The So Called Deadly Climate Obsession of Governments, written by an idiot

[Into the Night]

I love seeing someone who never darkened the door of a science class tell us all about science he doesn't understand.

Definitely screech your "inversion fallacy" here!

Okay. Inversion fallacy.

 

[Into the Night]

He's right. What part does a low IQ dipshit like you not comprehend?

Heh. You're talking to Lefty. He doesn't comprehend what he said in his last post!!!

 

[Into the Night]

What specific replacements are they trying to ban? Do you have a citation?

R12, R134a, R22, R410a, R407c...to name a few.

See the Paris agreement, the U.S. patent office (specifically patents by DuPont), and idiotic statements made by AOC and Kamala Harris.

 

[Into the Night]

Refute what? He makes up stuff all the time.

I didn't create the theories of science you are trying to discard and deny.

 

[Into the Night]

He is not right, dumbass.

Discard of science and mathematics.

 

[Into the Night]

It's saving humanity, dumbfuck.

From what????!?

 

[AProudLefty]

From what????!?

From Uranus.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

R12, R134a, R22, R410a, R407c...to name a few.

See the Paris agreement, the U.S. patent office (specifically patents by DuPont), and idiotic statements made by AOC and Kamala Harris.

And those appear to have been done GWP (Global Warming Potential) not ozone damage.

This opens the door for refrigerants that are more hydrocarbon based. As such this isn't a critique of the Montreal Protocol or even CFC's impact on ozone as far as I can tell.

https://www.ecacool.com/en/news/r134a_chiller_ban/

 

[Saint Guinefort]

I'm not trying to be funny.

Your abysmal ignorance of science is noted.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

What specific replacements are they trying to ban? Do you have a citation?

The replacement for CFC's was HCFC's later shortened to HFC's

Phasedown of Hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs): Issuing Allowance Allocations

https://www.epa.gov/climate-hfcs-re...orocarbons-hfcs-issuing-allowance-allocations

The European Parliament’s rapporteur on the review of the European Union’s F-Gas Regulation has submitted a report calling for widespread bans on the use of fluorinated greenhouse gases in the European Union, a move that will ensure smaller businesses are prepared for future reductions in hydrofluorocarbons (HFCs) available on the market.

https://eia-international.org/press...ment-report-calls-for-widespread-ban-on-hfcs/

The EPA Proposes a Ban on HFC-23, the Most Potent Greenhouse Gas Among Hydrofluorocarbons, by October 2022

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/...gas-among-hydrofluorocarbons-by-october-2022/

And the consequences of this utterly idiotic ban

As of today, there is no worldwide standard for an alternative refrigerant to replace HFC refrigerants. Potential alternatives that are being used throughout Europe include a combination between “natural” fluids such as butane, propane, ammonia and CO2, and low GWP synthetic fluids.

https://yellowjacket.com/2017/03/hf...ammonia and CO2, and low GWP synthetic fluids.

What will replace climate warming HFCs in refrigerators and air conditioners?

https://phys.org/news/2022-09-climate-hfcs-refrigerators-air-conditioners.html

 

[Saint Guinefort]

The replacement for CFC's was HCFC's later shortened to HFC's

And the link I found suggested that many of them were being banned because of global warming potential...NOT necessarily ozone issues.

And the consequences of this utterly idiotic ban

I take it you work in HVAC?

 

[Into the Night]

Actually the other poster (IntoTheNight) is NOT right about most of the thermodynamics he posts.

No, you are just discarding theories of science.

It is sad to see someone who thinks they can bluff their way through thermo when a lot of us suffered long and hard to learn the topic.

You never learned the topic. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Sure IntotheNight often DOES try to type out the various thermodynamic laws but he clearly doesn't know any of them in detail.

It's easy.

1st law of thermodynamics: E(t+1) = E(t) - U where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work.
2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. You openly deny this law.
Stefan-Boltzmann law: r = C*e*t^4 where 'r' is radiance in watts per square area, 'C' is a natural constant, 'e' is a measured constant called 'emissivity', which is also the same as 'absorptivity' in accordance with Kirchoff's Equivalence law, and 't' is temperature in deg K.

ALL theories of science apply everywhere in the known universe...all the time...everywhere.

* You try to use a magick gas to create energy out of nothing. The presence of a gas is not work.
* You try to use a magick gas to heat a warmer surface using a colder gas. You cannot reduce entropy...ever. You cannot use a colder substance to heat a warmer one.
* You try to use a magick gas to trap light. ALL substances convert thermal energy into light. Ocean, land, air...ALL OF IT. You cannot trap light.
* You try to describe photons that are all equal. This denies and discards Planck's laws.
* You try to describe photons that still exist after being absorbed. This denies and discards Schrodinger's laws and quantum mechanics as well as the 1st law of thermodynamics again.
* You try to compare two different systems as if they were the same system. That's a false equivalence fallacy. There is no such thing as 'local entropy'. That also again denies the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
* You try to deny and discard the concept of what a system in thermodynamics is. A system in thermodynamics is simply what you declare it to be. It must be consistent. NO energy source or sink from outside the system may be considered. AS SOON AS YOU TRY TO CONSIDER THEM, YOU ARE USING A DIFFERENT SYSTEM.
* You try to state the temperature of the Earth, which is not possible to measure.
* You try to state the emissivity of Earth, which is not possible to measure.
* You deny the energy of reaction in chemistry.
* You deny the concept of a buffer in acid-base chemistry.
* You deny the concept of a reference point. It is not possible to measure the global sea level.
* You try to extrapolate a hurricane to global temperature. Hurricanes are not caused by hot air. They are caused by COLD air aloft, making air unstable.
* You try to justify a voting bloc in science. Science has none. Science has no politics and no religion.

This is YOUR problem. Not mine. I didn't create these theories of science. I didn't create statistical mathematics or the rules you MUST follow to conduct a summary. You just want to discard and deny all of it to justify your fundamentalist religion.

Take his insistence that Entropy can never decrease. This is wrong.

Discard of the 2nd law of thermodynamics.

Locally there are many things which represent a decrease in entropy.

False equivalence fallacy. You cannot compare two systems as the same system. There is no such thing as a 'local' entropy.

They key that IntotheNight fails to appreciate is that the Second Law of thermo deals only with ISOLATED systems

It deals with ALL systems. They don't even have to be closed systems. The known universe, however, itself is a closed system.

(another concept IntoTheNight says doesn't exist)

It does, and has nothing to do with thermodynamics.

and it applies to the universe.

No, it doesn't. The universe has no specified boundaries. The known universe does. It can be considered a closed system.

But clearly there are a number of spontaneous reactions in which the Delta S (entropy term) is positive.

None. Discard of chemistry.

IntoThenight doesn't seem to realize this.

Because there are none. You cannot set the 2nd law of thermodynamics aside at any time.

So, if I were you, I wouldn't go with what @IntoTheNight has to say on anything in the sciences.

Because you deny and discard many theories of science. You also deny and discard mathematics.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

And the link I found suggested that many of them were being banned because of global warming potential...NOT necessarily ozone issues.

I take it you work in HVAC?

That's because the ozone layer angle isn't working...

 

[Saint Guinefort]

In truth, based on your posts, you seem to be another caricature of stupidity

I clearly know more about thermo than the other poster.

and ignorance that believes that the earth's temperature can be measured

Who measures the earth's temperature? Are you not familiar with Global Warming? They use something called a temperature anomaly. It shows CHANGE in temperature without having to have the raw temperature.

Of course you don't seem to know much about this topic in any technical detail.

and that man, and not the sun, is what causes climate change.

For some reason the world's experts on this topic disagree with you. Sure everyone knows the sun is the primary energy source, but the earth's surface temperature is NOT solely due to the sun. Without greenhouse gases at all the earth's surface would have near blackbody temperatures. But it doesn't. Even if we had a full oxygen/nitrogen atmosphere...without GHG's the temperature would be much lower at the surface.

The key problem in AGW is NOT the absolute temperature. The earth's been hotter in the distant past. But rather the change in climate as it impacts our society. Rapid change won't work well for a very large society. We can't adapt fast enough.

The whole problem is one of RATE, not absolutes.

 

[Saint Guinefort]

That's because the ozone layer angle isn't working...

Sounds like you just made up a conspiracy theory. Good for you.

So if someone tells you something and you don't understand what they say do you USUALLY just make up stuff and accuse them of wrongdoing?

 

[Saint Guinefort]

No, you are just discarding theories of science.

Says the person who thinks a crystal is higher entropy than a melt. LOL.

You never learned the topic. You deny and discard the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics.

Says the person who doesn't know that the Second Law only applies to isolated systems. LOL.

2nd law of thermodynamics: e(t+1) >= e(t) where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. You openly deny this law.

AND YOU MISSED THE PART ABOUT ISOLATED SYSTEMS.

You wouldn't last a day in a p chem class.

* You try to use a magick gas to create energy out of nothing. The presence of a gas is not work.

Wrong.

God your post is mostly just wrong wrongness. I wonder how someone could be so fractally wrong on EVERYTHING while attempting to sound really scientific. That's why I think you are Poe-ing here. I think you actually DO know this stuff but you are trying to mock the idiots who don't so you turn every single concept in science upside down to look like a moron in order to lay some attack at the feet of the Denialists.

Either that or you are ASTOUNDINGLY ignorant. It's like you have "anti-knowledge".

 

[Into the Night]

Only uneducated dipshits or power-hungry elitists actually believe that you can destroy oil, gas, hydroelectric energy, and destroy nuclear energy and demand everyone convert to ELECTRICITY without massive shortages and power outages. California can barely keep the lights on right now.

Actually, electricity is generated using oil, natural gas, hydroelectric generation, and nuclear energy. The demand is to discard all that and generate electricity from incredibly expensive methods like wind and solar power. Yes. The SDTC, the land of 'high tech', can't even keep the lights on.

Meanwhile, countries like China, Russia and India spew millions of tons of carbon into the air.

Such soot is an inefficient burn. It's a waste of fuel. Carbon is fuel.
While they all do this, I believe you meant 'carbon dioxide', not 'carbon'. It's okay to spew tons of CO2 into the air. It's a naturally occurring gas in the atmosphere anyway, and life on Earth would be impossible without it. The Big Preach, of course, is that CO2 somehow can warm the Earth, which is simply not possible.

Do you know how much energy it even takes to make a battery?

...or to charge it? No, they tend to overlook that inconvenient truth.

Do you know that batteries are highly toxic?

Heh. These guys deny chemistry!

Do you know the materials to make batteries come from polluting nations like China?

I assume you mean lithium oxide batteries, commonly used in EVs and power storage facilities.

Most lithium ore comes from Australia, Chile, and Argentina. The ore must be processed using large quantities of sulfuric acid before smelting can occur. The mining is typically by strip mining, leaving tailings contaminated with sulfur salts and compounds. Smelting largely occurs in China.
Cobalt (an essential ingredient in today's lithium oxide batteries), is strip mined in Congo, using slave child labor, and some from Australia (also strip mined).

Lithium oxide batteries are a fire hazard. This is due to the reactive nature of lithium metal and the very low internal resistance of the battery cell. They can catch fire if overcharged, discharged at too rapid a rate, charged at too rapid a rate, or the cell suffers physical damage (such as rocks from the roadway or immersion in water, such as flooded roads or heavy snow). Whole cargo ships have been lost to EVs' catching fire on board. When a lithium-oxide battery burns, it burns like a firework. By itself it's a class A fire, but when combined with other batteries in packs (typical construction in an EV) it becomes a class C fire. There is no breaker or fuse. It is the battery pack itself burning. Putting water on this type of fire is a BAD idea.

What is clear is that climate alarmists and liars know nothing about the catastrophic reality of an all-electric society and how it cannot possibly support a modern and growing economy.

Since they deny and discard physics, quantum mechanics, chemistry, mathematics, and sound engineering principles, they substitute all of these with their fundamentalist religion. They know nothing by choice.

But reality doesn't matter, it's all about what makes them feel good.

Many actually feel quite miserable, even seeking 'therapy' to cope with the 'sin' of 'destroying the Earth'. Others simply want to implement the tyranny to gain power for themselves, thinking they are 'the elite'.

 

[Into the Night]

...and then there are some of us who got our doctorates in things like coal chemistry and who DO understand the issues quite a bit better. But you won't like what those of us have to say...

No such doctorate. You are making shit up again.
Coal is not a chemistry.

 

[AProudLefty]

Coal is not a chemistry.

Wow. This has to be satire.

 

[Into the Night]

So you think the earth's temperature can be measured? How so? Give me the science behind those absurd claims.

This is not about science at all. It's about mathematics, particularly statistical mathematics, which the Church of Global Warming and McRocket discards.

Statistical mathematics requires the use if unbiased raw data. Cooked data is not allowed. ALL biasing influences in collecting the data must be identified and eliminated or any summary built from such data is worthless. This is the first requirement before you can even consider conducting a summary.

Statistical mathematics also requires the declaration and justification of a variance, or the range of possible data. A variance of a shift of 20 deg F per mile is easily justified, since this can easily occur across weather fronts, changes in terrain, wildfires, airborne particulate density, etc.

All statistical summaries must have two numbers calculated, the data average and the margin of error value. One number is meaningless without the other.

Biasing influences in collecting temperature data are primarily time and location grouping.

Time bias is because storms move. Weather fronts move. The Sun moves across the sky as the Earth spins. Only 1/2 of the Earth is lit at any given time, and the portion that IS lit is constantly changing. The biasing effects of time MUST be eliminated. Thermometers must be read at the same time by the same authority.

Location grouping bias is another that must be eliminated. Thermometers must be serviced. That means they are all near roads. This tends to place them near cities and populated areas. Thermometers MUST be uniformly placed to eliminate this biasing influence.

NASA uses the largest number of thermometers in it's datasets (about 7500 of them). They are NOT read at the same time nor uniformly placed.

Even if they were, 7500 thermometers across the surface of the Earth results in ONE thermometer measuring an area the size of West Virginia at best. Since temperature can easily vary as much as 20 deg F per mile, the margin of error is so great it exceeds the highest and lowest temperatures ever measured on the surface of Earth, so those values must be used instead. Mathematically, then, to claim to know Earth's temperature is just guessing.

You will find omniscient 'what we know' statements by Democrats in terms of global temperature, global atmospheric CO2 concentration, global sea level, global content of snow and ice, global precipitation, and numerous news polls.

ALL of it is must made up numbers. This is a type of random number known as a 'randU', or psuedo-random number that is simply a number thought up in someone's head.

Using random numbers as data is itself a fallacy.

The temperature of the Earth is unknown. The global atmospheric concentration of CO2 is unknown. The global sea level is unknown. The pH of the oceans is unknown. The total global snow and ice on Earth is unknown. Anyone telling you any of this shit is simply making shit up.