"Since all alternative energy sources requires oil and coal to create and run to some degree,all "Cap and trade" does is make it more expensive"
Cap and trade doesn't effect manufacturing with oil, just burning it.
"It's why"Green Tech" is Bankupting lately"
You don't have Cap and Trade in the USA. In the USA green tech currently provides more jobs than the oil industry and is one of the few manufacturing sectors in the USA that has net exports to China.
Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
Professor Wolfgang Wagner has stepped down as editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. The reason for his resignation was his journal's publishing of the paper On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's radiant energy balance, by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell. Wagner concluded the paper was "fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal".
"When and where? No such lawsuit exists. Just another myth you've bought into"
no, it was there, but it was as futle as it was pointless....never even made it to it's court date
"A TV weatherman, not a scientis"
Yeah,with a degree in Journalism
But then again AL gore and the IPCC won the "Peace Prize(a political diplomacy prize)", not the prize in Science,not the prize in Physics,not the Prize in Chemistry,not the Prize in Geophysics/geology
@TheRealArchAngel "no, it (the law suit) was there, but it was as futle as it was pointless...."
Yes it was pointless.
Pointless would be the word, even if it had ever been filed. Of course filing the law suit would have required him to identify and confirm the "30,000 scientists," something he couldn't do because they don't exist..
"Of course filing the law suit would have required him to identify and confirm the "30,000 scientists," something he couldn't do because they don't exist.."
Of course not
Scientists have better things to do then to get involved with legal and political squbles...especially after finding out the time they volunteered to IPCC to give a honest opinion was twisted for political reasons
In the End Junk Science is always weeded out in the Scientific Method..and the "grunts" got the weeding tools
"I love these guys who think they know more than experts in the field."
If they were in the field they would see it's the Ocean Conveyer and evaporation/percipitation cycle that distributes heat around the world
Instead they stay in their Universty Computer labs playing with glorified Sim Earth programs and believing in heat retaining and amplifying powers of magic gases
"Talk about arrogance"
Put a"COld front"in front of Irene and the Jersy ports are saved whiile the Media looks foolish
@TheRealArchAngel "If they were in the field they would see it's the Ocean Conveyer and evaporation/percipitation cycle that distributes heat around the world"
That is of course true. However the total amount of heat/energy in the planetary system is not affected by these things.
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
Where do you think funding comes from the IPCC? Government who need evidence so that they can raise taxes. "Green Energy" special interests that will profit from the global warming scare.
@Allante715 The idea all governments of all stripes are out to raise a green tax is idiotic. You assume all governments every where (Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Labour, Communist) all have a single agenda. If they did then we would have a climate agreement and be acting on this major issue right now. The fact is most governments are desperately trying not to act because it goes against short term interests. OTOH, Oil companies have a clear interest in keeping the carbon energy.
‘This week, a study has shown that the devastating floods which damaged nearly 10,000 properties in England and Wales in 2000, and cost £1.3 billion in insurance losses, were made significantly more likely by climate change caused by humans…The bottom line of all this? Allen and his team found that human greenhouse gas emissions "significantly increased" the likelihood of the 2000 floods.’
w w w .newscientist. c o m/article/dn20141-blame-human-emissions-for-british-floods.html
@rugbygy59 I believe you are talking about the hypothesis that positive feedbacks are required to switch the climate-system between cold and warm states that are relatively stable (i.e. ice-ages and interglacials). As far as I am aware this is not supported by the necessary scientific evidence. Warmists claim that the forcing produced by the Milankovitch-cycle is too small to account for the temperature increases during interglacials and therefore logic follows feedbacks must have amplified it.
@CHIPSTERO7 Logic and empirical evidence. It well demonstrated that Milankovitch Cycles are not able to induce the amount of temperature changes needed for known swings. A cloud based negative feedback that overwhelms the influence of CO2 stops these changes. You should watch Richard Alley's lecture "The Biggest Control Knob: CO2 in Earth's Climate History." It's available on line.
@CHIPSTERO7 A key logical problem with Spencer and Lindzen's proposals is that they run at odds with past climate. The climate change of the past began primarily with changes in the earth's orbit and rotation but the amount of change required net positive feedbacks to increase as they did. If there was this "get out of jail card" as they propose then we would not have seen those changes.
@rugbyguy59 The 150 W/sq.m is the calculated radiative forcing (RF) at the surface produced by the entire atmospheric greenhouse as derived from the Arrhenius law which states that the surface temperature of earth is 33C warmer than it otherwise would be without the greenhouse. The 150 W/sq.m gives us a linear relationship between RF and temperature of 1 W/sq.m = 0.22 degC. Thus Dessler's calculation of 0.74 W/sq.m gives us an approximate temperature increase of around 0.16 degC at the surface.
@rugbyguy59 That is not what I am doing. These are approximations only. We can easily calculate a given irradiance-increment from a given temperature-increment by applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Wikipedia explains how you can do it here: ht tp://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law Hansen uses Planck's law which is more complicated and more accurate as it takes into account the different wavelengths of the radiation, but as I say though, I am only dealing with approximations.
@rugbyguy59 In the long-term, the net-effect of clouds must be negative otherwise the earth's temperatures would soar into a runaway-greenhouse. Another thing about the Dessler paper and which Spencer has pointed out is that he possibly misinterprets cause with effect. Because Dessler observed warm years with low-cloud cover he assumes that this is due to positive feedback. However, it is just as likely that the decreased cloud-cover was not a result of the warming, but initiated the warming.
@CHIPSTERO7 The net effect of clouds don't have to be negative and even a large positive feedback doesn't mean runaway GW. Climate feedbacks are logarithmic. The first cycle is large, the second smaller, after a few feedback cycles they're inconsequential.
It's easy to just toss up an alternative scenario but to say it is just as likely you need to have some evidence. The evidence that CO2 is the primary cause of recent warming is massive but for decreased clouds starting it is non-existent.
@rugbyguy59 CO2 behaves logarithmically according to Beer-Lambert law but I have never heard of the feedbacks from clouds behaving logarithmically. If temperature increases cause increase evaporation rates which leads to increased humidity and less cloud-cover how can that possibly be logarithmic? If the net-effect of cloud cover (as well as water vapour) were both positive (in the long-term) then the earth would have unquestionably already experienced a runaway greenhouse effect based on water.
@rugbyguy59 To be fair to Spencer my summary of his argument was an oversimplification. But I agree with you, while his theory may be elegant, it is of course principally based on faith. Spencer has done a lot of damage to his reputation as a scientist by propounding Intelligent Design but that does nothing to refute his 'phase space analysis' of NASA satellite-data and his peer-reviewed evidence showing that clouds are a strong negative feedback, not positive, directly contradicting the models.
@CHIPSTERO7 There is no well supported evidence that clouds have a strong negative feedback. Spencer and Lintzen have tried hard to make that one float but it doesn't pass. Lauer et al. (2010), Dessler (2010), Clement et al. (2009), Chang and Coakley (2007) and Eitzen et al. (2008) have all shown that, even while everyone admits there is more work to be done, clouds will produce positive or at the very most slightly negative feedbacks. Spencer's 2010 work is published but not well accepted.
@rugbygy59 Bad news, I'm afraid. Under the Stefan-Boltzmann law which states that the radiation of a body is proportional to the 4th-root power of its absolute temperature the 0.74 W/sq. m in Dessler's Paper (A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations) is only enough to give you around 0.16.5deg C warming at the surface and that's assuming that none of it is absorbed in the evaporation of seawater too. According to Dessler this positive feedback is also only short-term.
@CHIPSTERO7 Bad news for you I'm afraid. 1st You're making Mockton's S-B law error by calculating the Earth as a perfect black body. 2nd, as in all the papers, there's no evidence for Spencer's hypothesis. Dessler finds a pos short term feedback but a possible small negative feedback within the +/-. A large neg feedback a la Spencer is very unlikely. The other papers find that too. Dessler says models essentially agree with his findings. Models don't have large positive cloud feedback biases
@rugbyguy59 You say "You're making Mockton's S-B law error by calculating the earth as a perfect black body". Please elaborate. Why is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation inadequate for deriving the specific radiative forcing produced from a certain amount of warming? There is a fixed relationship between temperature and radiation intensity that is specified by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I merely used that law to show how Dessler's equation implied a 0.16 degC temperature-increment to the surface.
@CHIPSTERO7 As it says in wiki: "The law can be derived by considering a small flat black body surface radiating out into a half-sphere." while the earth is spherical it is not flat black. Real calculations are a bit more complex as S-B doesn't include the greenhouse effect.
You seem to make the stunning assumption that Dessler would not have thought of all this. Dunning-Kruger Effect?
@rugbyguy59 You are correct. The SB law does not include the atmospheric greenhouse. For that we have the Arrhenius equation of which the Stefan-Boltzmann law is derived. From the SB law we can calculate the amount of W/sq.m for the total atmospheric greenhouse at the surface as stated by the Arrhenius law and we get a figure of 150.35W/sq.m. Since I am working with approximations it does not seem worthwhile going to the great length of calculation that would be required to use Planck's law.
@CHIPSTERO7 150W/sq.m? And yet Dessler says, "Over this period, the short-term cloud feedback had a magnitude of 0.54 - 0.74 (2s) watts per square meter per kelvin, meaning that it is likely positive." You seem to have calculated a rather massive positive feedback.
By the way, do you have a point with all this? The papers I cited all give a positive feedback. Not big ones, but there is a potential for larger positive feedbacks noted. Spencer's large negative feedback is increasingly unlikely.
@rugbyuy59 However whether Spencer is a proponent of Intelligent Design is irrelevant here and hardly nullifies his meteorological expertise. Spencer's evidence for PDO appears robust to my layman's eye. There's no doubt in my mind that the IPCC's (or Hansen's) self-referencing computerized models egregiously exaggerate positive feedback, mix up 'cause and effect' and have no empirical evidence to support their presuppositions. They are essentially self-conforming expressions of input dogma.
@CHIPSTERO7 Your position is based on self conforming expressions of input dogma. You say Hansen and every other climate modeller is stupid or dishonest. They have intentionally or unwittingly produced models that are false and cannot understand or will not believe the work of the brave lone wolf scientist, Roy Spencer. And you base it all on the fact that it looks robust to your "layman's eye." Yawn.
I prefer the eyes of trained scientists. If Spencer can't convince them, he can't convince me.
@rugby59 You see, I have read Hansen's papers and he derives essentially all his claims from unverified and unverifiable data, projections and inscrutable model simulations presented as facts. Real science is about what is happening in the real-world, not about what is happening in the virtual reality of Hansen's computerized, self-referencing thought-system. I think Hansen's former boss at NASA summed up what the scientific-community think of Hansen when he described him as an "embarrassment".
@CHIPSTERO7 I love the way contrarians laud the work of scientists with almost no support within the scientific community, then claim one of the most respected scientists in the field is seen as an embarrassment.
By the way Hansen's boss didn't say he was an embarrassment he said he had "embarrassed NASA" by saying he was muzzled. Considering the former boss came out as a denialist in the same press release he wouldn't be a good cite for understanding the thinking of the scientific community.
Alexey N Dmitriev - "Strong evidence exists that these transformations are being caused by highly charged material & energetic non-uniformities in anisotropic interstellar space which have broken into the interplanetary area of our solar system. This 'donation' of energy is producing hybrid processes & excited energy states in all planets, as well as the sun."
>(dot) tmgnow(d)com/repository/global/planetophysical(d)html< for info on interstellar energy field
Did a bit more digging into Spencer's work. He is speaking about how energy moves about in the atmosphere. That's nice but it fails to address the real questions of where does the energy come from. If it was energy coming from the oceans the oceans would be cooling. They are warming. He also fails to account for how the energy gets into space. Energy in precipitation might move up in the atmosphere but that still leaves it in the atmosphere where GHGs trap it
First, your title is wrong. The IPCC has no models. It does report on the many models developed by independent scientists.
Spencer's work suffers from several problems. The most basic is if there is some great temperature regulator in the sky then how did the climate change so much in the past? Spencer is welcome to his opinion but 97-98% of publishing climate scientists don't find his arguments convincing, but then he believes in intelligent design too.
@rugbyguy59 To me, Spencer's argument for Intelligent Design is elegant. His reasoning is as follows. The 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and the second law of thermodynamics says that energy is degrading which means the universe must have had a beginning. Therefore we are left with two options. Either the universe created itself out of nothing (which violates the 1st law of thermodynamics) or it was created by something greater than itself.
@CHIPSTERO7 And what created that universe creating something?
His "reasoning" is just more myth making. Taking something we don't yet understand and explaining it via a supernatural being. It's been done before and we always eventually eliminated the need for a god.
But even if it were true a universe creating god is totally unneeded to understand the formation of everything, including life, once the Big Bang has happened. There isn't anything intelligent about our design even it is amazing.
@MGGoblin I'm really not sure what you're saying here. There are several things that can change climate. The sun obviously can have an effect but the regular 11 year cycles don't really have a big influence. When it comes to the recent warming (past 30 years) we know it isn't the sun. We have satellites monitoring it.
That leaves us with other types of climate forcing. In the end the only one that is changing in a way that causes warming and isn't a feedback is greenhouse gases, specifically CO2
" the only one that is changing in a way that causes warming and isn't a feedback is greenhouse gases, specifically C2"
Yes
If you read out of your "bible" in Physics 101 in the Mathamatics building (cause it isn't a Applied Science,its a "imaginative" one) you will learn 18th century chemical Theory that was disproven in early 19th century but still "Preached"
It's only when you go to VUlcanology in the Science Building do you learn "Climate: is regulated by Earth's COre and not"magical"gas
@TheRealArchAngel If vulcanologists believe the greenhouse effect has been disproved they are deluded. It's bedrock science demonstrated not by mathematical theory but by empirical experiment.
@TheRealArchAngel Einstein's corrections don't negate Newton. They used Newton's equations to send the Apollo missions to the moon. Einstein refined Newton. Flat earth is not science. The origins of the moon was not backed up by large quantities of data. Darwin said humans and apes had a common ancestor.
Once a theory is supported by masses of evidence it takes extraordinary evidence to overturn it. Since all major scientific bodies now accept AGW what is your extraordinary evidence?
Once a theory is supported by masses of evidence it takes extraordinary evidence to overturn it. Since all major scientific bodies now accept AGW what is your extraordinary evidence?
It's called the "A-train" and it is gathering the data to Test the "Accepted" opinon of consenses and Hypothises Predicted that now has gone to the verification and testing phase
Of course this is all moot for the UN as Obama gave the Enviromental policy powers to the World Bank and not them at Copenhagen
@TheRealArchAngel "It's called the "A-train" and it is gathering the data to Test the "Accepted" opinon of consenses"
Actually it isn't testing that at all. That would be a waste of money as it has been confirmed over and over. Instead it's purpose is to refine our understanding of carbon sinks and sources, as it says at Geology(dot)com it will reveal" new information on how CO2, which directly contributes to climate change, is distributed in Earth's atmosphere and moves around our world."
"Actually it isn't testing that at all. That would be a waste of money as it has been confirmed over and over"
No,it hasn't..people like you following what the Media,talking heads,Al Gore,and the IPCC beuaracy says are saying that
The Original Summary that the Scientists sign isn't the one that was added to and manipulated to the UN's Political agenda later..much to the displeasure of the scientists that protested and demanded their names be removed from the Summary reports(which IPCC didn't)
" Instead it's purpose is to refine our understanding of carbon sinks and sources, as it says at Geology(dot)com it will reveal" new information on how CO2, which directly contributes to climate change, is distributed in Earth's atmosphere and moves around our world."
RIght "impact studies"
COuldn't very well say the "Grunts" wanted to provide a field verification for a second opinion..wouldn't have gotten funding to do the experiments in a turned very political matter then...would we?
"Since all major scientific bodies now accept AGW "
Really?
Now board of Directors of various scientific organizations voicing their opinion on AL Gores movie about IPCC summary report is "Major Scientific bodies accept AGW"?
A lot of the Scientist on IPCC filed complaints for the dubious sign off they were made to do, their opinions misrepresented,and a lot of their work that would contradict the IPCC's political objectives being ommited
@TheRealArchAngel Al Gore's movie has nothing to do with it. The bodies have said the concur with the findings of the IPCC. 97% of publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC. 2% aren't sure. 1% disagree. The 1% would include Spencer whose work simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. He produces no evidence that passes examination.
Without AL Gores movie milion of gradeshhcool children wouldn't had to bear being brainwashed by liberal environut teachers and the thing wouldn't have won the Acadmy award and Peace prize bringing global warming to media mention every 20 minutes until the" Economic Crises" upsurped it from common media zombified consiousness in October 2008
" 97% of publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC."
"they say this after the report came out and still do."
but IPCC's Epic Fail was that these same Scientist sit on the same commities that advise their COuntries Politicans and t was only to easy for them to clarify to their politicians that they were misrepresented and their real opinons and rpresent their real reaserch and opinions on the matter as a second opinon AGAINST IPCC
Result was that UN didn't get taxing powers and those still foolish enough to regulate Economies suffered
I'm afraid the scientists do not say they are misrepresented. Those on the IPCC spoke truth to power and the politicians for political reasons chose not to listen, or like Inhofe, listen to the denierss who have no proof.
"1% disagree. The 1% would include Spencer whose work simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. He produces no evidence that passes examination"
YOu might want to check that list of IPPC Scientist you keep thumping on..Spencer is there as one of the Scientists that signed the IPPC SUmmary before it was changed and manipulated to reflect the UN's political objectives
Not that any of this even mattes anymorer as COnrgress told AL Gore to fuck off..twice, and Obama told UN to fuck off at COpenhagen
@TheRealArchAngel "Spencer is there as one of the Scientists that signed the IPPC SUmmary before it was changed and manipulated to reflect the UN's political objectives"
That's what he claims. Of course his own work is so pathetic and riddled with error that no one takes him seriously anymore. Massive error on his satellite data and then refused to recheck his results.
"demonstrated not by mathematical theory but by empirical experiment"
First Beliveing that Humans are making Co2 and that Co2 is causing global warming THEN going to look for CO2 rise to blame on humans(and finding it) is Ass backwards Environutism at worst and junk Science at best
Just as bad as the Catholic Priest beliivng in "Big Bang" (creation) and using only the "redshift" Hubble spotted as "Proof"
Science is about trying to disprove a hypothises,not looking for "proof" on a belief
"not by mathematical theory but by empirical experiment"
Belieing "oil is evil" and "Big oil is Evil" then looking for evidence by coorolations then having a opinion of consensus that was drafted 3 months before any of the "experts" even looked at it let alone signed off of it is as hokey as the Opinion of COnsensus that the KT metoer killed off the Dinosaurs 65 million years ago when any field Paleotologist will tell you the Dinosaurs were extict 10,000 years before the KT boundry(duh)
@TheRealArchAngel "Belieing "oil is evil" and "Big oil is Evil" then looking for evidence by coorolations then having a opinion of consensus"
The basic physics of the greenhouse effect was established long before there was a "big oil." Do you have any ideas that aren't based on scientists are stupid and or corrupt?
"Do you have any ideas that aren't based on scientists are stupid and or corrupt?"
The Scientists aren't stupid
The Scientists aren't corrupt
IMedia,AL Gore, and the Enviromental activist are puting words in their mouth,claiming things they didn't claim and trying to convince everyone "the Science is settle..now lets taxc the fuck out of everything"
"The basic physics of the greenhouse effect "
Isn't testible in a lab,isn't testable in a field test
@TheRealArchAngel "The Scientists aren't stupid. The Scientists aren't corrupt"
Then you should stop calling their disciplines faked and claiming even their basic textbooks ar wrong and that they are too stupid to notice or too happy with life as it is to mention it"
I listen to the scientists. Al Gore's movie was old hat for anyone who had been following the issue. Nothing new there.
"Then you should stop calling their disciplines faked "
No, I said that they are Thinkers and Calculaters and Imaginers that like to pull ideas out of their ass
Nothing wrong with that but I prefer the applied sciences and hands on testing of those ideas,theories,and
"I listen to the scientists"
No you listen to what the media and Environut talking heads say Al gore says the IPCC says they say or you would know they never said anthing close to what you are saying they are saying
@TheRealArchAngel "Nothing wrong with that but I prefer the applied sciences and hands on testing of those ideas,theories"
Strange then that you ignore all the real world testing that has gone on.
"No you listen to what the media and Environut talking heads say Al gore"
Hansen, NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, Nature, Real Climate, Open Mind, Chris Colose, numerous others. The media is doesn't really understand the issue. I knew everything in Al Gore's movie before it came out.
"Strange then that you ignore all the real world testing that has gone on."
Computer simulations for the next 1000 years isn't "real world testing:...it's part of the prediction phase in the Scientific Method
The Consensus of opinion.for all it IS worth,established the Hypothises to be tested..it didn't bring forth a verifiable,tesifble and fasifiable conclusion
"The media is doesn't really understand the issue."
But they are responsible for the hyped "armegedon" version that is mocked now
@TheRealArchAngel "Computer simulations for the next 1000 years isn't "real world testing:...it's part of the prediction phase in the Scientific Method"
I'm not talking about the computer simulations. I'm talking about direct measurements of energy in and out, the effects of the various GHGs, global avg. temperature rising, the other possible contributors or causes of warming, etc.
The consensus was built on the real evidence not a hypothesis. And as the studies have shown the consensus builds.
"I'm not talking about the computer simulations. I'm talking about direct measurements of energy in and out"
Most of that is still speculative relative to what they are seeing vs what they think is happening
The data sets are to small and limited to acurately predict what is going to happen based on observable tempature and co2 history vs Proxy (which seems to be way off which is why scientist are slowly not using proxy and using more real world data as it come fore availible)
@TheRealArchAngel "The data sets are to small and limited to acurately predict what is going to happen based on observable tempature and co2 history"
Strange, the real world evidence is giving statistically significant results that say you're wrong. Of course I doubt you've looked at real science. Too busy on conspiracy theories and pseudo-science about earth core heat sources and magical oil.
I can admit I am wrong when you show me the 2 tank experiment where the 900ppm tank is asorbing more heat from the 140f light source then the 390ppm tank
The popular test of pure co2 vs air is bogus as pure co2 can asorb 95f from a 140f lamp while air with average humidity will asorb abot 90f
"Too busy on conspiracy theories"
not me saying "Big Oil" have money to buy off politicans and smear scientists
"pseudo-science."
GHGs and Comic rays from clouds is the pseudo-science
Physicists Jean Dickey and Steven Marcus of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. and geophysicist Olivier de Viron of the Institute of Planetary Physics in Paris will be happy to know you mock thier research in the Journal of Climate that shows a relation betwen daily spin,relative tempature and lon term climate change (I did mention COre dynamics is primarily a Geophysics?
Abiotic oil Theory is accepted by non US geologists simply cause there is too much oil vs past life
Modern Abiotic oil thoery was proposed by Russian geologist Nikolai Alexandrovitch Kudryavtsev back in 1951 because the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada he examined has about 1.7 trillion barrels of oil in them (you need life on every inch of earth and 100 miles high going extinct every day for 10 years just for what we pump out of the ground daily((57-83 million barrels depending who you ask) and life needed to account for 1.7 trillion in one spot be rediculous to figure
"And who cares since it has been debunked repeatedly"
Really?
Then why is oil found in certain geological formations instead of everywhere life existed..most notiable the sea floor who also has pockets of oil with same geographical formations vs everywhere under the sediment
"can't tell because you write so poorly it is unreadable."
The writen word was never my strong suit....beter face to face
"Did they let you graduate high school?"
3.5gpa highschool,AA/AS/BA from collage at 3.0gpa
@TheRealArchAngel "Then why is oil found in certain geological formations instead of everywhere life existed.."
Because oil can only be produced in certain geological formations. Organic material rots and disappears if not trapped under the right circumstances.
That wonderment does not provide any evidence of abiotic oil. Your main proof seems to be, "well you can't prove this so it must be that." Sorry you need evidence.
the real "magic" is believing that Oil comes from plants when they are specifically found at ancient volcanic activity,active volcanic activity,and on plate tectonic slide,tear or colliision points in specific type of rock formations tht is trackable by magnetic field sensing by geologists
Main reson Environuts protest abiotic theory is because they think it will validate still burning oil
It won't, It's more expensive to get deep oil and turning it into gas to burn is stupid
@TheRealArchAngel "the real "magic" is believing that Oil comes from plants when they are specifically found at ancient volcanic activity"
I believe you meant in sedimentary rock usually where there was an ancient sea.
"Main reson Environuts protest abiotic theory is because they think it will validate still burning oil"
What a stupid argument. Burning oil (and the other fossil fuels) is invalidated by the fact it endangers civilization as we know it. How it's made has nothing to do with it.
"Burning oil (and the other fossil fuels) is invalidated by the fact it endangers civilization as we know it."
That is the "Consiracy" in the "Oil Age"
Using 90& of the oil drilled for dailiy to power combustion engines is stupitd and wasteful but NOTHING can be made without Oil/Coal..not even the Windmills that need oil for their carbon fiber ,siilicone,snthetic rubber and plastic parts and coal,natural gas,coke or petro coke to melt the metal and run the machines to make the metal parts:
"I believe you meant in sedimentary rock usually where there was an ancient sea."
20 miles down in solid bedrock in tiger fields in Thailand a "ancient ocean",...really?
The oils zones in the gulf of mexico that has rifting and subduction pooints going on a "ancient Ocean"?(it was dry land in the age of Pangea) The Saudi Arabian fields around the Plate collition/churning points being part of a "ancient sea bed"?(red sea and persian gul marks lowest points,with red se "recent flooding")
@TheRealArchAngel Petroleum samples from the White Tiger oilfield contain biomarkers which "indicate a lacustrine organic facies with lipid-rich, land-plant debris and fresh-water algal material," which indicate that it is of biological origin. It comes from the sandstone sitting around the granite.
Saudi Arabia sedimentary rock is where you get the oil.
"It won't, It's more expensive to get deep oil and turning it into gas to burn is stupid"
The light sweet stuff best used for making gasoline,jet fuel,and disel is coming rarer and harder to find..or in the cade of domestic US, is currently banned from beng drilled in US meaning US is more dependendt on MIdleeast for it's light sweet fix
Dee[ oil has more "aromics" and makes shitty fuel even with expensive refining and the tar sands will be as bad for gas but great for plastics,rubber,tar,coke
@TheRealArchAngel "The light sweet stuff best used for making gasoline,jet fuel,and disel is coming rarer and harder to find..or in the cade of domestic US, is currently banned from beng drilled in US"
You do realize oil exploration in the US has expanded dramatically under Obama. No didn't think you did.
Cars don't need to run on the 200 year old combustion engine,they can run on presurized air
Or how about thse Paddle cars of the 70's (where did those go?)
I'm weary of "Electric cars" as battteries store energy,they don't create it and the GM volt needs to be plugged into the Socket..how is that power made?
point is People have to choose to buy something like a electric car, government can't just declare it
Gee $65,000 electric that gets 35 miles a charge or $7000 gas at 60mpg?
@TheRealArchAngel Cars and pressurized air, paddle wheel cars, electric cars, yadda yadda. trying to switch the topic? Of course someone running umpteen myths and conspiracy theories would ultimately need to. You sure can't defend your own ideas.
"electric cars, yadda yadda. trying to switch the topic"
No, Turning oil into gas nas burning it is stupid and wasteful,but the only thing more stupid is the GM Volt withit's battery array that needs to be replaced every 50,000 miles putting that much more waste into the enviroment if not properly recycled PLUS most people plugging in will be pulling power from a Coal powered Electric plant
It takes 12 Killowats to to recharge the battery that give you 35 miles a charge
@TheRealArchAngel "PLUS most people plugging in will be pulling power from a Coal powered Electric plant"
Still a good thing. US DoE says an electric fleet equalling 84% of all existing US trucks and cars could be powered off the spinning reserve of existing power plants. With smart grids the electricity in batteries can be used to get over peak demand as well. Would lower electric prices by allowing the sale of power made now but wasted.
Can you fill your car for $35 dollars? Electric cheaper.
"Can you fill your car for $35 dollars? Electric cheaper."
I have a 2002 Chevey Alalanche with Califonia Emmision standards
Sttock is 15mpg,but I get 20mpg-140mpg mith the injection modification and depending on what kind of fuel blend I run her on
$35 of Gasoline(rollseyes) would give me about 7 gallons right now and hit twoards the low end of the milage range (15mpg-20mpg) and will get me 105-140 miles on gas v.s. 35 miles in a GM Volt(smirk)
@TheRealArchAngel "$35 of Gasoline(rollseyes) would give me about 7 gallons right now and hit twoards the low end of the milage range (15mpg-20mpg) and will get me 105-140 miles on gas v.s. 35 miles in a GM Volt(smirk)"
You said you'd have to pay $5 for the 35 miles (one charge). That means for $35 the Volt gets 245 miles. much better than your car. Maybe math isn't your strong suit either.
@TheRealArchAngel "Hydrocarbons In The Deep Earth? They basicdally showed that oil canbe forrmed from carbon deposits in deep earth and migrates up"
Why you can't be trusted - From the Carnegie Press release: The oil and gas that fuels our homes and cars started out as living organisms that died, were compressed, and heated..... Scientists have debated for years whether some of these hydrocarbons could also have been created deeper in the Earth and formed without organic matter.
"Why you can't be trusted - From the Carnegie Press release: The oil and gas that fuels our homes and cars started out as living organisms that died, were compressed, and heated"
You leave out "Scientists believe"& "Iwidley excepted(by Us Academics)" from the sentence to make it "a fact" and not a Brelief/Hypothises mostly US university Geologist preach and "I cant be trusted?
"Scientists have debated "
Debate isn't Science and Rockerfeller;s 1892 ploy classifying oil "orgnic: isn't either
@TheRealArchAngel ""Scientists believe"& "Iwidley excepted(by Us Academics)" from the sentence to make it "a fact" and not a Brelief/Hypothises mostly US university Geologist preach and "I cant be trusted?"
Yet here we have Russians and a Swede saying it. No you can't be trusted because you don't even read the press releases of things you misquote and misuse.
If we don't listen to scientists and academics (those we call experts) who shall we listen too then? The man in the street?
"No you can't be trusted because you don't even read the press releases of things you misquote and misuse'
Okay, so now Media Press releases were the jounalist/reports is saying something about "what is known" and SUmmary reports for politicians from a UN commite now qualifies as "Scientific research"?.
"If we don't listen to scientists and academics (those we call experts) who shall we listen too then? The man in the street?"
TO late, you believed everthing AL gore said before he said it
@TheRealArchAngel "TO late, you believed everthing AL gore said before he said it"
That's because it was said by scientists with lots of evidence to back them up.
I just suggest you read the press release. If you really want to understand the paper read it. I have it open on my computer right now. It says what the press release says. Theoretically possible, might not work in real world, most oil made from animals.
Again claiming up to 62 people as "2500 Scientists" wasn't even all Scientists...most of the people in there are Engineers,Economists,and political statigists
Only 14 of them had any Scientific credetials and only 4 could qualify to give a honest opinion on possible "AGW" and Roy Spenser,John Christy are 2 of them
And no Scientist would recomend Laws and taxes to solve the problem..even Hansen (number 3) doesn't think it would work(in hind sight)..anymore
97% of publishing scientists, 32 national scientific academies, all major scientific organizations.
Yes Hansen supports a carbon tax. Not his area of expertise. I prefer economists in that area. But he's right on AGW and feedbacks. He does believe a carbon tax would work but he may doubt politicians have the balls to act on solid evidence that requires real leadership.
I support a carbon tax myself. Cap and trade is a decent alternative.
After the US Novemenr 2007 cap and trade (biofuel inititive) causing the near collapse of the worl Economy almost a year later, the June 2009 Cap and trade caused the current world reccesion th politicians that were stupid enouh to enact such policies have been politically slaughted on the next voting cycle...namely the Democrats,namely the November 2010 election
Obam's "green jobs" promo last year in North Carolina is filing for Bankruptcy already
@TheRealArchAngel "After the US Novemenr 2007 cap and trade (biofuel inititive) causing the near collapse of the worl Economy almost a year later"
Ahhahahahahahahahahahah. Another idiotic zombie argument.
"Obam's "green jobs" promo last year in North Carolina is filing for Bankruptcy already"
One did, that will happen. In the meantime US solar energy sales grew by 67% in 2010. US solar industry in 2011 had nearly $1.9 billion in net exports, including a $247 million trade surplus with China.
"I support a carbon tax myself. Cap and trade is a decent alternative."
None of the carbon taxes in the US or abroad has slowed the warming,hasn't stopped the extended seasonal Ice melt at the poles,. hasn't kept the Polar bears from drowing(although they can swin up to 60 miles a day and swim 200 miles to migrate..them on a little ice is them resting)
Seriously,when has any government ever done anything right, cheaply or efficiently?
And the nothin you can tax to save climate is ridiculous
@TheRealArchAngel "None of the carbon taxes in the US or abroad has slowed the warming,hasn't stopped the extended seasonal Ice melt at the poles"
A. They aren't big enough.
B. There aren't enough of them.
C. Since there is already enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause warming for another few decades expecting warming to have stopped by now shows ignorance of the facts.
No,geeting off the grid and using solar panels is a real alternative
Riding a bike is a real alternative
Growing your own food is a real alternaative
Problem is that all the "wannabes" don't see the Irony in protesting "big Oil" with cardboard bonded with oil and ink made from oil before hopping in their car and driving to the Internet Cafe while twweting their next action on their Iphones (do you know how much coal and Oil this uses/is made of?)
@TheRealArchAngel "No,geeting off the grid and using solar panels is a real alternative. Riding a bike is a real alternative. Growing your own food is a real alternaative"
Yes they are and cap and trade or a carbon tax would make them more attractive alternatives. Market forces.
"cap and trade or a carbon tax would make them more attractive alternative"
No
Since all alternative energy sources requires oil and coal to create and run to some degree,all "Cap and trade" does is make it more expensive to switch to Alternative Energy cause the oil being used to create the plastic rubber and carbon fiber parts of windmills and the photoelectric cells of solar panels have gone up...not to mention transportation costs have gone up
"Yet here we have Russians and a Swede saying it"
Of course. Just like the politicians there are those that don't want to make waves by going against what people considerered "common knowledge"..especially in their own fields
Takes guts to say "There was a Big bang" amd Eienstien calling you an idiot (George Lemetre) cause "common knowledge" was Steady State Universe and "Common Knowledge" has Physists laughing at the "patent Clerk"(what could he know?) for 20 years til tests shut them up
@TheRealArchAngel "Of course. Just like the politicians there are those that don't want to make waves by going against what people considerered "common knowledge"..especially in their own fields"
Or maybe they are just speaking their minds and accepting how much and how little they know. Nice try. Everyone who agrees with you is speaking truth to power. Everyone who disagrees is just a "politician." Of course you can't find any scientists who agree with you so you pretend.
If it was even suspected that oil was abiotic and abundant then it would be like water...realtively worthless but used a lot
TO give oil a "commercial Value" Rockerfeller sent a bunch of his "experts" over to the Genieva convention to get oil classified as a "organic substance" &"finite resource" from "dead and decaying life"..thus the Myth was born and value was stuck on what is likely "premordial goop"
@TheRealArchAngel "If it was even suspected that oil was abiotic and abundant then it would be like water...realtively worthless but used a lot"
There you go again trying to make a theoretical possibility into something as common as water. You don't even have solid proof it can happen in the real world. And once again it's all a conspiracy. Of course similar forces (Kock brothers or Exxon for Rockerfeller) are not accepted as trying to confuse the science on AGW. You're blind to alternatives.
"Of course someone running umpteen myths and conspiracy theories "
Hey, Im not the one believing the up to 62 "experts" at the Un that despite close furnace firing,water filtration,chemical filtration,paper filtration,slectrostatic filtration and catalysts conversion coal plants still mak "BLack smokes full of CO2" like the the 50's
Nor is it me beliving Al gore that depite gas being manufactured with oxidation inhbitor and cars ECB&filters they make "20 gallons co2 from 1 gallon gas"
@TheRealArchAngel "Hey, Im not the one believing the up to 62 "experts"
I prefer the word of 97% of publishing climate scientists, 32 national science academies, and essentially every major scientific organization on the planet. Not quite sure which 62 you're referring to but they must be in there somewhere.
@TheRealArchAngel "Nor is it me beliving Al gore that depite gas being manufactured with oxidation inhbitor and cars ECB&filters they make "20 gallons co2 from 1 gallon gas"
What exactly do you mean by 20 gallons of CO2? At what pressure and temperature? It's a gas idiot. I could make it fill a 45 gallon drum or a football stadium if you like. The fact that the measure makes no sense should give you a hint that it isn't a real quote, but you're too thick for that.
"measure makes no sense should give you a hint that it isn't a real quote"
oh they put that bullshit in a other varient here
epa.(dot)ov/oms/climate/420f05001(dot)htm
That's right...currently the Right hand of Obama...the EPA says you can get 19 pounds of co2 from a gallon of gas and 22 pounds of co2 from a gallon of disel
Stange thisng is my Sister works in DC and lives in Baltimore and when her car gets gasometer it's more like 390 grams per gallon(hybreds to 166 grams per gallon)...oops
@TheRealArchAngel "oh they put that bullshit in a other varient here"
Actually that makes perfect sense. It's based on solid chemistry.
And as one of the companies that makes the emissions analyzers says, "High carbon dioxide (CO2) readings indicate a nearly ideal air-fuel ratio and efficient combustion." Maybe your sister should get her car fixed. A gallon of gas is a gallon of gas. Hybrids produce the same amount of CO2 from a gallon, the gallon just goes further.
"Actually that makes perfect sense. It's based on solid chemistry."
No,chemical theory
Get your "efficient engine"with no emmision controls,filters ruuning non treated to not oxidive gas(modern gasoline) in a container and see if it fills with co2
Cars waste almost all their energy as heat and are not "efficient" in combustion...not that co2 could spontaniously oxidize in in a low to no oxygen enviroment that is the piston where the spark makes a explosion,not "a burn"
@TheRealArchAngel "Get your "efficient engine"with no emmision controls,filters ruuning non treated to not oxidive gas(modern gasoline) in a container and see if it fills with co2"
Why do I have to? Scientists have been doing that for years and the results are always the same, they do.
"Why do I have to? Scientists have been doing that for years and the results are always the same, t"
If they actually did it then they cwould know the rea fills up with carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide
The grain of truth in the association is that before the IPCC 1994 report catalyst converters used to turn Carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide by chemical forcing as part of the filtration systems
Post 94 the caremelized unk is caught in the ECB before it has a chance to oxidize
@ (cont.) I can accept this as good evidence that abiotic oil is theoretically possible but note the researchers say the abstract, "There is widespread evidence that petroleum originates from biological processes." So I will accept I was wrong to say there is no evidence of abiotic oil. It is theoretically possible. However if you accept this as meaning the abiotic concept is being proven and/or the primary way oil is created, while rejecting AGW, you are being a hypocrite of the first order.
And what Ideas would that be tht I "haven't defended"?
If you mean core controled climate it was first proposed in 1915 by a Geophysists name I am not even going to try to spell and right now there is 2 scientists at Nasa working with 1 from France noticing tempature changes relative to earth spin speed
If you mean Abiotic Oil, it is only "new" to US geologists growing up with the Fossil fuel Coloring book based ib when surface oil was found with fossils
@TheRealArchAngel "And what Ideas would that be tht I "haven't defended"?"
Any of them, especially this core heating the earth thing. Now you've at least quoted some scientists although you've missed the point and conclusions of their work. I'll get to that later.
You haven't answered basic questions about you theory. Like why is there no heat dissipation signature from the fault lines? Why is does the temperature pattern match solar influence? Why isn't the bottom of the sea 15oC?
"Any of them, especially this core heating the earth thing"
It's not my theory, it's a Theory in Geophysics as is Abiotic Oil which is accepted everywhere else in the world but by US Geologist,not Geophysists,Geologists, not Geophysists, Geologists
"you've missed the point and conclusions of their workr"
Corrolation show a variance in earth spin and relative tempatue that is hidden within local tempatue variances and masked by the currently unusual spike in heat/co2 suspected to be from AGW?
@TheRealArchAngel "Abiotic Oil which is accepted everywhere else in the world but by US Geologist,not Geophysists,Geologists, not Geophysists, Geologists"
No scientific organization anywhere accepts abiotic oil theory. There are a few individuals who champion it but no one takes them seriously, especially oil companies.
@TheRealArchAngel "Corrolation show a variance in earth spin and relative tempatue that is hidden within local tempatue variances and masked by the currently unusual spike in heat/co2 suspected to be from AGW?"
So explain the unusual spike in heat?
And BTW you championed this research as looking at your point. Not only are they not looking at core warming but they found the human impact dwarfed the effect they think they've found. And to do the work they used the models you don't like.
"You haven't answered basic questions about you theory"
Agin,not my theories
Any field geologist will tell you there is no "fossil" below 16,000 feet while surface oil,now depleted is replaced with oil wells from 33,000 feet to up to 20 miles with a back end composition of sulfuer,bitumon,and trace metals(like a rock) impregnated with hydrocarbon liquids and gases
Tyndall's spectomary experiments on pure gases doesn't Apply to the Atmosphere and he even stated that in his conclusion on "GHGs"
Then you can't defend the theories you believe in. Which is likely worse.
"Any field geologist will tell you there is no "fossil" below 16,000 feet"
Any field geologist who said that would be making stuff up since no one has looked. Since we find fossils, ones laid down on a sea bottom, tens of thousands of feet above sea level it is very likely there are fossils in sedimentary rock 16,000 ft or deeper, why wouldn't there be?
"Then you can't defend the theories you believe in. Which is likely worse"
Belief is for religion..like the "CHurch of AGW",,"COnsenses" for for media pols
Just because the Media Frenzy,AL Gore and the UN?Liberal "Gospel" didn't preach anything to you other then "oil is evil","Capitalism is evil","cooporations is Evil",The US is Evil" and "Humans are Evil in causeing global warming" and having their version of "Science" doesn't mean i'm a"Denier'(AGW sinner) or"my"theories "don't exist"..lol
@TheRealArchAngel "Media Frenzy,AL Gore and the UN?" The statement was "you can't defend the theories you believe in." But you'd rather attack Al Gore than come up with a valid argument for your beliefs.
Interesting how Al "capitalism is evil" Gore turned out to be a good capitalist. And then got attacked for that.
@TheRealArchAngel "Tyndall's spectomary experiments on pure gases doesn't Apply to the Atmosphere and he even stated that in his conclusion on "GHGs"
He said due to spectral overlaps you can't just just apply his values to the total contribution of each gas to the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. However the properties of a gas in a tube is the same as a gas in the atmosphere. You misrepresent another scientists ideas.
He said that water vapor was the main holder of heat in the atmoomsphere and all other GHG's (especially co2) has jackshit to do with Air's maximum heat asorbtion threshold (110f minimum humidity,900f at 100% humidity)
"You misrepresent another scientists ideas."
No, Tyndall experiments led to meterology,and oceanagraphy understanding of heat exchange through water...co2 has jackshit to do with maximum heat asorbtion of air and it's Environuts misrepresenting his work
"Like why is there no heat dissipation signature from the fault lines?"
You mean v.s. up to 20 miles of ocean water bove it?
YOu would have to spot check the tempature otherwise it is disapated into the water and is taken up by the sea currents heading back down to the tropics
"is does the temperature pattern match solar influence?"
Daily local tempature is not" "climate"average tempature(15c)
"Why isn't the bottom of the sea 15oC?"
"climate" average(15c) isn't local daily tempature
@TheRealArchAngel "YOu would have to spot check the tempature otherwise it is disapated into the water and is taken up by the sea currents heading back down to the tropics"
So in other words you have no evidence that it is since you're saying there is no spot checks. However measurements of the ocean's temperature should show this pattern. In fact it would be visible to satellites.
The Wolrd "climate" is 15c,like it has been for the last 10,000 years
50,000 yewars ago it was 14c just warm enough to kill off the Wooly Mamath and cooler "climate" while what would become humans adapted by loosing their body hair
12c is the average "climate" of a world Ice age while 18c is the average "climate" os Interglaciation peak
The Dinosaurs lived in a "Climate" that was 22c
Regional/Local "CLiamate variability" can swing by 20f, either way
You - "The Wolrd "climate" is 15c,like it has been for the last 10,000 years"
That's not an answer. If the earth's core was the source of much of the earth's heat the ocean bottom would be warmer than the surface as it would enter there and dissipate upwards until it escaped into space. Why is the bottom of ocean so much colder than the temperature you say the earth's core keeps the planet at?
"Regional/Local "CLiamate variability" can swing by 20f, either way"
For instance the "Midevil warming period" was a local tempature variance not a global one
Likewise the "mini Ice Age" was a local tempature swing not a global one
More specifically when the Pilgrims landed the area was 2 degrees colder then usual making for a bitter winter and bad planting season while Greenland was "Green" during warmer lthen usual spike in tempature..both even though the Earth "climate" was still 15c average
@TheRealArchAngel But to do this they had to remove human influence. In the end one of them concludes, "The solid Earth plays a role, but the ultimate solution to addressing climate change remains in our hands," said Dickey.
Their names are Jean Dickey and Steven Marcus from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, along with Olivier de Viron, from the Universite Paris Diderot. Not that long really.
"But to do this they had to remove human influence. In the end one of them concludes,"
Suspected human influence
Your up to 62 experts posing as "2500 scientist" on a un Commitie saying it is highly likey that the unusual spike in tempature is human caused hasn't ruled out the local climate variabiliy or regional climate variability spikes similar to the "midevil warming" yet
"ultimate solution to addressing climate change remains in our hands"
"By the way, if this is an average, where are the hot ..."
the heat disapates driving the ocean conveyer and evaporation/percipitation cycle...it converts from heat energy to kinetic energy constantly and the "average" is the consant output measured overall,not how much might be at one spot
"Why do differences in temperature occur"
Hot air mixes with cold air and winds and evaporation.percipitation results
cold polar water vs tropics disapates heat as cuurent and starts bulk of evaporation
@TheRealArchAngel "the heat disapates driving the ocean conveyer and evaporation/percipitation cycle"
One is near the surface the other is in the atmosphere. If you are right we should be able to see the local pattern of warmer near the main hot spots and cooler further away. It is standard dissipation.
"Hot air mixes with cold air and winds and evaporation.percipitation results"
Explains sun based heating. Doesn't explain why poles are colder than 15c. Is the top of the earth's core cooler?
"If you are right we should be able to see the local pattern of warmer near the main hot spots and cooler further away. It is standard dissipation."
But your "experts" aren't looking for heat distribution, they are thumping on green house gas theory first then seeing the "proof" in the coorolation between tempature and Co2 as "proof" humans are responsible for spike in heat and co2 without measurring emmisions for the co2 gasing directly
@TheRealArchAngel "But your "experts" aren't looking for heat distribution, they are thumping on green house gas theory first then seeing the "proof" in the coorolation between tempature and Co2"
They take thousands measurements all over the oceans and on land. They can show you the heat distribution of the globe/air/water whatever you like. Heat distribution and patterns is something they are very interested in and they don't see what you imagine.
The Waters are Cooled top to bottom by the poles facing deep space as low as minus 4 degrees in the North pole and -22f in the anartic waters
"Is the top of the earth's core cooler?"
The surface water is super cooled by deep space, the warmer water at the floor drives back to the tropics where evaporation and warmer sea floor at eqquator drives it back to surface
@TheRealArchAngel "The Waters are Cooled top to bottom by the poles facing deep space"
So the parts that face the sun are warm and the parts that don't are cold and you claim the earth is warmed mainly by the core of the earth. My god you make no sense. Which journal of science is this theory registered in? Which scientists expound it? You still haven't produced a viable source that says what you do. Not even a nutty internet source. All you have is a book you think you remember reading.
They are the more recent Physists and geoPhysist studying that
Becquerel?Henri Becquerel?
it was in 1896ish that Radioactivity was discovered and with many of this radioactive materal being in the deep earth it was when the still relative Hotness of the earth vs estimated cooling from the so called "black body state" was estimated to be over 10 million years,not "6000"
That there was a potential 'heat engine" in Core led to "continentall drift" gaining some credit
The research was conducted by scientists at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory, with colleagues from Russia and Sweden, and is published in the July 26, advanced online issue of Nature Geoscience.
They basicdally showed that oil canbe forrmed from carbon deposits in deep earth and migrates up
To be,er,"diplomatic" (more like politically correct)they do say "besides the biological created oil"..lol
@TheRealArchAngel "Regional/Local "CLiamate variability" can swing by 20f, either way"
And your point is? I agree the MWP and LIA were likely regional phenomenon. How do you think this advances your case? However if you're trying to say there is a steady state global average you are obviously wrong. What is your data source?
@TheRealArchAngel "Geophysists name I am not even going to try to spell and right now there is 2 scientists at Nasa working with 1 from France noticing tempature changes relative to earth spin speed"
Exactly....spin not heat. Have you read what they say? You obviously haven't because if you did you would see they are not talking about your theory at all. The NASA/university team of researchers has linked Earth's rotation, surface air temperatures and the movement in its molten core.
@TheRealArchAngel That was the press release on the article you quoted which is funny and ironic. They did a study using computer models that shows it is theoretically possible for hydrocarbons to form deep in the earth. They used catalysts that may or may not be present in the crust. They still haven't explored if these products are
Roy Spencer is an unbiassed scientist. Pretty rare these days with all the IPCCs bought scientists and political propaganda.
1000frolly 1 week ago
"Since all alternative energy sources requires oil and coal to create and run to some degree,all "Cap and trade" does is make it more expensive"
Cap and trade doesn't effect manufacturing with oil, just burning it.
"It's why"Green Tech" is Bankupting lately"
You don't have Cap and Trade in the USA. In the USA green tech currently provides more jobs than the oil industry and is one of the few manufacturing sectors in the USA that has net exports to China.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
Journal editor resigns over 'fundamentally flawed' paper by Roy Spencer
Professor Wolfgang Wagner has stepped down as editor-in-chief of the journal Remote Sensing. The reason for his resignation was his journal's publishing of the paper On the misdiagnosis of surface temperature feedbacks from variations in Earth's radiant energy balance, by Roy Spencer and Danny Braswell. Wagner concluded the paper was "fundamentally flawed and therefore wrongly accepted by the journal".
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "THousands of them sued the IPCC and AL Gore for defamation of character and misrepresentation of thier opinions"
When and where? No such lawsuit exists. Just another myth you've bought into.
"founder of Weather Channel"
A TV weatherman, not a scientist. I love these guys who think they know more than experts in the field. Talk about arrogance.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"When and where? No such lawsuit exists. Just another myth you've bought into"
no, it was there, but it was as futle as it was pointless....never even made it to it's court date
"A TV weatherman, not a scientis"
Yeah,with a degree in Journalism
But then again AL gore and the IPCC won the "Peace Prize(a political diplomacy prize)", not the prize in Science,not the prize in Physics,not the Prize in Chemistry,not the Prize in Geophysics/geology
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "no, it (the law suit) was there, but it was as futle as it was pointless...."
Yes it was pointless.
Pointless would be the word, even if it had ever been filed. Of course filing the law suit would have required him to identify and confirm the "30,000 scientists," something he couldn't do because they don't exist..
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"Of course filing the law suit would have required him to identify and confirm the "30,000 scientists," something he couldn't do because they don't exist.."
Of course not
Scientists have better things to do then to get involved with legal and political squbles...especially after finding out the time they volunteered to IPCC to give a honest opinion was twisted for political reasons
In the End Junk Science is always weeded out in the Scientific Method..and the "grunts" got the weeding tools
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "In the End Junk Science is always weeded out in the Scientific Method..and the "grunts" got the weeding tools"
Which is what happened to abiotic oil and your ideas about heating the earth.
"Scientists have better things to do then to get involved with legal and political squbles"
Right, they're all mad as hell so they are going to sue, except they have better things to do. Ah ha ha. There never was a law suit.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"I love these guys who think they know more than experts in the field."
If they were in the field they would see it's the Ocean Conveyer and evaporation/percipitation cycle that distributes heat around the world
Instead they stay in their Universty Computer labs playing with glorified Sim Earth programs and believing in heat retaining and amplifying powers of magic gases
"Talk about arrogance"
Put a"COld front"in front of Irene and the Jersy ports are saved whiile the Media looks foolish
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "If they were in the field they would see it's the Ocean Conveyer and evaporation/percipitation cycle that distributes heat around the world"
That is of course true. However the total amount of heat/energy in the planetary system is not affected by these things.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"That is of course true. However the total amount of heat/energy in the planetary system is not affected by these things."
Of course not
They just transfer and distribute the heat,spending some of it to drive their motion
The core constantly reguilates "climate" while the sun regulates local daily tempature
Without those 2 heat sources there is no heat
YOu likewise can't get more heat out of them by having more trace gas
One of the heat sources is making more heat thus more heat in system
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
“The models and forecasts of the UN IPCC "are incorrect because they only are based on mathematical models and presented results at scenarios that do not include, for example, solar activity.” - Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, a researcher at the Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico
DJUNIT001 6 months ago
Paid for by Mobil-EXXON
Glennk1949 6 months ago
@Glennk1949
Where do you think funding comes from the IPCC? Government who need evidence so that they can raise taxes. "Green Energy" special interests that will profit from the global warming scare.
Allante715 5 months ago
@Allante715 The idea all governments of all stripes are out to raise a green tax is idiotic. You assume all governments every where (Republican, Democrat, Liberal, Conservative, Labour, Communist) all have a single agenda. If they did then we would have a climate agreement and be acting on this major issue right now. The fact is most governments are desperately trying not to act because it goes against short term interests. OTOH, Oil companies have a clear interest in keeping the carbon energy.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"Oil companies have a clear interest in keeping the carbon energy."
Actally the Governments own the oil while the companies known as "BIg Oil" drill and move oil at virtual gunpoint by contract for the governments
Why do you thinnk Obama could stop domestic drilling in the GUlf ? (US Feds owns all lands US Oil is on)
Meanwhile since Obama didn't need them anymore the BP Horizonwent to it's next contract for the Brizillian government
Oil companies "profit" 10 cents a gallon,Feds $980 a gallon
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
\/ Obviously, people with PHD's...
HaloLovingFanatic 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
‘This week, a study has shown that the devastating floods which damaged nearly 10,000 properties in England and Wales in 2000, and cost £1.3 billion in insurance losses, were made significantly more likely by climate change caused by humans…The bottom line of all this? Allen and his team found that human greenhouse gas emissions "significantly increased" the likelihood of the 2000 floods.’
w w w .newscientist. c o m/article/dn20141-blame-human-emissions-for-british-floods.html
blackadderthe4 11 months ago
@rugbygy59 I believe you are talking about the hypothesis that positive feedbacks are required to switch the climate-system between cold and warm states that are relatively stable (i.e. ice-ages and interglacials). As far as I am aware this is not supported by the necessary scientific evidence. Warmists claim that the forcing produced by the Milankovitch-cycle is too small to account for the temperature increases during interglacials and therefore logic follows feedbacks must have amplified it.
CHIPSTERO7 11 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Logic and empirical evidence. It well demonstrated that Milankovitch Cycles are not able to induce the amount of temperature changes needed for known swings. A cloud based negative feedback that overwhelms the influence of CO2 stops these changes. You should watch Richard Alley's lecture "The Biggest Control Knob: CO2 in Earth's Climate History." It's available on line.
rugbyguy59 11 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 A key logical problem with Spencer and Lindzen's proposals is that they run at odds with past climate. The climate change of the past began primarily with changes in the earth's orbit and rotation but the amount of change required net positive feedbacks to increase as they did. If there was this "get out of jail card" as they propose then we would not have seen those changes.
rugbyguy59 11 months ago
@rugbyguy59 The 150 W/sq.m is the calculated radiative forcing (RF) at the surface produced by the entire atmospheric greenhouse as derived from the Arrhenius law which states that the surface temperature of earth is 33C warmer than it otherwise would be without the greenhouse. The 150 W/sq.m gives us a linear relationship between RF and temperature of 1 W/sq.m = 0.22 degC. Thus Dessler's calculation of 0.74 W/sq.m gives us an approximate temperature increase of around 0.16 degC at the surface.
CHIPSTERO7 11 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 So it's a positive feedback. Not a get out of jail free card.
rugbyguy59 11 months ago
@rugbyguy59 "while the earth is spherical it is not flat black".
Did you read the entire page? Scroll down to the section "Temperature of the Earth".
CHIPSTERO7 11 months ago
@rugbyguy59 That is not what I am doing. These are approximations only. We can easily calculate a given irradiance-increment from a given temperature-increment by applying the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Wikipedia explains how you can do it here: ht tp://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law Hansen uses Planck's law which is more complicated and more accurate as it takes into account the different wavelengths of the radiation, but as I say though, I am only dealing with approximations.
CHIPSTERO7 11 months ago
@rugbyguy59 In the long-term, the net-effect of clouds must be negative otherwise the earth's temperatures would soar into a runaway-greenhouse. Another thing about the Dessler paper and which Spencer has pointed out is that he possibly misinterprets cause with effect. Because Dessler observed warm years with low-cloud cover he assumes that this is due to positive feedback. However, it is just as likely that the decreased cloud-cover was not a result of the warming, but initiated the warming.
CHIPSTERO7 11 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 The net effect of clouds don't have to be negative and even a large positive feedback doesn't mean runaway GW. Climate feedbacks are logarithmic. The first cycle is large, the second smaller, after a few feedback cycles they're inconsequential.
It's easy to just toss up an alternative scenario but to say it is just as likely you need to have some evidence. The evidence that CO2 is the primary cause of recent warming is massive but for decreased clouds starting it is non-existent.
rugbyguy59 11 months ago
@rugbyguy59 CO2 behaves logarithmically according to Beer-Lambert law but I have never heard of the feedbacks from clouds behaving logarithmically. If temperature increases cause increase evaporation rates which leads to increased humidity and less cloud-cover how can that possibly be logarithmic? If the net-effect of cloud cover (as well as water vapour) were both positive (in the long-term) then the earth would have unquestionably already experienced a runaway greenhouse effect based on water.
CHIPSTERO7 11 months ago
@rugbyguy59 To be fair to Spencer my summary of his argument was an oversimplification. But I agree with you, while his theory may be elegant, it is of course principally based on faith. Spencer has done a lot of damage to his reputation as a scientist by propounding Intelligent Design but that does nothing to refute his 'phase space analysis' of NASA satellite-data and his peer-reviewed evidence showing that clouds are a strong negative feedback, not positive, directly contradicting the models.
CHIPSTERO7 11 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 There is no well supported evidence that clouds have a strong negative feedback. Spencer and Lintzen have tried hard to make that one float but it doesn't pass. Lauer et al. (2010), Dessler (2010), Clement et al. (2009), Chang and Coakley (2007) and Eitzen et al. (2008) have all shown that, even while everyone admits there is more work to be done, clouds will produce positive or at the very most slightly negative feedbacks. Spencer's 2010 work is published but not well accepted.
rugbyguy59 11 months ago
@rugbygy59 Bad news, I'm afraid. Under the Stefan-Boltzmann law which states that the radiation of a body is proportional to the 4th-root power of its absolute temperature the 0.74 W/sq. m in Dessler's Paper (A Determination of the Cloud Feedback from Climate Variations) is only enough to give you around 0.16.5deg C warming at the surface and that's assuming that none of it is absorbed in the evaporation of seawater too. According to Dessler this positive feedback is also only short-term.
CHIPSTERO7 11 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Bad news for you I'm afraid. 1st You're making Mockton's S-B law error by calculating the Earth as a perfect black body. 2nd, as in all the papers, there's no evidence for Spencer's hypothesis. Dessler finds a pos short term feedback but a possible small negative feedback within the +/-. A large neg feedback a la Spencer is very unlikely. The other papers find that too. Dessler says models essentially agree with his findings. Models don't have large positive cloud feedback biases
rugbyguy59 11 months ago
@rugbyguy59 You say "You're making Mockton's S-B law error by calculating the earth as a perfect black body". Please elaborate. Why is the Stefan-Boltzmann equation inadequate for deriving the specific radiative forcing produced from a certain amount of warming? There is a fixed relationship between temperature and radiation intensity that is specified by the Stefan-Boltzmann law. I merely used that law to show how Dessler's equation implied a 0.16 degC temperature-increment to the surface.
CHIPSTERO7 11 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 As it says in wiki: "The law can be derived by considering a small flat black body surface radiating out into a half-sphere." while the earth is spherical it is not flat black. Real calculations are a bit more complex as S-B doesn't include the greenhouse effect.
You seem to make the stunning assumption that Dessler would not have thought of all this. Dunning-Kruger Effect?
rugbyguy59 11 months ago
@rugbyguy59 You are correct. The SB law does not include the atmospheric greenhouse. For that we have the Arrhenius equation of which the Stefan-Boltzmann law is derived. From the SB law we can calculate the amount of W/sq.m for the total atmospheric greenhouse at the surface as stated by the Arrhenius law and we get a figure of 150.35W/sq.m. Since I am working with approximations it does not seem worthwhile going to the great length of calculation that would be required to use Planck's law.
CHIPSTERO7 11 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 150W/sq.m? And yet Dessler says, "Over this period, the short-term cloud feedback had a magnitude of 0.54 - 0.74 (2s) watts per square meter per kelvin, meaning that it is likely positive." You seem to have calculated a rather massive positive feedback.
By the way, do you have a point with all this? The papers I cited all give a positive feedback. Not big ones, but there is a potential for larger positive feedbacks noted. Spencer's large negative feedback is increasingly unlikely.
rugbyguy59 11 months ago
.
@rugbyuy59 However whether Spencer is a proponent of Intelligent Design is irrelevant here and hardly nullifies his meteorological expertise. Spencer's evidence for PDO appears robust to my layman's eye. There's no doubt in my mind that the IPCC's (or Hansen's) self-referencing computerized models egregiously exaggerate positive feedback, mix up 'cause and effect' and have no empirical evidence to support their presuppositions. They are essentially self-conforming expressions of input dogma.
CHIPSTERO7 11 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 Your position is based on self conforming expressions of input dogma. You say Hansen and every other climate modeller is stupid or dishonest. They have intentionally or unwittingly produced models that are false and cannot understand or will not believe the work of the brave lone wolf scientist, Roy Spencer. And you base it all on the fact that it looks robust to your "layman's eye." Yawn.
I prefer the eyes of trained scientists. If Spencer can't convince them, he can't convince me.
rugbyguy59 11 months ago
@rugby59 You see, I have read Hansen's papers and he derives essentially all his claims from unverified and unverifiable data, projections and inscrutable model simulations presented as facts. Real science is about what is happening in the real-world, not about what is happening in the virtual reality of Hansen's computerized, self-referencing thought-system. I think Hansen's former boss at NASA summed up what the scientific-community think of Hansen when he described him as an "embarrassment".
CHIPSTERO7 11 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 I love the way contrarians laud the work of scientists with almost no support within the scientific community, then claim one of the most respected scientists in the field is seen as an embarrassment.
By the way Hansen's boss didn't say he was an embarrassment he said he had "embarrassed NASA" by saying he was muzzled. Considering the former boss came out as a denialist in the same press release he wouldn't be a good cite for understanding the thinking of the scientific community.
rugbyguy59 11 months ago
Look at the forest, not a single tree
Alexey N Dmitriev - "Strong evidence exists that these transformations are being caused by highly charged material & energetic non-uniformities in anisotropic interstellar space which have broken into the interplanetary area of our solar system. This 'donation' of energy is producing hybrid processes & excited energy states in all planets, as well as the sun."
>(dot) tmgnow(d)com/repository/global/planetophysical(d)html< for info on interstellar energy field
Cloudy2Clear 1 year ago
Did a bit more digging into Spencer's work. He is speaking about how energy moves about in the atmosphere. That's nice but it fails to address the real questions of where does the energy come from. If it was energy coming from the oceans the oceans would be cooling. They are warming. He also fails to account for how the energy gets into space. Energy in precipitation might move up in the atmosphere but that still leaves it in the atmosphere where GHGs trap it
He doesn't address energy balance
rugbyguy59 1 year ago
First, your title is wrong. The IPCC has no models. It does report on the many models developed by independent scientists.
Spencer's work suffers from several problems. The most basic is if there is some great temperature regulator in the sky then how did the climate change so much in the past? Spencer is welcome to his opinion but 97-98% of publishing climate scientists don't find his arguments convincing, but then he believes in intelligent design too.
rugbyguy59 1 year ago 2
@rugbyguy59 To me, Spencer's argument for Intelligent Design is elegant. His reasoning is as follows. The 1st law of thermodynamics states that energy can neither be created nor destroyed and the second law of thermodynamics says that energy is degrading which means the universe must have had a beginning. Therefore we are left with two options. Either the universe created itself out of nothing (which violates the 1st law of thermodynamics) or it was created by something greater than itself.
CHIPSTERO7 11 months ago
@CHIPSTERO7 And what created that universe creating something?
His "reasoning" is just more myth making. Taking something we don't yet understand and explaining it via a supernatural being. It's been done before and we always eventually eliminated the need for a god.
But even if it were true a universe creating god is totally unneeded to understand the formation of everything, including life, once the Big Bang has happened. There isn't anything intelligent about our design even it is amazing.
rugbyguy59 11 months ago
@rugbyguy59 Yes, precipitations "regulate" the climate, but do not change it. You are right. The temperature changes by solar cicles.
MGGoblin 11 months ago
@MGGoblin I'm really not sure what you're saying here. There are several things that can change climate. The sun obviously can have an effect but the regular 11 year cycles don't really have a big influence. When it comes to the recent warming (past 30 years) we know it isn't the sun. We have satellites monitoring it.
That leaves us with other types of climate forcing. In the end the only one that is changing in a way that causes warming and isn't a feedback is greenhouse gases, specifically CO2
rugbyguy59 11 months ago
@rugbyguy59 nice mirror; now probe it or its a load of horse manuer.
Sugardaddy501 10 months ago
@Sugardaddy501 Another mysterious use of the English language.
Are you saying there is another demonstrated forcing involved? If so what.
rugbyguy59 10 months ago
" the only one that is changing in a way that causes warming and isn't a feedback is greenhouse gases, specifically C2"
Yes
If you read out of your "bible" in Physics 101 in the Mathamatics building (cause it isn't a Applied Science,its a "imaginative" one) you will learn 18th century chemical Theory that was disproven in early 19th century but still "Preached"
It's only when you go to VUlcanology in the Science Building do you learn "Climate: is regulated by Earth's COre and not"magical"gas
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel If vulcanologists believe the greenhouse effect has been disproved they are deluded. It's bedrock science demonstrated not by mathematical theory but by empirical experiment.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"It's bedrock science "
There is no such thing,otherwise Eienstien couldn't have,uh,"corrected" Newton on various points and expand beyond what Newton established
Otherwiose Topographers would still map a flat earth with sea mosnters
Otherwise the moon would still be thought of as a captured sattilite or formed at same time with Earth
Otherwise Antropologists would still be saying humans came from apes instead of human ansetor is a Primate relative
Science progresses,it's never "settled"
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel Einstein's corrections don't negate Newton. They used Newton's equations to send the Apollo missions to the moon. Einstein refined Newton. Flat earth is not science. The origins of the moon was not backed up by large quantities of data. Darwin said humans and apes had a common ancestor.
Once a theory is supported by masses of evidence it takes extraordinary evidence to overturn it. Since all major scientific bodies now accept AGW what is your extraordinary evidence?
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
Once a theory is supported by masses of evidence it takes extraordinary evidence to overturn it. Since all major scientific bodies now accept AGW what is your extraordinary evidence?
It's called the "A-train" and it is gathering the data to Test the "Accepted" opinon of consenses and Hypothises Predicted that now has gone to the verification and testing phase
Of course this is all moot for the UN as Obama gave the Enviromental policy powers to the World Bank and not them at Copenhagen
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "It's called the "A-train" and it is gathering the data to Test the "Accepted" opinon of consenses"
Actually it isn't testing that at all. That would be a waste of money as it has been confirmed over and over. Instead it's purpose is to refine our understanding of carbon sinks and sources, as it says at Geology(dot)com it will reveal" new information on how CO2, which directly contributes to climate change, is distributed in Earth's atmosphere and moves around our world."
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"Actually it isn't testing that at all. That would be a waste of money as it has been confirmed over and over"
No,it hasn't..people like you following what the Media,talking heads,Al Gore,and the IPCC beuaracy says are saying that
The Original Summary that the Scientists sign isn't the one that was added to and manipulated to the UN's Political agenda later..much to the displeasure of the scientists that protested and demanded their names be removed from the Summary reports(which IPCC didn't)
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
" Instead it's purpose is to refine our understanding of carbon sinks and sources, as it says at Geology(dot)com it will reveal" new information on how CO2, which directly contributes to climate change, is distributed in Earth's atmosphere and moves around our world."
RIght "impact studies"
COuldn't very well say the "Grunts" wanted to provide a field verification for a second opinion..wouldn't have gotten funding to do the experiments in a turned very political matter then...would we?
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "RIght "impact studies"
After you've proved something is happening, impact studies would be the next logical step. But logic is foreign to you I see.
Most of the "Grunts" are on salary.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"studies would be the next logical step"
and the people cheer...until they realize it was 95% lip service and what few things that were done was either underfunded or is now being defunded
"But logic is foreign to you I see."
Geograghy is different from Geology
"Most of the "Grunts" are on salary"
Prefer Military funding myself..less hassle,also little questioning..especally by politicians that know jackshit about what you doing
Downside is they'll try to weaponize your research/discoveries
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
"Since all major scientific bodies now accept AGW "
Really?
Now board of Directors of various scientific organizations voicing their opinion on AL Gores movie about IPCC summary report is "Major Scientific bodies accept AGW"?
A lot of the Scientist on IPCC filed complaints for the dubious sign off they were made to do, their opinions misrepresented,and a lot of their work that would contradict the IPCC's political objectives being ommited
Roy Spencer is one of your "experts" you thump on
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel Al Gore's movie has nothing to do with it. The bodies have said the concur with the findings of the IPCC. 97% of publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC. 2% aren't sure. 1% disagree. The 1% would include Spencer whose work simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. He produces no evidence that passes examination.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"Al Gore's movie has nothing to do with it. "
Without AL Gores movie milion of gradeshhcool children wouldn't had to bear being brainwashed by liberal environut teachers and the thing wouldn't have won the Acadmy award and Peace prize bringing global warming to media mention every 20 minutes until the" Economic Crises" upsurped it from common media zombified consiousness in October 2008
" 97% of publishing climate scientists agree with the IPCC."
Again,they were tricked for their signatures
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Again,they were tricked for their signatures"
again they say this after the report came out and still do.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"they say this after the report came out and still do."
but IPCC's Epic Fail was that these same Scientist sit on the same commities that advise their COuntries Politicans and t was only to easy for them to clarify to their politicians that they were misrepresented and their real opinons and rpresent their real reaserch and opinions on the matter as a second opinon AGAINST IPCC
Result was that UN didn't get taxing powers and those still foolish enough to regulate Economies suffered
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Result was that UN didn't get taxing powers"
The UN never asked for taxing power.
I'm afraid the scientists do not say they are misrepresented. Those on the IPCC spoke truth to power and the politicians for political reasons chose not to listen, or like Inhofe, listen to the denierss who have no proof.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"1% disagree. The 1% would include Spencer whose work simply doesn't stand up to scrutiny. He produces no evidence that passes examination"
YOu might want to check that list of IPPC Scientist you keep thumping on..Spencer is there as one of the Scientists that signed the IPPC SUmmary before it was changed and manipulated to reflect the UN's political objectives
Not that any of this even mattes anymorer as COnrgress told AL Gore to fuck off..twice, and Obama told UN to fuck off at COpenhagen
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRealArchAngel "Spencer is there as one of the Scientists that signed the IPPC SUmmary before it was changed and manipulated to reflect the UN's political objectives"
That's what he claims. Of course his own work is so pathetic and riddled with error that no one takes him seriously anymore. Massive error on his satellite data and then refused to recheck his results.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"demonstrated not by mathematical theory but by empirical experiment"
First Beliveing that Humans are making Co2 and that Co2 is causing global warming THEN going to look for CO2 rise to blame on humans(and finding it) is Ass backwards Environutism at worst and junk Science at best
Just as bad as the Catholic Priest beliivng in "Big Bang" (creation) and using only the "redshift" Hubble spotted as "Proof"
Science is about trying to disprove a hypothises,not looking for "proof" on a belief
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
"not by mathematical theory but by empirical experiment"
Belieing "oil is evil" and "Big oil is Evil" then looking for evidence by coorolations then having a opinion of consensus that was drafted 3 months before any of the "experts" even looked at it let alone signed off of it is as hokey as the Opinion of COnsensus that the KT metoer killed off the Dinosaurs 65 million years ago when any field Paleotologist will tell you the Dinosaurs were extict 10,000 years before the KT boundry(duh)
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Belieing "oil is evil" and "Big oil is Evil" then looking for evidence by coorolations then having a opinion of consensus"
The basic physics of the greenhouse effect was established long before there was a "big oil." Do you have any ideas that aren't based on scientists are stupid and or corrupt?
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"Do you have any ideas that aren't based on scientists are stupid and or corrupt?"
The Scientists aren't stupid
The Scientists aren't corrupt
IMedia,AL Gore, and the Enviromental activist are puting words in their mouth,claiming things they didn't claim and trying to convince everyone "the Science is settle..now lets taxc the fuck out of everything"
"The basic physics of the greenhouse effect "
Isn't testible in a lab,isn't testable in a field test
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "The Scientists aren't stupid. The Scientists aren't corrupt"
Then you should stop calling their disciplines faked and claiming even their basic textbooks ar wrong and that they are too stupid to notice or too happy with life as it is to mention it"
I listen to the scientists. Al Gore's movie was old hat for anyone who had been following the issue. Nothing new there.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"Then you should stop calling their disciplines faked "
No, I said that they are Thinkers and Calculaters and Imaginers that like to pull ideas out of their ass
Nothing wrong with that but I prefer the applied sciences and hands on testing of those ideas,theories,and
"I listen to the scientists"
No you listen to what the media and Environut talking heads say Al gore says the IPCC says they say or you would know they never said anthing close to what you are saying they are saying
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Nothing wrong with that but I prefer the applied sciences and hands on testing of those ideas,theories"
Strange then that you ignore all the real world testing that has gone on.
"No you listen to what the media and Environut talking heads say Al gore"
Hansen, NASA, NOAA, NSIDC, Nature, Real Climate, Open Mind, Chris Colose, numerous others. The media is doesn't really understand the issue. I knew everything in Al Gore's movie before it came out.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"Strange then that you ignore all the real world testing that has gone on."
Computer simulations for the next 1000 years isn't "real world testing:...it's part of the prediction phase in the Scientific Method
The Consensus of opinion.for all it IS worth,established the Hypothises to be tested..it didn't bring forth a verifiable,tesifble and fasifiable conclusion
"The media is doesn't really understand the issue."
But they are responsible for the hyped "armegedon" version that is mocked now
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Computer simulations for the next 1000 years isn't "real world testing:...it's part of the prediction phase in the Scientific Method"
I'm not talking about the computer simulations. I'm talking about direct measurements of energy in and out, the effects of the various GHGs, global avg. temperature rising, the other possible contributors or causes of warming, etc.
The consensus was built on the real evidence not a hypothesis. And as the studies have shown the consensus builds.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"I'm not talking about the computer simulations. I'm talking about direct measurements of energy in and out"
Most of that is still speculative relative to what they are seeing vs what they think is happening
The data sets are to small and limited to acurately predict what is going to happen based on observable tempature and co2 history vs Proxy (which seems to be way off which is why scientist are slowly not using proxy and using more real world data as it come fore availible)
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "The data sets are to small and limited to acurately predict what is going to happen based on observable tempature and co2 history"
Strange, the real world evidence is giving statistically significant results that say you're wrong. Of course I doubt you've looked at real science. Too busy on conspiracy theories and pseudo-science about earth core heat sources and magical oil.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"Strange, the real world evidence is giving statistically significant results that say you're wrong"
so far you showed me a sattilite data with natural co2 cycles spiking between low 300ppm and 600ppm in summer near equattor
Show me a Sattilite Image that places co2 concentration over a city during traffic hours or business hours of factories
Neiither the sattile data you refered be to,nor Ibuki,nor CanX-2 has captured the "smoking gun"...yet
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
"you're wrong"
I can admit I am wrong when you show me the 2 tank experiment where the 900ppm tank is asorbing more heat from the 140f light source then the 390ppm tank
The popular test of pure co2 vs air is bogus as pure co2 can asorb 95f from a 140f lamp while air with average humidity will asorb abot 90f
"Too busy on conspiracy theories"
not me saying "Big Oil" have money to buy off politicans and smear scientists
"pseudo-science."
GHGs and Comic rays from clouds is the pseudo-science
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
Physicists Jean Dickey and Steven Marcus of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in Pasadena, Calif. and geophysicist Olivier de Viron of the Institute of Planetary Physics in Paris will be happy to know you mock thier research in the Journal of Climate that shows a relation betwen daily spin,relative tempature and lon term climate change (I did mention COre dynamics is primarily a Geophysics?
Abiotic oil Theory is accepted by non US geologists simply cause there is too much oil vs past life
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
"magical oil"
Modern Abiotic oil thoery was proposed by Russian geologist Nikolai Alexandrovitch Kudryavtsev back in 1951 because the Athabasca Tar Sands in Alberta, Canada he examined has about 1.7 trillion barrels of oil in them (you need life on every inch of earth and 100 miles high going extinct every day for 10 years just for what we pump out of the ground daily((57-83 million barrels depending who you ask) and life needed to account for 1.7 trillion in one spot be rediculous to figure
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Modern Abiotic oil thoery was proposed by Russian geologist Nikolai Alexandrovitch Kudryavtsev"
And who cares since it has been debunked repeatedly.
"(you need life on every inch of earth and 100 miles high going extinct every day for 10 years just for what we pump out of the ground daily"
I think you're wrong but I can't tell because you write so poorly it is unreadable. Did they let you graduate high school?
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"And who cares since it has been debunked repeatedly"
Really?
Then why is oil found in certain geological formations instead of everywhere life existed..most notiable the sea floor who also has pockets of oil with same geographical formations vs everywhere under the sediment
"can't tell because you write so poorly it is unreadable."
The writen word was never my strong suit....beter face to face
"Did they let you graduate high school?"
3.5gpa highschool,AA/AS/BA from collage at 3.0gpa
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Then why is oil found in certain geological formations instead of everywhere life existed.."
Because oil can only be produced in certain geological formations. Organic material rots and disappears if not trapped under the right circumstances.
That wonderment does not provide any evidence of abiotic oil. Your main proof seems to be, "well you can't prove this so it must be that." Sorry you need evidence.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"magical oil."
the real "magic" is believing that Oil comes from plants when they are specifically found at ancient volcanic activity,active volcanic activity,and on plate tectonic slide,tear or colliision points in specific type of rock formations tht is trackable by magnetic field sensing by geologists
Main reson Environuts protest abiotic theory is because they think it will validate still burning oil
It won't, It's more expensive to get deep oil and turning it into gas to burn is stupid
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "the real "magic" is believing that Oil comes from plants when they are specifically found at ancient volcanic activity"
I believe you meant in sedimentary rock usually where there was an ancient sea.
"Main reson Environuts protest abiotic theory is because they think it will validate still burning oil"
What a stupid argument. Burning oil (and the other fossil fuels) is invalidated by the fact it endangers civilization as we know it. How it's made has nothing to do with it.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"Burning oil (and the other fossil fuels) is invalidated by the fact it endangers civilization as we know it."
That is the "Consiracy" in the "Oil Age"
Using 90& of the oil drilled for dailiy to power combustion engines is stupitd and wasteful but NOTHING can be made without Oil/Coal..not even the Windmills that need oil for their carbon fiber ,siilicone,snthetic rubber and plastic parts and coal,natural gas,coke or petro coke to melt the metal and run the machines to make the metal parts:
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
"I believe you meant in sedimentary rock usually where there was an ancient sea."
20 miles down in solid bedrock in tiger fields in Thailand a "ancient ocean",...really?
The oils zones in the gulf of mexico that has rifting and subduction pooints going on a "ancient Ocean"?(it was dry land in the age of Pangea) The Saudi Arabian fields around the Plate collition/churning points being part of a "ancient sea bed"?(red sea and persian gul marks lowest points,with red se "recent flooding")
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel Petroleum samples from the White Tiger oilfield contain biomarkers which "indicate a lacustrine organic facies with lipid-rich, land-plant debris and fresh-water algal material," which indicate that it is of biological origin. It comes from the sandstone sitting around the granite.
Saudi Arabia sedimentary rock is where you get the oil.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"It won't, It's more expensive to get deep oil and turning it into gas to burn is stupid"
The light sweet stuff best used for making gasoline,jet fuel,and disel is coming rarer and harder to find..or in the cade of domestic US, is currently banned from beng drilled in US meaning US is more dependendt on MIdleeast for it's light sweet fix
Dee[ oil has more "aromics" and makes shitty fuel even with expensive refining and the tar sands will be as bad for gas but great for plastics,rubber,tar,coke
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "The light sweet stuff best used for making gasoline,jet fuel,and disel is coming rarer and harder to find..or in the cade of domestic US, is currently banned from beng drilled in US"
You do realize oil exploration in the US has expanded dramatically under Obama. No didn't think you did.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"You do realize oil exploration in the US has expanded dramatically under Obama."
Shh. dont tip off the environuts
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
"magical oil."
Cars don't need to run on the 200 year old combustion engine,they can run on presurized air
Or how about thse Paddle cars of the 70's (where did those go?)
I'm weary of "Electric cars" as battteries store energy,they don't create it and the GM volt needs to be plugged into the Socket..how is that power made?
point is People have to choose to buy something like a electric car, government can't just declare it
Gee $65,000 electric that gets 35 miles a charge or $7000 gas at 60mpg?
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel Cars and pressurized air, paddle wheel cars, electric cars, yadda yadda. trying to switch the topic? Of course someone running umpteen myths and conspiracy theories would ultimately need to. You sure can't defend your own ideas.
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"electric cars, yadda yadda. trying to switch the topic"
No, Turning oil into gas nas burning it is stupid and wasteful,but the only thing more stupid is the GM Volt withit's battery array that needs to be replaced every 50,000 miles putting that much more waste into the enviroment if not properly recycled PLUS most people plugging in will be pulling power from a Coal powered Electric plant
It takes 12 Killowats to to recharge the battery that give you 35 miles a charge
Thats $5 where I live
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "PLUS most people plugging in will be pulling power from a Coal powered Electric plant"
Still a good thing. US DoE says an electric fleet equalling 84% of all existing US trucks and cars could be powered off the spinning reserve of existing power plants. With smart grids the electricity in batteries can be used to get over peak demand as well. Would lower electric prices by allowing the sale of power made now but wasted.
Can you fill your car for $35 dollars? Electric cheaper.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"With smart grids "
You do understand that if the govern,ment feels you are using to much power they'll pull you plug?
"Would lower electric prices by allowing the sale of power made now but wasted."
You mean like on Earth day whenthe Coal plants still burn 30 tons of coal that hour so you can flip on your lights after your feel good gesture?
I've seen the local Co-Op powers in local business..they pay electric plus Co-op (2 bills intead of 1) and it isn't cheaper,it's more expensive
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
"Can you fill your car for $35 dollars? Electric cheaper."
I have a 2002 Chevey Alalanche with Califonia Emmision standards
Sttock is 15mpg,but I get 20mpg-140mpg mith the injection modification and depending on what kind of fuel blend I run her on
$35 of Gasoline(rollseyes) would give me about 7 gallons right now and hit twoards the low end of the milage range (15mpg-20mpg) and will get me 105-140 miles on gas v.s. 35 miles in a GM Volt(smirk)
With the "breather" installedI can double that
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRealArchAngel "$35 of Gasoline(rollseyes) would give me about 7 gallons right now and hit twoards the low end of the milage range (15mpg-20mpg) and will get me 105-140 miles on gas v.s. 35 miles in a GM Volt(smirk)"
You said you'd have to pay $5 for the 35 miles (one charge). That means for $35 the Volt gets 245 miles. much better than your car. Maybe math isn't your strong suit either.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Hydrocarbons In The Deep Earth? They basicdally showed that oil canbe forrmed from carbon deposits in deep earth and migrates up"
Why you can't be trusted - From the Carnegie Press release: The oil and gas that fuels our homes and cars started out as living organisms that died, were compressed, and heated..... Scientists have debated for years whether some of these hydrocarbons could also have been created deeper in the Earth and formed without organic matter.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"Why you can't be trusted - From the Carnegie Press release: The oil and gas that fuels our homes and cars started out as living organisms that died, were compressed, and heated"
You leave out "Scientists believe"& "Iwidley excepted(by Us Academics)" from the sentence to make it "a fact" and not a Brelief/Hypothises mostly US university Geologist preach and "I cant be trusted?
"Scientists have debated "
Debate isn't Science and Rockerfeller;s 1892 ploy classifying oil "orgnic: isn't either
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel ""Scientists believe"& "Iwidley excepted(by Us Academics)" from the sentence to make it "a fact" and not a Brelief/Hypothises mostly US university Geologist preach and "I cant be trusted?"
Yet here we have Russians and a Swede saying it. No you can't be trusted because you don't even read the press releases of things you misquote and misuse.
If we don't listen to scientists and academics (those we call experts) who shall we listen too then? The man in the street?
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"No you can't be trusted because you don't even read the press releases of things you misquote and misuse'
Okay, so now Media Press releases were the jounalist/reports is saying something about "what is known" and SUmmary reports for politicians from a UN commite now qualifies as "Scientific research"?.
"If we don't listen to scientists and academics (those we call experts) who shall we listen too then? The man in the street?"
TO late, you believed everthing AL gore said before he said it
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "TO late, you believed everthing AL gore said before he said it"
That's because it was said by scientists with lots of evidence to back them up.
I just suggest you read the press release. If you really want to understand the paper read it. I have it open on my computer right now. It says what the press release says. Theoretically possible, might not work in real world, most oil made from animals.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"If we don't listen to scientists"
Again claiming up to 62 people as "2500 Scientists" wasn't even all Scientists...most of the people in there are Engineers,Economists,and political statigists
Only 14 of them had any Scientific credetials and only 4 could qualify to give a honest opinion on possible "AGW" and Roy Spenser,John Christy are 2 of them
And no Scientist would recomend Laws and taxes to solve the problem..even Hansen (number 3) doesn't think it would work(in hind sight)..anymore
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Again claiming up to 62 people"
97% of publishing scientists, 32 national scientific academies, all major scientific organizations.
Yes Hansen supports a carbon tax. Not his area of expertise. I prefer economists in that area. But he's right on AGW and feedbacks. He does believe a carbon tax would work but he may doubt politicians have the balls to act on solid evidence that requires real leadership.
I support a carbon tax myself. Cap and trade is a decent alternative.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"Yes Hansen supports a carbon tax."
After the US Novemenr 2007 cap and trade (biofuel inititive) causing the near collapse of the worl Economy almost a year later, the June 2009 Cap and trade caused the current world reccesion th politicians that were stupid enouh to enact such policies have been politically slaughted on the next voting cycle...namely the Democrats,namely the November 2010 election
Obam's "green jobs" promo last year in North Carolina is filing for Bankruptcy already
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "After the US Novemenr 2007 cap and trade (biofuel inititive) causing the near collapse of the worl Economy almost a year later"
Ahhahahahahahahahahahah. Another idiotic zombie argument.
"Obam's "green jobs" promo last year in North Carolina is filing for Bankruptcy already"
One did, that will happen. In the meantime US solar energy sales grew by 67% in 2010. US solar industry in 2011 had nearly $1.9 billion in net exports, including a $247 million trade surplus with China.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"I support a carbon tax myself. Cap and trade is a decent alternative."
None of the carbon taxes in the US or abroad has slowed the warming,hasn't stopped the extended seasonal Ice melt at the poles,. hasn't kept the Polar bears from drowing(although they can swin up to 60 miles a day and swim 200 miles to migrate..them on a little ice is them resting)
Seriously,when has any government ever done anything right, cheaply or efficiently?
And the nothin you can tax to save climate is ridiculous
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "None of the carbon taxes in the US or abroad has slowed the warming,hasn't stopped the extended seasonal Ice melt at the poles"
A. They aren't big enough.
B. There aren't enough of them.
C. Since there is already enough CO2 in the atmosphere to cause warming for another few decades expecting warming to have stopped by now shows ignorance of the facts.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
" Cap and trade is a decent alternative"
No,geeting off the grid and using solar panels is a real alternative
Riding a bike is a real alternative
Growing your own food is a real alternaative
Problem is that all the "wannabes" don't see the Irony in protesting "big Oil" with cardboard bonded with oil and ink made from oil before hopping in their car and driving to the Internet Cafe while twweting their next action on their Iphones (do you know how much coal and Oil this uses/is made of?)
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "No,geeting off the grid and using solar panels is a real alternative. Riding a bike is a real alternative. Growing your own food is a real alternaative"
Yes they are and cap and trade or a carbon tax would make them more attractive alternatives. Market forces.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"cap and trade or a carbon tax would make them more attractive alternative"
No
Since all alternative energy sources requires oil and coal to create and run to some degree,all "Cap and trade" does is make it more expensive to switch to Alternative Energy cause the oil being used to create the plastic rubber and carbon fiber parts of windmills and the photoelectric cells of solar panels have gone up...not to mention transportation costs have gone up
It's why"Green Tech" is Bankupting lately
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
"97% of publishing scientists"
tso 1 of 4 scientists on IPCC is "wishy washy"?
"32 national scientific academies"
The Board of Directors making a PR statement about Al Gores movie doesn't represent their individual members opinions
,"ll major scientific organizations."
Board of directors doing a PR on IPCC summary does not represent their individual members
"right on AGW and feedbacks"
No he believed in "AGW" and "feedbacks"first and found "evidence"in dataa via coorolation to match 2nd
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRealArchAngel "so 1 of 4 scientists on IPCC is "wishy washy"?"
Which branch of mathematics calculates 1 in 4 as equalling 97%?
"The Board of Directors making a PR statement about Al Gores movie"
That might make some sense if they mentioned Al Gore's movie.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"Yet here we have Russians and a Swede saying it"
Of course. Just like the politicians there are those that don't want to make waves by going against what people considerered "common knowledge"..especially in their own fields
Takes guts to say "There was a Big bang" amd Eienstien calling you an idiot (George Lemetre) cause "common knowledge" was Steady State Universe and "Common Knowledge" has Physists laughing at the "patent Clerk"(what could he know?) for 20 years til tests shut them up
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Of course. Just like the politicians there are those that don't want to make waves by going against what people considerered "common knowledge"..especially in their own fields"
Or maybe they are just speaking their minds and accepting how much and how little they know. Nice try. Everyone who agrees with you is speaking truth to power. Everyone who disagrees is just a "politician." Of course you can't find any scientists who agree with you so you pretend.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"Debate isn't Science and Rockerfeller;s 1892 ploy classifying oil "orgnic: isn't either"
If it was even suspected that oil was abiotic and abundant then it would be like water...realtively worthless but used a lot
TO give oil a "commercial Value" Rockerfeller sent a bunch of his "experts" over to the Genieva convention to get oil classified as a "organic substance" &"finite resource" from "dead and decaying life"..thus the Myth was born and value was stuck on what is likely "premordial goop"
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "If it was even suspected that oil was abiotic and abundant then it would be like water...realtively worthless but used a lot"
There you go again trying to make a theoretical possibility into something as common as water. You don't even have solid proof it can happen in the real world. And once again it's all a conspiracy. Of course similar forces (Kock brothers or Exxon for Rockerfeller) are not accepted as trying to confuse the science on AGW. You're blind to alternatives.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"Of course someone running umpteen myths and conspiracy theories "
Hey, Im not the one believing the up to 62 "experts" at the Un that despite close furnace firing,water filtration,chemical filtration,paper filtration,slectrostatic filtration and catalysts conversion coal plants still mak "BLack smokes full of CO2" like the the 50's
Nor is it me beliving Al gore that depite gas being manufactured with oxidation inhbitor and cars ECB&filters they make "20 gallons co2 from 1 gallon gas"
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Hey, Im not the one believing the up to 62 "experts"
I prefer the word of 97% of publishing climate scientists, 32 national science academies, and essentially every major scientific organization on the planet. Not quite sure which 62 you're referring to but they must be in there somewhere.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Nor is it me beliving Al gore that depite gas being manufactured with oxidation inhbitor and cars ECB&filters they make "20 gallons co2 from 1 gallon gas"
What exactly do you mean by 20 gallons of CO2? At what pressure and temperature? It's a gas idiot. I could make it fill a 45 gallon drum or a football stadium if you like. The fact that the measure makes no sense should give you a hint that it isn't a real quote, but you're too thick for that.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"measure makes no sense should give you a hint that it isn't a real quote"
oh they put that bullshit in a other varient here
epa.(dot)ov/oms/climate/420f05001(dot)htm
That's right...currently the Right hand of Obama...the EPA says you can get 19 pounds of co2 from a gallon of gas and 22 pounds of co2 from a gallon of disel
Stange thisng is my Sister works in DC and lives in Baltimore and when her car gets gasometer it's more like 390 grams per gallon(hybreds to 166 grams per gallon)...oops
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "oh they put that bullshit in a other varient here"
Actually that makes perfect sense. It's based on solid chemistry.
And as one of the companies that makes the emissions analyzers says, "High carbon dioxide (CO2) readings indicate a nearly ideal air-fuel ratio and efficient combustion." Maybe your sister should get her car fixed. A gallon of gas is a gallon of gas. Hybrids produce the same amount of CO2 from a gallon, the gallon just goes further.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"Actually that makes perfect sense. It's based on solid chemistry."
No,chemical theory
Get your "efficient engine"with no emmision controls,filters ruuning non treated to not oxidive gas(modern gasoline) in a container and see if it fills with co2
Cars waste almost all their energy as heat and are not "efficient" in combustion...not that co2 could spontaniously oxidize in in a low to no oxygen enviroment that is the piston where the spark makes a explosion,not "a burn"
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Get your "efficient engine"with no emmision controls,filters ruuning non treated to not oxidive gas(modern gasoline) in a container and see if it fills with co2"
Why do I have to? Scientists have been doing that for years and the results are always the same, they do.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Why do I have to? Scientists have been doing that for years and the results are always the same, t"
If they actually did it then they cwould know the rea fills up with carbon monoxide, not carbon dioxide
The grain of truth in the association is that before the IPCC 1994 report catalyst converters used to turn Carbon monoxide to carbon dioxide by chemical forcing as part of the filtration systems
Post 94 the caremelized unk is caught in the ECB before it has a chance to oxidize
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@ (cont.) I can accept this as good evidence that abiotic oil is theoretically possible but note the researchers say the abstract, "There is widespread evidence that petroleum originates from biological processes." So I will accept I was wrong to say there is no evidence of abiotic oil. It is theoretically possible. However if you accept this as meaning the abiotic concept is being proven and/or the primary way oil is created, while rejecting AGW, you are being a hypocrite of the first order.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"You sure can't defend your own ideas"
And what Ideas would that be tht I "haven't defended"?
If you mean core controled climate it was first proposed in 1915 by a Geophysists name I am not even going to try to spell and right now there is 2 scientists at Nasa working with 1 from France noticing tempature changes relative to earth spin speed
If you mean Abiotic Oil, it is only "new" to US geologists growing up with the Fossil fuel Coloring book based ib when surface oil was found with fossils
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "And what Ideas would that be tht I "haven't defended"?"
Any of them, especially this core heating the earth thing. Now you've at least quoted some scientists although you've missed the point and conclusions of their work. I'll get to that later.
You haven't answered basic questions about you theory. Like why is there no heat dissipation signature from the fault lines? Why is does the temperature pattern match solar influence? Why isn't the bottom of the sea 15oC?
rugbyguy59 5 months ago
"Any of them, especially this core heating the earth thing"
It's not my theory, it's a Theory in Geophysics as is Abiotic Oil which is accepted everywhere else in the world but by US Geologist,not Geophysists,Geologists, not Geophysists, Geologists
"you've missed the point and conclusions of their workr"
Corrolation show a variance in earth spin and relative tempatue that is hidden within local tempatue variances and masked by the currently unusual spike in heat/co2 suspected to be from AGW?
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Abiotic Oil which is accepted everywhere else in the world but by US Geologist,not Geophysists,Geologists, not Geophysists, Geologists"
No scientific organization anywhere accepts abiotic oil theory. There are a few individuals who champion it but no one takes them seriously, especially oil companies.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Corrolation show a variance in earth spin and relative tempatue that is hidden within local tempatue variances and masked by the currently unusual spike in heat/co2 suspected to be from AGW?"
So explain the unusual spike in heat?
And BTW you championed this research as looking at your point. Not only are they not looking at core warming but they found the human impact dwarfed the effect they think they've found. And to do the work they used the models you don't like.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"You haven't answered basic questions about you theory"
Agin,not my theories
Any field geologist will tell you there is no "fossil" below 16,000 feet while surface oil,now depleted is replaced with oil wells from 33,000 feet to up to 20 miles with a back end composition of sulfuer,bitumon,and trace metals(like a rock) impregnated with hydrocarbon liquids and gases
Tyndall's spectomary experiments on pure gases doesn't Apply to the Atmosphere and he even stated that in his conclusion on "GHGs"
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Agin,not my theories"
Then you can't defend the theories you believe in. Which is likely worse.
"Any field geologist will tell you there is no "fossil" below 16,000 feet"
Any field geologist who said that would be making stuff up since no one has looked. Since we find fossils, ones laid down on a sea bottom, tens of thousands of feet above sea level it is very likely there are fossils in sedimentary rock 16,000 ft or deeper, why wouldn't there be?
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"Then you can't defend the theories you believe in. Which is likely worse"
Belief is for religion..like the "CHurch of AGW",,"COnsenses" for for media pols
Just because the Media Frenzy,AL Gore and the UN?Liberal "Gospel" didn't preach anything to you other then "oil is evil","Capitalism is evil","cooporations is Evil",The US is Evil" and "Humans are Evil in causeing global warming" and having their version of "Science" doesn't mean i'm a"Denier'(AGW sinner) or"my"theories "don't exist"..lol
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Media Frenzy,AL Gore and the UN?" The statement was "you can't defend the theories you believe in." But you'd rather attack Al Gore than come up with a valid argument for your beliefs.
Interesting how Al "capitalism is evil" Gore turned out to be a good capitalist. And then got attacked for that.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Tyndall's spectomary experiments on pure gases doesn't Apply to the Atmosphere and he even stated that in his conclusion on "GHGs"
He said due to spectral overlaps you can't just just apply his values to the total contribution of each gas to the greenhouse effect in the atmosphere. However the properties of a gas in a tube is the same as a gas in the atmosphere. You misrepresent another scientists ideas.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
" He said "
He said that water vapor was the main holder of heat in the atmoomsphere and all other GHG's (especially co2) has jackshit to do with Air's maximum heat asorbtion threshold (110f minimum humidity,900f at 100% humidity)
"You misrepresent another scientists ideas."
No, Tyndall experiments led to meterology,and oceanagraphy understanding of heat exchange through water...co2 has jackshit to do with maximum heat asorbtion of air and it's Environuts misrepresenting his work
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
"Like why is there no heat dissipation signature from the fault lines?"
You mean v.s. up to 20 miles of ocean water bove it?
YOu would have to spot check the tempature otherwise it is disapated into the water and is taken up by the sea currents heading back down to the tropics
"is does the temperature pattern match solar influence?"
Daily local tempature is not" "climate"average tempature(15c)
"Why isn't the bottom of the sea 15oC?"
"climate" average(15c) isn't local daily tempature
TheRealArchAngel 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRealArchAngel "YOu would have to spot check the tempature otherwise it is disapated into the water and is taken up by the sea currents heading back down to the tropics"
So in other words you have no evidence that it is since you're saying there is no spot checks. However measurements of the ocean's temperature should show this pattern. In fact it would be visible to satellites.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"Why isn't the bottom of the sea 15oC?"
The Wolrd "climate" is 15c,like it has been for the last 10,000 years
50,000 yewars ago it was 14c just warm enough to kill off the Wooly Mamath and cooler "climate" while what would become humans adapted by loosing their body hair
12c is the average "climate" of a world Ice age while 18c is the average "climate" os Interglaciation peak
The Dinosaurs lived in a "Climate" that was 22c
Regional/Local "CLiamate variability" can swing by 20f, either way
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel Me - "Why isn't the bottom of the sea 15oC?"
You - "The Wolrd "climate" is 15c,like it has been for the last 10,000 years"
That's not an answer. If the earth's core was the source of much of the earth's heat the ocean bottom would be warmer than the surface as it would enter there and dissipate upwards until it escaped into space. Why is the bottom of ocean so much colder than the temperature you say the earth's core keeps the planet at?
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"Regional/Local "CLiamate variability" can swing by 20f, either way"
For instance the "Midevil warming period" was a local tempature variance not a global one
Likewise the "mini Ice Age" was a local tempature swing not a global one
More specifically when the Pilgrims landed the area was 2 degrees colder then usual making for a bitter winter and bad planting season while Greenland was "Green" during warmer lthen usual spike in tempature..both even though the Earth "climate" was still 15c average
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel But to do this they had to remove human influence. In the end one of them concludes, "The solid Earth plays a role, but the ultimate solution to addressing climate change remains in our hands," said Dickey.
Their names are Jean Dickey and Steven Marcus from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, along with Olivier de Viron, from the Universite Paris Diderot. Not that long really.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"But to do this they had to remove human influence. In the end one of them concludes,"
Suspected human influence
Your up to 62 experts posing as "2500 scientist" on a un Commitie saying it is highly likey that the unusual spike in tempature is human caused hasn't ruled out the local climate variabiliy or regional climate variability spikes similar to the "midevil warming" yet
"ultimate solution to addressing climate change remains in our hands"
with taxes? with regulation? with laws?
Get real
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
If you seriously want to bone up on some Geology concerning earth core
coursehero(dot)com/textbooks/198860-Mantle-Plumes-Their-Record-in-Earth-History
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "coursehero(dot)com/textbooks/198860-Mantle-Plumes-Their-Record-in-Earth-History"
And on which page or in which chapter will I find the part that explains how the earth's core keeps the earth's average temperature at 15c.
By the way, if this is an average, where are the hot spots and where are the cool spots. Why do differences in temperature occur?
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"By the way, if this is an average, where are the hot ..."
the heat disapates driving the ocean conveyer and evaporation/percipitation cycle...it converts from heat energy to kinetic energy constantly and the "average" is the consant output measured overall,not how much might be at one spot
"Why do differences in temperature occur"
Hot air mixes with cold air and winds and evaporation.percipitation results
cold polar water vs tropics disapates heat as cuurent and starts bulk of evaporation
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "the heat disapates driving the ocean conveyer and evaporation/percipitation cycle"
One is near the surface the other is in the atmosphere. If you are right we should be able to see the local pattern of warmer near the main hot spots and cooler further away. It is standard dissipation.
"Hot air mixes with cold air and winds and evaporation.percipitation results"
Explains sun based heating. Doesn't explain why poles are colder than 15c. Is the top of the earth's core cooler?
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"If you are right we should be able to see the local pattern of warmer near the main hot spots and cooler further away. It is standard dissipation."
But your "experts" aren't looking for heat distribution, they are thumping on green house gas theory first then seeing the "proof" in the coorolation between tempature and Co2 as "proof" humans are responsible for spike in heat and co2 without measurring emmisions for the co2 gasing directly
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "But your "experts" aren't looking for heat distribution, they are thumping on green house gas theory first then seeing the "proof" in the coorolation between tempature and Co2"
They take thousands measurements all over the oceans and on land. They can show you the heat distribution of the globe/air/water whatever you like. Heat distribution and patterns is something they are very interested in and they don't see what you imagine.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"Explains sun based heating."
Yeah, sun amplifies daily weaqther and tempature
"Doesn't explain why poles are colder than 15c"
The Waters are Cooled top to bottom by the poles facing deep space as low as minus 4 degrees in the North pole and -22f in the anartic waters
"Is the top of the earth's core cooler?"
The surface water is super cooled by deep space, the warmer water at the floor drives back to the tropics where evaporation and warmer sea floor at eqquator drives it back to surface
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "The Waters are Cooled top to bottom by the poles facing deep space"
So the parts that face the sun are warm and the parts that don't are cold and you claim the earth is warmed mainly by the core of the earth. My god you make no sense. Which journal of science is this theory registered in? Which scientists expound it? You still haven't produced a viable source that says what you do. Not even a nutty internet source. All you have is a book you think you remember reading.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
"Not that long really"
They are the more recent Physists and geoPhysist studying that
Becquerel?Henri Becquerel?
it was in 1896ish that Radioactivity was discovered and with many of this radioactive materal being in the deep earth it was when the still relative Hotness of the earth vs estimated cooling from the so called "black body state" was estimated to be over 10 million years,not "6000"
That there was a potential 'heat engine" in Core led to "continentall drift" gaining some credit
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
Hydrocarbons In The Deep Earth?
The research was conducted by scientists at the Carnegie Institution's Geophysical Laboratory, with colleagues from Russia and Sweden, and is published in the July 26, advanced online issue of Nature Geoscience.
They basicdally showed that oil canbe forrmed from carbon deposits in deep earth and migrates up
To be,er,"diplomatic" (more like politically correct)they do say "besides the biological created oil"..lol
TheRealArchAngel 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel "Regional/Local "CLiamate variability" can swing by 20f, either way"
And your point is? I agree the MWP and LIA were likely regional phenomenon. How do you think this advances your case? However if you're trying to say there is a steady state global average you are obviously wrong. What is your data source?
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@TheRealArchAngel "Geophysists name I am not even going to try to spell and right now there is 2 scientists at Nasa working with 1 from France noticing tempature changes relative to earth spin speed"
Exactly....spin not heat. Have you read what they say? You obviously haven't because if you did you would see they are not talking about your theory at all. The NASA/university team of researchers has linked Earth's rotation, surface air temperatures and the movement in its molten core.
rugbyguy59 4 months ago
@TheRealArchAngel That was the press release on the article you quoted which is funny and ironic. They did a study using computer models that shows it is theoretically possible for hydrocarbons to form deep in the earth. They used catalysts that may or may not be present in the crust. They still haven't explored if these products are