: Tanks are tanky as hell, what are you talking about? Every single game tanks are winning so hard that it isn't even funny. Squishy noobs get punished by Jax, Voli, Mundo etc. Basically destroyed. If you pick Chogath or Garen you basically can walk free and they won't do anything to you unless you screw into 1v5 or smth.
> [{quoted}](name=galoisgroup,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=oFZRUTe7,comment-id=0004,timestamp=2019-10-18T13:41:54.271+0000) > > Tanks are tanky as hell, what are you talking about? Every single game tanks are winning so hard that it isn't even funny. Squishy noobs get punished by Jax, Voli, Mundo etc. Basically destroyed. If you pick Chogath or Garen you basically can walk free and they won't do anything to you unless you screw into 1v5 or smth. yeah i agree, tanks have too much damage and subtanks or non tanks like bruisers have too much defense.
Tsurupettan (EUNE)
: Modern data centers work in a different way then 30 years ago. Don't blame server/host sites, better ask how they get their energy - if it is nuclear electricity it's clean. Second best is solar/wind farms. Worse are coal and oil burned sources but that is government responsibility. And your post made some traffic... instead ask your local politicians what they can do for the safer energy instead of blaming a company for their services you are well using. {{sticker:zombie-brand-clap}}
> [{quoted}](name=Tsurupettan,realm=EUNE,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=0007,timestamp=2019-10-14T12:01:58.368+0000) > > Modern data centers work in a different way then 30 years ago. > Don't blame server/host sites, better ask how they get their energy - if it is nuclear electricity it's clean. Second best is solar/wind farms. Worse are coal and oil burned sources but that is government responsibility. > And your post made some traffic... instead ask your local politicians what they can do for the safer energy instead of blaming a company for their services you are well using. > > {{sticker:zombie-brand-clap}} there is nothing wrong with coal and oil, and solar and wind can't bring up enough energy, even today 99% energy is fossil, and only 1% is green energy {{sticker:sg-kiko}}, even if they build entire parks of solartiles and windmills, there still wouldn't be enough energy, so they would end up purchasing fossil fuel from other countries.....
: > for the millionth time co2 is a coolant, care to explain to me how a gas that has an heat retention of 0.00 is capable of transferring heat? Cause that’s not how greenhouse gases work how many times do I have to explain this to you... greenhouse gases trap heat into the atmosphere they themselves don’t need to get hot. It works like a greenhouse why is that so hard to understand. > thats not how it works, the ocean stays in equilibrium, the seabed adds calcium/magnesium/sodium etc, that converts carbonic acids into bicarbonates or carbonates, which in turn makes the ocean alkaline or basic, what did you think equilibrium meant? so no the ocean isn't turning acid, its litterally IMPOSSIBLE. But these are chemical reactions, therefore the reaction must be balanced... the more carbon dioxide you add the higher quantities of the other chemicals you need. Add more carbon dioxide than the sea can react and the carbonic acid doesn’t get reduced thus oceans become more acidic. This is basic chemistry. > than you of all people should know volcanoes don't emit alot of co2 at all, 0,005 per volcano per year, 0.02% per year all volcanoes combined give or take, so 1 eruption isn't going to cause a global warming -.- > the fact that co2 has no heat retention, therefor it cannot and does not trap heat in any way..... co2 gets surrounded by heat, sets up a shield of energy by vibrating, halts the momentum of radiative energy from earth, and since heat moves upwards, thats where it goes. But that’s only when small amounts of volcanos actually erupt... when there’s a very high amount of volcanic activity like in the Permian those numbers are much much higher. Did you seriously drop out of school... heat can move in any direction... so long as it has a way to travel. That means diffusion, convection, conduction, or radiation... if heat couldn’t move downwards life wouldn’t exist in the first place as the heat would go straight back into space. > lol said the cultist. I’m supplying evidence, you failed high school science > nope europe elites and govs are pro climate crap, only trump which is i believe the only gov atm that doesn't believe the climate propaganda. Most governments aren’t pro climate... most of them are tied with the rich, there’s more money being against climate than being for climate > money by taxes gov/scientists, control by cutting resources gov, and power through propaganda gov, so in the end scientists are in it for the money, i mean they gotta pay for all the research, nr 1 income is the government, therefore the gov has huge influence on nasa, and nasa has huge influence on other scientists. Ha ha ha don’t make me laugh, I %%%%ing wish there was money in this for me. Fun fact, if you want to make money in science you actually go into fossil fuel, there’s a ton of money in the petroleum industry, and nothing in green energy. So if scientists are in it to make money surely they’d actually be supporting the thing that will make them money, rather than trying to get rid of it. Plus theyre more likely to get funding going against climate change than they would going for, as petroleum companies are more than willing to pay for propaganda ___ Now for your studies > 500 scientist that go against the propaganda. Not a study, just some scientists with opinions that contradict the masses, no data attached no peer reviewed paper (also I like how you are suddenly willing to believe scientists when they support your view but any who are against are cultists)... of which they talk mostly from economic standpoint so these scientist are interested in the money. Also failing to look at the bigger picture “CO2 is good for plants” and yet we just burned down a large portion of the Amazon, not so good for your argument when corporations are burning down your argument. > and then there is this. > https://gerhard.stehlik-online.de/ > read it i mean it, hope you get it XD An study that hasn’t been published in a proper journal with no peer review. Therefore I’d be inclined to not believe it. Supply a published peeer reviewer paper on this then we will talk > scroll to 2012 and compare to 2013 you'll actually see an increase, its also funny how nasa isn't talking about how thick the ice is, But that data also shows it’s going down, yes there was an increase but since then it’s continued to decrease. These are what is known as anomalous events and why you use a line of best fit to show data clearly. If a line of best fit was to be drawn it would show a negative correlation meaning ice thickness has been going down over time > in 2015 someone at nasa published a paper that contradicted ice loss, Finally an actual paper... shame just the abstract but oh well. This doesn’t contradict ice loss... a quote “The decadal increase in dynamic thinning in WA1 and the AP is approximately one-third of the long-term dynamic thickening in EA and WA2, which should buffer additional dynamic thinning for decades.” they aren’t saying ice thinning is never happened or won’t happen, they even acknowledge it... just that a recent increase in ice thickness will delay ice thinning by s few decades. So that paper supports ice thinning. > so much for sea level rise XD Good thing I never mentioned sea level rise, in fact that’s not an argument that comes up much these days precisely for this reason. Doesn’t change climate change
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=000500000000000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-13T20:01:50.970+0000) > > Cause that’s not how greenhouse gases work how many times do I have to explain this to you... greenhouse gases trap heat into the atmosphere they themselves don’t need to get hot. It works like a greenhouse why is that so hard to understand. > you don't understand the fact co2 is not a greenhouse gas, a greenhouse gas convects and radiates heat, co2 is incapable of doing so, so again how does co2 capture and hold heat, to heat up the environment? when it can't heat up and therefore can't hold heat? > But these are chemical reactions, therefore the reaction must be balanced... the more carbon dioxide you add the higher quantities of the other chemicals you need. Add more carbon dioxide than the sea can react and the carbonic acid doesn’t get reduced thus oceans become more acidic. This is basic chemistry. > you do realize co2 holds more than hydrogen? so no, no matter how much co2 you add it will always remain in equilibrium, its called equivalent, meaning 1 carbon counters 2 hydrogen, basic chemistry, you do realize you keep adding the same gas co2, i would agree with you if only hydrogen was added and not carbon as well, the second way of changing the equilibrium is by increasing the speed its added, meaning you would need to add co2 faster than the seabed adds said chemicals, the amount added won't change a thing, since the carbon in the water would rise and eventually overcome the hydrogen and the water would turn basic or alkaline again, this is why the Ph value of the ocean fluctuates, the Ph levels of the ocean haven't changed at all, nor is there a trend that shows the oceans becoming more acidic, and at this current day the ocean is still basic or alkaline. > But that’s only when small amounts of volcanos actually erupt... when there’s a very high amount of volcanic activity like in the Permian those numbers are much much higher. > sorry but your cultis scientists at nasa disprove this https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ nasa says highest historical co2 level is 300 PPM :P so which is it? > Did you seriously drop out of school... heat can move in any direction... so long as it has a way to travel. That means diffusion, convection, conduction, or radiation... if heat couldn’t move downwards life wouldn’t exist in the first place as the heat would go straight back into space. > yes i agree heat moves in any direction, but only tarvels upwards^^ > I’m supplying evidence, you failed high school science > you are supplying bias, what evidence? nasa scientists that continuesly contradict themselves? XD > Most governments aren’t pro climate... most of them are tied with the rich, there’s more money being against climate than being for climate > no, most govs are, only president not even gov really against it is trump, china remains neutral atm, no other gov has openly stated they are against it. > Ha ha ha don’t make me laugh, I %%%%ing wish there was money in this for me. > > Fun fact, if you want to make money in science you actually go into fossil fuel, there’s a ton of money in the petroleum industry, and nothing in green energy. > > So if scientists are in it to make money surely they’d actually be supporting the thing that will make them money, rather than trying to get rid of it. > Plus theyre more likely to get funding going against climate change than they would going for, as petroleum companies are more than willing to pay for propaganda > > ___ > whom do you think funds the scientists? sorry but not sorry, fun fact the governments own the scientists, so either the scientists do what the gov tells them, or lose money and be without a job..... you do realize that green energy doesn't even make up 1% of the net energy, so yeah, no money in there yet, but these climate cultists are trying to destroy fossil fuel, so where do you think the money will be made? sane scientists know green energy will destroy lives, so this is why the MAJORITY of scientists are against this propaganda. > Now for your studies > > Not a study, just some scientists with opinions that contradict the masses, no data attached no peer reviewed paper (also I like how you are suddenly willing to believe scientists when they support your view but any who are against are cultists)... of which they talk mostly from economic standpoint so these scientist are interested in the money. > Also failing to look at the bigger picture “CO2 is good for plants” and yet we just burned down a large portion of the Amazon, not so good for your argument when corporations are burning down your argument. > these are still scientists, and unbiased at that, who is we? i don't live near the amazon O.o, companies are expanding by destroying nature, well no offense but the arguments from the cultists tend to exist out of ''but scientists BELIEVE'' since when are ''believes'' facts? > An study that hasn’t been published in a proper journal with no peer review. Therefore I’d be inclined to not believe it. Supply a published peeer reviewer paper on this then we will talk > i tend to stay away from biased crap^^ > But that data also shows it’s going down, yes there was an increase but since then it’s continued to decrease. > > These are what is known as anomalous events and why you use a line of best fit to show data clearly. If a line of best fit was to be drawn it would show a negative correlation meaning ice thickness has been going down over time > no a nasa speaks of a trend, this kinks the trend hard, since trends need to continue no matter what, this is what we call fluctuation and like i said before 2014 has similar extent of ice as 1979, and the graph is about extent not ice thickness, it doesn't show ice thinning. > Finally an actual paper... shame just the abstract but oh well. > > This doesn’t contradict ice loss... a quote “The decadal increase in dynamic thinning in WA1 and the AP is approximately one-third of the long-term dynamic thickening in EA and WA2, which should buffer additional dynamic thinning for decades.” they aren’t saying ice thinning is never happened or won’t happen, they even acknowledge it... just that a recent increase in ice thickness will delay ice thinning by s few decades. > > So that paper supports ice thinning. > it supports increase in EXTENT, believe it or not nasa removed this journal btw, only because it contradicts nasa's claims of decreasing ice extent, that team PROVED that the arctics aren't melting away in extent, so no its not supporting ice loss, they state that ice is actually increasing at another point, they state there is an ice SHIFT, meaning the ice thins at point A but thickens at point B, nasa claims all ice is melting, which is untrue, even the title says ''Mass gains of the Antarctic ice sheet exceed losses'' so arctic ice is actually increasing not decreasing liek nasa claims. > Good thing I never mentioned sea level rise, in fact that’s not an argument that comes up much these days precisely for this reason. Doesn’t change climate change 1 lie down, the rest will follow, the climate change from nasa will crumble since its hollow^^
: it says 2006 = 381 PPM which is 0.0381% now the bottom graph shows 1950 over 380 PPM which is 0.0380% > can you please explain to me how co2 increased to 0.0380% till 1950 and lowered untill 2006 just to rise again? > cause from what i can tell by these graphs is that co2 levels are fluctuating throughout the ages, therefor there is no significant co2 increase, the bottom graph shows indirect measurements and thus not accurate ones, nasa didn't even exist untill 1958 and the first real measurement of co2 was done at 1957 which was 0.0316% or 316 PPM, so anything below 1957 is inaccurate but still shows fluctuations and never a straight line. Are... we looking at the same data 2006 = 381 PPM 2019 = 412 That’s a clear positive correlation... CO2 is steadily going up. And the bottom graph isn’t inaccurate... you forget that CO2 can be trapped in ice which allows scientists to look at historical emission levels as the ice gives a snapshot at the atmosphere at the time of freezing And yeah over thousands of years that the study is looking at (note the scale at the bottom, first measurement is 400 thousand years ago, this is palaeontology not someone going outside to measure it) it fluctuates, all of that are natural releases and sinks doing their job... as soon as humans start buring fossil fuels it shoots up massively. That data proves what I’m saying... > heat ALWAYS travels upwards not downwards, Well the last shred of respect I had for you is gone. Heat doesn’t always travel upwards you moron, if it did that then the earth would be frozen as the heat would never reach the surface. Heat goes in all directions, your thinking of hot air which does indeed travel upwards as it’s less dense than cold air... but heat itself can travel in any direction. > then you can't use co2 in fire extinguishers, Wait do you actually think CO2 cools fires down... fire extinguishers work by firing CO2 at the source, replacing the oxygen in that area with CO2... no oxygen no fire. It smothers the fire it doesn’t cool it down. > greenhouse gasses convect heat by absorbing it and become hotter than the environment and at the same time radiates heat since every object can only retain heat for a limited amount of time, co2 cannot hold heat so it does not convect nor does it radiate nor does it reflect. That’s not how green house gases work... if you don’t even know the fundamentals then it’s no wonder you think it’s a lie. Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere by preventing it from leaving, hence the earth heats up. That’s why it’s called the greenhouse effect... this is exactly how a greenhouse works. > evolution, plants adapt and lots of plants thrive in cold climates, and vice versa. Evolution happens over millions of years, climate change happens over decades. Species can’t adapt faster than the climate can change > adaptations, just look at asutralia. Australia has nothing to do with adaptions... that’s island isolation causing speciation. And that’s because the island split apart slowly allowing for species to survive... climate change is too fast. > yeah cause alot of animals live on sea ice > and sea ice is fluctuating not dissapearing. Doesn’t matter if sea ice is fluctuating... even if it goes too low to sustain its populations for just a year then makes a full recovery too many species will die And not a lot but enough that entire ecosystems go under. It just takes one species to go for others to follow. Polar bears die, this increases seal populations as they’ve lost a major population buffer, this decreases the population of seal’s prey as they are being overhunted... ecosystems are delicate. > the oceans are 8 PH thats basic not acidic, the PH near landside are 7.7 which is still basic and not acidic, the ocean is not and will not be acidic. Except it can and will, explained in the other comment. > release heat through windows or doors, and if thats not enough use other ways of decreasing the heat, and eventually people adapt. You realise they’d have to do that to every house in England... and even that won’t help... the whole building is designed to preserve as much heat as possible you’d have to rebuild every building to survive... we can’t do that faster than climate is changing. > so no mass extinction has never happened due to temperature, no volcano has ever caused continental extinction whatsoever. And yet in your other comment you tried to explain why it has caused extinctions... ___ You show no understanding of this... seriously this is high school science. Perhaps you should listen to those that have dedicated their lives to learn this stuff
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=000600000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-13T16:36:16.463+0000) > > it says 2006 = 381 PPM which is 0.0381% > now the bottom graph shows 1950 over 380 PPM which is 0.0380% > > Are... we looking at the same data > > 2006 = 381 PPM > 2019 = 412 > That’s a clear positive correlation... CO2 is steadily going up. > it shows 1950 well over 380 PPM, the difference on that graph between 340 and 380 is 40 PPM, at 1950 the PPM is at half over 380 PPM, meaning its 400 PPM at 1950, so like i said, can you explain the decrease from 1950 to 2006? all the graph shows is fluctuation, and why can't we see 1950-2006 in the graph? why in the world does it start at 2006? > And the bottom graph isn’t inaccurate... you forget that CO2 can be trapped in ice which allows scientists to look at historical emission levels as the ice gives a snapshot at the atmosphere at the time of freezing > > And yeah over thousands of years that the study is looking at (note the scale at the bottom, first measurement is 400 thousand years ago, this is palaeontology not someone going outside to measure it) it fluctuates, all of that are natural releases and sinks doing their job... as soon as humans start buring fossil fuels it shoots up massively. > > That data proves what I’m saying... > nope, co2 measured from ice is inaccurate, ice melts and freezes again, so the level of co2 in ice is meaningless, you can't go back in time and rule out factors, on top of that they don't state what ice it is, from which water, not only that, but these measurements disprove your claim of end permian mass extinction due to global warming, since that graph shows levels under 300 PPM at all times, so which is it? > Well the last shred of respect I had for you is gone. > > Heat doesn’t always travel upwards you moron, if it did that then the earth would be frozen as the heat would never reach the surface. > Heat goes in all directions, your thinking of hot air which does indeed travel upwards as it’s less dense than cold air... but heat itself can travel in any direction. > heat ALWAYS travels upwards, lel you call me a moron and than state heat travels towards the earth, which is not true, radiation travels to the earth which is energy with momentum, heat merely takes a ride, aka TRANSFERS using the radiation, once the energy halts, the heat just moves away, because the energy is gone, and what you are talking about is EXPANSION, heat can indeed expand, but in the end all heat travels upward, unless it is overruled by a stronger energy, if we are in a room and i shove you, would you say you just traveled or moved? there is a distinct difference between TRAVEL and MOVE, heat can indeed MOVE in any direction, but it does not travel in ANY direction. > Wait do you actually think CO2 cools fires down... fire extinguishers work by firing CO2 at the source, replacing the oxygen in that area with CO2... no oxygen no fire. It smothers the fire it doesn’t cool it down. > my point was, if co2 was a greenhouse gas it would regardless of the source retain the exact same heat from the source in the space, continueing heating the space up, however this is not true and therefore proves co2 is a coolant, and can't be a greenhouse gas. > That’s not how green house gases work... if you don’t even know the fundamentals then it’s no wonder you think it’s a lie. > > Greenhouse gases trap heat in the atmosphere by preventing it from leaving, hence the earth heats up. That’s why it’s called the greenhouse effect... this is exactly how a greenhouse works. > that is called CONVECTION, convection uses gases, and guess what, gases that are hot travel UPWARDS, at the same time the gas radiates heat, you see the problem? co2 does not convect or radiate heat since it has a heat retention of 0.00, how is co2 trapping heat? take a mirror into sunlight and wait a little, than place your hand upon the mirror, you'll feel heat on your palm since the mirror heats up, EVERYTHING that reflects heat, heats up, co2 does not heat up thus it cannot reflect. > Evolution happens over millions of years, climate change happens over decades. Species can’t adapt faster than the climate can change > http://listden.com/10-animals-that-can-survive-in-extremely-cold-weather/ these animals disagree, it didn't take THAT long for them to adapt, https://www.livescience.com/10956-polar-bears-evolved-150-000-years.html > Australia has nothing to do with adaptions... that’s island isolation causing speciation. And that’s because the island split apart slowly allowing for species to survive... climate change is too fast. > lel, no matter what, animals can adapt in any environment. > Doesn’t matter if sea ice is fluctuating... even if it goes too low to sustain its populations for just a year then makes a full recovery too many species will die > And not a lot but enough that entire ecosystems go under. It just takes one species to go for others to follow. > Polar bears die, this increases seal populations as they’ve lost a major population buffer, this decreases the population of seal’s prey as they are being overhunted... ecosystems are delicate. > not that delicate, and polar bears aren't the only hunters around, hunting seals, 2012-2013 showed an increase of extent, so its not a trend, nor is it as severe as nasa claims it to be. > Except it can and will, explained in the other comment. > nope nature creates equilibriums at all times, or earth will perish. > You realise they’d have to do that to every house in England... and even that won’t help... the whole building is designed to preserve as much heat as possible you’d have to rebuild every building to survive... we can’t do that faster than climate is changing. > you pretend like we can't? we aren't getting 24/7 heated like we are in an oven..... there is no global warming, just some hot spring and summer days. > And yet in your other comment you tried to explain why it has caused extinctions... > > ___ > yeah extinctions tend to happen with chain reactions, volcanoes don't end continents. > You show no understanding of this... seriously this is high school science. Perhaps you should listen to those that have dedicated their lives to learn this stuff you mean students that got filled with leftwing propaganda, and try to shape everything to their will regardless of facts? no thank you, i prefer to use my own head, and stop with the assumptions please.
: > lel you don't even know how volcanoes work..... the only way for a volcano to release 10000PPM or 10% co2 to cause depreviation of oxygen is during an eruption, and that amount is insane and has NEVER been documented, in turn the volcano emits hydrogen and methane as well, both of them are greenhouse gasses since they have a long heat retention, these gasses cause corrosive damage and are flammable, heck hydrogen can ignite due to mixing with oxygen, so no there was no global warming end permian, co2 did nothng back then, it was mostly methane and hydrogen, and some of it sulfur, and ofcourse a pyroglastic cloud due to the eruption, and guess wha,t an eruption releases ashes that block heat, volcanoes tend to cause ice ages not global warming Please do some research before trying to sound smart. At no point did I say that volcanos poisoned the atmosphere with CO2... what is believed to have happened was CO2 release became too high, this increased global temperatures killing a lot of terrestrial creatures, and caused ocean acidification (it is a thing) which killed most of the marine organisms. Here’s a paper https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534703000934 Hydrogen and methane where also released and contributed, but CO2 is the main cause of the Permian extinction... > you can show me a million of it, its false, co2 has an ph value of 6 or 10, what causes acidity is hydrogen that takes out hydroxic, when co2 hits water the hydrogen detaches, and carbon isn't acidic, the ocean can take down acid naturally using carbonate, the ocean has an ph value of 8, and coastal lines have an ph value of around 7.7, both are basic and not acid, its not enough to kill reefs, here is how the ocean regulates PH value Did you just try to disprove ocean acidification by saying how it works When carbon reacts with water the hydrogen detached... forming carbonic acid And yes in normal situations the ocean can regulate it... normal situations. When you increase the input of CO2 without increasing the output of carbon (or even decrease the output of carbon, we are burning the other major carbon sink and a lot of calcareous creatures are going extinct) you acidify the water. So yes ocean acidification is a thing, it’s scientifically proven. > what link? co2 is a coolant as shown in this link learn to read https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/, co2 is a coolant not a greenhouse gas, my god, you claim to be a palaeontologist and know nothing about gasses or volcanoes, all you do is research fossils and cells, stick to what you know or learn to know the truth instead of blindly believing fake scientists and a kid that never finished basic school claiming I explained this in the other comment, CO2 diffuses heat back into space but it also diffuses heat escaping earth back onto earth... greenhouse gases don’t increase heat going into the earth it traps heat in. CO2 being a coolant is the very reason it’s a greenhouse gas. Also I study environment... you forget that palaeontology is a part of geology not biology, I’ve studied way more about volcanos than cells (seriously why cells of all things, you realise they are pretty much never preserved)... in fact most of palaeontology hasn’t got much to do with fossils as they are too rare. > there is plenty data and facts disproving such claims. Then show me... I’ve supplied scientific papers, give me up to date scientific papers disproving all of this that have been peer reviewed. > well what else would you call people that blindly believe and follow propaganda spread by mouthpieces of the goverment and a kid that didn't finish school, without ever applying logic or a will to learn? You sound like such a conspiracy theorist right now. NASA is at odds with the government... you realise the government is currentky trying to shut them up about climate change. Your arguing with scientists not politicians, we’ve got nothing to gain from lying about this... seriously what do you think we are gaining, lies have to have reason.
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=0005000000000000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-13T16:10:58.933+0000) > > Please do some research before trying to sound smart. > > At no point did I say that volcanos poisoned the atmosphere with CO2... what is believed to have happened was CO2 release became too high, this increased global temperatures killing a lot of terrestrial creatures, and caused ocean acidification (it is a thing) which killed most of the marine organisms. > > Here’s a paper https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0169534703000934 > > Hydrogen and methane where also released and contributed, but CO2 is the main cause of the Permian extinction... > for the millionth time co2 is a coolant, care to explain to me how a gas that has an heat retention of 0.00 is capable of transferring heat? > Did you just try to disprove ocean acidification by saying how it works > > When carbon reacts with water the hydrogen detached... forming carbonic acid > > And yes in normal situations the ocean can regulate it... normal situations. When you increase the input of CO2 without increasing the output of carbon (or even decrease the output of carbon, we are burning the other major carbon sink and a lot of calcareous creatures are going extinct) you acidify the water. > > So yes ocean acidification is a thing, it’s scientifically proven. > thats not how it works, the ocean stays in equilibrium, the seabed adds calcium/magnesium/sodium etc, that converts carbonic acids into bicarbonates or carbonates, which in turn makes the ocean alkaline or basic, what did you think equilibrium meant? so no the ocean isn't turning acid, its litterally IMPOSSIBLE. > I explained this in the other comment, CO2 diffuses heat back into space but it also diffuses heat escaping earth back onto earth... greenhouse gases don’t increase heat going into the earth it traps heat in. > > CO2 being a coolant is the very reason it’s a greenhouse gas. > > Also I study environment... you forget that palaeontology is a part of geology not biology, I’ve studied way more about volcanos than cells (seriously why cells of all things, you realise they are pretty much never preserved)... in fact most of palaeontology hasn’t got much to do with fossils as they are too rare. > than you of all people should know volcanoes don't emit alot of co2 at all, 0,005 per volcano per year, 0.02% per year all volcanoes combined give or take, so 1 eruption isn't going to cause a global warming -.- the fact that co2 has no heat retention, therefor it cannot and does not trap heat in any way..... co2 gets surrounded by heat, sets up a shield of energy by vibrating, halts the momentum of radiative energy from earth, and since heat moves upwards, thats where it goes. https://pmm.nasa.gov/education/lesson-plans/global-energy-budget true energybudget display https://www.nasa.gov/feature/langley/what-is-earth-s-energy-budget-five-questions-with-a-guy-who-knows propaganda really, suddenly they added greenhouse gases to the energy budget display -.- > Then show me... I’ve supplied scientific papers, give me up to date scientific papers disproving all of this that have been peer reviewed. > 500 scientist that go against the propaganda. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/there-is-no-climate-emergency-say-500-experts-in-letter-to-the-united-nations/ and then there is this. https://gerhard.stehlik-online.de/ read it i mean it, hope you get it XD https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/ scroll to 2012 and compare to 2013 you'll actually see an increase, its also funny how nasa isn't talking about how thick the ice is, in 2015 someone at nasa published a paper that contradicted ice loss, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-glaciology/article/mass-gains-of-the-antarctic-ice-sheet-exceed-losses/983F196E23C3A6E7908E5FB32EB42268 https://www.heartland.org/_template-assets/documents/publications/SeaLevelRiseCCRII.pdf https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/sea-level-rise-not-accelerating-new-study-shows so much for sea level rise XD > You sound like such a conspiracy theorist right now. > lol said the cultist. > NASA is at odds with the government... you realise the government is currentky trying to shut them up about climate change. nope europe elites and govs are pro climate crap, only trump which is i believe the only gov atm that doesn't believe the climate propaganda. and im dutch btw. > Your arguing with scientists not politicians, we’ve got nothing to gain from lying about this... seriously what do you think we are gaining, lies have to have reason. money by taxes gov/scientists, control by cutting resources gov, and power through propaganda gov, so in the end scientists are in it for the money, i mean they gotta pay for all the research, nr 1 income is the government, therefore the gov has huge influence on nasa, and nasa has huge influence on other scientists.
: You know I was gonna to explain it properly but you showed clearly how little you know > actually there is no evidence of mass extinction by anything else but effecst from an meteor impact, the effects were : impact, volcano eruptions, earhquakes and tsunamis, disease/hunger/thirst/ice age due to flora dying from ashes and dust and plain and simple evolution, and no not all dinosaurs went extinct, so unless a meteor comes our way we are not in danger. You realise that’s only 1 mass extinction out of the 5 that have happened... and it’s not even the biggest, it was pretty mediocre. The biggest was the Permian mass extinction killing 90% of all life, which was caused by global warming, no meteor involved. Volcanoes increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere too much resulting in most life dying out. At this point there’s not even any point responding to the rest of what you’ve said, cause most of it is sea level that I don’t even mention... the fact that earth nearly died off because of global warming before is proof of what can happen, and the fact that you thought I was talking about the dinosaurs shows you’ve got no place trying to descuss this with a palaeontologist who has actually seen the evidence. ___ Temperatures are increasing, not all at once and yes 2018 did go down but the general correlation is still it increasing so one year doesn’t mean we are in the clear CO2 does cause acidicy in water https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=carbon+dioxide+causing+ocean+acidification&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart here’s plenty of papers showing this. CO2 is a greenhouse gas, your source actually shows this, as proven earlier Don’t try to say people’s data aren’t real without actually supplying your own data And don’t call people cults while trying to deny clear evidence without anything to back yourself up with
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=00050000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-12T22:24:55.067+0000) > > You know I was gonna to explain it properly but you showed clearly how little you know > > You realise that’s only 1 mass extinction out of the 5 that have happened... and it’s not even the biggest, it was pretty mediocre. The biggest was the Permian mass extinction killing 90% of all life, which was caused by global warming, no meteor involved. Volcanoes increased the CO2 content of the atmosphere too much resulting in most life dying out. > > At this point there’s not even any point responding to the rest of what you’ve said, cause most of it is sea level that I don’t even mention... the fact that earth nearly died off because of global warming before is proof of what can happen, and the fact that you thought I was talking about the dinosaurs shows you’ve got no place trying to descuss this with a palaeontologist who has actually seen the evidence. > > ___ > lel you don't even know how volcanoes work..... the only way for a volcano to release 10000PPM or 10% co2 to cause depreviation of oxygen is during an eruption, and that amount is insane and has NEVER been documented, in turn the volcano emits hydrogen and methane as well, both of them are greenhouse gasses since they have a long heat retention, these gasses cause corrosive damage and are flammable, heck hydrogen can ignite due to mixing with oxygen, so no there was no global warming end permian, co2 did nothng back then, it was mostly methane and hydrogen, and some of it sulfur, and ofcourse a pyroglastic cloud due to the eruption, and guess wha,t an eruption releases ashes that block heat, volcanoes tend to cause ice ages not global warming {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} > Temperatures are increasing, not all at once and yes 2018 did go down but the general correlation is still it increasing so one year doesn’t mean we are in the clear > it started decreasing since 2017 so thats 2 years, and 1 degrees celcius in 58 years is insignificant. > CO2 does cause acidicy in water https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=carbon+dioxide+causing+ocean+acidification&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart here’s plenty of papers showing this. > you can show me a million of it, its false, co2 has an ph value of 6 or 10, what causes acidity is hydrogen that takes out hydroxic, when co2 hits water the hydrogen detaches, and carbon isn't acidic, the ocean can take down acid naturally using carbonate, the ocean has an ph value of 8, and coastal lines have an ph value of around 7.7, both are basic and not acid, its not enough to kill reefs, here is how the ocean regulates PH value https://oceancolor.gsfc.nasa.gov/SeaWiFS/TEACHERS/CHEMISTRY/ carbon from the co2 keeps the ocean basic^^ > CO2 is a greenhouse gas, your source actually shows this, as proven earlier > what link? co2 is a coolant as shown in this link learn to read https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/, co2 is a coolant not a greenhouse gas, my god, you claim to be a palaeontologist and know nothing about gasses or volcanoes, all you do is research fossils and cells, stick to what you know or learn to know the truth instead of blindly believing fake scientists and a kid that never finished basic school claiming BS > Don’t try to say people’s data aren’t real without actually supplying your own data > there is plenty data and facts disproving such claims. > And don’t call people cults while trying to deny clear evidence without anything to back yourself up with well what else would you call people that blindly believe and follow propaganda spread by mouthpieces of the goverment and a kid that didn't finish school, without ever applying logic or a will to learn?
: > co2 is a coolant not a greenhouse gas https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ > the only relevant greenhouse gas is watervapor, its easy to tell if temperatures are increasing or declining when its humid, and so far temperatures are normal. Temperatures are not normal... have you not noticed that every single year is the hottest year on record. And carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ you fail to realise what carbon dioxide does... a quote from your source > “Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.” That works both ways, carbon dioxide helps shed heat back into space but it also will shed heat back onto earth... any heat that gets to earth’s surface usually is radiated back into space, but increased CO2 in the atmosphere reflects this back onto earth increasing temperature as heat can’t escape. Hence the term greenhouse gas. So carbon dioxide being is coolant is also the reason it’s a greenhouse gas. > there won't be a mass extinction because of weather -.- Actually yes there can be... serveral reasons for this... and not weather, temperature... there’s a difference Plants rely on particular temperature to germinate and grow, hence why gardeners plant in certain months... by changing global temperature you mess this up and potentially kill off plants who no longer have the right conditions. If plants go the ecosystem goes, every time. Animals who can no longer survive the temperature of their environment will likely die off or move, and invasive species moving to different ecosystems can mess them up Icecaps are melting so any species that rely on them are screwed... CO2 turns water acidic, anything with a calcareous body is dead. That’s what is happening to reefs atm and if corals die off that’s an entire ecosystem gone Even humans are effected... England for instance is built for cold weather, we are used to -5 to 10 degrees... summers up to 26 degrees while in houses designed to keep heat in can be lethal to babies and older people. So yeah mass extinctions do happen due to temperature, in fact if you look at a chart of global temperature over the fossil record and plot on mass extinctions you will clearly see that. The Permian extinction (killing 90% of life) is currently believed to be due to volcanic activity doing exactly what we are doing right now.
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=0006000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-12T22:05:50.259+0000) > > Temperatures are not normal... have you not noticed that every single year is the hottest year on record. > lol dude i guess you still don't get it :( ok last time this time i'll explain so you can't go around it anymore https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ you see this graph? it says 2006 = 381 PPM which is 0.0381% now the bottom graph shows 1950 over 380 PPM which is 0.0380% can you please explain to me how co2 increased to 0.0380% till 1950 and lowered untill 2006 just to rise again? cause from what i can tell by these graphs is that co2 levels are fluctuating throughout the ages, therefor there is no significant co2 increase, the bottom graph shows indirect measurements and thus not accurate ones, nasa didn't even exist untill 1958 and the first real measurement of co2 was done at 1957 which was 0.0316% or 316 PPM, so anything below 1957 is inaccurate but still shows fluctuations and never a straight line. now lets take a look at this graph^^ https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ now the fact is that nasa didn't exist prior to 1958 so we can dismiss all before 1958, the average temperature at 1958 deviating from the norm was 0.07 degrees celcius, the norm is 0.00 degrees celcius, let me tell you we are talking environmental temperature here on average globally annually, so throughout the year of 1958 the average temperature has deviated from 0.00 with 0.07 degrees C........ the highest anomaly measured was 0.98 degrees C in 2016, its in decline since 2017 already, not only that, don't you realize that the average global temperature hasn't even risen with 1 degrees C in 58 years? completely insignificant, what that graph shows is this : lets take riotland, now riotland has a minimum average temperature of 10 degrees C and a maximum of 20 degrees C pretty cold though, now according to nasa we will all die because the average temperature of riotland went to 11 degrees C minimum and 21 degrees C maximum average over 58 years time {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} average calculations are inaccurate and mean nothing, the raw data shows something else, the raw data shows fluctuations of temperatures throuhgout the year per country going from under 0 degrees C to above 25 degrees C, which is normal -.- if what nasa said is true we won't be getting temperatures the same as prior to 1958, which we did actually..... another problem is this, according to nasa the average temperature is 0.0 degrees, meaning the environmental temperature globally and anually on average has been 0.0 degrees since the dawn of earth... {{sticker:sg-kiko}} > And carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/ you fail to realise what carbon dioxide does... a quote from your source > > That works both ways, carbon dioxide helps shed heat back into space but it also will shed heat back onto earth... any heat that gets to earth’s surface usually is radiated back into space, but increased CO2 in the atmosphere reflects this back onto earth increasing temperature as heat can’t escape. Hence the term greenhouse gas. > > So carbon dioxide being is coolant is also the reason it’s a greenhouse gas. > no it doesn't work both ways, when co2 gets in contact with heat it starts to vibrate and move away from any heat shedding the heat from itself by creating heat around itself, co2 has an heat retention of 0.0 it does not absorb heat whatsoever, heat ALWAYS travels upwards not downwards, so co2 ALWAYS sheds it upwards never in any other direction, if what you state is true and co2 sends heat downwards, then you can't use co2 in fire extinguishers, co2 is a coolant not a greenhouse gas {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}}, and for the love of god stop using that propaganda site to come with arguments, they themselves know co2 is a coolant and not a greenhouse gas as i showed you with this link : https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ , greenhouse gasses convect heat by absorbing it and become hotter than the environment and at the same time radiates heat since every object can only retain heat for a limited amount of time, co2 cannot hold heat so it does not convect nor does it radiate nor does it reflect. > Actually yes there can be... serveral reasons for this... and not weather, temperature... there’s a difference > > Plants rely on particular temperature to germinate and grow, hence why gardeners plant in certain months... by changing global temperature you mess this up and potentially kill off plants who no longer have the right conditions. If plants go the ecosystem goes, every time. > evolution, plants adapt and lots of plants thrive in cold climates, and vice versa. > Animals who can no longer survive the temperature of their environment will likely die off or move, and invasive species moving to different ecosystems can mess them up > adaptations, just look at asutralia. > Icecaps are melting so any species that rely on them are screwed... > yeah cause alot of animals live on sea ice {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} and sea ice is fluctuating not dissapearing. > CO2 turns water acidic, anything with a calcareous body is dead. That’s what is happening to reefs atm and if corals die off that’s an entire ecosystem gone > the oceans are 8 PH thats basic not acidic, the PH near landside are 7.7 which is still basic and not acidic, the ocean is not and will not be acidic. > Even humans are effected... England for instance is built for cold weather, we are used to -5 to 10 degrees... summers up to 26 degrees while in houses designed to keep heat in can be lethal to babies and older people. > release heat through windows or doors, and if thats not enough use other ways of decreasing the heat, and eventually people adapt. > So yeah mass extinctions do happen due to temperature, in fact if you look at a chart of global temperature over the fossil record and plot on mass extinctions you will clearly see that. > The Permian extinction (killing 90% of life) is currently believed to be due to volcanic activity doing exactly what we are doing right now. so no mass extinction has never happened due to temperature, no volcano has ever caused continental extinction whatsoever.
: yeah but i picked first in that match :\ also, i can't use teemo (despite being teemo 5) i have no idea how to use him XD
> [{quoted}](name=MirirLightHammer,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=Nik23dAG,comment-id=00030000,timestamp=2019-10-13T10:05:09.518+0000) > > yeah but i picked first in that match :\ also, i can't use teemo (despite being teemo 5) i have no idea how to use him XD build liandry, sorc shoes, lichbane and nashor and choose whatever you want for the rest^^ just keep poking him with blind, level blind first, toxic second and speedboost third than blind again than toxic lvl 6 shrooms etc level your W only after you cant level the rest anymore, and use shrooms to block off paths they can use to flank you^^
: Theres a lot of greenhouse gases... H2O, CO2, methane to name a few. Obviously we can’t really stop H2O as that’s 70% of our planet but the water cycle typically keeps things in check. But we can cut CO2 and methane... by cutting down on fossil fuels and factory farming (biggest source of methane is cows), as well as increasing the natural sinks that exist such as forests. We can’t stop climate change, we can see in the fossil record the planet fluctuates between greenhouse earth and snowball earth naturally... but we can lower our impact on climate change to at least prolong the next mass extinction perhaps until we can find a solution to it.
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=00060000,timestamp=2019-10-11T22:01:17.269+0000) > > Theres a lot of greenhouse gases... H2O, CO2, methane to name a few. Obviously we can’t really stop H2O as that’s 70% of our planet but the water cycle typically keeps things in check. > But we can cut CO2 and methane... by cutting down on fossil fuels and factory farming (biggest source of methane is cows), as well as increasing the natural sinks that exist such as forests. > co2 is a coolant not a greenhouse gas https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ the only relevant greenhouse gas is watervapor, its easy to tell if temperatures are increasing or declining when its humid, and so far temperatures are normal. > We can’t stop climate change, we can see in the fossil record the planet fluctuates between greenhouse earth and snowball earth naturally... but we can lower our impact on climate change to at least prolong the next mass extinction perhaps until we can find a solution to it. there won't be a mass extinction because of weather -.-
: I really hope your joking right. Temperature is at an all time high right now, seasons are completely off, it’s sunny in September, every summer heat wave is the biggest on record... it doesn’t take a scientist to know something wrong. And it’s worse than that... allow me to come at this from a palaeontological perspective... every time the planet experiences temperature changes like this there’s been a mass extinction event... that’s not even an exaggeration we keep going the way we are going good chance 75-100% of life is wiped out, and every time there’s a mass extinction the dominant race dies off, that’s us. So yeah we are in a ton of danger. And we don’t need CO2, it’s poisonous to us (it can also turn water acidic, we need water)... plants need CO2 which in turn gives us oxygen but we are also cutting down most of the trees... the Amazon is responsible for most of our oxygen and cooperates are burning it down. So we are increasing CO2 and decreasing the thing getting rid of CO2. This isn’t a cult, this is reality.
> [{quoted}](name=swampert919,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=000500000000,timestamp=2019-10-11T21:50:22.252+0000) > > I really hope your joking right. > truth and logic, there is no climate issue with co2 or temperature. > Temperature is at an all time high right now, seasons are completely off, it’s sunny in September, every summer heat wave is the biggest on record... it doesn’t take a scientist to know something wrong. > its autumn, i go outside and my fingers freeze off like its winter, so no, temperatures aren't at an all time high at all, have you ever been to austria? for CENTURIES they have snow/ice AND sun simultaneously in winter, which is why it is a very popular vacation destination..... so sun in september isn't odd at all, climates change constantly, its normal, not caused by co2, what heatwaves? they aren't longer than normal, in the meanwhile they got hail in florida in 2019! wake up! there is no climate problem .o. its all propaganda and here is the proof : 1 real nasa site with at least 60% real scientists https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ i honestly advice you to read it, although the graphs show false information, since it contradicts their explanation of sea ice -.- scroll all the way down to the conclusion and read this ''Comparing conditions at only two points in time or examining trends over a short period is not sufficient to understand the impact of long-term climate change on sea ice. Scientists can only understand how sea ice is changing by comparing current conditions to long-term averages.'' , they state that they compare raw data with averages they calculated from non measured data from the past (coughtheysuckeddataoutoftheirthumbscough-.-), they also admit that global warming is bs, and ice declines and comes back depending on the weather ''Antarctic sea ice trends are smaller and more complex. Relative to the average from 1981 to 2010, the Antarctic sea ice extent increased about 1 percent per decade, but the trends were not consistent for all areas or all seasons. The variability in Antarctic sea ice patterns makes it harder for scientists to explain Antarctic sea ice trends and to predict how Southern Hemisphere sea ice may change as greenhouse gases continue to warm the Earth. Climate models do predict that Antarctic sea ice will respond more slowly than Arctic sea ice to warming, but as temperatures continue to rise, a long-term decline is expected.'' {{sticker:zombie-brand-clap}} suddenly its more complicated, obvious BS is obvious. 2 this is the nasa propaganda site 0% real scientist https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ you can read it if you want to lose braincells {{sticker:sg-kiko}} > And it’s worse than that... allow me to come at this from a palaeontological perspective... every time the planet experiences temperature changes like this there’s been a mass extinction event... that’s not even an exaggeration we keep going the way we are going good chance 75-100% of life is wiped out, and every time there’s a mass extinction the dominant race dies off, that’s us. So yeah we are in a ton of danger. > actually there is no evidence of mass extinction by anything else but effecst from an meteor impact, the effects were : impact, volcano eruptions, earhquakes and tsunamis, disease/hunger/thirst/ice age due to flora dying from ashes and dust and plain and simple evolution, and no not all dinosaurs went extinct, so unless a meteor comes our way we are not in danger. > And we don’t need CO2, it’s poisonous to us (it can also turn water acidic, we need water)... plants need CO2 which in turn gives us oxygen but we are also cutting down most of the trees... the Amazon is responsible for most of our oxygen and cooperates are burning it down. So we are increasing CO2 and decreasing the thing getting rid of CO2. > co2 is not poisonous to us at all, unless it hits 10% get your facts straight, co2 at 10% acts similar to monodioxide, its odorless, not visible and causes death in 1 minute, you go unconsious and well run out of breath, co2 cannot be smelled, co2 has an ph value of 6, now anything over 7 ph is basic, so 7 ph itself is called neutral and isn't acidic anymore, meaning that co2 is not very acidic at all, just slightly and can be ignored, so no, it doesn't turn water acidic since there is only 0.04% co2 in the air and the oceans are buffering constantly to keep Ph values up over 7, besides, plankton and plants are filtering co2 out of the water as well..... the oceans are basic and will always remain basic unless all water plants die, dude animals might die by 10% co2 but plants won't, so in the end mankind goes before green goes, and yes deforestation is indeed an actual problem that needs to be taken care of, but the govs care more for profits, and scaring people with propaganda -.- and yes we NEED co2, its a natural coolant and provides us with oxygen, and it provides flora with sugars .-. heck we even breathe out co2, all life on earth is made up out of carbon, i mean wtf do you mean with '' And we don't need co2''? {{sticker:zombie-brand-mindblown}} > This isn’t a cult, this is reality. it is a cult.... so many people following fake scientists, the government and greta without using their heads, everything they claimed has been debunked already, so no it isn't reality, its propaganda. 1 co2 is not a problem, it isn't a greenhouse gas, its a coolant. https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ 2 global warming does not exist, heck even nasa with their fake data shows a graph where temperatures aren't even deviating with 1 degrees celcius -.-, and average tempereratures are actually decreasing since 2018 again so its all normal. https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ 3 sea levels aren't rising. https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/blogs/tim-blair/the-seas-arent-rising-because-the-oceans-are-sinking/news-story/36dec8e4ce06a5bbbcb767ac6af0d593 , these cultists keep coming up with bs excuses, in the meanwhile nasa keeps stating the sea levels are still rising {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} 4 the oceans aren't turning acidic, i explained why. 5 the arctics/greenland aren't melting away,
Troldrum (EUW)
: Every private Household can choose to use 100% renewable Energy, it is super easy. Ofc, you get the same Energy as everybody else, but it sets a market signal for green Energy. Litterally 0 effort, atleast in Germany, if anything it Costs a bit more (not sure About that). Else, it is really easy to build an own solar power plant. Google does so, Microsoft does, small companies like Ecosia do so, too. Riot could be on that list.
> [{quoted}](name=Troldrum,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=00040000,timestamp=2019-10-11T12:29:45.334+0000) > > Every private Household can choose to use 100% renewable Energy, it is super easy. Ofc, you get the same Energy as everybody else, but it sets a market signal for green Energy. Litterally 0 effort, atleast in Germany, if anything it Costs a bit more (not sure About that). Else, it is really easy to build an own solar power plant. Google does so, Microsoft does, small companies like Ecosia do so, too. Riot could be on that list. a bit? ^^ try in the billions^^ NON of these methods are effective either, solar energy and wind energy don't even make up 1% of the total energy net gain, there is NO such thing as green energy^^ you think remodeling your entire house with eco crap that doesn't even function is easy? {{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}}
: What you have to take into account there - in general when talking tech companies - is that for instance Amazon wants to become CO2 neutral. How you would ask? CO2 certificates - which means they ain't doing shit about it, buy those certs and call themselves CO2 neutral. It'll have to come a long way to get datacenters across the globe to become climate friendly - in Austria for instance there are some plans to build one powered by water - and the water will also be used as a coolant. There's a lot that can be done and I think we'll see some cool projects in the next few years for "green" datacenters and it may actually attract companies to move their hardware into these datacenters rather than coal or diesel powered ones of which you see a lot around the globe.
> [{quoted}](name=Tenchuu Khan,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=0005,timestamp=2019-10-11T13:45:50.781+0000) > > What you have to take into account there - in general when talking tech companies - is that for instance Amazon wants to become CO2 neutral. > How you would ask? CO2 certificates - which means they ain't doing shit about it, buy those certs and call themselves CO2 neutral. > > It'll have to come a long way to get datacenters across the globe to become climate friendly - in Austria for instance there are some plans to build one powered by water - and the water will also be used as a coolant. > > There's a lot that can be done and I think we'll see some cool projects in the next few years for "green" datacenters and it may actually attract companies to move their hardware into these datacenters rather than coal or diesel powered ones of which you see a lot around the globe. they need to stop with the climate cult crap, nothing needs to be done, we are not in danger, the next billions of gens are not in danger either, we need Co2 or we die.
Troldrum (EUW)
: 1. Please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect 2. Sea Ice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYA 3. Sea Level rising is due to the ice currently located on Greenland and antarctica thus now on land melting into the sea 4. you can measure CO2 lvls by taking samples of ice created thousands of years ago in Greenland and Antarctica
> [{quoted}](name=Troldrum,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2019-10-11T12:45:19.092+0000) > > 1. Please read this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect nr 1 greenhouse gas is watervapor, co2 is insignificant, your point is? no notable temperatures are measured, as in matter a fact ive SEEN ice forming/hail AND snow in summer, and co2 moves away from heat and radiation, so watervapor would be, IF the earth is raising in temperature, be the culprit, but i guess we al know that wouldn't be mankind's fault so they ignore that, and are you going to ignore their contradictions? they claim co2 causes global warming, AND co2 saved this planet from heating up at the same time {{sticker:sg-lux-2}} they also claim the sea levels are rising due to arctics melting and yet they claim sea levels can't rise because the arctics consists of no actual land, you see you choose to believe propaganda i use my brain^^ suddenly when people see through nasa BS, they claim greenland is melting which is actually land {{sticker:sg-kiko}}, but intelligent people still call BS^^ > 2. Sea Ice https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj1G9gqhkYA BS and fake, like i said the ice even increased in size again from 2012 and 2013, not only that, the ice thickens and shifts constantly due to changing seasons, there is NO evidence of decreasing ice levels whatsoever, heck 2004 shows the same body of ice as 1979 O.o just in a different shape going from right to left rather than left to right. > 3. Sea Level rising is due to the ice currently located on Greenland and antarctica thus now on land melting into the sea and yet funnily no sea level has risen for centuries {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} they all fluctuate as always and remain the same for centuries, ice on greenland is always melting in summer..... funny how nasa came with this bs claim again, weather happens, even in greenland V.V > 4. you can measure CO2 lvls by taking samples of ice created thousands of years ago in Greenland and Antarctica inaccurate and indirect as stated on nasa their site, therefore dismissable, besides they are comparing their data with ESTIMATES from before 1958 and after 1800 {{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}} and the most hilarious joke is, drums please : the same scientists that scream global warming, screamed global ice age in 1970, i wouldn't call these people scientists {{sticker:sg-ahri-3}}
Troldrum (EUW)
: Talking about "let others do the work"... While I believe that Riot has more impact that you state, everyone says "yee but others have more impact why should I change?" Maybe Riot changing to renewable energy doesn't change a thing - if all online game industry would change to CO2 neutral, it would change alot. But someone has to start, and I believe Riot is a company that knows about its social responsibility, and has the resources to do something about it.
> [{quoted}](name=Troldrum,realm=EUW,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-10-11T08:39:07.091+0000) > > Talking about "let others do the work"... While I believe that Riot has more impact that you state, everyone says "yee but others have more impact why should I change?" Maybe Riot changing to renewable energy doesn't change a thing - if all online game industry would change to CO2 neutral, it would change alot. But someone has to start, and I believe Riot is a company that knows about its social responsibility, and has the resources to do something about it. co2 is no issue {{sticker:slayer-jinx-catface}} co2 = a coolant since it has no heat retention, nor is there any evidence co2 causes global warming, nor is there any evidence of global warming, please if we lower co2 any more or even manage to remove it entirely we will all die... in case you wonder why, PHOTOSYNTHESIS! co2 is broken into C and O2 by plants and flowers, the O2 is what we breathe and the C is converted into carbonhydrates (sugars), so if we lower Co2, plants will grow slower, therefore we will get slower or even less food, we get less oxygen as well, you won't hear me complain or panic unless the Co2 levels are near 10%, because 10% Co2 levels are toxic and lethal, in case you were wondering, the co2 levels are 0,04% {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-thumbs}} so no co2 is not an issue~ don't believe me? read nasa's page and awe by their incompetence : 1 co2 does not trap heat, it reacts by vibrating and moving away from ANY heatsource letting heat pass through AFTER it bounces the first heat off and back into space, its being used as a coolant in refrigerators as well : https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/ , and they claim this bs at the same time https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ , now lets take a look at the maps, the co2 map https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/ , scroll to 2016 dec, now open another tab with this link https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ and scroll to 2016, what we see is co2 anomalies being highest on the center/lower half of the map, but when we look at the global temperature anomalies we can see them being highest at the arctic ocean {{sticker:slayer-jinx-unamused}, on the co2 map greenland the patch of land upper left doesn't appear to have much co2, but the warming map shows half greenland in red... even better take the co2 map and scroll from beginning to end, not too fast, to see how the center/lower half turns red, now do the same with the global temperature map and see how the arctic and the upper half of russia/europe/greenland and canada truns red, and the world below south america/africa and australia are almost unaffected by temperature anomalies, these maps don't even correlate with one another. 2 when they claim the ice melts you can only hear them talk about the lenght of the ice, not the thickness.... OR DO THEY? https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/SeaIce , and now read this nonsese https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/arctic-sea-ice/ , use the slide on the ice map and go from 2012 to 2013 to see an actual increase in lenght and a CLEAR contradiction, so all they established is : the amount of ice in length depends on the weather {{sticker:zombie-brand-clap}} 3 melting sea ice causes raise in water level {{sticker:sg-kiko}} https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/sea-level/ , now the arctic consists of nothing but sea ice btw, IT HAS NO LAND, now read this ''Melting sea ice won’t raise ocean levels any more than melting ice cubes will cause a glass of ice water to overflow.'' right above the topic ''The Sea Ice Life Cycle'' underneath the dolphin photo in this link https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/SeaIce now scroll all the way dow nto the topic ''arctic sea ice'' and read this ''Arctic sea ice occupies an ocean basin mostly enclosed by land. Because there is no landmass at the North Pole'' 4 global warming (see 1) and this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide_in_Earth%27s_atmosphere#Past_concentration , scroll down or click on ''Ongoing measurements of atmospheric CO2'' and read ''The first reproducibly accurate measurements of atmospheric CO2 were from flask sample measurements made by Dave Keeling at Caltech in the 1950s'' its funny how nasa claims to have accurate data of co2 levels prior to 1950 {{sticker:sg-miss-fortune}} we can rule out co2 being an culprit, so now we established co2 not being related to global warming let me tell you this, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_weather_records#Lowest_temperatures_recorded now click on or scroll down to ''Lowest temperatures recorded'' and see how some of these continents and countries are still making coldest temperature measured/recorded EVER while the world is allegedly increasing in heat {{sticker:zombie-brand-facepalm}} and two read this https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/ ''This graph illustrates the change in global surface temperature relative to 1951-1980'' and yet the graphs goes back to 1880, and the map to 1884 {{sticker:sg-lux-2}}, now read this https://history.nasa.gov/factsheet.htm ''the Congress and the President of the United States created the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) on October 1, 1958'' have you guys noticed the same trend as me ? that nasa speaks in anomalies but not in actual data? what was and are the temperature of the earth? what were and are the current co2 levels in %? and no actual measuremenst of sea levels themselves either O.O, no base readings just claims from nasa, and estimates in anomalies {{sticker:zombie-brand-mindblown}} 5 https://climate.nasa.gov/ <---- is nothing but a propaganda site see all above.
: No point. EVERYONE is aware about climate change. And those who arent, wont be influenced by league skins. If you want to help, you need to talk to politicians.
> [{quoted}](name=Idgaf I am iron,realm=EUNE,application-id=2BfrHbKG,discussion-id=VweAIuxq,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-10-11T08:38:53.714+0000) > > No point. EVERYONE is aware about climate change. And those who arent, wont be influenced by league skins. > > If you want to help, you need to talk to politicians. yes the climate changes 4 times a year .o. even a kid knows that O.O
Satip CIS (EUW)
: Problem with starting TFT game with a random champion
RealDsy (EUNE)
: Maokai
> [{quoted}](name=RealDsy,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=Vj1uMUJg,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-10-09T08:43:19.839+0000) > > {{champion:57}} > > So basicly ive bought played a few games. I just feel i dont really like him. > Compared to other tanks he is lacking of everything. > Ive realized all tanks got super buffs (i guess because of community requests) and maokai just left behind. > Think about {{champion:516}} 2 free itmes which gives tons of armor and hp on higher levelrs for free. > {{champion:14}} 1000 hp with his W later. > {{champion:78}} bonus armor magic resist > {{champion:54}} lot of armors + lot of damage buffs > > So basicly all tanky champions nowedays got super buffs, who were cc tanks. > > But this guy {{champion:57}} lacking of mobility, lacking of tankiness (you have only your passive which useful early), your cc is just not that much 1,6 sec root if you want to hit anyone with it (i mean ulti), your damage is zero (without sunfire cant even kill minion wave) > + very important if you play top you can forget about your third skill E, since you have no mana > You basicly dont have mana even for kiting minions with Q. > > I'will try play and have fun with this champ, but i think it hasnt really got any potential to contest with recent tank buffs on other champs. So i feel i just forget him. > > Ive written this down since its worst pick rate might represent other players opinion on this champ too. build {{item:3025}} and {{item:3065}} and {{item:3111}} and {{item:3068}} and {{item:3083}} you can pick the last item yourself depenindg on the situation^^ i always play maokai support though, but i did stomp a darius top once. (edit) don't use tank runes on maokai, instead use sorcery runes in combination with utility runes and i mean the debt one to get items faster, even a little ap will get him to do more % damage due to his saps, also only engage in or near brushes, since the saps are empowered when you place them in a brush^^
: > [{quoted}](name=POMŒ,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=6qE7J9de,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-10-06T13:29:26.502+0000) > > THE BOARD doesn't do actual bans. Only reports for cheating and appeals from already banned people are reviewed by humans. All the rest is done via automated scripts. > Now here's the comprehensive list of what can be bannable in league: > 1) Saying restristed words regarding threats, racism and other slurs. > 2) Repeatedly feeding in multiple game in a row. > 3) Leaving from multiple games (there comes another bot - leaverbuster and instead of a ban you get low priority queue) That is 100% bullshit. I don't know exactly how the "automated scripts" are working but they do NOT base on any rules or standards. I had literally hundreds of players int feeding (easily something around 0/15 to 5/25) - nothing happened. I had thousands of players insulting the holy crap out of everyone - nothing happened. I had multiple players giving their best showing off their homophobic and racist characters and guess what... NOTHING HAPPENED! I once was reported for replying in an insultive way (nothing major - just the good old "shut up", "stop blaming us for your crap" and "go give your lower regions some attention") - 2 weeks banned. That was the first and last time i acted that way. The community get's more and more toxic with every single day this crap continues. But hey! I'm sure riot will adress this issue by releasing a new Lux skin soon! I'm off playing dota.
> [{quoted}](name=XxDevilsReaperxX,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=6qE7J9de,comment-id=00000002,timestamp=2019-10-06T15:31:27.669+0000) > > That is 100% bullshit. I don't know exactly how the "automated scripts" are working but they do NOT base on any rules or standards. I had literally hundreds of players int feeding (easily something around 0/15 to 5/25) - nothing happened. I had thousands of players insulting the holy crap out of everyone - nothing happened. I had multiple players giving their best showing off their homophobic and racist characters and guess what... NOTHING HAPPENED! > I once was reported for replying in an insultive way (nothing major - just the good old "shut up", "stop blaming us for your crap" and "go give your lower regions some attention") - 2 weeks banned. That was the first and last time i acted that way. > > The community get's more and more toxic with every single day this crap continues. But hey! I'm sure riot will adress this issue by releasing a new Lux skin soon! I'm off playing dota. its because the report system is automated and therefore doesn't differentiate, the system isn't punihing situationally, instead the system just punishes anyone that breaks it listed rules or speaks it listed words regardless, these trolls know what to say and how to avoid punishments by getting certain kdr and avoiding certain words that aren't blacklisted, only when the report is handviewed which happens rarely, are they actually punished O.O ps you reaping devils too {{sticker:sg-lux-2}}
JustTits (EUNE)
: Remove the True Damage from Pyke
> [{quoted}](name=JustTits,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=9FIjZear,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-10-04T07:17:17.752+0000) > > Replace it with physical, magic, mixed, doesn't matter, just don't load his already overloaded kit even more. knowing riot they give every champion true damage just to balance it out {{sticker:sg-kiko}}
Lynxmetal (EUW)
: Platinum seems to be riddled with Smurfs.
riot is keeping the majority of players in silver, so there are less players in gold+, which is why there are alot of smurfs.
Anoligarh (EUW)
: People who were bronze/silver for a long time, what changed and how did you climb?
> [{quoted}](name=Anoligarh,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=3jhKFh8V,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-09-29T17:14:20.677+0000) > > Generally I'm not horrible at the game but I do have moments where it shows that I definitely deserve to be where I am. Some games I'm truly awful, some games I do extremely well and yet I still can't end the game. I'm bronze/silver for a reason. > > For those who have been stuck for a long time and are doing much better, what changed? > > Please go into details. Thanks! i'm a beta player, and i can tell you there is absolutely no reason to climb further than silver..... gold+ tiers suck, less players, lots of winswaps and just as many trolls and inters..... the most intensive games are in silver, these are the reasons many smurfs exist, getting to gold+ isn't hard, my advice if you really want to, get a solid team you sync with, thisi s a team game and not a solo game, be it flex or duo, it will improve your chances.
: better 1 bird in the hand then 2 in the bush... i have no bird, i have no bush !!! RIOT STOLE MY BIRD AND MY BUSH !!! {{sticker:sg-janna}} {{sticker:sg-shisa}}
> [{quoted}](name=Wally Coyote,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=LKYERAxd,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-09-26T08:25:57.225+0000) > > better 1 bird in the hand then 2 in the bush... > > i have no bird, i have no bush !!! > > RIOT STOLE MY BIRD AND MY BUSH !!! > > {{sticker:sg-janna}} {{sticker:sg-shisa}} all thats left is the bird shit on the ground~ {{sticker:slayer-jinx-unamused}}
: Why do we have the ability to report people?
> [{quoted}](name=TheJungleLemur,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LcqhMjAf,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-09-25T08:15:50.537+0000) > > Ive been playing this game for a long time and each year it seems more toxic and horrible to play yet riot are doing less and less about it. I remember the days that people actually used to get banned for being toxic even me but now I know for a fact im allowed to troll and flame cause riot just doesn't care anymore. Recently I heard that RIOT didn't make as much income as intended so they are splashing out making all these new in game purchases but thats not the problem its the fact they have lost all care for the players. I know I should have been permanently banned probably for being salty and so probably 60% of the players should have been warned or banned as well so why aren't we. Even little messages to say pls stop. I would. Cause I know that im actually being watched. Instead we have a system where you can report a player at the end of the game to make ur self feel better but at no point will that be read by a human or be checked its all automated in game. I mean, "inappropriate player name" in my last couple games ive had such stupid names like BREXIT IS BEST or ****FACE but cause they use special characters or Idk if riot supports Brexit but automated AI can't catch this stuff cause there not advanced it would just be nice to know that an actual employee cares about player behaviour or reads reports. > > Thanks in what possible way is ''BREXIT IS BEST'' inapropriate O.o? those names with ''antifa'' ''isis'' ''al-qaeda'' ''sjw'' etc are highly inapropriate, they are all terrorist organizations. any name containing swear words are inapropriate. names like ''K.Y.S'' ''%%%got'' ''dourmom'' etc, that are insulting are inapropriate any names related to religion are inapropriate.
: I will like to see this Poppy in a corner of your room at 2 AM informing you that you got banned.
> [{quoted}](name=TheToysTracker,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LcqhMjAf,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-25T09:41:01.321+0000) > > I will like to see this Poppy in a corner of your room at 2 AM informing you that you got banned. {{sticker:sg-zephyr}} would be awesome :P
: trolling, inting, afk ing all fine but don't u dare to use 1 swear word of poppy come to get u with the ban hammer. {{sticker:poppy-wink}}
> [{quoted}](name=me and 4 chimps,realm=EUW,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=LcqhMjAf,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-09-25T08:28:09.091+0000) > > trolling, inting, afk ing all fine but don't u dare to use 1 swear word of poppy come to get u with the ban hammer. > {{sticker:poppy-wink}} here's poppy O.O https://twitter.com/KateyAnthony/status/971131782048329728
: I guess I'll be permabanning Blitz for a bit
as if blitz wasn't already a disease :/ now he can grab you wherever there is vision in the jungle, while he stands outside the fking jungle {{sticker:sg-ahri-1}}
: How is Karma OP? She has decent poke early on, and that's it. There's at least 10 more viable supports right now... Like, okay, she's not bad or anything, but she's far from broken, or the strongest supp right now. Get it? {{champion:555}} {{champion:53}} {{champion:111}} {{champion:89}} {{champion:25}} {{champion:432}}
> [{quoted}](name=Lucían Main,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=fTIIRb5G,comment-id=0000000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-24T09:21:33.106+0000) > > How is Karma OP? She has decent poke early on, and that's it. There's at least 10 more viable supports right now... > > Like, okay, she's not bad or anything, but she's far from broken, or the strongest supp right now. > > Get it? > {{champion:555}} {{champion:53}} {{champion:111}} {{champion:89}} {{champion:25}} {{champion:432}} she just needs to build tank and still does more damage than the average mage......
: Here would be a sugestion: Increase Zhonyas cost severly and nerf seekers armguard so the item isn't the most free broken item in the game anymore.
> [{quoted}](name=PaG VentusKing,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=c5X8fGnf,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-09-23T12:22:44.765+0000) > > Here would be a sugestion: Increase Zhonyas cost severly and nerf seekers armguard so the item isn't the most free broken item in the game anymore. only if they delete assasins, bruisers and skirmishers.
: > [{quoted}](name=ˉÐęqûńˉ,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=fTIIRb5G,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-09-24T07:48:37.523+0000) > > I think Riot wants Karma to be played as a Support, not as a Mid laner. I noticed there isn't even an alternative start besides Spellthief's. So I don't think they plan such a rework to make her playable in another lane, because then, why not ask this for every other support champion as well? > > You should probably play Support, otherwise, you are taking your chances with a supp in mid lane. Why all of a sudden? Karma was played professionally in mid lane for way more than 3 years, and nobody budged. RIOT themselves claim how they hate to enforce champions to move to one position, and that they support flex picks and experimenting. Just how do you plan on saying that while literally limiting everything to one lane? Karma is currently not even close to the strongest supports, and outside of her decent poke, she's practically useless lategame. And even if we move Karma to support only. Karma needs good AP ratios, as thats pretty much her core (even as a supp). Karma is much closer to Brand's playstyle, or Vel'koz (who btw are also mages with high AP ratios), than to an actual shield support (Janna for example). If you want to force her into support make Q do reduced damage to minions and crap like that. That'd actually help her in the support role even. Dont take away the only thing she was useful for as a support, which is a lot of poke harrass and decent shielding.
> [{quoted}](name=Lucían Main,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=fTIIRb5G,comment-id=00000000,timestamp=2019-09-24T09:06:44.779+0000) > > Why all of a sudden? Karma was played professionally in mid lane for way more than 3 years, and nobody budged. RIOT themselves claim how they hate to enforce champions to move to one position, and that they support flex picks and experimenting. Just how do you plan on saying that while literally limiting everything to one lane? > > > Karma is currently not even close to the strongest supports, and outside of her decent poke, she's practically useless lategame. > > And even if we move Karma to support only. Karma needs good AP ratios, as thats pretty much her core (even as a supp). Karma is much closer to Brand's playstyle, or Vel'koz (who btw are also mages with high AP ratios), than to an actual shield support (Janna for example). > > If you want to force her into support make Q do reduced damage to minions and crap like that. That'd actually help her in the support role even. > > Dont take away the only thing she was useful for as a support, which is a lot of poke harrass and decent shielding. karma has been op since her release its time she got what she deserves, a death, now thats karma :P
: > [{quoted}](name=DarkG0d,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=r48bd0YV,comment-id=000000000001,timestamp=2019-09-23T14:14:47.886+0000) > > Smurfs are perfectly legal Losing intentionally to drop in MMR just to play with friends isn't tho.
> [{quoted}](name=PaG VentusKing,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=r48bd0YV,comment-id=0000000000010000,timestamp=2019-09-23T14:41:40.182+0000) > > Losing intentionally to drop in MMR just to play with friends isn't tho. high elo sucks, nothing but winswaps and boring gameplay, i still don't understand why anyone would want to be higher than silver the game only becomes worse.... riot knows this but won't fix it, they are too busy keeping the majority in silver, so the minority of players are above silver.....
: PSA: You Can't Expect The Support To Always Be There
what irritates me the most as sup main is the adc telling me i'm doing absolutely nothing but poking while they engage 24/7.... and than at the end of the game i tell them to look at the total damage done to champions, and than seeing them silently leave the post game screen, knowing the sup outdamaged them whilst having way less deaths {{sticker:sg-kiko}}
Pąìn (EUNE)
: Assassins are what they always meant to be. Early game stompers , so I don't see anything wrong, they were made to oneshot early game, that's the meaning of being assassin "u kill someone instantly before ur enemy even notice his death " have u watched assassin movies ? This is basically what assassin is. But in the game assassin type champions are weak mid to lategame , so the problem is not with the champions , the problem is the game being way too much dynamic, nowdays games end in 30-35 minutes (used to be 40 to 50 ), so instead of nerfing an entire class riot should buff tanks a bit and buff the strength of the turrets a bit more.
> [{quoted}](name=Pąìn,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=vZoJeQW5,comment-id=0006,timestamp=2019-09-17T09:33:59.477+0000) > > Assassins are what they always meant to be. Early game stompers , so I don't see anything wrong, they were made to oneshot early game, that's the meaning of being assassin "u kill someone instantly before ur enemy even notice his death " have u watched assassin movies ? This is basically what assassin is. > But in the game assassin type champions are weak mid to lategame , so the problem is not with the champions , the problem is the game being way too much dynamic, nowdays games end in 30-35 minutes (used to be 40 to 50 ), so instead of nerfing an entire class riot should buff tanks a bit and buff the strength of the turrets a bit more. they still oneshot you late game....... and HECK no, it is as much a tank meta as assassin meta, tanks are nigh unkillable these days unless you are an assassin.
Antenora (EUW)
: Most of the top 10-15 winrate champions for mid lane are actually Mages. Also pro play is either mages or AP Fighters mid, not assassin's.
> [{quoted}](name=Antenora,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=vZoJeQW5,comment-id=0002,timestamp=2019-09-16T17:45:48.000+0000) > > Most of the top 10-15 winrate champions for mid lane are actually Mages. > > Also pro play is either mages or AP Fighters mid, not assassin's. such as? most mid you'd see are zed/fizz/akali/katarina/lux/ekko/talon/leblanc etc all the crap that either bursts you to death with ap or ad in a split second and most are definitly assassins be it ad or ap.
: Did any of you team bought Grievous Wounds items? Cause in almost all my game vs Darius i buy Grievous items and he do nothing all game.
> [{quoted}](name=Kitty Girl,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=mtvP4ZkT,comment-id=000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-15T09:11:12.107+0000) > > Did any of you team bought Grievous Wounds items? > Cause in almost all my game vs Darius i buy Grievous items and he do nothing all game. https://matchhistory.euw.leagueoflegends.com/en/#match-details/EUW1/4140412015/26377710?tab=overview utter bs, and yes we had grievous wounds 2 ignites, when a champion goes 1/3/0 early game it shouldn't be able to go 15/11/15 at the end -.- i DESTROYED darius top and yet he comes out victor in the match, he NEEDS, he MUST be nerfed period. we even had 5 dragons.... almost all of our team members were fed cept for leona, lux/vel and darius were the only ones that were a threat in mid to late game, but they were deleted in late, except darius, he stood above all despite his lane being gone despite him starting 1/3, despite him being gold deprived...... please elaborate how someone is capable of doing that without being OP? he was always the one demolishing our ENTIRE team solo -.- untill some1 sweeps in and finishes with burst like lux or velkoz..... darius is way too tanky has way too much sustain and does way too much.
: If Darius get nerfed Panth too cause panth winrate is above darius
> [{quoted}](name=Kitty Girl,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=mtvP4ZkT,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-09-15T08:48:42.707+0000) > > If Darius get nerfed Panth too cause panth winrate is abobe darius winrates are meaningless, i agree darius needs an nerf i had the same experience where i destroyed a darius and he came back like a god .-. never had that with a panth.
: the banning system and the art of running it down without getting banned
> [{quoted}](name= I Yasuragi l,realm=EUNE,application-id=eZuvYsEr,discussion-id=AFy3Emqc,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-09-11T10:51:20.187+0000) > > i don't get why people flame in game to make their team mates suffer, while i see a lot of people who do worse by soft inting without typing in chat because without chat logs it can seem like bad plays something they can't ban you for, while the community thinks the banning system is great and the toxic people are getting banned, toxicity isn't even a relevant problem in that game, you probably will lose way more games because of that more than a toxic kid raging in chat, a lot of players mute all and climb high to challenger proving that communicating in chat just a waste of time, it is just as worse as the toxic player blaming others for his mistakes, really delusional to think that you are losing games because of the toxic players or the flamers in chat telling people that they are bad when there is a mute button, i really wanna see something done about soft inting and grieving for once i wanna see some one who is banned for once for this and not by some chat logs of a player blaming another player for a bad play, it is getting pathetic. welcome to a leftwing nazi world, where words hurt more than deeds...... {{sticker:slayer-pantheon-rainbows}} this has beeen addressed by players for years but to no avail....
Nolfinisko (EUNE)
: Zilean has a cooldown of 3.3 seconds on W if he has 45% CDR, making it impossible to perma stun, since bomb stun is 1.5 second. What I tried to achieve here is perma stun, where a player can't act for 6 second straight, by using Spear of Shojin Awakened Dragon effect.
> [{quoted}](name=Nolfinisko,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=4oIArIi5,comment-id=00020000,timestamp=2019-09-11T13:08:36.049+0000) > > Zilean has a cooldown of 3.3 seconds on W if he has 45% CDR, making it impossible to perma stun, since bomb stun is 1.5 second. What I tried to achieve here is perma stun, where a player can't act for 6 second straight, by using Spear of Shojin Awakened Dragon effect. it only grants 0.66 cdr per auto attack O.o you'd have to hit at least 4 to 5 times b4 you get to stun again, hence i said he does the same thing^^
DursyArts (EUW)
: qiyana walk bug still not fixed
its proof riot needs to shoot qiyana to the moon, she is already moonwalking {{sticker:sg-kiko}}
Sefi (EUNE)
: They do, but they are rare as %%%% nowadays. Ignore the forum posts, most people don't even know what trolling is. To them: You go in at a wrong time? You're a troll. You build an unortodox item either intently or by mistake? You're a troll. You follow up on a bad trade one of your team mates started? You're a troll. You DONT follow up on a bad trade one of your team mates started? You're a troll. Take a minion or two as support? You're a troll. You don't gang an overly agressive team mate that is nearly always under enemy tower? You're a troll. You DO gang that overly agressive team mate but die in the process? You're a troll. See the pattern? Everything in this %%%%ing game is trolling or inting. People have no %%%%ing idea what actual inting and trolling is anymore.
> [{quoted}](name=Sefi,realm=EUNE,application-id=NzaqEm3e,discussion-id=MpcEiWQY,comment-id=0000,timestamp=2019-09-11T04:20:17.958+0000) > > They do, but they are rare as %%%% nowadays. Ignore the forum posts, most people don't even know what trolling is. > > To them: > You go in at a wrong time? You're a troll. > You build an unortodox item either intently or by mistake? You're a troll. > You follow up on a bad trade one of your team mates started? You're a troll. > You DONT follow up on a bad trade one of your team mates started? You're a troll. > Take a minion or two as support? You're a troll. > You don't gang an overly agressive team mate that is nearly always under enemy tower? You're a troll. > You DO gang that overly agressive team mate but die in the process? You're a troll. > > See the pattern? Everything in this %%%%ing game is trolling or inting. People have no %%%%ing idea what actual inting and trolling is anymore. BS they are the opposite of rare and are increasing.... almost every ranked match has a troll, especially when you are in promos..... im talking players that build just shoes, or pick a champion than say first time ingame, or have over 100K mastery but are clearly inting like crazy, or players picking jungle but then start farming on mid lane 24/7, players that pick jungle and keep soloing drake whilst dying without even camp clearing, players with non mana champs taking blue for no reason...... players that keep taking kills with high damage champions to prevent their teammates from getting kills...., tahm kench says enough..... etc etc
Nolfinisko (EUNE)
: Zilean Jank Build
he achieves the same thing without that item O.o CD is capped on champions.....
: > [{quoted}](name=Devilreaper XIII,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=rkrEc93O,comment-id=000800000000,timestamp=2019-09-10T09:09:28.369+0000) > > no, when the game came out champions performed well on 1 lane as was intended, however lots of players complained they couldn't play their champ properly on other lanes, especially jungle, thats when riot ruined everything, that and the community coming up with ''meta'' BS. I actually disagree with this massively, yes there were champs that only preformed well on one lane but there were tons of champs that could perform on more than one position. Xin xhao Mordekaiser (old) Kassadin Vladimir Udyr Sion(old) Trundle Tryndamere Malphite Volibear There are probably even more than that that's just the ones I can personally think of. Anyways again and for the last time my post has nothing to do with the state of the meta I said specifically the options to have fun and play differently have been removed. I don't care about viability and I don't care about the current meta I just want the option to play this game for fun. I don't know why you keep thinking this is about meta as I never said I want a meta change. Actually read what I'm saying and stop changing the subject.
> [{quoted}](name=Ruthlesslink,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=rkrEc93O,comment-id=0008000000000000,timestamp=2019-09-10T14:09:33.769+0000) > > I actually disagree with this massively, yes there were champs that only preformed well on one lane but there were tons of champs that could perform on more than one position. > > Xin xhao > Mordekaiser (old) > Kassadin > Vladimir > Udyr > Sion(old) > Trundle > Tryndamere > Malphite > Volibear > > > There are probably even more than that that's just the ones I can personally think of. Anyways again and for the last time my post has nothing to do with the state of the meta I said specifically the options to have fun and play differently have been removed. I don't care about viability and I don't care about the current meta I just want the option to play this game for fun. > > I don't know why you keep thinking this is about meta as I never said I want a meta change. Actually read what I'm saying and stop changing the subject. i think you misunderstand, i couldn't give a rats ass about meta, it wasn't there early in this game, i've been playing this game since beta, and back then we would just try and play ANY champ ANYWHERE in any WAY and determine if it was viable, right now riot has tried to make all champions viable anywhere, removing our experimentations, yes sure some champions could be played an various lanes back then, but what i mean is, is that riot still is trying to, and have tried to make ALL champions viable everywhere, leaving no room for experimentations, your post has been posted to death back then...... and meta comes from lcs pro play -.- too many players copying bs, and one of the changes riot made to make all champions viable anywhere are the runes....
KerberosFi (EUNE)
: > [{quoted}](name=Devilreaper XIII,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=vHeoBVoK,comment-id=00010000,timestamp=2019-09-10T09:17:19.957+0000) > > shyvana burn doesn't stop noble healing 35 Hp even though the ability states it stops all healing .-. > shyvana isn't op, karthus, ashe, demons, kayle, pantheon,draven and evelynn are op. Fixed. With lucian I would kinda agree due to how hard he can carry mid game, but on the other hand he falls hard coming into late game.
> [{quoted}](name=KerberosFi,realm=EUNE,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=vHeoBVoK,comment-id=000100000000,timestamp=2019-09-10T11:27:21.741+0000) > > Fixed. With lucian I would kinda agree due to how hard he can carry mid game, but on the other hand he falls hard coming into late game. not fixed even saw opponents heal with {{item:3107}} even though shyvana burns them .-. on euw server, lucian never falls off with me, he just needs an guinsoo and is usually the last one standing O.O
: What is Elo Trading?
gold+ elo do alot of winswapping/elotrading, this is why there are alot of smurfs in silver.
: Yuumi ban
because she blocks 100% damage, heals alot and is untargetable, i ban her alot too together with pyke.
: shivana with warmogs is almost unbeatable atm + she has a bug in dragon form her attacks do AP damage, while garen is spinning hes immume to AP but yet shivs dragon hits still fully damage him...
> [{quoted}](name=me and 4 chimps,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=vHeoBVoK,comment-id=0001,timestamp=2019-09-10T08:38:53.783+0000) > > shivana with warmogs is almost unbeatable atm + she has a bug > > in dragon form her attacks do AP damage, while garen is spinning hes immume to AP but yet shivs dragon hits still fully damage him... shyvana burn doesn't stop noble healing 35 Hp even though the ability states it stops all healing .-. shyvana isn't op, karthus, lucian, ashe, glacials, demons, hextech, graves, volibear, kayle,pantheon, braum, draven, aatrox and evelynn are op.
: > [{quoted}](name=Devilreaper XIII,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=rkrEc93O,comment-id=0008,timestamp=2019-09-09T07:50:58.712+0000) > > wrong, what riot did was make most (tried to make every/probably will make every) champ viable on every lane, they stopped boxing and therefore most champions have similar stats, no more unique champions because so many players complained about not being able to play their favorite champion on their favorite lane. Its got nothing to do with viability it's about having fun. Read what was written again and you might understand the point I'm trying to make. Riot focus too hard on viability and meta but the thing is there are creative players that just want to do fun/silly things in normal games but you can't do that anymore because of the set stats, Just a fact honestly. However, you can play your fav champ on its intentional lane at all times there has never been a point you couldn't play brand mid or swain top even when they were meta on bot it was still more than possible to play them in their proper position.
> [{quoted}](name=Ruthlesslink,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=rkrEc93O,comment-id=00080000,timestamp=2019-09-09T17:07:46.778+0000) > > Its got nothing to do with viability it's about having fun. > > Read what was written again and you might understand the point I'm trying to make. Riot focus too hard on viability and meta but the thing is there are creative players that just want to do fun/silly things in normal games but you can't do that anymore because of the set stats, Just a fact honestly. However, you can play your fav champ on its intentional lane at all times there has never been a point you couldn't play brand mid or swain top even when they were meta on bot it was still more than possible to play them in their proper position. no, when the game came out champions performed well on 1 lane as was intended, however lots of players complained they couldn't play their champ properly on other lanes, especially jungle, thats when riot ruined everything, that and the community coming up with ''meta'' BS.
Kurotsu (EUW)
: Difference between blue and red side?
> [{quoted}](name=Kurotsu,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=ABWmLQK7,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-09-08T18:13:04.840+0000) > > I hear this in the League pro play often > My guess is Dragon and Baron control difference > And pick and ban difference > > Is there anything else? when you ignore the game entirely the blue side minions will win the game, blue minions are actually winions .-. they have a statistcal advantage over the red minions, that and playing as bot on either side is different, on blue you have an extra patch of brush on your side, you can use, as red you need to ward that brush because the enemy jungler can use it instead of the brush on the river, meaning blue has an advantage coming from jungle be it defending the tower or flanking the opponents, and ofcourse the patch of brush on the river near bot lane, makes it risky for red again since the brush is near the tower and makes opponents invisible unless warded, bot lane is riskier for red, rather than blue, blue needs to ward 1 brush, red needs to ward 2.
: Hardfix the game
> [{quoted}](name=RFL With Consent,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=kOUvAtVI,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-09-08T20:23:23.163+0000) > > (nerf)Akali either revert the rework, give her old W back with new animation or delete from the game. > > (nerf)Malphite Jungle > > (nerf)Yuumi. Either hotfix or remove from the game. Damage reduction on Q and R please. to much damage and utility. > > (fix)Thresh Q hitbox > > (fix)Nautilus Q hitbox > > (nerf)Vayne. Make it so that she doesnt do damage early and late. either one or the other. > > (nerf)Cait. -6 damage -50 range > > (nerf)sylas not gonna state the obvious. > > (Nerf)Vladimir not gonna state the obvious. > > > > !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!DISCLAIMER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! > > Hire a functional and good balancing team that actually plays the game apart from I assume the practice tool. problem are bruisers/tanks and assassins, only some mages are op like lux and janna, ad is out of control you can go adc soraka and dominate the game...
: The real reason league of legends is getting worse.
> [{quoted}](name=Ruthlesslink,realm=EUW,application-id=39gqIYVI,discussion-id=rkrEc93O,comment-id=,timestamp=2019-09-08T01:07:34.952+0000) > > Creativity was murdered for accessibility: > > This part still hurts my soul to this day, Runes and masteries were removed from the game simply because it helped new players and heck even current players struggling with optimal rune setups of the current meta at the time. On paper it sounds like a good thing however this change stopped anyone from playing differently as now everyone has set in stone stats meaning you play what you are given. For any old school fans out there, remember sivhd's crazy builds like hp regen Sion or ap xinxhao? Heck everyone remembers Crit runes gangplank who wouldn't it was absolutely hilarious. > > Well, all of that is impossible now because of the set in stone stats you always have to play exactly how Riot wants you to play and honestly I hate that. This is still a game you shouldn't kill the option for people to have a bit of fun. I used to build full armour runes old taric and I absolutely loved it. Played him top lane and watching enemies get shredded by my beautiful gems was one of the funniest things ever, I was also a big fan of ap alistar but my point being Riot has removed these options to get creative with a champion you can't build them any different than what was intended due to the set stats it's really sad. Many other funny build's were killed off and I know for any that might be left Riot will get to it eventually as they don't want people striving away from the champs original intention (rip ap shyvana). > wrong, what riot did was make most (tried to make every/probably will make every) champ viable on every lane, they stopped boxing and therefore most champions have similar stats, no more unique champions because so many players complained about not being able to play their favorite champion on their favorite lane.
LAFFEN (EUW)
: The Tilt Test actually Tilted me
got scarred veteran, but i never get tilted shrugs
Show more

Devilreaper XIII

Level 88 (EUW)
Lifetime Upvotes
Create a Discussion