M
MisterMike
Guest
Just how cold does it get? Does anyone remember from the last one?
Global Warming, anyone?
- Thread starter Cruentus
- Start date
- Status
A
Andi
Guest
jeffbeish said:
Here's a diagram showing the fluctuation of sea level over the last 30 million years. As far as I'm aware, the ice caps did not melt completely at any point during this time. Clearly, sea level changes of several hundred metres are possible.
I'm not suggesting this could happen overnight, but how disastrous would even a rise of ten metres be? Holland? Bangladesh? East Anglia? Florida?
someguy said:
If you remember, the outpouring of the Deccan Traps coincided with one of the greatest (and most hyped) extinctions of all time. Most geologists are convinced the two are related.
If that happened...of course some could survive. But it could be trickier to sustain our population with that kind of thing going on than you might think. Although I don't think we're due for a flood of lava any time soon, so no worries there.
Cobra said:
The only reason the ice ages were felt more acutely in the North is because that's where all the land is. If you shoved a few continents a bit further south, it would be more obvious that the same thing happened.
If there is a sea level rise, do you seriously think that the North half of the sea will rise and start flooding everywhere and the South half will just stay where it is? The sea's not too fussy about where it floods.
I am trying to find out more about the past "Ice Ages". While glaciers don't cover the entire globe, apparently the increased ice mass leads to colder air temperatures around the globe, and a more desert-like environment.
ha ha - there are estimates in different research programs. I will try to find some links. I'm sure if you looked around online, you could find websites with estimates.
hardheadjarhead
Senior Master
Cobra said:
Define "survive".
Let's forget the nasty cold and ice of the mini-ice age. Try to put aside for a moment the zippy special effects of "The Day After Tomorrow" and consider, if you will, weather fluctuations of a more mild nature.
Envision, now worldwide crop failures. Picture drastic drops in fish stocks. We're going to have famine.
I want you also imagine this happening in the age of your children, Cobra. You have kids? I have one. This is going to drop into HIS lap. At 47 I suppose I'll be a grandpa one of these days...I'm certainly old enough now. By the time my grandkid as yet unborn grandkid is of age the effects of this are going to be going full swing.
Now, as a species, we'll probably "survive" it. I agree as far as that goes. In doing so we need to consider that the level of human suffering may be on a scale never witnessed before. Our kids and grandkids are not going to get blitzed like in the movie, with tidal surges washing into New York. They're going to starve.
Regards,
Steve
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Hey Cobra ... Do you have any idea how long the dinosaurs were alive and thriving on the surface of this planet? I'll give you a few minutes to go check, go ahead .... use the internet .... look it up.Cobra said:
OK .. now ... how long is it that Homo Sapiens have walked the earth? You may need to look that one up too ... it's OK.
In my wildest dreams I can hope that our species shall be as successful as our (possibly) cold blooded predecessors.
<chuckling> Mike
michaeledward
Grandmaster
A quick look about the web indicates during a period of 'Glaciation', the average tempurature drop is between 5 and 8 degrees Celcius. Doesn't sound like much, but as an average, it does allow for a period of 'Glaciation'.MisterMike said:
Let's put it in perspective.
An average drop of 5 degrees C would be:
Bad for the size of Bass (they only get bigger in warm water)
Good for the population of trout (they like colder water, it holds more desolved Oxygen).
Mike
M
MisterMike
Guest
5 - 8 degrees C??? That's it? I was hoping I could unplug my fridge...although, if there's a glacier in the back yard... 
Perfect screen name!Feisty Mouse said:
The feisty part anyway from what I can see...Feisty Mouse what do you know of the effects of the thinning ozone layer? I worry about my kids being in the sun these days. Is this a result of global warming, or a symptom of it?
Maybe you can give me a shot at this one too...
Global warming and Ozone Depletion have little to do with each other, other then that they are both caused by industry. Ozone Depletion is MUCH more dangerous then global warming though. Increased amounts of UV radation would be deadly to life on this planet and it takes over 100 years to work cfcs out of the atmosphere. Fortunately, there has been a lot of progress on this issue. The UN banned CFC use in the 1990's I believe because people were able to come together and see this threat clearly. Also, technology to provide alternatives for CFCs was more readily available at the time of the ban.
Global warming, on the other hand, is a much trickier issue. Recently, it has been highly politicized with a fossil fuel president in the oval office. And considering the state of today's politics, I can't see anyone listening to reason anytime soon.
Global warming and Ozone Depletion have little to do with each other, other then that they are both caused by industry. Ozone Depletion is MUCH more dangerous then global warming though. Increased amounts of UV radation would be deadly to life on this planet and it takes over 100 years to work cfcs out of the atmosphere. Fortunately, there has been a lot of progress on this issue. The UN banned CFC use in the 1990's I believe because people were able to come together and see this threat clearly. Also, technology to provide alternatives for CFCs was more readily available at the time of the ban.
Global warming, on the other hand, is a much trickier issue. Recently, it has been highly politicized with a fossil fuel president in the oval office. And considering the state of today's politics, I can't see anyone listening to reason anytime soon.
Maybe, I am way out of line and also out in left field, yet here is what I am thinking.
Education is good. Go read up about it and also read both sides of the arguement.
Now, I agree that we should worry about or resources and also the future of the planet. Yet, just because you buy a hybrid vehicle does not make it better for the ecology. It is better, to turn lights of, keep the house colder in the winter and hotter in the summer. Install an programable thermostat for time settings. Buy high efficient light bulbs, you may pay more for them yet you are helping out right? Hybrid are not all what they are cracked upto. A major producer of one today is facing invstigations about to high of EMC, on the level of 125 to 135 MilliGuass and the groin and hip area, and about 100 to 120 mG in the head and shoulder areas. This is a long term helth concern as well. Also, once these vehicles brake , they are really hard to get working right again. Just from feedback from people I have talked. They love their vehicles until something goes wrong. I agree that we need to build them and work out the bugs, just realize that there will be bugs, and not the prefect solution. About 60% of the energy plant in the US burn sulfur coal. Sulfur has been removed from the gasoline of today. So, this is much more damaging to the ecology then just a vehicle. On an electric vehicle , the tail pipr emissions are zero, so you have a local isolation that is better, yet the over all picture is worse. More polution is created in the genreation of the electricity then in burning the gasoline. Once again, I think research needs to continue here. Fuel cells or Hydrogen based vehicles have the range that natural gas vehicle do not. The problem is the inefficiencies in creating the hydrogen and transporting it, and then in the converstion back into energy to move the vehicle (* about 40 to 60 % efficient *). Yet, if research is not done, then no progress will occur.
Once again research the system you think is helping. Do not sub optimize, for in doing so you may have created complexities in the whole system not there before.
As to the sea level. I agree it would be bad for the coastal areas to flood. Yet, I have been thinking about this today, and I would like to just throw this out there. Get two ice cube trays. Fill one with cold water. Fill the other one with hot water. Check later, and see what happened? The cold water will expand and take up more volume, then the cold water. This makes me thing that the melting of the Artic, which is displacing water with its' volume would not be as bad as it is thought to be. It would still be bad, just not as bad. Take a look at the hot water tray. The ice cubes will be smaller than the cold tray and also should be below the water level when put in? Why is this? Second experiment. Place a bunch of super bouce balls into a large jar. Fill the jar about one quarter to one third. When the jar is at rest the balls only take up a certain volume. Whe you shake the jar you have heated up the system or put energy into the system. The volume of the balls would seem to be much closer to that of the jar itself. Imagine that the balls are water molecules. So, if you have a jar full of "hot" bounce balls and a jar full of cold bounce balls, then when they system had been brought to rest, or the energy stabilizes to that of the surrounding environment, you will see that the cold jar is fuller than the hot jar. I mention this to avoid the arguement ice does not displace more volume in solid than in liquid, For someone would have noticed this in real life.
So, as the Artic melts which has no land mass, it is solid ice, it will not necessarily cause as large a rise in the sea level as expected.
To see what I mean by this take a glass and fill it half way with water, then add ice to fill the glass. Let sit, then measure the level of the water after the ice has melted. It will be lower than when the ice was present.
Now, to the antartic:
The ice in sheets in the bays would have the same results as the artic. Yet, the ice on the land mass will run off and enter into system. This ice/water was not displacing volume previously. This is the concern, for where most of that damage to the ecology will occur. So, the fact that the sheets have heated and colded and some are breaking off, now does not scare me. What does bother me, though is the decrease in depth of the glaciers on the land mass of Antartica.
Just a simple way of trying to explain what I see, using basic physics and earth science. So fire away, since I know some will think that I am in the bleachers on this one.
Education is good. Go read up about it and also read both sides of the arguement.
Now, I agree that we should worry about or resources and also the future of the planet. Yet, just because you buy a hybrid vehicle does not make it better for the ecology. It is better, to turn lights of, keep the house colder in the winter and hotter in the summer. Install an programable thermostat for time settings. Buy high efficient light bulbs, you may pay more for them yet you are helping out right? Hybrid are not all what they are cracked upto. A major producer of one today is facing invstigations about to high of EMC, on the level of 125 to 135 MilliGuass and the groin and hip area, and about 100 to 120 mG in the head and shoulder areas. This is a long term helth concern as well. Also, once these vehicles brake , they are really hard to get working right again. Just from feedback from people I have talked. They love their vehicles until something goes wrong. I agree that we need to build them and work out the bugs, just realize that there will be bugs, and not the prefect solution. About 60% of the energy plant in the US burn sulfur coal. Sulfur has been removed from the gasoline of today. So, this is much more damaging to the ecology then just a vehicle. On an electric vehicle , the tail pipr emissions are zero, so you have a local isolation that is better, yet the over all picture is worse. More polution is created in the genreation of the electricity then in burning the gasoline. Once again, I think research needs to continue here. Fuel cells or Hydrogen based vehicles have the range that natural gas vehicle do not. The problem is the inefficiencies in creating the hydrogen and transporting it, and then in the converstion back into energy to move the vehicle (* about 40 to 60 % efficient *). Yet, if research is not done, then no progress will occur.
Once again research the system you think is helping. Do not sub optimize, for in doing so you may have created complexities in the whole system not there before.
As to the sea level. I agree it would be bad for the coastal areas to flood. Yet, I have been thinking about this today, and I would like to just throw this out there. Get two ice cube trays. Fill one with cold water. Fill the other one with hot water. Check later, and see what happened? The cold water will expand and take up more volume, then the cold water. This makes me thing that the melting of the Artic, which is displacing water with its' volume would not be as bad as it is thought to be. It would still be bad, just not as bad. Take a look at the hot water tray. The ice cubes will be smaller than the cold tray and also should be below the water level when put in? Why is this? Second experiment. Place a bunch of super bouce balls into a large jar. Fill the jar about one quarter to one third. When the jar is at rest the balls only take up a certain volume. Whe you shake the jar you have heated up the system or put energy into the system. The volume of the balls would seem to be much closer to that of the jar itself. Imagine that the balls are water molecules. So, if you have a jar full of "hot" bounce balls and a jar full of cold bounce balls, then when they system had been brought to rest, or the energy stabilizes to that of the surrounding environment, you will see that the cold jar is fuller than the hot jar. I mention this to avoid the arguement ice does not displace more volume in solid than in liquid, For someone would have noticed this in real life.
So, as the Artic melts which has no land mass, it is solid ice, it will not necessarily cause as large a rise in the sea level as expected.
To see what I mean by this take a glass and fill it half way with water, then add ice to fill the glass. Let sit, then measure the level of the water after the ice has melted. It will be lower than when the ice was present.
Now, to the antartic:
The ice in sheets in the bays would have the same results as the artic. Yet, the ice on the land mass will run off and enter into system. This ice/water was not displacing volume previously. This is the concern, for where most of that damage to the ecology will occur. So, the fact that the sheets have heated and colded and some are breaking off, now does not scare me. What does bother me, though is the decrease in depth of the glaciers on the land mass of Antartica.
Just a simple way of trying to explain what I see, using basic physics and earth science. So fire away, since I know some will think that I am in the bleachers on this one.
upnorthkyosa said:Maybe you can give me a shot at this one too...
Global warming and Ozone Depletion have little to do with each other, other then that they are both caused by industry. Ozone Depletion is MUCH more dangerous then global warming though. Increased amounts of UV radation would be deadly to life on this planet and it takes over 100 years to work cfcs out of the atmosphere. Fortunately, there has been a lot of progress on this issue. The UN banned CFC use in the 1990's I believe because people were able to come together and see this threat clearly. Also, technology to provide alternatives for CFCs was more readily available at the time of the ban.
Global warming, on the other hand, is a much trickier issue. Recently, it has been highly politicized with a fossil fuel president in the oval office. And considering the state of today's politics, I can't see anyone listening to reason anytime soon.
Yes, the old refrigerent CFC or ChlorFlouroCarbons, were banned in the late 1990's.
As to UV, maybe this will cause more mutation, and increase the rate of evolution? Thoughts?
Most mutations are deadly. Only a small amount of mutations are actually benificial.
Of course :asian: ...upnorthkyosa said:Maybe you can give me a shot at this one too...
Thanks for the clarification. I remember the ban on hairsprays made with CFCs as one example. It's great that there's been progress, but do you notice how many people seem to be diagnosed with skin cancer these days? I know three people in their thirties who've been diagnosed with melanoma, and many more than that with basal cell cancers. It's scary, and I can't help but attribute it to environmental factors. I saw a special about a town in Australia where all the children had to wear big brimmed hats for protection from the sun. It seems to me that people are burning more easily as a result of the ozone depletion.
I recently read that there were energy efficient cars that some people really liked using and they were leasing them and would be given the option to buy when the leases were up. Instead the company that made the cars, (I can't remember which one) found it wasn't cost effective to maintain them so when the people brought in the cars at the end of the lease period, intending to purchase them, they were told that they would not be permitted to do so and the cars were to be collected and crushed. What a waste, and as such, I suppose that in the long run probably more harmful to the environment.
If you look at this siteĀ
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo144e.pdf
This graph clearly shows an increase in CO^2 levels since 1958. The short up and down movements on the graph show a phenomenon known in the northern hemisphere known as winter. People are burning fuel to keep warm. Individually, if you look at the spikes, they rise a little higher each year. This reflects the fact that our population has been rising since 1958. From this information, you can clearly see that carbon dioxide increases are directly related to the activities of humans.
Carbon Dioxide is a proven greenhouse gas. Its molecular properties clearly show its ability to absorb and emit photons in the IR spectrum. From this information and from information taken at other observatories worldwide, it is clearly a safe assumption that global warming is occurring.
And then if you Look at this site and view all of the observation station's dataĀ
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
It clearly shows that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and this correlates to graphs showing an increase in temperature. If you look at the Ice Core graphs, you will see that natural CO^2 fluctuations are much more gradual. It takes thousands of years to accomplish what humans have accomplished in 50 years.
Our current global warming trends cannot be totally attributed to natural causes. The data shows that WE are at least part of this phenomenon.
Not according to this paper, thoughĀ
http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/story.html?id=06C603EF-5B3F-49CF-ACAC-50D9F895E7DE
Or
http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-13-04-2.html
Both or which cast doubt on the phenomenon of global warming and of its effect upon us. Yet, a look at the bias behind the issue reveals the source of their objections. Both organizations are beholden to those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo. For a look into the bias, check thisĀ
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
The questioning is not the problem, yet when those questions are answered with thisĀ
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
And the answers are ignoredĀ This type of literature could be the death of science. It is not peer reviewed and it subverts the scientific process by garnering money from thier corporate supporters. This is no different from the tactics they accuse the other side of using. Extremist articles on both sides teach us is that we live in a world where screaming and shouting have subverted rational thought.
There are real environmental problems in our world and these problems could require some very tough sacrifices. Smearing the entirety of environmentalism is nothing but an obvious tactic by those who do not wish to pay the price. When the data is presented without any ideologic trapping, it pretty much squelches debate. Even a nematode can see the correlation between all of the measuring stations and the rising global temperature. Yet, people persist in believing that nothing is happening...should we honestly be surprised? The dangers of smoking are clear and present and people ignore that too. I guess it just goes to show that logic fails when clever words and shouting are backed by billions of dollars.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/graphics/mlo144e.pdf
This graph clearly shows an increase in CO^2 levels since 1958. The short up and down movements on the graph show a phenomenon known in the northern hemisphere known as winter. People are burning fuel to keep warm. Individually, if you look at the spikes, they rise a little higher each year. This reflects the fact that our population has been rising since 1958. From this information, you can clearly see that carbon dioxide increases are directly related to the activities of humans.
Carbon Dioxide is a proven greenhouse gas. Its molecular properties clearly show its ability to absorb and emit photons in the IR spectrum. From this information and from information taken at other observatories worldwide, it is clearly a safe assumption that global warming is occurring.
And then if you Look at this site and view all of the observation station's dataĀ
http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/co2/contents.htm
It clearly shows that humans are adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere and this correlates to graphs showing an increase in temperature. If you look at the Ice Core graphs, you will see that natural CO^2 fluctuations are much more gradual. It takes thousands of years to accomplish what humans have accomplished in 50 years.
Our current global warming trends cannot be totally attributed to natural causes. The data shows that WE are at least part of this phenomenon.
Not according to this paper, thoughĀ
http://www.nationalpost.com/financialpost/story.html?id=06C603EF-5B3F-49CF-ACAC-50D9F895E7DE
Or
http://www.cato.org/dailys/01-13-04-2.html
Both or which cast doubt on the phenomenon of global warming and of its effect upon us. Yet, a look at the bias behind the issue reveals the source of their objections. Both organizations are beholden to those with vested interests in maintaining the status quo. For a look into the bias, check thisĀ
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/edu/gwdebate/
The questioning is not the problem, yet when those questions are answered with thisĀ
http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/index.htm
And the answers are ignoredĀ This type of literature could be the death of science. It is not peer reviewed and it subverts the scientific process by garnering money from thier corporate supporters. This is no different from the tactics they accuse the other side of using. Extremist articles on both sides teach us is that we live in a world where screaming and shouting have subverted rational thought.
There are real environmental problems in our world and these problems could require some very tough sacrifices. Smearing the entirety of environmentalism is nothing but an obvious tactic by those who do not wish to pay the price. When the data is presented without any ideologic trapping, it pretty much squelches debate. Even a nematode can see the correlation between all of the measuring stations and the rising global temperature. Yet, people persist in believing that nothing is happening...should we honestly be surprised? The dangers of smoking are clear and present and people ignore that too. I guess it just goes to show that logic fails when clever words and shouting are backed by billions of dollars.
michaeledward
Grandmaster
Rich, I am going decline to address your comments on automobile locomotion. Certainly, your knowledge of the internal combustion engine is superior to mine. I have often wondered about the costs, financially and environmentally, about electric automobiles (including the replacement and disposal of batteries - remember, the hybrid vehicles are do not draw from powerplant electricity, but rather through capturing energy while braking).Rich Parsons said:
However, talking about hot water and cold water and glasses and jars filled just doesn't seem to make sense. I've read your thoughts twice now, and am still confused. Very simply, most of the solid H2O on our planet is located on land masses. Yes, there is quite a bit floating around on the top of the oceans; at the north pole, harbors in the arctic and antarctic. But ... most of it is sitting on hilltops, mountians and in glaciers. Once this solid is transformed to liquid, it is going to run downhill until it reaches the lowest level ... which will be in the ocean.
I found this nifty little collection of information on a web site ... I am not speaking to the credibility of these facts:
H2O in the oceans ___________ 97.3% _____ 1.35x10(17) cubic meters
H2O in Polar caps & glaciers_____ 2.1% _____ 29x10(15) cubic meters
H2O (fresh water) underground___0.6% _____ 8.4x10(15) cubic meters
H2O in lakes and rivers__________0.01% _____0.2x10(15) cubic meters
H20 in the atmosphere__________0.001%_____0.013x10(15) cubic meters
If the water in the polar ice caps melted completely, the oceans would rise 73 meters above its present level (200+ feet).
http://www.farmweb.au.com/h2o/h2solar.html
Oh .. and I better post this other thought on a separate message.
Thanks - Mike
michaeledward
Grandmaster
While looking for information concerning Global Warming ... I found this page ... be warned ... it is quite scary ...
http://www.circus.com/~no_dhmo/
For those of you who get it ... enjoy - Mike
The Invisible Killer
Dihydrogen monoxide is colorless, odorless, tasteless, and kills uncounted thousands of people every year. Most of these deaths are caused by accidental inhalation of DHMO, but the dangers of dihydrogen monoxide do not end there. Prolonged exposure to its solid form causes severe tissue damage. Symptoms of DHMO ingestion can include excessive sweating and urination, and possibly a bloated feeling, nausea, vomiting and body electrolyte imbalance. For those who have become dependent, DHMO withdrawal means certain death.
Dihydrogen monoxide:
- is also known as hydroxl acid, and is the major component of acid rain.
- contributes to the "greenhouse effect."
- may cause severe burns.
- contributes to the erosion of our natural landscape.
- accelerates corrosion and rusting of many metals.
- may cause electrical failures and decreased effectiveness of automobile brakes.
- has been found in excised tumors of terminal cancer patients.
Contamination Is Reaching Epidemic Proportions!
Quantities of dihydrogen monoxide have been found in almost every stream, lake, and reservoir in America today. But the pollution is global, and the contaminant has even been found in Antarctic ice. DHMO has caused millions of dollars of property damage in the midwest, and recently California.
Despite the danger, dihydrogen monoxide is often used:
Companies dump waste DHMO into rivers and the ocean, and nothing can be done to stop them because this practice is still legal. The impact on wildlife is extreme, and we cannot afford to ignore it any longer!
- as an industrial solvent and coolant.
- in nuclear power plants.
- in the production of styrofoam.
- as a fire retardant.
- in many forms of cruel animal research.
- in the distribution of pesticides. Even after washing, produce remains contaminated by this chemical.
- as an additive in certain "junk-foods" and other food products.
The Horror Must Be Stopped!
The American government has refused to ban the production, distribution, or use of this damaging chemical due to its "importance to the economic health of this nation." In fact, the navy and other military organizations are conducting experiments with DHMO, and designing multi-billion dollar devices to control and utilize it during warfare situations. Hundreds of military research facilities receive tons of it through a highly sophisticated underground distribution network. Many store large quantities for later use.
http://www.circus.com/~no_dhmo/
For those of you who get it ... enjoy - Mike
Set out to prove something and you will. Unfortunately it is sometimes up to us to decipher the literature and the statistical validity of research as well. I took a graduate studies course on that very subject and it was amazing how sometimes "researchĀ can be slanted to represent a special interest group's interest. When the research is funded by a special interest group you should scrutinize and be critical of the results.upnorthkyosa said:
I think it's a matter of turning a deaf ear rather than total ignorance. Openly admit the problem and you may then have to take action. Smokers today have to know of the dangers. It's posted everywhere and where I live, permitted in less and less places...it's no different with environmental issues, some people just choose to ignore it. We give money to a couple of environmental groups, and I wonder if it really helps or not, because you are right big business often wins out they have the money and political connections to protect their interests. We still give...:asian:
(nice posts, upnorthkyosa and michaeledwards - those were interesting!)
Minor gank....
A few years ago, thinking back on that time, I got checked out by a dermatologist here and had a few spots removed. So far I've been fortunate. But skin cancer is quite a fear there. And when I was there, it was at its height - people just burned in the sun no matter what.
The ad campaign was something like, "Slip, slop, slap" - slip on a (long-sleeved) shirt, slop on sunscreen, and slap on a hat. There were posters around pretty frequently.
I have a serious sunhat similar to this. I think everyone who works outside in the sun should have one!
http://www.cancer.org.au/content.cfm?randid=502435
Minor gank....
I was a research volunteer for about 4 months in Western Australia years ago. Right about that time, the big ozone hole over the Antarctic had drifted over to Western Australia (I was on the coast, near the most westernmost point). Australians have developed a very good public awareness policy and ad campaigns to inform people about the sun. Aside from heatstroke and other goofiness, a few of us turned kind of purple in the sun - it was sort of a burn, sort of like getting cooked. There was no point at which we didn't burn - i.e. we didn't get a "base layer" and then tan. Everyone burned - even the ex-Navy guys who looked like leather. They burned on top of their leathery, tanned skin. It was strange.
A few years ago, thinking back on that time, I got checked out by a dermatologist here and had a few spots removed. So far I've been fortunate. But skin cancer is quite a fear there. And when I was there, it was at its height - people just burned in the sun no matter what.
The ad campaign was something like, "Slip, slop, slap" - slip on a (long-sleeved) shirt, slop on sunscreen, and slap on a hat. There were posters around pretty frequently.
I have a serious sunhat similar to this. I think everyone who works outside in the sun should have one!
http://www.cancer.org.au/content.cfm?randid=502435
C
Cobra
Guest
Yes I already know how long dinos and humans have been in exsistence (atleast to an athiest's point of view). What makes you think we can't survive as long as the dinosaurs? Sure we are one species, but we are far more different than any other animal that has ever lived. And why is that? Well, everything that we have done is different than others in the past. Has there ever been a species as intelligent as us?michaeledward said:
Let's see how dinosaurs got extinct for a moment. Hmm, an astroid from space hits Earth causing the sun the sun to become blocked out. But the sun being blocked out isn't what scientist think ended the dinos. Most dinos were herbavores, meaning without the plants that the dinos ate began to die out, leading to there being no food for dinos. There were some plants which didn't need sunlight, but it wasn't enough for the size of the dinos to keep them alive.
Now let's put this into our situation if an astroid caused a similar effect. Without the sun it would be very cold, but then we have technology to make ourselves warm. Some say dinos are cold-blooded, if that is true right away we see why they couldn't survive the cold times when the sun was blocked out. Then there is food. Of course there might be mass death, but there will be enough for us to eat in the end. Plants in need of no sunlight will be there for us. And there is another thing we have that the dinos didn't have, artificial sunlight. We can then put plants in such lights. I can go on and on.
Now do you see my point? If everything fails, I'm sure we will think of something new. Though I wouldn't want such a bad thing to happen, so I would want people to stop what they are doing to make such a thing to happen. But no man is perfect, so I really can't say it is preventable. But I just want you to see that we can and will adapt to whatever changes that may come our way.
jeffbeish
Blue Belt
michaeledward said:
Well, let's see -- just how much of our north polar cap is on the sea and how much is on land? Now, it is quite obvious that the educational system that teaches people that the displacement of water is not effected by melting of ice within the body of water -- well, it is a failed system.
You may also be concerned with the motives of politicians who lie and yell similar phrases as that of Chicken Little, before understanding the basic concepts of science. For yawl's edification and for anyone interested then you might find out a little science before making statements about the sea rising when the polar caps melt. So far the so-called debate here on ĀG.W.Ā is way out of date and it reminds me of some of the garbage AlGoreĀs ghost writers put in this comic book, ĀEarth in Balance.Ā Total nonsense. However, to argue will people with closed minds is fruitless.
Old Dusty, Ph.D.
P.S. The sky is not falling and the atmosphere is really doing just fine, and we knew that water existed on Mars now since before I was born many Moons ago. So, do not put full faith in what NASA publishes without first reading of it's past.
- Status
Similar threads
