The climate change consensus extends beyond climate scientists

You beat me to it. It's a redux of the divergence problem.

 

No I am not. Merely lowering the temperature water to 32 deg F is not sufficient to freeze it. An additional 144 BTU/lb of heat must be extracted from the water to freeze it. Melting is of course the opposite.

 

There is ONLY ONE gauge we need to worry about.

That is....."Hey....this area of the shoreline which has been above water for over 100,000 years is now UNDERWATER and the water is still rising fast!!!

That's it.

AA.

- - - Updated - - -

I am talking about you stating that FUSION was necessary.

You do understand what Fusion is correct?

AA

 

Since you did not give me facts, but want me to spend several thousand dollars on air fare, hotel rooms and meals, and you told me of one area, I did check out what Boston predicts.

First they have records only back to 1921. Since then, though no flooding, have had waves they say at the right time of day, could flood the areas of your concern, they have had 20 instances where that may have happened with a storm surge.

While they are holding meetings on this, so far they claim to not have enough cash. So every 5 years, they could, should a high storm surge hit them, which they have not had, they may have 1 instance where some flooding close to the waterfront could happen. Should they get a 7 foot flood, that would have water maybe clear up to near Harvard.

That all the case, if this really is serious, Boston better stop having meetings and take real action.

I have been in that part of the city a few times and of course do not want the area flooded.

 

Hey....you can say anything you want but it still will not change the fact that the U.S. Navy is currently relocating and planning the relocation of many other Pacific Island Nation citizens as we have been relocating them to Australia and all you have to do is talk to an Aussie Member of this forum and they will tell you.

There have been people on these island for 30,000 to 50,000 years without issue and now their islands are either flooding or completely flooded by rising ocean water.

AA

 

What shoreline is that ??

I understand what the "heat of fusion" is. It appears that you do not ??

- - - Updated - - -

At what rate are these waters rising now and 50 years ago ??

 

Seas have risen since the end of the last glaciation. It is to be expected during an interglacial period. It was warmer and seas were higher during the Eemian. No SUVs then. The alarmists say it is all our fault yet if you cannot determine what natural variability is you cannot determine what man contributes.

 

Here....

BOSTON.

LINK....https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2...ly-expected/S6hZ4nDPeUWNyTsx6ZckuL/story.html

MIAMI.

LINK....http://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/community/miami-dade/miami-beach/article41141856.html

NEW YORK.

LINK...http://www.climatecentral.org/news/new-york-launches-20-billion-climate-resiliency-plan-16106


Robert...NYC plan to combat GW is $19.5 BILLION ALONE!!

AA

 

No....sea levels have not been this high nor have they risen as fact in the past 100,000 years.

The Milankovitch cycles determine Glacier periods.

LINK...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

AA

 

LOL!!

Heat of Fusion???

You do understand that Fusion at it's most basic is THERMONUCLEAR and this occurs in our Sun as STELLAR THERMONUCLEAR FUSION as Gravitational Compression of a number of Hydrogen Atoms at an incredibly high temp. results in FUSION thus fusing Hydrogen Atoms into Helium Atoms.

In a Thermonuclear Bomb we use a Fission Detonation of Nuclear Fuel to generate the necessary heat to then generate a Fusion Detonation.

Please explain WHAT THE HELL you are talking about???

AA

 

That is so funny. Nobody ought to discuss this if they are not up on that. I have long been up on those cycles. Matter of fact, in college in 1957, early in the Astronomy course, we had the earth movements explained to us.

LOL
But do not fret, I have studied many cycles since that time. I mean planet cycles too.

I hope every poster posting on this topic has already learned what you just mentioned.

Now, back to rising sea levels. I studied this quite extensively when Bill Clinton was president. I was being told by the alarm crowd how lousy it would be. I had studied this in quite a bit of depth in 1980. It did not make me an expert, but I had my eyes opened to global climate. It's drivers and it's shakers and movers. We covered this very well during weather training to become a pilot. You may be shocked at the deep course we had to master. Sea levels in my study had not only risen a tiny bit, but some areas they fell.

Now that aside, my original objection in the 1980s is that the amount of Carbon dioxide being emitted globally is super tiny.

That the multiplier effect for carbon dioxide simply was too low. Course I got the crappy hockey stick curve handed to me.

I laughed over the fakery is shows. I mean it is pathetic. It looks a lot more logarithmic than real if you ask me.
It is geared to make you fear.

That to me is lousy science. One should not crap in their bedding over climate. This is pure politics.

I have also pointed out that when they want to blow trillions of dollars, politicians sure do that fast and make wasting money look almost fun.

I thought if these fools actually believe in this, surely we will see it in the Federal budget. We will find them running crash programs to solve it. Not simply tell you, but real solutions.

I suggested in the 1980s why not plant a bevy more plants. I mean go on a crash plan. Make them end deforest of the earth.

I figured a lot could be done and not fear carbon dioxide. I mean that is excellent for plants and outstanding for humans. We get the benefit of oxygen. Who does not want oxygren?

Anyway, I wondered if all scientists accepted this alarm bull spit. I was happy to learn that some of the very top ranked scientists called it BS.

But on forums, people must love to act frightened. I wonder why they are so frightened.

 

And there we have on display for all to see the verification that you know nothing about science. Google the "latent heat of fusion" of liquid water into ice. Then Google the "latent heat of vaporization" of liquid water into steam. At least you will learn something about thermodynamics.

 

That is covered in first year physics. That as water cools, you have to remove a bit more heat at a point than one would expect in order to freeze it. It causes a heat bubble in effect. A narrow range where it is extra hard to get water to chill.

That is what he is discussing.

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/chemical/waterdens.html

 

Look it up. Seas were higher and temps were higher during the Eemian interglacial. The Eemian was over 100,000 thousand years ago since the current glacial/interglacial cycle is about 100,000 years. Seas have been rising since the end of the last glaciation with the biggest rate of change at the end of the glaciation period. Since then it has continued to rise at a slower rate. It rises in pulses since it is variable. This is evident with cultural periods on the gulf coast now underwater. Various cultures developed settlements during stable periods and abandoned them during periods of rising seas.

Currently seas show an expected rise from the Little Ice Age but no tide gauge shows any recent increase in rate of change.

 

It is sad when an alleged expert is shown up. I feel bad for him. I think he never took physics.

 

I think AA is smart but has been taken in by his association with the military which is quasi political.

 

Oh....OK...you are talking about State Change.

This is still somewhat incorrect as to it's description.

You do know what HEAT or COLD actually is don't you?

It is the Vibratory State of Matter.

And Matter will either increase or decrease this vibratory state dependent upon what it is or is not effecting the Electron Orbital Fields surrounding the Atomic Nucleus' that are a part of that matter.

AA

- - - Updated - - -

I am aware....I did not completely read what was there as I saw...FUSION....and I did not realize he was talking about state change.

But even that description is not entirely correct.

AA

- - - Updated - - -

Yeah...over 100,000 years ago.

I am talking about the last 100,000 years.

AA

 

You can look up those tide gauges on the web. All over the planet, you can read each of them.

 

Robert.....what you just posted is a LIE!

He was talking about state change and I did not fully read this as I thought he was talking about Thermonuclear Fusion and that is why I was laughing.

Considering your low in the extreme understanding of physics I would suggest that unless you want to get embarrassed by me that you tread a bit lighter.

AA

 

A LIE? Why get so hostile. Were you expecting some XOXO in the post? I took my last physics course around 58-9 and I knew what he was talking of. No, he never brought up Nuclear Fission. And YES, I understand that as well.

 

I don't question his intellect. But heck, I knew what that poster was telling us all and can't come to grips with why he did not.

The term fusion is used various ways.

 

Since it was warmer and seas were higher during the Eemian, how much of today's climate is any different than the past?

 

Fusion...ugh!

AA

- - - Updated - - -

As I said I read it too fast and made an incorrect assumption.

AA

 

The problem is our current time line into the Milankovitch cycles should NOT have the Earth at this warm a temp. nor should Polar and Greenland ice be so melted.

This is man made.

AA

 

Bollocks. For one, how and why earth changes from glacial to interglacial and back is not well understood. Milankovich cycle are hypothesized and valid butt he actual trigger is unknown. Milankovitch cycles are not set in stone as the timing varies.