Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Reminder: CO2 is good, not bad, for environment (Score 1) 337

The jump here was you invoking a talking point I suspect even you know moronic.

Do you seriously think plants can just magically absorb vast amounts of CO2? If you do, then you are an idiot. If you don't believe it, then why repeat a demonstrably ludicrous meme?

Comment Re:Reminder: CO2 is good, not bad, for environment (Score 1) 337

Water is beneficial to human life, therefore I urge you to tie rocks to your feet and jump in the deep end. By your logic, you'll become healthier by the second!

I mean really, are you that fucking stupid? Just because plants benefit from CO2 doesn't mean they have infinite capacity to absorb it, or that the other effects of higher CO2 concentrations won't undermine any good it might do to plants. Among the moron anti-AGW talking points out there, this must be the surest sign that the person saying it is a fucking simpering halfwit.

Comment Coming Soon! (Score 1) 459

Future Macs will have no user interface at all. You will get a flat gray cube with an Apple logo on it that will have no interactive capability. However, you will be firmly nestled in the Steve Jobs Reality Distortion field, fully aware that, no matter how utterly worthless the overpriced cube may be, your status as a hipster is secure.

Comment Re:Why do you think that? (Score 1) 337

The American Midwest will have wetter winters and springs, but summertime temperatures will rise considerably, leading to drought like conditions which will harm many crops. These effects will be moderated towards the north end, but will also mean shifts northward of arable land. The problem being "northward" means Canada.

Comment Re:Reminder: CO2 is good, not bad, for environment (Score 1) 337

No, I never said rainforests would disappear. Some areas that receive lots of rainfall will continue to see lots of rainfall, and in fact will receive more. But other areas will become more drought prone, and parts of North America that are currently arable will be, or already are, in that zone.

It's you who has no idea how rainfall works.

Comment Re:Isn't CO2 plant Food? (Score 1) 337

Is there some reason you think plants have infinite ability to absorb CO2? After all, you need water to survive, so by your twisted logic, if I shove your head into a swimming pool and keep it down for a few minutes, why, you'll be healthier than ever?

I'm assuming your just being a smart ass, because otherwise it's possible that you did indeed hold your head under water for too long.

Comment Re:Thousands of Years (Score 1) 337

The problem is the one way way large amounts of CO2 are removed from the atmosphere is via the oceans, and when oceans start absorbing higher concentrations of CO2 it leads to higher acidity, which is already having significantly detrimental effects on ocean ecosystems, and, coupled with warming oceans themselves, could lead to major collapses of fisheries that feed hundreds of millions of people.

Comment Re:climate change deniers (you!) (Score 1) 337

Desalination may help with drinking water, but it would require such significant amounts of energy to produce water sufficient to replace potential losses of water for agriculture that it really isn't even under consideration (beyond which, large parts of Eurasia and North America's bread baskets are a helluva long way away from oceans).

If we have enough energy to use desalination for large scale agriculture, then we've solved the energy problem and don't even need oil any more.

Comment Re:climate change deniers (you!) (Score 1) 337

Where is "here"? Many aquifers in North America are being tapped out, to the point where aquifers in southern California are producing increasingly saline concentrations. Major river systems are not infinite sources of water, and shifting rain belts means some river systems could be under threat over the next century or two. And let's not even talk about a major shift of the rain belts into more northerly latitudes, meaning the American Midwest, one of the grain baskets of the world, could suddenly find itself with a lot less water, and a lot more arable land becoming arid or semi-arid. That will compromise the United States' food security, and your solution is what? To bomb Canada and take its food supply?

Comment Re:climate change deniers (you!) (Score 1) 337

No, "we're" not fine. Life on Earth can certainly weather it, but many organisms will not, and human civilization will certainly have massive problems as such high concentrations would have huge repurcussions for sea levels, rain belts, where arable land appears and where it disappears, potentially leaving hundreds of millions or even billions in a position where they have no good place to live and no food to eat.

400PPM was picked because models show that the climate and oceanic acidity levels will be altered in significant ways.

Comment Re:Point of order. . . (Score 1) 337

That's like saying there's no concentration of any particular gas that is "good" or "bad" for the atoms in your body. That is true, so far as it goes, but breath too much CO and you'll find out that while the atoms in your body aren't adversely affected, your body itself will be.

Slashdot Top Deals

BASIC is to computer programming as QWERTY is to typing. -- Seymour Papert