Remember me
▼ Content

"Unprecedented" Wildfires TODAY. Thanks to Global Warming.



Page 4 of 5<<<2345>
05-07-2023 03:56
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
Im a BM wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Canada's fire season has ALREADY started.

Truly unprecedented.





More than nine million acres, so far.

Terrible air quality in northeast US.

Us old timers who paid attention to the weather all our lives didn't see this before.

Early June.. It's going to be a long, hot summer.



The Canada fires continue to burn.

Many cities in the northeast and midwest US have seen the WORST AIR QUALITY EVER RECORDED because of the smoke in the last month.

And THIS week, many cities in the southern and western US have seen the HIGHEST TEMPERATURE EVER RECORDED.

The hottest years since humans invented thermometers have been during the eight years that the dominant troll and his second rate sidekick have posted here.

Georgia's peach crop failed miserably because it was too warm this winter.

Florida strawberry farmers are closing farms in the more southern part of the state and moving north where it is still cool enough to grow them.

Maple farmers have to move farther north as well.

It was just a little less than 23 years ago when the north pole melted for the first time in thousands of years.

Fox news ran a story about it, and about how the ski resort industry was being impacted by climate change.

Of course, they brought in the "expert" who assured us that global warming was a hoax.

They assured us that we were about to begin a "cooling trend", but I don't think that will happen any time soon.

Very few of the threads on this website even attempt to discuss climate change.

Those that do get dominated by the same scientifically illiterate trolls who have driven away anyone who dares to suggest that climate CAN change.

Mockery, insults, and anti scientific assertions that just go on and on and on.

But the ugliest trolls must be taking the day off today.


The concept of a global average climate is only useful as marketing hype. Not everyone needs to buy the exact, same products. Well, maybe in some socialist run countries. Then, it's not so much buying, but accepting the government approved products...

Yeah, it's been warm out past few weeks... But hey, it's middle of the summer season. Certainly, the ice, snow, and blackouts from 8 months ago haven't been forgotten. I predict that in about 4 months, it'll be noticeable cooler... Pretty much happens every year, as summer season ends.

All bad things are caused by democrats, and climate change. Why would anyone take a forestry job, when democrats will pay them well just to stay home? Use to be if you wanted food on the table, you had to work for it. For many, all the basic needs, are government paid. No incentive to sacrifice modern conveniences, to spend months in the woods, sweating and hurting. Cleansing the forest floor by fire, is just natures way making room for new growth. We are never going to completely stop wildfires, but we can reduce them quite a bit. Fire breaks and access roads reduce the spread. We can clear out a lot of deadfall, underbrush, and debris, and burn it in a controlled manner. But, burning is bad, the unholy CO2 is destroying the planet... Idiots... It's going to burn, one way, or another. Hauling all that crap out of the forest would be very expensive. And what to do with the huge volume? All that organic matter still has use and purpose in the forest. Removal would deplete the soil. Fire is necessary for a healthy forest. Unfortunately, careless humans, and sick minds start more wildfires, than are really needed. But, at least after it burns, it won't be a fire hazard again for years... Unless some on sets it off deliberately. Which, I wouldn't discount, as it's a simple enough way to 'prove' climate change, and piss people off into wanting to do something to make it stop. Even if it's a scam, and arson.
05-07-2023 06:25
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(3011)
Im a BM wrote:
Us old timers who paid attention to the weather all our lives didn't see this before.

Fire isn't weather, dumbass.
Im a BM wrote:
Early June.. It's going to be a long, hot summer.

It'll be the same duration as any other year. How do you predict with any accuracy that it will be hot?
Im a BM wrote:
The Canada fires continue to burn.

Who even knew that wood burns in June??!
Im a BM wrote:
Many cities in the northeast and midwest US have seen the WORST AIR QUALITY EVER RECORDED

The air quality meters must surely be off when Biden is in town.

Im a BM wrote:
And THIS week, many cities in the southern and western US have seen the HIGHEST TEMPERATURE EVER RECORDED

...and yet here in Iowa we have seen very few hot days. Funny how that equilibrium shit works.
Im a BM wrote:
The hottest years since humans invented thermometers have been during the eight years that the dominant troll and his second rate sidekick have posted here.

Wait...I thought they were measuring the global temperature with satellite data. Boy was I duped! Second rate sidekick? Now which one gets that badge of honor?
Im a BM wrote:
Georgia's peach crop failed miserably because it was too warm this winter.

Don't be stupid. The crop failed because of the COLD.
Im a BM wrote:
Florida strawberry farmers are closing farms in the more southern part of the state and moving north where it is still cool enough to grow them.
Maple farmers have to move farther north as well.

Yaddy yaddy ya we're all going to die.
Im a BM wrote:
It was just a little less than 23 years ago when the north pole melted for the first time in thousands of years.

Who convinced you to believe this?
Im a BM wrote:
Fox news ran a story about it, and about how the ski resort industry was being impacted by climate change.

FOX news has been a huge disappointment lately.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course, they brought in the "expert" who assured us that global warming was a hoax.

Climate change or global warming? Make up your mind already! Which is it?
Im a BM wrote:
They assured us that we were about to begin a "cooling trend", but I don't think that will happen any time soon.

Well then I'd say he's a dumbass just like you. An honest person would not try to predict an unverifiable event.
Im a BM wrote:
Very few of the threads on this website even attempt to discuss climate change

Many attempts have been made to try to get YOU to discuss climate change. So far you have yet to even define it.
Im a BM wrote:
Those that do get dominated by the same scientifically illiterate trolls who have driven away anyone who dares to suggest that climate CAN change.

Those who come here only to preach will be called out every time. That would be you.
Im a BM wrote:
Mockery, insults,

Wait...dumbass, you can hurl insults but no one else is allowed to? I guess your bitchin Berkley PHD is what allows for this? ....checking with Sven on the validity of Berkley permission to insult. I'll get back to you.
Im a BM wrote:
anti scientific assertions that just go on and on and on

Science is not "the study of the world we live in". It's a set of falsifiable theories. You know this, but you are just playing dumb.
So if you could please, would you please share the unfalsified theory of science that supports manmade global warming? Thanks in advance for bringing some real science to the forum. Damn! Now we gonna have a discussion boys and girls!...wait...can I say boys and girls anymore? Checking with Sven on that one too.
Im a BM wrote:
But the ugliest trolls must be taking the day off today.

Bummer, isn't it? I have to assume they have meaningful lives beyond the important work they do right here every day.

Thank you guys for your daily dedication to sharing your vast knowledge with the rest of us. You deserve today off!


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 05-07-2023 06:47
05-07-2023 20:25
SwanProfile picture★★★★★
(5740)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Us old timers who paid attention to the weather all our lives didn't see this before.

Fire isn't weather, dumbass.
Im a BM wrote:
Early June.. It's going to be a long, hot summer.

It'll be the same duration as any other year. How do you predict with any accuracy that it will be hot?
Im a BM wrote:
The Canada fires continue to burn.

Who even knew that wood burns in June??!
Im a BM wrote:
Many cities in the northeast and midwest US have seen the WORST AIR QUALITY EVER RECORDED

The air quality meters must surely be off when Biden is in town.

Im a BM wrote:
And THIS week, many cities in the southern and western US have seen the HIGHEST TEMPERATURE EVER RECORDED

...and yet here in Iowa we have seen very few hot days. Funny how that equilibrium shit works.
Im a BM wrote:
The hottest years since humans invented thermometers have been during the eight years that the dominant troll and his second rate sidekick have posted here.

Wait...I thought they were measuring the global temperature with satellite data. Boy was I duped! Second rate sidekick? Now which one gets that badge of honor?
Im a BM wrote:
Georgia's peach crop failed miserably because it was too warm this winter.

Don't be stupid. The crop failed because of the COLD.
Im a BM wrote:
Florida strawberry farmers are closing farms in the more southern part of the state and moving north where it is still cool enough to grow them.
Maple farmers have to move farther north as well.

Yaddy yaddy ya we're all going to die.
Im a BM wrote:
It was just a little less than 23 years ago when the north pole melted for the first time in thousands of years.

Who convinced you to believe this?
Im a BM wrote:
Fox news ran a story about it, and about how the ski resort industry was being impacted by climate change.

FOX news has been a huge disappointment lately.
Im a BM wrote:
Of course, they brought in the "expert" who assured us that global warming was a hoax.

Climate change or global warming? Make up your mind already! Which is it?
Im a BM wrote:
They assured us that we were about to begin a "cooling trend", but I don't think that will happen any time soon.

Well then I'd say he's a dumbass just like you. An honest person would not try to predict an unverifiable event.
Im a BM wrote:
Very few of the threads on this website even attempt to discuss climate change

Many attempts have been made to try to get YOU to discuss climate change. So far you have yet to even define it.
Im a BM wrote:
Those that do get dominated by the same scientifically illiterate trolls who have driven away anyone who dares to suggest that climate CAN change.

Those who come here only to preach will be called out every time. That would be you.
Im a BM wrote:
Mockery, insults,

Wait...dumbass, you can hurl insults but no one else is allowed to? I guess your bitchin Berkley PHD is what allows for this? ....checking with Sven on the validity of Berkley permission to insult. I'll get back to you.
Im a BM wrote:
anti scientific assertions that just go on and on and on

Science is not "the study of the world we live in". It's a set of falsifiable theories. You know this, but you are just playing dumb.
So if you could please, would you please share the unfalsified theory of science that supports manmade global warming? Thanks in advance for bringing some real science to the forum. Damn! Now we gonna have a discussion boys and girls!...wait...can I say boys and girls anymore? Checking with Sven on that one too.
Im a BM wrote:
But the ugliest trolls must be taking the day off today.

Bummer, isn't it? I have to assume they have meaningful lives beyond the important work they do right here every day.

Thank you guys for your daily dedication to sharing your vast knowledge with the rest of us. You deserve today off!


LOL, however the spelling is not Berkley, it is Berzerkley. So please take note.


IBdaMann claims that Gold is a molecule, and that the last ice age never happened because I was not there to see it. The only conclusion that can be drawn from this is that IBdaMann is clearly not using enough LSD.

According to CDC/Government info, people who were vaccinated are now DYING at a higher rate than non-vaccinated people, which exposes the covid vaccines as the poison that they are, this is now fully confirmed by the terrorist CDC

This place is quieter than the FBI commenting on the chink bank account information on Hunter Xiden's laptop

I LOVE TRUMP BECAUSE HE PISSES OFF ALL THE PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T STAND.

ULTRA MAGA

"Being unwanted, unloved, uncared for, forgotten by everybody, I think that is a much greater hunger, a much greater poverty than the person who has nothing to eat." MOTHER THERESA OF CALCUTTA

So why is helping to hide the murder of an American president patriotic?


It's time to dig up Joseph Mccarthey and show him TikTok, then duck.


Now be honest, was I correct or was I correct? LOL
07-07-2023 06:08
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(3011)
Im a BM wrote:
Georgia's peach crop failed miserably because it was too warm this winter.


This bowel movement of a statement from the BM just has me fuming. I shouldn't let a little BM BS piss me off, but it does.

Peach trees in Georgia generally begin blooming March 15th. Each bloom could be a peach, but if it freezes, well then no peach soup.

Here's what the low temps were in Fort Valley, a top peach producing area. This was pulled from AccuWeather, and I don't know the location of temp reading, however precision temps are not important here. The dates are important.

March 15th 27F
March 16th 29F
March 20th 28F
March 21st 29F

So even if the peach trees bloomed in the typical time period, they still would have been DESTROYED BY THE COLD.

Unfortunately there are people like BM who have no problem repeating Bowel Movement statements like this without even giving a minor thought to reason.
These are the same evil clowns literally destroying the values my country was founded on. How do we stop them??! I can't take it anymore!!!!


Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
Edited on 07-07-2023 06:45
08-07-2023 07:50
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22228)
...removed severely damaged quoting...
Im a BM wrote:
Alternative facts galore

There is no such thing as an 'alternative fact'. Buzzword fallacy. Learn what 'fact' means.
Im a BM wrote:
The post below is loaded with alternative facts.

No such thing.
Im a BM wrote:
Some of the gems include:

"The Earth's atmosphere is not an open system. It is a closed system."

It is a closed system. So is the Earth (which includes it's atmosphere). So is the Sun-Earth-space system.
Im a BM wrote:
"There is no such thing as radiant energy."

This is correct. There is no such thing as radiant energy.
Im a BM wrote:
These anti scientific claims are easily debunked.

You can't call science 'anti-science'.
Im a BM wrote:
Given that the dominant anti scientist on this website has already posted that the Earth's atmosphere IS an open system...

Hallucination. It is a closed system as far as the laws of thermodynamics are concerned.
Im a BM wrote:
What sort of word games would sort this out among them?

When the sidekick claimed that alligators are amphibians, the dominant troll posted that he did NOT believe that alligators are amphibians..

Alligators are amphibians. It is YOU playing word games.
Im a BM wrote:
They had to come up with some pretty silly word games to reconcile.

It is YOU playing word games. Inversion fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Is the Earth's atmosphere an open system?

RQAA.
Im a BM wrote:
Is there such a thing as radiant energy?

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
Edited on 08-07-2023 08:46
08-07-2023 08:43
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22228)
HarveyH55 wrote:
How do meteors enter a closed system?

Meteors are not thermodynamics.
HarveyH55 wrote:
How do our rockets leave Earth's closed system atmosphere?

Rockets are not thermodynamics.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Then again, meteors burn up, before completely entering.

Most do, but not all!
HarveyH55 wrote:
But, meteorites are the few that make it to the surface.

Yup. A rather glorious looking crater made by one can be seen in Arizona.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Rare, and valuable too... If it's a closed system, how do we get energy from the Sun?
Isn't the lack of sunlight, that creates ozone holes?

Okay. It's obvious the concept of thermodynamic systems need to be explained more clearly to you.

The systems in question are systems in thermodynamics. Any system may be used, but the system used must be consistent.

A system is defined by you. You define the boundaries of that system. Every system is closed for that reason...even the entire known Universe.

In any given system, the laws of thermodynamics hold. You cannot consider any energy source or sink outside that system. They are simply ignored.

If you consider the confines of your refrigerator as the system, you cannot cools your refrigerator by itself. To cool that refrigerator you need energy from outside, which cannot be considered for this system. Effectively, then, it is if the refrigerator was unplugged.

Any differences in energy (or temperature) will dissipate until the energy (or temperature) is uniformly distributed. This means the refrigerator will slowly warm up until it equals the temperature around it (and fairly quickly spoiling the food).

Thus, the 1st and 2nd laws are satisfied. Energy is not being created or destroyed, and entropy is increasing.


Now let's consider a different system...one that includes the power plant and it's fuel, along with the distribution system to get electricity to your home.

NOW and only now can you consider the power plant that is used to provide power for your refrigerator (you can plug it in!).

The power plant burns the fuel or otherwise consumes energy to convert some of it to electricity (the rest goes up as waste heat). What electricity that does make to your home powers the compressor motor on the refrigerator. The refrigerator now gets cold.

No energy is being created or destroyed. The 1st law is satisfied.
Energy is still being dissipated (at the power plant, and as waste heat, and some that goes into powering the motor). The 2nd law is still satisfied. Entropy is increasing.

These are two different systems, and they cannot be compared as if they were the same system.

Now let's make the system the Earth and it's atmosphere. You cannot consider the Sun, the space surrounding Earth, or anything as far as thermodynamics is concerned with this system. You can only consider the Earth itself including it's atmosphere.

There is no way to make this system warmer or colder. No energy is being created or destroyed. No magick gas has the capability to change this merely by it's presence.

Thus, the 1st law is still satisfied.

Energy will become evenly distributed throughout as well. Entropy will continue to increase until maximum entropy is achieved (energy is uniformly distributed).

Thus, the 2nd law is still satisfied.


Now let's make the system the Earth, the Sun, and the space around Earth.

Now we can consider the Sun as an energy source warming the Earth through radiant heating. We can also consider the surrounding space as something the Earth dissipates energy into through radiant heating.

Note the Sun only warms one side of the Earth at a time, while radiant heating FROM the Earth takes place in all directions, 24 hours a day.

No energy is being created anywhere in the system. The Sun is dissipating it's energy, and some of it reaches Earth, warming it.
No energy is being destroyed anywhere in the system. The Earth radiates energy away into space, cooling it.

The energy absorbed equals the energy radiated. It is not possible to trap light or thermal energy. It is not possible to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas in the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is primarily heated by the surface using conductive heat, but also through radiant heat (infrared light emitted from the surface and it being absorbed by gasses in the atmosphere).

Like the Earth and it's surface, the atmosphere also converts thermal energy to light. This is in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

But that light cannot used to heat a warmer surface. Heat NEVER flows from cold to hot. Instead, it joins light emitted from the surface to radiate away into space, cooling the atmosphere, just like the surface is cooled.

If a photon of lower energy strikes an atom or molecule of greater energy, that photon will not be absorbed. It either passes by, or is refracted, or is reflected away again.

Thus, the 1st law is still satisfied. No energy is being created or destroyed.
The 2nd law is also still satisfied. Energy is still being dissipated. Entropy is still increasing.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is satisfied. Thermal energy is converted to light according to the temperature of the emitting substance (to the fourth power).


The Church of Global Warming insists CO2 can warm the Earth by it's mere presence. That is simply not possible. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

If the system is just the Earth and it's atmosphere, that creates a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order, violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. If the system is Earth-Sun-space, the same thing applies. No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing. The ONLY way any part of the atmosphere is warmed is by energy dissipating from the Sun.

The Church of Global Warming routinely declares that CO2 can somehow trap thermal energy by blocking light from escaping Earth.

Regardless of whether the system is just the Earth and it's atmosphere, or whether the system is the Earth-Sun-space system, there is no way to trap light. Once a photon is absorbed, it is DESTROYED...utterly. The photon is not trapped.

IF the photon was infrared, that absorption will result in conversion to thermal energy, warming whatever absorbed it. HOWEVER...

Any photon created by that substance as a result of the Stefan-Boltzmann law (conversion of thermal energy into light) will cool that substance. That photon is too weak to be absorbed by anything warmer than what emitted that photon in the first place.

In other words, photons are NOT equal! This was noted by Max Planck, and he created the theory relating photons as energy being related to the frequency of that photon (known as Planck's Law). Through quantum mechanics and the application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it can be shown that a photon that is weaker than any substance it strikes MUST have more energy than the substance itself has, in order to be absorbed.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It has no temperature. It is not the thermal energy itself. Like a river, the flow of the river is not the water itself, just it's movement.

You MUST have two regions of different energy that are coupled together to have heat at all. Like the river again, you must have two different levels of energy (in other words height of water) and a path for it to flow (coupling) before you can have a flow in a river.

Heat always flows 'downhill'. In other words, it's flow always tends to distribute thermal energy until it is uniformly distributed (everything is the same temperature). This is true for ANY given system, whether it's the Earth itself, or the Earth-Sun-space system.

There is NEVER any case where energy naturally 'gathers'. Thermal energy is no different. There is NEVER any case where thermal energy gathers together from being uniformly distributed.

NO magick gas can do it. Not CO2, not methane, not water vapor, NOTHING.

Thus, the effect of CO2 (or any of the other so-called 'greenhouse gases') on temperature is absolutely ZERO. NADA. NAN. NULL. 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
08-07-2023 08:53
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22228)
Im a BM wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How do meteors enter a closed system? How do our rockets leave Earth's closed system atmosphere? Then again, meteors burn up, before completely entering. But, meteorites are the few that make it to the surface. Rare, and valuable too... If it's a closed system, how do we get energy from the Sun? Isn't the lack of sunlight, that creates ozone holes?


HarveyH55 is quite correct that the atmosphere is an OPEN system.

WRONG. It is a closed system for the purposes of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
Energy and material come in and out of it.

You cannot consider any energy source or sink from outside your chosen system.
Im a BM wrote:
Including greenhouse gases.

Gas is not energy. There is no such thing as a 'greenhouse gas', except as a religious buzzword.
Im a BM wrote:
Carbon dioxide, for example.

Carbon dioxide is not thermal energy.
Im a BM wrote:
Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere as organic carbon material is burned up in flames or respired by organisms, as the main sources.

Carbon is not organic. Carbon is not thermal energy either.
Im a BM wrote:
Carbon dioxide exits the atmosphere as photosynthesis transforms it to organic carbon, or as the sea absorbs it, as the main sinks.

Carbon is not organic. Carbon does not heat the sea.
Im a BM wrote:
Energy enters the atmosphere as solar radiation, or "radiant energy" (check the basic dictionary).

There is no such thing as 'radiant energy'. Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Energy exits the atmosphere to space, virtually all as infrared radiant energy.

There is no such thing as 'radiant energy'. Buzzword fallacy.

Heat is not energy.

Im a BM wrote:
Energy exits the atmosphere as it warms up the sea or melts ice, as the main sinks on Earth.

The sea is not in space.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.


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
08-07-2023 08:58
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22228)
Im a BM wrote:
Heat exits the atmosphere in two directions.

WRONG! Heat is not contained in anything. It doesn't enter or exit anything.
Im a BM wrote:
Heat comes into the atmosphere from above when that imaginary "radiant energy" arrives from the sun.

Heat cannot energy anything. There is no such thing as 'radiant energy'.
Im a BM wrote:
Heat exits that atmosphere away from the earth as infrared imaginary "radiant energy".

Heat cannot exit anything. There is no such thing as 'radiant energy'.
Im a BM wrote:
Heat exits the atmosphere toward the earth as glaciers are melted by it and seas are warmed by it.

You cannot warm a warmer surface using a colder gas.
Im a BM wrote:
As someone who sells scientifically-based technological devices, there is no need to cite any LESS credible authority for unsupported contrarian assertions.

Omniscience fallacy?

Fallacy fallacy. You are simply trying to discard the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
You also have NO understanding of heat, thermal energy, light, or energy in general.


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
08-07-2023 08:59
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22228)
duncan61 wrote:
I have always felt that direct sunlight melts ice even if it is below freezing. Air temperature does not melt ice below freezing. I read an article and the scientist were allegedly alarmed that it was so much warmer in Antarctica. It was still -13.C in the middle of the day.Thoughts anyone

You cannot melt anything that below it's freezing point.


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
08-07-2023 09:07
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22228)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
Georgia's peach crop failed miserably because it was too warm this winter.


This bowel movement of a statement from the BM just has me fuming. I shouldn't let a little BM BS piss me off, but it does.

Peach trees in Georgia generally begin blooming March 15th. Each bloom could be a peach, but if it freezes, well then no peach soup.

Here's what the low temps were in Fort Valley, a top peach producing area. This was pulled from AccuWeather, and I don't know the location of temp reading, however precision temps are not important here. The dates are important.

March 15th 27F
March 16th 29F
March 20th 28F
March 21st 29F

So even if the peach trees bloomed in the typical time period, they still would have been DESTROYED BY THE COLD.

Unfortunately there are people like BM who have no problem repeating Bowel Movement statements like this without even giving a minor thought to reason.
These are the same evil clowns literally destroying the values my country was founded on. How do we stop them??! I can't take it anymore!!!!


I don't know why you expect BM to understand the seasonal cycle affecting a peach tree.
He just doesn't understand that plants have no temperature sensors. They have no idea what temperature it is. If a freeze occurs during the wrong time, when plants are in a stage that they are susceptible to damage, they won't do well (obviously), but that's about it.

As long as they get water and some nutrients from the soil and red and blue light, they will develop just fine (some plants are better geared for absorbing UVa light).

You will never destroy the Church of Global Warming. This is a fundamentalist style religion. Not even a religiously based civil war will destroy it.

Like any false religion, the best way is education. Show people the science and mathematics the Church of Global Warming routinely ignores. If you don't know it, learn it. It isn't hard.

As is so eloquently spoken, "Knowledge is power.".

Give people the knowledge so they have the power to reject the claptrap coming from the Church of Global Warming (and the Church of Green). The religion will effectively be detoothed.


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 08-07-2023 09:11
RE: six consecutive meaningless rants08-07-2023 21:28
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(955)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
How do meteors enter a closed system?

Meteors are not thermodynamics.
HarveyH55 wrote:
How do our rockets leave Earth's closed system atmosphere?

Rockets are not thermodynamics.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Then again, meteors burn up, before completely entering.

Most do, but not all!
HarveyH55 wrote:
But, meteorites are the few that make it to the surface.

Yup. A rather glorious looking crater made by one can be seen in Arizona.
HarveyH55 wrote:
Rare, and valuable too... If it's a closed system, how do we get energy from the Sun?
Isn't the lack of sunlight, that creates ozone holes?

Okay. It's obvious the concept of thermodynamic systems need to be explained more clearly to you.

The systems in question are systems in thermodynamics. Any system may be used, but the system used must be consistent.

A system is defined by you. You define the boundaries of that system. Every system is closed for that reason...even the entire known Universe.

In any given system, the laws of thermodynamics hold. You cannot consider any energy source or sink outside that system. They are simply ignored.

If you consider the confines of your refrigerator as the system, you cannot cools your refrigerator by itself. To cool that refrigerator you need energy from outside, which cannot be considered for this system. Effectively, then, it is if the refrigerator was unplugged.

Any differences in energy (or temperature) will dissipate until the energy (or temperature) is uniformly distributed. This means the refrigerator will slowly warm up until it equals the temperature around it (and fairly quickly spoiling the food).

Thus, the 1st and 2nd laws are satisfied. Energy is not being created or destroyed, and entropy is increasing.


Now let's consider a different system...one that includes the power plant and it's fuel, along with the distribution system to get electricity to your home.

NOW and only now can you consider the power plant that is used to provide power for your refrigerator (you can plug it in!).

The power plant burns the fuel or otherwise consumes energy to convert some of it to electricity (the rest goes up as waste heat). What electricity that does make to your home powers the compressor motor on the refrigerator. The refrigerator now gets cold.

No energy is being created or destroyed. The 1st law is satisfied.
Energy is still being dissipated (at the power plant, and as waste heat, and some that goes into powering the motor). The 2nd law is still satisfied. Entropy is increasing.

These are two different systems, and they cannot be compared as if they were the same system.

Now let's make the system the Earth and it's atmosphere. You cannot consider the Sun, the space surrounding Earth, or anything as far as thermodynamics is concerned with this system. You can only consider the Earth itself including it's atmosphere.

There is no way to make this system warmer or colder. No energy is being created or destroyed. No magick gas has the capability to change this merely by it's presence.

Thus, the 1st law is still satisfied.

Energy will become evenly distributed throughout as well. Entropy will continue to increase until maximum entropy is achieved (energy is uniformly distributed).

Thus, the 2nd law is still satisfied.


Now let's make the system the Earth, the Sun, and the space around Earth.

Now we can consider the Sun as an energy source warming the Earth through radiant heating. We can also consider the surrounding space as something the Earth dissipates energy into through radiant heating.

Note the Sun only warms one side of the Earth at a time, while radiant heating FROM the Earth takes place in all directions, 24 hours a day.

No energy is being created anywhere in the system. The Sun is dissipating it's energy, and some of it reaches Earth, warming it.
No energy is being destroyed anywhere in the system. The Earth radiates energy away into space, cooling it.

The energy absorbed equals the energy radiated. It is not possible to trap light or thermal energy. It is not possible to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas in the atmosphere.

The atmosphere is primarily heated by the surface using conductive heat, but also through radiant heat (infrared light emitted from the surface and it being absorbed by gasses in the atmosphere).

Like the Earth and it's surface, the atmosphere also converts thermal energy to light. This is in accordance with the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

But that light cannot used to heat a warmer surface. Heat NEVER flows from cold to hot. Instead, it joins light emitted from the surface to radiate away into space, cooling the atmosphere, just like the surface is cooled.

If a photon of lower energy strikes an atom or molecule of greater energy, that photon will not be absorbed. It either passes by, or is refracted, or is reflected away again.

Thus, the 1st law is still satisfied. No energy is being created or destroyed.
The 2nd law is also still satisfied. Energy is still being dissipated. Entropy is still increasing.
The Stefan-Boltzmann law is satisfied. Thermal energy is converted to light according to the temperature of the emitting substance (to the fourth power).


The Church of Global Warming insists CO2 can warm the Earth by it's mere presence. That is simply not possible. You cannot create energy out of nothing.

If the system is just the Earth and it's atmosphere, that creates a perpetual motion machine of the 1st order, violating the 1st law of thermodynamics. If the system is Earth-Sun-space, the same thing applies. No gas or vapor can create energy out of nothing. The ONLY way any part of the atmosphere is warmed is by energy dissipating from the Sun.

The Church of Global Warming routinely declares that CO2 can somehow trap thermal energy by blocking light from escaping Earth.

Regardless of whether the system is just the Earth and it's atmosphere, or whether the system is the Earth-Sun-space system, there is no way to trap light. Once a photon is absorbed, it is DESTROYED...utterly. The photon is not trapped.

IF the photon was infrared, that absorption will result in conversion to thermal energy, warming whatever absorbed it. HOWEVER...

Any photon created by that substance as a result of the Stefan-Boltzmann law (conversion of thermal energy into light) will cool that substance. That photon is too weak to be absorbed by anything warmer than what emitted that photon in the first place.

In other words, photons are NOT equal! This was noted by Max Planck, and he created the theory relating photons as energy being related to the frequency of that photon (known as Planck's Law). Through quantum mechanics and the application of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, it can be shown that a photon that is weaker than any substance it strikes MUST have more energy than the substance itself has, in order to be absorbed.

Heat is the flow of thermal energy. It has no temperature. It is not the thermal energy itself. Like a river, the flow of the river is not the water itself, just it's movement.

You MUST have two regions of different energy that are coupled together to have heat at all. Like the river again, you must have two different levels of energy (in other words height of water) and a path for it to flow (coupling) before you can have a flow in a river.

Heat always flows 'downhill'. In other words, it's flow always tends to distribute thermal energy until it is uniformly distributed (everything is the same temperature). This is true for ANY given system, whether it's the Earth itself, or the Earth-Sun-space system.

There is NEVER any case where energy naturally 'gathers'. Thermal energy is no different. There is NEVER any case where thermal energy gathers together from being uniformly distributed.

NO magick gas can do it. Not CO2, not methane, not water vapor, NOTHING.

Thus, the effect of CO2 (or any of the other so-called 'greenhouse gases') on temperature is absolutely ZERO. NADA. NAN. NULL. NOTHING.









SIX consecutive posts of parrot poop rants.

Throwing around big words like "thermodynamics" without a clue what they mean.

For purposes of thermodynamics, the atmosphere is an OPEN system.
10-07-2023 00:41
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22228)
Im a BM wrote:
SIX consecutive posts of parrot poop rants.

I'll post what I want when I want. You don't get to dictate that, dumbass.
Im a BM wrote:
Throwing around big words like "thermodynamics" without a clue what they mean.

I do know what they mean, the formulas behind them, and the history of how those theories came to be.
Im a BM wrote:
For purposes of thermodynamics, the atmosphere is an OPEN system.

No. The atmosphere is a closed system. The Earth and the atmosphere is a different closed system. The Earth-Sun-space system is a closed system. The entire known Universe is a closed system.

You cannot consider any energy source or sink from outside that chosen system.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.

You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot heat a warmer surface using a colder gas.


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 10-07-2023 00:44
10-07-2023 22:02
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14718)
Im a BM wrote:Throwing around big words like "thermodynamics" without a clue what they mean.

I had forgotten that you think "thermodynamics" is a "big word."

I had forgotten that you don't know what it means.

I remember, however, that you insist that you are a knowledgeable scientist and think you are fooling people.

Im a BM wrote:For purposes of thermodynamics, the atmosphere is an OPEN system.

You don't know what constitutes an "open system" vs. a "closed system."
10-07-2023 22:28
keepit
★★★★★
(3330)
So, ibd, do you think the earth, with its atmosphere included, is open or closed?
No baloney allowed. There's already too much baloney in the world.
RE: atmosphere as open system - part 111-07-2023 08:55
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(955)
keepit wrote:
So, ibd, do you think the earth, with its atmosphere included, is open or closed?
No baloney allowed. There's already too much baloney in the world.



This could be an excellent chance to get the thread back on topic.

Scientists who actually understand thermodynamics know the criteria for open versus closed systems.

For this post, I'll focus on physical gases escaping the atmosphere into space.

But the most important distinction between an open or closed system is whether it can reach equilibrium or simply achieve a steady state.

The Gibbs free energy of a closed system that has reached equilibrium is zero.

That disqualifies the atmosphere right off the bat.

In more general terms, an open system can have matter and energy enter or exit. A closed system cannot. Also an immediate disqualifier for the atmosphere being a "closed system".

Part one, to get back to wildfires soon enough.

Helium and hydrogen gas (H2) are both too light to remain indefinitely in the atmosphere. Hydrogen gas molecules only weigh half as much as helium atoms.

Helium is a common by product of nuclear decay that the earth has continuously emitted to the atmosphere since the planet's formation.

Helium is inert to chemical reaction and does not get sequestered from the atmosphere by any mechanism that brings it into soil or water or anything else at the surface.

Helium simply floats away into space because the earth's atmosphere is a CLOSED system.

Hydrogen is even lighter and also floats away into space. Unlike helium, hydrogen CAN be sequestered into forms that remain at the surface. Indeed, in places on earth where hydrogen is still emitted from underground, bacteria are waiting to capture it and use it as a chemical reductant.

Over the earth's history, the quantity of hydrogen gas emitted to the atmosphere has been greater than today's atmosphere total pool of nitrogen and oxygen. Most of it floated off into space long ago, leaving the earth's crust in an increasingly oxidized state.

A closed system cannot allow matter to exit in the manner that helium and hydrogen exit the atmosphere at the top.

Far more consequential for the atmosphere NOT being a closed system is the interchange of matter at the BOTTOM, at the interface of atmosphere and land or atmosphere and sea.

I'm sure that an elaborate word game will redefine the thermodynamic meaning of "closed system", so I'll get the first one started.

Is the atmosphere an amphibian?

It can exist for extended periods over either land or water, and freely goes back and forth.
11-07-2023 16:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14718)
keepit wrote: So, ibd, do you think the earth, with its atmosphere included, is open or closed?

Tell me, what is your understanding of an "open" system vs. a "closed" system? No baloney allowed. There's already too much baloney in the world.
11-07-2023 16:27
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14718)
Im a BM wrote: Scientists who actually understand thermodynamics know the criteria for open versus closed systems.

Correct. Scientifically illiterate morons do not. I understand the concept of an "open system" vs. a "closed system" and you do not. These concepts are not limited to thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote: For this post, I'll focus on physical gases escaping the atmosphere into space.

Instead of focusing on physical gases, you should be defining your system.

Oh wait, you don't define anything you are discussing. You don't know how to do that. You are content to merely babble and gibber.

Im a BM wrote: But the most important distinction between an open or closed system is whether it can reach equilibrium or simply achieve a steady state.

Nope.

Im a BM wrote:That disqualifies the atmosphere right off the bat.

You haven't defined your system yet. You can't make this statement. If you define your system one way, it will disqualify the system from being the other type right off the bat. You have to define the system first.

You haven't defined it.

Im a BM wrote: In more general terms,

You need to be more specific, not more general. Define your system.

Im a BM wrote: an open system can have matter and energy enter or exit.

Is a car a closed system? Does sunlight enter the car and make the interior hot? Do passengers enter and exit the car?

Say it. Is a car a closed system? [Hint: sure it is]

Im a BM wrote: A closed system cannot.

Sure it can. See above. It depends on how you define your system.

Im a BM wrote: Also an immediate disqualifier for the atmosphere being a "closed system".

Only your definition of the system you are discussing can qualify or disqualify something like a car or an atmosphere in being a open or closed system.
Edited on 11-07-2023 16:28
12-07-2023 20:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22228)
keepit wrote:
So, ibd, do you think the earth, with its atmosphere included, is open or closed?
No baloney allowed. There's already too much baloney in the world.

It is a closed system. You have defined the boundaries of that system and it is closed.


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
12-07-2023 22:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22228)
Im a BM wrote:
keepit wrote:
So, ibd, do you think the earth, with its atmosphere included, is open or closed?
No baloney allowed. There's already too much baloney in the world.



This could be an excellent chance to get the thread back on topic.

Scientists who actually understand thermodynamics know the criteria for open versus closed systems.

Yes they do. Your'e not one of them. You deny all of this.
Im a BM wrote:
For this post, I'll focus on physical gases escaping the atmosphere into space.

They don't. Now you're just denying Newton's law of gravitation.
Im a BM wrote:
But the most important distinction between an open or closed system is whether it can reach equilibrium or simply achieve a steady state.

WRONG. The ONLY distinction of a closed system is that it has a defined boundary. The Earth including it's atmosphere is a closed system. You defined the boundary of this system. THAT makes it closed.
Im a BM wrote:
The Gibbs free energy of a closed system that has reached equilibrium is zero.

Gibbs law has nothing to do with equilibrium or systems. I guess you want to simply deny Gibb's law as well.
Im a BM wrote:
That disqualifies the atmosphere right off the bat.

No, it doesn't. You defined a system. It is closed.
Im a BM wrote:
In more general terms, an open system can have matter and energy enter or exit.

From where? It's an open system. An open system has no boundary.
Im a BM wrote:
A closed system cannot.

It certainly can. You just can't consider them for the purposes of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
Also an immediate disqualifier for the atmosphere being a "closed system".

It is a closed system. You defined it that way.
Im a BM wrote:
Part one, to get back to wildfires soon enough.

Why? Do you want to start one?
Im a BM wrote:
Helium and hydrogen gas (H2) are both too light to remain indefinitely in the atmosphere.

Discard of Newton's law of gravitation.
Im a BM wrote:
Hydrogen gas molecules only weigh half as much as helium atoms.

Irrelevant.
Im a BM wrote:
Helium is a common by product of nuclear decay that the earth has continuously emitted to the atmosphere since the planet's formation.

No. Helium is an element. It is not a product of any type.
Im a BM wrote:
Helium is inert to chemical reaction and does not get sequestered from the atmosphere by any mechanism that brings it into soil or water or anything else at the surface.

There is such thing as 'sequestering' a chemical. Chemicals have no juries.
Im a BM wrote:
Helium simply floats away into space because the earth's atmosphere is a CLOSED system.

Discard of Newton's law of gravitation and the first law of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
Hydrogen is even lighter and also floats away into space.

It can't. Discard of Newton's law of gravitation and the first law of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
Unlike helium, hydrogen CAN be sequestered into forms that remain at the surface.

There is no such thing a 'sequestering' a chemical.
Im a BM wrote:
Indeed, in places on earth where hydrogen is still emitted from underground, bacteria are waiting to capture it and use it as a chemical reductant.

There is no such thing as a 'reductant' in chemistry.
Im a BM wrote:
Over the earth's history, the quantity of hydrogen gas emitted to the atmosphere has been greater than today's atmosphere total pool of nitrogen and oxygen.

You don't know Earth's history.
Im a BM wrote:
Most of it floated off into space long ago,

It can't. Discard of Newton's law of gravitation and the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
leaving the earth's crust in an increasingly oxidized state.

You can't oxidize silica.
Im a BM wrote:
A closed system cannot allow matter to exit in the manner that helium and hydrogen exit the atmosphere at the top.

They can't. Discard of Newton's law of gravitation and the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
Far more consequential for the atmosphere NOT being a closed system is the interchange of matter at the BOTTOM, at the interface of atmosphere and land or atmosphere and sea.

Thermodynamics is not the interchange of matter.
Im a BM wrote:
I'm sure that an elaborate word game will redefine the thermodynamic meaning of "closed system", so I'll get the first one started.

It's YOU playing the word games.
Im a BM wrote:
Is the atmosphere an amphibian?

It can exist for extended periods over either land or water, and freely goes back and forth.

The ocean is not the atmosphere.


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 12-07-2023 22:25
12-07-2023 22:27
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22228)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: Scientists who actually understand thermodynamics know the criteria for open versus closed systems.

Correct. Scientifically illiterate morons do not. I understand the concept of an "open system" vs. a "closed system" and you do not. These concepts are not limited to thermodynamics.

Im a BM wrote: For this post, I'll focus on physical gases escaping the atmosphere into space.

Instead of focusing on physical gases, you should be defining your system.

Oh wait, you don't define anything you are discussing. You don't know how to do that. You are content to merely babble and gibber.

Im a BM wrote: But the most important distinction between an open or closed system is whether it can reach equilibrium or simply achieve a steady state.

Nope.

Im a BM wrote:That disqualifies the atmosphere right off the bat.

You haven't defined your system yet. You can't make this statement. If you define your system one way, it will disqualify the system from being the other type right off the bat. You have to define the system first.

You haven't defined it.

Im a BM wrote: In more general terms,

You need to be more specific, not more general. Define your system.

Im a BM wrote: an open system can have matter and energy enter or exit.

Is a car a closed system? Does sunlight enter the car and make the interior hot? Do passengers enter and exit the car?

Say it. Is a car a closed system? [Hint: sure it is]

Im a BM wrote: A closed system cannot.

Sure it can. See above. It depends on how you define your system.

Im a BM wrote: Also an immediate disqualifier for the atmosphere being a "closed system".

Only your definition of the system you are discussing can qualify or disqualify something like a car or an atmosphere in being a open or closed system.


He did define a closed system...Earth (including its atmosphere).
He's trying to call it an open system!



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
13-07-2023 21:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14718)
Into the Night wrote:He did define a closed system...Earth (including its atmosphere). He's trying to call it an open system!

This is where the rub occurs every time. Some warmizombie defines his system as just one component of his system, e.g. the atmosphere. You can use it as a five second stopwatch ... 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... and then it happens, every time: "and the energy is radiated out to space" ... obligating you to mention to the warmizombie that he just redefined his system by adding "space" which he did not include previously. Then the warmizombie says "I'm only talking about the atmosphere!" ... and then you realize that one truly needs to be a fuqqing idiot in search of a clue to be a warmizombie. At that point it becomes easy to understand how said moron was so easily fooled into becoming a warmizombie.

Enter Robup Northert. He says the stupidest crap and pretends to be butt-hurt when he is not treated like a fuqqing groundbreaking science pioneer ... whose paper on phenols gets mentioned by others trying to get published so they can apply for a reasearch grant. He still tries to mock me over his inability to grasp the concepts of "logarithmic" and "exponential" and his lack of awareness that they share the inverse relationship of pH/acidity. No joke, he doesn't understand that as you move away from 7.0 on the pH scale, the effect is exponential on both acidity and alkalinity. May I remind you that he feigns expertise in chemistry but he doesn't get this. He also demands that I apologize ... for mentioning all this.

.


I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit

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
RE: debunking the glass ceiling hypothesis14-07-2023 08:46
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(955)
Absence of helium to debunk the glass ceiling hypothesis.


Many eccentric interpretations of atmospheric science can be found on this website.

One of them is the theory that the earth's atmosphere is contained within an invisible, airtight glass enclosure.

According to the glass ceiling hypothesis, no gas can escape the atmosphere into outer space.

That hypothesis can be readily debunked by the virtual absence of any helium in the atmosphere.

Particularly during the earliest 1000 million years of the Earth's 4600 million year life, a LOT of helium was being generated.

Today, the supply of remaining radioactive elements in the Earth's crust is severely depleted. Only those with the longest half lives are still generating helium as they decay.

Many different radionuclides emit alpha particles during their decay.

An alpha particle is a helium nucleus without any electrons.

Within a microsecond of colliding with just about anything, the alpha particle yanks two electrons off whatever is closest to become a full fledged helium atom.

Some planets are too small to have a strong enough gravitational field to hold in ANY atmosphere. Even gases much heavier than nitrogen or oxygen cannot be held indefinitely on a small planet.

The Earth has enough gravity to hold down the nitrogen and oxygen.

But not enough gravity to keep the helium or hydrogen.

So, the Earth has been emitting helium to the atmosphere since its inception.

Yet, the concentration of helium in today's atmosphere is effectively zero ppm.

Either there is not a glass ceiling that keeps in the helium.

Or else some word game can explain that alpha particles are not really proto helium atoms, or radioactive decay never really emitted many alpha particles.
RE: The Long, Hot Bummer of 202314-07-2023 08:57
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(955)
Climate change has become much more difficult to deny as it is manifest in extreme weather events.

Record setting heat waves, droughts, floods, "super" storms, and wildfires.

The term "1000 year flood" is now a meaningless buzzword.

Under the climate regime that created the old data sets, it was a reproducibly accurate prediction of how often such an event would occur.

In recent decades, "500 year floods" have hit the same regions more than once on multiple continents.

The record for the hottest day ever recorded is likely to be broken very soon.

The long, hot bummer of a summer in 2023 will certainly make climate change abundantly clear to all but the most gullible, delusional, or poorly informed.
14-07-2023 15:42
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14718)
Im a BM wrote:Climate change has become much more difficult to deny as it is manifest in extreme weather events.

Aaaahhh, the clouds part to reveal the true sky.

The correct answer is no, the Climate Change faith has not become more difficult to reject.

Im a BM wrote:Record setting heat waves, droughts, floods, "super" storms, and wildfires.

Nope. No such weather records being set. You sound like a science wanna-be.

Im a BM wrote:The term "1000 year flood" is now a meaningless buzzword.

It has always been a meaningless term, ever since warmizombies coined it, just like all of the rest of their meaningless buzzwords. Climate Change is one screwed up religion. Hinduism is more straightforward and scientific.

Im a BM wrote: Under the climate regime that created the old data sets, it was a reproducibly accurate prediction of how often such an event would occur.

Gotcha! You are trying to equate weather with Climate, and to equate Climate models with weather forecasts. Your plan is to wait for others to provide falsifying examples so that you can quip "Hey moron, learn the difference between Climate and weather!" ... so you can have a hearty, dishonest laugh while you propagate your Marxist religio-scam.

... and you want me to apologize to you?

Im a BM wrote: In recent decades, "500 year floods" have hit the same regions more than once on multiple continents.

Only mindless warmizombies, such as yourself, point to regions with propensity for flooding, or droughts, or wildfires, or storms, etc.. and claim that those events "otherwise should not happen" ... and your only evidence is your own crafted label of "once-in-a-millenium Florida hurricane."

You totally peg the honesty needle. I just won't say which way.

Im a BM wrote:The record for the hottest day ever recorded is likely to be broken very soon.

So you will claim, as do all warmizombies every other week just to pass time. Of course, not a single one of you will provide your data, because you won't have any, because you will be simply regurgitating what other warmizombies have told you to say. In your case, you will probably tack on something about "phenols" and "sulfate reduction" because you think that praying is appropriate at such times.

Im a BM wrote:The long, hot bummer of a summer in 2023 will certainly make climate change abundantly clear to all but the most gullible, delusional, or poorly informed.

This summer got off to a late start and it still hasn't measured up to some of the bummer summers I have experienced.

Will you be disappointed when this summer fails to break any actual global records? Will you cry like a baby? I think you will.
14-07-2023 19:32
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(5197)
When was the monster hurricane? Can't believe we already had one this year, and I missed it... We did get some rain, and strong winds a couple weeks ago, but thought it was just an afternoon thunderstorm. Must have really lowered the bar, for what a hurricane is these days. Past few years the Cat 5's were more like how tropical storms felt...
14-07-2023 21:28
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14718)
HarveyH55 wrote: When was the monster hurricane?

You asked the wrong question. The question you should have asked is "When was the UNPRECEDENTED hurricane?" Answer: Those happen all the time. In fact, I authorize you, as a Florida resident, to declare any and all Florida hurricanes "UNPRECEDENTED" as you deem appropriate or necessary or capricious or arbitrary. Please use this new authority for good, and not for evil.

HarveyH55 wrote: Can't believe we already had one this year, and I missed it...

UNPRECEDENTED!

HarveyH55 wrote: We did get some rain, and strong winds a couple weeks ago, but thought it was just an afternoon thunderstorm.

That sounds like an UNPRECEDENTED storm. You must be experiencing accelerated Climate Change that is getting harder and harder for you to deny.

HarveyH55 wrote: Must have really lowered the bar, for what a hurricane is these days.

Now we have UNPRECEDENTED low bars for hurricanes. What's next? It looks like you're about to have the longest, hottest summer ever recorded.

HarveyH55 wrote: Past few years the Cat 5's were more like how tropical storms felt...

UNPRECEDENTED! Now Climate Change is giving us stealth hurricanes. Pretty soon, hurricanes will be so stealthy that they can cause many $billions in damage without leaving a trace.
15-07-2023 19:38
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22228)
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote:He did define a closed system...Earth (including its atmosphere). He's trying to call it an open system!

This is where the rub occurs every time. Some warmizombie defines his system as just one component of his system, e.g. the atmosphere. You can use it as a five second stopwatch ... 5 ... 4 ... 3 ... 2 ... 1 ... and then it happens, every time: "and the energy is radiated out to space" ... obligating you to mention to the warmizombie that he just redefined his system by adding "space" which he did not include previously. Then the warmizombie says "I'm only talking about the atmosphere!" ... and then you realize that one truly needs to be a fuqqing idiot in search of a clue to be a warmizombie. At that point it becomes easy to understand how said moron was so easily fooled into becoming a warmizombie.

You didn't even need to count down! He already did it! Like so many others in the Church of Global Warming, he is trying to equivocate two different systems as if they were the same system.

He did define a closed system, and then try to argue it's not a closed system (even though it is). THEN he defined the Sun-Earth-space system and tried to compare the two system as if they were the same system.

You are also correct. He has already defined the atmosphere as it's own system and then tried to equivocate the Earth as a whole as the same system.

These are false equivalence fallacies, and is a common way for the Church of Global Warming to get around the laws of thermodynamics that they continue to discard.
IBdaMann wrote:
Enter Robup Northert. He says the stupidest crap and pretends to be butt-hurt when he is not treated like a fuqqing groundbreaking science pioneer ... whose paper on phenols gets mentioned by others trying to get published so they can apply for a reasearch grant. He still tries to mock me over his inability to grasp the concepts of "logarithmic" and "exponential" and his lack of awareness that they share the inverse relationship of pH/acidity. No joke, he doesn't understand that as you move away from 7.0 on the pH scale, the effect is exponential on both acidity and alkalinity. May I remind you that he feigns expertise in chemistry but he doesn't get this. He also demands that I apologize ... for mentioning all this.
.

I am not disputing this at all. This is exactly what he does. He's a buzzword fanatic, thinking that spewing 'scientific sounding' buzzwords will show how smart he is. He understands none of it.

Yeah. I've been watching him show his lack of knowledge of pH and acid-base chemistry in general. He also has no apparent concept of the difference between atoms and compounds, nor even how to account for various forms of bonding and why or whether they occur.

All this to ignore the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


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 15-07-2023 19:39
15-07-2023 20:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22228)
Im a BM wrote:
Absence of helium to debunk the glass ceiling hypothesis.

What absence of helium??
Im a BM wrote:
Many eccentric interpretations of atmospheric science can be found on this website.

There are no 'interpretations' in theories of science. They are what they are. You don't need to 'interpret' them. Ignoring theories of science (as you do) is simply that...ignoring theories of science.
Im a BM wrote:
One of them is the theory that the earth's atmosphere is contained within an invisible, airtight glass enclosure.

According to the glass ceiling hypothesis, no gas can escape the atmosphere into outer space.

That hypothesis can be readily debunked by the virtual absence of any helium in the atmosphere.

Helium is in the atmosphere.
Im a BM wrote:
Particularly during the earliest 1000 million years of the Earth's 4600 million year life, a LOT of helium was being generated.

How do you know? Were you there the whole time measuring this?
Im a BM wrote:
Today, the supply of remaining radioactive elements in the Earth's crust is severely depleted.

What do you mean by 'depleted'? There seems to be all the U238 isotope we need, for example.
Im a BM wrote:
Only those with the longest half lives are still generating helium as they decay.

Only heavy particles with long half lives even emit alpha particles. There a lot of isotopes that do not emit alpha particles as they decay.
Im a BM wrote:
Many different radionuclides emit alpha particles during their decay.

A few. Heavier isotopes. They are the only ones capable of emitting an alpha particle.
Im a BM wrote:
An alpha particle is a helium nucleus without any electrons.

An isotope of it...yes. Helium-4 is a stable isotope.
Im a BM wrote:
Within a microsecond of colliding with just about anything, the alpha particle yanks two electrons off whatever is closest to become a full fledged helium atom.

It doesn't need electrons to become a full fledged helium atom. You are also apparently unaware that free electrons exist in most any substance.
Im a BM wrote:
Some planets are too small to have a strong enough gravitational field to hold in ANY atmosphere. Even gases much heavier than nitrogen or oxygen cannot be held indefinitely on a small planet.

ALL planets have an atmosphere.
ALL moons have an atmosphere.
That atmosphere exists as long as the planet or moon exists.
Im a BM wrote:
The Earth has enough gravity to hold down the nitrogen and oxygen.

But not enough gravity to keep the helium or hydrogen.

So now you decide to ignore Newton's law of gravitation.
Im a BM wrote:
So, the Earth has been emitting helium to the atmosphere since its inception.

The atmosphere is not space.
Im a BM wrote:
Yet, the concentration of helium in today's atmosphere is effectively zero ppm.

WRONG. Helium is in the atmosphere.
Im a BM wrote:
Either there is not a glass ceiling that keeps in the helium.

Or else some word game can explain that alpha particles are not really proto helium atoms, or radioactive decay never really emitted many alpha particles.

You want to play word games again? You LOVE those games! You like to start them all the time!

Obviously, you are just as clueless about nuclear reactions as you are about chemical reactions.


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
15-07-2023 20:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22228)
Im a BM wrote:
Climate change has become much more difficult to deny as it is manifest in extreme weather events.

Climate cannot change. Define 'extreme weather event'.
Im a BM wrote:
Record setting heat waves, droughts, floods, "super" storms, and wildfires.

No record. You can't have a record setting anything without a record to begin with.
Im a BM wrote:
The term "1000 year flood" is now a meaningless buzzword.

It always was.
Im a BM wrote:
Under the climate regime that created the old data sets, it was a reproducibly accurate prediction of how often such an event would occur.

Climate is not a regime. There is no data set.
Im a BM wrote:
In recent decades, "500 year floods" have hit the same regions more than once on multiple continents.

Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
The record for the hottest day ever recorded is likely to be broken very soon.

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Climate has no temperature.
Im a BM wrote:
The long, hot bummer of a summer in 2023 will certainly make climate change abundantly clear to all but the most gullible, delusional, or poorly informed.

Climate cannot change.
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. There is no data.
No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth.
You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.


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
27-06-2024 19:22
sealover
★★★★☆
(1707)
From: The Washington Post. June 24, 2024.

Fueled by climate change, extreme wildfires have doubled in 20 years. By Sarah Raza.


I'm not sure that climate change actually "fuels" the wildfires, but...

"A new study analyzing satellite data focused on extreme wildfires, which have severe consequences for humans and the planet."

The frequency and magnitude of extreme wildfires around the globe has doubled due to climate change, according to a new study published in "Nature Ecology and Evolution"

The Washington Post article provides the reference and a pretty good summary.

"Climate change is making fire weather more extreme and more frequent in a lot of the world."

They didn't need to tell ME that!

I've lived in northern California for most of my 65 years, and the wildfires keep getting worse.

Maybe they hold back global warming a little, with the dimming from wildfire smoke and aerosols blocking some sunlight.

But they also release a whole lot of carbon dioxide for longer term global warming, are a respiratory health hazard, harm wildlife, and leave soils exposed to erosion and mudslides.

The doubling in the rate of extreme wildfire frequency is a consequence of global warming that hits home and makes reality undeniable for many people.

--------------------------------------------

"Unprecedented" Wildfires TODAY. Thanks to Global Warming.

Right now, in Nebraska, Arizona, and Florida, wildfires that news reports describe as "unprecedented" are raging.

What makes them "unprecedented"?

Well, in Nebraska they didn't even contemplate needing firefighters to be available. They had a few volunteers, but had to call the National Guard.

Nebraska never created a professional firefighting infrastructure to fight such fires because they have never seen them before.

DON'T LOOK UP!

This is such an important part of the vicious feedbacks to global warming, adding tons and tons of additional greenhouse gas to the atmosphere, that it deserves a thread all of its own.
28-06-2024 22:42
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22228)
sealover wrote:
From: The Washington Post. June 24, 2024.

I call it the Washington Compost. That's about all this rag is good for.
Are you going to quote the story they printed about how global cooling is causing global warming?
Yes...they DID seriously print that!
[b]sealover wrote:
Fueled by climate change, extreme wildfires have doubled in 20 years. By Sarah Raza.
[/b]

I'm not sure that climate change actually "fuels" the wildfires, but...

Climate cannot change. Define 'extreme wildfire'.
sealover wrote:
"A new study analyzing satellite data focused on extreme wildfires, which have severe consequences for humans and the planet."

There is no data. It is not possible to have data based on a buzzword.
sealover wrote:
The frequency and magnitude of extreme wildfires around the globe has doubled due to climate change, according to a new study published in "Nature Ecology and Evolution"

Climate cannot change. I don't care how many religious blogs and scripture you quote.
sealover wrote:
The Washington Post article provides the reference and a pretty good summary.

No, they contradicted themselves!
sealover wrote:
"Climate change is making fire weather more extreme and more frequent in a lot of the world."

Climate cannot change. Fire is not weather.
sealover wrote:
They didn't need to tell ME that!

So you are saying you have memorized all of this scripture.
sealover wrote:
I've lived in northern California for most of my 65 years, and the wildfires keep getting worse.

Maybe you should do something about your arsonists.
sealover wrote:
Maybe they hold back global warming a little, with the dimming from wildfire smoke and aerosols blocking some sunlight.

What 'global warming'? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor or particulate has the capability to warm or cool the Earth. You cannot create or destroy energy. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics and statistical mathematics.
sealover wrote:
But they also release a whole lot of carbon dioxide for longer term global warming, are a respiratory health hazard, harm wildlife, and leave soils exposed to erosion and mudslides.
Carbon dioxide has no capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
[quote]sealover wrote:
The doubling in the rate of extreme wildfire frequency is a consequence of global warming that hits home and makes reality undeniable for many people.

Arsonists are not global warming.
sealover wrote:
--------------------------------------------

"Unprecedented" Wildfires TODAY. Thanks to Global Warming.

Arsonists are not global warming.
sealover wrote:
Right now, in Nebraska, Arizona, and Florida, wildfires that news reports describe as "unprecedented" are raging.

Meh.
sealover wrote:
What makes them "unprecedented"?

The idiot writing the article.
sealover wrote:
Well, in Nebraska they didn't even contemplate needing firefighters to be available. They had a few volunteers, but had to call the National Guard.

Meh.
sealover wrote:
Nebraska never created a professional firefighting infrastructure to fight such fires because they have never seen them before.

Nah. They usually just let 'em burn. They only do something about them when they threaten homes. Apparently you are unaware that grass wildfires occur every year and have for eons.
sealover wrote:
DON'T LOOK UP!

This is such an important part of the vicious feedbacks to global warming,

No 'feedback'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
sealover wrote:
adding tons and tons of additional greenhouse gas to the atmosphere,

No such thing. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth.


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
05-07-2024 18:25
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(955)
You are now just three months away from the NINE YEAR ANNIVERSARY of the day you brought your omniscience to this website.

There were a LOT more active members back then, weren't there?

But then you came with your brilliant insights (e.g. "You are a nothing.") and your ability to make definitive pronouncements about "science".

New members finally were able to get the kind of discussion everyone wants.

And in just 18 more posts, it will be 22,222.

Averaging seven posts a day, you will reach the 22,222 post milestone months before your ninth anniversary as a troll joining the website.

You are not a scientist.

I suspect that you haven't actually passed a science class since high school.

Even then, I doubt that you ever got anything better than a "C".

Your scientific ignorance is self evident.

Your arrogance as an "expert in science" is laughable, given your complete lack of credentials or credibility.

Coming up on 22,222 specimens of parrot poop!



Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
From: The Washington Post. June 24, 2024.

I call it the Washington Compost. That's about all this rag is good for.
Are you going to quote the story they printed about how global cooling is causing global warming?
Yes...they DID seriously print that!
[b]sealover wrote:
Fueled by climate change, extreme wildfires have doubled in 20 years. By Sarah Raza.
[/b]

I'm not sure that climate change actually "fuels" the wildfires, but...

Climate cannot change. Define 'extreme wildfire'.
sealover wrote:
"A new study analyzing satellite data focused on extreme wildfires, which have severe consequences for humans and the planet."

There is no data. It is not possible to have data based on a buzzword.
sealover wrote:
The frequency and magnitude of extreme wildfires around the globe has doubled due to climate change, according to a new study published in "Nature Ecology and Evolution"

Climate cannot change. I don't care how many religious blogs and scripture you quote.
sealover wrote:
The Washington Post article provides the reference and a pretty good summary.

No, they contradicted themselves!
sealover wrote:
"Climate change is making fire weather more extreme and more frequent in a lot of the world."

Climate cannot change. Fire is not weather.
sealover wrote:
They didn't need to tell ME that!

So you are saying you have memorized all of this scripture.
sealover wrote:
I've lived in northern California for most of my 65 years, and the wildfires keep getting worse.

Maybe you should do something about your arsonists.
sealover wrote:
Maybe they hold back global warming a little, with the dimming from wildfire smoke and aerosols blocking some sunlight.

What 'global warming'? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor or particulate has the capability to warm or cool the Earth. You cannot create or destroy energy. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics and statistical mathematics.
sealover wrote:
But they also release a whole lot of carbon dioxide for longer term global warming, are a respiratory health hazard, harm wildlife, and leave soils exposed to erosion and mudslides.
Carbon dioxide has no capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
[quote]sealover wrote:
The doubling in the rate of extreme wildfire frequency is a consequence of global warming that hits home and makes reality undeniable for many people.

Arsonists are not global warming.
sealover wrote:
--------------------------------------------

"Unprecedented" Wildfires TODAY. Thanks to Global Warming.

Arsonists are not global warming.
sealover wrote:
Right now, in Nebraska, Arizona, and Florida, wildfires that news reports describe as "unprecedented" are raging.

Meh.
sealover wrote:
What makes them "unprecedented"?

The idiot writing the article.
sealover wrote:
Well, in Nebraska they didn't even contemplate needing firefighters to be available. They had a few volunteers, but had to call the National Guard.

Meh.
sealover wrote:
Nebraska never created a professional firefighting infrastructure to fight such fires because they have never seen them before.

Nah. They usually just let 'em burn. They only do something about them when they threaten homes. Apparently you are unaware that grass wildfires occur every year and have for eons.
sealover wrote:
DON'T LOOK UP!

This is such an important part of the vicious feedbacks to global warming,

No 'feedback'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
sealover wrote:
adding tons and tons of additional greenhouse gas to the atmosphere,

No such thing. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth.
05-07-2024 18:25
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(955)
You are now just three months away from the NINE YEAR ANNIVERSARY of the day you brought your omniscience to this website.

There were a LOT more active members back then, weren't there?

But then you came with your brilliant insights (e.g. "You are a nothing.") and your ability to make definitive pronouncements about "science".

New members finally were able to get the kind of discussion everyone wants.

And in just 18 more posts, it will be 22,222.

Averaging seven posts a day, you will reach the 22,222 post milestone months before your ninth anniversary as a troll joining the website.

You are not a scientist.

I suspect that you haven't actually passed a science class since high school.

Even then, I doubt that you ever got anything better than a "C".

Your scientific ignorance is self evident.

Your arrogance as an "expert in science" is laughable, given your complete lack of credentials or credibility.

Coming up on 22,222 specimens of parrot poop!



Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
From: The Washington Post. June 24, 2024.

I call it the Washington Compost. That's about all this rag is good for.
Are you going to quote the story they printed about how global cooling is causing global warming?
Yes...they DID seriously print that!
[b]sealover wrote:
Fueled by climate change, extreme wildfires have doubled in 20 years. By Sarah Raza.
[/b]

I'm not sure that climate change actually "fuels" the wildfires, but...

Climate cannot change. Define 'extreme wildfire'.
sealover wrote:
"A new study analyzing satellite data focused on extreme wildfires, which have severe consequences for humans and the planet."

There is no data. It is not possible to have data based on a buzzword.
sealover wrote:
The frequency and magnitude of extreme wildfires around the globe has doubled due to climate change, according to a new study published in "Nature Ecology and Evolution"

Climate cannot change. I don't care how many religious blogs and scripture you quote.
sealover wrote:
The Washington Post article provides the reference and a pretty good summary.

No, they contradicted themselves!
sealover wrote:
"Climate change is making fire weather more extreme and more frequent in a lot of the world."

Climate cannot change. Fire is not weather.
sealover wrote:
They didn't need to tell ME that!

So you are saying you have memorized all of this scripture.
sealover wrote:
I've lived in northern California for most of my 65 years, and the wildfires keep getting worse.

Maybe you should do something about your arsonists.
sealover wrote:
Maybe they hold back global warming a little, with the dimming from wildfire smoke and aerosols blocking some sunlight.

What 'global warming'? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. No gas or vapor or particulate has the capability to warm or cool the Earth. You cannot create or destroy energy. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics and statistical mathematics.
sealover wrote:
But they also release a whole lot of carbon dioxide for longer term global warming, are a respiratory health hazard, harm wildlife, and leave soils exposed to erosion and mudslides.
Carbon dioxide has no capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.
[quote]sealover wrote:
The doubling in the rate of extreme wildfire frequency is a consequence of global warming that hits home and makes reality undeniable for many people.

Arsonists are not global warming.
sealover wrote:
--------------------------------------------

"Unprecedented" Wildfires TODAY. Thanks to Global Warming.

Arsonists are not global warming.
sealover wrote:
Right now, in Nebraska, Arizona, and Florida, wildfires that news reports describe as "unprecedented" are raging.

Meh.
sealover wrote:
What makes them "unprecedented"?

The idiot writing the article.
sealover wrote:
Well, in Nebraska they didn't even contemplate needing firefighters to be available. They had a few volunteers, but had to call the National Guard.

Meh.
sealover wrote:
Nebraska never created a professional firefighting infrastructure to fight such fires because they have never seen them before.

Nah. They usually just let 'em burn. They only do something about them when they threaten homes. Apparently you are unaware that grass wildfires occur every year and have for eons.
sealover wrote:
DON'T LOOK UP!

This is such an important part of the vicious feedbacks to global warming,

No 'feedback'. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics.
sealover wrote:
adding tons and tons of additional greenhouse gas to the atmosphere,

No such thing. No gas or vapor can warm the Earth.
06-07-2024 02:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22228)
Im a BM wrote:
You are now just three months away from the NINE YEAR ANNIVERSARY of the day you brought your omniscience to this website.

I don't make omniscience fallacies. YOU do, though! So does your buddy, Keepit.
Im a BM wrote:
There were a LOT more active members back then, weren't there?

The Church of Global Warming just isn't as popular anymore.
Im a BM wrote:
But then you came with your brilliant insights (e.g. "You are a nothing.") and your ability to make definitive pronouncements about "science".

Since you don't consider the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law 'science', that is YOUR problem.
Im a BM wrote:
New members finally were able to get the kind of discussion everyone wants.

And in just 18 more posts, it will be 22,222.

Averaging seven posts a day, you will reach the 22,222 post milestone months before your ninth anniversary as a troll joining the website.

Number of posts is not the definition of a troll. Redefinition fallacy. You are obviously jealous, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
You are not a scientist.

I am a scientist. I am also an engineer. I am also a chemist, specializing in industrial processes and explosives.
Im a BM wrote:
I suspect that you haven't actually passed a science class since high school.

Science is not a class.
Im a BM wrote:
Even then, I doubt that you ever got anything better than a "C".

Science is not a grade.
Im a BM wrote:
Your scientific ignorance is self evident.

You cannot blame YOUR problem on me or anybody else, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
Your arrogance as an "expert in science" is laughable, given your complete lack of credentials or credibility.

'Expert' worship. That won't work, Robert. Science is not a credential or credibility. It is not a degree, license, title, or any other form of sanctification. YOU don't get to define 'credibility' for everyone. Omniscience 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
08-07-2024 17:35
Im a BM
★★★☆☆
(955)
"I am a scientist. I am also an engineer. I am also a chemist, specializing in industrial processes and explosives." - Into the Night


And I heard that he is also an aircraft mechanic in his spare time.

Contrast that with some other revealing quotes from super scientist.

"You are not a scientist, a chemist or an 'expert' of any kind." - ITN

"You obviously do NOT have a degree in chemistry or any other field of science."

"You have never set foot in a laboratory in your life."

"You don't even know what science is."

"The idiots who cite your work aren't really scientists."

And my favorite: "You are a liar" - Into the Night

Being an aircraft mechanic, chemist, engineer, industrial process and explosive expert isn't easy. It isn't even plausible.

But it does not make Into the Night a "liar".

One must be conscious of what is true or not in order to lie.

Giving voice to delusions is not the same as lying.

But I'll admit it is kind of scary that "explosives" are included in the resume.

It takes very little actual understanding of science to make a bomb.

In fact, it takes none at all.



Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
You are now just three months away from the NINE YEAR ANNIVERSARY of the day you brought your omniscience to this website.

I don't make omniscience fallacies. YOU do, though! So does your buddy, Keepit.
Im a BM wrote:
There were a LOT more active members back then, weren't there?

The Church of Global Warming just isn't as popular anymore.
Im a BM wrote:
But then you came with your brilliant insights (e.g. "You are a nothing.") and your ability to make definitive pronouncements about "science".

Since you don't consider the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics or the Stefan-Boltzmann law 'science', that is YOUR problem.
Im a BM wrote:
New members finally were able to get the kind of discussion everyone wants.

And in just 18 more posts, it will be 22,222.

Averaging seven posts a day, you will reach the 22,222 post milestone months before your ninth anniversary as a troll joining the website.

Number of posts is not the definition of a troll. Redefinition fallacy. You are obviously jealous, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
You are not a scientist.

I am a scientist. I am also an engineer. I am also a chemist, specializing in industrial processes and explosives.
Im a BM wrote:
I suspect that you haven't actually passed a science class since high school.

Science is not a class.
Im a BM wrote:
Even then, I doubt that you ever got anything better than a "C".

Science is not a grade.
Im a BM wrote:
Your scientific ignorance is self evident.

You cannot blame YOUR problem on me or anybody else, Robert.
Im a BM wrote:
Your arrogance as an "expert in science" is laughable, given your complete lack of credentials or credibility.

'Expert' worship. That won't work, Robert. Science is not a credential or credibility. It is not a degree, license, title, or any other form of sanctification. YOU don't get to define 'credibility' for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.
08-07-2024 18:52
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14718)
Im a BM wrote: Being an aircraft mechanic, chemist, engineer, industrial process and explosive expert isn't easy. It isn't even plausible.

Yep, it's plausible. I happen to know a few. You forgot to include "pilot," by the way.

Go to your nearest Air Force or Naval Aviation base and talk to the aircraft mechanics. Many are also private pilots, and many are studying engineering at night school to get their degree and to make a killing in the private sector.
08-07-2024 19:01
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22228)
Im a BM wrote:
"I am a scientist. I am also an engineer. I am also a chemist, specializing in industrial processes and explosives." - Into the Night


And I heard that he is also an aircraft mechanic in his spare time.

I am. I also design, build, fly, break, as well as repair aircraft.

I am also a radio engineer, and hold a commercial license as well as an amateur radio license. That's why I can work on aircraft radios and avionics.

Im a BM wrote:
Contrast that with some other revealing quotes from super scientist.

"You are not a scientist, a chemist or an 'expert' of any kind." - ITN

You're not. You have already shown this. Your own fault.
Im a BM wrote:
"You obviously do NOT have a degree in chemistry or any other field of science."

You don't. You have already shown this. Your own fault.
Im a BM wrote:
"You have never set foot in a laboratory in your life."

You haven't. You have already shown this. Your own fault.
Im a BM wrote:
"You don't even know what science is."

You don't. You have tried to label science as many things it is not.
Im a BM wrote:
"The idiots who cite your work aren't really scientists."

They aren't. They are priests.
Im a BM wrote:
And my favorite: "You are a liar" - Into the Night

You are a liar, trying to pass your religion off as 'science', and trying to pass it off using numerous meaningless buzzwords and spamming.
Im a BM wrote:
Being an aircraft mechanic, chemist, engineer, industrial process and explosive expert isn't easy. It isn't even plausible.

It is quite plausible.
Im a BM wrote:
But it does not make Into the Night a "liar".

One must be conscious of what is true or not in order to lie.

Giving voice to delusions is not the same as lying.

No delusions. I hold all the licenses I have stated.
Im a BM wrote:
But I'll admit it is kind of scary that "explosives" are included in the resume.

Why?
Im a BM wrote:
It takes very little actual understanding of science to make a bomb.

I'll remember that when you hurt or kill yourself making one.
Im a BM wrote:
In fact, it takes none at all.

I'll remember that when you hurt or kill yourself making one.


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
08-07-2024 19:05
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(22228)
IBdaMann wrote:
Im a BM wrote: Being an aircraft mechanic, chemist, engineer, industrial process and explosive expert isn't easy. It isn't even plausible.

Yep, it's plausible. I happen to know a few. You forgot to include "pilot," by the way.

Go to your nearest Air Force or Naval Aviation base and talk to the aircraft mechanics. Many are also private pilots, and many are studying engineering at night school to get their degree and to make a killing in the private sector.


Do you think he'll get past the base guards?

However, he doesn't have to. He can talk to other aircraft mechanics who do the same thing.

Remember he thinks aircraft mechanics have no knowledge of physics...that they are stupid grunts or something. But it's the aircraft mechanic that keeps those jets flying. Many are also pilots, so they can test their work, or move aircraft around as needed.


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
08-07-2024 21:59
GasGuzzler
★★★★★
(3011)
The key point BM (Bitch Mode?) is missing would be that ITN has no government grant money rolling in. His work, his paycheck, his family and his life depends on him being right. Whether it's explosives or aircraft, if he's wrong he's dead.

Into the Night is still with us last I checked.

PS. He's also a plumber, an electrician, a carpenter and a husband. This is what I call a full and meaningful life. Well done ITN.
09-07-2024 01:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(14718)
GasGuzzler wrote:
The key point BM (Bitch Mode?) is missing would be that ITN has no government grant money rolling in. His work, his paycheck, his family and his life depends on him being right. Whether it's explosives or aircraft, if he's wrong he's dead.

Into the Night is still with us last I checked.

PS. He's also a plumber, an electrician, a carpenter and a husband. This is what I call a full and meaningful life. Well done ITN.

Yep, well done Into the Night. Of course this sort of precludes you from holding the top slot as a regular, ordinary, onery troll. That prize goes to me.
Page 4 of 5<<<2345>





Join the debate "Unprecedented" Wildfires TODAY. Thanks to Global Warming.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
wildfires3513-05-2024 21:25
Climate change keeps making wildfires and smoke worse503-07-2023 03:40
B-17 and Bell King Cobra collided at Dallas air show today. Story at 11013-11-2022 01:38
And In Today's News1929-06-2021 03:20
Polar vortex pattern suggest we could have a repeat of the 2010 wildfires and drought in Russia! VIDEO!!!1414-05-2021 23:13
▲ 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