Remember me
▼ Content

Anecdote or coincidence or what?



Page 1 of 212>
Anecdote or coincidence or what?04-09-2019 19:03
keepit
★★★☆☆
(533)
For years i've been hearing predictions of extreme weather events such as more severe hurricanes. Well.....

Macarthur's Park is melting. Someone left the cake out in the rain. I don't think that i can bake it 'cause i'll never have that recipe again.
04-09-2019 19:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
keepit wrote:
For years i've been hearing predictions of extreme weather events such as more severe hurricanes. Well.....

Macarthur's Park is melting. Someone left the cake out in the rain. I don't think that i can bake it 'cause i'll never have that recipe again.

Yep, you're a bona fide climate refugee. Hurry over to your local government office for all the handouts you have coming to you. I think they've added Cheetos to the assistance package in the wake of the high winds they experienced in Evanstown (Chicago).


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
04-09-2019 20:47
keepit
★★★☆☆
(533)
IBDM,
If you don't take care of the old people and the sick people and the disabled people, who is going to take care of you?
Even if you are a rich executive, you made it on top of the labor of your employees.
04-09-2019 21:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
If you don't take care of the old people and the sick people and the disabled people, who is going to take care of you?
Even if you are a rich executive, you made it on top of the labor of your employees.


I am a rich executive. I assure you, I didn't make it by taking any money or labor from my employees.

They are richer too, for what they have done. I pay them, and pay them well. I am buying the skills they provide, and I wish to continue to buy those skills.

Every employee is like a little business of their own. They don't have to work for me. They can sell their wares (skills) anywhere they want where there is a buyer. If I want their skills, I have to pay the price agreed upon between us. That's called 'price discovery'. It's a feature of capitalism and the free market.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 04-09-2019 21:17
04-09-2019 21:19
keepit
★★★☆☆
(533)
Your plan of families taking care of their own is pretty good except that not all elderly will get an equal deal. Families differ in what they can and will do.
Equity is a big issue.
Don't forget about the concepts of rationalization and denial.

By the way, who's doing the work while you're messing around on the internet all day. Or is this messing around on the internet worthwhile and productive?
Edited on 04-09-2019 21:26
04-09-2019 21:47
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
keepit wrote:
Your plan of families taking care of their own is pretty good except that not all elderly will get an equal deal.

They are elderly. They are not young like they used to be. They are not getting an equal deal already.
keepit wrote:
Families differ in what they can and will do.

Certainly. Some families abuse their children. Other abuse their elderly. Most take care of them both.
keepit wrote:
Equity is a big issue.

Equity in what?
keepit wrote:
Don't forget about the concepts of rationalization and denial.

Rationalizing what? Denial of what? Void argument fallacy.
keepit wrote:
By the way, who's doing the work while you're messing around on the internet all day.

My computer. Automation is great.
keepit wrote:
Or is this messing around on the internet worthwhile and productive?

You might call it 'messing around'. I don't. I consider it important to educate as many people I can of the dangers of Marxism, which destroys businesses like mine.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2019 22:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
keepit wrote: IBDM, If you don't take care of the old people and the sick people and the disabled people, who is going to take care of you?

Unfortunately you are speaking of classes concerning the "old" and the "sick" and the "disabled" but type-mismatching in your reference to me, an instance of a class of people.

For your question to make sense semantically you need to specify a class of people, e.g.

"If [People_Class] don't take care of the old people and the sick people and the disabled people, who is going to take care of [People_Class]?"

The answer is that the [People_Class] will take care of [People_Class].

Now for laughs let us use your type-mismatching to formulate the standard Marxist question: If the government doesn't give me free stuff, from what class of people will my free-stuff come?

keepit wrote: Even if you are a rich executive, you made it on top of the labor of your employees.

Nope. Forgive me but only someone who sucks at economics would say something that ridiculous.

Employees wield all the power in an employer-employee relationship. They can leave at any time. They can never be forced to work. Employees can strike whereas employers cannot refuse to pay what they owe. No employee has to work for any employer until all details of the arrangement are clear, understood and forthwith accepted.

keepit wrote: Your plan of families taking care of their own is pretty good except that not all elderly will get an equal deal.

When did that ever become a requirement? I presume that it was pointed out to you at an early age that life is not fair. Life comes with no guarantees and certainly no central Marxist oversight to ensure equity in all outcomes.

keepit wrote: Families differ in what they can and will do.
Equity is a big issue.

Equity is not an issue. The idea is dismissed. There are no two people who have been handed equivalent lives. Ever.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
04-09-2019 22:16
keepit
★★★☆☆
(533)
IBDM,
You worked pretty hard criticizing my questions. Why is that?
My questions were good rhetorical and practical questions.
04-09-2019 22:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
You worked pretty hard criticizing my questions. Why is that?
My questions were good rhetorical and practical questions.

keepit,
You worked pretty hard criticizing my responses. Why is that?
My responses were good rhetorical and practical responses.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
04-09-2019 23:47
keepit
★★★☆☆
(533)
Don't let the idea of perfection be the enemy of a decent idea.
05-09-2019 02:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
keepit wrote:
Don't let the idea of perfection be the enemy of a decent idea.


Marxism is not a decent idea.


The Parrot Killer
05-09-2019 02:54
keepit
★★★☆☆
(533)
ITN,
At least we agree on something.
07-09-2019 12:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
keepit wrote:
IBDM,
You worked pretty hard criticizing my questions. Why is that?
My questions were good rhetorical and practical questions.

The only goal of IBD and ITN here is to end debate. To file a motion for dismissal of the entire enterprise of inquiry. No thinking allowed. No data is good enough, no sources exist, and nothing may be discussed.
Edited on 07-09-2019 12:20
07-09-2019 15:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote: The only goal of IBD and ITN here is to end debate.

Translation: "I came here to preach my religious beliefs, not to learn anything and certainly not to debate (because I'm a scientifically illiterate moron). IBD and ITN keep pointing out that my preaching is not passing as debate whereas I was certain that I was fooling everybody on this board."

tmiddles wrote: To file a motion for dismissal of the entire enterprise of inquiry.

Translation: "It's like they want me to pay attention to what they write and they even expect me to actually research answers that have already been made."

tmiddles wrote: No thinking allowed.

Translation: "I need to get some projection in here."

tmiddles wrote: No data is good enough, no sources exist, and nothing may be discussed.

Translation: "I need to get some more projection in here and let me hurry up and close out without providing any repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body via thermal radiation in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics ... and hope no one notices.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
07-09-2019 23:54
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:
Translation: "I came here to preach ...

Always the psychological insults in place of real arguments.

IBdaMann wrote:"pay attention to what they write"

All you do is say things can't be discussed!

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: No thinking allowed.
Translation: "I need to get some projection in here."

I don't even know what that means. Projection?

IBdaMann wrote:repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body

Here you go:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference
08-09-2019 08:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:Always the psychological insults in place of real arguments.

It's not "in place of" anything. It's just an observation. You refuse to have a conversation, remember?

tmiddles wrote: All you do is say things can't be discussed!

Nope. All I say is "Let me know when you want to discuss. All you do is refuse to discuss. I can't begin to tell you how disappointing you have been.

IBdaMann wrote:I don't even know what that means. Projection?

I just means that you are really talking about yourself, i.e. you are projecting what you know of yourself onto others. For example, on this board you have hijacked several threads and effectively killed them, and then you start complaining about how others are "killing this board." You refuse to discuss and complain how others "refuse to discuss." You came to this board with a clear agenda of preaching Global Warming and you accuse others who have made no claims of having some sort of agenda. The reason Into the Night keeps writing "Inversion Fallacy" is because you are constantly projecting in your posts ... and it is likely that you aren't aware that you are doing it.

That's all. It's nothing complicated.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body

Here you go:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Nope, it's still not repeatable.

It's a shame; this could have been a great discussion. But I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

And Trump will be reelected in 2020.


.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
08-09-2019 09:55
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Translation: "I came here to preach ...

Always the psychological insults in place of real arguments.

You aren't making any arguments.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:"pay attention to what they write"

All you do is say things can't be discussed!

Only if you refuse to discuss them.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: No thinking allowed.
Translation: "I need to get some projection in here."

I don't even know what that means. Projection?

Also known as an inversion fallacy. You are projecting yourself upon another. You are taking what you are and saying another is what you are, and ignoring what you are.

It is a form of lying, and a fallacy.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body

Here you go:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

* You can't heat a warmer body with a cooler one.


The Parrot Killer
09-09-2019 10:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:All I say is "Let me know when you want to discuss. ...repeatable example .
tmiddles wrote:
Here you go:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference
Nope, it's still not repeatable.

How is a human in a room not repeatable? Discuss away Mr. Conversation.

The reason you skip normal explanation like "is not repeatable because _____" is that you're full of it and you got nothing.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Always the psychological insults in place of real arguments.

You aren't making any arguments.

tmiddles wrote:
The only goal of IBD and ITN here is to end debate. To file a motion for dismissal of the entire enterprise of inquiry.

This was the argument I was making. That in 5 years the only thing you and IBD have discussed is the invalidity of inquiry. You universally claim that no data is usable, nothing can be measured and nothing can be know. It's less a "head in the sand" strategy than a strategy of pouring sand all of the laboratory.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
All you do is say things can't be discussed!
Only if you refuse to discuss them.
Discuss what we know about the emissity of human skin? Is there a reliable range in the infra red of ambient radiation human find themselves in? Discuss away you total fraud.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Here you go:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference
* You can't heat a warmer body with a cooler one.

So fishy the way you adjust the question. So I'll ask again:
What happens when the radiance from a cooler body reaches a warmer body? Your only options are absroption, transmission and/or reflection.
09-09-2019 18:06
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
Discuss what we know about the emissity of human skin? Is there a reliable range in the infra red of ambient radiation human find themselves in? Discuss away you total fraud.


I think you just answer the question yourself... Human skin. It's a relatively thin layer, and insulated from the main body, by a layer of fat. It's not going to be the same as the internal, self regulating body underneath. From your IR photo, your test subject wasn't a uniform color was it? It was a patchwork of color and shapes, representing some places hotter than others, based on the resolution of the camera, and calculations done to display them. Would there be some cooler patches of skin? Well, obviously from the picture you provided. The skin surface doesn't accurately represent the body underneath. The problem is that your calculations are only 'skin deep', but you want to apply them to the entire test subject, the body under the skin as well.
09-09-2019 18:36
keepit
★★★☆☆
(533)
Great question Tmid,
It seems to me that the skin gets down to the ambient temp and then trades energy back and forth with the room. Then the metabolism (homeostasis) acts to keep the body's internal temp up to 98 degrees.
Edited on 09-09-2019 18:37
09-09-2019 22:11
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:All I say is "Let me know when you want to discuss. ...repeatable example .
tmiddles wrote:
Here you go:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference
Nope, it's still not repeatable.

How is a human in a room not repeatable? Discuss away Mr. Conversation.

The reason you skip normal explanation like "is not repeatable because _____" is that you're full of it and you got nothing.
Lie. Argument of the stone fallacy.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:
Always the psychological insults in place of real arguments.

You aren't making any arguments.

tmiddles wrote:
The only goal of IBD and ITN here is to end debate. To file a motion for dismissal of the entire enterprise of inquiry.

This was the argument I was making. That in 5 years the only thing you and IBD have discussed is the invalidity of inquiry.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
You universally claim that no data is usable,

Lie. See the Data Mine.
tmiddles wrote:
nothing can be measured

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
and nothing can be known.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
It's less a "head in the sand" strategy than a strategy of pouring sand all of the laboratory.

Try English. It works better.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
All you do is say things can't be discussed!
Only if you refuse to discuss them.
Discuss what we know about the emissity of human skin? Is there a reliable range in the infra red of ambient radiation human find themselves in? Discuss away you total fraud.

Repetitious questions already answered.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Here you go:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference
* You can't heat a warmer body with a cooler one.

So fishy the way you adjust the question. So I'll ask again:
What happens when the radiance from a cooler body reaches a warmer body? Your only options are absroption, transmission and/or reflection.

Repetitious questions already answered.


The Parrot Killer
09-09-2019 22:12
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
keepit wrote:
Great question Tmid,
It seems to me that the skin gets down to the ambient temp and then trades energy back and forth with the room. Then the metabolism (homeostasis) acts to keep the body's internal temp up to 98 degrees.


* You cannot heat a warmer body with a colder one.


The Parrot Killer
09-09-2019 22:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
keepit wrote:the skin gets down to the ambient temp
Thanks keepit.

No skin is about 91F in a 70F room. It will get down to ambient temp if you suffer a loss of life.

Radiance is always traded by everything. There is no magic that prevents a hotter object from absorbing the radiance of a cooler one.
09-09-2019 22:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...in 5 years the only thing you and IBD have discussed is the invalidity of inquiry.

Lie.
Easily disproven with a quote/link then. You got nothing.
Into the Night wrote:
Repetitious questions already answered.

No answers have even been attempted. You lie.
Into the Night wrote:
* You cannot heat a warmer body with a colder one.

ITN, What happens when the radiance from the room around you reaches your skin? Is it reflected away? Does it pass right through you?
10-09-2019 00:38
keepit
★★★☆☆
(533)
Great question Tmid!
10-09-2019 02:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
keepit wrote:
Great question Tmid!

Yeah ITN/IBD could ever answer such a simple question without admitting they've been lying about the 2nd LTD for 5 years:
tmiddles wrote:
ITN, What happens when the radiance from the room around you reaches your skin? Is it reflected away? Does it pass right through you?
10-09-2019 02:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:the skin gets down to the ambient temp
Thanks keepit.

No skin is about 91F in a 70F room.

Argument from randU fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
It will get down to ambient temp if you suffer a loss of life.

WRONG.
tmiddles wrote:
Radiance is always traded by everything.

Radiance doesn't 'trade'.
tmiddles wrote:
There is no magic that prevents a hotter object from absorbing the radiance of a cooler one.

Correct, there is the 2nd law of thermodynamics though.

* You cannot warm a warmer object by using a colder one.


The Parrot Killer
10-09-2019 02:36
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...in 5 years the only thing you and IBD have discussed is the invalidity of inquiry.

Lie.
Easily disproven with a quote/link then. You got nothing.
No need to link to your posts. They are already here.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Repetitious questions already answered.

No answers have even been attempted. You lie.
Repetitious lie.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
* You cannot heat a warmer body with a colder one.

ITN, What happens when the radiance from the room around you reaches your skin? Is it reflected away? Does it pass right through you?

Repetitious questions already answered.


The Parrot Killer
10-09-2019 02:37
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]keepit wrote:
Great question Tmid!

Yeah ITN/IBD could ever answer such a simple question without admitting they've been lying about the 2nd LTD for 5 years:

Lie.

* You can't warm a warmer body with a colder one.


The Parrot Killer
10-09-2019 06:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
* You can't warm a warmer body with a colder one.


ITN ITN, you missed the question. Here it is again:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
* You cannot heat a warmer body with a colder one.

ITN, What happens when the radiance from the room around you reaches your skin? Is it reflected away? Does it pass right through you?


What DOES happen?. Teach us oh great wise one of the 2nd LTD.
10-09-2019 07:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
* You can't warm a warmer body with a colder one.


ITN ITN, you missed the question. Here it is again:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
* You cannot heat a warmer body with a colder one.

ITN, What happens when the radiance from the room around you reaches your skin? Is it reflected away? Does it pass right through you?


What DOES happen?. Teach us oh great wise one of the 2nd LTD.

Repetitious questions already answered.


The Parrot Killer
10-09-2019 18:25
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:the skin gets down to the ambient temp
Thanks keepit.

No skin is about 91F in a 70F room. It will get down to ambient temp if you suffer a loss of life.

Radiance is always traded by everything. There is no magic that prevents a hotter object from absorbing the radiance of a cooler one.


What you fail to grasp, is that skin temperature is independent of body temperature. The body would be damaged, if it instantly responded to every change in ambient temperature. It would be very inefficient, waste a lot of food/energy. Consider your house thermostat, it has hysteresis built in, some allow your to set manually. This helps save electricity, and wear and tear on the equipment. Otherwise it be turning on and off constantly, every time somebody opened a door.

I really don't get the obsession, other than the mental aspect. The incidence of a slightly cooler body, warming an already warmer body, just doesn't make any sense. The warmer body, isn't getting any warmer from the cooler body. More energy is leaving the warmer body, than it's possibly receiving from a cooler surface, just going with the flow. It's purely a metaphysical argument, which are often endless. The insanity is in the obsession, to convince everyone else, your perception, is the only possible one. Basically, that the way you see things is the only way. Other people have the same insanity, and arguments are the only possible outcome. Some people really enjoy arguing over nothing, which fine, except when they spill over into every topic of discussion, then it's annoying, and just plain crazy.
10-09-2019 18:34
keepit
★★★☆☆
(533)
Tmid,
I guess i should have worded it like this , "Skin moves toward the ambient air temp and the body's homeostasis keeps the core temp at 98 degrees which of course conducts out to the skin. Depending on outside air conditions the skin temp , outside air temp, and core come to an "agreement".
10-09-2019 19:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
keepit wrote:
Tmid,
I guess i should have worded it like this , "Skin moves toward the ambient air temp and the body's homeostasis keeps the core temp at 98 degrees which of course conducts out to the skin. Depending on outside air conditions the skin temp , outside air temp, and core come to an "agreement".


Loosely phrased, since there is no intelligent act of agreeing to anything.

'Equilibrium' is a better choice of word.


The Parrot Killer
10-09-2019 19:33
keepit
★★★☆☆
(533)
ITM,
Equilibrium is a better term. Thanks, but don't let the details obscure the main point. Something about the forest and the trees.

I take it you don't like my humor of calling it an "agreement".
Edited on 10-09-2019 19:36
10-09-2019 19:50
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
keepit wrote:
ITM,
Equilibrium is a better term. Thanks, but don't let the details obscure the main point. Something about the forest and the trees.

I take it you don't like my humor of calling it an "agreement".


Heh. I accept it.
But you are trying to convince someone with no sense of humor or understanding of the English language.


The Parrot Killer
10-09-2019 21:02
keepit
★★★☆☆
(533)
OK
11-09-2019 12:41
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
keepit wrote:the skin gets down to the ambient temp
...No skin is about 91F in a 70F room. ...

What you fail to grasp, is that skin temperature is independent of body temperature.
Not exactly. It's determined by body temperature but your skin is cooler than your heart sure. Of course your body regulates your temperature as it metabolizes the food you've eaten. You are almost always in an environment cooler than you are so it's making up the difference.

HarveyH55 wrote:
I really don't get the obsession,

Then let me explain:
This board has been shut down for 5 years by ITN/IBD insisting that you can't defy the 2nd LTD with a cooler gas having any effect on the temperature of a warmer surface. That not only is the greenhouse effect impossible but that an atmosphere has not effect at all on a planets temperature:
IBdaMann wrote:
Atmosphere has no effect on the overall total body emission or the overall average body temperature.
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
CO2 absorbtion of surface infrared ...heats the atmosphere. Surface cools but CO2 warms. No energy lost. then CO2 radiates back to the earth. Meanwhille, back at the ranch, the sun keeps pouring heat in. Temp goes up.

CO2 cannot in turn heat the already warmer surface.
You are again ignoring the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Over and over again they claim the 2nd LTD means radiance from a cooler body cannot be absorbed by a warmer one. It is the principle argument on this forum for why we cannot talk about "Global Warming".
So don't be confused about why I think it's important.
Why is the example of you right now in the room your in right now proving them wrong? Because it's repeatable, couldn't be more relateable, and proves their weird take on the 2nd LTD dead wrong.

HarveyH55 wrote:The incidence of a slightly cooler body, warming an already warmer body, just doesn't make any sense.


Let me ask you Harvey:
Do you believe the walls around you are radiating? That infra red radiance is shining off them toward you and the infra-red radiation is hitting you?
Do you believe it's being absorbed by your body?
Edited on 11-09-2019 12:45
11-09-2019 13:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:Then let me explain:
This board has been shut down for 5 years by ITN/IBD insisting that you can't defy the 2nd LTD with a cooler gas having any effect on the temperature of a warmer surface. That not only is the greenhouse effect impossible but that an atmosphere has not effect at all on a planets temperature:

I'm intrigued. You claim that two posters shut down a board by virtue of their mere positions but never fear, you will breathe new life into the board by systematically hijacking threads?

That is one amazing superpower you have. Count me as a fan.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
11-09-2019 14:05
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:you will breathe new life into the board by systematically hijacking threads?

No I think you guys were successful. The board is still dead so far. Trolling works!

You really should be ashamed of yourself. You are an enemy of free thought and scientific exploration. You'd make Karl Popper, Ludwig Boltzmann and any real scientist with an inquisitive mind sick (as you have, clearing the board of any real debate).

The board is unmoderated or you and ITN would have been banned long ago. Just as you both were from Debate Politics.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate Anecdote or coincidence or what?:

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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact