« on: Yesterday at 22:59:39 »
Torturing someone to death because of their religious utterances cannot be considered a crime of greed or lust. What else motivates anyone?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
dinosaur variants can't come back, because there is no ecological niche for them (except in Jurassic Park).There are plenty of tropical swamps that could support almost anything we recognise from the Cretaceous period, including several varieties of politician and government inspector.
That's what I found as experimental results.Told you so.
Ice-water mixture don't maintain homogeneous temperature. Difference in density tends to make bottom part of the bath warmer than the surface.No, difference in temperature makes one part warmer than the other, and as water is denser than ice, the warmer bit sinks to the bottom.
For the benefit of those who don't understand the problem...Who's talking about burning anything? This guy just wants to transport 40 tonnes of hydrogen in one manageable shipment. He could do so by shifting 320 tonnes of liquid methane (or 350 tonnes of ammonia, as you suggested) and extracting the hydrogen at the destination, but however he does it, he will need a barge, not a truck.
Burning methane creates CO2.
There's a difference to idiots. Some are just ignorant, which doesn't imply that they are idiots.Are you familiar with Kruger-Dunning Syndrome? Worth a google: it will amuse you, then horrify you as you recognise it in people with power and influence.
up to three times as much pollen wafting around by the end of the century.But isn't climate change supposed to decimate agriculture? On my planet more pollen = more crops. It's all about sex.
What I was referring to was the greenhouse concentration around 1700
The 'normal' concentration of carbon dioxide (or all green house gasses) is taken from the 1700:s and about 280 ppm.Why is that considered "normal"? It isn't even a historic average. And who measured it to ± 5 parts per million in the 1700s, given that the gas was only identified in 1754 (methane 1778)? And surely the fact that the world was warmer then (which we know from finding plants under retreating glaciers) than in the 1960s, implies that CO2 is not responsible for warming?
And 1.5 Celsius will be passed this decade."And" is not "therefore". What will you do if the temperature continues to increase long after the CO2 level decreases? And who will you blame if the temperature drops before the CO2 level?