Global warming is not anthropogenic

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Global warming is not anthropogenic > Page 6

Page 6 of 26

31-08-2020 10:44
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote:.At no point in time can we take a snapshot and say the global average is XYZ Responded here: link duncan61 wrote:Where is this atmospheric blanket The atmosphere acting to have thermal energy present within it's gases is something easily understood. Do you really need help with that? Honest question. It does not require even mentioning CO2 or a specific gas. Fart on your hand if you're too confused about the ability of a gas to have thermal energy present within it. DRKTS wrote: What you all seem to be ignoring is that the laws of thermodynamics apply only to a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system. Brilliant point first made recently here by KeepIt. Team denial here dodged the debate entirely. You'll find it here: Open vs closed/ 2nd by keepit And IBD giving up here: link Pete Rogers wrote: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 You are skipping over the empirical reason for the blanket theory as first put forward by Fourier: that the mean temp is much higher than it would be without one. So what IS happening as you see it? The gas layer on the planet, the atmosphere, has thermal energy present within it. My understanding is that this is why the mean temperature at ground level (which is not the outer surface of the planet strictly speaking) is higher than it would be otherwise. Your statement would seem to imply that a space blanket Mylar sheet will keep someone warmer than a heavy wool blanket. Reddit discussion: link Pete Rogers wrote:...gravity performing the negative work DRKTS pointed out already that gravity is not doing work. It's not a source of energy. Pete Rogers wrote:An argument is indubitably presented ITN is here to waste your time Pete Pete Rogers wrote:In the case of the Earth and its Atmosphere this equilibrium is obtained when the outgoing IR balances the incoming UV enhanced by the reservoir of the ATE. Very clearly said. The oceans and solid matter of Earth would also be part of that reservoir. VENUS having much denser atmosphere has a much larger "active"? reservoir. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
31-08-2020 16:43
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote:...violation of tmiddles ordinance... Summarily dismissed per tmiddles ordinance... Answer the unanswered questions that have been asked of you.
01-09-2020 15:02
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	Into the Night wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote]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. Into the Night wroteWRONG. 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. There is no fallacy because the logic checks out and what follows on in evidence falls in line with that logic thus validating the argument - Into the Night wroteLie. Denial of logic. This is all you get from this chap - Bald Statements -, which are empty words because they are conclusions not arguments. He is trying to force these conclusions on the assessor without any reasoning in support, which is cheating, so it's really just like a toy being thrown out of an infant's stroller that we are supposed to pick up even though it is of no value to any but the child in its unutterable imagination, you are supposed to take responsibility for working out why he threw it, because he can't tell you. It happens this way because like the frustrated infant he cannot get his way by force of argument so he tries to force a conclusion instead When I ask for explanation as I have here - and I ask others to witness it - we normally get the circular comment that he has already explained - another teddy bear whistling past my ear -! Accordingly there is simply nothing here for the honest examiner to consider. He is just telling us that he knows best. Big deal! Pete Rogers wrote: where have you been to come up with something like this? Into the Night wroteLogic, which you deny. Wherefore is the denial you claim when again you provide no particulars? It's just another toy thrown out of the stroller, so nobody - or at least not me - is going to pick it up I wouldn't have thought. I have checked the rest of this message and there are toys of this kind all over the place, so I will leave them for you to collect for yourself - after all it was you who threw them out. Having said this there are one or two where you more sensibly indulge us with at least a partial explanation and I will happily deal with them and certain other oddities besides as we go along. Pete Rogers wrote: Since you so evidently and vehemently disagree why fail to prove your contrary point - which requires your providing an explanation for readers to consider and cross-check. Any explanation you provide must back your bald assertions up incontrovertibly in order to shed any light that we may see your point. It is fraudulent for any examiner to claim to have falsified a position by dint of nothing more than bald assertions of denial. Without specifics your contribution is a waste of your time as it cannot be weighed up so must be dropped. Into the Night saidI am not trying to prove a point. YOU are. Inversion fallacy. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. No! If you are unable to falsify my explanation - thus proving you are right in your criticism of it - there is no point in responding at all. Your argument is peurile and must fall for lack of substance. Nobody's forcing you to do anything, it's just for you to demonstrate whether you are up to the job of satisfactorily explaining yourself rather than simply declaring your infallibility - which illuminates nothing. This used to be known as being a fat-head. Pete Rogers wrote: My theory is falsifiableby the provision of evidence that both withstands scrutiny itself and overthrows a particular of my argument; Into the Night wroteNo. It violates the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law as well as the ideal gas law. Wherefore are these violations? I have discovered none, so I invite you to be our guide. Pete Rogers wrote: which is testable and/or follows the known Laws of Physics: Into the Night wroteLie. It denies the laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the ideal gas law. Pete Rogers wrote: otherwise it properly stands for truth. Into the Night wroteScience isn't a 'truth'. It isn't a Universal Truth. It isn't a proof. It is a set of falsifiable theories. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. I said it stands for truth. If you are right and that is not allowed I will leave you to wait for the apple that does not fall when it leaves the tree. Meanwhile; for people in the real world: that the apple will fall will stand for truth and we need not detain ourselves about it in the way you desire. Where do you get this stuff, it's all just semantics? Instead of trapping yourself in Poppers cul-de-sac and going round in circles ask yourself what modern philosopher has been of practical use? Instead of these semantics we should work on what is the case, being that according to The Laws of Thermodynamics and its sister Fluid Dynamics adiabatic autocompression within a flow system must enhance the temperature of that system to the tune of the negative work accomplished by the compressive force. The system can only lose heat by radiation of the heated object -being the solid/liquid Earth in our case - whereby a gravitationally enhanced temperature is achieved. You don't appear to know that this is the case because it turns out that you do not understand thermodynamics after all (as I will show you a little further down) and certainly not Fluid Dynamics or the consequences of the Ideal Gas Law as it appllies to atmospheres. The Molar Mass version is the one you need to check out in that regard. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote:The only reason it had to be repeated is that you said it wasn't an argument, Into the Night wroteYou made no valid arguments. No argument presented. To the contrary I made several arguments all of them unfailingly logical and according to evidence provided so they are indubitably valid - where have you been? Into the Night wroteLie. You are continuing to deny science using the same fallacies. That in and of itself is a fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: Again you make bald statements of dismissal with no explanatory content to back them up. Into the Night wroteI already have. Where is it then? I can't find it and I'm guessing you won't either. My earlier comment that you simply say you have explained when there is no explanation to be found is exemplified here. It is a cheat, so we drop the matter until you can do better. Pete Rogers wrote: To be of any worth; and here is your opportunity: you must show with precision the respects in which any of the following particulars; comprising the theory: are false and why? Already done. RQAA. Pete Rogers wrote: Particular 1. The Earth's Atmosphere is adiabatic, so it cannot lose temperature except by conduction to the solid/liquid surface with which it is in contact. Into the Night wroteThe atmosphere is colder than the surface. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This is where you cook your own goose into the night because you have just revealed it to us that you do not even know that the surface of the earth and the base of the atmosphere must be at the same temperature because of the Laws of thermodynamics. This is proof that you do not know your Thermodynamics, so it's game over and there is no need for any of us to proceed any further. Once you have worked out that you are wrong about this you are welcome to correct yourself and proceed, that is perfectly ok, but you must explain yourself coherently from then on rather than trying to compel our agreement by forcing conclusons on the interlocutor as an infant succeeds in forcing the adult to pick up its toys. At this point I suggest we close this chapter until Intothe night reassesses his position and regroups - or better still comes to understand that the theory assessed in this thread is correct. I would like to ask all involved to cut the ego business henceforth as this is supposed to be an assessment not a pissing contest. I would like to say finally that Philosophical admixtures are unhelpful to science because they are not designed to help it but to control it semantically and therefore rhetorically, which is what the devious Politician looks for and sponsors, but it's really just navel-gazing in the end - to keep away from getting sucked in is my advice, politicians and their helpers are not honest men!
01-09-2020 20:05
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:.At no point in time can we take a snapshot and say the global average is XYZ Responded here: link duncan61 wrote:Where is this atmospheric blanket The atmosphere acting to have thermal energy present within it's gases is something easily understood. Do you really need help with that? Honest question. It does not require even mentioning CO2 or a specific gas. Fart on your hand if you're too confused about the ability of a gas to have thermal energy present within it. DRKTS wrote: What you all seem to be ignoring is that the laws of thermodynamics apply only to a closed system. The Earth is not a closed system. Brilliant point first made recently here by KeepIt. Team denial here dodged the debate entirely. You'll find it here: Open vs closed/ 2nd by keepit And IBD giving up here: link Pete Rogers wrote: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 You are skipping over the empirical reason for the blanket theory as first put forward by Fourier: that the mean temp is much higher than it would be without one. So what IS happening as you see it? The gas layer on the planet, the atmosphere, has thermal energy present within it. My understanding is that this is why the mean temperature at ground level (which is not the outer surface of the planet strictly speaking) is higher than it would be otherwise. Your statement would seem to imply that a space blanket Mylar sheet will keep someone warmer than a heavy wool blanket. Reddit discussion: link Both sides would agree - at Professorial level - that you are correct in saying that the Earth would be much cooler without our atmosphere. The difference is reckoned to be at least the 33C predicted by the Stefan Boltzmann calculation at 255K - whereas we actually enjoy 288K - the difference is known as the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE). IPCC claim this enhancement proves the thermal potency of the Greenhouse Effect (GE) whereby a certain amount of escaping Infrared Radiation(IR) is intercepted by a few atmospheric gases to which it is not transparent. There is no experimental or other direct evidence that the GE has any thermal potency - it can't be experimentally reproduced - and it is most unusual for a theory to be accepted as knowledge purely from circumstantial evidence such as this. Having said that, if the IPCC were correct in stating that there could be no other cause they might have a point. The problem for them is that there is a much better explanation for the ATE - Gravity. The weight of the atmosphere at 1ton per sq ft means its volume is severely reduced by compression under its own weight (autocompression) so there are less units of volume for the heat energy passed into it from the surface to be spread between so the temperature rises. Think of it this way. If the atmosphere were under lower pressure it would still contain the same heat energy - having the same mass - but that heat energy would be spread between far more units of volume, meaning that the heat energy per unit volume would be lower so the temperature would be lower, but it can't be lower than 255K assuming S-B to be correct. Accordingly in getting back to our atmosphere now with far fewer units of volume due to higher compression from our stronger Gravity it comfortably accounts for the ATE leaving nothing for the GE which is therefore a false theory. So mankind and his CO2 has no effect on temperature, the alterations in which are from the same causes as they have always been. Variations in the net insolation striking the solid/liquid surface. Gases are extraordinary in being compressible and this characteristic allows gravitational force to be convertd into energy within the system. Pete Rogers wrote:...gravity performing the negative work DRKTS pointed out already that gravity is not doing work. It's not a source of energy. The act of compression is the performance of negative work, meaning the heat energy is concentrated. Gravitational compression produces heat. The Sun's core temperature is estimated to be around 15 million degrees Celsius due to gravitational compression. Since our atmosphere is negligible in cosmic terms the ATE from the negative work performed on it by our gravity is modest. Pete Rogers wrote:An argument is indubitably presented ITN is here to waste your time Pete Pete Rogers wrote:In the case of the Earth and its Atmosphere this equilibrium is obtained when the outgoing IR balances the incoming UV enhanced by the reservoir of the ATE. Very clearly said. The oceans and solid matter of Earth would also be part of that reservoir. VENUS having much denser atmosphere has a much larger "active"? reservoir. That is correct. The atmospheric pressure on Venus is 90 times that of Earth due to its 96% CO2 content. Using the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law this pressure exactly predicts the enhanced surface temperature of 900K. The surface temperature of all planetary bodies with a pressure in excess of 10kPa are accurately predicted from their gravitational compression (autocompression) "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
01-09-2020 21:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wrote: [quote]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. Into the Night wroteWRONG. 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. There is no fallacy because the logic checks out and what follows on in evidence falls in line with that logic thus validating the argument - Into the Night wroteLie. Denial of logic. This is all you get from this chap - Bald Statements -, which are empty words because they are conclusions not arguments. He is trying to force these conclusions on the assessor without any reasoning in support, which is cheating, so it's really just like a toy being thrown out of an infant's stroller that we are supposed to pick up even though it is of no value to any but the child in its unutterable imagination, you are supposed to take responsibility for working out why he threw it, because he can't tell you. It happens this way because like the frustrated infant he cannot get his way by force of argument so he tries to force a conclusion instead When I ask for explanation as I have here - and I ask others to witness it - we normally get the circular comment that he has already explained - another teddy bear whistling past my ear -! Accordingly there is simply nothing here for the honest examiner to consider. He is just telling us that he knows best. Big deal! Semantics fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: where have you been to come up with something like this? Into the Night wroteLogic, which you deny. Wherefore is the denial you claim when again you provide no particulars? It's just another toy thrown out of the stroller, so nobody - or at least not me - is going to pick it up I wouldn't have thought. I have checked the rest of this message and there are toys of this kind all over the place, so I will leave them for you to collect for yourself - after all it was you who threw them out. Having said this there are one or two where you more sensibly indulge us with at least a partial explanation and I will happily deal with them and certain other oddities besides as we go along. RQAA. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Since you so evidently and vehemently disagree why fail to prove your contrary point - which requires your providing an explanation for readers to consider and cross-check. Any explanation you provide must back your bald assertions up incontrovertibly in order to shed any light that we may see your point. It is fraudulent for any examiner to claim to have falsified a position by dint of nothing more than bald assertions of denial. Without specifics your contribution is a waste of your time as it cannot be weighed up so must be dropped. Into the Night saidI am not trying to prove a point. YOU are. Inversion fallacy. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. No! If you are unable to falsify my explanation - thus proving you are right in your criticism of it - there is no point in responding at all. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: Your argument is peurile and must fall for lack of substance. Nobody's forcing you to do anything, it's just for you to demonstrate whether you are up to the job of satisfactorily explaining yourself rather than simply declaring your infallibility - which illuminates nothing. This used to be known as being a fat-head. Inversion fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. RQAA. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: My theory is falsifiableby the provision of evidence that both withstands scrutiny itself and overthrows a particular of my argument; Into the Night wroteNo. It violates the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law as well as the ideal gas law. Wherefore are these violations? I have discovered none, so I invite you to be our guide. RQAA. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: which is testable and/or follows the known Laws of Physics: Into the Night wroteLie. It denies the laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the ideal gas law. Pete Rogers wrote: otherwise it properly stands for truth. Into the Night wroteScience isn't a 'truth'. It isn't a Universal Truth. It isn't a proof. It is a set of falsifiable theories. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. I said it stands for truth. Science isn't a 'truth'. Pete Rogers wrote: If you are right and that is not allowed I will leave you to wait for the apple that does not fall when it leaves the tree. Meanwhile; for people in the real world: that the apple will fall will stand for truth and we need not detain ourselves about it in the way you desire. Where do you get this stuff, it's all just semantics? Instead of trapping yourself in Poppers cul-de-sac and going round in circles ask yourself what modern philosopher has been of practical use? Denial of science. Denial of philosophy. RQAA. Pete Rogers wrote: Instead of these semantics we should work on what is the case, being that according to The Laws of Thermodynamics and its sister Fluid Dynamics adiabatic autocompression within a flow system must enhance the temperature of that system to the tune of the negative work accomplished by the compressive force. You are denying the ideal gas law and the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Pete Rogers wrote: The system can only lose heat by radiation of the heated object -being the solid/liquid Earth in our case - whereby a gravitationally enhanced temperature is achieved. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Mantra 20a1. Pete Rogers wrote: You don't appear to know that this is the case because it turns out that you do not understand thermodynamics after all (as I will show you a little further down) and certainly not Fluid Dynamics or the consequences of the Ideal Gas Law as it appllies to atmospheres. The Molar Mass version is the one you need to check out in that regard. Inversion fallacy. Mantras 17....20a1...20n... Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote:The only reason it had to be repeated is that you said it wasn't an argument, Into the Night wroteYou made no valid arguments. No argument presented. To the contrary I made several arguments all of them unfailingly logical and according to evidence provided so they are indubitably valid - where have you been? Into the Night wroteLie. You are continuing to deny science using the same fallacies. That in and of itself is a fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: Again you make bald statements of dismissal with no explanatory content to back them up. Into the Night wroteI already have. Where is it then? I can't find it and I'm guessing you won't either. My earlier comment that you simply say you have explained when there is no explanation to be found is exemplified here. It is a cheat, so we drop the matter until you can do better. RQAA. Mantras 29...7... Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: To be of any worth; and here is your opportunity: you must show with precision the respects in which any of the following particulars; comprising the theory: are false and why? Already done. RQAA. Pete Rogers wrote: Particular 1. The Earth's Atmosphere is adiabatic, so it cannot lose temperature except by conduction to the solid/liquid surface with which it is in contact. Into the Night wroteThe atmosphere is colder than the surface. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This is where you cook your own goose into the night because you have just revealed it to us that you do not even know that the surface of the earth and the base of the atmosphere must be at the same temperature because of the Laws of thermodynamics. No. Sometimes the air is warmer than the surface, usually it's colder. The surface heats the atmosphere, not the other way around. Mantras 10b..20a2...25g...30...31... Pete Rogers wrote: This is proof that you do not know your Thermodynamics, Mantras 20a1...20a2...39d... Pete Rogers wrote: so it's game over and there is no need for any of us to proceed any further. [quote]Pete Rogers wrote: Once you have worked out that you are wrong about this you are welcome to correct yourself and proceed, that is perfectly ok, but you must explain yourself coherently from then on rather than trying to compel our agreement by forcing conclusons on the interlocutor as an infant succeeds in forcing the adult to pick up its toys. At this point I suggest we close this chapter until Intothe night reassesses his position and regroups - or better still comes to understand that the theory assessed in this thread is correct. I would like to ask all involved to cut the ego business henceforth as this is supposed to be an assessment not a pissing contest. Mantras 7... Pete Rogers wrote: I would like to say finally that Philosophical admixtures are unhelpful to science because they are not designed to help it but to control it semantically and therefore rhetorically, which is what the devious Politician looks for and sponsors, but it's really just navel-gazing in the end - to keep away from getting sucked in is my advice, politicians and their helpers are not honest men! Mantras 7...16b...20e1...39d... No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of science. Denial of philosophy. Semantics fallacies. Inversion fallacies. Assumption of victory fallacies. Invalid proofs. Attempted force of negative proof 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

01-09-2020 21:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Pete Rogers wrote: ...deleted malformed posting... Apparently you forgot how to use forum software again. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
02-09-2020 01:26
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Petes got a point ITN.you do my head in with this greater than thou attitude and its rare you explain you just write RQAA.I have looked to and can not find the RQAA
02-09-2020 01:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	duncan61 wrote: Petes got a point ITN. duncan, I'd like to take a crack at it. What point do you believe that Pete has? All the points that I see are just repeated drivel that never change no matter how many times they are explained. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-09-2020 02:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	duncan61 wrote: Petes got a point ITN.you do my head in with this greater than thou attitude and its rare you explain you just write RQAA.I have looked to and can not find the RQAA duncan, I notice that tgoebbles is back and he's really good at confusing people so in the event that you are interested I am including my recently updated Debunk of the Greenhouse Effect. Greenhouse Effect DEBUNKED . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-09-2020 03:32
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote: Petes got a point ITN.you do my head in with this greater than thou attitude and its rare you explain you just write RQAA.I have looked to and can not find the RQAA duncan, I notice that tgoebbles is back and he's really good at confusing people so in the event that you are interested I am including my recently updated Debunk of the Greenhouse Effect. Greenhouse Effect DEBUNKED . Technically you can't debunk it. A greenhouse has atmospheric gases just like the atmosphere has. Can you prove in an unambiguous way that gases are not associated with distributing heat in a given environment? You simply cannot do this as gasses that extend to the surface of a planet shows a more even distribution of heat than a planet with little or no gasses near it's surface. Both the Moon and Mars are examples of uneven surface temperatures between being exposed to the Sun or lacking said exposure. And when Venus and the Earth have more consistent surface temperatures (not atmospheric), tends to show that gasses do influence surface temperatures contrary to what you claim. And once again, it feels good to be right. Yep, I think I can get used to this. Edited on 02-09-2020 03:32
02-09-2020 19:43
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	Into the Night wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: [quote]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. Into the Night wroteWRONG. 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. There is no fallacy because the logic checks out and what follows on in evidence falls in line with that logic thus validating the argument - Into the Night wroteLie. Denial of logic. This is all you get from this chap - Bald Statements -, which are empty words because they are conclusions not arguments. He is trying to force these conclusions on the assessor without any reasoning in support, which is cheating, so it's really just like a toy being thrown out of an infant's stroller that we are supposed to pick up even though it is of no value to any but the child in its unutterable imagination, you are supposed to take responsibility for working out why he threw it, because he can't tell you. It happens this way because like the frustrated infant he cannot get his way by force of argument so he tries to force a conclusion instead When I ask for explanation as I have here - and I ask others to witness it - we normally get the circular comment that he has already explained - another teddy bear whistling past my ear -! Accordingly there is simply nothing here for the honest examiner to consider. He is just telling us that he knows best. Big deal! Semantics fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: where have you been to come up with something like this? Into the Night wroteLogic, which you deny. Wherefore is the denial you claim when again you provide no particulars? It's just another toy thrown out of the stroller, so nobody - or at least not me - is going to pick it up I wouldn't have thought. I have checked the rest of this message and there are toys of this kind all over the place, so I will leave them for you to collect for yourself - after all it was you who threw them out. Having said this there are one or two where you more sensibly indulge us with at least a partial explanation and I will happily deal with them and certain other oddities besides as we go along. RQAA. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Since you so evidently and vehemently disagree why fail to prove your contrary point - which requires your providing an explanation for readers to consider and cross-check. Any explanation you provide must back your bald assertions up incontrovertibly in order to shed any light that we may see your point. It is fraudulent for any examiner to claim to have falsified a position by dint of nothing more than bald assertions of denial. Without specifics your contribution is a waste of your time as it cannot be weighed up so must be dropped. Into the Night saidI am not trying to prove a point. YOU are. Inversion fallacy. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. No! If you are unable to falsify my explanation - thus proving you are right in your criticism of it - there is no point in responding at all. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: Your argument is peurile and must fall for lack of substance. Nobody's forcing you to do anything, it's just for you to demonstrate whether you are up to the job of satisfactorily explaining yourself rather than simply declaring your infallibility - which illuminates nothing. This used to be known as being a fat-head. Inversion fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. RQAA. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: My theory is falsifiableby the provision of evidence that both withstands scrutiny itself and overthrows a particular of my argument; Into the Night wroteNo. It violates the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law as well as the ideal gas law. Wherefore are these violations? I have discovered none, so I invite you to be our guide. RQAA. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: which is testable and/or follows the known Laws of Physics: Into the Night wroteLie. It denies the laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the ideal gas law. Pete Rogers wrote: otherwise it properly stands for truth. Into the Night wroteScience isn't a 'truth'. It isn't a Universal Truth. It isn't a proof. It is a set of falsifiable theories. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. I said it stands for truth. Science isn't a 'truth'. Pete Rogers wrote: If you are right and that is not allowed I will leave you to wait for the apple that does not fall when it leaves the tree. Meanwhile; for people in the real world: that the apple will fall will stand for truth and we need not detain ourselves about it in the way you desire. Where do you get this stuff, it's all just semantics? Instead of trapping yourself in Poppers cul-de-sac and going round in circles ask yourself what modern philosopher has been of practical use? Denial of science. Denial of philosophy. RQAA. Pete Rogers wrote: Instead of these semantics we should work on what is the case, being that according to The Laws of Thermodynamics and its sister Fluid Dynamics adiabatic autocompression within a flow system must enhance the temperature of that system to the tune of the negative work accomplished by the compressive force. You are denying the ideal gas law and the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Pete Rogers wrote: The system can only lose heat by radiation of the heated object -being the solid/liquid Earth in our case - whereby a gravitationally enhanced temperature is achieved. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Mantra 20a1. Pete Rogers wrote: You don't appear to know that this is the case because it turns out that you do not understand thermodynamics after all (as I will show you a little further down) and certainly not Fluid Dynamics or the consequences of the Ideal Gas Law as it appllies to atmospheres. The Molar Mass version is the one you need to check out in that regard. Inversion fallacy. Mantras 17....20a1...20n... Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote:The only reason it had to be repeated is that you said it wasn't an argument, Into the Night wroteYou made no valid arguments. No argument presented. To the contrary I made several arguments all of them unfailingly logical and according to evidence provided so they are indubitably valid - where have you been? Into the Night wroteLie. You are continuing to deny science using the same fallacies. That in and of itself is a fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: Again you make bald statements of dismissal with no explanatory content to back them up. Into the Night wroteI already have. Where is it then? I can't find it and I'm guessing you won't either. My earlier comment that you simply say you have explained when there is no explanation to be found is exemplified here. It is a cheat, so we drop the matter until you can do better. RQAA. Mantras 29...7... Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: To be of any worth; and here is your opportunity: you must show with precision the respects in which any of the following particulars; comprising the theory: are false and why? Already done. RQAA. Pete Rogers wrote: Particular 1. The Earth's Atmosphere is adiabatic, so it cannot lose temperature except by conduction to the solid/liquid surface with which it is in contact. Into the Night wroteThe atmosphere is colder than the surface. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This is where you cook your own goose into the night because you have just revealed it to us that you do not even know that the surface of the earth and the base of the atmosphere must be at the same temperature because of the Laws of thermodynamics. Into the Night wroteNo. Sometimes the air is warmer than the surface, usually it's colder. The surface heats the atmosphere, not the other way around. Mantras 10b..20a2...25g...30...31... Oh dear, you really are a bit glutton for punishment aren't you. At point of contact the temperatures of Earth and Atmosphere must be identical - think man think! If you can't see that then there is no point in your continuing. What are all these Mantras and what is RQAA - please try to communicate effectively? The rest of your reply is the same as before - a list of unsupported allegations - such toys thrown from the pram will not be picked up. None of what you offer; or almost none to be fair: has any relevance to epistemology, so why are you trying to participate? Pete Rogers wrote: This is proof that you do not know your Thermodynamics, Mantras 20a1...20a2...39d... Pete Rogers wrote: so it's game over and there is no need for any of us to proceed any further. Pete Rogers wrote: Once you have worked out that you are wrong about this you are welcome to correct yourself and proceed, that is perfectly ok, but you must explain yourself coherently from then on rather than trying to compel our agreement by forcing conclusons on the interlocutor as an infant succeeds in forcing the adult to pick up its toys. At this point I suggest we close this chapter until Intothe night reassesses his position and regroups - or better still comes to understand that the theory assessed in this thread is correct. I would like to ask all involved to cut the ego business henceforth as this is supposed to be an assessment not a pissing contest. Mantras 7... Pete Rogers wrote: I would like to say finally that Philosophical admixtures are unhelpful to science because they are not designed to help it but to control it semantically and therefore rhetorically, which is what the devious Politician looks for and sponsors, but it's really just navel-gazing in the end - to keep away from getting sucked in is my advice, politicians and their helpers are not honest men! Mantras 7...16b...20e1...39d... No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of science. Denial of philosophy. Semantics fallacies. Inversion fallacies. Assumption of victory fallacies. Invalid proofs. Attempted force of negative proof fallacies.
02-09-2020 20:11
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: DEBUNKED Technically you can't debunk it. James__, you are too late. It has already been DEBUNKED. It is silly to assert that what has been done cannot be done. In review, it has been Totally DEBUNKED. Enjoy! . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
02-09-2020 20:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	Pete Rogers wrote:[butchered post deleted] Pete, somehow you totally butchered the post. You need to do it again. First, you tried editing QUOTE tags and deleted one too many and ended up assigning your quotes to Into the Night and his to you. Consider it practice. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-09-2020 06:00
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: DEBUNKED Technically you can't debunk it. James__, you are too late. It has already been DEBUNKED. It is silly to assert that what has been done cannot be done. In review, it has been Totally DEBUNKED. Enjoy! . I have a nephew like you. And yet your my son when me and your mother never had sex. And now I have a son just like my brother had one. And yet people wonder why I say God hates me. Something's missing here. God does hate me but it is what you posted in another thread. You understand the argument not being discussed. They all have missed it but you didn't. And son, I don't like you. They do. Okay. IBDM, they literally have noclue. Edited on 04-09-2020 06:31
04-09-2020 07:07
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	This probably ain't hot. https://www.instagram.com/p/CEnJ9-BjFpo/?utm_source=ig_web_copy_link My bad. They're probably not hot. And if this link works, it's Inbar lavi (Israel) and Lesley Ann-Brandt (South Africa); https://www.instagram.com/p/CEXGjC1jrtj/ Edited on 04-09-2020 07:14

04-09-2020 07:20
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: Pete Rogers wrote:The problem for them is that there is a much better explanation for the ATE - Gravity. The weight of the atmosphere at 1ton per sq ft means its volume is severely reduced by compression under its own weight (autocompression) so there are less units of volume for the heat energy passed into it from the surface to be spread between so the temperature rises. So this concept is not correct as you've described it. The degree to which a gas is pre-compressed will have not influence on the temperature it will reach via conduction (let's just use conduction here to keep it simple). If I have two sealed gas cylinders that are at room temperature and I place them both into a bath tub full of water that is 50C. Both cylinders will in time reach 50C as well. If one gas cylinder contains gas at twice the pressure of the other, it has no influence at all on their both being just 50C in equilibrium with the water they are in. Remember that the gas is under pressure due to gravity but it is NOT being "compressed" by gravity in the the sense that any work is being done. NO WORK IS BEING DONE BY GRAVITY. None at all. Pete Rogers wrote:If the atmosphere were under lower pressure ... it would still contain the same heat energy - having the same mass - but that heat energy would be spread between ...so the temperature would be lower So the "thermal energy" (let's use that instead of heat energy) determines temperature. Let's say the amount of thermal energy and the mass are constant: PV=nRT P, pressure, and V, volume can change, but n, the mass, R, ideal gas constant, cannot change. So what happens if pressure drops as volume increases? Lets put numbers in: PV=nRT PV=nRT P=10 V=10 n=1 R=1 1010=11T 100=T So now let's cut the pressure in half and double the volume P=5 V=20 n=1 R=1 1010=11T 100=T https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/gases-and-kinetic-molecular-theory/ideal-gas-laws/v/ideal-gas-equation-pv-nrt This is because Temperature is the thermal energy per mass, not per volume. I think you're visualizing the difficulty of the spread out molecules to conduct their thermal energy to a thermometer. I don't understand that and it seems weird to me too. An explanation would be appreciated. My understanding is the gravity plays a roll in crating a very uneven distribution of temperature, hot at ground level, colder up high. I'm not really following what you mean by "negative work". Pete Rogers wrote:Venus is 90 times that of Earth due to its 96% CO2 content. Using the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law this pressure exactly predicts the enhanced surface temperature of 900K. Again this doesn't sound right as with the gas canister example up top of the post. My understanding is that there is an altitude high in the Venutian atmosphere that is the actual emitting surface of Venus. It's emission matches what the Sun gives Venus. If you plug that temperature at that pressure high in the atmosphere, into the ideal gas equation, it may give you high temp at ground level. Similarly the Sun has whatever energy it has first, due to fusion. The distribution of that energy and the resulting temperature comes after that generation of energy. The Sun's emitting surface is cooler and at a lower pressure. ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD* or ITN I'd rather discuss Inbar Lavi and Lesley Ann-Brandt. Your theorem has been proved false by the Joules-Thomson effect. That was in 1852, right? It's actually known as a throttling process today. Kind of why I'd rather discuss the Inbar Lavi-Lesley Ann-Brandt process. They both (all 4 divided by 2) have moves. They are both actresses in Lucifer on Netflix. My comment has nothing to do if they are in a relationship. As actresses, I like them. Edited on 04-09-2020 07:24
04-09-2020 07:50
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBDM, this is for you. How does Avagrado's number, the density of atmospheric gasses and surface (once again, not atmospheric) temperatures relate? I know you got this son. Myself, I will be wondering if Ms. Israeli or Ms. South Africa is HOTTER. We do live in a global society son and I do love cultural exchanges Just joking. Both Inbar Lavi and Lesley Ann-Brandt are 2 actresses that I like. Attached image: Edited on 04-09-2020 07:52
04-09-2020 07:56
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Pete Rogers wrote:The problem for them is that there is a much better explanation for the ATE - Gravity. The weight of the atmosphere at 1ton per sq ft means its volume is severely reduced by compression under its own weight (autocompression) so there are less units of volume for the heat energy passed into it from the surface to be spread between so the temperature rises. So this concept is not correct as you've described it. The degree to which a gas is pre-compressed will have not influence on the temperature it will reach via conduction (let's just use conduction here to keep it simple). If I have two sealed gas cylinders that are at room temperature and I place them both into a bath tub full of water that is 50C. Both cylinders will in time reach 50C as well. If one gas cylinder contains gas at twice the pressure of the other, it has no influence at all on their both being just 50C in equilibrium with the water they are in. Remember that the gas is under pressure due to gravity but it is NOT being "compressed" by gravity in the the sense that any work is being done. NO WORK IS BEING DONE BY GRAVITY. None at all. Pete Rogers wrote:If the atmosphere were under lower pressure ... it would still contain the same heat energy - having the same mass - but that heat energy would be spread between ...so the temperature would be lower So the "thermal energy" (let's use that instead of heat energy) determines temperature. Let's say the amount of thermal energy and the mass are constant: PV=nRT P, pressure, and V, volume can change, but n, the mass, R, ideal gas constant, cannot change. So what happens if pressure drops as volume increases? Lets put numbers in: PV=nRT PV=nRT P=10 V=10 n=1 R=1 1010=11T 100=T So now let's cut the pressure in half and double the volume P=5 V=20 n=1 R=1 1010=11T 100=T https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/gases-and-kinetic-molecular-theory/ideal-gas-laws/v/ideal-gas-equation-pv-nrt This is because Temperature is the thermal energy per mass, not per volume. I think you're visualizing the difficulty of the spread out molecules to conduct their thermal energy to a thermometer. I don't understand that and it seems weird to me too. An explanation would be appreciated. My understanding is the gravity plays a roll in crating a very uneven distribution of temperature, hot at ground level, colder up high. I'm not really following what you mean by "negative work". Pete Rogers wrote:Venus is 90 times that of Earth due to its 96% CO2 content. Using the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law this pressure exactly predicts the enhanced surface temperature of 900K. Again this doesn't sound right as with the gas canister example up top of the post. My understanding is that there is an altitude high in the Venutian atmosphere that is the actual emitting surface of Venus. It's emission matches what the Sun gives Venus. If you plug that temperature at that pressure high in the atmosphere, into the ideal gas equation, it may give you high temp at ground level. Similarly the Sun has whatever energy it has first, due to fusion. The distribution of that energy and the resulting temperature comes after that generation of energy. The Sun's emitting surface is cooler and at a lower pressure. ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD* or ITN
04-09-2020 08:43
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: Pete Rogers wrote:The problem for them is that there is a much better explanation for the ATE - Gravity. The weight of the atmosphere at 1ton per sq ft means its volume is severely reduced by compression under its own weight (autocompression) so there are less units of volume for the heat energy passed into it from the surface to be spread between so the temperature rises. So this concept is not correct as you've described it. The degree to which a gas is pre-compressed will have not influence on the temperature it will reach via conduction (let's just use conduction here to keep it simple). If I have two sealed gas cylinders that are at room temperature and I place them both into a bath tub full of water that is 50C. Both cylinders will in time reach 50C as well. If one gas cylinder contains gas at twice the pressure of the other, it has no influence at all on their both being just 50C in equilibrium with the water they are in. Remember that the gas is under pressure due to gravity but it is NOT being "compressed" by gravity in the the sense that any work is being done. NO WORK IS BEING DONE BY GRAVITY. None at all. Pete Rogers wrote:If the atmosphere were under lower pressure ... it would still contain the same heat energy - having the same mass - but that heat energy would be spread between ...so the temperature would be lower So the "thermal energy" (let's use that instead of heat energy) determines temperature. Let's say the amount of thermal energy and the mass are constant: PV=nRT P, pressure, and V, volume can change, but n, the mass, R, ideal gas constant, cannot change. So what happens if pressure drops as volume increases? Lets put numbers in: PV=nRT PV=nRT P=10 V=10 n=1 R=1 1010=11T 100=T So now let's cut the pressure in half and double the volume P=5 V=20 n=1 R=1 1010=11T 100=T https://www.khanacademy.org/science/chemistry/gases-and-kinetic-molecular-theory/ideal-gas-laws/v/ideal-gas-equation-pv-nrt This is because Temperature is the thermal energy per mass, not per volume. I think you're visualizing the difficulty of the spread out molecules to conduct their thermal energy to a thermometer. I don't understand that and it seems weird to me too. An explanation would be appreciated. My understanding is the gravity plays a roll in crating a very uneven distribution of temperature, hot at ground level, colder up high. I'm not really following what you mean by "negative work". Pete Rogers wrote:Venus is 90 times that of Earth due to its 96% CO2 content. Using the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law this pressure exactly predicts the enhanced surface temperature of 900K. Again this doesn't sound right as with the gas canister example up top of the post. My understanding is that there is an altitude high in the Venutian atmosphere that is the actual emitting surface of Venus. It's emission matches what the Sun gives Venus. If you plug that temperature at that pressure high in the atmosphere, into the ideal gas equation, it may give you high temp at ground level. Similarly the Sun has whatever energy it has first, due to fusion. The distribution of that energy and the resulting temperature comes after that generation of energy. The Sun's emitting surface is cooler and at a lower pressure. ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD* or ITN I think it's a tie. I mean they're both talented. As far as science goes; I'll give you this. Scientists can't say specifically how feedback mechanisms work because those are independent variables. From one warming period to the next they can vary. And with me, was being nice in saying ozone depletion. Sadly, depleted levels of the oxygen atom in our atmosphere are ignored. And chances are that scientists have never played the slots in a casino. It's about the same thing. And tmiddles, it's easier to nickel and dime a person into poverty than it is to ask them for their money. @IBDM, something for you to play with. Just enter mols and kPa. You can search and see if the average for atmospheric gasses is the same as the ratio considering each gas independently. This makes it fairly easy to do. And how does this relate to surface temperature and it's distribution? http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/cppro.html#c1 I'll simplify this for you son. If the Earth's surface is radiating more heat, how can we tell the difference between that and the atmosphere warming the surface? You know the examples and they don't. And if we don't know this difference, then how can we tell we're making a difference? This is so funny IBDM. You know what I'm talking about but they don't. And I doubt they'll ever know the difference. Kind of why asking about women is better. You'll get the same answer. In here, like out in the world, it's a debate. It's not about having the right answer. Edited on 04-09-2020 09:02
04-09-2020 10:37
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Pete.I.like it would seem others as well have no clue of the concept of gravity creating ATE.can you explain it a bit more and the atmospheric pressure is just over 14 psi square inch wHich is 2016 oz per square foot not a ton which is 32,000 oz at 33 feet deep in the ocean it gains 1 more atmosphere and 1 more atmosphere every 33 feet after that.Love the toddler tantrum analogy for ITN.I watched a lot of Judge Judy when we had foxtell and one episode a young fat bitch just kept saying :I didnt do it: even though there was CCTV footage of her keying the blokes car.Its the same with ITN and the constant rebuttals with no answers
04-09-2020 13:03
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	Into the Night wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: ...deleted malformed posting... Apparently you forgot how to use forum software again. Still unfamiliar.
04-09-2020 16:08
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	duncan61 wrote: Pete.I.like it would seem others as well have no clue of the concept of gravity creating ATE.can you explain it a bit more and the atmospheric pressure is just over 14 psi square inch wHich is 2016 oz per square foot not a ton which is 32,000 oz at 33 feet deep in the ocean it gains 1 more atmosphere and 1 more atmosphere every 33 feet after that.Love the toddler tantrum analogy for ITN.I watched a lot of Judge Judy when we had foxtell and one episode a young fat bitch just kept saying :I didnt do it: even though there was CCTV footage of her keying the blokes car.Its the same with ITN and the constant rebuttals with no answers Hi Duncan61, Sure. You're just making a bit of a slip-up there. You'll say "dammit" when I remind you that psi is pounds per sq in of course not ounces. So it's 2016 lb per sq ft which is nearly a ton. In fact there is a thing called a "short ton" which is 2000 lb you might like to know. Yes, it's very unsatisfactory to me that anyone should get involved with this stuff if he won't explain himself patiently. In ITN's world it is as if it has to be sufficient for we mere mortals to take his summary declamations as if they are some kind of last word in the matter - because he says so - ex cathedra. That a thing be a fallacy for instance - a repeated accusation by ITN - needs careful thought and explanation to be shown to be the case, but you can forget that with him, there is no attempt at identifying linkage even. The bit where he begins to fall apart is his use of the accusation - insult fallacy - whereas he is almost entirely reliant on the use of insult. Worse than insult in fact, the accusation is "liar" so he's a bit of a doozy when it comes to that. It is deeply - irrepairably - ironic that he throws accusations of Religiousness around at others too at the drop of a hat - even though they actually explain themselves scientifically - whilst missing the point that he is demanding acceptance of his word simply because the word is his. That is in the manner of Papal ordinances, but ITN is unable to see himself objectively in that light and pull out, so has satisfied himself that what he does is to be admired for its correctness - not questioned. This is comparable to the doctrine of Papal infallibility. It was very important then that the infallibility of Pope ITN The First crashed and burned quite suddenly the other day when he forced it upon the surface of the Earth that it be at a different temperature to base of the Atmosphere!! Having battered away in monosyllables as though he had unimpeachable knowledge of the workings of Thermodynamics he walks straight into that immoveable object - "The Second Law" - and reckons to brush it aside, but there he is on the ground. It's just a matter of time for any inflated ego to explode in its possessor's face, and so everything the fellow tried to shove down our throats now lies in tatters all around his flattened form. He may lack the humour to put his hand up and concede (as opposed to your own ability to laugh - I suspect - at stepping on the bananaskin of ounces rather than pounds) if so expect further ravings from him. If not then he is welcome to correct himself and come back to the table, but for my money he will be wasting his time again if he fails to respect the rules of epistemology (= the necessary method for discovering whether an opinion is knowledge or baloney)
04-09-2020 18:16
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	tmiddles wrote: NO WORK IS BEING DONE BY GRAVITY. None at all. Is that because gravity is not a force? tmiddles wrote: My understanding is that there is an altitude high in the Venutian atmosphere that is the actual emitting surface of Venus. ... and your understanding isn't exactly the clearest photo of Bigfoot in the stack. tmiddles wrote: It's emission matches what the Sun gives Venus. Aaaaah, the omniscience is BACK! You know what Venus emits at different altitudes. That is quite a superpower you have there. Congratulations. tmiddles wrote:The Sun's emitting surface is cooler and at a lower pressure. Where would that be, by the way? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-09-2020 21:22
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I picked up the psi ounces mistake myself when I read my own post
05-09-2020 01:21
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	duncan61 wrote: Pete.I.like it would seem others as well have no clue of the concept of gravity creating ATE.can you explain it a bit more and the atmospheric pressure is just over 14 psi square inch wHich is 2016 oz per square foot not a ton which is 32,000 oz at 33 feet deep in the ocean it gains 1 more atmosphere and 1 more atmosphere every 33 feet after that.Love the toddler tantrum analogy for ITN.I watched a lot of Judge Judy when we had foxtell and one episode a young fat bitch just kept saying :I didnt do it: even though there was CCTV footage of her keying the blokes car.Its the same with ITN and the constant rebuttals with no answers I have answered. Multiple times. I have described why his concept of the ideal gas law doesn't work. I have described why there is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas' and why no gas or vapor has the capability to warm a planet. I have described why it's not possible to reduce entropy in a system. I have described what I consider valid data and what is just random numbers. I've described some the statistical and probability math these guys deny. All I get back from The Faithful are repetitions, bad science, bad math, denial of history, insults, evasions, and pivoting away to some other subject. These are repetitive and contain no substance, hence the Mantras. Now if one of these idiot wants to define 'global warming' or 'climate change'. Then someone can at least talk about a theory about it...not the void arguments they are making about undefined buzzwords. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-09-2020 01:24
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote:...someone can at least talk about a theory about it... Your willingness to debate is thoroughly documented on this forum ITN. ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
05-09-2020 01:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Pete Rogers wrote: duncan61 wrote: Pete.I.like it would seem others as well have no clue of the concept of gravity creating ATE.can you explain it a bit more and the atmospheric pressure is just over 14 psi square inch wHich is 2016 oz per square foot not a ton which is 32,000 oz at 33 feet deep in the ocean it gains 1 more atmosphere and 1 more atmosphere every 33 feet after that.Love the toddler tantrum analogy for ITN.I watched a lot of Judge Judy when we had foxtell and one episode a young fat bitch just kept saying :I didnt do it: even though there was CCTV footage of her keying the blokes car.Its the same with ITN and the constant rebuttals with no answers Hi Duncan61, Sure. You're just making a bit of a slip-up there. You'll say "dammit" when I remind you that psi is pounds per sq in of course not ounces. So it's 2016 lb per sq ft which is nearly a ton. In fact there is a thing called a "short ton" which is 2000 lb you might like to know. His conversions are correct. You are making a math error in trying to point out why it's 'wrong'. 14psi does indeed convert to 2015 pounds per square foot, or just over a ton. Pete Rogers wrote: Yes, it's very unsatisfactory to me that anyone should get involved with this stuff if he won't explain himself patiently. I already have. RQAA. Pete Rogers wrote: In ITN's world it is as if it has to be sufficient for we mere mortals to take his summary declamations as if they are some kind of last word in the matter - because he says so - ex cathedra. That a thing be a fallacy for instance - a repeated accusation by ITN- A fallacy is an error logic, just like a math error. There is nothing to explain. It is not an accusation. It is logic, which you are now denying. Pete Rogers wrote: needs careful thought and explanation to be shown to be the case, Nope. It's an error in logic. That's what a fallacy is. You can look them up from many places. I usually don't bother to show you the equation fault you are making, since you would just deny logic anyway. Pete Rogers wrote: but you can forget that with him, there is no attempt at identifying linkage even. None needed. Science isn't an URL. Logic isn't an URL. Math isn't an URL. Philosophy isn't an URL. Pete Rogers wrote: The bit where he begins to fall apart is his use of the accusation - insult fallacy - whereas he is almost entirely reliant on the use of insult. An insult is an insult. There really is not grey area on this. Making an insult and having no other argument is an insult fallacy and a void argument fallacy. They are not valid arguments. Pete Rogers wrote: Worse than insult in fact, the accusation is "liar" so he's a bit of a doozy when it comes to that. I have shown why people lie and what they are saying is a lie. They just continue to lie. Pete Rogers wrote: It is deeply - irrepairably - ironic that he throws accusations of Religiousness around at others too at the drop of a hat - even though they actually explain themselves scientifically - You deny science. You deny the ideal gas law. You deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. You deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Your gibber-babble is not a theory of science. You are confusing religion (yours) with science again. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. A theory is an explanatory argument. An argument is a set of predicates and a conclusion. Religion is an initial circular argument, with arguments extending from that. Pete Rogers wrote: whilst missing the point that he is demanding acceptance of his word simply because the word is his. Nope. Not my word. Both science and religion are defined using philosophy, which you also deny. Pete Rogers wrote: That is in the manner of Papal ordinances, Nope. Not Catholic either. Pete Rogers wrote: but ITN is unable to see himself objectively in that light and pull out, so has satisfied himself that what he does is to be admired for its correctness - not questioned. I do not question the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, or the ideal gas law, until someone shows that they are falsified. You just simply deny them all. Pete Rogers wrote: This is comparable to the doctrine of Papal infallibility. You are describing yourself. Inversion fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: It was very important then that the infallibility of Pope ITN The First crashed and burned quite suddenly the other day when he forced it upon the surface of the Earth that it be at a different temperature to base of the Atmosphere!! The atmosphere is not the same temperature as the ground or the sea. Pete Rogers wrote: Having battered away in monosyllables as though he had unimpeachable knowledge of the workings of Thermodynamics he walks straight into that immoveable object - Not an object. The temperature of the atmosphere is not the same as the ground or the sea. Indeed, you have claimed the same thing, but for the wrong reasons. You are no locked in paradox. You must clear your paradox or continue to be irrational. Which is it, dude? Pete Rogers wrote: The Second Law" - and reckons to brush it aside, but there he is on the ground. No. It is YOU that brushes it aside. You deny science. Inversion fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: It's just a matter of time for any inflated ego to explode in its possessor's face, and so everything the fellow tried to shove down our throats now lies in tatters all around his flattened form. Assumption of victory fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: He may lack the humour to put his hand up and concede (as opposed to your own ability to laugh - I suspect - at stepping on the bananaskin of ounces rather than pounds) if so expect further ravings from him. No error was made in his conversions. Pete Rogers wrote: If not then he is welcome to correct himself and come back to the table, I don't have to correct anything. I am at the table. Pete Rogers wrote: but for my money he will be wasting his time again if he fails to respect the rules of epistemology (= the necessary method for discovering whether an opinion is knowledge or baloney) You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy. No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial if mathematics. Inversion fallacies. RQAA. Argument of the stone fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-09-2020 01:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:...someone can at least talk about a theory about it... Your willingness to debate is thoroughly documented on this forum ITN. There are no debates here. Only conversations. You refuse to have them. You are describing yourself. Answer the questions put to you. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 05-09-2020 01:46
05-09-2020 07:24
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: There are no debates here. ... Climate-Debate.com
05-09-2020 07:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	tmiddles wrote:Your willingness to debate is thoroughly documented on this forum ITN. It most certainly is, in excess of 13,000 posts. You picked the site's most prolific poster to question willingness to discuss. You, by contrast, have one fourth of his number of posts and most of yours are actively fleeing one topic or another. In fact, every single one of your posts over the last few months has specifically been EVADING the standard list of questions requiring answers needed to honestly continue discussing various topics with you. The reason you won't answer those questions is because the operative words are "honestly continue discussing" and you never had any intention of honestly discussing any of those topics. I'm sure the absurd nature of your attempt to make Into the Night appear as though he is the dishonest one is lost on you but rest assured, it is not lost on me. For your convenience, I have listed the unanswered questions below that would enable honest discussion to proceed. Please review them and kindly provide answers in blue text. 1) What are the unambiguous definitions of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect that neither violate nor deny physics? [Status: Unanswered] 2) Why should any rational adult believe in either Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect? [Status: Unanswered] 3) How can I unambiguously demonstrate to my children thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? [Status: Unanswered] 4) How can I know the temperature of a large, unspecified volume, e.g. Denver, to within, say, 10degF with only one temperature measurement, e.g. the Denver airport? [Status: Unanswered] 5) What are the unambiguous definitions of "race," "negro," "black people," "white people," "brown people," "white supremacy," "white nationalsim," "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "black supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: Unanswered] 6) Is there an official list of races? [font color="d11b0b"][Status: Unanswered] - 6a) How do I determine my own race or that of my children? [Status: Unanswered] 7) Why should any rational adult believe that there is a problem of racism in the United States? [font color="d11b0b"][Status: Unanswered] 8) Why should law abiding citizens be rendered defenseless before rampant violent crime? [Status: Unanswered] 9) Where in the 1st Amendment is "hate" prohibited such that, if shown, a prosecutor can throw someone in jail for having had that emotion/thought? [Status: Unanswered] 10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface? [font color="d11b0b"][Status: Unanswered] 11) If we were to discover that Lisa Gherardini was actually a shitty person, would that justify Black Lives Matter storming the Louvre to destroy the Mona Lisa? [Status: Unanswered] 12) Why should we destroy artifacts and relics pertaining to history that we never want to forget or repeat? [Status: Unanswered] 13) The Aztecs committed genocide of many other tribes and practiced human sacrifice; should their artwork and artifacts be destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 14) Why would you or anyone pretend to be a judge of what history is to be revised or destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 15) In what substantive/meaningful way do the platforms of Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA ... differ? [Status: Unanswered] 16) Which type of wood are you claiming melts (assuming the proper temperature and pressure) ... and what is that specific temperature and pressure? [Status: Unanswered] tmiddles wrote:ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN This wonderously magical all-debunking signature block has been very inspiring. This SIGNATURE Debunks Everything! Enjoy! . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

05-09-2020 07:30
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:...unanswered questions... "white supremacist," ...Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist Party ... https://www.climate-debate.com/guidelines.php ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
05-09-2020 07:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: There are no debates here. ... Climate-Debate.com Climate-Debate You well know that there is no such thing as a global Climate and you well know that people cannot effectively debate that which does not exist. However, discussions can be had from a religious perspective amongst those who all believe in Climate Mighty, hallelujia! I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-09-2020 08:05
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	tmiddles wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote:...unanswered questions... "white supremacist," ...Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist Party ... [lame cop-out deleted] I told you that Branner is fine with you answering this list of questions. You're good to go. 1) What are the unambiguous definitions of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect that neither violate nor deny physics? [Status: Unanswered] 2) Why should any rational adult believe in either Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect? [Status: Unanswered] 3) How can I unambiguously demonstrate to my children thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? [Status: Unanswered] 4) How can I know the temperature of a large, unspecified volume, e.g. Denver, to within, say, 10degF with only one temperature measurement, e.g. the Denver airport? [Status: Unanswered] 5) What are the unambiguous definitions of "race," "negro," "black people," "white people," "brown people," "white supremacy," "white nationalsim," "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "black supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: Unanswered] 6) Is there an official list of races? [font color="d11b0b"][Status: Unanswered] - 6a) How do I determine my own race or that of my children? [Status: Unanswered] 7) Why should any rational adult believe that there is a problem of racism in the United States? [font color="d11b0b"][Status: Unanswered] 8) Why should law abiding citizens be rendered defenseless before rampant violent crime? [Status: Unanswered] 9) Where in the 1st Amendment is "hate" prohibited such that, if shown, a prosecutor can throw someone in jail for having had that emotion/thought? [Status: Unanswered] 10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface? [Status: Unanswered] 11) If we were to discover that Lisa Gherardini was actually a shitty person, would that justify Black Lives Matter storming the Louvre to destroy the Mona Lisa? [Status: Unanswered] 12) Why should we destroy artifacts and relics pertaining to history that we never want to forget or repeat? [Status: Unanswered] 13) The Aztecs committed genocide of many other tribes and practiced human sacrifice; should their artwork and artifacts be destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 14) Why would you or anyone pretend to be a judge of what history is to be revised or destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 15) In what substantive/meaningful way do the platforms of Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA ... differ? [Status: Unanswered] 16) Which type of wood are you claiming melts (assuming the proper temperature and pressure) ... and what is that specific temperature and pressure? [Status: Unanswered] Please put your answers in blue text. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-09-2020 09:07
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: There are no debates here. ... Climate-Debate.com There are no debates here. Just conversations. Learn what 'debate' means. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
05-09-2020 21:06
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote: Petes got a point ITN.you do my head in with this greater than thou attitude and its rare you explain you just write RQAA.I have looked to and can not find the RQAA duncan, I notice that tgoebbles is back and he's really good at confusing people so in the event that you are interested I am including my recently updated Debunk of the Greenhouse Effect. Greenhouse Effect DEBUNKED . Technically you can't debunk it. A greenhouse has atmospheric gases just like the atmosphere has. Can you prove in an unambiguous way that gases are not associated with distributing heat in a given environment? You simply cannot do this as gasses that extend to the surface of a planet shows a more even distribution of heat than a planet with little or no gasses near it's surface. Both the Moon and Mars are examples of uneven surface temperatures between being exposed to the Sun or lacking said exposure. And when Venus and the Earth have more consistent surface temperatures (not atmospheric), tends to show that gasses do influence surface temperatures contrary to what you claim. And once again, it feels good to be right. Yep, I think I can get used to this. There is evident shortage of understanding here if you will forgive me for saying so and permit me to explain - no disrespect is intended as we learn from each other anyway - feel free to object of course, that's also how I learn from you provided logic and reason alone are employed in explaining it. So far IBdaMann has not seen fit to observe this nicety so we must set his objections aside until he does. It is important to note that he believes it to be good science practice to maintain a closed-mind according to his own observations in the matter, and that alone disqualifies him as a bona fide commentator, because he cannot then provide proper impartial treatment regarding contrary evidence. The term Greenhouse Effect (GE) actually refers to the theory that the interception of certain frequencies of IR - emitted from the Earth Surface - by molecules of gases that are not transparent to it (the Greenhouse Gases) interferes with the cooling effect of the departing radiation such that a higher equilibrium temperature than would otherwise obtain is reached on Earth. The theory is rot for reasons I will explain a bit later, but first I would like you to see that what I have just described bears no relationship to how a greenhouse works. Like any enclosed space receiving radiation - greenhouse, car body, etc. - if the doors and windows are kept closed on a sunny day then the temperature will rise well above the ambient level outside. We know this because if we open the window of our sweltering car or greenhouse the inside will cool down to the ambient temperature fairly quickly by convection. Greenhouses interfere with convection, but the GE does not. There is no empirical evidence for any thermal potency concerning this (misnamed) GE, meaning that there have been no experiments able to replicate it. Both pro and anti GE scientists agree on one thing, however, that IBdeMann rejects for reasons that I find ill-considered and that is that the presence of planetary atmospheres - provided they are in excess of 10kPa enhance the surface temperature of each and every such planet. The calculation for Earth - using Stefan Boltzmann - being enhanced by 33C (ATE). IPCC insist that there can be no other explanation for this anomaly than the GE and we have been stuck with it by media and political collusion ever since. the point is that any gas in excess of 10kpa (the minimum pressure necessary for sustaining a thermal gradient) has its temperature enhanced. This is in accordance with the Laws of Fluid Dynamics. The gas phase of material is unique in that all gases can be compressed, including by their own weight (autocompression), whereas solids and liquids cannot. Because ot the 1st Law of Thermodynamics the heat energy contained in the gas body remains constant whilst the volume is reduced, which means the heat per unit volume is increased thereby so the temperature is enhanced. It is surprising that the ATE is only 33C considering the surface pressure of 1 ton per sq ft, but there is nothing left for the GE to account for. The conclusion is that the interception of such outgoing IR as is susceptible, does not affect the planetary temperature, therefore CO2 does not cause Global Warming and certainly not our paltry 3% of it. This ATE is caused by Gravity performing the negative work of volume reduction. This is also part of the Kelvin Helmholtz effect whereby if the gas body is sufficiently large, the Thermal Enhancement at its centre will be so severe as to cause Star Creation - fortunately our atmosphere is insignificant on this scale. These finding correspond precisely with the Ideal Gas Law which calculates the exact temperatures of all planetary bodies as a result. The variations in historical temperature levels that we reckon to experience are due to changes in net insolation. (Radiation landing minus radiation reflected straight back out)
05-09-2020 23:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14407)	Pete Rogers wrote: [IBDaMann] believes it to be good science practice to maintain a closed-mind according to his own observations in the matter, I would point out that science requires doubting and questioning which is the antithesis to your religion which requires unquestioning obedience and belief. Yes, I necessarily treat my observations as axioms. They are, after all, my observations. I will never presume to not have observed them. Pete Rogers wrote:.. and that alone disqualifies him as a bona fide commentator, Do you think that actually works? Is that what your religion teaches you, i.e. that heathens and unbelievers somehow cease to get a say? You and I are going to have fun, guaranteed. Pete Rogers wrote: The term Greenhouse Effect (GE) actually refers to the theory that the interception of certain frequencies of IR - emitted from the Earth Surface - by molecules of gases that are not transparent to it (the Greenhouse Gases) interferes with the cooling effect of the departing radiation such that a higher equilibrium temperature than would otherwise obtain is reached on Earth. You do not get to speak for anyone but yourself. Every member of the Global Warming congregation has his/her own personally-tailored Greenhouse Effect belief that holds deep personal meaning for him/her. It's not science; it is faith. Pete Rogers wrote:Like any enclosed space receiving radiation - greenhouse, car body, etc. - if the doors and windows are kept closed on a sunny day then the temperature will rise well above the ambient level outside. I don't think anyone on this site needs a lesson in convection. Get to your point. Pete Rogers wrote:There is no empirical evidence for any thermal potency concerning this ... Jabberwocky! 22) Jabberwocky - Void Argument, Undefined Terms or Emtpy Buzzwords Fallacy There is no such term as the "Jubjub bird," "frumious Bandersnatch" or "thermal potency" in science or in anything you have defined. Dismissed. Pete Rogers wrote: ... meaning that there have been no experiments able to replicate it. Something has to exist in order to be replicated. Pete Rogers wrote: Both pro and anti GE scientists agree on one thing, Science doesn't care about your feelings or anyone's opinions. Science doesn't care about who agrees on what. Pete Rogers wrote: ... provided they are in excess of 10kPa enhance the surface temperature of each and every such planet. Your Theory is Debunked, Regardless of What You Call It. That felt good. Let me write that again ... Your Theory is Debunked, Regardless of What You Call It. Pete Rogers wrote:The calculation for Earth - using Stefan Boltzmann - being enhanced by 33C (ATE). Mantras 20b2 and 25o. 20) Science Denial b) Violation of Stefan-Boltzmann 2) removal of emissivity constant or treating emissivity as a variable 25) Math Error or Argument by RandU o) algebraic error. Pete Rogers wrote: ... the point is that any gas in excess of 10kpa (the minimum pressure necessary for sustaining a thermal gradient) has its temperature enhanced. Nope. Allow me to totallt DEBUNK this notion in exactly the same way. Pete Rogers wrote: This is in accordance with the Laws of Fluid Dynamics. Nope. It's in violation of Stefan Boltzmann and of basic math competency as mentioned above. Pete Rogers wrote:It is surprising that the ATE is only 33C considering the surface pressure of 1 ton per sq ft, It's unbelievable, in fact ... owing to the violations of physics. Pete Rogers wrote: This ATE is caused by Gravity performing the negative work of volume reduction. Were you ever going to define this "negative work"? Pete Rogers wrote:These finding correspond precisely with the Ideal Gas Law ... Wait, wait, wait ... you can't shift back and forth between claiming something is science and claiming something is "observations/findings." Also, you don't get to make the empty claim of external consistency, e.g. with the Ideal Gas Law. You have to specifically show it. So show it. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
06-09-2020 21:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21597)	Pete Rogers wrote: James___ wrote: IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote: Petes got a point ITN.you do my head in with this greater than thou attitude and its rare you explain you just write RQAA.I have looked to and can not find the RQAA duncan, I notice that tgoebbles is back and he's really good at confusing people so in the event that you are interested I am including my recently updated Debunk of the Greenhouse Effect. Greenhouse Effect DEBUNKED . Technically you can't debunk it. A greenhouse has atmospheric gases just like the atmosphere has. Can you prove in an unambiguous way that gases are not associated with distributing heat in a given environment? You simply cannot do this as gasses that extend to the surface of a planet shows a more even distribution of heat than a planet with little or no gasses near it's surface. Both the Moon and Mars are examples of uneven surface temperatures between being exposed to the Sun or lacking said exposure. And when Venus and the Earth have more consistent surface temperatures (not atmospheric), tends to show that gasses do influence surface temperatures contrary to what you claim. And once again, it feels good to be right. Yep, I think I can get used to this. There is evident shortage of understanding here if you will forgive me for saying so and permit me to explain - no disrespect is intended as we learn from each other anyway - feel free to object of course, that's also how I learn from you provided logic and reason alone are employed in explaining it.) You are not explaining. You are preaching. You are not learning. You reject the objection because you reject science and mathematics. Pete Rogers wrote: So far IBdaMann has not seen fit to observe this nicety so we must set his objections aside until he does.) He has explained the theories of science you are denying, as have I. I have also explained the math you are denying. You're a liar. You are just repeating yourself. Argument by repetition fallacy. Argument of the Stone fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: It is important to note that he believes it to be good science practice to maintain a closed-mind according to his own observations in the matter, and that alone disqualifies him as a bona fide commentator, because he cannot then provide proper impartial treatment regarding contrary evidence. ) There is no reason to reject a theory of science out of hand. Indeed, iit's a fallacdy known as the Argument of Stone fallacy. You are rejecting theories of science out of hand, even though none of these theories have been falsified. Pete Rogers wrote: The term Greenhouse Effect (GE) actually refers to the theory that the interception of certain frequencies of IR - emitted from the Earth Surface - by molecules of gases that are not transparent to it (the Greenhouse Gases)) Circular definition. You can't define a word with an undefined word. Define 'greenhouse gas', 'greenhouse effect', 'climate change', and 'global warming'. Pete Rogers wrote: interferes with the cooling effect of the departing radiation such that a higher equilibrium temperature than would otherwise obtain is reached on Earth. ) You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. You can't create energy out of nothing. Pete Rogers wrote: The theory ) )[/quote]You can't have a theory based on a void argument. You must first define 'greenhouse gas', 'greenhouse effect', 'climate change', and 'global warming'. Pete Rogers wrote: is rot for reasons I will explain a bit later, but first I would like you to see that what I have just described bears no relationship to how a greenhouse works. ) Actual greenhouses work by reducing heat. Same with blankets and coats. Pete Rogers wrote: Like any enclosed space receiving radiation - greenhouse, car body, etc. - if the doors and windows are kept closed on a sunny day then the temperature will rise well above the ambient level outside. We know this because if we open the window of our sweltering car or greenhouse the inside will cool down to the ambient temperature fairly quickly by convection. Greenhouses interfere with convection, but the GE does not.) )Define 'greenhouse effect'. How does it reduce heat? Pete Rogers wrote: There is no empirical evidence for any thermal potency concerning this (misnamed) GE, meaning that there have been no experiments able to replicate it. ) I guess you are unfamiliar with the parlor trick of heating bottles of CO2 in sealed containers using infrared lamps to 'prove' CO2 can somehow trap thermal energy. Pete Rogers wrote: Both pro and anti GE scientists agree on one thing, however,) that IBdeMann rejects for reasons that I find ill-considered) )No scientist is creating any theory about IBDaMann. You don't get to speak for scientists. You don't get to speak for anyone except yourself. BTW, I happen to be a scientist. Pete Rogers wrote: and that is that the presence of planetary atmospheres - provided they are in excess of 10kPa enhance the surface temperature of each and every such planet.) Nope. You can't create energy out of nothing. Ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Pete Rogers wrote: The calculation for Earth - using Stefan Boltzmann - being enhanced by 33C (ATE).) The emissivity of Earth is unknown. It is not possible to determine it. Random number. Argument from randU fallacy. Gravity is not energy. You can't create energy out of nothing. Pete Rogers wrote: IPCC insist that there can be no other explanation for this anomaly than the GE and we have been stuck with it by media and political collusion ever since.) Quite true. They ignore science and mathematics, just as you do. Pete Rogers wrote: the point is that any gas in excess of 10kpa (the minimum pressure necessary for sustaining a thermal gradient) has its temperature enhanced.) )Denial of the ideal gas law. There is no sequence. There is no 'cuttoff point'. Argument from randU fallacy. Denial of science. Pete Rogers wrote: This is in accordance with the Laws of Fluid Dynamics.) )No, it isn't. It has nothing to do with fluid dynamics. Static pressure is not dynamic pressure. Redefinition fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: The gas phase of material is unique in that all gases can be compressed, including by their own weight (autocompression), whereas solids and liquids cannot. Because ot the 1st Law of Thermodynamics the heat energy contained in the gas body remains constant whilst the volume is reduced, which means the heat per unit volume is increased thereby so the temperature is enhanced.) The volume isn't being reduced. The atmosphere is the same 'size' it was before. Pete Rogers wrote: It is surprising that the ATE is only 33C Random number. Argument from randU fallacy. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Denial of the ideal gas law. Pete Rogers wrote: considering the surface pressure of 1 ton per sq ft, but there is nothing left for the GE to account for.) There is nothing to account for. You don't have to account for random numbers. Pete Rogers wrote: The conclusion is that the interception of such outgoing IR as is susceptible, does not affect the planetary temperature, therefore CO2 does not cause Global Warming and certainly not our paltry 3% of it.) Zero. Zilch. Nada. Nan. CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth Absolutely none. Pete Rogers wrote: This ATE is caused by Gravity performing the negative work of volume reduction.) Gravity isn't work nor energy. You can't create energy out of nothing. Pete Rogers wrote: This is also part of the Kelvin Helmholtz effect) Nothing to do with the temperature of the Earth. Buzzword fallacy. quote]Pete Rogers wrote: whereby if the gas body is sufficiently large, the Thermal Enhancement at its centre will be so severe as to cause Star Creation - fortunately our atmosphere is insignificant on this scale.)[/quote]Nope. The same mass as helium has no fusion. The star is dead. It is fusion that produces energy in the Sun. Pete Rogers wrote: These finding correspond precisely with the Ideal Gas Law which calculates the exact temperatures of all planetary bodies as a result.) Nope. You are denying the idea gas law. The ideal gas law isn't gibber babble. It concerns dynamic changes in pressure. The pressure of the atmosphere is essentially constant. Remember how compressed gas bottles at 3000psi aren't hot? Pete Rogers wrote: The variations in historical temperature levels that we reckon to experience are due to changes in net insolation.) There is no record of global temperature. There never was one. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers. Pete Rogers wrote: (Radiation landing minus radiation reflected straight back out) You are attempting to now utterly destroy energy, violating the 1st law of thermodynamics yet again. you cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Argument by repetition. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Random numbers used as data. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
08-09-2020 15:49
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	IBdaMann wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: [IBDaMann] believes it to be good science practice to maintain a closed-mind according to his own observations in the matter, IBdaMann wroteI would point out that science requires doubting and questioning which is the antithesis to your religion which requires unquestioning obedience and belief. You don't need to point that out. I don't know any scientist who doesn't know that and it is precisely by doubting and questioning the correctness of your statements that I reach what I then put to you as scientific improvement on them, that is how open-mindedness - nay science itself - works. It is for you to explain where my exposures of your flaws are deficient - if you believe they are - and do so in the form of examination of the particulars, not just the gainsaying of them or resorting to accusation of being religious despite the logical explanations placed before you. It is the presence of these continual deficiencies which illustrate the religious nature of your counter-arguments: it's a similar problem to having to listen to Pope ITN the First whose ex Cathedra approach - simply making declarations rather than connecting them to the particulars of the contrary argument - overlooks the need to rebut a thing scientifically. It is exactly the same failure as yours. IBdaMann wroteYes, I necessarily treat my observations as axioms. They are, after all, my observations. I will never presume to not have observed them. To treat your observations as axioms "They are, after all, my observations" is to declare yourself infallible, so there is the Religious - in fact Papal - problem in your approach repeated straight away. Pete Rogers wrote:.. and that alone disqualifies him as a bona fide commentator, IBdaMann wroteDo you think that actually works? Is that what your religion teaches you, i.e. that heathens and unbelievers somehow cease to get a say? Please look again and you will see my objection is against the illogicality - which type of objection is inimical to religion - so this is another false, and ex-Cathedra, declaration. It is time to desist from this methodology as it disqualifies your approach from scientific application - attempting to suffocate reasoned objections is all it really amounts to. IBdaMann wroteYou and I are going to have fun, guaranteed. You are quite right, I am indeed, but I am not so sure about you as I think you may lack humility which means that for you to be proved wrong is perceived as personal humiliation so it will be resisted even when it has long been self-evident to bystanders that you are incorrect. You need to acquire objectivity so that when raised from a condition of greater error to one of lesser you experience uplift not resentment. You should remember what a great man said over 200 years ago "O wad some Power the giftie gie us To see oursels as ithers see us! It wad frae mony a blunder free us, An' foolish notion" Pete Rogers wrote: The term Greenhouse Effect (GE) actually refers to the theory that the interception of certain frequencies of IR - emitted from the Earth Surface - by molecules of gases that are not transparent to it (the Greenhouse Gases) interferes with the cooling effect of the departing radiation such that a higher equilibrium temperature than would otherwise obtain is reached on Earth. IBdaMann wroteYou do not get to speak for anyone but yourself. Every member of the Global Warming congregation has his/her own personally-tailored Greenhouse Effect belief that holds deep personal meaning for him/her. It's not science; it is faith. Wow, that's the doozie I was waiting for. First ITN now you. In your case you instruct the readers that in my case I must be told that I am confined to speak for myself - none other (well who else would I speak for anyway?) Then at the breathtaking extreme opposite in your case you are entitled to speak for "Every Member of the Global Warming Congregation" as you instruct us and report without providing evidence that all of them have different beliefs and that these are each "personally tailored". How you know the innermost thoughts of these people is not explained, but it means you take it that you have rights that I do not, so much so that it amounts to omnipotence in this area for you whereas I am to regard myself as fortunate that I can speak for one - myself. I think it's time for you to wake up to the foolishness of your attitude. What I had explained to you is consistently available from every subscriber to the GE that I have spoken to. I wonder who you have been listening to. Imaginary friends it would appear. Omnipotence of this type is a religious principle and inimical to all arguments of a reasonasble type let alone science. This ludicrous claim of yours; which entails belief in supernatural knowledge: is the end of the story for you unless you can explain it satisfactorily because Science is incompatible with the fanciful mind. Pete Rogers wrote:Like any enclosed space receiving radiation - greenhouse, car body, etc. - if the doors and windows are kept closed on a sunny day then the temperature will rise well above the ambient level outside. IBdaMann wroteI don't think anyone on this site needs a lesson in convection. Get to your point. You must have overlooked the fact that in calling something a greenhouse effect it should use the same principle otherwise it is a misnomer. Whether you do or do not need lessons about convection has no bearing on this matter. So the reasonable point stands. Pete Rogers wrote:There is no empirical evidence for any thermal potency concerning this ... IBdaMann wroteJabberwocky! 22) Jabberwocky - Void Argument, Undefined Terms or Emtpy Buzzwords Fallacy No experiment has ever replicated a thermal effect for the interception of IR in an atmosphere, so what is the reply "Jabberwocky" supposed to convey in response to that claim please? Are you saying it is incorrect and there has been such a successful experiment? If not, then what is the point of the remark? Furthermore you say "Undefined terms" - please identify them as there seem to be none present. While you are doing the work on clarifying that perhaps you can also show which are the "Empty Buzzwords" you have detected. Your comment is devoid of meaning without these identifications. IBdaMann wroteThere is no such term as the "Jubjub bird," "frumious Bandersnatch" or "thermal potency" in science or in anything you have defined. Dismissed. I am not aware that anyone has said there are such terms so why are you using them? Nobody else is, nor using"Jabberwocky" for that matter so what are you driving at? Pete Rogers wrote: ... meaning that there have been no experiments able to replicate it. IBdaMann wroteSomething has to exist in order to be replicated. That is true, just as it is true that we cannot rule out the possibility that there are phenomena whose effects we can't yet replicate. As you know I believe that there is no thermal potency to the process of interception of IR by GG's as explained in the original argument put at the beginning. Pete Rogers wrote: Both pro and anti GE scientists agree on one thing, IBdaMann wroteScience doesn't care about your feelings or anyone's opinions. Science doesn't care about who agrees on what. Nothing inanimate can either care or not care, so that is an incorrect statement. The statement that both sides agree on the ATE is nothing to do with feelings as far as I am aware, but it is an inescapable fact that compression causes temperature rise. Pete Rogers wrote: ... provided they are in excess of 10kPa enhance the surface temperature of each and every such planet. IBdaMann wroteYour Theory is Debunked, Regardless of What You Call It. That felt good. Let me write that again ... Your Theory is Debunked, Regardless of What You Call It. Thanks; now I see the problem. You have put together a paper here that ostensibly bases itself on unsupported assertion. Looking at it epistemologically one can only conclude that it is no more than the expression of an opinion which turns out not to be knowledge. Let me explain that within there are many stated beliefs all of which have to be accepted for the piece to hold water scientifically, but they don't - alas. I will examine one which when shown to be incorrect is enough to overthrow the theory being propounded. Whilst there are many such, this alone will suffice. It is the first point in the section called The science of the matter in layman's terms "1) There is no matter in the known universe that can spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy." No, this is wrong because it contains an elementary error! To be correct this error should be removed and the amended point read "1) There is no matter in the known universe that can spontaneously increase in heat content without additional energy." The point is on the conservation of energy, which is the same as conservation of temperature when it comes to Solids and liquids - which resist compression - but is not in the case of any and every gas body which; being elastic: can be compressed a very great deal and when that happens the increased concentration of what is an unchanged total heat content must manifest in far greater temperature. The force which causes the compression is providing energy by performing negative work. An allegory might be to take a river and add permanent compression in the sense of narrowing it. The river would flow much faster - permanently - whilst its energy was unchanged. The speed of the river being the allegory for temperature. Pete Rogers wrote:The calculation for Earth - using Stefan Boltzmann - being enhanced by 33C (ATE). IBdaMann wroteMantras 20b2 and 25o. Please amplify IBdaMann wrote20) Science Denial Please explain IBdaMann wroteb) Violation of Stefan-Boltzmann What is your proof of this? IBdaMann wrote2) removal of emissivity constant or treating emissivity as a variable Proof please. Declarations and claims don't mean anything without it IBdaMann wrote25) Math Error or Argument by RandU Please oblige by explaining yourself. there is nothing offered in support o) algebraic error. What error are you claiming to be present, you do not tell us? Pete Rogers wrote: ... the point is that any gas in excess of 10kpa (the minimum pressure necessary for sustaining a thermal gradient) has its temperature enhanced. IBdaMann wroteNope. Allow me to totallt DEBUNK this notion in exactly the same way. I have dealt with this paper. Pete Rogers wrote: This is in accordance with the Laws of Fluid Dynamics. IBdaMann wroteNope. It's in violation of Stefan Boltzmann and of basic math competency as mentioned above. No half-decent scientist would make any such declaration without corroborating it, so it is of no value in the absence of that. Pete Rogers wrote:It is surprising that the ATE is only 33C considering the surface pressure of 1 ton per sq ft, IBdaMann wroteIt's unbelievable, in fact ... owing to the violations of physics. All matter has mass and therefore weight. In the case of our atmosphere the weight of a column of air from the surface to the top is 14lb psi. This is 101.3 kPa and is recorded by any barometer. The pressure is called a Bar the clue is in the name. So what's unbelievable about it? Pete Rogers wrote: This ATE is caused by Gravity performing the negative work of volume reduction. IBdaMann wroteWere you ever going to define this "negative work"? I already did, but perhaps it was in one of the messed up posts, so here it is again as you may not have seen it. "The physics definition of "work" is: ... 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.8 Oct 1999" Pete Rogers wrote:These finding correspond precisely with the Ideal Gas Law ... IBdaMann wroteWait, wait, wait ... you can't shift back and forth between claiming something is science and claiming something is "observations/findings." Also, you don't get to make the empty claim of external consistency, e.g. with the Ideal Gas Law. You have to specifically show it. So show it. Sure. This should do it for you. I'm not shifting anywhere - let alone back and forth - and this should clarify the matter for you https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323106609_Molar_Mass_Version_of_the_Ideal_Gas_Law_Points_to_a_Very_Low_Climate_Sensitivity .
08-09-2020 16:28
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMann wroteYes, I necessarily treat my observations as axioms. They are, after all, my observations. I will never presume to not have observed them. To treat your observations as axioms "They are, after all, my observations" is to declare yourself infallible, so there is the Religious - in fact Papal - problem in your approach repeated straight away. Pete, he gets his observations from GasGuzzler. And he is speaking for himself when he quotes GasGuzzler. What you guys are forgetting was that they used to say deep ocean currents predict atmospheric warming 10 years in advance. And with this link, it's about the slowing of the thermohaline or ocean circulation system. "The ocean is the flywheel of the climate," said oceanographer Lisa Beal, with the University of Miami's Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science. "It sets the timing of climate change. It can do things like store heat in one place and release it somewhere else 1,000 years later." https://insideclimatenews.org/news/07052018/atlantic-ocean-circulation-slowing-climate-change-heat-temperature-rainfall-fish-why-you-should-care And if you consider that the Arctic region down into England is still lifting because of tectonic plate rebound, what the link says; Europe could see much colder winters and hotter summers, according to a new study published in in the journal Paleoceanography and Paleoclimatology that also showed the potential for a weakening AMOC to cause abrupt climate shifts.
08-09-2020 16:44
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	Into the Night wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: [quote]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. Into the Night wroteWRONG. 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. There is no fallacy because the logic checks out and what follows on in evidence falls in line with that logic thus validating the argument - Into the Night wroteLie. Denial of logic. This is all you get from this chap - Bald Statements -, which are empty words because they are conclusions not arguments. He is trying to force these conclusions on the assessor without any reasoning in support, which is cheating, so it's really just like a toy being thrown out of an infant's stroller that we are supposed to pick up even though it is of no value to any but the child in its unutterable imagination, you are supposed to take responsibility for working out why he threw it, because he can't tell you. It happens this way because like the frustrated infant he cannot get his way by force of argument so he tries to force a conclusion instead When I ask for explanation as I have here - and I ask others to witness it - we normally get the circular comment that he has already explained - another teddy bear whistling past my ear -! Accordingly there is simply nothing here for the honest examiner to consider. He is just telling us that he knows best. Big deal! Semantics fallacy. Bulverism fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: where have you been to come up with something like this? Into the Night wroteLogic, which you deny. Wherefore is the denial you claim when again you provide no particulars? It's just another toy thrown out of the stroller, so nobody - or at least not me - is going to pick it up I wouldn't have thought. I have checked the rest of this message and there are toys of this kind all over the place, so I will leave them for you to collect for yourself - after all it was you who threw them out. Having said this there are one or two where you more sensibly indulge us with at least a partial explanation and I will happily deal with them and certain other oddities besides as we go along. RQAA. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Since you so evidently and vehemently disagree why fail to prove your contrary point - which requires your providing an explanation for readers to consider and cross-check. Any explanation you provide must back your bald assertions up incontrovertibly in order to shed any light that we may see your point. It is fraudulent for any examiner to claim to have falsified a position by dint of nothing more than bald assertions of denial. Without specifics your contribution is a waste of your time as it cannot be weighed up so must be dropped. Into the Night saidI am not trying to prove a point. YOU are. Inversion fallacy. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. No! If you are unable to falsify my explanation - thus proving you are right in your criticism of it - there is no point in responding at all. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: Your argument is peurile and must fall for lack of substance. Nobody's forcing you to do anything, it's just for you to demonstrate whether you are up to the job of satisfactorily explaining yourself rather than simply declaring your infallibility - which illuminates nothing. This used to be known as being a fat-head. Inversion fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy. RQAA. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: My theory is falsifiableby the provision of evidence that both withstands scrutiny itself and overthrows a particular of my argument; Into the Night wroteNo. It violates the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law as well as the ideal gas law. Wherefore are these violations? I have discovered none, so I invite you to be our guide. RQAA. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: which is testable and/or follows the known Laws of Physics: Into the Night wroteLie. It denies the laws of thermodynamics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law, and the ideal gas law. Pete Rogers wrote: otherwise it properly stands for truth. Into the Night wroteScience isn't a 'truth'. It isn't a Universal Truth. It isn't a proof. It is a set of falsifiable theories. No theory of science may conflict with any other theory of science. I said it stands for truth. Science isn't a 'truth'. Pete Rogers wrote: If you are right and that is not allowed I will leave you to wait for the apple that does not fall when it leaves the tree. Meanwhile; for people in the real world: that the apple will fall will stand for truth and we need not detain ourselves about it in the way you desire. Where do you get this stuff, it's all just semantics? Instead of trapping yourself in Poppers cul-de-sac and going round in circles ask yourself what modern philosopher has been of practical use? Denial of science. Denial of philosophy. RQAA. Pete Rogers wrote: Instead of these semantics we should work on what is the case, being that according to The Laws of Thermodynamics and its sister Fluid Dynamics adiabatic autocompression within a flow system must enhance the temperature of that system to the tune of the negative work accomplished by the compressive force. You are denying the ideal gas law and the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Pete Rogers wrote: The system can only lose heat by radiation of the heated object -being the solid/liquid Earth in our case - whereby a gravitationally enhanced temperature is achieved. You are ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics again. Mantra 20a1. Pete Rogers wrote: You don't appear to know that this is the case because it turns out that you do not understand thermodynamics after all (as I will show you a little further down) and certainly not Fluid Dynamics or the consequences of the Ideal Gas Law as it appllies to atmospheres. The Molar Mass version is the one you need to check out in that regard. Inversion fallacy. Mantras 17....20a1...20n... Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote:The only reason it had to be repeated is that you said it wasn't an argument, Into the Night wroteYou made no valid arguments. No argument presented. To the contrary I made several arguments all of them unfailingly logical and according to evidence provided so they are indubitably valid - where have you been? Into the Night wroteLie. You are continuing to deny science using the same fallacies. That in and of itself is a fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: Again you make bald statements of dismissal with no explanatory content to back them up. Into the Night wroteI already have. Where is it then? I can't find it and I'm guessing you won't either. My earlier comment that you simply say you have explained when there is no explanation to be found is exemplified here. It is a cheat, so we drop the matter until you can do better. RQAA. Mantras 29...7... Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: To be of any worth; and here is your opportunity: you must show with precision the respects in which any of the following particulars; comprising the theory: are false and why? Already done. RQAA. Pete Rogers wrote: Particular 1. The Earth's Atmosphere is adiabatic, so it cannot lose temperature except by conduction to the solid/liquid surface with which it is in contact. Into the Night wroteThe atmosphere is colder than the surface. You are denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. This is where you cook your own goose into the night because you have just revealed it to us that you do not even know that the surface of the earth and the base of the atmosphere must be at the same temperature because of the Laws of thermodynamics. No. Sometimes the air is warmer than the surface, usually it's colder. The surface heats the atmosphere, not the other way around. Mantras 10b..20a2...25g...30...31... Pete Rogers wrote: This is proof that you do not know your Thermodynamics, Mantras 20a1...20a2...39d... Pete Rogers wrote: so it's game over and there is no need for any of us to proceed any further. Pete Rogers wrote: Once you have worked out that you are wrong about this you are welcome to correct yourself and proceed, that is perfectly ok, but you must explain yourself coherently from then on rather than trying to compel our agreement by forcing conclusons on the interlocutor as an infant succeeds in forcing the adult to pick up its toys. At this point I suggest we close this chapter until Intothe night reassesses his position and regroups - or better still comes to understand that the theory assessed in this thread is correct. I would like to ask all involved to cut the ego business henceforth as this is supposed to be an assessment not a pissing contest. Mantras 7... Pete Rogers wrote: I would like to say finally that Philosophical admixtures are unhelpful to science because they are not designed to help it but to control it semantically and therefore rhetorically, which is what the devious Politician looks for and sponsors, but it's really just navel-gazing in the end - to keep away from getting sucked in is my advice, politicians and their helpers are not honest men! Mantras 7...16b...20e1...39d... No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of science. Denial of philosophy. Semantics fallacies. Inversion fallacies. Assumption of victory fallacies. Invalid proofs. Attempted force of negative proof fallacies. There are still only declarations made with no attempt to back any of them up. We are to accept what ITN says because ITN says it, so it is the infallibility of Pope ITN the First Alas for him, however, Pope ITN can't even work out that his claim that the base of the atmosphere not only can; but is: at a different temperature to the surface with which it is in contact is in breach of the second Law of Thermodynamics, but instead suffers from some kind of blindness that keeps him from seeing it. Here I quote Eddington as I stand over the grave as this favourite of ITN's beliefs is being lowered into this its final resting place. "The British astrophysicist Arthur Eddington gave a stern warning to would-be theoretical physicists in 1915. "If your theory is found to be against the second law of thermodynamics I can give you no hope; there is nothing for it but to collapse in deepest humiliation," he wrote."

Page 6 of 26

Join the debate Global warming is not anthropogenic:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Liberals have mental disease caused by anthropogenic chemicals	1	03-02-2017 20:30