patrick.net

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

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.

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.

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?

justme says

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

Imply? So it might be something else?

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.

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!

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.

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.

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!

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.

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.

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?

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?)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/eR1xgXWlClc

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/

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?

Booom!!!!

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?

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.

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.

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.

So there!! :)

anon_1fe2e says

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

Coming Right Up

www.youtube.com/embed/mOrHnctozrY

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!"

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.

TwoScoopsPlissken says

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

Funny that no one posted this to prove GW.

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.

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.