FATAL FLAWS

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > FATAL FLAWS

FATAL FLAWS30-04-2021 01:33
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient. No such claim was made.There is no extra energy.There is no extra heat.This is your interpretation of what was posted.My interpretation was The atmosphere does something to the energy coming in and out from the sun. .Gravity makes the atmosphere denser/thicker/fatter/bulkier insert correct word .This is the atmospheric thermal effect Thats it all the other stuff you have tacked on ATMOSPHERIC THERMAL EFFECT VS GREENHOUSE EFFECT 06.04.2012 A recent paper by Nikolov and Zeller and a accompanying document introduced the new concept of Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE). Like the Greenhouse Effect (GE), ATE describes why a celestial body with an atmosphere has a higher surface temperature than a celestial body without an atmosphere like the moon. The GE theory is based on the the Stefan-Boltzmann-Law, which suggests that the surface temperature of an airless Earth would be -18°C (255K). Given the actual mean surface temperature of 15°C (288K) this results in a Greenhouse Effect of 33K caused essentially by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, according to GE theory. In their paper Nikolov and Zeller clearly show that the Stefan-Boltzmann-Law (SB Law; Eq. (3) in their paper) has been (mathematically) incorrectly applied in the past and resulting from that, has drawn wrong conclusions about the Greenhouse Effect of 33K. According to their new ATE concept (Eq. (6) in their paper) as well as shown by current satellite temperature measurements of the entire moon as a proxy for an atmosphere-free Earth, the surface temperature of an airless Earth would be around 155K which is 100K lower than stated by the GE theory. This means that greenhouse gases would have to account for a temperature boost of 133K instead of 33K while ATE shows that this boost is due to the inner kinetic energy of the atmosphere, given by pressure and volume, according to the Ideal Gas Law. They summarize : "We have shown that the SB Law relating radiation intensity to temperature (Eq. 1 & 3) has been incorrectly applied in the past to predict mean surface temperatures of celestial bodies including Mars, Mercury, and the Moon. Due to Hölder's inequality between non-linear integrals, the effective emission temperature computed from Eq. (3) is always significantly higher than the actual (arithmetic) mean temperature of an airless planet. This makes the planetary emission temperature Te produced by Eq. (3) physically incompatible with any real measured temperatures on Earth's surface or in the atmosphere. By using a proper integration of the SB Law over a sphere, we derived a new formula (Eq. 6) for estimating the average temperature of a planetary gray body (subject to some assumptions). We then compared the Moon mean temperature predicted by this formula to recent thermal observations and detailed energy budget calculation of the lunar surface conducted by the NASA Diviner Radiometer Experiment. Results indicate that Moon's average temperature is likely very close to the estimate produced by our Eq. (6). At the same time, Moon measurements also show that the current estimate of 255K for the lunar average surface temperature widely used in climate science is unrealistically high; hence, further demonstrating the inadequacy of Eq. (3). The main result from the Earth-Moon comparison (assuming the Moon is a perfect gray-body proxy of Earth) is that the Earth's ATE, also known as natural Greenhouse Effect, is 3 to 7 times larger than currently assumed. In other words, the current GE theory underestimates the extra atmospheric warmth by about 100K! In terms of relative thermal enhancement, the ATE translates into NTE = 287.6/154.7 = 1.86. This finding invites the question: How could such a huge (> 80%) thermal enhancement be the result of a handful of IR-absorbing gases that collectively amount to less than 0.5% of total atmospheric mass? We recall from our earlier discussion that, according to observations, the atmosphere only absorbs 157 - 161 W/m2 long-wave radiation from the surface. Can this small flux increase the temperature of the lower troposphere by more than 100K compared to an airless environment? The answer obviously is that the observed temperature boost near the surface cannot be possibly due to that atmospheric IR absorption! Hence, the evidence suggests that the lower troposphere contains much more kinetic energy than radiative transfer alone can account for! The thermodynamics of the atmosphere is governed by the Gas Law, which states that the internal kinetic energy and temperature of a gas mixture is also a function of pressure (among other things, of course). In the case of an isobaric process, where pressure is constant and independent of temperature such as the one operating at the Earth surface, it is the physical force of atmospheric pressure that can only fully explain the observed near-surface thermal enhancement (NTE)." This is an essential finding which seriously questions GE and climate sensitivity. First thing I found.From this I get that everyone is guessing and no one actually knows lets do it one at a time.Duncan the Moronic liar duncan61
30-04-2021 02:45
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14448)	duncan61 wrote:No such claim was made. The claim was directly implied. A planetary average temperature increase was asserted. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. Ergo, additional energy is being claimed. Account for that additional energy or admit that Pete Rogers is wrong in claiming that his miraculous physics-defying ATE can somehow increase the earth's average temperature without additional energy. Fatal Flaw #1 remains intact. You cannot reconcile any fatal flaw by pretending that it isn't there. Address them all or they will not go away. duncan61 wrote: The atmosphere does something to the energy coming in and out from the sun. Irrelevant. The atmosphere is part of the earth. The earth absorbs a certain amount of energy from the sun and achieves a certain average equilibrium temperature. Like any other version of Greenhouse Effect, you try to subdivide the atomic unit (i.e. the "body" which is Earth in this case) and use sleight of hand to get everyone to focus attention on the atmosphere ... but the atmosphere is part of the earth and the focus needs to remain on the earth as a whole. Any result you claim that differs from what Black Body science says occurs to the earth as a whole needs to be reconciled. I will tell you what I tell every other Greenhouse Effect worshiper, i.e. I do not need to know "what happens in the atmosphere." It cannot somehow yield a different result regarding the earth's overall average equilibrium temperature. You might want to start taking notes when Black Body science is being discussed and then use what you learn as a basis for questioning Pete Rogers about the boolsch't he's using to fill your trough. duncan61 wrote: A recent paper by Nikolov and Zeller and a accompanying document introduced the new concept of Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE). Like the Greenhouse Effect (GE), ATE describes why a celestial body with an atmosphere has a higher surface temperature than a celestial body without an atmosphere like the moon. Sorry, no document can "describe" something that isn't true. The document pushes a BELIEF that isn't true. Someone who doesn't accept the false assumption upfront cannot ultimately believe the dogma being peddled. Obviously you're "all in" with the false assumption and thus a devout believer in the dogma. I pity you. duncan61 wrote: The GE theory is based on the the Stefan-Boltzmann-Law, Nope. Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann. Ergo, your ATE violates Stefan-Boltzmann ... but that's FATAL FLAW #6. duncan61 wrote: ... which suggests that the surface temperature of an airless Earth would be -18°C (255K). Incorrect. This is just total scientifically-illiterate, boneheaded stupidity. 1. Science predicts nature exactly and unambiguously. It is not a concierge who makes "suggestions." 2. One of the constants in Stefan-Boltzmann is Emissivity which is absolutely needed to perform a calculation yet is totally unknown to any useful accuracy for the earth. Ergo, there can be no science basis for claiming that the earth otherwise should be some other temperature. Someone reached deep into his azz for the schitt to make the statement you just regurgitated. How did it taste? duncan61 wrote: In their paper Nikolov and Zeller clearly show that the Stefan-Boltzmann-Law (SB Law; Eq. (3) in their paper) has been (mathematically) incorrectly applied in the past Science applies always, everywhere. There is no such thing as Stefan-Boltzmann being "incorrectly applied." It must be forthwith adhered always and everywhere or else you need to do some serious explaining. Man, you sure do gobble down the schitt without question ... nary a peep. Obviously this "paper" is summarily discarded along with Wikipedia. All of the FATAL FLAWS remain intact. All you've done instead of addressing the FATAL FLAWS is to regurgitate the FATAL FLAWS. This does not clear or reconcile any of the FATAL FLAWS but rather discards your opportunity to do so. If that's how you want it then fine, your ATE boolsch't is dismissed. I think we're done.
30-04-2021 16:36
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	That seals it for me. The Fatal Flaws remain regurgitated rather than addressed.
30-04-2021 19:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21624)	duncan61 wrote: 1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient. No such claim was made.There is no extra energy.There is no extra heat.This is your interpretation of what was posted.My interpretation was The atmosphere does something to the energy coming in and out from the sun. .Gravity makes the atmosphere denser/thicker/fatter/bulkier insert correct word .This is the atmospheric thermal effect Thats it all the other stuff you have tacked on ATMOSPHERIC THERMAL EFFECT VS GREENHOUSE EFFECT 06.04.2012 A recent paper by Nikolov and Zeller and a accompanying document introduced the new concept of Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE). Like the Greenhouse Effect (GE), ATE describes why a celestial body with an atmosphere has a higher surface temperature than a celestial body without an atmosphere like the moon. It doesn't. duncan61 wrote: The GE theory is based on the the Stefan-Boltzmann-Law, which suggests that the surface temperature of an airless Earth would be -18°C (255K). Given the actual mean surface temperature of 15°C (288K) this results in a Greenhouse Effect of 33K caused essentially by the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, according to GE theory. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown. They are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. [quote]duncan61 wrote: In their paper Nikolov and Zeller clearly show that the Stefan-Boltzmann-Law (SB Law; Eq. (3) in their paper) has been (mathematically) incorrectly applied in the past and resulting from that, has drawn wrong conclusions about the Greenhouse Effect of 33K. You can't change the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no term for a base rate. Base rate fallacy. duncan61 wrote: According to their new ATE concept (Eq. (6) in their paper) as well as shown by current satellite temperature measurements of the entire moon as a proxy for an atmosphere-free Earth, the surface temperature of an airless Earth would be around 155K which is 100K lower than stated by the GE theory. Base rate fallacy. The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown. The emissivity of the Moon is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. duncan61 wrote: This means that greenhouse gases would have to account for a temperature boost of 133K instead of 33K while ATE shows that this boost is due to the inner kinetic energy of the atmosphere, given by pressure and volume, according to the Ideal Gas Law. Nothing to account for. You do not have to account for random numbers of type randU. duncan61 wrote: They summarize : "We have shown that the SB Law relating radiation intensity to temperature (Eq. 1 & 3) has been incorrectly applied in the past to predict mean surface temperatures of celestial bodies including Mars, Mercury, and the Moon. Due to Hölder's inequality between non-linear integrals, the effective emission temperature computed from Eq. (3) is always significantly higher than the actual (arithmetic) mean temperature of an airless planet. Not possible to show. They are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again. There is no term for type of substance in that law. The temperature of any planet is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown. The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of Mars is unknown. The temperature of Mercury is unknown. duncan61 wrote: This makes the planetary emission temperature Te produced by Eq. (3) physically incompatible with any real measured temperatures on Earth's surface or in the atmosphere. Base rate fallacy. The temperature of Earth is unknown. There are no measured temperatures of Earth or any other planet, or of the Moon. duncan61 wrote: By using a proper integration of the SB Law over a sphere, The SB law has no term for the shape of the object. They are denying the SB law again. duncan61 wrote: we derived a new formula (Eq. 6) for estimating the average temperature of a planetary gray body (subject to some assumptions). Making shit up is making shit up. It's a fallacy. duncan61 wrote: We then compared the Moon mean temperature predicted by this formula to recent thermal observations and detailed energy budget calculation of the lunar surface conducted by the NASA Diviner Radiometer Experiment. The NASA Diviner Radiometer does not measure the temperature of the Moon. duncan61 wrote: Results indicate that Moon's average temperature is likely very close to the estimate produced by our Eq. (6). There are no results. They are pulling their 'estimate' out of their ass. duncan61 wrote: At the same time, Moon measurements also show that the current estimate of 255K for the lunar average surface temperature widely used in climate science is unrealistically high; There are no measurements of the Moon's temperature. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Moon. duncan61 wrote: hence, further demonstrating the inadequacy of Eq. (3). The main result from the Earth-Moon comparison (assuming the Moon is a perfect gray-body proxy of Earth) is that the Earth's ATE, also known as natural Greenhouse Effect, is 3 to 7 times larger than currently assumed. In other words, the current GE theory underestimates the extra atmospheric warmth by about 100K! In terms of relative thermal enhancement, the ATE translates into NTE = 287.6/154.7 = 1.86. Argument from randU fallacy. Base rate fallacy. duncan61 wrote: This finding invites the question: How could such a huge (> 80%) thermal enhancement be the result of a handful of IR-absorbing gases that collectively amount to less than 0.5% of total atmospheric mass? Void question. Argument from randU fallacy. Base rate fallacy. duncan61 wrote: We recall from our earlier discussion that, according to observations, the atmosphere only absorbs 157 - 161 W/m2 long-wave radiation from the surface. It doesn't. duncan61 wrote: Can this small flux increase the temperature of the lower troposphere by more than 100K compared to an airless environment? Argument from randU fallacy. Base rate fallacy. Void question. duncan61 wrote: The answer obviously is that the observed temperature boost near the surface cannot be possibly due to that atmospheric IR absorption! Hence, the evidence suggests that the lower troposphere contains much more kinetic energy than radiative transfer alone can account for! There is no answer to a void question. Temperature is not kinetic energy or total thermal energy. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. duncan61 wrote: The thermodynamics of the atmosphere is governed by the Gas Law, which states that the internal kinetic energy and temperature of a gas mixture is also a function of pressure (among other things, of course). The atmosphere is not being compressed. Denial of the ideal gas law. duncan61 wrote: In the case of an isobaric process, where pressure is constant and independent of temperature such as the one operating at the Earth surface, it is the physical force of atmospheric pressure that can only fully explain the observed near-surface thermal enhancement (NTE)." The atmosphere is not being compressed. Denial of the ideal gas law. Argument from randU fallacy. There is no 'thermal enhancement'. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. duncan61 wrote: This is an essential finding which seriously questions GE and climate sensitivity. There is no question about either. They are meaningless buzzwords. People that write papers like this are spewing religion, not science. Science is not papers, books, pamphlets, websites, peers, license, degree, university, government agency, academy, society, scientist or any group of scientists. 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
01-05-2021 03:07
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	You addressed none of the paper from Nikolov and Zeller. Your tirade of insults may work on others but you have done it so much now I am immune.Parents that constantly yell at their children will find the child stops caring very quickly. I would like to work through this yes or no .Is there gravity yes/no

01-05-2021 03:18
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	ITN we must of posted at the same time I did not see your response before.As usual you are dening everything without giving an explanation so I have a question for you.when we visited the moon through the Apollo missions did they take a thermometer?
01-05-2021 03:25
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: ITN we must of posted at the same time I did not see your response before.As usual you are dening everything without giving an explanation so I have a question for you.when we visited the moon through the Apollo missions did they take a thermometer? ITN is Native American. Like the blacks of Australia, there is no forgiveness (for the sake of this post). It allows for a very poor situation. Can indigenous people adapt? In their times, ships sailed no ocean. How to accommodate a people who do not support change? The movie "Whale Rider" about the Maori people of New Zealand asks this question. https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=Whale+Rider&docid=608047350637423001&mid=105A843C285C2F8ECE71105A843C285C2F8ECE71&view=detail&FORM=VIREHT And if you like this movie, do ingenious people matter? Edited on 01-05-2021 03:26
01-05-2021 05:13
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14448)	duncan61 wrote:You addressed none of the paper from Nikolov and Zeller. Yes. It was summarily dismissed for the reasons mentioned. Get an authoritative source that isn't preaching pure religion to the scientifically illiterate. Just because your scientifically illiterate mind totally takes in every physics violation and all meaningless gibber-babble does not mean others need to somehow afford ATE the same undeserved reverence. Your crap was dismissed. You, on the other hand, need to speak for yourself. You don't get to point to other people when you are the one on the carpet being asked to explain FATAL FLAWS in your affirmative argument. Once again, you do NOT get to point to what others say. They're not here participating in the conversation and they cannot be cross-examined to answer for their affirmative arguments. You don't get to divert attention away from what you are saying and from what you are asking others to believe. You know full well what the FATAL FLAWS are that you need to EXPLAIN: 1. ATE violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, it creates energy out of nothing. This is not explicitly stated but it is a direct implication because of the asserted temperature increase. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. Claiming ATE causes temperature to increase is equivalent to saying that ATE creates energy out of nothing. 2. Different tenses in English grammar are not the same. ATE is based on equating two different tenses. This should be an easy fix but your absolute REFUSAL to address this reveals the totality of your brainwashing and the full extent to which you are bent over furniture. 3. Despite all of the whining and complaining and crying like babies about how ATE is, in no way, related to Greenhouse Effect, to date neither you nor Pete Rogers has expressed a single, substantive difference between the 33C average global temperature increase caused by ATE and the 33C average global temperature increase caused by Greenhouse Effect, completely without additional energy in either case. Gee, I wonder why not? 4. Belief in ATE requires shifting between differing definitions of "heat." You can't even settle on a definition for your terms. 5. Flaw #1 above is the violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Flaw #5 is the violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, i.e. the claim that the atmosphere somehow heats the lithosphere and the aquasphere and not the other way around. Whoever invented this ATE crap went out of his way to so thoroughly violate physics that only the stupidest of dumbasses would fall for it. ATE is everything that is physically impossible. I await your explanation of this one. 6. This is the fatal flaw that violates Black Body science. Somehow ATE caused the earth's equilibrium temperature to spontaneously increase. I eagerly await your explanation of this one as well. duncan61 wrote: Your tirade of insults blah, blah, blah ... This is just another desperate attempt on your part to change the subject and to EVADE the direct, straightforward questions posed to you. It should be obvious to everyone by now that you are a mindless zombie who believes everything he is instructed to believe, who regurgitates exactly what he is instructed to regurgitate, who will not question his slavemasters in any way and who is prepared to be the most dishonest fúuúk that ever lived if that is what the situation calls for. fúuúk you, I hate liars. duncan61 wrote:I would like to work through this. Great! Let's start with #1 that has been languishing on the table due to your tireless EVASION: 1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient. ATE violates the 1st law of thermodynamics, it creates energy out of nothing. This is not explicitly stated but it is a direct implication because of the asserted temperature increase. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. Claiming ATE causes temperature to increase is equivalent to saying that ATE creates energy out of nothing. Since we are starting here and you are now determined to "work through this" we can tackle this issue and be well on our way to reconciling the FATAL FLAWS. The floor is yours.
01-05-2021 05:41
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14448)	duncan61 wrote: I have a question for you.when we visited the moon through the Apollo missions did they take a thermometer? Aaaah, the tmiddles question! Duncan, this is where you demonstrate total and complete mathematical incompetence. You are about to (attempt to) explain to Into the Night how a handful of temperature readings concentrated in one spot on the surface of the moon will somehow make the precise average lunar temperature "what we know." So go ahead. It will certainly prove very amusing since we know exactly how this conversation will go. Several of us on Climate-Debate have witnessed this exact line of reasoning several times and we know step-by-step how it will unfurl. We'll be entering phase II when you begin struggling with why "margin of error" is absolutely critical and must be established up front. You will descend further and further into denial as you find that you must insist that statistical math is totally superfluous and unnecessary. We will probably never reach phase III with your level of EVASION. Anyway, I have my popcorn, soda and my front row seat. Please commence at your earliest convenience.
01-05-2021 08:52
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	ITN wrote The atmosphere is not being compressed. Denial of the ideal gas law. Argument from randU fallacy. There is no 'thermal enhancement'. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. What makes the atmosphere denser at ground level than at 10,000 feet?
01-05-2021 09:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14448)	duncan61 wrote:What makes the atmosphere denser at ground level than at 10,000 feet? Does this question of yours address any of the FATAL FLAWS in any way? No. It does not. You are pushing the tired narrative that your detractors are claiming that there is no gravity acting on the atmosphere. I haven't seen anyone make that claim. All I see is you continuing to violate FATAL FLAW #2 by showing that you don't grasp this whole idea of having different tenses for verbs. Gravity is not compressing the atmosphere in the present progressive. You are well aware that the atmosphere's volume is NOT changing in the present progressive. Your insistence that it is is pure dishonesty on your part because you are an incorrigible liar. So, yes, you are still perpetuating FATAL FLAW #2 as a deflection for your REFUSAL to address the six FATAL FLAWS of your WACKY religious faith. Stick to the FATAL FLAWS. In case you missed the links a few lines up, here is a link to the FATAL FLAWS. ... and here's another link to the FATAL FLAWS For your convenience, here are those six FATAL FLAWS: Fatal Flaws in the WACKY ATE dogma: 1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient. 2. English tenses are conflated. The contradictory dogma insists that something that has happened, and that is no longer happening (i.e. the present perfect), is nonetheless still happening (i.e. the present progressive). This is an irreconcilable contradiction. The dogma acknowledges that the atmosphere's volume is not changing at the present moment but nonetheless insists that the atmosphere is compressing at the present moment. This atmospheric compression, which ceased long ago, is attributed as still occurring and is claimed to be responsible for the wondrous physics violations mentioned in point #1 above. 3. The dogma is simply Greenhouse Effect repackaged under different names and terms. Yes, the cause is different, i.e. gravity vs. CO2, but the end result, i.e. the effect is one and the same. The dogma insists that earth's average global temperature ultimately increases without additional energy, exactly as the standard Greenhouse Effect dogma. The dogma is based upon a fictitious (read non-existent) reality in which the earth would be an ice ball were it not for the fictitious (read non-existent) violation of physics performed by this version of Greenhouse Effect making the earth warmer than it otherwise should be. 4. The dogma is based entirely upon semantics-shifting between different definitions of "heat" ... as convenient. The dogma breaks down entirely if the word "heat" is required to correctly mean the flow of thermal energy between two bodies of matter. As it stands, the dogma treats heat as something that is "contained" and heat is not something that can ever be contained. 5. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. The backwards dogma gets it backwards and directly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the process. 6. The dogma insists the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course this is neither explained nor justified ... and it needs to be because currently it stands as a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.
01-05-2021 10:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21624)	duncan61 wrote: You addressed none of the paper from Nikolov and Zeller. Yes I have, liar. duncan61 wrote: Your tirade of insults may work on others but you have done it so much now I am immune. I am not insulting anyone. duncan61 wrote: Parents that constantly yell at their children will find the child stops caring very quickly. I am not yelling at anyone nor am I your parent nor are you my child. duncan61 wrote: I would like to work through this yes or no Lie. duncan61 wrote: Is there gravity yes/no The atmosphere is not being compressed. 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
01-05-2021 10:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21624)	duncan61 wrote: ITN we must of posted at the same time I did not see your response before.As usual you are dening everything without giving an explanation I have already explained. RQAA. duncan61 wrote: so I have a question for you.when we visited the moon through the Apollo missions did they take a thermometer? One or a few thermometers is not enough to measure the temperature of the Moon. Math errors. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to use unbiased data. 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
01-05-2021 10:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21624)	duncan61 wrote: ITN wrote The atmosphere is not being compressed. That is correct. The atmosphere is not being compressed. duncan61 wrote: Denial of the ideal gas law. Correct. You are denying the ideal gas law. duncan61 wrote: Argument from randU fallacy. Correct. You are making up numbers and trying to use them as 'data'. duncan61 wrote: There is no 'thermal enhancement'. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Correct. You are trying to create energy out of nothing. duncan61 wrote: What makes the atmosphere denser at ground level than at 10,000 feet? Gravity is not energy. The Atmosphere is not being compressed. Density it not compression. 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
02-05-2021 03:10
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I have made no claim to know the average temperature of the Earth or the moon however from measurements taken we can see that the moon has a larger temperature swing than the Earth and its probably due to the Earth having a different Atmosphere.Its called the Atmospheric thermal effect.The Alarmists claim the tiny bit of manmade CO2 is changing the ATE.It may be but the amount is miniscule.Thats it the rest you have made up in your mind.I am going to start my last thread and say goodbye.

02-05-2021 04:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14448)	duncan61 wrote:I have made no claim to know the average temperature of the Earth or the moon That isn't one of the FATAL FLAWS you need to address. You continue to NOT reconcile flaws that are noted while you pretend to reconcile flaws that are NOT noted. No one is claiming that there is no gravity. No one is claiming that your temperature for the earth is incorrect. What is noted is the following list: FATAL FLAWS in the ATE dogma: 1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient. 2. English tenses are conflated. The contradictory dogma insists that something that has happened, and that is no longer happening (i.e. the present perfect), is nonetheless still happening (i.e. the present progressive). This is an irreconcilable contradiction. The dogma acknowledges that the atmosphere's volume is not changing at the present moment but nonetheless insists that the atmosphere is compressing at the present moment. This atmospheric compression, which ceased long ago, is attributed as still occurring and is claimed to be responsible for the wondrous physics violations mentioned in point #1 above. 3. The dogma is simply Greenhouse Effect repackaged under different names and terms. Yes, the cause is different, i.e. gravity vs. CO2, but the end result, i.e. the effect is one and the same. The dogma insists that earth's average global temperature ultimately increases without additional energy, exactly as the standard Greenhouse Effect dogma. The dogma is based upon a fictitious (read non-existent) reality in which the earth would be an ice ball were it not for the fictitious (read non-existent) violation of physics performed by this version of Greenhouse Effect making the earth warmer than it otherwise should be. 4. The dogma is based entirely upon semantics-shifting between different definitions of "heat" ... as convenient. The dogma breaks down entirely if the word "heat" is required to correctly mean the flow of thermal energy between two bodies of matter. As it stands, the dogma treats heat as something that is "contained" and heat is not something that can ever be contained. 5. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. The backwards dogma gets it backwards and directly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the process. 6. The dogma insists the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course this is neither explained nor justified ... and it needs to be because currently it stands as a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann. Of course, you REFUSE to address them because they reveal the total crap nature of your WACKY religious beliefs. I hope you realize that you have to be totally gullible and STUPID to fall for a religious dogma that is just a version of Greenhouse Effect that insists Greenhouse Effect is FALSE while telling you that science violations occur in accordance with the laws of science. Yes, you have to be exceedingly gullible and STUPID. duncan61 wrote:Its called the Atmospheric thermal effect. Nope. You know full well that ATE is a 33C increase in the earth's average global temperature ... and you are going to explain to everyone on this board how that doesn't violate physics and is totally thettled thienth because you totally understand it to the point that it makes perfect sense. The floor is yours. duncan61 wrote: The Alarmists claim ... You need to break this habit of automatically switching to some OTHER affirmative argument that you are not making, or to what other people are claiming. Stay on the topic of ATE and its 33C increase in Earth's average global temperature. How does ATE cause Earth to spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. That seems to violate the 1st law of thermodynamics. I'm waiting for an explanation ... and I'm not the only one. duncan61 wrote:I am going to start my last thread and say goodbye. ... as your ultimate act of EVASION? You would rather leave than be honest? OK. Have it your way. I'm glad to see you leave then. Good riddance. Go join tmiddles for a beer. You won't be missed.
02-05-2021 10:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21624)	duncan61 wrote: I have made no claim to know the average temperature of the Earth or the moon however from measurements taken we can see that the moon has a larger temperature swing than the Earth and its probably due to the Earth having a different Atmosphere. Paradox. duncan61 wrote: Its called the Atmospheric thermal effect.The Alarmists claim the tiny bit of manmade CO2 is changing the ATE.It may be but the amount is miniscule.Thats it the rest you have made up in your mind.I am going to start my last thread and say goodbye. Denial of history. Argument of the Stick fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate FATAL FLAWS:

Threads	Replies	Last post
The Big Flaws, Loophole, The End Of The Current Digital Cryptocurrency System 1.0 Is Here	2	13-11-2021 07:58
The Flaws Of The Current Global Financial & Government System	0	05-01-2021 04:41
Koppen Flaws/Mistakes?	3	27-02-2019 20:43
Berkley Earth Temperature Analysis - possible flaws ?	9	07-02-2014 23:51