SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
There are some really neat looking videos on the NASA website showing how carbon dioxide moves throughout the earth's atmosphere.
Scientists have made ground-based measurements of carbon dioxide for decades and in July NASA launched the Orbiting Carbon Observatory-2 (OCO-2) satellite to make global, space-based carbon observations. But the simulation — the product of a new computer model that is among the highest-resolution ever created — is the first to show in such fine detail how carbon dioxide actually moves through the atmosphere.
The main article has a video that shows a world wide view over the year 2006. It runs about 3 minutes. Close-ups on a month's time scale can be found here and each of the 3 videos run about 30 seconds.
The main article mentions that CO2 concentrations reached 400 ppm (parts per million) for the first time in the Spring of 2014. Before the industrial revolution, it was about 270 ppm. The sub article mentions that the videos show 375 (dark blue) to 395 (light purple) ppm.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 20 2014, @07:41PM
> liberal conspiracy dreamed up by a bunch of hippies trying to destroy America
That always cracks me up. The "liberals" accuse the "conservative" of trying to concentrate all the money amongst the Rich (enslaving the poor and destroying the middle-class). The "conservative" accuse the "liberals" of trying to destroy their own country (by killing jobs with taxes and unarmed gay immigrant people). Half the people reading this post believe that those average joes watching the same football game as them in the bar while drinking the same shitty beer are out to get them, just because they polymorph into certified evil joes as soon as they clock in at their job for the oppressive government.
Can we get back to reasonable middle-ground compromises? (historical definition of middle-ground, not the current one)
(Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday November 20 2014, @08:52PM
If one side of a debate says 2+2=4, and the other side of the debate says that 2+2=6, is it in any way correct or useful to suggest that 2+2=5 is a good compromise position? Consider that this encourages the side that thinks it's larger to say that 2+2=8 so that the middle-ground position is now 2+2=6.
Sometimes, one side of a debate is just plain wrong. Being wrong doesn't make you evil or stupid, but it does mean that if you should rethink it in light of a demonstration that you are wrong. And that's what the one side of the AGW and evolution debates are refusing to do.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Thursday November 20 2014, @09:03PM
Agreed. I silently expanded the topic of my question to politics in general, not just climate discussions.
I also specified "historical" for the middle ground, since it it my humble opinion that Obama's non-social policies are much farther right than his own party expected, and it displaced the nay-sayers across the aisle much closer to the extreme right than many traditional conservatives would like to be.