Is This Latest Ploy by Green Movement More Insane Than Their Plan to Screw With the A

[Into the Night]

You said Arizona isn't always hot.

Then you said "hot" relies on an individual's interpretation of it.

You can't have it both ways.

I can have it both ways. There is no paradox here.
Arizona can also be cold. 'Cold' relies on an individuals interpretation of it as well.

 

[Into the Night]

Pointing out some one is a troll is stamping my feet? Just when I think you can't be more of an asshat you become more of an asshat. Fuck Off and go back to libertarianland.

I am not a libertarian.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. You're a hoot.

Glad you're entertained. Doesn't change any of the science or math that you ignore though.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Glad you're entertained. Doesn't change any of the science or math that you ignore though.

LOL. Seems you are the one ignoring the science and math. But that's OK. Since you don't do any science for a living it doesn't really matter. You're just another pawn being played by people. You will be swallowed up by events as most of us will be. And when the shit gets real you'll be like everyone else and say you believed in it all along.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. Seems you are the one ignoring the science and math.

LIF. Grow up. Arguing like a five-year old will get you nowhere.

But that's OK. Since you don't do any science for a living it doesn't really matter.

I am a scientist, among other things. You are describing yourself again. It is YOU ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law. These are theories of science. You can't just discard them.

You're just another pawn being played by people.

You are describing yourself again.

You will be swallowed up by events as most of us will be.

You are describing yourself again.

And when the shit gets real you'll be like everyone else and say you believed in it all along.

You are describing yourself again. The shit is already real.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I am a scientist,

No you aren't. Tell us what your "science" is. This should be hilarious!

 

[Into the Night]

No you aren't. Tell us what your "science" is. This should be hilarious!

I do not divulge personal information on JPP. It makes no difference here. You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm Earth.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I do not divulge personal information on JPP. It makes no difference here. You are still ignoring the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

No gas or vapor has the capability to warm Earth.

LOL. You aren't a scientist. That's why you don't divulge anything. You're, at best, an electrical contractor for someone.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. You aren't a scientist. That's why you don't divulge anything. You're, at best, an electrical contractor for someone.

I am a scientist. It doesn't matter whether you believe me or not. I am not an electrical contractor. I own my own business manufacturing instrumentation for industrial control systems. It doesn't matter whether you believe me or not.

You are still ignoring statistical math and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

I can have it both ways. There is no paradox here.
Arizona can also be cold. 'Cold' relies on an individuals interpretation of it as well.

I never feel Arizona is cold and I live here.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I am a scientist.

No you're not.

I am not an electrical contractor. I own my own business manufacturing instrumentation for industrial control systems.

Then you're an electrician. You aren't a scientist.

It doesn't matter whether you believe me or not.

I don't believe you.

You are still ignoring statistical math and the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics and the Stefan-Boltzmann law.

LOL. You don't know the first thing about ANYTHING you just wrote there. Hilarious.

 

[Into the Night]

I never feel Arizona is cold and I live here.

So I guess you do not perceive of this as 'cold'.

 

[Into the Night]

No you're not.

Yes I am.

Then you're an electrician.

I am not an electrician.

You aren't a scientist.

I am a scientist.

I don't believe you.

Obviously. Big hairy deal.

LOL. You don't know the first thing about ANYTHING you just wrote there. Hilarious.

1st law of thermodynamics (which you ignore): E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (force over time).
In other words, you CANNOT CREATE ENERGY OUT OF NOTHING. NO gas or vapor has this magick capability.

2nd law of thermodynamics (which you ignore): e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is 'entropy', or the available energy to do work, and 't' is time.
This law also defines the concept of 'heat' and gives it a direction.
In other words, you cannot heat warmer surface using a colder gas.

Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is light emitted per square area, 'C' is a natural constant (which serves to convert the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is a measured constant called 'emissivity' (how well the surface absorbs or emits light), and 't' is temperature in deg K.
To measure emissivity you must FIRST KNOW THE TEMPERATURE OF THE EMITTING SURFACE! It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth.
You are also attempting to trap light. That is not possible.
You are also attempting to trap thermal energy. That is not possible.

You are ignoring these three theories of science.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

So I guess you do not perceive of this as 'cold'.

Nope

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Yes I am.

I am not an electrician.

I am a scientist.

LOL. No you're not.

2nd law of thermodynamics (which you ignore): e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is 'entropy', or the available energy to do work, and 't' is time.

The second law doesn't apply everywhere. Only in closed systems. That's a key point you forgot.

This law also defines the concept of 'heat' and gives it a direction.
In other words, you cannot heat warmer surface using a colder gas.

That has nothing to do with global warming. Your misapplication of the Second Law is hilarious.

Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is light emitted per square area, 'C' is a natural constant (which serves to convert the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is a measured constant called 'emissivity' (how well the surface absorbs or emits light), and 't' is temperature in deg K.
To measure emissivity you must FIRST KNOW THE TEMPERATURE OF THE EMITTING SURFACE! It is not possible to measure the emissivity of Earth.
You are also attempting to trap light. That is not possible.
You are also attempting to trap thermal energy. That is not possible.

Stefan Boltzmann only tells you what the black body radiation temperature of the planet would be without greenhouse gases like CO2 and H2O. It would be about 30+ degC cooler without these things.

Hence how we know the greenhouse effect is real and how we know that increasing greenhouse gases like CO2 can cause warming

You are ignoring these three theories of science.

You don't understand anything about what you wrote. You just puked up some pseudo-scientific letters and drew the wrong conclusions. Typical for non-scientists like yourself.


Stick to wiring houses like a good electrician.

 

[Into the Night]

LOL. No you're not.

Irrelevance fallacy.

The second law doesn't apply everywhere.

Yes it does. It applies everywhere...all the time...it is never set aside...there are no exceptions.

Only in closed systems. That's a key point you forgot.

It applies to any given system, open or closed.

That has nothing to do with global warming. Your misapplication of the Second Law is hilarious.

The Church of Global Warming claims that you can heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are doing the same.
You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.

Stefan Boltzmann only tells you what the black body radiation temperature of the planet would be without greenhouse gases like CO2 and H2O.

WRONG. There is no 'substance' term in the equation. It applies equally to ALL substances, including CO2 and water. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not tell you the temperature of any object. It DOES have a term for 'emissivity' which you are now trying to discard.

It would be about 30+ degC cooler without these things.

Argument from randU fallacy. Discard of the 1st law of thermodynamics (you can't destroy energy into nothing either!), the 2nd law of thermodynamics (you can't ignore any substance), and the Stefan-Boltzmann law (it does not calculate temperature of anything).

Hence how we know the greenhouse effect is real and how we know that increasing greenhouse gases like CO2 can cause warming

Attempted proof by Stone. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot make heat flow 'backwards'. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.

You don't understand anything about what you wrote.

You are describing yourself again. It is YOU attempting to change the equation to discard it.

You just puked up some pseudo-scientific letters and drew the wrong conclusions.

There are no 'conclusions'. These equations simply exist. You are trying to discard them.

Typical for non-scientists like yourself.

Irrelevance fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

Stick to wiring houses like a good electrician.

Since you despise electricians, your an ingrate. Your computer wouldn't run without their work.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

Irrelevance fallacy.

Yes it does. It applies everywhere...all the time...it is never set aside...there are no exceptions.

It applies to any given system, open or closed.

The Church of Global Warming claims that you can heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You are doing the same.
You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.

WRONG. There is no 'substance' term in the equation. It applies equally to ALL substances, including CO2 and water. The Stefan-Boltzmann law does not tell you the temperature of any object. It DOES have a term for 'emissivity' which you are now trying to discard.

Argument from randU fallacy. Discard of the 1st law of thermodynamics (you can't destroy energy into nothing either!), the 2nd law of thermodynamics (you can't ignore any substance), and the Stefan-Boltzmann law (it does not calculate temperature of anything).

Attempted proof by Stone. No gas or vapor has the capability to warm the Earth.
You cannot create energy out of nothing.
You cannot trap heat.
You cannot trap light.
You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat.
You cannot make heat flow 'backwards'. You cannot heat a warmer object with a colder one.

You are describing yourself again. It is YOU attempting to change the equation to discard it.

There are no 'conclusions'. These equations simply exist. You are trying to discard them.

Irrelevance fallacy. Bulverism fallacy.

Since you despise electricians, your an ingrate. Your computer wouldn't run without their work.

You sure do take the bait don't you? You don't know what you're talking about most of the time do you?

 

[Into the Night]

You sure do take the bait don't you? You don't know what you're talking about most of the time do you?

You are describing yourself again. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yes, Flagstaff can get like that.

Yep. This was Prescott, but Arizona has some mountainous areas.

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Yep. This was Prescott, but Arizona has some mountainous areas.

Flagstaff is around 7,000 feet.

Plenty of snow up there.