Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles:

If you would stop acting like a whiny bitchy perpetual victim, and be willing to discuss topics rather than shout at the people who are trying to discuss topics with you, then those people might be more inclined to teach you about that which you do not know.

Into the Night wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles:

If you would stop acting like a whiny bitchy perpetual victim, and be willing to discuss topics rather than shout at the people who are trying to discuss topics with you, then those people might be more inclined to teach you about that which you do not know.

Bingo.

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles:

If you would stop acting like a whiny bitchy perpetual victim, and be willing to discuss topics rather than shout at the people who are trying to discuss topics with you, then those people might be more inclined to teach you about that which you do not know.

Bingo.

The outreach is good. Kudos. However it presumes tmiddles has some desire to learn something. I'm sure you can see how the thought of learning something causes him to become defensive and to posture like a cornered animal.

All attempts to get him to discuss have been met with petty insults.

Into the Night wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles:

If you would stop acting like a whiny bitchy perpetual victim, and be willing to discuss topics rather than shout at the people who are trying to discuss topics with you, then those people might be more inclined to teach you about that which you do not know.

Bingo.

The outreach is good. Kudos. However it presumes tmiddles has some desire to learn something. I'm sure you can see how the thought of learning something causes him to become defensive and to posture like a cornered animal.

All attempts to get him to discuss have been met with petty insults.

Agreed. He doesn't want to learn. He only wants to deny science and preach.

HarveyH55 wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
... discuss topics rather than shout at the people who are trying to discuss topics with you, then those people might be more inclined to teach you about that which you do not know.

.... he can'y help to learn the truth, and will eventually see it.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Maybe you just didn't get the answers ...
The 'Truth', is that global warming/climate change, has a bad smell to it.

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:
Maybe you just didn't get the answers ...
The 'Truth', is that global warming/climate change, has a bad smell to it.

I never got answers at all Harvey. What's worse is ITN/IBD have been knowingly lying to everyone on the board for 5 years. If you haven't noticed I've only been replying to their BS for some time now. ITN loves reoetition.

Also I haven't been talking about global warming. ITN/UBD had the wheels come off the bus here with elementary thermodynamics.

tmiddles wrote:

HarveyH55 wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
... discuss topics rather than shout at the people who are trying to discuss topics with you, then those people might be more inclined to teach you about that which you do not know.

.... he can'y help to learn the truth, and will eventually see it.

Always happy to discuss anything gfm ask away.

tmiddles wrote:
So mysterious Harvey. What "Truth"?

tmiddles wrote:
None of you engage with anything I ask.

tmiddles wrote:
I repeatedly ask questions to be told, falsely, they've been answered.

tmiddles wrote:
I get that wrong? Show me.

spot wrote:
This is Gaslighting 101

spot wrote:
soon you will be wondering if argument from RanU is a thing (it's not)

spot wrote:
and using archaic spellings meens your clever (it doesn't).

spot wrote:
This is Gaslighting 101 soon you will be wondering if argument from RanU is a thing (it's not) and using archaic spellings meens your clever (it doesn't).

gfm7175 wrote:

spot wrote:
[quote]spot wrote:
and using archaic spellings meens your clever (it doesn't).

Correct. Your point?

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

spot wrote:
[quote]spot wrote:
and using archaic spellings meens your clever (it doesn't).

Correct. Your point?

It meens he's not clever enough to get your point and that he thinks gaslighting 101 is a thing (it's not).


.

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

spot wrote:
[quote]spot wrote:
and using archaic spellings meens your clever (it doesn't).

Correct. Your point?

It meens he's not clever enough to get your point and that he thinks gaslighting 101 is a thing (it's not).


.

I c wut u meen. I a gree.

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
I get that wrong? Show me.

It is quite clear to anyone who has been following along in this thread (and other threads).

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

IBdaMann wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

spot wrote:
[quote]spot wrote:
and using archaic spellings meens your clever (it doesn't).

Correct. Your point?

It meens he's not clever enough to get your point and that he thinks gaslighting 101 is a thing (it's not).


.

I c wut u meen. I a gree.

Dummy. It's spelled "greee".


.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
I get that wrong? Show me.

It is quite clear to anyone who has been following along in this thread (and other threads).

Ah but somehow you lack the energy to quote.

tmiddles wrote:
Questions which you, gfm,won't answer:
Do all 5 of these textbook teach net radiance wrong?

1 -Body Physics: Motion to Metabolism
Author: Lawrence Davis:NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE
2 -University Physics Volume 2: Net Heat Transfer of a Person
3 -Radiation Heat Transfer - The Finite Element Method in Engineering (Fifth Edition) by Singiresu S.Rao
4 -MCB3033-HEAT TRANSFER Heat Transfer Mechanism
Dr. Aklilu Tesfamichael aklilu.baheta@utp.edu.my
5 -HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER(link)
FUNDAMENTALS & APPLICATIONS ISBN 978-0-07-339818-1 Page 29

What happens when the radiance from the room your in reaches your skin? Reflected, absorbed and/or transmitted ?

You won't answer because you can't.

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
I get that wrong? Show me.

It is quite clear to anyone who has been following along in this thread (and other threads).

Ah but somehow you lack the energy to quote.

I find that people still "deny deny deny", even after they have been directly quoted. It's a pointless endeavor. People can simply read through the thread for themselves.

tmiddles wrote:
Questions which you, gfm,won't answer:
Do all 5 of these textbook teach net radiance wrong?

1 -Body Physics: Motion to Metabolism
Author: Lawrence Davis:NET THERMAL RADIATION RATE
2 -University Physics Volume 2: Net Heat Transfer of a Person
3 -Radiation Heat Transfer - The Finite Element Method in Engineering (Fifth Edition) by Singiresu S.Rao
4 -MCB3033-HEAT TRANSFER Heat Transfer Mechanism
Dr. Aklilu Tesfamichael aklilu.baheta@utp.edu.my
5 -HEAT AND MASS TRANSFER(link)
FUNDAMENTALS & APPLICATIONS ISBN 978-0-07-339818-1 Page 29

What happens when the radiance from the room your in reaches your skin? Reflected, absorbed and/or transmitted ?

You won't answer because you can't.

You are beating a dead horse to the point where it's just a puddle of blood and no horse.

Into the Night wrote:
You are linking to your own spam, dumbass.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You are linking to your own spam, dumbass.

I didn't write any of the 5 textbooks.

And gfm7175 you are lying. No one ever pretended to respond and you know that.

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You are linking to your own spam, dumbass.

I didn't write any of the 5 textbooks.

And gfm7175 you are lying. No one ever pretended to respond and you know that.

I read through the thread. I saw their responses to you.

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
as it leaves no answer for how a person in a room manages to not freeze to death.

CONDUCTION.
CONDUCTION.
CONDUCTION.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
You are linking to your own spam, dumbass.

I didn't write any of the 5 textbooks.

And gfm7175 you are lying. No one ever pretended to respond and you know that.

I read through the thread. I saw their responses to you.

Like this? You consider this a response? link

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
as it leaves no answer for how a person in a room manages to not freeze to death.

CONDUCTION.
CONDUCTION.
CONDUCTION.

gfm7175 wrote:
Yes, that was an appropriate response from ITN.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
As you can see there are no alternative explanations offered.

CONDUCTION.

So you're saying that a person loses over 700 watts through radiance but makes is up by gaining energy through conduction? From a cooler environment?

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
So you're saying that a person loses over 700 watts ...

Argument from randU fallacy.
A person helps to heat a room, unless the room is warmer then the person. Only then does the room heat the person. Heat only flows from hot to cold.

* You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot.
* You cannot reduce entropy in any system.
* You cannot just change the Stefan-Boltzmann law and still call it the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

tmiddles wrote:

gfm7175 wrote:
Yes, that was an appropriate response from ITN.

Ah OK. So I followed up here:

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
As you can see there are no alternative explanations offered.

CONDUCTION.

So you're saying that a person loses over 700 watts through radiance but makes is up by gaining energy through conduction? From a cooler environment?

And just got this:

Into the Night wrote:

tmiddles wrote:
So you're saying that a person loses over 700 watts ...

Argument from randU fallacy.
A person helps to heat a room, unless the room is warmer then the person. Only then does the room heat the person. Heat only flows from hot to cold.

* You cannot make heat flow from cold to hot.
* You cannot reduce entropy in any system.
* You cannot just change the Stefan-Boltzmann law and still call it the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

So where is there an answer at all for how a person can radiate over 700 watts, only get 100 from food and NOT absorb the 600 watts coming to them from the room?
ITN is consistent and clear you can only LOSE thermal energy by conduction if it's a cooler room.

So how is there an answer in there?

Into the Night wrote:
Repetitious questions already answered.

tmiddles wrote:

Into the Night wrote:
Repetitious questions already answered.

Never were as my post describes.

Just more board destroying, indiscriminately quoted dead wood from ITN