Remember me
▼ Content

Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs



Page 3 of 5<12345>
27-11-2019 19:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Redefinition fallacy (heat<->thermal energy, power<->thermal energy).
Define heat and explain how it's the same thing as thermal energy since you like to mix up the two words.


Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is conflating the meanings.
RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
27-11-2019 19:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
The flow of thermal energy is called 'heat'. There is no such thing as 'net flow' of heat.


The ABSOLUTELY IS a NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY though. Heat is the difference.

Redefinition fallacy (heat<->thermal energy). RDCF. There is no such thing as 'net heat'.
.



Technically speaking there is a "net heat".
James___ wrote:
Subtract all of the work in transporting the fuel as well as what it took to have it available for transport. Then the value left over can be considered as "net heat".

No. That is net energy available for work. It is not 'net heat'. There is no such thing.


The Parrot Killer
27-11-2019 20:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
James___ wrote:
Technically speaking there is a "net heat".
Well it's a bit redundant but how many times have we heard "net profit" so yeah it's clear enough to say "net heat" though "HEAT" is the "NET".
27-11-2019 22:57
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
Technically speaking there is a "net heat".
Well it's a bit redundant but how many times have we heard "net profit" so yeah it's clear enough to say "net heat" though "HEAT" is the "NET".

Too funny!

From The MANUAL:

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
27-11-2019 23:02
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
Too funny!
From The MANUAL


HA HA! Only books your wrote yourself are allowed aye IBD?

From a real source: https://www.britannica.com/science/heat

"Heat, energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature. "
28-11-2019 03:18
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Too funny!
From The MANUAL


HA HA! Only books your wrote yourself are allowed aye IBD?

From a real source: https://www.britannica.com/science/heat

"Heat, energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature. "



When O2 and O form ozone, heat is absorbed but not as the result of a temperature differential. It has to do with momentum dictating thermodynamics. In that instance heat is conserved as heat content, ie. kinetic energy.
28-11-2019 13:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
Technically speaking there is a "net heat".
Well it's a bit redundant but how many times have we heard "net profit" so yeah it's clear enough to say "net heat" though "HEAT" is the "NET".


No such thing as 'net heat'


The Parrot Killer
28-11-2019 13:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Too funny!
From The MANUAL


HA HA! Only books your wrote yourself are allowed aye IBD?

From a real source: https://www.britannica.com/science/heat

"Heat, energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature. "


Yet another source that is misquoted by you. A favorite pastime of yours, apparently.


The Parrot Killer
28-11-2019 13:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Too funny!
From The MANUAL


HA HA! Only books your wrote yourself are allowed aye IBD?

From a real source: https://www.britannica.com/science/heat

"Heat, energy that is transferred from one body to another as the result of a difference in temperature. "



When O2 and O form ozone, heat is absorbed but not as the result of a temperature differential. It has to do with momentum dictating thermodynamics. In that instance heat is conserved as heat content, ie. kinetic energy.

Heat has no content. It is not contained in anything. It has no momentum. Heat is not kinetic energy either.


The Parrot Killer
28-11-2019 15:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...heat is conserved as heat content, ie. kinetic energy.

Heat has no content.


James notice ITN cant even articulate his own definition of heat.

He keeps bringing up "net heat" which he alone has been saying.

Thermal energy us absolutely kinetic energy as Boltzmann described it. Heat is the difference in thermal energies between to things being compared. It is the net flow of thermal energy.

To quote that for ITN and any other dishonest commentary that is:
HEAT is the net flow of thermal energy
28-11-2019 16:25
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...heat is conserved as heat content, ie. kinetic energy.

Heat has no content.


James notice ITN cant even articulate his own definition of heat.

He keeps bringing up "net heat" which he alone has been saying.

Thermal energy us absolutely kinetic energy as Boltzmann described it. Heat is the difference in thermal energies between to things being compared. It is the net flow of thermal energy.

To quote that for ITN and any other dishonest commentary that is:
HEAT is the net flow of thermal energy



There is a way we can express that.
It's e = hv1 - hv2. edited to clarify: for net heat we can say
net heat = hv1 - hv2.
Basically h is Planck's constant where as v is the frequency. 1 is emitted radiation while 2 is the amount of emitted radiation absorbed by the gas that emitted it. end edit
Since everything has both an absorption and emission spectrum, then net heat is the heat no longer associated with the emitting body/gas. That sound about right to you?
Edited on 28-11-2019 16:33
28-11-2019 18:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
...heat is conserved as heat content, ie. kinetic energy.

Heat has no content.


James notice ITN cant even articulate his own definition of heat.

Already have. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
He keeps bringing up "net heat" which he alone has been saying.

No, that would be YOU. Inversion fallacy. Irrationality.
tmiddles wrote:
Thermal energy us absolutely kinetic energy as Boltzmann described it.

Yes it is.
tmiddles wrote:
Heat is the difference in thermal energies between to things being compared.
Not the definition of heat. It was already given to you. RDCF. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
It is the net flow of thermal energy.

Irrational. You already tried to define heat a different way (which is also wrong).
tmiddles wrote:
To quote that for ITN and any other dishonest commentary that is:
HEAT is the net flow of thermal energy

Never made any such statement. YOU did. Inversion fallacy. RDCF. RQAA. Irrationality.


The Parrot Killer
29-11-2019 06:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:James notice ITN cant even articulate his own definition of heat.

Too funny! It is you who cannot define "heat." You simply use that same word as you fluidly shift it's meaning while moving goalposts in your arguments, exactly as described/predicted in The MANUAL:


Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-11-2019 05:41
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
James___ wrote:
There is a way we can express that.
It's e = hv1 - hv2. edited to clarify: for net heat we can say
net heat = hv1 - hv2.
No James don't call thermal energy heat. There is no reason to.

Most people can accept and understand saying that an ice cube you put into your soup actually does have some thermal energy, though it's much less than what the hot soup has. Saying that the ice cube "heats" the soup less than the soup "heats" the ice cube is mucking up vocabulary for no reason.

HEAT is already defined and it DOES NOT mean the same thing THERMAL ENERGY or TEMPERATURE. It is the difference.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 30-11-2019 05:42
30-11-2019 06:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote: HEAT is already defined ...

I saw what you did there. Too funny. You can't define "heat" so you declare it to be "already defined" (in passive voice no less!) and you let your denial help you hang on for another day.

Well done. I'm sure no one noticed. It's be our secret.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-11-2019 06:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
tmiddles wrote:Heat is the difference in thermal energies between to things being compared.
30-11-2019 06:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Heat is the difference in thermal energies between to things being compared.

So you are defining "heat" as sort of a thermal "capacitance"?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-11-2019 06:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
So you are defining "heat" ...


Nope

Heat is already defined. It's the difference in temperature. Temperature is the thermal energy.
30-11-2019 06:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
So you are defining "heat" ...


Nope

Heat is already defined. It's the difference in temperature. Temperature is the thermal energy.

According to your definition, does there need to be any sort of flow of thermal energy, or is it just the difference in temperature?

You don't know what "capacitance" is, do you?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-11-2019 06:27
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
So you are defining "heat" ...


Nope

Heat is already defined. It's the difference in temperature. Temperature is the thermal energy.

According to your definition, does there need to be any sort of flow of thermal energy, or is it just the difference in temperature?

You don't know what "capacitance" is, do you?

.


I do

You're pretending this hasn't been talked about before.

Heat is the NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY

https://www.britannica.com/science/heat
30-11-2019 06:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote: Heat is the NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY


tmiddles wrote: Heat is already defined. It's the difference in temperature.


... so which is it? Are you just fluidly shifting between semantics in preparation for moving goalposts as necessary? What will be your new definition when you start violating thermodynamics? Will it be the same one that you use when you violate Stefan-Boltzmann?

The MANUAL:

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-11-2019 06:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Heat is the difference in thermal energies between to things being compared.


If you put hot coffee in a container that is a perfect thermal insulator, it will never get cold. It will never get hotter. There is no heat at all. The insulator is perfect.

Of course, there is no such thing as a perfect insulator, so it is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2019 07:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
So you are defining "heat" ...


Nope

Heat is already defined. It's the difference in temperature. Temperature is the thermal energy.

According to your definition, does there need to be any sort of flow of thermal energy, or is it just the difference in temperature?

You don't know what "capacitance" is, do you?

.


I do

You're pretending this hasn't been talked about before.

Heat is the NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY

...deleted misquoted Holy Link...


You defined 'heat' as the difference of thermal energy.
Now you define it as the 'net flow' of thermal energy.

Make your mind. You are being irrational.


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2019 07:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
You defined 'heat' ...

Here' is where you guys seem really stuck. I don't define heat, or any other word, and neither do you. They are already defined.

Heat is the NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY

https://www.britannica.com/science/heat
30-11-2019 08:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You defined 'heat' ...

Here' is where you guys seem really stuck. I don't define heat, or any other word, and neither do you. They are already defined.

Heat is the NET FLOW OF THERMAL ENERGY


Irrational. Which is it, dude.


The Parrot Killer
30-11-2019 08:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:Which is it, ...


Right here and a lot of other places too:
https://www.britannica.com/science/heat
30-11-2019 17:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:Right here and a lot of other places too:
https://www.britannica.com/science/heat

So you consider encyclopedia's and dictionaries to be physics textbooks? What happened to the physics textbook from which you took your avatar picture?

[hint: Heat is the spontaneous transfer of energy due to a temperature difference]


Isn't "heat" a spontaneous transfer of energy with a difference in temperature being the cause but not the spontaneous transfer itself?

Isn't "heat" actually the work required to transfer the thermal energy, thus being a form of energy itself?


If so, then why are you insisting on differing defintions?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-11-2019 20:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
...you consider encyclopedia's and dictionaries to be physics textbooks? .... transfer of energy due to a temperature difference .
Dictionaries simply collect consensus on meaning. The definition of Heat they have IS from textbooks.

What you wrote is in line with the definition. Why don't you skip ahead to a coherent example of whatever distinction you think you see and why it matters.
30-11-2019 21:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: ...you consider encyclopedia's and dictionaries to be physics textbooks? .... transfer of energy due to a temperature difference .
Dictionaries simply collect consensus on meaning.

Actually, they more or less arbitrarily decide what they are going to write, which is why every dictionary writes different things for each word. Since no dictionary owns any language everything must be taken with a grain of salt. In those cases where there is no credibility, e.g. Wikipedia, it can be summarily dismissed.

tmiddles wrote: The definition of Heat they have IS from textbooks.

What do they do? Do they "average" all the defintions from all the textbooks, and go back through various editions that have been published over the years to get a solid definition climate? So you think it's somehow not just an arbitrary choice by the author?

Interesting.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
30-11-2019 22:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:they more or less arbitrarily decide what they are going to write,
Not at all.

The ITN/IBD pretense or real confusion about what a word is:
A word has a real, permanent meaning ordained by their GOD and known only to the guy IBD knows from the streets who passes it on to ITN/IBD in the oral tradition of bookless learning they adhere to. We can only hope they share the true meaning with us.

The truth about words: Words are exchanged between human beings and their meaning is and always will be a matter of consensus. Dictionaries are tasked with collecting and tracking the meaning people ascribe to words. Often changing and often irritating others, the meaning of words can be and are added to and changed by common people, as a group, regularly.

https://languages.oup.com/our-story/creating-dictionaries
30-11-2019 23:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:they more or less arbitrarily decide what they are going to write,
Not at all.

The ITN/IBD pretense or real confusion about what a word is:
A word has a real, permanent meaning ordained by their GOD and known only to the guy IBD knows from the streets who passes it on to ITN/IBD in the oral tradition of bookless learning they adhere to. We can only hope they share the true meaning with us.

One thing I have noticed that never changes is the manner in which you tip your king and acknowledge defeat. You abruptly change the topic to Into the Night and me in a desperate attempt to get others to ignore how you just embarrased yourself and instead to pay attention to the new bogus position you are assigning to us both.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-12-2019 00:27
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:they more or less arbitrarily decide what they are going to write,
Not at all.

The ITN/IBD pretense or real confusion about what a word is:
A word has a real, permanent meaning ordained by their GOD and known only to the guy IBD knows from the streets who passes it on to ITN/IBD in the oral tradition of bookless learning they adhere to. We can only hope they share the true meaning with us.

One thing I have noticed that never changes is the manner in which you tip your king and acknowledge defeat. You abruptly change the topic to Into the Night and me in a desperate attempt to get others to ignore how you just embarrased yourself and instead to pay attention to the new bogus position you are assigning to us both.

.



Neither of you can define climate change. There are 3 basic types. Arctic, temperate and tropical.
An example of this is the boreal forest in Canada and the northern US. It cannot exist in an arctic or tropical environment.
Yet no one in this forum knows this. On a regional level, Washington state has a rain forest. In the north of South America and in Hawai'i, it's similar but the flora and fauna is different.
People in here don't seem to know the difference.

p.s., Hawai'i and not Hawaii has a rain forest. The Amazon is a jungle that receives massive amounts of rainfall or is quite humid.
And if you don't know the difference between Hawai'i and Hawaii, really?
Basic info, there is no Hawaii.
With Hawai'i, sometimes getting the details right matters.
Edited on 01-12-2019 00:45
01-12-2019 03:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
James___ wrote:Neither of you can define climate change.
None of us can create a private definition for any word or phrase. Language is communal.

If someone wants to argue the Earth has no weather they can do that. Weather is still a well defined term. As are climate, temperature, humidity and so on.
Edited on 01-12-2019 03:41
01-12-2019 03:52
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:Neither of you can define climate change.
None of us can create a private definition for any word or phrase. Language is communal.

If someone wants to argue the Earth has no weather they can do that. Weather is still a well defined term. As are climate, temperature, humidity and so on.



Your post is a joke, right? Prove you were born. Can't happen
We can't prove your mother and father. As a result, you can't exist.
A computer program isn't proof of conception.
You have to prove that. Until you do, you aren't a person.
Proof of life is required.
Edited on 01-12-2019 03:53
01-12-2019 04:49
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
tmiddles, proof of concept is required Sadly Christians offer this. There is no proof of faith Faith is the belief in absence of evidence.
When proof of faith is offered, then faith never happened. Faith has no proof. Either someone believes or they don't.
01-12-2019 04:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote: None of us can create a private definition for any word or phrase. Language is communal.

Spot on! It has been proven that no two people can have "inside jokes." Those aren't real. It's absurd to think that anyone would believe he has the right to utter the phrase "by this I mean ..."

... and of course we all know that no one has ever used the term "warmizombies."

tmiddles wrote: Weather is still a well defined term. As are climate, temperature, humidity and so on.

Too funny! Let me catch my breath. You probably typed this with a completely straight face ... after maintaining a secret, private definition of "climate" that you won't share.

Awesome, baby!


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
Edited on 01-12-2019 04:59
01-12-2019 05:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
James___ wrote: When proof of faith is offered, then faith never happened. Faith has no proof. Either someone believes or they don't.

So what happens if I have complete faith that you'll uphold your end of a bargain and when the time comes, you rise to the challenge and exceed expectations? I say "James__, I never doubted you! " I then submit your compliance as "proof of ongoing faith in James__."

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
01-12-2019 08:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
... no two people can have "inside jokes." .
you see? You had to move to the minimum for communication to mean anything, two people.

Can the first person have a "definition" different from the second person and employ the word at all?

Do inside jokes belong in the dictionary?

No.

But the real game ITN/IBD play here is to distract with vocabulary debates when nothing prevents a real discussion of the issues.

Debate killers as always.
01-12-2019 20:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:But the real game ITN/IBD play here is to distract with vocabulary debates when nothing prevents a real discussion of the issues.

But the real game tmiddles plays here is to continually vary the meanings of the words he uses and simply declares undefined terms to be "defined" so as to confuse and ultimately derail all discussions.

Discussion killer as always.



.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-12-2019 18:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Which is it, ...


Right here and a lot of other places too:
https://www.britannica.com/science/heat


Britannica does not make paradoxes. You did. Which is it, dude?


The Parrot Killer
Page 3 of 5<12345>





Join the debate Clouds are warming Earth, not (so much) GHGs:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Experts reveal that clouds have moderated warming triggered by climate change1006-11-2019 23:54
High CO2 levels can destabilize marine layer clouds106-03-2019 22:01
High carbon dioxide could suppress cooling clouds, climate change model warns127-02-2019 20:54
Clouds and temperature3601-02-2018 20:48
Clouds and nocturnal cooling2801-05-2017 01:23
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact