Remember me
▼ Content

Consider



Page 2 of 4<1234>
25-11-2020 21:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
keepit wrote:
I think they would be calling that an iceberg.

Only if a chunk of it breaks away and drifts away from the main body of ice.

Did you know that glaciers make icebergs?


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
25-11-2020 21:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Xadoman wrote:
Just a question. If we burn all the coal, would the atmosphere get denser because there would be more CO2? What happens to the temperature if the atmosphere gets denser?


No. Denial of equilibrium reactions.


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
25-11-2020 21:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
keepit wrote:
The ross ice shelf is mostly above water, unlike an iceberg which is mostly below the water. That is why the ross will add to sea level while an iceberg won't.


WRONG. There is nothing magickal about ice floating on water just because it's attached to a larger mass.


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
25-11-2020 21:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
The ross ice shelf is mostly above water, unlike an iceberg which is mostly below the water. That is why the ross will add to sea level while an iceberg won't.


Every wonder why ice floats...

Lets go back to rainfall for a minute... That water comes out of the ocean, pretty much constantly, but it isn't constantly raining. Does your rising sea level measurements take that into account? There must be about as many rain gauges, as thermometers. Never really seen those measurements to show how many gallons of water fell. But should show how many inches of water didn't fall back into the oceans.


Glaciers are caused by snow, but you make a valid point. It is not possible to measure total rain and snow fall on Earth, just as it is not possible to measure the Earth's 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
25-11-2020 22:36
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(434)
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Just a question. If we burn all the coal, would the atmosphere get denser because there would be more CO2? What happens to the temperature if the atmosphere gets denser?


No. Denial of equilibrium reactions.


Ok, but why IBdaMann keeps talking about the quantity of atmosphere and ideal gas pressure. This is not quite clear to me. Does a denser atmosphere do something for temperature on not? In Venus thread the ideal gas law popped out quite a lot. Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have any reference to ideal gas law, that is why I am a little bit lost with this.
25-11-2020 23:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Xadoman wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Just a question. If we burn all the coal, would the atmosphere get denser because there would be more CO2? What happens to the temperature if the atmosphere gets denser?


No. Denial of equilibrium reactions.


Ok, but why IBdaMann keeps talking about the quantity of atmosphere and ideal gas pressure. This is not quite clear to me. Does a denser atmosphere do something for temperature on not? In Venus thread the ideal gas law popped out quite a lot. Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have any reference to ideal gas law, that is why I am a little bit lost with this.


Actually, IBdaMann on that thread was trying to correct tmiddle's odd idea of the ideal gas law. You seem to be falling into the same trap.

The ideal gas law is for gas pressure changing AS IT IS CHANGING. Static pressure makes no difference. If pressure isn't changing, neither does temperature.

Pressure of the atmosphere (also known as absolute pressure) is approximately 14.7apsi (it varies a bit from place to place an over time).

Barometers measure absolute pressure. They measure air pressure. Altimeters on aircraft are actually barometers. Barometers are typically calibrated in an equivalent weight of a 1 inch mercury column suspended in a vacuum and and exposed to air pressure on one end.

Barometers in fact used to be this very device. A closed glass tube, shaped in a 'U', open at one end and closed at the other. You put mercury in it, and maneuver it around until it completely fills the closed end of the 'U". Then you hang the 'U' right side up, and the mercury will fall into the curved piece, creating a vacuum in the closed end. Air pressure tries to get into the closed end, but it only push so much mercury up the tube to do it. You can measure that in inches, millimeters, whatever scale you like. Here in the U.S., we use inches.

Barometric pressure tends to be around 29.97apsi or so. This is part of a standard known as 'standard conditions' (an arbitrarily chosen set of conditions) of air. It is currently set to 29.97apsi at 50 deg F and 50% humidity. This is is just a value set by governments, like standards for screw threads.

In aircraft, their altimeters are actually barometers, calibrated in feet above the ground (assuming a standard lapse rate of pressure), and using the local barometric pressure as it's base value. Above 18,000 ft, barometers are just set to standard conditions, and those aircraft fly at those indicated altitudes (regardless of the actual altitude).

The term 'sea level' is also an arbitrarily chosen term. It is not possible to measure the actual global sea level, and governments simply use a chosen reference point instead that has little to do with actual global sea level.

Now to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This law states: r = C*e*t^4, where 'r' is light (electromagnetic energy of all frequencies combined) in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant (which serves to convert the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is a measure constant known as 'emissivity', or how well a surface radiates (and absorbs) light, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

This law describes one way of producing light by using the temperature of a substance. It does not matter what that substance is. It has no term for frequency. All frequencies combined are considered. It can be generated by integrating Planck's law over all frequencies.

It is, of course, not the only way of producing light.

The Church of Global Warming says that infrared light is prevented from leaving Earth, thus increasing its temperature. This is wrong. It ignores the Stefan-Boltzmann law. If less light is emitted due to temperature, the temperature MUST be LOWER, not higher. Everything else in the equation is a constant. No frequency term exists in the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Further, the 2nd law of thermodynamics states: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. In other words, entropy can never decrease. It must stay the same or increase. Always.

This gives a direction for heat (and defines the concept of 'heat', which is the flow of thermal energy). Heat will always flow from a concentration of thermal energy (something hot) to a relative void of thermal energy (something cold). Never the reverse. You can't make hot coffee with an ice cube.

The Church of Global Warming says that a magick gas like CO2 somehow can prevent energy from leaving Earth (in violation of the Stefan-Boltzmann law) and actually argues that a colder gas can heat a warmer surface (in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics) or cool the upper atmosphere while warming the lower atmosphere (reducing entropy, also in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics). Further, they argue that CO2 somehow produces more energy on the surface of the Earth, which violates the 1st law of thermodynamics.

The confusion is caused by idiots like tmiddles, that denies science and mathematics, and the Church of Global Warming. These theories of science and their corresponding 'laws' (transcriptions of the theories into mathematical or logical form producing an equation), are real theories of science. They are falsifiable theories. They can be tested to see if the theory is False. No theory is ever proven True, of course, but you can't just discard a theory of science on a whim either.

It's not written in stone, but it's not written in Jello 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
26-11-2020 05:49
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
I totally believe you ITN.That is the best explanation I have ever read.For me the problem is solved.Its cool idiots believe the warming theory people are not having children because of the horror.good for them.
26-11-2020 06:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
duncan61 wrote:
I totally believe you ITN.That is the best explanation I have ever read.For me the problem is solved.Its cool idiots believe the warming theory people are not having children because of the horror.good for them.


I am glad you now understand, and that my explanation was clear enough to open your eyes. *humble bow*


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
Edited on 26-11-2020 06:22
26-11-2020 07:44
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(434)
Quote from IBdaMann :

Hint: The composition of the atmosphere has no bearing on the temperature. The quantity, yes, but the composition, no.


Please explain how the quantity of atmosphere have a bearing on the temperature. I do not understand.
26-11-2020 08:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
IBdaMann wrote:
....physics models use the "body" as the atomic unit.... stop trying to subdivide the atomic...
So creative no one will be able to find this bizarre concept anywhere online or in any textbook. Total crap. Google fail

tmiddles wrote:
... the atmosphere can increase without the rate of radiant energy being received increasing.
IBdaMann wrote:
No body of matter anywhere at any time can simply spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy.
RATE RATE RATE
There is a continuous supply of additional energy supplied at a RATE. That rate from the sun results in wildly different temperatures at ground level on the different planets largely because of the composition of their atmospheres.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ...identify anything at all for which you believe the temperature can be determined ...
I have answered you ...yet to meet these requirements.
so once again YOU identify nothing. Meet your own requirements.
gfm7175 wrote:
I see that tmiddles is back to his "you believe that nothing can be known" bogus position assignment retort yet again...
Ok so you give an example Gfm
Anything at all for which temperature can be determined. However you understand it in your own process.

IIntoThe Night wrote:The Church of Global Warming says that infrared light is prevented from leaving Earth, thus increasing its temperature.
A nonexistent theory. No one claims this that I've ever seen. Anyone else ever see this theory put forward by anyone?
Typical strawman tactic from ITN.
Long ago dealt with here:
1st law
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s560.php#post_53018
Planck's law
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s680.php#post_53548

"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 valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 26-11-2020 09:10
26-11-2020 21:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Xadoman wrote:
Quote from IBdaMann :

Hint: The composition of the atmosphere has no bearing on the temperature. The quantity, yes, but the composition, no.


Please explain how the quantity of atmosphere have a bearing on the temperature. I do not understand.


Thicker atmosphere allows more efficient conductive heating from the surface to the atmosphere. That's about it. This is why lower altitudes like Death Valley see higher temperatures, and mountains see lower temperatures.


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
26-11-2020 21:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
....physics models use the "body" as the atomic unit.... stop trying to subdivide the atomic...
So creative no one will be able to find this bizarre concept anywhere online or in any textbook.
...deleted Holy Link...

Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics.
tmiddles wrote:
... the atmosphere can increase without the rate of radiant energy being received increasing.
IBdaMann wrote:
No body of matter anywhere at any time can simply spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy.
RATE RATE RATE
There is a continuous supply of additional energy supplied at a RATE. That rate from the sun results in wildly different temperatures at ground level on the different planets largely because of the composition of their atmospheres.

Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Base rate fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: ...identify anything at all for which you believe the temperature can be determined ...
I have answered you ...yet to meet these requirements.
so once again YOU identify nothing. Meet your own requirements.
gfm7175 wrote:
I see that tmiddles is back to his "you believe that nothing can be known" bogus position assignment retort yet again...
Ok so you give an example Gfm
Anything at all for which temperature can be determined. However you understand it in your own process.

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IIntoThe Night wrote:The Church of Global Warming says that infrared light is prevented from leaving Earth, thus increasing its temperature.
A nonexistent theory. No one claims this that I've ever seen. Anyone else ever see this theory put forward by anyone?

It is not a theory. It is a belief of the Church of Global Warming. YOU have also spewed this belief, liar. A theory is an explanatory argument. You have yet to define 'global warming' or 'climate change'. Answer the questions put to you.
tmiddles wrote:
Typical strawman tactic from ITN.

Fallacy fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Long ago dealt with here:
...deleted spam...

Spamming. Assumption of victory fallacy.

False authorities. Spamming. RQAA. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. No argument presented.


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
Edited on 26-11-2020 21:20
27-11-2020 06:49
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IIntoThe Night wrote:The Church of Global Warming says that infrared light is prevented from leaving Earth, thus increasing its temperature.
A nonexistent theory...
..YOU have also spewed this belief, liar....
Quote me you fraud.

No one has that theory that I've ever seen.
27-11-2020 07:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
Xadoman wrote:
Quote from IBdaMann :

Hint: The composition of the atmosphere has no bearing on the temperature. The quantity, yes, but the composition, no.


Please explain how the quantity of atmosphere have a bearing on the temperature. I do not understand.

Your question stips away all context.

The quantity of atmosphere has no effect on average temperature.

The quantity of atmosphere affects various points of temperatures as I described that nonetheless result in the exact same overall average temperature.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
27-11-2020 10:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IIntoThe Night wrote:The Church of Global Warming says that infrared light is prevented from leaving Earth, thus increasing its temperature.
A nonexistent theory...
..YOU have also spewed this belief, liar....
Quote me you fraud.

No one has that theory that I've ever seen.


So you deny your own arguments.


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
27-11-2020 23:26
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(584)
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Quote from IBdaMann :

Hint: The composition of the atmosphere has no bearing on the temperature. The quantity, yes, but the composition, no.


Please explain how the quantity of atmosphere have a bearing on the temperature. I do not understand.


Thicker atmosphere allows more efficient conductive heating from the surface to the atmosphere. That's about it. This is why lower altitudes like Death Valley see higher temperatures, and mountains see lower temperatures.


And increased CO2 leads to a thicker atmosphere!

Have you finally converted to the Church of Global Warming and Climate Change???
28-11-2020 00:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
Spongy Iris wrote:
And increased CO2 leads to a thicker atmosphere!


I'm not sure about that if the source of CO2 is from burning.

The equation for burning methane for example is:
CH4+2O2 -> CO2+2H20 right?

CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O

CH4 = 16.043
202 = 15.9994*2= 32
Total gas mass before: 48 grams per mole

CO2 = 44 grams

The H20 content of the atmosphere is of course not determined by adding H2O. So it slightly lightens the air to burn natural gas at least if you don't factor in what it means to release trapped gas under the ground (I don't know what to make of that).

This is of course not what is being considered with CO2 and ITN is a loon as usual.

"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 valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 28-11-2020 00:02
28-11-2020 01:01
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2051)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
I see that tmiddles is back to his "you believe that nothing can be known" bogus position assignment retort yet again...
Ok so you give an example Gfm
Anything at all for which temperature can be determined. However you understand it in your own process.

RQAA.
28-11-2020 03:24
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(584)
tmiddles wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
And increased CO2 leads to a thicker atmosphere!


I'm not sure about that if the source of CO2 is from burning.

The equation for burning methane for example is:
CH4+2O2 -> CO2+2H20 right?

CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O

CH4 = 16.043
202 = 15.9994*2= 32
Total gas mass before: 48 grams per mole

CO2 = 44 grams

The H20 content of the atmosphere is of course not determined by adding H2O. So it slightly lightens the air to burn natural gas at least if you don't factor in what it means to release trapped gas under the ground (I don't know what to make of that).

This is of course not what is being considered with CO2 and ITN is a loon as usual.

"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 valid for IBD or ITN


As you said, the gas was trapped in the ground before, so it wasn't even part of the air before it was gotten and burned.

Not sure how long it takes to settle back to the ground after natural gas is burned...
28-11-2020 03:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Quote from IBdaMann :

Hint: The composition of the atmosphere has no bearing on the temperature. The quantity, yes, but the composition, no.


Please explain how the quantity of atmosphere have a bearing on the temperature. I do not understand.


Thicker atmosphere allows more efficient conductive heating from the surface to the atmosphere. That's about it. This is why lower altitudes like Death Valley see higher temperatures, and mountains see lower temperatures.


And increased CO2 leads to a thicker atmosphere!

No, it doesn't. Denial of equilibrium chemistry.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Have you finally converted to the Church of Global Warming and Climate Change???

I don't think he will. He knows what a sham that religion 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
28-11-2020 03:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]Spongy Iris wrote:
And increased CO2 leads to a thicker atmosphere!


I'm not sure about that if the source of CO2 is from burning.
tmiddles wrote:
The equation for burning methane for example is:
CH4+2O2 -> CO2+2H20 right?

CH4 + 2O2 → CO2 + 2H2O

CH4 = 16.043
202 = 15.9994*2= 32
Total gas mass before: 48 grams per mole

CO2 = 44 grams

The H20 content of the atmosphere is of course not determined by adding H2O. So it slightly lightens the air to burn natural gas at least if you don't factor in what it means to release trapped gas under the ground (I don't know what to make of that).

So humidity is not determined by adding water vapor??? No, molecular weight is not density or concentration.

tmiddles wrote:
This is of course not what is being considered with CO2 and ITN is a loon as usual.

Inversion 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
Edited on 28-11-2020 03:54
28-11-2020 04:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
Spongy Iris wrote:
As you said, the gas was trapped in the ground before, ...
True but CO2 making the atmosphere heavier isn't really a theory that's out there so a moot subject.

Into the Night wrote:
So humidity is not determined by adding water vapor???
Only temporarily right? Isn't there a feedback loop with the water that evaporates from bodies of water? Interesting question. If for every CO2 molecule produced a molecule of water is also produced which remains in the air, that is significant.
What do you think Spongy? There's no talking to Mr. ITN RQAA

"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 valid for IBD or ITN
28-11-2020 04:21
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3368)
You do realize that the atmosphere isn't consistent, or thoroughly mixed all around the planet?

Florida has a humidity problem much of the year, compared to further inland on the continent.

Some 'blue states' have a lot of particulates, and other nasty stuff, sometimes referred to a smog.

Industrial and metropolitan areas would have a higher level of CO2.

Agricultural areas would have less CO2.

Active volcanoes, even if they aren't erupting, or haven't it a long time, still vent a lot of gases.

Farm animals release a lot of methane, second only to democrats.

The atmosphere is not contained in a physical barrier, like a glass lab jar. It expands and contracts. You can reduce the height and density to meaningless averages, but that wouldn't be accurate and true. Only useful to your narrow focus, on one small aspect of the giant planet.
28-11-2020 06:26
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
HarveyH55 wrote:...isn't consistent,...not contained in a physical barrier, ...
You have described almost everything.

Science and technology at our current level have proven themselves capable of figuring the world around us out to an extremely useful degree.

You're right: Things are always a bit messy and mixed up. Humanity does fine with that.
28-11-2020 12:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
tmiddles wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
As you said, the gas was trapped in the ground before, ...
True but CO2 making the atmosphere heavier isn't really a theory that's out there so a moot subject.

Into the Night wrote:
So humidity is not determined by adding water vapor???
Only temporarily right? Isn't there a feedback loop with the water that evaporates from bodies of water? Interesting question. If for every CO2 molecule produced a molecule of water is also produced which remains in the air, that is significant.
What do you think Spongy? There's no talking to Mr. ITN RQAA


No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth, dumbass. You can't create energy out of nothing.


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
28-11-2020 12:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:...isn't consistent,...not contained in a physical barrier, ...
You have described almost everything.

Science and technology at our current level have proven themselves capable of figuring the world around us out to an extremely useful degree.

You're right: Things are always a bit messy and mixed up. Humanity does fine with that.


Science doesn't 'figure out the world'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is used to explain phenomena, not 'figure out' anything.


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
28-11-2020 18:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:...isn't consistent,...not contained in a physical barrier, ...
You have described almost everything.

Science and technology at our current level have proven themselves capable of figuring the world around us out to an extremely useful degree.

You're right: Things are always a bit messy and mixed up. Humanity does fine with that.


Science doesn't 'figure out the world'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is used to explain phenomena, not 'figure out' anything.


You have to remember that "Science" is what tgoebbles calls his WACKY religion that he believes bestows upon him the gift of omniscience. In his mind his religion certainly helps him "figure out the world."

You also have to realize that within his WACKY religion, you and I are "deniers" who do not accept "Science." This is why you and I don't believe we are omniscient Climate warriors, as he is, fighting to save the planet and humanity from evil life-essential compounds with vile magical superpowers that defy physics.

What I don't get is, given that he is omniscient, how there can even be a threat that "isn't fully understood" that we of course should "at least look into." Who falls for the "authority via omniscience" that bullies others into "fearing the unknown"?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
28-11-2020 19:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:...isn't consistent,...not contained in a physical barrier, ...
You have described almost everything.

Science and technology at our current level have proven themselves capable of figuring the world around us out to an extremely useful degree.

You're right: Things are always a bit messy and mixed up. Humanity does fine with that.


Science doesn't 'figure out the world'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. It is used to explain phenomena, not 'figure out' anything.


You have to remember that "Science" is what tgoebbles calls his WACKY religion that he believes bestows upon him the gift of omniscience. In his mind his religion certainly helps him "figure out the world."

You also have to realize that within his WACKY religion, you and I are "deniers" who do not accept "Science." This is why you and I don't believe we are omniscient Climate warriors, as he is, fighting to save the planet and humanity from evil life-essential compounds with vile magical superpowers that defy physics.

What I don't get is, given that he is omniscient, how there can even be a threat that "isn't fully understood" that we of course should "at least look into." Who falls for the "authority via omniscience" that bullies others into "fearing the unknown"?


.

Good point.


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
28-11-2020 23:04
keepit
★★★★★
(2235)
IBD,
Why are you and ITN so incapable of understanding figures of speech?

I studied the Holy Bible. I think that's where i learned to understand figures of speech.
Edited on 28-11-2020 23:06
29-11-2020 00:13
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(584)
Into the Night wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
Quote from IBdaMann :

Hint: The composition of the atmosphere has no bearing on the temperature. The quantity, yes, but the composition, no.


Please explain how the quantity of atmosphere have a bearing on the temperature. I do not understand.


Thicker atmosphere allows more efficient conductive heating from the surface to the atmosphere. That's about it. This is why lower altitudes like Death Valley see higher temperatures, and mountains see lower temperatures.


And increased CO2 leads to a thicker atmosphere!

No, it doesn't. Denial of equilibrium chemistry.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Have you finally converted to the Church of Global Warming and Climate Change???

I don't think he will. He knows what a sham that religion is.


What is equilibrium chemistry?
29-11-2020 00:21
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(584)
tmiddles wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
As you said, the gas was trapped in the ground before, ...
True but CO2 making the atmosphere heavier isn't really a theory that's out there so a moot subject.

Into the Night wrote:
So humidity is not determined by adding water vapor???
Only temporarily right? Isn't there a feedback loop with the water that evaporates from bodies of water? Interesting question. If for every CO2 molecule produced a molecule of water is also produced which remains in the air, that is significant.
What do you think Spongy? There's no talking to Mr. ITN RQAA

"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 valid for IBD or ITN


Well CO2 is denser than nitrogen and oxygen, so the logic follows if N and O are consistent and CO2 increases, there should be more density in the atmosphere.

I don't think the total amount of water on the earth and in the atmosphere ever changes...
29-11-2020 01:24
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(584)
HarveyH55 wrote:

The atmosphere is not contained in a physical barrier, like a glass lab jar. It expands and contracts. You can reduce the height and density to meaningless averages, but that wouldn't be accurate and true. Only useful to your narrow focus, on one small aspect of the giant planet.


There is evidence which I believe indicates your above statement is basically incorrect.

We have discussed my speculation about the "great biblical flood" in Libya, Egypt, Sudan, when the protective glass barrier around earth appears to have shattered, allowing the actual intensity of sunlight radiation to hit the earth. The color of the 1000 tonnes of glass shards found spread across an oval shape 130 by 50 km is close to the color of the sky where you see the sun sets and rises.

Also sky blue is not the same color as electric blue. Reason I say that is us common folk have produced a light bright enough to light up the sky at night as if it was day. It was a transformer explosion in NYC in the 2018 holiday season.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/12/28/transformer-explosion-new-york-citys-night-sky.html

That electric blue is different than sky blue. Must be another factor influencing the sky's color when intense light hits the atmosphere further above ground. The color of the sky is pretty consistent all around the world!

Rapid decrease of heat in the atmosphere from 90 to 60 miles is another indication. What causes such rapid decrease of heat at this altitude? Bird brain will say it's the magnetic field that deflects the heat.

Ask yourself, why is the sun so bright, when its heat is pretty mild? Most people would be temporarily blinded if they stared at the sun for just 5 minutes. But even in Florida, exposing your skin to sunlight for just 5 minutes, even at high noon, probably isn't long enough to give you a bad sunburn.

When sunlight passes through glass, it's wavelength becomes less intense. It gets slowed down. But the amount of visible light seen doesn't change much

My thinking is too much heat would demagnetize earth. Inside the barrier could be a refrigeration process that cools earth so it can stay magnetized.
29-11-2020 02:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
keepit wrote: I studied the Holy Bible.

Perhaps by "studied" you mean you stared at it while it sat on a shelf.

keepit wrote: I think that's where i learned to understand figures of speech.

Like "A Bible on the shelf is worth two in the bush"?
... or maybe "The Bible is always on the last shelf you look"?
... or perhaps "The early Bible gets the shelf space"?
... and maybe "Don't throw pearls at the Bible on the shelf"?

I think we can surmise why you never get anything right. Wait, you did get something right once, so I technically can't say "never." You just haven't followed up with an encore yet, but we can hold out hope.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
29-11-2020 03:06
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
Keepit wrote Duncan,
There's going to be a lot more problems than just sea level rise with climate change.
Perspective is the issue most important to understanding climate change.

Can you be more specific
I have solved the sea level rise claim.It is not happening in any way that can be an issue to humankind so I would like something new to work on.
I watched a cool doco on a scientist who has been measuring the Humboldt Glacier and when the sea temperature was measured off the glacier it was below 2.C as the current flow is from the North from Greenland.This was in August and there was no nightime for the whole week they were out.As usual they were trying to say it is warmer than normal but their own evidence showed its not.The Humboldt Glacier has not changed in the 35 years he has been going there.
29-11-2020 03:30
keepit
★★★★★
(2235)
Duncan,
Re: perspective. All this anecdotal evidence isn't particularly honored in scientific circles.
Re: sea level rise. As far as i know, the amount of sea level rise is going to be slower than you seem to think. There can be tipping points however such as if the roos Ice Shelf were to break off and slide into the sea. That would cause a rapid 10 foot rise in sea level.
Re: other problems related to global warming. Things such as extreme weather causing droughts, severe storms. extinctions, animal and plant migrations, etc. will prevail.
29-11-2020 03:39
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3368)
Spongy Iris wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:

The atmosphere is not contained in a physical barrier, like a glass lab jar. It expands and contracts. You can reduce the height and density to meaningless averages, but that wouldn't be accurate and true. Only useful to your narrow focus, on one small aspect of the giant planet.


There is evidence which I believe indicates your above statement is basically incorrect.

We have discussed my speculation about the "great biblical flood" in Libya, Egypt, Sudan, when the protective glass barrier around earth appears to have shattered, allowing the actual intensity of sunlight radiation to hit the earth. The color of the 1000 tonnes of glass shards found spread across an oval shape 130 by 50 km is close to the color of the sky where you see the sun sets and rises.

Also sky blue is not the same color as electric blue. Reason I say that is us common folk have produced a light bright enough to light up the sky at night as if it was day. It was a transformer explosion in NYC in the 2018 holiday season.

https://www.cnbc.com/video/2018/12/28/transformer-explosion-new-york-citys-night-sky.html

That electric blue is different than sky blue. Must be another factor influencing the sky's color when intense light hits the atmosphere further above ground. The color of the sky is pretty consistent all around the world!

Rapid decrease of heat in the atmosphere from 90 to 60 miles is another indication. What causes such rapid decrease of heat at this altitude? Bird brain will say it's the magnetic field that deflects the heat.

Ask yourself, why is the sun so bright, when its heat is pretty mild? Most people would be temporarily blinded if they stared at the sun for just 5 minutes. But even in Florida, exposing your skin to sunlight for just 5 minutes, even at high noon, probably isn't long enough to give you a bad sunburn.

When sunlight passes through glass, it's wavelength becomes less intense. It gets slowed down. But the amount of visible light seen doesn't change much

My thinking is too much heat would demagnetize earth. Inside the barrier could be a refrigeration process that cools earth so it can stay magnetized.


If the glass surrounding the planet shattered 29 million years ago, what does it matter today? It's not there anymore. Why did glass only fall near Libya? How did that glass barrier get there anyway. Why do none of the other planets seem to be contained in a lab jar? Did their's get shatter too?

Sorry, but weird science is cool, in the entertaining way. I like ghost stories, bigfoot, space aliens, but I don't 'believe' they are a reality. I did read the Bible once, but wouldn't consider myself a Christian. I do believe there is value in religion, and the book is full of wise things. Mostly it gets twisted, and exploited, in a democrat sort of way, anymore. But I do have many of the Christian beliefs and values
29-11-2020 04:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
Spongy Iris wrote:
... CO2 is denser than nitrogen and oxygen, so the logic follows if N and O are consistent and CO2 increases,
I don't think the total amount of water on the earth and in the atmosphere ever changes...
If burning hydrocarbons causes the atmosphere to retain the H2O generated then that would be bigger story, water vapor being a green house gas, than the density issue. However burning does remove O2 so that goes down as CO2 increases. So not consistent.

duncan61 wrote:
I have solved the sea level rise claim.It is not happening...
You've ignored my posts in reply to you on this Duncan. If you'd ever like to challenge your forgone conclusions I'm happy to join you in that.
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/sea-levels-d6-e3382.php#post_64102

"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 valid for IBD or ITN
29-11-2020 05:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
tmiddles wrote: ... then that would be bigger story, water vapor being a green house gas, than the density issue.

What does that mean exactly? ... that water defies thermodynamics or that water defies Stefan-Boltzmann?


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
29-11-2020 07:34
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(584)
tmiddles wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
... CO2 is denser than nitrogen and oxygen, so the logic follows if N and O are consistent and CO2 increases,
I don't think the total amount of water on the earth and in the atmosphere ever changes...
If burning hydrocarbons causes the atmosphere to retain the H2O generated then that would be bigger story, water vapor being a green house gas, than the density issue. However burning does remove O2 so that goes down as CO2 increases. So not consistent.

[


Ah yes removing O2 and adding CO2 makes it even more dense than just adding CO2. Actually I'm not sure how you can add CO2 to atmosphere without taking away O2. Like breathing
or burning stuff...

On the other point, I came across an old Nature article from 1963 just now.

"one chamber was ventilated with carbon
dioxide, the other with air. The water sample in the
chamber containing carbon dioxide was observed to
evaporate most rapidly."
29-11-2020 07:47
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3368)
Spongy Iris wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
... CO2 is denser than nitrogen and oxygen, so the logic follows if N and O are consistent and CO2 increases,
I don't think the total amount of water on the earth and in the atmosphere ever changes...
If burning hydrocarbons causes the atmosphere to retain the H2O generated then that would be bigger story, water vapor being a green house gas, than the density issue. However burning does remove O2 so that goes down as CO2 increases. So not consistent.

[


Ah yes removing O2 and adding CO2 makes it even more dense than just adding CO2. Actually I'm not sure how you can add CO2 to atmosphere without taking away O2. Like breathing
or burning stuff...

On the other point, I came across an old Nature article from 1963 just now.

"one chamber was ventilated with carbon
dioxide, the other with air. The water sample in the
chamber containing carbon dioxide was observed to
evaporate most rapidly."


And, evaporation has a cooling effect... That's why people sweat. There are redneck air conditioning schemes, based on that very same principal. So, if CO2 causes evaporation, then it must also be causing global cool, which would negate the warming crap idea.
Page 2 of 4<1234>





Join the debate Consider:

Remember me

▲ 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