01 Jan 07
Originally posted by Acemasterhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution#Misunderstandings_about_modern_evolutionary_biology
Because the earth isn't that old. Now we are entering into the theory of evolution which is another topic that I don't mind debating.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming#Historical_warming_of_the_Earth
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
01 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by AcemasterCrop yields do not depend on tempature alone. More Co2 would help plants cope with the toxins in the air.
Crop yields do not depend on tempature alone. More Co2 would help plants cope with the toxins in the air. Co2 will not raise the temperature much, if at all, and will not hurt.
As for methane, since gases rise it will take Co2 out of the air. Of course, if there aren't enough cow farts to for you to smell it when you pass by, then there isn't enough to hurt the enviroment.
- Can explain why this is the case please, sounds like nonsense to me.
Co2 will not raise the temperature much, if at all, and will not hurt.
- Wrong, depending on how much CO2 we put into the atmosphere, temperatures will rise different amounts; and these rises can bring some dangerous problems of their own.
6 degrees celcius extra may not sound like much to you, but at this level it would bring very dangerous consequences.
As for methane, since gases rise it will take Co2 out of the air.
- That is just retarded.
Of course, if there aren't enough cow farts to for you to smell it when you pass by, then there isn't enough to hurt the enviroment.
- Methane is odorless you idiot.
For the moment methane is causing about 20% of global warming.
01 Jan 07
Originally posted by AcemasterHurrr. Nicely done idiot.
Because the earth isn't that old. Now we are entering into the theory of evolution which is another topic that I don't mind debating.
The age of the Earth isn't the Theory of Evolution. They are two seperate concepts neither of which you understand.
No wonder you can't seem to get your head around global warming.
01 Jan 07
Originally posted by shavixmirGood news -- they're not as "endangered" as you and other global warming alarmists seem to think:
George W. Bush wants the polar bear to be put on the "endangered species" list, because its environment is melting...
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=14015
01 Jan 07
Originally posted by AcemasterAgreed -- I'm sure the farmers in Siberia will prefer the longer growing season.
Where have you seen these figures?
CO2 levels may be rising, but we should look at this as a blessing. It won't hurt us as much as it will help us. Higher CO2 levels mean better plant life. As for methane, that doesn't hurt the enviroment. The New Zealand governmnent's economy was crashing, so they needed something more than just cars to tax. So they started taxing cow farts. (I'm not joking! They really did!)
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
01 Jan 07
1 edit
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterOpologies - I seem to be repeating myself...
Agreed -- I'm sure the farmers in Siberia will prefer the longer growing season.
You see because of the CO2 emissions we have already dumped in the atmosphere we have already committed oursleves to some warming, and the related affects.
But at the higher temperatures there will be comparably much more damage done than done by lower increases in temperature.
Consider the idea that moderate warming would damage crop yields in places like Africa, but increase them in places in Canada.
But increasingly higher temperatures will have increasingly damaging affects on Africa, as well as places further north like Canada.
You see crop yields depend on the temperatures.
Think of it like a hill: you walk up the hill, increasing in temperature, but also in crop yield - you reach the optimum temperature at the top.
You continue walking, down the hill, the temperature continues to increase, but crop yields are falling, you have gone beyond the optimum temperatures for your crops and so your crop yields suffer.
You can also think of it like a rainbow.
This is why the higher temperatures global warming would cause (if we do nothing) is such a bad thing.
-
Furthermore, temperatures will be not spread out equally; there will be more warming the further north (or south of the equator) you go, basically if the higher temperatures occur, eventually it will bring a negative impact to these northern places anyway.
Whilst places closer to the equator will suffer more of course.
Moderate warming may well be a good thing, but at the higher temperatures it will be bad; and if we continue as we are we will be pushing into these damaging temperatures.
01 Jan 07
Originally posted by stockenAll scientists are not in agreement on this matter:
Ok, I've read a little about it now. Let's see if I got this right. The global
warming, greenhouse effect, is not really in question. All scientists are in
agreement that this is happening. ...
http://desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061230/OPINION04/61229035/1035/OPINION
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oregon_Petition
- Joined
- 23 Jul 05
- Moves
- 8869
01 Jan 07
Originally posted by der schwarze RitterPerhaps in the short term, but in the long term where do you expect the polar bears to go: when all the ice melts?
Good news -- they're not as "endangered" as you and other global warming alarmists seem to think:
http://www.ncpa.org/sub/dpd/index.php?page=article&Article_ID=14015
01 Jan 07
Originally posted by scottishinnzI kinda figured that tropical trees would be better for using Co2. Bigger leaves and all. And the fire thing was probably a good point, I don't think people give that much consideration. I guess I was hoping for
Depends where the trees are. Tropical trees are typically good sinks for C, temperate ones less good. Of course, if the wood is burned then that releases CO2 to the atmosphere. Does that answer your question?
some numbers or something.