Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is not anthropogenic



Page 15 of 16<<<13141516>
08-02-2021 20:21
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(98)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote: You are failing to read for comprehension. I claim no such thing.

IBdaMann wroteI'm not going to chase you around in circles.

Why should you? It's all under your nose waiting to be read for comprehension.

IBdaMann wroteThis is about the fifth time you have denied your own THERMAL EFFECT upon which you return to insisting after asserting that you make no such claim.

What are you referring to when you write "your own THERMAL EFFECT" I am not aware I had one? The only Thermal Effect I am aware of for the purposes of our discussion is the ATE.

The argument is about the process giving rise to the ATE - that's all - other than to acknowledge that you do not believe there can be an ATE.

Let us be clear about this. You are wrong - of course - since if there were no ATE then our average temperature would be the same as the Moon, but it's 90K higher and there is not much for you to argue with about that.

IPCC claim that their theory of the GE is the correct explanation to account for the ATE, whereas that is of course false because it is actually the result of the minor example of the Kelvkn-Helmholtz contraction to which our atmosphere is subject. You should have understood this by now, it's been said enough times after all.

If you want to stop going round in circles you need to get off that merry-go-round of yours, walk over and and read the aforegoing for comprehension.

IBdaMannwroteIn my last response to you, I spelled out the fatal flaw in your argument and what you need to do to correct it, i.e. account for the ADDITIONAL ENERGY that causes the increase in temperature that you call the THERMAL EFFECT which is what all other warmizombies call Greenhouse EFFECT.

There was no flaw - let alone a fatal one - its just that you do not accept the reality of the widely used Engineering and Physics term "Negative Work". I even gave the explanation provided in a High School homework answer, but I guess you didn't read or understand it.

What you fail to see is that the negative work of compression forces up the thermal energy per cubic foot in order to maintain the 1st Law where there are fewer cubic feet available to be occupied. This is where you stay on your merry-go-round when you need to jump off.

IBdaMann wrote: Since your EFFECT is exactly the same physics-violating EFFECT as Greenhouse EFFECT, the CAUSE is irrelevant. Your religious dogma suffers from the exact same fatal flaws and cause it to be summarily dismissed.

You claim an increase in temperature. You do not account for any additional energy that causes that increase in temperature. Yes you created a religious term, i.e. negative work, and you tried to pass it off as science, as somehow accounting for the needed additional energy, but your term and its zany definition are totally bogus.

So, if you want to make any headway in this discussion instead of being stuck at the starting gate, address this violation of thermodynamics.

IBdaMann wroteYou have not thusly accounted for any additional energy and therefore your argument remains dismissed.

It's from Negative Work as described many times. You don't think it exists, but you are wrong as explained above. Here is a helpful explanation from some high school homework answers that shows the concept isn't even controversial. Please note that it is not a concept of my discovery, just standard science of many years standing.

"Part B. It can be seen from the pV diagram that 1 and 3 are isochoric processes. If Cycle 1 is traversed clockwise, the gas does positive work by expanding during portion 2 and negative work when it is compressed during portion 4."

Negative Work is the energy source.

IBdaMann wroteEither account for the needed additional energy

I just did - yet again

IBdaMann wroteor abandon your claim of any thermal EFFECT.

It should be pretty obvious that there's an ATE otherwise our average temperature would be similar to the Moon's wouldn't it Einstein?

IBdaNMann wroteDismissed.

Really? That would take somebody who can prove the Moon is at the same average temperature as the Earth - I'm not sure such a person exists, but I am willing to listen to what you say if you think he does.
08-02-2021 21:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8611)
Pete Rogers wrote:The argument is about the process giving rise to the ATE - that's all

Nope. The "process" or CAUSE of your ATE is irrelevant. All that matters is that your CAUSE does not include accounting for additional energy. The thermal EFFECT you are arguing is thetefore a violation of physics.

This is where you deny arguing a thermal EFFECT and pretend that I am claiming that gravity violates physics.

Get back to me when you finally figure out the basics of CAUSE -> EFFECT. You are arguing the exact same EFFECT, i.e. Greenhouse Effect, just stemming from a different CAUSE, i.e. gravity instead of CO2.

Pete Rogers wrote: If you want to stop going round in circles ...

... I just ignore you.

You are stuck at the starting gate. You are claiming an increase in temperature. Let that sink in. Only matter has temperature, and no body of matter spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy. Unfortunately you REFUSE to account for the additional energy required for the temperature-increasing thermal EFFECT you claim.

Your invented term "negative work" is still totally bogus. There is no such thing in nature as either a negative force or a negative distance, at least one of which being needed for negative work to exist in nature.


.


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
08-02-2021 23:13
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1866)
The whole "negative work" thing makes no sense to me... As far as I am aware, work = force * distance... So, unless force or distance were a negative value (and I don't see how either one of them could possibly be a negative value), I don't see how there could even be a such thing as "negative work".

I did find a holy link (ccrma.standford.edu) which claims that there is such a thing, and this particular holy link describes "negative work" as follows:

Work can also be negative. For example, when uncompressing an ideal spring, the (positive) work done by the spring on its moving end support can be interpreted also as saying that the end support performs negative work on the spring as it allows the spring to uncompress. When negative work is performed, the driving system is always accepting energy from the driven system. This is all simply accounting. Physically, one normally considers the driver as the agent performing the positive work, i.e., the one expending energy to move the driven object. Thus, when allowing a spring to uncompress, we consider the spring as performing (positive) work on whatever is attached to its moving end.

Another holy link description is right here for your viewing pleasure ... No wonder Pete is so confused...
09-02-2021 00:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8611)
gfm7175 wrote: I did find a holy link (ccrma.standford.edu) which claims that there is such a thing, and this particular holy link describes "negative work" as follows ...:

The reference you cited grossly over-sugarcoated the explanation of how "negative work" is a conceptual error and should not be used. When this concept was explained to me many decades ago, the word used was "error." Using such a term as "negative work" implies the fabrication of forces that do not exist.

The classic example is when you scientifically illiterate friend tells you that he punched the accelerator of his car and he could feel himself being pushed back into his seat.

Ummm, no. There was no force pushing your friend into his seat; the seat was pushing on him, accelerating him in the direction the car was traveling. To try to explain phenomena through invented, nonexistent forces leads to hogwash, as in Pete Rogers case. He is calling upon nonexistent forces that perform work that heat the atmosphere above "what it should be."

If the word "stupid" comes to mind then you understand the situation.

Actually, now that I think about it, the absolute classic example is centrifugal force. Everyone knows what it is ... except that it doesn't exist. It might be the most widespread misconception after "earloop facemasks help."

.


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
09-02-2021 00:21
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1866)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: I did find a holy link (ccrma.standford.edu) which claims that there is such a thing, and this particular holy link describes "negative work" as follows ...:

The reference you cited grossly over-sugarcoated the explanation of how "negative work" is a conceptual error and should not be used. When this concept was explained to me many decades ago, the word used was "error." Using such a term as "negative work" implies the fabrication of forces that do not exist.

The classic example is when you scientifically illiterate friend tells you that he punched the accelerator of his car and he could feel himself being pushed back into his seat.

Ummm, no. There was no force pushing your friend into his seat; the seat was pushing on him, accelerating him in the direction the car was traveling. To try to explain phenomena through invented, nonexistent forces leads to hogwash, as in Pete Rogers case. He is calling upon nonexistent forces that perform work that heat the atmosphere above "what it should be."

If the word "stupid" comes to mind then you understand the situation.

Actually, now that I think about it, the absolute classic example is centrifugal force. Everyone knows what it is ... except that it doesn't exist. It might be the most widespread misconception after "earloop facemasks help."

.

Haha yeah I've heard the "pushed back into my seat" (or similar) comment plenty of times. And yes, the word stupid came to mind.

Soon I gotta get into my vehicle, double masked, so that I don't catch covid from myself.
18-02-2021 21:40
JvJ
☆☆☆☆☆
(3)
Hello,

In my opinion climate change the most serious issue that our modern society faces. But obviously the actions that would cause an improvement seem to be very difficult and sometimes unpleasant, too. So I thought of how we can do something that is unconscious and also significantly improving our planet's state. Surprisingly, I found „Ecosia", a search engine and the biggest tree planter worldwide. With every research you can significantly contribute to reforestation projects in places where trees are most urgently needed. About 80% of the whole income by advertisements is donated for afforestation. Thus, it supports not only the environment, but also the economic, social and educational state of many third countries.
I think this is one of the easiest and most effective ways of solving global issues. If everybody uses this browser instead of conventional, commercial search engines like Google, the world will be quite a bit better.
I hope many people now start using „Ecosia" in order to contribute to a global change.
If you want to you can put this comment onto the forum that more people read it and stark using Ecosia as their new web browser.
Thank you!
19-02-2021 19:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15044)
JvJ wrote:
Hello,

In my opinion climate change the most serious issue that our modern society faces.

You're gonna have define it first! Define 'climate change'.
JvJ wrote:
But obviously the actions that would cause an improvement seem to be very difficult and sometimes unpleasant, too. So I thought of how we can do something that is unconscious and also significantly improving our planet's state. Surprisingly, I found „Ecosia", a search engine and the biggest tree planter worldwide. With every research you can significantly contribute to reforestation projects in places where trees are most urgently needed. About 80% of the whole income by advertisements is donated for afforestation. Thus, it supports not only the environment, but also the economic, social and educational state of many third countries.

Meh.
JvJ wrote:
I think this is one of the easiest and most effective ways of solving global issues.

Using a search engine doesn't change anything.
JvJ wrote:
If everybody uses this browser instead of conventional, commercial search engines like Google, the world will be quite a bit better.

I already don't use Google. I use DuckDuckGo. They aren't biased like Google is.
JvJ wrote:
I hope many people now start using „Ecosia" in order to contribute to a global change.
If you want to you can put this comment onto the forum that more people read it and stark using Ecosia as their new web browser.
Thank you!

I'm going to consider this spam.


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
20-02-2021 21:06
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(98)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:The argument is about the process giving rise to the ATE - that's all

IBdaMann wroteNope. The "process" or CAUSE of your ATE is irrelevant. All that matters is that your CAUSE does not include accounting for additional energy. The thermal EFFECT you are arguing is thetefore a violation of physics.

The ATE is argued to be the result of the GE according to IPCC whereas it is actually caused by atmospheric compression increasing the thermal energy per cubic metre; because there are then fewer: in order to obey the 1st Law - Conserved energy in a reduced space dictates the ATE.

IBdaMannwroteThis is where you deny arguing a thermal EFFECT and pretend that I am claiming that gravity violates physics
.
There is quite obviously a thermal effect because if we had no atmosphere our average temperature wlould be around the same as that of the moon.

IBdaMann wroteGet back to me when you finally figure out the basics of CAUSE -> EFFECT. You are arguing the exact same EFFECT, i.e. Greenhouse Effect, just stemming from a different CAUSE, i.e. gravity instead of CO2.

Hardly. The ATE is shown not to be the GE but Gravitationally caused by autocompression

Pete Rogers wrote: If you want to stop going round in circles ...

IBdaMann wrote... I just ignore you.

That's right. I remember you telling me that science was dependent on closed minds and I still dine out on that story as an example of narcissism inconsistent with science.

IBdaMannwroteYou are stuck at the starting gate. You are claiming an increase in temperature. Let that sink in. Only matter has temperature, and no body of matter spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy. Unfortunately you REFUSE to account for the additional energy required for the temperature-increasing thermal EFFECT you claim.

Increase in temperature is the result of the 1st Law. When a gas body is reduced in size with the same energy content.

IBdaMann wroteYour invented term "negative work" is still totally bogus. There is no such thing in nature as either a negative force or a negative distance, at least one of which being needed for negative work to exist in nature.

I gave you part of the answers to a science/engineering exam concerning negative work, so what is your point? I guess you decided that Engineers don't know as much as you. There is no evidence that you read it so there goes the science of the closed mind eh? Wake up!
20-02-2021 23:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8611)
Pete Rogers wrote: The ATE is argued ...

Ditch the passive voice.

What are YOU arguing? Let's stay focused on that.

Pete Rogers wrote:[exact same error repeated for the 37th time deleted]

You need to get a new angle otherwise your WACKY violation of physics has been debunked more times than you deserve.

You claim an increase in temperature. You need to start accounting for the additional energy that causes that increase in temperature. You don't get to cite gravity because that is a force, not energy. Until you do you are still violating thermodynamics.

No body of matter spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy. You are claiming that the earth spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy. ERROR.

Get back to the drawing board.

Pete Rogers wrote:There is quite obviously a thermal effect because if we had no atmosphere our average temperature wlould be around the same as that of the moon.

This is where you show that the moon has a different average temperature (adjusted for emissivity) from the earth's.

What are you waiting for? Get to it.

Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteGet back to me when you finally figure out the basics of CAUSE -> EFFECT. You are arguing the exact same EFFECT, i.e. Greenhouse Effect, just stemming from a different CAUSE, i.e. gravity instead of CO2.
Hardly. The ATE is shown not to be the GE but Gravitationally caused by autocompression

Too funny. Get back to me when you finally figure out the basics of CAUSE -> EFFECT. You are arguing the exact same EFFECT, i.e. Greenhouse Effect, just stemming from a different CAUSE, i.e. gravity instead of CO2.

... and learn to read while you're at it.

Pete Rogers wrote:I remember you telling me that science was dependent on closed minds and I still dine out on that story as an example of narcissism inconsistent with science.

Learn to read while you are learning the basics of CAUSE --> EFFECT ... oh wait, I already mentioned that.

I never told you that science was dependent on closed minds. That's how religious fundamentalists characterize those who live on the science side of the fence. Scientists are completely open-minded ... they just doubt and question everything. Religious fundamentalists such as yourself cannot abide anything but absolute obedience and blind faith. To you, doubting and questioning is equivalent to a closed mind. Your religious fundamentalism is incompatible with science, as is clearly shown by your incessant insistence on violations of thermodynamics.

Your religion claims an increase in temperature. Your religion needs to either account for the additional energy that causes that increase in temperature or declare your ATE to be the wondrous, physics-defying, religious miracle that you are making it out to be.

Pete Rogers wrote:Increase in temperature is the result of the 1st Law.

Nope. An increase in temperature can only result from additional energy.

Now, start accounting for that additional energy.

Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteYour invented term "negative work" is still totally bogus. There is no such thing in nature as either a negative force or a negative distance, at least one of which being needed for negative work to exist in nature.

I gave you part of the answers to a science/engineering exam concerning negative work, so what is your point?

You cited something bogus to support your bogus concept.

Now start accounting for that additional energy.

Pete Rogers wrote:I guess you decided that Engineers don't know as much as you.

I guess you have abandoned your cause and have retreated to pretending to represent the world's engineers.

For the sake of our discussion, sure, assume that I have decided that no engineer knows as much as I do.

Now, start accounting for that additional energy.

.


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
21-02-2021 19:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15044)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:The argument is about the process giving rise to the ATE - that's all

IBdaMann wroteNope. The "process" or CAUSE of your ATE is irrelevant. All that matters is that your CAUSE does not include accounting for additional energy. The thermal EFFECT you are arguing is thetefore a violation of physics.

The ATE is argued to be the result of the GE according to IPCC whereas it is actually caused by atmospheric compression increasing the thermal energy per cubic metre; because there are then fewer: in order to obey the 1st Law - Conserved energy in a reduced space dictates the ATE.

There is no global atmospheric compression. Gravity is not energy. Your statement is not the 1st law of thermodynamics. The 1st law of thermodynamics is E(t+1) = E(t)-U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work. Gravity is neither energy nor work.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMannwroteThis is where you deny arguing a thermal EFFECT and pretend that I am claiming that gravity violates physics
.
There is quite obviously a thermal effect because if we had no atmosphere our average temperature wlould be around the same as that of the moon.

Who says it already isn't? The temperature of the Earth is unknown. The temperature of the Moon is unknown. You are assuming made up numbers. Argument from randU fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteGet back to me when you finally figure out the basics of CAUSE -> EFFECT. You are arguing the exact same EFFECT, i.e. Greenhouse Effect, just stemming from a different CAUSE, i.e. gravity instead of CO2.

Hardly. The ATE is shown not to be the GE but Gravitationally caused by autocompression

Gravity is not energy. The atmosphere is not being globally compressed. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: If you want to stop going round in circles ...

IBdaMann wrote... I just ignore you.

That's right. I remember you telling me that science was dependent on closed minds and I still dine out on that story as an example of narcissism inconsistent with science.

Science is neither an open mind nor a closed one. It is not narcissism. It is not a story. It is not dependent on anything. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMannwroteYou are stuck at the starting gate. You are claiming an increase in temperature. Let that sink in. Only matter has temperature, and no body of matter spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy. Unfortunately you REFUSE to account for the additional energy required for the temperature-increasing thermal EFFECT you claim.

Increase in temperature is the result of the 1st Law. When a gas body is reduced in size with the same energy content.

The atmosphere is not being reduced in size. It is the same size it was yesterday, the year before, etc.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteYour invented term "negative work" is still totally bogus. There is no such thing in nature as either a negative force or a negative distance, at least one of which being needed for negative work to exist in nature.

I gave you part of the answers to a science/engineering exam concerning negative work, so what is your point?

False authority fallacy. Science is not an exam. Engineering is not an exam. There is no such term as 'negative work' in science or engineering. False authority fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I guess you decided that Engineers don't know as much as you.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Bigotry. You cannot speak for engineers. You can only speak for you.
Pete Rogers wrote:
There is no evidence that you read it so there goes the science of the closed mind eh? Wake up!

There is no such thing as 'science of the closed mind'. Buzzword fallacy.

You continue to deny the 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law. You are also now ignoring statistical mathematics.


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
21-02-2021 20:12
keepit
★★★★★
(2072)
Explain yourself itn. You've made way too many errors to get a free pass.
21-02-2021 20:24
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(392)
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:The argument is about the process giving rise to the ATE - that's all

Nope. The "process" or CAUSE of your ATE is irrelevant. All that matters is that your CAUSE does not include accounting for additional energy. The thermal EFFECT you are arguing is thetefore a violation of physics.

This is where you deny arguing a thermal EFFECT and pretend that I am claiming that gravity violates physics.

Get back to me when you finally figure out the basics of CAUSE -> EFFECT. You are arguing the exact same EFFECT, i.e. Greenhouse Effect, just stemming from a different CAUSE, i.e. gravity instead of CO2.

Pete Rogers wrote: If you want to stop going round in circles ...

... I just ignore you.

You are stuck at the starting gate. You are claiming an increase in temperature. Let that sink in. Only matter has temperature, and no body of matter spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy. Unfortunately you REFUSE to account for the additional energy required for the temperature-increasing thermal EFFECT you claim.

Your invented term "negative work" is still totally bogus. There is no such thing in nature as either a negative force or a negative distance, at least one of which being needed for negative work to exist in nature.


.


Duh moron alert

You are not ignoring a person that you are responding too
21-02-2021 22:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8611)
keepit wrote: Explain yourself itn. You've made way too many errors to get a free pass.

He has made no errors that you have correctly identified.

Are you asking him to explain being perfect? I think that would be a bit inappropriate.

.


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
21-02-2021 22:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8611)
Swan wrote:You are not ignoring a person that you are responding too

Duh moron alert

Obviously I still want to keep going around in circles.

You need too pay attention, too stay focused and too follow the logic. I realize that is a tall order with you but let's work on it. I'm sure you can get there some day.



.


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
22-02-2021 02:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15044)
keepit wrote:
Explain yourself itn. You've made way too many errors to get a free pass.

RQAA. Void argument fallacy. YAVA.


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
22-02-2021 02:28
James___
★★★★★
(4137)
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
Explain yourself itn. You've made way too many errors to get a free pass.

RQAA. Void argument fallacy. YAVA.



Without gravity, bone density decreases. How do you miss this ITN? It's common knowledge. With a trip to Mars, 1 out of 2 people will die from cancer. Radiation is an American.

Sorry about that. Gravity is necessary for bone density. Pretty basic knowledge. On board the ISS, they lose bone density which means coming back to Earth makes their bones brittle. There is also a Brittle Bone disease but that is different.
As for dying from cancer. The estimate is that 1 out of every 2 people that travel to Mars will die from cancer. This is because of the radiation that the Van Allen radiation belts block out, a person will be subjected to. Just basic information that everyone knows.
With the trip to Mars, the question is can radiation be shielded? That's the primary stopping point at present.
Just some FYI about science and space travel.
Edited on 22-02-2021 03:12
22-02-2021 03:06
keepit
★★★★★
(2072)
Muscle mass decreases too. The human body has been finely tuned by evolution on this earth. Changes in gravity will result in many surprises, none of them happy.
22-02-2021 03:19
James___
★★★★★
(4137)
keepit wrote:
Muscle mass decreases too. The human body has been finely tuned by evolution on this earth. Changes in gravity will result in many surprises, none of them happy.


They might like reading The Lady Astronaut series of books. The author might be Jewish but it is still a good read. I've read the first 3 books and will be reading the 4th book in the series. Marie Kowal is the author's name.
While it doesn't get into theoretical physics, it will allow people to better understand the role that politics plays in life.
And she does make the reader aware of life on Earth and in a "low G" environment as well. Just not sure why your post got me to think about her books. I guess stupid is as stupid does.
Edited on 22-02-2021 03:21
22-02-2021 04:10
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(392)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:You are not ignoring a person that you are responding too

Duh moron alert

Obviously I still want to keep going around in circles.

You need too pay attention, too stay focused and too follow the logic. I realize that is a tall order with you but let's work on it. I'm sure you can get there some day.



.


I am paying attention, to the new additions to my defense portfolio
22-02-2021 04:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8611)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:You are not ignoring a person that you are responding too

Duh moron alert

Obviously I still want to keep going around in circles.

You need too pay attention, too stay focused and too follow the logic. I realize that is a tall order with you but let's work on it. I'm sure you can get there some day.

I am paying attention, to the new additions to my defense portfolio

Aaahhh, rushing to the safe space already. We're going to have to work on that.

.


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
22-02-2021 04:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8611)
keepit wrote: Muscle mass decreases too.

There are things one can do to counteract low gravity. Resistance exercise just becomes part of the daily routine.



keepit wrote: The human body has been finely tuned by evolution on this earth.

That argument only carries weight with people like me who are big fans of Darwin's theory of evolution ... but there are many who are not such huge fans. Your argument needs to stand on its own.

keepit wrote: Changes in gravity will result in many surprises, none of them happy.

Lower gravity has MANY happy benefits. Humans can do so much more with les effort. Larger structures can be constructed from heavier materials without fear of collapse.

There are many benefits.




.


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
22-02-2021 04:27
James___
★★★★★
(4137)
Okay, once I mention the Lady Astronaut series, is it she's a female or she's Jewish?
Just a"stark" (Eureka term for a short termed leader of Global Dynamics named Stark), you guys went somewhere else. Don't tell me you guys are afraid of women having any role in space travel.
I know it's not because of Jewish content because, can't say why but have offended one or 2 because of historical references.
Edited on 22-02-2021 04:28
22-02-2021 05:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8611)
James___ wrote: Don't tell me you guys are afraid of women having any role in space travel.

Women will have pivotal roles in space travel.

.
Attached image:

22-02-2021 05:16
James___
★★★★★
(4137)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Don't tell me you guys are afraid of women having any role in space travel.

Women will have pivotal roles in space travel.

.


If I were 20 and stupid, I'd like it. I'm not young and dumb anymore.
22-02-2021 06:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8611)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Don't tell me you guys are afraid of women having any role in space travel.

Women will have pivotal roles in space travel.
If I were 20 and stupid, I'd like it. I'm not young and dumb anymore.

... because now you're old and dumb?

.


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
23-02-2021 04:09
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(392)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:You are not ignoring a person that you are responding too

Duh moron alert

Obviously I still want to keep going around in circles.

You need too pay attention, too stay focused and too follow the logic. I realize that is a tall order with you but let's work on it. I'm sure you can get there some day.

I am paying attention, to the new additions to my defense portfolio

Aaahhh, rushing to the safe space already. We're going to have to work on that.

.


Actually many defense stocks that have been losing market cap are now a good value. Lol you wish the market was your safe space
23-02-2021 06:28
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1015)
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: The ATE is argued ...

Ditch the passive voice.

What are YOU arguing? Let's stay focused on that.

Pete Rogers wrote:[exact same error repeated for the 37th time deleted]

You need to get a new angle otherwise your WACKY violation of physics has been debunked more times than you deserve.

You claim an increase in temperature. You need to start accounting for the additional energy that causes that increase in temperature. You don't get to cite gravity because that is a force, not energy. Until you do you are still violating thermodynamics.

No body of matter spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy. You are claiming that the earth spontaneously increases in temperature without additional energy. ERROR.

Get back to the drawing board.

Pete Rogers wrote:There is quite obviously a thermal effect because if we had no atmosphere our average temperature wlould be around the same as that of the moon.

This is where you show that the moon has a different average temperature (adjusted for emissivity) from the earth's.

What are you waiting for? Get to it.

Pete Rogers wrote:[quote]IBdaMann wroteGet back to me when you finally figure out the basics of CAUSE -> EFFECT. You are arguing the exact same EFFECT, i.e. Greenhouse Effect, just stemming from a different CAUSE, i.e. gravity instead of CO2.
Hardly. The ATE is shown not to be the GE but Gravitationally caused by autocompression

Too funny. Get back to me when you finally figure out the basics of CAUSE -> EFFECT. You are arguing the exact same EFFECT, i.e. Greenhouse Effect, just stemming from a different CAUSE, i.e. gravity instead of CO2.

... and learn to read while you're at it.

Pete Rogers wrote:I remember you telling me that science was dependent on closed minds and I still dine out on that story as an example of narcissism inconsistent with science.

Learn to read while you are learning the basics of CAUSE --> EFFECT ... oh wait, I already mentioned that.

I never told you that science was dependent on closed minds. That's how religious fundamentalists characterize those who live on the science side of the fence. Scientists are completely open-minded ... they just doubt and question everything. Religious fundamentalists such as yourself cannot abide anything but absolute obedience and blind faith. To you, doubting and questioning is equivalent to a closed mind. Your religious fundamentalism is incompatible with science, as is clearly shown by your incessant insistence on violations of thermodynamics.

Your religion claims an increase in temperature. Your religion needs to either account for the additional energy that causes that increase in temperature or declare your ATE to be the wondrous, physics-defying, religious miracle that you are making it out to be.

Pete Rogers wrote:Increase in temperature is the result of the 1st Law.

Nope. An increase in temperature can only result from additional energy.

Now, start accounting for that additional energy.

Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteYour invented term "negative work" is still totally bogus. There is no such thing in nature as either a negative force or a negative distance, at least one of which being needed for negative work to exist in nature.

I gave you part of the answers to a science/engineering exam concerning negative work, so what is your point?

You cited something bogus to support your bogus concept.

Now start accounting for that additional energy.

Pete Rogers wrote:I guess you decided that Engineers don't know as much as you.

I guess you have abandoned your cause and have retreated to pretending to represent the world's engineers.

For the sake of our discussion, sure, assume that I have decided that no engineer knows as much as I do.

Now, start accounting for that additional energy

I understand petes logic.All he is explaining is because of gravity the atmosphere has a higher density at the surface.At no point can I see where pete is claiming its warmer so there is no additional energy he is making an observation thats it


duncan61
23-02-2021 08:20
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8611)
duncan61 wrote:I understand petes logic.

Clearly you don't.

duncan61 wrote: All he is explaining is because of gravity the atmosphere has a higher density at the surface.

Duncan, this is totally absurd. Of course an atmosphere will have a greater atmospheric density at the bottom of the atmosphere than no atmosphere will. Yet you think this is some sort of profound wisdom?


duncan61 wrote:At no point can I see where pete is claiming its warmer ...

Then go back and read his posts AGAIN. Somehow you missed his bajillion claims of Atmospheric Thermal Effect. What is that, Duncan? Hint: it involves an increase in temperature. What is an increase in temperature, Duncan? Hint: it involves the word "warmer."

Duncan, since you understand Pete's logic, explain from where the additional energy comes that CAUSES the increase in 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
Edited on 23-02-2021 08:20
23-02-2021 08:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8611)
Swan wrote: Lol you wish the market was your safe space

LOL LOL Yawn. You wish you didn't need a refuge from differing views.

LOL

.


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
23-02-2021 13:22
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1015)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:I understand petes logic.

Clearly you don't.

duncan61 wrote: All he is explaining is because of gravity the atmosphere has a higher density at the surface.

Duncan, this is totally absurd. Of course an atmosphere will have a greater atmospheric density at the bottom of the atmosphere than no atmosphere will. Yet you think this is some sort of profound wisdom?


duncan61 wrote:At no point can I see where pete is claiming its warmer ...

Then go back and read his posts AGAIN. Somehow you missed his bajillion claims of Atmospheric Thermal Effect. What is that, Duncan? Hint: it involves an increase in temperature. What is an increase in temperature, Duncan? Hint: it involves the word "warmer."

Duncan, since you understand Pete's logic, explain from where the additional energy comes that CAUSES the increase in temperature.

.
I have not seen where he is claiming it is warming.ATE simply is.He is not claiming its warming.We have all agreed the atmosphere is part of the Earth and it takes time to warm and cool.ITN stated this.Pete is just stating that the denser atmospere has more influence.Its not complicated if I get it


duncan61
23-02-2021 14:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8611)
duncan61 wrote: I have not seen where he is claiming it is warming.

Yes you have and you insist that you understand the logic.

So explain to me what an atmospheric THERMAL EFFECT is. Don't talk to me about gravity because that is only the CAUSE. Tell me about the THERMAL EFFECT.


duncan61 wrote: ATE simply is.

Nope. Such a THERMAL EFFECT is physically impossible. It will become obvious once you actually understand Pete's (il)logic.

duncan61 wrote:He is not claiming its warming.

You're being silly. THERMAL EFFECT. Duncan, what do you think he means by THERMAL EFFECT that isn't some sort of thermal effect? In English, "thermal effect" can be written "temperature result.". What does that mean Duncan? What does it mean?

duncan61 wrote: We have all agreed the atmosphere is part of the Earth and it takes time to warm and cool.

Good. Focus on how Pete insists that it doesn't cool. He claims that his bogus " negative work" keeps it from cooling. So hammer him for it instead of peppering me with your insistence that he must be right.

duncan61 wrote: ... Pete is just stating that the denser atmospere has more influence

Whatever that is supposed to mean. It appears that you are claiming that atmosphers are able to influence physics and can even violate them.

No ... they cannot.

.
.


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
23-02-2021 16:42
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1866)
duncan61 wrote:
I have not seen where he is claiming it is warming.

This response amounts to: ** nananananana I can't see you!!! **

Pete's whole argument is that the Earth is warming, but differing from most other warmizombies, he is claiming that this "warming" is being caused by gravity rather than by CO2 (and/or other "greenhouse gases").

duncan61 wrote:
ATE simply is.

Splendid. So you're admitting that ATE is a religious belief rather than science? I mean, it's pretty obvious given all of the science that ATE is denying...

duncan61 wrote:
He is not claiming its warming.

Yes, he is. It is at the very foundation of what he is arguing.

duncan61 wrote:
We have all agreed the atmosphere is part of the Earth and it takes time to warm and cool.ITN stated this. Pete is just stating that the denser atmospere has more influence.Its not complicated if I get it

Pete is arguing that the Earth is warming and that the cause of it is gravity.
23-02-2021 18:47
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(392)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote: Lol you wish the market was your safe space

LOL LOL Yawn. You wish you didn't need a refuge from differing views.

LOL

.


And you wish that I would argue with a numbskull like yourself who does not believe that there was an ice age and who can not accept that heat is energy
Edited on 23-02-2021 18:55
23-02-2021 19:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15044)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
keepit wrote:
Explain yourself itn. You've made way too many errors to get a free pass.

RQAA. Void argument fallacy. YAVA.



Without gravity, bone density decreases. How do you miss this ITN? It's common knowledge. With a trip to Mars, 1 out of 2 people will die from cancer. Radiation is an American.

Sorry about that. Gravity is necessary for bone density. Pretty basic knowledge. On board the ISS, they lose bone density which means coming back to Earth makes their bones brittle. There is also a Brittle Bone disease but that is different.
As for dying from cancer. The estimate is that 1 out of every 2 people that travel to Mars will die from cancer. This is because of the radiation that the Van Allen radiation belts block out, a person will be subjected to. Just basic information that everyone knows.
With the trip to Mars, the question is can radiation be shielded? That's the primary stopping point at present.
Just some FYI about science and space travel.

Word salad.


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
23-02-2021 19:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15044)
keepit wrote:
Muscle mass decreases too. The human body has been finely tuned by evolution on this earth. Changes in gravity will result in many surprises, none of them happy.


Simple exercises prevents any of these effects.


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
23-02-2021 19:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8611)
Swan wrote:And you wish that I would argue with a numbskull like yourself who does not believe that there was an ice age and who can not accept that heat is energy

I don't like padded rooms.

.
Attached image:

23-02-2021 19:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15044)
Swan wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote: Lol you wish the market was your safe space

LOL LOL Yawn. You wish you didn't need a refuge from differing views.

LOL

.


And you wish that I would argue with a numbskull like yourself who does not believe that there was an ice age
Whether there was an ice age is unknown.
Swan wrote:
and who can not accept that heat is energy

Heat is not energy.


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
23-02-2021 20:23
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(392)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote:And you wish that I would argue with a numbskull like yourself who does not believe that there was an ice age and who can not accept that heat is energy

I don't like padded rooms.

.


You also do not like accepting reality.

Heat is energy

The ice age was real
23-02-2021 20:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(8611)
Swan wrote: You also do not like accepting reality. Heat is energy The ice age was real

This is why you are in the padded room.

.
Attached image:

24-02-2021 04:20
SwanProfile picture★★☆☆☆
(392)
IBdaMann wrote:
Swan wrote: You also do not like accepting reality. Heat is energy The ice age was real

This is why you are in the padded room.

.


Sorry son, heat is energy. Your belief to the contrary is evidence of your delusional tendencies.

130
Page 15 of 16<<<13141516>





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