by Sirona 80 Replies latest jw friends
An example please? No one has ever observed and documented the biological changes needed in a species to do what you claim. One example will do...
However, some species have changed their behavior to exist in a changing environment.. And certain stimuli can cause, as an example, thicker coats in warm weather, but those mechanisms already existed...see the difference?
thichi,
It sounds like you need to read the book...can I loan you mine? you present no convincing evidence to disprove his claims...
sorry but if you cannot answer my question then it is very doubtful that you read it yourself!
the vast majority of computer simulations show that conditions would NOT improve for most people.
the following are excerpts from an article from http://www.newscientist.com/hottopics/climate/climatefaq.jsp
Isn't it true that a warmer planet will absorb more pollution?
Yes indeed. Warmer temperatures and the fertilising effect of more CO 2 in the air will stimulate faster growth of trees and other vegetation, which in turn will help to soak up some of the CO 2 in the atmosphere. This can already be seen in some places. But plants need other things besides CO 2 to grow. They need water, which could be in short supply as greater evaporation rates will dry out soils. Plants also need space, which we are using up for urban development. They also need climatic stability. Recent studies by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) suggest that climate change could soon be so fast that many forests, particularly in northern latitudes, will be unable to adapt and could die off - releasing their carbon into the atmosphere.
Will there be global warming everywhere?
Maybe not. Climate modellers admit to being very uncertain about how global warming will affect particular regions. This is because much of our weather depends on circulation patterns, which could alter in unexpected ways. Crudely, however, modellers expect many coastal regions to become wetter, while continental interiors will become drier, causing some deserts to expand. Warming will probably be greatest in polar regions, mirroring climate changes already seen this century in both the Arctic and Antarctic. Existing desert regions, notably central Asia, parts of the Middle East and the Sahel region of Africa, have already experienced some warming.
Local climate could also be altered by changes in ocean circulation. Western Europe could be particularly vulnerable. At present, it is kept exceptionally warm in winter by the Gulf Stream, which is part of the ocean conveyor belt (see "Are there other complications?" above). Take that away and British weather would be like the Hudson Bay in Canada, which is at the same latitude. If the conveyor belt slackens, or the path of the Gulf Stream shifts, that is precisely what could happen. So British hopes of a climate like Bordeaux in the 21st century could be cruelly dashed!
So how worried should we be?
How lucky do you feel?
not true, in fact, the evidence shows the opposite is true. As stated and proved, more vegetation exists today than 100 years ago, using isolated areas do not the whole story make
this does not necessarily imply that deserts are shrinking. actually it is a fact that they are growing.
I live up north...ask me again in 3 weeks.
Hill (flunked science class)
""sorry but if you cannot answer my question then it is very doubtful that you read it yourself""
Realist: you are really tops at making issues out of non-issues.
What is your point? I offered to loan the book to you if you would like. Yes I have read it, twice. You really need to read the book...
Most of your information is really off topic. The issue is not the amount of Pollution that can be absorbed through a certain system, or second guess what areas will or will not be affected.
My only claim is large amounts of CO2 has existed on Earth in the past. Like it or not, it is also a fact that warmer weather and increased CO2 is conducive to more vegetation. Earth History has proved this...
Notwithstanding, this is a "Global Discussion", not any one local area that may be affected. It goes without saying the green belt has moved and is moving, so what? Are you ready to ski Palm Springs one day?
Are you really a Biologist? Did I really read the Book? who cares....
One point I do agree with is this : "Climate modellers admit to being very uncertain about how global warming will affect particular regions"
So true......
Unlike you, I will not proceed from a perspective of fear....there is just no evidence to prove otherwise.
thichi,
I offered to loan the book to you if you would like. Yes I have read it, twice. You need to read the book...
if you read it twice then please answer the question as to how he was able to determine life expectancy in 8000 bc. I would like to know how this is done.
The issue is not the amount of Pollution that can be absorbed through a certain system
pollution was obviously referring to CO2 in this case.
It goes without saying the green belt has moved and is moving, so what?
it certainly has. the question is will it be pleasant for us to adapt to new conditions or would it perhaps be better to conserve the current situation?
My only claim is large amounts of CO2 has existed on Earth in the past. Like it or not, it is also a fact that warmer weather and increased CO2 is conducive to more vegetation. Earth History has proved this...
the question is where will it get wetter and where dryer? as you know CO2 is not the only thing plants need in order to grow.
Are you really a Biologist? Did I really read the Book? who cares....
if you didn't read the book then you don't even know what hypothesis, evidence and arguments you are actually defending.
I will not proceed from a perspective of fear....there is just no evidence to prove otherwise.
there is a difference between fear and caution. To simply say "don't worry everything will turn out dandy" might not be very wise.
""if you read it twice then please answer the question as to how he was able to determine life expectancy in 8000 bc. I would like to know how this is done.""
United Nations' Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends Study, which used biological, archaeological and environmental information which includes forensic studies. Another impressive work is Dr. Richard Jones. Atlas of World Population History and other resources...
Now, Read the Book...
""the question is will it be pleasant for us to adapt to new conditions or would it perhaps be better to conserve the current situation? ""
So what is new? This has always been the case. Nomadic behavior has always been dictated by environmental factors. You are really a Biologist, right?
Would it be pleasant to walk everywhere trying to cut down CO2, or vacation further north? You call it....
"as you know CO2 is not the only thing plants need in order to grow"
It depends on what plants you refer to. Drought tolerant plants and other species thrive in different environments...so? The verities of plants are a testament to the Earth?s temperature extremes ...so?
""if you didn't read the book then you don't even know what hypothesis, evidence and arguments you are actually defending.""
There you go again...non-issues and attacks. Truly the refuge of intellectual Scoundrels. We all see through it. I use the information posted to stand by my claims.
""there is a difference between fear and caution. To simply say "don't worry everything will turn out dandy" might not be very wise.""
There sure is, and I grow tired of your one-sided approach to this topic.
""..don't worry everything will turn out dandy..."
Who made this claim? Or, is this another "non issue" you are trying to pass off?
United Nations' Determinants and Consequences of Population Trends Study, which used biological, archaeological and environmental information which includes forensic studies. Another impressive work is Dr. Richard Jones. Atlas of World Population History and other resources...
this is all he says about it? nothing about child death rates, molar teeth, etc?
This has always been the case. Nomadic behavior has always been dictated by environmental factors. You are really a Biologist, right?
nomads yes. to move cities is a different thing. by the way, do you believe in evolution?
It depends on what plants you refer to. Drought tolerant plants and other species thrive in different environments...so? The verities of plants are a testament to the Earth?s temperature extremes ...so?
well where do you see more plant growth...in the dry or in the wet climates?
There you go again...non-issues and attacks. Truly the refuge of intellectual Scoundrels. We all see through it. I use the information posted to stand by my claims.
this is not an attack but a mere notion. you tend to copy past a lot of stuff you obviously havn't read too carefully yourself (e.g. israel discussion).
There sure is, and I grow tired of your one-sided approach to this topic.
what onesided approach? it was you who spoke of fear.
Who made this claim? Or, is this another "non issue" you are trying to pass off?
hmmm isn't your point that global warming will in fact improve living conditions?
Thi CHi
Didn't know this thread was still going;
blames the decline on changes in farming practices that mean there's less food for birds in winter. Wow! A far cry from your implications
Which is why they are no longer seen in inner city parks? Even at locations, like St. James Park in London, where they were so used to being fed year-round, with a little stillness and a fistful of grain you could have a handful of sparrows?
As for examples of species loss, there are plenty as I believe you must know.
Tropical Deforestation
Tropical deforestation is leading to the loss of thousands of species, many of which were undiscovered. Well documented historical examples include the nearly complete clearing of Mauritius and Rodriguez islands resulting in the extinction of at least 12 bird species. The complete clearing of Cebu island in the Philippines resulted in the extinction of all 10 of its endemic birds. The clearing of St. Helena led to the extinction of 80 of the islands' more than 100 endemic plant species, most of its land snails and 3 of its 4 native land bird species. Many of the great apes are in serious trouble because of deforestation; the orangutan is expected to be extinct in the wild within the next 20 years, largely because of loss of habitat.
Deforestation may have been responsible for the mysterious collapse of Mayan civilization in Guatemala about 500 years before the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the West Indies. The Peten region had one of the densest human populations of any time in human history, with almost 2,600 people per square mile in the cities. Then over a period of about 100 years these people vanished. It is being suggested that this was an example of what happens when a human population exceeds the carrying capacity of its environment. The government of Guatemala is now seriously concerned that history is about to repeat itself.
The incredible rate of destruction of tropical forests was first brought to the attention of the public by a book called "The Sinking Ark" by Norman Myers published in 1979. At that time Myers estimated that of the original extent of about 6.2 million square miles of tropical moist forests only about 3.6 million square miles was left: about 44% of the original tropical moist forest on the earth had already been lost. Enormous amounts of tropical forest have been lost in Central America, Brazil, Africa, and Southeast Asia. Recommended book:
Trees of Life : Saving Tropical Forests and Their Biological Wealth (A World Resources Institute Guide to the Environment) by Kenton Miller, Laura Tangley, Gus Speth. Paperback - 218 pages (April 1991)
http://darwin.bio.uci.edu/~sustain/bio65/lec10/b65lec10.htm
Obviously proving unknown species are lost due to deforestation is a bit like proving god doesn't exist.
As for your queries as to the extent of deforestation, I draw your attention to "about 44% of the original tropical moist forest on the earth had already been lost" in the above quote.
It would take many more years than 20,000 to "evolve"
Speciation can occur in less than 20,000 years, even in higher animals. I'm pretty sure a lot less variety of such life would exist if it couldn't.
Realist:
"...nothing about child death rates, molar teeth, etc"
What do you think "forensic studies" mean? Are you really a Biologist?
Read the book......your dismissive remarks are very telling. Your rationalizations are wearisome. and thanks for the ride...lol
Let the readers decide.......
Abaddon:
That is your reply, you don?t "see them (sparrows) at the park anymore" The fact is if their food supply is reduced in the winter, the sparrows may not be making as many trips to the park as they once did....
Again, you speak in generalities. I can say with confidence that the Mayan?s did not cease to exist because of vehicle emissions. Or excessive CO2, or any modern technology. Which, is the topic at hand. This example too begs the question: Was war a factor in their dispelled condition? Or disease? The vast surrounding area was so heavily wooded, for hundreds of miles, one would think they would sustain a supply route as they expanded...who knows?
Is the demise of the apes the result of lack of vegetation, or has hunting played a part? As an example, hunting played a role in the demise of the buffalo. As for the rain forest, I have already proved that 90% is in tact. The other numbers are suspicious, non specific, at best (this looks like a "cut and paste" job...lol) and begs the question:
Has "species loss" always been an occurrence in Earth?s history? If it has, at what rate? What does this information have to do with excessive CO2 and Global Warming?
thichi,
sure i am gonna read this book...right after i am done with the bible! LOL
