Researchers conclude livestock have no detectable effect on climate

Discussion in 'Environment & Conservation' started by Bluesguy, Sep 6, 2019.

  1. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
  2. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I saw a youtube video not too long ago where someone had a cat and put a bunch of real meat into its bowl but also included a tiny bit of fake plant-based "meat". The cat gobbled up all of the real meat, but absolutely refused to touch any of the plant-based "meat". It would sniff it and then walk away.

    Yeah, I ain't ever gonna touch that **** either.
     
  3. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Doesn't even matter whether that argument is true or not. Methane cannot cause the Earth to warm.

    Bulverism Fallacy.

    Science is not a peer-reviewed paper.

    That sounds like what the Church of Global Warming is doing to you.
     
  4. Josephwalker

    Josephwalker Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2016
    Messages:
    19,954
    Likes Received:
    10,174
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I actually like it but it's no healthier than real meat
     
  5. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You can have it then! :)

    As for me, I'm gonna side with the cat and stick with eating real meat.
     
    Josephwalker likes this.
  6. JakeStarkey

    JakeStarkey Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2016
    Messages:
    25,747
    Likes Received:
    9,526
    Trophy Points:
    113
  7. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,420
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Sure it could, if there was enough of it. To say otherwise is to deny thermodynamics and physics. So naturally, you do it.

    Nope, it was refuting your Appeal to Authority fallacy. You made a claim that a person was an authority, and it was debunked by pointing out he's paid shill.

    Then why don't you present some science here, instead of throwing endless fallacies at us?

    Ad hom fallacy. You rely entirely on various fallacies.
     
  8. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Inversion Fallacy. YOU are the one denying thermodynamics and physics.

    Denial of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics: It is not possible for a colder gas (methane) to heat a warmer surface (Earth's surface). Heat only flows from hot to cold.

    Denial of 1st Law of Thermodynamics: You cannot create energy out of nothing, and need energy to increase the temperature of something. Where is this additional energy coming from?

    Fallacy Fallacy. I haven't appealed to any authorities. Look back.

    Nope, that was someone else who did that.

    Not a debunking, a logical fallacy called bulverism.

    I have, even in this very post. I've been presenting thermodynamics and stefan boltzmann this whole time. Those are laws of science. They are specific equations that mean specific things.

    Stop committing them and I will stop calling them out.

    Fallacy Fallacy. Not what an ad hominem fallacy is.
     
  9. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,420
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Tell us, when did you take Statistical Mechanics class in university? For me it was 1983. The physics degree followed shortly.

    It's that learning thing, which requires actual reading of actual science, and lots of homework and study. The fact that you scanned some conspiracy blogs does not mean you understand a topic.

    No, that's not what the Second Law says.

    Why on earth do you have the kook idea that energy is being created?

    Does WUWT still ban greenhouse effect deniers / sky dragon slayers / P.S.I. crazies? Just wondering. They used to. Even other deniers are embarrassed by you.

    Sure you did. You gave us a link to one guy's opinion and acted as if that settled the matter. Appeal to Authority. Along with ad hominem, it's your staple tactic. It is curious. your posts are one long logical fallacy, yet

    And getting it all completely wrong. You just don't have a clue. I mean, you're the one who told us that photons -- magic photons with intelligence, apparently -- just fly right through solid matter if that matter is warmer than the emitter. Your theory is completely insane. That's what happens when you try to remodel the universe to match your religious beliefs.
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2020
  10. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Irrelevant.

    I don't believe you.

    I don't believe you.

    Yup, so you should start reading.

    I don't read blogs. I can think for myself, thank you.

    e(t+1)>=e(t) where 'e' is entropy and 't' is time.

    This equation specifically states that entropy (the randomness of a system) either increases or stays the same. It never decreases. This also provides us with a direction for heat (from hot to cold).

    Not my idea, but the idea expressed in the Greenhouse Effect. It takes additional energy to warm something up. If CO2 is warming up the Earth, then where is this additional energy coming from?

    Sounds like they only accept science deniers then. That's a shame!

    Nah.

    That wasn't me who did that. Go back and re-read.

    Inversion Fallacy.

    A molecule will not absorb a photon of less energy than the molecule already has.

    Inversion Fallacy.
     
  11. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,420
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Quite relevant. You think that reading conspiracy blogs has made you well-versed on thermodynamics, but that's not the case. Actually studying thermodynamics is what makes you well-versed on the topic. I've done that, and you haven't, and that's why you always fail so hard.

    And where does that say that a photon from a colder object can't be absorbed by a warmer object?

    That's right, it doesn't. You just say it does, for reasons you can't ever explain.

    The sun. Why did you think that was a difficult question?

    Yes, yes, your religion says that, but you have no science to back that up.

    The first way in which you loopy theory faceplants is that we can directly observe that it's not true. We can look at binary star systems, and see that during eclipses, the cooler star does not shine right through the warmer star, as you theory says it should. Reality says your theory is babbling nonsense.

    The second way it faceplants is that you never declare what "less energy than the molecule already has" means. It's just fuzzy handwaving on your part. Your theory won't quantify anything, so we know it's psuedoscience.

    A third way your theory faceplants is that emissions from an object are a distributed curve of frequencies, not a single frequency. A colder object can and does put out higher energy photons, and a warmer object can and does put out lower energy photons. Your theory states that if a receiving molecule has two photons of equal energy hitting it, one from a colder object and one from a warmer object, the object somehow knows which came from which, and then rejects the photon from the colder object. You theory implies that the photons of equal energy somehow carry a record of their past emitter which the receiving molecule can read. At that's totally bonkers, everyone laughs hard at your theory.

    There are more ways in which your theory fails, but that's enough for now. After all, you're going to run from what I wrote there, same as you ran before, so there's no point in writing more.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2020
  12. gfm7175

    gfm7175 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2018
    Messages:
    9,492
    Likes Received:
    4,828
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    When have I ever linked to a "conspiracy blog" as a source? You sure like to make schiff up about me.

    Correct. Knowing the equations that the theories have been formalized into (and understanding them) is what makes one well versed on the topic.

    I don't believe you.

    Yes I have.

    Inversion Fallacy.

    You cannot "light up" a bright light using a dimmer light source. You cannot warm hot coffee with ice cubes.

    Entropy is the randomness of a system. The equation regarding entropy (above) tells us that the randomness of a system INCREASES over time.

    That means that, within a room where one half of it is 50degF and the other half of it is 70degF, the whole room will eventually become a temperature of somewhere inbetween that. (in other words, randomness is increasing). It will not become hotter and colder in the two halves of the room (going from 50degF and 70degF to 40degF and 80degF, for example). That would require the 50degF half to heat the 70degF half. That would require heat to flow from cold to hot.

    Heat doesn't flow that way. Entropy doesn't decrease. Heat flows from hot to cold. The 70degF half heats the 50degF half, bringing the temperature of the entire room to somewhere inbetween the two temps, as the 70degF half cools and the 50degF half warms.

    So why are you all concerned about CO2 if it is actually a warmer sun that is causing the Earth to warm?

    Inversion Fallacy.

    No it doesn't.

    The rest I have already addressed with you in the past.
     
    Last edited: Mar 11, 2020
  13. mamooth

    mamooth Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2012
    Messages:
    6,420
    Likes Received:
    2,184
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You called P.S.I. valid science.

    Of course you can. A candle flame will cast a shadow if you shine a very bright light through it.

    You cannot warm hot coffee with ice cubes.

    But you can reduce the rate of cooling. Hot coffee surrounded by ice cubes (with a vacuum gap to prevent conduction) would cool more slowly than hot coffee in a the vacuum of space. And if the heat input is constant, reducing the cooling results in warming.

    None of that prevents an object from absorbing a photon emitted by a colder object. As I keep pointing out, you confuse heat flow with molecular-level processes. Heat flow is the summation of the individual molecular-level processes. Individual events can go either way. We just know that, due to statistical mechanics, the hot-to-cold events are more likely than cold-to-hot events, so they will always dominate, so heat will always flows hot-to-cold. Individual photons, however, are free to to fly from cold to hot and get absorbed by the hotter object.

    You asked the source of the heat. It's the sun. That's a totally different thing than saying the sun is the cause of global warming. If you can't understand that, you're not qualified to be in this discussion.

    That's not an answer. You have never addressed the specific debunkings of your theory. You have run from it every time. I'll post it again, so you can run from it again, and thus demonstrate to the whole board that you're well aware that you're pushing nonsense.

    The first way in which you loopy theory faceplants is that we can directly observe that it's not true. We can look at binary star systems, and see that during eclipses, the cooler star does not shine right through the warmer star, as you theory says it should. Reality says your theory is babbling nonsense.

    The second way it faceplants is that you never declare what "less energy than the molecule already has" means. It's just fuzzy handwaving on your part. Your theory won't quantify anything, so we know it's psuedoscience.

    A third way your theory faceplants is that emissions from an object are a distributed curve of frequencies, not a single frequency. A colder object can and does put out higher energy photons, and a warmer object can and does put out lower energy photons. Your theory states that if a receiving molecule has two photons of equal energy hitting it, one from a colder object and one from a warmer object, the object somehow knows which came from which, and then rejects the photon from the colder object. You theory implies that the photons of equal energy somehow carry a record of their past emitter which the receiving molecule can read. At that's totally bonkers, everyone laughs hard at your theory.
     

Share This Page