Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is not anthropogenic



Page 4 of 9<<<23456>>>
11-08-2020 01:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
DRKTS wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: The scientific definition of a closed system (as used in thermodynamics): "a region that is isolated from its surroundings by a boundary that admits no transfer of matter or energy across it."

The definition of a "closed system" is determined by the speaker. There is no person, organization or institution that owns science. I fully realize that you believe Wikipedia owns science ... and that's why you spew error-filled crap.

When I speak/write, I use my defintion and you are welcome to translate my terms into your terms.

The earth is a closed system if the speaker frames the context as such. You probably sucked at math word problems.

.


Just as you cannot have your own facts, you do not control the meaning of words, that is defined by the dictionary and in scientific issues definitions are precise and universal.

You have nothing constructive to say about anything.


Semantics fallacy. Inversion fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. No argument presented. Redefinition fallacies. Buzzword 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
Edited on 11-08-2020 01:24
11-08-2020 01:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
DRKTS wrote:You have nothing constructive to say about anything.

You are projecting. You are a sniveling whiner who has never contributed anything of value on this board. I doubt you have contributed anything of value anywhere else either owing to your lack of education and to the ease with which scam artists manipulate you.




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
14-08-2020 21:07
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: That you think open-mindedness is characteristic of Salesmen and the Clergy puzzles me.

Learn to read. I said that for the Salesman and Clergyman to succeed they need customers/congregations to have open minds, not that they themselves had open minds.

Pete Rogers. If you check you should find that every priest's congregation is a collection of the closed-minded. Open-minded people ask questions so they soon reject what the Priest says when he can't answer them. The congregations come from the closed-minded people who; not having an enquiring mind: just believe what they are told. They are gullible.

Open-minded people will buy things from salesmen, but only when the salesman's claims about his product are borne out. Salesmen of poor value products will concentrate on the same gullibility that the Priest does.

Pete Rogers wrote:Science can only be successfully undertaken by the open-minded.

Science can only advance where there is doubting and questioning. The scientific method can only be correctly applied by a doubter and a questioner, and science can only advance if the scientific method is correctly applied.

Pete Rogers. Of course, and it is open-mindedness that makes sure we remain ready to listen to alternatives, but they will be rejected if they do not withstand examination, that is the scientific method. It is more formally that of epistemology.

Pete Rogers wrote:I have no problem with anyone expressing doubts.

You have a problem with every single one of mine. You selectively filter them out. This is why you are no smarter today than when you first proposed your truly stupid religious dogma. It's almost as if you are taking pride in the extent to which you refuse to learning anything.

Pete Rogers. No. I simply reject ideas that do not stand examination, therefore in the absence of support for what you say, it can't stand.

Pete Rogers wrote:I assess what they tell me impartially and either endorse or reject it strictly in accordance with the rules of reason.



Pete Rogers wrote:First I will take your point 1.

Ahhh, numerical order, a truly classic approach that always gets the job done.

Pete Rogers. What is the point you are making please?

Pete Rogers wrote: You say "There is no such thing as the GE" but provide no reason for saying so

Yes I did. Religions are not real. Religious dogma is not real ... and now your selective filtering is kicking in, these words are starting to fade ... and now this section of the screen looks blank. Done. It's like none of this was ever said.

Pete Rogers. It is not Religion to say that certain atmospheric gases intercept IR, but correct Science.
It is bad Science; however, to go on to say that this interception of IR can be shown to have a thermal consequence, and if bad science is preached it is religion and to be rejected as all other such fancies.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... and the reflection, deflection and absorption of the measure of IR affected is the mechanism of the GE.

Nope ... not by any Greenhouse Effect that has ever been unambiguously defined ... because Greenhouse Effect is just a WACKY, unfalsifiable religious dogma that has never been unambiguously defined for that reason ... just like your Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement. It remains equally undefined unambiguously in any way that doesn't violate physics because it too is WACKY religious dogma. As predicted, your selective filtering is kicking in, these words are starting to fade ... and now this section of the screen looks blank. Done. It's like none of the above was ever said.

Pete Rogers. As previously stated certain Gases Intercept IR, but it doesn't lead to warming. The warming effect produced by the presence of our atmosphere is due to concentration of heat energy due to loss of volume to compression caused by gravity.

Pete Rogers wrote: The matter in dispute is not whether this happens,

Yes it is. The undefined is always presumed to not happen. Look up Occam's Razor.

Pete Rogers. I have to disagree again because it is an empirical fact that some gases intercept IR. William of Occam cannot help you.

Pete Rogers wrote: IPCC say ..

IPCC, Vatican, Citizen's Climate Lobby, Communist Party USA, ... no one cares what any of them have to say unless one is interested in religious dogma.

Pete Rogers. Well we should care enough and be very interested in exposing all liars and not let the dogmatic (the closed-minded) close our mouths.

Pete Rogers wrote:By all means feel free to come back if you believe you can falsify the particulars of what I have just said

All religions are unfalsifiable, including yours. No one can show your religion to be false any more than anyone can show that Christianity is false. It's the nature of religions.

Pete Rogers. I have given a purely scientific argument and submitted it for falsification. To do that you must show that its particulars are incorrect. Here is a particular which I would like you to falsify using evidence.

"If the atmosphere were under low pressure it would be much larger. The mass would be the same so it would contain the same total heat energy, but the larger volume would mean less heat energy per unit volume, therefore it would be much cooler. accordingly gravity causes the temperature to rise and we call this the ATE."

Simple declarations are of no use in the process of falsification.

All religions are falsifiable its just that the closed-minded who believe in them are happy to believe the impossible rather than upset Authority and their fellows- alas. They are a flock to follow the shepherd and will surely get fleeced. We should nevertheless attempt to wake them up in my view.

Pete Rogers wrote:Perhaps I can clear up a further misunderstanding. The force of gravity – being permanent – causes all inflow of heat into the base of the compressed atmosphere to be concentrated so that the temperature increases.

Again, you omit inclusion of where this provides increased cooling ... ooops, selective filtering just kicked in again ... this whole portion ... gone. Whew! That was close. It almost stuck. We dodged a bullet there.

Pete Rogers. Thats a bit of a misunderstanding to say the very least of it. All heat flow systems with finite inputs will reach equilirium when the output reaches parity. It is difficult to make out any kind of point from you here as your words seem more like playground taunts than anything resembling reasoned argument.

Pete Rogers wrote: It is a fluid process whereby gravity compressing a continuous heat inflow causes continuous enhancement which transfers back to the Earth's surface continually causing IR emission to increase until the system is brought into equilibrium at the newly enhanced temperature. All we experience is the equilibrium position and this heightening of temperature is known as the ATE.

All of this is a classic Climate Change "feedback loop." Into the Night has been caught sleeping on the job when he should have been the emergency first responder explaining the problematic runaway effects of perpetual motion machines. We're going to have to ding him on that one.

Either your ATE keeps generating more and more energy until the earth goes up in flames in short order ... or it does nothing. Would you care to guess which one is correct?

Pete Rogers. With finite inputs and increased IR emission from the surface due to the warming caused by gravity; which is just a constant input as is solar: an enhanced equilibrium temperature is reached.

Pete Rogers wrote:I am pleased now to deal with your point 2.

Yessssss!

Pete Rogers wrote: I will look impartially at your objections and either thank you for correcting me or, if they are not adequate, tell you exactly why they aren't, but bald statements will not be considered.

Please don't be offended but I don't consider you up to the level necesssary to critique my work. But thank you for the offer. It was very thoughtful.

Pete Rogers. Since you offer nothing but declarations it is hard to see what work you mean. Whether you are a person qualified to judge the level of knowhow of another is certainly not evident from anything said here.

Pete Rogers wrote:The Second Law requires that heat flows from the warmer to the cooler body

... that thermal energy flows from matter of higher temperature to matter of lower temperature.

Pete Rogers. Precisely, therefore the elevated temperature must be conducted back to the surface.

The more you rely on the word "heat" the more you advertise that you don't know what you are talking about. Seriously, you might find it more convenient to rent a billboard "I DON'T KNOW WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT!"

Pete Rogers. This is just more playground shouting as there is nothing here said to support the meaning.

Pete Rogers wrote: Anyone who says that his belief is not opinion, but knowledge, must go through the same epistemological process to show it.

You should have been all over tmiddles then, like flies on schitt. I'm going to hold you to this.

Pete Rogers. What is this stuff called schitt of which you are so fond?


Pete Rogers wrote: You refer to Holmes, Nikolov and Zeller as "high priests of his faith" whereas I do not run on faith, but epistemology.

You operate on religious dogma. You deny science outright. Oops, selective filtering again ... gone.

Pete Rogers. What you have been given is Science, so please provide corroboration of the statement about religious dogma.

Pete Rogers wrote: Personally I would say that which can be shown to be fact should stand for truth

"Showing something to be fact" means to convince all parties participating in the discussion to accept it as TRUE ... which means everyone will accept it as TRUE. Yes?

Pete Rogers. No, only if it is epistemologically established and all parties are in accord. What you are talking about includes rhetorical truth where you "convince" people by brow-beating. That is rejected by any scientific process aimed at seeking the facts out.

Pete Rogers wrote:If you argue that there is no such thing as truth we must wonder what you would base your system of justice on.

Bad news. It has been mathematically proven that the truth cannot be known. Every logical system is incomplete ... and that includes systems with infinite predicates. Our finite brains can only handle finite systems. We can't know the truth, even presuming it exists. Doesn't that just make your Wheaties go soggy?

Pete Rogers. That is purest navel-gazing. Since there is no truth according to your belief, then nobody can speak "the truth , the whole truth and nothing but the truth" so every killer should be set free in your world. The words also mean that what you are yourself saying is not true and that seems to be the most importand point so far made.

Pete Rogers wrote:That accepted science will eventually be overtaken by a superior finding certainly can't be ruled out,

There is no such thing as "accepted science." Nor is there "mainstream science," "conventional science" or even "scientific consensus." There is only "science" whether any given individual accepts it or not.

Pete Rogers. More declaration and no substance. It is not true; accordingly:that you will be getting up in the morning if able for the freseeable future, so why do you bother?


Pete Rogers wrote: When a gas body expands it is doing work and that work dissipates energy and the temperature falls.

Stop. Now you need to explain what you believe you mean by "dissipates energy." Are you implying a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics because the energy is destroyed into nothing, thus reducing the temperature? ... or are you saying that the thermal energy merely flows out of it, thus increasing the temperature of other matter? Please be specific.

Pete Rogers. It means the energy per unit volume of the gas body is lessened. The energy is conserved, but the gas body is bigger so the temperasture is less. It is basic Fluid Dynamics.

Pete Rogers wrote: When a body of gas is compressed by Gravity instead then it is performing negative work which is simply the reverse; energy accumulates accordingly and the temperature rises.

The only way for energy to "accumulate" in this scenario is for energy to be created out of nothing and then "accumulate." Otherwise you make no sense. The same fixed quantity of energy cannot be "accumulating."

Pete Rogers. It just means there is more heat energy per unit volume. The energy remains the same, but the volume does not, so the temperature rises. It is basic Fluid Dynamics.

So your dogma assumes that gravity is a magical force that magically creates energy out of nothing and that ATE is the accumulation of the created energy ... whereas "negative work" is the destruction of energy into nothing that lowers temperature. Got it.

Pete Rogers. It is not a dogmatic point if you look. I put the particular concerning this to you further up, so I will wait to see how you falsify it - if indeed you do any more than make further unsupported assertions.

Violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics all around. #

Pete Rogers. No, and you should know that by now.

Pete Rogers wrote:Gas; and gas alone: can convert the Force of Gravity into heat-energy leading to temperature rise in this way.

I figured as much.

I have bad news for you. This is the exact same problem with Greenhouse Effect, i.e. the creation of energy out of nothing in violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Your ATE is GE in disguise. There's no substantive difference between them.

Pete Rogers. It is not the creation of energy, it is its concentration. If the same heat energy occupies a smaller space it will cause the temperature to rise - that's all. Gravity does this.

Pete Rogers wrote: Work can be either positive or negative: if the force has a component in the same direction as the displacement of the object, the force is doing positive work. If the force has a component in the direction opposite to the displacement, the force does negative work.

This is what I asked you the first time I asked you about this. This is subtracting work from other work.

Pete Rogers. What is your point please?

Pete Rogers wrote: Throwing terms around like "intentionally dishonest" does you no favours.

I'll be sure to keep that in mind when I start asking for favors. I'm sorry, "favours."

Pete Rogers. I'm talking about you doing yourself no favours, no need to ask for them in thst case.

Your intentional dishonesty occurs when you decide to disregard corrections to your errors as if they were never mentioned. You decide to do it. It is intentional. Don't pretend to tell me that "intentional" and "dishonesty" somehow mean other things. And tell your country to drop the unnecessary "u" because you don't do yourselves any "favours" by cluttering up the page.

Pete Rogers. More kid's stuff? Where were any disregarded corrections explained? I am proud to dismiss anything unexplained. Just making statements without support seems to be your limit, but you should be aiming higher.

Pete Rogers wrote: I rely on others expressing their doubts, but it must be cogently done

Nope. Any doubter gets to express his doubts any flipping way he wants to express them ... and you will like it ... or else you will simply be dismissed.

Pete Rogers. Of course he can, but we just don't mistake that for science. Which is what should be going on here, but is lacking.

At the moment I have simply dismissed your WACKY religious dogma that egregiously violates the first law of thermodynamics. I'll be happy to consider future revisions but I don't need to wait for your critique of my critique. In fact, you can save yourself some time and just fuggetaboutit.

Very Scientific I must say!! Did you get that from Newton?

.
15-08-2020 18:50
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
DRKTS wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Any and all bodies of gas - our own atmosphere included - undergo thermal enhancement when compressed because the heat energy contained within them consequently occupies a reduced volume so there being more heat per cubic metre causes the temperature to rise. Our own atmosphere undergoes compression at around 10 tonnes per square metre at the surface which comfortably explains the ATE leaving nothing for the GE to account for so CO2 is of no consequence, including our 3% of it.


You have been listening to nonsense about planetary temperatures and their atmospheric pressures by Steven Goddard (or is it Tony Heller today?) or one of his disciples of deception. They are tricking you.

The act of compressing a gas heats because you are doing work on it. The amount of work you do (i.e., the more you pump) translates directly to the temperature increase. Stop pumping and it soon cools back down to ambient temperatures.

Leave it at the higher pressure and it does not stay warm (otherwise your car tyres would be permanently hot).

There is no pumping action on the atmosphere. Yes, the pressure changes but as often goes down (cools) as it goes up (warms). Net effect zero.

Pete Rogers.
I see another genius has descended amongst us that we be graced by his wisdom. I am extremely grateful that he has spared the time to put us straight - let's see.

I wonder if he is aware that the degree of Compression a gas body is under dictates the extent to which the heat energy contained in the gas occupies a lesser volume than it otherwise would, so the heat energy - which is thereby conserved incidentally - is accordingly more per unit volume thus sending the temperature up.

Of course our genius's motor tyres will cool down after all his strenuous efforts in heating them up (well done him) because the heat causing the elevated temperature must be conducted away into the cooler surroundings as required by the 2nd Law. The atmosphere, however; and I am hoping that one of such eminence has noticed this: has no surroundings into which the elevated temperature can be conducted under the 2nd or any other Law because there is only vacuum. The atmosphere is therefore what we call "an adiabatic gas body". Accordingly the enhanced temperature developed by the loss of volume is returned to the Earth's surface; being the only exit for it under the 2nd Law: thus warming it and raising the outgoing IR emission as a consequence until an enhanced equilibrium temperature is reached. The increase thereby acheived is known as the ATE (Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement). The state of compression (auto-compression to be precise) is permanent so that the temperature effect of the inflowing heat energy is permanently caused to be enhancement in proportion to the diminution in volume it would otherwise have occupied being reduced by gravitational compression. What we experience is the resultant equilibrium. Even one such as I; so much less gifted than he: is able to follow this, but in case it is all baloney after all let us first wait for his friendly and erudite correction.


Your 3% figure for CO2 is wrong - it more like 50%. Where you have been misled is that we add about 3% per year. As the years pass the CO2 level builds up because we are adding extra each year.

Pete Rogers.
Here are the figures according to the Unversity of West Virginia. By all means dispute them - but being gifted as you are you will already be aware that it is necessary to provide sound reasons for doing so. Not just throwing declarations and accusations around like some others in this thread have so much fun with.

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html

Considering that termites account for many times as much CO2 emission as the whole of Mankind (and his animals, industries etc.) you're going to have a tough time getting to your 50%, but since you knoew best it behoves me to await your sage advice with respectful interest.

Here is some evidence for you to expose as untrue using your exceptional knowledge.

"Termites produce more CO2 each year than all living things combined
December 20, 2014 by Robert
Termite and Carbon Dioxide (CO2) Facts:

Scientists have calculated that termites alone produce ten times as much carbon dioxide as all the fossil fuels burned in the whole world in a year.

Pound for pound, the weight of all the termites in the world is greater than the total weight of humans.

Scientists estimate that, worldwide, termites may release over 150 million tons of methane gas into the atmosphere annually. In our lower atmosphere this methane then reacts to form carbon dioxide and ozone.

It is estimated that for every human on Earth there may be 1000 pounds of termites.

On the average Termites expel gas composed of about 59% nitrogen, 21% hydrogen, 9% carbon dioxide, 7% methane, and 4% oxygen.

It is thought "There are 2,600 different species of termites, and it is estimated that there are at least a million billion individual termites on Earth, that they emit two and four percent of the global carbon dioxide and methane budget, respectively-both mediated directly or indirectly by their microbes.

http://termitedetector.com/detection.cfm

Thanks to E Stephens for this link"

Both sides of the dispute accept that mankind accounts for 3% of all CO2 emitted, so your Nobel Prize awaits once you prove it to be so that we are all wrong except for you.



Some falsely tell you that an atmospheric gas cannot heat the planet. They base their arguments on the fallacy that the heating mechanism that the gas itself become hot and the thermal capacity of the gas is too small to hold enough heat to warm the oceans and land. That is true but the fallacy comes in that this in not the heating mechanism.

Pete Rogers.
I refer you to my earlier explanation. Reduction in the volume of an adiabatic gas body causes temperature increase. It is so severe an effect that large bodies produce millions of degrees of thermal enhancement; under nothing but auto-copression: leading to the creation of Stars. It is called the Kelvin Helmholz Effect, but because our Atmosphere is a comparatively small gas body the resultant temperature increase from the action of its own weight (auto-compression) in its case only leads to this modest enhancement - the ATE as we know it.


What actually happens is the extra GHGs and aerosols change the Earth's energy balance by trapping more heat energy (IR). They act like an additional blanket. The thicker the blanket the more it warms. The blanket on your bed does not get hot and warm you (unless it is electric!) it just inhibits the heat loss from your body making you warmer. That is what the GHGs and aerosols are doing for the Earth to warm up.


Pete Rogers
Alas! your genius may have let you down just a wee tad here. The atmosphere does not act like a blanket because blankets stop heat loss by preventing convection. All that happens in the atmosphere is that certain molecules reflect a small amout of IR with no thermal consequence having been empirically shown. There is no obstruction to the convection flows as though it were acting as a blanket - no siree.

The idea of this kind of thread is to test the proposed argument. It is not a matter of triumph and defeat to any grown up mind. We all benefit from a deeper understanding at the end of the epistrmological process sought, so let's tone it down and forget the point-scoring nonsense hereafter.
15-08-2020 20:44
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers. I am indeed saying that any change in global temperature; you put it at 0.9K here: is due to changes in net insolation.

There is no such thing as 'net insolation'. The temperature of the Earth is unknown.

Pete Rogers.
Net insolation is the difference between that reaching the earth and that reflected back, so what you are saying is not very sensible. The temperature of every planet is known within reasonable error margins including that of the Earth.


Pete Rogers wrote:
I completely agree with you that the thermal results of the interplay between the many varying factors that affect them (solar output, degree of eccentricity of our orbit, degree of obliquity of our axis, state of precession of our axis, extent of ice, snow and cloud cover (accounting for most of the Albedo Effect) etc.) are beyond our powers to predict.

The usual buzzword gobbledegook.

Peter Rogers.
There is no justification provided for this statement, so it is not admissible as dialectic.


Pete Rogers wrote:
I don't think we need to go any further than the Laws of Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics to rule out any thermal contribution from the GE.

You deny them both.

Peter Rogers.
There is no justification provided for this statement, so it is not admissible as dialectic.


Pete Rogers wrote:
The extraordinary nature of gas bodies, including our atmosphere; in being compressible:

You cannot warm a gas with static pressure. Mantra 20n.

Pete Rogers.
It cannot be otherwise for an adiabatic gas body in an energy flow system.


Pete Rogers wrote:
have their temperatures raised when under pressure - without exception.

Lie. You cannot warm a gas with static pressure. You are denying the ideal gas law again. Mantra 20n.

Pete Rogers.
It is not up to you or me to warm anything, it is simple fluid dynamics that heat energy flowing from a non-compressed to a compressed medium will cause temperature enhancement in direct proportion to the volume of the compressible medium lost to the degree of compression undergone


Pete Rogers wrote:
This compressibility causes gravity to do the negative work of reducing volume and so increasing heat content per unit volume and therefore temperature- thus accounting for the ATE.

Gravity is not work. Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Static pressure does not increase temperature. There is no such thing as ATE. The temperature of the Earth is unknown.

Pete Rogers.
Gases are unique in being elastic which means they are compressed even by their own weight (autocompression). This property therefore increases the heat energy contained per unit volume. It is a flow continuum, not a one off left alone to cool - the heat sources are always on. It is a minor example of part of the Kelvin Helmholz effect whereby the enhancemnt is so extreme in the caseof large gas bodies reaching the millions of degrees at which Stars are created.The atmosphere is relatively small so the heating effect is limited - fortunately.


No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Repetition. Buzzwords.


Pete Rogers.
Without corroboration this statement is of no assistance and the argument should be pretty clear by now anyway.
15-08-2020 22:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
Pete Rogers wrote: Without corroboration this statement is of no assistance ...

The statement needs no corroboration. It stands on its own merits.

Pete Rogers wrote:...and the argument should be pretty clear by now anyway.
[/quote]
Right, you should have made some sort of clear argument by now but instead all you have done is regurgitate religious dogma that is not supported by any science.

For how long do you intend to try to violate the 1st law of thermodynamics?

For how long do you intend to try to convince people that matter somehow spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy?

There is no such thing as The Greenhouse Effect ... even if you call it Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement.

.


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
16-08-2020 14:12
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: Without corroboration this statement is of no assistance ...

The statement needs no corroboration. It stands on its own merits.


Pete Rogers.What merits? You do not reveal them, so your comment is of no value in examinimng the original question before us. All statements require corroboration in order to be taken seriously.

Pete Rogers wrote:...and the argument should be pretty clear by now anyway.

Right, you should have made some sort of clear argument by now but instead all you have done is regurgitate religious dogma that is not supported by any science.


Pete Rogers. The argument is clear because all the particulars and reasons for them were set down at the outset, being
1)That certain wavelengths of IR have been shown to be intercepted by the atmosphere.
2) IPCC Claim this leads to warming because the presence of our atmosphere increases the planetary temperature (the ATE) and they force it upon us through their reports that the GE is the only possible explanation for this ATE.
3) The temperature of all gas bodies is increased when the body is in a state of compression.
4) The pressure at the base of the atmosphere is 1tonne per Sq Metre causing severe volume reduction.
5) In line with the conservation of energy that must be maintained, the heat energy per cubic metre of the compressed; and therefore less capacious: atmosphere is increased and it is this that explains the ATE. The GE is zero K.
6) In accordance with the 2nd Law the ATE is transferred to the Surface leading to warming until increased IR emissions bring the system into equilibrium at a higher temperature.
7) Accordingly CO2 has nothing to do with Global Warming so neither do we.

whereas you have simply declared your objection without evidence to show why any of this is to be rejected - that is the dogmatic basis of religion and it is you who are resorting to it - alas - not I.

For how long do you intend to try to violate the 1st law of thermodynamics?


Pete Rogers. Please review the initiating argument that this thread is supposed to deal with and you will easily see that there is no infringement of Thermodynamics. If you think otherwise you must give your evidence or your statement has no effect on or relevance to the enquiry.

For how long do you intend to try to convince people that matter somehow spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy?


Pete Rogers. I made no such claim. If you think otherwise then please show me where I did. If you cannot do that it means your words carry no meaning in that case and must be set aside for that reason according to epistemological requirements. Examination of the Theory put at the outset will continue, but it is necessarily restricted to proper explanatory contributions. The Scientific Method requires this and that is what I intend to follow. If you disagree please provide reasons, not just throw around empty accusations and declarations as heretofore.

There is no such thing as The Greenhouse Effect ... even if you call it Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement.


Pete Rogers. The bit in the supposed GE theory about interception of IR is empirically true, but there is no thermal implication - it doesn't cause warming - so the Theory is a false theory. The enhancement of Earth's Temperature due to the presence of its atmosphere is because the elastic nature of the medium; being a gas body: causes the heat energy (some believe at 255K) to occupy a reduced volume by compression but still contains the same total heat energy in accordance with the 1st Law causing the heat energy per unit volume to be greater than if the body were less compressed, so the temperature is increased and transferred back to the surface in accordance with the 2nd Law. As the surface is warmed so the IT emissions increase until a higher euilibrium temperature is reached, the difference between this and the supposed 255K being the ATE.
16-08-2020 15:28
DRKTS
★★☆☆☆
(304)
Pete Rogers wrote:
The argument is clear because all the particulars and reasons for them were set down at the outset, being

1)That certain wavelengths of IR have been shown to be intercepted by the atmosphere.


Correct

2) IPCC Claim this leads to warming because the presence of our atmosphere increases the planetary temperature (the ATE) and they force it upon us through their reports that the GE is the only possible explanation for this ATE.


Wrong - the IPCC considers all potential sources of planetary heating and cooling, quantifies them and rules out most of them in playing a significant role in GW.

3) The temperature of all gas bodies is increased when the body is in a state of compression.


Misstated. It should read "The temperature of all gas bodies is increased when the body is in a state of BEING compressed" i.e., work is being done on it. Stop working and the heating stops and it cools down. Your bicycle tyres don't remain hot forever after you inflate them, yet they remain compressed.

4) The pressure at the base of the atmosphere is 1tonne per Sq Metre causing severe volume reduction.


Causing a volume reduction of what? The volume of the atmosphere at its base is constant unless the Earth is expanding or contracting. You meant say an increase in density, I assume.

PV=nRT you can change the pressure at constant T by adjusting the density/volume ratio. You have 4 variables P,V, n, and T, you can change any three of them without affecting the fourth.

5) In line with the conservation of energy that must be maintained, the heat energy per cubic metre of the compressed; and therefore less capacious: atmosphere is increased and it is this that explains the ATE. The GE is zero K.


This makes zero sense. Please explain more clearly

6) In accordance with the 2nd Law the ATE is transferred to the Surface leading to warming until increased IR emissions bring the system into equilibrium at a higher temperature.


The thermal capacity of the air is insufficient to heat anything. The air temperature is a reflection of the energy transferred from the surface (land or ocean) to the atmosphere, not the other way round.

7) Accordingly CO2 has nothing to do with Global Warming so neither do we.


Another break in the logic train here, in fact it was just derailed. (1) states that CO2 is interfering with the energy balance of the Earth's atmosphere by absorbing and scattering outgoing IR. IR is how the Earth sheds the Sun's heat absorbed in the oceans and land. Interrupt that cooling outflow and temperatures increases. This is HS physics.
16-08-2020 15:39
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(573)
What happens when the wind blows
16-08-2020 18:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: Without corroboration this statement is of no assistance ...

The statement needs no corroboration. It stands on its own merits.


Pete Rogers.What merits? You do not reveal them, so your comment is of no value in examinimng the original question before us. All statements require corroboration in order to be taken seriously.

Pete Rogers wrote:...and the argument should be pretty clear by now anyway.

Right, you should have made some sort of clear argument by now but instead all you have done is regurgitate religious dogma that is not supported by any science.


Pete Rogers. The argument is clear because all the particulars and reasons for them were set down at the outset, being
1)That certain wavelengths of IR have been shown to be intercepted by the atmosphere.

Absorption of surface IR does not warm the Earth. You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
Pete Rogers wrote:
2) IPCC Claim this leads to warming because the presence of our atmosphere increases the planetary temperature (the ATE) and they force it upon us through their reports that the GE is the only possible explanation for this ATE.

Static pressure does not warm the Earth. You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law.
Pete Rogers wrote:
3) The temperature of all gas bodies is increased when the body is in a state of compression.

WRONG. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law.
Pete Rogers wrote:
4) The pressure at the base of the atmosphere is 1tonne per Sq Metre causing severe volume reduction.

It is not being reduced. Static pressure is not dynamic pressure change.
Pete Rogers wrote:
5) In line with the conservation of energy that must be maintained, the heat energy per cubic metre of the compressed; and therefore less capacious: atmosphere is increased and it is this that explains the ATE. The GE is zero K.

There is no such thing as ATE. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics again and the ideal gas law.
Pete Rogers wrote:
6) In accordance with the 2nd Law the ATE is transferred to the Surface leading to warming

The atmosphere is colder than the surface. You are denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
until increased IR emissions bring the system into equilibrium at a higher temperature.

There is no sequence. You are again violating the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
7) Accordingly CO2 has nothing to do with Global Warming so neither do we.

Define 'global warming'.
Pete Rogers wrote:
whereas you have simply declared your objection without evidence to show why any of this is to be rejected -

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics doesn't need evidence.
Pete Rogers wrote:
that is the dogmatic basis of religion and it is you who are resorting to it - alas - not I.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is denying science and math here.
Pete Rogers wrote:
For how long do you intend to try to violate the 1st law of thermodynamics?

Pete Rogers. Please review the initiating argument that this thread is supposed to deal with and you will easily see that there is no infringement of Thermodynamics.

Lie. Mantras 20a1...20a2...20n.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you think otherwise you must give your evidence

RQAA.
Pete Rogers wrote:
or your statement has no effect on or relevance to the enquiry.

RQAA.
Pete Rogers wrote:
For how long do you intend to try to convince people that matter somehow spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy?

Pete Rogers. I made no such claim.

You made EXACTLY that claim, liar. You are making it again in this last post of yours!
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you think otherwise then please show me where I did.

This last post of yours. Most of your other posts. RQAA. Denial of self.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you cannot do that it means your words carry no meaning in that case and must be set aside for that reason according to epistemological requirements.

RQAA.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Examination of the Theory

There is no Theory of ATE. You must define 'global warming' first. No theory can be based on a void argument.
Pete Rogers wrote:
put at the outset will continue,

You can't continue a theory that never was.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but it is necessarily restricted to proper explanatory contributions.

Theories have no restrictions, other than that they must be valid explanatory arguments. No theory, scientific or otherwise, can be based on a fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The Scientific Method

Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Pete Rogers wrote:
requires this and that is what I intend to follow.

You are not following anything but the Church of Global Warming. You are denying science. You are denying mathematics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you disagree please provide reasons,

RQAA.
Pete Rogers wrote:
not just throw around empty accusations and declarations as heretofore.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, which you deny, and the ideal gas law, which you deny, are not empty accusations and declarations.
Pete Rogers wrote:
There is no such thing as The Greenhouse Effect ... even if you call it Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement.

Pete Rogers. The bit in the supposed GE theory about interception of IR is empirically true, but there is no thermal implication - it doesn't cause warming - so the Theory is a false theory.

No theory. You must define 'global warming' first.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The enhancement of Earth's Temperature

The Earth's temperature is unknown. Define 'global warming'.
Pete Rogers wrote:
due to the presence of its atmosphere is because the elastic nature of the medium; being a gas body: causes the heat energy (some believe at 255K) to occupy a reduced volume by compression but still contains the same total heat energy in accordance with the 1st Law causing the heat energy per unit volume to be greater than if the body were less compressed, so the temperature is increased and transferred back to the surface in accordance with the 2nd Law.

You are again denying the 1st law of thermodynamics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the ideal gas law. Static pressure is not dynamic pressure changes.
Pete Rogers wrote:
As the surface is warmed so the IT emissions increase until a higher euilibrium temperature is reached, the difference between this and the supposed 255K being the ATE.

There is no sequence. There is no such thing as ATE. Define 'global warming'.

No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Buzzwords. Use of void argument as proof. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
16-08-2020 18:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
DRKTS wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
The argument is clear because all the particulars and reasons for them were set down at the outset, being

1)That certain wavelengths of IR have been shown to be intercepted by the atmosphere.


Correct

2) IPCC Claim this leads to warming because the presence of our atmosphere increases the planetary temperature (the ATE) and they force it upon us through their reports that the GE is the only possible explanation for this ATE.


Wrong - the IPCC considers all potential sources of planetary heating and cooling, quantifies them and rules out most of them in playing a significant role in GW.

Define 'global warming'. No gas or vapor is capable of creating energy out of nothing. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics. All substances emit light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The atmosphere too.
DRKTS wrote:
3) The temperature of all gas bodies is increased when the body is in a state of compression.


Misstated. It should read "The temperature of all gas bodies is increased when the body is in a state of BEING compressed" i.e., work is being done on it. Stop working and the heating stops and it cools down. Your bicycle tyres don't remain hot forever after you inflate them, yet they remain compressed.
DRKTS wrote:
[quote]4) The pressure at the base of the atmosphere is 1tonne per Sq Metre causing severe volume reduction.


Causing a volume reduction of what? The volume of the atmosphere at its base is constant unless the Earth is expanding or contracting. You meant say an increase in density, I assume.

PV=nRT you can change the pressure at constant T by adjusting the density/volume ratio. You have 4 variables P,V, n, and T, you can change any three of them without affecting the fourth.

5) In line with the conservation of energy that must be maintained, the heat energy per cubic metre of the compressed; and therefore less capacious: atmosphere is increased and it is this that explains the ATE. The GE is zero K.


This makes zero sense. Please explain more clearly

6) In accordance with the 2nd Law the ATE is transferred to the Surface leading to warming until increased IR emissions bring the system into equilibrium at a higher temperature.


The thermal capacity of the air is insufficient to heat anything. The air temperature is a reflection of the energy transferred from the surface (land or ocean) to the atmosphere, not the other way round.

7) Accordingly CO2 has nothing to do with Global Warming so neither do we.


Another break in the logic train here, in fact it was just derailed. (1) states that CO2 is interfering with the energy balance of the Earth's atmosphere by absorbing and scattering outgoing IR. IR is how the Earth sheds the Sun's heat absorbed in the oceans and land. Interrupt that cooling outflow and temperatures increases. This is HS physics.

High schools don't teach physics.
You are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics again. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. You cannot decrease entropy in any system.

You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.


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
16-08-2020 22:45
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
DRKTS wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
The argument is clear because all the particulars and reasons for them were set down at the outset, being

1)That certain wavelengths of IR have been shown to be intercepted by the atmosphere.


Correct

2) IPCC Claim this leads to warming because the presence of our atmosphere increases the planetary temperature (the ATE) and they force it upon us through their reports that the GE is the only possible explanation for this ATE.


Wrong - the IPCC considers all potential sources of planetary heating and cooling, quantifies them and rules out most of them in playing a significant role in GW.


Pete Rogers
Hi DRKTS, thanks for including reasons, they are proving to be a rare commodity in this thread despite being indispensible to any scientific enquiry. I expect you to rebut my response here with reasons if you think it inadequate, which is exactly what you have done. According to IPCC the only significant cause of the alleged 33K ATE is the GE and I think we afgree on that don't we? The consistency with which IPCC conclude that there is no other realistic cause of the ATE than the GE means that your statement here does not falsify my point it seems to me. I look forward to your conclusion.


3) The temperature of all gas bodies is increased when the body is in a state of compression.


Misstated. It should read "The temperature of all gas bodies is increased when the body is in a state of BEING compressed" i.e., work is being done on it. Stop working and the heating stops and it cools down. Your bicycle tyres don't remain hot forever after you inflate them, yet they remain compressed.

Pete Rogers.
In talking about all gas bodies I confess I was meaning astronomical ones, so this is my mistake and you are correct accordingly in what you say about bike tyres etc.. The cooling of them is because they are not adiabatic, however, and therefore have surroundings to conduct their enhanced temperature into and being contained within tyre walls the gas conducts heat to them, and being composed of solids they not only conduct the heat onwards into the cooler surroundings, but also radiate it. The atmosphere and other astronomocal gas bodies are, however, adiabatic - meaning they have no material surroundings only vacuum - so they cannot transfer their heat like a bike tyre or pump. The only way they can dischasrge the heat is by conduction to the planet which then radiates IR. Unlike pumping a bike tyre the planetary warming effect is a flow continuum so we just experience the equilibrium arrived at as the IR warms the surface (to 255K allegedly) which transfers continually into the atmosphere where gravity continually forces it into the compressed medium of the Atmosphere at its base, the temperature enhancement thus acheived being transferred to the surface thus increasing the IR emission level thus acheiving the enhanced equilibrium temperature we enjoy. An illustrative - rather than fully scientific analogy would be a slow flowing river entering a narrows. The narrows concentrates the flow permanently speeding incoming water up in the same way gravity constricts the space that heat energy can occupy - permanently. Unless you can turn gravity down, or the river banks ping back after first being narrowed there will be no cooling - or reduction in flow speed in the latter case.


4) The pressure at the base of the atmosphere is 1tonne per Sq Metre causing severe volume reduction.


Causing a volume reduction of what? The volume of the atmosphere at its base is constant unless the Earth is expanding or contracting. You meant say an increase in density, I assume.

Pete Rogers.
It causes a reduction in the volume of each and every layer within the Troposphere, no matter how thick or thin. At the base of the Atmosphere you have this great pressure which means the gases are more condensed there than they would be if the pressure had been less. It means you have the heat energy increased for each and every unit volume, causing unavoidable temperature enhancement.


PV=nRT you can change the pressure at constant T by adjusting the density/volume ratio. You have 4 variables P,V, n, and T, you can change any three of them without affecting the fourth.

Pete Rogers.
We don't get to adjust anything, we have no power to do that. It is a natural result of confining the heat energy - which energy must be entirely conserved in line with the Laws of Thermodynamics - in a smaller volume thus increasing the temperature. The clincher for me is that if the atmosphere were at a lower pressure it would be bigger whilst being of unchanged mass so the heat energy contained therein would be the same meaning that there would be much less heat energy in every cubic metre of the troposphere because there would be so many more cubic metres to share it with, so Gravity warms the atmosphere which warms the planet.


5) In line with the conservation of energy that must be maintained, the heat energy per cubic metre of the compressed; and therefore less capacious: atmosphere is increased and it is this that explains the ATE. The GE is zero K.


This makes zero sense. Please explain more clearly

Pete Rogers.
Sure - sorry if I failed to clarify properly. Whether under low or high pressure the adiabatic gas body cannot change the amount of energy contained within it, so if the volume is reduced the same heat energy is divided amongst fewer cubic metres meaning that there is more of it in each so the temperature rises. This is what accounts for the ATE so the GE is of no thermal consequence.


6) In accordance with the 2nd Law the ATE is transferred to the Surface leading to warming until increased IR emissions bring the system into equilibrium at a higher temperature.


The thermal capacity of the air is insufficient to heat anything. The air temperature is a reflection of the energy transferred from the surface (land or ocean) to the atmosphere, not the other way round.

Pete Rogers.
That's not exactly the process if you will forgive me for so observing to that effect. What happens is the result of a continuum not of a step by step effect, but there are separate phases combined within that continuous process informing us of the underlying physics we are witnessing throughout. First solar radiation comes through the troposphere to whose gases it is invisible and on which it therefore has no thermal effect, some of the UV is reflected back out to space by clouds. Second, the UV strikes the solid/liquid planet with some being reflected back into space from Ice-caps and Snowfields etc.. The rest strikes the ground or water and heats it. The amount of heat-energy - the net insolation warms the planet, which conducts heat from the uncompressible surface to the atmosphere with which it is in contact, but whose state of compression concentrates the heat energy more than a lower pressure example would do. The temperature is thereby enhanced and the excess heat passed back to the surface in accordance with the 2nd Law. This enhances the planetary temperature which is brought into equilibrium by increased IR Emission.If you have further objections, or if my clarification is deficient as far as you are concerned, please let me know.


7) Accordingly CO2 has nothing to do with Global Warming so neither do we.


Another break in the logic train here, in fact it was just derailed. (1) states that CO2 is interfering with the energy balance of the Earth's atmosphere by absorbing and scattering outgoing IR. IR is how the Earth sheds the Sun's heat absorbed in the oceans and land. Interrupt that cooling outflow and temperatures increases. This is HS physics.


Pete Rogers.
That is incorrect if you will permit me to explain. 1) says only that there are GG's that intercept a margin of IR. It does not say that the process
amounts to interference with the energy balance to any real extent. We discover; to the contrary: that this interference has no thermal consequence as the evidence for this - the ATE - is actually accounted for by gravity performing the negative work of reducing the volume of the atmosphere. The idea that there is sufficient interference to do anything to temperature is thus falsified. We might add; purely for academic interest: that IR is emitted at ambient temperature, so when it is reflected back it strikes the Earth cooler than it left. This is not a warming effect. Since some gases are opaque to IR, as we all agree, then those molecules receive heat, but being opaque, will release it as IR at a signature frequency. With the exception of the cooler reflected IR striking the surface, the rest disappears at the speed of light, with some of this frequency transformation u;pon impact with GG's. Please let me know if you disagree.
17-08-2020 00:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Pete Rogers wrote:
That is incorrect if you will permit me to explain. 1) says only that there are GG's that intercept a margin of IR. It does not say that the process
amounts to interference with the energy balance to any real extent. We discover; to the contrary: that this interference has no thermal consequence as the evidence for this - the ATE - is actually accounted for by gravity performing the negative work of reducing the volume of the atmosphere. The idea that there is sufficient interference to do anything to temperature is thus falsified. We might add; purely for academic interest: that IR is emitted at ambient temperature, so when it is reflected back it strikes the Earth cooler than it left. This is not a warming effect. Since some gases are opaque to IR, as we all agree, then those molecules receive heat, but being opaque, will release it as IR at a signature frequency. With the exception of the cooler reflected IR striking the surface, the rest disappears at the speed of light, with some of this frequency transformation u;pon impact with GG's. Please let me know if you disagree.


You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still denying the 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law.


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
17-08-2020 11:53
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(573)
ITN I have to ask.There are some interesting theories getting around that have a glimmer of logic.Is your go to move to just deny everything or do you have a working knowledge of why the day is usually warmer than the night.I doubt it is convected heat energy as that is a long way to travel so what does warm the Planet.I did live in Portsmouth England one March and it was 3 degrees for weeks day and night.I ended up leaving and going back to Australia early
17-08-2020 16:48
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
That is incorrect if you will permit me to explain. 1) says only that there are GG's that intercept a margin of IR. It does not say that the process
amounts to interference with the energy balance to any real extent. We discover; to the contrary: that this interference has no thermal consequence as the evidence for this - the ATE - is actually accounted for by gravity performing the negative work of reducing the volume of the atmosphere. The idea that there is sufficient interference to do anything to temperature is thus falsified. We might add; purely for academic interest: that IR is emitted at ambient temperature, so when it is reflected back it strikes the Earth cooler than it left. This is not a warming effect. Since some gases are opaque to IR, as we all agree, then those molecules receive heat, but being opaque, will release it as IR at a signature frequency. With the exception of the cooler reflected IR striking the surface, the rest disappears at the speed of light, with some of this frequency transformation u;pon impact with GG's. Please let me know if you disagree.


You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still denying the 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law.


Pete Rogers replies 17/8
Steady soldier - consider all the facts before announcing your conclusion, or you may jump to the wrong one.

Additional Energy comes from the action of Gravity performing the negative work of volume reduction (autocompression) on the atmosphere. This process cannot be avoided because of the compressible nature of gases - and of all gases and of gases alone apart from a minor extent to liquids under enormous force. Accordingly autocompression has the unavoidable consequence of confining the heat energy (conserved within the gas body in accordance with the 1st law - not in contravention of it) within a severely reduced volume, so since - and I repeat - the amount of heat energy contained within the gas body cannot change (1st Law) what do you suppose happens to the temperature when there is this increase in heat content per unit volume of the now smaller medium containing it?

Please bear in mind that interstellar gas bodies have their volumes so reduced by their own autocompression that the temperature can shoot up to the millions or billions of degrees necessary for Star Formation - all in accordance with the 1st law - this is part of the Kelvin-Helmholz Effect. Neither is the Gas Law transgressed for that matter.

If you still think something is wrong or incomplete about this explanation, please let me know.
17-08-2020 17:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
duncan61 wrote:
ITN I have to ask.There are some interesting theories getting around that have a glimmer of logic.Is your go to move to just deny everything or do you have a working knowledge of why the day is usually warmer than the night.I doubt it is convected heat energy as that is a long way to travel so what does warm the Planet.I did live in Portsmouth England one March and it was 3 degrees for weeks day and night.I ended up leaving and going back to Australia early


The daytime side of the Earth is heated by radiant heating from the Sun.

What theories are you referring to?


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
17-08-2020 17:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
That is incorrect if you will permit me to explain. 1) says only that there are GG's that intercept a margin of IR. It does not say that the process
amounts to interference with the energy balance to any real extent. We discover; to the contrary: that this interference has no thermal consequence as the evidence for this - the ATE - is actually accounted for by gravity performing the negative work of reducing the volume of the atmosphere. The idea that there is sufficient interference to do anything to temperature is thus falsified. We might add; purely for academic interest: that IR is emitted at ambient temperature, so when it is reflected back it strikes the Earth cooler than it left. This is not a warming effect. Since some gases are opaque to IR, as we all agree, then those molecules receive heat, but being opaque, will release it as IR at a signature frequency. With the exception of the cooler reflected IR striking the surface, the rest disappears at the speed of light, with some of this frequency transformation u;pon impact with GG's. Please let me know if you disagree.


You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still denying the 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law.


Steady soldier - consider all the facts before announcing your conclusion, or you may jump to the wrong one.

Not facts. Fallacious arguments.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Additional Energy comes from the action of Gravity performing the negative work of volume reduction (autocompression) on the atmosphere.

Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
Pete Rogers wrote:
This process cannot be avoided because of the compressible nature of gases - and of all gases and of gases alone apart from a minor extent to liquids under enormous force. Accordingly autocompression has the unavoidable consequence of confining the heat energy (conserved within the gas body in accordance with the 1st law - not in contravention of it) within a severely reduced volume, so since - and I repeat - the amount of heat energy contained within the gas body cannot change (1st Law) what do you suppose happens to the temperature when there is this increase in heat content per unit volume of the now smaller medium containing it?

Static pressure does not heat gases. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law again.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Please bear in mind that interstellar gas bodies have their volumes so reduced by their own autocompression that the temperature can shoot up to the millions or billions of degrees necessary for Star Formation - all in accordance with the 1st law - this is part of the Kelvin-Helmholz Effect. Neither is the Gas Law transgressed for that matter.

Nope. There is open space between the Sun and the Earth. You cannot heat the Earth by conduction or convection from the Sun.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you still think something is wrong or incomplete about this explanation, please let me know.

Already did. RQAA.

No argument presented. Argument by repetition. Denial of science. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
17-08-2020 18:00
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: Without corroboration this statement is of no assistance ...

The statement needs no corroboration. It stands on its own merits.


Pete Rogers.What merits? You do not reveal them, so your comment is of no value in examinimng the original question before us. All statements require corroboration in order to be taken seriously.

Pete Rogers wrote:...and the argument should be pretty clear by now anyway.

Right, you should have made some sort of clear argument by now but instead all you have done is regurgitate religious dogma that is not supported by any science.


Pete Rogers. The argument is clear because all the particulars and reasons for them were set down at the outset, being
1)That certain wavelengths of IR have been shown to be intercepted by the atmosphere.

Absorption of surface IR does not warm the Earth. You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Pete Rogers replied 17/8
From 20 below you ought to notice that I am saying precisely that intercepting IR has no warming effect - please read more carefully. So your comment about violating the 1st law is false accordigly


Pete Rogers wrote:
2) IPCC Claim this leads to warming because the presence of our atmosphere increases the planetary temperature (the ATE) and they force it upon us through their reports that the GE is the only possible explanation for this ATE.

Static pressure does not warm the Earth. You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law.

Pete Rogers replied 17/8:
To make an allegorical point, that's a bit like saying if you squeeze a river into a smaller channel by a one time narrowing, that the river flow would speed up then slow back down. What you are overlooking is that both are flow systems with the flows affected by permanent constriction. It doesn't matter that the pressure or the banks are static thes still do their job on the incoming and outgoing flows.

Pete Rogers wrote:
3) The temperature of all gas bodies is increased when the body is in a state of compression.

WRONG. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law.
Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers replied 17/8
No. The total heat energy contained in the gas body remains unchanged. it just has fewer units of volume to fill, so what do you think happens to the heat energy per unit volume? If you accept that according to long division there must be more I must then ask what happens to the temperature in that case? What is your answer please?


4) The pressure at the base of the atmosphere is 1tonne per Sq Metre causing severe volume reduction.

It is not being reduced. Static pressure is not dynamic pressure change.


Pete Rogers repiled 17/8:
It is compressed by its own weight thus permanently reducing its volume - most greatly at the surface - so the inflow of heat energy is continually entering a restricted space thus enhancing the temperature



Pete Rogers wrote:
5) In line with the conservation of energy that must be maintained, the heat energy per cubic metre of the compressed; and therefore less capacious: atmosphere is increased and it is this that explains the ATE. The GE is zero K.

There is no such thing as ATE. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics again and the ideal gas law.

Pete Rogers replied 17/8:
The 1st law is obeyed and the total heat energy content is thus unaltered, its just the volume that contains it that is changed by autocompression - the result of gravity - meaning that the energy content per unit volume increases. What do you suppose happens to the temperature when the heat energy per junit volume is thus increased in conpliance with the 1st law? There is no offence against the Gas Law either. Please provide explanations for your claims next time. Unsupported declarations do not qualify as evidence


Pete Rogers wrote:
6) In accordance with the 2nd Law the ATE is transferred to the Surface leading to warming

The atmosphere is colder than the surface. You are denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Pete Rogers replied 17/8:
Please remember that the process ia a continuum so does not happen in a stair step manner. All we witness is the final equilibrium reached by the continuous action. I am providing the phsics behind the continuum. showing why we end up where we are. UV passes through the gaseous troposphere with no effect until it strikes the solid/liquid Earth; at which point it converts to heat energy. he heat energy is passed from the uncompressed surface medium into a compressed gaselous medium and when that happens the next thing is that the temperature rises and the net heat energy flow transfers to the surface in accordance with the 2nd Law. The temperature increases leading to greater IR emkission until a new equilibrium temperature is arrived at and this increase is called the ATE. All this is acheived according to the 1st and 2nd Laws


Pete Rogers wrote:
until increased IR emissions bring the system into equilibrium at a higher temperature.

There is no sequence. You are again violating the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Pete Rogers feplied 17/8:

Pete Rogers wrote:
7) Accordingly CO2 has nothing to do with Global Warming so neither do we.

Define 'global warming'.
Pete Rogers wrote:
whereas you have simply declared your objection without evidence to show why any of this is to be rejected -

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics doesn't need evidence.
Pete Rogers wrote:
that is the dogmatic basis of religion and it is you who are resorting to it - alas - not I.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is denying science and math here.
Pete Rogers wrote:
For how long do you intend to try to violate the 1st law of thermodynamics?

Pete Rogers. Please review the initiating argument that this thread is supposed to deal with and you will easily see that there is no infringement of Thermodynamics.

Lie. Mantras 20a1...20a2...20n.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you think otherwise you must give your evidence

RQAA.
Pete Rogers wrote:
or your statement has no effect on or relevance to the enquiry.

RQAA.
Pete Rogers wrote:
For how long do you intend to try to convince people that matter somehow spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy?

Pete Rogers. I made no such claim.

You made EXACTLY that claim, liar. You are making it again in this last post of yours!
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you think otherwise then please show me where I did.

This last post of yours. Most of your other posts. RQAA. Denial of self.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you cannot do that it means your words carry no meaning in that case and must be set aside for that reason according to epistemological requirements.

RQAA.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Examination of the Theory

There is no Theory of ATE. You must define 'global warming' first. No theory can be based on a void argument.
Pete Rogers wrote:
put at the outset will continue,

You can't continue a theory that never was.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but it is necessarily restricted to proper explanatory contributions.

Theories have no restrictions, other than that they must be valid explanatory arguments. No theory, scientific or otherwise, can be based on a fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The Scientific Method

Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Pete Rogers wrote:
requires this and that is what I intend to follow.

You are not following anything but the Church of Global Warming. You are denying science. You are denying mathematics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you disagree please provide reasons,

RQAA.
Pete Rogers wrote:
not just throw around empty accusations and declarations as heretofore.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, which you deny, and the ideal gas law, which you deny, are not empty accusations and declarations.
Pete Rogers wrote:
There is no such thing as The Greenhouse Effect ... even if you call it Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement.

Pete Rogers. The bit in the supposed GE theory about interception of IR is empirically true, but there is no thermal implication - it doesn't cause warming - so the Theory is a false theory.

No theory. You must define 'global warming' first.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The enhancement of Earth's Temperature

The Earth's temperature is unknown. Define 'global warming'.
Pete Rogers wrote:
due to the presence of its atmosphere is because the elastic nature of the medium; being a gas body: causes the heat energy (some believe at 255K) to occupy a reduced volume by compression but still contains the same total heat energy in accordance with the 1st Law causing the heat energy per unit volume to be greater than if the body were less compressed, so the temperature is increased and transferred back to the surface in accordance with the 2nd Law.

You are again denying the 1st law of thermodynamics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the ideal gas law. Static pressure is not dynamic pressure changes.
Pete Rogers wrote:
As the surface is warmed so the IT emissions increase until a higher euilibrium temperature is reached, the difference between this and the supposed 255K being the ATE.

There is no sequence. There is no such thing as ATE. Define 'global warming'.

No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Buzzwords. Use of void argument as proof. RQAA.
17-08-2020 19:26
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
quote]Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: Without corroboration this statement is of no assistance ...

The statement needs no corroboration. It stands on its own merits.


Pete Rogers.What merits? You do not reveal them, so your comment is of no value in examinimng the original question before us. All statements require corroboration in order to be taken seriously.

Pete Rogers wrote:...and the argument should be pretty clear by now anyway.

Right, you should have made some sort of clear argument by now but instead all you have done is regurgitate religious dogma that is not supported by any science.


Pete Rogers. The argument is clear because all the particulars and reasons for them were set down at the outset, being
1)That certain wavelengths of IR have been shown to be intercepted by the atmosphere.

Absorption of surface IR does not warm the Earth. You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Pete Rogers replied 17/8
From 2) below you ought to notice that I am saying precisely that intercepting IR has no warming effect - please read more carefully. So your comment about violating the 1st law is false accordingly


Pete Rogers wrote:
2) IPCC Claim this leads to warming because the presence of our atmosphere increases the planetary temperature (the ATE) and they force it upon us through their reports that the GE is the only possible explanation for this ATE.

Static pressure does not warm the Earth. You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law.

Pete Rogers replied 17/8:
To make an allegorical point, that's a bit like saying if you squeeze a river into a smaller channel by a one-time narrowing, that the river flow would speed up then slow back down. What you are overlooking is that both are flow systems with the flows affected by permanent constriction. It doesn't matter that the pressure or the banks are static they still do their job on the incoming and outgoing flows.

Pete Rogers wrote:
3) The temperature of all gas bodies is increased when the body is in a state of compression.

WRONG. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law.
Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers replied 17/8
No. The total heat energy contained in the gas body remains unchanged. it just has fewer units of volume to fill, so what do you think happens to the heat energy per unit volume? If you accept that according to long division there must be more I must then ask what happens to the temperature in that case? What is your answer please?


4) The pressure at the base of the atmosphere is 1tonne per Sq Metre causing severe volume reduction.

It is not being reduced. Static pressure is not dynamic pressure change.


Pete Rogers replied 17/8:
It is compressed by its own weight thus permanently reducing its volume - most greatly at the surface - so the inflow of heat energy is continually entering a restricted space thus enhancing the temperature



Pete Rogers wrote:
5) In line with the conservation of energy that must be maintained, the heat energy per cubic metre of the compressed; and therefore less capacious: atmosphere is increased and it is this that explains the ATE. The GE is zero K.

There is no such thing as ATE. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics again and the ideal gas law.

Pete Rogers replied 17/8:
The 1st law is obeyed and the total heat energy content is thus unaltered, its just the volume that contains it that is changed by autocompression - the result of gravity - meaning that the energy content per unit volume increases. What do you suppose happens to the temperature when the heat energy per unit volume is thus increased in compliance with the 1st law? There is no offence against the Gas Law either. Please provide explanations for your claims next time. Unsupported declarations do not qualify as evidence.


Pete Rogers wrote:
6) In accordance with the 2nd Law the ATE is transferred to the Surface leading to warming

The atmosphere is colder than the surface. You are denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Pete Rogers replied 17/8:
Please remember that the process is a continuum so does not happen in a stair step manner. All we witness is the final equilibrium reached by the continuous action. I am providing the physics behind the continuum showing why we end up where we are for examination.
UV passes through the gaseous troposphere with no effect until it strikes the solid/liquid Earth; at which point it converts to heat energy.
The heat energy is passed from the uncompressed surface into a compressed gaseous medium and, when that happens, the temperature rises and the net heat energy flow transfers to the surface in accordance with the 2nd Law.
The surface temperature increases leading to greater IR emission until a new equilibrium temperature is arrived at and this increase is called the ATE. All this is achieved according to the 1st and 2nd Laws


Pete Rogers wrote:
until increased IR emissions bring the system into equilibrium at a higher temperature.

There is no sequence. You are again violating the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Pete Rogers replied 17/8:
The process is a continuum forced by the 1st and 2nd laws. Energy is conserved and all flow is from warmer to cooler.


Pete Rogers wrote:
7) Accordingly CO2 has nothing to do with Global Warming so neither do we.

Define 'global warming'.

Pete Rogers replied 17/8:
It is the idea that the planet is warming and one to which I do not subscribe as you know.


Pete Rogers wrote:
whereas you have simply declared your objection without evidence to show why any of this is to be rejected -

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics doesn't need evidence.

Pete Rogers replied 17/8:
Perhaps not, but your accusation of breach does. You don't seem familiar with the requirements of the assessment process.


Pete Rogers wrote:
that is the dogmatic basis of religion and it is you who are resorting to it - alas - not I.

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU that is denying science and math here.

Pete Rogers replied 17/8:
All particulars put before you are scientific so your point has no meaning. If you can demonstrate otherwise that would be another matter, but there is nothing there. You just make statements which you expect to be accepted. That is the means of the Priest and you are the party resorting to such means.


Pete Rogers wrote:
For how long do you intend to try to violate the 1st law of thermodynamics?

Pete Rogers. Please review the initiating argument that this thread is supposed to deal with and you will easily see that there is no infringement of Thermodynamics.

Lie. Mantras 20a1...20a2...20n.

Pete Rogers replied 17/8:
Apart from the word "Lie" which I take to be another empty accusation, the rest has no meaning.


Pete Rogers wrote:
If you think otherwise you must give your evidence.

RQAA.
Pete Rogers wrote:
or your statement has no effect on or relevance to the enquiry.

RQAA.
Pete Rogers wrote:
For how long do you intend to try to convince people that matter somehow spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy?

Pete Rogers. I made no such claim.

You made EXACTLY that claim, liar. You are making it again in this last post of yours!

Pete Rogers replied 17/8:
Really? In that case how-come I said that the heat energy is conserved but the negative work performed by gravitational autocompression forces it into a smaller space thereby increasing the heat energy per unit volume. Perhaps you missed that bit so please try to pay attention if you wish to assist.


Pete Rogers wrote:
If you think otherwise then please show me where I did.

This last post of yours. Most of your other posts. RQAA. Denial of self.

Pete Rogers replied 17/8:
See above, you seem confused and that should clear things up for you.


Pete Rogers wrote:
If you cannot do that it means your words carry no meaning in that case and must be set aside for that reason according to epistemological requirements.

RQAA.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Examination of the Theory

There is no Theory of ATE. You must define 'global warming' first. No theory can be based on a void argument.

Pete Rogers replied 17/8:
No sir, you are in error there. I just saw a theory of ATE and I defined Global Warming so your argument is void with the consequences for it that you so neatly describe.


Pete Rogers replied 7/8:


Pete Rogers wrote:
put at the outset will continue,

You can't continue a theory that never was.

Pete Rogers replied 17/8:
Conversely you can continue a theory that ever is as provided in the particulars for falsification under the rules of epistemology of course - what else?


Pete Rogers wrote:
but it is necessarily restricted to proper explanatory contributions.

Theories have no restrictions, other than that they must be valid explanatory arguments. No theory, scientific or otherwise, can be based on a fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The Scientific Method

Science is not a 'method' or a 'procedure'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.

Pete Rogers replied 17/8:
More importantly; in the realm of the actual - rather than the philosophical: it is a reliable means of proceeding according to logical treatment of evidence. Semantics of the Popper variety are not designed to illuminate anything you will find.


Pete Rogers wrote:
requires this and that is what I intend to follow.

You are not following anything but the Church of Global Warming. You are denying science. You are denying mathematics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you disagree please provide reasons,

RQAA.
Pete Rogers wrote:
not just throw around empty accusations and declarations as heretofore.

The 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, which you deny, and the ideal gas law, which you deny, are not empty accusations and declarations.
Pete Rogers wrote:
There is no such thing as The Greenhouse Effect ... even if you call it Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement.

Pete Rogers. The bit in the supposed GE theory about interception of IR is empirically true, but there is no thermal implication - it doesn't cause warming - so the Theory is a false theory.

No theory. You must define 'global warming' first.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The enhancement of Earth's Temperature

The Earth's temperature is unknown. Define 'global warming'.
Pete Rogers wrote:
due to the presence of its atmosphere is because the elastic nature of the medium; being a gas body: causes the heat energy (some believe at 255K) to occupy a reduced volume by compression but still contains the same total heat energy in accordance with the 1st Law causing the heat energy per unit volume to be greater than if the body were less compressed, so the temperature is increased and transferred back to the surface in accordance with the 2nd Law.

You are again denying the 1st law of thermodynamics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the ideal gas law. Static pressure is not dynamic pressure changes.
Pete Rogers wrote:
As the surface is warmed so the IT emissions increase until a higher euilibrium temperature is reached, the difference between this and the supposed 255K being the ATE.

There is no sequence. There is no such thing as ATE. Define 'global warming'.

No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Buzzwords. Use of void argument as proof. RQAA.
[/quote]

Pete Rogers commented 17/8:
I dealt with the points that I took to be made in good faith, but there doesn't really seem to be any intent from this contributor to shed light on anything. The main commentary is in the form of allegation, which means the contributor is more like a kind of hostile witness, not an even-handed assessor it seems to me. Most of the points made were improperly explained and are therefore of no relevance to this enquiry thread.

Edited on 17-08-2020 19:59
18-08-2020 17:29
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
That is incorrect if you will permit me to explain. 1) says only that there are GG's that intercept a margin of IR. It does not say that the process
amounts to interference with the energy balance to any real extent. We discover; to the contrary: that this interference has no thermal consequence as the evidence for this - the ATE - is actually accounted for by gravity performing the negative work of reducing the volume of the atmosphere. The idea that there is sufficient interference to do anything to temperature is thus falsified. We might add; purely for academic interest: that IR is emitted at ambient temperature, so when it is reflected back it strikes the Earth cooler than it left. This is not a warming effect. Since some gases are opaque to IR, as we all agree, then those molecules receive heat, but being opaque, will release it as IR at a signature frequency. With the exception of the cooler reflected IR striking the surface, the rest disappears at the speed of light, with some of this frequency transformation u;pon impact with GG's. Please let me know if you disagree.


You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still denying the 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law.


Steady soldier - consider all the facts before announcing your conclusion, or you may jump to the wrong one.

Not facts. Fallacious arguments.

Pete Rogers replied 18/8:
That is an opinion but no support is offered for it so it is empty of meaning and therefore of no value to our enquiry.


Pete Rogers wrote:
Additional Energy comes from the action of Gravity performing the negative work of volume reduction (autocompression) on the atmosphere.

Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are violating the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

Pete Rogers Replied 18/8:
The act of compression increases energy per unit volume by removing a large number of volume units leaving far fewer of them for the unchanged energy to occupy. If that is beyond your comprehension it is no wonder you can't contribute words of meaning but of sound only. The correct understanding is that the negative work done by the force of gravity in compressing the atmosphere creates temperature enhancement thereby providing the additional energy. Here is a historic definition from the Laws of Fluid Dynamics which have never been successfully challenged so far.

"Gravitational compression is a phenomenon in which gravity, acting on the mass of a gas body compresses it, reducing its size and increasing the density. Accordingly the force of gravity heats the gas body by the Kelvin–Helmholtz mechanism."

If you can prove this to be wrong you are indeed a genius because all the other great minds aside from yours have failed to do so in the last 150 years. A Nobel Prize for Physics awaits your learned Paper on this subject assuming you are not the gullible twerp perhaps you just pretend to be, so why don't you share your special knowledge with we mere mortals?


Pete Rogers wrote:
This process cannot be avoided because of the compressible nature of gases - and of all gases and of gases alone apart from a minor extent to liquids under enormous force. Accordingly autocompression has the unavoidable consequence of confining the heat energy (conserved within the gas body in accordance with the 1st law - not in contravention of it) within a severely reduced volume, so since - and I repeat - the amount of heat energy contained within the gas body cannot change (1st Law) what do you suppose happens to the temperature when there is this increase in heat content per unit volume of the now smaller medium containing it?

Static pressure does not heat gases. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law again.

Pete Rogers replied 18/8:
So the Kelvin Helmholz effect is untrue is it? My previous answer deals with this baloney.


Pete Rogers wrote:
Please bear in mind that interstellar gas bodies have their volumes so reduced by their own autocompression that the temperature can shoot up to the millions or billions of degrees necessary for Star Formation - all in accordance with the 1st law - this is part of the Kelvin-Helmholz Effect. Neither is the Gas Law transgressed for that matter.

Nope. There is open space between the Sun and the Earth. You cannot heat the Earth by conduction or convection from the Sun.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you still think something is wrong or incomplete about this explanation, please let me know.

Already did. RQAA.
No argument presented. Argument by repetition. Denial of science. RQAA.


Pete Rogers replied 18/8.
No. An argument is indubitably presented and fully explained, I just noticed it in all the words sent to you for just that purpose. The only reason it had to be repeated is that you said it wasn't an argument, so I thought you needed to read it again for the penny to drop that it was indeed, after all, precisely what an argument is.
You seem to be saying that Kelvin Helmholz is Denial of science, so either they have made fools of everyone apart from you for the last 150 years or you are talking out of the wrong end of your alimentary canal. I wonder if we should open a book on which it is? I can hardly wait until your Nobel paper is accepted, but until then it is difficult to see how you can assist in illuminating this thread, but thanks for all your efforts assuming they were meant to help.
18-08-2020 19:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
Pete Rogers wrote:[crap post deleted]

Is there any way to get you off your lazy ass and to get you to just start a fresh clean post in which you just make a coherent point or two?


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
18-08-2020 21:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Pete Rogers wrote:
I dealt with the points that I took to be made in good faith,

No, you didn't. You continue to lie and deny science and mathematics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but there doesn't really seem to be any intent from this contributor to shed light on anything.

I am shedding light on you and your lies. You just don't like it when I do.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The main commentary is in the form of allegation,

My allegation is that the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are theories of science, and that the Stefan-Boltzmann law is a theory of science. You just deny them.
Pete Rogers wrote:
which means the contributor is more like a kind of hostile witness,

Yes. I am hostile to the Church of Global Warming. I am the Great Satan that is out to utterly destroy the Church of Global Warming.
Pete Rogers wrote:
not an even-handed assessor it seems to me.

I have no intention of being one. I support science. You deny it. Done.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Most of the points made were improperly explained and are therefore of no relevance to this enquiry thread.

I have explained everything. You simply choose to deny it. RQAA.

No argument presented. Attempt to justify Satan as 'evenhanded'. Attempt to justify religion as science. Denial of science.


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
18-08-2020 21:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Pete Rogers wrote:
No. An argument is indubitably presented and fully explained, I just noticed it in all the words sent to you for just that purpose.

WRONG. An argument must be free of fallacy or it is an invalid argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A theory is an explanatory argument. The existence of a theory does not make it a theory of science. A theory of science must also be falsifiable.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The only reason it had to be repeated is that you said it wasn't an argument,

You made no valid arguments. No argument presented.
Pete Rogers wrote:
so I thought you needed to read it again for the penny to drop that it was indeed, after all, precisely what an argument is.

Argument by repetition is in and of itself a fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You seem to be saying that Kelvin Helmholz is Denial of science,

Science is not a person.
Pete Rogers wrote:
so either they have made fools of everyone apart from you for the last 150 years or you are talking out of the wrong end of your alimentary canal.

Science is not people at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Age of theory is no factor. Insult fallacy. Denial of science.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I wonder if we should open a book on which it is?

Science isn't a book.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I can hardly wait until your Nobel paper is accepted,

Science isn't an award or a prize.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but until then it is difficult to see how you can assist in illuminating this thread,

Already done. I've exposed you for what you are.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but thanks for all your efforts assuming they were meant to help.

I am not here to help you. I am here to expose you for what you are. You are a religious nut believing in the Church of Global Warming. You are a fundamentalist. You are a liar. You are a denier of science, mathematics, and now logic. You cut and paste the arguments of others as your own, stealing arguments, even invalid ones. Your native tongue is Liberal, not English. Your religion is based on lies, falsehoods, and buzzwords.

That is what you are. I cannot help you, but I can expose you for what you are.


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
18-08-2020 22:22
James___
★★★★★
(3169)
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
No. An argument is indubitably presented and fully explained, I just noticed it in all the words sent to you for just that purpose.

WRONG. An argument must be free of fallacy or it is an invalid argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A theory is an explanatory argument. The existence of a theory does not make it a theory of science. A theory of science must also be falsifiable.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The only reason it had to be repeated is that you said it wasn't an argument,

You made no valid arguments. No argument presented.
Pete Rogers wrote:
so I thought you needed to read it again for the penny to drop that it was indeed, after all, precisely what an argument is.

Argument by repetition is in and of itself a fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You seem to be saying that Kelvin Helmholz is Denial of science,

Science is not a person.
Pete Rogers wrote:
so either they have made fools of everyone apart from you for the last 150 years or you are talking out of the wrong end of your alimentary canal.

Science is not people at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Age of theory is no factor. Insult fallacy. Denial of science.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I wonder if we should open a book on which it is?

Science isn't a book.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I can hardly wait until your Nobel paper is accepted,

Science isn't an award or a prize.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but until then it is difficult to see how you can assist in illuminating this thread,

Already done. I've exposed you for what you are.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but thanks for all your efforts assuming they were meant to help.

I am not here to help you. I am here to expose you for what you are. You are a religious nut believing in the Church of Global Warming. You are a fundamentalist. You are a liar. You are a denier of science, mathematics, and now logic. You cut and paste the arguments of others as your own, stealing arguments, even invalid ones. Your native tongue is Liberal, not English. Your religion is based on lies, falsehoods, and buzzwords.

That is what you are. I cannot help you, but I can expose you for what you are.


Are you still looking for the phallic of your dreams?
19-08-2020 01:38
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(573)
I feel the need to simplify this.Commercial aircraft are designed to operate at 30,000-35,000 feet even though there is less oxygen.I think Pete is trying to explain that due to compression the atmosphere is denser at ground zero because of gravity.Lancaster bombers with a petrol engine and carburetors struggled to operate over 25,000 feet.The crew had to rug up big time and wear oxygen masks as it was so cold and the air so thin.India is a hot country but the Himalayas, are always covered in snow.does the Earths surface retain some energy.I have never considered this???
19-08-2020 02:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
duncan61 wrote: I think Pete is trying to explain that due to compression the atmosphere is denser at ground zero because of gravity.

That's not all he is saying because if it were then he would be correct.

Are you aware that when a gas is compressed that its temperature initially increases? Are you aware that the gas then begins to cool while it remains compressed? Pete is under the impression that the gas simply never cools. He believes that the compression maintains the gas' higher temperature.

He is wrong.

His theory is that earth's gravity is maintaining the atmosphere's higher temperature, what he calls the Atmospheric Temperature Enhancement. Key in on the "Temperature Enhancement" part. You previously knew it under the name "Greenhouse Effect."


duncan61 wrote:does the Earths surface retain some energy.I have never considered this???

The earth is a body of matter. All matter has thermal energy. All matter is above absolute zero temperature. All matter radiates thermal radiation, which is electromagnetic energy.

No matter "retains" any energy. That is the wrong word. No matter can stop or otherwise reduce its loss of thermal energy which is governed by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The rate of thermal energy loss is directly proportional to the matter's absolute temperature to the fourth power. There are a couple of constants in there as well but Temperature is the only variable that determines the rate of thermal energy loss. The cooler the matter is the slower the rate of loss. The higher the temperature of the matter, the greater the rate of loss ... to the fourth power. It's like when you drain your car's oil. When you pull the bolt the oil shoots out. As the oil level lowers the rate that the oil drains decreases. Eventually, the oil is a weak stream, then it's dripping, then you get one drop every few seconds ... etc...

Without making it too complicated, the amount of surface area affects the loss of thermal energy. More surface are means more loss. If you have a 45g metal ball bearing at 200C, it will lose thermal energy much more slowly than 45g of the same metal at the same temperature that has been hammered into a huge flat pancake. More surface area = more rapid loss.

This is why we refer to matter as a spaghetti strainer for thermal energy. No matter can retain thermal energy any more than a spaghetti strainer can retain water. We therefore use the words "matter has associated thermal energy" but we don't use verbs that imply that it "contains" or "stores" or "traps" or holds" or "locks in" or anything of the sort.

.


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
19-08-2020 02:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
duncan61 wrote:
I feel the need to simplify this.Commercial aircraft are designed to operate at 30,000-35,000 feet even though there is less oxygen.

More like 30 to 40 thousand feet.They are pressurized aircraft, operating at or near the thermopause, where flight with jet engines is most efficient. The engines get all the oxygen they need from the air.
duncan61 wrote:
I think Pete is trying to explain that due to compression the atmosphere is denser at ground zero because of gravity.

Nope. He is trying to say that the air is warmer because of gravity. He is wrong.
duncan61 wrote:
Lancaster bombers with a petrol engine and carburetors struggled to operate over 25,000 feet.

My Cessna struggles to operate over 10,000 feet. It also has a petrol engine and carburetor. I am building an aircraft designed to operate up to 18,000 feet, using multipoint fuel injection.
duncan61 wrote:
The crew had to rug up big time and wear oxygen masks as it was so cold and the air so thin.

Yup. Those planes of theirs were not pressurized. Flying in an unpressurized aircraft beyond 12,000 feet requires supplemental oxygen. Beyond 10,000 feet you shouldn't stay for long before returning to 10,000 or below.
duncan61 wrote:
India is a hot country but the Himalayas, are always covered in snow.

India has many temperatures. It is not a single temperature.
duncan61 wrote:
does the Earths surface retain some energy.I have never considered this???

No. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.


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
19-08-2020 03:03
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
ITN,
Sell that cessna and buy a grumman trainer with a bubble canopy. You'll have a lot more fun.
19-08-2020 05:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
ITN,
Sell that cessna and buy a grumman trainer with a bubble canopy. You'll have a lot more fun.


Nah. I like my Cessna. It's a good solid airplane that is cheap to maintain and fly. Grummans are fun aircraft though.

Besides, the one I'm building will outfly a Grumman.


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
Edited on 19-08-2020 05:45
19-08-2020 18:31
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:[crap post deleted]

Is there any way to get you off your lazy ass and to get you to just start a fresh clean post in which you just make a coherent point or two?


Pete Rogers Replied 19/08/20:
Still mucking about in the playground I see.
You have been given the full science from the start, but according to this you are unable to analyse the nuts and bolts of it in its own terms - which is necessary for falsification in scientific matters as you ought to be aware - only declare opposition in an increasingly juvenile manner.
You are supposed to employ adult reasoning - not adolescent mockery - if you wish to be taken seriously.
If this kind of comment is all you can come up with; and its scientific emptiness must be apparent even to you: it is not clear how you can ever hope to illuminate anything concerning the particulars laid before you in this thread.
Integrity and the impartial mind are what is needed not the snide mentality of the advocate.
It seems that; notwithstanding advice to the contrary: you still believe that closed-mindedness is a blessing rather than the graveyard of the enquiring mind - RIP that of IBdeMann I suppose.
19-08-2020 18:36
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
ITN;
Re: fear mongering.
There is triple redundancy in some airplanes and in some FAA systems. They aren't used all the time but they are good precautions to take.
It's the same with precautions regarding covid. Even though a person might have a preexisting condition they could have lived many years or decades with it but then covid comes along and that person can't survive both conditions.
Taking precautions against covid, such as lockdown, prevents many deaths.
19-08-2020 20:27
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
keepit wrote:
ITN;
Re: fear mongering.
There is triple redundancy in some airplanes and in some FAA systems. They aren't used all the time but they are good precautions to take.
It's the same with precautions regarding covid. Even though a person might have a preexisting condition they could have lived many years or decades with it but then covid comes along and that person can't survive both conditions.
Taking precautions against covid, such as lockdown, prevents many deaths.


Why didn't we just lock all the old people, and the sickly people in their basements. Could have saved 98% of the population a whole lot of grief, mask wearing social distancing crap. It's only a scary plague, to such a small segment, why torture everyone else? getting nose-raped with a cotton swab has got to be the worst test they could imagine. I don't live in NYC, but I get a creepy feeling, every time I see on of those big U-Haul trucks on the road. I wonder if it's stuffed full of dead bodies for a nursing home. Don't ever imagine, ever renting one of those trucks ever again. Wonder if I could sue NYC for the trauma they are causing me, or do I need to drive off the road, and blame it on an anxiety attack...
19-08-2020 20:43
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
No. An argument is indubitably presented and fully explained, I just noticed it in all the words sent to you for just that purpose.

WRONG. An argument must be free of fallacy or it is an invalid argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. A theory is an explanatory argument. The existence of a theory does not make it a theory of science. A theory of science must also be falsifiable.

Pete Rogers replied 19/8/20
In that case it definitely is an argument


Pete Rogers wrote:
The only reason it had to be repeated is that you said it wasn't an argument,

You made no valid arguments. No argument presented.

Pete Rogers replied 19/8/20
Au contraire it is indeed all valid. Perhaps you can explain why you think otherwise - after all it is supposed to be what you have to do


Pete Rogers wrote:
so I thought you needed to read it again for the penny to drop that it was indeed, after all, precisely what an argument is.

Argument by repetition is in and of itself a fallacy.

Pete Rogers replied 19/8/20:
Not necessarily, particularly when it is being repeated because the interlocutor has failed to communicate any appreciation of its meaning, then it is just the offer of a further opprtunity for comprehension of the particulars so far disregarded.


Pete Rogers wrote:
You seem to be saying that Kelvin Helmholz is Denial of science,

Science is not a person.

Pete Rogers replied 19/8/20
Neither is Kelvin Helmholz you nitwit, it is a Law of Science. Where have you been?


Pete Rogers wrote:
so either they have made fools of everyone apart from you for the last 150 years or you are talking out of the wrong end of your alimentary canal.

Science is not people at all. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Age of theory is no factor. Insult fallacy. Denial of science.

Pete Rogers replied 19/8/20
As already pointed out - and why should I have needed to - the Kelvin Helmholz effect is science, not people, and science that has never been overthrown, so what is your point? If you think you can overthrow it please do so - there is almost certanly a Nobel Prize for Physics to be had by anyone who can.


Pete Rogers wrote:
I wonder if we should open a book on which it is?

Science isn't a book.

Pete Rogers replied 19/8/20
Who said it was? I was referring to betting bookmakers and somehow I think the odds, already hugely against you, have just lengthened save this Nobel-worthy effort you must believe yourself capable of.


Pete Rogers wrote:
I can hardly wait until your Nobel paper is accepted,

Science isn't an award or a prize.

Pete Rogers replied 19/8/20
What a noble sentiment, I applaud it! Yes forget prizes, just tell us how you have falsified the Kelvin Helmholz effect; beloved of Physicists for its reliability to this day: you would be the only person who ever had, so the prospect is so exciting that I am on the edge of my seat with anticipation. Don't disappoint us there's a good fellow, but until then it is difficult to see how you can assist in illuminating this thread.


Already done. I've exposed you for what you are.

Pete Rogers replied 19/8/20:[quote]In order to expose something or someone you have to deal with the nuts and bolts of the particulars involved in the idea you oppose in a proper manner, this requirement is completely missed in your case, you just jump to your conclusion without a properly explanatory path to lead there, just making statements of denial as if that will do. You also have to deal with the rebuttals and those steps are missing everywhere too.


Pete Rogers wrote:
but thanks for all your efforts assuming they were meant to help.

I am not here to help you. I am here to expose you for what you are. You are a religious nut believing in the Church of Global Warming. You are a fundamentalist. You are a liar. You are a denier of science, mathematics, and now logic. You cut and paste the arguments of others as your own, stealing arguments, even invalid ones. Your native tongue is Liberal, not English. Your religion is based on lies, falsehoods, and buzzwords.

That is what you are. I cannot help you, but I can expose you for what you are.


Pete Rogers replied 19/8/20:
If you are a person in good faith you are here to help us take an impartial position in order to give fair assessment. To say "I am here to expose you" simply reveals that your view is predetermined which disqualifies you as a scientific examiner in the first place; don't you even know that?
You must be capable of looking at things objectively in order to be of any use - including to yourself.
To my astonishment you haven't even picked it up that I am an absolute opponent of the theory of Global warming - where have you been and what have you been reading?
What is this religion you keep bringing up and what are these buzzwords you occasionally refer to?
To be pre-decided - as you have now shown yourself to be - is precisely the religious position whereby you know the answer as a matter of predetermination and simply accuse the other of falsehood without correct evaluation of what he puts to you.
You descend to playground accusations such as calling the opponent a liar without revealing the grounds for doing so and that is a truly lamentable thing about your mentality.
For my own part I am, however, in the fortunate position of being able to reveal that you are an evident liar for saying that I have in any way, shape, or form written or thought for a moment that we are responsible for Global Warming as - lying in your teeth - you say to the contrary "You are a religious nut believing in the Church of Global Warming." Shame on you for your dishonesty or is it that you cannot comprehend what you read, if so I take it all back - it just means you are an ignoramus?
19-08-2020 20:50
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
Harvey,
You suggest locking down the old people and you suggest castrating sex offenders. I suspect that you would approve of ethnic cleansing as well. Is that true?
19-08-2020 21:37
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7463)
keepit wrote:Harvey, You suggest locking down the old people and you suggest castrating sex offenders. I suspect that you would approve of ethnic cleansing as well. Is that true?


It's absolutely true that you would suspect that, yes. Ask me how I know.


.


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
19-08-2020 22:30
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1214)
IBdaMann wrote:
keepit wrote:Harvey, You suggest locking down the old people and you suggest castrating sex offenders. I suspect that you would approve of ethnic cleansing as well. Is that true?


It's absolutely true that you would suspect that, yes. Ask me how I know.


.

19-08-2020 23:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:[crap post deleted]

Is there any way to get you off your lazy ass and to get you to just start a fresh clean post in which you just make a coherent point or two?


Still mucking about in the playground I see.

No, that would be you.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You have been given the full science from the start,
You have denied science from the start. You deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the ideal gas law.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but according to this you are unable to analyse the nuts and bolts of it in its own terms -
Your nuts and bolts deny science.
Pete Rogers wrote:
which is necessary for falsification in scientific matters as you ought to be aware -
It is YOU that is denying science. Inversion fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
only declare opposition in an increasingly juvenile manner.
I don't blame him. Your own religion and hard headiness is your own fault.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You are supposed to employ adult reasoning - not adolescent mockery - if you wish to be taken seriously.
He has explained the science you are denying to you. So have I. So have others. Yet you continue to act like an idiot.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If this kind of comment is all you can come up with; and its scientific emptiness must be apparent even to you: it is not clear how you can ever hope to illuminate anything concerning the particulars laid before you in this thread.
He has explained the science to you. So have I. So have others. It is YOU acting like an idiot.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Integrity and the impartial mind are what is needed
No. You cannot discard science using the 'open mind' argument.
Pete Rogers wrote:
not the snide mentality of the advocate.
I don't blame him for being snide. You are insisting on denying science. You are insisting on acting like an idiot.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It seems that; notwithstanding advice to the contrary: you still believe that closed-mindedness is a blessing rather than the graveyard of the enquiring mind - RIP that of IBdeMann I suppose.

It is YOUR mind that is closed. You refuse to accept theories of science, even though they've been explained to you by several people.


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
20-08-2020 00:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
keepit wrote:
ITN;
Re: fear mongering.
[quote]keepit wrote:
There is triple redundancy in some airplanes and in some FAA systems.

Can't think of a single case.
keepit wrote:
They aren't used all the time but they are good precautions to take.

You obviously do not understand aircraft safety systems, instrumentation, avionics, engines, fire suppression systems, pressurization systems, or electrical systems.
keepit wrote:
It's the same with precautions regarding covid.
False equivalence.
Systems on aircraft are there for a specific purpose. They perform that purpose well. None of them are there because they are ineffective.

Masks are ineffective. They do not stop a virus.
6 feet is ineffective. That does not stop a virus.
Shutting down economies and allowing only 'essential' businesses, arbitrarily chosen as 'essential' by some dictator is ineffective and also unconstitutional. It does not stop a virus.

keepit wrote:
Even though a person might have a preexisting condition they could have lived many years or decades with it but then covid comes along and that person can't survive both conditions.
Taking precautions against covid, such as lockdown, prevents many deaths.

Lockdowns do not stop a virus and are unconstitutional.

You are fear mongering.


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
20-08-2020 00:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13292)
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you are a person in good faith you are here to help us take an impartial position in order to give fair assessment. To say "I am here to expose you" simply reveals that your view is predetermined which disqualifies you as a scientific examiner in the first place; don't you even know that?

Science is an examiner or an examination. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You do not get to declare whether someone is 'qualified'. You are not the king.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You must be capable of looking at things objectively in order to be of any use - including to yourself.

No. You do not get to use the 'open mind' argument to deny science.
Pete Rogers wrote:
To my astonishment you haven't even picked it up that I am an absolute opponent of the theory of Global warming -

There is no such thing as a theory of Global Warming. You must define 'global warming' before you can have a theory about it. You are a member of the Church of Global Warming. The only difference is how you think 'global warming' is occurring. It is just as wrong, and denies science just as much as those you disparage in your own religion.
Pete Rogers wrote:
where have you been and what have you been reading?

Your post. Right here. On this forum. Get a clue.
Pete Rogers wrote:
What is this religion you keep bringing up and what are these buzzwords you occasionally refer to?

RQAA.
Pete Rogers wrote:
To be pre-decided - as you have now shown yourself to be - is precisely the religious position whereby you know the answer as a matter of predetermination and simply accuse the other of falsehood without correct evaluation of what he puts to you.

The Church of Global Warming is evil. It stems from the Church of Karl Marx. I will expose your religion and you for what you are.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You descend to playground accusations such as calling the opponent a liar without revealing the grounds for doing so and that is a truly lamentable thing about your mentality.

I have already said why you are a liar. RQAA. Denial of self.
Pete Rogers wrote:
For my own part I am, however, in the fortunate position of being able to reveal that you are an evident liar for saying that I have in any way, shape, or form written or thought for a moment that we are responsible for Global Warming as - lying in your teeth - you say to the contrary "You are a religious nut believing in the Church of Global Warming." Shame on you for your dishonesty or is it that you cannot comprehend what you read, if so I take it all back - it just means you are an ignoramus?

I will not apologize to you or anyone else in the Church of Global Warming. I will do everything I can to destroy your religion.

No argument presented. Denial of science. Void used as science. RQAA. Denial of self. Insult fallacies.


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
20-08-2020 00:56
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
ITN,
In some aircraft there are autopilot computers that have triple redundancy, as well as triple redundancy in angle of attack sensors, and also in some fly by wire hardware..
You drop a lot of names and terminology without really having a real connection, don't you?
Edited on 20-08-2020 00:57
Page 4 of 9<<<23456>>>





Join the debate Global warming is not anthropogenic:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Liberals have mental disease caused by anthropogenic chemicals103-02-2017 20:30
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact