World in denial on climate action five years after Paris accord, says Thunberg

[scammed]

3 hours ago, Lacessit said:

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body. Heat has to go somewhere, and it is absorbed by the world's oceans. Hence more intense typhoons, hurricanes and cyclones. Record heat cells in Australia. The Larsen Ice Shelf is breaking up at a rate never before observed since observations started. The last tropical glacier in Indonesia has disappeared.

you've been googling physics for dummies,

it states that entropy in a closed system will on an average go up, and 'closed system' is as much of a key word as 'right angle' is in pythagoras theorem, neither apply if that condition isnt checked.

the meteorologists say that poles will heat more then equator,

leaving less energy gradient for cyclones to build up.

it was more record heat in australia a little over 100 years ago then today, ice has to calve as more snow is added on top,

its a frozen river

 

[daveAustin]

A lot of fluff and pseudoscience on here + weird amount of disdain from grumpy old men on a little girl.  Bottom line; pump billions of tons of CO2 into atmosphere, eventually you get little Venus. That nature does it (volcanoes and fire etc) doesn't assuage the above. The monetary system and human greed is to blame. We'll destroy ourselves for sure, which is likely how most civilizations go before they reach their potential. It's just a shame the rest of the world's species will get trounced. 

Go girl!

[mr mr]

12 hours ago, Lacessit said:

What I find bewildering is denialists describing Thunberg as brainwashed. If she is, it's with facts and evidence. OTOH, the same denialists probably send their children off to religious instruction to be brainwashed into believing in an entity they can't see, feel or hear.

 

explain that feeling i got as an altar boy then....

[placeholder]

48 minutes ago, scammed said:

...and watch the reefs recover when they have sufficient co2 to do so https://sioweb.ucsd.edu/labs/coralreefecology/an-incredible-story-of-reef-recovery-after-coral-bleaching-at-palmyra-atoll/

There is absolutely no mention made of CO2 levels in this video or article it links to. Are you claiming that there was more CO2 available to this reef than to other reefs elsewhere?

In fact, it's very basic chemistry that shows lower ph almost always makes building aragonite (calcium carbonate) shells of all sorts more difficult. And the higher the concentration, the more difficult it becomes. The levels of CO2 in the world's oceans are increasing.

 

Rising CO2 accelerates coral bleaching: study

Rising carbon dioxide levels in the world’s oceans due to climate change, combined with rising sea temperatures, could accelerate coral bleaching, destroying some reefs before 2050, says a new Australian study.

 

The study says earlier research may have significantly understated the likely damage to the world’s reefs caused by man-made change to the Earth’s atmosphere.

“Previous predictions of coral bleaching have been far too conservative, because they didn’t factor in the effect of acidification on the bleaching process and how the two interact,” said Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg from the ARC Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and Queensland University

Rising CO2 accelerates coral bleaching: study | Reuters

 

Effects of Ocean Acidification on Corals

 Prior to the Industrial Revolution, around 98 percent of coral reefs were surrounded by waters with adequate or optimal aragonite saturation states...

At today’s carbon dioxide concentrations, about 60 percent of coral reefs are surrounded by waters that have less than adequate aragonite saturation states, and if carbon dioxide concentrations increase to 450 ppm, more than 90 percent of coral reefs will be surrounded by such waters.

No corals that exist today will be near waters with adequate saturation states if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are allowed to reach 550 ppm.

Effects of Ocean Acidification on Corals |

[placeholder]

46 minutes ago, scammed said:

you've been googling physics for dummies,

it states that entropy in a closed system will on an average go up, and 'closed system' is as much of a key word as 'right angle' is in pythagoras theorem, neither apply if that condition isnt checked.

 

 

This is nonsense. The only closed system in the universe is, well, the universe. So by your lights the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists to explain nothing. And if your objection made any sense it would be impossible to heat a pot of water since the temperature gradient wouldn't matter.

In effect the second law of thermodynamics posits an ideal model. One which doesn't exist in nature but is still very useful in the real world.

Oddly enough the law is generally used by climate skeptics to deny the reality of global warming.

The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (skepticalscience.com)

[scammed]

55 minutes ago, placeholder said:

This is nonsense. The only closed system in the universe is, well, the universe. So by your lights the 2nd law of thermodynamics exists to explain nothing. And if your objection made any sense it would be impossible to heat a pot of water since the temperature gradient wouldn't matter.

In effect the second law of thermodynamics posits an ideal model. One which doesn't exist in nature but is still very useful in the real world.

Oddly enough the law is generally used by climate skeptics to deny the reality of global warming.

The greenhouse effect and the 2nd law of thermodynamics (skepticalscience.com)

the 2nd law is accurate and explains many things, but its only under the condition that it is a closed system,

it simply do not apply if energy can be exchanged with source outside that volume we assess.

energy gradients are as fundamental as it gets to get anything done, like heating a pot of water or creating a cyclone or anything else you could possibly imagine,

and that is why cyclones will diminish if poles and equator becomes more equal in temperature,

it is only energy gradients that can be used for work,

if everything got the same temperature, it doesnt matter how hot or cold, you cant create anything.

theres no point in linking source, scott will just delete data on the fly

Edited December 13, 2020 by scammed

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, scammed said:

the 2nd law is accurate and explains many things, but its only under the condition that it is a closed system,

it simply do not apply if energy can be exchanged with source outside that volume we assess.

energy gradients are as fundamental as it gets to get anything done, like heating a pot of water or creating a cyclone or anything else you could possibly imagine,

and that is why cyclones will diminish if poles and equator becomes more equal in temperature,

it is only energy gradients that can be used for work,

if everything got the same temperature, it doesnt matter how hot or cold, you cant create anything

There is no such thing as a closed system in nature except for the universe. But of course, the closed system model isn't the only way of stating the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.

And the pole vs. equator differential is reckoned to lower the incidence of cyclones but increase the intensity and duration of tropical and subtropical cyclones...i.e. hurricanes. There's already a lot of evidence to support that.

[scammed]

1 hour ago, daveAustin said:

A lot of fluff and pseudoscience on here + weird amount of disdain from grumpy old men on a little girl.  Bottom line; pump billions of tons of CO2 into atmosphere, eventually you get little Venus. That nature does it (volcanoes and fire etc) doesn't assuage the above. The monetary system and human greed is to blame. We'll destroy ourselves for sure, which is likely how most civilizations go before they reach their potential. It's just a shame the rest of the world's species will get trounced. 

Go girl!

the heat on venus is a function of the high atmospheric pressure, you get the same albeit lesser effect in deep spots on earth like death valley, or flip wise colder on mountains where atmospheric pressure is less.

and much as expected, you put the blame on monetary system and human greed, i.e capitalism as the source of impending doom

Edited December 13, 2020 by scammed

[placeholder]

Just now, scammed said:

the heat on venus is a function of the high atmospheric pressure, you get the same albeit lesser effect in deep spots on earth like death valley, or flip wise colder on mountains where atmospheric pressure is less

Really? Here's an explanation from NASA for kids about why Venus is hot

Even though Venus isn't the closest planet to the Sun, it is still the hottest. It has a thick atmosphere full of the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide and clouds made of sulfuric acid. The atmosphere traps heat and keeps Venus toasty warm. 

In Depth | Venus – NASA Solar System Exploration

 

 

[scammed]

8 minutes ago, placeholder said:

There is no such thing as a closed system in nature except for the universe. But of course, the closed system model isn't the only way of stating the 2nd law of thermodynamics

Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature.

And the pole vs. equator differential is reckoned to lower the incidence of cyclones but increase the intensity and duration of tropical and subtropical cyclones...i.e. hurricanes. There's already a lot of evidence to support that.

well yes, but it is in idealized environment that we can extract the essence of nature, and we can and do construct idealized environments to extract the essence of nature, such as a closed box or a canot engine, idealized environments are fundamental to our understanding

[placeholder]

7 minutes ago, scammed said:

well yes, but it is in idealized environment that we can extract the essence of nature, and we can and do construct idealized environments to extract the essence of nature, such as a closed box or a canot engine, idealized environments are fundamental to our understanding

And these idealized models are useful for establishing that heat transfers from places to where temperatures are higher to where temperatures are lower. Such as from a warmer atmosphere to a cooler ocean. And as I've just pointed out, the closed system model isn't the only way of expressing the 2nd law:

"Heat generally cannot flow spontaneously from a material at lower temperature to a material at higher temperature"

[scammed]

6 minutes ago, placeholder said:

Do you understand that the greenhouse effect of CO2 is settled science? That it was first described by a physicist named John Tyndall in the 19th century?

John Tyndall - Wikipedia

part of it is settled, that it exists, and it is also settled that it is insignificant in and off itself. we are running into conflict about the imagined positive loop hypothesis, and the reason for that is that it quickly spiral out of predictability

Edited December 13, 2020 by scammed

[Lacessit]

2 hours ago, scammed said:

you've been googling physics for dummies,

it states that entropy in a closed system will on an average go up, and 'closed system' is as much of a key word as 'right angle' is in pythagoras theorem, neither apply if that condition isnt checked.

the meteorologists say that poles will heat more then equator,

leaving less energy gradient for cyclones to build up.

it was more record heat in australia a little over 100 years ago then today, ice has to calve as more snow is added on top,

its a frozen river

 

I'm a retired research scientist. Permit me to doubt you have any scientific education or experience. The literacy of your posts say otherwise, not to mention the crackpot hypotheses you are posting.

You're on ignore now.

[placeholder]

4 minutes ago, scammed said:

part of it is settled, that it exists, and it is also settled that it is insignificant in and off itself. we are running into conflict about the imagined positive loop hypothesis

Now you're just lying. Over 100 years ago a physicist named Arrhenius used very simple calculations to determine the warming effect of CO2 on the atmosphere. It wasn't ever controversial until climate change denialism came along. Stop lying.

Edited December 13, 2020 by placeholder

[scammed]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

Now you're just lying. A physicist named Arrhenius used very simple calculations to determine the warming effect of CO2 on the atmosphere. It wasn't ever controversial until climate denialism came along. Stop lying.

he was proven wrong not long after he published his hypothesis

[placeholder]

6 minutes ago, scammed said:

he was proven wrong not long after he published his hypothesis

No, he was not proven wrong. Angstrom in fact was ultimately proven wrong. His instrumentation was defective and his experiment took no account of the differing layers of the atmosphere.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect (aip.org)

The History of Climate Science (skepticalscience.com)

Edited December 13, 2020 by placeholder

[scammed]

1 minute ago, placeholder said:

No, he was not proven wrong. Angstrom in fact was ultimately proven wrong. His instrumentation was defective and his experiment took no account of the differing layers of the atmosphere.

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect (aip.org)

The History of Climate Science (skepticalscience.com)

john cook, the owner of scepticalscience,

is a proven con artist, he create invalid statistics to further a political agenda

[placeholder]

1 minute ago, scammed said:

john cook, the owner of scepticalscience,

is a proven con artist, he create invalid statistics to further a political agenda

I figured you would invoke that nonsense. That's why I included the first link from AIP.

[scammed]

3 minutes ago, placeholder said:

I figured you would invoke that nonsense. That's why I included the first link from AIP.

the theory states that temperature is a function of co2 and nothing else,

and that is obviously flawed as we have milankovitch cycles/solar activity/planetary beat/cosmic radiation/ocean currents/cloud formation, and all these factors interact and takes paths we cant foresee even if we had perfect information of it all in the first place.

 

ipcc got one thing right, when they stated: The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

[Rimmer]

A troll post and a reply have been removed

[scammed]

2 hours ago, placeholder said:

There is absolutely no mention made of CO2 levels in this video or article it links to. Are you claiming that there was more CO2 available to this reef than to other reefs elsewhere?

In fact, it's very basic chemistry that shows lower ph almost always makes building aragonite (calcium carbonate) shells of all sorts more difficult. And the higher the concentration, the more difficult it becomes. The levels of CO2 in the world's oceans are increasing.

 

Rising CO2 accelerates coral bleaching: study

Rising carbon dioxide levels in the world’s oceans due to climate change, combined with rising sea temperatures, could accelerate coral bleaching, destroying some reefs before 2050, says a new Australian study.

 

The study says earlier research may have significantly understated the likely damage to the world’s reefs caused by man-made change to the Earth’s atmosphere.

“Previous predictions of coral bleaching have been far too conservative, because they didn’t factor in the effect of acidification on the bleaching process and how the two interact,” said Professor Ove Hoegh-Guldberg from the ARC Center of Excellence for Coral Reef Studies and Queensland University

Rising CO2 accelerates coral bleaching: study | Reuters

 

Effects of Ocean Acidification on Corals

 Prior to the Industrial Revolution, around 98 percent of coral reefs were surrounded by waters with adequate or optimal aragonite saturation states...

At today’s carbon dioxide concentrations, about 60 percent of coral reefs are surrounded by waters that have less than adequate aragonite saturation states, and if carbon dioxide concentrations increase to 450 ppm, more than 90 percent of coral reefs will be surrounded by such waters.

No corals that exist today will be near waters with adequate saturation states if atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are allowed to reach 550 ppm.

Effects of Ocean Acidification on Corals |

corals were doing just fine at 5000 ppm,

they in fact need co2 at sufficient quantity to build their shell, co2 is a building block of their shell.

i claim that at the time those corals bleached, co2 was less then it was when they recovered

Edited December 13, 2020 by scammed

[Lacessit]

1 hour ago, Kelsall said:

Dude, scammed is correct.  Just give it up, OK?

Your post has about the same credibility as the posts you have made on the subject of Trump.

[rupert the bear]

6 hours ago, Lacessit said:

IMO there are three step changes in the generation of heat and carbon dioxide, what are called anthropomorphic emissions. The first was the Industrial Revolution, the second the advent of the automobile, and the third the demand for electricity by populous nations such as China and India. China is still building coal-fired power plants.

The Second Law of Thermodynamics states heat cannot of itself pass from a colder to a hotter body. Heat has to go somewhere, and it is absorbed by the world's oceans. Hence more intense typhoons, hurricanes and cyclones. Record heat cells in Australia. The Larsen Ice Shelf is breaking up at a rate never before observed since observations started. The last tropical glacier in Indonesia has disappeared.

The main concern for scientists is the butterfly or black swan event, first postulated by Schiller in a short story around 1800. A seemingly minor change resulting in major catastrophic change elsewhere. Such an event might be a decrease in the albedo of the Greenland ice cap, or a release of methane from permafrost. With that kind of event, the current warming and sea level rise models become exercises in optimism.

Denialists remind me of King Canute's courtiers, and their attacks on Thunberg for stating what 95% of scientists accept is happening is simply shooting the messenger.

I've always marvelled at people who happily accept all the benefits that science and technology has given them, such as longer life expectancy, world travel, even the computers they use to communicate. Yet they scream bloody murder when the science tells them what they don't want to hear.

 

[placeholder]

5 hours ago, scammed said:

the theory states that temperature is a function of co2 and nothing else,

and that is obviously flawed as we have milankovitch cycles/solar activity/planetary beat/cosmic radiation/ocean currents/cloud formation, and all these factors interact and takes paths we cant foresee even if we had perfect information of it all in the first place.

 

ipcc got one thing right, when they stated: The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.

Stop it with the falsehoods. This is an utter lie. Global warming theory does not claim that greenhouse gases are the only cause of global warming or chilling for that matter. In fact climatologists universally acknowledge that over the long term malenkovitch cycles are far more powerful since they are responsible for the ice ages. In fact we are living through an ice age now but we're in an interglacial period. Even the website of John Cook, whom you accuse of being a liar, acknowledges the importance of Malenkovitch cycles:

Milankovitch Cycles (skepticalscience.com)

What you don't seem to understand is time scale. Malenkovitch cycles work over long stretches of time compared to atmospheric changes.

As for the rest of the stuff you throw in, nice try.

For instance solar activity:  sunspot activity has been held to promote global warming. And lack of it to promote global cooling. Yet is has been declining for several over the last 60 years years.  And yet global temperatures have been rising sharply since 1975.

And there's this. And this is a fact that denialists repeatedly ignore:

A second reason that scientists have ruled out a significant role for the Sun in global warming is that if the Sun’s energy output had intensified, we would expect all layers of Earth’s atmosphere to have warmed... Rather, satellites and observations from weather balloons show warming in the lower atmosphere (troposphere) and cooling in the upper stratosphere (stratosphere)—which is exactly what we would expect to see as a result of increasing greenhouse gases trapping heat in the lower atmosphere.  Scientists regard this piece of evidence as one of several “smoking guns” linking today’s global warming to human-emitted, heat-trapping gases.

Couldn't the Sun be the cause of global warming? | NOAA Climate.gov

As for the nonsense about currents. Where does the heat they transport around the globe come from? Overwhelmingly ultimately from the sun. And of course, as arctic ice cover disappears and the albedo of the arctic sea decreases, more heat will be absorbed.

As for predictions not being possible. Predictions have been made and they've been correct. In fact, even the earlier models are largely correct in their predictions. A climatologist named Zeke Hausfather used their algorithms and plugged in the increase in greenhouse gases that has actually been generated. (At the time those early climatologists based their predictions on guesses of how much CO2 and other gases would be produced in the future). When Hausfather plugged in the actual numbers, it turns out that they largely got it right.

Early climate modelers got global warming right, new report finds

Climate skeptics have long raised doubts about the accuracy of computer models that predict global warming, but it turns out that most of the early climate models were spot-on, according to a look-back by climate scientists at the University of California, Berkeley, Massachusetts Institute of Technology and NASA.

Of 17 climate models published between the early 1970s and the late 2000s, 14 were quite accurate in predicting the average global temperature in the years after publication, said Zeke Hausfather, a doctoral student in UC Berkeley’s Energy and Resources Group and lead author of a new paper analyzing the models.

“The real message is that the warming we have experienced is pretty much exactly what climate models predicted it would be as much as 30 years ago,” he said.

 Early climate modelers got global warming right, new report finds | Berkeley News

 

As for the rest of your nonsense, who has the time? Clearly you have the advantage of me since you can just make things up or cite sources that don't even back up what you say. 

[placeholder]

6 hours ago, scammed said:

corals were doing just fine at 5000 ppm,

they in fact need co2 at sufficient quantity to build their shell, co2 is a building block of their shell.

i claim that at the time those corals bleached, co2 was less then it was when they recovered

I just noticed this so I'll reply to it to.

Do you understand that the article you linked to was about the effect of heat on coral bleaching? No mention of CO2.

Do you have any figures on the CO2 levels or PH of those waters before and after the event? Do you know that a critical PH level was breached. Given that this is how you believe scientific reasoning  is done, it's no wonder you subscribe to the guff that you do.

Edited December 13, 2020 by placeholder

[stevenl]

*Deleted post edited out*

 

False claim, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/

 

"and why has NASA been tampering data"

Edited December 13, 2020 by Scott
Deleted post edited out

[placeholder]

9 minutes ago, stevenl said:

False claim, https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/global-warming-data-faked/

 

"and why has NASA been tampering data"

Because when you make allegations like that it frees you of the obligation to come up with a coherent explanation. Unless you consider conspiracy theory a coherent explanation. Which, I guess, in a paranoid way, it is.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 12/12/2020 at 8:16 PM, nobodysfriend said:

 

 

Grown up's need to be told what to do ... alone they do not seem to know . They are generally to occupied with their own consumerism to accept an opinion that is different to what they think is most important in life ...

Seriously?

 

[Scott]

Troll post and reply removed.