"Unprecedented" Wildfires TODAY. Thanks to Global Warming.

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > "Unprecedented" Wildfires TODAY. Thanks to Global Warming. > Page 3

Page 3 of 4

14-05-2022 01:22
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Im a BM wrote: Climate change might be best understood as a consistent shift in weather patterns. Weather has no pattern. Im a BM wrote: This does not imply cause and effect, it merely observes the facts. A fact is not a Universal Truth. Learn what 'fact' means. Im a BM wrote: Daily high and low temperatures have been measured for more than a century almost everywhere that humans live. False equivalence fallacy. You cannot consider two systems as if they are the same system. Im a BM wrote: Reviewing these records one can see climate change as both global warming and global wierding. What records? There aren't any! You say there is global warming. From when to when? Why are these two points in time significant? Why are any other two points in time NOT significant? How are you measuring the temperature of the Earth? Im a BM wrote: Record new daily high T's keep getting set. Denial of history and of what a 'record high' is. Im a BM wrote: Record new daily LOW T's as well. Denial of history and what a 'record low' is. Im a BM wrote: More than twice as many new daily high T records set as new daily low Ts. Argument from randU fallacy. You are making shit up. False equivalence fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Bigger T difference from previous records, on average, for new highs compared to new lows. Argument from randU fallacy. You are making shit up. False equivalence fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Still, on the net change, Base rate fallacy. False equivalence fallacy. Im a BM wrote: its getting warmer even just by this one indicator. No indicator. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Im a BM wrote: But we have many other weather records as well. And now for some more semantic fallacies. Im a BM wrote: Something as simple as the calendar date when the fruit trees blossom in Spring. It keeps getting sooner. Argument from randU fallacy. Plants have no temperature sensors. The time they wake due to spring is directly to the time they went dormant in autumn and NOTHING ELSE. The time they go dormant in the fall is related to length of day and NOTHING ELSE. Im a BM wrote: Or the calendar date when snowmelt first causes increased flow rates in surface waters. It keeps getting sooner. Argument from randU fallacy. Compositional error fallacy. You are making shit up. Im a BM wrote: The calendar date when the first snowfall remains frozen on the ground. It keeps getting later. Argument from randU fallacy. Compositional error fallacy. You are making shit up. Im a BM wrote: These phenomenon are all directly related to air temperature at the surface. It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. Im a BM wrote: On the other hand, with global wierding, Very cold air from the north pole pushes farther south than it used to. No, it doesn't. You are making shit up. Im a BM wrote: Texas never imagined they would have to safeguard their electrical infrastructure against deep freezes. Texas normally experiences very cold temperatures from time to time. Wind generators cannot operate in icing conditions. Im a BM wrote: 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. Not what steers a hurricane. You are making shit up. Im a BM wrote: 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. Yes you are, liar. Im a BM wrote: Alternative facts are not censored, as below, but require no response. No such thing. Buzzword 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
14-05-2022 01:26
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Im a BM wrote: Three modes of heat transport - Conduction, convection, and radiation. You cannot transport heat. Heat is not transportable and cannot be contained in anything. Im a BM wrote: When a material is heated to increase temperature, the atoms or molecules increase the Heat can be transported within or out of the material three ways. You cannot transport heat. Heat is not contained in anything. Im a BM wrote: 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. You can't transport heat. Heat is not contained in anything. Im a BM wrote: Hot fluid, gas or liquid, is less dense than cold fluid, and it rises up, transporting its heat along with it. Heat is not contained in anything. You cannot transport heat. Im a BM wrote: 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. You cannot transport heat. Heat is not contained in anything. Heat has no temperature. 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
14-05-2022 01:30
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Im a BM wrote: I'm not a physicist, but I play one on the Internet. Obviously. Im a BM wrote: My area of specialization is biogeochemisty. No such thing. Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Maybe not so specialized since it covers biology, geology, and chemistry. You deny all of them. Im a BM wrote: But my formal training in physics is limited. It is nothing. You are a nothing. Im a BM wrote: 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. No such thing as physical chemistry or soil physics. You don't know anything about chemistry either. Im a BM wrote: At some point, I'll receive legitimate questions or commentary about biogeochemistry, and that will become the focus of my efforts. Buzzword fallacy. Im a BM wrote: Meanwhile, I can represent limited knowledge of physics versus paraphysics No such thing. Im a BM wrote: and pseudo physics. You're favorite subject. Im a BM wrote: At some point, someone far more qualified than myself will represent physics. Physics needs no representation. 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: Alternative facts galore14-05-2022 20:38
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	Alternative facts galore The post below is loaded with alternative facts. Some of the gems include: "The Earth's atmosphere is not an open system. It is a closed system." "There is no such thing as radiant energy." These anti scientific claims are easily debunked. Given that the dominant anti scientist on this website has already posted that the Earth's atmosphere IS an open system... 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.. They had to come up with some pretty silly word games to reconcile. Is the Earth's atmosphere an open system? Is there such a thing as radiant energy? ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [/quote] 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.[/quote]
14-05-2022 23:21
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	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?

RE: Atmosphere is an OPEN system, to energy and material, including greenhouse gases.15-05-2022 00:28
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	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. Energy and material come in and out of it. Including greenhouse gases. Carbon dioxide, for example. Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere as organic carbon material is burned up in flames or respired by organisms, as the main sources. Carbon dioxide exits the atmosphere as photosynthesis transforms it to organic carbon, or as the sea absorbs it, as the main sinks. Energy enters the atmosphere as solar radiation, or "radiant energy" (check the basic dictionary). Energy exits the atmosphere to space, virtually all as infrared radiant energy. Energy exits the atmosphere as it warms up the sea or melts ice, as the main sinks on Earth.
15-05-2022 01:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	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? I see that it's necessary to describe what a system is, concerning the laws of thermodynamics. A system is nothing more than a chosen boundary. That boundary must remain consistent. You can consider the Earth itself as the system. No energy from outside that system can be considered. No energy leaving that system can be considered. If you want to include the Sun and the space surrounding Earth as the chosen system, you can consider the energy from the Sun and the energy sink that is the space around Earth. Both are closed systems. They have a closed boundary. You cannot compare two different systems as if they were the same system. This often happens by people from the Church of Global Warming. If you consider only Earth as the chosen system, and change the atmosphere by adding carbon dioxide, there is no energy being added to the system. Carbon dioxide is not energy. To say the Earth is warming due to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to create energy out of nothing, and to discard the 1st law of thermodynamics. The Sun is not part of that system. The space surrounding Earth is not part of that system. They need not be considered. If you consider the Earth-Sun-space as the chosen system, and change the atmosphere by adding carbon dioxide, there is no energy being added to the system. Carbon dioxide is not energy. To say the Earth is warming due to carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is to create energy out of nothing, and to discard the 1st law of thermodynamics. The Sun is part of that system, as well as the space around Earth. If you consider the Earth-Sun-space system, and change the atmosphere by adding carbon dioxide, nothing prevents the Sun from heating the Earth, and nothing prevents Earth from heating space. To say that carbon dioxide prevents this is to reduce entropy. It is discarding the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The Sun is a concentration of energy. You cannot heat the Sun using the Earth. Carbon dioxide is a colder gas in the atmosphere. You cannot heat the surface using a colder gas. If you consider the Earth as a body in space, it radiates light according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. To say that carbon dioxide somehow prevents this is to discard the Stefan-Boltzmann law. A system is whatever you choose as the boundary. That boundary MUST remain consistent. A refrigerator cannot reduce entropy. If you just consider the refrigerator or even the house it is in, you cannot consider any electrical power coming into the house. It's as if the refrigerator was unplugged. The refrigerator reaches room temperature. Entropy increases. If you consider the power plant necessary to produce the electrical power for a refrigerator to get cold, you are still increasing entropy. A concentration of energy (the power plant) dissipates into the refrigerator to make the interior cold. You cannot just assume a refrigerator is going to going to get cold and say entropy is decreasing. You cannot just discard the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Even the entire universe is a closed system. That boundary is determined by what we can observe. Entropy is still increasing or remaining the same. No new energy is being created out of nothing. No energy is bring destroyed into nothing. You can also apply these laws to an open system: the entire universe, including any part that you cannot observe. Energy is still not being created out of nothing, and entropy is still increasing or remaining the same. The error commonly made by the Church of Global Warming is the equivalent of saying a refrigerator is making itself cold inside. It is saying that entropy is decreasing, simply because they are trying to compare two systems as if they were the same system. They ignore the power plant required at their convenience. They are saying the Earth is somehow warming all by itself, or that the Sun-Earth-space system is warming all by itself. It can't. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
15-05-2022 01:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	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. No. It is a closed system. Im a BM wrote: Energy and material come in and out of it. You cannot consider ANY material from outside a chosen system. You cannot compare two different systems as if they are the same system. Im a BM wrote: Including greenhouse gases. No such thing, except as a religious artifact. Im a BM wrote: Carbon dioxide, for example. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth as a system. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth-Sun-space system. Im a BM wrote: Carbon dioxide enters the atmosphere as organic carbon Carbon isn't organic. Im a BM wrote: material is burned up in flames or respired by organisms, as the main sources. [quote]Im a BM wrote: Carbon dioxide exits the atmosphere The atmosphere does not radiate into space. Im a BM wrote: as photosynthesis transforms it to organic carbon, Carbon isn't organic. Photosynthesis does not create carbon. Im a BM wrote: or as the sea absorbs it, as the main sinks. The sea both absorbs and emits carbon dioxide. Not a sink or a source. Im a BM wrote: Energy enters the atmosphere as solar radiation, or "radiant energy" (check the basic dictionary). No such thing as 'radiant energy'. Solar radiation is not a form of energy. Im a BM wrote: Energy exits the atmosphere to space, virtually all as infrared radiant energy. There is no such thing as 'radiant energy'. Im a BM wrote: Energy exits the atmosphere as it warms up the sea or melts ice, as the main sinks on Earth. Energy leaving Earth cools the Earth. It does not warm it. Buzzword fallacies. 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: Heat exits the atmosphere in two directions.15-05-2022 03:23
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	Heat exits the atmosphere in two directions. Heat comes into the atmosphere from above when that imaginary "radiant energy" arrives from the sun. Heat exits that atmosphere away from the earth as infrared imaginary "radiant energy". Heat exits the atmosphere toward the earth as glaciers are melted by it and seas are warmed by it. As someone who sells scientifically-based technological devices, there is no need to cite any LESS credible authority for unsupported contrarian assertions. Omniscience fallacy? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [/quote] No such thing as 'radiant energy'. Solar radiation is not a form of energy. Im a BM wrote: Energy exits the atmosphere to space, virtually all as infrared radiant energy. There is no such thing as 'radiant energy'. Im a BM wrote: Energy exits the atmosphere as it warms up the sea or melts ice, as the main sinks on Earth. Energy leaving Earth cools the Earth. It does not warm it. [/quote]
15-05-2022 06:50
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	squeal over furniture's sock wrote:Heat exits the atmosphere in two directions. You still don't know what heat is. Your statement above is gibberish. The good news is that if you want security, nothing that you post needs to be encrypted. squeal over furniture's sock wrote:Heat comes into the atmosphere from above when that imaginary "radiant energy" arrives from the sun. More gibberish. squeal over furniture's sock wrote:Heat exits that atmosphere away from the earth as infrared imaginary "radiant energy". At least here you are explicitly conflating energy with power. You and Swan should form your own little support group. Note: Swan thinks joules are measured in watts. Swan also thinks his quantum entanglement teleporter has a low joules rating. squeal over furniture's sock wrote:Heat exits the atmosphere toward the earth as glaciers are melted by it and seas are warmed by it. At least here you explicitly state that a cooler atmosphere warms a warmer "surface" in violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Good on you for being clear. . Attached image:
15-05-2022 08:04
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	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
15-05-2022 20:48
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Im a BM wrote: Heat exits the atmosphere in two directions. Heat is not contained in anything. Im a BM wrote: Heat comes into the atmosphere from above when that imaginary "radiant energy" arrives from the sun. Heat is not contained in anything. Im a BM wrote: Heat exits that atmosphere away from the earth as infrared imaginary "radiant energy". There is no such thing as 'radiant energy'. Heat is not contained in anything. Im a BM wrote: Heat exits the atmosphere toward the earth as glaciers are melted by it and seas are warmed by it. Heat is not contained in anything. Energy leaving the Earth cools it. It doesn't warm it. 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. 'Expert' worship. Void authority fallacy. Science is not a technological device. Science is not an authority. My assertion is supported by the laws of thermodynamics. You just want to discard them. Im a BM wrote: Omniscience fallacy? No. Obviously, you have no idea what THAT means either. 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
15-05-2022 20:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: I have always felt that direct sunlight melts ice even if it is below freezing. Not possible. duncan61 wrote: Air temperature does not melt ice below freezing. Correct. duncan61 wrote: 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 Meh. 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
15-05-2022 22:04
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	HarveyH55 wrote:How do meteors enter a closed system? When you use the term "open system" or "closed system", you are referring to the context of discussion. If you were to say to me "IBDaMann, let's talk about the atmosphere," I might ask "Are we just talking about the atmosphere and nothing else?" If you respond "Yes, I only want to talk about the atmosphere" then yes, absolutely, it is a closed system because there is nothing else within the context of the discussion. If you then ask "IBDaMann, how can say that the atmosphere is a closed system if meteors can enter it and burn up?" I would then ask "Harvey, did you just totally alter the context of discussion from 'only the atmosphere' to 'the atmosphere plus everything beyond the atmosphere'?" The atmosphere can be an open system ...but if you ask about the atmosphere itself then obviously it is a closed system ... because you defined it that way. Is a door open or closed? Would you classify that as a stupid question? (say "yes") Asking if the atmosphere is open or closed is stupid, to the extent that it reveals a lack of understanding of "open vs. closed" wrt systems. HOWEVER if I ask you about a locked door, now is it open or closed? Obviously now there is context and we can dispense with questions about the flow of people traffic through the doorway, or whether a sofa will fit because we know that we are talking about a closed door, and that guides/delimits what gets discussed. HarveyH55 wrote: How do our rockets leave Earth's closed system atmosphere? So if the context of the discussion is "rockets leaving" then we know that 1) we aren't talking about thermodynamic; we are discussing rockets and 2) obviously we are talking about an "open system" because something is either entering or leaving. KEY POINT: warmizombies are desperate to conflate "open systems" with "closed systems" so that they can skirt thermodynamics, both the first and second laws, by having additional energy enter a closed system and by showing a decrease in entropy. Both are impossible and if either is allowed into a conversation then any and all violations of physics can be achieved. The vacuum of space surrounding earth makes our planet a closed system to conduction and convection. Thermodynamically, this leaves only Stefan-Boltzmann as an avenue for discussing the earth as an open system ... and that kills both greenhouse effect and Global Warming dead on impact. If you'll notice, I have asked squeal over many times to define the context for his question about systems he claims are either open or closed. He will not clarify just as he will not define any of the buzzwords he uses. In the absence of any such clarification on his part, I am entitled to make any and all assumptions I wish about context or conditions. HarveyH55 wrote: If it's a closed system, how do we get energy from the Sun? If your "system" (context) is the sun, the earth, and the surrounding space ... then it is a closed system because nothing can enter or leave the surrounding space, i.e. it's already in there and remains in there. HarveyH55 wrote: Isn't the lack of sunlight, that creates ozone holes? Correct. Actually, it's the lack of UV light but we get our UV light from the sun.
RE: night frost when air temperature is ABOVE freezing15-05-2022 22:08
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	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 Feelings are not facts. But what you have always felt is also a fact. Air temperature can be below freezing as radiant energy melts ice on the ground. The liquid water refreezes when it touches something colder or gets out of the sun. Night frost can occur while the air temperature is above freezing. Liquid water can radiate infrared out away from the surface, and the water can freeze, perhaps just briefly, despite the air temperature being above freezing. Google "night frost at above freezing temperature" I know, Google is not God, or science is not Google, or night frost is a buzzword.

16-05-2022 17:41
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Im a BM wrote: 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 Feelings are not facts. But what you have always felt is also a fact. Paradox. Irrational. Im a BM wrote: Air temperature can be below freezing as radiant energy melts ice on the ground. There is no such thing as radiant energy. ANY thermal energy converted to electromagnetic energy radiating from Earth cools it. It doesn't melt ice. Im a BM wrote: The liquid water refreezes when it touches something colder or gets out of the sun. So a lake in during summer will freeze because it's shaded by trees. Gotit. Im a BM wrote: Night frost can occur while the air temperature is above freezing. Night frost occurs when the GROUND it is forming on is below freezing. That means the air above it, too is also freezing. Im a BM wrote: Liquid water can radiate infrared out away from the surface, and the water can freeze, perhaps just briefly, despite the air temperature being above freezing. ALL materials convert thermal energy to light. It doesn't have to be liquid water. Im a BM wrote: Google "night frost at above freezing temperature" I know, Google is not God, Google is not God. Stop treating it like one. Im a BM wrote: or science is not Google, Google is not science. Stop treating it like one. Im a BM wrote: or night frost is a buzzword. It is not. You have yet to define your many buzzwords though. You are mocking yourself. 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
16-05-2022 18:29
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Itn wrote Night frost occurs when the GROUND it is forming on is below freezing. That means the air above it, too is also freezing. Bollocks.The windscreen on my jeep is iced up every morning and I have to spray it with the hose to get it off and it is 11.0C.Also the lawn has frost on it.More of your theoretical crap that does not work in the real world.Amphibo boy and direct sunlight melts ice.It very rarely gets above 0.C in Antarctica but there is still a summer melt and when the sun diminishes it freezes up again as snow falls on the land mass and turns to ice
16-05-2022 20:14
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	IBdaMann wrote: HarveyH55 wrote:How do meteors enter a closed system? When you use the term "open system" or "closed system", you are referring to the context of discussion. If you were to say to me "IBDaMann, let's talk about the atmosphere," I might ask "Are we just talking about the atmosphere and nothing else?" If you respond "Yes, I only want to talk about the atmosphere" then yes, absolutely, it is a closed system because there is nothing else within the context of the discussion. If you then ask "IBDaMann, how can say that the atmosphere is a closed system if meteors can enter it and burn up?" I would then ask "Harvey, did you just totally alter the context of discussion from 'only the atmosphere' to 'the atmosphere plus everything beyond the atmosphere'?" The atmosphere can be an open system ...but if you ask about the atmosphere itself then obviously it is a closed system ... because you defined it that way. Is a door open or closed? Would you classify that as a stupid question? (say "yes") Asking if the atmosphere is open or closed is stupid, to the extent that it reveals a lack of understanding of "open vs. closed" wrt systems. HOWEVER if I ask you about a locked door, now is it open or closed? Obviously now there is context and we can dispense with questions about the flow of people traffic through the doorway, or whether a sofa will fit because we know that we are talking about a closed door, and that guides/delimits what gets discussed. HarveyH55 wrote: How do our rockets leave Earth's closed system atmosphere? So if the context of the discussion is "rockets leaving" then we know that 1) we aren't talking about thermodynamic; we are discussing rockets and 2) obviously we are talking about an "open system" because something is either entering or leaving. KEY POINT: warmizombies are desperate to conflate "open systems" with "closed systems" so that they can skirt thermodynamics, both the first and second laws, by having additional energy enter a closed system and by showing a decrease in entropy. Both are impossible and if either is allowed into a conversation then any and all violations of physics can be achieved. The vacuum of space surrounding earth makes our planet a closed system to conduction and convection. Thermodynamically, this leaves only Stefan-Boltzmann as an avenue for discussing the earth as an open system ... and that kills both greenhouse effect and Global Warming dead on impact. If you'll notice, I have asked squeal over many times to define the context for his question about systems he claims are either open or closed. He will not clarify just as he will not define any of the buzzwords he uses. In the absence of any such clarification on his part, I am entitled to make any and all assumptions I wish about context or conditions. HarveyH55 wrote: If it's a closed system, how do we get energy from the Sun? If your "system" (context) is the sun, the earth, and the surrounding space ... then it is a closed system because nothing can enter or leave the surrounding space, i.e. it's already in there and remains in there. HarveyH55 wrote: Isn't the lack of sunlight, that creates ozone holes? Correct. Actually, it's the lack of UV light but we get our UV light from the sun. The short version, Earth's atmosphere is amphibian...
16-05-2022 22:23
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: Itn wrote Night frost occurs when the GROUND it is forming on is below freezing. That means the air above it, too is also freezing. Bollocks.The windscreen on my jeep is iced up every morning and I have to spray it with the hose to get it off and it is 11.0C. The ice on your jeep was overnight when it was freezing, dude. duncan61 wrote: Also the lawn has frost on it. The frost on your lawn was because the over freezing, dude. duncan61 wrote: More of your theoretical crap that does not work in the real world. I realize you don't understand that temperature has a lot to do with when ice freezes. duncan61 wrote: Amphibo boy I'm not amphibious, but I do swim quite well. duncan61 wrote: and direct sunlight melts ice. Not necessarily. Ice can even FORM under direct sunlight. duncan61 wrote: It very rarely gets above 0.C in Antarctica but there is still a summer melt and when the sun diminishes it freezes up again as snow falls on the land mass and turns to ice Snow IS ice, dude. 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 16-05-2022 22:28
17-05-2022 03:48
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Our minimum overnight was 11.0C.It is always daylight by 7.00am in Perth even on the shortest day of the year.By 8.00am the direct sunlight has melted the frost and it is still only 13.C.I understand 0.C is the freezing point of water so why is it so.Yesterday afternoon I could feel the direct sunlight on my head but it was not harsh enough to be a problem.When Antartica has is longest days that is a lot of energy and it melts ice even below zero
17-05-2022 04:26
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	HarveyH55 wrote:The short version, Earth's atmosphere is amphibian... I don't believe the atmosphere ever resides in water. I don't believe the atmosphere swims very well. Is that your understanding as well?
18-05-2022 18:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	duncan61 wrote: Our minimum overnight was 11.0C.It is always daylight by 7.00am in Perth even on the shortest day of the year.By 8.00am the direct sunlight has melted the frost and it is still only 13.C.I understand 0.C is the freezing point of water so why is it so.Yesterday afternoon I could feel the direct sunlight on my head but it was not harsh enough to be a problem.When Antartica has is longest days that is a lot of energy and it melts ice even below zero The temperature of the ground went below 11 deg C, obviously. Ice does not melt below 0 deg C. Special pleading 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 Edited on 18-05-2022 18:50
RE: Wildfires burn on hottest day ever recorded.07-09-2022 07:59
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	Wildfires burn on hottest day ever recorded. Several cities in California set new records today for hottest day ever recorded, including a few within thirty miles of me. Wildfires have been setting new records. Pakistan today is just the most recent devastating flooding as a "super monsoon" continues the extreme weather trend. Large parts of North America and Europe have the most severe drought in 500-100 years. If this thread had been updated, this summer has had global warming in the headlines over and over. Odd that a website supposedly dedicated to discussion of climate change that all these mainstream news headline stories get no mention. Fortunately, there are many millions of people who understand what is going on. They are not waiting for permission to use the term "climate change". Where I live only got to 113 (F), so it wasn't quite the highest ever. But it's close. The average for this year will surely be one of the hottest ever recorded. The smoke from the wildfires will provide a little relief tomorrow, dimming the sunshine enough to cool things off. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 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. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
07-09-2022 11:33
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Its called weather and I did not do it.Its been very cold lately and I could do with some warming
07-09-2022 13:23
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	Im a BM wrote:Wildfires burn on hottest day ever recorded. It wasn't the hottest day. Im a BM wrote:Several cities in California set new records today for hottest day ever recorded, including a few within thirty miles of me. Every day there are places that are reaching their highest recorded temperature. Every day there are places that are reaching their coldest temperature. It would be miraculously improbable and highly noteworthy for a day to pass in which no place reached a record. Of course, it is not possible to measure the temperature of every place on earth. Im a BM wrote:Wildfires have been setting new records. Nope. Stupid comment. California wildfires are a product of intentional State government mismanagement aimed at generating increased numbers and more extensive fires ... specifically for the purpose of blaming "Global Warming" Im a BM wrote:Pakistan today is just the most recent devastating flooding Flooding is boringly ordinary for planet earth. I have no idea why you think it's something new, other than you are stupid in that way. Im a BM wrote:Large parts of North America and Europe have the most severe drought in 500-100 years. Nope. Im a BM wrote:If this thread had been updated, this summer has had global warming in the headlines over and over. The fake news is driving the scam. Im a BM wrote:Odd that a website supposedly dedicated to discussion of climate change that all these mainstream news headline stories get no mention. It's all fake news propaganda. Im a BM wrote:Fortunately, there are many millions of people who understand what is going on. Fortunately, there are many millions of people for whom you can pretend to speak. Unfortunately, you only get to speak for yourself. The average for this year will surely be one of the hottest ever fabricated. .
08-09-2022 20:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	IBdaMann wrote: Im a BM wrote:Wildfires burn on hottest day ever recorded. It wasn't the hottest day. Im a BM wrote:Several cities in California set new records today for hottest day ever recorded, including a few within thirty miles of me. Every day there are places that are reaching their highest recorded temperature. Every day there are places that are reaching their coldest temperature. It would be miraculously improbable and highly noteworthy for a day to pass in which no place reached a record. Of course, it is not possible to measure the temperature of every place on earth. Im a BM wrote:Wildfires have been setting new records. Nope. Stupid comment. California wildfires are a product of intentional State government mismanagement aimed at generating increased numbers and more extensive fires ... specifically for the purpose of blaming "Global Warming" Im a BM wrote:Pakistan today is just the most recent devastating flooding Flooding is boringly ordinary for planet earth. I have no idea why you think it's something new, other than you are stupid in that way. Im a BM wrote:Large parts of North America and Europe have the most severe drought in 500-100 years. Nope. Im a BM wrote:If this thread had been updated, this summer has had global warming in the headlines over and over. The fake news is driving the scam. Im a BM wrote:Odd that a website supposedly dedicated to discussion of climate change that all these mainstream news headline stories get no mention. It's all fake news propaganda. Im a BM wrote:Fortunately, there are many millions of people who understand what is going on. Fortunately, there are many millions of people for whom you can pretend to speak. Unfortunately, you only get to speak for yourself. The average for this year will surely be one of the hottest ever fabricated. . Many of these fires are arson. The eco-wackos in the SDTC are polluting the Earth. The smoke from their fires every year drift all the way up into Washington, obscuring our skies and causing the Sun to grow dim. 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: Canada's fire season has ALREADY begun21-05-2023 23:02
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	Canada's fire season has ALREADY started. Truly unprecedented.
22-05-2023 22:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	Im a BM wrote: Canada's fire season has ALREADY started. Truly unprecedented. No, it isn't. Canadian wildfires in the spring are normal now. It happens more because the forests are not managed anymore. No one it cutting down and thinning trees like they used to. Further, more people are living in those forests now, increasing risk of fire by carelessness. In California, it's even worse. Not only has the SDTC reduced and removed water reservoirs, but also has an increasing numbers of arsonists starting fires in dry summer brush. 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 22-05-2023 22:38
RE: 9 million acres and a lot of smoke08-06-2023 02:43
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	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.
08-06-2023 03:18
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5196)	Wildfires are healthy for forest, when happen naturally. It clears away the dry, dead, underbrush, and debris, so new growth can thrive. Mature trees are scorched a little, take a few years to recover. They don't do well, when wildfire is frequent, generally from careless humans. The build up of dead underbrush, debris is food and shelter for all kinds of things, which aren't too picky about the alive/healthy, and dead vegetation. Wildfires also release a good deal of sequestered CO2, which is also good for new growth. Bonus, it pisses off the climate-nuts.

08-06-2023 08:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	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. You obviously haven't paid attention to the weather. 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
08-06-2023 08:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	HarveyH55 wrote: Wildfires are healthy for forest, when happen naturally. It clears away the dry, dead, underbrush, and debris, so new growth can thrive. Mature trees are scorched a little, take a few years to recover. They don't do well, when wildfire is frequent, generally from careless humans. The build up of dead underbrush, debris is food and shelter for all kinds of things, which aren't too picky about the alive/healthy, and dead vegetation. Wildfires also release a good deal of sequestered CO2, which is also good for new growth. Bonus, it pisses off the climate-nuts. The only difference is that wildfires make the news more often, now that people like to blame them on 'global warming'. You know, it's the usual news media pushing the Democrat religions again. 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
09-06-2023 02:35
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Orange skies in NYC show Heaven's glass. A thick cloud of smoke drifted very high, maybe close to 20000 feet. It shadowed NYC, blocking the blue light above. More light came in sideways, than from above. The yellow glass is thickest to an observer looking sideways on the ground. That yellow light mixed with the charged helium from the sun which glows pink. The result was a tiger orange sky, seen all around NYC, on an otherwise clear day, late in the morning, close to noon. Just thought the event called for me to quickly impart the Red Sea for the few here at Climate Debate. Edited on 09-06-2023 02:41
09-06-2023 17:37
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	HarveyH55 wrote:The short version, Earth's atmosphere is amphibian... Actually, the earth's atmosphere is not amphibious; it does not exist well in water and typically avoids it.
10-06-2023 00:35
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	HarveyH55 wrote: Wildfires are healthy for forest, when happen naturally. It clears away the dry, dead, underbrush, and debris, so new growth can thrive. Mature trees are scorched a little, take a few years to recover. They don't do well, when wildfire is frequent, generally from careless humans. The build up of dead underbrush, debris is food and shelter for all kinds of things, which aren't too picky about the alive/healthy, and dead vegetation. Wildfires also release a good deal of sequestered CO2, which is also good for new growth. Bonus, it pisses off the climate-nuts. OMG!!! Are you one of those environmental nutcases? Next thing I know you'll be hugging a tree to promote a healthy ecosystem. I like science and support terraforming to promote healthy, well managed environs. And in healthy, well managed environs, there are predators. With flora, when it depletes the ecosystem of water then it burning is the only way to restore the balance. If there were more beavers then forests might be saved from forest fires but then we'd be dammed, right? Attached image: Edited on 10-06-2023 00:38
10-06-2023 00:44
James_ ★★★★★ (2225)	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. And for some good news, in mathematics the inverse is always true. Possible examples are that in 1709 in Venice, Italy, people ice skated on the canals of Venice. And then in 1780 because New York harbor froze, the British built sleds to move cannons across New York harbor to prevent the Continental army from walking into Manhattan. With climate change, no such warming has been observed that would be the inverse of what the Little Ice Age showed. And when I mention warming, Europe might warm 70 years ahead of North America. This means the heatwaves in Spain and France, have they peaked yet?
10-06-2023 10:46
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14389)	James_ wrote: If there were more beavers then forests might be saved from forest fires but then we'd be dammed, right? Then the world would be more amphibious, specifically biogeochemphibious. . Attached image:
10-06-2023 21:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James_ wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: Wildfires are healthy for forest, when happen naturally. It clears away the dry, dead, underbrush, and debris, so new growth can thrive. Mature trees are scorched a little, take a few years to recover. They don't do well, when wildfire is frequent, generally from careless humans. The build up of dead underbrush, debris is food and shelter for all kinds of things, which aren't too picky about the alive/healthy, and dead vegetation. Wildfires also release a good deal of sequestered CO2, which is also good for new growth. Bonus, it pisses off the climate-nuts. OMG!!! Are you one of those environmental nutcases? Next thing I know you'll be hugging a tree to promote a healthy ecosystem. I like science How's that Bessler Wheel coming? James_ wrote: and support terraforming to promote healthy, well managed environs. What terraforming?? 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
10-06-2023 22:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21588)	James_ 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. And for some good news, in mathematics the inverse is always true. Unit error. 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: July 4 - still burning and very hot04-07-2023 21:07
Im a BM ★★★☆☆ (595)	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.

Page 3 of 4

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

Threads	Replies	Last post
Climate change keeps making wildfires and smoke worse	5	03-07-2023 03:40
B-17 and Bell King Cobra collided at Dallas air show today. Story at 11	0	13-11-2022 01:38
And In Today's News	19	29-06-2021 03:20
Polar vortex pattern suggest we could have a repeat of the 2010 wildfires and drought in Russia! VIDEO!!!	14	14-05-2021 23:13
Today's Yahoo Headlines	60	23-03-2021 17:20