Register to Comment
Page 1118 of 6575 FirstFirst ... 1186181018106811081116111711181119112011281168121816182118 ... LastLast
Results 11,171 to 11,180 of 65750
Like Tree13925Likes
  1. #11171
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    16,369

    Quote Originally Posted by owedtojoy View Post
    Using salt-tolerant plants, weeds and algae for new green aviation fuels at NASA's GreenLab without using arable land, food crops or fresh water.

    [email protected] - Bilal Bomani - Cutting edge biofuels - YouTube!
    Last year in June I posted that here:


    As food crops going into energy production take a long time to grow and consume a lot of arable land a new technology to produce bio fuels AND digest CO2 emissions at a single blow: Marine Algae.



    Jacobs University’s marine algae based CO2 mitigation technology tested in pilot plant in Bremen Blumenthal.

    As much as 30,000 litres of bio diesel can be produced on just one hectar of land. The algae grow very fast and are fed with CO2 coming from a fuel burning power plant. They are 20 times as potent as canola.


    Also => Capture CO2. Oil out of Air

    and => Fuel Out of Air – Part 2
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  2. #11172
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    16,369

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny's Soldier View Post
    There's a big difference between words like Debunking or Discredited with the word Disproven.
    Well. It depends what agenda is behind the theory.

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny's Soldier View Post
    There are basic principles broken in the Greenhouse Theory -such as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.
    Where? When? Evidence/proof?

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny's Soldier View Post
    Then there's the fact that there is no experiment that proves a "Greenhouse Effect" exists.
    Utterly wrong.

    Let's make it simple for you. Here one example:



    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny's Soldier View Post
    The 16 names have standing which is more than can be said for the "Hockey Stick" team.
    Means you are speakless?
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  3. #11173
    SirCharles SirCharles is offline
    SirCharles's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    16,369

    Quote Originally Posted by Tombo View Post
    Yet more "predictions", still denying the failure of past similar predicitons.
    The AR4 attribution statement
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  4. #11174
    Destiny's Soldier Destiny's Soldier is offline
    Destiny's Soldier's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    4,081

    Quote Originally Posted by SirCharles View Post
    Well. It depends what agenda is behind the theory.



    Where? When? Evidence/proof?



    Utterly wrong.

    Let's make it simple for you. Here one example:





    Means you are speakless?
    Charlie, it's obvious you really don't have a clue and way out of your depth.

    The good deluded lady in the clip is

    1. Measuring the heat of compression -as CO2 is more dense than Air. Read up on the Ideal Gas Law.
    2. Is using an IR light source from a light filament bulb at approx 300 deg Celcius when the light source for the Earths atmosphere is the Earth at +15 C and the emission temp of -18 C. Our atmosphere gets it's energy from the Earth.

    3. Is not measuring the Greenhouse Effect at all. She thinks she is measuring the IR energy absorbed from CO2 gas when the bulbs are so close to the container, conduction of heat alone would heat the containers with the more dense CO2 heating more. A noble gas such as Argon with a density 1.2 times greater than air would exude the same heating effect in the above insult of an experiment to formally trained scholars like myself.

    IR absorbtion by polar molecules and the Greenhouse Effect are 2 distinct phenomenon.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  5. #11175
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,925

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny's Soldier View Post
    There's a big difference between words like Debunking or Discredited with the word Disproven.

    There are basic principles broken in the Greenhouse Theory -such as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

    Then there's the fact that there is no experiment that proves a "Greenhouse Effect" exists.

    The 16 names have standing which is more than can be said for the "Hockey Stick" team.
    You have seen the answer to this so many times, that I begin to think you OCD. Both Owed and SirCharles have posted the chart showing the mechanism for the exchange of heat and the "laws" do not apply. The Earth is not a warm body but one that is warmed by the Sun and GHGs regulate the exchange modify it. If the law applied as simply as youn think, it would be mighty cold.

    As for experiments not having been done! That is not worth an answer. It is too foolish for words. Thousands of experiments have been done going back to the nineteenth century.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  6. #11176
    Sangreel Sangreel is offline

    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Posts
    1,872

    Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

    Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

    **

    Ok so one side sez we have a ice age coming and one side sez not so fast. I guess we will just have to wait and see as I don't see that anything we do now will change what will come about.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  7. #11177
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,925

    Shale gas could be worse than coal or oil as well as conventional gas.

    Carol Linnitt | The Cornell Team Redux: Shale Gas a Disaster for Climate
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  8. #11178
    Agnotologist Agnotologist is offline

    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    4,925

    Quote Originally Posted by Sangreel View Post
    Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

    Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

    **

    Ok so one side sez we have a ice age coming and one side sez not so fast. I guess we will just have to wait and see as I don't see that anything we do now will change what will come about.
    Did you not notice that the "article" was in the Daly Mail? That should be answer enough. But, if you read some of it you will also see that the climate "experts" interviewed were just the usual few denialists "at your service."
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  9. #11179
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,669

    Quote Originally Posted by Destiny's Soldier View Post
    There's a big difference between words like Debunking or Discredited with the word Disproven.

    There are basic principles broken in the Greenhouse Theory -such as the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

    Then there's the fact that there is no experiment that proves a "Greenhouse Effect" exists.
    The laws of radiation physics are the same throughtout the universe, and the existence of heat trapping gases in the atmosphere is incontrovertible. Otherwise, earth would have the same "climate" as the moon.

    You cannot duplicate an atmospheric column with radiative and convective effects in a lab. However, one can demonstrate that CO2 or methane are heat trapping gases.

    There is no lab experiment that shows evolution happens either.

    One can apply the physical laws (as scientists have) to planetary atmospheres and the sun and show the results agree with predictions. One can use the HITRAN database to predict the absorption and emission of IR in the atmosphere and sow it agrees with observations.

    BTW, I look to other deniers like Cassandra Syndrome, Tombo and kront999, who say they accept the greenhouse effect, to show Destiny's Soldier the elementary errors he is making. If you reject the term "deniers", you are claiming your objections to anthropogenic climate change are based on science.

    The 16 names have standing which is more than can be said for the "Hockey Stick" team.
    The theory of anthropogenic climate change does not depend solely on the "hockey stick", which has been duplicated so often by researchers it is now generally accepted. The "16 names" are old farts, some of whom take money from fossil fuel companies.

    • Richard Lindzen, one of the most debunked climate scientists in the world (see Lindzen debunked again: New scientific study finds his paper downplaying dangers of human-caused warming is “seriously in error”: Trenberth: The flaws in Lindzen-Choi paper “have all the appearance of the authors having contrived to get the answer they got”). See also "Kerry Emanuel slams media, asserts Lindzen charge in Boston Globe is “pure fabrication.”
    • William Happer, physicist, Chairman of the Board of a leading disinformer think-tank George Marshall Institute, heavily funded by Exxon Mobil and other anti-science funders.
    • Roger Cohen, Former manager for Strategic Planning and Programs ExxonMobil Corporation, now a George Marshall Institute ‘expert’.
    • Harrison H. Schmitt, geologist and astronaut, who believes enviros and climate scientists like Holdren are communists.


    Panic Attack: Murdoch's Wall Street Journal Finds 16 Scientists to Push Pollutocrat Agenda With Long-Debunked Climate Lies | ThinkProgress
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

  10. #11180
    owedtojoy owedtojoy is offline
    owedtojoy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    38,669

    Quote Originally Posted by Sangreel View Post
    Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again) | Mail Online

    Forget global warming - it's Cycle 25 we need to worry about (and if NASA scientists are right the Thames will be freezing over again)

    **

    Ok so one side sez we have a ice age coming and one side sez not so fast. I guess we will just have to wait and see as I don't see that anything we do now will change what will come about.
    You would have to be pretty gullible to take your science from an ignorant journalist writing in the Mail Online.

    There are not two sides - there are 97% of climate scientists versus a handful of politicians, journos and "scientists" who fool those who think the Mail Online is the apex of scientific research.



    BTW,

    The planet has continued to accumulate heat since 1998 - global warming is still happening. Nevertheless, surface temperatures show much internal variability due to heat exchange between the ocean and atmosphere. 1998 was an unusually hot year due to a strong El Nino.
    What has global warming done since 1998?

    No one in climate science takes the "new ice age" shyte seriously. Even global coolists like Cassandra Syndrome has given up on that one.
    Last edited by owedtojoy; 30th January 2012 at 09:02 AM.
    Sign in or Register Now to reply

Sign in to CommentRegister to Comment