The atmosphere behaves like the insulators slowing the transmission of heat to space.

Wake wrote:
CO2 is a heavier molecule

Wake wrote:
and theoretically would pass heat on more rapidly except of physics which demonstrates that it only absorbs heat from a very limited band of radiant energy (actually three major bands) and hence cannot absorb much heat to begin with.

Wake wrote:
You have a great deal more in common with nightmare since the both of you have the most outlandish ideas of the reality around you.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.

As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.

Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.

Irrelevant. We are talking about surface radiance, not that of the Sun.

So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?

Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Styrofoam or any other "insulator" doesn't "reduce" heat.

Yes it does.

Wake wrote:
It slows the transmission of it.

You cannot slow or trap heat.

Wake wrote:
Obvious you think that a thermos bottle reduces the heat of the hot water inside.
...deleted usual insults...

Hot water is not heat.

Thermos bottles (proper name) reduce heat. That's why the hot water in them stays hot longer.

You can't trap heat. I get that. Makes sense.
Hot water stay hot longer by reducing heat. I get that too.
Can you please explain the difference between "reducing" and "slowing" heat?

To me, and to others it seams, they are one in the same.

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.

As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.

Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.

Irrelevant. We are talking about surface radiance, not that of the Sun.

So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?

Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Styrofoam or any other "insulator" doesn't "reduce" heat.

Yes it does.

Wake wrote:
It slows the transmission of it.

You cannot slow or trap heat.

Wake wrote:
Obvious you think that a thermos bottle reduces the heat of the hot water inside.
...deleted usual insults...

Hot water is not heat.

Thermos bottles (proper name) reduce heat. That's why the hot water in them stays hot longer.

You can't trap heat. I get that. Makes sense.
Hot water stay hot longer by reducing heat. I get that too.
Can you please explain the difference between "reducing" and "slowing" heat?

To me, and to others it seams, they are one in the same.

Tim the plumber wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

drm wrote:
These 5 people do not all disagree with the statement that manmade CO2 emissions are the cause of global warming. They may disagree with other aspects of the consensus, especially the magnitude of the impacts. But most of them agree that manmade CO2 causes global warming.

As I said before - CO2 is responsible for a minute amount of warming.

None. Absorption of surface radiance by any substance does not warm the Earth.

Then perhaps you should tell us why it is warmer in the sunlight than at night.

Irrelevant. We are talking about surface radiance, not that of the Sun.

So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?

Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

Styrofoam or any other "insulator" doesn't "reduce" heat.

Yes it does.

Wake wrote:
It slows the transmission of it.

You cannot slow or trap heat.

Wake wrote:
Obvious you think that a thermos bottle reduces the heat of the hot water inside.
...deleted usual insults...

Hot water is not heat.

Thermos bottles (proper name) reduce heat. That's why the hot water in them stays hot longer.

You can't trap heat. I get that. Makes sense.
Hot water stay hot longer by reducing heat. I get that too.
Can you please explain the difference between "reducing" and "slowing" heat?

To me, and to others it seams, they are one in the same.

GG,

ITN has no idea what he is talking about.

James has it right.

Heat energy is transfered by conduction, radiation or convection.

There is such a thing as heat energy and it is different to temperature. It is different to power. The rate at which heat energy is transfered is measured in watts. This a unit of power. That is because energy per unit time is power.

So if you have a stone slab heated in a fire untill it is at 700c then take it out of the fire and use it to heat a pan of water the rate of heat energy transfered to the pan of water siting on top of it is a power thing.

The water in the pan will boil when a certain amount of heat energy has been transfered to the pan and then the water in it.

Into the Night wrote:

What you are calling 'heat energy' is just 'heat'. You are correct in that is not temperature. It can be measured in watts, horsepower, or any other unit of power.

Thermal energy is measured as a temperature.

Heat is not thermal energy. It is the flow of thermal energy from one region to another. Its rate is determined by the difference of temperature between the two regions and the coupling between the two regions.

The greater the temperature, the more heat.

The better the coupling, the more heat.

Heat is the flow, like the flow of a river. It is not the thermal energy itself any more than the current of a river is the water itself.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:

James___ wrote:
wake and itn,
..The reason thermoses are slow to lose heat is because of vacuum. There's a shell around the part of the thermos that gets filled. With fewer air molecules to transfer heat from the contents the rate of entropy is slowed. This last part is something it said can't happen.
..In newer windows they'll use double panes for this same reason. Helps to stay cooler inside during the summer and warmer during the winter.
..In fact some of the more expensive windows might have steel that it's thickness is measured in microns between the 2 panes of the window.

James perhaps you really ought to read what the hell is going on before commenting. It is nightmare who is telling us that you can't slow the transmission of heat. This is so bizarre that your adding anything about "vacuum" no matter how accurate is staggering.

No, he's doing what you're doing, trying to give examples of thermal insulation.

Wake wrote:
He said that Styrofoam "reduces heat".

That it does.

Wake wrote:
"Styrofoam is a good insulator because the plastic foam contains billions of trapped gas bubbles. Gases hinder heat conduction because their molecules are very far apart making it difficult for other molecules to collide with them. When molecules DO collide, they either give or take away energy."

In other words it slows the transmission of heat

Heat doesn't 'transmit'. Heat IS transmission. Heat is reduced. You cannot slow or trap heat.

Wake wrote:
and in no way reduces it

That's exactly what it does. That's all it does.

Wake wrote:
other than the general way that a center source of heat spreads

Heat doesn't 'spread out'. Thermal energy does. That's called dispersion.

Wake wrote:
and while doing each individual molecule consecutively receives less heat.

Dispersion does not change how much heat a molecule absorbs or emits.

Wake wrote:
The atmosphere behaves like the insulators slowing the transmission of heat to space.

The atmosphere does not slow, trap, or reduce heat.

Wake wrote:
CO2 is a heavier molecule

Weight of a molecule makes no difference.

Wake wrote:
and theoretically would pass heat on more rapidly except of physics which demonstrates that it only absorbs heat from a very limited band of radiant energy (actually three major bands) and hence cannot absorb much heat to begin with.

CO2 happens to have better thermal conductivity than almost any other gas or vapor in the atmosphere.

Makes no difference. ALL heat from the Earth is by radiance. Most of that radiance is from the surface itself. Very little of it comes from the atmosphere.

Wake wrote:
You have a great deal more in common with nightmare since the both of you have the most outlandish ideas of the reality around you.

Define 'real'. Yet another buzzword from you.

Tim the plumber wrote:
Heat is the rate at which particles are bvouncing off one another.

It does not really work at the molecular level.

The atom of gas that hits the International Space Station was not bouncing off anything for ages before it hit but that collision was the same as a temperature of 2000c. But the heat energy involved was so little and the gap between it happening and the next so long that the effective temperature of the skin of the ISS is very low in shade.

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Heat is the rate at which particles are bvouncing off one another.

It does not really work at the molecular level.

The atom of gas that hits the International Space Station was not bouncing off anything for ages before it hit but that collision was the same as a temperature of 2000c. But the heat energy involved was so little and the gap between it happening and the next so long that the effective temperature of the skin of the ISS is very low in shade.

"In an ideal gas, the internal energy is the statistical mean of the kinetic energy of the gas particles, and it is this kinetic motion that is the source and the effect of the transfer of heat across a system boundary. For this reason, the term "thermal energy" is sometimes used synonymously with internal energy."

So thermal energy is commonly referred to as heat because we are in a specific atmospheric density. You wouldn't say, "my this room is active with thermal energy" as nightmare suggests.

James___ wrote:

Wake wrote:

Tim the plumber wrote:
Heat is the rate at which particles are bvouncing off one another.

It does not really work at the molecular level.

The atom of gas that hits the International Space Station was not bouncing off anything for ages before it hit but that collision was the same as a temperature of 2000c. But the heat energy involved was so little and the gap between it happening and the next so long that the effective temperature of the skin of the ISS is very low in shade.

"In an ideal gas, the internal energy is the statistical mean of the kinetic energy of the gas particles, and it is this kinetic motion that is the source and the effect of the transfer of heat across a system boundary. For this reason, the term "thermal energy" is sometimes used synonymously with internal energy."

So thermal energy is commonly referred to as heat because we are in a specific atmospheric density. You wouldn't say, "my this room is active with thermal energy" as nightmare suggests.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/physics/work-and-energy/work-and-energy-tutorial/a/what-is-thermal-energy

Tim the plumber wrote:
Heat is the rate at which particles are bvouncing off one another.

It does not really work at the molecular level.

The atom of gas that hits the International Space Station was not bouncing off anything for ages before it hit but that collision was the same as a temperature of 2000c. But the heat energy involved was so little and the gap between it happening and the next so long that the effective temperature of the skin of the ISS is very low in shade.

Into the Night wrote:


Thermal energy is not heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself.

Gilgamazing wrote:
This is crazy

https://realnewsproject.wixsite.com/website/single-post/2018/05/04/Prince-Edward-Island-is-Slowly-Sinking-due-to-Global-Warming

James___ wrote:

Into the Night wrote:


Thermal energy is not heat. Heat is the flow of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself.

http://tes.asu.edu/newwhatstes.html

Wake wrote:

Gilgamazing wrote:
This is crazy

https://realnewsproject.wixsite.com/website/single-post/2018/05/04/Prince-Edward-Island-is-Slowly-Sinking-due-to-Global-Warming

The True Believers will say absolutely anything. There is no BS deep enough for them.

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:


So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?

Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

RenaissanceMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:


So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?

Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

"Heat doesn't have a speed. Styrofoam doesn't slow heat."

Hold a copper rod in your left hand and a styrofoam rod in the other.
Then just for fun, hold a glass rod in the same hand with the styrofoam rod.
Put all three rods into a propane flame at the same time and tell us about
heat not having a speed.

RenaissanceMan wrote:
Gas and vapor INSULATE the earth.

RenaissanceMan wrote:
You know it, but you are playing games.

Into the Night wrote:

The glass rod reduces heat compared to the copper rod, therefore I will feel the cold end of the copper rod get warmer first.


[quote]RenaissanceMan: You know it, but you are playing games.

RenaissanceMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

The glass rod reduces heat compared to the copper rod, therefore I will feel the cold end of the copper rod get warmer first.


[quote]RenaissanceMan: You know it, but you are playing games.

Nope. No games being played.

Yes, lots of games are you playing.

The glass rod does NOT "reduce heat compared to the copper rod."

RenaissanceMan wrote:
It's called thermal conductivity.

RenaissanceMan wrote:
Copper has a thermal conductivity of 398 at 437 degrees F. The thermal conductivity of glass is approximately 1.

RenaissanceMan wrote:
I don't need any physics lessons from you when you continue to play games and claim that glass "reduces heat."

RenaissanceMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:


So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?

Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

"Heat doesn't have a speed. Styrofoam doesn't slow heat."

Hold a copper rod in your left hand and a styrofoam rod in the other.
Then just for fun, hold a glass rod in the same hand with the styrofoam rod.
Put all three rods into a propane flame at the same time and tell us about
heat not having a speed.

Gas and vapor INSULATE the earth. That is what is meant. You know it, but you are playing games. Very unscientific.

RenaissanceMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

The glass rod reduces heat compared to the copper rod, therefore I will feel the cold end of the copper rod get warmer first.


[quote]RenaissanceMan: You know it, but you are playing games.

Nope. No games being played.

Yes, lots of games are you playing.

The glass rod does NOT "reduce heat compared to the copper rod."
It's called thermal conductivity. Copper has a thermal conductivity of 398 at 437 degrees F. The thermal conductivity of glass is approximately 1.

I don't need any physics lessons from you when you continue to play games and claim that glass "reduces heat."

Wake wrote:

RenaissanceMan wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

Wake wrote:


So what you're saying is that heat goes exactly the same speed through copper as it does through Styrofoam?

Heat doesn't have a speed.

Styrofoam (as compared to copper) reduces heat. It doesn't 'slow' it.

You are wandering into the same mistaken arguments used by the Church of Global Warming again.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.

"Heat doesn't have a speed. Styrofoam doesn't slow heat."

Hold a copper rod in your left hand and a styrofoam rod in the other.
Then just for fun, hold a glass rod in the same hand with the styrofoam rod.
Put all three rods into a propane flame at the same time and tell us about
heat not having a speed.

Gas and vapor INSULATE the earth. That is what is meant. You know it, but you are playing games. Very unscientific.

Saying that he is unscientific will make not the slightest dent in his insistence that there is no such thing as insulation. He has no knowledge whatsoever of science and he is growing worse by the second. I think that it is early onset dementia or Alzheimers.

GasGuzzler wrote:
From what I gather ITNs stance is that the subject of heat is being taught wrong in schools and in textbooks. Full disclosure, again, this is coming from me, who paid little attention in school and now I'm trying to learn. That said, his description of heat makes sense to me.

Too often we describe temperature as heat. It is not.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Can it be trapped? No. Can it be slowed? ITN will say no...still can't get my brain around that one.

However, if you use his river analogy, water is not flow.
If you reduce the flow, say with a dam, you get a flood.

The same with heat. An object will remain warmer(temperature) be reducing heat.

Insulation REDUCES heat.

...let the corrections begin.

GasGuzzler wrote:
From what I gather ITNs stance is that the subject of heat is being taught wrong in schools and in textbooks. Full disclosure, again, this is coming from me, who paid little attention in school and now I'm trying to learn. That said, his description of heat makes sense to me.
Heat is the flow of

GasGuzzler wrote:
From what I gather ITNs stance is that the subject of heat is being taught wrong in schools and in textbooks. Full disclosure, again, this is coming from me, who paid little attention in school and now I'm trying to learn. That said, his description of heat makes sense to me.
Heat is the flow of