Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is not anthropogenic



Page 18 of 23<<<1617181920>>>
05-03-2021 21:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
GasGuzzler wrote:
@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.


Of course you must realize that the example of a tank of compressed gas at room temperature renders his argument absurd because it stands as an undeniable emprical counterexample. It proves his argument false (scientific method). Therefore the undeniable must be totally denied. Expect Pete to never address your concern while he does everything humanly possible to develop plausible deniability surrounding the concept of tanks of pressurized gas.

tgoebbles did the same with the daytime side of the moon. His hard and fast argument is that an atmosphere necessarily increases the "surface temperature" above what it "otherwise would be." He then points to the nighttime lunar surface and says "See, no place on earth ever gets that cold because earth has an atmosphere jacking up the temperature!" When asked why the atmosphereless daytime side of the moon is so much hotter than the well-atmosphered earth's daytime ... radio silence. He specifically refuses to acknowledge that there is a lunar daytime and thus pretends that there is no rudely falsifying empirical counterexample to his babblings.

Neither tgoebbles nor Preacher Rogers will be honest. They are liars and they are stupid ... as are the gullible morons who follow them.


Just for tgoebbles I made this pic to remind him of the explanation he still needs to give:

.


.
Attached image:


Edited on 05-03-2021 21:40
05-03-2021 22:37
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2109)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
@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.


Of course you must realize that the example of a tank of compressed gas at room temperature renders his argument absurd because it stands as an undeniable emprical counterexample. It proves his argument false (scientific method). Therefore the undeniable must be totally denied. Expect Pete to never address your concern while he does everything humanly possible to develop plausible deniability surrounding the concept of tanks of pressurized gas.

tgoebbles did the same with the daytime side of the moon. His hard and fast argument is that an atmosphere necessarily increases the "surface temperature" above what it "otherwise would be." He then points to the nighttime lunar surface and says "See, no place on earth ever gets that cold because earth has an atmosphere jacking up the temperature!" When asked why the atmosphereless daytime side of the moon is so much hotter than the well-atmosphered earth's daytime ... radio silence. He specifically refuses to acknowledge that there is a lunar daytime and thus pretends that there is no rudely falsifying empirical counterexample to his babblings.

Neither tgoebbles nor Preacher Rogers will be honest. They are liars and they are stupid ... as are the gullible morons who follow them.


Just for tgoebbles I made this pic to remind him of the explanation he still needs to give:

.


.


I've tried to follow along with Pete but the explanations are worse than Biden explaining "the thing". Just thought if he could focus on comparing his eating theory to a compressed tank of gas, maybe just maybe he would see that no work is being done and temperature cannot increase.

...if you split an Apple, then ATE it, then threw up, is it negative work?


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
05-03-2021 23:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
GasGuzzler wrote: I've tried to follow along with Pete but the explanations are worse than Biden explaining "the thing".

Pete Rogers is a preacher. He doesn't explain, he preaches what you are to believe and you are not to question. You know how religions work. Pete's is no different.

What I didn't know previously was Duncan's talent as a soloist in the choir. I don't believe I have adequately expressed my amazement.

My question: If your boss compresses your project time due to the gravity of the situation, are you performing negative work?

GasGuzzler wrote:...if you split an Apple, then ATE it, then threw up, is it negative work?

I regret to inform you that your account is debited for that.
Attached image:

05-03-2021 23:20
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2109)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:...if you split an Apple, then ATE it, then threw up, is it negative work?

I regret to inform you that your account is debited for that.


damnit


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
06-03-2021 00:01
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
IBdaMann wrote:

My question: If your boss compresses your project time due to the gravity of the situation, are you performing negative work?




Some people get fired because of that so I would say yes.
06-03-2021 00:07
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2052)
GasGuzzler wrote:
I've tried to follow along with Pete but the explanations are worse than Biden explaining "the thing". Just thought if he could focus on comparing his eating theory to a compressed tank of gas, maybe just maybe he would see that no work is being done and temperature cannot increase.

I'll give it a go.

I think what Preacher Rodgers is trying to say is that an overabundance of ATE leads to a compression of gas in the intestinal tract "tank", and we all know what happens when too much pressure builds up in there...


Therefore, we need to immediately reduce ATE if we don't wish to keel over from its "effects".


GasGuzzler wrote:
...if you split an Apple, then ATE it, then threw up, is it negative work?

hahahahaha, I found this to be funny... I think it's definitely worth the groan that you were issued.
06-03-2021 05:02
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2109)
gfm7175 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
...if you split an Apple, then ATE it, then threw up, is it negative work?

hahahahaha, I found this to be funny... I think it's definitely worth the groan that you were issued.



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:

06-03-2021 05:26
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2109)
gfm7175 wrote:
I think what Preacher Rodgers is trying to say is that an overabundance of ATE leads to a compression of gas in the intestinal tract "tank", and we all know what happens when too much pressure builds up in there...



This poor bastard TOTALLY agrees with you! Looks like a stressful situation. Just hope he can find a way to decompress. Until then, at least he will be warmer than he otherwise would be.


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 06-03-2021 05:35
06-03-2021 06:15
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
GasGuzzler wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:
...if you split an Apple, then ATE it, then threw up, is it negative work?

hahahahaha, I found this to be funny... I think it's definitely worth the groan that you were issued.


Are you saying we need a new trophy because a plaque isn't good enough?

.
Attached image:

06-03-2021 06:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
GasGuzzler wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
I think what Preacher Rodgers is trying to say is that an overabundance of ATE leads to a compression of gas in the intestinal tract "tank", and we all know what happens when too much pressure builds up in there...



This poor bastard TOTALLY agrees with you! Looks like a stressful situation. Just hope he can find a way to decompress. Until then, at least he will be warmer than he otherwise would be.

... and he'll never cool off. Never. There's more thermal energy density ... the guy is toast ... literally ... well figuratively literally.

.


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
06-03-2021 20:42
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
gfm7175 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]

.

Yup, you've very accurately summed up his argumentation.

Hardly. The ATE is not the GE so all the rest of the argument just comes crashing down because it is built on this false understanding
06-03-2021 21:56
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
Pete Rogers wrote:

Hardly. The ATE is not the GE so all the rest of the argument just comes crashing down because it is built on this false understanding



Technically speaking, the tropopause makes the troposphere like a greenhouse.
With the tropopause, it's usually about -56º C. An example is if someone lives in Georgia and it's 30º C., the tropopause is still -56º C.
The tropopause sometimes is referred to as "the barrier". This is because the exchange of gasses between the troposphere and the stratosphere is limited because of the tropopause.
Basically, the tropopause is considered as being like the glass encasing a greenhouse.
06-03-2021 23:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Pete Rogers wrote:
gfm7175 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]

.

Yup, you've very accurately summed up his argumentation.

Hardly. The ATE is not the GE so all the rest of the argument just comes crashing down because it is built on this false understanding

Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) nor Greenhouse Emissions (GE).


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
07-03-2021 00:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
James___ wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:

Hardly. The ATE is not the GE so all the rest of the argument just comes crashing down because it is built on this false understanding



Technically speaking, the tropopause makes the troposphere like a greenhouse.
With the tropopause, it's usually about -56º C. An example is if someone lives in Georgia and it's 30º C., the tropopause is still -56º C.
The tropopause sometimes is referred to as "the barrier". This is because the exchange of gasses between the troposphere and the stratosphere is limited because of the tropopause.
Basically, the tropopause is considered as being like the glass encasing a greenhouse.

The tropopause does not contain anything as it is not a barrier of any kind. It ranges from observed temperatures from -60 deg F to -112 deg F and is generally warmer at the poles, not the equator (the tropopause is lower to the surface there).


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
07-03-2021 03:10
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
I searched Atmospheric Thermal Effect and there is a lot of information and it makes sense
07-03-2021 03:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
duncan61 wrote: I searched Atmospheric Thermal Effect and there is a lot of information and it makes sense

... then explain it ... without violating physics.

You know that I don't care about the sheer quantity of misinformation there is on any particular topic. What amazes me is your level of gullibility. The only thing that amazes me more is your belief that others in this forum are as gullible as you are.

I await your explanation ... that doesn't violate physics ... which should be too easy since "it makes sense" and you so totally understand it.

Well, get to it.

.


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
07-03-2021 03:35
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:

Hardly. The ATE is not the GE so all the rest of the argument just comes crashing down because it is built on this false understanding



Technically speaking, the tropopause makes the troposphere like a greenhouse.
With the tropopause, it's usually about -56º C. An example is if someone lives in Georgia and it's 30º C., the tropopause is still -56º C.
The tropopause sometimes is referred to as "the barrier". This is because the exchange of gasses between the troposphere and the stratosphere is limited because of the tropopause.
Basically, the tropopause is considered as being like the glass encasing a greenhouse.

The tropopause does not contain anything as it is not a barrier of any kind. It ranges from observed temperatures from -60 deg F to -112 deg F and is generally warmer at the poles, not the equator (the tropopause is lower to the surface there).



And yet a thermos has a barrier because of vacuum. This is why I find the tropopause interesting. Why does it prevent gasses in the stratosphere from routinely mixing with the gasses in the troposphere?
In our atmosphere, for heat to radiate away from the troposphere, it should warm the cold place between 2 warm places but doesn't. I mean seriously ITN, the stratosphere can get up to 0º C. or 32º F. When compared to the -56º below
it, why?
That kind of suggests that not much heat from the troposphere is being lost because of either radiation or convection and it sure isn't conduction.
I know why we don't get along. You're like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BRrz-755PWU all 3 of them.
07-03-2021 06:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
Pete Rogers wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]Yup, you've very accurately summed up his argumentation.

Hardly. The ATE is not the GE

We have already established that it is EXACTLY the same ... and it will remain EXACTLY the same until such time that you detail the difference between a 33C increase in global average temperature and a 33C increase in global average temperature.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... so all the rest of the argument just comes crashing down

You are the only one making an affirmative argument. The entire burden of supporting your argument rests on your shoulders; however, you have utterly FAILED to support any of your argument. Hence, nobody seems to be buying it except for the gullible choir members, such as Duncan, who cannot explain any of it either ... they just repeat whatever they are told to say.


.


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
07-03-2021 19:34
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
IBdaMann wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]Yup, you've very accurately summed up his argumentation.

Hardly. The ATE is not the GE

We have already established that it is EXACTLY the same ... and it will remain EXACTLY the same until such time that you detail the difference between a 33C increase in global average temperature and a 33C increase in global average temperature.




They're actually 2 different things. GE are gasses are restricted to a specific area.
An example is the tropopause preventing gasses in both the stratosphere and the troposphere from readily mixing.
ATE would be an increase in potential of such gasses caused by characteristics of the celestial mass that they are associated with.
This can be considered as gasses on a planet's surface being attracted by its gravity. With gravity, because of its compressive quality, that could increase the KE of gasses ~5%.
With GE being considered, conserved KE from incoming solar IR can further increase the temperature. This is because pressure would increase while the lower atmosphere's ability to expand might limit gasses expanding to remain in equilibrium with their KE. Thus it gets a little warmer unless you're in the desert, then it can get a lot hotter.
07-03-2021 21:09
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]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 [quote]IBdaMann wroteused in order to understand poterntial energy

IBdaMann wroteYes, 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.

So you "understand it completely" do you? Well how is it possible that you have no idea that "subtraction" is negative and hence the term "Negative Work". You are trying to turn simplicity itself - infantile arithmetic - on its head to avloid admitting the obvious. Shame on you!
What kind of mind is prepared to go as far as to tell us that Negative work is not subtraction? The knot just gets tighter the more you wriggle.

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

What do you mean "Otherwise"? Either there is negative work or there is not, so the fact you have to concede its existence by use of this word shows that you had no idea what you were talking about in the first place. You still don't because you have no grasp of the fact that; be it natural or man-made: it is performed wherever forces of compression create potential energy so you don't really follow anything at all.
What fool taught you that you can excuse nature from Natural Laws? It cannot be done.
It turns out that you are simply an exposed ego screaming that black is white because admission of error is catastrophic for your kind of mentality rather than a simple part of the learning process as it is for all scientists worthy of the name.
I mean - honestly - all that lunacy attempting to tell the world that the ATE is the GE was more than enough to flush you out on its own; so that's pretty much it I would have thought.

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.

IBdaMann wroteIt 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.

I used the term "They" not "You" having noticed that your disciple Into the Night can barely use other forms of argument. You compliment him often without pointing to the uselessness of such commentary, so it is obviously valid science in your world. The disingenuity and delusion is properly placed where it came from. Those such as you and he.

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

IBdaMann wroteYet 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 yourcomprehension. ATE is clearly GE

You are priceless, why keep drawing attention to your inadequacies?
The GE is a theory invented by John Tyndall and Arrhenius in the 19th Century, who went on to argue that it was responsible for the ATE - which is a phenomenon - but it was not. Wakey wakey!!ipso facto the one is not the other - capish?? A theory about a phenomenon and the phenomenon itself are not the same thing. The ATE is really more like 90C as I am sure a genius of your quality already knew, whereas the GE is 0C which you clearly do not. If you think the GE is greater than 0C please provide your evidence. You are not very good at evidence - or reason - though, which suggests that you will not be able to answer and if not you should do something else rather than to annoy people who are trying to have a rational discussion.

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

IBdaMann wroteI 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.


Steady soldier! It was quite something that "You just spoke to the Engineering Industry" I mean, what a fantastic, but why not make life easier by simply asking me? if you think about it nobody is better placed to tell you that I do not speak for the engineering industryare they?
Thank you for the compliment, but to be scrupulously honest it wasn't my idea it was theirs - you know - the experts who - unlike you it seems - I actually understood. it was the very spokesmen from the engineering industry who wrote much about the subject explaining that when gas is being compressed negative work is being performed, so - unlike me - you haven't gone to the trouble of comprehending to any of them - have you - or their work?

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

I\IBdaMann wrotet'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.

If it is an opportunity to learn then why didn't you take it? What is this church you are trying to bring into existence too? The GE is a theory whereas the ATE is a fact! Are you really as dense as not to be able to distinguish theory from fact?

Pete Rogers wrote: Even the monicker reveals narcissism.

IBdaMann wroteAt 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 think you just proved my case on the self-adoration.

IBdaMann wroteI just happen to enjoy providing guidance to those who aren't afraid of learning.

I never dealt with people who were afraid of learning - because they wouldn't turn up - but in their early days it was necessary to protect them from the ravages of desperate narcissists trying to indoctrinate them before they had acquired the defence of reasoned questioning. For narcissists and the self-regarding it is not a matter of open-mindedness, but desperation.

IBdaMann weroteThere's no reason to feel that I am unapproachable and you shouldn't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

How interesting.

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

Like subtraction being negative and that a theory about a phenomenon and the phenomenon itself are not one and the same perhaps?
08-03-2021 00:06
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
An example of ATE with respect to the Earth is complex. This is because it gets into astrophysics.
Mars has both gravity and an atmosphere, hopefully you guys understand the basic differences.
The Earth is closer to the Sun. This increases the effect its gravity has on the Earth. Likewise, the tropopause rises during the day (at the equator) and drops at night. It's twice the altitude during the day. Let's assume this is because atmospheric gasses have expanded.
With this situation as with the rest of the Earth, atmospheric gasses are in a geostationary orbit around the Earth. Why this is unique is because for a satellite, its orbit needs to be about 22,000 miles or 35,000 kms.
Atmospheric gasses should be moving about 17 times faster than the Earth rotates. This allows for about 145 watts of energy. If conserved then the angular potential of gravity could increase the temperature of the atmosphere.
At the same time the tropopause like the magnetosphere is a layer of the atmosphere created by the Earth's geomagnetic field. During the day, the solar wind pushes the Earth's geomagnetic field closer to its surface while at night it becomes elongated away from the Earth.
It is possible that as the Earth's geomagnetic field is pushed closer that the daytime side of the Earth becomes more excited. It's a denser magnetic field and if anyone is familiar with electric motors, the entropy they suffer is what's radiated from their magnetic field as they rotate.
And yet at night, the atmosphere cools while the Earth's geomagnetic field covers more space literally. Just something you guys might want to consider.

ie., during the day, the magnetosphere might be helping to excite the troposphere. Water, CO2, oxygen (O, O3 but not O2) are all polar molecules. This means that the static charge in the magnetosphere can increase their KE. It's known that a static charge attracts polar molecules and compounds. And then that KE is conserved in O2 and N2 gasses.
Edited on 08-03-2021 00:12
08-03-2021 03:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
Pete Rogers wrote: So you "understand it completely" do you?

Yes I do and you are about to confirm that you realize this.

Pete Rogers wrote: Well how is it possible that you have no idea that "subtraction" is negative and hence the term "Negative Work". You are trying to turn simplicity itself - infantile arithmetic - on its head to avloid admitting the obvious. Shame on you!

Congratulations, you have just appropriated my rebuttal of your argument as your argument. You should only do that when no one is watching.

Let's review:

When you initially pointed to "engineers" as substantiating your concept of "negative work" I mentioned that they were simply referring to the mathematical operation of subtraction, not that they engineer any sort of "antiwork" ... because there is no such thing in nature as negative work ... because there are no negative distances or negative forces in nature. You nonetheless doubled down on stupid and insisted that negative work really does exist in nature because "engineers" have used the term. You went so far as to post a link to a lecture. Unfortunately, you didn't bother to actually listen to the lecture because you weren't interested in learning anything. If you had, you would have noticed that it was exactly as I had mentioned, i.e. they were simply subtracting work in an arithmetic operation. When I pointed this out to you, you were embarrassed and tried to pretend that you were the one arguing that engineers use the term to refer to subtraction.

So now we agree that there is no such thing as "negative work" that constitutes additional energy that can increase temperature ... so you must acknowledge that your ATE is dead in the water.

Duncan, are you catching all this? Pete screwed the pooch and he is admitting it here ... and of course he is trying to blame me for his not having thought this through. So go ahead, lay into him. This is your chance to break free and to think for yourself. Light him up.

Pete Rogers wrote:I mean - honestly - all that lunacy attempting to tell the world that the ATE is the GE was more than enough to flush you out on its own; so that's pretty much it.

I'm not reading any explanation from you detailing the substantive difference between the ATE's 33C increase in average global temperature and Greenhouse Effect's 33C increase in average global temperature. You continue to REFUSE to specify any difference therefore the two remain the same. EXACTLY the same.

Let me know when something changes.

Duncan, are you catching all this? How many months has it been? Pete still will not specify any difference whatsoever while insisting they are so very different. What are you waiting for? Rip into him. Let him have it. Stop bending over the furniture for Pete and kick his ass. He's obviously lying to you. He obviously thinks you are stupid. He is obviously abusing the trust you put in him. This is your chance to tell him that you aren't going to take it anymore.

Pete Rogers wrote: I used the term "They" not "You"

Your response was directed at me. You are fully responsible to write what you mean and to mean what you write. You bear the responsibility to clearly announce when you are changing audiences.

How far did you get in school?

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

When did I become a plural?

How far did you get in school?

Pete Rogers wrote: You are priceless, why keep drawing attention to your inadequacies?

Thank you, I'll consider your king tipped. Let me know when you want to play again.

Pete Rogers wrote: capish??

1. It's "capisci". Capisci?
2. You need to pick something that I am actually arguing.
3. You are the only one making an affirmative argument.

You have committed the grand error trifecta ... and you did so after having already lost. Now that is pathetic.

Pete Rogers wrote: The ATE is really more like 90C as I am sure a genius of your quality already knew,

There is no ATE. It is nothing but religious dogma that violates physics. It differs not from Greenhouse Effect as you are quite painfully aware.

Pete Rogers wrote: Steady soldier! It was quite something that "You just spoke to the Engineering Industry" I mean, what a fantastic, but why not make life easier by simply asking me?

I'm not about making life easier. I'm about the scientific method and about exposing false statements. Religious fundamentalists such as yourself are forever conflating their religious dogma with science, and this needs to be exposed.

Pete Rogers wrote: Are you really as dense as not to be able to distinguish theory from fact?

How ironic that you ask.

.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-03-2021 03:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
James___ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James___ wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:

Hardly. The ATE is not the GE so all the rest of the argument just comes crashing down because it is built on this false understanding



Technically speaking, the tropopause makes the troposphere like a greenhouse.
With the tropopause, it's usually about -56º C. An example is if someone lives in Georgia and it's 30º C., the tropopause is still -56º C.
The tropopause sometimes is referred to as "the barrier". This is because the exchange of gasses between the troposphere and the stratosphere is limited because of the tropopause.
Basically, the tropopause is considered as being like the glass encasing a greenhouse.

The tropopause does not contain anything as it is not a barrier of any kind. It ranges from observed temperatures from -60 deg F to -112 deg F and is generally warmer at the poles, not the equator (the tropopause is lower to the surface there).



And yet a thermos has a barrier because of vacuum.

A vacuum isn't a barrier.
James___ wrote:
This is why I find the tropopause interesting.

The tropopause isn't a vacuum.
James___ wrote:
Why does it prevent gasses in the stratosphere from routinely mixing with the gasses in the troposphere?

It doesn't.
James___ wrote:
In our atmosphere, for heat to radiate away from the troposphere, it should warm the cold place between 2 warm places but doesn't.

Light isn't heat.
James___ wrote:
I mean seriously ITN, the stratosphere can get up to 0º C. or 32º F. When compared to the -56º below
it, why?

See the Chapman cycle.
James___ wrote:
That kind of suggests that not much heat from the troposphere is being lost because of either radiation or convection and it sure isn't conduction.

Heat is not contained in anything. It is not stored anywhere.


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
08-03-2021 03:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]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 [quote]IBdaMann wroteused in order to understand poterntial energy

IBdaMann wroteYes, 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.

So you "understand it completely" do you? Well how is it possible that you have no idea that "subtraction" is negative and hence the term "Negative Work". You are trying to turn simplicity itself - infantile arithmetic - on its head to avloid admitting the obvious. Shame on you!
What kind of mind is prepared to go as far as to tell us that Negative work is not subtraction? The knot just gets tighter the more you wriggle.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Denial of mathematics. Contextomy fallacy. Attempted proof by semantics.

Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteOtherwise, there is no such thing as "negative work" in nature. There are no negative distances andy no negative forces either. You should have learned all this as a child.

What do you mean "Otherwise"? Either there is negative work or there is not,

There is not.
Pete Rogers wrote:
so the fact you have to concede its existence by use of this word shows that you had no idea what you were talking about in the first place. You still don't because you have no grasp of the fact that; be it natural or man-made:

Buzzwords are man made.
Pete Rogers wrote:
it is performed wherever forces of compression create potential energy so you don't really follow anything at all.

Nothing is being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
What fool taught you that you can excuse nature from Natural Laws? It cannot be done.

The only one ignoring theories of science here is you. Inversion fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It turns out that you are simply an exposed ego screaming that black is white because admission of error is catastrophic for your kind of mentality rather than a simple part of the learning process as it is for all scientists worthy of the name.

Psychoquackery. Contextomy fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. Science isn't scientists.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I mean - honestly - all that lunacy attempting to tell the world that the ATE is the GE was more than enough to flush you out on its own; so that's pretty much it I would have thought.

You are hallucinating. He never said they were the same thing. Both ATE and GE are buzzwords...meaningless.
Pete Rogers wrote:
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.

IBdaMann wroteIt 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.

I used the term "They" not "You"

Semantics fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
having noticed that your disciple Into the Night can barely use other forms of argument.

A pronoun is not an argument.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You compliment him often without pointing to the uselessness of such commentary,

Assumption of victory fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
so it is obviously valid science in your world.

You deny the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics and the ideal gas law.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The disingenuity and delusion is properly placed where it came from.

Science isn't disenguity nor delusion. You simply deny it.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Those such as you and he.

Neither of us deny science like you do.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: It is simply beyond their comprehension that the ATE is not the GE;

IBdaMann wroteYet 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

You are priceless, why keep drawing attention to your inadequacies?

Loaded question. IBD doesn't have inadequacies in this area.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The GE is a theory invented by John Tyndall and Arrhenius in the 19th Century,

Nope. Not a theory. You can't have a theory about an undefined word or buzzword. Void argument fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
who went on to argue that it was responsible for the ATE - which is a phenomenon - but it was not.

Nope. Another buzzword. You can't have any theory or phenomenon about a buzzword.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Wakey wakey!!ipso facto the one is not the other - capish??

They are both meaningless buzzwords.
Pete Rogers wrote:
A theory about a phenomenon and the phenomenon itself are not the same thing.

No theory possible. You must define your buzzwords before you can have any theories about them.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The ATE is really more like 90C as I am sure a genius of your quality already knew, whereas the GE is 0C which you clearly do not.

Argument from randU fallacy. Buzzword fallacies.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you think the GE is greater than 0C please provide your evidence.

Attempted force of void proof.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You are not very good at evidence - or reason - though, which suggests that you will not be able to answer and if not you should do something else rather than to annoy people who are trying to have a rational discussion.

Attempted force of negative proof. Attempted proof by void.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: Despite MIT and the Engineering industry's common employment of the doctrine of negative work

IBdaMann wroteI 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.


Steady soldier! It was quite something that "You just spoke to the Engineering Industry" I mean, what a fantastic, but why not make life easier by simply asking me? if you think about it nobody is better placed to tell you that I do not speak for the engineering industryare they?
Thank you for the compliment, but to be scrupulously honest it wasn't my idea it was theirs - you know - the experts who - unlike you it seems - I actually understood. it was the very spokesmen from the engineering industry who wrote much about the subject explaining that when gas is being compressed negative work is being performed, so - unlike me - you haven't gone to the trouble of comprehending to any of them - have you - or their work?

Whiff! Missed that one!
Riiiight over your head!

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

I\IBdaMann wrotet'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.

If it is an opportunity to learn then why didn't you take it? What is this church you are trying to bring into existence too?

RQAA. The Church of Global Warming has been discussed here ad nauseam.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The GE is a theory

No. No theory possible. You MUST define 'greenhouse effect'.
Pete Rogers wrote:
whereas the ATE is a fact!

No. No fact possible. You MUST define 'ATE'. A 'fact' is not a proof nor a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means. Buzzword fallacies.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Are you really as dense as not to be able to distinguish theory from fact?

Obviously, you aren't.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: Even the monicker reveals narcissism.

IBdaMann wroteAt 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 think you just proved my case on the self-adoration.

Attempted proof by psychoquackery.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteI just happen to enjoy providing guidance to those who aren't afraid of learning.

I never dealt with people who were afraid of learning -

You yourself are afraid of learning and are going out of your way to avoid it.
Pete Rogers wrote:
because they wouldn't turn up - but in their early days it was necessary to protect them from the ravages of desperate narcissists trying to indoctrinate them before they had acquired the defence of reasoned questioning.

You are not questioning. You are preaching.
Pete Rogers wrote:
For narcissists and the self-regarding it is not a matter of open-mindedness, but desperation.

Psychoquackery. Open isn't closed. Redefinition fallacies. Doublespeak.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann weroteThere's no reason to feel that I am unapproachable and you shouldn't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

How interesting.

Can't think of any 'hard stuff'?
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote... but I have to pass on your invitation to worship violations of physics.

Like subtraction being negative

Subtraction isn't negative. Denial of mathematics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and that a theory about a phenomenon and the phenomenon itself are not one and the same perhaps?

A buzzword is not a phenomenon. You must define your buzzwords first.


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
08-03-2021 04:23
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
A parrot parrots what it hears. At the same time, it knows not what it says.
08-03-2021 05:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
James___ wrote: A parrot parrots what it hears. At the same time, it knows not what it says.

Into the Night usually kills them and GasGuzzler shuts them down. Well, let's not forget gfm7175 who normally flags the parrots; he's a good bird watcher in that sense. Harvey doesn't pay much attention to parrots; I don't know if he cares for them much.

I play with parrots ... like a cat would ... except I don't like cats much.


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-03-2021 18:07
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2052)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: A parrot parrots what it hears. At the same time, it knows not what it says.

Into the Night usually kills them and GasGuzzler shuts them down. Well, let's not forget gfm7175 who normally flags the parrots; he's a good bird watcher in that sense. Harvey doesn't pay much attention to parrots; I don't know if he cares for them much.

I play with parrots ... like a cat would ... except I don't like cats much.


.

IOW, I am an antibody and ITN is a white cell? No wonder we make such a great team! Feel free to hereby refer to both of us (collectively) as the Intellectual Immune System


Don't forget that I also love to sit in the thickets, mimicking their parroting. Catbirds are great mimics, if you weren't aware...

Edited on 08-03-2021 18:09
08-03-2021 18:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
gfm7175 wrote:Catbirds are great mimics, if you weren't aware...


I was not aware. It was the one thing remaining that I did not know. Now I know it all, fully justifying all people in not liking me.

Thanks.

.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-03-2021 18:40
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: A parrot parrots what it hears. At the same time, it knows not what it says.

Into the Night usually kills them and GasGuzzler shuts them down. Well, let's not forget gfm7175 who normally flags the parrots; he's a good bird watcher in that sense. Harvey doesn't pay much attention to parrots; I don't know if he cares for them much.

I play with parrots ... like a cat would ... except I don't like cats much.


.



And yet you guys "parrot" each other and know not what you say.
08-03-2021 18:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
James___ wrote: And yet you guys "parrot" each other and know not what you say.

I am completely aware of everything I write. I know exactly what I am writing in every single post. I guarantee it ... in writing.


.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-03-2021 18:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: A parrot parrots what it hears. At the same time, it knows not what it says.

Into the Night usually kills them and GasGuzzler shuts them down. Well, let's not forget gfm7175 who normally flags the parrots; he's a good bird watcher in that sense. Harvey doesn't pay much attention to parrots; I don't know if he cares for them much.

I play with parrots ... like a cat would ... except I don't like cats much.


.


Some parrots play with cats. I knew one bird that learned to say, "Here, kitty kitty". The cat would actually come when you called it. When the cat came into the room, the bird would fly down off it's perch and beat the living tar out of it.

I guess this is one really stupid cat. It apparently never learned to connect the two events.


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
08-03-2021 19:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: A parrot parrots what it hears. At the same time, it knows not what it says.

Into the Night usually kills them and GasGuzzler shuts them down. Well, let's not forget gfm7175 who normally flags the parrots; he's a good bird watcher in that sense. Harvey doesn't pay much attention to parrots; I don't know if he cares for them much.

I play with parrots ... like a cat would ... except I don't like cats much.


.


Some parrots play with cats. I knew one bird that learned to say, "Here, kitty kitty". The cat would actually come when you called it. When the cat came into the room, the bird would fly down off it's perch and beat the living tar out of it.

I guess this is one really stupid cat. It apparently never learned to connect the two events.

I can assure you there is no end of parrots that would like to play with me in that manner.


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
08-03-2021 19:43
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2109)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:Catbirds are great mimics, if you weren't aware...


I was not aware. It was the one thing remaining that I did not know. Now I know it all, fully justifying all people in not liking me.

Thanks.

.


My oldest son would appreciate your vast knowledge. He knew everything by the time he was 12.


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
08-03-2021 19:44
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2052)
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:Catbirds are great mimics, if you weren't aware...


I was not aware. It was the one thing remaining that I did not know. Now I know it all, fully justifying all people in not liking me.

Thanks.

.

The IBdaCircle of knowledge is now complete.


Congratulations!!!
09-03-2021 05:21
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
gfm7175 wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:Catbirds are great mimics, if you weren't aware...


I was not aware. It was the one thing remaining that I did not know. Now I know it all, fully justifying all people in not liking me.

Thanks.

.

The IBdaCircle of knowledge is now complete.


Congratulations!!!


Yay!


.
Attached image:

10-03-2021 20:43
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
@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.


IBdaMann wrote Of course you must realize that the example of a tank of compressed gas at room temperature renders his argument absurd because it stands as an undeniable emprical counterexample. It proves his argument false (scientific method). Therefore the undeniable must be totally denied. Expect Pete to never address your concern while he does everything humanly possible to develop plausible deniability surrounding the concept of tanks of pressurized gas.

tgoebbles did the same with the daytime side of the moon. His hard and fast argument is that an atmosphere necessarily increases the "surface temperature" above what it "otherwise would be." He then points to the nighttime lunar surface and says "See, no place on earth ever gets that cold because earth has an atmosphere jacking up the temperature!" When asked why the atmosphereless daytime side of the moon is so much hotter than the well-atmosphered earth's daytime ... radio silence. He specifically refuses to acknowledge that there is a lunar daytime and thus pretends that there is no rudely falsifying empirical counterexample to his babblings.

Neither tgoebbles nor Preacher Rogers will be honest. They are liars and they are stupid ... as are the gullible morons who follow them.


Just for tgoebbles I made this pic to remind him of the explanation he still needs to give:

The tank would obviously be at room temperature, Einstein, because it is not adiabatic is it? so would have no alternative but to lose thermal energy into its surroundings under the 2nd Law and furthermore the metal structure would radiate - also losing heat - until it fell to the ambient temperature!
The Atmosphere is - however - adiabatic because it does not have the luxury of surroundings into which thermal energy can be conducted.
The compressed atmosphere is at an equilibrium temperature such that insolation, and ATE (from Gravitational concentration) are exactly balanced by outgoing IR which is raised to acheive this due to the ATE being conducted to the surface.
10-03-2021 21:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9089)
Pete Rogers wrote:The tank would obviously be at room temperature, Einstein, because it is not adiabatic is it?

So now you are rushing to hijack yet another word, assign it some bogus, unconventional meaning and use it to defy physics.

So genius, in what way is the compressed atmosphere adiabatic such that the gas inside a tank is not?

The atmosphere can gain and lose thermal energy to the earth's solid and liquid surface while the air inside the tank gains and loses thermal energy to the tank.

What are you talking about?

Duncan, feel free to answer for him since you totally understand it all.


.
10-03-2021 22:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
@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.


IBdaMann wrote Of course you must realize that the example of a tank of compressed gas at room temperature renders his argument absurd because it stands as an undeniable emprical counterexample. It proves his argument false (scientific method). Therefore the undeniable must be totally denied. Expect Pete to never address your concern while he does everything humanly possible to develop plausible deniability surrounding the concept of tanks of pressurized gas.

tgoebbles did the same with the daytime side of the moon. His hard and fast argument is that an atmosphere necessarily increases the "surface temperature" above what it "otherwise would be." He then points to the nighttime lunar surface and says "See, no place on earth ever gets that cold because earth has an atmosphere jacking up the temperature!" When asked why the atmosphereless daytime side of the moon is so much hotter than the well-atmosphered earth's daytime ... radio silence. He specifically refuses to acknowledge that there is a lunar daytime and thus pretends that there is no rudely falsifying empirical counterexample to his babblings.

Neither tgoebbles nor Preacher Rogers will be honest. They are liars and they are stupid ... as are the gullible morons who follow them.


Just for tgoebbles I made this pic to remind him of the explanation he still needs to give:

The tank would obviously be at room temperature, Einstein, because it is not adiabatic is it? so would have no alternative but to lose thermal energy into its surroundings under the 2nd Law and furthermore the metal structure would radiate - also losing heat - until it fell to the ambient temperature!

And the same thing would happen in space. A tank of compressed gas would cool until it's quite cold, even though the gas inside is still compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The Atmosphere is - however - adiabatic because it does not have the luxury of surroundings into which thermal energy can be conducted.

Thermal energy is radiated into space by conversion to light, just like a tank of compressed gas would be in space. Now you are denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The compressed atmosphere is at an equilibrium temperature such that insolation, and ATE (from Gravitational concentration) are exactly balanced by outgoing IR which is raised to acheive this due to the ATE being conducted to the surface.

The atmosphere is not being compressed. You are denying the ideal gas law and the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics again.


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 10-03-2021 22:27
10-03-2021 22:38
James___
★★★★★
(4480)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
@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.


IBdaMann wrote Of course you must realize that the example of a tank of compressed gas at room temperature renders his argument absurd because it stands as an undeniable emprical counterexample. It proves his argument false (scientific method). Therefore the undeniable must be totally denied. Expect Pete to never address your concern while he does everything humanly possible to develop plausible deniability surrounding the concept of tanks of pressurized gas.

tgoebbles did the same with the daytime side of the moon. His hard and fast argument is that an atmosphere necessarily increases the "surface temperature" above what it "otherwise would be." He then points to the nighttime lunar surface and says "See, no place on earth ever gets that cold because earth has an atmosphere jacking up the temperature!" When asked why the atmosphereless daytime side of the moon is so much hotter than the well-atmosphered earth's daytime ... radio silence. He specifically refuses to acknowledge that there is a lunar daytime and thus pretends that there is no rudely falsifying empirical counterexample to his babblings.

Neither tgoebbles nor Preacher Rogers will be honest. They are liars and they are stupid ... as are the gullible morons who follow them.


Just for tgoebbles I made this pic to remind him of the explanation he still needs to give:

The tank would obviously be at room temperature, Einstein, because it is not adiabatic is it? so would have no alternative but to lose thermal energy into its surroundings under the 2nd Law and furthermore the metal structure would radiate - also losing heat - until it fell to the ambient temperature!
The Atmosphere is - however - adiabatic because it does not have the luxury of surroundings into which thermal energy can be conducted.
The compressed atmosphere is at an equilibrium temperature such that insolation, and ATE (from Gravitational concentration) are exactly balanced by outgoing IR which is raised to acheive this due to the ATE being conducted to the surface.



This is where I tend to wonder off into astrophysics. I think there is still a lot that we do not know. And at present, I think the most serious mistake is in not acknowledging that there is still more work that needs to be done.
As for the Church of Politplex, it's almost like having kids.
Attached image:


Edited on 10-03-2021 22:39
11-03-2021 19:47
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
GasGuzzler wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]GasGuzzler wrote:
@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.


Of course you must realize that the example of a tank of compressed gas at room temperature renders his argument absurd because it stands as an undeniable emprical counterexample. It proves his argument false (scientific method). Therefore the undeniable must be totally denied. Expect Pete to never address your concern while he does everything humanly possible to develop plausible deniability surrounding the concept of tanks of pressurized gas.

tgoebbles did the same with the daytime side of the moon. His hard and fast argument is that an atmosphere necessarily increases the "surface temperature" above what it "otherwise would be." He then points to the nighttime lunar surface and says "See, no place on earth ever gets that cold because earth has an atmosphere jacking up the temperature!" When asked why the atmosphereless daytime side of the moon is so much hotter than the well-atmosphered earth's daytime ... radio silence. He specifically refuses to acknowledge that there is a lunar daytime and thus pretends that there is no rudely falsifying empirical counterexample to his babblings.

Neither tgoebbles nor Preacher Rogers will be honest. They are liars and they are stupid ... as are the gullible morons who follow them.


Just for tgoebbles I made this pic to remind him of the explanation he still needs to give:

.


.


GasGuzzler wroteI've tried to follow along with Pete but the explanations are worse than Biden explaining "the thing". Just thought if he could focus on comparing his eating theory to a compressed tank of gas, maybe just maybe he would see that no work is being done and temperature cannot increase.

...if you split an Apple, then ATE it, then threw up, is it negative work?

It's pretty simple. Like all atmospheres and other galactic gas bodies, ours is adiabatic. It means the only way it can lose the heat it contains is by transferring it to the planetary surface under the 2nd Law, which will warm it, and being solid/liquid will emit more IR until it comes back into equilibrium at the higher level - the ATE level. The negative work of compression - negative precisely because it occurs in the opposite direction to the positive work of expansion - maintains a reduced volume into which the warmth from insolation is fed, but the reduced volume, coupled with the 1st Law, means that the thermal energy per unit volume is more than it otherwise would be, leading to this increased temperature despite constant total thermal energy content - see?
Page 18 of 23<<<1617181920>>>





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