Remember me
▼ Content

GLACIAL CLIMATE REBOUNDING



Page 2 of 2<12
06-09-2019 11:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
and your made up rules

I didn't make them up.

Then ________? Where did they come from???

You always fail to do the obvious sane thing and answer the what then.

Because you have a losing hand you just never put it on the table.

Into the Night wrote:
Irrelevant. When are you going to show an example of heating a warmer object with a colder one?

Where did that come from? IBD's refrain, which he refuses to explain is: "thermal radiation from a cooler body being absorbed by a warmer body?" and I've of course done that here:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference--d10-e2769-s160.php

Trying to pull a fast one there ITN or just sloppy?

"Heating" implies that a colder body could raise the temperature of a warmer body. Not possible. There is the accepted 2nd LTD which I do follow. Me being the text book guy that I am.

heat·ed, heat·ing, heats
v.tr.
3. Physics To increase the heat energy of (an object).

While the cooler bodies radiance is absorbed by the warmer body it loses more than it gains so the thermal energy drops.

So using the world "heating" is vague. I have been clear:
Radiance from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer one.
06-09-2019 18:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
and your made up rules

I didn't make them up.

Then ________? Where did they come from???

I'm not going to type the history of any theory here. It would take too long. Go look them up yourself.
tmiddles wrote:
You always fail to do the obvious sane thing and answer the what then.

I did answer it. I told you where to look, liar.
tmiddles wrote:
Because you have a losing hand you just never put it on the table.

This isn't poker, dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Irrelevant. When are you going to show an example of heating a warmer object with a colder one?

Where did that come from?

You, or rather, not yet from you.
tmiddles wrote:
IBD's refrain, which he refuses to explain is: "thermal radiation from a cooler body being absorbed by a warmer body?" and I've of course done that here:
https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference--d10-e2769-s160.php

No, you haven't.
tmiddles wrote:
Trying to pull a fast one there ITN or just sloppy?

Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
"Heating" implies that a colder body could raise the temperature of a warmer body.

That's right.
tmiddles wrote:
Not possible.

But you say it is. Which is it, dude?
tmiddles wrote:
There is the accepted 2nd LTD which I do follow.

You are locked in paradox now. Which is it?
tmiddles wrote:
Me being the text book guy that I am.

You are locked in paradox. You aren't a textbook guy, liar.
tmiddles wrote:
heat·ed, heat·ing, heats
v.tr.
3. Physics To increase the heat energy of (an object).

While the cooler bodies radiance is absorbed by the warmer body it loses more than it gains so the thermal energy drops.

So using the world "heating" is vague. I have been clear:
Radiance from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer one.

Not vague at all. You would have known that had you actually read a physics textbook, liar.

* You can't heat a warmer object with a cooler one.


The Parrot Killer
07-09-2019 03:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Where did they come from???
Go look them up yourself.

Where? According to you no textbook can be trusted. You say "look them up". In what? Where? How? Who?

The mystery of mysteries.

Into the Night wrote:I told you where to look, liar.

Ah and the classic "I posted that before but can't be bothered to quote it" in the long winded indiscriminately quoted ramble.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
"Heating" implies that a colder body could raise the temperature of a warmer body.
That's right.

And in net radiantion the hotter object still has a falling temperature though it does absorb the radiance from the cooler object (giving more than it gets). You know this even if you don't believe it so don't play games:
tmiddles wrote:(click to see EXAMPLE 1.13):
University Physics Volume 2
Stefan-Boltzmann equation needs only slight refinement to deal with...absorption of radiation from its surroundings.P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)


Into the Night wrote:You would have known that had you actually read a physics textbook,

Is there a physics textbook you recommend as being reliable? : D
Edited on 07-09-2019 03:10
07-09-2019 03:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Where did they come from???
Go look them up yourself.

Where? According to you no textbook can be trusted. You say "look them up". In what? Where? How? Who?

The mystery of mysteries.

Into the Night wrote:I told you where to look, liar.

Ah and the classic "I posted that before but can't be bothered to quote it" in the long winded indiscriminately quoted ramble.

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
"Heating" implies that a colder body could raise the temperature of a warmer body.
That's right.

And in net radiantion the hotter object still has a falling temperature though it does absorb the radiance from the cooler object (giving more than it gets). You know this even if you don't believe it so don't play games:
tmiddles wrote:(click to see EXAMPLE 1.13):
University Physics Volume 2
Stefan-Boltzmann equation needs only slight refinement to deal with...absorption of radiation from its surroundings.P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)


Into the Night wrote:You would have known that had you actually read a physics textbook,

Is there a physics textbook you recommend as being reliable? : D


All of your questions have been answered before. Repetition fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.

* You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one.


The Parrot Killer
07-09-2019 03:36
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
Into the Night wrote:
All of your questions have been answered before.

Nope. You're batting zero. You haven't answered a single one and you lie every-time you claim there is some post from earlier you can't be bothered to quote.

Full of it Fallacy
07-09-2019 04:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
tmiddles wrote: You're batting zero.

Ever since you became desperate for a victory (the telltale
sign that preaching your religious convictions is your agenda) and desperately needed Into the Night and I to just be wrong about something ... anything at all ... you have tried to turn this into a competition with all sorts of sports/games metaphors ... of course with you as the umpire/referee/statistician/judge/arbiter/sports commentator.

I notice, however, that you haven't been able to get out of the starting gate with the ball in your court. It should have been a slam dunk but you fumbled on the kickoff. Now you're getting points deducted for grabbing the cage when everyone was hoping you'd hit it out of the park.

Anyway, at the weigh-in you were too light by one repeatable instance of a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The bout has been postponed until you make weight.

tmiddles wrote:You haven't answered a single one and you lie every-time you claim there is some post from earlier you can't be bothered to quote.

Your laziness is not his fault.

tmiddles wrote:Full of it Fallacy

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-09-2019 05:51
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:you became desperate for a victory

You and ITN remain utterly defeated. TKO ! : https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference--d10-e2769-s160.php

IBdaMann wrote:your agenda) and desperately needed

You always stoop to psycho babble insults. But being dead wrong that's all you got.

Still no response from either of you to:

Name a credible text book?

Look up the 2nd LTD where?

Where did you learn about it?

How are you not freezing to death right now?
07-09-2019 08:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:you became desperate for a victory

You and ITN remain utterly defeated. TKO ! : https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference--d10-e2769-s160.php

IBdaMann wrote:your agenda) and desperately needed

You always stoop to psycho babble insults. But being dead wrong that's all you got.

Still no response from either of you to:

Name a credible text book?

Look up the 2nd LTD where?

Where did you learn about it?

How are you not freezing to death right now?

Repetitious questions that have already been answered.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 07-09-2019 08:53
07-09-2019 11:23
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
Into the Night wrote:questions that have already been answered.

Lies. The king of quoting indiscriminately can't quote what he claims exists.
07-09-2019 19:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:questions that have already been answered.

Lies. The king of quoting indiscriminately can't quote what he claims exists.

Meanwhile the king of firebrand preaching can't cite one repeatable instance of what he claims occurs naturally.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
07-09-2019 20:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:questions that have already been answered.

Lies. The king of quoting indiscriminately can't quote what he claims exists.


Contextomy fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
07-09-2019 23:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:
one repeatable instance

Right here buddy: net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Someone in a room isn't repeatable you say? Hmmmm.
Full of it Fallacy
08-09-2019 09:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
one repeatable instance

Right here buddy: net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Someone in a room isn't repeatable you say? Hmmmm.
Full of it Fallacy


Contextomy fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
08-09-2019 22:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
one repeatable instance

Right here buddy: net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference
Someone in a room isn't repeatable you say? Hmmmm.
Full of it Fallacy

Contextomy fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.

What? Which of those words is a buzzword? "Room"? And how is the context off?

Full context:
IBdaMann wrote:
Meanwhile the king of firebrand preaching can't cite one repeatable instance of what he claims occurs naturally.

So both of those "fallacys" don't apply at all.
08-09-2019 23:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
one repeatable instance

Right here buddy: net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference
Someone in a room isn't repeatable you say? Hmmmm.
Full of it Fallacy

Contextomy fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.

What? Which of those words is a buzzword? "Room"? And how is the context off?

Full context:
IBdaMann wrote:
Meanwhile the king of firebrand preaching can't cite one repeatable instance of what he claims occurs naturally.

So both of those "fallacys" don't apply at all.

Contextomy fallacy. Redirection fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
09-09-2019 11:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
tmiddles wrote:
What? Which of those words is a buzzword? "Room"? And how is the context off?


Unanswered.
09-09-2019 19:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
What? Which of those words is a buzzword? "Room"? And how is the context off?


Unanswered.


Obvious. Contextomy fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
09-09-2019 22:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
What? Which of those words is a buzzword? "Room"? And how is the context off?

Unanswered.

Stll

ITN can't even clarify his own objections
09-09-2019 22:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
What? Which of those words is a buzzword? "Room"? And how is the context off?

Unanswered.

Stll

ITN can't even clarify his own objections


Already have, dumbass. YALIF.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-09-2019 22:26
09-09-2019 22:49
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
Into the Night wrote:
Already have,...
No you just lie and say you've said things but that you can't be bothered to quote them.
10-09-2019 02:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Already have,...
No you just lie and say you've said things but that you can't be bothered to quote them.

Lie.


The Parrot Killer
10-09-2019 02:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
Into the Night wrote:
Lie.

I've proven you lie. Try proving I do.
10-09-2019 02:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Lie.

I've proven you lie. Try proving I do.


Lie.

Don't need to. Anyone can go look up your posts and see for themselves.


The Parrot Killer
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate GLACIAL CLIMATE REBOUNDING:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
What caused Pleistocene to start around 2 million years ago which had periodic glacial interglacial perio3205-02-2019 22:29
Greenland's Glacial Melt2404-09-2017 19:45
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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