Global Warming :D

[MORAY37]

Out of curiosity, is it just the USA, - and as soon they get deeper into science it is still Celcius/Kelvin (same scaling, just geting rid of the negative) or the other one,,now what was that one again...
I am not a scientist (you know that Moray), but bloody hell, this one I had in school 20+ years before I took the odd decision of getting into various earth bound jobs....

Angus, we use all metric in science here.  It really doesn't make any sense not to.  Don't ask me why they went with Mr. Fahrenheit's scale, when they adopted it as universal.  Too in love with the king, those folks were.

What's really funny, is to say 2 degrees Celsius here in the states in public.  <insert blank stare> Heads explode if you explain Kelvin."What?  You mean at 273.15 degrees it's freezing???? WTH are you talking about?"

[Chalenge]

It doesnt help that environmentalists conjur up new names for the same species as they did in the classic case of the spotted owl and Californias mice populations. Tree huggers live here I see now and I been thinking they were just government indoctrinated I see its worse then that!

[MORAY37]

So you say we are heating them to death? Silly me thought that we were just hunting them, poisoning them and cutting down their forests in order to make them go extinct.

No, we're doing all that on top of it.  I didn't use it as a blanket statement.  It was a response to his post that we're making the planet a lush paradise for our children to play in. We are most certainly not doing that in any way, shape, or form.

[MORAY37]

It doesnt help that environmentalists conjur up new names for the same species as they did in the classic case of the spotted owl and Californias mice populations. Tree huggers live here I see now and I been thinking they were just government indoctrinated I see its worse then that!

Sir, environmentalists don't make species names.  Scientists do.  If you don't see the significant difference, don't comment on it. It takes around 10 years to two decades to get a species name amended once it's recognized.

[Chalenge]

Moray try not to tell me what to do or buzz off of commenting yourself. I know you think everyone is blind to reality except yourself but I for one dont care how much you think you know it doesnt give you the soapbox to preach from. You have been reading from the popular press for so long its warped your senses.

[Angus]

You just claimed he studied too much. Now it's reading too much popular press 
Neither applies to me, so I wonder what my problem is. I see GW from the boots I stand in, - from my basic education, reading, memory, and the profession(s) I've had. Now how's that?
It may look as if Moray is indeed standing on a soap-box. I guess it's because there is strong logic in his preaching, and you, Chalenge, cannot make a dent in it. Hence the desperate grab of decreasing manners.

[bongaroo]

It doesnt help that environmentalists conjur up new names for the same species as they did in the classic case of the spotted owl and Californias mice populations. Tree huggers live here I see now and I been thinking they were just government indoctrinated I see its worse then that!

 

Perhaps you'll back this claim?

[Anaxogoras]

So you say we are heating them to death? Silly me thought that we were just hunting them, poisoning them and cutting down their forests in order to make them go extinct.

Slight variations in temperature can embolden fungi to expand into higher altitudes where they previously could not survive.  That's partially the explanation for the massive amphibian extinction going on in central America right now.

[WMLute]

I actually had to do the conversion from C to F when I posted that.  My source was of course in C.

More a habit than anything I guess.

I live in the USA and we use F.



So...   Now I am being told that global extinction is happening because of man made global warming?

(sigh)

Claims (97) of an epidemic of inscribing diseases, extensive species extinction, catastrophic flooding of Pacific islands, ocean acidification, increased numbers and severity's of hurricanes and tornado's, and increased human heat deaths from the 0.5 °C per century temperature rise are not consistent with actual observations. The "humanised global warming" hypothesis and the computer calculations that support it are in error. They have no empirical support and are invalidated by numerous observations.

There is that Dun previewed paper again with all it's pesky "facts" and such.

All I have heard so far in this thread is the same drivel being spewed that, as I quoted above, has "no empirical support".

As atmospheric CO2 increases, plant growth rates increase. Also, leaves transpire less and lose less water as CO2 increases, so that plants are able to grow under drier conditions. Animal life, which depends upon plant life for food, increases proportionally.

Explain how that is incorrect.  Please, do tell how increased plant growth is BAD for animals and will cause their extinction.

Wheat growth is accelerated by increased atmospheric CO2, especially under dry conditions.

I can see where you would think that increased wheat growth would be a bad thing.  (sigh)

Inventories of standing hardwood and softwood timber in the United States compiled in Forest Resources of the United States, 2002, U.S. Department of Agriculture Forest Service (111,112). The linear trend cited in 1998 (1) with an increase of 30% has continued. The increase is now 40%. The amount of U.S. timber is rising almost 1% per year.

I can also see where more trees would be a horrible thing. (sigh)

Atmospheric CO2 is required for life by both plants and animals. It is the sole source of carbon in all of the protein, carbohydrate, fat, and other organic molecules of which living things are constructed.

Plants extract carbon from atmospheric CO2 and are thereby fertilized. Animals obtain their carbon from plants. Without atmospheric CO2, none of the life we see on Earth would exist.

Water, oxygen, and carbon dioxide are the three most important substances that make life possible.

They are surely not environmental pollutants.

So do tell me please how something that is GOOD for plants and animals is causing their extinction.

[Angus]

Is the lumber increasing from increased CO2 alone? I somehow thought that forest balancing had more factors, - the vital ones being re-planting, and even temperature....
For the global stock is decreasing.
I am well aware that if you whiff up the CO2, plants will respond by harnessing more carbon, thereby growing better, - especially on a certain level. We use this in agriculture, - in the GREENHOUSE business
Over where I live, the air is clear, and less ppm C than down on mainland Europe. But when we get the winds from the UK and mainland Europe, there is no need for adding CO2 no more...
As for the crops responding, they will also respond to increased temperature and droughts. The hottest areas will become less bearable, while cooler areas become...nicer. But the landmass on the hotter areas is more, so with GW carrying on, crops will eventually drop as a total.
Some of the really high crop areas today, where a lot of Earths stock of food is made, do not take a lot of heating...

[Chalenge]

Perhaps you'll back this claim?

Never heard of a 'spotted owl' until around 1990 when environmentalists decided to take on the logging industry. Somehow an owl that inhabits the entire span of Western States (and Canada) that also have fir trees is somehow 'endangered.' The 'spotted owl' is named 'Strix Occidentalis' in latin which means 'Owl Western' and in fact its real name is Western Owl but it encompasses about 24 seperate species more narrowly defined by environmentalists (scientists can be environmentalists too) as four subspecies. Note it was not named 'spotted owl' until the 90s or there abouts and it is a gross insult of ignorance. Note the range of habitation does not indicate the true expanse this bird actually inhabits. Most of Canada has this owl (given the gross labelling) living in its forests and you can easily find them in early and late winter. I have seen 'spotted owls' while soaring in the Rockies and particularly in Idaho which is not listed as within the range of this owls habitation - a dead giveaway to me.

Its cousin the 'Barred Owl' (Strix Varia) actually is much more 'spotted' and is more of a threat to 'spotted owls' (as defined popularly) then logging operations.

We had a body of water here in Florida with a newly discovered variation on the newt. It seemed this newt could only be found in one pond and it was right here in Florida so no one could be allowed to build anywhere near that pond to make sure the newt survived. Well that one newt disappeared anyway. Probably it was a fluke hybrid anyway but until the environmentalist movement is finished extorting money and sympathy that pond is safe. I would say if it only exists in one pond it was probably bad science that discovered the 'variation.'

Western States seem to suffer a lot from environwackos and any 'protected environment' should be suspect and more closely examined. There will always be this argument though because humans hate change and love to be victims.

[WMLute]

My new T-Shirt.

LINK

[bongaroo]

Never heard of a 'spotted owl' until around 1990 when environmentalists decided to take on the logging industry. Somehow an owl that inhabits the entire span of Western States (and Canada) that also have fir trees is somehow 'endangered.' The 'spotted owl' is named 'Strix Occidentalis' in latin which means 'Owl Western' and in fact its real name is Western Owl but it encompasses about 24 seperate species more narrowly defined by environmentalists (scientists can be environmentalists too) as four subspecies. Note it was not named 'spotted owl' until the 90s or there abouts and it is a gross insult of ignorance. Note the range of habitation does not indicate the true expanse this bird actually inhabits. Most of Canada has this owl (given the gross labelling) living in its forests and you can easily find them in early and late winter. I have seen 'spotted owls' while soaring in the Rockies and particularly in Idaho which is not listed as within the range of this owls habitation - a dead giveaway to me.

Its cousin the 'Barred Owl' (Strix Varia) actually is much more 'spotted' and is more of a threat to 'spotted owls' (as defined popularly) then logging operations.

We had a body of water here in Florida with a newly discovered variation on the newt. It seemed this newt could only be found in one pond and it was right here in Florida so no one could be allowed to build anywhere near that pond to make sure the newt survived. Well that one newt disappeared anyway. Probably it was a fluke hybrid anyway but until the environmentalist movement is finished extorting money and sympathy that pond is safe. I would say if it only exists in one pond it was probably bad science that discovered the 'variation.'

Western States seem to suffer a lot from environwackos and any 'protected environment' should be suspect and more closely examined. There will always be this argument though because humans hate change and love to be victims.

So do you believe any land, water, or defineable habitat shouldn't ever be protected?  Where do you draw the line on sprawl that is further into wildlife habitats?

Do you believe that decreasing bio-diversity is not a bad thing, let alone a major disaster if it continues?

Just wondering your opinions.

[Chalenge]

I didnt say anything like that and what I did say implies you have to watch for situations like this.

Maybe the idea in India to consume more cow dung and cow urine appeals to our greenies?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/food_and_drink/article5707554.ece

[MORAY37]

Never heard of a 'spotted owl' until around 1990 when environmentalists decided to take on the logging industry. Somehow an owl that inhabits the entire span of Western States (and Canada) that also have fir trees is somehow 'endangered.' The 'spotted owl' is named 'Strix Occidentalis' in latin which means 'Owl Western' and in fact its real name is Western Owl but it encompasses about 24 seperate species more narrowly defined by environmentalists (scientists can be environmentalists too) as four subspecies. Note it was not named 'spotted owl' until the 90s or there abouts and it is a gross insult of ignorance. Note the range of habitation does not indicate the true expanse this bird actually inhabits. Most of Canada has this owl (given the gross labelling) living in its forests and you can easily find them in early and late winter. I have seen 'spotted owls' while soaring in the Rockies and particularly in Idaho which is not listed as within the range of this owls habitation - a dead giveaway to me.

Its cousin the 'Barred Owl' (Strix Varia) actually is much more 'spotted' and is more of a threat to 'spotted owls' (as defined popularly) then logging operations.

We had a body of water here in Florida with a newly discovered variation on the newt. It seemed this newt could only be found in one pond and it was right here in Florida so no one could be allowed to build anywhere near that pond to make sure the newt survived. Well that one newt disappeared anyway. Probably it was a fluke hybrid anyway but until the environmentalist movement is finished extorting money and sympathy that pond is safe. I would say if it only exists in one pond it was probably bad science that discovered the 'variation.'

Western States seem to suffer a lot from environwackos and any 'protected environment' should be suspect and more closely examined. There will always be this argument though because humans hate change and love to be victims.

Your incredibly condensed visage to the spotted owl is way too short.  The issue arose when it was proven that that there were sub-populations that had diversified from the progenitor species' habitat, meaning they were, in fact, a different and much more specialized species than the generalized "spotted owl" (S. occidentalis)  The differences are so minute as to be nearly identical, but their habitat and foraging are totally different, and they are unable to interbreed.

Also, are you a trained ornithologist?  You saw "an owl" in Idaho.  Just because you think it is something, doesn't make it that, especially with dealing in specific species.





Those are both killer whales right? 

Yes, and NO.  One is a distinct subspecies, and cannot interbreed with the other, from a divergence in genes about 10,000 years old.  There are cetacean biologists still attempting to get them into different species classifications, for almost 30 years now.  Neither types mix, one eats fish, the other marine mammals.  One live offshore, the other in coastal waters.  Even their echolocation is different.  But, they look pretty much identical on the outside.