MonteZuma Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 And all that carbon in the atmosphere just magically appeared there for it to absorb? As long as the speed of change is spread out over many years nothing especially bad will happen...There are 5 major reservoirs of carbon on Earth. The atmosphere, vegetation, soils, oceans and fossil fuels. Carbon has never moved from one reservoir to another as fast as it is happening now. What should take millions of years is happening in tens of years. This is much faster than species and ecosystems can adapt. Not to mention the impact of rising sea levels. Uh huh. The whole global warming idea has been discounted.The global warming theory is becoming more widely accepted every day. Switch on your tv. Its all over the news atm. But the medieval warming period theory has been knocked on the head. [deleted sarcasm and clap-trap] So you say that the science is questionable and ask what the ramifications are in the same breath?Yes. Google up "Precautionary Principle". That is the prudent course of action when risks and uncertainties are very high. I, along with almost every scientists on Earth thinks that there will be a negative impact, but that impact is difficult to quantify. I didn't say it would be bad for the enviorment. I said it wouldn't help. It lets developing countries with more polluting rights sell some of their unused pollution to countries that need more. It means we pollute as much as we do today, and the 3rd worlds get rich off of making the enviorment just as bad as it is now (again, !@#$%^&*uming there is a problem).Third world countries don't have the capacity to do something about it. First world countries do. Look up nuclear fission.You think uranium mining and nuclear waste is environmentally neutral? They are both environmentally harmful.
MonteZuma Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 evolution...you can see rapid changes due to mutations by experiments done on fruit flies within weeks or months but I believe Mont was referring to humans which would take hundreds and thousands of years which would probably be correct. Besides 70% of our geno sequence is related to carrots (correct me if im wrong) and 98% to chimpsExactly. Random mutations occur all the time, but many highly evolved forms of life will become extinct if temperatures or sea levels rise. Polar bears are the classic example. But that is just the tip of the iceberg - so to speak. Research published in the Journal Nature paints a very gloomy picture. >clicky<
MonteZuma Posted February 18, 2005 Report Posted February 18, 2005 One to five degrees in 100 years? I think we humans can handle that even as we are now. No evolution required. Evolution works as fast as it needs to.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>This is the most ignorant comment I've ever heard in relation to this issue. A five degree change in one hundred years would be an environmental and humanitarian disaster of a scale never seen before.
MonteZuma Posted February 19, 2005 Report Posted February 19, 2005 This is one of those "It won't bloody happen in my lifetime" deals.It's sad we have the ability to kill ourselves, put since I honestly believe we are a product of pure evolution (Without the oversight of a creator) It's something that happens.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>Its something that we can control. But, if you don't care what happens to the next generation, or late in your life, then party on. I don't think you need to be a creationist to care about what happens later.
»Ducky Posted February 19, 2005 Report Posted February 19, 2005 I only meant it in the form of, some creationists actually believe that we will be altered to fit these slight changes. How that can be even remotely true, I haven't the slightest idea But yea.. When I am dead, I am dead.Selfish like that On a side note though, I am not AGAINST helping the environment, I do my part by not littering, carpooling and otherwise voting on issues I care about. I just won't go out of my way drastically to make changes.
SamHughes Posted February 19, 2005 Report Posted February 19, 2005 ok I'm not understanding how they are saying that the if the ice caps melt that the oceans will flood. Is it just me or last time I checked it was ice that had more density compared to water therefore they would ethier stay the same or fall a bit. Like ice in a cup the water rises when you add a piece <{POST_SNAPBACK}> You are mis-informed. Water is denser than ice, which is why the ice floats on top. As a result of the Archimedian principle, if you melt an ice cube that is floating in water, the water level will not change. But if you melt an ice cap that's sitting on land (Ã la Greenland and Antarctica), all that water runs into the ocean.
Dr Brain Posted February 19, 2005 Report Posted February 19, 2005 Monty, you just made yourself look like an idiot. Everyone else but Akai can probably see it. Because you're dominating the thread and don't make sense, I'm out again. Cya in a few threads.
Phyran Posted February 19, 2005 Report Posted February 19, 2005 evolution...you can see rapid changes due to mutations by experiments done on fruit flies within weeks or months but I believe Mont was referring to humans which would take hundreds and thousands of years which would probably be correct. Besides 70% of our geno sequence is related to carrots (correct me if im wrong) and 98% to chimps One to five degrees in 100 years? I think we humans can handle that even as we are now. No evolution required. Evolution works as fast as it needs to.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> within the human species our geno sequence varies within 1% it can never be greater or less than 1% of variation and if it is thats a whole new species
MonteZuma Posted February 19, 2005 Report Posted February 19, 2005 within the human species our geno sequence varies with 1% it can never be greater or less than 1% of variation and if it is thats a whole new species I think Dr Brain's geno sequence varies more than 1%
Dav Posted February 20, 2005 Report Posted February 20, 2005 evolution...you can see rapid changes due to mutations by experiments done on fruit flies within weeks or months but I believe Mont was referring to humans which would take hundreds and thousands of years which would probably be correct. Besides 70% of our geno sequence is related to carrots (correct me if im wrong) and 98% to chimps One to five degrees in 100 years? I think we humans can handle that even as we are now. No evolution required. Evolution works as fast as it needs to.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>evolution just works, if the cahange in environment is rapid enough then evolution cant keep up and mamny species will perish. Evolution is a very slow process, it works because genrally the environment changes slowly. There are many arguments that the world will hat up anyway, and it probably will but we are speeding up the process and much of the life on earth wont be able to handle the climate changes that will result. That one to five degree change could cause massive problems, ice caps melting, gulf streem shutting down... it may be a small temprature change but we dont want to know what happend next. You seem to be stuck in the age old argument of "it wont make any diffrence to us" but experts predict that by something like 2040 if we dont sort things out methane from under the sea bed will be releaced and at that point there is not second chance because the effects will be irreversable.
Sass Posted February 22, 2005 Author Report Posted February 22, 2005 Yes dav thanks for your infinite wisdom. As you have proved, evolution is extremely slow....look how long everyone has been trying to get you to hit the right keys on that keyboard of yours. Monte, you went and pissed off Dr Brain again. lol what now....I'll have to read up soon.
MonteZuma Posted February 22, 2005 Report Posted February 22, 2005 Monte, you went and pissed off Dr Brain again. lol what now....I'll have to read up soon.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Well....I guess you could always take his side (in a devil's advocate kinda way) and kick start things again. Surely there is something in all that verbage that I have posted that you disagree with??!!
Sass Posted February 23, 2005 Author Report Posted February 23, 2005 Actually you got a free p!@#$%^&* on this one for four reasons: a. I am passIONATELY concerned about our environment even down to the local level. I have been !@#$%^&*isting with local agencies just hunting illegal dumpers. Nasty crew that is. b. I spoke to Dr Brain about his views on the environment and determined that he is better off speaking about anything non-environmentalist. ....in other words I disagree with his 'leave it till tomorrow when we will build new and perfect fixes to today's problems' thinking. c. Both AUS and US didn't sign Kyoto but don't have an alternative to fix global level environmental issues. Economics are nothing when your world is buried in trash. d. You changed your member !@#$%^&*le. thanks!
Dav Posted February 24, 2005 Report Posted February 24, 2005 Yes dav thanks for your infinite wisdom. As you have proved, evolution is extremely slow....look how long everyone has been trying to get you to hit the right keys on that keyboard of yours. Monte, you went and pissed off Dr Brain again. lol what now....I'll have to read up soon.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> is it really neccacary to bring that up in each and every replay? you will always get extreemests on both sides, i know somone in the student room opposite me that will never turn their radiator on to save energy (he is doing an environmental science degree) whilst a management student down the hall leavs his on all the time and his light on whilst at lectures.
Sass Posted February 25, 2005 Author Report Posted February 25, 2005 This post was previously nothing but a personal insult. -Aileron
Aileron Posted February 28, 2005 Report Posted February 28, 2005 Sorry for the massive editing of posts, but this topic was beginning to look like a flamewar. Bad grammer aside, Dav kinda has a point. The environmental issue is filled with a lot of radicals. On one side you got heavy industrialists who don't give a crap about their employees let alone the environment, and on the other you got environmental radicals who oppose all progress, even to the point that the environment might suffer in the end. Example: the replacement of fur with polyester...fur is a renewable resource the collection of which can actually benefit the species in a small way, making the critters evolve smarter. Polyester on the other hand comes from oil, a non-renewable resource the collection of which destroys environments. Strangely enough, its the politicians who are in the middle, though if you asked an industrialist or an environmentalist they would say otherwise.
MonteZuma Posted February 28, 2005 Report Posted February 28, 2005 My post was not a personal insult. Try not to go overboard with the editing Aileron.
MonteZuma Posted February 28, 2005 Report Posted February 28, 2005 Example: the replacement of fur with polyester...fur is a renewable resource the collection of which can actually benefit the species in a small way, making the critters evolve smarter. Polyester on the other hand comes from oil, a non-renewable resource the collection of which destroys environments. Strangely enough, its the politicians who are in the middle, though if you asked an industrialist or an environmentalist they would say otherwise.<{POST_SNAPBACK}>You are probably right, but the ingredients are only one part of the environmental problem. I've never investigated this issue, but the environmental footprint of fur manufacture might actually be larger than for polyester if you take into account the energy and resources required to make the product. On a separate note, I'm not sure that polyester is a replacement for fur. Because of the difference in quality and price, I'm not sure that fur will really be subs!@#$%^&*uted for polyester or vice versa. Most people that buy polyester would probably never have been interested in fur - and v.v.
Dav Posted March 4, 2005 Report Posted March 4, 2005 some fabrics are renewable and artifishal, those are the way foward.
MasterDrake Posted March 6, 2005 Report Posted March 6, 2005 Just read a article in news times about Nanotech google it up says it could be a cure to the global warming if it is real that is.
Dav Posted March 6, 2005 Report Posted March 6, 2005 Could be is the opperative point, they also suggested dumping tons of green algae in the atlantic a while back. And global warming is around us, the evedance to support it is overwhealming.
Phyran Posted March 8, 2005 Report Posted March 8, 2005 Could be is the opperative point, they also suggested dumping tons of green algae in the atlantic a while back. And global warming is around us, the evedance to support it is overwhealming.<{POST_SNAPBACK}> if i remember correctly green algae are like plants...uses oxygen at night...too much of it will choke the ocean of all oxygen...fishes and other living things will die
Recommended Posts