2018 Jan 10, 2:26pm
20,358 views 104 comments
« First « Previous Comments 65 - 104 of 104 Last »
In thermo, work has a specific meaning. It refers to mechanical work. He accounted for solar radiation and infrared emissions by referring to net heat absorption. Internal energy (U) includes chemical energy so photosynthesis is included. Evaporation doesn't change U. It takes energy to evaporate, but that doesn't change U of the system. It results in a temperature drop (relative to temperature in absence of evaporation).
This should take care of most of the criticisms.
Malcolm saysThis should take care of most of the criticisms.Malcom, can we classify you as a greenhouse-effect denier and a physics denier?
I'm curious why I should watch a near 1 hour video of a person who is not a scientist in the field, has no published work on it, and is presumably a self-appointed hobbiest "expert," ..... and from that, you believe I will somehow get all the answers I need. Seriously? What about all the actual scientists working in the field? I can't get the answers from them? They wouldn't be a better source? Yes or no?
Malcom, can we classify you as a greenhouse-effect denier and a physics denier?
ear 1 hour video of a person who is not a scientist in the field
Shit, even the title sounds religious, like a Chick Tract.
I love how being a geologist and someone who worked on the software on weather models, among other impressive credentials, is so easily dismissed as not a scientist in the field. He is certainly qualified to review their methodology.
I love how being a geologist...
Hey, maybe you could also explain why you think having a BS in geology is some kind of identifier for expertise in the field of climate change.
Great, two years of Greenland's ice sheet growing. That's all the data we need to firmly establish that climate change is a hoax!
If it was shrinking for two years, the Warming Alarmists would be shrieking like maniacs.
Two years isn't enough. It's the same as that idiot Jim Inhofe bringing a snowball into Congress and declaring climate change a hoax. Just because Greenland has improved doesn't mean temperatures elsewhere haven't risen, on average.
Global Warming Chickenlittles don't even wait until a season is over, if it points to shrinking ice or anything else "Warming".
Ah, more unreported climate change news. More ice than normal in Greenland.https://electroverse.net/greenland-has-gained-510-billion-tons-of-ice-over-the-last-year/
Flora and fauna all over the planet keeps moving toward the poles steadily year after year. Do you suppose that means anything?
bob2356 saysFlora and fauna all over the planet keeps moving toward the poles steadily year after year. Do you suppose that means anything?Does it mean we are not going to freeze or starve to death from another Ice Age?Living in SoCal for the last 20+ years has turned me into a pussy. I can't imagine living in shitty cold weather ever again. Human's can survive warmer weather better than colder weather.I'd much rather have a warmer and greener planet, even if that means we lose some coastline.
The time scale that the coastline would erode away is insigniicant compared to the amount of time it takes to build a city. If you think about it, people toss out these horrific predictions of us losing cities. IMO, it's overly alarmist, but at the same time, they talk about 100 to 200 years down the road. What did San Francisco look like 200 years ago?
And cities like Amsterdam managed to figure out a way to live below sea level using technology that is hundreds of years old.
The time scale that the coastline would erode away is insigniicant compared to the amount of time it takes to build a city.
updates stopped in 2 August 2016
theoakman saysThe time scale that the coastline would erode away is insigniicant compared to the amount of time it takes to build a city.What are your numbers?The sea is currently rising at 1/8 of 1 inch per year or less than a foot per century.So when do you think the north pole will melt, Florida will drown, and the wetbulb deaths will start?
From what I see from most Democrats that preach AGW, they never talk about solutions. It is like a religion where belief is the most important aspect. Just argue the case for AGW to the heretics, and vote Democrat to show you care.
Dude, why do we need to wait until this particular season is over? You think one good winter is gonna change everything?
...and pay over $100 billion USD per year to kleptocracies in the southern hemisphere, and the Clinton Foundation, none of which would enable managing the climate. That is the part that looks most like a scam: money or your life, and the money won't actually save your life, regardless of whether there is a danger. To the contrary, taxing the scientifically advanced countries to subsidize backwards kleptocracies would actually delay the development of geo-engineering that might enable managing the climate.
Please write firstname.lastname@example.org if you would like to register to comment