Remember me
▼ Content

In general...



Page 4 of 4<<<234
11-10-2019 00:33
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:....heat, which is not energy...
Um, hate to state the obvious but heat is energy.
But James it's the obvious that ITN/IBD spend ALL of their time attacking (it's a way to avoid a real battle). Yep, you're right and IBD is dead wrong as usual. Max Planck has your back (as does Captain Obvious)
Max Planck wrote:Pg.188 "...heat itself is a form of energy,...

James___ wrote:
I just don't understand how the 2 of you don't get the basics.
The reason I really hate these two is because they do know. They're just liars. They want to win and they have this pathetic insane strategy to do it. Meanwhile the real issue moves on without them.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
11-10-2019 04:14
James___
★★★★☆
(1584)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:....heat, which is not energy...
Um, hate to state the obvious but heat is energy.
But James it's the obvious that ITN/IBD spend ALL of their time attacking (it's a way to avoid a real battle). Yep, you're right and IBD is dead wrong as usual. Max Planck has your back (as does Captain Obvious)
Max Planck wrote:Pg.188 "...heat itself is a form of energy,...

James___ wrote:
I just don't understand how the 2 of you don't get the basics.
The reason I really hate these two is because they do know. They're just liars. They want to win and they have this pathetic insane strategy to do it. Meanwhile the real issue moves on without them.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them



I don't think they get it. I mean something that has a lot of heat content should be radiating it as heat. But what happens when it's conserved? It gets cooler but thermodynamics requires it to be radiated. A paradox in the laws of thermodynamics.
11-10-2019 20:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:....heat, which is not energy...
Um, hate to state the obvious but heat is energy.
But James it's the obvious that ITN/IBD spend ALL of their time attacking

Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
(it's a way to avoid a real battle).

The real battle is fascism. The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Karl Marx.
tmiddles wrote:
Yep, you're right and IBD is dead wrong as usual. Max Planck has your back (as does Captain Obvious)

RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
Max Planck wrote:Pg.188 "...heat itself is a form of energy,...

James___ wrote:
I just don't understand how the 2 of you don't get the basics.
The reason I really hate these two is because they do know. They're just liars. They want to win and they have this pathetic insane strategy to do it. Meanwhile the real issue moves on without them.

What is 'moving on'? Void argument fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2019 20:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:....heat, which is not energy...
Um, hate to state the obvious but heat is energy.
But James it's the obvious that ITN/IBD spend ALL of their time attacking (it's a way to avoid a real battle). Yep, you're right and IBD is dead wrong as usual. Max Planck has your back (as does Captain Obvious)
Max Planck wrote:Pg.188 "...heat itself is a form of energy,...

James___ wrote:
I just don't understand how the 2 of you don't get the basics.
The reason I really hate these two is because they do know. They're just liars. They want to win and they have this pathetic insane strategy to do it. Meanwhile the real issue moves on without them.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them



I don't think they get it. I mean something that has a lot of heat content should be radiating it as heat. But what happens when it's conserved? It gets cooler but thermodynamics requires it to be radiated. A paradox in the laws of thermodynamics.

Heat is not a content. Heat is not conserved. There is no paradox in the laws of thermodynamics.


The Parrot Killer
11-10-2019 21:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
James___ wrote: I mean something that has a lot of heat content should be radiating it as heat.

You should ask tmainstream-media what his favorite textbook has to say on the matter:

A system has a well-defined internal energy, but we cannot say that it has a certain "heat content" or "work content". We use the phrase "heat transfer" to emphasize its nature.


This is because "heat" is a flow, or a "transfer" of thermal energy.

James___ wrote: But what happens when it's conserved?

How does one conserve a "flow"?

Instead of using the term "heat" like a semantic-shifting warmizombie, why don't you call thermal energy "thermal energy" when you are talking about thermal energy?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
11-10-2019 21:19
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote: The reason I really hate these two is because they do know. They're just liars.

Nope. The reason you hate people is because they are smart while you are a pathetic lying moron who is utterly intolerant of those who don't worship your stupid religion.

You are a lying hater. You are completely dishonest. You are an intellectual coward.

That's why you hate. It's just your nature.

tmiddles wrote: They want to win ... "

Too funny.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
12-10-2019 03:50
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
tmiddles wrote:
But this is the sad thing. There is a robust, well supported and interesting counter to AGW put forth by real scientists like Huffman. The lunatics on this forum won't discuss them...

Here it's a carrousel to nowhere. Huffman's asking questions about the process that determines a planet's surface and air temps, notably the striking agreement of Venus's air with Earth's at the 200 to 1000 mb pressure levels, if the greater solar flux at Venus is allowed for. That is a scientific observation, and it needs to be explained. There's also a low-pressure "Mars problem" with lots of CO2 and very little greenhouse. The global warming popularizers oddly forget our sister planets.

Is Huffman wrong? Probably. And so are the CO2 devotees. Both hold pieces of the puzzle, and it's Jumbo Jigsaw with two pieces fitted, 998 to finish. But on the carrousel, we can't even get started on the unsolved pieces. They're falling off the ride in blatant self-contradictions like this:

1) It's not possible to measure temperature.
2) Temperature cannot increase without additional energy.

If statement (1) is true, how could we know about the other statement? Nonetheless, (2) furnishes disinformation in our game of Spy vs. Spy:

Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
I can't let go of my belief that there are other very significant factors that influence global weather. However all I want to understand is the effect of CO2 on temperature. I want to remain open minded but am wary of being misled.

Since CO2 is not a source of energy, it does not add additional energy to Earth. Only the Sun provides Earth's energy. Using CO2 to raise the temperature violates the 1st law of thermodynamics...

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Harry C wrote:
A light bulb moment realizing the difference between energy and temperature change.

I really hate to dim light bulbs but a temperature change does, in fact, equal an amount of energy. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy, and a calorie is defined as the amount of energy needed to raise 1 gram of water 1°C ... which equals 4.187 joules.

Test: Run your household furnace with the windows open until it's bone cold. If temperature can't increase without additional energy, then closing the windows won't warm the house. There's no additional energy, just the same furnace.

Both of you have abused the heat capacity concept in your discussion with Harry C., as it's true one must add 4.187 J to raise a gram of water from 14.5˚C to 15.5˚. This definition, however, assumes no heat losses from the gram of water while James Joule adds his 4.187 J. In reality, Joule had to add a bit more energy to his calorimeter with the paddles, and he didn't lie about that. He controlled for the systematic error by timing water as it cooled in the calorimeter without the paddles spinning.

tmiddles wrote:
Only the SUN can do that boys...

So you need a furnace to raise the temperature of your house, but opening the windows introduces a large heat loss Messrs. Spy chose to ignore when "educating" Harry C. off the forum. The idea that air might act somewhat like a window bleaches the libertarian loons.

tmiddles wrote:
Do you think textbooks are corrupted with a false 2nd LTD?

'Twas was a hoax heartier than the moonwalks at Paramount Studios! A new textbook correcting the falsehoods of Joule, Kelvin, Planck and Fermi has therefore been written I trust you'll find amusing.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... obviously staged photos by leftist fake-reporters.

...the Chorlotsville "Unite the Right" protest did not have...neo-Nazi presence? ...Presumably everyone in the photo was hired with the wealthy photographer hoping no one would tell on him later?

The bizarre rush to embrace Trump mystifies me. When he first came on the scene, the libertarians didn't like him at all. An ex-Democrat running for prez twice, opportunistically switching from independent to GOP the second time to improve his odds, fuming with protectionist messages. As libertarians advocate free trade with the rest of the world, this horrified them, as did his total disdain for facts.

With Trump heading back to the former East Bloc for election aid and Rudy's pals—Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman—now in jail after attempting to flee the country, interesting to see how it will play out. Getting a few policies on immigration & China I agree with isn't worth having a White House with a "for sale" sign on the lawn.

tmiddles wrote:
The reason I really hate these two is because they do know. They're just liars. They want to win and they have this pathetic insane strategy to do it.

Just like the Donald.
~



Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
12-10-2019 04:04
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
James___ wrote:
I don't think they get it. I mean something that has a lot of heat content should be radiating it as heat. But what happens when it's conserved? It gets cooler but thermodynamics requires it to be radiated. A paradox in the laws of thermodynamics.

I'd advise consulting a book. But notice it's energy that's conserved, and heat is just one form of energy. It can be converted to other forms such as mechanical work, as in an automobile's cylinders, or radiation, as in the sun. And it isn't the same thing as temperature. A flaring matchhead is hot, but won't send enough energy to heat a cup of coffee. Ever notice how long it stays warm around a lake in the fall? The beach air is warmer than the air in a pasture a mile from the lake, and the weather grows wintry days before the lake freezes.

The temperature determines how quickly a surface will radiate, but not how long it will continue radiating before it cools to the temperature of the surrounding environment. In general, if you leave a pint jug and a gallon jug, both filled with water at 60˚F, outdoors on a 0˚F night, the pint jug will be the first to freeze solid. I did this and the gallon still had liquid water at its bottom in the morning.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
12-10-2019 18:37
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
But this is the sad thing. There is a robust, well supported and interesting counter to AGW put forth by real scientists like Huffman. The lunatics on this forum won't discuss them...

Here it's a carrousel to nowhere. Huffman's asking questions about the process that determines a planet's surface and air temps, notably the striking agreement of Venus's air with Earth's at the 200 to 1000 mb pressure levels, if the greater solar flux at Venus is allowed for. That is a scientific observation, and it needs to be explained.

There is no such thing as a 'scientific' observation. There is only observation. Using any instrument of any kind does not make it 'scientific'. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. The data an observation produces is evidence only. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not an observation.

The temperature of Venus is unknown. The temperature of the atmosphere of Venus at any altitude is unknown. One thermometer is not good enough to measure a whole planet.
VernerHornung wrote:
There's also a low-pressure "Mars problem" with lots of CO2 and very little greenhouse. The global warming popularizers oddly forget our sister planets.

The temperatures of these planets is also unknown.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm a planet using IR emitted from that planet's surface.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
VernerHornung wrote:
Is Huffman wrong? Probably. And so are the CO2 devotees. Both hold pieces of the puzzle, and it's Jumbo Jigsaw with two pieces fitted, 998 to finish. But on the carrousel, we can't even get started on the unsolved pieces. They're falling off the ride in blatant self-contradictions like this:

1) It's not possible to measure temperature.
2) Temperature cannot increase without additional energy.

There is no contradiction between these two statements.
VernerHornung wrote:
If statement (1) is true, how could we know about the other statement?

The first law of thermodynamics.
VernerHornung wrote:
Nonetheless, (2) furnishes disinformation in our game of Spy vs. Spy:

There is no 'dsinformation'. You cannot increase temperature of any planet without additional energy.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Harry C wrote:
I can't let go of my belief that there are other very significant factors that influence global weather. However all I want to understand is the effect of CO2 on temperature. I want to remain open minded but am wary of being misled.

Since CO2 is not a source of energy, it does not add additional energy to Earth. Only the Sun provides Earth's energy. Using CO2 to raise the temperature violates the 1st law of thermodynamics...

IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Harry C wrote:
A light bulb moment realizing the difference between energy and temperature change.

I really hate to dim light bulbs but a temperature change does, in fact, equal an amount of energy. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy, and a calorie is defined as the amount of energy needed to raise 1 gram of water 1°C ... which equals 4.187 joules.

Test: Run your household furnace with the windows open until it's bone cold. If temperature can't increase without additional energy, then closing the windows won't warm the house.

Sure it will. It just won't warm it as well, since you are also putting thermal energy outside (assuming it's colder outside).
VernerHornung wrote:
There's no additional energy, just the same furnace.

Yet your house is warmer, and so is the outside just a tiny bit. Your little furnace doesn't impress all that outside very much.
VernerHornung wrote:
Both of you have abused the heat capacity concept in your discussion with Harry C., as it's true one must add 4.187 J to raise a gram of water from 14.5˚C to 15.5˚. This definition, however, assumes no heat losses from the gram of water while James Joule adds his 4.187 J.

Yes it does. He was able to show that minor losses due to imperfect insulation could be factored out.
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Only the SUN can do that boys...

So you need a furnace to raise the temperature of your house, but opening the windows introduces a large heat loss

Yup. Save your money. Close your windows and stop heating the outside. It's bigger than your puny furnace. You are just trying to make the Magick Blanket argument again. You keep forgetting that there is no significant furnace to heat the Earth other than the Sun.
VernerHornung wrote:
Messrs. Spy chose to ignore when "educating" Harry C. off the forum. The idea that air might act somewhat like a window bleaches the libertarian loons.

Try English. It works better.
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Do you think textbooks are corrupted with a false 2nd LTD?

'Twas was a hoax heartier than the moonwalks at Paramount Studios! A new textbook correcting the falsehoods of Joule, Kelvin, Planck and Fermi has therefore been written I trust you'll find amusing.

They are not falsehoods. The laws of thermodynamics have not been falsified. You can't just discard them.


The Parrot Killer
12-10-2019 18:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
VernerHornung wrote:
James___ wrote:
I don't think they get it. I mean something that has a lot of heat content should be radiating it as heat. But what happens when it's conserved? It gets cooler but thermodynamics requires it to be radiated. A paradox in the laws of thermodynamics.

I'd advise consulting a book. But notice it's energy that's conserved, and heat is just one form of energy. It can be converted to other forms such as mechanical work, as in an automobile's cylinders, or radiation, as in the sun. And it isn't the same thing as temperature. A flaring matchhead is hot, but won't send enough energy to heat a cup of coffee. Ever notice how long it stays warm around a lake in the fall? The beach air is warmer than the air in a pasture a mile from the lake, and the weather grows wintry days before the lake freezes.

The temperature determines how quickly a surface will radiate, but not how long it will continue radiating before it cools to the temperature of the surrounding environment.

It is still radiating even then. You are again denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2019 00:55
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as a 'scientific' observation...

Great. Let's get our plows out, set up the shops for the miller, the butcher & the blacksmith and go back to living the way we did in 1348 when the Black Death was striking our neighbors down left and right for reasons we've no clue about.

People of that age were just as good at observing things as we are. They weren't stupid. But lacking a framework in which to sort out their observations, beyond religious teachings and the speculations of the newly-revived Aristotle, their ability to make progress at understanding—and controlling—their environment remained hobbled.

Into the Night wrote:
Sure it will. It just won't warm it as well, since you are also putting thermal energy outside (assuming it's colder outside).

And true to your style, you've put everything backward to confuse the issue. I said that closing the windows will warm your house if you've left them open while the furnace is running. I said nothing about the furnace warming the house while the windows were still open.

Into the Night wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
If statement (1) is true, how could we know about the other statement?

The first law of thermodynamics.

Except you can't derive the first law of thermodynamics if it's impossible to measure temperature. Nor would you think to do so, if there's no such thing as scientific observation.

Medieval peasants estimated distance as days, how long it took you to walk or ride a horse to where you were going. To them, length was a dimension that applied only to cloth and other human-scale objects. No map of Europe had ever been published; for nobles lucky enough for a crack at university, a map was a disk-shaped schematic of the world with blobs around its edges for the continents and a blob in the middle for the Mediterranean.

Is this the kind of world the modern Know-Nothings really want us to inhabit? They sure covet those Yukon Denalis despite the supposed inability of GM engineers to measure temperatures, pressures or radiation inside the cylinders.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
13-10-2019 01:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as a 'scientific' observation...

Great. Let's get our plows out, set up the shops for the miller, the butcher & the blacksmith and go back to living the way we did in 1348 when the Black Death was striking our neighbors down left and right for reasons we've no clue about.

People of that age were just as good at observing things as we are. They weren't stupid. But lacking a framework in which to sort out their observations, beyond religious teachings and the speculations of the newly-revived Aristotle, their ability to make progress at understanding—and controlling—their environment remained hobbled.


Your reading comprehension sucks more than a vacuum cleaner.

VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Sure it will. It just won't warm it as well, since you are also putting thermal energy outside (assuming it's colder outside).

And true to your style, you've put everything backward to confuse the issue. I said that closing the windows will warm your house if you've left them open while the furnace is running. I said nothing about the furnace warming the house while the windows were still open.

And true to your style, you confuse the issue in this case by opening the closed system ... and you probably don't even know what that means.

Into the Night is once again correct and you are embarrassing yourself.

VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
If statement (1) is true, how could we know about the other statement?

The first law of thermodynamics.

Except you can't derive the first law of thermodynamics if it's impossible to measure temperature. Nor would you think to do so, if there's no such thing as scientific observation.

Hey genius, there are observations ... there just aren't any scientific observations.

In your mind, what did you imagine constitutes a scientific observation vs. a normal, non-scientific observation?

Hello? Is there anybody in there?

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
Edited on 13-10-2019 01:13
13-10-2019 01:29
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1347)
Why worry about internal combustion engines anymore? We are all going to be driving greenmobiles, whether we want to or not. Well, least have on parked in the driveway or garage. Probably want get to use them much, with the frequent blackouts, preventing any but the rich, to keep them charged. Renewable energy is useless, if it isn't reliable. Our current distribution grid isn't compatible with unpredictable supplies, from many sources. Our current grid, barely handles the unpredictable demands on it. Really surprised the global warming crap has lasted this long, it's got to die out soon. The running out of fossil fuels has been running since the 70s, and still going strong, even though production has more than doubled, and still plenty of places barely touched on protected lands, and do to environmental concerns. Basically, we still have a lot in the ground to last, long after global warming kills us off...

Seems to me, if the Russians can land on Venus, and send back a temperature reading or two, before everything melts. GM should be able to shove a thermometer into an engine block. They should also be able to come pretty close on paper, since they know all the volumes and materials involved.
13-10-2019 02:05
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, there are observations ... there just aren't any scientific observations. In your mind, what did you imagine constitutes a scientific observation vs. a normal, non-scientific observation?

Instruments per se have little to do with making an observation scientific. It's the systematic recording of repeated observations and the attention paid to the conditions under which they're made that count. Observing stuff in an offhand or occasional manner produces no science even if you have instruments.

Scientific observations, therefore, are those made with a purpose—to discover a pattern in something, especially if it's not obvious from everyday experience.

You and ITN appear bent on denying that there is any rhyme or reason to our world except when it serves in attacking others who post here. You started on me within hours of my arrival to discuss pollution from the Intermountain Power Project, even though I'd said nothing about any of your contributions at that point.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
13-10-2019 02:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, there are observations ... there just aren't any scientific observations. In your mind, what did you imagine constitutes a scientific observation vs. a normal, non-scientific observation?

Instruments per se have little to do with making an observation scientific.

No instrument has any power to transform any observation into science, nor does any quantity of observations magickally create science. There are no "scientific" observations. There are only observations.

Humans create science. Any observations that potentially inspire science remain just observations ... that inspired the science which is completely separate and distinct.


VernerHornung wrote: It's the systematic recording of repeated observations and the attention paid to the conditions under which they're made that count.

... yet you never once came to Into the Night's defense when he was being bashed by tmiddles for explaining what is obviously your position on this.

Not once.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
13-10-2019 02:54
James___
★★★★☆
(1584)
IBdaMann wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, there are observations ... there just aren't any scientific observations. In your mind, what did you imagine constitutes a scientific observation vs. a normal, non-scientific observation?

Instruments per se have little to do with making an observation scientific.

No instrument has any power to transform any observation into science, nor does any quantity of observations magickally create science. There are no "scientific" observations. There are only observations.

Humans create science. Any observations that potentially inspire science remain just observations ... that inspired the science which is completely separate and distinct.


VernerHornung wrote: It's the systematic recording of repeated observations and the attention paid to the conditions under which they're made that count.

... yet you never once came to Into the Night's defense when he was being bashed by tmiddles for explaining what is obviously your position on this.

Not once.

.



I must disagree with you. The sextant can. Without benefit of modern technology it could demonstrate latitudes in the northern hemisphere. That is science (it is something based on evidence/observation and/or calculation) and does not require land.
13-10-2019 20:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as a 'scientific' observation...

Great. Let's get our plows out, set up the shops for the miller, the butcher & the blacksmith and go back to living the way we did in 1348 when the Black Death was striking our neighbors down left and right for reasons we've no clue about.

People of that age were just as good at observing things as we are. They weren't stupid. But lacking a framework in which to sort out their observations, beyond religious teachings and the speculations of the newly-revived Aristotle, their ability to make progress at understanding—and controlling—their environment remained hobbled.

Irrelevance fallacy. Redirection fallacy. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' observation. Science is a set of falsifiable theories, not data or observations.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Sure it will. It just won't warm it as well, since you are also putting thermal energy outside (assuming it's colder outside).

And true to your style, you've put everything backward to confuse the issue. I said that closing the windows will warm your house if you've left them open while the furnace is running. I said nothing about the furnace warming the house while the windows were still open.

Lie. You did. I simply pointed out your error again.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:
If statement (1) is true, how could we know about the other statement?

The first law of thermodynamics.

Except you can't derive the first law of thermodynamics if it's impossible to measure temperature.

It is possible to measure temperature.
VernerHornung wrote:
Nor would you think to do so, if there's no such thing as scientific observation.

Measuring temperature or anything is no 'scientific'. It is an observation. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. They are not theories of science. Science is only the theories. Nothing else. Data from observations is evidence only. Science does not use supporting evidence.
VernerHornung wrote:
...deleted irrelevant material...

You really need to get control of your random wanderings.


The Parrot Killer
13-10-2019 20:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Why worry about internal combustion engines anymore?

Because they're cheap and powerful engines. Our most powerful engines are internal combustion. They are used to haul 3 miles long freight trains over that mountain pass. They are used to haul a 500 ton aircraft into the sky and be very efficient about it for both cases.
HarveyH55 wrote:
We are all going to be driving greenmobiles, whether we want to or not.

Well, not for long in the SOTC is seems!
HarveyH55 wrote:
Well, least have on parked in the driveway or garage. Probably want get to use them much, with the frequent blackouts, preventing any but the rich, to keep them charged.

I expect conditions to continue to deteriorate in the SOTC as well.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Renewable energy is useless, if it isn't reliable.

Both natural gas and oil are renewable.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Our current distribution grid isn't compatible with unpredictable supplies, from many sources.

That's exactly what makes is more reliable. Many sources.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Our current grid, barely handles the unpredictable demands on it.

It handles it quite well.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Really surprised the global warming crap has lasted this long, it's got to die out soon.

It never will. It is a fundamentalist religion. It is based on strictly a belief in an undefined phrase. Such religions never die.
HarveyH55 wrote:
The running out of fossil fuels has been running since the 70s, and still going strong, even though production has more than doubled, and still plenty of places barely touched on protected lands, and do to environmental concerns.

This is scripture from the Church of Green, which the Church of Global Warming borrows from time to time. The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green. The Church of Green stems from the Church of Karl Marx.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Basically, we still have a lot in the ground to last, long after global warming kills us off...

It's renewable, and 'global warming' remains undefined.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Seems to me, if the Russians can land on Venus, and send back a temperature reading or two, before everything melts. GM should be able to shove a thermometer into an engine block. They should also be able to come pretty close on paper, since they know all the volumes and materials involved.

Exactly. Indeed, that thermometer remains in the engine. It is used to control your induction system and cooling system.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 13-10-2019 20:49
13-10-2019 20:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Hey genius, there are observations ... there just aren't any scientific observations. In your mind, what did you imagine constitutes a scientific observation vs. a normal, non-scientific observation?

Instruments per se have little to do with making an observation scientific.

They have nothing to do with it. There is no such thing as a 'scientific' observation.
VernerHornung wrote:
It's the systematic recording of repeated observations

Repeating a measurement under the same conditions gives you the same result. There is no need to repeat it.
VernerHornung wrote:
and the attention paid to the conditions

Attention is paid to the conditions for all measurements, else the 'measurement' is not a measurement.
VernerHornung wrote:
under which they're made that count.

All measurements are against a zero reference point of your choosing, and an offset; using units of your choosing. It's that simple. There is nothing 'scientific' about any measurement, or about any observation at all.
VernerHornung wrote:
Observing stuff in an offhand or occasional manner produces no science even if you have instruments.

Measurements or any other observation does not produce 'science'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. Anything can inspire a new theory.
VernerHornung wrote:
Scientific observations, therefore, are those made with a purpose

All measurements are made with a purpose. There is nothing 'scientific' about any measurement.
VernerHornung wrote:
—to discover a pattern in something,

Still not science.
VernerHornung wrote:
especially if it's not obvious from everyday experience.

Still not science.
VernerHornung wrote:
You and ITN appear bent on denying that there is any rhyme or reason to our world

Compositional error fallacy. Watch this one. It can easily lead to bigotry and racism.
VernerHornung wrote:
except when it serves in attacking others who post here.

I am not attacking you. I am attacking your crappy excuse for 'science' and 'mathematics'. You are denying both.
VernerHornung wrote:
You started on me within hours of my arrival to discuss pollution from the Intermountain Power Project,

Define 'pollution'.
VernerHornung wrote:
even though I'd said nothing about any of your contributions at that point.

Irrelevant. Define 'pollution'. Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. NONE of these phrases has been defined by you.

You just keep chanting Holy Mantras of meaningless phrases as if they meant something.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2019 03:49
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
James___ wrote:I must disagree with you. The sextant can. Without benefit of modern technology it could demonstrate latitudes in the northern hemisphere. That is science (it is something based on evidence/observation and/or calculation) and does not require land.

Unfortunately no, but you are thinking along the right lines. The sextant is technology, a wonder of applied math. It is a calculating device ... but for angles instead of numbers.

The sextant is technology that is based on math and not so much on science. It was designed by Captain John Campbell, a Royal Navy officer, who figured out a way that math could actually be useful. He reasoned that angles could help in maritime navigation, go figure! Today we use modern surveying equipment for terrestiral placement and precision clocks/timepieces for navigation.

The sextant uses observations as inputs (to determine the initial angles) and calculates the position or the vector needed.

I don't think you could have picked a better example.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
14-10-2019 04:02
James___
★★★★☆
(1584)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:I must disagree with you. The sextant can. Without benefit of modern technology it could demonstrate latitudes in the northern hemisphere. That is science (it is something based on evidence/observation and/or calculation) and does not require land.

Unfortunately no, but you are thinking along the right lines. The sextant is technology, a wonder of applied math. It is a calculating device ... but for angles instead of numbers.

The sextant is technology that is based on math and not so much on science. It was designed by Captain John Campbell, a Royal Navy officer, who figured out a way that math could actually be useful. He reasoned that angles could help in maritime navigation, go figure! Today we use modern surveying equipment for terrestiral placement and precision clocks/timepieces for navigation.

The sextant uses observations as inputs (to determine the initial angles) and calculates the position or the vector needed.

I don't think you could have picked a better example.

.



It's kind of sad that all you and itn seem to find interesting is mind games. Do you belong to the same tribe?
RE: Climate Change Survey14-10-2019 05:33
quasi_kwasi
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
Hey All, I've been trying to find people to take my survey on climate change, Seems this might be an appropriate medium.

I've provided a link to the survey here:
https://survey.zohopublic.com/zs/xtCsUX

In short I've been trying to understand what information those who believe in climate change and those who don't, agree on. I think effective conversation begin and end on common ground. With this survey I aspire to find that common ground.

Thanks so much for your time!
14-10-2019 15:09
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
VernerHornung wrote:...we can't even get started on the unsolved pieces. They're falling off the ride in blatant self-contradictions like this:
1) It's not possible to measure temperature.
2) Temperature cannot increase without additional energy.
NO no no Verner we ARE moving forward. ITN/IBD serve of some use in solidifying some arguments. We can and should move forward. (and we are). More skeptics will come, I'm so glad you did. We have done well in debunking BS and those arguments are here for anyone looking.

Now Huffman does not seem to be saying he's totally got Venus figured out, only that where we would expect to find CO2 playing a larger roll (at 1000mb) it is not. Of course there is not ground there radiating up from a solid surface. Do you see that as making is argument of parity false?

Seems to me the Mars scenario lines up with Huffman don't you agree? Low pressure = low effect.

VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Temperature cannot increase without additional energy,...

Test: Run your household furnace with the windows open until it's bone cold. If temperature can't increase without additional energy, then closing the windows won't warm the house. There's no additional energy, just the same furnace.
Excellent and concise! You are good at this Verner!

So tidbit on "Additional Energy". I believe if I'm not mistaken the "Energy" is from the sun, and the "Total Energy" would be how much has come from the sun over time. In the billions of years Earths been in orbit that's a lot. So it's simply not a limiting factor in the equation to say you're limited to the energy from the sun. This reality of the total is painfully clear if you're paying the gas bill for that furnace! Should you attempt to explain this away ITN/IBD kindly explain Venus while you're at it.

VernerHornung wrote:
The bizarre rush to embrace Trump mystifies me.
It makes sense to me having watched Limbaugh and Coulter over the years leading up to him. They would never criticize republicans for running up the deficit or anything along those lines. They used their very sharp wits solely to attack the enemy. It's war. It's not ideology or principles it's about crushing the enemy. They love Trump because Anderson Cooper is having nightmares. They love the misery he is bringing to the enemy.

It clicked for me watching an Iranian cab driver crying on the news when his wife (Muslim) was being kept out of the country after visiting a relative. He said he would probably leave the country for good and I got it! I realized that while CNN was showing this thinking it was evidence of a horrible side effect, I realized it was pay dirt of Trump. They loved those tears, it was the goal! CRUSH THE ENEMY. We are in a civil war of sorts right now.

Into the Night wrote:
The temperature of Venus is unknown.
AND you're a joke.


"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
14-10-2019 17:09
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
IBdaMann wrote:
No instrument has any power to transform any observation into science...

Which is exactly what I said. I love the way you and ITN gaslight everyone here, starting off as if the persons you're replying to had said the exact opposite of what they did say.

IBdaMann wrote:
...nor does any quantity of observations magickally create science.

Quantity of observation matters even if it's not the sole criterion for quality in scientific work. The neat little experimental proofs you find in a high school textbook? None were accomplished overnight. Researchers spend months or years learning how to set up and run an experiment that will show meaningful results; most of their early tries show the effects of confounding variables instead. Once they know how to do it, they run their setup additional months or years collecting data on the variable of interest and on the causes of the setup's experimental error.

Discipline, not magic, is what makes for advances in science.

Into the Night wrote:
Indeed, that thermometer remains in the engine. It is used to control your induction system and cooling system.

The thermometer in your car measures the oil temperature. The thermometers I was talking about, the ones the engineers use when designing an engine block that won't be prone to overheating, are placed at various points on the outside surface of the block, and equations for heat flow used to determine temps inside the block. Those are, basically, the same equations used to infer temperatures on or inside planets.

And in case you haven't noticed while busy bamboozling Harvey, I'm not anxious to see the US force electric cars onto the market prematurely. They still have lots of problems, explosive lithium battery fires among them. But the goal of obtaining a responsible energy policy won't be met by stonewalling and denial of facts, the course Donald Trump's administration has chosen. Policymaking requires compromise and those who refuse to negotiate find every last thing they hate rammed down their throats when their opponents get into power.

Into the Night wrote:
All measurements are against a zero reference point of your choosing, and an offset; using units of your choosing...Measurements or any other observation does not produce 'science'.

We're agreed on both of these points.

Into the Night wrote:
Define 'pollution'. Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. NONE of these phrases has been defined by you.

They've already been defined in the literature. The world scarcely needs definitions for them from me.

Into the Night wrote:
You just keep chanting Holy Mantras of meaningless phrases as if they meant something.

Has it occurred to you there are people who oppose the global warming political agenda without resorting to futile disputes over geophysics the world's best scientists have established over 200 years? There's nothing sacred about it at all, unless you're Bernie Sanders or AOC or someone from C2ES.

Unfortunately, our hot climate of polarization has forced scientists to take stances they might have avoided committing to had a sober forum prevailed, and given the proclivities of academia, they now side with the left. This trend and a millennial fascination with computer models combine to yield faith in models predicting catastrophic weather events and sea level rise. Then the media feast. Leftist wonks demand carbon taxes and mass redistributions of income that have no chance of passage, and the right withdraws the USA from international organs where we could influence deliberations.

What we've gotten is the worst of all possible worlds—an obstinacy that's allowed the utopians of Europe to control debate and coddle harebrained, materials-intensive energy schemes for the developing nations.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
Edited on 14-10-2019 17:19
14-10-2019 19:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote: We have done well in debunking BS and those arguments are here for anyone looking.

Your posts are certainly available for everyone to read and you do a marvellous job at debunking ... just not what you believe you are debunking.

... but I pray you continue. (pray? me?)

tmiddles wrote: Should you attempt to explain this away ITN/IBD kindly explain Venus while you're at it.

... after you explain Mallo Cups.

VernerHornung wrote:The bizarre rush to embrace Trump mystifies me.

... and you have no idea why he was elected. You're flying with blinders on.

tmiddles wrote: It makes sense to me having watched Limbaugh and Coulter over the years leading up to him. They would never criticize republicans for running up the deficit or anything along those lines.

Somebody is clearly lying about "having watched Limbaugh and Coulter over the years." It's more like you embraced whatever Media Matters told you over the years. At least now we know what Media Matters' party line is.

tmiddles wrote: ... I got it! I realized that while CNN was showing this thinking it was evidence of a horrible side effect, I realized it was pay dirt of Trump. They loved those tears, it was the goal! CRUSH THE ENEMY. We are in a civil war of sorts right now.

It wasn't a "realization." For it to be a "realization" it has to be true. You were simply fabricating malfeasance in your mind so you could then bash Trump for the bogus position you had assigned to him. Instead of telling us anything about Trump you told us volumes about yourself.

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The temperature of Venus is unknown.
AND you're a joke.

... and you are a fugging genius.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
14-10-2019 22:16
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
tmiddles wrote:
ITN/IBD serve of some use in solidifying some arguments. We can and should move forward.

They've served me in deciding whether it's time for a visit with my psychiatrist!
~


tmiddles wrote:
Seems to me the Mars scenario lines up with Huffman don't you agree? Low pressure = low effect.

Low pressure does reduce the effect. Mars has lots more CO2 than we do, but it has almost nothing else.

tmiddles wrote:
Of course there is not ground there radiating up from a solid surface. Do you see that as making his argument of parity false?

Not necessarily; the solar heating aloft on Venus hits where the arrow is, and the temperature resumes decreasing linearly with height just above the arrow, as it does just above the surface. So the clouds are absorbing rays coming down from the sun, but this means those rays don't reach the surface. Since the clouds are cooler, they can't heat the surface directly (ITN was right about that). However, they can radiate toward the ground to reduce its rate of heat loss, in the way that house walls radiate toward the people in the room. If you imagine pumping all the air out without imploding your house or killing its occupants—
—then the people will lose less heat by radiation if the walls are at 80˚ than they will if the walls are only 40˚.



Still, this schema requires direct heating of ground, presumably by sunlight, unless perchance there's hot magma lurking immediately below the rocks in one of the eternal surprises scientists must beware of.

Huffman does profess a number of strange ideas related to intelligent design as you may note from his book list.

Huffman-book list
http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/hdhsciences

Yet an ad hominem attack is out of order. Isaac Newton was nuts, too, writing more about theology than he did about optics or gravity. To illustrate how fast an accepted theory can collapse when new evidence is revealed, consider Pearson Education's Jupiter:



Here's another planet with a crushing atmosphere, the way it looked to Pearson in 2011. But it's not what the Galileo descent probe encountered in 1995. There was only one cloud layer where the spacecraft parachuted in, and virtually no ammonium hydrosulfide or water. Six (now 24) years later astronomers are still clinging to the aqueous, triple cloud model with a statement to the effect that Galileo hit a hot spot where the atmosphere is different locally. Yeah, maybe; but we need to confirm that by sending another probe. Until that happens, I'm not so sure. As the postulated water ice clouds are hidden beneath the ammonia, which Galileo's orbiter and earthbound telescopes did see, there's no other way to verify its presence.

The most interesting part of Huffman's post was the comment section and his replies. He invoked Occam's Razor, the principle in science that the simplest theory which accounts for the facts is usually the better. Huff's theory (adiabatic lapse rate controls temperature regardless of how the energy is deposited) is simpler. It deems greenhouse back-radiation an unnecessary ornament, though he seems to extend this too far in another post by denying (as ITN did) that cooler objects can radiate to warmer ones:

Unphysical Greenhouse Effect
http://theendofthemystery.blogspot.com/2010/11/unphysical-greenhouse-effect.html

I believe he made a couple mistakes: An individual molecule has no temperature as far as I know (temperature is a bulk property), and it will "bounce" any ray it absorbs by re-emission in a random direction. Heat still flows up, as it's the top of the atmosphere, not the solid surface, from which outgoing radiation must balance the incoming sunlight.

Nonetheless, I admire Huffman's questioning the herd mentality and indoctrination which have taken over climate studies. The lesson is clear: PhDs regularly trip over the simple Monty Hall Problem in TV game shows. And they've yet to demonstrate a loud signal, over other possible causes and background noise, for the 125 ppm CO2 humans have added since 1750.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
14-10-2019 22:51
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote:I must disagree with you. The sextant can. Without benefit of modern technology it could demonstrate latitudes in the northern hemisphere. That is science (it is something based on evidence/observation and/or calculation) and does not require land.

Unfortunately no, but you are thinking along the right lines. The sextant is technology, a wonder of applied math. It is a calculating device ... but for angles instead of numbers.

The sextant is technology that is based on math and not so much on science. It was designed by Captain John Campbell, a Royal Navy officer, who figured out a way that math could actually be useful. He reasoned that angles could help in maritime navigation, go figure! Today we use modern surveying equipment for terrestiral placement and precision clocks/timepieces for navigation.

The sextant uses observations as inputs (to determine the initial angles) and calculates the position or the vector needed.

I don't think you could have picked a better example.

.



It's kind of sad that all you and itn seem to find interesting is mind games. Do you belong to the same tribe?

Inversion fallacy. It is YOU playing mind games here.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2019 23:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
VernerHornung wrote:...we can't even get started on the unsolved pieces. They're falling off the ride in blatant self-contradictions like this:
1) It's not possible to measure temperature.
2) Temperature cannot increase without additional energy.
NO no no Verner we ARE moving forward.

Making paradox after paradox is moving forward???
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

tmiddles wrote:
ITN/IBD serve of some use in solidifying some arguments.
We can and should move forward. (and we are).

You are both making irrational statements. That's solidifying arguments????
Denying science and mathematics is moving forward????

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

You're gonna have to clear your paradoxes first! Both of you!
tmiddles wrote:
More skeptics will come, I'm so glad you did. We have done well in debunking BS and those arguments are here for anyone looking.

No, he managed to create a few more paradoxes. He hasn't cleared any of them. You have also made your own, and you have cleared none of them.
tmiddles wrote:
Now Huffman does not seem to be saying he's totally got Venus figured out, only that where we would expect to find CO2 playing a larger roll (at 1000mb) it is not. Of course there is not ground there radiating up from a solid surface. Do you see that as making is argument of parity false?

Seems to me the Mars scenario lines up with Huffman don't you agree? Low pressure = low effect.

Pressure does warm a planet. No gas or vapor is capable of warming any planet using IR from that planet's surface.
tmiddles wrote:
So tidbit on "Additional Energy". I believe if I'm not mistaken the "Energy" is from the sun, and the "Total Energy" would be how much has come from the sun over time.

Nope. Total energy is the energy from the Sun.
tmiddles wrote:
In the billions of years Earths been in orbit that's a lot. So it's simply not a limiting factor in the equation to say you're limited to the energy from the sun.

Yes it is.
tmiddles wrote:
This reality of the total is painfully clear if you're paying the gas bill for that furnace!

That fuel comes from the Sun's energy.
tmiddles wrote:
Should you attempt to explain this away ITN/IBD kindly explain Venus while you're at it.

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
It clicked for me watching an Iranian cab driver crying on the news when his wife (Muslim) was being kept out of the country after visiting a relative.

Fake news. It was staged by CNN.
tmiddles wrote:
He said he would probably leave the country for good and I got it! I realized that while CNN was showing this thinking it was evidence of a horrible side effect,

CNN is not evidence of anything. Summarily dismissed as a reference.
tmiddles wrote:
We are in a civil war of sorts right now.

No, but you idiot sure seem to want to start one!

tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
The temperature of Venus is unknown.
AND you're a joke.

YALIF.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2019 23:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
VernerHornung wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
No instrument has any power to transform any observation into science...

Which is exactly what I said.

No, you said quite the opposite. You are now in paradox on this too. Which is it, dude?
VernerHornung wrote:
I love the way you and ITN gaslight everyone here, starting off as if the persons you're replying to had said the exact opposite of what they did say.
VernerHornung wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
...nor does any quantity of observations magickally create science.

Quantity of observation matters even if it's not the sole criterion for quality in scientific work.

Irrational. Which is it, dude?
VernerHornung wrote:
Discipline, not magic, is what makes for advances in science.

Nope. Neither. Falsifiable theories advance science.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Indeed, that thermometer remains in the engine. It is used to control your induction system and cooling system.

The thermometer in your car measures the oil temperature.

That is ANOTHER thermometer left in the engine. Many cars don't measure oil temperature anymore. They use coolant temperature for everything.
VernerHornung wrote:
The thermometers I was talking about, the ones the engineers use when designing an engine block that won't be prone to overheating, are placed at various points on the outside surface of the block,

Nope. They don't need to. The block can handle any temperature any one cylinder can.
VernerHornung wrote:
and equations for heat flow used to determine temps inside the block.

No need for that. The prototype engine is simply built, run until coolant temperature stabilizes, then disassembled and each part is checked for wear with micrometers. If the engine quits prematurely, it is disassembled to find the failed part and determine it's failure mode.
VernerHornung wrote:
Those are, basically, the same equations used to infer temperatures on or inside planets.
VernerHornung wrote:
And in case you haven't noticed while busy bamboozling Harvey, I'm not anxious to see the US force electric cars onto the market prematurely. They still have lots of problems, explosive lithium battery fires among them.

They are not explosive fires. Just an intense class A fire.
VernerHornung wrote:
But the goal of obtaining a responsible energy policy

Such a goal is unconstitutional. Fascism is not constitutional.
VernerHornung wrote:
won't be met by stonewalling and denial of facts,

Not facts. Arguments. Learn what 'fact' means. A 'fact' is not a Universal Truth.
VernerHornung wrote:
the course Donald Trump's administration has chosen.

They've chosen to get out of 'managing' energy. A correct direction. The federal government has no authority there. It was never given that authority by the Constitution.
VernerHornung wrote:
Policymaking requires compromise and those who refuse to negotiate find every last thing they hate rammed down their throats when their opponents get into power.

There is no compromise. The Constitution prevails.
VernerHornung wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
All measurements are against a zero reference point of your choosing, and an offset; using units of your choosing...Measurements or any other observation does not produce 'science'.

We're agreed on both of these points.

Yet you have argued the exact opposite. Which is it, dude? You are in another paradox.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Define 'pollution'. Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. NONE of these phrases has been defined by you.

They've already been defined in the literature. The world scarcely needs definitions for them from me.

Define 'The Literature'. Buzzword fallacy. Void argument fallacy. Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. Define 'pollution'. NONE of these phrases have been defined by you.
VernerHornung wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
You just keep chanting Holy Mantras of meaningless phrases as if they meant something.

Has it occurred to you there are people who oppose the global warming political agenda without resorting to futile disputes over geophysics the world's best scientists have established over 200 years?

There is no such thing as 'settled science'. Age of a theory is not a proof. Consensus is not used in science.
VernerHornung wrote:
There's nothing sacred about it at all, unless you're Bernie Sanders or AOC or someone from C2ES.

No? Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. Define 'pollution'. Define 'The literature'. Only religions worship what they cannot define.
VernerHornung wrote:
Unfortunately, our hot climate of polarization has forced scientists to take stances they might have avoided committing to had a sober forum prevailed, and given the proclivities of academia, they now side with the left.

Word salad. Bigotry.
VernerHornung wrote:
This trend and a millennial fascination with computer models combine to yield faith in models predicting catastrophic weather events and sea level rise. Then the media feast. Leftist wonks demand carbon taxes and mass redistributions of income that have no chance of passage,

Your sect is different, but it's the same religion.
VernerHornung wrote:
and the right withdraws the USA from international organs where we could influence deliberations.

There is nothing to influence. There is nothing to deliberate. The Constitution prevails.
VernerHornung wrote:
What we've gotten is the worst of all possible worlds—an obstinacy that's allowed the utopians of Europe to control debate

Debates have no 'controllers'. If someone is controlling discussion, there is no debate.
VernerHornung wrote:
and coddle harebrained, materials-intensive energy schemes for the developing nations.

Redirection. This isn't about the so-called 'third world'. It is about socialism vs capitalism. It is about theft vs markets.

For the Church of Global Warming, it is about condemnation, censorship, denying science, denying mathematics, chanting the Holy Mantras using undefined phrases and words in the chants. It is about establishing this religion as a state religion, then using it to remove the rest of the Constitution and implement fascism by oligarchy.


The Parrot Killer
14-10-2019 23:55
VernerHornungProfile picture★☆☆☆☆
(123)
tmiddles wrote:
It makes sense to me having watched Limbaugh and Coulter over the years leading up to him.

Coulter used to show ample cleavage in her younger days, but dispensed with it for Treason: Liberal Treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism, a more serious 2003 tome singing the praises of Senator Joseph McCarthy and bringing the word "treason," the only crime actually defined by the US Constitution, into the parade as label for the libby media of William F. Buckley's ire. Though I don't recall Buckley ever called the NY Times a house of traitors.

Thing is, McCarthy wasn't much help in rooting out Soviet spies in the government, a job falling to the FBI. They're the ones who caught Julius & Ethel Rosenberg and Klaus Fuchs for selling our atomic secrets to Stalin. McCarthy went after Hollywood. Then he went after the Army and that was his undoing. The only thing Coulter got right was what we already knew: Stalin, Malenkov and Khrushchev indeed intended to bury the West by any means available to them.

tmiddles wrote:
They would never criticize republicans for running up the deficit or anything along those lines.

Deficit spending, I fear, is a bipartisan habit. Johnson's "guns & butter." Reagan's simultaneous tax cuts & military buildup. G. W. Bush's Iraq. Obama's failure to rein in the costs of the ACA. Bill Clinton was the last prez to preside over a surplus, though the Congresses involved are the correct institution to blame, as the House holds the purse strings.

tmiddles wrote:
It's not ideology or principles...

Best stop before we get to motormouth Limbaugh; I'll gag. They're all Culture Warriors who can't stomach the fact that women have abortions, gays have come out in rainbow and most schools have quit reciting the Pledge of Allegiance that had been routine when I attended. PC is pretty suffocating, capable of real harm through its lack of tolerance. Still, generational thinking shifts in all societies and PC is a picnic beside the enlarged threat of a Russia-China axis as we contemplate the odds Turkey might eventually leave NATO.

tmiddles wrote:
They love the misery he is bringing to the enemy.

It was fun at first. Bill Maher and Rachel Maddow getting an earful of the self-righteousness they dish out to every contrary viewpoint, especially Christians, many of whom care about our world from a deep heart. But the Trump rallies turned into cockfights where the audience would beat down each knot of BLM kids trying to rush the stage and that told me enough about the raw anger Trump was manipulating to eke out a win.

I'm not hopeless for the US yet. I think the advent of social media where people no longer interact in person has facilitated the loss of civility; keyboards let us loose pieces of ugliness we had to keep to ourselves or share in locker rooms in the past.


Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
15-10-2019 00:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
ITN/IBD serve of some use in solidifying some arguments. We can and should move forward.

They've served me in deciding whether it's time for a visit with my psychiatrist!
~

So you DO see a psychiatrist.

VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Seems to me the Mars scenario lines up with Huffman don't you agree? Low pressure = low effect.

Low pressure does reduce the effect. Mars has lots more CO2 than we do, but it has almost nothing else.

Neither pressure nor the presence of any gas warms any planet using IR from that planet's surface.
VernerHornung wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Of course there is not ground there radiating up from a solid surface. Do you see that as making his argument of parity false?

Not necessarily; the solar heating aloft on Venus hits where the arrow is, and the temperature resumes decreasing linearly with height just above the arrow, as it does just above the surface. So the clouds are absorbing rays coming down from the sun, but this means those rays don't reach the surface. Since the clouds are cooler, they can't heat the surface directly (ITN was right about that). However, they can radiate toward the ground to reduce its rate of heat loss, in the way that house walls radiate toward the people in the room. If you imagine pumping all the air out without imploding your house or killing its occupants—
—then the people will lose less heat by radiation if the walls are at 80˚ than they will if the walls are only 40˚.


* You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.
VernerHornung wrote:
Yet an ad hominem attack is out of order. Isaac Newton was nuts, too,

Irrational. Which is it, dude?
VernerHornung wrote:
The most interesting part of Huffman's post was the comment section and his replies. He invoked Occam's Razor, the principle in science that the simplest theory which accounts for the facts is usually the better. Huff's theory (adiabatic lapse rate controls temperature regardless of how the energy is deposited) is simpler. It deems greenhouse back-radiation an unnecessary ornament, though he seems to extend this too far in another post by denying (as ITN did) that cooler objects can radiate to warmer ones:

* You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.
* You cannot decrease entropy in any system.
The 2nd law of thermodynamics is not 'taking things too far'.
VernerHornung wrote:
I believe he made a couple mistakes: An individual molecule has no temperature as far as I know (temperature is a bulk property),

Every molecule has a temperature. Temperature is the average thermal energy of all atoms and molecules in a substance.[/quote]
Set fallacy.
VernerHornung wrote:
and it will "bounce" any ray it absorbs by re-emission in a random direction.

Absorbed photons are DESTROYED. They do not 'bounce'.
VernerHornung wrote:
Heat still flows up, as it's the top of the atmosphere, not the solid surface, from which outgoing radiation must balance the incoming sunlight.

WRONG. Any energy at the surface is balanced leaving the surface. Any energy absorbed by the Earth as a whole also leaves. False equivalence fallacy. You cannot compare two systems as if they were the same system.
VernerHornung wrote:
Nonetheless, I admire Huffman's questioning the herd mentality and indoctrination which have taken over climate studies. The lesson is clear: PhDs regularly trip over the simple Monty Hall Problem in TV game shows. And they've yet to demonstrate a loud signal, over other possible causes and background noise, for the 125 ppm CO2 humans have added since 1750.

No one measuring CO2 in the atmosphere in 1750. CO2 monitoring equipment didn't appear until 1958.
It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 content. We do not have enough stations. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere.


The Parrot Killer
Page 4 of 4<<<234





Join the debate In general...:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Climate change is costing Hydro-Québec millions, director-general says123-04-2019 19:49
▲ 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