Remember me
▼ Content

Nils-Axel Mörner



Page 2 of 10<1234>>>
30-04-2020 03:45
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I'm wrong often and I have no problem with that. If I couldn't admit it I would probably drift off into insanity as you have.

So you admit that you are wrong about thermal energy being able to flow from cooler to warmer?

Wait, you just can't admit that you're wrong, can you?


.



In the stratosphere, ozone moves heat from cold to hot quite effectively.

No, it doesn't. Ozone is not heat. You cannot 'move' heat.
James___ wrote:
I just falsified science for you, ITN, Harvey55 and gfm7175. Science as it turns out does allow for cold to flow to hot so that hot stays hot.

Nope. You are failing to consider the effects of the Sun and the effects of mass per given volume. It's part of that system too, you know.


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
30-04-2020 23:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3316)
Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net flow'.
Because a "flow" is by defintion a net effect.

Here is what I mean by net radiance:TWELVE REFERENCES

Have a real rebuttal tot hat ITN? Let me guess: RQAA

Yes Yes keep running


"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
01-05-2020 01:23
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(428)

Attached image:

01-05-2020 01:24
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(428)
[center][center]
[/center][/center]
Attached image:

01-05-2020 01:27
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(428)

Edited on 01-05-2020 01:29
01-05-2020 03:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net flow'.
Because a "flow" is by defintion a net effect.
tmiddles wrote:...deleted TMSb4...


A flow is defined as a 'net effect'. Redefinition fallacy. 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
01-05-2020 09:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3316)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net flow'.
Because a "flow" is by defintion a net effect.
tmiddles wrote:...deleted TMSb4...


A flow is defined as a 'net effect'. Redefinition fallacy. No argument presented. RQAA.


Redefined from what? You've never presented a definition of "flow".

But I never talk about flow.

"Radiance from a cooler body is absorbed by a warmer body."

Do you see the word flow anywhere in there? You and IBD love "flow" because, for you two, it's a vague word steeped in confusion.
Edited on 01-05-2020 09:46
01-05-2020 16:00
James___
★★★★★
(2948)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]Into the Night wrote:
There is no such thing as 'net flow'.
Because a "flow" is by defintion a net effect.
tmiddles wrote:...deleted TMSb4...


A flow is defined as a 'net effect'. Redefinition fallacy. No argument presented. RQAA.



Neither of you understand your own language. You speak American, right? How pathetic. I am having biscuits with gravy. In England, tea or milk would be served with biscuits. A flow is the movement of a mass of something. ie, the Colorado River flows from the Rocky Mountains (it's source). The water that reaches the Gulf of California (where it's mouth and delta is located) is it's net flow.
It's total volume is diminished by water being drawn from the Colorado River to support irrigation and to water cities. As an example, when 2 canals go to Phoenix, Arizona, this subtracts from the total volume of that flow.
Attached image:

01-05-2020 16:18
James___
★★★★★
(2948)
duncan61 wrote:



The smartest thing people have done is to make climate change an emotional issue. Are you aware that Norway is still rising? It's called tectonic plate rebound caused by melting glaciers. And yet you're trying to create an argument that sea levels are not rising.
If we were to consider history, it might be in another 1,000 years or more when sea levels go much higher. But we say nothing is happening or everything is happening right now and we're doomed.
To be realistic, with the amount of time that we're talking about, let's say a whopping 1 meter rise over the next 70 years. Could we adapt to a sea level rise that would average 14.29 mm or 1.429 cm a year?
Could you measure at high tide how much the sea wall is above the water? Worst case scenario, in places where they want to protect the land beyond it, sea walls can be built. In Manhattan which is a part of New York city, they have sea walls to prevent erosion. But the real question here is would we have time to adapt?
And since you say sea levels are not rising. This means we should do nothing and ignore everything until it becomes obvious.
And I've been to Freemantle before. I also lived in Seattle, Washington, USA for over 25 years. https://images.app.goo.gl/wVvV2kxuUNAopTGJ6

Duncan, itn once told me that I can't know what the Gulf Stream is if I haven't been on it. Fastest way to for a ship to go from Newport News, Virginia to Hamburg, Germany. Was moving to Norway. The ship would've returned by crossing the Gulf Stream and then taking a recirculation gyre south. It's more economical to go with the flow rather than fight it. Yet with climate change, it's an either/or proposition. kind of why I say it's a debate based on people's emotions.
After all, there both a high and low tide that has nothing to do with what direction that flow of water is moving. This is because it's based in astronomy, ie., the Moon's position. The flow of the Gulf Stream https://scijinks.gov/gulf-stream/ and it's recirculation gyres continue on even when the sea level rises and falls because of the effect that the Moon's gravity has on the oceans.

Kind of where I am the odd man out in here. I understand that for many people, 70 years is a lifetime.

Edited on 01-05-2020 16:55
01-05-2020 17:22
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7263)
James___ wrote: And yet you're trying to create an argument that sea levels are not rising.

Actually, what Duncan is doing is helping me show people that they can verify for themselves, and hence convince themselves, that the sea level is not rising to any discernible extent.

Ways to Verify there is no Discernible Sea Level Rise

Duncan has shown Western Australians how they can conveniently verify for themselves that claims of sea level rise are a sham.

James___ wrote: If we were to consider history, it might be in another 1,000 years or more when sea levels go much higher.

We don't have any valid historical data. There's no "history" for us to consider.

James___ wrote: To be realistic, with the amount of time that we're talking about, let's say a whopping 1 meter rise over the next 70 years. Could we adapt to a sea level rise that would average 14.29 mm or 1.429 cm a year?

To be realistic, are we ready to accept that the sea level rise is closer to 0.0/year?


James___ wrote: And since you say sea levels are not rising. This means we should do nothing and ignore everything until it becomes obvious.

Exactly. By "obvious" you mean that any claimed sea level rise must at least be discernible and measurable, yes? It needs to be obvious, absolutely. It can't be such that you must BELIEVE that it is occurring even though you can't see anything.

Yes, we should wait until there is something observable and dispense with the religious beliefs in doom & gloom prophesies.

.


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
01-05-2020 17:35
James___
★★★★★
(2948)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: And yet you're trying to create an argument that sea levels are not rising.

Actually, what Duncan is doing is helping me show people that they can verify for themselves, and hence convince themselves, that the sea level is not rising to any discernible extent.

Ways to Verify there is no Discernible Sea Level Rise

Duncan has shown Western Australians how they can conveniently verify for themselves that claims of sea level rise are a sham.

James___ wrote: If we were to consider history, it might be in another 1,000 years or more when sea levels go much higher.

We don't have any valid historical data. There's no "history" for us to consider.

James___ wrote: To be realistic, with the amount of time that we're talking about, let's say a whopping 1 meter rise over the next 70 years. Could we adapt to a sea level rise that would average 14.29 mm or 1.429 cm a year?

To be realistic, are we ready to accept that the sea level rise is closer to 0.0/year?


James___ wrote: And since you say sea levels are not rising. This means we should do nothing and ignore everything until it becomes obvious.

Exactly. By "obvious" you mean that any claimed sea level rise must at least be discernible and measurable, yes? It needs to be obvious, absolutely. It can't be such that you must BELIEVE that it is occurring even though you can't see anything.

Yes, we should wait until there is something observable and dispense with the religious beliefs in doom & gloom prophesies.

.



I know who you remind me of. Congressman (Republican) Andy Barr. You talk just like him. Are you related?


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andy_Barr_(American_politician)

Got better things to do. Barr is Mitch's crony just as you are itn's.
Edited on 01-05-2020 17:37
01-05-2020 18:41
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7263)
tmiddles wrote: But I never talk about flow.

Aahhhh, the unmitigated dishonesty for which the tmiddles award was created.

You started the entire "flow" discussion. Yes, you. You started it by trying to establish a "net flow" of thermal energy ... for the purpose of showing that some thermal energy flows from cooler to warmer ... for the purpose of getting the 2nd LoT discarded from discussions ... because you saw no way around it.

You initiated your attack on the 2nd LoT directly at the flow of thermal energy. You owned that argument until you realized that you were going to have to show thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer instead of just being able to assert it. You knew the jig was up so you abandoned ship and claimed that you somehow never talked about the flow of thermal energy, but only about radiance.

Let's review the history that you are trying to revise:

16 August 2019:

tmiddles stated: "So I'm crystal clear on the NET flow of thermal energy going from the hotter to the cooler in either conduction or radiance."

23 August 2019:

tmiddles asked: "So the real discussion now is about "net" thermal transfer through radiance would you agree?"
IBDaMann responded: "Not for a second."

21 September 2019:

tmiddles stated (trying to define thermal energy flow as the "net" flow in an attempt to leave the door open for thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer, because if "flow" is defined as net flow then "flow" is not available to be used to mean the flow of thermal energy from cooler to warmer, ... and "GOTCHA!"): "Thermal energy is exchanged, the difference is the flow."

22 November 2019:
tmiddles stated: "since heat is the NET FLOW of thermal energy,"

09 December 2019:

tmiddles realized his "net flow" of thermal energy argument was a loser and tried to make it go away: "It's not 'my' net flow argument."
IBDaMann: "Yes, it's yours. On this forum, you own it.


.
Attached image:

01-05-2020 18:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7263)
James___ wrote: Barr is Mitch's crony just as you are itn's.

So, are you suggesting that Into the Night give me a raise or just a one time bonus?

.


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
01-05-2020 21:00
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Barr is Mitch's crony just as you are itn's.

So, are you suggesting that Into the Night give me a raise or just a one time bonus?

.




I'll give you a raise. You deserve 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
01-05-2020 21:02
James___
★★★★★
(2948)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: Barr is Mitch's crony just as you are itn's.

So, are you suggesting that Into the Night give me a raise or just a one time bonus?

.




I'll give you a raise. You deserve it.



You have to reach into itn's pants to get your "raise" or will he have to reach into your pants? Queerious minds might want to know but not me

Edited on 01-05-2020 21:18
02-05-2020 03:05
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(428)
James___ wrote:
duncan61 wrote:



The smartest thing people have done is to make climate change an emotional issue. Are you aware that Norway is still rising? It's called tectonic plate rebound caused by melting glaciers. And yet you're trying to create an argument that sea levels are not rising.
If we were to consider history, it might be in another 1,000 years or more when sea levels go much higher. But we say nothing is happening or everything is happening right now and we're doomed.
To be realistic, with the amount of time that we're talking about, let's say a whopping 1 meter rise over the next 70 years. Could we adapt to a sea level rise that would average 14.29 mm or 1.429 cm a year?
Could you measure at high tide how much the sea wall is above the water? Worst case scenario, in places where they want to protect the land beyond it, sea walls can be built. In Manhattan which is a part of New York city, they have sea walls to prevent erosion. But the real question here is would we have time to adapt?
And since you say sea levels are not rising. This means we should do nothing and ignore everything until it becomes obvious.
And I've been to Freemantle before. I also lived in Seattle, Washington, USA for over 25 years. https://images.app.goo.gl/wVvV2kxuUNAopTGJ6

Duncan, itn once told me that I can't know what the Gulf Stream is if I haven't been on it. Fastest way to for a ship to go from Newport News, Virginia to Hamburg, Germany. Was moving to Norway. The ship would've returned by crossing the Gulf Stream and then taking a recirculation gyre south. It's more economical to go with the flow rather than fight it. Yet with climate change, it's an either/or proposition. kind of why I say it's a debate based on people's emotions.
After all, there both a high and low tide that has nothing to do with what direction that flow of water is moving. This is because it's based in astronomy, ie., the Moon's position. The flow of the Gulf Stream https://scijinks.gov/gulf-stream/ and it's recirculation gyres continue on even when the sea level rises and falls because of the effect that the Moon's gravity has on the oceans.

Kind of where I am the odd man out in here. I understand that for many people, 70 years is a lifetime.
this is the rock wall at the left bank.The whole area is reclaim and around the city is a line of red pavers where the original delta was.I could raise the wall myself on my own if needed so we do not flood


duncan61
Edited on 02-05-2020 03:11
02-05-2020 03:08
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(428)
[img][/img]I am having issues posting pictures
Edited on 02-05-2020 03:09
02-05-2020 03:13
James___
★★★★★
(2948)
duncan61 wrote:
[img][/img]I am having issues posting pictures


I have issues uploading pictures as well. If there is a dot. in its name, might be why. Other times there is no reason. Why I often supply a link to an online resource.
I am doing wood working because I am handicapped. Why the link. Could try attaching a picture but this is only an example of how to get around photos not attaching as they should.
Because I am an a$$hole, Blue Danube you (it is very much cussing you out) for making me show how to link a photograph. p. s. please remember. I am handicapped and can't work. This is one month's work made into a year's worth of work. I'm not showing what matters. I'd be an idiot to do that.
https://photos.app.goo.gl/UE81zw5p7vEiYzab9

p.s, for this, it is still some nice wood working.
Edited on 02-05-2020 03:22
02-05-2020 06:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3316)
IBdaMann wrote:
You started the entire "flow" discussion. Yes, you.
And I have no problem at all with my own definition of "net flow" (that being "Heat") but you've made it very clear that you don't agree with me (or the dictionary).

You have tried to pretend that I am making the following statement:
" thermal energy flowing from cooler to warmer." link

This is an absurd statement of your own creation. As you know my claim that you are wrong about the 2nd LTD is that radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one. Thank you kindly for doing the search to show that even you must admit this is true:
First we have my asking YOU a question about what YOU mean: You conveniently avoiding linking to the discussions:
link

16 August 2019:

tmiddles stated: "So I'm crystal clear on the NET flow of thermal energy going from the hotter to the cooler in either conduction or radiance."

And here is the context you omitted:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...this corroborates enforcement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics because photons of a particular wavelength of a cooler body will not be abosrbed by a body at a higher temperature.
...

So I'm crystal clear on the NET flow of thermal energy going from the hotter to the cooler in either conduction or radiance.

I'm now VERY confused by the prospect that a HOT body cannot absorb infrared radiation? ...


And why did I talk about "FLOW" ??? Did I introduce this on August 16th as IBD claims? Nope, nu uh.

link

August 15th, 2019 15-08-2019 04:45

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:I think this is just a model of insulation/reduced heat right?

You get bonus points. You grasped the "insulation = reduced heat." Well done.

Heat is a *flow* of thermal energy. You "heat" something by flowing thermal energy into it. Temperature cannot increase without additional energy. If you reduce the flow then you reduce the heat.


But really we were just discovering the fundamental break in our ability to concur of basic thermodynamics. My definition of "Heat" is not yours as it turns out as I believe, along with every college text book covering the subject that it's a NET flow (TWELVE REFERENCES). You and ITN believe this is somehow impossible.

So really who used the word first is immaterial since you have, I was only find out later, your own personal definition for so many words. Heat being one of them.

I still to this day have no clue what you mean when you say "flow". Care to enlighten me now? I've waited so long.

Also you have quoted me improperly. You have attributed quotes to me that are not mine and not linked to the source. Kindly refrain from doing that. It is deceptive at best.

"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 02-05-2020 06:56
02-05-2020 08:12
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7263)
tmiddles wrote: And I have no problem at all with my own definition of "net flow"

Of course you have no problem with your own bogus, 2nd LoT-violating definition.

You are trying to redefine "flow strictly from A to B" as "some flows from B to A but MORE flows from A to B." These are incompatible semantics and yours violates thermodynamics.

You started that argument and you own it. The moment you "went there" I was all over it, explaining why you shouldn't make that argument. But your entire reason for being on this site is to preach Global Warming and Marxism in general, not to achieve any sort of understanding, so it comes as no surprise that you dug in like an Alabama tick and pressed that argument, hoping to get thermodynamics discarded and an open field for you to run with your Global Warming.

You still need to demonstrate that portion of thermal energy that flows from cooler to warmer ... and you don't get to rely on electromagnetic radiation because that's not thermal energy. Of course, if you could you would have, and acquired the Nobel Prize in physics just before winning the Nobel Peace Prize for proving Global Warming.


.
Attached image:

02-05-2020 09:40
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3316)
IBdaMann wrote:
You still need to demonstrate that portion of thermal energy that flows from cooler to warmer ...
And why is that? That is your statement. Why are you making that statement and using that wording?

IBdaMann wrote:...and you don't get to rely on electromagnetic radiation because that's not thermal energy.
My statement which is as follows:
radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one.

Is a direct rebuttal to your statement:
IBdaMann wrote:...this corroborates enforcement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics because photons of a particular wavelength of a cooler body will not be abosrbed by a body at a higher temperature.

Now you decided to talk about photons, EM, and make that claim. I have pointed out you're wrong.

I have provided an (what I think) outstanding example of just how wrong you are using myself in the room I'm in right now and you in the room your in right now:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Now for no apparent reason you shied away from discussing that one, claiming you just couldn't deal with living things. So I offered to debate the thermodynamic change in a murdered, recently deceased body in a room with you. But again, you declined. You also declined even continuing with your own ball in a room example. link

I guess when you know you're going to lose why play.

What did you say instead of responding to me?:
IBdaMann wrote:You are locked in permanent conflation mode. You cannot discuss thermal energy for a minute without hijacking the discussion to one of electromagnetic energy.
Hmmm. Not sure how one can talk about thermal energy and leave radiance out of it. But I've had no luck getting you to engage.

"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 02-05-2020 09:50
02-05-2020 18:40
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2160)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You still need to demonstrate that portion of thermal energy that flows from cooler to warmer ...
And why is that? That is your statement. Why are you making that statement and using that wording?

IBdaMann wrote:...and you don't get to rely on electromagnetic radiation because that's not thermal energy.
My statement which is as follows:
radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one.

Is a direct rebuttal to your statement:
IBdaMann wrote:...this corroborates enforcement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics because photons of a particular wavelength of a cooler body will not be abosrbed by a body at a higher temperature.

Now you decided to talk about photons, EM, and make that claim. I have pointed out you're wrong.

I have provided an (what I think) outstanding example of just how wrong you are using myself in the room I'm in right now and you in the room your in right now:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Now for no apparent reason you shied away from discussing that one, claiming you just couldn't deal with living things. So I offered to debate the thermodynamic change in a murdered, recently deceased body in a room with you. But again, you declined. You also declined even continuing with your own ball in a room example. link

I guess when you know you're going to lose why play.

What did you say instead of responding to me?:
IBdaMann wrote:You are locked in permanent conflation mode. You cannot discuss thermal energy for a minute without hijacking the discussion to one of electromagnetic energy.
Hmmm. Not sure how one can talk about thermal energy and leave radiance out of it. But I've had no luck getting you to engage.

"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


I'm pretty sure I was the one that brought the dead body into the room debate, jokingly of course.
02-05-2020 22:52
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3316)
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm pretty sure I was the one that brought the dead body into the room debate, jokingly of course.
Well credit to you then Harvey.

It's a great example (actually better than a living body) because it's so thoroughly studied in criminal forensics. Body temp is used to determine time of death and this is well studied with plenty of available data.
Thoroughly debunking the absurd notion that a warmer body (recently dead human body) cannot absorb radiance from a cooler body (colder, or much colder room the body is in).
Edited on 02-05-2020 23:01
02-05-2020 23:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You still need to demonstrate that portion of thermal energy that flows from cooler to warmer ...
And why is that? That is your statement. Why are you making that statement and using that wording?

Because YOU are trying to make that claim. RQAA. Mantra 20a2.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...and you don't get to rely on electromagnetic radiation because that's not thermal energy.
My statement which is as follows:
radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one.

Is a direct rebuttal to your statement:

Not possible. RQAA. Mantra 20a2.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...this corroborates enforcement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics because photons of a particular wavelength of a cooler body will not be abosrbed by a body at a higher temperature.

Now you decided to talk about photons, EM, and make that claim.
I have pointed out you're wrong.

IBdaMann's claim is correct, You are simply denying the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.
tmiddles wrote:
I have provided an (what I think) outstanding example of just how wrong you are using myself in the room I'm in right now and you in the room your in right now:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

A contrived example is not data or a proof. Mantras 20a2...20e2...20e1...25f...29...31
tmiddles wrote:
Now for no apparent reason you shied away from discussing that one, claiming you just couldn't deal with living things. So I offered to debate the thermodynamic change in a murdered, recently deceased body in a room with you. But again, you declined. You also declined even continuing with your own ball in a room example. link

Mantras 20a2...20e2...20e1...25f...29...31
tmiddles wrote:
I guess when you know you're going to lose why play.

Mantra 7.
tmiddles wrote:
What did you say instead of responding to me?:
IBdaMann wrote:You are locked in permanent conflation mode. You cannot discuss thermal energy for a minute without hijacking the discussion to one of electromagnetic energy.
Hmmm. Not sure how one can talk about thermal energy and leave radiance out of it. But I've had no luck getting you to engage.

Easy. Thermal energy is not electromagnetic energy. It is YOU that refuses to discuss anything. You only want to preach instead. You still refuse to answer his question. The lengths you are going through to evade is astounding. Answer his question, dumbass.


Evasion. 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
02-05-2020 23:08
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
HarveyH55 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You still need to demonstrate that portion of thermal energy that flows from cooler to warmer ...
And why is that? That is your statement. Why are you making that statement and using that wording?

IBdaMann wrote:...and you don't get to rely on electromagnetic radiation because that's not thermal energy.
My statement which is as follows:
radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one.

Is a direct rebuttal to your statement:
IBdaMann wrote:...this corroborates enforcement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics because photons of a particular wavelength of a cooler body will not be abosrbed by a body at a higher temperature.

Now you decided to talk about photons, EM, and make that claim. I have pointed out you're wrong.

I have provided an (what I think) outstanding example of just how wrong you are using myself in the room I'm in right now and you in the room your in right now:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Now for no apparent reason you shied away from discussing that one, claiming you just couldn't deal with living things. So I offered to debate the thermodynamic change in a murdered, recently deceased body in a room with you. But again, you declined. You also declined even continuing with your own ball in a room example. link

I guess when you know you're going to lose why play.

What did you say instead of responding to me?:
IBdaMann wrote:You are locked in permanent conflation mode. You cannot discuss thermal energy for a minute without hijacking the discussion to one of electromagnetic energy.
Hmmm. Not sure how one can talk about thermal energy and leave radiance out of it. But I've had no luck getting you to engage.

"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


I'm pretty sure I was the one that brought the dead body into the room debate, jokingly of course.

So who was it? Anyone I know?



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
02-05-2020 23:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
I'm pretty sure I was the one that brought the dead body into the room debate, jokingly of course.
Well credit to you then Harvey.

It's a great example (actually better than a living body) because it's so thoroughly studied in criminal forensics. Body temp is used to determine time of death and this is well studied with plenty of available data.
Thoroughly debunking the absurd notion that a warmer body (recently dead human body) cannot absorb radiance from a cooler body (colder, or much colder room the body is in).


Evasion. Answer IBdaMann's very simple question.


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
02-05-2020 23:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3316)
Into the Night wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...thermal energy that flows from cooler to warmer...
...YOU [tmiddles]are trying to make that claim.
I don't even know what IBD means when he says that. I have certainly never said that. Do you know what he means when he says "flow" ITN? For some reason he refuses to give us his definition. (we all know the dictionary can't be used with you guys)

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:My statement which is as follows:
radiance from a cooler object is absorbed by a warmer one.
Not possible. RQAA.
The only time you've answered this is to say it's not possible. Try debating it. You are wrong and I've proven it here:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Into the Night wrote:A contrived example is not data or a proof.
A person in a room is "contrived". How is that? Why do you refuse to consider this simple thermodynamic setup?

Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Not sure how one can talk about thermal energy and leave radiance out of it. But I've had no luck getting you to engage.
Easy. Thermal energy is not electromagnetic energy.
So you can talk about thermodynamics and simply ignore radiance? This means ignoring the stefan boltzmann equation which calculates radiance. According to you the stefan boltzmann equation has nothing to do with thermal energy?

Into the Night wrote:
Evasion. Answer IBdaMann's very simple question.
His question being:
IBdaMann wrote:...thermal energy that flows from cooler to warmer...
My answer is that I have no clue what HE means by that. If you are asking what I think about flow, thermal energy, and cooler and warmer bodies, it's that "flow" is only ever part of "heat" as "net flow". "Net flow", which you deny, is only ever from warmer to cooler. I said the same thing in August when the issue first came up.

Why don't you explain the thermodynamics of a human body in a room ITN? You right now. Is that beyond your ability?

"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
02-05-2020 23:53
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7263)
tmiddles wrote: Do you know what he means when he says "flow" ITN?

Fine.

Flow (of thermal energy)

Rhetorical: "the dynamic real-time transfer from one body to another"
Mathematical: the first derivative of quantity function [ThermB - ThermA]


.


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
03-05-2020 00:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7263)
tmiddles wrote: Hmmm. Not sure how one can talk about thermal energy and leave radiance out of it.

Then learn. Thermal energy and electromagnetic energy are different forms of energy. They are independent.

There are relationships, yes, between those independent forms of energy. I am not sure how to teach you that they are separate things and that they are not the same thing, but once you achieve an understanding of "independence" then you will find it easier to talk about one without having to talk about the other.

Are you aware that I can talk about one twin without talking about his brother? Really, I can. You might think I'm joking but it's true, and you can learn how to do this as well.

Discussions about thermal energy need to remain focused on thermal energy. Let me know when you have become proficient at this and we can reengage.


.


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
03-05-2020 03:17
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(428)
[img][/img]Stop fighting on my thread A-holes its about sea levels
Edited on 03-05-2020 03:19
03-05-2020 03:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3316)
IBdaMann wrote:
Flow (of thermal energy) ..."the dynamic real-time transfer from one body to another"...first derivative of quantity function [ThermB - ThermA]
OK sounds good for conduction. But as for the below:
IBdaMann wrote:Thermal energy and electromagnetic energy are different forms of energy.

So thermal energy is transferred in three ways for the most part:

I think we can skip past conduction and convection and move on to radiance. Any object with thermal energy has a portion of that energy converted to EM, radiance, and it radiates out. SB dictates this radiance and the environment has no way to reduce it or increase it. The thermal energy that is converted into radiance is a function of the temperature of the surface of the object, the emissivity and the surface area. Correct?


"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 03-05-2020 03:23
03-05-2020 03:21
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(428)
I like it tmids.I am a gas fitter and do room heaters and that is how it works
03-05-2020 03:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3316)
duncan61 wrote:Stop fighting on my thread A-holes its about sea levels
I would LOVE to discuss this in the appropriate thread which is here:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

duncan61 wrote:
I like it tmids.I am a gas fitter and do room heaters and that is how it works

Yeah it's just those 3 mostly

Plenty of alternatives you could come up with but few relevant to the topics of the board:
- burning coal at the power plant, turning that heat into electrical energy, and then powering an electric heater is also a form of thermal energy transfer if you want to look at it that way
- sunlight causing a liquid water to become water vapor, the energy being released as thermal energy when the vapor condenses
yadda yadda

I don't care or see a point in saying it's NOT thermal energy transfer it's just energy transfer. I'm fine with that.
Edited on 03-05-2020 03:36
03-05-2020 03:50
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(428)
Putting warm beer in a esky full of ice is thermal energy transfer.I went north fishing/camping with a friend who knew how ice works and he explained it to me in great detail.He would start freezing down 1 litre longlife containers with the tops cut off more than 6 months before we go and use the rectangular 1 kilo ice blocks as energy.He made a cooler box out of 100mm foam and encased it in stainless steel.Our routine was to start the generator that has the freezer plugged in in the afternoon and he would stack the beer he planned to consume that night in the top tray.the bottom of the freezer had all the 1 kilo/litre blocks he had made before.The generator would then run for 2 hours and chill the warm beer in the tray.He would lift the lid and put the chilled beer stubbies in the cooler box and add 1-2 ice blocks if needed then shut the lid on the freezer and let it run for another hour to remove the hot air.All cold food stuffs are kept in a tray in the cooler box and you work out of it as needed.The freezer never gets opened again till the next day.The ice in the freezer could be at -21 and it would keep for weeks.If you drop hot stuff on ice it will melt real quick.I liked this technique and applied it myself on future trips
03-05-2020 07:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7263)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:

Flow (of thermal energy)
Rhetorical: "the dynamic real-time transfer from one body to another"
Mathematical: the first derivative of quantity function [ThermB - ThermA]

OK sounds good for conduction. But as for ...


There is no "but." You now have my formal and mathematical definitions of "flow of thermal energy." Now you have nothing holding you up. Stick to thermal energy.

Again, you have my definition of "flow." It does not matter how many other things there are in the world.


.


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
03-05-2020 08:12
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3316)
IBdaMann wrote:...Now you have nothing holding you up....
Holding me up from what? Proving YOUR satement? You have attempted, over and over again, to pretend I said:
IBdaMann wrote:
So you admit that you are wrong about thermal energy being able to flow from cooler to warmer?

I have never said thermal energy is able to "flow" from cooler to warmer. That's all you buddy.

Let me address it one more time:
As I define "flow" in thermal energy it is derived from the definition for "heat". Heat is by definition the "net flow" of thermal energy. I never use "flow" by itself. If you'd like to knock yourself out.

You and you alone exclude radiance from being a form of "heat". You're welcome to do that. I do not.

The three types of heat transfer
Heat is transfered via solid material (conduction), liquids and gases (convection), and electromagnetical waves (radiation). Heat is usually transfered in a combination of these three types and seldomly occurs on its own.

Are you pretending I think there is a "net flow" for conduction and convection alone, considered in isolation? I actually have no opinion on that at all. Seems possible I guess but who cares?

Now to get to the real issue: Energy shooting in both directions past each other from a cooler body to a warmer body and back again, wow!!!!

Yes yes, I most certainly do believe, know! actually, that radiant energy criss crosses back and forth between warmer bodies and cooler bodies and is absorbed on both ends. Case in point we are all considerably warmer than the walls of the rooms we presently occupy. Our radiance leaves our bodies, reaches the wall and is absorbed. The walls thermal energy is emitted as radiance and some of it reaches our skin. Despite the fact that our skin is warmer than the wall from which this radiance was emitted, we do indeed find that our skin absorbs it. How do I know this? Because it is the only explanation for how we don't freeze to death where we sit:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

Which I brought up, and bring up again because it debunks your bazaar assertions:
IBdaMann wrote:...this corroborates enforcement of the 2nd law of thermodynamics because photons of a particular wavelength of a cooler body will not be abosrbed by a body at a higher temperature.
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.

Why is that relevant on this board? Because you and ITN both have used this entirely baseless claim for 5 years now, pretending that it's settled science, when in fact it's easily debunked by almost any thermodynamic setup (pick one I dare you). You have both used it to pretend that it's impossible for the atmosphere to emit radiance from above that is absorbed below. You like this and want this because it frustrates any discussion of the thermodynamics of Earth.

"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 03-05-2020 08:14
03-05-2020 08:20
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(428)
Whatever is wrong with you 2 it is not a small thing
03-05-2020 09:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted Mantras 2...lie...29...29...4e...29...20a2...25f...29...29...strawman fallacy...16c...29...29...29...29...25f...29...7...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
03-05-2020 09:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:Stop fighting on my thread A-holes its about sea levels
I would LOVE to discuss this in the appropriate thread which is here:
net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference

There is no such thing as 'net flow'. Mantra 25f...29.
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
I like it tmids.I am a gas fitter and do room heaters and that is how it works

Yeah it's just those 3 mostly

Plenty of alternatives you could come up with but few relevant to the topics of the board:
- burning coal at the power plant, turning that heat into electrical energy, and then powering an electric heater is also a form of thermal energy transfer if you want to look at it that way

Nope. Not thermal energy transfer at all. A power plant putting out electricity is moving electrical energy, not thermal energy.
tmiddles wrote:
- sunlight causing a liquid water to become water vapor, the energy being released as thermal energy when the vapor condenses
yadda yadda

Water vapor being heated by sunlight is not being 'released' as thermal energy. Condensation does not release thermal energy either. Thermal energy is not 'released'. It simply is.
tmiddles wrote:

I don't care or see a point in saying it's NOT thermal energy transfer it's just energy transfer. I'm fine with that.

Lie.


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
03-05-2020 10:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(12944)
tmiddles wrote:deleted Mantras 2..29...30...lie...10b...10b...29...10b...30...16c...29...10b...lie...20b...20e2...29...20e2...20a2...25f...29...31a...7...29...35c...20a2...30...lie...20a2...29...20a2...33b...


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
Page 2 of 10<1234>>>





Join the debate Nils-Axel Mörner:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact