West Antarctic Ice Sheet (WAIS) Could Disintegrate Within Decades

[SSDD]

Revisit all your prior losses on this topic...not interested in going over tilled ground again...your tedium knows no bounds...

I didn't invent anything. Everything I posted is in university physics textbooks. I didn't lose anything. What you think is that the roughly 400,000 current physicists in the world lost. Lost what? Tedium is the only argument you have left.

.

Every thing you post is your interpretation....which is invariably wrong and it is incredibly tedious to sort it all out and explain to someone who is not willing to admit that they are wrong...that they are in fact wrong...

 

[Wuwei]

Every thing you post is your interpretation....which is invariably wrong and it is incredibly tedious to sort it all out and explain to someone who is not willing to admit that they are wrong...that they are in fact wrong...

Everything I post is from university textbooks. You are still saying the textbooks and roughly 400,000 physicists are wrong and you are right. Tell that to Dr. Raeder again. It's no wonder it is tedious for you to sort it out. Your understanding of science is replete with self-contradictions.

.

 

[jc456]

Every thing you post is your interpretation....which is invariably wrong and it is incredibly tedious to sort it all out and explain to someone who is not willing to admit that they are wrong...that they are in fact wrong...

Everything I post is from university textbooks. You are still saying the textbooks and roughly 400,000 physicists are wrong and you are right. Tell that to Dr. Raeder again. It's no wonder it is tedious for you to sort it out. Your understanding of science is replete with self-contradictions.

.

400,000 physicists? really? is that total? so you're saying every physicist in the world all say the same thing? that seems impractical. Especially since they all most likely don't work on the same things. so your statement at face value is fking wrong!!! but hey, thanks for playing.

See punks like you throw shit around like this all the time. no way to take your input seriously. just saying. barf o meter says barf!!!!!

 

[Crick]

Your comment, jc, is like saying not all mathematicians would be familiar with the addition of integers.

 

[jc456]

I throw you a bone and you can't even bite on it. you are a loser.

 

[SSDD]

Every thing you post is your interpretation....which is invariably wrong and it is incredibly tedious to sort it all out and explain to someone who is not willing to admit that they are wrong...that they are in fact wrong...

Everything I post is from university textbooks. You are still saying the textbooks and roughly 400,000 physicists are wrong and you are right. Tell that to Dr. Raeder again. It's no wonder it is tedious for you to sort it out. Your understanding of science is replete with self-contradictions.

.

Most of what you post is some interpretation from somewhere...but even if it were a direct quote doesn't mean that it is correct...do you have any idea how many ideas from textbooks have been superseded over the years? And the number of physicists, or any other scientists who believe a thing is completely irrelevant...especially regarding consensus science on relatively new scientific ideas as history tells us, most will turn out to be wrong....

 

[SSDD]

Every thing you post is your interpretation....which is invariably wrong and it is incredibly tedious to sort it all out and explain to someone who is not willing to admit that they are wrong...that they are in fact wrong...

Everything I post is from university textbooks. You are still saying the textbooks and roughly 400,000 physicists are wrong and you are right. Tell that to Dr. Raeder again. It's no wonder it is tedious for you to sort it out. Your understanding of science is replete with self-contradictions.

.

400,000 physicists? really? is that total? so you're saying every physicist in the world all say the same thing? that seems impractical. Especially since they all most likely don't work on the same things. so your statement at face value is fking wrong!!! but hey, thanks for playing.

See punks like you throw shit around like this all the time. no way to take your input seriously. just saying. barf o meter says barf!!!!!

They exaggerate wildly...all the scientists this...all the scientists that...when among real science, there is rarely an across the board agreement on anything...only in climate pseudoscience do you find any sort of real consensus and that is brought about by politics and money...

Hell, there is still a raging debate over what causes gravity among those interested in the topic...but in climate science, all march in lock step if they want continued political support and with it continued funding...Only those not dependent upon government largess, and that is precious few can speak out against the "consensus"...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Revisit all the past times you lost this discussion...the only thing I am avoiding is more tedium from you...it is all there, repeated ad nauseam...feel free to review your failure to make your case as much as you like...

Sorry you are nauseated by accepted basic science.

You essentially believe that no system is spontaneous and often quote the second law as,

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. ​

The second sentence would be of no practical importance to you since you don't believe any system involves spontaneity anyway. You might as well strike it out. The first sentence says it all.

.

So it's your contention that throwing open the front door on a sub zero day will cause the 72 F interior to absorb heat from the brutally colder outside?

 

[jc456]

Every thing you post is your interpretation....which is invariably wrong and it is incredibly tedious to sort it all out and explain to someone who is not willing to admit that they are wrong...that they are in fact wrong...

Everything I post is from university textbooks. You are still saying the textbooks and roughly 400,000 physicists are wrong and you are right. Tell that to Dr. Raeder again. It's no wonder it is tedious for you to sort it out. Your understanding of science is replete with self-contradictions.

.

400,000 physicists? really? is that total? so you're saying every physicist in the world all say the same thing? that seems impractical. Especially since they all most likely don't work on the same things. so your statement at face value is fking wrong!!! but hey, thanks for playing.

See punks like you throw shit around like this all the time. no way to take your input seriously. just saying. barf o meter says barf!!!!!

They exaggerate wildly...all the scientists this...all the scientists that...when among real science, there is rarely an across the board agreement on anything...only in climate pseudoscience do you find any sort of real consensus and that is brought about by politics and money...

Hell, there is still a raging debate over what causes gravity among those interested in the topic...but in climate science, all march in lock step if they want continued political support and with it continued funding...Only those not dependent upon government largess, and that is precious few can speak out against the "consensus"...

I know. It's why I posed the question. because I don't know too many that agree on everything. there may be things they can agree on with some liberal adjustments, but for the most part, like me and you, they have their beliefs each of them. That dude has me on ignore, so he won't ever respond. But crick jumped right in. He didn't even understand the question I posed.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Every thing you post is your interpretation....which is invariably wrong and it is incredibly tedious to sort it all out and explain to someone who is not willing to admit that they are wrong...that they are in fact wrong...

Everything I post is from university textbooks. You are still saying the textbooks and roughly 400,000 physicists are wrong and you are right. Tell that to Dr. Raeder again. It's no wonder it is tedious for you to sort it out. Your understanding of science is replete with self-contradictions.

.

Most of what you post is some interpretation from somewhere...but even if it were a direct quote doesn't mean that it is correct...do you have any idea how many ideas from textbooks have been superseded over the years? And the number of physicists, or any other scientists who believe a thing is completely irrelevant...especially regarding consensus science on relatively new scientific ideas as history tells us, most will turn out to be wrong....

do you have any idea how many ideas from textbooks have been superseded over the years?

Funny that you don't have any excerpts from any of those textbooks from decades ago, or from today, that back up your "photons only flow one way" or even better, your "matter at equilibrium stops emitting completely" blather.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Revisit all the past times you lost this discussion...the only thing I am avoiding is more tedium from you...it is all there, repeated ad nauseam...feel free to review your failure to make your case as much as you like...

Sorry you are nauseated by accepted basic science.

You essentially believe that no system is spontaneous and often quote the second law as,

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. ​

The second sentence would be of no practical importance to you since you don't believe any system involves spontaneity anyway. You might as well strike it out. The first sentence says it all.

.

So it's your contention that throwing open the front door on a sub zero day will cause the 72 F interior to absorb heat from the brutally colder outside?

Is the sub zero air somehow prevented from radiating toward the interior of my house?
Like a force field?

 

[Wuwei]

Every thing you post is your interpretation....which is invariably wrong and it is incredibly tedious to sort it all out and explain to someone who is not willing to admit that they are wrong...that they are in fact wrong...

Everything I post is from university textbooks. You are still saying the textbooks and roughly 400,000 physicists are wrong and you are right. Tell that to Dr. Raeder again. It's no wonder it is tedious for you to sort it out. Your understanding of science is replete with self-contradictions.

.

Most of what you post is some interpretation from somewhere...but even if it were a direct quote doesn't mean that it is correct...do you have any idea how many ideas from textbooks have been superseded over the years? And the number of physicists, or any other scientists who believe a thing is completely irrelevant...especially regarding consensus science on relatively new scientific ideas as history tells us, most will turn out to be wrong....

I seriously doubt any textbook would print:

Black body radiation fails near a warmer object.
The second term in the SB equation is always less than the first
No emission is spontaneous due to prior work
Man-made objects can't undergo spontaneous emission
The CMB does not reach the earth surface. Only resonant frequencies do.
All photons from a black body have the same wavelength.
etc.

.​

 

[Wuwei]

They exaggerate wildly...all the scientists this...all the scientists that...when among real science, there is rarely an across the board agreement on anything.

There is across the board agreement on basic science such as quantum electrodynamics, thermodynamics, atomic physics, electromagnetic theory, etc. That is what I am talking about. You disagree with many of those basic concepts.

Disagreements can come with dark matter, super-symmetry, string theory and many other fields that are not involved in the basic concepts underlying atmospheric physics.

 

[Wuwei]

Revisit all the past times you lost this discussion...the only thing I am avoiding is more tedium from you...it is all there, repeated ad nauseam...feel free to review your failure to make your case as much as you like...

Sorry you are nauseated by accepted basic science.

You essentially believe that no system is spontaneous and often quote the second law as,

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. ​

The second sentence would be of no practical importance to you since you don't believe any system involves spontaneity anyway. You might as well strike it out. The first sentence says it all.

.

So it's your contention that throwing open the front door on a sub zero day will cause the 72 F interior to absorb heat from the brutally colder outside?

Nope. Why would I believe that when I agree with the statement,

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow.​

That sentence states you could do it with work, such as with a heat pump. But of course neither the 2nd law nor anybody is saying you could simply do it through an open door.

 

[SSDD]

There is across the board agreement on basic science such as quantum electrodynamics, thermodynamics, atomic physics, electromagnetic theory, etc. That is what I am talking about. You disagree with many of those basic concepts.

Sorry guy but there isn't...there isn't even across the board agreement over what QM means...just more of your interpretation....so tedious...

 

[Wuwei]

Sorry guy but there isn't...there isn't even across the board agreement over what QM means...just more of your interpretation....so tedious..

Every modern textbook has essentially the same math for quantum mechanics. You can't use QM philosophy to calculate black body radiation, or the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, etc.

But getting back to the previous digression from Antarctic ice, you believe in the fallacies,

Black body radiation fails near a warmer object.
The second term in the SB equation is always less than the first
No emission is spontaneous due to prior work
Man-made objects can't undergo spontaneous emission
The CMB does not reach the earth surface. Only resonant frequencies do.
All photons from a black body have the same wavelength.
IR absorption of CO2 does not cause the atmosphere to heat.
etc.
​

Those beliefs in fallacies invalidates practically everything you say about atmospheric science.

.

 

[SSDD]

You are incorrect. An examination of the literature will bear him out and show you to, once again, either have not the faintest idea what you're talking about or simply be lying in an attempt to entertain yourself with people's reactions to your outrageousness...

TROLL

You are so easily fooled...it is sad...and funny.

 

[SSDD]

Sorry guy but there isn't...there isn't even across the board agreement over what QM means...just more of your interpretation....so tedious..

Every modern textbook has essentially the same math for quantum mechanics. You can't use QM philosophy to calculate black body radiation, or the energy levels of the hydrogen atom, etc.

But getting back to the previous digression from Antarctic ice, you believe in the fallacies,

Black body radiation fails near a warmer object.
The second term in the SB equation is always less than the first
No emission is spontaneous due to prior work
Man-made objects can't undergo spontaneous emission
The CMB does not reach the earth surface. Only resonant frequencies do.
All photons from a black body have the same wavelength.
IR absorption of CO2 does not cause the atmosphere to heat.
etc.
​

Those beliefs in fallacies invalidates practically everything you say about atmospheric science.

.

So what? Every "modern" textbook of the time taught all of the failed science of the day...you talk about textbooks as if they were handed down from divine beings...they are nothing more than what we know today...tomorrow, we know more and the textbooks of today become obsolete...your worship of science is sad....and why you are so willing to be fooled by it...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Revisit all the past times you lost this discussion...the only thing I am avoiding is more tedium from you...it is all there, repeated ad nauseam...feel free to review your failure to make your case as much as you like...

Sorry you are nauseated by accepted basic science.

You essentially believe that no system is spontaneous and often quote the second law as,

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. ​

The second sentence would be of no practical importance to you since you don't believe any system involves spontaneity anyway. You might as well strike it out. The first sentence says it all.

.

So it's your contention that throwing open the front door on a sub zero day will cause the 72 F interior to absorb heat from the brutally colder outside?

Is the sub zero air somehow prevented from radiating toward the interior of my house?
Like a force field?

The colder air heats the hotter house, I see.

The same way part of a bowling ball ignores its rules and floats up into space when you release it down the lane

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Revisit all the past times you lost this discussion...the only thing I am avoiding is more tedium from you...it is all there, repeated ad nauseam...feel free to review your failure to make your case as much as you like...

Sorry you are nauseated by accepted basic science.

You essentially believe that no system is spontaneous and often quote the second law as,

It is not possible for heat to flow from a colder body to a warmer body without any work having been done to accomplish this flow. Energy will not flow spontaneously from a low temperature object to a higher temperature object. ​

The second sentence would be of no practical importance to you since you don't believe any system involves spontaneity anyway. You might as well strike it out. The first sentence says it all.

.

So it's your contention that throwing open the front door on a sub zero day will cause the 72 F interior to absorb heat from the brutally colder outside?

Is the sub zero air somehow prevented from radiating toward the interior of my house?
Like a force field?

The colder air heats the hotter house, I see.

The same way part of a bowling ball ignores its rules and floats up into space when you release it down the lane

The colder air heats the hotter house, I see.

One thing at a time.

Is the sub zero air somehow prevented from radiating toward the interior of my house?