We have five days to live according to scientists.

Ignoring an argument does not magickally make it go away.

Self-proclaimed victory mantra.

Nope, heat is the flow of it.

Nope. It is not possible to trap heat.

Denial of logic.

Already have.

 

nobody ignored it. I have called you on it numerous times. You can only refute the science presented to you, by presenting your science showing it to be wrong. You don't do that. You make bald assertions you can't substantiate.

pointing out reality.

no it isn't.

proven that it is not only possible, but you do it every day.

refutation of your claim.

{QUOTE]Already have.[/QUOTE]
"nuh uh" isn't evidence. I have linked you to numerous scientific experiments which show you to be wrong. You have not presented a single experiment, or other evidence showing the experiments I provided you are wrong. We all, including you, know why you can't do that.

 

And you have no basis for your opinion of the premier meta analysis of climate science

 

I agree with Rahl. Please link to some evidence beyond “I don fink so”

Not possible to trap heat

Even myth busters proved you can!

 

Oooooh! You mean “Argumentum ad lapidem”.

Hmmmm does describe your posts to a ‘T’.

I have yet to see one shred of evidence or proof or a citation to support any of your hilariously erroneous statements

 

I am pretty sure I have been here before with you and when that happens seems a disappearing act occurs

So - what happens when the flow of heat is disrupted?

 

Mathematics is not "my opinion". You need a valid reference point.

 

Already did.

Correct.

No they didn't.

It is not possible to stop the flow of thermal energy. There is no "perfect insulator".

 

Yup, that's the Latin wording for the fallacy. I simply say "Argument of the Stone" since most people understand English better than they do Latin.

Inversion Fallacy. (you cannot project what applies to yourself onto others)

Fallacy Fallacy. (misuse of a fallacy is, in and of itself, a fallacy)

Science does not make use of supporting evidence. That is what religion does. Science only makes use of conflicting evidence. That is what falsifies theories.

Science does not inherently have the power of proof. That must be acquired through the formalization of theories into laws (usually via mathematics).

Citations are not science.

See this post for a detailed explanation of what religion and science are, and why that is. The rise of anti-science

 

You'd have to clarify what you mean by "disrupted".

Heat can most definitely be reduced/expanded, but it cannot be slowed/trapped.

 

you were given several experiments showing heat can be and is trapped. You trap it yourself every single day. Your rebuttal was "nuh uh". That is invalid. You need to provide your evidence and experimentation showing what was given to you is incorrect.

 

When you say things like this, all you are doing is confirming you have no idea what you're talking about and have no scientific knowledge or background of any kind.

 

the pink insulation in your walls is a very nice demonstration of you being wrong.

 

The pink insulation reduces heat, it does not slow or trap it.

 

It quite demonstrably does trap heat. Just like your winter coat does, and just like green house gasses do. I’ve proven this to you, repeatedly, with experimentation showing this. All you’ve done is say “Nuh uh”.

you lose

 

Ever taken a Statistical Mechanics class? It's generally done at the junior level of undergrad physics. If you had, you'd understand why your claimed version of thermodynamics makes no sense.

Please describe to us how the greenhouse effect denies the laws of thermodynamics. I'm guessing it involves some insane claim that a colder body can't radiate energy into a warmer body, right? That is the usual greenhouse denier schtick. Peculiar, since nothing in the laws of thermodynamics says that's not allowed.

 

And where exactly have I said that sea level is not rising? Either you are grossly confusing me with somebody else, or you are trying to claim I said something I never did. Of course sea level is rising. If it was not, San Francisco would still be an inland river valley, and the coast still over 20 miles away.

Once again, why do so many try to think they can win an argument my making claims of another that they have not made?

*sigh*

That is speculation. It is assembling various pieces of data, and assembling a theory to explain why that is what is discovered.

Great, there was an inland sea. Tell me, when was it? How deep was it? What temperature was the water, and in what direction did the currents flow?

Conjecture and speculation are what you do when you have data that points to something, but do not have direct observational data to confirm that. We know that California 35kya was a lush savanah, not unlike the savanahs of Africa today. And we know that in about the same period, the North coast of Africa was a lust wetland, with a thriving ecosystem.

But what were the exact temperatures? WHat was the average humidity? How much rainfall did they get? This, we do not know. ALl we can do is speculate, there is absolutely no data to factually prove it.

The difference here is that I recognize that. Tree rings only show what happened in that area. Nowhere else. Fossils are even worse at predicting climate. Those only tell you what lived in an area, and by extrapolation you can make guesses based on the climates that modern variations of those animals require.

But here is something to consider. During the Eocene Epoch, the Northern Alaska coast was around 500 miles South of where it is now. Yet it was warm enough for that area to support palm trees. Think about that, palm trees, growing wild at a latitude roughly equal to Anchorage today. In the modern US, the area that palm trees can thrive pretty much ends at around San Francisco.

So by that very fossil proof, I posit that our climate is still far to cold, and it needs to get a lot warmer. So that the region where palm trees can grow wild once again reaches as far north as Alaska.
​

*shake head*

This is typical, and why I ignore so much said by people in here.

I do not read "right wing blogs", I do not read "left wing blogs". I consider both to be fools and idiots. It is just that I tend to find those on the Left tend to make fools of themselves more often that the other side.

And BTW, Antarctica was once covered in a jungle landscape, and even had animals that had evolved with unique features found nowhere else to live in that area. Invluding much larger eye sockets than is found in similar species found in other areas. Andin addition, they also had much larger brow regions.

But hey, what are your citations to prove I have never studied this? As I said, this is what I have grown used to seeing. DO not like something, and many in here just call the other person a liar and throw around insults.

Hence, why I rarely bother in these political sections anymore. It is not a debate, it is not a discussion. It is a witch hunt for belief politics, where purity of thought is more important than anything else.

 

Wow, really?

No, it is insulation. It is not a "heat sink". That is the scientific term used to describe something that removes heat (or cold).

And to be technical, the "pink insulation" does not reduce heat at all. It is known as a "thermal barrier". To be technical, it is so good because it traps a lot of air, and that is the actual thermal barrier. It traps the air in a large number of small pockets, which laid on top of each other acts as a barrier. Just as the thermal material (or feathers) in a jacket does.

You really do not understand this science stuff, do you? Hell, even ice is a great thermal barrier.

If I was to accept your claim, that would mean if I make an igloo absolutely impossible. Like fiberglass, the walls of the igloo would have to reduce heat, therefore making the inside even colder than the outside. But obviously that is not the case, so either there is something magical about fiberglass, or you are completely wrong.

I go with the latter.

 

Quite the opposite, actually. Continued projection.

 

this is non responsive. I've given you several experiments of heat being trapped. It's basic junior high level science. You have provided nothing other than "nuh uh" in rebuttal. You remain refuted, unless and until you can present your own experiments which show heat can not be and is not trapped.

 

No, not that a colder body can't radiate in the direction of a warmer body, but that a colder body cannot heat a warmer body. Heat ONLY flows from hot to cold, akin to how a river only flows downhill.

 

Yes, really.

Precisely.

Never said that it was.

I know. To be technical, you cannot remove "cold", as "cold" is simply an absence of kinetic energy.

Before I counter-argue this part, I'd like you to define the word "heat" as you are using it. I suspect that I am using it differently than you are.

No, that's you again.

Correct.

...AND as I thought, you don't understand what heat is...

The walls of the igloo DO reduce heat. Reducing heat does not make something colder. Those walls also reduce convection between the "trapped air" inside the igloo and the outside air. You're also forgetting about what allows an igloo to work the way that it does...

 

RAAA.

 

non responsive gibberish.

I've given you several experiments of heat being trapped. It's basic junior high level science. You have provided nothing other than "nuh uh" in rebuttal. You remain refuted, unless and until you can present your own experiments which show heat can not be and is not trapped.

 

you were shown experiments proving this false.