Full Version: global warming
i would like to say that we cannot do anything about global warming we are all going to die please prove me wrong
Theres a thread floating around about this already with some pretty interesting things in, ill see if i can find it again...
well we are all going to die unless someone can find an answer. . . the permafrost melting at the icecaps. . . itll end in like 50 years enjoy your medium-length lives. . .
Yeah, I bet within 100 years we're all dead ....... 
People don't die from global warming. But they do die as a result of human ineptitude, arrogance, ignorance and avarice.
People don't die from global warming. But they do die as a result of human ineptitude, arrogance, ignorance and avarice.
QUOTE(lifeanddeath @ Jan 16 2007, 03:49 PM) [snapback]1503708[/snapback]
well we are all going to die unless someone can find an answer. . . the permafrost melting at the icecaps. . . itll end in like 50 years enjoy your medium-length lives. . .
Your a bundle of joy then! lol only J/K........the ozone is reportedly fixing its self slowly but surely, i posted the details in the last thread about this.
I would agree that life causes death.
QUOTE(ledley @ Jan 16 2007, 09:47 AM) [snapback]1503703[/snapback]
Theres a thread floating around about this already with some pretty interesting things in, ill see if i can find it again...
Is global warming a hoax? By yours truly
QUOTE(Aztec Warrior @ Jan 16 2007, 04:19 PM) [snapback]1503736[/snapback]
Is global warming a hoax? By yours truely
That may be it, there have been so many i lose track
Why would we all die because of global warming? Certainly, a great many lives are going to be overturned, but it's hardly an extinction event. Massive climate changes happen regularly.
Isn't one way to absorb CO2 in the air ash. Aparantally, ash absorbs CO2, but not alot of it. There is a chemical which can absorb alot of CO2, but it's way to expensive for factory owners to use. Can't we just put a giant ice cube in the north pole like they did in Furturama?
Even if it is a mass extinction event, these things do n ot happen in a short space of time, the fastest mass exitinction was the Permian-Triassic mass extinction which lasted just under one million years.
QUOTE(ledley @ Jan 16 2007, 03:56 PM) [snapback]1503713[/snapback]
Your a bundle of joy then! lol only J/K........the ozone is reportedly fixing its self slowly but surely, i posted the details in the last thread about this.
The ozone hole has almost nothing to do with global warming. There is another thread in urban myths about dying from the ozone hole, but that is not going to happen either.
CFC's causes the decay of ozone which filters out uv radiation, while green house gases such as carbon dioxide and methane trap heat which leads to higher temperatures.
Yes we are all going to die. Likely from some kind of illenss or injury, but there is a 100% mortality rate to life. Sorry to be the bearer of bad news. The good news is that it likely will not have anything to do with global warming.
We have to worry about our children and grandchildren & so on, not us.
exactly, which is why I'm against the Global Warming Hysteria Industry and its pursuit of policy that will be damaging to my kids and grandkids future.
QUOTE(Celumnaz @ Jan 16 2007, 06:33 PM) [snapback]1503915[/snapback]
exactly, which is why I'm against the Global Warming Hysteria Industry and its pursuit of policy that will be damaging to my kids and grandkids future.
I try not to call people names but you are definetly delusional. Please tell me how lowering C02 emissions is damaging to your kids and grandkids future? You are the only one doing the damage by hiding the truth from them.
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Jan 16 2007, 12:36 PM) [snapback]1503922[/snapback]
I try not to call people names but you are definetly delusional.
lol thanks
Depending who's calling me names it either makes me think about what I'm saying, or I wear it as a badge of honor. Sparkly new badge.
We're all going to die!? 
What? 
Who said? 
Oh, wait, yes we all are going to die, the debate on global warming may still be going on a thousand years from now, but I don't think there is a debate on whether or not we're going to die.
What? Who said? Oh, wait, yes we all are going to die, the debate on global warming may still be going on a thousand years from now, but I don't think there is a debate on whether or not we're going to die.
QUOTE(Celumnaz @ Jan 16 2007, 06:46 PM) [snapback]1503933[/snapback]
lol thanks
Depending who's calling me names it either makes me think about what I'm saying, or I wear it as a badge of honor. Sparkly new badge.
Depending who's calling me names it either makes me think about what I'm saying, or I wear it as a badge of honor. Sparkly new badge.
You can debate all you want as to the causes of the recent rise in temperature (natural vrs. manmade), but you can't deny that green house gases trap heat and the amount of green house gases in the atmosphere is increasing. So why then is pouring tons of green house gases every day into the atmosphere okay to some people when there can be alternatives?
QUOTE(Celumnaz @ Jan 16 2007, 06:46 PM) [snapback]1503933[/snapback]
lol thanks
Depending who's calling me names it either makes me think about what I'm saying, or I wear it as a badge of honor. Sparkly new badge.
I still would like to know how you think lowering C02 emissions would damage your kids and possible grandchildrens futures.
Depending who's calling me names it either makes me think about what I'm saying, or I wear it as a badge of honor. Sparkly new badge.
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Jan 16 2007, 07:47 PM) [snapback]1504011[/snapback]
I still would like to know how you think lowering C02 emissions would damage your kids and possible grandchildrens futures.
It doesn't hurt anyone except the greedy shareholders of polluting multi-national corporations.
KGS
I'm not planning on dying. Sorry.
QUOTE(Reincarnated @ Jan 16 2007, 01:47 PM) [snapback]1504011[/snapback]
I still would like to know how you think lowering C02 emissions would damage your kids and possible grandchildrens futures.
Other than I think doing something unnecessary is usually unnecessary and sometimes wasteful (the sun is the main contributor to global climate fluctuation), or the possible harmful unintended concequences from the best of intentions (banning DDT has claimed too many lives), it all depends How this lowering is accomplished.
QUOTE
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...bwarming16.html
Could smog protect against global warming?
By Charles J. Hanley
The Associated Press
NAIROBI, Kenya — If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to draw the shade.
The ''shade'' would be a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate. The reaction here at the U.N. conference on climate change is a mix of caution, curiosity and some resignation to such ''massive and drastic'' operations, as the chief U.N. climatologist describes them.
The Nobel Prize-winning scientist who first made the proposal is himself ''not enthusiastic about it.''
''It was meant to startle the policy makers,'' said Paul J. Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. ''If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end we have to do experiments like this.''
Serious people are taking Crutzen's idea seriously. This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global haze proposal and other ''geoengineering'' ideas for fending off climate change.
In Nairobi, meanwhile, hundreds of delegates were wrapping up a two-week conference expected to only slowly advance efforts to rein in greenhouse gases blamed for much of the 1-degree rise in global temperatures in the past century.
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol requires modest emission cutbacks by industrial countries — but not the United States, the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, because it rejected the deal. Talks on what to do after Kyoto expires in 2012 are all but bogged down.
When he published his proposal in the journal Climatic Change in August, Crutzen cited a ''grossly disappointing international political response'' to warming.
The Dutch climatologist, awarded a 1995 Nobel in chemistry for his work uncovering the threat to Earth's atmospheric ozone layer, suggested that balloons bearing heavy guns be used to carry sulfates high aloft and fire them into the stratosphere.
While carbon dioxide keeps heat from escaping Earth, substances such as sulfur dioxide, a common air pollutant, reflect solar radiation, helping cool the planet.
Tom Wigley, a senior U.S. government climatologist, followed Crutzen's article with a paper of his own on Oct. 20 in the leading U.S. journal Science. Like Crutzen, Wigley cited the precedent of the huge volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991.
Pinatubo shot so much sulfurous debris into the stratosphere that it is believed it cooled the Earth by .9 degrees for about a year.
Wigley ran scenarios of stratospheric sulfate injection — on the scale of Pinatubo's estimated 10 million tons of sulfur — through supercomputer models of the climate, and reported that Crutzen's idea would, indeed, seem to work. Even half that amount per year would help, he wrote.
A massive dissemination of pollutants would be needed every year or two, as the sulfates precipitate from the atmosphere in acid rain.
Wigley said a temporary shield would give political leaders more time to reduce human dependence on fossil fuels — the main source of greenhouse gases. He said experts must more closely study the feasibility of the idea and its possible effects on stratospheric chemistry.
Nairobi conference participants agreed.
''Yes, by all means, do all the research,'' Indian climatologist Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the 2,000-scientist U.N. network on climate change, told The Associated Press.
But ''if human beings take it upon themselves to carry out something as massive and drastic as this, we need to be absolutely sure there are no side effects,'' Pachauri said.
Philip Clapp, a veteran campaigner for emissions controls to curb warming, also sounded a nervous note, saying, ''We are already engaged in an uncontrolled experiment by injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.''
But Clapp, president of the U.S. group National Environmental Trust, said, ''I certainly don't disagree with the urgency.''
In past years scientists have scoffed at the idea of air pollution as a solution for global warming, saying that the kind of sulfate haze that would be needed is deadly to people. Last month, the World Heath Organization said air pollution kills about 2 million people worldwide each year and that reducing large soot-like particles from sulfates in cities could save 300,000 lives annually.
American geophysicist Jonathan Pershing, of Washington's World Resources Institute, is among those wary of unforeseen consequences, but said the idea might be worth considering ''if down the road 25 years, it becomes more and more severe because we didn't deal with the problem.''
By telephone from Germany, Crutzen said that's what he envisioned: global haze as a component for long-range planning. ''The reception on the whole is more positive than I thought,'' he said.
Pershing added, however, that reaction may hinge on who pushes the idea. ''If it's the U.S., it might be perceived as an effort to avoid the problem,'' he said.
NASA said this weekend's conference will examine ''methods to ameliorate the likelihood of progressively rising temperatures over the next decades.'' Other such U.S. government-sponsored events are scheduled to follow.
Could smog protect against global warming?
By Charles J. Hanley
The Associated Press
NAIROBI, Kenya — If the sun warms the Earth too dangerously, the time may come to draw the shade.
The ''shade'' would be a layer of pollution deliberately spewed into the atmosphere to help cool the planet. This over-the-top idea comes from prominent scientists, among them a Nobel laureate. The reaction here at the U.N. conference on climate change is a mix of caution, curiosity and some resignation to such ''massive and drastic'' operations, as the chief U.N. climatologist describes them.
The Nobel Prize-winning scientist who first made the proposal is himself ''not enthusiastic about it.''
''It was meant to startle the policy makers,'' said Paul J. Crutzen, of Germany's Max Planck Institute for Chemistry. ''If they don't take action much more strongly than they have in the past, then in the end we have to do experiments like this.''
Serious people are taking Crutzen's idea seriously. This weekend, NASA's Ames Research Center in Moffett Field, Calif., hosts a closed-door, high-level workshop on the global haze proposal and other ''geoengineering'' ideas for fending off climate change.
In Nairobi, meanwhile, hundreds of delegates were wrapping up a two-week conference expected to only slowly advance efforts to rein in greenhouse gases blamed for much of the 1-degree rise in global temperatures in the past century.
The 1997 Kyoto Protocol requires modest emission cutbacks by industrial countries — but not the United States, the biggest emitter of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases, because it rejected the deal. Talks on what to do after Kyoto expires in 2012 are all but bogged down.
When he published his proposal in the journal Climatic Change in August, Crutzen cited a ''grossly disappointing international political response'' to warming.
The Dutch climatologist, awarded a 1995 Nobel in chemistry for his work uncovering the threat to Earth's atmospheric ozone layer, suggested that balloons bearing heavy guns be used to carry sulfates high aloft and fire them into the stratosphere.
While carbon dioxide keeps heat from escaping Earth, substances such as sulfur dioxide, a common air pollutant, reflect solar radiation, helping cool the planet.
Tom Wigley, a senior U.S. government climatologist, followed Crutzen's article with a paper of his own on Oct. 20 in the leading U.S. journal Science. Like Crutzen, Wigley cited the precedent of the huge volcanic eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the Philippines in 1991.
Pinatubo shot so much sulfurous debris into the stratosphere that it is believed it cooled the Earth by .9 degrees for about a year.
Wigley ran scenarios of stratospheric sulfate injection — on the scale of Pinatubo's estimated 10 million tons of sulfur — through supercomputer models of the climate, and reported that Crutzen's idea would, indeed, seem to work. Even half that amount per year would help, he wrote.
A massive dissemination of pollutants would be needed every year or two, as the sulfates precipitate from the atmosphere in acid rain.
Wigley said a temporary shield would give political leaders more time to reduce human dependence on fossil fuels — the main source of greenhouse gases. He said experts must more closely study the feasibility of the idea and its possible effects on stratospheric chemistry.
Nairobi conference participants agreed.
''Yes, by all means, do all the research,'' Indian climatologist Rajendra K. Pachauri, chairman of the 2,000-scientist U.N. network on climate change, told The Associated Press.
But ''if human beings take it upon themselves to carry out something as massive and drastic as this, we need to be absolutely sure there are no side effects,'' Pachauri said.
Philip Clapp, a veteran campaigner for emissions controls to curb warming, also sounded a nervous note, saying, ''We are already engaged in an uncontrolled experiment by injecting greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.''
But Clapp, president of the U.S. group National Environmental Trust, said, ''I certainly don't disagree with the urgency.''
In past years scientists have scoffed at the idea of air pollution as a solution for global warming, saying that the kind of sulfate haze that would be needed is deadly to people. Last month, the World Heath Organization said air pollution kills about 2 million people worldwide each year and that reducing large soot-like particles from sulfates in cities could save 300,000 lives annually.
American geophysicist Jonathan Pershing, of Washington's World Resources Institute, is among those wary of unforeseen consequences, but said the idea might be worth considering ''if down the road 25 years, it becomes more and more severe because we didn't deal with the problem.''
By telephone from Germany, Crutzen said that's what he envisioned: global haze as a component for long-range planning. ''The reception on the whole is more positive than I thought,'' he said.
Pershing added, however, that reaction may hinge on who pushes the idea. ''If it's the U.S., it might be perceived as an effort to avoid the problem,'' he said.
NASA said this weekend's conference will examine ''methods to ameliorate the likelihood of progressively rising temperatures over the next decades.'' Other such U.S. government-sponsored events are scheduled to follow.
I fear MOST of the "solutions" way more than the imagined "problem".
QUOTE(Celumnaz @ Jan 16 2007, 08:44 PM) [snapback]1504075[/snapback]
I fear MOST of the "solutions" way more than the imagined "problem".
We have enough smog as it is and our planet is continuing to warm rapidy. The number of lung and breathing related problems has risen due to the decline in quality of our atmosphere, more smog is not a realistic option and will never be used. As your article said, the study was "'meant to startle the policy makers". Sure, it might contain some elements that reflect solar radiation but is this how you want to fight global warming? You are worried about your childrens futures being harmed by lowering C02 emissions because:
QUOTE(Celumnaz @ Jan 16 2007, 08:44 PM) [snapback]1504075[/snapback]
I think doing something unnecessary is usually unnecessary and sometimes wasteful
But you are trying to show us more smog might be better instead.I feel bad for your kids.
don't worry about My kids, they'll be fine... but going by your response I think you should be more worried about your reading comprehension skills. Thanks for the good laugh tho!
QUOTE(Celumnaz @ Jan 16 2007, 09:52 PM) [snapback]1504165[/snapback]
don't worry about My kids, they'll be fine... but going by your response I think you should be more worried about your reading comprehension skills. Thanks for the good laugh tho!
Will they be fine with Houston, Dallas, Miami, New Orleans, Austin, Tallahasse most of Georgia and the Carolinas underwater? Increased desertification in the midwest and in western Texas and the spread of the Arizona desert? Considerably lower crop yeilds, alterations of water currents altering temperatures to land masses massive depletion of fish stocks and increases in food cost as livestock will also become much more difficult to cultivate. The obvious abnd simple soltution is to cut back on greenhouse gas emmisions, but it seems that making rich scabs richer is more important than the future of the planet, something which is intrinsically linked to our own future.
How silly of me for not seeing this sooner. Of course, smog is the answer to our problems. Thats why people enjoy Mexico City so much, they are doing their part to prevent global warming. And all this time I thought ozone was bad for plants and the lungs not to mention acid rain and other harmful results of air pollution. People with asthma will just have to suck it up. 
QUOTE(Mattshark @ Jan 16 2007, 06:10 PM) [snapback]1504317[/snapback]
Will they be fine with Houston, Dallas, Miami, New Orleans, Austin, Tallahasse most of Georgia and the Carolinas underwater? Increased desertification in the midwest and in western Texas and the spread of the Arizona desert? Considerably lower crop yeilds, alterations of water currents altering temperatures to land masses massive depletion of fish stocks and increases in food cost as livestock will also become much more difficult to cultivate.
Yes, they will be fine when the aliens come.
QUOTE(Celumnaz @ Jan 17 2007, 12:50 AM) [snapback]1504369[/snapback]
Yes, they will be fine when the aliens come.
I'm sure
QUOTE(Celumnaz @ Jan 16 2007, 09:52 PM) [snapback]1504165[/snapback]
don't worry about My kids, they'll be fine... but going by your response I think you should be more worried about your reading comprehension skills. Thanks for the good laugh tho!
You are the laughing matter here.
Stop fighting! Someone, please, think of the children!
QUOTE(lifeanddeath @ Jan 16 2007, 10:45 AM) [snapback]1503702[/snapback]
i would like to say that we cannot do anything about global warming we are all going to die please prove me wrong
If everyone in this world listens then we can survive. Otherwise!
QUOTE(positron @ Jan 17 2007, 03:59 AM) [snapback]1504548[/snapback]
If everyone in this world listens then we can survive. Otherwise!
Global warming is not likely to wipe out the human race, most definatly not in our life time it will most likely lead to a mass extinction over the next 1000000 or years however. Sad though that this is avoidable, sadly though greed has more power than intelligence .
QUOTE(Mattshark @ Jan 17 2007, 03:18 PM) [snapback]1504573[/snapback]
Global warming is not likely to wipe out the human race, most definatly not in our life time it will most likely lead to a mass extinction over the next 1000000 or years however. Sad though that this is avoidable, sadly though greed has more power than intelligence .
So...there is no hope?
QUOTE(when.i.am.queen. @ Jan 17 2007, 04:45 AM) [snapback]1504602[/snapback]
So...there is no hope?
With out a change in political ideas, not much imo, it is more a case of us having to live with the consequences of our actions. Or more accuratly the consequences of those who only care about their own financial gains actions.
Which is why my father is so found of saying that our generation will be the ones to pay for previous' generations mistakes.
Buy the time global warming hits we will be living in bubble cities anyways...or on mars...or back in caves.
IMO it is extremely unlikely that global warming will wipe us out. It can however, screw up very badly the ecosystems and weather patterns, lead to sea level rise and other environmental problems. It truth, we have no idea of the extent of problems it can cause as computer models can only account for known variables, but what about varibles that are unknown? It has the potential to cause a great deal of economic hardship and environmental discomfort and loss of habitat for mankind, and make life in general pretty miserable, so it is no joking matter. It is not too late however, there are ways of switching over to non-fossil fuels, such as the combustion of hydrogen, and other green technology. This country should be leading the world in finding alternatives, but you all know that is not happening as this administration had other priorities. And I was rather disappointed that the Clinton administration did so little about it also for that matter. So, it looks like both parties deserve some blame.
It's a little laughable, at times, to think that we can really have any sort of significant effect on our planet. A shift of less than on degree of the axis of rotation of our planet turned the Sahara from a plush grassland to the largest desert in the world. A temperature shift of a degree and half suddenly warmed up Europe and brought an end to the dark ages.
Such small things...so tiny and insignificant to our frame of reference...and yet they hold the power to transform our civilization as we know it, to the extent of leading to the extinction of entire species.
And people are claiming we can save ourselves by driving less? There isn't a soul on earth who knows if that would have any effect whatsoever. Frankly, it is presumptious to think that it might. We are surely the most arrogant species on Earth, to think that our pathetically insignificant species could actually cause anything more than a blip on this planets climate.
Such small things...so tiny and insignificant to our frame of reference...and yet they hold the power to transform our civilization as we know it, to the extent of leading to the extinction of entire species.
And people are claiming we can save ourselves by driving less? There isn't a soul on earth who knows if that would have any effect whatsoever. Frankly, it is presumptious to think that it might. We are surely the most arrogant species on Earth, to think that our pathetically insignificant species could actually cause anything more than a blip on this planets climate.
I agree wholeheartedly with aquatus! 
The world will end in 10, 9, 8, ...
The world will end in 10, 9, 8, ...
QUOTE(aquatus1 @ Jan 17 2007, 11:16 PM) [snapback]1505903[/snapback]
It's a little laughable, at times, to think that we can really have any sort of significant effect on our planet. A shift of less than on degree of the axis of rotation of our planet turned the Sahara from a plush grassland to the largest desert in the world. A temperature shift of a degree and half suddenly warmed up Europe and brought an end to the dark ages.
Such small things...so tiny and insignificant to our frame of reference...and yet they hold the power to transform our civilization as we know it, to the extent of leading to the extinction of entire species.
And people are claiming we can save ourselves by driving less? There isn't a soul on earth who knows if that would have any effect whatsoever. Frankly, it is presumptious to think that it might. We are surely the most arrogant species on Earth, to think that our pathetically insignificant species could actually cause anything more than a blip on this planets climate.
Such small things...so tiny and insignificant to our frame of reference...and yet they hold the power to transform our civilization as we know it, to the extent of leading to the extinction of entire species.
And people are claiming we can save ourselves by driving less? There isn't a soul on earth who knows if that would have any effect whatsoever. Frankly, it is presumptious to think that it might. We are surely the most arrogant species on Earth, to think that our pathetically insignificant species could actually cause anything more than a blip on this planets climate.
And yet we have killed off more species of life then any animal that has ever lived on the earth.
::sarcasm on::
Seems pretty insignificant of us to do this.
::sarcasm off::
We are having a huge effect on the planet.
The ice caps will melt, and then it will be just like water world! (im assuming you all have seen that movie)
I'm not a believer in global warming, but I'd be grateful to be proven wrong if it'd kick in by tomorrow. This winter is feeling like glaciers should be on it's way to oklahoma. Got 10" of snow in November where I live (I've never seen that much). The panhandle got 10" in December. Got over an inch of ice last weekend and now this weekend will (supposedly) dump 4"-8" of snow on top of the ice, which hasn't melted much. Whereever global warming is happening, bring some over here! Al Gore, Help us!
Gonna get the pick out to clear out as much ice as I can before the snow hits.
Gonna get the pick out to clear out as much ice as I can before the snow hits.
QUOTE(jedi_yarael_poof @ Jan 18 2007, 02:32 AM) [snapback]1506084[/snapback]
I'm not a believer in global warming, but I'd be grateful to be proven wrong if it'd kick in by tomorrow. This winter is feeling like glaciers should be on it's way to oklahoma. Got 10" of snow in November where I live (I've never seen that much). The panhandle got 10" in December. Got over an inch of ice last weekend and now this weekend will (supposedly) dump 4"-8" of snow on top of the ice, which hasn't melted much. Whereever global warming is happening, bring some over here! Al Gore, Help us!
Gonna get the pick out to clear out as much ice as I can before the snow hits.
Gonna get the pick out to clear out as much ice as I can before the snow hits.
What you are saying just reinforces the points of global warming, weather patterns changing and dumping large amounts of moisture in places where it doesnt normally happen and removing it from places it normally does.
well i think your all being negative,you may all believe that death is floating just above your head, but ill be just fine!
what will u die of,well freak storms, flooding,ice age conditions,none of these will wipe us out,its when a comet or another major tsunami happens these will certainly dwindle our numbers,
being positive in the interment eyes of death is the only way forward,even if you do end up being crushed to death or incinerated or even smashed to smithereens its probably for a good cause....as its being stated,at the end of the global warming effects now this is worrying every one starving to death together or if you survive that, gradually melting and ultimately catching on fire!
earth and venus defiantly would be twins at these stages, for some strange reason though i believe we wont end up like a poll of smoldering sick,i believe that as we all know this is as-well part of a natural earth cycle we are just interfering with our emissions,the future will be better and things are in place for change.
QUOTE(carini @ Jan 18 2007, 05:54 AM) [snapback]1506005[/snapback]
And yet we have killed off more species of life then any animal that has ever lived on the earth.
Any support for this?
We don't even come close.
QUOTE
::sarcasm on::
Seems pretty insignificant of us to do this.
::sarcasm off::
You give humanity too much credit. Our effect on this planet is utterly insignificant. Try looking at it this way...Seems pretty insignificant of us to do this.
::sarcasm off::
QUOTE
We are having a huge effect on the planet.
...if we were to vanish without a trace today, an intelligent civilization in the future wouldn't even register our existance in the climatological record.
I'm uncertain as to whether we have had any significant direct effect on global climate.
source
While we may be having a small, short-term effect (and 50 - 100 years is short-term) I seriously doubt we would be able to affect the climate of the planet over the long-term.
As for the OP's premise, I wouldn't link climate change and sea-level rise of the extent hypothesised with mass-extinction. I do think, however, that boat-ownership will rise dramatically.
QUOTE
The atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and methane have increased by 31% and 149% respectively above pre-industrial levels since 1750. This is considerably higher than at any time during the last 650,000 years, the period for which reliable data has been extracted from ice cores. From less direct geological evidence it is believed that carbon dioxide values this high were last attained 40 million years ago. About three-quarters of the anthropogenic (man-made) emissions of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere during the past 20 years are due to fossil fuel burning. The rest of the anthropogenic emissions are predominantly due to land-use change, especially deforestation
source
While we may be having a small, short-term effect (and 50 - 100 years is short-term) I seriously doubt we would be able to affect the climate of the planet over the long-term.
As for the OP's premise, I wouldn't link climate change and sea-level rise of the extent hypothesised with mass-extinction. I do think, however, that boat-ownership will rise dramatically.
Isnt it strange that they talk about the changes we must make then blair sends plans ahead for more nuclear power plants.....plain stupid if you ask me
QUOTE(carini @ Jan 17 2007, 11:54 PM) [snapback]1506005[/snapback]
And yet we have killed off more species of life then any animal that has ever lived on the earth.
::sarcasm on::
Seems pretty insignificant of us to do this.
::sarcasm off::
We are having a huge effect on the planet.
::sarcasm on::
Seems pretty insignificant of us to do this.
::sarcasm off::
We are having a huge effect on the planet.
If you are a believer in evolution then you should also believe this is completely wrong. Supposedly 99% of the species that have lived on Earth are now extinct, and the majority of those became extinct before man even made it on the scene. So that's a no-go.
If you are not a believer in evolution, the number of extinct species is still the same, but you still can't prove that man was responsible for even a respectable percentage of those extinctions.
So, what data are you using to support your statement?
QUOTE(IamsSon @ Jan 18 2007, 09:57 AM) [snapback]1506445[/snapback]
If you are a believer in evolution then you should also believe this is completely wrong. Supposedly 99% of the species that have lived on Earth are now extinct, and the majority of those became extinct before man even made it on the scene. So that's a no-go.
If you are not a believer in evolution, the number of extinct species is still the same, but you still can't prove that man was responsible for even a respectable percentage of those extinctions.
So, what data are you using to support your statement?
If you are not a believer in evolution, the number of extinct species is still the same, but you still can't prove that man was responsible for even a respectable percentage of those extinctions.
So, what data are you using to support your statement?
Please re-read what I said.
Or I can say it again.
Humans have killed off more species of life then any ANIMAL that has ever lived, yes we are animals. Homo sapiens is responsible for the largest mass extinction in 65 million years.
http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Largest_mass_e..._scientists_say
I'll post some others links later.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.