"Historic Storm"

[phrodeau]

Query's argument sounds almost exactly like the ones put forward bashing the attempt being prepared for the worst at the beginning of this thread.

Well, we don't KNOW for certain, not 100% (only 90+% of the scientific community has been hornswoggled).. So why do anything?

Maybe he wants the planet to be restored to that simpler time three billion years ago, when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere.

The direction we're going, it could happen soon.

 

[Disgustipated]

Q-Bert! Click here.

 

[Que]

Yes, the eminent scientist, Bill Maher, LukTheSubCuke.

 

[Que]

Maybe he wants the planet to be restored to that simpler time three billion years ago, when there was no oxygen in the atmosphere.

The direction we're going, it could happen soon.

Soon? Do you have any idea how much carbon you would need to convert all of the earths o2 to Co2?

That assumes of course that once converted to Co2, NONE of it is then used by greenery in the process of photosynthesis.

@ UD:

As far as "do nothing," nothing will make a discernible difference in Co2 output except nukes.

Any so-called environmentalist that is not espousing nukes as the only viable solution is incapable of basic math, and can be safely ignored.

 

[Disgustipated]

Yes, the eminent scientist, Bill Maher, LukTheSubCuke.

Good job on missing the point.

 

[Que]

Good job on missing the point.

Good job never having a worthwhile one, #dummy.

 

[Disgustipated]

Good job never having a worthwhile one, #dummy.

You're such a good little puppy. Do you know any other tricks besides following your master around?

 

[Que]

You're such a good little puppy. Do you know any other tricks besides following your master around?

Yes, responding directly to you addressing me is "following you around," #Dummy.

Don't want me to respond, don't address me. Simple.

 

[phrodeau]

Soon? Do you have any idea how much carbon you would need to convert all of the earths o2 to Co2?

That assumes of course that once converted to Co2, NONE of it is then used by greenery in the process of photosynthesis.

@ UD:

As far as "do nothing," nothing will make a discernible difference in Co2 output except nukes.

Any so-called environmentalist that is not espousing nukes as the only viable solution is incapable of basic math, and can be safely ignored.

The only oxygen-producer on earth is the greenery. How safe do you think that is from extinction?

 

[Que]

The only oxygen-producer on earth is the greenery. How safe do you think that is from extinction?

Given that it THRIVES on Co2 I am pretty sure MORE Co2 will not harm it. Not to mention that o2 is bountiful, which is why the planet is inhabited. Unless you believe Algore said "let there be life" and that is why it is inhabited.

 

[BotanyBoy]

The only oxygen-producer on earth is the greenery.

Not really but sure...

Given that it THRIVES on Co2 I am pretty sure MORE Co2 will not harm it.

Only while photosynthesis occurs and only up to about 1000-1700 ppm depending on species. Past those levels it's toxic.

To put that in perspective we only need to increase the CO2 levels by about 2% and we are all fucked. So slash and burn more rain forest and burn some moar coal because money!

Not to mention that o2 is bountiful, which is why the planet is inhabited.

Not really....02 isn't required for life and only about 1/5th the atmosphere.

Also that's irrelevant as to the way CO2 damages the environment nor does it justify the Republican 'conservative' ideology that we should just shit all over everything and live with a total disregard to the stewardship of our planet.

But hey, rock on....

 

[Ulaven_Demorte]

Soon? Do you have any idea how much carbon you would need to convert all of the earths o2 to Co2?

That assumes of course that once converted to Co2, NONE of it is then used by greenery in the process of photosynthesis.

@ UD:

As far as "do nothing," nothing will make a discernible difference in Co2 output except nukes.

Any so-called environmentalist that is not espousing nukes as the only viable solution is incapable of basic math, and can be safely ignored.

For some reason you seem to think that anyone who disagrees with your stance that the vast amounts of CO2 that we as humans are dumping into the atmosphere is no big deal are also anti nuclear power. That simply isn't true. The only real issue lies with what we do with the toxic radioactive waste that is no longer a viable source of fuel for those reactors. Simply burying it in the side of a mountain only concentrates the problem. Innovation is needed, like the work on fusion, rather than fission, reactors going on at Lockheed Skunkworks. No carbon, no radioactive waste just Heat to turn steam turbines and helium. Free balloons for everyone!

However, nuclear power is not the only viable solution as you claim. It may be the easiest, but certainly not the only, and easiest doesn't necessarily mean best. With the advances in battery and solar panel technology harnessing the free power that shines down on us daily could turn out to be the most sustainable source of clean power there is. Until Lockheed and others manage to perfect fusion reactors.

 

[zipman]

I think if you read all my posts, I said 2006, moron.

The fact that you actually knew what happened in 2006 and STILL made this thread just highlights your complete and utter stupidity.

It's yet another classic example of partisan hatred driving you to use bad examples to make a non-existent point.

 

[KingOrfeo]

Here is a hint: Even in the limited information that is available, there actually is precedent for far more significant and far more rapid change.

In what period? And, did it involve an asteroid strike?

 

[zipman]

The forecast turned out to be wrong. I agree that in hindsight it didn't justify the shut down. But you said this was the first time it was shut down on a forecast. So what happened with Sandy. Because I don't understand.

You can't shut it down after the storm hits you moron.

Last time we had people stranded for hours in subway cars in cold temps.

Seriously, how fucking stupid are you people?

 

[unregistered]

 

[Que]

Not really but sure...



Only while photosynthesis occurs and only up to about 1000-1700 ppm depending on species. Past those levels it's toxic.

To put that in perspective we only need to increase the CO2 levels by about 2% and we are all fucked. So slash and burn more rain forest and burn some moar coal because money!



Not really....02 isn't required for life and only about 1/5th the atmosphere.

Also that's irrelevant as to the way CO2 damages the environment nor does it justify the Republican 'conservative' ideology that we should just shit all over everything and live with a total disregard to the stewardship of our planet.

But hey, rock on....

I was responding to his point that we would run out of o2 soon, which is impossible. The o2 has to go somewhere. o2 is required for human life which was his point.

2% of all of the atmosphere is a lot of carbon atoms to combine with O2 molecules. If we managed to do that, we would still have a LOT of o2 left.

 

[Disgustipated]

@PzFeed: BREAKING NEWS: Gov. Baker has just signed emergency declaration for Massachusetts.

Wahr is the poutrage? !

 

[BotanyBoy]

I was responding to his point that we would run out of o2 soon, which is impossible. The o2 has to go somewhere. o2 is required for human life which was his point.

2% of all of the atmosphere is a lot of carbon atoms to combine with O2 molecules. If we managed to do that, we would still have a LOT of o2 left.

It's not impossible...it can happen in a relatively short period of time and has done so a few times in our planets long and illustrious history.

O2 gets tore up into O and combines with any number of other elements rather easy...without plants generating a constant supply O2 is gone pretty fast. Even with a LOT of O2 left, that doesn't mean shit and wont last long once you hit the tipping point.

Here is why in a nut shell. CO2 goes up until toxicity/heat sets in right? GG...it's over, plant life starts to shit, corals, zoo/phytoplankton and macro algae (the real O2 makers) shit the bed. Once the rain forest start to liquefy the majority of life on Earth is ultra fucked. Now you have a compounding issue called a run-away greenhouse effect. That means another mass extinction on Earth...wouldn't be the first time.

So it's not a matter of total percentage...it's a matter of at what percentage does the temp/CO2 destabilize the base of the food chain, algae and phytoplankton being the biggest for without them we ALL die. Go ahead and ignore like 98% of all the uppity liburhul elite know it all's who really don't know fuck all. Slash more forest, dump more toxic shit and billow as much shit into the atmosphere as you can.... raise the ocean temps a couple degrees like it's some kinda joke and watch it all come apart.

No worries right? At the end of the day not hosing the world in toxic waste for profit is just some liburuhal plot to send murder squads after grandma so they can take our guns. No worries, the scientific community is complied of nothing but liars because politics > everything.

@PzFeed: BREAKING NEWS: Gov. Baker has just signed emergency declaration for Massachusetts.

Wahr is the poutrage? !

It's with the left this round....the government didn't declare martial law with threats of summary executions in the street for breaking curfew, the left is ultra sad at this lack of government control over the horrifyingly and absolutely Biblical destruction seen all over NewEngerand and demands more funding be allotted for these desperate times.

 

[KingOrfeo]

. . . Algore . . .

Don't. It's lamer than lame.

 

[Disgustipated]

well god damn

@PzFeed: 69-year-old Vietnam vet freezes to death in Michigan after energy company cuts off his gas. (@freep) http://twitter.com/PzFeed/status/568182215076667392/photo/1

 

[JudasIscariot]

@PzFeed: 69-year-old Vietnam vet freezes to death in Michigan after energy company cuts off his gas. (@freep) http://twitter.com/PzFeed/status/568182215076667392/photo/1

If he had not been a Vietnam veteran would you care?