Dirtling once again proves that he talks a lot but knows nothing.
Says Mr Undoubtably Spelt Fourty, the fat guy who posts this type of garbage:
CO2 is not vital for life.
At no point will the CO2 be involved in LIVING processes.
CO2 is not used by living cells. And plants can live forever without it (or photosynthesis) if you supply them with what IS vital, such as glucose and oxygen.
On the contrary. I have never claimed that animal life on planet earth could not survive without CO2. In fact, I claim that this is TOTALLY BOGUS. Animal life can live quite well with NO CO2.
While photosynthesis is required to RECYLCE CO2, nowhere is there evidence of CO2 itself being vital to ANY life.
With calving you don't get more than a small difference in the endpoint. You don't 'calve' a chunk of ice 2.7 square miles in extent.
I objected to calving as a description of the breakup of several square miles of glacier. It is still the wrong term. That is truth, not lie.
30% chance of being rained on for a person anywhere in the area =
- assume an even distribution of 100 people through the area.
- by the definition, 30 of them will be rained on.
- ergo, it is equivalent to saying that 30% of the AREA will get rain.