Methane Video Provokes Thoughtful Discussion

February 8, 2019

torches

Some of the kinder things that have been directed at me, and the scientists interviewed in the most recent This is Not Cool video.

Frozen Earth:

Several high–profile voices from David Attenborough and Stephen Hawking to scientists and world leaders have stated in recent years that Climate Change is the defining or most important issue of our time. Yale University shouldn’t be so surprised to also find human beings connected to the Internet who share this view.

Peter Sinclair’s video on YouTube was a cleverly crafted propaganda video, in which scientific authority and language was abused in order to give human beings connected to the Internet the impression that ice couldn’t melt because it requires heat.

Yale shouldn’t take it upon themselves to spread Darkness and Lies, so should praise any and all information campaigns about these very important issues instead of trying to quell them.

Peter Sinclair voluntarily made his monthly YouTube video that short, likely because he wanted to convey a simple, propagandistic message about Arctic methane: Nothing To See Here, Move Along! He wanted to “Keep It Simple, Stupid” for political propaganda effect, not out of respect for the scientific matter at hand. His narrative shows an almost crying female student who used to believe Arctic methane meltdown was kinda dangerous, but who now understands that the danger was “overblown”, because #endothermic. Because ice simply can’t melt on planet Earth because melting would require heat. It’s so stupid.

You should study the peer–reviewed scientific literature. I dunno, go on the Internet or something, to find that info.

Video Comment thread:

Overly positive thinking pompous asses.

THIS IS PURE PROPAGANDA MIND GAMES.

Hansen is delusional it seems.

VERY VERY VERY BIG PROBLEM METHANE IS A BIG BOMB , every day coming 200.000 new polluters to this planet. Nobody will stop this and oil is used more and more. So take your health insurance cards, possessions, money, credit cards, language skills, diplomas and fancy titles. In 10 till 12 years you can burn it with the rest of this planet.

This video screams ammature college theater project.

We are doomed and there is nothing we can do about it.

Why misinform people? What do you plan to gain? Credibility? Time is the ultimate truthsayer. Time will prove YaleClimateConnections to be the liars they are.

Sorry but it is out of our hands, there is nothing that we can do now to stop catastrophic change to our climate.

The atmosphere is many times larger than the oceans.

People have no idea how close we are to the end, thousands of scientists know about this.

We have passed the balance point and are now on the downward spiral to destruction. There is no stopping it.

totally  apocaloptimistic.    Runaway global warming is in progress.   The climate change we are experiencing is anthropogenic, extreme, lethal, accelerating and irreversible.   Slowing down emmissions will not slow down rapid global over-heating.   We are doomed and there is nothing we can do about it.

Twitter machine:

Advertisements

102 Responses to “Methane Video Provokes Thoughtful Discussion”

  1. A Thorpe Says:

    Perhaps before you reply you will take time to read comments properly. You will discover that I gave you the definition of the greenhouse effect and then pointed out why it is “fundamentally wrong”. You are the one who is “busted”.

    • Gingerbaker Says:

      You said:

      “Consensus has no relevance in science, it is about evidence and if you believe the second law applies then you have to provide the evidence.”

      1) Consensus has no relevance in science? This is the statement of a non-scientist.

      2) I DID provide you with links that address how the Greenhouse effect does NOT contradict the 2nd LOT. But you either chose not to read them, or can not understand them.

      You are a climate denier.

      You are one of the more rare species who doesn’t believe the Greenhouse effect is valid. Scientists have been trying to show people like you that your understanding of radiation thermodynamics and the Greenhouse effect is wrong for decades.

      There are multiple examples on line where you might find out why you are wrong. But you will not.

      I don’t remember any science blogger reporting that they had changed anyone’s mind. People like you have a mental block.

      I actually feel sorry for you. I wonder on what other topics or life vicissitudes you are an outlier. If this mental block you have is just on this topic, or whether it a symptom of a psychological disorder of some kind.

      I suspect the latter, unfortunately.

      • A Thorpe Says:

        I read it all years ago. You have nothing new to show me. You really have no idea about science. I saw Prof Brian Cox spreading your word on Q&A an Australian TV programme about consensus in science. He is now just a left wing activist. He worked on the Higgs Boson. Lots of scientists thought that the particle existed – consensus – but it needed the very costly Large Hadron Collider and two independent teams to discover it. Why two, because there is no consensus in science. It needs evidence to prove a scientific theory and one is not enough. That is why two independent teams worked on it.

        I notice you have not risen to the challenge of sounding off about the idiots like me at Ohio State University. The real scientists, not internet trolls like you.

    • grindupbaker Says:

      +A Thorpe I’m interested because I like physical sciences but the start is missing in this thread. So what’s the definition of the “greenhouse effect” and why is it fundamentally wrong ?

      • A Thorpe Says:

        It is fundamentally wrong because it is based on heat from the cold atmosphere warming the earth. Heat does not travel from cold to hot. The second law of thermodynamics confirms this. It is not about trapped IR either which is a claim often made about real greehouses. Prof RW Wood proved this. Look it up.

  2. grindupbaker Says:

    Ah, I see. You forgot to include the definition of the greenhouse effect as in your “I gave you the definition of the greenhouse effect”. You do not understand the so-called “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s atmosphere that alters the average temperature of Earth’s ecosphere to something other than what it would be if there were no so-called “greenhouse effect” in Earth’s atmosphere. Fair enough then.

    • A Thorpe Says:

      Talk about circular arguments. I gave you a definition. You provided an alternative and I agreed to accept that. My point is that the effect is not supported by physics and I have repeatedly told you why but you ignore it all. How is it possible to understand something that does not exist. I have absolutely no idea what your last comment is supposed to mean. The atmosphere is the atmosphere. It has had various amounts of CO2 in the past, sometimes more than now. The water vapour varies. What on earth is the point of talking about a situation when neither exist and how do you know what the climate would be. And once again there is no physical meaning to an average temperature.

      Further you asked me for comments on your reference. I gave them and no response from you. Did you read the many comments? Yyou will certainly find many that say the same as I have told you. Have you insulted all of them?


  3. The atmosphere does not heat the surface, but it does slow down the rate at which the planet surface cools as 70% of the sun’s radiation continues to heat it.

    IR and conduction transfer energy from hot molecule to cold molecules. However, temperature is an average measure. Check the Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution. Not all molecules in a cooler system are cooler than all molecules in a hotter system. The closer the temperatures, the greater the molecular energy overlap and the slower the heat transfer.

    • A Thorpe Says:

      I agree. The atmosphere does not heat the surface. Compared to the temperature on the moon, it reduces the extreme temperatures by distributing heat around the earth and this is a critical issue. I don’t like the description of slowing down the rate of loss because it suggests that the atmosphere acts like insulation and it certainly does not do that. Insulation works by limiting convective heat loss and the atmosphere increases the convective loss. Many people also believe that insulation increases the temperature of the insulated body which is not correct

      The so called greenhouse gases increases the rate of cooling. The main greenhouse gas by far is water vapour. When water on the surface evaporates it need latent heat and this is all taken away from the surface. Compare the temperatures in the tropics with desert regions. Just the opposite of what the warmest claim, but that is the real physics.

      I have no idea what point you are making in with your second paragraph in relation to the greenhouse effect. Obviously, the closer to a thermal equilibrium then the smaller the thermal energy transfer.


    • The hastily written second paragraph is about how statistical mechanics applies to thermodynamics – and the greenhouse effect.

      • A Thorpe Says:

        I know it is about statistical mechanics but you said nothing about how that relates to the greenhouse effect. It will be a first if you can do that. And the second law still applies, so no greenhouse effect.

  4. dumboldguy Says:

    I come back from a weekend trip to visit family and find this thread STILL clogged with incomprehensible bullshit from The Thorpe. I wonder if the Second Law of Thermodynamics is imprinted on his brain because his mother sang it to him as a lullaby when he was an infant? Instead of a mobile with cute little critters, did he have one over his crib with molecules hanging? Was the Second Law inscribed on the walls of his room? On his diapers?

    Talk about brainwashing! It’s too bad we can’t get in there and flush out all the ignorance that clogs his reasoning. If we could, maybe he could forget about the Second Law and instead just explain to us why the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans keeps rising?, a question I have asked of him many times (???????????????????????????????????????)

    • A Thorpe Says:

      It is a pity the second law is not imprinted on your brain because you clearly do not have a clue what it means. I repeat and probably not for the last time with a dumbo like you. Heat can only transfer from a hot to a cold temperature and that applies to conduction, convection and radiation. There is no exception. The atmosphere is colder than the surface, therefore there is no additional heat from the atmosphere that makes the surface warmer than it would otherwise be without the claimed greenhouse effect. The surface is warmer because gravity compresses the atmosphere – the gas law.

      Infrared radiation is not thermal energy is it electromagnetic energy and it must be thermalised to increase the temperature of the object which absorbs it. You also do not have a clue about the work of Max Planck. He proved that the temperature only increases when the EMR has enough energy to increase the vibrations to a higher energy level. If it is below the required level then the object emits EMR and the temperature is not increased. What on earth do you think happens when two objects at the same temperature are radiating towards each other? The temperature does not increase to infinity. You prove repeatedly that you do not have the slightest knowledge of thermodynamics.

      • dumboldguy Says:

        PLEASE!!! STOP!!!! Just explain to us why the average temperature of the Earth’s atmosphere and oceans keeps rising?

        Stop making bad jokes like “The surface is warmer because gravity compresses the atmosphere – the gas law”. JFC! That’s NOT funny!

        And what is “thermalization” of infrared? I though two bodies “thermalized”—WTF are you talking about?

        • A Thorpe Says:

          You show your complete ignorance of thermodynamics with every comment. IR is electromagnetic radiation. It is not the same as heat. When it is absorbed it becomes incoherent vibrations of the molecules. This is heat and the process is thermalisation. Look it up. But the IR only increases the temperature when it is from a hotter body and I have explained this several times. Look up the work of Planck.

    • A Thorpe Says:

      Your belief is that the average temperature is rising because of the greenhouse effect. This does not exist and all I am telling you is that we do not understand. This should concern you because billions of dollars worldwide is being spent on pointless measures to reduce CO2 and research is in the wrong area. The energy comes only from the sun, so this could be a big clue!


Leave a Reply to A Thorpe Cancel reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: