But America with it's Southwest could achieve this goal fairly easily compared to Germany.

Is that we have to redefine the definition of a vacuum. Clearly, most thing of a vacuum as an area containing no mass. However, we should implement a more exact definition of a vacuum as an area not influenced by mass. (gravity, being the long range influence of mass)

Remove the influence of mass (including gravity), and C remains constant. I wager physicists will much more readily accept redefining vacuum than C.

Curious, how much CO2 is released to form an island?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L...

How much during earthquakes?

Truth is, all this talk of natural balance of CO2 is hogwash. Read up on the Cretaceous period. CO2 levels were much higher. Temperatures were up to 20 degrees higher.

Everyone I know has been complaining that this summer is unsually cool. I've heard several complaints throughout June that so many days have been barely warm enough to go swimming.

I joked the other day, not to worry, we'd still hear claims that it was one of the hottest years on record. And lo and behold, just a few days later and here be the claims.

Arr...

Because now that they have paid Comcast. Netflix has the potential to claim actual financial damages, allowing them to bring a case all the up to the Supreme Court.

Okay, so these rocks are found on earth and the moon. So um...how do we know they're alien? And not native to the Earth/Lunar system?

Cranky is a compliment, right?

It would also need to denote how often said individuals had rewarding sex?

Perhaps these men looking at porn, are also having very little sex. And thus said region is smaler.

a) we do not know if he in fact did such.

The smartest thing is to leave data with a few individuals. Then head to a hostile nation.

b) America didn't leave him much choice. If we had some real whisper blower protections, maybe he'd be in America under house arrest. But instead, we throw such in solitary confinement.

c) China probably had most of it, and data about America spying on its own people is not all that relevant to Russia other than the public humilitation it brought.

My respect for Slashdot moderators has fallen even further....

I've written worse, granted. But the whole article seemed to be dismissing the impact cause, and declaring other causes were not evaluated and seeming to postulate a new understanding. And then, in the end, it really seemed to simply be an article questioning the carbon dating, and pointing to sedimentary record as a preferred method of dating and demonstrating an impact wiped everything out.

Huh...what?

California should build MASSIVE quantities of desalanization plants along the coast. So that we can keep the oceans properly salined. While extract massive amounts of water to turn the entire southwest into a lush green sub-tropic region, and keep sea levels in check. Start now!!!

Because history shows such great fluctuations. This is all very very normal. In fact, what history "mostly" points out, is that the 1900's were in fact an unusually calm and stable period. (ie: abnormal).

In fact, one might in fact argue that all of the pollution, CO2, etc. Had not enacted climate change, rather something far more dangerous. "Climate Stabilization".

In fact, pretty much every one has been declared NOT to be caused by global warming. Nor in excess of prior events. Except by the media and propagandists.

Today, the NY Times had a map of the U.S. And it compared 1910-1960 temperatures to 1991-2012. And exclaimed how much hotter the U.S. was.

A few things to note:

1. The traditional south around the gulf was actually cooler.

2. 1901-1960 is a mere 60years. 1991-2012 approx. 20 years. That is an extremely small section of climate, and I would argue far too small to have ANY statistical relevance.

3. Why were the years selected? Why not 1901-1955, and 1960-2010. How does 2001-2012 compare?

4. Most of the temperature increases are 1 degree. A few spots 2 degrees. Obersvations:

> the northeast is a bit warmer, but the southern gulf area is cooler. So it appears there has been some shift in circulation.
> many of the areas that have seen the most warming highly populated areas: Southern California (LA/SD), Northeast corridor (NJ/NYC/CT/RI/Boston/Portland). Alberquerque, NM....lit up in red. Granted NOT all that is lit up red corresponds to population centers but a lot sure does. Oh, and that Montana, Minnesota, etc corridor that is red at the top. Well look at a population map of Canada and you will see that nearly 90% of Canada's population lives just north of the U.S. border. So I wager that represents Canada's population growth. Yes, there are some weird anomalies in Nevada, Utah and Colorado that do not correspond well to populations. But they in fact do...if you understand that entire region is the river basin that feeds the southwest. And that California's immense consumption of water has significantly reduced the water present in those regions.

If anything, this map represents to me a clear demonstration of the heat island affect of urban areas. Something most global warming alarmists glaringly deny, but which many others have put forth evidence to substantiate. (Oh, I should point to the fact that they only deny it when it regards the U.S., they're more than willing to accept said postulation when it relates to cutting down South American rainforests. Which should be stopped. We should be using bamboo, hemp and other fast growing weeds and grasses for consumables.)

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05...