Global warming is not anthropogenic

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.

duncan61 wrote:I do not possess the ability to reason out as well as Pete ...

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

duncan61 wrote:I will bullet point my simple understanding

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

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

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

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

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

duncan61 wrote:
I will bullet point my simple understanding
. The planet Earth has an Atmosphere

duncan61 wrote:
. It is comprised of gasses

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

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

duncan61 wrote:
.This Energy warms the Atmosphere at the surface

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

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

duncan61 wrote:
Can you explain any of the points I have made that are not correct and I will take them in to consideration

duncan61 wrote:
This whole AGW/CC theory makes sense it just is not happening

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

duncan61 wrote:
The same devices.Thermometers/Satellites

duncan61 wrote:
are now showing stability over the last few decades

duncan61 wrote:
and Australia has been showing a drop in average

duncan61 wrote:
so the data is being cooked as the ball is rolling and can not be stopped

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.

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.

duncan61 wrote:
What's a buzzword?

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

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.

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.

Pete Rogers wrote:
"There's no such thing!" In my opinion you might as well stop thinking about anything he goes on to say.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The S-B 255K

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,

Pete Rogers wrote:
but since it can never be below 255K it must be more;

Pete Rogers wrote:
to the extent of the degree of gravitational force: so autocompression definitely causes thermal enhancement

Pete Rogers wrote:
which goes on to reverse the thermal flow back to the surface under the 2nd Law,

Pete Rogers wrote:
whereby the temperature is raised to 288K where it stabilises as increased IR emission comes into balance.

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

Pete Rogers wrote:
under the rules of reason;

Pete Rogers wrote:
otherwise whatever is said is of no consequence as we see here.

Pete Rogers wrote:
If that cannot be done then the Theory is sound,

Pete Rogers wrote:
meaning that mankkind and his CO2 are not involved with Climate Change.

Pete Rogers wrote:
You will notice here - hopefully - that I have opened up the full reasoning

Pete Rogers wrote:
behind the theory

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.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Switching the subject by imposition of other notions is not permitted.

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.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Under the rules of Epistemology;

Pete Rogers wrote:
which is the method by which we distinguish opinion from knowledge:

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.

Pete Rogers wrote:
It carries the violation that falsification has somehow been been dealt with - which of course it hasn't.

Pete Rogers wrote:
All these enquiries have to have structures not unlike those of a Court of Law

Pete Rogers wrote:
and were we to have adjudication

Pete Rogers wrote:
IBdaMann would be redirected by a Judge to answer the question

Pete Rogers wrote:
and stop showcasking his own preferences.

Pete Rogers wrote:
If he did not accede he would be held in contempt; as he should be here.

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.

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

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

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

Into the Night wrote figures that gravity is energy

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

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.

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.

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

Pete Rogers wrote:
applied to the naming of the 33K by which the Atmosphere warms the Planet beyond S-B255K.

Pete Rogers wrote:
It is ubiquitous throughout Academia

Pete Rogers wrote:
so hardly a buzzword unlike - say - foolish terms like "Word Salad" "RQAA",etc.

Pete Rogers wrote:
which some idiot keeps throwing around together with other buzzwords, whilst accusing people of using buzzwords.

Pete Rogers wrote:
His head is stuck fast somewhere.

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.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Gravity compresses the atmosphere

Pete Rogers wrote:
thus reducing the volume

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?

Pete Rogers wrote:

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

That's pretty dumb even for you.

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,

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?:

Pete Rogers wrote:
Now - just a moment though either he knows better than these,

Pete Rogers wrote:
or his head is irretrievably stuck up his fundament.

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.

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.

Pete Rogers wrote:
The 6 statements duncan61 is pointing at do not have any known status as they are not corroborated by argument.

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.

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.

Pete Rogers wrote:
That is how propaganda works you numpty

Pete Rogers wrote:
and it must never be allowed to prevail.

Pete Rogers wrote:
Either prove your 6 points by explaining them properly to duncan61's satisfaction - as you are required to do Epistemologically -

Pete Rogers wrote:
or go away

Pete Rogers wrote:
and play Goebbles

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?

Into the Night wrote:Theories must be valid arguments.

Pete Rogers wrote: Every word of this is "Ex Cathedra".

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.

Into the Night wrote: Not correct. It only need be a valid argument (free of fallacy).

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

duncan61 wrote:
ITN when you go in to deny everything mode you lose credibilty.

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.

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.

Into the Night wrote:

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

James___ wrote: Gravity is energy.

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

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

IBdaMann wrote:

James___ wrote: Gravity is energy.

Gravity is not energy. Gravity is a force.

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.

IBdaMann wrote:

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

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

James___ wrote:And yet the Golden Gate Bridge hasn't fallen into San Francisco Bay.

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

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

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.

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

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

James___ wrote:Still, have to wonder how many joules the tension in its cables are generating.

James___ wrote: Maybe the bridge could light itself?

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

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

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.

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

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?