Not The Onion: Climate Change Causing Ocean Floor To Sink Under Water Weight From Melting Glaciers

[SSDD]

LOL A 2000 level chemistry course? LOL No, I have not had one of those. Neither have you, or anyone else. LOL

Guess you have never been to college...just one more lie on your part... Here rocks, from some college catalogs...peruse the catalogs from various universities...visit the University of Florida for example...my alma mater and look up a few chemistry courses... here is just a short clip from the catalog...

Required Foundation Coursework

• General chemistry (5-8 credits):
  CHM 2045/2045L and CHM 2046/2046L or
  CHM 2045/2045L and CHM 2051/2046L or
  CHM 2047/2047L
  CHM 2054L can substitute for the CHM 2045L/2046L sequence or for CHM 2047L

of course I have taken 2000 level chemistry...clearly you have not.

https://www.coursehero.com/sitemap/schools/65325-Barnard-College/courses/1666771-CHEM2001/
CHEM 2001 General Chemistry

CHEM 2001
CHEM 2001 - ANALYTICAL CHEMISTRY at Louisiana State University

idiot...

 

[mamooth]

Ah, SSDD gets pedantic. Most colleges use a 100's system.

100 - Freshman
200 - Sophomore
300 - Junior
400 - Senior
500 on - graduate.

So, SSDD is bragging about how taking a sophomore chemistry class makes him qualified to declare the last century of science is all wrong.

Now, I have taken many physics classes which state how SSDD's theories are all crap. For example, the 300 level Statistical Mechanics course, based on century old physics, teaches the exact opposite of SSDD's kook heat flow claims. That kind of course teaches how the 2nd law is based on statistics, and makes no mention of smart photons.

As far as the OP goes, it's a fallacy of incredulity by the OP. He can't believe the smart people can calculate and measure things smartly, so he simply denies it's possible and defines it as an evil plot. Typical cultist fanaticism.

Everyone familiar with the science has known since ... forever ... that the ocean basins have been getting deeper since the last ice age meltout. Naturally, not a single denier on this thread knew it. As usual, they were totally ignorant of very basic science, and upon being informed of it, they all declared that the very basic science was a global socialist conspiracy. Most deniers are just deeply stupid human beings.

 

[SSDD]

Ah, SSDD gets pedantic. Most colleges use a 100's system.

Actually, most small community colleges use a 100's system.

Purdue - inorganic chemistry 54200
MIT - crystal structure refinement 5067 prereq. 5067, 5069
University of Chicago - comprehensive general chemistry 11300
Columbia - General Chemistry II 1406

and on and on and on...rocks claimed that neither I, nor anyone else had ever taken a 2000 level chemistry course...he rightly just STFU and let it go and what does the hairball do?...run up and attempt to defend the indefensible...he was wrong and let it go...what..you find it irresistible to make a great f'ing ass of yourself?...congratulations.

And I doubt that you have taken physics beyond the high school level.

 

[mamooth]

And I doubt that you have taken physics beyond the high school level.

You should be grateful for the internet. It means you don't have to wear a sandwich board and stand on the corner.

The century-old field of Statistical Mechanics says you're babbling nonsense. It makes no mention of intelligent photons. It does explain how the statistics of two-way energy flow is the basis of the Second Law.

This isn't a discussion. You're a bitter crazy guy on the internet, the modern-day equivalent of a sandwich-board wearer. Flat-earthers look intelligent and rational compared to you.

 

[SSDD]

The century-old field of Statistical Mechanics says you're babbling nonsense. It makes no mention of intelligent photons. It does explain how the statistics of two-way energy flow is the basis of the Second Law.

Nor have I...intelligent photons are entirely the invention of you wackos...

 

[Wuwei]

The century-old field of Statistical Mechanics says you're babbling nonsense. It makes no mention of intelligent photons. It does explain how the statistics of two-way energy flow is the basis of the Second Law.

Nor have I...intelligent photons are entirely the invention of you wackos...

Then explain the physics behind why you think thermal energy from a cold body cannot hit a warmer body even though the net exchange obeys the SLoT.

 

[SSDD]

The century-old field of Statistical Mechanics says you're babbling nonsense. It makes no mention of intelligent photons. It does explain how the statistics of two-way energy flow is the basis of the Second Law.

Nor have I...intelligent photons are entirely the invention of you wackos...

Then explain the physics behind why you think thermal energy from a cold body cannot hit a warmer body even though the net exchange obeys the SLoT.

I am afraid that I can't just as you can't provide any fundamental mechanism for why you think enegy moves in both ways...the fact is that we don't grasp the mechanism of energy exchange...we can observe it, we can measure it, we can make predictions based on our ability to measure it, but we haven't even begun to scratch the surface as to how and why energy moves about...all our observations and measurements are of gross, one way energy movement.

And net exchange doesn't obey the 2nd law of thermodynamics....the 2nd law says that energy will not move spontaneously from cool to warm...net energy exchange requires that some energy move spontaneously from the cool object to the warmer object...there is no stipulation in the 2nd law that says that some energy can move spontaneously from cool to warm so long as most of the energy moves from warm to cool..the 2nd law says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm...that is an absolute statement...further, the 2nd law states that process that involve the transfer of energy are irreversible....irreversible is an absolute statement as well. Further, all natural processes are irreversible. Energy going from warm to cool then back from cool to warm, even if it is a small amount flies in the face of irreversibility.

 

[mamooth]

And net exchange doesn't obey the 2nd law of thermodynamics....

You have no clue about the 2nd Law. The 2nd Law is an observation, not a physical force. Photons don't care about how humans describe reality. They just move freely in every direction, unconcerned about the temperature of objects in their way.

Because of statistics, photons move warm-to-cold more often than they move cold-to-warm, thus the net energy flow is always warm-to-cold. That's why the statistics of two-way energy flow is the basis of the 2nd Law.

Again, century old physics. You're just a crazy guy babbling on the internet.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The century-old field of Statistical Mechanics says you're babbling nonsense. It makes no mention of intelligent photons. It does explain how the statistics of two-way energy flow is the basis of the Second Law.

Nor have I...intelligent photons are entirely the invention of you wackos...

Then explain the physics behind why you think thermal energy from a cold body cannot hit a warmer body even though the net exchange obeys the SLoT.

huh? Are back to your net currency exchange example where the guy with less money gives to the guy with more

 

[CrusaderFrank]

And net exchange doesn't obey the 2nd law of thermodynamics....

You have no clue about the 2nd Law. The 2nd Law is an observation, not a physical force. Photons don't care about how humans describe reality. They just move freely in every direction, unconcerned about the temperature of objects in their way.

Because of statistics, photons move warm-to-cold more often than they move cold-to-warm, thus the net energy flow is always warm-to-cold. That's why the statistics of two-way energy flow is the basis of the 2nd Law.

Again, century old physics. You're just a crazy guy babbling on the internet.

So there's a statistical chance that a bowling ball will float into space upon release rather than head toward the pins.

"This new learning amazes me"

 

[mamooth]

So there's a statistical chance that a bowling ball will float into space upon release rather than head toward the pins.

Yes, but it's so small, it wouldn't happen over the age of the universe, even if the entire universe was filled with bowling balls.

"This new learning amazes me"

And by new, you mean "a century old".

 

[Wuwei]

we can observe it, we can measure it, we can make predictions based on our ability to measure it

That is the whole point. The predictions in QM are accurate to parts per billion or trillion.
Here is why a body at any temperature above zero must radiate energy. The atoms at and near the surface are vibrating with a wide spectrum of wavelengths (Plank's radiation law.) When charges vibrate, they must radiate energy. There is nothing outside that body that can stop atoms from vibrating. There is nothing outside that body that can stop the vibrating atoms from radiating EM energy.

...the 2nd law says that it is not possible for energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm....

NO. The 2nd law means that it is not possible for thermal energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm.

Energy going from warm to cool then back from cool to warm, even if it is a small amount flies in the face of irreversibility.

No. Energy is going both ways simultaneously and is still irreversible. Entropy always increases.

 

[IanC]

Mamooth made an excellent point. The SLoT is just a description. It is not a controlling force or mechanism, just an observation of the probabilities.

 

[IanC]

Wuwei made an excellent point. The emission of radiation is controlled by internal conditions within the substance. You cannot stop radiation except by cooling it to zero Kelvin.

 

[Wuwei]

Mamooth made an excellent point. The SLoT is just a description. It is not a controlling force or mechanism, just an observation of the probabilities.

That is a good point. There is also a distinction between a physics law, and physics theory. Laws are often akin to rules of thumb with no explanation of the mechanism involved. A law is not necessarily immutable.

For example the ideal gas law fails at very high densities or pressures.
van der Waal's equation of state has a more correct atomic theory behind it and is not your simple PV = nRT.

Ohm's law does not account for AC current radiating EM energy.
Maxwell's equations forms the theory behind Ohm's law and does account for EM.

The second law of thermodynamics is a law that is immutable because the theory behind it involves entropy which can be derived from more fundamental principles of statistical mechanics. In the underlying atomic physics, the theory requires radiation exchange. The law itself does not say anything about that mechanism.

Some people here (you know who you are) hold the laws under highest esteem while denigrating the theory behind the law. They are mistaken when they think these simple laws explain everything that happens.

 

[IanC]

Mamooth made an excellent point. The SLoT is just a description. It is not a controlling force or mechanism, just an observation of the probabilities.

That is a good point. There is also a distinction between a physics law, and physics theory. Laws are often akin to rules of thumb with no explanation of the mechanism involved. A law is not necessarily immutable.

For example the ideal gas law fails at very high densities or pressures.
van der Waal's equation of state has a more correct atomic theory behind it and is not your simple PV = nRT.

Ohm's law does not account for AC current radiating EM energy.
Maxwell's equations forms the theory behind Ohm's law and does account for EM.

The second law of thermodynamics is a law that is immutable because the theory behind it involves entropy which can be derived from more fundamental principles of statistical mechanics. In the underlying atomic physics, the theory requires radiation exchange. The law itself does not say anything about that mechanism.

Some people here (you know who you are) hold the laws under highest esteem while denigrating the theory behind the law. They are mistaken when they think these simple laws explain everything that happens.

Exactly.

And the Ideal Gas Law was a perfect example. It comes with a list of assumptions that must be met. It doesn't work at the surface of Venus, but just how high up do you have to go before it does?

Fuzzy boundaries everywhere.

 

[IanC]

Back to the OP.

It still pisses me off that the glacial rebound adjustment has been added to the 'official' SLR. It is imaginary, and has no impact on how far up the shoreline the water will go. It only starts in 1993. If it is so important then why is it not run backwards in time to give the 'official' sea level measurement 100 or 1000 years ago?

The timimg of this adjustment is even more suspicious. When SLR was not tracking with the predictions, the data went offline for three months and came back 'reanalyzed' plus the new adjustment.

Recently the adjustments to sea level records around the Indian Ocean were scrutinized in public, and the discretionary changes were obnoxiously biased in the favoured direction. I sure hope enough of the original data is still in existence to rebuild an accurate dataset when these jokers get tossed out.

 

[Old Rocks]

When did we first have GPS systems capable of measuring the rebound as it happens?

 

[SSDD]

NO. The 2nd law means that it is not possible for thermal energy to move spontaneously from cool to warm.

energy is energy...there is no form of energy that is exempt from the second law..every form of energy from photons to a boulder sitting at the top of a hill must adhere to the second law...

 

[SSDD]

Mamooth made an excellent point. The SLoT is just a description. It is not a controlling force or mechanism, just an observation of the probabilities.

It is an observation of the realities...you really believe there is even the remotest probability that a bowling ball will, spontaneously float away when bowled towards the pins? Even the faintest, most remote probability?