Remember me
▼ Content

Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?



Page 3 of 3<123
10-09-2019 19:05
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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 Parrot Killer
10-09-2019 22:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
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.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

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
10-09-2019 23:03
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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.


The Parrot Killer
11-09-2019 00:00
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
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.


He might not want to learn, or believes he's teaching everyone else, but he can'y help to learn the truth, and will eventually see it.
11-09-2019 03:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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.

So mysterious Harvey. What "Truth"?

None of you engage with anything I ask. I repeatedly ask questions to be told, falsely, they've been answered.

I get that wrong? Show me.
11-09-2019 05:27
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1197)
Maybe you just didn't get the answers you were willing to hear, so you repeat the question, hoping to hear the answer you consider correct. Most people give up, after the second or third time. I'm not a big fan of repetition, so, I mostly just scroll down.

The 'Truth', is that global warming/climate change, has a bad smell to it. It's wrong in so many ways. I don't have the fatal piece yet, but I'm sure it will come out eventually. When somebody knows the full story, all the facts, but only shares the pieces that benefit them, it's a lie, a scam. None of use have an unlimited budget, and free access to all scientific databases, so it's a little difficult to stand up, paper for paper, with the IPCC team. But I've seen more than enough to know they aren't tell all they know, and misusing a lot of research. I was just on an ice core research website a couple hours ago, and it didn't really seem to support the IPCC claims at all.
11-09-2019 07:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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.
11-09-2019 19:09
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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.


So everyone is a liar but you, eh? Can you even hear yourself?


The Parrot Killer
11-09-2019 19:50
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(186)
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.

I don't believe you.

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

The theories of science which you are denying.

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

Yes, they have. I've seen them answer your questions. You just revert back to preaching your religion.

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

Your questions have all been answered. I've been following along. Not liking an answer because it doesn't adhere to your religion doesn't mean than an answer wasn't provided to you.

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).
11-09-2019 20:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
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).
11-09-2019 20:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
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).
11-09-2019 20:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1065)
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).
11-09-2019 22:08
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(186)
spot wrote:
This is Gaslighting 101

Nah.

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

Yes, randU is a thing. It is a specific type of random number in Mathematics. It is the "predictable" random number, for instance, if you were to make up a number in your head. To use such a number as "data" is a fallacy, known as the "Argument from randU Fallacy".

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

Correct. Your point?
Edited on 11-09-2019 22:12
11-09-2019 22:16
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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).


Bulverism fallacy.
Argument from randU. It is a thing. Not my fault you deny random number mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
12-09-2019 02:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
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).


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-09-2019 02:53
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(186)
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.
12-09-2019 07:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
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".


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

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

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
12-09-2019 15:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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.

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.
12-09-2019 16:45
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(186)
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".


.


Dam. Me stoopid. Me tri hardur nex tiem.
12-09-2019 16:54
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(186)
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.
12-09-2019 19:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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.


You are linking to your own spam, dumbass.


The Parrot Killer
12-09-2019 19:38
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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.
12-09-2019 20:02
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(186)
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.
13-09-2019 00:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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.
13-09-2019 00:40
gfm7175
★★☆☆☆
(186)
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.


Yes, that was an appropriate response from ITN. Read the rest of that post, which I noticed that you purposely cut off... He explained multiple times within it how you were completely ignoring conduction.

You then completely ignored that response and acted as if no response was given to you.

He then repeated, once again, CONDUCTION.

You ignored, once again... Then you pouted some more... Then ITN reminded you, once again, how the 2nd LoT works... and repeated ad infinitum...

See, I didn't just "take your word for it" on the bit of text that you quoted me. I looked at the whole thread for myself before responding back to you. You would be wise to also practice and learn the art of "thinking for oneself" instead of getting sucked into a religion that requires you to reject logic, science, and mathematics.
Edited on 13-09-2019 00:48
13-09-2019 01:02
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
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?
13-09-2019 03:28
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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?


Repetitious questions already answered.


The Parrot Killer
13-09-2019 03:44
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1142)
Into the Night wrote:
Repetitious questions already answered.

Never were as my post describes.

Just more board destroying, indiscriminately quoted dead wood from ITN
13-09-2019 05:54
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
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


Repetitious lie.


The Parrot Killer
Page 3 of 3<123





Join the debate Is CO2 much of a Greenhouse gas at all?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Revealing the 160 year systematic error behind greenhouse theory with Raman Spectroscopy1921-09-2019 17:04
money is the cause of CO2 increase918-09-2019 05:16
There is no valid physics that can show CO2 increases temperature2917-09-2019 22:35
If CO2 have higher temperature than O2 and N2 in the air?317-09-2019 00:37
Bill Nye greenhouse gas experiment fail.1616-09-2019 15:51
▲ 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