Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Explanations > Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please) > Page 6

Page 6 of 6

20-02-2020 17:31
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...two bodies A and B, ...When does B suddenly increase in temperature... It doesn't but it does have more thermal energy. How is that possible if it didn't create the thermal energy! Zero sum game? Scenario Vegas: 4 poker players play a hand of poker, but one is very fat, twice the size of the other 3 players, does he get any more money for his girth? No, because that is a zero sum game. WTF are you even babbling on about? I suggest shutting your babblehole for a second and focusing on one simple concept at a time. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Isn't any collection of matter "a body"? Nope. We've been over this. Ah the classic RQAA by any other name... Nope, we haven't. Yes, y'all have. Just one of the many things which have been explained to you many times, yet none of it sinks in. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You can't subdivide what you have determined is your body in question. Who is the "you" in that statement and when did this person make such a declaration? If he were to go back to 1600s formal English and say Ye instead of You, would that help thee out any? tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: a·tom·ic /əˈtämik/ Totally unclear what you're trying to say with your invented language. Try conventional vocabulary. Apparently not... Edited on 20-02-2020 17:33
20-02-2020 20:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: 2) If we are discussing physics then we are necessarily presuming that all bodies have heat until reaching equilibrium. Ergo, all models operate under the equilibrium presumption unless the scenario specifically assumes a non-equilibrium.... Is where I see the main issue with: IBdaMann wrote: Your model avoids violating physics by not increasing temperature. Of course the greenhouse effect model has two states relevant to the discussion here: 1 the composition of the atmosphere is constant 2 the composition is changing Are you saying that the model presented which shows no change does not violate physics but if it did show a change, which in turn caused a change in temperature, that would? The composition of the atmosphere has does not change anything. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not consider the composition of the radiating material. You are trying to add a term to the equation. Mantra 20b...31...33 Also while equilibrium is an assumed default there is no law of equilibrium that requires all things to be in equilibrium. Nor is it timed to the millisecond but rather "over time" in the general sense. To say AGW violates equilibrium is simply to recognize the theory for what it is.[/quote] 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 20-02-2020 20:39
20-02-2020 20:11
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Thermodynamics says that everything moves towards an equilibrium and that entropy is always increasing. . So equilibrium is not a requirement every millisecond. The only one that brought up this nonsense is YOU. tmiddles wrote: The presented model can be accused of being non-falsifiable, a vague accusation, since we don't have a 2nd Earth to run a lab experiment against. But falsifiability is not always available. It the test of falsifiability is not available, the theory is not science. Such a test MUST be available, practical to conduct, specific, and produce a specific result. Otherwise the theory is not science. tmiddles wrote: Democritus was in no position to make such a claim about the atom. This doesn't mean a theory or model is note useful. A model of the atom is not science. The use of the word 'atom' is not science. tmiddles wrote: As presented the reason for Earth's elevated temperature is explained AND an increase in CO2 resulting in an increase in temperature is explained. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content of Earth. tmiddles wrote: Should I copy/paste the first post? No. You are just repeating, your own misinformation. tmiddles wrote: What is not explained is you belief that temperature cannot increase on a planet when the composition of that planet changes, with a fixed input of radiance from the Sun. The composition of Earth is not changing. Everything that is here on Earth is still here on Earth. No one is pumping carbon, oxygen, or anything else in from space. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not a term for the composition of the radiating material. You are trying to change the Stefan-Boltzmann law again by adding a new term to it. Mantras 15...16...22...25...25...4...29...20b...33...29 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
20-02-2020 20:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: The claim is that an equilibrium of 100 energy units in and 100 energy units out results in a temperature increase of 1.81C, 3.26F The "budget" first presented is in balance. A change in the composition of the atmosphere would result in a change in the "processing"?, not the worst word for it, of thermal energy coming in, before it goes out. You would recognize that the "energy in" does not dictate the temperature would you not? The 'budget' is random numbers. Mantras 25...20a1...20a2...20b...31...4 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
20-02-2020 20:25
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...two bodies A and B, ...When does B suddenly increase in temperature... It doesn't but it does have more thermal energy. How is that possible if it didn't create the thermal energy! Zero sum game? Scenario Vegas: 4 poker players play a hand of poker, but one is very fat, twice the size of the other 3 players, does he get any more money for his girth? No, because that is a zero sum game. Poker is not a zero sum game. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Isn't any collection of matter "a body"? Nope. We've been over this. Ah the classic RQAA by any other name... Nope, we haven't. Yes you have. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You can't subdivide what you have determined is your body in question. Who is the "you" in that statement and when did this person make such a declaration? YOU... that is, YOU, personally. Yourself. Try English it works better. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: a·tom·ic /əˈtämik/ Totally unclear what you're trying to say with your invented language. Fake argument. tmiddles wrote: Try conventional vocabulary. He IS using conventional vocabulary. Apparently you don't understand what 'you' means. Mantras 31...29...10...10...26 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

20-02-2020 20:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:What is the difference between my writing out that material in a post to you ... vs. my writing that material on Politiplex and giving you a link? The pretense of corroboration. It is more honest, and takes no longer, to write: "I wrote this" as it does "This reference", or to say "My site" in place of "The manual". It matters not where the 2nd law of thermodynamics is posted. Mantra 5. tmiddles wrote: I know you likely do mainly because you think it's funny but it's also deceptive. Not to me, but you play to an audience. Mantra 24. tmiddles wrote: So IBD how can you talk about clouds? Clouds: visible liquid or solid particulate suspended in a fluid. Examples are liquid water suspended in air, ice crystals suspended in air, carbon particulates from a camp fire, algae blooms in the sea, or solid KNO3 crystals suspended in rapidly cooling water. tmiddles wrote: Isn't it impossible to do so? Nope. Just talked about them. tmiddles wrote: Since you'd be subdividing Earth? Here you are making a contextomy fallacy. No one is talking about the radiance of any cloud, except you, by trying to subdivide the Stefan-Boltzmann law. tmiddles wrote: But basketballs, no problem. Yeah... Neither are clouds. YOU are the only one that seems to consider them a problem. Mantras 16...15...29...20b 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 20-02-2020 20:39
21-02-2020 09:02
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:How are you planning on learning this now that I have tried to explain it and failed? You make things up IBD. Unsupported, uncorroborated, and with nothing to back them up. I have no intention of trying to learn the weird made up stuff you post. I've presented a complete and coherent theory. You are the one who has opted out of trying to address it. IBdaMann wrote:or maybe you can go to the library. Theyv'e got some good resources there as well. Name one you trust. Any at all IBD. One published work on thermodynamics that you DON'T think is a warmazombie fraud.
21-02-2020 15:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:How are you planning on learning this now that I have tried to explain it and failed? I have no intention of trying to learn the weird made up stuff you post. I've presented a complete and coherent theory. You are the one who has opted out of trying to address it. Allow me to paraphrase: you are tipping your king and therefore I am the one who is fleeing. Got it. Let me know when something changes. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:or maybe you can go to the library. Theyv'e got some good resources there as well. Name one you trust. Any at all IBD. One published work on thermodynamics that you DON'T think is a warmazombie fraud. You don't care what I recommend and you apparently won't check out your public library. Let me know when something changes. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
21-02-2020 21:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:How are you planning on learning this now that I have tried to explain it and failed? You make things up IBD. Unsupported, uncorroborated, and with nothing to back them up. I have no intention of trying to learn the weird made up stuff you post. Mantras 29...20e tmiddles wrote: I've presented a complete and coherent theory. Mantra 33...25f tmiddles wrote: You are the one who has opted out of trying to address it. Mantra 22...30 tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:or maybe you can go to the library. Theyv'e got some good resources there as well. Name one you trust. Any at all IBD. One published work on thermodynamics that you DON'T think is a warmazombie fraud. Mantra 6...4b No arguments 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-02-2020 02:53
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: You don't care what I recommend Yes I do ! I've asked so many times and you've never cited a single source. Other than the mystery man you instructed you in the oral tradition. IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:So help me out here. How did you learn the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and why do you trust that it's not made up garbage? Someone explained the science to me, as I have to you, and then I was able to go into a lab and apply the scientific method. I could not show it to be false so I can't call it garbage. You are the one refusing to engage with this theory claiming something about you can't subdivide what? huh? It makes no sense at all. And your choice of wording is so novel that google actually has zero results for what you cited. ZERO! You know how hard that is to do??? As it stands you've had nothing to say on this topic other than, as usual, that we can't talk about it at all. "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
22-02-2020 04:30
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: You don't care what I recommend Yes I do! No you don't. I gave you a link to the thermodynamics answers to your questions ... and you refused to get your questions answered simply because I recommended it. tmiddles wrote: It makes no sense at all. Considering your ignorance of thermodynamics, I don't think there is anyone who expects it to make any sense to you. Since I am unable to explain this material to you, have you considered asking, say, Into the Night to explain it to you? He's clear and straightforward so perhaps he can bring you up to speed. ... or maybe James__ would like to explain it to you. While I have you, how's your repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer coming along? You seem to have made substantial progress in learning to not conflate thermal energy with electromagnetic radiation so maybe you are on the cusp of devising one, yes? I'm pulling for you. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
22-02-2020 09:43
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: I gave you a link to the thermodynamics answers to your questions .... You have only linked to your own posts. That is by definition not your source. As your answers are absurd I want your sources. IBdaMann wrote:....have you considered asking, say, Into the Night to explain it to you? Did you learn it from ITN? Where did he learn it? There must be at least one textbook on thermodynamics that's good IBD. Just one. Come on. "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
22-02-2020 17:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	tmiddles wrote: You have only linked to your own posts. That is by definition not your source. We've been over this. My source is my mind; my brain is not online. However, some of my tacit knowledge is captured in the link I provided to the thermodynamics answers to your questions. Key into the words "answers to your questions." If you don't want them then why did you ask? I will presume that you don't really mean the questions you ask. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
22-02-2020 19:04
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: ....My source is my mind; ... You got it all wrong IBD. Your education in Thermodynamics took a lot of wrong turns. If you can't avail yourself of reference material you are hopelessly lost. Think about it: You're pretending to have a knowledge of and interest in thermodynamics but acknowledge no published works, research, or citations of any kind. In 5 years posting here. Pierre Provost contradicts you 268 years ago and you are unphased. "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
22-02-2020 20:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	tmiddles wrote: ...deleted Mantras 4b...29...5...33...30...4b...4a...30...29 No argument presented. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

22-02-2020 20:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	tmiddles wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote: I gave you a link to the thermodynamics answers to your questions .... You have only linked to your own posts. That is by definition not your source. As your answers are absurd I want your sources. IBdaMann wrote:....have you considered asking, say, Into the Night to explain it to you? Did you learn it from ITN? Where did he learn it? tmiddles wrote: There must be at least one textbook on thermodynamics that's good IBD. Just one. Come on. Mantras 5...10 (source<->void)...tm paradox 4...20e...4b...10 (equation<->void)...20a2...4b...4b...4b...29 No argument presented. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 22-02-2020 20:55
22-02-2020 21:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21612)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ....My source is my mind; ... You got it all wrong IBD. Your education in Thermodynamics took a lot of wrong turns. If you can't avail yourself of reference material you are hopelessly lost. Think about it: You're pretending to have a knowledge of and interest in thermodynamics but acknowledge no published works, research, or citations of any kind. In 5 years posting here. Pierre Provost contradicts you 268 years ago and you are unphased. Mantras 5...30...31...20a1...20a2...29...4b...7...34a...4 No argument presented. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
22-02-2020 21:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	tmiddles wrote: Pierre Provost contradicts you 268 years ago and you are unphased. Error 21, Error 31, Error 34 & Error 34a . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
23-02-2020 01:13
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Pierre Provost contradicts you 268 years ago and you are unphased. Error 21, . You passed on commenting on my thread about Pierre Provost contradicting you IBD. It's right here still proving you wrong:Pierre Provost contradicts ITN/IBD 268 years ago and they have no rebuttal What is it you said? Ah yes IBdaMann wrote: ....The race has started. You gate has opened but you won't come out. ...Just let me know when you'd like to re-engage.... Nothing "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
23-02-2020 05:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	tmiddles wrote:You passed on commenting on my thread about Pierre Provost contradicting you IBD. You completely ignored my detailed response here. You seem to be turning a blind eye to your repeated fallacies. I think we need to spend some time examining your errors. First we need to examine your premise that you speak for dead people. I hope you aren't returning to your claims of omniscience. Second, let's examine in detail what you are claiming is my error. Thus far you haven't been able to string together any words that pin you down on any specific position. You remain eternally vague so that you can always shift goalposts and semantically pivot as convenient. That is dishonest. You need to clearly state your position ... unambiguously. Let's work on that. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
23-02-2020 05:50
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:You passed on commenting on my thread about Pierre Provost contradicting you IBD. You completely ignored my detailed response here. Your link is simply "Error 21, Error 31, Error 34 & Error 34a" unsupported platitudes. You provided no justification or explanation. I presume because you don't have any. You have ignored all questions and now want to play a game of introducing new questions of your own. My position on how Pierre Provost proves you wrong is clearly stated in the thread I created. If you'd like to comment on that please do so. IBdaMann wrote:...what you are claiming is my error. Thus far you haven't been able to string together any words that pin you down on any specific position. I can't say you've made in error in how you solve thermodynamic problems. Because you've never solved for one. You refuse to even discuss the method of applying thermodynamics to real scenarios. I can tell you exactly what your more clarified goof is, it's this: IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object. 2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed. That is utter BS. Photons/Radiance/EM from cooler objects is absoultely absorbed by warmer objects and that's easily proven in my sig. You can dodge this all your days but you will NEVER be able to complete even a simple thermodynamic equation involving multiple bodies and radiance without that glaring bit of hooey being exposed for what it is. As for this topic your claim that we can't talk about anything because the Earth is an atom, or what? I don't even know. You put nothing on the table but semantic sand bagging. The thread stands, without comment from you, with a complete equation for the movement of thermal energy through our atmosphere. "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
23-02-2020 08:28
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:You passed on commenting on my thread about Pierre Provost contradicting you IBD. You completely ignored my detailed response here. Your link is simply "Error 21, Error 31, Error 34 & Error 34a" unsupported platitudes. Those were links to detailed explanations to YOUR ERRORS. You are welcome to bury your head in the sand but that just means that we're done. tmiddles wrote:My position on how Pierre Provost proves you wrong is clearly stated in the thread I created. If you'd like to comment on that please do so. I'm not going to scour the internet trying to guess exactly what you are talking about. Post the quote(s) in question, here in this thread and elaborate on what you are claiming. Otherwise, we're done. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...what you are claiming is my error. Thus far you haven't been able to string together any words that pin you down on any specific position. I can't say you've made in error in how you solve thermodynamic problems. Because you've never solved for one. I gave you the correct answer. Your extraneous arithmetic is irrelevant. tmiddles wrote:I can tell you exactly what your more clarified goof is, it's this: IBdaMann wrote:2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. I stand by my statement. It's the basis for quantum mechanics. Tell me how it's erroneous. tmiddles wrote: That is utter BS. Hey, there are hoardes of students who have to trudge though quantum mechanics who would consider you a hero if you can get them out of it by showing just how wrong it is. tmiddles wrote:As for this topic your claim that we can't talk about anything because the Earth is an atom, or what? I don't even know. You put nothing on the table but semantic sand bagging. This is a beautifully absurd position to assign to me. Would you mind if I were to invite others to marvel at it? You shouldn't hide this kind of aesthetic brilliance from the rest of the world. If you have a lamp, hold it up where it can shine the most light! The earth is an atom! Awesome! You know how there are services for which you can register to get a "word for the day" or a daily horoscope or a "quote of the day" or a daily recipe or what not? You should DevOp a daily "bogus position assignment." You understand as well as anyone the demand for having someone doing your thinking for you and for having beliefs, positions and opinions handed to you. If you can find a way to monetize it you could make a mint, especially if you maintain the quality of what you assigned to me today. You could retire within the year. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
23-02-2020 09:16
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: Those were links to detailed explanations IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Pierre Provost contradicts you 268 years ago and you are unphased. Error 21, ... "21) Historical Revisionism" Just to be clear you consider this to be a detailed explanation? I'll just ask. How is this: Pierre Provost proves IBD is wrong Historical revisionism exactly? IBdaMann wrote: I'm not going to scour the internet trying to guess exactly what you are talking about. Look up. I liked to the thread I created on this board, explaining how Pierre Provost and Max Planck prove you are wrong about net radiance. You chose to ignore that thread. I'll go ahead and repost here in my next post as a courtesy : ) Since you asked so nicely. IBdaMann wrote:...extraneous arithmetic is irrelevant. No it's one way you can know if you're on the right or wrong track. I found the correct answer because I'm doing it the right way. You, if you were to attempt it, would fail to get an answer that made sense at all. because your theory is absurd. IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object. 2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen....I stand by my statement. It's the basis for quantum mechanics. Tell me how it's erroneous. The whole statement? I know it's erroneous because basic problems of thermodynamics cannot be solved if your rule is observed. Also it is not "The" anything. You made it up and it's not found ANYWHERE else. It is PURE FICTION. But more to the point. Here is a simple PROOF you theory is bogus. If your theory was true then a steel ball in a room as you described here: Scenario: An 8x8x3 meter room with steel panel walls, roof and floor, all with uniform 18 degrees Celsius initial temperature, inside and out. Suspended in the exact middle/center of the room by a powerful repelling magnet in the floor is a 5cm diameter steel ball (the "body") with initial uniform temperature of 42 degrees Celsius. Would cool off, lose thermal energy, have the same loss in watts, at the same rate in a room that was 18C, 41C, or -100C (assuming a vacuum of course). But of course that's not true. Or do you think it is??? IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: your claim that we can't talk about anything because the Earth is an atom, or what? ...absurd position to assign to me.....The earth is an atom! Oh did I get that wrong? Let me quote you: IBdaMann wrote: If you are claiming that a planet is the body in question then you are necessarily talking about planetary temperature and necessarily not talking about the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere, i.e. subdividing the atomic unit. Now we went over how Google incredibly has ZERO results for that concept but I think it's fair to say I'm not crazy to read that as the planet, Earth, is, in IBD's view, an "atomic unit". But again it's just a diversionary tactic. You asked me several times to define the temperature we are concerned with, I never said "planetary temperature as defined by IBD" but the "Climate" of Earth and it has ALWAYS been the bottom of the atmosphere and not the whole ball of wax from molten core to thermosphere. You know that. You might not agree with it but you know it is what my subject is when I say the temperature/climate/global warming. "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
23-02-2020 09:18
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	This thread is found here: max-planck-and-pierre-prevost-on-net-thermal-radiation-and-net-heat Fundamental thermodynamics cannot be avoided in the CLIMATE DEBATE. As some conspiracy theories doubt the accuracy of text books i'm following up the Net Thermal Radiation example with the work of those who discovered it. While the "net flow" is always from hotter to colder, warmer objects do absorb the energy from cooler ones. Let's hear from: ____Max Planck___________&____________Pierre Provost __ From Max Planck's 1919 work: Where is science going? Here Planck actual affirms that thermal energy from a cooler body can even be absorbed by a warmer body via conduction! Max Planck wrote:Pg.188 "...iron heated...plunge it into...cold water. The heat of the iron will pass to the water until ...thermal equilibrium" "Heat could flow in the reverse process from cold water to hot iron, and the Principle of Conservation of Energy still hold good because heat itself is a form of energy, and the principle only demands that the quantity of heat given up by water be equal to that absorbed by the iron..." So we have net flow with energy free to move from one object to the other with the overall flow always being in the direction of hotter to colder. But the discovery that in radiation hot objects also absorbed energy from their cooler environment was pioneered by Prevost and Planck credits him for that: Max Planck wrote: Pg. 184 "...considering...heat radiation...it was always the strict rule to deal only with the difference between the radiation absorbed and that emitted because all the heat rays that a body absorbs it can also give out...But in the theory of Prevost these two processes were separated from one another and each of them given an independent meaning." Pierre Prevost's work was 100 years before Plancks but he was able to determine that radiative heat is an exchange and not a one way transfer. Previous to 1780 (and occasionally on this board) the assumption was that when two bodies have equal temperatures there is "nothing going on" in terms of radiation or thermal exchange. This was debunked by Provost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiative_equilibrium "Prevost's theory of exchanges stated that each body radiates to, and receives radiation from, other bodies. The radiation from each body is emitted regardless of the presence or absence of other bodies. Prevost in 1791 offered the following definitions (translated[, and he called radiation "free heat"]): Pierre Prevost wrote: Absolute equilibrium of free heat is the state of this fluid in a portion of space which receives as much of it as it lets escape. Pierre Prevost wrote: Relative equilibrium of free heat is the state of this fluid in two portions of space which receive from each other equal quantities of heat, and which moreover are in absolute equilibrium, or experience precisely equal changes. " Now if you're reading this you may be wondering why thermodynamics which were figured out 239 years ago need to be defended. The sorry state of the CLIMATE DEBATE means that those who are skeptical and want to explore the issue are constantly confronted by those who have wacked out misrepresentations of what they claim is the known/established science. But let's put another nail in that coffin. Planck gets into some detailed descriptions of how there is actual thermal energy transferred from a cooler molecule to a hotter one: Max Planck wrote:Pg.190 According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules. The temperature corresponds to the medium kinetic energy of the molecules, and the transfer of heat from a hotter to a colder body depends upon the fact that the kinetic energies of the molecules are averaged because of their frequent collision with one another. So not every molecule has the same kinetic energy in an object and what we call temperature is the average of a mix of energies. Here he even directly debunks the notion that energy is only transferred from a warmer to a cooler molecule: Max Planck wrote:It must not be supposed, however, that when two individual molecules strike together the one with the greater kinetic energy is slowed down and the other accelerated, for if — to take an example — a rapidly moving molecule of one system is struck obliquely by a slower moving molecule its velocity is increased while that of the slower moving molecule is still further diminished. Here Planck is describing how a slow moving molecule could have an impact with a fast moving molecule at an angle. Imagine two objects, one going 80mph and the other 40mph, having a collision at 90 degrees. the 40mph object striking the side of the 80mph object. For the 40mph object the side of the 80mph object is a wall and the velocity of the 40mph object is lowered in the crash. The 80mph object receives an extra jolt of energy from the slower one, it's direction changed and the energy in it's movement increased. You could prove this on a pool table! He goes on: Max Planck wrote:But, taken on the whole, unless the circumstances are quite exceptional the kinetic energies must mix to a certain amount, and this mixing is what appears as an equalizing of the temperature of the two bodies. Boltzmann, however, did not press his hypothesis very strongly before the notice of scientists and there was great hesitancy about accepting it, but nowadays it is fully accepted. Nowadays as of that writing would be 1919 but don't worry it's still accepted! We have to go with the best information we have. Above all we should go forward and figure out what we can. Those who claim we must be paralyzed by doubt and resolve to do nothing have an agenda antithetical to science.
23-02-2020 11:32
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	tmiddles wrote: Here Planck actual affirms that thermal energy from a cooler body can even be absorbed by a warmer body via conduction! No he does not. I really wish you would read for comprehension. He is talking about the 1st law of thermodynamics, not the 2nd. He quite clearly states that even if you could magickally reverse the second law that you would not be violating the first. In the rest of them I'm not seeing "Planck confirms that thermal energy can also flow from cooler to warmer" or "Prevost demonstrated some thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer." . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
23-02-2020 12:01
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Do you have any objection to moving this to the thread being discussed? IBdaMann wrote:I'm not seeing "Planck confirms that thermal energy can also flow from cooler to warmer" or "Prevost demonstrated some thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer." So you made up that language. That's all you IBD. You say that as though I've been talking about flowing this and flow that. I have not. I said: tmiddles wrote: While the "net flow" is always from hotter to colder, warmer objects do absorb the energy from cooler ones. How you get "energy can also flow from cooler to warmer" from that, well, you'll have to tell me. THIS is what is total BS and what I take issue with: IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.... You and ITN have attempted to use that made up piece of garbage to shut down every discussion on this board for the last 5 years. It is false. "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
23-02-2020 23:41
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	tmiddles wrote: This is still false. You can't make sense of thermodynamics of almost any kind with that idea in your head. You are projecting your inability to make sense of thermodynamics. I am still waiting for your repeatable example that shows thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
24-02-2020 03:43
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:I am still waiting for your repeatable example Responded to here
24-02-2020 18:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:I am still waiting for your repeatable example Responded to here Bringing us here. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
24-02-2020 22:10
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:I am still waiting for your repeatable example Responded to here Bringing us here So you've got no response to my post?

24-02-2020 23:13
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14438)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:I am still waiting for your repeatable example Responded to here So you've got no response to my post? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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

Page 6 of 6

Join the debate Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please):

Threads	Replies	Last post
Basic Mistakes in Math, Just an FYI, 2 x 2 ≠ 4.	0	27-01-2024 19:01
Math Help	53	08-12-2023 01:56
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	392	01-12-2023 21:58
Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat	326	07-11-2023 19:16
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2	533	30-01-2023 07:22