The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus > Page 2

Page 2 of 3

20-09-2019 04:43
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	keepit wrote: Verner, If we just quit spending so much money we would decease the amount of CO2 we produce. Yeah, likely. Consumer spending, which accounts for 70% of the economy, drives CO2 up more than the government does, however. Uncle Sam, on the other hand, is in hock and can't support adding the programs the Democrats want without massive new taxes. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
20-09-2019 14:17
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Tai Hai Chen wrote: They say Venus is hotter... There is a whole thread here: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710.php The distance from the sun is the most important variable so Mars should not be hot. The important comparison is with Venus and Mercury, Mercury being closer. In the topic above I had hoped to get some debate going on Huffman's very interesting work but as usual it was just ITN/IBD saying we can never know anything about anything. In short Huffman says that the extreme temperatures at ground level are due to the pressure of the atmosphere. That if you look at the measurements taken as the probes descended through the atmosphere the point at which the pressure is equal to Earths you find the temp you would expect given the distance to the sun. He basically says this is evidence that the CO2 isn't doing anything other than weighing the atmosphere down: tmiddles wrote: Why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury. Mercury being much closer to the Sun. typically what's found online This is what we would expect to find without an atmosphere, versus what we do find: acs.org Atmospheres and Planetary Temperatures Mercury: 437 / 440 Venus: 232 / 735 Earth: 255 / 288 "The table provides evidence that an atmosphere has a pronounced effect on the temperature at the planetary surface, " So it's pretty cool that we've been to Venus with Russian probes taking measurements through the atmosphere down to the surface on three occasions in the 1970s: We know the pressure, temperature and composition of the atmosphere all the way down to the surface. A real scientist in the this area, Harry Dale Huffman, (posts)has an argument here against the current meaning of "Greenhouse Effect", namely that greenhouse gases increase temperature: there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself. My understanding of it is that you have to compare the same atmospheric pressures on Venus and Earth, which means comparing the surface of earth with an altitude above the surface of Venus, which has a much denser atmosphere with all that CO2. If you do that the temperature is what you would expect to find based on the distance from the sun. That of course a heavier blanket is warmer, but CO2 doesn't seem to be influencing the temperature dramatically. He is of course not refuting the original "Greenhouse Effect" as described by Fourier (or in describing actual greenhouses), but instead the newer meaning of "Greenhouse Effect" as commonly used today to describe the CO2 factor in planetary temperature. As Venus is much much hotter than it should be without an atmosphere: "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them.
20-09-2019 19:11
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5022)	My government has been telling us we can't trust the Russians, all my life. How do you know they aren't lying about Venus? Did Russia lie about meddling with or 2016 election? Colluding with Trump? I think most politicians lie, doesn't matter what country. Science is usually pretty solid, although slipping quite a bit over the past 3 or 4 decades, like climatology. The Russians must have a top notch space program, since we use them almost exclusively for taxi service, and shipping to the space station, even though they lie, murder, spy, steal, meddle in elections, our worst enemy on the planet... Hard to tell who's propaganda to believe these days. I figure the Russian government only does about half the stuff they get blamed for, about the same stuff our government does, and occasional get caught at. The thing is that we don't know all there is to know about our own planet, and very little about the others. Could it be, one is a solid hunk of rock, the other has a softer core than ours, maybe even a liquid center, since it's so hot? It's all speculation, based on minimal information. You can argue the BS all you want, it's just guess and dreaming, fiction and fantasy.
20-09-2019 19:56
Into the Night★★★★★ (21140)	tmiddles wrote: Tai Hai Chen wrote: They say Venus is hotter... There is a whole thread here: https://www.climate-debate.com/forum/venus-is-hotter-than-mercury--d6-e2710.php A forum thread is not a proof. This particular thread is again full of your usual repetitious lies and repetitiously asking the same questions that have already been answered. tmiddles wrote: The distance from the sun is the most important variable so Mars should not be hot. The important comparison is with Venus and Mercury, Mercury being closer. Divisional error fallacy. It is not the only factor. tmiddles wrote: In the topic above I had hoped to get some debate going on Huffman's very interesting work but as usual it was just ITN/IBD saying we can never know anything about anything. Repetitious lie. tmiddles wrote: In short Huffman says that the extreme temperatures at ground level are due to the pressure of the atmosphere. That if you look at the measurements taken as the probes descended through the atmosphere the point at which the pressure is equal to Earths you find the temp you would expect given the distance to the sun. He basically says this is evidence that the CO2 isn't doing anything other than weighing the atmosphere down: A single probe does not measure the temperature of a planet. tmiddles wrote: [quote]tmiddles wrote: Why is Venus so much hotter than Mercury. Mercury being much closer to the Sun. typically what's found online This is what we would expect to find without an atmosphere, versus what we do find: acs.org Atmospheres and Planetary Temperatures Mercury: 437 / 440 Venus: 232 / 735 Earth: 255 / 288 Argument from randU fallacy. tmiddles wrote: "The table provides evidence that an atmosphere has a pronounced effect on the temperature at the planetary surface, " No, they are random numbers of type randU. tmiddles wrote: So it's pretty cool that we've been to Venus with Russian probes taking measurements through the atmosphere down to the surface on three occasions in the 1970s: A single probe does not measure the temperature of a planet. tmiddles wrote: We know the pressure, temperature and composition of the atmosphere all the way down to the surface. No, we don't. We only know the temperature at the point the probe was at during any given moment. tmiddles wrote: A real scientist in the this area, True Scotsman fallacy. Science isn't scientists. tmiddles wrote: Harry Dale Huffman, (posts)has an argument here against the current meaning of "Greenhouse Effect", namely that greenhouse gases increase temperature: there is no greenhouse effect at all, and you can prove it for yourself. My understanding of it is that you have to compare the same atmospheric pressures on Venus and Earth, which means comparing the surface of earth with an altitude above the surface of Venus, which has a much denser atmosphere with all that CO2. If you do that the temperature is what you would expect to find based on the distance from the sun. The temperature of Venus is unknown. The 'expected' temperature is purely speculation. tmiddles wrote: That of course a heavier blanket is warmer, No, it isn't. It is just a blanket. Sitting in the same room of the same temperature, it will have the same temperature as any other blanket in that room. Putting blankets on rocks does not keep the rock warm, no matter how thick the blanket is. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 20-09-2019 19:57
20-09-2019 20:55
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	Into the Night wrote: * You can't create energy out of nothing. * You can't make heat flow from cold to hot. * You can't trap heat. Oh, please. Repeating this mantra again? Into the Night wrote: It's not possible to measure the temperature of Earth. I can see it now. Nurse comes in my room at the hospital with oral thermometer on tray, picks it up, glances at it, thinks, and then puts it down. "It's not possible to measure the temperature of the human body. So we won't be taking your vital signs today..." Into the Night wrote: It's not possible to measure the global atmospheric content of CO2 at all. CO2 is not uniformly distributed in the atmosphere. "...And we won't be taking you over to radiology. It's impossible to observe the heart since blood clots aren't distributed uniformly in your coronary arteries." Into the Night wrote: CO2 does not warm the Earth. Models don't predict anything. Neither does statistical math. Nurse comes back in with the medicine cart, thinks a minute; leaves it over by the door. "Hi, Vern. All those clinical studies we did have been thrown out because they can't predict anything. Lisinopril doesn't lower blood pressure. So the doctor's stopped your order. You won't be getting the bottle we used to send home with you." Into the Night wrote: 'Climate change' has no meaning. What's real about it? What phenomena? There is nothing to do. Don't panic. Nurse shows up one last time. "Dearie, forgot to tell you. 'Angina attack' has no meaning. What's real about it? There is nothing to do; nitroglycerin tablets won't help. Pain cannot be observed because we'd have to use proxies for it. Don't panic. We're sure you'll feel better tomorrow." Into the Night wrote: There is no reason to control the emission of CO2. It has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth using IR from the surface. Finally, discharge papers arrive and the dietician steps in. "No need to watch your salt intake, Vern. Salt has absolutely no capability to raise blood pressure using ACEs from your kidneys. The human body must have salt to function. Bet millions of guys like you are starving for a pepperoni pizza right now." ~~ Boy, am I glad my doctors *don't* think that way. Into the Night wrote: Plants are currently starving for CO2. My rose bushes are doing fine. ~ Into the Night wrote: Very few price shocks, which take place in any market. Wars over there are religious in nature, not about oil. We don't depend on any Persian Gulf oil. We export oil. We're importing 10% of supply right now, down from 40% because of fracking. But this extends a field's lifespan only 7 or 8 years, and once we've fracked them all, game's over. The stopgap required a plush commercial margin at the global Petromart to make it pay off in the first place. Get our oil from Venezuela instead of Iran? Chavez-Maduro's screwed that country and were Iran not feeding Europe and Japan, Venezuela'd have to fill in. The world market is interconnected and fungible. Iran's friends the Houthi rebels of Yemen shut down half of Saudi Arabia's oil production the other day, or Iran sent the drones itself as Mike Pompeo says. Brent crude opened at $65 Monday morning, up five bucks in a single night, and it went to almost $90 last October. I'm too old to be sold on stability myths about this market even if other commodities get jolted at times. Shocks hurt worse when it's a *critical* product. Ja. The wars are religious or tribal in nature. But that hardly keeps us from being involved in them since 1953 when we helped overthrow Iran's former PM Mosaddegh. And we're involved mainly because of the region's oil. Into the Night wrote: The Paris treaty was not enforceable. No one could define 'climate change' We agree on that. It's not legally binding and the way it was negotiated was a mess. But it does require progress tracking and offers its players a bully pulpit. We're the largest voice in every international treaty structure we founded after the war, from UN to GATT on down. The US had no reason to leave Paris except Trump's supporters hate Obama and Paris is associated with him. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.

20-09-2019 22:31
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	HarveyH55 wrote: My government has been telling us we can't trust the Russians, all my life. How do you know they aren't lying about Venus? We didn't trust them. Our *own* Deep Space Network received the telemetry from the Venera probes, too, and I don't think it was encrypted. While international rivals lie about almost everything, both sides in the Space Race had an incentive to ensure the other side believed them on the space feats. The Russkies wouldn't take a chance on us exposing a fraud on their trips to Venus, or even raising suspicions. We never encrypted our moon and Mars missions for the same reason. HarveyH55 wrote: The thing is that we don't know all there is to know about our own planet, and very little about the others. Could it be, one is a solid hunk of rock, the other has a softer core than ours, maybe even a liquid center, since it's so hot? We do know the Earth's core is liquid, by seismology. Earthquake waves can be compressional or shear. The compressional waves pass through liquids, but the shear waves do not; these are reflected at the solid/liquid boundary. This allows us to tell our core begins 2900 km down. No seismology has been done on Venus, though its core is probably liquid given its size, almost as big as Earth is. Climate change hype may be mostly fantasy. Even so, at some point we have to start knowing *something* about how matter and energy work. Otherwise we'd still be in the stone age. Computer chips rely on band theory from solid-state physics. ~ Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
21-09-2019 01:52
Into the Night★★★★★ (21140)	VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: * You can't create energy out of nothing. * You can't make heat flow from cold to hot. * You can't trap heat. Oh, please. Repeating this mantra again? Yup. As often as you keep denying the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: It's not possible to measure the temperature of Earth. I can see it now. Nurse comes in my room at the hospital with oral thermometer on tray, picks it up, glances at it, thinks, and then puts it down. "It's not possible to measure the temperature of the human body. So we won't be taking your vital signs today..." False equivalence fallacy. Redirection fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Plants are currently starving for CO2. My rose bushes are doing fine. They do better under higher concentration of CO2. They are starving, but surviving. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: Very few price shocks, which take place in any market. Wars over there are religious in nature, not about oil. We don't depend on any Persian Gulf oil. We export oil. We're importing 10% of supply right now, down from 40% because of fracking. No. We export oil. VernerHornung wrote: But this extends a field's lifespan only 7 or 8 years, and once we've fracked them all, game's over. No. Oil is a renewable resource. VernerHornung wrote: The stopgap required a plush commercial margin at the global Petromart to make it pay off in the first place. Not a stopgap. Oil is a renewable resource. VernerHornung wrote: Get our oil from Venezuela instead of Iran? No need. VernerHornung wrote: Chavez-Maduro's screwed that country and were Iran not feeding Europe and Japan, Venezuela'd have to fill in. No need. VernerHornung wrote: The world market is interconnected and fungible. It is, which is why the spike from Saudi Arabia's fields getting damaged. The market self corrects too. Others will simply ramp up what they produce. VernerHornung wrote: Iran's friends the Houthi rebels of Yemen shut down half of Saudi Arabia's oil production the other day, or Iran sent the drones itself as Mike Pompeo says. Brent crude opened at $65 Monday morning, up five bucks in a single night, and it went to almost $90 last October. I'm too old to be sold on stability myths about this market even if other commodities get jolted at times. Shocks hurt worse when it's a *critical* product. They are not hurting. VernerHornung wrote: Ja. The wars are religious or tribal in nature. But that hardly keeps us from being involved in them since 1953 when we helped overthrow Iran's former PM Mosaddegh. And we're involved mainly because of the region's oil. No, we are not. We conquered Iraq...all of it. We gave their nation back to them. Iraq owns those oil fields, not us. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: The Paris treaty was not enforceable. No one could define 'climate change' We agree on that. It's not legally binding and the way it was negotiated was a mess. But it does require progress tracking and offers its players a bully pulpit. No progress tracking is possible. It is not possible to measure the amount of global atmospheric CO2. It is not possible to measure how much CO2 comes from man made sources. VernerHornung wrote: We're the largest voice in every international treaty structure we founded after the war, from UN to GATT on down. The US had no reason to leave Paris except Trump's supporters hate Obama and Paris is associated with him. WRONG. The treaty is unenforceable. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-09-2019 01:55
Into the Night★★★★★ (21140)	VernerHornung wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: My government has been telling us we can't trust the Russians, all my life. How do you know they aren't lying about Venus? We didn't trust them. Our *own* Deep Space Network received the telemetry from the Venera probes, too, and I don't think it was encrypted. While international rivals lie about almost everything, both sides in the Space Race had an incentive to ensure the other side believed them on the space feats. The Russkies wouldn't take a chance on us exposing a fraud on their trips to Venus, or even raising suspicions. We never encrypted our moon and Mars missions for the same reason. HarveyH55 wrote: The thing is that we don't know all there is to know about our own planet, and very little about the others. Could it be, one is a solid hunk of rock, the other has a softer core than ours, maybe even a liquid center, since it's so hot? We do know the Earth's core is liquid, by seismology. Earthquake waves can be compressional or shear. The compressional waves pass through liquids, but the shear waves do not; these are reflected at the solid/liquid boundary. This allows us to tell our core begins 2900 km down. No seismology has been done on Venus, though its core is probably liquid given its size, almost as big as Earth is. Climate change hype may be mostly fantasy. Even so, at some point we have to start knowing *something* about how matter and energy work. Otherwise we'd still be in the stone age. Computer chips rely on band theory from solid-state physics. ~ Buzzword fallacies. There is no such thing as 'solid-state physics' or 'band theory'. These are buzzwords used in Wikipedia. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-09-2019 17:13
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	HarveyH55 wrote: My government has been telling us we can't trust the Russians, all my life. How do you know they aren't lying about Venus?. This is where reasonable doubt needs explaining. There was no motive at all for Russia to misrepresent anything about Venus. We also sent probes as did Japan. There can be goof ups and dishonesty, as with the piltdown man But unless your goal is to do nothing you have to work with what you have with a healthy skeptism and not just remain paralyzed.
21-09-2019 17:20
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: A single probe does not measure the temperature of a planet. tmiddles wrote: We got a total of 580 min (24 earth days) on the surface of Venus, spanning 7 missions over a 13 year period. 117 days to reach Venus 1970 Venera 7 lasted 23 minutes on th surface 1972 Venera 8 50 minutes, 11 seconds 1975 Venera 9 53 minutes 1975 Venera 10 65 minutes 1978 Venera 11 95 minutes 1978 Venera 12 110 minutes 1982 Venera 13 127 minutes 1983 Venera 14 The lander functioned for at least 57 minutes (the planned design life was 32 minutes) in an environment with a temperature of 465 °C (869 °F) and a pressure of 94 Earth atmospheres (9.5 MPa). 1985 Venera 15, 16 1985 not landing The descent through the cloud layer took about 20 minutes, during which time the lander took measurements of the atmosphere and radioed the information to the orbiter[7] Question for ITN: How can you measure the temperature of anything? Just one example. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
21-09-2019 21:34
Into the Night★★★★★ (21140)	tmiddles wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: My government has been telling us we can't trust the Russians, all my life. How do you know they aren't lying about Venus?. This is where reasonable doubt needs explaining. There was no motive at all for Russia to misrepresent anything about Venus. We also sent probes as did Japan. There can be goof ups and dishonesty, as with the piltdown man Paradox. Which is it, dude? You are being irrational again. tmiddles wrote: But unless your goal is to do nothing you have to work with what you have with a healthy skeptism and not just remain paralyzed. You don't have any skepticism. That leaves you paralyzed, since you have no base to judge the validity of any data. See the Data Mine for help. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-09-2019 21:36
Into the Night★★★★★ (21140)	tmiddles wrote: [quote]Into the Night wrote: A single probe does not measure the temperature of a planet. tmiddles wrote: We got a total of 580 min (24 earth days) on the surface of Venus, spanning 7 missions over a 13 year period. 117 days to reach Venus 1970 Venera 7 lasted 23 minutes on th surface 1972 Venera 8 50 minutes, 11 seconds 1975 Venera 9 53 minutes 1975 Venera 10 65 minutes 1978 Venera 11 95 minutes 1978 Venera 12 110 minutes 1982 Venera 13 127 minutes 1983 Venera 14 The lander functioned for at least 57 minutes (the planned design life was 32 minutes) in an environment with a temperature of 465 °C (869 °F) and a pressure of 94 Earth atmospheres (9.5 MPa). 1985 Venera 15, 16 1985 not landing The descent through the cloud layer took about 20 minutes, during which time the lander took measurements of the atmosphere and radioed the information to the orbiter[7] Each one a single probe. You can't measure the temperature of any planet with a single probe. tmiddles wrote: Question for ITN: How can you measure the temperature of anything? Just one example. RQAA The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
21-09-2019 21:54
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: Question for ITN: How can you measure the temperature of anything? Just one example. RQAA Such a simple question unanswered. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
21-09-2019 22:40
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14108)	tmiddles wrote:Question for ITN: How can you measure the temperature of anything? Just one example. Such a simple question unanswered. Into the Night has answered this many times in this forum. At least you admit to your active ignoring and active non-research. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
21-09-2019 22:57
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:Question for ITN: How can you measure the temperature of anything? Just one example. Such a simple question unanswered. Into the Night has answered this many times in this forum. At least you admit to your active ignoring and active non-research. Like this answer? Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ....We can't have a temperature reading of every molecule of any object. A single molecule has a temperature, so why not? This is really just an instrumentation problem. That make any sense to you IBD? How about you give an example? "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them

22-09-2019 04:09
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	Into the Night wrote: No. We export oil. In 2018, the United States imported about 9.93 million barrels per day. In 2018, the United States exported about 7.59 MMb/d ----------------------- Net imports 2.34 MMb/d Source: US Energy Information Administration https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6 Oh, I forgot. It's impossible to measure oil imports. Or exports. Someone would need to be inside the tanker watching each drop dribble out. And I'm sure the gas pump shows a randR number when I go in to pay for the unknown quantity of gas I put in the car. ~ Into the Night wrote: No. Oil is a renewable resource. Dispensed with on the Fragile Earth thread. Neither IDbaMann's paper nor the other items I retrieved said anything about oil being renewable. They said that hydrogen may participate autonomously in chemical reactions with mantle materials to yield diamonds or ferrohydroxide pyrites. Though I don't see how we'd figure that out, if it's impossible to measure temperatures, pressures and reaction rates in the mantle. It's new research as well, interesting but irrelevant to the problems of petroleum geologists. Into the Night wrote: No need. I'll correct myself here. Canada has stepped into the stopgap as we juggle that ever-dwindling black gold. We also export 5.6 million barrels per day of refinery products like gasoline and jet fuel, for value added, earning some foreign exchange on the net equation. Source: US Energy Information Administration https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39192 Into the Night wrote: No, we are not. We conquered Iraq...all of it. We gave their nation back to them. Iraq owns those oil fields, not us. Wasn't that nice of us? We would have stood aside had Iraq no oil, however. Nations don't enter wars that offer them no reward, except recently and on a limited scale, as in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia. Meanwhile, Iran is pretty close to owning Iraq today, except for its Kurdish province. Into the Night wrote: There is no such thing as 'solid-state physics' or 'band theory'. These are buzzwords used in Wikipedia. Look them up in a dictionary of science or on a physics website. They're not from Wikipedia, a source I steer clear of if at all possible, because yes, it is impossible to rely on crowdsourced info without verifying it. ~ Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 22-09-2019 04:11
22-09-2019 07:36
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14108)	VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: No. Oil is a renewable resource. Dispensed with on the Fragile Earth thread. Ah, you mean confirmed on the Fragile Earth thread. VernerHornung wrote:Neither IDbaMann's paper nor the other items I retrieved said anything about oil being renewable. ... and it's not my problem that you are a slave to what other people tell you to believe, despite all common sense screaming otherwise. I am happy to let you believe what you want. I can't pay for that level of comedy. Just for laughs, how do you imagine hydrocarbons arrived beneath impermeable rock, kilometers deeper than the fossil record? VernerHornung wrote: We would have stood aside had Iraq no oil, however. Incorrect. Oil wasn't even mentioned in the unanimous UN resolution on the matter. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: There is no such thing as 'solid-state physics' or 'band theory'. These are buzzwords used in Wikipedia. Look them up in a dictionary of science or on a physics website. What does tmiddles say? Does his favorite textbook have chapters titled "Band Physics" and "Solid State Physics" ... or is there only one anecdotal mention pertaining to ultrasound? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
22-09-2019 13:38
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: No. We export oil. ...Net imports 2.34 MMb/d... Oh, I forgot. It's impossible to measure oil imports.... Ha ha ha. What's extra funny is as you've come to learn that's an accurate depiction as absurd as it is. The name of the game is disqualify all knowledge and end debate. I tried to say we eat more meat now in the US then a 100 years ago with source/graph: from gfm7175 wrote: tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote:In past we ate a lot less: How do you know? Do you seriously doubt the record keeping of the US meat industry? Yes, I do.....They're simply making up numbers Into the Night wrote:..... It obviously doesn't cover every sale at every store .... "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
22-09-2019 13:44
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: VernerHornung wrote:Neither IDbaMann's paper nor the other items I retrieved said anything about oil being renewable. ... and it's not my problem that you are a slave to what other people tell you to believe, . So Verner this is the other game. Present revolutionary and contrarian theories but pretend they are settled science. Invariably when ITN/IBD say really whacked out stuff they insist it's the default, requires no explanation or evidence, and that the burden is on you to prove them wrong. Of course anything you present will be disqualified. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
22-09-2019 20:57
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	IBdaMann wrote: ...you mean confirmed on the Fragile Earth thread. Ja. Confirmed absent. It's beneath impermeable rock because the oil was deposited first (principle of superposition). The crust then buckles and folds, creating the oil traps where wells can go. Impermeable rock layers or salt domes are in fact necessary if you want a good oil field. It keeps the oil from migrating, so it pools up there. The reservoir rock layer is usually a marine shale or sandstone. IBdaMann wrote: It's not my problem that you are a slave to what other people tell you to believe, despite all common sense screaming otherwise. And so are you. And nothing wrong with it. This starts when we're born, with home teaching, and continues through school and life. I don't buy everything I'm told, but no one can develop understanding of the world without the help of others who've already learned about it beforehand. If every generation had to start from scratch, we'd still be chimps. Or lower, as even chimps share knowledge with their young. *Common sense* tells you the sun goes 'round the sky during the day and hides underground at night. Do you believe it? If any evidence for renewable oil is found, you can bet the prospectors will be the first to jump on it. IBdaMann wrote: Oil wasn't even mentioned in the unanimous UN resolution on the matter. Of *course* it wasn't. But oil was unstated reason for Bush to act after Hussein invaded Kuwait, seizing that country's fields and threatening Saudi Arabia's. Not bashing the US on the Gulf War, as Europe and Japan had no plans to intervene until Bush started prodding them. tmiddles wrote: Present revolutionary and contrarian theories but pretend they are settled science... and...the burden is on you to prove them wrong. Sort of what the preachers in the snake-handling churches of Georgia do. Reverse the burden that normally falls on the one presenting the extraordinary claim. But hey, if these fellas manage to get airborne, I'm game. I'd rather not worry over climate change and finite oil supply if it's all provably false. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.
22-09-2019 21:06
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	VernerHornung wrote: .... But hey, if these fellas manage to get airborne, I'm game. I'd rather not worry over climate change and finite oil supply if it's all provably false. A'men! It's worth exploring and arguing. Fingers crossed we get some skeptics on here interested in doing that. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
23-09-2019 00:51
Into the Night★★★★★ (21140)	tmiddles wrote: IBdaMann wrote: tmiddles wrote:Question for ITN: How can you measure the temperature of anything? Just one example. Such a simple question unanswered. Into the Night has answered this many times in this forum. At least you admit to your active ignoring and active non-research. Like this answer? Into the Night wrote: tmiddles wrote: ....We can't have a temperature reading of every molecule of any object. A single molecule has a temperature, so why not? This is really just an instrumentation problem. That make any sense to you IBD? How about you give an example? How about you stop cherry picking and pulling stuff out of context? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-09-2019 00:56
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Into the Night wrote: How about you stop cherry picking and pulling stuff out of context? You are lying. You've never seriously answered the question ( unless that BS was you being serious) "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them[/quote]
23-09-2019 01:05
Into the Night★★★★★ (21140)	VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: No. We export oil. In 2018, the United States imported about 9.93 million barrels per day. In 2018, the United States exported about 7.59 MMb/d ----------------------- Net imports 2.34 MMb/d Source: US Energy Information Administration https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=727&t=6 We import oil to refine it. Other nations don't have as much refining capacity that we do. We export those refined products again. VernerHornung wrote: Oh, I forgot. It's impossible to measure oil imports. Or exports. It is possible, but you are taking things out of context. VernerHornung wrote: Someone would need to be inside the tanker watching each drop dribble out. And I'm sure the gas pump shows a randR number when I go in to pay for the unknown quantity of gas I put in the car. It is possible to measure that too. Redirection fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: No. Oil is a renewable resource. Dispensed with on the Fragile Earth thread. No, it wasn't. You redirected to an unrelated process. Strawman fallacy. Redirection fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: Neither IDbaMann's paper nor the other items I retrieved said anything about oil being renewable. Irrelevance fallacy. Strawman fallacy. Redirection fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: They said that hydrogen may participate autonomously in chemical reactions with mantle materials to yield diamonds or ferrohydroxide pyrites. Though I don't see how we'd figure that out, if it's impossible to measure temperatures, pressures and reaction rates in the mantle. Irrelevance fallacy. Redirection fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: It's new research as well, interesting but irrelevant to the problems of petroleum geologists. It is not new research. It's been around since WW2. Argument of ignorance fallacy. Attempt to change history. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: No need. I'll correct myself here. Canada has stepped into the stopgap as we juggle that ever-dwindling black gold. No. Canada is just another country that exports oil. We usually refine it for them and ship it back to Canada. VernerHornung wrote: We also export 5.6 million barrels per day of refinery products like gasoline and jet fuel, for value added, earning some foreign exchange on the net equation. Correct. You are shifting goal posts around now. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: No, we are not. We conquered Iraq...all of it. We gave their nation back to them. Iraq owns those oil fields, not us. Wasn't that nice of us? Yes it was. VernerHornung wrote: We would have stood aside had Iraq no oil, however. No. We didn't claim any oil from Iraq. VernerHornung wrote: Nations don't enter wars that offer them no reward, The reward was stability (well, more than there was!). VernerHornung wrote: except recently and on a limited scale, as in Somalia and the former Yugoslavia. Void argument fallacies. Which wars are you referring to? VernerHornung wrote: Meanwhile, Iran is pretty close to owning Iraq today, except for its Kurdish province. No. Iraq is still Iraq. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: There is no such thing as 'solid-state physics' or 'band theory'. These are buzzwords used in Wikipedia. Look them up in a dictionary of science or on a physics website. Why? Buzzwords are buzzwords. VernerHornung wrote: They're not from Wikipedia, a source I steer clear of if at all possible, Lie. VernerHornung wrote: because yes, it is impossible to rely on crowdsourced info without verifying it. Yet you just did. You used it as a reference. You're a liar too, I see. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-09-2019 01:14
Into the Night★★★★★ (21140)	VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ...you mean confirmed on the Fragile Earth thread. Ja. Confirmed absent. No. You have not confirmed anything. You simply redirected to an unrelated process. Strawman fallacy. Redirection fallacy. False authority fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: It's beneath impermeable rock because the oil was deposited first (principle of superposition). No such 'principle'. A non-scientific theory. VernerHornung wrote: The crust then buckles and folds, creating the oil traps where wells can go. Impermeable rock layers or salt domes are in fact necessary if you want a good oil field. It keeps the oil from migrating, so it pools up there. The reservoir rock layer is usually a marine shale or sandstone. Again, a non-scientific theory. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: It's not my problem that you are a slave to what other people tell you to believe, despite all common sense screaming otherwise. And so are you. And nothing wrong with it. This starts when we're born, with home teaching, and continues through school and life. I don't buy everything I'm told, but no one can develop understanding of the world without the help of others who've already learned about it beforehand. If every generation had to start from scratch, we'd still be chimps. Or lower, as even chimps share knowledge with their young. *Common sense* tells you the sun goes 'round the sky during the day and hides underground at night. Do you believe it? Many do. I've already discussed how different people interpret the same event differently. See my discussions on phenomenology. VernerHornung wrote: If any evidence for renewable oil is found, you can bet the prospectors will be the first to jump on it. They do. They drill for it. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Oil wasn't even mentioned in the unanimous UN resolution on the matter. Of *course* it wasn't. But oil was unstated reason for Bush to act after Hussein invaded Kuwait, seizing that country's fields and threatening Saudi Arabia's. Not bashing the US on the Gulf War, as Europe and Japan had no plans to intervene until Bush started prodding them. Nope. We didn't claim Iraq or it's oil fields. VernerHornung wrote: tmiddles wrote: Present revolutionary and contrarian theories but pretend they are settled science... and...the burden is on you to prove them wrong. Sort of what the preachers in the snake-handling churches of Georgia do. Which is what YOU do. VernerHornung wrote: Reverse the burden that normally falls on the one presenting the extraordinary claim. Which is what YOU do. VernerHornung wrote: But hey, if these fellas manage to get airborne, I'm game. I'd rather not worry over climate change and finite oil supply if it's all provably false. Don't panic. Oil is renewable and no one has been able to define 'climate change'. No need to worry about either. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-09-2019 01:15
Into the Night★★★★★ (21140)	tmiddles wrote: VernerHornung wrote: .... But hey, if these fellas manage to get airborne, I'm game. I'd rather not worry over climate change and finite oil supply if it's all provably false. A'men! It's worth exploring and arguing. Fingers crossed we get some skeptics on here interested in doing that. Fundamentalist religions is not exploring. It is shutting out anything but that religion. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan Edited on 23-09-2019 01:15
23-09-2019 01:16
Into the Night★★★★★ (21140)	tmiddles wrote: Into the Night wrote: How about you stop cherry picking and pulling stuff out of context? You are lying. You've never seriously answered the question ( unless that BS was you being serious) You didn't state any question in your last post. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-09-2019 05:27
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	Into the Night wrote: Many do. I've already discussed how different people interpret the same event differently. See my discussions on phenomenology. Sure. Witnesses don't even agree whether the light was red at the accident scene. Phenomenology, especially postmodern, is another way of saying "Reality, like happiness in Albert Finney's Scrooge, is whatever you want it to be." ~ Into the Night wrote: We import oil to refine it. Other nations don't have as much refining capacity that we do. We export those refined products again. Been there already, on the other thread. Quote: "We also export 5.6 million barrels per day of refinery products like gasoline and jet fuel, for value added, earning some foreign exchange on the net equation." Source: US Energy Information Administration https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=39192 Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 23-09-2019 05:29
23-09-2019 16:01
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14108)	VernerHornung wrote: It's beneath impermeable rock because the oil was deposited first (principle of superposition). Sorry, you don't have a time machine. You don't know that oil was "deposited" and that impermeable rock then somehow magically formed over it. The earth's natural geological processes have all the ingredients to create hydrocarbons, to include sufficient heat and pressure, in the manner described by Into the Night which can easily be replicated in a lab, which seeps upward until it reaches impermeable rock and is trapped ... and accumulates. The impermeable rock is there first. VernerHornung wrote:If any evidence for renewable oil is found, you can bet the prospectors will be the first to jump on it. Agreed. They begin drilling STAT. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Oil wasn't even mentioned in the unanimous UN resolution on the matter. Of *course* it wasn't. But oil was unstated reason for Bush to act after Hussein invaded Kuwait, seizing that country's fields and threatening Saudi Arabia's. If it was unstated, how do you know it was a reason? The stated reason, i.e. stability and security in the region, seems in every respect to be the driver. Again, the UN resolution was unanimous and made no mention of oil. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
23-09-2019 17:57
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	IBdaMann wrote: Sorry, you don't have a time machine. I don't need a time machine to know that dirt on top of gravel in a pile means the person who built the pile dumped the gravel on the ground and then dumped the dirt on top. Try looking up some of the phrases (principle of superposition, used in archaeology and geology) instead of pontificating from a vacuum chamber. Geological dating: Stratum C is older than the lava flow on the left. The dike on the right is older than C but younger than D and E. IBdaMann wrote: The earth's natural geological processes have all the ingredients to create hydrocarbons, to include sufficient heat and pressure... *Too much* heat and pressure, in fact. Hydrocarbons decompose when heated to thousands of degrees. IBdaMann wrote: ...replicated in a lab... Please read the papers. The researchers did not create hydrocarbons in their lab. Hydrogen is *not* hydrocarbons. IBdaMann wrote: If it was unstated, how do you know it was a reason? Diplomats making public statements about uncomfortable world situations never reveal true motives when these would embarrass a world leader. Restoring Kuwait's borders and deterring aggression are more acceptable, politically, than access to oil free of Iraqi terms. Not to say Hussein wasn't an aggressive fella, but truth is we wouldn't have given a damn if his Kuwaiti adventure had involved only sand. I'm not blaming Pres. Bush for this attitude, either. Wars mean sending American troops into harm's way—troops who aren't willing to die for the kind of lofty moral causes the UN is built to promote. We *shouldn't* enter a faraway war if the outcome doesn't affect US security. Other nations feel the same way, for which reason the UN has remained unable to stop genocides as it wants. The Congolese intervened in Rwanda only because it was on *their* border and Rwanda's conflicts were spilling over into Congo itself. In the Gulf War, the other powers holding a veto on the UN Security Council—the USSR, China, Britain and France—all agreed to pass the resolution. Had any one of them dissented, the UN would have stood mute as well. Of them, three are oil importers and Russia an ally of Iran. So we were lucky that time. During the second invasion of Iraq in 2003, we went in with only British support. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper.

23-09-2019 18:50
Into the Night★★★★★ (21140)	VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Sorry, you don't have a time machine. I don't need a time machine to know that dirt on top of gravel in a pile means the person who built the pile dumped the gravel on the ground and then dumped the dirt on top. Yes you do. You are assuming: 1) That a person was involved at all, 2) That the sequence was: gravel, dirt 3) That the unobserved event even happened recently. VernerHornung wrote: Try looking up some of the phrases (principle of superposition, used in archaeology and geology) instead of pontificating from a vacuum chamber. It is YOU pontificating in a vacuum chamber. Quoting religious terms is not a proof. VernerHornung wrote: Geological dating: Stratum C is older than the lava flow on the left. The dike on the right is older than C but younger than D and E. No, this looks like this picture was drawn all at the same time. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: The earth's natural geological processes have all the ingredients to create hydrocarbons, to include sufficient heat and pressure... *Too much* heat and pressure, in fact. Hydrocarbons decompose when heated to thousands of degrees. Who said 'thousands of degrees'? YOU did. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: ...replicated in a lab... Please read the papers. The researchers did not create hydrocarbons in their lab. Hydrogen is *not* hydrocarbons. What papers? Void argument fallacy. No one ever said hydrogen was a hydrocarbon. You seem to be losing track of the conversation. VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: If it was unstated, how do you know it was a reason? Diplomats making public statements about uncomfortable world situations never reveal true motives when these would embarrass a world leader. Compositional error fallacy involving people as the class...bigotry. VernerHornung wrote: Restoring Kuwait's borders and deterring aggression are more acceptable, politically, than access to oil free of Iraqi terms. Since we don't have access to Iraq oil free of Iraq's terms, there is only one cause left. VernerHornung wrote: Not to say Hussein wasn't an aggressive fella, but truth is we wouldn't have given a damn if his Kuwaiti adventure had involved only sand. Assumption fallacy. Strawman fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: I'm not blaming Pres. Bush for this attitude, either. Yes you are, liar. VernerHornung wrote: Wars mean sending American troops into harm's way—troops who aren't willing to die for the kind of lofty moral causes the UN is built to promote. U.S. troops are not U.N. troops. The U.S. is not the U.N. VernerHornung wrote: We *shouldn't* enter a faraway war if the outcome doesn't affect US security. It did. A treaty was at stake. VernerHornung wrote: Other nations feel the same way, for which reason the UN has remained unable to stop genocides as it wants. The U.N. is not the U.S. False equivalence fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: The Congolese intervened in Rwanda only because it was on *their* border and Rwanda's conflicts were spilling over into Congo itself. Irrelevance fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: In the Gulf War, the other powers holding a veto on the UN Security Council—the USSR, China, Britain and France—all agreed to pass the resolution. Irrelevance fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: Had any one of them dissented, the UN would have stood mute as well. Irrelevance fallacy. VernerHornung wrote: Of them, three are oil importers and Russia an ally of Iran. So we were lucky that time. During the second invasion of Iraq in 2003, we went in with only British support. The U.S. is not the U.N. The U.S. is not a State of the U.N. The U.N. is not a nation. You are making quite a few false equivalencies here. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
23-09-2019 19:22
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14108)	VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: Sorry, you don't have a time machine. I don't need a time machine to know that dirt on top of gravel in a pile means the person who built the pile dumped the gravel on the ground and then dumped the dirt on top. Sorry, your inability to understand that petroleum seeps upward is what is keeping you from getting your mind around this issue. You are free to read: https://www.whoi.edu/oil/natural-oil-seeps Of course, if oil encounters impermeable rock that blocks its upward seepage, it accumulates there. This requires a modicum of common sense to fully grasp. Do you understand more than just dirt and gravel? VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: The earth's natural geological processes have all the ingredients to create hydrocarbons, to include sufficient heat and pressure... *Too much* heat and pressure, in fact. Hydrocarbons are guaranteed to form where the right conditions and ingredients come together. Those conditions exist in the earth's crust. VernerHornung wrote: The researchers did not create hydrocarbons in their lab. Hydrogen is *not* hydrocarbons. You aren't talking about the same researchers. The Carnegie Institution has shown that hydrobarbons can form in the upper mantle. Into the Night has graciously offered a clear explanation that any layman can understand. Are you opting to engage in denial? VernerHornung wrote: Diplomats making public statements about uncomfortable world situations never reveal true motives when these would embarrass a world leader. So you are claiming that France and Canada, for example, were protecting Bush? ... and somehow not actively fueling every opportunity to embarrass him? Your claim is absurd. VernerHornung wrote:Restoring Kuwait's borders and deterring aggression are more acceptable, politically, than access to oil free of Iraqi terms. Is it your claim that the text of the unanimous UN Resolution was crafted simply for political correctness rather than accurately documenting the security threat posed by Sadam Hussein? [you haven't read the resolution, have you?] VernerHornung wrote:Not to say Hussein wasn't an aggressive fella, but truth is we wouldn't have given a damn if his Kuwaiti adventure had involved only sand. Argument in the subjunctive. You have established an absurd argument for which you stand poised to roll your eyes if I were to ask you to support your claim that "we wouldn't have given a damn." Well, let's get to it. Support your claim that "we wouldn't have given a damn." VernerHornung wrote: I'm not blaming Pres. Bush for this attitude, either. I'm not blaming him either. I'm thanking him. He restored US credibility lost during the Clinton administration. VernerHornung wrote: Wars mean sending American troops into harm's way—troops who aren't willing to die for the kind of lofty moral causes the UN is built to promote. You don't know why the UN was "built" apparently. The United States had distinct interests in requiring Sadam Hussein to adhere to the treaty [Tariq Aziz] signed. Bush had to do it. He did the right thing. VernerHornung wrote:We *shouldn't* enter a faraway war if the outcome doesn't affect US security. OK. We shouldn't be pretending that Sadam wasn't affecting US, and world, security. VernerHornung wrote: Other nations feel the same way, for which reason the UN has remained unable to stop genocides as it wants. Unfortunately, while all countries claim to be against genocides, many countries only want to end certain particular genocides they don't like ... while supporting the genocides they like. VernerHornung wrote: The Congolese intervened in Rwanda only because it was on *their* border and Rwanda's conflicts were spilling over into Congo itself. Africa has many unfortunate situations caused by divisional hatred of the type we see here in the US fueled by the DNC. VernerHornung wrote:During the second invasion of Iraq in 2003, we went in with only British support. Question: Who else besides the UK supported the US in what you call "only British support"? . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
24-09-2019 02:08
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	Into the Night wrote: ...That the unobserved event even happened recently. It could have happened 67 million years ago. The dirt would still be atop the gravel unless the site was disturbed later. Sue the Tyrannosaur was found 90% intact, lying *precisely* the way she lay when she died, with the river sediments that buried her still atop her. Sole difference the 67 million years made was the assemblage had been compressed and lithified. Perhaps you should have brought your time machine to court when Sue got sued over her ownership rights after they'd excavated her. Then we'd have seen her wandering about the muddy bottoms of South Dakota, to track whether she'd stayed on Tribal land. ~ Into the Night wrote: You are making quite a few false equivalencies here. No, just the statement that we didn't have UN support when invading Iraq in 2003. IDbaMann wrote: Of course, if oil encounters impermeable rock that blocks its upward seepage, it accumulates there. This requires a modicum of common sense to fully grasp. Do you understand more than just dirt and gravel? That's what my post said. Quoting myself for reference, "Impermeable rock layers or salt domes are in fact necessary if you want a good oil field. It keeps the oil from migrating, so it pools up there." And here's more common sense. The oil won't seep upward unless there's *water* underneath it buoying it up. Pour a jug of mineral oil onto some gravel and see whether it seeps to the top by itself. It will not. It will sink to the bottom. Yet if you pour water in, voila! Mineral oil comes back up. (I'm presuming you'll have had the common sense to do this in a bucket to contain the mess.) IDbaMann wrote: You aren't talking about the same researchers. The Carnegie Institution has shown that hydrobarbons can form in the upper mantle. Into the Night has graciously offered a clear explanation that any layman can understand. Are you opting to engage in denial? Are you even reading my *posts?* Or just enough to hit that reply button? Quoting myself for reference, "...Dehydrogenation of goethite in Earth's deep lower mantle (your paper) Qingyang Hu, Duck Young Kim, &c. PNAS https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2017/01/30/1620644114.full.pdf Carnegie Science press release on this paper https://carnegiescience.edu/news/freeing-hydrogen-earth%E2%80%99s-lower-mantle ...new research that proposes subducting slabs carrying ocean floors downward at plate boundaries may release hydrogen at 2800 km depth..." In other words, *your* paper, which says nothing about renewable oil from mantle hydrogen. (Our Fragile Planet thread [p. 6], post of September 21 at 23:15 UT) IDbaMann wrote: I'm not blaming him either. I'm thanking him. He restored US credibility lost during the Clinton administration. The Gulf War was fought in 1990-91 before Clinton took office. You're talking about the 2003 invasion of Iraq, our second war there, for which our second President Bush relied on a Congressional Authorization to Use Military Force, not on UN Resolution 678, which had authorized the first President Bush to expel Iraq from Kuwait. I skipped down to here because my repeated mentions of Kuwait should have clued you in. Iraq wasn't in Kuwait in 2003. So, to answer your question... IDbaMann wrote: So you are claiming that France and Canada, for example, were protecting Bush? I wasn't talking about *Canada* at all, and I named France—as an oil importer—only as one of the four UN Security Council veto holders whose assent was needed to pass UN Resolution 678, which had authorized the first President Bush to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Must I parrot everything three times to make sure someone doesn't come along and twist it to mean the opposite of what I said? Gosh, I hope not. ~ Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 24-09-2019 02:14
24-09-2019 04:00
Into the Night★★★★★ (21140)	VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: ...That the unobserved event even happened recently. It could have happened 67 million years ago. 'nuff said. My point is made. VernerHornung wrote: Into the Night wrote: You are making quite a few false equivalencies here. No, just the statement that we didn't have UN support when invading Iraq in 2003. Lie. You were equivicating the UN and the U.S., as if the U.S. must obey the UN unconditionally. VernerHornung wrote: IDbaMann wrote: Of course, if oil encounters impermeable rock that blocks its upward seepage, it accumulates there. This requires a modicum of common sense to fully grasp. Do you understand more than just dirt and gravel? That's what my post said. VernerHornung wrote: Quoting myself for reference, "Impermeable rock layers or salt domes are in fact necessary if you want a good oil field. It keeps the oil from migrating, so it pools up there." And here's more common sense. The oil won't seep upward unless there's *water* underneath it buoying it up. Pour a jug of mineral oil onto some gravel and see whether it seeps to the top by itself. It will not. It will sink to the bottom. Yet if you pour water in, voila! Mineral oil comes back up. (I'm presuming you'll have had the common sense to do this in a bucket to contain the mess.) Paradox. You said oil existed first, THEN the rock layers came later. Which is it dude? No water is necessary. VernerHornung wrote: [quote]IDbaMann wrote: You aren't talking about the same researchers. The Carnegie Institution has shown that hydrobarbons can form in the upper mantle. Into the Night has graciously offered a clear explanation that any layman can understand. Are you opting to engage in denial? Are you even reading my *posts?* Or just enough to hit that reply button? Quoting myself for reference, "...Dehydrogenation of goethite in Earth's deep lower mantle (your paper) Qingyang Hu, Duck Young Kim, &c. PNAS https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/early/2017/01/30/1620644114.full.pdf Carnegie Science press release on this paper https://carnegiescience.edu/news/freeing-hydrogen-earth%E2%80%99s-lower-mantle ...new research that proposes subducting slabs carrying ocean floors downward at plate boundaries may release hydrogen at 2800 km depth..." In other words, *your* paper, which says nothing about renewable oil from mantle hydrogen. (Our Fragile Planet thread [p. 6], post of September 21 at 23:15 UT) Paradox. Irrational. You were arguing that no hydrogen existed underground. Which is it, dude? VernerHornung wrote: IDbaMann wrote: I'm not blaming him either. I'm thanking him. He restored US credibility lost during the Clinton administration. The Gulf War was fought in 1990-91 before Clinton took office. You're talking about the 2003 invasion of Iraq, our second war there, for which our second President Bush relied on a Congressional Authorization to Use Military Force, not on UN Resolution 678, which had authorized the first President Bush to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Contextomy fallacy. No one was talking about Kuwait. Pay attention. VernerHornung wrote: I skipped down to here because my repeated mentions of Kuwait should have clued you in. Iraq wasn't in Kuwait in 2003. So, to answer your question... Void argument fallacy. No question was asked. Contextomy fallacy, strawman fallacy. No one is referring to Kuwait except you. VernerHornung wrote: IDbaMann wrote: So you are claiming that France and Canada, for example, were protecting Bush? I wasn't talking about *Canada* at all, and I named France—as an oil importer—only as one of the four UN Security Council veto holders whose assent was needed to pass UN Resolution 678, which had authorized the first President Bush to expel Iraq from Kuwait. Must I parrot everything three times to make sure someone doesn't come along and twist it to mean the opposite of what I said? Gosh, I hope not. ~ It is you that is contradicting yourself. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-09-2019 04:11
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5022)	I still don't buy into no oil ever came from decaying plants and animals, which contain a great concentration of hydrocarbons. I also have a little trouble with the concept of a continuous, unbroken, impermeable rock shell underground. That impermeable rock has to have cracks, holes, long fractures. Been pushed up in places to form mountains (not all were volcanoes). Where does lava come from? California earthquakes? Oil seeps from the ocean floor naturally, no holes needed? Basically, the rock itself, is impermeable, but it's all busted up in big chunks, which liquids can be pulled down and around, because of that gravity thing. Sure, a lot of stuff is synthesized in labs, doesn't mean the process mimics nature, which usually isn't very practical. We try to do speed things, make it simple, and cheap. Crude oil is a complex mix of hydrocarbons, just like living things. At least one kind of coal, we dig up, is rich in fossil remains of plants and animals. I don't know how they got there, stuff gets moved around, and buried. Maybe coal use to be tar, stuff fell in, tar dried and became coal. Who knows, all speculation, nobody has ever observed it happening, we don't live long enough.
24-09-2019 19:20
Into the Night★★★★★ (21140)	HarveyH55 wrote: I still don't buy into no oil ever came from decaying plants and animals, which contain a great concentration of hydrocarbons. I also have a little trouble with the concept of a continuous, unbroken, impermeable rock shell underground. That impermeable rock has to have cracks, holes, long fractures. Been pushed up in places to form mountains (not all were volcanoes). Where does lava come from? California earthquakes? Oil seeps from the ocean floor naturally, no holes needed? Basically, the rock itself, is impermeable, but it's all busted up in big chunks, which liquids can be pulled down and around, because of that gravity thing. Sure, a lot of stuff is synthesized in labs, doesn't mean the process mimics nature, which usually isn't very practical. We try to do speed things, make it simple, and cheap. Crude oil is a complex mix of hydrocarbons, just like living things. At least one kind of coal, we dig up, is rich in fossil remains of plants and animals. I don't know how they got there, stuff gets moved around, and buried. Maybe coal use to be tar, stuff fell in, tar dried and became coal. Who knows, all speculation, nobody has ever observed it happening, we don't live long enough. Actually, plants are mostly made up of water and carbohydrates, not hydrocarbons. A very different molecule. Other words for the carbohydrate (especially in foods) is 'starch' or 'sugar'. Oil is also found well below any fossil layer. So is natural gas. All indications are is that the Earth is somehow making it. Further, we can synthesize both crude oil and natural gas from just carbon dioxide and hydrogen in the presence of an iron catalyst, using conditions found similar to those underground. Oil is found wherever you want to drill for it. Sure it might be pretty deep, but it's there. Drilling costs money per foot, so we go for where oil has come closest to the surface. That usually takes place around where edges of tectonic plates are located, especially where spreading action is taking place: * The North Sea (spreading action) * The Middle East (spreading action) * The Gulf of Mexico and on up into the United States like Texas (spreading action) * The North Slopes of Alaska (spreading action) * Near the Pacific Coast of the United States (shearing action) Oil can be found near the surface far away from any tectonic plate edge as well, such as the midwestern States of the United States or in Siberia. If a well is pumped dry, you can cap it, wait awhile (a few years), uncap it, and it's full of oil again. It is NOT seeping in from nearby wells. Whole fields do this. Oil is cheap right now. We have plenty of it. The same wealth can buy two or even three barrels of oil than it could in 1965. A barrel of crude oil, adjusted for the falling dollar over that time, should be about $207 today, but it's only $60-80. Sure doesn't sound like we're running out to me! Refining it has gotten a lot more efficient too. We are now able to lighter oils and composite them together into heavier ones chemically or to fracture heavier ones into lighter ones chemically to improve yield for a particular product, allowing better adjustments to changing market conditions. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
24-09-2019 19:21
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14108)	HarveyH55 wrote: I still don't buy into no oil ever came from decaying plants and animals, which contain a great concentration of hydrocarbons. They had no hydrocarbons. They had carbon, yes, but no hydrocarbons. Do you believe that fossils, beyond being simply buried, somehow underwent the processes of high heat and pressure that are required to form oil and natural gas, nowhere near the depth needed to reach the required high heat and pressure? How do you imagine that is even possible? HarveyH55 wrote: I also have a little trouble with the concept of a continuous, unbroken, impermeable rock shell underground. I don't recall anyone saying there is. Oil seeps upward. Wherever the earth creates oil where there isn't impermeable rock, the oil seeps through. The Gulf of Mexico is a great example of where you can go right now, get a submersible, and observe this happening. You can convince yourself. This is, by the way, the reason for the discovery of oil in the Gulf of Mexico and thusly the reason for all the oil wells in the Gulf of Mexico, i.e. they know that oil is there. Why do you think oil companies spend so much money on geological surveys? They are eager to find clues of where oil is likely to be. The impermeable rock that blocks the oil from seeping further upward and that causes it to accumulate also serves to hide the existence of the oil. HarveyH55 wrote: That impermeable rock has to have cracks, holes, long fractures. Question: Are you able to buy a perfectly good slab of granite? How? Wasn't it pushed around and made full of cracks, holes, long fractures, etc.? The answer is sure, there are cracks and the oil gets into them as far as the cracks extend. For any given crack or hole there is plenty of solid rock that makes it ... wait for it ... impermeable. HarveyH55 wrote: Basically, the rock itself, is impermeable, but it's all busted up in big chunks, which liquids can be pulled down and around, because of that gravity thing. Yes, and sometimes small quantities of hydrocarbons are able to seep through at various points and show up on geological surveys ... which bring oil companies raining down on that location because they then strongly suspect there's a well down there somewhere. HarveyH55 wrote: Sure, a lot of stuff is synthesized in labs, doesn't mean the process mimics nature, Correct. It doesn't mean that. However, if the process in the lab mimics the conditions found in nature, what would be your speculation? If the entire fossil record doesn't extend anywhere near the depth of oil wells, what is your rational conclusion? If the fossil record doesn't extend anywhere near the depth required to achieve the conditions used in the labs to sythesize oil, what is your rational conclusion? What does common sense dictate? Given that no one has ever observed oil form (ergo it is not "what we know"), what should be the rational human's speculation? HarveyH55 wrote: Crude oil is a complex mix of hydrocarbons, just like living things. Not at all. This is a gross misunderstanding. The chemical makeup of hydrocarbons varies in exactly the same manner as any class of rock varies from location to location, with different "impurities" based on the specific "ingredients" available when it was formed. The organic chemistry of living things, on the other hand, is extremely complex and does not differ from one cell to the next. If you were to compare one of your specific liver cells with my corresponding liver cell, the difference would not be that of impurities or of differing allotropes or of differing isotopes as you would expect from something formed deep in the earth, ... but this is precisely how oil in one location differs from oil in another location. HarveyH55 wrote: At least one kind of coal, we dig up, is rich in fossil remains of plants and animals. Coal does not enter this picture. This discussion is about hydrocarbons, i.e. petroleum and natural gas. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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
25-09-2019 05:08
VernerHornung★☆☆☆☆ (133)	Into the Night wrote: Lie. You were equivicating the UN and the U.S., as if the U.S. must obey the UN unconditionally. The charge of lying requires an element of deliberate deception, not mere distaste for contrary opinion. Find the words in my posts where I say the US *must* obey the UN. I suggested, and only indirectly, that when going to war, the US enjoys better international standing if it has the support of the UN. But you are so wrapped up in the partisanship that accompanied the Iraq War you seem unable to read anyone else through before reacting to it. Very much like a patellar hammer. Tap, and the knee jerks. ~ Into the Night wrote: Contextomy... And yet another mysterious private vocabulary item baffles us. Into the Night wrote: You were arguing that no hydrogen existed underground. Which is it, dude? Whether there's hydrogen or not, there's no claim in any of those articles for renewable oil or renewable natural gas. But nobody can be bothered to read them, I suppose. Into the Night wrote: The same wealth can buy two or even three barrels of oil than it could in 1965. A barrel of crude oil, adjusted for the falling dollar over that time, should be about $207 today, but it's only $60-80. Fact check: Benchmark price for crude in July 1965 was $2.92 a barrel, inflation-adjusted to 2018 dollars as $23.71. Nowhere near the stratospheric price you've got. Jeez, almost feels like I've entered an alt-US with alt-facts and an alt-dictionary. ~ Crude Oil Prices - 70 Year Historical Chart Macrotrends (toggle "inflation-adjusted" on and off) https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart HarveyH55 wrote:I still don't buy into no oil ever came from decaying plants and animals, which contain a great concentration of hydrocarbons. Here's what Norwegian Petroleum says about it: "Oil and gas are formed from *organic* material mainly deposited as sediments on the seabed and then broken down and transformed over millions of years... As the microscopic phytoplankton *died, they sank to the bottom and accumulated in large quantities in the oxygen-free sediments. Over time, they were buried deeper and subjected to a long process of chemical conversion by bacterial decomposition and maturing under a thickening pile of sediment. This caused the formation of liquid and gaseous hydrocarbons in the source rock." Norskpetroleum https://www.norskpetroleum.no/en/petroleum-resources/petroleum-formation/ And here's how oil gets from its source rock, the place where it was formed, to its reservoir, which is called an oil trap. The impermeable layer need not be absolutely unbroken, but the fewer leaks the better. Ground water pushes the oil up into the trap. Source rocks are usually shales, siltstones, or coals. "As shown in this figure, all fluid migration is upward. This is because the main driving mechanism in hydrocarbon migration is buoyancy, which occurs because the oil and gas are less dense (lighter) than the resident water. In order to prevent this buoyant flow from occurring all of the way to the surface, a vertical flow barrier, or Cap Rock, is required along the migration path and at the reservoir itself. A cap rock is simply an overlying rock layer that is impermeable* to flow." Penn State Geology Dept. https://www.e-education.psu.edu/png301/node/8 Granite is out. If you drill in New Hampshire, you'll go broke. (There are rare exceptions to the "no igneous rock" rule, but I won't discuss them because they are, well, rare.) ~ HarveyH55 wrote: Who knows, all speculation, nobody has ever observed it happening, we don't live long enough. Uncertainty exists in almost everything we know or think we know. But this doesn't stop law enforcement from arresting suspects in murders the police didn't observe. While it's quite possible that some methane is created inorganically, commercial quantities of oil and gas require organic source materials. As for capping a well to use it later, that sometimes works. Water seeps back into wells if you quit pumping for a while, and oil may do so if there's still oil in the reservoir. A well's production declines over time, however. The recent surge in US production came from fracking to get more oil and gas out of the reservoirs. More technologies will no doubt be discovered, each one more expensive than the last and brought into play only when prices rise enough. Or we could just hydrogenate our coal, as the Germans did. Or dig up tar sands and oil shales. We won't actually *run out* of fuel for many centuries. But it's a dirty source of energy that gets less and less economical. I believe its heyday is past. Never try to solve an NP-complete problem on your own with pencil & paper. Edited on 25-09-2019 05:20
25-09-2019 11:34
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	IBdaMann wrote: ...you don't have a time machine. You don't know that... Oh that's just so you IBD! VernerHornung wrote: IBdaMann wrote: If it was unstated, how do you know it was a reason? Diplomats making public statements about uncomfortable world situations never reveal true motives Trump may have said "let's go get their oil." Into the Night wrote:You are assuming...Who said...What papers?...liar... To sum up: Everything is disqualified, all of the time. VernerHornung wrote: Must I parrot everything three times to make sure someone doesn't come along and twist it to mean the opposite of what I said? Gosh, I hope not. ~ Facts are quite malleable for these guys. They still insist I'm a liar for linking to Trumps first campaign ad and quoting it verbatim. Into the Night wrote: If a well is pumped dry, you can cap it, wait awhile (a few years), uncap it, and it's full of oil again. Wow! You're going to be rich ITN. If depleted oil fields really aren't depleted and filled up again you should be able to get them cheap with your special knowledge. Big oil just doesn't have your insights into BS. IBdaMann wrote: HarveyH55 wrote: I still don't buy into no oil ever came from decaying plants and animals, which contain a great concentration of hydrocarbons. Given that no one has ever observed oil form (ergo it is not "what we know"), what should be the rational human's speculation? You see Harvey, IBD would support his argument with some kind or "Valid data sets" but well, he's just making all of this up. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference& Proof: no data is ever valid for them
25-09-2019 15:08
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14108)	tmiddles wrote: To sum up: Everything is disqualified, all of the time. To sum up ... it's because everything you write is dishonest and should be summarily dismissed. So yes, everything of yours will likely be disqualified. It should be expected. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles 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

Page 2 of 3

Join the debate The only straw the Church of AGW can grasp is Venus:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Church of the Mask -- "Magick Mask Argument"	94	02-04-2021 05:36
Venus is hotter than Mercury?!?	1095	03-09-2020 04:54
The Church of Global Warming is Doomed	5	10-02-2020 18:12
What exactly is the evidence that AGW is happening or	73	18-01-2020 02:33
Why can't you say Venus is hotter than Mercury because Venus got CO2?	129	19-12-2019 17:10