Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

ahj    

Rank #34450 on Subscribers
ahj Avatar Level 264 Comments: Pure Win
Offline
Send mail to ahj Block ahj Invite ahj to be your friend flag avatar
Last status update:
-
Personal Info
Age: 21
Date Signed Up:3/08/2012
Last Login:12/09/2012
Funnyjunk Career Stats
Content Thumbs: 168 total,  372 ,  204
Comment Thumbs: 6424 total,  7340 ,  916
Content Level Progress: 80% (8/10)
Level 16 Content: New Here → Level 17 Content: New Here
Comment Level Progress: 19% (19/100)
Level 264 Comments: Pure Win → Level 265 Comments: Pure Win
Subscribers:1
Content Views:19518
Times Content Favorited:2 times
Total Comments Made:1763
FJ Points:6799

latest user's comments

#409 - I agree that most poor people are poor due to bad choices, and…  [+] (10 new replies) 06/04/2012 on Capitalism 0
#410 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
5% more isn't that much, I guess that's fine. Really? I didn't know tax on investment was lower. But it isn't that idiotic because it might be because we or your country has a lack of investors. It will not really help the government if the companies are not developing because they are in lack of funds.
Oh and about the co2 thing, plants grow faster when their is more co2, so more co2 is absorb. There were times periods were co2 levels were allot higher then today, something like 12 times! Like during the time dinosaurs were sill alive, and vegetation was abundant. If there is more co2, there will be more phytoplankton and plants. Also, here in Canada we replant trees after cutting them, and I am pretty sure they do the same pretty much everywhere. I hardly see who would not do that, even if they don't care about the environment, they should care about being able to cut more in the years to come (well they might be dead by then but if the owner just started his company at like 30, it might be a good idea, because it take 30 years, or maybe I am mistaken and it takes more). I think we should just wait until we develop thorium or fusion before stopping to use oil. Solar and wind should not replace it. Geothermal is not a bad idea, but if you're willing to build it everywhere you might need to dig pretty deep at some places, which should be expensive.
User avatar #411 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
As I said, no one is going to be moved by these comments, but just so you know:
Our system is relatively balanced in that the carbon dioxide that humans exhale is properly matched by the carbon dioxide that plants take in to keep our planet at a good, if not slightly chilly, temperature. When we add tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it can't all be taken in at once, even though plants take it in faster when there is more. It sits in the atmosphere until it's needed by plants, and in that time it's joined by other carbon dioxide that was emitted later. The problem is that we cannot quite reach a state of dynamic equilibrium with the amount of carbon dioxide that is being put out. While this carbon dioxide sits in the atmosphere and piles up (very slowly, but still piling up), it keeps infrared rays from exiting the Earth's atmosphere. These infrared rays therefore stay close to Earth and raise the atmospheric temperature, which causes polar ice caps to melt, which will eventually cause small floods and the release of giant quantities of methane under ice in northern Russia and Canada. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and if it is released, it will drastically raise the temperature of the Earth in a short amount of time and cause the final melting of polar ice caps, which will cause worldwide flooding and the destruction of anything, anything built on low lying land. This is what environmentalists talk about when they talk about climate change, and it would be a very bad scenario. This is also why I believe that carbon dioxide release should be regulated, or at the very least there should be tax credits given to companies that self-regulate their emissions.
#412 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
There is a, little flaw with this argument. I have seen the green house effect, and it's not true that co2 leads our climate. Water cause 90% of the green house effect of the earth, and co2 I thinks it's 5%. We could double, even triple it without having a really large impact on the planet. Don't listen do environmentalist, they say that because if hey stop their paycheck will stop appearing threw the mail. The sun is the leader of our climate, we just need to look at pass solar activity and temperature. Warmist say that the sun has no impact on or climate, which is untrue, because without the sun the green house effect would not even exist. And about the polar ice caps, even though the edge are melting, the center is rising in Greenland. A b2 crashed there, during WWII I think, and they found it not to long ago many dozens of meters bellow the ice. i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
User avatar #414 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
Your percentages are close to correct, but you're using them wrong. Water vapor composes close to 90% of the gases in the environment, but it doesn't account for 90% of the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is a much stronger greenhouse gas than water vapor, and therefore does have a large effect on climate change. About the sun having an effect on climate change, you're right that without the sun there would be no global warming, but the sun is not an active participant in global warming that we can adjust. While it does provide the infrared rays that get trapped in the earth's atmosphere, we cannot adjust that. What we can adjust is how many of the rays it provides stay in the atmosphere. And about the ice caps, I'm sure that the ice caps are not rising in the centre on average. While what you said about Greenland may be true, that's no indicator for the rest of the northern polar region or for the southern polar region. The edges of these ice caps are melting rapidly, and the centre that you claim to be bulging will be the edge of the Greenland ice sheet in a matter of years if the climate is not controlled.
#415 - realyboredguy (06/06/2012) [-]
No, I am using them right, it's the percentage of the warming, not the percentage of the green house gas . If 90% of the green house gas gas was water, and 5% co2, there would only be 18 more water then co2. That's wrong. 4% of our atmosphere is composed of water, and 0.04% is co2, which means there is 100 ties more water then co2. Look at the graph. For the Greenland, no it's all of it except the edges. For he south pole, www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/the-real-facts-on-increasing-antarctic-ic e.html.
About the we can't do anything about the sun, well you got it! The suns create most of the warming, so we can't do anything about it, can we? That's the thing. And even if we go down to co2, we are not creating most of it. The media does everything to hide that fact, but they forgot to hide one thing, the amount of co2 absorbed by nature. Platoons filtrates 100 petagrams of co2 in a year, while we create about 30 petagram of co2 a year. That's whiteout counting the amount of co2 filtrated or absorbed by trees and others. Just look at the graph!



User avatar #416 - ahj (06/06/2012) [-]
While the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere by humans may be small, it's still enough to matter. It's a bit like the straw that broke the camel's back. The earth has a naturally occurring cycle of carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon is emitted by the breathing of animals and the eruption of volcanoes around the world (yes, that is a major source of atmospheric carbon), and it is absorbed by plants and the oceans. This cycle has been balancing itself ever since this planet was created billions of years ago. While the 24 billion tons of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels might not be much compared to other sources, it's enough to push this cycle past the tipping point.
#417 - realyboredguy (06/07/2012) [-]
No, because as I said, it's a self regulating cycle. Even though humans behave differently, nature will still be able to adapt. Like I said earlier, there was period of times with 12 times more co2 (Jurassic period I think). I agree with you that it is a problem, but not catastrophic. We need to fix it, but there is better way then going in the streets holding posters ''I count'' just to feel important (not talking about you acting like this, just a large percentage of the people who do believe in Man made GW). Better ways like trying to find a rechargeable battery that would be able to hold more electricity in a small aria, for a car.
User avatar #418 - ahj (06/08/2012) [-]
I agree with you on the fact that doing something is much more helpful than holding up signs, and on that note, I'm going to stop arguing here. There is nothing more to be said. Have a nice day
#419 - realyboredguy (06/08/2012) [-]
Good bye!
#413 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
That is an article on global warming. it might take a loonng while before I reply, like a couple days, but I will, I just need to do some things.
#407 - Carbon dioxide in small amounts isn't bad. It's bad when giant… 06/04/2012 on Capitalism 0
#406 - A fully capitalist system will never work. Neither would a ful…  [+] (12 new replies) 06/04/2012 on Capitalism 0
#408 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
Sorry, it's just that most greenies are water melons (green outside, red inside). I shouldn't of judged you that quietly, but before this date I never went wrong. The only regulation the government should put on the industries is well yes rules about checking if there is leaks that could be harmful tho the environment, or other LOGICAL environmental protection rules, not like regulating the amount of co2, which is good for trees. Others would be not mistreating their employees in any way, reasonable salary, and safe products. The things I am against is things like preventing a company to temporally hire a replacement for a syndicated employee. Yes their should be rules but not exaggerated. I also think that taxing rich people more is wrong, because you're repealing them from your country. Same percentage for everybody is a good idea. Roch people will still pay more, but not to much, and same for everybody. And before saying that poorer people in civilized countries are unlucky, what do you think gave them their position? I hardly see how somebody that have education would end up with a bad job. Instead of giving money to people who don't have a job without any physical or mental disorder, we should give it directly to poor children who succeed well in high school, by paying their college or university. Their is no reason to end up with a average lower then 70% if you're at a average school. So, the first reason is not willing to succeed. The next is just bad decisions, like people who buy a boat, two cars, a big house, a pool, and go to vacation every summer with a salary lower then 30k a year. They end up not being able to pay their mortgage, the bank take their stuff because they need their money back, and they end up living in the road. An other bad decision is drugs. First of all they destroy their brain, and second they cost allot.

In a western country I hardly see how their would be a good reason to be poor, except in rare cases. Name some please.
User avatar #409 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
I agree that most poor people are poor due to bad choices, and I'm not going to argue that. Taxing rich people at a higher percentage is a hotly debated subject, and while I understand that (most of them) worked to get that money, I still think that when you have that much money, you can afford to give 5% more of your salary to the government and still live a very comfortable lifestyle. The fact that most, if not all of the top .01%'s salary comes from investments means that those people will in fact pay a lower tax rate, as taxes on investments are much lower than those on income, which I think is idiotic. About regulation of carbon dioxide, I believe that it needs to be regulated because trees and plants are not able to absorb it at the same rate as we're putting it out. The fact that we're cutting down trees about as fast as we're producing CO2 doesn't help either. I understand that neither of us are likely to yield in this internet argument, and I can tell that you're an intelligent person. I just wanted to put my views out there.
#410 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
5% more isn't that much, I guess that's fine. Really? I didn't know tax on investment was lower. But it isn't that idiotic because it might be because we or your country has a lack of investors. It will not really help the government if the companies are not developing because they are in lack of funds.
Oh and about the co2 thing, plants grow faster when their is more co2, so more co2 is absorb. There were times periods were co2 levels were allot higher then today, something like 12 times! Like during the time dinosaurs were sill alive, and vegetation was abundant. If there is more co2, there will be more phytoplankton and plants. Also, here in Canada we replant trees after cutting them, and I am pretty sure they do the same pretty much everywhere. I hardly see who would not do that, even if they don't care about the environment, they should care about being able to cut more in the years to come (well they might be dead by then but if the owner just started his company at like 30, it might be a good idea, because it take 30 years, or maybe I am mistaken and it takes more). I think we should just wait until we develop thorium or fusion before stopping to use oil. Solar and wind should not replace it. Geothermal is not a bad idea, but if you're willing to build it everywhere you might need to dig pretty deep at some places, which should be expensive.
User avatar #411 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
As I said, no one is going to be moved by these comments, but just so you know:
Our system is relatively balanced in that the carbon dioxide that humans exhale is properly matched by the carbon dioxide that plants take in to keep our planet at a good, if not slightly chilly, temperature. When we add tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it can't all be taken in at once, even though plants take it in faster when there is more. It sits in the atmosphere until it's needed by plants, and in that time it's joined by other carbon dioxide that was emitted later. The problem is that we cannot quite reach a state of dynamic equilibrium with the amount of carbon dioxide that is being put out. While this carbon dioxide sits in the atmosphere and piles up (very slowly, but still piling up), it keeps infrared rays from exiting the Earth's atmosphere. These infrared rays therefore stay close to Earth and raise the atmospheric temperature, which causes polar ice caps to melt, which will eventually cause small floods and the release of giant quantities of methane under ice in northern Russia and Canada. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and if it is released, it will drastically raise the temperature of the Earth in a short amount of time and cause the final melting of polar ice caps, which will cause worldwide flooding and the destruction of anything, anything built on low lying land. This is what environmentalists talk about when they talk about climate change, and it would be a very bad scenario. This is also why I believe that carbon dioxide release should be regulated, or at the very least there should be tax credits given to companies that self-regulate their emissions.
#412 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
There is a, little flaw with this argument. I have seen the green house effect, and it's not true that co2 leads our climate. Water cause 90% of the green house effect of the earth, and co2 I thinks it's 5%. We could double, even triple it without having a really large impact on the planet. Don't listen do environmentalist, they say that because if hey stop their paycheck will stop appearing threw the mail. The sun is the leader of our climate, we just need to look at pass solar activity and temperature. Warmist say that the sun has no impact on or climate, which is untrue, because without the sun the green house effect would not even exist. And about the polar ice caps, even though the edge are melting, the center is rising in Greenland. A b2 crashed there, during WWII I think, and they found it not to long ago many dozens of meters bellow the ice. i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
User avatar #414 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
Your percentages are close to correct, but you're using them wrong. Water vapor composes close to 90% of the gases in the environment, but it doesn't account for 90% of the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is a much stronger greenhouse gas than water vapor, and therefore does have a large effect on climate change. About the sun having an effect on climate change, you're right that without the sun there would be no global warming, but the sun is not an active participant in global warming that we can adjust. While it does provide the infrared rays that get trapped in the earth's atmosphere, we cannot adjust that. What we can adjust is how many of the rays it provides stay in the atmosphere. And about the ice caps, I'm sure that the ice caps are not rising in the centre on average. While what you said about Greenland may be true, that's no indicator for the rest of the northern polar region or for the southern polar region. The edges of these ice caps are melting rapidly, and the centre that you claim to be bulging will be the edge of the Greenland ice sheet in a matter of years if the climate is not controlled.
#415 - realyboredguy (06/06/2012) [-]
No, I am using them right, it's the percentage of the warming, not the percentage of the green house gas . If 90% of the green house gas gas was water, and 5% co2, there would only be 18 more water then co2. That's wrong. 4% of our atmosphere is composed of water, and 0.04% is co2, which means there is 100 ties more water then co2. Look at the graph. For the Greenland, no it's all of it except the edges. For he south pole, www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/the-real-facts-on-increasing-antarctic-ic e.html.
About the we can't do anything about the sun, well you got it! The suns create most of the warming, so we can't do anything about it, can we? That's the thing. And even if we go down to co2, we are not creating most of it. The media does everything to hide that fact, but they forgot to hide one thing, the amount of co2 absorbed by nature. Platoons filtrates 100 petagrams of co2 in a year, while we create about 30 petagram of co2 a year. That's whiteout counting the amount of co2 filtrated or absorbed by trees and others. Just look at the graph!



User avatar #416 - ahj (06/06/2012) [-]
While the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere by humans may be small, it's still enough to matter. It's a bit like the straw that broke the camel's back. The earth has a naturally occurring cycle of carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon is emitted by the breathing of animals and the eruption of volcanoes around the world (yes, that is a major source of atmospheric carbon), and it is absorbed by plants and the oceans. This cycle has been balancing itself ever since this planet was created billions of years ago. While the 24 billion tons of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels might not be much compared to other sources, it's enough to push this cycle past the tipping point.
#417 - realyboredguy (06/07/2012) [-]
No, because as I said, it's a self regulating cycle. Even though humans behave differently, nature will still be able to adapt. Like I said earlier, there was period of times with 12 times more co2 (Jurassic period I think). I agree with you that it is a problem, but not catastrophic. We need to fix it, but there is better way then going in the streets holding posters ''I count'' just to feel important (not talking about you acting like this, just a large percentage of the people who do believe in Man made GW). Better ways like trying to find a rechargeable battery that would be able to hold more electricity in a small aria, for a car.
User avatar #418 - ahj (06/08/2012) [-]
I agree with you on the fact that doing something is much more helpful than holding up signs, and on that note, I'm going to stop arguing here. There is nothing more to be said. Have a nice day
#419 - realyboredguy (06/08/2012) [-]
Good bye!
#413 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
That is an article on global warming. it might take a loonng while before I reply, like a couple days, but I will, I just need to do some things.
#152 - Reminds me of a George Carlin skit. "This is my message, … 06/02/2012 on !!!! 0
#150 - Little high, little low. 06/02/2012 on !!!! 0
#1072 - Custard Pie by Led Zeppelin. 06/02/2012 on I think I'm okay with that... +2
#54 - No one likes that. No one likes you. 06/02/2012 on 4chan cookout +4
#80 - your face looks delicious  [+] (1 new reply) 06/02/2012 on kill me +5
#85 - primerpower (06/02/2012) [-]
Here ya go
#337 - I never thought about it like that... have a gif for your trouble. 06/02/2012 on Pi Explained +11
#218 - I don't care if you believe me. My statement was fact; whether… 06/02/2012 on Oh yeah Science! +5
#214 - Actually, you're both wrong. According to the panel that decid…  [+] (4 new replies) 06/02/2012 on Oh yeah Science! +8
#225 - originialname (06/02/2012) [-]
GOD DETERMINES HOW MANY PLANETS
#SWAG
#250 - mynameisderp has deleted their comment.
User avatar #217 - hqbattery (06/02/2012) [-]
Psh i don't believe you.
User avatar #218 - ahj (06/02/2012) [-]
I don't care if you believe me. My statement was fact; whether you believe it or not is irrelevant.
#53 - Picture 05/30/2012 on How I Run +1
#32 - Picture 05/30/2012 on Unless.... 0
#87 - I would say something about how I hate this and how much it su… 05/30/2012 on Learning This Right Now 0
#89 - u shud try ifunny. its ****** hilareus. 05/30/2012 on Internet war? +2
#69 - Same here. I only delete comments when they contain grammatica… 05/30/2012 on MFW deleting... 0
#127 - Not all dubstep sounds like that. Each dubstep artist has thei… 05/30/2012 on Dubstep in a nutshell 0
#212 - Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, which is a green…  [+] (3 new replies) 05/30/2012 on Capitalism 0
#403 - realyboredguy (06/03/2012) [-]
-Water> carbon dioxide
-Destroy= Help tree grow?
Nuff said.
#383 - chrsbrrss (05/30/2012) [-]
And when we exhale what comes out? What uses carbon dioxide to survive that our planet is covered with....
User avatar #407 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
Carbon dioxide in small amounts isn't bad. It's bad when giant power plants spew huge amounts of it into the sky, faster than plants can absorb it. It's also bad when giant machines that spew even more CO2 into the air cut down the very trees and plants that take it out of the atmosphere.
#208 - I think that capitalism can work, but not laissez-faire. I hav…  [+] (20 new replies) 05/30/2012 on Capitalism 0
#405 - realyboredguy (06/03/2012) [-]
Capitalist= free market
laisser faire= free market
No laisser faire= no free market
No free market = no capitalist
So, basically, communism which you call capitalist to be able to make it pass, but with the attributes of communist.

1-Study in nuclear fusion
2-Make successful nuclear fusion reactor
3-Stop bashing of people richer then you
4-????
5-Profit?
User avatar #406 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
A fully capitalist system will never work. Neither would a fully communist system, as that could not be maintained. Somewhere inbetween capitalim and socialism, such as what we have now, is the best shot. I have no idea where you got the bashing rich people from, but I have no problem with rich people. I think it's great that they got rich, but I think that if you have more money, you should be able to give a little bit more of that money to help the government run than someone who makes $14 dollars an hour sweeping floors. That's not socialism, that's logic.
#408 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
Sorry, it's just that most greenies are water melons (green outside, red inside). I shouldn't of judged you that quietly, but before this date I never went wrong. The only regulation the government should put on the industries is well yes rules about checking if there is leaks that could be harmful tho the environment, or other LOGICAL environmental protection rules, not like regulating the amount of co2, which is good for trees. Others would be not mistreating their employees in any way, reasonable salary, and safe products. The things I am against is things like preventing a company to temporally hire a replacement for a syndicated employee. Yes their should be rules but not exaggerated. I also think that taxing rich people more is wrong, because you're repealing them from your country. Same percentage for everybody is a good idea. Roch people will still pay more, but not to much, and same for everybody. And before saying that poorer people in civilized countries are unlucky, what do you think gave them their position? I hardly see how somebody that have education would end up with a bad job. Instead of giving money to people who don't have a job without any physical or mental disorder, we should give it directly to poor children who succeed well in high school, by paying their college or university. Their is no reason to end up with a average lower then 70% if you're at a average school. So, the first reason is not willing to succeed. The next is just bad decisions, like people who buy a boat, two cars, a big house, a pool, and go to vacation every summer with a salary lower then 30k a year. They end up not being able to pay their mortgage, the bank take their stuff because they need their money back, and they end up living in the road. An other bad decision is drugs. First of all they destroy their brain, and second they cost allot.

In a western country I hardly see how their would be a good reason to be poor, except in rare cases. Name some please.
User avatar #409 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
I agree that most poor people are poor due to bad choices, and I'm not going to argue that. Taxing rich people at a higher percentage is a hotly debated subject, and while I understand that (most of them) worked to get that money, I still think that when you have that much money, you can afford to give 5% more of your salary to the government and still live a very comfortable lifestyle. The fact that most, if not all of the top .01%'s salary comes from investments means that those people will in fact pay a lower tax rate, as taxes on investments are much lower than those on income, which I think is idiotic. About regulation of carbon dioxide, I believe that it needs to be regulated because trees and plants are not able to absorb it at the same rate as we're putting it out. The fact that we're cutting down trees about as fast as we're producing CO2 doesn't help either. I understand that neither of us are likely to yield in this internet argument, and I can tell that you're an intelligent person. I just wanted to put my views out there.
#410 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
5% more isn't that much, I guess that's fine. Really? I didn't know tax on investment was lower. But it isn't that idiotic because it might be because we or your country has a lack of investors. It will not really help the government if the companies are not developing because they are in lack of funds.
Oh and about the co2 thing, plants grow faster when their is more co2, so more co2 is absorb. There were times periods were co2 levels were allot higher then today, something like 12 times! Like during the time dinosaurs were sill alive, and vegetation was abundant. If there is more co2, there will be more phytoplankton and plants. Also, here in Canada we replant trees after cutting them, and I am pretty sure they do the same pretty much everywhere. I hardly see who would not do that, even if they don't care about the environment, they should care about being able to cut more in the years to come (well they might be dead by then but if the owner just started his company at like 30, it might be a good idea, because it take 30 years, or maybe I am mistaken and it takes more). I think we should just wait until we develop thorium or fusion before stopping to use oil. Solar and wind should not replace it. Geothermal is not a bad idea, but if you're willing to build it everywhere you might need to dig pretty deep at some places, which should be expensive.
User avatar #411 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
As I said, no one is going to be moved by these comments, but just so you know:
Our system is relatively balanced in that the carbon dioxide that humans exhale is properly matched by the carbon dioxide that plants take in to keep our planet at a good, if not slightly chilly, temperature. When we add tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it can't all be taken in at once, even though plants take it in faster when there is more. It sits in the atmosphere until it's needed by plants, and in that time it's joined by other carbon dioxide that was emitted later. The problem is that we cannot quite reach a state of dynamic equilibrium with the amount of carbon dioxide that is being put out. While this carbon dioxide sits in the atmosphere and piles up (very slowly, but still piling up), it keeps infrared rays from exiting the Earth's atmosphere. These infrared rays therefore stay close to Earth and raise the atmospheric temperature, which causes polar ice caps to melt, which will eventually cause small floods and the release of giant quantities of methane under ice in northern Russia and Canada. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and if it is released, it will drastically raise the temperature of the Earth in a short amount of time and cause the final melting of polar ice caps, which will cause worldwide flooding and the destruction of anything, anything built on low lying land. This is what environmentalists talk about when they talk about climate change, and it would be a very bad scenario. This is also why I believe that carbon dioxide release should be regulated, or at the very least there should be tax credits given to companies that self-regulate their emissions.
#412 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
There is a, little flaw with this argument. I have seen the green house effect, and it's not true that co2 leads our climate. Water cause 90% of the green house effect of the earth, and co2 I thinks it's 5%. We could double, even triple it without having a really large impact on the planet. Don't listen do environmentalist, they say that because if hey stop their paycheck will stop appearing threw the mail. The sun is the leader of our climate, we just need to look at pass solar activity and temperature. Warmist say that the sun has no impact on or climate, which is untrue, because without the sun the green house effect would not even exist. And about the polar ice caps, even though the edge are melting, the center is rising in Greenland. A b2 crashed there, during WWII I think, and they found it not to long ago many dozens of meters bellow the ice. i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
User avatar #414 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
Your percentages are close to correct, but you're using them wrong. Water vapor composes close to 90% of the gases in the environment, but it doesn't account for 90% of the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is a much stronger greenhouse gas than water vapor, and therefore does have a large effect on climate change. About the sun having an effect on climate change, you're right that without the sun there would be no global warming, but the sun is not an active participant in global warming that we can adjust. While it does provide the infrared rays that get trapped in the earth's atmosphere, we cannot adjust that. What we can adjust is how many of the rays it provides stay in the atmosphere. And about the ice caps, I'm sure that the ice caps are not rising in the centre on average. While what you said about Greenland may be true, that's no indicator for the rest of the northern polar region or for the southern polar region. The edges of these ice caps are melting rapidly, and the centre that you claim to be bulging will be the edge of the Greenland ice sheet in a matter of years if the climate is not controlled.
#415 - realyboredguy (06/06/2012) [-]
No, I am using them right, it's the percentage of the warming, not the percentage of the green house gas . If 90% of the green house gas gas was water, and 5% co2, there would only be 18 more water then co2. That's wrong. 4% of our atmosphere is composed of water, and 0.04% is co2, which means there is 100 ties more water then co2. Look at the graph. For the Greenland, no it's all of it except the edges. For he south pole, www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/the-real-facts-on-increasing-antarctic-ic e.html.
About the we can't do anything about the sun, well you got it! The suns create most of the warming, so we can't do anything about it, can we? That's the thing. And even if we go down to co2, we are not creating most of it. The media does everything to hide that fact, but they forgot to hide one thing, the amount of co2 absorbed by nature. Platoons filtrates 100 petagrams of co2 in a year, while we create about 30 petagram of co2 a year. That's whiteout counting the amount of co2 filtrated or absorbed by trees and others. Just look at the graph!



User avatar #416 - ahj (06/06/2012) [-]
While the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere by humans may be small, it's still enough to matter. It's a bit like the straw that broke the camel's back. The earth has a naturally occurring cycle of carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon is emitted by the breathing of animals and the eruption of volcanoes around the world (yes, that is a major source of atmospheric carbon), and it is absorbed by plants and the oceans. This cycle has been balancing itself ever since this planet was created billions of years ago. While the 24 billion tons of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels might not be much compared to other sources, it's enough to push this cycle past the tipping point.
#417 - realyboredguy (06/07/2012) [-]
No, because as I said, it's a self regulating cycle. Even though humans behave differently, nature will still be able to adapt. Like I said earlier, there was period of times with 12 times more co2 (Jurassic period I think). I agree with you that it is a problem, but not catastrophic. We need to fix it, but there is better way then going in the streets holding posters ''I count'' just to feel important (not talking about you acting like this, just a large percentage of the people who do believe in Man made GW). Better ways like trying to find a rechargeable battery that would be able to hold more electricity in a small aria, for a car.
User avatar #418 - ahj (06/08/2012) [-]
I agree with you on the fact that doing something is much more helpful than holding up signs, and on that note, I'm going to stop arguing here. There is nothing more to be said. Have a nice day
#419 - realyboredguy (06/08/2012) [-]
Good bye!
#413 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
That is an article on global warming. it might take a loonng while before I reply, like a couple days, but I will, I just need to do some things.
#404 - realyboredguy (06/03/2012) [-]
Geothermal energy= completely successful with transportation such as cars, planes, and boats.
#210 - chrsbrrss (05/30/2012) [-]
Why would burning fossil fuels destroy the environment?(I really want a sensible and logical explanation, all you ever hear is that its baaaaad, well good carbs were good until last month when they found out they were just as bad as bad carbs, do youknow stuff for fact or are you bandwaggoning with popular environmental "science") And that's a sensible way for an alrmternative, but the us gov didnt think of it and doesn't have their fingers in it so they will destroy you if you compete with their solar or wind. Because that's what big government does.
User avatar #212 - ahj (05/30/2012) [-]
Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, meaning that it changes the composition of the atmosphere to one more likely to hold in heat. This held in heat would increase the surface temperature of the world, like it already has. That is how burning fossil fuels destroys the environment.
#403 - realyboredguy (06/03/2012) [-]
-Water> carbon dioxide
-Destroy= Help tree grow?
Nuff said.
#383 - chrsbrrss (05/30/2012) [-]
And when we exhale what comes out? What uses carbon dioxide to survive that our planet is covered with....
User avatar #407 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
Carbon dioxide in small amounts isn't bad. It's bad when giant power plants spew huge amounts of it into the sky, faster than plants can absorb it. It's also bad when giant machines that spew even more CO2 into the air cut down the very trees and plants that take it out of the atmosphere.
#200 - You said to print more money. Printing more money devalues a c…  [+] (22 new replies) 05/30/2012 on Capitalism 0
#204 - chrsbrrss (05/30/2012) [-]
I said if we had stayed on the gold standard and NOT devalued our dollar NOT gotten into debt and NOT jus t print more money to get out of debt... and what's your stand on capitalism, that's what this is about. And what is a better source of energy?
User avatar #208 - ahj (05/30/2012) [-]
I think that capitalism can work, but not laissez-faire. I have no problem with capitalism, I have a problem with people who think that burning fossil fuels won't cause terrible problems in the future. As for your question of an alternative, as you probably already have rebuttals for the common ones, geothermal energy. It's cheap, clean, and plants can be built anywhere. As for the gold standard, there's a reason we left it. As gold is used, mined, formed and sold, there is less of it left in the banks to regulate a currency. The less of it there is, the more deflation there is, which is a very bad thing, as it causes drops in aggregate demand and high unemployment. We abandoned the gold standard during and after the Great Depression, as it was one of the reasons for it starting.
#405 - realyboredguy (06/03/2012) [-]
Capitalist= free market
laisser faire= free market
No laisser faire= no free market
No free market = no capitalist
So, basically, communism which you call capitalist to be able to make it pass, but with the attributes of communist.

1-Study in nuclear fusion
2-Make successful nuclear fusion reactor
3-Stop bashing of people richer then you
4-????
5-Profit?
User avatar #406 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
A fully capitalist system will never work. Neither would a fully communist system, as that could not be maintained. Somewhere inbetween capitalim and socialism, such as what we have now, is the best shot. I have no idea where you got the bashing rich people from, but I have no problem with rich people. I think it's great that they got rich, but I think that if you have more money, you should be able to give a little bit more of that money to help the government run than someone who makes $14 dollars an hour sweeping floors. That's not socialism, that's logic.
#408 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
Sorry, it's just that most greenies are water melons (green outside, red inside). I shouldn't of judged you that quietly, but before this date I never went wrong. The only regulation the government should put on the industries is well yes rules about checking if there is leaks that could be harmful tho the environment, or other LOGICAL environmental protection rules, not like regulating the amount of co2, which is good for trees. Others would be not mistreating their employees in any way, reasonable salary, and safe products. The things I am against is things like preventing a company to temporally hire a replacement for a syndicated employee. Yes their should be rules but not exaggerated. I also think that taxing rich people more is wrong, because you're repealing them from your country. Same percentage for everybody is a good idea. Roch people will still pay more, but not to much, and same for everybody. And before saying that poorer people in civilized countries are unlucky, what do you think gave them their position? I hardly see how somebody that have education would end up with a bad job. Instead of giving money to people who don't have a job without any physical or mental disorder, we should give it directly to poor children who succeed well in high school, by paying their college or university. Their is no reason to end up with a average lower then 70% if you're at a average school. So, the first reason is not willing to succeed. The next is just bad decisions, like people who buy a boat, two cars, a big house, a pool, and go to vacation every summer with a salary lower then 30k a year. They end up not being able to pay their mortgage, the bank take their stuff because they need their money back, and they end up living in the road. An other bad decision is drugs. First of all they destroy their brain, and second they cost allot.

In a western country I hardly see how their would be a good reason to be poor, except in rare cases. Name some please.
User avatar #409 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
I agree that most poor people are poor due to bad choices, and I'm not going to argue that. Taxing rich people at a higher percentage is a hotly debated subject, and while I understand that (most of them) worked to get that money, I still think that when you have that much money, you can afford to give 5% more of your salary to the government and still live a very comfortable lifestyle. The fact that most, if not all of the top .01%'s salary comes from investments means that those people will in fact pay a lower tax rate, as taxes on investments are much lower than those on income, which I think is idiotic. About regulation of carbon dioxide, I believe that it needs to be regulated because trees and plants are not able to absorb it at the same rate as we're putting it out. The fact that we're cutting down trees about as fast as we're producing CO2 doesn't help either. I understand that neither of us are likely to yield in this internet argument, and I can tell that you're an intelligent person. I just wanted to put my views out there.
#410 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
5% more isn't that much, I guess that's fine. Really? I didn't know tax on investment was lower. But it isn't that idiotic because it might be because we or your country has a lack of investors. It will not really help the government if the companies are not developing because they are in lack of funds.
Oh and about the co2 thing, plants grow faster when their is more co2, so more co2 is absorb. There were times periods were co2 levels were allot higher then today, something like 12 times! Like during the time dinosaurs were sill alive, and vegetation was abundant. If there is more co2, there will be more phytoplankton and plants. Also, here in Canada we replant trees after cutting them, and I am pretty sure they do the same pretty much everywhere. I hardly see who would not do that, even if they don't care about the environment, they should care about being able to cut more in the years to come (well they might be dead by then but if the owner just started his company at like 30, it might be a good idea, because it take 30 years, or maybe I am mistaken and it takes more). I think we should just wait until we develop thorium or fusion before stopping to use oil. Solar and wind should not replace it. Geothermal is not a bad idea, but if you're willing to build it everywhere you might need to dig pretty deep at some places, which should be expensive.
User avatar #411 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
As I said, no one is going to be moved by these comments, but just so you know:
Our system is relatively balanced in that the carbon dioxide that humans exhale is properly matched by the carbon dioxide that plants take in to keep our planet at a good, if not slightly chilly, temperature. When we add tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it can't all be taken in at once, even though plants take it in faster when there is more. It sits in the atmosphere until it's needed by plants, and in that time it's joined by other carbon dioxide that was emitted later. The problem is that we cannot quite reach a state of dynamic equilibrium with the amount of carbon dioxide that is being put out. While this carbon dioxide sits in the atmosphere and piles up (very slowly, but still piling up), it keeps infrared rays from exiting the Earth's atmosphere. These infrared rays therefore stay close to Earth and raise the atmospheric temperature, which causes polar ice caps to melt, which will eventually cause small floods and the release of giant quantities of methane under ice in northern Russia and Canada. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and if it is released, it will drastically raise the temperature of the Earth in a short amount of time and cause the final melting of polar ice caps, which will cause worldwide flooding and the destruction of anything, anything built on low lying land. This is what environmentalists talk about when they talk about climate change, and it would be a very bad scenario. This is also why I believe that carbon dioxide release should be regulated, or at the very least there should be tax credits given to companies that self-regulate their emissions.
#412 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
There is a, little flaw with this argument. I have seen the green house effect, and it's not true that co2 leads our climate. Water cause 90% of the green house effect of the earth, and co2 I thinks it's 5%. We could double, even triple it without having a really large impact on the planet. Don't listen do environmentalist, they say that because if hey stop their paycheck will stop appearing threw the mail. The sun is the leader of our climate, we just need to look at pass solar activity and temperature. Warmist say that the sun has no impact on or climate, which is untrue, because without the sun the green house effect would not even exist. And about the polar ice caps, even though the edge are melting, the center is rising in Greenland. A b2 crashed there, during WWII I think, and they found it not to long ago many dozens of meters bellow the ice. i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
User avatar #414 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
Your percentages are close to correct, but you're using them wrong. Water vapor composes close to 90% of the gases in the environment, but it doesn't account for 90% of the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is a much stronger greenhouse gas than water vapor, and therefore does have a large effect on climate change. About the sun having an effect on climate change, you're right that without the sun there would be no global warming, but the sun is not an active participant in global warming that we can adjust. While it does provide the infrared rays that get trapped in the earth's atmosphere, we cannot adjust that. What we can adjust is how many of the rays it provides stay in the atmosphere. And about the ice caps, I'm sure that the ice caps are not rising in the centre on average. While what you said about Greenland may be true, that's no indicator for the rest of the northern polar region or for the southern polar region. The edges of these ice caps are melting rapidly, and the centre that you claim to be bulging will be the edge of the Greenland ice sheet in a matter of years if the climate is not controlled.
#415 - realyboredguy (06/06/2012) [-]
No, I am using them right, it's the percentage of the warming, not the percentage of the green house gas . If 90% of the green house gas gas was water, and 5% co2, there would only be 18 more water then co2. That's wrong. 4% of our atmosphere is composed of water, and 0.04% is co2, which means there is 100 ties more water then co2. Look at the graph. For the Greenland, no it's all of it except the edges. For he south pole, www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/the-real-facts-on-increasing-antarctic-ic e.html.
About the we can't do anything about the sun, well you got it! The suns create most of the warming, so we can't do anything about it, can we? That's the thing. And even if we go down to co2, we are not creating most of it. The media does everything to hide that fact, but they forgot to hide one thing, the amount of co2 absorbed by nature. Platoons filtrates 100 petagrams of co2 in a year, while we create about 30 petagram of co2 a year. That's whiteout counting the amount of co2 filtrated or absorbed by trees and others. Just look at the graph!



User avatar #416 - ahj (06/06/2012) [-]
While the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere by humans may be small, it's still enough to matter. It's a bit like the straw that broke the camel's back. The earth has a naturally occurring cycle of carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon is emitted by the breathing of animals and the eruption of volcanoes around the world (yes, that is a major source of atmospheric carbon), and it is absorbed by plants and the oceans. This cycle has been balancing itself ever since this planet was created billions of years ago. While the 24 billion tons of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels might not be much compared to other sources, it's enough to push this cycle past the tipping point.
#417 - realyboredguy (06/07/2012) [-]
No, because as I said, it's a self regulating cycle. Even though humans behave differently, nature will still be able to adapt. Like I said earlier, there was period of times with 12 times more co2 (Jurassic period I think). I agree with you that it is a problem, but not catastrophic. We need to fix it, but there is better way then going in the streets holding posters ''I count'' just to feel important (not talking about you acting like this, just a large percentage of the people who do believe in Man made GW). Better ways like trying to find a rechargeable battery that would be able to hold more electricity in a small aria, for a car.
User avatar #418 - ahj (06/08/2012) [-]
I agree with you on the fact that doing something is much more helpful than holding up signs, and on that note, I'm going to stop arguing here. There is nothing more to be said. Have a nice day
#419 - realyboredguy (06/08/2012) [-]
Good bye!
#413 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
That is an article on global warming. it might take a loonng while before I reply, like a couple days, but I will, I just need to do some things.
#404 - realyboredguy (06/03/2012) [-]
Geothermal energy= completely successful with transportation such as cars, planes, and boats.
#210 - chrsbrrss (05/30/2012) [-]
Why would burning fossil fuels destroy the environment?(I really want a sensible and logical explanation, all you ever hear is that its baaaaad, well good carbs were good until last month when they found out they were just as bad as bad carbs, do youknow stuff for fact or are you bandwaggoning with popular environmental "science") And that's a sensible way for an alrmternative, but the us gov didnt think of it and doesn't have their fingers in it so they will destroy you if you compete with their solar or wind. Because that's what big government does.
User avatar #212 - ahj (05/30/2012) [-]
Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, meaning that it changes the composition of the atmosphere to one more likely to hold in heat. This held in heat would increase the surface temperature of the world, like it already has. That is how burning fossil fuels destroys the environment.
#403 - realyboredguy (06/03/2012) [-]
-Water> carbon dioxide
-Destroy= Help tree grow?
Nuff said.
#383 - chrsbrrss (05/30/2012) [-]
And when we exhale what comes out? What uses carbon dioxide to survive that our planet is covered with....
User avatar #407 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
Carbon dioxide in small amounts isn't bad. It's bad when giant power plants spew huge amounts of it into the sky, faster than plants can absorb it. It's also bad when giant machines that spew even more CO2 into the air cut down the very trees and plants that take it out of the atmosphere.
#120 - you like krabby patties, don't you? 05/30/2012 on go toph +2
#190 - I'm sorry, quit crying about the environment? I know I'll get …  [+] (24 new replies) 05/30/2012 on Capitalism 0
#198 - chrsbrrss (05/30/2012) [-]
I said that inflation was a bad thing. Inflation can't happen if every dollar has a gold equivelent (gold standard). And how exactly will digging a hole in the ground to get oil out melt the ice caps?
User avatar #200 - ahj (05/30/2012) [-]
You said to print more money. Printing more money devalues a currency. Digging out the oil isn't the problem, burning it is.
#204 - chrsbrrss (05/30/2012) [-]
I said if we had stayed on the gold standard and NOT devalued our dollar NOT gotten into debt and NOT jus t print more money to get out of debt... and what's your stand on capitalism, that's what this is about. And what is a better source of energy?
User avatar #208 - ahj (05/30/2012) [-]
I think that capitalism can work, but not laissez-faire. I have no problem with capitalism, I have a problem with people who think that burning fossil fuels won't cause terrible problems in the future. As for your question of an alternative, as you probably already have rebuttals for the common ones, geothermal energy. It's cheap, clean, and plants can be built anywhere. As for the gold standard, there's a reason we left it. As gold is used, mined, formed and sold, there is less of it left in the banks to regulate a currency. The less of it there is, the more deflation there is, which is a very bad thing, as it causes drops in aggregate demand and high unemployment. We abandoned the gold standard during and after the Great Depression, as it was one of the reasons for it starting.
#405 - realyboredguy (06/03/2012) [-]
Capitalist= free market
laisser faire= free market
No laisser faire= no free market
No free market = no capitalist
So, basically, communism which you call capitalist to be able to make it pass, but with the attributes of communist.

1-Study in nuclear fusion
2-Make successful nuclear fusion reactor
3-Stop bashing of people richer then you
4-????
5-Profit?
User avatar #406 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
A fully capitalist system will never work. Neither would a fully communist system, as that could not be maintained. Somewhere inbetween capitalim and socialism, such as what we have now, is the best shot. I have no idea where you got the bashing rich people from, but I have no problem with rich people. I think it's great that they got rich, but I think that if you have more money, you should be able to give a little bit more of that money to help the government run than someone who makes $14 dollars an hour sweeping floors. That's not socialism, that's logic.
#408 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
Sorry, it's just that most greenies are water melons (green outside, red inside). I shouldn't of judged you that quietly, but before this date I never went wrong. The only regulation the government should put on the industries is well yes rules about checking if there is leaks that could be harmful tho the environment, or other LOGICAL environmental protection rules, not like regulating the amount of co2, which is good for trees. Others would be not mistreating their employees in any way, reasonable salary, and safe products. The things I am against is things like preventing a company to temporally hire a replacement for a syndicated employee. Yes their should be rules but not exaggerated. I also think that taxing rich people more is wrong, because you're repealing them from your country. Same percentage for everybody is a good idea. Roch people will still pay more, but not to much, and same for everybody. And before saying that poorer people in civilized countries are unlucky, what do you think gave them their position? I hardly see how somebody that have education would end up with a bad job. Instead of giving money to people who don't have a job without any physical or mental disorder, we should give it directly to poor children who succeed well in high school, by paying their college or university. Their is no reason to end up with a average lower then 70% if you're at a average school. So, the first reason is not willing to succeed. The next is just bad decisions, like people who buy a boat, two cars, a big house, a pool, and go to vacation every summer with a salary lower then 30k a year. They end up not being able to pay their mortgage, the bank take their stuff because they need their money back, and they end up living in the road. An other bad decision is drugs. First of all they destroy their brain, and second they cost allot.

In a western country I hardly see how their would be a good reason to be poor, except in rare cases. Name some please.
User avatar #409 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
I agree that most poor people are poor due to bad choices, and I'm not going to argue that. Taxing rich people at a higher percentage is a hotly debated subject, and while I understand that (most of them) worked to get that money, I still think that when you have that much money, you can afford to give 5% more of your salary to the government and still live a very comfortable lifestyle. The fact that most, if not all of the top .01%'s salary comes from investments means that those people will in fact pay a lower tax rate, as taxes on investments are much lower than those on income, which I think is idiotic. About regulation of carbon dioxide, I believe that it needs to be regulated because trees and plants are not able to absorb it at the same rate as we're putting it out. The fact that we're cutting down trees about as fast as we're producing CO2 doesn't help either. I understand that neither of us are likely to yield in this internet argument, and I can tell that you're an intelligent person. I just wanted to put my views out there.
#410 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
5% more isn't that much, I guess that's fine. Really? I didn't know tax on investment was lower. But it isn't that idiotic because it might be because we or your country has a lack of investors. It will not really help the government if the companies are not developing because they are in lack of funds.
Oh and about the co2 thing, plants grow faster when their is more co2, so more co2 is absorb. There were times periods were co2 levels were allot higher then today, something like 12 times! Like during the time dinosaurs were sill alive, and vegetation was abundant. If there is more co2, there will be more phytoplankton and plants. Also, here in Canada we replant trees after cutting them, and I am pretty sure they do the same pretty much everywhere. I hardly see who would not do that, even if they don't care about the environment, they should care about being able to cut more in the years to come (well they might be dead by then but if the owner just started his company at like 30, it might be a good idea, because it take 30 years, or maybe I am mistaken and it takes more). I think we should just wait until we develop thorium or fusion before stopping to use oil. Solar and wind should not replace it. Geothermal is not a bad idea, but if you're willing to build it everywhere you might need to dig pretty deep at some places, which should be expensive.
User avatar #411 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
As I said, no one is going to be moved by these comments, but just so you know:
Our system is relatively balanced in that the carbon dioxide that humans exhale is properly matched by the carbon dioxide that plants take in to keep our planet at a good, if not slightly chilly, temperature. When we add tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, it can't all be taken in at once, even though plants take it in faster when there is more. It sits in the atmosphere until it's needed by plants, and in that time it's joined by other carbon dioxide that was emitted later. The problem is that we cannot quite reach a state of dynamic equilibrium with the amount of carbon dioxide that is being put out. While this carbon dioxide sits in the atmosphere and piles up (very slowly, but still piling up), it keeps infrared rays from exiting the Earth's atmosphere. These infrared rays therefore stay close to Earth and raise the atmospheric temperature, which causes polar ice caps to melt, which will eventually cause small floods and the release of giant quantities of methane under ice in northern Russia and Canada. Methane is a much more powerful greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, and if it is released, it will drastically raise the temperature of the Earth in a short amount of time and cause the final melting of polar ice caps, which will cause worldwide flooding and the destruction of anything, anything built on low lying land. This is what environmentalists talk about when they talk about climate change, and it would be a very bad scenario. This is also why I believe that carbon dioxide release should be regulated, or at the very least there should be tax credits given to companies that self-regulate their emissions.
#412 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
There is a, little flaw with this argument. I have seen the green house effect, and it's not true that co2 leads our climate. Water cause 90% of the green house effect of the earth, and co2 I thinks it's 5%. We could double, even triple it without having a really large impact on the planet. Don't listen do environmentalist, they say that because if hey stop their paycheck will stop appearing threw the mail. The sun is the leader of our climate, we just need to look at pass solar activity and temperature. Warmist say that the sun has no impact on or climate, which is untrue, because without the sun the green house effect would not even exist. And about the polar ice caps, even though the edge are melting, the center is rising in Greenland. A b2 crashed there, during WWII I think, and they found it not to long ago many dozens of meters bellow the ice. i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/02148/RSL-HouseOfCommons_2148505a.pdf
User avatar #414 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
Your percentages are close to correct, but you're using them wrong. Water vapor composes close to 90% of the gases in the environment, but it doesn't account for 90% of the greenhouse effect. Carbon dioxide is a much stronger greenhouse gas than water vapor, and therefore does have a large effect on climate change. About the sun having an effect on climate change, you're right that without the sun there would be no global warming, but the sun is not an active participant in global warming that we can adjust. While it does provide the infrared rays that get trapped in the earth's atmosphere, we cannot adjust that. What we can adjust is how many of the rays it provides stay in the atmosphere. And about the ice caps, I'm sure that the ice caps are not rising in the centre on average. While what you said about Greenland may be true, that's no indicator for the rest of the northern polar region or for the southern polar region. The edges of these ice caps are melting rapidly, and the centre that you claim to be bulging will be the edge of the Greenland ice sheet in a matter of years if the climate is not controlled.
#415 - realyboredguy (06/06/2012) [-]
No, I am using them right, it's the percentage of the warming, not the percentage of the green house gas . If 90% of the green house gas gas was water, and 5% co2, there would only be 18 more water then co2. That's wrong. 4% of our atmosphere is composed of water, and 0.04% is co2, which means there is 100 ties more water then co2. Look at the graph. For the Greenland, no it's all of it except the edges. For he south pole, www.ecoworld.com/global-warming/the-real-facts-on-increasing-antarctic-ic e.html.
About the we can't do anything about the sun, well you got it! The suns create most of the warming, so we can't do anything about it, can we? That's the thing. And even if we go down to co2, we are not creating most of it. The media does everything to hide that fact, but they forgot to hide one thing, the amount of co2 absorbed by nature. Platoons filtrates 100 petagrams of co2 in a year, while we create about 30 petagram of co2 a year. That's whiteout counting the amount of co2 filtrated or absorbed by trees and others. Just look at the graph!



User avatar #416 - ahj (06/06/2012) [-]
While the amount of CO2 put into the atmosphere by humans may be small, it's still enough to matter. It's a bit like the straw that broke the camel's back. The earth has a naturally occurring cycle of carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon is emitted by the breathing of animals and the eruption of volcanoes around the world (yes, that is a major source of atmospheric carbon), and it is absorbed by plants and the oceans. This cycle has been balancing itself ever since this planet was created billions of years ago. While the 24 billion tons of CO2 emitted into the atmosphere by the burning of fossil fuels might not be much compared to other sources, it's enough to push this cycle past the tipping point.
#417 - realyboredguy (06/07/2012) [-]
No, because as I said, it's a self regulating cycle. Even though humans behave differently, nature will still be able to adapt. Like I said earlier, there was period of times with 12 times more co2 (Jurassic period I think). I agree with you that it is a problem, but not catastrophic. We need to fix it, but there is better way then going in the streets holding posters ''I count'' just to feel important (not talking about you acting like this, just a large percentage of the people who do believe in Man made GW). Better ways like trying to find a rechargeable battery that would be able to hold more electricity in a small aria, for a car.
User avatar #418 - ahj (06/08/2012) [-]
I agree with you on the fact that doing something is much more helpful than holding up signs, and on that note, I'm going to stop arguing here. There is nothing more to be said. Have a nice day
#419 - realyboredguy (06/08/2012) [-]
Good bye!
#413 - realyboredguy (06/04/2012) [-]
That is an article on global warming. it might take a loonng while before I reply, like a couple days, but I will, I just need to do some things.
#404 - realyboredguy (06/03/2012) [-]
Geothermal energy= completely successful with transportation such as cars, planes, and boats.
#210 - chrsbrrss (05/30/2012) [-]
Why would burning fossil fuels destroy the environment?(I really want a sensible and logical explanation, all you ever hear is that its baaaaad, well good carbs were good until last month when they found out they were just as bad as bad carbs, do youknow stuff for fact or are you bandwaggoning with popular environmental "science") And that's a sensible way for an alrmternative, but the us gov didnt think of it and doesn't have their fingers in it so they will destroy you if you compete with their solar or wind. Because that's what big government does.
User avatar #212 - ahj (05/30/2012) [-]
Burning fossil fuels releases carbon dioxide, which is a greenhouse gas, meaning that it changes the composition of the atmosphere to one more likely to hold in heat. This held in heat would increase the surface temperature of the world, like it already has. That is how burning fossil fuels destroys the environment.
#403 - realyboredguy (06/03/2012) [-]
-Water> carbon dioxide
-Destroy= Help tree grow?
Nuff said.
#383 - chrsbrrss (05/30/2012) [-]
And when we exhale what comes out? What uses carbon dioxide to survive that our planet is covered with....
User avatar #407 - ahj (06/04/2012) [-]
Carbon dioxide in small amounts isn't bad. It's bad when giant power plants spew huge amounts of it into the sky, faster than plants can absorb it. It's also bad when giant machines that spew even more CO2 into the air cut down the very trees and plants that take it out of the atmosphere.
#1206 - this is the best I can do you right now 05/29/2012 on Your Future Wife +3
#1199 - I'm a brony.. but this... is too much... 05/29/2012 on Your Future Wife +2
#693 - I know what you're talking about, but it's not all of us. Just… 05/29/2012 on Word. +3

Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Per page:
Order:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
#6 - alZii has deleted their comment [-]
User avatar #5 - dingdongsingsong (08/27/2012) [-]
Heya !
#1 - elipsia **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
 Friends (0)