Remember me
▼ Content

There is still no Global Warming science.



Page 9 of 9<<<789
14-07-2020 21:46
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1111)
James___ wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:
...it is YOU who regularly and purposefully misquotes people by removing the most important parts of what people say (or removing the critical surrounding context from what people said).
Try actually pointing that out. You seem fond of saying I've done that but don't include what I left out that so distorted things.

Take this (which is actually on topic here), from link:
tmiddles wrote:...
IBdaMann wrote:1) photons of the lower temperature object are not absorbed by the higher temperature object.
...
Have I distorted or left anything important out of that claim IBD made?

Violation of tmiddles ordinance. Summarily dismissed.

Continued evasion of questions asked of you to answer.


I was just outside. Seemed pretty d@mned hot. Yep, it's getting warmer.

Global Warming!!! Get your sunscreen ready...
14-07-2020 22:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
...questions posed to him ...
Response is here: link

IBdaMann wrote:
DRKTS wrote: "all solids will have a melting point temperature" is not falsifiable
It is a falsifiable statement and is false.
Why do you say that? When/how was it falsified?


At one atmosphere, solid CO2 does not melt. It vaporizes. You can boil water at temperatures well below freezing. IBDaMann has already shown you this. RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
DRKTS wouldn't you say a cause and effect theory like AGW:
that increasing CO2 increases ground level temperatures,
Is as simple and falsifiable as it gets?

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth or the global atmospheric content of CO2. CO2 has no capability to warm the Earth. Mantras 25e...25a...20a1...20a2...20b...
tmiddles wrote:
It doesn't even require a specific value to be achieved as "warming" is a "greater than" distinction.

Base rate fallacy. Mantra 25a.
tmiddles wrote:
To use your "No black swans exist" example, AGW as a theory is more like "Darker swans don't exist".

All you have to do is show that CO2 increases and temperatures don't in any experiment/research and you've falsified it.

Already done. No experiment necessary. Mantras 20a1...20a2...20b...
tmiddles wrote:
If the 2 liter soda bottle HS science demos didn't work it would falsify it.
...deleted redundant Holy Link...
But of course they do work as it's a very solid theory.

Parlor tricks are not science. Mantras 20a1...20a2...20b...

No argument presented. RQAA. Denial of mathematics. Denial of science. Evasion.
Define 'global warming'. Define 'climate change''. Answer the questions put to you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
14-07-2020 22:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
duncan61 wrote:
Black Swans predominantly occur in the southeast and southwest of Australia, live throughout southern Australia, extending south to Tasmania and north to Townsville in Queensland and Port Headland in Western Australia1. They have been introduced to New Zealand. Black Swans frequent lakes, rivers, estuaries and swamps.


We get white ones here. They must be racist.


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
14-07-2020 22:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted IAW tmiddles ordinance #1...Mantras 21d...38a...16b...15a...15b...29...


No argument presented. Denial of math. Denial of science. RQAA. Spam.

Answer the questions put to you:

1) What are the unambiguous definitions of Global Warming, Climate
Change and Greenhouse Effect that neither violate nor deny physics?
[Status: Unanswered]
2) Why should any rational adult believe in either Global Warming,
Climate Change or Greenhouse Effect? [Status: Unanswered]
3) How can I unambiguously demonstrate to my children thermal energy
flowing from cooler to warmer? [Status: Unanswered]
4) How can I know the temperature of a large, unspecified volume,
e.g. Denver, to within, say, 10degF with only one temperature
measurement, e.g. the Denver airport? [Status: Unanswered]
5) What are the unambiguous definitions of "race," "negro," "black
people," "white people," "brown people," "white supremacy," "white
nationalsim," "white nationalist," "white supremacist," "black
supremacist" and "racist"? [Status: Unanswered]
6) Is there an official list of races? [Status: Unanswered]
- 6a) How do I determine my own race or that of my children? [Status: Unanswered]
7) Why should any rational adult believe that there is a problem of
racism in the United States? [Status: Unanswered]
8) Why should law abiding citizens be rendered defenseless before
rampant violent crime? [Status: Unanswered]
9) Where in the 1st Amendment is "hate" prohibited such that, if
shown, a prosecutor can throw someone in jail for having had that
emotion/thought? [Status: Unanswered]
10) Why do you claim that an atmosphere only makes a planet's or
moon's solid surface hotter since you are fully aware that no place at
the bottom of earth's atmosphere ever reaches anywhere close to the
daytime temperatures of the moon's atmosphereless solid surface?
[Status: Unanswered]
11) If we were to discover that Lisa Gherardini was actually a shitty
person, would that justify Black Lives Matter storming the Louvre to
destroy the Mona Lisa? [Status: Unanswered]
12) Why should we destroy artifacts and relics pertaining to history
that we never want to forget or repeat? [Status: Unanswered]
13) The Aztecs committed genocide of many other tribes and practiced
human sacrifice; should their artwork and artifacts be destroyed?
[Status: Unanswered]
14) Why would you or anyone pretend to be a judge of what history is
to be revised or destroyed? [Status: Unanswered]
15) In what substantive/meaningful way do the platforms of Black Lives
Matter, ANTIFA, The National Organization of Women, the DNC, Communist
Party USA and Socialist Party USA ... differ? [Status: Unanswered]


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
Edited on 14-07-2020 22:09
14-07-2020 22:18
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★☆
(1111)
Into the Night wrote:
duncan61 wrote:
Black Swans predominantly occur in the southeast and southwest of Australia, live throughout southern Australia, extending south to Tasmania and north to Townsville in Queensland and Port Headland in Western Australia1. They have been introduced to New Zealand. Black Swans frequent lakes, rivers, estuaries and swamps.


We get white ones here. They must be racist.

Don't forget about their privilege...
14-07-2020 23:01
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Why do you say that? ["all solids will have a melting point temperature" is ... false.]

The moment one single counterexample to the null hypothesis is identified, ...
Yeah so identify it. What it your counterexample that causes you to make that claim?

Into the Night wrote:
At one atmosphere, solid CO2 does not melt. It vaporizes.
OK so that falsifies the theory if it were "all solids will have a melting point temperature at one atmosphere", unfortunately that's not the still possibly "unfalsifiable" theory that DRKTS provided. A simple google search shows: link"Above its triple point temperature, -56.6 degrees Celsius, or -69.8 degrees Fahrenheit, and under pressures greater than 5.11 atm, carbon dioxide melts."

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: All you have to do is show that CO2 increases and temperatures don't in any experiment/research and you've falsified it. ["it" being AGW, the thoery that increasing CO2 increases ground level temps]
...Only the falsifiable model gets to say what shows it to be false...
Uh huh, and the model is that more CO2 results in a higher temperature.

Into the Night wrote:
Answer the questions put to you:...
Response is here: link Stop abusing the board in violation of it's guidelines.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
15-07-2020 01:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7324)
tmiddles wrote: Yeah so identify it. What it your counterexample that causes you to make that claim?

There are many. Pick your favorite type of wood that melts.

tmiddles wrote: Uh huh, and the model is that more CO2 results in a higher temperature.

The burden rests with you to demonstrate that creation of energy out of nothing is even possible, and then show that it happens in your case. I bear no burden to prove thermodynamics.

tmiddles wrote: Stop abusing the board in violation of it's guidelines.

Stop pretending the guidelines are being violated and answer the questions. This is Climate-Debate not Climate-EVASION. You are abusing Branner's bandwidth.

btw, Branner is quite capable of speaking for himself. You do not speak for him.

.
15-07-2020 02:15
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
IBdaMann wrote:
Pick your favorite type of wood that melts.
You are confining it to our human experience, camping, woodshop, ect. Wood heats to become charcoal which is carbon and carbon has a melting point of 3,550 °C. So "all solids will have a melting point temperature" is not falsified by wood. That extreme temperature is simply not something we have much experience with.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Uh huh, and the model is that more CO2 results in a higher temperature.
The burden rests with you to demonstrate that creation of energy out of nothing is even possible, ...
Well that's a point you've made often the past 5 years. I've debunked it here (burden met): IBD's confusing Earth for an Isolated System is debunked: 2nd Law Topic by Keepit A debate you have now ducked. However the question at hand is not if the theory is proven but if it is a falsifiable theory at all. It is.

IBdaMann wrote:answer the questions....
Response is here: link

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
15-07-2020 02:54
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7324)
tmiddles wrote: You are confining it to ...

Nope. I am cherry-picking. I need only one falsifying example.

Wood is a solid. Wood does not melt. The theory is false.

tmiddles wrote: I've debunked it here

You have debunked nothing. You don't know how to debunk anything. You were told to believe that you debunk things by merely declaring them to be debunked. Your slavemasters lied to you again, just like when they told you that you are chit because you are a "white dude" and you OBEYED ... you believed them. In fact, you try to live up to it.

How do you know you're even a "white dude"? Could you be mistaken? Maybe your slavemasters lied to you about being a "white dude. .". It clearly wouldn't be the first time they blatantly led you astray.

.


A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-07-2020 03:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
IBdaMann wrote:Wood does not melt.
Wood can melt at 3,550 °C, at some pressures of course. You ignored my rebuttal again.

IBdaMann wrote:You have debunked nothing.
Sure I did. Right here. One of the many debates you gave up on:
IBD's confusing Earth for an Isolated System is debunked: 2nd Law Topic by Keepit

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 15-07-2020 03:20
15-07-2020 03:15
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(467)
Our black swans are unique in the male will have multiple females and they dont quack they say where my hoes at.
15-07-2020 08:47
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7324)
tmiddles wrote: Wood can melt at 3,550 °C

Nope. Wood cannot melt. If it decomposes and the components melt then it is no longer wood.

Wood cannot melt.
The null hypothesis is false.
The theory is discarded.

Your Race Card came in the mail. Apparently it is accepted worldwide wherever intimidation works.

Don't go off to loot without it.
Attached image:

15-07-2020 09:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Pick your favorite type of wood that melts.
You are confining it to our human experience, camping, woodshop, ect. Wood heats to become charcoal which is carbon and carbon has a melting point of 3,550 °C. So "all solids will have a melting point temperature" is not falsified by wood. That extreme temperature is simply not something we have much experience with.
...deleted remaining IAW tmiddles ordinance #1...


Wood does not heat to become charcoal. Wood does not heat. If you heat wood enough, it will burn, but it doesn't become charcoal. It becomes CO2 and water. It does not melt.

Wood does not melt either. Wood is not charcoal.


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
15-07-2020 09:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:Wood does not melt.
Wood can melt at 3,550 °C, at some pressures of course. You ignored my rebuttal again.
...deleted remaining IAW tmiddles ordinance #1...


Wood does not melt. It h as no melting point.

Mantra 25g.

No argument presented. Denial of chemistry. Spam.

Answer the questions put to you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
15-07-2020 10:55
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Wood can melt at 3,550 °C
Nope. Wood cannot melt. If it decomposes and the components melt then it is no longer wood....
Hmmm, if an ice cube decomposes and melts it is no longer an ice cube. Of course if the pressure is very low ice will vaporize without melting. But we can agree ice has a melting point and certainly does not falsify: "all solids will have a melting point temperature"

So if there is no oxygen available, so it cannot burn, and it is under so much pressure that it cannot vaporize, what happens when wood is heated to 5000 C ? I think it will melt by then. But what do you think? Can you know it doesn't and falsify the theory?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 15-07-2020 11:12
15-07-2020 12:02
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2209)
Ignorant argument... Melting, is the change of state, from solid, to liquid. It remains the same molecules, before and after.
15-07-2020 13:53
duncan61
★★★☆☆
(467)
Hmmm, if an ice cube decomposes and melts it is no longer an ice cube. Of course if the pressure is very low ice will vaporize without melting. But we can agree ice has a melting point and certainly does not falsify: "all solids will have a melting point temperature"

Water is the basis for everything a cubic metre is 1000kg it turns to ice at -0.1C it is water at 1C and a whole bunch of other stuff.Never heard of water decomposing or vapourising do you mean turn to steam at 100C we base all our metric measurements on what water does.The other good things water does is stop it being possible to burn rainforests as other loonies claim
15-07-2020 16:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7324)
tmiddles wrote: Hmmm, if an ice cube decomposes ...

So if H2O decomposes to hydrogen and oxygen? OK, then it is not water, sure.

tmiddles wrote: ... and melts it is no longer an ice cube.

...wait, hold on a moment, now are you saying to recomposes back to water again, just in liquid form?

What does this have to do with wood?

tmiddles wrote: what happens when wood is heated to 5000 C ? I think it will melt by then.

You are WRONG! Decomposing wood into different materials that might melt is not melting the wood ... it is destroying the wood and melting some other material(s). Wood ... does not melt.

So, instead of admitting that you are WRONG! so we can move forward with the discussion, we have yet another question that needs to be added to the list:

16) Which type of wood are you claiming melts (assuming the proper temperature and pressure) ... and what is that specific temperature and pressure? [Status: Unanswered]

Done!

So we can close this topic until you can support your claim.
.
Attached image:

15-07-2020 21:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Wood can melt at 3,550 °C
Nope. Wood cannot melt. If it decomposes and the components melt then it is no longer wood....
Hmmm, if an ice cube decomposes and melts it is no longer an ice cube. Of course if the pressure is very low ice will vaporize without melting. But we can agree ice has a melting point and certainly does not falsify: "all solids will have a melting point temperature"

So if there is no oxygen available, so it cannot burn, and it is under so much pressure that it cannot vaporize, what happens when wood is heated to 5000 C ? I think it will melt by then. But what do you think? Can you know it doesn't and falsify the theory?


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
16-07-2020 12:16
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3324)
duncan61 wrote:Never heard of water decomposing or vapourising...
"decompose" simply means to lose its composition. IBD was the one using the word in this context. It is an odd choice as it's usually associated with rotting.

The temperature that a material vaporized at is dependent on pressure. Freeze drying uses low pressure to allow ice to vaporize at temperatures below freezing.

IBdaMann wrote:
Decomposing wood into different materials that might melt is not melting the wood ... it is destroying the wood and melting some other material(s). Wood ... does not melt.
By that logic M&Ms don't melt


So dumb IBD

And I don't know the specifics on when what type of wood would melt. You seem to have forgotten the topic. It's that :
"all solids will have a melting point temperature" is not falsifiable. I'm not required to prove that every solid can melt. "Falsifying" means someone would have to prove some solid will not melt.

Over 3000C is well beyond my means. That's the entire point of the example. We cannot falsify it.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD or ITN
Edited on 16-07-2020 12:18
16-07-2020 12:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13030)
tmiddles wrote:...deleted IAW tmiddles ordinance #1...Mantras 20r3...20r2...20r9...20r12...20r11...1...15c...16b...20r12...39d...


No argument presented. Denial of chemistry. Special pleading. Invalid proof.

Answer the questions put to you.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
22-07-2020 19:51
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7324)
It would seem that there is still no Global Warming science.

I wonder if this thread will have to morph into "There is no BLM science."
Page 9 of 9<<<789





Join the debate There is still no Global Warming science.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Etymology of Science5908-02-2020 12:09
Western Science - is it declining?1124-12-2019 12:43
About the damage that Obama did to science.18417-12-2019 05:36
Argument against AGW science314-08-2019 20:51
Objectivity of Environmental Science109-08-2019 02:13
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


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