follow Malcolm following
follow Malcolm 2018 Jan 10, 2:26pm
1,409 views 94 comments
« First « Previous Comments 55 - 94 of 94 Last »
The Greenhouse Effect (GE) is established science
People who argue against GW are arguing against basic physics. They are ignorants, and a large fraction of them are ideologically driven ignorants. There is no other way to say it.
Greenhouse effect and the laws of thermodynamics imply global warming. End of story.
Imply? So it might be something else?
Its hard to imagine that anyone will argue against the most basic and fundamental physical laws, but apparently some will.
Here is a 130 year span showing no rise at La Jolla Cove.
laws of thermodynamics imply global warming
Entropy always increasing means heat is always lost from the system
Entropy increasing means that exergy decreases, but not enthalpy
If the temperature continues to decline will you revisit your ideology or just continue to make excuses?
As it increases, it must also decrease.
Is this one of those science laws you hold forth as being truth? Which law exactly helps us determine that runaway global warming is happening? Zeroth law? 1st law?
If the temperature continues to increase....
Global warming (GW) follows directly from GE and 1LT.
The main goal still has to be to get them to understand and accept the greenhouse effect.
Write me a proof.
Showing photos to show sea level hasn't gone up 5 inches, when tide is something like 24 inches. Wtf ?
Enthalpy MUST decrease
else the constant input of energy from the sun would raise it to an unsustainable degree fairly quickly
In San Diego difference between highest and lowest tide is around 7 feet. So yeah - even if the most extreme predictions of sea level rise come true, for the next 100 year you can still make a picture of the same place with exactly the same sea level, and use it as a proof, that sea level is not rising.Bonus points - go now, carve something into a rock at high tide, and continue making photos every month when water level is exactly the same. Repeat for 1200 months.irrefutable evidence is yours.
W is the work done by earth on the surrounding space, which is zero.
In thermo, work has a specific meaning. It refers to mechanical work. He accounted for solar radiation and infrared emissions by referring to net heat absorption. Internal energy (U) includes chemical energy so photosynthesis is included. Evaporation doesn't change U. It takes energy to evaporate, but that doesn't change U of the system. It results in a temperature drop (relative to temperature in absence of evaporation).
This should take care of most of the criticisms.
Malcolm saysThis should take care of most of the criticisms.Malcom, can we classify you as a greenhouse-effect denier and a physics denier?
I'm curious why I should watch a near 1 hour video of a person who is not a scientist in the field, has no published work on it, and is presumably a self-appointed hobbiest "expert," ..... and from that, you believe I will somehow get all the answers I need. Seriously? What about all the actual scientists working in the field? I can't get the answers from them? They wouldn't be a better source? Yes or no?
Malcom, can we classify you as a greenhouse-effect denier and a physics denier?
ear 1 hour video of a person who is not a scientist in the field
Shit, even the title sounds religious, like a Chick Tract.
I love how being a geologist and someone who worked on the software on weather models, among other impressive credentials, is so easily dismissed as not a scientist in the field. He is certainly qualified to review their methodology.
I love how being a geologist...
Hey, maybe you could also explain why you think having a BS in geology is some kind of identifier for expertise in the field of climate change.