Global warming is not anthropogenic

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Global warming is not anthropogenic > Page 19

Page 19 of 26

11-03-2021 20:06
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	IntotheNight wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: [quote]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! IntoTheNight wrote 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. Of course it would, Einstein, because it has a solid containment vessel that would radiate IR, the atmosphere does not. All atmospheres that we know of are adiabatic because nothing surrounds them so no heat can be conducted beyond their limits. Pete Rogers wrote: The Atmosphere is - however - adiabatic because it does not have the luxury of surroundings into which thermal energy can be conducted. IntoTheNight wroteThermal 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. Please refer to the previous answer. 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. IntoTheNight wroteThe atmosphere is not being compressed. You are denying the ideal gas law and the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics again. The weight of the atmosphere is 1 ton per sq ft, being its compressive force. Lower gravity would mean a less compressed atmosphere. Think about it!
11-03-2021 20:26
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	gfm7175 wrote: [quote]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. gfm7175 wroteI'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... No he is not: and abundance is not an applicable concept here. At any particular equilibrium temperature an atmosphere contains a particular degree of thermal energy, but if gravity is strong that energy - which must be conserved under the 1st Law - then occupies fewer cubic feet than otherwise so its thermal content per cubic foot is higher than otherwise, specifying the higher ATE thus present. Geddit? gfm7175 wrote Therefore, we need to immediately reduce ATE if we don't wish to keel over from its "effects". Oh dear. The ATE maintains the current temperature at a liveable level. Without it we would be at the same average temperature as the Moon - circa 180K. If you have the Godlike ability to "immediately reduce the ATE" I would have to advise you not to if you wish to stay alive. GasGuzzler wrote: ...if you split an Apple, then ATE it, then threw up, is it negative work? gfm7175 wrotehahahahaha, I found this to be funny... I think it's definitely worth the groan that you were issued. It must be nice for you to be so easily amused.
11-03-2021 20:38
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	James___ wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: [quote]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. James__wrote 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. My advice is not to stray in that direction as we are doing something specific here - or should be - which is to check the idea that mankind causes global warming. The idea that we are responsible depends on the assertion that the GE iacxcounts for the ATE. If that is not true then the theory of anthropogenic Global warming is false. We see that the compressive force of gravity reduced the volume thus leaving less room than otherwise to accommodate its thermal energy. If the atmosphere were at lower pressure the temperature would be lower because the volume would be greater and the thermal energy per cubic foot less so the temperature lower. Accordingly the GE is not responsible for the ATE and we are not responsible for Global Warming
11-03-2021 21:26
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Pete Rogers wrote: It's pretty simple. Like all atmospheres and other galactic gas bodies, ours is adiabatic. This is clearly the fundamental underlying principle of your theory. Any errors here automatically render your argument FALSE. Pete Rogers wrote: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. Ooops, three errors right off the bat, any one of which renders your argument null and void. This is not surprising since we have covered this at length and shown all of this as the reason your religion cannot get out of the starting gate. 1.Heat is a flow of thermal energy, ergo heat is never "contained." Your argument fails the internal consistency check because you either don't know what heat is or you are trying to hijack the term in order to force the square peg of ATE through the round hole of physics. 2. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. Your backwards theory gets it backwards. 3. You simply assume the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course you don't bother to explain this in any way. Your argument is DISMISSED (still). Pete Rogers wrote: The negative work of compression - negative precisely because it occurs in the opposite direction to the positive work of expansion You still are on tap to identify the FORCE * DISTANCE of which you speak. You've already identified the FORCE component (i.e. gravity) so we just need the distance ... which as Into the Night has repeatedly pointed out is zero because the atmosphere is not being compressed. Yes, it was compressed long ago, i.e. in the past tense, from its state of being a freely floating cloud of gas, but once it was compressed, it was compressed ... and was not further compressed because gravity has not changed. The atmosphere retained it's volume to this day. Today the earth's atmosphere remains not-further-compressed. The DISTANCE in your equation is zero, i.e. the total work performed is zero. This would be obvious if you had directly answered my question on the matter ... which is why you deliberately REFUSED to answer it. Your argument is DISMISSED (still). Pete Rogers wrote:- maintains a reduced volume Right here, you acknowledge that the atmosphere is maintaining its volume, i.e. that it is clearly not compressing. The amount of work performed is zero. Pete Rogers wrote: ... into which the warmth from insolation is fed, Wow! So technical. So specific. So exact. I see that you realize that you have already failed internal consistency so what's the harm in a few more flagrant errors? Pete Rogers wrote: ... 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? At this point, you might as well jam in as many errors as you can for maximum semantic leeway, right? 1. In the previous sentence you specified the atmosphere MAINTAINS its volume, and in this sentence you contradict yourself by stating the volume is reduced, not maintained. You don't even try to hide your confusion. 2. I'm just pointing out your subjunctive "more than it otherwise would be" for gfm7175's amusement. He enjoys well-engineered gibberbabble. So ... there apparently has been no change since the last time. Your religious dogma is still WACKY and dismissed until you can fix all the fatal errors, some of which were not covered in this post. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
11-03-2021 21:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Pete Rogers wrote: IntotheNight wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: [quote]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! IntoTheNight wrote 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. Of course it would, Einstein, because it has a solid containment vessel that would radiate IR, the atmosphere does not. All atmospheres that we know of are adiabatic because nothing surrounds them so no heat can be conducted beyond their limits. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. All matter converts thermal energy into light. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: The Atmosphere is - however - adiabatic because it does not have the luxury of surroundings into which thermal energy can be conducted. IntoTheNight wroteThermal 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. Please refer to the previous answer. Okay. All matter converts thermal energy into light. Pete Rogers wrote: 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. IntoTheNight wroteThe atmosphere is not being compressed. You are denying the ideal gas law and the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics again. The weight of the atmosphere is 1 ton per sq ft, being its compressive force. Lower gravity would mean a less compressed atmosphere. Think about it! The atmosphere is not being compressed. You are denying the ideal gas law and the 0th and 1st laws of thermodynamics again. Gravity is not energy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

11-03-2021 21:32
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Pete Rogers wrote: gfm7175 wrote: [quote]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. gfm7175 wroteI'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... No he is not: and abundance is not an applicable concept here. At any particular equilibrium temperature an atmosphere contains a particular degree of thermal energy, but if gravity is strong that energy - which must be conserved under the 1st Law - then occupies fewer cubic feet than otherwise so its thermal content per cubic foot is higher than otherwise, specifying the higher ATE thus present. Geddit? gfm7175 wrote Therefore, we need to immediately reduce ATE if we don't wish to keel over from its "effects". Oh dear. The ATE maintains the current temperature at a liveable level. Without it we would be at the same average temperature as the Moon - circa 180K. If you have the Godlike ability to "immediately reduce the ATE" I would have to advise you not to if you wish to stay alive. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
11-03-2021 21:33
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Pete Rogers wrote: No he is not: and abundance is not an applicable concept here. At any particular equilibrium temperature an atmosphere contains a particular degree of thermal energy, but if gravity is strong that energy - which must be conserved under the 1st Law - then occupies fewer cubic feet than otherwise so its thermal content per cubic foot is higher than otherwise, specifying the higher ATE thus present. Geddit? Yes, I get that you are a global warming believer, but that you happen to be a member of a different sect of The Faith (replacing the CO2 "cause" with a gravity "cause"). This has already been hashed out. Pete Rogers wrote: It must be nice for you to be so easily amused. It is, actually.
11-03-2021 22:14
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Pete Rogers wrote: At any particular equilibrium temperature ... specifying the higher ATE thus present. Do you see the error you made here? What is true is that at any particular equilibrium temperature, the atmosphere is at THAT temperature, not at a higher temperature. Geddit? Any change that results in an increase in temperature will immediately start to cool per Stefan-Boltzmann until the temperature decreases back down to the equilibrium temperature. Similarly, any change that results in a decrease in temperature will immediately reduce the cooling per Stefan-Boltzmann, causing the temperature to increase until it returns to the equilibrium temperature. Nothing changes the equilibrium temperature except for changes to the amount of incident energy and changes to emissivity. Pete Rogers wrote: Oh dear. The ATE maintains the current temperature at a liveable level. Without it we would be at the same average temperature as the Moon - circa 180K. Duncan, right here Pete Rogers is specifying the increase in average global temperature imposed by his gravity-caused Greenhouse Effect. He is claiming tmiddles-style omniscience and is claiming to know the moon's average temperature, which he claims is 180K (-136F, -93C) and is asserting that the earth "would be at the same temperature" if his Greenhouse Effect miracle weren't increasing earth's temperature. Please don't try to deny this in the future. Pete Rogers wrote: If you have the Godlike ability to "immediately reduce the ATE" I would have to advise you not to if you wish to stay alive. Duncan, Pete strives to put the fear of ATE into his congregation. Is this what he did with you? Pete Rogers wrote:It must be nice for you to be so easily amused. Preachers ... no sense of humor. .
12-03-2021 06:08
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Pete Rogers wrote: James___ wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: [quote]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. James__wrote 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. My advice is not to stray in that direction as we are doing something specific here - or should be - which is to check the idea that mankind causes global warming. The idea that we are responsible depends on the assertion that the GE iacxcounts for the ATE. If that is not true then the theory of anthropogenic Global warming is false. We see that the compressive force of gravity reduced the volume thus leaving less room than otherwise to accommodate its thermal energy. If the atmosphere were at lower pressure the temperature would be lower because the volume would be greater and the thermal energy per cubic foot less so the temperature lower. Accordingly the GE is not responsible for the ATE and we are not responsible for Global Warming There was the day when AGW was increasing natural warming. With the Ideal Gas Law, it is the number of collisions that gasses have with each other. And since I am pursuing an experiment in atmospheric chemistry, I do believe that the Earth's geomagnetic field helps to warm its atmosphere. This is because it is possible that the magnetosphere excites polar molecules in the troposphere. An example of this is the altitude of the tropopause. Its altitude is greatest where there is the inner Van Allen radiation belt. Neither polar region is influenced by the Earth's radiation belts and the tropopause is at its lowest altitude just as it is at night for the rest of the planet.
12-03-2021 06:59
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James___ wrote: There was the day when AGW was increasing natural warming. ... as opposed to the unnatural warming, the artificial warming, the synthetic warming, the organic warming, the essential oils, the natural exfoliation, the wholesome goodness of eight essential vitamins and minerals or something else perhaps? Let's break down your post: James___ wrote: With the Ideal Gas Law, it is the number of collisions that gasses have with each other. I checked the Ideal Gas law and there is no "number of collisions" component. PV = nRT ... let's see ... there's Pressure, Volume, Number of Moles, the Constant and Temperature. Nope, no Number of Collisions. In fact, I don't think anyone ever suggested that all the collisions be counted within a volume of gas within a specified time interval ... or is that what you are suggesting? James___ wrote: And since I am pursuing an experiment in atmospheric chemistry, I do believe that the Earth's geomagnetic field helps to warm its atmosphere. Strangely, you leaped from "number of collisions" in the previous sentence directly to magnetism somehow increasing temperature. What is the hypothesis of your experiment and what model are you trying to falsify? James___ wrote:This is because it is possible that the magnetosphere excites polar molecules in the troposphere. Refresh my memory, what is the relationship here? James___ wrote: An example of this is the altitude of the tropopause. Its altitude is greatest where there is the inner Van Allen radiation belt. It's altitude is greatest at the equator due to earth's rotation. James___ wrote: Neither polar region is influenced by the Earth's radiation belts and the tropopause is at its lowest altitude just as it is at night for the rest of the planet. The tropopause is lowest at the poles and highest at the equator because of earth's rotation. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
12-03-2021 11:04
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Once again I get Pete.Q and A time.If the earth was half the size would the gravity still be the same.If we had the same amount of atmosphere as the origional size earth would it still reach the same distance in to space?Its not hard to see how gravitational pull is keeping the atmosphere in place so naturally it is being compressed at the surface 14psi/lb/in2 approx.The air is denser and it is the air that makes our planet habitable so denser air is taking more time to heat and cool as we spin around.ATE.Again I see no reference by Pete claiming it has recently done up or down.It has always been so since air was created
12-03-2021 13:53
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	duncan61 wrote:Its not hard to see how gravitational pull is keeping the atmosphere in place ... just as gravity keeps you and I from floating off into space. How does it increase temperature without additional energy? duncan61 wrote: so naturally it is being compressed at the surface Perhaps the problem is that you never learned about tense in English class. Maybe you simply never learned the difference between the past tense and the present progressive. If you crush a soda can to the volume you like, you tell people that you compressed the can, not that you are somehow still compressing the can. Anyone can see that you compressed the can (past tense) but that the can is no longer being compressed (present progressive). If the volume is not changing then there is no compression. The atmosphere's volume is not changing. The atmosphere is not being compressed. duncan61 wrote:The air is denser and it is the air that makes our planet habitable so denser air is taking more time to heat and cool as we spin around. Nope. Less time is required, not more time. Think of a grill press. duncan61 wrote:Again I see no reference by Pete claiming it has recently done up or down. You are a liar. Your dishonesty is deliberate. This is the second clear example that I have pointed out to you. Why did you feel the need to weasel the qualifier "recently" in there? You are now officially a hostile witness. Your intent is to lie to advance your agenda. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
12-03-2021 15:39
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote:With respect, you are continually addressing my arguments without taking the precaution of working out what they are actually saying which leads to your adherence to incorrect assumptions. IBdaMann wrote With respect, you are claiming a temperature increase. In fact, you are claiming an average planetary temperature increase of 33C. You insist on this while assuring Duncan that you are not. He is gullible and you are duplicitous. More like 90C and due to compression not the GE, so the gullibility - and either stupidity or duplicity - are all yours as should become clear to the reader in a moment IBdaMann wrote[/b ]In my post (to which you responded) I asked you to explain the big difference between the 33C average planetary temperature increase of the warmizombie's Greenhouse [b]Effect and the 33C average planetary temperature increase of your Atmospheric Thermal Effect. You ignored my request so I will repeat it here. IBdaMann wrote Please explain the substantive difference between the 33C average planetary temperature increase of the warmizombie's Greenhouse Effect and the 33C average planetary temperature increase of your Atmospheric Thermal Effect. There is no need to discuss the differences in the CAUSES because I am absolutely clear on what those are. Just the difference between the two EFFECTS. Sure, it is very simple, but not simple enough for you it seems. First of all it is more like 90C not 33 as you ought to know, and secondly the GE is a Theory (a fraudulent one as it happens), whilst the ATE is a Phenomenon which it fails to explain, because the Correct Theory is that the Phenomenon is caused by Gravity. Here you demonstrate - more than a little embarrassingly I would have thought - that you cannot understand that a Phenomenon and a Theory may not be the same Thing You have no business claiming to offer insight here in view of elementary intellectual incapacity such as this. Pete Rogers wrote: I cite here your continual knee-jerk rejection of the idea that there can be any such thing as "Negative Work" . IBdaMannwrote.. and since you bear the full burden to support your argument, you need to unequivocally state either: A. ... that by "negative work" you are simply referring to the mathematical operation of subtraction, i.e. subtracting positive work from something, and then stating what specific work you are subtracting from what energy, or ... B. ... what negative distance or what negative force exists in nature that can create negative wrk, or ... C. ... what force of nature is being defied over what distance and by what. Until then your claim of "negative work" remains dismissed as totally bogus. I won't be watching any YouTube videos. I await YOUR explanation of the above. You claim an average planetary temperature increase. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. You still need to account for the additional energy required to increase the average planetary temperature. Thus far you have only offered your bogus "negative work." Your argument is summarily dismissed until the fatal flaws are addressed and corrected. All you have to do is look at the earlier information. I specifically explained to you - as the MIT lecture did - that it is precisely because compression operates in the opposite direction to the "Positive Work" of expansion that it must be "Negative Work" and it is this that provides the energy. Please try to keep up and for heavens sake and drop all this infantile ego-fixated claptrap of yours, because it prevents the positive experience of learning - in fact you backslide continually into negative learning - the opposite direction you see - as a direct result. The more you wriggle the tighter the knot gets, so stop wriggling please.
12-03-2021 15:50
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote:The tank would obviously be at room temperature, Einstein, because it is not adiabatic is it? IBdaMann wroteSo 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. It doesn't get any better for you does it? The atmosphere is adiabatic since it has no surroundings to conduct its heat into, whereas the gas body you are talking about is surrounded by a metal vessel into which it can (no pun intended) and being solid it goes on to lose the energy by radiating IR. Capish?
12-03-2021 16:34
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: There was the day when AGW was increasing natural warming. ... as opposed to the unnatural warming, the artificial warming, the synthetic warming, the organic warming, the essential oils, the natural exfoliation, the wholesome goodness of eight essential vitamins and minerals or something else perhaps? Let's break down your post: James___ wrote: With the Ideal Gas Law, it is the number of collisions that gasses have with each other. I checked the Ideal Gas law and there is no "number of collisions" component. PV = nRT ... let's see ... there's Pressure, Volume, Number of Moles, the Constant and Temperature. Nope, no Number of Collisions. In fact, I don't think anyone ever suggested that all the collisions be counted within a volume of gas within a specified time interval ... or is that what you are suggesting? What PV = nRT is describing (you forgot to mention this) is that PV is absolute pressure and volume. If we say 1 atmosphere and a volume of 100 mols, then nRT becomes 100 * 8.3145 J/mol K (the universal gas constant) * T ( temperature in kelvins). Do you see how easy that was IBDM? Then with the influence of gravity, it's easy enough to say 3,248 watts per mole is from the angular potential of gravity, ie., the attached image. And since 1 mol is 22.4 m^3, then 3248/22.4 = 145 m^2. With gravity (an apple dropping), it goes up to 152.25. And that would essentially be gravity influencing the amount of kinetic energy that is in atmospheric gasses. p.s., when atmospheric gasses collide, they emit electromagnetic radiation which is a flow of thermal radiation or as some call it heat or energy. With the Ideal Gas Law, KE = 3/2kT and KE = 1/2mv^2. And now you know that gasses have both velocity and mass relative to the amount of kinetic energy that they have. And in this instance, when 1/2mv^2 = 3/2kT, the "v" which is velocity is the average velocity of gasses in the V = absolute volume of gasses in PV = nRT. Attached image: Edited on 12-03-2021 16:42

12-03-2021 16:42
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	No sooner do I spell it out ... IBdaMann wrote: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. ... and Pete Rogers plays coy and pretends I never raised the point: Pete Rogers wrote: The atmosphere is adiabatic since it has no surroundings to conduct its heat into, whereas the gas body you are talking about is surrounded by a metal vessel into which it can (no pun intended) and being solid it goes on to lose the energy by radiating IR. Capish? Pete, you are a moron. Try again. The atmosphere has the earth's solid and liquid surface from which, and into which, thermal energy flows. Perhaps the problem is that you are so much of a moron that you have been reduced to having to deny the earth has a solid and liquid surface in the same way that tmiddles has been reduced to having to deny the moon has a daytime side that gets really hot. Duncan, you are now officially an equivalent denier. Not only are you a WACKO loon but you are deliberately dishonest ... and for what? Just so you can allow Pete Rogers to bend you over furniture. I hope you enjoy it. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
12-03-2021 17:55
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: No sooner do I spell it out ... IBdaMann wrote: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. ... and Pete Rogers plays coy and pretends I never raised the point: Pete Rogers wrote: The atmosphere is adiabatic since it has no surroundings to conduct its heat into, whereas the gas body you are talking about is surrounded by a metal vessel into which it can (no pun intended) and being solid it goes on to lose the energy by radiating IR. Capish? Pete, you are a moron. Try again. The atmosphere has the earth's solid and liquid surface from which, and into which, thermal energy flows. Perhaps the problem is that you are so much of a moron that you have been reduced to having to deny the earth has a solid and liquid surface in the same way that tmiddles has been reduced to having to deny the moon has a daytime side that gets really hot. Duncan, you are now officially an equivalent denier. Not only are you a WACKO loon but you are deliberately dishonest ... and for what? Just so you can allow Pete Rogers to bend you over furniture. I hope you enjoy it. . And IBDM once again ignores basic science; 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. If water is emitting heat into the atmosphere then it cannot absorb heat. With the atmosphere, when the thermohaline circulation slows, it's ability to store heat as f = ma lessens, then it's KE which is 1/2mv^2 becomes less. The question is, when velocity decreases, does mass have a proportional decrease as well. If so, then mass and velocity would have a relationship in with an equilibrium relative to 1/2mv^2. And as we know, heat is a flow of energy. This includes the thermohaline circulation. And there needs to be a relationship between cause and effect. It's that relationship that supports thermodynamics. This aspect of the temperature of our atmosphere is more geosciences than astrophysics. The Moon causing a low and high tide moves huge volumes of air in our atmosphere (less in the polar regions). This would increase the number of collisions that gasses in our atmosphere has. This as a result is work which can be converted into heat. At the same time this could be considered as ATE because it is increasing (exciting) the KE of atmospheric gasses. Edited on 12-03-2021 18:05
12-03-2021 19:14
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	James___ wrote: [quote]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 James__ wrote 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. That's not quite so if you would allow me to explain. First, the GE is a misnomer as Greenhouses warm up by accepting incoming heat through the glass whilst it simultaneously acts as a physical barrier preventing convection. The GE is a quite different process whereby a few wavelengths of outgoing IR are intercepted by GG's close to the surface. The system is already saturated so no more IR will be intercepted by increasing CO2 - or any other GG - instead absorbtion will be completed even closer to the surface. It should be borne in mind that the IR is emitted at the same temperature as the surface anyway so if it bounces back it has to be at a lower temperature than it was emitted at and would therefore have a cooling effect anyway. The main point about tropospheres it that the tropopause is at a pressure of 10kPa, which is the minimum pressure necessary for a gas body to sustain a temperature gradient, so that from there downwards there is continuous temperature increase in line with pressure, reaching its maximum at the surface.
12-03-2021 19:25
Pete Rogers ★★☆☆☆ (160)	Into the Night wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: gfm7175 wrote: [quote]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 FORCEDISTANCE 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 InytoTheNight wrote* Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) Ok clever clogs, then why is the Atmosphere-free Moon 90C cooler than the Earth according to your vastly superior knowledge not so far shared for testing by another human being. Nothing which lacks this step can be considered as having merit. IntoTheNight wrote nor Greenhouse Emissions (GE) What are these fascinating things that you refer to as Greenhouse Emissions please?
12-03-2021 19:45
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Pete Rogers wrote: Ok clever clogs, then why is the Atmosphere-free Moon 90C cooler than the Earth according to your vastly superior knowledge not so far shared for testing by another human being. Nothing which lacks this step can be considered as having merit. Ok clever clog, then why is the Atmosphere-free Moon much WARMER on its daytime side than any daytime temperature ever recorded on Earth? Why isn't Earth's daytime temperature in excess of the Moon's daytime temperature, if ATE is increasing Earth's temperature (and isn't happening on the Moon)?
12-03-2021 21:33
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Pete Rogers wrote: James___ wrote: [quote]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 James__ wrote 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. That's not quite so if you would allow me to explain. Most incoming solar radiation is a highly charged particle. In order for the heat in the troposphere to leave it, radiating heat through a barrier like the tropopause significantly slows such entropy. A particle from the Sun that is charged is moving at, am quoting NASA here; The solar wind streams off of the Sun in all directions at speeds of about 400 km/s (about 1 million miles per hour). https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SolarWind.shtml Particles in the troposphere have no such velocity so have difficulty moving through the tropopause. This is why most exchanges of atmospheric gasses between the troposphere and the stratosphere happen around jet streams. And with an SSW event, the stratosphere warms and then the troposphere cools. An instance when this might have had the greatest influence on the weather is when a lot of the Earth burned after the last ice age. It was extended because of this event. Even if you're inclined to let sleeping mammoths lie, this debate matters: It bears on the question of just how fragile Earth's climate is. Does it need an extraterrestrial whack to go haywire, or can it do that on its own? The alleged mammoth-killing impact is also alleged to have triggered the Younger Dryas. At the time, 12,900 years ago, the continental ice sheets were in full retreat from the last Ice Age, and the planet was nearly as warm as it is now. Suddenly, in a matter of decades, glacial temperatures returned, and the ice advanced again. The cold lasted 1,500 years, then ended even more suddenly than it had begun. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/130910-comet-impact-mammoths-climate-younger-dryas-quebec-science At that time, 1/3 of the Earth's biomass is considered to have burned. With this, you would need to consider that over time, the fire spread. After all, wood becomes more difficult to burn when it's colder. Basic Earth Science. And with Europe and Asia, just a lot of ground to be covered. Edited on 12-03-2021 21:56
13-03-2021 00:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote:With respect, you are continually addressing my arguments without taking the precaution of working out what they are actually saying which leads to your adherence to incorrect assumptions. IBdaMann wrote With respect, you are claiming a temperature increase. In fact, you are claiming an average planetary temperature increase of 33C. You insist on this while assuring Duncan that you are not. He is gullible and you are duplicitous. More like 90C and due to compression not the GE, so the gullibility - and either stupidity or duplicity - are all yours as should become clear to the reader in a moment Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again. Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMann wrote[/b ]In my post (to which you responded) I asked you to explain the big difference between the 33C average planetary temperature increase of the warmizombie's Greenhouse [b]Effect and the 33C average planetary temperature increase of your Atmospheric Thermal Effect. You ignored my request so I will repeat it here. IBdaMann wrote Please explain the substantive difference between the 33C average planetary temperature increase of the warmizombie's Greenhouse Effect and the 33C average planetary temperature increase of your Atmospheric Thermal Effect. There is no need to discuss the differences in the CAUSES because I am absolutely clear on what those are. Just the difference between the two EFFECTS. Sure, it is very simple, but not simple enough for you it seems. First of all it is more like 90C not 33 as you ought to know, Argument from randU fallacy. Argument by repetition fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: and secondly the GE is a Theory (a fraudulent one as it happens), Nope. Not a theory. A void argument. You must DEFINE Greenhouse Effect to have a theory about it. To do that you MUST define 'global warming', another phrase with no meaning. Pete Rogers wrote: whilst the ATE is a Phenomenon Nope. Another buzzword. Pete Rogers wrote: which it fails to explain, It doesn't explain anything. It's a buzzword. Pete Rogers wrote: because the Correct Theory is that the Phenomenon is caused by Gravity. Gravity is not energy. Pete Rogers wrote: Here you demonstrate - more than a little embarrassingly I would have thought - that you cannot understand that a Phenomenon and a Theory may not be the same Thing It is neither. It is a buzzword, like 'greenhouse effect'. It is meaningless. Pete Rogers wrote: You have no business claiming to offer insight here in view of elementary intellectual incapacity such as this. Insults do not make your argument correct or true. Insult fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote: I cite here your continual knee-jerk rejection of the idea that there can be any such thing as "Negative Work" . IBdaMannwrote.. and since you bear the full burden to support your argument, you need to unequivocally state either: A. ... that by "negative work" you are simply referring to the mathematical operation of subtraction, i.e. subtracting positive work from something, and then stating what specific work you are subtracting from what energy, or ... B. ... what negative distance or what negative force exists in nature that can create negative wrk, or ... C. ... what force of nature is being defied over what distance and by what. Until then your claim of "negative work" remains dismissed as totally bogus. I won't be watching any YouTube videos. I await YOUR explanation of the above. You claim an average planetary temperature increase. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. You still need to account for the additional energy required to increase the average planetary temperature. Thus far you have only offered your bogus "negative work." Your argument is summarily dismissed until the fatal flaws are addressed and corrected. All you have to do is look at the earlier information. Pete Rogers wrote: I specifically explained to you - as the MIT lecture did - that it is precisely because compression operates in the opposite direction to the "Positive Work" of expansion that it must be "Negative Work" and it is this that provides the energy. Work never has a negative value. There is no such thing as negative work or negative energy. Pete Rogers wrote: Please try to keep up and for heavens sake and drop all this infantile ego-fixated claptrap of yours, because it prevents the positive experience of learning He doesn't need to learn your claptrap. Pete Rogers wrote: - in fact you backslide continually into negative learning - Buzzword fallacy. No such thing. Pete Rogers wrote: the opposite direction you see - as a direct result. Learning isn't a vector. It has no direction. Pete Rogers wrote: The more you wriggle the tighter the knot gets, I don't use such knots. They are a bitch to untie when I want to. Cliche fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: so stop wriggling please. Cliche fallacy. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-03-2021 00:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote:The tank would obviously be at room temperature, Einstein, because it is not adiabatic is it? IBdaMann wroteSo 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. It doesn't get any better for you does it? The atmosphere is adiabatic since it has no surroundings to conduct its heat into, whereas the gas body you are talking about is surrounded by a metal vessel into which it can (no pun intended) and being solid it goes on to lose the energy by radiating IR. Capish? The atmosphere is surrounded by space, just like that bottle of gas I mentioned. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-03-2021 00:09
Swan★★★★★ (5712)	Into the Night wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: [quote]IBdaMann wrote: [quote]Pete Rogers wrote:With respect, you are continually addressing my arguments without taking the precaution of working out what they are actually saying which leads to your adherence to incorrect assumptions. IBdaMann wrote With respect, you are claiming a temperature increase. In fact, you are claiming an average planetary temperature increase of 33C. You insist on this while assuring Duncan that you are not. He is gullible and you are duplicitous. More like 90C and due to compression not the GE, so the gullibility - and either stupidity or duplicity - are all yours as should become clear to the reader in a moment Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers again. Pete Rogers wrote: IBdaMann wrote[/b ]In my post (to which you responded) I asked you to explain the big difference between the 33C average planetary temperature increase of the warmizombie's Greenhouse [b]Effect and the 33C average planetary temperature increase of your Atmospheric Thermal Effect. You ignored my request so I will repeat it here. IBdaMann wrote Please explain the substantive difference between the 33C average planetary temperature increase of the warmizombie's Greenhouse Effect and the 33C average planetary temperature increase of your Atmospheric Thermal Effect. There is no need to discuss the differences in the CAUSES because I am absolutely clear on what those are. Just the difference between the two EFFECTS. Sure, it is very simple, but not simple enough for you it seems. First of all it is more like 90C not 33 as you ought to know, Argument from randU fallacy. Argument by repetition fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: and secondly the GE is a Theory (a fraudulent one as it happens), Nope. Not a theory. A void argument. You must DEFINE Greenhouse Effect to have a theory about it. To do that you MUST define 'global warming', another phrase with no meaning. Pete Rogers wrote: whilst the ATE is a Phenomenon Nope. Another buzzword. Pete Rogers wrote: which it fails to explain, It doesn't explain anything. It's a buzzword. Pete Rogers wrote: because the Correct Theory is that the Phenomenon is caused by Gravity. Gravity is not energy. Pete Rogers wrote: Here you demonstrate - more than a little embarrassingly I would have thought - that you cannot understand that a Phenomenon and a Theory may not be the same Thing It is neither. It is a buzzword, like 'greenhouse effect'. It is meaningless. Pete Rogers wrote: You have no business claiming to offer insight here in view of elementary intellectual incapacity such as this. Insults do not make your argument correct or true. Insult fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: I cite here your continual knee-jerk rejection of the idea that there can be any such thing as "Negative Work" . IBdaMannwrote.. and since you bear the full burden to support your argument, you need to unequivocally state either: A. ... that by "negative work" you are simply referring to the mathematical operation of subtraction, i.e. subtracting positive work from something, and then stating what specific work you are subtracting from what energy, or ... B. ... what negative distance or what negative force exists in nature that can create negative wrk, or ... C. ... what force of nature is being defied over what distance and by what. Until then your claim of "negative work" remains dismissed as totally bogus. I won't be watching any YouTube videos. I await YOUR explanation of the above. You claim an average planetary temperature increase. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. You still need to account for the additional energy required to increase the average planetary temperature. Thus far you have only offered your bogus "negative work." Your argument is summarily dismissed until the fatal flaws are addressed and corrected. All you have to do is look at the earlier information. Pete Rogers wrote: I specifically explained to you - as the MIT lecture did - that it is precisely because compression operates in the opposite direction to the "Positive Work" of expansion that it must be "Negative Work" and it is this that provides the energy. Work never has a negative value. There is no such thing as negative work or negative energy. Pete Rogers wrote: Please try to keep up and for heavens sake and drop all this infantile ego-fixated claptrap of yours, because it prevents the positive experience of learning He doesn't need to learn your claptrap. Pete Rogers wrote: - in fact you backslide continually into negative learning - Buzzword fallacy. No such thing. Pete Rogers wrote: the opposite direction you see - as a direct result. Learning isn't a vector. It has no direction. Pete Rogers wrote: The more you wriggle the tighter the knot gets, I don't use such knots. They are a bitch to untie when I want to. Cliche fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: so stop wriggling please. Cliche fallacy. Actually gravity is most certainly potential energy Gravitational potential energy is energy an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field. The most common use of gravitational potential energy is for an object near the surface of the Earth where the gravitational acceleration can be assumed to be constant at about 9.8 m/s2. Since the zero of gravitational potential energy can be chosen at any point (like the choice of the zero of a coordinate system), the potential energy at a height h above that point is equal to the work which would be required to lift the object to that height with no net change in kinetic energy. Since the force required to lift it is equal to its weight, it follows that the gravitational potential energy is equal to its weight times the height to which it is lifted. Next
13-03-2021 00:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Pete Rogers wrote: James___ wrote: [quote]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 James__ wrote 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. That's not quite so if you would allow me to explain. First, the GE is a misnomer as Greenhouses warm up by accepting incoming heat through the glass whilst it simultaneously acts as a physical barrier preventing convection. As a result, actual greenhouses work by reducing heat. Radiative heat is NOT reduced by a greenhouse, however. Pete Rogers wrote: The GE is a quite different process whereby a few wavelengths of outgoing IR are intercepted by GG's close to the surface. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. All matter converts thermal energy to light. Earth, water, air, all of it. Emitting IR light cools the surface. Pete Rogers wrote: The system is already saturated so no more IR will be intercepted by increasing CO2 - or any other GG - instead absorbtion will be completed even closer to the surface. There is no magick 'saturation'. Pete Rogers wrote: It should be borne in mind that the IR is emitted at the same temperature as the surface anyway so if it bounces back it has to be at a lower temperature than it was emitted at and would therefore have a cooling effect anyway. Light has no temperature. Absorption isn't reflection. Pete Rogers wrote: The main point about tropospheres it that the tropopause is at a pressure of 10kPa, There is no fixed pressure of the tropopause because there is no fixed altitude of the tropopause. Pete Rogers wrote: which is the minimum pressure necessary for a gas body to sustain a temperature gradient, There is no minimum. Pete Rogers wrote: so that from there downwards there is continuous temperature increase in line with pressure, reaching its maximum at the surface. Go look up the Chapman cycle. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-03-2021 00:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: gfm7175 wrote: [quote]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 FORCEDISTANCE 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 InytoTheNight wrote* Buzzword fallacy. There is no such thing as Atmospheric Thermal Effect (ATE) Ok clever clogs, then why is the Atmosphere-free Moon 90C cooler than the Earth according to your vastly superior knowledge not so far shared for testing by another human being. Nothing which lacks this step can be considered as having merit. The temperature of the Moon is unknown. Argument from randU fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: IntoTheNight wrote nor Greenhouse Emissions (GE) What are these fascinating things that you refer to as Greenhouse Emissions please? I was asking you. RQAA. 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-03-2021 00:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James___ wrote: Pete Rogers wrote: James___ wrote: [quote]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 James__ wrote 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. That's not quite so if you would allow me to explain. Most incoming solar radiation is a highly charged particle. In order for the heat in the troposphere to leave it, radiating heat through a barrier like the tropopause significantly slows such entropy. A particle from the Sun that is charged is moving at, am quoting NASA here; The solar wind streams off of the Sun in all directions at speeds of about 400 km/s (about 1 million miles per hour). https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SolarWind.shtml Particles in the troposphere have no such velocity so have difficulty moving through the tropopause. This is why most exchanges of atmospheric gasses between the troposphere and the stratosphere happen around jet streams. And with an SSW event, the stratosphere warms and then the troposphere cools. An instance when this might have had the greatest influence on the weather is when a lot of the Earth burned after the last ice age. It was extended because of this event. Even if you're inclined to let sleeping mammoths lie, this debate matters: It bears on the question of just how fragile Earth's climate is. Does it need an extraterrestrial whack to go haywire, or can it do that on its own? The alleged mammoth-killing impact is also alleged to have triggered the Younger Dryas. At the time, 12,900 years ago, the continental ice sheets were in full retreat from the last Ice Age, and the planet was nearly as warm as it is now. Suddenly, in a matter of decades, glacial temperatures returned, and the ice advanced again. The cold lasted 1,500 years, then ended even more suddenly than it had begun. https://www.nationalgeographic.com/animals/article/130910-comet-impact-mammoths-climate-younger-dryas-quebec-science At that time, 1/3 of the Earth's biomass is considered to have burned. With this, you would need to consider that over time, the fire spread. After all, wood becomes more difficult to burn when it's colder. Basic Earth Science. And with Europe and Asia, just a lot of ground to be covered. The tropopause is not a barrier, not even to thermal energy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-03-2021 00:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Swan wrote: Actually gravity is most certainly potential energy Nope. Gravity is not energy. Swan wrote: Gravitational potential energy It is not potential energy either. Swan wrote: is energy It is not energy. Swan wrote: an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field. Nope. All objects have gravity. Gravity is not energy. Swan wrote: The most common use of gravitational potential energy is for an object near the surface of the Earth where the gravitational acceleration can be assumed to be constant at about 9.8 m/s2. Since the zero of gravitational potential energy can be chosen at any point (like the choice of the zero of a coordinate system), the potential energy at a height h above that point is equal to the work which would be required to lift the object to that height with no net change in kinetic energy. Height is potential energy. Gravity is not. Gravity is a force. Swan wrote: Since the force required to lift it is equal to its weight, it follows that the gravitational potential energy is equal to its weight times the height to which it is lifted. Gravity is not energy. Height is energy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-03-2021 00:35
Swan★★★★★ (5712)	Into the Night wrote: Swan wrote: Actually gravity is most certainly potential energy Nope. Gravity is not energy. Swan wrote: Gravitational potential energy It is not potential energy either. Swan wrote: is energy It is not energy. Swan wrote: an object possesses because of its position in a gravitational field. Nope. All objects have gravity. Gravity is not energy. Swan wrote: The most common use of gravitational potential energy is for an object near the surface of the Earth where the gravitational acceleration can be assumed to be constant at about 9.8 m/s2. Since the zero of gravitational potential energy can be chosen at any point (like the choice of the zero of a coordinate system), the potential energy at a height h above that point is equal to the work which would be required to lift the object to that height with no net change in kinetic energy. Height is potential energy. Gravity is not. Gravity is a force. Swan wrote: Since the force required to lift it is equal to its weight, it follows that the gravitational potential energy is equal to its weight times the height to which it is lifted. Gravity is not energy. Height is energy. Your delusions are noted on your personal record
13-03-2021 01:02
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: The atmosphere is surrounded by space, just like that bottle of gas I mentioned. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Black body radiation actually applies to the technical use of passing current through a given body. It does not apply to celestial bodies unless you are only considering what is refracted by the surface of celestial bodies. It has helped to allow for modern communications and radars, etc.

13-03-2021 01:04
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: The tropopause is not a barrier, not even to thermal energy. And yet knowledge is a barrier to your ability to learn. Oops, my bad, it is your sense of self which is your ego which is a representation of the essence of nothingness, er, I meant to say the essence of Into the Night. Just am not sure how I confused that with nothingness.
13-03-2021 01:25
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Quote The temperature of the Moon is unknown. Argument from randU fallacy.ITN Did we spend billions sending man to the moon more than once and they forgot to take the thermometer every time
13-03-2021 02:01
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	duncan61 wrote: Quote The temperature of the Moon is unknown. Argument from randU fallacy.ITN Did we spend billions sending man to the moon more than once and they forgot to take the thermometer every time What we know is its surface temperature dependent on variations in its surface. That is different than considering an atmosphere. What the Moon does is to refract solar radiation. The Stefan-Boltzmann constant is based on energy passing through a body and not being refracted by it.
13-03-2021 02:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	duncan61 wrote: Quote The temperature of the Moon is unknown. Argument from randU fallacy.ITN Did we spend billions sending man to the moon more than once and they forgot to take the thermometer every time Stupid question Duncan. Answer the question Duncan, within what margin of error do you need the average lunar temperature to fall? Answer it. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
13-03-2021 02:36
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: duncan61 wrote: Quote The temperature of the Moon is unknown. Argument from randU fallacy.ITN Did we spend billions sending man to the moon more than once and they forgot to take the thermometer every time Stupid question Duncan. Answer the question Duncan, within what margin of error do you need the average lunar temperature to fall? Answer it. . This makes you nothing more than a cyber-bully. Personal attacks are nothing more than bullying. Please show where the Stefan-Boltzmann constant considers refracting solar radiation. And for you and your ilk, I might just start a thread about what refraction is and how it's quantified in physics. Edited on 13-03-2021 02:37
13-03-2021 05:29
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James___ wrote: This makes you nothing more than a cyber-bully. Explain. Am I a bully because I might have hoot hiz widd'w feewings? Explain. James___ wrote: Personal attacks are nothing more than bullying. If someone can't tolerate hoot widd'w feewings caused by being asked to asnwer some straightforward questions then said individual should not be wandering on the dangerous internet. Your concerns are noted ... and dismissed. James___ wrote: Please show where the Stefan-Boltzmann constant considers refracting solar radiation. Behind the rear, left panel, after you loosen the two lower lag bolts. James___ wrote: And for you and your ilk, . Attached image:
13-03-2021 05:34
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote: This makes you nothing more than a cyber-bully. Explain. Am I a bully because I might have hoot hiz widd'w feewings? Explain. James___ wrote: Personal attacks are nothing more than bullying. If someone can't tolerate hoot widd'w feewings caused by being asked to asnwer some straightforward questions then said individual should not be wandering on the dangerous internet. Your concerns are noted ... and dismissed. James___ wrote: Please show where the Stefan-Boltzmann constant considers refracting solar radiation. Behind the rear, left panel, after you loosen the two lower lag bolts. James___ wrote: And for you and your ilk, . Gött, you are such a loser. And now we're back to this sissy assed crap. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-qcpP8RQ40 You are one sick son of a beotch. Got Ilk? Attached image: Edited on 13-03-2021 05:43
13-03-2021 05:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James___ wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-qcpP8RQ40 That was a cool video. I think those guy have skateboarded before. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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
13-03-2021 06:04
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	IBdaMann wrote: James___ wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l-qcpP8RQ40 That was a cool video. I think those guy have skateboarded before. . Thanks. Some people like doing things. Some people like being a$$holes. Your friends are a$$holes. The video I like, it's in Norway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMS_n1l3Wxc Edited on 13-03-2021 06:11
13-03-2021 06:10
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James___ wrote: Your friends are a$$holes. I fooled you. You think I have friends. Guess again. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit 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

Page 19 of 26

Join the debate Global warming is not anthropogenic:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Liberals have mental disease caused by anthropogenic chemicals	1	03-02-2017 20:30