Energy source: evaporation - condensation (continuation)
| 22-01-2022 15:57 | |
HarveyH55 ★★★★★(5197) |
James___ wrote:BestChance wrote:Into the Night wrote:BestChance wrote:GasGuzzler wrote: Depends on the religion... Climate religion has no tolerance at all. You must, join, comply, or die horribly. Christian religions are usually very tolerant and forgiving. Even a Norwegian cork-popper can change his wicked ways, and pray for forgiveness, in time. Navy... Wouldn't think most toted guns during their service. But, God will forgive you service related embellishments... A man with a gun in hand, is the least tolerant. He gives you two choices. Comply, or die. If he's tolerant, he probably won't keep the gun in hand very long, and likely die by his own weapon. Most people are taught not to point a gun at anybody the don't intend to shoot. |
| 22-01-2022 21:51 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21597) |
HarveyH55 wrote:James___ wrote:BestChance wrote:Into the Night wrote:BestChance wrote:GasGuzzler wrote: Typical of a fundamentalist style religion. HarveyH55 wrote: Some are. There are Christian fundamentalists as well, they are not tolerant at all. Some Catholics are this way, for example. HarveyH55 wrote: Carrying a gun is not a sin. HarveyH55 wrote: Tolerance is not an issue here. A man with a gun, using it for self defense, is simply the consequences of said criminal's decision. It's not about complying. Said criminal had already made his decision. He was free to do so. He is not free of the consequences of it. 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 |
| 23-01-2022 03:53 | |
| Erik2022☆☆☆☆☆ (7) |
I was wrong. I apologize. Thank you for your attention. |
| 23-01-2022 23:57 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14404) |
Into the Night wrote:Religion has nothing to do with tolerance. Religion is about the assumptions one makes in order to make sense of a chaotic and confusing world. Into the Night wrote:Religions are just a circular argument, with other arguments extending from that. In my parlance, a religion is a list of assumptions that need not be internally consistent. In fact, there are no requirements at all. Elements of this list can be imposed by "authorities" (self declared or otherwise) and other elements can be independently assumed. I use the word "dogma" without connotation. I define "dogma" as the set of assumptions of a religion that are mandatory for one to declare oneself a believer of that religion. For example, Christian dogma includes the assumptions that God created everything, that God sent his only Son to teach humanity and to die so that people can get into heaven, and that there are no other gods except for God (and/or God and His son who are in fact one and the same ... and/or the Holy Trinity who are in fact one and the same). As long as a person accepts that dogma, for example, he can call himself a Christian. Deny any part of that and a Christian he is not. But a Christian can add personal elements that are not contradictory to the dogma as a way of tailoring his faith to more aptly help him deal with the world as he perceives it. For example, a Christian might take the account of Creation rather figuratively for the "essence" of the account but hold that the universe always was, and was never created at any point in time because it always was. That view is not contradictory to any Christian dogma so it is perfectly fine. However, it is also perfectly fine for a Christian to believe that the whole of creation came about in six days, and that God then rested on the seventh day, and then resumed creation on day eight ... and still be within the bounds of Christian dogma. Another Christian might find it unacceptable to pray to Mary, the mother of Jesus, while legions of other Christians around the world do exactly this on a regular basis. What we have is the making of differing denominations that all fall under the umbrella of Christian dogma. Unfortunately, when a former Christian decides to accept other gods, e.g. Global Warming, Climate, Greenhouse Effect, etc ... that person has violated Christian dogma and can no longer legitimately claim to be adhering to Christian dogma, specifically the element pertaining to not having other gods. Into the Night wrote:It matters not if the initial circular argument is accepted by another or not. It is not possible to prove a circular argument either True or False. I would disagree with this statement as written. I can easily prove a contradiction is FALSE. The real issue is that it simply just doesn't matter. For example, for those Christians who believe in the Holy Trinity but who insist that there is only one God, I stand ready to prove it FALSE. At the same time, it doesn't matter at all. Chalk it up as a "great mystery." The crux of the issue is that none of those Christians are claiming that the Trinity-but-one-God is somehow thettled thienth, i.e. they are not claiming that their belief is somehow falsifiable. As long as a religious belief is acknowledged as an unfalsifiable religious belief, all is well. The problem with Global Warming etc, .. is the claim that it is falsifiable thettled thienth. That crosses the line and begs for the scientific method to be applied. Once that happens, it all gets blown out of the water for obvious reasons. Into the Night wrote:Your view, of course, is to have NO circular argument. You do not try to claim any god or gods, and neither do you claim that none exist. Exactly. You are one of the few who actually understand what atheism is. Well done. My list of assumptions is a blank page, and that means the assumption "there are no gods" is not present either. As such, I have no dogma that anyone can threaten or faith that can be insulted. I believe you have witnessed a few times that someone has insisted that I was Christian and then tried to insult me by attacking my Christianity. I don't know whether I should laugh or cry or remain stunned. I normally play along though because those opportunities are rare indeed. Into the Night wrote:The circular argument is also known as the argument of faith. By itself it is not a fallacy. I would encourage you to look at it in a different way. This above all: to thine own self be true - Hamlet: Act 1, Scene 3 On the one hand, it is never a fallacy for anyone to make whatever assumptions he wants in his own logical system, and that includes in his faith, his religion and his dogma. However, it is definitely a fallacy if one is lying to oneself, deceiving oneself and/or deluding oneself. You can call it a reflexive fallacy if you wish but if one is not being true to oneself then one is committing a fallacy, as well as lying ... to himself. This is what we see with all Marxist ideologies and faiths. They all mandate a dogma of denial, i.e. denial of human nature, denial of the laws of science, denial of the laws of economics, etc... The Marxist religions target the stupid and get them to lie to themselves. It's all one big fallacy. Into the Night wrote:Attempting to prove a circular argument either True or False is the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does. Such fundamentalists are locked into their 'proofs'. They are the ones least tolerant of any other view. My perspective is that when someone becomes unable to learn, unable to modify his set of assumptions, unable to accept any of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary ... that it's because someone is now doing his thinking for him and whoever it is will not allow him to modify the dogma in any way. I have this perspective because of my time as a Wikipedia contributor. I noticed that Wikipedia staff would "lock down" all leftist dogma with all its errors to prevent anyone such as myself from correcting any of it. That is the mindset imposed by Marxism and it's how I sniff out Marxism before the exchange of pleasantries is even complete. I'm sure you sensed it the moment Coby 1 created his thread ... reinforced by "ICE is finished man. Except for the nostalgia." Science certainly isn't driving what he writes. 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 |
| 23-01-2022 23:59 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
Erik2022 wrote: I was wrong. I apologize. Thank you for your attention. Which error of yourse, specifically, are you acknowledging? |
| 24-01-2022 00:09 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
I have been following this thread but have no idea what is being suggested or what it is supposed to do |
| 24-01-2022 01:21 | |
| HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197) |
duncan61 wrote: I'm not sure either. The CO2 is suppose push the piston as it expands from liquid to gas. But what move the piston back down? |
| 24-01-2022 08:19 | |
tmiddles ★★★★★(3979) |
BestChance wrote:... page attached here... The first motor every employed just used heat (in 1712, to pump water out of mine shafts) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomen_atmospheric_engine#:~:text=It%20was%20the%20first%20practical,constructed%20throughout%20the%2018th%20century.  It would seem to be what you're driving at. This would just be a way to use solar power though and would have no impact on anything related to AGW, the planets mean temp, CO2 ect. "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 24-01-2022 08:22 |
| 24-01-2022 08:59 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
tmiddles wrote:The first motor every employed just used heat (in 1712, to pump water out of mine shafts) 1. Then it was an engine, not a motor. 2. It was not the first engine ever employed. For example, Savory's steam pump preceded Newcomen's pump by more than a decade.  tmiddles wrote:This would just be a way to use solar power though ... or it would be a way to use hydrocarbons. tmiddles wrote:and would have no impact on anything related to AGW, ... because no material substance has any magickal superpower to cause any body of matter to somehow spontaneously increase in temperature without any additional thermal energy ... and besides, AGW is just a WACKY, Marxist religion that hates all life on the planet. Remember, vandalism, looting, and mob rioting is not violence ... it's an idea. . |
| 24-01-2022 09:38 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:...additional thermal energy ...We get that from the sun constantly. new fresh energy. All the time. |
| 24-01-2022 12:22 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
IBdaMann wrote:Into the Night wrote:Religion has nothing to do with tolerance. These assumptions are, in fact, the initial circular arguments I mention, or the argument of faith. Example: the initial circular argument of Christianity is that Christ exists, and that He is who He says He is, namely, the Son of God. IBdaMann wrote:Into the Night wrote:Religions are just a circular argument, with other arguments extending from that. Even these 'authorities' must begin with the initial circular argument. IBdaMann wrote: A valid use of the term. It is simply someone that believes in the same initial circular argument, and the particular arguments extending from that. IBdaMann wrote: No. Christianity's only requirement is a belief in Christ, and that He is the Son of God. Only a few sects of this religion believe the 'trinity' is actually a 'singularity' or that God's Son is actually the same as God. Catholicism is one of them. IBdaMann wrote: The only thing a person needs to call himself a Christian is a belief in Christ and to attempt to follow His teachings. IBdaMann wrote: Christ refers to God as his Father. He prayed specifically to his Father in the Garden yielding his will to God the Father. IBdaMann wrote: Certainly. IBdaMann wrote: This view is also known as the Theory of the Continuum. A non-scientific theory. This theory holds that the Universe has always existed. It has no beginning, and it has no end. God also has always existed. He has no beginning and He has no end. IBdaMann wrote: True. But just what is the 'whole of creation'? The Earth and it's environs? The Milky Way Galaxy? Several Galaxies? You can't really sensibly say the entire Universe because that would mean God would've had to create Himself. The Universe, after all, cannot have ANYTHING outside it, or it is not universal. It is not the Universe. IBdaMann wrote: This variation is true as well. IBdaMann wrote: Because the only initial circular argument that defines Christianity is a belief in Jesus Christ, and that He is who He says He is. Namely, the Son of God. IBdaMann wrote: This is actually correct. It is replacing God with a false god of 'tHe ThEtTLeD ScIeNcE' and Karl Marx as God. It has the audacity to build the argument that God is powerless to prevent the Earth from being destroyed by CO2. IBdaMann wrote:Into the Night wrote:It matters not if the initial circular argument is accepted by another or not. It is not possible to prove a circular argument either True or False. A contradiction is not a circular argument. It's usually a paradox. IBdaMann wrote: But it does. It may not change one's belief to point out such a paradox, but it does show the irrationality of it. IBdaMann wrote: The Holy Trinity consists of God the Father, Jesus Christ his Son, and the Holy Ghost as three separate personages. There is still only one God. Christ is our advocate with Him. So is the Holy Ghost. These three are also called the godhead. They have the same goal (one mind) and work together, each in their own way, to achieve it. That goal is to provide a path for one to return to the presence of God. IBdaMann wrote: It does, to those that subscribe to the concept of the Trinity. Sure, there are those that claim Jesus Christ is God and that God the Father is another God, and therefore there is more than one God, but that's a paradox. Yes, that variation forms an irrational argument. IBdaMann wrote: This is quite right. The circular argument in and of itself is not a fallacy. Only trying to prove one True or False creates the circular argument fallacy, which is also fundamentalism. The Church of Global Warming, the Church of Green, the Church of the Ozone Hole, the Church of Covid, and the Church of Karl Marx are inherently fundamentalist religions. In each and every case, they try to prove their religion True. IBdaMann wrote: The first of which is defining what 'global warming' or 'climate change' actually mean. It never gets past the internal consistency check. As soon as they bring magick gasses and vapors that can somehow warm the Earth, and try to describe a mechanism for their belief, THAT's when they outright deny various theories of science. In other words, it's their attempt to prove their religion that not only creates the circular argument fallacy, but ignores several existing theories of science as well as statistical and probability mathematics. IBdaMann wrote:Into the Night wrote:Your view, of course, is to have NO circular argument. You do not try to claim any god or gods, and neither do you claim that none exist. I happen to be Christian, as you know. I freely admit that my religion is based on an argument of faith. Unlike some Christians, I do not try to prove my religion. I simply accept it as it is. People try to insult me by attacking my Christianity, but I could care less. It makes absolutely no difference in my beliefs. IBdaMann wrote:Into the Night wrote:The circular argument is also known as the argument of faith. By itself it is not a fallacy. And I am. I am true to myself, and to my belief. Nothing can shake it. As far as I have observed of you, you are also true to yourself, and to your position of atheism. You have many times seen 'atheists' that are actually believers in the Church of No God. This religion has many fundamentalists in it. It is NOT atheism, though they call themselves that. Such are NOT true to themselves. They lie about what they are. IBdaMann wrote: As you know I point these out from time to time. People that wind up denying their own arguments, make paradox after paradox and argue as if these were rational arguments (which of course, they aren't). This is a typical path for any fundamentalist. Sooner or later they wind up here. IBdaMann wrote: It is actually a narrative fallacy. This fallacy occurs when a narrative (series of arguments) becomes fiction through the use of a lie or paradox. Every time someone lies, it's a narrative fallacy. Every time someone builds a paradox, it's narrative fallacy. A paradox, by it's nature, is a lie against the two conflicting arguments of the paradox. One conflicting argument lies against the other conflicting argument. IBdaMann wrote: That it is. Lately, it has entered into some truly dangerous territory. IBdaMann wrote:Into the Night wrote:Attempting to prove a circular argument either True or False is the circular argument fallacy. This is what a fundamentalist does. Such fundamentalists are locked into their 'proofs'. They are the ones least tolerant of any other view. No, it isn't. That's pretty obvious. 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 |
| 24-01-2022 12:58 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles wrote:The first motor every employed just used heat (in 1712, to pump water out of mine shafts) An even earlier (much earlier!) steam engine was Heron's aiolipile engine circa 50AD and documented in his book 'Pneumatica'.  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 |
| 24-01-2022 13:00 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...additional thermal energy ...We get that from the sun constantly. new fresh energy. All the time. You need additional energy. Assuming constant energy from the Sun, where is the additional energy coming from? 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 |
| 24-01-2022 22:50 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:...Assuming constant energy from the Sun, where is the additional energy coming from? Define what you mean. There is "additional energy" from the sun every moment. The sun supplies Earth with energy by radiance at a RATE. There is NOT a fixed quantity, but a somewhat steady RATE. Just like a pay check vs. a checking account. Polly can have 10k in a checking account and can earn $100 a day as pay. The pay is a rate, the balance in the checking account is a quantity. Can the amount of money Polly has increase despite not making a higher salary? Of course, if there is a change in how Polly saves/spends. Can a body receiving the radiance of the sun change temperature, even though the rate of radiance is the same? Yes, the emissivity changing would be a way that could happen. |
| 25-01-2022 04:37 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:...Assuming constant energy from the Sun, where is the additional energy coming from? Already did. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Energy is not a rate. tmiddles wrote: False equivalence fallacy. tmiddles wrote: There is no such thing as 'rate of radiance'. The emissivity of Earth is unknown and cannot be measured. It is a constant, not a variable. 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 |
| 26-01-2022 01:08 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
I have to ask if it is unknown then how can it be known if it is constant or variable.My wife wishes to know if we do not know where coal comes from do we know where diamonds come from?I believe the tmiddles has made a good point about different objects or the same object that has changed.This is a debate forum not the world according to one person.I have been watching some full on Warmazombie stuff lately and I am so glad I am not buying it.The great lakes debate is a fascinating one.The water will boil off then they will go down.It will rain more and they will go up and drown Chicago.The truth from the 70s.The levels vary a bit naturally and nothing has changed
Edited on 26-01-2022 01:16 |
| 26-01-2022 02:20 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
duncan61 wrote: It is a measured constant. To measure the emissivity of any surface, you must first know the temperature of that surface accurately. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown. duncan61 wrote: No to both. It is possible, however, to make diamonds. These are typically used in industrial applications where this kind of abrasive is very useful. duncan61 wrote: What has changed? duncan61 wrote: There is no debate to mathematics. There is no debate to science. Science has no voting bloc. It does not use consensus. Mathematics has no voting bloc. It does not use consensus. duncan61 wrote: It's all part of the Doom and Gloom predictions made by any fundamentalist religion. 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 |
| 26-01-2022 04:09 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
duncan61 wrote: I have to ask if it is unknown then how can it be known if it is constant or variable. The scientist who created the science defined the model that way. Now your job is to show the creating scientist to be mistaken and to show his model to be in error. Until you do, if you wish to use the model as science then you must use it as it was created, as it has been scrutinized for over a century. tmiddles is totally dishonest and is here only to spread disinformation just like you are only here to preach. You are not likely to garner any credibility by claiming that he somehow "has a point" ... just as you are unlikely to go back and read the archived discussions in which he has participated to verify what I am saying. duncan61 wrote: My wife wishes to know if we do not know where coal comes from do we know where diamonds come from? Tell your wife that diamonds can be manufactured in labs by replicating the processes that form diamonds in the mantle. Tell your wife that no human has ever been swimming in the earth's mantle observing the formation of diamonds so no, no one really knows how we get diamonds ... but diamonds can be manufactured, so you tell me what the answer to the question is. duncan61 wrote:I believe the tmiddles has made a good point Only because you simply won't ever call booolsch't on any theory, no matter how WACKY it is, ... except in the case whereby someone proposes a competing theory to your WACKY "gravity causes temperature to increase" religion, at which point you will attack relentlessly every single point that your respective denominations hold in common. duncan61 wrote: This is a debate forum not the world according to one person. Yet you continue to preach your WACKY schytt without listening to a single word to the contrary, and you continue to HATE on Xadoman like nobody's business without offering any sort of argument or point to debate. So when are you going to start treating this site as the debate forum that it is and stop treating it as the world according to duncan? duncan61 wrote: I have been watching some full on [demonized member of a competing congregation] stuff lately and I am so glad I am not buying it. I know. You HATE them. They are a competing denomination of your identical religion. You demonize them as heretics. They are to be only ridiculed, not debated, right? ... because you aren't here to debate, but to preach your faith. You aren't here to debate because you don't believe that you are supposed to even be questioned. If you're wondering why I am giving you a hard time, it's because you are totally dishonest just as tmiddles is. You are a scientifically illiterate moron who gives me pushback whenever I try to teach you science. You keep insisting that science must be wrong and that your WACKY religion must be right, no matter how much effort I put into explaining to you. You have made it clear that you have no intention of learning any of the science you address, you just find it easier to let others do your thinking for you and to F with those trying to help you. So you'll forgive me if I tell it like it is. duncan61 wrote:The great lakes debate is a fascinating one. No, not really. You haven't mentioned where your stupid religion stands on that debate. Is gravity causing the lakes to rise or to fall, despite the lakes observably never changing? What you and the warmizombies believe is pretty stupid, isn't it? ... not to mention how you lampoon them for believing exactly what you believe! Too funny. |
| 26-01-2022 13:42 | |
| BestChance☆☆☆☆☆ (12) |
The mistake is that I did not take into account the heat of condensation of gaseous carbon dioxide in tank B. This will lead to an increase in the temperature of tank B. This nullifies the meaning of the original idea: the temperature difference between tanks A and B. It all comes down to the well-known situation when carbon dioxide does work due to increasing the volume of tanks: there was a tank A, it became a tank A + tank B with the same temperatures. Therefore, this topic is closed. Afterword. See my work from 2013 where there is no error Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Page 18>The source of energy is evaporation-condensation - (Side: 1 2 3) |
| 26-01-2022 15:41 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
IBdaMann wrote:duncan61 wrote: I have to ask if it is unknown then how can it be known if it is constant or variable. What model? The burden of proof is on the inventor I am not Tmiddles So we can make diamonds but do not know how? Tmiddles presented a hypothetical of 2 steel balls in space and one rusts so its emissivity changes and potentially its temperature with no additional energy. thats what I got The gravity obsession. I will share what I took from Pete the atmosphere for want of a better word does something to energy coming in and out of the planet. Gravity makes the atmosphere denser at the surface. It is in the mix. thats it.The temperature thing you are hung up on is the theory that without the sun the planet would possibly be -18 and the sun gives us 33.C so a net of plus 15.C.Thats some crap I have read and Pete quoted.I care little to nothing about this theory.Sea levels and polar bears are my thing and now I have lots of polar bears and plenty of ice and no Sea level rise so its all good.I know when you are cornered when you start inferring some religious bent.I am fortunate to be still seeking where you are your way or the highway mode.Regards Duncan BFF duncan61 |
| 26-01-2022 15:54 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
The Great lakes thing was a recent topic on Climate discussion nexus how the alarmists have bet on both sides,There is a difference in the Great lakes levels up to 400mm over a period of time regardless of the tides but it rebounds so the alarmist bet both ways.Its going up its climate change.Then the levels start going down and its climate change.The snow in the Sahara is climate change even though its happened many times before at altitude.Warming has made it snow again.From CDN They just won't know what snowboarding is 26 Jan 2022 | News Roundup In case you were wondering, the looming end of winter as we know it, TEOWAWKI to insiders, means forget the winter Olympics, and not because of some boring old human rights issue. On the contrary, the problem according to researchers led by University of Waterloo scholars (hooray, a Canadian angle) "if global emissions of greenhouse gases are not dramatically reduced, only one of the 21 cities that have previously hosted the Winter Olympics would be able to reliably provide fair and safe conditions for the snow sports program of the Games by the end of this century." Of course they are saying this based on (need you ask?) RCP8.5. And of course to mark the occasion Toronto just had its 3rd-largest snowfall in 75 years, Ottawa just had its 6th-snowiest day ever (and its coldest in four years) and a winter storm in polar Virginia trapped drivers overnight. The Virginia storm saw not just icy conditions but 14 inches of snow and trapped hundreds including a Senator, weather being no respecter of persons. Eric Worrall asked pointedly what would have happened to those Virginia drivers if they'd been in EVs rather than reliable internal combustion vehicles capable of generating warmth even when unable to move. But as you know, cold is just weather. Only heat is climate. Including heat that only ever seems to exist inside computer models, like the ones that predict an end to winter Olympics. The researchers even had the nerve to defend using RCP8.5 on the basis that it's so darned realistic: |
| 26-01-2022 21:06 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
duncan61 wrote:What model? The burden of proof is on the inventor This is the comment of a scientifically illiterate moron. In science, there are no proofs. If someone develops a science model (and anyone can develop such) then the scientific method is applied to show the model to be FALSE. If the scientific method fails to the model to be FALSE then the model is presumed to be TRUE until shown to be FALSE. At the moment, science says that you are egregiously in error. Only your religion is on your side. duncan61 wrote:I am not Tmiddles Did you just now realize this? Your dishonesty is the same, however. duncan61 wrote:So we can make diamonds but do not know how? It's better to say that people can read English for comprehension but that you don't know how. duncan61 wrote:Tmiddles presented a hypothetical of 2 steel balls in space and one rusts tmiddles intentionally employs a dynamic emissivity when the model is static with emissivity as a constant. He does this as an attempt to get around Stefan-Boltzmann and to seemingly get out of explaining why he believes the earth's emissivity is somehow changing. Of course, you never call bullsche't on anything because that would require independent thinking that Pete Rogers has prohibited you from performing. In short, tmiddles is attempting to impose the assumption that the earth's emissivity is changing without having to show this to be the case. He does this by relentlessly hammering away at scenarios whereby there are different emissivities, i.e. before and after. You are expected to just assume that this is what is occurring with the earth. This is why I keep asking tmiddles to show that the earth's emissivity is changing. You'll notice that he EVADES my questions (as you have done), and continues with his pressing the "earth's emissivity is changing" assumption. He needs this in order to show the "additional energy" that he is so desperate to produce. He needs to somehow get around physics, either by skirting thermodynamics or by conveniently altering Stefan-Boltzmann to his liking. At the moment, he is trying to get earth to have a changing emissivity ... but I'm not giving it to him and he is EVADING my questions which make all of this conspicuously obvious (redundancy intentional). ... but you think tmiddles has a valid point? Explain. Don't regurgitate what his point is because I already know what it is. Explain to me why it is somehow valid. duncan61 wrote:so its emissivity changes and potentially its temperature with no additional energy. thats what I got You claim to be able to see tmiddles' points and to be able to see Pete Rogers' points ... but you just can't see my points when I refute their points, is that right? Are you admitting to being too stupid to understand the actual science being presented (because that requires thinking on your part) and can only understand when someone is lying to you (because they are willing to do your thinking for you)? Do I have this right? duncan61 wrote:The gravity obsession. The bulveristic dismissal ... by Pete Rogers' command. duncan61 wrote: I will [regurgitate] what I [was instructed to say] from Pete Thank you. I wouldn't have it any other way, nor would Pete Rogers. duncan61 wrote: the atmosphere for want of a better word does something to energy coming in and out of the planet. ... and this is totally sufficient for you whereas science is totally insufficient. Got it. That's religion, in a nutshell. duncan61 wrote: Gravity makes the atmosphere denser at the surface. These words only make sense within the context of treating the atmosphere as though it were separate from the earth. The "atmosphere" and the "surface" are both different parts of the earth. They are not separate from the earth. Why are you even talking about them? If we are talking about the average global temperature then you necessarily need to be talking about all parts of the earth and your scenario leaves out a lot. You can tell when nothing is being omitted when all that you read is "the earth" and nothing about any component parts. duncan61 wrote: It is in the mix. thats it. Oh, well that says it all! You should have just written this in the first place. This answers all questions. Now everything you have ever said on the topic makes perfect sense. I knew I shouldn't have ever doubted you and here you are throwing the specifics right in my face. It's all in the mix. Why didn't I see this before? duncan61 wrote:I know when you are cornered when you start inferring some religious bent. You got me. Whenever someone's religious dogma has science totally cornered, yes, I can usually see the religion as bright as day. On two occasions I directly quoted Pete Rogers making absurd claims and then directly quoted you claiming that Pete Rogers' physics violations "make perfect sense." You did not even pretend to reject Pete Rogers' sermons when you believed that he was actively reading your posts. Perhaps today you believe that Pete Rogers isn't reading your posts because you haven't seen him for a while, I don't know. In any event, your denial seems momentarily contrived compared to what you have written previously. Anyway, one thing that has not changed is that you will not challenge anyone presenting fallacies or physics violations and will instead ignore any and all science that rebuts those stupidities that you embrace. duncan61 wrote: I am fortunate to be still [preaching] where you are [science] or the highway mode. Yes, and ...? |
| 26-01-2022 21:20 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
duncan61 wrote:The Great lakes thing was a recent topic on Climate discussion nexus how the alarmists have bet on both sides, Does ATE raise or lower the levels of the Great Lakes? Yes, we can observe that the level of the Great Lakes isn't changing, but nonetheless we know that ATE causes the water level to _________ ? What's the answer? What has Pete Rogers instructed you to say? duncan61 wrote:They just won't know what snowboarding is ... and we know that greenhouse gas is not going to be causing all this, that gravity will, per ATE, and that it "makes perfect sense." So, duncan, is "the end of the century" still a good time frame for ATE to be eliminating winter sports? |
| 26-01-2022 22:25 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
duncan61 wrote:IBdaMann wrote:duncan61 wrote: I have to ask if it is unknown then how can it be known if it is constant or variable. Lost context, eh? The model used by the theory of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. duncan61 wrote: Until he can properly falsify the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, his 'invention' is bullshit. There is no actual machine or invention. duncan61 wrote: You are sure acting like Tmiddles. You are taking this out of context too. RQAA. duncan61 wrote: They are different mass. One has a chemical reaction occurring. They are not identical. duncan61 wrote: It does nothing. duncan61 wrote: It isn't a theory. It's an argument from randU fallacy. Gravity is not energy. duncan61 wrote: It is not possible to measure the global sea level. It is not possible to measure the polar bear population of Earth. The Church of Global Warming is a real religion by any philosophical sense of the word. All religions are based on some initial circular argument (or argument of faith), with arguments extending from that. The initial circular argument of the Church of Global Warming is that the Earth is somehow warming due to activity by Man (it's not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth). ALL other arguments, including the 'greenhouse gas' nonsense, extends from that initial argument. It is a religion. It is also an inherently fundamentalist religion. It attempts to prove it's circular argument True. That is not possible. duncan61 wrote: Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself. Theories of science are unfalsifiable. You cannot just ignore them. To destroy one, you have to falsify it. That must be done by showing a test that destroys the theory. That test must be available, practical to conduct, specific, and produce a specific result. Contrivance is not a test. Contrivance is not a proof. 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 |
| 26-01-2022 22:34 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
duncan61 wrote: Water levels in each lake is controlled via dams and gates. duncan61 wrote: Weather is not climate. Climate cannot change. There is no quantity associated with climate. duncan61 wrote: Weather is not climate. 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 |
| 27-01-2022 05:43 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:tmiddles wrote:... Not gonna consider a hypothetical, simple steel ball rusting ITN? duncan61 wrote: ITN is trying to pretend that emissivity cannot change which is of course dead wrong. He is playing around with math vocab to confuse this. You're aware that a black car is hotter than a white car right Duncan? That's emissivity in action. |
| 27-01-2022 06:49 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
tmiddles wrote:Not gonna consider a hypothetical, simple steel ball rusting ITN? Not gonna explain why a rational adult should believe the earth's emissivity is somehow changing, tmiddles? We have already extensively covered steel balls rusting. Those discussions can be found by searching the archived posts on Climate-Debate. What is not to be found anywhere is your explanation of why a rational adult should adopt your assumption that the earth's emissivity is somehow changing. You EVADE the topic and blame Into the Night and me for your utter dishonesty ... after you assign bogus positions to both of us, of course. tmiddles wrote:I have to ask if it is unknown then how can it be known if it is constant ... You and your demands for answers ... when you will not answer questions yourself. The answer is that you don't get to rewrite science models that have survived the scrutiny of the scientific method. You should anticipate getting raked over the coals every time you try. tmiddles wrote:ITN is trying to pretend that emissivity cannot change which is of course dead wrong. Into the Night is not making this claim. You are simply assigning a bogus position to him that he does not have. However, I'm not inclined to offer you any clarification or explanation since you don't deserve any. Start answering questions ... starting with why a rational adult should believe your totally unsupported assumption that the earth's emissivity is somehow changing? ... *THEN* ... you can start addressing some of your other still unanswered questions: 1) What are the unambiguous definitions of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect that neither violate nor deny physics? [Status: Unanswered] 2) Why should any rational adult believe in either Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect? [Status: Unanswered] 3) How can I unambiguously demonstrate to my children thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? [Status: Unanswered] 4) How can I know the temperature of a large, unspecified volume, e.g. Denver, to within, say, 10degF with only one temperature measurement, e.g. the Denver airport? [Status: Unanswered] 5) What are the unambiguous definitions of "race," "negro," "black people," "white people," "brown people," "white supremacy," "white nationalsim," "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "black supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: Unanswered] 6) Is there an official list of races? [Status: Unanswered] - 6a) How do I determine my own race or that of my children? [Status: Unanswered] 7) Why should any rational adult believe that there is a problem of racism in the United States? [Status: Unanswered] 8) Why should law abiding citizens be rendered defenseless before rampant violent crime? [Status: Unanswered] 9) Where in the 1st Amendment is "hate" prohibited such that, if shown, a prosecutor can throw someone in jail for having had that emotion/thought? [Status: Unanswered] 10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface? [Status: Unanswered] 11) If we were to discover that Lisa Gherardini was actually a shitty person, would that justify Black Lives Matter storming the Louvre to destroy the Mona Lisa? [Status: Unanswered] 12) Why should we destroy artifacts and relics pertaining to history that we never want to forget or repeat? [Status: Unanswered] 13) The Aztecs committed genocide of many other tribes and practiced human sacrifice; should their artwork and artifacts be destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 14) Why would you or anyone pretend to be a judge of what history is to be revised or destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 15) In what substantive/meaningful way do the platforms of Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA ... differ? [Status: Unanswered] 16) Which type of wood are you claiming melts (assuming the proper temperature and pressure) ... and what is that specific temperature and pressure? [Status: Unanswered] tmiddles wrote:He is playing around with math vocab to confuse this. Nope. You are the one who is scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent. If you weren't you'd understand what he is saying. It's simple and straightforward ... and totally correct. You're just an ignorant loser who needs to blame others for his past head injuries. tmiddles wrote:You're aware that a black car is hotter than a white car right Duncan? You're aware that a black car in equilibrium is just as hot five minutes after you take a temperature reading (assuming no environmental factors have changed). That's a constant emissivity ... in action, as it were. |
| 27-01-2022 07:21 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:...the earth's emissivity... ANTIFA,.... A shiny steel ball rusts. The temperature increases. Nothing else has to change. There is no change in the sun's radiance, the distance to the sun or anything else. Yet the temperature increases. |
| 27-01-2022 08:44 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
tmiddles wrote:A shiny steel ball rusts. The temperature increases. The earth revolves around the sun and he earth's emissivity doesn't appear to change at all. tmiddles wrote: Nothing else has to change. There is no "else". Nothing has to change. tmiddles wrote:Yet the temperature increases. Nope, it does not. |
| 27-01-2022 08:51 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles wrote:Yet the temperature increases. So you claim that if a shiny steel ball rusts it will not reach a higher temperature, exposed to the same sunlight? |
| 27-01-2022 08:51 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles wrote:Yet the temperature increases. So you claim that if a shiny steel ball rusts it will not reach a higher temperature, exposed to the same sunlight? |
| 27-01-2022 08:55 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:tmiddles wrote:... RQAA. tmiddles wrote:duncan61 wrote: Emissivity is a measured constant. It is not a variable. tmiddles wrote: Inversion fallacy. YOU are doing this. tmiddles wrote: It isn't. tmiddles wrote: That's ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics in action. 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 |
| 27-01-2022 09:00 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...the earth's emissivity... ANTIFA,.... Steel doesn't rust by itself. tmiddles wrote: The temperature doesn't change. tmiddles wrote: And as a result, nothing has changed. tmiddles wrote: From what? 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 27-01-2022 09:01 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles wrote:Yet the temperature increases. Attempted proof by contrivance. Spamming across threads. 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 27-01-2022 09:07 |
| 27-01-2022 09:14 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14404) |
tmiddles wrote:So you claim that if a shiny steel ball rusts it will not reach a higher temperature, exposed to the same sunlight? So, you claim that the earth's emissivity is changing but you won't explain why rational adults should consider your babbling as anything more than mere lunatic raving? OK. |
| 27-01-2022 15:28 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles wrote:So you claim that if a shiny steel ball rusts it will not reach a higher temperature, exposed to the same sunlight? Are you claiming the Earth's emissivity does not or cannot change? How about you? Does your emissivity ever change? |
| 27-01-2022 17:11 | |
gfm7175 ★★★★★(3314) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles wrote:So you claim that if a shiny steel ball rusts it will not reach a higher temperature, exposed to the same sunlight? You are claiming that Earth's emissivity is changing. Why should any rational adult... heck... why should any rational CHILD believe that? Yes, even a child would know better... |
| 27-01-2022 20:00 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3058) |
The emissivity of a planet it determined by the nature of the planet's surface and the nature of its atmosphere. If the planet's atmosphere changes, the emissivity of the planet and its atmosphere changes. So says google. |
| 27-01-2022 23:59 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
gfm7175 wrote:Of course it is, all the time. Do you know what emissivity is GFM? It's simply how reflective something is to radiance. That's all. You yourself have a different emissivity depending on what you wear. The pathetic attempt to prevent debate here by IBD/ITN is to pretend emissivity does not change. (I have no clue where they got this, it's total BS). "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 |
| 28-01-2022 00:30 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
tmiddles wrote:gfm7175 wrote:Of course it is, all the time. ... and why should any rational adult believe this? tmiddles wrote: Back to being dishonest about the positions of others, I see... You haven't changed one bit since your hiatus. |
Join the debate Energy source: evaporation - condensation (continuation):
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| WHEN IS OPEN SOURCE AI NOT OPEN SOURCE AI? | 42 | 26-07-2023 02:56 |
| GENERATING ENTANGLED QUBITS AND QUDITS WITH FULLY ON-CHIP PHOTONIC QUANTUM SOURCE | 17 | 03-05-2023 23:06 |
| The source of energy is evaporation-condensation | 96 | 14-09-2022 18:30 |
| The Savior Last Gift: Will Reveal The Secret Of Life, The Source Of All Creation With Worthy Beings | 5 | 19-06-2021 02:49 |
| The Ultimate Purpose Of Living Is Know Who You Are & The Source Of All Creation | 7 | 13-06-2021 09:55 |