Islands Disappear As Ocean Levels Rise

[Crick]

I'm glad you're pleased, even though I suspect it is based solely on a misunderstanding of yours.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm glad you're pleased, even though I suspect it is based solely on a misunderstanding of yours.

If it wasn't for misunderstanding, JC would have no understanding at all.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's what people believe happened.

And yes, there is natural warming and cooling of the Earth. However the warming that is happening now is not natural.

based on what?

Based on the fact that we're pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere like nobody's business.

What's that percentage of gases? Nobodies business doesn't count.

Nobodies business??? What?

dude that's hilarious. you post it and don't know what it means either. Funny.,

No, read. I wrote "nobody's business", you wrote "nobodies business", see the difference? One is possessive, the other is plural of nobody. I don't understand what you wrote because it makes no sense.

 

[Ernie S.]

You idiots know that that has been happening throughout the many milennia? No? Learn something.

You know that you're a fucking moron, ProdFucked?

Sea levels have been relatively stable for thousands of years. Human civilizations and cumulatively billions of people have lived along essentially the same current coastlines for thousands of years. Now that is changing fast. Trillions of dollars of human development....cities, towns, historical sites and monuments, beach resorts, and enormous amounts of other coastal infrastructure....are all going to be under water within just a few decades.

I seem to recall Algore saying that cities and towns would be underwater in a couple of decades........that was 2 decades ago.

I seem to recall that anyone making a flat statement like that should be able to link to where Al Gore said exactly that. Or be branded a liar and a fool.

He predicted a 20 foot rise in sea level in "AN Inconvenient Truth". If you were honest and as informed as you claim, you would have admitted that. Cultist sheep! How I detest them!

 

[Crick]

If you'd care to complete the quote, he says that it "could rise 20 feet in the near future" He never specifies what "the near future" might be. The collapse of the WAIS, rapid melting and glacial acceleration in East Antarctic and the melting of Greenland's ice sheet on top of the sea's continued thermal expansion as temperatures rise, could easily exceed 20 feet of sea level rise within a century.

Denier fools... how I detest them.

 

[jc456]

based on what?

Based on the fact that we're pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere like nobody's business.

What's that percentage of gases? Nobodies business doesn't count.

Nobodies business??? What?

dude that's hilarious. you post it and don't know what it means either. Funny.,

No, read. I wrote "nobody's business", you wrote "nobodies business", see the difference? One is possessive, the other is plural of nobody. I don't understand what you wrote because it makes no sense.

neither does yours.

 

[jc456]

I'm glad you're pleased, even though I suspect it is based solely on a misunderstanding of yours.

If it wasn't for misunderstanding, JC would have no understanding at all.

and then there's that little thing called evidence which you can't seem to produce. funny, me thinks your understanding is limited.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Based on the fact that we're pumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere like nobody's business.

What's that percentage of gases? Nobodies business doesn't count.

Nobodies business??? What?

dude that's hilarious. you post it and don't know what it means either. Funny.,

No, read. I wrote "nobody's business", you wrote "nobodies business", see the difference? One is possessive, the other is plural of nobody. I don't understand what you wrote because it makes no sense.

neither does yours.

Actually mine is grammatically correct. But I guess now you're into safe territory, where you can just talk nonsense instead of actual debate.

 

[jc456]

What's that percentage of gases? Nobodies business doesn't count.

Nobodies business??? What?

dude that's hilarious. you post it and don't know what it means either. Funny.,

No, read. I wrote "nobody's business", you wrote "nobodies business", see the difference? One is possessive, the other is plural of nobody. I don't understand what you wrote because it makes no sense.

neither does yours.

Actually mine is grammatically correct. But I guess now you're into safe territory, where you can just talk nonsense instead of actual debate.

what does it mean? I asked and you still haven't answered. How does one measure Nobody's business? grammatically correct to appease the punk.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm glad you're pleased, even though I suspect it is based solely on a misunderstanding of yours.

If it wasn't for misunderstanding, JC would have no understanding at all.

and then there's that little thing called evidence which you can't seem to produce. funny, me thinks your understanding is limited.

 

[jc456]

I'm glad you're pleased, even though I suspect it is based solely on a misunderstanding of yours.

If it wasn't for misunderstanding, JC would have no understanding at all.

and then there's that little thing called evidence which you can't seem to produce. funny, me thinks your understanding is limited.

View attachment 76966

so where's energy in that formula. That formula is based off temperature and temperature is heat, and heat does not flow from cold to hot. hmmmm, seems you have a dilemma.

 

[jc456]

I'm glad you're pleased, even though I suspect it is based solely on a misunderstanding of yours.

If it wasn't for misunderstanding, JC would have no understanding at all.

and then there's that little thing called evidence which you can't seem to produce. funny, me thinks your understanding is limited.

View attachment 76966

funny, I found this too:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/cao-jinan/jcao_common-errors-stefan-boltzman_aug2012.pdf

"Common errors in the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation
Jinan Cao
ABSTRACT
This paper identifies technical errors in the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in current climate research. Analysis was carried out for several statements (conclusions) that were derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to demonstrate how these technical errors can affect our understanding and interpretation of the earth climate system."
.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm glad you're pleased, even though I suspect it is based solely on a misunderstanding of yours.

If it wasn't for misunderstanding, JC would have no understanding at all.

and then there's that little thing called evidence which you can't seem to produce. funny, me thinks your understanding is limited.

View attachment 76966

so where's energy in that formula. That formula is based off temperature and temperature is heat, and heat does not flow from cold to hot. hmmmm, seems you have a dilemma.

so where's energy in that formula. That formula is based off temperature and temperature is heat, and heat does not flow from cold to hot. hmmmm, seems you have a dilemma

Who claimed heat flows from cold to hot? Where?
We're talking about radiation. Radiation which is moving energy around.

Regardless, we all know that while energy may transfer from a cold body to a warmer one, HEAT cannot, unless some external work is put into the system somehow.

“Greenhouse Effect” is Real, According to Blog

That's from the source you provided yesterday.
It seems you have a dilemma.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

I'm glad you're pleased, even though I suspect it is based solely on a misunderstanding of yours.

If it wasn't for misunderstanding, JC would have no understanding at all.

and then there's that little thing called evidence which you can't seem to produce. funny, me thinks your understanding is limited.

View attachment 76966

funny, I found this too:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/cao-jinan/jcao_common-errors-stefan-boltzman_aug2012.pdf

"Common errors in the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation
Jinan Cao
ABSTRACT
This paper identifies technical errors in the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in current climate research. Analysis was carried out for several statements (conclusions) that were derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to demonstrate how these technical errors can affect our understanding and interpretation of the earth climate system."
.

Thanks. Nothing there helps your claim that CO2 magically only emits toward space.

 

[jc456]

I'm glad you're pleased, even though I suspect it is based solely on a misunderstanding of yours.

If it wasn't for misunderstanding, JC would have no understanding at all.

and then there's that little thing called evidence which you can't seem to produce. funny, me thinks your understanding is limited.

View attachment 76966

so where's energy in that formula. That formula is based off temperature and temperature is heat, and heat does not flow from cold to hot. hmmmm, seems you have a dilemma.

so where's energy in that formula. That formula is based off temperature and temperature is heat, and heat does not flow from cold to hot. hmmmm, seems you have a dilemma

Who claimed heat flows from cold to hot? Where?
We're talking about radiation. Radiation which is moving energy around.

Regardless, we all know that while energy may transfer from a cold body to a warmer one, HEAT cannot, unless some external work is put into the system somehow.

“Greenhouse Effect” is Real, According to Blog

That's from the source you provided yesterday.
It seems you have a dilemma.

why do I have a dilemma, I don't have any transfer issues. heat leaves the surface out to space. Takes a ride on gases as it leaves. so?

To be clear, the link wasn't mine, mine was a different title, the input the same, but, just so the record is correct. Your link.

Plus, I posted the excerpt from the link. So I still don't get where I have a dilemma. I don't claim AGW, I don't claim feedback. I claim natural processes heat and cool the earth as a result of sunlight and the makeup of the planet.

 

[jc456]

I'm glad you're pleased, even though I suspect it is based solely on a misunderstanding of yours.

If it wasn't for misunderstanding, JC would have no understanding at all.

and then there's that little thing called evidence which you can't seem to produce. funny, me thinks your understanding is limited.

View attachment 76966

funny, I found this too:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/cao-jinan/jcao_common-errors-stefan-boltzman_aug2012.pdf

"Common errors in the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation
Jinan Cao
ABSTRACT
This paper identifies technical errors in the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in current climate research. Analysis was carried out for several statements (conclusions) that were derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to demonstrate how these technical errors can affect our understanding and interpretation of the earth climate system."
.

Thanks. Nothing there helps your claim that CO2 magically only emits toward space.

I merely represented the mistake you make using the equation. I don't have to agree with all of it, I can agree that they know that the equation doesn't get you what you think it gets you. I'm ok with that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If it wasn't for misunderstanding, JC would have no understanding at all.

and then there's that little thing called evidence which you can't seem to produce. funny, me thinks your understanding is limited.

View attachment 76966

so where's energy in that formula. That formula is based off temperature and temperature is heat, and heat does not flow from cold to hot. hmmmm, seems you have a dilemma.

so where's energy in that formula. That formula is based off temperature and temperature is heat, and heat does not flow from cold to hot. hmmmm, seems you have a dilemma

Who claimed heat flows from cold to hot? Where?
We're talking about radiation. Radiation which is moving energy around.

Regardless, we all know that while energy may transfer from a cold body to a warmer one, HEAT cannot, unless some external work is put into the system somehow.

“Greenhouse Effect” is Real, According to Blog

That's from the source you provided yesterday.
It seems you have a dilemma.

why do I have a dilemma, I don't have any transfer issues. heat leaves the surface out to space. Takes a ride on gases as it leaves. so?

To be clear, the link wasn't mine, mine was a different title, the input the same, but, just so the record is correct. Your link.

Plus, I posted the excerpt from the link. So I still don't get where I have a dilemma. I don't claim AGW, I don't claim feedback. I claim natural processes heat and cool the earth as a result of sunlight and the makeup of the planet.

why do I have a dilemma,

Because your source from yesterday admits that energy can travel from a cold body to a warmer one.
The opposite of what you've claimed.

heat leaves the surface out to space.

Obviously.

Takes a ride on gases as it leaves. so?

GHGs slow its exit. And?

To be clear, the link wasn't mine

To be clear, the author is the same.

I claim natural processes heat and cool the earth as a result of sunlight and the makeup of the planet

Yes, the Greenhouse effect is a natural process.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If it wasn't for misunderstanding, JC would have no understanding at all.

and then there's that little thing called evidence which you can't seem to produce. funny, me thinks your understanding is limited.

View attachment 76966

funny, I found this too:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/cao-jinan/jcao_common-errors-stefan-boltzman_aug2012.pdf

"Common errors in the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation
Jinan Cao
ABSTRACT
This paper identifies technical errors in the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in current climate research. Analysis was carried out for several statements (conclusions) that were derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to demonstrate how these technical errors can affect our understanding and interpretation of the earth climate system."
.

Thanks. Nothing there helps your claim that CO2 magically only emits toward space.

I merely represented the mistake you make using the equation. I don't have to agree with all of it, I can agree that they know that the equation doesn't get you what you think it gets you. I'm ok with that.

I merely represented the mistake you make using the equation.

I made no mistake using the equation.

I don't have to agree with all of it, I can agree that they know that the equation doesn't get you what you think it gets you.

You think the equation somehow only allows radiation to travel upward.

 

[jc456]

and then there's that little thing called evidence which you can't seem to produce. funny, me thinks your understanding is limited.

View attachment 76966

so where's energy in that formula. That formula is based off temperature and temperature is heat, and heat does not flow from cold to hot. hmmmm, seems you have a dilemma.

so where's energy in that formula. That formula is based off temperature and temperature is heat, and heat does not flow from cold to hot. hmmmm, seems you have a dilemma

Who claimed heat flows from cold to hot? Where?
We're talking about radiation. Radiation which is moving energy around.

Regardless, we all know that while energy may transfer from a cold body to a warmer one, HEAT cannot, unless some external work is put into the system somehow.

“Greenhouse Effect” is Real, According to Blog

That's from the source you provided yesterday.
It seems you have a dilemma.

why do I have a dilemma, I don't have any transfer issues. heat leaves the surface out to space. Takes a ride on gases as it leaves. so?

To be clear, the link wasn't mine, mine was a different title, the input the same, but, just so the record is correct. Your link.

Plus, I posted the excerpt from the link. So I still don't get where I have a dilemma. I don't claim AGW, I don't claim feedback. I claim natural processes heat and cool the earth as a result of sunlight and the makeup of the planet.

why do I have a dilemma,

Because your source from yesterday admits that energy can travel from a cold body to a warmer one.
The opposite of what you've claimed.

heat leaves the surface out to space.

Obviously.

Takes a ride on gases as it leaves. so?

GHGs slow its exit. And?

To be clear, the link wasn't mine

To be clear, the author is the same.

I claim natural processes heat and cool the earth as a result of sunlight and the makeup of the planet

Yes, the Greenhouse effect is a natural process.

To be clear, the author is the same.

To be clear it wasn't mine. I give two shits the article was the guy. I didn't post it. And please be careful stating I posted it.

 

[jc456]

and then there's that little thing called evidence which you can't seem to produce. funny, me thinks your understanding is limited.

View attachment 76966

funny, I found this too:

http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/guest/cao-jinan/jcao_common-errors-stefan-boltzman_aug2012.pdf

"Common errors in the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation
Jinan Cao
ABSTRACT
This paper identifies technical errors in the use of the Stefan-Boltzmann equation in current climate research. Analysis was carried out for several statements (conclusions) that were derived from the Stefan-Boltzmann equation to demonstrate how these technical errors can affect our understanding and interpretation of the earth climate system."
.

Thanks. Nothing there helps your claim that CO2 magically only emits toward space.

I merely represented the mistake you make using the equation. I don't have to agree with all of it, I can agree that they know that the equation doesn't get you what you think it gets you. I'm ok with that.

I merely represented the mistake you make using the equation.

I made no mistake using the equation.

I don't have to agree with all of it, I can agree that they know that the equation doesn't get you what you think it gets you.

You think the equation somehow only allows radiation to travel upward.

You think the equation somehow only allows radiation to travel upward
yep. the only thing you've produced is a potential on the surface. That's it.