Printable View
"Polar bears are strong swimmers; they swim across bays or wide leads without hesitation. They can swim for several hours at a time over long distances. They've been tracked swimming continuously for 100 km (62 mi.) (Stirling, 1988 )."Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
source: http://www.seaworld.org/infobooks/Po...aptations.html
You know there was this thing on Tv the other day that says that all the polution that we have caused as most likely only played 1% to the causes in the chage of climate.
These scientists said that the world has naturally changed like this because it goes through climate changes every once so often. The facts and figures actually backed up this theory really well and shut the green people up.
sigh, i cant wait to make a "I told you so" thread in 20 years
How far is "that far"? The photo doesn't show the whole story. For all we know, land is right out of view. And yes, they can swim quite some distance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bonsay
Exactly. That's why there's the eras known as "Ice ages" and "the little ice age".Quote:
Originally Posted by NeAvO
What always makes me laugh is the knowledge that - in the early seventies - there was a bunch of do-gooders holding "Global Cooling" rallies. They had the signs, the rhetoric, the hate, the whole nine yards. The world was going to plummet into the frozen abyss within only a few short years and it's all our fault.
But, what has really happened is that those same protesters are the ones crying "global warming". They always jump to conclusions based on short-term trends and completely ignore long-term cycles and the fact that all of this has happened before: repeatedly. And without any Human intervention whatsoever.
What I've learned is that facts and common sense play no part in the rants of those with political motives or their blind followers. After all, "We only want to save the world". "How can such good intentions be so misguided?"
Well you're right. But I thought the distance from where it was to that piece of land in the background. I didn't want to estimate, because I'd fail .Ofcourse there could be land right behind the photographer, but I assumed there wasn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
Same =PQuote:
Originally Posted by Snooze
But i remember back a few years there were estimates the "immense flooding will have happened by 2010...
Has it even started?? >.<
I was talking to my bro about global warming today and he said he read an article about how the UK could go into a deep freeze. I'll explain, many of you in the UK may have noticed slight increase in temperature in the summers and the winters are starting to show less snow in some areas, so your probably saying "how the hell can we go into a deep freeze with all this hot weather?" well first off if you were to put a ruler across the world map so it went through the UK and all the upper parts of the world like Russia and North Canada you will see that Russia and North Canada contain alot of snow whilst we in the UK remain at a fairly normal temperature, well apparantly we get our warm air from the Gulf Stream which provides a flow of warm water which warms the air and surrounds most the UK, however apparantly if say Greenland was to melt very quickly there would be a supple of colder water covering the Gulf Stream which will cool the flow of air and basically after a while shut the Gulf Stream down which would leave only cold air coming towards the UK thus giving us snow. This seems understandable and to be honest i think i'd prefer snow and cold to overpowering heat, and i could go snowboarding. Interesting stuff though.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lucid Seeker
Medieval warm period.
Whether the whole global warming thing is caused by man or not (or even happening) isn't even the point, to me. I think ANY excuse to get the world to cut down on pollution is worth the controvercy - whether backed up scientifically or total BS.
i bet the picture was taken from land
Totally agree. The only problem however, is that how do you define "pollution"Quote:
Originally Posted by Tornado Joe
Hell, if we were to crack down on all greenhouse gases we'd have to consider water a pollutant.
Yeah, I see what you mean. It's a bit of the "chicken and the egg" scenario. Will the water be less polluted if we concentrate on cleaning the air(acid rain falling into lakes, rivers)? Or will the air clean up if we concentrate on cleaning up the water (water evaporating into clouds)?Quote:
Hell, if we were to crack down on all greenhouse gases we'd have to consider water a pollutant.
I dunno - but we got some pretty fuckin smart people out there with great ideas, though. It's a matter of whether they can keep them big oil and car industries from buying them out and locking all their inventions in a vault somewhere to keep profiting from crude energy. :?
I'm not sure I can find a link this moment but, I've heard from plenty of credible media sources - with FACTS - over the span of the past few years that: The mean (average) global temperature of the Earth has risen 0.7 degrees Celsius over the past 100 years.
I don't know about you guys but, a 0.7 degree Celsius change over a century doesn't sound unusual, unexpected, unnatural, or alarming. That sounds like no reason for panic - at all.
When you put things in perspective you start to realize that the whole "global warming" scare is just that: a scare. It's a political movement, not an honest scientific endeavor.
EX: The Sun has more effect on our temperature trends than anything we've ever done or could do. Every single solar storm effects our magnetosphere which, in turn, effects short-term weather patterns.
Actually it is very alarming, especially considering the projections for further increase. A tiny temperature change can have a huge impact, and there is every reason to believe the change will be progressively less tiny in the coming years. There is a very well put together explaination of the effects here: Effects of Global Warming. Yes, I know it's just Wikipedia, but it's well written, and has 106 independant references to external data and reading.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
There is much to be gained politically and financially from denying the existence or importance of global warming, but I can't think of anything to be gained by trying to stop it except a healthier planet.
Actually, there is FAR more to be gained from the scare tactics being employed. And there's no denying that a temperature is taking place. The argument is the cause. And I will not accept the Al Gore "An Inconvenient Truth" BS. That's politics and nothing more. I'll read your link later.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
This is temperature increases of the earth
not atmospheric changes
The human body has a core temperature of 37ºC (± 0.5ºC)
Hypothermia (cold) sets in when the core temperature decreases below 35ºC
Hyperthermia (hot) sets in when the core temperature increases above 38ºC
An increase of 0.7ºC in the earths surface temperature is a significant change
Bear in mind that soil below a metre keeps a fairly constant temperature
(one reason why building foundations have a minimum recommended depth - as this prevents water freezing around the pads)
Anyway, I suggest you have a read through the link I posted earlier
as this does give an insight into a lot of the questions you're asking
http://environment.newscientist.com/.../earth/dn11462
Such as?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
I love the way whenever someone posts something supporting the claims of global warming, the thread dies....
Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
Alright, here's a few examples of the benefits that the GW activists are banking on:Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
First of all, keep in mind that it's a liberal, left-wing movement. That explains a lot right there but I'll point out a few things they hope to achieve with this whole "let us save the world-fest". The left gains their power from creating a "culture of dependence", whereby every one is expected to come running to the government for salvation: It's about power.
They profit hugely in the form of fees, taxes and fines: It's about money.
It's a rally to try to bring movements like the animal rights and environmentalist to the forefront. Don't get me wrong, I have nothing against "doing the right thing" but tear-jerking and guilt-placement doesn't solve anything. It only raises money for misguided foundations: It's about liberal political causes.
As I said earlier, it's yet another way to increase the size and stranglehold of government: It's about the advancement of socialism.
Politicians run on these types of platforms to give the impression of compassion and "good intentions": It's about personal political advancement.
The two things it's NOT about? Common sense and REAL science.
Because you don't understand how politics works.Quote:
Originally Posted by skysaw
I find this staggering, I really do
This is worse than the anti-evolution people
(at least they have the excuse of being impressionable young'uns in sunday school)
This isn't a "safe the world" issue
the world will be fine, and has gone through a lot more in it's time than this
ultimately, it's a "safe us" issue
(whether that be our existence, or our standard of living, depends on how effectively we deal with the issues)
We (and, indeed, other life we depend on) are a lot more fragile than the earth
Honestly, there are so many missteps of logic in your post, it's hard to know if it's worth getting into details. I will focus on one in particular, however:
Who exactly IS doing real science in your opinion?? Please name one respected scientific organization whose opinion is that global warming is not real. I can't think of any, but perhaps you can. Make you a deal, though... for every one you name, I will name twenty who say it is real.Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaught
No, this is nowhere close to that bad.. Here both sides have "scientific backing". Exept one side doesn't and is just making stuff up >.<Quote:
Originally Posted by Ynot
So it comes down to: who's facts do you trust?
I choose to follow the anti-global warming because of this: higher temperature causes the oceans to release C02 due to basic solubility principles. This is the only fact that I can personally confirm or refute and I'm sticking with it =O
This carbon/temperature cycle is natural (as can be seen by the graphs) and I don't think human-made carbon dioxide has that big of an effect on the climate.
I'm quite relieved that there's so many people who've questioned global warming, actually...
By the way, can those in the pro-GW lobby please stop chanting mindless mantras such as 'open your eyes' and the like, we're trying to have a serious discussion here.
As far as I can tell, warming precedes major CO2 increase. Well yes, I think virtually all statistics show that in fact. Therefore, it is temperature which is the causal factor, and solar output in turn determines temperature.
You know the guy who realised the incredibly strong correlation between solar output and climate behaviour? I believe he repeatedly out predicted the MET office, and made some nice wagers, too.
It's pretty obvious that there's a huge economic drive for the warming theory. The press make a fortune from each new fear story, there's hundreds of people employed for the panel on Climate Change etcetera (who, take note, would all be redundant if they were to say that there is in fact no evidence for us causing the warming, so it's pretty stupid to use them as an unbiased source of information), and I think also the fact that our governments can tell us that we're cutting our oil use to help save the planet instead of telling us that we have 25 years of life with oil left, which would cause mass panic, also plays a significant part.
On a similar note, I think all of these 50 years reduction plans are ridiculous. Of course we'll have lowered our CO2 output by 2060; there'll be nothing left to burn. :|