Prepare For Even More Volatile Weather in 2017 (engadget.com) 364
An anonymous shares a report on Engadget: Ice isn't just great for keeping your drinks cool at parties, it also helps keep our planet cool by reflecting some of the sun's heat away. But thanks to our steadfast refusal to address climate change, there's going to be a lot less ice in the Arctic next year. Scientists are observing record high temperatures in the Arctic circle that's likely to lead to record low levels of ice coverage in 2017. Long story short, we're currently melting the wall that's helped stop the seas boiling for all of these years. Normally, by November, the global temperature has dropped sufficiently that ice can form again in the Arctic ready for the following summer. This year, however, climate scientists saw a spike to -7 celsius (19f) -- 15 degrees celsius (27f) warmer than usual. While the readings have fluctuated since November 11, they're expected to rocket up again in the next few days.
Anti-science bullshit is the new normal here (Score:5, Insightful)
"Long story short, we're currently melting the wall that's helped stop the seas boiling for all of these years."
Yes, that bullshit is what passes for "science" on Slashdot these days and if you dare to point out that bullshit is bullshit you can be blacklisted as an "anti-science" nazi for failing to show proper piety to the religion of Global Warming -- oops I mean "Climate Change".
Re:Anti-science bullshit is the new normal here (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Anti-science bullshit is the new normal here (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't worry. We already know that there will be no more snow by 2010, the telegraph told us so. Oh, and we're going to run out of food by 1980, and the end of natural gas is here too...courtesy of 1985.
Re:Anti-science bullshit is the new normal here (Score:5, Insightful)
Should I continue with the tropes from the other side?
Re: Anti-science bullshit is the new normal here (Score:4, Insightful)
Speaking of failed predictions... (Score:3)
Here is a list of 107 failed predictions made by alarmists:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20... [wattsupwiththat.com]
But for some people, 107 failed predictions isn't enough to destroy the credibility of the alarmists. One wonders how many failed predictions it will take until the holdouts think "hmm, perhaps the whole thing is not credible."
Re:No, they didn't tell you that. (Score:4, Informative)
Re:No, they didn't tell you that. (Score:4, Informative)
What argument? I just provided data. The greenhouse theory is basic physics understood even back in the 1800s: http://www.rsc.org/images/Arrh... [rsc.org].
That the world is warming is confirmed by direct measurement [woodfortrees.org], and satellite measurement [woodfortrees.org]. We can directly observer the impacts of that warming on the cryosphere [greatwhitecon.info], and sea level [wordpress.com]. We don't need to use pan evaporation rate as a proxy for global temperatures when we have direct measurements. This is especially true since PER makes a very poor thermometer - it's affected by a number of factors other than temperature including humidity, rain fall, drought dispersion, solar radiation, and wind. A change in any of these other factors would render it useless as a thermometer.
The seas are NOT going to boil. (Score:5, Informative)
Anyone with a cursory understanding of climate over the geologic ages knows that ice at both poles is rare:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_and_icehouse_Earth [wikipedia.org]
Humans as a species do not have any serious ability to harm the planet. We can easily make it completely unsuitable for human life, however.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, that bullshit is what passes for "science" on Slashdot these days
To be fair, that bullshit is what passes for "science" on engadget.
It was an internet reporter trying to make a quip and failing. To emphasize: no scientist ever said this.
and if you dare to point out that bullshit is bullshit you can be blacklisted as an "anti-science" nazi for failing to show proper piety to the religion of Global Warming -- oops I mean "Climate Change".
Right now your post pointing out that this is bullshit is moderated at "+5 Insightful," which is as high as it gets. (I would have moderated it "informative", but it is also insightful, I guess). So, no, when you correct wrong science with correct science, you apparently get modded up.
You might try that more: correcting wrong scienc
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I'm just posting this so I can be in the same thread as emil (695), who registered his Slashdot account in 1947, using a stack of punched cards..
Punched Cards (Score:3)
I actually wrote COBOL programs on punch cards in high school. The deck of cards, in the right order, would get a rubber band and go in a bin for overnight processing. The print-out of the run came back the next school day. Fortran was a bit easier, as we got to use teletype terminals with built-in acoustic coupplers.
Later, working for Rockwell, I wrote some X-Windows software for pulling punched cards with attached microfiche.
Re: (Score:2)
I think I saw something like that in the Smithsonian. Those were the diesel-powered computers that you had to crank to start, right?
I'm just joshing, of course. It's an honor to reply to someone who is the living embodiment of our digital history. Merry Christmas, emil.
Re: (Score:3)
With a uid that low, I can only assume you are speaking from past experience.
Re: (Score:3)
Which is irrelevant. Human civilization did not exist during the age of the dinosaurs or when trilobites crawled along the ocean floor.
re: human race wiped out? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fear-mongering that we're going to successfully wipe ourselves out by not immediately embracing solar or wind energy, or electric cars, or whatever the faux solution-du-jour is ..... That's as much B.S. as this sensationalist garbage that our oceans will begin boiling if the polar ice melts.
If we succeed in destroying ourselves as a species on Earth, it will probably be with a nuclear war. But even that is a situation that essentially peaked in the 1980's, and nations have taken steps to back-pedal from it since then.
Re: human race wiped out? (Score:4, Insightful)
If we succeed in destroying ourselves as a species on Earth, it will probably be with a nuclear war. But even that is a situation that essentially peaked in the 1980's, and nations have taken steps to back-pedal from it since then.
Well, climate change and nuclear war are not necessarily independent. With Himalaya glaciers shrinking, water supply for India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and even China will become a lot less stable. There are 3 billion people in these countries, and 3 of the 4 states already have nuclear weapons. If they start to seriously compete for limited water resources, things may easily become very ugly. There is a reason why China is in Tibet, and why India and Pakistan are fighting a slow war [wikipedia.org] over what currently is an extremely inhospitable ice desert.
And what do you think will happen to the stability of the region if a few tens of millions of (mostly Muslim) Bangladeshis will be forced to flee into India because sea level rise is going to flood significant parts of the Bengal delta [wikipedia.org], one of the most fertile and most densely populated areas of the planet?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
These days, a degree just means "I agree with the politics of the doctrinal committee"
Re: (Score:2)
Not as far as the planet or nature are concerned (Score:2)
The Earth will keep right on zooming around the sun, new life forms will evolve and populate the planet. Or not. Pretty much the same as it has been for the last 2B years.
Sure, it's bad for humans and other flora and fauna that are contemporaneous with humans. The world kept on going after the Great Oxygenation Event caused the first mass extinction 2.3 billion years ago. It kept on going through 20 or so mass extinction events [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extinction_event]. It'll go on after humans.
Re:The seas are NOT going to boil. (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't need to fake a low id....
Re:The seas are NOT going to boil. (Score:4, Funny)
Re:The seas are NOT going to boil. (Score:4, Insightful)
For the same reason we get older, the older we get, the less we speak, because we know it's in vain unless there's something actually worth contributing with. Been there, done that - ring any bells?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Memory sucks (Score:3)
https://xkcd.com/1321/ [xkcd.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed. If slashdot is going to venture out of tech space, at least they could do is stick to science. This is just a dumbed down scaremonger piece. It has no place in scientific discussion. (other than maybe to point out what is NOT science)
Yes. But now you know ice isn't just useful for drinks at parties!!
Re: (Score:3)
Reduce albedo by melting ice, what do you think is going to happen?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I never met a phor I didn't like.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
You think that disproves the post? Are you aware of what volatile means?
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it means you look at the data that supports your position, and ignore any contrary data.
Like, for example, that the planet is STILL in an Ice Age, and is merely between Continental Glacial Advances. Which are due Real Soon Now*
(* "Real Soon Now" is in geologic terms, meaning anytime in the next 10,000 or so years. . .. )
Re: (Score:3)
If there's another ice age coming, it's thousands of years away. Human-caused global warming is already having significant effects, and by the end of the century not even people repeating moronic memes they read on the Internet will have much ability to deny reality.
If you think parts of the High Arctic being near 0C at the end of December is somehow a good thing, then you're a fucking idiot.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Long story short, we're currently melting the wall that's helped stop the seas boiling for all of these years."
Yes, that bullshit is what passes for "science" on Slashdot these days.
I, for one, am looking forwards to going to the ocean and being able to cook pasta in the ocean.
I appreciate the message of the submitter, but he perhaps should have been careful not to over exaggerate. I don't expect any of my descendants for the next umpteen generations to witness "boiling seas on earth". Perhaps it will happen one day, but even climate change models of the most extreme don't predict that, and we would need to all live in protective habitats long before that. We can't tolerate temperat
Stick to the facts (Score:2)
Yes, I'm afraid I have to agree on this. It's a nice quip, but the oceans are not going to boil.
Look, global warming guys, global warming is real, the science is well established, but scaremongering hyperbole is not helping you . I know you think it's funny, and you know that nobody really believes that there is a possibility that the oceans are going to boil, but you are just giving ammunition to the deniers.
Stop it. Stick to facts-- the kind that are real.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I'm afraid I have to agree on this. It's a nice quip, but the oceans are not going to boil.
Look, global warming guys, global warming is real, the science is well established, but scaremongering hyperbole is not helping you . I know you think it's funny, and you know that nobody really believes that there is a possibility that the oceans are going to boil, but you are just giving ammunition to the deniers.
Stop it. Stick to facts-- the kind that are real.
Scientists generally do stick to the facts. But they have no control over some of the breathless hyperbole (on both sides of the issue) that comes from click-hungry journalists. It's important to know when one is talking and the other is not.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-science? It's an Engadget blog post. Engadget is peer-reviewed as fuck. I think the blogger who posted it has 9 PhDs.
Sarcasm? (Score:2)
Anti-science? It's an Engadget blog post. Engadget is peer-reviewed as fuck. I think the blogger who posted it has 9 PhDs.
I think you're trying to be sarcastic, but you are apparently unaware that sarcasm is hard to distinguish on the internet, and becomes completely invisible against the background on slashdot comments.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Anti-science? It's an Engadget blog post. Engadget is peer-reviewed as fuck. I think the blogger who posted it has 9 PhDs.
The author's bio, from TFA:
After training to be an Intellectual Property lawyer, Dan abandoned a promising career in financial services to sit at home and play with gadgets. He lives in Norwich with his wife, his books and far too many opinions on British TV comedy. One day, if he's very, very lucky, he'll live out his dream to become the Executive Producer of Doctor Who before retiring to Radio 4.
So, apparently not even one PhD. Perhaps an undergraduate degree in a science field to prepare him for an IP la
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Yes, global warming is all a hoax, just like round Earth theory and the Apollo moon landings.
Tell us, what other hoaxes do you think more people should be aware of?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
religion of Global Warming -- oops I mean "Climate Change".
In science, we have this thing called "revising our position based on new evidence and/or new understandings". I know that to someone who believes "everything I know is right, and anything that calls that into question must be wrong" this can seem like a bad thing, but it is actually a good thing. It allowed us to learn that the Earth revolves around the sun, not the other way around. It allowed us to learn that there are in fact things smaller than an atom. It allowed us to learn how traits are inherit
Re: (Score:2)
"failing to show proper piety to the religion of Global Warming -- oops I mean "Climate Change""
Frank Luntz, is that you?
Re: (Score:2)
Let me know when the "Climate Change" scientists start buying farms in Greenland and the Northern Territories. That tundra should be very rich soil for growing wheat if they are correct.
Tundra Farming (Score:2)
Have you ever seen tundra? Know anything about it? No? Thought not.
Tundra is a type of biome where the ground is substantially underlain by permafrost. In the Arctic, we build homes on pilings because otherwise the ground will melt. Water being more dense than ice, melting means subsidence -- you get a lake or a bog, not farmland. This is one reason why Alaska has some 3 million lakes. The soil layer overall tends to be thin, and being that it is permanently frozen most of the time, it's not actually what y
Ridiculous (Score:5, Funny)
Trump won - get over it. He's going to give us the best weather ever.
Address? Nothing to address, we're told. (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, it's just you.
You have a RIGHT to low electricity prices, damn the consequences.
You have RIGHT to an unobstructed view.
You MUST be a special snowflake. Except we don't have snowflakes anymore....
And don't conflate climate change with your incompetent government. You can have both quite handily.
Re: (Score:2)
Because of this climate change hysteria my electricity bill more than doubled in just a few years (despite more than thousand dollars upgrades into the "green" appliances etc.) and my heating bills will go up at least 30% on January 1st.
Do you understand the difference between correlation and causation? It seems likely the answer is no.
Because your claim of climate change driving up your electricity prices would be valid only if:
Re: (Score:2)
So you'd rather just offload the costs on to the next generation? Because in fifty years, the costs you pay now will be nothing compared to what local and larger scale economies will have to pay out.
And really, the bigger problem in Ontario is absurd electricity contracts, not green energy. That's just Postmedia's talking point, because it has whored its newspaper chain out to be the voice of the fossil fuel industry.
Uhmmm... "boiling"? Uh... no. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
But boiling away the oceans of the world is not going to happen anytime before the sun starts to run out of its fuel.
That's not the current best guess. It's expected to happen in about a billion years, where as the sun isn't expected to enter the red giant phase for 5 billion years, and not expected to run out of fuel for 8.
Not Worried (Score:5, Funny)
I'm not worried anymore. Trump said he'll be tough on volatile weather. I know it will be the most serene weather we've ever had.
And if it doesn't cooperate, he'll build the biggest wall you've ever seen on the east border of California. That will kill two birds with one stone. (Not that trump has only one stone...He definitely has two and they're the biggest and best stones you've ever seen).
You're not helping (Score:5, Insightful)
Stupid ass hyperbole (seas boiling) is not helping.
Increases in CO2 are real, impacts to global temperature due to CO2 are real, impacts to life (human or otherwise, positive and negative) due to rising temperatures and ocean levels are real.
Hollywood-esque hyperbole just confuses the issue and makes it trivial to lump all information into the same cesspool of misinformation.
Re: (Score:2)
Lay the blame on Engadget. Nothing in the story they cite as a source says anything as hyperbolic as "boiling".
Of course their source is the New York Times, so the story must be a ploy on the part of the Coastal Elites to oppress, confuse, and disadvantage the little/regular/ordinary Trump people.
Oh good, easier to drill for Arctic oil! (Score:2, Insightful)
Super sciency lead in (Score:5, Insightful)
"Ice isn't just great for keeping your drinks cool at parties..."
Was this written for 3rd-graders?
Thanks for the credible scientific lead in. I mean, I had NO IDEA that ice was good for anything beyond keeping my drinks cold at parties. And now it turns out it's got something or other to do with the planet? Well I'll be damned. Can't we just go to the mini-mart and buy a few more bags?
Anybody (Score:2)
Anybody like to share my popcorn?
Much Better Article (Score:4, Insightful)
It's only 35F degrees higher than normal in some parts of the Artic.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/12... [nytimes.com]
Seriously, Engadget for science news?
Again? Same alarmist story every year... (Score:2)
“2006: Expect Another Big Hurricane Year Says NOAA”—headline, MongaBay .com, May 22, 2006 .com, Aug. 7, 2008
“NOAA Predicts Above Normal 2007 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration press release, May 23, 2007
“NOAA Increases Expectancy for Above-Normal 2008 Atlantic Hurricane Season”—headline, gCaptain
“Forecasters: 2009 to Bring ‘Above Average’ Hurricane Season”—headline, CNN
Re:yeah right (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
the claims after Katrina hit 11 years ago that THE GULF COAST would see hurricane after hurricane, claiming there would be 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen per year
I just did a Google News search constrained from 8/20/2005 to 9/30/2005 and I couldn't find an article saying that. Can you please link to some?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:You lied (Score:5, Informative)
Story 1 [nature.com]
This article says nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year. Just that as there is a observable and measurable correlation between oceans warming and hurricanes growing more frequent and severe.
Story 2 [scientificamerican.com]
This article mostly talks about the fact that hurricanes may become more intense and that a category 6 will eventually have to be created if that happens because hurricanes with windspeed ranging from 257.5 kph to 407 kph are being lumped together into category 5. It goes on to speculate that dumping the category system might be a better idea than creating a category 6. Towards the end it even says: This oscillation means the Atlantic is expected to cool in the future, obscuring links among hurricane activity and global warming. Perhaps counterintuitively, recent computer modeling studies predict fewer tropical cyclones if the ocean heats up further as a result of global warming. But they also predict intensification of the ones that do form, albeit with limited confidence. Frequency drops by 6 to 34 percent this century, according to 2010 review article in Nature Geoscience, whereas intensity rises 2 to 11 percent. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.) , i.e. fewer hurricanes but the ones we'll get will be more severe. Nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year.
Story 3 [independent.co.uk]
The independent isn't really a scientific source but all this piece says is that somebody found evidence that warmer oceans seem to be linked to an increase in hurricane frequency and that in a warm year hurricanes are twice as likely as in a cold year. The real news here is that somebody found a way to extract data about hurricanes from old measurements made before the satellite age. They say nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year.
Story 4 [sciencenordic.com]
Still nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year. It does talk about more hurricanes but the frequency is nothing like you claim: ”If this trend continues, it is realistic to expect a ten-fold increase in hurricanes like Katrina. That amounts to once every two years,”
Story 5 [climatecentral.org]
And yet again nothing about the Gulf coast being hit by 3, 4, maybe over half a dozen hurricanes per year. This guy talks about improvements in computer modelling since 2005 and seems to be making the case that global hurricane frequency will not increase but that the severity of the hurricanes we do get will increase. I.e. about the same number of hurricanes but they'll be more destructive.
Yea, you did a search.
Found all these in less than 1 minute, and everyone voted you up because they want you to be right, but obviously you are not. I like the one claiming Category 6 hurricanes will be hitting any day now.
Bonus [alternet.org] speech by Al Gore saying the same thing.
Read that long winded piece and it is mostly a regurgitation of d
Re: (Score:2)
"haven't been any hurricanes for 10 years"
Funniest shit I've read all week. Couldn't even bother to go to www.google.com to verify that one before you dumped it out there on the internet?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: yeah right (Score:5, Funny)
Are you positive that those trees fell down due to "wind"? Correlation does not equal causation you know. Maybe those trees were just tired. Or, maybe they got drunk and passed out. Quit blaming everything on this "wind" hocus-pocus.
Re: (Score:2)
Hurricane Sandy happened in October 2012 ... $75 billion in damages and at least 233 people dead along the storm's path.
Re: (Score:2)
No.
"Sandy developed from a tropical wave in the western Caribbean Sea on October 22, quickly strengthened, and was upgraded to Tropical Storm Sandy six hours later. Sandy moved slowly northward toward the Greater Antilles and gradually intensified. On October 24, Sandy became a hurricane, made landfall near Kingston, Jamaica, re-emerged a few hours later into the Caribbean Sea and strengthened into a Category 2 hurricane. On October 25, Sandy hit Cuba as a Category 3 hurricane, then weakened to a Category 1
Re: (Score:2)
Sandy got to Category 3.
You also neglect the Pacific, which has had some significant typhoons recently.
In 2011 there was a typhoon which knocked out a significant amount of hard drive manufacturing capacity. The Phillipines got hit by two typhoons in a week in 2016.
You can keep splitting hairs, but OP's (who is also AC) assertion is demonstratably false, just as the claims of alarmists are. Too bad people can't seem to have rational discussions any longer, or more recently, will just make stuff up and keep
Re: (Score:2)
Also a great campaign strategy.
BIGLY
Re: (Score:2)
Irrespective of the category of the storm, the financial impact of the storm places it pretty high on the "economic impact" chart.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
The title of the fucking post is about weather, the content of the post is about weather, so what are you even on about.
Re: (Score:2)
No, they are mixing climate and weather together. Intentionally. So what is THAT about?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Really ? Kindly explain why it gets cooler on a cloudless night. Heat RADIATES, after all. . .
Re: (Score:2)
I would also point out that a thermos DOES radiate away heat. In fact it is the only way a thermos loses (or gains) heat to equalize temperature of
Re: (Score:2)
Really ? Kindly explain why it gets cooler on a cloudless night. Heat RADIATES, after all. . .
In general, overnight low temperatures are rising faster than the overall global average temperature.
Why? Because adding CO2 blocks more of that RADIATING heat from escaping to space.
(Of course, the science isn't "settled" on that yet. The laws of thermodynamics are just a theory, after all.)
Re: (Score:2)
and we keep adding heat
Not really. That's not how greenhouse gasses work. They trap incoming heat by preventing it from re-radiating. The net heat input from fossil fuel use over the entire planet is down in the noise level compared to incoming solar energy.
This is why the no-science public needs to chill out, STFU and quit getting whipped into a frenzy by people trying to leverage AGW for political gains. We understand the basic principles, but are still far away from useful predictive models that could be used to evaluate the
Re:We live in a thermos (Score:2)
and we keep adding heat
Not really. That's not how greenhouse gasses work. They trap incoming heat by preventing it from re-radiating.
...which is exactly how a Thermos keeps things warm (with the exception that a thermos works by reflection, while the greenhouse effect works by absorption and reradiation). The metaphor "we live in a thermos" has some accuracy to it.
The net heat input from fossil fuel use over the entire planet is down in the noise level compared to incoming solar energy.
Greenhouse warming isn't due to heat produced directly from fossil fuels, it's due to the greenhouse effect produced from the carbon dioxide. You're right that the natural greenhouse effect is larger than the component due to human-produced greenhouse gases-- about twenty tim
Re: (Score:2)
No we are not far away from useful predictive models. Every model produced in the last quarter century has shown warming. Yes the precise timelines are hard, and one big flaw was that until recently we didn't fully understand the oceans' ability to absorb heat, but that's how science works.
There is absolutely no doubt that we are warming the planet and that if we cannot restrain CO2 emissions and start bringing them down very soon, we will cross the red line where the worst case scenarios begin playing out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:A theory I'd love to see tested. (Score:4, Informative)
Have you ever seen the sun? It is far enough away to essentially be considered a point light source. There is no significant difference in the amount of insolation between the hemispheres, except for the fact that the earth is closer during the southern hemisphere's summer, causing the summers there to be sunnier and the winters darker than in the northern hemisphere. Overall, southern hemisphere insolation is higher.
Re: (Score:2)
oh god not this bs again.
Re: (Score:2)
Emails unearthed during the investigation “show a sequence of events leading to a premeditated scheme by senior DoE employees ‘to squash the prospects of Senate support'” for the radiation act, a move that lawmakers claim was meant to help advance President Obama’s own climate change goals.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is this related to weather or climate?
The current anthropogenic climate change doctrine is that the single greatest contributor to global temperature is the level of CO2 in the atmosphere, and suggesting that the the level of irradiation the Earth gets from the Sun is a larger component of planetary temperature than any atmospheric condition is heresy of the blackest stripe, which must be cut out root and branch, because Obama has repeatedly declared that he doesn't want anyone not fully onboard with the pravda of CO2-driven AGC in his adminis
Re: (Score:2)
The main takeaway from the article seems reasonable to me: this year's Arctic winter is warmer than usual, so we can expect less ice as a result, and this will have knock-on effects.
Yes, the "seas boiling" bit is hyperbolic, but is any worse than claiming that we'll forget about climate change in "11 seconds"?
Re: (Score:2)
I am absolutely certain that generations from now, we will be able to look back and tell our children that this was the moment when we began to provide care for the sick and good jobs to the jobless; this was the moment when the rise of the oceans began to slow and our planet began to heal; this was the moment when we ended a war and secured our nation and restored our image as the last, best hope on Earth.
Obama's first inauguration speech...messiah much?
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah what a damp squib he turned out to be too.
Re: (Score:2)
the same misinformation, time after time.
one can only conclude that you are paid to repeat it.
Radiative Transfer (Score:3)
Go ahead and point to whatever evidence that you can that shows that CO2 doesn't absorb heat. I'm sure the work of Tyndall needs some revision, or perhaps you've found another way to move heat off the planet? Because as far as I can tell, you only need a two-dimensional model to be able to determine whether a higher concentration of CO2 should show warming. And I am sure you have some good explanation for the rise in temperatures and correlated rise of CO2 concentrations as well. Then you'll have to explain
Re: (Score:3)
Yup, it disagrees with your already settled worldview, therefore it's wrong. I mean, it's not like you could run any sort of experiment to find out if CO2 and H2O cause warming -- where would you even obtain such things? To be safe I think you should also disbelieve in the greenhouse effect entirely. The planet is at 252K and anything suggesting otherwise is a liberal myth.