Remember me
▼ Content

The Chapman Cycle



Page 1 of 3123>
The Chapman Cycle20-06-2017 21:35
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
This link is to the bond energy of O2 (http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=62916.0). It is quite low. It is considered a part of the Chapman Cycle (http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_5/5_2.htm).

While some in here claim that the amount of ozone in the stratosphere is not depleted (IBdaMann and Into the Darkness) many scientists will state otherwise.

The experiment that I am pursuing may have absolutely nothing to do with the Chapman Cycle but the moderator Into the Darkness does not like links being posted because then people can be brain washed much easier if no reference material is allowed.
An example is what is climate ? Is it a state of being or is it ? we must first consider what a climate is or is not to consider chemistry. That is right, to consider chemistry we must first consider whether climate can be defined. Kind of a waste of my time.

At the same time if CO2 is not as stable as is claimed then that can change it's role in our atmosphere just as reducing O2 and increasing CO2 could possibly change the radiance of our atmosphere. Yet IBdaMann and Into the Darkness both state that changing the composition of something does not effect it's physical properties. Right !

As for myself, I don't have to accept or reject the Chapman Cycle while into the Darkness states that I have to accept it. Mind control. Using another issue to gain control over an individuals thought as the first step in controlling other thought processes. Enter spirituality and the need to question reality and what is it.
21-06-2017 00:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
James_ wrote:
This link is to the bond energy of O2 (http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=62916.0). It is quite low. It is considered a part of the Chapman Cycle ...deleted redundant link...
While some in here claim that the amount of ozone in the stratosphere is not depleted (IBdaMann and Into the Darkness) many scientists will state otherwise.

Many scientists claim all kinds of things. That doesn't make them true. Consensus is not used in science.
James_ wrote:
The experiment that I am pursuing may have absolutely nothing to do with the Chapman Cycle

It sounds like it does, but so goes your belief.
James_ wrote:
but the moderator Into the Darkness

I am not the moderator.
James_ wrote:
does not like links being posted because then people can be brain washed much easier if no reference material is allowed.

I do not like links because they only indicate you are not thinking for yourself. You are letting other do your thinking for you. They are not here to talk to. You are.
James_ wrote:
An example is what is climate ?

Good question.
James_ wrote:
Is it a state of being or is it ? we must first consider what a climate is or is not to consider chemistry. That is right, to consider chemistry we must first consider whether climate can be defined.

Climate has nothing to do with chemistry.
James_ wrote:
Kind of a waste of my time.

You seem to want to waste it.
James_ wrote:
At the same time if CO2 is not as stable as is claimed then that can change it's role in our atmosphere just as reducing O2 and increasing CO2 could possibly change the radiance of our atmosphere. Yet IBdaMann and Into the Darkness both state that changing the composition of something does not effect it's physical properties. Right !

The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not have a term for composition of material. Please describe how emissivity changes depending on the composition of gases. Remember, emissivity is color-blind. The spectral response of gases isn't good enough.
James_ wrote:
As for myself, I don't have to accept or reject the Chapman Cycle

Your choice. You are, however, denying science if you decide to reject it.
James_ wrote:
while into the Darkness states that I have to accept it.

No, it's your choice. You can deny science. I'll even let you.
James_ wrote:
Mind control.

I wouldn't want to control your mind.
James_ wrote:
Using another issue to gain control over an individuals thought as the first step in controlling other thought processes.

Are you that weak minded that you let anyone come along to control it?
James_ wrote:
Enter spirituality

Not part of the conversation. Never was.
James_ wrote:
and the need to question reality

YOU questioned reality.
James_ wrote:
and what is it.

I answered that question for you. Since you wish to reject science, I suppose you wish to reject philosophy too.


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
21-06-2017 00:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
James_ wrote: While some in here claim that the amount of ozone in the stratosphere is not depleted (IBdaMann and Into the Darkness) many scientists will state otherwise.

Did you research WHY they say otherwise? Is their rationale actually rational? Is it internally and externally consistent?

James_ wrote: ... the moderator Into the Darkness does not like links being posted.

Jep Branner controls this forum. Send him a PM and ask if Into the Night is a moderator.

I'll mention that Branner had an unfortunate trafn experience and is not going to rush to have other moderators.

James_ wrote: At the same time if CO2 is not as stable as is claimed then that can change it's role in our atmosphere just as reducing O2 and increasing CO2 could possibly change the radiance of our atmosphere.

CO2's role in our atmosphere does not change based on anyone's claims.

James_ wrote: Yet IBdaMann and Into the Darkness both state that changing the composition of something does not effect it's physical properties. Right !

I never said that, nor do I believe Into the Night ever said it either.

I will say that changing the earth's atmospheric composition will not change its average global temperature assuming the emissivity does not change ... and we cannot measure the earth's emissivity to any useful accuracy to know if it has changed.

James_ wrote: As for myself, I don't have to accept or reject the Chapman Cycle while into the Darkness states that I have to accept it.

You are most certainly free to deny it. It was provided to you merely for your consideration.


.


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
21-06-2017 01:00
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
This link is to the bond energy of O2 (http://www.chemicalforums.com/index.php?topic=62916.0). It is quite low. It is considered a part of the Chapman Cycle (http://www.ccpo.odu.edu/SEES/ozone/class/Chap_5/5_2.htm).

While some in here claim that the amount of ozone in the stratosphere is not depleted (IBdaMann and Into the Darkness) many scientists will state otherwise.

The experiment that I am pursuing may have absolutely nothing to do with the Chapman Cycle but the moderator Into the Darkness does not like links being posted because then people can be brain washed much easier if no reference material is allowed.
An example is what is climate ? Is it a state of being or is it ? we must first consider what a climate is or is not to consider chemistry. That is right, to consider chemistry we must first consider whether climate can be defined. Kind of a waste of my time.

At the same time if CO2 is not as stable as is claimed then that can change it's role in our atmosphere just as reducing O2 and increasing CO2 could possibly change the radiance of our atmosphere. Yet IBdaMann and Into the Darkness both state that changing the composition of something does not effect it's physical properties. Right !

As for myself, I don't have to accept or reject the Chapman Cycle while into the Darkness states that I have to accept it. Mind control. Using another issue to gain control over an individuals thought as the first step in controlling other thought processes. Enter spirituality and the need to question reality and what is it.


Firstly why wouldn't you simply use the editing features at the bottom of the editing section? If you hit url it gives you the capability to insert redirects. But perhaps that is too complicated for you and you can imply that there is a moderator on this group working against you?

The Chapman Cycle has only been known about and completely understood for 90 years but apparently you can reinvent it sans actually understanding it.

"If CO2 is not as stable"??? This is only Chemistry 101. If you don't understand this get an f-ing textbook.

O2 is 21% of the atmosphere and CO2 is a TRACE GAS of only 400 ppm. Why in God's name would you even suggest that increasing CO2 depletes O2?

Give us the name of a few of these "many scientists" who believe that Ozone is being depleted.

Do you find your eyes rolling around in their sockets?
24-06-2017 17:42
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
This research is very much accepted by the scientific community and industry as well. This shows what proper research and peer review allows for, a consensus. CO2 lacks this type of research and peer review as to it's role in our atmosphere.

http://people.oregonstate.edu/~muirp/stratozo.htm

https://www.acs.org/content/acs/en/education/whatischemistry/landmarks/cfcs-ozone.html

http://www.ciesin.org/docs/003-006/003-006.html
24-06-2017 21:39
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
What is being overlooked is how CFC's and F-gases "destroy" ozone. It is possible that those gases prevent O and O2 from forming ozone (O3). At the same time as O2 moves from the tropopause to the stratosphere that O2 + O occurs which is the start of the Chapman cycle.
24-06-2017 22:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
James_ wrote:
This research is very much accepted by the scientific community

Argument from randU. 'A few' does not mean 'all'.
James_ wrote:
and industry as well.
Industry does NOT accept it. They are compelled to by law.

Do you know what one of the most common items are that are smuggled in from Mexico? It's not Mexicans, and it's not drugs.

It's R-12 refrigerant, mass produced in India and smuggled into the United States through the Mexican border for use in air conditioners in the SW desert.

James_ wrote:
This shows what proper research and peer review allows for, a consensus.
Science doesn't use consensus. That includes peer review. Science isn't a research program.
James_ wrote:
CO2 lacks this type of research and peer review as to it's role in our atmosphere.
The properties of CO2 are well known. It didn't take peer review to discover them.
James_ wrote:
...deleted Holy Links...

The same old idiocy about the ozone layer.

First, CFC's are inert regarding ozone. If you put CFC's in the an ozone filled tank, nothing happens.

Second, chlorine (the evil molecule supposedly used to break up ozone) is extremely reactive. It will react with something else long before it gets anywhere near the stratosphere.

If chlorine is so evil why does the hole appear at the poles, instead of over the industrialized nations? Do you think putting people using salt destroys the ozone layer? How about swimming pools?

OSU did a good job indoctrinating you, didn't 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
24-06-2017 23:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
James_ wrote:
What is being overlooked is how CFC's and F-gases "destroy" ozone.
CFC's don't react with ozone at all. Fluorine, even more so than chlorine, is extremely reactive. It will react with something else long before it gets anywhere near any ozone layer.
James_ wrote:
It is possible that those gases prevent O and O2 from forming ozone (O3).
So does the formation of water. Have you got something against fresh water?
James_ wrote:
At the same time as O2 moves from the tropopause to the stratosphere that O2 + O occurs which is the start of the Chapman cycle.

It's actually easy to make ozone.

All you basically do is take oxygen and shove energy into it. Heat, light, electricity, whatever.

Ozone decays on it's own to oxygen. UV-C light can also decay ozone to oxygen.


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
25-06-2017 01:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
What is being overlooked is how CFC's and F-gases "destroy" ozone. It is possible that those gases prevent O and O2 from forming ozone (O3). At the same time as O2 moves from the tropopause to the stratosphere that O2 + O occurs which is the start of the Chapman cycle.


Ozone does not react with CFC's. That is why they have such a long life. They really only react with hydroxle compounds. CFC-11 breaks down through sunlight exposure in the stratosphere leaving chlorine molecules which do interact with ozone. So what? There are trillions upon trillions of ozone molecules and only an infinitesimally small number of chlorine molecules.

F-gases were used to replace CFC's because they are non-reactive with ozone.

They too are infinitesimally small in the stratosphere but of course are called "greenhouse gases" nonetheless.
25-06-2017 03:04
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Hmm, link deleted by someone who is not the moderator because the discussion will be limited to ...
Into the Dark Ages, I have to wonder about you. After all you did not know that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are 2 separate documents. This is only a problem because you explained them as one document.
Then with science you keep saying no to a consensus. And when you do this you can demonstrate nothing. All you want is a debate where nothing can be referenced. That in and of itself is a circular argument.
This could be your way of saying I am in the wrong place.
25-06-2017 09:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
What is being overlooked is how CFC's and F-gases "destroy" ozone. It is possible that those gases prevent O and O2 from forming ozone (O3). At the same time as O2 moves from the tropopause to the stratosphere that O2 + O occurs which is the start of the Chapman cycle.


Ozone does not react with CFC's. That is why they have such a long life. They really only react with hydroxle compounds. CFC-11 breaks down through sunlight exposure in the stratosphere leaving chlorine molecules which do interact with ozone. So what? There are trillions upon trillions of ozone molecules and only an infinitesimally small number of chlorine molecules.

Chlorine will react with something long before it gets near the ozone layer. Chlorine is a very reactive substance.
Wake wrote:
F-gases were used to replace CFC's because they are non-reactive with ozone.

Do you know what the 'F' in CFC's is?

Fluorine reacts with ozone. It reacts even more violently with water, producing ozone.
Wake wrote:
They too are infinitesimally small in the stratosphere but of course are called "greenhouse gases" nonetheless.


Neither chlorine nor fluorine is considered a 'greenhouse gas'.

Of course, that's if you believe in the Church of Global Warming in the first place.


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
25-06-2017 09:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
James_ wrote:
Into the Dark Ages, I have to wonder about you. After all you did not know that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are 2 separate documents.

They are not two separate documents. They are the SAME document.
James_ wrote:
Then with science you keep saying no to a consensus.

Science does not use consensus.
James_ wrote:
And when you do this you can demonstrate nothing.

Neither statement is a demonstration.
James_ wrote:
All you want is a debate where nothing can be referenced.

The reference for the Constitution of the United States is the Constitution of the United States.

The reference for what science is comes from the current philosophy began by Karl Popper. I suggest you read up on his work, and how the current philosophy of science stems from there.
James_ wrote:
That in and of itself is a circular argument.

No, it is not.


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
25-06-2017 13:35
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
Some examples of Reverse Psychology

A) a bigot dislikes a specific class of people such as Republicans

if someone doesn't like Republicans then they are fascists.

C) Businesses support regulation such as law enforcement.

C needs a little explanation. An example is the airline industry being deregulated. Airlines losses were so much that they lost all profits they earned in their existence.

I don't think Into the Night has any interest in debating climate. When he quotes links without showing the link he is trying to make it looks like he's discussing what he knows. An example is he would either delete any link to the EPA who lists F-gases (fluorine gases) as being No.1 (?) when it comes to destroying ozone or say you can't trust the EPA. I've always maintained that more research needs to be done so we can understand how different gases effects our atmosphere and that CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2 is a start. What scientists won't like hearing is that saying

K.E = 1/2MV squared = 3/2 KT

is where they made their mistake. Gases KE cannot be calculated as if all gases are ideal gases. The reason why is that the KE of gases will change differently when in a field of a given temperature. This is why it's not understood to where a consensus would he formed. And a consensus is something into the night says isn't needed or necessary unless you support fascism.
Edited on 25-06-2017 14:08
25-06-2017 14:48
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@Into the GOP,
In our atmosphere CO2's ability to influence it might be insignificant. This is because if it excites other gases the effect could be so minimal as to be insignificant.
What scientists got wrong is heat. Heat is released because of friction just as when a person rubs their hands together to warm them. That friction increases blood flow which increases friction in the blood stream.
But this doesn't matter or not to you any way.
25-06-2017 17:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
James_ wrote: What scientists got wrong is heat. Heat is released because of friction just as when a person rubs their hands together to warm them.

Just one basic question:

Do you even know what "heat" Is?

Hint: "heat" is just a common word in natural language that is ambiguous. Try to express your comment without the word "heat" using other (correct) terminology.


James_ wrote: That friction increases blood flow which increases friction in the blood stream.

So you are saying that friction INCREASES blood flow and does not restrict it?


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
25-06-2017 17:16
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7516)
James_ wrote: I don't think Into the Night has any interest in debating climate.

You NEVER specified which climate. The earth has millions of them.

If you were to pick one, what would be there to debate?

In any event, I'm curious. Which climate did you want to discuss?


.


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
25-06-2017 17:59
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Hmm, link deleted by someone who is not the moderator because the discussion will be limited to ...
Into the Dark Ages, I have to wonder about you. After all you did not know that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights are 2 separate documents. This is only a problem because you explained them as one document.
Then with science you keep saying no to a consensus. And when you do this you can demonstrate nothing. All you want is a debate where nothing can be referenced. That in and of itself is a circular argument.
This could be your way of saying I am in the wrong place.


Who cares what he is saying? You have contributions: right, wrong or really weird.

Consensus usually means something until they use consensus of people that wouldn't know anything about the subject. When NOAA is using the American Medical Association and the Boy Scouts of America as proof of consensus you have to admit that there isn't any real consensus.

When you have scientists proclaiming that their papers are being misrepresented in order to provide backing for a false consensus you really do have to question it.
25-06-2017 18:01
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: I don't think Into the Night has any interest in debating climate.

You NEVER specified which climate. The earth has millions of them.

If you were to pick one, what would be there to debate?

In any event, I'm curious. Which climate did you want to discuss?
.


Look, you do not know how average climate is calculated. You do not believe it is possible because of that. Since you don't understand any of this please refrain from commenting on it as if such calculations are impossible.
25-06-2017 19:46
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
James_ wrote:
@All,
...deleted psychobabble...]
A) a bigot dislikes a specific class of people such as Republicans

Attempted redefinition of 'bigot' as 'dislike of class'.

A bigot is someone that makes compositional errors involving people as a class.
James_ wrote:
if someone doesn't like Republicans then they are fascists.

Attempted redefinition of 'dislike of Republican party' as 'fascist'.

Obviously you have no idea what the governmental structure of fascism is.

Fascism is one type of socialism. Instead of the government owning your property, the let you own the property and take all risks associated with it, then tell you what you can do with it as if they owned the property. The government of the United States does not have this authority. Neither does any State.
James_ wrote:
C) Businesses support regulation such as law enforcement.

Kinda hard to conduct business with crime in the streets, eh?
James_ wrote:
C needs a little explanation. An example is the airline industry being deregulated.

The airline industry is not deregulated. It is one of the most regulated industries there is. Frankly, I'm amazed it's survived. It is there not because of government, but despite it.
James_ wrote:
Airlines losses were so much that they lost all profits they earned in their existence.

Airline losses were caused by government regulation, especially those involving routing and those involving fuel sources.
James_ wrote:
I don't think Into the Night has any interest in debating climate.

I don't think you have any interest in debating anything that goes against The Church of Global Warming.
James_ wrote:
When he quotes links without showing the link

I don't quote links. I don't have to. There is no link necessary to show. You either accept theories of science or you don't.
James_ wrote:
he is trying to make it looks like he's discussing what he knows.

I am discussing what I know. Apparently you seem to have trouble figuring out what is being discussed at all.
James_ wrote:
An example is he would either delete any link to the EPA who lists F-gases (fluorine gases) as being No.1 (?) when it comes to destroying ozone

The ozone layer is not being destroyed.
James_ wrote:
or say you can't trust the EPA.

You can't. The EPA is not God. The EPA is not science. The EPA is a government agency that has completely failed it's mission.
James_ wrote:
I've always maintained that more research needs to be done so we can understand how different gases effects our atmosphere and that CO2 + H2O > CH2O + O2

We know what reacts with what concerning these materials. This reaction does not take place. Putting carbon dioxide in water produces carbonated water (dissolved carbon dioxide) and a small amount of carbonic acid.
James_ wrote:
is a start. What scientists won't like hearing is that saying

K.E = 1/2MV squared = 3/2 KT

is where they made their mistake.

No mistake.
James_ wrote:
Gases KE cannot be calculated as if all gases are ideal gases.

They know that. They have stated that. Not all gases are ideal.
James_ wrote:
This is why it's not understood to where a consensus would he formed.

Consensus is not used in science.
James_ wrote:
And a consensus is something into the night says isn't needed or necessary unless you support fascism.

How the hell do you equate these two statements???

Consensus is a political or religious term. It is not used in science.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
25-06-2017 19:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
James_ wrote:
@Into the GOP,
In our atmosphere CO2's ability to influence it might be insignificant.
It is none. CO2 is simply part of the atmosphere. To say CO2 influences the atmosphere is to say CO2 influences itself.
James_ wrote:
This is because if it excites other gases the effect could be so minimal as to be insignificant.
CO2 does not excite any other gas.
James_ wrote:
What scientists got wrong is heat.
They have a pretty good idea of heat.
James_ wrote:
Heat is released because of friction just as when a person rubs their hands together to warm them. That friction increases blood flow which increases friction in the blood stream.
No, thermal energy is released. Heat is the flow of thermal energy.
James_ wrote:
But this doesn't matter or not to you any way.

Then why did you bring it up?


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
25-06-2017 19:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
Wake wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James_ wrote: I don't think Into the Night has any interest in debating climate.

You NEVER specified which climate. The earth has millions of them.

If you were to pick one, what would be there to debate?

In any event, I'm curious. Which climate did you want to discuss?
.


Look, you do not know how average climate is calculated. You do not believe it is possible because of that. Since you don't understand any of this please refrain from commenting on it as if such calculations are impossible.


There is no calculation for average climate.

You can't average what you can't define numerically.


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
25-06-2017 20:40
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night,
All you do is set your own conditions. I doubt you own a business and if people work under you I feel sorry for them.
The picture was taken 3 or 4 years ago and is Congressman Barr who is a Republican and myself. He likes me and you don't. Go figure.

https://goo.gl/photos/whXuyiNHRTBHK7wR9
26-06-2017 01:40
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night,
All you do is set your own conditions. I doubt you own a business and if people work under you I feel sorry for them.
The picture was taken 3 or 4 years ago and is Congressman Barr who is a Republican and myself. He likes me and you don't. Go figure.

https://goo.gl/photos/whXuyiNHRTBHK7wR9


James - do not argue mathematics with "Into the Night". He is mathematically illiterate and you can't get anywhere.

You have more or less the same problems with physics and should do a lot more study on the subject. Boltzmann's constant is nothing more than a means to measure the mass of various gases and then you can calculate their kinetic energy. In essence all kinetic energy is thermal as our friend "Life is Thermal" continues to try to impress on people who do not understand him because he doesn't make himself clear enough.

ITTN is incorrect that consensus is important. Consensus usually increases the chances that a theory is correct. But there has NEVER been any real consensus on AGW and that's what you appear to be unaware of.

Rather than having an "AhHAAAA" moment every time a new idea pops into your head you should study it for awhile and try to find holes in your idea. If you're willing to believe that I'm incorrect, you had better be twice as willing to believe that you're incorrect.

Believe me, I really am more willing to believe me wrong than you. The thing is that I've already studied the ideas you come up with and found them to be incorrect.
26-06-2017 10:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night,
All you do is set your own conditions

We each set our own conditions...every single one of us.
James_ wrote:
I doubt you own a business and if people work under you I feel sorry for them.

I wouldn't hire you anyway. The people that work for me are happy and enjoy the work.
James_ wrote:
The picture was taken 3 or 4 years ago and is Congressman Barr who is a Republican and myself. He likes me and you don't. Go figure.

https://goo.gl/photos/whXuyiNHRTBHK7wR9

Politicians 'like' everybody. It's part of their job.


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
26-06-2017 10:52
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
Wake wrote:
[quote]James_ wrote:
Into the Night,
All you do is set your own conditions. I doubt you own a business and if people work under you I feel sorry for them.
The picture was taken 3 or 4 years ago and is Congressman Barr who is a Republican and myself. He likes me and you don't. Go figure.

https://goo.gl/photos/whXuyiNHRTBHK7wR9


James - do not argue mathematics with "Into the Night". He is mathematically illiterate and you can't get anywhere.
Wake wrote:
You have more or less the same problems with physics and should do a lot more study on the subject. Boltzmann's constant is nothing more than a means to measure the mass of various gases and then you can calculate their kinetic energy. In essence all kinetic energy is thermal as our friend "Life is Thermal" continues to try to impress on people who do not understand him because he doesn't make himself clear enough.

All kinetic energy is not necessarily thermal energy.
Wake wrote:
ITTN is incorrect that consensus is important. Consensus usually increases the chances that a theory is correct.
Consensus is not used in science at all.

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

Wake wrote:
But there has NEVER been any real consensus on AGW and that's what you appear to be unaware of.
Define a 'real' consensus. Anything like a true Scotsman?


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
26-06-2017 16:36
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

Wake wrote:
But there has NEVER been any real consensus on AGW and that's what you appear to be unaware of.


Into the Night,
Your statement is something I find troublesome. That is why I call you Into the Dark Ages. Newton's Theory of Gravity easily disproves your statement.
26-06-2017 17:20
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote: I wouldn't hire you anyway. The people that work for me are happy and enjoy the work.


Well, no one could say you don't have a vivid imagination.
26-06-2017 18:45
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:

Rather than having an "AhHAAAA" moment every time a new idea pops into your head you should study it for awhile and try to find holes in your idea. If you're willing to believe that I'm incorrect, you had better be twice as willing to believe that you're incorrect.

Believe me, I really am more willing to believe me wrong than you. The thing is that I've already studied the ideas you come up with and found them to be incorrect.


Nothing like being full of yourself is there Wake ? I just can't believe how humble you and Into the Night are. :-D
Edited on 26-06-2017 19:34
26-06-2017 19:39
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
@All,
Heat in our atmosphere probably has more to do with the kinetic energy of gases. This is because the more gases in our atmosphere vibrate the more friction there is. This is one reason why quickly rubbing your hands together can cause them to get hot.
With my experiment kinetic energy is applied differently which is why 2 new molecules would occur rather than them getting hotter.
26-06-2017 20:36
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Rather than having an "AhHAAAA" moment every time a new idea pops into your head you should study it for awhile and try to find holes in your idea. If you're willing to believe that I'm incorrect, you had better be twice as willing to believe that you're incorrect.

Believe me, I really am more willing to believe me wrong than you. The thing is that I've already studied the ideas you come up with and found them to be incorrect.


Nothing like being full of yourself is there Wake ? I just can't believe how humble you and Into the Night are. :-D


Whereas you spouting completely disproved chemistry easily found in any chemistry text are humble as a church mouse. Showing a picture of yourself with a Congressman and telling us how he likes you?
26-06-2017 20:38
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
@All,
Heat in our atmosphere probably has more to do with the kinetic energy of gases. This is because the more gases in our atmosphere vibrate the more friction there is. This is one reason why quickly rubbing your hands together can cause them to get hot.
With my experiment kinetic energy is applied differently which is why 2 new molecules would occur rather than them getting hotter.


My Gosh but you found another AhHAAA moment that also is totally incorrect. Molecules in the atmosphere are actually cooling each other down with the process of conduction and convection.
26-06-2017 20:40
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

Wake wrote:
But there has NEVER been any real consensus on AGW and that's what you appear to be unaware of.


Into the Night,
Your statement is something I find troublesome. That is why I call you Into the Dark Ages. Newton's Theory of Gravity easily disproves your statement.


Newton's theory of gravity is falsifiable. It has been tested. Consensus is not used to prove or legitimize that theory. Neither is any supporting evidence of any kind used.

It is still a theory today not because of consensus, but because so far it hasn't been falsified.


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
26-06-2017 20:46
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

Wake wrote:
But there has NEVER been any real consensus on AGW and that's what you appear to be unaware of.


Into the Night,
Your statement is something I find troublesome. That is why I call you Into the Dark Ages. Newton's Theory of Gravity easily disproves your statement.


Newton's theory of gravity is falsifiable. It has been tested. Consensus is not used to prove or legitimize that theory. Neither is any supporting evidence of any kind used.

It is still a theory today not because of consensus, but because so far it hasn't been falsified.


And yet another dumb ass statement. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation can't be "falsified" because it is true. And your saying otherwise doesn't make it so. Oh, gosh, and you never provide references so you're just the same dumb ass again.
26-06-2017 21:35
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
Wake wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

Wake wrote:
But there has NEVER been any real consensus on AGW and that's what you appear to be unaware of.


Into the Night,
Your statement is something I find troublesome. That is why I call you Into the Dark Ages. Newton's Theory of Gravity easily disproves your statement.


Newton's theory of gravity is falsifiable. It has been tested. Consensus is not used to prove or legitimize that theory. Neither is any supporting evidence of any kind used.

It is still a theory today not because of consensus, but because so far it hasn't been falsified.


And yet another dumb ass statement. Newton's Law of Universal Gravitation can't be "falsified" because it is true,
No, it is a theory. It is falsifiable. It could be destroyed tomorrow by conflicting evidence. It will always remain a theory. No theory of science is ever proven.
Wake wrote:
And your saying otherwise doesn't make it so.
And your saying it's true doesn't make it so.
Wake wrote:
Oh, gosh, and you never provide references so you're just the same dumb ass again.

My references are the theory itself and it's history.

You are free to go look it up anytime you feel like 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
Edited on 26-06-2017 21:36
26-06-2017 22:52
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Rather than having an "AhHAAAA" moment every time a new idea pops into your head you should study it for awhile and try to find holes in your idea. If you're willing to believe that I'm incorrect, you had better be twice as willing to believe that you're incorrect.

Believe me, I really am more willing to believe me wrong than you. The thing is that I've already studied the ideas you come up with and found them to be incorrect.


Nothing like being full of yourself is there Wake ? I just can't believe how humble you and Into the Night are. :-D


Whereas you spouting completely disproved chemistry easily found in any chemistry text are humble as a church mouse. Showing a picture of yourself with a Congressman and telling us how he likes you?


I was nice to a Republican wasn't I ? Besides it's why he likes me that matters and that has to do with this thread and that is that CO2 might influence the occurrence of ozone in our atmosphere.
As for the chemistry, post a link. I posted a link where scientists acknowledge a relationship between CO2, CH4 and ozone exists.
Edited on 26-06-2017 23:05
26-06-2017 23:00
James_
★★★☆☆
(801)
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

Wake wrote:
But there has NEVER been any real consensus on AGW and that's what you appear to be unaware of.


Into the Night,
Your statement is something I find troublesome. That is why I call you Into the Dark Ages. Newton's Theory of Gravity easily disproves your statement.


Newton's theory of gravity is falsifiable. It has been tested. Consensus is not used to prove or legitimize that theory. Neither is any supporting evidence of any kind used.

It is still a theory today not because of consensus, but because so far it hasn't been falsified.


Any scientist will say theories are just that, theories.
Still Newton's Theory of Gravity is accepted because of supporting evidence. I have heard of no science disputing it's collusion.
This means that the consensus among scientists is that it is a valid theory of physics which is why it's called both Newton's Law and Theory of Gravity. His work was that definiti e and also that accepted. You're argument against science seems to be how much money can you make off of it. You're not a Republican by any chance ?
26-06-2017 23:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Rather than having an "AhHAAAA" moment every time a new idea pops into your head you should study it for awhile and try to find holes in your idea. If you're willing to believe that I'm incorrect, you had better be twice as willing to believe that you're incorrect.

Believe me, I really am more willing to believe me wrong than you. The thing is that I've already studied the ideas you come up with and found them to be incorrect.


Nothing like being full of yourself is there Wake ? I just can't believe how humble you and Into the Night are. :-D


Whereas you spouting completely disproved chemistry easily found in any chemistry text are humble as a church mouse. Showing a picture of yourself with a Congressman and telling us how he likes you?


I was nice to a Republican wasn't I ? Besides it's why he likes me that matters and that has to do with this thread and that is that CO2 might influence the occurrence of ozone in our atmosphere.
As for the chemistry, post a link. I posted a link where scientists acknowledge a relationship between CO2, CH4 and ozone exists.


Attempted shifting of the burden of proof. YOU are claiming there is a relationship. YOU are the one that has to show the physics and chemistry.

A climate 'scientist' isn't a scientist. They haven't used or created science in years (if ever).


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
26-06-2017 23:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13500)
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
James_ wrote:
Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.

Wake wrote:
But there has NEVER been any real consensus on AGW and that's what you appear to be unaware of.


Into the Night,
Your statement is something I find troublesome. That is why I call you Into the Dark Ages. Newton's Theory of Gravity easily disproves your statement.


Newton's theory of gravity is falsifiable. It has been tested. Consensus is not used to prove or legitimize that theory. Neither is any supporting evidence of any kind used.

It is still a theory today not because of consensus, but because so far it hasn't been falsified.


Any scientist will say theories are just that, theories.

And they are correct when they say such.
James_ wrote:
Still Newton's Theory of Gravity is accepted because of supporting evidence.

Supporting evidence is not used in science, not even for Newton's theory of gravity.
James_ wrote:
I have heard of no science disputing it's collusion.
You are making a fallacy known as the argument of ignorance. Lack of evidence is not evidence.
James_ wrote:
This means that the consensus among scientists is that it is a valid theory of physics which is why it's called both Newton's Law and Theory of Gravity.

Consensus is not used in science at all.
James_ wrote:
His work was that definiti e and also that accepted.
It is accepted because the theory has not yet been falsified. Any falsifiable theory that has been tested at least once, is internally consistent, is externally consistent, is automatically part of the body of science.
James_ wrote:
You're argument against science seems to be how much money can you make off of it.
Non sequitur.
James_ wrote:
You're not a Republican by any chance ?

Non sequitur.


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
27-06-2017 00:34
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
Into the Night wrote:

Consensus is a political or religions term. There is no consensus that can bless, sanctify, prove, or otherwise make any more legitimate any theory of science. It is the same with supporting evidence. It is not used in science.


And another ignorant statement. Pretty quick you'll be able to form them into a staircase and reach the stars. Tell us - have you ever considered learning anything before talking about it?

Into the Night wrote: Newton's theory of gravity is falsifiable. It has been tested. Consensus is not used to prove or legitimize that theory. Neither is any supporting evidence of any kind used.

It is still a theory today not because of consensus, but because so far it hasn't been falsified.


Then by all means tell us about this experiment that falsified Newton's law of gravity. The speed of light is "falsifiable" in that manner as well. So tell us about your faster than light transport.
27-06-2017 00:59
Wake
★★★★★
(4031)
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:
James_ wrote:
Wake wrote:

Rather than having an "AhHAAAA" moment every time a new idea pops into your head you should study it for awhile and try to find holes in your idea. If you're willing to believe that I'm incorrect, you had better be twice as willing to believe that you're incorrect.

Believe me, I really am more willing to believe me wrong than you. The thing is that I've already studied the ideas you come up with and found them to be incorrect.


Nothing like being full of yourself is there Wake ? I just can't believe how humble you and Into the Night are. :-D


Whereas you spouting completely disproved chemistry easily found in any chemistry text are humble as a church mouse. Showing a picture of yourself with a Congressman and telling us how he likes you?


I was nice to a Republican wasn't I ? Besides it's why he likes me that matters and that has to do with this thread and that is that CO2 might influence the occurrence of ozone in our atmosphere.
As for the chemistry, post a link. I posted a link where scientists acknowledge a relationship between CO2, CH4 and ozone exists.


You simply can't understand it can you? CFC-11 is NOT stable only in the presence of high energy radiation from the Sun. That means that it is just as likely to convert to ClF and Chl in the troposphere.

They stopped making Chloro-flouro-carbons in the 1990s and the estimated lifespan in the atmosphere is 74 years. Only a small portion of those chlorine molecules separated from the CFC-11 will react with ozone because chlorine is a very reactive molecule that will react with a lot of things. For instance it is something like 100 times more reactive with WATER.

What in the hell does it MATTER whether there is a "link" to your mind? You don't think about anything beyond your "AhHAAA" moment.

Consensus ONLY matters when there is one. And THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A CONSENSUS on AGW. Not even close. In fact less than 1% of scientists ever believed there was enough data to say anything about it one way or the other.

Or is 1% your ideal consensus?
Page 1 of 3123>





Join the debate The Chapman Cycle:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why the cycle before the industrial revolution.601-11-2018 01:40
The Milankovitch Cycle616-05-2018 04:55
CO2, The Ozone Layer, The Chapman Cycle, The IPCC and NOAA2424-06-2017 22:37
▲ 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