Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
World Health Organization: US cleanest air in G7
Comments
-
As long as there is snow anywhere on the planet we are in a fucking ice age.
-
Well if there are ice caps. But still.PostGameOrangeSlices said:As long as there is snow anywhere on the planet we are in a fucking ice age.
-
I heard someone the other day fretting, "You know that they're finding dead antelopes being exposed by thawing permafrost in Siberia??!!" I pointed out that antelopes are a temperate climate animal, not sub-artic, odd that they were able to live in Siberia at some point in the pre-pre-pre-pre-Industrial past.
And no, I don't get laid much. -
I feel like there is some good bsing material to be had with antelopes and temperate climate animals.GrundleStiltzkin said:I heard someone the other day fretting, "You know that they're finding dead antelopes being exposed by thawing permafrost in Siberia??!!" I pointed out that antelopes are a temperate climate animal, not sub-artic, odd that they were able to live in Siberia at some point in the pre-pre-pre-pre-Industrial past.
And no, I don't get laid much.
Don't sell yourself short. -
It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.UWhuskytskeet said:
I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?doogie said:I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you
-
So all those climatologists and weather guys are just full of shit then. Got it.Southerndawg said:
It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.UWhuskytskeet said:
I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?doogie said:I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you
-
I don't know much about the environment, but everyone needs a purpose.
The same way I drink too much, do blow, and pour my soul into screaming at Husky opponents on crisp fall days is the same way nerd environmentalists channel their frustration at things like withdrawaling from the Paris Accord.
Kumbaya let's get along. -
@BillNyeScienceDawg, true?Southerndawg said:
It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.UWhuskytskeet said:
I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?doogie said:I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you
-
Well if we're going to play the pick random facts from wikipedia game then I'll do my part. The whooping 0.040% stat is irrelevant. It can make up a small part of overall atmospheric volume and still play an integral role in regulating earth's temperature.Southerndawg said:
It's a helluva lot more relevant that what you're concerned with. Particulate matter is real pollution that causes real problems and deserves our? serious attention. CO2 is not a pollutant. It is a trace gas, required for life as we know it on this planet. Concentrations vary by time of day and location but on average it makes up a "whopping" 0.040% of the atmosphere. Of that trace amount, human activities contribute approximately 3% of the total 0.040%, or approximately 0.0012%. "Anthropogenic" CO2 is neither a pollutant, nor a real concern.UWhuskytskeet said:
I'm not saying it isn't true, I'm saying it isn't relevant. Not polluting shit that gives you cancer is great, but what does that have to do with C02 emissions?doogie said:I could have just linked on the WHO report directly but I decided to use the Breitbart link instead just the trigger you
I have no idea where you are getting the human activities have only contributed 3% to total CO2 atmospheric concentration. CO2 concentration has increased by ~40% since the Industrial Revolution. Before the Industrial Revolutino CO2 levels had stayed pretty flat for ~10,000 years. Current levels are at 400 ppm. Pre-Industrial revolution and 10,000 years prior 280ppm. Sounds significantly higher than 3% to me. -
Is the environment shrinking or enlarging tittays?
I vote the throbber to chinvestigate.
