NASA Data: Earth Cooled by Half a Degree Celsius From '16-'18 Read Newsmax: Earth Cooled by Half a

Now you get it. Only one problem you are misunderstanding: The scorpion is not me. So why are you still at the back of the scorpion and do not swim on your own, frog? Why are you passive and not active? Why are you not doing something against the frog made climate way of the scorpion instead to do nothing? Worst risk of an active swimming frog: You had helped the Earth to be a better place on a wrong reason to do so. Worst risk of a passive travel on the back of the scorpions climate change: A dead planet. So even in case the climate change would not exist - what's totally wrong - you are on the wrong way.

 

Some frogs are too old
Its a tadpoles world.

 

"Too old" = "dead". A long as you snap flies the world is beautiful. So the world need flies. Who is alive fights for life and not for death. And I do anyway not understand why people think if they are able to do the same with less power this should be a catastrophe. Why? If I have an oil or diesel generator or a generator which works with wood or with sun power - why to drive crazy? A problem is for example still the storage of energy. The technical best idea - unfortunately one of this ideas which are always a little out of the thoughts of the people - are hydrogen cars for example. You could use such a car even in case of power blackout at home. It produces electric energy. It would be easy to produce hydrogen in Australia with sun power. You had not to import oil in this case - and that's perhaps the main problem for some nations and companies. The auto exhaust would be water in case of hydrogen cars. In case of the accumulators for electric cars the USA knows a lot about the future technology natrium (sodium) instead of lithium. One of the problems of the current technology with lithium is it that there exists no recycling and so an and so on and so on. Lots of questions, lost of things to do. Why for heavens sake to live in fear of?

 

OK, I think I finally understand:


It's the AGW Rant Cycle.

 

Very bad post.

 

You took my statement that it would take 1000 years to heat the Earth out of context. What I said is that it would take 1000 years to heat the entire mass of Earth by 1C if all of the solar radiation were used to heat it up. I specifically stated that most of the solar radiation eventually goes back out to space.

Also, when I said it was the oceans and atmosphere heating up I didn't mean to imply those were the only mediums storing excess energy. I just meant that it was the two we focus on the most. The reason for focusing on the atmosphere is because that is what dominates the weather and climate we perceive. The reason for focusing on the ocean is because it is far and away the medium which absorbs the most excess energy and because it is the 2nd most important thing that drives weather and climate. Land and biomass obviously absorb some of the excess energy, but their contribution is negligible relative to the ocean and because their heat fluxes do not impact the climate nearly has much as the ocean. Latent heat of fusion (the melting of ice into water) is also another consideration when analyzing the energy budget in detail, but it too is a negligible relative to the other components of the energy budget. If I have given you the wrong impression of this then that's a total failure on my part. I apologize.

In a nutshell. The biosphere as a whole is heating up. It's just that scientists put emphasis on certain areas of the biosphere depending on the context. They don't just ignore everything like what you're insinuating.

Honestly, I'm confused by this post and this diagram you've posted. Is there something you're not understanding that we might be able to clarify?

 

meh: https://mailchi.mp/7269bd12b475/ins...ming-your-weekly-round-up-142469?e=7534e4ada1

 

Seems like, expatpanama, is brainwashed and breed only to regurgitate lies.

Like a religion?

 

Wouldn't surprise me if he thinks the world is only 6 000 years old.

 

Oh but he's "passionate" about global climate change...

Yet, failed to read my posts. (NASA must be nothing but ****.)

:EDIT:

I'm done (for now).

 

you should worry about your own lack of cognitive abilities before criticizing others...nothing is is more revealing to than someone who posts links to something to supporting evidence which they don't comprehend...it's symptomatic of the Dunning Kruger Effect...

 

There was a launch of hydrogen cars in Sydney last week. And only one fill up station!!.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/i...r/news-story/70718407b2b6a78020d054febd9a5f57

 

Well?

Just be honest.

 

32,000 years ago lived lions in Germany but today there's only one lion man, my avatar. The lion man is an artefact were we can see the first time in history an artificial self-expression of a human being. It expressed itself - better to say expressed a comrade - as a lion. So what do you like to say? Once we started to think - why should we let it be to hope one day mankind will be not any longer a bunch of animals but will really start with the first steps to try to become lovely and reasonable human beings? The problem: Our species - together with the biodiversity of the planet - will have to survive. We have not only to give us a chance - we have to take care for all and every life and to give all and every life a chance to survive. Why? On two reasons: God said so - we are the crown of his creation, we are responsible - and our intelligence says the same: we are part of the biosphere of the planet earth, which is the only life we know in the whole universe.

One problem of our systems of economy is it that lots of people are doing continuously a kind of war around money. Money became such an neurotic idea that lots of people are often only able to think only in structures of money. Costs dominate our ways to think - but not chances. And the "leaders" - better to call them often only "deluders" - of our societies found ways of mass-manipulating of our minds so all open discussions - specially in the English speaking word - degenerated to a kind of war of crazy ideas.

Hydrogen is dangerous. See experiments about oxihydrogen. But how should energy not be dangerous? Energy is energy. Last week a German burned to death in a Tesla in Switzerland after he had an accident. Bad luck. The batteries contain energy. This problem is not really solvable. I don't say hydrogen is the only solution - but it is a very good solution. And I am able to imagine it will be for Australia an extremely good solution, because you are easily able to produce hydrogen on your own in the outback with water from the sea. It's not difficult to build pipelines. And if this all works very clear water will drop everywhere in Australia out of the exhaust pipes of your cars. Your dry country will be thankful.

So you are in an extremely good position. You have a station and you have cars. The worst work is done. Now this system needs growth until it will reach a level of naturalness. The problem now: senseless economic wars and mind manipulating ideologies worldwide. It looks like the USA lost every contact to reality at all. It discusses endless always about the same typical US-American problems. For example evolution vs creation. A totally stupid discussion because creation and evolution are totally different things: evolution is creation but creation not evolution. What we need are good plans - and what we have to do is a lot of work. Then we will survive - including the wombats, our Australian sisters and brothers. Fight the good fight, dear friend. The fight for all and every life.

 

Is that a tactic amongst religious preachers. To lie?

 

If liberal administrators run schools, it's because conservative state governments let them.

 

would we want it any other way?...conservatives are by nature regressive they don't like new ideas/knowledge that disagree with their limited comfort zone...pursuit of knowledge/change/advancement is a progressive trait, without it we'd be still in the stone age...

 

Who said anything about socialism? As for giving things away, I don't see that it makes a great deal of since to have people work when what they can produce isn't worth the cost of training and supervising them even if they don't earn a salary.

 

Liberals don't run schools. @Mac-7 is wrong.

 

that's not the point...educational institutions by nature are progressive, they advance knowledge, conservatives do not...

 

Governors do not micromanage independent school districts

 

American public schools are often run by conservative state governments. That's part of why they're so screwed up.

 

State governments don't have to create local school districts. They could manage public education directly. Their choice...

 

Then why would the rich invest in the robots?

 

Because they get a return on their investment.