Global warming is not anthropogenic
| 26-08-2021 20:10 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21588) |
Pete Rogers wrote: Paradox. You can't have 'small fluctuations' and 'zero as an approximation'. Zero is zero. Pete Rogers wrote: No array here. You are hallucinating again. A scalar is not an array or matrix. Pete Rogers wrote: Nope. You obviously have never seen the space flights and weightless conditions on board. Pete Rogers wrote: The atmosphere is part of Earth. It is not separate from it. Pete Rogers wrote: Contextomy fallacy. Compression is not a plumb line. 'Plumbline' is not a word. Pete Rogers wrote: The atmosphere is not being compressed. It is not reducing in volume either. V1=V2. Pete Rogers wrote: Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Pete Rogers wrote: ALL mass converts thermal energy into light, whether it's transparent at visible frequencies or not. BTW, the atmosphere is either partially or fully opaque to some frequencies of light. Pete Rogers wrote: There is no such thing as 'excess temperature'. Since you deny any energy can travel through space, how does the Sun heat the Earth, dude? Pete Rogers wrote: Denial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot reduce entropy....ever. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot destroy energy into nothing. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 26-08-2021 20:54 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
Into the Night wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: Zero can also be a limit as in x (arrow) 0. That would mean that something can approach 0 but not reach 0. After all, above or below 0 is a defined point while 0 is not defined. |
| 26-08-2021 21:19 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
James___ wrote:Into the Night wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: Zero is not a limit of zero. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 26-08-2021 22:14 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote:Into the Night wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: 0 is undefined. Technically speaking, anytime a 0 is a coordinate relative to (x, y) then that coordinate is undefined and should be represented by a circle. The problem here is that if x = 0 then there is no rise over run because you cannot divide by 0, that's undefined. Yet if you divide 0 by any integer that is not 0, then that = 0. Yet 0 is undefined so that would be the paradox. Basically it can be above or below freezing, ie., 0º C. but it cannot be 0º C. This gets into asymptotes because nothing can be exactly 0º C. if 0º C. is the limit. And when the temperature moves above or below 0º C., then the value 0º C. is undefined because is H2O a liquid or a solid? That is the temperature where it changes its state from a solid to a liquid or vice versa. It melts above and freezes below. Kind of why they work with math that way. Just trying to be helpful. |
| 26-08-2021 23:10 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
James___ wrote:Into the Night wrote:James___ wrote:Into the Night wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: Zero is defined. It is a scalar value representing nothing. It is also used as a reference point in measurements. James___ wrote: Cartesian coordinates do not need to be converted into polar coordinates, simply because there is a zero. Zero is simply the reference point in both coordinate systems. James___ wrote: Zero is defined. James___ wrote: Yes it can. James___ wrote: Yes it can. James___ wrote: Zero is not a limit with itself. James___ wrote: A nonzero value does not undefine zero. James___ wrote: It is transitioning back and forth, assuming standard sea level pressure. James___ wrote: It does both at 0 deg C. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 28-08-2021 21:28 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14389) |
 James___ wrote: 0 is undefined. James__, you did not receive a satisfactory education in elementary school. Of course zero is defined. Who told you that it wasn't? James___ wrote: Technically speaking, anytime a 0 is a coordinate relative to (x, y) then that coordinate is undefined and should be represented by a circle. James__, you are confusing concepts. The "circle" is how you represent a point that is not an element of the domain, i.e. a point that is not included. If the point is the value zero then the point is obviously included and is represented as a black dot ... because zero is absolutely a defined value. I gues you could call it "absolute zero" (I just crack myself up with the puns). James___ wrote: The problem here is that if x = 0 then there is no rise over run because you cannot divide by 0, that's undefined. This is a different concept as well. Here you are discussing the slope of a line which is determined by the mathematical operation of division, i.e. dividing the difference in Y by the difference in X. Obviously nothing that is divided by zero is defined. In this case, if there is no difference in X value then the line is vertical and there can be no value for the "slope." Zero is defined. Dividing by zero is not. James___ wrote: Yet if you divide 0 by any integer that is not 0, then that = 0. In fact, if you divide zero by any real or imaginary number you get zero. You've got to admit, that's pretty solidly defined. Bonus for James__: In mathematics, zero is defined as the predecessor of one. James___ wrote:... but it cannot be 0º C. There are two ways to look at this. 1. Mathematically. The mean-value theorem tells us that if something was below 0º C at Time(x) and later was above 0º C at Time(z) then there exists some point y whereby x>y>z such that at Time(y) it was exactly at 0º C. 2. Observationally. Stick a thermometer in a container of water at room temperature. Take that container and water and thermometer into a walk-in freezer (preferably while you are wearing a parka) and just watch the thermometer as the water cools. You will notice a steady decline in the water's temperature until it reaches 0º C exactly. At that point, the temperature will flatline, i.e. will remain locked at 0º C exactly, and the water will begin to freeze. The water's temperature will remain locked at 0º C until all of the water has frozen ... at which point the temperature will resume decreasing. You can observe that the water was exactly at 0º C over the entire duration of the phase change. James___ wrote:This gets into asymptotes Asymptotes are notional lines representing convergence. They apply mostly to hyperbolas because a hyperbolic curve converges on a line. Parabolic curves do not. James___ wrote: because nothing can be exactly 0º C. Change that to "because nothing can be exactly 0º K" and you'll be fine. James___ wrote: And when the temperature moves above or below 0º C., then the value 0º C. is undefined because is H2O a liquid or a solid? In rational discourse, if you are making an argument, you cannot fulfill your burden of support by asking a question. Matter transitions between states. If your argument is that zero is undefined simply because you do not understand matter phase transition then I'm afraid your argument falls a bit short. Let me know if you'd like to discuss zero's definition further.  |
| 30-08-2021 05:01 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
IBdaMann wrote: Zero is actually a major sticking point in mathematics. Math is based on the concept that there is no 0. Before about 1500, the year, there was no zero. How do you represent nothing? Why zero in mathematics is an issue. Yet they can't define it. It is not the future and it is not the past. How do you define the present? It does not exist unless you know the past and the future. That is what defines nothing. The present simply doesn't exist because that was 5 seconds ago. Right? Edited on 30-08-2021 05:39 |
| 30-08-2021 06:55 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
 James___ wrote: Zero is actually a major sticking point in mathematics. No, it is not a major sticking point. James__, if you ever hear something funky about mathematics, run it by me first. You should be able to tell from the overabundance of warmizombies that the world is full of morons who don't give a hollering hoot that they don't know anything about the technical topic on which they are pretending to be experts in their desperate hope of fooling at least some people into extending them undeserved importance. I have already told you that zero is well defined and I told you how. There are so many more important things in life over which you could justify being in denial, but the number zero is not one of them. James___ wrote:Math is based on the concept that there is no 0. Incorrect. Math is based on the following axioms which determine the Natural numbers: A: One ("1") is a number B: Every number has a successor that is a number. C: All rules of logic apply *THEN* zero is added as the predecessor of One ("1") to obtain the Whole numbers. *THEN* the following rule is added to obtain the set of Integers: D: Every number has a predecessor which is a number. Voila! *THEN* addition and subtraction are defined in terms of Successors and Predecessors. *THEN* multiplication and division are defined in terms of addition and subtraction. *THEN* everything else becomes defined in terms of what has already been defined. QED. The moral of the story is that zero is well defined. BONUS puzzle for James__: Let's say that your all-time favorite food is a thick juicy steak. Further, let's say that you are repulsed by the idea of balut and you would only eat it if you were starving and there was nothing else to eat. We could say that balut is better than nothing, and nothing is better than a thick, juicy steak, therefore we must conclude that balut is better than a thick juicy steak, yes? Enjoy!  |
| 30-08-2021 07:02 | |
| James___★★★★★ (5513) |
I can't eat steak but balut is a regional food that Filipinos eat. Why would you make fun of them? You've never been there, have you? |
| 30-08-2021 07:27 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
James___ wrote:I can't eat steak but balut is a regional food that Filipinos eat. Why would you make fun of them? You've never been there, have you? First, you answer the question. It's a puzzle. Perhaps you did not understand it? |
| 30-08-2021 20:21 | |
| Pete Rogers★★☆☆☆ (160) |
Into the Night wrote: Into the Night wroteParadox. You can't have 'small fluctuations' and 'zero as an approximation'. Zero is zero. In that case Zero is not approximate to small fluctuations on Bozo where that is prohibited, so it cannot be used in that way after all after you told me it could. Zero is zero and not zero isn't, even approximately, and that's that, so you now tell me? That means you cannot treat negligible fluctuations as Zero after all. I wish you'd be consistent at the very least! Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteA scalar is not an array or matrix. So what Einstein? Is that supposed to be a big deal here? If so perhaps you would oblige us with an explanation. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteNope. You obviously have never seen the space flights and weightless conditions on board. I'll grant you that one. I should have said "Except for things in free fall", otherwise everything has weight, Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteThe atmosphere is part of Earth. It is not separate from it. Of course its part of the Earth, Einstein, who doesn't know that? It is precisely because it is part of Earth that it is being compressed to the extent that it is, with Gravity acting vertically downwards towards the centre. How about on Planet Bozo? Pete Rogers wrote: Contextomy fallacy. Compression is not a plumb line. 'Plumbline' is not a word. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteThe atmosphere is not being compressed. It is not reducing in volume either. V1=V2. If its pressure were lower the atmosphere would be bigger - V1 - but since it is not it is as we actually have it - V2 - Einstein. That's what is known as an hypothesis and it must be correct because Boyle's Law would be violated if it wasn't wouldn't it? And that's not possible is it Einstein - except on Planet Bozo where V1 and V2 would be the same even if P1 and P2 were different? Time for you to stop. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteDenial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Please corroborate this nonsense if you can or if you can't, please stop uttering it! Pete Rogers wrote: Into the night wroteALL mass converts thermal energy into light, whether it's transparent at visible frequencies or not. BTW, the atmosphere is either partially or fully opaque to some frequencies of light. Not if it passes through it. Within the troposphere only Greenhouse gases - so called - are opaque in any degree Einstein. Transparent gases permit the passage of radiation through without them being affected so do not emit their own. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteThere is no such thing as 'excess temperature'. Except for the amount by which the atmospherically enhanced temperature exceeds the temperature that would obtain without an atmosphere Einstein. Try to work these things out please so that you do not inflict such foolishness upon us. Into theNight wroteSince you deny any energy can travel through space, how does the Sun heat the Earth, dude? What has prompted such a stupid comment as this? Nobody I know said any such thing - me included. What is the matter with your brain? Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wrloteDenial of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. You cannot reduce entropy....ever. You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot destroy energy into nothing. No Einstein; It is precisely because the thermal energy has to be conserved that the amount per unit volume is forced to increase due to the smaller number of volume units available to contain it. It's long division Einstein, are you able to divide? If not, then try to use a calculator instead of your fingers and brain and you might stand a chance. |
| 30-08-2021 20:41 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
Pete Rogers wrote:Into the Night wrote: I never said zero was not zero, dumbass. You are hallucinating again. Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: None needed. Obviously you don't know the difference between an array and a scalar. You've probably been denying math too long (or never learned it to begin with). Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: Special pleading fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: The atmosphere is not being compressed. Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: The atmosphere is not being expanded or compressed. V1=V2. Denial of Charles' Law. Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: No corroboration needed. The Stefan-Boltzmann law, like any theory, stands on it's own. Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: Apparently you don't know what 'opaque' means either. Those frequencies of light do NOT pass through it. Pete Rogers wrote: Define 'greenhouse gas'. CO2 only absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light, primarily. Pete Rogers wrote: ALL materials, including gases, emit light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no term for state of matter or content of matter. Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: The Moon, which has such a thin atmosphere most people don't even consider it has one, can reach daytime temperatures of 250 deg F at the surface. The International Space Station, in orbit around Earth, sees the same kind of temperatures on skin surfaces exposed to the Sun. There is nowhere on Earth that even approaches this temperature, despite being essentially the same distance from the Sun. If the atmosphere warms the surface, why is the surface so much COLDER during the day? The atmosphere is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote:Into theNight wroteSince you deny any energy can travel through space, how does the Sun heat the Earth, dude? You and your idiocy, since you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the concept of radiant heat. Pete Rogers wrote: Lie. You did deny radiant heating and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You still do. Pete Rogers wrote: Does the noise in my head bother you? Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Temperature is not total thermal energy. The atmosphere is not being compressed. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 30-08-2021 22:49 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
 Pete Rogers wrote:Into the Night wroteThe atmosphere is not being compressed. It is not reducing in volume either. V1=V2.If its pressure were lower ... ... but it's not. There's that subjunctive again that only identifies your example as being specifically NOT the case. You keep reaching for the subjunctive and rendering your argument FALSE. Dismissed. Science predicts nature as it is, not as it is not. Pete Rogers wrote: ... the atmosphere would be bigger - V1 - but since it is not it is as we actually have it - V2 - Einstein. That's what is known as an hypothesis You really are too stupid to learn. I already explained this to you in detail. I bet you can't read, that must be it. For everyone else, an hypothesis is an argument that is specifically derived from a falsifiable model. It is not some arbitrary question of curiosity. Speculating as to how something works is speculation and is not an hypothesis. Pete Rogers wrote: ... and it must be correct because Boyle's Law would be violated if it wasn't wouldn't it? Nope. Boyle's law is not somehow violated if gravity is not mistakenly conflated with energy. Pete Rogers wrote:Please corroborate this nonsense if you can or if you can't, please stop uttering it! Did you just demand that science (e.g. Stefan-Boltzmann) somehow be validated or else your violation of physics must be correct? Stefan-Boltzmann has been explained to you numerous times but we have already exhaustively covered your inability to learn so go find a medical professional who can help you with your problem. For everyone else, Stefan-Boltzmann governs a body's radiance, i.e. the rate at which a body radiates away energy, and is solely a matter of the body's temperature. All bodies of matter, including the earth, radiate proportionally to their absolute temperature to the fourth power (there are some constants in there as well) despite Pete Rogers' insistence that a body of matter such as earth somehow cannot radiate into a vacuum. All matter radiates per Stefan-Boltzmann. All matter, always, everywhere. Even earth's atmospheric gases. Pete Rogers wrote: b) being transparent it is unable to originate IRInto the Night wroteALL mass converts thermal energy into light, whether it's transparent at visible frequencies or not. BTW, the atmosphere is either partially or fully opaque to some frequencies of light. I don't mean to bash on your obviously abysmal English reading comprehension but you can't even follow a simple train of thought for one complete sentence. You can't seriously expect to engage in an adult conversation about science. Get your problem checked. Into the Night correctly stated that all matter radiates (what I just finished covering above) and that the atmosphere is opaque to some light frequencies. You then strangely disagreed because other light passes through it. Hmmmm. You have serious problems. Pete Rogers wrote:Within the troposphere only Greenhouse gases - so called - are opaque in any degree Einstein. There is no such thing as greenhouse gas or Greenhouse Effect. Into the Night's statement stands until you can show that all electromagnetic frequencies pass through the atmosphere ... which is not the case. You are gibbering. Pete Rogers wrote: Transparent gases permit the passage of radiation through without them being affected so do not emit their own. Gibberish. Do you consider oxygen to be a "transparent gas"? On an unrelated note, do you know why the earth has an ozone layer? Pete Rogers wrote:Into the Night wroteThere is no such thing as 'excess temperature'.Except for the amount by which the atmospherically enhanced temperature exceeds the temperature that would obtain without an atmosphere Einstein. There's that subjunctive again. Your claim is specifically not the case by your own admission. Whoever was responsible for ensuring your childhood education did you a grave disservice. Try to work these things out please so that you do not inflict such foolishness upon us. Pete Rogers wrote:Into theNight wroteSince you deny any energy can travel through space, how does the Sun heat the Earth, dude?What has prompted such a stupid comment as this? Nobody I know said any such thing - me included. Yes, you made this exact claim. Your whole religious dogma apparently rests on your asinine claim that the earth somehow cannot cool because it is surrounded by a vacuum. Now you are denying that you ever made this claim ... so you need to go back and answer the question that you dodged by claiming that the earth somehow cannot radiate into space. How is the earth's temperature "enhanced" today, i.e. in the present tense if it cooled long ago, i.e. in the past tense, via radiating energy into the vacuum of space per Stefan-Boltzmann. Your answer really does need to avoid conflating verb tenses to be valid. Pete Rogers wrote:No Einstein; It is precisely because the thermal energy has to be conserved that the amount per unit volume ... Oooops, one does not need to ready any further. Dismissed. Matter, not volume, has thermal energy. You are asserting the same amount of thermal energy for the same amount of matter. Let's not forget, you are asserting the same volume as well since the atmosphere is not compressing in the present tense. Pete Rogers wrote: is forced to increase due to the smaller number of volume units available to contain it. Volume does not contain thermal energy. Thermal energy cannot be contained. Only matter has thermal energy. |
| 02-09-2021 15:57 | |
| Pete Rogers★★☆☆☆ (160) |
Listen Einstein. Any number which is very close to another approximates to it silly boy. I see that that is difficult for you, but do try to keep up with the others! Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteA scalar is not an array or matrix. So what Einstein? Perhaps you would oblige us with an explanation of the relevance. Those who do not exdplain are supposed to butt out? Into the Night wroteNone needed. Obviously you don't know the difference between an array and a scalar. You've probably been denying math too long (or never learned it to begin with). Siily Boy. Anything close enough in size to something else is approximately the same size. Try to keep up please! Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteNope. You obviously have never seen the space flights and weightless conditions on board. Pete Rogers wroteI'll grant you that one. I should have said "Except for things in free fall", otherwise everything has weight, Into ther Night wroteSpecial pleading fallacy. Those were simple facts, so what is the relevance of your comment please? If it has none - as seems likely - why make it? Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteThe atmosphere is part of Earth. It is not separate from it. Of course its part of the Earth, Einstein, what else would it be part of, and an inescapable consequence of that being the case is that Earth's gravity is compressing it Einstein? How about on Planet Bozo? Into the Night wroteThe atmosphere is not being compressed. Hmmm! The Atmospheric pressure at sea level is 1 ton per square foot and pressure compresses gas whether you like it or not Einstein, so what are you talking about? Gravity compressing the atmosphere is what stops its dissipation. I heard that on Planet Bozo once gravity had compressed the atmosphere to its equilibrium level it stopped compressing it, but the atmosphere didn't spring back even though nothing was compressing it. Strange place Bozo. Pete Rogers wrote: Contextomy fallacy. Compression is not a plumb line. 'Plumbline' is not a word. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteThe atmosphere is not being compressed. It is not reducing in volume either. V1=V2. If its pressure was lower the atmosphere would be bigger - V1 - Einstein, but since it is not, the situation is as we have it - V2 - Einstein with V1>V2! It's Boyles Law you silly fellow. Now, providing you are not so incredibly stupid as to be incapable of such an exercise, it should dawn on you that you are at perfect liberty to ask yourself this simple question.. "What would obtain if the Atmosphere was under lower pressure,(Thinks ... I know it can't occur but let me see if I can use my imagination to work out what would happen if it could nonetheless)?" ... then with some effort on your part it might dawn on you that it would have to be bigger because of this thing called Boyle's Law Einstein. Now that's an hypothesis and very useful too as it must be correct because otherwise Boyle's Law would be violated and that cannot happen now can it Einstein - except on Planet Bozo, perhaps, where you just assure me that V1 and V2 would still be the same even if P1 and P2 were different? On Earth the temperature would be less in accordance with Charles' Law ... Einstein? Into the Night wroteThe atmosphere is not being expanded or compressed. V1=V2. Denial of Charles' Law. It is an hypothesis Einstein and therefore an act requiring imagination and intelligence. You need imagination and intelligence in science Einstein, but it is not in evidence where you come from, because "What situation would obtain if the pressure of the atmosphere was lower?" is a forbidden question on Bozo. That means that the mind of a Bozo man is controlled by a religious figure, because only Popes and the like try to prevent them as heresies. Try to disobey your Pope, is my advice, becauase it is the only way for the mind to progress. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteDenial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Please corroborate this nonsense if you can; or if you can't, please desist from uttering it! Into the Night wroteNo corroboration needed. The Stefan-Boltzmann law, like any theory, stands on it's own. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the night wroteALL mass converts thermal energy into light, whether it's transparent at visible frequencies or not. BTW, the atmosphere is either partially or fully opaque to some frequencies of light. Not if it passes through it Einstein - try to think about it! Into the Night wroteApparently you don't know what 'opaque' means either. Those frequencies of light do NOT pass through it. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteDefine 'greenhouse gas'. CO2 only absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light, primarily. Sure, but what are you doing on this forum if you have to ask? A greenhouse gas is any Tropospheric Gas that is not entirely transparent to IR Einstein. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteALL materials, including gases, emit light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. There is no term for state of matter or content of matter. No, Einstein! Transparent gas transmits and opaque material emits - including Greenhouse gases at certain frequencies except on Planet Bozo where things are different - apparently. So tell me about it Einstein. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteThere is no such thing as 'excess temperature'. Well, there's always the amount by which the atmospherically enhanced temperature exceeds the temperature that would obtain without an atmosphere Einstein. Try to work these things out please - the appropriate technique for discovering the excess is called subtraction. Into the Night wroteThe Moon, which has such a thin atmosphere most people don't even consider it has one, can reach daytime temperatures of 250 deg F at the surface. The International Space Station, in orbit around Earth, sees the same kind of temperatures on skin surfaces exposed to the Sun. There is nowhere on Earth that even approaches this temperature, despite being essentially the same distance from the Sun. If the atmosphere warms the surface, why is the surface so much COLDER during the day? Of course that must be so Einstein, since the Moon revolves at a rate of only once in 30 days - or so - meaning that it has 15 Days - or so - of heating from the absorbtion of solar radiation and 15 - days or so - cooling. Accordingly it is blistering at midday - compared to Earth - and incredibly cold at midnight - compared to Earth - with an average temperature of something like 180K, which is actually what the temperature of the Earth would be if it had no atmosphere Einstein. Try to keep up please, I can't keep coming back for you like this, because the rest of the class will fall behind. The atmosphere is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote:Into theNight wroteSince you deny any energy can travel through space, how does the Sun heat the Earth, dude? Into the Night wroteYou and your idiocy, since you deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the concept of radiant heat. What are you talking about Einstein? What denial of Stefan Boltzman is this supposed to be? As to Radiant heat that comes from the surface through the transparent atmosphere with no effect upon it, except some frequencies impact with GG's leading to consequent emmision - I'm guessing you guys on Planet Bozo won't be familiar with any of this will you Einstein. Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteLie. You did deny radiant heating and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. You still do. Since you are so unsuitable an interlocuror as to descend to abuse of this kind I am happy to return the favour. You are the liar here because I denied neither. If you are an honourable man and you wish to show otherwise you must provide provide evidence and an explanation Einstein! Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteDoes the noise in my head bother you? Aah, that explains it! You suffer from noises in the head. You might like to think about that, because if you were able to you would realise that only you can hear those pesky noises in your head, nobody else, so if they bother anybody it can only be you Einstein. Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: Into the Night wroteDenial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Temperature is not total thermal energy. The atmosphere is not being compressed. The 0th Law is not denied and you give no explanation as to why you claim otherwise and unless you do that you have no business commenting here. Of course temperature is not total energy - nobody said it was - so what are you babbling about Einstein? What I did say my dear Einstein - if you would kindly pay attention - was that temperature is directly proportional to thermal energy per unit volume! Please try to keep up. If Gravity was not compressing the Atmosphere it would expand Einstein - except under express Papal infallibility on Planet Bozo - apparently! |
| 02-09-2021 20:09 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
 Pete Rogers wrote:Small fluctuations are still fluctuations, Einstein, so "more or less" is correct and Zero is not, being only an approximation "More or less" is totally inappropriate when you are assuming the context of equilibrium and you are assuming a stable equilibrium. If you are assuming zero you cannot assume non-zero. You are trying to have both zero and non-zero in order to shift out of equilibrium whenever you need to sneak in instantaneous changes so that you can pretend that Charles' law and the Ideal Gas law apply. They do not. We are presuming a stable system in equilibrium and therefore we are presuming exactly zero. Exactly zero cannot be any non-zero "more or less." You do not get to weasel and you do not get to cheat. Pete Rogers wroteListen Einstein. Any number which is very close to another approximates to it silly boy. This is exactly why you only have to dial a phone number that is very close to the one you want to call. It will obviously approximate to the desired number. Pete Rogers wroteInto the Night wroteA scalar is not an array or matrix.So what Einstein? Yet another example of you simply not understanding simple concepts and totally missing the point because you aren't smart enough to carry on an adult conversation. Pete Rogers wrotePerhaps you would oblige us with an explanation of the relevance. First check your own wording for glaring mathematical incompetence and you will answer your own question. Into the Night was simply being very polite. Pete Rogers wrote:Into the Night wrotePete Rogers wrote:Special pleading fallacy.Into the Night wroteI'll grant you that one. I should have said "Except for things in free fall", otherwise everything has weight,Pete Rogers wroteEverything that exists has weight,Nope. You obviously have never seen the space flights and weightless conditions on board. You are the one who needs to explain why you believe that being in free fall makes for a special case? All objects in free fall have weight. Weightless objects in space do not. Not only do you have it backwards but you are trying to somehow make a special case out of something here just so you can claim your physics violation is not a physics violation. Stop demanding Into the Night provide explanations for pointing out your mathematical incompetence, your scientific illiteracy and errors in your gibber-babble. You are the one who needs to provide explanations. Demanding explanations from others does not suffice for your lack of support for your WACKY affirmative argument that gravity is energy that can increase temperature. Pete Rogers wrote: ... an inescapable consequence of that being the case is that Earth's gravity is compressing it Einstein? Once again, expressing an action that was completed long ago in the distant past as an ongoing process in the present progressive. Wrong tense. No one need read any further. Dismissed. Pete Rogers wrote Gravity compressing the atmosphere is what stops its dissipation. Any rational adult can readily understand that this is not a true statement since the atmosphere's volume is not changing in the present tense. Gravity is what keeps the atmosphere from floating away, that's all. Because you are too stupid to learn, you haven't wasted your time trying to understand "contact force" which is the topic on which your conversation should be centered. Into the Night even tried in vain to explain it to you which, if I had known he was going to do, I would have strongly advised against such a waste of his time. He could have devoted his efforts to more fruitful pursuits like watching paint dry, for example. Pete Rogers wrote: Weight is the result of Gravity acting on Mass - Einstein - ... which you think stops when gravity acts on a mass by causing it to fall. Too funny. Pete Rogers wrote:If its pressure was lower the atmosphere would be bigger - V1 - This is incorrect. V1 has to be an actual volume in time, not an imagined volume in the subjunctive. Science predicts nature, not alternate realities that are not the case. V1 must be a volume in the past. V2 must be a volume at some future time. This is why you must keep your tenses straight. V2 is the future of V1 and V1 is the past of V2. Assigning V1 the value of the atmosphere's volume last week and V2 the value of the atmosphere's volume today, we see that V1=V2. We see that there is no temperature change. We see that there is no compressing occurring. We see that your ATE is one WACKED-OUT crackpot religious dogma. Wow! Talk about freaky cults, boy, this one is top-ten. Pete Rogers wrote: You are definitely a moron, and a dishonest one at that. I asked you if you believe oxygen to be transparent in this sense and you refused to answer because you know that you would be forced to make a mockery of your own arguments. Pete Rogers wrote: Of course that must be so Einstein, since the Moon revolves at a rate of only once in 30 days - or so - meaning that it has 15 Days - or so - of heating from the absorbtion of solar radiation and 15 - days or so - cooling. What a moron. Way too funny. So the earth were to rotate more slowly then daytime temperatures would exceed 120C and the oceans would boil? Is that what your faith teaches? Pete Rogers wrote: [the moon has] an average temperature of something like 180K, which is actually what the temperature of the Earth would be if it had no atmosphere Einstein. You don't know what the earth's average temperature is right now. If you do, please tell Duncan and explain to him how you know. Are you omniscient like tmiddles? Duncan insists up and down the street that you aren't claiming any temperature for the earth ... yet here you are claiming a temperature for the earth ... with no margin of error to boot because you know what the earth's temperature is exactly. Amazing. Pete Rogers wrote: What are you talking about Einstein? What denial of Stefan Boltzman is this supposed to be? It was merely scientific illiteracy back when you had never even heard any mention of Stefan-Boltzmann and had no clue what it says or means ... but once you were informed, you quickly had to deny it because Stefan-Boltzmann kills your WACKY religion dead. Into the Night is talking about that denial on your part. So, yeah, not only do Charles' law and the Ideal Gas law not apply, not only does your ATE violate the laws of thermodynamics but the Stefan-Boltzmann law blasts a fatal Howitzer shot right through the heart of your ATE and kills it dead. Let's not conflate tenses, Stefan-Boltzmann killed ATE dead, i.e. in the past tense. Pete Rogers wrote: As to Radiant heat that comes from the surface through the transparent atmosphere with no effect upon it, Way too funny. This is a great example of total denial of Stefan-Boltzmann. Pete Rogers wrote: If you are an honourable man and you wish to show otherwise you must provide provide evidence and an explanation Einstein! Nope. It is not Into the Night's job to teach you science, nor is it anyone else's. It is your job to perform independent research and to learn the Stefan-Boltzmann law that kills your faith. I realize that you are too stupid to perform an online search or to read English for comprehension or to learn something new ... but that's just why it sucks to be you. Nonetheless, it is still your responsibility, not his. When you do perform your research, the correct spelling is "Stefan-Boltzmann" Note: Wikipedia will most likely not be of any help on this matter. If Wikipedia leaves you totally confused, you shouldn't be surprised. Pete Rogers wrote:The 0th Law is not denied You totally deny it. You believe that the earth is in a thermal equilibrium of an alternate reality and not in the equilibrium of this reality and its laws of thermodynamics. Just check your wording for traces of the subjunctive and therein you will find your denial of the 0th law. Pete Rogers wrote:If Gravity was not compressing the Atmosphere If gravity were not compressing the atmosphere. "Was" is gramatically incorrect. This kind of error leads some people to springboard into conflating verb tenses entirely. It should be avoided.  Oh, one more thing ... gravity is not compressing the atmosphere, which is not a proper noun so it should not be capitalized. Pete Rogers wrote: ... it would expand Einstein - except under express Papal infallibility on Planet Bozo - apparently! That's called "Ex Cathedra" and I thought I was the only one who had that. The term is Latin for "IBDaMann says so, so you know it's correct ... except when predicting Safemoon price changes." You'll learn this should you ever enroll at IBDaMann University, which is catty-corner from the Temple of IBDaMann. You could conduct your research there and it will go much more quickly and you'll have the peace of mind knowing that everything is spot-on. . Attached image: 
Edited on 02-09-2021 20:23 |
| 02-09-2021 20:39 | |
| Pete Rogers★★☆☆☆ (160) |
IBdaMann wrote: What is all this nonsense Einstein! You'll sprain your brain at this rate. If the atmosphere was under lower pressure it would be bigger (Boyles law) containing the same amount of thermal energy (First Law of Thermodynamics) and therefore cooler (Charles' Law), so the state of atmospheric compression dictates thermal enhancement, whilst changes in temperature follow fluctuations in net insolation. That is the consequence of these Laws of Physics Einstein. I agree that your claptrap is ex-cathedra ergo there is nothing more than vanity and superstition behind it. |
| 02-09-2021 20:55 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
Pete Rogers wrote: Nope. No number is an approximate of that number. All numbers have actual values. Denial of mathematics. Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: I do not need to explain. Both of these are defined in mathematics, which you deny. Pete Rogers wrote:Into the Night wroteNone needed. Obviously you don't know the difference between an array and a scalar. You've probably been denying math too long (or never learned it to begin with). Numbers have values. No number is an approximate of that number. Denial of mathematics. Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: RQAA. Denial of logic. Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: The atmosphere is not being compressed. Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: Pressure is not size. Pete Rogers wrote: The atmosphere is not being compressed. V1=V2. Pete Rogers wrote: Buzzword fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: The atmosphere is not being expanded or compressed. V1=V2. Pete Rogers wrote: The atmosphere is not being compressed or expanded. Pete Rogers wrote:Into the Night wroteThe atmosphere is not being expanded or compressed. V1=V2. Denial of Charles' Law. A contrivance is not a hypothesis. A hypothesis is related to a theory. Pete Rogers wrote: Non-sequitur fallacy. I am not Catholic, dumbass. Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: There is no such thing as a 'tropospheric gas'. There is no element or compound named 'tropospheric'. Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: All matter emits light. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: There is no such thing as 'atmospherically enhanced temperature'. Buzzword fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote:Into the Night wroteThe Moon, which has such a thin atmosphere most people don't even consider it has one, can reach daytime temperatures of 250 deg F at the surface. The International Space Station, in orbit around Earth, sees the same kind of temperatures on skin surfaces exposed to the Sun. There is nowhere on Earth that even approaches this temperature, despite being essentially the same distance from the Sun. If the atmosphere warms the surface, why is the surface so much COLDER during the day? Temperatures on the Moon during daylight reach 250 deg F very rapidly just as soon as the Sun comes up. Temperatures fall very quickly just as soon as the Sun sets. Pete Rogers wrote:The atmosphere is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics.Pete Rogers wrote:Into theNight wroteSince you deny any energy can travel through space, how does the Sun heat the Earth, dude? The Sun affects the atmosphere. Ever hear of the ozone layer? Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: Your own posts are the proof of what you said. Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: You said it was. You still do. Pete Rogers wrote: Temperature is not total thermal energy. You are locked in paradox. Pete Rogers wrote: The atmosphere is not being compressed. Apparently you completely ignored my last postings about why there is greater pressure at the surface. Go read them. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-09-2021 21:01 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
Pete Rogers wrote:IBdaMann wrote: He certainly sprained yours! Pete Rogers wrote: Nope. Pressure is not size. Pete Rogers wrote: Buzzword fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: Temperature is not total thermal energy. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Pete Rogers wrote: Buzzword fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: There is no such thing as 'atmospheric thermal enhancement'. Buzzword fallacy. The atmosphere is not being compressed. Pete Rogers wrote: There is no such thing as 'net insolation'. Buzzword fallacy. Pete Rogers wrote: You deny physics. Pete Rogers wrote: Inversion fallacy. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 02-09-2021 22:57 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
Is the atmosphere in a state of compression? |
| 02-09-2021 23:12 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
duncan61 wrote: No. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 03-09-2021 03:00 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
Acceleration, rate at which velocity changes with time, in terms of both speed and direction. A point or an object moving in a straight line is accelerated if it speeds up or slows down. ... Acceleration is defined as the change in the velocity vector in a time interval, divided by the time interval. Is this true |
| 03-09-2021 03:03 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
Gravity is a force. The atmosphere has mass. According to Newton's law of motion, F=mA. If there is a force, there is acceleration. The ground is in the way. It too can be considered a force (it's actually electrostatic force). Applying this force against air trying to pass through it also results in an acceleration, but outward. The result is a net acceleration of zero for both the ground and the air (ignoring a spinning or orbiting Earth). I would like to get this correct for future reference.I need more information |
| 03-09-2021 15:55 | |
| Pete Rogers★★☆☆☆ (160) |
duncan61 wrote: Of course. Any positive pressure results in compression and the pressure at the surface lof thEarth is 1 ton per sq ft where compression - called autocompression because it is due to its own weight without external agency - is at its maximum generally, though it increases as you enter subterranean bodies such as deep mines where safety issues arise. |
| 03-09-2021 15:58 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
duncan61 wrote:Gravity is a force. The atmosphere has mass. According to Newton's law of motion, F=mA. If there is a force, there is acceleration. The ground is in the way. It too can be considered a force (it's actually electrostatic force). Applying this force against air trying to pass through it also results in an acceleration, but outward. The result is a net acceleration of zero for both the ground and the air (ignoring a spinning or orbiting Earth). Very well, What do we know? 1. Force = Mass * Acceleration 2. For every force there is an equal force in the opposite direction Hmmmm. Go stand at a wall. Place your hand on the wall and apply force to your hand in the direction of the wall (i.e. push on the wall). Notice that your hand does not go anywhere yet you are applying a force. This is because you are applying a force to your hand in one direction and the wall is applying an equivalent force, i.e. the wall's contact force, in the opposite direction, resulting in your hand's velocity remaining zero. Notice I did not refer to the wall's contact force as a "negative" force because there are no negative forces in nature. You simply applied a certain amount of force in one direction and the wall provided an equivalent amount of force in the opposite direction. When computing the sum of forces, the direction of the force might cause one to use subtraction rather than addition, however it will always be a positive force that is being subtracted because there is no such thing as a negative force. This, and because there is no such thing as a negative distance, is why there is no such thing as negative work. Ergo, the atmosphere is accelerating, it is not compressing and it is not moving, just as your hand at the wall is accelerating and is not compressing and it is not moving. Do you need any more information?  |
| 03-09-2021 16:01 | |
| Pete Rogers★★☆☆☆ (160) |
Into the Night wrote:duncan61 wrote: That is ignorance at its most absolute! This nitwit thinks a pressure of 1 ton per square foot on a body of air does not compress it. Furthermore to prove its existence compression decreases as we ascend.It is why weather balloons expand and rise. If there was no compression they would stay put. |
| 03-09-2021 16:16 | |
| Pete Rogers★★☆☆☆ (160) |
duncan61 wrote: All gas bodies are elastic and therefore compress when pressurised. In the case of uncontained gas bodies - such as atmospheres - this compression arises from the bod'y own weight acting perpendicularly towards the centre of gravity (which is the centre of the Earth) so it is compressed at maximum against the surface where an equal and opposite reaction occurs. The air is heated by compression - as all gases are - and this causes an expansion force which increases with temperature and when the force of Gravity and this force of expansion clome into equilibrium - as they must - we get the stable state of compression that exists on the planet today, with the enhanced temperature that the ;particular degree of compression at the surface dictates. |
| 03-09-2021 16:22 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
Pete Rogers wrote:That is ignorance at its most absolute! Absolutely, but whose? Are you ready for some bad news? Pete Rogers wrote:This nitwit thinks a pressure of 1 ton per square foot on a body of air does not compress it. You have to admit, any nitwit who thinks something is being compressed when its volume is not changing, just because his English proficiency is so abysmal that he doesn't know the difference between the words "squeeze," "compress" and "accelerate" ... and whose scientific illiteracy has him conflating his sci-fi religion fantasies with physics ... requires a stronger word than "nitwit" to accurately convey his ineptitude. Pete Rogers wrote:If there was no compression they would stay put. Another example of you being too stupid to learn.  I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 03-09-2021 19:02 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
Pete Rogers wrote:duncan61 wrote: The atmosphere is not being compressed. Pressure is not compression. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 03-09-2021 19:03 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
Pete Rogers wrote:Into the Night wrote:duncan61 wrote: Pressure is not compression. The air is not being compressed. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 03-09-2021 19:07 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
Pete Rogers wrote:duncan61 wrote: The atmosphere is not being compressed. Pressure is not compression. Pete Rogers wrote: You can't create energy out of nothing. Pete Rogers wrote: Expansion is not a force. Gravity is not energy. You can't create energy out of nothing. Pete Rogers wrote: The atmosphere is not being compressed. Pressure is not compression. Pete Rogers wrote: You can't create energy out of nothing. The atmosphere is not being compressed. You are still ignoring the 0th, 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 03-09-2021 22:43 | |
| Pete Rogers★★☆☆☆ (160) |
IBdaMann wrote: Barking up that tree on Planet Bozo again I see. All uncontained Gas bodies in the universe are warmed to one extent or another by autocompression (compression due to the action of their own weight upon them) and the greater weight above a point the greater the compression there. It takes a particular kind of dimwit to completely miss this and rant on about irrelevant matters such as acceleration as though it is an alternastive to compression. Another peice of prize bufoonery is his stupid claim that unacy is this numpty's assertion that "there is no such thing as a negative force" when most people with a working brain cell or two would tell him to look that force is a vector and can therefore be either positive or negative. This Ex-Cathedra nonsense from the Pope of Planet Bozo shows what happens to an egoist when he is incapable of self-assessment. The Planetary temperature is enhanced due to the action of Charles Law under the force of Gravity. It should be pretty easy to work this out. |
| 04-09-2021 00:25 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
Pete Rogers wrote: The atmosphere is not being compressed. Gravity is not energy. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Pete Rogers wrote: The atmosphere is not being compressed. Pete Rogers wrote: There is no such thing as a 'negative force'. A vector always has a positive length. There is no such thing as a negative length. Denial of vector mathematics. Pete Rogers wrote: Insult fallacies. Trolling. Pete Rogers wrote: You cannot create energy out of nothing. V1=V2. Pete Rogers wrote: Denying the 1st law of thermodynamics and Charles' Law is not the way to do it. Just what are you trying to 'work out'? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 04-09-2021 00:25 |
| RE: please come back16-03-2022 05:53 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1239) |
I hope you still get notifications when someone responds to one of your old posts. Please come back to climate-debate.com I think you be pleasantly surprised by the new discussion. There is now a place at climate-debate.com where a rational discussion of climate science is taking place. Please just take a peek. It's not ugly like it used to be. Sincerely, "sealover", PhD biogeochemist --------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DRKTS wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: |
| RE: please come back16-03-2022 05:59 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1239) |
I hope you still get notified if your old posts at climate-debate.com get a response. I'm working my way through the list of people who left the site who may now want to return. Please take a look at what you join in now if you came back. I do believe you will like the difference now. Sincerely, "sea lover", PhD biogeochemist ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- DRKTS wrote:Pete Rogers wrote: |
| 16-03-2022 06:01 | |
tmiddles ★★★★★(3979) |
sealover wrote:I second your motion sealover. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN |
| RE: thanks comrade!16-03-2022 06:04 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1239) |
All right! Thank you for reassuring me that even now there are good people at the site. I'll have to check out your posts. I haven't ventured off my own threads yet. I'll probably never post anything outside of my own threads, but I will be reading the others. |
| 16-03-2022 06:05 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
tmiddles wrote:sealover wrote:Please come back to climate-debate.comI second your motion sealover. I third the motion. |
| 16-03-2022 06:35 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles wrote:sealover wrote:Please come back to climate-debate.comI second your motion sealover. I fourth the motion. GFM, do you take the fifth? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 16-03-2022 06:38 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
sealover wrote:I'm curious how would you describe your stance? I'm would say I'm skeptical that global warming is as much of an emergency as is claimed. But that the stakes or so high we should take great care anyway. |
| RE: I'm a full blown alarmist16-03-2022 06:51 | |
| sealover★★★★☆ (1239) |
tmiddles wrote:sealover wrote:I'm curious how would you describe your stance? ------------------------------------------------------------ Sometimes I'm cautious about sharing all the reasons to be terrified. It's not yet too late, but the window is closing fast. Now that someone wants to LEARN something, and not just bully and heckle, I'll pick up on the many worst-case scenario changes that arrived sooner than even worst-case scenarios predicted. And the many vicious feedbacks. Disastrous wildfires and tundra methane release are just two examples of non-anthropogenic sources of greenhouse gas emissions that climate change itself causes to increase. And the ocean is the mother lode of CO2 ready to start going the wrong direction. |
Join the debate Global warming is not anthropogenic:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Liberals have mental disease caused by anthropogenic chemicals | 1 | 03-02-2017 20:30 |