Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is not anthropogenic



Page 8 of 9<<<6789>
13-09-2020 19:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
Pete Rogers wrote:
First we are in the world of fluid dynamics, remember, so the contact molecules keep changing by convection, but the common contact temperature is maintained at the equilibrium dictated by prevailing circumstances because of the 2nd Law. There are no 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th... ? layers sitting waiting for contact, but if there were - say by chance - they would still convect. The higher you go the cooler it gets because of pressure reduction.

Paradox. Which is it, dude? You can't separate out individual molecules and then call them the entire atmosphere. You are ignoring Kirchoff's law again, as well as the zeroth law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Second, every time a system input changes by variation in insolation - even by no more than a passing cloud - the system at the surface adjusts jointly to the new equilibrium dictated by the new circumstance. That's all I mean by "to and fro" and it happens continuously because of the 2nd Law - not despite it.

1st law, not the 2nd.


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
13-09-2020 20:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
Pete Rogers wrote: There is no place for incivility in a scientific examination

Pete, you need to actually be discussing science to have that protection.

The moment you start preaching and imposing your religion onto others, civility has leave to depart the premises.

Pete Rogers wrote: The underlying cause of changing glaciation is insolation not weight

Nope. Changes in glaciation are caused by changes in the weather, which are random.

Stop preaching and start discussing science.


.


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
13-09-2020 20:52
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
The liquid planet is much slower to warm than the solid. Compared to air or land, water is a slow conductor of heat. You know a kettle takes a while to warm, but if a finger comes in contact with similar heat, absorption is immediate - "ouch!". The difference is the latent delay between application of heat and acquisition of temperature when it comes to water and the larger the body of water the greater the latent delay. The latent delay of that vast body known as the ocean is at least 800 years, meaning that the warming oceans today are the end result of the latency of the mediaeval warm period and nothing to do with current conditions.

There is no such thing as 'latent delay'. There is no delay of any kind in heating water. It just takes more heat to make a gram of water change by 1 degree than dirt. You are making up numbers. There is no 800 years before ocean water can change temperature. There is zero.

If you apply consistent heat to water it will take it a while to boil. The heat is way above boiling point all the time - from first contact - but there is a delay in acquisition of the applied temperature - say a couple of minutes - which I am referring to as the delay latent in boiling a kettle despite constant heat application.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Furthermore - being fluid - the ocean convects heat towards cooler areas, tending to even things out a bit, so the sea is not so warm in summer necessarily.

Okay. Go for a swim in the ocean at a Gulf state such as Florida, then go for a swim in the Bering Sea. Let's see you show how these are the same temperature of water.

Of course, but the difference in sea temperatures will be less than the difference in land temperatures wherever convecton currents occur. You are misinterpreting my words as I said "tending to even things out a bit" whereas you are reacting as though I had said something else like "making the temperatures equal" which I certainly did not. Please play the game honestly or not at all.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The difference between day and night temperatures of air or solid objects is large and of the sea it is very small,

Did you know there's ice at the poles and not at the equator in the ocean?
Yes, but what has that got to do with my statement which says that the sea at any given location will have a smaller day/night temperature range than the associated land. Please try to comprehend the meaning of what is actually being said before responding as you seem to be labouring under a series of misapprehensions leading you to gooff at half-cock.

Pete Rogers wrote:
so on average the temperatures are not as different as we think when we happen to be lying on the beach, sunbathing, when we decide to do so.

Anything from less than 30 deg F to some 95 deg F.

Absolutely.

Pete Rogers wrote:
When radiation hits your body you will soon want to cool off in the water

Depends on the radiation. You might want to see a doctor instead, especially one skilled in nuclear radiation sickness or possibly a sunburn specialist.

Hopefully you would advise the reader that the "soon" in "soon want to cool off" implies not to stay out too long. Since we are talking about insolation why are you anticipating nuclear?

Pete Rogers wrote:
- whose temperature is little different in the daytime than it is at night (unlike the solid world)

Ocean water can and does change temperature considerably from day to night.

By how much are you claiming and would you be so kind as to provide evidence for it?

Pete Rogers wrote:
- or head for shade where you will find the air tempeature is much less than that of solids being struck by UV. UV does not warm the air, that is done by conduction from the solid and liquid surface with which it is in contact.

UV light does not result in thermal energy upon absorption. It does not heat anything. UV light results in conversion to chemical energy or even direct ionization up on absorption.

I think you might struggle with that one. The absorption of the radiation impact transfers energy which excites molecular motion causing the temperature to rise.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The thing that is monitored is the air temperature.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or it's atmosphere.

It may not be for you, but there are ways to estimate it and the more honestly done the better. There seems to be political interference from IPCC at present, however.

Pete Rogers wrote:
It must be monitored in the shade or the solid parts of the equipment would be heated by uv

UV doesn't heat anything. Visible light doesn't heat any thing. You need infrared for that. Most of the light from the Sun is infrared.

You will struggle with that for the reasons already given.

Pete Rogers wrote:
giving a false reading and a reading that would differ depending on the material of which the thermometer was constructed.

The material of which the thermometer is constructed does not change what the thermometer reads. Mercury thermometers, alcohol thermometers (such as you find in garden stores and home centers), and bimetallic thermometers (such as you find in older thermostats), wax thermometers (such as you find in automotive thermostats), an thermocouples (such as you find in jet engines), and electronic thermosensors all record on common temperature scales. They can all be read as Fahrenheit, Celcius, or Kelvin scales. They will all read the same temperature on those scales (assuming the device is built to measure that particular temperature range).

When it comes to measuring air temperature it would be a form of forced inaccuracy to expose thermometers to direct uv. The difference between the thermometer temperature and the air temperature would depend on the strength of the UV playing on the exposed materials comprising it.

Thermometers are used to measure air temperature. Ships at sea and many buoys also measure ocean water temperature.

But there are not enough thermometers to measure a global temperature.

The idea would be scientific estimates from the gathered data. The most important role would be trend identification.
13-09-2020 22:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
The liquid planet is much slower to warm than the solid. Compared to air or land, water is a slow conductor of heat. You know a kettle takes a while to warm, but if a finger comes in contact with similar heat, absorption is immediate - "ouch!". The difference is the latent delay between application of heat and acquisition of temperature when it comes to water and the larger the body of water the greater the latent delay. The latent delay of that vast body known as the ocean is at least 800 years, meaning that the warming oceans today are the end result of the latency of the mediaeval warm period and nothing to do with current conditions.

There is no such thing as 'latent delay'. There is no delay of any kind in heating water. It just takes more heat to make a gram of water change by 1 degree than dirt. You are making up numbers. There is no 800 years before ocean water can change temperature. There is zero.

If you apply consistent heat to water it will take it a while to boil.

About 5 minutes with my own stove on high.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The heat is way above boiling point all the time

Heat has not temperature.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- from first contact - but there is a delay in acquisition of the applied temperature - say a couple of minutes - which I am referring to as the delay latent in boiling a kettle despite constant heat application.

There is no delay. Heat has no temperature.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Furthermore - being fluid - the ocean convects heat towards cooler areas, tending to even things out a bit, so the sea is not so warm in summer necessarily.

Okay. Go for a swim in the ocean at a Gulf state such as Florida, then go for a swim in the Bering Sea. Let's see you show how these are the same temperature of water.

Of course, but the difference in sea temperatures will be less than the difference in land temperatures wherever convecton currents occur. You are misinterpreting my words as I said "tending to even things out a bit" whereas you are reacting as though I had said something else like "making the temperatures equal" which I certainly did not. Please play the game honestly or not at all.

The oceans have a wide range of temperature. There is no game.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The difference between day and night temperatures of air or solid objects is large and of the sea it is very small,

Did you know there's ice at the poles and not at the equator in the ocean?
Yes, but what has that got to do with my statement[/quote]
Everything.
Pete Rogers wrote:
which says that the sea at any given location will have a smaller day/night temperature range than the associated land.

The sea is not associated with land. It's sea.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Please try to comprehend the meaning of what is actually being said before responding as you seem to be labouring under a series of misapprehensions leading you to gooff at half-cock.

Beware the frumunious bandersnatch.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
so on average the temperatures are not as different as we think when we happen to be lying on the beach, sunbathing, when we decide to do so.

Anything from less than 30 deg F to some 95 deg F.

Absolutely.

Okay. Now you are locked in paradox.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
When radiation hits your body you will soon want to cool off in the water

Depends on the radiation. You might want to see a doctor instead, especially one skilled in nuclear radiation sickness or possibly a sunburn specialist.

Hopefully you would advise the reader that the "soon" in "soon want to cool off" implies not to stay out too long. Since we are talking about insolation why are you anticipating nuclear?

Why not? The Sun is a thermonuclear energy source.
Radiation is not just sunlight. It can be sound waves, waves from a pebble thrown in a pond, nuclear radiation such as high speed neutrons from a fission reactor, a light bulb, a power line, or energy lost by Earth into space.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
- whose temperature is little different in the daytime than it is at night (unlike the solid world)

Ocean water can and does change temperature considerably from day to night.

By how much are you claiming and would you be so kind as to provide evidence for it?

It varies due to weather and sea conditions, and depth of measurement. Ask the navy or merchant marine.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
- or head for shade where you will find the air tempeature is much less than that of solids being struck by UV. UV does not warm the air, that is done by conduction from the solid and liquid surface with which it is in contact.

UV light does not result in thermal energy upon absorption. It does not heat anything. UV light results in conversion to chemical energy or even direct ionization up on absorption.

I think you might struggle with that one.

No, that's you. It is you that is denying science.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The absorption of the radiation impact transfers energy which excites molecular motion causing the temperature to rise.

Nope UV does not do that when absorbed. Neither does visible light. Infrared will, though.
UV and visible light causes chemical reactions instead. A chemical reaction is not temperature.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
The thing that is monitored is the air temperature.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or it's atmosphere.

It may not be for you, but there are ways to estimate it

None. You can't estimate what you can't measure. You are guessing. Apparently you want to deny statistical math as well. Oh...that's right...you already did, as well as probability math and random number math.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and the more honestly done the better.

It can't honestly be done.
Pete Rogers wrote:
There seems to be political interference from IPCC at present, however.

None. The IPCC cannot measure the temperature of the Earth either.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
It must be monitored in the shade or the solid parts of the equipment would be heated by uv

UV doesn't heat anything. Visible light doesn't heat any thing. You need infrared for that. Most of the light from the Sun is infrared.

You will struggle with that for the reasons already given.

No, that's you. You are denying quantum physics now.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
giving a false reading and a reading that would differ depending on the material of which the thermometer was constructed.

The material of which the thermometer is constructed does not change what the thermometer reads. Mercury thermometers, alcohol thermometers (such as you find in garden stores and home centers), and bimetallic thermometers (such as you find in older thermostats), wax thermometers (such as you find in automotive thermostats), an thermocouples (such as you find in jet engines), and electronic thermosensors all record on common temperature scales. They can all be read as Fahrenheit, Celcius, or Kelvin scales. They will all read the same temperature on those scales (assuming the device is built to measure that particular temperature range).

When it comes to measuring air temperature it would be a form of forced inaccuracy

None. Thermometers still work when measuring air temperature.
Pete Rogers wrote:
to expose thermometers to direct uv.

UV doesn't heat anything.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The difference between the thermometer temperature and the air temperature would depend on the strength of the UV playing on the exposed materials comprising it.

UV doesn't heat anything.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Thermometers are used to measure air temperature. Ships at sea and many buoys also measure ocean water temperature.
But there are not enough thermometers to measure a global temperature.

The idea would be scientific estimates from the gathered data.

Science isn't a casino. It isn't 'estimates'. Math error. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to collect sufficient raw data. Failure to collect raw data in an unbiased manner. Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error.

Go learn statistical math. You are denying it again.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The most important role would be trend identification.

Base rate fallacy. Math error. You can't have a trend of something you can't measure. Failure to declare boundary. 'Trend' used as a meaningless buzzword.

Define 'global warming'. Define 'trend'. Define 'climate change'.

No argument presented. Assumption of victory. Buzzwords. Math errors. Denial of science.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 13-09-2020 23:15
19-09-2020 20:01
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:
First we are in the world of fluid dynamics, remember, so the contact molecules keep changing by convection, but the common contact temperature is maintained at the equilibrium dictated by prevailing circumstances because of the 2nd Law. There are no 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th... ? layers sitting waiting for contact, but if there were - say by chance - they would still convect. The higher you go the cooler it gets because of pressure reduction.

Paradox. Which is it, dude? You can't separate out individual molecules and then call them the entire atmosphere. You are ignoring Kirchoff's law again, as well as the zeroth law of thermodynamics.

Dude eh? Not an impressive start. This is just convection; which is not a paradox - think about it. Please engage brain before opening mouth.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Second, every time a system input changes by variation in insolation - even by no more than a passing cloud - the system at the surface adjusts jointly to the new equilibrium dictated by the new circumstance. That's all I mean by "to and fro" and it happens continuously because of the 2nd Law - not despite it.

1st law, not the 2nd.

It is the cloud; in this cooling instance: that cuts off sunlight causing the surface temperature to fall followed by transfer of heat from the accordingly warmer base molecules under the 2nd Law establishing a new equilibrium temperature at the interface.
19-09-2020 20:29
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:
First we are in the world of fluid dynamics, remember, so the contact molecules keep changing by convection, but the common contact temperature is maintained at the equilibrium dictated by prevailing circumstances because of the 2nd Law. There are no 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th... ? layers sitting waiting for contact, but if there were - say by chance - they would still convect. The higher you go the cooler it gets because of pressure reduction.

Paradox. Which is it, dude? You can't separate out individual molecules and then call them the entire atmosphere. You are ignoring Kirchoff's law again, as well as the zeroth law of thermodynamics.

Dude eh? Not an impressive start. This is just convection; which is not a paradox - think about it. Please engage brain before opening mouth.

You are not describing convection. You are describing a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law. Contextomy fallacy. Denial of science.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Second, every time a system input changes by variation in insolation - even by no more than a passing cloud - the system at the surface adjusts jointly to the new equilibrium dictated by the new circumstance. That's all I mean by "to and fro" and it happens continuously because of the 2nd Law - not despite it.

1st law, not the 2nd.

It is the cloud; in this cooling instance: that cuts off sunlight causing the surface temperature to fall followed by transfer of heat from the accordingly warmer base molecules under the 2nd Law establishing a new equilibrium temperature at the interface.

There is no such thing as a 'base molecule'. You are locked in paradox. Irrational.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
20-09-2020 04:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
Pete Rogers wrote:If you apply consistent heat to water it will take it a while to boil. The heat is way above boiling point all the time

Question: What does heat have in common with a bicycle?
Answer: Neither is a temperature.

Let's see if it works better with "bicycle":

If you apply consistent bicycling to water it will take it a while to boil. The bicycle is way above boiling point all the time.


Nope, that doesn't work either.


.


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
20-09-2020 20:44
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
First we are in the world of fluid dynamics, remember, so the contact molecules keep changing by convection, but the common contact temperature is maintained at the equilibrium dictated by prevailing circumstances because of the 2nd Law. There are no 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th... ? layers sitting waiting for contact, but if there were - say by chance - they would still convect. The higher you go the cooler it gets because of pressure reduction.

Paradox. Which is it, dude? You can't separate out individual molecules and then call them the entire atmosphere. You are ignoring Kirchoff's law again, as well as the zeroth law of thermodynamics.

Dude eh? Not an impressive start. This is just convection; which is not a paradox - think about it. Please engage brain before opening mouth.

You are not describing convection. You are describing a violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law. Contextomy fallacy. Denial of science.

Of course I am describing convection what else? The molecules circulate rising from below and there is cooling as they rise, didn't you know that, most eleven year-olds do?

Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Second, every time a system input changes by variation in insolation - even by no more than a passing cloud - the system at the surface adjusts jointly to the new equilibrium dictated by the new circumstance. That's all I mean by "to and fro" and it happens continuously because of the 2nd Law - not despite it.

1st law, not the 2nd.

It is the cloud; in this cooling instance: that cuts off sunlight causing the surface temperature to fall followed by transfer of heat from the accordingly warmer base molecules under the 2nd Law establishing a new equilibrium temperature at the interface.

There is no such thing as a 'base molecule'. You are locked in paradox. Irrational.

Now that is another doozie. Any atmospheric molecule in contact with a surface molecule is forming a part of the base. If you don't understand that you are wasting your time and ours.
20-09-2020 20:53
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: 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 ......

Peter, Peter, Peter.
Have you ever felt the wind blow? That would be air moving freely about the earth.

If the base of the atmosphere is the same temperature as the surface, how does the snow ever melt?


Ice melts due to conduction and convection transferring heat at levels above 0C. Were you unaware of that?

What I am aware of is that you said the surface and the base of the atmosphere must be at the same temp. In the next paragraph y ou said that in the case of melting ice, the base of the atmosphere must be warmer than the surface. (Due to convention).

Now which one is it?

No, that is not what I said. The base and surface are at the same temperature. If that is somewhat above 0C then the ice will melt. If you disagree all you have to do is show me where you believe I said what you allege I did - I wish you good luck, but if you are incorrect you should concede your error as any good scientist ought.
20-09-2020 21:00
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:If you apply consistent heat to water it will take it a while to boil. The heat is way above boiling point all the time

Question: What does heat have in common with a bicycle?
Answer: Neither is a temperature.

Let's see if it works better with "bicycle":

If you apply consistent bicycling to water it will take it a while to boil. The bicycle is way above boiling point all the time.


Nope, that doesn't work either.


.

That isn't very bright is it now? if you put your finger in the flame you should find that it is at a rather higher temperature than the water - moreso in the early stages. Wakey wakey!
20-09-2020 21:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:The heat is way above boiling point all the time
That isn't very bright is it now?

Referring to "heat" as a temperature? Absolutely not bright, i.e. you aren't the brightest bulb in the pack.

From The MANUAL:

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

All I can do is to give you really easy clues that even a moron can understand. Neither heat nor a bicycle is a temperature.

.


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
21-09-2020 20:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:If you apply consistent heat to water it will take it a while to boil. The heat is way above boiling point all the time

Question: What does heat have in common with a bicycle?
Answer: Neither is a temperature.

Let's see if it works better with "bicycle":

If you apply consistent bicycling to water it will take it a while to boil. The bicycle is way above boiling point all the time.


Nope, that doesn't work either.


.

That isn't very bright is it now? if you put your finger in the flame you should find that it is at a rather higher temperature than the water - moreso in the early stages. Wakey wakey!


A flame is not heat. Heat has no temperature.


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
21-09-2020 20:48
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:The heat is way above boiling point all the time
That isn't very bright is it now?

Referring to "heat" as a temperature? Absolutely not bright, i.e. you aren't the brightest bulb in the pack.

From The MANUAL:

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

All I can do is to give you really easy clues that even a moron can understand. Neither heat nor a bicycle is a temperature.

.

The temperature of the flame; knucklehead: is more than enough to cause the water to boil, but the water temperature has to catch up - because of its specific heat - you can hold your hand in the water and feel it only slowly warming, but being so frog-brained you probably wouldn't notice and end up having to be rescued by an intelligent life form. Better yet, why not stick your head in the flame just to be sure you don't confuse heat with temperature.
22-09-2020 00:47
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1792)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Better yet, why not stick your head in the flame just to be sure you don't confuse heat with temperature.

Better yet, why don't you tell us the difference between heat and temperature so that we can begin to take you seriously.


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
22-09-2020 02:02
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2403)
Does 'global warming' have heat? Or a temperature?
22-09-2020 06:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
HarveyH55 wrote: Does 'global warming' have heat? Or a temperature?

Great question!

What would a violation of physics have? Pete Rogers is all about his Atmospheric Thermal Enhacement being the result of gravity performing negative work. It sounds exactly like a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, ergo ... it is unheat ... or the undead version of heat.

... of course I could be mistaken. It might be an untemperature, in which case I would have unegg on my face.


.


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
22-09-2020 07:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:The heat is way above boiling point all the time
That isn't very bright is it now?

Referring to "heat" as a temperature? Absolutely not bright, i.e. you aren't the brightest bulb in the pack.

From The MANUAL:

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

All I can do is to give you really easy clues that even a moron can understand. Neither heat nor a bicycle is a temperature.

.

The temperature of the flame;

Flames have no temperature.
Pete Rogers wrote:
knucklehead: is more than enough to cause the water to boil,

You can boil water at room temperature. You can even boil water at 40 deg F.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but the water temperature has to catch up - because of its specific heat - you can hold your hand in the water and feel it only slowly warming, but being so frog-brained you probably wouldn't notice and end up having to be rescued by an intelligent life form.

I don't think you know anything about water or flames. You certainly have no idea what temperature means, or what heat means.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Better yet, why not stick your head in the flame just to be sure you don't confuse heat with temperature.

Heat has no temperature. Neither do flames.


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
22-09-2020 09:04
James___
★★★★★
(3172)
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:

The temperature of the flame;

Flames have no temperature.



If flames have volume then they have temperature. It's the large amount of energy flowing between highly charged ions that are heat. Aren't you tired of discussing the basics ITN?
22-09-2020 13:34
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:If you apply consistent heat to water it will take it a while to boil. The heat is way above boiling point all the time

Question: What does heat have in common with a bicycle?
Answer: Neither is a temperature.

Let's see if it works better with "bicycle":

If you apply consistent bicycling to water it will take it a while to boil. The bicycle is way above boiling point all the time.


Nope, that doesn't work either.


.

That isn't very bright is it now? if you put your finger in the flame you should find that it is at a rather higher temperature than the water - moreso in the early stages. Wakey wakey!


A flame is not heat. Heat has no temperature.

So why don't you put your head in it? That way you could prove that heat has no temperature.
22-09-2020 14:59
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Better yet, why not stick your head in the flame just to be sure you don't confuse heat with temperature.

Better yet, why don't you tell us the difference between heat and temperature so that we can begin to take you seriously.

You are trying to pass the buck, which is against the rules of epistemology and - very much to the contrary - is the very method by which the scumbag politician misdirects the bystander to get himself out of a hole.
Assuming you are an honest man - and by no means a scumbag poilitician - please either explain your position fully and cogently within the context of the discussion or go ahead and stick your head in the heat so you can prove the relevance of your point and write up your experience. Upon successful completion of either you will have every reason to proceed, but first things first if you please - and no more wriggling.
22-09-2020 15:07
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Does 'global warming' have heat? Or a temperature?

Thank you Harvey. I think we both know what you are getting at, being that it has both of course - they come from the Sun - but don't tell GasGuzzler, IBdeMann or ITN as it will only annoy them and we wouldn't want to do that now would we?
22-09-2020 16:38
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:The heat is way above boiling point all the time
That isn't very bright is it now?

Referring to "heat" as a temperature? Absolutely not bright, i.e. you aren't the brightest bulb in the pack.

From The MANUAL:

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

All I can do is to give you really easy clues that even a moron can understand. Neither heat nor a bicycle is a temperature.

.

The temperature of the flame;

Flames have no temperature.

You can always stick you head in them to prove you are not just trying to bog us down in semantics - that you explain nothing assures us of this - then we will gasp in awe when you show that heat and temperature are indeed unrelated. It didn't go well for Guy Fawkes when they tried it with him in 1606 though I think I ought to warn you; there was so much temperature coming from the heat they applied to him that all that was left at the end was ash. Religious nuts assure me, however, that it went perfectly for some blokes called Shadrach, Meshak, and Abednigo so we can trust that temperature and heat are so different that there was not a blister on any of them after exposure to the fiery furnace so do let us know how it goes.

Pete Rogers wrote:
knucklehead: is more than enough to cause the water to boil,

You can boil water at room temperature. You can even boil water at 40 deg F.

Not without changing the pressure drastically, so how are you going to arrange that for the atmosphere? The atmospheric pressure is reasonably constant doncha know and water boils everywhere at sea level at around 212F? It is 160F on top of Everest so how is yours going to boil at 40F without artificial intervention?

Pete Rogers wrote: but the water temperature has to catch up - because of its specific heat - you can hold your hand in the water and feel it only slowly warming, but being so frog-brained you probably wouldn't notice and end up having to be rescued by an intelligent life form.

I don't think you know anything about water or flames. You certainly have no idea what temperature means, or what heat means.

Well I think I might be able to help you there. You ought to find that if you apply enough heat to water in a metal pan the temperature will reach boiling point eventually, but it will take a while and you can keep your hand in the water for quite some time before the heat causes enough temperature increase for it to be painful. I would take it out at that point if I were you. If the heat is insufficient to cause the temperature to reach boiling point, then whilst the water will warm somewhat after a delay it won't boil of course. The ocean - being so massive - experiences a commensurate delay in attaining full temperature from the received heat energy, perhaps 800 years or more. How about that?

Pete Rogers wrote:
Better yet, why not stick your head in the flame just to be sure you don't confuse heat with temperature.

Heat has no temperature. Neither do flames.

Bully for you Shadrak, let us know how it goes with your head, which is probably in a nice warm - if not confined - place already. Hard to see much from there though.
22-09-2020 18:12
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1792)
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Better yet, why not stick your head in the flame just to be sure you don't confuse heat with temperature.

Better yet, why don't you tell us the difference between heat and temperature so that we can begin to take you seriously.

You are trying to pass the buck, which is against the rules of epistemology and - very much to the contrary - is the very method by which the scumbag politician misdirects the bystander to get himself out of a hole.
Assuming you are an honest man - and by no means a scumbag poilitician - please either explain your position fully and cogently within the context of the discussion or go ahead and stick your head in the heat so you can prove the relevance of your point and write up your experience. Upon successful completion of either you will have every reason to proceed, but first things first if you please - and no more wriggling.

You are quite the angry little man, eh?
Tell you what. I'm short on time but I'll tell you this real quick...
It is a bit chilly this morning, so I put a hat on to reduce the heat, thereby keeping me warmer.


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
22-09-2020 18:52
keepit
★★★★☆
(1687)
Why don't you guys just look it up in a physics dictionary and quit arguing?
22-09-2020 19:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:

The temperature of the flame;

Flames have no temperature.



If flames have volume then they have temperature.

Flames have no volume and they have no temperature. They are not mass.
James___ wrote:
It's the large amount of energy flowing between highly charged ions that are heat. Aren't you tired of discussing the basics ITN?

Flames are not heat.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
22-09-2020 19:47
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:If you apply consistent heat to water it will take it a while to boil. The heat is way above boiling point all the time

Question: What does heat have in common with a bicycle?
Answer: Neither is a temperature.

Let's see if it works better with "bicycle":

If you apply consistent bicycling to water it will take it a while to boil. The bicycle is way above boiling point all the time.


Nope, that doesn't work either.


.

That isn't very bright is it now? if you put your finger in the flame you should find that it is at a rather higher temperature than the water - moreso in the early stages. Wakey wakey!


A flame is not heat. Heat has no temperature.

So why don't you put your head in it? That way you could prove that heat has no temperature.

Heat has no temperature. You still do not know what 'temperature' is. Try reading up on the 0th law of thermodynamics, which defines 'temperature', and the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which defines 'heat'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 22-09-2020 19:47
22-09-2020 19:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:The heat is way above boiling point all the time
That isn't very bright is it now?

Referring to "heat" as a temperature? Absolutely not bright, i.e. you aren't the brightest bulb in the pack.

From The MANUAL:

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

All I can do is to give you really easy clues that even a moron can understand. Neither heat nor a bicycle is a temperature.

.

The temperature of the flame;

Flames have no temperature.

You can always stick you head in them to prove you are not just trying to bog us down in semantics - that you explain nothing assures us of this - then we will gasp in awe when you show that heat and temperature are indeed unrelated.

The are completely unrelated. Heat has no temperature. See the 0th and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, which you obstinately ignore.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
knucklehead: is more than enough to cause the water to boil,

You can boil water at room temperature. You can even boil water at 40 deg F.

Not without changing the pressure drastically, so how are you going to arrange that for the atmosphere? The atmospheric pressure is reasonably constant doncha know and water boils everywhere at sea level at around 212F? It is 160F on top of Everest so how is yours going to boil at 40F without artificial intervention?

It's easy to get water to boil at 40 degF...even on the shore of the sea...even aboard a ship.
Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote: but the water temperature has to catch up - because of its specific heat - you can hold your hand in the water and feel it only slowly warming, but being so frog-brained you probably wouldn't notice and end up having to be rescued by an intelligent life form.

I don't think you know anything about water or flames. You certainly have no idea what temperature means, or what heat means.

Well I think I might be able to help you there. You ought to find that if you apply enough heat to water in a metal pan the temperature will reach boiling point eventually, but it will take a while and you can keep your hand in the water for quite some time before the heat causes enough temperature increase for it to be painful. I would take it out at that point if I were you.
Fine.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If the heat is insufficient to cause the temperature to reach boiling point,
Heat is not required to get water to boil.
Pete Rogers wrote:
then whilst the water will warm somewhat after a delay it won't boil of course.
Heat is not required to get water to boil.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The ocean - being so massive - experiences a commensurate delay in attaining full temperature from the received heat energy, perhaps 800 years or more. How about that?
Ocean water doesn't take 800 years to reach equilibrium. Random number. Argument from randU 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
22-09-2020 19:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13295)
keepit wrote:
Why don't you guys just look it up in a physics dictionary and quit arguing?

There is no such thing as a physics dictionary. Physics is not a dictionary, nor do dictionaries define any word.

'Heat' is defined by the 2nd law of thermodynamics, which you deny.
'Temperature' is defined by the 0th law of thermodynamics, which you deny.
'Flame' is the result of and is defined by chemistry, which you deny.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 22-09-2020 20:01
22-09-2020 20:25
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: There is no place for incivility in a scientific examination

Pete, you need to actually be discussing science to have that protection.

The moment you start preaching and imposing your religion onto others, civility has leave to depart the premises.

It is not in your power to make up or change the rules by which we conduct analysis, they are the laws of epistemology so your arrogance at imposing your own will be noted and it will not change them - the narcissist alone thinks otherwise - so either obey the Laws or go away and play with such juveniles as might yet be impressed by the pomposity of another. It is the child and its grown up counterpart - the big baby - who thinks force of ego should be enough to hold sway over its audience. Grown-ups rightly scoff at such hubris. Your phrase "you need to actually be discussing science" suggests that you know otherwise, but in the absence of substantiation there is no way of confirming that you do. It's just another angry teddy flying out of your stroller past my left ear, but I won't be picking it up, you will have to do that for yourself.
Making statements as if their mere utterance is sufficient for them to hold sway is how the Bible and the Church work - not to mention all other religious initiatives. There is nothing like preaching to the effect that one's adversary is preaching.
So let's ask "What is the definition of when someone accuses another of doing things they are themselves guilty of?". Here is an answer "it could be rhetorical, hypocritical, or psychopathological. The person accusing the other of doing what he himself is actually doing is normally a narcissist. They often accuse people of doing things that they themselves are doing as a form of deflection so as to control the conversation. It can be a form of abuse."
If you want to play with the grown-ups start observing the rules of earnest discussion instead of wasting everyone's time with your teddys.

Pete Rogers wrote: The underlying cause of changing glaciation is insolation not weight

Nope. Changes in glaciation are caused by changes in the weather, which are random.

Bravo, well done! Changes in weather being principally causedy by matters associated with insolation of course.

Stop preaching and start discussing science.

This is a perfect example of that narcissism discussed above. The only preacher there has ever been around here is you, but there you go again, deflecting attention away from that - preaching includes the technique of accusation without proof - in order to try to control that which you ought not.
22-09-2020 21:24
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1792)
Pete Rogers wrote:
It is not in your power to make up or change the rules by which we conduct analysis, they are the laws of epistemology so your arrogance at imposing your own will be noted and it will not change them -

Where do you suppose I could get me a copy of that rulebook?


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
23-09-2020 00:22
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1792)
Pete Roger's wrote:
the laws of epistemology

IBdaMann, I'm wondering, should this be included in the manual?


All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
23-09-2020 00:35
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Roger's wrote: ... the laws of epistemology
IBdaMann, I'm wondering, should this be included in the manual?

Possibly, I need to think about it. I'm open to input from the board.

You were keen to sniff this out. Where have you heard this before, just in different wording?

Hint [spoiler]: This is Pete Roger's way of claiming ownership over "what we know."

Hmmmmm.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2020 02:39
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(575)
I have lost this discussion.Gravity/negative work.ATE what does it all mean
23-09-2020 03:29
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★☆
(1792)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Roger's wrote: ... the laws of epistemology
IBdaMann, I'm wondering, should this be included in the manual?

Possibly, I need to think about it. I'm open to input from the board.

You were keen to sniff this out. Where have you heard this before, just in different wording?

Hint [spoiler]: This is Pete Roger's way of claiming ownership over "what we know."

Hmmmmm.


.


After thinking this over, probably not manual material. I have only heard this from Mr Rogers. I knew I was picking up on something, just couldn't accurately place it. It finally hit me on the way home.

Mr. Rogers is engaged in a debate...a war of words if you will, and trying to settle a disagreement with some good folks in America. Pete is in England, and he is pleading that everyone in America fight on HIS terms. Does this sound familiar?



All the time the base and surface are at equal temperature as the equilibrium graduates to establish the temperature development--Pete Rogers
23-09-2020 03:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
duncan61 wrote: I have lost this discussion.Gravity/negative work.ATE what does it all mean


It means that he is preaching unfalsifiable Jabberwocky.

I have pasted his model below. Everybody understands the requirement to shun the frumious Bandersnatch, but when he misapplies the overarching slithy toves he ultimately leads to a change in the snicker-snack of the vorpal blade. Not possible.


Jabberwocky
BY LEWIS CARROLL

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

"Beware the Jabberwock, my son!
The jaws that bite, the claws that catch!
Beware the Jubjub bird, and shun
The frumious Bandersnatch!"

He took his vorpal sword in hand;
Long time the manxome foe he sought—
So rested he by the Tumtum tree
And stood awhile in thought.

And, as in uffish thought he stood,
The Jabberwock, with eyes of flame,
Came whiffling through the tulgey wood,
And burbled as it came!

One, two! One, two! And through and through
The vorpal blade went snicker-snack!
He left it dead, and with its head
He went galumphing back.

"And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!"
He chortled in his joy.

'Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2020 16:42
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
It is not in your power to make up or change the rules by which we conduct analysis, they are the laws of epistemology so your arrogance at imposing your own will be noted and it will not change them -

Where do you suppose I could get me a copy of that rulebook?

Easy as you like, just Google the principles of epistemology and have a little read. It is the method by which inadequate opinion - such as yours in the way you try to argue (use of unsupported assertion, breaking the "tether" and employment of the ad hominem fallacy are your main offences) - can be distinguished from knowledge (being correct opinion). One of the principles - as you will see - is that of "tethering" the opinion. This means not allowing the advocate to pass on questions (usually done by the blocking act of switching the discussion onto something else, a continual transgression in your case e.g. the thing you tried with "Better yet") showing that you refuse examination whereas it is only by embracing it - and the more rigorous the better (no dodging the bullets you see, to show you are bulletproof) - that the opinion can ever achieve the status of knowledge. With respect you do not even try to abide by any examination system, your approach being that of the advocate, whereas the true scientist has the approach of the juror. The reason is that the job of the advocate is to win at all costs - your approach - playing any game that suits him for that purpose, whereas the role of the juror is to honour impartial assessment as required by science. You seem to proceed from the conceit that you are right and quickly descend to mocking those who's examination you need for validation of your opinion when they ask questions you don't prefer. It's really time for you to switch your integrity on and your hormones off.
23-09-2020 19:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Where do you suppose I could get me a copy of that rulebook?
Easy as you like, just Google the principles of epistemology and have a little read.

The "Redirect Dodge." Into the Night doesn't have this specifically in his Mantra List but it really is a combined 4a&b.

Pete Rogers is trying to argue that his Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement, which is just Greenhouse Effect under a different name, is "what we know" because he mentions the buzz word "epistemology."

Pete, until you start discussion the scientific method, your ATE is not science and is not "what we know."


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2020 19:10
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(72)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:[quote]Pete Roger's wrote: ... the laws of epistemology
IBdaMann, I'm wondering, should this be included in the manual?

Possibly, I need to think about it. I'm open to input from the board.

You were keen to sniff this out. Where have you heard this before, just in different wording?


Hint [spoiler]: This is Pete Roger's way of claiming ownership over "what we know."

Hmmmmm.

I don't own Plato's epistemology, we all do. It is the basis of the Scientific Method after all. Snide remarks such as yours have no place in this kind of discussion.
23-09-2020 19:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7465)
Pete Rogers wrote: I don't own Plato's epistemology, we all do.

You should try reading for comprehension. Since you are a Brit we can excuse your difficulties translating the English into whatever you speak over there on your side of the pond. I was not speaking of epistemology. I was speaking of your Atmospheric Thermal Ensandwich with extra cheese. You totally own it. You are trying to sell it as "what we know."

That's not going to happen today.

Pete Rogers wrote:It is the basis of the Scientific Method after all.

I am an expert on the scientific method and you haven't even touched on it. Something has got to change on your end.

Pete Rogers wrote:Snide remarks such as yours have no place in this kind of discussion.

Until you start speaking coherently about science, the only comments that are appropriate are snide ones, liberally doused in sarcasm ... with extra cheese.


.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
23-09-2020 19:35
keepit
★★★★☆
(1687)
Get off it IBD, You aren't an expert on the scientific method. You don't have enough science to even explain your qualifications.
Page 8 of 9<<<6789>





Join the debate Global warming is not anthropogenic:

Remember me

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

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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