Results 3,201 to 3,225 of 3644
-
02-25-2020, 07:37 AM #3201
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.
-
02-25-2020, 09:00 AM #3202Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
- Posts
- 2,662
-
02-25-2020, 10:46 AM #3203Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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.
-
02-25-2020, 10:49 AM #3204Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
02-25-2020, 11:10 AM #3205
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.
-
02-25-2020, 11:21 AM #3206
-
02-25-2020, 11:38 AM #3207
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:
Originally Posted by ron johnsonOriginally Posted by ron johnsonOriginally Posted by ron johnson
-
02-25-2020, 12:05 PM #3208Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2008
- Location
- northern BC
- Posts
- 30,885
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 industryLee Lau - xxx-er is the laziest Asian canuck I know
-
02-25-2020, 12:50 PM #3209Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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:
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.
-
02-25-2020, 12:58 PM #3210
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"
-
02-25-2020, 04:47 PM #3211Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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"
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.
-
02-25-2020, 04:50 PM #3212
We all find you pretty laughable.
Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident
-
02-25-2020, 04:57 PM #3213Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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/
-
02-25-2020, 04:59 PM #3214
It doesn’t matter, they will all end up working for Exxon or Mobile anyway.
Creatures find their level.Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident
-
02-25-2020, 05:33 PM #3215
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.
-
02-25-2020, 06:14 PM #3216
-
02-25-2020, 06:23 PM #3217
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 <<<
-
02-25-2020, 06:24 PM #3218Banned
- Join Date
- May 2007
- Location
- Sandy, Utah
- Posts
- 14,410
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
-
02-25-2020, 06:53 PM #3219Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
-
02-25-2020, 06:58 PM #3220Banned
- Join Date
- Aug 2019
- Posts
- 1,084
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.
-
02-25-2020, 08:40 PM #3221
RJ, like the fuels he represents, is a dinosaur.
They all dead.Forum Cross Pollinator, gratuitously strident
-
02-27-2020, 10:33 AM #3222
Teck is bailing on a huge oil sand development because it's not economically viable: https://earther.gizmodo.com/in-a-stu...oil-1841887857
-
02-29-2020, 05:11 PM #3223
-
02-29-2020, 05:19 PM #3224
Yeah, not only are tar sand oil extraction operations destructive and generally awful, they're also extremely inefficient. With the price of oil so low, there's no way a new one would make money. Surprised the older ones are at all.
And idiots in Alberta keep blaming wolves for fucking up the caribou numbers and meanwhile these oily ditches are right there fucking everything up. Hm, wonder if that's it?
-
03-02-2020, 04:00 AM #3225Registered User
- Join Date
- Jan 2020
- Posts
- 10
Yeah I agree. I feel like we are going to destroy the climate all together. I am also scared that we might be a little bit too late for making sure that we can save the planet.
Bookmarks