My ignorance on full display!
| 01-02-2022 04:22 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14389) |
tmiddles wrote:How about this IBD. The spaceship has a black upper body and a white belly. You are fine, so far, talking about the exterior surface. tmiddles wrote: Robby orients the ship so that it's black upper body is receiving most of the sunlight. Great. We're still good. You're still talking about the exterior surface. tmiddles wrote:The interior of the ship has a temperature X. Big F'ing deal. The interior of the ship is not relevant. What principle of science are you trying to isolate? tmiddles wrote:He then rotates the ship so the white side of the ship is exposed, the interior has a temperature Y. Can we get back to the exterior surface? tmiddles wrote:Any clue on if X and Y are different? Nope. You shouldn't have gone there. I've told you plenty of times. This tells me that there is some very sacred particular Global Warming dogma for which you are desperate to believe is fundamental thettled thienth. Just tell me what it is and I'll burst your bubble quickly so you can get on with your life. tmiddles wrote:Does it make a difference if the black or white side of the ship is receiving the sunlight? Does it matter how many times I advise you to stay away from "black" and "white" and just say "high emissivity" and "low emissivity"? Is there a fixed number of times that you will ignore that piece of advice? Are you too stupid to grasp the concept that visible colors only apply to the visible light spectrum, which is only a small fraction of the solar output? It's the "you're too stupid" option, isn't it? Anyway, you have totally botched your scenario. Let me know when you want to try again. |
| 01-02-2022 04:32 | |
tmiddles ★★★★★(3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:I'm talking about the interior, the very center, because it's more definite.tmiddles wrote:The interior of the ship has a temperature X. Why are you deciding that is somehow illegal? IBdaMann wrote:...This tells me that there is some very sacred particular Global Warming dogma for which you are desperate to believe is fundamental thettled thienth.Just basic thermodynamics. The emissivity of an object which is exposed to the sun can change and that will cause a corresponding change in that object's temp. An object which experiences an increase in it's emissivity in the sun light will get hotter. Only you seem to think it's impossible. Edited on 01-02-2022 04:50 |
| 01-02-2022 05:32 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
tmiddles wrote:I'm talking about the interior, the very center, because it's more definite. No, it's irrelevant. Please explain why you believe that the spaceship's interior somehow comes into play. What principle of science are you trying to isolate? I'm not going to play until you answer this question. tmiddles wrote:Why are you deciding that is somehow illegal? Illegal? Oh, that's right, you never learned how to properly communicate in English. Stick with answering the question above and then mention what it is about Global Warming you are trying to support with thermodynamics so we can accelerate the discussion. tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...This tells me that there is some very sacred particular Global Warming dogma for which you are desperate to believe is fundamental thettled thienth.Just basic thermodynamics. It can't be. You don't understand thermodynamics ... but you are fully intent on preaching Global Warming so just tell me what dogma you are trying to "prove" with this scenario of yours. I can assure you that you aren't fooling more than perhaps keepit and Duncan. I believe everyone else on this site is thoroughly familiar with the Marxist/warmizombie tactic of asking one question at a time, like one big Socratic method GOTCHA! ... and I can already tell you that it isn't going to work ... so you can just save us both a chunk of time by leveling with me. What about Global Warming are you trying to prove? tmiddles wrote:The emissivity of an object which is exposed to the sun can change Nope. Not in a science context. Objects can change. When they do, they transform into different objects. If there is now a different emissivity then there is now a different object, one that has changed from what it was. Adjust your wording accordingly. tmiddles wrote:Only you seem to think it's impossible. I only "seem" that way to you because of your academic shortcomings and your apparent learning disabilities. |
| 01-02-2022 07:44 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:it's simply a location to have a temperature. The temperature of the entire ship as a whole will increase as the emissivity of the portion of the ship in the sunlight does. IBdaMann wrote:well if Robby turns the ship around, so the black side is in the sun instread of the white side. It gets hotter in the ship.tmiddles wrote:The emissivity of an object which is exposed to the sun can change Edited on 01-02-2022 07:48 |
| 01-02-2022 08:11 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
tmiddles wrote: it's simply a location to have a temperature. ... then let's dispense with the outside surface and external factors. One or the other is not necessary, unless wasting time is your objective. tmiddles wrote: The temperature of the entire ship as a whole ... is the external surface. You haven't explained what science principle you are trying to isolate. Is there a reason for this? Do you not want me to know so readily exactly how you are trying to defeat the laws of thermodynamics? |
| 01-02-2022 09:12 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:... Are you disagreeing that there is warming of the ship when the black side is in the sunlight? Keep in mind there has been no change at all in the ships circumstances, same distance from the sun, output of the sun unchanged. The principle is that an object can have an increase in it's equilibrium temperature with the same sun, the same distance away. The only source of that energy being the same sun. A core issue here at climate-debate.com and the very same issue presented in this topic by GG. |
| 01-02-2022 09:42 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
tmiddles wrote:Are you disagreeing that there is warming of the ship when the black side is in the sunlight? You're too stupid to be discussing at the adult table. Do you really believe that visible light is all there is? This is pointless. Let's just go back to me mocking the schytt out of you. Even that is more productive ... and certainly more fun. You won't even make an effort to learn anything. |
| 01-02-2022 09:44 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:Well I wasn't expecting you to admit you are wrong. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 01-02-2022 09:58 |
| 01-02-2022 10:04 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21588) |
keepit wrote: Never did. 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 |
| 01-02-2022 10:06 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
keepit wrote: That doesn't change emissivity. Mantras 20b2...20b5...10a1...20a4...25g...30a... 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 01-02-2022 10:07 |
| 01-02-2022 10:15 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
keepit wrote:IBdaMann wrote:I'm talking about the interior, the very center, because it's more definite.tmiddles wrote:The interior of the ship has a temperature X. Mantra 20a1...20b4... keepit wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...This tells me that there is some very sacred particular Global Warming dogma for which you are desperate to believe is fundamental thettled thienth.Just basic thermodynamics. Mantra 20a1...20b4... You are denying the 1st law of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. keepit wrote: Mantras 10k...20a1...20b2...20g...20p...25a...25c... keepit wrote: 20z2...25q5...20a1...20b2...39k... 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 |
| 01-02-2022 10:18 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:it's simply a location to have a temperature. The temperature of the entire ship as a whole will increase as the emissivity of the portion of the ship in the sunlight does. No, it doesn't. tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:well if Robby turns the ship around, so the black side is in the sun instread of the white side. It gets hotter in the ship.tmiddles wrote:The emissivity of an object which is exposed to the sun can change No, it doesn't. Mantras 20a1..20b2...20b4..25m...25f...25b...10k... 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 |
| 01-02-2022 10:21 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 25b...25f...20a1...20b2...20a4...20a5...20v... RQAA. Stop asking the same question over and over like a moron. It's already been answered. 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 |
| 01-02-2022 10:24 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
tmiddles wrote: Trolling. No argument presented. 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 |
| 16-02-2022 10:10 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:... "emissivity" is a constant value. And now suddely a "constant" can change!?! off topic thread IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles wrote:If you walk outside and open up a black umbrella you just changed the emissivity of Earth a bit. (never was "covered") So now what IBD said was a constant can change as long as it's negligible. So IBD, how do you define negligible? You agree ITN? Can a "constant" change a "little" ? |
| 16-02-2022 17:05 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:... "emissivity" is a constant value. A constant is not a variable. tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles wrote:If you walk outside and open up a black umbrella you just changed the emissivity of Earth a bit. A constant is not a variable. A constant cannot change, not even a measured constant. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. 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 |
| 16-02-2022 17:15 | |
gfm7175 ★★★★★(3314) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:... "emissivity" is a constant value. Ahhhhh, "pulling a tmiddles" again I see..... IBD's position remains consistent. Constants do not change. tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles wrote:If you walk outside and open up a black umbrella you just changed the emissivity of Earth a bit. It has already been covered. tmiddles wrote: WRONG again... You sure have a way of twisting people's words and forming an erroneous conclusion from them. IBD has never said that a constant can change, even negligibly. You still aren't comprehending the truth that Object A is not Object B is not Object C. tmiddles wrote: Unimportant; so small that something need not even be considered. --- An example of this word used in a sentence would be: tmiddles' critical thinking skills are negligible at best. tmiddles wrote: I agree with IBD's actual position, not the fake one that you have created here. tmiddles wrote: No. |
| 16-02-2022 17:18 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
tmiddles wrote:So IBD, how do you define negligible? I don't think my definition differs from yours. When something does not change perceptibly, we perceive it as constant. Is this not your understanding? |
| 17-02-2022 00:12 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:tmiddles wrote:...A constant cannot change, ...IBdaMann wrote:.....Built into the question is the implied phrase "to any substantive extent".... gfm7175 wrote: IBD has never said that a constant can change, even negligibly. You still aren't comprehending the truth that Object A is not Object B is not Object C.So what IS CHANGING a negligible amount then GFM? Help me out. See the quote below: IBdaMann wrote:Are "Cannot" and "negligible [not] to any substantive extent" the same thing?tmiddles wrote:If you walk outside and open up a black umbrella you just changed the emissivity of Earth a bit. gfm7175 wrote: so small that something need not even be considered.Is it possible for emissivity to change a so small amount? Because ITN clearly disagrees. gfm7175 wrote:So if the emissivity changed we go from Earth A to Earth B? How much does it need to change? Opening a black umbrella out side produces an negligible change, does Earth A now become Earth B? IBdaMann wrote:No not all. So just to be clear you definition is:tmiddles wrote:So IBD, how do you define negligible? negligible: not perceptibly ? Mine is from the Dictionary neg·li·gi·ble so small or unimportant as to be not worth considering; insignificant. "sound could at last be recorded with incredible ease and at negligible cost" It is "so small" as in it is something. Whether or not it is considered significant is based on the situation and is really just a judgement call made by a human. So what is the range in the Earth's emissivity changing that you find negligible? Would it be say the change from atmospheric CO2 doubling? Edited on 17-02-2022 01:08 |
| 17-02-2022 04:45 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:tmiddles wrote:...A constant cannot change, ...IBdaMann wrote:.....Built into the question is the implied phrase "to any substantive extent".... The Earth is what has now changed a negligible amount. Because of this, the Earth is now a negligibly different object [Earth B] than it was before (Earth A) with a negligibly different emissivity constant [Emissivity B] than it had before (Emissivity A). I hope you paid attention this time because this is the last time that I will go through this with you. Any further repetitious questioning on your part will be responded to with a swift and succinct 'RQAA'. tmiddles wrote:gfm7175 wrote: so small that something need not even be considered.Is it possible for emissivity to change a so small amount? Because ITN clearly disagrees. Emissivity is a constant. It does not change. ITN (and IBD) are correct. tmiddles wrote:gfm7175 wrote:So if the emissivity changed You thought you could slip this little nugget past me, but it didn't work. The emissivity constant of Earth A (the Earth prior to the introduction of tmiddles' black BLM umbrella) has NOT changed. It is still the same value as it was before (Emissivity A). After your introduction of your black BLM umbrella into your example, you have now made the Earth into a negligibly new object [Earth B] with a negligibly new emissivity constant [Emissivity B]. You are now talking about a different "the Earth" than you were beforehand (Earth B instead of Earth A)--- Emissivity A still equals Emissivity A, and Emissivity B still equals Emissivity B. They are both constants. Neither of them ever change. Neither of them are variables. Now, I ask you once again, why should any rational adult believe that the emissivity of the Earth (Earth A) has changed? tmiddles wrote: Yes. Earth A (without your BLM umbrella) is a negligibly different object than Earth B (with your BLM umbrella). Earth A has Emissivity A (which is a constant) and Earth B has Emissivity B (which is also a constant). tmiddles wrote: RQAA. tmiddles wrote: RQAA. tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:No not all. So just to be clear you definition is:tmiddles wrote:So IBD, how do you define negligible? RQAA. Edited on 17-02-2022 05:01 |
| 17-02-2022 04:57 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
keepit wrote: Great example. It changes with every breath you take. Finding anything in the universe that is constant is a hard one. IBdaMann wrote: IBdaMann wrote:]... you walk outside with an umbrella, the earth is now a negligibly different object. So a negligibly different object will have negligibly different emmisivity. So I dont see how you are saying you misspoke. No problem at distiguishing an object from itself as it undergoes changes. That doesn't change thermodynamics or physics at all. The planet Earth each century and each year is a bit different The climate-debate is based on this very issue. But its always called Earth. If you want to say Earth A and Earth B or Earth at 9Am and Earth at 10AM go ahead. There is a constantly changing planet called Earth with a constantly changing emissivity. gfm7175 wrote:as you can see above you are welcome to you symantec aproach. The other gfm there mentioned (not you, the previous version of you).tmiddles wrote: But this is already part of how we discuss the climate, it is always using time as a reference. The Earth in 1950 had a different emmissivity than it does in 2022. Keepit in 2000 had a different weight than keepit in 2001. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN |
| 17-02-2022 05:25 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
tmiddles wrote: Really? How is it that we prove this? Was there a conviction? Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 17-02-2022 05:25 |
| 17-02-2022 05:26 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
GasGuzzler wrote:...tell us with certainty which direction the emissivity value is heading? Not asking for an accurate value, we both know that is impossible. Just wondering if you know if the value is getting higher or lower.... This issue, CAN emissivity change, came up because ITN/IBD/GFM have made the absurd claim that it is constant. Now we've established that it is constantly changing. I cannot tell you with certainty where the Earth's emissivity is headed no. That would not be an obligatory result of my understanding that the emissivity of all objects is always changed, if only slightly. The quantity/amount of most aspects of almost every object in the universe is changing, that's why keepit mentioned weight. The weight of the object we refer to as keepit changes constantly, so does his emissivity. It's a great example of how dead wrong someone is when they point to most anything in the universe and claim it's constant. The argument by team denial here has been that it's IMPOSSIBLE for there to be a change in Earths temp because it would defy the laws of thermodynamics and physics. THAT is what is being refuted here GG. Is it impossible for Earths emissivity to change? Hell no. It's a bit different every day. So is yours btw. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN |
| 17-02-2022 05:42 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
tmiddles wrote:So I dont see how you are saying you misspoke. Perhaps you can find someone who will have better luck explaining it to you. tmiddles wrote:No problem at distiguishing an object from itself as it undergoes changes. So you still aren't smart enough to understand that when an object changes it becomes a different object. Perhaps you can find someone who will have better luck explaining it to you. tmiddles wrote:The climate-debate is based on this very issue. Then you had better learn that when an object changes, it becomes a different object. tmiddles wrote: But [they are] always called Earth. Yes, the different objects are both called "Earth." tmiddles wrote: If you want to say Earth A and Earth B or Earth at 9Am and Earth at 10AM go ahead. Thank you. You are making progress. I wish to say "the former" and "the latter" although, depending on my mood, I might refer to Object A and Object B. The important thing is to denote two different objects for comparison. The emissivity of any "object" you wish to analyze is a measured constant, except you don't know what it is for Earth. tmiddles wrote:But this is already part of how we discuss the climate, it is always using time as a reference. Time is not involved in comparing two different objects side-by-side. To compare the emissivities of two different objects, use subtraction. tmiddles wrote:The Earth in 1950 had a different emmissivity than it does in 2022. Your belief that you are omniscient is rearing its ugly head again. tmiddles wrote:Keepit in 2000 had a different weight than keepit in 2001. keepit's weight can be measured reasonably accurately and subtraction can be applied. I hate to break it to you but you are not omniscient and you don't have any usably accurate emissivity values for earth to which you can apply subtraction. ----------- For your perusal, the new list is out with the recent additions: 1) What are the unambiguous definitions of Global Warming, Climate Change and Greenhouse Effect that neither violate nor deny physics? [Status: Unanswered] 2) Why should any rational adult believe in either Global Warming, Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect? [Status: Unanswered] 3) How can I unambiguously demonstrate to my children thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? [Status: Unanswered] 4) How can I know the temperature of a large, unspecified volume, e.g. Denver, to within, say, 10degF with only one temperature measurement, e.g. the Denver airport? [Status: Unanswered] 5) What are the unambiguous definitions of "race," "negro," "black people," "white people," "brown people," "white supremacy," "white nationalsim," "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "black supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: Unanswered] 6) Is there an official list of races? [Status: Unanswered] - 6a) How do I determine my own race or that of my children? [Status: Unanswered] 7) Why should any rational adult believe that there is a problem of racism in the United States? [Status: Unanswered] 8) Why should law abiding citizens be rendered defenseless before rampant violent crime? [Status: Unanswered] 9) Where in the 1st Amendment is "hate" prohibited such that, if shown, a prosecutor can throw someone in jail for having had that emotion/thought? [Status: Unanswered] 10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface? [Status: Unanswered] 11) If we were to discover that Lisa Gherardini was actually a shitty person, would that justify Black Lives Matter storming the Louvre to destroy the Mona Lisa? [Status: Unanswered] 12) Why should we destroy artifacts and relics pertaining to history that we never want to forget or repeat? [Status: Unanswered] 13) The Aztecs committed genocide of many other tribes and practiced human sacrifice; should their artwork and artifacts be destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 14) Why would you or anyone pretend to be a judge of what history is to be revised or destroyed? [Status: Unanswered] 15) In what substantive/meaningful way do the platforms of Black Lives Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist Party USA and Socialist Party USA ... differ? [Status: Unanswered] 16) Which type of wood are you claiming melts (assuming the proper temperature and pressure) ... and what is that specific temperature and pressure? [Status: Unanswered] 17) Why should any rational adult believe that the earth's emissivity is somehow changing to any perceptible extent? [Status: Unanswered] 18) What evidence do you have that the hockey stick slashers you presented were neither BLM or ANTIFA? [Status: Unanswered] 19) What evidence do you have that any of the hockey stick slashers you presented were arrested and are now in prison? [Status: Unanswered] 20) Why do you oppose Trump's entry restrictions (into the USA) as being racist on members of a particular religion from six particular countries (while he investigates certain problems) and yet you support Biden's black racial requirement for the Supreme Court ... which clearly violates the Civil Rights Act of 1964? [Status: Unanswered] 21) Why do you scream red-faced at the mere rumor of violence by Trump supporters yet you go to the mat in defense of BLM and ANTIFA violence documented in video and photographs? [Status: Unanswered] Edited on 17-02-2022 06:34 |
| 17-02-2022 05:47 | |
| GasGuzzler★★★★★ (2932) |
tmiddles wrote: I am well aware of your backdoor angle. I'm actually fine with the Earth's emissivity, as a whole body, changing. I'll believe it is changing when I see an accurate measurement. Until then I have no rational reason to believe it is changing. Therefore I also have no rational reason to believe the temperature of Earth is changing. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 17-02-2022 06:20 |
| 17-02-2022 09:19 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:...when an object changes it becomes a different object.Yes and so the Earth of 2010 will have a different emissivity than the Earth of 2020, so it really makes no difference to play such odd word games. Just a Symantec game to pretend ITN is not nuts.tmiddles wrote: But [they are] always called Earth. Bottom line is that the Emissivity of Earth changes. Meaning, the Emissivity of Earth in 2010, is different than 2011 and so on. It follows that the mean temperature of Earth would also change. To use standard English. Knock yourselves out calling it Earth A and Earth B. I hope it's fun for you. GasGuzzler wrote:I'm actually fine with the Earth's emissivity, as a whole body, changing.Yes me too. It's a stupid waste of time to suggest that it cannot. GasGuzzler wrote:I assume you mean in a way that would result in a significant increase in the Earth temperature, which would be an increasing emissivity. Well there are two stages to this question: 1- is it possible 2- is it happening If it's not possible then #2 is out. Team denial here have been insisting that it's impossible in a number of ways (can't have a higher temp with out a new energy source, cooler objects can't warm warmer one, and all the BS, yadda yadda). "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 17-02-2022 09:20 |
| 17-02-2022 13:52 | |
| Xadoman★★★★☆ (1035) |
Here are some emissivities of different substances: Water (0 - 100oC) 0.95 - 0.963 Ice 0.96 - 0.99 Snow 0.96 - 0.98 Sand 0.9 Granite 0.96 Green Grass 0.975 - 0.986 As you can see, it really does not matter much if the land is covered with snow or with green grass. On the contrary, you can see that the emissivity of water is lower than that of ice and snow , which means that the more our icebergs will melt and the more the sea level will rise, the cooler our planet will get and there will be good conditions for an ice to form again. So it seams that the emissivity of earth can not start to run away into some certain direction because there will be feedbacks which will stop this movement only into this certain direction. We all remember from school that water freezes and expands and that is why lakes will freeze from the top. The ice works as an insulator keeping the lake to freeze from top to bottom. As also with emissivity you can see, once again it is the water and its amazing characteristics that save a day for us. The planet simply can not turn into a giant ice ball because of that. Edited on 17-02-2022 14:03 |
| 17-02-2022 16:27 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
tmiddles wrote: Is this your bogus position assignment of the day? |
| 17-02-2022 16:52 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:...when an object changes it becomes a different object.Yes and so the Earth of 2010 will have a different emissivity than the Earth of 2020,tmiddles wrote: But [they are] always called Earth. You are pretending to be omniscient again... tmiddles wrote: Correcting your errors is not an odd word game. tmiddles wrote: Do you mean 'semantic' by any chance? tmiddles wrote: ITN is not nuts. He is correct. You are nuts because you keep asking the same questions over and over again. tmiddles wrote: Nope. Emissivity is a measured constant; it does not change. --- Different objects have different emissivity constants, and you keep trying to pretend that different objects are somehow identical objects. tmiddles wrote: Nope. Time is irrelevant in comparing two objects. tmiddles wrote: Nothing follows because your premises are in error. tmiddles wrote: You should learn it sometime. tmiddles wrote: Call it whatever you wish; the point is that two separate objects are being identified as two separate objects with two separate emissivities (measured constants). tmiddles wrote:GasGuzzler wrote:I'm actually fine with the Earth's emissivity, as a whole body, changing.Yes me too. ... and when you make a change to Earth, you have now made it into a different object with a different measured emissivity constant. tmiddles wrote: Thermodynamics and Stefan Boltzmann are not "all the BS, yadda yadda". They are a part of science. Science is not BS, dude. Edit: Also, we haven't said "without a new energy source"... We have said "without additional energy". Why must you be so dishonest? (rhetorical question) Edited on 17-02-2022 17:20 |
| 17-02-2022 17:40 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
Xadoman wrote: This is somewhat inaccurate. Snow, sand, granite, water, and green grass have wider ranges. Also, not all grass is green. Xadoman wrote: Melting an iceberg cannot cause sea level to rise. The same water displaces the same water. It is not possible to measure the global sea level. It is not possible to measure the total snow and ice on Earth. Xadoman wrote: You are overlooking the heat of conversion. 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 |
| 17-02-2022 17:48 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21588) |
gfm7175 wrote:tmiddles wrote: While time is irrelevant in comparing two objects, time IS relevant when making a measurement. This is why measuring something like the emissivity of something makes it a measured constant, and not a variable. Of course, it's not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth. TMiddles is also building a paradox. A higher emissivity means higher emissions from the Earth for the same temperature according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. That means MORE energy is emitted by the Earth for the same temperature. That COOLS the Earth, it doesn't warm it. The other side, of course, is that higher emissivity also means it is easier for infrared light to be converted to thermal energy, warming the Earth. His mistake is in trying to apply a sequence again. There is no sequence. BOTH higher absorptivity AND higher emissivity are doing their thing at the same time. The daytime side of said sphere does get warmer, but it emits that at all times, day AND night. Indeed, the nighttime side is actually slightly cooler. Another convenient little point overlooked and ignored by him. 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 |
| 17-02-2022 18:43 | |
| gfm7175★★★★★ (3314) |
Into the Night wrote:gfm7175 wrote:tmiddles wrote: Agreed, but unfortunately I haven't gotten that far with tmiddles yet (as he still can't figure out how to simply identify an object, let alone compare differences between two objects, let alone make any sort of measurements with regard to those two objects). Baby steps... Into the Night wrote: I bet that this blows his mind as well. |
| 17-02-2022 22:16 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389) |
Into the Night wrote:While time is irrelevant in comparing two objects, time IS relevant when making a measurement. This is why measuring something like the emissivity of something makes it a measured constant, and not a variable. tmiddles' arguments and contradictions keep changing as he systematically tries different ways to attack thermodynamics and Stefan-Boltzmann. The result is that he is arguing all over the map in any given month. Anyone looking for a common underlying model that is driving it all would be hard-pressed to find an answer that makes any sense if one does not realize that tmiddles operates under the false premise that an atmosphere is not part of its associated planet and necessarily makes temperatures increase. This is evidenced by one conspicuous aspect of his ongoing quibble-wrangling, i.e. his eternal denial of the daytime side of the moon. Attached image:  |
Join the debate My ignorance on full display!:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| Miller Lite has now gone full Burka, praise Allah | 0 | 17-05-2023 19:13 |
| Prince Andrew the pedophile will be in full shit brit military uniform at the witches funeral | 0 | 14-09-2022 03:25 |
| Elon Musk going full retard | 0 | 24-07-2022 04:05 |
| The Epic Way To End The NCOV Pandemic is Educate Reveal Full Virus Working Mechanism To The People | 2 | 24-06-2021 20:02 |
| Truth About Game Of Life, The Difference Between Human Part Ascension vs Full Nirvana Evolution | 1 | 22-01-2021 11:09 |