Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is not anthropogenic



Page 16 of 23<<<1415161718>>>
24-02-2021 10:43
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
I googled Atmospheric Thermal Effect and its explained simply as celestial bodies with an atmosphere have different surface temperatures to bodies with no or little atmosphere E.G. Moon and Earth.I have no memory of ever seeing Pete write it is increasing or doing anything other than being.This is a forum and you can share pointless information.I learned something from it.
24-02-2021 13:39
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
duncan61 wrote: I googled Atmospheric Thermal Effect

I'm only addressing Pete's argument.

duncan61 wrote: ... its explained simply as celestial bodies with an atmosphere have different surface temperatures to bodies with no or little atmosphere.

This is not an EFFECT. It is a characteristic of atmospheres that the temperature at the bottom of the atmosphere differs from the temperature at the top of the atmosphere ... and this does not come as news to anyone (except to the extremely gullible).

Otherwise, the atmosphere is part of the planet and is not a separate body.

duncan61 wrote: I have no memory of ever seeing Pete write it is increasing or doing anything other than being.

... but strangely you remember ALL of his commentary concerning "negative work."


.


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
24-02-2021 15:15
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
Effect is a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.Atmosphere has an Effect on temperature.No atmosphere does not.Simple stuff.Why is it so important to prove Pete wrong.I also under stand negative work and the term is used in Engineering.Pete used the example of a spring returning to shape.I got it.
24-02-2021 16:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
duncan61 wrote: Effect is a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

We call it: CAUSE -> EFFECT

duncan61 wrote: Atmosphere has an Effect on temperature.

Nope. Atmosphere has temperature.

Only additional energy can increase temperature. There is no such thing as any substance that spontaneously increases in temperature or that causes other matter to spontaneously increase in temperature.

Ergo, it is absurd to say that there is any substance, e.g. atmosphere, that somehow "influences" temperature or that "has an effect on temperature." It's a totally stupid thing to say.

duncan61 wrote:Why is it so important to prove Pete wrong.

Why is it so important to stick your tongue down Pete's throat and simply accept whatever he tells you to believe? Are you his wife? The shit Pete is peddling is absolutely stupid ... about as stupid as your defense of it all.

I have no idea why you are giving Pete a total pass on every glaring physics violation and logical contradiction ... while pecking at my head for merely explaining why Pete's shit stinks. Regardless, you aren't coming off as the brightest bulb in the pack and you cause one to wonder if Pete has you bent over furniture.

I notice that Pete absolutely REFUSES to account for the additional energy required for his temperature increase beyond citing his bogus "negative work" while you remain locked in a death-struggle to deny that he is even making this claim. You then chime in from the peanut gallery claiming to fully understand Pete's logic.

Duncan, you are totally confused ... and you are egregiously mistaken.

I'm going to start ignoring you until you start peppering Pete for all of his glaring contradictions and physics violations.

duncan61 wrote: I also under stand negative work and the term is used in Engineering.

Now you are lying. First of all, we are discussing science; we are not engineering a system. Pete needs to stick with physics, as do you.

Have a nice 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
24-02-2021 18:09
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
JvJ wrote:
[quote]JvJ wroteHello,

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

Hi JvJ, What knowledge lies behind that opinion please?

We are constantly told what you say, by just about all media and Politicians, but we should nevertheless authenticate why we accept it or we run the risk of being indoctrinated according to the desires of another in a powerful position to direct us as to what to think.

The problem is the GE. IPCC tell us that it is a powerful warming phenomenon because there can be no other explanation for the agreed (by both sides) fact that the Planet would be at least 33C cooler if we had no atmosphere.

The problem for them is that there is indeed another explanation, being that gravity compresses the atmosphere thus forcing the thermal energy to occupy fewer volume units than otherwise, hence it means each volume unit contains more thermal energy so the temperature rises.

Accordingly the GE makes no thermal contribution after all, so neither do we.

JvJ wrote But obviously the actions that would cause an improvement seem to be very difficult and sometimes unpleasant, too.

If what I have told you is correct and I'm sure it is; but please think carefully for yourself on that: then not only would the actions be unpleasant, but of no use.

JvJ wroteSo 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!

Nothing wrong with planting trees, but be careful because many organisations make claims of this sort about various campaigns and get a powerful reaction because of our sentiments, but they don't really explain exactly how things work. I would fear that much of the money will to go to the organisation which will turn out to be more concerned about maximising its profits than anything it dangles before us as bait. We are given no way of independently auditing what actually happens. Just Ecosia's own reports or of their friends.

I think the problems of Live Aid should tell us, because the victims don't seem to have received the money it raised or it cannot be shown at least. The idea is to make donors feel happy to part with their cash I am sad to say.
I confess that I know nothing about Ecosia and would not wish to slur anyone, but I need to see the reality in a world of cynicism.

How moral are we when we cry about trees, but watch with approval, for instance, when brave people who had the courage to stand up and call Government atrocities out are tormented on our behalf while we couldn't care less?

A search Engine devoted to a cause like that would be more impressive.
24-02-2021 18:40
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
Pete Rogers wrote:... explanation for the agreed (by both sides) fact that the Planet would be at least 33C cooler if we had no atmosphere.

This is not "agreed." This is your religious indoctrination speaking. The earth would be the exact same average temperature without the atmosphere.

Exactly the same.

The reason you believe subjunctively that there "should" be some other temperature simply shows how you have abandoned physics for a WACKY religion.

Science isn't determined by any consensus or "agreement" ... especially when that consensus violates physics.

Pete Rogers wrote: The problem for them is that there is indeed another explanation,

This is where it gets good. This is where you demonstrate your failure to understand that an "explanation" for something is a CAUSE and you will nonetheless refer to it as an EFFECT. You absolutely REFUSE to learn the basics of CAUSE -> EFFECT which explains why you are so abysmally inept at discussing physics.

Pete Rogers wrote: being that gravity compresses the atmosphere thus forcing the thermal energy to occupy fewer volume units than otherwise, hence it means each volume unit contains more thermal energy so the temperature rises.

Debunked, many times. The original temperature increase, per the Ideal Gas law radiated away billions of years ago (depending on your religion your mileage may vary). Refer to the "pressurized CO2 tank in the garage" analogy.

Debunk = Debunk + 1;

.


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
24-02-2021 18:47
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
Pete Rogers wrote:
JvJ wrote:
[quote]JvJ wroteHello,

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

Hi JvJ, What knowledge lies behind that opinion please?

We are constantly told what you say, by just about all media and Politicians, but we should nevertheless authenticate why we accept it or we run the risk of being indoctrinated according to the desires of another in a powerful position to direct us as to what to think.

The problem is the GE. IPCC tell us that it is a powerful warming phenomenon because there can be no other explanation for the agreed (by both sides) fact that the Planet would be at least 33C cooler if we had no atmosphere.

The problem for them is that there is indeed another explanation, being that gravity compresses the atmosphere thus forcing the thermal energy to occupy fewer volume units than otherwise, hence it means each volume unit contains more thermal energy so the temperature rises.

Accordingly the GE makes no thermal contribution after all, so neither do we.

JvJ wrote But obviously the actions that would cause an improvement seem to be very difficult and sometimes unpleasant, too.

If what I have told you is correct and I'm sure it is; but please think carefully for yourself on that: then not only would the actions be unpleasant, but of no use.

JvJ wroteSo 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!

Nothing wrong with planting trees, but be careful because many organisations make claims of this sort about various campaigns and get a powerful reaction because of our sentiments, but they don't really explain exactly how things work. I would fear that much of the money will to go to the organisation which will turn out to be more concerned about maximising its profits than anything it dangles before us as bait. We are given no way of independently auditing what actually happens. Just Ecosia's own reports or of their friends.

I think the problems of Live Aid should tell us, because the victims don't seem to have received the money it raised or it cannot be shown at least. The idea is to make donors feel happy to part with their cash I am sad to say.
I confess that I know nothing about Ecosia and would not wish to slur anyone, but I need to see the reality in a world of cynicism.

How moral are we when we cry about trees, but watch with approval, for instance, when brave people who had the courage to stand up and call Government atrocities out are tormented on our behalf while we couldn't care less?

A search Engine devoted to a cause like that would be more impressive.



With ATE, they say atmospheric air pressure is 1,013.25 millibars.
Actual atmospheric air pressure at sea level is 1.01325 millibars.
Atmospheric air pressure is considered to be 1,000 times greater than it is. In the US, we use a decimal point while other countries use a comma. Just have no need for errors in communication. The top figure as shown represents atmospheric pressure One Thousand times greater than the one below it.
Правильно, Je suis un Americain. почиму? Я из L'Etat Unis.

Our atmosphere is actually probably excited by the Van Allen radiation belts. It is possible that most of the warming of the Earth's atmosphere comes from that. To consider Venus, one reason why it's probably so hot and has such an extreme atmospheric pressure is because it's magnetic fields might be similar to why a hydrogen atom (the Earth) has a larger shell than a helium atom.
Venus being closer to the Sun would be exposed to a much greater gravitational effect from the Sun than the Earth. This would mean that it's own gravity would be greater as a result. I think in science they say that energy can be conserved. If so, then can Venus conserve the Sun's gravitational influence? This is all basic science anyone should know.

p.s., @All, you know me by now, Australia might be a nice place to live. Who knows, they might even call me "American". Ya just never know.

Einstein did show that the gravitational effect nearer the source of gravity is greater than what Newtonian physics allows for.
Edited on 24-02-2021 18:55
24-02-2021 18:52
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2109)
Pete actually intocduces a miracle idea.

We (especially Texas residents) should have home pressuring systems. When everyone is indoors for a cold night, we simply pressurise our home and it will stay warm untilmorning. So simple!
24-02-2021 18:59
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete actually intocduces a miracle idea.

We (especially Texas residents) should have home pressuring systems. When everyone is indoors for a cold night, we simply pressurise our home and it will stay warm untilmorning. So simple!



Depending on the ability of a home or business to be sealed from the outside environment, then according to the attached image, that would have raised the temperature. Entropy also would need to be allowed for as some heat would radiate to the outside where it was cold.

p.s., for his ATE, it's based on this but then 981 grams of water in a column generates 1030 grams of force. Where does the extra energy come from? When matter cannot accelerate, then it is compressed.
This would actually cool gasses at sea level while their kinetic energy increases. This is because the heat from the gasses at sea level would be radiated to gasses that are conserving less energy.
And yet those gasses cool relative to altitude and not the total column of atmospheric gasses.


p.s., this is where the Earth's atmosphere has established an equilibrium with the environments and forces that it interacts with. (thermodynamics)
Attached image:


Edited on 24-02-2021 19:06
24-02-2021 19:19
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
To have Sum Fun GasGuzzler. When a gas like the air in your living room is compressed, its kinetic energy (KE) will increase. If volume does not increase then it will release stored heat content. This simply means that the amount of electromagnetic radiation being released by gas molecules will increase.
This also means that the gasses (air) in your living room will be more excited and will cycle (spin) at a higher rotational velocity. This is where KE = 3/2 kT is based on linear velocity. Increasing pressure goes away from f = ma because that is a linear equation.
And if we accept that E = MC^2, then when linear velocity is decreased, angular velocity is increased. I am sure you can see how simple this is. Collisions increase because of increased angular moment (M = 1/2mv^2) when linear velocity (momentum) is not increased. It's all proportional and I am glad that you brought this up. Thank You.
24-02-2021 20:10
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2109)
James___ wrote:
To have Sum Fun GasGuzzler. When a gas like the air in your living room is compressed, its kinetic energy (KE) will increase. If volume does not increase then it will release stored heat content. This simply means that the amount of electromagnetic radiation being released by gas molecules will increase.
This also means that the gasses (air) in your living room will be more excited and will cycle (spin) at a higher rotational velocity. This is where KE = 3/2 kT is based on linear velocity. Increasing pressure goes away from f = ma because that is a linear equation.
And if we accept that E = MC^2, then when linear velocity is decreased, angular velocity is increased. I am sure you can see how simple this is. Collisions increase because of increased angular moment (M = 1/2mv^2) when linear velocity (momentum) is not increased. It's all proportional and I am glad that you brought this up. Thank You.


I quit reading at "release heat content ".

That kinda threw up the bogus flag.


ANY mask is better than no mask, even if you have to resort to putting a tightly fit plastic bag over your head-COVIDEXPERTGFM

I don't have a GoFundMe, but I do have a PO Box (#666)-COVIDEXPERTGFM
24-02-2021 20:20
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3369)
If you pressurize your home, and it warms... Wouldn't releasing the pressure, cause sudden cooling? Might if somebody has to leave early for work, wouldn't everybody else get frozen? A sealed environment wouldn't be too healthy, lot of crap in the air. Lot of materials out-gas funky chemicals, usually act acceptable levels, excluding China products, of course. There is the deadly, planet-killing CO2, that might be a concern, after a day or two.
24-02-2021 20:24
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
HarveyH55 wrote:
If you pressurize your home, and it warms... Wouldn't releasing the pressure, cause sudden cooling? Might if somebody has to leave early for work, wouldn't everybody else get frozen? A sealed environment wouldn't be too healthy, lot of crap in the air. Lot of materials out-gas funky chemicals, usually act acceptable levels, excluding China products, of course. There is the deadly, planet-killing CO2, that might be a concern, after a day or two.


If you pressurize your home, and it warms... Wouldn't releasing the pressure, cause sudden cooling?


It would. This is where the laws of math and physics would be inverted. With decreasing air pressure we would consider the Joules-Thomson Throttling Process.
And from Texas itself, https://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/sm1/Thermalhtml/node68.html#:~:text=The%20so-called%20Joule-Thompson%20throttling%20process,%20just%20described,%20can,of%20these%20two%20gases%20both%20exceed%20room%20temperature.
24-02-2021 20:25
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2109)
HarveyH55 wrote:
If you pressurize your home, and it warms... Wouldn't releasing the pressure, cause sudden cooling? Might if somebody has to leave early for work, wouldn't everybody else get frozen? A sealed environment wouldn't be too healthy, lot of crap in the air. Lot of materials out-gas funky chemicals, usually act acceptable levels, excluding China products, of course. There is the deadly, planet-killing CO2, that might be a concern, after a day or two.


Maybe I missed my mark. I was aiming to demonstrate the ridiculousness of pressure increase warming being able to warm a house for an entire evening. Never mind Pete's claim that the Earth is STILL warmer due to gravity induced warming, anywhere from 3000 to 6 billion years ago. (Depending on you belief of the age of the earth.)

Pete is attempting to trap heat, which cannot be done.


ANY mask is better than no mask, even if you have to resort to putting a tightly fit plastic bag over your head-COVIDEXPERTGFM

I don't have a GoFundMe, but I do have a PO Box (#666)-COVIDEXPERTGFM
Edited on 24-02-2021 20:27
24-02-2021 20:48
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
GasGuzzler wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
If you pressurize your home, and it warms... Wouldn't releasing the pressure, cause sudden cooling? Might if somebody has to leave early for work, wouldn't everybody else get frozen? A sealed environment wouldn't be too healthy, lot of crap in the air. Lot of materials out-gas funky chemicals, usually act acceptable levels, excluding China products, of course. There is the deadly, planet-killing CO2, that might be a concern, after a day or two.


Maybe I missed my mark. I was aiming to demonstrate the ridiculousness of pressure increase warming being able to warm a house for an entire evening. Never mind Pete's claim that the Earth is STILL warmer due to gravity induced warming, anywhere from 3000 to 6 billion years ago. (Depending on you belief of the age of the earth.)

Pete is attempting to trap heat, which cannot be done.



Um, Harvey got it right while you got it wrong. Heat can be conserved. What Harvey brought up demonstrates this. He understood that pressure and temperature are relevant in a controlled environment. He understood that one influences the other. Basically, his question was spot on.
Trapping heat is more a question of gravity and its influence. In our atmosphere, it would be easier to say that radiation belts excite polar molecules like CO2 and H2O. That would be a correct statement. And then we're back into yours or Harvey's living room and what allows it to be warm.
24-02-2021 21:40
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3369)
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
If you pressurize your home, and it warms... Wouldn't releasing the pressure, cause sudden cooling? Might if somebody has to leave early for work, wouldn't everybody else get frozen? A sealed environment wouldn't be too healthy, lot of crap in the air. Lot of materials out-gas funky chemicals, usually act acceptable levels, excluding China products, of course. There is the deadly, planet-killing CO2, that might be a concern, after a day or two.


Maybe I missed my mark. I was aiming to demonstrate the ridiculousness of pressure increase warming being able to warm a house for an entire evening. Never mind Pete's claim that the Earth is STILL warmer due to gravity induced warming, anywhere from 3000 to 6 billion years ago. (Depending on you belief of the age of the earth.)

Pete is attempting to trap heat, which cannot be done.



Um, Harvey got it right while you got it wrong. Heat can be conserved. What Harvey brought up demonstrates this. He understood that pressure and temperature are relevant in a controlled environment. He understood that one influences the other. Basically, his question was spot on.
Trapping heat is more a question of gravity and its influence. In our atmosphere, it would be easier to say that radiation belts excite polar molecules like CO2 and H2O. That would be a correct statement. And then we're back into yours or Harvey's living room and what allows it to be warm.


I don't believe in 'trapping heat', I was just going with the concept. Opening the door, releases the pressure, and any benefit. I don't know of any 'perfect' insulating material, where no thermal energy can cross.
24-02-2021 22:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
James___ wrote:To have Sum Fun GasGuzzler. When a gas like the air in your living room is compressed, its kinetic energy (KE) will increase.

To have Sum Fun GasGuzzler. When you throw an object like a baseball, its kinetic energy (KE) will increase. [does its temperature therefore spike?]

James___ wrote: If volume does not increase then it will release stored heat content.

If volume does not increase then it will release stored heat content, even if it hasn't a clue what that even means.

James___ wrote: Increasing pressure goes away from f = ma because that is a linear equation.

Pringles potato chips.

James___ wrote: And if we accept that E = MC^2, then when linear velocity is decreased, angular velocity is increased.

And if we accept that E = MC^2, then when linear velocity is decreased, i.e. the baseball slows down, angular velocity is increased, i.e. the baseball spins faster.

This is negative work and it's an engineering term ... for people who aren't engineering anything in this reality.

James___ wrote: I am sure you can see how simple this is.

Easy-peezy, like defining j-invariant eliptic curve coordinates over a number field.

James___ wrote:Collisions increase because of increased angular moment (M = 1/2mv^2) when linear velocity (momentum) is not increased. It's all proportional and I am glad that you brought this up. Thank You.

Yeah, collisions are increased by bodies not moving and instead just spinning in place.

Great!



.
Attached image:

24-02-2021 22:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Swan wrote:
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

Heat is not energy. It is not known whether there was an ice age at all, and no real definition for the term.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 24-02-2021 22:14
24-02-2021 22:14
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
If you pressurize your home, and it warms... Wouldn't releasing the pressure, cause sudden cooling? Might if somebody has to leave early for work, wouldn't everybody else get frozen? A sealed environment wouldn't be too healthy, lot of crap in the air. Lot of materials out-gas funky chemicals, usually act acceptable levels, excluding China products, of course. There is the deadly, planet-killing CO2, that might be a concern, after a day or two.


Maybe I missed my mark. I was aiming to demonstrate the ridiculousness of pressure increase warming being able to warm a house for an entire evening. Never mind Pete's claim that the Earth is STILL warmer due to gravity induced warming, anywhere from 3000 to 6 billion years ago. (Depending on you belief of the age of the earth.)

Pete is attempting to trap heat, which cannot be done.



Um, Harvey got it right while you got it wrong. Heat can be conserved. What Harvey brought up demonstrates this. He understood that pressure and temperature are relevant in a controlled environment. He understood that one influences the other. Basically, his question was spot on.
Trapping heat is more a question of gravity and its influence. In our atmosphere, it would be easier to say that radiation belts excite polar molecules like CO2 and H2O. That would be a correct statement. And then we're back into yours or Harvey's living room and what allows it to be warm.


I don't believe in 'trapping heat', I was just going with the concept. Opening the door, releases the pressure, and any benefit. I don't know of any 'perfect' insulating material, where no thermal energy can cross.



And once again you are right. There are a couple different directions I could go with this. What might be the "coolest" is sound. Sound can be measured in watts like your microwave oven. https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/earths-quietest-place-will-drive-you-crazy-in-45-minutes-180948160/
With what you said, storing energy might make more sense. But can our atmosphere "store" energy? It can't and we all know this. Conserving heat (slowing the rate at which it is lost) would depend on how long it takes for the heat in your living room to leave once you open your front door.
And for your living room to become warmer, we need a source of energy. If it's warmer because its pressure has been increased, something is increasing that pressure.
I guess for our atmosphere, is warming associated with the increase in atmospheric pressure caused by rising CO2 levels?
And remember, I think our air pressure is not 14.7 psi but that it is 0.0147 psi. Atmospheric air pressure is actually based on a column of water. Ask any diver how water pressure increases every 32 feet. They'll say it is by 1 atmosphere.

p.s., since I believe that both CO2 and H2O are polarized by the Earth's radiation belts, how much does this matter? It hasn't been studied because no one has considered it.
Edited on 24-02-2021 22:16
24-02-2021 22:15
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Swan wrote:
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


Buzzword fallacy. Define 'reality'.
Heat is not energy.
Buzzword fallacy. Define 'ice age'.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
24-02-2021 22:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Swan wrote:
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


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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
24-02-2021 22:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
duncan61 wrote:
Effect is a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.Atmosphere has an Effect on temperature.No atmosphere does not.Simple stuff.Why is it so important to prove Pete wrong.I also under stand negative work and the term is used in Engineering.Pete used the example of a spring returning to shape.I got it.


No atmosphere increases the temperature of any planet. You cannot create energy out of nothing. There is no such thing as 'negative work' in engineering or science.

Work is force over time. Energy is the potential to do work. Work never has a negative value.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 24-02-2021 22:24
24-02-2021 22:27
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
Into the Night wrote:


No atmosphere increases the temperature of any planet. You cannot create energy out of nothing.



OMG, the Great Spirit "IS" and yet never was. After all, there was no creation just as God or the Great Spirit cannot be created. You are so right ITN. Existence cannot come from nothing. We simply don't exist. This must mean that we are figments of our own imagination since we don't exist. Creation simply isn't possible.
This means that I can't insult you because first we'd have to be created from nothing which as you said isn't possible. So by your own logic I can't insult you because we don't exist. It's not possible for us to be created because energy in some for is a non-existent quality. This means there are simply no laws of thermodynamics because there simply are no laws.


p.s., just a quick question for you. Did I get that right?
Edited on 24-02-2021 22:30
24-02-2021 22:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete actually intocduces a miracle idea.

We (especially Texas residents) should have home pressuring systems. When everyone is indoors for a cold night, we simply pressurise our home and it will stay warm untilmorning. So simple!


Houses and buildings are already somewhat pressurized if they have forced air HVAC and it's running. That's required by code and the HVAC inspector will check for it.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
24-02-2021 23:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete actually intocduces a miracle idea.

We (especially Texas residents) should have home pressuring systems. When everyone is indoors for a cold night, we simply pressurise our home and it will stay warm untilmorning. So simple!


Houses and buildings are already somewhat pressurized if they have forced air HVAC and it's running. That's required by code and the HVAC inspector will check for it.

I'm sorry but you both are forgetting the key aspect of this wondrous miracle, i.e. the increased pressure must be caused by gravity. Otherwise you have just another Greenhouse Effect which we know has no effect.

.


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
24-02-2021 23:20
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete actually intocduces a miracle idea.

We (especially Texas residents) should have home pressuring systems. When everyone is indoors for a cold night, we simply pressurise our home and it will stay warm untilmorning. So simple!


Houses and buildings are already somewhat pressurized if they have forced air HVAC and it's running. That's required by code and the HVAC inspector will check for it.

I'm sorry but you both are forgetting the key aspect of this wondrous miracle, i.e. the increased pressure must be caused by gravity. Otherwise you have just another Greenhouse Effect which we know has no effect.

.



Бок, Я толко хочу знать, почему мне? I mean seriously, they never said gravity was the cause. Just the pressure or lack there of.
25-02-2021 01:29
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote: The ATE is argued ...

IBdaMann wroteDitch the passive voice.

Why?

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

With just a little thought - if capable - you might be able to work that out for yourself.

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

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

You say you have debunked something when you only gainsay it whereas you need to wake up to the fact that the one is not the other

Here is a piece from "The Student Room" to show that the scientific and engineering world - to which you do not seem to subscribe - fully understand and employ the concept of Negative Work.

By convention in physics, work done is force x distance moved in the direction of the force.
If the displacement is in the opposite direction to the force the work done is negative.
eg. the braking force applied to a moving car.
The sign of the work then determines whether energy is transferred to or from the object doing the work. Negative work implies energy is transferred from, positive implies to.


https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3032259#:~:text=If%20the%20displacement%20is%20in%20the%20opposite%20direction,implies%20energy%20is%20transferred%20from,%20positive%20implies%20to.

Have you tried pulling your head out of your thingummybob so that the information can be assessed, only you seem to keep sticking it back up there even though you have been shown current scientific application - presumably it is so that you can honestly say; hand on heart: that it doesn't exist as you can't possibly see it from there?

IBdaMann wroteYou 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.

It would seem that in your world, compression of adiabatic gas bodies does not cause their temperatures to rise whereas it is because of the 1st Law that they must, conserving the thermal energy per unit volume - and so the temperature - goes up as it must by retaining the total energy whilst reducing its accommodation. If the temperature was unchanged when the volume reduced then energy would have to have been lost to the system thus violating the 1st Law. Why does such an all-knowing expert miss that?

IBdaMann wroteNo 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.

There goes your head again dammit! If under less pressure the atmosphere would be larger with the same Thermal Energy content (1st Law) so the temperature would be lower n'est pas? Try reading for comprehension rather than just keep doing that thing with your head.

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.

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

The Moon is at the average temperature that the Earth without an atmosphere would be - or thereabouts. Unless you know better of course, in which case perhaps you could amuse us with your explanation instead of uninformative gainsaying.

IBdaMann wroteWhat are you waiting for? Get to it.

Get to what?

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.

IBdaMann wroteToo 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.

I hate to keep going on about your head position, but this episode really takes the biscuit! The EFFECT is not the GE, the effect is the ATE concerning which the theory of the GE is just a failed attempt at explaining the reason for it. The correct explanation is that gravity forces the Thermal Energy the Atmosphere contains to occupy a smaller volume than it otherwise would, meaning if the pressure were less the temperature would be lower for the reasons continually explained (presumably during head transit episodes on your part) but never lower than it would be without an atmosphere.

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

Learn to read what?

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.

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

The basics of CAUSE--> EFFECT here as i have already mentioned, presumably during another absentia of your brain container, is that COMPRESSION (CAUSE) --> ATE ( EFFECT). Do pay attention so that unnecessary repetition like this can be avoided,

IBdaMann wroteI 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.

Really? Here is an excerpt from last August

"03-08-2020 17:14

Pete Rogers wrote: For anyone to make progress to a greater state of understanding - if there be one possible - from a lesser (the point of Scientific Enquiry) it is necessary that matters be approached with both an open mind and impartiality

IBdaMann repliedI have bad news for you. The requirement for others to have a more "open mind" is only necessary for salesmen to make more sales and for preachers of a belief to make progress in gaining converts."

I rest my case

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

IBdaMann wroteNope. An increase in temperature can only result from additional energy.

Well done! The energy coming from the negative work of compression - oh dear I forgot where your head is now going to be shoved - so bye, forgive me for not joining you.

IBdaMann wroteNow, start accounting for that additional energy.

See what i mean?

Pete Rogers wrote:[quote]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.

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

IBdaMann wroteYou cited something bogus to support your bogus concept.

No I cited an official answer to an examination question set by a College Physics department

cipp.ucsc.edu/~schumm/ph6/hw_sol_w11/hw4.pdf

If you have evidence of this being fraud on the part of this institution perhaps you can tell us what you know of them concerning such malpractice

IBdaMann wroteNow start accounting for that additional energy.

Heads up?

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

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

Not exactly, I let them represent themselves by providing you with their professional materials that describe, employ and rely on the presence of negative work to explain phenomena safely and correctly.

IBdaMann wroteFor 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.

On your head be that comment.
25-02-2021 01:37
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete actually intocduces a miracle idea.
We (especially Texas residents) should have home pressuring systems. When everyone is indoors for a cold night, we simply pressurise our home and it will stay warm untilmorning. So simple!


Hmm, your home is not adiabatic is it? And even if it were you would have to make it airtight and reduce the size to match the reduced air volume necessary to appreciably increase the thermal energy per cubic foot wouldnt you clever clogs?!
25-02-2021 01:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
James___ wrote:
Um, Harvey got it right while you got it wrong. Heat can be conserved.

Heat cannot be conserved or stored.
James___ wrote:
Trapping heat

Heat cannot be trapped.
James___ wrote:
is more a question of gravity and its influence.

Heat has nothing to do with gravity.
James___ wrote:
In our atmosphere, it would be easier to say that radiation belts excite polar molecules like CO2 and H2O. That would be a correct statement.

The Van Allen belts are not in the Earth's atmosphere. CO2 is not a polar molecule.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 25-02-2021 01:46
25-02-2021 01:46
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2109)
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete actually intocduces a miracle idea.
We (especially Texas residents) should have home pressuring systems. When everyone is indoors for a cold night, we simply pressurise our home and it will stay warm untilmorning. So simple!


Hmm, your home is not adiabatic is it? And even if it were you would have to make it airtight and reduce the size to match the reduced air volume necessary to appreciably increase the thermal energy per cubic foot wouldnt you clever clogs?!


...and if I did all that, and didn't leave my home all night, will it remain the same temp inside on a cold night...without additional energy?


ANY mask is better than no mask, even if you have to resort to putting a tightly fit plastic bag over your head-COVIDEXPERTGFM

I don't have a GoFundMe, but I do have a PO Box (#666)-COVIDEXPERTGFM
25-02-2021 01:47
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete actually intocduces a miracle idea.
We (especially Texas residents) should have home pressuring systems. When everyone is indoors for a cold night, we simply pressurise our home and it will stay warm untilmorning. So simple!


Hmm, your home is not adiabatic is it? And even if it were you would have to make it airtight and reduce the size to match the reduced air volume necessary to appreciably increase the thermal energy per cubic foot wouldnt you clever clogs?!


I can't read your posts. I tried but it's about you.
Just 2 b a schitt about everything; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z87WPkRrShE&list=WL&index=2
It's game, we're all game,, yeah!

It's kind of like this ; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z87WPkRrShE&list=WL&index=2
Edited on 25-02-2021 02:03
25-02-2021 02:04
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
Good response Pete.I understood all that as well and I am not being bent over any furniture as far as I am aware
25-02-2021 02:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote: The ATE is argued ...

IBdaMann wroteDitch the passive voice.

Why?

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

With just a little thought - if capable - you might be able to work that out for yourself.

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

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

You say you have debunked something when you only gainsay it whereas you need to wake up to the fact that the one is not the other

Here is a piece from "The Student Room" to show that the scientific and engineering world - to which you do not seem to subscribe - fully understand and employ the concept of Negative Work.

By convention in physics, work done is force x distance moved in the direction of the force.
If the displacement is in the opposite direction to the force the work done is negative.
eg. the braking force applied to a moving car.
The sign of the work then determines whether energy is transferred to or from the object doing the work. Negative work implies energy is transferred from, positive implies to.


https://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=3032259#:~:text=If%20the%20displacement%20is%20in%20the%20opposite%20direction,implies%20energy%20is%20transferred%20from,%20positive%20implies%20to.

Have you tried pulling your head out of your thingummybob so that the information can be assessed, only you seem to keep sticking it back up there even though you have been shown current scientific application - presumably it is so that you can honestly say; hand on heart: that it doesn't exist as you can't possibly see it from there?

IBdaMann wroteYou 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.

It would seem that in your world, compression of adiabatic gas bodies does not cause their temperatures to rise

There is no compression. The atmosphere is not changing in size.
Pete Rogers wrote:
whereas it is because of the 1st Law that they must,

The 1st law of thermodynamics is being denied by you.
Pete Rogers wrote:
conserving the thermal energy per unit volume

There is no reduction in the size of the atmosphere.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- and so the temperature

Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Temperature is not total thermal energy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- goes up as it must by retaining the total energy whilst reducing its accommodation.

The atmosphere is not changing size.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If the temperature was unchanged when the volume reduced

The atmosphere is not changing size.
Pete Rogers wrote:
then energy would have to have been lost to the system thus violating the 1st Law.

The atmosphere is not changing size. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Why does such an all-knowing expert miss that?

The atmosphere is not changing size.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteNo 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.

There goes your head again dammit! If under less pressure the atmosphere would be larger with the same Thermal Energy content (1st Law) so the temperature would be lower n'est pas? Try reading for comprehension rather than just keep doing that thing with your head.

The atmosphere is not changing size. Temperature is not total thermal energy. Denial of the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
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.

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

The Moon is at the average temperature that the Earth without an atmosphere would be - or thereabouts.

There is no such thing as 'average temperature'. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of the Earth is unknown.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Unless you know better of course, in which case perhaps you could amuse us with your explanation instead of uninformative gainsaying.

Word salad.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteWhat are you waiting for? Get to it.

Get to what?

RQAA
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.

The atmosphere is not changing it's size. Gravity is not energy.

Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteToo 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.

I hate to keep going on about your head position, but this episode really takes the biscuit!

No biscuits here. I know of some easy recipes to make some.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The EFFECT is not the GE, the effect is the ATE concerning which the theory of the GE is just a failed attempt at explaining the reason for it.

What effect??? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The correct explanation is that gravity forces the Thermal Energy the Atmosphere contains to occupy a smaller volume than it otherwise would, meaning if the pressure were less the temperature would be lower for the reasons continually explained (presumably during head transit episodes on your part) but never lower than it would be without an atmosphere.
...deleted remaining chanting...

Denial of the 0th and 1st law of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Temperature is not total thermal energy. The atmosphere is not changing size.

The temperature of the Earth is unknown.
The temperature of the Moon is unknown.

Argument from randU fallacies. Redefinition fallacies. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. Excessive chanting.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
25-02-2021 02:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete actually intocduces a miracle idea.
We (especially Texas residents) should have home pressuring systems. When everyone is indoors for a cold night, we simply pressurise our home and it will stay warm untilmorning. So simple!


Hmm, your home is not adiabatic is it? And even if it were you would have to make it airtight and reduce the size to match the reduced air volume necessary to appreciably increase the thermal energy per cubic foot wouldnt you clever clogs?!


A 3000 psi tank of CO2 is room temperature, and so is the gas inside.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
25-02-2021 02:18
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete actually intocduces a miracle idea.
We (especially Texas residents) should have home pressuring systems. When everyone is indoors for a cold night, we simply pressurise our home and it will stay warm untilmorning. So simple!


Hmm, your home is not adiabatic is it? And even if it were you would have to make it airtight and reduce the size to match the reduced air volume necessary to appreciably increase the thermal energy per cubic foot wouldnt you clever clogs?!


A 3000 psi tank of CO2 is room temperature, and so is the gas inside.



It is 155º F.
25-02-2021 03:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
Pete Rogers wrote: Hardly. The ATE is shown not to be the GE but Gravitationally caused by autocompression.

You're still a moron who can't seem to grasp CAUSE -> EFFECT.

Your Atmospheric Thermal Effect is just another name for Greenhouse Effect with a different CAUSE. You preach your Greenhouse Effect as being caused by gravity whereas warmizombies preach that theirs is caused by CO2. It's too funny watching you deny that your identical EFFECT is somehow different because the CAUSE is different.

Way too funny.

Just for laughs ... without mentioning the differences between the CAUSES, what is the difference between the Atmospheric Thermal EFFECT of increasing earth's average temperature by 33C and the Greenhouse EFFECT of increasing the earth's average temperature by 33C?

Pete Rogers wrote: It would seem that in your world, compression of adiabatic gas bodies does not cause their temperatures to rise ...

Without wasting any time you get right to work totally mischaracterizing what I am saying about the problem with your argument.

Pete Rogers wrote:The Moon is at the average temperature that the Earth without an atmosphere would be - or thereabouts.

Incorrect, and this is where you have Duncan bent over furniture.

The earth and the moon share the same average temperature to the extent that they share the same emissivity. The earth's atmosphere simply brings nighttime and daytime temperatures closer together.

Your belief in Greenhouse Effect is silly, even though you call it something else.

Pete Rogers wrote:Get to what?

Start accounting for the additional energy required for the atmosphere to increase the earth's average temperature by 33C ... that Duncan denies you are claiming.

Pete Rogers wrote: The EFFECT is not the GE, the effect is the ATE concerning which the theory of the GE is just a failed attempt at explaining the reason for it [the CAUSE].

Way too funny!

Pete Rogers wrote: The correct explanation is that gravity forces the Thermal Energy the Atmosphere contains to occupy a smaller volume than it otherwise would, meaning if the pressure were less the temperature would be lower for the reasons continually explained but never lower than it would be without an atmosphere.

Way too funny! Duncan insists that you are not claiming this. Duncan insists that he cannot remember you ever saying this.

Regarding the second line above in blue ... are you saying that the moon's daytime temperature is colder than the earth's daytime temperature? The moon has essentially no Atmospheric Thermal Effect so the daytime side must be an ice ball, yes?

Ask me how I knew that you were going to totally ignore the lunar daytime like it doesn't exist. [hint: I just finished dealing with tmiddles' identical denials]

Pete Rogers wrote:Really? Here is an excerpt from last August "03-08-2020 17:14
IBdaMann repliedI have bad news for you. The requirement for others to have a more "open mind" is only necessary for salesmen to make more sales and for preachers of a belief to make progress in gaining converts."
I rest my case

... and you lose.

I was very clear in putting the term in quotation marks. I was clearly being facetious. I was obviously referring to extreme gullibility as the "open mind" you require for people to believe your WACKY violations of physics.

Either you did not go far in school or you are an outright liar ... or both.

What's funny is how Duncan insists that he totally understands your "logic." It's looking more and more as though you do, in fact, have him bent over furniture.

Pete Rogers wrote:Well done! The energy coming from the negative work of compression

Too funny! Once again we come full circle to your bogus non-accounting for the additional energy required to increase the earth's average temperature.

There is no such thing in nature as either a negative force or a negative distance. There is no such thing in nature as "negative work." The fact that some engineers use the term "negative work" to refer to a subtraction operation in mathematics is insufficient to make any actual negative work appear in nature. You've run into a brick wall. You have backed yourself into a corner and your argument is at its end.

You claimed an increase in temperature.

You have failed to account for the additional energy required for that increase in temperature.

Your argument is dismissed.

We are done here.

.


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
25-02-2021 04:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete actually intocduces a miracle idea.
We (especially Texas residents) should have home pressuring systems. When everyone is indoors for a cold night, we simply pressurise our home and it will stay warm untilmorning. So simple!


Hmm, your home is not adiabatic is it? And even if it were you would have to make it airtight and reduce the size to match the reduced air volume necessary to appreciably increase the thermal energy per cubic foot wouldnt you clever clogs?!


...and if I did all that, and didn't leave my home all night, will it remain the same temp inside on a cold night...without additional energy?


I officially nominate you for the Dead Parrot award.

If you get three others to concur then you will be the first recipient.

.
Attached image:

25-02-2021 16:15
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2052)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
Pete actually intocduces a miracle idea.
We (especially Texas residents) should have home pressuring systems. When everyone is indoors for a cold night, we simply pressurise our home and it will stay warm untilmorning. So simple!


Hmm, your home is not adiabatic is it? And even if it were you would have to make it airtight and reduce the size to match the reduced air volume necessary to appreciably increase the thermal energy per cubic foot wouldnt you clever clogs?!


...and if I did all that, and didn't leave my home all night, will it remain the same temp inside on a cold night...without additional energy?


I officially nominate you for the Dead Parrot award.

If you get three others to concur then you will be the first recipient.

.

I concur.


Oh, and idk why it took me so long, but I have finally added "negative work" to my Lispy Leftist List of Linguistic Lunacy ... A well deserved addition to The List.
Edited on 25-02-2021 16:21
25-02-2021 17:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
gfm7175 wrote: I concur.

Noted. We need two more.

gfm7175 wrote:Oh, and idk why it took me so long, but I have finally added "negative work" to my Lispy Leftist List of Linguistic Lunacy ... A well deserved addition to The List.


I just want to be clear about Pete means by "negative work," after all, it is just a buzzword which any moron can hijack for his own fundamentalism.

What Pete preaches does not exist in nature and he knows it, like a negative apple. There is no such thing as either a negative distance or a negative force in nature and one of those is absolutely required in order to have "negative work." Instead, Pete notes that engineers refer to "negative apples" when apples are pulled from the basket as justifying the use of the term. But this isn't what he means when he uses the term "negative work; he is inventing a supernatural force that defies physics.

In order to baffle and bamboozle, Pete points to "engineers" who refer to the mathematical operation of subtraction to imply that the physics term "work" is what he is talking about ... except that he won't use the term "work" and instead will only use the term "negative work" because he knows that his argument will immediately collapse (he cannot explain the FORCE*DISTANCE that he is claiming constitutes the work he is subtracting or why he is not subtracting any work from anything) and because he knows that his "negative work" is the wondrous miracle of his own particular religious sect that is currently competing with the warmizombies of the world. Pete's faith is a startup religion and "negative work" is the bedrock upon which he intends to build his church.

Of course "negative work" is the mechanism for his Greenhouse Effect (which he calls Atmospheric Thermal Effect to denote that his is of a completely different religion). His plan for his church is obvious. He wants to develop his own mega-church clone of Global Warming, just called something else ... perhaps Global Thermalizing ... distinguished from Global Warming by the insistence that the primary cause, the Prime Mover, i.e. Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement, is nobody's fault! ... it's just gravity doing it's thing and holding the atmosphere in place ... it's no biggie ... there's nothing to see here ... show'z ov-ah ... move along ...

[*-ATE_is_GreenhouseEffect]

.


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
25-02-2021 18:00
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2109)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote: I concur.

Noted. We need two more.


Honestly, it's not fair that I am the only one up for this prestigious award. I have taken the liberty of creating an easy voting system and we will see who is really deserving of this great honor.

note-
if needed, more ballots can be found north of 18th St. between 6th and 7th Ave. in the back alley.


ANY mask is better than no mask, even if you have to resort to putting a tightly fit plastic bag over your head-COVIDEXPERTGFM

I don't have a GoFundMe, but I do have a PO Box (#666)-COVIDEXPERTGFM
Attached image:

Page 16 of 23<<<1415161718>>>





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