Utopia Talk / Politics / London migrants. Lol@seb

Sam Adams Member	Sun Apr 01 11:05:27 Also, title could be lol@gun control http://www...-11-killings-just-16-days.html
Rugian Member	Sun Apr 01 11:13:25 TL;DR: Europe: "lol you silly Americans and your massive murder rates" America: "Well to be fair we have a bunch of savage minorities and you don't" Europe: "Wait are you saying we should import millions of minorities as well?" America: "No that's not what I said what are you doin-" Europe: "HOLY SHIT WE HAVE SO MANY MURDERS NOW" -End-
Sam Adams Member	Sun Apr 01 11:18:57 lol.
tumbleweed the wanderer	Sun Apr 01 11:20:51 Feb's victims: Sadiq, Abdikarim, Josef, Seyed, Rotimi, Promise, Sabri, Lewis, Hasan, Hannah, Kwabena, Mark, Bulent, Saeeda, Juan pretty racist stats
The Children Member	Sun Apr 01 11:48:38 its a shithole here. but i knew this 10 years ago. just pure raw ghetto uncut
Paramount Member	Sun Apr 01 12:11:52 Are you gonna move to China soon?
Jebbebiah Wilkins Member	Sun Apr 01 14:07:02 Hate crimes! "Hersi Hersi, who lived as a trans woman called Naomi, was pronounced dead at the scene after being found with knife injuries at Heathrow Palace in Haslemere Avenue, Hounslow, at 10.50am on Sunday."
Sam Adams Member	Sun Apr 01 16:30:20 migrants are committing hate crimes. Thats great. Now lefties are all fucking confused.
Sam Adams Member	Sun Apr 01 18:07:28 Who to support when one group of "special" people goes after the other?
State Department Member	Sun Apr 01 20:47:13 We must consult the sacred totem pole of minority ranking.
Aeros Member	Mon Apr 02 00:07:43 According to my intersectional booklet on oppression, the transwoman still possessed innate male privlige due to xir's former biological birth as a cis-gendered male. By becoming a woman, xir did give up his toxic masculinity to become more acceptable. Unfortunately this act was culturally insensitive to the POC-Muslim who killed him. While this individual did have intersectional privilege for being male, he was a fish out of water in a racist nation that is racist and islamophobic. Thus his anger is fully understandable, and while him lashing out is unfortunate it is a product of the racist and islamophobic culture of the nation to which he had migrated too. The fact that he did so illegally further adds to his oppression as he cannot be a full member of our society by nature of both its racial and legal rejection of him. In short the murder of the tranny, while not justified, is understandable and this poor oppressed man needs to do community service at a children's center.
Paramount Member	Mon Apr 02 02:20:30 Most of the victims looks to be immigrants/foreigners, and then of course the trans woman. Two victims looks to be actually British. They could be Leftists. So what we have here may be a gang of Alt-Righters who are walking around in London and looking for trouble and killing people that don't agrees with their world view. It is also more common among the Rightists to use violence. They have a long history of murdering trans people and foreigners. Case solved.
obaminated Member	Mon Apr 02 09:22:35 I think at this point seb is gonna stop arguing about immigrants, he realizes it is a losing battle but wont admit it.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 02 10:09:54 Sam: Mostly london born youth gangs. I think that is more on us that on the country they never visited. Nor can it be "genetic" because their parents didn't have such a high propensity. Paramount: "Most of the victims looks to be immigrants/foreigners" Paramount, think about that for a second. Do you think there are not Black or Asian Brits? Obaminated: Are you really so stupid you think this is proof of anything?
Paramount Member	Mon Apr 02 10:20:14 Seb, Yes of course. I meant that most of the victims had a foreign appearance (being non-white), and maybe they were targeted because of that. One of them was even a trans woman. Maybe she was targeted because of being trans. If that is the case, the killer(s) might be right-winged extremists. But yes, i’m only speculating.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Apr 02 10:25:57 "I think that is more on us that on the country they never visited. " It is definetly on you, for importing their parents, and then creating a soft liberal justice system where there is little punishment for crimes.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 02 11:49:20 Paramount: Ah, yeah. Sorry, my bad. In English vernacular "Most of the victimes look to be immigrants" means "it looks like most of the victims were immgigrants..." rather than "most of the victims look like immigrants". It's easy to forget sometimes when using English in an international context to read the sentence literally rather than idiomatically.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 02 11:51:46 Sam: There are strong punishment for crimes. Their parents don't commit these crimes, so their heritage seems irrelevant. Anyway, lets laugh at you again for thinking Principle Component means "genetic marker", and not understanding the triviality of saying "the genes that control skin colour are correlated with racial groups".
Seb Member	Mon Apr 02 11:58:25 Academia: Races are a social construct because they attatch a defined set of values to arbitrary traits with no deeper signficance. Sam: No, it's based on genetics Academica: Genetic variation is broader in groups than between them. There is no real way to create a broad set of traits that are unique to particular groups. Sam: No, seriously, look, the gene for skin colour is correlated with existing groups. I is a scientific. Academia: So, you've picked a gene and attached an arbitrary significance to it because of the arbitrary significance you attach to the trait it corresponds to. And this gene happens to be the one that controls the particular arbitrary trait that you use to construct your notion of race - namely skin colour. Thus creating an entirely circular and sterile argument "Brown people have the gene for brown skin". And at no point established the main element of your thesis that genes for e.g. inteligence are somehow correleated with this gene. It's almost as if you were constructing a straw man of your own argument. Sam: LoL. IdIoTz. I is scientifics.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 02 12:00:07 Sam, you know from your last little foray into pretending to have any degree of scientific literacy where you started to bullshit about entropy that I can and will keep this up for months. Best to go hill walking for a few weeks again.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 02 12:00:44 *particular groups = groups as catergorised by conventional definitions of race.
Sam Adams Member	Mon Apr 02 12:29:10 "Their parents don't commit these crimes, so their heritage seems irrelevant. " Rofl. Parents dont impact their kids with either inheritted genes or taught behaviour? That might be the second dumbest thing you have ever said. Almost as dumb as that one time you spent months trying to derive your own atmospheric equations and forgot how the ideal gas law worked. "Races are a social construct because they attatch a defined set of values to arbitrary traits with no deeper signficance. " Sebs like "if i put the word academia in front of a fuzzy studies sjw talking point, it sounds more like real science". "There is no real way to create a broad set of traits that are unique to particular groups. " Unique? Not required. More common, yes "So, you've picked a gene and attached an arbitrary significance to it because of the arbitrary significance" Arbitrary? Lol. It specifically refuted your statement of the previous post. "Science should conform to political cortectness" -what seb is actually trying to say. Look at you. You repeatedly ignore the most basic thoughts that might be contrary to the leftist talking points of the day. It took you years to admit that some genes do in fact cluster. You coudlnt even say that black parents had black kids because of genes.
obaminated Member	Mon Apr 02 12:35:36 "Obaminated: Are you really so stupid you think this is proof of anything? " I dunno, i guess i assumed youd learn from your mistakes at some point.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 02 16:17:03 Sam: "Arbitrary? Lol. It specifically refuted your statement of the previous post." No it didn't. It simply showed that brown people have the genes for greater melanin production. Your entire thesis rests on the idea that rather than just a few rather specific genes that code for obvious surface details, races have a particular correlation of a broad range of genes that code for behaviour, inteligence and other predispositions. Showing that there is a gene for melanin production, and that this correlates with groups you have created largely based on the colour of their skin does not prove this point, nor does it refute my earlier point because you are defining race here by a single (circular) trate, not the correlation of a range of different genes linked to the traits you claim are important.
Seb Member	Mon Apr 02 16:18:47 "Science should conform to political cortectness" Actually, this is your point Sam. For your politics, what is correct is that race is the primary determinator of behaviour and inteligence. And thus you bend science to give the answer that is correct to your politics. Even when your understanding is so piss poor your arguments appear like straw men set up by your opponents. PC1 is a well known genetic marker. Pfft. Idiot.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Apr 03 00:04:03 "It simply showed that brown people have the genes for greater melanin production." But but but you said no genes corresponded with race. Now you admit that some do? Lol.
Seb Member	Tue Apr 03 03:21:42 Sam: No I didn't. I figured your argument that race corresponds to correlation of a broad range of genes allowing you to infer traits based on the phenotype associated with one gene. I.e. you argue "because this person is black, they must also genetically be predisposed to violence and stupidity". Science says that genetic variation is greater within racial groups than between them". You say "ah, but cluster analysis will show greater correlation of gene variants in certain groups". Science says to a degree, but groups defined that way don't correlate with racial groups. Sam says "but Brown people have gene for higher melanin". At this point we all point and laugh.
Seb Member	Tue Apr 03 03:22:11 Figured = refuted
Sam Adams Member	Tue Apr 03 08:41:41 So seb, you agree that some group traits are indeed defined by genes?
Seb Member	Tue Apr 03 09:36:19 Sam: Define what you mean by group. If the group is defined by that trait, duh. Groups of people who have brown skin also have variants of the gene that controls melanin production.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Apr 03 10:42:28 Yes. So it is possible that some groups are defined by some genes. You have been on the wrong side of science for so long on this one, i just want to make it clear. Now we have you admitting that genes can cluster, we can move forward. Now without the exact intelligence genes mapped yet (a very politically incorrect branch of science), we cant say for sure, but given the high heritability of intelligence, and the measured differences in brain mass, we can state that genetic intelligence differences is probably a factor in observed group performance differences.
Brainy UPer Member	Tue Apr 03 10:46:32 Still not yet define. And still no data to support it. As you used your own source incorrectly. And yet we are still here seeing you incorrectly stating a conclusion.
Seb Member	Tue Apr 03 11:27:01 Sam: So how do you go from "Brown people have genes for more melanin production" to "Africans are more violent and more stupid" Sam? That's not science. Simply proving you can find correlation of one gene with racial group given that the principle definition of that group is by that trait does not prove that other genes for other traits are correlated. If they generally were, then variance of genes between groups would be greater than within them. The reverse is true, which tends to suggest only a few, if any, are correlated. Your ad hoc argument 're heritability doesn't stack up as that's an estimate of the variation in a trait that can be ascribed to non-environmental causes. I.e. heritability can change without genetic change if the impact of the environment changes. E.g. if stressed out parents affect the now natal brain development in a way that increases variance of IQ scores, then heritability of IQ will appear to decrease if populations become more stressed. When you add this to: 1. Not having a generally good definition of IQ independent of the way to measure it 2. Not having a way of measuring IQ that is generally agreed to be independent of the medium it is presented and context of culture Then your argument falls apart. Brain to body mass as an indicator of intelligence within a species is not demonstrated to scale with IQ. Indeed the opposite. European body mass has increased more thasn brain mass since WW2, yet IS has also increased. Meanwhile, I bet starvation in early childhood has a negative impact on IQ statistically, but should yield "better" brain to body mass indicators. So no, we cannot state your hypiryhesis as a reasonable hypothesis. And its totally lacking in evidence to support it.
Sam Adams Member	Tue Apr 03 13:56:02 "Africans are more violent and more stupid" Africans are indisputably so in the modern world. How much of that is nurture verse nature is the debatable part. You would be mentally dishonest if you did not entertain the possibility that some of it genetic. "Not having a generally good definition of IQ independent of the way to measure it " Ahhhh yes, the final stages of a social justice warrior when confronted with cold hard facts. "Iq is fake!!!"
Seb Member	Tue Apr 03 15:38:35 Sam: Can you give a clear definition of IQ that is independent of measurement? Psychology accepts this. You are trying to bend science to fit your politics. You are basically admitting you can't prove your ideas, but demanding we accept them as plausible. A joke.
Nekran Member	Tue Apr 03 15:53:33 "Africans are indisputably so in the modern world. How much of that is nurture verse nature is the debatable part." I would very much dispute it. White people, while being less numerous, have killed far, far more people in modern times than africans. It's not even close. "You would be mentally dishonest if you did not entertain the possibility that some of it genetic." I love how you keep repeating that line, while nobody denies the possibility. We just point out how everything we know about genetics make it seem highly unlikely and that your motivation for believing in it so much is so obviously nothing but stupid old-fashioned racism. "Ahhhh yes, the final stages of a social justice warrior when confronted with cold hard facts. "Iq is fake!!!"" Why are you so afraid to think about things? Can you give a good definition of IQ that is independent of the way to measure it? This is a genuinely interesting topic. IQ-tests do well for you (or so you claim... considering your poor showing on the wonderlic test we did here once, I have my doubts) and thus you think they are fucking important. They are good for me too (and presumably Seb as well), but that doesn't make me venerate them. It makes me consider why it doesn't measure the things my brains are not good at. It makes me think about the things it doesn't measure at all. Or how it could measure things differently. It makes me wonder why some people I've met, who I consider to be quite intelligent, don't score well on these tests. By which I don't want to say that they are worthless. They definitely measure your skill at some forms of logical thinking, but obviously not by far all. Why so afraid to face this fact? Are you so in need of validation that you desperately need the one thing the world told you you're good at to remain important and unchanged?
Sam Adams Member	Tue Apr 03 18:04:08 "I would very much dispute it. " Well, you are kindof stupid, so no worries there. "We just point out how everything we know about genetics make it seem highly unlikely" Ahhhh, the wishful thinking of the fuzzy left. Given that intelligence is pretty heritable and that some of the groups have been genetically seperated for tens of thousands of years, it would be more shocking if there were not some differences in group intelligence. "Can you give a good definition of IQ" your learning speed, especially in regards to math and spatial awareness, mapped onto a scale of 100 sd 15. It aint hard. "considering your poor showing on the wonderlic test we did here once, I have my doubts" that was indeed a mildly annoying outlier. Dunno why i scored so low on that one... must have been affirmative action day for sams neurons. Guess im not perfect. Awww shucks.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 04 05:36:18 Sam: "your learning speed, especially in regards to math and spatial awareness, mapped onto a scale of 100 sd 15. It aint hard." So, basically, a deep learning neural net attached to an appropriate sensor network could probably rank much, much better than a person even though it likely couldn't tie a shoelace. And how, exactly, do you measure learning speed and spatial awareness? Does learning speed here based on time, or is it the number of instances of experience? And what role does recal play in that? What about ability to infer new things from existing knowledge vs being taught it by someone else? Zero rated in your basis. Someone who labours years to invent a new theorem scores lower than someone who is very good at rote learning?
Seb Member	Wed Apr 04 05:46:19 Not surprising that Sam entirely neglects verbal reasoning ability given his absolutely appalling coprehension and verbal reasoning skills.
Nekran Member	Wed Apr 04 14:13:19 Sammy only cares about a very narrow spectrum of thought, because it is the only thing he is passably good at. Though amazingly sadly not even good enough to be in the UP top 10. This, even more sadly, is enough to make him feel superior to most other people though.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Apr 04 15:02:06 Ahhhh yes, the tired old "IQ tests are fake because they offend my political sensibilities" argument. The final stage of liberal denial. How lame. At least i got you to admit/remember/learn that genes are real and possibly cause group intelligence differences, so thats a step in the right direction at least. "Sammy only cares about a very narrow spectrum of thought" That coming from a guy that for years refused to acknowledge genetics or crime rate measurement because it was offensive. Lol, thats cute. Narrow thought indeed.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 04 15:03:10 Sam: I don't think anybody here is at all fooled by yuour bluster.
Nekran Member	Wed Apr 04 15:04:47 It's gotten to pretty sad levels. You used to be good at trolling, at least.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Apr 04 15:19:51 Seb you were fooled by the ideal gas law, so lets not pretend you being fooled or not is a valid measure of anything.
McKobb Member	Wed Apr 04 15:27:44 'DCS Sean Yates, Scotland Yard's head of knife crime, blamed social media as an increasing factor in escalating grudges between youngsters that led to knife attacks. He also said courts were failing to enforce a 'two strikes' law aimed at jailing those caught with a knife twice, which was frustrating law enforcement.' ....wait, you can't carry a knife in London? Wtf
Sam Adams Member	Wed Apr 04 15:41:37 Apperently if you are 78 years old with a sick wife, and you use a knife to defend your home from a burgler, the uk police will arrest you. http://www...abbing-burglar-death-pictured/ Man, english people are legitimately retarded. I take everything i said back. After detailed obvservation i have decided that europeans are as retarded as africans.
Rugian Member	Wed Apr 04 15:49:31 Sam, All of the smart Europeans long ago immigrated to the New World.
Paramount Member	Wed Apr 04 16:24:58 The new world? Is that where smart white people are being integrated by force together with brown people?
Seb Member	Wed Apr 04 16:36:40 Sam: You mean the thread where you eventually ended up agreeing with me and changed your view many times because you basically don't understand shit? The fifteen thread monster that ended up with you vanishing for a month? You really want to bring that up again?
Seb Member	Wed Apr 04 16:37:59 Rugian: "All of the smart Europeans long ago immigrated to the New World." ^This is eronic*. *It's a pun. Think about it.
Seb Member	Wed Apr 04 16:40:16 McKobb: "you can't carry a knife in London" Without good reason. Certain types of knife are banned from being carried at all. https://www.gov.uk/buying-carrying-knives
Rugian Member	Wed Apr 04 17:21:22 Seb, Better to be eronic than irounic. If you catch my drift.
TJ Member	Wed Apr 04 17:24:49 How about screwdrivers? If I lived there I'd walk around with a couple 15" screwdrivers with a 1/2" shanks. It beats the crap out of a 3" folding knife. Would I be warned once and arrested the second time receiving the same jail time and unlimited fine? Beware of old men who don't have a history of violence, but does have a disabled wife in the house. I'm sure the old guy couldn't wait for someone uninvited into his home in the possession of a screwdriver so he could stab them with a kitchen knife to get a few nights off. Snicker... What do they do with the wife? Charge him for care when or if he is released? Absurd...
Sam Adams Member	Wed Apr 04 17:29:43 "You really want to bring that up again?" You mean where you tried to say temperature did not equal thickness for months on end? Where you tried to make up excuses to why a trend that doesnt exist should exist? Lol. That was just 2 of you myriad high school level errors.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Apr 04 17:31:36 "I dont see why a warmer atmosphere would expand" -seb
Sam Adams Member	Wed Apr 04 17:32:44 Yup. The smart ones got out of dodge long ago.
Sam Adams Member	Wed Apr 04 23:41:02 "This, even more sadly, is enough to make him feel superior to most other people though." If you had my job, youd feel superior too. Muhaha
Nekran Member	Thu Apr 05 01:12:55 The only people who'd feel better than they do now if I had your job would be your colleagues. You know... what I consider my end of puberty revelation was realising that being smarter than people does not make me better than them. I've been a lot happier ever since.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 05 01:54:34 Sam: I explícitly did say the atmosphere would expand, but not linearly and pointed out that wouldn't makev temp gradient distant. I'll dig out the links later retard.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 05 05:34:11 linear. fuck autocorrect.
Brainy UPer Member	Thu Apr 05 07:19:15 "If you had my job, youd feel superior too. Muhaha" You're a weatherman.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Apr 05 07:42:14 "realising that being smarter than people does not make me better than them. " Ahh yes, the weak minded leftist view that everyone is equal. Lol. Typical. "but not linearly" Bwahahahahahaha. Still cant understand the most basic interpretation of the ideal gas law. Yes, linearly. This is fundamental. Temperature=thickness. Seb gets F again in wx101.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 05 12:11:29 Sam, we worked through the derivation and you realised you had: 1. Assumed zero humidity. 2. Realised you were taking linear change in temperature profile as an assumed input so that you couldn't circularly argue that this proved temperature gradient must be constant. 3. Realised the assumption in your approximation required that the atmosphere be in a particular hydrostatic equilibrium and a linear expansion would violate that assumption In short, you were comprehensively shown to be wrong in applying that approximation to this physical scenario.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Apr 05 12:42:47 "required that the atmosphere be in a particular hydrostatic equilibrium and a linear expansion would violate that assumption " The atmosphere is indeed almost always in hydrostatic equilibrium AND temperature and thickness vary linearly. This is atmospheric physics 101 laws you dont understand and are trying to rewrite. Like a flat earther on youtube, you are so wrong that you are fit to be laughed at. Lol@amatuer trying to rewrite the laws of weather.
Nekran Member	Thu Apr 05 12:48:06 "Ahh yes, the weak minded leftist view that everyone is equal. Lol. Typical." Not at all what I said. But your total lack of reading comprehension is nothing new. Let me reassure you, you are most definitely a way shittier person than most.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Apr 05 13:10:01 That is exactly what you said, in your weak minded whimpering sort of way. Also i treat most people less shitty than you... you should expect to be treated shitty when you say stupid and insulting things. Of course i am also insulting, but far less stupid.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Apr 05 13:10:06 That is exactly what you said, in your weak minded whimpering sort of way. Also i treat most people less shitty than you... you should expect to be treated shitty when you say stupid and insulting things. Of course i am also insulting, but far less stupid.
Nekran Member	Thu Apr 05 13:35:14 "That is exactly what you said, in your weak minded whimpering sort of way." Not at all. I said smarter doesn't equal better. I didn't say everyone is equal though. Not by a long shot. "Also i treat most people less shitty than you." Ahahahaha @ you thinking my opinion of you has anything to do with how you "treat" me on this online forum. That says so much about how you look at the world :')
Sam Adams Member	Thu Apr 05 15:17:26 The skyrocketing london migrant murder rate continues... http://www...o-men-stabbed-east-London.html Also hows that gun ban working out for you?
Seb Member	Thu Apr 05 16:10:06 Sam: The requirement was that state 1 and state 2 have the same pressure profile i.e. state 1 and state 2 are the same hydrostatic equilibrium. Not that both state 1 and state 2 are two different hydrostatic equilibria. Which is what would be the case here. The gun ban is working fine in that with a city of 10m, in the middle of a gang war, we have had less murders and injuries than in one day at a US school shooting spree. Imagine if they had guns.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Apr 05 16:25:15 Stacked profile changes are low order effects on the temperature=thickness approximation. Sorry seb, theres no wiggling out of this one. Temperature=thickness. This is essentially indisputable law in the field.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Apr 05 16:26:12 So you banned guns and then let in a bunch of gang members. Good going. Excellent work.
Seb Member	Thu Apr 05 17:02:50 Sam: We've been over why those approximations don't hold for large global climatic changes rather than regional purturbations. "It's linear provided we assume it's linear" is your argument. It's like asserting you can treat the sin of a large angle as the sum of lots of small angle approximations. The gang members were born here.
TJ Member	Thu Apr 05 17:35:44 http://www..._gun_crime_findings_report.pdf Makes me wonder if the gangs in California have Moonbeam in their scope.
Sam Adams Member	Thu Apr 05 18:37:33 "We've been over why those approximations don't hold for large global climatic changes rather than regional purturbations. " Yes seb, you are right and all of established science is wrong. Temperature doesnt equal thickness anymore because youve figured it out. *pats seb on the head*
Sam Adams Member	Thu Apr 05 18:43:17 You do realize that in atmospheric physics, these approximations become even more valid as scales get larger. *pats seb on the head again*. You tried though. Maybe next time.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 06 02:42:51 Sam: Established science is fine. You are just looking at a tiny part of it and applying an approximation that works in one context to a scenario in a different context. I.e. the problem isn't established science, it's your inability to apply it correctly.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 06 02:43:42 And do we need to revisit you appallingly I'll informed entropy arguments?
Seb Member	Fri Apr 06 02:45:14 Fact: temperature gradient determines barometric profile. Not the other way around. Therefore arguing that barometric profile can be used to show the temperature profile gradient is invariantunder forcing is unsound.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Apr 06 09:15:40 Your looking at it completely wrong. Temperature gradient is determined by the thermodynamic need to transfer heat upward. That is the real reason the temperature gradient is unchanged, or nearly so. The thickness case was brought up to counter your silly thought that increased surface T had to result in increased gradients (forgetting that the ideal gas law existed lol). Your confusion that the thickness=temperature rule doesnt apply to climate scales continues to be hilariously retarded. The larger the scale the MORE valid the approximation.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 06 10:12:16 "Temperature gradient is determined by the thermodynamic need to transfer heat upward." That's actualy my argument. You realise this contradicts your argument and is you admiting you are fundamentally wrong. Your entire argument is that temperature gradient is unchanged. My argument is that temperature gradient rises to counterballance the increased downward flux from backscatter in order to lead to a total power flow such that power radiated from the atmosphere top is the same as that inbound. "nearly". Lol. Increased surface temperature is a consequence of radiative forcing, which of course requires a temperature gradient change in steady state in order to ensure power ballance. In any case, your entire argument was about whether there was more "free energy" as you termed it, to drive weather. And in the end you had to concede that changing the power spectrum of outbound radiation (which adding CO2 necesarily does) and a basic understanding of thermodynamics does indeed imply that a greater reduction in work potential of the outbound radiation implying that yes, you do get more dissipation of energy to lower grade heat. Which is thermodynamically obvious. "The larger the scale the MORE valid the approximation." Not if the fundamental assumptions required for the approximation are violated, as they are in your sloppy treatment.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Apr 06 10:41:08 "My argument is that temperature gradient rises to counterballance the increased downward flux from backscatter" Ahhh yes, sebs magic backscatter that does work. Nearly everything you just said is wrong on the most basic level. This is clearly a subject that has passed beyond your limitted faculties. You have no concept of how to apply one law without violating another. You cannot reconcile the laws of motion, gas states, and basic thermo. You have insufficient spatial awareness to grasp a layered column model. You have no idea how variables at one level interact with variables at the next level. I have my doubts you will ever be able to grasp planetary atmospheres, atmospheric dynamics, or any complex subject. If you stick to the basics, you might be able to scrape a "c" in lower level undergrad atmospheric physics, but that seems to be your ceiling. I award you no points, and may god have mercy on your soul. Lol. Dismissed.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 06 12:45:39 Sam: So, if backscatter doesn't do work, why does adding CO2 cause the surface temp to rise, which requires work be done?
Seb Member	Fri Apr 06 12:46:42 Trick question: it's not the backscatter that does the work in either case and you are creating a stupid straw man argument.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Apr 06 13:32:49 Lol. Try to reconcile your latest post with what you said in 3rd latest post of 1012 server time. Think it through, if you can.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Apr 06 13:33:19 Hint one of your statements is correct and the other is not.
Seb Member	Fri Apr 06 13:44:27 Sam: There is no contradiction. It's not the backscatter that does the work. Just as it is not reflected heat from refractory lining that increases the temperature of a blast furnace.
Sam Adams Member	Fri Apr 06 19:56:34 "It's not the backscatter that does the work" "My argument is that temperature gradient rises to counterballance the increased downward flux from backscatter " Those two, both said by you today, are clearly contradictory. One is correct, one is not.
Seb Member	Sat Apr 07 03:50:53 Sam: Explain why you think that's contradictory.
Nimatzo iChihuaha	Sat Apr 07 06:23:38 This again. You have gone so far into details, what the hell was the principle disagreement? What was the origins of this discussion about back scattering?
Sam Adams Member	Sat Apr 07 07:34:23 Seb is trying to explain why hurricanes should be increasing in strength, even though in reality they are not and should not, or at least not much. Seb, in one line you say backscatter does not do work, in the the next you have it doing work. You do realize that gradient = work, right?
Brainy UPer Member	Sat Apr 07 08:07:48 Actually stemming from the fact that Sam doesn't understand genetics and dna and IQ as he used sources without context and once discovered the main source and put things into context it dispels his point he was trying to make and shows his lack of complete understanding of the topic. So, he transitioned to another old topic that he shows some degree of understanding because he failed miserably at the previous topic.
Seb Member	Sat Apr 07 08:07:54 Sam: Nowhere do I say that the backscatter is doing work. You are inferring that it is a requirement. You are quite, quite wrong. The work is done on a system and the energy input is from the insolation. Backscatter is part of the internal working of the system. Consider: If I have an object powered by an internal energy source generating X Watts and radiating at X watts of black body IR , and I put a 50% reflecting IR mirror around the object, will the temperature rise?
Seb Member	Sat Apr 07 08:09:21 Gradient = potential Sam. I don't think you should use the term work, as you clearly don't understand how to bound a thermodynamic system appropriately in order that such terms make sense.
jergul large member	Sat Apr 07 08:16:39 Nimi Why small increases in energy retainment matter (system boundary earth's atmosphere).
Seb Member	Sat Apr 07 08:24:17 It's hilarious. In an attempt to divert attention from his epic failure to understand basic genetic precepts (to the point of mistunderstanding his own source to the point he misidentified axis labels as genetic markers), Sam has retreated into one of the greatest acts of self-ownage that he already decisively lost over. The point about dead-cat gambit is that the dead cat is supposed to be less problematic. As for his chants of "gradient=work", I think it is telling that in his attempt to define IQ, he listed "speed of learning" not something like "integration of acquired knowledge into an existing conceptual framework and synthesizing novel ideas". Sam has all the hallmarks of a someone who acquires knowledge by being taught it by an authority. When I set UG papers, I used to reserve 25% of the marks for a question that rather than being directly about some aspect of the subject examined, was a broader problem that required a full mastery of that subject matter and related concepts in order to understand the problem and develop an approach to solving it. I think Sam would fail. At some point he had concluded that sustaining a gradient against dissipation requires work to be done - but doesn't really understand what work is, how to bound a thermodynamic system etc.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Apr 07 08:24:32 "Gradient = potential Sam." Wait wait are you now saying that a gradient doesnt cause energy to flow and work to be done. That an increased gradient does not increase work being done? Not only would you be wrong... but that is your entire argument in the first place.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Apr 07 08:31:17 "I have stated that hurricanes (work) are increasing, but now that i have been stumped and confused, i will mention that maybe they are not increasing and extra work is not being done" Lol@the ultimate failure of seb.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Apr 07 08:44:47 Its funny to see seb waffling back and forth between increased work (more hurricanes) and not increased work, depending on his state of confusion.
Sam Adams Member	Sat Apr 07 08:46:37 And of course, "genes dont apply to groups and iq is fake" Sad when you let sjw whining overtake science.
Seb Member	Sat Apr 07 08:49:05 Sam: "Cause energy to flow" is the definition of potential. Work on the other hand is something different. Work is energy flowing from one system to another without accompanying transfer of entropy. Your use of the = symbol points to a fundamental category error.
	show deleted posts