The definitive guide to the "Global Warming" scam

[P@triot]

It never stops being funny. The left has been caught in not one, not two, but now three rounds of “Climate Gate” in which the political activists posing as “scientists” were caught discussing how they lie about “Global Warming”. The progressive minions ignore it and still believe the propaganda. The left was forced to rebrand it from “Global Warming” to “Climate Change” when history proved them wrong. The progressive minions ignore it and still believe the propaganda. And then there is Al Gore. The man brings in hundreds of millions through the ultimate scam - and the ignore it and still believe the propaganda.

And it’s not just universities, professors, and green organizations that have reaped financial benefits from the climate panic. Former vice president Al Gore has done quite well for himself, too. As Bloomberg News reported, “In the last personal finance report he filed as vice president, Gore disclosed on May 22, 2000, that the value of his assets totaled between $780,000 and $1.9 million.”

Buy by 2007, Gore’s wealth had skyrocketed. By that point he had a net worth “well in excess” of $100 million, including pre–public offering Google stock options, according to an article at Fast Company. MIT scientist Richard Lindzen declared that Gore wanted to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire.” After the Obama administration bloated climate and energy stimulus packages, Gore was on the path to that achievement.

By 2008, Gore was so flush that he announced a $300 million campaign to promote climate fears and so-called solutions. And he just kept raking it in. According to a 2012 Washington Post report, “14 green-tech firms in which Gore invested received or directly benefited from more than $2.5 billion in loans, grants and tax breaks, part of Obama’s historic push to seed a U.S. renewable-energy industry with public money.”

Al Gore is laughing all the way to his three carbon-emitting mansions and his really carbon-emitting private jet.

New Book Details How Al Gore ‘Lavishly’ Profited Off Climate Lobbying

 

[P@triot]

Ahahahahahaha! The left-wing lunacy continues to be exposed...

Scientists Observe Coldest Temperatures Ever on Earth’s Surface | Breitbart

 

[P@triot]

Even radical left-wing Slate.com is now admitting one major lie from the left regarding the “Global Warming” scam:

According to an article on Slate, the myth of the monstrous garbage patch was made up to call attention to the problem of pollution and "save our Oceans."

But wait! It gets even better:

There Is No Island of Trash in the Pacific. But the cause of clean oceans needed a good story. Our warming planet could use another one.

They are openly calling for more lies to perpetuate the “Global Warming” scam!

Is the ‘Great Pacific Garbage Patch’ just a myth?

The Great Pacific Garbage Patch Was the Myth We Needed to Save Our Oceans

 

[Allen Eltor]

The story that the green house gases warm the planet is the story that a

cold nitrogen bath

conduction chilling a light-warmed rock,

is a heater,

because cold, light blocking refrigerants, added to the bath,

possess a "magical gaissiness what dun turn't uh coald nichurgin bayuth, uh HEEDuR! YaW!

Jist as SHOAR as POT'S like HEROIN!

Ain't that sumthin how the same guvurmint fellurs what dun discovered about the DEVIL WEAD,

dun all so
fownd out about the DEVILISH MAGICAL GAiSSiNeSS, what dun made a COLD bath uh HEEDUR!

HewEE Uncle YewJean thay dun got sum SMART FELLURS down thair two the guvurmint playse,

they dun told us all we need to git on us some opioids,
so that DEVIL WEAD don't make some of us
git on opioids

and now thim same fellurs what had the critical scientific peer review to prove THAT in coart,

has now discovered abowt how the magical gaissiness
makes more light warm a rock,
evur time the magical gaissiness
dun made less light warm a rock.

yAW.

That's a magic gas barking hick: a cold nitrogen bath is a heater, and pot's like heroin. Cawse GUVURMINT FELLURS
dun got the CRITICAL research university SCIENTIFIC PEER REVIEW to PRUV it in COART! YaW!"

The next time some magic gas barking hick tells you a cold nitrogen bath is a heater, tell him to show you ONE instance of that happening in all thermodynamics.

When he tells you "magical insulation dun made moar light warm a rock evur time it made less light warm a rock,"

tell him to show you one other time in all thermodynamics

when adding light blocking insulation to a cold bath,
so less light reaches and warms a rock,
makes sensors detect and mathematics show,
more light reaching and warming the rock,
every time more insulation, makes
less light reach and warm that rock.

 

[Allen Eltor]

The next time you see a magic gas barking hick, squealing that "magical gaissiness dun made a cold bath uh heeDuR"

tell him to name that other time in history a cold nitrogen bath was a heater,

and to tell you how much the cold nitrogen bath heated the light-warmed object dropped into it.

Tell him to explain to you why his church can't calculate the temperature of the global Atmosphere and reach the correct temperature.

Tell him the first proof mathematics have been done wrong is not matching the known correct answer and we KNOW the temperature of the Atmosphere it's the basis for calibration and regulation of every instrument sold on this planet. The proper atmospheric temperature at mean sea level is part - ultimately back there - of every manufactured instrument, heater, cooler, blanket, insulation, refrigerants, aircraft parts, spacecraft parts, YOU NAME IT and if it has been manufactured,
somewhere back there the equipment used to manufacture it are tested by product quality organizations and when those tests happen they occur with a KNOWN pressure and KNOWN temp and KNOWN atmospheric composition, with temperature
being the deal in question this moment.

We KNOW it's accurate, the properly computed Atmospheric temperature because our spacecraft and airliners fly. Our instruments are accurate enough to remotely land craft on Venus and Mars.

13 craft landed on Venus alone. Know why no magic gasser EVER: E.V.E.R. dares bring up any of the 13 spacecraft we've landed on Venus?

Because those craft are using standard gas calculations like the one to certify your automobile air conditioner and your home oven, and your 4-wheeler's internal combustion engine, and the laws of physics work fine on VENUS just like they do here.

Tell that magic gasser to tell you where the math diverges from correct math to give them a 33 degree shorftall.

When that magic gas barking sh** for brains hick locks up like a stolen bike thrown off a pier tell him it's ok you'll answer.

Tell him it's because his hick fraud leadership tries to solve the temperatures of compressible phase matter using SOLELY STEFAN-BOLTZMANN PROCESSES
which don't have the built in provision to SOLVE for the compressible phase matter atmosphere's * * *33 DEGREE* * *
COMRESSION WARMING.

Tell him say "Hey stupid why don't you go see what the MANDATORY SHORTFALL ERROR IS if SOMEONE TRIES to calculate the temperature of Earth's Atmosphere NOT USING GAS LAW PROPERLY
to ACCOUNT for the 33 DEGREES' compression warming.

Oh that's right, you ADD that in and the FRAUD they are passing off as real, MATCHES the Earth's REAL temperature!!

Go FIGURE you do math TEMPERATURE calculations properly and you GET the RIGHT answer.

Amazing to a magic gas barking hick, who think's pot's like heroin "cause guvurmint fellurs sed so" and that

a COLD nitrogen bath,
is a HEATER.

Cause...guvurmint fellurs sed so.

Pfffft.

 

[SSDD]

a COLD nitrogen bath,
is a HEATER.

Cause...guvurmint fellurs sed so.

Pfffft.

I am not exactly sure where a liquid nitrogen bath plays a part in the atmospheric temperature...unpressurized, nitrogen is no colder than any other gas....it is transparent to infrared radiation, but that doesn't make it cold. I am just not understanding how a cold nitrogen bath plays into the global climate.

 

[Allen Eltor]

a COLD nitrogen bath,
is a HEATER.

Cause...guvurmint fellurs sed so.

Pfffft.

I am not exactly sure where a liquid nitrogen bath plays a part in the atmospheric temperature...unpressurized, nitrogen is no colder than any other gas....it is transparent to infrared radiation, but that doesn't make it cold. I am just not understanding how a cold nitrogen bath plays into the global climate.

The atmosphere IS a cold nitrogen bath. That ring any bells?

Also you need to take out that quote where you wrote that I'd said "liquid nitrogen bath."

That indicates to me you're having trouble even keeping phases of matter straight.

Maybe it was some kind of accidental inclusion because you referenced liquid nitrogen in your mind,

at the same time you were typing and you just typo'd.

 

[IanC]

a COLD nitrogen bath,
is a HEATER.

Cause...guvurmint fellurs sed so.

Pfffft.

I am not exactly sure where a liquid nitrogen bath plays a part in the atmospheric temperature...unpressurized, nitrogen is no colder than any other gas....it is transparent to infrared radiation, but that doesn't make it cold. I am just not understanding how a cold nitrogen bath plays into the global climate.

The atmosphere IS a cold nitrogen bath. That ring any bells?

Also you need to take out that quote where you wrote that I'd said "liquid nitrogen bath."

That indicates to me you're having trouble even keeping phases of matter straight.

Maybe it was some kind of accidental inclusion because you referenced liquid nitrogen in your mind,

at the same time you were typing and you just typo'd.

What particular type of idiot are you?

The cold nitrogen bath takes in energy during daylight and returns some of it to the surface at night.

What was your point?

 

[SSDD]

The atmosphere IS a cold nitrogen bath. That ring any bells?

Nope. At atmospheric temperatures and pressures, nitrogen isn't inherently colder than any other gas.

That indicates to me you're having trouble even keeping phases of matter straight.

No..I am pretty sure I have a pretty good grasp of the phases of gasses...There are a number of gasses which will changes phases at, or very close to room temperature simply by compressing them...Freon, CO2, and butane to name a few. Nitrogen, however, won't change phases at room temperature no matter how much you compress it. In order to get nitrogen to changes phases, you have to compress it then cool it to a temperature below its boiling point which is some 384 degrees below zero.

So I get phase changes..I don't get how nitrogen at atmospheric pressures and temperatures contribute to climate beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.

 

[Allen Eltor]

The atmosphere IS a cold nitrogen bath. That ring any bells?

Nope...Granted the atmosphere makes up most of the volume of the atmosphere..but uncompressed, nitrogen is no colder than any other gas.

That indicates to me you're having trouble even keeping phases of matter straight.

You are the one calling nitrogen at atmospheric pressures and temperatures cold. Nitrogen at atmospheric pressures and temperatues is not necessarily cold. I am sure that somehow cold nitrogen makes sense to you, but you are not communicating the idea very effectively.

Maybe it was some kind of accidental inclusion because you referenced liquid nitrogen in your mind,

No...I am pretty sure I understand the whole "phases" of matter, particularly gasses pretty well. There are gasses that will change phases at or very near room temperature by simply compressing them.. butane, CO2, nitrous oxide, and Freon to name a few...no matter how much pressure you put on nitrogen, however, it won't changes phases to a liquid...In order to make nitrogen change to a liquid, you have to first compress it, then cool it to a temperarure below its boiling point. That is about 384 degrees below zero.

So again, I am not getting how nitrogen, at atmospheric pressures and temperatures is playing a part in the climate beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.

Not only do you CONTINUE to try to change the subject to UNPRESSURIZED nitrogen for some BIZARRE, completely non existent REASON,

you're WRONG if you're talking about anything connected to reality.

These aren't unpressurized gases all at absolute zero

Haven't you ever heard of the Chart of Specific Heats of Gases??

How do you think the temperatures of gases are CALCULATED?

YOU GO to the CHART, and you PUT IN the SPECIFIC HEAT and the TEMPERATURES VARY,

and when gases are at identical pressures - they have DIFFERING TEMPERATURES and NITROGEN

is in the middle of the PACK.

You're STILL DEFLECTING from the FACT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRESSURIZED GAS.

 

[Allen Eltor]

The atmosphere IS a cold nitrogen bath. That ring any bells?

Nope. At atmospheric temperatures and pressures, nitrogen isn't inherently colder than any other gas.

That indicates to me you're having trouble even keeping phases of matter straight.

No..I am pretty sure I have a pretty good grasp of the phases of gasses...There are a number of gasses which will changes phases at, or very close to room temperature simply by compressing them...Freon, CO2, and butane to name a few. Nitrogen, however, won't change phases at room temperature no matter how much you compress it. In order to get nitrogen to changes phases, you have to compress it then cool it to a temperature below its boiling point which is some 384 degrees below zero.

So I get phase changes..I don't get how nitrogen at atmospheric pressures and temperatures contribute to climate beyond its contribution to the total mass of the atmosphere.

You don't understand how a COLD NITROGEN/OXYGEN BATH, CHILLS a ROCK??

You don't understand how the OVERALL BATH TEMPERATURE, affects how WATER performs in it?

When it changes phases, when it's in which phase, etc, you can't see HOW this is CONNECTED to CLIMATE.

Tell me that you're just saying this kind of kook stuff so you can see how I act if you just keep saying stuff so stupid you can't be serious, or expecting to be TAKEN seriously.

Tell me that, please.

 

[Allen Eltor]

The atmosphere IS a cold nitrogen bath. That ring any bells?

Nope. At atmospheric temperatures and pressures, nitrogen isn't inherently colder than any other gas.

Where do you come up with this ludicrous bull?

Gases ALL have the SAME TEMPERATURE, when they're ALL at the same PRESSURE, but segregated, species for species? That's INSANE.

If that were TRUE, the entire CHART of the LAW, assigning various species their average energy-per-mole,

you wouldn't have 'R' in the LAW, where you PLUG in the SPECIFIC HEAT per GAS from the CHART, to

SOLVE their various TEMPERATURES at IDENTICAL PRESSURES.

 

[Allen Eltor]

SSDD do you even know the NAME of the law to solve for the temperatures of gases?

It's PATENTLY obvious non of these magic gas barking clods even know the NAME of it.

 

[SSDD]

Haven't you ever heard of the Chart of Specific Heats of Gases??

Yes...it is the amount of energy required to raise a volume of a particular gas by any given amount...usually one degree.

Air has a specific heat of .24, CO2 has a specific heat of .21, Nitrogen has a specific heat of .25, oxygen has a specific heat of .22. So that is how much energy it takes to raise that gas (in its pure state) by one degree. Gasses aren't in their pure state in the atmosphere though...the specific heat of air, that being the mixture of the various gasses that make up the atmosphere is .21 which is the only number that matters if you are going somewhere in particular with this.

YOU GO to the CHART, and you PUT IN the SPECIFIC HEAT and the TEMPERATURES VARY,

Specific heat isn't a temperarure...specific heat, is the amount of energy (usually stated in calories) required to raise the temperature of a constant amount of a substance by a particular amount...usually one degree.

You're STILL DEFLECTING from the FACT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PRESSURIZED GAS.

I am just trying to figure out where you are going with this. I suspect it is somewhere, but perhaps you aren't sure yourself. If you have a point, lets get to it.

 

[SSDD]

SSDD do you even know the NAME of the law to solve for the temperatures of gases?

It's PATENTLY obvious non of these magic gas barking clods even know the NAME of it.

I am guessing that you are alluding to the ideal gas law, which certainly can give you the temperature of a gas if you know the absolute pressure and absolute volume of said gas.

 

[Allen Eltor]

SSDD do you even know the NAME of the law to solve for the temperatures of gases?

It's PATENTLY obvious non of these magic gas barking clods even know the NAME of it.

I am guessing that you are alluding to the ideal gas law, which certainly can give you the temperature of a gas if you know the absolute pressure and absolute volume of said gas.

Alluding? I just asked you outright if you know the name of the SOLE law in ALL thermodynamics, written for proper calculation of the temperatures of gases in the modern era.

I asked you that because those specific energy constants, for each gas in the Chart of Law, mean that when you put the proper value in for one gas vs another,

with everything else being equal, the final temperatures change.

What in the __blank___ do you MEAN, YOU think I don't know where I'm going when I keep SAYING to you,

"WHY are you TRYING to BRING IN NON EXISTENT "zero pressure" GASES which - by DEFINITION must ALL BE at ABSOLUTE ZERO?


WHAT possible CONNECTION
to ME referencing a COLD PRESSURIZED NITROGEN ATMOSPHERE can the two HAVE
in your MIND?

WHERE am I GOiNG?

Are you aware of the fact that you said "unpressurized" and "at zero pressure" regarding nitrogen and other gases MULTIPLE times?

Does it seem odd to you I have to remind YOU what YOU'VE been saying?

When gases are at ZERO PRESSURE
this means they're all at ABSOLUTE ZERO. They all have the same, theoretical absolute zero temperature.

If you were trying to say "at IDENTICAL PRESSURES," Nitrogen is no colder than other gases, that's how that's supposed to be put to try to communicate it clearly.
'At comparable pressures,'
this sorta thing.

There's - effectively, no such physical thing as a gas at ZERO pressure. Temperature gets low enough and it changes phase to solid. Ostensibly liquid first for many but also some go straight to solid but pressure is no longer an extant possibility in something that's no longer in the gaseous phase.

For the last time, the various specific energies, (for gases it's actually specific heats as you've noted) affect the temperature calculation and give different gas species different temperatures, at identical pressure/volume/mass etc.

 

[Allen Eltor]

Specific heat isn't a temperarure...specific heat, is the amount of energy (usually stated in calories) required to raise the temperature of a constant amount of a substance by a particular amount...usually one degree.

Aw- RiLLiE UnKLe YeWJeaN?

THE TERM ''Specific Heat" is - no pun actually intended - SPECIFIC to GASES.
The term ''Specific Energy" is used for other phases of matter.

It's the *same thing:
the average energy contained in a mole of the substance,
so TEMPERATURE calculations can be done.

That's what the Chart of Law is about in THE sole gas law written for modern calculation of temperatures of gases and Atmospheres.

 

[SSDD]

Are you aware of the fact that you said "unpressurized" and "at zero pressure" regarding nitrogen and other gases MULTIPLE times?

Actually, I haven't said that at all. I have said gasses at atmospheric pressures multiple times, but haven't said zero pressure at all. If you are going to argue against what I said, then argue against what I said...not things that I haven't said. I believe I said "unpressurised" nitrogen once but of course that would mean gas at atmospheric pressure. When I say pressurized of course I mean bottled gasses..

I have tried to be patient...if you have a point, then get to it. What does the specific heat of air have to do with the point you are trying to make?

 

[SSDD]

Specific heat isn't a temperarure...specific heat, is the amount of energy (usually stated in calories) required to raise the temperature of a constant amount of a substance by a particular amount...usually one degree.

Aw- RiLLiE UnKLe YeWJeaN?

THE TERM ''Specific Heat" is - no pun actually intended - SPECIFIC to GASES.
The term ''Specific Energy" is used for other phases of matter.

Sorry guy, but you are quite wrong. Here, from various dictionaries...

The free dictionary - specific heat- The ratio of the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a unit mass of a substance by one unit of temperature to the amount of heat required to raise the temperature of a similar mass of a reference material, usually water, by the same amount.

Mirriam webster - specific heat - the heat in calories required to raise the temperature of one gram of a substance one degree Celsius

Encyclopedia Britannica - Specific heat_ ratio of the quantity of heat required to raise the temperature of a body one degree to that required to raise the temperature of an equal mass of water one degree. The term is also used in a narrower sense to mean the amount of heat, in calories, required to raise the temperature of one gram of a substance by one Celsius degree.

So since we have established that specific heat does not apply specifically to gasses, and that you are apparently confusing that with the ideal gas laws, exactly what point are you trying to make. If you have one, lets hear it.

 

[Allen Eltor]

SSDD do you even know the NAME of the law to solve for the temperatures of gases?

It's PATENTLY obvious non of these magic gas barking clods even know the NAME of it.

I am guessing that you are alluding to the ideal gas law, which certainly can give you the temperature of a gas if you know the absolute pressure and absolute volume of said gas.

Alluding? I just asked you outright if you know the name of the SOLE law in ALL thermodynamics, written for proper calculation of the temperatures of gases in the modern era.

I asked you that because those specific energy constants, for each gas in the Chart of Law, mean that when you put the proper value in for one gas vs another,

with everything else being equal, the final temperatures change.

What in the __blank___ do you MEAN, YOU think I don't know where I'm going when I keep SAYING to you,

"WHY are you TRYING to BRING IN NON EXISTENT "zero pressure" GASES which - by DEFINITION must ALL BE at ABSOLUTE ZERO?


WHAT possible CONNECTION
to ME referencing a COLD PRESSURIZED NITROGEN ATMOSPHERE can the two HAVE
in your MIND?

WHERE am I GOiNG?

Are you aware of the fact that you said "unpressurized" and "at zero pressure" regarding nitrogen and other gases MULTIPLE times?

Does it seem odd to you I have to remind YOU what YOU'VE been saying?

When gases are at ZERO PRESSURE
this means they're all at ABSOLUTE ZERO. They all have the same, theoretical absolute zero temperature.

If you were trying to say "at IDENTICAL PRESSURES," Nitrogen is no colder than other gases, that's how that's supposed to be put to try to communicate it clearly.
'At comparable pressures,'
this sorta thing.

There's - effectively, no such physical thing as a gas at ZERO pressure. Temperature gets low enough and it changes phase to solid. Ostensibly liquid first for many but also some go straight to solid but pressure is no longer an extant possibility in something that's no longer in the gaseous phase.

For the last time, the various specific energies, (for gases it's actually specific heats as you've noted) affect the temperature calculation and give different gas species different temperatures, at identical pressure/volume/mass etc.

Actually SSDD let me rephrase myself so it doesn't jar the senses in how I put part of this.

In real life, like in school or work where you're supposed to be using a proper symbols set, words-

I was talking about how you never really have gases, whose pressures go to zero,

there actually IS,
a very commonly used PHRASE, that IS: "Pressure goes to zero" without release of any volume of mass.

That's when your local gas loses so much energy it all converts to solid or liquid.

This is actually a test question in physics of phase change, and in various places obviously, it's put different ways,

but at some point you're supposed to kinda acknowledge to the teacher that you know,

that the phrase, "Pressure drops to zero" has an actual place defining a transition stage in gas vs liquid/solid
when it's chilled, to the point it starts condensing.

And of course you're supposed to have this formal ideal in your head, where you carefully - as a professional, or as a student, you know, keeping stuff proper, - construct any phraseologies you use to refer to conditions extant as you go from all gas to part gas/part liquid (or solid, some go solid, some liquify, obviously)

to conditions where the ratio changes, as temperature drops more, till NONE of your particular species is left gas phase.

In these conditions in the real world you're always having other gases around, obviously in air, etc, and when you describe this falling out, less and less is this particular gas, (ostensibly among several - atmospheric air's just a great example, water condensing out, it's so frequent,

when you're describing this one gas, solidifying or liquifying, less and less remains gas, among other gases - you refer to

"partial pressure going to" zero. "H2O partial pressure has reduced to zero" means not that there was a leak in this instance, it is a description, sort of a properly constructed part of a kinda more properly phrased formal description of all the water, changing to a non gas phase.

I don't know, that just seemed convenient enough to explain that - people coming along behind us might be like... I've heard that before, I kinda get it at least for the moment, in a clear way, about all this "partial pressure reducing to zero."

when in another sense that phrase "pressure drops to zero" in theoretical physics, might mean "Hypothetical temperature has dropped to absolute-zero.