I'm conflicted now. I'm 100% certain that we did land on the moon, but the signature of Richard Nixon does have a tendency to throw doubt on any argument  Well, if we didn't land on the Moon, how did he get there to sign it? |
|
|
|
No.
Some radiative heat out into space, sure. But the air "contains" greenhouse gases, including water vapour.
So as the temperature increases, the Earth "tries" to radiate more heat out into space, yes, but the increasing temperature means more greenhouse gases (including water vapour), which trap more of that heat and prevent it from escaping.
the Earth "tries" to radiate more heat out into spaceTrap heat? p=t It most certainly does radiate more heat out into space, when it has more heat to radiate... Half the energy is potential. The only part that can be radiated is the remaining half which is kinetic and generates IR... Increasing temp means more greenhouse gases (including water vapor)No it does not. The water is part of the hydrologic CYCLE. Now you seem to be arguing that that vertical cone of atmosphere is headed for an overall, average higher humidity somehow. Based on what? Humidity rains out. |
|
|
|
<<garbage deleted>>
Space is gay and fake, we didn't go to the moon and, Epstein didn't kill himself.
If the "we" is "you and people that think like you" then I agree, your "we" didn't go to the Moon. But in the real world the possibility that we didn't go to the Moon is zero, and the possibility that Epstein killed himself is non zero, maybe one in a trillion chance. |
|
|
|
Okay, so you're saying it's impossible for air temperature on the surface of the Earth to increase, right? Because hot air just rises and the atmosphere gets bigger?
I've only described the atmosphere. To figure the effects of <<whatever>> on it, you'd need to start with a vertical column of air, 14.7 psi at the base, perhaps 0.1 psi at the top, and gravity. Not a trapped volume. Then you'd examine that long vertical cone, under different conditions. With particular attention to how it radiates IR into space. It's fair to say that for an amount of new energy injected into that column, half would become potential energy and half kinetic. Hence the column would expand. But assume in that column that a mass of heated saturated air surges upward, finding its equilibrium conditions. It sits there producing rain. That's a massive heat release at the stratospheric level. Heat release to space, right? |
|
|
|
There was a chance of failure, and yet the US didn't suddenly announce oh by the way we've gone to the moon and here's the proof.
Kennedy spent most of the '60s banging on about it from the "We choose to go to the Moon" speech onwards... when obviously there was a huge chance it wouldn't work.
The government spent huge amounts of money trying to reduce the risk of failure, and it worked, the moon landing happened. A phenomenal achievement.
If they realised during the '60s that it would fail, they couldn't really say with any credibility: actually we've spent vast sums of money on this but you know, we're not going to bother.
Once that first speech happened, it was in public, succeed or fail.
Yes, it happened. But the films that were made public while it was happening, aren't necessarily the actual films of it being done. Or do you have some inside info somehow?  I'll concede that they aren't necessarily at-the-time films. It would be a sensible insurance policy to cover themselves and only show the event after it had already happened. Real time TV cameras were taken on the Apollo missions, but the vast majority and all the high quality work was film, and was developed only after return to Earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apollo_TV_camera |
|
|
|
Okay, you have some air with some water "in" it. Inverted commas so we don't get drawn into that technicality again.
The air has a certain relative humidity.
You increase the temperature of the air without changing the quantity of water "in" it.
Relative humidity drops, yes?
Because warm air has the potential to "hold" more water than does cooler air.
The calculation for absolute humidity is different, this does not take temperature into consideration. Which coinidentally is what you're doing.
You've described a scenario that is rather nonsensical. The air has a certain relative humidity.
You increase the temperature of the air without changing the quantity of water "in" it.
Relative humidity drops, yes?No. When you "add heat to it" that body of air rises in the atmosphere. As it rises it expands and p=t, right? But then water condenses and falls out or not. The resulting condition is not that "relative humidity drops," but that a new set of equilibrium conditions are reached. What you described would be true in conditions with an enclosed and trapped body of air such as a building where the air conditioner broke. In a planetary atmosphere every molecule has energy of type position and type kinetic and total energy = p + k. If you add energy you affect both components. |
|
|
|
Funny that the video haven't went on trending on Youtube. A lot of channels has already covered it though so a lot of people has already seen it. This is going to further ruin the Clintons' reputation (or whatever is left). Shame that it got released too soon. Should have waited for Hillary to endorse a Democrat candidate. My question is why did she not leak this story herself 3 years ago? How much more abuse had occurred in that time frame?
She's obviously looking out for her career. You can see she's pissed she didn't get to air it herself. If she leaked it they'd immediately think it's her and then she'll be out of a job or worse. What I don't understand about the Epstein case is if he was blackmailing powerful people by luring them into sex with underage girls, then (A) my sympathy is with those who were blackmailed (B) someone should have done him in long ago. (C) the victims are both the girls AND those lured into the scheme Instead he's only done in when he's in a jail on charges. There's something more to it. |
|
|
|
I knew Bloomberg was rich but didn't realize till now that he's worth over 50 billion. Holy shit.
Unrelated, but I am very impressed with Mayor Pete. (I know his chances are slim to get the nomination) He's rational, willing to admit mistakes without hesitation and able to form coherent sentences.
He'd also make a great VP candidate for the Pete Pence debate alone.
It's worth pondering a bit, that you have just suggested that the one impressive Democratic candidate is one who is ... Rational. |
|
|
|
One good thing about Bloomberg is, due to his status as already having much more money than he can spend in his grandchildren's lifetimes, he is not subject to the same type of corruption as most Democratic politicians (see the Clinton foundation, Obama book and Netflix deals, Biden Ukraine deals, and more). He is much more moderate than anyone currently in the race polling over 2%.
Bloomberg can also survive getting past the lack of early primary success because he can self-finance his campaign, which may give him a shot of picking up many votes once the crowd of candidates thins out. His candidacy may also be intended to try to pull other candidates closer to the middle rather than moving so far left that Obama looks like a member of the Alt-Right.
... And the fat cats in the smoke filled back room had a back up candidate in 2016, just in case the chumps didn't like their first pick of Jeb Bush. Remember? No one currently in the race has any realistic chance of winning the general election, and whoever gets the nomination may actually hurt Dems in down ballot elections due to being so extreme on so many issues. The fix to this is to lay out all the candidates on a row of operating tables, and start cutting off pieces and putting them together, until finally they have a stitched together product that resembles the Ideal Democratic Candidate. It can have a couple of heads, and I would imagine it would certainly have four legs. |
|
|
|
...
The question isn't whether or not they have enough evidence, it's whether or not the thing they are accusing him of doing is worthy of removing a sitting president.
Back in the real world, a certain group of people decided Trump needed to be impeached the first day he was in office. And everyone knew it, because these people were pretty open about it. They didn't care what the charges were, and they don't care today. The evil that Trump did and was that they want to impeach him for is being Trump. You're probably not wrong, although I'm not sure anyone was actually open about it. The general message was 'lets give him a chance' . Regardless, the "democrats wanted to impeach him on day one!" is just a lame talking point that has nothing to do with the facts of the current impeachment proceedings. It's just one of those things they keep saying over and over and over till eventually people start to think it's relevant. Every president has members of congress trying to impeach them for whatever they can come up with. The majority of Republicans wanted to impeach Obama at one point. Being investigated and criticized is part of being the leader of a democracy. Again, back in the real world, if we see signs and agitprop from the first day on impeaching Trump, and then facts come out about secret conspiracies to impeach Trump, including RussiaGate, and that fails and then they try again with TitforTat, ... I have to revise your statement... FROM: It's just one of those things they keep saying over and over and over till eventually people start to think it's relevant.
TO: It's just one of those things they try over and over until people get really sick of them and kick them out. |
|
|
|
One good thing about Bloomberg is, due to his status as already having much more money than he can spend in his grandchildren's lifetimes, he is not subject to the same type of corruption as most Democratic politicians (see the Clinton foundation, Obama book and Netflix deals, Biden Ukraine deals, and more). He is much more moderate than anyone currently in the race polling over 2%.
Bloomberg can also survive getting past the lack of early primary success because he can self-finance his campaign, which may give him a shot of picking up many votes once the crowd of candidates thins out. His candidacy may also be intended to try to pull other candidates closer to the middle rather than moving so far left that Obama looks like a member of the Alt-Right.
... And the fat cats in the smoke filled back room had a back up candidate in 2016, just in case the chumps didn't like their first pick of Jeb Bush. Remember? |
|
|
|
It is not as simple and i know i will not be able to convince you because its a spiritual concept but believe me all of us will be wake up again for the judgement day. I choose not to believe you. You have no way of knowing what you are claiming, and there is zero evidence to support your position. I am not interested in what other people think, feel, believe, etc. If you have evidence to support your position I'm all ears, but all evidence suggests there is no such thing as life after death. Consider for a moment, if I could convince you that there was life after death, a far better life than your miserable one. Then when you marched out on the battlefield as a poor foot-soldier, destined to die like thousands of others, you'd be marching forward toward the Afterlife. You wouldn't even notice your life was miserable and you were a poor foot soldier. The enemy would think you were crazy. Would that create a competitive advantage on the battlefield? If it would, then since today's culture is winning combination of techniques developed over thousands of years, then we would have those ideas in our culture today. Oh wait, we do... |
|
|
|
I'm reading a lot of mixed predictions regarding Bloomberg. Some predict that he's just going to throw so much money at it that he'll replace & beat Biden, therefore winning the primary. The media certainly loves him. But I don't see it. He's apparently going to try running as a "better Biden", but he actually has a weird mixed record containing right-wing, ultra-left-wing, and ultra-authoritarian elements. He can be attacked a lot from both the right and left. I tend to think he'll go nowhere, like Steyer, but my uncertainty on this is high at this point.
A tree stump is better than Biden at this point. Yeah, but this is the Dems here thinking and acting... Their fat cats in the smoke filled back room backs blooper Biden. |
|
|
|
It seems to me that certain movements are more likely to attract those sort of people, like veganism and SJWism. I don't believe many of these "new prudes" stay in these movements, especially veganism since it actually require discipline
IMHO only movement thaf have high retention is Fat Acceptance since the longer you stay the fatter you get.
I agree. I think that sometimes these people flit from movement to movement. Go to your radical vegan one year later, and they are eating meat again but have adopted some other cause. What? they don't want to harm animal but they do eating some animals? Is they really vegan? I don't think why some people like that acting like a weird because there are some people also want to be a unique but there are some doing they act that they are not. We're referring here specifically to a certain type of person who adopts a cause just so they can shout about it, not because they believe in the cause. Analogy: You know how whenever you see a protest march about something descend into fighting against the police - often the genuine protestors who actually believe in the cause aren't the ones fighting, the fighting is by people who have joined up on the day specifically for a chance of violence. This is certainly true for political protests such as what we see today in the Antifa and Occupy junk movements. But why would it be true for vegan and vegetarian stuff? |
|
|
|
...
Again, come on, you know full well what I mean. Whether air technically 'holds' water or not is an irrelevant distinction in this context. If you heat the air it gets hotter. If you heat water, it evaporates. The more heat the more the evaporation. Where does it evaporate to? Upwards, into the air. Amongst the atoms and molecules that comprise the air, whatever. The hotter the air, the more moisture it contains / has alongside it. Globally, on average. If you don't believe me, then boil a kettle.
 If that's an answer on an exam to "Describe the hydrologic cycle" it's not going to get a passing grade. But leave it to the propagandists of global warming to debase and destroy basic earth science concepts for their own political goals. How much additional water vapor air of any given temperature may gain is based on the absolute humidity. If that is 100%, air of ANY temperature will hold zero additional water vapor. If a mass of air at 100% humidity is cooled slightly then water will tumble out as rain. In a planetary atmosphere cooler = lower and warmer = higher. (Basic chemstry/physics, p=t) But when a planetary gas envelope expands due to increased heat it presents a larger radiative surface to space, and loses that heat faster. Of course there is one important presumption there, which is that cloud cover for the two cases is the same. However, cloud cover varies as a part of the dynamics of hydrology. Slight changes in cloud cover are more significant than slight changes in carbon dioxide. When you say "you know full well what I mean" are you saying you don't possess the basic concepts of meteorology to explain weather? But you'd lecture people on global warming...how about just stop pushing junk science, period? |
|
|
|
Apologies, I'll concede the point. It doesn't mean year to year, it does indeed mean longer term patterns. The point about warming stands though. GW doesn't mean hotter everywhere all the time. It means more extreme weather, due in large part to the fact that hotter air holds more water. Warmer on average over time, but also more extreme. That's pretty much what your much ballyhooed charts have. Three data points.
You're being disingenuous. I know you're smart enough not to believe that evidence for GW is simply three dots on one chart. From a viewport of climatology not weather, they are each three data points. "Hotter air holds more water" is incorrect. Air does not "hold" water vapor. Water vapor is a gas, and it goes where it goes by way of it's own dynamics. In the atmosphere, water vapor has a partial pressure, as do other components. All that double-talk about "more extreme weather" is pretty laughable. It's nothing but scary stories. When dewpoint = temperature, clouds form. Where temperature = 32F, water vapor becomes ice crystals. I'd make a joke at this point about Government manipulators trying to talk the public into believe their Government is going to roll the oceans back, but they are .... |
|
|
|
November 22nd perhaps? For impeachment. Let's see.
What would be quite interesting would be if the House voted for impeachment, and did not reach a majority. |
|
|
|
.....
Biden is in a rut right now -- he's the punching bag of all the other candidates and he's the 'electable' candidate....
Sanders or Warren is going to be the nominee. We'll see where that takes them.
I betcha the power brokers in the back yard are going to push That Biden Dude on those chumps out there in the country. |
|
|
|
...get it over with and prove me soooo wrong and produce a house subpoena related to impeachment issued before October 31st.
I agree, congress doesn't have subpoena rights, that's a court function. These various guys didn't understand that. But what was this about? I lost track... The media stunt Pelosi pulled issuing "subpoenas" that were never actual subpoenas, just carefully worded requests for information made to look like subpoenas with no legal authority. That is all before October 31st. They insist the subpoenas were real, but some how they can't find the actual subpoenas anywhere. Agreed. |
|
|
|
...
The question isn't whether or not they have enough evidence, it's whether or not the thing they are accusing him of doing is worthy of removing a sitting president.
Back in the real world, a certain group of people decided Trump needed to be impeached the first day he was in office. And everyone knew it, because these people were pretty open about it. They didn't care what the charges were, and they don't care today. The evil that Trump did and was that they want to impeach him for is being Trump. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
