Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Well, then you are scientifically illiterate so it isn't surprising you have trouble. Evaporate might be a more apt term.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...e-global-warming-venus-ocean-climate-science/
"In the past few years, however, physicists have been training supercomputers on the lowly water molecule, calculating its properties from first principlesand finding that it absorbs more radiation at more wavelengths than they'd realized before. In a paper published this week in Nature Geosciences, those calculations have rippled into a simple climate model. The paper's conclusion contains this slightly unsettling sentence: "The runaway greenhouse may be much easier to initiate than previously thought.""
.....
"What my results show is that if you put about ten times as much carbon dioxide in the atmosphere as you would get from burning all the coal, oil, and gasabout 30,000 parts per millionthen you could cause a runaway greenhouse today. So burning all the fossil fuels won't give us a runaway greenhouse. "
So, it seems a bit iffy.
Well, then you are scientifically illiterate so it isn't surprising you have trouble. Evaporate might be a more apt term.
Hansen is scientifically illiterate, just because he said the oceans could boil?
You should tell him yourself.
Well, I don't generally watch video. I am a reader. So I have no idea what the video says.
You shouldn't worry your pretty head about it though. AWG will be a disaster well before that occurs, if at all.
The realist issues are species habitat changes, drougth, and excessive precipitation. Maybe coastline erosion.
Hopefully the permafrost melt won't release too much methane.
If you are looking for definitive amswers, you migh want to stick to accounting.
I won't even touch on the guy who personally altered over 5000 global warming entries to do away with any of the skeptical arguments, so yes, wiki is unreliable and biased.
Ah yes, the William Connelly conspiracy theory. All denialists are required to chant it. It's Based on Lawrence Solomon's wacky fabrications. It is an interesting illustration of how conspiracy theories sweep through the denialosphere. Because this one reinforces their sense of victimhood, they believe it with all their little hearts, and nothing will ever convince them otherwise.
And yes, the story is BS. That kind of goes without saying. I could say more, but it would be more fun to get Westwall to double down on it first.
Sure it was..... You losers are so easy to manipulate!
How Wikipedias green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles
How Wikipedia?s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles
The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm.
The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.
The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world Wikipedia in the wholesale rewriting of this history.
Read more at LiveLeak.com - UK Green MP William Connolley - Wikipedia?s climate doctor
Recently, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee determined that William M. Connolley has, on a number of occasions misused his administrator tools by acting while involved and, as a consequence, William M. Connolleys administrative privileges are revoked. [Link: en.wikipedia.org/.../Abd-William_M._Connolley]
Global Warming
Issues with Wikipedia
In general, Wikipedia provides good information on various subjects. However, when it comes to Global Warming, the quality goes down considerably.
The main problem is that the articles push a single point of view ... very strongly. The "rules" are that new information can not be added unless it is published in a peer reviewed journal. Well, for something this controversial, that is a good rule. However, these guys cheat - even when it is in a journal, and even when written by their heroes, these guys remove anything that does not agree with their preconceived position. Really.
There is way too much to say - it is not worth my time to write it all down. This page just gives a few examples.
Global Warming - Issues with Wikipedia
Know-alls - In Depth - theage.com.au
A good example of William M. Connolley?s work on Wikipedia. | Wikipedia Watch
And on and on....
But the ice is melting in Greenland. It's been demonstrated. The question is, if it's melting now, and we have no alternative but to continue putting more megatons of GHGs into the atmosphere, what's to limit the melting?
Horeshit. I haven't seen any convincing evidence of that.
Study finds Greenland rebounding fast in response to ice loss - implications?
Greenland bedrock rebounding fast as ice departs - earthquake risk? - Fairfax Climate Watch
June | 2012 | Dr. Steve Best
Are you just stupid on purpose?
NASA is shut down but Google has archived alot of images at
https://www.google.com/search?q=gre...noaa.gov%2Fdetect%2Fice-glacier.shtml;540;270
The last time they were free of ice was 20 million years ago. Because of Continental drif and thei current locations of thee land masses, that can't happen any longer. Because of the circum polar current, Atarctica is climactically isolated from the rest of the world. Warm water can't reach it. That wasn't the case when it was attached to South America.
But the ice is melting in Greenland. It's been demonstrated. The question is, if it's melting now, and we have no alternative but to continue putting more megatons of GHGs into the atmosphere, what's to limit the melting?
Horeshit. I haven't seen any convincing evidence of that.
How would you characterize Arctic ice extents and mass trends since the beginning of satellite data? I know you fellows are all really excited about this season's improved melt, but do you actually think you've got enough data to announce some kind of turn-around? I mean, what do you think is happening now?
Only the most deluded nutburger warmist cult member believes the ice sheets on Greenland and Antarctica are going to melt.
The evidence supporting what you want to be true is?
Try the IPCC report AR5, for one.
Well, then you are scientifically illiterate so it isn't surprising you have trouble. Evaporate might be a more apt term.
Hansen is scientifically illiterate, just because he said the oceans could boil?
You should tell him yourself.
Well, I don't generally watch video. I am a reader. So I have no idea what the video says.
You shouldn't worry your pretty head about it though. AWG will be a disaster well before that occurs, if at all.
The realist issues are species habitat changes, drougth, and excessive precipitation. Maybe coastline erosion.
Hopefully the permafrost melt won't release too much methane.
If you are looking for definitive amswers, you migh want to stick to accounting.
In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."
Ohhh, the Venus syndrome. Sounds scary, quick, let's spend trillions on inefficient energy.
How would you characterize Arctic ice extents and mass trends since the beginning of satellite data? I know you fellows are all really excited about this season's improved melt, but do you actually think you've got enough data to announce some kind of turn-around? I mean, what do you think is happening now?
It expanded by 60% - there was no "melt"...
Well, I don't generally watch video. I am a reader. So I have no idea what the video says.
You shouldn't worry your pretty head about it though. AWG will be a disaster well before that occurs, if at all.
The realist issues are species habitat changes, drougth, and excessive precipitation. Maybe coastline erosion.
Hopefully the permafrost melt won't release too much methane.
If you are looking for definitive amswers, you migh want to stick to accounting.
In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."
Ohhh, the Venus syndrome. Sounds scary, quick, let's spend trillions on inefficient energy.
How can fuel-less, waste-less energy be inefficient?
In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."
Ohhh, the Venus syndrome. Sounds scary, quick, let's spend trillions on inefficient energy.
How can fuel-less, waste-less energy be inefficient?
If you think there's no waste running cars off of batteries, then you're an ignoramus. By the time the power actually reaches the road, 90% of it has been wasted. Then you have to consider all the money spent on infrastructure to deliver that 10% to the wheels. There's the solar plant, the transmission lines, the charging stations.
No waste there, right?
How can fuel-less, waste-less energy be inefficient?
If you think there's no waste running cars off of batteries, then you're an ignoramus. By the time the power actually reaches the road, 90% of it has been wasted. Then you have to consider all the money spent on infrastructure to deliver that 10% to the wheels. There's the solar plant, the transmission lines, the charging stations.
No waste there, right?
What's being wasted? Something that's free, sustainable, and available with no consequences.
"He Defrauded Me With Science"
What's all the the big commotion
It snowed just yesterday
And the rising of the ocean
Is only dramatic overplay
They're defrauding me with science
Defrauding me with science!
And ignoring simple history
When he's flying his Learjet
Defrauding me with science - Science
They say he's leaving a footprint
Science
Science
But it's all a big promotion
When it snowed just yesterday
And I can see no rising of the ocean
On the weak and old they prey
But he defrauded me with science
He defrauded me with science!
And disregarded simple meteorology
When Gore is flying ever nearer
Defrauding me with science-science
Science
I can see Al Jazeera
Defrauding me with science-science
Science
I thought he had such devotion
But now it seems he's mocking me
He sold out the Arctic Ocean
To pump and dump Current Tv
He defrauded me with science
He defrauded me with science!
And got off on a technicality
Good God Al Gore-
You're pitiful
I don't believe it
There he goes again
He's hidden his dossier
And I must get a FOIA
To see his inner secrets
And his little pet tricks
It's simple harmonic motion
So when it snowed just yesterday
And the rising of the ocean
A cycle repeated every day
Mmm but he defrauded me with science
He defrauded me with science!
And failed in philanthropy
He defrauded me - with science
He defrauded me with
In his book Storms of my Grandchildren, noted climate scientist James Hansen issued the following warning: "f we burn all reserves of oil, gas, and coal, there is a substantial chance we will initiate the runaway greenhouse. If we also burn the tar sands and tar shale, I believe the Venus syndrome is a dead certainty."
Ohhh, the Venus syndrome. Sounds scary, quick, let's spend trillions on inefficient energy.
How can fuel-less, waste-less energy be inefficient?
If you think there's no waste running cars off of batteries, then you're an ignoramus. By the time the power actually reaches the road, 90% of it has been wasted. Then you have to consider all the money spent on infrastructure to deliver that 10% to the wheels. There's the solar plant, the transmission lines, the charging stations.
No waste there, right?
How can fuel-less, waste-less energy be inefficient?
If you think there's no waste running cars off of batteries, then you're an ignoramus. By the time the power actually reaches the road, 90% of it has been wasted. Then you have to consider all the money spent on infrastructure to deliver that 10% to the wheels. There's the solar plant, the transmission lines, the charging stations.
No waste there, right?
What's the comparable figure for gasoline?
Denialists have their backs to the wall. They have been fully exposed and their cult inflicted lies just don't fly in public any more.
They're sort of like flat earther's. They're laughing stock. They're the only ones left falling for the cult 's propaganda.
Denialists have their backs to the wall. They have been fully exposed and their cult inflicted lies just don't fly in public any more.
They're sort of like flat earther's. They're laughing stock. They're the only ones left falling for the cult 's propaganda.
Ran out of arguments, did you?
Denialists have their backs to the wall. They have been fully exposed and their cult inflicted lies just don't fly in public any more.
They're sort of like flat earther's. They're laughing stock. They're the only ones left falling for the cult 's propaganda.
Ran out of arguments, did you?
Not at all. Science won. Politics lost. Next time bet on a fleeter horse. Or a horse rather than a jackass.
