Remember me
▼ Content

What if everything alarmist say is true.



Page 2 of 2<12
31-01-2020 20:13
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
Coal has be outdated for a while, for many of it's traditional uses. It's easy and cheaper to use gas. Coal ash is also getting harder to dispose of, which is another expense, you don't have with gas. Wind and solar are a joke, but makes some people feels good, because the politicians are doing something, to save them from burning to death. Coal is cheap, because there is less demand, and will continue to see enough use, to keep the mines open for a while, but will continue to decline. Gas is just more efficient and cost effective.
31-01-2020 23:54
James___
★★★★★
(3170)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Coal has be outdated for a while, for many of it's traditional uses. It's easy and cheaper to use gas. Coal ash is also getting harder to dispose of, which is another expense, you don't have with gas. Wind and solar are a joke, but makes some people feels good, because the politicians are doing something, to save them from burning to death. Coal is cheap, because there is less demand, and will continue to see enough use, to keep the mines open for a while, but will continue to decline. Gas is just more efficient and cost effective.



In 2018, wind and solar energy accounted for an 8% share of the energy generated in the US. Wind was 6.5% while solar energy was 1.5%.
https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=427&t=3

If gas companies have to replace aging pipelines, will costs increase?

Natural Gas Explosions Rock Boston Area. Will It Awaken Industry To Safety Risks?
https://www.forbes.com/sites/kensilverstein/2018/09/14/natural-gas-pipeline-explosions-rock-boston-area-will-it-awaken-the-industry/#7c26de934932
01-02-2020 04:14
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
Jethro Bodine wrote:
The change in Co2 levels is only alarming if you are looking at only recent rises and ignoring historical levels.
I don't think it's the level as much as the rate in how much it's changing. That graph is in millions of years.

If climate change theory was that over the next million years we'd see CO2 levels triple, well yeah, so what, plenty of time to adapt.

IBdaMann wrote:...Into the Night's view, as well as my own, that no one knows the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere...
Context is very important:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....
I look forward to an example of what what we do know.

Jethro Bodine wrote:
Vegetation is really controlling what happens...whereas the emphasis in the climate models has always been on the atmosphere.
Freeman Dyson
I'd like to learn more about this part.

Jethro Bodine wrote:
If we are headed into a natural ice age cycle that could solve an AGW problem.

However isn't the hysteria based on what the, hysterics, see as coming? Not what has already transpired.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:...my attempt to summarize the consensus...theory on global warming:
do-i-have-the-co2-calamity-math-right
..."consensus theory" rejects logic, science, and mathematics. For me, that's an issue.
Want to talk about it? I'm curious why you think so.

gfm7175 wrote:The only authoritative source for any theory of science is the theory itself. No "holy link" to any website....
What about a book? (not the bible) Where would you go to find the theories of thermodynamics?

No one is trying to force a source on you. The question is what sources do you have. That's up to you. You said that consensus theory rejects science. On what do you base that conclusion?

IBdaMann wrote:
Are you prepared to unambiguously define Climate Change?

"...my definition is that it's Earth's annual mean temperature increasing at ground level (world wide and specifically 2 meters above the ground/water). "
Is that ambiguous?

IBdaMann wrote:
...being a Climate Change site removes all credibility
I'd agree it was a flawed question since you don't believe in climate change so why would you go to site about it. However you do believe in physics and thermodynamics so you should have references you trust in that broad category.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I'm skeptical but find the potential threat serious enough.

What "potential threat"?
That a very fast change in CO2 will result in a very fast change in the ground level temperature of Earth and that this will cause havoc.

gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
Having a sudden and violent change in environment can destroy life that would normally have a chance to adapt to the same change given time.

What "sudden and violent change"?
Currently the only thing sudden and violent is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. So far it does not seem to be causing anything else to change dramatically. But the theory that it could seems coherent to me. Again I'd love to discuss it.

gfm7175 wrote:We don't burn fossils for fuel.
When I say fossil fuel I mean oil, coal, natural gas. Do I have to remind you every time? It is the most popular definition. And no I don't mean carbon based fuels as a broad category (that includes wood form a tree you chop down, bio fuels, and potatoe chips). If you're ever confused about what I mean you can check here:
https://www.dictionary.com/ I'm really boring and uncreative in my word definition choices. I go with the popular choices most of the time.

gfm7175 wrote:Oil forms naturally underground and can be synthesized, so we're not going to "run out" of it.
On what do you base that assertion? Did you do your own research on it?

gfm7175 wrote:
It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth.
I'm going to guess Denver is a no for you too. So what can we measure the temperature of? Anything?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
01-02-2020 20:03
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
Jethro Bodine wrote:
The change in Co2 levels is only alarming if you are looking at only recent rises and ignoring historical levels.
I don't think it's the level as much as the rate in how much it's changing. That graph is in millions of years.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
If climate change theory was that over the next million years we'd see CO2 levels triple, well yeah, so what, plenty of time to adapt.
...deleted RDCF...

Define 'climate change'. There is no theory about 'climate change'. The phrase is undefined. You cannot define 'climate change' as 'climate change'.
tmiddles wrote:
Jethro Bodine wrote:
Vegetation is really controlling what happens...whereas the emphasis in the climate models has always been on the atmosphere.
Freeman Dyson
I'd like to learn more about this part.

Carbon dioxide + water + light makes carbohydrates. Done. Anything else you need to know?
tmiddles wrote:
Jethro Bodine wrote:
If we are headed into a natural ice age cycle that could solve an AGW problem.

However isn't the hysteria based on what the, hysterics, see as coming? Not what has already transpired.

Put away your Holy Entrails. You can't predict the future.
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted RQAA...
No one is trying to force a source on you.
...deleted RQAA...

YOU are.
tmiddles wrote:
...deleted RQAA...
gfm7175 wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
I'm skeptical but find the potential threat serious enough.

What "potential threat"?
That a very fast change in CO2 will result in a very fast change in the ground level temperature of Earth and that this will cause havoc.

CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
Currently the only thing sudden and violent is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. So far it does not seem to be causing anything else to change dramatically. But the theory that it could seems coherent to me.

CO2 is not capable of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
tmiddles wrote:
Again I'd love to discuss it.
You don't want to discuss it. You want to preach. You want to deny the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:We don't burn fossils for fuel.
When I say fossil fuel I mean oil, coal, natural gas. Do I have to remind you every time?
Coal is not a fossil. It is primarily carbon. Oil is not a fossil it is a liquid. Natural gas is not a fossil. It is a gas. A fossil is the image of a once living creature cast in stone (usually limestone) or the void left behind by such a cast. It is not an element. It is not a liquid. It is not a gas. Fossils don't burn. We don't use them for fuel.
tmiddles wrote:
It is the most popular definition.
WRONG. Fossils are an image of a once living critter cast in stone or the void left behind by such.

* Coal is not a fossil. It is primarily carbon, an element found in the periodic table of elements.
* Oil is not a fossil. It is a hydrocarbon. It is a liquid.
* Natural gas is not a fossil. It is a hydrocarbon. It is a liquid.

NONE of these are fossils nor came from fossils.

* Both oil and natural gas are found well below the fossil layers.
* Coal is an element listed on the periodic table. It may have fossils embedded within it, but it itself is not a fossil.
tmiddles wrote:
And no I don't mean carbon based fuels as a broad category (that includes wood form a tree you chop down, bio fuels, and potatoe chips).
You could always call them hydrocarbon based fuels. That's what they are.
tmiddles wrote:
If you're ever confused about what I mean you can check here:
https://www.dictionary.com/

No dictionary defines any word. No dictionary is a history book, science book, math book, philosophy book, or logic book.
RFAF.
tmiddles wrote:
I'm really boring and uncreative in my word definition choices. I go with the popular choices most of the time.

No. You go with your OWN choices. Try English. It works better.
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:Oil forms naturally underground and can be synthesized, so we're not going to "run out" of it.
On what do you base that assertion? Did you do your own research on it?
...deleted RQAA.

Yes he did. So did I. I have already answered this question several times for you. RQAA.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
01-02-2020 20:13
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...Into the Night's view, as well as my own, that no one knows the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere...
Context is very important:
IBdaMann wrote:
Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver.
He's absolutely correct....
I look forward to an example of what what we do know.

Context is very important. This question of yours needs to be considered within the broader context of your dishonesty. You well know that "Denver" is a large-scale aerospace volume that you insist remain undefined, whereas you well know that a temperature is for one single solitary dimensionless point. You then dishonestly attempt to shift your burden of proof for your absurd claim that a dimensionless temperature can somehow be applied to a large-scale aerospace volume by stupidly asking your question above.

So the answer to your question is that you are a complete moron. Beyond that there is nothing else to add except to wish you well in your WACKY religious beliefs that obviously afford you a powerful narcotic effect.

tmiddles wrote:
Jethro Bodine wrote:
Vegetation is really controlling what happens...whereas the emphasis in the climate models has always been on the atmosphere.
Freeman Dyson
I'd like to learn more about this part.

Either you misunderstand Jethro's point or you are dishonestly setting him up.

His point is Dyson Freeman's position that ALL climate models are questionable for one reason or another whereas my position differs slightly in that there are no honest models in the first place.

Anyway, that's not what you want to hear. You are clinging to the hope of finding a "Climate model" that supports your WACKY religious dogma ... and you aren't going to find one. First of all you aren't going to find any Climate models; the word "models" is a total misnomer because nobody in human history has ever unambiguously defined the "global climate" much less ever modeled it. All you are going to find are computer PROGRAMS that are dishonestly referred to as the models they supposedly implement. Every single PROGRAM is in fact deliberately PROGRAMMED to output the desired, predetermined output. This is why the code for any such PROGRAM that produces results implying Global Warming will never ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever be published or released for public scrutiny. There's nothing more obvious than computer code strangely increasing the value in the temperature variable before sending the output.


tmiddles wrote: Want to talk about it? I'm curious why you think so.

Pick me! Pick me! I want to talk about how high clergy use CONSENSUS to determine the tenets of their religious dogma. The politics of that sort of "consensus" differs little from political campaigns forming their platforms based on polling data. There is no logic involved whatsoever. It is pure emotional appeal to better control larger populations.




tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:The only authoritative source for any theory of science is the theory itself. No "holy link" to any website....
What about a book? (not the bible) Where would you go to find the theories of thermodynamics?

He wasn't telling you WHERE to find them; you quickly pivoted and shifted the goalposts. You were talking about authority, specifically authority on the laws of thermodynamics. He told you to reference the theory itself and to avoid pretending anything else is somehow "an authority." You can find the theory everywhere just as you can find a neverending supply of nonauthorities preaching what the theories supposedly "mean." Only the theory gets to say what the theory says. Only the theory gets to say what falsifies the theory. That's why all science theories must be falsifiable. Into the Night has provided thermodynamics theory (equations) to you along with complimentary explanations. That is all you need. Do you have any disagreement with the theory itself? I notice that you haven't found any errors in it, nor has anyone else in the history of humanity. Insisting on something other than the theory itself makes you a gullible moron who is looking for someone to do his thinking for him.

Address the theory itself. Do you need it to be repeated? Let me know if you do.

Better yet, here you go:
1st Law of Thermodynamics
2nd Law of Thermodynamics

... oh, and if you are going to complain that you have discovered errors in the theory, please let me know so that you and I can claim the Nobel Prize. Don't worry, I will gladly write the paper for both of us.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Are you prepared to unambiguously define Climate Change?

"...my definition is that it's Earth's annual mean temperature increasing at ground level (world wide and specifically 2 meters above the ground/water). "
Is that ambiguous?

It is unverifiable, and you have again failed to specify what you consider to be an acceptable margin of error.

I have mentioned this many times. You need to specify YOUR target margin of error. You are good with defining "Climate" without including the ocean or any lakes or rivers, and without including the ground ... which will ensure that practically no one else on the planet will agree with your definition ... but you are welcome to unambiguously define it as you wish ... but you MUST specify your target margin of error so that your conclusions can be scrutinized. Otherwise you are admitting that you are just spewing religious dogma.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
...being a Climate Change site removes all credibility
I'd agree it was a flawed question since you don't believe in climate change so why would you go to site about it. However you do believe in physics and thermodynamics so you should have references you trust in that broad category.

I committed all the knowledge to memory. I have my own personal "big data in the cloud" so that if the internet ever crashes and all the libraries and books are inadvertently destroyed, I can seamlessly carry on.

Feel free to come to me as an authoritative reference.



.


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
02-02-2020 14:30
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
.... a temperature is for one single solitary dimensionless point. ....
It seems I don't know what you or ITN mean when you say "temperature". Would you both like to share your definition?

Mine is again not unique or creative:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/temperature?s=t
"a measure of the warmth or coldness of an object or substance with reference to some standard value. "

I also include:
Max Planck wrote:Pg.190
According [to the Boltzmann] atomic theory the thermal energy of a body is the sum-total of a small, rapid, and unregulated movement of its molecules. The temperature corresponds to the medium kinetic energy of the molecules, ...

So what's yours?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:The only authoritative source for any theory of science is the theory itself. No "holy link" to any website....
What about a book? (not the bible) Where would you go to find the theories of thermodynamics?

He wasn't telling you WHERE to find them; ...

No he said the source was the theory itself and stopped there. And no thats not your personal website you linked to which is no different than your posting your personal version here.

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
Edited on 02-02-2020 14:30
02-02-2020 18:11
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
CO2 is very important to all life on this planet, and yet, it's one of the trace gasses. It only makes up about 0.04% of the total atmosphere. That's even with the huge volumes we release, as 'pollution'. Plants do a fine job of regulating CO2, but all living things depend on plants for food. Populations of pretty much everything keep growing, "at an alarming rate". There are more people than ever before. We raise a lot of animals, for food. We also put a lot of effort into preserving wildlife. Plants, though we tend to use, and abuse. We farm most of our food these days, so we replenish much in that respect. We also use them for a lot of things, like clothing, building materials, various consumer products. Much of those sources are also farmed. But, we clear off a lot of vegetation, to develop land, and never do anything to replace what was removed. Gone forever. We also remove a lot of vegetation considered to be 'in the way', or a nuisance. Trees blocking the view, or to expand farm and pasture land. We remove plants considered harmful or unpleasant to people, pets, and livestock. We remove them from lakes, rivers, and streams, because they cause issues for boats, and fishing. Even in the oceans we remove a lot of vegetation, simply because it grows in an convenient place, or we don't like some of the effects, like algae blooms. People, and nature also use fire to remove millions of acres of vegetation every year. Life on the plant keeps increasing, so our need for plant growth should be increasing as well, but we keep it under control, or remove it.

Water, is a magic molecule though, does so many things, serves so many purposes, and also very important to all life on the planet. Also very abundant, about 80% of the planet surface is covered in the stuff, either as a solid (ice), a liquid. It's found underground as well. But what climate 'science' ignores, mostly, is it's plentiful in the atmosphere, as a vapor. The key point though, is that the amount varies a lot, and frequently, quickly. It can be anywhere from 0-4%. It also moves a lot of thermal energy around with it. Water vapor does a lot more to regulate our temperature, than all the 'greenhouse' gasses combined. The 'greenhouse effect', only really exists in a lab, or on a computer screen. Outside the lab, water vapor is moving the 'heat' much quicker and efficiently, that 'greenhouse effect', is insignificant. Basically, climate 'science' is focusing on a non-issue, to still your money, and control your life, while discounting the real global thermostat, water vapor. We've never found life on other planets, mostly because we are unique, and have an abundance of water.
03-02-2020 03:00
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
HarveyH55 wrote:...water vapor is moving the 'heat' much quicker and efficiently, that 'greenhouse effect', is insignificant. ...
Just to clarify I think I'm understanding you as:

The greenhouse effect caused by CO2 is insignificant compared to the greenhouse effect cause by water vapor.
03-02-2020 03:26
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote: Would you both like to share your definition?

A body's thermal energy average.

tmiddles wrote:Mine is again not unique or creative:

... and it's not particularly good either.

tmiddles wrote:I also include: Max Planck wrote:

Appeal to dead authority who cannot be cross-examined fallacy.

Until you answer my standing question about kinetic energy of molecules, I'm frankly not interested in any quotes about the motion of molecules.

For your convenience I'll ask again:

I have a baseball at a uniform temperature of 22 deg C sitting in a bucket. I then throw that baseball at 80 Km/hr, effectively increasing every single molecule's velocity by 80 Km/hr.

What is the baseball's new temperature now with all this brand new kinetic energy from all of the molecules moving so much faster?



tmiddles wrote:No he said the source was the theory itself and stopped there.

Exactly. You owe him an apology.


tmiddles wrote: And no thats not your personal website you linked to which is no different than your posting your personal version here.

Invalid moronic conflation fallacy. The theory is not my website. Are you so stupid that you can't tell the difference between a website and a science model? We already know that you cannot distinguish between science and religion. Are you trying to push the envelope?

Would you like to try again or are you happy with being an idiot?

Seriously? You don't know the difference between science and a website? Do you normally confuse mathematics with HTML? Did the falsifiability throw you off? How could you get that wrong? (are you competing with keepit?)

A website. Science. Hmmm. Yeah, I see how you could get those confused.


.


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
03-02-2020 03:31
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:...water vapor is moving the 'heat' much quicker and efficiently, that 'greenhouse effect', is insignificant. ...
Just to clarify I think I'm understanding you as:

The greenhouse effect caused by CO2 is insignificant compared to the greenhouse effect cause by water vapor.


Greenhouse effect is junk science, since the planet is enclosed in a jar. Earth being a game one a cosmic computer screen, is more of a metaphysical topic, best left in church on Sunday, or which ever holy day Climate Change has chosen.
03-02-2020 04:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Would you both like to share your definition?
A body's thermal energy average.
Sounds like a really accurate definition to me. Just needs a definition for thermal energy.

IBdaMann wrote: Appeal to dead authority who cannot be cross-examined fallacy.
I'm hear to talk about it. Cross examine me. Giving credit for a quote does not mean I don't want to talk about it.

An appeal to authority is by definition a "mike drop I'm out" cop out to actually debating an issue.

IBdaMann wrote:...What is the baseball's new temperature now with all this brand new kinetic energy from all of the molecules moving so much faster?
I don't know that's an interesting question. Do you have an answer?

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:No he said the source was the theory itself and stopped there.

Exactly. You owe him an apology.
Why are you both so secretive about where you learned something?

IBdaMann wrote:
You don't know the difference between science and a website?
Do you share ITN's definition of science? It is ONLY a list of falsifiable theories?

Theories are in he form of language, so oral tradition or written down there is a giver and receiver. So yeah there is always a source from anything linguistic.

Website, book, person... What they pass on or contain may be consistent with other sources or it may be revised, edited, personalized, bastardized, damaged, improved and so on.

You and ITN from example have created your own novel approach to thermodynamics not found anywhere else I've found.

HarveyH55 wrote:
Greenhouse effect is junk science, ....
So do you think water vapor makes any difference to the temperature at ground level due to "back radiation" or a "Greenhouse effect"? It seemed you were saying it dwarfed the impact of CO2 but if you're saying there IS no impact then it doesn't matter either way right?

"Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper
ITN/IBD Fraud exposed:  The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is ever valid for them
03-02-2020 06:29
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Would you both like to share your definition?
A body's thermal energy average.
Sounds like a really accurate definition to me. Just needs a definition for thermal energy.

Maybe you do. Do you need a definition of "electromagnetic energy"? Do you need a definition of "energy"?

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: Appeal to dead authority who cannot be cross-examined fallacy.
I'm hear to talk about it. Cross examine me. Giving credit for a quote does not mean I don't want to talk about it.

I'm about to cross-examine you ... but first, I want to point out that this is the third time I have noticed you write the word "here" as "hear." You might not be aware that you are doing it, not that it matters any.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...What is the baseball's new temperature now with all this brand new kinetic energy from all of the molecules moving so much faster?
I don't know that's an interesting question. Do you have an answer?

Unfortunately, you don't get to have this position since you are asserting that temperature is the motion of the molecules. Your cross-examination begins now.

You either need to provide the baseball's new temperature per your model or admit that temperature is not based on the motion of molecules as you had asserted. So what will it be?

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:No he said the source was the theory itself and stopped there.

Exactly. You owe him an apology.
Why are you both so secretive about where you learned something?

Nobody is being secretive. You are pretending your question wasn't answered, almost as if you couldn't read the answers provided to you.

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You don't know the difference between science and a website?
Do you share ITN's definition of science? It is ONLY a list of falsifiable theories?

This is going to confuse the crap out of you because you aren't necessarily cooking on all four burners. You came here to preach a religion and the moment you discovered that Into the Night and I do not accept your axioms you lumped us both together as though we are the same person. Therefore there's no way you are going to be able to grasp the concept that we agree completely but use different wording based on how we wish to express our ideas.

This is also something that you could easily research because we have each discussed this hundreds of times on this site.

IBDaMann: Science is a set of falsifiable models that predict nature.
Into the Night:Science is a set of falsifiable theories that describe nature.

I draw distinctions between predictability and falsifiability because technically they are not the same thing and any science theory must have both. My focus is on the predictive nature of science, i.e. science being "future tense" as what is required for the scientific method to be applied, which is a requirement for a theory to become "science."

Into the Night, on the other hand, correctly recognizes that the predictions made by any science theory serve as its falsifiability and are, in fact, what are tested under the scientific method hence, from his perspective, it is somewhat redundant to specify "falsifiable that predicts". Into the Night's focus is that math, being a closed functional system, is what gives a theory the power to predict, and that it is the math that therefore provides the falsifiability. Ergo, if you state that a theory is falsifiable then you are stating that it is expressed in math/logic that unambiguously expresses predictions of nature.

Aside from wording/syntax, he and I agree on the underlying tacit understanding of what science is. If you'd like to question either definition I'll be happy to address.

tmiddles wrote:Theories are in he form of language, so oral tradition or written down there is a giver and receiver.

Incorrect. Theories are formal expressions of ideas/concepts that are tacit knowledge. Science is a human understanding, regardless of infinite ways to attempt to convey that tacit knowledge. The aforementioned example of "what is science" is a great example.

So tell me, can you not learn what I just taught you about science from Google? If not, why not? Can you show me an example of science that deviates from my definition? If not, why can you not find that definition in a Google search? Isn't Google inerrant and the provider of omniscience?

tmiddles wrote: You and ITN from example have created your own novel approach to thermodynamics not found anywhere else I've found.

Which isn't saying much, right? ... given your scientific illiteracy, no one should expect you to have ever learned a correct understanding, especially since you sponge misunderstanding from every warmizombie with whom you come in contact. Your never having seen something that you should have been taught as a child is simply another example of how the people charged with your education did you a grave disservice.

tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Greenhouse effect is junk science, ....
So do you think water vapor makes any difference to the temperature at ground level due to "back radiation" or a "Greenhouse effect"? It seemed you were saying it dwarfed the impact of CO2 but if you're saying there IS no impact then it doesn't matter either way right?

That's not what Harvey wrote. Harvey has been exceedingly clear for as long as I can remember in stating that warmizombies (not his word, of course) are nonstop in preaching the effects of CO2 despite it being a trace gas. Water vapor, due to its nature and sheer quantity would have orders of magnitude more effect, if anything, than CO2 ... and that water vapor doesn't seem to be having any noticeable effect ... ergo CO2 can't be having any effect worth discussing, much less worth panicking over.

Harvey, please advise if I have misstated your position.


.


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
03-02-2020 10:25
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
IBdaMann wrote:

That's not what Harvey wrote. Harvey has been exceedingly clear for as long as I can remember in stating that warmizombies (not his word, of course) are nonstop in preaching the effects of CO2 despite it being a trace gas. Water vapor, due to its nature and sheer quantity would have orders of magnitude more effect, if anything, than CO2 ... and that water vapor doesn't seem to be having any noticeable effect ... ergo CO2 can't be having any effect worth discussing, much less worth panicking over.

Harvey, please advise if I have misstated your position.


.


He can read, just wasting time. Wouldn't matter how many time I re-worded it, he still going to twist it around, to not quite right. He thinks playing word games makes him smarter, and we are pretty stupid, if we play. With him, I might go one time, might wording or typing may be off once, but not 2 or more times.
03-02-2020 20:36
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
.... a temperature is for one single solitary dimensionless point. ....
It seems I don't know what you or ITN mean when you say "temperature". Would you both like to share your definition?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
Mine is again not unique or creative:
https://www.dictionary.com/browse/temperature?s=t
"a measure of the warmth or coldness of an object or substance with reference to some standard value. "

False authority fallacy. A dictionary is not a science book. It does not define 'temperature' or any other word.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
gfm7175 wrote:The only authoritative source for any theory of science is the theory itself. No "holy link" to any website....
What about a book? (not the bible) Where would you go to find the theories of thermodynamics?

He wasn't telling you WHERE to find them; ...

No he said the source was the theory itself and stopped there.

The source is the theory itself.
tmiddles wrote:
And no thats not your personal website you linked to which is no different than your posting your personal version here.

A copy of the equations for those theories is found there. Bulverism 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
03-02-2020 20:39
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:...water vapor is moving the 'heat' much quicker and efficiently, that 'greenhouse effect', is insignificant. ...
Just to clarify I think I'm understanding you as:

The greenhouse effect caused by CO2 is insignificant compared to the greenhouse effect cause by water vapor.


He's not talking about 'greenhouse effect' at all. Try learning English.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth. You cannot create energy out of nothing.


The Parrot Killer

Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles

Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit
03-02-2020 20:48
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote: Would you both like to share your definition?
A body's thermal energy average.
Sounds like a really accurate definition to me. Just needs a definition for thermal energy.

RQAA
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote: Appeal to dead authority who cannot be cross-examined fallacy.
I'm hear to talk about it. Cross examine me. Giving credit for a quote does not mean I don't want to talk about it.

You are not talking about it. You don't want to. You are just quoting others as your own argument. Appeal to authority fallacy. Redefinition fallacy (argument<->theft).
tmiddles wrote:
An appeal to authority is by definition a "mike drop I'm out" cop out to actually debating an issue.

You are not debating an issue.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:...What is the baseball's new temperature now with all this brand new kinetic energy from all of the molecules moving so much faster?
I don't know that's an interesting question. Do you have an answer?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:No he said the source was the theory itself and stopped there.

Exactly. You owe him an apology.
Why are you both so secretive about where you learned something?

RQAA.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
You don't know the difference between science and a website?
Do you share ITN's definition of science? It is ONLY a list of falsifiable theories?

So you actually believe a website is science???
tmiddles wrote:
Theories are in he form of language, so oral tradition or written down there is a giver and receiver. So yeah there is always a source from anything linguistic.

Word salad. Try English.
tmiddles wrote:
Website, book, person... What they pass on or contain may be consistent with other sources or it may be revised, edited, personalized, bastardized, damaged, improved and so on.

Science is not a website. Science is not a book. Science is not a person.
tmiddles wrote:
You and ITN from example have created your own novel approach to thermodynamics not found anywhere else I've found.

Inversion fallacy.
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Greenhouse effect is junk science, ....
So do you think water vapor makes any difference to the temperature at ground level due to "back radiation" or a "Greenhouse effect"? It seemed you were saying it dwarfed the impact of CO2 but if you're saying there IS no impact then it doesn't matter either way right?

Contextomy fallacy. Learn English. It helps you track conversations easier.


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
04-02-2020 01:44
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
H20 is a strong greenhouse gas, much stronger than CO2. It's just that over short time H20 in the atmosphere stays the same because it rains down. CO2 also has greenhouse gas effects and once the level (concentration) in the atmosphere goes up it stays up for hundreds to thousands of years thereby continually adding to its level and its effects.
Edited on 04-02-2020 02:36
04-02-2020 03:18
HarveyH55
★★★★★
(2399)
keepit wrote:
H20 is a strong greenhouse gas, much stronger than CO2. It's just that over short time H20 in the atmosphere stays the same because it rains down. CO2 also has greenhouse gas effects and once the level (concentration) in the atmosphere goes up it stays up for hundreds to thousands of years thereby continually adding to its level and its effects.


Have you ever considered, that it takes energy for water to transition between states (solid, liquid, gas). Heat rises, along with the water vapor. The water vapor needs to lose energy, to transition back to a liquid or solid. That' moving heat away from the surface. More heat on the surface, the higher the vapor rises, until it condense, releasing that energy. Greenhouse effect only exist in a jar, in a laboratory. You can't stuff a whole planet in a jar, to test.
04-02-2020 03:50
keepit
★★★★☆
(1684)
Harvey,
I don't understand what you just said. Could you restate it, hopefully in clearer manner. It kind of sounded like you described evaporation, then condensation, and then rain.
Edited on 04-02-2020 03:52
04-02-2020 06:12
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
H20 is a strong greenhouse gas, much stronger than CO2.

No gas or vapor is capable of warming the Earth. You can't create energy out of nothing.
keepit wrote:
It's just that over short time H20 in the atmosphere stays the same because it rains down.

Irrelevant.
keepit wrote:
CO2 also has greenhouse gas effects and once the level (concentration) in the atmosphere goes up it stays up for hundreds to thousands of years thereby continually adding to its level and its effects.

Argument from randU fallacy. Irrelevance 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
04-02-2020 06:13
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
HarveyH55 wrote:
keepit wrote:
H20 is a strong greenhouse gas, much stronger than CO2. It's just that over short time H20 in the atmosphere stays the same because it rains down. CO2 also has greenhouse gas effects and once the level (concentration) in the atmosphere goes up it stays up for hundreds to thousands of years thereby continually adding to its level and its effects.


Have you ever considered, that it takes energy for water to transition between states (solid, liquid, gas). Heat rises, along with the water vapor. The water vapor needs to lose energy, to transition back to a liquid or solid. That' moving heat away from the surface. More heat on the surface, the higher the vapor rises, until it condense, releasing that energy. Greenhouse effect only exist in a jar, in a laboratory. You can't stuff a whole planet in a jar, to test.


It doesn't even exist in a jar. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the inside of a jar 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
04-02-2020 06:14
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
keepit wrote:
Harvey,
I don't understand what you just said. Could you restate it, hopefully in clearer manner. It kind of sounded like you described evaporation, then condensation, and then rain.

Why does he need to restate 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
04-02-2020 07:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
keepit wrote: H20 is a strong greenhouse gas, much stronger than CO2.

Are you still preaching your undefined Greenhouse Effect?

keepit wrote: CO2 also has greenhouse gas effects

Not anything defined, right?

keepit wrote: ... and once the level (concentration) in the atmosphere goes up it stays up for hundreds to thousands of years thereby continually adding to its level and its effects.

When a plant takes in CO2, isn't it immediately removed? There is no plant that takes hundreds or thousands of years to take in CO2.

[ 0.000 ]


.


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
04-02-2020 12:37
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
.... a definition for thermal energy.
Maybe you do.
Yes I need yours. So I know what you are saying.

"Hear"/"here" is a typo, thanks

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
..What is the baseball's new temperature
I don't know .../quote]Unfortunately, you don't get to have this position since you are asserting that temperature is the motion of the molecules.
Well I still don't know. My "admitting" things doesn't make them a reality. Do you think you know?

IBdaMann wrote:
IBDaMann: Science is a set of falsifiable models that predict nature.
Thanks. As you've noted this is your unique definition so it's good to have it for reference.

IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Theories are in he form of language, so oral tradition or written down there is a giver and receiver.
Incorrect. Theories are formal expressions of ideas/concepts that are tacit knowledge.
tacit = hard to explain. So all the more reason to have great sources.
Edited on 04-02-2020 12:38
04-02-2020 15:51
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
y
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:quote]tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
..What is the baseball's new temperature
I don't know .../quote]Unfortunately, you don't get to have this position since you are asserting that temperature is the motion of the molecules.
Well I still don't know. My "admitting" things doesn't make them a reality. Do you think you know?
well I'm still fuzzy on this but did find a few references:
when a pitcher throws a baseball,
pick up the rock, and throw it
a baseball flying at your head

I actually did not know velocity was relative


So I do not "understand" it yet but it seems temperature is relative to the "zero frame" or the reference point where the matter is not moving as a whole. Also seems if you could look at the atomic level it wouldn't look like pool balls bouncing around.
More like a vibration.


But definitely more complicated than I thought!
04-02-2020 17:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(7464)
tmiddles wrote: well I'm still fuzzy on this but did find a few references:
when a pitcher throws a baseball,
pick up the rock, and throw it
a baseball flying at your head

All of these have egregious errors and none answer the question.

tmiddles wrote: I actually did not know velocity was relative

... and you still don't, because it's not.

tmiddles wrote: So I do not "understand" it yet but it seems temperature is relative to the "zero frame" or the reference point where the matter is not moving as a whole.

It's all gibber-babble crap.

By the way, "dynamics" means "changes over time." It does not mean "equilibrium" or other such crap.

The temperature of a body is determined by the body's quantity of thermal energy and the body's mass, and is independent of whether thermal energy is defined to your satisfaction. All that you need to know is that thermal energy is a form of energy and adheres to thermodynamics.

tmiddles wrote: Also seems if you could look at the atomic level it wouldn't look like pool balls bouncing around.

Nope. It would not.


.


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
04-02-2020 19:56
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(3375)
IBdaMann wrote: All that you need to know is that thermal energy is a form of energy and adheres to thermodynamics.


Works for me.

So the baseball does not have a higher temperature if it's thrown. The kinetic energy of its movement from throwing would not show an increased internal temp in the baseball if you had a sensor there.
04-02-2020 20:57
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(13293)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:
.... a definition for thermal energy.
Maybe you do.
Yes I need yours. So I know what you are saying.

"Hear"/"here" is a typo, thanks

tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
..What is the baseball's new temperature
I don't know .../quote]Unfortunately, you don't get to have this position since you are asserting that temperature is the motion of the molecules.
Well I still don't know. My "admitting" things doesn't make them a reality. Do you think you know?
Buzzword fallacy. Try English.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
IBDaMann: Science is a set of falsifiable models that predict nature.
Thanks. As you've noted this is your unique definition so it's good to have it for reference.

No, it's not. Try English. It works better.
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
tmiddles wrote:Theories are in he form of language, so oral tradition or written down there is a giver and receiver.
Incorrect. Theories are formal expressions of ideas/concepts that are tacit knowledge.
tacit = hard to explain. So all the more reason to have great sources.

RFAF. Try English.


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
Page 2 of 2<12





Join the debate What if everything alarmist say is true.:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Is it not true that brains shrink due to increase in CO2 displacing O2?208-11-2019 18:45
It's not true leftists are climate advocates201-05-2019 00:24
How is this even true? CO2e is now over 500 ppm this year?508-02-2019 23:42
The True Believers Revealed120-11-2017 20:03
The True Believers Are In Full Retreat1219-09-2017 03:54
▲ 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