NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.
| 31-07-2022 19:49 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21597) |
James_ wrote: Yes it does. James_ wrote: Because it is part of both. James_ wrote: They do know. It's how stratospheric clouds form anywhere. See information about cirrus clouds and deposition of water. James_ wrote: No, it doesn't. 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 |
| 31-07-2022 20:03 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
James_ wrote: Cirrus clouds form anywhere, not just the poles. James_ wrote: WRONG. The 'hole' in the Arctic forms while Earth is at perihelion. The one in the Antarctic forms while Earth is at aphelion. James_ wrote: Gravity is not energy. Gravity is not temperature. James_ wrote: ...and visa versa. James_ wrote: No, they don't. Cirrus clouds form anywhere. James_ wrote: These clouds are ice clouds, due to the temperature of the stratosphere, where they form. James_ wrote: Clouds are not carbon dioxide. This reaction is not spontaneous. James_ wrote: Nah. You just don't know any chemistry. James_ wrote: None needed. Chemistry is chemistry. You just discard it to spew your technobabble. 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 |
| 31-07-2022 20:40 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
James_ wrote: It doesn't. You will temperatures this low only during the winter. James_ wrote: Gravity is not energy. Gravity of the Sun does not change with seasons. Gravity has no temperature. James_ wrote: They don't migrate. They are not birds. James_ wrote: Circulation in a container makes to difference to displacement. James_ wrote: Water does not cause ozone holes. James_ wrote: There is no such thing as a global winter. James_ wrote: Because it was summer in Antarctica. James_ wrote: WRONG. Distance from the Sun has nothing to do with ozone 'holes'. James_ wrote: What increased solar radiation? James_ wrote: You are not talking about chemistry. James_ wrote: Cirrus clouds form anywhere. Not just the poles. 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 |
| 31-07-2022 22:54 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14406) |
duncan61 wrote:Hi Dorothy.I see you have met the UBDaMoron. She and I have never met. I tried to help her, very politely, in a very courteous and straightforward manner, but she's like you, a total ashsole to the core who immediately cries like a baby and pretends to be the victim, in a preemptive attempt to make others appear responsible for her/your cognitive shortcomings. I have learned from the likes of you that some people are too stupid to learn and that the only option in dealing with such morons is to just mock the schytt out of them. If Dorothy returns to post more mindless crap in her desperation to appear as a "thmart perthon," I will not try to be helpful. I now know that Dorothy is not looking to learn anything. I now know that Dorothy is looking to bully others who don't worship Global Warming as she does. I will have fun with her, and it will be easy fun. It is clear that she doesn't have any strong suits. At least you are capable of contributing in the areas of welding and other such trades (which makes one wonder why you are so desperate for people to think that you are a science genius who is here to correct others who are so much smarter than you are). Dorothy struggles to pretend to understand what science even is. I presume that she finds me insufferable because I actually understand that science that she is too stupid to grasp. If you are going to bash on her for being a stupid warmizombie, it won't be fair to warmizombies because she is just stupid; it's why she was targeted for indoctrination in the first place. Maybe she can find a good children's table at which the conversation will be down close enough to her level. duncan61 wrote:Because of this pair I have learned what Gaslighting on the Internet is. ... except that you don't know what gaslighting is, and you are asking others to believe that you have actually learned something. You're going to have to go back to the drawing board for this one. duncan61 wrote:I am curious as to your thoughts on AGW/CC. I think you mean to ask what she has been ordered to believe by the people who do her thinking for her. If you don't get a straight answer, look for clues as to who does her thinking for her. Ask her who's thinking "makes perfect sense." That will hone you in. duncan61 wrote:I have been looking in to it for over 3 years Now be honest. Three years is how long you have been crusading against warmizombies. You haven't been looking into anything, just proselytizing. I think it is pretty obvious that you have not desired to actually learn anything over that span of time. In order to honestly claim that you have been "looking into" something, you have to actually be willing to learn ... otherwise, you are not "looking into" anything. Your total revulsion to learning precludes you from having ever been "looking into" anything. Perhaps you are inadvertently conflating "looking into" with "demonizing" and "villifying." duncan61 wrote:and at this point do not believe humans are changing the weather and certainly not to an existential level. Dorothy should be expected to respond along the lines that you are confusing weather with The Climate, i.e. naturally humans cannot affect the weather, but are obviously decimating "The Climate." For good measure, she should throw in a jab about you not knowing the difference between "weather" and "The Global Climate System." That would be a great time for you to ask her for her unambiguous definition of The Climate so that you never again conflate it with weather. Confusing weather with The Climate ... how embarrassing!  . |
| 01-08-2022 11:55 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
I asked Dorothy directly her view on AGW/CC and her response was Hi Duncan, I'm in a wait and see mode regarding AGW/CC. That sounds neutral to me.I am impressed with how quick she worked you and ITN out.I am still hanging around because now I am all worked up about the layers of the atmosphere.I was sharing with my son in the work ute today you pairs stance on the term fossil fuel and a 2 dog fuel tanker went past going to Scarborough.How many people do you think said"check out the hydrocarbons on that baby"? |
| 01-08-2022 18:42 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
duncan61 wrote: Why not call it a gasoline truck? That's what it is. Why do call a gasoline truck a 'fossil fuel' truck???????!? Are you THAT desperate to insist that fossils somehow burn??????!? 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 01-08-2022 18:43 |
| 02-08-2022 02:58 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406) |
duncan61 wrote:I asked Dorothy directly her view on AGW/CC and her response was Hi Duncan, I'm in a wait and see mode regarding AGW/CC. Exactly. It does not jump out at you that she totally EVADED your question ... because you're too stupid to understand the English language. You wanted to know her thoughts ... for which she is an expert, i.e. her thoughts ... and you got EVASION ... and to you it made perfect sense. Do you see how that works? At a higher level, you wanted to know what she believed about CO2 heating the earth, but since you are too stupid to express your thoughts using the English language, what you asked was her thoughts on a completely undefined buzzword that you know is totally undefined. duncan61 wrote:I am impressed with how quick she worked you and ITN out. I am impressed with how quickly she totally manipulated you. You are one of the internet's most gullible posters ... and you could really use a refresher course in remedial English. duncan61 wrote:I am still hanging around because now I am all worked up about the layers of the atmosphere. ... in what way? What do you now believe about the atmosphere that you didn't believe previously? Can we expect you to start regurgitating total crap about nonexistent stuff in our atmosphere just because you gullibly believe whatever absurd schytt you are told to believe? I'm betting on: 1. Your clay-like malleability being abused by people who are desperate to appear thmart by throwing gibber-babble directly at your gullibility and your poor command of English, knowing that you are too stupid to independently research anything that you are told to believe, 2. You will claim that all incomprehensible crap "makes perfect sense", and 3. You will claim that it is what you "learned on this site." If only Vegas had a line on you at the sportsbook, I'd make enough money to buy half of Montana in time to get lunch. duncan61 wrote:I was sharing with my son in the work ute today you pairs stance on the term fossil fuel and a 2 dog fuel tanker went past going to Scarborough.How many people do you think said"check out the hydrocarbons on that baby"? Were they Aussies like you? Did you happen to be hanging around your peers? That might explain a lot. I never claimed that you or those with whom you are relegated to associate due to your inability to communicate verbally, had any proficiency in science or even know what a hydrocarbon is. I also never claimed that Aussies are able to identify gasoline as gasoline. I really never even implied as much. So please, don't hesitate on my account. Start regurgitating what you "have learned on this site" about the atmosphere. We know that you are too stupid to learn anything so you must be up to something. Go on, let's have it. |
| 02-08-2022 03:54 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
We don't call it gasoline we call it petrol.It was a petrol tanker.In England it would be called a petrol lorry.How much does what you call something matter if everyone knows what you mean?Dorothy was sitting on the fence same as me.I do not agree with some claims you pair make.On Thursday last week I had never considered the atmosphere was in layers.I came here to learn the answers when debate on AGW/CC comes along.In Broome the boss started a conversation about how his sister is really in to climate change and teaches at ECU.The conversation was brief and I am not allowed to talk to her or ask questions.I received the classic I would not understand her.Translates to she cant back up her wild claims |
| 02-08-2022 05:14 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406) |
duncan61 wrote:How much does what you call something matter if everyone knows what you mean? How can it not matter when nobody knows what it means? Do you prefer the mistaken terminology because it doesn't require you to learn anything? Boneheads like you wonder what the big deal is in preaching that fossils burn, that hydrocarbons are fossils, and that fossils are a major fuel industry. You are perfectly content for all involved in your discussions to operate under common, albeit wildly absurd, misconceptions, just to alleviate any need on your part to have to think. Boneheads like you are eager for others to do your thinking for you so you gladly embrace not only undefined buzzwords but erroneous terminology as well, just because you don't want to be correct if it's going to involve any cognitive work. I will never allow others to do my thinking for me, and whenever a bonehead like you insists on being stupid, I am happy to mock you if you're happy as well. As long as we agree that you richly deserve to be raked over the coals, I will oblige. duncan61 wrote:Dorothy was sitting on the fence same as me. Neither of you were ever sitting on any fence. You are lying right now, presuming that I am going to simply ignore the fact that you came to this site with one purpose: to be a complete ashsole to those who don't worship your WACKY religion. Let me check. Nope. I haven't forgotten. You were never looking to learn anything. You become a schytt at the mere suggestion that you learn something. You were never sitting on any fence. But you are a liar. I think we're done on this point. duncan61 wrote:I do not agree with some claims you pair make. You keep saying this ... in your ongoing campaign to totally misrepresent my position ... because you otherwise have nothing else to attack in your totally dishonest struggle to never learn anything. I have made no claims. I have simply offered you science, which you HATE, because you don't understand it whatsoever, and learning some of it just is not an acceptable option to you. This is why you chose the wording "some claims you pair make" as opposed to citing the specific science that you desperately need to deny. You know how stupid you would look openly stating the science with which you "disagree". Why don't you try getting my position correct and attack that? Do you avoid honesty because you know how stupid you would look if you were honest? Is that the reason you remain exclusively dishonest? duncan61 wrote: On Thursday last week I had never considered the atmosphere was in layers. There's a reason for that. Air does not have layers. Onions have layers. Skin has layers. Air does not. ... but let me guess, now you find that it makes "perfect sense" that there are little signs floating in the atmosphere "NOW LEAVING THE TROPOSPHERE" and "ENTERING THE STRATOSPHERE" right? How long will it be before you entertain discussion focusing on the surveyors that pinpointed the layers' boundaries? This will be good.  duncan61 wrote:I came here to learn the answers when debate on AGW/CC comes along. Nope. You aren't fooling anyone ... except for maybe Dorothy ... who is planning on manipulating you. You didn't come here to learn anything. You have shown nothing but revulsion at any opportunity to learn. duncan61 wrote:In Broome the boss started a conversation about how his sister is really in to climate change and teaches at ECU.The conversation was brief and I am not allowed to talk to her or ask questions.I received the classic I would not understand her.Translates to she cant back up her wild claims This might as well be about you. You have been indoctrinated into Global Warming (via gravity) and honest people shouldn't try talking to you because you can't back up your stupid crap and so you become dishonest and intentionally misrepresent the positions of others who know more than you, as a preemptive defense against having to learn anything. |
| 02-08-2022 08:58 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
Fascinating.The complete opposite of where I am at.Check this crap from NASA July 13, 2022JPEG In June and July 2022, heatwaves struck Europe, North Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, as temperatures climbed above 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees Fahrenheit) in places and broke many long-standing records. The map above shows the surface air temperatures across most of the Eastern Hemisphere on July 13, 2022. It was produced by combining observations with a version of the Goddard Earth Observing System (GEOS) global model, which uses mathematical equations to represent physical processes in the atmosphere. "While there is a clear pattern of an 'atmospheric wave' with alternating warm (redder) and cool (bluer) values in different locations, this large area of extreme (and record breaking) heat is another clear indicator that emissions of greenhouse gases by human activity are causing weather extremes that impact our living conditions," said Steven Pawson, chief of the Global Modeling and Assimilation Office at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center. In Western Europe, which was already experiencing severe drought, the heatwave fueled fires that raged across Portugal, Spain, and parts of France. In Portugal, temperatures reached 45 degrees Celsius (113 degrees Fahrenheit) on July 13 in the town of Leiria, where more than 3,000 hectares (7,400 acres) had burned. More than half of the country was on red alert as firefighters battled 14 active fires. I do not fall for this.Europe has had heat waves before and will again. |
| 02-08-2022 09:13 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
I am pretty sure Dorothy has gone.Just like most sane people which is why we have less than 10 people on this forum.I am of course insane but not as much as James and I love this stuff.I brush my teeth with it.Go Deniers |
| 03-08-2022 01:15 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406) |
duncan61 wrote:I am pretty sure Dorothy has gone. That's good news for you. It's one person fewer who will be trying to manipulate you by taking advantage of your gullibility. duncan61 wrote:Just like most sane people Nope. Just like dishonest manipulators who realize that they have been revealed as the scientifically illiterate morons that they are, thus diminishing their chances of bluffing their way through conversations with people more intelligent than you. duncan61 wrote: which is why we have less than 10 people on this forum. You don't know how many people read this forum. Sure, there are about 10 regular posters, but I am continually surprised at the steady flow of people who are simply chiming in for the first time. Did you not catch Dorothy's irrational hissy fit directed at Into the Night and me? How would Dorothy find me intolerable if she hadn't read more of my posts? Otherwise, all I had expressed was that air does not come with layers. Answer: she is one of the unknown number of lurkers. Frankly, Dorothy is at her best when she is totally silent. . |
| 04-08-2022 03:32 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
It would be nice if a few lurkers hung around a bit.Perhaps the rest of us like a place to bounce ideas around but you have to kill them off for some reason.I am on enough gun which is Australia wide and fishwrecked which is W.A. based and we have over a 1000 members.If someone painted their boat blue you would argue its Aqua |
| 04-08-2022 04:09 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406) |
duncan61 wrote:It would be nice if a few lurkers hung around a bit. I understand well the preacher's need to reel in those who are not currently of the faith. You exhibit this need in spades. duncan61 wrote:Perhaps the rest of us like a place to bounce ideas around Nope. You have a desperate need to preach your crap. For some reason, you won't find a children's table to do it, you insist on doing it here. duncan61 wrote: ... but you have to kill them off for some reason. Elaborate. What do I kill off? Physics violations? Bad math? Do I expose your dishonesty? You HATE that I do all that. I get it. If you weren't such a stupid moron who never got any sort of education, you might appreciate correct information instead of despising it. If you had actually been allowed to go to school, you might have learned to understand what other people are saying instead of being relegated to totally mistating their positions because you don't understand anything about the topic being discussed. I feel sorry for you. I see that you are a fish out of water if the topic being discussed isn't some form of blue-collar labor. Yet you are compelled to engage in discussions you don't comprehend just to get your fix of attacking people you don't know. You are dishonest and you are an ashsole. It must suck to be you. duncan61 wrote:I am on enough gun which is Australia wide and fishwrecked which is W.A. based and we have over a 1000 members.If someone painted their boat blue you would argue its Aqua Once again you feel the need to pretend to speak for me and to misrepresent my position just so you'll have something to attack. You're a moron who apparently only can feel good about himself through demonizing others. I imagine you're pretty pathetic. . |
| 04-08-2022 08:13 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
My life is simple.I get up when I am not tired.I get dressed for the day then I make a coffee and switch on my monitor and check my E-mails do any banking I need to do then browse my forums.It is you who seem to claim other posters are trying to recruit people to this faith you have made up.This is where I am at CO2 in the atmosphere can make a difference to atmospheric temperature.Hypotheticly if a huge mass from space struck the Earth and somehow released massive amounts of CO2 and Methane it would change the air temperature but you need massive amounts not a few ppm.The mythbusters gained .7C but the test was at 75,000ppm and it stopped.It did not continue going up.The claim No gas or vapour can warm the Earth is not correct and is insinuating that the gas is bringing extra energy.The gas takes longer to heat and cool.Heat does not travel at the speed of light and it does not come back down.This is in line with a lot of presentations I have seen and concur with.You bend the laws of physics to suit your agenda which is to deny everything.Why should I agree with you when you are wrong.Coal and oil come out the ground and are classified as fossil fuels.Humans can make artificial fuel and oil and it is called synthetic.The planet is not heading for catastrophe.I watched a break down of the IPCC report and this all over by 2030 date is not real and is just a date that we may reach 1.5.C if 3rd world countries suddenly build massive amounts of coal fired power stations which they have not and will not.I maintain there is not enough stuff on the planet to burn to get CO2 concentrations any higher than they are now.Sea levels are not rising where I live and I do not care about any other Fukker.Few people will engage me for very long on this subject as the alarmists wish to be alarmed and have been told to panic directly by Greta.I am not one of them. |
| 04-08-2022 08:26 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
duncan61 wrote: The religion is YOURS. I didn't make it up. Neither did IBdaMann. The Church of Global Warming is YOUR religion. duncan61 wrote: Not possible. No gas or vapor is capable of creating energy out of nothing. duncan61 wrote: Attempted proof by contrivance. duncan61 wrote: So you fell for the popular parlor trick. No, the gas did not gain .7C by itself. duncan61 wrote: It is correct. See the 1st law of thermodynamics. duncan61 wrote: That is what YOU are insinuating. duncan61 wrote: Then what? duncan61 wrote: Heat has no speed. duncan61 wrote: No, you don't get to project YOUR problems on anyone else. duncan61 wrote: LIF. duncan61 wrote: Neither is a fossil. Fossils don't burn. duncan61 wrote: Yet you call it a 'fossil'. * You cannot create energy out of nothing. * You cannot reduce entropy for any reason. * You cannot trap heat. * You cannot trap light. * You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. * You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. 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 |
| 04-08-2022 13:25 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
Synthetic oil is synthetic and not fossil fuel * You cannot create energy out of nothing. The sun supplies the energy it is an uncontrolled heat source * You cannot reduce entropy for any reason. The entropy of an object is a measure of the amount of energy which is unavailable to do work. Entropy is also a measure of the number of possible arrangements the atoms in a system can have. In this sense, entropy is a measure of uncertainty or randomness. Do you agree with this statement? * You cannot trap heat. You can slow the flow of heat with insulation * You cannot trap light. True * You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You can slow the flow of heat with insulation * You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. The atmosphere is not heating the surface.The sun heats the surface.The surface is heating the air.The air density slows the flow keeping the ambient temperature we enjoy as a species on this planet.The alarmist claim is it is very sensitive to CO2 where it is not.My 3000ppm CO2 experiment showed no increase to 0.0.C calibration.Perhaps 0.000 may have shown something but who cares.001.C warming will not scare the masses.You and IBDm are perverting the laws of physics to suit your anti socialist bent.The entire climate change movement is based on anti capitalism and sharing the worlds resources.It does not work.Someone will always want/take a bit more.You claim there was no election however we had it on foxtel for the entire event.I was going for Trump as he stood up to Nth Korea.Someone has too.My uncle was in No. 41 (Royal Marine) Commando and was in the withdrawal from the Chinese border.Very messy but as usual no one thought to stop at the North/South Korea zone lets all push on to the Yalu River and point guns at China.How did that work out for you? |
| 04-08-2022 13:57 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
duncan61 wrote: Heat does not travel at the speed of light and it does not come back down. Heat has no speed Yes it does.Different material transfers heat at different speeds Different thickness of material changes the flow of thermal energy.When soldering brass to copper many plumbers think brass takes longer to heat but it is the fittings have more volume than the pipe.Applying the same heat to steel will be different to the same heat applied to wood. |
| 04-08-2022 14:06 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
I typed in church of global warming and found this gem I wasn't ever going to argue religion in this column, but today I'll make an exception. There are two climate change churches: the Church of the Global Warming Believers (CGWBelievers) and the Church of the Global Warming Deniers (CGWDeniers). Members of CGWBelievers are every bit as fanatical as a cult religion. Their church features charismatic leaders who they almost worship. Followers demand that everyone excuse acts of their clergy such as global jaunts to hobnob with other church pastors and the accompanying huge carbon footprint of their private jets. Their priests require strict adherence to the doctrine. Believers are dogmatic, dedicated, faithful, and follow the tenets with blind obedience. To further their beliefs they will falsify, ignore and manufacture evidence. They will ridicule and scorn any who do not believe as they do. A few adherents to the CGWDeniers do the same. However, the typical denier usually says, "I disagree," gives reasons for his opinion and goes about his business. The typical believer generally counterpunches the heretic using personal attacks. Why not, instead, argue the merits of their position? Why so defensive? Believers propose legislation limiting free speech on the subject. They don't want a debate. They declare Holy War on skeptics. They openly ridicule and scorn them. Believers want to force everyone to pay a carbon tax, an indulgence if you will, for CO2 emissions sins. Do not those who are deniers have freedom of religion, speech and the press? To carry the religious analogy further, CGWBelievers think the devil who is trying to destroy the environment and therefore warring against the church is the human race. According to them, Homo sapiens is a blight on the planet. Humans committed the "Original Sin." We were born and our first breath exhaled carbon dioxide. As civilization progressed we invented things that provide creature comforts, gadgets of convenience, entertainment and rapid means of travel. In developing and manufacturing those things we impact the environment, therefore we must repent or be punished. When skeptical about something an investigation is in order, follow the money. When CGWBelievers' pastor Al Gore left government he was worth less than $2 million dollars. Now he is worth over $173 million. Those are 170 million reasons why I am skeptical of global warming. Our government spends $22 billion tax dollars a year financing global warming research and development. That $22 billion finds its way into CGWBelievers' pockets. Isn't that supporting the church by the state? Just asking. Does that cover it nicely.I am neither believer or denier just looking in to it and curious.I am from the church of what the Vulcan hell are you talking about Spock |
| 05-08-2022 01:03 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
duncan61 wrote: Oil is not a fossil. There is no such thing as a 'fossil fuel'. Fossils don't burn. duncan61 wrote: You are about to compare two systems as if they are the same system. You can't do that. duncan61 wrote: WRONG. Not the definition of 'entropy'. duncan61 wrote: No. Entropy IS the randomness of a system. duncan61 wrote: Heat has no speed. Insulation does not change the speed of heat. Insulation reduces heat. duncan61 wrote: Yet you try to, by saying that a magick gas prevents light from escaping Earth. duncan61 wrote: Heat has no speed. duncan61 wrote: Heat has no speed. duncan61 wrote: Heat has no temperature. You are now also ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law. duncan61 wrote: CO2 has NO capability to warm the Earth. No gas or vapor does. You cannot create energy out of nothing. duncan61 wrote: No. You are just ignoring them. duncan61 wrote: Science has no politics. duncan61 wrote: Socialism is theft of wealth. THAT is why it does not work. It does not produce anything. duncan61 wrote: Never did. There was no election. duncan61 wrote: Irrelevance fallacy. Illiteracy: Sentences are separated by a period and at last one space (two is the norm). 'North' is not abbreviated by 'Nth'. * You cannot create energy out of nothing. * You cannot compare two different system as if they were the same system. * You cannot trap or slow heat. * You cannot trap light. * Heat has not speed. * Heat has no temperature. 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 |
| 05-08-2022 01:09 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
duncan61 wrote: No. Heat has no speed. duncan61 wrote: Heat is not transferable. duncan61 wrote: Thermal energy isn't a flow. duncan61 wrote: Copper pipes are usually not soldered to brass fittings. In many jurisdictions, that is illegal to do so. You don't get to speak for many plumbers. You only get to speak for you. Omniscience fallacy. duncan61 wrote: Nope. It's the same heat. 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 |
| 05-08-2022 01:18 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
duncan61 wrote: Science isn't a religion. Neither is mathematics. duncan61 wrote: This is normal for a fundamentalist style religion, such as the Church of Global Warming. It is also what you do. duncan61 wrote: Science is not a religion. Neither is math. duncan61 wrote: Religion is an inherent right. Free speech is not. Apparently you like to misquote the Constitution of the United States as well. You don't even know what a constitution does. duncan61 wrote: You are a believer in the Church of Global Warming. You think that a magick gas can somehow warm the Earth. duncan61 wrote: You and your arguments. 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 |
| 05-08-2022 03:33 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406) |
duncan61 wrote:This is where I am at CO2 in the atmosphere can make a difference to atmospheric temperature. This is an egregious violation of physics. It is a central tenet of your religious faith. It is the miracle of your religion. It is what you have been ordered to believe by the clergy who do your thinking for you, and who occasionally bend you over furniture. duncan61 wrote:Hypotheticly if a huge mass from space struck the Earth and somehow released massive amounts of CO2 and Methane it would change the air temperature but you need massive amounts not a few ppm. I get it. You worship exactly as the warmizombies. Your only disagreement is superficial and immaterial. You believe that the violation of physics is very small whereas other warmizombies believe in a cataclysmic violation of physics. All of you are morons. All of you believe in violations of physics, and you all do so because you have been ordered to believe totally absurd crap by people who are doing your thinking for you, and who occasionally bend you over furniture. duncan61 wrote:The claim No gas or vapour can warm the Earth is not correct It is absolutely correct, and you are a moron. Don't forget that. I realize that you need to demonize me simply because I do not worship as you do, and because I will not deny physics as you must (because you have been ordered to do so). I will never allow others to do my thinking for me and I will never allow others to bend me over furniture. You HATE that about me. duncan61 wrote:The gas takes longer to heat and cool. So you are saying that the atmosphere takes longer to heat ... meaning that it just can't reach the same temperatures as before due to its slow, lagging rate of temperature increase. You are arguing that adding greenhouse gas cools the atmosphere? You are arguing that the atmosphere can't reach the same temperature within the given amount of time it is in sunlight? Is that what you are arguing? It's a stupid argument. If you add gas to the atmosphere, there will be more mass to absorb thermal energy, but it can only absorb up to ambient temperature and achieve equilibrium. Adding mass at a given temperature increases the amount of thermal energy present but that thermal energy averages out and the average temperature remains the same. Your religious faith is a violation of physics. It is stupid. duncan61 wrote:Heat does not travel at the speed of light ... and you don't even know what heat is ... so why should any rational adult waste his time listening to you babble and risk getting your spittle on his shirt? duncan61 wrote: ... and it does not come back down. How did the frying pan demonstration go? How hot did you get the pan before resting it on your head without getting burned? I bet your audience was AMAZED. duncan61 wrote:You bend the laws of physics to suit your agenda Elaborate. Be specific. What have I said that was inaccurate? What have you said that has made any sense? duncan61 wrote: ....which is to deny everything. You are the quintessential idiot. You insist on pretending to speak for me and on assigning totally bogus positions to me just so you can have something to attack. You are pathetic. You mindlessly attack others as a defensive maneuver to avoid learning anything, hence solidifying your idiocy. duncan61 wrote:Why should I agree with [science] Because it has survived the scrutiny of the scientific method. Why do you deny it? Oh, that's right, you'd have to learn things if you started accepting science. That would be asking far too much of you. It's much easier to attack totally bogus positions that you assign to people. duncan61 wrote:.Coal and oil come out the ground and are classified as fossil fuels. Coal is carbon and petroleum and natural gas are hydrocarbons. You need to deny this just as much as any warmizombie because you are manipulated and bent over furniture by warmizombie clergy just as warmizombies are. You're stupid. You are doomed to being manipulated by others who only want to use you, and you are doomed to attacking any who try to help you and who try to set you free. "Stupid" is the correct word, but "pitiful" will do nicely. duncan61 wrote: Humans can make artificial fuel and oil and it is called synthetic. Incorrect. Humans can synthesize fuel and oil and it is called "synthetic." All hydrocarbons thusly synthesized are bona fide hydrocarbons, i.e. they are not artificial in any way. You don't understand what I just wrote, do you? duncan61 wrote:The planet is not heading for catastrophe. Correct. However, you believe that the planet is nonetheless defying the very physics that you do not understand ... and you believe this because you have been ordered to believe it ... and you OBEY. duncan61 wrote:I maintain there is not enough stuff on the planet to burn to get CO2 concentrations any higher than they are now. It is a plausible possibility that the earth will endure heavy and widespread volcanic activity, both over land and under the ocean, increasing atmospheric CO2 levels temporarily; however, as long as we have the vast plant life that we have, that CO2 will be greedily consumed and plants will flourish and thrive. duncan61 wrote:Sea levels are not rising where I live ... which means they aren't rising anywhere ... water being the liquid that it is. duncan61 wrote: ... and I do not care about any other Fukker [except for the one who has me bent over furniture in any given moment] You don't care about anyone except the clergy you feel obligated to OBEY. duncan61 wrote: Few people will engage me for very long on this subject ... or you will not remain engaged very long on this subject. The moment the situation presents you with an opportunity to learn something, you become a dishonest ashsole who resorts to misrepresenting and misstating the positions of others. . |
| 05-08-2022 04:43 | |
| James_★★★★★ (2238) |
duncan61 wrote: You need to remember that these guys think that condensate depression is when water gets sad and that a hotwell is where you put your heat. |
| 05-08-2022 05:59 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
ITN wrote Oil is not a fossil. There is no such thing as a 'fossil fuel'. Fossils don't burn. Its what its called.In a workshop I spent time at the apprentice asked why I called the phone a landline.Its because it is connected by wires in the ground and cell phones have no wires.Many things are misnamed.Hoover.Stilsons Footprints are all brand names for different items.The first maker of Floor Waste Gully risers was Palazzi and some older plumbers still call them that even though they are now made by caroma.I am now over the naming of fuel and would like to discuss heat Do we agree that heat is Heat is the transfer of kinetic energy from one medium or object to another, or from an energy source to a medium or object. Such energy transfer can occur in three ways: radiation, conduction, and convection. |
| 05-08-2022 06:03 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
IBDm wrote Incorrect. Humans can synthesize fuel and oil and it is called "synthetic." All hydrocarbons thusly synthesized are bona fide hydrocarbons, i.e. they are not artificial in any way. You don't understand what I just wrote, do you? I have purchased and used synthetic oil for my jeep and it did not like it.Smoked up big time.You have given a very good example of semantics |
| 06-08-2022 01:06 | |
| James_★★★★★ (2238) |
Do you want a technical "what heat is"? While its most basic definition is a "flow". Why is it flowing? That determines if it's radiation, convection or conduction. A basic example is heat in the atmosphere. Even at night with no solar radiation the temperature can remain constant. This means that there is a "flow" when there is no solar radiation. In atmospheric chemistry heat is relative to the number of collisions between molecules and the velocity that they are moving at when they collide. These collisions release conserved electromagnetic radiation which other molecules will absorb and conserve. It's like when a burner nozzle atomizes DFM while an FDB blows in cold air into the hotbox and then the burner nozzle remains lit. Then heat is radiated to riser tubes which use conduction to convert condensate into wet steam. Then when the wet steam can be super heated by passing through riser tubes between the hotbox and the exhaust stack. In our atmosphere gasses can absorb emitted electromagnetic radiation while in an engine room the steam is piped to the nozzle block of the HP turbine to perform meaningful work. See? Our atmosphere is similar to the power plant on a ship.A flow of heat performs work whether it's exciting a turbine or a gas molecule. Kind of what got me into the "flow" of atmospheric chemistry. What I'd like to know is if the ceiling height of the troposphere changes at night. And if so, how much? This is because if the height of the troposphere drops at night then that is work being performed. And work can produce heat which is to create a "flow" of energy. Basically as the troposphere compresses at night, gasses in the troposphere might have more collisions allowing for more "heat" to "flow". |
| 06-08-2022 01:26 | |
| James_★★★★★ (2238) |
IBdaMann wrote:duncan61 wrote:This is where I am at CO2 in the atmosphere can make a difference to atmospheric temperature. Even the IPCC has missed this one. With CO2, first it was O2 and the carbon element came from a fossil fuel. There is a difference between natural gas and oil. Oil is CnH2n+2 while natural gas is either CH4 or C2H6. Note that neither methane (CH4) or Ethane (C2H6) allows for the formula used with hydrocarbons associated with crude oil. And before CO2 is emitted as a result of combustion, that carbon element was not previously in the atmosphere. At the same time the unburned hydrocarbons also were not previously in the atmosphere. And yet they have kinetic energy. It is known that a change in atmospheric pressure while ever so slight will not let it cool at night. And gasses previously not in our atmosphere can change atmospheric pressure ever so slightly as well. This then gets into is the tropopause similar to a greenhouse barrier? IBDISn'T, the term fossil fuel might be used because tar pits are associated with fossils and gas reserves in the ground probably came from similar tar pits. Los Angeles has both oil wells, tar pits and fossils. They are all associated with the other 2. Edited on 06-08-2022 01:29 |
| 06-08-2022 03:02 | |
| James_★★★★★ (2238) |
Another way to consider heat; The energy E of a photon is equal to hv = hc/λ, where v is the frequency of the electromagnetic radiation and λ is its wavelength. Energies in quantum physics are commonly expressed in electron volts (1 eV = 1.6 × 10−9 J) and wavelengths are typically given in nanometers (1 nm = 10−9 m). Another expression used is E = hv where v is the frequency and h is Planck's constant. That is the energy in 1 photon. Then amplitude will let you know how many photons are in the current. It's in the math. Edited on 06-08-2022 03:05 |
| 06-08-2022 03:55 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406) |
James_ wrote: IBDISn'T, the term fossil fuel might be used because tar pits are associated with fossils and gas reserves in the ground probably came from similar tar pits. Los Angeles has both oil wells, tar pits and fossils. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A_YPFvC-C_E Driving Directions from Pico & Sepulveda to the La Brea Tar Pits   Just so you know, "La Brea" is Spanish for "The Tar." Tar can be burned as a fuel. Humanity is still searching for that special, magical fossil that can be burned as fuel. |
| 06-08-2022 04:12 | |
| James_★★★★★ (2238) |
IBdaMann wrote:James_ wrote: IBDISn'T, the term fossil fuel might be used because tar pits are associated with fossils and gas reserves in the ground probably came from similar tar pits. Los Angeles has both oil wells, tar pits and fossils. And yet your mother called you son. Is that a variation of Sun or сынь? You know, you are (её) sin? It's all word play because I pew (пю) la bon mot. You don't get it, do you? You sit in a pew in church when you drink in the sermon. It's all word play but then all words have their roots or origins. just an FYI, mat in Norwegian/Norske means food. Mot in one language and mat in another? Jesus did say John 6:54; Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day. What did he really say? Consume his words and drink of his spirit? Once again it's all word play. Diamonds burn so why not fossils? https://www.livescience.com/can-diamonds-burn.html Edited on 06-08-2022 04:33 |
| 06-08-2022 22:41 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
duncan61 wrote: Nope. A non-fossil is never called a fossil. duncan61 wrote: Cell phones have wires, and POTS phones have radios. I guess you have no idea how either type of phone works. duncan61 wrote: No, you are not over the naming of fuel, liar. duncan61 wrote: No. duncan61 wrote: No. duncan61 wrote: Throwing a baseball transfers kinetic energy from the pitcher to the ball. No radiation (other than the ball from the pitcher), no conduction (other than the ball momentarily being in the pitcher's hand), and no convection. The ball doesn't increase in temperature or gain thermal energy (other than from air friction, and later, ground friction when the ball lands). An incoming high tension electrical line's energy being transferred to an open switch at a substation is not heat. The switch does not get warmer as a result of the transfer, even though there is 800kv on the line. Heat has a very simple and specific definition. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Heat has no temperature. It is not contained in anything. It cannot be slowed or trapped. 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 |
| 06-08-2022 22:43 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
duncan61 wrote: He does. He just demonstrated so in his response to you. duncan61 wrote: LIF. That is YOUR problem. It is YOU playing word games. 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 |
| 06-08-2022 22:53 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
James_ wrote: Flow does not determine radiation, convection, nor conduction. James_ wrote: Heat is not contained in anything. James_ wrote: There is no such thing as 'atmospheric chemistry'. Chemistry is not heat. Heat is not thermal energy. James_ wrote: Radiation isn't conserved. Heat isn't conserved. James_ wrote: Random statements. No apparent meaning or coherency. James_ wrote: The atmosphere isn't a power plant. There is no such thing as 'atmospheric chemistry'. James_ wrote: The height of the troposphere isn't a mass. James_ wrote: Heat is not the flow of any energy. James_ wrote: There is nothing compressing the troposphere. 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 |
| 06-08-2022 23:06 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
James_ wrote:IBdaMann wrote:duncan61 wrote:This is where I am at CO2 in the atmosphere can make a difference to atmospheric temperature. Fossils aren't a fuel. Fossils don't burn. James_ wrote: Neither is a fossil. James_ wrote: C1H2+2 is CH4. C2H4+2 is C2H6. James_ wrote: Kinetic energy is not thermal energy. James_ wrote: It does cool at night. James_ wrote: Nope. James_ wrote: There is no barrier. James_ wrote: Fossils aren't used as fuel. James_ wrote: No, they aren't. James_ wrote: Natural gas is available from many sources, not just a tar pit. James_ wrote: So? James_ wrote: No, they aren't. 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 |
| 06-08-2022 23:50 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406) |
duncan61 wrote:The sun supplies the energy it is an uncontrolled heat source If the sun is already there when you add CO2, you can't claim the sun is now somehow "additional" energy. If you are claiming the CO2 causes an increase in temperature, you have to account for additional energy and you don't get to use the sun because it was already there. Ergo, your only other option is to claim that CO2 creates energy out of nothing ... and this is the option you choose, rather than admit that no increase in temperature is possible in this way. duncan61 wrote:The entropy of an object is a measure of the amount of energy which is unavailable to do work. You mean that the entropy of a closed system is the amount of energy unavailable to perform work. There is no such thing as an object's entropy. duncan61 wrote:Entropy is also a measure of the number of possible arrangements the atoms in a system can have. Nope. First, there is no such thing as a measure of a count. There is only the integer resulting from the count. Second, a number of possibilities serves as a basis for determining probabilities, not entropy. Third, whenever you pretend to delve into quantum mechanics, use the term "particles." Quantum mechanics covers more than just atoms, e.g. electrons, photons, protons, quarks, leptons, etc... duncan61 wrote:In this sense, entropy is a measure of uncertainty or randomness. Nope. Entropy only means the amount of unusable energy. Statements deviating from this are used to identify the morons in a conversation. duncan61 wrote:You can slow the flow of heat with insulation I can see that you aren't all that quick on the uptake. You can reduce the flow of thermal energy with insulation. This is properly called "heat reduction." The heat is not slowed; it is reduced. When you dim a light, you don't slow the photons any; you reduce the wattage. duncan61 wrote:You can slow the flow of heat with insulation You were supposed to have written: "Into the Night, you are totally correct. Heat cannot be trapped. Also, you are correct that insulation does not reduce the speed of thermal energy (it was silly of me to have implied that heat can somehow be "slowed") but rather insulation reduces the power of the heat. Also, you are absolutely correct that nothing can reduce heat to zero." I'm sure Into the Night will give you a do-over. Just write the above and you'll be back on track. duncan61 wrote:The atmosphere is not heating the surface.The sun heats the surface.The surface is heating the air. The sun increases the temperature of the atmosphere, the lithosphere and the hydrosphere. The sun heats all of them. duncan61 wrote:The air density slows the flow Elaborate on this point. What do you mean? On its face, this is meaningless gibberish. duncan61 wrote: ... keeping the ambient temperature we enjoy as a species on this planet. The sun is what keeps the ambient temperature what it is. There is no verb associated with the atmosphere in this context. duncan61 wrote:The alarmist claim is it is very sensitive to CO2 where it is not. There is no "thenthitivity" whatsoever. No substance can affect temperature. Only changing the amount of thermal energy/mass can change temperature. You are just as much a moron for believing that this nonexistent thenthitivity is very minute as other warmizombies are for believing that this nonexistent thenthitivity is somehow catastrophic. Zero is zero, and you have to be a gullible idiot who is bent over furniture to believe that zero is somehow not zero. duncan61 wrote:You and IBDm are perverting the laws of physics to suit your anti socialist bent. Elaborate. You still have yet to do so. You gibber and babble crap that amounts to egregious violations of physics, and then you pretend that I am altering science, yet you never specify in what manner. You are a liar and a moron. duncan61 wrote:You claim there was no election however we had it on foxtel for the entire event. You refuse to discuss this topic honestly, and only seek to take jabs because: 1. You are an ashsole to the core 2. You are inherently dishonest 3. You desperately need to distract from your glaring scientific illiteracy and your bogus regurgitation of your stupid religion duncan61 wrote:I was going for Trump [blah, blah, blah] You were not the victim of a robbed election yet you see the opportunity to take a jab at people who were. You efforts to rub salt into open wounds is noted. You are a schytt, because you don't know of any way to contribute in any sort of positive manner. |
| 07-08-2022 01:49 | |
| duncan61★★★★★ (2021) |
ITN wrote Cell phones have wires, and POTS phones have radios. I guess you have no idea how either type of phone works. Are you suggesting cell phones are connected to each other by wires? What does LIF stand for? I am over what we call fuel.I see no resolution.I know what fossil fuel is.Job done. Heat is the transfer of kinetic energy from one medium or object to another, Heat has a very simple and specific definition. Heat is the flow of thermal energy. Same bloke different hat I build a wood fire in a pit.I lay a 3 foot long 2 inch round piece of wood across the fire.The middle will burn out and I can still pick up the ends.I place a piece of steel the same size across the fire.The ends will get to hot to handle very quickly.I stand a piece of steel same size upright in the fire and it will get too hot to handle even faster.This is what will happen.Not a theory a reality.The flow of thermal energy can be slowed IBDm.This is a debate forum if that makes me a liar and a schytt then that is what I am.You seem to be inferring that energy from the sun is increased by CO2.The theory is the IR coming off the Earth is keeping the energy in the atmosphere longer consequently making it warmer because of time.This is true they just have the numbers wrong.I have even seen a calculation where for every 100ppm CO2 there will be 1.C global warming.This is not how it works/here is where I am at .The claimed 280ppm at Mauna loa in 1956 means nothing. .As soon as I hear see claims of CO2 from millions of years ago I dismiss it as guessing .I support research in to ways to generate cheap electricity and phasing out coal however not much of it works .Even the most exaggerated claims only concede about 17% of emissions to transport.Modern Vehicles run a lot more efficiently.Hybrids are off there tits and I want one. .I do feel for you all having Biden as a president.World peace is in jeopardy. .We have a labor government that has just agreed with the green party to reduce CO2 and are stopping all new gas and oil development.On the East coast they are having blackouts all the time and the government has put portable diesel generators at substations to cope. .W.A. state government put in place a policy when Natural gas exports started in the North West that 15% of production has to be reserved for local consumption.It has kept the price of gas low where I live.If that is socialism I like it. Edited on 07-08-2022 02:02 |
| 07-08-2022 07:50 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406) |
duncan61 wrote:I am over what we call fuel. Nope. You are only just beginning. duncan61 wrote:I see no resolution. I appreciate this rare bit of honesty from you, whereby you admit that learning the pertinent science is totally unacceptable, totally out of the question and not a possible resolution in any way, shape or form. duncan61 wrote:I know what fossil fuel is. Nope. There isn't anything on this topic that you know nor is there anything on this topic that you will learn. duncan61 wrote:Heat is the transfer of kinetic energy from one medium or object to another, Nope. Into the Night gave you an illustrative example which is clear enough for anyone of third-grade education or better. This is why I think he should dumb it down for you a bit. If you were to pick up a 335 g stone at 25 degC and you were to throw that stone at 40 Kph, What temperature increase are you claiming the stone will have once you have increased the average kinetic energy of all the stone's particles by 40 Kph? What temperature increase are you claiming? duncan61 wrote:Same bloke different hat Nope. Into the Night is correct and you are egregiously in error. duncan61 wrote:The flow of thermal energy can be slowed How much are you claiming can the speed of thermal energy be decreased? duncan61 wrote:IBDm.This is a debate forum if that makes me a liar and a schytt then that is what I am. This being a debate forum doesn't make you a liar and a schytt. You make yourself that on your own. duncan61 wrote:You seem to be inferring that energy from the sun is increased by CO2. I'm not inferring anything nor am I making any affirmative claims. You are claiming a temperature increase without accounting for the additional energy necessary to increase the temperature. You tried to claim that the already-existing sun was somehow the source of the additional energy, but I put the kibosh on that. duncan61 wrote:The theory is the IR coming off the Earth is keeping the energy in the atmosphere longer Right here you are definitely presuming that the atmosphere is not part of the earth, otherwise the clause "coming off the earth" makes no sense. You have to be a total moron to not know that the atmosphere is part of the earth. If energy is "coming off the earth" then it is coming off the atmosphere as well. duncan61 wrote:consequently making it warmer Right here you are claiming a temperature increase ... and you are dishonestly trying to quickly slide out from under any explanation of accountability of the additional energy required to cause that temperature increase. Account for the additional energy, with the source not being the sun (because it was already there) and remember that the atmosphere and the ocean are part of the earth. duncan61 wrote:.As soon as I hear see claims of CO2 from millions of years ago I dismiss it as guessing The correct word is "speculation." You don't like using correct words, do you? . |
| 07-08-2022 11:30 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21597) |
duncan61 wrote: Yup. Cell phones only connect to the nearest cell tower. After that they are on wire or fiber optics. POTS phones connect to the nearest exchange, after that they are on microwave relay towers (radio). duncan61 wrote: Lame Inversion Fallacy. It means you are projecting YOUR problem on someone else. This most often occurs when someone is just playing the childish echo game. duncan61 wrote: There is no fossil fuel. duncan61 wrote: No. Kinetic energy is not thermal energy. duncan61 wrote: You cannot slow heat. Insulation does not slow heat. Wood does not slow heat. You are reducing heat. duncan61 wrote: LIF duncan61 wrote: You cannot trap light. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. You cannot reduce entropy. duncan61 wrote: Who are 'they'? What numbers? duncan61 wrote: It is not possible to measure the global atmospheric CO2 concentration. duncan61 wrote: Okay. duncan61 wrote: Why do you hate coal so much? What's wrong with it? duncan61 wrote: Argument from randU fallacies. duncan61 wrote: What world peace? duncan61 wrote: So the government is coping with banning oil and gas development by using generators powered by oil products. Gotit. duncan61 wrote: That is not socialism. Illiteracy: Sentences do not begin with a period. Sentences are separated by at least one space. 'Green Party' is a proper noun. It is capitalized. 'Modern Vehicles' is not a proper noun. Only the 'M' is capitalized as it's at the beginning of a sentence. 'Mauna Loa' is a proper noun. It is capitalized. 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 07-08-2022 11:42 |
| 07-08-2022 21:29 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14406) |
duncan61 wrote:The flow of thermal energy can be slowed If you don't slow it with insulation, how quickly does thermal energy normally go from zero to sixty? If you can slow thermal energy, can you also make it go faster, right? I bet electricity works the same way. If you add resistors, it slows the electricity, right? ... and if you blow on it, I bet the electricity goes faster. duncan, I take back everything I said about you. You truly are a genius. I don't know why I didn't realize it sooner. I guess I really shouldn't judge any man until I've been bent over the same furniture. |
Join the debate NET THERMAL RADIATION : You in a room as a reference.:
Related content
| Threads | Replies | Last post |
| The Van Allen radiation belts and the Tropopause | 5 | 06-01-2024 23:46 |
| The government now wants everyone to ALWAYYS use their real name when using the net | 20 | 18-11-2023 22:35 |
| Anyone explain how does N2 and O2 don't absorb electromagnetic radiation? | 49 | 02-02-2023 01:23 |
| Under Dorsey the FBI literally determined everything that Twitter was allowed to put on the net | 3 | 03-01-2023 19:25 |
| Net Metering | 7 | 10-12-2020 14:37 |