« prev   random   next »

7
9

Why Climate Change is a Religion and not Science https://www.topbuzz.com/@malcolmshaw/why-climate-change-is-a-religion-and-not-science-CgJAbZ6OOVo

By Malcolm following x   2018 Jan 10, 2:26pm 13,464 views   119 comments   watch   sfw   quote     share    


An article that I wrote on TopBuzz exploring some of my own observations.

https://www.topbuzz.com/@malcolmshaw/why-climate-change-is-a-religion-and-not-science-CgJAbZ6OOVo

I have put out an internet challenge that no one seems to want to take me up on. It is simple. I am agnostic. While I technically fall into the "skeptic" or "denier" category, it is simply because I question the methodology and the politics of man-made climate-change science. I am open to being convinced, but no one seems to be able to provide anything other than future predictions. So, for the Patrick.net crowd, the same challenge I have made before, to please show me one prior doom and gloom climate change prediction that actually came true, or to show me a past and present picture demonstrating rising sea level.

I know the trolls and vicious defenders of man caused climate change will just assume that I haven't looked up the readily available evidence for climate change. Before you attack me, be forewarned that I have probably got considerable evidence to support being skeptical.

Here is a GIF I made of a famous landmark in San Diego. The Coronado Bridge was built in the late 60s. You will notice that the high waterline is pretty much in the same place. I live on the Pacific Coast. It has been alleged that sea level rise is magnified on this coast, yet I can also show pictures much older that again have no noticeable difference on the high water line.



Here is a 130 year span showing no rise at La Jolla Cove.


Source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/01/if-sea-level-was-rising-wouldnt-someone-have-noticed/

« First    « Previous    Comments 15 - 94 of 119    Next »    Last »

15   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 4:53pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

DoofusRicky says
WookieMan says
Why is there another climate change thread?


Brother wookie just between you and I, I will secretly confess that this is not in all probable fact a climate change thread. It is a rather poorly constructed but still curious psychology experiment.


Ah yes, the insults start when someone is challenged. That is why I call it a religion. You are not the first to balk at a real debate on the issue.

16   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 10, 4:55pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Fyi, sea levels vary at different places. They vary as a function of seasons and tides. And so far there has been very limited sea level rises.
Showing pictures like this is silly.
17   DoofusRicky   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 5:01pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
Ah yes, the insults start when someone is challenged.


I am sincerely sorry you feel this way but I spent an inordinate amount of time breaking down your claim, even to the smallest pixel. Your proof does not hold up even with a basic academic analysis. The base of the Coronado Bridge that you posted is 10 pixels tall. To see a feature in a 10 pixel photograph, that feature must be equal to or greater than 1 pixel. Assuming 5in is one pixel, the base of the Coronado Bridge is apparently four feet high.

This absolutely cannot be true since the tidal range greatly exceeds this but more importantly it would mean the bridge itself is around 60 feet high in the photograph. I simply don't know where else to take this once you ignore the case I made and just say yeah I think I can see 5 in.

For your purposes would it help if I told a fib and said there were 20 pixels in the base? Please tell me what else I need to look at.
18   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 10, 5:03pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
It will be a dead horse soon. Enough people are speaking up.


Funny, I've heard denialists make that claim for 20 yrs. But the opposite is happening:
- the science is ever more certain.
- direct measures are showing ever clearer warming, ever thinner ice-sheets , melting glaciers, increased ocean heat-content, etc...
- Russians, China and other countries are investing massively in the arctic.
- Prices of oceanfront properties in Florida are affected.
Effects are more tangible by the year, but some people just don't want to be bothered with reality.
19   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 5:11pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Like I said, the challenge is out there. If you think there really is a consensus and the science is even more certain you should look up Climategate. Here is a little more education for you.

21   DoofusRicky   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 5:17pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
Like I said, the challenge is out there


Brother Malcolm are you making a challenge when you are not willing to take a challenge yourself?

I humbly and sincerely challenge your claim that 5in can be resolved on any of your photographs. I believe 5 in is less than a single wave in the water. I challenge you to give us some good reasons why these photographs are evidence of a water level in stasis.

Would this be fair?
22   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 5:24pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

It would be, except that you are making the claim, and some claim as much as a foot rise. I put the challenge out there for you to prove sea level rise. My evidence, which is unscripted, unaltered, certainly does not show sea level rise. Yes, I believe you would see the width of a hand in the photographs. For the Cove you can find a spot and put the cursor on it.

No, your logic is strange, why would I take a challenge as a condition to you accepting a challenge. Go find the smoking gun, I told you I am open to the proof. Show me the proof.

So far you've done two things, you said you were up to show me visual proof of sea level rise over time and then said that the sea level rise isn't noticeable because of photo resolution, understand, people are claiming entire islands have already been covered by rising sea level, and you are worried about a pixel?
23   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 10, 5:26pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

This is pretty funny. The premise here is that if (1) someone ignores the fact that you cannot resolve 5 inches in the picture and (2) ignores the fact that tides vary as pointed out already and (3) assume that a few point visual measurements are more accurate than the average of many measurements around the world over decades, then we can prove that climate change is a fraud.
Who is following the evidence and who is following blinded by cognitive bias again? Will this thread make it to 100 comments? Will Malcom claim at that point that nobody has answered his question? I'm titillated.
24   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 5:28pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

BTW, if you are so sure about sea level rise maybe you can tell me how it is calculated. Actually, let me tell you, it is called the budgeting method. Basically they look at satellite images and estimate where all the known water is then estimate what it is doing. Observations proved no sea level rise and the precise method of using a satellite to lock onto a beacon on a buoy didn't get the desired results so those results are inconclusive and not used.
25   mell   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 5:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
DoofusRicky says
WookieMan says
Why is there another climate change thread?


Brother wookie just between you and I, I will secretly confess that this is not in all probable fact a climate change thread. It is a rather poorly constructed but still curious psychology experiment.


Ah yes, the insults start when someone is challenged. That is why I call it a religion. You are not the first to balk at a real debate on the issue.



Thx interesting debate there.
26   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 5:30pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
This is pretty funny. The premise here is that if (1) someone ignores the fact that you cannot resolve 5 inches in the picture and (2) ignores the fact that tides vary as pointed out already and (3) assume that a few point visual measurements are more accurate than the average of many measurements around the world over decades, then we can prove that climate change is a fraud.
Who is following the evidence and who is following blinded by cognitive bias again? Will this thread make it to 100 comments? Will Malcom claim at that point that nobody has answered his question? I'm titillated.


It is so easy to prove me wrong. It just takes real evidence. You stepped up and can't produce it.
27   DoofusRicky   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 5:38pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
It would be, except that you are making the claim,


Sir you are obviously mistaken. I made no claim. Scientists say the ocean rise is 5 in. They may be right and they may be wrong but accepting for argument I am a neutral party, your pictures do not stand alone as the default position. You posted them with a positive claim that the sea level could not have changed based on your photographic evidence.

All I am doing with any and all respect due is rejecting your positive claim of 0 sea level rise. The photographs are not evidence of this. It does seem to be your quest to collect these, but 5 inches is a rather small measurement and proving it with a photograph of pixels measured in feet can never work. The second reason to reject these is the obvious difference in tides and how not getting the timing exactly right would disqualify the photos without even considering any other demerits..
28   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 5:42pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

I didn't say my pictures were proof of 0 sea level rise, I said they were evidence contradicting sea level rise. The whole premise of this is to allow anyone to provide me visual proof at any resolution that sea level has risen. No one has done so, yet they argue the point with me, in essence stepping up to a challenge to please show me where sea level has risen, with a visual.

I'm not disrespecting anyone's opinions, just show me the real proof.
29   DoofusRicky   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 5:49pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
I didn't say my pictures were proof of 0 sea level rise, I said they were evidence contradicting sea level rise.


I stand corrected. They are proof of the absence of sea level rise exceeding the pixel size of your photograph which as far as I can determine is well over a foot.

Fortunately for the warmist community, that isn't what scientists have measured.
30   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 10, 5:51pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
I don't get what we're arguing.

Still a lot of ignorance out there.
31   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 6:05pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

DoofusRicky says
Malcolm says
I didn't say my pictures were proof of 0 sea level rise, I said they were evidence contradicting sea level rise.


I stand corrected. They are proof of the absence of sea level rise exceeding the pixel size of your photograph which as far as I can determine is well over a foot.

Fortunately for the warmist community, that isn't what scientists have measured.


LOL, the diplomatic side of me was going to at least propose that we concede it is not more than a foot. Yes, my evidence is merely putting it out there that I am consistently not seeing noticeable sea level change over decades. But that's cool, I had a similar discussion with an old friend, he asserted 2 1/2 inches over 150 years. These pictures are just for a baseline, and I really am open to looking at pictures showing the opposite. Like I also said, I am compiling images wherever I can as to not just have a few data points.
32   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 10, 6:23pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
The whole premise of this is to allow anyone to provide me visual proof at any resolution that sea level has risen.

For example the "marégraphe" in Marseilles, is a tide gauge that kept records of sea level since 1883. It has a sophisticated mechanism to integrate the levels.
http://www.sonel.org/spip.php?page=maregraphe&idStation=1802 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00190-014-0728-6
You still won't see 20 cm difference on a picture.
33   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 10, 6:26pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Well, I'll start caring about sea level rise when you can.
34   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 10, 6:37pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
Well, I'll start caring about sea level rise when you can.


Sure, and in the meantime, put your money where your mouth is and go buy a nice oceanfront property in Miami, since you are so sure it won't be affected.
I hear they sell at a discount.
35   Hugolas_Madurez   ignore (5)   2018 Jan 10, 6:53pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
I don't get what we're arguing.


You giving 15% of your paycheck to Al Gore.
36   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 10, 7:13pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Satoshi_Nakamoto says
WookieMan says
I don't get what we're arguing.


You giving 15% of your paycheck to Al Gore.

I don't follow. What 15% of my paycheck?

I don't care if the scientist are wrong or right. I live by the fact we're all going 6 feet under anyway. Enjoy life. Don't change your oil and dump it on the front lawn. Don't start a tire fire. Be energy efficient if it works for you. Those types of things.

A speeding rock can hit our planet and there's nothing we can do about it. We'd all be dead tomorrow. A super volcano. Whatever. If climate change is real, there's nothing we can do about it anyway. Grab a drink or joint and have fun... but don't be a dead beat.
37   Hugolas_Madurez   ignore (5)   2018 Jan 10, 7:16pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
Satoshi_Nakamoto says
WookieMan says
I don't get what we're arguing.


You giving 15% of your paycheck to Al Gore.

I don't follow. What 15% of my paycheck?


Because Al needs the money.
38   FortWayne   ignore (4)   2018 Jan 10, 7:19pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Global warming hoax was sales bullshit to sell more solar panels and electric vehicles. Coincidence that billionaire democrats are selling those!!!
39   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 10, 7:23pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Satoshi_Nakamoto says
WookieMan says
Satoshi_Nakamoto says
WookieMan says
I don't get what we're arguing.


You giving 15% of your paycheck to Al Gore.

I don't follow. What 15% of my paycheck?


Because Al needs the money.

Al is a fat fuck. Ignore him. If he cared about the environment he'd stop eating 3 burgers a day which in effect eliminates his neck. You can't take a no-necker seriously, you know that, right?
40   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Jan 10, 8:22pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Does anyone know if the Russian troll farms are getting involved with this topic now ?

Fossil fuels are more important to certain Russian oligarchs than even the Koch brothers.

Fascinating thread. I guess I'm possibly an idiot for deferring to the experts when they tell me the earth is not nearly flat, or that sea level has gone up by however much it has. No offense, but it takes someone very disrespectful of academia and scholarship in general, not to mention critical thinking as thing that exists, to think that sea level changes (something so incredibly easy to verity) have not been verified in thousands of places, six ways from Sunday.

Maybe it's comedy ? Showing photos to show sea level hasn't gone up 5 inches, when tide is something like 24 inches. Wtf ?
41   Hugolas_Madurez   ignore (5)   2018 Jan 10, 8:53pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

anon_08dee says
Does anyone know if the Russian troll farms are getting involved with this topic now ?


Always have been. Their main effort was in peddling "fracking is baaaaad", "pipelines are daaaangerous", "tar sands development is hooorrrible" kind of shit. Because grows of US domestic oil and gas production and subsequent lowering of prices and push into the markets they deem theirs is threatening one of the two legs the fucking "Energy Superpower" stands on.
42   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 11, 6:17am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

WookieMan says
Fascinating thread. I guess I'm possibly an idiot for deferring to the experts when they tell me the earth is not nearly flat

You're not an idiot.
anon_08dee says
or that sea level has gone up by however much it has

It has. But it is not covering Manhattan.

Maybe you have been duped by the alarmists?
43   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 11, 7:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

anon_08dee says
Maybe it's comedy

Maybe.
Some alarmists are religious in their zeal.
44   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 7:42am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
WookieMan says
Fascinating thread. I guess I'm possibly an idiot for deferring to the experts when they tell me the earth is not nearly flat

You're not an idiot.

Not my quote, but thanks for the kind words.
45   BlueSardine   ignore (4)   2018 Jan 11, 7:51am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

What the Libbies should collect from your paycheck in order to save us from climate swings
WookieMan says
Why is there another climate change thread? These should be banned. If the science is right all of us die and so do our kids. If it's wrong, we all die at some point anyway. I don't get what we're arguing
46   WookieMan   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 8:05am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

BlueSardine says
What the Libbies should collect from your paycheck in order to save us from climate swings

Libbies & Repubs are getting our money one way or another. Fight the good fight I suppose. I just don't know why we go back and forth here with sometimes 2 or 3 of these threads a week on patnet knowing that NO ONE here is going to change their position.

First world countries are naturally going towards cleaner energy from my perspective. I think or would hope everyone here agrees that's a good thing. Deniers included. So on a per capita basis we're likely reducing emissions, this is good.

On the other hand the believers think there's something that can be done about it. There's no magic bullet to have a net decrease in pollution/emissions/CO2. While our per capita pollution has decreased, we've just added more people to the world that keep the overall levels the same or increasing. Besides population control or outright banning of a polluting activities and massively lowering the quality of life, I've yet to hear to logical solution to all this.

Do I want my kids to live on a polluted, disgusting earth, no. Do I want them to be forced to live a certain way by our government to try and reverse something that is very likely not reversible, no. This is all I'm getting at. Enjoy life. You've only got one and arguing about something where there is literally never going to be a winner is kind of a fools errand.

I rest my case on these climate change threads. Have fun with the back and forth though I suppose. Both sides aren't changing the path that we're on.
47   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 8:20am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

The Greenhouse Effect (GE) is established science, the 1st law of thermodynamics (1LT) is established science. Global warming (GW) follows directly from GE and 1LT.

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.

https://patrick.net/post/1313015/2018-01-10-co2-greenhouse-effect-in-details
48   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 9:00am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Science is not truth. Science is the process by which we attempt to find truth.

Anyone who thinks any science is “settled” clearly has no clue about what science even is!
49   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Jan 11, 9:05am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Does anyone know if the Russian troll farms are getting involved with this topic now ?

Fossil fuels are more important to certain Russian oligarchs than even the Koch brothers.

Fascinating thread. I guess I'm possibly an idiot for deferring to the experts when they tell me the earth is not nearly flat, or that sea level has gone up by however much it has. No offense, but it takes someone very disrespectful of academia and scholarship in general, not to mention critical thinking as thing that exists, to think that sea level changes (something so incredibly easy to verity) have not been verified in thousands of places, six ways from Sunday.

Maybe it's comedy ? Showing photos to show sea level hasn't gone up 5 inches, when tide is something like 24 inches. Wtf ?
50   Patrick   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 9:07am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

anon_08dee says
Does anyone know if the Russian troll farms are getting involved with this topic now ?


If they are, it's not from Russia itself. I have banned the whole country by IP address ranges. Not because of political posts, just because of relentless spam.
51   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 9:11am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Anyone who thinks any science is “settled” clearly has no clue about what science even is!


Its hard to imagine that anyone will argue against the most basic and fundamental physical laws, but apparently some will.
52   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 9:23am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

anon_08dee says
Fascinating thread. I guess I'm possibly an idiot for deferring to the experts when they tell me the earth is not nearly flat, or that sea level has gone up by however much it has. No offense, but it takes someone very disrespectful of academia and scholarship in general, not to mention critical thinking as thing that exists, to think that sea level changes (something so incredibly easy to verity) have not been verified in thousands of places, six ways from Sunday.

Maybe it's comedy ? Showing photos to show sea level hasn't gone up 5 inches, when tide is something like 24 inches. Wtf ?


If it is a comedy, it is a tragical farce. Not accounting for time variation of local sea levels due to tidal conditions is a glaring mistake. But that is not going to stop the ideologically-driven and scientifically ignorant. And by the way, the high-waterline does not establish what percentage of the time the water is at what level, nor is it accurate enough to establish anything significant from these far-away photos.

But: back to basics: Greenhouse effect and the laws of thermodynamics imply global warming. End of story.
53   Ceffer   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 9:26am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

What better than an unmeasurable and unsee-able metric lost in the normal tidal variations to prove Global Warming.
54   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 9:34am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Ceffer says
What better than un unmeasurable and unsee-able metric lost in the normal tidal variations to prove Global Warming.


(sarc) What better than than a highly inaccurate methodology to "prove" that sea levels did not rise?

Greenhouse effect and the laws of thermodynamics imply global warming. End of story.
55   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 11, 9:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

justme says
The Greenhouse Effect (GE) is established science

Is the relationship between co2 and heat linear? If not linear what is the relationship?
Just because a possible effect is recognized does not mean the science is settled.
56   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 11, 9:44am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (3)   quote   flag        

justme says

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.

Said like a true believer. Is there anything that will change your belief? If the temperature continues to decline will you revisit your ideology or just continue to make excuses?
57   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 11, 9:57am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

justme says

Greenhouse effect and the laws of thermodynamics imply global warming. End of story.

Imply? So it might be something else?
58   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 11:20am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
Imply? So it might be something else?


NO, it might not be "something else". In mathematical logic, A implies B, written A ==> B, means that B must always be true if A is true. I'm writing in the mathematical sense, not in some colloquial/rhetorical sense.
59   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 11:36am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

justme says
Its hard to imagine that anyone will argue against the most basic and fundamental physical laws, but apparently some will.


Want to name one of these? Or give me an example? Just one. Perhaps you’ll choose “gravity.” That would be fun to refute!
60   Tenpoundbass   ignore (13)   2018 Jan 11, 11:40am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
Here is a 130 year span showing no rise at La Jolla Cove.


Any Idiot can look at the original Nautical maps showing Fort Jefferson, it has the same footprint in the surrounding Atlantic as it did 125 years ago.
One side of the Fort was built right at the water edge. The other side has about 100ft of beach landing for docking boats for supplies. Looks exactly unchanged.
61   Tenpoundbass   ignore (13)   2018 Jan 11, 11:41am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Climate Change is all about Academic and Political promises made to each other. They had a fucking deal we were supposed to go along with it. Al Gore was already shopping for a new summer island.
62   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 11:43am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

justme says
laws of thermodynamics imply global warming


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? I’m assuming you’d like to skip over that inconvenient 2nd law which states:
“In a natural thermodynamic process, the sum of the entropies of the interacting thermodynamic systems increases. Equivalently, perpetual motion machines of the second kind (machines that spontaneously convert thermal energy into mechanical work) are impossible.”
Entropy always increasing means heat is always lost from the system, which is tragic for folks who are trying to believe that it’s not going anywhere due to carbon dioxide.

Still waiting on that pristine and shining scientific law that equates with absolute truth!
63   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 11, 12:04pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Entropy always increasing means heat is always lost from the system

Entropy increasing means that exergy decreases, but not enthalpy. Heat loss is a function of enthalpy. Your statement isn't correct.
64   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 12:36pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
Entropy increasing means that exergy decreases, but not enthalpy


Enthalpy MUST decrease, else the constant input of energy from the sun would raise it to an unsustainable degree fairly quickly. As it increases, it must also decrease. Trees are good at this, absorbing energy from the solar radiation and using it to make plant matter. So are the zooplankton in the oceans. But the largest energy loss each day is through infrared radiation to outer space. In any sustained system that has energy input, enthalpy must decrease or the system will become unsustainable.
65   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 11, 12:56pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Onvacation says
If the temperature continues to decline will you revisit your ideology or just continue to make excuses?


If the temperature continues to increase will stop denying it increases?










66   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 1:00pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
As it increases, it must also decrease.


Among the rampant meaningless babble, this particular sentence stands out. (Is there any greater insult to a right-winger than saying that he sounds almost CLINTONIAN?)
67   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 1:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
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?


QUOTE of myself: The Greenhouse Effect (GE) is established science, the 1st law of thermodynamics (1LT) is established science. Global warming (GW) follows directly from GE and 1LT.

It would help if you actually read what I had written before you start attacking it. OTOH, perhaps it would make no difference to your false argumentation.
68   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 1:15pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Heraclitusstudent says
If the temperature continues to increase....


That is great data that shows the result of the greenhouse effect. Keep in mind however that data just gives the physics-deniers even more stuff to invent meaningless and false quibbles about. The main goal still has to be to get them to understand and accept the greenhouse effect.
69   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 1:21pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

justme says
Global warming (GW) follows directly from GE and 1LT.


That’s called “making a statement” which is not in any way “science.”
Think you’re right about this? Write me a proof.
All established science can be proved and replicated. Everything else is just a theory.
70   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 11, 1:29pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

justme says
The main goal still has to be to get them to understand and accept the greenhouse effect.

They will still say that it is not possible to quantify. Nevermind that it was estimated pretty accurately with pencil and paper 100 yrs ago, and was estimated very accurately in 1967. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2017/03/15/the-first-climate-model-turns-50-and-predicted-global-warming-almost-perfectly/#411ab8be6614 The fact that Arrhenius did it so well shows that relatively simple estimations can capture the essence. This backs up your point that it can be related back to first principles without losing too much detail.
71   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 11, 1:33pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Write me a proof.

You actually made a decent proof for him when you were trying to defend your statement about enthalpy and entropy.
72   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 1:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Okay, I will spell out how Global warming (GW) follows directly from GE (Greenhouse effect) and 1LT (1st Law of Thermodynamics)

First a definition: By (planet) earth is meant all the physical matter of the earth, including land, water, ice and the atmosphere.

GE: Greenhouse effect implies that with increased CO2 concentration in the atmosphere, the earth's balance of energy absorbed from the sun and emitted back to space will change so that more energy is absorbed and less energy is emitted.

1LT: The 1st law of thermodynamics states that deltaU=Q-W, where U is the internal energy (of the earth in this case), Q is the net heat absorption (positive when CO2 is increasing), and W is the work done by earth on the surrounding space, which is zero. Hence deltaU=Q>0. So the internal energy of the earth increases. The increase in internal energy will be observable as an increase in the temperature of earth (although the energy may temporarily take the form of kinetic energy such as wind, or potential energy such as water vapor lifted up in the atmosphere, in case anyone wondered).

The net result is that earth temperature will rise just enough that outbound heat radiation again balances the incoming radiation from the sun.The temperature will manifest itself as an AVERAGE increase in air temperature, land temperature, water (ocean etc) temperature, and, yes, ice temperature (some of which will cause the ice to melt).

There you have it. I'm already waiting for the dishonest and errant quibbles to start.
73   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Jan 11, 1:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

anon_08dee says
Showing photos to show sea level hasn't gone up 5 inches, when tide is something like 24 inches. Wtf ?

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.
74   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Jan 11, 1:55pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Quigley says
Enthalpy MUST decrease

Still not correct. Quigley says
else the constant input of energy from the sun would raise it to an unsustainable degree fairly quickly

If heat were transferred to the earth with no heat loss, the temperature would increase over time. That part is true. However, if in a theoretical case 1 unit of heat were transferred to earth and one unit were transferred elsewhere, enthalpy would remain constant despite the heat loss. None of that has anything to do with entropy, which has to do with reversibility and the direction of heat transfer in a specific situation.
75   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 11, 2:39pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

anon_f45f6 says
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.


Bingo, that's the point of comparing high water lines. Nature does just what you say, and over time, if the sea level has risen, the high water line, that gets stained onto some rocks and concrete will have to move up, otherwise no rise. The extent of the tides is meaningless, these pictures are not staged at some particular time, it is only to compare the high water line to demonstrate no apparent change. Admittedly, the resolution is such that I can't prove no change, but it is a start to observe, just as you say.
76   Quigley   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 3:32pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

justme says
W is the work done by earth on the surrounding space, which is zero.


Not your first mistake, but certainly the most aggregious. By simplifying W to “work” and declaring that it’s zero, you negate all the various forms of energy emissions the earth performs to keep us all from cooking in a vile stew of disjointed hydrocarbons. I’ve listed them above. You’re forgetting that the earth is not a closed system. Treating it as such, you have to ignore the input of solar radiation and the output of infrared emissions, photosynthesis, water phase change (solid to liquid to gas all require energy to change phase), and I’m sure others. It’s not a closed system. It’s open to the universe and the universe acts upon our planet constantly. Clouds can trap warmer air, but they also do a great job of reflecting sunlight that would warm the ground. More heat leads to more clouds, leads to more rain which cools the air and ground as it phase changes back to vapor.
77   FNWGMOBDVZXDNW   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 11, 6:35pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

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).
78   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 11, 8:18pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

FNWGMOBDVZXDNW says
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).


Exactly. Quigley, you just failed physics again.
79   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Jan 11, 9:04pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

You guys are getting to technical. I want to just make dumb ass assertions about the footprint of some island and photos that contradict thousands of data points gathered by scientists.

We don't need no stnkin smarty pants academics and scientists. Kill them all.
80   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 12, 10:14am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

This should take care of most of the criticisms. Remember, I simply asked for anyone to show me tangible proof of sea level rise, not one picture, nothing has been provided here and other places that I have asked. Instead of proving climate change, the alarmist side insists on us disproving climate change. I was asked to cite things that everyone over 40 remembers, like show me where they predicted global cooling. Show me a paper that didn't come true. Well, this video shows all of that, with actual images of the papers. If you watch this and don't at least question the scientific consensus on man made climate change, formerly known as global warming, then we will simply be at an impasse until 2050 when we'll see if regular commercial ships are making the North Passage.



P.S. Stop the video at 37:39 and cllick on this link. It is sure to get a little chuckle: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/09/18/immediacy-threat-climate-change-exaggerated-faulty-models/
81   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Jan 12, 10:27am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

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?
82   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 12, 10:32am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (2)   quote   flag        

Booom!!!!
83   justme   ignore (0)   2018 Jan 12, 10:33am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
This should take care of most of the criticisms.


Malcom, can we classify you as a greenhouse-effect denier and a physics denier?
84   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 12, 10:38am   ↑ like (3)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

justme says
Malcolm says
This should take care of most of the criticisms.


Malcom, can we classify you as a greenhouse-effect denier and a physics denier?


I would say no. I am a denier of bunk science and organized religions, like alarmist climate change. Please watch the video, then you can classify me however you want.
85   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 12, 10:46am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

anon_1fe2e says
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?


Suit yourself, but anyone who does watch it will either be convinced or at least have a clearer understanding on the technical issues the skeptics have. The reason it is so long is because it is very thorough with backup on every point. 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.
86   Patrick   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 12, 10:50am   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

justme says
Malcom, can we classify you as a greenhouse-effect denier and a physics denier?


Please don't classify Malcolm, or any user, at all.

We should be debating facts and not personalities. If you don't like someone, the "ignore" link is right there.
87   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 12, 10:55am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

So there!! :)
88   MisterLearnToCode   ignore (4)   2018 Jan 12, 10:59am   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

anon_1fe2e says
ear 1 hour video of a person who is not a scientist in the field


Coming Right Up



Shit, even the title sounds religious, like a Chick Tract.

"No matter how fun the Ouija board is, it's a gateway for Demons! Now Marsha, that's an Inconvenient Truth!"
89   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 12, 11:07am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

anon_1fe2e says
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?

Of course he is gonna believe that over 97% of scientists: It confirms his beliefs.
90   Heraclitusstudent   ignore (2)   2018 Jan 12, 11:08am   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

TwoScoopsPlissken says
Shit, even the title sounds religious, like a Chick Tract.

Funny that no one posted this to prove GW.
91   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Jan 12, 4:55pm   ↑ like (2)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
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.

No, he isn't. Having as one of a number of jobs writing some unspecified part of certain software does not put you front and center for evaluating the science of climate change.
92   anonymous   ignore (null)   2018 Jan 12, 5:08pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (0)   quote   flag        

Malcolm says
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.
93   Onvacation   ignore (3)   2018 Jan 12, 5:24pm   ↑ like (1)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

anon_1fe2e says

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.

Geologists can see the geologic evidence of constant and sometime drastic climate change. They believe in history.
94   Malcolm   ignore (1)   2018 Jan 12, 5:57pm   ↑ like (0)   ↓ dislike (1)   quote   flag        

Pretty much what anon says. I am surprised by the question, frankly. It is a very compelling video, it is your choice to ignore it. At least click on the link and look at the video at the specified time code, you'll get a laugh. It was something I stumbled across and put them together when I recognized the Daily Telegraph logo.

« First    « Previous    Comments 15 - 94 of 119    Next »    Last »



about   best comments   contact   one year ago   suggestions