Ok, this global warming shit is getting out of hand...

[MultiVerse]

For anyone new to this thread, Ron's Heller is a fraud who was exposed here back in December as a climate data manipulator. But frauds like Heller know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so if you do something extraordinarily fraudulent, like so many of Ron's sources, you can often get away with it.

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


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

[neufox47]

Climate deniers MO:

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

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



Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Skidog]

id only ask really one question.

Would earth climate change if humans didnt exist?

[k2skier112]

id only ask really one question.

Would earth climate change if humans didnt exist?

Loaded question and you know it. And you know the answer.

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

But drastically, no. Just colder

[k2skier112]

https://www.climatecentral.org/news/...c-rivers-18645

How Warming May Alter Critical ‘Atmospheric Rivers’


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

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

[ron johnson]

For anyone new to this thread, Ron's Heller is a fraud who was exposed here back in December as a climate data manipulator. But frauds like Heller know extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, so if you do something extraordinarily fraudulent, like so many of Ron's sources, you can often get away with it.

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


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

For those new to the thread, MV repeatedly tries defending undependable positions, and when that fails he resorts to mischaracterizations and ad hominems.

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

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

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

[Dantheman]

id only ask really one question.

Would earth climate change if humans didnt exist?

[WMD]

For those new to this thread Ron Johnson is a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry. His goal is to create confusion to delay action to mitigate the climate crisis so his corporate overlords can make more money on their fossil fuel investments.

[SkiCougar]

For those new to this thread Ron Johnson is a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry. His goal is to create confusion to delay action to mitigate the climate crisis so his corporate overlords can make more money on their fossil fuel investments.

create confusion on a ski messageboard ?

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

I can just see the head lobbyist for exxon checking this daily to see what the TGR forum community thinks, not.

[rideit]

How do we know you aren’t a bot?

[MultiVerse]

Over the past couple of pages Courgr and Baron, and earlier in this thread Ron, all tried to either outright deny the existence of a CO2 greenhouse effect or claim the existence of a cooling/heating force that "can exert a greater radiative force on the climate than that of CO2."

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

NASA Debunks Global Warming Theory
….

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

global warming theory is nonsense.

-- Tony Heller

Do you deny that air pressure enhances warming? Why is it that Death Valley is the hottest place on earth? Is it because there is more CO2 over Death Valley? Or is it because the air pressure is higher due to it being 250ft below sea level? Or why do underground mines get hot?

There is little correlation between CO2 levels and temperature as you look at earth's climate history, but somehow it comes in at #1?

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

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

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


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


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

[ron johnson]

Over the past couple of pages Courgr and Baron, and earlier in this thread Ron, all tried to either outright deny the existence of a CO2 greenhouse effect or claim the existence of a cooling/heating force that "can exert a greater radiative force on the climate than that of CO2."

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





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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[ron johnson]

For those new to this thread Ron Johnson is a paid shill for the fossil fuel industry. His goal is to create confusion to delay action to mitigate the climate crisis so his corporate overlords can make more money on their fossil fuel investments.

For those new to this thread, WMD is a global warmer true believer. He is incapable of doing much beside copy and pasting fear mongering articles. The rare times he does present a thought of his own, like in this quoted post, or in his previous post about someone giving a presentation he went to that claimed that North America is on a pathway to 13'F warming by 2100, you see get to see how clueless he is.

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

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

[MultiVerse]

It says a lot that Ron defends Heller's data munging, just like he accepts NoTricksZone's own defense at face value in spite of all evidence. All of it is as fraudulent as Heller's conclusion that "global warming theory is nonsense" because of Venus. There's Ron's/Heller's narrative in the post above and then there's reality:



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

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

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

Even though Mars has nearly 70 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere as Earth, the low Martian atmospheric pressure results in a narrower GHG solar absorption spectrum and so more heat is lost into space.

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

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

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

[k2skier112]

For those new to this thread, WMD is a global warmer true believer. He is incapable of doing much beside copy and pasting fear mongering articles. The rare times he does present a thought of his own, like in this quoted post, or in his previous post about someone giving a presentation he went to that claimed that North America is on a pathway to 13'F warming by 2100, you see get to see how clueless he is.

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

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

shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt

[MultiVerse]

Note too that Ron's own joannenova source makes the point that—contrary to Ron, Courgr, Baron, and Heller—CO2 and other GHG's are very much a first order effect.

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

[ron johnson]

It says a lot that Ron defends Heller's data munging, just like he accepts NoTricksZone's own defense at face value in spite of all evidence. All of it is as fraudulent as Heller's conclusion that "global warming theory is nonsense" because of Venus. There's Ron's/Heller's narrative in the post above and then there's reality:

You have provided zero valid evidence of "Heller's data munging", and I looked at your Snopes evidence and it's pretty clear that NTZ has a valid defense. They are not using the papers as evidence that global warming is fake like Snopes claims, but simply aggregating papers that present evidence that today's warming is not global or unprecedented.

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

Even though Mars has nearly 70 times as much CO2 in its atmosphere as Earth, the low Martian atmospheric pressure results in a narrower GHG solar absorption spectrum and so more heat is lost into space.

[k2skier112]

You have provided zero valid evidence of "Heller's data munging", and I looked at your Snopes evidence and it's pretty clear that NTZ has a valid defense. They are not using the papers as evidence that global warming is fake like Snopes claims, but simply aggregating papers that present evidence that today's warming is not global or unprecedented.

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

Shut the fuck up you ignorant cunt

[MultiVerse]

Lol @ Ron saying Heller's position "is not that green house gasses don't trap heat."

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

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

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

The result, once the system comes into equilibrium, is surface warming. The effect is particularly spectacular for Venus, whose ground temperature is 730K. If the planet were a black body in equilibrium with the solar radiation received by the planet, the ground temperature would be a mere 231K.

[ron johnson]

Lol @ Ron saying Heller's position "is not that green house gasses don't trap heat."

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

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

The result, once the system comes into equilibrium, is surface warming. The effect is particularly spectacular for Venus, whose ground temperature is 730K. If the planet were a blackbody in equilibrium with the solar radiation received by the planet, the ground temperature would be a mere 231 K.

Reads to me that he is saying that neither the extreme daytime or nighttime temperatures on Venus can be explained by the greenhouse effect, not that green house gasses don't trap heat.

[MultiVerse]

Well Ron, you and Heller can prattle on about Venus and how "the primary factor controlling planetary pressure is atmospheric pressure" but you're wrong. The math is not hard. In fact it's so simple even you might be capable of doing it so here goes,

Q: Does the additional temperature on Venus due to the greenhouse effect in its entirety exceed what the ground temperature would otherwise be without the greenhouse effect?

A: 730K - 231K = 499K, 499K > 231K so the answer is yes


That's the fundamental problem with all the lies you and your cohort like Heller & NoTrickZone tell, once you get past the false narratives and actually look at the details your stories all fall apart.

[Deebased]

Over the past couple of pages Courgr and Baron, and earlier in this thread Ron, all tried to either outright deny the existence of a CO2 greenhouse effect or claim the existence of a cooling/heating force that "can exert a greater radiative force on the climate than that of CO2."

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





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

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

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


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


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

Not sure why you'd claim the 1st law of thermodynamics (in a closed system) as being a relevant argument. Obviously, that makes the rest of your argument suspect.

Not that any of that solves the current CO2 issues.

[LuciferStarS]

Guys. most CO2 is coming from forest, from the leaves that are molding in the forest. Okay, I agree we have a lot of cars, on gasoline and diesel, but all the CO2 that is released by cars is only 11% or something like that, and all the shit with global warming is fake, people are listening only to one information source, without asking themselves, if this is true or not. How will you explain that in Saudi Arabia was snow this year, in one of the warmest countries in the world? I can talk a lot about that, but I have to go.

[Bunion 2020]

Yes, please do and do not come back.

[Buster Highmen]

https://skepticalscience.com/human-c...-emissions.htm