Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is not anthropogenic



Page 17 of 23<<<1516171819>>>
25-02-2021 18:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
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.


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 18:51
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2052)
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]

.

Yup, you've very accurately summed up his argumentation.
25-02-2021 18:54
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2052)
^^^^ a beautiful post, once again.
25-02-2021 19:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
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.

Good news, I just received a flood of email-in ballots, 1,480 total, all for GasGuzzler, apparently the result of a strong, grass-roots effort to "get out the vote."

Here is the complete list (sorted in alphabetical order):

2speed
9362
Aaliyah james
aaronlevaugh
abbajabba1
abbottisgone
abdullah
Abdullah Tauqeer
abdulsamad015
abigailpowell027
Ablbert_Einstein
Abraham3
AbrahamKL3
Abs
accuraterubber
achyutadhhikari
Acidohm
ad4mbyt3s
adaletalbaf
adamsminson
Addressing Global Warming
adelainejo898
adrianosaveecology
Adword
aeshiagordoff
AFI
ag1231suntan
agaemmon
agnaadelheit2013
Agwisbunk
ahuvaai17
Aidenlewis
aighttysm
Aikido
ainhoaager
Ajax
ajbiguniak
ajm
ajml617
AK_User
Akompab
akshara baru
akulakishan
Akuzov
alanpeg
alb5049
aleferru
alej
alenakozlow
AlfonsoHiguera
Aliaka
Alisdyan
alisha
alizeeniklas
alknisley
Allan
allecnarf
almartinez156
aloysious
altheabelmiro
Amanbir Grewal
Amanbir S Grewal
amaracocklinck
AMinterx
amykonieczny3
amywoodmead
anabelleyoung
anandrajma
ananiahpearce
ancient s
andeep
Anders
Andreaamoro8
andrew_paul111
Andy
angelcain
angelicabree
angepeter2
anhy123
anikafranzi
Anna Maslova
Annasmith
annawilliam
annbell1993
annwh1t3
anon
ansar
ansi2018
Antarcticice
Anthony
anthonyabr
antialiased
antiphos
apexdocs
AphulKore
archanak
arkinweed
arminklein
Arno Arrak
arthur18
arthurpayne
artisticearth
Arvind
asfiachoo
Ash143
ashgandhi
ashleenlevesque
ashley0323
ashleydw
asiajade25
atexfamilyfuncentre
athenableecker
atiliaaio
avoidableco2
axellaurent
axlemacuvex
ayeshaasad
ayush_somani212
B2dx
babatunjial
BACoe
baedr
baileywilliams
balefulstare
BallesteroDavid
BamAlegre
barbiestal
BarnabyJones
Bart1963
Barts
beamhelms
bedsidewithben
BeesKnees
beltd
Ben Gamer
Ben-ove
bennycarter
BennyOhagan
BenVM
bercinho
Bernie44
berting567
bethy
Betty Mutua
BettyJohn123
bfoster
bfp
Bgaber
Bigal
bigdong69
Billio
Billy000
Billy1414
bismahabu
bitshirehashaway
biyimanuel
blackstormy1804
Blair Macdonald
blaircooper
bligh
bligh8
blissdragon
bmandel93
bmt0215
Bo Vinther
Bode
BOLLWEEVIL
Bon
bootesvoid
boreallfor
Borman20
Botulism
bougyman
bowlesj
bpl
Braden
Brady USA
Brando
branner
BreatheLess
BrendaM
brent17p
BrettByers
brian
BrittanyG
BruceWilliams
bubblegumpi
Buddha
Buddhism
Budstar
BugABoo
Buildreps
Bullfrog
Bushdoctor
Cachopal
caimetyzou
caitlyrohan
callasmaria02
callumblack111
callumkinnear
campy
candybetje
canegates
CanIGiveAnIdea
CantStumpTheTrump
Caoimhe
CarbonIsBad
carbonmaster
carl901
carlomonnez
Carlos D Silva
Carly
Carol Muzyk
carolinacollaro
Caroline
Carter kho
CasonJamarion
casperbirk15
casualreader
catherine23
cbrjrtxus
cbrtxus
Ccherry
Ceist
celineedner
Chaminda Jayaweera
Chance
Chara
Charlie@TreeTop
CharlieFines
CharlieScott
charmblack707
Cheers Project
cherrychalmers
Chesini
chill
chineelim
Chondrally
chongustin
Choose a password
ChristianC123
ChristianMessiah
ChristinPassivHaus
chylertilton
citadellouis
ckollars
Clarity john
claudioa
claudiortzel
claygauxx
Cleantech_Guide
cletmatt
climability
climate change survey
Climate man
climate scientist
climate students
Climate001
climate067
Climate76
Climatechange3345
climatedebate1136
ClimateSim
climatesolutions
ClimateTruth
cliqbo
clivesmate
cloneybinfeld28
cloudy
clydebaker
Cnuk
CO2message
coconutbutterz
codyblood
cofu
Colin
Colleen Ambrose
Common Sense
Commonsense
Concerned blue collar
confused about temps
connor45
conroeleah
Constantin Films
Convection Is a Thing
cookmunk
cookode
CoolCucumber
cornelieroe
Cornelius
coteppe
coxlarei
crank
crede
Crispin336
crotophytus
crownjakarta
Cryomani
cthor29
Curufinwe
cuthfr4nke
cybrmavn
cyrallekanemunich
CzarnyZajaczek
d759721
dadmansabode
Daft yank
Dalerams
damith
Dane Bradley
danharper
danial
Daniel
danielschweizer
Danny
dansmith2000
dantescritic
dapork
darkwulfe
Daumic
dave1980
Daveburton
DaveRecklaw
David
David Wojick
DavidF
davidkochfromheaven
davidlaing
davidnalbandian
davidzjoeei23
davo
davon
Davros
Dawlish
ddave541
ddutchone
Deanster
DeathRabit
decentralmind
deenad
dehammer
DeivisB
dennred12
denverevans23
Desertphile
dgarf
dianahickburn
DianySuazo
Diesel burner
Dig_Doug
discgolfdave
DivineCall
Dom_Hayes_420
donald90
donghae2012
Donlitz1
Dos Ramos
Doug Evans
dougjones423
drdolittle
dreatkins94
dresiasprontok
drey8miles
DRKTS
drm
Dsilka7147
dtas
dtremaine
DUCKofDEATH
duclongtran
Dumas
dummy 001
duncan61
dwms07
Dymix
dynamic
e_ClimateCare
e36lbavives
Earth_Master
Earthling
Earthvoice
eavesheather2012
Ebanfigueroa
ebittencourt
echo3snow
EconomySavior
edcompsci
eddy15
Edward12
eheat
einnor
EJorgensen
elastostar
EletiWu
ElwayJ
Emceedust123
Emil
emilybarbosa
emilyborge9
emilydeberg
Emnotion
ena
EncryptedKnight
Endtime
EnergyAction
Enviro0801
epidexipteryx
Eric Crews
Eric4898
erictyler3
erincuddy
ErnieRogers
esah8razak
Estando
ethanashton01
ethylspake
euriccalim
Evald
evejohn23
Evergen
EVERYTHINGisRELATIVE
evolutionist
EvTechTalk
Ewynne
Exodus
f_ashouri
fabiograzia
Fair Game
Fake Climate Change
Faraz26
fashouri
faustphilipp
Fave1962
fayehudson
fcimeson
fearlharbor
Ferdinand
ferlienecheng
Fiftyseven
Fionnbharr
fireflame
FirstColonel
fishfood5266
flangeytheclown
flashtlz
FlatBack4
Flill
flogger
floor15
florenceshirley
fmeissner
Foward
franckpersey
Frank Lansner
Frank Schnabel
frankdrakelard
Freejoy
Frescomexico
FriendOfOrion
frigson
FSsummeracademy
fullcircleltd
FutureEnergy
FutureYou
fzuzrh1
fzuzrh2
gadianddeborahslade
gadislade
Gamul1
GAP
garretewilliams
GasGuzler
GasGuzzler
GavinHarrison
Gaynor
gctimes
Genica
Geoff Sherrington
georgek371
German Academy
gerrygerry
gettingglobal
gfm7175
giabaodiep
gianroquesan
Gilgamazing
ginajeury
GingerShortcake
giusemodeo
glenayers1951
glenmcd
Glitch
GlobalClimate
GlobalCurrencyEvolution
GlobalCurrencyReset
GlobalDebate02SL
globalperpectivesbohunt
GlobalPerspectiveSGL
Globalwarmingisfake
GlobalWarmingTimes
glottygette
gmmherman
Godwill Bate
Gogreen2006
gogreen2050
Gogsy
goldenblue
Gonçalo Sousa
Gordon
gordonsamuel2014
GP_81
GP1JLS
GP1st
gracewilson091
graigconstance
Gray-Wolf
GreenArmy7890
GreenArnie
GreenEggsNham
GreenMan
Greg
gregpet
greta2013
grettamaycong
greyviper
grunerterry
gulfairs
GunnarTHansen
GustavoWoltmann
haillinemarqouxe
haizellemorg
hallebree17
Hammy
hangejj
Hank
Hank Samler
Hanlonoj01
hannsmith
Hans-Jürgen
Hapevaf
HappySikalengo
Harperdog
HarrisonBriggs
Harry C
harry5102
Harry75
HarveyH55
hayatirazaka
Hayduke
headcasey
hedzy
heidefader
helainereetz
helenaf
hendriktop19
HenryRielleMunckin
Herbert West
herbie wangenheim
HeSea
HexHammer
High Treason
Hijumi
hitneyjaimei01
hjcihak46
HL34
Hoa DO
HollyM
hopboyd
Hopperschai
hoshen001
Hot under the collar
hotair
hotandcold
Hotearth
hower77
Howie
Hq7thArty
HSmall2256
hubble
HumanSin
Humidity2
Huynh Phu Dat
Iain
iamjuliaward25
ianluce001
IBdaMann
IBdaMom
IBE DaMann
ICD Press
ICDPress
iceage
iduros5028
ieltsindia
Ieltsonline
if308
imkira3
Inés
information
IngridRBV
Ingvar Åberge
InshouLee
Into the Night
IOPan933
ipur
irennesoaul
IRES
IsaacTorus
IsaacTorus11
IslamMahdi
Jack_S
JackCapp
JackEddyfier
JackFou
jackk
jackkarter
jacobpastierre
jacose_12
jag1Username
Jais Hammerlund
jakeliu
JakeWall
Jakob
James Bryce Smith
James_
James__
James___
james_austin
James_S
James145
jamesdweir
jameshills443
jameskong
jamesmatheson
JamesMor
JamesNewell
jamesrawlings973
JamesTankard
Jan Gupta
janardhana
janeaisrael
janewong22
jansenmeckz
Jasminerose
Jason_ATX
Jaya Jagannath
jayajungmahat
JayCardinal
jayden smith
JayFromUK
Jaylion68
jboy751
jcoate
jdm
Jeffvw
jeiylui
jenb
jensieworn
jerkface
jerrylh
jervsc0ut
Jesse Christopher
JesseConant
Jessica
jessicalee
jestravis3
jesus
Jethro Bodine
jhat
jhnsnw16
jiayou
jim
Jim Pettit
jimm8scott
jimmisheen
jinleexiao
jjcast
JMacBeets
joan123456
joanfling17
joannechoo25
JoaoCamejo
Joe
joefromtheus
joeh917
JohannesDiCosmos
John
John Niclasen
johnfulton
Johngiroux
johnirwin
johnjeff
johnnycurtte
JohnOtvos
johnpotter
johnston
jonashking
jonathanbana
jonathansmith
JonHart
Jonny P
Jonson Ket
jorgea
joseph369
josephinealbertsdotter
joshuah
Josip123
josmaryncong
Jovel
jovilowell
jørgen petersen
Jsurguy
Juiced
julianlecanto
julienwest
junbai97
just sayin
justagreenlife
justinmilu0987
JustTheFacts
JvJ
jwoodward48
Kagiso
kahlilburkens
kahn189
Kano
kathmccurdy
katierieff
kdinesen
keepit
KeiranK
keirsthinebluir
kellyandclimate
kellyjohns
kellymccloud
Ken Fabian
ken2esq
kenmeister
Kenneth Griffith
Kenneth William Griffith
kentyeoseff9
kettinneali
Kevin Doyle
kfl
kientrucvang
killemwithscience
kim
kings11me
KingSavior
kingsmac students
kingsolution
Kirkieb
KKING
klarizvodlik
kmega
kong mai
konstant
kopykat
krisdillon
kristanmcphearson1
kristine51
Ksenona
ksmithart
kullboys
kuts muth
kxng-globe
KyCoo
L8112
LabRat
lachlannicholaz
ladonnag
lainnemaurer
lais0nmaydie
LaplacesDemon
Larrissa
Larry
larrymac
Lars Kristensen
latnswimmer
laurenceP
Laws of Nature
Lea_Rethink
Leader
Leafsdude
leempoels
Leitwolf
leonardlian
lesamer
leshaltn
Levinbob
Lewis Carlson
Lhuda
Liam1156
Lieke
Life_Savior
LifeIsThermal
LifeSavior
lightnerha16
LikeanImon
LimaCharlie
LindaP
linkan188
litesong
littleendian
livilinh17
Liz-Sharma
loftconversion1
loise11
lolydavids25
Longview
loraviviana
loudelmonte
louiv
lovingrose
Loyalty
lperry3
ltdave32
lucal
LucianoA
Luganda David Nsiyonna
luvioni
luxyjakstan
LVD2014
lynashaklee111
LynLove
lynnalban
lyrahurley
ma8eve8fox
mabeluertas
Mac Adams
macelldan4
maciejzi
mad man2112
Madison
madisonwalker
madlie1911
Mads545
maggierodolf
Magic Mike
mahbub
maicol72
maih14
mainenorris
malacandon
malcolmcro
malop77
malthus
mama nature
mamooth
mandalaputra
manddy20
manolis
ManOnAMission
marcoflavien
marcolyn
MarcusR
margauvine
MarieSafel
marion
marionyusef
marioskid
MaritsaF
Markgranger
markmendlovitz
marko
marry20
Martin
martin21
MaryVans
Masked Nostradamus
MasterRogg
mastersite
matt_attak
Mattcraft00
MattS
MaudLvl
maureitz
Maxyboy
mbam
MCaruthers
Megahan
meganomaniac
meiyue
MEJ
meladale94
MelvilleH
mememine69
MessiahBuddha
MessiahSavior
mhklein57
Michael G Lee
Michaleched
micheal rose
micheelsen
Michiel
micole66
Miggi
mihailsbalo86
mikaelsson0
Mike Holland
mikeoride
miketolstoy
mileydavney
MillionaireSavior
Minimalist
mischegoss
misty24
mistytimes40
MK001
moannaboice
moe44688
Mohammad Jahran Chowdhury
Mojokid123
Moltas
monarch2018
monckton
moniqhaylie
MonteCristo
montellmartins0007
moriautumn2014
MosesApostaticus
MOTR
Mouser
Mozel d kajama
Mr Dynamic Solver
mrkhalidiwfm
MrMarvelousandtheUnicorn
Mrnat
Mrs Wiggles
Msethi
msomula
mtbaumann
mteichner
mttgrtner
muc82
muchemwa
muddy
muhammadimranhussain
muhammadsaad
muirennshevaun
MUNYI
Murphyd
Mutualdemocracy
mvelicer
mygor
Myleader73
myrtransse
mywifesatan
nadiakei
nananghayani
nancyaukland
napojaques
nashbrittle25
Nassbio24
natashirsch
Nathan9292
NatureWonder
nchayelela
nchongo
NCOV
neds123
Neeha
Nemo
nemodawson
Nemohawk
neomiterr
nereibrant
NewEconomySystem
Newsbeat
NewsX247
nghiaquang262
nicandrews08
nickcarpenterbali
Nicolai Skjoldby
Nigel2
Nikola
ninaacker8
nite
noah-whitney
Nobi
nobull
noellesamuels
Nomanoba
Nomono
nonleaguefan
noutopia
Novelwriter
nthuong
nursingninja
OceanaPleasant
odessalourgam
Oh33z
okidi
oldendays
Oldsirhippy
olghamines
olghaynez
oliverbank
ollybolitho
olyz
omini
One Punch Man
ontoto
orogenicman
Ory_Dan
Ouroboros
Ourplanetourlives
Overit
oversial197
owenkemp
Pablobellins
Pachamama
pallavikat
paramount99
Pariga
Password
Patecroute
patrick
Paul Mark
Paul O
Paul Stanley Downes
paulcarbonneutral
paulinalder
PaulOuch
Paulyj52
pbcahill
pbullen
PeaceSavior
PedroEn
Peeka
perkga
PermanentHurricane
Pete Rogers
peter_k
PeterC
PeterHale
peterlward
PeterOleKvint
petersmith98
Petester
peytwatson025
Phelixwolf
phentermine
Phil
phil123
Philled
Philliplaw
phytovydetox
pierregloe
Piquo Pie
PitonObserver
pjfent
planethours
pmblango
poppyayla
PortiaW
PoseidonFoundation
PrinceAndz
Pro_Tools
Profile
ProHuman
prophet
protect123
pseudostratified
Ptychodus
publish
Purple
puspa
pwndogmaster1
Quaestio
quasi_kwasi
queenawolfe
queeniedavidson
Queenieycorliss
Quli
r0wengyn3th
r3dmondlee
rahul
Rakhi
ral27601
rambo650
rancu
randybump
ranwa
Raoul
raoulboisvert
rashishetty9
Rasmus vincentz
ratzmoose
raymondhusman201
raypowells
rayray007
rb1991qwerty
rcoran2568
RealityCheck
rebacca0606
redevans667
redpillminded
REDPro
reemasharma201
reesesbarducci
Regis
rei1008kuu
reirei
Remarkeet
RenaissanceMan
retide
rhamscallion
rheignaxus
rhoycentz
riadehne10
rianrush
Richard harvey
Richard4796
RichardP
richardsonera
Rick
rickymachugs
RightIdea
riverpiotr
rjanet61
rmaitland
rmcdnlle
rmls10mckn
Robertgreene3
robertjohngodfrey
ROBERTSTENECK
RobWigglezz
Rodney199
Roger Coppock
ronaldray
Roob Itself
Roselin Dey
ross_brawn_99
roxybolton
roxymaxx
rpmelicher
rryanallen
rtollemache
Ruben
RudiJW
russelljames
rwswan
rypamore
sabrinpartier
sadiiuc
sagarg
sahlytuckr
sajman
sakuraakeno
saloni
samgwarimbo
samijafri
SamLauren1215
sammyperez11
samsquatch
SAN-DIRECT
Sand
Sandersc
sandyandrewz
SanieZehra
sanqian
Santafe2000
sara_p
SaraTBahn
saratownsend
savethewhale
Saviaje
SaviorJoy
SaviorLife
SaviorNow
Saviour_World
savvylaux
scarlerburn
sceptic777
schnelly18
Schoolkid
schulphi
sclark1000
Scottebright
ScottHamilton
Scottish Scientist
sculptor
SDRAmerica
sealover
Sean W OMalley
seaninak
seanm
seanmiles800
Seeking Bliss
seieirupert2
seosecrets4
serdariscool
SerhiiFed
serser
sertaberener
Seth Anthony
seyakers
sh3ilareed
shagsnacks
ShaharNamer
shashikiranm
shaun guest
ShawnTootill
Sheesh
shilohhockman
shiprock24
shlamaps
siba
silverlombard
silviaabenson
simlify
simonkibz
SimpleSimon6
sinsin188
siploos
Skaha
Skiday
skyequinn
skyeschmeitz
skyswimmer
Slayer94
SmithJo
smorris@isi
smunk44
Snail
Snowmakker
snowpine
snu
sokoban
solarelectricsupply
SolarGod2
Solarwind
soletreadmillcoupons
sonseeker
soph11
Sophic
sophy
SpaceShot76
Spectical
spicez
Spongy Iris
spot
spud5422
Spysauce
StarMan
starryowl
stellaa9x
stellarbridge
StephenS20
steve
Steve Case
stevemorlug25
stevenmeeks
stevenreese504
SteveS
SteveS24
stevew87
StewartBrand
still learning
StopDreaming
Stopngo
Stormy
Strange_quark
Strutto
StuartClark
student33
studentmeetsworld
Suburban Eco
Succora
suishou
SuperCSG
Surface Detail
Surveyer
Svartebjorn
Swan
Swayseeker
swedishdude69
swejt
swills123
sydney
syncster31
Tai Hai Chen
tajpolly
Takashi
Takashi-san
tantalus
TarickTDS
tarstarkus
Tasian
Taufeeq
taylortaylor1
Tero
terrae
Terry
Terry1001
testbruger
testuser
testuser2
Texas Conservative for Solar
thanksforsharing
thaw
The Artifact
The Humidity
The Night is Young
TheGroundMan
theguythatguy
thenerdyone314
theotherjr
ThePeopleProject
ThePolarGuy
ThePresident
thesaintman
TheSavior
TheSaviorMessiah
TheSaviorMoney
TheSaviorWay
TheThirdAngel144
TheWeatherGirls
thewholetruth
TheWorldSaviour
Third world guy
ThirdTempleJerusalem
ThoAbEl
thomasbiking
thomasistrouble1
thor29
Thunderbomb1982
tia
tickledpinkintxs
Tideman
tieswell
tiffanylim25
TikiB
Tillerson
Tim the plumber
timanishreklore
timothydrake
tinejude1
Tmaptransport1
tmb2610
tmiddles
tnbskts
Tobias Augspurger
tobyclint
Toloni
Tom Jin
Tom Slattery
Tom_A
TomF1
TomFines
Tommy WXC
tommy100010
TommyJ
TommytheKitty
tomsov
Tony Argieri
too
tophlambie
Totototo
tracy18
trafn
Trang Lai
travisjhake
treebeard
Treeuse
TrentJackson
Tricolours
trineanderson
TrosckMan
TrueCompanion
TrueMessiahBuddha
Trumpsupport
trustee11
truth
Tudoceros
tullywinters
tulumknows
Tybird01
tyler9
ualtarkemp
UltimateSecret
UnequalJupiter
unitedearthchild
UnUn
update
Userlyssanford02
Username
Username cofu
Username1796534
USProblemSolver
vabahluu
valerioanema11
valproic
Vancouversailor
vanessamils
Vaughn
vekawolfgang
VernerHornung
vernpeace
Vgirl89
Vic
victor
VictoriaChuEM203
VictoriaClimateOutreach
Vidya
Vincent
Volker Siegel
voyakins
vtgaryw
wahhpak
Wake
wallenred
Wallsg7
Wangchuk
warmair
WATAWA
waterboy
Wb
wdmn
WeatherRusty
welldoneson
wellrays
wesley
whiteflower12
whitehat
whoopiwoody
wildflower
william
Williamhawk
Windy
wisewilly
wmiddlemas
wohui
Wolfe Vercetti
woody
WorldEvolution
WorldPeace
WorldSavior
writerwithqs
Wross451
wwicscomplaint
Xadoman
xavier282
XavierWard
xchange
xevereneas
xiaoyouyou1hao
xinyiang
xX_GamerRager_Xx
YahooMike
yaoiyuri_4ever
yasirkhan89
yeenaindo
yes-but
Yesum
ylevental
ynelmercy
Yomi
YoucefZX
younheelee
youpayc
yourmom
yousserus
yuno44907
Yusup05
Z06norway
zackandrew25
Zedder5
Zeek
zenblaster
Zenbones
Zenidos
Zero Carbon Emissions
zeroCOtwo
zimmearry
zionarahel
Zlatiolais1071
Zloppino
ZurichBlunte
zuzanauchihacha

... and apparently gfm7175 has already certified the election results ... I guess I have no choice but to award GasGuzzler the Dead Parrot.

Congratulations GasGuzzler.

.
Attached image:

25-02-2021 21:29
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2109)
I will not quote the above post due to it's length, thoroughness, and absolute accuracy. I will say tears are rolling down my face, full waterworks wide open. Not sure if it's because I'm so honored by this achievement, or because IBdaManns post was so damn funny!

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.
25-02-2021 22:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
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

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 22:28
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
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.

.



From your signature quotes;
A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles


In the US Navy, duplex strainers are used to remove contaminates from lube oil. A Delaval 24 stage centrifugal lube oil purifier is also used. It is well known that restrainers restrict the flow of viscous fluids passing through them.
With any strainer, rate of flow might be greater than what said strainer can allow to pass through it. This needs to be known in any engineering application.
If not, then pressure in that system will increase and then that filter/restrainer could be damaged as a result. How do you not know this?
Edited on 25-02-2021 22:29
26-02-2021 02:31
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
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?

.


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
26-02-2021 02:40
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
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?
26-02-2021 03:04
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
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
Edited on 26-02-2021 03:34
26-02-2021 04:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
James___ wrote: Heat can be both slowed and diffused.

Correct.

James___ wrote:Prisms allow for this.

What does this even mean? Do prisms allow for gravity? Do prisms allow for fire? Do prisms allow for changing temperatures? Do prisms allow for starfish to open a mussel?

What do you mean?

.


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
26-02-2021 05:30
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2109)
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.

.


All irregularities have been investigated and no widespread fraud was found. Any claims to the contrary are simply baseless.

...and to those numbskulls who still deny negative work, I give you Joe Biden and the Keystone Pipeline. Chew on that.

I hoist my trophy.


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:


Edited on 26-02-2021 05:31
26-02-2021 07:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
GasGuzzler wrote:I hoist my trophy.

It's uncanny! I have one just like it. I probably should have included it in the award package (my bad).

.
Attached image:

26-02-2021 12:21
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
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.
26-02-2021 14:45
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
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.
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- 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.
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.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgUMHWHT21Q
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.
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.

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. 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.

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!

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.
26-02-2021 15:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
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.


@ Duncan, here you are denying that Pete is claiming what he is claiming while absurdly insisting that you somehow understand what Pete is claiming.

@ Pete Rogers, you still need to get a handle on CAUSE -> EFFECT. Your "Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement" is your Greenhouse Effect and everything after the word "because" above is your CAUSE ... or why it "be caused."

You are still stuck denying that your EFFECT is Greenhouse EFFECT. You can only drone on and on about the differences in the CAUSE while inisisting that you are illustrating some difference in the EFFECT.

It's like watching reruns of your train wreck in slow motion.

.


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
26-02-2021 15:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
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.

With respect, you are claiming a temperature increase. In fact, you are claiming an average planetary temperature increase of 33C. You insist on this while assuring Duncan that you are not. He is gullible and you are duplicitous.

In my post (to which you responded) I asked you to explain the big difference between the 33C average planetary temperature increase of the warmizombie's Greenhouse Effect and the 33C average planetary temperature increase of your Atmospheric Thermal Effect. You ignored my request so I will repeat it here.

Please explain the substantive difference between the 33C average planetary temperature increase of the warmizombie's Greenhouse Effect and the 33C average planetary temperature increase of your Atmospheric Thermal Effect. There is no need to discuss the differences in the CAUSES because I am absolutely clear on what those are. Just the difference between the two EFFECTS.

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

... and since you bear the full burden to support your argument, you need to unequivocally state either:

A. ... that by "negative work" you are simply referring to the mathematical operation of subtraction, i.e. subtracting positive work from something, and then stating what specific work you are subtracting from what energy, or ...

B. ... what negative distance or what negative force exists in nature that can create negative work, or ...

C. ... what force of nature is being defied over what distance and by what.

Until then your claim of "negative work" remains dismissed as totally bogus.

I won't be watching any YouTube videos. I await YOUR explanation of the above.

You claim an average planetary temperature increase. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. You still need to account for the additional energy required to increase the average planetary temperature. Thus far you have only offered your bogus "negative work." Your argument is summarily dismissed until the fatal flaws are addressed and corrected.

.


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
26-02-2021 18:53
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
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.
26-02-2021 20:27
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
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.
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.


p.s., have found out that most scientists don't know history. I'm kind of planning on giving them a history lesson.
27-02-2021 06:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
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?


Since you reject theories of science, and have openly declared so, there is nothing to discuss.


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
27-02-2021 06:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
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

You cannot slow or trap heat. Light is not heat. Prisms do not diffuse light. Your belief in magick won't work.


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
27-02-2021 06:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
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.

You can't create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 0th and 1st law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
This is a consequence of the first law and is true of all atmospheres with a troposphere.

You are denying the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law.
Pete Rogers wrote:
This ATE is more or less constant but varies a little if there is a fluctuation in net insolation.

Buzzword fallacies.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
27-02-2021 06:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
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.

The 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-

Buzzword 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.

Void 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...

A 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.

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

Fallacy 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.

Nope. 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!

Buzzword fallacies. Word salad. Denial of the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics 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.

Buzzword fallacies. Word salad. Try English. It works better.


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
27-02-2021 06:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
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.


Buzzword fallacies.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
27-02-2021 06:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
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.

The pressure of Earth's atmosphere is 14.7apsi under standard conditions.
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.

Word salad.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
27-02-2021 06:59
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]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.

I have had a few days to mull this over and it is rather disgusting how you have put it.On no climate debates I have ever seen has one party suggested to know someone elses sexual preferences and certainly not because they agreed with another poster.You are a bully and if you and ITN are absolutely certain of all the facts why are you even on this forum.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.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.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.The 3 pro AGW/CC being a problem were all claiming the science proves it and its all going to happen next week but had not one shred of real time evidence.I hope to live to 2030 and when nothing has happened see how its being peddled then


duncan61
27-02-2021 07:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
duncan61 wrote: I have had a few days to mull this over and it is rather disgusting how you have put it.

You haven't been mulling over anything but you have been lying for a long time now.

Just state clearly that you believe that the earth is spontaneously generating thermal energy, to the extent of increasing the earth's average global temperatuer by 33C.

State it. Otherwise shut up with the "I totally understand what Pete Rogers is saying and it makes sense."

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

I never claimed that. I have no idea what you prefer. I just know that you enjoy being manipulated completely.

duncan61 wrote:You are a bully

On an internet forum? Explain. Have I prevented you from posting? Have I forced you to write something other than what you want to write? Have I banned you from this site? How, exactly, have I "bullied" you?

... and what ever happened to "I'm a big boy"?

... and what ever happened to "sticks and stones, etc..."?

I'm going to suggest that the internet is far too rough for a pussy like you. Just run away and hide before the internet causes you any permanent damage.

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


1. Why are you dragging Into the Night into this? What has he ever done to you? Are you just being a bully?

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

Because it is here.

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.

Boolsch't. I don't know who you believe you are fooling but you were convinced of that before you arrived at this forum. You came here to preach your denomination of Global Warming ... just with different terms and slightly varying dogma.

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

You are characterizing the podcast as "very good." Really?

How did they define Climate Change?

Dollars to donuts they never defined Climate Change in any unambiguous way and you never thought to call BOOLSCH'T because you aren't interested in learning anything. You are all about advancing your religion's agenda.

... and regarding Pete Rogers having you bent over furniture and reaming you until you beg for more, you'll convince me that that is not the case when you start grilling Pete for his obvious violations of physics instead of falling on your sword for him and instead grill me for pointing out the problems with his religious dogma. You are clearly not here to learn anything. You are trying to push your WACKY religion and you can bet that I will continue to fuúk with you as long as you do. If you were actually trying to learn you'd be taking notes on everything I teach you. Instead, you compete with Pete Rogers and keepit to see who can be the king of the morons on this site.

Were you going to explain Pete Rogers' "negative work" in some way that is not merely subtracting positive work? Were you going to demand of Pete Rogers that he explain himself and account for the additional energy that is required for temperature to increase? Are you even going to acknowlege that yes, Pete Rogers is claiming a 33C increase in earth's average global temperature without accounting for any additional eneergy to effect that temperature increase (keeping in mind that gravity is a force and is not energy)?

What are you going to do besides whine like a fuúking baby about how your WACKY religion is not being embraced by certain individuals?

.


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
27-02-2021 08:12
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
You are the only human who I have met that claims studying the atmosphere is some sort of religion.You Americans have 7th day Adventists and Mormons.They are wacky religions.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 or that CO2 radiates certain spectrums of UV light but it is a tiny amount and makes no difference.I have gone back 3 years and read some of your very insulting posts and most of the people have left this forum.I have to ask why do you feel the need to post such nasty stuff.I will be 60 in a few months and have no memory of ever kissing another man or being bent over furniture.I shared what you wrote with 3 customers over the last few days and it is appalling and most forums would shut down your account.We are discussing climate change not personal insults.I did consider ignoring your post but why should I
27-02-2021 19:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
duncan61 wrote:
I have had a few days to mull this over and it is rather disgusting how you have put it.

Offended? What are you doing discussing religion and politics??
duncan61 wrote:
On no climate debates I have ever seen has one party suggested to know someone elses sexual preferences

You haven't been on forums long then!
duncan61 wrote:
and certainly not because they agreed with another poster.

You haven't been on forums long then! Political and religious forums are full of this kind of thing. Most of it comes from liberals.
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.

To expose the science, math, logic, and history the Church of Global Warming ignores.
duncan61 wrote:
I am still here because I wished to learn about the CC/AGW theory

You can't have a theory about something that is undefined. You must define 'Climate Change' and 'Global Warming' first. As of yet, there is no theory. Just a religion. Like all religions, it is based on a circular argument with arguments extending from it. A theory is an explanatory argument. None is possible until you define what 'Climate Change' and 'Global Warming' actually mean.
duncan61 wrote:
and am now certain it is not the Existential crisis some people are trying to sell the public.

But you still believe in the Church of Global Warming.
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.

So? That podcast is not here in this forum. It is meaningless here.
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.

No one can shout on forums. Forums are made up of written posts.
duncan61 wrote:
The 3 pro AGW/CC being a problem were all claiming the science proves it

There is no science. There are no theories about 'Global Warming' or 'Climate Change', whatever they actually might mean. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all.
duncan61 wrote:
and its all going to happen next week but had not one shred of real time evidence.

Only religions use supporting evidence. Science doesn't use ANY supporting evidence.
duncan61 wrote:
I hope to live to 2030 and when nothing has happened see how its being peddled then

Probably more radically then it is being peddled now.
Prison for unbelievers, for example.


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
27-02-2021 20:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
duncan61 wrote: You are the only human who I have met that claims studying the atmosphere is some sort of religion.

You think that you can appear smart by totally mischaracterizing what I have said. Who do you think you are somehow fooling into believing you have addressed ANY of the concerns or issues I have laid out?

Studying the atmosphere, i.e. atmospherics, is not a religion. Worshiping the atmosphere, however, as you and Pete Rogers do, certainly is a religion. Both you and Pete Rogers ascribe supernatural powers to the atmosphere, powers to defy physics.

Your bizarre worship of the atmosphere is one fuúked-up religion ... and it is obvious that you know this. You refuse to answer ANY of the questions that would make this readily apparent. So blow me.

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

You suddenly pivoted away from addressing me (an atheist) personally to addressing an entire class of hardcore Christians. Have you finished with your whining about how I am exposing your WACKY religion for what it is? Is your transition above an acceptance of your faith in a supernatural atmosphere as the hardcore religion that it is?

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

Exactly, you have no trouble denying science in deference to the religious dogma of charlatans who call themselves "scientists." You have no trouble being indoctrinated into a physics-denying faith, and even insisting that you "understand it." In fact, I believe you had been indoctrinated into Pete Rogers' religion before you came to this site in February of last year and then actively brought Pete Rogers to this site because he apparently explains it so much better.

Pete Rogers has failed. He claims a temperature increase that requires no additional energy. This argument doesn't even get out of the starting gate, yet you insist that you "understand it" and that you "have learned from it." You are obviously under the mesmerizing spell of a religion huckster.

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.

People don't leave a forum because one person was mean to them, but hucksters will certainly leave when one person thwarts their efforts to peddle their particular cultism. Pete Rogers' religion is not gaining any traction in this forum so I anticipate that he will eventually leave and dedicate his time to more fruitful (gullible) pastures. Maybe you want to follow him so you can be among a welcoming community of similar believers who hold Sunday pancake breakfasts.

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

I have to ask why you need to lie and to presume that I am stupid. Fuúk you.

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

Naturally when Pete Rogers has you bent over furniture the only memory you will have is what you happen to be facing at the time ... which is what?

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

Too funny! It was appalling ... yet you rushed to share it with multiple people anyway?

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

I am only "shut down" in sites where the moderators are religious fanatics like you who will not tolerate their religions being questioned.

You still haven't grilled Pete Rogers over his physics violations. You are still hammering me for questioning his religion. OK, I get it, if you were to have a site then you would quickly censor opposing views. I won't post at your site. Are we done?

duncan61 wrote:We are discussing climate change ...

What is that? You REFUSE to define it unambiguously. As far as I can tell it COULD refer to you being bent over furniture. Are you going to unambiguously define what you mean by Climate Change or are you content with it being open to meaning that Pete Rogers is reaming disinformation into you while you beg for more?

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

You should ignore my post because everything I say is completely correct, because you are gullible, you have been snookered into a cult religion and you don't like being reminded.

You certainly aren't interested in learning anything.




p.s. Does Pete's religion have any hymns? I'd like to look them up on YouTube if available, learn them and perhaps we can arrange a sing-along over GoToMeeting or something.

.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-03-2021 20:15
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
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.

What are you talking about? 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:
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?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgUMHWHT21Q

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:
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, but the existence of this MIT lecture is proof that you lied to everybody when you dishonestly stated 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:
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, are you seeing double? 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: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:
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:
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? Temperature is the measure of Thermal energy per unit volume as I had to inform you, but perhaps you have a special definition all of your own or is it a secret - like the meaning of other baby terms like "word salad"?

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:
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?
04-03-2021 20:53
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
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.

Why would they?
04-03-2021 20:55
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
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.

Why would they?
04-03-2021 21:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
Pete Rogers wrote:The cause is compression and the EFFECT is warming - due to the 1st Law.

You wasted an inordinate amount of bandwidth just to reaffirm the fatal problem with your pet Greenhouse Effect theory. You REFUSE to explain how your warming EFFECT of 33C differs from the 33C warming of the Greenhouse Effect because there is no difference. You claim the CAUSE is something other than additional energy so your argument violates thermodynamics. Your invented term "negative work" is totally bogus because there are neither negative distances nor negative forces in nature.

Your WACKY religion is based on gibber-babble and is really just Greenhouse Effect by another name.

I'll pass.



.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-03-2021 21:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
...Repairing extensive formatting issues... Simplify your posts.


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?


Logic (which you apparently never learned, and the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics (which you apparently never learned), and the ideal gas law (which you apparently never learned). Repetitive Question Already Answered (RQAA).
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.

Nope. You ignore them. all. It has already been explained. RQAA.

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...

False authority fallacy. MIT is not a theory of science. It is a college. Science is not a college or university. The ONLY authoritative reference for any theory of science is the theory itself. Work is defined as force over a distance. It never has a negative value. There is no such thing as 'negative work'.

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.

Logic. Science. Both of which you deny.
Insult fallacy. False authority fallacy. Whining.

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,

I am a scientist. I am also a mathematician, logician, historian, and an engineer in the fields of aerospace, medicine, computers, electronics, communications including radio, and instrumentation. I am not an authoritative reference on any theory of science except any that I create. You are, however, ignoring theories of science that already exist. You cannot just discard a theory of science.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but the existence of this MIT lecture is proof

MIT is not a proof. Neither is any lecture, paper, book, magazine, professor, website, license, degree, government or government agency, university, college, grade school, curriculum, society, academy, courtroom, judge, or any political organization.

Proofs only exist in closed functional systems such as mathematics or logic.

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

There is no such thing as 'negative work'. Work never has a negative value.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Mechanics is part of physics....science.

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

Correct. There is no such thing as 'negative work' anywhere in any engineering.

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,

Lie.
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.

So you belong to the Church of No God. Why am I not surprised.
Circular argument (not yet a fallacy, an argument of faith).
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?

Logic, and your errors in logic. A fallacy is an error in logic, similar to an arithmetic error.

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.

The 1st law of thermodynamics does not cause a characteristic. You are now pivoting to 'global warming'. Pivot fallacy. It is not possible to create energy out of nothing. You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics again.

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?

Already explained to you. RQAA.

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

No, it isn't. Temperature is the AVERAGE thermal energy...period. There is no volume in temperature, which is a scalar value.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but perhaps you have a special definition all of your own or is it a secret

Nope. The 0th law of thermodynamics is a published theory. I didn't create it.
Pete Rogers wrote:
like the meaning of other baby terms like "word salad"?

Speak in English, using English (or American) constructs. Random statements and buzzwords is a word salad. Such salads have no meaning. It is incoherent babbling.

Babies can't talk. They make noises of various sorts while they figure out how to talk. There is no meaning to any of their noises other than that. They cannot pronounce '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.

Word salad. Use English. It works better.
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?

Logic is not claptrap. Neither is science. Neither is engineering.

No I am not lonely.


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 04-03-2021 22:32
05-03-2021 03:33
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
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.
05-03-2021 06:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
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.

The clouds part to reveal the true sky.

I hope you realize that it will be very difficult to extend any credibility to any argument you make ... and no one is going to believe that you are actually interested in learning anything.

Have a great 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
05-03-2021 16:33
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
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.

The bone-headedness they evince but seem unable to witness in themselves is found in that the things they quote as facts are generally made up or if not exactly that then falsely applied, so their dim grasp of what they think it is is not how the laws work.
It is notably hilarious; though impervious to them: that 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 - this was lost on them even though it was elementary physics.
It means that any impartial observer must still wonder if they possess the innate ability to meaningfully process words and phrases that expose the failure of their position? Not that I can tell and that is the most basic necessity for the acquisition of common sense or anything else scientifically worthwhile. 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.
It is simply beyond their comprehension that the ATE is not the GE; for instance: which you must have seen countless times, but they reckon they have proved the opposite yet nobody has ever been given the so-called proof to examine?
Despite MIT and the Engineering industry's common employment of the doctrine of negative work apparently we must simply take the word of the great IBdaMann (who's he?) Even the monicker reveals narcissism. His self-belief is insuperable in direct proportion to the foolishness of his position.
Presumably he cannot, being why he does not: explain anything; instead telling the interlocutor that he has already proved him wrong, That's embarrassing for people in the real and honest world, but ok for him.
05-03-2021 17:17
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2109)
@pete
Forgive me if I missed your explanation of Into the Night's comment that a 3000psi CO2 tank is room temperature.

Could you revisit this with a brief description of how the ideal gas law does or does not apply? I am struggling to grasp how your "ATE" theory does not crash and burn when compared to a tank of compressed gas.

Thanks.
05-03-2021 21:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
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

Yes, I understand it completely. Listen carefully to the lecture. It is called "subtraction" and I covered this thoroughly in several posts. The fact that subtraction gives you difficulty is a problem you need to address.

Otherwise, there is no such thing as "negative work" in nature. There are no negative distances and no negative forces either. You should have learned all this as a child.

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.

It actually would be a clever response if I would have ever said/written it ... but I never have. You are either delusional or you are lying.

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

Yet you are fully aware that there is no difference ... which is why you REFUSE to list any differences ... because there aren't any ... because a 33C increase in average global temperature is exactly the same as a 33C increase in average global temperature.

33C = 33C is simply beyond your comprehension. ATE is clearly GE.

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

I just spoke with the engineering industry and they disavow ever employing you as a spokesperson. They also said they would never employ you for anything because you are clueless and if asked to engineer something you would probably only be able to hammer a nail into a piece of wood.



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

It's not an obligation, it's an opportunity to learn. You should be taking notes on what I tell you but establishing a church to Greenhouse Effect is good too.

Pete Rogers wrote: Even the monicker reveals narcissism.

At least you were quick enough to pick up on that much ... except that it isn't narcissism or a bloated ego when one actually is better and smarter than everyone else. I just happen to enjoy providing guidance to those who aren't afraid of learning. There's no reason to feel that I am unapproachable and you shouldn't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

... but I have to pass on your invitation to worship violations of physics.

.
Attached image:

Page 17 of 23<<<1516171819>>>





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