Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is not anthropogenic



Page 21 of 25<<<1920212223>>>
11-04-2021 09:34
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1378)
What is atmosphric pressure and why is it always changing??
11-04-2021 10:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)
duncan61 wrote:What is atmosphric pressure and why is it always changing??

I believe you mean to ask why local atmospheric pressure fluctuates ... right after you explain to me why there are waves in the ocean.



11-04-2021 18:33
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote: When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius).

IBdaMann wrote.. yet you won't dare question Pete Rogers on his claims that the atmosphere is responsible for making it so hot because ooops! ... the moon doesn't have any substantive atmosphere. The earth is the body with the atmosphere ... the earth is supposed to be the body that gets really really hot ... but it turns out that NOT having an atmosphere is what jacks up the temperature.

This is priceless, your megabrain has fused itself again I see.
We are talking about average temperatures - Einstein - and the Moon's is 198K or -75C, being a whole 90C less than we witness here on Earth. How 'bout that?
Of course the Lunar equatorial midday temp is much higher than ours because it has had 7 Earth days of isolation continually raising it, but it is more than evened out by the 7 Earth days without insolation that have arisen come Lunar midnight!
The reason for the striking difference between the average temperatures of the two bodies - despite receiving the same insolation per sqm - is the ATE caused by the concentration of heat energy in our lower Atmosphere due to gravitational pressure causing the loss of volume we know as compression - capish?

IBdaMann wroteSo Duncan, explain why you so obediently regurgitate Pete Rogers' boolsch't rather than dare to question it? Oh, that's right, he has you bent over furniture and is reaming you with all the scrap you are to schiitt out here in this forum.

You are Pete's groupie. If we want your opinion we'll ask Pete what it is.

There is something quite revolting about your whole being - what you amount to as a person - according to this sorry contribution; so much so that I think you ought to seek psychological advice about how to be. What is worse is that you include such loathesome content in a science discussion showing that you are not fit to be involved in proceedings that rely upon good faith to be of any possible use to anyone.
11-04-2021 18:48
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
duncan61 wrote:
What is atmosphric pressure and why is it always changing??

Atmospheric pressure is the weight per unit area at the base, being 14.696 psi at sea level. This is roughly 1 ton per sqft.
The average pressure doesn't change, but due to convection the pressure at any particular location falls a little on hot days when the warm air rises and increases when cold air falls but it is a zero sum game - meaning that increased pressure at one location will be balanced out by a reduction elsewhere.
The other thing is that pressure is lower at altitude, because there is less atmospheric weight above you - for instance the pressure at the top of Mount Everest varies between 4.84 and 4.89 psi only about a third of the pressure experienced at sea level.
11-04-2021 18:54
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:What is atmosphric pressure and why is it always changing??

IBdaMann wroteI believe you mean to ask why local atmospheric pressure fluctuates ... right after you explain to me why there are waves in the ocean.


What a peurile question. The answer is advection and fetch - look it up.





Nice pix, but I think you would be a lot better off with a knowledge of Plato rather than a Rodin statue.
11-04-2021 20:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)
duncan61 wrote:What is atmosphric pressure and why is it always changing??
Pete Rogers wrote:What a peurile question. The answer is advection and fetch - look it up.

Why do you mock Duncan so?

Pete Rogers wrote:Nice pix, but I think you would be a lot better off with a knowledge of Plato rather than a Rodin statue.

Why would I wish to lower my education level to that of an ancient Greek? Why do you aspire to one day reach the educational level of an ancient Greek? Did you sleep all through school or did you simply never attend.

p.s. - your intended insult would have been more effective had it been grammatically correct. As it is, it is quite ironic.

11-04-2021 20:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16138)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote: When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius).

IBdaMann wrote.. yet you won't dare question Pete Rogers on his claims that the atmosphere is responsible for making it so hot because ooops! ... the moon doesn't have any substantive atmosphere. The earth is the body with the atmosphere ... the earth is supposed to be the body that gets really really hot ... but it turns out that NOT having an atmosphere is what jacks up the temperature.

This is priceless, your megabrain has fused itself again I see.
We are talking about average temperatures - Einstein - and the Moon's is 198K or -75C, being a whole 90C less than we witness here on Earth. How 'bout that?

The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. It is not even sensible to compare them. The emissivity of the Moon is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. You are just making up numbers again. Argument from randU fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Of course the Lunar equatorial midday temp is much higher than ours because it has had 7 Earth days of isolation continually raising it, but it is more than evened out by the 7 Earth days without insolation that have arisen come Lunar midnight!

The length of a day on the Moon is 14 Earth days, not seven. The length of the night on the Moon is 14 Earth days as well.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The reason for the striking difference between the average temperatures of the two bodies - despite receiving the same insolation per sqm - is the ATE caused by the concentration of heat energy in our lower Atmosphere due to gravitational pressure causing the loss of volume we know as compression - capish?

Buzzword fallacy. The atmosphere is not being compressed. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the ideal gas law, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Argument by repetition fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteSo Duncan, explain why you so obediently regurgitate Pete Rogers' boolsch't rather than dare to question it? Oh, that's right, he has you bent over furniture and is reaming you with all the scrap you are to schiitt out here in this forum.

You are Pete's groupie. If we want your opinion we'll ask Pete what it is.

There is something quite revolting about your whole being - what you amount to as a person - according to this sorry contribution; so much so that I think you ought to seek psychological advice about how to be. What is worse is that you include such loathesome content in a science discussion showing that you are not fit to be involved in proceedings that rely upon good faith to be of any possible use to anyone.

Insult fallacies. Redefinition fallacy. Science is not religion. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Bulverism fallacy.


No argument presented.


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
11-04-2021 20:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)
Pete Rogers wrote:
duncan61 wrote:What is atmosphric pressure and why is it always changing??

Atmospheric pressure is the weight per unit area at the base,

Moron. Pressure is neither weight nor is it confined to, or defined by, "the base" ... whatever that is supposed to mean.

Pressure = Force / Area. No gravity is involved (Weight is gravity-dependent). I realize that you are DESPERATE to somehow tie your Gravity deity into all things but now you are reaching absurd levels.

By the way, was your petty little temper tantrum at my rhetorical question about why there are waves in the ocean the result of you not knowing why there are waves in the ocean? Are you really that much of a moron that you are threatened into a panic by even easy, straightforward questions?

11-04-2021 20:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16138)
Pete Rogers wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
What is atmosphric pressure and why is it always changing??

Atmospheric pressure is the weight per unit area at the base, being 14.696 psi at sea level. This is roughly 1 ton per sqft.
The average pressure doesn't change, but due to convection the pressure at any particular location falls a little on hot days when the warm air rises and increases when cold air falls but it is a zero sum game - meaning that increased pressure at one location will be balanced out by a reduction elsewhere.
The other thing is that pressure is lower at altitude, because there is less atmospheric weight above you - for instance the pressure at the top of Mount Everest varies between 4.84 and 4.89 psi only about a third of the pressure experienced at sea level.


There is no base. Baserate fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. The sea level of Earth is unknown.


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
12-04-2021 00:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)
Pete Rogers wrote:This is priceless, your megabrain has fused itself again I see.

What I'm seeing is that I detailed six fatal flaws in your WACKY religious dogma, i.e. your argument, and you have yet to address any of them. I think we all know why not.

Pete Rogers wrote:We are talking about average temperatures

Nope. You don't know any average temperatures. You are singularly focused on preaching your religious faith and on avoiding any probative questions asked about your dogma. You have six fatal flaws to fix. You should probably get working on them.

Pete Rogers wrote: - Einstein - and the Moon's is 198K or -75C, being a whole 90C less than we witness here on Earth. How 'bout that?

Your pretense that you are omniscient is humorous, seeing as how you essentially don't know anything.

Nobody knows the average temperature either for the moon or for the earth to any usable accuracy. Nobody knows the emissivity either of the moon or of the earth. If you are telling me that your religious faith is built on the bedrock of your omniscience then I think we can close this one out right now.

Pete Rogers wrote:There is something quite revolting about your whole being - what you amount to as a person - according to this sorry contribution;

I know, I know ... I've said it a dozen times: "Nobody likes a know-it-all." It's why I don't have any friends.

Pete Rogers wrote: What is worse is that you include such loathesome content in a science discussion

What science discussion? We have only been discussing your WACKY religious dogma. You never had the courage to actually discuss science. You were too busy trying to dodge it, and then to deny it when you were firmly hit with it.

But please do let me know when you finally ditch your intellectual cowardice and actually want to discuss science rather than to avoid it.

Until then you are just a cowardly moron peddling a WACKY cult religion.

12-04-2021 19:01
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:What is atmosphric pressure and why is it always changing??
Pete Rogers wrote:What a peurile question. The answer is advection and fetch - look it up.

IBdaMann wroteI believe you mean to ask why local atmospheric pressure fluctuates ... right after you explain to me why there are waves in the ocean.
Why do you mock Duncan so?

It was you who asked the idiotic question about waves, not Duncan, so the remark was for you as you are well aware, but childish pranks, such as changing the order of the phrases to suit your purpose - dealing from the bottom of the pack as it were - are your unscrupulous intellectual trade mark after all so this one is hardly a surprise.

Pete Rogers wrote:Nice pix, but I think you would be a lot better off with a knowledge of Plato rather than a Rodin statue.

IBdaMann wroteWhy would I wish to lower my education level to that of an ancient Greek? Why do you aspire to one day reach the educational level of an ancient Greek?

Ahh, so your education is on a higher level than Plato is it, thanks for clueing me in?
I am glad about that because it means you can explain what epistemological system you are using since it is not his and you being above that level must have found a better one.
Before you were kind enough to inform me of your supra-Platonic genius my experience had suggested that you weren't very bright - having perhaps no real idea what the epistemological implications were at all and that you were not acquainted with any such process which is what I thought led you to cut the tether and run away firing kind of pot shots instead of accepting the tethering of questions as Plato requires.
To cut a long story short your interventions suggested that your epistemological system was contained in the phrase "because I say so". Rejection of proof about negative work notwithstanding all the reasoning provided for your correct dialectical assessment being an excellent example of that impression.
If it turns out that this previous impression was in fact correct it means you are only able to perform the role of advocate - somebody who just wants to win - not of a bona fide assessor - somebody who is intent on discovering the just answer by paying proper dielectic attention to what is provided to him.
This failing in your make-up is serious because as an Advocate it is not possible for a person to entertain anything from the other side, in fact you probably do not read opposing arguments for logical comprehension at all; in case it reveals a weakness in your position: only for the rhetorical end of automatic rejection; almost always in the form of the ad hominam fallacy.
None of what is actually put to you is allowed to penetrate your cranium yet you pronounce sagely upon it anyway which means you can never enlighten yourself further like the Ancient Greek knew he must nor can you illuminate any epistemological pathway to that which is the case, so please go and irritate someone of your own mental age and attitude who would similarly lack the integrity necessary to subscribe to epistemology and you could go round in endless circles of peremptory rejection with him instead - as contrary advocates are condemned to do.
It was the fate of Sysiphus after all, but of course you already thought carefully about that, what with being so highly educated and all eh?

IBdaMannwroteDid you sleep all through school or did you simply never attend.

p.s. - your intended insult would have been more effective had it been grammatically correct. As it is, it is quite ironic.

I rest my case.

12-04-2021 21:06
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote: When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius).

IBdaMann wrote.. yet you won't dare question Pete Rogers on his claims that the atmosphere is responsible for making it so hot because ooops! ... the moon doesn't have any substantive atmosphere. The earth is the body with the atmosphere ... the earth is supposed to be the body that gets really really hot ... but it turns out that NOT having an atmosphere is what jacks up the temperature.

This is priceless, your megabrain has fused itself again I see.
We are talking about average temperatures - Einstein - and the Moon's is 198K or -75C, being a whole 90C less than we witness here on Earth. How 'bout that?


Into the Night wroteThe temperature of the Moon is unknown.

It will definitely be unknown to you like pretty much everything, but the rest of us have it at 198K

Into the Night wroteThe temperature of the Earth is unknown.

Oh dear, you really are in the dark. Its 288K, so if you write it down and pin it with a fridge magnet you will easily be reminded if it slips your mind again.

Into the Night wroteIt is not even sensible to compare them.

It is pretty easy to compare 197.5K with 288K give it a try and you might be able to work out that - on average - the Moon is 90K colder than the Earth Tadaaa!

Into the Night wroteThe emissivity of the Moon is unknown.
The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

That's a shame I suppose, but so what?

Into the Night wroteYou are just making up numbers again. Argument from randU fallacy.

Either that or relying on infra red sensers cross-checked with thermal imaging etc. like anyone who wasn't a nincompoop.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Of course the Lunar equatorial midday temp is much higher than ours because it has had 7 Earth days of isolation continually raising it, but it is more than evened out by the 7 Earth days without insolation that have arisen come Lunar midnight!

Into the Night wroteThe length of a day on the Moon is 14 Earth days, not seven. The length of the night on the Moon is 14 Earth days as well.

Oh Dear. It takes 7 Earth days to get from cold Moon dawn to moon midday - the hottest moment - then 7 more Earth days to get from Moon midday to the coldness of Moon dusk. That's the point - only a complete idiot wouldn't realise that would he?

Pete Rogers wrote:
The reason for the striking difference between the average temperatures of the two bodies - despite receiving the same insolation per sqm - is the ATE caused by the concentration of heat energy in our lower Atmosphere due to gravitational pressure causing the loss of volume we know as compression - capish?

Into the Night wroteBuzzword fallacy.

What is this supposed to even mean?

Into the Night wroteThe atmosphere is not being compressed.

Well why is it still here then? No atmosphere exists except it be compressed, Mr 14 days thinks different though eh? - Haha

Into the Night wroteYou cannot create energy out of nothing.

I don't create energy at all, its all done by the negative work of compression moving the edge of the atmosphere inwards.

Into the Night wroteDenial of the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the ideal gas law, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Argument by repetition fallacy
.
No! Every one of these is strictly observed according to what I told you. If you disagree you must explain, not just contradict. Though i wouldn't expect Mr 14 days to have m uch of a clue about his own reasoning.

Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteSo Duncan, explain why you so obediently regurgitate Pete Rogers' boolsch't rather than dare to question it? Oh, that's right, he has you bent over furniture and is reaming you with all the scrap you are to schiitt out here in this forum.

You are Pete's groupie. If we want your opinion we'll ask Pete what it is.

There is something quite revolting about your whole being - what you amount to as a person - according to this sorry contribution; so much so that I think you ought to seek psychological advice about how to be. What is worse is that you include such loathesome content in a science discussion showing that you are not fit to be involved in proceedings that rely upon good faith to be of any possible use to anyone.


Into the Night wroteInsult fallacies. Redefinition fallacy. Science is not religion. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Bulverism fallacy.


No argument presented.

All this nonsense from none other than Mr 14 days himself. Well - what are we to make of it - Nothing!
12-04-2021 22:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16138)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:What is atmosphric pressure and why is it always changing??
Pete Rogers wrote:What a peurile question. The answer is advection and fetch - look it up.

IBdaMann wroteI believe you mean to ask why local atmospheric pressure fluctuates ... right after you explain to me why there are waves in the ocean.
Why do you mock Duncan so?

It was you who asked the idiotic question about waves, not Duncan, so the remark was for you as you are well aware, but childish pranks, such as changing the order of the phrases to suit your purpose - dealing from the bottom of the pack as it were - are your unscrupulous intellectual trade mark after all so this one is hardly a surprise.

He might as well. You aren't saying anything.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:Nice pix, but I think you would be a lot better off with a knowledge of Plato rather than a Rodin statue.

IBdaMann wroteWhy would I wish to lower my education level to that of an ancient Greek? Why do you aspire to one day reach the educational level of an ancient Greek?

Ahh, so your education is on a higher level than Plato is it, thanks for clueing me in?

It is easily a better education than Plato. So is mine.
Pete Rogers wrote:
I am glad about that because it means you can explain what epistemological system you are using since it is not his and you being above that level must have found a better one.

Physics. Capitalism.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Before you were kind enough to inform me of your supra-Platonic genius my experience had suggested that you weren't very bright - having perhaps no real idea what the epistemological implications were at all and that you were not acquainted with any such process which is what I thought led you to cut the tether and run away firing kind of pot shots instead of accepting the tethering of questions as Plato requires.

Insult fallacies. Courtier fallacy. Plato is not God, nor a proof, nor a Universal Truth.
Pete Rogers wrote:
To cut a long story short your interventions suggested that your epistemological system was contained in the phrase "because I say so". Rejection of proof about negative work notwithstanding all the reasoning provided for your correct dialectical assessment being an excellent example of that impression.
If it turns out that this previous impression was in fact correct it means you are only able to perform the role of advocate - somebody who just wants to win - not of a bona fide assessor - somebody who is intent on discovering the just answer by paying proper dielectic attention to what is provided to him.
This failing in your make-up is serious because as an Advocate it is not possible for a person to entertain anything from the other side, in fact you probably do not read opposing arguments for logical comprehension at all; in case it reveals a weakness in your position: only for the rhetorical end of automatic rejection; almost always in the form of the ad hominam fallacy.
None of what is actually put to you is allowed to penetrate your cranium yet you pronounce sagely upon it anyway which means you can never enlighten yourself further like the Ancient Greek knew he must nor can you illuminate any epistemological pathway to that which is the case, so please go and irritate someone of your own mental age and attitude who would similarly lack the integrity necessary to subscribe to epistemology and you could go round in endless circles of peremptory rejection with him instead - as contrary advocates are condemned to do.
It was the fate of Sysiphus after all, but of course you already thought carefully about that, what with being so highly educated and all eh?

Buzzword fallacies. Try English. It works better.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMannwroteDid you sleep all through school or did you simply never attend.

p.s. - your intended insult would have been more effective had it been grammatically correct. As it is, it is quite ironic.

I rest my case.

Assumption of victory fallacy. Attempted proof by religion. Attempted proof by association.


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
12-04-2021 22:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)
Pete Rogers wrote:It was you who asked the idiotic question about waves,

It is you who is panicking at the asking of an easy, straightforward question ... which you apparently cannot answer because you are a total moron.

My question stands ... to Duncan of course. It's not like you have the brain power to do any sort of thinking for yourself.

Pete Rogers wrote:Ahh, so your education is on a higher level than Plato is it, thanks for clueing me in?

Yes it is. I didn't sleep through school and I didn't play hooky. In fact, I know not to end a declarative statement in a question mark ... and many other really good things to know.

What were you doing anyway when you should have been paying attention in school? Did your parents have you slaving away in a sweat shop? One doesn't receive quite the same education sewing garments.

Pete Rogers wrote:Before you were kind enough to inform me of your supra-Platonic genius my experience had suggested that you weren't very bright

... you mean your poor judgment told you that. I'm not surprised. Most morons like you think they are fúuking geniuses and gravitate towards other morons. You dismiss all people who know so much more than you simply because you don't have the cognitive capacity to understand them.

If you take another look at your post you'll notice that yet again you have FAILED to address any of the critical flaws in your religious dogma. Your king is tipped. You are a failure.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... your interventions suggested that your epistemological system was contained in the phrase "because I say so".

Nope. My epistemology has declared you to be a moron and contains the logical statement "Pete Rogers is a moron." You are the one who has come to this site to preach your WACKY religious dogma. The full burden of support for your argument rests on your shoulders, however you have only offered physics violations accompanied by "because I say so."

I, on the other hand, am making no affirmative argument. There is nothing for me to support or defend. I have offered nothing that I expect anyone to accept "just because I say so" because I have not offered any argument in the first place.

... and you are a moron. Shouldn't you be cowering in a corner right now with your tail between your legs, pretending to be attacking Into the Night for everything I have written?

Pete Rogers wrote: Rejection of proof about negative work notwithstanding

I am excellent with proofs. It would make my day if you were to somehow produce a sound argument supporting your notion of "negative work" that is not merely work that is subtracted. Unfortunately, you have never offered anything that even remotely resembles a proof.

So ... would you like to try your hand at addressing one or more of the fatal flaws of your WACKY religious dogma or are you resigned to acknowledging that your version of Greenhouse Effect is just one tightly-knit package of physics violations?

Pete Rogers wrote:None of what is actually put to you is allowed to penetrate your cranium

Correct. I'm not buying the snake oil you are peddling, especially while you REFUSE to address the fatal flaws in the WACKY religious dogma you want me to embrace.

Pete Rogers wrote:... as contrary advocates are condemned to do.

That was one painful run-on sentence ... that said absolutely nothing. I bet you think it sufficiently distracted my attention away from the fact that you have thus far REFUSED to address the fatal flaws in your WACKY religious dogma. It has not. Why don't you take the opportunity right now to work on crafting a religious faith that isn't so heavily dependent upon violating physics? Fix the egregious errors now. Don't put off until tomorrow what can be done today.


Pete Rogers wrote:I rest my case.

You never argued your case beyond "Believe my physics violations because I say so." Your WACKY dogma never got out of the starting gate.

You can't "give up" something you never really started.

.
Attached image:

12-04-2021 22:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wroteThe temperature of the Moon is unknown.
It will definitely be unknown to you like pretty much everything, but the rest of us have it at 198K

I see that Into the Night's attempt to help you is totally wasted on you. You are apparently not capable of learning.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wroteThe temperature of the Earth is unknown.
Oh dear, you really are in the dark. Its 288K,

You are a gullible moron who apparently can be made to believe any WACKY crap. You're done.

Pete Rogers wrote:That's a shame I suppose, but so what?

Only the scientifically illiterate have to ask why emissivity must be known.

Pete Rogers wrote:Either that or relying on infra red sensers cross-checked with thermal imaging etc. like anyone who wasn't a nincompoop.

You are in for one heck of a rude awakening. Naaah, I take that back. You'll just slather on a heaping layer of denial.

Nobody knows the average temperatures of the earth or of the moon to any usable accuracy. Nobody in the history of humanity has ever known.

Did you notice how your claimed temperatures come without any margin of error? Since you are scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent you have no idea what's wrong with that picture. Whoever instructed you to regurgitate those figures knew just how gullible you are.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wroteBuzzword fallacy.
What is this supposed to even mean?

Don't worry, your vocabulary lessons will include "buzzword" when you reach the sixth grade.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wroteThe atmosphere is not being compressed.
Well why is it still here then?

Into the Night, I crushed a soda can yesterday and its volume is not changing at the moment. Why is it still here then?

Pete, learn your tenses. You could answer your own question if you would make a good faith effort to address the critical flaws in your WACKY religious dogma.

On that note, why don't you even attempt to fix the egregious errors in your faith? Is it the case that you prefer your religion with heavy logical errors, egregious physics violations and a total disregard for the English language?

Pete Rogers wrote:I don't create energy at all, its all done by the negative work of compression moving the edge of the atmosphere inwards.

So we're right back to the eternally hot CO2 tanks in the garage. Oooops!



Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wroteDenial of the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the ideal gas law, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Argument by repetition fallacy
.
No! Every one of these is strictly observed according to what I told you.

Nope. You deny every single one. You violate every single one.

Pete Rogers wrote: If you disagree you must explain, not just contradict.

Sorry, I detailed six fatal flaws in your WACKY religious dogma and you REFUSE to address them, preferring instead to just tip your king.



You are the one who is on tap to provide brand new Nobel Award-winning science concerning Negative Work because currently there is no such thing and your religious faith rests entirely upon it, i.e. your WACKY devotion has no basis beyond physics violations.

12-04-2021 23:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16138)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote: When sunlight hits the moon's surface, the temperature can reach 260 degrees Fahrenheit (127 degrees Celsius).

IBdaMann wrote.. yet you won't dare question Pete Rogers on his claims that the atmosphere is responsible for making it so hot because ooops! ... the moon doesn't have any substantive atmosphere. The earth is the body with the atmosphere ... the earth is supposed to be the body that gets really really hot ... but it turns out that NOT having an atmosphere is what jacks up the temperature.

This is priceless, your megabrain has fused itself again I see.
We are talking about average temperatures - Einstein - and the Moon's is 198K or -75C, being a whole 90C less than we witness here on Earth. How 'bout that?


Into the Night wroteThe temperature of the Moon is unknown.

It will definitely be unknown to you like pretty much everything, but the rest of us have it at 198K

Argument from randU fallacy. You don't get to speak for everyone else. You are not God. You only get to speak for you. Random numbers are not data. The temperature of the Moon is unknown.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wroteThe temperature of the Earth is unknown.

Oh dear, you really are in the dark. Its 288K, so if you write it down and pin it with a fridge magnet you will easily be reminded if it slips your mind again.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers. The temperature of the Earth is unknown.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wroteIt is not even sensible to compare them.

It is pretty easy to compare 197.5K with 288K give it a try and you might be able to work out that - on average - the Moon is 90K colder than the Earth Tadaaa!

Comparing random numbers is pointless.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wroteThe emissivity of the Moon is unknown.
The emissivity of Earth is unknown.

That's a shame I suppose, but so what?

Fine. I'll just chuck this in your clueless pile along with the rest.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wroteYou are just making up numbers again. Argument from randU fallacy.

Either that or relying on infra red sensers cross-checked with thermal imaging etc. like anyone who wasn't a nincompoop.

Cross checked against what? The temperature of the Earth is unknown. The emissitivy of Earth is unknown.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
Of course the Lunar equatorial midday temp is much higher than ours because it has had 7 Earth days of isolation continually raising it, but it is more than evened out by the 7 Earth days without insolation that have arisen come Lunar midnight!

Into the Night wroteThe length of a day on the Moon is 14 Earth days, not seven. The length of the night on the Moon is 14 Earth days as well.

Oh Dear. It takes 7 Earth days to get from cold Moon dawn to moon midday - the hottest moment - then 7 more Earth days to get from Moon midday to the coldness of Moon dusk. That's the point - only a complete idiot wouldn't realise that would he?

A pointless point. Strawman fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
The reason for the striking difference between the average temperatures of the two bodies - despite receiving the same insolation per sqm - is the ATE caused by the concentration of heat energy in our lower Atmosphere due to gravitational pressure causing the loss of volume we know as compression - capish?

Into the Night wroteBuzzword fallacy.

What is this supposed to even mean?

A buzzword is a meaningless word or phrase. ATE is a buzzword. Concentration of heat energy is a buzzword. Heat is not energy. Gravitional pressure is a buzzword. Gravity is not pressure and has no pressure. There is no volume being lost. The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wroteThe atmosphere is not being compressed.

Well why is it still here then? No atmosphere exists except it be compressed, Mr 14 days thinks different though eh? - Haha
The atmosphere is not being compressed. It doesn't happen on any planet with an atmosphere. Gravity is not energy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wroteYou cannot create energy out of nothing.

I don't create energy at all, its all done by the negative work of compression moving the edge of the atmosphere inwards.

Buzzword fallacyies.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wroteDenial of the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the ideal gas law, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Argument by repetition fallacy
.
No! Every one of these is strictly observed according to what I told you.

You never did tell me. You simply ignore these laws.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you disagree you must explain, not just contradict.
Pete Rogers wrote:

Though i wouldn't expect Mr 14 days to have much of a clue about his own reasoning.

My own reasoning is my own reasoning. I have also given you some of my reasoning. The theories of science you continue to ignore have their own reasoning, which you apparently never bothered to go understand. Mathematics, which you also ignore, does not have reasoning. Mathematics is a set of axioms and proofs extending those axioms.

You keep assuming random values of a type randU, for example, as data. Random numbers are not data. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. It cannot be measured. The temperature of the Moon is unknown. It cannot be measured. You are simply denying statistical mathematics and probability mathematics.

Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wroteSo Duncan, explain why you so obediently regurgitate Pete Rogers' boolsch't rather than dare to question it? Oh, that's right, he has you bent over furniture and is reaming you with all the scrap you are to schiitt out here in this forum.

You are Pete's groupie. If we want your opinion we'll ask Pete what it is.

There is something quite revolting about your whole being - what you amount to as a person - according to this sorry contribution; so much so that I think you ought to seek psychological advice about how to be. What is worse is that you include such loathesome content in a science discussion showing that you are not fit to be involved in proceedings that rely upon good faith to be of any possible use to anyone.


Into the Night wroteInsult fallacies. Redefinition fallacy. Science is not religion. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). Bulverism fallacy.


No argument presented.

All this nonsense from none other than Mr 14 days himself. Well - what are we to make of it - Nothing!

Logic is not nonsense. You are denying logic as well. Inversion fallacy.

No argument presented.


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
13-04-2021 15:15
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1378)
Its getting personal Pete let it go and move on to other stuff.
13-04-2021 15:15
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1378)
We just had a cyclone land and guess what.Its climate change
13-04-2021 16:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)
duncan61 wrote: Its getting personal Pete let it go and move on to other stuff.

Duncan, I have a serious question for you. It has to do with the question of honesty.

Why are you asking Pete Rogers to "move on" instead of demanding that he address each and every one of the six fatal errors that I pointed out?

I have not seen you totally denounce Pete Rogers' WACKY religious dogma. All I have seen from you is your fall-on-your-sword defense of Pete Rogers' sermons. You claim to "understand" what he is saying yet you won't address any of those six fatal flaws either.

So what gives? Why won't you ever press Pete Rogers on his crap? Are you basically a dishonest person as well? Has everything you have ever posted on this site simply been part of your agenda to support Pete Rogers no matter what he writes? Is that how others should view your posts? Should we refer to you as his deacon or as his sponsor?

13-04-2021 16:59
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2466)
duncan61 wrote:
Its getting personal Pete let it go and move on to other stuff.

Indeed he should, if he refuses to hold a discussion. He is not going to convert ITN, IBD, nor myself over to believing in his wacky "ATE" religion. It is now to the point of insanity.
Edited on 13-04-2021 17:00
13-04-2021 18:34
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)
duncan61 wrote:If air is not compressed at the surface how can this condition exist where the air is to thin to sustain life

Duncan, I apologize for not seeing this earlier.

Is English your second language or are you intentionally mimicking Pete Rogers' ignorance of differing verb tenses?

Do you not understand the difference between something that was compressed in the past and something that is compressing right now in the present, i.e. its volume is decreasing at the present moment? When you see a crushed soda can, do you believe that the person who crushed the can in the past is still continuing to crush the can at the present moment? Is that the source of your confusion? Do you not understand the past vs. the present? Did you not go to school either? Your question above clearly indicates that your understanding of the past is that it is the present. That's pretty stupid.

Just to bring you up to speed, the atmosphere was compressed long ago in the past. Long ago (in the past) the atmosphere ceased compressing. Its volume is no longer reducing. If you are not smart enough to grasp this concept then I can see why you would be gullible enough to fall for Pete Rogers' crap. If, on the other hand, you are smart enough to understand this then you have a lot of explaining to do as to why you REFUSE to call Pete Rogers on his boolsch't and why you are being dishonest with everyone on this board.

The past is not the present, I'm sorry. Go learn English ... or start being honest and demand Pete Rogers answer the questions posed to him.

13-04-2021 19:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)
Duncan, for your convenience I am pasting the fatal flaws right here so you can effortlessly copy-paste them into your post demanding Pete Rogers address them. Here they are:

1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient.

2. English tenses are conflated. The contradictory dogma insists that something that has happened, and that is no longer happening (i.e. the present perfect), is nonetheless still happening (i.e. the present progressive). This is an irreconcilable contradiction. The dogma acknowledges that the atmosphere's volume is not changing at the present moment but nonetheless insists that the atmosphere is compressing at the present moment. This atmospheric compression, which ceased long ago, is attributed as still occurring and is claimed to be responsible for the wondrous physics violations mentioned in point #1 above.

3. The dogma is simply Greenhouse Effect repackaged under different names and terms. Yes, the cause is different, i.e. gravity vs. CO2, but the end result, i.e. the effect is one and the same. The dogma insists that earth's average global temperature ultimately increases without additional energy, exactly as the standard Greenhouse Effect dogma. The dogma is based upon a fictitious (read non-existent) reality in which the earth would be an ice ball were it not for the fictitious (read non-existent) violation of physics performed by this version of Greenhouse Effect making the earth warmer than it "otherwise should be."

4. The dogma is based entirely upon semantics-shifting between different definitions of "heat" as convenient. The dogma breaks down entirely if the word "heat" is required to correctly mean the flow of thermal energy between two bodies of matter. As it stands, the dogma treats heat as something that is "contained" and heat is not something that can ever be contained.

5. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. The backwards dogma gets it backwards and directly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the process.

6. The dogma insists the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course this is neither explained nor justified ... and it needs to be because currently it stands as a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

Any one of the above should be sufficient for you to thoroughly pepper Pete Rogers with demands for a detailed explanation. You should be requiring Pete Rogers to address and to fix every single flaw mentioned. That you have thus far REFUSED to do so for even one of the above makes me extremely suspicious of your motives.

Also for everyone's convenience I have posted this list on Politiplex:

https://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/345

Enjoy!

14-04-2021 19:39
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:It was you who asked the idiotic question about waves,

IBdaMann wroteIt is you who is panicking at the asking of an easy, straightforward question ... which you apparently cannot answer because you are a total moron.

My question stands ... to Duncan of course. It's not like you have the brain power to do any sort of thinking for yourself.

The answer is advection and fetch, of course, just like I already told you before you had this hissy fit.

Pete Rogers wrote:Ahh, so your education is on a higher level than Plato is it, thanks for clueing me in?

IBdaMannwroteYes it is. I didn't sleep through school and I didn't play hooky. In fact, I know not to end a declarative statement in a question mark ... and many other really good things to know.

You certainly can when it is ironic; surely your brain stretches to that?? (did you get the extra irony - just checking?)

IBdaMann wroteWhat were you doing anyway when you should have been paying attention in school? Did your parents have you slaving away in a sweat shop? One doesn't receive quite the same education sewing garments.

How does this fantasy stuff help your argument?

Pete Rogers wrote:Before you were kind enough to inform me of your supra-Platonic genius my experience had suggested that you weren't very bright

... you mean your poor judgment told you that. I'm not surprised.
IBdaMann wroteMost morons like you think they are fúuking geniuses and gravitate towards other morons.

I think you are dead right as far as morons who do not understand - say for instance that more energy per unit volume means temperature rise - are concerned. Are you be found amongst their number by any chance?

IBdaMann wroteYou dismiss all people who know so much more than you

No. I was just following the point that "Most morons think they are fúuking geniuses and gravitate towards other morons." which is very much borne out by your hysterically egoistic comments here

IBdaMann wrotesimply because you don't have the cognitive capacity to understand them.

If you take another look at your post you'll notice that yet again you have FAILED to address any of the critical flaws in your religious dogma. Your king is tipped. You are a failure.

This is just inexplicable assertion and therefore of no value - what king are you talking about - for instance - and how come he is tipped and what does that mean scientifically?

Pete Rogers wrote: ... your interventions suggested that your epistemological system was contained in the phrase "because I say so".

IBdaMann wroteNope. My epistemology has declared you to be a moron and contains the logical statement "Pete Rogers is a moron."

Look carefully and you should see that epistemologically this phrase itself is supposed to be accepted as being the case just because you say so - there is nothing else to support it. Being a genius as I understand you to believe yourself to be you should have known that before you wrote it down, so the answer cannot be "Nope", your say so is of no account unless you explain properly so epistemological correctness is missing you see, so it is "Yep"? For your information Epistemology declares nothing, so it would appear that you are neither familiar with what it is or how it works, or why it must be obeyed. Is that fair?

IBdaMann wroteYou are the one who has come to this site to preach your WACKY religious dogma.

I started this thread if that's what you mean, but your unsupported assertion "Wacky?" is just more "because you say so". In order to clarify your grasp or lack of it let me see if you agree with the following statement.
"If you compress an adiabatic gas body into half its original volume then according to the 1st Law (that energy be conserved) and the ability to divide by 1/2 the temperature must double - because now there is twice the thermal energy per unit volume?" It is my experience that you cannot - or at least have not so far despite its basic simplicity. I await your conclusion.

IBdaMann wroteThe full burden of support for your argument rests on your shoulders, however you have only offered physics violations accompanied by "because I say so."

I have frequently provided the particulars of my argument - in fact from the first post, what is the matter with you? Here they are again in case you just keep missing them. I must warn you that they will be of no use at your level if it turns out that you can't see that the temperature has to double according to the example just given. Anyway - here goes.

1. Both sides agree that without an atmosphere the earth would be cooler.
2. IPCC say the only possible reason that the atmosphere makes it warmer is the GE.
3. If they are right to say it is the only possible explanation then the GE must be considered - otherwise not
4. The correct explanation is that gravity reduces the volume of the atmosphere whose thermal energy is nevertheless conserved under the 1st Law causing the ATE.
5. Accordingly the GE has no thermal consequence, the ATE being the result of Gravity acting on the Atmosphere to compress it tom the degree we witness.
6. Accordingly Climate Change is not anthropogenic because if the GE is not potent neither is our paltry contribution to it.
7. Climatic variations are therefore due to changes in net insolation
Please note that - rather than raging on about stuff that doesn't deal with this explanation as I put it to you - your duty is to deal with these 7 particulars.
If 4, 5 or 7 is wrong then the theory falls. It is no good just claiming they are wrong because you like your own beliefs, you have to correctly falsify them as put. Namely according to the platoniic Epistemological process like all science worthy of the name.

IBdaMann wroteI, on the other hand, am making no affirmative argument. There is nothing for me to support or defend. I have offered nothing that I expect anyone to accept "just because I say so" because I have not offered any argument in the first place.

... and you are a moron. Shouldn't you be cowering in a corner right now with your tail between your legs, pretending to be attacking Into the Night for everything I have written?


Pete Rogers wrote: Rejection of proof about negative work notwithstanding

IBdaMann wroteI am excellent with proofs. It would make my day if you were to somehow produce a sound argument supporting your notion of "negative work" that is not merely work that is subtracted. Unfortunately, you have never offered anything that even remotely resembles a proof.

Of course it is work subtracted, that's why it is negative and why it increases temperature when expansion - being positive work - causes cooling. What is the matter with you?
To reiterate - expansion is positive work and contraction; occurring in the opposite direction: must therefore be negative work, that is why it heats the Atmosphere - what is wrong with you and why resort to use of "subtractive" as though it is somehow different? First you deny the existence of "Negative Work" despite its widespread application, then you say there is "Subtractive work" as if it is different to negative work - which it is not - what is wrong with your brain?

IBdaMann wroteSo ... would you like to try your hand at addressing one or more of the fatal flaws of your WACKY religious dogma or are you resigned to acknowledging that your version of Greenhouse Effect is just one tightly-knit package of physics violations?

What flaw? the GE is a phenomenon whereby certain gases intercept a few wavelengths of IR. The IPCC say this explains the ATE, but it doesnt because the ATE is caused by gravity having reduced the volume of the atmosphere to where it is stably compressed and thermally enhanced as we witness every day. Wake up for heaven's sake!

Pete Rogers wrote:None of what is actually put to you is allowed to penetrate your cranium

IBdaMann wroteCorrect. I'm not buying the snake oil you are peddling, especially while you REFUSE to address the fatal flaws in the WACKY religious dogma you want me to embrace.

It is necessary to test a substance before pronouncing your conclusion as to its nature or it is again the epistemology of "it is right because I said so and no need to check, because I know without checking" and that just amuses people like me on the sound basis that "Most morons think they are fúuking geniuses and gravitate towards other morons." as you already pointed out and this being a priceless example of the genre.

Pete Rogers wrote:... as contrary advocates are condemned to do.

IBdaMann wroteThat was one painful run-on sentence ... that said absolutely nothing.

I said that advocates cannot help because it is their job to win regardless of merit. We need Jurors, being people who examine and assess merit in an impartial manner, not nitwits who think its enough to tell people; without explaining: that something is "Whacky", or "Religious Dogma" or "Snake Oil" or anything else so peurile.

IBdaMann wroteI bet you think it sufficiently distracted my attention away from the fact that you have thus far REFUSED to address the fatal flaws in your WACKY religious dogma. It has not. Why don't you take the opportunity right now to work on crafting a religious faith that isn't so heavily dependent upon violating physics? Fix the egregious errors now. Don't put off until tomorrow what can be done today.


Pete Rogers wrote:I rest my case.

IBdaMan wroteYou never argued your case beyond "Believe my physics violations because I say so." Your WACKY dogma never got out of the starting gate.

You can't "give up" something you never really started.

This is opinionation and hysterical - please stick to facts or go away - there is clearly no physics violation except - for example - in the case where you say - for instance - "The Atmosphere is not compressed" despite the pressure at its base - which means the bottom where we live incidentally (you seemed to be having trouble with that in a recent post) - being 101.3KPa.
14-04-2021 21:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16138)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote:It was you who asked the idiotic question about waves,

IBdaMann wroteIt is you who is panicking at the asking of an easy, straightforward question ... which you apparently cannot answer because you are a total moron.

My question stands ... to Duncan of course. It's not like you have the brain power to do any sort of thinking for yourself.

The answer is advection and fetch, of course, just like I already told you before you had this hissy fit.

That is not an answer. That is buzzwords. Meaningless.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:Before you were kind enough to inform me of your supra-Platonic genius my experience had suggested that you weren't very bright

... you mean your poor judgment told you that. I'm not surprised.
IBdaMann wroteMost morons like you think they are fúuking geniuses and gravitate towards other morons.

I think you are dead right as far as morons who do not understand - say for instance that more energy per unit volume means temperature rise - are concerned. Are you be found amongst their number by any chance?

Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Learn what the word 'temperature' means.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrotesimply because you don't have the cognitive capacity to understand them.

If you take another look at your post you'll notice that yet again you have FAILED to address any of the critical flaws in your religious dogma. Your king is tipped. You are a failure.

This is just inexplicable assertion and therefore of no value - what king are you talking about - for instance - and how come he is tipped and what does that mean scientifically?

Nothing. You deny science and mathematics. You continue your dogma of a religion and the use of meaningless buzzwords.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote: ... your interventions suggested that your epistemological system was contained in the phrase "because I say so".

IBdaMann wroteNope. My epistemology has declared you to be a moron and contains the logical statement "Pete Rogers is a moron."

Look carefully and you should see that epistemologically this phrase itself is supposed to be accepted as being the case just because you say so - there is nothing else to support it. Being a genius as I understand you to believe yourself to be you should have known that before you wrote it down, so the answer cannot be "Nope", your say so is of no account unless you explain properly so epistemological correctness is missing you see, so it is "Yep"? For your information Epistemology declares nothing, so it would appear that you are neither familiar with what it is or how it works, or why it must be obeyed. Is that fair?

False dichotomy fallacy. Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteYou are the one who has come to this site to preach your WACKY religious dogma.

I started this thread if that's what you mean, but your unsupported assertion "Wacky?" is just more "because you say so". In order to clarify your grasp or lack of it let me see if you agree with the following statement.

Since you deny science and mathematics to spew your religion as ScIeNcE, you are being wacky. It's simple enough.
Pete Rogers wrote:
"If you compress an adiabatic gas body into half its original volume then according to the 1st Law (that energy be conserved) and the ability to divide by 1/2 the temperature must double - because now there is twice the thermal energy per unit volume?" It is my experience that you cannot - or at least have not so far despite its basic simplicity. I await your conclusion.

RQAA. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteThe full burden of support for your argument rests on your shoulders, however you have only offered physics violations accompanied by "because I say so."

I have frequently provided the particulars of my argument - in fact from the first post, what is the matter with you? Here they are again in case you just keep missing them. I must warn you that they will be of no use at your level if it turns out that you can't see that the temperature has to double according to the example just given.

It doesn't. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Denial of the ideal gas law.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Anyway - here goes.

1. Both sides agree that without an atmosphere the earth would be cooler.

You don't get to speak for other people. You only get to speak for yourself. An atmosphere does not warm a planet.
Pete Rogers wrote:
2. IPCC say the only possible reason that the atmosphere makes it warmer is the GE.

There is no such thing as 'greenhouse effect'. A buzzword.
Pete Rogers wrote:
3. If they are right to say it is the only possible explanation then the GE must be considered - otherwise not

Self evident.
Pete Rogers wrote:
4. The correct explanation is that gravity reduces the volume of the atmosphere whose thermal energy is nevertheless conserved under the 1st Law causing the ATE.

ATE is a buzzword. Equally meaningless. You are denying the 0th law of thermodynamics and the 1st law of thermodynamics, and the ideal gas law again. Gravity is not energy. Learn what 'temperature' means.
Pete Rogers wrote:
5. Accordingly the GE has no thermal consequence, the ATE being the result of Gravity acting on the Atmosphere to compress it tom the degree we witness.

Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
6. Accordingly Climate Change is not anthropogenic because if the GE is not potent neither is our paltry contribution to it.

Since 'greenhouse effect' is a meaningless buzzword, it has no value. There is therefore no way to 'contribute' to it.
Pete Rogers wrote:
7. Climatic variations are therefore due to changes in net insolation

There is no such thing as 'net insolation'. Buzzword fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Please note that - rather than raging on about stuff that doesn't deal with this explanation as I put it to you - your duty is to deal with these 7 particulars.

RQAA. Already done before you even asked them.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It is no good just claiming they are wrong because you like your own beliefs, you have to correctly falsify them as put.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. None of these are theories. You cannot make a theory out of buzzwords. That produces a void argument fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Namely according to the platoniic Epistemological process like all science worthy of the name.

Plato is not science. Science is not a method, procedure, or process. Science is a set of falsifiable theories.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteI, on the other hand, am making no affirmative argument. There is nothing for me to support or defend. I have offered nothing that I expect anyone to accept "just because I say so" because I have not offered any argument in the first place.

... and you are a moron. Shouldn't you be cowering in a corner right now with your tail between your legs, pretending to be attacking Into the Night for everything I have written?


Pete Rogers wrote: Rejection of proof about negative work notwithstanding

IBdaMann wroteI am excellent with proofs. It would make my day if you were to somehow produce a sound argument supporting your notion of "negative work" that is not merely work that is subtracted. Unfortunately, you have never offered anything that even remotely resembles a proof.

Of course it is work subtracted, that's why it is negative

Base rate fallacy. Contextomy fallacy.

Pete Rogers wrote:
and why it increases temperature when expansion - being positive work - causes cooling.

The atmosphere is not be expanded. The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
What is the matter with you?

We know what the matter with YOU is. You are a fundamentalist believer in the Church of Global Warming. The only difference is your sect.
Pete Rogers wrote:
To reiterate - expansion is positive work and contraction; occurring in the opposite direction: must therefore be negative work,

There is no such thing as 'negative work'. Buzzword fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
that is why it heats the Atmosphere

Gravity is not energy. The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- what is wrong with you and why resort to use of "subtractive" as though it is somehow different?

Base rate fallacy. False equivalence fallacy. Math error.
Pete Rogers wrote:
First you deny the existence of "Negative Work" despite its widespread application,

No. 'Negative work' is a buzzword. Meaningless. You don't get to speak for anybody else. You only get to speak for you.
Pete Rogers wrote:
then you say there is "Subtractive work" as if it is different to negative work - which it is not - what is wrong with your brain?

Yours, actually. Base rate fallacy. False equivalence fallacy. Math error.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteSo ... would you like to try your hand at addressing one or more of the fatal flaws of your WACKY religious dogma or are you resigned to acknowledging that your version of Greenhouse Effect is just one tightly-knit package of physics violations?

What flaw?

RQAA
Pete Rogers wrote:
the GE is a phenomenon whereby certain gases intercept a few wavelengths of IR.

Nope. Absorption of light is not 'greenhouse effect'. Try again.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The IPCC say this explains the ATE,

I don't give a shit about what the IPCC says.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but it doesnt because the ATE is caused by gravity having reduced the volume of the atmosphere to where it is stably compressed and thermally enhanced as we witness every day. Wake up for heaven's sake!

Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. See the 1st law of thermodynamics. The atmosphere is not being compressed. Learn what temperature means. See the 0th law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:None of what is actually put to you is allowed to penetrate your cranium

IBdaMann wroteCorrect. I'm not buying the snake oil you are peddling, especially while you REFUSE to address the fatal flaws in the WACKY religious dogma you want me to embrace.

It is necessary to test a substance before pronouncing your conclusion as to its nature or it is again the epistemology of "it is right because I said so and no need to check, because I know without checking" and that just amuses people like me on the sound basis that "Most morons think they are fúuking geniuses and gravitate towards other morons." as you already pointed out and this being a priceless example of the genre.

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy. False dichotomy fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:... as contrary advocates are condemned to do.

IBdaMann wroteThat was one painful run-on sentence ... that said absolutely nothing.

I said that advocates cannot help because it is their job to win regardless of merit. We need Jurors, being people who examine and assess merit in an impartial manner, not nitwits who think its enough to tell people; without explaining: that something is "Whacky", or "Religious Dogma" or "Snake Oil" or anything else so peurile.

This is not a courtroom. It is a place to have conversations about the so-called 'climate debate'. The only judges are the people themselves. There is no jury. You have continued to deny the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, the ideal gas law, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You cannot just discard these. They are theories of science that are so far unfalsified. It is not possible to have any theory in science that is in conflict with any other theory of science (external consistency check). It is not possible to have a theory at all, scientific or otherwise, based on meaningless buzzwords (internal consistency check).
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wroteI bet you think it sufficiently distracted my attention away from the fact that you have thus far REFUSED to address the fatal flaws in your WACKY religious dogma. It has not. Why don't you take the opportunity right now to work on crafting a religious faith that isn't so heavily dependent upon violating physics? Fix the egregious errors now. Don't put off until tomorrow what can be done today.


Pete Rogers wrote:I rest my case.

IBdaMan wroteYou never argued your case beyond "Believe my physics violations because I say so." Your WACKY dogma never got out of the starting gate.

You can't "give up" something you never really started.

This is opinionation and hysterical

Science isn't hysterical. Neither is mathematics. Fundementalist religious nuts are hysterical, if anything is.
Pete Rogers wrote:
- please stick to facts or go away -

No. He (and I, and gfm), reject your religion. You cannot order us to go away. You are not God nor a forum moderator. How typical of liberals...censorship as the first solution.
Pete Rogers wrote:
there is clearly no physics violation except - for example - in the case where you say - for instance - "The Atmosphere is not compressed" despite the pressure at its base - which means the bottom where we live incidentally (you seemed to be having trouble with that in a recent post) - being 101.3KPa.

Pressure is not compression. The atmosphere is not being compressed. Gravity is not energy.
Redefinition fallacies. Denial of the ideal gas law, the 0th and 1st laws 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
14-04-2021 22:14
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)
Pete Rogers wrote: The answer is advection and fetch, of course, just like I already told you before you had this hissy fit.

The answer is that you are STILL too much of a moron to understand why there are waves in the ocean. How embarrassing. I think you should address your phobia by seeing a counselor because you aren't going to ever become rational if you are spooked by every easy, straightforward question of which you catch wind.

Pete Rogers wrote:How does this fantasy stuff help your argument?

I don't have an argument. You do. You are the one who started this thread. The full burden of support for your WACKY religious dogma rests with you. I am not somehow obligated to prove your religion FALSE lest your argument therefore be declared TRUE. You actually have to support your argument if you want anyone to accept it, and that requires you to answer all questions posed to you about your WACKY religious dogma. I have identified six fatal flaws with the dogma you preach and you have FAILED to rectify a single one of them.

For your convenience I have posted a brief synopsis of the problems of your religious faith on Politiplex.

Until you actually make an effort to address the fatal flaws, I will presume you have simply abandoned all attempts to defend your ZANY version of Greenhouse Effect.



Pete Rogers wrote: This is just inexplicable assertion and therefore of no value - what king are you talking about - for instance - and how come he is tipped and what does that mean scientifically?

I have never accused you of being smart enough to understand common sayings and idiomatic expressions. In fact, I have repeately approved your "moron's pass" as granting you a somewhat permanent excuse for not knowing anything.

So don't worry about any sentences that you don't quite get because the are really intended for others. You aren't expected to understand anything that you have to read.

Pete Rogers wrote: Being a genius as I understand you to believe yourself to be

You misunderstand. I specifically stated that you are not the fúuking genius that you believe yourself to be. You don't have worry that I will be envious that all of the focus is on you.

I have never claimed to be a genius. I simply know everything. Soy un sabelotodo y por eso no tengo amistades. My mother suggested that I study hard and just learn everything before my 10th birthday so that I would be free to engage in any and all pursuits while my friends were all playing "catch-up" at school. It was great advice and I'm glad I listened to her, so don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Pete Rogers wrote:your unsupported assertion "Wacky?" is just more "because you say so".

Nope. It's entirely because you make it so. You. The focus is still on you.

Pete Rogers wrote:In order to clarify your grasp or lack of it let me see if you agree with the following statement.
"If you compress an adiabatic gas body into half its original volume then according to the 1st Law (that energy be conserved) and the ability to divide by 1/2 the temperature must double - because now there is twice the thermal energy per unit volume?"

Nope. I do not agree with your error-riddled statement. Were you trying to see how many errors you could cram into one run-on sentence?

a. the first law of thermodynamics does not address temperature.
b. the temperature increase you mention is governed by the Ideal Gas Law.
c. "compress [] a body into half its volume" shows that you are fully aware that diminishing volume is the definition of "to compress" and is not somehow something incidental, which is your previous assertion.
d. You are not dividing by 1/2. You are dividing by 2. Don't worry, you can just flash your "moron's pass" and you can claim any excuse you like, or none at all.

Pete Rogers wrote:I have frequently provided the particulars of my argument

You have NEVER fixed the fatal flaws in the particulars of your argument.

Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) - Dogma Flaws


Pete Rogers wrote:1. Both sides agree that without an atmosphere the earth would be cooler.

1. You do not get to mandate to what others must agree
2. Science is not a matter of agreement/opinion. You are thinking of religion.
3. Blackbody science tells us that the atmosphere is part of the earth and that it has no effect on the earth's average temperature; its only effect is to reduce the temperature difference between day and night.
4. You join tmiddles in your denial of the daytime side of the moon which has no atmosphere and is hotter than any atmosphere-covered daytime location on planet earth. What a moron you must be to deny the moon has a side facing the sun.
This point of yours is summarily rejected.

Oooops, this alone gets your entire argument tossed. Sorry.


Pete Rogers wrote: 2. IPCC say ...

1. I am not aware of anyone who cares.
2. Science is not anyone's opinion. Science is not subjective.
3. Nobody owns science. No organization or institution establishes science. Nobody's approval is required for science to exist.
4. You have not explained why any IPCC statement matters in any way.
This point of yours is summarily dismissed.

Pete Rogers wrote: 3. If they are right

Nope. Science is not anyone's subjective opinion or wild guess. This point of yours is similarly discarded with the rest of them.

Pete Rogers wrote: 4. The correct explanation is that gravity reduces the volume of the atmosphere whose thermal energy is nevertheless conserved under the 1st Law causing the ATE.

Pure gibberish.
1. You are stuck in tense-conflation mode. You are clearly claiming that gravity reduces (in the present tense) the volume of the atmosphere and clearly the atmosphere's volume is not reducing. You understand that gravity reduced the earth's atmosphere in the past, but you apparently cannot grasp the difference between the past and the present.
2. You are embarassingly conflating the concepts of equilibrium and of energy conservation.
This point of yours is summarily discarded.

Pete Rogers wrote: 5. Accordingly the GE has no thermal consequence, the ATE being the result of Gravity acting on the Atmosphere to compress it to the degree we witness.

You are arguing Greenhouse Effect, just with a different cause as you make painfully clear right here. It doesn't matter what you are claiming is the cause of the physics violation, e.g. CO2, gravity, men from Mars, etc... physics simply does not support your claim. This point of yours is summarily discarded.

Pete Rogers wrote: 6. Accordingly Climate Change is not anthropogenic because if the GE is not potent neither is our paltry contribution to it.

This sentence is gibberish. What is Climate Change, what humans are engaging in it and how does it relate to anything that you have previously written?

We're going to have to set this point aside until you translate it into English.

Pete Rogers wrote: 7. Climatic variations are therefore due to changes in net insolation

What are Climatic variations? We'll put this one on hold until you translate this one too.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... your duty is to deal with these 7 particulars.

Once I have eliminated all the errors ... there is nothing left. You literally have no argument. You only have confusing religious dogma-babble.

Pete Rogers wrote:Of course it is work subtracted, that's why it is negative and why it increases temperature when expansion

Well then that you need to explain. If it is work subtracted then you need to explain from what it is subtracted.

What is the specific force and distance that is comprising this "Work" in question and from what are you subtracting it? To what "expansion" do you refer?

Let's knock this one out so we can cross this one off your "fatal problem" list.

Pete Rogers wrote: What flaw?

These Flaws.



Pete Rogers wrote:It is necessary to test a substance before pronouncing your conclusion

Correct. After thorough consideration of every aspect of your WACKY religious dogma, these are my findings.

Pete Rogers wrote: I said that advocates cannot help because it is their job to win regardless of merit.

Is that your reason for mindlessly preaching your WACKY dogma without addressing any of the fatal flaws?

On this site we are essentially jurors, people who examine and assess merit in an impartial manner, not nitwits who just buy WACKY religious gibber-babble crap that is presented without any cross-examination being permitted.

Pete Rogers wrote:"Whacky"

The correct word is WACKY. The word "whack" refers to the result of something being hit or slapped. Your religious dogma is WACKY which means crazy/loco/bizarre/stupid/zany/absurd/ludicrous and the upper case letters denote emphasis of the extremely wacky nature of your religious dogma. There doesn't seem to be any sanity behind it.

Pete Rogers wrote: there is clearly no physics violation except - for example -

... your claim that a body of matter, e.g. the earth, can somehow spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. Your distracting gibber-babble concerning "negative work" was debunked and your WACKY religious dogma has been falsified.

DISMISSED.






Edited on 14-04-2021 22:40
16-04-2021 16:01
bobkolker
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
duncan61 wrote:
What is atmosphric pressure and why is it always changing??


Primarily due to unequal heating of the atmosphere.
16-04-2021 23:32
S@ve0ur3arth
☆☆☆☆☆
(24)
duncan61 wrote:
What is atmosphric pressure and why is it always changing??

The reason why atmospheric pressure keeps changing is becasue climate change. To be honest, this is a really delicate topic.
17-04-2021 00:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)
bobkolker wrote:
duncan61 wrote:What is atmosphric pressure and why is it always changing??
Primarily due to unequal heating of the atmosphere.

You lost me. The sun is nothing if not an equal opportunity heater. Where does the sun heat the earth unequally?

17-04-2021 02:24
James___
★★★★★
(5118)
IBdaMann wrote:
bobkolker wrote:
duncan61 wrote:What is atmosphric pressure and why is it always changing??
Primarily due to unequal heating of the atmosphere.

You lost me. The sun is nothing if not an equal opportunity heater. Where does the sun heat the earth unequally?




And you forgot that mountains influence air circulation just as flora or the lack of it will affect the Earth's albedo. This can influence the amount of electromagnetic radiation in the atmosphere.
17-04-2021 03:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
bobkolker wrote:
duncan61 wrote:What is atmosphric pressure and why is it always changing??
Primarily due to unequal heating of the atmosphere.

You lost me. The sun is nothing if not an equal opportunity heater. Where does the sun heat the earth unequally?




And you forgot that mountains influence air circulation just as flora or the lack of it will affect the Earth's albedo. This can influence the amount of electromagnetic radiation in the atmosphere.


Wait, are you telling me that plants allow for the heating of the planet?

17-04-2021 03:37
James___
★★★★★
(5118)
IBdaMann wrote:

Wait, are you telling me that plants allow for the heating of the planet?



Cooling. Why 6CO2 + 6H2O + hv allows for glucose. There is a remainder of 6O2. This decreases the planet's albedo.
17-04-2021 03:56
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1378)
Good response Pete.What I am getting is there is gravity,The air is denser at surface than at 10,000 feet.If gravity is not making the air denser at the surface what is?
17-04-2021 05:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)
duncan61 wrote:Good response Pete.What I am getting is there is gravity,The air is denser at surface than at 10,000 feet.If gravity is not making the air denser at the surface what is?

You are officially being intentionally dishonest and, of course, you will be treated as such. If there ever were any doubt about Pete Rogers having you bent over furniture, you eliminated it all with your latest post.

G'day, sir.

17-04-2021 10:12
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1378)
You said come to you with the hard stuff.Why is the air denser at the lower troposphere?Pete lives 6000 kms from but if he has chesterfield I am up for it.what purpose would being dishonest serve. I am here to learn as the people I live with have zero interest in this topic
17-04-2021 19:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)
duncan61 wrote: You said come to you with the hard stuff.Why is the air denser at the lower troposphere?

Nope.

It has long since been your turn to answer some questions.

Explain the fatal flaws in the theory that you insist you understand.

For your convenience I will post them here:

1. The dogma egregiously violates thermodynamics which holds that no body of matter can ever spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. The dogma nonetheless claims gravity alone can increase the average temperature of a body of matter. The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked countless times, but only one time is sufficient.

2. English tenses are conflated. The contradictory dogma insists that something that has happened, and that is no longer happening (i.e. the present perfect), is nonetheless still happening (i.e. the present progressive). This is an irreconcilable contradiction. The dogma acknowledges that the atmosphere's volume is not changing at the present moment but nonetheless insists that the atmosphere is compressing at the present moment. This atmospheric compression, which ceased long ago, is attributed as still occurring and is claimed to be responsible for the wondrous physics violations mentioned in point #1 above.

3. The dogma is simply Greenhouse Effect repackaged under different names and terms. Yes, the cause is different, i.e. gravity vs. CO2, but the end result, i.e. the effect is one and the same. The dogma insists that earth's average global temperature ultimately increases without additional energy, exactly as the standard Greenhouse Effect dogma. The dogma is based upon a fictitious (read non-existent) reality in which the earth would be an ice ball were it not for the fictitious (read non-existent) violation of physics performed by this version of Greenhouse Effect making the earth warmer than it otherwise should be.

4. The dogma is based entirely upon semantics-shifting between different definitions of "heat" ... as convenient. The dogma breaks down entirely if the word "heat" is required to correctly mean the flow of thermal energy between two bodies of matter. As it stands, the dogma treats heat as something that is "contained" and heat is not something that can ever be contained.

5. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around. The backwards dogma gets it backwards and directly violates the 2nd law of thermodynamics in the process.

6. The dogma insists the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course this is neither explained nor justified ... and it needs to be because currently it stands as a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

Get to it.

duncan61 wrote: Pete lives 6000 kms from

Possibly, but you are a liar who will regurgitate whatever Pete Rogers instructs you to. You will not be honest with me so fuúk you. I feel sorry for anyone who falls for your schtick. Pete Rogers is the "straight man" and you are the buffoon sidekick.

duncan61 wrote:what purpose would being dishonest serve.

You two are obviously a team. You are helping Pete Rogers push his agenda, which is his version of Greenhouse Effect.

duncan61 wrote: I am here to learn

Boolsch't. You are here to lie and to serve as support for Pete Rogers.

Now stop asking questions and start explaining those fatal flaws. I will not answer any more of your questions until you do.

Liar.

17-04-2021 20:09
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Pete Rogers wrote: The answer is advection and fetch of course, just like I already told you before you had this hissy fit.

IBdaMann wroteThe answer is that you are STILL too much of a moron to understand why there are waves in the ocean. How embarrassing. I think you should address your phobia by seeing a counselor because you aren't going to ever become rational if you are spooked by every easy, straightforward question of which you catch wind.

So this is what you call rational argument is it? Well I think I can safely rest my case as isw now usual in these proceedings.
I gave you the answer, but instead of reasoned falsification - which I think you will find impossible anyway - it has just led to yet another of your hissy fits. This is the performance of a juvenile not a scientist and it appears to be at the upper limit of your intellectual reach.
I repeat - waves are caused by advection and further determined by fetch - are you unfamiliar with these terms? if so let me know and I will be happy to explain them for your consideration.

Pete Rogers wrote:How does this fantasy stuff help your argument?

IBdaMann wroteI don't have an argument. You do. You are the one who started this thread. The full burden of support for your WACKY religious dogma rests with you. I am not somehow obligated to prove your religion FALSE lest your argument therefore be declared TRUE. You actually have to support your argument if you want anyone to accept it, and that requires you to answer all questions posed to you about your WACKY religious dogma. I have identified six fatal flaws with the dogma you preach and you have FAILED to rectify a single one of them.

Of course, you are not obligated, but it is you who has chosen to pronounce as though he does have an argument, but then says he doesn't, with which
I can only agree since none of your pronouncements actually debate the particulars of the reasoning, I put to you, so they are of no help. If you don't have an argument then what are you trying to achieve?

IBdaMann wroteFor your convenience I have posted a brief synopsis of the problems of your religious faith on Politiplex.

When I click the link, I get "This site can't be reached Check if there is a typo in x. If spelling is correct, try running windows network Diagnostics. DNS_PROBE_FINISHED_NXDOMAIN

IBdaMasnn wroteUntil you actually make an effort to address the fatal flaws, I will presume you have simply abandoned all attempts to defend your ZANY version of Greenhouse Effect.

What flaws? Explain yourself? As things stand your words have no value, just unexplained assertion and gainsaying. You must use reasoned arguments to support your conclusions not rely on these repetitive declarations backed by nothing.


That's a lot of fun, but Dilbert would not contradict the world of known Science by dismissing "Negative Work". I remind you of the evidence I have provided from Mining Engineers, Engineering Beta, Standard Physics Examination Papers and a Professorial MIT lecture.
Dilbert would appreciate that where you still seem to be experiencing difficulty - first you accepted it then gave it a name of your own - "Subtractive Work" - with no authority or justification for doing so.
It is not Gravity that prevents atmospheric cooling you twit, it is the surrounding vacuum beyond its limits preventing outward conduction.
Accordingly, the atmosphere loses the enhanced temperature it acquires from its compressed state in the only way it can - by conduction back to the surface under the 2nd Law where it raises the temperature to our increased equilibrium level balanced by increased IR emission.
A system in equilibrium does not warm or cool further - you ought to know all this. I enjoyed the cartoon nonetheless, which shows that behind all the dumb and rather desperate spite lurks an occasional sense of humour - for which I am grateful.

Pete Rogers wrote: This is just inexplicable assertion and therefore of no value - what king are you talking about - for instance - and how come he is tipped and what does that mean scientifically?

IBdaMann wroteI have never accused you of being smart enough to understand common sayings and idiomatic expressions. In fact, I have repeatedly approved your "moron's pass" as granting you a somewhat permanent excuse for not knowing anything.

So don't worry about any sentences that you don't quite get because the are really intended for others. You aren't expected to understand anything that you have to read.

This is more foolishness from what looks increasingly certain to be a juvenile mind. I presume you do not know what "king" or "tip" was supposed to convey since no explanation has been forthcoming - this is science- not playground "Yah boo!" you idiot. Having said that, I will certainly be taking your advice not to worry about this kind of piffle coming from you.

Pete Rogers wrote: Being a genius as I understand you to believe yourself to be

IBdaMann wroteYou misunderstand. I specifically stated that you are not the fúuking genius that you believe yourself to be. You don't have worry that I will be envious that all of the focus is on you.

I understood everything about it of course - what's not to understand – but including the reflexive nature of the remark given the copious evidence to show the swollen extent of your ego - the abundance of which you are about to demonstrate in the next extract - so I just turned it up to illuminate your personal absurdity.

IBdaMann wroteI have never claimed to be a genius. I simply know everything.

There it is! "I Simply know everything." I rest my case yet again on the basis of such a lunatic statement as that.
When your head is stuck that far up your own fundament you have no hope of seeing what a spectacle you are making of yourself, but everybody who resists that kind of anal connection gets a very good view of the hilarious figure you present to the seeing world.

IBdaMann wrote Soy un sabelotodo y por eso no tengo amistades. My mother suggested that I study hard and just learn everything before my 10th birthday so that I would be free to engage in any and all pursuits while my friends were all playing "catch-up" at school. It was great advice and I'm glad I listened to her, so don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

Aaah, that explains it - finally you dispel the mystery - you haven't learned anything since you were 10 years old. Furthermore, may i ask what these subsequent pursuits were (any and all of them)? The thing is that they don't seem to have helped evolve your character as you give every appearance of being an objectionable adolescent with a bad attitude and no understanding of how to comportment himself towards others, no written social skills for instance.
As a result of what comes across as being somewhat arrested intellectual development you are left unwilling - or unable - to honour, or perhaps even understand, the epistemological requirements necessary for a person to make a valid critique of a theory, including the one I put to you.
You could have written all that abusive, egocentric, back-firing mockery; and the unsupported declarations of supposed truth that then follows hot on its heels: without having really learned anything properly - which accords with this experience.

Pete Rogers wrote:your unsupported assertion "Wacky?" is just more "because you say so".

Nope. It's entirely because you make it so. You. The focus is still on you
.
In your hands the argument (Mr. I have no argument?) over this has now become reduced to an assertion about assertion not being correctly dismissed for being nothing but assertion. Do wake up and pay attention!

Pete Rogers wrote:In order to clarify your grasp or lack of it let me see if you agree with the following statement.
"If you compress an adiabatic gas body into half its original volume then according to the 1st Law (that energy be conserved) and the ability to divide by 1/2 the temperature must double - because now there is twice the thermal energy per unit volume?"

IBdaMann wroteNope. I do not agree with your error-riddled statement. Were you trying to see how many errors you could cram into one run-on sentence?

This contribution; seemingly untouched by human mind: is characterised by the ever-present scornful verbosity, but let's just cut through all that and realise all you are really saying is that you disagree, which means that - according to you - compressing an adiabatic gas body to half its original does not increase the Temperature by doubling the Thermal Energy per unit volume. Whilst that's the finding of a lunatic in my opinion, let's see if you have, nevertheless, provided an explanation to show that you are right despite my opinion. So let's look at your first attempt at falsification here.

IBdaMann wrote
a. the first law of thermodynamics does not address temperature.

How does this affect the answer to the question whereby halving the volume doubles the thermal energy per unit volume and therefore affects the temperature according to that? You offer no reasoned opinion as to why not, so the objection carries no weight and so it fails.
Then you purport to give a second reason

IBdaMann wrote
b. the temperature increase you mention is governed by the Ideal Gas Law.

Ok, so what has that told you about the temperature in this case, you do not say? Decreasing the volume increases the thermal energy per unit volume though, doesn't it? So this doesn't help you either, because this also fails accordingly.
Your third reason as to why compressing a body by 50% doesn't increase the temperature is

IBdaMann wrotec. "compress [] a body into half its volume" shows that you are fully aware that diminishing volume is the definition of "to compress" and is not somehow something incidental, which is your previous assertion.

It is not possible to make any sense of this because it suggests that by the tender age of 10; when your learning stopped: you had not come to realise that if a body of gas is held in a state of compression it is being compressed and will remain in that state and degree of compression, i.e. being compressed, unless and until the pressure is reduced or increased, whereby it becoming either less or more compressed, but being compressed somewhat in either case. You seem to struggle with this and your next point is frankly astonishing in its foolishness as a result.

d. You are not dividing by 1/2. You are dividing by 2.

The body has half the units of volume compared to what it had prior to the compression, so I divide by half to get the thermal energy per unit volume thus demonstrating the inevitability of the doubling of temperature. So how can you make such a ridiculous claim as "You are dividing by 2"? I mean - honestly - you need to go to your room and lie down for a bit, because having made such a blunder you wouldn't have gone on to make it worse by saying

Don't worry, you can just flash your "moron's pass" and you can claim any excuse you like, or none at all.

Which pretty much puts the lid on it. The moron can only be the one who deduces that anyone had divided by 2 - so enter IBdaMann and congratulations on achieving that status - or indeed any status when it comes to that.
Putting the lid on it - hmm, remember the allegory you made such an awful mess of?
It is an allegory illustrative of the reasoning, not of the verisimilitude but an excellent vehicle for illustrative purposes.
If you put a lid on a simmering pan of water the temperature goes up so that it boils. The lid compresses the air enhancing the temperature thereby and the 2nd Law applies in the reverse direction causing the water to boil.
It is probable that your dazzling ego will prevent your eyes from seeing this.
I shouldn't need to go on any longer, but you give such good examples of how immature people become inextricably tangled in their own vanity that I feel ought. It has a lot to do with why people do not learn properly at school and maybe even play hooky from the age of ten because their Mum tells them they already know everything because they know everything. As my Father remarked of a young Oxbridge army officer who "Knew everything" "It is the easiest thing in the world for him to believe he knows, because al,l it needs is for him to be unaware of the existence of things he doesn't know." and you would do well to heed that fact about yourself. I take it that you are a teenager, so all things can be forgiven provided you are able to employ impartiality and therefore be open to new information of this type.

Pete Rogers wrote:I have frequently provided the particulars of my argument

IBdaMann wroteYou have NEVER fixed the fatal flaws in the particulars of your argument.

No flaws have been shown in the particular discussed above for instance, only claims in the form of declarations which are on no more solid ground than a "because I say so" basis as there is nothing else offered.
No other particular has been dealt with in a manner any better than this one because all that comes back from you is this kind of hostility, being in bad faith from the point of view of what is required for reasoned discussion.

Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) - Dogma Flaws

this site does not allow comment, so there is no opportunity for debating and correction on it - and boy could it do with that! Nonetheless I will give a small sample of its foolishness.

You say
"The bogus claim of "negative work" has been debunked"

Which is patent nonsense. You yourself even acknowledged it - finally - when I provided the MIT Lecture on the very subject, but presumably due to personal resentment and the adolescent mind decided to use your own term - "Subtractive Work" unknown to anyone besides you.
Please remove your head from your fundament as previously advised.

You also say
"The dogma acknowledges that the atmosphere's volume is not changing at the present moment but nonetheless insists that the atmosphere is compressing"

The Atmosphere is under compression due to gravity and was, has, and is still being so what is all this nonsense about?

Next
"The dogma is simply Greenhouse Effect repackaged under different names and terms."

You are referring to the ATE, which is the difference between the average temperature on the Moon - which has no relevant atmosphere - and that of the Earth, which does. The question is howcome the atmosphere makes this thermal contribution and that is the source of the IPCC claim that the GE is the phenomenon responsible whereas in truth it is the natural result of gravitational compression enhancing the temperature of the adiabatic gas body.
You seem to be struggling with the difference between the fact of the ATE and the theory of the GE and cannot separate them because you only have the information available to a ten year old. It suggests that you are still adolescent.

Finally I will deal with
"The dogma insists the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course, this is neither explained nor justified ... and it needs to be because currently it stands as a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann."


The process was there from the beginning. Insolation passes through the troposphere with no effect, turning into thermal energy on impact with the solid/liquid surface, warming it and under the 2nd Law conducting thermal energy into an atmosphere under compression leading to enhanced temperature reversing the direction according to the requirements of the 2nd Law. After this graduating process the Earth achieves the ATE. There is no magic, just Fluid Dynamics and Thermodynamics. Your claim that there is any violation of S-B is specious. The relevant process is the Kelvin-Helmholtz contraction, which affects every atmosphere; or other adiabatic gas body: above 10kPa.

Pete Rogers wrote:1. Both sides agree that without an atmosphere the earth would be cooler.

IBdaMann wrote
1. You do not get to mandate to what others must agree

Of course not, only a lame-brain would want one. The sensible person does not and simply looks at the record - have you tried that?
IBdaMann wrote
2. Science is not a matter of agreement/opinion.

It is strange that he thinks this point is necessary in my presence, or can be made in his favour since I have told him on numerous occasions that Science is a matter of Epistemology, but he fails to observe or understand that according to his penchant for unsupported opinion - I continually point to this failing which remains uncorrected means that he is effectively saying that we must accept what he is telling us "because I say so" and it is that which is the religious position, but he remains in the dark in that regard.
IBdaMannYou are thinking of religion.

See what I mean. I rest my case yet again
IBdaMann wrote
3. Blackbody science tells us that the atmosphere is part of the earth and that it has no effect on the earth's average temperature; its only effect is to reduce the temperature difference between day and night.

Please back this up otherwise it is just more assertion. S-B says the opposite - that the ATE is at least 33K, but you are denying this without explaining why which is another scientific "no no" from your seemingly endless supply of nonsense.

[bIBdaMann wrote][/b]
4. You join tmiddles in your denial of the daytime side of the moon which has no atmosphere and is hotter than any atmosphere-covered daytime location on planet earth. What a moron you must be to deny the moon has a side facing the sun.

This is priceless buffoonery too. I denied no such thing. The point is that the average moon temperature (something you rather foolishly declare - with no support - to be impossible to estimate!) is 197.5K according to all the agencies, astronomers and astrophysicists. Compared to the Earth's 288K (something you rather foolishly declare - with no support - to be impossible to estimate!)

IBdaMann wroteThis point of yours is summarily rejected.

Oooops, this alone gets your entire argument tossed. Sorry.

"Summarily" is the operative word here, meaning that it mis done without the benefit of thinking first, so on a religious basis (because the great IBdaMann says so - what a laugh). Wake up Mann! Or should I say - "Your Holiness"?

Pete Rogers wrote: 2. IPCC say ...

IBdaMan wrote
1. I am not aware of anyone who cares.

If you listen to the news and widespread propaganda about the whole thing you will easily overcome this lack of awareness. A scientist cannot be so divorced from reality as this. Only a resentful adolescent can.

IBdaMann wrote
2. Science is not anyone's opinion. Science is not subjective.

This is the irony - you say such things whilst ignoring Epistemology (your "because I say so" approach), which means that you are the one doing this very thing that you are falsely laying at the feet of others. The process is known as hypocrisy and you are riddled with it as I hope to have shown by your epistemological failings, which are to such an extent that you seem blind to it. It's gone too far so there's no way back until you get your hormones under control.

IBdaMann wrote
3. Nobody owns science. No organization or institution establishes science. Nobody's approval is required for science to exist.

What is this about? Nobody has suggested otherwise except you who tell us continually that you know you are right because you say so!

IBdaMann wrote
4. You have not explained why any IPCC statement matters in any way.

Because it is self-evident. If you took a moment to look around you, you will quickly see that Politicians are "beating everyone up" and frightening people into surrendering their control by creating oppressive Global Political Policy on CO2 emissions coming from the disgraceful pronouncements of the IPCC. If you think that does not matter then you have little connection to the real world of events and are of no relevance.

IBdaMann wroteThis point of yours is summarily dismissed.

Really? "Because you say so" again mayhap?

Pete Rogers wrote: 3. If they are right

IBdaMann wroteNope. Science is not anyone's subjective opinion or wild guess.

That is why I provide a fully reasoned account which I offer for falsification in accordance with the Scientific Method with its Epistemological requirements.

IBdaMann wroteThis point of yours is similarly discarded with the rest of them.

Because you say so again? Where is the Epistemological reasoning? In its absence this is another religious pronouncement


That's the conditional, not a point, but the basis for the hypothesis I go on to put. To deny the scientific need for hypothesisation is what the Pope did to Galileo you religious nut! Stop it!

Pete Rogers wrote: 4. The correct explanation is that gravity reduces the volume of the atmosphere whose thermal energy is nevertheless conserved under the 1st Law causing the ATE.

IBdaMann wrotePure gibberish.

Because you say so and that being enough again perchance Your Holiness?

IBdaMann wrote1. You are stuck in tense-conflation mode. You are clearly claiming that gravity reduces (in the present tense) the volume of the atmosphere and clearly the atmosphere's volume is not reducing.

What is this nonsense? I consistently say that Gravity has reduced the volume to the level we witness today where it remains, all due to Gravitational compression which continues at the present level, so what is this "present tense" rot about? It certainly has nothing to do with anything I said.

IBdaMann wroteYou understand that gravity reduced the earth's atmosphere in the past, but you apparently cannot grasp the difference between the past and the present.

Duhh – let me out!! I understand, like anyone who has two brain cells to rub together, that the atmosphere was under compression by gravity from the beginning and remains so today. Are you having trouble following this or something? It's pretty basic after all.

IBdaMann wrote2. You are embarrassingly conflating the concepts of equilibrium and of energy conservation.

Please elaborate. What evidence of such an idiotic idea are you referring to?
IBdaMannThis point of yours is summarily discarded.

There we go again it's "Your Holiness" then is it?

Pete Rogers wrote: 5. Accordingly the GE has no thermal consequence, the ATE being the result of Gravity acting on the Atmosphere to compress it to the degree we witness.

IBdaMann wroteYou are arguing Greenhouse Effect, just with a different cause as you make painfully clear right here. It doesn't matter what you are claiming is the cause of the physics violation, e.g. CO2, gravity, men from Mars, etc... physics simply does not support your claim.

Do wake up! The difference between S-B255 and what we experience is the ATE, being the thermal effect of our having an atmosphere. The question "What is the cause" leads us to 2 main conflicting arguments. Firstly, that it is the GE, which is wrong, and secondly that it is Gravity which is right and easily supported by Physics. There is no Empirical Evidence of a thermal consequence for the GE incidentally – though no doubt you knew that.

IBdaMann wrote This point of yours is summarily discarded.

Who by?

Pete Rogers wrote: 6. Accordingly Climate Change is not anthropogenic because if the GE is not potent neither is our paltry contribution to it.

IBdaMann wrote This sentence is gibberish. What is Climate Change,

Here is a definition, "Climate Change is a change in global or regional climate patterns, in particular a change apparent from the mid to late 20th century onwards " Doesn't seem like gibberish

IBdaMann wrote what humans are engaging in it and how does it relate to anything that you have previously written?

That's easy, nobody is, but IPCC wrongly say everybody is so that's how it relates to EVERYTHING I have previously written.

IBdaMann wrote We're going to have to set this point aside until you translate it into English.

Who's we?

Pete Rogers wrote: 7. Climatic variations are therefore due to changes in net insolation

IBdaMann wrote What are Climatic variations? We'll put this one on hold until you translate this one too.

Climate variation is the alteration to climatic conditions with respect to time. I hope this helps. Incidentally – who's we?

Pete Rogers wrote: ... your duty is to deal with these 7 particulars.

IBdaMann wrote Once I have eliminated all the errors ... there is nothing left. You literally have no argument.

Once, indeed. You haven't managed any yet remember though.

IBdaMann wroteYou only have confusing religious dogma-babble.

Anything you say Your Holiness – who are we to question such eminence, what with your direct line to the ultimate being and all?

Pete Rogers wrote:Of course it is work subtracted, that's why it is negative and why it increases temperature when expansion

IBdaMann wroteWell then that you need to explain. If it is work subtracted then you need to explain from what it is subtracted.

It's subtracted from Zero of course silly!! Best just call it by its proper name to avoid confusion – "Negative Work" - like the MIT Lecturer told you, you shouldn't have a problem once you've got that.

IBdaMann wroteWhat is the specific force and distance that is comprising this "Work" in question

The force is Gravity and the distance is from where the tropopause would be at 10kPa.

IBdaMann wroteand from what are you subtracting it?

I dealt with this silly question just now

IBdaMann wroteTo what "expansion" do you refer?

The expansion due to warming

IBdaMann wroteLet's knock this one out so we can cross this one off your "fatal problem" list.

The list is "Zero" so far anyway, so what's to knock?

Pete Rogers wrote: What flaw?

These Flaws.
I've dealt with some of these already, they're from the site where people can't add comments, but happy to do a few more here.
You say, for instance
5. The planet's solid and liquid surface increases the temperature of the atmosphere, not the other way around.

It is sequentially both ways round. The insolation passes through the transparent Troposphere becoming thermal Energy on impacting the Solid/Liquid Planetary surface warming it up. The thermal energy is transferred by conduction - under the 2nd Law -into the Atmosphere at its base where it occupies a reduced space compared to otherwise because of the Gravitational compression. The effect is to increase the thermal energy per unit volume above the amount otherwise (If compression had been less) enhancing the temperature causing reverse transfer back to the surface under the 2nd Law, thus increasing the Planetary temperature which comes into Equilibrium at the ATE due to increased IR emission.

Pete Rogers wrote:It is necessary to test a substance before pronouncing your conclusion

IBdaMann wroteCorrect. After thorough consideration of every aspect of your WACKY religious dogma, these are my findings.

Oh, so were back to that again are we? Then let me deal with another fallacy therefrom.
You say:-
6. The dogma insists the earth's equilibrium temperature magically increased at some point. Of course, this is neither explained nor justified ... and it needs to be because currently it stands as a direct violation of Stefan-Boltzmann.

Whereas there is no Magic, just Physics, as shown above. It all happened and is a continuum from the beginning and will continue in permanent operation. Stefan-Boltzmann Puts then ATE at 33K , so where is the violation please?
Pete Rogers wrote: I said that advocates cannot help because it is their job to win regardless of merit.

IBdaMann wroteIs that your reason for mindlessly preaching your WACKY dogma without addressing any of the fatal flaws?

I think we are some way beyond even laughing at this kind of thing Your Holiness.

IBdaMann wroteOn this site we are essentially jurors, people who examine and assess merit in an impartial manner, not nitwits who just buy WACKY religious gibber-babble crap that is presented without any cross-examination being permitted.

So this is your idea of impartiality – a kind of insane raging attack on contrary opinion without the decency to proceed under epistemological principles – is it?
There is surely no need for further comment because such bigotry would be shameful in any self-respecting Juror so you are not that, but little more than a furious and bigoted advocate who refuses to adhere to honest assessment principles it is plain to see.

Pete Rogers wrote:"Whacky"

IBdaMann wroteThe correct word is WACKY. The word "whack" refers to the result of something being hit or slapped. Your religious dogma is WACKY which means crazy/loco/bizarre/stupid/zany/absurd/ludicrous and the upper case letters denote emphasis of the extremely wacky nature of your religious dogma. There doesn't seem to be any sanity behind it.

Another example of your highly reasoned, impartial, balanced argument as to the effect of gravity on our Temperature then Your Holiness, thanks for that? Presumably the burnings at the stake would begin if you had your way – si?

Pete Rogers wrote: there is clearly no physics violation except - for example -

IBdaMann wrote... your claim that a body of matter, e.g. the earth, can somehow spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy. Your distracting gibber-babble concerning "negative work" was debunked and your WACKY religious dogma has been falsified.

That's not my claim at all, but your misguided assessment as a result of your failure to read for comprehension. There is no spontaneity or change in energy, just the 4bn year old continuation of the results of insolation and gravity on the earth and its atmosphere. T5here has been no falsification because there has been no epistemological argument from you just the Holy verdict.

IBdaMann wroteDISMISSED.

Why is his Holiness shouting so, is he upset with the heretic?





17-04-2021 21:02
Pete Rogers
★★☆☆☆
(160)
gfm7175 wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Its getting personal Pete let it go and move on to other stuff.

Indeed he should, if he refuses to hold a discussion. He is not going to convert ITN, IBD, nor myself over to believing in his wacky "ATE" religion. It is now to the point of insanity.


That's pretty dumb. I always follow the demands of Epistemology, taking the trouble to support my contentions with arguments, but it is met with stuff like this, pure gainsay. There is no attempt on your part to justify a single word or suggestion so you are demanding that it be accepted as the case because you have written it - effectively - no other reason, and that violation of epistemological principle means that it cannot be ascribed any meaning. Either you must follow honest process or stop bothering people.
17-04-2021 21:20
James___
★★★★★
(5118)
duncan61 wrote:
You said come to you with the hard stuff.Why is the air denser at the lower troposphere?Pete lives 6000 kms from but if he has chesterfield I am up for it.what purpose would being dishonest serve. I am here to learn as the people I live with have zero interest in this topic



The attached image should give you an idea that the troposphere has an upper limit. The tropopause is forming the anvil. Gravity does increase atmospheric air pressure. But this is not because an apple falls at 9.81 m/s/s/.
Gravity also has an angular potential. This is actually the greater value. The KE of atmospheric gasses at ground level might show an odd aspect of gravity. An apple drops at 35 kmh. It's orbital velocity should be about 27,500 kmh but is only about 1,600 kmh. This could show that the Earth itself slows the angular potential of gravity close to its surface.
It's probably this interaction that helps to determine how air pressure is created.
It's not based on a column of air simply because gasses exert the same force in all directions at all times. So it would be the average force within the troposphere.
Attached image:


Edited on 17-04-2021 21:23
17-04-2021 21:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(10017)
Pete Rogers wrote:That's pretty dumb.

gfm7175's approach is absolutely rational. He has absolutely no reason to rush to embrace your WACKY religion when you won't even make an effort to answer any of his questions. You demand unconditional faith and you call him "dumb" for not OBEYING you "just because you say so."

You're a moron.

Nobody has seen hide nor hair of your explanations of the fatal flaws in your WACKY religious dogma. They are all still HERE.

There is no attempt on your part to justify a single word or suggestion so you are demanding that it be accepted as the case because you have written it - effectively - no other reason, and that violation of epistemological principle means that it cannot be ascribed any meaning.

Pete Rogers wrote: I always follow the demands of Epistemology

Why not try following the scientific method? Oh, that's right, you wouldn't get out of the starting gate owing to all of your physics violations. You are pushing a religion, after all, and a particularly WACKY one that isn't even original; it's just a brazen copy of Greenhouse Effect. The only possible congregation that you will be able to attract are the extremely stupid and the extremely dishonest.

Which one is Duncan?

Either you must follow honest process or stop bothering people.

17-04-2021 21:34
James___
★★★★★
(5118)
And in the US, the typical attitude towards atmospheric chemistry and physics.
Some might say "koala?" which translates to que árbol? (what tree)
Attached image:


Edited on 17-04-2021 21:35
Page 21 of 25<<<1920212223>>>





Join the debate Global warming is not anthropogenic:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Liberals have mental disease caused by anthropogenic chemicals103-02-2017 20:30
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact