Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law

tmiddles wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
So I would suggest we need to consider how the human body, even though it's hotter than it's surroundings, is able to absorb heat from those surrounding,

Why do I sweat when my surroundings are cooler than my body?

Just "food" for thought.

GasGuzzler,

Please think on this. IBdaMann, ITN and possibly you, insist that a person cannot absorb energy from cooler surroundings.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law is not adaptable. You ARE emitting over 700 watts right now and always. Sometimes more but not less.

You said earlier:

GasGuzzler wrote:...
Yes, the only energy source is food, provided there is no light in the room.

So what do you say now?

tmiddles wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
As I stated earlier, these calculations are way over my head. With that said, I did a bit of searching and EVERY source I can find states that the human body emits only 100 watts. How did you get 700?

You are correct that the human body LOSES 100 watts. That's because it's 700 out, 600 back from the environment. Because we do absorb energy from our environment.

I'm of course not the one who discovered this or anything and I'm being far from creative. I understand the textbooks lesson and it makes sense to me:

tmiddles wrote:
BODY PHYSICS: MOTION TO METABOLISM Textbook

P(out)=σeA*To^4 (the radiance out To as in Temperature for out)

P(in)=σeA*Tenv^4 (the radiance being absorbed from the environment)

P(net)=σeA*(Tenv^4-To^4) (the NET gain or loss between the two)

My calculation for the emittance is -723.3221 watts out, and my calculation for the absorption is +624.79 for a net loss of -98.532

But again I was just following the text book. Makes sense to me.

tmiddles wrote:
It gives an example:
"EXAMPLE 1.13
Calculating the Net Heat Transfer of a Person
What is the rate of heat transfer by radiation of an unclothed person standing in a dark room whose ambient temperature is 22.0°C? The person has a normal skin temperature of 33.0°C and a surface area of 1.50m2. The emissivity of skin is 0.97 in the infrared, the part of the spectrum where the radiation takes place.

Strategy
We can solve this by using the equation for the rate of radiative heat transfer.

Solution
Insert the temperature values T2=295K and T1=306K, so that

Qt=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)[(295K)4−(306K)4]=−99J/s=−99W." It's actually: 98.5320

Now if you do that calculation without including T2, the surrounds, you get:
Qt=σeA(T2^4)=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)[(295K)4]=−723J/s=−723W , it's actually: 723.3221

tmiddles wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
As I stated earlier, these calculations are way over my head. With that said, I did a bit of searching and EVERY source I can find states that the human body emits only 100 watts. How did you get 700?

You are correct that the human body LOSES 100 watts. That's because it's 700 out, 600 back from the environment. Because we do absorb energy from our environment.

I'm of course not the one who discovered this or anything and I'm being far from creative. I understand the textbooks lesson and it makes sense to me:

tmiddles wrote:
BODY PHYSICS: MOTION TO METABOLISM Textbook

P(out)=σeA*To^4 (the radiance out To as in Temperature for out)

P(in)=σeA*Tenv^4 (the radiance being absorbed from the environment)

P(net)=σeA*(Tenv^4-To^4) (the NET gain or loss between the two)

My calculation for the emittance is -723.3221 watts out, and my calculation for the absorption is +624.79 for a net loss of -98.532

But again I was just following the text book. Makes sense to me.

tmiddles wrote:
It gives an example:
"EXAMPLE 1.13
Calculating the Net Heat Transfer of a Person
What is the rate of heat transfer by radiation of an unclothed person standing in a dark room whose ambient temperature is 22.0°C? The person has a normal skin temperature of 33.0°C and a surface area of 1.50m2. The emissivity of skin is 0.97 in the infrared, the part of the spectrum where the radiation takes place.

Strategy
We can solve this by using the equation for the rate of radiative heat transfer.

Solution
Insert the temperature values T2=295K and T1=306K, so that

Qt=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)[(295K)4−(306K)4]=−99J/s=−99W." It's actually: 98.5320

Now if you do that calculation without including T2, the surrounds, you get:
Qt=σeA(T2^4)=(5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)[(295K)4]=−723J/s=−723W , it's actually: 723.3221

I stumbled upon this and it's definitive proof that the wild and unconventional theory that hotter bodies cannot absorb energy from cooler ones is just plain wrong.

So far no opinion has been offered to contradict this.

Into the Night wrote:There is no 'net heat'. There is no 'net radiance'. Using made up equations to show there is won't work.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:There is no 'net heat'. There is no 'net radiance'. Using made up equations to show there is won't work.

What there is none of is a solution from you.

So ITN:

Does a person in a room emit over 700 watts or not?

If they do how is it that they don't become hypothermic?


You can't answer.

Into the Night wrote:
I did answer. They're dead.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
I did answer. They're dead.

Are you unable to setup the calculation for a person who survives?

Into the Night wrote:
You specified

GasGuzzler wrote:
As I stated earlier, these calculations are way over my head. With that said, I did a bit of searching and EVERY source I can find states that the human body emits only 100 watts. How did you get 700?

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
As I stated earlier, these calculations are way over my head. With that said, I did a bit of searching and EVERY source I can find states that the human body emits only 100 watts. How did you get 700?

That's his point. If you calculate using the parameters he gave you you get about seven times the normal wattage.

The problem is in the problem. It's a parlor trick. None of the parameters given are actually part of the problem but are intended to misdirect, including the body being a living human as opposed to an inanimate object.

What does your skin do when you get cold? Does this change both the emissivity and thermal constant?

When you change ambient temperatures, do you "acclimate"? If so, what does that mean? Does your skin more or less become the ambient temperature? The body temperature given in the problem does not apply, just as the earth's inner core temperature is not a factor in the earth's average global temperature. You might recall during tmiddles' "inner ball/outer shell" scenario he strangely insisted on having a thermometer inside the inner ball. I'm thinking he was setting the groundwork for this parlor trick.

.

GasGuzzler wrote: I will admit though, tmiddles got my gears turning. That's a good thing, right?

Christian: You say that you don't believe there is a God. How do you explain creation?

IBDaMann: Well, I don't

Christian: That's a cop out. You should be able to explain it with science. It should be easy.

IBDaMann: I have given you the science explanation of every specific thing you have asked already. What do you need me repeat.

Christian: Explain creation.

repeat....

tmiddles: You say you don't believe cooler objects can heat warmer objects because it would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. How do you explain a human radiating [too much radiance] given [not the right information]?

IBDaMann: Well, I don't. The problem is in the problem.

tmiddles: That's a cop out. You should be able to explain it with science. It should be easy.

IBDaMann: I have given you the science explanation of every specific thing you have asked already. What do you need me repeat.

tmiddles: How do you explain a human radiating [too much radiance] given [not the right information]?

repeat ....

GasGuzzler wrote:I've been trying to come up with an analogy to his question.

GasGuzzler wrote: I've actually lost sleep over this, so someone help me out now!

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You specified

What is the rate of heat transfer by radiation of an unclothed person standing in a dark room whose ambient temperature is 22.0°C? The person has a normal skin temperature of 33.0°C and a surface area of 1.50m2. The emissivity of skin is 0.97 in the infrared, the part of the spectrum where the radiation takes place.

You can't do it.

IBdaMann wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote: I will admit though, tmiddles got my gears turning. That's a good thing, right?

Absolutely. I like a good puzzle as muchy as the next guy. I like trick questions that try to "getcha."

But you probably noticed that tmiddles is not presenting this in standard riddle fashion. He is defending his religious beliefs. Imagine a conversation as such:

Christian: You say that you don't believe there is a God. How do you explain creation?

IBDaMann: Well, I don't

Christian: That's a cop out. You should be able to explain it with science. It should be easy.

IBDaMann: I have given you the science explanation of every specific thing you have asked already. What do you need me repeat.

Christian: Explain creation.

repeat....

I have had this very conversation quite a few times back in the day. They all end the same way. There is no way I can convince a Christian to accept answers/conclusions that deny his religious beliefs and there is no reason for any Christian to abandon a faith that s/he enjoys if it helps in her/his life. Today, I am getting the same argument from tmiddles:

tmiddles: You say you don't believe cooler objects can heat warmer objects because it would be a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. How do you explain a human radiating [too much radiance] given [not the right information]?

IBDaMann: Well, I don't. The problem is in the problem.

tmiddles: That's a cop out. You should be able to explain it with science. It should be easy.

IBDaMann: I have given you the science explanation of every specific thing you have asked already. What do you need me repeat.

tmiddles: How do you explain a human radiating [too much radiance] given [not the right information]?

repeat ....

GasGuzzler wrote:I've been trying to come up with an analogy to his question.

My question remains the same: What valid dataset exists for all of the necessary parameters?

If the answer is "none" then the first assumption by any rational person is that the parameters of the problem are suspect.

GasGuzzler wrote: I've actually lost sleep over this, so someone help me out now!

Do you have any data? If not, then that needs to be your first concern. Maybe tmiddles will provide a dataset that meets the criteria spelled out in the Data Mine

.

GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?

spot wrote: It seems odd that neither Ludwig Boltzmann or Josef Stefan bothered to say anything about their works negating John Tyndall's on his work on atmospheric physics.

On second thought its not odd at all,

They did not because it doesn't and only a weapons grade idiot would think that it does.

spot wrote: If I were that stupid I would do the world a favour and remove myself from the gene pool at the earliest opportunity.

IBdaMann wrote:
spot is back! Awesome! Nothing livens the place quite like spot giving us his unique and scintillating melange of cognitive ataxia. It has been too long; let me just soak it up ...

spot wrote: It seems odd that neither Ludwig Boltzmann or Josef Stefan bothered to say anything about their works negating John Tyndall's on his work on atmospheric physics.

On second thought its not odd at all,

They did not because it doesn't and only a weapons grade idiot would think that it does.

Correct. John Tyndall didn't create any science having anything to do with black body radiation and only a weapons grade idiot would think that he did.

spot wrote: If I were that stupid I would do the world a favour and remove myself from the gene pool at the earliest opportunity.

Since you are that stupid, when will you be complying?

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?

So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?

spot wrote:So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?

So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?

IBdaMann is right... Good to have you back!

Now if you would please explain how a greenhouse and an open atmosphere have anything in common, aside from the fact that they are both heated by the sun

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?

From The MANUAL:

Greenhouse Effect: proper noun
Global Warming's loyal servant, creates "heat" when fed CO2, methane, water vapor and greenhouse gas by invoking his magickal superpower to force a black body to violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Greenhouse Effect continues to increase the earth's heat budget to aid Global Warming in His war against Climate. This belief falls under Settled Science.

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

Albedo: Noun.
In the Climate Science lexicon, an expression of one's devotion to the Global Warming faith. "Albedo" is used to express one's dedication to scientific illiteracy in the same manner that some Christian clergy take vows of poverty or celibacy. The word albedo is often used to virtue-signal to other warmizombies that no amount of actual science will ever be considered acceptable and that warmizombies and Climate-lemmings can trust him/her to adhere to the Global Warming faith.

Note: Literally, albedo is a numeric value computed as 1.0 - emissivity. Unfortunately, the term emissivity is an evil component of the Stefan-Boltzmann law which is actual science that shows Greenhouse Effect to not be possible, ergo the term emissivity is considered sacrilegious and is avoided to the maximum extent possible.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law: proper noun.
To wamizombies and Climate-lemmings the Stefan-Boltzmann law is the most vile of all sacrilege.; It states, among other things, that a black body's temperature and radiance move in the same direction, i.e. increase with increase, decrease with decrease. This is sacrilegious to Climate Science that mandates belief that the earth's radiance decreases from greenhouse gas while the earth's temperature increases.;

Note: In classical physics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to all matter, always, everywhere. This includes the earth with its atmosphere and hydrosphere. The law applies to all bodies of matter regardless of size, shape or zodiac sign. Due to the extreme extent that this law riles religious Climate sensitivities, Climate Science mandates that all of its congregation believe unconditionally that the Stefan-Boltzmann law simply does not apply to earth. Period. End of story. Any reason whatsoever is accepted as perfectly legitimate justification for this belief. The standard justifications that are officially endorsed by Climate Scientists are "the earth has an atmosphere" or "the earth isn't a perfect black body."




.

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?

So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?

IBdaMann is right... Good to have you back!

Now if you would please explain how a greenhouse and an open atmosphere have anything in common, aside from the fact that they are both heated by the sun

Heat is retained in both systems

spot wrote:
They teach 12 year olds about this stuff.

spot wrote:
Is google broken?

spot wrote:
If your are too thick to understand the basics why are you here?

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?

From The MANUAL:

Greenhouse Effect: proper noun
Global Warming's loyal servant, creates "heat" when fed CO2, methane, water vapor and greenhouse gas by invoking his magickal superpower to force a black body to violate the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Greenhouse Effect continues to increase the earth's heat budget to aid Global Warming in His war against Climate. This belief falls under Settled Science.

Heat: noun
In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. It's meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient.

Albedo: Noun.
In the Climate Science lexicon, an expression of one's devotion to the Global Warming faith. "Albedo" is used to express one's dedication to scientific illiteracy in the same manner that some Christian clergy take vows of poverty or celibacy. The word albedo is often used to virtue-signal to other warmizombies that no amount of actual science will ever be considered acceptable and that warmizombies and Climate-lemmings can trust him/her to adhere to the Global Warming faith.

Note: Literally, albedo is a numeric value computed as 1.0 - emissivity. Unfortunately, the term emissivity is an evil component of the Stefan-Boltzmann law which is actual science that shows Greenhouse Effect to not be possible, ergo the term emissivity is considered sacrilegious and is avoided to the maximum extent possible.

Stefan-Boltzmann Law: proper noun.
To wamizombies and Climate-lemmings the Stefan-Boltzmann law is the most vile of all sacrilege.; It states, among other things, that a black body's temperature and radiance move in the same direction, i.e. increase with increase, decrease with decrease. This is sacrilegious to Climate Science that mandates belief that the earth's radiance decreases from greenhouse gas while the earth's temperature increases.;

Note: In classical physics, the Stefan-Boltzmann law applies to all matter, always, everywhere. This includes the earth with its atmosphere and hydrosphere. The law applies to all bodies of matter regardless of size, shape or zodiac sign. Due to the extreme extent that this law riles religious Climate sensitivities, Climate Science mandates that all of its congregation believe unconditionally that the Stefan-Boltzmann law simply does not apply to earth. Period. End of story. Any reason whatsoever is accepted as perfectly legitimate justification for this belief. The standard justifications that are officially endorsed by Climate Scientists are "the earth has an atmosphere" or "the earth isn't a perfect black body."




.

You wrote this crap and you are mad.

spot wrote:
Who spells magic magick,

spot wrote:
Crowley is dead.

spot wrote:
Anyway Its not anything to do with anything real.

spot wrote:
There are actual physics books people can read.

spot wrote:
Calling something a Manual does not make it special.

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?

So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?

IBdaMann is right... Good to have you back!

Now if you would please explain how a greenhouse and an open atmosphere have anything in common, aside from the fact that they are both heated by the sun

Heat is retained in both systems

They teach 12 year olds about this stuff.

Is google broken?

If your are too thick to understand the basics why are you here?

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?

So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?

IBdaMann is right... Good to have you back!

Now if you would please explain how a greenhouse and an open atmosphere have anything in common, aside from the fact that they are both heated by the sun

Heat is retained in both systems

They teach 12 year olds about this stuff.

Is google broken?

If your are too thick to understand the basics why are you here?

Where can I buy a heat retainer. I searched Google but appears to be broke.

Yes, unfortunately they do teach 12 year olds this shit. 12 year olds by nature are still quite gullible.

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?

So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?

IBdaMann is right... Good to have you back!

Now if you would please explain how a greenhouse and an open atmosphere have anything in common, aside from the fact that they are both heated by the sun

Heat is retained in both systems

They teach 12 year olds about this stuff.

Is google broken?

If your are too thick to understand the basics why are you here?

Where can I buy a heat retainer. I searched Google but appears to be broke.

Yes, unfortunately they do teach 12 year olds this shit. 12 year olds by nature are still quite gullible.

You cant buy a blanket?

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?

So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?

IBdaMann is right... Good to have you back!

Now if you would please explain how a greenhouse and an open atmosphere have anything in common, aside from the fact that they are both heated by the sun

Heat is retained in both systems

They teach 12 year olds about this stuff.

Is google broken?

If your are too thick to understand the basics why are you here?

Where can I buy a heat retainer. I searched Google but appears to be broke.

Yes, unfortunately they do teach 12 year olds this shit. 12 year olds by nature are still quite gullible.

You cant buy a blanket?

Blankets don't retain heat, they reduce heat... But you already knew that, right? It should have explained this in that book you were talking about.

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?

So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?

IBdaMann is right... Good to have you back!

Now if you would please explain how a greenhouse and an open atmosphere have anything in common, aside from the fact that they are both heated by the sun

Heat is retained in both systems

They teach 12 year olds about this stuff.

Is google broken?

If your are too thick to understand the basics why are you here?

Where can I buy a heat retainer. I searched Google but appears to be broke.

Yes, unfortunately they do teach 12 year olds this shit. 12 year olds by nature are still quite gullible.

You cant buy a blanket?

Blankets don't retain heat, they reduce heat... But you already knew that, right? It should have explained this in that book you were talking about.

Wrong. Its not for me to instruct you.

spot wrote: Heat is retained in both systems

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:
So when will you be having your lessadicktomy?

So Guzzler does the greenhouse effect violate any natural laws or does being a card carrying chucklehead mean you don't have to know or care about that?

IBdaMann is right... Good to have you back!

Now if you would please explain how a greenhouse and an open atmosphere have anything in common, aside from the fact that they are both heated by the sun

Heat is retained in both systems

They teach 12 year olds about this stuff.

Is google broken?

If your are too thick to understand the basics why are you here?

Where can I buy a heat retainer. I searched Google but appears to be broke.

Yes, unfortunately they do teach 12 year olds this shit. 12 year olds by nature are still quite gullible.

You cant buy a blanket?

Blankets don't retain heat, they reduce heat... But you already knew that, right? It should have explained this in that book you were talking about.

Wrong. Its not for me to instruct you.

Not how it works buddy boy. If I'm wrong the you gotta tell me why. How else will I learn?

spot wrote:You wrote this crap and you are mad.

spot wrote: Who spells magic magick,

spot wrote: There are actual physics books people can read.

spot wrote:Calling something a Manual does not make it special.

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:You wrote this crap and you are mad.

Absolutely not. The content was thoroughly peer-reviewed by diehard warmizombies such as yourself. In fact, it would be accurate to say that warmizombies are responsible for 100% of the content. This is why you cannot find any inaccuracies in The MANUAL. I simply consolidated the material into one convenient reference manual.

spot wrote: Who spells magic magick,

All credit goes to Into the Night for bringing that finer point of rhetoric to my attention. It's amazing how one letter can deliver so much semantic distinction.

@Into the Night, kudos. Well done.

spot wrote: There are actual physics books people can read.

That presumes that you can read.

spot wrote:Calling something a Manual does not make it special.

I have plenty of witnesses, no one has been able to find any inaccuracies to date. You have to love a Global Warming reference manual that is totally accurate. It makes everything so much clearer.

Are you saying that I should include an entry for John Tyndall? If so, what should it read?


.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Problem. I am a heat source. If I put a blanket over myself, heat is reduced I can stay warmer.

The earth's surface is not a heat source. How does the blanket heat the Earth? Is it an electric blanket? That works.

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:You wrote this crap and you are mad.

Absolutely not. The content was thoroughly peer-reviewed by diehard warmizombies such as yourself. In fact, it would be accurate to say that warmizombies are responsible for 100% of the content. This is why you cannot find any inaccuracies in The MANUAL. I simply consolidated the material into one convenient reference manual.

spot wrote: Who spells magic magick,

All credit goes to Into the Night for bringing that finer point of rhetoric to my attention. It's amazing how one letter can deliver so much semantic distinction.

@Into the Night, kudos. Well done.

spot wrote: There are actual physics books people can read.

That presumes that you can read.

spot wrote:Calling something a Manual does not make it special.

I have plenty of witnesses, no one has been able to find any inaccuracies to date. You have to love a Global Warming reference manual that is totally accurate. It makes everything so much clearer.

Are you saying that I should include an entry for John Tyndall? If so, what should it read?


.

The content was thoroughly peer-reviewed by diehard warmizombies such as yourself.

What does that even mean? how was it peer reviewed? Can the reviewers be contacted?

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:You wrote this crap and you are mad.

Absolutely not. The content was thoroughly peer-reviewed by diehard warmizombies such as yourself. In fact, it would be accurate to say that warmizombies are responsible for 100% of the content. This is why you cannot find any inaccuracies in The MANUAL. I simply consolidated the material into one convenient reference manual.

spot wrote: Who spells magic magick,

All credit goes to Into the Night for bringing that finer point of rhetoric to my attention. It's amazing how one letter can deliver so much semantic distinction.

@Into the Night, kudos. Well done.

spot wrote: There are actual physics books people can read.

That presumes that you can read.

spot wrote:Calling something a Manual does not make it special.

I have plenty of witnesses, no one has been able to find any inaccuracies to date. You have to love a Global Warming reference manual that is totally accurate. It makes everything so much clearer.

Are you saying that I should include an entry for John Tyndall? If so, what should it read?


.

The content was thoroughly peer-reviewed by diehard warmizombies such as yourself.

What does that even mean? how was it peer reviewed? Can the reviewers be contacted?

Yes, you can contact me. I am a peer and I reviewed it. All the definitions are "spot" on.

spot wrote:

GasGuzzler wrote:

spot wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

spot wrote:You wrote this crap and you are mad.

Absolutely not. The content was thoroughly peer-reviewed by diehard warmizombies such as yourself. In fact, it would be accurate to say that warmizombies are responsible for 100% of the content. This is why you cannot find any inaccuracies in The MANUAL. I simply consolidated the material into one convenient reference manual.

spot wrote: Who spells magic magick,

All credit goes to Into the Night for bringing that finer point of rhetoric to my attention. It's amazing how one letter can deliver so much semantic distinction.

@Into the Night, kudos. Well done.

spot wrote: There are actual physics books people can read.

That presumes that you can read.

spot wrote:Calling something a Manual does not make it special.

I have plenty of witnesses, no one has been able to find any inaccuracies to date. You have to love a Global Warming reference manual that is totally accurate. It makes everything so much clearer.

Are you saying that I should include an entry for John Tyndall? If so, what should it read?


.

The content was thoroughly peer-reviewed by diehard warmizombies such as yourself.

What does that even mean? how was it peer reviewed? Can the reviewers be contacted?

Yes, you can contact me. I am a peer and I reviewed it. All the definitions are "spot" on.

So your a diehard warmizombie?