Global warming taking earth back to dinosaur era

Full story: Reuters 2,862
By Jeremy LovellNORWICH - Global warming over the coming century could mean a return of temperatures last seen in the age of the dinosaur and lead to the extinction of up to half of all species, a scientist ... Full Story
Susan Haskins

AOL

#21 Sep 11, 2006
News Links Around the World, as of this week..

http://www.iol.co.za/index.php...

http://allafrica.com/stories/200609050583.htm...

http://globalpolitician.com/articledes.asp...

THANKS FOR READING!! SUSAN HASKINS
EMERGENCY SUPPLIES
www.hurricanesupplies.org
sales@hurricanesupplies.org
Fred

Australia

#22 Sep 11, 2006
what!?
Anon

Evansville, IN

#23 Sep 13, 2006
Does anyone know what a difference .6 degrees really is? Average temp often refered to as 15c or 59F. It is not .6 out of 59 it is .6 out of absolute zero plus the current temp. Absolute zero is -460(459.67). So this makes it .6 out of 519 degrees!

We could work our axx off changing CO2 emisions by 1%. Asia and china are soon to become global industrial giants blowing away any gains we make.

I have seen nothing that trully indicates CO2 is the cause. The only thing I am convined of is CO2 ABSORPTION is a thermometer! Not a cause! The warmer the atmosphere, the more CO2 it absorbs.

If the ice caps melt, we're just going to have to deal with it.

Our bigest threat is not CO2....It's population. Population will begin to consume our resources and cause great dificulties in the very near future.

The tree huggers with 9 kids are our BIGGEST threat!
Stan

UK

#24 Sep 13, 2006
Anon wrote:
Does anyone know what a difference .6 degrees really is? Average temp often refered to as 15c or 59F. It is not .6 out of 59 it is .6 out of absolute zero plus the current temp. Absolute zero is -460(459.67). So this makes it .6 out of 519 degrees!
We could work our axx off changing CO2 emisions by 1%. Asia and china are soon to become global industrial giants blowing away any gains we make.
I have seen nothing that trully indicates CO2 is the cause. The only thing I am convined of is CO2 ABSORPTION is a thermometer! Not a cause! The warmer the atmosphere, the more CO2 it absorbs.
If the ice caps melt, we're just going to have to deal with it.
Our bigest threat is not CO2....It's population. Population will begin to consume our resources and cause great dificulties in the very near future.
The tree huggers with 9 kids are our BIGGEST threat!
Then you ain't aware of just what the effects of over logging are despite the widespread reports of the disasters it creates or its real impact on the evviroment. When the Oceans rise through it and millions have to move from their flooded land then you will be faced with the reality cos All major land masses including the Americas is where they gonna have to go.
Although not Indian I willingly stand along side the women there who caused the term tree hugger to evolve (it comes from the Hindi word for embrace) who used that to resist logging eccessively of their trees, both for economic and enviromental reasons. Course I suffer a double wammy from you as I also have 10 kids ..... 29 GC's & 5 GGC'c (but the Lord did say go forth and multiply)
Scutter

Arcadia, CA

#25 Sep 13, 2006
Anon wrote:
Does anyone know what a difference .6 degrees really is? Average temp often refered to as 15c or 59F. It is not .6 out of 59 it is .6 out of absolute zero plus the current temp. Absolute zero is -460(459.67). So this makes it .6 out of 519 degrees!
We could work our axx off changing CO2 emisions by 1%. Asia and china are soon to become global industrial giants blowing away any gains we make.
I have seen nothing that trully indicates CO2 is the cause. The only thing I am convined of is CO2 ABSORPTION is a thermometer! Not a cause! The warmer the atmosphere, the more CO2 it absorbs.
If the ice caps melt, we're just going to have to deal with it.
Our bigest threat is not CO2....It's population. Population will begin to consume our resources and cause great dificulties in the very near future.
The tree huggers with 9 kids are our BIGGEST threat!
Your science about CO2 is flat wrong. It's like saying the wheels on the car are turning faster because the road underneath them has sped up. CO2, methane and water vapor are heat trapping gasses, simple and proven.

The tempature increases we're talking about BTW are a lot more than 1 degree and all indications are warming is accelerating.

However, I DO agree with you that a root cause of global warming is over population in as much that over population ups consumpion and so on. The best way to deal with overpopulation, statistically, is general education of women. Educated women tend to have a lot less children.(That schooling and career delays children)

BTW, most treehugger don't have very many kids (if any!)-On the other hand, all those conservative religious zelots just keep pumping them out!! Globally, most children are born to the uneducated, the poor, and the conservatively religious (usually to people who are all 3!)
Stan

UK

#26 Sep 13, 2006
Scutter wrote:
<quoted text>

The best way to deal with overpopulation, statistically, is general education of women. Educated women tend to have a lot less children.(That schooling and career delays children)
BTW, most treehugger don't have very many kids (if any!)-On the other hand, all those conservative religious zelots just keep pumping them out!! Globally, most children are born to the uneducated, the poor, and the conservatively religious (usually to people who are all 3!)
Afraid the "woman education" don't work on anything but the over population bit cos then she joins the "must have" materlistic group and the use of world resources just increases.
As for your last piece think again The tree huggers of poor countries have many kids but a lot die cos of the effects of Western ie American economic effects on their country. Many are very well educated too but they cannot fufil that with work, there ain't none that is equal to their level forcing meagre wages if any. As to the rest of us TH's (with kids or no) most ain't materlistic minded and see what it is doing to our planet......... get TH and there might still be forests when your GGC's are our age.
Scutter

Arcadia, CA

#27 Sep 13, 2006
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>
Afraid the "woman education" don't work on anything but the over population bit cos then she joins the "must have" materlistic group and the use of world resources just increases.
Fair enough on the increased consumption point of the well off women. I'm all for greater efficency and less materialism and a greater eye on the long term costs and consequences of our actions and working to build a comfortable sustanable world for our children and their children's children.

As far as tree huggers are concerned, I'm a bit confused by your point. I always thought "tree huggers" was a lightly derogatory term for the more liberal class of environmentalists and thus tend to be more well off and relatively educated AND tend to live in 1st world countries. Thus, they also tend to be less religious and have less children.

Most people who are the "have nots" and live in poorer countries usually have more immediate life issues to worry about and so not have enough free time to worry about or be involved with environmental issues.
Stan

UK

#28 Sep 13, 2006
Scutter wrote:
<quoted text>
Fair enough on the increased consumption point of the well off women. I'm all for greater efficency and less materialism and a greater eye on the long term costs and consequences of our actions and working to build a comfortable sustanable world for our children and their children's children.
As far as tree huggers are concerned, I'm a bit confused by your point. I always thought "tree huggers" was a lightly derogatory term for the more liberal class of environmentalists and thus tend to be more well off and relatively educated AND tend to live in 1st world countries. Thus, they also tend to be less religious and have less children.
Most people who are the "have nots" and live in poorer countries usually have more immediate life issues to worry about and so not have enough free time to worry about or be involved with environmental issues.
guess the tree hug bit is an Americanism then; the origin is certainly as I detailed. and they lived in one of the poorest parts of India where the women hugged the trees to stop them being felled........ the same is true of the Phillipines and Indonesoia plus many areas along the Himilayas it is often the women who fight the logging.
Yes the educated woman goes in for the "labour saving" but also all the other "must have" things and the enviromental effect is dramatic.
The other bit about 1st world countries may be true for America (not sure) certainly not here. As to poor , trouble is the poor (real dead beat I mean) seems to be an ever increasing Western problem as the economy slowly fails (wages today for the many do not cover the demands as they used to but mostly because of the must have culture) and that is even with increased hours and both partners working (and f*** the family responsibilities)
Anon

Evansville, IN

#29 Sep 14, 2006
Scutter wrote:
<quoted text>
Your science about CO2 is flat wrong. It's like saying the wheels on the car are turning faster because the road underneath them has sped up. CO2, methane and water vapor are heat trapping gasses, simple and proven.
Well scuter, the O2 thing is the latest "theory" and no it is FAR from simple and proven. There are flaws in it as well but the politics of science have accepted it for now. Problem is there are indicators that it is an effect as much if not more a cause.

There are flaws in how the ecosystem works too. They have learned that the process of plants make oxygen and animals make CO2 implies that it is an equal exchange. They have learned that more CO2 is produced then is recycled!!! This is where the term "Smokey Mountains" comes from. The trees actually emit CO2 themselves!!!! It is stated we don't know the full effect of mowing grass (grass decay), growing food, etc. All this produces more CO2 at unknown rates which is not all recycled as once believed. The increase number of people, animals, all of this is effecting the CO2 levels. It's not a complete process. Excess CO2 is produced; much more then they ever thought.

Man himself (at rest) expels about a 1/3 the Co2 an average car does in the course of a day. If he run 10 miles he closely matches a car's day output. Think about the increased population, the increased "cut grass", the increased animal population and the increased food harvested.

The point is it really doesn't matter, there is nothing we can do to stop it. Right now the USA uses about 20 million barrels of oil per day (MBOPD). Europe would like to make you think our increased usage is exasperating. It actually changed very little over the last 20 years. Europe itself uses over 15 MBOPD. China has reached 7MBOPD.(25-30% of this for cars)

NOW, China and Asia are awakening!!!! Predictions show China itself using over HALF of the worlds oil per day within the next 25 years. Even if this is over estimated the numbers are STAGERING! The world has never seen a rate increase in consumption of oil like we are about to!!!!!!

Are we causing it? Does it matter? We aren't going to stop it. The NHRA just banned high co2 fire extinguishers. WHAT THE HELL IS THAT GOING TO DO? NOTHING!!!!!

Unless you can stop population growth. Unless you want to tell the people of China and Asia they cannot live like everyone else in the world, there isn't a prayer we can stop it!
Anon

Evansville, IN

#30 Sep 14, 2006
I also wonder the effects of pavement, buildings and structures. You drive out of a city and the temps drop 10 degrees; and you are still on asphalt or concrete. If you look from the air the cars are a spec compared to the amount of pavement and asphalt on our earth. I don't see us busting it up any time soon!
Scutter

Arcadia, CA

#31 Sep 14, 2006
Anon wrote:
<quoted text>
Well scuter, the O2 thing is the latest "theory" and no it is FAR from simple and proven.
CO2 as a green house gas is not the "latest theory". It's simply a fact. You put CO2 in a controlled environment like in a lab and pump radiation into it it will retain the heat better that in an identical environment without CO2. The same holds true for all greenhouse gasses mentioned.

Heat holding sources like large slabs of concrete are not factors. Farting cows and people are not factors because that CO2 is reabsorbed when replacement crops are planted the following year. The same holds true for biomass fuels. Now if the trees and crops are all dying because of climate change...-well that's a different story! With fossel fuels, you're taking CO2 that's been out of circulation for millions of years and pumping it into the atmosphere. This creates an agragate increase in the gas and thus increases heating. The heating itself can also release more greenhouse gasses as ice sheets melt lessening solar reflectivity and releasing biomass that had been trapped in the ice sheet for many thousands of years. And that's bad. However, if you replant jungles, replace non-renewable enery sources with renewable ones...(which would have the bonus of making us less dependant on middle east oil)((Besides, burning non-renewable valuable resource like oil is a horrable waste considering that oil is used in senthetics, plastics, medecines, electronics and so on AND that so many sources exsist as an alternate fuel source))

I DO agree with you that population growth is one of the root causes because more people pull more resources. Actually at this moment China has a negative birth rate so their population WILL decline. India is stating to balance out in birth rates, BUT, middle east countries, poorer countries in Africa and South Aisa however have positive birth rates. If living standards can be improved in an environmentally concious way AND developing developed countries can shift their development towards environmental balance (which IS possible with the newer technologies) AND cultural sensibilites are shifted so women can participate (IE getting rid of forced marriages and so forth) their populations will drop while lessening the environmental impact of their improving living standards. It's all a pipe dreamy long shot but it IS possible!

BTW dense cities CAN actually be good for the overall environment because living in more compact areas have less of a footprint and are more energy efficient than suberban sprawl. The trick is lessening or even reducing suburban sprawl by smart livable Urban planning.

So There!
Stan

UK

#32 Sep 14, 2006
Anon wrote:
I also wonder the effects of pavement, buildings and structures. You drive out of a city and the temps drop 10 degrees; and you are still on asphalt or concrete. If you look from the air the cars are a spec compared to the amount of pavement and asphalt on our earth. I don't see us busting it up any time soon!
You are just observing the absorbtivity / conductivity from surface
recieving suns energy and its re radiation /reflectivity of that surface
The solar power received in both areas is the same
"Just the FEEL is different"
J Heckethorn

Malibu, CA

#33 Sep 15, 2006
Isn't Al Gore the guy that invented the INTERNET?
J Heckethorn

Malibu, CA

#34 Sep 15, 2006
Isn't Al Gore the guy that invented 'THE INTERNET'
Sue

Mill Spring, NC

#35 Sep 16, 2006
I watched a special on 60 MINUTES and their guest was A Government Scientist named James Hansen.
He is the worlds leading research scientist on global warming.
The Bush administrtion is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say.
Politicians he says, are rewriting the science on global warming.
Hansen has a theory that we have 10 years to reduce the greenhose gases before the earth reaches what he calls the tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the white house is blocking that message.
Stan

UK

#36 Sep 16, 2006
Sue wrote:
I watched a special on 60 MINUTES and their guest was A Government Scientist named James Hansen.
He is the worlds leading research scientist on global warming.
The Bush administrtion is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say.
Politicians he says, are rewriting the science on global warming.
Hansen has a theory that we have 10 years to reduce the greenhose gases before the earth reaches what he calls the tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the white house is blocking that message.
And I believe him Thats American corporate push maintain Profits till the end cos then no one around to point a finger.Bush lets them do it.
Sue

Mill Spring, NC

#37 Sep 16, 2006
Stan wrote:
<quoted text>
And I believe him Thats American corporate push maintain Profits till the end cos then no one around to point a finger.Bush lets them do it.
I did say that the Bush Admin. is covering it up, but this is not just our problem and we are not the only ones to blame for this poblem. Although we do contribute to it. We all need to stand back and look at this and do something about it. Since the world belongs to us all.
Stan

UK

#38 Sep 16, 2006
Sue wrote:
<quoted text> I did say that the Bush Admin. is covering it up, but this is not just our problem and we are not the only ones to blame for this poblem. Although we do contribute to it. We all need to stand back and look at this and do something about it. Since the world belongs to us all.
one word.......Kyoto
one action....... US no ratify
one result ......... US still increasing its rate of pollution
one winner ....... American corporate profits
Sue

Mill Spring, NC

#39 Sep 16, 2006
Am I wrong to say that China is the only cuntry to cut back on their emissions? By 17% We also have organised religious groups that are fighting the white house right now, that we have a moral obligation to help avoid a problem like climate change. Did you know that more Americans are involved in organised religion than almost any indutrialised country? So maybe we can still make a difference.
Stan

UK

#40 Sep 16, 2006
Sue wrote:
Am I wrong to say that China is the only cuntry to cut back on their emissions? By 17% We also have organised religious groups that are fighting the white house right now, that we have a moral obligation to help avoid a problem like climate change. Did you know that more Americans are involved in organised religion than almost any indutrialised country? So maybe we can still make a difference.
China is critisised so much but everyone forgets they are new to the problems while the West has had years.
Some of their *China% efforts are phenomenal in sucess just look at the Yanksie river for one example.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Paleontology Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
10 Edinburgh attractions you have to visit Jan 22 carlthehiker 3
Firestorms Didn't Cause Dinosaur Extinction, St... Jan 22 malena83 1
Discover the Dinosaurs in Charlotte with your p... Jan 18 Fartosaurus Rex 1
Do we have any better chance at changing the co... Jan 12 Fartosaurus Rex R... 2
'Idiot thrill-seekers' warned against taking se... Jan 10 Fartosaurus Rex 1
Mesozoic Era: Age of the Dinosaurs Jan 9 Rexby 2
'American eagle face' dinosaur discovered: Cat-... Jan 4 sheilach 1
More from around the web