Climate change is caused by greenhouse gases
| 03-09-2022 21:10 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14407) |
duncan61 wrote:The reality is CO2 can absorb and radiate more energy than other gasses in the atmosphere Does CO2 absorb and emit as much as oxygen? I don't see CO2 making any ozone. What I see is CO2 doing nothing but sit there until it is consumed by plants. duncan61 wrote:but the tiny bit humans have contributed does very little. What is this "very little" that you are talking about? By "very little" do you mean "absolutely nothing" but just don't know what words to use to say that? If you mean that CO2 does something like, oh, I don't know, say "cause an increase in temperature" would you explain why you believe that and why any other rational adult should believe it? I notice that you never get specific, as if you are totally aware that you are bullshitting but don't want anyone to be able to pin you down on it. . |
| 04-09-2022 00:01 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
You are completely wrong according to Stefan-Boltzmann. Stefan-Boltzmann law, statement that the total radiant heat power emitted from a surface is proportional to the fourth power of its absolute temperature. All matter absorbs and emits energy. Svante arrhenius demonstrated that certain spectrums of light/energy are absorbed and emitted by the carbon molecule in CO2. The engineer client I have been working for doing his bathroom drew how it all works by bonding.We made the freshly waterproofed wall look like a mad scientist lab and his wife laughed her head of when she bought us coffee and seen it all. My take on the bonding is as matter is burned bonds are broken and reformed at a molecular level. This stuff happens and you can keep saying its not possible all you like but it does happen and there is more CO2 in the atmosphere from humans burning stuff and it does retain energy. O2 and N2 do not absorb as much. Heat radiates in 360 degrees. If air is heated it becomes less dense and rises so all this heat that is claimed to be doing all the damage is rising. Not staying at the surface and warming anything.Spring is here however we still get cold/wet days for a while yet and if I am travelling in my jeep which has a ram air flow fitted, In the morning I can feel the boost as the engine is getting dense cold air forced down its neck.When it is damp in the mornings its still quite comfortably warm as the water vapour retains energy coming from the surface. When it is clear skies and an anaemic sun it can be bitterly cold like a desert as the energy coming from the surface is going out with nothing slowing it.You can deny how this all works but I live here and this stuff happens |
| 04-09-2022 00:49 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407) |
duncan61 wrote:Svante arrhenius demonstrated that certain spectrums of light/energy are absorbed and emitted by the carbon molecule in CO2. Once again you have dishonestly omitted how such absorption/emission translates into an increase in temperature. You are supposed to be supporting your claim that atmospheric CO2 somehow increases earth's average global temperature simply by existing. You NEVER support your claim ... because you cannot ... because what you claim is physically impossible. Oh, by the way, all of Arrhenius' work on the matter has been discarded. None of his work remains in the body of science. He attempted to show what you are claiming, and the world came to realize that it isn't possible. ... and then there's duncan who never got the memo because he slept through his education. duncan, when I post the Stefan-Boltzmann law, the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not "prove me wrong." Radiance = Temperature^4 * Emissivity * SB_Constant duncan61 wrote:The engineer client I have been working for doing his bathroom drew how it all works by bonding. Did he say something other than: Radiance = Temperature^4 * Emissivity * SB_Constant ... ? duncan61 wrote: My take on the bonding is as matter is burned bonds are broken and reformed at a molecular level. Bonding is what happens within atoms in a molecule, i.e. bonding can only happen at the molecular level. If an atom is not bonding with another atom, it isn't bonding. If there is bonding of atoms, it must be a molecule. duncan61 wrote:This stuff happens and you can keep saying its not possible all you like It sounds like you are being intentionally vague in order to assign to me a bogus position that I do not hold. You claim that CO2 causes matter to spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy ... and it is you who needs to support your affirmative argument. I have simply shown that you are egregiously in error for making claims that run counter to Stefan-Boltzmann. Anyway, Stefan-Boltzmann kills your faith dead. A fork has already been stuck in you and yes, you are done. duncan61 wrote:O2 and N2 do not absorb as much. Where do you think ozone comes from? You do not know how much energy any atmospheric gas absorbs/emits. You should stop pretending to be omniscient, especially when it is obvious that you don't know anything. duncan61 wrote:Heat radiates in 360 degrees. Heat doesn't radiate, especially not in a mere 2-dimensional circle. duncan61 wrote:If air is heated it becomes less dense and rises ... relative to cooler surrounding air. While warming air remains cooler than surrounding air, it will continue to descend. This is another topic you haven't thought through very well. Frankly, I can't think of any topic you have thought through well. duncan61 wrote: so all this heat that is claimed to be doing all the damage is rising. Again, you insist on remaining ignorant of what heat is, despite it being clarified for you many times. This makes you stupid. duncan61 wrote:Not staying at the surface and warming anything. Are you claiming that there is no heat at the bottom of the ocean? Are you claiming that there is no heat at the bottom of the troposphere? Where else are you claiming that there isn't any heat? duncan61 wrote:When it is clear skies and an anaemic sun it can be bitterly cold like a desert as the energy coming from the surface is going out with nothing slowing it. Are you claiming that there exists something that can slow the radiating electromagnetic energy? How much slower does it get? You're a moron, duncan. . |
| 04-09-2022 03:15 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
Always with the nasty if someone has a differing view. IBDm wrote, Once again you have dishonestly omitted how such absorption/emission translates into an increase in temperature. why dishonestly. Are you inferring I know the truth yet choose to not believe it myself. CO2 Absorbs more energy than other gasses in the atmosphere because of the carbon molecule. IR light does not pass instantly through.I like the term residence time. It is described as IR light but when observing animals through night vision googles the heat radiating from the animal is not going to space at the speed of light IBDm wrote, You are supposed to be supporting your claim that atmospheric CO2 somehow increases earth's average global temperature simply by existing. You NEVER support your claim ... because you cannot ... because what you claim is physically impossible. I am supporting my claim right now.The surface of the Earth is warmed by the sun the energy leaving the Earth takes time to go to space.It is not instant and it is the air that is warmed.not the surface.Changing the density or composition of the air changes the residence time and temperature of the air.Not the surface.There is no global warming its the air .You can not heat a warmer surface with a cooler air or heat the ocean. Oh, by the way, all of Arrhenius' work on the matter has been discarded. None of his work remains in the body of science. He attempted to show what you are claiming, and the world came to realize that it isn't possible. Your opinion.All of Nils Axel Morner work on sea levels was discarded as he claimed to be able to devine precious metals.I have learned to be cautious with using numbers or dates as if you get it wrong by 20 minutes or .01 degree all your work gets discarded. Did he say something other than: Radiance = Temperature^4 * Emissivity * SB_Constant No.He explained bonding Bonding is what happens within atoms in a molecule, i.e. bonding can only happen at the molecular level. If an atom is not bonding with another atom, it isn't bonding. If there is bonding of atoms, it must be a molecule. That is exactly what he explained by drawing on the walls.Because humans have been burning more than the natural cycle CO2 concentration has increased slightly in the atmosphere. It sounds like you are being intentionally vague in order to assign to me a bogus position that I do not hold. You claim that CO2 causes matter to spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy ... and it is you who needs to support your affirmative argument. I have simply shown that you are egregiously in error for making claims that run counter to Stefan-Boltzmann. You have used the word spontaneously. The energy is from the surface. the atmosphere takes time to heat and cool. You seem to need to be able to claim CO2 does nothing I know not why I am not you. Anyway, Stefan-Boltzmann kills your faith dead. A fork has already been stuck in you and yes, you are done. I claim CO2 absorbs and emits energy at the spectrum that is just above visible light.This is supported by Radiance = Temperature^4 * Emissivity * SB_Constant Where do you think ozone comes from? You do not know how much energy any atmospheric gas absorbs/emits. You should stop pretending to be omniscient, especially when it is obvious that you don't know anything. No idea. I am not hung up on Ozone. Heat doesn't radiate, especially not in a mere 2-dimensional circle. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Does not go at the speed of light. Speed depends on matter. The flow of thermal energy through copper is not the same as wood. ... relative to cooler surrounding air. While warming air remains cooler than surrounding air, it will continue to descend. This is another topic you haven't thought through very well. Frankly, I can't think of any topic you have thought through well. Hot air balloons? Are you claiming that there is no heat at the bottom of the ocean? Are you claiming that there is no heat at the bottom of the troposphere? Where else are you claiming that there isn't any heat? No.Are you claiming that water bodies can be warmer in the depths than at the surface.I understand thermoclines and have for a while as I troll lures for trout on dams and the trout are reluctant to swim in the warmer water at the surface in summer Are you claiming that there exists something that can slow the radiating electromagnetic energy? How much slower does it get? You're a moron, duncan. Yes. If this did not happen it would be too hot to live here during the day and too cold at night ISS proves this.Whats a moron and why are you so hung up on the atmosphere slowing the flow of energy.Go outside and stand in the sun then stand in the shade. Perhaps an apple will fall on your head and we can start on gravity again. Edited on 04-09-2022 03:21 |
| 04-09-2022 05:34 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407) |
duncan61 wrote:Always with the nasty if someone has a differing view. I appreciate differing views. I become a bit more direct with dishonest ashsoles, such as yourself. You are a moron who tries to blame others for his stupidity. IOt's not my fault that you are as dumb as a rock. It's not my fault that you are a compulsive gambler. It's not my fault that you are totally gullible and can be easily manipulated by gibberish. You did it to yourself. Then you try to cover for your cognitive shortcomings via distraction, by assigning bogus positions to others so you can pretend that you are "striking back" with brilliance. You're an idiot. duncan61 wrote:why dishonestly. You never explain why any rational adult should believe your claim that CO2 causes an increase in temperature. You never explain because you know it is false yet you insist that it is true. This is called being dishonest. It is called "lying." You have been made aware of the physical impossibility of what you are claiming, but you choose to deny science and math in deference to preaching dogma that you know is false. That makes you a shitty person, specifically a lying, shitty person. duncan61 wrote:Are you inferring I know the truth yet choose to not believe it myself. BINGO! We have a winner! ... well, I'm implying it, not inferring it ... and I'm not really implying it so much as I am stating it directly. Don't you think it's about time you learned some English? Yes, you are a liar. You know that what you preach is false. Your warmizombie religion is so dear to you that you refuse to recognize the science that kills your faith. That makes you a moron. You are a lying moron. You are a lying, shitty moron. duncan61 wrote:CO2 Absorbs more energy than other gasses in the atmosphere because of the carbon molecule. You are pretending to be omniscient. Stupid people who cannot support their lies have no choice but to reach for the omniscience pretense. You have never measured atmospheric energy absorption and you have never seen any data on the matter. You feel perfectly entitled to pull crap out of your azz and expect others to believe it as though you didn't just make it up. That simply adds to your dishonesty. I asked you about ozone, noting that CO2 doesn't make any ... atmospheric oxygen makes all that the earth has, by absorbing solar energy. You dodged in cowardly fashion by quipping that you are not somehow hung up on the ozone. You're an idiot. duncan61 wrote:IR light does not pass instantly through. Much of it absolutely does, you moron. What do you think the IR that heats the earth's surface passed through to reach the surface? Pete Rogers didn't let you think about that one, did he? duncan61 wrote:I like the term residence time. I know you do. Pete Rogers probably told you to like it, so you do. It has absolutely no meaning. There is no such concept in science. You're a gullible idiot. duncan61 wrote:It is described as IR light but when observing animals through night vision googles the heat radiating from the animal is not going to space at the speed of light All I can say is that you are a total idiot. This sentence is nothing but gibberish that has several egregious physics violations. The only explanation is that Pete Rogers was reaming you when you wrote it. Let's break it down for everyone else. You claim: 1) "Residence time" is described as IR 2) IR emanating from animals is somehow different 3) Heat does not flow, it "radiates" 4) Light travels slower than the speed of light I see why you're a plumber. duncan61 wrote:I am supporting my claim right now. I'm glad you think so. I like the part about light traveling slower than light. duncan61 wrote:The surface of the Earth is warmed by the sun the energy leaving the Earth takes time to go to space. Not just the "surface" but all of the earth is heated by the sun. The "surface" is merely a part of the earth. The earth is in equilibrium. There is no time delay between a quantity of energy being absorbed by the earth and the exact same quantity of energy being radiated by the earth. Learn what equilibrium is, and if you are talking about the earth, you have to talk about the earth. You don't get to switch to just part of it and pretend the rest of the earth somehow isn't involved. duncan61 wrote:Changing the density or composition of the air changes the residence time and temperature of the air. Nope. Learn what equilibrium is. You are babbling gibberish like an idiot undergoing shock therapy. duncan61 wrote:IBDaMAnn wrote:Oh, by the way, all of Arrhenius' work on the matter has been discarded. None of his work remains in the body of science. He attempted to show what you are claiming, and the world came to realize that it isn't possible.Your opinion. Nope. It's the body of science. None of it is in there. Of course, you could prove me wrong by showing Arrhenius science that still survives to this day, but that would require you to recognize science ... and that would kill your faith ... so you'll just stay far away from science and continue drooling on your shoe. duncan61 wrote:Bonding is what happens within atoms in a molecule, Nope. Bonding is what happens between atoms amongst molecules. Be more careful with your wording. duncan61 wrote:Because humans have been burning more than the natural cycle CO2 concentration has increased slightly in the atmosphere. ... and he is wrong. We still have far too many plants on this planet for humanity's trivial addition of CO2 to somehow not be totally consumed. Tell your engineer friend that he needs to think it through. duncan61 wrote:You have used the word spontaneously. Too many syllables for you? duncan61 wrote:The energy is from the surface. the atmosphere takes time to heat and cool. You don't get to disect the earth and only talk about some of it. You have to address all of the earth. Let's rewrite your comment: "The energy is from the earth. The earth takes time to heat and cool." You are babbling. You have no point, and you have nothing to support your claim that CO2 has the magical superpower to cause the earth to spontaneously increase in temperature. Energy comes from the sun and is absorbed by the earth. The earth is in equilibrium, continuously and instantaneously emitting the amount of energy it is receiving. You cannot somehow get a different result by talking about the surface and the atmosphere separately. duncan61 wrote:You seem to need to be able to claim CO2 does nothing ... and you return to being a dishonest schytt, assigning bogus positions to others as a distraction for the fact that you are stupid and can only gibber. You claim that CO2 has a magical superpower to cause the earth to spontaneously increase in temperature, in defiance of physics. This is your claim, not mine. I recognize that physics clearly delineates your claim as impossible and I am asking you to reconcile this. I am not making any affirmative claim beyond citing science. Up to this point, your only responses have been: 1) assign bogus positions to me in order to buy time 2) to pretend that the science I cite is merely my opinion 3) flat out deny science This makes you a dishonest moron. duncan61 wrote:I claim CO2 absorbs and emits energy at the spectrum [blah, blah,blah] Jump to the part where you explain how whatever you are gibbering CAUSES a temperature increase. Show that the additional energy that CAUSES this temperature increase was not created out of nothing and did not come from the sun that was already there before the occurrence of the CO2. duncan61 wrote:that is just above visible light. You mean "just under." "Infra" means "under." Infrastructure means the structure under/beneath the structure. Infrared is light under red. Infrasonic frequencies are below those that can be heard and are thus inaudible. duncan61 wrote:Heat is the flow of thermal energy. So now you recognize that heat does not radiate; it flows, just like a river flows and does not radiate. duncan61 wrote:Does not go at the speed of light. It has no speed. It is a power rating. duncan61 wrote:The flow of thermal energy through copper is not the same as wood. Correct. Heat differs between copper and wood as noted by the differing power ratings of the heat. duncan61 wrote:Hot air balloons? How about storms? They are caused by cold air warming ... on the way down. You said that if cold air is heated then it will rise. Storms are cold air being heated ... and descending. Your statement is false. You also continue to dishonestly EVADE the topic of heat flowing in all directions equally. You can't muster enough honesty to acknowledge it. Of course you won't set a searing hot frying pan on top of your head because you know that heat flows downward just as it flows in all the other directions, but to admit it would require honesty and you find that totally unacceptable. duncan61 wrote:Are you claiming that water bodies can be warmer in the depths than at the surface. Absolutely. Thermal vents create boiling ocean floors, where hyperthermophiles exist in above-boiling water (400C) ... and they die if the temperature drops sufficiently below that. It's the answer to the riddle "When does a crab not boil in boiling water?" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2wkBQ_0PZA duncan61 wrote:Yes. If this did not happen it would be too hot to live here during the day and too cold at night Incorrect. Light never travels below the speed of light, and the earth is not too hot to live here during the day and the earth is not too cold at night. Your claim is false ... and laughingly absurd. What will Pete Rogers order you to say next? That the speed of gravity is slowed by the atmosphere? duncan61 wrote:ISS proves this. What a stupid thing to write. . |
| 04-09-2022 06:03 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
Bonding is what happens within atoms in a molecule, i.e. bonding can only happen at the molecular level. If an atom is not bonding with another atom, it isn't bonding. If there is bonding of atoms, it must be a molecule. This was a copy and paste of what you wrote now you say Nope. Bonding is what happens between atoms amongst molecules. Be more careful with your wording. Interesting.This is the problem with making it up, You have denied your own denial.I have proven you are the manipulator of the truth. Again I know not why I am not you. |
| 04-09-2022 06:45 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407) |
duncan61 wrote:Interesting.This is the problem with making it up, You have denied your own denial.I have proven you are the manipulator of the truth. Again I know not why I am not you. You are a moron. What I wrote is the same thing in both cases. Did you refrain from simply asking for clarification of something you didn't understand because you feared that some on this board might realize you suck at English? Surprise! We already know. You can safely ask for clarification without any risk of worsening any perception of your English deficiencies. I spelled it out for you. I can't imagine how you could still get it wrong ... but here we are, you screwed that pooch. Don't you think it's time to learn at least some English? |
| 04-09-2022 07:14 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
I am surprised you are still here with the rock of shame you are carrying. You wrote Bonding is what happens within atoms in a molecule, i.e. bonding can only happen at the molecular level. If an atom is not bonding with another atom, it isn't bonding. If there is bonding of atoms, it must be a molecule. You wrote Nope. Bonding is what happens between atoms amongst molecules. Be more careful with your wording. At what point did I do this.Everyone in the room is laughing their heads off |
| 04-09-2022 08:13 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21597) |
duncan61 wrote: No, you don't get to discard the Stefan-Boltzmann law by changing it. duncan61 wrote: Illiteracy: Failure to capitalize proper noun. Use of plural for singular. Physics error: Energy has no frequency. Logic error: Special pleading fallacy. duncan61 wrote: Word stuffing (gaslighting). No, you don't get to lie about what is posted. duncan61 wrote: CO2 is not energy. duncan61 wrote: Yes they do. duncan61 wrote: Heat doesn't radiate. Not even radiant heat. duncan61 wrote: Not necessarily. duncan61 wrote: Heat doesn't rise. duncan61 wrote: Heat isn't contained anywhere. You cannot heat a warmer surface using colder air. duncan61 wrote: Nothing slows it at any time of year. duncan61 wrote: Word stuffing (gaslighting). Your problem is that you continue to try to discard science. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 04-09-2022 09:03 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
You are bending the laws of physics to your personal belief ITN.Nothing you have posted makes any sense.I challenge you to describe why energy does not go to space instantly. The energy being the surface emitting the flow of thermal energy that I am standing in right now and have felt increasing all day. At sunset the temperature does not just drop instantly it takes time. |
| 04-09-2022 09:31 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
duncan61 wrote: It is not up to 'views'. Theories of science are what they are. You can't just discard them. duncan61 wrote: No, it doesn't. duncan61 wrote: An absorbed photon is DESTROYED. It no longer exists. There is no 'residence time'. duncan61 wrote: All light travels at the speed of light. Frequency doesn't change that. You are ignoring Michelson-Morley, Einstein's theory of special relativity, the Lorenz transformation, and Planck's law. duncan61 wrote: No, you are simply discarding science. You cannot support your claim by discarding science or mathematics. duncan61 wrote: Illiteracy: Run-on sentences. Failure to separate sentences by at least one space. You are again attempting to trap light. You can't. duncan61 wrote: Infrared light from the Sun warms everything...the land, the ocean, the air...everything. duncan61 wrote: There is no residence time. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Illiteracy: Use of period instead of comma. Failure to separate sentences by at least one space. duncan61 wrote: WRONG. A falsified theory is no longer a theory of science! It is not possible to have two conflicting theories of science. One or both must be falsified. This is known as the external consistency check. duncan61 wrote: Irrelevant. It is not possible to measure the global sea level. duncan61 wrote: Making up numbers or dates is a fallacy, known as an argument from randU fallacy. duncan61 wrote: Bonding has nothing to do with the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Chemical bonding has no temperature. duncan61 wrote: Bond strength is measured by the energy required to disassociate the bond, measured in joules. Joules have no temperature. duncan61 wrote: It is not possible to measure the global concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere. CO2 is not energy. It cannot increase temperature. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. duncan61 wrote: You are claiming that CO2 can spontaneously warm the Earth. duncan61 wrote: There is no frequency component in the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You don't get to discard this law by changing it. duncan61 wrote: Ozone is created by taking oxygen and shoving energy into it. Heat, light, electricity, anything. Low altitude ozone is created typically either by lightning, the electrostatic charge in a cloud (even if there is no lightning), high temperatures experienced in the cylinders of a gasoline or diesel engine, etc. The ozone in the ozone layer is caused by oxygen absorbing a photon of UVb light. This unstable molecule will self destruct back to oxygen given time, and it also can be destroyed by UVc light, while only penetrates to higher altitudes in the atmosphere. Some UVb light, however, does reach the surface. Some plastics can be made by starting polymerization using UVa light. UVb light, however, breaks down plastics. UVc light is especially dangerous as it can break down your skin! You must wear protective equipment if you are working around UVc light (which can be generated when arc welding!). Lightning does generate UVc light, but the dosage is so brief it's of little consequence unless you are standing very close to it. However, standing that close means you have other problems to worry about besides UVc exposure. duncan61 wrote: What about 'em? No, they don't fly because of hot air. They fly because of difference of temperatures. Cold air is required or they won't fly. duncan61 wrote: Heat is not contained in anything. duncan61 wrote: Heat is not contained in anything. duncan61 wrote: There is no heat anywhere the temperature is uniform. In other words, the highest possible entropy. See the 2nd law of thermodynamics (which you still ignore). duncan61 wrote: It is quite possible for water to be warmer at depth than on the surface. This tends to happen in the winter or at night. duncan61 wrote: WRONG. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy (there is always heat). duncan61 wrote: The ISS is not a proof. It is a space station. You cannot use the ISS to discard theories of science. duncan61 wrote: The word 'moron' first appeared in ancient Greece and was adopted into Latin. It has always meant feeble minded. In 1922, the AASFM (American Association for the Study of the Feeble Minded) designated the technical description of "an adult with a mental age between 8 and 12". This designation was later dropped when the term became to be used as a general insult. The atmosphere does not slow the flow of energy. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. You cannot just discard the Stefan-Boltzmann law. All light travels at the speed of light. duncan61 wrote: Cliche fallacy. Attempted proof by contrivance. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 04-09-2022 09:33 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
duncan61 wrote: Word stuffing. No, you don't get to change what has been posted by others. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 04-09-2022 09:35 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
duncan61 wrote: Assumption of victory fallacy. Cliche fallacy. duncan61 wrote: RQAA. You don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 04-09-2022 09:39 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
duncan61 wrote: I am not bending anything. You are simply discarding physics entirely. duncan61 wrote: Because your religion is not compatible with theories of science. duncan61 wrote: Heat is not energy. Heat has no temperature. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 04-09-2022 10:10 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
Into the Night wrote:duncan61 wrote: I changed nothing. IBDm posted Bonding is what happens within atoms in a molecule, i.e. bonding can only happen at the molecular level. If an atom is not bonding with another atom, it isn't bonding. If there is bonding of atoms, it must be a molecule. Did not realise that I had copied and pasted his response and then posted Nope. Bonding is what happens between atoms amongst molecules. Be more careful with your wording. He disagreed with his first post all in less than an hour. Then tried to claim I am dumb. Not dumb enough to disagree with myself on the same day Please give me a reason why when the sun goes down it is still warm? Is it because the atmosphere takes time to heat and cool? duncan61 Edited on 04-09-2022 10:11 |
| 04-09-2022 15:02 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407) |
duncan61 wrote:Please give me a reason why when the sun goes down it is still warm? Nice EVASION. How does CO2 cause the earth to spontaneously increase in temperature without creating additional energy out of nothing and without pretending the sun wasn't already there? |
| 04-09-2022 18:46 | |
| James_★★★★★ (2238) |
IBdaMann wrote:duncan61 wrote:Please give me a reason why when the sun goes down it is still warm? Technically speaking, when O2 is converted into CO2, that carbon element was not present in gaseous form in the atmosphere. That is an actual increase in the amount of kinetic energy in the atmosphere. And with hydrocarbons, they were previously not in the atmosphere and demonstrate that kinetic energy is being added to the atmosphere. p.s., my theory about climate change might actually be right. I've uncovered information that I find disturbing until I read your posts IBDaWoMann. Scientists did publish a paper making known the difference between natural variance and global warming. And if you were literate I would show that paper to you. |
| 04-09-2022 20:07 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407) |
James_ wrote:Technically babbling, when O2 is converted into CO2, that carbon element was not present in gaseous form in the atmosphere. That is an actual increase in the amount of kinetic energy in the atmosphere. Apparently you have reverted back to your error of equivocating thermal energy for kinetic energy. Let me know when you get that straightened out. When you throw a baseball, you increase the average kinetic energy of the entire baseball, but you don't increase its temperature any. Good luck. James_ wrote:And with hydrocarbons, they were previously not in the atmosphere and demonstrate that kinetic energy is being added to the atmosphere. Are you claiming that hydrocarbons are kinetic energy? James_ wrote:p.s., my theory about climate change might actually be right. You don't have a theory of Climate Change. Ergo, you have a null theory. It is definite that your theory is true. Well done! |
| 04-09-2022 21:54 | |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★(5197) |
James_ wrote:IBdaMann wrote:duncan61 wrote:Please give me a reason why when the sun goes down it is still warm? When did they find papers from past inter-glacial periods? Sort of need those past records, to establish a baseline for 'natural variance'. This is our first 'recorded' inter-glacial, we won't know what's natural, until it happens |
| 05-09-2022 05:26 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407) |
HarveyH55 wrote:When did they find papers from past inter-glacial periods? It wasn't papers they discovered but rather an ancient Western Digital 250GB hard drive that had curators salivating over the prospects of hosting the relic. Attached image:  |
| 05-09-2022 05:54 | |
| James_★★★★★ (2238) |
IBdaMann wrote:HarveyH55 wrote:When did they find papers from past inter-glacial periods? And now you're manufacturing "data" so his "hard drive" can download his data. Seriously? |
| 05-09-2022 07:38 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197) |
IBdaMann wrote:HarveyH55 wrote:When did they find papers from past inter-glacial periods? I remember (still own) a 20 meg hard drive used on a Commodore 64 computer. Early 90s... |
| 05-09-2022 12:54 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
IBdaMann wrote:duncan61 wrote:Please give me a reason why when the sun goes down it is still warm? What am I evading? The way I see it I joined this forum with no knowledge at all which gave me the capacity to learn. You however have claimed to know everything and have used the laws of physics. I have now learned the same laws of physics and Stefan- boltzmann and can see no reason that changing the composition of the atmosphere can not change the air temperature in the troposphere IBDm wrote, How does CO2 cause the earth to spontaneously increase in temperature without creating additional energy out of nothing and without pretending the sun wasn't already there?[/quote] Never said spontaneously. Never said Earth. Today while connecting pipes for a gas Hot Water Unit I had an epiphany. If I run a gas burner on methane to atmosphere all the thermal energy goes away yet if I place a metal mesh above the flames masses of energy is radiated out from the glowing mesh. Same energy input . Different result. This defies the laws of physics but it happens. The demonstration of blackbody and Stefan-Boltzmann I saw recently is a chap in PPE using an Acetylene torch horizontally on a lump of steel in the middle of a room. Without the steel the room temperature would barely change however because of the lump of steel being heated the room temperature goes up.Again same energy different result. Every thing will go back to equilibrium but at different time frames. Please detail what I am evading and I will address the subject. I love this stuff. I brush my teeth with it. All bodies radiate energy W depending on temperature T, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law W = ε σT4 where emissivity ε is equal to 1 for black bodies and less than 1 for grey bodies, σ being the Stefan constant. duncan61 Edited on 05-09-2022 13:00 |
| 05-09-2022 17:32 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407) |
duncan61 wrote:What am I evading? I thoroughly explained that. duncan61 wrote:Never said spontaneously. Never said Earth. You most certainly did. You did not use those words because you don't know sufficient English to express yourself clearly, but what I wrote is what you expressed. duncan61 wrote:All bodies radiate energy W depending on temperature T, according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law W = ε σT4 where emissivity ε is equal to 1 for black bodies and less than 1 for grey bodies, σ being the Stefan constant. I explained to you that there are no grey bodies. This exemplifies the problem with mindless copy-paste. You don't know what parts are wrong and you end up regurgitating all the errors as well. Your source, Firstlawcomic, erred in its implication that only ideal black bodies (which don't exist) are black bodies instead of correctly identifying all bodies of matter as black bodies. If you ever become interested in learning something, you can start with the following: 1: All bodies of matter are black bodies, hence the name "black body science" and not the name "grey body science.". 2. Emissivity = 1.0 refers to an ideal or perfect black body, a theoretical limit that does not exist, like absolute zero is a theoretical limit that does not exist. We don't refer to absolute zero as the only temperature. 3. All Black body science is based on, and builds upon, Planck's law. 4. Stefan-Boltzmann is merely an integral (math) of Planck's law over all frequencies. If you are going to claim that changing the composition of the atmosphere is going to make a difference then you need to point out the "atmospheric composition" component of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Oh look! There's no "atmospheric composition" component. Drats. [*-findSTEFAN-BOLTZMANBASICS] . |
| 05-09-2022 19:51 | |
| James_★★★★★ (2238) |
IBdaMann wrote: And you thoroughly missed this IPCC graph? What did the IPCC say happened between 1945 and 1980? Attached image: 
Edited on 05-09-2022 19:52 |
| 05-09-2022 20:35 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197) |
James_ wrote:IBdaMann wrote: Why did they redact the thermometer data? |
| 05-09-2022 20:35 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197) |
James_ wrote:IBdaMann wrote: Why did they redact the thermometer data? |
| 05-09-2022 21:52 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
duncan61 wrote:Into the Night wrote: I changed nothing. IBDm posted duncan61 wrote: 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 05-09-2022 22:11 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
duncan61 wrote:IBdaMann wrote:duncan61 wrote:Please give me a reason why when the sun goes down it is still warm? IBD's question. Answer the question put to you. Stop evading. duncan61 wrote: You are discarding the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. There is no term in the equation for type of substance. Adding one is discarding the law. duncan61 wrote: Never said spontaneously. Never said Earth.[/quote] Evasion. Answer the question put to you. duncan61 wrote: No, you cannot destroy energy into nothing. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. duncan61 wrote: Nope. Same result. You are heating the air with your stove. duncan61 wrote: Doesn't define the laws of physics, but YOU are. duncan61 wrote: You increased the area of radiating surface, improving coupling to the room. This is not creating energy by using steel. duncan61 wrote: You are attempting a proof by contrivance (a fallacy). You cannot create energy out of nothing, not even steel or steel mesh. You can't destroy energy into nothing either. You are also ignoring the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. duncan61 wrote: No. Emissivity is a measured constant. It is NOT dependent on the substance of the material radiating. You are also ignoring radiating area, used by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 05-09-2022 22:13 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
James_ wrote:IBdaMann wrote: Quoting random numbers again? There is no data here. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 05-09-2022 22:14 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
HarveyH55 wrote:There is no thermometer data of global temperature. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.James_ wrote:IBdaMann wrote: 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 06-09-2022 00:28 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407) |
HarveyH55 wrote:Why did they redact the thermometer data? They noticed that their thermometer was giving them temperatures, not "anomalies." Man, were they pizzed. Edited on 06-09-2022 00:29 |
| 06-09-2022 00:41 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407) |
My bad. In my haste I misspoke. I carelessly wrote:4. Stefan-Boltzmann is merely an integral (math) of Planck's law over all frequencies. Stefan-Boltzmann is Planck's law integrated over all wavelengths, not frequencies. The frequencies remain constant while wavelengths vary per medium. I apologize for any inconvenience this might have caused. |
| 06-09-2022 01:06 | |
gfm7175 ★★★★★(3314) |
IBdaMann wrote:HarveyH55 wrote:Why did they redact the thermometer data? You mean to tell me that "anomaly" is not a unit of measurement? You mean to tell me that my college indoctrination education was largely a waste of time and money? Edited on 06-09-2022 01:07 |
| 06-09-2022 02:01 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407) |
gfm7175 wrote:IBdaMann wrote:You mean to tell me that "anomaly" is not a unit of measurement?HarveyH55 wrote:Why did they redact the thermometer data? Silly question. Of course "anomalies" have several widely used units of measure. Anomalies are measured in the industrial sector in "human activity", which comes in many HR flavors and in "years since the publication of the Communist Manifesto." The British prefer to measure "anomalies" in "metric tonnes of greenhouse gas" while Americans prefer to normalize measurements in Climate Justice Denied (which avoids the problem of funky British spelling ... and pronunciation).  The important aspect to remember of the above image is its completely unambiguous nature, clearly showing its adherence to thermodynamics. Of course, NOAA uses the standard ONI (Oceanic Niño Index) from 1950-present. Some deniers snark the question "Why that year as opposed to any other year?" It's a silly question; obviously Climate started in 1950. The ONI is the three-month sea surface temperature anomaly in the Niño3.4 region of the tropical Pacific Ocean. There's absolutely no ambiguity there and it adheres to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. gfm7175 wrote: You mean to tell me that my college indoctrination education was largely a waste of time and money? The opposite. You didn't pay enough and you obviously did not remain truly dedicated as you otherwise should have been. Only if you adequately tithe to your alma mater can we learn enough about Climate anomalies to reduce the Threat and to save the planet, although it might already be too late. One thing you can do right now, today, is to lobby for strict prohibitions against CO2, methane and water vapor, the chief greenhouse gases which are all 20-times more powerful greenhouse gases than CO2, methan and even water vapor. Combined, they form the units of measure for Climate anomalies in many third-world countries and Dominican coral reefs. Maybe we need to send you back to school. |
| 06-09-2022 11:40 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
Into the Night wrote:duncan61 wrote:Into the Night wrote: Are you accepting the atmosphere takes time to heat and cool. Its almost checkmate for you duncan61 |
| 06-09-2022 14:01 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407) |
duncan61 wrote:Are you accepting the atmosphere takes time to heat and cool. Its almost checkmate for you So you still aren't accepting that the atmosphere is part of the earth; that you don't get to disect the earth and only talk about part of it. So, you still aren't willing to learn the concept of "equilibrium." duncan, you already lost. . |
| 06-09-2022 14:46 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
No the atmosphere is not part of the Earth it is separate. It is you that is copping out from the truth. I do not know why you have a problem with CO2 absorbing and emitting. I have seen an equation where the claim is that for every 100 ppm the atmosphere will become 1.C warmer which is crap and .014 is more likely. Claiming the atmosphere is part of the Earth is a dodge you invented to keep your faith of denial going. Accept that some gasses absorb and emit differently because they do. You will never convince me that the concentration of different gasses do nothing. Semantics |
| 06-09-2022 16:27 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407) |
duncan61 wrote:No the atmosphere is not part of the Earth it is separate. So your rantings and ravings are based on the mistaken notion that the earth's atmosphere is not part of the earth? Checkmate. You lose again. duncan61 wrote: It is you that is copping out from the truth. Nope. I acknowledge that the earth's atmosphere is part of the earth. duncan61 wrote: I do not know why you have a problem with CO2 absorbing and emitting. I don't know why you can't link your inability to account for any resulting additional energy with your egregious thermodynamics violation of creating energy out of nothing. That's a pretty severe cognitive shortcoming to remain unable to see what others have pointed out to you many times. or to remain unable to understand what others have clearly and exhaustively explained to you many times. duncan61 wrote: I have seen an equation where the claim is that for every 100 ppm the atmosphere will become 1.C warmer which is crap and .014 is more likely. Nope. No non-zero amount is any more liikely. You should recognize this by your inability to account for any additional energy that is not somehow created out of nothing and not attributed to the sun that was already there, but we have established that you are too stupid to put two and two together. This is why you EVADE my question to this effect, i.e. it would be an admission that you are a religiously indoctrinated moron who has been relegated to denying science. duncan61 wrote:Claiming the atmosphere is part of the Earth is a dodge you invented to keep your faith of denial going. Claiming the atmosphere is somehow not part of the Earth is a dodge you invented to keep your faith of denial going. duncan61 wrote: Accept that some gasses absorb and emit differently because they do. Stop pretending that I ever denied this. Stop assigning bogus positions to me and then attacking those bogus positions that I never held. Start explaining how you connect the dots to arrive at the conclusion that the earth's average global temperature somehow increases without violating physics. If you could have ever done this, one would think that you would have done this already. Since you are in heavy denial (of science) and totally under the control of someone who is doing your thinking for you, we can expect that you will continue to gibber and babble the stupidest crap on the internet. Shouldn't you be gambling some more cash on crypto? Solana is mooning as we speak. duncan61 wrote:You will never convince me that the concentration of different gasses do nothing. Semantics We will never convince you that the physical properties of the components of a body of matter in equilibrium simply cannot take the body of matter out of equilibrium somehow if you decide to examine the components individually. You're too stupid in that way. . |
| 06-09-2022 17:04 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
duncan61 wrote: So one leaves Earth when one flies in a plane? duncan61 wrote: No, it's you. EARTH'S atmosphere is most definitely a part of Earth. duncan61 wrote: What "absorbing and emitting" "problem" are you talking about? duncan61 wrote: A lot of people say a lot of stupid things. So? duncan61 wrote: With this small edit, you have now accurately described precisely what YOU are doing. duncan61 wrote:You will never convince me This little gem says it all. You have now just told the forum that you are not open to any opposing arguments on the matter; that your mind is already made up. |
Join the debate Climate change is caused by greenhouse gases:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| The "radiative Greenhouse effect" does not exist | 145 | 24-04-2024 02:48 |
| 'Greenhouse' Effect? | 49 | 30-11-2023 06:45 |
| The SCIENCE of the "Greenhouse Effect" | 291 | 05-11-2023 22:46 |
| How covid 19 vaccine caused Jamie Foxx to become blind and paralyzed | 2 | 08-06-2023 03:23 |
| Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity | 102 | 05-06-2023 13:19 |