5 ms·

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

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.

akiselev 11y ago
》 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. You're trolling, right? I can't imagine what your understanding of the atmosphere is when you think a tank of compressed CO2 would provide any heating effect at night.
- labster 11y ago
  GP is likely trolling, but CO2 does work in the night the same as in the day. It keeps in infrared radiation emitted by the earth and things on the surface, like you. You won't have a temperature increase, but you'll have less cooling. In that example, you'd need some structure to keep it in, since the parcel of air will eventually mix with its neighbors, and you can't breathe in the CO2. The structure itself would provide a greater greenhouse effect than the CO2 since it basically would be a greenhouse. But if you tested a windowed shelter filled with CO2 and one with normal air, Mythbusters-style, I suspect you'd find a measurable difference.
  - GlobalChange 11y ago
    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.
- GlobalChange 11y ago
  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...
davesque 11y ago
You've been hard at work for a while now commenting on climate-change-related articles, haven't you?
jakeva 11y ago
That would be something like giving someone a large bucket of ice to protect oneself from their house burning down around them. (obviously not a perfect analogy, but a tank of CO2? Seriously? SMH)
username223 11y ago
Let me know how well you do boiling water with a wool blanket... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10133400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10133400

akiselev 11y ago

》 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. You're trolling, right? I can't imagine what your understanding of the atmosphere is when you think a tank of compressed CO2 would provide any heating effect at night.

labster 11y ago
GP is likely trolling, but CO2 does work in the night the same as in the day. It keeps in infrared radiation emitted by the earth and things on the surface, like you. You won't have a temperature increase, but you'll have less cooling. In that example, you'd need some structure to keep it in, since the parcel of air will eventually mix with its neighbors, and you can't breathe in the CO2. The structure itself would provide a greater greenhouse effect than the CO2 since it basically would be a greenhouse. But if you tested a windowed shelter filled with CO2 and one with normal air, Mythbusters-style, I suspect you'd find a measurable difference.
- GlobalChange 11y ago
  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.
GlobalChange 11y ago
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...

davesque 11y ago

You've been hard at work for a while now commenting on climate-change-related articles, haven't you?

jakeva 11y ago

That would be something like giving someone a large bucket of ice to protect oneself from their house burning down around them. (obviously not a perfect analogy, but a tank of CO2? Seriously? SMH)

username223 11y ago

Let me know how well you do boiling water with a wool blanket... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10133400 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10133400