Global warming is not anthropogenic

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:

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 wrote: I've tried to follow along with Pete but the explanations are worse than Biden explaining "the thing".

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

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.

IBdaMann wrote:

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

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.

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

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.

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...

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

duncan61 wrote: I searched Atmospheric Thermal Effect and there is a lot of information and it makes sense

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).

Pete Rogers wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
[quote]Yup, you've very accurately summed up his argumentation.

Hardly. The ATE is not the GE

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

Pete Rogers wrote: So you "understand it completely" do you?

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!

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.

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

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

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

Pete Rogers wrote: capish??

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

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?

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

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.

James___ wrote:
This is why I find the tropopause interesting.

James___ wrote:
Why does it prevent gasses in the stratosphere from routinely mixing with the gasses in the troposphere?

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.

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?

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.

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.

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,

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:

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

Pete Rogers wrote:
What fool taught you that you can excuse nature from Natural Laws? It cannot be done.

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.

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.

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"

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

Pete Rogers wrote:
You compliment him often without pointing to the uselessness of such commentary,

Pete Rogers wrote:
so it is obviously valid science in your world.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The disingenuity and delusion is properly placed where it came from.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Those such as you and he.

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?

Pete Rogers wrote:
The GE is a theory invented by John Tyndall and Arrhenius in the 19th Century,

Pete Rogers wrote:
who went on to argue that it was responsible for the ATE - which is a phenomenon - but it was not.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Wakey wakey!!ipso facto the one is not the other - capish??

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

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.

Pete Rogers wrote:
If you think the GE is greater than 0C please provide your evidence.

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.

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?

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?

Pete Rogers wrote:
The GE is a theory

Pete Rogers wrote:
whereas the ATE is a fact!

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

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.

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 -

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.

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

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.

Pete Rogers wrote:

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

Like subtraction being negative

Pete Rogers wrote:
and that a theory about a phenomenon and the phenomenon itself are not one and the same perhaps?

James___ wrote: A parrot parrots what it hears. At the same time, it knows not what it says.

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.


.

gfm7175 wrote:Catbirds are great mimics, if you weren't aware...

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.


.

James___ wrote: And yet you guys "parrot" each other and know not what you say.

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.


.

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.

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.

.

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.

.

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!!!

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:

Pete Rogers wrote:The tank would obviously be at room temperature, Einstein, because it is not adiabatic is it?

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!

Pete Rogers wrote:
The Atmosphere is - however - adiabatic because it does not have the luxury of surroundings into which thermal energy can be conducted.

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.

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.

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?