Remember me
▼ Content

A personal experience for climate change deniers



Page 1 of 212>
A personal experience for climate change deniers05-10-2020 08:00
Hq7thArty
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
From August of 1964 to August of 1965 I was stationed with Headquarters Battery of the 7th Artillery Group (ARADCOM) in Thule, Greenland. The major part of the 7th Arty Grp were the eight installations that comprised the four Nike-Hercules missile batteries of the 55th Missile Battalion. I had free access to a jeep and as part of my job I was required to frequently visit each of these missile installations. The ice cap was visible from main base and from every installation. I have dozens of pictures of various subjects that show the ice cap.

Access to the jeep afforded me the opportunity to explore other limited sites around Thule. On one occasion two of my barracks mates and I traveled to Camp Tuto, an Army installation at the base of the ice cap. We drove up the ramp that was built to access the ice cap, where we met several scientists who were reprovisioning their snow-cat train for a return to the top of the cap. They told us (since we asked) the the depth of the ice in the middle of the cap was about 9,000 ft.

We also attended a tour of various research facilities that were dug into the ice cap. As part of the tour lecture evidence of the retreat of the ice cap was pointed out. Part of the was the fact the on the way from Thule to Tuto, the road crossed several terminal moraines, which marked the previous advances of the ice cap. The takeaway was that for the last 10,000 years or so, the earth's climate has been getting warmer and the ice cap had been retreating. This was presented as a natural cycle of warming and cooling of the earth due to several reasons, one being sun cycles.

When I now look at Google Earth pictures of Camp Tuto, I see that the ice cap has retreated further. There are now several melt ponds at the base of the cap. When I was there, there was one small melt pond (during the summer).

The question is not whether the earth is warming, the question is how fast and why. In fact, the sun cycle has moved to a period of less radiation. That should mean the the earth is getting cooler. But it's not. The ice caps are melting at alarming rates.

The earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years or so. Since the industrial revolution the rate of warming has increased. Now, when the sun is in a cooling cycle, the earth is still getting warmer.

I doesn't matter what our ignorant President says, climate change is real.
RE: moving magnetic North pole05-10-2020 08:24
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(632)
you are aware the magnetic north pole is migrating east
05-10-2020 08:27
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(632)
The Arctic Circle is one of the two polar circles and the most northerly of the five major circles of latitude as shown on maps of Earth. It marks the northernmost point at which the centre of the noon sun is just visible on the December solstice and the southernmost point at which the centre of the midnight sun is just visible on the June solstice.[1][2] The region north of this circle is known as the Arctic, and the zone just to the south is called the Northern Temperate Zone.

As seen from the Arctic, the Sun is above the horizon for 24 continuous hours at least once per year (and therefore visible at midnight) and below the horizon for 24 continuous hours at least once per year (and therefore not visible at noon). This is also true in the Antarctic region, south of the equivalent Antarctic Circle.

The position of the Arctic Circle is not fixed and currently runs 66°33′48.3″ north of the Equator.[3] Its latitude depends on the Earth's axial tilt, which fluctuates within a margin of more than 2° over a 41,000-year period, due to tidal forces resulting from the orbit of the Moon.[4] Consequently, the Arctic Circle is currently drifting northwards at a speed of about 15 m (49 ft) per year.
05-10-2020 08:33
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(632)
So the Arctic circle has moved away from where you were 855 metres not a lot but have you calculated the rise and fall of land masses as well.Its not as simple as looking at it and going its melted.And here is the crowning turd in the waterpipe.Why is ice melting alarming??
05-10-2020 16:06
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2534)
We weren't burning much of anything 10,000 years ago, and ice was melting. it's our first inter-glacier, we have no idea how much thawing and melting to expect, or how long it takes. Sort of foolish to believe mankind has any role in it at all, since there is nothing to compare with from the past. Underneath the retreating ice, we are also finding remains of past life, sort of telling us that ground wasn't always frozen, and covered in ice. The whole planet changes a little everyday, not sure why it's alarming at all. Some people might have the ego, the size of a planet, but that really isn't much of a threat to anyone or anything, except other people. Some people are prone to fear and panic, everything is alarming, and needs to be 'fixed'. Somehow, they figure if they control everything, they can control their limited lifespan as well. No one stays young for ever, we all die eventually. Every living thing on the planet, goes through that same limitation. Long as we continue to adapt to the environment we are living in, we can survive a good while. It's extremely foolish to believe with we can alter this massive planet, in any significant way. The earth's surface is 196 million square miles, and there are about 7.5 billion people. 38 people per square mile... Of course, only about 20% of that area is dry land. That's just the planet surface, huge volume we never even mess with, below the surface. Atmosphere is about 8 miles high, 336 million cubic miles. We are less significant, than an ant crawling on an apple...
05-10-2020 16:14
James___
★★★★★
(3283)
Hq7thArty wrote:
From August of 1964 to August of 1965 I was stationed with Headquarters Battery of the 7th Artillery Group (ARADCOM) in Thule, Greenland. The major part of the 7th Arty Grp were the eight installations that comprised the four Nike-Hercules missile batteries of the 55th Missile Battalion. I had free access to a jeep and as part of my job I was required to frequently visit each of these missile installations. The ice cap was visible from main base and from every installation. I have dozens of pictures of various subjects that show the ice cap.

Access to the jeep afforded me the opportunity to explore other limited sites around Thule. On one occasion two of my barracks mates and I traveled to Camp Tuto, an Army installation at the base of the ice cap. We drove up the ramp that was built to access the ice cap, where we met several scientists who were reprovisioning their snow-cat train for a return to the top of the cap. They told us (since we asked) the the depth of the ice in the middle of the cap was about 9,000 ft.

We also attended a tour of various research facilities that were dug into the ice cap. As part of the tour lecture evidence of the retreat of the ice cap was pointed out. Part of the was the fact the on the way from Thule to Tuto, the road crossed several terminal moraines, which marked the previous advances of the ice cap. The takeaway was that for the last 10,000 years or so, the earth's climate has been getting warmer and the ice cap had been retreating. This was presented as a natural cycle of warming and cooling of the earth due to several reasons, one being sun cycles.

When I now look at Google Earth pictures of Camp Tuto, I see that the ice cap has retreated further. There are now several melt ponds at the base of the cap. When I was there, there was one small melt pond (during the summer).

The question is not whether the earth is warming, the question is how fast and why. In fact, the sun cycle has moved to a period of less radiation. That should mean the the earth is getting cooler. But it's not. The ice caps are melting at alarming rates.

The earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years or so. Since the industrial revolution the rate of warming has increased. Now, when the sun is in a cooling cycle, the earth is still getting warmer.

I doesn't matter what our ignorant President says, climate change is real.



You'll find out that most of these guys can only say CO2. And even though it's warming now, in about 400 years it might be colder than it was during the Little Ice Age.
And if we're influencing these cycles, it's only to increase the rate at which they occur. A basic example of what can cause AGW is less O2 in our atmosphere. With the molar mass of gasses, air is 28.97 g/mol while CO2 is 44.01 g/mol.
A denser atmosphere could have less entropy than a less dense atmosphere.
I'm not sure if scientists have considered this aspect of things. Thene ther'e also hydrothermal vents and deep faults in the seafloor.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/
05-10-2020 16:25
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2534)
James___ wrote:
Hq7thArty wrote:
From August of 1964 to August of 1965 I was stationed with Headquarters Battery of the 7th Artillery Group (ARADCOM) in Thule, Greenland. The major part of the 7th Arty Grp were the eight installations that comprised the four Nike-Hercules missile batteries of the 55th Missile Battalion. I had free access to a jeep and as part of my job I was required to frequently visit each of these missile installations. The ice cap was visible from main base and from every installation. I have dozens of pictures of various subjects that show the ice cap.

Access to the jeep afforded me the opportunity to explore other limited sites around Thule. On one occasion two of my barracks mates and I traveled to Camp Tuto, an Army installation at the base of the ice cap. We drove up the ramp that was built to access the ice cap, where we met several scientists who were reprovisioning their snow-cat train for a return to the top of the cap. They told us (since we asked) the the depth of the ice in the middle of the cap was about 9,000 ft.

We also attended a tour of various research facilities that were dug into the ice cap. As part of the tour lecture evidence of the retreat of the ice cap was pointed out. Part of the was the fact the on the way from Thule to Tuto, the road crossed several terminal moraines, which marked the previous advances of the ice cap. The takeaway was that for the last 10,000 years or so, the earth's climate has been getting warmer and the ice cap had been retreating. This was presented as a natural cycle of warming and cooling of the earth due to several reasons, one being sun cycles.

When I now look at Google Earth pictures of Camp Tuto, I see that the ice cap has retreated further. There are now several melt ponds at the base of the cap. When I was there, there was one small melt pond (during the summer).

The question is not whether the earth is warming, the question is how fast and why. In fact, the sun cycle has moved to a period of less radiation. That should mean the the earth is getting cooler. But it's not. The ice caps are melting at alarming rates.

The earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years or so. Since the industrial revolution the rate of warming has increased. Now, when the sun is in a cooling cycle, the earth is still getting warmer.

I doesn't matter what our ignorant President says, climate change is real.



You'll find out that most of these guys can only say CO2. And even though it's warming now, in about 400 years it might be colder than it was during the Little Ice Age.
And if we're influencing these cycles, it's only to increase the rate at which they occur. A basic example of what can cause AGW is less O2 in our atmosphere. With the molar mass of gasses, air is 28.97 g/mol while CO2 is 44.01 g/mol.
A denser atmosphere could have less entropy than a less dense atmosphere.
I'm not sure if scientists have considered this aspect of things. Thene ther'e also hydrothermal vents and deep faults in the seafloor.
https://www.nationalgeographic.org/media/deep-sea-hydrothermal-vents/


Yeah, and there has been phenomenal plant growth, alarming California wildfires, locus plagues...
05-10-2020 17:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7514)
Hq7thArty wrote: From August of 1964 to August of 1965 I was stationed with Headquarters Battery of the 7th Artillery Group (ARADCOM) in Thule, Greenland. ... The ice cap was visible from main base and from every installation.

... *or* ... Thule looked like this in 1965:



I wonder which version of 1965 Thule is correct, yours or the photo's.

Hq7thArty wrote: The question is not whether the earth is warming,

Correct.

Hq7thArty wrote: ... the question is how fast and why.

Nope.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-10-2020 19:03
Hq7thArty
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
... *or* ... Thule looked like this in 1965:


Yep. That's pretty much what it looked like in 1965. That picture was taken from what was called "south mountain". The mesa is Mount Dundas. Behind it is a fjord that ran several miles inland to the right. Several glaciers came down into the fjord and calved ice bergs that floated out into the sound. If you look at the land across the fjord, you can actually see the ice cap, the thin white line just above the land. If the photographer had turned to the right and faced east, he would have seen a great view of the ice cap, about 8 miles away. My headquarters building was just off the right side of the picture. Just to the right of Mount Dundas was A Launch of A Battery, 55th Missile Battalion (Nike-Hercules), 7th Artillery Group (ARADCOM). A Control with two radar domes was up on north mountain, as were B control and B Launch. The picture was taken very close to D Control

Thule Air Base was not on the ice cap. If you had paid attention to what I wrote you would have learned that I drove my jeep to the ice cap at Camp Tuto, which sat at the base of the ice cap. The picture you posted was taken in the summer, an obvious fact since neither man is wearing a parka and there is no snow on the Air Base.
05-10-2020 20:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Hq7thArty wrote:
From August of 1964 to August of 1965 I was stationed with Headquarters Battery of the 7th Artillery Group (ARADCOM) in Thule, Greenland. The major part of the 7th Arty Grp were the eight installations that comprised the four Nike-Hercules missile batteries of the 55th Missile Battalion. I had free access to a jeep and as part of my job I was required to frequently visit each of these missile installations. The ice cap was visible from main base and from every installation. I have dozens of pictures of various subjects that show the ice cap.

Access to the jeep afforded me the opportunity to explore other limited sites around Thule. On one occasion two of my barracks mates and I traveled to Camp Tuto, an Army installation at the base of the ice cap. We drove up the ramp that was built to access the ice cap, where we met several scientists who were reprovisioning their snow-cat train for a return to the top of the cap. They told us (since we asked) the the depth of the ice in the middle of the cap was about 9,000 ft.

We also attended a tour of various research facilities that were dug into the ice cap. As part of the tour lecture evidence of the retreat of the ice cap was pointed out. Part of the was the fact the on the way from Thule to Tuto, the road crossed several terminal moraines, which marked the previous advances of the ice cap. The takeaway was that for the last 10,000 years or so, the earth's climate has been getting warmer and the ice cap had been retreating.

This was presented as a natural cycle of warming and cooling of the earth due to several reasons, one being sun cycles.

When I now look at Google Earth pictures of Camp Tuto, I see that the ice cap has retreated further. There are now several melt ponds at the base of the cap. When I was there, there was one small melt pond (during the summer).

The question is not whether the earth is warming, the question is how fast and why. In fact, the sun cycle has moved to a period of less radiation. That should mean the the earth is getting cooler. But it's not. The ice caps are melting at alarming rates.

The earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years or so. Since the industrial revolution the rate of warming has increased. Now, when the sun is in a cooling cycle, the earth is still getting warmer.

The ice cap is not in a fixed position and never has been. Sometimes it snows there more, sometimes less. When you use Google Earth, you are using a biased source.
Hq7thArty wrote:
I doesn't matter what our ignorant President says, climate change is real.

Define 'climate change'. Define 'real'.
Buzzword fallacies.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
05-10-2020 20:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
duncan61 wrote:
you are aware the magnetic north pole is migrating east

So?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
05-10-2020 21:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
James___ wrote:
Hq7thArty wrote:
From August of 1964 to August of 1965 I was stationed with Headquarters Battery of the 7th Artillery Group (ARADCOM) in Thule, Greenland. The major part of the 7th Arty Grp were the eight installations that comprised the four Nike-Hercules missile batteries of the 55th Missile Battalion. I had free access to a jeep and as part of my job I was required to frequently visit each of these missile installations. The ice cap was visible from main base and from every installation. I have dozens of pictures of various subjects that show the ice cap.

Access to the jeep afforded me the opportunity to explore other limited sites around Thule. On one occasion two of my barracks mates and I traveled to Camp Tuto, an Army installation at the base of the ice cap. We drove up the ramp that was built to access the ice cap, where we met several scientists who were reprovisioning their snow-cat train for a return to the top of the cap. They told us (since we asked) the the depth of the ice in the middle of the cap was about 9,000 ft.

We also attended a tour of various research facilities that were dug into the ice cap. As part of the tour lecture evidence of the retreat of the ice cap was pointed out. Part of the was the fact the on the way from Thule to Tuto, the road crossed several terminal moraines, which marked the previous advances of the ice cap. The takeaway was that for the last 10,000 years or so, the earth's climate has been getting warmer and the ice cap had been retreating. This was presented as a natural cycle of warming and cooling of the earth due to several reasons, one being sun cycles.

When I now look at Google Earth pictures of Camp Tuto, I see that the ice cap has retreated further. There are now several melt ponds at the base of the cap. When I was there, there was one small melt pond (during the summer).

The question is not whether the earth is warming, the question is how fast and why. In fact, the sun cycle has moved to a period of less radiation. That should mean the the earth is getting cooler. But it's not. The ice caps are melting at alarming rates.

The earth has been warming for the last 10,000 years or so. Since the industrial revolution the rate of warming has increased. Now, when the sun is in a cooling cycle, the earth is still getting warmer.

I doesn't matter what our ignorant President says, climate change is real.



You'll find out that most of these guys can only say CO2. And even though it's warming now, in about 400 years it might be colder than it was during the Little Ice Age.
And if we're influencing these cycles, it's only to increase the rate at which they occur. A basic example of what can cause AGW is less O2 in our atmosphere. With the molar mass of gasses, air is 28.97 g/mol while CO2 is 44.01 g/mol.
A denser atmosphere could have less entropy than a less dense atmosphere.
I'm not sure if scientists have considered this aspect of things. Thene ther'e also hydrothermal vents and deep faults in the seafloor.


It is not possible to decrease entropy in any system. Density is not entropy. No gas or vapor (or the lack of it) has the capability to create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
07-10-2020 01:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7514)
duncan61 wrote:
you are aware the magnetic north pole is migrating east

Not according to my compass.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-10-2020 01:29
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(632)
it looked east on the map my bad it is moving North.Its the Magnetic North pole.Which way is which/
08-10-2020 04:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7514)
duncan61 wrote:
it looked east on the map my bad it is moving North.Its the Magnetic North pole.Which way is which/


Duncan, I was being facetious. A compass will always point to magnetic north and so, from the perspective of a compass, magnetic north never migrates and never moves.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-10-2020 23:08
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(179)
The bot who shall not be named keeps parroting how you can't decrease entropy of a system.

The law which the bot is citing is not applicable to the debate.

It is pointed out CO2 increases the density of the atmosphere. This shows that the bot's parroted line is not applicable.

The bot deflects, in a feeble attempt to preserve its delusion of victory, by saying:

density is not entropy;

no gas or vapor (or the lack of it) has the capability to create energy out of nothing.

The bot has doubled down, now making 2 statements which are not applicable to the debate.

In a separate debate, which is applicable to this argument, I asked this bot if it understood what happens when you inflate a bicycle tire. Then it started talking about aliens.

The bot will probably now try to break up my text to deny each point in another feeble attempt to preserve its delusion of victory.
12-10-2020 23:30
James___
★★★★★
(3283)
Spongy Iris wrote:
The bot who shall not be named keeps parroting how you can't decrease entropy of a system.

The law which the bot is citing is not applicable to the debate.

It is pointed out CO2 increases the density of the atmosphere. This shows that the bot's parroted line is not applicable.

The bot deflects, in a feeble attempt to preserve its delusion of victory, by saying:

density is not entropy;

no gas or vapor (or the lack of it) has the capability to create energy out of nothing.

The bot has doubled down, now making 2 statements which are not applicable to the debate.

In a separate debate, which is applicable to this argument, I asked this bot if it understood what happens when you inflate a bicycle tire. Then it started talking about aliens.

The bot will probably now try to break up my text to deny each point in another feeble attempt to preserve its delusion of victory.



Spong, the "parrot killer" is the parrot. The parrot's purpose is to not consider why existence "is". The parrot's purpose is only to that we exist because we "are". Why does corn grow in Iowa? Because it does.
Can we change how corn grows in Iowa? No we can't. Just ask GasGuzzler. Iowa grows the same corn it always has.
Prayer meeting will be at 09:00 hours Monday morning. Attendance is not mandatory because you will be there.
13-10-2020 00:01
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1828)
Corn does not grow like it always has. 75 bushels an acre used to be a bin buster bumper crop. Now it is called a total failure.
13-10-2020 02:16
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(632)
Good call Gas.Once again reality flys in the face of the theory.Canadas wheat production is up 48% .some because of more land access but mainly due to better farming
13-10-2020 06:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7514)
Spongy Iris wrote:The law which the bot is citing is not applicable to the debate.

Is that because you desperately need for science to not apply in order for your physics violation to appear to pass muster?

Spongy Iris wrote:The bot deflects, in a feeble attempt to preserve its delusion of victory, by saying: density is not entropy;

In this case, this is a true statement. Density is not entropy. It really isn't. You can check the definitions of each; they aren't even related.

Spongy Iris wrote:no gas or vapor (or the lack of it) has the capability to create energy out of nothing.

This is a true statement as well. It's the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Spongy Iris wrote:The bot has doubled down, now making 2 statements which are not applicable to the debate.

I have bad news for you. The sticky part about axioms is that they ALWAYS apply, and science is a big bundle of axioms.

Spongy Iris wrote: The bot will probably now try to break up my text to deny each point in another feeble attempt to preserve its delusion of victory.

The funny thing about victories is that they usually come with the clear appearance of victory as well.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
13-10-2020 06:48
James___
★★★★★
(3283)
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:The law which the bot is citing is not applicable to the debate.

Is that because you desperately need for science to not apply in order for your physics violation to appear to pass muster?

Spongy Iris wrote:The bot deflects, in a feeble attempt to preserve its delusion of victory, by saying: density is not entropy;

In this case, this is a true statement. Density is not entropy. It really isn't. You can check the definitions of each; they aren't even related.

Spongy Iris wrote:no gas or vapor (or the lack of it) has the capability to create energy out of nothing.

This is a true statement as well. It's the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Spongy Iris wrote:The bot has doubled down, now making 2 statements which are not applicable to the debate.

I have bad news for you. The sticky part about axioms is that they ALWAYS apply, and science is a big bundle of axioms.

Spongy Iris wrote: The bot will probably now try to break up my text to deny each point in another feeble attempt to preserve its delusion of victory.

The funny thing about victories is that they usually come with the clear appearance of victory as well.


.


Any chance you could post in a way that makes some sense?
13-10-2020 11:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Spongy Iris wrote:
The bot who shall not be named keeps parroting how you can't decrease entropy of a system.

The law which the bot is citing is not applicable to the debate.

It is pointed out CO2 increases the density of the atmosphere. This shows that the bot's parroted line is not applicable.

CO2 does not increase the density of the atmosphere. CO2 is part of the atmosphere.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The bot deflects, in a feeble attempt to preserve its delusion of victory, by saying:

density is not entropy;

no gas or vapor (or the lack of it) has the capability to create energy out of nothing.

The bot has doubled down, now making 2 statements which are not applicable to the debate.

In a separate debate, which is applicable to this argument, I asked this bot if it understood what happens when you inflate a bicycle tire. Then it started talking about aliens.

The bot will probably now try to break up my text to deny each point in another feeble attempt to preserve its delusion of victory.

Not a bot. You have failed the Turing test. Assumption of victory fallacy. Wandering.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
13-10-2020 11:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:The law which the bot is citing is not applicable to the debate.

Is that because you desperately need for science to not apply in order for your physics violation to appear to pass muster?

Spongy Iris wrote:The bot deflects, in a feeble attempt to preserve its delusion of victory, by saying: density is not entropy;

In this case, this is a true statement. Density is not entropy. It really isn't. You can check the definitions of each; they aren't even related.

Spongy Iris wrote:no gas or vapor (or the lack of it) has the capability to create energy out of nothing.

This is a true statement as well. It's the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Spongy Iris wrote:The bot has doubled down, now making 2 statements which are not applicable to the debate.

I have bad news for you. The sticky part about axioms is that they ALWAYS apply, and science is a big bundle of axioms.

Spongy Iris wrote: The bot will probably now try to break up my text to deny each point in another feeble attempt to preserve its delusion of victory.

The funny thing about victories is that they usually come with the clear appearance of victory as well.


.


Any chance you could post in a way that makes some sense?

He did.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-10-2020 02:51
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(179)
CO2 does not increase the density of the atmosphere says the bot.

Please explain how adding CO2 to the atmosphere wouldn't increase density of the atmosphere.
15-10-2020 03:27
James___
★★★★★
(3283)
Spongy Iris wrote:
CO2 does not increase the density of the atmosphere says the bot.

Please explain how adding CO2 to the atmosphere wouldn't increase density of the atmosphere.



PlEasE, 1 mol of air weighs 28.97 grams. 1 mol of CO2 weighs only 44.01 grams.
If something weighs ONLY 44.01 grams/mol, how is that denser than something that weighs as much as 28.97 grams/mol which is pretty dense if you ask me.
Because 1 mol of CO2 is so light, how can it trap heat?
I've been learning from the Republicans in ere on how to speak out my ass. Was I very convincing? At the same time I'd say that decreasing the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere in it's various forms of O, O2 and ozone is the more significant problem.
In this instance, CO2 might be like a barometer that shows a storm is coming. I have been drinking. Water, pop, chocolate milk, etc. Can you tell I've been drinking while posting?
p.s., density has nothing to do with black body radiation or any other type of radiation because radiation like heat, simply IS. (for ITN)
15-10-2020 06:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Spongy Iris wrote:
CO2 does not increase the density of the atmosphere says the bot.

Please explain how adding CO2 to the atmosphere wouldn't increase density of the atmosphere.


Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 15-10-2020 06:29
15-10-2020 06:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
CO2 does not increase the density of the atmosphere says the bot.

Please explain how adding CO2 to the atmosphere wouldn't increase density of the atmosphere.



PlEasE, 1 mol of air weighs 28.97 grams. 1 mol of CO2 weighs only 44.01 grams.
If something weighs ONLY 44.01 grams/mol, how is that denser than something that weighs as much as 28.97 grams/mol which is pretty dense if you ask me.
Because 1 mol of CO2 is so light, how can it trap heat?
I've been learning from the Republicans in ere on how to speak out my ass. Was I very convincing? At the same time I'd say that decreasing the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere in it's various forms of O, O2 and ozone is the more significant problem.
In this instance, CO2 might be like a barometer that shows a storm is coming. I have been drinking. Water, pop, chocolate milk, etc. Can you tell I've been drinking while posting?
p.s., density has nothing to do with black body radiation or any other type of radiation because radiation like heat, simply IS. (for ITN)

Air includes CO2, James.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-10-2020 06:40
James___
★★★★★
(3283)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
CO2 does not increase the density of the atmosphere says the bot.

Please explain how adding CO2 to the atmosphere wouldn't increase density of the atmosphere.



PlEasE, 1 mol of air weighs 28.97 grams. 1 mol of CO2 weighs only 44.01 grams.
If something weighs ONLY 44.01 grams/mol, how is that denser than something that weighs as much as 28.97 grams/mol which is pretty dense if you ask me.
Because 1 mol of CO2 is so light, how can it trap heat?
I've been learning from the Republicans in ere on how to speak out my ass. Was I very convincing? At the same time I'd say that decreasing the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere in it's various forms of O, O2 and ozone is the more significant problem.
In this instance, CO2 might be like a barometer that shows a storm is coming. I have been drinking. Water, pop, chocolate milk, etc. Can you tell I've been drinking while posting?
p.s., density has nothing to do with black body radiation or any other type of radiation because radiation like heat, simply IS. (for ITN)

Air includes CO2, James.



Um, it's still hotter in Australia. I guess in America, the only thing worth talking about is the weather.
15-10-2020 07:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
CO2 does not increase the density of the atmosphere says the bot.

Please explain how adding CO2 to the atmosphere wouldn't increase density of the atmosphere.



PlEasE, 1 mol of air weighs 28.97 grams. 1 mol of CO2 weighs only 44.01 grams.
If something weighs ONLY 44.01 grams/mol, how is that denser than something that weighs as much as 28.97 grams/mol which is pretty dense if you ask me.
Because 1 mol of CO2 is so light, how can it trap heat?
I've been learning from the Republicans in ere on how to speak out my ass. Was I very convincing? At the same time I'd say that decreasing the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere in it's various forms of O, O2 and ozone is the more significant problem.
In this instance, CO2 might be like a barometer that shows a storm is coming. I have been drinking. Water, pop, chocolate milk, etc. Can you tell I've been drinking while posting?
p.s., density has nothing to do with black body radiation or any other type of radiation because radiation like heat, simply IS. (for ITN)

Air includes CO2, James.



Um, it's still hotter in Australia. I guess in America, the only thing worth talking about is the weather.

Hotter than what? The temperature of Australia is unknown.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-10-2020 07:40
Spongy Iris
★★☆☆☆
(179)
Bot can't explain how Adding CO2 to atmosphere wouldn't increase density of atmosphere.

Bot answers CO2 is part of atmosphere, which is not applicable to the question.

Bot is saying the existing CO2 in the atmosphere does not increase density, to deflect from the question about Adding CO2.
15-10-2020 08:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Bot can't explain how Adding CO2 to atmosphere wouldn't increase density of atmosphere.

Bot answers CO2 is part of atmosphere, which is not applicable to the question.

Bot is saying the existing CO2 in the atmosphere does not increase density, to deflect from the question about Adding CO2.


It is applicable to the question. CO2 is part of the atmosphere. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-10-2020 11:21
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2534)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Bot can't explain how Adding CO2 to atmosphere wouldn't increase density of atmosphere.

Bot answers CO2 is part of atmosphere, which is not applicable to the question.

Bot is saying the existing CO2 in the atmosphere does not increase density, to deflect from the question about Adding CO2.


How would you measure atmospheric density, of the entire planet, for any given moment in time? Not everything in the atmosphere, stays in the atmosphere. The composition of the atmosphere, isn't consistent global, all the time. CO2 is variable, plants use quite a bit, when available. CO2 is about 0.04%. Water vapor is 0.0 - 4.0%, just needs to rain, to change the density. It's not all gasses and vapors either. There is also dust, and other particulates (ash, from California wildfires). CO2 is a trace gas, and man made contributions are still very small, compared to the total. Extremely insignificant, in the grand scheme of things. Plants are growing a little more consistently, maybe...
15-10-2020 23:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7514)
HarveyH55 wrote:How would you measure atmospheric density, of the entire planet, for any given moment in time?

A personal experience from my highschool days:

------------

Chemistry Teacher: The volume decreases because the internal pressure is less than atmospheric pressure.

Ditzy Blonde Student: How do you get less than atmospheric pressure?

Impatient Other Student: Everyone goes outside and inhales.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-10-2020 03:07
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(632)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
CO2 does not increase the density of the atmosphere says the bot.

Please explain how adding CO2 to the atmosphere wouldn't increase density of the atmosphere.



PlEasE, 1 mol of air weighs 28.97 grams. 1 mol of CO2 weighs only 44.01 grams.
If something weighs ONLY 44.01 grams/mol, how is that denser than something that weighs as much as 28.97 grams/mol which is pretty dense if you ask me.
Because 1 mol of CO2 is so light, how can it trap heat?
I've been learning from the Republicans in ere on how to speak out my ass. Was I very convincing? At the same time I'd say that decreasing the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere in it's various forms of O, O2 and ozone is the more significant problem.
In this instance, CO2 might be like a barometer that shows a storm is coming. I have been drinking. Water, pop, chocolate milk, etc. Can you tell I've been drinking while posting?
p.s., density has nothing to do with black body radiation or any other type of radiation because radiation like heat, simply IS. (for ITN)

Air includes CO2, James.



Um, it's still hotter in Australia. I guess in America, the only thing worth talking about is the weather.


The September I just lived through was 2.C cooler than the average for Perth.How can it be 22 on Monday 29 on Tuesday and back to 22 on Wednesday


duncan61
16-10-2020 05:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
duncan61 wrote:
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
CO2 does not increase the density of the atmosphere says the bot.

Please explain how adding CO2 to the atmosphere wouldn't increase density of the atmosphere.



PlEasE, 1 mol of air weighs 28.97 grams. 1 mol of CO2 weighs only 44.01 grams.
If something weighs ONLY 44.01 grams/mol, how is that denser than something that weighs as much as 28.97 grams/mol which is pretty dense if you ask me.
Because 1 mol of CO2 is so light, how can it trap heat?
I've been learning from the Republicans in ere on how to speak out my ass. Was I very convincing? At the same time I'd say that decreasing the amount of oxygen in our atmosphere in it's various forms of O, O2 and ozone is the more significant problem.
In this instance, CO2 might be like a barometer that shows a storm is coming. I have been drinking. Water, pop, chocolate milk, etc. Can you tell I've been drinking while posting?
p.s., density has nothing to do with black body radiation or any other type of radiation because radiation like heat, simply IS. (for ITN)

Air includes CO2, James.



Um, it's still hotter in Australia. I guess in America, the only thing worth talking about is the weather.


The September I just lived through was 2.C cooler than the average for Perth.How can it be 22 on Monday 29 on Tuesday and back to 22 on Wednesday

Have a nice summer!


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-10-2020 16:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7514)
Spongy Iris wrote: CO2 does not increase the density of the atmosphere says the bot.

The bottom line is that no matter how fast CO2 is placed into the atmosphere, the earth's plant life greedily eats it up.

Spongy Iris wrote:Please explain how adding CO2 to the atmosphere wouldn't increase density of the atmosphere.

You need to understand that removing all the CO2 that was added to the atmosphere from the atmosphere results in zero change to the atmospheric density/pressure.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-10-2020 17:54
keepit
★★★★☆
(1704)
IBD, Don't forget, the density of co2 is increasing.
16-10-2020 18:32
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2534)
keepit wrote:
IBD, Don't forget, the density of co2 is increasing.


CO2, is CO2, natural, or man-made. It has the same density. You have to add something with mass to CO2, to make the molecule more dense (like your skull). It would no longer be a CO2 molecule.

The density of the atmosphere remains the same, it's not the same as being confined in a lab jar, or a 2-liter Pepsi bottle, in your favorite Bill Nye 'science' videos.
16-10-2020 20:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
keepit wrote:
IBD, Don't forget, the density of co2 is increasing.


How do you know? It is not possible to measure the global content of atmospheric CO2. It is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.

Argument from randU fallacy.

BTW, it's not called air density of CO2. It's called concentration of CO2.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 16-10-2020 21:01
16-10-2020 20:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13468)
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
IBD, Don't forget, the density of co2 is increasing.


CO2, is CO2, natural, or man-made. It has the same density. You have to add something with mass to CO2, to make the molecule more dense (like your skull). It would no longer be a CO2 molecule.

The density of the atmosphere remains the same, it's not the same as being confined in a lab jar, or a 2-liter Pepsi bottle, in your favorite Bill Nye 'science' videos.


The density of the air varies from location to location. It's considered part of our weather. Like other global values, the global density of air is unknown and cannot be measured.

The density of the air at a location can be measured using a barometer, a thermometer, and a hydrometer. The density can be calculated from these values. Pilots use this information when they fly. A hot, humid, summer day can really make a difference to how well a wing performs at the same altitude. Such days require a very significantly longer takeoff run. Airport weather stations report these values for just this reason.

It can also affect your fuel mileage in your car or truck some, but most people don't need to care about the difference and attribute it to variance.

Standard conditions (rather arbitrarily chosen) is 14.7aspi @ 50 deg F and 20% humidity. This is considered 'sea level' for altitude and elevation purposes. The actual global sea level cannot be measured. There is no valid reference point.

The oxygen in CO2 comes from the air anyway. No change there. The only that's being added is the carbon. It is the same carbon that might have been in a plant, in a piece of coal, or you. Although carbon is a heavier molecule, the atmosphere is not contained, like in a jar. It can increase the air pressure temporarily (until the carbon is consumed by a plant or dissolved into the sea or soil) a negligible amount, but storms change air pressure MUCH more dramatically than that, since CO2 is measured in parts per million in the atmosphere.

Frankly, the air pressure in front of a passing car is more significant.

So we still use 14.7aspi as the standard pressure. This corresponds to 29.92 inches of mercury in a barometer.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 16-10-2020 21:03
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate A personal experience for climate change deniers:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
There are some paid climate deniers in this forum to spread false information, ignore them13317-02-2020 07:16
Naomi Klein: 'Big Green Groups Are More Damaging Than Climate Deniers'313-08-2019 14:20
President Trump makes a personal sacrifice, for the country...211-07-2019 17:29
Personal environmental monitor/logger/tracker1819-12-2018 20:32
Practical experience v Theory2711-12-2018 00:21
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact