Climate Change Debate Held.... Very interesting outcome...

[Billy_Bob]

Explain what you mean by that meme. How warm is warm air? How cold is cold air? What do you mean by warming?

If I put a cup of boilling hot coffee into an airtight cooler filled with air of 32F and another cup of boiling coffee into another cooler filled with air of -150F, in which will the coffee cool the fastest? In the latter of course. And what is it that you believe has happened in those coolers? You realize that cold is not a 'thing', it is the absence of a thing; of warmth. The coffee cooled the quickest in the colder container because it received less warmth from its surroundings.

Do you reject the idea that all matter radiates heat?

Crick obfuscates and deflects a very simple question.. Can colder molecules, using the law of thermal dynamics, warm close proximity molecules who are much warmer than the cooler?

 

[Billy_Bob]

So when t

It is a stupid question. ALL matter radiates heat energy. All of it. No exceptions. So if we have two pieces of matter near each other, they will radiate each other no matter what their respective temperatures might be. And that will maintain a higher equilibrium temperature in them than if they were surrounded by nothing - ie, by absolute zero.

Do you understand?

PS, I did not say you were rejecting heat transfer. I'm telling you that you seem to be rejecting the fact that all matter radiates heat. And it is most definitely a fact. It is not a theory. It is not a hypothesis. It is a goddamned law of nature fact.

When those two energies meet does it get warmer is the question

The answer is NO. A colder object can not cause a warmer object to warm.

 

[jc456]

I d

So when t

It is a stupid question. ALL matter radiates heat energy. All of it. No exceptions. So if we have two pieces of matter near each other, they will radiate each other no matter what their respective temperatures might be. And that will maintain a higher equilibrium temperature in them than if they were surrounded by nothing - ie, by absolute zero.

Do you understand?

PS, I did not say you were rejecting heat transfer. I'm telling you that you seem to be rejecting the fact that all matter radiates heat. And it is most definitely a fact. It is not a theory. It is not a hypothesis. It is a goddamned law of nature fact.

When those two energies meet does it get warmer is the question

The answer is NO. A colder object can not cause a warmer object to warm.

o know that, I'd like to see crick acknowledge that. But he avoids the answer each time I ask.

 

[IanC]

I d

So when t

It is a stupid question. ALL matter radiates heat energy. All of it. No exceptions. So if we have two pieces of matter near each other, they will radiate each other no matter what their respective temperatures might be. And that will maintain a higher equilibrium temperature in them than if they were surrounded by nothing - ie, by absolute zero.

Do you understand?

PS, I did not say you were rejecting heat transfer. I'm telling you that you seem to be rejecting the fact that all matter radiates heat. And it is most definitely a fact. It is not a theory. It is not a hypothesis. It is a goddamned law of nature fact.

When those two energies meet does it get warmer is the question

The answer is NO. A colder object can not cause a warmer object to warm.

o know that, I'd like to see crick acknowledge that. But he avoids the answer each time I ask.

What does your question have to do with highly ordered high energy entering the planetary system and leaving as disordered low energy?

 

[jc456]

I d

So when t

It is a stupid question. ALL matter radiates heat energy. All of it. No exceptions. So if we have two pieces of matter near each other, they will radiate each other no matter what their respective temperatures might be. And that will maintain a higher equilibrium temperature in them than if they were surrounded by nothing - ie, by absolute zero.

Do you understand?

PS, I did not say you were rejecting heat transfer. I'm telling you that you seem to be rejecting the fact that all matter radiates heat. And it is most definitely a fact. It is not a theory. It is not a hypothesis. It is a goddamned law of nature fact.

When those two energies meet does it get warmer is the question

The answer is NO. A colder object can not cause a warmer object to warm.

o know that, I'd like to see crick acknowledge that. But he avoids the answer each time I ask.

What does your question have to do with highly ordered high energy entering the planetary system and leaving as disordered low energy?

I guess that just makes me stupid

 

[IanC]

I d

So when t

It is a stupid question. ALL matter radiates heat energy. All of it. No exceptions. So if we have two pieces of matter near each other, they will radiate each other no matter what their respective temperatures might be. And that will maintain a higher equilibrium temperature in them than if they were surrounded by nothing - ie, by absolute zero.

Do you understand?

PS, I did not say you were rejecting heat transfer. I'm telling you that you seem to be rejecting the fact that all matter radiates heat. And it is most definitely a fact. It is not a theory. It is not a hypothesis. It is a goddamned law of nature fact.

When those two energies meet does it get warmer is the question

The answer is NO. A colder object can not cause a warmer object to warm.

o know that, I'd like to see crick acknowledge that. But he avoids the answer each time I ask.

What does your question have to do with highly ordered high energy entering the planetary system and leaving as disordered low energy?

I guess that just makes me stupid

Just because the warmists use faulty logic and non sequiturs, that doesn't mean we should too.

 

[mamooth]

Can colder molecules, using the law of thermal dynamics, warm close proximity molecules who are much warmer than the cooler?

Watch out everyone. Billy knows the laws of thermal dynamics. Though he doesn't understand why everyone keeps laughing at him when he says that.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Can colder molecules, using the law of thermal dynamics, warm close proximity molecules who are much warmer than the cooler?

Watch out everyone. Billy knows the laws of thermal dynamics. Though he doesn't understand why everyone keeps laughing at him when he says that.

Ok Francis, why dont you tell us...

 

[Crick]

Explain what you mean by that meme. How warm is warm air? How cold is cold air? What do you mean by warming?

If I put a cup of boilling hot coffee into an airtight cooler filled with air of 32F and another cup of boiling coffee into another cooler filled with air of -150F, in which will the coffee cool the fastest? In the latter of course. And what is it that you believe has happened in those coolers? You realize that cold is not a 'thing', it is the absence of a thing; of warmth. The coffee cooled the quickest in the colder container because it received less warmth from its surroundings.

Do you reject the idea that all matter radiates heat?

what is that you don't get about cold and warm? Are you saying cold air can warm warm air? take cold water and mix it with warm water, will the warm water become warmer? nope. So not sure what you don't understand, but that really doesn't surprise me.

If you drop an ice cube into a glass of room temperature water, the water will drop in temperature. Unfortunately for you, that is not the pertinent issue.

You want to say that IR, originating from cooler temperature gases in the upper atmosphere cannot warm warmer gases or warm surfaces in the lower atmosphere. Let me ask you this, then. What does happen to the matter that absorbs that IR? And please don't tell me "nothing" again, jc. You're not really that stupid. Desperate, perhaps, but not that stupid. I'll give you a hint, though. Think about what would happen to that matter if it did NOT receive that IR. Think about what determines equilibrium temperatures young paduwan.

 

[skookerasbil]

HOLY SHIT

Billy...............great thread!! The AGW side got their asses handed to them. No wonder Gore never wanted to debate anybody!!!! He might be a bit dull from attending so many Grateful Dead concerts but he's not stupid!!


Don't forget though.........to the AGW k00ks, Phd scientists are fakes unless they subscribe to the official narrative................guys like Crick, Matthew and Mammoth have been so hypnotized with this shit, any scientific information that doesn't conform to the view of the religion is dismissed out of hand. Yet they refer to it as "science".

 

[bripat9643]

100 years later, we're still rigorously testing General Relativity

Doesn't mean it's not widely accepted as established theory

25 years after flipping from Global Cooling to Global Warming, your Cult wants to say the "Science" is settled.

It's the earth systems that have flipped in the past few centuries, from a very slow cooling trend to an upward temp spike.

Consider that the Pentagon and Department of Defense now regard climate change to be one of the most serious threats the nation faces long-term.

These are generals, not granola-munching ponytailed treehuggers

They do it under orders from Obama, you blithering idiot.

 

[jc456]

Explain what you mean by that meme. How warm is warm air? How cold is cold air? What do you mean by warming?

If I put a cup of boilling hot coffee into an airtight cooler filled with air of 32F and another cup of boiling coffee into another cooler filled with air of -150F, in which will the coffee cool the fastest? In the latter of course. And what is it that you believe has happened in those coolers? You realize that cold is not a 'thing', it is the absence of a thing; of warmth. The coffee cooled the quickest in the colder container because it received less warmth from its surroundings.

Do you reject the idea that all matter radiates heat?

what is that you don't get about cold and warm? Are you saying cold air can warm warm air? take cold water and mix it with warm water, will the warm water become warmer? nope. So not sure what you don't understand, but that really doesn't surprise me.

If you drop an ice cube into a glass of room temperature water, the water will drop in temperature. Unfortunately for you, that is not the pertinent issue.

You want to say that IR, originating from cooler temperature gases in the upper atmosphere cannot warm warmer gases or warm surfaces in the lower atmosphere. Let me ask you this, then. What does happen to the matter that absorbs that IR? And please don't tell me "nothing" again, jc. You're not really that stupid. Desperate, perhaps, but not that stupid. I'll give you a hint, though. Think about what would happen to that matter if it did NOT receive that IR. Think about what determines equilibrium temperatures young paduwan.

Crick, correct, I don't believe there is back radiation that comes out of the nice cold atmosphere to the warmer surface. Does it radiate, sure, I have no doubt, me I just haven't seen any evidence that backradiation will warm the surface. If you have that evidence, feel free to show it to me.

 

[kflaux]

Consider that the Pentagon and Department of Defense now regard climate change to be one of the most serious threats the nation faces long-term.

These are generals, not granola-munching ponytailed treehuggers

They do it under orders from Obama, you blithering idiot.

Pentagon tells Bush climate change will destroy us Environment The Guardian

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists.

Who's the blithering idiot here?

 

[jc456]

Consider that the Pentagon and Department of Defense now regard climate change to be one of the most serious threats the nation faces long-term.

These are generals, not granola-munching ponytailed treehuggers

They do it under orders from Obama, you blithering idiot.

Pentagon tells Bush climate change will destroy us Environment The Guardian

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists.

Who's the blithering idiot here?

ew, ew, do I get a vote?

 

[IanC]

Explain what you mean by that meme. How warm is warm air? How cold is cold air? What do you mean by warming?

If I put a cup of boilling hot coffee into an airtight cooler filled with air of 32F and another cup of boiling coffee into another cooler filled with air of -150F, in which will the coffee cool the fastest? In the latter of course. And what is it that you believe has happened in those coolers? You realize that cold is not a 'thing', it is the absence of a thing; of warmth. The coffee cooled the quickest in the colder container because it received less warmth from its surroundings.

Do you reject the idea that all matter radiates heat?

what is that you don't get about cold and warm? Are you saying cold air can warm warm air? take cold water and mix it with warm water, will the warm water become warmer? nope. So not sure what you don't understand, but that really doesn't surprise me.

If you drop an ice cube into a glass of room temperature water, the water will drop in temperature. Unfortunately for you, that is not the pertinent issue.

You want to say that IR, originating from cooler temperature gases in the upper atmosphere cannot warm warmer gases or warm surfaces in the lower atmosphere. Let me ask you this, then. What does happen to the matter that absorbs that IR? And please don't tell me "nothing" again, jc. You're not really that stupid. Desperate, perhaps, but not that stupid. I'll give you a hint, though. Think about what would happen to that matter if it did NOT receive that IR. Think about what determines equilibrium temperatures young paduwan.

Crick, correct, I don't believe there is back radiation that comes out of the nice cold atmosphere to the warmer surface. Does it radiate, sure, I have no doubt, me I just haven't seen any evidence that backradiation will warm the surface. If you have that evidence, feel free to show it to me.

A solar oven will heat things if you point it at the Sun, cool thing if you point it towards open sky, and is intermediate if you point it towards a cloud. The difference is how much back radiation it is getting. Without an atmosphere it would get much hotter or much cooler. The temperature of the object at the focal point is the equilibrium of energy in minus energy out. Even a cooler atmosphere gives back more radiation than just space. Cool things can reduce energy loss. Depending on how you define 'warming', cool things can warm hotter things as long as there is a heat source moving energy through the system.

 

[bripat9643]

Consider that the Pentagon and Department of Defense now regard climate change to be one of the most serious threats the nation faces long-term.

These are generals, not granola-munching ponytailed treehuggers

They do it under orders from Obama, you blithering idiot.

Pentagon tells Bush climate change will destroy us Environment The Guardian

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists.

Who's the blithering idiot here?

It's a "secret report" that only the Guardian has a copy of? Wow, that is so credible!

 

[IanC]

Consider that the Pentagon and Department of Defense now regard climate change to be one of the most serious threats the nation faces long-term.

These are generals, not granola-munching ponytailed treehuggers

They do it under orders from Obama, you blithering idiot.

Pentagon tells Bush climate change will destroy us Environment The Guardian

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists.

Who's the blithering idiot here?

It's a "secret report" that only the Guardian has a copy of? Wow, that is so credible!

Back in the 70's there was a CIA report on how global cooling was going to disrupt civilization. It predicted much the same things as global warming is being blamed for now. I could bump the thread if anyone is interested.

 

[bripat9643]

Consider that the Pentagon and Department of Defense now regard climate change to be one of the most serious threats the nation faces long-term.

These are generals, not granola-munching ponytailed treehuggers

They do it under orders from Obama, you blithering idiot.

Pentagon tells Bush climate change will destroy us Environment The Guardian

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists.

Who's the blithering idiot here?

It's a "secret report" that only the Guardian has a copy of? Wow, that is so credible!

Back in the 70's there was a CIA report on how global cooling was going to disrupt civilization. It predicted much the same things as global warming is being blamed for now. I could bump the thread if anyone is interested.

Please do. You have to pound this stuff into the heads of the AGW nutburgers over and over and over before they'll even admit they saw it.

 

[IanC]

here is the link- http://www.climatemonitor.it/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/1974.pdf

unfortunately it is a pdf. it is really interesting to see their position on climate science from 40 years ago.

 

[mamooth]

Can colder molecules, using the law of thermal dynamics, warm close proximity molecules who are much warmer than the cooler?

Watch out everyone. Billy knows the laws of thermal dynamics. Though he doesn't understand why everyone keeps laughing at him when he says that.

Ok Francis, why dont you tell us...

In order to do that, you'll first have to explain to everyone the second law of ... what was it again? Do remind us.