Remember me
▼ Content

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



Page 6 of 7<<<4567>
04-12-2019 21:30
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
Xadoman wrote: I think I know where the roots of the beliveing in the global warming are. People see that adding insulation to the walls of the house helps to reduce heat loss and similarily they think that adding CO2 to the atmosphere somehow is reducing the heatloss. They see atmosphere as an insulation. The trouble is that earth is in space and the heat loss could be only via thermal radiaton. Therefore adding insulation to earth will not make in warmer.

Exactly.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-12-2019 05:47
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Xadoman wrote:
...earth is in space and the heat loss could be only via thermal radiaton. Therefore adding insulation to earth will not make in warmer.

Do you believe we know how the average temperatures at ground level for Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars and the Moon compare? This is empirical evidence comparing four objects with the same energy source, the Sun, at known distances. All four having different atmospheres.

The origination of the "Greenhouse Effect" concept for Earth goes back to 1824 with Jean-Baptiste Fourier.

"Earth" as a "Black body" should be -23C on average. Now you could probably make a good case that our ability to estimate the average temp on Earth has a margin of several degrees (I personally don't buy that we can know to even 1 degree) but let's say it's 5 degrees.

The Earth is estimated to have an average temp of 14.9C. So Earth, at ground level, is more than 30C warmer then you'd expect IF we were a perfect black body and we most certainly are not (light is reflected away without being absorbed).

Now if you don't believe that you should back it up. Because these titans of scientific discovery were many things but "warmazombies" was not one of them.
05-12-2019 07:01
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote: "Earth" as a "Black body" should be -23C on average.

I don't want to miss an oprtunity to mock you. Science predicts nature, it doesn't speak in the subjunctive. There is no "should". When you have no science supporting your beliefs, you don't get to swap in wishful thinking.

tmiddles wrote: Now you could probably make a good case that our ability to estimate the average temp on Earth has a margin of several degrees

Actually, that "case" has already been resolved. It's called statistical math. Humanity, at present, doesn't even come close to having the means to estimate the average global temperaure to any usable accuracy.

Math. When you don't have it, you don't get to swap in wishful thinking.

tmiddles wrote: (I personally don't buy that we can know to even 1 degree) but let's say it's 5 degrees.

No, let's not. Let's just point to your mathematical incompetence which explains why you believe what you believe.

Done. Next topic.

tmiddles wrote:The Earth is estimated to have an average temp of 14.9C.

Too funny! So you are saying that it "is estimated" (in the passive voice) with no margin of error afixed to your fabrication ... and that it is "what we know."

I'm not telling you to not believe this. I just want to meet the person that falls for it.

tmiddles wrote: So Earth, at ground level, is more than 30C warmer then you'd expect IF we were a perfect black body and we most certainly are not (light is reflected away without being absorbed).

Let me get this straight ... you estimated the earth's temperature were it an ideal black body, declared the earth to be 30C warmer, and then declared humanity's expectation to be much cooler.

Hmmmm.


tmiddles wrote:Now if you don't believe that you should back it up.

All of that just to shift your burden of proof onto others to "prove" that Greenhouse Effect is not real.

Nope. You are going to have to define it formally and unambiguously, and then you have explain all your violations of physics. It's nobody else's burden.

You put yourself right back to square one. So you might as well take the opportunity to define "Global Climate," "Greenhouse Effect" and "Global Warming" formally and unambiguously, ... you know, so you can eventually get out of the starting gate.


Oh, and you can't point to dead people and the body of their work that has been discarded from the body of science for having been falsified as any sort of scientific basis. You might very well consider them "prophets" of your religion but you don't get to use them here. You don't get to speak for anyone but yourself.

Sorry. I didn't make the rules.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
05-12-2019 08:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Now if you don't believe that you should back it up.

All of that just to shift your burden of proof onto others


So yes if you're going to say that scientists going back to the 1800s are all fools but the YOU are enlightned enough to see the text books are wrong the burden is on you.

ITN/IBD love to skip over admitting there is any limit to the margin of error for a planets temperature. IBD is even too afraid to admit Venus is hotter than Denver. The temperature gap above is 37C with a perfect black body. The black body temp matches what we find on the Moon. But as you can see IBD above offers nothing at all in the way of an explanation.

But at the end of the day it's the same story: they say simply you may not think about these things

"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
Edited on 05-12-2019 08:39
05-12-2019 10:20
Xadoman
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
Tmiddles, I live in quite cold climate and I have to heat my house with wood every winter. I know how hard is to keep the room warm. I do not belive that pumping CO2 into the room could help to rise the temperature of the room. It seems too beautiful to be true.
05-12-2019 13:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Xadoman wrote:
I do not belive that pumping CO2 into the room could help to rise the temperature of the room.

I don't think it would do much of anything. That's not how the CO2 theory works. See here: do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right The CO2 Global Warming theory is that we get high frequency light coming in, which passes through CO2, but the radiance off the ground is low frequency and CO2 absorbs it.

You were implying you didn't believe an atmosphere could result in a planets ground level temperature being higher than if there were no atmosphere? You said:
Xadoman wrote:...They see atmosphere as an insulation.... adding insulation to earth will not make in warmer.

So two questions:
Do you doubt we are in fact warmer on Earth than if we did not have an atmosphere?
If you do how do you think scientist all got this wrong since 1824? Conspiracy?


"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
05-12-2019 16:33
Xadoman
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
The CO2 Global Warming theory is that we get high frequency light coming in, which passes through CO2, but the radiance off the ground is low frequency and CO2 absorbs it.


I think that people hughly underestimate the amount of heat the earth loses via radiation. In hollywood films the problem is actually overexaggerated- we see people that are exposed to vacuum froze in seconds but actually it takes a lot of time. It gives a very false idea of heatloss in space.
When it comes to CO2 I think as follows: we have a certain amount of it in the atmosphere now. Lets say the earth warms it to a certain degree. Now let say we double the amount of it in the atmosphere. The earth still warms it to a certain degree. Each and every molecul acts the same. It takes heat and gives heat the same. The concentration on the CO2 could change but the temperature is still the same. The amount of radiation for the co2 molecule from earth is the same.
05-12-2019 17:00
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1079)
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
...earth is in space and the heat loss could be only via thermal radiaton. Therefore adding insulation to earth will not make in warmer.

Do you believe we know how the average temperatures at ground level for Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars and the Moon compare? This is empirical evidence comparing four objects with the same energy source, the Sun, at known distances. All four having different atmospheres.

The origination of the "Greenhouse Effect" concept for Earth goes back to 1824 with Jean-Baptiste Fourier.

"Earth" as a "Black body" should be -23C on average. Now you could probably make a good case that our ability to estimate the average temp on Earth has a margin of several degrees (I personally don't buy that we can know to even 1 degree) but let's say it's 5 degrees.

The Earth is estimated to have an average temp of 14.9C. So Earth, at ground level, is more than 30C warmer then you'd expect IF we were a perfect black body and we most certainly are not (light is reflected away without being absorbed).

Now if you don't believe that you should back it up. Because these titans of scientific discovery were many things but "warmazombies" was not one of them.


Mars, Moon, Venus, Mercury have totally different sizes, ground compositions, air compositions. They cannot be directly compared on CO2 alone. Too many factors are not held constant. An experiment holds all other factors constant while varying a single factor.
Edited on 05-12-2019 17:01
06-12-2019 04:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
...earth is in space and the heat loss could be only via thermal radiaton. Therefore adding insulation to earth will not make in warmer.

Do you believe we know how the average temperatures at ground level for Mercury, Venus, Earth, Mars and the Moon compare?

None of the temperatures of these planets are known.
tmiddles wrote:
This is empirical evidence

There is no evidence.
tmiddles wrote:
"Earth" as a "Black body" should be -23C on average.

The temperature of Earth is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Argument from randU fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Now you could probably make a good case that our ability to estimate the average temp on Earth has a margin of several degrees (I personally don't buy that we can know to even 1 degree) but let's say it's 5 degrees.

You're just guessing. Argument from randU fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
The Earth is estimated to have an average temp of 14.9C.

The temperature of Earth is unknown. Argument from randU fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
So Earth, at ground level, is more than 30C warmer then you'd expect IF we were a perfect black body

Earth is not an ideal black body. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. The temperature of Earth is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
Now if you don't believe that you should back it up.

Already did. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Because these titans of scientific discovery

Science is not discovery.
tmiddles wrote:
were many things but "warmazombies" was not one of them.

The Church of Global Warming has nothing to do with science. It denies both science and mathematics.


The Parrot Killer
06-12-2019 04:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Now if you don't believe that you should back it up.

All of that just to shift your burden of proof onto others


So yes if you're going to say that scientists going back to the 1800s are all fools but the YOU are enlightned enough to see the text books are wrong the burden is on you.

Compositional error fallacy. Not all textbooks are the same. Attempted force of negative proof fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
ITN/IBD love to skip over admitting there is any limit to the margin of error for a planets temperature.

No, it isn't.
tmiddles wrote:
IBD is even too afraid to admit Venus is hotter than Denver.

The temperature of Venus is unknown. The temperature of Denver is unknown. You are assigning a bogus position to IBDaMann again.
tmiddles wrote:
The temperature gap above is 37C with a perfect black body.

The temperature of Earth is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
The black body temp matches what we find on the Moon.

The temperature of the Moon is unknown.
tmiddles wrote:
But as you can see IBD above
offers nothing at all in the way of an explanation.

Already has. So have I. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
But at the end of the day it's the same story: they say simply you may not think about these things

What things? It is YOU that just making up random numbers and calling them 'data'. Argument from randU fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
07-12-2019 05:05
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:...They see atmosphere as an insulation.... adding insulation to earth will not make in warmer.

So two questions:
Do you doubt we are in fact warmer on Earth than if we did not have an atmosphere?
If you do how do you think scientist all got this wrong since 1824? Conspiracy?
If you don't want to answer that's cool but I did ask the above.

Xadoman wrote:Each and every molecule acts the same. It takes heat and gives heat the same.
So you're saying that it doesn't matter WHAT something is made of if you give it a certain amount of energy that's it, you can't have a higher temperature, that about right?
If so we have real examples of how that is not in fact true. Venus is the most relevant being a hilariously hot planet not so different than our own.

This is the key concept: The temperature on the ground (or the temperature of one part of anything) is not bound by the amount of energy being supplied by a heat source (in our case the sun). Temperature is a function of the amount of thermal energy "present", "passing through", "in residence" however you'd like to put it, in matter. Even when thermal energy isn't reflect without being absorbed it can be very quickly absorbed an re-radiated out. Or it can take a very long time to weave it's way through before making it's way back out.

You are in essence stating your own theory, that it doesn't matter what a composition of matter is with respect to temperatures reached at thermal equilibrium?, as fact, and it's not correct at all.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:An experiment holds all other factors constant while varying a single factor.
yeah that's ONE way to gain scientific knowledge when it's an option. Are you saying we learn NOTHING by looking at other planets?

"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
07-12-2019 06:56
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
tmiddles wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:...They see atmosphere as an insulation.... adding insulation to earth will not make in warmer.

So two questions:
Do you doubt we are in fact warmer on Earth than if we did not have an atmosphere?
If you do how do you think scientist all got this wrong since 1824? Conspiracy?
If you don't want to answer that's cool but I did ask the above.

Xadoman wrote:Each and every molecule acts the same. It takes heat and gives heat the same.
So you're saying that it doesn't matter WHAT something is made of if you give it a certain amount of energy that's it, you can't have a higher temperature, that about right?
If so we have real examples of how that is not in fact true. Venus is the most relevant being a hilariously hot planet not so different than our own.

This is the key concept: The temperature on the ground (or the temperature of one part of anything) is not bound by the amount of energy being supplied by a heat source (in our case the sun). Temperature is a function of the amount of thermal energy "present", "passing through", "in residence" however you'd like to put it, in matter. Even when thermal energy isn't reflect without being absorbed it can be very quickly absorbed an re-radiated out. Or it can take a very long time to weave it's way through before making it's way back out.

You are in essence stating your own theory, that it doesn't matter what a composition of matter is with respect to temperatures reached at thermal equilibrium?, as fact, and it's not correct at all.

Tai Hai Chen wrote:An experiment holds all other factors constant while varying a single factor.
yeah that's ONE way to gain scientific knowledge when it's an option. Are you saying we learn NOTHING by looking at other planets?

"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



While your answer is scientifically correct, it lets me know why what I'm pursuing is original.
07-12-2019 12:09
Xadoman
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
If you don't want to answer that's cool but I did ask the above.


I have to be honest here. I have not digged deeply into this subject . I need to google first to give my thoughts about it.

So you're saying that it doesn't matter WHAT something is made of if you give it a certain amount of energy that's it, you can't have a higher temperature, that about right?


I think we tend to give for an atmosphere too much magical powers. For example I once thought that maybe we could use wind power to change the angular momentum of earth. From the high school physics I rememered that in a closed system it is not possible to change the angular momentum of the system but earth is not a closed system. It gets energy from the sun and therefore I concluded that maybe it is possible to use that energy that is for example in the form on wind to speed up or slow down the rotation of earth. But soon it was made clear by some smarter men that this task is not possible. The only way to change the rotation of earth or to move earth from its trajectory is to eject mass from earth. What did I learn from that is that I gave too much magical powers to the atmosphere. I think it is also the same with temperature and climate.
08-12-2019 02:07
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Xadoman wrote:...it is not possible to change the angular momentum of the system but earth is not a closed system. It gets energy from the sun ...it was made clear... The only way to change the rotation of earth or to move earth from its trajectory is to eject mass from earth.
Or to have some mass external to Earth interact with the mass of Earth.

You're dealing with is "Newton's first law of motion - sometimes referred to as the law of inertia. An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."
Light is not a force: https://www.quora.com/Is-light-a-force

That's why you can't change Earths position with light.

So there are two very important questions to explore here. Both of them are legitimate questions:
1- Should you presume the authorities are right (text books, leading scientists)
2- How is it that an atmosphere could result in a higher ground level temperature

If you can't trust the source of the data, you have no data to work with and you descend into a murky world of having very little to work with. This does of course happen through no fault of ours. If you are trying to investigate where there has been a cover up. In this case you'd have to believe in a massive global conspiracy spanning hundreds of years.

As for establishing that 2 is even possible, we don't need to look at planets, deal with an actual atmosphere or do anything other than ask the question: Can two different compositions of matter have the same mass, absorb the same radiance, and yet have a different temperature at an equivalent location on each.

Anyone interested in exploring that?

"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
08-12-2019 11:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:...it is not possible to change the angular momentum of the system but earth is not a closed system. It gets energy from the sun ...it was made clear... The only way to change the rotation of earth or to move earth from its trajectory is to eject mass from earth.
Or to have some mass external to Earth interact with the mass of Earth.

You're dealing with is "Newton's first law of motion - sometimes referred to as the law of inertia.

There is only one law of motion from Newton: F=mA.
tmiddles wrote:
An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force."
Define 'unbalanced force'. Buzzword fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
Light is not a force: https://www.quora.com/Is-light-a-force
That's why you can't change Earths position with light.

So there are two very important questions to explore here. Both of them are legitimate questions:
1- Should you presume the authorities are right (text books, leading scientists)

No scientist is 'right'. Science is a set of theories, not proofs.
tmiddles wrote:
2- How is it that an atmosphere could result in a higher ground level temperature

It doesn't. You can't create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics).
tmiddles wrote:
If you can't trust the source of the data, you have no data to work with and you descend into a murky world of having very little to work with.
What data? Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
This does of course happen through no fault of ours.
What fault? Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
If you are trying to investigate where there has been a cover up. In this case you'd have to believe in a massive global conspiracy spanning hundreds of years.
Conspiracy of what? Void argument fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
As for establishing that 2 is even possible, we don't need to look at planets, deal with an actual atmosphere or do anything other than ask the question: Can two different compositions of matter have the same mass, absorb the same radiance, and yet have a different temperature at an equivalent location on each.
Sure. The emissivity of a planet, however, is unknown and can't be measured.
tmiddles wrote:
Anyone interested in exploring that?

Why? So you can make up more random numbers and call it 'data'?


The Parrot Killer
08-12-2019 11:47
Xadoman
☆☆☆☆☆
(39)
tmiddles, I think that atmosphere distributes/dissipates heat that we get from sun. The overall amount of heat is the same that we get from the sun and that is constant. I somewhat agree that maybe the amount of heat that is accumulated in the atmosphere could change but if the atmosphere gets hotter the earth should get colder. There has to be a balance. The atmosphere has to get denser though to accumulate more heat.
08-12-2019 12:57
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:The emissivity of a planet, however, is unknown and can't be measured.
Along with the temperature of Denver. Yes we know you're a joke. NEXT!

Xadoman wrote:...atmosphere distributes/dissipates heat that we get from sun.
Yes it does and the temperature of the atmosphere is determined by how much thermal energy is in the gases. The thermal energy is from radiance that was converted to thermal energy both directly from the sun and from Earth (other gas molecules and the ground).

Xadoman wrote:
The overall amount of heat is the same
So you're mixing up "Heat" with "temperature" and "thermal energy". Not saying you're wrong as it's unclear what you mean. With a fixed input of radiance being absorbed by a system of matter there is NOT a fixed quantity of thermal energy present in every part of the matter. There is no "even steven" law. Venus is fascinating (could you confirm you believe in the Venus data?) as it's hot enough to melt lead on the ground and so cold in the upper atmosphere that CO2 ice forms.

Xadoman wrote:
the atmosphere could change but if the atmosphere gets hotter the earth should get colder. There has to be a balance.
No. Here you have removed the Sun from the system and assumed again that there needs to be equlibrium that factors out any accumulation of thermal energy. Matter differs in it's ability to "store"/"accumulate" thermal energy.

Xadoman wrote:
The atmosphere has to get denser though to accumulate more heat.
This is a good point. I think the best explanation for Venus is simply the mass of the atmosphere allows for an accumulation of thermal energy that was originally radiance from the sun. It's in equilibrium just and Earth and Mercury are but the amount of thermal energy in the atmosphere is as massive as the atmosphere.

Here you're specifically making a claim against the CO2 theory but you've convoluted it with a claim against any atmosphere increasing ground level temp. My question was:
tmiddles wrote:
2- How is it that an atmosphere could result in a higher ground level temperature
Personally I'm not so sure about CO2 doing what people claim. But I'm certain that atmospheres make a huge difference.

And you never answered:
tmiddles wrote:
1- Should you presume the authorities are right (text books, leading scientists)


"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
08-12-2019 16:48
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
CO2 was given credit for this.

In late 2013, a huge patch of unusually warm ocean water, roughly one-third the size of the contiguous United States, formed in the Gulf of Alaska and began to spread. A few months later, Nick Bond, a climate scientist at the University of Washington in Seattle, dubbed it The Blob. The name, with its echo of a 1958 horror film about an alien life form that keeps growing as it consumes everything in its path, quickly caught on. By the summer of 2015, The Blob had more than doubled in size, stretching across more than 4 million square kilometers of ocean, from Mexico's Baja California Peninsula to Alaska's Aleutian Islands. Water temperatures reached 2.5°C above normal in many places.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/ocean-heat-waves-pacific-s-deadly-blob-could-become-new-normal
08-12-2019 21:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
James___ wrote: CO2 was given credit for this.

James__, what's wrong with this statement? [hint: passive voice]


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
08-12-2019 21:15
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: CO2 was given credit for this.

James__, what's wrong with this statement? [hint: passive voice]



It's comparable to all statements that you make so I wouldn't know. I don't support your manifesto.
09-12-2019 01:10
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
James___ wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
James___ wrote: CO2 was given credit for this.

James__, what's wrong with this statement? [hint: passive voice]

It's comparable to all statements that you make so I wouldn't know.

It's comparable to all my statements by being written in straightforward English so you certainly wouldn't be expected to, say, understand what was written.


I've made a note to myself that you never learned about "passive voice" and that I should find simpler clarifications for you to understand the point.

.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
09-12-2019 03:32
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
James___ wrote:
. Water temperatures reached 2.5°C above normal in many places.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/ocean-heat-waves-pacific-s-deadly-blob-could-become-new-normal
This is really fascinating. I guess thermal energy is being stored in ocean water! Don't tell ITN.

I wonder why it has a defined region it occupys.

"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
09-12-2019 03:55
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
. Water temperatures reached 2.5°C above normal in many places.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/ocean-heat-waves-pacific-s-deadly-blob-could-become-new-normal
This is really fascinating. I guess thermal energy is being stored in ocean water! Don't tell ITN.

I wonder why it has a defined region it occupys.

"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



This is probably what led them to find all of the hydrothermal vents on the west coast. It's mostly likely because of the Ring of Fire.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Ring-of-Fire
09-12-2019 18:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:The emissivity of a planet, however, is unknown and can't be measured.
Along with the temperature of Denver. Yes we know you're a joke. NEXT!

Denver has no single temperature, dumbass. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:...atmosphere distributes/dissipates heat that we get from sun.
Yes it does and the temperature of the atmosphere is determined by how much thermal energy is in the gases. The thermal energy is from radiance that was converted to thermal energy both directly from the sun and from Earth (other gas molecules and the ground).

There is no single temperature of the atmosphere either, dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
The overall amount of heat is the same
So you're mixing up "Heat" with "temperature" and "thermal energy".

Normally your problem. Kettle logic.
tmiddles wrote:
Not saying you're wrong as it's unclear what you mean.

Kettle logic.
tmiddles wrote:
With a fixed input of radiance being absorbed by a system of matter there is NOT a fixed quantity of thermal energy present in every part of the matter.

Irrelevance fallacy. No one is saying there is.
tmiddles wrote:
There is no "even steven" law.

Yes there is. It's called the 1st law of thermodynamics. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You cannot destroy energy into nothing.
Xadoman wrote:
the atmosphere could change but if the atmosphere gets hotter the earth should get colder. There has to be a balance.
No. Here you have removed the Sun from the system and assumed again that there needs to be equlibrium that factors out any accumulation of thermal energy.[/quote]
He properly removed the Sun from the system. You didn't. Again, you are equating two different systems as if they were the same system. False equivalence fallacy. RDCF.
tmiddles wrote:
Matter differs in it's ability to "store"/"accumulate" thermal energy.

It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
tmiddles wrote:
Xadoman wrote:
The atmosphere has to get denser though to accumulate more heat.
This is a good point.

Heat doesn't accumulate.
tmiddles wrote:
I think the best explanation for Venus is simply the mass of the atmosphere allows for an accumulation of thermal energy that was originally radiance from the sun. It's in equilibrium just and Earth and Mercury are but the amount of thermal energy in the atmosphere is as massive as the atmosphere.

Thermal energy doesn't weigh anything.
tmiddles wrote:
Here you're specifically making a claim against the CO2 theory

Void argument fallacy. What CO2 theory? Are you trying to put a 'scientific' feeling on your lousy explanation of 'greenhouse gas'?
tmiddles wrote:
but you've convoluted it with a claim against any atmosphere increasing ground level temp.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the the planet. You can't create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
My question was:[quote]tmiddles wrote:
2- How is it that an atmosphere could result in a higher ground level temperature

It doesn't. Loaded question. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Personally I'm not so sure about CO2 doing what people claim.

Lie.
tmiddles wrote:
But I'm certain that atmospheres make a huge difference.

It is not possible to create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
1- Should you presume the authorities are right (text books, leading scientists)


Bigotry. False authority fallacy. RDCF. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer
09-12-2019 18:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
. Water temperatures reached 2.5°C above normal in many places.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/ocean-heat-waves-pacific-s-deadly-blob-could-become-new-normal
This is really fascinating. I guess thermal energy is being stored in ocean water! Don't tell ITN.

It is not possible to trap thermal energy. There is always heat. Not even the 'blob' can do that.
tmiddles wrote:
I wonder why it has a defined region it occupys.

The temperature of ocean water is not uniform. I'm guessing you didn't know that.

BTW, Science Magazine is not a valid source for anything.


The Parrot Killer
09-12-2019 18:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
James___ wrote:
. Water temperatures reached 2.5°C above normal in many places.

https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2019/01/ocean-heat-waves-pacific-s-deadly-blob-could-become-new-normal
This is really fascinating. I guess thermal energy is being stored in ocean water! Don't tell ITN.

I wonder why it has a defined region it occupys.

"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



This is probably what led them to find all of the hydrothermal vents on the west coast. It's mostly likely because of the Ring of Fire.

https://www.britannica.com/place/Ring-of-Fire


Hydrothermal vents are all over the ocean floor. One easy place to spot them is in Hawaii.


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 09-12-2019 18:14
10-12-2019 00:48
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
Denver has no single temperature, dumbass. RDCF.
Yes you don't understand temperature at all. Let me school you. EVERYTHING, yes ITN, EVERYTHING, has a range of temperatures and different reading will be obtained at different locations. The rest of humanity is fine with this. It's called reality.

Into the Night wrote:
My question was:
tmiddles wrote:
2- How is it that an atmosphere could result in a higher ground level temperature

It doesn't. Loaded question. RQAA.
Note that ITN makes a wild claim that we KNOW it doesn't. Forget about the fact that we have all the data confirming that it does and that ITN pretends we know nothing bout VENUS, Earth or even Denver. Here he makes a declarative statement that we KNOW that atmospheres don't result in a higher ground level temp. Based on nothing but his own desire for that to be true.
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
1- Should you presume the authorities are right (text books, leading scientists)

Bigotry. False authority fallacy. RDCF. RQAA.
Data is not falisified for no reason. That's a crime by any definition. If someone want to claim that data has been forged they should make a case for it.

I maintain that Pierre Provost, Fourier, Tyndall, Planck and any scientist prior to the past 40 years could not reasonably accused of being a "warmazombie" and falsifying their findings. It's a ludicrous claim you and IBD make.

These 12 references are not part of conspiracy. It's the established, tested and trusted science we have to work with.

You guys just make stuff up.


"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
10-12-2019 02:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote: The rest of humanity is fine with this. It's called reality.

How pathetic ... yet amazingly hilarious. You truly have no arguments that do not rely completely on you pretending to speak for the rest of humanity. I can't think of you presenting any of your own thoughts; you are confined to preaching exactly what you have been directed to regurgitate.

James__ was pinning all his hopes and dreams on you being able to stand in as his champion. I foresee great disappointment in his future.

tmiddles wrote: Note that ITN makes a wild claim that we KNOW it doesn't.

To whom do you imagine you are speaking? Who is the "we"?

You're preaching, aren't you? C'mon, admit it. You can't help but to indavertently slip into preaching mode. It's like a bad habit, I get it. It's why you think you speak for everybody.

Too funny.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
10-12-2019 05:43
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:...you pretending to speak for the rest of humanity.
Watch me do it right now IBD, ready!
It's 8:38PM, Dec 9th, 2019 in Denver. The temperature is 28 F / -2 C . It's so knowable!

Yet amazingly:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....

yes, WE are all fine without your lunacy. Real life moves on without you.

What's sad is that you've afflicted Climate Change skepticism with your reputation and Flat Earther level of denying all knowledge. You are the best friend to the Bill Nyes and Al Gores of this world could have.

And notice you and ITN were speaking for EVERYONE when you said NO ONE.
Edited on 10-12-2019 05:44
10-12-2019 06:56
James___
★★★★☆
(1849)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Denver has no single temperature, dumbass. RDCF.
Yes you don't understand temperature at all. Let me school you. EVERYTHING, yes ITN, EVERYTHING, has a range of temperatures and different reading will be obtained at different locations. The rest of humanity is fine with this. It's called reality.

Into the Night wrote:
My question was:
tmiddles wrote:
2- How is it that an atmosphere could result in a higher ground level temperature

It doesn't. Loaded question. RQAA.
Note that ITN makes a wild claim that we KNOW it doesn't. Forget about the fact that we have all the data confirming that it does and that ITN pretends we know nothing bout VENUS, Earth or even Denver. Here he makes a declarative statement that we KNOW that atmospheres don't result in a higher ground level temp. Based on nothing but his own desire for that to be true.
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
1- Should you presume the authorities are right (text books, leading scientists)

Bigotry. False authority fallacy. RDCF. RQAA.
Data is not falisified for no reason. That's a crime by any definition. If someone want to claim that data has been forged they should make a case for it.

I maintain that Pierre Provost, Fourier, Tyndall, Planck and any scientist prior to the past 40 years could not reasonably accused of being a "warmazombie" and falsifying their findings. It's a ludicrous claim you and IBD make.

These 12 references are not part of conspiracy. It's the established, tested and trusted science we have to work with.

You guys just make stuff up.


"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



About a year ago someone posted temperature measurements that they made. They lived around Chicago. They went from ground level to a few feet up.
What they observed was that at ground level temperatures were cooler. Move away from the ground and temperatures got warmer.
I'll do a search over the next couple of days and see if I can find what they posted. They did spend a significant amount of time doing what they did.
10-12-2019 09:48
MarcusR
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)

A book is not a proof. You don't need a book on atmospheric radiance. All you need is Stefan-Boltzman's law.


It is a standard science litterature often refered to. Roy for one refered to it and the knowledge that Grant has in the area.

If you are interested just get the book. You can get the 2nd edition of Amazon quite cheap:
https://www.amazon.com/First-Course-Atmospheric-Radiation-2nd/dp/0972903313

I can recomend it. The math in it isn't that complicated so anyone witn a M.Sc or equivalent math can understand it.
Edited on 10-12-2019 09:51
10-12-2019 11:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
MarcusR wrote:
...the knowledge that Grant has...

Very cool, and he has:
Atmospheric Thermodynamics

The author:
http://hail.aos.wisc.edu/wp/

Maybe ITN/IBD can take his class:
AOS 100: Weather and Climate

And find out what those words mean.
10-12-2019 17:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Denver has no single temperature, dumbass. RDCF.
Yes you don't understand temperature at all. Let me school you. EVERYTHING, yes ITN, EVERYTHING, has a range of temperatures and different reading will be obtained at different locations.

A range of temperatures is not a single temperature, dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
The rest of humanity is fine with this.

You don't get to speak for everyone, dumbass. You only get to speak for you.
tmiddles wrote:
It's called reality.

Not the definition of 'reality', dumbass. Try again. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
My question was:
tmiddles wrote:
2- How is it that an atmosphere could result in a higher ground level temperature

It doesn't. Loaded question. RQAA.
Note that ITN makes a wild claim that we KNOW it doesn't.

WRONG dumbass. It is YOU making a wild claim.
tmiddles wrote:
Forget about the fact that we have all the data confirming that it does

There is no data, dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
and that ITN pretends we know nothing bout VENUS, Earth or even Denver.

We know a lot about them, dumbass. We just don't know their temperatures. It is YOU making a wild claim that we do.
tmiddles wrote:
Here he makes a declarative statement that we KNOW that atmospheres don't result in a higher ground level temp.

That's right, dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
Based on nothing but his own desire for that to be true.

Based on the 1st law of thermodynamics, dumbass. You can't create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
1- Should you presume the authorities are right (text books, leading scientists)

Bigotry. False authority fallacy. RDCF. RQAA.
Data is not falisified for no reason.

There is no data, dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
That's a crime by any definition.

Then you are guilty of a crime, dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
If someone want to claim that data has been forged they should make a case for it.

Already have, dumbass. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
I maintain that Pierre Provost, Fourier, Tyndall, Planck and any scientist prior to the past 40 years could not reasonably accused of being a "warmazombie" and falsifying their findings.

You don't get to speak for anyone else but you, dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
It's a ludicrous claim you and IBD make.

No. You are describing yourself, dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
These 12 references are not part of conspiracy. It's the established, tested and trusted science we have to work with.

No science here, dumbass. Try reading your books again.
tmiddles wrote:
You guys just make stuff up.

Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself, dumbass.

Yes...I am getting tired of your inane and repetitive distortions and contextomies, dumbass. I am tired of you asking the same questions that have already been answered over and over, dumbass.

You are locked in numerous paradoxes of your own making and are being irrational. My patience has finally worn thin, dumbass. I can only assume that you are committed to your ignorance, your irrationality, and your religion even to the point of just chanting inanely.


The Parrot Killer
10-12-2019 17:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...you pretending to speak for the rest of humanity.
Watch me do it right now IBD, ready!
It's 8:38PM, Dec 9th, 2019 in Denver. The temperature is 28 F / -2 C . It's so knowable!

WRONG, dumbass. The temperature at a single thermometer was 28 deg F at that time. That is NOT the temperature of Denver, dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
Yet amazingly:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....

yes, WE are all fine without your lunacy. Real life moves on without you.

You are locked in paradox and irrationality. You have no idea what is real anymore. You are describing yourself again, dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
What's sad is that you've afflicted Climate Change skepticism with your reputation and Flat Earther level of denying all knowledge. You are the best friend to the Bill Nyes and Al Gores of this world could have.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! Bill Nye and Al Gore are climate skeptics and believe the Earth is flat??????? You are hopelessly lost, dumbass.
tmiddles wrote:
And notice you and ITN were speaking for EVERYONE when you said NO ONE.

Contextomy fallacy again, dumbass. You can't pay attention to the conversation even over a single post.


The Parrot Killer
10-12-2019 17:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
James___ wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Denver has no single temperature, dumbass. RDCF.
Yes you don't understand temperature at all. Let me school you. EVERYTHING, yes ITN, EVERYTHING, has a range of temperatures and different reading will be obtained at different locations. The rest of humanity is fine with this. It's called reality.

Into the Night wrote:
My question was:
tmiddles wrote:
2- How is it that an atmosphere could result in a higher ground level temperature

It doesn't. Loaded question. RQAA.
Note that ITN makes a wild claim that we KNOW it doesn't. Forget about the fact that we have all the data confirming that it does and that ITN pretends we know nothing bout VENUS, Earth or even Denver. Here he makes a declarative statement that we KNOW that atmospheres don't result in a higher ground level temp. Based on nothing but his own desire for that to be true.
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
1- Should you presume the authorities are right (text books, leading scientists)

Bigotry. False authority fallacy. RDCF. RQAA.
Data is not falisified for no reason. That's a crime by any definition. If someone want to claim that data has been forged they should make a case for it.

I maintain that Pierre Provost, Fourier, Tyndall, Planck and any scientist prior to the past 40 years could not reasonably accused of being a "warmazombie" and falsifying their findings. It's a ludicrous claim you and IBD make.

These 12 references are not part of conspiracy. It's the established, tested and trusted science we have to work with.

You guys just make stuff up.


"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



About a year ago someone posted temperature measurements that they made. They lived around Chicago. They went from ground level to a few feet up.
What they observed was that at ground level temperatures were cooler. Move away from the ground and temperatures got warmer.


Not always true.


The Parrot Killer
10-12-2019 20:04
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5225)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...you pretending to speak for the rest of humanity.
Watch me do it right now IBD, ready!
It's 8:38PM, Dec 9th, 2019 in Denver. The temperature is 28 F / -2 C .

I never once denied your absolute certainty that you somehow speak for everybody else on the planet. I don't see why you are complaining. You seem to think that I am disputing your right to delude yourself. To the contrary, I truly *want* you to become "comfortably-numb." Is there any way I can help?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

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
11-12-2019 00:11
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
These 12 references are not part of conspiracy. It's the established, tested and trusted science we have to work with.

No science here, dumbass. Try reading your books again.


Oh really? Is there Science anywhere ITN? If so where? How about a summer reading list for all of us?

Oh hey. ITN. My nephew wants to study physics can you recommend how they go about doing that? Should they go to a school? Would they use a book? If so what's a book you'd recommend?
11-12-2019 01:28
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10253)
tmiddles wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
These 12 references are not part of conspiracy. It's the established, tested and trusted science we have to work with.

No science here, dumbass. Try reading your books again.


Oh really? Is there Science anywhere ITN? If so where? How about a summer reading list for all of us?

Science isn't a book. It is a set of falsifiable theories. You deny them.
tmiddles wrote:
Oh hey. ITN. My nephew wants to study physics can you recommend how they go about doing that?

First, have him leave your influence. You deny science. Then he should learn the equations used in physics. You deny those too.
tmiddles wrote:
Should they go to a school? Would they use a book? If so what's a book you'd recommend?

Science isn't a school or a book. False authority fallacy.


The Parrot Killer
11-12-2019 09:53
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
Into the Night wrote:
Science isn't a school or a book.
Sadly this man is just insane.
11-12-2019 14:30
MarcusR
☆☆☆☆☆
(14)
The author:
http://hail.aos.wisc.edu/wp/

Maybe ITN/IBD can take his class:
AOS 100: Weather and Climate

And find out what those words mean.


"Do not write so that you can be understood, but so that you cannot be misunderstood"

Funny enough Grant uses the same quote at the end of the pratade in both thoose books. At least in the editions I got (2nd for radiation and 1st for thermodynamics). After reading both books I can assure you he lives up to that quote.

Just for your info, there is an identical site at https://www.klimadebat.dk/ and the science denying lunatics are there as well.
Page 6 of 7<<<4567>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?4211-12-2019 01:25
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or5625-11-2019 15:53
Poulation controll revisited - CO2 compensation through population control814-11-2019 23:28
Is it not true that brains shrink due to increase in CO2 displacing O2?208-11-2019 18:45
Next year will the first year since lord knows when CO2 is more than 400 ppm all year at Moana Loa305-11-2019 18:15
Articles
Theory
▲ 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 © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact