A challenge to Climate Change believers

a reply to: jrod

Or its evidence of our direct impact on the soft soil as we expect it to carry more and more weight.

certain parts of florida, especially south florida never should have been developed.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

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)

The delusion that you are being "lied to" is where your problem lies.

If you continue to believe that empirical data is untrue, no amount of it will convince you to accept it.

No-one wants to pay good money for nothing, especially if they are wealthy. Your belief that the wealthiest want to pay out money for nothing just to keep us all deceived, is irrational twaddle. The wealthy, the ones producing the pollution, are the ones being taxed hardest in all these attempts at climate change remediation.

But those wealthy polluters don't want to pay for the damages they are causing, because it directly affects their bottom line, and so they do have a motive too lie and to deny their culpability.

you just don't seem to get it. If the argument was pollution is killing us, just say that. We all know there is way too much pollution. We would all be on board to make changes, and make sure corporations can't destroy our planet. But telling me that because cows fart and I drive an F150, the world is going to end, isn't getting it done. And when you threaten me with (in 10 years it will be too late!!), and 15 years later, things are largely the same, it tends to make it look like you are an idiot and full of sh!t. that's where my problem lies.

Now, can sea level rise be seen by looking at thing that touch the sea? Yes or No?

Yes, sea level rise can be seen by looking at things which touch the sea.

But the sea is not a static surface. It has tides and storms which can produce high levels both above and below the average level, so a smaller average rise can be hidden by fluctuations.

And the land at the interface to the sea isn't at 45 degrees. Sea level rise does not flood linearly. As soon as the level rises enough, it will flood over vast areas of land at the seaside. But it at first will flood only by storms, and then as the level rises further, it will flood by king tides, and then as the level continues to rise, it will flood at every high tide, and then after levels rise further, it will become permanently submerged. All of this will take time.

And the other issue is that we can't just simply turn the flooding off. The sea level rise due to climate change is occurring and even if we sort out the human made causes, it will still continue for decades. So, it is smart to think ahead and take action to stop or slow the problem as early as possible.

Remember that Noah's flood covered the whole land. That sort of thing is stuck in the racial memories of most human cultures. There is enough water stored in ice and snow that could cause catastrophic flooding like we have seen, and have evidence of.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: network dude

King tides never caused the flooding it does today, like I said 30 years we would still get seasonal king tides but they never caused street flooding until this century.

Do you think they would have built road in where they are now in S. Florida 50 years ago if they knew they would be flooded during king tides?

Is Miami sinking, or is it built on rock solid granite?

The entire Earth's crust is founded on a liquid core, and is not rock solid.

The thing is that the Earth does not grow or shrink appreciably, so for every sinkage there is equal and opposite uplift.

It has been theorized that the mass of large bodies of water can deform the crust under them, too, and that as the water mass moves, it pushes down on weaker areas of the crust and then flows into them.

Everything is dynamic.

originally posted by: Tolkien

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.

But carbon atoms are lighter than nitrogen atoms, which are lighter than oxygen atoms.

Density is related to pressure in gasses, and is variable, as is the 'weight' of a gas. If you warm a gas at equal pressure, it rises up, because it is less dense, and so by volume, is lighter.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

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.

But carbon atoms are lighter than nitrogen atoms, which are lighter than oxygen atoms.

Density is related to pressure in gasses, and is variable, as is the 'weight' of a gas. If you warm a gas at equal pressure, it rises up, because it is less dense, and so by volume, is lighter.

No, just NO!

I am trying to be as patient and respectful as possible, but you are pushing "flat earth arguments"

You seemingly have no understanding of basic science, even at a high school level


Density is not exclusively related to gases: you can measure density in gases, liquids and solids, at various temperatures and pressures.
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than carbon
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than CO2

For more tangible proof, look up the 1986 Lake Nyos disaster:

en.wikipedia.org...

"The eruption triggered the sudden release of about 100,000–300,000 tons (1.6 million tons, according to some sources[who?]) of carbon dioxide (CO2).[2][3] The gas cloud initially rose at nearly 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph; 28 m/s) and then, being heavier than air (and air is 70% nitrogen), descended onto nearby villages, suffocating people and livestock within 25 kilometres (16 mi) of the lake.[4][5]"

So, thousands of people died BECAUSE CO2 IS DENSER, HEAVIER THAN AIR/NITROGEN
Clear enough ?

Give it up.
You are wrong - accept it

QED

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

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.

But carbon atoms are lighter than nitrogen atoms, which are lighter than oxygen atoms.

Density is related to pressure in gasses, and is variable, as is the 'weight' of a gas. If you warm a gas at equal pressure, it rises up, because it is less dense, and so by volume, is lighter.

No, just NO!

I am trying to be as patient and respectful as possible, but you are pushing "flat earth arguments"

You seemingly have no understanding of basic science, even at a high school level


Density is not exclusively related to gases: you can measure density in gases, liquids and solids, at various temperatures and pressures.
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than carbon
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than CO2

For more tangible proof, look up the 1986 Lake Nyos disaster:

en.wikipedia.org...

"The eruption triggered the sudden release of about 100,000–300,000 tons (1.6 million tons, according to some sources[who?]) of carbon dioxide (CO2).[2][3] The gas cloud initially rose at nearly 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph; 28 m/s) and then, being heavier than air (and air is 70% nitrogen), descended onto nearby villages, suffocating people and livestock within 25 kilometres (16 mi) of the lake.[4][5]"

So, thousands of people died BECAUSE CO2 IS DENSER, HEAVIER THAN AIR/NITROGEN
Clear enough ?

Give it up.
You are wrong - accept it

QED

But I never wrote that CO2 is lighter than air, which is mainly nitrogen.

I wrote that atomic carbon is lighter than atomic nitrogen - and it is!

The relative weights of different compounds is basic chemistry.

Two 'heavier-than-a-nitrogen-atom' oxygen atoms, plus a 'lighter-than-a-nitrogen-atom' carbon atom, three atoms in total, with two of them heavier than nitrogen atoms, are in total heavier (at the same pressure and temperature), than two nitrogen atoms.

It is clear that what you believe I wrote, was not in fact, what I wrote.

a reply to: Justoneman

Stop talking sense, it doesn't fit the hysteria.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

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.

But carbon atoms are lighter than nitrogen atoms, which are lighter than oxygen atoms.

Density is related to pressure in gasses, and is variable, as is the 'weight' of a gas. If you warm a gas at equal pressure, it rises up, because it is less dense, and so by volume, is lighter.

No, just NO!

I am trying to be as patient and respectful as possible, but you are pushing "flat earth arguments"

You seemingly have no understanding of basic science, even at a high school level


Density is not exclusively related to gases: you can measure density in gases, liquids and solids, at various temperatures and pressures.
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than carbon
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than CO2

For more tangible proof, look up the 1986 Lake Nyos disaster:

en.wikipedia.org...

"The eruption triggered the sudden release of about 100,000–300,000 tons (1.6 million tons, according to some sources[who?]) of carbon dioxide (CO2).[2][3] The gas cloud initially rose at nearly 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph; 28 m/s) and then, being heavier than air (and air is 70% nitrogen), descended onto nearby villages, suffocating people and livestock within 25 kilometres (16 mi) of the lake.[4][5]"

So, thousands of people died BECAUSE CO2 IS DENSER, HEAVIER THAN AIR/NITROGEN
Clear enough ?

Give it up.
You are wrong - accept it

QED

But I never wrote that CO2 is lighter than air, which is mainly nitrogen.

I wrote that atomic carbon is lighter than atomic nitrogen - and it is!

The relative weights of different compounds is basic chemistry.

Two 'heavier-than-a-nitrogen-atom' oxygen atoms, plus a 'lighter-than-a-nitrogen-atom' carbon atom, three atoms in total, with two of them heavier than nitrogen atoms, are in total heavier (at the same pressure and temperature), than two nitrogen atoms.

It is clear that what you believe I wrote, was not in fact, what I wrote.

Cheap attempts at sophistry will not save you

In your post of June 27, 06:19 pm, you stated:
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.

No.
CO2 is NOT lighter than the rest of the "heavier atmosphere", nor does it float on top of it.

Caught !!!

You are just ignorant and you lie to cover when caught

You would be more worthy of respect if you just admitted your mistakes, learned and moved on.

a reply to: Tolkien
BS, chr0naut was answering a specific question:

does anybody know why the greenhouse gas doesn't rise up through the atmosphere and go into space?

They said:

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.

The CO2 thing was something you came up with out of the blue.

Either way the answer is the same. The gases, whatever they are are not going to leave the atmosphere in great quantities.

CO2 or any other greenhouse gas.

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

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.

But carbon atoms are lighter than nitrogen atoms, which are lighter than oxygen atoms.

Density is related to pressure in gasses, and is variable, as is the 'weight' of a gas. If you warm a gas at equal pressure, it rises up, because it is less dense, and so by volume, is lighter.

No, just NO!

I am trying to be as patient and respectful as possible, but you are pushing "flat earth arguments"

You seemingly have no understanding of basic science, even at a high school level


Density is not exclusively related to gases: you can measure density in gases, liquids and solids, at various temperatures and pressures.
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than carbon
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than CO2

For more tangible proof, look up the 1986 Lake Nyos disaster:

en.wikipedia.org...

"The eruption triggered the sudden release of about 100,000–300,000 tons (1.6 million tons, according to some sources[who?]) of carbon dioxide (CO2).[2][3] The gas cloud initially rose at nearly 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph; 28 m/s) and then, being heavier than air (and air is 70% nitrogen), descended onto nearby villages, suffocating people and livestock within 25 kilometres (16 mi) of the lake.[4][5]"

So, thousands of people died BECAUSE CO2 IS DENSER, HEAVIER THAN AIR/NITROGEN
Clear enough ?

Give it up.
You are wrong - accept it

QED

But I never wrote that CO2 is lighter than air, which is mainly nitrogen.

I wrote that atomic carbon is lighter than atomic nitrogen - and it is!

The relative weights of different compounds is basic chemistry.

Two 'heavier-than-a-nitrogen-atom' oxygen atoms, plus a 'lighter-than-a-nitrogen-atom' carbon atom, three atoms in total, with two of them heavier than nitrogen atoms, are in total heavier (at the same pressure and temperature), than two nitrogen atoms.

It is clear that what you believe I wrote, was not in fact, what I wrote.

Cheap attempts at sophistry will not save you

In your post of June 27, 06:19 pm, you stated:
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.

No.
CO2 is NOT lighter than the rest of the "heavier atmosphere", nor does it float on top of it.

Caught !!!

You are just ignorant and you lie to cover when caught

You would be more worthy of respect if you just admitted your mistakes, learned and moved on.

There are more greenhouse gasses than just CO2.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a greenhouse gas and is almost the same weight as nitrogen molecules.

Methane (CH4) molecules are lighter than nitrogen (N2) molecules.

Water vapour is way lighter than air, and causes more greenhouse effect than CO2.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia

Overview of Greenhouse Gases | US EPA

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

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)

The delusion that you are being "lied to" is where your problem lies.

If you continue to believe that empirical data is untrue, no amount of it will convince you to accept it.

No-one wants to pay good money for nothing, especially if they are wealthy. Your belief that the wealthiest want to pay out money for nothing just to keep us all deceived, is irrational twaddle. The wealthy, the ones producing the pollution, are the ones being taxed hardest in all these attempts at climate change remediation.

But those wealthy polluters don't want to pay for the damages they are causing, because it directly affects their bottom line, and so they do have a motive too lie and to deny their culpability.

you just don't seem to get it. If the argument was pollution is killing us, just say that. We all know there is way too much pollution. We would all be on board to make changes, and make sure corporations can't destroy our planet. But telling me that because cows fart and I drive an F150, the world is going to end, isn't getting it done. And when you threaten me with (in 10 years it will be too late!!), and 15 years later, things are largely the same, it tends to make it look like you are an idiot and full of sh!t. that's where my problem lies.

Now, can sea level rise be seen by looking at thing that touch the sea? Yes or No?

Yes, sea level rise can be seen by looking at things which touch the sea.

But the sea is not a static surface. It has tides and storms which can produce high levels both above and below the average level, so a smaller average rise can be hidden by fluctuations.

And the land at the interface to the sea isn't at 45 degrees. Sea level rise does not flood linearly. As soon as the level rises enough, it will flood over vast areas of land at the seaside. But it at first will flood only by storms, and then as the level rises further, it will flood by king tides, and then as the level continues to rise, it will flood at every high tide, and then after levels rise further, it will become permanently submerged. All of this will take time.

And the other issue is that we can't just simply turn the flooding off. The sea level rise due to climate change is occurring and even if we sort out the human made causes, it will still continue for decades. So, it is smart to think ahead and take action to stop or slow the problem as early as possible.

Remember that Noah's flood covered the whole land. That sort of thing is stuck in the racial memories of most human cultures. There is enough water stored in ice and snow that could cause catastrophic flooding like we have seen, and have evidence of.

so if the sea level has risen 6 inches, I believe that's your claim, then volume has been added to the ocean. I believe the claim is it came from the polar bears home. But since the seas have risen due to more water being added, the water doesn't just go away, so how could low tide be the same as it was 100 years ago? We have added gazillions of gallons of water to the ocean. Where does the water go that was added?

a reply to: network dude

It is not the sea level that is rising imho ND it is the worldthat is wobbling on its axis like a dru ken sailor .

Every 11 or so years my part of the world ends up in tbe artic circle and we get minus 30+ centigrade for months just like Canada .

When you pump 40 billion barells of oil per year and water and gas things tend to droop a little .sink holes and coasal erosion are a thing especially in little islands like the uk .

In my late 20s my then girlfriend told me when she was young the steps going down to the beech was where the golf course was originally , i laughed at this and told a elderly lady about this who i had tea with regularly , this lady was late 80s in age but as sharp as a button ,She looked at me and said she was right and pointed well out to sea from her house and told me when she was a girl that they were farming out there .

Mind blown ! Just look at pictures from the 1960s from some costal parts of England to see how much land is being lost , houses that were a half a mile or more from the sea are now falling in or have fallen in to the sea .

Ps you want to buy some beach front property in the uk

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Tolkien
BS, chr0naut was answering a specific question:

does anybody know why the greenhouse gas doesn't rise up through the atmosphere and go into space?

They said:

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.

The CO2 thing was something you came up with out of the blue.

Either way the answer is the same. The gases, whatever they are are not going to leave the atmosphere in great quantities.

CO2 or any other greenhouse gas.

No.
Read the thread, slower

Chr)naut has zero understanding of basic science.
I corrected him with facts.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

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.

But carbon atoms are lighter than nitrogen atoms, which are lighter than oxygen atoms.

Density is related to pressure in gasses, and is variable, as is the 'weight' of a gas. If you warm a gas at equal pressure, it rises up, because it is less dense, and so by volume, is lighter.

No, just NO!

I am trying to be as patient and respectful as possible, but you are pushing "flat earth arguments"

You seemingly have no understanding of basic science, even at a high school level


Density is not exclusively related to gases: you can measure density in gases, liquids and solids, at various temperatures and pressures.
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than carbon
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than CO2

For more tangible proof, look up the 1986 Lake Nyos disaster:

en.wikipedia.org...

"The eruption triggered the sudden release of about 100,000–300,000 tons (1.6 million tons, according to some sources[who?]) of carbon dioxide (CO2).[2][3] The gas cloud initially rose at nearly 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph; 28 m/s) and then, being heavier than air (and air is 70% nitrogen), descended onto nearby villages, suffocating people and livestock within 25 kilometres (16 mi) of the lake.[4][5]"

So, thousands of people died BECAUSE CO2 IS DENSER, HEAVIER THAN AIR/NITROGEN
Clear enough ?

Give it up.
You are wrong - accept it

QED

But I never wrote that CO2 is lighter than air, which is mainly nitrogen.

I wrote that atomic carbon is lighter than atomic nitrogen - and it is!

The relative weights of different compounds is basic chemistry.

Two 'heavier-than-a-nitrogen-atom' oxygen atoms, plus a 'lighter-than-a-nitrogen-atom' carbon atom, three atoms in total, with two of them heavier than nitrogen atoms, are in total heavier (at the same pressure and temperature), than two nitrogen atoms.

It is clear that what you believe I wrote, was not in fact, what I wrote.

Cheap attempts at sophistry will not save you

In your post of June 27, 06:19 pm, you stated:
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.

No.
CO2 is NOT lighter than the rest of the "heavier atmosphere", nor does it float on top of it.

Caught !!!

You are just ignorant and you lie to cover when caught

You would be more worthy of respect if you just admitted your mistakes, learned and moved on.

There are more greenhouse gasses than just CO2.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a greenhouse gas and is almost the same weight as nitrogen molecules.

Methane (CH4) molecules are lighter than nitrogen (N2) molecules.

Water vapour is way lighter than air, and causes more greenhouse effect than CO2.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia

Overview of Greenhouse Gases | US EPA

Attempt at misdirection.
Your previous points were incorrect information about carbon and CO2, which I corrected you on.

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: network dude

originally posted by: chr0naut

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.

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)

The delusion that you are being "lied to" is where your problem lies.

If you continue to believe that empirical data is untrue, no amount of it will convince you to accept it.

No-one wants to pay good money for nothing, especially if they are wealthy. Your belief that the wealthiest want to pay out money for nothing just to keep us all deceived, is irrational twaddle. The wealthy, the ones producing the pollution, are the ones being taxed hardest in all these attempts at climate change remediation.

But those wealthy polluters don't want to pay for the damages they are causing, because it directly affects their bottom line, and so they do have a motive too lie and to deny their culpability.

you just don't seem to get it. If the argument was pollution is killing us, just say that. We all know there is way too much pollution. We would all be on board to make changes, and make sure corporations can't destroy our planet. But telling me that because cows fart and I drive an F150, the world is going to end, isn't getting it done. And when you threaten me with (in 10 years it will be too late!!), and 15 years later, things are largely the same, it tends to make it look like you are an idiot and full of sh!t. that's where my problem lies.

Now, can sea level rise be seen by looking at thing that touch the sea? Yes or No?

Yes, sea level rise can be seen by looking at things which touch the sea.

But the sea is not a static surface. It has tides and storms which can produce high levels both above and below the average level, so a smaller average rise can be hidden by fluctuations.

And the land at the interface to the sea isn't at 45 degrees. Sea level rise does not flood linearly. As soon as the level rises enough, it will flood over vast areas of land at the seaside. But it at first will flood only by storms, and then as the level rises further, it will flood by king tides, and then as the level continues to rise, it will flood at every high tide, and then after levels rise further, it will become permanently submerged. All of this will take time.

And the other issue is that we can't just simply turn the flooding off. The sea level rise due to climate change is occurring and even if we sort out the human made causes, it will still continue for decades. So, it is smart to think ahead and take action to stop or slow the problem as early as possible.

Remember that Noah's flood covered the whole land. That sort of thing is stuck in the racial memories of most human cultures. There is enough water stored in ice and snow that could cause catastrophic flooding like we have seen, and have evidence of.

so if the sea level has risen 6 inches, I believe that's your claim, then volume has been added to the ocean. I believe the claim is it came from the polar bears home. But since the seas have risen due to more water being added, the water doesn't just go away, so how could low tide be the same as it was 100 years ago? We have added gazillions of gallons of water to the ocean. Where does the water go that was added?

Low tide is roughly 6 inches higher now, too, because water previously sequestered in ice and snow is now in liquid form as the planet warms.

Also the changing albedo of the planet is a factor as ice and snow are highly reflective of infrared, bur forests or bare earth are absorptive.

We don't know the exact time that 100 year old photos were taken. Old analogue photos don't have metadata. So we don't know if they show low tide, or mid tide, or high tide and photos reposted from social media at resolutions lower than they were originally, also lose metadata and so aren't indicative of any particular tidal level.

Your assumption that the photos are showing a particular lower extremity of tide based on what the water level looks like, are not based upon any empirical fact.

The only persistent marker in all the photos is the high-tide line of algal discolouration left on the stonework.

originally posted by: Tolkien
No.
Read the thread, slower

No, you need to understand context.

A question was asked and answered as to why greenhouse gasses don't just escape the atmosphere. Nothing more, nothing less.

Chr)naut has zero understanding of basic science.
I corrected him with facts.

Actually they said:

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).

There was nothing to correct there. Instead you literally said :

You need to look at CO2, not carbon itself

That was you adding something, O2, that was never said to try to have a gotcha moment.

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Tolkien

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.

But carbon atoms are lighter than nitrogen atoms, which are lighter than oxygen atoms.

Density is related to pressure in gasses, and is variable, as is the 'weight' of a gas. If you warm a gas at equal pressure, it rises up, because it is less dense, and so by volume, is lighter.

No, just NO!

I am trying to be as patient and respectful as possible, but you are pushing "flat earth arguments"

You seemingly have no understanding of basic science, even at a high school level


Density is not exclusively related to gases: you can measure density in gases, liquids and solids, at various temperatures and pressures.
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than carbon
For a given temperature and pressure, nitrogen is always lighter than CO2

For more tangible proof, look up the 1986 Lake Nyos disaster:

en.wikipedia.org...

"The eruption triggered the sudden release of about 100,000–300,000 tons (1.6 million tons, according to some sources[who?]) of carbon dioxide (CO2).[2][3] The gas cloud initially rose at nearly 100 kilometres per hour (62 mph; 28 m/s) and then, being heavier than air (and air is 70% nitrogen), descended onto nearby villages, suffocating people and livestock within 25 kilometres (16 mi) of the lake.[4][5]"

So, thousands of people died BECAUSE CO2 IS DENSER, HEAVIER THAN AIR/NITROGEN
Clear enough ?

Give it up.
You are wrong - accept it

QED

But I never wrote that CO2 is lighter than air, which is mainly nitrogen.

I wrote that atomic carbon is lighter than atomic nitrogen - and it is!

The relative weights of different compounds is basic chemistry.

Two 'heavier-than-a-nitrogen-atom' oxygen atoms, plus a 'lighter-than-a-nitrogen-atom' carbon atom, three atoms in total, with two of them heavier than nitrogen atoms, are in total heavier (at the same pressure and temperature), than two nitrogen atoms.

It is clear that what you believe I wrote, was not in fact, what I wrote.

Cheap attempts at sophistry will not save you

In your post of June 27, 06:19 pm, you stated:
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.

No.
CO2 is NOT lighter than the rest of the "heavier atmosphere", nor does it float on top of it.

Caught !!!

You are just ignorant and you lie to cover when caught

You would be more worthy of respect if you just admitted your mistakes, learned and moved on.

There are more greenhouse gasses than just CO2.

Carbon monoxide (CO) is a greenhouse gas and is almost the same weight as nitrogen molecules.

Methane (CH4) molecules are lighter than nitrogen (N2) molecules.

Water vapour is way lighter than air, and causes more greenhouse effect than CO2.

Greenhouse gas - Wikipedia

Overview of Greenhouse Gases | US EPA

Attempt at misdirection.
Your previous points were incorrect information about carbon and CO2, which I corrected you on.

I think that my previous posts speak for themselves and your repeated assumption that when I am writing about lighter-than-air greenhouse gasses, that I was writing about only CO2 and no other gasses, is erroneous.

CO2 is not lighter-than-air. I agree on that.

I was writing about greenhouse gasses that were lighter-than-air in those previous posts.

Others seem to have understood my previous posts.

a reply to: Hakaiju

LOL are you serious