quote:Originally posted by DarkKnight: ... competing interests such as continuation of grants, new carbon offset companies, flourenscent lightbulb manufacturers, solar panel companies, alternative envergy companies. How many scientists are being paid to continue to prove Global Warming? ...
At the risk of being vulgar, *Show me the money.* You show me the amounts of money that the kinds of companies you listed contributed to scientists. I'll show you the amounts of money that businesses that oppose action have contributed to scientists. I'm fully prepared to be surprised.
Let's start with an initial pot of $10,000 per scientist and 16 million from Exxon to various lobbyist organizations formed of "scientific spokespeople", for a start. Let's see how high we can go.
quote: Originally posted by Resh: Finally, there is no reason anyone should try to disprove global warming...
I thought I already covered that with my reference to Ventor. However, if you need the background... Back during the days of the Human Genome Project, millions of dollars of public money was being thrown into the project using a technique known as shotgun sequencing. The project was slated to go on for many years. Ventor disagreed that it would tak so long and said he had a method for doing whole genome shotgun sequencing. Many scientists were skeptical, so he started his own company and just *did it*. Now he has money, fame, and a big name.
You can be sure that if a scientist could disprove global warming he would just *do it* because disproving a scientific consensus gives you a lot more fame than just riding the bandwagon.
How many people remember Einstein for revolutionalising Newtonian physics? How many people remember John Smith from Cottington who published a paper agreeing with Newton?
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
Most of the things you listed there "flourenscent lightbulb manufacturers, solar panel companies, alternative envergy companies," are going to make money regardless of whether or not global warming is a reality. Why? Because they are efficient, and they save people money. They could be sold on that alone, and don't need a climate change scientist to prove the point.
Should we stop believing in anti-biotics research? After all, isn't it all just a giant scheme to make billions for the big pharmas? We keep hearing all this naysaying from scientists about how these big diseases are coming and all this genetic mutation crap, but hey, I feel fine. I won't let those money hungry scientists tell me how to live my life!
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"there is no reason anyone should try to disprove global warming..."
What I mean is, I don't what the problem with global warming is. The Earth, during it's warm periods, is much more habitible to humans and life in general. It is during the cold periods that everyone is suffering. So here's to global warming!
quote:Originally posted by Euripides:
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: And that is where the "science" starts looking more like "Islam."
Have you read it?
Read what? Did you laugh? Because that was damned funny what I wrote.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:What I mean is, I don't what the problem with global warming is. The Earth, during it's warm periods, is much more habitible to humans and life in general. It is during the cold periods that everyone is suffering. So here's to global warming!
Are you being facetious? If not, you're more ignorant than I thought. Global warming means millions (yes, millions) of extinct species, melting icecaps, submerged coastal cities, flooding in certain areas while there are severe droughts in other, violent storms, depleted food supplies, and the subsequent waves of refugees escaping natural disasters, to name a few things. Seriously, why not go see An Inconvenient Truth? If you deem that it's liberal propaganda, then go fact-check it.
quote:
quote:
quote:And that is where the "science" starts looking more like "Islam."
Have you read it?
Read what? Did you laugh? Because that was damned funny what I wrote.
Read the science. No. No, it wasn't.
You've ignored the substance of my past two posts. Why not address them?
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:The Earth, during it's warm periods, is much more habitible to humans and life in general. It is during the cold periods that everyone is suffering. So here's to global warming!
Even if science were able to give me two more hands, I would still not be able to count on all my fingers the number of times that this idea has been fully contradicted for you on this forum alone.
But here's to biogenetic enhancement anyway!
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I have discovered recently that my participation on this forum (as well as a few others) and generally in all the friendly debates I find myself most likely to be engaged in have me taking the angle most diametrically opposite the one exhibiting the most flagrant displays of arrogance and notions of superiority and enlightenment. So I'm learning some things about myself here, and I thank you all for that. I think my entire contribution to any future threads here will basically be along the lines of a suggestion to "get over yourself."
In the last page alone, you tried to link the issue of global warming to eugenics, hitler, and pejoratively to "Islam." You have also demonstrated your inability or unwillingness to comprehend the failures of your positions, even as you continue to assert them. There is more than enough reason why someone would be trying to concuss themselves against their keyboard within two pages of trying to reason with you.
If a bunch of very erudite and well-spoken people on a forum such as this seem to be reliably annoyed and frustrated with you to the point of exasperation or outright ridicule, ask not with whom the fault lies; it lies with you.
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If global warming meant millions of extinct species then those millions of extinct species would already have been killed by previous warming periods.
quote:Should we stop believing in anti-biotics research? After all, isn't it all just a giant scheme to make billions for the big pharmas? We keep hearing all this naysaying from scientists about how these big diseases are coming and all this genetic mutation crap, but hey, I feel fine. I won't let those money hungry scientists tell me how to live my life!
We do keep getting arguments about who's making money off a theory, but it really doesn't have anything to do with who's right. In an earlier post there was something about that anybody who doesn't support man-made global warming is paid off by oil companies. I think Lyrhawn is right. Money doesn't make your right or wrong.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
"If global warming meant millions of extinct species then those millions of extinct species would already have been killed by previous warming periods."
Umm, yes, millions of species have gone extinct in previous warming episodes.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:If global warming meant millions of extinct species then those millions of extinct species would already have been killed by previous warming periods.
Think about this. It does not make sense. If what you are saying is true, then an Ice Age in Earth's history would, after the first time, no longer lead to the extinction of any species later on, because those species would've been killed in the first one.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yes. Unless the ice age was so many millions of years ago that fragile species have had the chance to evolve since then. But our last ice age was only about 10,000 years ago according to Wikipedia.
Paul, you miss the point. If they're extinct, they can't go extinct again.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
quote:Well, yes. Unless the ice age was so many millions of years ago that fragile species have had the chance to evolve since then. But our last ice age was only about 10,000 years ago according to Wikipedia.
Paul, you miss the point. If they're extinct, they can't go extinct again.
Wait a minute...you're addressing the point that an extinct species can't go extinct again? Who on Earth was making that point?
Furthermore, just because a species survived an Ice Age 10,000 years ago and thrived in those 10,000 years since then, does not mean it still retains the traits that helped it survive the first one. That's just silly.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The claim that there are millions of species that survived all previous warming periods and yet will certainly go extinct if we have one more. Species that can't survive one of these fluctuations, or lose that ability to survive in a short period of time like the 1000 years since the Medieval Warming Period or the 8000 years since the Holocene Optimum, all have something in common: they're dead.
[ March 25, 2007, 10:52 AM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't care how erudite you are. A good vocabulary isn't doing too much to keep smart people like Al Gore or any of you from falling prey to the nonsense. And if you think I'm unable to address your arguments, Sam, and am unable to recognize where the real problem is, then you don't recognize why I'm even here in the first place.
Would you argue with a religious fanatic to the point of "concussing yourself against the keyboard"? No? Then why should I? Islam commands it's believers to behead those who refuse to accept their religion. How long before the environazi's start effectivly doing the same?
As Huey Long said, when fascism comes to America, it will come in the name of anti-fascism.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:If global warming meant millions of extinct species then those millions of extinct species would already have been killed by previous warming periods.
Think about this. It does not make sense.
If what you meant wasn't that global warming will drive millions of species to extinction, then maybe you could clarify what you mean.
quote:Originally posted by Euripides:
Global warming means millions (yes, millions) of extinct species,
quote:Islam commands it's believers to behead those who refuse to accept their religion. How long before the environazi's start effectivly doing the same?
I would not hold my breath.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
I draw the analogy because we don't have Muslims running around cutting off heads. But the order stands. Do you think the global warming extremists do not believe that humans who do not fall into line with their beliefs deserve to die for the irreversible damge we are doing to our fragile planet?
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I do think 'millions' of species is perhaps just a wee bit hyperbolic, honestly. Ecosystems aren't that fragile. Say a few hundred, perhaps a few thousand. And, honestly, if climate change knocks out the agriculture of our current bread baskets, then the fate of obscure species of snail darters will be the least of our worries.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Why would you? You're not gonna drown.
I draw the analogy because we don't have Muslims running around cutting off heads. But the order stands. Do you think the global warming extremists do not believe that humans who do not fall into line with their beliefs deserve to die for the irreversible damge we are doing to our fragile planet?
Who are thse "global warming extremists"?
Are you talking about ELF? Or are you hyperbolically referring to every day global warming believers?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:The claim that there are millions of species that survived all previous Ice Ages and warming periods and yet will certainly go extinct if we have one more. Species that can't survive one of these fluctuations, or lose that ability to survive in a short period of time like the 10K years since our last ice age, all have something in common: they're dead.
First of all, as others have pointed out, nobody made such a specious claim.
The vast majority (estimates range from about 96% to 99.9%) of species that have existed on earth have gone extinct, and most of those have gone extinct naturally.
You underestimate the importance of biodiversity in sustaining human life, especially the way it is now. (ever read Guns, Germs, and Steel by the way?) Consider too that the decreasing level of biodiversity is about 1,000 to 10,000 times more severe than it would be naturally, according to the IUCN (estimates range from the conservative 50 to 11,000 - see this short feature article), which maintains a list of threatened species.
Here is a great summary on the state of species extinction and biodiversity. Considering "15,589 species are known to be threatened with extinction" and only "1.9 million species have been described out of an estimated 5–30 million species that exist," 'millions' is not a bad estimate. An excerpt from the document on the importance of biodiversity to humans:
quote:Living organisms keep the planet habitable. Plants and bacteria carry out photosynthesis, which produces oxygen. Trees absorb carbon dioxide, which can help in the fight against global warming.
quote:The monetary value of goods and services provided by natural ecosystems (including gas regulation, waste treatment, and nutrient recycling) is estimated to amount to some 33 trillion dollars per year – nearly twice the global production resulting from human activities.
Many species are of immense value to humans as sources of food, medicines, fuel and building materials. Between 10,000 and 20,000 plant species are used in medicines worldwide.
quote:Currently about 100 million metric tons of aquatic organisms, including fishes, molluscs, and crustaceans, are taken from the wild every year and represent a vital contribution to world food security.
Meat from wild animals (wild meat) forms a critical contribution to food sources and livelihoods in many areas particularly in countries with high levels of poverty and food insecurity. A huge range of species are involved including monkeys, tapirs, antelopes, pigs, pheasants, turtles and snakes.
quote:The diversity of nature helps meet the recreational, emotional, cultural, spiritual and aesthetic needs of people.
This page is another great resource. If you scroll down on the section regarding mass extinctions, you'll see two examples of changing sea levels being the cause of mass extinctions. There is also information there on why biodiversity is being threatened today. Also see this short Nat Geo article.
If it's natural, what's so bad about it? Well, first of all, anthropogenic global warming isn't natural, and even if it was, what makes you so sure that the human race can sustain a population anywhere near the current one when resources are naturally depleted and climate change renders regions uninhabitable or harsh?
Climate change is part of the bigger problem of humanity taking from the earth more than it gives back. Of managing the planet we live on unsustainably. This includes forest loss, pollution, the CFC problem (which we've acted on), overfishing, overmining (open cut mines for example destroy entire mountain ranges), intensive agriculture (plantations for example), what have you.
Now think about what effect we're having on a geological time scale. You know about previous warming periods like the one which occurred during Mediaeval times, so presumably you know that climate change isn't something that happens overnight. But on a geological time scale, it really is overnight. Some of the charts in this document attest to that. Gore's slideshow has a similar graph showing the correlation between carbon emissions and temperature over 65,000 years IIRC; and the spike at the end of the graph takes CO2 levels to way above anything that has naturally occurred.
And why do you ignore my other points? How about flooding and drought? Depleted food supplies? This means starvation, it means the earth not being able to sustain such a large human population, it means regions being rendered uninhabitable for a variety of reasons not limited to flooding. In my area, less rain means not enough drinking water (and it's a current crisis; we're consuming a lot more than we collect) and more fires. The main economic centres of my country would be flooded. Ever been to the Maldives? Might be worth a visit, and take your camera. Your great grandkids might not be able to see it.
Reshpeckobiggle,
quote:Islam commands it's believers to behead those who refuse to accept their religion. How long before the environazi's start effectivly doing the same?
I don't know what you wanted me to laugh at last time, but this really is funny. Even the ELF doesn't kill people (or animals, actually).
quote:As Huey Long said, when fascism comes to America, it will come in the name of anti-fascism.
You have a fetish with throwing that word around, don't you?
Are you unable to respond to my posts Resh? Your 'why should I bother' argument doesn't cut it. You're still here posting medium-length messages, but haven't answered a simple question like 'Have you read the science regarding global warming, which you've decreed to be biased and invalid?'
quote:I don't care how erudite you are. A good vocabulary isn't doing too much to keep smart people like Al Gore or any of you from falling prey to the nonsense.
That's just the goddamned thing. You keep operating on the preassumptive principle that it's all nonsense, but guess which side is making all the convincing arguments.
quote:The claim that there are millions of species that survived all previous warming periods and yet will certainly go extinct if we have one more. ...
First of all, as others have pointed out, nobody made such a specious claim.
quote:Originally posted by Euripides:
Global warming means millions (yes, millions) of extinct species,
I can't find a way that these statements don't contradict each other, so maybe you could help.
[ March 25, 2007, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some species died in previous warmings. Other species will die in upcoming warmings. Its really rather simple.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, Euripides, that's one (more) making that claim. (Unless Paul means there will only be a few, not millions?)
quote:Other species will die in upcoming warmings.
Certainly, and certainly simple: there will be extinctions in any era including times of warming. That is something I don't think anyone will dispute. Euripides was talking about something more than that.
[ March 25, 2007, 10:50 AM: Message edited by: Qaz ]
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
I said that global warming will cause millions of extinctions.
Your paraphrased statement includes the claim that those species about to go extinct have survived all previous Ice Ages. Nowhere is that implied in my statement, and I've addressed natural extinctions in the above post.
You really can't see it?
And I'm assuming that by "don't contradict" you meant "contradict". But so what if they don't contradict? If you say that giraffes have long necks, and I paraphrase you as saying that giraffes have long pink necks, the statements don't contradict. It doesn't mean you believe my paraphrased statement is true.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
There will be some probably large number, some species which have survived previous warming periods, and others which are new species. And some which have survived previous warming cycles by virtue of being in areas which did not warm to a degree that would kill off the species, but in this warming cycle will not have that luck. Etc.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK, I removed references to the Ice Ages. I don't know why it was useful, since the existence of ice ages is not controversial, but they're out.
No, I meant that I couldn't see a way that your statements don't contradict each other. The thing is, these millions of species that will presumably die from the next warming *did* survive previous temperature fluctuations. Some of them were warming periods. If these millions of species can't survive a warming period, then they did not survive the last one. The ones that exist today are the ones that can survive warming periods.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
No, they are the ones that could survive the temperature that existed at their habitat, and the other effects of the warming period (such as flooding) that occured at their habitat.
On top of that, new species are emerging all the time.
Posts: 4112 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Qaz, it's usually poor forum etiquette to go back and change a post without nothing the change in square brackets or the like. It tends to make the subsequent posts make less sense.
Most of the species alive today would have existed during and survived mild warming periods like the recent one in Mediaeval times. Is that what you're trying to say?
Well, what you wrote initially is that they must have gone through numerous ice ages and warming periods (implicitly) as severe as the one about to come. That isn't the case. Once again you're looking at a geological phenomenon on a human timescale. The average lifespan of a species could be somewhere around 10 million years since its first appearance. Climate change has been occurring for much longer.
The climate change about to occur if no policy change is undertaken will be more severe than the Mediaeval Warming Period. Here's another carbon level graph, in case you didn't see the others. And this one makes the relationship between CO2 levels and temperatures rather clear. See how the blue line follows the red line, and how the red line is now clearly breaking the natural pattern and shooting up. The changes we're making to our planet are very sudden considering the lifespan of the planet so far.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I don't care how erudite you are. A good vocabulary isn't doing too much to keep smart people like Al Gore or any of you from falling prey to the nonsense.
That's just the goddamned thing. You keep operating on the preassumptive principle that it's all nonsense, but guess which side is making all the convincing arguments.
Hint: not you
I've heard much more convincing arguments for all this from people much better at this than any of you. Yet somehow, I'm still not convinced! Maybe it's me. I'm just too hard-headed. Or maybe it's the arguments. They're only convincing to the converts. The Jehovah's Witnesses have a hard time figuring out why people don't immediately convert to their utterly convincing arguments. They don't understand that they're only readily apparent to the already converted.
That's why I find Islam a more apt comparison. Ther is no room for debate here! Global warming is real and must be stopped! Any dissent will not be tolerated! Bow down before the will of Gore-- I mean Gaia! Submit! Pay the Jizyah tax, in the form of tax breaks for Prius owners!
"Guess which side is making all the convincing arguments." I'm so surprised that you think your side is more convincing! I wonder if it's the same sort of process for you to make that determination as it is for me when I read Card's article and thought to myself, "wow, that is so true!"
This is why I said what I said in my initial post on this thread. About taking the side most diametrically opposed to the one exhibiting the most self-righteousness and arrogance. That would be the side you are on, Sam.
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:That's why I find Islam a more apt comparison. Ther is no room for debate here! Global warming is real and must be stopped! Any dissent will not be tolerated! Bow down before the will of Gore-- I mean Gaia! Submit! Pay the Jizyah tax, in the form of tax breaks for Prius owners!
Yes, your comparison is perfect, because Islamic culture never debates anything ever and is singularly defined as being unyieldingly, ideologically obsequious towards proclamations on high.
Alternatively: what are you on about. are you really doing what I think you are doing.
quote:About taking the side most diametrically opposed to the one exhibiting the most self-righteousness and arrogance. That would be the side you are on, Sam.
Woo!
Do I get a t-shirt?
"I did not compare global warming support to eugenics and nazis, and all I got was this T-shirt, and I guess I got called arrogant, that's cool i guess"
Posts: 15421 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: This is why I said what I said in my initial post on this thread. About taking the side most diametrically opposed to the one exhibiting the most self-righteousness and arrogance.
And that's why I called it an ad hominem attack. Do you admit that you were wrong about that?
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm going to start a thread dedicated solely to answering that thread, Tom. It will have ClaudiaTherese's name in the title. See you there!!!
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have just read OSC recent World Watch Article on Climate Change and am too angry at him right now to be coherent. I will assume thaty Mr. Card wrote this article in good faith believe the lies which he has been told by others. But even so, a person of Mr. Card's stature has an ethical responsibility to verify the facts before publishing such an article which he has utterly failed to meet. Card is not a climate change scientist and in fact he isn't a scientist at all which is evident from article.
Scott, If you are interested in learning the truth about climate change science rather than defending the position you've taken I would be happy to discuss the details with you. I'd be happy to direct him you to unbiased sources where you can learn the basics of climate change science. I am deeply disappointed that you are publishing peaces of these nature which illustrate only that you know only enough about climate research to be dangerous. Because of your fame as a writer, many people listen to what you say. That gives you an ethical responsibility to speak the truth. An ethical responsibility which you have utterly failed on this issue.
I'll post more details on the factual errors when I've calmed down enough to be rational.
Example 1:
quote:If you pay close attention, you'll find that Global Warming alarmists are not actually saying "Global Warming" lately. No, nowadays it's "Climate Change." Do you know why?
Because for the past three years, global temperatures have been falling.
Oops.
Global Climate Change is the scientific term that has been used to describe the phenomenon known popularly as global warming. The term has been in use at least since the mid 80's. I can't say exactly when the term was coined since the electronic literature data base I just search only goes back 20 years.
I'm not sure where you get the idea that temperatures have been falling for the past 3 years. 2005 was the second hottest year since 1891 (1998 was the hottest). Although 2006 was cooler than 2005, it was hotter than every year since 1891 except 2005 and 1998. It's too early to tell about 2007.
[ March 26, 2007, 10:03 PM: Message edited by: The Rabbit ]
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
OK. If you're claiming that this warming is way hotter than anything that ever happened before, or at least in tens of millions of years, that would at least open the possibility of mass extinctions although it doesn't prove it either.
I was not able to determine from the graph that the increase in temperature followed the CO2 increases rather than the reverse. The scale is too compressed. I looked online for a graph that was more stretched out but could not find one.
Regarding whether the last few years are cooler: I found conflicting claims. Wikipedia's graph showed that they were cooler than 1998 (but warmer than any other year since 1850), but it also showed very little warming 1850-1900, which doesn't match the raw data I used in a program earlier or graphs that I saw elsewhere. However it doesn't matter. 3 years is insignificant. We expect some random variation within such a short time frame.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Qaz, Mass extinctions are already happening without significant Climate Change.
Mass extinctions have happened in the past on several occasions and they never preclude a future mass extinction because evolution is a continueing process. There are millions of species that didn't exist during the last extinction.
But that aside, one key reason that the current Climate Change is expect to cause even more extinctions is the rate at which it is occurring. If the Climate changes over a few thousand years there are chances for species to adapt either evolving or migrating. Rapid Climate change precludes that.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think both sides are engaged in histrionics and overzealousness.
Fact: we are releasing far more carbon in the atmosphere than ever before, barring theorized cataclyzmic events like super-meteor impacts.
Fact: the layers of our atmosphere (most notably ozone) have suffered damage in recent years, and it has been proven that a good deal of it was our (humans') fault.
Fact: we consumer more fossil fuels each consecutive year in the world as a whole.
Fact: regardless of what is causing climate change, it is happening and it is happening fast. Fast as in decades or centuries (depends on who you ask), not millenia.
That's enough for me. My next auto purchase will be a hybrid, and I've been pricing alternative energy providers for a while now. Already using CF lights (and saving money, bonus!). No protests, no waving of hands.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK. If you're claiming that this warming is way hotter than anything that ever happened before, or at least in tens of millions of years, that would at least open the possibility of mass extinctions although it doesn't prove it either.
Please refer to my third last post. Yes, a major and rapid global warming will cause mass extinctions.
quote:I was not able to determine from the graph that the increase in temperature followed the CO2 increases rather than the reverse.
Read up on the basic mechanics of climate change.
quote:The scale is too compressed.
It's "compressed" because it shows thousands of years of data. Of course a major recent increase in CO2 emissions will look like a spike. That's really the point.
quote:I looked online for a graph that was more stretched out but could not find one.
You'll want to look for one that maps temperatures and CO2 levels over the past 30 years. Then the curve won't look so scary. Maybe it will make you feel better.
Posts: 1762 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:You'll want to look for one that maps temperatures and CO2 levels over the past 30 years. Then the curve won't look so scary. Maybe it will make you feel better. [/QB]
I was hoping we could leave that kind of talk to Resh. I will take the high ground and not respond in kind. As you know, my stated interest in a more detailed graph was to find more detail.
Posts: 544 | Registered: Mar 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyr, some CFCs take time to phase out -- refrigerants, especially. You can't realistically demand that everyone go buy a brand new fridge, have the cooling system on any car older than a certain number of years revamped, replace their old AC, etc. Especially since we don't really have perfect replacements yet. We have better refrigerants and better systems (with less refrigerant loss), but replacing the old ones is by necessity a gradual process.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gosh, people are so seeensitive. What was wrong with what Euripides wrote? Snarky tone? That's what keeps things interesting!
Posts: 1286 | Registered: Dec 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I feel like I should respond to this, since I started this thread, but I get tired every time I start reading through it...
Posts: 930 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Reshpeckobiggle: Gosh, people are so seeensitive. What was wrong with what Euripides wrote? Snarky tone? That's what keeps things interesting!
No, that's what keeps things frustrating for those of us who prefer to have civil discussions...
You seem to have a pretty lousy and self-centered definition of "interesting"!
Posts: 409 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:OK. If you're claiming that this warming is way hotter than anything that ever happened before, or at least in tens of millions of years, that would at least open the possibility of mass extinctions although it doesn't prove it either.
It doesn't even have to be hotter; heating up faster could also do it. Species that are able to adapt to slow changes in temperature can be wiped out by rapid changes. But really, you don't even need that. Conditions change in other ways than temperature, after all. A species could have survived the last major temperature cycle because factor X was favourable; now that has changed, the species is more fragile, and a large temperature change will wipe it out. Species interact: A new parasite might have arisen, which likes warm temperatures and wasn't present for the previous cycle. And so on.
With all that said, I still do think that 'millions' is exaggerated.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:With all that said, I still do think that 'millions' is exaggerated.
It's currently estimated that there are 10 million plant and animal species on the plant. There have been 5 mass extinction events in this planets history each of which wiped out over half of the existing species. The largest one wiped out 95% of the species. During the last mass extinction, around 65 million BP, two thirds of all species went extinct. A recent study reported that 70% of biologists believe we are in the process of the 6th mass extinction and that this current extinction event is the result of human activities including but not limited to greenhouse gas emissions.
If these biologist are correct, it is not an exaggeration to expect that millions of species will go extinct. It should be pointed out that greenhouse emissions and the resulting climate change are not the only human activity that is causing animals to go extinct, habitat destruction is probably the biggest contributor at this time. It should, however, also be pointed out that climate change is likely to exacerbate all the other human factors that are leading to the extinction of species.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
