Remember me
▼ Content

A year later


A year later07-03-2021 02:50
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
I first posted on this site


duncan61
07-03-2021 02:54
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
Ooops wrong button.Anyhoo I first posted on this forum 08-02-2020 02:55 and have seen a lot of changes since then.Yesterday I watched a show where based on land measurements ocean measurements and the data satellites cant get.The global average is below preindustrial levels.What happens now.The alarmists got their dream the northern hemisphere is a frozen waste
07-03-2021 03:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
duncan61 wrote:The global average is below preindustrial levels.

What is the global average right now and what was the preindustrial average?

Can you guess what my next question will be? Can you guess who you will blame for your inability to answer my next question?

Well, let's get to it.

duncan61 wrote: What happens now.

You explain the difference between a 33C increase in average global temperature and a 33C increase in average global temperature.

Well, get to it.

.


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
07-03-2021 03:28
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
Its simple.The alarmist freight train was based on Co2 warming the atmosphere and making the planet too hot based on science and alleged measurements.Now that same science and alleged measurements is claiming the Earth has cooled over a few months.It is probably a safe bet that the next line will be.It will warm up again soon.Just wait and see.

My interpretation of Petes 33C claim is that is what the atmosphere does its not a new thing and you are all twisting it to a claim that he is describing recent Global warming.I get what he is sharing.Why he bothers to share is another matter and not my concern I just need to understand what is realy happening.The scientists are now claiming the planet has dropped a degree Alarmists are offsetting this by claiming it must be hotter somewhere else but it is not hotter in Australia we had a very mild summer and are in Autumn and its cold and raining.There are no temperature measuring devices in central Australia or on vast areas of the African savanna.Maybe we should just take a big fat guess.Nice loaded question IBDM
07-03-2021 04:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
duncan61 wrote: Its simple.The alarmist freight train was based on Co2 warming the atmosphere and making the planet too hot based on science and alleged measurements.Now that same science and alleged measurements is claiming the Earth has cooled over a few months.It is probably a safe bet that the next line will be.It will warm up again soon.Just wait and see.

You EVADED my questions. It had to be intentional.

What is the global average temperature today?
What was the preindustrial global average temperature?

duncan61 wrote: My interpretation of Petes 33C claim is that is what the atmosphere does

I am well aware that what Pete claims the atmosphere "does" is defy physics, just as I am aware that you claim to thoroughly "understand."

You are religious fanatic, a worshiper of a gravity-caused Greenhouse Effect as opposed to worshiping the mainstream CO2-caused Greenhouse Effect. You are just as much a loon as they are.

duncan61 wrote:... its not a new thing

... nor are WACKY predictions that the world will end.

duncan61 wrote: ... and you are all twisting it to a claim that he is describing recent Global warming.

You don't get to accuse me of twisting anything until you start explaining what you claim to understand because, as you claim, "it all makes sense."

So start explaining instead of EVADING and don't violate physics unless you want to acknowledge the faith-based nature of your cult religion.

duncan61 wrote: ... I get what he is sharing.

Yes, you are an unquestioning believer. Whatever Pete tells you to believe, you OBEY. When he tells you to bend over furniture, you OBEY.

I get it. Start explaining.

duncan61 wrote: Why he bothers to share is another matter

Why do you use the term "share"? Why don't you use the standard English word "preach"? That's what the word is for.

duncan61 wrote: I just need to understand what is realy happening.

There you go, i.e. your reason for joining that particular church.

duncan61 wrote: The scientists are now claiming the planet has dropped a degree.

Nope. I checked with the scientists.

.


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
07-03-2021 05:40
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
I explained it as well as I could.The global average temperature can not be determined to any accurate useable amount.You know this.I have never claimed to not be a unscientific moron however I live here and am interested in the truth.You have extremist views and getting hung up on the term fossil fuel proves it.We all know what it means.Why is it called petrol here and gasoline there.Its the same stuff.Mellow down brother.I have just watched Bjorn Lomburg delivering to a Australian audience and like me he has no issue with global warming from greenhouse gasses but goes on to show how it is not the big deal it gets blown out to.Same old same old
ice not melting sea not rising bushfires in decline cyclones in decline and now the temperatures dropping.
07-03-2021 06:00
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2109)
duncan61 wrote:
You have extremist views and getting hung up on the term fossil fuel proves it.We all know what it means.


No sir. The term "fossil fuels" was created by extremists.

Yes, we all know what you are referring to as you give lip service to the tree huggers, but the term was created to make you believe the same lie I was told (and believed) that oil comes from dead dinosaurs. It doesn't.

Every time you use the term "fossil fuels", you are a liar...because you know better.


ANY mask is better than no mask, even if you have to resort to putting a tightly fit plastic bag over your head-COVIDEXPERTGFM

I don't have a GoFundMe, but I do have a PO Box (#666)-COVIDEXPERTGFM
07-03-2021 06:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
duncan61 wrote:I explained it as well as I could.

How do you reconcile your insistence that you thoroughly understand the theory and that it "makes sense" with your total inability to explain any of it?

I'll tell you the default answer: You have become a mindless zombie who regurgitates whatever WACKY schitt he is ordered to believe. You are a loon.

duncan61 wrote: The global average temperature can not be determined to any accurate useable amount.

Then why do you insist it has decreased?

To claim that a temperature has changed you absolutely must have both the "before" and "after" temperatures ... and then you must subtract one value from the other. To claim a change in temperature is to claim that you know both the "before" and "after" temperatures.

duncan61 wrote:You have extremist views

Of course you must claim this. I take the science position. I go with what science says and I do not take any religion into consideration. You and your WACKY fundamentalist religious beliefs cannot abide my use of science and all my doubting and questioning that reveals your dogma to be the absurd gibberbabble that it is.

... and your death-struggle to cling to the term "fossil fuels" for no other reason than your religion has ordered you to fall on your sword if necessary in defense of the religious dogma proves that you have gone over the edge.

You are a lost cause and you know it ... and you are DESPERATE to pin the blame for your cognitive woes on others who simply recognize that you have gone batschitt crazy.

duncan61 wrote: We all know what it means.

We've gone around in circles. We have established that those who use the term "fossil fuels" do NOT know what they mean ... and we started with you.

You do not know what the term means ... nor can you explain why the words in English are entirely the wrong words for what you wish to express. Again, the problem is on your end and you are DESPERATE to blame the rest of the world.

I am neither stupid nor gullible and I'm not going to fall for your WACKY religion. Go preach to someone else.

LOSER.

.


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
07-03-2021 15:50
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3369)
GasGuzzler wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
You have extremist views and getting hung up on the term fossil fuel proves it.We all know what it means.


No sir. The term "fossil fuels" was created by extremists.

Yes, we all know what you are referring to as you give lip service to the tree huggers, but the term was created to make you believe the same lie I was told (and believed) that oil comes from dead dinosaurs. It doesn't.

Every time you use the term "fossil fuels", you are a liar...because you know better.


The term 'oil' is equally misleading, but we still use it, and understand the context. Before petroleum (fossil fuels), oils were derived from the fatty tissues of plants and animals. Fossils were in the ground a long time, occasionally uncovered. Nobody really knew what or why, just that hey must be very old. Petroleum was in the ground, as was coal, a long time, before anybody found a use for them. The term came about, before the political/science debates, over how accurate, or alternative explanations. I'll continue to use 'fossil fuels', when referring to both petroleum and coal, saves on typing, and everyone understands what 'fossil fuels' describe. Correct vocabulary, is meant as an insult, and an attempt to take control over a discussion, deflection. I don't intend to modify my vocabulary. How 'fossil fuels' are formed in nature, doesn't have to be a single process. Nobody has burrowed a mile underground, and observed these processes in action. Or drilled down deep enough, to interrupt, or tap into partially converted petroleum. We haven't found any almost-coal either. When it comes down to believing one church, over another, it's not worth arguing over. It's the same BS consensus crap, the global warming crowd use, to sell their product, and I don't buy that either. Just because we can do something in a lab, doesn't mean nature has to do the same thing. Fossil fuels might not be entirely incorrect either. Nature tends to recycle a lot of stuff. Living things, are packed full of hydrocarbon molecules, huge variety. Crude oil has hundreds of different hydrocarbons as well. Not willing to totally dismiss the relationship, based on a consensus.
07-03-2021 16:43
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
GasGuzzler wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
You have extremist views and getting hung up on the term fossil fuel proves it.We all know what it means.


No sir. The term "fossil fuels" was created by extremists.

Yes, we all know what you are referring to as you give lip service to the tree huggers, but the term was created to make you believe the same lie I was told (and believed) that oil comes from dead dinosaurs. It doesn't.

Every time you use the term "fossil fuels", you are a liar...because you know better.



That's a very narrow minded view. Plants and vegetation also left fossils. I've seen many fossils where you could see the leaf of a plant cast in rock. The fossil wasn't the leaf but what it left behind.
And if crude oil or other gasses are because vegetation died a long time ago. Then that fuel is a fossil fuel.
The literal definition of fossil; the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock.

To keep it simple, since plants are prehistoric organisms cast in rock, their remains are fossil fuels. ie, the well is cast in rock. With dinosaurs, their remains are prehistoric and are usually found preserved in rock. Again, cast in rock.
07-03-2021 16:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
HarveyH55 wrote: I'll continue to use 'fossil fuels', when referring to both petroleum and coal, saves on typing,


"Fossil Fuels" vs "Hydrocarbons". Both require twelve spaces.

Does anyone not understand " hydrocarbons "?

Is " Hydrocarbons" anything but totally correct?

Is "Fossil Fuels" anything but totally incorrect?

Just wondering.


.


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
07-03-2021 16:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
James___ wrote: That's a very narrow minded view. Plants and vegetation also left fossils.

How many of them were burned as fuel? For convenience you can round to the nearest ... zero.


.


.


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
07-03-2021 18:02
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3369)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
You have extremist views and getting hung up on the term fossil fuel proves it.We all know what it means.


No sir. The term "fossil fuels" was created by extremists.

Yes, we all know what you are referring to as you give lip service to the tree huggers, but the term was created to make you believe the same lie I was told (and believed) that oil comes from dead dinosaurs. It doesn't.

Every time you use the term "fossil fuels", you are a liar...because you know better.


That's a very narrow minded view. Plants and vegetation also left fossils. I've seen many fossils where you could see the leaf of a plant cast in rock. The fossil wasn't the leaf but what it left behind.
And if crude oil or other gasses are because vegetation died a long time ago. Then that fuel is a fossil fuel.
The literal definition of fossil; the remains or impression of a prehistoric organism preserved in petrified form or as a mold or cast in rock.

To keep it simple, since plants are prehistoric organisms cast in rock, their remains are fossil fuels. ie, the well is cast in rock. With dinosaurs, their remains are prehistoric and are usually found preserved in rock. Again, cast in rock.


The fossils formed, a long time after the plant or animal decayed, and left a void. That void/pocket eventually filled in with mineralized water, forming what we call fossils. The fossils themselves, of course don't burn, and the true believers know that, just being silly. They also understand that matter is neither created or destroyed. The living matter that left the voids, went some where, in some form, changed to something else. The true believers either selectively deny, or are just being silly, for debate purposes. I'll go with the silly, and dismiss. It would be amusing, if the argument was only used occasionally, but any use of 'Fossil Fuels', will always trigger the same, deflective response, like clockwork.
08-03-2021 01:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
HarveyH55 wrote:The fossils formed, a long time after the plant or animal decayed, and left a void.

On rare occasion, the organism didn't decay as much as it was "preserved" and remains to this day as a fossil in that form. Of course it still wasn't/isn't combustible in that form either but at least in those particular cases there was something there of the original organism.

HarveyH55 wrote: They also understand that matter is neither created or destroyed.

It is energy that can neither be created nor destroyed. Matter is destroyed in every thermonuclear explosion, as an example, and despite no one ever having observed matter being created, there is no theory of science that stipulates that matter can never be created.

By the way, one neat effect of matter being destroyed is the crater that is formed by earth collapsing and filling in from an underground thermonuclear test. There is a large expanse in Nevada of many such craters.



HarveyH55 wrote: The living matter that left the voids, went some where, in some form, changed to something else.

This is rather undeniable.

HarveyH55 wrote: ... but any use of 'Fossil Fuels', will always trigger the same, deflective response, like clockwork.

In my case, yes. I will typically ask what is meant by the use of the term since I have yet to encounter anyone who actually understands what he or she really means by the term ... and it really is not my fault when others don't know what they are talking about. Yes, I take a lot of heat for simply pointing out that the term is bogus because people who use the term "fossil fules" are typically either too lazy to learn anything new or have too much emotional equity invested their own particular misunderstandings. Either way, they blame me for asking for clarification and for not accepting their underlying bad assumptions.

I have never mandated what words anyone is to use ... but I am free to question, and I will. For my part, I am free to speak clearly and to be accurate, so I will use the term hydrocarbons when I am referring to hydrocarbons, and I will use the term carbon when I am referring to carbon. Anyone who gets pissed at me for doing so can feel free to bring it on ... especially when I have my rum&Coke in hand.


.


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
08-03-2021 03:10
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: That's a very narrow minded view. Plants and vegetation also left fossils.

How many of them were burned as fuel? For convenience you can round to the nearest ... zero.


.


.



Crude oil, tar and methane are all fossils. When you and your ilk say "dinosaurs", it's not the bone that makes it a fossil but how it was preserved and from what part of the Earth's history.
Bones are not fossils just as liquids are not fossils. They need to be prehistoric and preserved under certain conditions.
Then again you might be a fossil and we just don't know it yet.
08-03-2021 03:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
James___ wrote:Crude oil, tar and methane are all fossils.

You certainly made this easy to clear up pretty quickly.

No, they're not.


James___ wrote: ... it's not the bone that makes it a fossil but how it was preserved and from what part of the Earth's history.

What is necessary for an object to be a fossil is for it to provide information of the formerly living organism that created it. Crude oil, tar and methane carry no evidence that they were even created by living organisms.

James___ wrote: Bones are not fossils just as liquids are not fossils.

Fossilized bones are certainly fossils. Bones that have not fossilized are not fossils; they are merely bones.

James___ wrote: They need to be prehistoric and preserved under certain conditions.

Fossils need only provide information about the organisms that created them.

James___ wrote: Then again you might be a fossil and we just don't know it yet.

My children are certainly convinced despite my insistence that I have still only partially fossilized.


.
08-03-2021 04:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15508)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: That's a very narrow minded view. Plants and vegetation also left fossils.

How many of them were burned as fuel? For convenience you can round to the nearest ... zero.


.


.



Crude oil, tar and methane are all fossils.

Nope. Crude oil is a liquid. It has no image of an animal or plant in it. Crude oil is a set of hydrocarbons. Methane is a gas. It has no image of any animal or plant in it. It is a hydrocarbon. It often accompanies oil deposits. Tar is a set of long hydrocarbons. Tar is not an image of any animal or plant.
James___ wrote:
When you and your ilk say "dinosaurs", it's not the bone that makes it a fossil but how it was preserved and from what part of the Earth's history.

[/quote]
Oil is not made of bones. Methane is not made of bones. Tar is not made of bones.
James___ wrote:
Bones are not fossils just as liquids are not fossils.

Word salad.
James___ wrote:
They need to be prehistoric and preserved under certain conditions.

Bones do not need to be 'prehistoric'. You have bones inside of you right now. Are you prehistoric?
James___ wrote:
Then again you might be a fossil and we just don't know it yet.

By your own definition, you are making yourself a fossil.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan




Join the debate A year later:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
I Totally Missed This - Time Person of the Year625-12-2020 06:10
In the Year 2025619-09-2020 04:41
80 year moving average data8813-05-2020 01:32
100,000 year cycles8816-03-2020 07:21
East EU temperatures skyrocketed since last year203-02-2020 19:14
▲ 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