Hottest Year Ever????

[Lagboltz]

This is what dogtowner said:

im getting a mental image dealing with "hot" that has nothing to do with this topic.
thanks !

He was making an out of context joke on:
a perfect black body
That was a joke. He is talking about a perfect female!

And your reply was whacko!

The equation he was talking about was a perfect black body radiating into a vacuum....no other bodies are present.

You thought I was talking about thermodynamics?!
I was continuing his joke by saying,
I hope you are thinking of a body that radiates the maximum possible warmth to other surrounding bodies.

My reference to "bodies" was to other surrounding males, including dogtowner.

You can't even understand a joke, let alone thermodynamics. That is so amazing! Oh well, a joke is never funny if you have to explain it. Trolls rarely have a sense of humor.

 

[palerider]

You not only pretend to disagree with Dartmouth, you pretend to disagree with every physicist and every university course. Radiant energy moves from all bodies to all other bodies no matter what temperature is involved according to every physicist. You are basing your argument on something you cannot prove. Go ahead and find a prove for the second law as you see it.

Because of your pretended petulant disagreements you are a troll and nothing more.

Is heat a form of energy, or is heat the evidence that energy is moving from one place to another?

And I am afraid that it is you who can't prove that energy moves spontaneously from a cool object to a warm one....you can claim that it does till you are blue in the face but the fact remains that it has never once been observed to happen.

 

[Lagboltz]

Is heat a form of energy, or is heat the evidence that energy is moving from one place to another?

Trolls always ask the same question after it was beat to death. See page 4 of this thread.

And I am afraid that it is you who can't prove that energy moves spontaneously from a cool object to a warm one....you can claim that it does till you are blue in the face but the fact remains that it has never once been observed to happen.

We covered that. I showed you an authoritative reference.
Trolls always ask the same question after it was beat to death. Radiant energy moves from all bodies to all other bodies no matter what temperature is involved according to every physicist. You are basing your argument on something you cannot prove. Go ahead troll and find a prove for the second law as you see it. You are making up science when you don't understand it.

 

[fedor50]

Hey Pale Rider, a good debate that you and Lagboltz are engaging in but I would love to see your response to my recent abortion thread that I started and the scientific arguments that I made https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/is-a-human-zygote-an-organism.18297/#post-232016

I would love to see you counter my powerful arguments about why a zygote should NOT be considered an organism https://www.houseofpolitics.com/threads/is-a-human-zygote-an-organism.18297/#post-232016

 

[fedor50]

Is heat a form of energy, or is heat the evidence that energy is moving from one place to another?

And I am afraid that it is you who can't prove that energy moves spontaneously from a cool object to a warm one....you can claim that it does till you are blue in the face but the fact remains that it has never once been observed to happen.

By the way Pale Rider, have you since changed from pro-life to pro-choice? I only ask because I have not seen you debating abortion recently at all. Have you changed your position?

 

[invest07]

Let me point out that the most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is water vapor - 3 to 5 times more abundant than carbon di.
Carbon di constitutes around 0.04% of our atmosphere.
An illustration of how little carbon di is in our atmosphere is to compare our atmosphere with a football field.
Starting at the south goal line the first 79 yards are nitrogen. The next 20 yards are oxygen. This brings us to the one yard line at the north goal.
The last yard is a mix of rare gases including argon and neon. The last 1.5 inches is carbon di.

1.5 inches out of 100 yards​

Even if mankind is to blame for climate change I'm just not going to lose any sleep.
Check out this website:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a12983/35000-tesla-model-iii-coming-in-2017/

If Tesla can build an all electric vehicle with a 200 mile range for $35K don't you think Nissan and Ford can do the same for $20K?
And if you can buy an electric car with a 200 mile range for $20K, don't you think they will sell like hotcakes?
I'll be the first in line and my aging Explorer will be headed for the recycle bin.
And 2017 is right around the corner.

Technology will soon catch up with all the climate change chicken littles. It will be interesting to see how they spin the facts to keep their myth of human causation alive.

 

[palerider]

Let me point out that the most abundant greenhouse gas in our atmosphere is water vapor - 3 to 5 times more abundant than carbon di.
Carbon di constitutes around 0.04% of our atmosphere.
An illustration of how little carbon di is in our atmosphere is to compare our atmosphere with a football field.
Starting at the south goal line the first 79 yards are nitrogen. The next 20 yards are oxygen. This brings us to the one yard line at the north goal.
The last yard is a mix of rare gases including argon and neon. The last 1.5 inches is carbon di.

1.5 inches out of 100 yards​

Even if mankind is to blame for climate change I'm just not going to lose any sleep.
Check out this website:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/cars/a12983/35000-tesla-model-iii-coming-in-2017/

If Tesla can build an all electric vehicle with a 200 mile range for $35K don't you think Nissan and Ford can do the same for $20K?
And if you can buy an electric car with a 200 mile range for $20K, don't you think they will sell like hotcakes?
I'll be the first in line and my aging Explorer will be headed for the recycle bin.
And 2017 is right around the corner.

Technology will soon catch up with all the climate change chicken littles. It will be interesting to see how they spin the facts to keep their myth of human causation alive.

The thing is that for as long as we have been measuring, CO2 within the atmosphere has been increasing at a rate of about 2.2 ppm per year..that trend continues even though our own CO2 production has increased by hundreds of percent since the beginning of the industrial revolution....further atmospheric CO2 at 4o0 ppm which according to alarmists is dangerous is in reality an atmosphere that is positively starved for CO2 if one is willing to look any further back than the depths of the present ice age...in fact, when the present ice age began, atmospheric CO2 was in excess of 1000ppm.

The idea that CO2 is some sort of control knob for the climate is absurd on its face and is in fact, nothing more than a political tool to gain money, and power over the lives of as many human beings as possible. Fortunately, enough actual science is being done on the topic that eventually, the hoax will self destruct. In the end, finding someone who will admit to believing that the climate sensitivity to CO2 was greater than zero will be as difficult as finding someone to admit that they actually subscribed to the idea that plate tectonics was foolish, or that phrenology was a valid science, or that the earth was indeed flat.

 

[palerider]

Trolls always ask the same question after it was beat to death.

Beat to death does not mean answered satisfactorily. Is heat a form of energy or is heat what happens when some form of energy moves from one place to another?

 

[PLC1]

Antarctic glaciers thinning so fast, it's like a switch was flipped (+video)

A new study finds that processes related to global warming are weakening several Antarctic ice shelves surprisingly quickly – causing glaciers to lose large amounts of ice.

A new study has recorded a sudden and rapid thinning of once-stable glaciers along the southern Antarctic Peninsula, demonstrating that significant changes in glacier mass can occur surprisingly quickly as ocean and air temperatures rise.

As Antarctica’s ice shelves collapse, the glaciers they buttress will contribute to sea level rise. Currently, the glaciers in the study, which lie along 500 miles of the southern Antarctic Peninsula coast, are losing some 56 billion tons of ice a year to the ocean, according to the new study.

The losses began suddenly in 2009 and come in addition to losses from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet, which is shedding 80 billion to 110 billion tons of ice a year, according to the study.

source

Aren't you glad that global warming is just a hoax perpetrated by warmers? Why, if it were a real scientific theory promoted by real scientific organizations, just imagine how fast the ice might be melting then!

 

[palerider]

source

Aren't you glad that global warming is just a hoax perpetrated by warmers? Why, if it were a real scientific theory promoted by real scientific organizations, just imagine how fast the ice might be melting then!

Interesting to note that your source leaves you blissfully unaware that the melt is due to volcanic activity and not man made climate change. Sure the ice is melting, but it is due to natural causes, not a wisp of CO2 in the atmosphere. If AGW were not a hoax, such deceptive and dishonest reporting would not be necessary. Tell me, how frightening would it be if the article had simply stated that the ice was melting due to volcanic activity? They blame warm water and factors related to global warming so that the assumption can be made that man is responsible but fail to mention that the warm water is due to undersea volcanoes.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X14005780

http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers.html

http://news.discovery.com/earth/glo...melt-antarctic-glaciers-from-below-140609.htm

http://news.utexas.edu/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting

 

[PLC1]

Interesting to note that your source leaves you blissfully unaware that the melt is due to volcanic activity and not man made climate change. Sure the ice is melting, but it is due to natural causes, not a wisp of CO2 in the atmosphere. If AGW were not a hoax, such deceptive and dishonest reporting would not be necessary. Tell me, how frightening would it be if the article had simply stated that the ice was melting due to volcanic activity? They blame warm water and factors related to global warming so that the assumption can be made that man is responsible but fail to mention that the warm water is due to undersea volcanoes.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X14005780

http://www.livescience.com/46194-volcanoes-melt-antarctic-glaciers.html

http://news.discovery.com/earth/glo...melt-antarctic-glaciers-from-below-140609.htm

http://news.utexas.edu/2014/06/10/antarctic-glacier-melting

First link: I don't care enough to pay 40 bucks to read it.
Second link says this:

West Antarctica is also hemorrhaging ice due to climate change, and recent studies have suggested there is no way to reverse the retreat of West Antarctic glaciers. However, the timing of this retreat is still in question, Schroeder said — it could take hundreds of years, or thousands. It's important to understand which, given that meltwater from the West Antarctic Ice Sheet contributes directly to sea level rise.

 

[palerider]

First link: I don't care enough to pay 40 bucks to read it.
Second link says this:

I suppose that volcanoes would fall under the definition of climate change...they certainly can alter the climate. You seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that the climate only changes due to human activity...the climate has always been changing and always will. It is you wackos who somehow believe that the climate should remain static because we are here.

It is interesting to note the extent of your blindness....you can look at the locations of the volcanic activity and the areas where the melt is happening and still manage to believe that a wisp of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the melt.

Face it guy, the hoax is falling apart. In actual science, when a hypothesis is put forward, a single predictive failure sends the hypothesis to the scrap heap and a new hypothesis is sought that explains the failure of the first....how many failures must the AGW hypothesis experience before climate science scraps it and posits a new hypothesis which doesn't blame climate science on CO2....which is clearly not the culprit.

 

[PLC1]

I suppose that volcanoes would fall under the definition of climate change...they certainly can alter the climate. You seem to be operating under the mistaken impression that the climate only changes due to human activity...the climate has always been changing and always will. It is you wackos who somehow believe that the climate should remain static because we are here.

It is interesting to note the extent of your blindness....you can look at the locations of the volcanic activity and the areas where the melt is happening and still manage to believe that a wisp of CO2 in the atmosphere is causing the melt.

Face it guy, the hoax is falling apart. In actual science, when a hypothesis is put forward, a single predictive failure sends the hypothesis to the scrap heap and a new hypothesis is sought that explains the failure of the first....how many failures must the AGW hypothesis experience before climate science scraps it and posits a new hypothesis which doesn't blame climate science on CO2....which is clearly not the culprit.

Nope. I never did say that climate only changes due to human activity. Neither have the climate scientists.

 

[palerider]

Nope. I never did say that climate only changes due to human activity. Neither have the climate scientists.

If you believe the climate sensitivity to CO2, manmade or natural, is greater than zero, then you are victim to the hoax. And again, how many predictive failures must the AGW hypothesis experience before it is shitcanned and replaced with one that reflects reality to a greater degree?

Any hypothesis that was rooted in science rather than politics would have long since been disposed of in favor of another.

 

[PLC1]

If you believe the climate sensitivity to CO2, manmade or natural, is greater than zero, then you are victim to the hoax. And again, how many predictive failures must the AGW hypothesis experience before it is shitcanned and replaced with one that reflects reality to a greater degree?

Any hypothesis that was rooted in science rather than politics would have long since been disposed of in favor of another.

I'm aware that you don't think that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. I still trust the word of all of the scientific organizations worldwide more than I do the word of someone posting anonymously on the internet. After all, I'm someone posting anonymously on the internet as well, and a lot of what I post is simply unsupported opinion, just like what you post.