Remember me
▼ Content

Signing off



Page 2 of 2<12
26-11-2017 21:48
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Science isn't a mind game. Neither is math.


For you science is a mind game.

Nope. Science is not a mind game. It is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.
James_ wrote:
After all what is a circular argument ?

A circular argument is one that uses it's own conclusion as the predicate.
James_ wrote:
Is it you constantly challenging what a person posts while never having an opinion yourself.

I do have an opinion. I have been quite open about it. I do constantly challenge the crap coming out of the Church of Global Warming, I have been quite open about that also.
James_ wrote:
As you told me, if in my opinion you are racist

Racism is not matter of opinion. It is a logical fallacy involving a compositional error in which people are the class and a physical trait is the element being extended.
James_ wrote:
and only wish to disrupt this forum that I should get over it and answer your challenges.

A paranoid statement. You obviously haven't been paying attention to my arguments.
James_ wrote:
Maybe I do not care what a climate is or for that matter what global warming is. Maybe I just want to understand the argument that scientists have presented and how this compares to natural variability of the planet I live on.

To that I would say you are a liar. You DO care what a climate is and what global warming is.
James_ wrote:
After all, if you knew what scientists were saying about the changing weather patterns and why then you would know that has changed.

Did you know the wind changes pattern all the time? Which patterns are you concerned about?
James_ wrote:
But you don't because you challenge people because you like having other guys dancing for you.

Another paranoid statement. Do you think I am forcing you to dance for anyone?
James_ wrote:
It's a control issue, right ? It's your way of seeking vengeance IMO.

More paranoia.
James_ wrote:
See ? I'm not answering to you and letting you dictate my answers.

You ARE answering me. I am not dictating your answers. Only the paranoid think that.
James_ wrote:
Because I am taking time to consider what I am posting it is a response. If I just posted in response to your post then I would be reacting to your stimuli and then you would be in control of me. I don't like that thought.

You ARE reacting to my stimuli. You are posting a response to my post. Is that a bad thing?
James_ wrote:
Who knows, maybe you are Rajneesh after all. I doubt you're Pilchuk, Duwamish or Yakima. It's funny though when Litesong uses the words Silth Sea. Next is she going to say that Seattle, Wa. was named after Chief Sealth ? I mean everyone knows it was.

Way off. You really have no clue, do you?
James_ wrote:
And ItN, since America is named after Amerigo Vespucci it seems it was meant to be a continent of discovery.

An so it has been. It still is. The guy is probably the most honored navigator in history.
James_ wrote:
And what you might be missing is that in a small population of people all it takes is being there to be significant.

Size of population doesn't matter. For example, do you remember the name of the cabin boy of captain Columbus? How about the ship's cook? What do you consider significant?
James_ wrote:
In a larger population such as what the world has now a person needs to learn to accept things. That's why the expression "lost in a crowd". The individual seems to vanish just as a person who becomes lost in the woods.

Anyone can be significant. My products, for example, are sold around the world. You can be significant any time you feel like getting off your butt and doing something about it.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2017 21:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
litesong wrote:
[b]James_ wrote: Rajneesh...
I was on the abandoned Rajneesh property once. I followed a sick, curvy, up-&-down gullied dirt road with encroaching cacti, that was the limit for my small road car. Wonderful buildings & aerodrome, all emptied out with a sweet runway. Wasn't even any vandalism years after the abandonment, because it was way off the main roads. It was a major contrast between the murders & poisonings planned & executed by the Indian thugs:
http://www.oregonlive.com/rajneesh/index.ssf/2011/04/part_one_it_was_worse_than_we.html


Never visited the place. I forgot they built a runway.


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2017 21:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
NOAA has no idea what the temperature of Earth is or was. It is not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.

Hey...it is YOU that brought the concept of 'waste' heat. You're just using it as a buzzword.

No. It's not possible to determine the temperature of the Earth.

There are no references to what does not exist.

Science isn't a mind game. Neither is math.


Nightmare hasn't any idea of how to measure the MGT so no one else can. We've watched you stumbling ignorance for far too long.

Showing your ignorance in statistical math again?
Wake wrote:
I see that the concept of waste heat is also beyond you. But then again - what isn't.

What do you define as 'waste heat' in the context used here?
Wake wrote:
Again you're telling us all that you don't know how to measure MGT so no one else can. You really love to demonstrate your total ignorance of science don't you.

It's not a science question. It's a mathematical one. You just don't know the math.
Wake wrote:
In your case science and math aren't mind games because you have to have a mind to begin with.

...and dropping to the usual mantra from the Church of Global Warming. If you can't make a counterargument, insult 'em instead.
Wake wrote:
You haven't even the concept of science. You can't understand what is being said by the world's greatest scientists. Instead you pretend to be oh so much brighter than they are.

Argument by false authority. Credentials doesn't change the math.
Wake wrote:
You are nothing more than a clown on the keyboard.

...and back to the usual insult tactics from the Church of Global Warming.

Why do you figure this particular fallacy is going to work?


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2017 21:58
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote: Anyone can be significant. My products, for example, are sold around the world. You can be significant any time you feel like getting off your butt and doing something about it.


Not just anyone wants to be identified with toilet bowl brushes.
26-11-2017 22:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Anyone can be significant. My products, for example, are sold around the world. You can be significant any time you feel like getting off your butt and doing something about it.


Not just anyone wants to be identified with toilet bowl brushes.


...More ad hominem fallacy. The Church of Global Warming really is getting a good grip on you, isn't it?


The Parrot Killer
26-11-2017 22:06
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote: Showing your ignorance in statistical math again?

What do you define as 'waste heat' in the context used here?

It's not a science question. It's a mathematical one. You just don't know the math.

...and dropping to the usual mantra from the Church of Global Warming. If you can't make a counterargument, insult 'em instead.

Argument by false authority. Credentials doesn't change the math.

...and back to the usual insult tactics from the Church of Global Warming.

Why do you figure this particular fallacy is going to work?


The clown strikes again. After all, as we all know, measuring MGT isn't science according to nightmare - it's statistics. Of course we already know that stupid tells us that there is no way of measuring temperature so what would you use statistical math on?

Every word he types in demonstrates more plainly every single moment that he is a jackass.

And of course anyone that opposes his incapacity to even get the idea of science is a "member of the church of global warming". Because he knows everything that is happening and no one else does.

I see you're making buddy-buddy with litebrain. You two make a marvelous couple.
26-11-2017 22:08
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Anyone can be significant. My products, for example, are sold around the world. You can be significant any time you feel like getting off your butt and doing something about it.


Not just anyone wants to be identified with toilet bowl brushes.


...More ad hominem fallacy. The Church of Global Warming really is getting a good grip on you, isn't it?


I'll be up to Seattle in early January. Perhaps we could get together and you can impress me with your "products".
26-11-2017 23:10
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Anyone can be significant. My products, for example, are sold around the world. You can be significant any time you feel like getting off your butt and doing something about it.


Not just anyone wants to be identified with toilet bowl brushes.


...More ad hominem fallacy. The Church of Global Warming really is getting a good grip on you, isn't it?


I'll be up to Seattle in early January. Perhaps we could get together and you can impress me with your "products".


Coming up to see our possible heavy snow?

We won't meet. I don't trust you. You have shown too many violent tendencies.


The Parrot Killer
27-11-2017 02:01
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
James_ wrote:

[quote]James_ wrote:
After all what is a circular argument ?


Into the Night wrote:
A circular argument is one that uses it's own conclusion as the predicate.



So if I say I believe I need surgery (predicate) I am going to have surgery (conclusion).

To avoid a circular argument I would need to say I will not have surgery. I shouldn't disagree with my own predicate. That would be for someone else to do.
Your philosophy is flawed therefore what you post is flawed.

Bye
27-11-2017 05:39
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
James_ wrote:
James_ wrote:

[quote]James_ wrote:
After all what is a circular argument ?


Into the Night wrote:
A circular argument is one that uses it's own conclusion as the predicate.



So if I say I believe I need surgery (predicate) I am going to have surgery (conclusion).

If you are basing your decision to have surgery on a simple belief you need it, then yes...that is a circular argument.
James_ wrote:
To avoid a circular argument I would need to say I will not have surgery.

Not at all. You simply say why you need the surgery.
James_ wrote:
I shouldn't disagree with my own predicate.

To disagree with your own predicate produces a paradox. Instead, the predicate is the reasoning for the conclusion.
James_ wrote:
That would be for someone else to do.

Why would someone else produce a paradox for you?
James_ wrote:
Your philosophy is flawed therefore what you post is flawed.
Bye

This isn't philosophy. It's logic. It is not philosophy, which is an open system, it is logic, which is a closed system, like mathematics is a closed system. Because it's a closed system, it has formal proofs and the power of prediction available to it.

Like mathematics, it is defined by axioms, and the entire structure is based on formal proofs from those axioms.

Your biggest trouble seems to be that you were never taught logic, philosophy, mathematics, or science. For one thing, you keep confusing them. For another, you keep denying them in various ways.

It is possible to learn, but you have to take the initiative to do it, and open your mind enough to do it.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-11-2017 05:41
27-11-2017 15:37
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Anyone can be significant. My products, for example, are sold around the world. You can be significant any time you feel like getting off your butt and doing something about it.


Not just anyone wants to be identified with toilet bowl brushes.


...More ad hominem fallacy. The Church of Global Warming really is getting a good grip on you, isn't it?


I'll be up to Seattle in early January. Perhaps we could get together and you can impress me with your "products".


Coming up to see our possible heavy snow?

We won't meet. I don't trust you. You have shown too many violent tendencies.


What you have that passes for snow in Seattle is nothing. We had 4' of snow at Tahoe over the weekend.

The fact is that there is nothing about you that isn't phony to the bone.

We can't tell MGT. Well tell us loudmouth - how do we measure the amount of Sun's energy that strikes the outer atmosphere or the surface of the Earth? From your sheer ignorance we would be given the idea that we can't measure it despite it being directly in front of our face.

You are the lowest form of idiot. You know nothing about science and then attempt to make the entire world interpretable by one single calculation. This is a direct identification of your capacity to think.
27-11-2017 15:38
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Your biggest trouble seems to be that you were never taught logic, philosophy, mathematics, or science.
Hey, that's my line. The large majority of old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiners don't have science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in a poorly earned (or not earned) hi skule DEE-ploomaa. This is a basic trait of AGW denier liar whiner re-pubic-lick-uns.
27-11-2017 20:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Anyone can be significant. My products, for example, are sold around the world. You can be significant any time you feel like getting off your butt and doing something about it.


Not just anyone wants to be identified with toilet bowl brushes.


...More ad hominem fallacy. The Church of Global Warming really is getting a good grip on you, isn't it?


I'll be up to Seattle in early January. Perhaps we could get together and you can impress me with your "products".


Coming up to see our possible heavy snow?

We won't meet. I don't trust you. You have shown too many violent tendencies.


What you have that passes for snow in Seattle is nothing. We had 4' of snow at Tahoe over the weekend.

Heh. Tahoe is considerably higher than Seattle in elevation too. Big deal.
Wake wrote:
The fact is that there is nothing about you that isn't phony to the bone.

I don't depend on my credentials to make my arguments. You can choose to believe them or not. I really don't care.
Wake wrote:
We can't tell MGT.

Correct.
Wake wrote:
Well tell us loudmouth - how do we measure the amount of Sun's energy that strikes the outer atmosphere or the surface of the Earth?

We can. What you are missing (again) is the effects of emissivity.
Wake wrote:
From your sheer ignorance we would be given the idea that we can't measure it despite it being directly in front of our face.

Since you are effectively dropping emissivity from the equation and treating the Earth as a perfect black body, you are no longer using the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
You are the lowest form of idiot.

This is YOUR problem. It is YOU that is trying to change the law.
Wake wrote:
You know nothing about science

Another typical mantra from the Church of Global Warming.
Wake wrote:
and then attempt to make the entire world interpretable by one single calculation.

Never did. Pay attention. You just happen to have a lot of trouble with this particular law for some reason.
Wake wrote:
This is a direct identification of your capacity to think.

Yet another mantra from the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
27-11-2017 20:24
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
James_ wrote:
After all what is a circular argument ?


Into the Night wrote:
A circular argument is one that uses it's own conclusion as the predicate.



So if I say I believe I need surgery (predicate) I am going to have surgery (conclusion).[/quote]

Into the Night_ wrote:
If you are basing your decision to have surgery on a simple belief you need it, then yes...that is a circular argument.


That is funny. ROFLMAO. For me it is simple to understand why I believe I need surgery. After all I can't sh1t when I need to. Can't get any simpler really. So as you say,
Into the Night_ wrote:
If you are basing your decision to have surgery on a simple belief you need it, then yes...that is a circular argument.
As such that makes it a void argument, right ?

ItN, nothing replaces taking the time to learn. it's obvious that you haven't. Your philosophy makes assumptions without any understanding. Why I have better things to do like have surgery I believe I need.
27-11-2017 20:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
James_ wrote:
James_ wrote:
After all what is a circular argument ?


Into the Night wrote:
A circular argument is one that uses it's own conclusion as the predicate.



So if I say I believe I need surgery (predicate) I am going to have surgery (conclusion).


Into the Night_ wrote:
If you are basing your decision to have surgery on a simple belief you need it, then yes...that is a circular argument.

James_ wrote:
That is funny. ROFLMAO. For me it is simple to understand why I believe I need surgery. After all I can't sh1t when I need to. Can't get any simpler really. So as you say,
Into the Night_ wrote:
If you are basing your decision to have surgery on a simple belief you need it, then yes...that is a circular argument.
As such that makes it a void argument, right ?

Nope. You are trying very hard to redefine both a circular argument and a void argument.
You should probably learn what a predicate is and what a conclusion is before you go any further.

You have now stated a reasoning for having your surgery. It is no longer a circular argument. The predicate itself may be the result of one, however.

A void argument is one that has an undefinable predicate. In this case, the predicate is definable, so you are not making a void argument either.

James_ wrote:
ItN, nothing replaces taking the time to learn.

True.
James_ wrote:
it's obvious that you haven't.

Yet another mantra from the Church of Global Warming.
James_ wrote:
Your philosophy makes assumptions without any understanding.

This is not philosophy, this is logic. You seem to confuse these two as well.
James_ wrote:
Why I have better things to do like have surgery I believe I need.

You have given your reasoning to have the surgery. It is not a circular argument. The predicate (that you can't shit properly) may be the result of a circular argument itself. A doctor may have a better solution for you rather than surgery.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 27-11-2017 20:39
27-11-2017 21:04
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Heh. Tahoe is considerably higher than Seattle in elevation too. Big deal.

I don't depend on my credentials to make my arguments. You can choose to believe them or not. I really don't care.

Wake wrote:
Well tell us loudmouth - how do we measure the amount of Sun's energy that strikes the outer atmosphere or the surface of the Earth?

We can. What you are missing (again) is the effects of emissivity.

Since you are effectively dropping emissivity from the equation and treating the Earth as a perfect black body, you are no longer using the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


You grow funnier and funnier.

You don't depend on your credentials because you have none. That's fine but you have no practical knowledge nor any training whatsoever and yet think you can put it over on people. It ain't working.

Tell us all what you think the emissivity of the sun is. And HOW that effects the energy that is striking the outer atmosphere. Most people would be aware that it isn't possible to measure the inner temperature of the Sun and hence could not use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to make ANY of the calculations. Therefore how do you propose to measure the average amount of energy hitting the outer atmosphere?

Since you haven't any idea of energy transfer, your playing games with the laws of physics which you do not understand is nothing more than a joke.
27-11-2017 21:58
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Heh. Tahoe is considerably higher than Seattle in elevation too. Big deal.

I don't depend on my credentials to make my arguments. You can choose to believe them or not. I really don't care.

Wake wrote:
Well tell us loudmouth - how do we measure the amount of Sun's energy that strikes the outer atmosphere or the surface of the Earth?

We can. What you are missing (again) is the effects of emissivity.

Since you are effectively dropping emissivity from the equation and treating the Earth as a perfect black body, you are no longer using the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


You grow funnier and funnier.

You don't depend on your credentials because you have none.

So you keep claiming. You have no idea what my credentials are. You are again making the mistake that it's important somehow.
Wake wrote:
That's fine but you have no practical knowledge nor any training whatsoever and yet think you can put it over on people. It ain't working.

I didn't write the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are denying it. I don't need to claim any of my own training. The authoritative reference for any theory of science is the author(s) of the theory itself. The theory stands on its own. The same is true of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Wake wrote:
Tell us all what you think the emissivity of the sun is.

No one knows.
Wake wrote:
And HOW that effects the energy that is striking the outer atmosphere.

The energy that is striking the outer atmosphere is measurable. We have satellites that effectively act like electronic calorimeters to make just exactly this measurement. We can measure how much impinges the surface also (it's even easier). What we don't know is the emissivity of Earth.
Wake wrote:
Most people would be aware that it isn't possible to measure the inner temperature of the Sun and hence could not use the Stefan-Boltzmann law to make ANY of the calculations.

Correct. It is not possible to measure the interior or visible exterior of the Sun.
Wake wrote:
Therefore how do you propose to measure the average amount of energy hitting the outer atmosphere?

Calorimeters. That is how you measure heat.
Wake wrote:
Since you haven't any idea of energy transfer, your playing games with the laws of physics which you do not understand is nothing more than a joke.

Again the typical mantra from the Church of Global Warming.


The Parrot Killer
28-11-2017 00:41
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
So you keep claiming. You have no idea what my credentials are. You are again making the mistake that it's important somehow.

I didn't write the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are denying it. I don't need to claim any of my own training. The authoritative reference for any theory of science is the author(s) of the theory itself. The theory stands on its own. The same is true of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

No one knows.

The energy that is striking the outer atmosphere is measurable. We have satellites that effectively act like electronic calorimeters to make just exactly this measurement. We can measure how much impinges the surface also (it's even easier). What we don't know is the emissivity of Earth.

Correct. It is not possible to measure the interior or visible exterior of the Sun.

Calorimeters. That is how you measure heat.

Again the typical mantra from the Church of Global Warming.


I want to know what sort of credentials you have because I want to go to the school and present them with your postings so that they remove any and all diplomas you may have received.

As I stated - you haven't even a high school science education. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to this case exactly HOW?

You have already denied that you can tell the temperature of the Earth via "electronic calorimeters" but somehow you are saying that you CAN tell the temperature of open space with one.

This is getting BETTER every minute - what is an "electronic calorimeter"?
28-11-2017 01:14
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
So you keep claiming. You have no idea what my credentials are. You are again making the mistake that it's important somehow.

I didn't write the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You are denying it. I don't need to claim any of my own training. The authoritative reference for any theory of science is the author(s) of the theory itself. The theory stands on its own. The same is true of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

No one knows.

The energy that is striking the outer atmosphere is measurable. We have satellites that effectively act like electronic calorimeters to make just exactly this measurement. We can measure how much impinges the surface also (it's even easier). What we don't know is the emissivity of Earth.

Correct. It is not possible to measure the interior or visible exterior of the Sun.

Calorimeters. That is how you measure heat.

Again the typical mantra from the Church of Global Warming.


I want to know what sort of credentials you have because I want to go to the school and present them with your postings so that they remove any and all diplomas you may have received.

It doesn't work like that. You should already know that if you had a diploma.
Wake wrote:
As I stated - you haven't even a high school science education. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to this case exactly HOW?

You are attempting to decrease entropy in the atmosphere. Entropy never decreases in a system. You cannot heat the warmer surface with a colder gas.
Wake wrote:
You have already denied that you can tell the temperature of the Earth via "electronic calorimeters"

Calorimeters don't measure temperature. You are measuring heat, not temperature.
Wake wrote:
but somehow you are saying that you CAN tell the temperature of open space with one.

Never did say that, liar.
Wake wrote:
This is getting BETTER every minute - what is an "electronic calorimeter"?

Perhaps you should look up what a calorimeter is in the first place. Supposedly, if you had a science degree of any kind, you built one in a lab at one time. Maybe you slept through that class.


The Parrot Killer
28-11-2017 02:18
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:


You have now stated a reasoning for having your surgery. It is no longer a circular argument. The predicate itself may be the result of one, however.

A void argument is one that has an undefinable predicate. In this case, the predicate is definable, so you are not making a void argument either.

James_ wrote:
ItN, nothing replaces taking the time to learn.

True.
James_ wrote:
it's obvious that you haven't.

Yet another mantra from the Church of Global Warming.
James_ wrote:
Your philosophy makes assumptions without any understanding.

This is not philosophy, this is logic. You seem to confuse these two as well.
James_ wrote:
Why I have better things to do like have surgery I believe I need.

You have given your reasoning to have the surgery. It is not a circular argument. The predicate (that you can't shit properly) may be the result of a circular argument itself. A doctor may have a better solution for you rather than surgery.


ItN,
Into the Night wrote:You have now stated a reasoning for having your surgery. It is no longer a circular argument. The predicate itself may be the result of one, however.


I never gave a reason for why I am having surgery.

Into the Night wrote:A doctor may have a better solution for you rather than surgery.


surgery is required.

And ItN, I believe that 2 + 2 = 3. I am also right when I say that
28-11-2017 02:42
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:


You have now stated a reasoning for having your surgery. It is no longer a circular argument. The predicate itself may be the result of one, however.

A void argument is one that has an undefinable predicate. In this case, the predicate is definable, so you are not making a void argument either.

James_ wrote:
ItN, nothing replaces taking the time to learn.

True.
James_ wrote:
it's obvious that you haven't.

Yet another mantra from the Church of Global Warming.
James_ wrote:
Your philosophy makes assumptions without any understanding.

This is not philosophy, this is logic. You seem to confuse these two as well.
James_ wrote:
Why I have better things to do like have surgery I believe I need.

You have given your reasoning to have the surgery. It is not a circular argument. The predicate (that you can't shit properly) may be the result of a circular argument itself. A doctor may have a better solution for you rather than surgery.


ItN,
Into the Night wrote:You have now stated a reasoning for having your surgery. It is no longer a circular argument. The predicate itself may be the result of one, however.


I never gave a reason for why I am having surgery.

Uh....you did. See previous posts.


James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:A doctor may have a better solution for you rather than surgery.


surgery is required.

And ItN, I believe that 2 + 2 = 3. I am also right when I say that


I know you do. You deny math.


The Parrot Killer
28-11-2017 04:26
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:

Uh....you did. See previous posts.



When you make a claim it is up to you to demonstrate it. You don't know WHY I'm having surgery because I never posted that information. Of course now I can say that you are resorting to lies. A vague statement is not a cause or reason.

@Wake, IMO ItN wants to use psuedo logic in an attempt to confuse and frustrate people. An example is his claim that I deny math. Since I believe that 2 + 2 = 4 and I am right is not my denying math but am using the same logic that ItN uses and you have to accept what I say because I am right.

@ItN, I've better things to do with my time than to learn why you are right and I am not.
28-11-2017 15:35
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
As I stated - you haven't even a high school science education. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to this case exactly HOW?

You are attempting to decrease entropy in the atmosphere. Entropy never decreases in a system. You cannot heat the warmer surface with a colder gas.
Wake wrote:
You have already denied that you can tell the temperature of the Earth via "electronic calorimeters"

Calorimeters don't measure temperature. You are measuring heat, not temperature.
Wake wrote:
but somehow you are saying that you CAN tell the temperature of open space with one.

Never did say that, liar.
Wake wrote:
This is getting BETTER every minute - what is an "electronic calorimeter"?

Perhaps you should look up what a calorimeter is in the first place. Supposedly, if you had a science degree of any kind, you built one in a lab at one time. Maybe you slept through that class.


Again we get the comedy routine from you.

Exactly HOW am I "trying to reverse entropy"?

You still haven't described what you think an "electronic calorimeter" is. Exactly what does it do?

You show you don't know what you're talking about and then make as many false statements as you can in an effort to draw attention away from them.

So let me ask you again - what IS A CALORIMETER.
28-11-2017 19:03
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
As I stated - you haven't even a high school science education. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to this case exactly HOW?

You are attempting to decrease entropy in the atmosphere. Entropy never decreases in a system. You cannot heat the warmer surface with a colder gas.
Wake wrote:
You have already denied that you can tell the temperature of the Earth via "electronic calorimeters"

Calorimeters don't measure temperature. You are measuring heat, not temperature.
Wake wrote:
but somehow you are saying that you CAN tell the temperature of open space with one.

Never did say that, liar.
Wake wrote:
This is getting BETTER every minute - what is an "electronic calorimeter"?

Perhaps you should look up what a calorimeter is in the first place. Supposedly, if you had a science degree of any kind, you built one in a lab at one time. Maybe you slept through that class.


Again we get the comedy routine from you.

Exactly HOW am I "trying to reverse entropy"?

You still haven't described what you think an "electronic calorimeter" is. Exactly what does it do?

You show you don't know what you're talking about and then make as many false statements as you can in an effort to draw attention away from them.

So let me ask you again - what IS A CALORIMETER.


I've noticed is Modus Operandi works quite well on you. A simple web search would've provided you with an answer. For climate change don't think it's necessary myself. After all ItN states we can't know the temperature of anything so a calorimeter does matter because we would only know the one measurement that it's taking at that moment in time. And for the surface area of our planet satellites would work better. A minimum number of readings at time, altitude, etc. could be checked to verify the accuracy of the satellite.
With calorimeter, high energy particle physics is one application. Are you using a hadron collider or work at CERN ?

European Union for Nuclear Research wrote:cCalorimeters

The calorimeter system is designed to stop particles as they pass through the detector, measuring the amount of energy lost as each one grinds to a halt.

Two types of calorimeter are used at LHCb. The electromagnetic calorimeter is responsible for measuring the energy of lighter particles, such as electrons and photons, while the experiment's hadron calorimeter samples the energy of protons, neutrons and other particles containing quarks.

https://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/en/Detector/Calorimeters-en.html
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00828558

As far as climate change goes it's only real application would be measuring the Van Allen Radiation Belts and the solar radiation they are exposed to. Then it could be seen if as the Earth's rotation slows that the Van Allen Radiation belts are becoming weaker thus allowing more solar radiation to pass through them causing our planet to warm.
Outside of that, overkill. Anything that could measure kelvins to within .01 would work just fine and would be much cheaper to use.
Just another example of ItN messing with someone. After all, I'm the only person in here who thinks the Van Allen Radiation Belts have an effect on our atmosphere.

and Wake, this is what he might've been referring to but it has nothing to do with climate change. I think he's been throwing you some Red Herrings
https://literarydevices.net/red-herring/

Red Herring
Red Herring Definition
Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue.
Edited on 28-11-2017 19:07
28-11-2017 19:31
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
This image shows a humorous discussion. Why ? Because the troposphere is heated by the tropopause which is colder and as such colder gases are heating the part of the atmosphere that we live in.
Also the atmosphere is supposed to be warming the oceans without an increase in temperature.

For Wake, http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/cosmic_classroom/light_lessons/thermal/differ.html
Heat is the total energy of molecular motion in a substance while temperature is a measure of the average energy of molecular motion in a substance. Heat energy depends on the speed of the particles, the number of particles (the size or mass), and the type of particles in an object. Temperature does not depend on the size or type of object. For example, the temperature of a small cup of water might be the same as the temperature of a large tub of water, but the tub of water has more heat because it has more water and thus more total thermal energy.

Temperature x volume = Heat
And for what we're discussing it isn't that important. After all energy in the atmosphere is usually measured watt/meter^2. And for atmospheric warming is the amount of heat energy in watt/meter^2 increasing ? And remember, 1 watt for 1 second = 1 joule. And NOAA's graph on climate change used joules to reference the heat content in our environments (atmospheric and oceanic).
Attached image:


Edited on 28-11-2017 19:34
28-11-2017 19:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Uh....you did. See previous posts.



When you make a claim it is up to you to demonstrate it.

Don't need to. It's in the post history. Anyone can look for it themselves.
James_ wrote:
You don't know WHY I'm having surgery because I never posted that information.

You did. Now you deny it??
James_ wrote:
Of course now I can say that you are resorting to lies. A vague statement is not a cause or reason.

If you suddenly want to hide why you are having surgery after having described why, that's your business. I really don't care. Best of luck to your results.
James_ wrote:
@Wake, IMO ItN wants to use psuedo logic in an attempt to confuse and frustrate people. An example is his claim that I deny math. Since I believe that 2 + 2 = 4 and I am right is not my denying math but am using the same logic that ItN uses and you have to accept what I say because I am right.

You said you believe that 2 + 2 = 3. Make up your mind.
James_ wrote:
@ItN, I've better things to do with my time than to learn why you are right and I am not.

Argument of the Stone. Since you stubbornly refuse to learn anything from someone just because of who they are, it is bulverism as well.


The Parrot Killer
28-11-2017 20:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
As I stated - you haven't even a high school science education. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to this case exactly HOW?

You are attempting to decrease entropy in the atmosphere. Entropy never decreases in a system. You cannot heat the warmer surface with a colder gas.
Wake wrote:
You have already denied that you can tell the temperature of the Earth via "electronic calorimeters"

Calorimeters don't measure temperature. You are measuring heat, not temperature.
Wake wrote:
but somehow you are saying that you CAN tell the temperature of open space with one.

Never did say that, liar.
Wake wrote:
This is getting BETTER every minute - what is an "electronic calorimeter"?

Perhaps you should look up what a calorimeter is in the first place. Supposedly, if you had a science degree of any kind, you built one in a lab at one time. Maybe you slept through that class.


Again we get the comedy routine from you.

Exactly HOW am I "trying to reverse entropy"?

You still haven't described what you think an "electronic calorimeter" is. Exactly what does it do?

You show you don't know what you're talking about and then make as many false statements as you can in an effort to draw attention away from them.

So let me ask you again - what IS A CALORIMETER.


I've noticed is Modus Operandi works quite well on you. A simple web search would've provided you with an answer.

True. It would have. In any science program, you build one in a lab class at some point. I guess he never took the class or slept through it.
James_ wrote:
For climate change don't think it's necessary myself.

It isn't. You first have to define 'climate change' without using circular definitions.
James_ wrote:
After all ItN states we can't know the temperature of anything so a calorimeter does matter because we would only know the one measurement that it's taking at that moment in time.

Calorimeters don't measure temperature. They measure heat.
James_ wrote:
And for the surface area of our planet satellites would work better.

Satellites are unable to measure temperature. They can only measure light. No one knows the emissivity of Earth.
James_ wrote:
A minimum number of readings at time, altitude, etc. could be checked to verify the accuracy of the satellite.

Not good enough. Emissivity varies dramatically in the space of fractions of an inch.
James_ wrote:
With calorimeter, high energy particle physics is one application. Are you using a hadron collider or work at CERN ?

Since he doesn't know what one is, he has probably not worked at either (except maybe as a technician).
James_ wrote:
As far as climate change goes it's only real application would be measuring the Van Allen Radiation Belts and the solar radiation they are exposed to.

The Van Allen belts do not affect weather on Earth.
James_ wrote:
Then it could be seen if as the Earth's rotation slows that the Van Allen Radiation belts are becoming weaker thus allowing more solar radiation to pass through them causing our planet to warm.

The Van Allen belts do not absorb any solar radiation. It can redirect some particles to enter the atmosphere at the poles, but that's all.
James_ wrote:
Outside of that, overkill. Anything that could measure kelvins to within .01 would work just fine and would be much cheaper to use.

Buzzword fallacy. Temperature scale doesn't matter.
James_ wrote:
Just another example of ItN messing with someone. After all, I'm the only person in here who thinks the Van Allen Radiation Belts have an effect on our atmosphere.

That's right. You are the only one with this weird theory.
James_ wrote:
and Wake, this is what he might've been referring to but it has nothing to do with climate change. I think he's been throwing you some Red Herrings

Not what I was referring to. Wake's problems are his own, just as your's are.


The Parrot Killer
28-11-2017 20:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
James_ wrote:
This image shows a humorous discussion. Why ? Because the troposphere is heated by the tropopause which is colder and as such colder gases are heating the part of the atmosphere that we live in.

You can't heat something warmer using a colder substance. Did you forget the 2nd law of thermodynamics again?
James_ wrote:
Also the atmosphere is supposed to be warming the oceans without an increase in temperature.

Paradox. Warmer means an increase in temperature.
James_ wrote:
...deleted Holy Link and Quote...
Temperature x volume = Heat

Not the definition of heat. Your Holy Link is wrong. Heat is the transfer of thermal energy. You are confusing heat with heat capacity (or specific heat), mostly because your Holy Link is wrong.


The Parrot Killer
28-11-2017 22:00
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: Not the definition.....
But, old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner is the definition of "old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight".
28-11-2017 23:06
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
As I stated - you haven't even a high school science education. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to this case exactly HOW?

You are attempting to decrease entropy in the atmosphere. Entropy never decreases in a system. You cannot heat the warmer surface with a colder gas.
Wake wrote:
You have already denied that you can tell the temperature of the Earth via "electronic calorimeters"

Calorimeters don't measure temperature. You are measuring heat, not temperature.
Wake wrote:
but somehow you are saying that you CAN tell the temperature of open space with one.

Never did say that, liar.
Wake wrote:
This is getting BETTER every minute - what is an "electronic calorimeter"?

Perhaps you should look up what a calorimeter is in the first place. Supposedly, if you had a science degree of any kind, you built one in a lab at one time. Maybe you slept through that class.


Again we get the comedy routine from you.

Exactly HOW am I "trying to reverse entropy"?

You still haven't described what you think an "electronic calorimeter" is. Exactly what does it do?

You show you don't know what you're talking about and then make as many false statements as you can in an effort to draw attention away from them.

So let me ask you again - what IS A CALORIMETER.


I've noticed is Modus Operandi works quite well on you. A simple web search would've provided you with an answer. For climate change don't think it's necessary myself. After all ItN states we can't know the temperature of anything so a calorimeter does matter because we would only know the one measurement that it's taking at that moment in time. And for the surface area of our planet satellites would work better. A minimum number of readings at time, altitude, etc. could be checked to verify the accuracy of the satellite.
With calorimeter, high energy particle physics is one application. Are you using a hadron collider or work at CERN ?

European Union for Nuclear Research wrote:cCalorimeters

The calorimeter system is designed to stop particles as they pass through the detector, measuring the amount of energy lost as each one grinds to a halt.

Two types of calorimeter are used at LHCb. The electromagnetic calorimeter is responsible for measuring the energy of lighter particles, such as electrons and photons, while the experiment's hadron calorimeter samples the energy of protons, neutrons and other particles containing quarks.

https://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/en/Detector/Calorimeters-en.html
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00828558

As far as climate change goes it's only real application would be measuring the Van Allen Radiation Belts and the solar radiation they are exposed to. Then it could be seen if as the Earth's rotation slows that the Van Allen Radiation belts are becoming weaker thus allowing more solar radiation to pass through them causing our planet to warm.
Outside of that, overkill. Anything that could measure kelvins to within .01 would work just fine and would be much cheaper to use.
Just another example of ItN messing with someone. After all, I'm the only person in here who thinks the Van Allen Radiation Belts have an effect on our atmosphere.

and Wake, this is what he might've been referring to but it has nothing to do with climate change. I think he's been throwing you some Red Herrings
https://literarydevices.net/red-herring/

Red Herring
Red Herring Definition
Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue.


I know very well what he's doing. But HE doesn't know what he's doing. Most explanations of calorimeters leave out the most important part. Saying you can tell anything about the incoming energy from the Sun with a calorimeter is like saying that you can weigh the Earth.

Your references assume that you know a few critical things. In one of them they referred to it in a backhanded way that nightmare simply wouldn't pick up. This is a problem when dealing with physicists. They tend to think of physics in terms of shortcuts. A physicist will reduce a problem to an equation. Say his name is Smith - all other following physicists will refer to what might be a critical part of a calculation as a Smith equation. And you as an engineer NEED the equation and not a reference that they assume you would know. And because Smith is so common a name it might refer to a half dozen different things but the way it is used in a larger equation you are expected to understand which of several choices it might be. This is how I became a manager because I can understand what the hell they're talking about. I could force them to put everything in writing so that, say, the precise things we were accomplishing on the ISS were actually documented and not assumed that "Oh, any physicist would know what I'm talking about."
29-11-2017 01:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Wake wrote:
As I stated - you haven't even a high school science education. The 2nd law of thermodynamics applies to this case exactly HOW?

You are attempting to decrease entropy in the atmosphere. Entropy never decreases in a system. You cannot heat the warmer surface with a colder gas.
Wake wrote:
You have already denied that you can tell the temperature of the Earth via "electronic calorimeters"

Calorimeters don't measure temperature. You are measuring heat, not temperature.
Wake wrote:
but somehow you are saying that you CAN tell the temperature of open space with one.

Never did say that, liar.
Wake wrote:
This is getting BETTER every minute - what is an "electronic calorimeter"?

Perhaps you should look up what a calorimeter is in the first place. Supposedly, if you had a science degree of any kind, you built one in a lab at one time. Maybe you slept through that class.


Again we get the comedy routine from you.

Exactly HOW am I "trying to reverse entropy"?

You still haven't described what you think an "electronic calorimeter" is. Exactly what does it do?

You show you don't know what you're talking about and then make as many false statements as you can in an effort to draw attention away from them.

So let me ask you again - what IS A CALORIMETER.


I've noticed is Modus Operandi works quite well on you. A simple web search would've provided you with an answer. For climate change don't think it's necessary myself. After all ItN states we can't know the temperature of anything so a calorimeter does matter because we would only know the one measurement that it's taking at that moment in time. And for the surface area of our planet satellites would work better. A minimum number of readings at time, altitude, etc. could be checked to verify the accuracy of the satellite.
With calorimeter, high energy particle physics is one application. Are you using a hadron collider or work at CERN ?

European Union for Nuclear Research wrote:cCalorimeters

The calorimeter system is designed to stop particles as they pass through the detector, measuring the amount of energy lost as each one grinds to a halt.

Two types of calorimeter are used at LHCb. The electromagnetic calorimeter is responsible for measuring the energy of lighter particles, such as electrons and photons, while the experiment's hadron calorimeter samples the energy of protons, neutrons and other particles containing quarks.

https://lhcb-public.web.cern.ch/lhcb-public/en/Detector/Calorimeters-en.html
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00828558

As far as climate change goes it's only real application would be measuring the Van Allen Radiation Belts and the solar radiation they are exposed to. Then it could be seen if as the Earth's rotation slows that the Van Allen Radiation belts are becoming weaker thus allowing more solar radiation to pass through them causing our planet to warm.
Outside of that, overkill. Anything that could measure kelvins to within .01 would work just fine and would be much cheaper to use.
Just another example of ItN messing with someone. After all, I'm the only person in here who thinks the Van Allen Radiation Belts have an effect on our atmosphere.

and Wake, this is what he might've been referring to but it has nothing to do with climate change. I think he's been throwing you some Red Herrings
https://literarydevices.net/red-herring/

Red Herring
Red Herring Definition
Red herring is a kind of fallacy that is an irrelevant topic introduced in an argument to divert the attention of listeners or readers from the original issue.


I know very well what he's doing.

I don't think you do.
Wake wrote:
But HE doesn't know what he's doing.

yet another mantra from the Church of Global Warming. I should really start deleting these in my responses and replace them with numbers for shorthand use. Henceforth I will reduce this mantra to Mantra 2.
Wake wrote:
Most explanations of calorimeters leave out the most important part.

How would you know? You just said you don't know what a calorimeter IS.
Wake wrote:
Saying you can tell anything about the incoming energy from the Sun with a calorimeter is like saying that you can weigh the Earth.

You CAN weigh the Earth. We've done it already. Maybe you missed that class too.
Wake wrote:
Your references assume that you know a few critical things. In one of them they referred to it in a backhanded way that nightmare simply wouldn't pick up. This is a problem when dealing with physicists. They tend to think of physics in terms of shortcuts. A physicist will reduce a problem to an equation. Say his name is Smith - all other following physicists will refer to what might be a critical part of a calculation as a Smith equation. And you as an engineer NEED the equation and not a reference that they assume you would know. And because Smith is so common a name it might refer to a half dozen different things but the way it is used in a larger equation you are expected to understand which of several choices it might be. This is how I became a manager because I can understand what the hell they're talking about. I could force them to put everything in writing so that, say, the precise things we were accomplishing on the ISS were actually documented and not assumed that "Oh, any physicist would know what I'm talking about."

??? This is a manager talking??? I rarely see this confused a mass of words from anyone except litebeer.


The Parrot Killer
29-11-2017 14:30
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" bluffed: I will reduce this....
"old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner badnight" CANNOT be reduced to anything less than an old sick silly sleepy sleezy slimy slimebag steenkin' filthy vile reprobate rooting (& rotting) racist pukey proud pig AGW denier liar whiner.
29-11-2017 15:28
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
Into the Night wrote:
??? This is a manager talking??? I rarely see this confused a mass of words from anyone except litebeer.


Anything to change the subject right? I asked you what a calorimeter is. Or perhaps I should say what you think it is. Somehow they are going to measure heat from one source but not another. We have you tangled in your own ignorance.
29-11-2017 17:42
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
How to tell when you're in the wrong place. ItN and Wake have no interest in discussing climate change, atmospheric chemistry or the oceanic environment. They simple want the other to bow to their wants. How I know I am in the wrong place. So I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. And if you celebrate differently then Enjoy !


James_
29-11-2017 18:29
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James_ wrote:
@All,
How to tell when you're in the wrong place. ItN and Wake have no interest in discussing climate change, atmospheric chemistry or the oceanic environment. They simple want the other to bow to their wants. How I know I am in the wrong place. So I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. And if you celebrate differently then Enjoy !


James_


It doesn't surprise me at all that you haven't been able to discern that I'm trying to get nightmare to actually explain his statements. He is the one screaming that you cannot measure heat either remotely or accurately. Then he claims that in the case of his needs you can. And then he proposes doing it with an instrument that won't do what he claims it will do.

That is wishing him to bow to my "wants" in your opinion.

When he tells you that you are using "holy links" you are disturbed that common knowledge is being ignored by him. Now anyone could look up the depth of the troposphere and see that he doesn't have a clue and is too stupid to actually look it up. He doesn't have the slightest clue what I'm talking about when I say that the temperature in the tropopause is level over the entire globe. He believes that temperatures are measured in Fahrenheit for use in a Stefan-Boltzmann measure.

He is screaming about needing the emissivity and he doesn't even know that measuring the energy in and the energy OUT tells you what the emissivity is.

He isn't telling us what he believes a calorimeter to be because he doesn't KNOW what it is.

You yourself made a very important statement earlier but nightmare in such a hurry to disprove you didn't see it or your slight misstatement of the fact.

What I see is that you are actually curious and you continue to study the science. Your only fault is that you tend to use each new fact as an explanation of the world around you. If you did that in a classroom setting you'd get an F. Here you only get corrected and then cry about it. I think that you should wake up and smell the roses.

Nightmare only wants to scream that anyone that disagrees with his staggering ignorance believes in global warming. Just saying that water in its three phases are greenhouse gases (the only honest case of such) makes him cry and lie.
29-11-2017 21:27
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
How to tell when you're in the wrong place. ItN and Wake have no interest in discussing climate change, atmospheric chemistry or the oceanic environment. They simple want the other to bow to their wants. How I know I am in the wrong place. So I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. And if you celebrate differently then Enjoy !


James_


It doesn't surprise me at all that you haven't been able to discern that I'm trying to get nightmare to actually explain his statements. He is the one screaming that you cannot measure heat either remotely or accurately. Then he claims that in the case of his needs you can. And then he proposes doing it with an instrument that won't do what he claims it will do.

That is wishing him to bow to my "wants" in your opinion.

When he tells you that you are using "holy links" you are disturbed that common knowledge is being ignored by him. Now anyone could look up the depth of the troposphere and see that he doesn't have a clue and is too stupid to actually look it up. He doesn't have the slightest clue what I'm talking about when I say that the temperature in the tropopause is level over the entire globe. He believes that temperatures are measured in Fahrenheit for use in a Stefan-Boltzmann measure.

He is screaming about needing the emissivity and he doesn't even know that measuring the energy in and the energy OUT tells you what the emissivity is.

He isn't telling us what he believes a calorimeter to be because he doesn't KNOW what it is.

You yourself made a very important statement earlier but nightmare in such a hurry to disprove you didn't see it or your slight misstatement of the fact.

What I see is that you are actually curious and you continue to study the science. Your only fault is that you tend to use each new fact as an explanation of the world around you. If you did that in a classroom setting you'd get an F. Here you only get corrected and then cry about it. I think that you should wake up and smell the roses.

Nightmare only wants to scream that anyone that disagrees with his staggering ignorance believes in global warming. Just saying that water in its three phases are greenhouse gases (the only honest case of such) makes him cry and lie.


I hope you have a Merry Christmas Wake. I don't miss the fact that you and ItN are both using the same tactic but are pursuing from different avenues of thought.


James_
29-11-2017 21:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
??? This is a manager talking??? I rarely see this confused a mass of words from anyone except litebeer.


Anything to change the subject right? I asked you what a calorimeter is. Or perhaps I should say what you think it is. Somehow they are going to measure heat from one source but not another. We have you tangled in your own ignorance.


I already told you what a calorimeter is. It is an instrument that measures heat.

The rest of your post is contextomy and made up shit.


The Parrot Killer
29-11-2017 21:59
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
How to tell when you're in the wrong place. ItN and Wake have no interest in discussing climate change, atmospheric chemistry or the oceanic environment. They simple want the other to bow to their wants. How I know I am in the wrong place. So I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. And if you celebrate differently then Enjoy !


James_


It doesn't surprise me at all that you haven't been able to discern that I'm trying to get nightmare to actually explain his statements.

I have explained my statements.
Wake wrote:
He is the one screaming that you cannot measure heat either remotely or accurately.

I never said any such thing, liar.
Wake wrote:
Then he claims that in the case of his needs you can.

I have always said you can.
Wake wrote:
And then he proposes doing it with an instrument that won't do what he claims it will do.

A calorimeter measures heat. It does not measure temperature.
Wake wrote:
That is wishing him to bow to my "wants" in your opinion.

That is you lying.
Wake wrote:
When he tells you that you are using "holy links" you are disturbed that common knowledge is being ignored by him.

A Holy Link is NOT common knowledge. It is the use of a website as your argument instead of making one of your own. It is lazy thinking.
Wake wrote:
Now anyone could look up the depth of the troposphere and see that he doesn't have a clue and is too stupid to actually look it up.

I fly, build, and maintain aircraft, stupid. Passenger jets routinely fly in the tropopause because that's the most efficient place for a jet engine to operate.
Wake wrote:
He doesn't have the slightest clue what I'm talking about when I say that the temperature in the tropopause is level over the entire globe.

It isn't. The temperature in the tropopause varies quite widely.
Wake wrote:
He believes that temperatures are measured in Fahrenheit for use in a Stefan-Boltzmann measure.

I never said that, liar. I have always said the Stefan-Boltzmann law uses Kelvin.
Wake wrote:
He is screaming about needing the emissivity and he doesn't even know that measuring the energy in and the energy OUT tells you what the emissivity is.

Not how you measure emissivity.
Wake wrote:
He isn't telling us what he believes a calorimeter to be because he doesn't KNOW what it is.

I have already told you what it is. It is YOU that does not understand the difference between 'heat' and 'thermal energy'. It is YOU that does not understand which instrument is used to measure them. It is YOU that is making shit up about what I supposedly said. Inversion fallacy...contextomy fallacy...falsehood fallacy. You're a liar, dude. There's no getting around it.
Wake wrote:
You yourself made a very important statement earlier but nightmare in such a hurry to disprove you didn't see it or your slight misstatement of the fact.

It is YOU that is making misstatements. It is YOU that is lying.
Wake wrote:
Nightmare only wants to scream that anyone that disagrees with his staggering ignorance believes in global warming.

Contextomy. You are lying yet again.

If you believe in 'global warming' though, you are definitely in religious territory.

Wake wrote:
Just saying that water in its three phases are greenhouse gases (the only honest case of such) makes him cry and lie.

Now you are not even making sense. Your anger has clouded your mind to the point of talking nonsense.

Not only is there no such thing as a 'greenhouse' gas, water in solid or liquid form is NOT A GAS!


The Parrot Killer
29-11-2017 22:00
Into the Night
★★★★★
(5552)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
How to tell when you're in the wrong place. ItN and Wake have no interest in discussing climate change, atmospheric chemistry or the oceanic environment. They simple want the other to bow to their wants. How I know I am in the wrong place. So I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. And if you celebrate differently then Enjoy !


James_


It doesn't surprise me at all that you haven't been able to discern that I'm trying to get nightmare to actually explain his statements. He is the one screaming that you cannot measure heat either remotely or accurately. Then he claims that in the case of his needs you can. And then he proposes doing it with an instrument that won't do what he claims it will do.

That is wishing him to bow to my "wants" in your opinion.

When he tells you that you are using "holy links" you are disturbed that common knowledge is being ignored by him. Now anyone could look up the depth of the troposphere and see that he doesn't have a clue and is too stupid to actually look it up. He doesn't have the slightest clue what I'm talking about when I say that the temperature in the tropopause is level over the entire globe. He believes that temperatures are measured in Fahrenheit for use in a Stefan-Boltzmann measure.

He is screaming about needing the emissivity and he doesn't even know that measuring the energy in and the energy OUT tells you what the emissivity is.

He isn't telling us what he believes a calorimeter to be because he doesn't KNOW what it is.

You yourself made a very important statement earlier but nightmare in such a hurry to disprove you didn't see it or your slight misstatement of the fact.

What I see is that you are actually curious and you continue to study the science. Your only fault is that you tend to use each new fact as an explanation of the world around you. If you did that in a classroom setting you'd get an F. Here you only get corrected and then cry about it. I think that you should wake up and smell the roses.

Nightmare only wants to scream that anyone that disagrees with his staggering ignorance believes in global warming. Just saying that water in its three phases are greenhouse gases (the only honest case of such) makes him cry and lie.


I hope you have a Merry Christmas Wake. I don't miss the fact that you and ItN are both using the same tactic but are pursuing from different avenues of thought.


James_


You have a Merry Christmas also! Hope your surgery goes well.


The Parrot Killer
29-11-2017 22:14
Wake
★★★★★
(3396)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
@All,
How to tell when you're in the wrong place. ItN and Wake have no interest in discussing climate change, atmospheric chemistry or the oceanic environment. They simple want the other to bow to their wants. How I know I am in the wrong place. So I hope everyone has a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. And if you celebrate differently then Enjoy !


James_


It doesn't surprise me at all that you haven't been able to discern that I'm trying to get nightmare to actually explain his statements. He is the one screaming that you cannot measure heat either remotely or accurately. Then he claims that in the case of his needs you can. And then he proposes doing it with an instrument that won't do what he claims it will do.

That is wishing him to bow to my "wants" in your opinion.

When he tells you that you are using "holy links" you are disturbed that common knowledge is being ignored by him. Now anyone could look up the depth of the troposphere and see that he doesn't have a clue and is too stupid to actually look it up. He doesn't have the slightest clue what I'm talking about when I say that the temperature in the tropopause is level over the entire globe. He believes that temperatures are measured in Fahrenheit for use in a Stefan-Boltzmann measure.

He is screaming about needing the emissivity and he doesn't even know that measuring the energy in and the energy OUT tells you what the emissivity is.

He isn't telling us what he believes a calorimeter to be because he doesn't KNOW what it is.

You yourself made a very important statement earlier but nightmare in such a hurry to disprove you didn't see it or your slight misstatement of the fact.

What I see is that you are actually curious and you continue to study the science. Your only fault is that you tend to use each new fact as an explanation of the world around you. If you did that in a classroom setting you'd get an F. Here you only get corrected and then cry about it. I think that you should wake up and smell the roses.

Nightmare only wants to scream that anyone that disagrees with his staggering ignorance believes in global warming. Just saying that water in its three phases are greenhouse gases (the only honest case of such) makes him cry and lie.


I hope you have a Merry Christmas Wake. I don't miss the fact that you and ItN are both using the same tactic but are pursuing from different avenues of thought.


James_


Well I wish you a very merry Christmas and hopefully a successful operation from which you seem to be a great fear. Let me suggest you have several doctors opinions before jumping.
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate Signing off:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2017 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact