My ignorance on full display!

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > My ignorance on full display! > Page 2

Page 2 of 4

24-01-2022 13:29
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:...Object A is at a higher temperature than Object B, ... So Object A and Object B have different emissivity's, and therefore they reach a different temperature. This simple example exposes the "you cannot have a planet heat up without adding additional energy!" argument to rest. You cannot have a planet heat up without additional energy. tmiddles wrote: Example: A shiny polished steel ball in space, with a nitrogen gas atmosphere has oxygen trapped within it's core. An eruption leads to oxygen being released into the atmosphere, and the planet starts to rust. Red rust has a higher emissivity and the ball starts to absorb more energy from the radiance hitting it. The eruption requires energy. It is releasing energy from the interior of the sphere (which cools off the sphere). The resulting oxidation of the metal is an exothermic reaction. The interior and exterior energy differences are undergoing entropy as they combine. Temperature is NOT total thermal energy. What is easier to absorb is also easier to emit. Extreme argument fallacy. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics. Denial of the 1st law of thermodynamics. Denial of the Stefan-Boltzmann law. tmiddles wrote: There was no change in the energy reaching the planet, nothing was added to or removed from the planet, yet the temperature changes. If nothing is added to the sphere, NO ERUPTION CAN TAKE PLACE. It takes energy to fracture the surface and cause an eruption. tmiddles wrote: AGW argues a change is occurring due to changes in the part of the planet the radiance of the sun reaches. You might not agree, but to say that a change in temperature for a planet is impossible simply due to a change in the arrangement of it's matter is simply wrong. Adding CO2 does not change emissivity. Adding water vapor does not change emissivity. The emissivity of Earth is unknown and cannot be measured. 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
24-01-2022 13:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ... You can't subdivide the atomic unit,.... So is the rusty ball warmer or not? the whole unit of it of course It is, tmiddles wrote: Didn't see that you made an argument. And the "mistake" that you always make is pretending that there is a fixed quantity of energy. That is false. No. It is true. Energy is measured in joules. No additional joules exist anywhere. tmiddles wrote: There is a rate of energy continually flowing from the sun to everything it's radiance hits. Energy is not a rate. 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
24-01-2022 13:37
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:So is the rusty ball warmer or not? the whole unit of it of course I would imagine so. I would imagine that given the scenario of two balls in space, a steel ball with presumably lower emissivity than a rusty steel ball (or any other type of ball for that matter) that is of a higher emissivity, given equivalent power ratings of the same EM, it would stand to reason that the ball with the higher emissivity will have a higher temperature. .... MAGICK! And do you also acknowledge that a steel ball could become a rusty ball (the same ball) over time and have it's temperature increase? Without adding or removing any matter and without adding any new source of energy. So an object can get hotter without changing it's distance from the sun or adding or removing anything. Just from a rearrangement of it's surface. Of course there is a constant flow of new energy to objects that the suns radiance reaches. So I say a new "source" of energy, and not new energy. The radiance of the sun is all new all the time. Energy is not a flow. 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
24-01-2022 13:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	duncan61 wrote: I understand your logic Tmiddles.The laws of thermodynamics make no mention of a changing environment.I still do not think the tiny bit of extra CO2 in the atmosphere can make a big deal at all.No human or machine can calculate the effect in an ever changing dynamic world.If the whole planets land surface was bitumised you would get a different set of temperature readings just before the oxygen ran out but this would not be easy to do and we now have more trees than in 1970.I am a big fan of lets keep going and deal with problems if they arise.The sea level rise is still getting a ride.Just move or build a wall and it still has not happened where I live.Can you visit the Maldives yes or no regardless of covid His logic is flawed. He is conflating heat and energy. They are NOT the same thing. He is also making an extreme argument fallacy. 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
24-01-2022 13:47
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...The laws of thermodynamics make no mention of a changing environment.... The "changing environment" isn't something that is creating energy though right? Like metal doesn't get super hot when it rusts. (that's not a exothermic reaction that causes the ball to be hotter). The oxidation of steel or iron is an exothermic reaction the material becomes warmer. The core is also cooler, having lost pressure from your eruption. tmiddles wrote: So we have here a clear example of where an object at a fixed distance from the sun, without getting any more radiance from the sun than it would have otherwise, gets hotter because of a change in the composition of it's surface. The sphere is not just it's surface. The sphere is not warmer. tmiddles wrote: To help you out Duncan this is the big goof up by many on this board: We do not have a fixed quantity of energy from the sun, we have a rate of energy. We get new and more energy constantly. Energy is not a rate. tmiddles wrote: Trying to say is not IBdaMann wrote:...any ADDITIONAL thermal energy, well, then you're talking MAGICK! is to fundamentally misunderstand this. We get a constant flow of Energy from the sun, so does Venus, so does the moon. Energy is not a rate. tmiddles wrote: We all have wildly different surface temperatures because the composition of the surface of each planet is different. The surface is not the planet. tmiddles wrote: That the surface of Earth can be altered is a given. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). 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

24-01-2022 17:32
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: Yes, there is no shortage of bonehead warmizombies who don't realize that the atmosphere is part of the planet. You [tmiddles] would be one of them. Seriously though... I've been having exchanges with one of my favorite warmizombies on another forum who keeps trying to pull this crap with me. When pressed on what has changed in Earth's environment (where is the additional energy coming from?), he goes into the usual warmizombie nonsense about the atmosphere and the "one-way blanket" and what not, so that's when I simply remind him that the atmosphere IS a part of Earth and then once again ask him where the additional energy is coming from. I, of course, have yet to receive an answer. He is one who also loves to pull the same BS that warmizombies have pulled on here with regard to the SB Law, attempting to divert towards discussion about specific wavelengths, "albedo" (red flag rises), pretending that the SB Law doesn't apply to Earth, etc etc...
24-01-2022 21:24
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	gfm7175 wrote:When pressed on what has changed in Earth's environment (where is the additional energy coming from?), he goes into the usual warmizombie nonsense about the atmosphere and the "one-way blanket" and what not, The important thing to remember on this point is that anyone focusing separately on "the atmosphere" is necessarily subdividing the planet and is treating the atmosphere as though it is not part of the earth. This necessarily results in bad math. The atmosphere magickally becomes an additional source of energy. Suppose earth's total energy is partitioned into the amount of energy in the atmosphere and the amount of energy elsewhere (i.e. lithosphere & hydrosphere) as such: E(earth) = E(atmosphere) + E(surface) This equation recognizes that the atmosphere is part of the earth. However, if we allow the atmosphere to suddenly become an additional body in the equation, we now have more energy in the system through faulty math: E(new total) = E(earth) + E(atmosphere) Once there is a new higher energy total, any sort of Global Warming or Greenhouse Effect can be easily shown. In fact, any mathematician observing such a process will see this as a "reductio ad absurdum" (proof by contradiction, reduction to the absurd) and will immediately conclude that the original assumption, i.e. that the atmosphere is somehow separate from the earth, must be FALSE. gfm7175 wrote:He is one who also loves to pull the same BS that warmizombies have pulled on here with regard to the SB Law, attempting to divert towards discussion about specific wavelengths, "albedo" (red flag rises), pretending that the SB Law doesn't apply to Earth, etc etc... There are four things about Stefan-Boltzman to remember here: 1. Any argument involving radiance and temperature moving in different directions is FALSE. Period. Done. 2. Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all matter, always, everywhere. All matter is always radiating thermally per its absolute temperature to the fourth power. 3. To leverage blackbody science, at some level one must define the body of matter in question. Once defined, it cannot thereafter be subdivided. 4. Warmizombies believe that one way around Stefan-Boltzmann is to shift the goalposts between Stefan-Boltzmann and Kirchhoff's law as convenient. They begin a conversation entirely within the context of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, pleasantly continue the conversation for a brief while, and then subtly duck out of Stefan-Boltzmann and seamlessly into Kirchhoff's law, specifically discussing how certain substances such as CO2 have very high absorptivities/radiativities at certain wavelengths. Of course they use the word "emissivites" to maintain the appearance that they never left the Stefan-Boltzmann law and to imply that these substances with high "emissivities" (Kirchhoff's law) are thusly increasing earth's "emissivity" (Stefan-Boltzman) which necessarily means that earth's temperature must be increasing. Shifting the goalposts between two different science models enables great flexibility in EVADING particular points in either one. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
24-01-2022 22:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:And do you also acknowledge that a steel ball could become a rusty ball I acknowledge all chemical reactions. Will you be honest and acknowledge that, as far as you know, to the best of your understanding, you are not aware of any change to earth's emissivity ever? Will you be honest and acknowledge that, as far as you can tell, considering all that you have observed, that you are not aware of any reason that any rational adult should believe that earth's emissivity is undergoing some specific change? tmiddles wrote: So an object can get hotter without changing it's distance from the sun or adding or removing anything. Now is where you make the leap to showing us how the earth is getting hotter without changing its distance from the sun or adding or removing anything. This is, after all, your reason for setting all of this up, yes? Well, get to it. tmiddles wrote:Of course there is a constant flow of new energy to objects that the suns radiance reaches. ... but there is no additional energy. The power of the solar radiation remains exactly the same. No additional energy. You need additional energy. Up to this point, you have been tapping into violations of thermodynamics to get your additional energy because, as you so eloquently clarify, you aren't getting any additional energy from the sun. The sun was already there cranking out exactly the same amount of energy that it is now outputting in the presence of the new greenhouse gas ... and all of this occurring with the earth having the exact same emissivity as far as you know, to the best of your understanding.
24-01-2022 22:51
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote:...the theory that we will all burn up... That is not a theory any scientist has Duncan.
24-01-2022 23:05
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote:...what has changed in Earth's environment (where is the additional energy coming from?),... You just injected a false concept into the question there GFM. The additional energy is coming from the sun. Apply your reasoning to the rusting ball: GFM: what changed? Answer: the emissivity, it's now rusty and dull, it was shiny GFM: but where is the additional energy coming from? Answer: from the sun, more of it is is being absorbed and retained now, that's how emissivity works. What's changed on Earth? the composition of gasses, namely more CO2. You can dismiss that this particular change is significant but you can't say it's impossible for an object to get hotter without a change in the suns radiance as ITN/IBD do. because it is possible. IBdaMann wrote:Any argument involving radiance and temperature moving in different directions is FALSE. Period. Done....No additional energy. You need additional energy. So the rusty ball get hotter, temp goes up (the WHOLE ball, not just the surface or it's atmosphere) while radiance is the same. Those are different directions. Your theory is proven wrong. Into the Night wrote: You cannot have a planet heat up without additional energy. The sun supplies additional energy all the time. If a planets emissivity changes it can reach a higher mean temp through that alone. You deny that a steel ball would rust and get hotter? Ah yes you do deny it!! Into the Night wrote: The sphere is not warmer. How about that IBD? any comment? Into the Night wrote: Energy is not a rate. Describe the Energy Earth has from the sun. How much is there if it's not a rate? "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 24-01-2022 23:06
25-01-2022 01:02
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: The additional energy is coming from the sun. FALSE. At no point does the sun increase in solar radiance. At no point does the sun ever provide additional energy. Your argument is summarily dismissed. You are now arguing that the sun's output somehow adjusts to provide additional energy ... while acknowledging that the sun's output remains the same the entire time. tmiddles wrote: GFM: but where is the additional energy coming from? Answer: from the sun, more of it is is being absorbed and retained now, that's how emissivity works. In the case of the earth, from where does the additional energy come when we have no reason to believe that the earth's emissivity is changing? tmiddles wrote: What's changed on Earth? the composition of gasses, namely more CO2. I notice that you are not including "earth's emissivity" in the list. This leads me to ask if you will be honest and admit that you have no reason to believe that the earth's average global temperature is increasing. tmiddles wrote: ... but you can't say it's impossible for an object to get hotter without a change in the suns radiance as ITN/IBD do. Aaaah, so we're back to misrepresenting the positions of others by assigning to them bogus positions that they do not have. It is impossible for a body of matter to increase in temperature without additional thermal energy. If you are claiming that additional thermal energy is now present because additional EM is being absorbed because the emissivity has increased, then you must show that the emissivity has increased. Guess what you haven't done. That's right. You haven't shown that earth's emissivity has increased. You might want to get on that. Until then, your arguments are dismissed as intentional distractions. tmiddles wrote:So the rusty ball get hotter, temp goes up (the WHOLE ball, not just the surface or it's atmosphere) while radiance is the same. Those are different directions. Your theory is proven wrong. The radiance is not the same. Radiance increases if the temperature increases. By the way .... you're wrong. Once again, any argument claiming different directions for temperature and radiance ... is wrong, is FALSE, is discarded. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:You cannot have a planet heat up without additional energy. The sun supplies additional energy all the time. Nope. The sun supplies exactly the same power, all the time and it does not supply any additional energy beyond that. You are obviously trying to violate thermodynamics through wordplay. I see that you have not acquired honesty during the interim you were gone. tmiddles wrote: If a planets emissivity changes it can reach a higher mean temp through that alone. I have to presume that you therefore understand that if you don't believe a planet's emissivity is changing that you don't believe it will absorb energy at any additional rate and thus its temperature will not increase. tmiddles wrote:You deny that a steel ball would rust and get hotter? You cannot show that earth's emissivity is increasing? tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: The sphere is not warmer. How about that IBD? any comment? If a planet's emissivity is not increasing then it is not absorbing additional energy and is therefore not increasing in temperature and is therefore not warmer. Do you deny this? Aaahh, yes ... you do deny this, don't you? tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: Energy is not a rate. Describe the Energy Earth has from the sun. How much is there if it's not a rate? You are being a bonehead. Into the Night is correct and you are bungling basic science. A quantity of energy is a quantity of energy ... it is not a rate of any sort. If you have a gallon of milk, do you have a quantity of milk or do you have a rate? You're wasting bandwidth doubling down on stupid. How do you not know the difference between a quantity and a rate? .
25-01-2022 01:47
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: The additional energy is coming from the sun. FALSE. At no point does the sun increase in solar radiance. At no point does the sun ever provide additional energy. Does the rusty ball have a higher temperature or not? The whole ball, from core to the edge of it's now oxygenated atmospher. Yes or no? ITN says no.
25-01-2022 04:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:...what has changed in Earth's environment (where is the additional energy coming from?),... You just injected a false concept into the question there GFM. The additional energy is coming from the sun. You don't get to use the same energy twice, dude. tmiddles wrote: Apply your reasoning to the rusting ball: GFM: what changed? Answer: the emissivity, it's now rusty and dull, it was shiny GFM: but where is the additional energy coming from? Answer: from the sun, more of it is is being absorbed and retained now, that's how emissivity works. No, it isn't. Emissivity is not a variable. Attempted proof by contrivance. tmiddles wrote: What's changed on Earth? the composition of gasses, namely more CO2. CO2 does not change emissivity. False equivalence fallacy. tmiddles wrote: You can dismiss that this particular change is significant but you can't say it's impossible for an object to get hotter without a change in the suns radiance as ITN/IBD do. because it is possible. Attempted proof by contrivance. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:Any argument involving radiance and temperature moving in different directions is FALSE. Period. Done....No additional energy. You need additional energy. So the rusty ball get hotter, temp goes up (the WHOLE ball, not just the surface or it's atmosphere) while radiance is the same. Those are different directions. Your theory is proven wrong. Into the Night wrote: You cannot have a planet heat up without additional energy. The sun supplies additional energy all the time. If a planets emissivity changes it can reach a higher mean temp through that alone. Energy is not a rate. Emissivity is not a variable. tmiddles wrote: You deny that a steel ball would rust and get hotter? Attempted proof by contrivance. tmiddles wrote: Ah yes you do deny it!! [quote]Into the Night wrote: The sphere is not warmer. How about that IBD? any comment? Into the Night wrote: Energy is not a rate. Describe the Energy Earth has from the sun. How much is there if it's not a rate? Energy is not a rate. 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
25-01-2022 04:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: The additional energy is coming from the sun. FALSE. At no point does the sun increase in solar radiance. At no point does the sun ever provide additional energy. Does the rusty ball have a higher temperature or not? The whole ball, from core to the edge of it's now oxygenated atmospher. Yes or no? ITN says no. RQAA. 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
25-01-2022 05:52
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: The additional energy is coming from the sun. FALSE. At no point does the sun increase in solar radiance. At no point does the sun ever provide additional energy. Does the rusty ball have a higher temperature or not? You are full of pivots. Stay focused. Do you recognize that the sun is not somehow increasing in radiance in conjunction with any changes to the earth's atmosphere? Please answer my questions so that I can continue answering yours.

25-01-2022 06:01
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote: duncan61 wrote:...the theory that we will all burn up... That is not a theory any scientist has Duncan. No actual scientist holds that belief. Warmizombies have claimed that theory all for themselves. They own it. At the moment, you are working hard to support that theory, through wordplay, through assignment of bogus positions to others, through deliberate butchering of physics and various other dishonest techniques that are signature warmizombie playbook. So just go ahead and answer Duncan's question. When do you think the planet will death-melt from humanity's raping of Climate ... unless we act now ... although it might already be too late?
25-01-2022 17:24
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	IBdaMann wrote: gfm7175 wrote:When pressed on what has changed in Earth's environment (where is the additional energy coming from?), he goes into the usual warmizombie nonsense about the atmosphere and the "one-way blanket" and what not, The important thing to remember on this point is that anyone focusing separately on "the atmosphere" is necessarily subdividing the planet and is treating the atmosphere as though it is not part of the earth. This necessarily results in bad math. The atmosphere magickally becomes an additional source of energy. Suppose earth's total energy is partitioned into the amount of energy in the atmosphere and the amount of energy elsewhere (i.e. lithosphere & hydrosphere) as such: E(earth) = E(atmosphere) + E(surface) This equation recognizes that the atmosphere is part of the earth. However, if we allow the atmosphere to suddenly become an additional body in the equation, we now have more energy in the system through faulty math: E(new total) = E(earth) + E(atmosphere) Once there is a new higher energy total, any sort of Global Warming or Greenhouse Effect can be easily shown. In fact, any mathematician observing such a process will see this as a "reductio ad absurdum" (proof by contradiction, reduction to the absurd) and will immediately conclude that the original assumption, i.e. that the atmosphere is somehow separate from the earth, must be FALSE. gfm7175 wrote:He is one who also loves to pull the same BS that warmizombies have pulled on here with regard to the SB Law, attempting to divert towards discussion about specific wavelengths, "albedo" (red flag rises), pretending that the SB Law doesn't apply to Earth, etc etc... There are four things about Stefan-Boltzman to remember here: 1. Any argument involving radiance and temperature moving in different directions is FALSE. Period. Done. 2. Stefan-Boltzmann applies to all matter, always, everywhere. All matter is always radiating thermally per its absolute temperature to the fourth power. 3. To leverage blackbody science, at some level one must define the body of matter in question. Once defined, it cannot thereafter be subdivided. 4. Warmizombies believe that one way around Stefan-Boltzmann is to shift the goalposts between Stefan-Boltzmann and Kirchhoff's law as convenient. They begin a conversation entirely within the context of the Stefan-Boltzmann law, pleasantly continue the conversation for a brief while, and then subtly duck out of Stefan-Boltzmann and seamlessly into Kirchhoff's law, specifically discussing how certain substances such as CO2 have very high absorptivities/radiativities at certain wavelengths. Of course they use the word "emissivites" to maintain the appearance that they never left the Stefan-Boltzmann law and to imply that these substances with high "emissivities" (Kirchhoff's law) are thusly increasing earth's "emissivity" (Stefan-Boltzman) which necessarily means that earth's temperature must be increasing. Shifting the goalposts between two different science models enables great flexibility in EVADING particular points in either one. You've obviously been through this particular discussion a time or two...
25-01-2022 17:29
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote:...what has changed in Earth's environment (where is the additional energy coming from?),... You just injected a false concept into the question there GFM. The additional energy is coming from the sun. Apply your reasoning to the rusting ball: GFM: what changed? Answer: the emissivity, it's now rusty and dull, it was shiny GFM: but where is the additional energy coming from? Answer: from the sun, more of it is is being absorbed and retained now, that's how emissivity works. What's changed on Earth? the composition of gasses, namely more CO2. You can dismiss that this particular change is significant but you can't say it's impossible for an object to get hotter without a change in the suns radiance as ITN/IBD do. because it is possible. IBdaMann wrote:Any argument involving radiance and temperature moving in different directions is FALSE. Period. Done....No additional energy. You need additional energy. So the rusty ball get hotter, temp goes up (the WHOLE ball, not just the surface or it's atmosphere) while radiance is the same. Those are different directions. Your theory is proven wrong. Into the Night wrote: You cannot have a planet heat up without additional energy. The sun supplies additional energy all the time. If a planets emissivity changes it can reach a higher mean temp through that alone. You deny that a steel ball would rust and get hotter? Ah yes you do deny it!! Into the Night wrote: The sphere is not warmer. How about that IBD? any comment? Into the Night wrote: Energy is not a rate. Describe the Energy Earth has from the sun. How much is there if it's not a rate? So I'm supposed to believe that the sun is providing additional energy without actually providing any additional energy, and also believe that Earth's emissivity has changed? Why would any rational adult believe any of this tripe?
25-01-2022 17:45
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	gfm7175 wrote: You've obviously been through this particular discussion a time or two... He seems to know exactly how to hit'em. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Attached image:
25-01-2022 17:48
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	Haha nice image... I'm sure IBdaMann will appreciate it.
25-01-2022 21:27
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	GasGuzzler wrote: gfm7175 wrote: You've obviously been through this particular discussion a time or two... He seems to know exactly how to hit'em. gfm7175 wrote: Haha nice image... I'm sure IBdaMann will appreciate it. Yes, I do appreciate the image ... but it's the simple recognition of being the Whack-a-mole champ that I treasure. I put in my time at Chuck E Cheese and I feel it's deserved.
25-01-2022 22:51
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	[img][/img] IBdaMann wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: gfm7175 wrote: You've obviously been through this particular discussion a time or two... He seems to know exactly how to hit'em. gfm7175 wrote: Haha nice image... I'm sure IBdaMann will appreciate it. Yes, I do appreciate the image ... but it's the simple recognition of being the Whack-a-mole champ that I treasure. I put in my time at Chuck E Cheese and I feel it's deserved. If I had invested just a fraction of the money I've spent at Chuck E Cheese.... Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
26-01-2022 01:18
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	GasGuzzler wrote:If I had invested just a fraction of the money I've spent at Chuck E Cheese.... Tell me about it. I remember walking around as a kid with a hundred other kids carrying around cups of tokens. Later, I remember shelling out the cash so that my kids could walk around with a hundred other kids carrying their cups of tokens. I remember thinking "I could just as easily take my kids to Arby's, spend less on food they like much more, and instead use the money I would otherwise spend on tokens to fund their IRAs. Then I would look at my kids playing and think "Nope, that idea will go over like a lead balloon."
26-01-2022 03:00
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2932)	GasGuzzler wrote:If I had invested just a fraction of the money I've spent at Chuck E Cheese.... IBdaMann wrote:Tell me about it. I remember walking around as a kid with a hundred other kids carrying around cups of tokens. Later, I remember shelling out the cash so that my kids could walk around with a hundred other kids carrying their cups of tokens. 100% ditto. IBdaMann wrote:I remember thinking "I could just as easily take my kids to Arby's, spend less on food they like much more, and instead use the money I would otherwise spend on tokens to fund their IRAs. 99% ditto....only difference here is I was thinking of funding college. IBdaMann wrote:Then I would look at my kids playing and think "Nope, that idea will go over like a lead balloon." I would look at my wife and think "Nope, that idea will get me hit over the head with a fry pan." Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 26-01-2022 03:02
26-01-2022 05:48
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	GasGuzzler wrote: IBdaMann wrote:I remember thinking "I could just as easily take my kids to Arby's, spend less on food they like much more, and instead use the money I would otherwise spend on tokens to fund their IRAs. 99% ditto....only difference here is I was thinking of funding college. I funded my kids' college by setting aside some times to just take them to Arby's.
27-01-2022 05:37
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: So I'm supposed to believe that the sun is providing additional energy without actually providing any additional energy, and also believe that Earth's... Can you for a moment answer this simple question GFM. It's not about the earth. A shiny steel ball rusts. Does it or does it not have an increase in it's mean temperature? Same sun, everything else the same. But the ball goes from shiny to rusty. ITN/IBD won't dare answer this as you have seen. It proves their arguments about thermodynamics are wrong.
27-01-2022 06:25
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:Can you for a moment answer this simple question GFM. You should probably start answering questions yourself if you'd like others to answer your questions ... especially considering your level of disingenuousness. tmiddles wrote: It's not about the earth. It's entirely about the earth. Remember? Earth's average global temperature? We're not talking about the moon or Mars, and we're presuming the sun has a constant solar output so yes, it's entirely an earth-centric focus. You're still a crappy liar. tmiddles wrote:A shiny steel ball rusts. The earth's emissivity is not changing. tmiddles wrote: Does it or does it not have an increase in it's mean temperature? Not when its emissivity is not changing. tmiddles wrote:Same sun, everything else the same. But the ball goes from shiny to rusty. Same sun, same emissivity, everything else the same ... but the earth's average global temperature ... remains the same. tmiddles wrote: I won't dare answer this as you have seen. I can't ever seem to prove the laws of thermodynamics are wrong. I'm sure you'll keep trying. At this point we all know that you are either trying to create energy out of nothing or you are trying to rewrite Stefan-Boltzmann. You shouldn't be surprised when everyone immediately spots the flaw in your dishonesty. Cheers.
27-01-2022 07:25
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:A shiny steel ball rusts. The earth's.... Why won't you address the hypothetical? You know... to explain thermodynamic principles. Come on: A shiny steel ball rusts and gets warmer. Right? How can that be? You have my explanation. The sun is the only source of continuous new energy and the ball now absorbs more of it due to a change in its emissivity.
27-01-2022 08:38
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:Why won't you address the hypothetical? I have addressed it thoroughly multiple times. Why won't you answer a simple, straightforward question about your position? You know, to explain why someone should embrace your unsupported assumption? tmiddles wrote:You know... to explain thermodynamic principles. What thermodynamic principle have I not explained to you multiple times? tmiddles wrote: Come on: A shiny steel ball rusts and gets warmer. Right? As far as you know, to the best of your understanding, you are not aware of any reason any rational adult should believe the earth's emissivity is changing. Right? You have never answered this question. tmiddles wrote:You have my explanation. Nope. I don't have it. Why should any rational adult accept your postulate that the earth's emissivity is increasing? tmiddles wrote:The sun is the only source of continuous new energy In your scenario, the sun is a constant power source that exists prior to any events. You do not add any additional power to your scenario/system. You simply claim an increase in temperature. Why should any rational adult take you and your word games seriously? Anyway, I'm still not buying your claim that earth's emissivity is somehow changing. You haven't supported that claim in any way.
27-01-2022 08:54
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:You have my explanation. Nope. I don't have it. Why should any rational adult accept your postulate that the earth's emissivity is increasing? Focus IBD, at no point did I mention Earth. One more time: A shiny steel ball rusts. Does it or does it not have an increase in it's mean temperature? Same sunlight, the only change would be the surface rusting.

27-01-2022 09:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:A shiny steel ball rusts. The earth's.... Why won't you address the hypothetical? Attempted proof by contrivance. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: You know... to explain thermodynamic principles. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: Come on: A shiny steel ball rusts and gets warmer. Right? How can that be? RQAA. tmiddles wrote: You have my explanation. Which is wrong. Already explained why. tmiddles wrote: The sun is the only source of continuous new energy and the ball now absorbs more of it due to a change in its emissivity. There is no such thing as 'new' energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. 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
27-01-2022 09:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:You have my explanation. Nope. I don't have it. Why should any rational adult accept your postulate that the earth's emissivity is increasing? Focus IBD, at no point did I mention Earth. Lie. tmiddles wrote: One more time: A shiny steel ball rusts. Does it or does it not have an increase in it's mean temperature? Same sunlight, the only change would be the surface rusting. RQAA. 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
27-01-2022 09:33
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	tmiddles wrote:Focus IBD, at no point did I mention Earth. It is the context of the discussion. Your diversionary steel ball tangent lies entirely within that context. You are trying to sell the assumption that the earth's emissivity is changing. Your plan, once you get your unsupported assumption to be accepted, is to then claim that the earth's temperature must therefore be increasing. So explain to me why a rational adult should embrace your currently unsupported assumption and we'll be singing from the same sheet of music. One more time: As far as you have explained to date, you are not aware of any reason any rational adult should accept your premise that the earth's emissivity is changing. This is all you have to answer. You have come this far and you are so close ... you just have this one, little, tiny, itsy-bitsy gap to bridge, this one minuscule loose end to tie, this one quantum leap to hurdle, thus one hairline crack to seal, this one fun-size potato chip bag to clip and you will have driven your point home. Take that one, last, final step and bring closure to your argument. Explain why any rational adult should accept your premise that the earth's emissivity is somehow increasing and voila! You are done! Walk-off home run! Slam dunk. Touchdown, Raiders! Pop the cork on the champaign, baby. So just lay it on me. You could be a winner in less time than it takes to open your browser. Do it, baby, do it.
27-01-2022 15:26
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	OP's topic: GasGuzzler wrote: ...How is it possible to have two identical items sitting in the sun and one is much hotter than the other because it was black. ... My barely diffetent example: tmiddles wrote:... A shiny steel ball rusts. Does it or does it not have an increase in it's mean temperature? And whatever this is IBdaMann wrote: ....Your diversionary steel ball tangent ...sheet of music. ...earth's emissivity is ...baby, do it. The topic is about a simple, fundamental aspect of thermodynamics: that emissivity can determine a higher mean temperature WITHOUT changing the source of energy. It disproves the ITN/IBD bs about needing "new energy" to have a higher temp. Earth never needs to enter the discussion. But keep running away. It's all you have left.
27-01-2022 16:51
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: So I'm supposed to believe that the sun is providing additional energy without actually providing any additional energy, and also believe that Earth's... Can you for a moment answer this simple question GFM. It's not about the earth. LMFAO... You wouldn't be going on and on and on with your rant about "steel balls" if you weren't somehow attempting to show that Earth is increasing in temperature. This is COMPLETELY about the Earth, dude. You are being disingenuous again. Why talk about "steel balls" at all?? Why not just talk about the Earth itself?? Oh wait... tmiddles wrote: A shiny steel ball rusts. Does it or does it not have an increase in it's mean temperature? The Earth's emissivity is not changing. tmiddles wrote: Same sun, everything else the same. But the ball goes from shiny to rusty. Same sun, everything else the same... and Earth's average global temperature remains the same too. Funny how that works. tmiddles wrote: ITN/IBD won't dare answer this as you have seen. It proves their arguments about thermodynamics are wrong. They've answered it just fine. You are just attempting to falsify the laws of thermodynamics via dishonesty (and failing horribly at it).
27-01-2022 16:54
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:A shiny steel ball rusts. The earth's.... Why won't you address the hypothetical? Why won't you address the ACTUAL? tmiddles wrote: You know... to explain thermodynamic principles. You know... to learn thermodynamic principles. tmiddles wrote: Come on: A shiny steel ball rusts and gets warmer. Right? How can that be? Earths emissivity is not changing. tmiddles wrote: You have my explanation. The sun is the only source of continuous new energy and the ball now absorbs more of it due to a change in its emissivity. "New" energy (energy is neither created nor destroyed) is not additional energy. Earth's emissivity is not changing. Edited on 27-01-2022 16:59
27-01-2022 17:05
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: The topic is about a simple, fundamental aspect of thermodynamics: that emissivity can determine a higher mean temperature WITHOUT changing the source of energy. ... and this is where Earth's emissivity comes into play. You now need to explain why any rational adult would believe that Earth's emissivity is changing. tmiddles wrote: It disproves the ITN/IBD bs about needing "new energy" to have a higher temp. ADDITIONAL energy... not "new" energy. tmiddles wrote: Earth never needs to enter the discussion. The discussion is about Earth. Earth is the main focus of the discussion. tmiddles wrote: But keep running away. It's all you have left. Projection. YOU are the one running. Why should any rational adult believe that Earth's emissivity is changing?
28-01-2022 00:08
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Why won't you address the hypothetical? Why won't you address the ACTUAL? The actual topic? Would you like to review what this thread is about? GasGuzzler wrote:...How is it possible to have two identical items sitting in the sun and one is much hotter than the other because it was black.... Answer: It's emissivity allows the black object to absorb more radiance. Can something have a changing emissivity?: Yes of course So does this disprove the absurd notion that something can have an increase in it's temp while the radiance it's exposed to is consistent? Yes it does. Does GFM have an actual rebuttal to this? ... "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
28-01-2022 00:37
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Why won't you address the hypothetical? Why won't you address the ACTUAL? The actual topic? Would you like to review what this thread is about? You've lost track of what this thread is about? Not surprising... tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:...How is it possible to have two identical items sitting in the sun and one is much hotter than the other because it was black.... Answer: It's emissivity allows the black object to absorb more radiance. Can something have a changing emissivity?: Yes of course So does this disprove the absurd notion that something can have an increase in it's temp while the radiance it's exposed to is consistent? Yes it does. Does GFM have an actual rebuttal to this? ... Rebuttal to your nonsense has already been provided. I have nothing more to add that hasn't already been said.
28-01-2022 00:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Why won't you address the hypothetical? Why won't you address the ACTUAL? The actual topic? Would you like to review what this thread is about? GasGuzzler wrote:...How is it possible to have two identical items sitting in the sun and one is much hotter than the other because it was black.... Answer: It's emissivity allows the black object to absorb more radiance. Radiance isn't absorbed. A high emissivity means a surface can also emit better. See the Stefan-Boltzmann law (which you ignore). tmiddles wrote: Can something have a changing emissivity?: Yes of course No. Emissivity is a measured constant. It is not a variable. tmiddles wrote: So does this disprove the absurd notion that something can have an increase in it's temp while the radiance it's exposed to is consistent? Yes it does. You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law again as well as the 1st law of thermodynamics. tmiddles wrote: Does GFM have an actual rebuttal to this? ... RQAA. 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 28-01-2022 00:46

Page 2 of 4

Join the debate My ignorance on full display!:

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