http://youtu.be/7iGj4GpAbTM
I hope this isn't what free enterprise is supposed to look like.

I must say Mimi that I respect your candor. Yes I believe in climate change and I think we can; even if you don't believe, spend some energy as a species protecting the planet. The debate has become so confusing I will wash my hands of it now and do as you suggest. Post on technology that can help solve the problems instead of arguing about who or what is responsible. How is this... I will never post again anything for or against climate change. Does that make you happy? I never anticipated the hate I got. I am only looking for truth to find freedom and if I have offended anyone else I apologize. I do believe in liberty and freedom from despotic rule. I do claim my individuality, freedoms and rights.

I think honestly we are going to have to just agree that we disagree. I am not a sarcastic person and did not join this group to engage in sarcasm but to learn about what other opinions exist in the world and more about my own. I believe much of what this group believes in terms of a capitalist state and a free market. About an individuals rights and freedoms and responsibilities (which nobody here ever talks about) to not just yourself but others. We are Man. We have the ability to do all the things you mention. Should we not use it wisely and maintain the planet for future generations? Capitalists and a free market with all their technology should be able to accomplish that.

alright-now I'm interested-what specifically are you talking about with regards to a patent?

Well hey. If I have misunderstood what L was trying to say then tag-up and let L explain what he meant.

Why are you here? How about we don’t care what the science says, we don’t like the manner the current global unit bends the message to make money for itself at the expense of free enterprise.

You should be offended too, seeing that lately you like to spend every free available moment you have hanging out with people who are inspired by the writings of Ayn Rand and believe in pursuing liberty and free-enterprise solutions to the problems we face.
You believe in climate change? Cool. Don’t most some stupid article from ThinkProgress that often spends it’s time berating people in society like us, instead, post links to solutions geared- products and innovations that are on the cutting edge of what the mind of man can come with. Otherwise...

quit wasting our time.

So should they be able to put a patent on it as well?

Measuring Albedo on a global scale is fraught with problems and none of it is finding easy acceptance, but the research continues. However as per my previous post measuring the albedo of areas of the earth is easier and this is true that much more is reflected from agricultural lands than forested. The same when you consider deserts and oceans. However the croplands are also absorbing the energy in the form of heat like a desert and surface temps rise dramatically. Reflection as in a mirror does not pertain to heat absorption entirely. Ever wonder why its so damn hot in the desert or on agricultural lands? The farmer beside us harvests soy every year. We have a lawn. When I walk across my lawn and onto the farmers field I feel an immediate change in temperature as the heat absorbed by the soil is being radiated back out. (Micro climate) There are way to many variables to claim albedo is affecting climate change either way.

I keep providing science whether you believe it or not. For once H. Provide me something to back this cropland claim of yours. There is much more oxygen producing biomass in a rainforest than croplands. O2 is produced by plants by sequestering Carbon and using it to help create sugars, proteins and enzymes to sustain itself. O2 is a byproduct of that. Send me a link that provides the science behind your claim...

Alkaline is the wrong term, it is the ability of a substance to withstand acidification or buffering capacity. Basic is the opposite of acidic. When you talk pH remember it is a logarithmic scale.
Each change in pH represents a 10 fold change in acidification:
http://www.pmel.noaa.gov/co2/files/noaa_...

The details of the reactions look like this:
CO2+H2O <> H2CO3
When CO2 dissolves in seawater, carbonic acid is produced via the reaction:
H2CO3 <> {H+] + HCO3
This carbonic acid dissociates in the water, releasing hydrogen ions and bicarbonate:
[H+]+[CO32-] <> [HCO3-]
[H+] represents a single positive H ion and so on
The increase in the hydrogen ion concentration causes an increase in acidity, since acidity is defined by the pH scale, where pH = -log [H+] (so as hydrogen increases, the pH decreases). This log scale means that for every unit decrease on the pH scale, the hydrogen ion concentration has increased 10-fold.

One result of the release of hydrogen ions is that they combine with any carbonate ions in the water to form bicarbonate:

This removes carbonate ions from the water, making it more difficult for organisms to form the CaCO3 they need for their shells.

The oceans are not, in fact, acidic, but slightly basic.

Acidity is measured using the pH scale, where 7.0 is defined as neutral, with higher levels called "basic" and lower levels called "acidic".

Historical global mean seawater values are approximately 8.16 on this scale, making them slightly basic.

To put this in perspective, pure water has a pH of 7.0 (neutral), whereas household bleach has a pH of 12 (highly basic) and battery acid has a pH of zero (highly acidic).

However, even a small change in pH may lead to large changes in ocean chemistry and ecosystem functioning. Over the past 300 million years, global mean ocean pH values have probably never been more than 0.6 units lower than today (6). Ocean ecosystems have thus evolved over time in a very stable pH environment, and it is unknown if they can adapt to such large and rapid changes.

Environmentalism is a Religion.
Climate Progress is the Global Warming propaganda arm of Think Progress.
Think Progress is a wholly owned megaphone of Dread King George Soros.
"Denier" is an ad hominem.
And you, sir, are a troll.

Please find another site to engage in your agit-prop and harassment.

" Things will change much slower in Antarctica.."

So, it is 'scientifically proven' that there is undoubted climate change (warming), that the warming is fast and calamitous in the Arctic (ignore big-corporate funded data showing more ice) and warming is slow in the Antarctic despite the expected big-corporate data showing cooling. There are things happening here that are not for the public good.

Exactly how I read it also Rozar. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Belief and faith are two separate words for a reason. You can believe something but retain skepticism, but faith is regarding something as true regardless of evidence against it.

To be fair Eudaimonia you did say "truth, i.e. metaphysics and faith." It is natural to assume that you think that truth can only be found through faith.

wrt the Nat Geo link, it shows how unreliable the National Geographic is, repeat, the oceans are alkaline even tho' becoming less so. The percentages are, well meaningless. (what compared with what?)
For another link -
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/...
To evaluate the claim, you need to know the present height of the statue above sea level, and the rate at which ocean levels are rising over the past 50 odd years say 2.8mm per year.
and read the comments.
National Geographic benefits from the scare, it is part of the problem.

When CO2 is mixed with water there are reaction which produces acids among other things. This point is seized on by the climate alarmist movement who state that the oceans which are alkaline will become acidic. The argument is correct as to direction only. I've seen unreliable calculations that the time for pH (the acid/alkalinity measure) to reach neutral is a few hundred thousand years. There is unreliable evidence that this is happening already, with disastrous results, with beneficial results, and will never happen. Choose, according to who pays for the research, or say- not proven.