Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2? > Page 3

Page 3 of 4

15-12-2019 21:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	tmiddles wrote: keepit wrote:... you are just more thorough than i care to be. The question of if it's a waste of time to debate trolls is of course one we have to ask as well. I view ITN/IBD as a pretty good representation of a core group of insincere deniers out there and using them to learn to dismantle the arguments is useful. YALIFNAP tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote: A TV station might take it in town where the heat island effect increases the temperature? Exactly! Good example. GG nailed it. Define 'heat island'. Describe exactly how much this changes temperature. tmiddles wrote: Denver has multiple temperatures from one point in space to another and from one moment to the next. Just like everything in the known universe. Denver has one temperature. We just don't know what it is. You are still trying to redefine '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 Edited on 15-12-2019 21:01
15-12-2019 21:09
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote:The Moon has an atmosphere. You even admitted it. It is a true as saying the temperature of Denver is unknowable. Repetition. You keep posting the same nonsense over and over. The temperature of Denver is unknown. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: There is a logical argument, which can be made, and which is dead wrong. You deny logic. Argument of the stone fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Yes you can know the temperature of Denver. No, you can't. Not enough thermometers and the area of Denver remains undefined. tmiddles wrote: No the Moon does not have an atmosphere. Yes it does. Thin as it is, it's there. tmiddles wrote: FOR THE PURPOSES OF ANY USEFUL DISCUSSION ON ANYTHING AT ALL YOU are the one that keeps bringing it up. Repetition fallacy. tmiddles wrote: But then you are hell bent on making this forum useless with quite a lot accomplished in that regard. You just keep repeating yourself. Why don't you try actually debating? The parrot killer wins another debate by saying thermometers aren't everywhere.
15-12-2019 21:18
Spongy Iris★★★★☆ (1643)	Indeed I think the atmosphere does very much cool the earth. Isn't this means by which the atmosphere cools the earth , and increasing too much CO2 into the atmosphere, risk the destruction of that atmosphere? Do you guys know what I'm talking about?
16-12-2019 00:46
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: James___ wrote: keepit wrote: James, Tmid does like to engage in issues. More than i do anyhow. Let him roll on, he brings a lot to the table. The issue might actually be Does the National Weather Service use its Boulder-Denver temperature reading at Buckley Airforce base? If so, what's being discussed? A TV station might take it in town where the heat island effect increases the temperature? https://forecast.weather.gov/MapClick.php?textField1=39.7392&textField2=-104.9903#.XfWGox5Ok0M Certainly it uses it. It stores it in its database and then performs bad math upon it. That's why I probably will do some of my own work. I think you'll find it a maize ing
16-12-2019 01:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	Spongy Iris wrote:The parrot killer wins another debate by saying thermometers aren't everywhere. You'd think that eventually you'd come up with a better argument, i.e. one that doesn't require thermometers to be everywhere. You make it too easy for him to spank you. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist

16-12-2019 04:05
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2933)	James___ wrote: When there is slower moving air turning away from the main flow into the city it will increase wind velocities further from downtown. These changes in air pressure and wind velocity can cause variations in snowfall and temperature around a city like Denver. Around Ames, Iowa? Might not be noticeable. Depending on the reflectivity of the surface of skyscrapers, the amount of light that is refracted/back scattered can be significant. Maybe tmiddles can measure the snowfall around Denver the next time a system moves through? Then we could see if there is a pattern around downtown Denver. Weather maps for air pressure, wind velocity, etc. can be looked at as well. Then everyone should be on the same page about some things that influences everyday weather. tmiddles, not sure if you'd want to put up signs around Denver asking people if they could but a combined barometric pressure thermometer to take measurements in the morning and evening as well as snowfall. Denver is a large city and for something like that, it might take about 20 locations in and around Denver to have a good idea how a weather system moves through and around Denver. Ridiculous. However, I did some digging to show you, maybe you'll put this crazy theory to rest. Please note I did NOT look up the recording locations. These numbers are for only ONE location therefore does NOT represent the value for the entire city. Margin of error has NOT been calculated. However, this should be "good enough" for James to see his theory is junk. Average yearly rainfall.... Dallas..........37" Fort Worth....37" Waco...........36" Denton........38" Gainsville.....39" If storms were affected by large cities, there should be a noticeable difference especially from Fort Worth to Dallas as strong storms usually have a west to east component. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
16-12-2019 04:43
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	GasGuzzler wrote: James___ wrote: When there is slower moving air turning away from the main flow into the city it will increase wind velocities further from downtown. These changes in air pressure and wind velocity can cause variations in snowfall and temperature around a city like Denver. Around Ames, Iowa? Might not be noticeable. Depending on the reflectivity of the surface of skyscrapers, the amount of light that is refracted/back scattered can be significant. Maybe tmiddles can measure the snowfall around Denver the next time a system moves through? Then we could see if there is a pattern around downtown Denver. Weather maps for air pressure, wind velocity, etc. can be looked at as well. Then everyone should be on the same page about some things that influences everyday weather. tmiddles, not sure if you'd want to put up signs around Denver asking people if they could but a combined barometric pressure thermometer to take measurements in the morning and evening as well as snowfall. Denver is a large city and for something like that, it might take about 20 locations in and around Denver to have a good idea how a weather system moves through and around Denver. Ridiculous. However, I did some digging to show you, maybe you'll put this crazy theory to rest. Please note I did NOT look up the recording locations. These numbers are for only ONE location therefore does NOT represent the value for the entire city. Margin of error has NOT been calculated. However, this should be "good enough" for James to see his theory is junk. Average yearly rainfall.... Dallas..........37" Fort Worth....37" Waco...........36" Denton........38" Gainsville.....39" If storms were affected by large cities, there should be a noticeable difference especially from Fort Worth to Dallas as strong storms usually have a west to east component. You might have just proved my point. If you did, it's not something that I'm happy about. There is some "cool" research that can be pursued. Dallas and Fort Worth are the same metropolitan area. Waco is south while Denton and Gainesville are north. Where is the jet stream and where do the moist winds come from? If you know this then you know why the Dust Bowl receives only a few inches of rain each year. That's if we're talking north of Amarillo into Oklahoma. The annual rainfall in Texhoma, Oklahoma is a whopping 18 inches. Don't tell me that when the air current from the Pacific Ocean moves into Texas that it goes a little north of the Dallas-Fort Worth area. That'd be the jet stream pulling it away from the Gulf of Mexico. The natural high pressure area the gulf creates should draw the Pacific winds toward it but it does not. He really didn't prove my point. The Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area seems to be where the most precipitation from the Pacific Ocean falls. This is not what I talked about. Denver does not have a natural high pressure system to the south and a natural low pressure system to the north. It's on a plain where it's the difference. The Dallas/Fort Worth area seems to be located where it is because of its favorable climate. GasGuzzler, check their rainfall during an El Nino and during LA Nina. In this forum that does matter. It will change the rainfall in Texas. And with me, I think El Nino is a geyser in the seafloor. El Nino does originate north of Queensland, Australia where the seafloor has deep channels and faults. Edited on 16-12-2019 05:04
16-12-2019 05:27
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	GG, the weather pattern below the Jet Stream is moist air from the Pacific. Tornados are caused by this difference. It's possible that for tornadoes that moisture is also drawn from the Gulf of Mexico. Weather patterns will show this if that is what's happening. https://www.click2houston.com/weather/2019/10/21/dallas-tornado-round-one/ It seems that this needs much more attention, I hope you agree. Don't worry GG, I know you don't care to discuss any of this. I have my own interests. Edited on 16-12-2019 05:31
16-12-2019 06:12
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2933)	James___ wrote: GG, the weather pattern There's that buzzword again. Please define weather pattern so we can both at least know what you intended to talk about. James___ wrote: below the Jet Stream is moist air from the Pacific. Not very often in the plains, especially Texas. When Pacific moisture accompanies a system into the plains, there is typically meager rain and snowfall amounts. James___ wrote:Tornadoes are caused by this difference. Now you're really showing off your ignorance. James___ wrote:It's possible that for tornadoes that moisture is also drawn from the Gulf of Mexico. Possible? The majority tornadoes have some sort of gulf moisture feed, especially in the spring. A trough in the jet over the western CONUS accompanied by a strong low pressure ejecting out into the plains in the spring is what typically drives a tornado outbreak. The counterclockwise circulation drawing air from all directions towards it's center is the gulf moisture feed. Add High pressure to the east and it only strengthens the "pump". Also note that conditions may be perfect for an severe weather outbreak but High pressure over the western gulf can send a "perfect" system through dry, by cutting off the gulf moisture with is clockwise flow. Later in spring and summer, crops and mature vegetation can actually provide enough moisture in the air through evapotranspiration, combined with sunshine to get the instability needed for strong storms. However, strong shear, steep lapse rates, and cold dry air aloft are key ingredients for strong storms. James___ wrote: Weather patterns will show this if that is what's happening. There's that word again. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan Edited on 16-12-2019 06:18
16-12-2019 06:34
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2933)	James___ wrote:He really didn't prove my point. The Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area seems to be where the most precipitation from the Pacific Ocean falls. Your point was that storms act funny around big cities. I showed you they do not. By the way, Davenport Iowa....37 inches of rain per year average. Is this Pacific or Gulf moisture? Funny, it's about the same as Dallas! While I'm shooting holes in crazy ideas, I might as well make the point that a warmer Earth is not a wetter Earth. (assuming the Earth warms from some additional energy from somewhere) Davenport Iowa is a MUCH colder area than Dallas, yet precip amounts are nearly the same. Edited on 16-12-2019 06:38
16-12-2019 06:57
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	GasGuzzler wrote: James___ wrote:He really didn't prove my point. The Dallas/Fort Worth metropolitan area seems to be where the most precipitation from the Pacific Ocean falls. Your point was that storms act funny around big cities. I showed you they do not. By the way, Davenport Iowa....37 inches of rain per year average. Is this Pacific or Gulf moisture? Funny, it's about the same as Dallas! While I'm shooting holes in crazy ideas, I might as well make the point that a warmer Earth is not a wetter Earth. (assuming the Earth warms from some additional energy from somewhere) Davenport Iowa is a MUCH colder area than Dallas, yet precip amounts are nearly the same. You showed me nothing. At the moment you are supporting what the National Weather Service makes known. Yet you say they don't know what the temperature in Denver is. That's what this is all about, right? And what I said was that the National Weather Station uses its data from Buckley Airforce base outside of Denver. And for all data that you referred to, most likely from the National Weather Service. Try living on the west coast for a while. You'll hear things like the jet stream is going south or El Nino is pushing it north, it will rain, it won't rain, wait, where is the jet stream again? On the west coast, it's about that. What I'm wanting to pursue is a bit more involved than this, sorry. Edited on 16-12-2019 07:16
16-12-2019 09:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote: Do you mean you belive there are objects with a temperature that doesn't fluctuate over time or from molecule to molecule at all? Every object has multiple temperature over both time and location. Exactly. So the answer to the question is what? As usual you offer no answer yourself. You didn't ask a question. He did. RDCF. tmiddles wrote: The answer to the question of "What is the temperature of ____________?" is a range of temperatures where a mean temperature within a margin of error as well as the high and low temperature can be determined. A range of temperatures is not margin of error. Temperature isn't a range. tmiddles wrote: So a block of steel sitting on a hot plate in the lab: I would get it wrong if I measured the top of the steel block and concluded that was the temperature for the whole block. Still trying to redefine 'temperature'. tmiddles wrote: The top surface is radiating into the room, conducting with the air of the room, and will be slightly cooler than the bottom of the block that is in contact with the hot plate. I would have to calculate the likely distribution of thermal energy through the block. Having a good measurement of the bottom and top surface it would likely be sufficient to average the two. Nothing to calculate for a uniform material. A simple average is sufficient. tmiddles wrote: A doctor will measure your body temperature (which can also be "Known") by putting a thermometer under your tongue. This is because a doctor is not interested in the temperature of you extremities but of your internal organs and the tongue is "pretty close", it's "good enough" for the purpose. Nope. He is not looking for 'pretty close' at all. He is looking the the under tongue temperature, specifically. tmiddles wrote: But "Sufficient" is the key word. How precisely do you need to calculate the temperature? Temperature isn't a calculation. tmiddles wrote: This will depend on why you want to know. For the temperature of Denver: Are you planning a picnic or trying to claim there is an 0.25 degree Celsius increase in mean temperature over the last 50 years? You don't know the temperature of Denver, either 50 years ago or now. tmiddles wrote: Bottom line is to claim that something cannot be known because it can not be precisely known is a false argument. Because the universe refuses to cooperate in providing a precise anything. There is no "Even Steven Law" or anything in the world around us willing to satisfy our rational desire for purity. Word salad. Try English. It works better. 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
16-12-2019 09:09
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote: Nothing personal but that's a little too basic for me. No doubt, for me too. I think there are two areas here: 1- Understanding Climate Change and the science behind it 2- Clarifying the science for the public I think both are worthwhile. Define 'climate change'. There is no theory of science about what you cannot define. 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
16-12-2019 09:27
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: Why would this claim not meet scientific standard? There is no 'scientific standard'. There is only science, which is a set of falsifiable theories. 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
16-12-2019 09:28
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	James___ wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: Why would this claim not meet scientific standard? Why do planets like Mercury and Mars not have an atmosphere while the Earth and Venus have one? Both the Earth and Venus are warmer because they have atmospheres. The atmosphere of Venus is equal in pressure to a depth of 800 meters in the ocean. Does F = G(m1m2/r^2) allow for some planets to have an atmosphere while others don't? It doesn't. We would need to understand that first before we could say whether or not Venus is so warm because of CO2. Both Mercury and Mars have an atmosphere. Even the Moon has an atmosphere (thin as it is). 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

16-12-2019 12:00
One Punch Man★☆☆☆☆ (142)	The problem with the idea that CO2 causes the high temperatures on Venus is the fact that, according to mainstream science, the solar radiation absorbed by Venus is very small because of its high albedo, between 65 W/m2 to 160 W/m2 and the actual temperature of Venus is about 740K which would require a 16,000 W/m2 radiative-enhancement by the CO2-greenhouse. There is not enough solar radiation to drive a powerful greenhouse effect on Venus. I would suggest that Venus is hot due to some other reason, such as adiabatic compression. Nathan-D Edited on 16-12-2019 12:22
16-12-2019 15:10
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	One Punch Man wrote: The problem with the idea that CO2 causes the high temperatures on Venus is the fact that, according to mainstream science, the solar radiation absorbed by Venus is very small because of its high albedo, between 65 W/m2 to 160 W/m2 and the actual temperature of Venus is about 740K which would require a 16,000 W/m2 radiative-enhancement by the CO2-greenhouse. There is not enough solar radiation to drive a powerful greenhouse effect on Venus. I would suggest that Venus is hot due to some other reason, such as adiabatic compression. I would agree with that as being the most likely cause. Note that there are two questions about Venus on this forum. 1 - The very interesting one we're discussing: Does CO2 play a major role in a green house effect or is it simply the mass of CO2 on Venus that's accumulating so much thermal energy. 2 - Some folks deny that an atmosphere can result in a higher temperature at all. They actually deny that we know Venus is so hot. IBdaMann on this form alleges that the thermometers used by the Russians didn't work: IBdaMann wrote: Excessive temperatures affect the measuring device greatly, ...Venus where the probe landed was pretty high.... Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: 2- How is it that an atmosphere could result in a higher ground level temperature It doesn't. You can't create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics). This lunacy can of course be dismissed but it's a player in the public debate on the science we're discussing here. It seems to me that the gases of the atmosphere provide a moving, convecting, thermal energy storage. The more mass the more storage. Another poster on here, Verner, did a very interesting calculation on Mars. Mars has an atmosphere with far more greenhouse gas mass than Earth but far less mass overall. The gospel has always been to claim the Nitrogen and Oxygen in our atmosphere don't matter but Mars contradicts that as it shows very little warming over what we'd expect with no atmosphere, about 6 degrees (where we've got 30). Here's the link: Earth is at 1013.25 millibars and Mars just 6.0 millibars pressure at ground level. That's just 0.6%. While CO2 is 0.04%, so Mars has 15 times the CO2. "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
16-12-2019 15:21
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	Into the Night wrote:There is no 'scientific standard'. There is only science, which is a set of falsifiable theories. You are absolutely correct. There is no such thing as a "scientific standard." There are, however, industry standards, which apply directly to testing. Warmizombies never mention these. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
16-12-2019 19:35
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	One Punch Man wrote: The problem with the idea that CO2 causes the high temperatures on Venus is the fact that, according to mainstream science, the solar radiation absorbed by Venus is very small because of its high albedo, between 65 W/m2 to 160 W/m2 and the actual temperature of Venus is about 740K which would require a 16,000 W/m2 radiative-enhancement by the CO2-greenhouse. There is not enough solar radiation to drive a powerful greenhouse effect on Venus. I would suggest that Venus is hot due to some other reason, such as adiabatic compression. The emissivity of Venus is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Neither can be measured. We don't have enough thermometers. 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
16-12-2019 19:49
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	tmiddles wrote: One Punch Man wrote: The problem with the idea that CO2 causes the high temperatures on Venus is the fact that, according to mainstream science, the solar radiation absorbed by Venus is very small because of its high albedo, between 65 W/m2 to 160 W/m2 and the actual temperature of Venus is about 740K which would require a 16,000 W/m2 radiative-enhancement by the CO2-greenhouse. There is not enough solar radiation to drive a powerful greenhouse effect on Venus. I would suggest that Venus is hot due to some other reason, such as adiabatic compression. I would agree with that as being the most likely cause. Note that there are two questions about Venus on this forum. Both of which has already been answered. You are going to ask the same questions yet again. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: 1 - The very interesting one we're discussing: Does CO2 play a major role in a green house effect or is it simply the mass of CO2 on Venus that's accumulating so much thermal energy. Thermal energy doesn't accumulate. No gas or vapor is capable of warming any planet. You can't create energy out of nothing. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: 2 - Some folks deny that an atmosphere can result in a higher temperature at all. It can't. You can't create energy out of nothing. RQAA. tmiddles wrote: They actually deny that we know Venus is so hot. Never did. RDCF. tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann on this form alleges that the thermometers used by the Russians didn't work: IBdaMann wrote: Excessive temperatures affect the measuring device greatly, ...Venus where the probe landed was pretty high.... He never said the thermometers didn't work. He simply said that measuring temperatures so high is not very accurate. Lie. RDCF. tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: 2- How is it that an atmosphere could result in a higher ground level temperature It doesn't. You can't create energy out of nothing (1st law of thermodynamics). This lunacy can of course be dismissed but it's a player in the public debate on the science we're discussing here. The first law of thermodynamics isn't lunacy. You are just desperate to deny it. tmiddles wrote: It seems to me that the gases of the atmosphere provide a moving, convecting, thermal energy storage. The more mass the more storage. Thermal energy cannot be stored, stopped, or slowed. Stored energy is potential energy, which has no temperature. tmiddles wrote: Another poster on here, Verner, did a very interesting calculation on Mars. ...using random numbers and bad math, same as you. tmiddles wrote: Mars has an atmosphere with far more greenhouse gas mass than Earth but far less mass overall. No gas or vapor can warm a planet using that planet's infrared radiance from its surface. You can't create energy out of nothing. tmiddles wrote: The gospel has always been to claim the Nitrogen and Oxygen in our atmosphere don't matter but Mars contradicts that as it shows very little warming over what we'd expect with no atmosphere, about 6 degrees (where we've got 30). ...deleted Holy Link... There is no 'should be' in science. You are making up numbers again. Argument from randU 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
16-12-2019 20:59
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote: Nothing personal but that's a little too basic for me. No doubt, for me too. I think there are two areas here: 1- Understanding Climate Change and the science behind it 2- Clarifying the science for the public I think both are worthwhile. Define 'climate change'. There is no theory of science about what you cannot define. An example of climate change is when Egypt went from grasslands to desert. The Aral Sea is an example of man made climate change. Most of it has become arid land. This transformation is also an example of climate change. Edited on 16-12-2019 21:04
16-12-2019 22:39
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: One Punch Man wrote:...Venus is very small because of its high albedo,... The emissivity of Venus is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Neither can be measured. We don't have enough thermometers. One Punch Man allow me to give you a little context on our resident Trolls on the board, Into the Night and IBdaMann: IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver. He's absolutely correct.... Their goal, in my opinion, is to frustrate and end all actual debate. It's a win for them if things degenerate into a discussion of the dictionary and that no data is ever valid. They succeed in driving off most quality posters like yourself. I hope you stick around I would love to debate things with you. "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
16-12-2019 23:01
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	James___ wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote: Nothing personal but that's a little too basic for me. No doubt, for me too. I think there are two areas here: 1- Understanding Climate Change and the science behind it 2- Clarifying the science for the public I think both are worthwhile. Define 'climate change'. There is no theory of science about what you cannot define. An example of climate change is when Egypt went from grasslands to desert. Nope. A desert climate is still a desert climate. A grasslands climate is still a grasslands climate. Nothing has changed. James___ wrote: The Aral Sea is an example of man made climate change. Nope. A marine climate is still a marine climate. James___ wrote: Most of it has become arid land. Nope. An arid climate is still an arid climate. James___ wrote: This transformation is also an example of climate change. Nope. You are simply describing the appearance or disappearance of lakes, rivers, and grass. Define 'climate change'. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
16-12-2019 23:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: One Punch Man wrote:...Venus is very small because of its high albedo,... The emissivity of Venus is unknown. The emissivity of Earth is unknown. Neither can be measured. We don't have enough thermometers. One Punch Man allow me to give you a little context on our resident Trolls on the board, Into the Night and IBdaMann: IBdaMann wrote: Into the Night wrote: No one can know the temperature of Denver. He's absolutely correct.... Their goal, in my opinion, is to frustrate and end all actual debate. You are not debating. You are just making up random numbers and calling them 'data'. tmiddles wrote: It's a win for them if things degenerate into a discussion of the dictionary and that no data is ever valid. Dictionaries don't define words. No one ever said that no data is valid. Lie. Compositional error fallacy. tmiddles wrote: They succeed in driving off most quality posters like yourself. I hope you stick around I would love to debate things with you. You are not debating. You are preaching. You are quoting random numbers and calling them 'data'. 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
17-12-2019 04:57
GasGuzzler ★★★★★ (2933)	tmiddles wrote: Their goal, in my opinion, is to frustrate and end all actual debate. It's a win for them if things degenerate into a discussion of the dictionary and that no data is ever valid. So these two guys have over 15,000 posts combined, but they want to end all debate? Not one of your wiser comments. I've read every post for the last 3 years and these guys will debate/comment on anything from air travel to politics to alcohol and drugs. MY OPINION... These two guys, who I respect very much, don't see any need for a discussion to continue when it's premise is based on incomplete data. "Facts" concluded from incomplete data are nothing less than speculation. No need to discuss the "facts" anymore....because there are none. HOWEVER, if you want to speculate, well that's fun too. Call it what it is, give what "data" you have, and even speculate the margin of error. I'll bet my last $3 bill these guys join in. Just don't say we "know" anything with incomplete data, because we don't. That includes the temperature of Denver. Do we know a temperature in Denver? Yes. Do we know the temperature OF Denver? No. Radiation will not penetrate a perfect insulator, thus as I said space is not a perfect insulator.- Swan
17-12-2019 05:23
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	GasGuzzler wrote:... two guys ... 15,000 posts ...want to end all debate? Not one of your wiser comments. Yes. How would they end debate by remaining silent? I knew the sad truth when I first came here. This place is overun by Trolls: L8112 wrote: my advice would be to bolt from this forum as there are a group of devoted climate change deniers who will lay to waste any conversations on the topic, and will dismiss any sort of evidence from credible institutions such as NASA, not with counter facts but with non sequitur statements or hand waving. GasGuzzler wrote:...these guys will debate/comment on anything.... Yeah? Like the dictionary and how no data is valid? How about this exchange? link You call that a debate? If so how would you summarize ITN's point of view on the radiance generated by the human body? One example of many. I wanted to debate the thermodynamics of a human body but ITN claimed all the data is UNKNOWABLE. And never even attempted to discuss it. He dismissed a study of skin's emissivity with no justification. HE ENDED DEBATE Am I wrong? Find me ANYTHING AT ALL on topics for this board where either one of these jokers has debated anything with data they accept. GasGuzzler wrote:MY OPINION... These two guys, ... see ... No need to discuss the "facts" anymore....because there are none. If there are no facts shouldn't you all find a new hobby? I would LOVE IT if they would leave the board. They are here to harass, clog up threads and drive off anyone what actually wants to talk. On any moderated board they'd have been banned long ago as they were from debatepolitics and I'm sure others. https://www.debatepolitics.com/members/into-the-night.html GasGuzzler wrote: Do we know a temperature in Denver? Yes. Do we know the temperature OF Denver? No. So question for you GG, the million dollar question, does that mean we can't talk about the temperature of Denver? That there can be no usable data? So what do we know? Anything? Should that word ever be used? Do we know that Venus is hotter than Denver? Do you consider a discussion, analysis and work done based on the temperature of Denver to be pointless? Do you go to the doctor or the mechanic? Do they know anything? Tell me: Is there anything we have ever known the temperature of? Keep in mind, cakes get baked, rockets launched and diseases treated based on knowledge of temperature regardless of how you answer that. "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 17-12-2019 05:33
17-12-2019 15:40
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:... two guys ... 15,000 posts ...want to end all debate? Not one of your wiser comments. Yes. How would they end debate by remaining silent? I knew the sad truth when I first came here. This place is overun by Trolls: L8112 wrote: my advice would be to bolt from this forum as there are a group of devoted climate change deniers who will lay to waste any conversations on the topic, and will dismiss any sort of evidence from credible institutions such as NASA, not with counter facts but with non sequitur statements or hand waving. GasGuzzler wrote:...these guys will debate/comment on anything.... Yeah? Like the dictionary and how no data is valid? How about this exchange? link You call that a debate? If so how would you summarize ITN's point of view on the radiance generated by the human body? One example of many. I wanted to debate the thermodynamics of a human body but ITN claimed all the data is UNKNOWABLE. And never even attempted to discuss it. He dismissed a study of skin's emissivity with no justification. HE ENDED DEBATE Am I wrong? Find me ANYTHING AT ALL on topics for this board where either one of these jokers has debated anything with data they accept. GasGuzzler wrote:MY OPINION... These two guys, ... see ... No need to discuss the "facts" anymore....because there are none. If there are no facts shouldn't you all find a new hobby? I would LOVE IT if they would leave the board. They are here to harass, clog up threads and drive off anyone what actually wants to talk. On any moderated board they'd have been banned long ago as they were from debatepolitics and I'm sure others. https://www.debatepolitics.com/members/into-the-night.html GasGuzzler wrote: Do we know a temperature in Denver? Yes. Do we know the temperature OF Denver? No. So question for you GG, the million dollar question, does that mean we can't talk about the temperature of Denver? That there can be no usable data? So what do we know? Anything? Should that word ever be used? Do we know that Venus is hotter than Denver? Do you consider a discussion, analysis and work done based on the temperature of Denver to be pointless? Do you go to the doctor or the mechanic? Do they know anything? Tell me: Is there anything we have ever known the temperature of? Keep in mind, cakes get baked, rockets launched and diseases treated based on knowledge of temperature regardless of how you answer that. "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 They have political agendas. They could care less about climate change. It's their chance to "attack" the "system". The US like any other country has a caste system. Climate change can be argued while other things can't be. From a political perspective, a 2 party system is outdated. It's us against them. In a climate debate, it's either warming because of CO2 or it isn't warming. From a scientific perspective, CO2 has an absorption spectrum. Of the incoming solar radiation, what is that in joules or w/m^2? The incoming heat would be 1.004 for that value. No one has said what that value is. Not the deniers and not the IPCC. That is what's being debated. When Svante Arrhenius calculated the warming potential for CO2, does it agree with CO2's absorption spectrum and incoming solar radiation in that spectrum? There are aspects that might be interesting and could help explain why Venus is hotter than the Earth. For that we'd need to discuss astrophysics. Why it could be interesting.
17-12-2019 19:53
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:... two guys ... 15,000 posts ...want to end all debate? Not one of your wiser comments. Yes. How would they end debate by remaining silent? You never started a debate. You are just here to preach. tmiddles wrote: I knew the sad truth when I first came here. This place is overun by Trolls: YALIF. tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:...these guys will debate/comment on anything.... Yeah? Like the dictionary and how no data is valid? Both can be valid. The dictionary has a purpose. It is not to define words, however. I never said no data is valid. See the Data Mine thread. RDCF RQAA tmiddles wrote: How about this exchange? ...deleted redundancy... You call that a debate? You are not debating. tmiddles wrote: If so how would you summarize ITN's point of view on the radiance generated by the human body? RQAA tmiddles wrote: One example of many. You never wanted to debate that. You wanted to use your random numbers as a proof. You want to preach. tmiddles wrote: I wanted to debate the thermodynamics of a human body but ITN claimed all the data is UNKNOWABLE. Lie. Never said any such thing. You never presented any data. tmiddles wrote: And never even attempted to discuss it. You never started a discussion. tmiddles wrote: He dismissed a study of skin's emissivity with no justification. No, I dismissed your random numbers as 'data'. tmiddles wrote: HE ENDED DEBATE You never started one. tmiddles wrote: Am I wrong? Yes. tmiddles wrote: Find me ANYTHING AT ALL on topics for this board where either one of these jokers has debated anything with data they accept. You never presented any data. tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:MY OPINION... These two guys, ... see ... No need to discuss the "facts" anymore....because there are none. If there are no facts shouldn't you all find a new hobby? Maybe you should. Mugging up random numbers as 'data' is rather pointless. tmiddles wrote: I would LOVE IT if they would leave the board. You don't get to decide. tmiddles wrote: They are here to harass, clog up threads and drive off anyone what actually wants to talk. Inversion fallacy. You are describing yourself again. tmiddles wrote: On any moderated board they'd have been banned long ago as they were from debatepolitics and I'm sure others. Debatepolitics is a kiddie pool. They ban anyone that isn't liberal. tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote: Do we know a temperature in Denver? Yes. Do we know the temperature OF Denver? No. So question for you GG, the million dollar question, does that mean we can't talk about the temperature of Denver? That there can be no usable data? What data? Void argument fallacy. tmiddles wrote: So what do we know? Anything? Should that word ever be used? Do we know that Venus is hotter than Denver? RQAA tmiddles wrote: Do you consider a discussion, analysis and work done based on the temperature of Denver to be pointless? You are not discussing the temperature of Denver or anywhere else. tmiddles wrote: Do you go to the doctor or the mechanic? Do they know anything? Void argument fallacy. tmiddles wrote: Tell me: Is there anything we have ever known the temperature of? Yes. tmiddles wrote: Keep in mind, cakes get baked, rockets launched and diseases treated based on knowledge of temperature regardless of how you answer that. True. You, however, never present any data. You just make up random numbers and call it 'data'. 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
17-12-2019 20:02
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	James___ wrote: tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:... two guys ... 15,000 posts ...want to end all debate? Not one of your wiser comments. Yes. How would they end debate by remaining silent? I knew the sad truth when I first came here. This place is overun by Trolls: L8112 wrote: my advice would be to bolt from this forum as there are a group of devoted climate change deniers who will lay to waste any conversations on the topic, and will dismiss any sort of evidence from credible institutions such as NASA, not with counter facts but with non sequitur statements or hand waving. GasGuzzler wrote:...these guys will debate/comment on anything.... Yeah? Like the dictionary and how no data is valid? How about this exchange? link You call that a debate? If so how would you summarize ITN's point of view on the radiance generated by the human body? One example of many. I wanted to debate the thermodynamics of a human body but ITN claimed all the data is UNKNOWABLE. And never even attempted to discuss it. He dismissed a study of skin's emissivity with no justification. HE ENDED DEBATE Am I wrong? Find me ANYTHING AT ALL on topics for this board where either one of these jokers has debated anything with data they accept. GasGuzzler wrote:MY OPINION... These two guys, ... see ... No need to discuss the "facts" anymore....because there are none. If there are no facts shouldn't you all find a new hobby? I would LOVE IT if they would leave the board. They are here to harass, clog up threads and drive off anyone what actually wants to talk. On any moderated board they'd have been banned long ago as they were from debatepolitics and I'm sure others. https://www.debatepolitics.com/members/into-the-night.html GasGuzzler wrote: Do we know a temperature in Denver? Yes. Do we know the temperature OF Denver? No. So question for you GG, the million dollar question, does that mean we can't talk about the temperature of Denver? That there can be no usable data? So what do we know? Anything? Should that word ever be used? Do we know that Venus is hotter than Denver? Do you consider a discussion, analysis and work done based on the temperature of Denver to be pointless? Do you go to the doctor or the mechanic? Do they know anything? Tell me: Is there anything we have ever known the temperature of? Keep in mind, cakes get baked, rockets launched and diseases treated based on knowledge of temperature regardless of how you answer that. "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 They have political agendas. They could care less about climate change. Define 'climate change'. James___ wrote: It's their chance to "attack" the "system". Define the 'system' that is being 'attacked'. Please describe this 'attack'. James___ wrote: The US like any other country has a caste system. Nope. James___ wrote: Climate change can be argued while other things can't be. Define 'climate change'. There is nothing to discuss until you can define it. James___ wrote: From a political perspective, a 2 party system is outdated. Guess you forgot about the dozen or so parties in the United States. James___ wrote: It's us against them. False dichotomy fallacy. James___ wrote: In a climate debate, it's either warming because of CO2 or it isn't warming. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth or any other planet. You can't create energy out of nothing. James___ wrote: From a scientific perspective, CO2 has an absorption spectrum. Science isn't an absorption spectrum. James___ wrote: Of the incoming solar radiation, what is that in joules or w/m^2? w/m^2 James___ wrote: The incoming heat would be 1.004 for that value. Argument from randU fallacy. James___ wrote: No one has said what that value is. You just did. You made a random number for that value just now. James___ wrote: Not the deniers and not the IPCC. But you just did. James___ wrote: That is what's being debated. Debating random numbers is pointless. James___ wrote: When Svante Arrhenius calculated the warming potential for CO2, There is none. The value is zero. You cannot create energy out of nothing. James___ wrote: does it agree with CO2's absorption spectrum and incoming solar radiation in that spectrum? Everything absorbs sunlight and converts it to thermal energy. Nothin' special about CO2. James___ wrote: There are aspects that might be interesting and could help explain why Venus is hotter than the Earth. Venus is closer to the sun? I know this is a strange concept to you, but perhaps it could be a significant factor. James___ wrote: For that we'd need to discuss astrophysics. Why it could be interesting. It is interesting that one planet is closer to the Sun than another? 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
18-12-2019 01:47
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:... two guys ... 15,000 posts ...want to end all debate? Not one of your wiser comments. Yes. How would they end debate by remaining silent? You never started a debate. You are just here to preach. I'd like to debate the radiance of the human body. Do you have any idea what that radiance is? I do. It's ~ 700 watts. Why do I want to debate that? It's the most relate-able instance of thermodynamics available to us human bodies. "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

18-12-2019 02:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:... two guys ... 15,000 posts ...want to end all debate? Not one of your wiser comments. Yes. How would they end debate by remaining silent? You never started a debate. You are just here to preach. I'd like to debate the radiance of the human body. Do you have any idea what that radiance is? I do. It's ~ 700 watts. Why do I want to debate that? It's the most relate-able instance of thermodynamics available to us human bodies. You already did. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
18-12-2019 02:30
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: GasGuzzler wrote:... two guys ... 15,000 posts ...want to end all debate? Not one of your wiser comments. Yes. How would they end debate by remaining silent? You never started a debate. You are just here to preach. I'd like to debate the radiance of the human body. Do you have any idea what that radiance is? I do. It's ~ 700 watts. Why do I want to debate that? It's the most relate-able instance of thermodynamics available to us human bodies. "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 I'd like to think that Einstein got that right.
18-12-2019 03:56
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: You already did. RQAA. So you have nothing to say on the radiant output of a human body?
18-12-2019 04:07
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: You already did. RQAA. So you have nothing to say on the radiant output of a human body? It's less than the calories it consumes?
18-12-2019 04:19
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	James___ wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: You already did. RQAA. So you have nothing to say on the radiant output of a human body? It's less than the calories it consumes? I'm not talking about the NET thermal transfer, or HEAT of the human body, ~100watts, I'm talking about the radiance. How much radiant energy comes off of a human body (my avatar being a graphic depiction). Now ITN will chime in with some fallacy BS but he has NO CLUE what the radiance of the human body is. Can't apply the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, can't calculate it at all. It is UNKNOWABLE to him. But not to me : ) ~700 watts
18-12-2019 04:53
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: James___ wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: You already did. RQAA. So you have nothing to say on the radiant output of a human body? It's less than the calories it consumes? I'm not talking about the NET thermal transfer, or HEAT of the human body, ~100watts, I'm talking about the radiance. How much radiant energy comes off of a human body (my avatar being a graphic depiction). Now ITN will chime in with some fallacy BS but he has NO CLUE what the radiance of the human body is. Can't apply the Stefan-Boltzmann equation, can't calculate it at all. It is UNKNOWABLE to him. But not to me : ) ~700 watts Quite a lot of it depends on the capillaries. That's how the blood system transfers heat in the extremities. Don't worry about ITN. When my ancestors came to America, they called the Inuit skraeling for a reason. Nothing has changed in the last 1,000 years. It's just that now they have company. This is hysterical. When the British came to America, they called my ancestors Powhatan. Get the duality of nature? Native Americans weren't discovered. They were here. Even before the Vikings came, they were here. They had children with my forefathers just as the Powhatans did. Isn't history awesome? If you don't get it, it's not about "us" but it's about "we".
18-12-2019 05:04
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	James___ wrote: Quite a lot of it depends on the capillaries. That's how the blood system transfers heat in the extremities. That would be how a human body convects thermal energy internally yes. But if we know the surface area, emmissivity and temperature of an object, including a living human, we can calculate the radiance using Stefan-Boltzman. Stefan-Boltzmann equation:___P(out)=σeA*(T1^4) (5.67×10−8J/s⋅m2⋅K4)(0.97)(1.50m2)306K^4=-723W Now ITN/IBD and other deniers like to end debate by claiming that since there isn't one fixed exact value available for surface area (I use 1.5m2), emissivity (I use 0.97), and temperature (I use 306K) that it's impossible to think about this. You just have to throw up your hands and run out of the room. But you never will have a fixed and exact value for anything in this universe of ours. The surface area, temperature and emmissivity of the human body is easy to put a range on though. My point here is. They refuse to debate. They have no answer at all.
18-12-2019 11:17
James___ ★★★★★ (5513)	tmiddles wrote: My point here is. They refuse to debate. They have no answer at all. They're not here to debate anything. It's up to you to understand that.
18-12-2019 16:12
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14411)	James___ wrote: tmiddles wrote: My point here is. They refuse to debate. They have no answer at all. They're not here to debate anything. It's up to you to understand that. Correct. I'm here to discuss. It's just that neither you nor tmiddles are here to discuss anything. No matter what is written you disagree. You disagree whenever I point out that you are correct and then you whine. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist. The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank :sigh* Not the "raw data" crap.* - Leafsdude IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
18-12-2019 23:03
Into the Night★★★★★ (21598)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: You already did. RQAA. So you have nothing to say on the radiant output of a human body? Already did. RQAA. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Page 3 of 4

Join the debate Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Fossil Fuel Substitution for reduced emission of CO2, mercury, lead, arsenic, cadmium..	392	01-12-2023 21:58
Proof That Too Much CO2 Is An Existential Threat	326	07-11-2023 19:16
There is no scientific theory or evidence that suggest CO2 traps heat better than O2 or N2	533	30-01-2023 07:22
CO2 Is Helping the Ozone Layer to Recover	1	13-08-2022 05:54
Co2 ice samples	11	02-06-2022 22:44