Remember me
▼ Content

"Unprecedented" Wildfires TODAY. Thanks to Global Warming.



Page 2 of 3<123>
03-05-2022 21:02
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2431)
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Another victory for truth and reality.

Thank you, Spongy Iris.

Ridiculous word games are exactly they play.

Easily debunked by anyone with the intellectual honesty to seek credible sources.

Thank you, also, for being a very decent human being in the "debate".

It is genuinely appreciated.

Assumption of victory fallacy. False authority fallacy. Semantics fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.


Into the Night is being way too humble in his response here.

He, IBdaMann, and gfm7175 don't hide behind buzzwords. They stand with the laws of science and they have full understanding of the math equations that support them. It is because of this knowledge they are able to call your buzzwords even before you pluck them from your gamma ass. It is YOU hiding behind word games.

You complain of no "debate", yet it is YOU that won't engage in any thermodynamic discussion. You should. After all, a warming Earth is the entire foundation of your fear mongering. I think you owe it to this board a full and comprehensive explanation of the unfalsified science that predicts a rising temp without additional energy.

I'm wasting my time. Yes? You have no understanding that YOU can explain. How do I know? Thanks for asking.
Anyone waving around "credible sources" is letting others do their thinking for them.

Spongy and squeal over, the gods of Google


I just make shit up- sealover
03-05-2022 21:08
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1034)
Deleted post image upload failed



Edited on 03-05-2022 21:08
04-05-2022 02:04
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Denial of the Chapman cycle. False authority fallacy.


The fact reported by NASA is correct. Chapman is wrong.

NASA does not falsify Chapman's theory of science. Science is not a government agency. Stop worshiping NASA. It is not science and never was.
Spongy Iris wrote:
You can find ozone all throughout the atmosphere, probably up to about 30 miles altitude.

Paradox. Irrational. You can't argue both sides of a paradox.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Based on the atmospheric temperature profile, it looks like the most concentrated part of the ozone layer that is only 3 millimeters thick is about 30 miles altitude.

The vertical temperature profile show the opposite, actually.
Spongy Iris wrote:
At 30 miles altitude, oxygen, O2, becomes ionized into ozone, O3.

4 miles. Ozone is not an ion.
Spongy Iris wrote:
This is done through an electrical process.

No electricity is required to make ozone. The ozone layer does not involved electricity at all.
Spongy Iris wrote:
There are tiny copper dipole needles in orbit all around Earth at about 30 miles altitude.

None. Copper is heavier than air, and a 30 mile orbit is unstable.
Spongy Iris wrote:
These needles are for an electrical process which can ionize oxygen into ozone.

Ozone is not produced 30 miles up.
Spongy Iris wrote:
These needles can also carry radio signals.

No needles.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Copper needles would also further block harmful ultraviolet light from reaching Earth:

No needles.
Spongy Iris wrote:
this type of UV is called UVC light.

Nope. That is blocked by destroying ozone.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Ozone is an industrial strength cleaner which would prevent germs and mold from rising up to Heaven.

It is not a cleaner, but it will destroy germs and mold.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The heat generated by ionizing oxygen into ozone would also dissipate most of the clouds rising up to Heaven.

Heat is not generated by creating ozone from oxygen. Indeed, the reaction is endothermic. It cools the air around it.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I believe the phenomenon of Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW), which happens over the North Pole every winter,

No such thing.
Spongy Iris wrote:
proves it false that ozone is generated by UV light.

Denial of the Chapman cycle. Exposing oxygen to UVb light creates ozone.
Spongy Iris wrote:
When the stratosphere suddenly warms every winter over the North Pole

It doesn't.
Spongy Iris wrote:
there is no direct UV light hitting the North Pole.

There is NO light hitting the North Pole in winter.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But when SSW happens, at the same time, there is also a sudden increase of ozone over the North Pole.

No such thing. You won't see ozone being created at the North pole until the Sun rises above the horizon.
Spongy Iris wrote:
SSW is also the cause of the Polar Vortex phenomenon, which pushes cold wet weather further south in the Winter months.

Buzzword fallacies.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It looks to me like the frequency of the copper dipole needles in orbit over the North Pole gets turned up every winter.

There is no frequency. There are no needles.
Spongy Iris wrote:
If you do an online search of "Project West Ford" you will find that in the 1960s, the US Military claims to have put 480,000,000 copper dipole needles into orbit, in an attempt to create an artificial ionosphere. This is what I call a false cover story. Obviously there is no publicly understood technology that can accomplish this.

The project you refer to placed some copper needles in an orbit near the equator about 2200 miles in altitude (not 30) during the 60's (same period as the Moon shot program). The needles clumped together due to their own gravity. Almost all of them have fallen out of orbit. As of last year, some 30 odd clumps of these still orbit near the equator, and one falls out of orbit every so often.

They do not replace the ionosphere. They do not carry radio signals. They do not create ozone. They do not block UV light.
Spongy Iris wrote:
It seems to me, the greatest cause for "holes in the ozone layer" are rockets and airplanes which ascend to altitudes greater than 30 miles.

Passenger aircraft generally fly between 4 and 7 miles up. They can't fly 30 miles up.
The highest flying jet (the SR-71) has a maximum altitude of about 17 miles. It is nowhere near 30 miles up.
Spongy Iris wrote:
I am calling for these flights to be discontinued, if they haven't been already.

There are no needles. What remains of the project are small clumps that are falling out of orbit over time.


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
04-05-2022 02:25
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
GasGuzzler wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
sealover wrote:
Another victory for truth and reality.

Thank you, Spongy Iris.

Ridiculous word games are exactly they play.

Easily debunked by anyone with the intellectual honesty to seek credible sources.

Thank you, also, for being a very decent human being in the "debate".

It is genuinely appreciated.

Assumption of victory fallacy. False authority fallacy. Semantics fallacy. Buzzword fallacy.


Into the Night is being way too humble in his response here.

He, IBdaMann, and gfm7175 don't hide behind buzzwords. They stand with the laws of science and they have full understanding of the math equations that support them.

*humble bow*
GasGuzzler wrote:
It is because of this knowledge they are able to call your buzzwords even before you pluck them from your gamma ass. It is YOU hiding behind word games.

Quite right. Blaming someone else for his problems is just projecting...an inversion fallacy.
GasGuzzler wrote:
You complain of no "debate", yet it is YOU that won't engage in any thermodynamic discussion. You should. After all, a warming Earth is the entire foundation of your fear mongering. I think you owe it to this board a full and comprehensive explanation of the unfalsified science that predicts a rising temp without additional energy.

Quite right. He does. So far, however, he just spews Church of Global Warming faith and denies the laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Like so many before him, he either ignores anyone bringing these little problems up (such as in describing them as 'word games'), or try to explain it by changing the theories themselves (and the 'law' or math equation associated with it).
GasGuzzler wrote:
I'm wasting my time. Yes? You have no understanding that YOU can explain. How do I know? Thanks for asking.
Anyone waving around "credible sources" is letting others do their thinking for them.

Again...well put. This often results in a false authority fallacy or a void reference fallacy.
In each case, it is stealing the arguments of another and using it as their own. It is cut and paste. It is mindless. It shows they have lost the ability to think for themselves.

It is also why they deny philosophy, which basically has only one rule:

You must present your OWN arguments and your OWN reasoning for them. You cannot use the arguments of another as your own.

They will throw around buzzwords like 'fact' and 'reality' without understand what these words even mean or how they are defined. They try to use 'fact' as if it were some kind of proof or Universal Truth. They try to use 'reality' as some kind of insult, suggesting that 'reality' is absolute and that you are too stupid to realize that. Of course, there is no such thing as an absolute 'reality'. This word too is defined using philosophy.

GasGuzzler wrote:
Spongy and squeal over, the gods of Google

More like worshiping Google as a god. Google is many things to many people. A God? No.


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
04-05-2022 02:34
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1034)
Parrot Boy must deny the existence of the following to support his argument

Sudden Stratospheric Warming, occurs every winter.

The sudden appearance of ozone over the North pole every winter.

The polar vortex which brings cold wet weather every winter.

Basically he denies that winter is a season in most of the northern hemisphere.

There is no point in discussing anything with this loser. I can't understand why he keeps making so many stupid comments over and over.


04-05-2022 03:06
SwanProfile picture★★★★☆
(1220)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Parrot Boy must deny the existence of the following to support his argument

Sudden Stratospheric Warming, occurs every winter.

The sudden appearance of ozone over the North pole every winter.

The polar vortex which brings cold wet weather every winter.

Basically he denies that winter is a season in most of the northern hemisphere.

There is no point in discussing anything with this loser. I can't understand why he keeps making so many stupid comments over and over.


Since when it's winter here it's summer over there and as a result it all balances out
04-05-2022 03:13
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1034)
It is quite an infestation of stupid comments in this forum. A sea of them.


04-05-2022 03:20
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
We are getting wildfires in more states, and more frequently, do to Californication of America. Hundreds of thousands fled California, do to covid restrictions, mandates, high taxes, gun rights... These people view freedom, as careless and irresponsible. They are also believers in the 'no-binary' reproduction system, popular with liberals. They need to perform a gender-reveal ritual, to find out if they are having a boy, a girl, or something else. The ritual involves assembling a homemade explosive. Which is odd, since it tough to buy a gun, but you can make bombs... They take the bomb out in the woods, light it off, and a cloud of colored smoke signal the gender/orientation of the child. Life was so much simpler, and safer, when it was either a boy or girl, and it was obvious, even in the sonogram. And, of course over 70% of California wildfires are classified as arson. Some of those 'arsonists, were just idiots, who burned a pile of leaves in the backyard, on a 'No burn' day. Or just walked away from their campfire, thinking it would burn itself out in an hour or two.

No. Arson is not an accident. Arson is the intentional setting of a wildfire.
You are correct that most wildfire in the SDTC is caused by arson.
The 2nd most prevalent cause is by accident.


No. Most didn't intentional plan to start a wildfire. They were aware of burning restriction, and ignored them. They could/do still get charged with arson, even if there is no wildfire. Mostly pay a fine. They don't have to go out with the intent to start the forest on fire, just the intent to ignore fire safety rules.
04-05-2022 04:21
Spongy Iris
★★★★☆
(1034)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Based on the atmospheric temperature profile, it looks like the most concentrated part of the ozone layer that is only 3 millimeters thick is about 30 miles altitude.

Into the Night wrote:
The vertical temperature profile show the opposite, actually.


An assertion from the Chapman Cycle:

"The chemical energy released when O and O2 combine is converted into kinetic energy of molecular motion. The overall effect is to convert penetrating UV light into heat."

You obviously notice it is false to say an endothermic reaction generates heat.

But that is clearly what the Chapman Cycle asserts.

Chapman had to think of some reason to explain why the temperature of the atmosphere where the 3 millimeter ozone layer is gets hot.

There is kinetic energy of molecular motion, which ionizes oxygen into ozone, transmits radio signals, and blocks UVC. A false cover military report called "Project West Ford" suggests it is dipole copper needles in this molecular motion around Earth.


04-05-2022 04:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:No. Arson is not an accident. Arson is the intentional setting of a wildfire.
You are correct that most wildfire in the SDTC is caused by arson.
The 2nd most prevalent cause is by accident.
No. Most didn't intentional plan to start a wildfire. They were aware of burning restriction, and ignored them. They could/do still get charged with arson, even if there is no wildfire. Mostly pay a fine. They don't have to go out with the intent to start the forest on fire, just the intent to ignore fire safety rules.


Now for the correct answer.

You are both correct ... to a certain extent ... and you are both in error. You chose to talk about California and SDTC so we'll go with California law on the matter.

Yes, Harvey, to classify as arson, there must be burning ... of a residence, structure, forest land, or property.

No, Into the Night, it does not have to be intentional, i.e. it can be "reckless."

Again, you both included California and California has a legal definition of Arson ... but the penal code has arson laws (plural):

1. Malicious Burning (felony),
2. Reckless Burning (almost always a misdemeanor)

... and both require burning.

Note that in California "recklessness" does not require an intention to set the fire but it does require the intention to engage in activity that knowingly increases risk of fire and/or that endangers others and/or property.

So Into the Night is correct on that second aspect of the intention part. If there was no intention to cause harm or to increase risk/danger, there isn't even recklessness ... there is only negligence ... and that skirts the arson laws as well.
04-05-2022 09:33
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Parrot Boy must deny the existence of the following to support his argument

Sudden Stratospheric Warming, occurs every winter.

Buzzword fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The sudden appearance of ozone over the North pole every winter.

It doesn't.
Spongy Iris wrote:
The polar vortex which brings cold wet weather every winter.

Buzzword fallacy.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Basically he denies that winter is a season in most of the northern hemisphere.

Redefinition fallacy (winter<->void).
Spongy Iris wrote:
There is no point in discussing anything with this loser. I can't understand why he keeps making so many stupid comments over and over.

Inversion fallacy.

No argument presented.


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
04-05-2022 09:34
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Spongy Iris wrote:
It is quite an infestation of stupid comments in this forum. A sea of them.

You could always change.


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
04-05-2022 09:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
We are getting wildfires in more states, and more frequently, do to Californication of America. Hundreds of thousands fled California, do to covid restrictions, mandates, high taxes, gun rights... These people view freedom, as careless and irresponsible. They are also believers in the 'no-binary' reproduction system, popular with liberals. They need to perform a gender-reveal ritual, to find out if they are having a boy, a girl, or something else. The ritual involves assembling a homemade explosive. Which is odd, since it tough to buy a gun, but you can make bombs... They take the bomb out in the woods, light it off, and a cloud of colored smoke signal the gender/orientation of the child. Life was so much simpler, and safer, when it was either a boy or girl, and it was obvious, even in the sonogram. And, of course over 70% of California wildfires are classified as arson. Some of those 'arsonists, were just idiots, who burned a pile of leaves in the backyard, on a 'No burn' day. Or just walked away from their campfire, thinking it would burn itself out in an hour or two.

No. Arson is not an accident. Arson is the intentional setting of a wildfire.
You are correct that most wildfire in the SDTC is caused by arson.
The 2nd most prevalent cause is by accident.


No. Most didn't intentional plan to start a wildfire. They were aware of burning restriction, and ignored them. They could/do still get charged with arson, even if there is no wildfire. Mostly pay a fine. They don't have to go out with the intent to start the forest on fire, just the intent to ignore fire safety rules.

Most intentionally started wildfire. Arson is not an accident. It is intentional.
Yes, there are a lot of careless people that ignore fire restrictions. That is not arson.
Many SDTC wildfire also starts by poorly maintained equipment such as tractors, trucks and cars, or power lines...occasionally by an idiot with fireworks.


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
04-05-2022 09:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Based on the atmospheric temperature profile, it looks like the most concentrated part of the ozone layer that is only 3 millimeters thick is about 30 miles altitude.

Into the Night wrote:
The vertical temperature profile show the opposite, actually.


An assertion from the Chapman Cycle:

"The chemical energy released when O and O2 combine is converted into kinetic energy of molecular motion. The overall effect is to convert penetrating UV light into heat."

No such assertion.
Spongy Iris wrote:
You obviously notice it is false to say an endothermic reaction generates heat.

It doesn't.
Spongy Iris wrote:
But that is clearly what the Chapman Cycle asserts.

No, it doesn't.
Spongy Iris wrote:
Chapman had to think of some reason to explain why the temperature of the atmosphere where the 3 millimeter ozone layer is gets hot.

The ozone layer is some 20 miles thick.
Spongy Iris wrote:
There is kinetic energy of molecular motion, which ionizes oxygen into ozone,

Ozone isn't an ion. Kinetic energy does not make ozone in the ozone layer.
Spongy Iris wrote:
transmits radio signals,

Ozone doesn't transmit radio signals.
Spongy Iris wrote:
and blocks UVC.

Ozone formation does not block UVc. UVc is not required to form ozone. UVb causes this instead.
Spongy Iris wrote:
A false cover military report called "Project West Ford" suggests it is dipole copper needles in this molecular motion around Earth.

No such needles. What little remains of that project is orbiting well outside the ionosphere.


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
05-05-2022 18:03
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2431)
This caught my attention...

in California "recklessness" does not require an intention to set the fire but it does require the intention to engage in activity that knowingly increases risk of fire and/or that endangers others and/or property.


California is always on the cutting edge of destroying lives. Substitute just a few words and you have this...

In California "recklessness" does not require an intention to raise the average atmospheric temperatue, but it does require the intention to engage in activity that knowingly increases atmospheric temperature and/or that endangers others and/or property.


Go ahead, call me crazy, or maybe even a shizzo.
Edited on 05-05-2022 18:04
05-05-2022 21:56
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
GasGuzzler wrote:Go ahead, call me crazy, or maybe even a shizzo.

How about calling you a fizzo?
Attached image:

05-05-2022 22:48
GasGuzzlerProfile picture★★★★★
(2431)
IBdaMann wrote:
GasGuzzler wrote:Go ahead, call me crazy, or maybe even a shizzo.

How about calling you a fizzo?


Admittedly you have really thrown me a bit here. This is what I see, however I would really appreciate your interpretation of this piece of climate.


I just make shit up- sealover
Attached image:

06-05-2022 01:13
duncan61
★★★★☆
(1729)
CO2 is bad man.If I put to much in my soda stream bottle it makes me burp and if I have had garlic chicken for lunch you will pass out.It has happened before
06-05-2022 02:17
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
GasGuzzler wrote:This is what I see, however I would really appreciate your interpretation of this piece of climate.

For a minute there I thought you were crazy. I was wondering "Where does he see that?" Apparently, if you look hard enough you'll see it. So I stared and I stared ...

... and finally it all came together. I saw how everything fits in. I get it now, the coral reefs, the gamma spec, the cola acidification, the mangrove, the septic tank, the fern (that is one killer fern), the terraforming, the Climate Change!. I don't know why, exactly, I couldn't see it before but I have you to thank for being able to see it now.

.
Attached image:


Edited on 06-05-2022 02:18
RE: May 12, 2022 Coast of southern California13-05-2022 03:38
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
May 12, 2022 Coast of southern California

Fires like this didn't used to happen in early May.
13-05-2022 03:44
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Im a BM wrote:
May 12, 2022 Coast of southern California

Fires like this didn't used to happen in early May.


Too bad the SDTC doesn't bother to clear away brush anymore.


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
13-05-2022 03:52
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3118)
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
May 12, 2022 Coast of southern California

Fires like this didn't used to happen in early May.


Too bad the SDTC doesn't bother to clear away brush anymore.

Thankfully, Wisconsin is much smarter. We clear away our brush (as well as do controlled burns). We don't have the fire issues that the SDTC does...

Let's just say that I am quite happy to be in Wisconsin and will not be moving to the SDTC anytime soon... well, ever...
13-05-2022 04:39
HarveyH55Profile picture★★★★★
(4239)
Im a BM wrote:
May 12, 2022 Coast of southern California

Fires like this didn't used to happen in early May.


California has wildfires burning almost every month. Only the massive fires that threaten communities are 'news-worthy'. Fire is just on way nature cleans up the mess, to make room for new growth. Careless, reckless humans just help make it happen more often. California could minimize the impact, if the were willing to spend the time and money doing some of the work, in a controlled manner. Basically, they want to just let nature take it's course, whine and complain about it. Expect others to pay for damages.
RE: May 12, 2022 - New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado still burning.13-05-2022 04:48
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
May 12, 2022 - New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado still burning.

Fire season came extra early to these liberal tree hugger states.

Arizona and Colorado have been burning for weeks.

New Mexico got it the worst. Probably because of their state government's liberal tree hugger policies. This one is going to break the record for the biggest, worst wildfire in New Mexico's recorded history.

An arsonist could have tried to torch these places in April during generations past, and it would have done some damage.

But nothing like THIS.

Perhaps we can define climate change as shift from familiar weather patterns.
13-05-2022 05:09
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
gfm7175 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
May 12, 2022 Coast of southern California

Fires like this didn't used to happen in early May.


Too bad the SDTC doesn't bother to clear away brush anymore.

Thankfully, Wisconsin is much smarter. We clear away our brush (as well as do controlled burns). We don't have the fire issues that the SDTC does...

Let's just say that I am quite happy to be in Wisconsin and will not be moving to the SDTC anytime soon... well, ever...


Why would any want to leave the States and go live in a dictatorship??


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
13-05-2022 05:19
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Im a BM wrote:
May 12, 2022 Coast of southern California

Fires like this didn't used to happen in early May.


California has wildfires burning almost every month. Only the massive fires that threaten communities are 'news-worthy'. Fire is just on way nature cleans up the mess, to make room for new growth. Careless, reckless humans just help make it happen more often. California could minimize the impact, if the were willing to spend the time and money doing some of the work, in a controlled manner. Basically, they want to just let nature take it's course, whine and complain about it. Expect others to pay for damages.


The area that burned is a rather posh area called Laguna Niguel. As is typical for the SDTC these days, the brush hadn't been cleared away. Due to spring rains, it grew pretty fast too. Once this stuff get lit, though, fire just races through it, particularly when fanned by wind, as this fire was by onshore ocean winds.

The fire raced through the brush behind the houses and set each of them ablaze.

Then King Newsom has the gall to say this is not caused by his government and the property owners not clearing away the brush hazard, but by a buzzword.

The source of ignition of the fire is still under investigation. It is a populated area. It was not caused by natural sources, such as lightning. Most likely:

* Arson
* Accident
* Poorly maintained electrical equipment

Life in the SDTC.


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
13-05-2022 05:21
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Im a BM wrote:
May 12, 2022 - New Mexico, Arizona, and Colorado still burning.

Fire season came extra early to these liberal tree hugger states.

Arizona and Colorado have been burning for weeks.

New Mexico got it the worst. Probably because of their state government's liberal tree hugger policies. This one is going to break the record for the biggest, worst wildfire in New Mexico's recorded history.

An arsonist could have tried to torch these places in April during generations past, and it would have done some damage.

But nothing like THIS.

Perhaps we can define climate change as shift from familiar weather patterns.

Weather has no pattern.


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 13-05-2022 05:21
RE: The thermodynamics of global warming13-05-2022 05:39
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
The thermodynamics of global warming.

Solar radiation is the source of virtually all the heat at the earth's surface.

Virtually all of that heat is eventually radiated back to outer space.

Global warming occurs because that heat now has longer residence time before it radiates back out to outer space.

It is not because some magic source of additional energy creates more heat than before.

It is because the steady state average surface temperature is higher due to the longer residence time of heat at the surface before it radiates back to outer space.

Higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases trap heat to increase its residence time near the surface.
RE: Why say "virtually all the heat at the earth's surface."?13-05-2022 06:06
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
Im a BM wrote:
The thermodynamics of global warming.

Solar radiation is the source of virtually all the heat at the earth's surface.

Virtually all of that heat is eventually radiated back to outer space.

Global warming occurs because that heat now has longer residence time before it radiates back out to outer space.

It is not because some magic source of additional energy creates more heat than before.

It is because the steady state average surface temperature is higher due to the longer residence time of heat at the surface before it radiates back to outer space.

Higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases trap heat to increase its residence time near the surface.



Why say "virtually all the heat at the earth's surface."?

Solar radiation is not the source of 100% of the heat at the earth's surface.

An extremely tiny fraction of that heat arises from inside the earth, heating the surface where geothermal or volcanic activity are locally present.

Radiant solar energy arriving at the earth's surface is not 100% radiated back out to space on something less than a century long time scale.

An extremely tiny fraction of that total radiant energy is captured during photosynthesis.

It is transformed into chemical energy as low energy inorganic (oxidized) carbon is transformed into high energy organic (reduced) carbon.

The chemical energy of fossil fuel deposits will eventually radiate to space after the organic carbon is oxidized back to inorganic carbon (carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, or carbonate)

But that occurs on a time scale so long, it has negligible impact on the steady state average surface temperature.

But it can have a BIG impact on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that WILL impact the residence time of heat at the surface, and the steady state average temperature. Hardly negligible.
13-05-2022 10:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(11759)
squeal over's sock wrote: The thermodynamics of global warming

Thermodynamics do not apply to religious faiths.

squeal over's sock wrote:Solar radiation is the source of virtually all the heat at the earth's surface.

Incorrect. You still haven't made any effort to learn what "heat" means yet you continue believing that you are somehow fooling people into thinking that you are a science genius.

The sun is the only substantive source of thermal energy, not of heat.

squeal over's sock wrote:Virtually all of that heat is eventually radiated back to outer space.

This statement is gibberish, but you don't know why because you don't know what "heat" means and thus you totally misuse the word and render your statements meaningless.

squeal over's sock wrote: Global warming occurs because that heat now has longer residence time before it radiates back out to outer space.

This is more meaningless gibberish ... and no, there is no such thing as "residence time" for heat.

Too funny.

squeal over's sock wrote: It is not because some magic source of additional energy creates more heat than before.

I get it, you are trying to distance yourself from your previous gaffes by making it look like this totally new gaffe is what you have been saying all along.

Allow me to translate your preceding sentence: "I am a scientifically illiterate moron and my hope is that you are even more scientifically illiterate than I am."

By now you should be able to understand why your totally lame schtick won't work here. The posters at this site aren't idiots.

This also happens to be why we enjoy having you post here. Not only do you provide comic relief, you are the token moron we can reference as an example of what happens if you play hooky from school so you can smoke pot instead.

squeal over's sock wrote:It is because the steady state average surface temperature is higher due to the longer residence time of heat at the surface before it radiates back to outer space.

What, exactly, constitutes the earth's "surface"? You never defined that. Are you thusly referring to the top of the atmosphere?

squeal over's sock wrote:Higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases trap heat to increase its residence time near the surface.

Heat cannot be trapped. Every scientist knows this. So do most eighth graders who don't play hooky from school so they can run off and smoke pot.

squeal over's sock wrote:An extremely tiny fraction of that heat arises from inside the earth, heating the surface where geothermal or volcanic activity are locally present.

Did you just imply that convection occurs within the earth's solid crust?

I think we can give you a break since we can plainly see that you don't know what the words you use mean. This would explain why you don't dare attempt to unambiguously define your terms.

Carry on.

squeal over's sock wrote:Radiant solar energy arriving at the earth's surface is not 100% radiated back out to space on something less than a century long time scale.

The earth is in equilibrium. This means that at any given moment, the earth is simultaneously (that means "without any delay between") radiating exactly as much energy as it is absorbing.

Yes, there are indiscernible fluctuations, but if we are to use black body science, we must use black body science and presume the equilibrium.

squeal over's sock wrote:An extremely tiny fraction of that total radiant energy is captured during photosynthesis.

Indiscernible and totally negligible.

squeal over's sock wrote:The chemical energy of fossil fuel deposits

What does that mean? You seem to have simply shifted from one pattern of gibber to another.

What is a "fossil fuel" in the first place? Are fossils involved? Is propane a "fossil fuel"? Do you simply not know what "fossil" means? Do you simply not know what "fuel" means?

squeal over's sock wrote:But it can have a BIG impact on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere,

What's a "greenhouse gas" and why do I care about such concentrations in the atmosphere ... and why do you believe that your conflation of "instantaneous" with "longer than centuries" will have some sort of impact in this area?

squeal over's sock wrote: ... and that WILL impact the residence time of heat at the surface, and the steady state average temperature. Hardly negligible.

Aaaaah, so you save the best for last! You crammed your seven glaring errors into this final blurb. Good job.

Siskel and Ebert give this a two thumbs up.



.


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
13-05-2022 16:41
gfm7175Profile picture★★★★★
(3118)
Im a sock of squeal over wrote:
The thermodynamics of global warming.

Hahahahahahahaha, I am DEFINITELY adding this one to my Lispy Leftist List of Linguistic Lunacy...

Im a sock of squeal over wrote:
Solar radiation is the source of virtually all the heat at the earth's surface.

Heat is not thermal energy.

Im a sock of squeal over wrote:
Virtually all of that heat is eventually radiated back to outer space.

Heat is not thermal energy.

Im a sock of squeal over wrote:
Global warming occurs because that heat now has longer residence time before it radiates back out to outer space.

Buzzword salad. What is "global warming"? What is "residence time" with regard to heat?

Im a sock of squeal over wrote:
It is not because some magic source of additional energy creates more heat than before.

Oh DO educate us PLEEEEEEASE!!!!

Im a sock of squeal over wrote:
It is because the steady state average surface temperature is higher due to the longer residence time of heat at the surface before it radiates back to outer space.

This is where you provide me with a valid data set of "Earth's surface temperature" (you would need to define "surface"). Otherwise, you're just making unsubstantiated claims about the temperature of Earth's "surface". Meh.

Im a sock of squeal over wrote:
Higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases trap heat to increase its residence time near the surface.

More gibberish. Define "greenhouse gases". Define "residence time" with regard to heat. Define "the surface". It is not possible to trap heat.
13-05-2022 19:11
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Im a BM wrote:
The thermodynamics of global warming.

There isn't any.
Im a BM wrote:
Solar radiation is the source of virtually all the heat at the earth's surface.

You cannot contain heat in anything.
Im a BM wrote:
Virtually all of that heat is eventually radiated back to outer space.

You cannot contain heat in anything.
Im a BM wrote:
Global warming occurs because that heat now has longer residence time before it radiates back out to outer space.

There is no sequence. You have AGAIN discarded the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
Im a BM wrote:
It is not because some magic source of additional energy creates more heat than before.

Energy is not heat. Heat is not contained in anything.
Im a BM wrote:
It is because the steady state average surface temperature is higher due to the longer residence time of heat at the surface before it radiates back to outer space.

Heat has no temperature. You cannot store or trap heat. There is no sequence. You are discarding the Stefan-Boltzmann law and the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
Higher atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse gases trap heat to increase its residence time near the surface.

Heat cannot be contained in anything. You cannot store or trap heat. Heat has no temperature. There is no sequence. You cannot reduce entropy...ever.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

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

nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan

While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
13-05-2022 19:18
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Im a BM wrote:
Why say "virtually all the heat at the earth's surface."?

Solar radiation is not the source of 100% of the heat at the earth's surface.

Heat is not contained in anything.
Im a BM wrote:
An extremely tiny fraction of that heat arises from inside the earth, heating the surface where geothermal or volcanic activity are locally present.

Heat is not contained in anything. Heat has no temperature.
Im a BM wrote:
Radiant solar energy arriving at the earth's surface is not 100% radiated back out to space on something less than a century long time scale.

You cannot trap or slow heat.
Im a BM wrote:
An extremely tiny fraction of that total radiant energy is captured during photosynthesis.

Heat is not photosynthesis.
Im a BM wrote:
It is transformed into chemical energy as low energy inorganic (oxidized) carbon is transformed into high energy organic (reduced) carbon.

Carbon isn't organic.
Im a BM wrote:
The chemical energy of fossil fuel deposits

Fossils aren't used as fuel. Fossils don't burn.
Im a BM wrote:
will eventually radiate to space

Chemical energy isn't heat or light.
Im a BM wrote:
after the organic carbon is oxidized back to inorganic carbon (carbon dioxide, bicarbonate, or carbonate)

Carbon isn't organic. Carbon dioxide isn't organic. There are no such chemicals as 'bicarbonate' or 'carbonate'.
Im a BM wrote:
But that occurs on a time scale so long, it has negligible impact on the steady state average surface temperature.

Heat has no temperature.
Im a BM wrote:
But it can have a BIG impact on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, and that WILL impact the residence time of heat at the surface, and the steady state average temperature. Hardly negligible.

There is no sequence. You cannot set aside any theory of science for even a moment. You cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. Heat has no temperature. Light has no temperature. You are discarding the 0th and 2nd law 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
RE: Thank you for some reality, Spongy Iris13-05-2022 22:37
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Denial of the Chapman cycle. False authority fallacy.


The fact reported by NASA is correct. Chapman is wrong.

You can find ozone all throughout the atmosphere, probably up to about 30 miles altitude.

Based on the atmospheric temperature profile, it looks like the most concentrated part of the ozone layer that is only 3 millimeters thick is about 30 miles altitude.

At 30 miles altitude, oxygen, O2, becomes ionized into ozone, O3. This is done through an electrical process.

There are tiny copper dipole needles in orbit all around Earth at about 30 miles altitude. These needles are for an electrical process which can ionize oxygen into ozone. These needles can also carry radio signals. Copper needles would also further block harmful ultraviolet light from reaching Earth: this type of UV is called UVC light.

Ozone is an industrial strength cleaner which would prevent germs and mold from rising up to Heaven.

The heat generated by ionizing oxygen into ozone would also dissipate most of the clouds rising up to Heaven.

I believe the phenomenon of Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW), which happens over the North Pole every winter, proves it false that ozone is generated by UV light.

When the stratosphere suddenly warms every winter over the North Pole, there is no direct UV light hitting the North Pole. But when SSW happens, at the same time, there is also a sudden increase of ozone over the North Pole.

SSW is also the cause of the Polar Vortex phenomenon, which pushes cold wet weather further south in the Winter months.

It looks to me like the frequency of the copper dipole needles in orbit over the North Pole gets turned up every winter.

If you do an online search of "Project West Ford" you will find that in the 1960s, the US Military claims to have put 480,000,000 copper dipole needles into orbit, in an attempt to create an artificial ionosphere. This is what I call a false cover story. Obviously there is no publicly understood technology that can accomplish this.

It seems to me, the greatest cause for "holes in the ozone layer" are rockets and airplanes which ascend to altitudes greater than 30 miles. I am calling for these flights to be discontinued, if they haven't been already.




Thank you for some reality, Spongy Iris.

Well done!

A valid and valuable contribution to the discussion that is appreciated.
RE: a bit more background for global warming.13-05-2022 22:51
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
[quote]sealover wrote:
"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.

"Unprecedented" Wildfires TODAY. Thanks to Global Warming.

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

a bit more background for global warming.

Heat, like greenhouse gases, displays a steady state level in the atmosphere with a mean residence time that can be monitored locally or globally, and averaged on a daily, annual, or millenial time scale.

Heat, like greenhouse gases, enters and exits the open system of the earth's atmosphere, via radiant energy rather than translocation of molecules.

Locally, on a daily time scale, heat is easy to follow.

Sun comes up in the morning and radiant solar reaches the earth's surface.

Radiant energy is coming in at a much, much higher rate than the radiant energy exiting the atmosphere into outer space.

Air temperature at the surface increases and increases.

Sun goes down at night, and the incoming radiant energy comes to a halt.

Radiant energy continues to exit the atmosphere into outer space.

Air temperature at the surface decreases and decreases.

The steady state balance of incoming and outgoing radiant energy to and from the earth displays diurnal variation. It shifts daily.

What was the average air temperature at the surface during those 24 hours?

It is simpler to look at daily maximum and minimum, like the weather reports.
13-05-2022 23:22
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Im a BM wrote:
Spongy Iris wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
Denial of the Chapman cycle. False authority fallacy.


The fact reported by NASA is correct. Chapman is wrong.

You can find ozone all throughout the atmosphere, probably up to about 30 miles altitude.

Based on the atmospheric temperature profile, it looks like the most concentrated part of the ozone layer that is only 3 millimeters thick is about 30 miles altitude.

At 30 miles altitude, oxygen, O2, becomes ionized into ozone, O3. This is done through an electrical process.

There are tiny copper dipole needles in orbit all around Earth at about 30 miles altitude. These needles are for an electrical process which can ionize oxygen into ozone. These needles can also carry radio signals. Copper needles would also further block harmful ultraviolet light from reaching Earth: this type of UV is called UVC light.

Ozone is an industrial strength cleaner which would prevent germs and mold from rising up to Heaven.

The heat generated by ionizing oxygen into ozone would also dissipate most of the clouds rising up to Heaven.

I believe the phenomenon of Sudden Stratospheric Warming (SSW), which happens over the North Pole every winter, proves it false that ozone is generated by UV light.

When the stratosphere suddenly warms every winter over the North Pole, there is no direct UV light hitting the North Pole. But when SSW happens, at the same time, there is also a sudden increase of ozone over the North Pole.

SSW is also the cause of the Polar Vortex phenomenon, which pushes cold wet weather further south in the Winter months.

It looks to me like the frequency of the copper dipole needles in orbit over the North Pole gets turned up every winter.

If you do an online search of "Project West Ford" you will find that in the 1960s, the US Military claims to have put 480,000,000 copper dipole needles into orbit, in an attempt to create an artificial ionosphere. This is what I call a false cover story. Obviously there is no publicly understood technology that can accomplish this.

It seems to me, the greatest cause for "holes in the ozone layer" are rockets and airplanes which ascend to altitudes greater than 30 miles. I am calling for these flights to be discontinued, if they haven't been already.




Thank you for some reality, Spongy Iris.

Well done!

A valid and valuable contribution to the discussion that is appreciated.

Yes. People that deny science are very real. You and your sock and Spongy are examples of it.


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
13-05-2022 23:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(18410)
Im a BM wrote:
"Unprecedented" Wildfires TODAY. Thanks to Global Warming.
[quote]Im a BM wrote:
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.

These folks usually just put wildfires out themselves. Wildfires are normal in all three States.
Im a BM wrote:
DON'T LOOK UP!

This is such an important part of the vicious feedbacks

There is no 'feedback'.
Im a BM wrote:
to global warming,

What global warming? From when to when? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
Im a BM wrote:
adding tons and tons of additional greenhouse gas to the atmosphere,

No such thing, except as a religious artifact.
Im a BM wrote:
that it deserves a thread all of its own.

A whole forum dedicated to discussing this religion isn't good enough for ya, eh?
Im a BM wrote:
a bit more background for global warming.

Buzzword fallacy.
Im a BM wrote:
Heat, like greenhouse gases,

Heat is not a gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are AGAIN discarding the 1st law of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
displays a steady state level in the atmosphere

Heat is not contained in anything.
Im a BM wrote:
with a mean residence time

There is no sequence. You cannot set aside any theory of science for any length of time. You cannot store or trap heat.
Im a BM wrote:
that can be monitored locally or globally,

Not possible. You cannot store or trap heat.
Im a BM wrote:
and averaged on a daily, annual, or millenial time scale.

Not possible You cannot store or trap heat.
Im a BM wrote:
Heat, like greenhouse gases,

Heat is not a gas.
Im a BM wrote:
enters and exits the open system of the earth's atmosphere,

The Earth's atmosphere is not an open system. It is a closed system.
Im a BM wrote:
via radiant energy

There is no such thing as radiant energy.
Im a BM wrote:
rather than translocation of molecules.

Heat is not translocation of molecules.
Im a BM wrote:
Locally, on a daily time scale, heat is easy to follow.

Heat cannot be stored or trapped. It is not contained in anything.
Im a BM wrote:
Sun comes up in the morning and radiant solar reaches the earth's surface.

There is no such thing as 'radiant solar'.
Im a BM wrote:
Radiant energy is coming in at a much, much higher rate than the radiant energy exiting the atmosphere into outer space.

There is no such thing as 'radiant energy'. You are attempting to decrease entropy. Not possible. You are discarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.
Im a BM wrote:
Air temperature at the surface increases and increases.

Heat is not temperature. It has no temperature.
Im a BM wrote:
Sun goes down at night, and the incoming radiant energy comes to a halt.

There is no such thing as radiant energy.
Im a BM wrote:
Radiant energy continues to exit the atmosphere into outer space.

There is no such thing as radiant energy.
Im a BM wrote:
Air temperature at the surface decreases and decreases.

Nope. Half the planet is still in daylight. False equivalence fallacy. You cannot compare two different systems as if they were the same system.
Im a BM wrote:
The steady state balance of incoming and outgoing radiant energy to and from the earth displays diurnal variation. It shifts daily.

False equivalence fallacy. Discard of the laws of thermodynamics.
Im a BM wrote:
What was the average air temperature at the surface during those 24 hours?

Unknown. It is not possible to measure it.
Im a BM wrote:
It is simpler to look at daily maximum and minimum, like the weather reports.

False equivalence fallacy. You cannot compare two systems is if they were the same 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
RE: Daily high and low temperatures - Consistent shift in weather patterns14-05-2022 00:19
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
Daily high and low temperatures - Consistent shift in weather patterns

Climate change might be best understood as a consistent shift in weather patterns.

This does not imply cause and effect, it merely observes the facts.

Daily high and low temperatures have been measured for more than a century almost everywhere that humans live.

Reviewing these records one can see climate change as both global warming and global wierding.

Record new daily high T's keep getting set.

Record new daily LOW T's as well.

More than twice as many new daily high T records set as new daily low Ts.

Bigger T difference from previous records, on average, for new highs compared to new lows.

Still, on the net change, its getting warmer even just by this one indicator.

But we have many other weather records as well.

Something as simple as the calendar date when the fruit trees blossom in Spring. It keeps getting sooner.

Or the calendar date when snowmelt first causes increased flow rates in surface waters. It keeps getting sooner.

The calendar date when the first snowfall remains frozen on the ground. It keeps getting later.

These phenomenon are all directly related to air temperature at the surface.

On the other hand, with global wierding, Very cold air from the north pole pushes farther south than it used to.

Texas never imagined they would have to safeguard their electrical infrastructure against deep freezes.

Nor did they imagine that a mass of cold air from the north could come so far south in hurricane season that it causes the storm to stall its movement and dump and dump on the same unlucky state.

Every here is free to make their arguments and offer their rebuttals to the arguments of others. Free to choose their own words.

Rebuttals to rebuttals are fine too, but not required.

Cross examination of rebuttals are cool if you're into that sort of thing. I'm not.

Alternative facts are not censored, as below, but require no response.

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

[/quote]
What global warming? From when to when? It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.

Heat is not a gas. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing. You are AGAIN discarding the 1st law of thermodynamics.

Heat is not a gas.

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

There is no such thing as radiant energy.

Heat is not translocation of molecules.

There is no such thing as 'radiant solar'.

There is no such thing as 'radiant energy'. You are attempting to decrease entropy. Not possible. You are discarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics again.

Heat is not temperature. It has no temperature.

There is no such thing as radiant energy.

There is no such thing as radiant energy.

Nope. Half the planet is still in daylight. False equivalence fallacy. You cannot compare two different systems as if they were the same system.

False equivalence fallacy. Discard of the laws of thermodynamics.

Unknown. It is not possible to measure it.


False equivalence fallacy. You cannot compare two systems is if they were the same system.[/quote]
RE: Three modes of heat transport - Conduction, convection, and radiation14-05-2022 00:47
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
Three modes of heat transport - Conduction, convection, and radiation.

When a material is heated to increase temperature, the atoms or molecules increase the frequency of their collisions and vibrations.

Heat can be transported within or out of the material three ways.

Conduction within the material, in place where it is, transfers that increased frequency of collisions or vibrations down the line.

The material can also transport the heat by simply moving.

Hot fluid, gas or liquid, is less dense than cold fluid, and it rises up, transporting its heat along with it.

Radiation transports heat within or out of the material as photons in the infrared part of the light spectrum send it off as radiant energy at the speed of light.
RE: I'm not a physicist, but I play one on the Internet14-05-2022 01:02
Im a BM
★★☆☆☆
(158)
I'm not a physicist, but I play one on the Internet.

My area of specialization is biogeochemisty.

Maybe not so specialized since it covers biology, geology, and chemistry.

But my formal training in physics is limited.

I only took the introductory, lower division sequence of physics classes as an undergraduate.

My upper division or graduate level course training in physics was limited to physical chemistry and soil physics. So, there is a lot I don't know.

At some point, I'll receive legitimate questions or commentary about biogeochemistry, and that will become the focus of my efforts.

Meanwhile, I can represent limited knowledge of physics versus paraphysics
and pseudo physics.

At some point, someone far more qualified than myself will represent physics.

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

Im a BM wrote:
Three modes of heat transport - Conduction, convection, and radiation.

When a material is heated to increase temperature, the atoms or molecules increase the frequency of their collisions and vibrations.

Heat can be transported within or out of the material three ways.

Conduction within the material, in place where it is, transfers that increased frequency of collisions or vibrations down the line.

The material can also transport the heat by simply moving.

Hot fluid, gas or liquid, is less dense than cold fluid, and it rises up, transporting its heat along with it.

Radiation transports heat within or out of the material as photons in the infrared part of the light spectrum send it off as radiant energy at the speed of light.
Page 2 of 3<123>





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

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
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
Today's Yahoo Headlines6023-03-2021 17:20
California Wildfires, Trumps Fault?9929-09-2020 10:34
today514-03-2020 07:29
▲ 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