Remember me
▼ Content

In general...



Page 3 of 4<1234>
07-10-2019 19:20
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Harry C wrote:
[quote=Into The Night]There is actually no such thing as 'global weather'. Weather is just a combination of wind speed and direction, precipitation (if any), cloud cover, temperature, humidity, barometric pressure; all quantifiable values.


I understand what you're saying. It was again my lazy, non scientific verbiage that tripped me up. Let's try this.
The science of Climate Change has discovered the majority of the independent variables required to predict the dependent weather variables at any time and any point on the earth in the future.

I wrote that paragraph about 10 different ways and see what you mean about defining Climate Change. What does it do that doesn't require pieces of itself to function. Just the timing alone is impossible. And if you knew, you would be king of the world or an evil villain!


I know, the language is still not precise enough.

[quote=Into The Night]Since CO2 is not a source of energy, it does not add additional energy to Earth.[/quote]
A light bulb moment realizing the difference between energy and temperature change.[/quote]

Excellent. You're getting it!


The Parrot Killer
07-10-2019 19:23
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Harry C wrote:
The science of Climate Change has discovered the majority of the independent variables required to predict the dependent weather variables at any time and any point on the earth in the future.

There is no science of Climate Change. There are only anti-science beliefs that run counter to physics.

Of course we understand the dependent variables of weather. What is needed is an unambiguous definition of "Climate".

[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


.

You missed a bit. He is describing temperature change, not temperature. Temperature change requires heat, which is not energy in and of itself.


The Parrot Killer
07-10-2019 19:45
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
I'm learning, as I think you are too. I agree with some of the things you've written. I believe you wrote that temperature doesn't follow an increase in CO2. I f I have that wrong, my apologies.

tmiddles wrote:
"temperature" is not a measure of the amount of thermal energy coming and going, it is a measure of the amount of thermal energy present. An atmosphere acts as a maze of tiny bodies that radiance and thermal energy must ping pong through on their way in and out and it results in more thermal energy being present. Every planet has a higher ground level temperature than it should (given it's distance from the sun) corresponding to how much of an atmosphere it has.


I only quoted the above because it's in the thread where you replied to me. But I want to go back to one thing that troubles me. In your disputes with ITN and IBDM, you vehemently disagree with them about the flow of heat from a cooler to warmer body. In another thread you quoted some textbook sources as a foundation for your position. I looked through some of them and I didn't understand anything that supported that proposition (and I'm not saying I'm correct, just that I couldn't follow it), but perhaps because it had to do with body physics. But there was another link you posted in your quest to find another physics explanation about the subject and Plank that led to your posting of this https://www.miniphysics.com/uy1-planck-radiation-law-and-wien.html. In two clicks on that site, I came to this: https://www.miniphysics.com/uy1-basic-concepts-of-thermal-energy.html.
Heat and Thermal Energy

Heat is energy in transit that flows from the hotter body to the colder body. In Physics, "heat" is a flow quantity and not a property of an object. Heat flows into or out of an object. This heat comes from/goes into the heat energy or thermal energy of the object. Thermal energy is one of the components of internal energy.

Heat is just a form of energy and can be converted from mechanical energy. Although the idea that heat energy and mechanical energy are connected was first suggested by Benjamin Thomson (1753-1814), Joule established the equivalence of these two forms of energies experimentally.


I'm only posting this as a friend to the cause. I'd really love to close the gap of understanding whether it be mine or someone else's.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
07-10-2019 19:57
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
IBdaMann wrote:
[quote]Harry C wrote:
The science of Climate Change has discovered the majority of the independent variables required to predict the dependent weather variables at any time and any point on the earth in the future.

There is no science of Climate Change. There are only anti-science beliefs that run counter to physics.

I was just trying the exercise to define the term so I could understand the impossibility of it.

IBdaMann wrote:
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


I understand. But before he light bulb went on, to my lay eyes, it seemed like temperature was somewhat native to the earth and that the sun's role was to modulate the native temperature. It took on a new meaning to me. I'm swimming as fast as I can.



You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
07-10-2019 20:02
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
Both itn & mini-itn ...their logic is not falsifiable.
Good point! Actually it's been falsified over and over but the imagination is a powerful thing!

It is not possible to falsify logic. That's like falsifying mathematics. No one owns logic or mathematics, not even me or IBdaMann. You are just denying both logic and mathematics.

tmiddles wrote:
...deleted irrelevant and unrelated material...
Detecting BS is often much easier. Part of the process here for me is to clear away the debris and look at what we have so far.

No, you add debris and BS.
tmiddles wrote:
For the me the sum up is: This is a very complex issue scientifically and the proposed plans of action are extremely inconvenient and expensive. The stakes if there is a problem, which is certainly plausible at this point, are even more expensive. So here we are.

Appeal to complexity fallacy. Pascal's Wager fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
I do believe the CO2 ppm data is accurate

It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. A couple dozen stations is insufficient information.
tmiddles wrote:
and that we've had a steep increase

Not even Mauna Loa records that., and they are cooking their data. It's useless.
tmiddles wrote:
and that, looking back just 100 years

No one was measuring atmospheric CO2 before 1958.
tmiddles wrote:
and then forward 500 years,

* Statistical mathematics is incapable of prediction.
* You have no idea what any data collected will be 500 years from now. Put away your Holy Entrails.
tmiddles wrote:
it seems likely we would continue to increase it even more dramatically. So it needs to be taken seriously.

Pascal's Wager fallacy.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't trap or store heat.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one.
* You can't decrease entropy in any system.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:the audacity of people to think they know enough about it to consider the science of that flimsy model "settled".
I agree completely. It is FAR from settled but even if it were close we should be just as aggressive about questioning it. The stakes are extremely high.
...deleted unrelated material...
I really do believe that getting not only at the fact but at a way of being able to understand and explain them is worthwhile for us regular folks.

Pascal's Wager fallacy. Try English. It works better.
tmiddles wrote:
And this issue isn't settled science anyway. Most of all it's important to call BS in this Trump era where it flows like big brown rivers everywhere. Sanity matters! Let's fight for it!

The usual Trump bashing.
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Truth/facts, have more to do with you perception/beliefs.
No they don't. What people say about them maybe. There is a reality there and nothing we SAY changes it. What's wonderful about science is it's an activity that allows us to discover that truth in spite of what we want it to be.

You are denying science. You are intentionally trying refer to your religion as 'science'. You deny mathematics. You deny logic.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote: (tmiddles)... repetitiously uses undefined and contrived 'models' to prove the Stefan-Boltzmann law and 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics are wrong,...
I simply picked up a textbook and posted a problem from it. I DID look online (I googled!) not for global warming but for fundamental thermodynamics you and IBD claimed were wrong. I found 12 references that debunk you. You two presented nothing. You've been lying to this board for 5 years.

Harry C and anyone reading this. Let's be crystal clear. This is a lie invented by these clowns and you won't find it supported anywhere:

No you contrived a problem from a textbook taken article taken out of context. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object
This little nugget of PURE BS was invented to try to claim that a greenhouse effect is impossible. It's dishonest, lame and weird.

Now you are just denying quantum mechanics in general. You are also changing was was said again. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Only the Sun provides Earth's energy. Using CO2 to raise the temperature violates the 1st law of
thermodynamics (and the conservation of energy law).
Here ITN is claiming it's not possible for an atmosphere to result in an increase average ground level temperature. He won't explain why the Moon has a lower temp

It doesn't. The measured temperatures on the daylit side of the Moon are far higher than any measure temperature on the daylit side of Earth. Yet Earth has 'magick warming gases' while the Moon doesn't. How do you explain this paradox, tmiddles?
tmiddles wrote:
or why Venus has a crazy high temp.

The temperature of Venus is unknown. One thermometer does not measure the temperature of a planet.
tmiddles wrote:
He will say we know nothing about anything so we can't talk about it.

We don't know the temperature of Venus, so there is nothing to talk about except your fantasy.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Venus/Mercury
yet another thing that nobody knows but you claim you nonetheless know
I know that Venus has a hotter ground level than Mercury, yes. So does everyone else that doesn't think the Russians, Japanese and American space programs conspired to falsify the data for no reason at all.

We don't know the ground temperature of either planet. One thermometer does not measure planet wide ground temperature.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:This example from a text book is simple. You and IBD have never had an answer for it.

Oh, this example? ... the one for which you killed the discussion .
The topic is there with your failure to engage with it at all. So IBD what happens to the radiance from the room your in right now when it reaches your skin?

RQAA. RDCF.


The Parrot Killer
07-10-2019 20:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:...I've broken down a global temperature graph since the 1880's. In using 30 years as a minimum period of time, there is no relationship between CO2 levels and global warming.
OK so I didn't really follow the first part of your post but as for CO2 and Temp correlating I'd say this:

I agree with Pat Franks that we can't say we know within fractions of a degree what the temperature has been going back to the 1800s

We don't have a global temperature record at all. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
tmiddles wrote:
That doesn't prevent us from judging those advocating for AGW using those charts to question their confidence.

Yet you are advocating for AGW. Which is it, dude?
tmiddles wrote:
I don't believe they are just making up numbers but that there is massive overconfidence. Attacking overconfidence is an important step. So using the charts that are thrown around it IS clear there is no correlation evident between CO2 and Temperature (as presented) in the near term.

It seems there are two possibilities:
1- CO2 is not causing a global warming
2- It is but the effect is delayed.

What is the mechanism for this magick 'delay'? How long is it? How are you measuring the global atmosheric CO2 content or the Earth's temperature?
tmiddles wrote:
So we have short predictions:
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-emissions-peak-heat-18394
But OOPS we don't see temp following CO2 after 10 years at all.

There is no global temperature record.
tmiddles wrote:
And it looks like 30 years is the standard:

Why 30 years? Why not any other length of time?
tmiddles wrote:
Only by looking at long-term trends - 30 years is the standard period in climate science - can we measure surface temperature increases accurately, and distinguish them from short-term natural variation.

You can't measure a trend if you can't measure global temperature. Base rate fallacy. Why 30 years? Why not any other time interval? Which 30 years?
tmiddles wrote:
It does make sense you'd have a cummulative effect.

The math I had on CO2 had it accounting for: "CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063)."

So CO2 doubling to 800 ppm would bring about 1.8 degrees of warming.

Irrational.
1) Adding CO2 increase temperature.
2) Adding CO2 does not increase temperature.
Which is it dude?
tmiddles wrote:
Basically you're talking about a very small change, 10 years delayed, it's just not going to show a SPIKE in temperature due to a SPIKE in CO2.

Why? What is this magick delay? What causes it? How long is it? Explain 'greenhouse effect' without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


The Parrot Killer
07-10-2019 21:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:...I've broken down a global temperature graph since the 1880's. In using 30 years as a minimum period of time, there is no relationship between CO2 levels and global warming.
OK so I didn't really follow the first part of your post but as for CO2 and Temp correlating I'd say this:

I agree with Pat Franks that we can't say we know within fractions of a degree what the temperature has been going back to the 1800s

That doesn't prevent us from judging those advocating for AGW using those charts to question their confidence.

I don't believe they are just making up numbers but that there is massive overconfidence. Attacking overconfidence is an important step. So using the charts that are thrown around it IS clear there is no correlation evident between CO2 and Temperature (as presented) in the near term.

It seems there are two possibilities:
1- CO2 is not causing a global warming
2- It is but the effect is delayed.

So we have short predictions:
https://www.climatecentral.org/news/co2-emissions-peak-heat-18394
But OOPS we don't see temp following CO2 after 10 years at all.


And it looks like 30 years is the standard:
Only by looking at long-term trends - 30 years is the standard period in climate science - can we measure surface temperature increases accurately, and distinguish them from short-term natural variation.

They make in important point: "The rate at which surface temperatures go up is not proportional to the rate of CO2 emissions, but to the total amount of atmospheric CO2 added since the start of the industrial revolution."

It does make sense you'd have a cummulative effect. The math I had on CO2 had it accounting for: "CO2 is 0.04/2.6= 0.015 of that, so responsible for 0.63% of the total air temperature (0.015 * 0.42 = 0.0063)."

So CO2 doubling to 800 ppm would bring about 1.8 degrees of warming.

Basically you're talking about a very small change, 10 years delayed, it's just not going to show a SPIKE in temperature due to a SPIKE in CO2.

"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 have the faith. Scientists can understand what the weather was like to a high degree because of record keeping by ship's captains and people who lived in the area. This can help to understand core samples in the oceans and on land because they would have a base line to go by.
That's how science is supposed to be done. With CO2, cooling and no temperature change should have some type of noticeable relationship with elevated CO2 levels but don't. Kind of why I spend my time considering other possibilities where certain relationships could be made known.

https://photos.app.goo.gl/1afjB3m6y57bwNq78

And this graph of ozone depletion pretty much agrees with warming for it's time frame. But that's just a coincidence, right?

https://images.app.goo.gl/JSdBo7r717iqrqLq8


No ship captain ever measured the global temperature.
No ship captain ever measured the weather around anything but his own ship.
No ship captain ever measured the global CO2 in the atmosphere.
The ozone is not being depleted. It never was.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 07-10-2019 21:21
07-10-2019 21:30
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
They write reasonably well, and clearly have a lot of time on there hands to respond with the verbage they churn out on a daily basis, ITN and ibdaman must have the ability and time to learn what the basics of physics actually are. I can only assume that it's some sort of joke they share and I'm afraid that Harry C is a victim of it if he really believes that he can learn anything useful from interacting with that pair.
07-10-2019 22:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
spot wrote: They write reasonably well, and clearly have a lot of time on there hands to respond with the verbage they churn out on a daily basis, ITN and ibdaman must have the ability and time to learn what the basics of physics actually are. I can only assume that it's some sort of joke they share and I'm afraid that Harry C is a victim of it if he really believes that he can learn anything useful from interacting with that pair.

Spot! It is ALWAYS great to see you chiming in from the peanut gallery. Your appearances are seldom frequent enough.

... oh, and when you get a chance, I would consider it a personal favor if you would actually add some content to your posts. Man, that would be icing on D cake!

Rock on!


.


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
08-10-2019 00:10
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: They write reasonably well, and clearly have a lot of time on there hands to respond with the verbage they churn out on a daily basis, ITN and ibdaman must have the ability and time to learn what the basics of physics actually are. I can only assume that it's some sort of joke they share and I'm afraid that Harry C is a victim of it if he really believes that he can learn anything useful from interacting with that pair.

Spot! It is ALWAYS great to see you chiming in from the peanut gallery. Your appearances are seldom frequent enough.

... oh, and when you get a chance, I would consider it a personal favor if you would actually add some content to your posts. Man, that would be icing on D cake!

Rock on!


.


As if you are interested in what anyone else writes, you already know everything so what's the point of explaining classical physics to you when your Gnostic Physics supersedes it.

See I can coin phrases as well, can you work out what I mean or shall I explain it to you?


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
08-10-2019 01:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
spot wrote:As if you are interested in what anyone else writes, you already know everything so what's the point of explaining classical physics to you when your Gnostic Physics supersedes it.

Oh spot, you are such a kidder. You know it always brightens my day when your posts grace this site, and today is no different. If I haven't thanked you already, please allow me to correct that oversight ...

spot, ... thank you.


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
08-10-2019 02:42
keepit
★★★☆☆
(598)
"What happens to the radiance from the room?"
The thermal energy from the cooler room slows down the decrease in temp of the body that the body would experience if the room were much cooler. The cooler room isn't heating up the warmer body as some would say, but the cooler room is merely slowing the cooling that would otherwise happen.
08-10-2019 07:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: This is a very complex issue scientifically
Nope. It's a very simple ...
Ha ha ha, you have no explanation though! You claim we don't know that the Earth is roughly 30 degrees warmer than it would be without an atmosphere (30 degrees more than the moon).

You say it's "Simple" but you can't make any sense of it. And by the way I'm not stopping you, go ahead and try.

IBdaMann wrote:
...the laws of thermodynamics.
ITN/IBD debunked already (in signature)

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: So IBD what happens to the radiance from the room your in right now when it reaches your skin?
...re-engage the conversation?
Nope that's still not answer.
I'll help you it's a multiple choice:
A ) Absrobed
B ) Reflected
C ) Transmitted
D ) A combination of the above

Harry C wrote:I believe you wrote that temperature doesn't follow an increase in CO2.
I don't know but it seems safe to say that the temperature isn't dominated by CO2 by a long shot. We had extreme heat waves in the 1930s in the US and CO2 wasn't doing much of anything in the 20's and 30's so that was due to something else.
The heat wave index from the EPA going back a ways:

EPA

Harry C wrote:In your disputes with ITN and IBDM, you vehemently disagree with them about the flow of heat from a cooler to warmer body.
Oh no! They have tried mightily to pretend that's the dissagreement. ITN/IBD contend that "net flow" doesn't exist, that a hotter body cannot absorb thermal energy from a cooler one. "Net flow" is ALWAYS from a hotter to a colder body. I simply agree with Pierre Provost 239 years ago, Max Planck and everyone in the scientific community that thermal energy is exchanged between a cooler and warmer body. Every one of the 12 references I presented teaches that. "HEAT" is "Net Flow" and "HEAT" is always from a hotter to a cooler body, every time. This is how you find it in plain speach:
A cooler body is putting out thermal energy, A hotter body is putting out more thermal energy, they absorb each others thermal energy, because the hotter body has more the net flow is from hot to cold.
Harry C wrote:
Heat and Thermal Energy
...This heat comes from/goes into the heat energy or thermal energy of the object. Thermal energy is one of the components of internal energy....
They make a nice distinction between thermal energy and "heat". You could have a tremendous amount of thermal energy (imagine a red hot slab of steel in a red hot furnace) and very little heat because there is little difference between the very high temperatures of two bodies so there is little "Net Flow". Now imagine that red hot steel, don't you believe that thermal energy is coursing through it feverishly? It's just not making any difference in terms of a "Net flow" of thermal energy because every part of the matter is giving up as much as it gets (equilibrium).

Into the Night wrote:
...One thermometer does not measure...
Yes yes ITN, nothing can be done, got it.

spot wrote:...ITN and ibdaman must have the ability and time to learn what the basics of physics actually are...
This is what makes them horrible people. Seriously it's appropriate to call out reprehensible conduct. They have been lying for 5 years and they know they are lying.

spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...some content ...
...your Gnostic Physics...
Oh nicely put! ITN/IBD are like flat Earthers with how ratified their strange beliefs are. But then they were learned in the oral tradition like any good gnostic. Whispered on the streets! No books allowed.

keepit wrote:...The cooler room isn't heating up the warmer body ....
It is not increasing it's temperature because the body is giving out more thermal energy than it is getting in return.

The key point is that the radiance from the room is absorbed. Not reflect, not transmitted, no back flips, nothing weird. Just absorbed as Pierre Provost pointed out 239 years ago.

"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
RE: Goodbye for now!08-10-2019 15:02
Harry C
☆☆☆☆☆
(32)
I have a massive list of research that I have compiled from my time on here. I have an approach that I want to try for myself to reinforce my beliefs. First and foremost are the terms. I seem to stumble all over myself trying to use what I think are terms that will get me what I need. I seem to need more scientific terms in my vocabulary. But second is the second law of thermodynamics versus the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. I want to further explore that relationship. I'm sure I'll be lurking.

Thanks to all who have either indulged or stimulated my thoughts.


You learn something new every day if you are lucky!
08-10-2019 16:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Harry C wrote:
I have a massive list of research that I have compiled from my time on here. I have an approach that I want to try for myself to reinforce my beliefs. First and foremost are the terms. I seem to stumble all over myself trying to use what I think are terms that will get me what I need. I seem to need more scientific terms in my vocabulary. But second is the second law of thermodynamics versus the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. I want to further explore that relationship. I'm sure I'll be lurking.

It appears that you believe that there is an effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is the false belief that will undo all your efforts to understand any bigger picture.

There is no effect. That is what you will come to realize if you learn Stefan-Boltzmann and the laws of thermodynamics.

.


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
08-10-2019 18:27
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
IBdaMann wrote:

It appears that you believe that there is an effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is the false belief that will undo all your efforts to understand any bigger picture.

There is no effect. That is what you will come to realize if you learn Stefan-Boltzmann and the laws of thermodynamics.

.


Still selling that crock of ****

With the 'Joker' and 'IT' it seems nasty clowns are popular at the moment.

It's your time to shine.


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
08-10-2019 19:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
spot wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

It appears that you believe that there is an effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. That is the false belief that will undo all your efforts to understand any bigger picture.

There is no effect. That is what you will come to realize if you learn Stefan-Boltzmann and the laws of thermodynamics.

.


Still selling that crock of ****

With the 'Joker' and 'IT' it seems nasty clowns are popular at the moment.

It's your time to shine.


Oooops, my bad! This is why you always check first to make sure there are no children in the room before you mention that there is no Santa Claus.

spot, I apologize, I didn't know you were there reading posts. I should have been more careful.

.


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
08-10-2019 19:33
spot
★★★★☆
(1077)
If you are annoyed at being ridiculed perhaps you should stop posting ridiculous things all the time.


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


Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
08-10-2019 19:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
spot wrote: If you are annoyed at being ridiculed perhaps you should stop posting ridiculous things all the time.

Who do you believe is effectively ridiculing me?

Have I mentioned that it's great to have you chiming in from the peanut gallery? If not, allow me to correct the oversight.

spot, it is absolutely fabulous to have you chiming in. The only downside is that some might have peanut allergies.

.


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
08-10-2019 19:55
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
Harry C wrote:
I have a massive list of research that I have compiled from my time on here. I have an approach that I want to try for myself to reinforce my beliefs. First and foremost are the terms. I seem to stumble all over myself trying to use what I think are terms that will get me what I need. I seem to need more scientific terms in my vocabulary. But second is the second law of thermodynamics versus the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. I want to further explore that relationship. I'm sure I'll be lurking.

Thanks to all who have either indulged or stimulated my thoughts.


CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth using IR emitted from Earth's surface.

A typical part of the 'greenhouse effect' argument is to say that CO2 (or some other magick gas) is capable of warming the surface of the Earth.

The atmosphere is generally colder than the surface. To do this, CO2 would have to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics by using a colder gas to heat a warmer surface.

* entropy cannot be decreased in any system (2nd law of thermodynamics).
* heat flows only from hot to cold, never the reverse (2nd law of thermodynamics).

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t)
where e is entropy and t is time.


The Parrot Killer
08-10-2019 20:01
keepit
★★★☆☆
(598)
Who ever said CO2 warms the earth?
08-10-2019 20:06
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
keepit wrote: Who ever said CO2 warms the earth?

Warmizombies and Climate-lemmings alike.

The WACKY religious dogma proscribes a rigid belief that CO2, by virtue of having been declared a greenhouse gas (a religious term) generates Greenhouse Effect which causes Global Warming.

I know many warmizombies and Climate-lemmings personally and I am an expert on their faith. If you have any questions, do not hesitate to ask.

.


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
08-10-2019 22:07
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1347)
keepit wrote:
Who ever said CO2 warms the earth?


Al Gore, he won a Nobel Prize for it.
08-10-2019 23:12
James___
★★★★☆
(1584)
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
Who ever said CO2 warms the earth?


Al Gore, he won a Nobel Prize for it.



Why are you so fixated on Democrats? Is it necessary to oppress people with opposing views? It wasn't AL Gore who said that CO2 was warming our planet.
08-10-2019 23:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
Who ever said CO2 warms the earth?


Al Gore, he won a Nobel Prize for it.



Why are you so fixated on Democrats?

Because Democrats today are fascists and communists. They want to overthrow the Constitution of the United States and replace it with an oligarchy or dictatorship.
James___ wrote:
Is it necessary to oppress people with opposing views?

Yes. It is worth it to save the Constitution of the United States and of the several States.
James___ wrote:
It wasn't AL Gore who said that CO2 was warming our planet.

Yes it was, just all the others that say CO2 is warming our planet.
* You can't create energy out of nothing.
* You can't trap or slow heat.
* You can't trap light.
* You can't reduce entropy in any system.
* You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one.
* You can't reduce the radiance of Earth and increase its temperature at the same time.
No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using IR emitted from Earth's surface.

Democrats want to:
* pass federal laws to limit free speech, in violation of the 1st amendment.
* pass federal laws to make the Church of Global Warming and the Church of Green state religions, in violation of the 1st amendment.
* pass laws to take away guns, in violation of the 2nd amendment.
* pass laws to fill out government forms to make yourself a witness to your own future crime of owning a gun, in violation of the 5th amendment, and to build a dossier on citizens that own guns, in violation of the 4th amendment.
* usurp federal power over the States, in violation of the 9th and 10th amendments and Article I.
* ignore the electoral college when choosing a President, in violation of Article II.
* use the Supreme Court to overrule the Constitution, in violation of Article III.
* use the House as judge, jury, and executioner, in violation of Articles I, II, and III.
* pass federal laws to manipulate markets, designate markets, and place oligarchies in charge of such manipulations and designations, in violation of Article I.
* pass federal laws to favor one race over another, in violation of the 14th amendment.
* use taxes to punish the rich, in violation of Article I and the 16th amendment.

Put them out of office. Oppress them. Such deserve NO voice in America.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 08-10-2019 23:51
09-10-2019 01:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
James___ wrote:Why are you so fixated on Democrats?

When you see Hitler rising, you drop everything else, except for Marxists who zeig heil and just try to be on the winning side and not piss off DNC-Fuerer.

The Democrats are the Third Reich 2.0 .... or does that make them the Fourth Reich? Fortunately we have Trump at the right time to be Winston Churchill 2.0

James___ wrote: It wasn't AL Gore who said that CO2 was warming our planet.

It would appear that you slept through the last 25 years.

.


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
09-10-2019 05:44
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1347)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
Who ever said CO2 warms the earth?


Al Gore, he won a Nobel Prize for it.



Why are you so fixated on Democrats? Is it necessary to oppress people with opposing views? It wasn't AL Gore who said that CO2 was warming our planet.


Did you not watch his movie? It won an academy award. Don't feel defensive, I didn't watch much of it, although I did make the attempt, once or twice. I didn't think it was all that great, but I don't really get into watching any sort of movie much. I get side-track easy, when most anything gets a little slow, or commercial breaks. Before I know it, it's mostly over.

Al Gore did bring global warming out of the computer lab, and give it to the rubes. Probably the same computer lab he used to invent the internet... Al Gore didn't actually invent the internet, it already existed when he was just kid. He simply took took it out of the universities and institutions, and gave the average person access to pornography, and a bunch of things available online. Most importantly, he made a lot of money off dot-COMs. I'm sure he's making a lot of money of global warming as well.
09-10-2019 06:21
James___
★★★★☆
(1584)
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
Who ever said CO2 warms the earth?


Al Gore, he won a Nobel Prize for it.



Why are you so fixated on Democrats? Is it necessary to oppress people with opposing views? It wasn't AL Gore who said that CO2 was warming our planet.


Did you not watch his movie? It won an academy award. Don't feel defensive, I didn't watch much of it, although I did make the attempt, once or twice. I didn't think it was all that great, but I don't really get into watching any sort of movie much. I get side-track easy, when most anything gets a little slow, or commercial breaks. Before I know it, it's mostly over.

Al Gore did bring global warming out of the computer lab, and give it to the rubes. Probably the same computer lab he used to invent the internet... Al Gore didn't actually invent the internet, it already existed when he was just kid. He simply took took it out of the universities and institutions, and gave the average person access to pornography, and a bunch of things available online. Most importantly, he made a lot of money off dot-COMs. I'm sure he's making a lot of money of global warming as well.


You said that AL Gore was the person who said that CO2 was causing global warming. He's not the one people are listening to. When you come up with the right names, I will give you credit for that.
You didn't say Sven Arrhenius or the French scientist in the 1960's who was an ice core researcher and made a documentary about CO2 and climate change.
Neither one is AL Gore. Please come up with some verifiable facts. All you can say is Democrats bad, fascism good. P. S., love The Sound of Music.
Edited on 09-10-2019 06:35
09-10-2019 06:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
James___ wrote: You said that AL Gore was the person who said that CO2 was causing global warming.

He was and he is. I presume you can read.

James___ wrote:He's not the one people are listening to.

Speak for yourself. Gore makes loads of cash talking about how he doesn't like to quibble over vocabulary, ... how Climate Change and Global Warming are both the Climate Crisis. There is no shortage of YouTube videos that you can view and get a gauge of his audiences.

No shortage whatsoever. Are you aware that he was the Democrat candidate for President in 2000? He is Nobel Laureat for being a celebrity movie producer on top of all that.

Yes, Al Gore says that CO2 causes Global Warming, ... sorry, ... the Climate Crisis, ... and he has audiences paying money to hear him say it.


.


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
09-10-2019 13:28
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
Harry C wrote:...second is the second law of thermodynamics versus the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere....
I would suggest figuring out what you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is. You've found the one place where that is contested! Do you think textbooks are corrupted with a false 2nd LTD? Personally (I'm also a non scientist) I've found it more helpful to get the concepts be starting with the simplest examples first.

IBdaMann wrote:There is no effect.
Wild claims without support. Funny you say "we don't know" when it suits you AND "we know" when that suits you. You have made up laws unsupported anywhere.

Into the Night wrote:CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth...
keepit wrote:
Who ever said CO2 warms the earth?
Nice call Keepit. ITN/IBD always try to pull a fast one and pretend anyone thinks that the atmosphere of Earth is capable of increasing the ground temperature. Only the SUN can do that boys and you know very well you're being sneaky.

But really cut the chase. You losers pretend that the Moon doesn't have a lower average temperature than the Earth. So it's all a joke.

Radiative Heat Transfer buckos:University Physics Volume 2
Stefan-Boltzmann equation needs only slight refinement to deal with...absorption of radiation from its surroundings.P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)

IBdaMann wrote:When you see Hitler rising, ...
link So what are you going to do? If you're the president you point out that there are some very fine people in the group. I mean we shouldn't be judged by the company we keep should we?
09-10-2019 16:07
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:There is no effect.
Wild claims without support.

They all are. All claims of atmospheric CO2 having an effect are completely without scientific support and remain unsupported by any valid datasets.

Great observation.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:When you see Hitler rising, ...
link So what are you going to do? If you're the president you point out that there are some very fine people in the group. I mean we shouldn't be judged by the company we keep should we?

We should first be true to ourselves. That means not being gullible. I'm not gullible. I don't fall easy victim for obviously staged photos by leftist fake-reporters who need the cash.

You do, however.


.


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
09-10-2019 20:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
James___ wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
Who ever said CO2 warms the earth?


Al Gore, he won a Nobel Prize for it.



Why are you so fixated on Democrats? Is it necessary to oppress people with opposing views? It wasn't AL Gore who said that CO2 was warming our planet.


Did you not watch his movie? It won an academy award. Don't feel defensive, I didn't watch much of it, although I did make the attempt, once or twice. I didn't think it was all that great, but I don't really get into watching any sort of movie much. I get side-track easy, when most anything gets a little slow, or commercial breaks. Before I know it, it's mostly over.

Al Gore did bring global warming out of the computer lab, and give it to the rubes. Probably the same computer lab he used to invent the internet... Al Gore didn't actually invent the internet, it already existed when he was just kid. He simply took took it out of the universities and institutions, and gave the average person access to pornography, and a bunch of things available online. Most importantly, he made a lot of money off dot-COMs. I'm sure he's making a lot of money of global warming as well.


You said that AL Gore was the person who said that CO2 was causing global warming.

WRONG. He said Al Gore says that CO2 was causing global warming. Pay attention.
James___ wrote:
He's not the one people are listening to.

Yes he is. Schools still show his stupid film.
James___ wrote:
When you come up with the right names, I will give you credit for that.

He did give a right name.
James___ wrote:
You didn't say Sven Arrhenius

His theory of global warming was falsified by the laws of thermodynamics.
James___ wrote:
or the French scientist in the 1960's who was an ice core researcher and made a documentary about CO2 and climate change.

Ice cores don't show anything about CO2 or temperature.
James___ wrote:
Neither one is AL Gore.

Divisional error fallacy.
James___ wrote:
Please come up with some verifiable facts.

He did.
James___ wrote:
All you can say is Democrats bad, fascism good.

No. Democrats are the ones pushing for fascism and communism. He never said any different. Pay attention.
James___ wrote:
P. S., love The Sound of Music.

Irrelevant. Pay attention.


The Parrot Killer
09-10-2019 20:26
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
tmiddles wrote:
Harry C wrote:...second is the second law of thermodynamics versus the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere....
I would suggest figuring out what you think the 2nd law of thermodynamics is.

e(t+1) >= e(t) where e is entropy and t is time.
tmiddles wrote:
You've found the one place where that is contested!

It is not contested. This theory has not been falsified.
tmiddles wrote:
Do you think textbooks are corrupted with a false 2nd LTD?

No. You just can't seem to read a textbook.
tmiddles wrote:
Personally (I'm also a non scientist) I've found it more helpful to get the concepts be starting with the simplest examples first.

Applying contrived examples out of context is not learning anything. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:There is no effect.
Wild claims without support.

The support of his claim has already been stated. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
Funny you say "we don't know" when it suits you AND "we know" when that suits you.

Contextomy fallacy. Compositional error fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
You have made up laws unsupported anywhere.

He has support all of his statements. So have I. Lie. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth...
keepit wrote:
Who ever said CO2 warms the earth?
Nice call Keepit.

No, it is a lie. Both of you have said that CO2 warms the Earth. You are still being irrational on this one. Which is it, dude?
tmiddles wrote:
ITN/IBD always try to pull a fast one and pretend anyone thinks that the atmosphere of Earth is capable of increasing the ground temperature.

No. YOU are claiming that. Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Only the SUN can do that boys and you know very well you're being sneaky.

Irrational. Which is it, dude? You are still locked in paradox.
tmiddles wrote:
But really cut the chase. You losers pretend that the Moon doesn't have a lower average temperature than the Earth.

RDCF. The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
So it's all a joke.

RDCF. You just can't keep track of context at all, can you?
tmiddles wrote:
Radiative Heat Transfer buckos:University Physics Volume 2
Stefan-Boltzmann equation needs only slight refinement to deal with...absorption of radiation from its surroundings.P(net)=σeA(T2^4−T1^4)

Irrational. You are still locked in paradox. You MUST clear your paradoxes if you want to make any sense at all. Arguing both sides of a paradox is irrational.


The Parrot Killer
09-10-2019 21:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Into the Night wrote: WRONG. He said Al Gore says that CO2 was causing global warming. Pay attention.

If tonight tmiddles were put in charge of the mainstrea media, would it look any different tomorrow?

- Distortion of messages
- Intentional dishonesty for purposes of manipulation
- Assignment of bogus positions
- Pushing a Marxist agenda
-- Pusing a Global Warming agenda
- Evasion of key questions
- Unwillingness to research / double-check while rushing to be first with a known false narrative

Would a reasonable human be able to notice any difference come tomorrow's news coverage?

.


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
09-10-2019 23:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: WRONG. He said Al Gore says that CO2 was causing global warming. Pay attention.

If tonight tmiddles were put in charge of the mainstrea media, would it look any different tomorrow?

- Distortion of messages
- Intentional dishonesty for purposes of manipulation
- Assignment of bogus positions
- Pushing a Marxist agenda
-- Pusing a Global Warming agenda
- Evasion of key questions
- Unwillingness to research / double-check while rushing to be first with a known false narrative

Would a reasonable human be able to notice any difference come tomorrow's news coverage?

.


I can see no difference at all.


The Parrot Killer
09-10-2019 23:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: WRONG. He said Al Gore says that CO2 was causing global warming. Pay attention.

If tonight tmiddles were put in charge of the mainstrea media, would it look any different tomorrow?

- Distortion of messages
- Intentional dishonesty for purposes of manipulation
- Assignment of bogus positions
- Pushing a Marxist agenda
-- Pusing a Global Warming agenda
- Evasion of key questions
- Unwillingness to research / double-check while rushing to be first with a known false narrative

Would a reasonable human be able to notice any difference come tomorrow's news coverage?

.


I can see no difference at all.


The White House (Legal Counsel Pat A. Cipollone) issued the following letter to Congress but I want to make sure tmiddles gets his copy:

http://politiplex.freeforums.net/post/130


.


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
09-10-2019 23:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4906)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: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

You missed a bit. He is describing temperature change, not temperature. Temperature change requires heat, which is not energy in and of itself.

Actually, I can show you that yes, a change in temperature equates to an amount of energy ... which is exactly how calories are defined. Joules, on the other hand, are defined as quantities of work ... which are quantites of energy. Work is required to increase temperature, i.e. an increase in temperature is a quantity of work ... which is a quantity of energy.

Yes, heat is required for the quantity of energy to flow for the work to be performed to change the temperature. The heat, in turn, requires a lack of thermal equilibrium to occur.

Yes, absolutely.


.


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
10-10-2019 00:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9573)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: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

You missed a bit. He is describing temperature change, not temperature. Temperature change requires heat, which is not energy in and of itself.

Actually, I can show you that yes, a change in temperature equates to an amount of energy ... which is exactly how calories are defined. Joules, on the other hand, are defined as quantities of work ... which are quantites of energy. Work is required to increase temperature, i.e. an increase in temperature is a quantity of work ... which is a quantity of energy.

Yes, heat is required for the quantity of energy to flow for the work to be performed to change the temperature. The heat, in turn, requires a lack of thermal equilibrium to occur.

Yes, absolutely.


.


Okay. I can accept that reasoning.

This follows that current in a river or a pipe is itself energy, that heat itself is energy, and that current in a wire is energy, just as kinetic energy is energy.

Also that height differences in water, temperature differences between two regions, pressure in a pipe, and voltage on a wire is energy, just as potential energy is energy.


The Parrot Killer
10-10-2019 23:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1322)
IBdaMann wrote:
... obviously staged photos by leftist fake-reporters .
So you make an unsupported claim that the Chorlotsville "Unite the Right" protest did not have a visible and identifiable neo-Nazi presence?
You pretend, without evidence, that a photo was "staged". Presumably everyone in the photo was hired with the wealthy photographer hoping no one would tell on him later?
11-10-2019 00:24
James___
★★★★☆
(1584)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: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

You missed a bit. He is describing temperature change, not temperature. Temperature change requires heat, which is not energy in and of itself.

Actually, I can show you that yes, a change in temperature equates to an amount of energy ... which is exactly how calories are defined. Joules, on the other hand, are defined as quantities of work ... which are quantites of energy. Work is required to increase temperature, i.e. an increase in temperature is a quantity of work ... which is a quantity of energy.

Yes, heat is required for the quantity of energy to flow for the work to be performed to change the temperature. The heat, in turn, requires a lack of thermal equilibrium to occur.

Yes, absolutely.


.



Philosophy isn't science. Um, hate to state the obvious but heat is energy. Just too basic. It's kind of insulting that you and Isn't are philosophizing over such a basic relationship between heat and work. You could say that the energy contained in heat is equal to the work that it takes to create it. Laws of Thermodynamics requires such a basic relationship to exist. If not then it would be violating the First Law of Thermodynamics which states that heat can't create itself. When a temperature changes, it is because work has been performed by either adding or removing heat content.
I just don't understand how the 2 of you don't get the basics. Sorry, I do know, it's because you know philosophy
Page 3 of 4<1234>





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