Log in with a social network:
Log in with your username or email:
You are retarded.
There as that an intelligent enough of a response for you because honestly I don`t have a degree I just have some common knowledge of the environment and i`m not going to sit on a computer and bicker all day about global warming. If you don`t want to believe it thats fine wih me but it doesn`t change the fact that it`s happening.
Seriousl if you are going to attack me at least do it in a way that doesn`t turn around and make you look stupid. Jesus.
Nah, all done that years ago. PhD Geology, University of Aberdeen.
A dog can also behave strangely around another dead dog, doesn`t mean he know how to commit suicide.
Were the levels of co2 any higher in history? Are they not in fact about one third of their peak levels throughout history (measuring content of ice cores)?
CFC`s waste the ozone layer gothicqueen so stop calling people stupid, you clearly are.
As an intelligent person (I`m no davymid mind) I have huge problems with the whole we`ve ruined the planet argument. I`ve seen debates from both sides and still can`t believe that when carbon levels are so low that we are ruining the planet. When the dinosaurs roamed the earth volcanoes spewed carbon out and the levels in the atmosphere were three times higher than they are now. The planet is still here. No-one can categorically prove that carbon emmisions are irrepairably damaging the environment, it`s just a theory.
Animals don`t commit suicide, they are unaware of their own mortality existentionally speaking that is.
You still at UNI Davy? which one?
"Before you tell us non-believers to go look, have you been there yourself?"
No i haven`t gone to look myself you idiot i`ve seen all the proof i need to see. If i had money I probably would go just to witness it but thats because this stuff interests me.You non-believers are the ones that should GO look you fool because you onbviously need more proof.
Seriously you idiot where did that comment of yours even make sense?
Global warming does not effect the OZONE LAYER. And the CFCs that DO, have been almost removed from all usage in the world.
I tell you what, who said University was a Sham.
And all carbon emission stats are useless, because considering our atmosphere is only 0.4% CO2. Yay proven facts!
Edit: Global warming via man influence.
Annnnyway, firstly we`d be dead if the natural green house effect didn`t occur. (basically the GHE (due to absorption of certain solar radiation by water vapour, increases our surface temp by 33C. Without it, our average world temp of 16C would be 33C lower, making it -17C (whereby the world would be solid ice!)))
We are having a major effect with the input of greenhouse gasses, however, the global warming potential of CO2, is minute in comparison to other gases. Laughing Gas (nitrous oxide) has a global warming potential that is 290 times that of CO2. Then again, because of the sheer concentration of CO2 output, it has, over the last 100 years attributed to 61% of the man-made contribution to global warming.
Annnnnnnyway, sorry about that, i did this today and got excited when i saw the window for me to kick some scientific ass.
Earth does not have a stable climate. That is, it does not remain X degrees Celcius every day, month, year, etc. It fluctuates and has periods of warming and cooling. We are, looking from the perspective of several thousand years, in a period of global warming. The vast majority of scientists agree that we are in a period of global warming. In recent decades, though, there has been much debate on whether HUMAN-caused global warming is to blame for the increase in global temperatures, and it seems like we are.
Just because the water level in your area dropped does not mean the water level around the world dropped. It`s like saying "the water level in my pond dropped, therefore, the water level in every po
My point remains, don`t confuse the size of a nation (China) with the importance of a nation (USA, Lichtenstein)."
Military budgets work differently from carbon emissions ratios. For example, with the military, a certain `level` of money is needed in order to buy a certain expensive piece of machinery. With so many people contributing a little bit of money to the military, the U.S. can get enough funds to buy high calibre weapons, etc. In contrast, a country with a small population may be required to possibly contribute millions of times more money than a country with a large population in order to buy the same piece of machinery.
On the other hand, carbon emissions ratios do not have `stages` or `levels` which must be met in order to reach certain goals. The smallest increase in emissions has an equally small effect on the world. Consequently, a larger change has an equally large effect. It is prop
Global Warming ..HAAnimal Suicide ..hahha
Even if global warming is true, which its not, I live within a hundred feet of the ocean..well the gulf of Mexico, and I measure...the water has not raised at all..actually dropped. I wish it was real, millions (maybe billions) of useless and evil people would die.
The per person statistic is not useless. While it`s true that the U.S. would have a higher per person ratio in contrast with a larger group of people, i.e. China, with the same total output, it remains a useless comparison. If you reduced China`s net emissions to equal that of the U.S.`s, each person would have reduced maximums of carbon emissions. Essentially, this may mean a Chinese citizen would not have the right to drive a car for more than a few kilometres.
My bad. I meant Lichtenstein spends about 10x per citizen than the US.
My point remains, don`t confuse the size of a nation (China) with the importance of a nation (USA, Lichtenstein).
How does it become "a bit meaningless"? Think about it like this: a large number of people living closely together who each, on average, release relatively little amounts of carbon emissions into the air. If we go to that big continent in the north-western hemisphere, we see people emitting much more carbon emissions per person.
Multiplying "that by 1300 Million people, like in China" doesn`t make sense. Why should Americans be allowed to act in such a way that sets a bad example for the rest of the world to follow?
Since when did "Lichtenstein" spend 10x more than the U.S.`s $500 billion budget?
It`s "par exemple", not "par examplé" btw.
Well, there are also scientists who say that global warming isn`t happening. So what? There are scientists who argue on both sides, except in this case, an overwhelming number of experts on the subject agree with the IPCC`s conclusions. Also, although volcanoes contribute to the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, humans add further greenhouse gases on top of already present `naturally occurring` cycles which add the gases into the air.
Forget all the sh*te in the tabloid news, Global Warming is very real, and it`s very caused by us. Please don`t try to lecture on mini-ice ages and global cooling events which you read in an article on the train on the way into work into your IT job or whatever.
I`m trying to reach out here. We are currently f*cking our planet up the arse, without lube.
Carbon emissions per person becomes a bit meaningless when you multiply that by 1300 Million people, like in China.
Par examplé, Lichtenstein spends about 10x what the US does on the military than the US. Does that make Lichtenstein a force to be reckoned with their population of 35,000?
Be careful how you throw around statisics....
Emo bear is sad. ):3
Btw, both human-caused global warming and global dimming are real. "Paradoxically, the decline in sunlight may mean that global warming is a far greater threat to society than previously thought."
-> See Gerry Stanhill, first to notice global dimming-> Quote from <http://www.bbc.co.uk/sn/tvradio/programmes/horizon/dimming_prog_summary.shtml>
Before you tell us non-believers to go look, have you been there yourself?
The ozone CAN repair itself but it isn`t getting the chance to because people won`t stop polluting it!!!!
God are you dumb? Saying the break down of the ozone layer and global warming is "natural". I can`t believe this is even an argument.
FOR F*CKS SAKE.
That doesn`t mean we are the sole cause, but it definitely doesn`t mean we can`t do anything about it.
And I love the fact that the kangaroo commits suicide. Sends a positive message out to all the kiddies.