Page 129 of 138 FirstFirst ... 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 ... LastLast
Results 3,201 to 3,225 of 3430
  1. #3201
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,300
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    "Media's Horribly Dishonest Antarctica Propaganda"

    http://www.landscapesandcycles.net/m...ropaganda.html
    shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt

  2. #3202
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    lol @ ron with his defense of notrickszone and his fraudster friend Tony Heller who was exposed earlier in this thread. They are just two examples of the many fraudulent sources and sites ron has posted here:

    "We rank the claims made by both Breitbart and No Tricks Zone as false, because they dramatically misrepresent the findings of the scientists who conducted the research and utilize poorly-articulated straw man arguments to further misrepresent the significance of the work of those scientists."

    https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sc...-warming-myth/
    Your attempted exposure of Heller was a failure. You know this, but pretending otherwise makes you feel better.

    Response from the author in the notrickzone blog post:

    "The Breitbart headline – which is obviously not something we can control here – purposefully sensationalizes the content of this article by using the phrase “Global Warming Is A Myth.” Apparently it worked, as there are now about 10,000 comments logged at Breitbart…and nearly 20,000 shares and re-tweets here.

    Of course, when regional or local paleoclimate reconstructions do not indicate an unprecedented or unusual warming in the last 50-60 years, the authors are not going to conclude that their reconstruction alone invalidates global warming. But as the title of this particular article suggests, the narrative that says modern warming has been global in its scope is not supported by an accumulation of hundreds of papers (extending back to 2014 alone) that show no significant change, or no change outside the range of natural variability (i.e., the Medieval or Roman periods had more warmth) in the era of assumed anthropogenic forcing. If you read the introduction to this article, it states:

    “Yes, some regions of the Earth have been warming in recent decades or at some point in the last 100 years. Some regions have been cooling for decades at a time. And many regions have shown no significant net changes or trends in either direction relative to the last few hundred to thousands of years. Succinctly, then, scientists publishing in peer-reviewed journals have increasingly affirmed that there is nothing historically unprecedented or remarkable about today’s climate when viewed in the context of long-term natural variability.”

    You may want to look at all 60 papers from 2016, which added to 2017 makes almost 120 papers just in the last 17 months that also indicate modern warming is neither unprecedented or unremarkable. When adding them all together, it would be hard to justify the claim that modern warming has been global in its scale. Some regions are warming, yes. But that doesn’t mean that the whole globe is. That was our point here. Breitbart’s point was to say that global warming is a myth…to garner more attention. Again, we have no control over the headlines used by media linking to our articles."

    It is no surprise that the authors that responded to Snopes did not agree that their paper was evidence of global warming being a myth.

  3. #3203
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Missoula, MT
    Posts
    20,634
    Bots bots
    Sock puppets and bots.
    No longer stuck.

    Quote Originally Posted by stuckathuntermtn View Post
    Just an uneducated guess.

  4. #3204
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    2,048
    For anyone new to this thread, Ron's Heller is a fraud who was exposed here back in December as a climate data manipulator. But frauds like Heller know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so if you do something extraordinarily fraudulent, like so many of Ron's sources, you can often get away with it.

    Ron's NoTricksZone, among others, also gained notoriety here back in September for not only dramatically misrepresenting scientific findings but also for its outright lies, just like Ron's Tony Heller. And contrary to Ron's feeble explanation above we did verify first hand that NoTricksZone engages in cherry picking to make it appear as though scientific papers were saying something obviously not intended in order to purposefully misrepresent scientific research.


    The goal is to lie so garishly, so gratuitously, in order to muddy the waters so the casual observer throws up their hands and walks away. Ron's frauds offer easy fantasy fiction, but anyone following along knows figuring out the truth takes time and work.

  5. #3205
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    2 hours from anything
    Posts
    8,153
    Climate deniers MO:

    the 4d’s — dismiss the message, distort the facts, distract the audience, and express dismay at the whole thing

    It’s like arguing with a bunch of flat earthers or people who believe the universe is 6,000 years old.



    Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

  6. #3206
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Sandy, Utah
    Posts
    11,729
    id only ask really one question.

    Would earth climate change if humans didnt exist?
    http://www.firsttracksonline.com

    I wish i could be like SkiFishBum

  7. #3207
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,300
    Quote Originally Posted by Skidog View Post
    id only ask really one question.

    Would earth climate change if humans didnt exist?
    Loaded question and you know it. And you know the answer.

    The changes without humans would be different, from all the concrete and asphalt all the dams and all the pollution it would be a different world for sure.

    But drastically, no. Just colder

  8. #3208
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,300
    https://www.climatecentral.org/news/...c-rivers-18645

    How Warming May Alter Critical ‘Atmospheric Rivers’


    https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2740/c...pheric-rivers/

    A new NASA-led study shows that climate change is likely to intensify extreme weather events known as atmospheric rivers across most of the globe by the end of this century, while slightly reducing their number.

  9. #3209
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    For anyone new to this thread, Ron's Heller is a fraud who was exposed here back in December as a climate data manipulator. But frauds like Heller know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so if you do something extraordinarily fraudulent, like so many of Ron's sources, you can often get away with it.

    Ron's NoTricksZone, among others, also gained notoriety here back in September for not only dramatically misrepresenting scientific findings but also for its outright lies, just like Ron's Tony Heller. And contrary to Ron's feeble explanation above we did verify first hand that NoTricksZone engages in cherry picking to make it appear as though scientific papers were saying something obviously not intended in order to purposefully misrepresent scientific research.


    The goal is to lie so garishly, so gratuitously, in order to muddy the waters so the casual observer throws up their hands and walks away. Ron's frauds offer easy fantasy fiction, but anyone following along knows figuring out the truth takes time and work.
    For those new to the thread, MV repeatedly tries defending undependable positions, and when that fails he resorts to mischaracterizations and ad hominems.

    Again, you did nothing to expose Heller. You posted one blog post claiming he was a fraud, and I presented Heller's response which refuted everything in the blog. The blog had no response, and you had no response. Yet, you continue to call him a fraud.

    It seems kind of pointless defending NoTricksZone since I linked to them once, and because I wasn't very familiar with the site, I dismissed it after the source criticism because the link was superfluous to my argument.

    "Dramatic misrepresentation of scientific findings and outright lies" appears to be a gross exaggeration. As shown in my previous post, the site simply aggregates papers that provide evidence that today's warming isn't global, unprecedented, or remarkable rather than "proof that global warming is a myth." Snopes lazily accuses NTZ of misrepresentations because the selected papers conclusions don't conclude that global warming is a myth.

  10. #3210
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    slc
    Posts
    11,528
    Quote Originally Posted by Skidog View Post
    id only ask really one question.

    Would earth climate change if humans didnt exist?

  11. #3211
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Bozeman
    Posts
    1,276
    For those new to this thread Ron Johnson is a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry. His goal is to create confusion to delay action to mitigate the climate crisis so his corporate overlords can make more money on their fossil fuel investments.

  12. #3212
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Loveland, Chair 9.
    Posts
    4,356
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    For those new to this thread Ron Johnson is a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry. His goal is to create confusion to delay action to mitigate the climate crisis so his corporate overlords can make more money on their fossil fuel investments.
    create confusion on a ski messageboard ?

    if that's your point, you really think exxon or the sierra club gives a care what is posted here ?

    I can just see the head lobbyist for exxon checking this daily to see what the TGR forum community thinks, not.
    Eat em up Houston Cougars !

  13. #3213
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Down In A Hole, Up in the Sky
    Posts
    26,941
    How do we know you aren’t a bot?
    Forum Cross Pollinator

  14. #3214
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    2,048
    Over the past couple of pages Courgr and Baron, and earlier in this thread Ron, all tried to either outright deny the existence of a CO2 greenhouse effect or claim the existence of a cooling/heating force that "can exert a greater radiative force on the climate than that of CO2."

    Note how Ron is a little more coy than Courgr and Baron, but he along with Heller, want people to believe that CO2 concentrations hardly matter:

    NASA Debunks Global Warming Theory
    ….

    The primary factor controlling planetary temperature is the atmospheric pressure. It is not the greenhouse effect. It is not the distance from the Sun. It is time to end this superstition."
    ….

    global warming theory is nonsense.

    -- Tony Heller
    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?
    The problem is Heller's, Courgr's, Baron's, Ron's theory of a minimal or no greenhouse gas effect violates the law of conservation of energy. Ron's Heller says pressure is the only atmospheric property that matters. That's false.

    The Stefan–Boltzmann law shows that if the atmosphere was transparent, that is no greenhouse gas effect, the Earth's average surface temperature would be around -18°C (-0.4°F) instead of a life sustaining 15°C (59°F).

    There is no other possible mechanism involving gravity and the atmosphere, i.e. pressure, that can raise the temperature of a planet with a transparent GHG-free atmosphere above the theoretical Stefan–Boltzmann temperature because the law says the amount of average energy being radiated into space has to match the amount of energy being received from the Sun.*


    So when Ron says “You call Tony Heller a fraud, but have never been able to post a valid example,” in addition to the previous take down, the laws governing the universe, the very fact that we’re here, that earth can sustain life proves Ron, SkiCougar and Heller are all full of shit.


    *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan...3Boltzmann_law

  15. #3215
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Over the past couple of pages Courgr and Baron, and earlier in this thread Ron, all tried to either outright deny the existence of a CO2 greenhouse effect or claim the existence of a cooling/heating force that "can exert a greater radiative force on the climate than that of CO2."

    Note how Ron is a little more coy than Courgr and Baron, but he along with Heller, want people to believe that CO2 concentrations hardly matter:





    The problem is Heller's, Courgr's, Baron's, Ron's theory of a minimal or no greenhouse gas effect violates the law of conservation of energy. Ron's Heller says pressure is the only atmospheric property that matters. That's false.

    The Stefan–Boltzmann law shows that if the atmosphere was transparent, that is no greenhouse gas effect, the Earth's average surface temperature would be around -18°C (-0.4°F) instead of a life sustaining 15°C (59°F).

    There is no other possible mechanism involving gravity and the atmosphere, i.e. pressure, that can raise the temperature of a planet with a transparent GHG-free atmosphere above the theoretical Stefan–Boltzmann temperature because the law says the amount of average energy being radiated into space has to match the amount of energy being received from the Sun.*


    So when Ron says “You call Tony Heller a fraud, but have never been able to post a valid example,” in addition to the previous take down, the laws governing the universe, the very fact that we’re here, that earth can sustain life proves Ron, SkiCougar and Heller are all full of shit.


    *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan...3Boltzmann_law
    First of all, I have never denied the existence of the greenhouse effect. I'm guessing this quote: "can exert a greater radiative force on the climate than that of CO2" is attributed to me? It's really amazing the tactics you resort to. You offer no context to the quote (I believe it had to do with your insane position that all the ice age cycles in earth's history are controlled by CO2?) and it's pulled totally out of the blue and has no relevance to anything.

    "Ron's Heller says pressure is the only atmospheric property that matters." - You are constantly misrepresenting. The conclusion of the blog post you linked: "The primary factor controlling planetary temperature is the atmospheric pressure. It is not the greenhouse effect." He is not saying that pressure is the only atmospheric property that matters.

    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/10/new...-law-to-earth/
    "The Stefan-Boltzmann law cannot be literally applied to Earth because there is no single physical radiating surface to which to apply it. Also that law, like the underlying Planck’s law, relates radiation to the temperature of the layer that emits it, so it cannot be applied to a layer that does not physically emit. We must tread carefully."

    You still won't accept that your previous "take down" was a big nothing - it's really pathetic and desperate.

    I have only ever used Heller as a data resource. Whether you can pick through his blog and find positions he is wrong about, I don't really care. There have been some positions of his that I don't find entirely convincing. It is his data that I am interested in.

  16. #3216
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by WMD View Post
    For those new to this thread Ron Johnson is a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry. His goal is to create confusion to delay action to mitigate the climate crisis so his corporate overlords can make more money on their fossil fuel investments.
    For those new to this thread, WMD is a global warmer true believer. He is incapable of doing much beside copy and pasting fear mongering articles. The rare times he does present a thought of his own, like in this quoted post, or in his previous post about someone giving a presentation he went to that claimed that North America is on a pathway to 13'F warming by 2100, you see get to see how clueless he is.

    In the first case, he actually believes the fossil fuel industry would pay someone to present a skeptic position on a small online ski forum.

    In the second case, he actually believes NA is on a pathway 13'F by 2100 despite the fact that the IPCC's RPC 8.5 "worst case scenario" projection, and now widely accepted as an impossibility, only projects 4'C of warming globally by 2100.

  17. #3217
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    2,048
    It says a lot that Ron defends Heller's data munging, just like he accepts NoTricksZone's own defense at face value in spite of all evidence. All of it is as fraudulent as Heller's conclusion that "global warming theory is nonsense" because of Venus. There's Ron's/Heller's narrative in the post above and then there's reality:



    The runaway greenhouse effect on Venus is a planetary process that happened in the past due to solar radiation, planetary CO2 plus other GHGs, and H2O. If a planet, like Venus, absorbs solar radiation well beyond equilibrium so that the absorbed radiation raises temperatures beyond the planet’s ability trap water vapor in its lower atmosphere, a steam upper atmosphere develops and much the hydrogen in water is lost into space.

    With water cooked off, and silicate weathering reactions that extract CO2 from the atmosphere no longer happening, CO2 reaches high concentration levels. As a result, and the opposite of Mars, a thick dense CO2 atmosphere develops. Venus now has a nearly pure CO2 atmosphere, and a surface pressure of nearly 100 Earth atmospheres. This widens its GHG solar heat absorption spectrum raising the ground temperature to ~850 degrees Fahrenheit.

    In contrast, even though the surface partial pressure of CO2 on Mars is higher than on Earth, there is not enough CO2 in the atmosphere for the amount of solar radiation Mars receives to raise the temperature to create the water vapor necessary for chemical weathering and increase CO2 concentration. Note for Ron concentration is not the same thing as composition %.

    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.

    All of this calculated using Radiative Transfer Equations to get the greenhouse energy for each planet. The equations are based on physical laws that have been verified by experiments on Earth. The math corresponds with observations of Earth, Venus, and Mars.

    Infrared radiative transfer theory, one of the most productive physical theories of the past century, has unlocked myriad secrets of the universe including that of planetary temperature and the connection between global warming and greenhouse gases.

    More here: https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pa...odayRT2011.pdf

  18. #3218
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,300
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    For those new to this thread, WMD is a global warmer true believer. He is incapable of doing much beside copy and pasting fear mongering articles. The rare times he does present a thought of his own, like in this quoted post, or in his previous post about someone giving a presentation he went to that claimed that North America is on a pathway to 13'F warming by 2100, you see get to see how clueless he is.

    In the first case, he actually believes the fossil fuel industry would pay someone to present a skeptic position on a small online ski forum.

    In the second case, he actually believes NA is on a pathway 13'F by 2100 despite the fact that the IPCC's RPC 8.5 "worst case scenario" projection, and now widely accepted as an impossibility, only projects 4'C of warming globally by 2100.
    shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt

  19. #3219
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    2,048
    Note too that Ron's own joannenova source makes the point that—contrary to Ron, Courgr, Baron, and Heller—CO2 and other GHG's are very much a first order effect.

    The fact that linearizing the otherwise non-linear Stefan-Boltzmann law is an over simplification does not change that basic fact. Ron's quote when placed in context is not saying Stefan-Boltzmann cannot be applied to Earth. Instead, the word "literally" means atmospheric temperature change is inhomogeneous vertically which is yet another reason Ron's Heller is wrong about Earth and Venus.

  20. #3220
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    It says a lot that Ron defends Heller's data munging, just like he accepts NoTricksZone's own defense at face value in spite of all evidence. All of it is as fraudulent as Heller's conclusion that "global warming theory is nonsense" because of Venus. There's Ron's/Heller's narrative in the post above and then there's reality:
    You have provided zero valid evidence of "Heller's data munging", and I looked at your Snopes evidence and it's pretty clear that NTZ has a valid defense. They are not using the papers as evidence that global warming is fake like Snopes claims, but simply aggregating papers that present evidence that today's warming is not global or unprecedented.

    Heller's blog post concludes that "the primary factor controlling planetary pressure is atmospheric pressure." His conclusion is not that green house gasses don't trap heat. I'm not a physicist so I'm not going to get into a big argument about this, but this snippet of yours does not refute Heller's position:

    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.

  21. #3221
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    PNW
    Posts
    4,300
    Quote Originally Posted by ron johnson View Post
    You have provided zero valid evidence of "Heller's data munging", and I looked at your Snopes evidence and it's pretty clear that NTZ has a valid defense. They are not using the papers as evidence that global warming is fake like Snopes claims, but simply aggregating papers that present evidence that today's warming is not global or unprecedented.

    Heller's blog post concludes that "the primary factor controlling planetary pressure is atmospheric pressure." His conclusion is not that green house gasses don't trap heat. I'm not a physicist so I'm not going to get into a big argument about this, but this snippet of yours does not refute Heller's position:
    Shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt

  22. #3222
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    2,048
    Lol @ Ron saying Heller's position "is not that green house gasses don't trap heat."

    Heller says exactly that, "Due to the very thick cloud cover, Venus surface receives very little sunlight during the day – and the temperature does not cool during their very long night. Neither daytime temperatures nor nighttime temperatures on Venus can be explained by the “greenhouse effect,”" therefore according to Heller the "global warming theory is nonsense."

    I mean that's whole point underlying Heller's fraud, and he's wrong.

    Essentially all the IR escaping from Venus originates in the top region of the atmosphere, where the pressure is less than 2.5 × 104Pa. The highest-temperature radiating surface in that layer is primarily attributable to CO2 continuum absorption. In other words, in spite of Ron's and Heller's bullshit there is very much a greenhouse effect happening in Venus's atmosphere.

    The result, once the system comes into equilibrium, is surface warming. The effect is particularly spectacular for Venus, whose ground temperature is 730K. If the planet were a black body in equilibrium with the solar radiation received by the planet, the ground temperature would be a mere 231K.
    Last edited by MultiVerse; 02-24-2020 at 10:12 PM.

  23. #3223
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    662
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Lol @ Ron saying Heller's position "is not that green house gasses don't trap heat."

    Heller says exactly that, "Due to the very thick cloud cover, Venus surface receives very little sunlight during the day – and the temperature does not cool during their very long night. Neither daytime temperatures nor nighttime temperatures on Venus can be explained by the “greenhouse effect.”" therefore according to Heller the "global warming theory is nonsense."

    I mean that's whole point underlying Heller's fraud. And he's wrong. Essentially all the IR escaping from Venus originates in the top region of the atmosphere, where the pressure is less than 2.5 × 104Pa. The highest-temperature radiating surface in that layer is primarily attributable to CO2 continuum absorption. In other words, in spite of Heller's bullshit, there is very much a greenhouse effect happening in the Venetian atmosphere.

    The result, once the system comes into equilibrium, is surface warming. The effect is particularly spectacular for Venus, whose ground temperature is 730K. If the planet were a blackbody in equilibrium with the solar radiation received by the planet, the ground temperature would be a mere 231 K.
    Reads to me that he is saying that neither the extreme daytime or nighttime temperatures on Venus can be explained by the greenhouse effect, not that green house gasses don't trap heat.

  24. #3224
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Edge of the Great Basin
    Posts
    2,048
    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.

  25. #3225
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Posts
    8,245
    Quote Originally Posted by MultiVerse View Post
    Over the past couple of pages Courgr and Baron, and earlier in this thread Ron, all tried to either outright deny the existence of a CO2 greenhouse effect or claim the existence of a cooling/heating force that "can exert a greater radiative force on the climate than that of CO2."

    Note how Ron is a little more coy than Courgr and Baron, but he along with Heller, want people to believe that CO2 concentrations hardly matter:





    The problem is Heller's, Courgr's, Baron's, Ron's theory of a minimal or no greenhouse gas effect violates the law of conservation of energy. Ron's Heller says pressure is the only atmospheric property that matters. That's false.

    The Stefan–Boltzmann law shows that if the atmosphere was transparent, that is no greenhouse gas effect, the Earth's average surface temperature would be around -18°C (-0.4°F) instead of a life sustaining 15°C (59°F).

    There is no other possible mechanism involving gravity and the atmosphere, i.e. pressure, that can raise the temperature of a planet with a transparent GHG-free atmosphere above the theoretical Stefan–Boltzmann temperature because the law says the amount of average energy being radiated into space has to match the amount of energy being received from the Sun.*


    So when Ron says “You call Tony Heller a fraud, but have never been able to post a valid example,” in addition to the previous take down, the laws governing the universe, the very fact that we’re here, that earth can sustain life proves Ron, SkiCougar and Heller are all full of shit.


    *https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan...3Boltzmann_law

    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.

Posting Permissions

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