Seas are rising way faster than any time in past 2,800 years

[Rob L 3,811]

What the frig is pure air. Lol

pull my finger and I will show you

[Rob L 3,811]

My thesis wasn't done on a smartphone

With that said riddle me this:

Which mixture has the highest internal energy:

Pure air at 100 F with 70 F dewpoint?

Air with 400 ppm CO2 at 100 F with 70 F dewpoint?

Nothing wrong with liberal arts, although certain posters - and one mod included IIRC - seem to have decided it's OK taking a demeaning approach towards it.

The only crime in the phrase to some is the word liberal is intrinsically offensive

[Rob L 3,811]

Good then maybe you can explain subsidence and what happens to the water level on the seashore while shoreline communities are sucking groundwater out of area aquifers.

Here's a good example, however Miami and any number of coastal cities / communities would suffice

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-11/sinking-jakarta-starts-building-giant-wall-as-sea-rises-cities

I thought you already conceded that sinking/rising ground is a local issue unrelated to global sea levels...do we need confirm basics?

Edited February 25, 2016 by Rob L

[Rob L 3,811]

Just a GED. Qualifies me to read a frickin thermometer.

And a masters in environmental engineering (chemical, not civil). My reasearch was on inorganic hazardous waste inertion by bonding, cement kilns. That was 1996. While i was working as a process/process design engineer.

You got something hotshot? Lemme guess, your liberal arts degree makes you a "social scientist" lmao

My standing as a liberal artist has served me well professionally and personally and improved my critical thinking skills. How do you interpret this graph?

[Expat1 971]

My standing as a liberal artist has served me well professionally and personally and improved my critical thinking skills. How do you interpret this graph?

My interpretation is this: Global warming "scientists", given a choice of either spending time repairing the errors in their global models and reporting factual, measured data or publishing volumes of papers using faulty data about global warming appear to choose to publish.

So you really don't have a problem with penciling in "corrected" temperature numbers, drawing conclusions from them, and publishing them as scientifically sound? Because I do.

The global warming models, all of them, predict a rise in global humidity levels. Though the total energy of air with the same dewpoint but zero CO2 is actually HIGHER than air at the same conditions and dewpoint with 400 ppm CO2 (energy at constant temp, constant dewpoint, falls with increasing CO2, I bet nobody ever told you and your flock of sheep anything like that LOL) the total energy of air mixtures with increasing humidity is significantly higher.

Global humidity levels, even with rising CO2, are falling. If humidity is falling, it is impossible for atmospheric energy to be increasing and the model calculation of total rising energy requires (and calculates) that both will and must happen.

YET

From the NOAA "state of the climate" report published 2014 (where government funding ensures that they can endlessly publish, and they do) here is what they say about this (real data) phenomena that is completely opposite of their predicted model:

The drivers of this are not yet well understood (LMAO no kidding, it's a little early to "publish" right?)

after declaring "hey we don't understand this" they go on to use one set of data (1981-2010) as an "average" to draw their global maps of differences and use a second set of data (1979-2003) as another "average" to draw their charts of differences and create a very marginal looking curve showing "rise in total atmospheric water relative to temperature" that, again, does NOT match global data because they are using adjusted temperatures LOL.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/09/09/declining-humidity-defying-global-warming-models

Another example of bad science

[Expat1 971]

I thought you already conceded that sinking/rising ground is a local issue unrelated to global sea levels...do we need confirm basics?

Not unless those basics in any way, shape, or form conclude that this is valid "science"

They went around the world looking at salt marshes and other coastal locations and used different clues to figure out what the sea level was at different times. They used single cell organisms that are sensitive to salinity, mangroves, coral, sediments and other clues in cores, Horton said. On top of that they checked their figures by easy markers such as the rise of lead with the start of the industrial age and isotopes only seen in the atomic age.

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

pull my finger and I will show you

That was strong as death.

[Expat1 971]

pull my finger and I will show you

"Pull my finger" - Exampled as peak performance of carefully developed and artfully crafted 'critical thinking skills' of the typical liberal

[The Nature Boy 7,659]

"Pull my finger" - Exampled as peak performance of carefully developed and artfully crafted 'critical thinking skills' of the typical liberal

But you got to give one to his team. That was funny as heck

[Dakine10 5,452]

The topic is about attributing sea levels to global warming however I am un-stunned at the level of value that you seem to be able to add to the discussion.

Perhaps you could publish something for us, like I dunno a menu? What's the special of the day?

The "15 year hiatus" in temperature increase, whether it exists or not, is irrelevant to whether or not sea levels are rising. You know that because you gave your expert opinion, obnoxiously delivered, in a previous thread.

Discussing anything with you is more tedious than it's worth. At least try to remain on topic. You may know everything about everything, but you're running out of people who are willing to listen.

[Expat1 971]

The "15 year hiatus" in temperature increase, whether it exists or not, is irrelevant to whether or not sea levels are rising. You know that because you gave your expert opinion, obnoxiously delivered, in a previous thread.

Discussing anything with you is more tedious than it's worth. At least try to remain on topic. You may know everything about everything, but you're running out of people who are willing to listen.

Taking a moment here to idly wonder why you are focusing on me and not the topic LOL

Critical information to consider in future: I don't lose a wink on whether people are willing or not willing to listen to online posts. Summarized: Read 'em or not, I don't care one way or the other.

But you got to give one to his team. That was funny as heck

LOL yeah they scored one (dimmit)

[Jacque67 7,328]

In Saudi all booze does is get you jail time and lashes. Its part of the kind, peaceful, and tolerant culture here.

Kinky. Must be why you're there.

The topic is about attributing sea levels to global warming however I am un-stunned at the level of value that you seem to be able to add to the discussion.

Perhaps you could publish something for us, like I dunno a menu? What's the special of the day?

A couple of cans of fruit juice and a bag of sugar ?

[Rob L 3,811]

My interpretation is this: Global warming "scientists", given a choice of either spending time repairing the errors in their global models and reporting factual, measured data or publishing volumes of papers using faulty data about global warming appear to choose to publish.

So you really don't have a problem with penciling in "corrected" temperature numbers, drawing conclusions from them, and publishing them as scientifically sound? Because I do.

The global warming models, all of them, predict a rise in global humidity levels. Though the total energy of air with the same dewpoint but zero CO2 is actually HIGHER than air at the same conditions and dewpoint with 400 ppm CO2 (energy at constant temp, constant dewpoint, falls with increasing CO2, I bet nobody ever told you and your flock of sheep anything like that LOL) the total energy of air mixtures with increasing humidity is significantly higher.

Global humidity levels, even with rising CO2, are falling. If humidity is falling, it is impossible for atmospheric energy to be increasing and the model calculation of total rising energy requires (and calculates) that both will and must happen.

YET

From the NOAA "state of the climate" report published 2014 (where government funding ensures that they can endlessly publish, and they do) here is what they say about this (real data) phenomena that is completely opposite of their predicted model:

The drivers of this are not yet well understood (LMAO no kidding, it's a little early to "publish" right?)

after declaring "hey we don't understand this" they go on to use one set of data (1981-2010) as an "average" to draw their global maps of differences and use a second set of data (1979-2003) as another "average" to draw their charts of differences and create a very marginal looking curve showing "rise in total atmospheric water relative to temperature" that, again, does NOT match global data because they are using adjusted temperatures LOL.

http://news.heartland.org/newspaper-article/2014/09/09/declining-humidity-defying-global-warming-models

Another example of bad science

You keep using "Air Quotes" as if that is a method of dismissing Scientists and their years of dedication. I don't see anyone except you holding on to this 18th century view of the universe..you seem to be that last holdout...

If the Carbon did not go into the atmosphere and the seas, where did it go?

Edited February 26, 2016 by Rob L

[Rob L 3,811]

That was strong as death.

that was the BBQ..not me

[Rob L 3,811]

"Pull my finger" - Exampled as peak performance of carefully developed and artfully crafted 'critical thinking skills' of the typical liberal

typical Liberal Artist..thank you very much.