Remember me
▼ Content

My new girlfriend is a warmazombie


My new girlfriend is a warmazombie28-08-2021 22:17
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1350)
I went on a lunch date with someone I have just met and half way through she asked me about climate change and CO2.The 2 years of study have paid off and I could answer all her questions.The question posed I enjoyed the most was ( what do you need to convince you its true) my simple answer was some evidence.I am doing lunch again Monday for round 2.


duncan61
29-08-2021 19:56
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3614)
duncan61 wrote:
I went on a lunch date with someone I have just met and half way through she asked me about climate change and CO2.The 2 years of study have paid off and I could answer all her questions.The question posed I enjoyed the most was ( what do you need to convince you its true) my simple answer was some evidence.I am doing lunch again Monday for round 2.


Very difficult to de-program a cult member... If she's in deep, probably a lost cause. Some people just accept what's on TV, until they learn different. We depends on if she has 'faith' in the 'science'. Don't think a lot of people care all that much, just politics.
30-08-2021 00:00
James___
★★★★★
(4991)
duncan61 wrote:
I went on a lunch date with someone I have just met and half way through she asked me about climate change and CO2.The 2 years of study have paid off and I could answer all her questions.The question posed I enjoyed the most was ( what do you need to convince you its true) my simple answer was some evidence.I am doing lunch again Monday for round 2.



Ask Harvey when was the last time he had a date. Just sayin'.
30-08-2021 02:30
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1350)
She is not fanatical just going by the media.We listen to each others point of veiw.Today I am going to focus on RCP 8.5 which is the big we are going to die claim that did not happen
30-08-2021 03:33
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)


duncan61 wrote:She is not fanatical just going by the media.We listen to each others point of veiw.Today I am going to focus on RCP 8.5 which is the big we are going to die claim that did not happen

How do you plan to convince her that gravity is the cause of the nonexistent warming and not CO2?

When the two of you were "listening" to each other's point of view, did either of you unambiguously define the global Climate or were both of you babbling gibberish the whole time?

When the two of you were "listening" to each other's point of view, did either of you mention that no body of matter anywhere in the universe can spontaneously increase in temperature without additional energy, or were both of you babbling gibberish the whole time?

When the two of you were "listening" to each other's point of view, did either of you ask the other to account for the additional energy required for temperature to increase or were both of you babbling gibberish the whole time?

I'm just curious.

30-08-2021 13:58
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1350)
We covered the fudging of the temperature data and she was not convinced they homogenize the numbers.Last date she asked if I think the atmosphere does anything to the planet so I shared that yes and it is denser at the surface due to Gravity and it made sense because it is denser at the surface which is why we need oxygen masks at altitude and the atmosphere is one of the many factors that make the planet habitable.We moved on.This lunch date she focused on the extreme weather that has only just started last week apparently flooding fires extreme never before temperatures etc.I listened intently as I do not wish to let my insanity out too soon.The main thing I was getting was how conveniently the warming has gone and now its CO2 doing all the bad stuff directly.Renewable energy was discussed and I saw the lights come on when I explained how gas turbines work and solar does very little so it was all good.I hope to see her again soon and see if I can get my hands up her jumper
30-08-2021 15:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)


duncan61 wrote: We covered the fudging of the temperature data

Did you cover how there is no global temperature data to fudge? Did you cover how there is no The Data? Did you cover how The Data is just an urban legend like the Loch Ness Monster and the Chupacabra? Did you cover how the reason neither of you have ever seen The Data is because it is entirely mythical, that no one has ever seen it and that it is rather stupid for one to discuss it as though it does exist as though one is somehow familiar with it?

duncan61 wrote: ... and she was not convinced they homogenize the numbers.

She is correct. No homogenization is performed. All numbers in The Data are fabricated pre-homogenized ... and no margin of error is therefore needed.

By the way, did you press her on specifically who "they" supposedly are?

duncan61 wrote:Last date she asked if I think the atmosphere does anything to the planet so I shared that yes and it is denser at the surface due to Gravity

Not to bash on your lack of English comprehension but she asked you if the atmosphere does anything to the planet and you explained what gravity did to the atmosphere ... but in the wrong tense. You explained the wrong thing in the wrong tense.

Your Girlfriend: Is it raining right now?
You: Yes, the Freemantle Dockers did beat the West Coast Eagles!

duncan61 wrote: ... and it made sense b

No. Your attempt to rationalize a physics violation by conflating verb tenses does not somehow make sense. It is simply erroneous.

duncan61 wrote:... which is why we need oxygen masks at altitude and the atmosphere is one of the many factors that make the planet habitable.

You are claiming an increase in temperature. You still need to account for the additional energy required for temperature to increase. So far you have only babbled and gibbered ... followed by the words "it all makes sense."

duncan61 wrote: This lunch date she focused on the extreme weather that has only just started last week apparently flooding fires extreme never before temperatures etc.

Of course you pressed her for an unambiguous definition of "extreme weather," yes ... or was this date just a free gibber-babble session?

Good luck getting into the jumper.

30-08-2021 16:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16050)
duncan61 wrote:
She is not fanatical just going by the media.We listen to each others point of veiw.Today I am going to focus on RCP 8.5 which is the big we are going to die claim that did not happen


These days, if someone is going by the media, they are fanatical, because the media is fanatical.

Ask her this: If we are all going to die because of 'global warming', why do you want to go out with me?


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
30-08-2021 17:06
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16050)
duncan61 wrote:
We covered the fudging of the temperature data

There is no data to fudge. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
duncan61 wrote:
and she was not convinced they homogenize the numbers.

They don't. The numbers are pure fiction.
duncan61 wrote:
Last date she asked if I think the atmosphere does anything to the planet so I shared that yes and it is denser at the surface due to Gravity and it made sense because it is denser at the surface which is why we need oxygen masks at altitude and the atmosphere is one of the many factors that make the planet habitable.

The atmosphere is part of the planet. Gravity is not a proper noun. It is not capitalized. Gravity is not energy.
duncan61 wrote:
We moved on.This lunch date she focused on the extreme weather that has only just started last week apparently flooding fires extreme never before temperatures etc.I listened intently as I do not wish to let my insanity out too soon.The main thing I was getting was how conveniently the warming has gone and now its CO2 doing all the bad stuff directly.

This is just gibberish. You have to define 'extreme weather', 'climate change', 'global warming', and 'bad stuff'.
duncan61 wrote:
Renewable energy was discussed

More gibberish. Define 'renewable energy'.
duncan61 wrote:
and I saw the lights come on when I explained how gas turbines work and solar does very little so it was all good.

Watch this one return to the Church of Green.
duncan61 wrote:
I hope to see her again soon and see if I can get my hands up her jumper

Hand warming, eh?


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
30-08-2021 18:57
keepit
★★★★★
(2245)
IBD and ITN and gfm,

The three of you have each said that i believe everything i read. Do you think i believe what you guys offer?
30-08-2021 19:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16050)
keepit wrote:
IBD and ITN and gfm,

The three of you have each said that i believe everything i read. Do you think i believe what you guys offer?


You want to play semantics and contextomy games now?


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
30-08-2021 21:10
Spongy Iris
★★★☆☆
(759)
Reeeeeaal charming



30-08-2021 21:31
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2452)
keepit wrote:
IBD and ITN and gfm,

The three of you have each said that i believe everything i read. Do you think i believe what you guys offer?

Your abysmal batting average speaks for itself.
31-08-2021 00:24
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)
keepit wrote: The three of you have each said that i believe everything i read.

You didn't get the wording correct. Try again.

.


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
31-08-2021 02:30
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1350)
IBDM wrote
Not to bash on your lack of English comprehension but she asked you if the atmosphere does anything to the planet and you explained what gravity did to the atmosphere ... but in the wrong tense. You explained the wrong thing in the wrong tense.

I shared the atmosphere has a mass and takes time to heat and cool and gravity makes the atmosphere have a greater density at the surface.I can not share every word of a 3 hour lunch date
31-08-2021 02:37
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1350)
IBDM wrote
She is correct. No homogenization is performed. All numbers in The Data are fabricated pre-homogenized ... and no margin of error is therefore needed.

By the way, did you press her on specifically who "they" supposedly are?

They localy are CSIRO and BOM.Globaly they are IPCC.She is trusting the media in which she is not alone and its rather sweet.The DDs are natural.I queried the hottest july ever claim but when I asked how much hotter she did not know.I like bimbos and need more of them
31-08-2021 03:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)
duncan61 wrote:I shared the atmosphere has a mass and takes time to heat and cool

You just described all matter. You reiterated that the earth is a body of matter that happens to have an atmosphere that happens to be made of matter.

duncan61 wrote: ... and gravity makes the atmosphere have a greater density at the surface.

I explained this several times already. This is where the "too stupid to learn" comes into play. Gravity does not make the atmosphere have a greater density. Gravity keeps the atmosphere in place on earth rather than float away. The earth's contact force is the equal and opposite force to gravity which is acting on the atmosphere in the manner you describe.

One more time:

Gravity accelerates the atmosphere toward the planet's center of gravity.

Earth's contact force accelerates the atmosphere away from the planet's center of gravity.

The atmosphere is denser closer to the contact force.

Neither of these forces is thermal energy.

duncan61 wrote:I can not share every word of a 3 hour lunch date

Thank you. I think if I had been present listening to your conversation I would have had strong impulses to slit my wrists.

.


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
31-08-2021 13:22
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1350)
One more time:

Gravity accelerates the atmosphere toward the planet's center of gravity.

Earth's contact force accelerates the atmosphere away from the planet's center of gravity.

The atmosphere is denser closer to the contact force.

Neither of these forces is thermal energy.

WTF are you on about.Where is the atmosphere accelerating too again.You are so FOS
31-08-2021 16:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9934)


duncan61 wrote:WTF are you on about.

I never accused you of being smart enough to understand anything.

duncan61 wrote:Where is the atmosphere accelerating too again.

I was very clear that you being "too stupid to learn" was the critical factor of this part of the discussion. It's why I don't bother to mention that the correct word is "to" and not "too" or that your prepositional phrases should begin and not end with the preposition.

duncan61 wrote: You are so FOS

Physics causes a nasty allergic reaction out of you, I see. You probably broke out into a rash.

You're a moron.

31-08-2021 19:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16050)
duncan61 wrote:
IBDM wrote
She is correct. No homogenization is performed. All numbers in The Data are fabricated pre-homogenized ... and no margin of error is therefore needed.

By the way, did you press her on specifically who "they" supposedly are?

They localy are CSIRO and BOM.Globaly they are IPCC.She is trusting the media in which she is not alone and its rather sweet.The DDs are natural.I queried the hottest july ever claim but when I asked how much hotter she did not know.I like bimbos and need more of them


Well...you can buy, or rent.



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
Edited on 31-08-2021 19:05
31-08-2021 19:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16050)
duncan61 wrote:
One more time:

Gravity accelerates the atmosphere toward the planet's center of gravity.

Earth's contact force accelerates the atmosphere away from the planet's center of gravity.

The atmosphere is denser closer to the contact force.

Neither of these forces is thermal energy.

WTF are you on about.Where is the atmosphere accelerating too again.You are so FOS


Gravity is a force. The atmosphere has mass. According to Newton's law of motion, F=mA. If there is a force, there is acceleration.

The ground is in the way. It too can be considered a force (it's actually electrostatic force).

Applying this force against air trying to pass through it also results in an acceleration, but outward. The result is a net acceleration of zero for both the ground and the air (ignoring a spinning or orbiting Earth).

This is basically what IBD is trying to say.

According to Newton's Law of Gravitation, the closer a mass is to another mass, the greater the force between them. For both the atmosphere and the Earth, you can add all the masses together as vectors and find that you can use the center of mass as the center of gravity. Therefore, for both the atmosphere AND the ground beneath it, these are both drawn to the center of Earth (ignoring the Moon, Sun, and other planets for a moment).

Therefore, you cannot consider the atmosphere as 'above' the ground in terms of Newton's Law of Gravitation. There is just as much 'below' you (on the other side of the planet) as there is 'above' you.

The center of gravity for both atmosphere and the ground is at the same point, also called the barycenter (you'll see why this is important in a moment).

Now we re-introduce the effects of the Moon, the Sun, and the other planets. They are each pulling on Earth, just as Earth pulls on them, all due to gravity. The Moon has the greatest effect, since it is closest. The Sun has the second greatest effect, since it has so much mass.

All this means the actual barycenter of the Earth and the Moon, for example, is NOT at the center of the Earth. It's offset about 60 miles. In essence, the Moon does not orbit the Earth. They orbit each other, around that point called the barycenter.

This offset center of gravity is what causes our tides. Not just the oceans, but the air as well. Even the land has a tide. The side facing the Moon is pulled outward by the Moon's gravity, since that side is nearer to the Moon than the barycenter is. The side that is away from the Moon also moves outward, since there is less gravity as that side is further away from the barycenter.

Earth spins beneath these two points, giving us two high tides (the side facing the Moon and the side facing away from the Moon), and two low tides. If you plot the tides, you will see the sinosoidal pattern in the plot, caused the circular and cyclic motion of the Moon relative to the Earth's surface. You will see another superimposed on it (added to it) that is the effect of the Sun. You will also see the effect of each and every planet in out solar system imposed on it. Thus, the tide height and time shift every day. It's all calculable, since everything is following predictable orbits.

As you correctly stated, the atmosphere has mass, and like any mass, it takes time to heat it (or cool it, which is still called 'heat'). This is the reason the surface of the Earth does not get anywhere near as hot as the surface of the Moon during the day, and nowhere near as cold as the surface of the Moon during the night. We are at the bottom of an ocean. An ocean of air.

So IBD is correct. The force of gravity is not energy, and cannot heat the air. The electrostatic force is not energy and cannot heat the material that it forms. This force is responsible for binding atoms into molecules, and for keeping electrons in orbit around their nucleus. Indeed, the electrostatic force is what allows everyday matter to even exist. It is, however, not energy, like the force of gravity. It does not heat the matter it makes up.

It can, however, keep matter from passing through other matter. You can't pass your hand through a table, for example, not without breaking the table or your hand (or both!).


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
31-08-2021 20:54
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16050)
Now we get to why the atmosphere (and anything else that is fluid) is denser the closer it is to the center of gravity.

As I mentioned before, you can add all the vectors of the effect of gravity between two masses and simply use the center of gravity as the point where they all sum together.

You can also do this for each particle of mass, regardless of the size of that particle.

Let's start with the ground.

Earth has a liquid core that is quite hot. Hot enough to melt rock. What powers this core to heat rock to such high temperatures? Earth is made of many compounds and elements. The heaviest are the radioactive series of elements such as uranium. Much of this is drawn to the center of gravity, forming a critical mass. Nuclear fission is the result. It's not enough to blow up Earth, but it's enough to heat it's core and the mantle above it to liquid rock.

Is it the ground above that is pressing on the core? No. It is simply the heaviest elements moving to the center of the Earth and forming a critical mass.

Not all of it moves to the center, of course, but a lot of it does. Some uranium stays quite near the surface, where we can mine it and use it in our own man made reactors.

Now the oceans:
As you go deeper into the ocean, water pressure increases. This limits how deep one can go, either by swimming or even by submarine. If take a square inch of surface area on your submarine, and extend that as a column to the surface, you can calculate the weight of all that water on that square inch of your submarine.

Water is a fluid. That means another column one square inch is on the water beside the submarine, and it has the same pressure. Hydraulic pressure doesn't care about straight lines. No matter where the pressure comes from, it equally everywhere. Thus, the sides, bottom, and every part of that submarine sees that same pressure per square inch.

The same thing happens in the brakes of your car. When you press on the pedal to stop the car, you are pressing on a hydraulic ram, putting pressure on the fluid in your brake system. The pedal is set up so the ram is very near the pivot point on the brake pedal. The brake pedal itself is a lever. Using this, you can put tremendous pressure on the hydraulic system for your brakes.

At each break is a piston. Each piston has a larger surface area than the little ram in the brake pedal. Since pressure is equal per square inch, this further multiplies the pressure across the entire slave cylinder in the brake at the wheel. It doesn't move as far as the brake pedal does. That's the cost. Fortunately, the slave cylinder piston doesn't have to.

Just a tiny movement in the slave cylinder piston presses on the wheel rotor, which is attached to the wheel itself with bolts. Between them is the brake shoe...the friction surface that rubs against the rotor.

The piston only has to shove on one side. The whole brake assembly can also move, so the shoe on the other side is pushed equally hard. Thus, the rotor is squeezed between the brake shoes, stopping the wheel.

The brake system is obviously not at the bottom of the ocean where our submarine is. Pressure is there all the same. You provided it with your foot (and it's usually assisted from the running engine as well). All this works in a sealed vessel (the brake cylinders and all that tubing is sealed against leaks).

We are still talking about forces only here, not energy. Pushing on the brake pedal does not significantly heat the brake fluid or even the brake shoes. The brake shoes are only heated by stopping a moving car, which is translating kinetic energy to thermal energy. The brake system does not create any energy.

Indeed, it is not possible to create energy. Neither can it be destroyed.

Now we finally come to the atmosphere:

The air is a fluid just like the ocean. Like the ocean, you can take a square inch of surface on the ground (or you) and extend that in a column all the way to the so-called 'top' of the atmosphere (there is no actual 'top'. The atmosphere just fades away.) This column of air weighs about 14.7 pounds. This is also known as the absolute pressure per square inch, or APSI.

If you build a tube of class one square inch (the actual diameter doesn't really matter since it's all the same ratio), fill it with mercury, then invert the open end of the tube in a dish of mercury, a vacuum will form in the closed end at the top. The column standing up in the tube will be about 29.92 inches high.

You've just built a barometer. This pressure is also known as pressure Hg (the symbol for the element of mercury). It is what 14.7 APSI will do to a mercury barometer.

The higher you go, the shorter that column of air above it. The less weight is above it. Like our submarine from before, the air is a fluid. All pressure at that point is the same. An aircraft or spacecraft at that altitude will see the same static air pressure all around it (assuming it was floating in the air and not flying).

The altimeter in an aircraft is actually a barometer. You set it to the air pressure at the surface, and as you gain altitude, the meter is measuring the drop in pressure.

Again, it is not gravity that makes the bottom air heavier, it is just the air above that point that weighs on that bit of air. Gravity cannot heat the air, since it is not energy. It is only a force. Higher air pressure does not make the air hotter. It is just higher air pressure. If you pressurize a tank to 90 psi with an air compressor and let it sit, it will be at the same temperature as the lower air pressure outside of that tank. You can even pressurize a CO2 tank to 3000psi, let it sit, and it will be at the same temperature as the air outside at only 14.7APSI.

This is why the idea that pressure causes high temperatures is bogus.

Only the act of actually compressing the air or CO2 will heat it. This is the ideal gas law in action. Once compression stops, and the tank sits, it returns to ambient temperature.

Only the act of actually expanding the air or CO2 will cool it. This is again the ideal gas law in action. Once expansion stops, and the escaped gas combines with the air it escaped into, it returns to ambient temperature.

Again, IBD is quite right. Pressure does not cause temperature. Density does not cause temperature. His example of two cubes of different density can easily have the same temperature, and different total thermal energy. There is more mass in one of the cubes, and more thermal energy at the same temperature because of it.

Temperature is AVERAGE thermal energy, not TOTAL thermal energy. This is one result of the 0th law of thermodynamics. This law defines the concept of temperature.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics defines the concept of heat. Heat always flows 'downhill'. That is, from concentrations of energy to dissipate that energy over a wider area or volume. Concentrations and voids of energy are low entropy (randomness). Uniformly distributed energy is high entropy (randomness). The 2nd law states: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. Entropy can increase or stay the same, but it can never decrease. Thermal energy can flow from concentrations to relative voids (flow of thermal energy is heat), but it can never flow from uniformly distributed energy to concentrations of energy by itself (the closed system).

The 1st law of thermodynamics is a translation of the law of the conservation of energy into thermodynamics. It states:
E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, and 't' is time. 'U' is work.

So just what IS energy? What IS work?

Energy is the POTENTIAL to do work. Note that this is NOT necessarily potential energy.
Work is force over distance. This involves time. It involves translating energy from one form to another only. The 1st law of thermodynamics does not allow anyone to create or destroy energy.

You can add energy to a system by taking it out of work, or put energy into performing work, but you cannot ever create or destroy energy. All you are doing here is translating it to or from some other form of energy.
Edited on 31-08-2021 20:58
01-09-2021 04:02
James___
★★★★★
(4991)
duncan61 wrote:
One more time:

Gravity accelerates the atmosphere toward the planet's center of gravity.

Earth's contact force accelerates the atmosphere away from the planet's center of gravity.

The atmosphere is denser closer to the contact force.

Neither of these forces is thermal energy.

WTF are you on about.Where is the atmosphere accelerating too again.You are so FOS



And we're back to there is someone you like. You like doing things with her like having lunch. Best wishes. In here, don't let it affect your personal life. These guys probably don't care. If you like her, be mindful she isn't someone who you know that is in this forum.

When you said;
WTF are you on about.Where is the atmosphere accelerating too again.You are so FOS

Why peer review is a necessary part of science. Today, you need to understand that I do not believe that what is accepted is peer reviewed.

am sorry. You gave me an opening and I took it. Science should be peer reviewed.
Edited on 01-09-2021 04:26
01-09-2021 07:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(16050)
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
One more time:

Gravity accelerates the atmosphere toward the planet's center of gravity.

Earth's contact force accelerates the atmosphere away from the planet's center of gravity.

The atmosphere is denser closer to the contact force.

Neither of these forces is thermal energy.

WTF are you on about.Where is the atmosphere accelerating too again.You are so FOS



And we're back to there is someone you like. You like doing things with her like having lunch. Best wishes. In here, don't let it affect your personal life. These guys probably don't care. If you like her, be mindful she isn't someone who you know that is in this forum.

When you said;
WTF are you on about.Where is the atmosphere accelerating too again.You are so FOS

Why peer review is a necessary part of science. Today, you need to understand that I do not believe that what is accepted is peer reviewed.

am sorry. You gave me an opening and I took it. Science should be peer reviewed.

There is no voting bloc in science. Consensus is not used in science.


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




Join the debate My new girlfriend is a warmazombie:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Warmazombie central423-09-2021 12:13
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact