Page 130 of 138 FirstFirst ... 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135 ... LastLast
Results 3,226 to 3,250 of 3430
  1. #3226
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    2
    Guys. most CO2 is coming from forest, from the leaves that are molding in the forest. Okay, I agree we have a lot of cars, on gasoline and diesel, but all the CO2 that is released by cars is only 11% or something like that, and all the shit with global warming is fake, people are listening only to one information source, without asking themselves, if this is true or not. How will you explain that in Saudi Arabia was snow this year, in one of the warmest countries in the world? I can talk a lot about that, but I have to go.

  2. #3227
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    13,231
    Yes, please do and do not come back.
    Ooof!

  3. #3228
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    21,197
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  4. #3229
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by Deebased View Post
    Not sure why you'd claim the 1st law of thermodynamics (in a closed system) as being a relevant argument. Obviously, that makes the rest of your argument suspect.

    Not that any of that solves the current CO2 issues.
    The Stefan–Boltzmann law says a planet warmed by a sun's incoming shortwave radiation radiates long-wave energy back out at a rate that is dependent on its temperature.

    So, if the (fictional) Earth like planet with no internal source of energy Ron-Heller-NoTrickZone was an evenly heated blackbody planet without an atmosphere then the temperature would equal the temp given by the Stefan–Boltzmann equations.

    Now add the fictional Ron-Heller-NoTrickZone transparent atmosphere. If Ron's and Heller's stories were true the temperature would rise due to atmospheric pressure alone and not greenhouse gases, and it would rise enough to sustain life or in Venus's case rise to 730°K (850°F).

    But according to Stefan–Boltzmann when the temperature rises the amount of radiation back into space must rise too. The Ron-Heller-NoTrickZone planet would balance its incoming shortwave with its outgoing long-wave radiation because the atmosphere is all but transparent to long-wave radiation (no or small GHG effect).

    The planet is violating the law of conservation of energy because it is radiating more energy than it receives.

  5. #3230
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    497
    Quote Originally Posted by LuciferStarS View Post
    Guys. most CO2 is coming from forest, from the leaves that are molding in the forest. Okay, I agree we have a lot of cars, on gasoline and diesel, but all the CO2 that is released by cars is only 11% or something like that, and all the shit with global warming is fake, people are listening only to one information source, without asking themselves, if this is true or not. How will you explain that in Saudi Arabia was snow this year, in one of the warmest countries in the world? I can talk a lot about that, but I have to go.
    lol, thanks for presenting the denialist intellectual underpinnings so clearly. RJ before he took his class in FUD. Side note: RJ, did you get paid to attend the FUD class, or just on a per-post basis?

  6. #3231
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Well Ron, you and Heller can prattle on about Venus and how "the primary factor controlling planetary pressure is atmospheric pressure" but you're wrong. The math is not hard. In fact it's so simple even you might be capable of doing it so here goes,

    Q: Does the additional temperature on Venus due to the greenhouse effect in its entirety exceed what the ground temperature would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect?

    A: 730K - 231K = 499K, 499K > 231K so the answer is yes


    That's the fundamental problem with all the lies you and your cohort like Heller & NoTrickZone tell, once you get past the false narratives and actually look at the details your stories all fall apart.
    Here is a more detailed look at Heller's position, and he has a lot of discussion in the comments: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/...ting-on-venus/

    I find this discussion to be a total waste of time. I don't know whether Heller is right or wrong, but presenting an opinion backed by logic and reason, while responding to criticism, does not make him a fraud if he is wrong. It simply makes him wrong.

    Your entire point is supposed to be about Heller's alleged data fraud which you have no evidence of.

  7. #3232
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    The Stefan–Boltzmann law says a planet warmed by a sun's incoming shortwave radiation radiates long-wave energy back out at a rate that is dependent on its temperature.

    So, if the (fictional) Earth like planet with no internal source of energy Ron-Heller-NoTrickZone was an evenly heated blackbody planet without an atmosphere then the temperature would equal the temp given by the Stefan–Boltzmann equations.

    Now add the fictional Ron-Heller-NoTrickZone transparent atmosphere. If Ron's and Heller's stories were true the temperature would rise due to atmospheric pressure alone and not greenhouse gases, and it would rise enough to sustain life or in Venus's case rise to 730°K (850°F).

    But according to Stefan–Boltzmann when the temperature rises the amount of radiation back into space must rise too. The Ron-Heller-NoTrickZone planet would balance its incoming shortwave with its outgoing long-wave radiation because the atmosphere is all but transparent to long-wave radiation (no or small GHG effect).

    The planet is violating the law of conservation of energy because it is radiating more energy than it receives.
    I don't know why you are making this out to be the Ron-Heller-NoTricksZone opinion. It is Heller's opinion, not mine, and AFAIK not NTZ's either.

  8. #3233
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,564

    Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

    I’m not a scientist and should’ve paid attention more in school. I’ve got one question for the deniers that has been a mystery to me.
    What’s the big conspiracy from your perspective that has all of the scientist in agreement to change our current environmental trajectory? Why would all of these random scholars form and collectively mislead us? What’s the big gain besides the obvious attempt to reverse our affects on earth?

    I can see the conspiracy side of the fossil fuel company’s (etc) to deny, clear as day, to protect their profits.
    Last edited by CascadeLuke; 02-25-2020 at 12:09 PM.

  9. #3234
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,303
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    Here is a more detailed look at Heller's position, and he has a lot of discussion in the comments: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/...ting-on-venus/

    I find this discussion to be a total waste of time. I don't know whether Heller is right or wrong, but presenting an opinion backed by logic and reason, while responding to criticism, does not make him a fraud if he is wrong. It simply makes him wrong.

    Your entire point is supposed to be about Heller's alleged data fraud which you have no evidence of.
    shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt

  10. #3235
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    2,048
    lol @ Ron ignoring the math and doubling down on Heller's fraud with wattsupwiththat "logic and reason," something they have since disavowed, or saying there's "no evidence" of NoTricksZone's or Heller's data fraud when the last time these topics came up plenty of evidence was presented in this thread.

    And while it's true Ron doesn't deny the greenhouse effect he believes there's little correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, that instead it's a yet unidentified cooling/warming force and atmospheric pressure. So sure, Heller's and Ron's positions aren't the same, one tried to sell the fraud that it's all adiabatic (pressure-induced) and the other believes it's mostly adiabatic:

    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson
    Do you deny that air pressure enhances warming? Why is it that Death Valley is the hottest place on earth? Is it because there is more CO2 over Death Valley? Or is it because the air pressure is higher due to it being 250ft below sea level? Or why do underground mines get hot?

    There is little correlation between CO2 levels and temperature as you look at earth's climate history, but somehow it comes in at #1?
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson
    Earth's temperature is determined by the interplay between forces that cause warming and forces that cause cooling. When earth enters into a ice age, the cooling forces overwhelm the warming forces.
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson
    Did I ever say there is no greenhouse effect on Venus? I said that the massive difference in temperature between the two planets has more to do with the differences in atmospheric pressure.

  11. #3236
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    19,408
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/tec...deau-1.5473866

    And up narth Teck pulls the plug on a huge fucking oilsands project

    a bunch of enviros's are combining with the FN to literaly shut down industry
    Lee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know

  12. #3237
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    lol @ Ron ignoring the math and doubling down on Heller's fraud with wattsupwiththat "logic and reason," something they have since disavowed, or saying there's "no evidence" of NoTricksZone's or Heller's data fraud when the last time these topics came up plenty of evidence was presented in this thread.

    And while it's true Ron doesn't deny the greenhouse effect he believes there's little correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, that instead it's a yet unidentified cooling/warming force and atmospheric pressure. So sure, Heller's and Ron's positions aren't the same, one tried to sell the fraud that it's all adiabatic (pressure-induced) and the other believes it's mostly adiabatic:
    You are really impossible to argue with. You never stop misrepresenting my positions and refuse to accept any evidence against your positions, ie: Heller's data fraud. You presented one blog post alleging Heller's data fraud, I showed you Heller's response which invalidated all of the claims, you had no response, but you continue to accuse him of data fraud.

    And while it's true Ron doesn't deny the greenhouse effect he believes there's little correlation between CO2 levels and temperature, that instead it's a yet unidentified cooling/warming force and atmospheric pressure. So sure, Heller's and Ron's positions aren't the same, one tried to sell the fraud that it's all adiabatic (pressure-induced) and the other believes it's mostly adiabatic:
    This is such a ridiculous out of context misrepresentation. You are pulling quotes from me over two separate arguments. One had to do with the difference in temperature between Mars and Venus, of which I claimed that the atmospheric pressure is the biggest differentiator between the two.

    The other has to do with our argument about your absurd position that CO2 is the driver of earth's past ice ages even though we see ice ages start at high CO2 levels and end at low CO2 levels. So obviously there must be a radiative force greater than that of CO2 that causes these cycles.

  13. #3238
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    2,048
    Ron likes all the pretty words like radiative force, but he don't know what it means...

    And not just one blog post WRT to Heller, not just one snopes article WRT to NoTrickZone, and Heller's so called evidence was as laughable as his/your position that the "the primary factor controlling planetary temperature is atmospheric pressure"

  14. #3239
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Ron likes all the pretty words like radiative force, but he don't know what it means...
    You are truly pathetic. You are the one that had no clue what a radiative force was. Highlighted by the fact that you kept trying to use a chart of estimated radiative forces for 2006 as evidence pertinent to past ice ages.
    And not just one blog post WRT to Heller, not just one snopes article WRT to NoTrickZone, and Heller's so called evidence was as laughable as his/your position that the "the primary factor controlling planetary temperature is atmospheric pressure"
    If its not just one blog post about Heller, where are the others? How about instead of you now claiming that Heller's "so called evidence was laughable", you go back and present what is laughable about it.

    I don't find Heller's position that atmospheric pressure is the biggest influence on planetary temperature "laughable" at all. At worst you must concede that atmospheric pressure plays a major role in temperature. Your own source says as much:
    Even though Mars has nearly 70 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere as Earth, the low Martian atmospheric pressure results in a narrower GHG solar absorption spectrum and so more heat is lost into space.

  15. #3240
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    26,944
    We all find you pretty laughable.
    Forum Cross Pollinator

  16. #3241
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by CascadeLuke View Post
    I’m not a scientist and should’ve paid attention more in school. I’ve got one question for the deniers that has been a mystery to me.
    What’s the big conspiracy from your perspective that has all of the scientist in agreement to change our current environmental trajectory? Why would all of these random scholars form and collectively mislead us? What’s the big gain besides the obvious attempt to reverse our affects on earth?

    I can see the conspiracy side of the fossil fuel company’s (etc) to deny, clear as day, to protect their profits.
    To start with the consensus isn't nearly as strong as we are lead to believe. This has been discussed at length in the thread.

    Beyond that, the climate science community suffers from group think, cliquishness, media control, and peer pressure. Any scientist that expresses any doubt on the narrative will be attacked and is taking a major risk on their career and future earning prospects:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/02/09/a-climate-blacklist-that-works-it-should-make-her-unhirable-in-academia/#545b7fbd6368

    https://stream.org/doubt-scientific-consensus/

  17. #3242
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    26,944
    It doesn’t matter, they will all end up working for Exxon or Mobile anyway.
    Creatures find their level.
    Forum Cross Pollinator

  18. #3243
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Access to Granlibakken
    Posts
    7,464
    Quote Originally Posted by rideit View Post
    It doesn’t matter, they will all end up working for Exxon or Mobile anyway.
    Creatures find their level.
    https://www.latimes.com/business/sto...carbon-neutral

    BP’s pledge to zero out all its carbon emissions by 2050 deepens the divide between major European and American oil producers on climate change, increasing the pressure for Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp. to do more.

    The U.S. giants have committed only to reducing greenhouse gases from their own operations. On Wednesday, BP followed Royal Dutch Shell and Equinor in pledging to offset the carbon emissions from the fuels they sell. Known as Scope 3, the emissions from cars, homes and factories are responsible for 90% of fossil fuel pollution.

    “If we do see capital flowing into BP, that may force the U.S. majors to rethink the speed at which they move on carbon reduction targets,” said Noah Barrett, a Denver-based energy analyst at Janus Henderson, which manages $356 billion.

    The growing outcry against human-made global warming is increasingly making its way into mainstream business and investment strategies. It has already reshaped the way European oil producers operate by actively engaging in the transition to cleaner energy sources.

    Exxon and Chevron agree with the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, support a carbon tax and are committed to cleaning up emissions from their vast network of wells, refineries and pipelines. They joined the Oil and Gas Climate Initiative later than their European rivals but are still fully paid-up members. They even lobbied against President Trump’s plan to roll back Obama-era emission standards.
    I have first hand experience regarding the trend toward the investment community pricing in Sustainability. The Ron Johnsons of the world are increasingly irrelevant. Horse is out of the barn.

  19. #3244
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Posts
    1,564
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    To start with the consensus isn't nearly as strong as we are lead to believe. This has been discussed at length in the thread.

    Beyond that, the climate science community suffers from group think, cliquishness, media control, and peer pressure. Any scientist that expresses any doubt on the narrative will be attacked and is taking a major risk on their career and future earning prospects:

    https://www.forbes.com/sites/rogerpielke/2020/02/09/a-climate-blacklist-that-works-it-should-make-her-unhirable-in-academia/#545b7fbd6368

    https://stream.org/doubt-scientific-consensus/
    This is not a answer. It’s a deflection and pivot. Are you in politics?

  20. #3245
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Before
    Posts
    21,197
    Looks more like a toe loop to me.
    Merde De Glace On the Freak When Ski
    >>>200 cm Black Bamboo Sidewalled DPS Lotus 120 : Best Skis Ever <<<

  21. #3246
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    11,729
    Quote Originally Posted by CascadeLuke View Post
    This is not a answer. It’s a deflection and pivot. Are you in politics?
    Or legal. The arguments are articulate, but do circle back a lot. I suspect well educated at worst.

    Sent from my Pixel 2 using TGR Forums mobile app
    http://www.firsttracksonline.com

    I wish i could be like SkiFishBum

  22. #3247
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by CascadeLuke View Post
    This is not a answer. It’s a deflection and pivot. Are you in politics?
    How is it not an answer? What were you expecting?

    You are starting from a false narrative that "all scientists are in agreement to change our current environmental trajectory."

  23. #3248
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    I guess you mean most scientists agree that many human activities are environmentally destructive and we adopt more sustainable practices? I certainly agree with that, but I don't think switching to "green" energy is going to change much.

  24. #3249
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    26,944
    RJ, like the fuels he represents, is a dinosaur.
    They all dead.
    Forum Cross Pollinator

  25. #3250
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    11,528
    Teck is bailing on a huge oil sand development because it's not economically viable: https://earther.gizmodo.com/in-a-stu...oil-1841887857

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •