|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2016 2:45:39 GMT
Are you talking about the Atmosphere or a greenhouse? ?? Once again, two totalllllllly different things! The laws of a greenhouse do NOT apply to the atmosphere! How many more times do you have to be told the so called greenhouse effect has absolutely nothing to do with a garden greenhouse? ?? Icefisher does the same thing. i can say the same thing to him every day of the week and he flings it in my face as if i am totally mentally handicapped. Just stop.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2016 2:47:20 GMT
I think I will just give up as I can't make heads or tails out of what is trying to be stated here. Mixing apples, oranges and even throw in a few spuds. The horticulture of each is different, even tho they are all plants. Once again you have entered a thread i am in and just caused trouble and contributed absolutely nothing whatsoever. I suspect you do it deliberately and it turns you on.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2016 2:50:09 GMT
The most likely explanation is that Icefisher is just your sock and that probably includes Magellan too. Hard to believe that three people can all be so impossible to communicate with and all have the same enormously high opinions of themselves while knowing absolutely f**k all about many of the topics they talk about.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 30, 2016 2:51:36 GMT
What is a "greenhouse" effect? I am being serious Andrew.
A greenhouse is an enclosed system. The effect is that the closed system tries to prevent heat loss while allowing sunshine in. Take the shell off the greenhouse, the system opens and becomes ambient to the surroundings.
I think the mistake you are making is somehow comparing our atmosphere to a greenhouse. Are you really trying to do that?
IF you are talking atmosphere, you have to consider mass, chemical makeup, etc. Our atmosphere more resembles a rock than a greenhouse, as the rock is a fixed mass, just as the atmosphere is a fixed mass. Large diff tho is fluid dynamics etc.
IF you are talking about the earth's atmosphere, let's talk about that.
IF you are talking about a greenhouse, let's talk about that.
Mixing the two doesn't make a bit of sense.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 30, 2016 2:53:28 GMT
Andrew: Forget the potential of insult, that gets really old.
Talk about the actual subject.
I am actually trying to understand what you are proposing, and it just makes no sense to me at all so far.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2016 2:56:23 GMT
What is a "greenhouse" effect? I am being serious Andrew. A greenhouse is an enclosed system. The effect is that the closed system tries to prevent heat loss while allowing sunshine in. Take the shell off the greenhouse, the system opens and becomes ambient to the surroundings. I think the mistake you are making is somehow comparing our atmosphere to a greenhouse. Are you really trying to do that? IF you are talking atmosphere, you have to consider mass, chemical makeup, etc. Our atmosphere more resembles a rock than a greenhouse, as the rock is a fixed mass, just as the atmosphere is a fixed mass. Large diff tho is fluid dynamics etc. IF you are talking about the earth's atmosphere, let's talk about that. IF you are talking about a greenhouse, let's talk about that. Mixing the two doesn't make a bit of sense. If you are unable to read just f**k off and play somewhere else. I am wondering why icefisher needs to obfuscate and misdirect when simple concepts are being discussed that a child can understand. Nobody can talk about the atmosphere if they cannot understand what a child can understand.
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 30, 2016 2:56:53 GMT
The most likely explanation is that Icefisher is just your sock and that probably includes Magellan too. Hard to believe that three people can all be so impossible to communicate with and all have the same enormously high opinions of themselves while knowing absolutely f**k all about many of the topics they talk about. I would not at all end that list with me Sig and Mag. You have this strange idea that skepticism is somehow linked to having a high opinion of oneself. Does that mean you have a low opinion of yourself so you just take what you are told as fact?
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 30, 2016 3:04:06 GMT
I see now why I am lost Andrew. You are trying to extrapolate a closed system experiment and apply it to an open system. Doing so does not provide any validity.
You nor Icefisher are morons. I see now you are both talking about different systems, trying to over lap them and that is like mixing diesel fuel and water. They don't mix.
Good luck.
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 30, 2016 3:06:25 GMT
Icefisher is talking about an open system, such as the atmosphere.
Andrew is talking about a closed system, such as a greenhouse.
The conversation will never be resolved, as they are two different systems.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2016 3:13:10 GMT
I see now why I am lost Andrew. You are trying to extrapolate a closed system experiment and apply it to an open system. Doing so does not provide any validity. You nor Icefisher are morons. I see now you are both talking about different systems, trying to over lap them and that is like mixing diesel fuel and water. They don't mix. Good luck. Bullshit For 4 years, Icefisher has said the idea the earth was warmer because of absorber emitters, was breaking the laws of physics. In reality no honest educated person is going to object to the idea when it is just simple physics a child can understand.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2016 3:14:41 GMT
Icefisher is talking about an open system, such as the atmosphere. Andrew is talking about a closed system, such as a greenhouse. The conversation will never be resolved, as they are two different systems. Bullshit Icefisher knows what the idea is. If he objects to it he should be able to produce a reasoned response that another human being can understand
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2016 3:16:14 GMT
Andrew is talking about a closed system, such as a greenhouse. What kind of a low life cu.nt keeps making out i am saying such a thing when i have made it totally clear i am not saying that
|
|
|
Post by sigurdur on Jan 30, 2016 3:18:41 GMT
Ok. How much warmer do you think the earth is because of absorber emitters?
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2016 3:20:26 GMT
The most likely explanation is that Icefisher is just your sock and that probably includes Magellan too. Hard to believe that three people can all be so impossible to communicate with and all have the same enormously high opinions of themselves while knowing absolutely f**k all about many of the topics they talk about. I would not at all end that list with me Sig and Mag. You have this strange idea that skepticism is somehow linked to having a high opinion of oneself. Does that mean you have a low opinion of yourself so you just take what you are told as fact? Skepticism has to be based in something understandable or it is just denialism. Your objections are gibberish that no human being can understand and it seems totally clear you only produce those objections so you can obfuscate and misdirect and frustate for no reason other than to satisfy your strange need to deny simple physics.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew on Jan 30, 2016 3:31:37 GMT
Ok. How much warmer do you think the earth is because of absorber emitters? I have no f**king interest in precise numbers or your endless and pointless misdirections it has been known since 1796 that if you warm a cold object that is radiatively coupled to a heated thermometer the thermometer will become hotter. The surface of the earth must be radiatively coupled to an absorbing emitting atmosphere and the earth is heated by the sun. If the sun heats the surface or anything heats the surface and the atmosphere becomes warmer then the surface becomes warmer because the heat losses between the surface and the atmosphere are reduced. But according to his majestic highness icefisher it is impossible to warm a heated object when the same object heats the colder object to a higher temperature unless one considers insulation and any number of incomprehensible reasons why 18th century physics is forbidden in his majesties presence
|
|