A challenge to Climate Change believers

a reply to: network dude
Fort Denison
That same fort that people think shows no increase in sea level was actually used to keep track of sea level.

It did rise a little over the 100 years it was used, around 6.7 inches if my calcs are correct.

Also, let's not pretend people build at sea level, most beachfront property is at least a couple of yards above high tide.

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Justoneman

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.

ABSOLUTE nonsense !!
Carbon is NEVER lighter than Nitrogen.

Spewing ignorance infused non-science drivel

Carbon: Standard atomic weight Ar°(C) = 12.011±0.002
Nitrogen: Standard atomic weight Ar°(N) = 14.007±0.001

Look it up in the periodic table.

No, not true just because of the atomic number and weight.

I ALREADY showed you in this thread that the natural carbon can't exist as C atom like that. Carbon is not a gas like O2 or N2 anyway. It is found in a solid attached to a chain of other atoms and likes to have other carbon atoms in its molecules. The Carbon Atom is ready to react to other atoms and most molecules known to man. We use it to purify things for one example because it will absorb a lot of things. CO2 is a gas and it is heavier than N2 and it can combine in plants to make solids again.

As a grad student I taught this type of thing to the freshman in lab class experiments.

CO2 is NOT the only molecule that is in gaseous phase at standard temperature and pressure (STP) and that is also based upon at least one carbon atom.

Methane gas consists of one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms and is a lighter gas (16.043 g/mol) than N2 gas (28.014 g/mol).

Acetylene gas consists of two carbon atoms and two hydrogen atoms and is a lighter gas (26.038 g/mol) than N2 gas.

Carbon Monoxide gas consists of a carbon atom and an oxygen atom and is a slightly lighter gas (28.010 g/mol) than N2 gas.

Ok you can add atom wts. You don't seem to grasp what I am saying so that's why you are using a shotgun approach. Basically, NO you don't get it. Because you want to believe lies out the gate, AND anybody discussing this information logically needs to learn enough chemistry before attempting to speak with someone who has without insulting us for using the lies as data and then trying to imply you understand atmospheric chemistry when the experts are still learning about it.

originally posted by: Justoneman

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Justoneman

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

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.

ABSOLUTE nonsense !!
Carbon is NEVER lighter than Nitrogen.

Spewing ignorance infused non-science drivel

Carbon: Standard atomic weight Ar°(C) = 12.011±0.002
Nitrogen: Standard atomic weight Ar°(N) = 14.007±0.001

Look it up in the periodic table.

No, not true just because of the atomic number and weight.

I ALREADY showed you in this thread that the natural carbon can't exist as C atom like that. Carbon is not a gas like O2 or N2 anyway. It is found in a solid attached to a chain of other atoms and likes to have other carbon atoms in its molecules. The Carbon Atom is ready to react to other atoms and most molecules known to man. We use it to purify things for one example because it will absorb a lot of things. CO2 is a gas and it is heavier than N2 and it can combine in plants to make solids again.

As a grad student I taught this type of thing to the freshman in lab class experiments.

CO2 is NOT the only molecule that is in gaseous phase at standard temperature and pressure (STP) and that is also based upon at least one carbon atom.

Methane gas consists of one carbon atom and four hydrogen atoms and is a lighter gas (16.043 g/mol) than N2 gas (28.014 g/mol).

Acetylene gas consists of two carbon atoms and two hydrogen atoms and is a lighter gas (26.038 g/mol) than N2 gas.

Carbon Monoxide gas consists of a carbon atom and an oxygen atom and is a slightly lighter gas (28.010 g/mol) than N2 gas.

Ok you can add atom wts. You don't seem to grasp what I am saying so that's why you are using a shotgun approach. Basically, NO you don't get it. Because you want to believe lies out the gate, AND anybody discussing this information logically needs to learn enough chemistry before attempting to speak with someone who has without insulting us for using the lies as data and then trying to imply you understand atmospheric chemistry when the experts are still learning about it.

Lifting Gas - Wikipedia

Literally lighter-than-air in the real-world, capable of lifting a lighter-than-air craft.

The lies aren't coming from the official sources. The science and engineering behind the 'official' narrative is quite comprehensive and remarkably consistent.

No-one wants to have to pay more for stuff, not even the "greenies". This has resulted in some people wanting to deny the indications and do nothing now in the hope that somehow the consequences will be averted.

We are burning nearly 100 million of barrels of fossil fuels a year. That has never happened before in history and it releases invisible carbon gasses. Though we can't see them, they are there.

a reply to: daskakik

There is one paper I came across in my research that tries to claim it hasn't risen at all there which may be the basis of the meme but it's a painfuly bad 'paper' that's more of a rant and has a completely unscientific vague allusion to some magnetic power (rather than electromagnetism based) that cancels out all anthropogenic warming perfectly as if by magic.

Paper link

The guy is a complete nutter and writes papers under a few names (Boretti and Parker) so he can reference his own work in papers and is part of a panel/company called CLEXIT who claim anthropogenic climate change doesn't happen by introducing vague concepts or plain lying about the data.

He also thinks he's seen UFOs and can only get his work published in the fake predatory publishing journals rather than credible scientific ones.

Peers say his work is unintelligable and incoherent as he focuses on rants about TPTB instead of presenting data that backs up his claims; his claims don't have any real evidence or proof - just ill defined 'trust me bro' concepts that don't meet the criteria of scientific proof.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: network dude

For the first part, yes the water level would indeed increase and is one of the main reasons for rising sea level. Pictures can be misleading which is why scientists use tidal guages to measure these things.

I'm not sure what pictures you're refering to as I don't remember such posts but I posted the graphical data of the tidal data from the Sydney harbour post earlier in the thread (last page) which shows it rising.

The reason you can't see it is it is very slow and only a few inches rather than a dramatic rise like 2m which would flood a lot of coastal cities.

If pictures are used as a form of evidence then a lot of vvariables need to be controled or removed in order to create an accurate measure and produce reasonable reliable data - unless the picture in taken at the exact same place and height it wont be an accurate measure and the data would be incorrect and lead to a misleading conclusion.

EDIT:
Personally if I was doing an analysis and/or creating a mathematical model I'd use the tidal guage data as it provides accurate data and introduces minimal variables then compare all the data to history of storm, wind speeds, sea temperature to account for the variables that effect sea level and create reliable data.

I'm biased as I'm terrible at taking pictures but I don't think I've ever read a paper using pictures as data - tidal guages and sea temperature is what is currently used to analyse sea level

this was the post in question:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

As you can see, the member I was conversing with tried to use two pictures to illustrate the challenge I asked about. It does indeed show an old picture of the structure, and a new one, with the base of the structure submerged. Had I not looked for myself, but just took his word for it, I might have just accepted it. But I didn't, I went to find more pictures. And I found some that look identical to the 107 year old one.

Knowing that, the question I have is where did the water go? Unless the old picture was at mid tide which I have no way of knowing, you should be able to see a half a foot rise in water. I haven't been there, but looking at the picture, the shore line doesn't appear to be a large hill, looks quite flat. So half a foot of more water should have covered the shoreline. (at least in my non scientific brain) Again, if that's not how it works and sea level rise goes somewhere else at low tide, that's cool, I just need to know where, so I can look for it.

None of that proves anything, but it also doesn't offer any visual data to explain a half a foot of sea level rise, that would inundate most areas at high tide. Again, in my mind. I just think that if this is real, then there should be something showing how much higher the water line is, and where a low water mark was 100 years ago, should not be visible now, ever. Unless the sea level rise isn't as drastic and life ending as I have been led to believe.

a reply to: network dude
He did say "(Note high tide line)".

Count the rows of stone, although we don't know how high they are, and you will see that the high tide line seems to be one row higher.

This fort also has a tide gauge and it showed a small increase during the time it was in operation.

Nothing is "as drastic and life ending" until it is. I'm not scared by worst case scenarios either, but that doesn't mean it can't happen.

a reply to: network dude

The water mark is higher on the newer pcitures but without knowing exact times, dates, conditions etc...it isn't a scientific proof or usable data. I recommed using the data from the station pictured that I posted earlier in the thread for a proper accurate source of high and low tide historical records and shows a clear rising trend consistent with all other data,

There's an elevation map of the shoreline in question here map which shows the coast in question as between 8m and 80m above sea level so the known rise of a few inches wont have much visible effect at that paticular location.

The difference is that the rate of rising and rate of melting land ice is dramatically increasing in recent times.

The current maxima/worst case scenario (5% chance) is a 2m/6.5ft rise by 2100 which would displace around 200m people and lose 100s million sq km of land

The current minima/best case scenario (5% chance) is around 0.6m/2ft rise by 2100 which would still cause displacement of 10s of millions.

If things carry on as current then we're highly likely to experience a 1m/3.3ft rise in sea level by 2100 which has similar displacement as above but the rate of rising sea is 6 - 8x what it was from 1900 - 2000.

Surely, you had to have noticed that most of the ice is gone NOW? Earth was an Ice ball at the beginning of this Ice Age.

I came here years ago over the false attempts to frame this as man is changing Earth's climate when we are not that advanced. We are polluting our resources. The Earth is in constant rebuild mode.

This current Ice age we are in is almost over, but it's still just enough alive that kids will see snow for a few more days than Al Gore and the UN predicted back in 1990's. You know 30 years ago and they called it warming then, but for some reason the actual data refuses to follow their doomsday models. Cha-ching$ all the way to the bank they go in this set of HUGE LIES.



No issues with man doing this because the Sun and Solar system are each reacting in spectacular ways never before imagined they would be doing. We are not on Saturn causing climate change and that is important to their argument on the "mechanism" they keep missing the predictions on so bad they have DESTROYED many lay peoples will to believe in the steaming piles of BS.

originally posted by: bastion
a reply to: network dude

The water mark is higher on the newer pcitures but without knowing exact times, dates, conditions etc...it isn't a scientific proof or usable data. I recommed using the data from the station pictured that I posted earlier in the thread for a proper accurate source of high and low tide historical records and shows a clear rising trend consistent with all other data,

There's an elevation map of the shoreline in question here map which shows the coast in question as between 8m and 80m above sea level so the known rise of a few inches wont have much visible effect at that paticular location.

The difference is that the rate of rising and rate of melting land ice is dramatically increasing in recent times.

The current maxima/worst case scenario (5% chance) is a 2m/6.5ft rise by 2100 which would displace around 200m people and lose 100s million sq km of land

The current minima/best case scenario (5% chance) is around 0.6m/2ft rise by 2100 which would still cause displacement of 10s of millions.

If things carry on as current then we're highly likely to experience a 1m/3.3ft rise in sea level by 2100 which has similar displacement as above but the rate of rising sea is 6 - 8x what it was from 1900 - 2000.

a reply to: bastion

I appreciate your answers. I'll try to explain why I think this way. I get that it's warming. I don't agree that it's due to our energy usage to a degree we can change with our consumption. I just think we are coming out of an ice age, and the warming is a product of that. I base that off of feelings. Now the data, if I knew I could trust the data 100%, there would be no argument. Sadly, there have been too many unscrupulous people do too many bad things that jaded many of us by being lied to about the important things. And when it happens again, we are a little cautious. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

So before I buy into the idea that our energy consumption is critical, yet the leaders who tout that nonsense use exponentially more of that same energy to tell us how much we need to cut back, I need to see some concrete proof. And that proof should be made of concrete and have a tide line, and proof that it's higher now by my eyeballs. And yes, I do realize that my approval is not needed for the validity of AGW to be real. It's all part of the learning process.

a reply to: network dude

It's reasonable to be skeptical but we're at a point in the field where independent models and measurements are arriving at the same high confidence predictions. It's worth noting that big oil companies have muddied the waters as they knew about AGW in the 1950s and had developed accurate models in the 70s/80s predicting today's warming of 0.2C per decade rises but lied about it for decades as they were only interested in profit than science - Science - Exxon Mobil internal models prove AGW

a reply to: network dude

There's a good image doing the rounds on Telegram of the base of the Statue of Liberty a hundred years ago, and again in modern times. Zero sea level change. The whole thing is BS. Otherwise why would Obama be buying beachfront property in Hawaii? Pure drivel & nonsense.

a reply to: FlyInTheOintment

the tell for me is more of the leaders of the messaging flying in private jets, and driving in motorcades with gas powered vehicles and living in giant houses. If this truly was the threat they claim, then they would be scared AF and leading by example and passing laws to prevent others from doing it. So far, it's just fear mongering and lies.

I think the truth will have to be known in a few years. We have gone past the point of no return a few times now.

a reply to: network dude

I think the flaw with that approach is it's reliant on people in power and influence acting altruistically when all the evidence points towards psychopathic traits being an advantage/the most commons personality type in those positions. There's plenty of more immediate and apparent issues like sea polutions, sixth mass extinction, capitalism/growith being completely incompatible with finite linearly decreasing resources etx... that people in power haven't lifted a finger to deal with.

In Maths and Physics the climate and resource equations are nicknamed 'grim equations' as they're so depressing and there's an incredibly high suicide rate associated with the study as we're so far beyond the point of no return that even stopping all emissions today and coming up with a completely new economic/societal model will still mean civilisation wont make it much beyond 2075.

The maths and physics involved in climate modelling is all pretty simple and it's cheaper/easier than ever for someone to prove or measure most of the variables and physics laws themselves at home - it''s likely stuff you'll have learnt in school (energy conservations, laws of thermodynamics, specific heat capacity of materials etc...) - it's all been around for over 400 years and the maths/physics is stuff 16/17 year olds are expected to be able to do in the UK.

If it was made up it'd be far easier to base the concept on quantum mechanics, advanced theoretical physics or chaos maths as they're things that only super genius types can prove and require billions of pounds of funding/energy levels that are impossible for anyone not working at CERN to prove/disprove.

There's areas of maths undergrads are warned never to look into such as mass prime factorisation/prims algorithm as it underpins all banking and military encryption (I think a couple of nations have switched to a different type) and my first lecture/seminar was a warning all about anyone trying to research or solve that area would have every single military in the world's most advanced weapons systems ready to kill them if they got close to the solutions while grim equations carry no such warning.