17-10-2019 11:09 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600) |
VernerHornung wrote:Into the Night wrote: Question already answered. Pay attention. VernerHornung wrote: There is no station in the Himalayas. VernerHornung wrote: No, dude. Hawaii is surrounded by the ocean. The station is surrounded by volcanoes. VernerHornung wrote: ...and the points where there are no stations is the problem. Of course, Mauna Loa is a problem anyway since they've been caught cooking their data. It's useless. VernerHornung wrote: The ocean isn't carbonated water. VernerHornung wrote: There is one CO monitoring station in the Antarctic, operated by the United States. This is on a continent that is that is larger than the continental United States. VernerHornung wrote: Argument from randU fallacy. There is no record of global or even hemispheric CO2 concentration. VernerHornung wrote: There are no European stations. There is one in Asia, operated by the Russians. The only other stations besides Mauna Loa and the two I already mentioned are at Samoa, and another at Barrow, AK. Both marine environments. 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 |
01-11-2019 14:17 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
VernerHornung wrote:our hot climate of polarization has forced scientists to take stances they might have avoided committing to had a sober forum prevailed, ... Amen. The loons don't realize they are the best thing that every happened to their opponents. This film: PROMISED LAND Film has an interesting sub plot. An "opponent" comes in that's really a plant to ensure victory. They make their case but are discredicted. All the peoople who lined up behind them go down with the ship. VernerHornung wrote:I think the term "Heat" to often implies more than it should. Radiance from a cooler object can be absorbed and transformed into thermal energy by a hotter object. YET! A cooler object cannot "HEAT" a hotter object because that would mean increasing it's total thermal energy, and the hotter object will give up more than it gets. But it's misleading to not point out that the absorption occures. VernerHornung wrote:I don't think so. It's not an attack it's an observation. It's not practical to dig into everything someone presents. It's useful to know what their agenda is and do a more pointed BS test. VernerHornung wrote:Now this is very interesting. He seems to sort of suggest it in an offhand way without a citation or explanation. Certainly not presenting it as a poison pill to the entirety of his research. "Oh and by the way everyone no point to any of this since back radiation is impossible". I think I'll send him a message! He can't be too busy he's floating lonely out there in cyber space. VernerHornung wrote:That's very good to point out. I really like Planck describing molecules crashing into each other. Max Planck wrote:Pg.190 VernerHornung wrote:It's the only way to get anywhere right? A failed experiment can do more to further science than a successful one. Like the failed Michelson–Morley attempt to find the ether. VernerHornung wrote:Hey now Verner, the guys a drug addict, he's hopped up on pills, show a little consideration for his disability ; )tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote:History and our own grade school experiences teach us that cruelty is easy to find in humanity. We need our leaders to help society control it. There's yelling fire in a crowded theater and then there is passing out torches. I do think the left is still not accepting their roll in goading the opposition though. I identify with them and they make me sick.tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote:Besides a simple check on the math of buring sequestered carbon means an increase should be expected. It would be a pretty exotic theory on how it wouldn't increase right? HarveyH55 wrote:Do you not believe Venus is Warmer than Mercury Harvey? Given your statement that would be like getting a perpetual motion machine of your very own from Walmart tomorrow wouldn't it? Venus is warmer than Mercury. Mercury is closer to the sun. Warming happens. Oh and we're warmer than the moon. (we have been there too). "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 |
01-11-2019 15:50 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416) |
tmiddles wrote: Oh and we're warmer than the moon. Water boils at 100degC/212degF. Right now, at this very moment, a sizeable portion of the moon's surface is substantially above 116degC/240degF. No place on the surface of the earth has ever recorded such temperatures. This is generally accepted as the atmosphere's powerful refrigeration affect keeping the earth's surface much cooler than extreme temperatures baking the moon's surface. . 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 |
01-11-2019 16:48 | |
keepit★★★★★ (3060) |
I'm not an expert on this but it seems to me that here are 2 ways (at least) to warm an object - kinetic energy from molecules bumping each other. This is where a cool object can't heat a warmer object - ok, that may be so but the other way to heat an object is through radiation energy. This can heat any? object. And that is how the atmosphere is warmed. There could be flaws in this - have at it IBDM and ITN, but you could get tripped up in your attack.
Edited on 01-11-2019 16:51 |
01-11-2019 20:10 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600) |
keepit wrote: You cannot heat any warmer object using a cooler one. Entropy cannot be decreased in any system. You can't do it by conduction, you can't do it by convection, and you can't do it by radiance. You can't do it. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
02-11-2019 00:38 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles wrote: Oh and we're warmer than the moon....the atmosphere's powerful refrigeration affect Define temperature IBD. The EARTH's ground level has a HIGHER "TEMPERATURE" than the Moon's ground level. And no temperature is not something you cherry pick. It's not defined that way. Well maybe in the oral tradition when you learned on the streets, but if so you learned wrong. a measure of the average kinetic energy of the particles in an object, So yeah, outerspace isn't warmer than Earth either. But you know this you're just trying to kill debate. One more wasted moment with the dictionary instead of actually discussing something. keepit wrote:... 2 ways (at least) to warm an object - kinetic energy from molecules bumping each other. ...other way to heat an object is through radiation energy.ITN/IBD become very quiet when you ask them what happens to radiance from a cooler object when it reaches a warmer one. The only options by the way are: 1- Absorption 2- Reflection 3- Transmission "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 |
02-11-2019 01:56 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600) |
tmiddles wrote:RQAA.IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles wrote: Oh and we're warmer than the moon....the atmosphere's powerful refrigeration affect tmiddles wrote:RDCF. tmiddles wrote:Non-sequitur fallacy. tmiddles wrote:RDCF. tmiddles wrote:So what is the temperature of a baseball at 60mph? tmiddles wrote:Space has no temperature. tmiddles wrote:Thought terminating cliche fallacy. tmiddles wrote:Non-sequitur fallacy. Void argument fallacy. tmiddles wrote:Nothing.keepit wrote:... 2 ways (at least) to warm an object - kinetic energy from molecules bumping each other. ...other way to heat an object is through radiation energy.ITN/IBD become very quiet when you ask them what happens to radiance from a cooler object when it reaches a warmer one. tmiddles wrote: Usually it is reflected or the photon might just pass right on by (transparent). RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 02-11-2019 01:57 |
02-11-2019 11:50 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:tmiddles wrote: ITN/IBD become very quiet when you ask them what happens to radiance from a cooler object when it reaches a warmer one.Nothing.tmiddles wrote: Here we have the classic setup from the text book Radiation Heat Transfer - The Finite Element Method in Engineering (Fifth Edition) by Singiresu S.Rao: So ITN you're claiming that with two plates facing each other that the radiance from the cooler plate is "usually" reflected right back or maybe, even though it's a low frequency radiance, it's transmitted right through? Now just to simplify your insanity you believe this is also true of two objects at thermal equilibrium correct? Heck let's cut to the chase. You believe that matter at say 100 C radiating to other matter also at 100 C will not have that radiance absorbed but instead reflect right? So if I have a hollow box at 100 C, the walls inside will radiate but that radiance cannot be absorbed but will be reflected right? So you have a box that continues to radiate but the radiance inside cannot be absorbed or escape? It would just build and build? I won't waste time trying to get any citations from you. I know the ITN/IBD oral tradition. My 12 references on NET radiative heat transfer. "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 |
03-11-2019 19:20 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600) |
tmiddles wrote:You cannot create energy out of nothing. Whatever is radiating does not stay at the same temperature.Into the Night wrote:tmiddles wrote: ITN/IBD become very quiet when you ask them what happens to radiance from a cooler object when it reaches a warmer one.Nothing.tmiddles wrote: tmiddles wrote:It can be absorbed. tmiddles wrote: You can't create energy out of nothing. tmiddles wrote: I already provided them. You ignore and deny them. RQAA. 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 |
04-11-2019 08:04 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:Well well well! So two objects at equilibrium have their radiance absorbed by one another you'll admit? It "can be" ? Or it is?tmiddles wrote:It can be absorbed. Isn't thermal energy causing radiance to leave one surface, radiating to another surface, and having that radiance absorbed by the other surface a transfer of thermal energy? Are you actually acknowledging that two objects in thermal equilibrium do that? That they exchange thermal energy through radiance? "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 |
04-11-2019 17:30 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:Well well well! So two objects at equilibrium have their radiance absorbed by one another you'll admit? It "can be" ? Or it is?tmiddles wrote:It can be absorbed. You forgot to read the rest of the answer. RQAA. 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 |
04-11-2019 17:39 | |
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416) |
tmiddles wrote: Well well well! So two objects at equilibrium have their radiance absorbed by one another you'll admit? ... the clear indication that you have completely misunderstood everything up to this point. Of course, you could have avoided your complete misunderstanding at any point if you hadn't been so utterly lazy that you wouldn't read some previous posts that contained all the answers to all of your questions. Anyway, carry on. . 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 |
05-11-2019 05:20 | |
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:...some previous posts that contained all the answers... Wow! ALL the answers. Such a golden easter egg hidden somewhere. Oh if only someone would link to it! Into the Night wrote: Oh this unfindable answer game is your favorite ITN/IBD! The nonexistent "previous post" that supposedly had an answer. Let's see ITN, here is the rest of your answer above: Into the Night wrote: Into the Night wrote: Into the Night wrote: Nope, don't see anything there. "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 |
05-11-2019 18:01 | |
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...some previous posts that contained all the answers... Already did. RQAA. tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote: RDCF. RQAA. 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 |
Threads | Replies | Last post |
General motors buys 20 million parts a month from china | 0 | 28-12-2023 19:18 |
General Question in General Forum. | 158 | 18-06-2023 10:00 |
Climate change is costing Hydro-Québec millions, director-general says | 1 | 23-04-2019 19:49 |