I live in Montana, we still ride horses everywhere..
I just got running water last week.
Its the shiznit
I just got running water last week.
Its the shiznit
China's emission are increasing. They overtook the U.S if im correct 2 years ago as the largest green house producer.Mekstizzle wrote:
Why China? You make an argument for per capita emissions for fucking Indonesia but not China. China's population is quadruple that of the US and its emissions are roughly equal (your figures).
You did what?JohnG@lt wrote:
Hey, we fixed your ozone layer for youDrunkFace wrote:
But the US has a lot of people AND a high per capita rate and it seems (at least by this forum) a lot of people who just don't give a shit.
You haven't been to Indonesia have you? Cause it shows.JohnG@lt wrote:
Yes, people in Indonesia live in shacks and walk everywhere. People in America live in houses and drive. We in America should lower ourselves down to the level of Indonesia and shut off our electricity, running water and should go back to riding horses for transportation.rammunition wrote:
compare the U.S to Indonesia. The U.S has about 208 million in population whilst Indonesia has 230 million. A Bit off but they are ranked 3rd and 4th in population.jsnipy wrote:
I guess my point of pointing per capita is that per capita shows habit and lifestyle. The U.S. and China happen to have a lot of people. If you live in a western style society you contribute to China's pollution (I'm assuming you live in the UK).
Now the U.S produces 21.5% of the Worlds CO2 whilst Indonesia produces 1.2% at 333,483 thousand metric tonne per annual. See the big difference?
So the PH level will increase. Who says it is always been static.
Sounds like another money/power grab by the global authorities to me.
Sounds like another money/power grab by the global authorities to me.
i'll be buying a hummer to contribute
Maybe we should melt the polar ice caps to dilute the sea water?
So? They have a population quadruple that of the US. The fact that they just overtook them only two years ago, and not even by much, says it all.rammunition wrote:
China's emission are increasing. They overtook the U.S if im correct 2 years ago as the largest green house producer.Mekstizzle wrote:
Why China? You make an argument for per capita emissions for fucking Indonesia but not China. China's population is quadruple that of the US and its emissions are roughly equal (your figures).
oh nooooooo why don't we stop fucking about talking about stuff we'll never be alive to see and let them figure it out for themselves?
Yes, we should just pass the buck to future generations and make them deal with problems they didn't create themselves.Kez wrote:
oh nooooooo why don't we stop fucking about talking about stuff we'll never be alive to see and let them figure it out for themselves?
"Ah, you miserable creatures! You who think that you are so great! You who judge humanity to be so small! You who wish to reform everything! Why don't you reform yourselves? That task would be sufficient enough."
-Frederick Bastiat
-Frederick Bastiat
=NHB=Shadow wrote:
i'll be buying a hummer to contribute
You know your home you live in? You wont mind if your parents blow it up, cos they don't need to give a fuck as they're not going to need it when they die.Kez wrote:
oh nooooooo why don't we stop fucking about talking about stuff we'll never be alive to see and let them figure it out for themselves?
Oh, you live there too?! Tough shit!!
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
I completely understand your point. While Indonesia is not all rural I would submit to you that the US has higher percentage of urban dwellers. I also don't dispute the fact that the US is at the top with China of C02 producing nations. My point was if the top C02 producers per capita (Qatar, United Arab Emirates, Kuwait, and Bahrain) had the same population as the US, they were be far, far worse. My other point still stands, regardless of your disdain for western society; if you live like a westerner, then you are part of the problem.rammunition wrote:
compare the U.S to Indonesia. The U.S has about 308 million in population whilst Indonesia has 230 million. A Bit off but they are ranked 3rd and 4th in population.jsnipy wrote:
I guess my point of pointing per capita is that per capita shows habit and lifestyle. The U.S. and China happen to have a lot of people. If you live in a western style society you contribute to China's pollution (I'm assuming you live in the UK).rammunition wrote:
as a whole
in thousands metric tonnes(annual)/total world percentage
China - 6,103,493 21.5 %
U.S - 5,752,289 20.2 %
Now the U.S produces 21.5% of the Worlds CO2 whilst Indonesia produces 1.2% at 333,483 thousand metric tonne per annual. See the big difference?
I don't really understand why this has become a discussion about who's polluting the most. Every person on this planet plays a part in this, and as long as not everybody changes his habits, nothing will really change, pollution doesn't care about borders.
I also don't understand why people seem to be careless about this. Less fish means less food, less jobs, less money and so on. It doesn't really matter if one believes in global warming or other things, but why not try to keep this planet clean? it's the only one we have...
I also don't understand why people seem to be careless about this. Less fish means less food, less jobs, less money and so on. It doesn't really matter if one believes in global warming or other things, but why not try to keep this planet clean? it's the only one we have...
I have a slight problem with this.
The ocean is big (really, really big), the actual v/v amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is still only about 350ppm and CO2 isn't especially soluble in water. Plus it's a weak acid. So "corrosively acidic" sounds a stretch. Acidification will occur though, but drastic drops in pH probably won't.
And why people are using this as an excuse for US- or China-bashing is beyond me.
PS. What does "corrosively" even mean? Do they mean like "crustaceans who enter here will cease to exist" corrosively?
PPS. I'm not trying to say "acidification won't do anything" though - it's probably one of the most serious things that could occur, forget the dramatic but highly variable stuff like "sea level rises" (never mind the sea isn't level). Possibly the worst thing that could happen is the pH could drop so much that a major "carbon sink" (mollusc shells) turns into a carbon source as their shells dissolve and release CO2.
The ocean is big (really, really big), the actual v/v amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is still only about 350ppm and CO2 isn't especially soluble in water. Plus it's a weak acid. So "corrosively acidic" sounds a stretch. Acidification will occur though, but drastic drops in pH probably won't.
And why people are using this as an excuse for US- or China-bashing is beyond me.
PS. What does "corrosively" even mean? Do they mean like "crustaceans who enter here will cease to exist" corrosively?
PPS. I'm not trying to say "acidification won't do anything" though - it's probably one of the most serious things that could occur, forget the dramatic but highly variable stuff like "sea level rises" (never mind the sea isn't level). Possibly the worst thing that could happen is the pH could drop so much that a major "carbon sink" (mollusc shells) turns into a carbon source as their shells dissolve and release CO2.
Last edited by Spark (2009-10-05 01:30:20)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
When a weatherman can accurately predict the weekend weather... i will maybe give the carbonecotards credence.
Love is the answer
I'm fairly sure he does.[TUF]Catbox wrote:
When a weatherman can accurately predict the weekend weather... i will maybe give the carbonecotards credence.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
It doesn't take a lot. It's the reaction that happens with water, CO2 and calcium carbonate (the stuff shells are made of). with these 3 things, you will get carbonic acid. this also happens with limestone foramtions, they all were plain some million years ago. Now this reaction happens all the time, but with a rising in CO2 it will increase.Spark wrote:
I have a slight problem with this.
The ocean is big (really, really big), the actual v/v amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is still only about 350ppm and CO2 isn't especially soluble in water. Plus it's a weak acid. So "corrosively acidic" sounds a stretch. Acidification will occur though, but drastic drops in pH probably won't.
And why people are using this as an excuse for US- or China-bashing is beyond me.
So I'd say the problem isn't the increasing acidity, but the progress which leads to that.
I'm not quite sure if all that chemical stuff is correct, but I think that's what I remember from last semester...
I know all this.mr.hrundi wrote:
It doesn't take a lot. It's the reaction that happens with water, CO2 and calcium carbonate (the stuff shells are made of). with these 3 things, you will get carbonic acid. this also happens with limestone foramtions, they all were plain some million years ago. Now this reaction happens all the time, but with a rising in CO2 it will increase.Spark wrote:
I have a slight problem with this.
The ocean is big (really, really big), the actual v/v amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is still only about 350ppm and CO2 isn't especially soluble in water. Plus it's a weak acid. So "corrosively acidic" sounds a stretch. Acidification will occur though, but drastic drops in pH probably won't.
And why people are using this as an excuse for US- or China-bashing is beyond me.
So I'd say the problem isn't the increasing acidity, but the progress which leads to that.
I'm not quite sure if all that chemical stuff is correct, but I think that's what I remember from last semester...
carbonate + acid = CO2 + water + salt.
What I'm saying though, is that A. carbon dioxide is not soluble enough in water (even at low temps) - with the equilibrium, you still have a lot more CO2 then you have H2CO3, B. there's way too much water in comparison to carbon and C. carbonic is a weak acid anyway so you'll have a lot more H2CO3 than H+/HCO3-
Not enough to cause the 2 or 3 point drop in pH to a level that most people would regard as "corrosive".
Hell it'll take a fuckload of carbonic just to make the oceans "acidic" by ordinary chemical standards. So I think someone - either the paper or the researcher, and I'm banking on the paper given that scientists are generally quite conservative and cautious with this kind of language - is getting a bit jumpy.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
lezdoit.Harmor wrote:
Maybe we should melt the polar ice caps to dilute the sea water?
I'm already doing my part to help the environment.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
I'll leave my truck running 24/7FEOS wrote:
lezdoit.Harmor wrote:
Maybe we should melt the polar ice caps to dilute the sea water?
I'm already doing my part to help the environment.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
It's a burden being a visionary.Varegg wrote:
I'll leave my truck running 24/7FEOS wrote:
lezdoit.Harmor wrote:
Maybe we should melt the polar ice caps to dilute the sea water?
I'm already doing my part to help the environment.
It truly is.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Tru dat ... it's already giving me a headacheFEOS wrote:
It's a burden being a visionary.Varegg wrote:
I'll leave my truck running 24/7FEOS wrote:
lezdoit.
I'm already doing my part to help the environment.
It truly is.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
I trust spark on this shit yo.Spark wrote:
I know all this.mr.hrundi wrote:
It doesn't take a lot. It's the reaction that happens with water, CO2 and calcium carbonate (the stuff shells are made of). with these 3 things, you will get carbonic acid. this also happens with limestone foramtions, they all were plain some million years ago. Now this reaction happens all the time, but with a rising in CO2 it will increase.Spark wrote:
I have a slight problem with this.
The ocean is big (really, really big), the actual v/v amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is still only about 350ppm and CO2 isn't especially soluble in water. Plus it's a weak acid. So "corrosively acidic" sounds a stretch. Acidification will occur though, but drastic drops in pH probably won't.
And why people are using this as an excuse for US- or China-bashing is beyond me.
So I'd say the problem isn't the increasing acidity, but the progress which leads to that.
I'm not quite sure if all that chemical stuff is correct, but I think that's what I remember from last semester...
carbonate + acid = CO2 + water + salt.
What I'm saying though, is that A. carbon dioxide is not soluble enough in water (even at low temps) - with the equilibrium, you still have a lot more CO2 then you have H2CO3, B. there's way too much water in comparison to carbon and C. carbonic is a weak acid anyway so you'll have a lot more H2CO3 than H+/HCO3-
Not enough to cause the 2 or 3 point drop in pH to a level that most people would regard as "corrosive".
Hell it'll take a fuckload of carbonic just to make the oceans "acidic" by ordinary chemical standards. So I think someone - either the paper or the researcher, and I'm banking on the paper given that scientists are generally quite conservative and cautious with this kind of language - is getting a bit jumpy.
lol you trust someone on an internet forum, I'll trust the scientists thanks very much. Unless Spark IS a scientist???Cybargs wrote:
I trust spark on this shit yo.
I reserve this post till a later date this evening after i have consulted my text books on this matter (not had a chance to read them through yet).
Earth and Environmental science degree student ftw!
Earth and Environmental science degree student ftw!