Remember me
▼ Content

Climate change is caused by greenhouse gases



Page 3 of 5<12345>
06-09-2022 17:11
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Why did they redact the thermometer data?

They noticed that their thermometer was giving them temperatures, not "anomalies." Man, were they pizzed.
You mean to tell me that "anomaly" is not a unit of measurement?

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.

It might already be too late.
06-09-2022 20:01
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
So one leaves Earth when one flies in a plane?

Yes. You leave the Earth and fly in the atmosphere. You are not still on the surface of the Earth

What "absorbing and emitting" "problem" are you talking about?

Stefan-Boltzmann states all matter absorbs and emits. CO2 and some other gasses absorb and emit more than other gasses in the atmosphere. If the atmosphere was at 75000 ppm CO2 we would have trouble breathing and there would be a small increase in atmospheric temperature. Trying to put me down does not change that. I did a greenhouse test to 3000 ppm and got nothing with thermometers calibrated to 0.0 but the mythbusters got 0.7C at 75000 ppm
06-09-2022 20:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
duncan61 wrote:Yes. You leave the Earth and fly in the atmosphere. You are not still on the surface of the Earth

... and you apparently leave earth when you swim at the beach.

How laughingly stupid.

duncan61 wrote:CO2 and some other gasses absorb and emit more than other gasses in the atmosphere.

... and again you stop short of explaining how this results in an increase of temperature. You are discussing physical properties and you never mention any additional energy. You have merely redefined planet earth as only being a part of itself and pretended that you have somehow made a sound argument.

duncan61 wrote: If the atmosphere was at 75000 ppm CO2 we would have trouble breathing

Why should any rational adult believe that? That is still less than 1% CO2. You haven't assumed any reduction in O2 so why should you be considered anything other than batschytt insane?

duncan61 wrote: ... and there would be a small increase in atmospheric temperature.

Please post the science you used to compute that.

duncan61 wrote:Trying to put me down does not change that.

Your claims are so ridiculous, and your position is so absurd, that you leave no option but to mock you for what you write.

duncan61 wrote: I did a greenhouse test to 3000 ppm and got nothing with thermometers calibrated to 0.0 but the mythbusters got 0.7C at 75000 ppm

Mythbusters engaged purely in the parlor trick that is used to fool (and manipulate) people. I see that you were fooled and manipulated.

.
06-09-2022 21:49
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
duncan61 wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
So one leaves Earth when one flies in a plane?


Yes. You leave the Earth and fly in the atmosphere. You are not still on the surface of the Earth

I'm a bit slow on the take, so I do have some follow up questions for you.

[1] Why are you using the words "the atmosphere" instead of "the Earth's atmosphere"? Do you believe that Earth doesn't have an atmosphere? I just want to be clear about this.

[2] Why are you using the words "the Earth" and "the surface of the Earth" interchangeably? Do you believe them to be the same thing? Again, I just want to be clear about this.

Oh wait, why am I even trying to reason with you... You just got done saying this little doozy, remember?

duncan61 wrote:
You will never convince me


duncan61 wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
What "absorbing and emitting" "problem" are you talking about?


Stefan-Boltzmann states all matter absorbs and emits. CO2 and some other gasses absorb and emit more than other gasses in the atmosphere.

Okay, but how is this resulting in Earth's temperature increasing? Remember, according to you (see above), "the atmosphere" is not a part of "the Earth".

duncan61 wrote:
If the atmosphere was at 75000 ppm CO2 we would have trouble breathing and there would be a small increase in atmospheric temperature.

Why should I believe any of that?

duncan61 wrote:
Trying to put me down does not change that.

Your ridiculous laughable statements are bringing about the mocking that you are experiencing. If you would say stupid stuff less often, you would get mocked less often. Give it a try sometime.

duncan61 wrote:
I did a greenhouse test to 3000 ppm and got nothing with thermometers calibrated to 0.0 but the mythbusters got 0.7C at 75000 ppm

You believe the mythbusters test was legit??!! hahahahahahaha
Edited on 06-09-2022 21:50
07-09-2022 18:11
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
Is it just me or has it gotten really quiet here all of a sudden... the silence is deafening...
07-09-2022 19:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
gfm7175 wrote:Is it just me or has it gotten really quiet here all of a sudden... the silence is deafening...

duncan is like Solana, i.e. he is quietly waiting for just the right moment to do something spectacular ... like show everyone how the atmosphere isn't the earth's atmosphere, and that the ocean isn't actually the earth's ocean.

It will be glorious! We will all be amazed.

Then, for the pièce de résistance, duncan will show us all how a mere substance, and not necessarily additional energy, causes an increase in temperature without defying physics and without pretending the sun wasn't already there.

It will be unprecedented! ... but it might already be too late.
07-09-2022 23:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
duncan61 wrote:Yes. You leave the Earth and fly in the atmosphere. You are not still on the surface of the Earth

Attached image:

07-09-2022 23:47
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3184)
I knew I could count on you to come up with a brilliant graphic to encapsulate what has occurred here.
08-09-2022 02:06
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
gfm7175 wrote:
Is it just me or has it gotten really quiet here all of a sudden... the silence is deafening...


Is this the question? Yes I watched the test they performed and have no issue with what they physically did. The first 2 things I noticed was the temperature in the greenhouse with CO2 went up to 26.7.C and the 2 greenhouses that were the controls went to 27.C. I care not for the methane test that went to 26.8.C

What I drew from this was the temperature in the CO2 greenhouse did not continue to go up all 4 greenhouses reached there max at the same time.
When calculated back for the volume of the greenhouses and the contents of a full E type cylinder of CO2 it worked out they had saturated to 75000 ppm. This fits in to my faith that CO2 can warm the atmosphere. I can not just discard this because I wish to. The amount of warming and the damage is being grossly exaggerated because it has run out of control. Continue to mock. It makes you look stupid.


duncan61
08-09-2022 04:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
duncan61 wrote:Yes I watched the test they performed and have no issue with what they physically did.

You're not supposed to be questioning what they physically do. You are supposed to be questioning the conclusions they tell you to believe.

When the conclusions are bogus, you are supposed to call boooooolsch't, not simply OBEY and believe as you are ordered.

duncan61 wrote:What I drew from this was the temperature in the CO2 greenhouse did not continue to go up all 4 greenhouses reached there max at the same time.

What you should have drawn from the parlor trick is that the powered lamps did all the heating and were responsible for all temperature increases.

The physical properties of the CO2 and methane caused more of a temperature increase within the air in the box (where the thermometer was measuring) while the control box had more heating of the back panel, and there was no thermometer measuring that.

Presuming all lamps were equivalent, all lamps were emitting the same amount of energy into the boxes, but the differing compositions altered where the thermal energy flowed. The *AVERAGE* temperature of each entire box was identical.

.
08-09-2022 06:35
James_
★★★★☆
(1099)
Technically speaking, the gasses in the troposphere could be called "greenhouse gasses" because the tropopause is a barrier. So any climate change like winter or summer is because there is an atmosphere. Otherwise the Earth would be more like the Moon only with actual spin/rotation.
08-09-2022 15:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
James_ wrote:Technically speaking, the gasses in the troposphere could be called "greenhouse gasses" because the tropopause is a barrier.

Right, that barrier is made of double-paned glass and is 30 miles up in the stratosphere with the floating copper needles. You're a little late to the party; Spongy Iris walked us through it.

James_ wrote:So any climate change like winter or summer is because there is an atmosphere.

... which is because gravity is compressing the thermal energy of the atmosphere through negative work and conflated tenses. Pete Rogers walked us through it.

James_ wrote: Otherwise the Earth would be more like the Moon only with actual spin/rotation.

That's right, the moon doesn't rotate despite its full rotation. Xadoman walked us through it. The problem with your statement is that the earth could never be like the moon. The invulnerable double-pane glass prevents meteors from cratering the earth's surface.
08-09-2022 17:05
James_
★★★★☆
(1099)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote:Technically speaking, the gasses in the troposphere could be called "greenhouse gasses" because the tropopause is a barrier.

Right, that barrier is made of double-paned glass and is 30 miles up in the stratosphere with the floating copper needles. You're a little late to the party; Spongy Iris walked us through it.



You mean like when warm water vapor tries to leave the troposphere it traps that heat? So as you said, you already that heat is trapped in the troposphere. Okay, never mind what I said because you know greenhouse gasses are responsible for climate change.
08-09-2022 17:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
James_ wrote:You mean like when warm water vapor tries to leave the troposphere

Water vapor is not sentient. It never "tries" anything. Water vapor either leaves the troposphere or it does not.

Since some water vapor leaves the troposphere, the theory that there is some sort of barrier there is rendered false.

James_ wrote: it traps that heat?

Heat cannot be trapped. Heat does not radiate. Heat has no speed.

Do you realize how much smarter you can appear by pinning down these three concepts?

James_ wrote:So as you said, you already that heat is trapped in the troposphere.

You said that, not I.

Heat cannot be trapped. Heat does not radiate. Heat has no speed.

James_ wrote:Okay, never mind what I said because you know greenhouse gasses are responsible for climate change.

If you are going to misspell "gases" on a consistent basis, why don't you shoot for the bonus points and spell it with five "s", i.e. "gassssses"? Just one of those babies can get you 3x the credit if you bundle it with the Van Allen belt and/or the magnetosphere.

.
08-09-2022 20:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
duncan61 wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
Is it just me or has it gotten really quiet here all of a sudden... the silence is deafening...


Is this the question? Yes I watched the test they performed and have no issue with what they physically did. The first 2 things I noticed was the temperature in the greenhouse with CO2 went up to 26.7.C and the 2 greenhouses that were the controls went to 27.C. I care not for the methane test that went to 26.8.C

What I drew from this was the temperature in the CO2 greenhouse did not continue to go up all 4 greenhouses reached there max at the same time.
When calculated back for the volume of the greenhouses and the contents of a full E type cylinder of CO2 it worked out they had saturated to 75000 ppm. This fits in to my faith that CO2 can warm the atmosphere. I can not just discard this because I wish to. The amount of warming and the damage is being grossly exaggerated because it has run out of control. Continue to mock. It makes you look stupid.


IBD was right. You DID fall for this parlor trick!


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
08-09-2022 20:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
James_ wrote:
Technically speaking, the gasses in the troposphere could be called "greenhouse gasses" because the tropopause is a barrier. So any climate change like winter or summer is because there is an atmosphere. Otherwise the Earth would be more like the Moon only with actual spin/rotation.

The tropopause is not a barrier. Light is not trapped by the tropopause.


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
08-09-2022 20:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote:Technically speaking, the gasses in the troposphere could be called "greenhouse gasses" because the tropopause is a barrier.

Right, that barrier is made of double-paned glass and is 30 miles up in the stratosphere with the floating copper needles. You're a little late to the party; Spongy Iris walked us through it.



You mean like when warm water vapor tries to leave the troposphere it traps that heat? So as you said, you already that heat is trapped in the troposphere. Okay, never mind what I said because you know greenhouse gasses are responsible for climate change.

You cannot trap heat. Climate cannot change.


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
09-09-2022 00:44
James_
★★★★☆
(1099)
Into the Night wrote:

You cannot trap heat. Climate cannot change.


An example of heat being trapped by the gasses of the tropopause acting like a barrier. The warm water vapor can't rise up into the cooler air above it.

Attached image:

09-09-2022 01:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

You cannot trap heat. Climate cannot change.


An example of heat being trapped by the gasses of the tropopause acting like a barrier. The warm water vapor can't rise up into the cooler air above it.

You cannot trap heat.The tropopause is not a barrier.


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
09-09-2022 05:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
James_ wrote:An example of heat being trapped by the gasses of the tropopause acting like a barrier. The warm water vapor can't rise up into the cooler air above it.

Nope. We've been over this. The clouds in the picture are not the top of the troposphere. You can also see that there is no barrier there.

What is in the picture is the temperature point whereby the previously warm vapor that was cooling as it was rising reached ambient temperature.

Nothing more.

You mistook a normal cumulonimbus formation for some force that only exists in the Global Warming pantheon.












Really. There is no barrier there. Feel free to pull out a magnifying glass.

.
09-09-2022 05:57
James_
★★★★☆
(1099)
That's because atmospheric gasses are creating the barrier. If they had clear glass there, you wouldn't see that either.
09-09-2022 06:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
James_ wrote:That's because atmospheric gassSsses are creating the barrier.

There's no barrier.

Gases do not create barriers for other gases.

James_ wrote: If they had clear glass there, you wouldn't see that either.

I would see the glare, and that's good enough.
09-09-2022 20:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
James_ wrote:
That's because atmospheric gasses are creating the barrier. If they had clear glass there, you wouldn't see that either.

There is no barrier. The top of any cloud will extend to where humidity drops. The air has been dried by the formation of the cloud.

Convection isn't the only form of heating.
Conductive heating is still occurring.
Radiant heating is still occurring.

A cloud is not necessary for heat to exist. Thermal energy can flow with or without a cloud.


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
09-09-2022 21:21
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
There is no such thing as radiant heating,
10-09-2022 04:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
duncan61 wrote:There is no such thing as radiant heating,

Sure there is. It is the flow of thermal energy from one body of matter to another (heat) via electromagnetic radiation (radiant).

Heat does not radiate, but electromagnetic energy does.
10-09-2022 11:35
duncan61
★★★★★
(2003)
You just make it up as you go don't you
10-09-2022 15:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
duncan61 wrote:You just make it up as you go don't you

You didn't understand a word I wrote, did you?

.
10-09-2022 19:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
duncan61 wrote:
There is no such thing as radiant heating,

There certainly is.


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
10-09-2022 20:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
duncan61 wrote:
You just make it up as you go don't you

No. Neither IBD nor I created the Stefan-Boltzmann law nor any of the absorption tables for any element or compound, nor Planck's laws.

You just deny all of these theories of 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
Edited on 10-09-2022 20:02
11-09-2022 03:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
You just make it up as you go don't you

No. Neither IBD nor I created the Stefan-Boltzmann law nor any of the absorption tables for any element or compound, nor Planck's laws.

You just deny all of these theories of science.

When duncan reads our posts, I don't think he understands the content or the message. Since he doesn't understand, he presumes that we are making up schytt. He won't bone up on any science or math; he just reads his preferred disinformation and considers that to make "perfect sense."

Oh well.

I find it disappointing because there is so much he could do, but he only seems to have energy for preaching whatever Pete Rogers and others tell him to believe.

Very disappointing.

.
11-09-2022 03:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
You just make it up as you go don't you

No. Neither IBD nor I created the Stefan-Boltzmann law nor any of the absorption tables for any element or compound, nor Planck's laws.

You just deny all of these theories of science.

When duncan reads our posts, I don't think he understands the content or the message. Since he doesn't understand, he presumes that we are making up schytt. He won't bone up on any science or math; he just reads his preferred disinformation and considers that to make "perfect sense."

Oh well.

I find it disappointing because there is so much he could do, but he only seems to have energy for preaching whatever Pete Rogers and others tell him to believe.

Very disappointing.

.
11-09-2022 04:49
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4323)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
You just make it up as you go don't you

No. Neither IBD nor I created the Stefan-Boltzmann law nor any of the absorption tables for any element or compound, nor Planck's laws.

You just deny all of these theories of science.

When duncan reads our posts, I don't think he understands the content or the message. Since he doesn't understand, he presumes that we are making up schytt. He won't bone up on any science or math; he just reads his preferred disinformation and considers that to make "perfect sense."

Oh well.

I find it disappointing because there is so much he could do, but he only seems to have energy for preaching whatever Pete Rogers and others tell him to believe.

Very disappointing.

.


Disappointing he doesn't dedicate most of his free time, studying the topics you assign him, so he can discover it's 'amphibious'? My observation is that there maybe a lot of facts, but there is always a game element. You have to play the game, to sort the facts from the fiction. I prefer playing with other things, and better things to do with my free time, what little I have.

I've never seen the Stefan-Boltzmann law used in the same context, as worshiped here. Never even heard of it, until joining this site. Best I could figure, from other sites, it's philosophy, and limited applications. You guys seem to be stretching it a little. But, the argument just goes round, and around. You are compelled stick to it, even if it's only partially accurate. You taunt, tease, ridicule, to get people to play the game. You need the control, and sense of superiority.
11-09-2022 09:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
HarveyH55 wrote:Disappointing he doesn't dedicate most of his free time, studying the topics you assign him,

Will you support your assertion with examples of topics that I have somehow "assigned" to duncan?

HarveyH55 wrote: ...so he can discover it's 'amphibious'?

My point is that duncan does not seem to be able to discover even those things that are shown to him.

HarveyH55 wrote:My observation is that there maybe a lot of facts, but there is always a game element.

That is not an observation ... because it isn't true. It is your mistaken perception.

In order to claim that someone is being less than fully honest regarding science or math, you first need to identify errors so you can then claim that those errors are somehow intentional.

You have not identified any errors in anything I have written. I'd like to know how you conclude that I am being dishonest. We're talking about math and science. If there are errors then they should be easy to identify.

HarveyH55 wrote:I've never seen the Stefan-Boltzmann law used in the same context,

There is no such thing as "context" for the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. It is a law of nature and it applies always, everywhere.

HarveyH55 wrote: Never even heard of it, until joining this site.

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to ask.

HarveyH55 wrote: Best I could figure, from other sites, it's philosophy, and limited applications.

We've been over this. It's physics. It applies to all matter, always, everywhere. If you are talking about matter then it must adhere to Stefan-Boltzmann. It must also adhere to every other law of nature as well.

HarveyH55 wrote:You guys seem to be stretching it a little.

What does that even mean?

HarveyH55 wrote: But, the argument just goes round, and around.

Nope. The argument is:

Radiance = Kelvins^4 * Emissivity * SB_Const


... and comes to a halt. Stefan-Boltzmann typically gets the final words.

HarveyH55 wrote:You are compelled stick to it, even if it's only partially accurate.

It's more than partially accurate. No human has ever found any aspect of it to be in error in any way. If you can be the first, you would be helping humanity. Do you believe you have discovered an error?

HarveyH55 wrote:You taunt, tease, ridicule, to get people to play the game.

Incorrect. I taunt, tease and ridicule those who are being dishonest; they earn it.

HarveyH55 wrote:You need the control, and sense of superiority.

Nope. I have no such need. I simply hate liars and those who pretend to want to learn but have no such ntention.

.
11-09-2022 19:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
You just make it up as you go don't you

No. Neither IBD nor I created the Stefan-Boltzmann law nor any of the absorption tables for any element or compound, nor Planck's laws.

You just deny all of these theories of science.

When duncan reads our posts, I don't think he understands the content or the message. Since he doesn't understand, he presumes that we are making up schytt. He won't bone up on any science or math; he just reads his preferred disinformation and considers that to make "perfect sense."

Oh well.

I find it disappointing because there is so much he could do, but he only seems to have energy for preaching whatever Pete Rogers and others tell him to believe.

Very disappointing.

.

You are quite right. Nevertheless, I will continue to remind him.


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
11-09-2022 19:30
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
HarveyH55 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
You just make it up as you go don't you

No. Neither IBD nor I created the Stefan-Boltzmann law nor any of the absorption tables for any element or compound, nor Planck's laws.

You just deny all of these theories of science.

When duncan reads our posts, I don't think he understands the content or the message. Since he doesn't understand, he presumes that we are making up schytt. He won't bone up on any science or math; he just reads his preferred disinformation and considers that to make "perfect sense."

Oh well.

I find it disappointing because there is so much he could do, but he only seems to have energy for preaching whatever Pete Rogers and others tell him to believe.

Very disappointing.

.


Disappointing he doesn't dedicate most of his free time, studying the topics you assign him, so he can discover it's 'amphibious'? My observation is that there maybe a lot of facts, but there is always a game element. You have to play the game, to sort the facts from the fiction. I prefer playing with other things, and better things to do with my free time, what little I have.

I've never seen the Stefan-Boltzmann law used in the same context, as worshiped here. Never even heard of it, until joining this site. Best I could figure, from other sites, it's philosophy, and limited applications. You guys seem to be stretching it a little. But, the argument just goes round, and around. You are compelled stick to it, even if it's only partially accurate. You taunt, tease, ridicule, to get people to play the game. You need the control, and sense of superiority.

It is not worshiped. It is simply a theory of science that the Church of Global Warming routinely discards and ignores. What IS worshiped is the argument that the Earth is somehow getting warmer because a magick gas is somehow able to add energy to it.

Which of course violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.


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
12-09-2022 05:18
James_
★★★★☆
(1099)
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:There is no such thing as radiant heating,

Sure there is. It is the flow of thermal energy from one body of matter to another (heat) via electromagnetic radiation (radiant).

Heat does not radiate, but electromagnetic energy does.


Electromagnetic energy that is a particle is heat. Actually, it's only potential heat until it increases the kinetic energy in something that is considered as matter. ie., until it affects something so it can be measured.
If a flame heats air, then the warm thermal can be seen as an effect of change. The same happens when the tropopause stops the warm water vapor from rising.
The tropopause has its own "heat" which reflects/changes the flow of other heat.
What heat "is" is relative to a specific flow of electromagnetic radiation.
Football is on, that might be more entertaining.
12-09-2022 05:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(12584)
James_ wrote:Electromagnetic energy that is a particle is heat.

Nope.

Heat is a power rating and is measured in power units, e.g. Watts

Energy is energy and is measured in energy units, e.g. ergs.

To be heat, it must be a flow of thermal energy from one body of matter to another.

Electromagnetic energy that simply radiates off into space is not heat.

James_ wrote:Actually, it's only potential heat until it increases the kinetic energy in something that is considered as matter.

I see you insist on denying the baseball example. So be it.

Increasing kinetic energy does not increase temperature.

James_ wrote:The same happens when the tropopause stops the warm water vapor from rising.

... which is never. We've been over this a few times.

.
12-09-2022 06:39
James_
★★★★☆
(1099)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote:Electromagnetic energy that is a particle is heat.

Nope.

Heat is a power rating and is measured in power units, e.g. Watts

Energy is energy and is measured in energy units, e.g. ergs.

To be heat, it must be a flow of thermal energy from one body of matter to another.

Electromagnetic energy that simply radiates off into space is not heat.

James_ wrote:Actually, it's only potential heat until it increases the kinetic energy in something that is considered as matter.

I see you insist on denying the baseball example. So be it.

Increasing kinetic energy does not increase temperature.

James_ wrote:The same happens when the tropopause stops the warm water vapor from rising.

... which is never. We've been over this a few times.

.



I think one day I will have fun with this aspect of heat.
12-09-2022 22:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(19283)
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:There is no such thing as radiant heating,

Sure there is. It is the flow of thermal energy from one body of matter to another (heat) via electromagnetic radiation (radiant).

Heat does not radiate, but electromagnetic energy does.


Electromagnetic energy that is a particle is heat.

There is no particle of heat.
James_ wrote:
Actually, it's only potential heat

There is no such thing as 'potential heat'.
James_ wrote:
until it increases the kinetic energy in something that is considered as matter. ie., until it affects something so it can be measured.

So it makes a thrown baseball faster, eh?
James_ wrote:
If a flame heats air,

Flames have no temperature.
James_ wrote:
then the warm thermal can be seen as an effect of change. The same happens when the tropopause stops the warm water vapor from rising.

It doesn't.
James_ wrote:
The tropopause has its own "heat" which reflects/changes the flow of other heat.

Heat does not reflect anything. It does not change the flow of anything.
James_ wrote:
What heat "is" is relative to a specific flow of electromagnetic radiation.

Light is not heat. Light has no temperature either.


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
12-09-2022 23:30
James_
★★★★☆
(1099)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:There is no such thing as radiant heating,

Sure there is. It is the flow of thermal energy from one body of matter to another (heat) via electromagnetic radiation (radiant).

Heat does not radiate, but electromagnetic energy does.


Electromagnetic energy that is a particle is heat.

There is no particle of heat.
James_ wrote:
Actually, it's only potential heat

There is no such thing as 'potential heat'.
James_ wrote:
until it increases the kinetic energy in something that is considered as matter. ie., until it affects something so it can be measured.

So it makes a thrown baseball faster, eh?
James_ wrote:
If a flame heats air,

Flames have no temperature.
James_ wrote:
then the warm thermal can be seen as an effect of change. The same happens when the tropopause stops the warm water vapor from rising.

It doesn't.
James_ wrote:
The tropopause has its own "heat" which reflects/changes the flow of other heat.

Heat does not reflect anything. It does not change the flow of anything.
James_ wrote:
What heat "is" is relative to a specific flow of electromagnetic radiation.

Light is not heat. Light has no temperature either.



And yet there is Marysville-Pilchuck for some reason. I always thought that Snohomish county stopped at Everett. I mean when going north you take a right on Highway 2 and head to Stevens Pass for some nice skiing.
You do ski, right? Am curious though, has between Lynnwood and Everett been populated? It used to be safe to drive I-5 at over 120 mph because nothing was there. I think I actually got up to 140 mph but my speedo only went to 120. We all have our problems, right?
Edited on 12-09-2022 23:32
Page 3 of 5<12345>





Join the debate Climate change is caused by greenhouse gases:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Nitrate Reduction - Powerful Greenhouse Gas Emission AND Alkalinity8812-05-2022 03:11
Is warming caused by increased spectrum usage.1829-04-2021 16:14
Oilfield Greenhouse Gas Emissions3424-03-2021 16:22
Understanding Earth Map: Global Warming Climate Change Caused By Humans Stupid Activities507-08-2020 12:25
Global Warming (not necessarily caused by people) will release nasty extinct viruses from tens of thousan101-05-2020 05:04
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact