Stop the "Climate Change is Real" brow beating

1. the correct link does *NOT* require the leading https://. Just beginning at "water" will suffice. Like I keep saying, you aren't very internet literate!
2. Is Miami at the southern tip of Florida?
3. What is at the southern tip of Florida?
4. Could it be evaporite rocks and karst from carbonate rocks?
5. What happens to evaporite rocks and carbonate rocks when water is pulled out of them?
6. "The sudden and sometimes catastrophic subsidence associated with localized collapse of subsurface cavities (sinkholes) (fig. is detailed in two case studies. This type of subsidence is commonly triggered by ground-water-level declines caused by pumping and by enhanced percolation of ground water. Collapse features tend to be associated with specific rock types, such as evaporites (salt, gypsum, and anhydrite) and carbonates (limestone and dolomite) (fig. 9). These rocks are susceptible to dissolution in water and the formation of cavities Salt and gypsum are much more soluble than limestone, the rock type most often associated with catastrophic sinkhole formation."
7. In other words, land subsidence happens when deep wells are dug and used to supply an every growing population - e.g. Southern Florida, including Miami.

It simply doesn't matter if the word "Miami" shows up in the document. It is a MAP, a map which includes southern Florida. Again, a middle school student could figure this one out!

 

Malarky! I told you how *ALL* ocean conveyor belts work. *YOU* would have everyone believe that there is only one conveyor belt in all the ocean and mixing with surrounding waters, both horizontally and vertically, doesn't happen with the North Atlantic Conveyor.

As usual, you are nothing more than a troll. You *never* have anything of substance to offer. You knowledge of the Laws of Thermodynamics is sadly lacking. So you try to make up for it with snide comments and the Fallacy of Composition argumentative fallacy.

Go away TROLL!

So what if the upper atmosphere is subject to different forces than the lower atmosphere. Again, this is the Fallacy of Composition. It's a statement that means nothing without context. You are good at making those kinds of statements. When you can *explain* what the different forces are and how they work and what they cause to happen, then come back.

Otherwise - GO AWAY TROLL!

And here we have "rain" again. Nothing to explain how higher temperature atmosphere which can hold *more* water vapor all of a sudden loses that extra moisture in the form of rain. It's just some "mysterious" process that you can't explain but that we are supposed to believe in.

 

The fact also remains that in 1977 Exxon scientists warned Exxon that the increasing CO2 from the burning of fossil fuels would one day alter the global weather and climate.

 

it matters because that's what we were talking about

street flooding in miami, primarily due to sea-rise

 

Is Miami in southern Florida?

Do you know just how idiotic it is to try and say that Miami is not in southern Florida?

 

Malarky! I told you how *ALL* ocean conveyor belts work. *YOU* would have everyone believe that there is only one conveyor belt in all the ocean and mixing with surrounding waters, both horizontally and vertically, doesn't happen with the North Atlantic Conveyor.

Nope. I pointed that out as ONE example of how BTUs get to the ocean depths without warming the entire ocean first...which you disputed

You knowledge of the Laws of Thermodynamics is sadly lacking.

While I appreciate your sad attempt at Ebonics...I understand full well how thermodynamics works. Apparently you do not.


So what if the upper atmosphere is subject to different forces than the lower atmosphere.

You seemed to have a major dispute with that fact. Like for 20 posts

And yes...rain is a limiting factor as to how much water vapor the atmosphere can hold. As the warm moist air hits that (so what) cooler upper atmosphere...it condenses in the form of RAIN.

If there were no CO2 forcing (increasing heat to the planet surface) rain would "self limit" how much greenhouse effect water vapor would cause.

Co2 of course isn't known to rain. In fact 60% of what we add to the atmosphere STAYS there for a considerable amount of time

 

Your knowledge of thermodynamics is *still* lacking. I never talked about the entire ocean warming. I said heat can't get to the depths of the ocean without first passed through the surface of the ocean. I told you that James Kirk was not in orbit somehow "transporting" the heat into the depths. My guess is that you don't remember that -- convenient amnesia!

No, you don't understand thermodynamics at all. You *still* want us to believe that James Kirk is in orbit in the Enterprise transporting "heat" into the deep oceans so the surface of the ocean doesn't have to warm first!

Nope. What I have a problem with is magical thinking. Think like "water vapor alone can't warm the atmosphere because it rains but it can when there is CO2".

And it does that very same thing even when CO2 is in the atmosphere. So if the rain lowers water vapor pressure which lets more IR through to space then why doesn't it do the same thing when there is CO2 present? The very same cooling happens in both situations. You are still trying to have your cake and eat it too!

Now we are back to the magical thinking again. Water vapor saturating the atmosphere and then raining happens whether the CO2 is there or not. The hysteresis loop for water vapor is there regardless of the presence of CO2. So the effect on the earth should be the same whether there is or there isn't CO2 in the atmosphere.

And it is *NOT* sufficient to cause global warming by itself. If water vapor is self-limiting then CO2 forcing is a mirage. Water vapor will always return to a stable level and *not* be causing trapping of the heat sufficient to cause global warming. When the short-lived water vapor goes away so does the increased IR blocking.

So we are back to the magical thinking again!

 

Apparently you have never been to southern Florida. Miami is quite some distance from the southern tip. The southern tip of Florida is essentially a hundred mile wide river parading as swamp land.

 

I suppose if your scientific knowledge was all you claim it is, the Aurora Borealis would be frying my electronics. But it is not.

The thing about all your arguments, that you seem to be missing is that the earth has been warming. Your objections to real science does not change that very elemental fact. It is as if you are trying to argue that reality doesn't exist.

 

You didn't even look at the map, did you?

 

The mean temperature is going up. I've never said anything different. My data doesn't show anything different. But if the mean is going up because of longer growing seasons instead of more extreme heat then it isn't nearly the catastrophic situation AGW religionists like you would have us believe. We are not all going to turn into ash by the turn of the next century. We will be seeing more food availability instead!

Have *YOU* bothered to even look at the raw data to see what is going on? Or are you just quoting from the Bible of AGW?

Oh, BTW, don't think it is going unnoticed that you didn't actually address anything I said. All you did was use the Poison the Well argumentative fallacy!

 

miami isn't mentioned on the page you linked to

conflating southern florida with miami is logical-fallacy

the temperature is going up because of co2 from burning fossil fuels

 

Is Miami in southern Florida? Your reticence to answer the question is proof that you know that it is.

GO AWAY TROLL

 

miami has a different substrate profile, than the average location in south florida

it's not valid to conflate the two, that would be comparing everglades swamps

to solid ground that can support high rises and big apartment buildings

 

I won't go into ALL of your bizarre statements but this one struck me

And it is *NOT* sufficient to cause global warming by itself. If water vapor is self-limiting then CO2 forcing is a mirage. Water vapor will always return to a stable level and *not* be causing trapping of the heat sufficient to cause global warming. When the short-lived water vapor goes away so does the increased IR blocking.

A. CO2 by itself is not sufficient to cause GW . But it ADDS heat to the planet surface driving MORE WV into the air. THAT added water vapor further heats the planet and that drives MORE WV into the air.

If there were no CO2 there would be no added heat to drive more WV into the air.

Add MORE CO2 and you get more water vapor.

I'm still trying to understand if you are being intentionally dense or that's just you...

 

Nobody has yet to tell me why these castles have gotten so far inland, did they pick up and walk?

 

I want the alarmists to consider the following about the state of Arizona. I think we might all agree that AZ has a unique climate.

It suffers intense heat, monsoon rains, bitter cold and more.

My simple question is this.

Given the constant amount of Carbon Dioxide over AZ, how do you account for the stable conditions and also the wild changes from intense hot to cold on the same day?

This does not fit, to cite the OJ defense.

You can't have it both ways.

https://www.currentresults.com/Weather/Arizona/Places/phoenix-temperatures-by-month-average.php

 

it really is amazing how ridiculous science-denier's comments are

 

Seems to me this indicates otherwise:

Sure, if it doesn't condense, but some of it always does.

 

Of course WV condenses. That's the self limiting part of the water vapor "feedback". Without the added heat from CO2 greenhouse effect...water vapor would not increase

 

AGW does not make any statements or predictions about daily weather.

 

Yes,I am aware of that and used that fact against AGW.

 

No, I mean, hypothesis like "it will be 101 degrees in Phoenix and 80 degrees in Flagstaff on July 23, 2017" or "a trough of low pressure will bring cooler air to Arizona on October 11, 2017" are not ones that AGW posits. Regardless of whether those are verified or refuted says nothing about AGW.

 

It does, but it varies by local, and the predictions agreed upon are fairly vague (for example: it is widely agreed upon that the polar ice caps melting will cause most of the world to warm, but cause cooling in northeastern America)

 

You credit belief in climate change to moronic, petulant brow beating absent specifics - and not to increased public awareness and education on the subject.

uh, mmmkay