Click to expand
Rank #22571 on SubscribersLevel 309 Comments: Lord Of Laughs
OfflineSend mail to samnoname Block samnoname Invite samnoname to be your friend flag avatar
|Last status update:|| |
|Date Signed Up:||1/29/2007|
|Funnyjunk Career Stats|
|Content Thumbs:||3606 total, 4221 , 615|
|Comment Thumbs:||10973 total, 12279 , 1306|
|Content Level Progress:|| 4% (4/100) |
Level 136 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry → Level 137 Content: Respected Member Of Famiry
|Comment Level Progress:|| 67% (67/100) |
Level 309 Comments: Lord Of Laughs → Level 310 Comments: Wizard
|Times Content Favorited:||79 times|
|Total Comments Made:||2369|
|Favorite Tags:||lol (32) | facebook (9) | fail (6) | of (6) | Pokemon (5) | nigger (4) | the (4) | bitch (3) | cat (3) | cunt (3) | epic (2) | fuck (2) | funny (2) | game (2) | im (2) | internet (2) | kitchen (2) | lord (2) | Penis (2) | police (2)|
latest user's comments
|#38 - Picture||05/19/2012 on Zoidberg shall pass||+2|
|#307 - Picture [+] (2 new replies)||05/19/2012 on /b/||+5|
|#37 - Picture||05/19/2012 on Zoidberg shall pass||+11|
|#69 - Picture||05/18/2012 on Kitty Cry :'(||0|
|#31 - Comment deleted||05/18/2012 on The Sandwich lies||0|
|#58 - Picture||05/17/2012 on Luna Lovegood||+19|
|#121 - Picture||05/17/2012 on Batman||+10|
|#11 - Picture||05/16/2012 on scary||+2|
|#17 - if your a stoner that was a pretty epic roll||05/16/2012 on Gandalf||-1|
|#16 - but this has potential||05/16/2012 on Gandalf||+6|
|#28 - Picture||05/14/2012 on Gears of War||+12|
|#278 - Picture||04/14/2012 on Smile Motherfucker||0|
|#4 - Picture [+] (3 new replies)||04/13/2012 on LOTR||+3|
|#767 - yesm but whether it's a man made problem is debatable [+] (1 new reply)||04/12/2012 on Typical Liberal Comp||0|
|#751 - i'm not denying the truth, i'm sticking to basic scientific pr… [+] (3 new replies)||04/12/2012 on Typical Liberal Comp||0|
|#280 - well data i've seen shows c02 levels go up after the temperatu… [+] (21 new replies)||04/12/2012 on Typical Liberal Comp||+1|
#289 - unncommon (04/12/2012) [-]
Ah ah ah. Common misconception my friend, we a a species may or may not be increasing the levels of C02, but the point still stands that there are in fact other planets heating up as well as our own, so as I've stated before "Are we fucking up other planets as well?". The answer is one big heaping pile of 'No'. It would be an impossibility for our own planet to effect the climate on other planets no matter how much Carbon Dioxide we produce. It's simply a healthy course in a planets (or in this case solar system's) life.
#306 - unncommon (04/12/2012) [-]
Well why is other parts of the world cooling down if the whole world is heating up. it's just the atmosphere changing around and we have to be the generation to live threw it. We as a race shouldn't be as a teenage girl pent up in our room blaming ourselves, we should be out and about, continuing with our daily lives.
#324 - unncommon (04/12/2012) [-]
#371 - Chuckaholic (04/12/2012) [-]
Global Warming will cause an Ice age in then northern hemisphere BTW, or that is a widely accepted theory by a lot of scientist. Global Warming as far as I know is true. The past 10 years have registered the hottest summers in North America, Europe, East Asia, Australia and most of Africa. Sounds pretty global. Also the past 100-200 years have the hottest global average temperature detected, compared to very accurate Ice Core measurings. They also measured the CO2 levels in the world in parts per million and there is a definite correlation between the 2. Humans are responsible for the increase in Co2, don't may or may not. We are, Co2 levels in ppm increased massively when the industrial revolution happened. When coal and other fossil fuels started being burned on a large scale. The fact that population has increased and demand for burning followed suit just increased it each and every year. This "cycle" is shorter than the previous cycles but is already registering more extreme temperatures than the previous cycles. More extreme in less time sounds like there may be human influence.
#381 - unncommon (04/12/2012) [-]
I see your point but I don't think that you're seeing mine: The temperature on other planets is also increasing, it's not just ours and even if global warming was because of us we would not be causing it on other planets. Your argument about the 'Hottest Summers Recorded" or whatever is interesting, however not valid in this argument. While the summers have been getting warmer the winters have also been getting colder. Let's take this back a little bit, I don't know a couple hundred million years ago or something...back before the Jurassic Age and even during the Jurassic Age were approximately 1500 ppm (parts per million), while today we have a Whopping 380 ppm, now maybe my math is a little off but that's practically 4 times as much?! The Earth has lived through that and it can live through what we have today.
#392 - Chuckaholic (04/12/2012) [-]
65 Million years ago there were no ice caps. If this keeps going we won't have any. What will that mean, ocean levels rise, flooding low lying land and worst of all, for me, disrupting the gulf stream and causing an ice age in Europe and the States. I don't want that to happen whether we're responsible or not so I'll do my best to stop it.
Also please tell me where you got the information on planets and how humans can accurately tell the planets temperatures and their historical temperatures as I am very curious as to where this information came from.
#408 - unncommon (04/12/2012) [-]
Need any more?
And furthermore there was in fact there was Ice Caps in the poles and other freezing biomes, mainly because the poles are cutoff from the rest of the atmosphere but there were in fact ice caps throughout the world. It was hotter yes, but that doesn't mean that cold didn't exist. The burden of evidence should be on the accuser, not on the defendant. And there's nothing wrong with wanting to make our Earth a better place, it's actually quite productive and helpful. While I'm not saying that there "Isn't a pollution problem" but what I am saying is that the increase in the Global Temperature in parts of the world is not our fault, maybe we've had a little effect on it, we did not however, cause it.
#419 - Chuckaholic (04/12/2012) [-]
Plutos global warming is to do with it's orbit. It will continue warming and then cool. It's to do with it rotating the sun. Ours isn't as it continues to rise irrelevant of our orbit. Jupiter it says "hints" not definitive proof. Neptune he says not quite sure so again not definite. The others I'm not too sure about but they don't have historical records so we don't know if these increases are unexpected like our one.
The burden of evidence is on the person who provides the facts. If you make a statement you have to back it up, if I make a statement I have to back it up. No one here is an acuser or defendant, this debate doesn't work like a court of law as we are arguing 2 standpoints on an issue.
#439 - unncommon (04/12/2012) [-]
#446 - Chuckaholic (04/12/2012) [-]
It shouldn't be in the format of a court of law, it should be in the format of a scientific debate. There is no prosecutor or defendant. I know how thick the atmosphere is but as an Australian I know how fragile it can be as well, namely the Ozone layer whose fragility still allows for serious skin problems. The atmosphere's strength is nothing to do with global warming, it's to do with the amount of green house gases high up in the atmosphere reflecting heat back into the atmosphere. It's size and strength doesn't matter, it's content does-
#469 - unncommon (04/12/2012) [-]
So now that we've got you to render your previous argument of "An increase in Carbon Dioxide". Now then, a scientific debate is flawed, as you should know scientists are a hardheaded type of people that carry heavy weight in there own opinion and hold debates like these not to keep an open mind, but to show who has (metaphorically) the biggest guns. Now if you and I were to continue on with this, ask yourself 'Would it truly have any offset to your opinion?'. Now you your self have to admit that neither you, nor I, know Everything about this world and the world to come, and by entertaining this subject we ourselves are implying that we have obtained all knowledge of our atmosphere and that we could go through the whole periodic table of elements and debate every single one of those individual elements and that we can come to a true conclusion regarding the cause of an increase in the temperature, a raise in the sea level and such a dramatic drift in the climate on different parts of this world. Doesn't that seem quite ridiculous? In my own personal opinion, we could both be wrong, or we could both be right; and this debate will continue on perhaps until the end of time. Only god knows the true answer. I know that this seems lie an easy way out, but so far this has only been wasted words on hallowed grounds and that this is just a 'Who's stick is bigger' argument. I could go on, but I feel as if it would only be wasted.
#481 - Chuckaholic (04/12/2012) [-]
I've got to render it? That doesn't make sense. If you mean it's useless I can get you info. But yeah lets end it here. It won't change anything. Scientists have to hold the debate as they are the most knowledgable on the matter and debates have moderators as well.
#329 - yobs (04/12/2012) [-]
I never said it would be global it just has that name because that was what they thought is was at first. Just because it goes in cycles doesn't mean it's good, all we have designed is based on the world as it is now change will mean so much fixing. Just because we may not have effected the global temperature significantly doesn't mean we won't in the future, we should try and work towards complete control of it
#331 - unncommon (04/12/2012) [-]
That might of came out slightly different that I wanted it too, I meant to say that parts of the world's atmosphere is going through certain changes and the world is just compensating for that by increasing or decreasing the temperature in other areas of the world to preserve the health of our atmosphere and to continue being a functioning, alive, healthy world. And if over prolonged periods of time we may or may not cause damage to the ozone (maybe in a thousands years or so), but I think that you my friend need to have more faith in this beautiful planet that we reside on and proclaim 'Earth'. It has created life and it has destroyed life.
|#258 - k, I'm gonna explain this **** Global warming… [+] (21 new replies)||04/12/2012 on Typical Liberal Comp||+18|
#751 - samnoname (04/12/2012) [-]
i'm not denying the truth, i'm sticking to basic scientific principals and waiting for a reliable source of evidence before accepting a theory as fact.
there is indisputable evidence to support the theory of global warming, but the theory of man man C02 emissions causing a greenhouse effect and warming the climate are, in my opinion, yet to be reliable proven
#268 - unncommon (04/12/2012) [-]
And I couldn't find the graph that I was looking for so I tried to draw it, enjoy.
#267 - lolgy (04/12/2012) [-]
agreed, the Planet's climate is changing that's a fact just not from humans, the planet's climate froze up in the 'little ice age' of the medieval period and then warmed up again with no industrialization of man to make green house gases, i do not however dispute the fact that industrialization is bad for own natural environment by way of pollution.
I think it is just with own technology the coincides with growing industrialization that allows us to see and monitor our world better that creates an illusion of sudden climate change due a rise in industry.
#376 - Chuckaholic (04/12/2012) [-]
The little ice age was due to human influence. It happened right after the plague, it may sound like a coincidence but it isn't. After the plague many people died, including farmers. That meant that not only where there less demand for crops but less people to look after them, so many crops died. That meant a severe drop in CO2 levels causing a little ice age as you put it. It wasn't the humans fault but it was caused by us nonetheless.
#265 - anonexplains (04/12/2012) [-]
Cba to login but:
There's a reason the wikings named it GREENland, the climate will change regardless of our action, although i do agree CO2 do have a minor impact on this issue, I do believe we should be more focused on the pollution burning fossil fuels, and other lovely industrial side-effects bring.
#266 - anonexplains (04/12/2012) [-]
#373 - Chuckaholic (04/12/2012) [-]
The south of Greenland is actually very green in summer. I was there and the historians there told me that it was a myth about attracting people there. The vikings had a thriving community in Iceland. The south of Greenland is much greener than Iceland and so they named it that.
#263 - iiholmesii (04/12/2012) [-]
I am glad someone else made this point, I was just about to. Even if it a natural climactic shift then it has been made worse by mans burning of fossil fuels. Anyone who adamantly argues against this clearly stands to benefit from the burning of fossil fuels. I am not saying that we need to stop all capitalism etc. but ignoring the problem is definetly not the right way to go =) rant over
#283 - artillerysmith (04/12/2012) [-]
Who on this planet would not benefit form burning of fossil fuels?
Also oxygen is a much better greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
Also, also, I can't speak to the water purification systems on other buildings similar to ours, but we use a reverse osmosis filter to treat the water leaving the building. The water is literally cleaner leaving the building than it is coming in. I know that that's got nothing to do with fossil fuels, I'm just saying, we clean up pretty good.
#372 - Chuckaholic (04/12/2012) [-]
Me. My dad makes renewable energy which accounts for over 50% of the countries consumption where I live. My dads isn't 50%, he's partly responsible for 2/3 of wind power which is about 20-30% of the countries energy. Oxygen is vital for survival, CO2 isn't so why make more CO2, why not just leave it as C in the ground and keep the air with a higher ratio of non greenhouse gases.
#770 - artillerysmith (04/12/2012) [-]
CO2 actually is vital. Plants kind of need it. I'm not saying that renewable energy is a waste of time, I'm going to install solar panels on the house to heat the water and run a backup generator for the refrigerator and the freezer. I do however know that a conventional power plant produces more power with a smaller physical foot print. Along with the catalizers used to clean the discharge into the air most of the carbon is taken care of. Most of what comes out of a smoke stack is water and loose oxygen.
#782 - Chuckaholic (04/13/2012) [-]
Like everything it's only good in moderation. What's the benefit of having excess CO2. Plants breathe it out when there is no sunlight, so half the time they're respiring and CO2 is leaving them and half the time they're photosynthesizing and CO2 is being used by them. It goes both ways. Physical foot print of Windmills is very little. It's a decentralized system so jobs go around the country instead of concentrated in one area. All the parts are made in the very same country. The energy is sold abroad. It is low maintenance as well so requires little money invested after it's been raised. A normal power plant is as expensive as the equivalent amount of windmills and has to be supplied 24/7 whereas windmills are supplied naturally. You don't need to buy Coal, Oil or Uranium from War torn countries at high prices, all you need to do is let the wind blow.
#784 - artillerysmith (04/13/2012) [-]
Windmills may work great where you live, but there isn't enough wind where I live, too many hills and such. What I've been working on is similar to a large scale power plant except localized. Here power has to travel great distances and so line loss is a big problem. (Line loss is when power is lost in transit from plant to home if you don't know) Anyways. A big part of power cost is line loss here, so I've been looking at a local natural gas generator. The engine spins a generator, the exhaust runs through a heat exchanger and spins a separate generator, the top is a photovoltaic plate witch charges a battery to start the propane motor and finally the vibrations from the engine are soaked up by a piezoelectric generator. That provides a huge amount of power in an insanely small package.
Side note, I'm curious about the physical size of a single wind mill. Fill me in on that?
#787 - Chuckaholic (04/13/2012) [-]
They're big, been in one it's massive. 100m is average. The tallest is 200m. The hills are were most of ours are placed as high up windspeeds are very strong. However maybe the hills in your area aren't the right shape and the valleys don't create a proper windtunnel. Windmills are big, I think they look good but if you don't they are a tad imposing.
Good luck with that gas generator, sounds very interesting, didn't know you could get those.
#788 - artillerysmith (04/14/2012) [-]
The hills where I live are called the knobs. They slow wind down rather than speed it up.
The generator is something I'm designing right now for General Electric. Since the natural gas delivery system is already in place in the aria I think it's going to be a real hit.
|#82 - I just sit back and let em struggle, makes me lol||04/11/2012 on When your crush doesn't...||+4|
|#68 - gotta agree, i haven't watched it since matt smith took over, …||04/10/2012 on Never Let Go.||0|
|#35 - *newer ones break if you sneeze next to them haha||04/10/2012 on Why I Hate Wires||+1|
|#34 - bollocks would an old console break falling off the counter, m… [+] (1 new reply)||04/10/2012 on Why I Hate Wires||+4|
|#440 - haha, i ran out at did i leave the oven on||04/10/2012 on just a bunch of people... wait||+1|
|#436 - **** , missed that out||04/10/2012 on just a bunch of people... wait||0|
|#434 - Picture [+] (2 new replies)||04/10/2012 on just a bunch of people... wait||+2|
|#432 - Picture||04/10/2012 on just a bunch of people... wait||+5|