Incluso duplicando o triplicando la concentración de CO2 atmosférico tendríamos un mínimo impacto en las temperaturas

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

Vaya por delante mi agradecimiento al profesor Geoffrey G. Duffy por permitirnos la publicación completa de este trabajo. El original lo tienen  aquí.

Professor Geoffrey G. Duffy
DEng, PhD, BSc, ASTC Dip., FRS NZ, FIChemE, CEng

Climate is always changing, and always will.  There are seasons.  There are day-night (diurnal) cycles.  At any one location, heat energy from the sun varies during the day.   Energy from the sun is affected by local conditions and clouds.   Heat absorption depends on whether it impacts water or land … and even then, the type of land (desert, forest, snow covered land), or the layout of the land (continental masses, or islands surrounded by seas).  In some parts of the world temperatures are climbing on average, and in some areas they are dropping.  Warming is not occurring everywhere at once and hence global warming is a misnomer.

So what are the key players in Climate Change?  The major driver is the sun.  Warming depends on the sun.  Cooling is due to the lack of sun’s energy.  Radiant energy enters the earth’s atmosphere.  Air (on a dry basis) consists mainly of nitrogen 78.08% and oxygen 20.94%.  Of the 0.98% remaining, 95% of that (ie 0.934%), or almost all is the inert gas argon.  Carbon dioxide CO2 is a trace.  It is less than 400ppm (parts per million) or 0.04% of all the atmosphere (on a dry basis).  Surprisingly, less than a fifth of that is man-made CO2 (0.008% of the total), and that is only since the beginning of the industrial era and the rapid increase in world population.

Carbon_Dioxide_CO2water.jpgThe atmosphere however is not dry!  The next major constituent of air apart from oxygen and nitrogen is water, as a vapour and a condensed liquid. The atmosphere is comprised of about 1-3% water vapour [At 20°C and 100% humidity there is 0.015kg water/kg air or 1.5%: at 50% Humidity, 0.008kg water/kg air or 0.8%: and in warmer climate at say 30°C, 100% humidity, 0.028kg water/kg air or 2.8%].  Water vapour condenses to form clouds and it is by far the most abundant and significant of the greenhouse gases.  Water accounts for about 95% of the greenhouse effect.  The main atmospheric intermediary between the sun and earth is water, and thus it dictates the behaviour of the earth’s climate. Without water vapour in particular and other greenhouse gases in the air in general, the surface air temperatures worldwide would be well below freezing.  The sun clearly must be a much bigger influence on global temperatures than any of the greenhouse gases, even water and CO2.  Carbon dioxide is about 1/60 of water in air!!   It clearly is not the major player even though it is wise to minimise man-made emissions like particulate emissions, and CO2 and other gases where practically possible.

Variable and unstable weather conditions are caused by local as well as large-scale differences in conditions (wind, rain, evaporation, topography etc).  They naturally induce either warming or cooling locally, regionally, or worldwide.  We all have experienced how on a cloudy/sunny day that clouds strongly affect our sensations of both heat and light (infrared energy and visible light).  Clouds do several things!   The atmosphere may be heated by clouds by emitting latent heat of condensation as water vapour condenses.  But clouds can both heat the atmosphere by reducing the amount of radiation transmitted, or cool the atmosphere by reflecting radiation.  So of all the affects that can influence heating and cooling in the atmosphere and on earth, clearly water is the main greenhouse gas.  Other greenhouse gases (carbon dioxide CO2, methane CH4, oxides of nitrogen etc) are 1/60 to 1/30 smaller in both quantity and effect.  So with all greenhouse gases including water, human activity accounts for only minute amounts, just 0.28% of the total greenhouse gases.  If we exclude the key one, water, then human activity would only account for about 5.53% of the total greenhouse effect.  This is minute in the total picture whatever way we look at it.

Unfortunately a lot of estimates and predictions are strongly based on theoretical computer models. Many now even trust models and their theoretical results more than actual measurements and facts from reality. Computer analysis requires that the earth be cut into small, separate areas (actually volumes), each being analysed for heat input/outputs and other gas/vapour fluxes.  Even so the computational analysis domain size (basic computer grid elements) is huge, 150km x 150km by 1km high, with the current computer power.  It is so large that the effects of even the very large clouds are not individually included; and that includes clouds in our visual horizon.  The spatial resolution is therefore very poor.  Supercomputers cannot give us the accuracy we need.   Modellers therefore use parameters: one factor fits all, for each of the domains (a kind of a fudge factor).  This is sad, as water as vapour in clouds is 30 to 60 times more significant than other minute amounts of other greenhouse gases.  Clearly climate simulations and thus predictions can be in serious error unless the actual cloud effects are well defined in the models.  It is not only the number and spacing of the clouds in that 150 square kilometre area, but also cloud height effects, and cloud structure.  These factors are not accounted for at all.  Typhoons are still not represented in most models.  Many tropical storms and local intense rain downfalls say in a 50km radius cannot be seen by the models. Volcanic eruptions and large forest fires are extremely difficult to model. These emit enormous tonnages of small particulate matter that have immense shielding effects and interactions in the atmosphere. The slow diffusion of the smoke on windless days, and the more rapid turbulent dissipation on windy days are both very difficult to model or predict.   We are simply not there yet in the simplest events.

The inter-zonal effects of such larger-scale movements like the Gulf stream, or the El Nino–El Nina patterns, are not really greatly understood, and virtually impossible to model.  The noise (random fluctuations) in the results from the computer models is often greater than the magnitude of the computer readout results themselves!  It is really surprising why model computer-forecasts are trusted for periods of say 30 – 50 or so years, yet weather forecasts are often very inaccurate even over a 2 or 3 week period.  A good model should be able to predict even the recent past.  The fact that these models cannot, clearly shows that we should shift our thinking and trust away from computer models to longer-term analysis of actual data, and to understanding the real physical mechanisms and processes (the ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ factors).  Someone has said; “if tomorrow’s weather is inaccurately modelled and predicted, how can we pretend to predict long-term climate changes?”

Linearising short-term, random fluctuations in weather changes and temperature changes is scientifically untenable (weather and climate changes should be studied over very long periods if reliable trends are to be discerned).  Much credence is given to the hockey-stick effect of temperature data (upward swing in mean temperature over just the last decade or so) proposed and adopted by the IPPC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change).  Nations have grabbed this and are using this to base their policies for actions on global warming effects, and the implementation of controls on carbon-based emissions by carbon taxing.  The very computer programme that gave IPPC those results was recently rigorously tested by inputing random numbers, and the computer-generated readout gave the same upward data trend with this meaningless input.  This makes a mockery out the IPPC report and subsequent actions.  Of course IPPC cannot admit to that now, as their report has been regarded as gospel by many nations.  In stunning direct contrast, actual data (not idealistic models) from remote sensors in satellites have continuously measured the world’s temperature and have shown that the trend in the warming period ended in 2001.  Actual satellite measurements show that the temperature has dropped about 0.60C in the past year, when compared to the mean recorded 1980 temperature.  Observations from the Hadley Centre show that global temperature has changed by less than 0.050C over the past decade!  Also 1998 was distinctly warmer than 2006 because of the El Nino event.  Why can’t we believe actual accurate data?

A man-made greenhouse does not create new heat.   A man-made greenhouse can only increase the residence time or hold-up time of heat just like a blanket.  Likewise in the atmosphere, the ‘greenhouse effect’ acts as a mechanism to smooth out fluctuations or rises and falls in temperature (that is advantageous).  It is a dampener!  It cannot be a dominant factor for global temperature change.  It is the sun that gives the heat energy and drives temperature change.  Simply, if the sun’s energy decreases, then the ‘global’ temperature will fall; with or without any greenhouse effect (and vice-versa).

carbon_cycle.gifBut we must also consider the location of the effects.  The surface of Earth is 70 % water.  Water has a far greater heat carrying capacity than land; or even the atmosphere itself.  Most of the incoming heat from the sun is absorbed by the seas and lakes (simply because they occupy 70% of the world’s surface area).  When we compare that with land masses, a lower proportion of heat is reflected from watery zones to participate in the greenhouse effect.  The greenhouse effect is mainly a phenomenon of the land surface and the atmosphere because land masses lose most of the heat they receive during the day by the action of overnight radiation.  To multiply that effect, the atmosphere loses heat rapidly out into space by rainfall, convection and radiation, despite the greenhouse effect.  So the large surface area of water over the world and the heat storage of water, are far more significant than any atmospheric greenhouse effect.   The oceans really control the transport of water vapour and latent heat changes into the atmosphere (latent heat is heat needed to convert water-to-vapour, or conversely is given up when vapour goes to water), and this is far more significant than sensible heat changes alone (non changes in the state of water).

The seas take a long time to warm up or cool down when compared to land.  This means the storage of total heat by the oceans is immense.   As mentioned, heat energy reaching the land by day is soon radiated back out into space at night.  But there are also zonal differences!  The sun’s energy at the equator is consistent all year round, and in this region the larger proportion of surface area happens to be the ocean water.  The dominant heat loss is primarily at the poles with each pole alternating as the main loser of heat.  As a result there are severe cyclical variations in temperature with the seas and ice caps having the dominant effects in energy changes and hence temperature effects. If the erroneously-called, global warming was occurring now we should see it now.  Oceans would be expanding and rising; in fact over the past two years, the global sea level has decreased not increased.  Satellites orbiting the planet every 10 days have measured the global sea level to an accuracy of 3-4 millimeters (2/10 inch inches) [see sealevel.colorado.edu].  Many glaciers are receding but some are increasing.  Glacial shelves at the poles melt and reform every year because there are periodic seasonal changes; these alone show dramatically just what changes can occur from summer-to-winter-to-summer again and again.  Dramatic changes?  Yes; but they are perfectly normal and to be expected.

It is also important to highlight that CO2 is not a pollutant.  It is vital for plant, tree, and food-crop growth.  The basic principle of equilibria shows that when A and B make C and D, then C and D will react to form more A and B.  Hence, as CO2 is produced, it will react to produce more oxygen and cellulosic carbon through the well-known chlorophyllic process. Tree, plant, and food-crop production goes up markedly.  With low amounts of CO2 in the air we would have severe food crop deficiencies.  This process occurs with plankton too.  But over and above this chemical-biochemical reaction is the simple physical equilibrium process of solubility.  As the seas cool, more CO2 dissolves in the water, and CO2 in the air reduces (and vice-versa).

Other extremely important insights can be gleaned from the ice-core record.  If CO2 was the main contributor to climate change, then history would reveal that the levels of CO2 would precede the mean temperature rise around the globe.  In fact it is the opposite!  Increases in CO2 have always lagged behind temperature rises and the lag involved is estimated to be 400 to 800 years. The core samples show that there has never been a period when CO2 increases have come before a global temperature increase.  Any recent apparent temperature upward trend cannot be linked to CO2 increases.  There is no physical evidence to support that.  In fact there is the high probability that the more likely explanation of an overall warming trend is that we follow the ‘recent’ Little Ice Age, 400-600 years ago. There was also a Mediaeval Warm Period (MWP) that preceded that too!

The heat from the sun varies over a number of solar cycles which can last from about 9.5 years to about 13.6 years (the main one is the cycle of 11 years).  The earth also has an irregular orbit around the sun. These and other effects like the gravitational effects of the planets of the solar system, combine to affect the sun’s magnetic field. Solar fares and sunspots affect the amount of heat generated from the sun.  In fact, there is an excellent correspondence in general warming on earth with increased sun spot activity.  The graphical correlation of sun-spot activity and the earth’s mean temperature changes is quite amazing.   It appears that the activity of the dominant heat supplier (the sun) has a far greater affect on weather (and therefore climate change) than any traces of atmospheric gases.

It is also interesting to note that NASA’s Aqua satellite system has shown that the earth has been cooling since 1998.   This corresponds with measurements from the Argos sub-ocean probes that the ocean is cooling.  This is in stark contrast with the proposals from many climate alarmists.  The solar effect is huge and overwhelming and there must be time delays in absorbance and build up in energy received by earth and ocean masses.  But the warmer the Earth gets, the faster it radiates heat out into space. This is a self-correcting, self-healing process.

The sun directly drives the El Nino–El Nina current motions that drive temperature changes world-wide.   The sun sets up evaporative cycles, drives larger air and water currents or cycles, and changes weather patterns and therefore climate change.  The varying degrees of lag and out-of-phase changes cause periodic oceanic oscillations.  The El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO cycle) turns from warming to cooling depending on the net warming or cooling effect of the sun. This occurs quite rapidly.  From about 1975 to 2000 there was a strong El Nino warming period (a positive Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO).  Now there is a La Nina period, and this has a cooling or decrease in warming (negative PDO).  In essence the ENSO and PDO switching is caused directly by the sun. Also there are similar periodic oscillations in other oceans (Atlantic and the Arctic oceans).
The panic to do something about climate change has led to some unrealistic and unsustainable actions.  For example, Bio-fuels from grain will greatly increase food prices and roughly 30 million people are expected to be severely deprived.  The USA will use up to 30% of the annual corn crop for alcohol production for vehicles alone.  Ethanol production requires energy too to make it economically.  The actual cost/liter is much the same as other liquid fuels, but the liters/kilometer consumed by vehicles is much higher than petrol, and well-meaning motorists will have to use far more ethanol.  Just one tank full of ethanol for an SUV is obtained from enough corn to feed one African for a year. Worldwide the ethanol plant subsidies in 2008 will total $15 billion.  A 2008 study on bio-fuels has shown that the CO2 emissions will actually double if carbon-rich forests are cut down.
Well, what about all the latest pictures, videos and TV programmes on climate change?   Yes, there is a lot happening!  Weather patterns are changing in many parts of the world and some catastrophic events seem to point to the earth warming.  Even over our lifetime we have observed many weather pattern changes where we live.  But what we observe (the effect) in a relatively small time-span cannot honestly be connected directly to any supposed ‘cause’ without investigating all the mechanisms that cause change.  It is so easy to grab onto the notion that the increase in fossil-fuel burning and subsequent growth in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is directly the major cause.  Even from season to season we see snow and ice-covered mountains thaw, and massive areas of the Antarctic ice shelf melt, but in just 6 or so months they are restored.  We are not alarmed at these annual changes!  So why can’t we see that climate changes occurring all over the world now (not as big as these dramatic annual changes) are simply similar but on a larger time-scale.  We have the ice-core and sea-bed core evidence at least to show us that this has happened in recent centuries.  These are in harmony as to changes in CO2 with time and variations in temperature over time.  There is no indication that one causes the other!   History also tells us that there have been significant cooling periods over the last 1,000 years.
Climate and local weather is forever changing.  Sure we must minimise pollution of our air and water systems with obnoxious chemical and particulates, and not treat them as sewers.  But even doubling or trebling the amount of carbon dioxide will virtually have little impact, as water vapour and water condensed on particles as clouds dominate the worldwide scene and always will.

CARBON DIOXIDE CO2
BEST ESTIMATES OF THE LOCATION of CO2  as carbon (C)

Giga tonnes Gt (BILLION tonnes)
Atmosphere                                                   750 Gt
Oceans – surface                                         1,000 Gt
Oceans –  intermediate / deep                  38,000 Gt
Vegetation (soil, detritus)                            2,200 Gt
Total                                                           41,950 Gt

Annual EXCHANGE of CO2

Ocean surface – Atmosphere                              90 Gt
Vegetation – atmosphere                                   60 Gt
Between Marine biota and Ocean Surface          50 Gt
Oceans( surface-to-deep)                               100 Gt
Human emissions* (coal, oil, nat. gas)                6 Gt  <2%
Total                                                                306 Gt


  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

13 comentarios en «Incluso duplicando o triplicando la concentración de CO2 atmosférico tendríamos un mínimo impacto en las temperaturas»

  1. En los comentarios acabo de leer la frase cómica del siglo: “los GEI absorben esa radiación infrarroja y no la dejan salir” Cuando hay muy baja humedad se produce el fenómeno de inversión térmica. La temperatura de la superficie, y la atmósfera adyacente que le puede suministrar energía, se enfrían a temperaturas menores que a más altura. En otras palabras cuando no hay vapor de agua la radiación se escapa el espacio exterior muy rápidamente. Esta es una prueba cabal que los GEI en una estampida de fotones son solo espectadores de lujo.

  2. En mi opinión está clarísimo que los politicos y los burócratas como el Prof. Lecuona se quieren aprovechar de la ignorancia de la gente, incluídos sus alumnos más crédulos.
    Creo que el Prof . Duffy es muy coherente, nada en contra de la corriente de estupidez que amenaza arrastrarnos y nos invade, los supuestos alarmistas y las bobadas teóricas que acabarán en impuestos y otras zarandajas intervencionistas.

  3. Amigos, estoy muy atento a vuestras discusiones pero yo ya tengo para mí lo siguiente:
    1º) Estamos vertiendo una cantidad de desechos tanto en tierra como en el mar como a la atmósfera que no tiene precedentes desde que el hombre habita la tierra. Tambien estamos explotando sus recursos a un ritmo que pronto iremos agotando. Si nadie me convence de lo contrario puedo afirmar que ni los desechos ni la sobreexplotación de los recursos está favoreciendo el ecosistema de nuestro planeta. El planeta se queja o no tardará en hacerlo. No sé si el calentamiento es a causa de la mayor actividad solar , del aumento de CO2 , del vapor de agua atmosférico , o un poco de todo. Ahora , “por si las moscas” no estaría mal que nos creyéramos la historia del CO2 pues aunque no sea verdad está causando nuevos revulsivos a la economía.Por otra parte me parece que el famoso agujero de ozono ya no crece al ritmo pasado y diría que ello ha guardado relación con la disminución de los fluorcarbonados. En su día nos vendieron esa idea y causó un revulsivo en la industria química de la que no pocos se beneficiaron. Obtuvimos afortunadamente beneficio por doble partida.

    2º) El modelo económico actual está demasiado “maduro” y como prueba tenemos esta nueva invención de los bonus y los subprime que tomaron relevo a la revolución económica que promovió la tecnología “.com” después del revulsivo económico resultante de la falsa liberación de la mujer para ponerla a trabajar por un dinero que luego incorporaría al consumo. Fue bonito mientras duró. Pero ahora nos falta un nuevo relevo y ese relevo es la “ecotecnología” . Hay que explotar nuestra mala conciencia de depredadores y hacer rentable la ecotecnología. Y esta tiene mucha cuerda porque es una tecnología en la que la gran mayoría está de acuerdo aunque sea a base de desinformación. Por fin el gran capital, los gobernantes, los currantes , burgueses, ecologistas y yo diría que hasta los antisistema estamos de acuerdo en algo. Que dure

  4. Como cualquier bachiller sabe, la combustión de hidrocarburos produce vapor de agua además de dióxido de carbono. Por ejemplo, la combustión de una molécula de metano produce dos moléculas de vapor de agua por sólo una de dióxido de carbono. Así pues, si según este señor el vapor de agua es el reponsable del 95 por ciento del efecto invernadero, entonces su estudio viene a dar un espaldarazo a las políticas que abogan por la reducción en la quema de combustibles fósiles.

  5. Dice el señor Duffy que el CO2 antropogenico (por causa del hombre) es del 0,008%, eso amigo Duffy es una croqueta(una mentira). El CO2 actualmente está en 360 ppm, un 30% más que en la era preindustrial y eso no creo que lo hayan hecho las plantas

    Yo le preguntaría a tu catedrático por las variaciones de temperatura de los océanos y los correspondientes grados de solubilidad de CO2. Probablemente te responda que es muy posible que por efecto de la actividad solar, claramente alta en los últimos 90 años, hemos asistido a un paulatino aumento en la temperatura de los océanos, lo cual a resultado en un descenso de la solubilidad de CO2. Esto es, CO2 fijado en el océano, ha sido devuelto a la atmósfera y el emitido (no sólo por nosotros) no se fija con la misma efectividad. No dice Duffy en ningún sitio nada sobre si la a atmosfera en presencia de agua tarda mucho o poco en calentarse o enfriarse. Creo que no entendiste bien lo que se expone. Además, lo del 0,008% no lo dice Duffy, lo dicen los libros. Consulta.
    Si no mejoras en comprensión lectora, no te va a aprobar 😉 (es una broma) Además, Duffy es un catedrático como la copa de un pino y a Lecuona no le conozco de nada.

    Que los humanos somos contaminantes no te lo va a negar nadie. Pero la física es la que hay, no la que nos gustaría que hubiese.

  6. Hola, soy estudiante de ingenieria industrial y da la casualidad de que esta mañana acabo de hacer un exámen que habla justo de ese tema, y me ha llamado mucho la atención que en los comentarios que he leido nadie dude de la credibilidad de este señor. Yo sinceramente me creo más lo que dice el catedrático de mi universidad (Lecuona) que este señor y les comento porque.

    El efecto invernadero se basa a grandes rasgos en que la tierra recibe radiacion en forma de luz y la refleja como infrarrojos, pero el problema es que los GEI absorben esa radiacion infrarroja y no la dejan salir, lo que produce el calentamiento de la atmosfera. Dice el señor Duffy que el CO2 antropogenico (por causa del hombre) es del 0,008%, eso amigo Duffy es una croqueta(una mentira). El CO2 actualmente está en 360 ppm, un 30% más que en la era preindustrial y eso no creo que lo hayan hecho las plantas.

    Y cuando dice que en el 2007 ha habido un descenso de 0,6ºC es una media croqueta(una verdad a medias), es verdad que ha pasado lo que Duffy dice pero eso hay que verlo con un horizonte mas amplio, ¡no de 20 años Duffy! Desde el año 1000 hasta la era industrial, la Tª ha ido oscilando entre -0.1 y 0.5 ºC y en los ultimos 150 años a pasado a subir en +0.8ºC (tengo la grafiquita aqui delante).

    Por ultimo cuando dice que todo esto es culpa del agua (Duffy deja de meter corquetas) sinceramente es imposible porque el agua tiene una capacidad calorífica altisima, eso significa que la atmosfera en presencia de agua tarda mucho en enfriarse o mucho en calentarse (por eso mismo cerca del mar las Tª son mas suaves) por lo tanto si el calentamiento fuera culpa del agua habriamos tenido variaciones de temperatura a lo largo de muchos siglos.

    A todo esto sumarle que nos estamos cargando los bosques, el agujero de la capa de ozono tiene el tamaño de africa, los polos se estan derritiendo, hay muchos mas fenomenos atmosfericos extremos(huracanes, maremotos), ¡los giris estan empezando a hacer vino! porque la Tª media de UK ha bajado. Ademas de que es mucho mas rentable contaminar que no hacerlo, hay unos procesos complicadisimos que encima me he tenido que estudiar

    En serio, yo no soy un experto pero no dejen que les metan la croqueta, y si no me creen a mi pregunten a mi catedratico (Lecuona) y ya de paso diganle que me apruebe.

  7. Hombre, ya tiene mérito que peptio haya sido capaz de entrar en casa de Luis, otra cuestión es si sus prejuicios le han permitido leer con tranquilidad el trabajo del referido profesor. Y digo lo del mérito, porque en ciertos círculos no se puede llegar, incluso con apoyo en los gráficos que ofrece la verdad incómoda de Al Gore, al meollo de la cuestión de la estafa alarmista en que nos han metido porque sí: primero se calienta el Planeta y luego crece la proporción de CO2 en la atmósfera. Casi siempre, cuando para iniciar la cuestión hablas de las proporciones de los diferentes gases y del vapor de agua en la atmósfera, ya te has ganado el apelativo de facha. Por cierto peptio, esas proporciones se estudian en la ESO, o sea, que no hace falta ser premio Nobel para exponerlas con un mínimo de credibilidad.

  8. …Querido PEPTIO, supongo que como Arafat (felizmente en presencia de Alá y rodeado de Huríes ya que la pasta que robó se la repartieron su Esposa y sus acólitos) fue premio Nobel de la Paz…. cualquier “cosa” que haya salido de su coleto es digna de admiración y debe ser puesta en práctica a cualquier precio…

    PEPTIO, gracias a iluminados como este, Lemoniz, en vez de generar energía para todos solo produjo dolor y muerte a su alrededor… es la única central nuclear de España causante de muertos y heridos…y eso que jamas entró en funcionamiento.

    Que Santa Lucía te conserve la agudeza visual…

    Un Saludo a Todos y Siempre en la Memoria

  9. Luis,
    lo de siempre de estos totalitarios. Como no saben discutir el argumento, atacan a la persona. Ni caso a esta gentuza.

    Me leeré esto. Muchas gracias por ponerlo.

  10. No te das cuenta de que la gente irá a leer el CV y la lista de publicaciones de este científico y tu comentario quedará reducido a estulticia y pataleta?
    No te entiendo, de verdad….

  11. “Man-made CO2 (0.008% of the total)”.

    En ese porcentaje está la clave: solamente el 0,008% de la población mundial (aproximadamente 500.000 personas) es capaz de comprender lo que realmente el planeta Tierra dice sobre el cambio climático; el resto se dedica a babear cuando asoma algún ‘Gore’ o similar a vomitar sus diatribas. Y claro, con tanta baba, los pobres ignorantes no se dan cuenta de que incrementan la humedad atmosférica mitigando así el supuesto efecto pernicioso del CO2.

    La estulticia alcanza tales niveles que en el colmo de lo absurdo, mientras compraba unos exquisitos chorizos leoneses hace unos días, un elemento supongo ecologista se quejaba de que ‘ya no sabían igual, probablemente porque la elaboración del pimentón se ve afectada por el cambio climático’. Estuve a punto de solicitarle su curriculum vitae para remitirlo a la calle Ferraz, 70 – 28008 Madrid, pero el (avispado) dependiente ofreció a la clientela una cata de cecina… e irremediablemente todos olvidamos al cretino.

    Pero para olvidar lo que no interesa a los ocupantes de escaños, no siempre nos ofrecen cecina: es mucho más vistoso eso de machacar compañías aéreas sin argumento alguno, o que una mentecata anuncie con orquesta incluida nueva legislación de dudosa utilidad social, o que los voceros contrarios a la energía nuclear demuestren su capacidad intelectual sentenciando que las centrales nucleares españolas son ‘bombas atómicas controladas’

    Supongo que estupideces así son las que esgrime la NASA para no haber respondido a ninguna de mis solicitudes para tripular la primera misión a Plutón….

    Saludos.

    YO NO LE VOTÉ: ^^

Los comentarios están cerrados.