How many posts by the oil & gas industry claiming there is no climate change can this board take?
World Climate Declaration: There is no climate emergency
- Thread starter oil&gas
- Start date
According to larue.
Whether climate change is happening cannot be determined by:
Scientists.
Lawyers
Public Opinion
Measurements of the climate
Consensus of climatologists
Consensus of all scientists
The only true way to tell is by larue and his plucky band of wacko oil funded lobbyists masquerading as researchers.
And I was right yet again. Boom!
www.scientificamerican.com
Exxon Knew about Climate Change Almost 40 Years Ago
A new investigation shows the oil company understood the science before it became a public issue and spent millions to promote misinformation
Sadly…. The misinformation the oil companies spread has worked. Just look at what O&G and Larue post here. It would be funny, except it’s not.
Big Oil vs the World tells the 40 year story of how the oil industry delayed action on climate change
BBC three-part series features never-before-seen documents, exclusive interviews with industry players, and testimony from leading scientists, politicians and CEOs
www.bbc.com
sadly some fools think scientific hypothesis is determined by testimony in courtSadly…. The misinformation the oil companies spread has worked. Just look at what O&G and Larue post here. It would be funny, except it’s not.
Big Oil vs the World tells the 40 year story of how the oil industry delayed action on climate change
BBC three-part series features never-before-seen documents, exclusive interviews with industry players, and testimony from leading scientists, politicians and CEOswww.bbc.com
it is not
oh boy
no
CO2 is not the control knob for climate
if you truly think it is the control knob for climate then you can explain why Venus is broiling hot at the surface while also having both a pressure & thermal gradient with altitude in a constant 96% CO2 atmosphere ?
and then explain using the same theory how mars can be frigidly cold with more carbon (95%) than earth ?
The physical laws of nature are universal
your hypothesis fails when compared to the observed experimental data
end of story
That is how science works
Sadly some fools think they know more than NASA, the IPCC, AAAS and 99.9% of all scientists.
If this is true, then why is Venus HOTTER than Mercury when Mercury is CLOSER to the Sun? The answer might surprise you!
pressure
93 bar Venus vs 10 bar for Mercury
Try pumping up a bicycle inner tube , the increased pressure will make the tube hotter
Last edited:
Wow.
We should get Biden to fire all of NASA and replace them with johnnylarue.
Mr Science knows better than all of them.
Venus
Venus is the second planet from the sun and our closest planetary neighbor.
solarsystem.nasa.gov
Actually, it is NOT pressure that does it. It is the amount of heat that is being trapped by the atmosphere (mainly CO2 and sulfur).
The clouds of Venus have a very high albedo, which means that 70-80% of the sunlight hitting the planet is reflected. However, any light and heat that does get in cannot escape, thus heating the planet that much more. The average temperature of Venus is +475 F. Daytime and nighttime sides.Pressure might have some small effect (Gas Law) but it is negligible when compared to the heat being trapped by the atmosphere.
Mercury has no atmosphere and so there is nothing to trap any light and heat. As a result, the heat just escapes back into space. The daytime side of Mercury is very hot while the nighttime side of Mercury is extremely cold. How does Sun proximity or pressure explain that? It doesn't. It is the lack of sunlight on the night side and heat escaping very quickly (due to lack of atmosphere) that explains that.
Earth's atmospheric albedo is increasing due to increasing CO2 concentration, like Venus. As a result, more heat can be trapped inside the atmosphere and cannot escape into space. Larger CO2 (and other) concentrations means more trapping of heat. That is why CO2 is called a "greenhouse gas".....
Mars has both a very thin CO2 atmosphere AND is further from the Sun. Therefore, its average temperature will be colder than Earth's. Heat can escape into space faster because the CO2 molecules in its atmophere has a very low concentration and cannot block heat trying to get out.
Last edited:
What traps the atmospheric molecules to create / maintain an atmosphere?
Gravity & that results in pressure as gas molecules are compressed closer to one another
It is 96% CO2
Yes, Russian probes measured temp / pressure upon decent to the surface of Venus
They also measure incoming radiation at the surface & it was minuscule (less than 20 watts / m2 at the surface as per Dr Robert Holmes) earth is 161 watts/ m2 at the surface. the high density / pressure makes a very thick atmosphere which prevents radiation from making it to the surface
limited income radiation, >>>>> limited reflection from the surface >>> limited greenhouse effect
20 watts / m2 vs. 161 watts / m2 for earth , yet Venus is 400 K hotter ?
due to pressure
Actually no
The probes measured a pressure gradient & temperature gradient as the probe descended.
60 kms up (96% CO2) it is 340 K & One atmosphere pressure however brutally hot 735 K at the surface (still 96% CO2) and 90 atmosphere
#1. Same atmospheric composition 96% CO2 yet going from one atmosphere to 90 atmosphere pressure increases the temperature by 400 K - despite a constant 96% CO2 - that should not happen if CO2 drives temperature. Clearly pressure/ auto compression controls the temperature
#2 Dr Robert Holmes determined the fourth root of the solar insolation ratio (Venus / Earth) factor equates the temperature @ one atmosphere pressure 60 km up on Venus to temperature @ the one atmospheric pressure on earth using the molar mass version of the idea gas law
Temperature & pressure equated once allowing for isolation differences for both a 96% CO2 composition and a 400 parts per million CO2 composition?
Clearly CO2 does not control the temperature
#3. Venus rotates very slowly , 53 earth days , yet the dark side is only marginally lower in temp.
How does the greenhouse effect work if no radiation has been incoming for 53 days?
It doesn't as a electromagnetic radiation moves at the speed of light.
Clearly pressure/ auto compression controls the temperature
#4. the surface temp & pressure dictate CO2 is a super critical fluid @ an attitude of 4 km from the surface & below. If CO2 drove temperature , there would be a break in the temperature gradient upon hitting that 4km inflection point. there was not
Clearly pressure/ auto compression controls the temperature.
One could ask how a greenhouse gas effect takes place when there is no gas but rather 4 km of a super critical fluid?
limited atmosphere means a lack of pressure , similar to Mars (95% CO2)
the change is a 0.01% change in atmospheric composition due to increasing CO2
This is a physical effect (no bonds are broken or formed)
0.01% changes in composition do not move the needle on physical effects
IR absorption has a logarithmic relationship with concentration >>> diminishing returns as concentration increases
it is saturated & has been for a very long ( geological) time
a thin atmosphere means a lack of pressure which why it is frigid despite a 95% CO2 composition and more co2 than on earth
Last edited:
Now you've done it.
He's going to start asking if you don't believe in the Ideal Gas Law next.
(He's already reached the "spam the same graph or meme" stage, I see.)
The atmospheres of Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have much higher pressures than Venus and yet their temperatures are extremely low when compared to Venus. Yes, they are all further from the Sun, but since the pressures are so immensely high, that should counteract the low temperatures due to distance, right?
I have already said that there are atmospheric pressures (and gradients too of course) but they are inconsequential when compared to the amount of heat trapped by the atmospheres. I don't care if you don't believe it but the scientific method has already beaten you years before you were born.....
Sunlight (no matter how small) interacts with the atmospheric molecules and generate heat as an output. That heat remains within the atmosphere since the atmospheric density prevents heat from escaping (especially in the case of Venus). Compare what happens at night when it is overcast vs. when the night is not overcast. Overcast nights are generally warmer because the clouds trap heat. When it is overcast, the atmospheric pressure is typically LOWER than when it is clear. Clear skies at night (higher pressure) are generally colder because heat escapes more easily, thus cooling the surface more quickly. Reality readily contradicts what you have asserted and therefore your assertions are garbage, to put it mildly......
The science of heat flow has been scientifically proven for at least 200 years. I doubt that you will ever win a Nobel Prize for your hypotheses. If you wish to try to backup your conclusions, you are using the wrong direction approach. Begin with observation and try to match your hypotheses to those observations, not the other way around.....
gas giants Jupiter, Saturn really do not have a surface rather a core so the pressures you speak of are at the core & they will be plenty hot
You want to know why Uranus is cold?
is the flap down on your long johns?
the ice giants Uranus and Neptune are cold because there is ice
the scientific method ? before the actual measurements were taken by the Venera probes
Science is determined by actual measurements
your response is a cop out
explain how there is a 400 K delta between two samples of atmospheric gas, both with 96% CO2 composition ?
40O K is not inconsequential
explain how there is a 400 K delta between two samples of atmospheric gas both with 96% CO2 composition ?
it can only be explained via pressure differences
The reality is you cannot explain the experimental observations using the GHG theory
Your hypothesis was tested by mother nature & it failed
..
This is Dr. Holmes work & was published
and you have publish what again? (The sum of sweet F All ?)
If you are too chicken or not sharp enough to even try to directly explain away his work , then you should at a minimum be respectful enough to say nothing
The reality is you cannot explain the experimental observations using the GHG theory
Your hypothesis was tested by mother nature & it failed
Argument by Authority does not work in science. In what year was the Dr. Holmes paper published? I bet it was some time in the 1950s or something.....
A 400K gradient is easily explained by upper atmosphere vs lower atmosphere. The upper atmosphere has a lower density of particles and so heat and light can escape more easily, hence a lower temperature. Near the surface, there is so much atmosphere (due to higher gravitational forces) above the probe that heat cannot escape the dense atmosphere. Pressure is not required here. You do not have much of a point.
The Venera probes were launched in the 1970s-80s, yes but radar observations of Venus have been made since the 1950s. There is also such as thing as hypotheses spawned by telescopic observations of the planet.
Also consider that the Venera probes (all of them) were constructed of incredibly dense material to withstand the immense heat on the planet's surface. How did the Soviets know to design them that way if they did not already know the hellish terrain on the surface? Think about that.....
A 400K gradient is easily explained by upper atmosphere vs lower atmosphere. The upper atmosphere has a lower density of particles and so heat and light can escape more easily, hence a lower temperature. Near the surface, there is so much atmosphere (due to higher gravitational forces) above the probe that heat cannot escape the dense atmosphere. Pressure is not required here. You do not have much of a point.
The Venera probes were launched in the 1970s-80s, yes but radar observations of Venus have been made since the 1950s. There is also such as thing as hypotheses spawned by telescopic observations of the planet.
Also consider that the Venera probes (all of them) were constructed of incredibly dense material to withstand the immense heat on the planet's surface. How did the Soviets know to design them that way if they did not already know the hellish terrain on the surface? Think about that.....
No.
It is probably the recent one that got a bunch of attention in 2017.
Warning: pdf link - article.sciencepublishinggroup.com/pdf/10.11648.j.earth.20170606.18.pdf
Could also be this one in a similar vein.
Thermal Enhancement on Planetary Bodies and the Relevance of the Molar Mass Version of the Ideal Gas Law to the Null Hypothesis of Climate Change
Presented here is a simple and reliable method of accurately calculating the average near surface atmospheric temperature on all planetary bodies which possess a surface atmospheric pressure of over 0.69kPa, by the use of the molar mass version of the ideal gas law. This method requires a gas...
sciencepublishinggroup.com
Mr Science has me on ignore because I posted this study before, NASA measuring direct increase in solar radiation due to greenhouse gas increases.
But since larue's metric is a 'test by mother nature' I'm sure he won't accept it.
Observational Evidence of Increasing Global Radiative Forcing
Ryan J. Kramer,Haozhe He,Brian J. Soden,Lazaros Oreopoulos,Gunnar Myhre,Piers M. Forster,Christopher J. Smith
Changes in atmospheric composition, such as increasing greenhouse gases, cause an initial radiative imbalance to the climate system, quantified as the instantaneous radiative forcing. This fundamental metric has not been directly observed globally and previous estimates have come from models. In part, this is because current space-based instruments cannot distinguish the instantaneous radiative forcing from the climate’s radiative response. We apply radiative kernels to satellite observations to disentangle these components and find all-sky instantaneous radiative forcing has increased 0.53 ± 0.11 W/m2 from 2003 to 2018, accounting for positive trends in the total planetary radiative imbalance. This increase has been due to a combination of rising concentrations of well-mixed greenhouse gases and recent reductions in aerosol emissions. These results highlight distinct fingerprints of anthropogenic activity in Earth’s changing energy budget, which we find observations can detect within 4 years.
Direct Observations Confirm That Humans Are Throwing Earth's Energy Budget off Balance – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet
A NASA study has confirmed with direct evidence that human activities are changing Earth's energy budget, trapping much more energy from the Sun than is escaping back into space.
Um. No. The planets Uranus and Netpune are mainly comprised of methane and ammonia with some helium. There is no water ice on either but their moons likely have some if not dry ice.....
