[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]@ndy 38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Well the polar bears, the penguins etc are certainly not adapting to changing enviroments.[/QUOTE]
What are you talking about? We've seen more migration changes in both species in the last 50 years than there has ever been. Or are you just making that up to be funny?
Thread
Posts in chronological order
The fact that they are migrating doesn't exactly mean they're adapting does it?
It is estimated that by 2050 the population of polar bears will be slashed by over 60%, due to unsuitable warming....to me that is not 'adapting.'
It is estimated that by 2050 the population of polar bears will be slashed by over 60%, due to unsuitable warming....to me that is not 'adapting.'
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]The fact that they are migrating doesn't exactly mean they're adapting does it?[/QUOTE]
It most certainly does. Polar Bears are not migratory animals.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It is estimated that by 2050 the population of polar bears will be slashed by over 60%, due to unsuitable warming....to me that is not 'adapting.'[/QUOTE]
Source? And I thought the globe was "warming". What you're saying is going against the grain of this thread.
I would say that's further proof that global warming isn't affecting the polar bears... they're all for it!!!
It most certainly does. Polar Bears are not migratory animals.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It is estimated that by 2050 the population of polar bears will be slashed by over 60%, due to unsuitable warming....to me that is not 'adapting.'[/QUOTE]
Source? And I thought the globe was "warming". What you're saying is going against the grain of this thread.
I would say that's further proof that global warming isn't affecting the polar bears... they're all for it!!!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]So, if you accept Gravity without understanding it completely, how can you refuse to accept the theories about the future of our planet without understanding them?
If you read a bit about the so called "M" Theory, you'll figure out that it's much easier to accept and understand human-caused global warming than Gravity.[/QUOTE]
Raf, are you telling me that you don't accept gravity either? (Or are you a quantum physics scientist?) Then how do you explain why we just don't simply float away? [/QUOTE]
I'm not saying I don't accept it. I'm just saying it's a bit hard to understand Gravity when at school we're taught it's a force between two bodies, and then you read some books where it says Gravity is made of particles that probably travel to other dimensions. That's a lot more strange than our pollution warming the planet up.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I think it's a little easier to comprehend that than a "theory" that humans are warming the Earth. There's a study that methane gas released by cows is causing JUST AS MUCH DAMAGE!!! So we should stop eating beef and obliterate a species from the planet then, too!
I simply don't believe everything I read. So far, from what I've been able to research, I have found only theories. So how have you been able to dismiss all those theories as false and jump onto this one so easily? [/QUOTE]
Yes, there are several sources of "greenhouse" gases, but since the beginning of industrialization, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing really fast.
Think of it... If we consider only the vehicles, nothing else... Can you imagine how much CO2 all the MILLIONS of people who drive produce everyday?
The people who elaborated the whole global warming theory aren't plain idiots. They are experienced scientists, who know how each of the substances we release in the air behave. The people who are making previsions about what's gonna happen are experts too.
And if you think an increase of, let's say, 5ºC isn't much (as we can easily live at 15ºC, 20ºC, 25ºC, 30ºC...), remember that mammals and birds can control their body temperature pretty well, but a small raise (2ºC, for example) in their body temperature can do serious damage. Our normal temperature is 36ºC. If you reach 40ºC, you'll die having allucinations.
But the vast majority of creatures on Earth can't control their body temperature. A fast raise means some species will be extinct, and that affects the whole world. Other species will get along well with the heat...
If the scientists are right, the whole North America and Europe will have the same kind of mosquitos you can find in African and South American jungles. Diseases that I don't need to worry about nowadays HERE IN BRAZIL might be widespread even in the United Kingdom and Canada in the future.
Other insects might start reproducing lots, and ruin farms everywhere. YOUR food will be more expensive because of that. Many people will fucking starve.
The sea level will rise, due to the poles melting (and it's been proved that it's actually happening! Do some research!), and cities near the sea will be flooded. Remember the New Orleans incident? That kind of tragedy will repeat itself over and over in several cities.
Due to lack of food, territory loss, etc there will be new wars. But it won't be wars for oil or for colonies in Africa anymore, it'll be wars for FOOD, for FRESH WATER, for a cooler place to live.
What will you do with your incredibly powerful car when you're in bed dying because of a tropical disease, facing lack of food and medicines, and watching on the news that enemy troops are moving to your city?
If you read a bit about the so called "M" Theory, you'll figure out that it's much easier to accept and understand human-caused global warming than Gravity.[/QUOTE]
Raf, are you telling me that you don't accept gravity either? (Or are you a quantum physics scientist?) Then how do you explain why we just don't simply float away? [/QUOTE]
I'm not saying I don't accept it. I'm just saying it's a bit hard to understand Gravity when at school we're taught it's a force between two bodies, and then you read some books where it says Gravity is made of particles that probably travel to other dimensions. That's a lot more strange than our pollution warming the planet up.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
I think it's a little easier to comprehend that than a "theory" that humans are warming the Earth. There's a study that methane gas released by cows is causing JUST AS MUCH DAMAGE!!! So we should stop eating beef and obliterate a species from the planet then, too!
I simply don't believe everything I read. So far, from what I've been able to research, I have found only theories. So how have you been able to dismiss all those theories as false and jump onto this one so easily? [/QUOTE]
Yes, there are several sources of "greenhouse" gases, but since the beginning of industrialization, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere has been increasing really fast.
Think of it... If we consider only the vehicles, nothing else... Can you imagine how much CO2 all the MILLIONS of people who drive produce everyday?
The people who elaborated the whole global warming theory aren't plain idiots. They are experienced scientists, who know how each of the substances we release in the air behave. The people who are making previsions about what's gonna happen are experts too.
And if you think an increase of, let's say, 5ºC isn't much (as we can easily live at 15ºC, 20ºC, 25ºC, 30ºC...), remember that mammals and birds can control their body temperature pretty well, but a small raise (2ºC, for example) in their body temperature can do serious damage. Our normal temperature is 36ºC. If you reach 40ºC, you'll die having allucinations.
But the vast majority of creatures on Earth can't control their body temperature. A fast raise means some species will be extinct, and that affects the whole world. Other species will get along well with the heat...
If the scientists are right, the whole North America and Europe will have the same kind of mosquitos you can find in African and South American jungles. Diseases that I don't need to worry about nowadays HERE IN BRAZIL might be widespread even in the United Kingdom and Canada in the future.
Other insects might start reproducing lots, and ruin farms everywhere. YOUR food will be more expensive because of that. Many people will fucking starve.
The sea level will rise, due to the poles melting (and it's been proved that it's actually happening! Do some research!), and cities near the sea will be flooded. Remember the New Orleans incident? That kind of tragedy will repeat itself over and over in several cities.
Due to lack of food, territory loss, etc there will be new wars. But it won't be wars for oil or for colonies in Africa anymore, it'll be wars for FOOD, for FRESH WATER, for a cooler place to live.
What will you do with your incredibly powerful car when you're in bed dying because of a tropical disease, facing lack of food and medicines, and watching on the news that enemy troops are moving to your city?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote:
What will you do with your incredibly powerful car when you're in bed dying because of a tropical disease, facing lack of food and medicines, and watching on the news that enemy troops are moving to your city?
[/QUOTE]
Use the car's remote control?
What will you do with your incredibly powerful car when you're in bed dying because of a tropical disease, facing lack of food and medicines, and watching on the news that enemy troops are moving to your city?
[/QUOTE]
Use the car's remote control?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You see i don't understand that, isn't that contradictory to the statistic showing that the growing percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is in conjunction with the growing human population on earth?[/QUOTE]
There is a golden rule among scientists that goes as follows: Correlation does not imply causation. This is, in fact, the foundation of all modern science.
The statistic you provide is especially questionable for a few reasons, including the fact that the human population is and always has been constantly increasing. Therefore, you could essentially correlate _any_ constant increase or decrease directly to human population growth.
Assuming global warming is inevitable, I truly do not think we have much to fear. The doomsday scenario that has been planted in our minds is largely sensational and minimally scientific.
You see i don't understand that, isn't that contradictory to the statistic showing that the growing percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is in conjunction with the growing human population on earth?[/QUOTE]
There is a golden rule among scientists that goes as follows: Correlation does not imply causation. This is, in fact, the foundation of all modern science.
The statistic you provide is especially questionable for a few reasons, including the fact that the human population is and always has been constantly increasing. Therefore, you could essentially correlate _any_ constant increase or decrease directly to human population growth.
Assuming global warming is inevitable, I truly do not think we have much to fear. The doomsday scenario that has been planted in our minds is largely sensational and minimally scientific.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color="lime">Raf840 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
What will you do with your incredibly powerful car when you're in bed dying because of a tropical disease, facing lack of food and medicines, and watching on the news that enemy troops are moving to your city?
[/QUOTE]
Head off to Nurburg!
What will you do with your incredibly powerful car when you're in bed dying because of a tropical disease, facing lack of food and medicines, and watching on the news that enemy troops are moving to your city?
[/QUOTE]
Head off to Nurburg!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Ok. I found it!!!! Proof that HUMANS AREN'T CAUSING GLOBAL WARMING.
It's a nice 234 page study.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf
[/QUOTE]
From page 137 of above quoted study:
"The differences in radiative forcing estimates between the present day and the start of the industrial era for solar irradiance changes and volcanoes are both very small compared to the differences in radiative forcing estimated to have resulted from human activities. As a result, in today’s atmosphere, the radiative forcing
from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes."
What exactly is proven here?
It's a nice 234 page study.
http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Print_Ch02.pdf
[/QUOTE]
From page 137 of above quoted study:
"The differences in radiative forcing estimates between the present day and the start of the industrial era for solar irradiance changes and volcanoes are both very small compared to the differences in radiative forcing estimated to have resulted from human activities. As a result, in today’s atmosphere, the radiative forcing
from human activities is much more important for current and future climate change than the estimated radiative forcing from changes in natural processes."
What exactly is proven here?
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=666600><b>Music Man wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You see i don't understand that, isn't that contradictory to the statistic showing that the growing percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is in conjunction with the growing human population on earth?[/QUOTE]
There is a golden rule among scientists that goes as follows: Correlation does not imply causation. This is, in fact, the foundation of all modern science.
The statistic you provide is especially questionable for a few reasons, including the fact that the human population is and always has been constantly increasing. Therefore, you could essentially correlate _any_ constant increase or decrease directly to human population growth.
Assuming global warming is inevitable, I truly do not think we have much to fear. The doomsday scenario that has been planted in our minds is largely sensational and minimally scientific.[/QUOTE]
Valid point indeed. It's more of a theory than a statistic, which to me seems logical because both graphs that i've seen look like they fit together. But i plead ignorance in this case since my knowledge is limited towards science.
Doomsday is inevitable mind you, but it's going to take 1 billion years before our sun starts to age and becoming too hot, moving Earth out the 'habital zone'. But that's another story for another day and has nothing to do with this topic per say.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It is estimated that by 2050 the population of polar bears will be slashed by over 60%, due to unsuitable warming....to me that is not 'adapting.'[/QUOTE]
Source? And I thought the globe was "warming". What you're saying is going against the grain of this thread.
I would say that's further proof that global warming isn't affecting the polar bears... they're all for it!!![/QUOTE]
The source was from the WWF website, i can't remember the exact page, but if you browse through i'm sure you'll find it.
Now being confirmed as a threatened species by the WWF, and the fact that there have been an unusual amount of polar bears drowned due to lack of icy lands in the arctic....if you truly believe that is adapting then you have a mistaken interpretation of the word.
You see i don't understand that, isn't that contradictory to the statistic showing that the growing percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is in conjunction with the growing human population on earth?[/QUOTE]
There is a golden rule among scientists that goes as follows: Correlation does not imply causation. This is, in fact, the foundation of all modern science.
The statistic you provide is especially questionable for a few reasons, including the fact that the human population is and always has been constantly increasing. Therefore, you could essentially correlate _any_ constant increase or decrease directly to human population growth.
Assuming global warming is inevitable, I truly do not think we have much to fear. The doomsday scenario that has been planted in our minds is largely sensational and minimally scientific.[/QUOTE]
Valid point indeed. It's more of a theory than a statistic, which to me seems logical because both graphs that i've seen look like they fit together. But i plead ignorance in this case since my knowledge is limited towards science.
Doomsday is inevitable mind you, but it's going to take 1 billion years before our sun starts to age and becoming too hot, moving Earth out the 'habital zone'. But that's another story for another day and has nothing to do with this topic per say.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]It is estimated that by 2050 the population of polar bears will be slashed by over 60%, due to unsuitable warming....to me that is not 'adapting.'[/QUOTE]
Source? And I thought the globe was "warming". What you're saying is going against the grain of this thread.
I would say that's further proof that global warming isn't affecting the polar bears... they're all for it!!![/QUOTE]
The source was from the WWF website, i can't remember the exact page, but if you browse through i'm sure you'll find it.
Now being confirmed as a threatened species by the WWF, and the fact that there have been an unusual amount of polar bears drowned due to lack of icy lands in the arctic....if you truly believe that is adapting then you have a mistaken interpretation of the word.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
Valid point indeed. It's more of a theory than a statistic, which to me seems logical because both graphs that i've seen look like they fit together. But i plead ignorance in this case since my knowledge is limited towards science. [/QUOTE]
I get your point, but consider this: any variable that has been consistently increasing or decreasing for a period of time could be easily correlated with average temperature, which apparently shows a consistent increase. I remember seeing a graph that proves a negative correlation between global average temperature and number of pirates. Although it was made up, it cleverly illustrates my point. That, or we should all get to pirating!
Valid point indeed. It's more of a theory than a statistic, which to me seems logical because both graphs that i've seen look like they fit together. But i plead ignorance in this case since my knowledge is limited towards science. [/QUOTE]
I get your point, but consider this: any variable that has been consistently increasing or decreasing for a period of time could be easily correlated with average temperature, which apparently shows a consistent increase. I remember seeing a graph that proves a negative correlation between global average temperature and number of pirates. Although it was made up, it cleverly illustrates my point. That, or we should all get to pirating!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
What exactly is proven here?[/QUOTE]
That there is no proof!!!!
Page 149 notes that the radiation depleting the ozone layer is coming mostly from Antarctica during the spring and winter months since 1980.
Penguins are using anti-carbons or something.
What exactly is proven here?[/QUOTE]
That there is no proof!!!!
Page 149 notes that the radiation depleting the ozone layer is coming mostly from Antarctica during the spring and winter months since 1980.
Penguins are using anti-carbons or something.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]<font color=black>@ndy<font color=red>38 wrote: [/QUOTENAME]All this global warming chit chat is forcing me to watch 'An Inconvenient Truth.'
I've never seen it before so i hope it's worth watching.[/QUOTE]
see if you can spot the 8 errors in the movie.take it with a pinch of salt.yes,some of it is accurate,some of it is most definately not..
but it will make you think about the enviroment which is to be applauded,even if Al Gore does live in a non-enviromental 8 bedroomed house and caused more greenhouse gases and left more carbon footprints with his gigs last year than if he hadnt done them at all..
i'll let you decide though
I've never seen it before so i hope it's worth watching.[/QUOTE]
see if you can spot the 8 errors in the movie.take it with a pinch of salt.yes,some of it is accurate,some of it is most definately not..
but it will make you think about the enviroment which is to be applauded,even if Al Gore does live in a non-enviromental 8 bedroomed house and caused more greenhouse gases and left more carbon footprints with his gigs last year than if he hadnt done them at all..
i'll let you decide though