A challenge to Climate Change believers

a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm sorry I'm such a dumb ass, it's just me, I can't change that. But the question I asked is for a visual reference. If you took from my OP that I needed to see entire towns submerged in order to believe in AGW, you may be the one you referenced in your first paragraph.

I admit, I approach this from a non-believer aspect. I'm jaded, mostly because being lied to, over and over again makes me not trust those who lied to me. You may enjoy that, it's not for me to decide what creams your twinkie. But as I approach this, and I've been told the sea is rising due to climate change, and it's been rising for years, that stupid part of me wants to see it. Now if there is a reason the sea is rising, but it's cleverly hidden away from prying eyes, by all means, say that, so I can stop looking this damn dumb. Help a brother out.

But when I look at an island, a light house, a jettie, some structure in the water that everyone can see, I feel like if the rise in sea level is real, then the sea level should cooperate, and rise up just a bit. And since the beach can erode, we can't just look at that. And since buildings on land can sink, we can't just look at that. We need to look at something that is firm in it's location. (at least in my pea brain)

in case you missed it, it used to be called GLOBAL WARMING..they rebranded it as CLIMATE CHANGE because things weren't necessarily getting warmer. But guess what..the climate has always and will always 'change'. Its just a cock n bull scam to fund a global government with carbon taxes.

NOW..are we polluting land sea and air at unimaginable levels? YES..there is a Texas sized garbage patch in the pacific.
Our water has all sorts of exotic chemicals in it and the land has been sprayed by an astounding assortment of chemicals over the past decades. AND if you believe in chemtrails like I do , not even the air we breath is sacred or pure anymore.

the 'green warriors' are fighting the wrong battle. But they are under thumb of the globalists that want a world wide tax to fund their wacky NWO.

Remember, a government can't exist without TAXES (CARBON TAXES AND CREDITS)

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Shoshanna
does anybody know why the greenhouse gas doesn't rise up through the atmosphere and go into space? Is it heavier than air? I probably sound dumb but I'm trying to understand this.

The Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen. Carbon atoms are lighter than Nitrogen, and Nitrogen atoms are lighter than Oxygen, which is lighter than Fluorine Atoms (You can see the atomic weights of atoms in the Periodic Table of Elements).

Many greenhouse gasses are lighter than air, but even the lighter ones still weigh something, and are drawn to the Earth by gravity, its just that they 'float' on top of the heavier atmosphere.

Gasses also do sublimate into space, but not particularly fast, or otherwise we'd have lost our atmosphere by now.

Incorrect.
You need to look at CO2, not carbon itself

CO2 has a density of 1.98 kg/cubic meter and is thus HEAVIER than Nitrogen at 1.2 kg/cubic meter

I never said CO2 was lighter than Nitrogen. I said a Carbon atom was lighter than a Nitrogen atom. I was referring to atomic weights for individual elements, not compounds.

Molecularly, Nitrogen molecules consist of two Nitrogen atoms. And molecularly, CO2 consists of two those two atomically heavier Oxygen atoms and a Carbon atom that makes it quite heavier than gaseous Nitrogen.

Still wrong
You don't understand atomic weights and the difference with density

Comparing a gas like Nitrogen to a solid like carbon is ridiculous.

In solid sate, carbon has a density of 2200kg/cubic metre
In solid state, Nitrogen has a density of 1027 kg/cubic metre

Nitrogen is still lighter than carbon

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: chr0naut

How about read the papers that Physicists have recently published before making those accusations?

Real Scientists that have a published paper on these matters is what my peers demand and there they are.

And here once again you defend the altered data team. Why do that when the data is always available that you gloss over? Is it just for that SJW agenda mouthpiece job and feeding your children, I can forgive you. But can you?

Please present the data, and the papers (and note that preprints and non-peer reviewed papers don't have the credibility that I would expect to be a minimum standard).

OK

Big man, The links to the data are provided in virtually each of those videos of between 2- 5 mins each. They are discussed in the video along with that days Solar weather that relates to the paper in the Journals. Go see for yourself and you will know the facts as they are.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The problem with that theory is there isn't that much Ice left to melt from the 10000 years of melting that happened before 'Merica happened. Those sea level raises are limited to the available water and it is way more available now thus making the future rise of an all ice free Earth less dramatic.

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Shoshanna
does anybody know why the greenhouse gas doesn't rise up through the atmosphere and go into space? Is it heavier than air? I probably sound dumb but I'm trying to understand this.

The Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen. Carbon atoms are lighter than Nitrogen, and Nitrogen atoms are lighter than Oxygen, which is lighter than Fluorine Atoms (You can see the atomic weights of atoms in the Periodic Table of Elements).

Many greenhouse gasses are lighter than air, but even the lighter ones still weigh something, and are drawn to the Earth by gravity, its just that they 'float' on top of the heavier atmosphere.

Gasses also do sublimate into space, but not particularly fast, or otherwise we'd have lost our atmosphere by now.

Incorrect.
You need to look at CO2, not carbon itself

CO2 has a density of 1.98 kg/cubic meter and is thus HEAVIER than Nitrogen at 1.2 kg/cubic meter

I never said CO2 was lighter than Nitrogen. I said a Carbon atom was lighter than a Nitrogen atom. I was referring to atomic weights for individual elements, not compounds.

Molecularly, Nitrogen molecules consist of two Nitrogen atoms. And molecularly, CO2 consists of two those two atomically heavier Oxygen atoms and a Carbon atom that makes it quite heavier than gaseous Nitrogen.

Still wrong
You don't understand atomic weights and the difference with density

Comparing a gas like Nitrogen to a solid like carbon is ridiculous.

In solid sate, carbon has a density of 2200kg/cubic metre
In solid state, Nitrogen has a density of 1027 kg/cubic metre

Nitrogen is still lighter than carbon

He can't read a CRC if I had my guess? I do think that one prefers "rabbit lookie there" on us here. I appreciate your accuracy. You remind me of a professor I loved who wrote the Graduate level Textbook "Inorganic Chemical Principals" then taught us from it. "More energetic the further the right and down on the Periodic Chart" was the answer to one of the final's questions. Good to have another someone here that isn't willing to ignore the actual science and appears logical.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Arbitrageur

I'm sorry I'm such a dumb ass, it's just me, I can't change that. But the question I asked is for a visual reference. If you took from my OP that I needed to see entire towns submerged in order to believe in AGW, you may be the one you referenced in your first paragraph.

Here's what you said in the OP:

originally posted by: network dude
So the challenge is to show something, some building, some structure that has existed for many years, that used to be above water, and now is not.

Show me.

So you asked to see some building, some structure that has existed for many years, that used to be above water, and now is not. I gave you a source saying sea level has risen about 0.3 meters in the last 150 years. If you're not metric, that's about one foot. So yes, your question asking to see some building or some structure submerged by sea level rise of one foot in the last 150 years, does not seem logical at all. If you had another source citing some higher number, you failed to post it in your opening post to indicate where your thought process is coming from.

As others have already pointed out, and you acknowledged, your proposed procedure also has other issues where comparing old photographs may show more of how land is rising or sinking than actual sea level. Even if we ever get to match the previous accelerated rate of sea level rise observed in the data about 120,000 years ago, that's still only about a foot a decade so it would take a century to submerge a single story building even at that much faster rate.

I admit, I approach this from a non-believer aspect. I'm jaded, mostly because being lied to, over and over again makes me not trust those who lied to me. You may enjoy that, it's not for me to decide what creams your twinkie.

I posted that video by Tony Heller, and he refers to "lies", but I think that wording is a bit strong. He points out things like, they deleted all the old data where it doesn't support the narrative they are trying to sell us. That's kind of like if you get sworn in to tell the truth and the whole truth, omitting the data that doesn't support your narrative is not telling the whole truth, and it's a very shady thing to do, but it's not exactly the same thing as a lie.

Or they are making adjustments to the data. In some cases the adjustments may be justified. I think it's a bit dubious to outright call it a lie when you dig into it, and some skeptics have done this digging, however I do agree what they are communicating to us about climate is very suspicious in some respects, and apparently politically motivated.

So if you don't trust what you''re being told, that kind of skepticism is healthy. It's what you do with that skepticism next that determines how much truth you will come to know. If you just say it's all lies and stop there, you won't know the whole truth.

Speaking of which, I didn't see any acknowledgement from you of the carbon dioxide graph, so I'm still waiting for your answer on whether you think that graph shows a man-made effect on the environment. It doesn't say what will happen to sea level, but it is a greenhouse gas so it would explain why there is a warming trend.

Anyway CO2 is not all bad, it's a sort of "plant nutrient" and some plants do better with higher CO2 levels provided they have an adequate supply of other nutrients. But it is a greenhouse gas and we do see some warming trends in the data, even after you peel back what Tony Heller calls "lies".

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The problem with that theory is there isn't that much Ice left to melt from the 10000 years of melting that happened before 'Merica happened. Those sea level raises are limited to the available water and it is way more available now thus making the future rise of an all ice free Earth less dramatic.

Source for your claim? The source I posted infers that the sea could rise 10 meters, like happened in the past when temperatures were 1 degree C higher than they are now and we are trending toward that 1 degree C temperature rise so it appears we will get to the same temperature.

Scientists looked at sea levels 125,000 years in the past. The results are terrifying

We examined data from the last interglacial, which occurred 125,000 to 118,000 years ago. Temperatures were up to 1°C higher than today - similar to those projected for the near future.

Our research reveals that ice melt in the last interglacial period caused global seas to rise about 10 metres above the present level. The ice melted first in Antarctica, then a few thousand years later in Greenland.

Sea levels rose at up to 3 metres per century, far exceeding the roughly 0.3-metre rise observed over the past 150 years.

The authors point out that there are some deficiencies in our models, for example we don't account for ice-cliff instability, maybe because we don't know exactly how to do that based on insufficient data, but they think it's a significant factor. So until variables like that are better understood, making accurate projections of exactly when and how much sea level will rise is going to be difficult, but it certainly looks like there's plenty more ice to melt if we go up another 1 degree C in temperature. If you have a good source or three saying otherwise I'd be interested to see them.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

are you aware that a building that used to be at sea level, could be inundated with .3 meters more water at low tide, and that .3 meters would be easy to see, as the tideline is visible to everyone with the abilities to see?

Perhaps a building made over 100 year ago? Or is that not how this works?

Sure it's higher, but you have to look at data to see it, just looking won't show the obvious rise in sea level. It makes you wonder what "this" might feel like as well. The feeling of being submerged, yet dry as a bone. Sounds like the new snowflake group. Identify as being underwater regardless of situation. I must have meant the entire roof structure must be covered. My bad.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Shoshanna
does anybody know why the greenhouse gas doesn't rise up through the atmosphere and go into space? Is it heavier than air? I probably sound dumb but I'm trying to understand this.

The Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen. Carbon atoms are lighter than Nitrogen, and Nitrogen atoms are lighter than Oxygen, which is lighter than Fluorine Atoms (You can see the atomic weights of atoms in the Periodic Table of Elements).

Many greenhouse gasses are lighter than air, but even the lighter ones still weigh something, and are drawn to the Earth by gravity, its just that they 'float' on top of the heavier atmosphere.

Gasses also do sublimate into space, but not particularly fast, or otherwise we'd have lost our atmosphere by now.

Incorrect.
You need to look at CO2, not carbon itself

CO2 has a density of 1.98 kg/cubic meter and is thus HEAVIER than Nitrogen at 1.2 kg/cubic meter

I never said CO2 was lighter than Nitrogen. I said a Carbon atom was lighter than a Nitrogen atom. I was referring to atomic weights for individual elements, not compounds.

Molecularly, Nitrogen molecules consist of two Nitrogen atoms. And molecularly, CO2 consists of two those two atomically heavier Oxygen atoms and a Carbon atom that makes it quite heavier than gaseous Nitrogen.

Still wrong
You don't understand atomic weights and the difference with density

Comparing a gas like Nitrogen to a solid like carbon is ridiculous.

In solid sate, carbon has a density of 2200kg/cubic metre
In solid state, Nitrogen has a density of 1027 kg/cubic metre

Nitrogen is still lighter than carbon

He can't read a CRC if I had my guess? I do think that one prefers "rabbit lookie there" on us here. I appreciate your accuracy. You remind me of a professor I loved who wrote the Graduate level Textbook "Inorganic Chemical Principals" then taught us from it. "More energetic the further the right and down on the Periodic Chart" was the answer to one of the final's questions. Good to have another someone here that isn't willing to ignore the actual science and appears logical.

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Shoshanna
does anybody know why the greenhouse gas doesn't rise up through the atmosphere and go into space? Is it heavier than air? I probably sound dumb but I'm trying to understand this.

The Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen. Carbon atoms are lighter than Nitrogen, and Nitrogen atoms are lighter than Oxygen, which is lighter than Fluorine Atoms (You can see the atomic weights of atoms in the Periodic Table of Elements).

Many greenhouse gasses are lighter than air, but even the lighter ones still weigh something, and are drawn to the Earth by gravity, its just that they 'float' on top of the heavier atmosphere.

Gasses also do sublimate into space, but not particularly fast, or otherwise we'd have lost our atmosphere by now.

Incorrect.
You need to look at CO2, not carbon itself

CO2 has a density of 1.98 kg/cubic meter and is thus HEAVIER than Nitrogen at 1.2 kg/cubic meter

I never said CO2 was lighter than Nitrogen. I said a Carbon atom was lighter than a Nitrogen atom. I was referring to atomic weights for individual elements, not compounds.

Molecularly, Nitrogen molecules consist of two Nitrogen atoms. And molecularly, CO2 consists of two those two atomically heavier Oxygen atoms and a Carbon atom that makes it quite heavier than gaseous Nitrogen.

Still wrong
You don't understand atomic weights and the difference with density

Comparing a gas like Nitrogen to a solid like carbon is ridiculous.

In solid sate, carbon has a density of 2200kg/cubic metre
In solid state, Nitrogen has a density of 1027 kg/cubic metre

Nitrogen is still lighter than carbon

Depending on the allotrope, molecular carbon consists of between 4 to literally hundreds of atoms, which packs a lot of atoms into a small space, and therefore the density of a collection of lighter carbon atoms can be far greater than that of gaseous (and very loose) collection of two atom molecules of Nitrogen.

a reply to: chr0naut

so nothing to say about the dishonest post? I'm shocked.

A certain boathouse at Gladesville has a dloor that would be underwater if levels rose a foot.

a reply to: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Shoshanna
does anybody know why the greenhouse gas doesn't rise up through the atmosphere and go into space? Is it heavier than air? I probably sound dumb but I'm trying to understand this.

The Earth's atmosphere is mostly Nitrogen. Carbon atoms are lighter than Nitrogen, and Nitrogen atoms are lighter than Oxygen, which is lighter than Fluorine Atoms (You can see the atomic weights of atoms in the Periodic Table of Elements).

Many greenhouse gasses are lighter than air, but even the lighter ones still weigh something, and are drawn to the Earth by gravity, its just that they 'float' on top of the heavier atmosphere.

Gasses also do sublimate into space, but not particularly fast, or otherwise we'd have lost our atmosphere by now.

Incorrect.
You need to look at CO2, not carbon itself

CO2 has a density of 1.98 kg/cubic meter and is thus HEAVIER than Nitrogen at 1.2 kg/cubic meter

I never said CO2 was lighter than Nitrogen. I said a Carbon atom was lighter than a Nitrogen atom. I was referring to atomic weights for individual elements, not compounds.

Molecularly, Nitrogen molecules consist of two Nitrogen atoms. And molecularly, CO2 consists of two those two atomically heavier Oxygen atoms and a Carbon atom that makes it quite heavier than gaseous Nitrogen.

Still wrong
You don't understand atomic weights and the difference with density

Comparing a gas like Nitrogen to a solid like carbon is ridiculous.

In solid sate, carbon has a density of 2200kg/cubic metre
In solid state, Nitrogen has a density of 1027 kg/cubic metre

Nitrogen is still lighter than carbon

Depending on the allotrope, molecular carbon consists of between 4 to literally hundreds of atoms, which packs a lot of atoms into a small space, and therefore the density of a collection of lighter carbon atoms can be far greater than that of gaseous (and very loose) collection of two atom molecules of Nitrogen.

Nonsensical argument. Why don't you use the density of a neutron star while you are at it.

Sorry you are wrong

Nitrogen is lighter than CO2 and/or Carbon
Period.

a reply to: Tolkien

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullsh!t. -W. C. Fields.

originally posted by: Justoneman
a reply to: Arbitrageur

The problem with that theory is there isn't that much Ice left to melt from the 10000 years of melting that happened before 'Merica happened. Those sea level raises are limited to the available water and it is way more available now thus making the future rise of an all ice free Earth less dramatic.

Not really. sea levels would rise 70m if it were to melt using current estimates of land ice volumes.

Even if/when all land locked ice melts the sea level will still continue to rise dramatically as sea temps increase due to thermal expansion of seawater.

The first ever June major hurricane in the Atlantic Ocean formed today(Hurricane Beryl).

The previous 2 June majors were in the Gulf of Mexico(Audrey and Alma), however Alma formed in the western Caribbean and became a major storm near the Fl Keys while in the Gulf of Mexico.

Also, while rare we have seen a few tropical cyclones in the S. Atlantic over the past 2 decades something that never was observed before.

If we like at ocean heat values, they keep trending up with this year being another record setting year in terms of heat for the North Atlantic.

All this suggests the planet is on a warming trend.

a reply to: network dude

Visit South Florida, when we have seasonal king tides the high tides alone cause street flooding. This did not happen 30 years ago...

originally posted by: jrod
The first ever June major hurricane in the Atlantic Ocean formed today(Hurricane Beryl).

The previous 2 June majors were in the Gulf of Mexico(Audrey and Alma), however Alma formed in the western Caribbean and became a major storm near the Fl Keys while in the Gulf of Mexico.

Also, while rare we have seen a few tropical cyclones in the S. Atlantic over the past 2 decades something that never was observed before.

If we like at ocean heat values, they keep trending up with this year being another record setting year in terms of heat for the North Atlantic.

All this suggests the planet is on a warming trend.

can you show me where I claimed the Earth was not warming? I even said it in the OP. We have been heating up ever since the last ice age. It's in the data. Check it out, they even have nice charts to look at.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: network dude

Visit South Florida, when we have seasonal king tides the high tides alone cause street flooding. This did not happen 30 years ago...

So early hurricanes and king tides are brand new to the world?

www.wunderground.com...

The 12 Early Season Major Hurricanes
All Early Season Major Hurricanes, Ranked by Wind Speeds (May-July)
Rank Name Date Winds (mph) Location
1. Emily 17 July 2005 160 South of Jamaica
2. Dennis 10 July 2005 145 Gulf of Mexico
3. Audrey 27 June 1957 145 Gulf of Mexico
4. Unnamed Hurricane 26 July 1926 140 Bahamas
5. Alma 8 June 1966 125 Florida Keys
6. Bertha 8 July 2008 120 Southeast of Bermuda
7. Unnamed Hurricane 5 July 1916 120 Gulf of Mexico
8. Unnamed Hurricane 14 July 1916 115 South Carolina
9. Unnamed Hurricane 23 June 1945 115 Gulf of Mexico
10. Able 21 May 1951 115 North Carolina
11. Anna 21 July 1961 115 Southern Caribbean
12. Bertha 9 July 1996 115 North of the Dominican Republic

sounding smart is cool, but backing it up, is even cooler.

a reply to: network dude

I am 100% correct with Beryl being the ONLY June major hurricane to form in the Atlantic...(NOT Gulf of Mexico), I don't think I could have been more clear as I mentioned both Audrey and Alma becoming major storms in the Gulf of Mexico which is NOT the open Atlantic Ocean.

Your ignorance is glaring here as you highlighted several July storms and using an unverified source.
Hurricane Able for example had max winds of 90 mph. It also was likely more of a nor 'easter, not a warm core system fueled by warm water.
en.m.wikipedia.org...(1951)

Hurricane Anna in 1961 had max winds of 105mph was NOT a major hurricane nor a June one either.

Also Beryl is now up to 130mph sustain with higher gusts so it is now the most intense June hurricane in the entire Atlantic (including the Caribbean and Gulf of Mexico)