I can also agree with those ideas.Originally Posted by saltydawg
|
|
|
|
|
I can also agree with those ideas.
I'll give one example. There are hundreds.
Do any of you guys like seafood? Crab, Tuna, Shrimp, Halibut? Not to mention all the wonderful local food from the Gulf region?
Gone. Done. Absolutely will NOT be available in 2 to 3 generations. Species and the sub-species that they feed one are dying off. They are losing areas to breed in because of GW and pollution factors.
Have you guys ever heard of the dead zones in the Gulf and in Parts of the Chesapeake, and in others areas of the world? Growing fast. Or the balls of garbage, some the size of small cities, that have been found floating in the Pacific? I only wish I was kidding.
Plus, consumption is forcing too much fishing. Only two things can result. Incredibly high prices with serious cull restrictions, or existinct spieces. Either way, not good.
Sounds like somebody needs to read "State of Fear" and "The Skeptical Environmentalist".
That is pretty serious. I'll ask you again, though. What are you, as an individual who is firmly entrenched in the belief that man is the cause of gw, going to do to stop your dependency on the products created by the processes that produce the gases that are causing gw?
What he said.
9701, seriously, educate yourself with something other than what you want to hear and believe. Sometimes the truth is "inconvenient" as Gore would say. What alta has stated is already happening at an alarming pace. The facts are there, easy to see, and not some made up propaganda by some bozo editorial writer backed by some bozo scientist.
DD, I have done very little to nothing. Switched from a gas guzzler to a more efficient mainly because I have better things to spend my money on other than $2+ gallon gas. We switched light bulbs to those economical kind in our home mainly because my child has breathing problems that I blame on the coal burning plant located nearby. Also, the same reason I won't string Christmas lights or burn any other unnecessary light in my home. I figure every ounce of coal I save from being burned will not end up as pollution to make her problems worse.
The most important thing I can think of is having leadership in this country who actually believes in manmade global warming and will steer the country (and the globe) in the direction of solutions. We are smart enough and capable enough to prevent this environmental disaster, but it starts with leadership with a vision to move us to those solutions. Two more years of this is administration is two too many in my opinion.
Dogtor, Timothy Ball claims that CO2 is not causing global warming and yet he doesn't explain what is. Don't you find that a bit strange?
From the article:
These climate changes are well within natural variability and explained quite easily by changes in the sun. But there is nothing unusual going on.
DD, thanks for pointing that out to me. Unfortunately, that statement is NOT true.
We have a long historical record of the effect the changes of the earth's orbit has on our climate. According to where we are in those cycles, we should be headed into a period where the average global temperature is DECREASING.
The solar output has been more or less constant the past 50 years.
The biggest change has been the increase in atmospheric CO2, a known greenhouse gas. The historical records shows that as the climate changes with the orbital controls, atmospheric CO2 levels affect global temperatures.
Thousands of climate scientists say that atmospheric CO2 is causing our current global warming but a handful says it is something else. Reach your own conclusion.
That's interesting. I'm not going to try to counter what you say because as I've said, I haven't read enough about it, but according to the link the Dogtor posted, that climatolgist mentions the fact that CO2 isn't even a greenhouse gas. According to what I interpretd from reading that article, the gw scientists accepted that CO2 was a factor for gw without having proof of it and still don't. If there is hard definitive proof that this expert is wrong, then why would he come straight out with such bold statements that can be definitively proven false? The same goes with the whole gw debate. If the arguments for gw or so definitively provable, then why would real scientists risk their reputation giving information that can be proven false without a doubt. Is there any research available that proves without a doubt that CO2 is, in fact, a greenhouse gas?
DD, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is well established. The greenhouse gases are what keep the earth warm. While CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, if it were all removed the average global temperature would be 12F. Venus has an atmosphere that is mostly CO2 and its surface temperature is very, very hot, about 1400F if I recall correctly.
Timonthy Ball looks to be senile. The other scientists who speak against gw just want the publicity or industry $$$$.
Here is a link for some educational material for grades 6 thru 8. The kids today are getting a lot better science than I did!
http://cmaps.coexplorer.net/servlet/...tName=htmltext
DD, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is well established. The greenhouse gases are what keep the earth warm. While CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, if it were all removed the average global temperature would be 12F. Venus has an atmosphere that is mostly CO2 and its surface temperature is very, very hot, about 1400F if I recall correctly.
Timonthy Ball looks to be senile. The other scientists who speak against gw just want the publicity or industry $$$$.
Here is a link for some educational material for grades 6 thru 8. The kids today are getting a lot better science than I did!
http://cmaps.coexplorer.net/servlet/...tName=htmltext
Where do the gw scientists get their funding?
Isn't Venus also alot closer to the sun? What is the temperature of Mercury? How do we know that Venus' atmosphere is mostly CO2 because of how hot it is and not vice versa? How do we know that the elevated CO2 levels we have in the atmosphere aren't a result of higher temps on Earth because of a hotter sun cycle instead of higher temps on earth because of higher CO2 levels? Also, where is the literature pointing to the proof that Co2 is a greenhouse gas?DD, that CO2 is a greenhouse gas is well established. The greenhouse gases are what keep the earth warm. While CO2 is a tiny part of the atmosphere, if it were all removed the average global temperature would be 12F. Venus has an atmosphere that is mostly CO2 and its surface temperature is very, very hot, about 1400F if I recall correctly.
Timonthy Ball looks to be senile. The other scientists who speak against gw just want the publicity or industry $$$$.
Here is a link for some educational material for grades 6 thru 8. The kids today are getting a lot better science than I did!
http://cmaps.coexplorer.net/servlet/...tName=htmltext
i agree that if earth had a 100% CO2 atmosphere it would not be as hot as Venus because Earth is further from the Sun. Likewise, if Mars has a cold temperature because it is further away from the Sun and doesn't have any CO2 in the atmosphere. Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere because it is so close to the Sun.
Yeah, where is the proof in the literature that homo sapiens is an intelligent creature. Prove that if you can!
So are you saying there is no definitive scientific testing proving that CO2 is a greenhouse gas?i agree that if earth had a 100% CO2 atmosphere it would not be as hot as Venus because Earth is further from the Sun. Likewise, if Mars has a cold temperature because it is further away from the Sun and doesn't have any CO2 in the atmosphere. Mercury doesn't have an atmosphere because it is so close to the Sun.
Yeah, where is the proof in the literature that homo sapiens is an intelligent creature. Prove that if you can!
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
