Remember me
▼ Content

Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law



Page 15 of 17<<<1314151617>
01-09-2019 01:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote: I can see IBdaMann now, learning some science on the streets from some guy, and then shuffling off to his backyard lab to confirm that Stefan-Boltzmann Law,

You cannot refrain from misstating my position and then attacking me on the basis of your misstatements.

I took the time to explain to you the opposite. Is it really worth it to be completely dishonest? How is it working out for you?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

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
01-09-2019 01:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I can see IBdaMann now, learning some science on the streets from some guy, and then shuffling off to his backyard lab to confirm that Stefan-Boltzmann Law,

You cannot refrain from misstating my position and then attacking me on the basis of your misstatements.

I took the time to explain to you the opposite. Is it really worth it to be completely dishonest? How is it working out for you?

.


I quoted you:

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So help me out here. How did you learn the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and why do you trust that it's not made up garbage?
Someone explained the science to me, as I have to you, and then I was able to go into a lab and apply the scientific method. I could not show it to be false so I can't call it garbage.


So yeah, that's you saying that.
01-09-2019 01:36
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I can see IBdaMann now, learning some science on the streets from some guy, and then shuffling off to his backyard lab to confirm that Stefan-Boltzmann Law,

You cannot refrain from misstating my position and then attacking me on the basis of your misstatements.

I took the time to explain to you the opposite. Is it really worth it to be completely dishonest? How is it working out for you?

.


I quoted you:

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So help me out here. How did you learn the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and why do you trust that it's not made up garbage?
Someone explained the science to me, as I have to you, and then I was able to go into a lab and apply the scientific method. I could not show it to be false so I can't call it garbage.


So yeah, that's you saying that.

Where do I claim to confirm anything?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

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
01-09-2019 01:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:
Where do I claim to confirm anything?

I didn't quote you as saying that did I Mr. Sensitive. That was my wording.

Neither you nor ITN have ever confirmed ANYTHING on this board other than platitudes you don't back up.

I'm well aware your story was fictional even as you told it.
Edited on 01-09-2019 01:40
01-09-2019 02:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote: I can see IBdaMann now, learning some science on the streets from some guy, and then shuffling off to his backyard lab to confirm that Stefan-Boltzmann Law,

IBdaMann wrote:
Where do I claim to confirm anything?

tmiddles wrote: I didn't quote you as saying that did I Mr. Sensitive. That was my wording.

Yes, in your wording you misstated my position.

When have I ever expressed, stated or implied that science confirms theories?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

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
01-09-2019 12:24
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
I assume when you say Marxist ant colony you mean you never went to school

Explains alot


Thanks for your offer to teach me but I'm good thanks.


Perhaps I can clarify for IBdaMann by narrowing the question.

Which argument do you want to use to justify the 'greenhouse effect'? Do you want to use the Magick Blanket argument or the Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

Most people use the Magick Blanket argument, which states that the atmosphere somehow acts like a magick one way blanket, 'keeping heat in'.


Pointless to answer you as you know you can buy or borrow a book on the subject or use one of the many excellent learning resources online.

You can't spell magic, you never went to school.

I don't think what you have to say is useful.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
01-09-2019 13:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
spot wrote:
Pointless to answer you as you know you can buy or borrow a book on the subject or use one of the many excellent learning resources online.


I think it's fair to say ITN doesn't believe any textbooks on thermodynamics are accurate. Not a single one!

So picking one up wouldn't help.
01-09-2019 19:23
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
spot wrote:
I assume when you say Marxist ant colony you mean you never went to school

You may have been joking Spot but you nailed it! BOTH ITN and IBdaMann think that primary textbooks in Physics have been corrupted by warmazombies in teaching the fundamentals of thermodynamics.

I suggest you study up on the laws of thermodynamics, where these theories came from, and the equations they became. If you want to falsify any one of them. YOU are going to have to do that, else the theory stands.
tmiddles wrote:
Now they have nothing to back this up other than statements but that is their posisition. I asked IBdaMann why he trusted the Stefan-Boltzman law and what text book he trusted. Predictably he refuses, as does ITN, to identify ANY trusted source (because no one shares their particular delusion about the 2nd LTD):

Not our opinion. We didn't write the Stefan-Boltzmann law or the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So help me out here. How did you learn the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and why do you trust that it's not made up garbage?
Someone explained the science to me, as I have to you, and then I was able to go into a lab and apply the scientific method. I could not show it to be false so I can't call it garbage. .

Isn't that just too funny! I can see IBdaMann now, learning some science on the streets from some guy, and then shuffling off to his backyard lab to confirm that Stefan-Boltzmann Law, text book free! DIY Style!

It is YOU attempting to deny the Stefan-Boltzmann law, dumbass. He is asking YOU to explain how you are falsifying it. It is YOU that is attempting to falsify the 2nd law of thermodynamics. He is asking YOU to explain how you are falsifying it. So far you have failed to do either.
tmiddles wrote:
Of course we'll never see any actual lab work from these guys. They have never, in the history of this board presented anything concrete at all.

None needed. It is YOU attempting to falsify these laws. It is YOU that has to come up with the falsification.
tmiddles wrote:
The problem on radiation of a person in a room neither of them will touch was from a text book and dismissed as such:

Yes, I dismiss. it. The textbook you used is biased.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Again this was from the textbook:

The same biased textbook.
tmiddles wrote:
University Physics Volume 2
1.6 Mechanisms of Heat Transfer
"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

This book is in error....

With nothing to back anything up but platitudes.[/quote]
Lie. We already showed you multiple times.
tmiddles wrote:
No data, no research, nothing empirical, nothing at all.

None needed. It is YOU that is trying to falsify the 2nd law of thermodynamics. So far you have failed to do so. All you've done is massage random numbers through equations and call that a falsification. You are lying.


The Parrot Killer
01-09-2019 19:25
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Where do I claim to confirm anything?

I didn't quote you as saying that did I Mr. Sensitive. That was my wording.

So you lied.
tmiddles wrote:
Neither you nor ITN have ever confirmed ANYTHING on this board other than platitudes you don't back up.

Burden of proof fallacy. It is YOU that has to falsify the law. We have to do nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm well aware your story was fictional even as you told it.

Then you openly deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
01-09-2019 19:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
I assume when you say Marxist ant colony you mean you never went to school

Explains alot


Thanks for your offer to teach me but I'm good thanks.


Perhaps I can clarify for IBdaMann by narrowing the question.

Which argument do you want to use to justify the 'greenhouse effect'? Do you want to use the Magick Blanket argument or the Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

Most people use the Magick Blanket argument, which states that the atmosphere somehow acts like a magick one way blanket, 'keeping heat in'.


Pointless to answer you as you know you can buy or borrow a book on the subject or use one of the many excellent learning resources online.

So, you can't justify the 'greenhouse effect', eh?
spot wrote:
You can't spell magic, you never went to school.

Magic is different from magick. Magic is a show for entertainment. They tell you they are lying to you. Magick is 'mysterious forces' that do some 'mysterious thing'. They lie, telling you it's the truth.
spot wrote:
I don't think what you have to say is useful.

Running for cover already? Coward.


The Parrot Killer
01-09-2019 19:32
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
spot wrote:
Pointless to answer you as you know you can buy or borrow a book on the subject or use one of the many excellent learning resources online.


I think it's fair to say ITN doesn't believe any textbooks on thermodynamics are accurate. Not a single one!

So picking one up wouldn't help.


False authority fallacy. A textbook is not an authoritative reference of any theory of science. Only the authors of that theory are the authoritative reference.

You go look up this history of these theories and how they came about. The equations haven't changed. The equations are what they are. They are completely accurate.


The Parrot Killer
02-09-2019 00:59
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
I assume when you say Marxist ant colony you mean you never went to school

Explains alot


Thanks for your offer to teach me but I'm good thanks.


Perhaps I can clarify for IBdaMann by narrowing the question.

Which argument do you want to use to justify the 'greenhouse effect'? Do you want to use the Magick Blanket argument or the Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

Most people use the Magick Blanket argument, which states that the atmosphere somehow acts like a magick one way blanket, 'keeping heat in'.


Pointless to answer you as you know you can buy or borrow a book on the subject or use one of the many excellent learning resources online.

So, you can't justify the 'greenhouse effect', eh?
spot wrote:
You can't spell magic, you never went to school.

Magic is different from magick. Magic is a show for entertainment. They tell you they are lying to you. Magick is 'mysterious forces' that do some 'mysterious thing'. They lie, telling you it's the truth.
spot wrote:
I don't think what you have to say is useful.

Running for cover already? Coward.


I can't see the need to justify anything to you, the greenhouse effect is real the fact we exist and haven't frozen to death is proof.

Magick is a word made up by sex obsessed drug addict, It's meaningless in this context. And stopping correspondence with you is not cowardly but rather a way of ending a pointless interaction.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
02-09-2019 04:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[ITN and IBdaMann think that primary textbooks in Physics have been corrupted
I suggest you study up on the laws of thermodynamics,....The textbook you used is biased.

HA HA HA HA HA! How does one "study up" without books? Oh wait. You mean like IBD? He learned without a book (link):
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So help me out here. How did you learn the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and why do you trust that it's not made up garbage?
Someone explained the science to me, as I have to you, and then I was able to go into a lab and apply the scientific method. I could not show it to be false so I can't call it garbage.

You know what a sane response to this would be ITN? "Here's a book that is legit: ______________" Only your crazy ideas are so out of the park nuts there are ZERO references to corroborate them.

Into the Night wrote:you want to falsify any one of them

I did prove your and IBD's coo coo concept that radiance from cooler bodies isn't absorbed by warmer bodies is false here: net-thermal-radiation

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
With nothing to back anything up but platitudes.
Lie. We already showed you multiple times.

AH! The classic from ITN, King of indiscriminate quoting, that something was supposedly posted but he just lacks the motivation to quote it. You never even tried to answer University Physics Volume 2 1.6 Mechanisms of Heat Transfer EXAMPLE 1.13

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Neither you nor ITN have ever confirmed ANYTHING ...
...We have to do nothing.
This pretty much sums you guys up.

Into the Night wrote:False authority fallacy. Only the authors of that theory are the authoritative reference. You go look up this history of these theories...
You look them up you total joke! You have nothing or you'd post it. Show a single reference where it even hints that a hotter body cannot absorb radiance from a cooler one.
02-09-2019 17:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote: Oh wait. You mean like IBD? He learned without a book (link):
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]tmiddles wrote:So help me out here. How did you learn the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and why do you trust that it's not made up garbage?
Someone explained the science to me, as I have to you, and then I was able to go into a lab and apply the scientific method. I could not show it to be false so I can't call it garbage.

When did I write that I had no book? I notice that you have taken to ridiculing my lack of a book ... but I don't understand where you got that idea.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

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
02-09-2019 19:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
I assume when you say Marxist ant colony you mean you never went to school

Explains alot


Thanks for your offer to teach me but I'm good thanks.


Perhaps I can clarify for IBdaMann by narrowing the question.

Which argument do you want to use to justify the 'greenhouse effect'? Do you want to use the Magick Blanket argument or the Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

Most people use the Magick Blanket argument, which states that the atmosphere somehow acts like a magick one way blanket, 'keeping heat in'.


Pointless to answer you as you know you can buy or borrow a book on the subject or use one of the many excellent learning resources online.

So, you can't justify the 'greenhouse effect', eh?
spot wrote:
You can't spell magic, you never went to school.

Magic is different from magick. Magic is a show for entertainment. They tell you they are lying to you. Magick is 'mysterious forces' that do some 'mysterious thing'. They lie, telling you it's the truth.
spot wrote:
I don't think what you have to say is useful.

Running for cover already? Coward.


I can't see the need to justify anything to you,

Coward. You can't justify anything with me and you know it.
spot wrote:
the greenhouse effect is real

Explain how. Define 'real' while you're at it.
spot wrote:
the fact we exist and haven't frozen to death is proof.

Not a proof. Leaping to conclusion fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
spot wrote:
Magick is a word made up by sex obsessed drug addict, It's meaningless in this context.

Bulverism fallacy.
spot wrote:
And stopping correspondence with you is not cowardly but rather a way of ending a pointless interaction.

No, it's being a coward. You can't even explain what 'greenhouse effect' is, so you run from it.


The Parrot Killer
02-09-2019 19:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[ITN and IBdaMann think that primary textbooks in Physics have been corrupted
I suggest you study up on the laws of thermodynamics,....The textbook you used is biased.

HA HA HA HA HA! How does one "study up" without books?

Easy. Use unbiased resources. Use the theories themselves and how they were formed and how they were tested.
tmiddles wrote:
Oh wait. You mean like IBD? He learned without a book (link):
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So help me out here. How did you learn the Stefan-Boltzmann Law and why do you trust that it's not made up garbage?
Someone explained the science to me, as I have to you, and then I was able to go into a lab and apply the scientific method. I could not show it to be false so I can't call it garbage.

You know what a sane response to this would be ITN? "Here's a book that is legit: ______________" Only your crazy ideas are so out of the park nuts there are ZERO references to corroborate them.

Into the Night wrote:you want to falsify any one of them

I did prove your and IBD's coo coo concept that radiance from cooler bodies isn't absorbed by warmer bodies is false here: net-thermal-radiation

No, you muckied around with random numbers, produced a random result, call that 'data' and a 'proof'.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
With nothing to back anything up but platitudes.
Lie. We already showed you multiple times.

AH! The classic from ITN, King of indiscriminate quoting, that something was supposedly posted but he just lacks the motivation to quote it. You never even tried to answer University Physics Volume 2 1.6 Mechanisms of Heat Transfer EXAMPLE 1.13

Lie. It was addressed.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Neither you nor ITN have ever confirmed ANYTHING ...
...We have to do nothing.
This pretty much sums you guys up.

Burden of proof fallacy. We have to do nothing. We accept the 2nd law of thermodynamics. YOU have to falsify it. Mucking up random numbers and calling them 'data' is not a proof. Misquoting textbooks is not a proof either. Using biased textbooks is not a proof either.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:False authority fallacy. Only the authors of that theory are the authoritative reference. You go look up this history of these theories...
You look them up you total joke!

I already know them. YOU have to do this. You can't lay that job on anyone else but YOU.
tmiddles wrote:
You have nothing or you'd post it.

I did post it, dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
Show a single reference where it even hints that a hotter body cannot absorb radiance from a cooler one.

2nd law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
02-09-2019 23:05
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:So help me out here. How did you learn the Stefan-Boltzmann Law
Someone explained the science to me
When did I write that I had no book?

Oh? Which ones?

You answered the question. I just asked it (many times).
02-09-2019 23:18
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HA HA HA HA HA! How does one "study up" without books?

Easy. Use unbiased resources. Use the theories themselves and how they were formed and how they were tested.

OMG
And why do you consider all the physics textbooks biased?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
You never even tried to answer University Physics Volume 2 1.6 Mechanisms of Heat Transfer EXAMPLE 1.13

Lie. It was addressed..

Ah! Again the pretense that it's too much trouble to quote. You never even tried.

Into the Night wrote:
We have to do nothing. We accept the 2nd law of thermodynamics. YOU have to falsify it. ....
.....
I did post it, dumbass.
.....
2nd law of thermodynamics.

Your crazy take on the 2nd LTD contradicts reality and every text book ever written on radiative heat.

And you pretend you don't have time to answer as you sabotage the board with destructively long empty posts.
03-09-2019 04:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:And why do you consider all the physics textbooks biased?

The same reason you are convinced Climate Change isn't real.

tmiddles wrote:Ah! Again the pretense that it's too much trouble to quote. You never even tried.

Ah! Again the pretense that we are trained seals who live for your amusement, that others are somehow obligated to endlessly repost while you ignore.

I find it much more amusing to know that you condemn yourself to a debilitating delusion that you are terrified to abandon. I, for one, am thrilled that you believe the 2nd law of thermodynamics only holds when convenient for you. People such as yourself make my children relatively more competitive. Thank you for that.

tmiddles wrote: Your crazy take on the 2nd LTD contradicts reality and every text book ever written on radiative heat.

I am happy to leave it at that, especially the part where you delude yourself into believing you know the content of every "text book" ever written on radiative heat. One can only imagine what other unknown material you delude yourself into thinking is "what we know." Good luck in life.

tmiddles wrote:And you pretend you don't have time to answer as you sabotage the board with destructively long empty posts.

No one needs to justify not having time for you.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

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
03-09-2019 11:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:
that others are somehow obligated to endlessly repost while you ignore....you delude yourself into believing you know the content of every "text book" ever written on radiative heat.


Ah it's like your old standard. The pretend previous post that never existed, the focus ont the motives and psychology of those who defeat you in a debate.

Still waiting on any reference at all you find reliable. But you've never had one in nearly 5 years so I doubt it'll ever happen.
03-09-2019 19:40
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
I assume when you say Marxist ant colony you mean you never went to school

Explains alot


Thanks for your offer to teach me but I'm good thanks.


Perhaps I can clarify for IBdaMann by narrowing the question.

Which argument do you want to use to justify the 'greenhouse effect'? Do you want to use the Magick Blanket argument or the Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

Most people use the Magick Blanket argument, which states that the atmosphere somehow acts like a magick one way blanket, 'keeping heat in'.


Pointless to answer you as you know you can buy or borrow a book on the subject or use one of the many excellent learning resources online.

So, you can't justify the 'greenhouse effect', eh?
spot wrote:
You can't spell magic, you never went to school.

Magic is different from magick. Magic is a show for entertainment. They tell you they are lying to you. Magick is 'mysterious forces' that do some 'mysterious thing'. They lie, telling you it's the truth.
spot wrote:
I don't think what you have to say is useful.

Running for cover already? Coward.


I can't see the need to justify anything to you,

Coward. You can't justify anything with me and you know it.
spot wrote:
the greenhouse effect is real

Explain how. Define 'real' while you're at it.
spot wrote:
the fact we exist and haven't frozen to death is proof.

Not a proof. Leaping to conclusion fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
spot wrote:
Magick is a word made up by sex obsessed drug addict, It's meaningless in this context.

Bulverism fallacy.
spot wrote:
And stopping correspondence with you is not cowardly but rather a way of ending a pointless interaction.

No, it's being a coward. You can't even explain what 'greenhouse effect' is, so you run from it.


I accept that I can't convince you to abandon your delusion and desire to have the same stupid discussion over and over again.


IBdaMann wrote:
"Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody.


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
03-09-2019 21:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
spot wrote:I accept that I can't convince you to abandon your delusion and desire to have the same stupid discussion over and over again.

It's more like people can open the gate for you but no one can force you out from cowering in the corner to actually get out of the starting gate.

You can't compete in a forum of ideas if you simply won't compete. That's no one else's delusion. That's your nightmare.

So you haven't been able to identify any specific innacuracies in The MANUAL, right?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

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
03-09-2019 21:18
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
HA HA HA HA HA! How does one "study up" without books?

Easy. Use unbiased resources. Use the theories themselves and how they were formed and how they were tested.

OMG
And why do you consider all the physics textbooks biased?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
You never even tried to answer University Physics Volume 2 1.6 Mechanisms of Heat Transfer EXAMPLE 1.13

Lie. It was addressed..

Ah! Again the pretense that it's too much trouble to quote. You never even tried.

Into the Night wrote:
We have to do nothing. We accept the 2nd law of thermodynamics. YOU have to falsify it. ....
.....
I did post it, dumbass.
.....
2nd law of thermodynamics.

Your crazy take on the 2nd LTD contradicts reality and every text book ever written on radiative heat.

And you pretend you don't have time to answer as you sabotage the board with destructively long empty posts.

Nah. You just want to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
03-09-2019 21:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
that others are somehow obligated to endlessly repost while you ignore....you delude yourself into believing you know the content of every "text book" ever written on radiative heat.


Ah it's like your old standard. The pretend previous post that never existed, the focus ont the motives and psychology of those who defeat you in a debate.

Still waiting on any reference at all you find reliable. But you've never had one in nearly 5 years so I doubt it'll ever happen.


The 2nd law of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
03-09-2019 21:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
spot wrote:
I assume when you say Marxist ant colony you mean you never went to school

Explains alot


Thanks for your offer to teach me but I'm good thanks.


Perhaps I can clarify for IBdaMann by narrowing the question.

Which argument do you want to use to justify the 'greenhouse effect'? Do you want to use the Magick Blanket argument or the Magick Bouncing Photon argument?

Most people use the Magick Blanket argument, which states that the atmosphere somehow acts like a magick one way blanket, 'keeping heat in'.


Pointless to answer you as you know you can buy or borrow a book on the subject or use one of the many excellent learning resources online.

So, you can't justify the 'greenhouse effect', eh?
spot wrote:
You can't spell magic, you never went to school.

Magic is different from magick. Magic is a show for entertainment. They tell you they are lying to you. Magick is 'mysterious forces' that do some 'mysterious thing'. They lie, telling you it's the truth.
spot wrote:
I don't think what you have to say is useful.

Running for cover already? Coward.


I can't see the need to justify anything to you,

Coward. You can't justify anything with me and you know it.
spot wrote:
the greenhouse effect is real

Explain how. Define 'real' while you're at it.
spot wrote:
the fact we exist and haven't frozen to death is proof.

Not a proof. Leaping to conclusion fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism).
spot wrote:
Magick is a word made up by sex obsessed drug addict, It's meaningless in this context.

Bulverism fallacy.
spot wrote:
And stopping correspondence with you is not cowardly but rather a way of ending a pointless interaction.

No, it's being a coward. You can't even explain what 'greenhouse effect' is, so you run from it.


I accept that I can't convince you to abandon your delusion and desire to have the same stupid discussion over and over again.


No, you just won't choose which argument you want to make for 'greenhouse effect'.


The Parrot Killer
03-09-2019 21:20
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote:I accept that I can't convince you to abandon your delusion and desire to have the same stupid discussion over and over again.

It's more like people can open the gate for you but no one can force you out from cowering in the corner to actually get out of the starting gate.

You can't compete in a forum of ideas if you simply won't compete. That's no one else's delusion. That's your nightmare.

So you haven't been able to identify any specific innacuracies in The MANUAL, right?


.


Apparently he is not.



The Parrot Killer
03-09-2019 21:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:The pretend previous post that never existed, the focus ont the motives and psychology of those who defeat you in a debate.

That's right. How could I forget. You were declared the winner by the judge.

You are Subduction Zone all over again.

tmiddles wrote: Still waiting on any reference at all you find reliable.

Are you in a rush?

What a coincidence, I happen to be waiting for a repeatable example of thermal energy flowing from a cooler body to a warmer body in violation of the second law of thermodynamics.

No, I'm not in any rush. Get to it when you can.

tmiddles wrote: But you've never had one in nearly 5 years so I doubt it'll ever happen.

I'm reading one right now, however it's not what you would call "scintillating."


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

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
04-09-2019 05:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
Nah. You just want to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Into the Night wrote:
The 2nd law of thermodynamics.


Prove me wrong. All you need is one "test" where net radiative heat is disproven.

IBdaMann wrote:I happen to be waiting for a repeatable example


But you've never said what that is. You can't give a single reference that would qualify. Just one. In any area at all. Doesn't even have to be thermodynamics.

Just one little reference of how it ought to be done.
04-09-2019 07:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Nah. You just want to deny the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Into the Night wrote:
The 2nd law of thermodynamics.


Prove me wrong. All you need is one "test" where net radiative heat is disproven.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics and the requirements of external consistency.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I happen to be waiting for a repeatable example


But you've never said what that is.

He doesn't have to. YOU have to. He is claiming nothing. YOU are claiming to have falsified the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The burden of proof is on YOU.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2019 09:42
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I happen to be waiting for a repeatable example

But you've never said what that is.

He doesn't have to. YOU have to. He is claiming nothing. YOU are claiming to have falsified the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The burden of proof is on YOU.

He's asking for it. What is he asking for?
04-09-2019 16:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:I happen to be waiting for a repeatable example

But you've never said what that is.

He doesn't have to. YOU have to. He is claiming nothing. YOU are claiming to have falsified the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The burden of proof is on YOU.

He's asking for it. What is he asking for?

I'm not asking for anything. I am waiting, but I don't care if it ever comes.

... and you well know what it is.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

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
04-09-2019 16:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:Prove me wrong. All you need is one "test" where net radiative heat is disproven.

The trivial example: you have misapplied the principle you discuss.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

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
05-09-2019 02:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:you well know what it is.


You have played the same game for five years on this board. EVERYTHING you don't like is disqualified for some insufficiency and NOTHING has ever been qualified. It's a stupid game.
05-09-2019 02:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:you well know what it is.


You have played the same game for five years on this board. EVERYTHING you don't like is disqualified for some insufficiency and NOTHING has ever been qualified. It's a stupid game.


It is YOU making the insufficiency. You have only yourself to blame. You have not been on this forum for five years, though other members of the Church of Global Warming have.


The Parrot Killer
07-09-2019 12:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
It is YOU making the insufficiency. You have only yourself to blame.

And what pray tell is insufficient in your ability to explain how a human maintains body temperature? to tell us all a textbook on thermodynamics that is reliable? to share an example of research and experimentation done properly? to give an example of data that is reliable?

I took a basic problem from a textbook and asked what your answer would be:
How does a human body maintain body temperature in a normal 70F room

Neither you or IBD could answer that. Too many unknowns! It can not be known! it's impossible!!!

Because you are lame.
07-09-2019 14:45
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:And what pray tell is insufficient in your ability to explain how a human maintains body temperature?


And what pray tell is insufficient in your ability to provide a repeatable instance of thermal radiation flowing from a cooler body to a body of higher temperature?

Because you are lame.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

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
07-09-2019 19:57
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
It is YOU making the insufficiency. You have only yourself to blame.

And what pray tell is insufficient in your ability to explain how a human maintains body temperature? to tell us all a textbook on thermodynamics that is reliable? to share an example of research and experimentation done properly? to give an example of data that is reliable?

I took a basic problem from a textbook and asked what your answer would be:
How does a human body maintain body temperature in a normal 70F room

Neither you or IBD could answer that. Too many unknowns! It can not be known! it's impossible!!!

Because you are lame.


Repetitious questions that have already been answered.


The Parrot Killer
07-09-2019 22:34
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:questions that have already been answered.
You never even tried liar.
IBdaMann wrote:
provide a repeatable instance of thermal radiation flowing from a cooler body to a body of higher temperature?
Right here How IBD is maintain body temperature right now
07-09-2019 22:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
provide a repeatable instance of thermal radiation flowing from a cooler body to a body of higher temperature?
Right here How IBD is maintain body temperature right now

Not repeatable. Try again.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

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
07-09-2019 22:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:How IBD is maintain body temperature right now

Not repeatable. Try again.

You repeat it every day.
You are repeating it now.
Page 15 of 17<<<1314151617>





Join the debate Greenhouse Gases Do NOT Violate The Stefan-Boltzmann Law:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy1921-09-2019 17:04
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?10813-09-2019 05:54
There is no greenhouse effect1513-08-2019 23:33
Greenhouse effect of CO22713-08-2019 17:11
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact