exrai

With my above post logic, I'd imagine factoring CO(Carbone Monoxide) is very important thx for pointing this out... AS IT WOULD LIKELY FLOAT WAY LONGER IN THE AIR VS CO2, 2 Atoms vs 3.

Okay plants are very hard to factor for, as some tend to be natural day, in night out. Plants release oxygen during the day in the presence of natural light through the process of photosynthesis. While at night, the plants uptake oxygen and release carbon dioxide, which is called respiration. However, some plants can uptake carbon dioxide during the night as well because of their ability to perform a type of photosynthesis called Crassulacean Acid Metabolism (CAM). Having these plants at home improves air quality throughout the day and helps people to sleep better at night. But lets call it a net reduction of CO2. or rather C carbon from the air. There is still very little carbon in the air but lets move on not important. Next up is the notion of h20 as rain drops, they tend to attract one another as they are moved close to each other across the sky, H20 is pretty light & that is why it floats too. However it seems if there is enough of it concentrated it gets just heavy enough to fall. Which totally baffles me as 1 Hydrogen is lighter than Oxygen meaning it should float. But I don't know enough about Atoms to say if the structure of 3 combined elements is heavier than a Single Atom, even if it was just 2 Hydrogen that seems lighter than 1 Oxygen. But is starts making more single if its like the One Oxygen carrying 2 Hydrogens, which makes it a bit heavier than an Oxygen not carrying any Hydrogens, this logic is sound. But its still light enough to flow, BUT WE SHOULD THINK OF AIR LIKE A OCEAN, & its basically has its own currents & movement + buoyancy which is important in this case. If you have say 5 single oxygens beside each other with more under them the spread would hold up the bigger single h20 but if a few more of h20s stand on top they SINK! Makes alot of sense but why does any of this matter, WELL C02 is much the same it too should attract other CO2 & sink, I've never seen Co2 rain but thats likely because enough it doesn't exist in the air to be noticed sinking to the ground, that said its also possible that it may also fall when rain falls but the ratio of Co2+h20 also not noticable. WHICH MEANS IF 3 CHAIN ATOMS JUST SINK TO THE GROUND OVER TIME WHY So why would C02 ever be a consider over, we may as well be blaming the RAIN for so called Climate Change at that point. I'd imagine C02 simply plays no major role. & IT EXPLAINS WHY SO LITTLE OF IT IS IN THE AIR CAUSE IT SINKS TO THE GROUND!

https://www.cdm.org/mammothdiscovery/wheniceages.html The Ice Ages began 2.4 million years ago and lasted until 11,500 years ago. To claim we humans have made drastic changes within the last 200 years is silly. We don't know what started or stopped the ice age but it likely started with plants. & Guess what plants absorb Carbon Dioxide & produce Oxygen as well however its very hard to how low oxygen actually got nor the impact of low/plant animal life. Not all plants are equal & some are aquatic & likely didn't absorb carbon but h20. So maybe carbon does play a role but I'm fairly certain it could be an either case. AKA wiping out surface plant life might freeze the earth but plants are being well feed by animal & human Carbon Dioxide production & they are loving it for sure. SO it sounds like Oxygen is what keeps the planet warm, makes sense as its in water & water tends to be very cold resistance h20's also good at blocking heat. Thats why it tends to get colder the further you swim down, so oxygen seems to be playing both roles in keeping the earth warm & cool as water while preventing cold on the surface. The woolly mammoth began to diverge from the steppe mammoth about 800,000 years ago Asia.Woolly mammoth evolved in Yukon and Alaska around 300,000 years ago from those ancestors. These animals were around for a very long time. & they lasted up to about 4,000 years ago too. We are talking time spans most humans can't wrap their heads around. I'm not educated enough to know which is worse Oxygen as itself or Carbon Dioxide AKA (CO2) 1 Carbon & 2 Oxygen, However if the Periodic-Table is anything to go off of Carbon is 6 & Oxygen is 8 Which means Carbon is less dense so it either reflects less light or keeps less heat from escaping, meaning it either heats or cools. But I doubt 2 atoms matters worth of difference really matters. So you have to tell me if More Oxygen is better or worse AKA is Oxygen causing heating or reducing it, because H20 rain does also cool the earth are two, so thats also another multi factor play Oxygen is having, so if C02 is 66% Oxygen Then 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93 argon, 0.04, carbon dioxide. OF EARTHS GASES. The 0.04% is lets say its up 0.02% with humans now if even that. It would stil only be 0.02% carbon in the air with 0.04% of it Oxygen. So Oxygen is closer to 21% instead of 20,95%, which such small numbers I do wonder why nobody questions the logic of C02 emissions being a cause.

Main issue is most rational minds who understands science(experts)would concede a pt to me on the simple basis that "Emissions/Gas Composition" is only one of the many factors playing some sort of role in the Heat Retention Process. As to simply state nothing else plays a role in this complex planetary system of cooling & heating is a dumb argument. This said I'm well aware clouds & other gases to play a role, However we mostly think in the dinoage it was more Oxygen. So lets say back then Oxygen could have been +50% of the Atmosphere & animals seemed to live & thrive just fine LOL. So if such a massive compositional change in the gases could still support equally amazing life why would I believe that... LIFE WOULDN'T FIND A WAY! TO ADAPT TO ANY REAL CHANGES OVER TIME! EVEN IF ITS RAPID SWINGS. DO YOU THINK WOOLY MAMMOTHS STARTED OUT WITH FUR OR EVOLVE FUR FOR THE ICE AGE! BUT LETS NOT ADDRESS THE MAMMOTH IN THE ROOM, because trying to argue we may still be on the back of an ice age... SOUNDS LIKE TO MUCH COMMON SENSE, would would have to make me believe the ice age has fully subsided before your claims of impending CLIMATE DOOM is even remotely makes sense based on the history of the planet, which it seemly doesn't.

ScytheBearer, this is LITERALLY YOU! Science vs pseudo science. Science vs superstition. Science vs deliberate ignorance. Science vs conspiracy theories. Science vs half truths. Science vs a lack of critical thinking YOUR UNIVERSAL DUMB COUNTER to me simply posing the possibilities of "WHAT IF ITS NOT THE EMISSONS" Then me showing own my Theory of Why. I WAS UNAWARE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD'S CONSIDERED PSEUDO SCIENCE. The funny part is my theory is 99% of your theory(Climate Change) just it drops "Emissions" in favor of "HEAT GENERATION", which is totally plausible & logical. Your stuck having to proof "Emissions" alter the earths temperature over time, little by little as humans pollute the air with byproducts from whatever source. & all I have to do is state HEAT IS HOT & PEOPLE GENERATE HEAT! PLUS you can't argue I'm wrong about the fact I'm generating body heat. Maybe argue its not enough heat to alter the temperatures of the earth. BUT IS THAT STILL TRUE IF YOU COUNT THE HEAT FROM ALL THE LIFE ON THE PLANET+FIRES+ELECTRICITY & MAGMA PRESSURE! COMBINED!

Proof, evidence, facts, citations? Proof of what, Proof of "Laws of Thermodynamics" that is pretty well established science. Evidence, I suppose I can cite your same absurd Evidence too, observations seen around the world & attribute it to my Claim, THE ICE IS MELTING IT MUST BE HEAT GENERATION! SEE ITS ABSURD! FACTS ARE VERY CLEAR I'M STATING THE WORLD DOES HEAT UP! I'm just blaming it on a seemingly more proper science based reason & that threats you! TAKE YOUR PICK , POINT YOUR FINGERS, WHICH IS IT... "QUESTIONABLE EMISSIONS" OR "LOGICAL REAL HEAT" (THE FOLLOWING IS PARODY, BUT IS THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD IN A NUTSHELL) THE ICE IS MELTING! There is no science beyond common sense in this notion. THE ONLY QUESTION IS THE FOLLOWING! WHY IS THE ICE NOW MELTING! Because its warmer? NO DUH SHERLOCK! So we blame HEAT! WHAT PRODUCES HEAT! The Sun, okay, THE HITTING THE CLOUDS, OKAY, IT MUST BE CLOUDS! I follow, WHAT IS IN CLOUDS, Gases Okay. DO WE ALTER GASES, eureka WE INDEED DO!, I PRESENT CLIMATE CHANGE. UMM OKAY... But what else make heat. NO NO NO LETS JUST INGORE ALL THAT! --------------------------------------------------------- Anyways this proves my position none the less. As my position is stating I have my own Theory. As shown above, anyone can have a THEORY & I base my own theory on what produces heat? WELL ENOUGH HEAT TO CAUSE ALL YOU IDIOTS TO PANIC! No other proof has to be presented on Theories. Only on how I came to the conclusion. As has been flawlessly laid out above as Parody, its very very very Scientific I promise!

Current Points For DEBATE 1pt for Climate Change, 1pt for Planetary Heat Retention, 1pt for Undecided, 1pt for believe the experts which doesn't add pts. ^Experts ^Me ^HeyYou ^ScytheBearer? 1pt for Earth Titling Theory ^Pagafyr

ScytheBearer, your why we can't have rational debates, The science was settled long ago. Nobody has to prove to you that you are wrong. (Disclaimer the rest of what you posted was right if said in the context that you generally directed it to everyone vs just against me as counter to my concept, with In fact, I suspect nobody will be able to prove to you just how wrong you are.) (^ that statement applied generally to people makes sense, people can be wrong & stubborn in their believes, however this is not the case for myself as I'm openly accepting proper proof of claims for Emissions aka Climate Change & such.) (I feel you attacked my position on the debate so I defend it, but I give you the benefit of the doubt if this isn't the case.) THAT NOTION IS WRONG, YOU DO HAVE TO PROVE IT & CITE YOUR SOURCES. Thats why its a debate, both sides argue why they believe they are right. I outlined YOUR SCIENCE as described in the media & wiki & experts, THEY BLAME "EMISSIONS" NOW ALL I ASK IS YOU SHOW ME HOW THEY PROVED IT WAS CAUSE OF "EMISSIONS" & YOU MUST DISPROVE ITS NOT HEAT GENERATION MY COMPETING THEORY! If you can't address those two things, then your not helping the debate by saying they did the research. MORE SO WHEN I BELIEVE THE RESEARCH IS NOT THERE, where can I find a video showing how certain the set amounts of gases listed about interact in such a way with sun light that shows how much heat ​it retains against the cold vacuum of space. NO SUCH RESEARCH HAS BEEN DONE, the only so called "research" is the observations seen around the world & them picking their brains trying to figure out what to attribute it cause to, WHICH IS REVERSE SCIENCE & simply them Guessing. Its 100% clear that only 2 factors play a role in temperature, which are the following. 1.The temperatures of the matter outside the Container AKA EARTH, which is Space(COLD), & the Sun(HEAT) 2. & the internal reactions occurring within the container, AKA people & nature & their heat generation factors. THAT IS DEFINED SCIENCE! IF you have nothing to add beyond you claim they did "proper" Emission Studies. Then don't comment. I HATE TO SAY IT BUT YOUR NOT SMART ENOGUH TO FOLLOW THE DEBATE OR YOUR TO TRUSTING OF THE ACCEPTED THEORY! AS THEY ARE BOTH THEORIES.

I don't believe in Climate Change "as how its been described as a threat to the world" I even think its a term meant solely for confusing people about the correct topic which is... PLANTARY HEAT RENTION, which is the following. Thermodynamics & WHAT COOLS THE PLANET?( I'd theory the cold vacuum of empty space does)Earth heats from the sun each day on both sides,as space syphons its excess off & more at nights! If we can't agree on this most basic concept the debate goes nowhere as I don't think your smart enoughto understand the interworks of how the earth's climate is effected by all these defined systems & laws. So rule 1 you can't not dispute Thermodynamics as a concept, as its mostly fact you can try to debate myIdea of it is wrong, but it looks pretty solid so good luck with that endeavor as it will win you no debate pts. With that off the table we have to debate the actual (theoretical)causes of the planets heating & cooling. Climate Change Supporters must agree with their set definition that is the fault of gas "Emissions".The concept that certain gases hold in heat & or reflect heat from the sun, defend this statement. Planetary Heat Retention Supports must pose other reasons for the heating excess, if there even is. First Up is explaining how neutral non heat energy is generated & stored then released as HEAT.Concept one, chemical heat, every time we light a gas or any other fire we heat up the planet.Concept two, heat sources, Chemical, Electricity, Body Heat, Fires, Magma Pressure As Well.The overall concept is we animals & more so humans with Fire/Electricity HEAT UP THE EARTH.I see no way to debate this fact, now Climate Change Supporters must disprove heat generationas the MAIN CAUSE for the global warming, as they can't have it both ways, either its Emissions or not. I'm in the firm camp that if Emission played such a huge impact in the temperature we would seemassive swings where the planet would instantly freeze or boil if a few gases swapped places.AKA if a sun blocking gas was 80% of the gas then the world freezes, here are the numbers78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93 argon, 0.04, carbon dioxide. OF EARTHS GASES.Which means you should conclude that your global warming via emissions are caused within the1% gas changes, now you can say we are losing some of the Nitrogen/Oxygen % in the process.But I'd find it hard to believe such small changes are even remotely comparable to actual HEAT! THIS IS THE PREMISE PROVE ME WRONG, & IF I'M CORRECT IT SIMPLY MEANS THE EARTHSimply is cooled off by the cold vacuum of empty space for X amount of degrees each day/night.& the excess built up by heat generation is mostly taken away, each cycle but if not the case thenWE WOULD HAVE HUGE ISSUES WITH AKA HEAT RETENTION! NOW DEBATE!

Skyrim Perk Star Chart Explained. 1.Perks are related to their skill/lv usage & players should know the perk menus nothing more than a fancy list which shows what abilities you can unlock. 2.Theres a clear dissociation between the player knowing what the perk menu is vs the idea that the character has any clue that this external force exists. Following on the ideas of 1 & 2 the reason behind why stars being using is to give the player the sense they are a/the divine force guiding this character. The perk tree itself follow a mastery setup the idea that you need to master ability/perk A to learn B a skill further down a line, a few exceptions are noted.

Immersive gameplay! WTF Why! Aren't my turrets working I assign you people one freakin job thats to keep everything running why is the turrets battery completely drained get me a battery pack Cods Worth & now who let this drain, it was Tim Sir, oh oh I now feel bad poor Tim he died in that last Deathclaw raid maybe settling here was a mistake,,,

I don't understand their point of the settlement system in Fallout 4 what point did it serve? Theres a lot missing from Fallout 4's settlement system & they were just over thinking what was really needed/wanted. We liked build-able structures/prefabs(floors/tiles/roofs/walls/halves/corners/windows) thats its from there we can take any ingame object/structure & place/store it however we please maybe make usable via repair/restore to prewar them even better, settlement manager is a must recruiting members/npcs/followers cool having water/power/food wonderful just add proper storage units*** with a "required" red/green "surplus" draining meters (100%Red very bad people leave, 100% Green very good time to expanded) like fallout shelter, raids & def objects cool cool maybe better pathing design smart AI, external power sources besides just wires duh as in ***fuel/batteries/tanks for food/water*** whatever same water has pipes or manual npc job fill water sources like sinks/tubs/whatnot, food plants needs waterpipes or npcjob/uvlights or direct light & fertilizers, cows/need feed.

Hello I am Google:How may I be of Service? Degradation & Loot Mod is what you need. oh wait :smile: Redefining Search Parameters... Wanderer Cuirass by Frank and CabalAdvanced Ancient Nord ArmorRusty Steel Dwarven Dwemer OverhaulEnlarged Dwarven Storeroom with Unique Ancient Dwemer ArmorEbony Armor and Mail RustyAncient Dovahkiin Armor by agentspoonHvergelmir's Armor Retexture - HAR Rusty WeaponsRusty Iron Weaponsrusty_ironRusty Iron Shield for draugres Sorry you won't find many armors with dents or chunks rusted off, These are Nords they made hardy equipment out of iron & the other metals are very strong compared to what we thing of, at most you may see rusty coated armor not worn down all the way thru tho, these mods might help the feel of armors looking the part, however you will need to make your own esp to figured how to randomly distribute them in game, newly crafted weapons won't be rusty npcs likely won't be wearing rusty armor unless draugr/undead, I how some of this helps.If its just a single outfit your looking for check armor packs for the one you want.

SkySight Skins - Ultra HD Male Textures and Real Feet Meshes (4K ULTRA) Young Preset? Better Male Presets 1_3-15641-1-3 Better Females by Bella Version 3-2812-3 Beauty Faces by necKros 131-1329-1-3-1 ^These to make npcs look great. Character Edit & Body Sliders for your face & body shapes.

Immortal simply means won't die from old age & as far as I believe any Daedra Prince can bestow this ability whether or not your still consider human after the fact remains to be seen just like Vampirism or Miraak, A divine may also certainly have this power to extend mortal life, by whatever means used to achieve this anyone can be considered immortal now as far as Dragons innately having this ability I'd say not but its much more likely they could indeed gain a shout of immortally somewhere somehow so by that standard every Dragonborn has the potential be immortal be right of blood.