irrational exuberance
| 02-11-2021 15:39 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
Can we agree science should always be questioned at every opportunity.I am noticing a trend on many sites that active discussion is frowned upon and I have been blocked from SkS directly and later the facebook page and all I ever did was ask where is the sea level rising team can someone show me.The most direct answer I received was a NASA graph that satellites had magically made.What I took as a true querier from Pete Rodgers post was that gravity makes the air denser at the surface.The atmosphere has a mass and takes time to heat up and cool down.I intend to re read the whole post from start to finish again but its going to take a while and I am normally in bed by now.It is the alarmist who do things like discredit someone like Nils axel morner because he claimed to be able to devine precious metals and the 99% of work he did on sea levels must now also be false.Regards temperature increases.I have no issue with the land based thermometers in UK and USA showing a slight warming trend from the early 80s to late 90s which is what started this story in the first place.I also have no problem with the same instruments regardless of homogenising and urban heat islands showing the temperature paused for over a decade and has now gone down slightly.I have seen alledged academics state that they now only use the satellite data.Simple reason it can be manipulated to be what ever you like.Not one human or website can tell me what the global average temperature was is or what it should be because it can not be worked out.After over 2 years of looking in to this I am confident there is nothing wrong and will never be able to enjoy the work of David Attenborough again as within a few minutes the scripted lies come out.The queen of England has come out and supported the Glasgow rock show but cleverly states pollution with no mention of warming or climate changing.I have enjoyed this journey but it is nearly over I have concluded my work on soda stream and CO2 and the ability of the Ocean to absorb and store CO2.The claims I am lying and being dishonest can be best summed up by this saying I heard and liked a while ago What you think of me is none of my business.If I let what you think of me affect me you are winning. I have very much been the student here and unless I am cheating on an exam I fail to see the problem. I watched a show the other day and a scientist who actually had a degree related to climate stuff said sure CO2 can radiate energy at certain wavelengths but the affect is more like .0006 C.I find this plausible.My personel very basic testing in the greenhouse with CO2 showed no warming at all to.1C with CO2 saturation at 3000ppm.Basic as my test was if CO2 was that good it would of showed some rise.I will finish up with my last observation.I went to the CCL meeting as I am having problems finding anyone in the community who cares about AGW/CC and they were very pleasant ordinary people that cared about the world missguided as they are its nice.You pair remind me of a person I was unfortunate to work near on a refinery for a very short stint.He was intelligent but if he dissagreed with you his acid spiteful tongue was something to behold.I never had a run in with him but when he fell of some scaffold and was put in a wheel chair not one of his coworkers ever called seen him or ever had anything to do with him again.The lunch room became a pleasant place to be.If you 2 fucced off the forum would be alive with happy smiling idiots wanting to build spaceships to suck off the evil CO2 and James would be king and we would write book called the king James version |
| 02-11-2021 17:33 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14395) |
duncan61 wrote:Can we agree science should always be questioned at every opportunity. Agreed. This is called the scientific method, which is the systematic and exhaustive "questioning," "doubting" and "demanding proof" of all aspects of internal consistency, external consistency and of all conceivable and testable hypotheses. So you could say "questioned at every opportunity" but once you have your questions answered, you can feel free to take a momentary break from the questioning and have lunch maybe. duncan61 wrote:I am noticing a trend on many sites that active discussion is frowned upon Religions, for the most part, fear/hate science. Religious people who embrace science should be celebrated. Religions involve sets of assumptions that are to be accepted/believed/preached without question whereas science requires doubting, questioning and demanding proof. These are not compatible mindsets. Religious people who are willing to doubt/question their current and/or mandated beliefs end up with far stronger faiths that they can more readily defend, albeit somewhat different from that which they were originally ordered to believe. Warmizombies, however, are not allowed to question/doubt. Their slavemasters will not permit it. They are to regurgitate the party line, word for word, as written in Wikipedia, and not a peep differently. They are totally unprepared to defend any of the myriad of errors they express because they are totally deluded into believing their dogma is inerrant and that their religion is "thettled thienth." They view themselves as wise for holding the beliefs they do and they view you as a stupid moron denier for holding differing points of view. duncan61 wrote: all I ever did was ask where is the sea level rising team can someone show me. Naturally warmizombies are reduced to extreme intellectual cowardice because they are impotent to defend their mandatory mindless regurgitations. What other option do they have? If you can't beat 'em, ban 'em. duncan61 wrote: What I took as a true querier from Pete Rodgers post was that gravity makes the air denser at the surface. Just remember that is totally irrelevant. The daytime side of the earth is freezing relative to the daytime side of the moon which has essentially no atmosphere. Please note that Pete Rogers pulled a tmiddles every single time that was mentioned and totally ignored the point without response ... because Pete Rogers is a total intellectual coward. Just remember that only matter has thermal energy. Thermal energy does not float around outside of matter. Ergo, thermal energy is considered per its distribution over matter, not over any sort of meaningless volume. Per my previous example, if you have two metal cubes A and B that are identical in size such that B has twice the mass of A but has the exact same volume, and you leave them on the counter to reach room temperature, cube B will have twice the thermal energy that A has but will be of the exact same volume and at the exact same temperature. You would be wise to not allow yourself to be fooled by gibber-babble concerning denser air "at the surface" and "greater air pressure" and so forth. All of Pete Rogers' arguments are based on screwing up English grammar and confusing the past participle with the present progressive. Anyone who didn't sleep through high school English composition should be able to spot the glaring errors in Pete's arguments. duncan61 wrote:Regards temperature increases.I have no issue with the land-based thermometers in UK and USA showing a slight warming trend from the early 80s to late 90s which is what started this story in the first place. ... except that they don't. Someone told you that they do and you didn't call boolsch't, you didn't demand to see the raw data, you didn't question anything, you just believed without question. Temperature is one parameter of weather. Weather is random. There are no trends in random events. To believe otherwise is mathematical incompetence. Flip a coin three hundred times and write down the results. Come back and tell this board what trends you noted. Be prepared to be mocked when you do. There are no trends in random events. If you flip a fair, balanced coin six times and it comes up heads each time, the correct term is "coincidence," not "trend." If your results are two heads followed by four tails, it is not correct to say that the coin has a trend towards tails. There are no trends in random events. Also, you can pick any place on the globe, and all I need to do is selectively pick two dates (cherry pick) and I will show a temperature increase which a mathematically incompetent person will call a "warming trend" and then I can turn right around and selectively pick two different dates that show a temperature decrease and force that same mathematically incompetent person to acknowledge a "cooling trend." The bottom line is that there haven't been any "land-based thermometers" that have shown any warming trend that haven't also show a cooling trend and a constant non-changing temperature. Your claim of having no issue with land-based thermometers in the UK and USA showing a slight warming trend needs to be amended to the following: "I have no issue with the land-based thermometers in UK and USA showing a slight warming trend, an extreme warming trend, a slight cooling trend, an extreme cooling trend and a constant, unwavering temperature from the early 80s to late 90s which is what started this story in the first place." If you think it sounds silly then that's what you get for trying to assign trends to random events. duncan61 wrote:I also have no problem with the same instruments regardless of homogenising and urban heat islands showing the temperature paused for over a decade ... except that they don't ... or if you take the approach that they do then they also show minor heating, extreme heating, minor cooling and extreme cooling as well. duncan61 wrote:I have seen alledged academics state that they now only use the satellite data. ... because if you want the temperature of somewhere in Perth, why physically walk a low-tech thermometer to the location in question when you can make up any number you like and claim that it came from a satellite hundreds of miles up in orbit? duncan61 wrote:Simple reason it can be manipulated to be what ever you like. They are not manipulated. They are fabricated. Think about it, if you know what numbers you are going to publish, why go through the trouble and expense of actually gathering valid data to manipulate when you can just fabricate your desired data and claim that's what you measured? duncan61 wrote:I watched a show the other day and a scientist who actually had a degree related to climate stuff There is no such thing as "climate stuff" and there is no science of any religion. duncan61 wrote: ... said sure CO2 can radiate energy at certain wavelengths ... because all matter does. duncan61 wrote: ... but the affect is more like .0006 C Gibberish. Energy radiation needs to be measured in Watts. Energy radiation is not a temperature. It's like measuring milk in millimeters. duncan61 wrote:I find this plausible. You need to call booool'scht. duncan61 wrote:You pair remind me of a person I was unfortunate to work near on a refinery for a very short stint.He was intelligent but if he dissagreed with you his acid spiteful tongue was something to behold. You really shouldn't be blaming anyone else for the lashing I gave you. If you are lumping in others because you are simply intolerant of differing perspectives then you are no better than a warmizombie. Why don't you put your previous beliefs aside and just start over? You know that we are here to help you with any science, math and logic that might be giving you trouble. If you aren't interested in adhering to science, math and logic, well that's a different matter. duncan61 wrote: ... when he fell of some scaffold and was put in a wheel chair not one of his coworkers ever called seen him or ever had anything to do with him again. Yeah, I have no friends. You don't have to worry about signing up to push my wheelchair, I already have that covered. duncan61 wrote: If you 2 fucced off the forum would be alive with happy smiling idiots wanting to build spaceships to suck off the evil CO2 and James would be king and we would write book called the king James version I have great news for you. You can pretend that I have fucced off and proceed in that manner. Just pretend. . 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 |
| 02-11-2021 20:33 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21592) |
duncan61 wrote: Yes. Absolutely. It is the heart of the falsifiability of any theory of science. duncan61 wrote: Science is not data. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. There is no data for global sea level. It is not possible to measure it. There is no valid reference point. duncan61 wrote: Think of a satellite as a simple camera that happens to be at very high altitude. Nothing really magick about them. They can't measure a global sea level. There is no valid reference point. They CAN measure RELATIVE sea levels (comparing one part of the ocean with another), and detect things like storm surges, tides, etc.; but they cannot measure any absolute sea level. duncan61 wrote: Pete Rodgers denies science by claiming that gravity is energy and that it is somehow heating the atmosphere. He denies the ideal gas law, Charles' law, and the 1st law of thermodynamics, the 2nd law of thermodynamics, and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. duncan61 wrote: Irrelevant. duncan61 wrote: This forms what is known as a base rate fallacy. You cannot measure a trend unless you can measure the absolute values in the first place. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. duncan61 wrote: It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. duncan61 wrote: Satellites are not thermometers. They cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown, and likewise cannot be measured. duncan61 wrote: There is nothing to manipulate. There is no data. The 'data' is purely made up shit. They are random numbers of type randU. duncan61 wrote: This is correct. You will find that the Church of Global Warming makes claims about detailed temperature data, but none can tell you what the temperature of the Earth is right now. This is where they are often painted into a corner. This is where they usually pivot to something else or just start insulting people. duncan61 wrote: A great photographer. Unfortunately, his narrative usually dissolves into religious claptrap pretty quickly. There's nuggets of useful information about the animal he is photographing from time to time though. Like you, I find his religious statements do get tiring. duncan61 wrote: Even the queen is unable to clearly specify 'pollution'. Vague references to 'pollution' without being specific or defining The Problem specifically is very common in the Church of Green. The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green. duncan61 wrote: This belongs in the dustbin of irrelevance. duncan61 wrote: The best way to learn is to always question, keep your eyes open, and learn the theories of science involved...best learned by their equations or 'laws'. IBD and I have created useful references of these equations in one place. You can also look them up elsewhere. The most relevant equations: 1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work, which is force applied over time. 2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy (the randomness of a given system), and 't' is time. Stefan-Boltzmann law: E = C*e*t^4 where 'E' is energy radiated in the form of light from a surface in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant (it serves to convert the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is emissivity (a measured constant), and 't' is temperature in deg K. This equation covers all frequencies of light combined. Temperature is the average thermal energy in a substance. It is often confused with the total energy. It isn't. This is covered by the 0th law of thermodynamics, which defines what 'temperature' means. The 2nd law defines what 'heat' means. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It always flows from hot to cold. If both regions are the same temperature, there is no heat. Heat is the flow, not thermal energy itself. It is also important to realize the limitations of statistical mathematics and probability mathematics. Neither branch of mathematics has the capability of predicting anything. This is because they both use random numbers. Statistical mathematics requires the use of unbiased raw data. You cannot use cooked data. It also requires the declaration and justification of variance, or the possible range of data (not the data itself). This value is used to calculate the margin of error value. This value must accompany any summary produced by the rules of statistical math. Governments often ignore this completely. So does the news media. Polls, data summaries, etc. are all just garbage unless the data itself is provided, and the metadata is also provided including who collected the data, when it was collected, the method of collection, etc. All must show the data is raw and unbiased. The data itself, of course, must also be made available. duncan61 wrote: Nope. Total garbage. Every element radiates in a spectrum unique to that element. CO2 is no exception. The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no term for frequency in it. It considers all frequencies combined. It is completely insensitive to what material is radiating. duncan61 wrote: CO2 is good. Very good. It is absolutely essential for life on Earth to exist. It has absolute zero capability to warm the Earth. duncan61 wrote: Personally, I don't see the value. It's like attending a fundamentalist religion function. They say they care about the world, but have no problem implementing fascism to 'save' it. duncan61 wrote: We've both been through the wringer with religious nuts condemning us as a Satan simply because we point out where in science or mathematics they are making errors. Remember, this is a fundamentalist religion we are talking about here. All fundamentalists are making a circular argument fallacy. I condemn them all. Their mind is closed and there is no changing them. Anything that isn't locked into their religion is 'evil'. I support a republic as a form of government. That means government by constitution. I support the Constitution of the United States, and the constitution of the State of Washington. I will fight anyone trying to overthrow or discard these laws. duncan61 wrote: This is not a place to be nice. This is a political forum. Political forums of any kind has contentions, insults hurled, attempts to justify oppression and tyranny. Such attempts often try to make use of the general illiteracy in science, mathematics, history, law, logic, and philosophy. Most people are woefully ill-educated on many of these subjects. I try to educate and help where I can. I am often brutally rejected by religious nuts. So is IBD and gfm. I do not tolerate liars. I do not tolerate anyone arguing for tyranny. I do not tolerate people that cannot learn even the simplest levels of any of these subjects. Such are insisting on remaining illiterate. There is no teaching them. Such cause wars. Religious wars, the most devastating type there is. It isn't about territory. It isn't about wealth. It's about tyranny and control freaks, religiously driven. I would do what I can to avoid such a terrible war. No. Political forums are not a place to be nice. The alternative is MUCH worse! You can learn a lot here. Both IBD and I can teach you the math and science. He is better at the math. I can teach you logic, law, and philosophy. Gfm has come here to figure it out and learn, a position I see you in right now. He has learned a lot. He understands the science and some of the math, as well as some aspects of law. He can also teach you on these subjects. History, including how the United States came to be and why, is also something you can learn here. The truth can be harsh. It can also be enlightening. Do not be afraid of it because it's not necessarily a socially friendly environment. Remember the goal and purpose of these religions. They are there to bind you into illiteracy, tyranny, guilt, hate, and misery. They all stem from the same source: The Church of Karl Marx. All are fundamentalist religions: The Church of Green, the Church of Global Warming, the Church of Covid, and of course, the Church of Karl Marx. 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 |
| 05-11-2021 12:23 | |
| Xadoman★★★★☆ (1035) |
Satellites are not thermometers. They cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown, and likewise cannot be measured. Yes we can not get the absolute temperature , but would not they show if the earth would get warmer or cooler? If an emissivity is locked to be constant on the thermovisor it should show if the temperature of the body gets warmer or colder. |
| 05-11-2021 15:23 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395) |
Xadoman wrote:Yes we can not get the absolute temperature , but would not they show if the earth would get warmer or cooler? How would it be possible to determine if the earth is warming or cooling without measuring the earth's temperature on two separate occasions and then performing a subtraction on those values? Xadoman wrote:If an emissivity is locked to be constant on the thermovisor Emissivity does not come into play in a measurement, only in a calculation. If you were to try to calculate the earth's temperature then the missing emissivity would come into play as the reason you cannot calculate the value. . 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 |
| 05-11-2021 22:43 | |
| Xadoman★★★★☆ (1035) |
IBdaMann, have not you heard about a device called thermovisor? You do not have to know the temperature of the body. You just watch the body from the distance with this device and it shows its approximate temperature. Of course it could be not the exact temperature but it does not matter as long as it is able to show if the body is cooling or heating up. I remember years ago on international women s day we used a thermovisor to find who was the hottest woman in our company. We took pictures of the women who stood in line with the thermovisor and after that we were able to determine their body temperature using special computer program which came with the thermovisor. Turned out that the youngest woman was the hottest and the oldest was the coolest as we predicted. Also, for example with iron we could see even with our own eyes if the temperature of the iron gets higher. At 600 it starts to glow and the more you rise the temperature the brighter it glows. No need to know the temperature of the iron or calculate anything. A simple observation shows which way the temperature moves. |
| 05-11-2021 23:17 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395) |
Xadoman wrote:IBdaMann, have not you heard about a device called thermovisor? Just tell me, who are you planning on having look at all of the earth at the same moment thermovisually? Just tell me, how will someone wearing thermovaseline tell the temperature of every point of the atmosphere and every elevation? We'll start with those two questions. . 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 |
| 05-11-2021 23:51 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21592) |
Xadoman wrote:Satellites are not thermometers. They cannot measure the temperature of the Earth. The emissivity of Earth is unknown, and likewise cannot be measured. Which is required to measure the temperature of the Earth. Xadoman wrote: No. Baserate fallacy. Xadoman wrote: The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Choosing a random value only gives you random measurements. 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 |
| 05-11-2021 23:57 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21592) |
Xadoman wrote: Void argument fallacy. The emissivity is unstated. Math error: attempt to use undefined value as absolute. Xadoman wrote: Yes it does. Xadoman wrote: It can't if the emissivity is unknown. Xadoman wrote: So you use it as a sex toy. Xadoman wrote: Base rate fallacy. Xadoman wrote: No. The emissivity is unknown. You need accurately know the temperature to measure emissivity. Math error: dependency swap. 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 |
| 06-11-2021 00:30 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3058) |
Doesn't emissivity pertain to a given wavelength? |
| 06-11-2021 00:39 | |
| Xadoman★★★★☆ (1035) |
Thermal camera is a diagnostic tool to determine the approximate temperature of the body. For example - at the beginning of the measurement the body temperature of the person is 36.5 degrees celsius as shown on the screen on the device. I agree, this could be not the exact value but it does not matter. Lets say the person suddenly developes a fever . The temperature on the screen of the device is starting to rise and rises for example to 38,7 degrees celsius. We can be pretty sure that the person has developed a fever. The emissivity does not matter. We can change the emissivity value on the device. It changes the value of both measurements but the substraction between those values will always be the same. Those thermovisors are useful devices for controlling the connections in high voltage substantions. For obvious reasons we should not touch those connections with a real thermometer . |
| 06-11-2021 03:48 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395) |
keepit wrote:Doesn't emissivity pertain to a given wavelength? Nope. If your reference is tying a wavelength to the "emissivity" then it is talking about Kirchhoff's law and the radiativity/absorptivity of a particular substance at a particular wavelength and not about Stefan-Boltzmann and the total radiance of a body at a given temperature. Stefan-Boltzmann is derived by integrating Planck's law over all wavelengths so it is not possible for there to be a "wavelength" term. I realize your question was meant as a joke but I figured that I would answer it anyway. [*-FIND radiativity-absorptivity-Kirchhoff's emissivity radiance Stefan-Boltzmann] . 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 |
| 06-11-2021 09:50 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21592) |
keepit wrote: No. 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 |
| 06-11-2021 09:54 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21592) |
Xadoman wrote: It does matter. Xadoman wrote: Maybe, maybe not. Xadoman wrote: No. Xadoman wrote: It does matter. Xadoman wrote: Choosing a random emissivity only produces a random measurement. Xadoman wrote: No. Math error: attempted used of undefined value as absolute. Xadoman wrote: Voltage is not temperature. 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 |
| 06-11-2021 17:15 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3058) |
I read a little opn google about the sb law, kirchoff, and emissivity and google repeatedly indicates that atmosphere is separate from the black body in making calculations. As you know i consider google to be a legitimate source of info. Also, as you know, i don't think ibd and itn are qualified to dispute what google has to say. |
| 06-11-2021 18:22 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395) |
keepit wrote:I read a little opn google about the sb law, kirchoff, and emissivity and google repeatedly indicates that atmosphere is separate from the black body in making calculations. As I very clearly told you, if your reference indicates that then the source is as much of a Bozo as you are. You'd have to be a keepit to fall for it. keepit wrote:As you know i consider google to be a legitimate source of info. Yes, you are a keepit. It's a result of your C-clamp. keepit wrote: Also, as you know, i don't think ibd and itn are qualified to dispute what google has to say. Yes, you are a keepit. It's an effect of your C-clamp. Why do you presume that you somehow become a science genius by embracing internet misinformation? . Attached image:  |
| 07-11-2021 00:52 | |
| keepit★★★★★ (3058) |
ibd, Where, o where did you get the idea that i presume to be a science genius? |
| 07-11-2021 01:43 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14395) |
keepit wrote:ibd,Where, o where did you get the idea that i presume to be a science genius? Everytime that you pretend to correct people who know/understand science and who try to help you. In this thread you pretend you are a guru of blackbody science, pretending to correct me whenever I give you the correct answer. You are a total moron. It has to be the C-clamp. . Attached image:  |
| 07-11-2021 01:56 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21592) |
keepit wrote: Google is not God. It is not science either. You are still denying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. ALL matter radiates light according to it's temperature. Plasma, gas, solid, liquid...makes no difference. The composition of the matter makes no difference. keepit wrote: Google is not God. keepit wrote: Google is not God. Google is not science. False authority fallacy. 'Expert' worship. 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 07-11-2021 01:57 |
| 07-11-2021 01:58 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21592) |
keepit wrote: You. 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 |
Join the debate irrational exuberance:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Irrational exuberance | 29 | 25-04-2020 06:35 |