May 28, 2007, 06:02 PM | #26 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 11, 2005
Location: austin
Posts: 735
|
Quote:
|
|
May 29, 2007, 09:23 AM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2005
Location: Houston area
Posts: 1,823
|
Quote:
Springmom
__________________
I will not be a victim home on the web: www.panagia-icons.net (my webpage) www.nousfromspring.blogspot.com (Orthodoxy) "I couldn't hear you. Stop firing the gun while you're talking!" Frank Drebin, The Naked Gun |
|
May 29, 2007, 11:02 AM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Posts: 2,745
|
It is correct to point out the difficulty of making precise predictions decades out. However, there is a big distinction to be made here - the task is not to predict for example, the weather in Cleveland on Tuesday, October 15, 2051, which would be impossible. The task is, for example, to predict the global average temperature for the year 2051. That is a very different task and while difficult, it is certainly approachable.
There really is no serious debate that the greenhouse effect exists (radiation physics or chemistry for those so inclined) and is what keeps the earth much warmer than it would otherwise be (this can be directly calculated), nor that the greenhouse effect is due to greenhouse gases, principally carbon dioxide and methane (can be established by the known absorption spectra and atmospheric concentrations), nor that the earth is warming due to increased concentrations in greenhouse gases (can be seen directly in measurements), due principally to the activities of man (can be deduced from known anthropogenic sources, such as the burning of fossil fuels for energy and transportation). So the earth *is* warming, and it's going to get worse. The place where the debate really is, is on the predictions of how much worse it will be, decades out. The early models showed relatively poor agreement with data, but the latest models are actually quite impressive. Of course, even if the models were 100% accurate, no one can still tell exactly what the global average temperature will be in 2050 - because we may do something differently between now and 2050. That is the whole point of the debate - what should we be doing differently to avoid negative consequences?
__________________
“Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.” Niels Bohr |
May 29, 2007, 12:49 PM | #29 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 26, 2005
Location: Houston area
Posts: 1,823
|
Of course, Mars is also seeing a global warming trend, according to some recent data. And I don't think they have a greenhouse gas problem... maybe it's something else?
Either way, I hope the OP gets his polar bear hunt. Not sure I'd have the nerve for it, but it would be worth the money (if you HAVE that much!) to do it. Springmom
__________________
I will not be a victim home on the web: www.panagia-icons.net (my webpage) www.nousfromspring.blogspot.com (Orthodoxy) "I couldn't hear you. Stop firing the gun while you're talking!" Frank Drebin, The Naked Gun |
May 29, 2007, 01:42 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 28, 2004
Location: Silicon Valley, Ca
Posts: 7,117
|
Polar Bears -- probably the top predator on the planet. Any animal that can take on and kill a 2,000 lb bull walrus, kill it and haul it out from the edge of the water 300 yards inland is not to be trifled with.
Hmmm... I recall reading that since the Ulysses and SoHo satellites were launched in the 90's information from them, combined with information from ground observations of the sun have indicated a 4% increase in solar intensity over the last 25 years. Solar specialists and climatology experts think the sun is going through a cycle of "increased activity" that may last a few more decades. According to one scientist, it is irresponsible to claim anthropomorphic causes for climate changes without studying the impact of a thermonuclear furnace that is over 330,000 times the mass of earth only 93 million miles away. Of course, all of this is irrelevant since we all know that man is responsible for any changes to climate.
__________________
BillCA in CA (Unfortunately) |
May 29, 2007, 10:14 PM | #31 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Posts: 2,745
|
Well, quoting from the recent educational report issued by the National Academy of Sciences, regarding the possibility of attributing recent warming to variation in solar forcing:
Quote:
See: http://dels.nas.edu/basc/Climate-HIGH.pdf P.S. It's not just the National Academy of Sciences that holds the officially stated consensus opinion that they believe that the earth is warming and that it is due to man's activities. We can also add: - National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council - American Meteorological Society - American Geophysical Union - American Institute of Physics - American Astronomical Society - American Chemical Society - American Association for the Advancement of Science
__________________
“Never express yourself more clearly than you are able to think.” Niels Bohr Last edited by CarbineCaleb; May 29, 2007 at 10:58 PM. |
|
May 30, 2007, 10:01 AM | #32 |
Member
Join Date: May 29, 2007
Posts: 15
|
if only dinosaurs and wooly mammoths had been on the endagered species list......
if a species cant hang, they get weeded out. what good does people saving them do if they cant live on their own?
__________________
when guns are legal they can be expensive, when illegal they are priceless |
June 4, 2007, 12:55 PM | #33 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 21, 2005
Posts: 571
|
Playboy
Playboy penguin, your opinion of trophy hunting may be based on personal opinion, but not on fact. I am kind of in your corner regarding the ethics of killing something one is not going to eat, unless it is vermin. However, the science supports trophy hunting. Wherever trophy hunting is allowed, the wildlife instantly have an economic value to the native population. Hence, the wildlife thrives. That is why to the global polar bear population is at an all time high, regardless of the shrinking habitat.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|