Hahahaha, why don't you go out your hand really close to an incandescent light bulb. Now turn it on. Feel the coolness?
Hahahaha. You imbeciles give morons a bad name.
Let the Whistle Blowing Begin....
- Thread starter SSDD
- Start date
Hahahaha, why don't you go out your hand really close to an incandescent light bulb. Now turn it on. Feel the coolness?
Hahahaha. You imbeciles give morons a bad name.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,594
- 35,166
- 2,180
well it isn't 400W if it's 200W right? what is it exactly do you think was in error in my previous post? I never said it wasn't hot, did I?
BTW, nice misrepresentation of what I posted. you da man.
How did I misrepresent you?
You said a 200w light would not warm the room.
You don't understand why you are wrong. You are stupid.
I could explain again and you might sorta understand for a moment but the next time you ran into the same situation you would make the same mistake.
You can't learn. That's almost the definition of stupid. You are stupid.
Don't feel bad, lots of people are stupid. It may even be easier and more enjoyable to go through life being stupid. Just stop acting like you are smart or that you have anything useful to say on this or any scientific topic.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,594
- 35,166
- 2,180
still misrepresented what I wrote. Can't you fking read? I said the 200W light would not make the 400W environment warmer than 400W. PERIOD!! Dude you misquote me quite often in here and I have to be honest, I thought back a time you were a quality poster in here. Now you're a schmuck that can't even comprehend what you read.
here try again:
I don't believe the 200W light will make the 400W environment any warmer
Face it I got you on this one and you can't handle it. I know your insults on me and for you to be got by me is fantastic.
One more thing, this is just more evidence that back radiation does not exist.
Last edited:
You are a fucking idiot that doesn't realize that a room at 16C is at thermal equilibrium and all points are radiating 400w at each other.
When you add 200w of INPUT from a hydroelectric dam or fossil fuel power plant everything in that room will get warmer.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,594
- 35,166
- 2,180
so why did you change your source from a 200W light to 200W from a power plant?
If it is a steady state, the 400W room will not get warmer.
Wuwei
Gold Member
- Apr 18, 2015
- 5,342
- 1,178
- 255
His posts are always so inane that either you are correct in your assessment, or he is just playing games with you. I think it's the latter. Nobody could be that stupid that consistently.
Care to give me an example of a 200w light not being powered by an outside source?
I can give you lots more outside ones. Batteries, nuclear, solar, wind, light pipe, to name a few.
How about a hand crank? No, that's powered by food and you probably produce more extra heat by the exertion than the light bulb does.
Care to explain what you meant?
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,594
- 35,166
- 2,180
dude, I don't fking care what power you use to light up that bulb, it still ain't gonna increase the room above 400W.
Dude, you can shut me up by posting an experiment that shows it does.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,594
- 35,166
- 2,180
my daughter and a granddaughter had one. Great invention.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,594
- 35,166
- 2,180
dude, a great idea. it doesn't make your claim about anything. All it is is a neat invention.
?????
It totally refutes your statement that a light bulb can't increase the temperature of a room.
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,594
- 35,166
- 2,180
Ian, Ian, Ian,
So, ambient temperature in a room is around 70 degrees F. What do you believe the temperature is of a 60 watt light bulb? 200 degrees F? Why wouldn't it warm the room?
It's still a neat invention!
Last edited:
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,594
- 35,166
- 2,180
what the hell are you talking about. I just said a 200 degree light bulb will warm a 70 degree environment. What I won't say is the 70 degree environment will warm the 200 degree light bulb. MK? dude you're still useless.
RollingThunder
Gold Member
- Mar 22, 2010
- 4,818
- 525
- 155
This bogus bullshit thread was killed a long time ago in post #88.....but the denier cult cretins are too stupid to realize it.
Quoting....
The usual braindead fraudulent drivel from the denier cult nutjobs and propaganda pushers, based only on their own stupidity, ignorance and gullibility.
This nonsense has already been debunked in detail many places....here's some more...
Climate Change, Science, NOAA Falsely Maligned by Tabloid Spin
(excerpts)
As a result of human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, the planet is warming. Those who deny this fact have pointed to a supposed “pause” in warming to justify opposition to climate action. In 2015, a study led by NOAA’s Tom Karl was published in Science that flatly refuted the idea of a “pause.” It is one of many. But its high profile made it a target for attack.
On Saturday, a feature in the UK’s Mail on Sunday by David Rose makes outrageous claims that were already disproven as the paper version hit stands, and that he has already had to, in part, correct. Rose, who has a history of inaccurate reporting, spins a scandal out of a letter by a former NOAA employee published on a climate change denial blog. The letter makes accusations of wrongdoing in the methodology and data archiving procedures used in the study. These accusations have already been shown to be faulty. Even if they were true, the implications have been blown out of proportion by Rose.
Rebuttals were published in record time, as within minutes there was a tweet describing the story as “so wrong its hard to know where to start”:
â—Ź John Abraham provides context in the Guardian, and points out the many factors Rose fails to address that, when considered, completely undercut his allegations of misconduct.
● Zeke Hausfather, in a fact check, discusses the various lines of evidence that support Karl’s findings. Hausfather published a study in 2016 that confirmed Karl’s findings that the planet has continued to warm, confirming there was never any real “pause.”
â—Ź Scott Johnson at Ars Technica spoke with NOAA insiders, and explains how tensions between the science and engineering side of things caused conflict between Karl, who wanted the handling of data to reflect the many sources of the data, and Bates, who advocated for using just one approach that could handle data from many different sources, but sometimes added years to the process.
● Peter Thorne at the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units, who unlike the letter’s author actually worked on the Karl paper, identifies several key aspects of the allegations that are a “mis-representation of the processes that actually occurred. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.”
● Victor Venema of the WMO discusses both the specifics of the data sets as well as some lighthearted context to help understand the “reporting” done by the Mail’s David Rose.
● Ten climate envoys and ministers involved with the Paris Agreement said there was no truth to Rose’s claim that this study influenced their decisions.
● In an interview, Bates pushed back on the allegations made by Rose, and “specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.” And said that "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.
(Read more at site)
Quoting....
The usual braindead fraudulent drivel from the denier cult nutjobs and propaganda pushers, based only on their own stupidity, ignorance and gullibility.
This nonsense has already been debunked in detail many places....here's some more...
Climate Change, Science, NOAA Falsely Maligned by Tabloid Spin
(excerpts)
As a result of human activities, primarily the burning of fossil fuels, the planet is warming. Those who deny this fact have pointed to a supposed “pause” in warming to justify opposition to climate action. In 2015, a study led by NOAA’s Tom Karl was published in Science that flatly refuted the idea of a “pause.” It is one of many. But its high profile made it a target for attack.
On Saturday, a feature in the UK’s Mail on Sunday by David Rose makes outrageous claims that were already disproven as the paper version hit stands, and that he has already had to, in part, correct. Rose, who has a history of inaccurate reporting, spins a scandal out of a letter by a former NOAA employee published on a climate change denial blog. The letter makes accusations of wrongdoing in the methodology and data archiving procedures used in the study. These accusations have already been shown to be faulty. Even if they were true, the implications have been blown out of proportion by Rose.
Rebuttals were published in record time, as within minutes there was a tweet describing the story as “so wrong its hard to know where to start”:
â—Ź John Abraham provides context in the Guardian, and points out the many factors Rose fails to address that, when considered, completely undercut his allegations of misconduct.
● Zeke Hausfather, in a fact check, discusses the various lines of evidence that support Karl’s findings. Hausfather published a study in 2016 that confirmed Karl’s findings that the planet has continued to warm, confirming there was never any real “pause.”
â—Ź Scott Johnson at Ars Technica spoke with NOAA insiders, and explains how tensions between the science and engineering side of things caused conflict between Karl, who wanted the handling of data to reflect the many sources of the data, and Bates, who advocated for using just one approach that could handle data from many different sources, but sometimes added years to the process.
● Peter Thorne at the Irish Climate Analysis and Research Units, who unlike the letter’s author actually worked on the Karl paper, identifies several key aspects of the allegations that are a “mis-representation of the processes that actually occurred. In some cases these mis-representations are publically verifiable.”
● Victor Venema of the WMO discusses both the specifics of the data sets as well as some lighthearted context to help understand the “reporting” done by the Mail’s David Rose.
● Ten climate envoys and ministers involved with the Paris Agreement said there was no truth to Rose’s claim that this study influenced their decisions.
● In an interview, Bates pushed back on the allegations made by Rose, and “specified that he did not believe that they manipulated the data upon which the research relied in any way.” And said that "The issue here is not an issue of tampering with data, but rather really of timing of a release of a paper that had not properly disclosed everything it was," he said.
(Read more at site)
jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 151,594
- 35,166
- 2,180
Similar threads
New Topics
-
-
-
-
68,000 job losses possible in Ontario this year due to U.S. trade war: report- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 2
