There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2 > Page 4

Page 4 of 14

27-11-2019 11:15
MarcusR★☆☆☆☆ (111)	There are no CFC's at the poles and never were. Yet that's where the hole is. Why? Hint: the hole over Antarcia reports usually come out in June or July. The process of how CFC's reach the stratossphere over the poles is well described in the link I posted. Simply read that - if you are interested. In regards to tbe current situatio, the Montreal protocol did have an effect, which it was ment to have. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/docs/montreal_prot_en.pdf
27-11-2019 17:25
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	MarcusR wrote: There are no CFC's at the poles and never were. Yet that's where the hole is. Why? Hint: the hole over Antarcia reports usually come out in June or July. The process of how CFC's reach the stratossphere over the poles is well described in the link I posted. Simply read that - if you are interested. In regards to tbe current situatio, the Montreal protocol did have an effect, which it was ment to have. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/docs/montreal_prot_en.pdf The IPCC last I heard can't account for the observed levels of CCl4 (carbon tetrachloride). It's also not listed as a GHG. I actually have a pet theory that I have been pursuing. It would take an atmospheric chemistry professor doing an experiment with me having to do with atmospheric forcing. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFM.A41J..04R/abstract
27-11-2019 17:56
MarcusR★☆☆☆☆ (111)	It's also not listed as a GHG. I actually have a pet theory that I have been pursuing. It would take an atmospheric chemistry professor doing an experiment with me having to do with atmospheric forcing. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFM.A41J..04R/abstract My comment was only regarding CFC's effect on the O3 layer and how CFC's could and up in the stratospgere and over the poles. In regards to CFC's they are actually listed as GHG's, see AR5 chapter 8, page 678. Thx for link !
27-11-2019 18:29
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	Clearly Wikipedia is holding itself to high standards. I use it almost daily and have found that it almost correlates perfectly with published book material on the same subject. I't is also quick and easy.
27-11-2019 18:51
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	MarcusR wrote: It's also not listed as a GHG. I actually have a pet theory that I have been pursuing. It would take an atmospheric chemistry professor doing an experiment with me having to do with atmospheric forcing. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFM.A41J..04R/abstract My comment was only regarding CFC's effect on the O3 layer and how CFC's could and up in the stratospgere and over the poles. In regards to CFC's they are actually listed as GHG's, see AR5 chapter 8, page 678. Thx for link ! YW, with CCl4, it's not listed as a GHG. This link is about the hole in the ozone layer and they do mention CCl4 specifically.http://www.theozonehole.com/odcs.htm Yet for the issues that scientists have with it, how does it actually fit in with how damaging it is to the ozone layer? With me, I think that the IPCC is possibly covering up that the depleted ozone layer is the real issue and not CO2. Another hot topic in the Montreal discussions is the recent discovery that the atmospheric abundance of carbon tetrachloride (CCl4) does not decline as fast as expected from reported emissions. Inverse modelling, using the observed abundance in the atmosphere, indicates emissions much larger than those reported by the Parties to the Montreal Protocol. This means that there is an unknown source of CCl4 somewhere.https://public.wmo.int/en/bulletin/ozone-layer-mend-0 As for needing CO2; Carbon dioxide (CO2), nitrous oxide (N2O), and methane (CH4) are each important to climate forcing and to the levels of stratospheric ozone (see Chapter 2). In terms of the globally averaged ozone column, additional N2O leads to lower ozone levels, whereas additional CO2 and CH4 lead to higher ozone levels. Ozone depletion to date would have been greater if not for the historical increases in CO2 and CH4. The net impact on ozone recovery and future levels of stratospheric ozone thus depends on the future abundances of these gases. For many of the scenarios used in the most recent Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Assessment (IPCC, 2013), global ozone will increase to above pre-1980 levels due to future trends in the gases. And from the same page;The projection of CCl4 remains more uncertain than projections for other ODSs due to our incomplete understanding of the current CCl4 budget (likely a missing source; see Chapter 1). In the scenarios examined (see table above), CCl4 human-related emissions from 2015 through 2050 are comparable to those of the HCFCs in terms of ODP-weighted emissions and are about 10% in terms of GWP-weighted emissions. https://www.esrl.noaa.gov/csd/assessments/ozone/2014/summary/ch5.html Since CCl4 is about 10% of GWP-weighted emissions, I think I actually know the source and as I mentioned, for how significant it is, a person has to know to look for it otherwise it's generally not mentioned. I think this is because it's source isn't known and how do you do something about that?

27-11-2019 19:22
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Your the one going on about Marxist science. There is no such thing. Science is not a political viewpoint and does not care about political viewpoints. Karl Marx was not a scientist. spot wrote:0 The fact that you won't hold the iron bar after it's been exposed to extreme heat means that you have no faith in your own BS. Not a fact. A lie. Learn what 'fact' means. I have no problem holding the iron bar. Yes to say climatology is Marxist is dumb. There is no such thing as 'climatology'. Define 'climate change'. The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green, which itself stems from the Church of Karl Marx. spot wrote: Grab a red hot poker and put it in YouTube then. If you have that much faith in your own BS you fruitloop. No need. There are plenty of examples of people on Youtube grabbing red hot pokers. They just grab the cold end. You just being silly and obtuse. No, that would be you. Inversion fallacy. Fallacy fallacy, Buzzword fallacy. spot wrote: See two can play at that game. It's not a game. If you don't like me calling you on your fallacies, don't make them. No a fallacy fallacy is a thing look it up. Dismissing an argument because it contains a fallacy is the very definition of a fallacy fallacy. Whereas: "Buzzword fallacy" is a phrase that only you use. And yes this is a game an activity done purely for amusement. You don't think you here for some higher purpose? IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-11-2019 19:31
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	keepit wrote: Not recognizing Wikipedia is your problem if you use invalid sources instead. It'll cause you to misinterpret things and misapply things. Inversion fallacy. Wikipedia does that. So do you. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-11-2019 19:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: keepit wrote: Not recognizing Wikipedia is your problem if you use invalid sources instead. It'll cause you to misinterpret things and misapply things. From Wiki, about Wiki As articles develop, they tend to become more comprehensive and balanced. Quality also improves over time as misinformation and other errors are removed or repaired. However, because anyone can click "edit" at any time and add content, any article may contain undetected misinformation, errors, or vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About This is the same as you saying you'll stick your thumb up your ass. I'm trying to make sense of that. You actually said that you want people to respond to you the way that you want or you'll stick your thumb up your butt. Are you threatening to harm yourself or are you getting off on it? We simply don't know. GasGuzzler, itn and ibdm like encouraging people like you. With ibdm, he wants people to defend Marxism against his attacks while itn wants everyone to turn on each other. It's all a mind game. Which two people have I turned on each other? Void argument 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-11-2019 19:39
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: keepit wrote: Not recognizing Wikipedia is your problem if you use invalid sources instead. It'll cause you to misinterpret things and misapply things. From Wiki, about Wiki As articles develop, they tend to become more comprehensive and balanced. Quality also improves over time as misinformation and other errors are removed or repaired. However, because anyone can click "edit" at any time and add content, any article may contain undetected misinformation, errors, or vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About This is the same as you saying you'll stick your thumb up your ass. I'm trying to make sense of that. You actually said that you want people to respond to you the way that you want or you'll stick your thumb up your butt. Are you threatening to harm yourself or are you getting off on it? We simply don't know. GasGuzzler, itn and ibdm like encouraging people like you. With ibdm, he wants people to defend Marxism against his attacks while itn wants everyone to turn on each other. It's all a mind game. Which two people have I turned on each other? Void argument fallacy. Fallacy fallacy, Hang on I've now committed a fallacy fallacy. How far down the rabbit hole will we go tonight, and do I need acid. The sort of acid you get from people in motorcycle gangs. In case anyone's wondering. IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-11-2019 19:54
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Volker Siegel wrote:...the atmosphere is less transparent for heat radiation, so a part of it is scattered back. This energy that comes back is the additional energy. ...You are claiming that the earth's radiance decreases with a corresponding increase in temperature. No the radiance doesn't decrease, the amount of energy that is milling through our atmosphere increases. You can't create energy out of nothing. You can't use that to justify reducing radiance while increasing temperature. tmiddles wrote: You IBD have no explanation for Venus then to claim, absurdly, that we know nothing about Venus. We do know a few things. We know where it is. We know that a few thermometers have measured high temperature at the surface, much higher than any weather station thermometers have indicated on Earth. But we don't know the temperature of either planet. tmiddles wrote: You also claim, absurdly, that we don't know that the Moon has lower mean ground temp than the Earth. The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. Argument from randU fallacy. tmiddles wrote: It is KNOWN that planets with atmospheres have a higher mean temp at ground level. No it isn't. Stop making stuff up. tmiddles wrote: You pretend they don't, so you exit the conversation. What conversation? You are just repeating yourself and asking the same questions over and over that have already been answered for you. RQAA. RDCF. tmiddles wrote: It is not an alternative position on an event to claim the event never took place. What event? tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote:You can't subdivide the earth Translation: You can't talk about it. No, you can't subdivide the Earth. tmiddles wrote: Sorry IBD, we sure can. No, you can't. You can't compare two different systems as if they were the same system. False equivalence fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Every bit of examination in science has involved subdividing the universe. Science is not 'examination'. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. All observations are subject to the problems of phenomenology. RDCF. tmiddles wrote: It's silly to say you can't look at a part in relation to other parts. A false equivalence is a fallacy, dude. tmiddles wrote: Volker Siegel wrote: Trapping heat somehow is more than not trapping it at all. Well said. It is not possible to trap, slow, or store heat. Heat is not contained in anything. tmiddles wrote: The entire universe is presumably drifting toward entropy Entropy must increase or stay the same in any system. Even a universe. tmiddles wrote: so no energy can be held forever. Entropy is not energy. Redefinition fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Something is effectively stored if it's kept around longer. Energy can be stored. Energy is not heat. Redefinition fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Not believing in the ability to store thermal energy pretty much means you are making a pointless and theoretical statement. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat. tmiddles wrote: It's stored easily and regularly in our daily lives. It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat. tmiddles wrote: spot wrote: IBdaMann wrote:How disappointing. ..are you just trying to derail evey thread. Always. One more discussion about the dictionary. RDCF. tmiddles wrote: Heat is the NET FLOW of THERMAL ENERGY. No such thing. RDCF. tmiddles wrote: I like the comparison with money. Heat is not money. False equivalence fallacy. RDCF. tmiddles wrote: If thermal energy is money moving then HEAT is profit. Heat is not money. tmiddles wrote: And in anticipation of the lies of ITN, no HEAT is not a NET FLOW of HEAT, HEAT is NEW FLOW of THERMAL ENERGY. There is no such thing as a 'net flow of thermal energy'. There is no such thing as a 'net flow of heat'. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:You just can't use it as a reference with me. Add it to the list of everything ever written. RDCF. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: From Wiki, about Wiki How about science textbooks GG? You accept those? Any of them? Any ever written? RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-11-2019 20:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	MarcusR wrote: There are no CFC's at the poles and never were. Yet that's where the hole is. Why? Hint: the hole over Antarcia reports usually come out in June or July. The process of how CFC's reach the stratossphere over the poles is well described in the link I posted. Simply read that - if you are interested. CFC's don't reach with ozone. They are also heavier than air. Like propane, they go down, not up. MarcusR wrote: In regards to tbe current situatio, the Montreal protocol did have an effect, which it was ment to have. https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/clima/files/docs/montreal_prot_en.pdf It had absolutely no effect whatsoever. The polar 'hole' is still there at each pole. They vary in size just as they did before. Ozone is still being created and destroyed just as always and by the same processes as before. People still get sunburned just as they did before. The only thing that has changed is that the DuPont corporation has successfully convinced governments to require the use of R134a, which they have the patents for, instead of R12, which the patents for have run out on. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-11-2019 20:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	MarcusR wrote: It's also not listed as a GHG. I actually have a pet theory that I have been pursuing. It would take an atmospheric chemistry professor doing an experiment with me having to do with atmospheric forcing. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFM.A41J..04R/abstract My comment was only regarding CFC's effect on the O3 layer and how CFC's could and up in the stratospgere and over the poles. CFC's do not react with ozone. MarcusR wrote: In regards to CFC's they are actually listed as GHG's, see AR5 chapter 8, page 678. Thx for link ! No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-11-2019 20:08
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	Into the Night wrote: MarcusR wrote: It's also not listed as a GHG. I actually have a pet theory that I have been pursuing. It would take an atmospheric chemistry professor doing an experiment with me having to do with atmospheric forcing. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFM.A41J..04R/abstract My comment was only regarding CFC's effect on the O3 layer and how CFC's could and up in the stratospgere and over the poles. CFC's do not react with ozone. MarcusR wrote: In regards to CFC's they are actually listed as GHG's, see AR5 chapter 8, page 678. Thx for link ! No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. Wrong IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-11-2019 20:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	keepit wrote: Clearly Wikipedia is holding itself to high standards. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No matter how you try, dude. You cannot use it as a reference with me or IBDaMann (or several others here). keepit wrote: I use it almost daily and have found that it almost correlates perfectly with published book material on the same subject. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What books do YOU read??? keepit wrote: I't is also quick and easy. It is that. You finally have a valid claim. It is very easy to find false information on the web. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-11-2019 20:11
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: Clearly Wikipedia is holding itself to high standards. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No matter how you try, dude. You cannot use it as a reference with me or IBDaMann (or several others here). keepit wrote: I use it almost daily and have found that it almost correlates perfectly with published book material on the same subject. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What books do YOU read??? keepit wrote: I't is also quick and easy. It is that. You finally have a valid claim. It is very easy to find false information on the web. Even easier to make shit up and pretend reality conforms to your crazy ideas. IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.

27-11-2019 20:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Your the one going on about Marxist science. There is no such thing. Science is not a political viewpoint and does not care about political viewpoints. Karl Marx was not a scientist. spot wrote:0 The fact that you won't hold the iron bar after it's been exposed to extreme heat means that you have no faith in your own BS. Not a fact. A lie. Learn what 'fact' means. I have no problem holding the iron bar. Yes to say climatology is Marxist is dumb. There is no such thing as 'climatology'. Define 'climate change'. The Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Green, which itself stems from the Church of Karl Marx. spot wrote: Grab a red hot poker and put it in YouTube then. If you have that much faith in your own BS you fruitloop. No need. There are plenty of examples of people on Youtube grabbing red hot pokers. They just grab the cold end. You just being silly and obtuse. No, that would be you. Inversion fallacy. Fallacy fallacy, Buzzword fallacy. spot wrote: See two can play at that game. It's not a game. If you don't like me calling you on your fallacies, don't make them. No a fallacy fallacy is a thing look it up. That it is, but you are using it as a meaningless buzzword. spot wrote: Dismissing an argument because it contains a fallacy is the very definition of a fallacy fallacy. Not the definition of a fallacy fallacy. Redefinition fallacy. spot wrote: Whereas: "Buzzword fallacy" is a phrase that only you use. Guess you don't know what a buzzword is either, eh? Boy, you HAVE lost the ability to speak English. All you know now is Liberal. spot wrote: And yes this is a game an activity done purely for amusement. You don't think you here for some higher purpose? I'm sorry, but I choose not to speak Liberal. Try English. It works better. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-11-2019 20:17
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: keepit wrote: Not recognizing Wikipedia is your problem if you use invalid sources instead. It'll cause you to misinterpret things and misapply things. From Wiki, about Wiki As articles develop, they tend to become more comprehensive and balanced. Quality also improves over time as misinformation and other errors are removed or repaired. However, because anyone can click "edit" at any time and add content, any article may contain undetected misinformation, errors, or vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About This is the same as you saying you'll stick your thumb up your ass. I'm trying to make sense of that. You actually said that you want people to respond to you the way that you want or you'll stick your thumb up your butt. Are you threatening to harm yourself or are you getting off on it? We simply don't know. GasGuzzler, itn and ibdm like encouraging people like you. With ibdm, he wants people to defend Marxism against his attacks while itn wants everyone to turn on each other. It's all a mind game. Which two people have I turned on each other? Void argument fallacy. Fallacy fallacy, Buzzword fallacy. spot wrote: Hang on I've now committed a fallacy fallacy. No, you've committed a buzzword fallacy (as part of your redefinition fallacies). Try English. It works better. spot wrote: How far down the rabbit hole will we go tonight, and do I need acid. What rabbit hole? Are you on LSD? Never touch the stuff. I don't imagine going down rabbit holes. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-11-2019 20:18
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: MarcusR wrote: It's also not listed as a GHG. I actually have a pet theory that I have been pursuing. It would take an atmospheric chemistry professor doing an experiment with me having to do with atmospheric forcing. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFM.A41J..04R/abstract My comment was only regarding CFC's effect on the O3 layer and how CFC's could and up in the stratospgere and over the poles. CFC's do not react with ozone. MarcusR wrote: In regards to CFC's they are actually listed as GHG's, see AR5 chapter 8, page 678. Thx for link ! No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. Wrong 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
27-11-2019 20:43
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	"Argument of the stone" is a type of fallacy so the word "fallacy" in "argument of the stone fallacy" is redundant.
27-11-2019 20:44
keepit ★★★★★ (3058)	ITN, I don't use Wikipedia as a reference with you as you claim. I use it as a reference against you.
27-11-2019 20:49
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: keepit wrote: Not recognizing Wikipedia is your problem if you use invalid sources instead. It'll cause you to misinterpret things and misapply things. From Wiki, about Wiki As articles develop, they tend to become more comprehensive and balanced. Quality also improves over time as misinformation and other errors are removed or repaired. However, because anyone can click "edit" at any time and add content, any article may contain undetected misinformation, errors, or vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About This is the same as you saying you'll stick your thumb up your ass. I'm trying to make sense of that. You actually said that you want people to respond to you the way that you want or you'll stick your thumb up your butt. Are you threatening to harm yourself or are you getting off on it? We simply don't know. GasGuzzler, itn and ibdm like encouraging people like you. With ibdm, he wants people to defend Marxism against his attacks while itn wants everyone to turn on each other. It's all a mind game. Which two people have I turned on each other? Void argument fallacy. Fallacy fallacy, Buzzword fallacy. spot wrote: Hang on I've now committed a fallacy fallacy. No, you've committed a buzzword fallacy (as part of your redefinition fallacies). Try English. It works better. spot wrote: How far down the rabbit hole will we go tonight, and do I need acid. What rabbit hole? Are you on LSD? Never touch the stuff. I don't imagine going down rabbit holes. What rabbit hole? He asks. The rabbit hole that you are in and are trying to drag everyone who posts on this board into, that rabbit hole. IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
27-11-2019 21:06
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: ...You can't use that to justify reducing radiance while increasing temperature. How are you pretending anyone is saying radiance is reduced? It's not. Is the radiance of Venus one bit more or less than what the sun give it? Nope. It's in equilibrium. Have we created energy out of nothing on Venus? Nope. Your explanation for Venus? It's that _______________ and then __________ because ___________ is a __________. So of course it's ____________. Into the Night wrote: The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. AND!!!: Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver. link Crazy? Stupid? Calculating? Who cares. It'll all adds up to BS. "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 ever valid for them
27-11-2019 22:44
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	MarcusR wrote: It's also not listed as a GHG. I actually have a pet theory that I have been pursuing. It would take an atmospheric chemistry professor doing an experiment with me having to do with atmospheric forcing. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFM.A41J..04R/abstract My comment was only regarding CFC's effect on the O3 layer and how CFC's could and up in the stratospgere and over the poles. In regards to CFC's they are actually listed as GHG's, see AR5 chapter 8, page 678. Thx for link ! Marcus, this is from the movie Pleasantville which was made in 1998. Note the cause of global warming. And according to the IPCC's 2013 report, ozone depletion had significantly slowed. This is also before Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth was made. Kind of why I think the IPCC is trying to cover up it's mistake of going along with CO2. https://youtu.be/FAcNkan6Mwg
28-11-2019 13:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	spot wrote: "Argument of the stone" is a type of fallacy so the word "fallacy" in "argument of the stone fallacy" is redundant. No, it is not redundant. Redefinition fallacy (logic<->void). The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-11-2019 13:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	keepit wrote: ITN, I don't use Wikipedia as a reference with you as you claim. I use it as a reference against you. You can't. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-11-2019 13:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: keepit wrote: Not recognizing Wikipedia is your problem if you use invalid sources instead. It'll cause you to misinterpret things and misapply things. From Wiki, about Wiki As articles develop, they tend to become more comprehensive and balanced. Quality also improves over time as misinformation and other errors are removed or repaired. However, because anyone can click "edit" at any time and add content, any article may contain undetected misinformation, errors, or vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About This is the same as you saying you'll stick your thumb up your ass. I'm trying to make sense of that. You actually said that you want people to respond to you the way that you want or you'll stick your thumb up your butt. Are you threatening to harm yourself or are you getting off on it? We simply don't know. GasGuzzler, itn and ibdm like encouraging people like you. With ibdm, he wants people to defend Marxism against his attacks while itn wants everyone to turn on each other. It's all a mind game. Which two people have I turned on each other? Void argument fallacy. Fallacy fallacy, Buzzword fallacy. spot wrote: Hang on I've now committed a fallacy fallacy. No, you've committed a buzzword fallacy (as part of your redefinition fallacies). Try English. It works better. spot wrote: How far down the rabbit hole will we go tonight, and do I need acid. What rabbit hole? Are you on LSD? Never touch the stuff. I don't imagine going down rabbit holes. What rabbit hole? He asks. The rabbit hole that you are in and are trying to drag everyone who posts on this board into, that rabbit hole. What rabbit hole? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-11-2019 13:04
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: ...You can't use that to justify reducing radiance while increasing temperature. How are you pretending anyone is saying radiance is reduced? It's not. Is the radiance of Venus one bit more or less than what the sun give it? Nope. It's in equilibrium. Have we created energy out of nothing on Venus? Nope. Your explanation for Venus? It's that _______________ and then __________ because ___________ is a __________. So of course it's ____________. Irrational. You must clear your paradox. Arguing both sides of a paradox is irrational. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: The temperature of the Moon is unknown. The temperature of the Earth is unknown. AND!!!: Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver. link Crazy? Stupid? Calculating? Who cares. It'll all adds up to BS. YALIF. RDCF. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
28-11-2019 13:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	James___ wrote: MarcusR wrote: It's also not listed as a GHG. I actually have a pet theory that I have been pursuing. It would take an atmospheric chemistry professor doing an experiment with me having to do with atmospheric forcing. https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013AGUFM.A41J..04R/abstract My comment was only regarding CFC's effect on the O3 layer and how CFC's could and up in the stratospgere and over the poles. In regards to CFC's they are actually listed as GHG's, see AR5 chapter 8, page 678. Thx for link ! Marcus, this is from the movie Pleasantville which was made in 1998. Note the cause of global warming. And according to the IPCC's 2013 report, ozone depletion had significantly slowed. This is also before Al Gore's documentary An Inconvenient Truth was made. Kind of why I think the IPCC is trying to cover up it's mistake of going along with CO2. https://youtu.be/FAcNkan6Mwg What ozone depletion? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-11-2019 12:06
MarcusR★☆☆☆☆ (111)	Kind of why I think the IPCC is trying to cover up it's mistake of going along with CO2. https://youtu.be/FAcNkan6Mwg No ofgence, but I simply prefer science before movie when it comes to matters regarding science. IPCC actually don't do any own research, meassurements etc - they simply assess science. Nonetheless, IPCC's reports are great summaries and a even better index so you can look up articles, studies, papers etc ut you want to look deeper on a specific matter. The physical properties of i.e CO2 has been known since about 150 years. Today we simply know the details a little better than i.e Tyndal did back in the mid 19'th century. Our tools have vadtly improved since: https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0#IR-SPEC shows quite well why CO2 behaves the way it does.
29-11-2019 12:25
MarcusR★☆☆☆☆ (111)	CFC's do not react with ozone. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. If you read the link I posted previously you will see the entire process of why emissions of CFC's affected the O3 layer. That is why the Montreal Protocol was formed in 1978. Regarding your second statement, the greenhouse effect (never mind the wording, it is not a green house per se) that is also well known and documented. Currently our emissions of CO2 has increased earths energy balance with 1.83 W/m2: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930?cookieSet=1 The corresponding number for CH4 is 0.61W/m2 and for N2O 0.17 W/m2. So it is ofcourse not about creating energy out of nothing. It is simply about the imbalance of earth energy balance: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1

29-11-2019 12:32
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	MarcusR wrote: Kind of why I think the IPCC is trying to cover up it's mistake of going along with CO2. https://youtu.be/FAcNkan6Mwg No ofgence, but I simply prefer science before movie when it comes to matters regarding science. IPCC actually don't do any own research, meassurements etc - they simply assess science. Nonetheless, IPCC's reports are great summaries and a even better index so you can look up articles, studies, papers etc ut you want to look deeper on a specific matter. The physical properties of i.e CO2 has been known since about 150 years. Today we simply know the details a little better than i.e Tyndal did back in the mid 19'th century. Our tools have vadtly improved since: https://webbook.nist.gov/cgi/cbook.cgi?ID=C124389&Type=IR-SPEC&Index=0#IR-SPEC shows quite well why CO2 behaves the way it does. Data graph showing historical relationship with ozone depletion trajectory and global warming temperature trajectory. Note the relatively fast small downward trend of temperature after the Montreal Protocol changed chlorine levels at yr. 1993 https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Data-graph-showing-historical-relationship-with-ozone-depletion-trajectory-and-global_fig1_328492574 After the 2013 IPCC report was released, they went back and changed the way they collected data for ocean temperatures from 1998. Some more science about the ozone layer: https://m.phys.org/news/2013-05-global-chlorofluorocarbons-carbon-dioxide.html
29-11-2019 12:43
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: keepit wrote: Not recognizing Wikipedia is your problem if you use invalid sources instead. It'll cause you to misinterpret things and misapply things. From Wiki, about Wiki As articles develop, they tend to become more comprehensive and balanced. Quality also improves over time as misinformation and other errors are removed or repaired. However, because anyone can click "edit" at any time and add content, any article may contain undetected misinformation, errors, or vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About This is the same as you saying you'll stick your thumb up your ass. I'm trying to make sense of that. You actually said that you want people to respond to you the way that you want or you'll stick your thumb up your butt. Are you threatening to harm yourself or are you getting off on it? We simply don't know. GasGuzzler, itn and ibdm like encouraging people like you. With ibdm, he wants people to defend Marxism against his attacks while itn wants everyone to turn on each other. It's all a mind game. Which two people have I turned on each other? Void argument fallacy. Fallacy fallacy, Buzzword fallacy. spot wrote: Hang on I've now committed a fallacy fallacy. No, you've committed a buzzword fallacy (as part of your redefinition fallacies). Try English. It works better. spot wrote: How far down the rabbit hole will we go tonight, and do I need acid. What rabbit hole? Are you on LSD? Never touch the stuff. I don't imagine going down rabbit holes. What rabbit hole? He asks. The rabbit hole that you are in and are trying to drag everyone who posts on this board into, that rabbit hole. What rabbit hole? Rabbit hole is an analogy in this case it means a gateway to a nonsense land. But I was not addressing you so your continued confusion is not something I will lose sleep over. IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T. Edited on 29-11-2019 12:47
29-11-2019 19:12
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: keepit wrote: Not recognizing Wikipedia is your problem if you use invalid sources instead. It'll cause you to misinterpret things and misapply things. From Wiki, about Wiki As articles develop, they tend to become more comprehensive and balanced. Quality also improves over time as misinformation and other errors are removed or repaired. However, because anyone can click "edit" at any time and add content, any article may contain undetected misinformation, errors, or vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About This is the same as you saying you'll stick your thumb up your ass. I'm trying to make sense of that. You actually said that you want people to respond to you the way that you want or you'll stick your thumb up your butt. Are you threatening to harm yourself or are you getting off on it? We simply don't know. GasGuzzler, itn and ibdm like encouraging people like you. With ibdm, he wants people to defend Marxism against his attacks while itn wants everyone to turn on each other. It's all a mind game. Which two people have I turned on each other? Void argument fallacy. Fallacy fallacy, Buzzword fallacy. spot wrote: Hang on I've now committed a fallacy fallacy. No, you've committed a buzzword fallacy (as part of your redefinition fallacies). Try English. It works better. spot wrote: How far down the rabbit hole will we go tonight, and do I need acid. What rabbit hole? Are you on LSD? Never touch the stuff. I don't imagine going down rabbit holes. What rabbit hole? He asks. The rabbit hole that you are in and are trying to drag everyone who posts on this board into, that rabbit hole. What rabbit hole? Rabbit hole is an analogy in this case it means a gateway to a nonsense land. Why do you want to use nonsense to prove 'climate change'? spot wrote: But I was not addressing you Lie. Yes you were. You are right now. spot wrote: so your continued confusion is not something Nah. It is YOU that is confused. spot wrote: I will lose sleep over. Good. Go back to sleep. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-11-2019 19:22
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: keepit wrote: Not recognizing Wikipedia is your problem if you use invalid sources instead. It'll cause you to misinterpret things and misapply things. From Wiki, about Wiki As articles develop, they tend to become more comprehensive and balanced. Quality also improves over time as misinformation and other errors are removed or repaired. However, because anyone can click "edit" at any time and add content, any article may contain undetected misinformation, errors, or vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About This is the same as you saying you'll stick your thumb up your ass. I'm trying to make sense of that. You actually said that you want people to respond to you the way that you want or you'll stick your thumb up your butt. Are you threatening to harm yourself or are you getting off on it? We simply don't know. GasGuzzler, itn and ibdm like encouraging people like you. With ibdm, he wants people to defend Marxism against his attacks while itn wants everyone to turn on each other. It's all a mind game. Which two people have I turned on each other? Void argument fallacy. Fallacy fallacy, Buzzword fallacy. spot wrote: Hang on I've now committed a fallacy fallacy. No, you've committed a buzzword fallacy (as part of your redefinition fallacies). Try English. It works better. spot wrote: How far down the rabbit hole will we go tonight, and do I need acid. What rabbit hole? Are you on LSD? Never touch the stuff. I don't imagine going down rabbit holes. What rabbit hole? He asks. The rabbit hole that you are in and are trying to drag everyone who posts on this board into, that rabbit hole. What rabbit hole? Rabbit hole is an analogy in this case it means a gateway to a nonsense land. Why do you want to use nonsense to prove 'climate change'? spot wrote: But I was not addressing you Lie. Yes you were. You are right now. spot wrote: so your continued confusion is not something Nah. It is YOU that is confused. spot wrote: I will lose sleep over. Good. Go back to sleep. I was addressing you in that post but not the one before the post before was more general. IBdaMann wrote: "Air" is not a body in and of itself. Ergo it is not a blackbody. Planck's law describes the spectral density of electromagnetic radiation emitted by a black body in thermal equilibrium at a given temperature T.
29-11-2019 19:24
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	MarcusR wrote: Kind of why I think the IPCC is trying to cover up it's mistake of going along with CO2. https://youtu.be/FAcNkan6Mwg No ofgence, but I simply prefer science before movie when it comes to matters regarding science. IPCC actually don't do any own research, meassurements etc - they simply assess science. WRONG. They deny science and mathematics. MarcusR wrote: Nonetheless, IPCC's reports are great summaries Summaries of random numbers and denials of theories of science are rather useless. MarcusR wrote: and a even better index so you can look up articles, studies, papers etc ut you want to look deeper on a specific matter. Science isn't articles. It is not studies. It is not papers. It is not any scientist or group of scientists. Science is a set of falsifiable theories. You deny science as well as mathematics. MarcusR wrote: The physical properties of i.e CO2 has been known since about 150 years. Today we simply know the details a little better than i.e Tyndal did back in the mid 19'th century. Our tools have vadtly improved since: Absorption of surface emitted infrared light by CO2 or any other magick gas does not warm the Earth. * You can't create energy out of nothing. MarcusR wrote: ...deleted redundant Holy Link... Since you have shown, like so many other religious fundamentalists, that you have no mind of your own and must depend on the arguments of others for your attempts at a proof, you are denying philosophy as well. Religion is not 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 nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-11-2019 19:38
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	MarcusR wrote: CFC's do not react with ozone. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. If you read the link I posted previously you will see the entire process of why emissions of CFC's affected the O3 layer. CFC's do not react with ozone. You can put CFC's in a tank of ozone and nothing happens. You article is a series of circular arguments and denials of chemistry. False authority fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). You cannot stop or slow the production of ozone in the ozone layer. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. You can't stop it. MarcusR wrote: That is why the Montreal Protocol was formed in 1978. The Montreal Protocol is a treaty. It is not a proof. Circular argument fallacy. MarcusR wrote: Regarding your second statement, the greenhouse effect (never mind the wording, it is not a green house per se) that is also well known and documented. Then describe it without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. MarcusR wrote: Currently our emissions of CO2 has increased earths energy balance * You can't create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics). MarcusR wrote: with 1.83 W/m2: Argument from randU fallacy. Random numbers are not a proof. MarcusR wrote: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930?cookieSet=1 False authoiity fallacy. Holy Links are not a proof. MarcusR wrote: The corresponding number for CH4 is 0.61W/m2 and for N2O 0.17 W/m2. Argument from randU fallacy. * It is not possible to create energy out of nothing.. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using IR emitted from Earth's surface. MarcusR wrote: So it is of course not about creating energy out of nothing. Yes it is. The only way you can warm the Earth is to add additional energy. Assuming he Sun remains the same, where is that additional energy coming from? MarcusR wrote: It is simply about the imbalance of earth energy balance: Nonsense statement. Paradox. Which is it, dude? MarcusR wrote: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1 Holy Links are not a proof. False authority 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-11-2019 19:40
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: keepit wrote: Clearly Wikipedia is holding itself to high standards. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! No matter how you try, dude. You cannot use it as a reference with me or IBDaMann (or several others here). keepit wrote: I use it almost daily and have found that it almost correlates perfectly with published book material on the same subject. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What books do YOU read??? keepit wrote: I't is also quick and easy. It is that. You finally have a valid claim. It is very easy to find false information on the web. Even easier to make shit up and pretend reality conforms to your crazy ideas. The laws of thermodynamics are not my idea. They are also not 'crazy ideas'. They are theories of science. You cannot just discard science. You cannot use Wikipedia to do so. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 29-11-2019 19:42
29-11-2019 19:44
Into the Night★★★★★ (21582)	spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: spot wrote: Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: keepit wrote: Not recognizing Wikipedia is your problem if you use invalid sources instead. It'll cause you to misinterpret things and misapply things. From Wiki, about Wiki As articles develop, they tend to become more comprehensive and balanced. Quality also improves over time as misinformation and other errors are removed or repaired. However, because anyone can click "edit" at any time and add content, any article may contain undetected misinformation, errors, or vandalism. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:About This is the same as you saying you'll stick your thumb up your ass. I'm trying to make sense of that. You actually said that you want people to respond to you the way that you want or you'll stick your thumb up your butt. Are you threatening to harm yourself or are you getting off on it? We simply don't know. GasGuzzler, itn and ibdm like encouraging people like you. With ibdm, he wants people to defend Marxism against his attacks while itn wants everyone to turn on each other. It's all a mind game. Which two people have I turned on each other? Void argument fallacy. Fallacy fallacy, Buzzword fallacy. spot wrote: Hang on I've now committed a fallacy fallacy. No, you've committed a buzzword fallacy (as part of your redefinition fallacies). Try English. It works better. spot wrote: How far down the rabbit hole will we go tonight, and do I need acid. What rabbit hole? Are you on LSD? Never touch the stuff. I don't imagine going down rabbit holes. What rabbit hole? He asks. The rabbit hole that you are in and are trying to drag everyone who posts on this board into, that rabbit hole. What rabbit hole? Rabbit hole is an analogy in this case it means a gateway to a nonsense land. Why do you want to use nonsense to prove 'climate change'? spot wrote: But I was not addressing you Lie. Yes you were. You are right now. spot wrote: so your continued confusion is not something Nah. It is YOU that is confused. spot wrote: I will lose sleep over. Good. Go back to sleep. I was addressing you in that post but not the one before the post before was more general. This is not a private mail thread. You posted in a public thread. It doesn't matter who your post is directed to. Strawman 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 While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
29-11-2019 19:46
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: MarcusR wrote: CFC's do not react with ozone. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing. If you read the link I posted previously you will see the entire process of why emissions of CFC's affected the O3 layer. CFC's do not react with ozone. You can put CFC's in a tank of ozone and nothing happens. You article is a series of circular arguments and denials of chemistry. False authority fallacy. Circular argument fallacy (fundamentalism). You cannot stop or slow the production of ozone in the ozone layer. As long as you have sunlight and oxygen, you WILL have ozone. You can't stop it. MarcusR wrote: That is why the Montreal Protocol was formed in 1978. The Montreal Protocol is a treaty. It is not a proof. Circular argument fallacy. MarcusR wrote: Regarding your second statement, the greenhouse effect (never mind the wording, it is not a green house per se) that is also well known and documented. Then describe it without violating the 1st or 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law. MarcusR wrote: Currently our emissions of CO2 has increased earths energy balance * You can't create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics). MarcusR wrote: with 1.83 W/m2: Argument from randU fallacy. Random numbers are not a proof. MarcusR wrote: https://agupubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/2016GL071930?cookieSet=1 False authoiity fallacy. Holy Links are not a proof. MarcusR wrote: The corresponding number for CH4 is 0.61W/m2 and for N2O 0.17 W/m2. Argument from randU fallacy. * It is not possible to create energy out of nothing.. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth using IR emitted from Earth's surface. MarcusR wrote: So it is of course not about creating energy out of nothing. Yes it is. The only way you can warm the Earth is to add additional energy. Assuming he Sun remains the same, where is that additional energy coming from? MarcusR wrote: It is simply about the imbalance of earth energy balance: Nonsense statement. Paradox. Which is it, dude? MarcusR wrote: https://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00294.1 Holy Links are not a proof. False authority fallacy. The Master of Night There is a little man who is three or four feet high and who looks like a human being but is invisible. He may be a spirit or he may serve a spirit, but in any case, he does only one kind of work: He is the master of night and is the one who brings sleep to human beings. When dusk comes, he goes to work. His magic works well on some, and they cannot help but fall asleep easily. He stares at a person and they cannot help but fall asleep. For those who are already in their beds, he knocks them on the head with something soft like a pillow. He visits babies first, and then the children, and then on up to the old people. It is said that those who are struck by the master of night live to a very old age. (Adapted from Alanson B. Skinner and John Satterlee, 1915, "Folklore of the Menomini Indians," Anthropological Papers of the American Museum of Natural History XIII:217-542.) it's nappy time
30-11-2019 11:41
spot ★★★★☆ (1323)	ITN Your free to respond the lack of moderation on this board allows you to use this space as an idiots garden. But If I say; "ITN is an idiot " I am addressing the general readership if I say; "ITN you are an idiot" I am addressing you. So now you are free to take apart my post line by line calling out imaginary faults in logic.

Page 4 of 14

Join the debate There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	392	01-12-2023 21:58
Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat	326	07-11-2023 19:16
Some can take the heat, and	2	14-10-2023 13:26
I have a theory	123	16-06-2023 19:16
Evolutionary Biology and the Endosymbiotic Theory of Consciousness.	111	08-06-2023 02:39