Remember me
▼ Content

Annual Global Warming Graph (NOAA)



Page 4 of 4<<<234
03-08-2017 21:18
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
.


I deleted unholy quote.
03-08-2017 21:27
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
.


I deleted unholy quote.


Guess you didn't want to talk about the Boltzmann constant after all.

Guess that makes you a liar.


The Parrot Killer
03-08-2017 21:29
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:

If you do not want to understand my example you can simply block it out of your mind. You seem to be developing a theory of the world around you that goes counter to fact so you might as well.


Wake,
I'll just quit posting in here. Both you and Into the Night think I am so ignorant that you need to teach what 2 + 2 is. I got out of junior high school a long time ago. And as I mentioned I know someone exactly like you in another forum. He ruined my hobby because he couldn't have it. he simply saw no reason to work for something. all you and Into the Night do is play word games and nothing more.
This could be because both of you say that CO2 can not effect atmospheric temperature in any way. Why you allow for NO discussion. If I don't accept what you say you will follow me around this forum saying you are going to teach me to accept what you say. This is funny because even Into the Night won't discuss the Boltzmann constant. What he posted isn't discussing it.
What I did was post all anyone in here needs to consider. Can a heavier gas excite a lighter gas ? Prove it can't. That's like saying a semi with trailer going 5 mph can't move a Volkswagen. It will. Yet you and Into the Night ignore that.
Why ? Because you want to promote yourselves yet can't start your own thread to express something. You can't think of something and so the both of you need me to promote yourselves and how smart you are.
03-08-2017 21:49
Wake
★★★★★
(4026)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

If you do not want to understand my example you can simply block it out of your mind. You seem to be developing a theory of the world around you that goes counter to fact so you might as well.


Wake,
I'll just quit posting in here. Both you and Into the Night think I am so ignorant that you need to teach what 2 + 2 is. I got out of junior high school a long time ago. And as I mentioned I know someone exactly like you in another forum. He ruined my hobby because he couldn't have it. he simply saw no reason to work for something. all you and Into the Night do is play word games and nothing more.
This could be because both of you say that CO2 can not effect atmospheric temperature in any way. Why you allow for NO discussion. If I don't accept what you say you will follow me around this forum saying you are going to teach me to accept what you say. This is funny because even Into the Night won't discuss the Boltzmann constant. What he posted isn't discussing it.
What I did was post all anyone in here needs to consider. Can a heavier gas excite a lighter gas ? Prove it can't. That's like saying a semi with trailer going 5 mph can't move a Volkswagen. It will. Yet you and Into the Night ignore that.
Why ? Because you want to promote yourselves yet can't start your own thread to express something. You can't think of something and so the both of you need me to promote yourselves and how smart you are.


James - what doesn't seem to get through to you is that ISN'T what you're saying. You're saying that a Volkswagon can pull a 25 ton tractor and trailer.

There is 99.96% of the atmosphere that ISN'T CO2 and you're pretending that CO2 is measurably effecting the atmosphere.
03-08-2017 22:53
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8592)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

If you do not want to understand my example you can simply block it out of your mind. You seem to be developing a theory of the world around you that goes counter to fact so you might as well.


Wake,
I'll just quit posting in here. Both you and Into the Night think I am so ignorant that you need to teach what 2 + 2 is. I got out of junior high school a long time ago.

If you want to go off an sulk, that's your business. This is the kitchen here. It gets hot. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
James_ wrote:
And as I mentioned I know someone exactly like you in another forum. He ruined my hobby because he couldn't have it.

The only one that has the power to ruin your hobby is you.

Blaming others for 'ruining your hobby' is just conceding that you have no initiative in the first place and that others have total power over you.
James_ wrote:
he simply saw no reason to work for something. all you and Into the Night do is play word games and nothing more.

This is just a lie. It is your way of copping out.
James_ wrote:
This could be because both of you say that CO2 can not effect atmospheric temperature in any way.

CO2 does not have any magickal properties. It is mass, it happens to absorb certain infrared frequencies, etc. It is the same temperature as any other gas in the atmosphere around it.
James_ wrote:
Why you allow for NO discussion.

The only 'discussion' about this is to deny that CO2 is the same temperature as the surrounding gases, or to change the meaning of 'temperature' and 'kinetic energy' as used by science.
James_ wrote:
If I don't accept what you say you will follow me around this forum saying you are going to teach me to accept what you say.

What I say is from the theories of science. If you have a problem with that, then you must address those theories. You can't just ignore them. They are part of the body of science. The only way to destroy a theory of science is to falsify it (often inspiring a new theory as a result).
James_ wrote:
This is funny because even Into the Night won't discuss the Boltzmann constant.

I just did, liar.
James_ wrote:
What he posted isn't discussing it.

Yes it was.
James_ wrote:
What I did was post all anyone in here needs to consider. Can a heavier gas excite a lighter gas ? Prove it can't. That's like saying a semi with trailer going 5 mph can't move a Volkswagen. It will. Yet you and Into the Night ignore that.

I just got through telling you that a heavier gas can excite a lighter gas. I just got through telling the relationship and nature of the excitement, and how that relates the idea of temperature, liar.
James_ wrote:
Why ? Because you want to promote yourselves yet can't start your own thread to express something.

I have started my own threads. Argument of ignorance. See the Data Mine.
James_ wrote:
You can't think of something and so the both of you need me to promote yourselves and how smart you are.

So...you would rather promote yourself and how smart you are, but not let anyone else do that???


The Parrot Killer
04-08-2017 16:44
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
[quote]Wake wrote:

If you do not want to understand my example you can simply block it out of your mind. You seem to be developing a theory of the world around you that goes counter to fact so you might as well.


Wake,
I'll just quit posting in here. Both you and Into the Night think I am so ignorant that you need to teach what 2 + 2 is. I got out of junior high school a long time ago.

If you want to go off an sulk, that's your business. This is the kitchen here. It gets hot. If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
[quote]

into the Dark Ages,
You spirituality gets tiresome. This isn't the kitchen. All you do is attack anyone who posts a thought. That's not debating or discussing anything.
As I mentioned to someone I know this morning you probably couldn't grasp reality if they put a handle on it for you.
Neither you nor Wake understand basic physics. I think that's funny that Wake posts like you that I'm ignorant about conservation of momentum and science both. Both of you missed this aspect I will be posting to everyone and it will show what you and Wake both missed because you were focused on attacking me.
04-08-2017 16:55
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
This is what Wake and Into the Night missed because they wanted to attack me;
This quote is from my post 03-08-2017 10:17 on page 3;

p.s., it might be helpful to get familiar with this link
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Kinetic/eqpar.html#c2

this can be fun because CO2 has a Vrms = 556.351561
.....................................O2.................= 652.380032
...............................and N2.................= 697.423590

To put this another way in basic kinetic energy format

0.5 x CO2 x 556.35 m/s (1,244 mph) (v^2) = KE
0.5 x O2 x 652.38 m/s (1,459 mph) (v^2) = KE
0.5 x N2 x 697.42 m/s (1,560 mph) (v^2) = KE

What both Wake and Into the Night missed is that the speed (v, velocity) is different. The accidents this will cause like a 20 car pile up on the freeway will transfer momentum from one gas to another just as a car hitting another car transfers momentum. This means that the gases temperatures/ke WILL change to reach an equilibrium where the average temperature of that field is 32° F or 0° C.

And with atmospheric gases it is collisions that release heat. The Arctic and Antarctica has average lower velocities which is why those 2 climates are colder.

p.s., @All, since CO2 is heavier than both nitrogen and oxygen (O2) it will drop in our atmosphere. This is where exhaust from aircraft for all the CO2 it generates most likely the CO2 "rains" down on us. This is where seeding the tropopause would be different. If planes released water into their exhaust it might allow for some of that CO2 to be converted into good ozone. Don't know, what testing is for.


Jim
Edited on 04-08-2017 17:03
04-08-2017 17:00
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:

There is 99.96% of the atmosphere that ISN'T CO2 and you're pretending that CO2 is measurably effecting the atmosphere.


Wake,
since you are quoting me, show the quote. If you can't then I am saying that you are outright lying. And you are lying to discredit me. I have posted that I think that waste heat is the real threat. CO2 is not waste heat.
Also I have posted that we (not you) need to test to find out what effect CO2 actually has as far as trapping heat in our atmosphere goes. it is likely it is causing some warming. And with you, you do use word games to attack me. After all, you say dismiss ice core research. It's iffy. So you can't understand my opinion because I think you're illiterate when it comes to science.
Why did you change my position on CO2 ? I think it is a joke when you speak for me and get it so very, very wrong.


Jim
Edited on 04-08-2017 17:10
04-08-2017 17:03
laurenceP
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
https://www.change.org/p/theresa-may-mp-commit-to-clean-energy-in-the-uk?recruiter=652199375&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=copylink&utm_campaign=share_petition

Please sign my petition
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate Annual Global Warming Graph (NOAA):

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
NOAA's greenhouse gas forcing is fake?107-02-2019 19:12
The Stench from the EPA, NASA and NOAA8010-11-2017 05:08
World Population and Annual Global temperature Since 19501026-09-2017 03:32
CO2, The Ozone Layer, The Chapman Cycle, The IPCC and NOAA2424-06-2017 22:37
More NASA and NOAA scientists stepping up to the plate.1124-05-2017 02:15
▲ 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