27-07-2019 17:12 | |
GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
GasGuzzler wrote: dude, wake up. tmiddles wrote: oh the GRAND CONSPIRACY! Such a tired old cop outOh, please send money or we're all gonna die. Such a tired old scam. tmiddles wrote:Make an argument. OK, I will. You can't warm a warmer surface using a colder gas. Heat doesn't flow backwards. This is an argument you have not addressed.(to my knowledge) tmiddles wrote:This is a debate. Apparently it is not a debate and it's more of a discussion. If it were a debate, you would not ignore people that are making arguments against your position. Full disclosure...I was not on the high school debate team, but I would venture a guess that if you simply ignored the other side, you would lose. Again, it's just a guess. tmiddles wrote:If there IS a grand conspiracy then you can expose it.It HAS been exposed. It is on display every day when we are told things that contradict the laws of thermodynamics. These laws have NEVER been falsified, but you dismiss them and ask for my money to pay for your religion. Suggestion box: * Learn what science is and isn't were. If science is what you think it is, then we are ALL scientists. * Learn what heat is and isn't. Hint, it is NOT the value of being hot. The word heat is grossly misused every day, even by me. I'm still learning. * Learn the 1st and second laws of thermodynamics. Learn how heat actually flows. Learn what it can and can't do. Edited on 27-07-2019 17:17 |
27-07-2019 18:18 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14378) |
tmiddles wrote: Make an argument. This is a debate. You have already established that you are here specifically to avoid debate, to avoid differing viewpoints and to evade, at all costs, the science that renders absurd your preaching of undefined terms. How about you stop being a hypocrite and make an argument. This is a debate. tmiddles wrote: If there IS a grand conspiracy then you can expose it. Science has already exposed your Marxist conspiracy. There is nothing left for him to do. 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 |
27-07-2019 19:12 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
L8112 wrote:Into the Night wrote: Because you are using energy to do that. You are using a hotter gas to heat a surface colder than it. L8112 wrote:Into the Night wrote: You are saying the opposite in your other posts. You are in paradox now. L8112 wrote: Argument from randU fallacy. You are making up numbers. No one can measure this. L8112 wrote: Argument from randU fallacy. L8112 wrote: Did you know the purpose for burning fuel in many cases is to release the energy to heat the surrounding air? How the hell do you define 'efficiency'? L8112 wrote: Argument from randU fallacy. L8112 wrote: No one knows how much Mount St Helens released. L8112 wrote: So? L8112 wrote: Does not apply here. All the 1st law states is that you can't create or destroy energy. L8112 wrote: What data? What magick satellites? L8112 wrote: Lie. The 2018 winter ice extent in the Arctic is larger than in 2017. L8112 wrote: Lie. The 2019 winter ice extent in the Antarctic is larger than the 2018 one. L8112 wrote: Lie. Many glaciers are advancing...even on Mount St Helens. L8112 wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Argument from randU fallacy. L8112 wrote: Denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics again? You can't decrease entropy in any system. L8112 wrote: WRONG. Air temperatures move much faster than ocean temperatures do. L8112 wrote: Oceans areas warm and cool with each season. The 'global thermohaline system' has no cycle. It is not a single current. L8112 wrote: No, It's just a nice hot summer in Paris. It's a cool one here in Seattle this year. We had a hot summer last year. L8112 wrote: Only 140 years? L8112 wrote: The jet stream has not weakened. L8112 wrote: Buzzword fallacy. You don't seem to know what a temperature gradient is. L8112 wrote: The jet stream is not weakened. It's still just as strong as always. L8112 wrote: Nope. It's in the same place as always. Did you know that airlines navigate through the thing every day? They know exactly where it is and how strong it is. L8112 wrote:Into the Night wrote: I'm not. YOU are. * You cannot trap heat. * You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. * You cannot trap light. * You cannot decrease entropy in any system. * You cannot reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its energy at the same time. Have the guts to respond here in the thread instead of PM'ing me with it. Edited on 27-07-2019 19:16 |
27-07-2019 19:34 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:HarveyH55 wrote: Lie. It is completely religious. I call it the Church of Global Warming. tmiddles wrote: Sailors (and pilots) do that today, every day. So do meteorologists. Predicting weather is pretty accurate out to 24 hours out because it's like watching approaching waves on the sea. tmiddles wrote: WRONG. Science predicts things accurately, reliably, all the time. Every theory of science is completely accurate in its predictions, using the equations it has been formalized into. Predicting weather isn't science. It is observation. Predicting a volcanic eruption isn't science. It is observation. tmiddles wrote: Neither is science. They are observations and estimates using probability math. tmiddles wrote: Semantics. You are trying to use supporting evidence as part of science. Science does not use supporting evidence at all. tmiddles wrote: This old tripe? Do you realize you are quoting propaganda from an old book called "Silent Spring"? DDT is still used, and doesn't affect Condor or any other bird egg. There is no verified case of liver cancer caused by DDT. The book "Silent Spring" was written by a devout member of the Church of Green. Banning it caused mosquito populations to increase though. Those little bastards killed thousands. tmiddles wrote: Science does not use supporting evidence. Only religions do. tmiddles wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. You weren't around 12000 years ago, and neither was any thermometer. 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 |
27-07-2019 19:52 | |
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5195) |
tmiddles wrote:HarveyH55 wrote:...there was never any way to accurately measure global anything, to make the correlation,...focus on eliminating CO2 production, Thermometers are used, mostly on land, which is only about 20% of the planet surface. 20% doesn't very accurately represent the global temperature. Watch your local TV weather, and you'll notice some pretty large variations in temperature, just in your state, or even just neighboring cities. Unless it's a modern, lab-grade thermometer, it only gives readings in whole degrees, and a tolerance of +/- 1 degree. It took 300 years, for the claimed 1 degree global temperature increase. Ice cores aren't reliable, since there is no way of know how or when the ice was formed. Ice isn't a perfectly sealed container, gasses can move around. You do believe gasses are lighter than solids and liquids, and move toward the surface? That makes the concentrations closer to the surface, most recent accumulation, always higher, than the deeper ice. Ice has weight, the upper layers press down, creating pressure, forcing gasses to migrate or escape... Ice melts every, and rebuilds as well. We have no way of knowing how many layers of ice melted during any period of time. Ice cores don't stand up as an accurate record of CO2 levels. Algae release oxygen, it's a plant. I does interfere with a fishes ability to breath it though, some algae is toxic, specifically the pollen they release... |
27-07-2019 20:00 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:HarveyH55 wrote:...there was never any way to accurately measure global anything, to make the correlation,...focus on eliminating CO2 production, Mathematics. Statistical mathematics. tmiddles wrote: A temperature at a thermometer is not a global temperature. tmiddles wrote: Not enough. They are not read at the same time. Time is significant. They are not uniformly distributed. Location grouping is significant. The raw data is biased and there isn't enough of it. tmiddles wrote: Irrelevant. Ice is permeable to CO2. It doesn't match what Mauna Loa reports either. tmiddles wrote: Science isn't a measurement. A measurement is an observation and has nothing to do with science. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or the global atmospheric CO2 content of the Earth. tmiddles wrote: No, it is the math. You are simply denying the math. tmiddles wrote: URL doesn't work. The corrected URL is here. Math error: Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to eliminate bias from raw data. Time is significant. It's effects MUST be eliminated (thermometers must be read at the same time by the same authority). Location grouping is significant. It MUST be eliminated (thermometers must be uniformly placed). Use of manufactured data (satellites are incapable of measuring an absolute temperature). Failure to select by randN. Failure to normalize by paired randR. Failure to calculate margin of error. tmiddles wrote: Mathematics is not urban legend. tmiddles wrote: We don't have any measurements of the temperature of the Earth. Not today, not 75 year ago, not millions of year ago. tmiddles wrote: Mathematics does not need to be 'qualified'. False authority fallacy. YALIF. tmiddles wrote: Irrelevance fallacy. The shape of the Earth has nothing to do with your denial of mathematics. tmiddles wrote: It is also quite pointless. NO gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. tmiddles wrote: We don't burn fossils for fuel. Fossils don't burn. Burning carbon based fuels produces nothing but CO2 and water when properly burned. tmiddles wrote: Where? When? Evidence? tmiddles wrote: Have you forgotten the numbers killed in Hiroshima? or Nagasaki? or how many idiot operators were killed by their own reactor in Russia? Have you already forgotten the wasteland that Chernobyl has become? tmiddles wrote: Not man made. tmiddles wrote: Not man made. tmiddles wrote: Depends on the algae. 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 |
27-07-2019 20:01 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
GasGuzzler wrote:L8112 wrote: Methane can't warm the Earth anyway. 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 |
27-07-2019 20:03 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:Dude, wake up. He did make an argument. You just discarded it. Argument of the stone fallacy. The conspiracy is the Church of Global Warming. It's already exposed. 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 |
27-07-2019 20:12 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
GasGuzzler wrote:GasGuzzler wrote: dude, wake up.tmiddles wrote: oh the GRAND CONSPIRACY! Such a tired old cop outOh, please send money or we're all gonna die. Such a tired old scam.tmiddles wrote:Make an argument. Excellent observation! You are exactly right. He simply ignores discussing it. He can't afford to lose an argument trying to explain that you can make heat flow backwards that he has retreated into his 'safe zone'. GasGuzzler wrote:tmiddles wrote:This is a debate. An excellent bit of reasoning! This is not a debate. For him, it is not a discussion either. It is just searching out fellow believers to chant their own scripture to each other in some kind of support group. GasGuzzler wrote: Exactly right. Walking out of a running debate means you lost. GasGuzzler wrote:tmiddles wrote:If there IS a grand conspiracy then you can expose it.It HAS been exposed. It is on display every day when we are told things that contradict the laws of thermodynamics. These laws have NEVER been falsified, but you dismiss them and ask for my money to pay for your religion. Excellent. You lay it it out very clearly here. GasGuzzler wrote: Quite right! Heat has no temperature. Thermal energy is measured by temperature. GasGuzzler wrote: He must openly deny them both to continue to believe in the 'greenhouse gas' scripture. 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 |
27-07-2019 20:21 | |
GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
Into the Night wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:L8112 wrote: May have to argue a bit here. The methane would depart the body at around 98 degrees. So, in most locations it would necessarily heat the atmosphere in close proximity to your ass. But this does not explain the higher rate of Arctic warming. There just aren't enough farting Eskimos.....something to ponder on your Saturday afternoon. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
27-07-2019 22:38 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
GasGuzzler wrote:Into the Night wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:L8112 wrote: Unless you have one exceptionally fat ass, that air is not the entire atmosphere of Earth. Any local heating by your own body is nothing more than energy that came from the Sun anyway. Most methane just forms in the atmosphere directly, or comes from natural sources such as rotting anything, swamps, or comes up with oil that we pump. GasGuzzler wrote: How do you know the Arctic is warming? 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 |
27-07-2019 22:42 | |
GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
Into the Night wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:Into the Night wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:L8112 wrote: I was told by the "climate scientists" that it was warming. Time to fall in line, pay up, and do what they say. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan |
27-07-2019 22:53 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14378) |
GasGuzzler wrote:I was told by the "climate scientists" that it was warming. Time to fall in line, pay up, and do what they say. Yup. You know it's time. . 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 |
28-07-2019 06:28 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
HarveyH55 wrote: Are being selective with "we can't know well enough to study"? Do you disbelieve all scientific study? What's an example of science you trust? And I didn't mean could you backup your own statements with more of your own statements. Any scientists that can back you up on that? People with real credentials? |
28-07-2019 07:13 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14378) |
tmiddles wrote:Are being selective with "we can't know well enough to study"? Hilarious! YOU accusing someone of being less than fully straightforward! tmiddles wrote: Do you disbelieve all scientific study? What a moron! There is no such thing as a "scientific" study. Studies aren't science. There are just studies and that's all. Most studies are invalid. If you weren't such a moron you'd be asking what makes a study valid. As it stands, you just believe whatever you are told to believe as long as you are told that it comes from a study ... no, wait ... a "scientific" study. How gullible. tmiddles wrote:What's an example of science you trust? He probably trusts all science. He's just not completely gullible like you and doesn't believe that something is science just because some Marxist requires him to believe it. If you weren't such a scientifically illiterate bonehead you would know what science is and is not ... greatly alleviating your confusion on the matter. As it stands, you are greatly confused on the matter. tmiddles wrote: Any scientists that can back you up on that? He has been backed up, on this site, by science and mathematics that you refuse to embrace. There is nothing more that he needs to do. You, on the other hand, guard your scientific illiteracy as a Christian father guards his daughter's virginity; you dare not allow anything to jeopardize it. tmiddles wrote:People with real credentials? People with Down Syndrome don't take this long to grasp the concept of an anonymous forum. . 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 |
28-07-2019 07:23 | |
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5195) |
tmiddles wrote:HarveyH55 wrote: The planet is very large, we can only take small samples of it to test and measure. To expand the results mathematically, to represent the entire planet, also expands an errors. No, I don't disbelieve all scientific studies. I do distrust some of the conclusions, since many are a plea for further funding these days. Not sure how to answer those other two questions, I don't keep track of which I believe, and which I don't, since that's not the point. A study, doesn't really settle anything, it's an observation, and a description. Like say, Cold Fusion, was an interesting thing, sounded like so very useful potential. Unfortunately, it was flawed, eventually discredited. Fun ride, while it lasted. Most studies don't pan out, but there are many that are interesting to see how they go, hoping everything works out. I didn't get into Climate Change, until there was a huge push to spend a lot of taxpayer dollars on it, raising taxes, mandating I buy energy efficient, and many other costly new things. Basically throwing away things that work fine, and paid for, and replacing with stuff I can't afford, and don't work as well. I was worry about a huge increase in the cost of gas and electricity, to pay for the conversion to alternative energy. I very independent, and having to rely on the mass transit system doesn't appeal to me, nor all the wasted time waiting to catch a ride. Scientist, with research and credentials, that back up my views and opinions? Sorry, never looked. I write original matter, far as I know. Likely influenced by things I've heard, read, or viewed, that I fully agreed with, but I'm not quoting or regurgitating and content. Everything I write here are my own thoughts and reasoning, based on personal experience. I don't have the self-doubts, that would compel me to seek validation. I could be wrong on many things, don't always have to be right, I learn from my mistakes, and those of others. I believe most scientists, with credentials, have better things to do, actual useful work, than wasting time and money on a non-issue. I don't watch endless videos online, use dial-up internet, don't have time, except for short clips (5 minutes or less). There are drooling fanatics on both sides of the debate, pointless to watch, just for entertainment purposes. |
28-07-2019 09:45 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
HarveyH55 wrote:A study, doesn't really settle anything, it's an observation, I fear this is become a bit of a circular discussion. What's an example of something you feel confident about factually that science has figured out, with a study, with data? You can never measure it all. I'll give you a non-global warming list, Y/N on these if you'd like: 1 The risk of lung cancer development is 20-40 times higher in lifelong smokers 2 Venus is hotter than Mercury though it's further from the sun. 3 Vaccinations are effective in preventing disease 4 Heart Disease is the leading cause of death in the US 5 There are 7.7 Billion people on Earth |
28-07-2019 16:53 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14378) |
tmiddles wrote: What's an example of something you feel confident about factually that science has figured out, with a study, with data? You ask the most boneheaded questions just to show your pride in your scientific illiteracy. You ask for science but specify "a study" or "data" ... neither of which are science. Science is strictly a collection of falsifiable models that predict nature. Why don't you ask HarveyH55 if he trusts Einstein's energy-mass equivalence E=mc^2 ? That is science. Notice that there is no study attached and no data. When Einstein published it, he was not required to provide any data for it to be science nor were any "peer reviewed" papers requested on the matter. tmiddles wrote:I'll give you a non-global warming list, Y/N on these if you'd like: Nothing in that list is science. 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 |
28-07-2019 18:14 | |
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5195) |
tmiddles wrote:HarveyH55 wrote:A study, doesn't really settle anything, it's an observation, I don't gather statistics, mostly useless, unless they are presented with the methods used, margin of error. They are also generally biased, used to sell a product. Insurance companies use them a lot to the premium price you pay. Lots of people get lung cancer, who never smoked. There is a huge number of smokers that never developed any kind of cancer. Quite a few that never developed any of the other respiratory illnesses commonly connected with smoking. Anybody the over indulges in pretty much anything, is heading for some sort of medical problems. I'm not buying the 20-40 times greater thing, those many people suffering, would have been setting an example for everyone that knew them, that couldn't be ignored for long. Tobacco companies would have gone bust, decades ago. There have been these 'studies', negative advertisement, huge tax increases, lawsuits, for about 50 years, yet people still buy those products. Never had much interest in the other planets, never going to any of them, plenty of stuff to do on Earth. Each of the planets are unique, plenty of other differences besides CO2. Could of sworn that automobiles were the number one cause of death in America... Guess it depends on the study and the scope. Vaccines can help reduce the spread of disease, but they also give people a false sense of security, which can put them at higher risk. They don't always work, for every individual. Some people don't stay protected very long. Vaccines are very specific, mutations aren't covered. Flu shots don't work as well, as simple hygiene practices. You get a shot, which a mix of strains, the WHO believes will be trending that season. You are never protected from all strains. The vaccines can cause deaths as well (read the paper you sign). The trigger an immune response from each individual, some people go into overdrive, and it's as bad or worse, than had they gotten the virus naturally. Many people feel symptoms, usually mild, hardly noticeable. Others get violently ill, all over the toilet, but doesn't last as long as actually getting the disease. World population, just a rough estimate... |
28-07-2019 18:54 | |
Herbert West☆☆☆☆☆ (2) |
Hi, I'm new here. Just for take a look to your talking about our terminal situation. |
28-07-2019 18:57 | |
Herbert West☆☆☆☆☆ (2) |
Every year we will enjoy a new warm record on sumer temperatures. Until... Wel until no more records, of course. |
28-07-2019 19:39 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14378) |
Herbert West wrote:Hi, I'm new here. Just for take a look to your talking about our terminal situation. So either you are another Marxist or you want to discuss the death of our sun? 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 |
28-07-2019 21:16 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
HarveyH55 wrote: OK so you really doubt that we do know that? Someone dies and it's not recorded, clearly? We can know stuff Harvey!!!! Look at the achievements of humanity and stop doubting that |
28-07-2019 21:19 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:HarveyH55 wrote: It's math, dude. Not science. 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 |
28-07-2019 21:19 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Herbert West wrote: Welcome to the board! And don't get too freaked out. There actually aren't any proposed scenarios in which we are animated by a rising temperature. |
28-07-2019 21:28 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:HarveyH55 wrote:A study, doesn't really settle anything, it's an observation, Unknown. tmiddles wrote: Unknown. tmiddles wrote: Yes. tmiddles wrote: No. The leading cause of death in the United States is old age. Such things as heart disease (not a proper noun, it is not capitalized), Alzheimer's disease, strokes, many cancers, etc. are simply elements of old age. The leading cause of death among younger people is accidents and homicides. tmiddles wrote: Unknown. This number is a gross estimate only. 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 |
28-07-2019 21:32 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21559) |
tmiddles wrote:HarveyH55 wrote: Happens all the time. tmiddles wrote: Making up numbers is not an achievement, tmiddles. 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 |
30-07-2019 00:02 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
tmiddles wrote:animated by a rising temperature. oops I meant annihilated. |
Threads | Replies | Last post |
July 4, 2023 - Hottest day ever recorded | 201 | 25-12-2023 14:11 |
Why are earthquakes more likely to occur at night than during the day | 17 | 09-11-2023 12:39 |
Back-testing the climate model(s) | 11 | 07-08-2023 05:09 |
Scientists say Florida Keys coral reefs are already bleaching as water temperatures hit record highs | 14 | 29-07-2023 20:14 |
White House ridiculed for defending Biden's economic record as 'incredibly popular:' 'Wit | 0 | 28-06-2023 12:33 |