patrick.net

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.

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.

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.

Ah, more unreported climate change news. More ice than normal in Greenland.

https://electroverse.net/greenland-has-gained-510-billion-tons-of-ice-over-the-last-year/

The Summer ice melt creates Seismic events not rising oceans. As the excess water is pushed deeper into the Earth as it shifts land mass as it forces its way down.

Great, two years of Greenland's ice sheet growing. That's all the data we need to firmly establish that climate change is a hoax!

Evan F. says

Great, two years of Greenland's ice sheet growing. That's all the data we need to firmly establish that climate change is a hoax!

If it was shrinking for two years, the Warming Alarmists would be shrieking like maniacs.

It's a two way street. If AGW=Rapid and Immediate Disaster types get to flip out and rant over two years of a shrinking ice cap, then AGW=Mostly A Good Thing and Not An Immediate Emergency types like me get to do backflips when the ice cover increases.

Plant Growth - NOT including Human Agriculture, but natural wild plants - is up 20% since the 1950s worldwide. Thanks CO2!

Let's stop CO2 once it turns huge swaths of the Canadian Shield and Siberian Tundra into farmland with at least one growing season. Hard Red Winter Wheat aplenty!

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

If it was shrinking for two years, the Warming Alarmists would be shrieking like maniacs.

Two years isn't enough. It's the same as that idiot Jim Inhofe bringing a snowball into Congress and declaring climate change a hoax. Just because Greenland has improved doesn't mean temperatures elsewhere haven't risen, on average.

I'll eat my words and apologize to you when we've got 40+ years of temperatures trending downward.

Evan F. says

Two years isn't enough. It's the same as that idiot Jim Inhofe bringing a snowball into Congress and declaring climate change a hoax. Just because Greenland has improved doesn't mean temperatures elsewhere haven't risen, on average.

Global Warming Chickenlittles don't even wait until a season is over, if it points to shrinking ice or anything else "Warming", before flapping their wings and running around squawking.

When there's any kind of period that shows no impending DOOM! DOOM! DOOM!, it takes them years to acknowledge the facts, but they explain it as a pause.

As a reminder, Global Cooling lasted 40+ years last time, and people started to ponder if we were headed to another ice age.

TwoScoopsOfSpaceForce says

Global Warming Chickenlittles don't even wait until a season is over, if it points to shrinking ice or anything else "Warming".

Dude, why do we need to wait until this particular season is over? You think one good winter is gonna change everything?

Malcolm says

Ah, more unreported climate change news. More ice than normal in Greenland.

https://electroverse.net/greenland-has-gained-510-billion-tons-of-ice-over-the-last-year/

and the rest of the planet also? The magic words are trend line not this year. What happens in a year or two in a place or two is called weather not climate.

Flora and fauna all over the planet keeps moving toward the poles steadily year after year. Do you suppose that means anything?

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

Glad they had modern global measurement techniques in the 1880's methodologically sound enough to compare a half degree difference in a 2018 outcome as notworthy.

140 year separation of GLOBAL temperature (somehow), from a time when most of the world lacked electricity.

No problems with this whatsoever. Only a climate nazi could disagree

bob2356 says

Flora and fauna all over the planet keeps moving toward the poles steadily year after year. Do you suppose that means anything?

Does it mean we are not going to freeze or starve to death from another Ice Age?

Living in SoCal for the last 20+ years has turned me into a pussy. I can't imagine living in shitty cold weather ever again. Human's can survive warmer weather better than colder weather.

I'd much rather have a warmer and greener planet, even if that means we lose some coastline.

Justme, Evan, Heraclitusstudent, bob,

So what do we do about it? You do not need to wait until everyone is convinced - if the situation is that dire, we need to take action now:

More people = more carbon footprint, so first world nations need to seriously curtail immigration and allow the lower birthrate to bring down overpopulation. A person in the 1st world uses 100x the resources of a third world person.

California's government seems to be on board with AGW, so I am sure they can get political support for items like outlawing any HOA or municipality from banning solar panels and clotheslines. Clothes dryers are huge energy hogs, imagine the carbon savings if thousands of dryers were left idle on sunny days.

Stop all imports from nations that manufacture without similar environmental laws as the US.

Increase fuel taxes to European levels. That would discourage waste and cause more efficient shipments such as rail and full pallets.

Of course, these solutions can cause some pain. From what I see from most Democrats that preach AGW, they never talk about solutions. It is like a religion where belief is the most important aspect. Just argue the case for AGW to the heretics, and vote Democrat to show you care.

socal2 says

bob2356 says

Flora and fauna all over the planet keeps moving toward the poles steadily year after year. Do you suppose that means anything?

Does it mean we are not going to freeze or starve to death from another Ice Age?

Living in SoCal for the last 20+ years has turned me into a pussy. I can't imagine living in shitty cold weather ever again. Human's can survive warmer weather better than colder weather.

I'd much rather have a warmer and greener planet, even if that means we lose some coastline.

The time scale that the coastline would erode away is insigniicant compared to the amount of time it takes to build a city. If you think about it, people toss out these horrific predictions of us losing cities. IMO, it's overly alarmist, but at the same time, they talk about 100 to 200 years down the road. What did San Francisco look like 200 years ago?

theoakman says

The time scale that the coastline would erode away is insigniicant compared to the amount of time it takes to build a city. If you think about it, people toss out these horrific predictions of us losing cities. IMO, it's overly alarmist, but at the same time, they talk about 100 to 200 years down the road. What did San Francisco look like 200 years ago?

And cities like Amsterdam managed to figure out a way to live below sea level using technology that is hundreds of years old.

We can outrun and adapt to the worst of climate change without creating massive pain and suffering to humanity.

But if we are to believe the climate change doom mongers - we need to inflict massive pain on humanity RIGHT NOW in the form of massive energy taxes, regulations and population controls.

In other words, the medicine is worse than the disease.

socal2 says

And cities like Amsterdam managed to figure out a way to live below sea level using technology that is hundreds of years old.

And Galveston built the seawall and elevated the entire city after 1900's hurricane and seems to be doing fine lo these 118 years later.

https://www.asce.org/project/galveston-seawall-and-grade-raising-project/