This Will Be The Test For Man Made Climate Change

[toobfreak]

Which in no way addresses the point that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is still increasing, just at a slightly slower rate.

TRANSLATION: The input into the system has changed to a rate = to 30 years ago. The biggest change since WWII. Different fuel in, different result out.

Sweet Jeebus, no. CO2 is matter, not energy.

Clueless dumbfuck, I don't mean energy in that sense.

Fuzzy meaningless gobbldeegook.

Its the DEFINITION OF WORK, moron. Work is the product of force and displacement. In physics, a force is said to do work if, when acting, there is a movement of the point of application in the direction of the force.

Work (physics) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Damn, is there ever a single arrogant, conceited leftard ever here who thinks his shit doesn't stink who ISN'T a professed imbecile?

 

[alpine]

BUT IT ISN'T INCREASING AT THE SAME RATE AS IT WAS A YEAR AGO.

Yes, but it's still increasing.

You can't expect to feed a different amount of energy into a system and still see the same energy at the output.

Since CO2 isn't energy, that analogy is senseless.

Let's start with the basics. Do you understand that CO2 isn't energy?

i would be surprised if he did understand any bite of the climate change...

 

[alpine]

it was not auto correct...
auto-correct doesnt correct corrects to mistakes...

Ahh c'mon, Piney! I was just ribbing you a bit.

Can't you take a joke? It's Christmas. Lighten up.

not "ribbing you a bit"...
should been "ribbing you a bite"...

do i have to correct you guys every message...

 

[ReinyDays]

Less. A change of input = a change of output. They even have a law for that called Norton's Theorem.

Which in no way addresses the point that the level of CO2 in the atmosphere is still increasing, just at a slightly slower rate.

This speaks to the first derivative ...

Of course it's energy.

Sweet Jeebus, no. CO2 is matter, not energy.

Temperature is energy ... are you saying CO2 does NOT effect temperature? ... there's a thread pinned to the top of this forum ... it explains radiative energy transfer in detail, you should familiarize yourself with that before you ask any more capricious questions ...

It is a stimulus going into a system that accomplishes work.

Fuzzy meaningless gobbldeegook.

No ... that's first year physics ...

You admit that every time you say that our putting CO2 into the climate system causes it to trap and store more heat.

So by your definitions, a wool blanket is energy, because it traps heat.
Your definitions are clearly insane.

What an odd analogy ... part of a failed comparison I thought had long ago died out ... surprised to see it resurrected ...

=====

Clearly mamooth is very weak in his understanding of the basic principles involved ... and it really shows when he gets so emotional about a subject ... brain shuts down when he logs in or something ... mamooth, you really really need to study about work performed, that's at the very core of thermodynamics, I understand you need it to be "fuzzy meaningless gobbldeegook" or your whole world view will collapse, but that's a problem with your own world view ... in reality, we have to integrate to find work performed ... I've seen these work calculations in the field of electronics, please toobfreak, no citations, I'd rather never see them again ...

 

[mamooth]

TRANSLATION: The input into the system has changed to a rate = to 30 years ago.

No. That's completley wrong. The hard data flatly contradicts your kook claim there. You're just faking data outright now, as cult losers tend to do.

Clueless dumbfuck, I don't mean energy in that sense.

Yes, yes, you're using your own speshul PC vocabulary, where you define CO2 as being energy, and you think it makes sense. That's fine. Just understand that everyone else thinks you're a kook.

Its the DEFINITION OF WORK, moron.

Your words were "It is a stimulus going into a system that accomplishes work." That is not the definition of work anywhere. You made up a crazy definition, and then when called on it, you moved the goalposts and tried to pretend you said something else.

In physics, a force is said to do work if, when acting, there is a movement of the point of application in the direction of the force.

Which is not what "a stimulus going into a system" describes. Your words were fuzzy nonsense. Words mean specific things, not what you want them to mean.

Damn, is there ever a single arrogant, conceited leftard ever here who thinks his shit doesn't stink who ISN'T a professed imbecile?

in order to pull of the condescending act, you have to actually be intelligent That's why I can do it, and why you can't, and why your belligerent ignorance act looks so pathetic.

 

[mamooth]

This speaks to the first derivative ...

Yes, the first derivative is slightly smaller. It's still very positive. The CO2 level is still increasing.

Temperature is energy ... are you saying CO2 does NOT effect temperature?

I'm saying that CO2 is not energy. I think my words there are very clear. CO2 is matter, not energy, and anyone saying that CO2 is energy is totally wrong, so clueless that they shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

What an odd analogy ... part of a failed comparison I thought had long ago died out ... surprised to see it resurrected ...

You're the one now proudly supporting the claim that anything affecting energy flow _is_ energy. The blanket affects energy flow, so by the standard that you're now defending, the blanket is energy. That demonstrates just how stupid your standard is.

I don't know why you decided to jump down into this stupid hole with toobfreak. Since you're in such a deep stupid hole, you might want to stop digging.

 

[toobfreak]

Your words were "It is a stimulus going into a system that accomplishes work." That is not the definition of work anywhere.

Look you stupid fuckwad, your total lack of comprehension is stunning. You can't follow even a simple thought. How can you be dumb enough to take the description of what CO2 was acting as, and confuse that with the definition of work which is what I said the CO2 was accomplishing? I had more common sense than you when I was 5 years old.

You made up a crazy definition

Wrong again shithead, I took the definition verbatim right from the link I provided from Wiki.
You are the most brainless ass-quack I think I ever met. If you knew 10X more than you do now about anything, you'd still know less than nothing.

GET OFF THIS THREAD and quit disrupting it posing as if you were an authority on it. I've had it with your brainless trolling.

 

[ReinyDays]

Wrong again shithead, I took the definition verbatim right from the link I provided from Wiki.

I don't think they cover vector multiplication in high school ...

 

[mamooth]

Look you stupid fuckwad,

While your application to be one of my pout-stalkers demonstrated remarkable skill at pouting like a little bitch, all positions in my pout-stalker brigade are currently occupied. Your application will be kept on file, and I'll let you know if something opens up.

Meanwhile, you'll always be the one who told everyone that CO2 was literally energy, just so that he could then claim the energy input went down, which would cause cooling.

Next time, when I clearly and directly point out what a moron you've been, simply thank me for the education and move on.

 

[toobfreak]

Meanwhile, you'll always be the one who told everyone that CO2 was literally energy

You're a lying idiot. I've warned you to stay on topic and quit your rubbish.

 

[mamooth]

You're a lying idiot. I've warned you to stay on topic and quit your rubbish.

What are you going to do, report me for discussing the topic directly while you run from it? Take your threats and shove them, loser. I'm following board rules, and you're not.

You made a lunatic claim that since CO2 is energy, there's less energy being put into the system, so temperatures have to decrease.

I pointed out it's crazy to claim that CO2 is energy, being that CO2 is matter.

So, you decided you needed to have it both ways, and you settled on the term "stimulus" instead to describe CO2. That way, you could conveneiently pretend the "stimulus" was either matter or energy, depending on what you wanted it to be at any given moment.

I called you out for those dishonest word games.

You went into screaming meltdown censorship mode, and you never came back to discussing your own topic.

Next time, if you don't want to discuss a topic, then don't bring it up on a discussion board.

 

[toobfreak]

What are you going to do, report me for discussing the topic directly

You're not discussing anything here, asshole, no one can be so brain-damaged as you pretend to be in the many lunatic accusations you've already made so you're either trolling the thread or the stupidest dumbfuck since rain was wet to think that my analogy of CO2 being the energy added into the climate system to increase solar trapping meant that CO2 was the same as EM radiation, etc.

Worse, without fail, it never fails that when one of you clueless fucks start your crap about how uneducated or clueless OTHER people are rather than proving them wrong or at least showing you know more, you always do so while saying the dumbest shit possible yourself!

So I'll give you a choice to either get off the thread, STFU, or prove you are right about something germane to this topic or prove I'm wrong.

Last warning.

 

[ding]

I'm saying that CO2 is not energy. I think my words there are very clear. CO2 is matter, not energy, and anyone saying that CO2 is energy is totally wrong, so clueless that they shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

e=mc^2

 

[ReinyDays]

You're not discussing anything here, asshole, no one can be so brain-damaged as you pretend to be in the many lunatic accusations you've already made so you're either trolling the thread or the stupidest dumbfuck since rain was wet to think that my analogy of CO2 being the energy added into the climate system to increase solar trapping meant that CO2 was the same as EM radiation, etc.

Worse, without fail, it never fails that when one of you clueless fucks start your crap about how uneducated or clueless OTHER people are rather than proving them wrong or at least showing you know more, you always do so while saying the dumbest shit possible yourself!

So I'll give you a choice to either get off the thread, STFU, or prove you are right about something germane to this topic or prove I'm wrong.

Last warning.

Mammeries only has semantics to discuss ... due to a lack of understanding of the basic principles involves ... that doesn't make me like the way EE's express themselves ... but it's pretty easy to cipher out what is being said ... he has to say we're stupid, he hopes no one will notice how stupid he is ...

 

[ReinyDays]

e=mc^2

We don't have nuclear reactions going on in our atmosphere ... this is pretty much strictly Classical Physics ...

 

[ding]

e=mc^2

We don't have nuclear reactions going on in our atmosphere ... this is pretty much strictly Classical Physics ...

I agree. I was commenting on the statement that matter is not energy. Technically everything is energy.

Mass–energy equivalence - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[toobfreak]

e=mc^2

We don't have nuclear reactions going on in our atmosphere ... this is pretty much strictly Classical Physics ...

I was commenting on the statement that matter is not energy. Technically everything is energy.

Actually, Ding, I've always kinda taken Einstein's equation to imply something else: That since matter and energy are INTERCHAGABLE, that both are then states of something else.

But of course, what I originally meant here was that CO2 was imparting energy (ie a force) into the climate system which was supposedly effecting a change (the work) in deflecting/moving the climate from its original (natural) condition.

 

[ReinyDays]

Actually, Ding, I've always kinda taken Einstein's equation to imply something else: That since matter and energy are INTERCHAGABLE, that both are then states of something else.

But of course, what I originally meant here was that CO2 was imparting energy (ie a force) into the climate system which was supposedly effecting a change (the work) in deflecting/moving the climate from its original (natural) condition.

which was completely obvious in the context you made these statements ... nevermind "i.e." means id est which is Latin and not English ... [giggle] ... so should always be italicized in print ... [chorkle] ... but what's a little mis-Englishing between friends ... ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ...

Sorry, I thought I could post that without busting out laughing ...

 

[Rigby5]

I'm saying that CO2 is not energy. I think my words there are very clear. CO2 is matter, not energy, and anyone saying that CO2 is energy is totally wrong, so clueless that they shouldn't be bothering the grownups.

e=mc^2

I liked your reply, but not your sig line.
{...
Socialism intentionally denies examination because it is irrational. There is no formal defined dogma of socialism. Instead there is only a vague, rosy notion of something good, noble and just: the advent of these things will bring instant euphoria and a social order beyond reproach. Socialism seeks equality through uniformity and communal ownership Socialism has an extraordinary ability to incite and inflame its adherents and inspire social movements. Socialists dismiss their defeats and ignore their incongruities. They desire big government and use big government to implement their morally relativistic social policies. Socialism is a religion. The religious nature of socialism explains their hostility towards traditional religions which is that of one rival religion over another. Their dogma is based on materialism, primitive instincts, atheism and the deification of man. They see no distinction between good and evil, no morality or any other kind of value, save pleasure. They practice moral relativity, indiscriminate indiscriminateness, multiculturalism, cultural Marxism and normalization of deviance. They worship science but are the first to reject it when it suits their purposes. They can be identified by an external locus of control. Their religious doctrine is abolition of private property, abolition of family, abolition of religion and equality via uniformity and communal ownership. They practice critical theory which is the Cultural Marxist theory to criticize what they do not believe to arrive at what they do believe without ever having to examine what they believe. They confuse critical theory for critical thinking. Critical thinking is the practice of challenging what one does believe to test its validity. Something they never do.
...}

That is totally wrong.
Socialism seeks equality of opportunity, not outcome, and there have never been any unsuccessful examples of socialism, because it is simply more efficient and satisfying for everyone.
The "extreme locus of control" you mentioned was the centralized state capitalism of Stalinism, and has nothing at all to do with socialism, which by its nature, has to be decentralized.

Marx was part of the wealthy elite who simply felt guilty in the early 1800's, which is well before people started trying to figure out practical means of avoiding economic feudalism, once cottage industries had been wiped out by the industrial revolution and the mass production of factories.

 

[Rigby5]

It is very simple.
There is a natural climate cycle, but that is more like 110,000 years long according to the last 12 climate cycles.
The greenhouse effect is real, and anyone with a window knows that once sunlight transmits through a transparent substance that changes its frequency, it is trapped to a large degree.
And we know CO2 does that.
And we know we have increased CO2 by over 30% in the atmosphere.
We also know that CO2 likely is what helps facilitate the 110,000 year long natural climate cycle.
So there is no doubt burning fossil fuel releases millions of years of sequestered CO2 all at once.

Then whether or not this warming is good or bad is another factor that has to be evaluated.
But while the oceans only increased by 3 degrees, the arctic seems to have been made 30 degrees warmer than usual. And that seems bad. It is pushing storms down to lower latitudes.