Polar Ice Cap Melt

[Chapel]

This homeostasis is now threatened by factors that are both caused by, and addressable by people.

................
Oh wait, were you being serious?

Causes and Consequences of Species Extinctions by Navjot S Sodhi et al:

"... there is general agreement that extinction rates have soared over the past few hundred years, largely as a result of accelerated habitat destruction following European colonialism and the subsequent global expansion of the human population..."

"Although extinctions are a normal part of evolution, human modifications to the planet in the last few centuries [...] have greatly accelerated the rate at which extinctions occur. Habitat loss remains the main driver of extinctions, but it may act synergistically with other drivers..."


Patterns of Biodiversity: Rates and Causes of Loss of Diversity by Richard Frankham et al:

Current extinction rates are 10x - 100x higher than pre-human extinction rates.  Causes of current extinction rates are: Human population growth; Habitat loss and fragmentation; Introduced species; overharvest; and, Pollution/global environmental changes.

Good, these studies please me.

[jessealess]

LOL.

[jessealess]

I'm sad to say, though, that as far as something catastrophic happening... I don't think there is a good chance of that.

You know, unless a supervolcano erupts or we get hit by an asteroid or comet.

[Chapel]

I'm sad to say, though, that as far as something catastrophic happening... I don't think there is a good chance of that.

You know, unless a supervolcano erupts or we get hit by an asteroid or comet.

That's three reasons right there, there's also biochemical weapons, plague, nuclear weapons and nanotechnology.
I'm confident we will all be dead within four years.

[jessealess]

That's three reasons right there, there's also biochemical weapons, plague, nuclear weapons and nanotechnology.
I'm confident we will all be dead within four years.

Oh yeah, well there are those too. lol 

2013?  Meh, I don't think so, but you never know.   

[Chapel]

One can hope.

[PussyCrust]

Causes and Consequences of Species Extinctions by Navjot S Sodhi et al:

"... there is general agreement that extinction rates have soared over the past few hundred years, largely as a result of accelerated habitat destruction following European colonialism and the subsequent global expansion of the human population..."

"Although extinctions are a normal part of evolution, human modifications to the planet in the last few centuries [...] have greatly accelerated the rate at which extinctions occur. Habitat loss remains the main driver of extinctions, but it may act synergistically with other drivers..."


Patterns of Biodiversity: Rates and Causes of Loss of Diversity by Richard Frankham et al:

Current extinction rates are 10x - 100x higher than pre-human extinction rates.  Causes of current extinction rates are: Human population growth; Habitat loss and fragmentation; Introduced species; overharvest; and, Pollution/global environmental changes.

Lies.

[PussyCrust]

LIES!!!

[Gypsy]

Global Warming: A Convenient Lie  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086

I don´t know why... but I found interesting sites in my gmail- inbox this week

[PussyCrust]

Global Warming: A Convenient Lie  http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=5086

I don´t know why... but I found interesting sites in my gmail- inbox this week

I posted a link to "The Great Global Warming Swindle" earlier in the thread. People who believe in this nonsense are either retarded or just aren't taking enough time to educate themselves.

[Gypsy]

is not a nonsense at all. All who fight against the concept of GW are not following their basis. If earth is not a closed system and we can´t measure the ecological damages... why do we play with that?.

Also, I have said this before: GW is a politic weapon created by First World in order to control Developing Countries

[PussyCrust]

If earth is not a closed system and we can´t measure the ecological damages... why do we play with that?.

GW is a politic weapon created by First World in order to control Developing Countries

What do you mean specifically by these two statements?

[Gypsy]

If earth is not a closed system and we can´t measure the ecological damages... why do we play with that?.

GW is a politic weapon created by First World in order to control Developing Countries

What do you mean specifically by these two statements?

1.-we got a varying degrees of closure in closed systems (physics) Earth weather can`t be measured because is a open system. When we make experiments in order to proof GW we treat them like a closed system, and that`s is incorrect because the earth have millions of factors that plays inside weather changes. So, is an open system...  CO2 is not the principal agent who change weather around the world but is one of them. We can`t change the reality about CO2 and his reaction on polar capes.

2.- All politics who spread information about CO2 and industrial collapse is a weapon against developing countries. I do not have good arguments to support this. But is my natural point of view

[PussyCrust]

1.-we got a varying degrees of closure in closed systems (physics) Earth weather can`t be measured because is a open system. When we make experiments in order to proof GW we treat them like a closed system, and that`s is incorrect because the earth have millions of factors that plays inside weather changes. So, is an open system...  CO2 is not the principal agent who change weather around the world but is one of them. We can`t change the reality about CO2 and his reaction on polar capes.

2.- All politics who spread information about CO2 and industrial collapse is a weapon against developing countries. I do not have good arguments to support this. But is my natural point of view

1.- That makes sense. My argument shouldn't really have been that GW does not exist, but that humans are not the primary cause of it. CO2, in relation to other gasses that take up the Earth, is an incredibly small percentage. I think more weight is put on it than there should be.

2.- I'll take your word for it. You're usually right anyway. 

[Gypsy]

This week in Nature Geoscience, a cadre of scientists going by the name Global Carbon Project will publish a meta-analysis of global carbon emissions. The study led to headlines like, “Global CO2 emissions to drop 2.8 pct in ‘09: report,” and many others more in the ominous vein of “Earth ‘heading for 6C (6 degrees Celsius)’ of warming.” So how did both headlines come from the same study?


This year’s dip is correct: “In 2009, it is likely that the global financial crisis will cause global emissions to actually fall by a couple of percent,” said Michael Raupach, co-author of the report and co-chair of the Global Carbon Project . But, he says, the carbon cut will be short-lived if the recession ends.


lol

In that case, the researchers say, the world will return to its normal trend. Since 2000 emissions have been rising by an average 3.4 per cent every year, compared to one per cent in the 1990s  Overall, worldwide emissions rose by 29 percent from 2000 to 2008, and the scientists put forward that 6 degrees Celsius global warming figure as a worst-case scenario—what could happen if the overall rising trend continued unabated.

The timing of their warning seems clear. This week President Obama and Chinese President Hu Jintao talked climate during their meeting in China, with the world climate summit looming. The two committed their countries — the biggest emitters of the heat-trapping gases causing global warming — to backing a detailed political agreement at next month’s climate-change conference in Copenhagen. In their formula, rich countries would commit to reduction targets while developing ones would agree to meet softer goals that would be monitored

There is an argument to support my point of view.. (about GW as a political weapon)

The most troubling assertion of the Global Carbon Project study, however, might be this: The team believes that carbon sinks – the oceans and plants – are probably absorbing a slightly lower proportion of the carbon dioxide from fossil fuel emissions than they were 50 years ago, although researchers admit that uncertainty about the behaviour of sinks remains high

From: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/11/18/co2-emissions-are-rising-or-falling-actually-its-both/