Basic dogma

duncan61 wrote:
If you heat air it rises as it becomes less dense.The speed at which the air rises can be altered by the density of the air.It does not come back down or hide in the ocean

duncan61 wrote:
If you heat air it rises as it becomes less dense.

duncan61 wrote:
The speed at which the air rises can be altered by the density of the air.

duncan61 wrote:
It does not come back down

duncan61 wrote:
or hide in the ocean

Into the Night wrote:

Why would air hide in the ocean??

duncan61 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Why would air hide in the ocean??
I read all the time the claim that the heat generated by humans is hiding in the ocean.Its not here at the moment so it must be somewhere. Its cold and raining right now

duncan61 wrote:You know that and I know that. It is part of the alarmist mantra.

duncan61 wrote:The global average temperature goes up and down and nothing happens. Our orbit is elliptical which is why Northern hemisphere has cooler summers than the Southern hemisphere.

Into the Night wrote:
I find it interesting that NO one has produced a counter-argument to the OP. The thread quickly derailed and turned people throwing insults.

I guess no one from the Church of Global Warming even wants to deal with the issues brought up in the OP at all...a blatant denial of the laws of science I put there.

duncan61 wrote:
You know that and I know that. It is part of the alarmist mantra.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I find it interesting that NO one has produced a counter-argument to the OP. The thread quickly derailed and turned people throwing insults.

I guess no one from the Church of Global Warming even wants to deal with the issues brought up in the OP at all...a blatant denial of the laws of science I put there.

"The thread quickly derailed and turned people throwing insults."

Don't you just hate it when that happens?

As someone with dyslexia, I understand how the sentence got messed up..

"...turned people throwing..." It's easy not to notice when you left out the word you thought was there. "...turned INTO people throwing.."

So, I can empathize with the language errors.

But, isn't this the same guy who constantly says, "You are a nothing."?

Can't blame dyslexia for that one.

There is an old saying about people who live in glass houses.

How many other threads "quickly derailed.." because Mr. "You are a nothing" "turned people throwing insults"?

Into the Night wrote:

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I find it interesting that NO one has produced a counter-argument to the OP. The thread quickly derailed and turned people throwing insults.

I guess no one from the Church of Global Warming even wants to deal with the issues brought up in the OP at all...a blatant denial of the laws of science I put there.

"The thread quickly derailed and turned people throwing insults."

Don't you just hate it when that happens?

As someone with dyslexia, I understand how the sentence got messed up..

"...turned people throwing..." It's easy not to notice when you left out the word you thought was there. "...turned INTO people throwing.."

So, I can empathize with the language errors.

But, isn't this the same guy who constantly says, "You are a nothing."?

Can't blame dyslexia for that one.

There is an old saying about people who live in glass houses.

How many other threads "quickly derailed.." because Mr. "You are a nothing" "turned people throwing insults"?

Inversion fallacy. Insult fallacy. No argument presented.

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote:You know that and I know that. It is part of the alarmist mantra.

You believe it as well. It's how you rationalize your belief that the earth's average global temperature is increasing. You simply don't believe that the earth's average global temperature is increasing very much and is not catastrophic, but you nonetheless believe, as do other warmizombies, that the earth's average global temperature is increasing ... and your belief is based on bizarre violations of physics that you cannot defend.

squeal over furniture's sock wrote:In the next few days, when I have nothing better to do, I'll go through to find the posts where I clearly remember IdaBM stating that the Earth's atmosphere is an OPEN system.

squeal over furniture's sock wrote:I'll dig through the posts of the disgusting troll of all to ensure proper citation of the exact words.

squeal over furniture's sock wrote:It will be fun to watch the alligators are amphibians word game play out again.

squeal over furniture's sock wrote:You can be sure that he'll support the assertion that the Earth's atmosphere is a CLOSED system.

squeal over furniture's sock wrote:When IdaBM said it was an OPEN system, it was only in that very narrow context to acknowledge that the scientists who have it all wrong CALL it an open system.

squeal over furniture's sock wrote:And so many many pictures of polar bears, otters, alligators...

duncan61 wrote:By this post you are inferring you know my mind.

duncan61 wrote:All that matters is the planet is not going to become uninhabitable

IBdaMann wrote:

Im a BM wrote:
In the next few days, when I have nothing better to do, I'll go through to find the posts where I clearly remember IdaBM stating that the Earth's atmosphere is an OPEN system.

Im a BM wrote:
I'll dig through the posts of the disgusting troll of all to ensure proper citation of the exact words.

Im a BM wrote:
It will be fun to watch the alligators are amphibians word game play out again.

Im a BM wrote:
You can be sure that he'll support the assertion that the Earth's atmosphere is a CLOSED system.

Im a BM wrote:
Those thermodynamics and other textbooks do not provide the TRUE definition for what an open system is. Science is not textbooks.

Im a BM wrote:
When IdaBM said it was an OPEN system, it was only in that very narrow context to acknowledge that the scientists who have it all wrong CALL it an open system.

Im a BM wrote:
But only two people in the world know what an open system REALLY is.

Im a BM wrote:
Omniscience fallacy.

Im a BM wrote:
And so many many pictures of polar bears, otters, alligators...

Nice pictures that wasted a lot of space. Spamming. No argument.

duncan61 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

duncan61 wrote:You know that and I know that. It is part of the alarmist mantra.

You believe it as well. It's how you rationalize your belief that the earth's average global temperature is increasing. You simply don't believe that the earth's average global temperature is increasing very much and is not catastrophic, but you nonetheless believe, as do other warmizombies, that the earth's average global temperature is increasing ... and your belief is based on bizarre violations of physics that you cannot defend.

By this post you are inferring you know my mind.That is a little strange.All that matters is the planet is not going to become uninhabitable as much as some people wish it to be so.Renewables have failed.

duncan61 wrote:
Gas turbines rule.

duncan61 wrote:
Coal power is primitive however we have a lot of coal and coal power stations work for 70 years

Im a BM wrote:
Is the atmosphere a closed system?

Im a BM wrote:
The utterly absurd assertion has been made that

"The atmosphere is not an open system. It is a closed system." - Parrot Boy

Im a BM wrote:
This defies what is taught in every thermodynamics course or textbook up there in the real world.

Im a BM wrote:
I would love to hear ANY definition for "closed system" that fits the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
Of course, no citable support will be made.

Im a BM wrote:
Is there ANY context where a reality-based definition for a closed system can be used to describe the atmosphere.

Im a BM wrote:
Wouldn't the Gibbs free energy of the atmosphere be zero if that were the case?

Im a BM wrote:
Because the atmosphere is an OPEN system, energy and material come in and go out of it.

Im a BM wrote:
The Gibbs free energy of the atmosphere is NOT zero.

Im a BM wrote:
Therefore, chemical equilibria do not apply.

Im a BM wrote:
The atmosphere is not in equilibrium.

Im a BM wrote:
It is in a steady state with Gibbs free energy greater than zero.

Im a BM wrote:
Or maybe there is an alternative unambiguous definition for "closed system" where, depending on the context, the atmosphere is either closed or open.

Into the Night wrote:
[quote
False authority fallacy.
[quote]

The spamming is by you. Inversion fallacy.

squeal over furniture's sock wrote:Is there such a thing as radiant energy?

squeal over furniture's sock wrote:Parrot Boy has made the absurd unsupported contrarian assertion that there is no such thing as radiant energy.

squeal over furniture's sock wrote:Why do they all use the term "radiant energy"

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]

I have no idea what you are talking about.

squeal over furniture's sock wrote:There has been a Cherry Blossom Festival held in Washington DC for many decades now.

squeal over furniture's sock wrote:It used to have a reliable calendar date that coincided with the initial opening of flowers on the trees.

squeal over furniture's sock wrote:Sticking to tradition, now the tourists find petals all over the ground.

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]

.

Im a BM wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
[quote
False authority fallacy.
[quote]

Contextomy fallacy. Omniscience fallacy.

Lie. Omniscience fallacy.

Inversion fallacy.

The spamming is by you. Inversion fallacy.

Is there such a thing as radiant energy?

Im a BM wrote:
Parrot Boy has made the absurd unsupported contrarian assertion that there is no such thing as radiant energy.

Im a BM wrote:
Apparently, he is in on a big secret that the scientists and dictionaries don't know about.

Im a BM wrote:
Why do they all use the term "radiant energy" as if it really existed?

Im a BM wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]

.

(who cares what IdaBM wrote?)

Parrot Boy, IdaBM's idiot sidekick, makes the absurd assertion that the Earth's atmosphere is a closed system.

What is the Gibb's free energy of a closed system at equilibrium?

Don't be afraid. Let me walk you through the hard stuff.

A closed system has no matter or energy coming into it or going out of it.

If that closed system is allowed to settle into equilibrium, the Gibb's free energy is zero.

Is the atmosphere a closed system?

No, it is not.

Is the atmosphere at equilibrium?

No, it is not.

The continuous entry and exit of matter and energy can result in a steady state.

Don't be afraid. Let me walk you through the hard stuff.

Into the Night wrote:
There has been much spamming about biogeochemistry BS, arguments about alligators and frogs, etc. But it does eventually come back to some basic arguments.

The entire debate about so-called 'climate change' (otherwise known as 'global warming') comes down to some very basic arguments, all of which ignore science and mathematics.

First, let's review the initial circular argument:

Earth is somehow warming.

ALL other arguments in this religion stem from this one. Typically these center around Man causing this warming:

1. Through the use of Magick Gas (take your pick, carbon dioxide, methane, water vapor, etc), thermal energy is being created and thus raising the temperature of Earth.

The trouble is, you can't create energy out of nothing.
The 1st law of thermodynamics states: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' it energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (or force over distance).

No gas or vapor is work, therefore the value of U they contribute is zero. This leaves the equation: E(t+1) = E(t) - 0. In other words, no new energy can possibly exist. Perpetual motion machines of the 1st order are not possible.


2. Through the use of Magick Gas, electromagnetic energy radiated from the surface of Earth (which cools it) is reflected back to the surface, making it warmer than it was before, even though the gas reflecting it back is colder than the surface. This leaves the upper atmosphere colder and the surface warmer.

The trouble is, that means you are decreasing entropy (the randomness of a system, that system being Earth itself (no surrounding heat sinks and sources are considered). In other words, the system is becoming more organized, not less.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics (which is applicable to any given system), states:
e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. In other words, for any given system, entropy can never decrease...ever. Indeed, this law defines what the word 'heat' means. It is the flow of thermal energy, not the thermal energy itself. Heat has no temperature.


3. Through the use of Magick Gas, electromagnetic energy is prevented from leaving the Earth, thus it builds up, raising the temperature.

The trouble is, ALL materials radiate electromagnetic energy (light). That includes the ground, the water, the air, any Magick Gas, everything.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law states:
r = C * e * t^4 where 'r' is light radiated per square area in watts (usually square meters is used), 'C' is a natural constant, serving to convert the relation to our units of measurement, 'e' is emissivity (a measured constant describing how well light is radiated or absorbed into the material) expressed as a percentage from 0% (ideal 'white' body), to 100% (ideal 'black' body), and 't' is temperature in deg K.

Emissivity is measured by comparing the radiated light at a precisely known temperature to an ideal black body of the same temperature. There are no ideal white or black bodies in nature. Everything is somewhere between, sometimes called a 'gray' body.

The key point here is that it is a measured constant. To measure it, you MUST precisely know the temperature of the emitting body to begin with.

This means it is not possible to use algebra to invert the equation to calculate temperature from a known measure of light coming from a body. It is unknown how much of that is reflected and how much is radiated due to temperature.

Note that the Stefan-Boltzmann law does NOT have a frequency component in it. ALL frequencies of light are considered at once as a combined total.

Now we get to the core circular argument itself, that Earth is somehow warming.

The trouble is, there is no way to measure the temperature of the Earth. This measurement, by it's very definition, is a statistical measurement. In other words, it is combining some number of thermometer readings into a statistical summary.

But statistical summaries require TWO values to be published, the average, and the margin of error value. It also requires the incoming data to be published and available for perusal. That data MUST be unbiased. It must be raw data. It cannot be cooked, since no statistical summary has been run yet, and one summary may differ from the next on the SAME DATASET.

The margin of error value is NOT calculated from the data, but from the possible variant of data. For Earth temperatures, that would result in how fast temperature changes per given distance, say, a mile.

Since temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile quite easily (across weather fronts, mountain wave effects, different terrain features like lakes, forests, grasslands, bare soil, asphalt, concrete, class, metal, etc.) the end result is that the margin of error is greater than the highest and lowest temperatures ever recorded on Earth, so those become the margin of error. In other words, any such statistic is literally guessing.

Anyone that tries to tell you the temperature of the Earth, or that it's changing (requiring TWO measurements to measure the change), is ignoring statistical math and they are simply making up numbers. It does not matter if that is a government, a bunch of scientists, or an individual.

A similar problem lies with measuring global carbon dioxide concentration in the atmosphere. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. Further, there are very few stations (only one is consistently quoted by the Church of Global Warming, the Mauna Loa observatory on the Big Island of Hawaii), that are even capable of measuring CO2 at all. Again, the margin of error gets you again. The resulting summary is literally guessing.

Anyone telling you the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere is making numbers up. It doesn't matter if it's a government agency, a bunch of scientists, or an individual.

Making numbers up and using them as 'data' like this is a fallacy, known as the argument from randU fallacy. A randU is a psuedo-random number that is made up in someone's head, or that came through an algorithm that came out of someone's head.

Note that 'climate prediction models' (or computer programs used to try to predict long term weather), are randU generators. They are no different from any cheap random number generator found in any computer that doesn't use actual random sources.

In other words, the entire set of scripture from the Church of Global Warming, which comes down to these simple arguments, ignores and denies science and mathematics.

It doesn't matter whether this preaching comes from a government agency, a bunch of scientists, or an individual.

Some of the various 'doomsday' scenarios are really coming from the Church of Green, discussed in another post.

Into the Night wrote:
You are not discussing any science, Robert. You deny theories of science.