Global warming is not anthropogenic

IBdaMann wrote:

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]

.

IBdaMann wrote:

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]

.

GasGuzzler wrote:

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.

GasGuzzler wrote:As much as this resembles a clean victory, I will be diligently looking at any and all fraud possibilities. My afternoon will be dedicated to investigating the names kim and Allen. Only those 2 names from the list look suspicious at this time.

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:As much as this resembles a clean victory, I will be diligently looking at any and all fraud possibilities. My afternoon will be dedicated to investigating the names kim and Allen. Only those 2 names from the list look suspicious at this time.

Of course no election is perfect, but you have failed to demonstrate widespread election fraud.

There is no evidence that can convince a court of law.

.

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

James___ wrote:It is well known that restrainers restrict the flow of viscous fluids passing through them.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:It is well known that restrainers restrict the flow of viscous fluids passing through them.

James, how long will it be before keepit slams you for arguing "semantics"?

"Restricting" flow means that the flow is reduced by a percentage but is not eiminated to zero.

"Retaining" or "Trapping" or "Containing" means there is no escape and all flow has been eliminated, i.e. Flow = 0.

In recap, "restricting" <> 0 while "retaining" = 0.

Zero does not equal not-zero. How do you not know this?

.

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:It is well known that restrainers restrict the flow of viscous fluids passing through them.

James, how long will it be before keepit slams you for arguing "semantics"?

"Restricting" flow means that the flow is reduced by a percentage but is not eiminated to zero.

"Retaining" or "Trapping" or "Containing" means there is no escape and all flow has been eliminated, i.e. Flow = 0.

In recap, "restricting" <> 0 while "retaining" = 0.

Zero does not equal not-zero. How do you not know this?

.

James___ wrote: Heat can be both slowed and diffused.

James___ wrote:Prisms allow for this.

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:As much as this resembles a clean victory, I will be diligently looking at any and all fraud possibilities. My afternoon will be dedicated to investigating the names kim and Allen. Only those 2 names from the list look suspicious at this time.

Of course no election is perfect, but you have failed to demonstrate widespread election fraud.

There is no evidence that can convince a court of law.

.

GasGuzzler wrote:I hoist my trophy.

duncan61 wrote:
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.

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote: I googled Atmospheric Thermal Effect

IBdaMann wroteI'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.

IBdaMann wroteThis 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).

IBdaMann wroteOtherwise, 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.

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

Pete Rogers wrote:

duncan61 wrote:I have no memory of ever seeing Pete write it is increasing ...

That's right. Every body of gas under pressure - in the case of atmospheres by their own weight - enhances its temperature because the thermal energy it contains then occupies fewer cubic feet due to the loss of volume to compression so the thermal energy content per cubic foot - and therefore the temperature - must rise. This is a consequence of the first law and is true of all atmospheres with a troposphere.

Pete Rogers wrote:With respect, you are continually addressing my arguments without taking the precaution of working out what they are actually saying which leads to your adherence to incorrect assumptions.

Pete Rogers wrote: I cite here your continual knee-jerk rejection of the idea that there can be any such thing as "Negative Work"

Pete Rogers wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
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.

That's right. Every body of gas under pressure - in the case of atmospheres by their own weight - enhances its temperature because the thermal energy it contains then occupies fewer cubic feet due to the loss of volume to compression so the thermal energy content per cubic foot - and therefore the temperature - must rise. This is a consequence of the first law and is true of all atmospheres with a troposphere.
This ATE is more or less constant but varies a little if there is a fluctuation in net insolation.

James___ wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
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.

That's right. Every body of gas under pressure - in the case of atmospheres by their own weight - enhances its temperature because the thermal energy it contains then occupies fewer cubic feet due to the loss of volume to compression so the thermal energy content per cubic foot - and therefore the temperature - must rise. This is a consequence of the first law and is true of all atmospheres with a troposphere.
This ATE is more or less constant but varies a little if there is a fluctuation in net insolation.

There's probably more than ATE when it comes to the troposphere being warm. Some of what I'm pursuing will get into that.

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:It is well known that restrainers restrict the flow of viscous fluids passing through them.

James, how long will it be before keepit slams you for arguing "semantics"?

"Restricting" flow means that the flow is reduced by a percentage but is not eiminated to zero.

"Retaining" or "Trapping" or "Containing" means there is no escape and all flow has been eliminated, i.e. Flow = 0.

In recap, "restricting" <> 0 while "retaining" = 0.

Zero does not equal not-zero. How do you not know this?

.

Son, you shouldn't have gone there. In the 19th century, prisms were all the rage because of how light was defused.
The Earth's atmosphere likewise is a prism. I really don't accept known science.
I think the incoming solar IR changes frequencies. This is where the discussion should start but it hasn't. You know me by now.
I am not accepting of science as it has been presented. For what I have to say, scientists will say "he's not an American". After all, I think Native Americans should be treated better. How to reconcile such objectives?

James___ wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote:It is well known that restrainers restrict the flow of viscous fluids passing through them.

James, how long will it be before keepit slams you for arguing "semantics"?

"Restricting" flow means that the flow is reduced by a percentage but is not eiminated to zero.

"Retaining" or "Trapping" or "Containing" means there is no escape and all flow has been eliminated, i.e. Flow = 0.

In recap, "restricting" <> 0 while "retaining" = 0.

Zero does not equal not-zero. How do you not know this?

.

Sun, I will need to talk to your mother. We'll need to understand whose kid you are. I wouldn't care to see you shame your mother. I'll simply beat your ass and worse for that. Just not something I'll allow for.
Heat can be both slowed and diffused. Prisms allow for this. Talking shit about your mother, everyone will know why I'm your father. Hopefully son you understand, at some point in time, it is about us and not your mother.
And Sun, mothers sometime go where we won't. It is known that not all mothers are good. We know that dads can be just as bad. It's not a competition. We can only work with what there is.
Just an interesting talk. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CBJVfy0_A4Y

Pete Rogers wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
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.

That's right. Every body of gas under pressure - in the case of atmospheres by their own weight - enhances its temperature because the thermal energy it contains then occupies fewer cubic feet due to the loss of volume to compression so the thermal energy content per cubic foot - and therefore the temperature - must rise.

Pete Rogers wrote:
This is a consequence of the first law and is true of all atmospheres with a troposphere.

Pete Rogers wrote:
This ATE is more or less constant but varies a little if there is a fluctuation in net insolation.

Pete Rogers wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote: I googled Atmospheric Thermal Effect

IBdaMann wroteI'm only addressing Pete's argument.

With respect, you are continually addressing my arguments without taking the precaution of working out what they are actually saying which leads to your adherence to incorrect assumptions. The simple acts of denial this leads to - purely gainsaying - are no proof of anything let alone debunk what is actually being put before you.

Pete Rogers wrote:
I cite here your continual knee-jerk rejection of the idea that there can be any such thing as "Negative Work" - which is pure stuff and nonsense on your part as it has always been known to Modern Physics and Mechanics-

Pete Rogers wrote:
the problem is your certainty that IBdaMann somehow has insight to offer when the truth is that he just doesn't understand the academic proofs that he has been given.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Asking nonetheless; more in hope than expectation: for him to up his game and view such matters in a comprehending way here is an excerpt from an MIT lecture on the subject which should prove to him that "Negative Work" is a simple well known and irrefutable (by any moderately intelligent persons) matter of everyday mechanics.
...deleted Holy Video...

Pete Rogers wrote:
If he is going to recoil from it so as to stick his head straight back up his thingummy rather than let the implications sink in I ask the reader to consider whether it is IBdaMann or MIT (and all other Universities and relevant institutions) who do not know what they are talking about.

Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann and sundry others in this thread do little more - figurateively speaking - than the child does when it sticks its fingers in its ears and shouts "Lalala" beleiving itself to have thus won the argument - they would grace us by desisting from such further peurility.

Pete Rogers wrote:

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

IBdaMann wroteThis 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).

Of course it is an EFFECT dummy.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The extremely gullible to whom you refer are the ones to be found amongst the ranks of the fraternity which thinks the fact that temperature goes up and down with altitude somehow proves that compression does not enhance temperature whereas the 1st Law requires that it be so due to the loss of volume to the system accomplished by Gravity performing the Negative Work of compression upon it. Something beyond their grasp apparently, though extremely simple.

Pete Rogers wrote:

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

The atmosphere was part of the Planet last time I looked, just the gaseous - and therefore compressed - part. The lithosphere and aquasphere are incompressible for all intents and purposes unlike gas which on account of that characteristic then concentrates the thermal energy that must be conserved within under the 1st Law but necessarily distributing it between fewer volume units - thanks to the negative work of compression accomplished by the force of gravity - thus inevitably causing the EFFECT known as the ATE!

Pete Rogers wrote:

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

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

Why shouldn't he? Furthermore the ATE is pretty much constant though fluctuates slightly with variations in net insolation so Duncan61 is correct in his observation.

James___ wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
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.

That's right. Every body of gas under pressure - in the case of atmospheres by their own weight - enhances its temperature because the thermal energy it contains then occupies fewer cubic feet due to the loss of volume to compression so the thermal energy content per cubic foot - and therefore the temperature - must rise. This is a consequence of the first law and is true of all atmospheres with a troposphere.
This ATE is more or less constant but varies a little if there is a fluctuation in net insolation.

There's probably more than ATE when it comes to the troposphere being warm. Some of what I'm pursuing will get into that.

James___ wrote:

James___ wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

duncan61 wrote:
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.

That's right. Every body of gas under pressure - in the case of atmospheres by their own weight - enhances its temperature because the thermal energy it contains then occupies fewer cubic feet due to the loss of volume to compression so the thermal energy content per cubic foot - and therefore the temperature - must rise. This is a consequence of the first law and is true of all atmospheres with a troposphere.
This ATE is more or less constant but varies a little if there is a fluctuation in net insolation.

There's probably more than ATE when it comes to the troposphere being warm. Some of what I'm pursuing will get into that.

One example of this is that atmospheric air pressure is closer to 0.0147 psi than it is to 14.7 psi. This is just a basic mistake that scientists made when they established a value for atmospheric air pressure.

James___ wrote:
This could also explain why a small change in air pressure has such a great effect on atmospheric temperature. And for this, does the Earth's magnetic field or even with Venus, it matters but we don't know why.

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote: Effect is a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.

duncan61 wrote: Atmosphere has an Effect on temperature.

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

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

duncan61 wrote: I have had a few days to mull this over and it is rather disgusting how you have put it.

duncan61 wrote:On no climate debates I have ever seen has one party suggested to know someone elses sexual preferences

duncan61 wrote:You are a bully

duncan61 wrote: ...and if you and ITN are absolutely certain of all the facts

duncan61 wrote: ... why are you even on this forum.

duncan61 wrote: I am still here because I wished to learn about the CC/AGW theory and am now certain it is not the Existential crisis some people are trying to sell the public.

duncan61 wrote: I listened to a very good podcast with 3 people for and 3 people against and the topic was is climate change a real problem

duncan61 wrote:
I have had a few days to mull this over and it is rather disgusting how you have put it.

duncan61 wrote:
On no climate debates I have ever seen has one party suggested to know someone elses sexual preferences

duncan61 wrote:
and certainly not because they agreed with another poster.

duncan61 wrote:
You are a bully and if you and ITN are absolutely certain of all the facts why are you even on this forum.

duncan61 wrote:
I am still here because I wished to learn about the CC/AGW theory

duncan61 wrote:
and am now certain it is not the Existential crisis some people are trying to sell the public.

duncan61 wrote:
I listened to a very good podcast with 3 people for and 3 people against and the topic was is climate change a real problem all 6 had a 20 minute window to share their view and then question time followed by a 5 minute summary by all 6.

duncan61 wrote:
It was good as no one shouted out over the others or insulted anyone and at the end of the debate of100 invited guest quite a large number had swung from CC/AWG being such a big deal to not being such a big deal.

duncan61 wrote:
The 3 pro AGW/CC being a problem were all claiming the science proves it

duncan61 wrote:
and its all going to happen next week but had not one shred of real time evidence.

duncan61 wrote:
I hope to live to 2030 and when nothing has happened see how its being peddled then

duncan61 wrote: You are the only human who I have met that claims studying the atmosphere is some sort of religion.

duncan61 wrote: You Americans have 7th day Adventists and Mormons.They are wacky religions.

duncan61 wrote: I have no trouble like a lot of scientists I have watched give lectures that have no issue agreeing that it is .6 C or 1 F warmer than 100 years ago

duncan61 wrote:I have gone back 3 years and read some of your very insulting posts and most of the people have left this forum.

duncan61 wrote: I have to ask why do you feel the need to post such nasty stuff.

duncan61 wrote: I will be 60 in a few months and have no memory of ever kissing another man or being bent over furniture.

duncan61 wrote: I shared what you wrote with 3 customers over the last few days and it is appalling

duncan61 wrote: ... and most forums would shut down your account.

duncan61 wrote:We are discussing climate change ...

duncan61 wrote:I did consider ignoring your post but why should I

Into the Night wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote: I googled Atmospheric Thermal Effect

IBdaMann wroteI'm only addressing Pete's argument.

With respect, you are continually addressing my arguments without taking the precaution of working out what they are actually saying which leads to your adherence to incorrect assumptions. The simple acts of denial this leads to - purely gainsaying - are no proof of anything let alone debunk what is actually being put before you.

Into the Night wroteThe existence of theories of science are a proof (proof of identity). You are simply denying the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law. You can't just toss these laws aside or change them in any way.

Pete Rogers wrote:
I cite here your continual knee-jerk rejection of the idea that there can be any such thing as "Negative Work" - which is pure stuff and nonsense on your part as it has always been known to Modern Physics and Mechanics-

Into the Night wroteBuzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'negative work' in either science. Mechanics is part of physics....science. There is no such thing in engineering either.

Pete Rogers wrote:
the problem is your certainty that IBdaMann somehow has insight to offer when the truth is that he just doesn't understand the academic proofs that he has been given.

Into the Night wroteVoid authority fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Pete Rogers wrote:
Asking nonetheless; more in hope than expectation: for him to up his game and view such matters in a comprehending way here is an excerpt from an MIT lecture on the subject which should prove to him that "Negative Work" is a simple well known and irrefutable (by any moderately intelligent persons) matter of everyday mechanics.
...deleted Holy Video...

Into the Night wroteA university professor is not a proof. A university is not a proof. Science is not a university, a video, a web site, a degree or license, or a government agency. False authority fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Pete Rogers wrote:
If he is going to recoil from it so as to stick his head straight back up his thingummy rather than let the implications sink in I ask the reader to consider whether it is IBdaMann or MIT (and all other Universities and relevant institutions) who do not know what they are talking about.

Into the Night wroteYou don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. You are not God. Void authority fallacy.

Pete Rogers wrote:other
IBdaMann and sundry others in this thread do little more - figurateively speaking - than the child does when it sticks its fingers in its ears and shouts "Lalala" beleiving itself to have thus won the argument - they would grace us by desisting from such further peurility.

Into the Night wroteFallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

Pete Rogers wrote:

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

IBdaMann wroteThis 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).

Of course it is an EFFECT dummy.

Into the Night wroteNope. Not an effect. It is a characteristic. Redefinition fallacy.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The extremely gullible to whom you refer are the ones to be found amongst the ranks of the fraternity which thinks the fact that temperature goes up and down with altitude somehow proves that compression does not enhance temperature whereas the 1st Law requires that it be so due to the loss of volume to the system accomplished by Gravity performing the Negative Work of compression upon it. Something beyond their grasp apparently, though extremely simple.

Again, you are denying what temperature is. Denial of the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law.

Pete Rogers wrote:

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

The atmosphere was part of the Planet last time I looked, just the gaseous - and therefore compressed - part. The lithosphere and aquasphere are incompressible for all intents and purposes unlike gas which on account of that characteristic then concentrates the thermal energy that must be conserved within under the 1st Law but necessarily distributing it between fewer volume units - thanks to the negative work of compression accomplished by the force of gravity - thus inevitably causing the EFFECT known as the ATE!

Into the Night wroteBuzzword fallacies. Word salad. Denial of the 0th and 1st laws ofthermodynamics and the ideal gas law.

Pete Rogers wrote:

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

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

Why shouldn't he? Furthermore the ATE is pretty much constant though fluctuates slightly with variations in net insolation so Duncan61 is correct in his observation.

Into the Night wroteBuzzword fallacies. Word salad. Try English. It works better.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

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]

.

No engineering uses 'negative apples' either.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]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]

.

Intom the night wroteNo engineering uses 'negative apples' either.

Pete Rogers wrote:The cause is compression and the EFFECT is warming - due to the 1st Law.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Into the Night wroteThe existence of theories of science are a proof (proof of identity). You are simply denying the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law. You can't just toss these laws aside or change them in any way.

What are you talking about?

Pete Rogers wrote:
All laws obeyed, try reading and if you still think you know better try explaining, otherwise stop wasting your time and ours.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
I cite here your continual knee-jerk rejection of the idea that there can be any such thing as "Negative Work" - which is pure stuff and nonsense on your part as it has always been known to Modern Physics and Mechanics-

Into the Night wroteBuzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as 'negative work' in either science. Mechanics is part of physics....science. There is no such thing in engineering either.

Well here's a lecture from MIT that should show you that your head is up your thingy, but oh - of course - you can't see it from there, so I'll just leave it for the others. Who do we go for as a source of know ITN or MIT- tough choice wouldn't you say?
....deleted Holy Video...

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
the problem is your certainty that IBdaMann somehow has insight to offer when the truth is that he just doesn't understand the academic proofs that he has been given.

Into the Night wroteVoid authority fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

How would you know? Last time I looked MIT was a very reliable authority, but I can't find a single validation for you. Since you have none please go and annoy somebody of your own mental age and ability.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
Asking nonetheless; more in hope than expectation: for him to up his game and view such matters in a comprehending way here is an excerpt from an MIT lecture on the subject which should prove to him that "Negative Work" is a simple well known and irrefutable (by any moderately intelligent persons) matter of everyday mechanics.
...deleted Holy Video...

Into the Night wroteA university professor is not a proof. A university is not a proof. Science is not a university, a video, a web site, a degree or license, or a government agency. False authority fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).

Neither are you,

Pete Rogers wrote:
but the existence of this MIT lecture is proof

Pete Rogers wrote:
that you lied to everybody when you dishonestly stated [i]There is no such thing as 'negative work' in either science.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Mechanics is part of physics....science.

Pete Rogers wrote:
There is no such thing in engineering either.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
If he is going to recoil from it so as to stick his head straight back up his thingummy rather than let the implications sink in I ask the reader to consider whether it is IBdaMann or MIT (and all other Universities and relevant institutions) who do not know what they are talking about.

Into the Night wroteYou don't get to speak for everyone. You only get to speak for you. You are not God. Void authority fallacy.

Calm down old chap - read it again and you will see I spoke only for myself,

Pete Rogers wrote:
By the way; for your information: there is no God knucklehead, he is just a fairy story like the rest of your nonsense.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:other
IBdaMann and sundry others in this thread do little more - figurateively speaking - than the child does when it sticks its fingers in its ears and shouts "Lalala" beleiving itself to have thus won the argument - they would grace us by desisting from such further peurility.

Into the Night wroteFallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacy.

What is this loony talking about?

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

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

IBdaMann wroteThis 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).

Of course it is an EFFECT dummy.

Into the Night wroteNope. Not an effect. It is a characteristic. Redefinition fallacy.

The cause is compression and the EFFECT is warming - due to the 1st Law.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:
The extremely gullible to whom you refer are the ones to be found amongst the ranks of the fraternity which thinks the fact that temperature goes up and down with altitude somehow proves that compression does not enhance temperature whereas the 1st Law requires that it be so due to the loss of volume to the system accomplished by Gravity performing the Negative Work of compression upon it. Something beyond their grasp apparently, though extremely simple.

Again, you are denying what temperature is. Denial of the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law.

How's that?

Pete Rogers wrote:
Temperature is the measure of Thermal energy per unit volume as I had to inform you,

Pete Rogers wrote:
but perhaps you have a special definition all of your own or is it a secret

Pete Rogers wrote:
like the meaning of other baby terms like "word salad"?

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

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

The atmosphere was part of the Planet last time I looked, just the gaseous - and therefore compressed - part. The lithosphere and aquasphere are incompressible for all intents and purposes unlike gas which on account of that characteristic then concentrates the thermal energy that must be conserved within under the 1st Law but necessarily distributing it between fewer volume units - thanks to the negative work of compression accomplished by the force of gravity - thus inevitably causing the EFFECT known as the ATE!

Into the Night wroteBuzzword fallacies. Word salad. Denial of the 0th and 1st laws ofthermodynamics and the ideal gas law.

What stupidity is this now?Try explaining, which I suggest you can't as it is well beyond your capacity mform comprehension.

Pete Rogers wrote:

Pete Rogers wrote:

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

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

Why shouldn't he? Furthermore the ATE is pretty much constant though fluctuates slightly with variations in net insolation so Duncan61 is correct in his observation.

Into the Night wroteBuzzword fallacies. Word salad. Try English. It works better.

What kind of claptrap is this? Are you lonely or something?

duncan61 wrote:Once again Pete I get your point and the other crew just keep quoting laws and stuff to suit their personal agenda.Loving the furniture and how insane are the trump loving right wing gun loving loons.

duncan61 wrote:
Once again Pete I get your point and the other crew just keep quoting laws and stuff to suit their personal agenda.Loving the furniture and how insane are the trump loving right wing gun loving loons.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... none of them evinced the dimmest flicker of understanding concerning the lecture from a senior MIT scientist explaining in great detail to his class exactly what "Negative Work" is and how it must be used in order to understand poterntial energy

Pete Rogers wrote: The best they seem able to do - and think it is helpful to their position - is to say things like "Word Salad" as if it is of value to do so and so provides insight.

Pete Rogers wrote: It is simply beyond their comprehension that the ATE is not the GE;

Pete Rogers wrote: Despite MIT and the Engineering industry's common employment of the doctrine of negative work

Pete Rogers wrote: ... apparently we must simply take the word of the great IBdaMann (who's he?)

Pete Rogers wrote: Even the monicker reveals narcissism.