Nils-Axel Mörner

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Nils-Axel Mörner > Page 9

Page 9 of 10

16-05-2020 11:35
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote:Let me know when you are willing to answer for your claims about "what we know." Well I think we define "we know" differently. When I say it I mean that we are confident to a 95% or 99% interval. We are "sure". I assume that you don't believe anything that is not inevitably true is "known" where it would be appropriate to use that word? Like we "know" we are considering the language before us at this moment, so that means we exist, but we don't even know that we are awake, yadda yadda? That's fine. We DEFINITELY have differences in our vocabulary. But now you know (ha ha), if you didn't before, what I mean by "we know". Got it? Do you have anything I can respond to?
16-05-2020 15:01
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	Into the Night wrote: Go study geology. No one is going to write a geology book for you here. I have better things to do. Since you seem to consider yourself pretty knowledgeable on the subject, I'm sure you can easily answer some simple questions. It's not like you have much else to do than to post here, apparently. Into the Night wrote: Temperature generally doesn't increase at night. You can't possibly be this bad languages, can you? Let's say we go from situation A where we have a daytime temperature of 20°C and a nighttime temperature of -20°C to situation B where we have a daytime temperature of 25°C and a nighttime temperature of -10°C. The temperature still decreases at night compared to the daytime temperature and yet the nighttime temperature in situation B has increased compared to the nighttime temperature in situation A. We have also decreased the difference between day and nighttime temperature. That wasn't so hard, was it? Into the Night wrote: A hydroxide is not hydrogen. A carbonate is not carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide I agree! Hydroxides and carbonates don't make hydrocarbons. The presence of those chemical species inside the earth isn't sufficient to make complex hydrocarbons. You need a lot more than that. Gases like hydrogen and CO2 for example. Into the Night wrote: Isaac Newton disagrees with you. F=mA That objection is only valid in a head-on collision which I have specifically said is not what I'm talking about. Force has a vector. If you move forwards and I hit you from the side, I'm exerting force on you. Since you don't have any momentum in that direction, you cannot give me any momentum. Mate, you really need to work on some new material. This is getting boring. Edited on 16-05-2020 15:56
16-05-2020 15:02
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	IBdaMann wrote: 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. I'm sure you'll agree with me that thermal energy can flow at all between two objects. Let's start with warm to cold, to make it easier for you. You do agree with me that it this is possible, right? Good. So now that we have established that thermal energy can flow at all between two objects, the question is how. And once you realize how, you'll realize that this flow must necessarily be possible in both directions -- at least unless you want to invoke the theory that objects have some ethereal knowledge of the temperature of other objects at a distance. IBdaMann wrote: This was never in question ... as a powered instrument. Do I need to remind you that you never retracted the claim that an atom cannot absorb energy from a photon of less energy than what the atom already has? According to that statement, a CO2 laser shouldn't be able to heat any object to more than around 450°C. IBdaMann wrote: Hello? Bodies do not emit thermal energy. They emit thermal radiation ... which is electromagnetic energy. And where does that electromagnetic energy come from? You know, energy cannot be destroyed or created, therefore this energy that is radiated away as thermal radiation needs to come from somewhere. Once you realize that this "somewhere" is a loss of thermal energy in the body, you're almost there! Body A loses thermal energy by sending out a photon. Body B gains thermal energy by absorbing the photon. Therefore, we have effectively transferred thermal energy from A to B. You really shouldn't attempt to lecture people on formal logic if you cannot even follow this simple train of thought. Also it's kind of funny that we live in an age where people have built absolutely incredible machines like the LHC which allow us to confirm scientific theories like the standard model of particle physics with incredible accuracy. We live in an age where we can not only visualize but even manipulate individual atoms. We live in an age of mind-bending theories like general relativity and quantum mechanics which have been confirmed over and over again through experiments. And yet, something as simple as thermal energy transfer through space perpetually puzzles and eludes you. Edited on 16-05-2020 15:07
16-05-2020 17:57
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14401)	JackFou wrote: Let's start with warm to cold, to make it easier for you. Nope. Your requirement is not to make it easy for me. Your requirement is to either demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer or to acknowledge that it is not possible. JackFou wrote: So now that we have established that thermal energy can flow at all between two objects, the question is how. Nope. I was very clear that there is no "how" of any interest until you demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. I will be ignoring any and all treatises of "mechanisms" and of "how" you claim the impossible supposedly happens. JackFou wrote: Do I need to remind you that you never retracted the claim that an atom cannot absorb energy from a photon of less energy than what the atom already has? You are going to resolve this issue once and for all by demonstrating thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer. Please don't delay on my account. JackFou wrote: According to that statement, a CO2 laser shouldn't be able to heat any object to more than around 450°C. I said a "body" and not a powered system. The context of our discussion is black body science. "Bodies" are passive objects. Your laser is out unless you turn it off. IBdaMann wrote: And where does that electromagnetic energy come from? I'm not engaging in a discussion about electromagnetic energy. I was very clear that I am only interested in discussing thermal energy. For purposes of our discussion, you are free to claim that magical fairies create electromanetic radiation. Stay focused: thermal energy flow, from a cooler body to a warmer body. Demonstrate it. JackFou wrote: Also it's kind of funny that we live in an age where people have built absolutely incredible machines like the LHC which allow us to confirm scientific theories like the standard model of particle physics with incredible accuracy. It's funny that there are still people like you who strangely believe that any science model is ever "confirmed." Science doesn't confirm anything. Religion does that. Religion tells you what to believe is TRUE. Science merely tells you what has not yet been proven false. Being that you are totally scientifically illiterate I wouldn't expect you to fully understand this but you were gullible and allowed yourself to be convinced that a WACKY religion, i.e. Global Warming, was somehow "thettttttled thienth." As a result, in order to reconcile your physics violations you must first delude yourself into believing that science is your religion, and is somehow governed by "consensus" like religions are and somehow "confirms the TRUTH" as all religions purport. You're in a world of hurt. I feel sorry for you. JackFou wrote: We live in an age where we can not only visualize but even manipulate individual atoms. Whoever mentally hoodwinked you should be behind bars. JackFou wrote: We live in an age of mind-bending theories like general relativity and quantum mechanics which have been confirmed over and over again through experiments. I have more bad news for you. You have apparently lost all ability to recognize the difference between math and science. Not only do you believe that science is religion, you now believe that a sufficient amount of math constitutes a science theory. You are scientifically illiterate and mathematically incompetent. Would you just get to demonstrating thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer please? I assure you, you have already been enough of a disappoinment. . 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 22:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote:..deleted Mantra 31...26...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

16-05-2020 23:10
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: Go study geology. No one is going to write a geology book for you here. I have better things to do. Remain ignorant then. You have openly chosen to do so. JackFou wrote: Since you seem to consider yourself pretty knowledgeable on the subject, I'm sure you can easily answer some simple questions. RQAA. Mantra 29. JackFou wrote: It's not like you have much else to do than to post here, apparently. You have no idea what I do and when. Mantra 5. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: Temperature generally doesn't increase at night. You can't possibly be this bad languages, can you? Let's say we go from situation A where we have a daytime temperature of 20°C and a nighttime temperature of -20°C to situation B where we have a daytime temperature of 25°C and a nighttime temperature of -10°C. The temperature still decreases at night compared to the daytime temperature and yet the nighttime temperature in situation B has increased compared to the nighttime temperature in situation A. We have also decreased the difference between day and nighttime temperature. That wasn't so hard, was it? Base rate fallacy. Mantra 25a. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: A hydroxide is not hydrogen. A carbonate is not carbon monoxide or carbon dioxide I agree! Hydroxides and carbonates don't make hydrocarbons. The presence of those chemical species inside the earth isn't sufficient to make complex hydrocarbons. You need a lot more than that. Gases like hydrogen and CO2 for example. Both exist underground. Mantra 15...29. They also do not need to be gases. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: Isaac Newton disagrees with you. F=mA That objection is only valid in a head-on collision which I have specifically said is not what I'm talking about. WRONG. Mantra 20u. F=mA. JackFou wrote: Force has a vector. If you move forwards and I hit you from the side, I'm exerting force on you. Since you don't have any momentum in that direction, you cannot give me any momentum. Newton used 'momentum' to mean 'motion'. Yes, both balls will have their momentum changed. The vector equations for this are taught in a classical mechanics course. Total momentum of both balls remains the same. JackFou wrote: Mate, you really need to work on some new material. This is getting boring. ...deleted Mantra 1... You find someone calling you out on your denial of science and mathematics boring, do you? Sorry dude, but it is YOU that is chanting the same scripture from the Church of Global Warming over and over. Mantra 17. No arguments presented. Denial of science and mathematics. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
17-05-2020 10:33
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14401)	Into the Night wrote: JackFou wrote: It's not like you have much else to do than to post here, apparently. You have no idea what I do and when. Mantra 5. This motivated me to add a fallacy to the list that should have been there from the very start, ... but it's there now. We should all use it more often: 39p 39) Invalid proof p) proof by irrelevance, i.e. presumed refutation is immaterial or unrelated, e.g. "you posted this at an odd hour," "I was right last time," etc.. I recall previous attempts to wiggle out of uncomfortable corners by quipping that a post was made at a very strange time ... or that a response was made "unusually quickly" ... as though that required a response. But how many times have warmizombies presented absolutely irrelevant responses as though they have thusly refuted a point? Anyway, I think I will start incorporating 39p into my regimen more often. . 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
17-05-2020 22:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: JackFou wrote: It's not like you have much else to do than to post here, apparently. You have no idea what I do and when. Mantra 5. This motivated me to add a fallacy to the list that should have been there from the very start, ... but it's there now. We should all use it more often: 39p 39) Invalid proof p) proof by irrelevance, i.e. presumed refutation is immaterial or unrelated, e.g. "you posted this at an odd hour," "I was right last time," etc.. I recall previous attempts to wiggle out of uncomfortable corners by quipping that a post was made at a very strange time ... or that a response was made "unusually quickly" ... as though that required a response. But how many times have warmizombies presented absolutely irrelevant responses as though they have thusly refuted a point? Anyway, I think I will start incorporating 39p into my regimen more often. . Accepted! Mantra 39p is now part of the official list. Nice addition. 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
20-05-2020 10:51
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	IBdaMann wrote: JackFou wrote: Let's start with warm to cold, to make it easier for you. Nope. Your requirement is not to make it easy for me. Your requirement is to either demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer or to acknowledge that it is not possible. Okay so let's scratch the phrase "thermal energy flow". Let's call it emission of electromagnetic energy by CO2 in the atmosphere followed by absorption of said electromagnetic energy by the surface and subsequent conversion of the electromagnetic energy to thermal energy. Does that help you wrap your head around it? Because that's exactly what's happening and what's claimed to be happening with regards to the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Whether you consider that to be equivalent to a "thermal energy flow" or not is entirely up to you and entirely besides the point. IBdaMann wrote: I will be ignoring any and all treatises of "mechanisms" and of "how" you claim the impossible supposedly happens. Since you are so disinterested in the mechanism, we can simply agree that what you call 'thermal energy flow' is what I call 'net thermal energy flow' and that generally only occurs from hot to cold. No violation of that principle is required for the atmospheric greenhouse effect. IBdaMann wrote: I said a "body" and not a powered system. The context of our discussion is black body science. "Bodies" are passive objects. Your laser is out unless you turn it off. No. ITN said clearly and repeatedly that "no atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has". Period. So are you going to insist that the absorbing body can somehow magically differentiate "powered" photons from "thermal" photons of the same wavelength and treat them differently? Or are you going to agree with me that the above statement is demonstrably untrue? Edited on 20-05-2020 11:49
20-05-2020 11:44
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	Into the Night wrote: JackFou wrote: Mate, you really need to work on some new material. This is getting boring. ...deleted Mantra 1... You find someone calling you out on your denial of science and mathematics boring, do you? I find it boring that you think "F=ma" is somehow a 'gotcha' argument to dismiss anything that has to do with classical mechanics. I find it boring that you say unequivocally that "no atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has" and then try to weasel your way out when I show you examples of exactly that happening. I find it boring that you think assigning arbitrary numbers to my arguments and simply claiming various fallacies according to your personal judgement is somehow a good refutation of the arguments. You don't make good or insightful or challenging arguments. You just point to a list of numbers and repeat the same lines again and again. That is what makes you exceptionally boring. Edited on 20-05-2020 12:28
20-05-2020 14:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: JackFou wrote: Let's start with warm to cold, to make it easier for you. Nope. Your requirement is not to make it easy for me. Your requirement is to either demonstrate thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer or to acknowledge that it is not possible. Okay so let's scratch the phrase "thermal energy flow". Let's call it emission of electromagnetic energy by CO2 in the atmosphere followed by absorption of said electromagnetic energy by the surface and subsequent conversion of the electromagnetic energy to thermal energy. Does that help you wrap your head around it? Not possible. You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Mantra 20a2. JackFou wrote: Because that's exactly what's happening and what's claimed to be happening with regards to the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Mantra 33b...20a2...20a1...20b...39m... JackFou wrote: Whether you consider that to be equivalent to a "thermal energy flow" or not is entirely up to you and entirely besides the point. Irrelevance fallacy. JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I will be ignoring any and all treatises of "mechanisms" and of "how" you claim the impossible supposedly happens. Since you are so disinterested in the mechanism, we can simply agree that what you call 'thermal energy flow' is what I call 'net thermal energy flow' and that generally only occurs from hot to cold. No violation of that principle is required for the atmospheric greenhouse effect. You can't create energy out of nothing. You can't heat a warmer object with a colder one. Mantras 20a1...20a2...22g...33b... JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I said a "body" and not a powered system. The context of our discussion is black body science. "Bodies" are passive objects. Your laser is out unless you turn it off. No. ITN said clearly and repeatedly that "no atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has". Period. So are you going to insist that the absorbing body can somehow magically differentiate "powered" photons from "thermal" photons of the same wavelength and treat them differently? Or are you going to agree with me that the above statement is demonstrably untrue? There is no such thing as a 'powered' photon. There is no such thing as a 'thermal' photon. No atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has. Mantras 20a2...20a1...20q2...20q3...20q5...39m...29... No argument presented. Invalid proof. Denial of science. 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
20-05-2020 14:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: JackFou wrote: Mate, you really need to work on some new material. This is getting boring. ...deleted Mantra 1... You find someone calling you out on your denial of science and mathematics boring, do you? I find it boring that you think "F=ma" is somehow a 'gotcha' argument to dismiss anything that has to do with classical mechanics. Mantra 20u...20e1... JackFou wrote: I find it boring that you say unequivocally that "no atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has" and then try to weasel your way out when I show you examples of exactly that happening. It cannot happen. Mantra 20q3...20q5... JackFou wrote: I find it boring that you think assigning arbitrary numbers to my arguments and simply claiming various fallacies according to your personal judgement is somehow a good refutation of the arguments. Mantra 8. A fallacy is an error in logic, just like a math error in mathematics. Both are closed functional systems. If you don't like me calling you out on fallacies, stop making them. JackFou wrote: You don't make good or insightful or challenging arguments. You just point to a list of numbers and repeat the same lines again and again. That is what makes you exceptionally boring. You make the same mistakes over and over again. I call you out on them each time. Stop making the same mistakes over and over again. You have only yourself to blame. Mantra 8...39k... No argument presented. Denial of logic. 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
20-05-2020 14:43
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	Into the Night wrote: Not possible. You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Can electromagnetic energy emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere be absorbed and converted into thermal energy by the surface of the earth, yes or no? Into the Night wrote: No atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has. Then explain how a CO2 laser cutter can cut (mild) steel. The energy required for that is more than a single 10.6 µm photon per atom. Any answers consisting of assigning mantras and supposed logical fallacies will be ignored. Edited on 20-05-2020 14:44
20-05-2020 17:35
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14401)	JackFou wrote: Okay so let's scratch the phrase "thermal energy flow". We can't do that. You are arguing "Greenhouse Effect", yes? You are arguing an increase in the earth's average global temperature, yes? Yes, we need to retain the term "thermal energy flow" and we need to remain focused on that "increased temperature." Meanwhile, I remain disinterested in electromagnetic energy; it's not what I'm discussing. JackFou wrote: Let's call it emission of electromagnetic energy by CO2 in the atmosphere followed by absorption of said electromagnetic energy by the surface and subsequent conversion of the electromagnetic energy to thermal energy. Why on earth would I wish to waste my time talking about that? Could you get back to thermal energy flow? JackFou wrote: Because that's exactly what's happening and what's claimed to be happening with regards to the atmospheric greenhouse effect. I'll tell you what. We can resolve this right now. I will grant that what you say is occurring, i.e.lots of electromagnetic propogation among CO2, if you will grant that there is no increase in the earth's average global temperature. Deal? JackFou wrote: Since you are so disinterested in the mechanism, we can simply agree that what you call 'thermal energy flow' is what I call 'net thermal energy flow' Crap. Deja vu. Nope, I do not agree. It's only a "net" flow if you can demonstrate that there are two separate and opposite thermal energy flows between A and B. If you can do that, then yes, the combined result of the two separate and opposite flows is a "net flow." However, if there is only the one flow from A to B then it is just "the flow" and is not an aggregate of two separate and opposite flows. So, "thermal energy flow" is in and "net flow" is out and electromagnetic energy flow is out. So, let's start over again. Let's start with what "Greenhouse Effect" is (or is supposed to be). Does it entail an increase in the earth's average global temperature? IBdaMann wrote: ITN said clearly and repeatedly that "no atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has". Period. You will likely find that on this site, context and honesty are everything and that merely taking a quote out of context doesn't count for much. Into the Night was talking about normalized power (radiance) whiile trying to accomodate your desire to orient the discussion toward the quantum level (photons). If you would prefer that he insist on strictly speaking in terms of classic physics then you would likely be lost and unable to follow the discussion. So if there is ever a question strictly over something that was written then you are welcome to get a formal final answer within classical physics, and I'll be happy to address that for you here. The moment you turn on your laser you introduce an energy source which results in an "opening" of the system. This creates a brand new (entirely different) system wrt the 2nd law of thermodynamics. JackFou wrote: So are you going to insist that the absorbing body can somehow magically differentiate "powered" photons from "thermal" photons of the same wavelength and treat them differently? I am "insisting" on two things: 1) a single flow of thermal energy from warmer body to cooler body 2) there is no gas in the earth's atmosphere that alters/affects the earth's average global temperature. . 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
20-05-2020 18:06
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	IBdaMann wrote: It's only a "net" flow if you can demonstrate that there are two separate and opposite thermal energy flows between A and B. If you can do that, then yes, the combined result of the two separate and opposite flows is a "net flow." However, if there is only the one flow from A to B then it is just "the flow" and is not an aggregate of two separate and opposite flows. Since you can define words to mean whatever you want, so can I. That which you call 'thermal energy flow' I simply call 'net thermal energy flow'. I am happy to accept that 'net thermal energy flow' implies the existence of several individual flows because I understand that this follows from a mechanistic understanding of thermal energy flow. Since you are utterly uninterested in mechanisms, we have nothing to discuss in that regard. IBdaMann wrote: So, let's start over again. Let's start with what "Greenhouse Effect" is (or is supposed to be). Does it entail an increase in the earth's average global temperature? Wait, I thought you were convinced that no such thing as an "average global temperature" can be measured to any useful degree of certainty? So why drag it in here if we can't measure it anyway? For the moment, all I'm claiming with regards to the atmospheric greenhouse effect is the following: 1) The surface of the earth emits radiation to maintain energy balance with incoming radiation 2) Some wavelengths of the radiation emitted by earth's surface are absorbed by CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere 3) Some of that absorbed radiation is sent out again as radiation; this occurs in all directions, including down to earth's surface 4) Some of the radiation emitted by CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface of the earth (and converted to thermal energy) 5) The result is more incoming radiation (and hence energy) per unit of time and surface area on earth's surface than there would be without the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 6) To make up for the increased amount of incoming radiance, the outgoing radiance of earth's surface must also go up which requires an increase in temperature of earth's surface according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law We can discuss any further claims that follow once we have agreed on whether or not the above is true. IBdaMann wrote: JackFou wrote: ITN said clearly and repeatedly that "no atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has". Period. You will likely find that on this site, context and honesty are everything and that merely taking a quote out of context doesn't count for much. Into the Night was talking about normalized power (radiance) whiile trying to accomodate your desire to orient the discussion toward the quantum level (photons). If you would prefer that he insist on strictly speaking in terms of classic physics then you would likely be lost and unable to follow the discussion. So if there is ever a question strictly over something that was written then you are welcome to get a formal final answer within classical physics, and I'll be happy to address that for you here. Either an atom/molecules can absorb photons of less energy than what the atom/molecule already has or it cannot. Which is it? Edited on 20-05-2020 18:12

20-05-2020 20:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14401)	JackFou wrote: That which you call 'thermal energy flow' I simply call 'net thermal energy flow'. I am happy to accept that 'net thermal energy flow' implies the existence of several individual flows because I understand that this follows from a mechanistic understanding of thermal energy flow. ... if and only if you can demonstrate the existence of a thermal energy flow in the opposite direction. Don't you have a YouTube video demonstrating thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? Until you can demonstrate such, you only have the one flow, i.e. from warmer to cooler, and not multiple flows resulting in a "net flow." Sorry. JackFou wrote: Since you are utterly uninterested in mechanisms, we have nothing to discuss in that regard. Since you have nothing to demonstrate, you bring nothing to the table. At this point you are just gibbering. Go away. JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: So, let's start over again. Let's start with what "Greenhouse Effect" is (or is supposed to be). Does it entail an increase in the earth's average global temperature? Wait, I thought you were convinced that no such thing as an "average global temperature" can be measured to any useful degree of certainty? So why drag it in here if we can't measure it anyway? Wait! Are you saying that you don't know what you believe about Greenhouse Effect? Too funny! Let's try this again. Are you claiming that Greenhouse Effect causes an increase in the earth's average global temperature? JackFou wrote: For the moment, all I'm claiming with regards to the atmospheric greenhouse effect is the following: ... lots of crap deleted ..... Is there an increase in the average global temperature involved? JackFou wrote: Either an atom/molecules can absorb photons of less energy than what the atom/molecule already has or it cannot. Which is it? So now you want to mess around in the details of the quantum world. Great. Let's break down what you mean by "can". Atoms and molecules are particles that are entirely governed by physics. They do not have "abilities" that give them options in determining what they can and cannot do. Atoms and molecules either will or will not absorb incident photons ... and that it is nonetheless uncertain in any given particular case. Is this what you mean by "can", i.e. there is uncertainty? . 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
20-05-2020 22:59
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: It's only a "net" flow if you can demonstrate that there are two separate and opposite thermal energy flows between A and B. If you can do that, then yes, the combined result of the two separate and opposite flows is a "net flow." However, if there is only the one flow from A to B then it is just "the flow" and is not an aggregate of two separate and opposite flows. Since you can define words to mean whatever you want, so can I. That which you call 'thermal energy flow' I simply call 'net thermal energy flow'. There is no such thing as 'net heat'. Mantra 10f. JackFou wrote: I am happy to accept that 'net thermal energy flow' implies the existence of several individual flows because I understand that this follows from a mechanistic understanding of thermal energy flow. Since you are utterly uninterested in mechanisms, we have nothing to discuss in that regard. There is no such thing as 'net heat'. Mantra 10f. JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: So, let's start over again. Let's start with what "Greenhouse Effect" is (or is supposed to be). Does it entail an increase in the earth's average global temperature? Wait, I thought you were convinced that no such thing as an "average global temperature" can be measured to any useful degree of certainty? So why drag it in here if we can't measure it anyway? There is no such thing as 'average global temperature'. Mantra 25l. Earth has a temperature, we just don't know what it is. We don't have the facilities necessary to measure it either. JackFou wrote: For the moment, all I'm claiming with regards to the atmospheric greenhouse effect is the following: 1) The surface of the earth emits radiation to maintain energy balance with incoming radiation WRONG. The whole Earth does...not just the surface. Mantra 20b5. JackFou wrote: 2) Some wavelengths of the radiation emitted by earth's surface are absorbed by CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas'. Mantra 22g. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. Absorption of infrared light emitted by the surface is not warming the Earth. It's cooling the surface and warming the atmosphere. Mantra 20a1. JackFou wrote: 3) Some of that absorbed radiation is sent out again as radiation; this occurs in all directions, including down to earth's surface WRONG. Absorbed light is DESTROYED. It is not 'sent out again'. CO2 in the atmosphere does emit light just like any other matter according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Emitted light is CREATING new photons. CO2 is cooled by this process. JackFou wrote: 4) Some of the radiation emitted by CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface of the earth (and converted to thermal energy) WRONG. You cannot heat the surface using a colder gas. Mantra 20a2...20q1...20q2...20q3... JackFou wrote: 5) The result is more incoming radiation (and hence energy) per unit of time and surface area on earth's surface than there would be without the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere WRONG. You cannot create energy out of nothing. Mantra 20a1...20e3...20f... JackFou wrote: 6) To make up for the increased amount of incoming radiance, the outgoing radiance of earth's surface must also go up which requires an increase in temperature of earth's surface according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law WRONG. There is no sequence. Mantra 20b3. JackFou wrote: We can discuss any further claims that follow once we have agreed on whether or not the above is true. Lie. Mantra 6. JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: JackFou wrote: ITN said clearly and repeatedly that "no atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has". Period. You will likely find that on this site, context and honesty are everything and that merely taking a quote out of context doesn't count for much. Into the Night was talking about normalized power (radiance) whiile trying to accomodate your desire to orient the discussion toward the quantum level (photons). If you would prefer that he insist on strictly speaking in terms of classic physics then you would likely be lost and unable to follow the discussion. So if there is ever a question strictly over something that was written then you are welcome to get a formal final answer within classical physics, and I'll be happy to address that for you here. Either an atom/molecules can absorb photons of less energy than what the atom/molecule already has or it cannot. Which is it? Mantra 29. RQAA. No argument presented. Denial of science. 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
20-05-2020 23:43
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	IBdaMann wrote: ... if and only if you can demonstrate the existence of a thermal energy flow in the opposite direction. Don't you have a YouTube video demonstrating thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? I have never claimed that spontaneous net thermal energy flow in "the opposite direction" is possible. The possibility for a spontaneous net thermal energy flow in "the opposite" direction is also not a requirement for the atmospheric greenhouse effect. IBdaMann wrote: Let's try this again. Are you claiming that Greenhouse Effect causes an increase in the earth's average global temperature? Since you have already decided for yourself that any attempt at determining an average global temperature is futile, you're just trying to set up a strawman. I'm not biting. I have stated exactly what I claim regarding the atmospheric greenhouse effect: JackFou wrote: 1) The surface of the earth emits radiation to maintain energy balance with incoming radiation 2) Some wavelengths of the radiation emitted by earth's surface are absorbed by CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere 3) Some of that absorbed radiation is sent out again as radiation; this occurs in all directions, including down to earth's surface 4) Some of the radiation emitted by CO2 (and other greenhouse gases) in the atmosphere is absorbed by the surface of the earth (and converted to thermal energy) 5) The result is more incoming radiation (and hence energy) per unit of time and surface area on earth's surface than there would be without the greenhouse gases in the atmosphere 6) To make up for the increased amount of incoming radiance, the outgoing radiance of earth's surface must also go up which requires an increase in temperature of earth's surface according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law Nothing more, nothing less. IBdaMann wrote: JackFou wrote: Either an atom/molecules can absorb photons of less energy than what the atom/molecule already has or it cannot. Which is it? So now you want to mess around in the details of the quantum world. Great. It's not a matter of me "wanting to mess around" with anything. Absorption and emission of photons by atoms or molecules are inherently quantum mechanical processes. Whether I want them to be or not is irrelevant. IBdaMann wrote: Let's break down what you mean by "can". Atoms and molecules are particles that are entirely governed by physics. They do not have "abilities" that give them options in determining what they can and cannot do. I'm glad we can agree on that. IBdaMann wrote: Atoms and molecules either will or will not absorb incident photons ... and that it is nonetheless uncertain in any given particular case. Is this what you mean by "can", i.e. there is uncertainty? Yes. When I say "can" I am indeed referring to the uncertainty for the interaction between any particular atom/molecule and any particular photon of a given wavelength.
21-05-2020 00:47
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	JackFou wrote:...scratch the phrase "thermal energy flow". Let's call it emission of electromagnetic energy by CO2 in the atmosphere followed by absorption of said electromagnetic energy by the surface and subsequent conversion of the electromagnetic energy to thermal energy. Nicely said. The entire issue here on Climate-Debate.com is dealing with EM in the atmosphere anyway. I personally don't like to use "surface" to mean the ground level since it's the same word used in talking about what is emitting radiance from a planet or absorbing radiance reaching a planet (which is sometimes only very partially the ground). JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: I said a "body" and not a powered system. No. ITN said clearly and repeatedly that "no atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has". Period. What ITN/IBD have repeatedly stated for 5 years is an entirely false and fabricated new Law of EM absorption hat is simply Dead Wrong: IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object. 2) what the photons actually do is governed more by uncertainty than by any science that predicts what will happen. Like I said before, photons can deflect, do back-flips, take selfies and interact in any way other than being absorbed. IBD just wants to pretend he didn't say that. Into the Night wrote: There is no such thing as a 'powered' photon. Got that IBD? It makes no difference if you regard the origin of a photon as powered, marxist or anything else. It's a photon. IBdaMann wrote: "Greenhouse Effect", yes?...I remain disinterested in electromagnetic energy; it's not what I'm discussing. You are simply attempting to censor debate because you're beaten. You want to discuss the temperature of the Earth without considering Sun light. Wow! IBdaMann wrote:if you will grant that there is no increase in the earth's average global temperature. Are you making the claim that the bottom of the atmosphere of Earth is not warmer for having an atmosphere? Are you making the same claim about Venus? I thought you insisted you had no clue what the temperature was? You are so defeated here IBD you are reduced to denying radiance entirely. You are so corrupt ITN that you are ignoring IBD's attempt to do so. However the one proof that you are both wrong is that the bottom of the atmosphere of Earth is far warmer the Earth's equilibrium temperature. We are hotter down here at the bottom of the atmosphere that what the Sun is radiating to Earth. You can doubt the accuracy of our measurements but that's a bit stupid as the equilibrium temp of Earth, 255K, is below freezing. You can not reasonably doubt that Venus is far far hotter than it's equilibrium temp (at the bottom of the atmosphere). So you are both postulating made up laws and vacillating on an argument that what we already know about both Earth and Venus is impossible according to you. You lost this debate the moment you took the position that the solar system was wrong to exist as it does. "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
21-05-2020 01:12
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	Into the Night wrote: [...whole bunch of intellectual diarrhea deleted...] JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: Not possible. You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Can electromagnetic energy emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere be absorbed and converted into thermal energy by the surface of the earth, yes or no? Yes or no? Which is it? JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: No atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has. Then explain how a CO2 laser cutter can cut (mild) steel. The energy required for that is more than a single 10.6 µm photon per atom. Still waiting. Edited on 21-05-2020 01:13
21-05-2020 07:45
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ... if and only if you can demonstrate the existence of a thermal energy flow in the opposite direction. Don't you have a YouTube video demonstrating thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer? I have never claimed that spontaneous net thermal energy flow in "the opposite direction" is possible. Lie. You have claimed exactly that. There is no such thing as 'net heat'. JackFou wrote: The possibility for a spontaneous net thermal energy flow in "the opposite" direction is also not a requirement for the atmospheric greenhouse effect. Lie. You are trying to use 'net heat' to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. There is no such thing as 'atmospheric greenhouse effect'. No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing, nor can trap thermal energy, heat, or light. Mantras 20a1...20a2... JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Let's try this again. Are you claiming that Greenhouse Effect causes an increase in the earth's average global temperature? Since you have already decided for yourself that any attempt at determining an average global temperature is futile, There is no such thing as 'average global temperature'. Mantra 25l. JackFou wrote: you're just trying to set up a strawman. I'm not biting. Fallacy fallacy. No strawman anywhere. JackFou wrote: I have stated exactly what I claim regarding the atmospheric greenhouse effect: That you have. It's also denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law, as well as using meaningless buzzwords. Mantras 20a1...20a2...20b...22a...22e...22g...39m... JackFou wrote: ...deleted argument by repetition and non-English portion... IBdaMann wrote: Atoms and molecules either will or will not absorb incident photons ... and that it is nonetheless uncertain in any given particular case. Is this what you mean by "can", i.e. there is uncertainty? Yes. When I say "can" I am indeed referring to the uncertainty for the interaction between any particular atom/molecule and any particular photon of a given wavelength. Mantras 20q1...20q2...20a2...39m...39a... No arguments presented. Denial of science. Buzzword fallacies. 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
21-05-2020 07:58
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 20g...20a2...20b3...20e2...20q2...20q1...20q3...20a2...20h...25g...25c..30...17...30...7...20g...20a1...20n...29...29...29...7...30...25g...31...20a1...20n...20g...25g...25c...25d...25e...25g...20h...25g...20e1...25g...31...34...7...10d...39n...39j... No argument presented. Denial of science. Denial of mathematics. RQAA. Invalid 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
21-05-2020 08:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	JackFou wrote:....deleted Mantras 29...29...20g...20e3...20q5... 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
21-05-2020 08:05
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ... if and only if you can demonstrate the existence of a thermal energy flow in the opposite direction.... I have never claimed that spontaneous net thermal energy flow in "the opposite direction" is possible. Lie. You have claimed exactly that... And you can quote that ITN? You know the whole forum is all text right? You and IBD are trying to manufacture a nonexistent position to argue against. Into the Night wrote: No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing, nor can trap thermal energy, heat, or light. And you keep pretending other people say that when they do not. You could clear this all up ITN if you simply provided your explanation for how Venus is 500 degrees hotter on the ground than its equilibrium temp. Explain how it's hot enough to melt lead at night on a planet that only gets enough sunlight to be so cold you'd die of hypothermia (-46C). Assuming of course that you cannot "trap" thermal energy or whatever it is you are trying to claim. Quick question ITN: You're in a room right now. Radiance is coming off the walls of that room. When that radiance reaches your skin what happens to it? And no, you have never answered for any of this.
21-05-2020 12:15
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	Into the Night wrote: JackFou wrote: I have never claimed that spontaneous net thermal energy flow in "the opposite direction" is possible. Lie. You have claimed exactly that. There is no such thing as 'net heat'. Feel free to quote me on that. According to IBD "honesty" is highly valued here. JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: Not possible. You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Can electromagnetic energy emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere be absorbed and converted into thermal energy by the surface of the earth, yes or no? Yes or no? Which is it? JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: No atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has. Then explain how a CO2 laser cutter can cut (mild) steel. The energy required for that is more than a single 10.6 µm photon per atom. Still waiting.
21-05-2020 19:53
gfm7175★★★★★ (3314)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: JackFou wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ... if and only if you can demonstrate the existence of a thermal energy flow in the opposite direction.... I have never claimed that spontaneous net thermal energy flow in "the opposite direction" is possible. Lie. You have claimed exactly that... And you can quote that ITN? You know the whole forum is all text right? You and IBD are trying to manufacture a nonexistent position to argue against. Into the Night wrote: No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing, nor can trap thermal energy, heat, or light. And you keep pretending other people say that when they do not. You could clear this all up ITN if you simply provided your explanation for how Venus is 500 degrees hotter on the ground than its equilibrium temp. Explain how it's hot enough to melt lead at night on a planet that only gets enough sunlight to be so cold you'd die of hypothermia (-46C). Assuming of course that you cannot "trap" thermal energy or whatever it is you are trying to claim. Quick question ITN: You're in a room right now. Radiance is coming off the walls of that room. When that radiance reaches your skin what happens to it? And no, you have never answered for any of this. The bolded has already been answered in the Tangier Island thread (and elsewhere). The "Quick Question" has also already been answered. In fact, you still haven't addressed IBD with regard to that particular discussion. You keep bouncing between electromagnetic energy and thermal energy as if they were the same.
21-05-2020 21:00
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Quick question ITN: You're in a room right now. Radiance is coming off the walls of that room. When that radiance reaches your skin what happens to it? The "Quick Question" has also already been answered. Do you mean this GFM?:link Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote: My question to you, ITN, GG, GFM and the whole crew is this: What do you think happens to the radiance from the walls around you when it reaches your skin? Nothing. Mantra 29. That's all of it?
22-05-2020 01:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantra 36e...30...36e...30...25g...25g...20o...25g...17...20a1...29...lie... No argument presented. Math errors. Denial of context. Denial of self. 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
22-05-2020 01:46
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	JackFou wrote:...deleted Mantras 36e...1...5...20g...25k...25m...20q3...20q5...29...29... No argument presented. Bad math. Denial of science. 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
22-05-2020 01:48
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: Not possible. You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Can electromagnetic energy emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere be absorbed and converted into thermal energy by the surface of the earth, yes or no? Yes or no? Which is it? JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: No atom or molecule will absorb a photon of less energy than the atom or molecule already has. Then explain how a CO2 laser cutter can cut (mild) steel. The energy required for that is more than a single 10.6 µm photon per atom. Still waiting.

22-05-2020 06:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	JackFou wrote:...deleted Mantra 29...29... 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
22-05-2020 18:29
JackFou ★☆☆☆☆ (114)	Into the Night wrote: RQAA. You have not actually answered either of those questions yet. You have only answered imaginary questions that no one asked, questions that you made up yourself such that you can refute them and maintain that you are 100% correct. That is called a straw man fallacy. In fact, simply answering my first question with either "yes" or "no" would have required fewer letters and therefore less effort than typing "RQAA". So I can only conclude that you cannot answer this simple "yes or no" question.
22-05-2020 19:55
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14401)	JackFou wrote: Can electromagnetic energy emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere be absorbed and converted into thermal energy by the surface of the earth, yes or no? It can. Yes. But you are wasting time, which is the reason you are being avoided. It's not your question, it's you. You are wasting time and bandwidth. Your entire question is predicated on subdividing the atomic unit and is denying blackbody science, which puts you in the category of science denier. So I'll tell you what. I won't ignore your questions if you won't ignore mine? Deal? In fact, I will tell you up front, you are arguing for Global Warming, ergo you are arguing that an increase in temperature occurs. Ergo, my two question are these: 1) exactly when does the increase in temperature occur? 2) from where does this NEW energy come that is needed to increase the temperature? Now Into the Night, gfm7175, GasGuzzler, Harvey and others might not have asked you these questions directly but I bet they would like to know what you claim the answers are to those questions. Please don't take me directly to violating Stefan-Boltzmann ... throw in a few detours or something, please. Test for GasGuzzler - of things to come: Attached image:
23-05-2020 02:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: RQAA. You have not actually answered either of those questions yet. You have only answered imaginary questions that no one asked, questions that you made up yourself such that you can refute them and maintain that you are 100% correct. That is called a straw man fallacy. In fact, simply answering my first question with either "yes" or "no" would have required fewer letters and therefore less effort than typing "RQAA". So I can only conclude that you cannot answer this simple "yes or no" question. Fallacy fallacy. 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
23-05-2020 06:58
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	ITN I would like to ask nicely can you stop just posting Required Question Already Answered.Either answer the question again or do not respond.I am having trouble following the discussion sometimes
23-05-2020 19:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21596)	duncan61 wrote: ITN I would like to ask nicely can you stop just posting Required Question Already Answered.Either answer the question again or do not respond.I am having trouble following the discussion sometimes He is asking a question that has already been answered. He is asking the question repeatedly. He is also assuming a false dichotomy (a fallacy). The answer I gave is not yes/no, since it is not a yes/no question. One answer is good enough. It takes time to answer posts, and I am not here to sing for my supper. Inanity like his just angers people. BTW, IBdaMann answered the question again in his last post. If you have a question, ask 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 Edited on 23-05-2020 19:37
24-05-2020 05:56
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: He is asking a question that has already been answered. He is asking the question repeatedly. You say RQAA all the time and you have not answered the question. You then go on to make more statements where the question is the only appropriate response. See here: Into the Night wrote: JackFou wrote: Into the Night wrote: Not possible. You can't heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. Can electromagnetic energy emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere be absorbed and converted into thermal energy by the surface of the earth, yes or no? RQAA But you NEVER once answered that question in this thread. First asked: 20-05-2020 14:43 ITN responses: none Asked a 2nd time: 21-05-2020 01:12 ITN responses: none Asked a 3rd time: 21-05-2020 12:15 ITN responses: Maybe "No arguments presented. Denial of science." ? unclear Asked a 4th time: 22-05-2020 01:48 ITH resonse: RQAA. So what that it ITN? Your response to the question was "No arguments presented. Denial of science." ? IBdaMann wrote: JackFou wrote: Can electromagnetic energy emitted by CO2 in the atmosphere be absorbed and converted into thermal energy by the surface of the earth, yes or no? It can. Yes. Please go on. Is that only when the CO2 is hotter than the ground? (I am using "ground" in place of "surface")? IBdaMann wrote:1) exactly when does the increase in temperature occur? As the composition of the atmosphere changes so does it's influence of ground level temperature. So the answer would be "incrementally", "gradually", or "continuously". IBdaMann wrote:2) from where does this NEW energy come that is needed to increase the temperature? The Sun of course. Your question implies that you have a fundamental misunderstanding and think that the Earth is an isolated system. It is not. What you have done here, in my view, is skipped past the question of if an atmosphere can cause a planet to have a higher mean temperature at ground level than it would otherwise. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN Edited on 24-05-2020 06:11
24-05-2020 06:37
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Today we have cloud cover and It is 10 degrees warmer at first light than when we had clear skies all last week.I have asked ITN to not keep posting RQAA as well.My concern is the amount the CO2 can affect surface temperature and why is it a bad thing
24-05-2020 06:54
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	duncan61 wrote: Today we have cloud cover and It is 10 degrees warmer at first light than when we had clear skies all last week.I have asked ITN to not keep posting RQAA as well.My concern is the amount the CO2 can affect surface temperature and why is it a bad thing Clouds make it warmer at night for obvious reasons (cool down period with a barrier in place). Why is it a bad thing if the surface temperature changes? Well "changes to what and how quickly?" is the natural follow up. The AGW alarmist don't just say it's going to change they say in a bad way and too quickly. However this topic should be of interest either way. What if we figured out that we could actually make things better for ourselves on the planet by generating more CO2? I hope we can agree we should try not to find out.
24-05-2020 07:20
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Lindsay Little July 5, 2017 at 9:26 am \| # I certainly do not claim to be Australia's leading climatologist, but I am able to do my own research, something many of these esteemed scientific societies fail to do. They preferably blindly to follow the likes of conniving con men the like of Michael Mann. Once again early this year we were lambasted with the incredible statement that globally 2016 was the hottest year on record. Now no one would dispute Australia is a very large continent, and yet records collected by the Australian Bureau of Meteorology show that for past four years,2013 to 2016 inclusive annual average temperatures throughout Australia, have declined. To say that 2016 globally was the "hottest on record" is disingenuous. Why do I believe this person?? If this is true the whole warming theory has gone up in smoke.Pun intended

Page 9 of 10

Join the debate Nils-Axel Mörner: