Remember me
▼ Content

greenies are going about it the wrong way


greenies are going about it the wrong way02-10-2016 20:36
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
If you want to make a point, you have to connect with the stupid masses. Nobody gives a damn about warming. Look at Africa. The hottest place on the planet. Nobody cares. Now, rather than explaining to the stupid masses about warming and instead tell them CO2 is bad for health, which it is, then I guarantee you the next morning nobody will be driving a car. Everyone be walking, jogging, bicycling.
Edited on 02-10-2016 20:38
02-10-2016 20:51
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Except that would be lying, because CO2 does not pose a direct health risk.
02-10-2016 23:46
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
I don't think a large part of the political right actually sees anything morally wrong with lying nowadays. Lies are simply a means to an end for them, and if others refuse to lie to achieve their aims, well, more fool them; they are going about it the wrong way.
03-10-2016 02:11
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Except that would be lying, because CO2 does not pose a direct health risk.


Sure it does. 600 ppm is stuffy room feeling. And it's over more than 400 ppm outside.
03-10-2016 02:35
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
..."stuffy room feeling"? How is that a direct health risk?
03-10-2016 13:18
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
Surface Detail wrote: I don't think a large part of the political right actually sees anything morally wrong with lying nowadays.

Clear signs of a religious worshiper:

1. Belief that acceptance of the faith makes one morally superior
2. Insults concerning non-believers and concerning those of even differient denominations.
3. Demonization of religio-political opponents.
4. Projecting one's own lying onto religio-political opponents
5. Not feeling any obligation to tie the petty, personal insults to any issue or topic of discussion.

Have you made any progress in explaining how an increase in energy (i.e. a temperature increase) can, at the same time, be a zero energy increase to avoid violaing the 1st LoT?


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-10-2016 13:28
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Except that would be lying, because CO2 does not pose a direct health risk.


Sure it does. 600 ppm is stuffy room feeling. And it's over more than 400 ppm outside.

"Poison" and "Pollution" are independent of quantity. Just one twinkie wrapper is pollution. Also, too much of anything is fatal. Water is neither poisonous nor pollution but can destroy a town and be fatal individually in sufficiently large quantities.

CO2 is neither pollution nor poison. Same for oxygen and nitrogen.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
03-10-2016 14:34
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
IBdaMann wrote:
Surface Detail wrote: I don't think a large part of the political right actually sees anything morally wrong with lying nowadays.

Clear signs of a religious worshiper:

1. Belief that acceptance of the faith makes one morally superior
2. Insults concerning non-believers and concerning those of even differient denominations.
3. Demonization of religio-political opponents.
4. Projecting one's own lying onto religio-political opponents
5. Not feeling any obligation to tie the petty, personal insults to any issue or topic of discussion.

Have you made any progress in explaining how an increase in energy (i.e. a temperature increase) can, at the same time, be a zero energy increase to avoid violaing the 1st LoT?


.


The energy that WOULD be radiated to space is less than normal. There is less energy in space, and more in Earth.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
03-10-2016 18:49
Tai Hai Chen
★★★★☆
(1041)
jwoodward48 wrote:
The energy that WOULD be radiated to space is less than normal. There is less energy in space, and more in Earth.


IR heating is not very efficient. I dare claim the entire IR heating effect of the atmosphere is less than the light reflected off the Moon onto the Earth.
Edited on 03-10-2016 18:50
03-10-2016 19:00
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
...what? That makes no sense. Infrared is the main way that the Earth loses energy - if most of that energy is redirected back at Earth, then the outflow is decreased dramatically.
03-10-2016 21:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
IBdaMann wrote:
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
Except that would be lying, because CO2 does not pose a direct health risk.


Sure it does. 600 ppm is stuffy room feeling. And it's over more than 400 ppm outside.

"Poison" and "Pollution" are independent of quantity. Just one twinkie wrapper is pollution. Also, too much of anything is fatal. Water is neither poisonous nor pollution but can destroy a town and be fatal individually in sufficiently large quantities.

CO2 is neither pollution nor poison. Same for oxygen and nitrogen.


.


Just one Twinkie wrapper is not pollution in a Twinkie factory (or is the Twinkie itself a pollutant?). It's not a pollutant on a store shelf either.

Twinkie wrappers are useful to direct the flow of small quantities of water in a stream. Is that a pollutant? If you are going to argue that, then every dam ever constructed is a pollutant. So are beavers. So is the mountain the stream flows around.


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2016 21:29
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
jwoodward48 wrote:
...what? That makes no sense. Infrared is the main way that the Earth loses energy - if most of that energy is redirected back at Earth, then the outflow is decreased dramatically.


There is nothing out there redirecting infrared or anything else back to Earth. It is not 'redirected' by anything. We have no magick mirrors in space (or anywhere else).


The Parrot Killer
03-10-2016 22:22
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Tai Hai Chen wrote:
If you want to make a point, you have to connect with the stupid masses. Nobody gives a damn about warming. Look at Africa. The hottest place on the planet. Nobody cares. Now, rather than explaining to the stupid masses about warming and instead tell them CO2 is bad for health, which it is, then I guarantee you the next morning nobody will be driving a car. Everyone be walking, jogging, bicycling.


Why do you make up gibberish?

http://www.blm.gov/style/medialib/blm/wy/information/NEPA/cfodocs/howell.Par.2800.File.dat/25apxC.pdf
In terms of worker
safety, Occupational Safety and Health Admini
stration (OSHA) has set a permissible exposure
limit (PEL) for CO
2
of 5,000 parts per million (ppm) over an 8-hour work day, which is
equivalent to 0.5% by volume of air. Simila
rly, the American Conference of Governmental
Industrial Hygienists
(
ACGIH) TLV (threshold limit value)
is 5,000 ppm for an 8-hour workday,
with a ceiling exposure limit of 30,000 ppm for
a 10-minute period based on acute inhalation
data (MDPH 2005; NIOSH 1976).


The room you are in will have a CO2 level much higher than 600ppm due to you breathing.
Edited on 03-10-2016 22:23
04-10-2016 01:12
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
...what? That makes no sense. Infrared is the main way that the Earth loses energy - if most of that energy is redirected back at Earth, then the outflow is decreased dramatically.


There is nothing out there redirecting infrared or anything else back to Earth. It is not 'redirected' by anything. We have no magick mirrors in space (or anywhere else).


Redirected, in the sense of "instead of going to space, it goes back to Earth". It is absorbed and radiated back.


"Heads on a science
Apart" - Coldplay, The Scientist

IBdaMann wrote:
No, science doesn't insist that, ergo I don't insist that.

I am the Ninja Scientist! Beware!
04-10-2016 03:34
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Into the Night wrote:
jwoodward48 wrote:
...what? That makes no sense. Infrared is the main way that the Earth loses energy - if most of that energy is redirected back at Earth, then the outflow is decreased dramatically.


There is nothing out there redirecting infrared or anything else back to Earth. It is not 'redirected' by anything. We have no magick mirrors in space (or anywhere else).


Redirected, in the sense of "instead of going to space, it goes back to Earth". It is absorbed and radiated back.


We have already discussed this. Did you forget?


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 03:52
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
You didn't give a proper refutation. It relied on flawed understandings of thermodynamical and radiative laws.
04-10-2016 04:02
Into the Night
★★★★★
(8677)
jwoodward48 wrote:
You didn't give a proper refutation. It relied on flawed understandings of thermodynamical and radiative laws.


I did give a proper refutation. I showed you how those laws apply in all the numerous contrivances you have attempted to circumvent those laws.

You seem to be fixated on a couple of incorrect principles at the moment.

One is the effect of 'back radiation' (which is what your contrivances based on context switching tend to argue for) and it somehow can override the 2nd LoT and thus create free energy by overriding the 1st LoT, and the other seems to be around the issue of domains and how they are combined.

The first is from standard scripture from the Church of Global Warming.

The second is illiteracy. Many calculus books don't cover this subject well, but a few do.


The Parrot Killer
04-10-2016 04:39
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
What you say is not true.
05-10-2016 14:49
IBdaMann
★★★★★
(4290)
jwoodward48 wrote: ...what? That makes no sense. Infrared is the main way that the Earth loses energy - if most of that energy is redirected back at Earth, then the outflow is decreased dramatically.

Infrared is the main way that the Earth loses energy - if most of that energy loss is accelerated away from the planet then the outflow is increased dramatically.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
05-10-2016 15:28
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
True, but how would you accelerate it?




Join the debate greenies are going about it the wrong way:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
climate change is wrong grammer910-04-2019 21:57
Angstrom is right. Arrhenius is wrong.218-03-2019 19:43
This experiment is close, but still wrong018-03-2019 15:09
So if Angstrom already proven Arrhenius wrong, then what's the problem?314-03-2019 02:07
Trump's climate expert is wrong: The world's plants don't need more CO2025-02-2019 02:42
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact