Remember me
▼ Content

The False Assumption of the Election



Page 2 of 2<12
27-12-2020 14:31
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
duncan61 wrote:
IBDM I have a question when you Americans dropped the first atomic bomb on the poor little Japanese how was all that energy created.It must of come from somewhere??


It comes from converting matter to energy, through the use of fission. The nucleus of an atom such as uranium has a lot of protons in it. Those protons are like charges and want to repel each other. There is a terrific force keeping them together anyway. That force can be released by splitting the nucleus. It is known as the strong nuclear force. Like the force of gravity, you can store this energy (within the atom itself) as potential energy. Potential energy has no temperature. It doesn't matter of it is stored chemical energy, stored strong force energy, or stored height above the ground, ready to fall.

Potential energy is simply a difference of potential, no matter where it occurs. It can be pressure in a pipe, voltage on a power line, someone standing on a bridge, or


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
27-12-2020 14:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
duncan61 wrote:
The modelling was out by a long way.It did not happen as it was supposed to.I can see the logic to this statement
Very good IBD! Yes the radiance is absorbed by CO2, coverted from radiance to thermal energy, before being re-emitted. This slows the process of solar radiance entering and leaving the atmosphere.

No. There is no sequence. The Stefan-Boltzmann law is instantaneous.
duncan61 wrote:
Its the amount of difference it makes to the surface temperature

There is no sequence.
duncan61 wrote:
and can you imagine how much energy you need to warm the oceans and seas of the planet.

Void value.
duncan61 wrote:
Its all being massively over estimated and know one actually knows.The IPCC will say anything to stay in existence so will NASA and NOAA.How nice would it be to live on the planet without these corrupt organisations

Both NASA and NOAA have useful functions, but they have lost focus on those useful functions.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
27-12-2020 14:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
The modelling was out by a long way...
be specific. Nasa's measurements of sea level agree with your observations that not much has changed.

So where are Nasa's measurements off by a log way?

Or which models?

It is not possible to measure a global sea level. NASA has not made any measurements of global sea level, the temperature of the Earth, the global atmospheric CO2 concentration, the amount precipitation on Earth, nor where any CO2 came from.

Random numbers are not data.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
27-12-2020 14:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
duncan61 wrote:
The models do not account that for the last 20 years we have stopped burning coal at the rate programmed.The program kept increasing CO2 levels and did not allow for CO2 staying at 400ppm.How things are right now is how it is going to stay.NASA claim to be able to measure sea levels with Satellites and they cant it is as simple as that.What my slavemasters on CND tell me is for some reason around 2000 the tidal gauge in Hong Kong harbour showed a 2.3 mm rise so it was conveniently applied to the whole world and kept being added every year.The program on the Altimetry satellites are set to record this and they call it data.This was discussed before and I have no issue with Boulder Colorado being the set point[

Boulder, CO is mounted on a land mass. This land mass moves.
duncan61 wrote:
and satellites are accurate to plus minus 100 feet not millimetres of moving ocean.

Accurate only to that land mass, which moves.
duncan61 wrote:
My life is a civil case and it is what is most likely that I go with not guess work

You are going with guess work.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
27-12-2020 14:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
tmiddles wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
The models ...
what models? What's your reference?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Yes the radiance is absorbed by CO2, coverted from radiance to thermal energy, before being re-emitted.
...No new energy is created.
where do you see a claim energy was created on Earth?

The Sun supplies more energy every day at a relatively steady rate.

Hear that? More, as in additional energy arrives from the sun continuously.

Because the EARTH is not an isolated system.

Pivot fallacy. You are comparing to isolated systems as if they are the same system again.

You cannot reduce entropy. 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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
27-12-2020 17:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
duncan61 wrote: IBDM I have a question when you Americans dropped the first atomic bomb on the poor little Japanese how was all that energy created.It must of come from somewhere??

The energy was not created; it was converted. As Into the Night clarified, anytime potential energy takes form then you have converted energy. Just as you can store potential energy in a battery or a crossbow or a liter of gasoline, Einstein showed us that energy is stored as matter per E=mc^2.

Have you ever played Jenga?



Radioactive matter is unstable and decays. Nuclear weapons are based on the idea of collecting a large amount of very tall and very unstable Uranium Jenga towers that are all collapsed in "detonating" the bomb. In Jenga the instability of the block tower causes the structure to collapse, converting the potential energy of the blocks into a lot of kinetic energy and you get a big mess. In nuclear bombs, the instability of the fissionable material causes its structure to collapse, converting the potential energy to a lot of thermal energy and you get a big mess.



No energy is either created or destroyed. Energy is converted from one form to another, i.e. the first law of thermodynamics.


Note: the term "enriching Uranium" just means sifting out the tallest Uranium Jenga towers (isotopes) to put into a bomb to yield the most thermal energy.


.


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
Edited on 27-12-2020 17:05
27-12-2020 17:25
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
tgoebbles wrote: where do you see a claim energy was created on Earth?

You are making that claim. You are claiming that CO2 is creating a quantity of energy that was already there, having been created by the sun, before the introduction of the CO2.

In your model, CO2 is also creating energy just like the sun and manifesting that energy in the form of an increased temperature.

The dead giveaway that you know you are wrong yet continue to spread your misinformation propaganda is that you refuse to ever explain exactly from where the additional energy comes that causes the earth's temperature increase because without additional energy, the earth cannot somehow spontaneously increase in temperature. The only energy you ever reference is energy that was already there prior to the introduction of the CO2. You talk about energy "being slowed" (without explaining how light can somehow be brought to below the speed of light) but you never account for the additional energy you need to cause your temperature increase.

i.e. You are lying and you know it. You are pursuing a political agenda and have no intention of being honest. You've been at it for one-and-a-half years on this site and I can't recall you ever being honest. Ever.

The second way anyone can verify that you are here solely to preach your propaganda is the extent to which you don't even care that your excuses for not answering questions posed to you are totally lame. You know your positions are targetted lies and you have no shame.

I do hope that you are being well paid for your dishonesty. I would hate to think that you are naturally this way.

Have a great day.

.


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
27-12-2020 19:31
keepit
★★★★★
(2235)
IBD and ITN,
You have so many misconceptions i don't see how anyone pays any attention to you except to argue with you.
Edited on 27-12-2020 20:13
27-12-2020 21:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
keepit wrote: IBD and ITN, You have so many misconceptions i don't see how anyone pays any attention to you except to argue with you.

keepit, you can't reasonably expect anyone to understand all the inner workings of your delusional reality. I'm still trying to figure out your math in which adding to a value doesn't increase the value ... or your geometry whereby a 120nm virus is effectively blocked by a 4-5 micron hole.

You've got to give us more time to study you.

.


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
28-12-2020 00:03
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
IBDM No one really knows if the ocean level has changed, but anyone can observe that sea levels have not changed discernibly. We can also note that the complete absence of any rational reason to believe that the ocean level will be changing discernibly.

At the risk of being selfish this is all I care about.I have seen no change in sea levels locally.If I could see change I would work hard to find out why.If my CO2 meter stays around 400ppm its all over for the warmazombies.
28-12-2020 00:18
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
duncan61 wrote:At the risk of being selfish this is all I care about.

Great! You're focused. You pursue with resolve. Awesome.

duncan61 wrote: I have seen no change in sea levels locally.

Correct. You, just as everyone else, is unable to discern any change locally. Water, being the fluid that it is and being connected to all of the ocean around the world, cannot increase or decrease its level elsewhere in the world any more than it is rising/lowering locally ... which is non-discernibly ... if it is changing at all.

duncan61 wrote: If my CO2 meter stays around 400ppm its all over for the warmazombies.

You were fine up to this point. What does the CO2 level have to do with anything?

.


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
31-12-2020 06:45
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
This entire debate forum is based on the settled scienth as you so snarky put it that somehow manmade CO2 is changing the weather and we are all doomed.I am keeping an eye on CO2 levels as at 400ppm sweet F all is happening and if it stays at or even falls below this level they are full of chit and I wish for an apology from Neil deGrasse Tyson
31-12-2020 07:21
James___
★★★★★
(4478)
duncan61 wrote:
This entire debate forum is based on the settled scienth as you so snarky put it that somehow manmade CO2 is changing the weather and we are all doomed.I am keeping an eye on CO2 levels as at 400ppm sweet F all is happening and if it stays at or even falls below this level they are full of chit and I wish for an apology from Neil deGrasse Tyson


Whät dü fükken, G€rmän? Whät dü "scienth"? Is that a nüde w€rd? Scienth.
Just more moronic B.S. scienth. It's your language. And you don't fukken know it.
Might explain why gratulerer meg dagen is worth dying over. It's your language and your scienth. Stupid gets old.
31-12-2020 07:23
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
duncan61 wrote: ... if it stays at or even falls below this level they are full of chit ...

Why? All over the planet, including the ocean, plants are consuming CO2. Terrestrial plantlife is an incessant force that acts to continually reduce atmospheric CO2.

If atmospheric CO2 were to decrease locally, well that's to be expected because CO2 distribution is not even; CO2 levels naturally fluctuate, just like humidity, pressure and temperature.

If atmospheric CO2 were to decrease for planet earth then you will have confirmed that terrestrial plantlife is alive and kicking.


... and nothing about the CO2 levels matters.


.



and I wish for an apology from Neil deGrasse Tyson[/quote]


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
31-12-2020 07:41
James___
★★★★★
(4478)
IBDM, both you and Duncan repeatedly said "if". What "if" Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz actually encountered flying monkeys? What "if" there was a wicked witch? And what "if" Toto https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTQbiNvZqaY was really Toto? Everyone knows there is no "Toto". Okay? "If's" do not become reality. Toto is proof of this.

p.s., if you guys don't get it, I BLESS the and not guess it rains in Africa. How to sing about a continent they haven't seen? Someone was there and wrote about it. Otherwise how would they know what Kilimanjaro does? They were there.
Yet you guys would not understand this difference.
Edited on 31-12-2020 07:52
31-12-2020 07:58
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
I spelt it scienth as IBDM some times does.Words I am not sure of the spelling I google and copy /paste.my spell check does not change anything.There really is no excuse for bad spelling as usual we have all gone off on a tangent.I do not believe CO2 can change the weather.Lets work on that people
31-12-2020 08:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
IBdaMann wrote:...You are claiming that CO2 is creating a quantity of energy that was already there, having been created by the sun, before the introduction of the CO2..
Try quoting me when you provide my claim.

I claim that CO2 absorbs the radiance that comes from the sun. It then reemitts that energy. It does not produce that energy as the sun does.

Got it?

IBdaMann wrote:...you refuse to ever explain exactly from where the additional energy comes that causes the earth's temperature increase because without additional energy,
It comes from the Sun.

One more time:
We (Earth) do not have a fixed quantity of energy from the Sun, we have a relatively fixed rate.

Do you understand the difference between a rate of continuously additional energy and a fixed quantity?

I like the money analogy:
Fixed quantity:
Ludwig has $1000 in a savings account
Fixed rate:
Ludwig is paid $10 a day

The Sun provides brand new additional energy to Earth, Venus and all the planets continuously. The composition of the planets, being different, have different ground level temperatures relative to that rate of additional energy.

IBdaMann wrote:..The only energy you ever reference is energy that was already there prior to the introduction of the CO2..
if by "there" you mean Earth then you are very confused as detailed above. The radiance from the Sun on a Wednesday was not "there" on Earth on a Tuesday. It's new!

IBdaMann wrote:.. You talk about energy "being slowed" (without explaining how light can somehow be brought to below the speed of light)..
It is absorbed and reemitted.

"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
31-12-2020 08:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
tmiddles wrote:Try quoting me when you provide my claim.

Try being honest. I quote you exactly and respond.

tmiddles wrote: I claim that CO2 absorbs the radiance that comes from the sun.

Hey Einstein, that is "energy changing form." Go retake the third grade, or at least loot a business or two.

You claim that when energy changes form that it creates more of itself; you claim that this form-change results in an increase in temperature (which requires additional energy). It's not my fault that you suck at formal logic.

This is a direct violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics. You then run into additional difficulties when you insist that only the "lower atmosphere" increases in temperature because that introduces a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics as well.

Perhaps it would be easier if you were to just topple a statue.

tmiddles wrote: It comes from the Sun.

... and I'm pretty sure the sun, and the energy it was emitting, was already there prior to the introduction of the CO2.

You still need to account for the ADDITIONAL energy that INCREASES the temperature. After eighteen months you still refuse to explain where the ADDITIONAL energy comes that wasn't already there.

tmiddles wrote:One more time:We (Earth) do not have a fixed quantity of energy from the Sun,

Yes, Brainiac, we receive a constant power from the sun.

Constant. The sun does not pour out additional energy based on its perception of the earth's atmospheric composition. Maybe you mis-heard because of the high noise levels normally occurring at violent riots.

.


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
31-12-2020 08:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I claim that CO2 absorbs the radiance that comes from the sun.
..that is "energy changing form." .
yes and did you have a point to make with that?

IBdaMann wrote:You claim that when energy changes form that it creates more of itself; you claim that this form-change results in an increase in temperature ...
lt doesn't create more It results in more energy being present. Temperature is due to the amount of thermal energy present. Its like making for more of a traffic jam for thermal energy.

I can have 10 cars get on a road at one end and drive off the other every minute. Without changing the rate of cars entering and leaving the road there can be a different number of cars present at one time on the road.

Venus has a tremendous amount of thermal energy "traffic" built up at ground level. Which is why it is 500 degrees hotter than it would be without an atmosphere.

IBdaMann wrote:
... and I'm pretty sure the sun, and the energy it was emitting, was already there prior to the introduction of the CO2.
doesnt matter because it hadn't reached Earth. The uranium used to create steam in a nuclear reactor was already there underground long ago too.

IBdaMann wrote:You still need to account for the ADDITIONAL energy that INCREASES the temperature.
it comes from the sun.

Watch this:

A shiny steel ball, polished to a mirror finish orbits a sun. An oxygen atmosphere is released from within it allowing it to rust to a dark dull red. Its emissivity increases and so does its temperature, as it absorbs more radiance, reflects less, and reaches a higher equilibrium temperature.

IBdaMann wrote:
..., we receive a constant power from the sun.
Constant. The sun does not pour out additional energy
.
yes and our Ludwig, who is paid just $10 a day is limited to that income. But how much money he has in his pocket at a time can change.

Temperature is due to the amount of thermal energy which is present. A different composition of matter can have a different temperature receiving the same rate of radiance.

Venus as compared with Earth and Mercury prove this point.

"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 31-12-2020 08:30
31-12-2020 08:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
..that is "energy changing form." .
yes and did you have a point to make with that?[/quote]
I made my point. In order to explain an increase in temperature, you point to energy merely changing form.

No thermal radiation changing form in an equilibrium can result in an increase in temperature. Additional energy is needed to increase temperature.

Oh, by the way, I'm not going to repeat this yet again. From now on I will refer to this explanation which has already been explained many times.


James___ wrote: lt doesn't create more It results in more energy being present.

... which can only happen in this case by creating that additional energy out of nothing, which is why you never even attempt to account for it.

James___ wrote: Temperature is due to the amount of thermal energy present. Its like making for more of a traffic jam for thermal energy.

Nope. Ditch the invalid mental imagery. Account for the additional energy without pretending to create it out of nothing and without pointing to energy that was already there. Otherwise, there is no increase in temperature.

.


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
31-12-2020 09:03
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
IBdaMann wrote:...In order to explain an increase in temperature, you point to energy merely changing form. .
That is consistent with any increase in temperature due to radiance. If radiance is reflected it doesn't increase temperature but if it's absorbed it may.

IBdaMann wrote:
No thermal radiation changing form in an equilibrium can result in an increase in temperature..
thats because an equilibrium, by definition, doesn't change.

There is no law of physics requiring Earth or anything to be in constant equilibrium.

IBdaMann wrote:. Account for the additional energy ....
you have no rebuttal to:
Tmiddles wrote:.A shiny steel ball, polished to a mirror finish orbits a sun. An oxygen atmosphere is released from within it allowing it to rust to a dark dull red. Its emissivity increases and so does its temperature, as it absorbs more radiance, reflects less, and reaches a higher equilibrium temperature.
??
"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
31-12-2020 09:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
tmiddles wrote: If radiance is reflected it doesn't increase temperature but if it's absorbed it may.

You need to remain focused on your claimed temperature increase and account for the energy that causes it.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
No thermal radiation changing form in an equilibrium can result in an increase in temperature..
thats because an equilibrium, by definition, doesn't change.

Great. You claim that there is no temperature increase associated with Greenhouse Effect. Good. We're done.

tmiddles wrote:There is no law of physics requiring Earth or anything to be in constant equilibrium.

All of blackbody science presumes an equilibrium. If you deny an equilibrium you don't get to use blackbody science.

tmiddles wrote:.A shiny steel ball,

Stick with the earth. It's what we're talking about, yes?


.


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
31-12-2020 10:10
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:There is no law of physics requiring Earth or anything to be in constant equilibrium.

All of blackbody science presumes an equilibrium. If you deny an equilibrium you don't get to use blackbody science.
And we have once again made up and false laws of science.

The temperature of objects change all the time. Anytime temperatures are changing they are not in a state of equilibrium.

You ignored my post. You're free to do that.

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
31-12-2020 18:28
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(2051)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:There is no law of physics requiring Earth or anything to be in constant equilibrium.

All of blackbody science presumes an equilibrium. If you deny an equilibrium you don't get to use blackbody science.
And we have once again made up and false laws of science.

The temperature of objects change all the time. Anytime temperatures are changing they are not in a state of equilibrium.

You ignored my post. You're free to do that.

And you are still ignoring IBD's question about where the additional energy is coming from...
31-12-2020 20:59
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:There is no law of physics requiring Earth or anything to be in constant equilibrium.

All of blackbody science presumes an equilibrium. If you deny an equilibrium you don't get to use blackbody science.
And we have once again made up and false laws of science.

The temperature of objects change all the time. Anytime temperatures are changing they are not in a state of equilibrium.

You ignored my post. You're free to do that.

And you are still ignoring IBD's question about where the additional energy is coming from...

tgoebbles has no intention of truthfully responding. The only honest response he can give is that he is aware of the violation of thermodynamics that he is proposing ... but that he just doesn't like what science says because it goes against his religion.

On the other hand, he will be happy to say that as long as he gets to refer to his WACKY religion as "thettled thienth" and to refer to science as some sort of WACKY religion. In that case he'll gladly refer to me as a denier who is subverting thettled thienth to promote a WACKY religion.

The bottom line is that an increase in temperature means there is additional energy and tgoebbles knows this. His current attempt to create additional temperature is to get me to presume, without him providing any science or valid datasets, that earth's emissivity is increasing.

This is where Duncan should step in and say "tgoebbles, you're in direct conflict with what I observe," i.e. too little CO2 in the atmosphere to have any effect, certainly not what his warmizombie ilk are claiming, no discernible temperature increase, etc..

.


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
31-12-2020 22:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
duncan61 wrote:
This entire debate forum is based on the settled scienth as you so snarky put it that somehow manmade CO2 is changing the weather and we are all doomed.I am keeping an eye on CO2 levels as at 400ppm sweet F all is happening and if it stays at or even falls below this level they are full of chit and I wish for an apology from Neil deGrasse Tyson


So how does CO2 change the weather? How do you even know it's changing the weather?


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
31-12-2020 22:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: I claim that CO2 absorbs the radiance that comes from the sun.
..that is "energy changing form." .
yes and did you have a point to make with that?

IBdaMann wrote:You claim that when energy changes form that it creates more of itself; you claim that this form-change results in an increase in temperature ...
lt doesn't create more It results in more energy being present.

You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. Potential energy has no temperature.
tmiddles wrote:
Temperature is due to the amount of thermal energy present.

WRONG. Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics.
tmiddles wrote:
Its like making for more of a traffic jam for thermal energy.
...deleted stupid example...

Thermal energy doesn't jam.
tmiddles wrote:
Venus has a tremendous amount of thermal energy "traffic" built up at ground level. Which is why it is 500 degrees hotter than it would be without an atmosphere.

Thermal energy doesn't jam. The temperature of Venus is unknown. You cannot assume what a temperature would be like without an atmosphere.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
... and I'm pretty sure the sun, and the energy it was emitting, was already there prior to the introduction of the CO2.
doesnt matter because it hadn't reached Earth. The uranium used to create steam in a nuclear reactor was already there underground long ago too.

Nonsense switch of context. Random word salad.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:You still need to account for the ADDITIONAL energy that INCREASES the temperature.
it comes from the sun.
tmiddles wrote:
Watch this:

A shiny steel ball, polished to a mirror finish orbits a sun. An oxygen atmosphere is released from within it allowing it to rust to a dark dull red. Its emissivity increases and so does its temperature, as it absorbs more radiance, reflects less, and reaches a higher equilibrium temperature.

The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
[quote]IBdaMann wrote:
..., we receive a constant power from the sun.
Constant. The sun does not pour out additional energy
.
yes and our Ludwig, who is paid just $10 a day is limited to that income. But how much money he has in his pocket at a time can change.

Temperature is due to the amount of thermal energy which is present.

Denial of the 0th law of thermodynamics.
tmiddles wrote:
A different composition of matter can have a different temperature receiving the same rate of radiance.

The Stefan-Boltzmann law has no term for composition. You are now denying this law.
tmiddles wrote:
Venus as compared with Earth and Mercury prove this point.

Argument from randU fallacy. You are making numbers up again.

The laws of thermodynamics have been explained to you, yet you still ignore them. The Stefan-Boltzmann law has been explained to you, yet you still ignore it.

Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change'. Answer the questions put to you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
31-12-2020 23:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
gfm7175 wrote:
And you are still ignoring IBD's question about where the additional energy is coming from...
It comes from the Sun gfm. Every day new, fresh additional energy comes from the Sun.

Anyone who thinks there is a fixed quantity of energy on Earth from the Sun is very confused.

Do you understand the difference between a rate and a quantity gfm?

Ibdamann wrote:The bottom line is that an increase in temperature means there is additional energy ...
And Venus proves my point that the additional energy, from the Sun, get's the job done.

500 degrees hotter than the planet's equilibrium temp at ground level. Hot enough to melt lead on the ground just a bit closer to the Sun than we are.

But keep pretending we don't know that. It's all you have left.
Edited on 31-12-2020 23:04
31-12-2020 23:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:There is no law of physics requiring Earth or anything to be in constant equilibrium.

All of blackbody science presumes an equilibrium. If you deny an equilibrium you don't get to use blackbody science.
And we have once again made up and false laws of science.

The temperature of objects change all the time. Anytime temperatures are changing they are not in a state of equilibrium.

You ignored my post. You're free to do that.

You ignored physics. You're free to do that, but it's stupid.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
31-12-2020 23:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
And you are still ignoring IBD's question about where the additional energy is coming from...
It comes from the Sun gfm. Every day new, fresh additional energy comes from the Sun.


You are ignoring the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics again.

You are also confusing energy with temperature again.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Edited on 31-12-2020 23:18
01-01-2021 01:24
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1124)
Thermal radiation is energy transfer by the emission of electromagnetic waves which carry energy away from the emitting object. For ordinary temperatures (less than red hot"), the radiation is in the infrared region of the electromagnetic spectrum. The relationship governing the net radiation from hot objects is called the Stefan-Boltzmann law:
All I care about is why my wifes silver jeep Compass does not get as hot as my handpainted matt black Cherokee and they are parked next to each other on the same concrete drive in full sunlight.I am going with the theory because it has a smaller engine and is newer so must be better for the enviroment.If it was a hybrid it would actually be cooling the planet.Lol.Tear me a new one on that girl scouts
01-01-2021 03:50
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
tmiddles wrote:It comes from the Sun gfm. Every day new, fresh additional energy comes from the Sun.

Yes, but the context is power/radiance and equilibrium. The earth is in equilibrium and the sun's power is constant. You are on tap to explain the additional energy (or power) outside of that which was already present prior to the introduction of additional CO2.

You don't get to point to the suns' constant thermal radiation power incident to the earth and claim that it is somehow new or "additional". It was already there.

You still have not moved beyond your violation of the 1st law of thermodynamics.

tmiddles wrote: Anyone who thinks there is a fixed quantity of energy on Earth from the Sun is very confused.

Anyone who thinks the earth is not in equilibrium but nonetheless thinks he is using blackbody science is very confused.

tmiddles wrote:Do you understand the difference between a rate and a quantity gfm?

Do you understand when something is already present? ... or do you wander through life wondering how all the things around you just suddenly materialized out of nothing?

tmiddles wrote:
Ibdamann wrote:The bottom line is that an increase in temperature means there is additional energy ...
And Venus proves my point

Venus is a planet, not an argument.

Hey, I think I'll start doing that too. Hey, tgoebbles, Venus proves my point.

Yeah, I like that. I see the appeal. It's so easy. "Venus proves my point!"

You're a fuuuking genius.

tmiddles wrote: 500 degrees hotter than the planet's equilibrium temp at ground level.

My point is that you are a moron, and Venus proves my point.

tmiddles wrote: Hot enough to melt lead on the ground just a bit closer to the Sun than we are.

... because everything else, like atmospheric pressure, is exactly the same. You have a point ... and Venus proves it.

tmiddles wrote: But keep pretending we don't know that.

What do you mean? Of course it's "what we know" and Venus proves it in four steps. QED.

.
Attached image:

01-01-2021 14:19
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3728)
IBdaMann wrote: The earth is in equilibrium and the sun's power is constant. .
Where are you getting the rule/law/assumption that Earth is always in thermodynamic equilibrium with the Sun and universe surrounding it?

It could be, might be, more or less. It is not a law or requirement though.

IBdaMann wrote:...explain the additional energy..
The Earth being out of equilibrium allows more energy to come in then goes out. This does not need to occur continuously.

All of the radiance from the sun is "additional".

IBdaMann wrote: ..the suns' constant thermal radiation power incident to the earth...was already there.
it literally was not. It was in the sun and traveled here.

You cannot claim a violation on the 1st or 2nd LTD once you acknowledge that simple fact.

It's new energy to Earth. All of it.

Venus is 500 degrees hotter than it's equilibrium temp at ground level. You have only ever claimed that we don't know that. You can't explain it and hold on to your false science.

"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 01-01-2021 14:20
01-01-2021 18:42
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(434)
because everything else, like atmospheric pressure, is exactly the same. You have a point ... and Venus proves it.


Do you want to say that atmospheric pressure has an effect on temperature?
01-01-2021 18:47
Xadoman
★★★☆☆
(434)
Venus is 500 degrees hotter than it's equilibrium temp at ground level.


If that is true then the additional energy must come from inside the planet. There must be a lot of volcanos pumping CO2 into the atmosphere and heating up the surface. Simple as that.
Edited on 01-01-2021 18:58
01-01-2021 20:30
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(3368)
Equilibrium, is more of a goal, a balance. It doesn't happen instantaneously, on a daily basis. It's not an ideal, textbook planet (object). I doubt this planet has ever been completely balanced, in a state of equilibrium, since it's always moving, lot of stuff change on the surface, and further down. Hawaii is having a major eruption, the CO2 readings at Mauna Loa, must be going crazy, as the wind shifts.

Life would get pretty boring, if everything remained perfectly balanced. Thankfully, we have democrats, computer models, and fear mongering, when things get too predictable...

There is always corn whiskey, if your into it...
Edited on 01-01-2021 20:32
01-01-2021 23:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(9086)
HarveyH55 wrote: Equilibrium, is more of a goal, a balance.

Correct, you are talking about studying the reality of nature we seek to understand. The first thing we do when trying to understand phenomena is to see if there are any existing science models that can provide insight ... while recognizing that models are not reality, they are just models.

The example I use with kids is "sea level.". We can study how liquids behave, and then observe a swimming pool when it is perfectly calm without a single ripple. We can accurately measure the pool's water level . Then we note that nowhere is the ocean ever this way. Nonetheless, we can use what we have learned about liquids to draw conclusions about the ocean as a whole ... and we can quickly identify when someone is asserting something bogus, e.g. the ocean level is rising in the Atlantic while lowering in the Indian Ocean.

Enter tgoebbles and his shifting back and forth between theoretical models of classical science and.superficial irrelevancies of natural phenomena. He wants to say that he is adhering to science but he immediately denies the relevant science.while returning the focus of the discussion to the phenomena's superficial irrelevancies.

He wants to claim he is adhering to black body science, all of which presumes equilibrium and uses Power units of measure (work over time) with Radiance being Power/Area. However the moment analysis begins to invoke black body science, he REFUSES to presume the models' required assumption of equilibrium and he will not use the necessary units of measure.

Ergo, tgoebbles is an open science denier who believes his WACKY religion is thettled thienth and that our body of science is just a WACKY, cult religion.


.


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
02-01-2021 02:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(15506)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: The earth is in equilibrium and the sun's power is constant. .
Where are you getting the rule/law/assumption that Earth is always in thermodynamic equilibrium with the Sun and universe surrounding it?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
It could be, might be, more or less. It is not a law or requirement though.

It is physics. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...explain the additional energy..
The Earth being out of equilibrium allows more energy to come in then goes out. This does not need to occur continuously.

There is no sequence. You cannot suspend any law of physics for even a moment.
tmiddles wrote:
All of the radiance from the sun is "additional".

Base rate fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: ..the suns' constant thermal radiation power incident to the earth...was already there.
it literally was not. It was in the sun and traveled here.

You cannot claim a violation on the 1st or 2nd LTD once you acknowledge that simple fact.

Doublespeak. Learn what 'fact' means. You are violating the 0th, 1st, and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
tmiddles wrote:
It's new energy to Earth. All of it.

Base rate fallacy. Denial of the 0th, 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

Energy is not temperature.
Temperature is not total energy or even total thermal energy.
You can't trap heat.
You can't trap light.
You can't trap thermal energy. There is always heat.

tmiddles wrote:
Venus is 500 degrees hotter than it's equilibrium temp at ground level. You have only ever claimed that we don't know that. You can't explain it and hold on to your false science.

Argument from randU fallacy. Spam. Assumption of victory fallacy. Argument of the stone fallacy.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate The False Assumption of the Election:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The 2020 US Election Was Either An Auction Or Attention Grabbing Event108-02-2021 05:42
Another Trump Election Fraud Case Thrown Out6109-12-2020 20:12
Election Bombshell4008-12-2020 19:04
Pennsylvania Election Bombshell004-12-2020 04:38
The US Election System Is Outdated, The Top USA Administration Is Clueless & Too Stupid307-11-2020 04:36
▲ 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