25 Jul 15
4 edits
Originally posted by Metal BrainTime will tell and I hope they are right, that it is business as usual. The fact we are in the 6th major extinction event tends to tell me they are wrong. Mankind is killing the environment one way or the other.
No you don't.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/
Oh no, another set of morons giving predictions:
http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-faster.html
Yet more moronic data:
http://phys.org/news/2015-07-globe-june-scientists.html
And yet more idiotic assumptions:
http://phys.org/news/2015-07-mammoths-abrupt-climate.html
And look at this idiot:
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/23/mayor-epiphany-climate-change/
26 Jul 15
Originally posted by sonhouseLook at this long term graph of ocean level rise. Notice the slow and consistent rise without much increase during the time CO2 increased a lot. There is no significant correlation of a rapid increase of ocean levels along with increased CO2 levels. It is simply not there.
Time will tell and I hope they are right, that it is business as usual. The fact we are in the 6th major extinction event tends to tell me they are wrong. Mankind is killing the environment one way or the other.
Oh no, another set of morons giving predictions:
http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-faster.html
Yet more moroni ...[text shortened]... html
And look at this idiot:
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/23/mayor-epiphany-climate-change/
http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/oceans/sea-level.html
This begs the question of why the projected ocean level increases in the prediction. Increased CO2 has not resulted in a significant increase in ocean levels at all.
Why do you think predictions of a rapid increase have merit? It clearly has nothing to do with CO2, so what is supposed to be the cause? Can you answer that question?
26 Jul 15
Originally posted by sonhouse"The fact we are in the 6th major extinction event tends to tell me they are wrong. Mankind is killing the environment one way or the other."
Time will tell and I hope they are right, that it is business as usual. The fact we are in the 6th major extinction event tends to tell me they are wrong. Mankind is killing the environment one way or the other.
Oh no, another set of morons giving predictions:
http://phys.org/news/2015-07-paper-prominent-scientists-ocean-faster.html
Yet more moroni ...[text shortened]... html
And look at this idiot:
http://ecowatch.com/2015/07/23/mayor-epiphany-climate-change/
Are you stupid? Extinctions are increasing because of man, but that has nothing to do with climate change. The Dodo Bird did not go extinct because of climate change and neither did the Tasmanian Tiger. You are seeing a cause that is not there. Correct your man made cause.
Mammoths were hunted by humans. I even posted a link claiming man hunting Mammoths to extinction caused climate change. I think it is nonsense, but so is your link that claims the opposite cause and effect.
Those phys.org links are often biased and a joke quite frankly. You should not regard them as being as credible as you think.
Originally posted by Metal Brainso, because some animals have gone extinct not because of climate change, no animal could go or could have gone extinct as a result of climate change? Are you that stupid?
The Dodo Bird did not go extinct because of climate change and neither did the Tasmanian Tiger. .
Please tell us all; where is the contradiction in having BOTH some animals gone extinct NOT as a result of climate change AND some other animals ( not the same animals, obviously ) gone extinct AS a result of climate change?
Just one example of a species gone extinct at least in part due to climate change is the the Golden toad:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/03/140331-global-warming-climate-change-ipcc-animals-science-environment/
"... Last seen in 1989, the golden frog lived in mountaintop cloud forests that have disappeared due to drought and other climatic changes...."
Toads require water and that means they generally can be killed by drought. Therefore, a climate change that increases the incidence of drought can kill them off.
Originally posted by humy"so, because some animals have gone extinct not because of climate change, no animal could go or could have gone extinct as a result of climate change? Are you that stupid?"
so, because some animals have gone extinct not because of climate change, no animal could go or could have gone extinct as a result of climate change? Are you that stupid?
Please tell us all; where is the contradiction in having BOTH some animals gone extinct NOT as a result of climate change AND some other animals ( [i]not ...[text shortened]... drought. Therefore, a climate change that increases the incidence of drought can kill them off.
Did I say that? No, I did not say that.
You have not established that the drought was caused by climate change. Weather is different than climate change. You keep mixing the two as if they are the same.
Climate change can result in species going extinct, but that has been happening for millions of years. You want us to believe it is anthropogenic, but you have not established that. FAIL!
Edit: That national geographic link claims polar bears are threatened by climate change which is completely false. Polar bear populations are increasing, NOT decreasing. Coral reefs are not threatened by climate change either. That is another false claim. You can blame people for blast fishing and other man made destruction, but not climate change. National geographic is a horrible source of information! I have already exposed them for asserting outright lies. Try again.
26 Jul 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Metal BrainHere is a study about those coral reefs that can recover, but notice there are still going to be vast fields of reefs that die off and the recovery will be much less than the original populations:
"so, because some animals have gone extinct not because of climate change, no animal could go or could have gone extinct as a result of climate change? Are you that stupid?"
Did I say that? No, I did not say that.
You have not established that the drought was caused by climate change. Weather is different than climate change. You keep mixing the t ...[text shortened]... rible source of information! I have already exposed them for asserting outright lies. Try again.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/14/scientists-reveal-coral-reefs-can-survive-global-warming-great-barrier-reef
Here is an assessment of the reefs. The increase in world temperatures is not the only stressor on these reefs, ocean acidification is another one and increased cyclones is another:
http://www.gbrmpa.gov.au/managing-the-reef/threats-to-the-reef/climate-change/what-does-this-mean-for-habitats/coral-reefs
But hey, what do you give a crap about any of that, stuck in the upper midwest where coral reefs are thousands of miles away, why should you give a shyte.
26 Jul 15
Originally posted by sonhouseCoral reefs are not bleaching because of global warming. Bleaching is caused by seasonal temp changes and La nina. Furthermore, natural climate change has caused mass dying of coral reefs in the distant past. Ice ages are a much greater threat to coral reefs.
Here is a study about those coral reefs that can recover, but notice there are still going to be vast fields of reefs that die off and the recovery will be much less than the original populations:
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jan/14/scientists-reveal-coral-reefs-can-survive-global-warming-great-barrier-reef
Here is an assessment of the ...[text shortened]... in the upper midwest where coral reefs are thousands of miles away, why should you give a shyte.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/10/coral-bleaching-what-about-the-coral-reefs-part-2-of-3/
The truth is that global warming will actually be beneficial to coral reefs. Try again.
Originally posted by Metal BrainThis report shows a direct link between CO2 in the atmosphere and change in Ph in the oceans. They call it 'acidification' or something like that, more acid. Actually, acid starts at 7 on down, so it is really less basic, basic starts at 7 and up. There is already damage to coral reefs due to this effect:
Coral reefs are not bleaching because of global warming. Bleaching is caused by seasonal temp changes and La nina. Furthermore, natural climate change has caused mass dying of coral reefs in the distant past. Ice ages are a much greater threat to coral reefs.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2010/10/coral-bleaching-what-about-the-coral-reefs-part-2-of-3/
The truth is that global warming will actually be beneficial to coral reefs. Try again.
http://www.teachoceanscience.net/teaching_resources/education_modules/coral_reefs_and_climate_change/how_does_climate_change_affect_coral_reefs/
It is people like you who will be saying, 'if only we had listened to those idiots back in the day, the world would be a much better place now'. When it is much too late.
26 Jul 15
Originally posted by sonhouseCorrect, less basic. It isn't a problem. Your link does not say it is or was, it merely implies it will. This is just another scare tactic with no basis in reality. Your link even pushes that myth about coral bleaching. Global warming is not causing coral to bleach. Seasonal water temperature changes are enough to cause that. It is normal.
This report shows a direct link between CO2 in the atmosphere and change in Ph in the oceans. They call it 'acidification' or something like that, more acid. Actually, acid starts at 7 on down, so it is really less basic, basic starts at 7 and up. There is already damage to coral reefs due to this effect:
http://www.teachoceanscience.net/teaching_resourc ...[text shortened]... e idiots back in the day, the world would be a much better place now'. When it is much too late.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/jul/7/nobel-physicist-obama-dead-wrong-global-warming/?page=all
Mr. Giaever, an institute professor emeritus at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute and professor at the University of Oslo, said it was time to scrap the global-warming theory, which he described as a “new religion.”
“If you’re a physicist, for heaven’s sake, and here is the experiment, and you have a theory, and the theory doesn’t agree with the experiment, then you have to cut out the theory. You were wrong with the theory,” he said.