Weather station in Antarctica records high of 65, the continent's hottest temperature ever

So you figure they went extinct because Earth got too hot after the meteor strike?

The consensus view seems to be just the opposite.

No they are not. Electrons have measurable mass, photons do not; electron spin is ±1/2, photon spin is 1; electrons, being negatively charged, are normally bound to atomic nuclei, whereas photons, being uncharged, never are.

 

Thanks for once again proving you have no evidence for your flat earther conclusions

Mate.

 

What are you talking about? The source is in italics my comments are not. Is it really that hard to differentiate?

 

Yes.

Question

Do you know your opinion is worthless without being able to prove anything the source said is incorrect?

Mate?

 

I was talking basics about solar plasma being ejected from the sun.

 

Fusion is turning Hydrogen into Helium.
Fission is turning Helium into Hydrogen.
The sun does both.

The sun emits Hydrogen protons during a coronal mass ejection associated with sun spots. Theres always some protons emitted, but a cme is a specific event.

July, 23 2012...


The Ozone Hole 2012
The event in the video depleted the Ozone layer for months....

 

Thats a educated guess based on estimates.

 

Hydrogen & oxygen (and thus water molecules) are the most abondant in our universe. Hell, you have moons who are mostly composed of water in our own solar system... It sure didn't come from earth.

 

All the water on Earth came from the interaction between the solar wind and Earths oxygen rich atmosphere.
Every planet in the solar system interacts with the solar wind.

 

All of if it is—every single apocalyptic proclamation by every doomsayer that ever lived, and every one those proclamations wrong, including the latest hysteria over coal, gas, and nuclear power.

 

Yep.

 

Then hold down Control and + until it isn't for you.

 

I see you stopped crowing about the "40% is not 100%," number, but did you notice that your own "real science" link also exposed the idiocy of that talking point? Here, I'll show you.

If 54% of anthropomorphic CO2 is absorbed by natural carbon sinks, that leaves "about 40%" to remain in the atmosphere.

 

Here is another parts of your "real science," all of which can be found at a *******n wordpress website, that backs up the claim that " approximately all of the accumulated CO2 over the last 150 years is man made."

Now, the bolded might be hard to follow, so let me slow it down. The ANNUAL INCREASE in CO2..is PROPORTIONAL to the ANNUAL AMOUNT of CO2 released by HUMAN ACTIVITIES...46%.

So again, your "real science" finds that the amount of CO2 which is increasing yearly is caused by the amount of annual CO2 emissions from humans which is not absorbed by natural carbon sinks.

And this is the point where your "real science" stops relying on any actual citation to a reputable source and resorts to telling us what "the point is," and that point - according to some morons incapable of understanding their data - is that the amount of CO2 produced by humans and which remains in the atmosphere is less than the variability seen by natural climate production on a year to year basis and thus....

....

Oh wait, I see it. CO2 naturally accumulates in the upper atmosphere and this results in long term climatic trends. Well no ****. Thanks Captain Obvious.

Of course nature produces (and the atmosphere retains) some CO2 over a period of time and of course that accumulation or decrease results in climatic changes over time. The problem is that the amount humans are contributing, the amount that is remaining in the atmosphere is occurring at a rate which is extremely fast by geological standards.

And yes, the post I cited does back that claim up. And here's how I know that you know it. Instead of actually quoting it, you immediately crow into declaring victory because it doesnt say some quote that you have already done a "control + F" to ensure is not in the post.

 

I provided you actual responses to the critiques posed against Cook. I don't need to provide "data," that comes from Cook and the other studies. I apparently, do, need to explain how that data was reached because you and the critics you choose to listen to fail to comprehend some pretty basic aspects of statistics or methodologies.

You wanted sources for the "other studies which obtained the 97+% plus number through different methodologies and samples," here they are again:

J. Cook, et al, "Consensus on consensus: a synthesis of consensus estimates on human-caused global warming," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 11 No. 4, (13 April 2016); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/11/4/048002

Quotation from page 6: "The number of papers rejecting AGW [Anthropogenic, or human-caused, Global Warming] is a miniscule proportion of the published research, with the percentage slightly decreasing over time. Among papers expressing a position on AGW, an overwhelming percentage (97.2% based on self-ratings, 97.1% based on abstract ratings) endorses the scientific consensus on AGW.”

J. Cook, et al, "Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the scientific literature," Environmental Research Letters Vol. 8 No. 2, (15 May 2013); DOI:10.1088/1748-9326/8/2/024024

Quotation from page 3: "Among abstracts that expressed a position on AGW, 97.1% endorsed the scientific consensus. Among scientists who expressed a position on AGW in their abstract, 98.4% endorsed the consensus.”

W. R. L. Anderegg, “Expert Credibility in Climate Change,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Vol. 107 No. 27, 12107-12109 (21 June 2010); DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107.

P. T. Doran & M. K. Zimmerman, "Examining the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change," Eos Transactions American Geophysical Union Vol. 90 Issue 3 (2009), 22; DOI: 10.1029/2009EO030002.

N. Oreskes, “Beyond the Ivory Tower: The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science Vol. 306 no. 5702, p. 1686 (3 December 2004); DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

Powell, James (November 20, 2019). "Scientists Reach 100% Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming". Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society: 027046761988626.

 

What the hole in the Ozone layer has to do with the theory that the aurora borealis is the sun creating water on Earth, I have zero ****ing clue.

Listen, you are wrong and you have zero credentials or credibility on this front (given the fact that you said "Photons are Electrons" and "Protons are Hydrogen Atoms"), but if you know of a single source that backs you up on the "aurora borealis creates water" nonsense, then I will look it over.

 

Do you think the aurora borealis creates water?

 

In what way? If it's supposed to be 50C in Dubai, but only 38C in the gulf, what value to the average of that have?

 

An initialism is not incoherent.

As usual, you are attempting to ignore things, as if that magickally makes them go away.

 

No water, just wonder and dazzlement.

 

No, I do not believe they went extinct because it was too hot (although of course many did die from the heat and violence of the initial explosion). And perhaps I should have been more clear. I implied that global warming could be linked to asteroid strikes, but I should have said climate change can be linked to asteroid strikes.

 

I get you dont understand. I never said the aurora borealis creates water.

Protons from the sun deplete the Ozone layer by converting it into water.

Solar Storms Destroy Ozone, Study Reconfirms

"A lot of impacts on ozone are very subtle and happen over long periods of time," said Charles Jackman, a researcher at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center's Laboratory for Atmospheres and lead author of the study. "But when these solar proton events occur you can see immediately a change in the atmosphere, so you have a clear cause and effect."

 

It is definitely on my bucket list of things to go see in person.

 

This is the case for these folks, who, should their carefully minded "constants" be challenged, would find that the majority of their work product is garbage. And now we can add this simple example to the list of reasons why the models currently chugging out the doom and gloom continue to never be right...

 

I don't see any line in that quote about "converting it into water."