It is pointless because a solar-powered commercial airliner is impossible according to the laws of physics. It’s a waste of time, money, and media attention given that it is well established by now that the only feasible zero emission commercial aircraft would be powered by cryogenic liquid hydrogen.
OrangePendeks
orangependeks
A denier of lies, yes.
Slicing and dicing time periods to support an ideology, and obscure the overall picture, is an intentional strategy to confuse the public.
Again, it’s not a matter of being a climate scientist, it’s a matter of basic data comprehension. The same problem persists in the latest article you linked me to:
All of my three observations are true, it’s not a matter of deferment.
Did you read my comment?
There was a hiatus per the definition of a hiatus provided by Wikipedia. We can argue semantics but that’s always a waste of time.
Sorry.
Except...we don’t have the technology to do that at a reasonable cost.
It makes sense once you understand but I never would have given the sun’s gravitational field a 2nd thought.
I don’t believe the warming accelerated in the hiatus period at all. At most it maintained a constant rate. And I assume that io9 is not filled with simpletons that are not competent enough to look up the definition of the Global Warming Hiatus:
At this point we’re arguing semantics, which is pretty lame.
The 0-700 meter ocean temperature has also experienced a pause, so it’s not just the surface temperature. This, combined with the pause in surface temperatures, is what is being referred to collectively as the Global Warming Hiatus, and it absolutely did happen. That does not mean that Global Warming has stopped, but…
At least one thing in your post that is incorrect is you equate average surface temperature with the average temperature of the entire climate system.
It’s the Smoothing Industrial Complex!!!
Thank you.
Did I say anything to the contrary?
These two don’t look too similar either, do they?
Ignore my last comment, it is wrong.