NewyBluey


























  1. Plus ever since we stuck a bunch of metal things in orbit that are powered by solar panels, we've got a really good way to measure the sun's output.

  2. The variation of the earths magnetic field, that is now changing rapidly and the change rate is increasing, also affects the solar radiation that the earth receives.

  3. So you think the variation of the earths magnetic field does not affect solar radiation received on earth.

  4. Correct! But Mars has an atmosphere, but is colder than can be explained by just being further away. So what accounts for the difference?

  5. What about the atmosphere could be different that would explain the greater ability to retain heat?

  6. I’m answering the question of why nobody listens to the news. My video of the news lying is why nobody listens to the news.

  7. This bloke just rants and raves. He isn't interested in reasoned discussion. I think he supports the MSM because of their support of climate change alarmism.

  8. Your "statement" was for 2000 to 2010, which is not the last decade. This has been pointed out to you repeatedly

  9. And l accepted that. But since then you have promoted that l'm a liar.

  10. I conceded that the last decade did not have a negative trend and l explained why. The last eight years do though. That was befor you promoted that l was a liar.

  11. Remember when Howard "stopped the boats" and he got severely criticised from within and outside of the country. Since then other countries are saying that they wish their politicians would do the same. (A case l think of reasons lagging ideology).

  12. "Stopping the boats" Was not a success. Media turned it into a bigger issue then it was. Led to us having Inhumane detention centers run by LNP donors, that they profit massively from. Almost all illegal immigrants arrive in Australia by plane anyway.

  13. No. Climate "skeptics" are as intelligent as flat earthers. Worse actually, because flat eartherism doesn't actually lead to total catastrophe.

  14. Nor will a typical cyclical increase of a few degrees of warming after a century or two of cold weather

  15. Not true, and I don't know how to explain this to you if you don't have enough background in radiative energy transfer to see that it's self-evident, but here's a try.

  16. They don't violate the second law, because the second law doesn't say what you think it says.

  17. I'd suggest learning how to swim: maybe building a houseboat would be more useful.

  18. Soon no. Continuing worsening yes. 2 meter is a big rise but probably will happen.

  19. 100 m happened in the recent geological past.

  20. Oh sure. Depends what one thinks is soon.

  21. A mega rich supporter of renewables in Australia recently flaimed in an interview that the states with the highest proportion of renewables had the lowest costs. Sky News presented the actual data that showed the opposite was the case. That is renewables are more expensive.

  22. I wonder what caused Jacinta Ardern to call it quits. Probably to spend more time with her family l suppose.

  23. Yep. I was being sarcastic, but it was directed to all politicians who pretend this is a reason, not just her.

  24. The content of an atmosphere changes how it behaves with solar radiation.

  25. The question is why the system radiates about 15 % out and 85% back down. When after absorption re-mission is randomly in all directions and suggests this should be 50% either way.

  26. Likely because there’s an atmosphere and what the atmosphere consists of.

  27. It doesn't matter what generates the radiation, it's the frequency of that radiation that determines how the molecules behave. And re-emission is in a random direction with every direction represented equally.

  28. Two years ago, this (correctly) would have been the last sub on Reddit to trust Elon Musk.

  29. This may be a valid concern. But l think at least he is appearing to be going in the right direction and l suspect skeptics will keep an eye on progress.

  30. These clearly are controlled opposition people who Musk is allowing back on Twitter. And, to add to that, I’m beginning to realize there are a lot of controlled opposition people on this very subreddit.

  31. He seemed to have been the alarmist's messiah a few ears ago, now he is the villain.

  32. My statement is accurate l. Easy to check as well.

  33. World wide, air pollution is currently the biggest human killer

  34. That argument is a corruption of changes in solar radiance are insignificant, which is historically false, but changes in solar radiance for the past few decades haven't been driving force behind the warming trend.

  35. Others do consider that solar variation is a significant influence on the earths climate. Particularly, where the protection of the earths magnetic field is changing and waning significantly. Feasibly a weakening of the earths magnetic field is an increase of solar intensity that the earth receives.

  36. Probably an improvement over using mercury instead.

  37. Humidity os another variable. And more important than temperature

  38. No, plants get virtually all water from soil, in addition crop protein production decreases as temperature increases

  39. Soils do not dry in high humidity. Look at wet and dry seasons in the tropics.

  40. I think we're saying the same thing. At the worst, the cost of extraction exceeds demand. This occurs if suitable, economical tech can replace it, or if the commodity is just too expensive for traditional use. Fur coats are an example. The supply, though expensive, remains. From my perspective, that's a long way off with petroleum, but the marketplace is constantly innovating. I do not consider subsidized renewables as part if the marketplace.

  41. The jet stream has only been effected by human emitted CO2 and never behaved like this before.