Nils-Axel Mörner
| 13-05-2020 12:12 | |
| JackFou★☆☆☆☆ (114) |
IBdaMann wrote:  [/quote]I wonder why your image only mentions ice in the arctic. You do realize that there is more ice on the planet, right? The answer of course is that the ice loss in other places is greater than the ice gain in the antarctic. Therefore, there is still a overall net loss. But we already knew that you have difficulties with the concept of "net" anything. Oh and just in case you didn't realize this: Melting sea ice doesn't increase sea levels. The solid ice already displaces water of its volume. Only melting land ice can cause sea levels to rise. Edited on 13-05-2020 12:13 |
| 13-05-2020 12:48 | |
Into the Night ★★★★★(21647) |
JackFou wrote:IBdaMann wrote: I wonder why your image only mentions ice in the arctic. You do realize that there is more ice on the planet, right? The answer of course is that the ice loss in other places is greater than the ice gain in the antarctic.[/quote] Argument from randU fallacy. It is not possible to measure the total snow and ice on Earth. JackFou wrote: Argument from randU fallacy. Mantras 25g...25a. JackFou wrote: Mantra 15...10f...16c...29... JackFou wrote: So you believe the flood of Noah occurred, do you? 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 |
| 13-05-2020 15:58 | |
| Ory_Dan☆☆☆☆☆ (5) |
A measure of absolute atmospheric vapour rather than absolute ice gives a more relevant measure for climate productive viability. So why bend the knee on coastal flux when water vapour should be the figure in the mind of the World populous |
| 13-05-2020 16:00 | |
| Ory_Dan☆☆☆☆☆ (5) |
Add carbon ppm to the model then there is a tangible figure |
| 13-05-2020 16:55 | |
IBdaMann ★★★★★(14463) |
Into the Night wrote: I envy you. You wasted no time becoming a power user. One of these days I will get onboard. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 13-05-2020 17:15 | |
| JackFou★☆☆☆☆ (114) |
IBdaMann wrote: No arguments presented. Try again. |
| 13-05-2020 17:42 | |
| JackFou★☆☆☆☆ (114) |
Looks like I missed a few. It's getting pretty cluttered with so many different conversations going on simultaneouslyInto the Night wrote:JackFou wrote:Into the Night wrote: Let's read that again, shall we: Into the Night wrote: Well, turns out the *surface* has air above it for conduction and convection. That's why it doesn't get so hot as the surface of the moon or the ISS during daytime. Into the Night wrote:JackFou wrote: False dilemma. If nighttime temperatures rise faster than daytime temperatures you get a decrease in the temperature difference. That's exactly what's happening. Into the Night wrote:JackFou wrote: According to my definition of the word 'heat' (which happens to align with all the physics textbooks) there is. If you can redefine words as you please, so can I. Into the Night wrote: So where exactly below sea level do you find the highest temperatures on earth other than at thermal vents through which heat from inside the earth can reach the seafloor? Into the Night wrote: What's the nighttime temperature on venus? Into the Night wrote: And another display of your utter incompetence regarding language and terminology. The term "electronic" is used in chemistry and physics to describe concepts that concern to electrons. You know, for example to distinguish electronic energy levels from vibrational and rotational energy levels or to differentiate electronic effects from steric effects. There even exist terms such as "vibronic" for concepts concerning simultaneously vibrational AND electronic energy levels and even "rovibronic" if you simultaneously wanna throw some rotational degrees of freedom into the mix as well. Edited on 13-05-2020 18:07 |
| 13-05-2020 17:49 | |
gfm7175 ★★★★★(3314) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:No Answer again.tmiddles wrote: Hey IBD still waiting on some clarification on the "Thermal Radiation" you believe in. An answer that contradicts your holy omniscience is not equivalent to "no answer". You've obviously been speaking Liberal for far too long... tmiddles wrote: There are many different dictionaries in existence. Which dictionary is the "ipiddle approved" "holy" dictionary? tmiddles wrote: It would do you some good to free your mind from the enslavement of Wikipedia... tmiddles wrote: "Defying convention" is not the issue. Your illiteracy in English (due to speaking Liberal for far too long) is the issue. tmiddles wrote: IBD has never expressed that. You are making schiff up again. |
| 13-05-2020 18:21 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14463) |
JackFou wrote: Nah, I'll stick with the word "surface", thank you very much. I figured as much, seeing as how you like to be confused. JackFou wrote: What makes you so sure about that? My familiarity with where I live. JackFou wrote:Either way, it doesn't really matter where the food is produced. If there is less food over all, everyone starts to notice eventually. So when there's more food overall, you'll be happy along with everyone else, yes? JackFou wrote: Once some places become uninhabitable, people living there will leave, starting migration routes and refugee streams. Aaaah, the mythical "Climate refugees" caused by the mythical "global Climate." You're starting to sound like the Scientologists. JackFou wrote: It's gonna get much worse over the course of this century. So much worse! I know, I know ... it's the same with all of you "doom and gloom" end-of-the-world religion types. The only difference is that your religion has learned from the others and leaves the end date open ... "TBD." Your religion parallels the Marxist religion from whence it came, i.e. the climate-oppressed will struggle against the fat-cat capitalist ruling class and seize the reigns of government in a violent revolution that brings about the end of Global Warming just in time ... but even then it might be too late. Unfortunately your religion isn't too creative and more or less copy-pasted Revelations and rebranded Rapture. JackFou wrote: Jeez, man. How can you live like this, just not knowing anything about anything other than "it just happens"? So you've decided to go the tmiddles route and claim omniscience whenever convenient. OK. Let me know how that works out for you. JackFou wrote: But maybe you can inform ITN that we *don't* actually know where fossil fuels come from because he claims to know that they're definitely 100% not made from formerly living organisms. Into the Night is correct. Living organisms do not live deep in the earth's crust near the mantle where hydrocarbons are formed. Could I trouble you to tap your omniscience Mr. Genius to let us all know how you believe petroleum always ends up somehow being under impermeable rock if it is a product of formerly living organisms? You never addressed that point. Does your religion have an answer? Does Climate teleport dead organisms under impermeable rock as sort of a "decent burial"? JackFou wrote: Of course no one has ever observed it, you silly. It takes a pretty long time and the hydrocarbons we're digging up these days were formed millions of years ago. Is this your omniscience telling you this? ... or were you there to witness the forming of the hydrocarbons? I notice the expectation that you be taken on your word when you haven't gotten anything correct since you came here ... well, anything before I had to teach you the correct answer. How did the petroleum get beneath the impermeable rock? JackFou wrote: If it was really just some sort of natural Fischer-Tropsch that makes hydrocarbons in just a few hours, that should be pretty easy to observe. Did you just say that it should be easy to develop a sort of Superman X-ray vision to "observe" through 20 miles of crust? Well, if that's all that's necessary then I guess you're right, it certainly should be easy to observe. Otherwise if, just for chits-&-giggles, you pretend for the moment that physics works the same way in a lab as it does in the earth's crust, we can "observe" hydrocarbons being created within hours, ... you know ... in a lab simulating conditions in the earth's crust, including the heat and pressure. JackFou wrote: Just dig a hole and watch it happen in real time. So the fact that no one has seen it yet tells me it's probably not that. Who has ever dug a hole deep enough to attain the needed pressure and temperature ... and initiated a Fischer–Tropsch process there with the needed materials and catalysts? Seriously, who? Might the fact that no one has ever done that explain why no one has ever gotten the results? You might want to talk to tmiddles about pursuing art as a career. . Attached image:  |
| 13-05-2020 18:33 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14463) |
JackFou wrote:I wonder why your image only mentions ice in the arctic. If you'll look at it carefully, you'll see that it's really not so much an image as it is a CLUE, as in something you really could use. JackFou wrote: You do realize that there is more ice on the planet, right? Good, good, you're recalling how I taught you that there is ice melting and forming constantly within the atmosphere all over the world. That really is good news. You've been paying attention. There's lot's more ice that I haven't covered as well at the bottom of the atmosphere. JackFou wrote: The answer of course is that the ice loss in other places is greater than the ice gain in the antarctic. Too funny. Once again you expect me to believe that you are somehow omniscient. Haven't you given up on that, or is it a fantasy of yours to which you cling with a death-grip? JackFou wrote:Oh and just in case you didn't realize this: Melting sea ice doesn't increase sea levels. The solid ice already displaces water of its volume. Only melting land ice can cause sea levels to rise. Good, good. You've been watching YouTube lately trying to get brought up to speed. Well done. You should have learned that when you were young but better late than never I always say. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 13-05-2020 19:15 | |
| JackFou★☆☆☆☆ (114) |
IBdaMann wrote: You're laughing now but I'm sure you'll be in the frontlines of "build the wall" chants once more and more people are coming. Ah, who am I kidding, you're probably already getting hard thinking of the wall. IBdaMann wrote: So according to you there is only utter ignorance or omniscience, nothing in between. Good thing we have a couple of people with more ambition around. With your intellect we'd all still be stuck in the stone age. IBdaMann wrote: Jesus H. Christ. Whenever I think you've demonstrated peak stupidity and ignorance you go out and lower the bar even further. They don't *live* there. They're dead there. They die at the surface and then they get buried by layers upon layers of sediment over time until they're eventually buried so deep that heat and pressure turns the remains into fossil fuels. IBdaMann wrote: By definition it has to end up under impermeable rock. It rises through permeable rock until it cannot rise further. How do the vast amounts of gases needed for your/ITN's abiogenic hydrocarbons get buried deep so deep under ground and so conveniently under impermeable rock? IBdaMann wrote: Two of the deepest holes that were ever dug are the Kola Superdeep Borehole in russia and the KTB superdeep borehole in Germany. The temperatures down there are 180°C and 260°C respectively, perfectly sufficient for Fischer-Tropsch (150-300°C). I don't know the exact pressure at those depths but it is for sure higher than the couple of atmospheres used for man-made Fischer-Tropsch. And yet... nothing's happening down there in terms of Fischer-Tropsch as far as anyone can tell. Fun fact, while drilling the Kola superdeep borehole, they actually found fossilized remains of formerly living organisms at down to 6 km depth. That's considerably deeper than most (if not all) commercial oil wells. I'm also still waiting for either you or ITN to explain how this works if no atom can absorb a photon of less energy than the atom already has. Edited on 13-05-2020 19:20 |
| 13-05-2020 21:37 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21647) |
Ory_Dan wrote: Word salad. 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 |
| 13-05-2020 21:39 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21647) |
JackFou wrote:IBdaMann wrote: Mantras 23...17...27.. No arguments presented. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 13-05-2020 21:40 |
| 13-05-2020 21:55 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21647) |
JackFou wrote:Into the Night wrote:JackFou wrote: Temperature generally doesn't increase at night. JackFou wrote:Into the Night wrote:JackFou wrote: Mantra 4d...10b...20a2...20r... JackFou wrote:Into the Night wrote: Mantra 29... JackFou wrote:Into the Night wrote: Unknown. It is not possible to measure the temperature of half a planet. JackFou wrote:Into the Night wrote: Electron energy level is the correct term. Electronics are devices that use electrons. When discussing electrons in physics, the word 'electron' is used. Mantras 22..20r...4d..16a...15... No arguments presented. RQAA. Denial of chemistry. 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 |
| 13-05-2020 22:24 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21647) |
JackFou wrote:...deleted Mantras 15...16b...17...13...36b...12... Fossils don't burn. Mantra 23. JackFou wrote: In case you haven't noticed, the crust of the Earth contains hydrogen and hydrogen compounds. They don't get buried. They are already there. It also contains carbon and carbon compounds, as well as oxygen and oxygen compounds. Iron is plentiful. Everything you need for a Fischer-Tropsche reaction. Mantra 20r. IBdaMann wrote: Two of the deepest holes that were ever dug are the Kola Superdeep Borehole in russia and the KTB superdeep borehole in Germany. The temperatures down there are 180°C and 260°C respectively, perfectly sufficient for Fischer-Tropsch (150-300°C). I don't know the exact pressure at those depths but it is for sure higher than the couple of atmospheres used for man-made Fischer-Tropsch. And yet... nothing's happening down there in terms of Fischer-Tropsch as far as anyone can tell.[/quote] The Kola hole found oil below the fossil layer. They also found water at around the fossil layer...where the fossil plankton was found. They did not pump the oil, because it was not their interest to do so, and pumping from such depths is expensive. However, an oil well about as deep as the Kola hole was dug in Qatar. JackFou wrote: No, it isn't. JackFou wrote: RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 14-05-2020 01:39 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14463) |
JackFou wrote: So according to you there is only utter ignorance or omniscience, nothing in between. Nope. That is your bifurcation. If I point out that you or tmiddles are feigning knowledge that you don't have then you feel your delusion of omniscience being threatened and your consistent retort is that I somehow claim that nothing can be known. That makes you a self-deluded moron. Your biggest problem is that you have bought into the scam that is based entirely on fabrications that are not actually known ... and now you have no recourse but to somehow blame me for your gullibility and confusion. Things can be known. Your WACKY religion is centered entirely around things that are not known and that require physics violations to justify. You're in a world of hurt. JackFou wrote: Good thing we have a couple of people with more ambition around. With your intellect we'd all still be stuck in the stone age. You already used this line. Is your wit already overtaxed and overdrawn? Oh, wait ... this is my favorite part of your post right here ... JackFou wrote: When you open with something like this you had better not follow it up with something really bonehead ... but you do (it's too funny) ... JackFou wrote: They don't *live* there. They're dead there. They die at the surface and then they get buried by layers upon layers of sediment over time until they're eventually buried so deep that heat and pressure turns the remains into fossil fuels. Sall I take a poll to find out who thinks geology is your strong suit? Your entire gross misundertanding apparently stems from your stupid conflation of sedimentary rock and impermeable rock and your inability to address the heat and pressure required to form hydrocarbons. You have backed yourself into a corner and dug yourself a hole. We'll reengage after you learn a bit more on geology, hydrocarbons, etc... We're pretty much done on this. JackFou wrote: How do the vast amounts of gases needed for your/ITN's abiogenic hydrocarbons get buried deep so deep under ground and so conveniently under impermeable rock? I don't think you know what you want to ask. Everything necessary to form hydrocarbons exists deep in the earth's crust, including the high temperatures and pressure. Once formed, the hydrocarbons seep upward towards the surface until they reach impermeable rock (the cap rock) and is trapped, forming a well. . Attached image:  |
| 14-05-2020 01:49 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14463) |
JackFou wrote: Two of the deepest holes that were ever dug blah, blah, blah ... ... were never used to try to create hydrocarbons. You are an aboslute moron to think that mere depth creates hydrocarbons. Who in hell convinced you that you were a brilliant research "scientist"? Was that before or after you signed for the bridge he was selling? Nobody created any labs at the bottom of those holes to even perform any tests of the Fischer–Tropsch process. Hello??? Here's another clue: the scientific method requires the test actually be conducted before concluding anything from the lack of expected results. Nobody will ever think much of your results from experiments that you didn't actually conduct. Also, why is it that I need to explain this to you? JackFou wrote: while drilling the Kola superdeep borehole, they actually found fossilized remains... In sedimantary rock, not impermeable rock. Fun Fact: there were no hydrocarbons there. The reason? Hydrocarbons don't come from previously living organisms. I'm also still waiting for either you or tmiddles to demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. I do't know why this hasn't yet happened; all hurdles have been removed. You are not required to additionally explain HOW it happens, just demonstrate that it does. It stands to reason that you haven't simply done it because it's completely impossible. I'm standing by to ask you again why you haven't done it yet. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 14-05-2020 10:28 | |
tmiddles ★★★★★(3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:OK and so you're clearly saying you see "thermal radiation" as coming from thermal energy and it would be fair, would it not, so also say you see "thermal radiation" as then resulting in thermal energy correct? You say:tmiddles wrote: So why do you say "Thermal Radiation" when you've made it clear that in your view radiance is never thermal?I never expressed that. Thermal radiation is electromagnetic energy generated by a body's thermal energy, i.e. a change in form of energy. Stefan-Boltzmann governs this event. IBdaMann wrote:The sun does not provide enough thermal radiation to increase the temperature of the earth's mantle or core,link So you are saying there that the Sun, has thermal energy, and then it is transmitted to the Earth, via "thermal radiation" are you not? I think you, Jack and I can all agree that "thermal radiation" as you put it is the "means"/mechanism by which thermal energy is transferred/transmitted from one body (the Sun) to another (the Earth). Am I getting that wrong in any way? Just not sure how this comes into it at all: IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles wrote: A transfer of thermal energy through space is radiance IBD.What I see is your attempt to redefine thermal energy flow as electromagnetic emission. IBdaMann wrote: I'm also still waiting for either you or tmiddles to demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer.As I've said many times this word "flow" isn't one I use, that's all you. Do you have any objection to saying that thermal energy can be transmitted through space via "thermal radiation"? IBdaMann wrote:Now let's talk about you and how you refuse to define your terms, e.g. Global Warming,...... such that they don't violate science. Global Warming : An increase in the mean annual temperature of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere. IBdaMann wrote: you refuse to define your terms, e.g.Climate Change, ...... such that they don't violate science. Climate Change : An increase in the mean annual temperature of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere. IBdaMann wrote:you refuse to define your terms, e.g.Greenhouse Effect, etc... such that they don't violate science. Greenhouse Effect : The absorption and re-emission of radiance by gases in Earth's atmosphere resulting in an increase in the the mean annual temperature of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere. As detailed here: link As for discussing what is an is not a violation of physics I eagerly await your resuming the debate: Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law, and glaring hypocrisy of "Valid Data" exposed: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762 64 days with no reply Here: Debating "photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object." and that the a light bulb absorbs the radiance from an oven, IBD claims "go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it.": https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-radiative-greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist-d10-e3047-s40.php#post_53357 71 days with no reply And Here: 2nd Law and disproving IBD's confusion about Earth being a isolated system: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063 77 days with no reply IBdaMann wrote:Your intention is obvious, ...destroy the expression of intended semantics.Please be more specific I don't know what you mean by that. "intended semantics" is a bit tough to parse. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 14-05-2020 10:34 |
| 14-05-2020 15:01 | |
| JackFou★☆☆☆☆ (114) |
Into the Night wrote:JackFou wrote: You can't possibly *this* bad at languages, can you? How can nighttime temperatures *possibly* be lower than daytime temperatures if they rise faster? I'll leave it up to you to solve that mystery. But considering that you also couldn't figure out how a slower ball can transfer momentum to a faster ball without increasing the overall momentum of the two balls (hint: the slower ball loses momentum in the exchange!) I have very, very little hope that you'll be able to figure this one out. Into the Night wrote: I thought no one owns words? So why should I care what *you* think is the correct term? In the meantime I'll stick with the widely accepted terminology Into the Night wrote: Now all you need is some ammonia and some sulfur to get cracking. You still need to turn at least some of the reactants into gasses, somehow. Carbonates and hydroxides sitting next to each other won't suddenly form complex hydrocarbons. The formation of gasses is generally not particularly thermodynamically favourable at high pressures. Therefore I'm having a hard time believing that large quantities of fossil fuels are formed that way. But hey, nothing about the theory of biogenic origin of fossil fuels says that there can't be also abiogenic processes going on creating hydrocarbons as well. If you want to insist that you know for a fact that it's only ever abiogenic, fine. This is not a hill I will die on. |
| 14-05-2020 15:28 | |
| JackFou★☆☆☆☆ (114) |
IBdaMann wrote: Oh I agree! Just not by you, apparently. IBdaMann wrote: Should we go back and count who reused more lines, you+ITN or I? Either way, *some* things are worth repeating. IBdaMann wrote: I'll save you the effort, it's not. But just out of curiosity, since you seem to think that sedimentary rock cannot also be impermeable rock: Which part of earth's crust do you consider to be sedimentary and how is impermeable rock formed? IBdaMann wrote: But we were talking about naturally occurring Fischer-Tropsch. Why would I need to build a lab first to observe that? IBdaMann wrote: Of course you're not interested in *how* thermal energy transfer through space happens. If you understood that, you'd be forced to come to the realization that thermal energy transfer must necessarily happen in both directions. But let's see. Regardless of whether or not you can explain *how* it works, I think we've established that it is nevertheless *possible* to heat metals to significant temperatures (up to melting and beyond) with a CO2 laser. Since a CO2 laser emits photons of 10.6 µm wavelengths (give or take), this means, even hot metal can and will absorb 10.6 µm photons and convert them into thermal energy. If we look at the thermal radiation spectrum of our laboratory blackbody at 60°C again, we'll find that it very much emits at that wavelength (10.6 µm is approximately 940 cm^-1).  (clearly, no gap around 940 cm^-1; in fact the spectrum peaks somewhere in the neighbourhood) We also know that physical bodies cool themselves even in a vacuum. They do that by converting thermal energy into photons which are being emitted. This process is called radiative cooling. The body loses thermal energy in the process. If this thermal radiation gets absorbed by a colder body, we can measure this as a temperature increase of the colder body. This is therefore exactly equal to transfer of thermal energy through space. So we know that even red-hot metal will absorb 10.6 µm photons and we know that an approximate blackbody at 60°C emits 10.6 µm photons. Since photons do not carry temperature information as ITN has confirmed, the hot metal cannot possibly tell whether a 10.6 µm photons comes from a CO2 laser or the thermal radiation of a colder blackbody. Therefore, the hot metal must treat the photons from both sources identically. Therefore, the hotter metal must absorb the 10.6 µm photons (and a whole bunch of other wavelengths as well, really) from the colder blackbody and convert them into thermal energy just as it does with the 10.6 µm photons from the CO2 laser. Therefore, thermal energy being emitted by the blackbody in the form of thermal radiation is necessarily absorbed and converted back into thermal energy even by a hotter body as long as the hotter body is capable of absorbing in the range of wavelengths emitted by the colder body. QED Edited on 14-05-2020 15:50 |
| 14-05-2020 19:04 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21647) |
JackFou wrote:...deleted Mantras 16b...12...15...29... Go study geology. No one is going to write a geology book for you here. No argument presented. Repetition fallacy. RQAA. Denial of science as proof. 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 |
| 14-05-2020 19:19 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21647) |
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...lie...20g...IBdaMann wrote:Now let's talk about you and how you refuse to define your terms, e.g. Global Warming,...... such that they don't violate science. Circular definition. You cannot define a word with itself. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Mantra 22a...29. IBdaMann wrote: you refuse to define your terms, e.g.Climate Change, ...... such that they don't violate science. Climate Change : An increase in the mean annual temperature of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere. [/quote] Climate has no temperature. It is a subjective word that has no quantifiable values. It cannot 'change'. Mantra 22b...29. IBdaMann wrote:you refuse to define your terms, e.g.Greenhouse Effect, etc... such that they don't violate science. Greenhouse Effect : The absorption and re-emission of radiance by gases in Earth's atmosphere resulting in an increase in the the mean annual temperature of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere. As detailed here: link ...deleted Mantras 6...20a1...20v...20b...25g...20q [/quote] Mantras 20a1...20a2...20b3...20b1...20q...25g...22a...29...4f... * you cannot create energy out of nothing. * you cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one. * you cannot reduce entropy in any system. * you cannot trap light. * you cannot trap heat. * you cannot trap thermal energy. * no gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. 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 |
| 14-05-2020 19:35 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21647) |
JackFou wrote:Into the Night wrote:JackFou wrote: Temperature generally doesn't increase at night. You can't possibly be this bad languages, can you? JackFou wrote: Isaac Newton disagrees with you. F=mA. Mantra 20u...20a1...29. JackFou wrote: No, you don't. A hydroxide is not hydrogen. A carbonate is not carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide. Mantra 20r. JackFou wrote: Now you are just denying thermodynamic properties of materials. Mantra 20r. JackFou wrote: Because you deny chemistry. Your own fundamentalism gets in the way. JackFou wrote: Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel. Fossils are not a liquid or gas. They are not an element on the periodic table. JackFou wrote: Apparently you will. Your own fundamentalism gets in your own way...and it seems you will die with it. 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 |
| 14-05-2020 20:24 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14463) |
JackFou wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Things can be known.Oh I agree! Just not by you, apparently. Excellent! I accept. I know nothing because I can know nothing. I expect that you will cease directing questions to me. JackFou wrote:But just out of curiosity, since you seem to think that sedimentary rock cannot also be impermeable rock: Nope, you don't get to lead a question with this. I'll gladly take on the responsibility of pointing out your misunderstandings but the responsibility to correct those misunderstandings is all yours. Go read up. Do yourself a favor and learn some fundamentals about sediment. Set as one of your goals to graduate from being an uneducated dolt who wanders through life believing that hydrocarbons somehow develop from dead organisms in the mud ... to someone more refined who understands that in order for hydrocarbons to form, conditions that exist deep in the earth's crust are needed. Have you ever noticed that there have been many archeological finds ... and none of them have been oil wells near the surface (< 1KM) ? Have you ever noticed that oil wells are never amongst loads of fossils? Have you ever noticed any of that? Have you ever put two and two together? Go read up on "sediment." IBdaMann wrote:But we were talking about naturally occurring Fischer-Tropsch. Why would I need to build a lab first to observe that? Hello? Hey, Mr. Genius, is the entirety of the earth's crust below 8Km totally filled with hydrocarbons, or do hydrocarbons only occur in relatively few places where ALL of the necessary conditions occur? I already pointed out this misconception of yours, i.e. that mere depth alone is somehow sufficient to produce hydrocarbons; you should have been paying attention. Did you think that hydrocarbons can be created in a lab simply by raising an otherwise empty chamber to a sufficient temperature and pressure? How did you ever come to the conclusion that hydrocarbons would develop in a hole if only it is sufficiently deep? JackFou wrote: Of course you're not interested in *how* thermal energy transfer through space happens. If you understood that, you'd be forced to come to the realization that thermal energy transfer must necessarily happen in both directions. Since we have already crossed geology off your list of strong suits, now it's about time to also cross off formal logic. Let's review. I'm the one trying to explain to you that it is impossible for thermal energy to flow from cooler to warmer, *ERGO* I am claiming that there is no "how" in the first place. Think about that for a little bit. Maybe if you do, you'll understand that I can't possibly be interested in any erroneous explanations about "how" the impossible supposedly happens. You, on the other hand, are claiming that it is possible and happens all the time. Great. It should be easy to demonstrate but that is your requirement. The scientific method requires that experiments (and demonstrations) actually occur for conclusions to be valid ... so demonstrate that it is possible and your conclusion will be valid. Once you do that *then* the world will send you on the lecture circuit to explain the "how" it happens. However, at the moment all you are willing to show is what everyone already knows, i.e. principles of electromagnetic energy, even when the topic is something completely different. The topic is thermal energy. I will remind you of my ongoing interest in thermal energy and of my current disinterest in electromagnetic energy ... because I already know all about it. Let's get you refocused on thermal energy and thermal energy flow. Thermal energy can be measured as temperature just as electromagnetic emission can be measured in radiance (as a normalization). Thermal energy flow between bodies can be observed via temperature changes in the bodies. Have at it. JackFou wrote: Regardless of whether or not you can explain *how* it works, I think we've established that it is nevertheless *possible* to heat metals to significant temperatures (up to melting and beyond) with a CO2 laser. This was never in question ... as a powered instrument. Let's limit our discussion to lasers with no batteries and no electrical power (and no fuel). Just a laser that is turned off, i.e. a body. Now let's start over. JackFou wrote: We also know that physical bodies cool themselves even in a vacuum. No they don't. Physics does that for them. Bodies increase in temperature in a vacuum, depending on the thermal energy flowing into them. JackFou wrote: Therefore, thermal energy being emitted by the blackbody ... Hello? Bodies do not emit thermal energy. They emit thermal radiation ... which is electromagnetic energy. Please mention this to tmiddles if you run into him. . Attached image:  |
| 14-05-2020 22:13 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:Fully agreed to by all parties so we can move on. I'll say it again in case you missed it IBD: IBdaMann, tmiddles and JackFou all agree that bodies emit thermal radiation, which is electromagnetic energy, which may be absorbed by other bodies. So IBD are you able to describe "thermal energy"? Seems to me you need to know what it is to make distinctions. And define it for what is IS not what it isn't. This is what I subscribe to: Max Planck wrote:Pg.190 Into the Night wrote:tmiddles wrote:Global Warming : An increase in the mean annual temperature of Earth at the bottom of the atmosphere. How is it problematic to specify the location and time frame for a temperature for an object. Take: Core Body Temperature  Now that is the temperature of the internal organs of a human body. Is that also a "Circular definition" ? Also the precision or ease of obtaining the informatuon has no impact whatsoever on the definition of a term. You may say, as you always do, that the temperature of any object can never be none. You deny margin of error and a range of temperature for any object. Even given that absurd position it is still true that the quantity does exist, known or not. If I say "The amount of money Trump has borrowed from Russians" that is clearly defined even though the value is not known. Into the Night wrote:You have been thoroughly debunked on your false science. You simply dodge the debates below. Misuse of the 1st LTD, Plancks Law/SB Law, and glaring hypocrisy of "Valid Data" exposed: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710-s720.php#post_53762 65 days with no reply Here: Debating "photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object." and that the a light bulb absorbs the radiance from an oven, IBD claims "go ahead ... I'm ready to debate it.": https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/the-radiative-greenhouse-effect-does-not-exist-d10-e3047-s40.php#post_53357 72 days with no reply And Here: 2nd Law and disproving IBD's confusion about Earth being a isolated system: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/2nd-law-d6-e3030-s80.php#post_53063 78 days with no reply "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 14-05-2020 22:30 |
| 14-05-2020 22:45 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21647) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Fully agreed to by all parties so we can move on. I'll say it again in case you missed it IBD: Lie. tmiddles wrote: You never specified the time frame or the location, other than the Earth. 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 |
| 14-05-2020 22:48 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:what is a lie?tmiddles wrote: Fully agreed to by all parties so we can move on. I'll say it again in case you missed it IBD: Into the Night wrote:Annually and the bottom of the atmosphere. So? |
| 15-05-2020 00:10 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21647) |
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...36e... No argument presented. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-05-2020 03:23 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14463) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann, tmiddles and JackFou all agree that bodies emit thermal radiation, which is electromagnetic energy, which may be absorbed by other bodies. ... but we apparently don't agree on the "might not be absorbed by any body" part. Ergo, we can't really press ahead. We need to establish whether or not thermal energy can flow from cooler to warmer. We are stuck on this very point until we either have a demonstration showing thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer or an admission that it's just not possible. Are you ready to admit that it is not possible? tmiddles wrote: So IBD are you able to describe "thermal energy"? It's the energy that gives matter temperature, which is coincidentally how we measure it. Do you see how that works. Kinetic energy is the energy that give matter motion, which is coincidentally how we measure it. Do you admit that things move? Do you admit that material objects have temperature? Good. tmiddles wrote:This is what I subscribe to: Great, does your understanding differ from what I wrote above? tmiddles wrote: How is it problematic to specify the location and time frame for a temperature for an object. The problem is that you are still subdividing the body, i.e. you are still violating science. The requirement is that you define Global Warming without violating science. The good news is that you get unlimited tries. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 15-05-2020 03:54 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
Into the Night wrote:It can't be "RQAA" ITN it's the first time I responded to your post. What are you saying was a lie? You were not clear at all.tmiddles wrote:RQAA.Into the Night wrote:what is a lie?tmiddles wrote: Fully agreed to by all parties so we can move on. I'll say it again in case you missed it IBD:Lie.: |
| 15-05-2020 04:08 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:Not at all! That is implicit in the word "might". So let me be clear again. "might or might not be absorbed by a second body". Good? IBdaMann wrote:We need to establish whether or not thermal energy can flow from cooler to warmer.That is your statement alone first of all and as you define it I agree with you. There is no evidence or suggestion that thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer as you have defined those terms. Good? Note: I have NEVER ONCE said that "thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer" except in quoting you. IBdaMann wrote:...an admission that it's just not possible.I agree that your statement, as you've defined it, is not something we have evidence of. Saying it is not possible is well beyond my knowledge. Now you say "admit" as though I have denied it. I never have. If you were confused at one point in thinking I had please quote me so I know how I mislead you. IBdaMann wrote:Yes but what is it? If you are saying it IS the same thing as temperature you'll have to tell me what temperature is. Otherwise you just have a circular definition.tmiddles wrote: So IBD are you able to describe "thermal energy"? IBdaMann wrote:Kinetic energy is the energy that give matter motion, which is coincidentally how we measure it.In this case we determine changes in location over time. Are you saying that you know that thermal energy is NOT kinetic energy as Max Planck and Boltzmann described it? IBdaMann wrote:I don't know since you didn't say what thermal energy was nor what it wasn't. You didn't say anything about thermal energy at all so I can't answer that.tmiddles wrote:This is what I subscribe to: IBdaMann wrote:So you can never talk about temperature unless it's an entire planet? Is that the smaller "body" you can deal with? A solar system, galaxy and the universe itself are not "bodies" according to you correct? If you are working with any problem of thermodynamics how is it possible to discuss a body that is part of a planet? How about an example? I looked it up but sure can't see where it's considered a "violation" of anything: https://www.google.com/search?q=thermodynamics+%22subdividing+the+body%22&oq=thermodynamics+%22subdividing+the+body%22 Edited on 15-05-2020 04:50 |
| 15-05-2020 04:58 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21647) |
tmiddles wrote:Into the Night wrote:It can't be "RQAA" ITN it's the first time I responded to your post. What are you saying was a lie? You were not clear at all.tmiddles wrote:RQAA.Into the Night wrote:what is a lie?tmiddles wrote: Fully agreed to by all parties so we can move on. I'll say it again in case you missed it IBD:Lie.: RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-05-2020 05:06 | |
| Into the Night★★★★★ (21647) |
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 29...paradox v...lie...6...29...29...fallacy fallacy...29...lie...30...29...20h...30...29...29...4a...29... No argument presented. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan |
| 15-05-2020 06:15 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14463) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:Not at all! That is implicit in the word "might". So let me be clear again. "might or might not be absorbed by a second body". Good? Sure, except that I have already told you that I'm not looking to get roped into a discussion on electromagnetic energy. Do you have anything to add regarding THERMAL energy? tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:We need to establish whether or not thermal energy can flow from cooler to warmer.That is your statement alone first of all and as you define it I agree with you. There is no evidence or suggestion that thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer as you have defined those terms. Good? Apparently we're not good because you are still working tirelessly to get it accepted that SOME thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer, hence the current need for you to either demonstrate this so that I can accept it as TRUE or you admit that it cannot happen because it is impossible and accept the statement as FALSE. Are you prepared to accept the statement as FALSE? tmiddles wrote: Saying it is not possible is well beyond my knowledge. Irrelevant. Will you accept merely as a predicate for discussion, the axiom that it is impossible for thermal energy to flow from cooler to warmer? tmiddles wrote: Yes but what is it? Sorry, nobody knows. Nobody has ever observed thermal energy, only its effects. Nobody has ever observed kinetic energy, only its effects. Nobody has ever observed momentum, only its effects. Nobody has ever observed either an atom, an electron, a proton, a neutron. Nobody has ever observed the strong or the weak nuclear force, only their effects. Nobody has ever observed gravity, only its effects. Nobody has ever observed hydrocarbons form, just the resulting hydrocarbons. In absence of ability to observe, we make science models and adhere to them until they prove to be faulty. Science says that it is impossible for thermal energy to flow from cooler to warmer. Will you accept that as a predicate for discussion? tmiddles wrote: If you are saying it IS the same thing as temperature you'll have to tell me what temperature is. Otherwise you just have a circular definition. Do you know what it means to "normalize"? Temperature, Radiance, a unit of measure, currency, others ... are all normalizations. Temperature is a normalization of thermal energy, akin to density. tmiddles wrote: In this case we determine changes in location over time. ... as opposed to changes in temperature over time, ... go on ... tmiddles wrote: Are you saying that you know that thermal energy is NOT kinetic energy as Max Planck and Boltzmann described it? This is one of the questions you have constantly refused to answer. Your answer is in your answer ... so answer the question ... You have a baseball at rest on a table. That baseball has a uniform temperature of 77 degF (25degC). You pick up that baseball and hurl it at 59 MPH (95 KPH), altering the kinetic energy of every molecule in the baseball by 59 MPH (95 KPH). What is the baseball's new temperature? tmiddles wrote: So you can never talk about temperature unless it's an entire planet? Close. You cannot employ blackbody science models, e.g. Planck's law, Wein's law, Kirchoff's law, Stefan-Boltzmann, etc... unless you are treating the "body" as an aggregate unit. If you subdivide the "body" and thus arrive at differing conclusions then you are engaging in science denial. It's that simple. tmiddles wrote: Is that the smaller "body" you can deal with? A solar system, galaxy and the universe itself are not "bodies" according to you correct? That is incorrect. You could (unwisely) define a solar system as a body, but you then must not subdivide it, and you'd have a heck of a time trying to figure out how model it correctly and your math would be a nightmare. You could treat the earth and the atmosphere as two separate bodies but then your model and your math would become impossible ... and here's the kicker, the final results cannot differ from treating all of the earth as one body. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 15-05-2020 10:43 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:tmiddles wrote: Yes but what is it? [thermal energy] So it could be electro magnetic, kinetic, you don't know correct? How can you assume radiance is not thermal energy then? |
| 15-05-2020 17:35 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14463) |
tmiddles wrote: So it could be electro magnetic, kinetic, you don't know correct? Incorrect. tmiddles wrote: How can you assume radiance is not thermal energy then? We observe that they are not the same: 1. Electromagnetic energy is energy in transit, specifically at the speed of light, whereas thermal energy is energy at rest. 2. Electromagnetic energy has an orthogonal magnetic field (the "magnetic" part of "electromagnetic") whereas thermal energy does not (i.e. hence is not "thermalmagnetic" energy). 3) Thermal energy is necessarily associated with matter, giving it temperature whereas electromagnetic energy has no temperature and is not associated with either matter or temperature. The answer is "we can tell." . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist Attached image:  |
| 16-05-2020 02:23 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:So what if it's at the speed of light but the transit is the subatomic distance between atoms? We know an atom will radiate regardless of if there is empty space to radiate into right? So it would radiate directly into it's neighbor. IBdaMann wrote:Again you are limiting your conclusions to what you can measure and observe at a certain scale. It's a bit like claiming there is no electricity present because you don't see it arcing through space. IBdaMann wrote:Is there any EM you can say did not originate from matter? Isn't that like saying a proton, neutron and electron have nothing to do with the atom? But you say: IBdaMann wrote:...electromagnetic energy has no temperature...Which has all the meaning and definition of saying electromagnetic energy has no je ne sais quoi. You have the following definitions: Temperature is a measure of Thermal Energy Thermal Energy is a mystery So you have not defined temperature. How can you say radiance doesn't have it? It literally produces it when it is absorbed by matter. If you want to say a particular instrument or probe fails to measure temperature from radiance directly you are well aware that others will (Tyndall's experiments that discovered the green house attributes of CO2 used an electro-magnetic thermopile to measure radiance alone and thermopiles indicate a temperature). Saying that radiance does not have temperature is as sensible as saying that one million dollars has no worth because you are not associating it with a divisor of people. If I say Jack and Jill have one million dollars, their net worth is 500k each, but that one million dollars has nothing at all to do with that considered on it's own, that makes as much sense as saying radiance has no temperature. It makes as much sense as saying 100 joules of thermal energy produces a temperature in 100 grams of iron but that 100 joules of EM which produced it has nothing to do with it. I'll admit I assume that thermal energy is gyrating matter on a subatomic scale but just because I have that picture in my head, it sounds right, and the behavior at large scale of matter with more thermal energy resembles this (popping popcorn, deep fryer splatter, fast moving things producing frictional heat, ect.) also it's easy to not question the accepted view from the likes of Planck and Boltzmann. Edited on 16-05-2020 02:25 |
| 16-05-2020 03:39 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14463) |
tmiddles wrote: So what if it's at the speed of light but the transit is the subatomic distance between atoms? Unfortunately, the problem you face is the problem facing everyone, to include all scientists. I tried to explain it to you but you ignored me and immediately began calling "boolsch't" So why are you now asking again? Why should I expect a different result? tmiddles wrote: We know an atom will radiate regardless of if there is empty space to radiate into right? Do we? tmiddles wrote: So it would radiate directly into it's neighbor. Is that what we know? IBdaMann wrote:Again you are limiting your conclusions to what you can measure and observe at a certain scale. Nope. I am limiting myself to the science. tmiddles wrote: It's a bit like claiming there is no electricity present because you don't see it arcing through space. Yes, it's exactly like that, except for being completely different. IBdaMann wrote: Is there any EM you can say did not originate from matter? Yes, but once again didn't write what you meant or mean what you wrote, and you are just waiting to blame me for your lexical shortcoming. tmiddles wrote: Isn't that like saying a proton, neutron and electron have nothing to do with the atom? Yes, it's exactly like that, with the lone, tiny exception of being the exact opposite. tmiddles wrote: But you say:IBdaMann wrote:...electromagnetic energy has no temperature...Which has all the meaning and definition of saying electromagnetic energy has no je ne sais quoi. What I wrote flowed directly from that classic line "Peștii nu cresc biciclete." tmiddles wrote:You have the following definitions: It looks like your problem is with science, ... but then again, I think you have made that pretty obvious since the get-go. My recommendation is that you just convince people to discard science and replace it with Global Warming dogma. That should work out for the best, no? tmiddles wrote: How can you say radiance doesn't have it? That depends, how well do you understand the quantum world? tmiddles wrote: It literally produces it when it is absorbed by matter. "It" doesn't produce anything. When energy changes form, the orginal energy is destroyed utterly and is replaced by an equivalent quantity of energy in the new form. tmiddles wrote:Saying that radiance does not have temperature is as sensible as saying that one million dollars has no worth because you are not associating it with a divisor of people. Yes, it's exactly like that, except for being completely different. tmiddles wrote: It makes as much sense as saying 100 joules of thermal energy produces a temperature in 100 grams of iron but that 100 joules of EM which produced it has nothing to do with it. Once again we have you blaming others (me, in this case) for your inability to grasp a concept. If it makes you feel better to blame me then great ... go ahead. I'll even apologize. tmiddles wrote: I'll admit I assume that thermal energy is gyrating matter on a subatomic scale but just because I have that picture in my head, Well, then take the next step. Announce what it is that "we know" about the quantum world that makes your conclusions correct. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
| 16-05-2020 04:24 | |
| tmiddles★★★★★ (3979) |
IBdaMann wrote:I can't force you to debate IBD. You dodged everything and said nothing. Was there a question you actually wanted a response to? |
| 16-05-2020 04:47 | |
| IBdaMann★★★★★ (14463) |
tmiddles wrote:IBdaMann wrote:I can't force you to debate IBD. ... and I apparently cannot get you to answer a single, easy, straightforward question. Look, I can't force you to debate. Let me know when you are willing to answer for your claims about "what we know." . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist |
Join the debate Nils-Axel Mörner: