Climategate: the final nail in the coffin of 'Anthropogenic Global Warming'?

[brenthutch 388]

It would be nice if nature worked as simplisticly as you would want. But to paraphrase a wise man nature is not only more complecated that we imagin, it is more complicated that we can imagin.....

Glaciers growing again, sea ice growing again, record low temps, a foot of snow in october in state college?!?!?!?

You truly must be brilliant to do the mental gymnatics required to pull of the "global cooling is proof of global warming" stunt. Propts to you

[brenthutch 388]

pull off

sorry

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

If the temperature at the surface of the glacier didn't rise above 0C, there would be no melting.

Wrong. The temperature remains constant during a phase change. Melting ice remains at 0º C. Try checking out a basic Chemistry textbook.

Quote

That zone of warmer temperature may only be a fraction of a millimeter, but it is still there.

Your understanding of units seems to be as confused as your understanding of thermodynamics.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Until then, we're still increasing the CO2 concentrations and retaining more heat than we would have if we hadn't released that CO2.

Of course we are...

Heat != temperature.

Adding heat to a melting glacier makes it melt faster, but it is still at 0 degrees C.

Not the part that's melting - QED.

When you add heat to an object, the temperature of the object rises.

Do you really want to argue about the thermodynamics of phase changes with a physics professor?

You may be good at cutting and pasting but you just emphasized your absence of understanding on this entire topic.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Until then, we're still increasing the CO2 concentrations and retaining more heat than we would have if we hadn't released that CO2.

Of course we are...

Heat != temperature.

Adding heat to a melting glacier makes it melt faster, but it is still at 0 degrees C.

Not the part that's melting - QED.

When you add heat to an object, the temperature of the object rises.

Everyone who knows anything about water and thermodynamics (and reads your reply) is likely laughing!

Even the part of the glacier that is melting remains at 0º C as heat is added. Adding heat to an object doesn't always raise the temperature, e.g., if the object must undergo a phase change before its temperature can increase.

If the temperature at the surface of the glacier didn't rise above 0C, there would be no melting. That zone of warmer temperature may only be a fraction of a millimeter, but it is still there.

.

Wrong. Due to the relative interfacial energies between ice and air, ice and water, and water and air, there is NO need to superheat ice in order to melt it.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

It would be nice if nature worked as simplisticly as you would want. But to paraphrase a wise man nature is not only more complecated that we imagin, it is more complicated that we can imagin.....

Thermodynamics IS pretty simple, yes.

Quote

Glaciers growing again,

physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40473

Quote

sea ice growing again,

It generally does in winter

Quote

record low temps, a foot of snow in october in state college?!?!?!?

Record warm November in Chicago. Weather != climate

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

It would be nice if nature worked as simplisticly as you would want. But to paraphrase a wise man nature is not only more complecated that we imagin, it is more complicated that we can imagin.....

Thermodynamics IS pretty simple, yes.

Quote

Glaciers growing again,

physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40473

Quote

sea ice growing again,

It generally does in winter

Quote

record low temps, a foot of snow in october in state college?!?!?!?

Record warm November in Chicago. Weather != climate

Last 30 years != 'unprecedented warming', either.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It would be nice if nature worked as simplisticly as you would want. But to paraphrase a wise man nature is not only more complecated that we imagin, it is more complicated that we can imagin.....

Thermodynamics IS pretty simple, yes.

Quote

Glaciers growing again,

physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/40473

Quote

sea ice growing again,

It generally does in winter

Quote

record low temps, a foot of snow in october in state college?!?!?!?

Record warm November in Chicago. Weather != climate

Last 30 years != 'unprecedented warming', either.

Maybe the extra heat went into melting ice

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Record warm November in Chicago. Weather != climate

Last 30 years != 'unprecedented warming', either.

Maybe the extra heat went into melting ice

More likely into inflating egos.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[brenthutch 388]

"The important issue is that we (IPCC) have yet to settle on a way to estimate the future sea-level contribution due to each mechanism, and so the jury is still out." Shepherd feels, however, that this latest research does not offer a compete picture. "The dataset covers a relatively short period (about 5 years I think) and we know that there is no reason to expect the changes to be linear".

Pritchard described to physicsworld.com some of the technical problems that the team experienced when gathering the data. One problem was that they could not run the laser measurements continuously. "We had to run it in bursts, which meant our data came out a bit 'stripy'."

That doesnt sound like "The science is setteled" to me.

[brenthutch 388]

News flash Kallend. thermodynamics in a test tube, is easy, everyone gets it. Just look at the decovery channel. It is a no brainer. However in the real world there are many variables that are not accounted for, and for that matter ther are variables that are not even known. World climate modeling is not as simple as you would wish it to be. I am smart enough to know that I dont have all of the answers, but I am also smart enought to know that you dont either. It appears you lack the wisdom to recognise the latter.


Merry Christmas

Sorry for the spelling 4am after Christmas party.

[brenthutch 388]

Harrumph harrumph, as an esteemed member of the scientific and academic communities I have observed the irrefutable link to rain and wet side walks. I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that every time it rains the side walks get wet. Therefore I can conclusively state that anytime a side walk is wet, it must be raining. .
In the off chance that you see wet side walks and do not see rain, it is only because it is raining soo hard that you cant see it. Trust me I am a scientist

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

"The important issue is that we (IPCC) have yet to settle on a way to estimate the future sea-level contribution due to each mechanism, and so the jury is still out." Shepherd feels, however, that this latest research does not offer a compete picture. "The dataset covers a relatively short period (about 5 years I think) and we know that there is no reason to expect the changes to be linear".

Pritchard described to physicsworld.com some of the technical problems that the team experienced when gathering the data. One problem was that they could not run the laser measurements continuously. "We had to run it in bursts, which meant our data came out a bit 'stripy'."

That doesnt sound like "The science is setteled" to me.

Why don't you provide a link (to back your claim) to some data from reputable scientists showing that, on aggregate, glaciers are growing and sea level is falling.

There are always uncertainties in scientific measurements. However, regardless of uncertainties, the measurements in the link I gave show very clearly that glaciers are melting.

More.

Sea level trends N. America.

Sea level trends, global.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

Harrumph harrumph, as an esteemed member of the scientific and academic communities I have observed the irrefutable link to rain and wet side walks. I have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that every time it rains the side walks get wet. Therefore I can conclusively state that anytime a side walk is wet, it must be raining. .
In the off chance that you see wet side walks and do not see rain, it is only because it is raining soo hard that you cant see it. Trust me I am a scientist

I guess we have to excuse this rubbish on account of the party you attended.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,651]

Quote

News flash Kallend. thermodynamics in a test tube, is easy, .

It works in car engines too. And in jet engines. And in rockets. And in locomotives, buses, electrical power plants, nuclear weapons, the Sun, blast furnaces, supercomputers, HVAC systems, the human body and the background radiation of the universe. Rather naive of you to think it doesn't work in the atmosphere or the oceans.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Wrong. Due to the relative interfacial energies between ice and air, ice and water, and water and air, there is NO need to superheat ice in order to melt it.

Professor - are you using "melting" as a proxy for the word "ablation?" "Melting" is somewhat of a specific term. The process of sublimation is a form of glacial "ablation" that is distinct from "melting."

Saying ice is disappearing because it is "melting" may, in fact, be incorrect. I suspect this is why you refer to phase transitions.

As a physics professor, I also would reckon that you don't merely tell you students that they are wrong all the time. Rather, I would suspect that you either give them the answers or lead them down a path to discovery.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

As a physics professor, I also would reckon that you don't merely tell you students that they are wrong all the time. Rather, I would suspect that you either give them the answers or lead them down a path to discovery.

Do you feel compelled to offer pro bono legal advice to anyone who has a question or misunderstanding regarding law?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

As a physics professor, I also would reckon that you don't merely tell you students that they are wrong all the time. Rather, I would suspect that you either give them the answers or lead them down a path to discovery.

Do you feel compelled to offer pro bono legal advice to anyone who has a question or misunderstanding regarding law?

You purposefully (I suspect) ignored or missed his point. This is not a classroom or a law office (or some subset thereof) So, mixing terms to make a (false or misleading) point only makes you a ass or hypocrite. Is that what you are accusing some one of being here?

If so, who?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

You purposefully (I suspect) ignored or missed his point. … Is that what you are accusing some one of being here?

If so, who?

Perhaps it isn't me who missed the point, sir.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

As a physics professor, I also would reckon that you don't merely tell you students that they are wrong all the time. Rather, I would suspect that you either give them the answers or lead them down a path to discovery.

Do you feel compelled to offer pro bono legal advice to anyone who has a question or misunderstanding regarding law?

No. I also don't say, "you don't know what you are talking about. Don't argue with me, though. I'm a lawyer."

There is another difference - the laws of physics are the same in Chicago as Fresno. The statutory and case laws are not the same.

So, if I say, "You're wrong. Dead people's votes won't be counted" I'd be correct in Fresno. Chicago, though...

I reckon you see a difference between "you're wrong, and wrong again and don't disagree because I'm a lawyer" and "you are not correct because while an income tax was unconstitutional, such unconstitutionality was curesd by amendment."

The latter provides context and explanation for my position - more than simply, "wrong."

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

As a physics professor, I also would reckon that you don't merely tell you students that they are wrong all the time. Rather, I would suspect that you either give them the answers or lead them down a path to discovery.

Do you feel compelled to offer pro bono legal advice to anyone who has a question or misunderstanding regarding law?

No. I also don't say, "you don't know what you are talking about. Don't argue with me, though. I'm a lawyer."

There is another difference - the laws of physics are the same in Chicago as Fresno. The statutory and case laws are not the same.

So, if I say, "You're wrong. Dead people's votes won't be counted" I'd be correct in Fresno. Chicago, though...

I reckon you see a difference between "you're wrong, and wrong again and don't disagree because I'm a lawyer" and "you are not correct because while an income tax was unconstitutional, such unconstitutionality was curesd by amendment."

The latter provides context and explanation for my position - more than simply, "wrong."

You realize that why mnealtx was wrong had already been explained earlier in the thread, before Kallend made the post to which you replied, right?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Even an expert such as me tends to miss things in 500 posts over a month. Especially when I missed the first month.

You lack proper credentials to question me. You could get those credentials, but you don't know what they are, so don't waste your time.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[billvon 2,436]

> thermodynamics in a test tube, is easy, everyone gets it. Just look at
>the decovery channel. It is a no brainer.

Lots of people here seem to not understand it, oddly enough.

> However in the real world there are many variables that are not
>accounted for, and for that matter ther are variables that are not even
>known.

Of course. You could set your house on fire, and an unforecasted rainstorm could come along and put it out. Heck, some as-yet unexplained force could render your house and everything in it completely incombustible.

Still, the smart money is on NOT trying to set your house on fire - no matter how much you want it to be fireproof.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Even an expert such as me tends to miss things in 500 posts over a month. Especially when I missed the first month.

Since it's still Christmas in California, I'll give you a break.

At 0º C, adding heat to ice (i.e., solid H2O) can generally be expected to induce melting. The resulting water (i.e., liquid H2O) can generally be expected to remain at 0º C while it is adjacent to the ice.

The assertion that adding heat always results in an increase in temperature is incorrect.

Merry Christmas, Counselor.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

True. When liquid water is boiling adding heat does not increase its temperature - much like adding heat to an ice water slush will not increase its temperature. It'll merely change the phase until the ice is gone (or substantially gone) and then heat it.

Heat and temperature are different concepts. I get it. Change of phase/state.

Nice how easily you explained it. Note that you can add salt to -2 degree C water and it'l undergo a phase transition. PV=nRT is a fun equation, too, wherein adding heat can result in no change in temperature if volume is allowed to change.

My wife is hotter than your wife.