GlobalChange

The same way I cannot understand people that call themselves scientists of whatever been talking for the past years that CO2 can rise temperature, day or night!

The anecdote is to be illustrative and not really done literally, naturally, but if I have to explain that...

Since you mentioned the mythbusters, that episode is really wrong, though I really love it because it is the only one of its kind I know of that uses more than two gases. There is a real flaw there, which is the same in all those kind of experiments actually. And it is a real scientific flaw. If it were to be done properly, that would be interesting and I would bet it would reveal surprising results.

As you mentioned, a structure is required. The CO2 is useless. By the way, on a greenhouse, CO2 has no function regarding temperature.

Great time machine from 1979: that says nothing and proves nothing. It is a real shame NASA is part of this UN (IPCC) joke.

Ice and ocean levels will rise and fall as they have done throughout the geological history of the planet (of billion years, not decades or centuries). Ocean levels have not had any significant change probably since the formation of the Mediterranean sea. As for glaciers, they are retreating since the end of the ice age. So, nothing new, they were already retreating.

I won't even mention carbon because any high school kid should be able to debunk this ridiculous hypothesis that has already been debunked countless times and is only used to sell cause sensationalist debates, sell useless papers, deviate research money, keep peer review journals alive and provide excuse for expensive meetings in exotic places.

For those who will reply to this I recommend first to spend a night in a desert with only a tank of CO2 to protect from the cold. If you do get back, I would love to talk.

Except when the prevailing "consensus" is wrong and has been deceitfully pushed forward to enslave everyone else.

If one follows the argument for CO2 as culprit for global warming than our energy problems are solved. All we have to do is build a CO2 power plant. We can use a candle and have infinity energy. Actually, no one else need more than a candle to do anything else. If we follow it to conclusion, we can melt the Golden Gate bridge with a candle.

Any high school kid should be able to debunk this whole hallucinatory craziness that has spread in our society because nowadays no one care to spare a minute to actually think about the absurdity of the things they hear here and there. And oh, if its on CNN, or someone with "credentials" said it, then of course it is true. Well good luck.

There is no significant ocean level change. Ask the Dutch. The moment they flee the Netherlands, then we may talk.

Glaciers are rescinding because that is what they have been doing since the end of the last ice age (otherwise we would still be on a ice age). They didn't started rescinding 30 years ago, or 150 years ago. It is an ongoing process. Like climate is an ongoing process. It is not "climate change", as a noun, it's climate changeS, as sentence. It has been doing so for, at least, the past 4 billion years. That is the "norm", that it changes. Sometimes those changes are just more accentuated. There is absolutely no evidence (despite what everyone wants to convince themselves, wants to "believe" - science has gone from this a long time ago!) for CO2, let alone human influence on climate on a global scale.

The article on The Guardian is deceitful. They should actually explain how they got to the 97%. Not that it matter anyway. Science is not a democracy; otherwise we could all "vote" for a free-gravity day so we could all enjoy a day floating.

Those proposing the AGW cannot prove or advance their point. Models are video-games. Shall we start giving driver's licence to those scoring high on Need for Speed? It's a model, they are conceived to increase temperature if you increase CO2. That's what it's going to do. It is programmed to do just that, because that is how it was conceived.

That is in no way to say we should not look for renewable resources (since the other one will eventually end anyway), nor that we should go on living like there's no tomorrow (for certainly there won't be). CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a fundamental element for life and it makes not direct harm.

If we continue on this path of demonizing the CO2 the consequences will be way worse than a thousand degrees increase in temperature.

Clime do changes and all the living creatures on this planet will face it. We must adapt, but we cannot change it. Not for better anyway and if we try we'll just make thing a thousand times worse. Drought will come, tempests, hurricanes, tornadoes, tsunamis, volcanoes, they will come (and go) no matter what. We should and do need to be as prepared to them as possible, but we cannot stop those phenomena from happening, no more than we can hold the Sun in the middle of the sky.

What should be addressed is what to do. Because when changes comes and they will indeed come, regardless, it won't care about political borders, religion, skin color, gender, age.

This has long ceased to be a scientific debate. The science part is very simple: they cannot sustain their arguments and the hypothesis fails. Now the political/religious debate is another matter entirely. And that is the most important one, because it can makes us slaves (Hitler will look like a kindergarten prankster), or it can condemn half or more of the population of the world to its own luck.

There should be no debate. There is no men made global warming by CO2. But climate do changes and will change. The Sahara was not always a desert. Nor the Amazon was always a forest. It's not us; that's just Nature. But we should control pollution (air, soil and water), try to improve recycling (still very inefficient), have better, renewable and more efficient sources, means of transportation and storage of energy. We should do that for all the right reasons and not the wrong one; certainly not based on lies and deceits.

And we do need to understand the issue. This is one of the most challenging points in human life. It is certainly the most important issue of at least the past ten thousand years. The science of it is actually not complicated at all (high school knowledge). It doesn't mean we understand how it works; but we can certainly say how it doens't work. And boy, with CO2, it does not work!

If we don't even know about water, how could we possibly know anything about climate?

http://nautil.us/issue/25/water/five-things-we-still-dont-kn...

Moreover, if the premise is wrong, the conclusion can only be false, that's basic fallacy.

Follow those models like they actually say anything is like giving a driver's license to a good racing gamer (NFS, GTA, etc.). It's just simulation, it's not real.

When you guys say "more sex", does it means frequency (more times) or diversity (more people)? I understand that, in a way, more of the later also means more of the former, but I am just wondering which one is more important...

It is just amazing how the hole "grew" in 8 years, from 1979 to 1987. And then, there has been no change in 24 years, from 1987 to 2011, despite all that was done.

More incredible, though would be to expect the anomaly to be elsewhere but at the poles, since the formation of the ozone requires sun-rays, as explained in the article.

But what is really a revolution in Physics is how those sun-rays actually make a curve to enter the Earth by the south to cause harm to Australians and New Zealanders...

As anyone actually living on this planet may realize is that, because of the position of the sun and the planets in the solar system all aligned at the ecliptic plan, the sun in the southern hemisphere rises and sets from a northeast to a northwest position (opposed to the northern hemisphere, from a southeast to a southwest point).

So, unless the sunlight is doing big turns, it is impossible for any eventual anomaly in the ozone above Antarctic to have any relation to skin cancer in any country in the southern hemisphere, since the sun and the position of Antarctic and really at diametrical directions.

Despite what I have said, I have actually been acquiring some "old" books (pre-Internet era, i.e., 1990 or older), even paying more on delivery fee than the book itself. lest to avoid history being rewritten, as someone, scarily, but truly, mentioned in one of the comments.

"To date, many engineers, designers and user-interface experts have worked hard to make reading on an e-reader or tablet as close to reading on paper as possible."

The approach is wrong. Most of us have not left the physical objects behind. It's still too soon. It's like wanting to use an iPad with keyboards, it's "wrong".

I don't use page turning, or page by page, taping left or right. I use scroll. And despite what I read, to me it's the best. I don't have to move my eye or my head. It's the text that moves. I also chose the font (Verdana or similar whenever possible, I don't like serif fonts).

Because of the problem with the lights coming from the device, I use the sepia mode (white on black is also not good). That's is also one of the reasons I don't like the bigger iPad. The iPad mini is the ideal size, as the kindle, I suppose. I don't like to have or carry many things, so now I only use an iPhone plus.

I don't like paper. I have never liked it. Worse of all, I cannot never read at night, not paper. Never could, don't know why, eyes get red, tired, can't focus. Digital format, yes! When the story is good I almost go until dawn reading. With paper, I would read a couple of books a year. With digital, I've been able to read dozens of books a year.

I cannot read paper anymore. I'm buying the digital versions of the few ones I have in paper I haven't read yet.

Besides, nothing like cleaning my living room, all books, music and movies on a device that fits in my pocket!

Equally important is the highlight (yeah, can be done on paper too) and search functionality. Once I basically had to read the book again looking for a passage. I knew the contents of the passage, but I did not knew where in the book it was.

Some categories, like photography, design, art, etc. still don't go well in digital format, though.

DRM sucks. Not the paying part, but just how it makes our lives miserable. Also, don't understand when digital copies cost more than hard-copies (especially for text-only books).

Oh boy, here we go again. Seriously, I even thought this had some potential. Obviously, as stated in the article, "Earth has natural processes that absorb and hold onto heat to counteract that cooling effect". However, the author slides to the wrong side. Without what has been called "greenhouse effect" (which should always be used inside quotation marks) to -387ºF at night. But the "blanket" that covers Earth is the atmosphere as a whole, regardless of its chemical composition.

Those "positive feedback loops" and "runaway greenhouse effect", such are "big words" they like to use, are speculation from (far from perfect) computer models (video-games). It is even admitted they know nothing about clouds.

What surprises me is that the author has the answer: "our carbon dioxide emissions wouldn’t be anything to worry about".

One thing they are right, though, even though they interpret it wrong at some points, it's the water, stupid. (Please, bear in mind this is an expression, and I'm using it as such, not to offend anyone).

The temperature regulator power of water lies in its latent heat property, which, for water, is one of the highest there is for evaporation.

Honestly, I do not know how many times this has to be repeated, and this alone would put all this "global warming by CO2" nonsense off: the irradiative heat from "thermal (infrared) affected molecules" (I believe the term "greenhouse gases", apart from conceptually wrong, nowadays is misleading) cannot cause extra heating of the system. That would mean "doubling" the solar energy, thus suggesting "creation of energy", therefore implying in something like "infinite energy on a loop". It is like plugging those electric extension powers in itself, or saying that all energy necessary for anything is a candle. It is to say one can melt an iron structure with a candle. Besides, energy always flows from a warmer object towards a colder object.

It is that supply of water (almost 3/4 of the planet's surface) that allows for optimal life conditions on this planet. And it is water that "regulates" weather, almost like a thermostat.

The reflection/absorption argument is also lame. There ain't much solar power arriving at the poles anyway for its reflection/absorption to be of significance. Besides, it is only the visible light that is reflected.

When snow melts, it is because it is getting hotter anyway (winter to spring to summer). However, when snow is falling it actually gets warmer because of the release of energy in the process. It is water that is absorbing and holding most of the heating the Sun throws at us, thankfully. Without all that water and the atmosphere as well we would be frozen at -387ºF at night.

For those still insisting about the power of CO2, I invite them to spend a night in a dry desert. There ain't enough CO2 in the galaxy to make you warm, but be my guest.

Well, them prove your claims, because 100 billion dollars spent in research in the past 20 years has proved nothing. The defenders of the AGW are the ones misinformed and lying. But as I said, it is very simple. All that is required is for them or you to present the arguments. This is science, not mythological interpretation.

The ozone anomaly is still there. CFC gases has never really harmed it because those gases are heavier than the air, so it is a bit hard (not impossible, though) for them to get up there. The "hole" has always been over the poles because, obviously, there's no much sun rays there, which are required for the formation and un-formation of the ozone in the first place.

As to the relation of the subjects, I have seem many of the AGW defenders to claim that CFC, HFC and all the other gazes they claim is harmful to the "ozone" also are "greenhouse gases", which as I said before is a complete stupidity.

Science is not a democracy. There no such thing as science consensus, that is absolutely ridiculous and one more added to the fallacies around the issue. If all living things and the non-living things as well decide there is no gravity, we won't start floating just because 200% of the scientists or whatever got to a consensus that there is no such thing as gravity!

It only take one counter argument to debunk a theory. The defenders of the AGW cannot prove their argument (burden of the proof) and so use of fallacies (ad hominem arguments and others) to keep their farce. I don't know their reasons; but their "scientific" arguments has no ground!

Well, I stopped dead reading the article right on the first paragraph. I really could not believe. Ice on water does not raise it a millimeter whatsoever. Once again it is just stupid media writing the next Apocalypse just to sell papers or whatever because really they have nothing better or more intelligent to do.

Sea level has not changed at all in the past 200 years, I would dare to say they probably have not changed at all since the formation of the Mediterranean Sea.

On sea level, it is very simple, the moment the Dutch start fleeing The Netherlands, then I will start worrying; but if they are not buying land on the Himalayan, I will really not to worry about it.

CO2 has nothing to do with temperature of planets, whatsoever! And by the way, "greenhouse effect", the is commonly described, with irradiation and CO2, etc., does not exist!!! And call some gases in the atmosphere "greenhouse gases" is a stupidity that makes no sense whatsoever.

Volcanoes alone on any ordinary year (and last year was nothing ordinary) put at least five times more CO2 on the atmosphere than humans activities today!!! Insects, at least seven times more!!

So, no, humans are not that powerful. CO2 does not control climate. Arrhenius prediction is as much bogus as Malthus. There is no proof whatsoever, nor there can be since the whole scheme is a Physical impossibility.

CO2 is also not a pollutant, never was, never will!

All that said, yes we must find better and renewable sources of energy, since something that is not renewable will end someday. Moreover, our energy system is very inefficient (of course is a Physical impossibility to have 100% efficiency, but we should try harder).

Notwithstanding, some of the apocalyptic scenarios proclaimed may indeed come to happen, because climate (noun) changes (verb). That is what it does. If it stops changing than we would have a problem because that would be not normal! It has been cold before, it has been hotter before. Places that today are land has been under water. Deserts had been green. The planet is in constant change. We do not understand much of the process and that is the reality, not a bogus, deceitful, and damn right ridiculous idea that goes against even the most basics concepts of Physics. Any high school kid should be able to point right at it, were it not so wrapped up in fallacies.