climatic changes, what do you think about that?

[Journeyman 0]

Ehhhh, what?

If it wasn't self-leveling there would be no such thing as life on this planet.

Jesus Red Kite, you are killing me!

Or maybe you simply believe God is responsible for climate regulation!?  

The two things that make life possible on our planet are the atmosphere and the moon. The atmosphere keeps us at a temperature that can sustain life while the moon stops us from wobbling out of orbit and loosing our 24hour day/night regularity. But sustainable does not mean that global temperatures and climate in general remain at a level constant. There will always be big ups and downs. Some things will survive while others won’t. Just take a look at history. Open your eyes or do some studying you might even learn something new!

I appreciate that being told that there maybe an alternative truth to the constant propaganda that we are being fed is a hard pill to swallow and I accept it affects some folk differently to others!  

[Commando84 0]

I belive this is a big issue and we need to do something about it but i think its more likely we will adapt to the changes and slowly halt it. and btw al gore got nothing to do with climatic stuff. i think its more likely that people will have to leave earth to find a new home cause the sun is dying out or that creepy alien invaders attack us or the natural resources and space on earth will get too thin.

[chops 111]

If the SCIENTIFIC community is 90% sure about the greehouse effect and climate change, surely we should take action, given the catastrophic nature of the predicted results of inaction. We should change our habits anyway, the risks of not doing so are too great, even if the small chance it's not the result of CO2 emissions turns out to be true.

The scientific community is 90% behind any continued research that keeps them employed.

How many were you expecting to say, er no it's all a complete load of codswallop please cut my funding and allow me to find a nice job in MacDonalds.

What? I think you'll find there have been oceanographers and climatologists for a long time before the current global warming debate. It's absurd to suggest that there's a great conspiracy on the part of the global science community, to do what? Keep their jobs?

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Ehhhh, what?

If it wasn't self-leveling there would be no such thing as life on this planet.

Jesus Red Kite, you are killing me!

Or maybe you simply believe God is responsible for climate regulation!?

The two things that make life possible on our planet are the atmosphere and the moon. The atmosphere keeps us at a temperature that can sustain life while the moon stops us from wobbling out of orbit and loosing our 24hour day/night regularity. But sustainable does not mean that global temperatures and climate in general remain at a level constant. There will always be big ups and downs. Some things will survive while others won’t. Just take a look at history. Open your eyes or do some studying you might even learn something new!

I appreciate that being told that there maybe an alternative truth to the constant propaganda that we are being fed is a hard pill to swallow and I accept it affects some folk differently to others!

Ehhh... But if the climate system on this planet wasn't made up by a huge amount of buffers, the climate would go BANANAS!

If you would open your eyes and ears and READ what I posted and READ what yourself posted, you might learn something new

Edit, cut it out in paper, here is an example of what might be the most important buffer system that regulates the athmosphere and thereby the climate on Earth:

Oceanic Carbon diaxide buffer.

"The crustal Urey cycle of CO2 involving silicate weathering and metamorphism acts as a dynamic climate buffer. In this cycle, warmer temperatures speed silicate weathering and carbonate formation, reducing atmospheric CO2 and thereby inducing global cooling. Over long periods of time, cycling of CO2 into and out of the mantle also dynamically buffers CO2. In the mantle cycle, CO2 is outgassed at ridge axes and island arcs, while subduction of carbonatized oceanic basalt and pelagic sediments returns CO2 to the mantle. Negative feedback is provided because the amount of basalt carbonatization depends on CO2 in seawater and therefore on CO2 in the air."

Which basically means, the more CO2 in the air, the faster it can be absorbed into the ocean. The simple reason is because of the pressure difference. Like any other diffusion the diffusion speed will be the gradient of these two. The system will try to maintain balance.

The problem comes, when the buffer system will get too slow compared to the concentration in the athmosphere. Too bad it doesn't stop here, though. As the CO2 rise in the athmospheare is slowed down due to this buffer, the CO2 concentration in the ocean is much higher than ever before. This means a change of the chemistry layout of our oceans.

The following qoutes are from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (Noaa).

Quote[/b] ]This may have slowed global warming, but it also led to a change in seawater chemistry.

According to Richard Feely, of Noaa, and his colleagues, that might make life pretty hard for some shell-forming marine animals.

Corals, pteropod molluscs and some plankton (single celled organisms) pull carbonate ions from the seawater to produce their calcium carbonate shells.

NOAA ship, courtesy of Richard A. Feely

The 10-year survey was an international effort

But, as the CO2 concentrations in the water increase, the carbonate ion concentrations decrease.

This means the animals lack the materials with which to build their shells.

And in areas where CO2 concentrations are particularly high, Professor Feely's team claim, the animal's shells can actually begin to dissolve.

"Based on our present knowledge, it appears that as seawater CO2 levels rise, the skeletal growth rates of calcareous plankton will be reduced - as a result of the effects of CO2 on calcification,"

Further more, the co2 buffer system of the ocean has saved us so far, but the ocean generally mix badly, which means that it isn't the entire ocean that is affected by the CO2 concentration, it is actually only the 10% top layer of it. It will take thousind of years to mix the entire sea. This means that the CO2 buffer system is already slowing down, rendering it pretty useless in the future. Not in many years, the top layer of the ocean will be so acid, that only very few animals can live in it, and the athmosphear will be full of CO2 as well. It's the beginning of a slow oceanic death followed by the rest of the planet as many animals (including humans) use the oceanic ressources to survive.

Quote[/b] ]"On the time scale of several thousand years, it is estimated that about 90% of the anthropogenic CO2 emissions will end up in the ocean," said Professor Sabine.

But the key word here is "thousands" of years. In the shorter term, as the surface waters become more saturated, the ocean may become a less efficient sink for CO2.

Red Kite (and others human-generated global warming critics), don't you worry about what the CO2 rise can cause to our planet? Don't you worry that in the last 30 years, the CO2 rise have been the eqvalent of your average iceage?

Take a look on this graph of CO2 levels the past 400.000 years:

[Journeyman 0]

Red Kite (and others human-generated global warming critics), don't you worry about what the CO2 rise can cause to our planet? Don't you worry that in the last 30 years, the CO2 rise have been the eqvalent of your average iceage?

I don't worry no because nothing I have read or seen (including your snippets) causes me alarm! Co2 is a natural life essential element. We are all made of co2, all life is made of co2, and without co2 we would NOT exist! It is the environmental scaremongers that have made this life essential element into something evil!

Like I said very early on in this debate study has shown that there is a new period of global warming under way. To somehow think that A) we are responsible for it and most importantly B) that somehow we can halt it is just pure fantasy (Or rather a convenient story for the protagonists of this new industry! )

We would be doing far more justice to the people and our future if resources were aimed at helping those to cope with change rather than fruitlessly trying to prevent it!  

If I was to base all my findings on that one graph alone I might be concerned, but when you look back at other events and compare it alongside other graphs it doesn’t stand out that much at all. And as I said earlier the science of co2 is sloppy at the best of times! It simply does not explain events in history. Looking at the WHOLE picture is the hardest part and that is what I try and do!  

[simba 0]

Hi all,

Quote[/b] ]I don't worry no because nothing I have read or seen (including your snippets) causes me alarm! Co2 is a natural life essential element. We are all made of co2, all life is made of co2, and without co2 we would NOT exist! It is the environmental scaremongers that have made this life essential element into something evil!

this isn't a valid point, many things that are excellent nature can be dangerous in too large quantities.

Quote[/b] ]Like I said very early on in this debate study has shown that there is a new period of global warming under way. To somehow think that A) we are responsible for it and most importantly B) that somehow we can halt it is just pure fantasy (Or rather a convenient story for the protagonists of this new industry! )

following your logic we will be fucked in 50 years for 2 reasons.

- no more petrol.

- max of co2 in atmosphere

then we will start thinking of what we gonna do ?

reducing up to 50% co2 emission will have a very noticable impact in the future.

I'm shocked how shortsighted people can be.  

Quote[/b] ]We would be doing far more justice to the people and our future if resources were aimed at helping those to cope with change rather than fruitlessly trying to prevent it!  

prevent or heal !!!

It has been said millions of time that fighting global warming will cost much more than prevent it.

Quote[/b] ]Looking at the WHOLE picture is the hardest part and that is what I try and do!  

try to know the best thing to do, or look for the best thing to do nada ?

[Sennacherib 0]

Quote[/b] ]following your logic we will be fucked in 50 years for 2 reasons.

- no more petrol.

- max of co2 in atmosphere

it's partially the truth.

for the petrol:

oil will have become very expensive, because it will be increasingly difficult to extract. because it will have become rare.

about the co2:

this is also a reality. but the problem is not only co2, but also destruction of the forests, of the barriers of coral, and a massive addition of others gazs harmful in the atmosphere which destroy the ozone

[karantan 0]

Yeah, people all narrowing down to that CO2. But there're also many other things like mentioned above, and freons and all that shit ,,, Some indicators are suggesting that the proccess is already irreversable, and that it can happen that in four-five (300 years) generations all will be over, and I mean GAME OVER for the human kind.

[Kode 0]

Yeah, people all narrowing down to that CO2. But there're also many other things like mentioned above, and freons and all that shit ,,, Some indicators are suggesting that the proccess is already irreversable, and that it can happen that in four-five (300 years) generations all will be over, and I mean GAME OVER for the human kind.

Just like any other life before... also 300 years is more like 10 generations.

We are all speaking of accurate data here. But even the graph is not accurate. How can we base global warming on something that shows only 400k years while earth has had at least 165 million year of life(and so also a lot of changes). Lot's of life has stopped, new has come.

Don't forget that earth has been warmer then today, even the oceans have been higher then now. but still life was possible...

Now if you know that the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is about 0.035%. Is it possible that a "small" change can have such a huge impact on temperature?

Somehow, nobody ever discussed differences in space yet, although I mentioned them a couple of times. They are rather useful. For example when comparing venus and earth. Venus' atmosphere has almost 100% CO2. Although, it isn't 10000 times hotter then earth. Venus is an example of how it went wrong, as there is nothing left of water that once was there.(And don't say woman came from venus and industry was incredibly advanced, but that they produced huge amounts of CO2 which caused venus to become uninhabitable)

An interesting site perhaps: global warming on venus in perspective

Fact is, every planet, everything is still changing. In nature there is no constant.(There is perhaps for a certain period,but it will always change)

And fact is that no scientist wants too lose their funding.

Don't forget that the earth once was flat(although their was proof) and after that that the planets and the sun were turning around our planet. This is the same story(in my opinion).

[4 IN 1 0]

1/3 of human killed by killer virus

1/3 of human killed by war and related aftermath

and mother nature take care of the rest

sounds about right for me, maybe the "fallout" war is coming?

[AgentJonathan 0]

I think that the scientists are exaggerating the subject... they leave out facts such as it being one of the coolest starts to summer that Arizona, USA has had in along time...

They leave out several facts like that up there...

[AgentJonathan 0]

global warming is a fucking lie made up by stoopid redneck democrats like al gore and hilary clinton

they just make this BS up so they can say bush isn't doing jack shit bout it but it doesnt even exist

AND DONT TELL ME ABOUT THE POLAR BEARS

they prolly went to antartica with a blow dryer and melted some iceburgs

Hubert Reeves is also a stupid redneck?  

and it's true, the polar bear is in danger. if this specie disappears, that would be a huge loss for us.

but animals are not the only ones to be in danger. i take an example; the people of the Tuvalu islands undergo increasingly violent floods, and the level of water goes up in an alarming way. this is the same thing for the Kiribati islands.

2030 if nothing change 28% of the species (plants and animals) will have disappeared.

2100: maybe our specie.

Who in the world cares for polar bears? I feel, bad for them, I do... BUT! You, me, and no-freakin-body can save them...

And with all due respect, I don't think you can adopt these creatures or else you might find yourself missing a head...  

Finally, Why would you care for living? What do you think will happen afterwords? Nothing... No more misery... No more anything...

Even if this crap is true, those who gave their hearts to Jesus Christ will be raptured, and brought to heaven amidst the peace, and safety, while the world burns to the core...

This ought to imply that I think that this whole deal won't affect me, because I'll be in heaven... And the world won't ever burn to the core...

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

global warming is a fucking lie made up by stoopid redneck democrats like al gore and hilary clinton

they just make this BS up so they can say bush isn't doing jack shit bout it but it doesnt even exist

AND DONT TELL ME ABOUT THE POLAR BEARS

they prolly went to antartica with a blow dryer and melted some iceburgs

Hubert Reeves is also a stupid redneck?

and it's true, the polar bear is in danger. if this specie disappears, that would be a huge loss for us.

but animals are not the only ones to be in danger. i take an example; the people of the Tuvalu islands undergo increasingly violent floods, and the level of water goes up in an alarming way. this is the same thing for the Kiribati islands.

2030 if nothing change 28% of the species (plants and animals) will have disappeared.

2100: maybe our specie.

Who in the world cares for polar bears? I feel, bad for them, I do... BUT! You, me, and no-freakin-body can save them...

And with all due respect, I don't think you can adopt these creatures or else you might find yourself missing a head...

Finally, Why would you care for living? What do you think will happen afterwords? Nothing... No more misery... No more anything...

Even if this crap is true, those who gave their hearts to Jesus Christ will be raptured, and brought to heaven amidst the peace, and safety, while the world burns to the core...

This ought to imply that I think that this whole deal won't affect me, because I'll be in heaven... And the world won't ever burn to the core...

Now the polar bears, next the fishes in the oceans, then people in African cant fish anymore, they die of starvation etc.

It's not about the polar bears, it's about the global ecology.

[Necromancer- 0]

Polar bears also eat seals -> seals eat fish.

More seals -> less fish.

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Polar bears also eat seals -> seals eat fish.

More seals -> less fish.

It's not that simple

more fish > more bigger fish

more bigger fish > less fish

[AgentJonathan 0]

I eat fish, yet there are so many left...

Exactly as I said: "I don't think that you would care what happens to the world if your dead."

[Marines 0]

Is global warming occuring? - Yes it is, however, no definitive answer can be be brought forth to answer said question.It honestly amazes me how ignorant the vast majority of you are.

From increased solar flare activity, to the Sumatra quake and the subsequent shift in the planets axis by .3 degrees. So many of these events play a major role in a shifting climate. And while the human race does play a part, nothing will ever change the fact that water vapor, the single largest contributer to greenhouse gases, will remain as such. So what's the plan now? Should we cover every single last body of water on the planet in plastic to avoid said evaporation?

[Espectro (DayZ) 0]

Is global warming occuring? - Yes it is, however, no definitive answer can be be brought forth to answer said question.It honestly amazes me how ignorant the vast majority of you are.

From increased solar flare activity, to the Sumatra quake and the subsequent shift in the planets axis by .3 degrees. So many of these events play a major role in a shifting climate. And while the human race does play a part, nothing will ever change the fact that water vapor, the single largest contributer to greenhouse gases, will remain as such. So what's the plan now? Should we cover every single last body of water on the planet in plastic to avoid said evaporation?

Water vapoir haven't incriesed the past 30 years as opposed to other greenhouse gasses, such as CO2. So water vapoir is a constant, something else is shifting the balance.

Noone really knows what to do, and which changes are to be made. Perhaps nothing is possible, but we have to try. If we keep doing what we are doing now, CO2 will incriese exponentially as the ocean co2 buffer become saturated. Then the small fishes wont be living there, which means that eventually the bigger animals die on the land.

[Sennacherib 0]

I eat fish, yet there are so many left...

Exactly as I said: "I don't think that you would care what happens to the world if your dead."

lol, i suppose, that you want to have children in the future. do you want to see your children live in a world of disasters.

and please keep for you, your religion. this is not the subject.

[Baff1 0]

Polar bears also eat seals -> seals eat fish.

More seals -> less fish.

It's not that simple

more fish > more bigger fish

more bigger fish > less fish

It's this simple.

Man > polar bear. Man > seal. Man > fish. Man > bigger fish.

Man eats fish and bigger fish and anything that competes for him for hunting grounds or agricultural land is due for extinction.

Polar bears are cute. So are Wolves, Tigers, Elephants and all the rest.

Goodbye. No one will miss you.

A lot of people with no personal experience of them will say they will miss them, but not mean it enough to actually adopt one

[Baff1 0]

If we keep doing what we are doing now, CO2 will incriese exponentially as the ocean co2 buffer become saturated. Then the small fishes wont be living there, which means that eventually the bigger animals die on the land.

Any species that dies will be replaced by another more suited to the change in enviroment.

One species extinction is another species expansion.

The big species on land will adapt their diet to best capitalise on the available resources, whatever they maybe.

No fish = lots of scrummy new plankton recipe's to try.

[NeMeSiS 11]

If we keep doing what we are doing now, CO2 will incriese exponentially as the ocean co2 buffer become saturated. Then the small fishes wont be living there, which means that eventually the bigger animals die on the land.

Any species that dies will be replaced by another more suited to the change in enviroment.

One species extinction is another species expansion.

The big species on land will adapt their diet to best capitalise on the available resources, whatever they maybe.

No fish = lots of scrummy new plankton recipe's to try.

However this takes time, animal x cant replace the polar bear/sheep/wolf/bird/whatever in just a day after its extinction, so the whole structure may be distorted..

EDIT: And as someone already said: Human > all, so in the end everything that happens can affect us in one way or another. No polar bears->too many seals->no fish->no birds->no animals that eat birds and fluffy animals->world overrun by fluffy animals that normally would be eaten->fluffy animals eat all our crops->no bread/vegetables/whatever and you are forced to eat your plankton for the rest of your life. While that may look like a good idea to you, i still want to eat some plankton on bread, as 'fluffy animal barbecues' get boring after a while.

And yes, the above scheme is quite ridiculous, but nature is complicated and everything may affect everything is some way. And with Humans > everything it may very well affect us.

[Baff1 0]

Man can replace the bears place in the food chain on the very same day it dies. With a minute or two if he likes.

And if man, natures largest control on the seal population, chooses not to, sharks and whales still will.

The amount of time it takes is organic. The bears don't all suddenly die on the same day, gradually their dominance gets weaker and as their influence wanes another rises.

It's a simultaneously occouring process.

[Baff1 0]

No polar bears->too many seals->no fish->no birds->no animals that eat birds and fluffy animals->world overrun by fluffy animals that normally would be eaten->fluffy animals eat all our crops->no bread/vegetables/whatever and you are forced to eat your plankton for the rest of your life.

No polar bears -> too many seals -> not many fish -> not many seals or fish -> many fish, not many seals -> many fish and many seals -> not many fish, many seals -> not many fish or seals -> not many seals, many fish etc etc etc.

This is the balance of nature.

Bears are top predators. They aren't especially relevant to the food chain.

Animal farming is when we feed our crops to little fluffy animals. Their ability to process our crops into humanly digestable protein is superior to our own.

We don't want any other predators eating all the fluffy animals.

Talking of which, I can hear foxes outside, got to go protect me fluffy sheepies!

[NeMeSiS 11]

No polar bears->too many seals->no fish->no birds->no animals that eat birds and fluffy animals->world overrun by fluffy animals that normally would be eaten->fluffy animals eat all our crops->no bread/vegetables/whatever and you are forced to eat your plankton for the rest of your life.

No polar bears -> too many seals -> not many fish -> not many seals or fish -> many fish, not many seals -> many fish and many seals -> not many fish, many seals -> not many fish or seals -> not many seals, many fish etc etc etc.

This is the balance of nature.

Which we are unbalancing by fishing more then those seals could ever eat, polluting the water and detroying enviroments in general.

And ofcourse my example was ridiculous (already said that, and i dont see the world being consumed by rabbits ), still, nature is so complex that small distortions could have big outcomes, and if you want to play it safe then its best to try not to change too much.