-1=e^ipi

Wait, I thought you said floods were bad. You make it sound like you want a climate that has more spring floods due to glaciers, not less. Do you also not understand that a warmer climate due to CO2 is a more uniform climate and will result in far more precipitation at polar latitudes? Answer me this, if hypothetically you had a way to remove CO2 from the atmosphere costlessly, would you reduce it to the extent that you would start a mini-ice age or even a new ice age? Ice age temperatures are only 12 C - 13C, not that much lower than current global average temperatures. Are you against change or just against warming? If warming is bad, is cooling good?

Have you ever noticed that a tropical rainforest is wetter than arctic tundra? Have you noticed that continental climates get more rainfall in the summer than in the winter? Do you not realize that air's capacity to hold water increases as a roughly exponential function of temperature? But instead you focus on the negatives, claim that the net effect is overall negative without sufficient evidence and insist the world should implement severe CO2 emission mitigation policies, rather than take a more reasonable position like 'there are positives and negatives, and it would be sensible to do a thorough cost-benefit analysis before determining what policy is best.

As expected, the climate change alarmist fails to understand the different between 'change in water distribution' and 'more floods and more droughts'. See, the claim that there will be more floods and more droughts everywhere actually needs to be demonstrated. Changes in water distribution does NOT logically imply more droughts and floods; that's your deluded climate alarmism talking. Alarmists tend to have this unjustified belief that somehow the Earth was optimal in the 1700s and any deviation from the climate in the 1700s caused by human CO2 emissions will necessarily be bad.

We agree there is a change in water distribution. But immediately after this premise you, like the climate alarmists, hold the implicit assumption that this change is necessarily bad. Why is it necessarily bad? Doesn't such a strong claim require proof? Reasonable people such as myself would hold the position "I don't know if it is good or bad, such a claim would require proof". Yet climate alarmists think they can just circumvent the burden of proof and associate anything that is bad with the weather or climate with human caused CO2 emissions.

No, I don't drink. Nor have I ever been drunk. I don't understand the appeal of distorting my perception of reality. See, some people need evidence to believe claims along the lines of 'because of the unusually high rate of warming due to CO2 emissions, there will be mass extinction and humans will go back to the stone age'. You are happy believing this nonsense without evidence, and thus why I consider it comparable with religion.

Here's a question? Why do climate alarmists associate anything and everything that's bad with respect to the climate to human CO2 emissions? Rain, Drought, Flood, Blizzards, Hurricanes, Hot, Cold, etc. It all will be the result for human sins against Gaia. Furthermore, why do these same alarmists jump to these positions without sufficient evidence and feel that they can't circumvent the burden of evidence so don't feel the need to justify their positions?

The amount of water on the Earth will not change. Water distribution will however. For example, the Sahara is far more lush and green during interglacial periods than during glacial periods. What you are implying, that somehow water scarcity problems will greatly increase due to increased atmospheric CO2, is absurd. Why? This sounds like religious nonsense to me. "We have sinned against Gaia for out sinful acts of burning fossil fuels and trying to make the world a better place for humans! Gaia will punish us for our sins unless we repent." There is no basis behind your claims. Just religious nonsense.

Uhh, yeah we will. Humans are a tropical species. The vast majority of human evolution took place in East Equatorial Africa. That's why we are comfortable in a room temperature of 23 C as opposed to the Earth's average temperature of 15 C. That's why we are relatively hairless and have sweat glands everywhere. So even if humans were still in the stone age, we wouldn't go extinct due to CO2 emissions. Of course, given the human brain and technology, humans will be able to adapt and thrive in the Earth's changing climate, not to mention eventually colonize other celestial bodies.

To be fair, the Hong Kong Protestors do not represent the majority of people of Hong Kong. They have a 57% disapproval rating by the people of Hong Kong. https://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10152684954216140

I'm sorry, I'm not capable of cognitive dissonance. It is repulsive to me. I'm not going to pretend that sentences mean something else than what is written.

Yeah it does, otherwise there no purpose in the word 'other'. Your constant attempts to try to redefine your very clear past statements into something else in order to not be wrong show that you seriously have an unhealthy ego problem where you are afraid to ever admit being wrong on an internet forum. It's unhealthy psychologically and that kind of mentality is not good for society either.

CO2 isn't a pollutant. The fact that you can burn coal to produce CO2 doesn't mean that Coal is CO2. I can use flour to make pancakes but flour and pancakes are not the same thing. Your statement that the majority of CO2 is underground is wrong.

I never denied that. You are confusing my shrinking level of tolerance for nonsense claims regarding climate change as basic science. You've been a member for over a year and have 4 times as many posts as me, surely you've read through quite a few climate threads. If not, surely you passed high school. If not that, surely you have been informed by the various media sources about even some basic science. How is it even possible for you to do all this and still not understand the very basics such as the fact that coal isn't CO2?

The conversation went like this: You: Most of the CO2 is under the ground. Me: No, most of the CO2 is in the troposphere. There is a significant amount in the Oceans. There is very little CO2 underground. You: Very little? Ever heard of this stuff called coal? Me: Coal isn't CO2. Coal is primarily solid carbon with various impurities You: Come on, you are really going to pretend you didn't mean to say that most of the CO2 is underground? You need to get over your ego, suck up your pride and admit when you are wrong. It will help you grow as a person. It's only an anonymous internet forum! As for what happens when you burn coal, assuming a complete combustion, you will primarily end up with CO2 and water vapour + a lot of energy. Of course you will also end up with significant amounts of nitrous oxides and sulfur oxides, which cause smog and acid rain, as well as a radioactive ash residue that contains significant amounts of Thorium, Uranium and other elements.

I recently finished the first season of Aldnoah Zero, which was surprisingly decent. It had very thought out battle scenes and best of all the characters act rationally which is rare in so many tv series. I think the second series starts in January of 2015, so I look forward to it.

Coal isn't CO2. Coal is primarily solid carbon with various impurities.

Wait, humans perform photosynthesis now? I know they do in Sidonia no Kishi, but that is a fictional anime.

Since you politely asked a simple question, I will be more than happy to satisfy your request! Many liquids such as water have the ability to dissolve gas, much like how many gases will contain vapours from the liquid below. Good examples are fizzy soft drinks which contain CO2 dissolved in water, and humid air which contains a lot of water vapour. The reason the two substances do not completely separate is because this doesn't maximize entropy, which is a concept which in very simplistic terms refers to the disorder of the system (more specifically it is the boltzman constant times p ln(p), where p is the number of macro states). Basically nature likes disorder, and hates order! So if you fill a container with oxygen and water at atmospheric pressure and room temperature, then while the O2 and H20 will mostly separate, the liquid water will contain some dissolved O2, and the oxygen gas will contain some water vapour. As you heat this container, the molecules get more kinetic energy (this is what temperature is, just the average kinetic energy of the molecules); in other words all those molecules are moving around faster. Now in order to go from a liquid to a gas state or a solid to a gas state a large amount of energy is required, where as when something goes from a gas state to a liquid state or a liquid state to a solid state, a large amount of energy is released. This is why you can put ice in a drink and keep it cold for a long period of time. Because of this, in general as you heat the container, there will be less O2 dissolved in the liquid and more water vapour in the air since they will now have a greater preference for being in the gaseous form. Now there are some exceptions to the rule and this is quite a bit of an over simplification, but this is basically how things work. This is why the solubility of many gasses such as CO2 decreases with temperature: Now back to your original question, there is a lot of CO2 in the oceans cause it maximizes entropy for some of the CO2 to be dissolved in the oceans and not be in the atmosphere and there just happens to be a lot of ocean. Solid materials such as the rock below your feet do not have this property that water has because they are not 'fluids'. This should also explain why as ocean temperatures increase they will release CO2.

Humans do not absorb CO2. How much do you value your ego to refuse to admit being wrong over and over again? Dude it's an anonymous internet forum. Suck up your pride and admit being wrong and grow as a person.

There is very little CO2 underground. It's somewhat related to the concept that dense things sink while less dense things float. You may have noticed it. It is why oil floats on water, and why the ground below your feet is below the air you breath.

@Accountability Now - I feel your pain about trying to explain basic chemistry to the various climate alarmists in this thread, but you probably won't be successful. Perhaps it is because they are high school drop outs, perhaps it is because they were asleep during basic chemistry and only passed because of our terrible education system, perhaps their egos are too big to admit being wrong, or perhaps something else. Who knows.

No, most of the H20 is in the Oceans. No, most of the CO2 is in the Troposphere. There is a significant amount in the Oceans. The stuff underground you are referring to is probably not CO2, but carbon in other forms. But alarmists confusing CO2 with carbon is not a new phenomenon.

Sorry if I misinterpreted what you were saying. The context of the last few posts was Wilber's fantasy that burning fossil fuels will cause the oxygen to run out. You mean the beginning of the Triassic period right? The Permian-Triassic mass extinction event? Yes, yet Humans can survive just fine indoors were higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations exist. Humans also evolved primarily in East Africa where it is very warm (thus human preference for room temperature around 23 C compared to the global average temperature of 15 C). What is your point?

I would ask for more information than that. What do the standard medical examinations involve? Why does it reach the conclusion it does? How are the other methods more rigorous. If they cannot adequately explain to me how they arrived at their conclusion, then they aren't proper doctors so I will disregard their advice and do my own research using the internet.

Have you ever been indoors? 2000 ppm CO2 is completely safe to humans and humans can live a full healthy life in 2000 ppm CO2. As for extinctions, which mass extinction event are you referring to because I wasn't referring to a mass extinction event. Atmospheric CO2 levels have historically (over geological time) been much higher than current levels. Am I correct if I were to say that your response is due to a lack of understanding of the Earth's geological history?