Global Warming Poll
- Thread starter WHITE DEVIL
- Start date
global warming is once again made up by liberals to scare us into thinking the end of the world is coming.
in the last 100 years (the time that nearly all the pollution has occured) the average global temperature has increased by 1 degree F. You cannot tell me that 1 degree could significantly effect the polar ice caps. if there is global warming, the world would not see it for another million years in which surely we some other superpower or asteroid or something will take us all out
in the last 100 years (the time that nearly all the pollution has occured) the average global temperature has increased by 1 degree F. You cannot tell me that 1 degree could significantly effect the polar ice caps. if there is global warming, the world would not see it for another million years in which surely we some other superpower or asteroid or something will take us all out
Well, we know that the temperature has risen 1 degree in the last 1 hundred years because the balance of scientific evidence suggests that our use of coal, oil and natural gas for energy has had a direct impact on the world's climate. The concentration of carbon dioxide (a key greenhouse gas) has increased 35 percent in the atmosphere since industrialization.
Climate increase of around 4 to 5 degrees can be devastating. A basic understanding in Science is very important comrade.
Climate change will directly effect many species; when the ocean temperatures in the North Pacific rose 6 degrees Centigrade above normal in 1997, local salmon populations crashed.
-Coral reefs around the world have been severely damaged by bleaching induced by warmer ocean temperatures. During bleaching, corals lose their symbiotic algae, and coral death can follow soon after. 1998 saw the highest incidence of coral bleaching on record. (For further information, visit WWF).
-Loss of wetlands
-A sea level of one metre would threaten half the world's coastal wetlands of international biodiversity importance.
-A 3-4 degree C warming could destroy up to 85 per cent of the remaining wetlands in semi-arid southern Europe.
-Under global warming forests will move north, displacing the Arctic tundra, which is the breeding area for millions of Arctic water birds. A 40 per cent loss of tundra would mean that 4 to 5 million geese and about 7.5 million Calidrid waders could lose their habitat. The worst affected birds are likely to be the already critically endangered Red Breasted Goose, the Tundra Bean Goose, the Spoon-Billed Sandpiper, and the Emperor Goose.
-Even with a mild global increase in temperature of 1.7 degree C, these birds would lose more than 50 per cent of their habitat. A more radical warming of 5 degree C would destroy 99 per cent of the habitat of the Red Breasted Goose.
-To cope with a warming of 2 degrees C over a century, species at mid-latitudes would have to shift about 400 km towards the poles, or climb about 400m uphill. Such migration rates are difficult to achieve.
-Trees with wind-born seeds can move at most 100-200 km a century, but most deciduous species such as walnut, chestnut and oak can move only 10-15 km a century.
-Global warming has already caused probable extinctions. The only known population of golden toad (Bufo periglenes), discovered in the Monteverde cloud forest, of Costa Rica, has have not been seen since 1986-87 after very low rainfall and high temperatures during an El Niño event. Some 20 out of 50 amphibian species went locally extinct at around the same time.
Climate increase of around 4 to 5 degrees can be devastating. A basic understanding in Science is very important comrade.
Climate change will directly effect many species; when the ocean temperatures in the North Pacific rose 6 degrees Centigrade above normal in 1997, local salmon populations crashed.
-Coral reefs around the world have been severely damaged by bleaching induced by warmer ocean temperatures. During bleaching, corals lose their symbiotic algae, and coral death can follow soon after. 1998 saw the highest incidence of coral bleaching on record. (For further information, visit WWF).
-Loss of wetlands
-A sea level of one metre would threaten half the world's coastal wetlands of international biodiversity importance.
-A 3-4 degree C warming could destroy up to 85 per cent of the remaining wetlands in semi-arid southern Europe.
-Under global warming forests will move north, displacing the Arctic tundra, which is the breeding area for millions of Arctic water birds. A 40 per cent loss of tundra would mean that 4 to 5 million geese and about 7.5 million Calidrid waders could lose their habitat. The worst affected birds are likely to be the already critically endangered Red Breasted Goose, the Tundra Bean Goose, the Spoon-Billed Sandpiper, and the Emperor Goose.
-Even with a mild global increase in temperature of 1.7 degree C, these birds would lose more than 50 per cent of their habitat. A more radical warming of 5 degree C would destroy 99 per cent of the habitat of the Red Breasted Goose.
-To cope with a warming of 2 degrees C over a century, species at mid-latitudes would have to shift about 400 km towards the poles, or climb about 400m uphill. Such migration rates are difficult to achieve.
-Trees with wind-born seeds can move at most 100-200 km a century, but most deciduous species such as walnut, chestnut and oak can move only 10-15 km a century.
-Global warming has already caused probable extinctions. The only known population of golden toad (Bufo periglenes), discovered in the Monteverde cloud forest, of Costa Rica, has have not been seen since 1986-87 after very low rainfall and high temperatures during an El Niño event. Some 20 out of 50 amphibian species went locally extinct at around the same time.
If anybody has ever taken biology (and paid attention), one of the fundamental concepts we were taught is that "Nature will always be in balance (i.e. equilibrium)" If we don't take proactive measures (we being the gov't and big corporations) then as Nefar559 said, "its a problem that will be fixed my mother nature"
What kind of changes should be introduced? And are only "some" changes sufficient to combat the effects of global warming or are more drastic measures required?
Basically. The first thing of primary importance would be DRAMATIC reductions in the use of fossil-based fuels (oil, coal, natural gases..), but seems highly unrealistic in the near future. The eventual ending of oil would perhaps give an incentive to seek alternative energy sources, but will it be too late then?
---
Discussion about the needed changes might prove fruitless, though, when some people still refuse to acknowledge that global warming is reality and will have adverse effects, and others "don't give a fuck".
Basically. The first thing of primary importance would be DRAMATIC reductions in the use of fossil-based fuels (oil, coal, natural gases..), but seems highly unrealistic in the near future. The eventual ending of oil would perhaps give an incentive to seek alternative energy sources, but will it be too late then?
---
Discussion about the needed changes might prove fruitless, though, when some people still refuse to acknowledge that global warming is reality and will have adverse effects, and others "don't give a fuck".
Would "alternative" sources of fuel, though, pollute as much or more? Can we ever find a fuel that is 100 percent clean?
Even if the Forward-looking or economically well-off countries all adopted alternative energy sources, would places like Mexico and China still contribute major pollution? I think so.
And the fact that people still believe it is a hoax is fucking mind-boggling. We truly (Americans) do live in an Idiot Nation.
Even if the Forward-looking or economically well-off countries all adopted alternative energy sources, would places like Mexico and China still contribute major pollution? I think so.
And the fact that people still believe it is a hoax is fucking mind-boggling. We truly (Americans) do live in an Idiot Nation.
Well, "renewable energy sources" aren't really pollutive but they cannot really be properly utilized so that they alone would keep up with the energy consumption of today. Western countries use up a lot of energy because energy has in a sense become the measure of the quality of life. So, overall consumption should be decreased enormously and countries should strive for "sustainable development" and not constant "economic growth" as is the macroeconomic objective of all countries. It is needless to say that a system based on constant growth, on unrenewable resources will NOT guarantee a better future.
But when it boils down to it, it's all about political interests.
You also have to think about the aspect international competition and world trade. Rich and industrialized western countries compete with each other while basically exploiting third world countries. The structure of world trade is twisted and as a result we get a raped world and billions of ruined lives. Moreover, it is extremely difficult to affect this existing structure. In my opinion, herein lies the most serious problem, as the short-term interests of industry do not coincide with the interests people.
Third world countries will obviously continue to increase pollution to keep up with increasing population etc IF the structure of world trade remains the same and western countries do not co-operate with and help the nations instead of exploiting them.
Sorry, was bit of a rant. ugh
But when it boils down to it, it's all about political interests.
You also have to think about the aspect international competition and world trade. Rich and industrialized western countries compete with each other while basically exploiting third world countries. The structure of world trade is twisted and as a result we get a raped world and billions of ruined lives. Moreover, it is extremely difficult to affect this existing structure. In my opinion, herein lies the most serious problem, as the short-term interests of industry do not coincide with the interests people.
Third world countries will obviously continue to increase pollution to keep up with increasing population etc IF the structure of world trade remains the same and western countries do not co-operate with and help the nations instead of exploiting them.
Sorry, was bit of a rant. ugh
Cold Fusion - 1 gallon of water can run a car as far as 300 gallons of gasoline, do a google search and read about it. Underfunded and discovered in 1989 - the power was silenced and reduced as a myth, many scientific studies have provided real direction for this power, but the government gives all of its money to the research of hydrogen instead...