What's the difference between a cold front and a POLAR VORTEX?

[Winston]

The question is not whether the climate would be changing without human action. As you have repeatedly condescendingly pointed out, although it had no bearing on the topic, it is trivially true that the climate is always changing.

But the evidence that the current climate change ... which (based on the geological record and on simple calculations about energy balance) is taking place at a rate that is extremely unusually rapid ... is caused by humans is plentiful, First, there is the known physical mechanism that ... if it is not causing accelerated greenhouse warming ... almost everything we know about physics, astronomy, and chemistry is wrong. Second, there is the fact that the current climate change was forecast in extremely accurate detail decades in advance, even though the forecast was for a huge departure from patterns that have held for hundreds or thousands of years. Third, there is the fact that no climate model that does not include anthropogenic forcings can be fit to the data.

The question is will the World end in 12 years if we all do not do exactly what Cortez the schizophrenic says......

Next bufoon

 

[EatTheRich]

The question is will the World end in 12 years if we all do not do exactly what Cortez the schizophrenic says......

Next bufoon

The IPCC, summarizing articles in the most-cited peer-reviewed journals, estimates that we have until about 2030 to begin cutting fossil fuel emissions to keep warming to about 1.5 degrees. This means we’ll still see more droughts, more landslides, more expensive food, more deaths from heat waves, floods and hurricanes, millions of climate refugees, and mass extinction. But we might not also see poison-gas storms, ice floods, acid floods, daily fire tornadoes, daily night-time blasts of freezing winds, most of the Earth’s cities underwater, mandatory nomadism, most of the Earth uninhabitable by humans, and death of the rain forests. Of course, the IPCC has consistently underestimated the rapidity and impact of climate change.

 

[Winston]

The IPCC, summarizing articles in the most-cited peer-reviewed journals, estimates that we have until about 2030 to begin cutting fossil fuel emissions to keep warming to about 1.5 degrees. This means we’ll still see more droughts, more landslides, more expensive food, more deaths from heat waves, floods and hurricanes, millions of climate refugees, and mass extinction. But we might not also see poison-gas storms, ice floods, acid floods, daily fire tornadoes, daily night-time blasts of freezing winds, most of the Earth’s cities underwater, mandatory nomadism, most of the Earth uninhabitable by humans, and death of the rain forests. Of course, the IPCC has consistently underestimated the rapidity and impact of climate change.

You forgot to mention the big wave that will cover Manhattan, like in the day after tomorrow.

Seriously just as I said you and Cortez both need similar medications

But you follow the leader like any champion parrot would

 

[EatTheRich]

You forgot to mention the big wave that will cover Manhattan, like in the day after tomorrow.

Seriously just as I said you and Cortez both need similar medications

But you follow the leader like any champion parrot would

“Most of Earth’s cities underwater” ... did you miss that? It’ll be inevitable at 3-4 degrees warming.

 

[Winston]

“Most of Earth’s cities underwater” ... did you miss that? It’ll be inevitable at 3-4 degrees warming.

Try Zoloft, if that doesn't work mix in some Lithium, Prosak works too but a lot of it is actually placebo. Thorazine might help as well, at least if you down it with high enough proof grain alcohol

 

[EatTheRich]

Try Zoloft, if that doesn't work mix in some Lithium, Prosak works too but a lot of it is actually placebo. Thorazine might help as well, at least if you down it with high enough proof grain alcohol

I am not interested in the tools you use to avoid reality. I am interested in keeping irresponsible folks like you from destroying our future.

 

[Winston]

I am not interested in the tools you use to avoid reality. I am interested in keeping irresponsible folks like you from destroying our future.

Yet all the food you eat is delivered to market by diesel. Your home is heated with petroleum or uranium. Seriously you are likely one of the imbeciles who thinks that Teslas do not pollute..... Tip, Teslas burn oil, gas, or U2, If wind power is used for 1 percent, that's a lot, of dead eagles and owls under the turbines

Real green kiddy

 

[EatTheRich]

Yet all the food you eat is delivered to market by diesel. Your home is heated with petroleum or uranium. Seriously you are likely one of the imbeciles who thinks that Teslas do not pollute..... Tip, Teslas burn oil, gas, or U2, If wind power is used for 1 percent, that's a lot, of dead eagles and owls under the turbines

Real green kiddy

1. Diesel is much more fuel-efficient than gasoline, and food could be delivered by train or (often) grown locally.
2. My home is heated with natural gas, which is considerably less carbon-intensive than petroleum.
3. Uranium is a very climate-friendly fuel source that could be widely used if not for the oil industry’s chokehold on the economy.
4. Nearly all carbon emissions come from a handful of industrial polluters who could quickly be converted to sources like nuclear power with very little impact to consumers or taxpayers. Mass consumer energy usage accounts for a minuscule fraction of emissions. Cars are a bit more but by rationally organizing our society we could cut down on individual use of cars while encouraging electric cars which could be fueled by responsible power sources such as nuclear.
5. I’m not a big fan of wind. Even if cats kill orders of magnitudes more birds than wind, wind turbines require a lot of power (which currently comes from fossil fuels) to erect and they require backup (which again routinely comes from fossil fuels these days).

 

[Winston]

1. Diesel is much more fuel-efficient than gasoline, and food could be delivered by train or (often) grown locally.
2. My home is heated with natural gas, which is considerably less carbon-intensive than petroleum.
3. Uranium is a very climate-friendly fuel source that could be widely used if not for the oil industry’s chokehold on the economy.
4. Nearly all carbon emissions come from a handful of industrial polluters who could quickly be converted to sources like nuclear power with very little impact to consumers or taxpayers. Mass consumer energy usage accounts for a minuscule fraction of emissions. Cars are a bit more but by rationally organizing our society we could cut down on individual use of cars while encouraging electric cars which could be fueled by responsible power sources such as nuclear.
5. I’m not a big fan of wind. Even if cats kill orders of magnitudes more birds than wind, wind turbines require a lot of power (which currently comes from fossil fuels) to erect and they require backup (which again routinely comes from fossil fuels these days).

The pycho babbles but does not know that trains run on diesel as well, the electric ones run on coal, gas, oil or U2, can you figure out how? I doubt it

Kid in all seriousness you can not process information in a logical manner. The more words you use to try to be precise, the clearer your mental dysfunction becomes, which is why I entertain people like you, as you are exposing your idiocy to the World, step by step day by day

True story, my wife went to start her car last week because it was cold outside. When she came back in she made me feel her frozen hair. She was outside for under 2 minutes.

Global warming, fer sure

OMMFG Uranium is climate friendly, why don't you go to Chernobyl or Fukoshima and pick some up to dig into your garden as mulch. It grows real big tomatoes, make salads, get some hats too because you won't have any hair at some point

 

[EatTheRich]

The pycho babbles but does not know that trains run on diesel as well, the electric ones run on coal, gas, oil or U2, can you figure out how? I doubt it

Kid in all seriousness you can not process information in a logical manner. The more words you use to try to be precise, the clearer your mental dysfunction becomes, which is why I entertain people like you, as you are exposing your idiocy to the World, step by step day by day

True story, my wife went to start her car last week because it was cold outside. When she came back in she made me feel her frozen hair. She was outside for under 2 minutes.

Global warming, fer sure

OMMFG Uranium is climate friendly, why don't you go to Chernobyl or Fukoshima and pick some up to dig into your garden as mulch. It grows real big tomatoes, make salads, get some hats too because you won't have any hair at some point

Yes, you thinking an anecdote about its once being cold outside disproves the measured rise in average temperature representing a very abrupt departure from a longstanding equilibrium and predicted to within hundredths of a degree decades in advance certainly makes me look like an idiot.

As does your anti-nuclear alarmism. Per unit energy produced, nuclear is safer than anything except hydro and hundreds of times safer than oil or coal. Much cheaper too!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/amp/

 

[Winston]

Yes, you thinking an anecdote about its once being cold outside disproves the measured rise in average temperature representing a very abrupt departure from a longstanding equilibrium and predicted to within hundredths of a degree decades in advance certainly makes me look like an idiot.

As does your anti-nuclear alarmism. Per unit energy produced, nuclear is safer than anything except hydro and hundreds of times safer than oil or coal. Much cheaper too!
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/jamesconca/2012/06/10/energys-deathprint-a-price-always-paid/amp/

You are a kid, seriously when I was your age any and every environmental activist meant that they were anti nuke. Now retards like you believe that radiation is safe because a properly operating reactor typically emits steam only. Then there is reality

Yup, environmentally friendly to schizzos like U

 

[redtide]

You can call the large majority of humanity who believe evidence over ideology a “little sicko cult” as many times as you want and it won’t change the evidence or the reality.

your concept of a large majority is interesting especially since your cult needs to maintain a full on propaganda and lobbyist team

 

[redtide]

The IPCC, summarizing articles in the most-cited peer-reviewed journals, estimates that we have until about 2030 to begin cutting fossil fuel emissions to keep warming to about 1.5 degrees. This means we’ll still see more droughts, more landslides, more expensive food, more deaths from heat waves, floods and hurricanes, millions of climate refugees, and mass extinction. But we might not also see poison-gas storms, ice floods, acid floods, daily fire tornadoes, daily night-time blasts of freezing winds, most of the Earth’s cities underwater, mandatory nomadism, most of the Earth uninhabitable by humans, and death of the rain forests. Of course, the IPCC has consistently underestimated the rapidity and impact of climate change.

so the IPCC which is the gorebal warmings version of the catholics Vatican. LOL, your actually quoting it as fact

 

[EatTheRich]

so the IPCC which is the gorebal warmings version of the catholics Vatican. LOL, your actually quoting it as fact

The difference, the Catholic Church goes by church councils, the pope, and the Bible. The IPCC goes by peer-reviewed research in the most-cited science journals.

 

[EatTheRich]

your concept of a large majority is interesting especially since your cult needs to maintain a full on propaganda and lobbyist team

Far more is spent muddying the waters on climate change than promoting the successful theory

 

[EatTheRich]

You are a kid, seriously when I was your age any and every environmental activist meant that they were anti nuke. Now retards like you believe that radiation is safe because a properly operating reactor typically emits steam only. Then there is reality

Yup, environmentally friendly to schizzos like U

Mutations have always happened. The amount of radiation you can get even from a serious nuclear accident like Three Mile Island is minuscule, in fact far less than the background radiation you get every year. And such accidents are rare and with proper oversight would be more rare. Meanwhile coal accidents are more common and deadlier.

 

[Winston]

Mutations have always happened. The amount of radiation you can get even from a serious nuclear accident like Three Mile Island is minuscule, in fact far less than the background radiation you get every year. And such accidents are rare and with proper oversight would be more rare. Meanwhile coal accidents are more common and deadlier.

The photos were from Chernobyl reject. You are actually living your entire life in a kind of denial. As for three mile island, the amount of radiation released was never disclosed to the public. Except to simpletons who believe that Oswald did it alone.

 

[redtide]

Far more is spent muddying the waters on climate change than promoting the successful theory

agreed, so why don't you spend less time muddying the waters by promoting your little cult

 

[EatTheRich]

The photos were from Chernobyl reject. You are actually living your entire life in a kind of denial. As for three mile island, the amount of radiation released was never disclosed to the public. Except to simpletons who believe that Oswald did it alone.

Yes, it was. And measured by countless amateurs with Geiger counters all over.

Chernobyl was, after all, the worst nuclear accident in history. It was entirely preventable and caused by the profit-driven decision to use graphite as a neutron moderator, making water a neutron absorber, a feature not found in modern plant designs, and to design control rods that for the first few seconds increase rather than decrease reactivity, also something never done today, and by the deliberate disabling of safety features and operation at dangerously low levels of power generation. Chernobyl killed an estimated 46 people (compared with 1549 for the Benxihu coal disaster) and radiation, unlike other forms of pollution, is moderated by the radioactivity as the most unstable isotopes quickly degenerate into more stable (less dangerous to humans) chemicals, and as all radioactive isotopes eventually transform themselves by emitting radiation into non-radioactive isotopes.

 

[Winston]

Far more is spent muddying the waters on climate change than promoting the successful theory

What exactly is a successful theory?