Remember me
▼ Content

It's like disputing gravity



Page 1 of 212>
It's like disputing gravity08-12-2016 21:07
spot
★★★★☆
(1102)
Scientists slam Donald Trump's environment chief over climate denial: 'It's like disputing gravity,

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/donald-trump-scott-pruitt-climate-change-denial-environmental-protection-agency-epa-aaas-sierra-club-a7463046.html

I thought Trump belives in climate change, at least when it comes to wanting to build seawalls to protect his golf courses.

Now it turns out he doesen't

Who knows whats next, at least watching the news is going to be interesting for the next four years.


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.
08-12-2016 21:16
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Perhaps the green movement's habit of calling anybody who has any disagreement or even reasonable question over the doom of climate change a denier has come home to roost.

If we are all that then there is no difference between reasonable skeptic and flat earther.

Edited on 08-12-2016 21:16
08-12-2016 21:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
spot wrote: 'It's like disputing gravity,

That's what the religious say about their gods that don't exist. Faith makes one BELIEVE in things whether real or not.

spot wrote:I thought Trump belives in climate change, at least when it comes to wanting to build seawalls to protect his golf courses.

Trump believes in WAVES that can be very high during storms.


.


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
08-12-2016 21:36
spot
★★★★☆
(1102)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Perhaps the green movement's habit of calling anybody who has any disagreement or even reasonable question over the doom of climate change a denier has come home to roost.

If we are all that then there is no difference between reasonable skeptic and flat earther.


Is denier even a pejorative I would have said it was descriptive also lumping people who disagree with you as alarmist is ok then?

Why are you even asking the questions? why don't you get a book out from the library and spend time researching it, if you ask intelligent questions rather then flippant ones you would get more respect.

So If we were just nicer to you would have some respect? Lets be honest there is no information that I could possibly present that would convince you that 'oh that's an issue that we should be concerned with perhaps we should use technically feasible renewable technology rather threaten an oil company profits.
face it your interested in the argument rather then genuine curiosity on how the world works or concern for the future.


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.
08-12-2016 21:46
spot
★★★★☆
(1102)
IBdaMann wrote:
spot wrote: 'It's like disputing gravity,

That's what the religious say about their gods that don't exist. Faith makes one BELIEVE in things whether real or not.

spot wrote:I thought Trump belives in climate change, at least when it comes to wanting to build seawalls to protect his golf courses.

Trump believes in WAVES that can be very high during storms.


.


we could just tweet him and ask him.


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.
08-12-2016 21:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
spot wrote: Is denier even a pejorative

Yes, in your sense. You are attempting to shift your burden of proof for your WACKY religion onto "deniers" who you presume must "prove" your unfalsifiable religion false. You consider those who don't worship your religion to be stupid.

In the end, it is you who is the scientifically illiterate one who has no command of formal logic.

spot wrote: Why are you even asking the questions?

...because that's the scientific approach, i.e. question, doubt and scrutinize everything. Your type of religion demands blind faith and wonders why people question your WACKY dogma.

spot wrote: Lets be honest there is no information that I could possibly present that would convince you that 'oh that's an issue that we should be concerned with perhaps we should use technically feasible renewable technology rather threaten an oil company profits.

I see that you consider your preaching of your religion as "information."

.


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
09-12-2016 02:40
LaplacesDemon
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
spot wrote:
Scientists slam Donald Trump's environment chief over climate denial: 'It's like disputing gravity,

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/donald-trump-scott-pruitt-climate-change-denial-environmental-protection-agency-epa-aaas-sierra-club-a7463046.html

I thought Trump belives in climate change, at least when it comes to wanting to build seawalls to protect his golf courses.

Now it turns out he doesen't

Who knows whats next, at least watching the news is going to be interesting for the next four years.



So you global warming alarmists are way to smart to dispute gravity? Is that it?
Since you are so smart, explain to us just what exactly is gravity and how does it work?
09-12-2016 03:28
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
LaplacesDemon wrote:
spot wrote:
Scientists slam Donald Trump's environment chief over climate denial: 'It's like disputing gravity,

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/donald-trump-scott-pruitt-climate-change-denial-environmental-protection-agency-epa-aaas-sierra-club-a7463046.html

I thought Trump belives in climate change, at least when it comes to wanting to build seawalls to protect his golf courses.

Now it turns out he doesen't

Who knows whats next, at least watching the news is going to be interesting for the next four years.



So you global warming alarmists are way to smart to dispute gravity? Is that it?
Since you are so smart, explain to us just what exactly is gravity and how does it work?

I think you'll find that when it comes to disputing gravity, you're in a minority. Not many people can explain it, but most of us accept that it exists.
09-12-2016 03:56
LaplacesDemon
☆☆☆☆☆
(2)
Surface Detail wrote:
LaplacesDemon wrote:
spot wrote:
Scientists slam Donald Trump's environment chief over climate denial: 'It's like disputing gravity,

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/donald-trump-scott-pruitt-climate-change-denial-environmental-protection-agency-epa-aaas-sierra-club-a7463046.html

I thought Trump belives in climate change, at least when it comes to wanting to build seawalls to protect his golf courses.

Now it turns out he doesen't

Who knows whats next, at least watching the news is going to be interesting for the next four years.



So you global warming alarmists are way to smart to dispute gravity? Is that it?
Since you are so smart, explain to us just what exactly is gravity and how does it work?

I think you'll find that when it comes to disputing gravity, you're in a minority. Not many people can explain it, but most of us accept that it exists.


Thats what I thought. You have no clue but you believe what they tell you. Just like global warming.
09-12-2016 03:58
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
LaplacesDemon wrote:
Surface Detail wrote:
LaplacesDemon wrote:
spot wrote:
Scientists slam Donald Trump's environment chief over climate denial: 'It's like disputing gravity,

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/donald-trump-scott-pruitt-climate-change-denial-environmental-protection-agency-epa-aaas-sierra-club-a7463046.html

I thought Trump belives in climate change, at least when it comes to wanting to build seawalls to protect his golf courses.

Now it turns out he doesen't

Who knows whats next, at least watching the news is going to be interesting for the next four years.



So you global warming alarmists are way to smart to dispute gravity? Is that it?
Since you are so smart, explain to us just what exactly is gravity and how does it work?

I think you'll find that when it comes to disputing gravity, you're in a minority. Not many people can explain it, but most of us accept that it exists.


Thats what I thought. You have no clue but you believe what they tell you. Just like global warming.

You dispute the existence of gravity?
09-12-2016 09:45
spot
★★★★☆
(1102)
I don't know exactly all the mechanics and math but the documentary I watched probably gave me a better idea then most people, still walking off the edge of a cliff because of what some loon of the internet says would be dumb.

And now the most powerful country In the world has adopted this as policy.
09-12-2016 12:48
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
Perhaps the green movement's habit of calling anybody who has any disagreement or even reasonable question over the doom of climate change a denier has come home to roost.

If we are all that then there is no difference between reasonable skeptic and flat earther.


Is denier even a pejorative I would have said it was descriptive also lumping people who disagree with you as alarmist is ok then?

Why are you even asking the questions? why don't you get a book out from the library and spend time researching it, if you ask intelligent questions rather then flippant ones you would get more respect.

So If we were just nicer to you would have some respect? Lets be honest there is no information that I could possibly present that would convince you that 'oh that's an issue that we should be concerned with perhaps we should use technically feasible renewable technology rather threaten an oil company profits.
face it your interested in the argument rather then genuine curiosity on how the world works or concern for the future.


If you presented evidence that showed that there was a problem I would certainly change my tack.

I recently had a discussion on another forum where somebody posted a graph of temperature with the El-Nino years removed. It shows a steady warming trend. As a result of this I have changed my point of view as to the pause. There does seem to be a steady warming. It is at the lowest end of the IPCC's predictions.

I am not at all concearned about anybody else's profits. That is there look out.

As a matter of interest I have an idea I would like to explore about a different wind turbine system. it avoids the huge maintainence costs of the ones in use today and thus I think it would be very ecconomic. Would you like to help out with this business? Do you have accountancy skills? Or engineering skills? Or patent law understanding? Or any investment funds availible?
09-12-2016 13:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Tim the plumber wrote: I recently had a discussion on another forum where somebody posted a graph of temperature with the El-Nino years removed. It shows a steady warming trend.

Were these supposedly "average global temperatures"?

If so was there, by any chance, an explanation of how these temperatures were ascertained? What was the stated margin of error?


.


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
09-12-2016 19:16
spot
★★★★☆
(1102)
Tim the plumber wrote:

If you presented evidence that showed that there was a problem I would certainly change my tack.

I recently had a discussion on another forum where somebody posted a graph of temperature with the El-Nino years removed. It shows a steady warming trend. As a result of this I have changed my point of view as to the pause. There does seem to be a steady warming. It is at the lowest end of the IPCC's predictions.

I am not at all concearned about anybody else's profits. That is there look out.

As a matter of interest I have an idea I would like to explore about a different wind turbine system. it avoids the huge maintainence costs of the ones in use today and thus I think it would be very ecconomic. Would you like to help out with this business? Do you have accountancy skills? Or engineering skills? Or patent law understanding? Or any investment funds availible?


Fair enough, however In my experience when dealing with someone who claims to be skeptical on this issue is that when evidence is presented I am invariably told it's not good enough or biased, It's good that you have a high bar but when NASA seem to be drawing conclusions from it It's hard to understand what I could do to make something acceptable in your eyes. Again I'm invariably forced to conclude it's not that my technical explanations or the more detailed technical explanations publicly available are insufficient to pass a bar of quality that your setting, its that you don't like what they say; for example Greenland ice is melting at increasing rates.

I can't help with your business idea but if your not jerking my chain and are genuine I wish you luck.


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.
09-12-2016 20:10
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

If you presented evidence that showed that there was a problem I would certainly change my tack.

I recently had a discussion on another forum where somebody posted a graph of temperature with the El-Nino years removed. It shows a steady warming trend. As a result of this I have changed my point of view as to the pause. There does seem to be a steady warming. It is at the lowest end of the IPCC's predictions.

I am not at all concearned about anybody else's profits. That is there look out.

As a matter of interest I have an idea I would like to explore about a different wind turbine system. it avoids the huge maintainence costs of the ones in use today and thus I think it would be very ecconomic. Would you like to help out with this business? Do you have accountancy skills? Or engineering skills? Or patent law understanding? Or any investment funds availible?


Fair enough, however In my experience when dealing with someone who claims to be skeptical on this issue is that when evidence is presented I am invariably told it's not good enough or biased, It's good that you have a high bar but when NASA seem to be drawing conclusions from it It's hard to understand what I could do to make something acceptable in your eyes. Again I'm invariably forced to conclude it's not that my technical explanations or the more detailed technical explanations publicly available are insufficient to pass a bar of quality that your setting, its that you don't like what they say; for example Greenland ice is melting at increasing rates.

I can't help with your business idea but if your not jerking my chain and are genuine I wish you luck.


The big thing you are up against in persuading me of the validity of the idea of Greenland losing ice mass is that I did geography in school to the age of 18.

Back then there was no fuss about all this.

Back then the idea of moderate bodies of ice staying about all year in comparitively hot environments just because they are highly reflective was taught to me. Ice in the alps can have sunbathers on it and not melt.

I was also taught about how to calculate heat energy budgets in physics so the idea that a single monthh of temperatures above freezing is going to melt through 1m of snow by solar action alone is laughable to me.

Then you will need to explain why a glacier of x thickness has increased the rate at which it flows down the slope of it's valley by a vast amount when the slope, and it's thickness have not changed although, yes, the end of it has retreated some 20km away from the bit at the top.

Also you will find trouble explaining why the WWII aircraft are burried so deeply under the ice.

The look of Greenland's ice cap is another problem; Melting ice has deep fissures in it where the flow of melt water exceeeds the deposition rate. When the rate of deposition by the anual snow fall is bigger than the melt rate you will get a generally smooth surface. Like that over almost all of Greenland.
09-12-2016 20:32
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1077)
Actually, there is no gravitation force. Gravity is caused by curvature in spacetime caused by mass exerting itself on spacetime. It's like, when you lie on a bed, you cause a curvature in the bed and so if you put a marble on the bed then the marble moves toward you.

Gravitation force theorized by Newton in the 1700s was debunked by Einstein the early 1900s.
Edited on 09-12-2016 20:33
09-12-2016 20:35
spot
★★★★☆
(1102)
You think you're the only person in the world that has done geography at school?

Simply put if it gets warm enough for long enough ice will melt eventually.

If it can't melt how do you explain Iceages?


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.
09-12-2016 20:42
spot
★★★★☆
(1102)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Actually, there is no gravitation force. Gravity is caused by curvature in spacetime caused by mass exerting itself on spacetime. It's like, when you lie on a bed, you cause a curvature in the bed and so if you put a marble on the bed then the marble moves toward you.

Gravitation force theorized by Newton in the 1700s was debunked by Einstein the early 1900s.


Then walk off a cliff.


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.
09-12-2016 20:48
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Tim the plumber wrote:

concearned.....maintainence.... ecconomic.... availible....

The big thing..... in persuading me of the validity of the idea of Greenland losing ice mass.....

comparitively....monthh.... burried..... exceeeds....


old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' rooting (& rotting) AGW denier liars actually think they are a big thing & must be convinced. NO! They don't have to be convinced & should be left alone. AGW denier liars think NASA, & world science is wrong, altho AGW denier liars never took science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas. Let the world leave AGW denier liars in the past.... to which AGW denier liars are glad to be.
Edited on 09-12-2016 20:57
09-12-2016 21:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Tai Hai Chen wrote: Actually, there is no gravitation force. Gravity is caused by curvature in spacetime caused by mass exerting itself on spacetime.

Tai Hai chen, you are making a critical error here. It is not necessarily the case that there is no force of gravity.

What is the case is that Einstein's model defines spacetime and the relationships therein with mass. This is Einstein's way of depicting gravity and other phenomena. Surely you don't deny that material objects accelerate in Einstein's model, yes? That would be the force of gravity. It's just a matter of perspective.

Tai Hai Chen wrote: Gravitation force theorized by Newton in the 1700s was debunked by Einstein the early 1900s.

It wasn't debunked. Newton's model is still a useful tool for predicting nature. It retains its seat in the body of science.


.


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
09-12-2016 22:59
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1077)
spot wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
Actually, there is no gravitation force. Gravity is caused by curvature in spacetime caused by mass exerting itself on spacetime. It's like, when you lie on a bed, you cause a curvature in the bed and so if you put a marble on the bed then the marble moves toward you.

Gravitation force theorized by Newton in the 1700s was debunked by Einstein the early 1900s.


Then walk off a cliff.


I do not dispute gravity. I do not believe in AGW. There is no evidence of it.
09-12-2016 23:01
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1077)
IBdaMann wrote:Surely you don't deny that material objects accelerate in Einstein's model, yes? That would be the force of gravity. It's just a matter of perspective.


The closer to the object, the greater the curvature, the faster another object will slide toward it.

When you lie on a bed, the curvature you make on the bed decreases the further from your body.
10-12-2016 02:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:The closer to the object, the greater the curvature, the faster another object will slide toward it.

When you lie on a bed, the curvature you make on the bed decreases the further from your body.

I understand Einstein's model. What I'm saying is that you can still translate the classical "force of gravity" from Einstein's model ... if you wish to.

It's just a model.


.


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
10-12-2016 12:47
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
spot wrote:
You think you're the only person in the world that has done geography at school?

Simply put if it gets warm enough for long enough ice will melt eventually.

If it can't melt how do you explain Iceages?


There are fossil glaciers in the Andies where the uplift of the land has taken them above the weather. It no longer snows on them ever. They have been the same for hundreds of thousands of years.

For the ice in central Greenland to melt it would require a very big temperature increase and then the rate at which it can melt is very limited.

The fast melting of th eice sheets of the last ice age happened when the large lakes which form between the terminal moranes and the leading edge of the retreating ice sheet absorb lots of the long summer sunshine because they are nice and dark. All this heat energy is then used by melting the ice.

Even then the melt rate was not that high, it was when the water finally made it's way under the ice sheet and floated it all off into the ocean that the very fast melting happened.

And yes, it seems that I was the only one who went to a school where geography was taught at all. I think this due to the gibberish that is spouted here.
10-12-2016 12:50
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
litesong wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

concearned.....maintainence.... ecconomic.... availible....

The big thing..... in persuading me of the validity of the idea of Greenland losing ice mass.....

comparitively....monthh.... burried..... exceeeds....


old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' rooting (& rotting) AGW denier liars actually think they are a big thing & must be convinced. NO! They don't have to be convinced & should be left alone. AGW denier liars think NASA, & world science is wrong, altho AGW denier liars never took science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas. Let the world leave AGW denier liars in the past.... to which AGW denier liars are glad to be.


I challenge you to a physics match.

You ask a question and I have to answer it. Numbers and calculations have to be involved. Then I do the same to you.

Let's start with a very easy one; How much energy would be required to raise the temperature of the world's oceans by 0.1c if only the top 100m was heated?
10-12-2016 13:27
spot
★★★★☆
(1102)
Tim the plumber wrote:
spot wrote:
You think you're the only person in the world that has done geography at school?

Simply put if it gets warm enough for long enough ice will melt eventually.

If it can't melt how do you explain Iceages?


There are fossil glaciers in the Andies where the uplift of the land has taken them above the weather. It no longer snows on them ever. They have been the same for hundreds of thousands of years.

For the ice in central Greenland to melt it would require a very big temperature increase and then the rate at which it can melt is very limited.

The fast melting of th eice sheets of the last ice age happened when the large lakes which form between the terminal moranes and the leading edge of the retreating ice sheet absorb lots of the long summer sunshine because they are nice and dark. All this heat energy is then used by melting the ice.

Even then the melt rate was not that high, it was when the water finally made it's way under the ice sheet and floated it all off into the ocean that the very fast melting happened.

And yes, it seems that I was the only one who went to a school where geography was taught at all. I think this due to the gibberish that is spouted here.


I did not know that about the Andes do you have a source? the Wikipedia page about the dry Andes starts with "Though precipitation increases with the height." which seems to contradict your statement.

Otherwise thanks for agreeing with the obvious; "Ice can melt"

Anyway congratulations on being the self declared smartest guy that posts here. I personally would not make the claim even if I thought it, perhaps its British reserve or fear of looking silly; to be honest I think your not far wrong but I wish you would give sources for your claims. And being among the smartest here does not give me much confidence when your making claims that contradict NASA.


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.
10-12-2016 15:43
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
spot wrote: I did not know that about the Andes do you have a source? the Wikipedia page about the dry Andes starts with "Though precipitation increases with the height." which seems to contradict your statement.

All you looked at was Leftistpedia? You couldn't be bothered to look at an authoritative source? It's no wonder you know virtually nothing.

spot wrote: Anyway congratulations on being the self declared smartest guy that posts here.

Congratulations on being the most bulveristic scientifically illiterate know-nothing who posts here. You can't be bothered to research anything because your devotion to your WACKY religion has you convinced that you have already been transformed into the second coming of Einstein.

Congratulations on being the most delusional who posts here as well.

spot wrote: And being among the smartest here does not give me much confidence when your making claims that contradict NASA.

Congratulations on being the most naive poster possible. What fooled you into thinking that NASA is not a government organization led by a political appointee who ensures strict adherence to the administration's political agenda? Were you easily fooled or did require additional bullshit before yielding full buy-in?


.


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
10-12-2016 19:27
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Tim the plumber wrote:
litesong wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

concearned.....maintainence.... ecconomic.... availible....

The big thing..... in persuading me of the validity of the idea of Greenland losing ice mass.....

comparitively....monthh.... burried..... exceeeds....


old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' rooting (& rotting) AGW denier liars actually think they are a big thing & must be convinced. NO! They don't have to be convinced & should be left alone. AGW denier liars think NASA, & world science is wrong, altho AGW denier liars never took science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas. Let the world leave AGW denier liars in the past.... to which AGW denier liars are glad to be.


I challenge you to a physics match.

You ask a question and I have to answer it. Numbers and calculations have to be involved. Then I do the same to you.

Let's start with a very easy one; How much energy would be required to raise the temperature of the world's oceans by 0.1c if only the top 100m was heated?


Your physics match is more an arithmetic match. Besides, it is you who misspelled lots of words...... which ain't even science.
10-12-2016 22:47
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
litesong wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
litesong wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

concearned.....maintainence.... ecconomic.... availible....

The big thing..... in persuading me of the validity of the idea of Greenland losing ice mass.....

comparitively....monthh.... burried..... exceeeds....


old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' rooting (& rotting) AGW denier liars actually think they are a big thing & must be convinced. NO! They don't have to be convinced & should be left alone. AGW denier liars think NASA, & world science is wrong, altho AGW denier liars never took science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas. Let the world leave AGW denier liars in the past.... to which AGW denier liars are glad to be.


I challenge you to a physics match.

You ask a question and I have to answer it. Numbers and calculations have to be involved. Then I do the same to you.

Let's start with a very easy one; How much energy would be required to raise the temperature of the world's oceans by 0.1c if only the top 100m was heated?


Your physics match is more an arithmetic match. Besides, it is you who misspelled lots of words...... which ain't even science.


Well ****ing clever. I can't spell.

You cant add up.

I do understand physics, to a basic level, you don't. Thick-o.

This area of debate is not about spelling. It is about physics and adding up.

If you want a debate you can win on spelling then stick to poetry.

Edited on 10-12-2016 22:47
11-12-2016 03:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5011)
Tim the plumber wrote:Let's start with a very easy one; How much energy would be required to raise the temperature of the world's oceans by 0.1c if only the top 100m was heated?[/color]

Tim, I was wondering if you meant this as a trick question or if you were somehow misled into believing that there is some difference if only the top 100m is heated.

The amount of energy needed to raise a quantity of water by a certain temperature measure doesn't change with where the energy is to enter. The amount of energy needed is the amount of energy needed.


.


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
11-12-2016 04:37
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
litesong wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

concearned.....maintainence.... ecconomic.... availible....

The big thing..... in persuading me of the validity of the idea of Greenland losing ice mass.....

comparitively....monthh.... burried..... exceeeds....


old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' rooting (& rotting) AGW denier liars actually think they are a big thing & must be convinced. NO! They don't have to be convinced & should be left alone. AGW denier liars think NASA, & world science is wrong, altho AGW denier liars never took science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas. Let the world leave AGW denier liars in the past.... to which AGW denier liars are glad to be.


I challenge you to a physics match.

You ask a question and I have to answer it. Numbers and calculations have to be involved. Then I do the same to you.

Let's start with a very easy one; How much energy would be required to raise the temperature of the world's oceans by 0.1c if only the top 100m was heated?

As a first approximation:

E = A x d x rho x c x theta

where:
A = area = 361.9 x 10^12 m^2
d = depth = 100 m
rho = density = 1000 kg / m^3
c = specific heat capacity of water = 4181 J / kg C
theta = temperature change = 0.1 C

Giving E = 1.5 x 10^22 J.

This should be correct to an order of magnitude but is, of course, an overestimate since it assumes that:
1) Every part of the world's seas and oceans is deeper than 100m
2) The world is flat.

The first of these assumptions is a bit tricky to correct since it requires a detailed analysis of sea depths. The second is relatively easy - it just requires the use of spherical rather than planar geometry. I'll leave that as an exercise for IBdaMann
11-12-2016 07:39
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
[b]Surface Detail wrote: As a first approximation:

E = A x d x rho x c x theta

where:
A = area = 361.9 x 10^12 m^2
d = depth = 100 m
rho = density = 1000 kg / m^3
c = specific heat capacity of water = 4181 J / kg C
theta = temperature change = 0.1 C

Giving E = 1.5 x 10^22 J.


What Surface Detail said, as if "tim the leaky plumber" can prove its AGW denial ain't leaky lies.
11-12-2016 10:16
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Surface Detail wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:
litesong wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:

concearned.....maintainence.... ecconomic.... availible....

The big thing..... in persuading me of the validity of the idea of Greenland losing ice mass.....

comparitively....monthh.... burried..... exceeeds....


old sick silly sleepy sleazy slimy steenkin' rooting (& rotting) AGW denier liars actually think they are a big thing & must be convinced. NO! They don't have to be convinced & should be left alone. AGW denier liars think NASA, & world science is wrong, altho AGW denier liars never took science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas. Let the world leave AGW denier liars in the past.... to which AGW denier liars are glad to be.


I challenge you to a physics match.

You ask a question and I have to answer it. Numbers and calculations have to be involved. Then I do the same to you.

Let's start with a very easy one; How much energy would be required to raise the temperature of the world's oceans by 0.1c if only the top 100m was heated?

As a first approximation:

E = A x d x rho x c x theta

where:
A = area = 361.9 x 10^12 m^2
d = depth = 100 m
rho = density = 1000 kg / m^3
c = specific heat capacity of water = 4181 J / kg C
theta = temperature change = 0.1 C

Giving E = 1.5 x 10^22 J.

This should be correct to an order of magnitude but is, of course, an overestimate since it assumes that:
1) Every part of the world's seas and oceans is deeper than 100m
2) The world is flat.

The first of these assumptions is a bit tricky to correct since it requires a detailed analysis of sea depths. The second is relatively easy - it just requires the use of spherical rather than planar geometry. I'll leave that as an exercise for IBdaMann


I think you will find that the area of a sphere of the radius of the earth and that of one 100m less is not noticably different.

Other than that yes.

At least that has stopped litesong pretending that he knows more of science than anybody else here.
11-12-2016 12:03
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
litesong wrote:
[b]Surface Detail wrote: As a first approximation:

E = A x d x rho x c x theta

where:
A = area = 361.9 x 10^12 m^2
d = depth = 100 m
rho = density = 1000 kg / m^3
c = specific heat capacity of water = 4181 J / kg C
theta = temperature change = 0.1 C

Giving E = 1.5 x 10^22 J.


What Surface Detail said, as if "tim the leaky plumber" can prove its AGW denial ain't leaky lies.


He can do basic physics.

You cannot.

Thicko.
11-12-2016 16:48
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Tim the plumber wrote:He can do basic physics.

You cannot.

Thicko.[/color]


NOT complying to your demands is what I did. Able to answer your silliness is NOT what I couldn't accomplish. AGW denier liars use your strategy all the time, to reinforce their AGW denier lies. AGW denier liars have the excess ego to believe they are smarter than AGW scientists, when AGW denier liars don't even have science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.
11-12-2016 18:40
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
litesong wrote:
Tim the plumber wrote:He can do basic physics.

You cannot.

Thicko.[/color]


NOT complying to your demands is what I did. Able to answer your silliness is NOT what I couldn't accomplish. AGW denier liars use your strategy all the time, to reinforce their AGW denier lies. AGW denier liars have the excess ego to believe they are smarter than AGW scientists, when AGW denier liars don't even have science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas.


Surface detail can do the maths I set out. So can I.

I have done the maths for modeling the change in the earth's day length due to the movement of mass to or from the poles as a result of ice melt or build up recently. Admittedly my 30 year old maths is very rusty but some of it still works.

Clearly you are massively out of your depth in this subject area and believe that shouting loudest will win for you.

It will not. It will allow me to show you to be a religious fanatic with a deep unbreakable faith in climate doom and no capacity to rationally look at the evidence. And no wish to be honest or honourable.

This will be very useful to me in showing to any casual readers that your case is drivel.
12-12-2016 16:39
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
"tim the leaky plumber" wrote: Surface detail can do the maths I set out. So can I.


Of course, "tim the leaky plumber" proves it is a leaky plumber. That's why "tim the leaky plumber" never answered the Grace & IOM determinations of total land ice losses on Greenland.

Grace satellites & I(nput)O(utput)Method determine continued & rapid acceleration of Greenland Ice Sheet losses.
//////////
From May 2016:
Improved GRACE regional mass balance estimates of the Greenland ice sheet is
208 plus/minus 18Gt/year mass loss rate for the period 2003 to 2008
from the GRACE solution, while the I(nput)O(utput)M solution shows a mass loss rate
of 195 plus/minus 25 Gt/yr.

The mass loss rates increase by ~ 67% and 85% in the 2009-2014 period in the GRACE and IOM solutions, respectively.

The 10 year acceleration in the GRACE data is -25 plus/minus 8 Gt/yr/yr, consistent with the IOM solution,-26 plus/minus 12 Gt/yr/yr.

According to GRACE & IOM data, present 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses range from ~ 393 Gtons/yr to 456 Gtons/yr.

Now, the new Greenland Landmass Rebound study indicates extra ice losses such that 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses are ~ 410 to 475 Gtons/yr.
///////
Suspect Greenland ice sheet loss will escalate past 1000 billion tons per year & the lack of science chemistry astronomy physics algebra in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas for toxic topix AGW denier liar whiners(& winers), will allow them to say, "what, da ain't no Greenlund iace ameltin'....".
12-12-2016 18:14
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
litesong wrote:
"tim the leaky plumber" wrote: Surface detail can do the maths I set out. So can I.


Of course, "tim the leaky plumber" proves it is a leaky plumber. That's why "tim the leaky plumber" never answered the Grace & IOM determinations of total land ice losses on Greenland.

Grace satellites & I(nput)O(utput)Method determine continued & rapid acceleration of Greenland Ice Sheet losses.
//////////
From May 2016:
Improved GRACE regional mass balance estimates of the Greenland ice sheet is
208 plus/minus 18Gt/year mass loss rate for the period 2003 to 2008
from the GRACE solution, while the I(nput)O(utput)M solution shows a mass loss rate
of 195 plus/minus 25 Gt/yr.

The mass loss rates increase by ~ 67% and 85% in the 2009-2014 period in the GRACE and IOM solutions, respectively.

The 10 year acceleration in the GRACE data is -25 plus/minus 8 Gt/yr/yr, consistent with the IOM solution,-26 plus/minus 12 Gt/yr/yr.

According to GRACE & IOM data, present 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses range from ~ 393 Gtons/yr to 456 Gtons/yr.

Now, the new Greenland Landmass Rebound study indicates extra ice losses such that 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses are ~ 410 to 475 Gtons/yr.
///////
Suspect Greenland ice sheet loss will escalate past 1000 billion tons per year & the lack of science chemistry astronomy physics algebra in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas for toxic topix AGW denier liar whiners(& winers), will allow them to say, "what, da ain't no Greenlund iace ameltin'....".


I have fully explained why I do not agree with the numbers from the GRACE study.

I have explained which evidence causes me to consider the GRACE data to be fraudulent.

It is not my fault if you are far too thick to understand it.

The real world is the final arbeter of science not the peer reviewed scriture you want it to be.
12-12-2016 23:31
spot
★★★★☆
(1102)
Tim the plumber wrote:
The real world is the final arbeter of science not the peer reviewed scriture you want it to be.


That goes for Hobbyists picking and choosing what data to ignore then making up numbers to make there errors even more profound as well. In fact I think that was the point of the piece that I originally linked. Policy is going to be decided on a fantasy, whatever Trump wants to hear, not what is actually going on and observed in the real world, this will of course will lead to non-optimum outcomes in the long term.


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.
13-12-2016 04:42
litesong
★★★★★
(2297)
Tim the plumber wrote:
litesong wrote:
"tim the leaky plumber" wrote: Surface detail can do the maths I set out. So can I.


Of course, "tim the leaky plumber" proves it is a leaky plumber. That's why "tim the leaky plumber" never answered the Grace & IOM determinations of total land ice losses on Greenland.

Grace satellites & I(nput)O(utput)Method determine continued & rapid acceleration of Greenland Ice Sheet losses.
//////////
From May 2016:
Improved GRACE regional mass balance estimates of the Greenland ice sheet is
208 plus/minus 18Gt/year mass loss rate for the period 2003 to 2008
from the GRACE solution, while the I(nput)O(utput)M solution shows a mass loss rate
of 195 plus/minus 25 Gt/yr.

The mass loss rates increase by ~ 67% and 85% in the 2009-2014 period in the GRACE and IOM solutions, respectively.

The 10 year acceleration in the GRACE data is -25 plus/minus 8 Gt/yr/yr, consistent with the IOM solution,-26 plus/minus 12 Gt/yr/yr.

According to GRACE & IOM data, present 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses range from ~ 393 Gtons/yr to 456 Gtons/yr.

Now, the new Greenland Landmass Rebound study indicates extra ice losses such that 2016 Greenland ice sheet losses are ~ 410 to 475 Gtons/yr.
///////
Suspect Greenland ice sheet loss will escalate past 1000 billion tons per year & the lack of science chemistry astronomy physics algebra in unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaas for toxic topix AGW denier liar whiners(& winers), will allow them to say, "what, da ain't no Greenlund iace ameltin'....".

It is not my fault


It is your fault that you never took science chemistry astronomy physics algebra & pre-calc in an unearned hi skule DEE-plooomaa.
Page 1 of 212>





Join the debate It's like disputing gravity:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Gravity because it's a heavy subject022-10-2019 08:44
Gravity fed electrical generation system41613-05-2019 07:38
Define 'gravity'324-06-2018 18:48
▲ 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