Discussion: Global Warming and Other Environmental Issues

Status
Not open for further replies.
So, there are Sharks in polar waters that are an Apex predator?
Yeah??? I could even mention Killer Whales but I don't want to scare the children.

But, if they have no ice to live on, they will swim to land and eventually make their way to our beaches.
 
So, there are Sharks in polar waters that are an Apex predator?
Sharks that live in colder/deeper water tend to be a bit sluggish, but they can grow to be very large. The Greenland Shark grows to (I THINK) more than 20 feet long and has been found with one full reindeer in the stomach of one specimen (not intact, of course).

Whether it's an apex predator, I don't know. I don't think there are many animals that would mess with a 20'+ shark, save perhaps a polar bear (which are known to eat Beluga Whales).

Holy Thread Derail, Batman!
 
Last edited:
I was watching the discovery channel the other day and they were talking about men dissapearing in Alaskan rivers. Come to find out, the Greenland shark has been spotted swimming in some of the rivers! So I wouldn't doubt that they have eaten some humans.
 
I was watching the discovery channel the other day and they were talking about men dissapearing in Alaskan rivers. Come to find out, the Greenland shark has been spotted swimming in some of the rivers! So I wouldn't doubt that they have eaten some humans.
That would be a major discovery considering their range is limited to the Atlantic Ocean and Arctic Oceans around Greenland and near Europe. Then again my source was only published in 2005, so maybe.
 
Based on...what? Your vast scientific knowledge?

Did you know that sunspot cycles only operate in periods of 9 to 14 years? That hardly explains a more-than-century-long trend of warming.

If we are in a more-than-a-century long trend of global warming, why did scientists believe we were facing an ice age a few decades ago? Explain how the scientific community was wrong then and how it's different now.


There is still a strong (even dire) environmental need to reduce our carbon emissions even if the issue of climate change is ignored. Nobody can deny that, for reasons I've already stated in this thread. So that "scam" is ultimately leading us in the right direction.

Prove this to me.
 
Like polar landscapes eroding faster than they have previously, given ice core samples? Or the drowned Polar Bears?

Everything dealing with the Artic. (Ice, wildlife, landscape.)
 
In my opinion, the first thing that needs to be taken care of....and will take care of the majority if not all of these environmental problems would be slow the population doubling rate...because until you do that....all the environmental reforms etc....will no absolutely no good in taking care of the problems we face today.
 
Are you suggesting an implementation of asian child restrictions?
 
In my opinion, the first thing that needs to be taken care of....and will take care of the majority if not all of these environmental problems would be slow the population doubling rate...because until you do that....all the environmental reforms etc....will no absolutely no good in taking care of the problems we face today.

Well, if we get Obamacare, more Americans will die on waiting lists for treatment, so that should lower the population (here, anyway). :hehe:


:csad:
 
Our population is not the problem, we had our first increase in 2007 since the baby boomers, we for the most part are at a Zero Population Growth....our increase is due to immigration.

I'm talking about the 2 most pollutant countries out there besides us.....India and China.
 
If we are in a more-than-a-century long trend of global warming, why did scientists believe we were facing an ice age a few decades ago? Explain how the scientific community was wrong then and how it's different now.
They were led to believe that based on data for the past climate patterns of the earth. According to the data, if the earth is following the general pattern indicated, we should be entering an ice-age. That was the basis of their findings, as well as an immediate cooling trend that ultimately didn't last. It's the deviation from this pattern that causes concern. It's entirely possible that if not for our carbon emissions, the earth would be entering an ice-age.

If we're lucky, the cooling trend will win out, and it will give us time to get our **** together. :up: That is, assuming that model was at all accurate.


StorminNorman said:
Prove this to me.
High school chemistry, Norman. What do you get when you combine carbon dioxide and water?
 
Last edited:
They were led to believe that based on data for the past climate patterns of the earth. According to the data, if the earth is following the general pattern indicated, we should be entering an ice-age. That was the basis of their findings, as well as an immediate cooling trend that ultimately didn't last. It's the deviation from this pattern that causes concern. It's entirely possible that if not for our carbon emissions, the earth would be entering an ice-age.

That is an interesting reading of the situation I had no considered before.
 
Our population is not the problem, we had our first increase in 2007 since the baby boomers, we for the most part are at a Zero Population Growth....our increase is due to immigration.

I'm talking about the 2 most pollutant countries out there besides us.....India and China.

Ahhh...gotcha.
 
It should be noted that Mars' atmosphere is more than 90% carbon dioxide.
Yes I can tell, especially by the "carbon dioxide ice caps".

Those who try to debunk this, use a different argument.
 
Yes I can tell, especially by the "carbon dioxide ice caps".

Those who try to debunk this, use a different argument.
Debunk what? What was I trying to "debunk" exactly? I'm not denying that they're melting (actually, they're not melting, I'm fairly certain they're sublimating). Maybe you're confused about what the word "debunk" means?

Maybe I'm interpreting this post incorrectly?

:huh:
 
Last edited:
Second warmest June on record
The globe recorded its second warmest June on record, 0.02°C short of the record set in 2005, according to the National Climatic Data Center. The period January - June was the fifth warmest such period on record. Global temperature records go back to 1880. The most notable warmer-than-average temperatures were recorded across parts of Africa and most of Eurasia, where temperatures were 3°C (5°F) or more above average. The global ocean Sea Surface Temperature (SST) for June 2009 was the warmest on record, 0.59°C (1.06°F) above the 20th century average. This broke the previous June record set in 2005. The record June SSTs were due in part to the development of El Niño conditions in the Eastern Pacific. If El Niño conditions continue to strengthen during the coming months, we will probably set one or more global warmest-month-on-record marks later this year. The last time Earth experienced a second warmest month on record was in October 2008.

June sea ice extent in the Arctic 4th lowest on record
June 2009 Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent was the 4th lowest since 1979, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. The record June low was set in 2006. This summer's melt is lagging behind the melting in the summer of 2007, which set the record for the lowest amount of summer sea ice in the Arctic. Forecasts of summer Arctic sea ice melt made in early June by two teams of German scientists put the odds of a new record sea ice minimum this year between 7% and 28%. With the amount of sunlight in the Arctic now on the wane, it appears unlikely that we will set a new record sea ice minimum in 2009. This year will probably have the 2nd or 3rd least sea ice extent on record come September, when the melting season ends. The ice-free seas that nearly surround Greenland now have contributed to temperatures of 2 - 3°C above average over the island over the past ten days. With clear skies and above-average temperatures likely over most of the island for at least the next week, we can expect near-record July melting over portions of the Greenland Ice Sheet this month.

Northwest Passage likely to open for the third consecutive year
The fabled Northwest Passage is more than half clear now, and has a good chance of melting free for the third consecutive year--and third time in recorded history. The first recorded attempt to find and sail the Northwest Passage was in 1497, and ended in failure. The thick ice choking the waterways thwarted all attempts at passage for the next four centuries. Finally, in 1905, Roald Amundsen completed the first successful navigation of the Northwest Passage. It took his ship two-and-a-half years to navigate through narrow passages of open water, and his ship spent two cold, dark winters locked in the ice during the feat.

We can be sure the Northwest Passage was never open from 1900 on, as we have detailed ice edge records from ships (Walsh and Chapman, 2001). It is very unlikely the Passage was open between 1497 and 1900, since this spanned a cold period in the northern latitudes known as "The Little Ice Age". Ships periodically attempted the Passage and were foiled during this time. The Northwest passage may have been open at some period during the Medieval Warm Period, between 1000 and 1300 AD.
 
Ethanol just became a whole lot more viable in my book. If they can advance ethanol production from cellulose, it would nullify all of my previous objections (which mostly involved the use of corn to produce ethanol...a terrible idea). Of course, it isn't a permanent solution environmentally, but so far as reducing our dependence on foreign oil, I'm all for it.
 
Why I am concerned with environmental issues and I try to do my part, I am 100% against the organic food movement. I think it is possibly one of the most stupid ways of life that has risen in the past century. It is idiotic and I cannot believe that people subscribe to it.
 
Why I am concerned with environmental issues and I try to do my part, I am 100% against the organic food movement. I think it is possibly one of the most stupid ways of life that has risen in the past century. It is idiotic and I cannot believe that people subscribe to it.

But it's organic, so it must be good for you. Like anthrax, snake venom and the plague.
 
What's your problem with it? No one is taking away your food. It effects you in no way.



Unless you just hate the people who subscribe to it.



:thing: :doom: :thing:
 
I could care less if you have a garden in your backyard, but people that are trying to convert this country into organic is stupid. I also love that the people that buy organic for the environment do not realize that the animals that produce fertilizer that by law can only be used on their growing food produce methane, which is far worse than carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas, and they produce a lot of it. What is funny is that these same people argue against raising live stock because it takes away from precious land that could be used to grow grain for the world's starving!

Switching over to organic will also cause more starvation than we already have as productivity will decrease dramatically. Thus, causing billions to starve. It also is stupid to want to go back to an agrarian system that was used centuries ago. Fertilizers, pesticides, and genetic engineering has made our food productivity go through the roof.

Well, but pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and genetic engineering will give us cancer! What is funny is that the American Cancer Society and the FDA have found no cancer causing agents or evidence to support that claim in today's chemicals that we use to grow and maintain our crop system.

Lastly, people claim to buy organic to support your local farmers when in fact, the major supplier of organic food today are huge corporations such as Dean Foods. Also, China is a major exporter of organic foods to the US. Do you really know what standards China has set concerning organic food production? Do you want food from a place with mediocre health regulations in your mouth? What is even funnier is that when you go to the market, you really can't tell a difference. It is also one of the few things that you can pay more for getting less. Studies have shown that non organic foods taste better and last longer as compared to organic.
 
Organic movement is ******ed. Not even considering all of the small independent farmers who can't afford to "go organic" that get pushed out by huge mega-corporations
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"