Remember me
▼ Content

Global warming is not anthropogenic



Page 22 of 23<<<20212223>
18-04-2021 03:26
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
IBdaMann wrote:
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.

. I do not possess the ability to reason out as well as Pete just has.Are you going to grab the ball and go home.


duncan61
18-04-2021 04:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
duncan61 wrote:I do not possess the ability to reason out as well as Pete ...

That's truly a shame since Pete cannot reason whatsoever.

duncan61 wrote:Are you going to grab the ball and go home.

Let's try again ... you claim to thoroughly understand Pete's argument, so simply explain it while you are reconciling these otherwise fatal flaws:

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.



... or you can try being honest and just denouncing the crap until it actually is explained to you such that you actually do understand it and can either reconcile the fatal flaws or you admit that it's all crap.

Any, get to it.

18-04-2021 04:56
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
I will bullet point my simple understanding
. The planet Earth has an Atmosphere
. It is comprised of gasses
.Gravity makes the gasses denser at the surface
.Energy of some sort from the sun warms the surface during the day
.This Energy warms the Atmosphere at the surface
.The denser Atmosphere takes more time to heat/cool
.This keeps the temperature of the Atmosphere from going up or down rapidly like the moon.
I find this credible without any knowledge of the physics involved
Without this forum I would not of considered any of this
. I am working today and had a trench to dig which I have just done as by 12pm it will be hot as F;:k out the front even though it's Autumn
Can you explain any of the points I have made that are not correct and I will take them in to consideration
This whole AGW/CC theory makes sense it just is not happening
Based on our very limited ability to measure the temperature of the Earth a small rise was detected so being human we had to find out why.CO2 was easy to blame and that started the whole issue
The same devices.Thermometers/Satellites are now showing stability over the last few decades and Australia has been showing a drop in average so the data is being cooked as the ball is rolling and can not be stopped
I can handle being insulted as it is an Internet forum keep it real brothers
18-04-2021 05:06
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
I am camping at the house I am doing the water service at as it is across town and there is no way to get here without hitting traffic.I have been fortunate as it gets up to 28C in the middle of the day and drops to around 18C at night which means I can zip up my swag and not get eaten by mosquitoes.Another theory I am considering is the people getting alll worked up about warming would get worked up over anything they are told.Back to work time
18-04-2021 05:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
duncan61 wrote:I will bullet point my simple understanding

You are supposed to be explaining the fatal errors.

duncan61 wrote:. .Gravity makes the gasses denser at the surface

Gravity compressed the atmosphere long ago. Gravity stopped having any effect on the atmosphere once it reached a certain point.

So gravity does NOT make the atmosphere more dense in the present tense, you are well aware of this, and you are a shit-eating liar who INTENTIONALLY conflates verb tenses for the purpose of deception ... because Pete Rogers has ordered you to do so.

Anyway, this is fatal flaw #2 and you have not reconciled it ... you have merely sought to continue propogating it.

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.

So give it another try.

duncan61 wrote:.The denser Atmosphere takes more time to heat/cool

This is meaningless gibberish yet you claim to "understand" it. You are a liar.

Anyway, since you now are fully aware that the atmosphere isn't any denser than it was last week, last year, last century, last millenium, last eon, etc... you can pepper Pete Rogers with demands for explanation rather than try to propogate his dishonesty. So do it. Demand Pete Rogers start explaining ... or you start explaining. One or the other.

duncan61 wrote:I find this credible without any knowledge of the physics involved

How can you find something credible while not understanding a lick of it? Ahhh, that's it ... you are just a miserable liar. You pretend to find it credible because you must OBEY Pete Rogers and say whatever he instructs you to say, even if it is WACKY crap. It doesn't matter how stupid what you say is, all that matters is that you OBEY Pete Rogers. I see how it works. I see why you don't ever question anything he writes.

duncan61 wrote: Based on our very limited ability to measure the temperature of the Earth a small rise was detected

You are trying to establish an ability to measure the temperature of the earth in some meaningful way. There is no ability posessed by anyone to measure the temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error. None. Therefore there was no temperature increase detected that somehow needs to be explained.

duncan61 wrote:I can handle being insulted as it is an Internet forum keep it real brothers

Sure. What you cannot handle is Pete Rogers being displeased with you. You don't want him to have to bend you over furniture again for some more remedial "training." Just OBEY him and say all the stupid things he needs you to say so you don't need anouther round at the credenza.

I hate fuúking liars.

18-04-2021 06:31
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
Nice dodging.I kept it simple.I like living in you head. I have got the water on all I have to do now is cement in and clean up the site.I am having a good day.Pete explained the magnificent 6 questions in order and comprehensively enough for this dumb ass plumber to understand.
18-04-2021 08:49
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
duncan61 wrote:
I will bullet point my simple understanding
. The planet Earth has an Atmosphere

Okay.
duncan61 wrote:
. It is comprised of gasses

By definition. Okay.
duncan61 wrote:
.Gravity makes the gasses denser at the surface

Okay.
duncan61 wrote:
.Energy of some sort from the sun warms the surface during the day

Okay. It's infrared light coming from the Sun.
duncan61 wrote:
.This Energy warms the Atmosphere at the surface

By conduction. It also warms the atmosphere by radiance.
duncan61 wrote:
.The denser Atmosphere takes more time to heat/cool

Nope. Density does not affect the heat index of any substance.
duncan61 wrote:
.This keeps the temperature of the Atmosphere from going up or down rapidly like the moon.
I find this credible without any knowledge of the physics involved
Without this forum I would not of considered any of this
. I am working today and had a trench to dig which I have just done as by 12pm it will be hot as F;:k out the front even though it's Autumn

This is basically correct. The atmosphere has mass. It takes time to heat or cool it, just as it does to heat and cool the Earth itself. The difference is that you are only considering the bottom of an ocean of air and attempting to describe that as the temperature of the Earth.
duncan61 wrote:
Can you explain any of the points I have made that are not correct and I will take them in to consideration

Certainly. A contextomy shift is taking place here, along with a false equivalence. This is also known as a pivot fallacy. You are also adding a property to mass that doesn't exist in assuming incorrect things about the heat index of a substance.
duncan61 wrote:
This whole AGW/CC theory makes sense it just is not happening

No, it doesn't make sense. You have to define 'climate change' and 'global warming' first. It is not possible to have a theory about meaningless buzzwords. Theories must be valid arguments.
duncan61 wrote:
Based on our very limited ability to measure the temperature of the Earth a small rise was detected so being human we had to find out why.CO2 was easy to blame and that started the whole issue

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.
duncan61 wrote:
The same devices.Thermometers/Satellites

A satellite is not a thermometer, nor can a satellite measure the temperature of the Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Neither can it be measured either.
duncan61 wrote:
are now showing stability over the last few decades

Argument from randU fallacy. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
duncan61 wrote:
and Australia has been showing a drop in average

It is not possible to measure the temperature of Australia. The temperature of Australia is unknown.
duncan61 wrote:
so the data is being cooked as the ball is rolling and can not be stopped

Random numbers are not data. There is nothing to 'cook'. Also, cooking data makes it useless for statistical mathematics. Statistical mathematics can only make use of unbiased raw data.


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
18-04-2021 08:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
duncan61 wrote:
Nice dodging.I kept it simple.I like living in you head. I have got the water on all I have to do now is cement in and clean up the site.I am having a good day.Pete explained the magnificent 6 questions in order and comprehensively enough for this dumb ass plumber to understand.

Nah. He just uses buzzwords like ATE, figures that gravity is energy, and claims to know the temperature of the Earth.


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
18-04-2021 09:13
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
What's a buzzword?
18-04-2021 09:28
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
Regards the density question.I have soldered copper to brass in the last 24 hours.brass heats faster than copper however the brass fittings are much thicker so I apply most of the flame to the brass fitting to get it all to the right temperature to have the silver solder alloy flow in the joint by capillary attraction.If the air at the lower atmosphere is denser would it not take more time to heat and cool than air at 2000 feet
18-04-2021 15:31
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:I will bullet point my simple understanding

You are supposed to be explaining the fatal errors.

duncan61 wrote:. .Gravity makes the gasses denser at the surface

Gravity compressed the atmosphere long ago. Gravity stopped having any effect on the atmosphere once it reached a certain point.

So gravity does NOT make the atmosphere more dense in the present tense, you are well aware of this, and you are a shit-eating liar who INTENTIONALLY conflates verb tenses for the purpose of deception ... because Pete Rogers has ordered you to do so.

Anyway, this is fatal flaw #2 and you have not reconciled it ... you have merely sought to continue propogating it.

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.

So give it another try.

duncan61 wrote:.The denser Atmosphere takes more time to heat/cool

This is meaningless gibberish yet you claim to "understand" it. You are a liar.

Anyway, since you now are fully aware that the atmosphere isn't any denser than it was last week, last year, last century, last millenium, last eon, etc... you can pepper Pete Rogers with demands for explanation rather than try to propogate his dishonesty. So do it. Demand Pete Rogers start explaining ... or you start explaining. One or the other.

duncan61 wrote:I find this credible without any knowledge of the physics involved

How can you find something credible while not understanding a lick of it? Ahhh, that's it ... you are just a miserable liar. You pretend to find it credible because you must OBEY Pete Rogers and say whatever he instructs you to say, even if it is WACKY crap. It doesn't matter how stupid what you say is, all that matters is that you OBEY Pete Rogers. I see how it works. I see why you don't ever question anything he writes.

duncan61 wrote: Based on our very limited ability to measure the temperature of the Earth a small rise was detected

You are trying to establish an ability to measure the temperature of the earth in some meaningful way. There is no ability posessed by anyone to measure the temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error. None. Therefore there was no temperature increase detected that somehow needs to be explained.

duncan61 wrote:I can handle being insulted as it is an Internet forum keep it real brothers

Sure. What you cannot handle is Pete Rogers being displeased with you. You don't want him to have to bend you over furniture again for some more remedial "training." Just OBEY him and say all the stupid things he needs you to say so you don't need anouther round at the credenza.

I hate fuúking liars.


Every word of this is "Ex Cathedra". IBdaMann is imitating the Papal Method of Decree declaring truth that we are all to accept, but with no explanation for us to react to. There is no attempt to falsify the argument; which I repeat here: just the gainsaying of it. Viz.

Insolation passes through the troposphere striking the Earth providing S-B255K Thermal Energy; 255K being the S-B calculation of the Planetary Temperature were there no atmosphere: but the actual temperature is 288K and the 33K difference is known as the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) which is where this banana-brain first gets bent out of shape with the silly statement. "There's no such thing!" In my opinion you might as well stop thinking about anything he goes on to say.
The S-B 255K transfers into the atmosphere by conduction at the base under the 2nd Law, but the Atmosphere is under gravitational autocompression and therefore occupies a smaller space than it otherwise would, meaning there is more thermal energy per unit volume than there otherwise would be, meaning it is warmer than it otherwise would be, but since it can never be below 255K it must be more; to the extent of the degree of gravitational force: so autocompression definitely causes thermal enhancement which goes on to reverse the thermal flow back to the surface under the 2nd Law, whereby the temperature is raised to 288K where it stabilises as increased IR emission comes into balance.

I asked anyone and everyone to falsify any of the particulars of this theory under the rules of reason; otherwise whatever is said is of no consequence as we see here. If that cannot be done then the Theory is sound, meaning that mankkind and his CO2 are not involved with Climate Change.

You will notice here - hopefully - that I have opened up the full reasoning behind the theory to give access to what must be falsified in order to overcome it and as long as this is not done, the theory stands. Switching the subject by imposition of other notions is not permitted.

None of this will be attempted and what I am writing here will simply lead to a repeat performance from this twerp and his disciples who you can safely ignore accordingly.

Under the rules of Epistemology; which is the method by which we distinguish opinion from knowledge: one must tether the questions, meaning - precisely - that it is a violation to break the tether and try to change the discussion - by dismissal of the tethered matter - in order to displace it with some theory of one's own for people to argue about. It carries the violation that falsification has somehow been been dealt with - which of course it hasn't.

All these enquiries have to have structures not unlike those of a Court of Law and were we to have adjudication IBdaMann would be redirected by a Judge to answer the question and stop showcasking his own preferences. If he did not accede he would be held in contempt; as he should be here.

Just watch what happens when they respond to this and you should detect that they don't appreciate the difference between quarreling and analysing a disagreement.

We are clearly dealing with juveniles. IBdaMann is proud of having learned nothing since he was 10 years old remember.
If you are able to falsify the theory I have put, or would like to question it, I would be pleased to respond
18-04-2021 18:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
duncan61 wrote:
What's a buzzword?
RQAA. I have already answered this question to you. Stop asking it.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 18-04-2021 19:16
18-04-2021 18:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
duncan61 wrote:
Regards the density question.I have soldered copper to brass in the last 24 hours.brass heats faster than copper however the brass fittings are much thicker so I apply most of the flame to the brass fitting to get it all to the right temperature to have the silver solder alloy flow in the joint by capillary attraction.If the air at the lower atmosphere is denser would it not take more time to heat and cool than air at 2000 feet


Nope. There is more brass to heat from a point source (your torch). There is not more atmosphere to heat.

Which is why the temperature of the Earth (or the Moon) doesn't change rapidly.

Watch. Now you're going to try to equivocate surface temperature and material temperature.


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
18-04-2021 19:16
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:I will bullet point my simple understanding

You are supposed to be explaining the fatal errors.

duncan61 wrote:. .Gravity makes the gasses denser at the surface

Gravity compressed the atmosphere long ago. Gravity stopped having any effect on the atmosphere once it reached a certain point.

So gravity does NOT make the atmosphere more dense in the present tense, you are well aware of this, and you are a shit-eating liar who INTENTIONALLY conflates verb tenses for the purpose of deception ... because Pete Rogers has ordered you to do so.

Anyway, this is fatal flaw #2 and you have not reconciled it ... you have merely sought to continue propogating it.

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.

So give it another try.

duncan61 wrote:.The denser Atmosphere takes more time to heat/cool

This is meaningless gibberish yet you claim to "understand" it. You are a liar.

Anyway, since you now are fully aware that the atmosphere isn't any denser than it was last week, last year, last century, last millenium, last eon, etc... you can pepper Pete Rogers with demands for explanation rather than try to propogate his dishonesty. So do it. Demand Pete Rogers start explaining ... or you start explaining. One or the other.

duncan61 wrote:I find this credible without any knowledge of the physics involved

How can you find something credible while not understanding a lick of it? Ahhh, that's it ... you are just a miserable liar. You pretend to find it credible because you must OBEY Pete Rogers and say whatever he instructs you to say, even if it is WACKY crap. It doesn't matter how stupid what you say is, all that matters is that you OBEY Pete Rogers. I see how it works. I see why you don't ever question anything he writes.

duncan61 wrote: Based on our very limited ability to measure the temperature of the Earth a small rise was detected

You are trying to establish an ability to measure the temperature of the earth in some meaningful way. There is no ability posessed by anyone to measure the temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error. None. Therefore there was no temperature increase detected that somehow needs to be explained.

duncan61 wrote:I can handle being insulted as it is an Internet forum keep it real brothers

Sure. What you cannot handle is Pete Rogers being displeased with you. You don't want him to have to bend you over furniture again for some more remedial "training." Just OBEY him and say all the stupid things he needs you to say so you don't need anouther round at the credenza.

I hate fuúking liars.


Every word of this is "Ex Cathedra". IBdaMann is imitating the Papal Method of Decree declaring truth that we are all to accept, but with no explanation for us to react to. There is no attempt to falsify the argument; which I repeat here: just the gainsaying of it. Viz.



Pete Rogers wrote:
Insolation passes through the troposphere striking the Earth providing S-B255K Thermal Energy; 255K being the S-B calculation of the Planetary Temperature were there no atmosphere: but the actual temperature is 288K and the 33K difference is known as the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) which is where this banana-brain first gets bent out of shape with the silly statement.

Buzzword fallacies. Argument from randU fallacies. You are making shit up again.
Pete Rogers wrote:
"There's no such thing!" In my opinion you might as well stop thinking about anything he goes on to say.

Argument of the stone fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The S-B 255K

Argument from randU fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
transfers into the atmosphere by conduction at the base under the 2nd Law, but the Atmosphere is under gravitational autocompression and therefore occupies a smaller space than it otherwise would, meaning there is more thermal energy per unit volume than there otherwise would be, meaning it is warmer than it otherwise would be,

Denial of the 0th and 1st law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but since it can never be below 255K it must be more;

Argument from randU fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
to the extent of the degree of gravitational force: so autocompression definitely causes thermal enhancement

Denial of the 1st and 0th laws of thermodynamics. Gravity is not energy. The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
which goes on to reverse the thermal flow back to the surface under the 2nd Law,

Denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot reduce entropy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
whereby the temperature is raised to 288K where it stabilises as increased IR emission comes into balance.

Denial of the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Denial of the ideal gas law. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Temperature is not total thermal energy.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot reduce entropy.

Pete Rogers wrote:
I asked anyone and everyone to falsify any of the particulars of this theory

There is no theory. You cannot make a theory out of buzzwords. It creates a void argument fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
under the rules of reason;

You deny philosophy, mathematics, logic, and science.
Pete Rogers wrote:
otherwise whatever is said is of no consequence as we see here.

Argument of the stone fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If that cannot be done then the Theory is sound,

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
meaning that mankkind and his CO2 are not involved with Climate Change.

Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You will notice here - hopefully - that I have opened up the full reasoning

You have denied philosophy, mathematics, logic, and science.
Pete Rogers wrote:
behind the theory

There is no theory. Buzzword fallacies. Void argument fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
to give access to what must be falsified in order to overcome it and as long as this is not done, the theory stands.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Switching the subject by imposition of other notions is not permitted.

Inversion fallacy. This what YOU are doing.
Pete Rogers wrote:
None of this will be attempted and what I am writing here will simply lead to a repeat performance from this twerp and his disciples who you can safely ignore accordingly.

Bulverism fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Under the rules of Epistemology;

You deny philosophy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
which is the method by which we distinguish opinion from knowledge:

You deny philosophy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
one must tether the questions, meaning - precisely - that it is a violation to break the tether and try to change the discussion - by dismissal of the tethered matter - in order to displace it with some theory of one's own for people to argue about.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Four term fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It carries the violation that falsification has somehow been been dealt with - which of course it hasn't.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
All these enquiries have to have structures not unlike those of a Court of Law

This is not a court of law. False equivalence fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and were we to have adjudication

There is no judge. False authority fallacy. False equivalence fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann would be redirected by a Judge to answer the question

There is no judge. False authority fallacy. False equivalence fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and stop showcasking his own preferences.

Inversion fallacy. This is what YOU do. It is YOU that trying to argue a religion as ScIeNcE.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If he did not accede he would be held in contempt; as he should be here.

Okay. I hold you in contempt. So does IBD. I really don't blame him.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Just watch what happens when they respond to this and you should detect that they don't appreciate the difference between quarreling and analysing a disagreement.

You deny philosophy. You deny logic. You deny mathematics. You deny science.
Pete Rogers wrote:
We are clearly dealing with juveniles. IBdaMann is proud of having learned nothing since he was 10 years old remember.

Insult fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you are able to falsify the theory I have put, or would like to question it, I would be pleased to respond

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Attempted proof by negative.

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
18-04-2021 20:33
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
Into the Night wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:
Nice dodging.I kept it simple.I like living in you head. I have got the water on all I have to do now is cement in and clean up the site.I am having a good day.Pete explained the magnificent 6 questions in order and comprehensively enough for this dumb ass plumber to understand.

Into the Night wroteNah. He just uses buzzwords like ATE

Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE)is a standard term applied to the naming of the 33K by which the Atmosphere warms the Planet beyond S-B255K. It is ubiquitous throughout Academia so hardly a buzzword unlike - say - foolish terms like "Word Salad" "RQAA",etc. which some idiot keeps throwing around together with other buzzwords, whilst accusing people of using buzzwords. His head is stuck fast somewhere.

Into the Night wrote figures that gravity is energy

What are you and your bent brain talking about? I said no such thing. Gravity compresses the atmosphere thus reducing the volume and consequently increasing the thermal energy per unit volume - the total energy remains unchanged whilst the volume doesn't - capish - meaning the Negative Work of compression does the job of creating the ATE? What is wrong with you?

Into the Night wrote and claims to know the temperature of the Earth.

That's pretty dumb even for you. Whilst I would like to claim credit for being the one to "know" the (average) temperature of the Earth i have to confess that NASA, MIT, Tufts University, Energy Education California, The Royal Meteorological Office in London, The Department of Astrophysics at St Mary's College London, Space.com and Universe Today; to name but a few of the many who got there before me: did, but wait! - oh dear me!! Into the Night (for it is he - gasp!) says its impossible so back to the drawing board on that then eh?: Now - just a moment though either he knows better than these, or his head is irretrievably stuck up his fundament. Which can it possibly be do you think? You might need 2 guesses to get it right, so feel free to speculate. I'll give you a clue - it rhymes with Into the Shite.
18-04-2021 20:55
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:I do not possess the ability to reason out as well as Pete ...

That's truly a shame since Pete cannot reason whatsoever.

duncan61 wrote:Are you going to grab the ball and go home.

Let's try again ... you claim to thoroughly understand Pete's argument, so simply explain it while you are reconciling these otherwise fatal flaws:

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.



... or you can try being honest and just denouncing the crap until it actually is explained to you such that you actually do understand it and can either reconcile the fatal flaws or you admit that it's all crap.

Any, get to it.



Here is a perfect example of serial epistemological violations. The 6 statements duncan61 is pointing at do not have any known status as they are not corroborated by argument. They are put in the form of statements or declarations and just left there as though they stand for truth. You are therefore attempting to arrogate the status of provenness without having proven anything and that will not do.
The rather juvenile effect of your debilitation here is that your mega-brain thinks it is the duty of people to disprove the uncorroborated statements and declarations of others rather than the other way around.
That is how propaganda works you numpty and it must never be allowed to prevail.
Either prove your 6 points by explaining them properly to duncan61's satisfaction - as you are required to do Epistemologically - or go away and play Goebbles with someone who doesn't see you coming from a mile off.
18-04-2021 21:02
Pete Rogers
★☆☆☆☆
(137)
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:I will bullet point my simple understanding

You are supposed to be explaining the fatal errors.

duncan61 wrote:. .Gravity makes the gasses denser at the surface

Gravity compressed the atmosphere long ago. Gravity stopped having any effect on the atmosphere once it reached a certain point.

So gravity does NOT make the atmosphere more dense in the present tense, you are well aware of this, and you are a shit-eating liar who INTENTIONALLY conflates verb tenses for the purpose of deception ... because Pete Rogers has ordered you to do so.

Anyway, this is fatal flaw #2 and you have not reconciled it ... you have merely sought to continue propogating it.

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.

So give it another try.

duncan61 wrote:.The denser Atmosphere takes more time to heat/cool

This is meaningless gibberish yet you claim to "understand" it. You are a liar.

Anyway, since you now are fully aware that the atmosphere isn't any denser than it was last week, last year, last century, last millenium, last eon, etc... you can pepper Pete Rogers with demands for explanation rather than try to propogate his dishonesty. So do it. Demand Pete Rogers start explaining ... or you start explaining. One or the other.

duncan61 wrote:I find this credible without any knowledge of the physics involved

How can you find something credible while not understanding a lick of it? Ahhh, that's it ... you are just a miserable liar. You pretend to find it credible because you must OBEY Pete Rogers and say whatever he instructs you to say, even if it is WACKY crap. It doesn't matter how stupid what you say is, all that matters is that you OBEY Pete Rogers. I see how it works. I see why you don't ever question anything he writes.

duncan61 wrote: Based on our very limited ability to measure the temperature of the Earth a small rise was detected

You are trying to establish an ability to measure the temperature of the earth in some meaningful way. There is no ability posessed by anyone to measure the temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error. None. Therefore there was no temperature increase detected that somehow needs to be explained.

duncan61 wrote:I can handle being insulted as it is an Internet forum keep it real brothers

Sure. What you cannot handle is Pete Rogers being displeased with you. You don't want him to have to bend you over furniture again for some more remedial "training." Just OBEY him and say all the stupid things he needs you to say so you don't need anouther round at the credenza.

I hate fuúking liars.


Every word of this is "Ex Cathedra". IBdaMann is imitating the Papal Method of Decree declaring truth that we are all to accept, but with no explanation for us to react to. There is no attempt to falsify the argument; which I repeat here: just the gainsaying of it. Viz.



Pete Rogers wrote:
Insolation passes through the troposphere striking the Earth providing S-B255K Thermal Energy; 255K being the S-B calculation of the Planetary Temperature were there no atmosphere: but the actual temperature is 288K and the 33K difference is known as the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) which is where this banana-brain first gets bent out of shape with the silly statement.

Buzzword fallacies. Argument from randU fallacies. You are making shit up again.
Pete Rogers wrote:
"There's no such thing!" In my opinion you might as well stop thinking about anything he goes on to say.

Argument of the stone fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The S-B 255K

Argument from randU fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
transfers into the atmosphere by conduction at the base under the 2nd Law, but the Atmosphere is under gravitational autocompression and therefore occupies a smaller space than it otherwise would, meaning there is more thermal energy per unit volume than there otherwise would be, meaning it is warmer than it otherwise would be,

Denial of the 0th and 1st law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but since it can never be below 255K it must be more;

Argument from randU fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
to the extent of the degree of gravitational force: so autocompression definitely causes thermal enhancement

Denial of the 1st and 0th laws of thermodynamics. Gravity is not energy. The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
which goes on to reverse the thermal flow back to the surface under the 2nd Law,

Denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot reduce entropy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
whereby the temperature is raised to 288K where it stabilises as increased IR emission comes into balance.

Denial of the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Denial of the ideal gas law. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Temperature is not total thermal energy.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot reduce entropy.

Pete Rogers wrote:
I asked anyone and everyone to falsify any of the particulars of this theory

There is no theory. You cannot make a theory out of buzzwords. It creates a void argument fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
under the rules of reason;

You deny philosophy, mathematics, logic, and science.
Pete Rogers wrote:
otherwise whatever is said is of no consequence as we see here.

Argument of the stone fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If that cannot be done then the Theory is sound,

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
meaning that mankkind and his CO2 are not involved with Climate Change.

Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You will notice here - hopefully - that I have opened up the full reasoning

You have denied philosophy, mathematics, logic, and science.
Pete Rogers wrote:
behind the theory

There is no theory. Buzzword fallacies. Void argument fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
to give access to what must be falsified in order to overcome it and as long as this is not done, the theory stands.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Switching the subject by imposition of other notions is not permitted.

Inversion fallacy. This what YOU are doing.
Pete Rogers wrote:
None of this will be attempted and what I am writing here will simply lead to a repeat performance from this twerp and his disciples who you can safely ignore accordingly.

Bulverism fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Under the rules of Epistemology;

You deny philosophy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
which is the method by which we distinguish opinion from knowledge:

You deny philosophy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
one must tether the questions, meaning - precisely - that it is a violation to break the tether and try to change the discussion - by dismissal of the tethered matter - in order to displace it with some theory of one's own for people to argue about.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Four term fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It carries the violation that falsification has somehow been been dealt with - which of course it hasn't.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
All these enquiries have to have structures not unlike those of a Court of Law

This is not a court of law. False equivalence fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and were we to have adjudication

There is no judge. False authority fallacy. False equivalence fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann would be redirected by a Judge to answer the question

There is no judge. False authority fallacy. False equivalence fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and stop showcasking his own preferences.

Inversion fallacy. This is what YOU do. It is YOU that trying to argue a religion as ScIeNcE.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If he did not accede he would be held in contempt; as he should be here.

Okay. I hold you in contempt. So does IBD. I really don't blame him.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Just watch what happens when they respond to this and you should detect that they don't appreciate the difference between quarreling and analysing a disagreement.

You deny philosophy. You deny logic. You deny mathematics. You deny science.
Pete Rogers wrote:
We are clearly dealing with juveniles. IBdaMann is proud of having learned nothing since he was 10 years old remember.

Insult fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you are able to falsify the theory I have put, or would like to question it, I would be pleased to respond

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Attempted proof by negative.

No argument presented.

What on Earth is this supposed to be? It is nothig but uncorrobborated statements and accusations, so what use is that supposed to be. It can serve no purpose?
18-04-2021 21:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
Pete Rogers wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Nice dodging.I kept it simple.I like living in you head. I have got the water on all I have to do now is cement in and clean up the site.I am having a good day.Pete explained the magnificent 6 questions in order and comprehensively enough for this dumb ass plumber to understand.

Into the Night wroteNah. He just uses buzzwords like ATE

Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE)is a standard term

There is no such thing as a 'standard term' for a buzzword. It is meaningless.
Pete Rogers wrote:
applied to the naming of the 33K by which the Atmosphere warms the Planet beyond S-B255K.

Argument from randU fallacies. You are making up numbers again.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It is ubiquitous throughout Academia

Academia does not define any word.
Pete Rogers wrote:
so hardly a buzzword unlike - say - foolish terms like "Word Salad" "RQAA",etc.

RQAA. I have defined both of these phrases. I will define them again for you:
A 'word salad' is the use of random phrases and words in a sentence. It is incoherent posting.
RQAA is an acrronym meaning 'Repetitious Question Already Answered', used for idiots that keep asking the same question over and over like you do.
Pete Rogers wrote:
which some idiot keeps throwing around together with other buzzwords, whilst accusing people of using buzzwords.

Fallacy fallacy. Inversion fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
His head is stuck fast somewhere.

Insult fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wrote figures that gravity is energy

What are you and your bent brain talking about? I said no such thing.

Yes you did, liar. You are attempting to use gravity as energy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Gravity compresses the atmosphere

The atmosphere is not being compressed. Gravity is not energy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
thus reducing the volume

The volume is not being reduced.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and consequently increasing the thermal energy per unit volume - the total energy remains unchanged whilst the volume doesn't - capish - meaning the Negative Work of compression does the job of creating the ATE? What is wrong with you?

You cannot create energy out of nothing. Buzzword fallacies. Denial of the 0th and 1st law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wrote and claims to know the temperature of the Earth.

That's pretty dumb even for you.

Insult fallacy. Denial of statistical mathematics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Whilst I would like to claim credit for being the one to "know" the (average) temperature of the Earth i have to confess that NASA, MIT, Tufts University, Energy Education California, The Royal Meteorological Office in London, The Department of Astrophysics at St Mary's College London, Space.com and Universe Today; to name but a few of the many who got there before me: did,

They are also denying statistical (and probability) mathematics. Mathematics is not a government agency, society, club, university, website, or any book, pamphlet, or any organization. Mathematics is a set of axioms and proofs extending those axioms.

None of these organizations you mention know the temperature of the Earth either. They are making up random numbers, just like you do.

Random numbers are not data. False authority fallacy. Denial of mathematics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but wait! - oh dear me!! Into the Night (for it is he - gasp!) says its impossible so back to the drawing board on that then eh?:

No drawing board. Cliche fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Now - just a moment though either he knows better than these,

I do. Bulverism fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
or his head is irretrievably stuck up his fundament.

Insult fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Which can it possibly be do you think? You might need 2 guesses to get it right, so feel free to speculate. I'll give you a clue - it rhymes with Into the Shite.

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
Edited on 18-04-2021 21:40
18-04-2021 21:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
duncan61 wrote:I do not possess the ability to reason out as well as Pete ...

That's truly a shame since Pete cannot reason whatsoever.

duncan61 wrote:Are you going to grab the ball and go home.

Let's try again ... you claim to thoroughly understand Pete's argument, so simply explain it while you are reconciling these otherwise fatal flaws:

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.



... or you can try being honest and just denouncing the crap until it actually is explained to you such that you actually do understand it and can either reconcile the fatal flaws or you admit that it's all crap.

Any, get to it.



Here is a perfect example of serial epistemological violations.

Buzzword fallacy. Denial of philosophy. There is no 'violations' possible here.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The 6 statements duncan61 is pointing at do not have any known status as they are not corroborated by argument.

They are valid arguments. Semantics fallacy. Denial of logic.
Pete Rogers wrote:
They are put in the form of statements or declarations and just left there as though they stand for truth. You are therefore attempting to arrogate the status of provenness without having proven anything and that will not do.

There are no proofs in philosophy. Denial of philosophy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The rather juvenile effect of your debilitation here is that your mega-brain thinks it is the duty of people to disprove the uncorroborated statements and declarations of others rather than the other way around.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
That is how propaganda works you numpty

Propaganda doesn't 'work'. Propaganda is based on fallacies and lies. Inversion fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and it must never be allowed to prevail.

Since a fallacy is an error in logic and is an invalid argument, it will never 'prevail'. Denial of philosophy. Denial of logic.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Either prove your 6 points by explaining them properly to duncan61's satisfaction - as you are required to do Epistemologically -

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
or go away

Thought terminating fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and play Goebbles

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
18-04-2021 21:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
Pete Rogers wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]duncan61 wrote:I will bullet point my simple understanding

You are supposed to be explaining the fatal errors.

duncan61 wrote:. .Gravity makes the gasses denser at the surface

Gravity compressed the atmosphere long ago. Gravity stopped having any effect on the atmosphere once it reached a certain point.

So gravity does NOT make the atmosphere more dense in the present tense, you are well aware of this, and you are a shit-eating liar who INTENTIONALLY conflates verb tenses for the purpose of deception ... because Pete Rogers has ordered you to do so.

Anyway, this is fatal flaw #2 and you have not reconciled it ... you have merely sought to continue propogating it.

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.

So give it another try.

duncan61 wrote:.The denser Atmosphere takes more time to heat/cool

This is meaningless gibberish yet you claim to "understand" it. You are a liar.

Anyway, since you now are fully aware that the atmosphere isn't any denser than it was last week, last year, last century, last millenium, last eon, etc... you can pepper Pete Rogers with demands for explanation rather than try to propogate his dishonesty. So do it. Demand Pete Rogers start explaining ... or you start explaining. One or the other.

duncan61 wrote:I find this credible without any knowledge of the physics involved

How can you find something credible while not understanding a lick of it? Ahhh, that's it ... you are just a miserable liar. You pretend to find it credible because you must OBEY Pete Rogers and say whatever he instructs you to say, even if it is WACKY crap. It doesn't matter how stupid what you say is, all that matters is that you OBEY Pete Rogers. I see how it works. I see why you don't ever question anything he writes.

duncan61 wrote: Based on our very limited ability to measure the temperature of the Earth a small rise was detected

You are trying to establish an ability to measure the temperature of the earth in some meaningful way. There is no ability posessed by anyone to measure the temperature of the earth to any usable margin of error. None. Therefore there was no temperature increase detected that somehow needs to be explained.

duncan61 wrote:I can handle being insulted as it is an Internet forum keep it real brothers

Sure. What you cannot handle is Pete Rogers being displeased with you. You don't want him to have to bend you over furniture again for some more remedial "training." Just OBEY him and say all the stupid things he needs you to say so you don't need anouther round at the credenza.

I hate fuúking liars.


Every word of this is "Ex Cathedra". IBdaMann is imitating the Papal Method of Decree declaring truth that we are all to accept, but with no explanation for us to react to. There is no attempt to falsify the argument; which I repeat here: just the gainsaying of it. Viz.



Pete Rogers wrote:
Insolation passes through the troposphere striking the Earth providing S-B255K Thermal Energy; 255K being the S-B calculation of the Planetary Temperature were there no atmosphere: but the actual temperature is 288K and the 33K difference is known as the Atmospheric Thermal Enhancement (ATE) which is where this banana-brain first gets bent out of shape with the silly statement.

Buzzword fallacies. Argument from randU fallacies. You are making shit up again.
Pete Rogers wrote:
"There's no such thing!" In my opinion you might as well stop thinking about anything he goes on to say.

Argument of the stone fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
The S-B 255K

Argument from randU fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
transfers into the atmosphere by conduction at the base under the 2nd Law, but the Atmosphere is under gravitational autocompression and therefore occupies a smaller space than it otherwise would, meaning there is more thermal energy per unit volume than there otherwise would be, meaning it is warmer than it otherwise would be,

Denial of the 0th and 1st law of thermodynamics.
Pete Rogers wrote:
but since it can never be below 255K it must be more;

Argument from randU fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
to the extent of the degree of gravitational force: so autocompression definitely causes thermal enhancement

Denial of the 1st and 0th laws of thermodynamics. Gravity is not energy. The atmosphere is not being compressed.
Pete Rogers wrote:
which goes on to reverse the thermal flow back to the surface under the 2nd Law,

Denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot reduce entropy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
whereby the temperature is raised to 288K where it stabilises as increased IR emission comes into balance.

Denial of the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. Denial of the ideal gas law. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Temperature is not total thermal energy.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot reduce entropy.

Pete Rogers wrote:
I asked anyone and everyone to falsify any of the particulars of this theory

There is no theory. You cannot make a theory out of buzzwords. It creates a void argument fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
under the rules of reason;

You deny philosophy, mathematics, logic, and science.
Pete Rogers wrote:
otherwise whatever is said is of no consequence as we see here.

Argument of the stone fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If that cannot be done then the Theory is sound,

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
meaning that mankkind and his CO2 are not involved with Climate Change.

Define 'climate change'. Buzzword fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
You will notice here - hopefully - that I have opened up the full reasoning

You have denied philosophy, mathematics, logic, and science.
Pete Rogers wrote:
behind the theory

There is no theory. Buzzword fallacies. Void argument fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
to give access to what must be falsified in order to overcome it and as long as this is not done, the theory stands.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Switching the subject by imposition of other notions is not permitted.

Inversion fallacy. This what YOU are doing.
Pete Rogers wrote:
None of this will be attempted and what I am writing here will simply lead to a repeat performance from this twerp and his disciples who you can safely ignore accordingly.

Bulverism fallacy. Assumption of victory fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Under the rules of Epistemology;

You deny philosophy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
which is the method by which we distinguish opinion from knowledge:

You deny philosophy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
one must tether the questions, meaning - precisely - that it is a violation to break the tether and try to change the discussion - by dismissal of the tethered matter - in order to displace it with some theory of one's own for people to argue about.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Four term fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
It carries the violation that falsification has somehow been been dealt with - which of course it hasn't.

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
All these enquiries have to have structures not unlike those of a Court of Law

This is not a court of law. False equivalence fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and were we to have adjudication

There is no judge. False authority fallacy. False equivalence fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann would be redirected by a Judge to answer the question

There is no judge. False authority fallacy. False equivalence fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
and stop showcasking his own preferences.

Inversion fallacy. This is what YOU do. It is YOU that trying to argue a religion as ScIeNcE.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If he did not accede he would be held in contempt; as he should be here.

Okay. I hold you in contempt. So does IBD. I really don't blame him.
Pete Rogers wrote:
Just watch what happens when they respond to this and you should detect that they don't appreciate the difference between quarreling and analysing a disagreement.

You deny philosophy. You deny logic. You deny mathematics. You deny science.
Pete Rogers wrote:
We are clearly dealing with juveniles. IBdaMann is proud of having learned nothing since he was 10 years old remember.

Insult fallacy.
Pete Rogers wrote:
If you are able to falsify the theory I have put, or would like to question it, I would be pleased to respond

Attempted force of negative proof fallacy. Attempted proof by negative.

No argument presented.

What on Earth is this supposed to be? It is nothig but uncorrobborated statements and accusations, so what use is that supposed to be. It can serve no purpose?


I agree. You have made nothing but uncorroborated statements and accusations, you serve no purpose with your religion and buzzwords, so what are you trying to accomplish?


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
18-04-2021 22:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
Into the Night wrote:Theories must be valid arguments.

Theories must be sound arguments. Being a valid argument will only enable a theory to pass the internal consistency test. To completely pass muster, all the statements/assertions of the argument must themselves be true. Any that are false will immediately cause the argument to fail, to be recognized as not being sound and to be summarily dismissed.

18-04-2021 22:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
Pete Rogers wrote: Every word of this is "Ex Cathedra".

Not possible. You are the one making an affirmative argument, not I. You created this thread for the purpose of making your affirmative argument. I am making no affirmative argument. The method you have chosen for expressing your affirmative argument is "Believe because I say so." You believe that you somehow speak "Ex Cathedra" and that you are somehow infallible in your physics violations, in your English language malpractice and in your WACKY religious proclamations of Greenhouse Effect.

You are trying to blame me for the stupidity of your arguments for which you can only get the likes of Duncan to OBEY.

Pete Rogers wrote: 255K being the S-B calculation of the Planetary Temperature were there no atmosphere

There is no such Stefan-Boltzmann "calculation." You wouldn't know this because you are mathematically incompetent and scientifically illiterate but that doesn't matter. All that is of any importance is whether you can baffle and bamboozle the likes of Duncan and others who are even less competent than you with your utter gibber-babble.

Pete Rogers wrote:... but the actual temperature is 288K and the 33K difference

Nobody knows that earth's average global temperature to any usable margin of error. You know this. You just don't want your feeble congregation to find out lest they realize that not only does no one know what the earth's temperature is to any usable accuracy but that there is no other temperature that the earth somehow "should otherwise be. Ergo, there is no "difference" that somehow needs to be forthwith accounted by your WACKY religious dogma. In fact, there is no need for any religious dogma whatsoever, least of all any totally WACKY religious dogma that violates physics more egregiously than premises for science fiction movies.

Pete Rogers wrote: In my opinion you might as well stop thinking about anything he goes on to say.

This is the standard appeal of the huckster concerning the inspector's findings.

Pete Rogers wrote:... but the Atmosphere is under gravitational autocompression

Notice how all of this time you EVADE addressing how the atmosphere's volume is not diminishing and thus is not compressing. Notice how all of this time you rely completely on the conflation of tenses, which is #2 on the list of your Fatal Flaws.

Notice how during all of the time this thread has been in existence that you have not addressed any of these Fatal Flaws and instead have been making grand appeals to others to simply ignore the Fatal Flaws.

I bet you believe that no one has noticed ... and you are certain that Duncan doesn't care one iota about how egregiously flawed your WACKY religious dogma is because he will not accept any criticism of your faith that you do not permit him to believe. I pity him. I don't know what you did to him or whether it involved furniture but you got him good.

Pete Rogers wrote: ... where it stabilises as increased IR emission comes into balance.

"Comes into balance"? How technical! How scientific!

"Stabilises"? You must be a moron to think you would fool anyone into believing this is science. Wait, you did get Duncan to believe to the point that he swears he "understands." I'd like to see who else you have in your congregation.

Pete Rogers wrote:I asked anyone and everyone to falsify any of the particulars of this theory

Religions are, by their nature, inherently unfalsifiable. You asked anyone and everyone to falsify an unfalsifiable religious dogma. Brilliant!

Duncan, I pity you. Really I do. You were apparently all too willing to throw away any credibility and/or personal dignity you might have had for this moron.

19-04-2021 10:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:Theories must be valid arguments.

Theories must be sound arguments. Being a valid argument will only enable a theory to pass the internal consistency test. To completely pass muster, all the statements/assertions of the argument must themselves be true. Any that are false will immediately cause the argument to fail, to be recognized as not being sound and to be summarily dismissed.



Not correct. It only need be a valid argument (free of fallacy). Even a theory of science...which of course must also be falsifiable.

Typically, when a theory of science is falsified, any theories that used that theory as a predicate are also likewise falsified, since the predicate forming the extended theories are found to be False.

No theory is ever proven True.

It can be taken as a fact to form a predicate of another theory or any other argument, however. Discarding such a fact in a challenge will have to contend with the predicate being a theory of science and you can't just discard them as you please.

Thus, such a predicate will have to be falsified. If it is, the theory the predicate is used on is likewise falsified.

Example1: it was once a theory of science that the Earth was stationary and everything orbited the Earth. Once that theory was falsified by Galileo by observing the moons of Jupiter with a telescope, all the theories that depended on that theory went with it.

Example2: It was once a theory of science that light traveled in some kind of medium simply called the aether. Once that theory was falsified by the Michaelson-Morley experiment 'failure', everything that depended upon the aether existing went with it.


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
19-04-2021 12:25
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1150)
ITN and IBDM if you read back over this page you will see that you have stated Gravity is not compressing the atmosphere then you say it is but it happened a long time ago.Interesting.Regards the claim I am lying deliberately I spun a yarn when I was 13 and was caught out and felt so ashamed I have endeavored to not do it again.If you are lying to someone it means you are afraid of them.At this point in time I am sure I am not afraid of anything or person.Petes state of mind is of no concern to me I am agreeing with the information he is sharing.ITN when you go in to deny everything mode you lose credibilty.
19-04-2021 15:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
Into the Night wrote: Not correct. It only need be a valid argument (free of fallacy).

To pass internal consistency, yes, it only needs to be valid.

However, as you correctly noted, if any of the predicates are false then the theory is rejected.

For example the theory of Greenhouse Effect is perfectly valid, it just isn't sound:
1) Atmospheric CO2 absorbs earth's thermal radiation
2) Atmospheric CO2 creates additional energy which it radiates back to earth
3) Earth absorbs the additional energy and increases in temperature

This is a valid argument. It is not a sound argument, however, because predicate #2 is FALSE. The theory is rejected.

19-04-2021 16:08
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
duncan61 wrote: ITN and IBDM if you read back over this page you will see that you have stated Gravity is not compressing the atmosphere then you say it is but it happened a long time ago.

What part of differing tenses are you not intelligent enough to understand?

duncan61 wrote: If you are lying to someone it means you are afraid of them.

I'd be afraid of anyone who is plural.

If you are lying on someone's behalf, e.g. Pete Rogers, it means you are afraid of him, yes.

duncan61 wrote: At this point in time I am sure I am not afraid of anything or person.

I'm not sure why you OBEY Pete Rogers and why you lie on his behalf but you do and it is probably out of fear and low furniture.

duncan61 wrote: Petes state of mind is of no concern to me

Yes, you will apparently do whatever he orders lest he be upset with you. By now it should be obvious to everyone that you won't dare to question anything he says.

... and Duncan, you don't get to claim, on the one hand, that you totally understand what Pete Rogers is saying and in the next breath claim to not understand it well enough to address obvious fatal flaws in the argument and that you rely on your minister Pete Rogers to explain it all.

You are a brazen liar.

19-04-2021 16:40
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Not correct. It only need be a valid argument (free of fallacy).

To pass internal consistency, yes, it only needs to be valid.

However, as you correctly noted, if any of the predicates are false then the theory is rejected.

For example the theory of Greenhouse Effect is perfectly valid, it just isn't sound:
1) Atmospheric CO2 absorbs earth's thermal radiation
2) Atmospheric CO2 creates additional energy which it radiates back to earth
3) Earth absorbs the additional energy and increases in temperature

This is a valid argument. It is not a sound argument, however, because predicate #2 is FALSE. The theory is rejected.




With #2 you could say that CO2 conserves more energy while a decrease in O2 decreases the emissivity of the Earth's atmosphere. CO2 is less reactive than O2.
O2 also supports the Chapman cycle which is the ozone layer. What we do not know because of misinformation is what impact this has on the troposphere.
19-04-2021 22:24
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
duncan61 wrote:
ITN and IBDM if you read back over this page you will see that you have stated Gravity is not compressing the atmosphere then you say it is but it happened a long time ago.

Never said gravity compressed the atmosphere at any time. Gravity is not energy.
duncan61 wrote:
Interesting.Regards the claim I am lying deliberately I spun a yarn when I was 13 and was caught out and felt so ashamed I have endeavored to not do it again.
If you are lying to someone it means you are afraid of them.

I'm going to ignore this psychoquackery.
duncan61 wrote:
At this point in time I am sure I am not afraid of anything or person.Petes state of mind is of no concern to me I am agreeing with the information he is sharing.

He is not sharing information. He is making fallacy after fallacy. He is not even making a valid argument. All he is doing is spewing his fundamentalist religion.
duncan61 wrote:
ITN when you go in to deny everything mode you lose credibilty.

Compositional error fallacy. I don't need credibility. I have science. I have math. I have philosophy. I have logic. I don't care what others think of me. I am not politically correct and have no plans to be.


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
19-04-2021 22:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Not correct. It only need be a valid argument (free of fallacy).

To pass internal consistency, yes, it only needs to be valid.

However, as you correctly noted, if any of the predicates are false then the theory is rejected.

For example the theory of Greenhouse Effect is perfectly valid, it just isn't sound:
1) Atmospheric CO2 absorbs earth's thermal radiation
2) Atmospheric CO2 creates additional energy which it radiates back to earth
3) Earth absorbs the additional energy and increases in temperature

This is a valid argument. It is not a sound argument, however, because predicate #2 is FALSE. The theory is rejected.


The 'greenhouse effect' is not a valid argument. It is a void argument fallacy. 'Greenhouse effect' was never defined (except by you as a mythological character).

Statement 1 is a valid argument. It presupposes that there is thermal radiation coming from Earth, as described by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. These are the predicates of this statement.

Statement 2 is valid argument. It fails as a theory of science, however, due to the external consistency check.

Statement 3 is a invalid argument, for it's predicate presupposes there is additional energy from somewhere. That is undefined, resulting in Statement 3 becoming a circular argument and a void argument fallacy. Predicate 2 is not a valid predicate since it is not a theory of science and is not a source of energy. This is what makes Statement 3 a void argument.


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
19-04-2021 22:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15559)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: Not correct. It only need be a valid argument (free of fallacy).

To pass internal consistency, yes, it only needs to be valid.

However, as you correctly noted, if any of the predicates are false then the theory is rejected.

For example the theory of Greenhouse Effect is perfectly valid, it just isn't sound:
1) Atmospheric CO2 absorbs earth's thermal radiation
2) Atmospheric CO2 creates additional energy which it radiates back to earth
3) Earth absorbs the additional energy and increases in temperature

This is a valid argument. It is not a sound argument, however, because predicate #2 is FALSE. The theory is rejected.




With #2 you could say that CO2 conserves more energy while a decrease in O2 decreases the emissivity of the Earth's atmosphere. CO2 is less reactive than O2.
O2 also supports the Chapman cycle which is the ozone layer. What we do not know because of misinformation is what impact this has on the troposphere.

Emissivity is not dependent on the reactivity of a substance. No substance conserves energy. There is always heat. There is always dissipation.


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
19-04-2021 22:50
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
Into the Night wrote:

Never said gravity compressed the atmosphere at any time. Gravity is not energy.



Gravity is energy. It's frustrating when some of you promote ideas that are pure fallacy. If gravity was not energy then it could not affect the mass of any given body.
We know that KE = 1/2mv^2. And if v = dt, then as an example if a 1kg mass
accelerates at 9.81 meters (d) times the number of seconds, then we can know that gravity has force.
An example of this is
1kg * 9.81meter * 2 seconds = 19.62n-m of force after 2 seconds of acceleration while
1kg * 9.81meter * 5 seconds = 49.05 n-m of force after 5 seconds of acceleration.
And yet you will say that gravity has no energy? The next thing I know is that you'll be saying it rains more in Seattle than in Miami. Seattle, like Little Rock averages about 37 inches of rain per year.
But it does rain more in Seattle. An average of about 150 days to Miami's 129.
How do we quantify "it rains"? More days or more precipitation?
It makes things difficult when basic understanding is being debated. More rainy days does not = more rainfall. This is where science comes into play.
19-04-2021 23:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
James___ wrote: Gravity is energy.

Gravity is not energy. Gravity is a force.

Force = Mass * Acceleration ... really, it is. Drop any mass and watch gravity accelerate it towards the earth's center of gravity.

Energy, on the other hand, is Force * Distance. The two are clearly not the same; Force is just one component of Energy.

James___ wrote: It's frustrating when some of you promote ideas that are pure fallacy.

Like "negative work" and "atmospheric thermal enhancement"?

James___ wrote:If gravity was not energy then it could not affect the mass of any given body.

Since gravity is simply a Force, it is quite capable of accelerating a mass. Really. Try it. Drop something.

Don't be afraid to come to me with the hard stuff.

20-04-2021 00:54
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Gravity is energy.

Gravity is not energy. Gravity is a force.




Gravity is not a farce. I'm not sure where you get your science from. You've been hanging around that ITN again, haven't you? I should've known.
20-04-2021 00:56
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Gravity is energy.

Gravity is not energy. Gravity is a force.


Energy, on the other hand, is Force * Distance. The two are clearly not the same; Force is just one component of Energy.





Energy is 1/2mv^2. I'm not sure where the other half goes, but we do have that half to consider.
20-04-2021 00:59
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
IBdaMann wrote:


James___ wrote: It's frustrating when some of you promote ideas that are pure fallacy.

Like "negative work" and "atmospheric thermal enhancement"?





And yet the Golden Gate Bridge hasn't fallen into San Francisco Bay. You can't see what hasn't happened. Then again, maybe you're being downright negative?
Unfortunately, thermal enhancement is more complex than what has been mentioned. Of course they might have a pill that you can take for that.

Edited on 20-04-2021 00:59
20-04-2021 02:33
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
Just having some fun with you guys. With KE = 1/2mv^2, it's linear momentum is what's being considered. The "other half" is its angular momentum.
Hence E = MC^2. Linear C * angular C = C^2.
With matter such as KE = 3/2kT, it is the linear velocity of a gas that's being considered. Why it can also be stated as 1/2mv^2 = 3/2kT. The spin of gas molecules is not considered.
Still, why always be serious? As for scientists, they might not know that Einstein was referring to both how fast a photon spins as well as how fast it moves through space. This shows a relationship between its own internal gravity and outside forces that might act upon it. ie., its cohesion is based on the difference between its gravity and the field that it's moving through. Why photons would change frequency. This in turn allows for radio and magnetic wave forms among others.
20-04-2021 03:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
James___ wrote:And yet the Golden Gate Bridge hasn't fallen into San Francisco Bay.

That's because there is no gravity there anymore. It was all converted to energy by city ordinance to accomplish negative work and thermally enhance San Francisco Bay.

James___ wrote: You can't see what hasn't happened.

Sure I can ... it just takes a little extra negative work. I just look for scrunched thermal energy amongst the compressing atmosphere.

James___ wrote: Unfortunately, thermal enhancement is more complex than what has been mentioned.

Are you saying that thermal enhancement is more complex than it otherwise should be?


20-04-2021 04:19
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:And yet the Golden Gate Bridge hasn't fallen into San Francisco Bay.

That's because there is no gravity there anymore. It was all converted to energy by city ordinance to accomplish negative work and thermally enhance San Francisco Bay.

James___ wrote: You can't see what hasn't happened.

Sure I can ... it just takes a little extra negative work. I just look for scrunched thermal energy amongst the compressing atmosphere.

James___ wrote: Unfortunately, thermal enhancement is more complex than what has been mentioned.

Are you saying that thermal enhancement is more complex than it otherwise should be?




That's because there is no gravity there anymore. It was all converted to energy by city ordinance to accomplish negative work and thermally enhance San Francisco Bay.



Kind of explains why the average home costs over $1 Million. Still, have to wonder how many joules the tension in its cables are generating. Maybe the bridge could light itself?

I just look for scrunched thermal energy amongst the compressing atmosphere.


Isn't that the inverse of a thermal? I'm asking for a friend.


Are you saying that thermal enhancement is more complex than it otherwise should be?



I think you got that one right. Polar elements, molecules and compounds react to the Earth's magnetosphere. See how simple that is? Likewise the Earth's magnetosphere and its ozone layer limit the amount of solar radiation that can enter the troposphere.
And we know the troposphere's ability to conserve energy is primarily dependent on the ratio of CO2 to O2. See how simple that is?
20-04-2021 04:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9190)
James___ wrote:Still, have to wonder how many joules the tension in its cables are generating.

Zero. You are suffering from Pete Rogers' inability to get tenses correct.

The cables have a certain amount of potential energy. That potential energy was attained (present perfect) in the past during construction/maintenance. There is no other energy, kinetic or otherwise, being generated in the present progressive and the sum of all the torques remains at zero. If that were to ever change then yes, the bridge would plummet into the drink.

James___ wrote: Maybe the bridge could light itself?

Everything about the bridge is covered in the section of physics called "statics." The bridge cannot do anything.

James___ wrote: Isn't that the inverse of a thermal? I'm asking for a friend.

The inverse of a thermal is a cold down-draft.

James___ wrote: And we know the troposphere's ability to conserve energy is primarily dependent on the ratio of CO2 to O2.

Actually ... we know that the troposphere's ability to conserve energy is primarily dependent upon the 1st law of thermodynamics remaining in full effect.

See how simple that is?


20-04-2021 05:10
James___
★★★★★
(4523)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:Still, have to wonder how many joules the tension in its cables are generating.

Zero. You are suffering from Pete Rogers' inability to get tenses correct.

The cables have a certain amount of potential energy. That potential energy was attained (present perfect) in the past during construction/maintenance. There is no other energy, kinetic or otherwise, being generated in the present progressive and the sum of all the torques remains at zero. If that were to ever change then yes, the bridge would plummet into the drink.

James___ wrote: Maybe the bridge could light itself?

Everything about the bridge is covered in the section of physics called "statics." The bridge cannot do anything.

James___ wrote: Isn't that the inverse of a thermal? I'm asking for a friend.

The inverse of a thermal is a cold down-draft.

James___ wrote: And we know the troposphere's ability to conserve energy is primarily dependent on the ratio of CO2 to O2.

Actually ... we know that the troposphere's ability to conserve energy is primarily dependent upon the 1st law of thermodynamics remaining in full effect.

See how simple that is?




The cables have a certain amount of potential energy. That potential energy was attained (present perfect) in the past during construction/maintenance. There is no other energy, kinetic or otherwise, being generated in the present progressive and the sum of all the torques remains at zero. If that were to ever change then yes, the bridge would plummet into the drink.


Really? This saddens me.
How could you of all people not know that the support cables on a suspension bridge vibrate with a specific resonant frequency determined by the load (stress) acting on them?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/05/24/science-busts-the-biggest-myth-ever-about-why-bridges-collapse/?sh=2d71411f1f4c

The inverse of a thermal is a cold down-draft.


Isn't that "scrunched thermal energy amongst the compressing atmosphere"?

Actually ... we know that the troposphere's ability to conserve energy is primarily dependent upon the 1st law of thermodynamics remaining in full effect.

See how simple that is?


So you're saying that we have E2 - E1 = Q - W where E is the energy in a system, E2 - E1 demonstrates entropy. At the same time, Q is equal to the heat transfer into the system and W is work done by the system.
With the atmosphere, E2 - E1 = radiance of the atmosphere, right? Then Q is solar radiation - W which is the heating of the atmosphere or elevating it's temperature above E2 - E1. Please continue as the 1st Law of Thermodynamics is a "Hot Topic".
Page 22 of 23<<<20212223>





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