Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

damus

Hot Arctic

242 posts in this topic

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060531/ap_on_sc/hot_arctic

First-of-its-kind core samples dug up from deep beneath the Arctic Ocean floor show that 55 million years ago an area near the North Pole was practically a subtropical paradise, three new studies show.

The scientists say their findings are a glimpse backward into a much warmer-than-thought polar region heated by run-amok greenhouse gases that came about naturally.

Skeptics of man-made causes of global warming have nothing to rejoice over, however. The researchers say their studies appearing in Thursday's issue of Nature also offer a peak at just how bad conditions can get.

"It probably was (a tropical paradise) but the mosquitoes were probably the size of your head," said Yale geology professor Mark Pagani, a study co-author.

Do they have core samples from other parts of the world? I've read and seen on TV that the world's poles shift from time to time, taking the Earth's crust with it. How do they know the north pole wasn't somewhere else? Since the North Pole was first discovered it has already moved...

The world must have been pretty warm overall to support 74 degree average annual temperatures in places where there is no sunlight for half the year....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


The world must have been pretty warm overall to support 74 degree average annual temperatures in places where there is no sunlight for half the year....

The world was warmer in the far distant past. It should also be noted the climate in those days wasn't good for mamalian life, half of the current land mass was underwater, and there were raging storms that make todays storms look tame in comparison.

People, in looking for excuses for denying that global warming isn't anything to be concerned about, would be better served expending the time and effort on helping to solve the problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The world was warmer in the far distant past. It should also be noted the climate in those days wasn't good for mamalian life, half of the current land mass was underwater, and there were raging storms that make todays storms look tame in comparison.

People, in looking for excuses for denying that global warming isn't anything to be concerned about, would be better served expending the time and effort on helping to solve the problem.

a good portion of the scientific community is quite skeptical of the global warming theories. it is a fact that climate changes in cycles. it is also known that humans are helping it change faster. it's how much of an effect humans have on it vs the natural cycle of things that is in question.

the more whacko environmentalists shove global warming down people's throats, the more skeptical i become of those theories. i actually had a couple professors in college who were quite skeptical of the idea of global warming as anything more than a scare tactic... from the ecology and geology/geophysics departments.

the question we need to ask ourselves is how important is it that we protect human life on the planet? as in... are we really greater than anything else, including nature, or are we just part of it and will perish when nature decides it's time?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a good portion of the scientific community is quite skeptical of the global warming theories. it is a fact that climate changes in cycles. it is also known that humans are helping it change faster. it's how much of an effect humans have on it vs the natural cycle of things that is in question.

What good portion? Every reputable scientist is convinced that climite change is occuring because of mankind's activities on this planet.

And what is a wacko environmentalist? Are you saying that we should not be doing something to keep pollution from getting worse? I simply don't understand why this label gets applied to people who are trying to keep our environment clean. If you ask me the people who are wacko are the ones who deny the dumping of hundreds of millions of tons of carbon, particulates, and other matter into the atmosphere every year is harmless and we shouldn't be worried.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What good portion? Every reputable scientist is convinced that climite change is occuring because of mankind's activities on this planet.

And what is a wacko environmentalist? Are you saying that we should not be doing something to keep pollution from getting worse? I simply don't understand why this label gets applied to people who are trying to keep our environment clean. If you ask me the people who are wacko are the ones who deny the dumping of hundreds of millions of tons of carbon, particulates, and other matter into the atmosphere every year is harmless and we shouldn't be worried.

wacko environmentalists are the ones who take the extremist view. the ones who tell you that you can't save the planet unless everyone goes vegan because eating meat hurts the environment.

i am an environmentalist and i do my part, but i don't take it to the extreme.

i'll get back to you on that first question, i have to find some links.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wacko environmentalists are the ones who take the extremist view. the ones who tell you that you can't save the planet unless everyone goes vegan because eating meat hurts the environment.

Honestly, I can't say that I have ever heard one serious scientist in discussions over global warming, have said that we all have to be vegetarian. These kinds of accusations happen when people don't have any serious basis for the point they are trying to make.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly, I can't say that I have ever heard one serious scientist in discussions over global warming, have said that we all have to be vegetarian. These kinds of accusations happen when people don't have any serious basis for the point they are trying to make.

i'm not talking about serious scientists, i'm describing the whacko environmentalists i've mentioned. i'm talking the people who get all gung ho behind movies like "an inconvenient truth" (i think that's the name of it, the new al gore movie) and take it as 100% truth with absolutely no spin.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i'm not talking about serious scientists, i'm describing the whacko environmentalists i've mentioned. i'm talking the people who get all gung ho behind movies like "an inconvenient truth" (i think that's the name of it, the new al gore movie) and take it as 100% truth with absolutely no spin.

Since when are people who go to see a movie all of a sudden environmentalists. Even worse why would you call them wacko? Do you have some basis for making a claim like this or is this just your opinion?

I don't think it is productive to label people wacko for believing in protecting and improving the environment. The more people are involved the better off we all will be because the alternative is that it will be solely in the hands of our big buerocratic government, the oil companies who own them, and the corporations that are interested in profits?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Since when are people who go to see a movie all of a sudden environmentalists. Even worse why would you call them wacko? Do you have some basis for making a claim like this or is this just your opinion?

I don't think it is productive to label people wacko for believing in protecting and improving the environment. The more people are involved the better off we all will be because the alternative is that it will be solely in the hands of our big buerocratic government, the oil companies who own them, and the corporations that are interested in profits?

here's a fact: people as a whole (especially americans) will not change if the only information they are getting says that in order to make any sort of difference, you need to completely change your lifestyle.

i agree that we need to be involved, but i disagree with the extremeist point of view which tends to be what is heard from most people who are gung ho behind movies like that al gore flick. people who go see it aren't necessarily environmentalists and i never said they were. i said the ones who are all gung ho about it being the absolute truth, when, in fact, it's not.

my question still remains... just how much of the global warming is due to human activity and how much is due to nature? it is a fact that the warming and cooling have come in waves and it is a fact that we are in a warming phase regardless of whether or not humans have helped it along.

it is also my opinion that the human species is not meant to be above everything else on earth that we can perish just like any other species. dinosaurs once lived here and were killed off long before homo sapiens existed. who's to say that homo sapiens won't die off and some other species will come after us? the only thing saying that is religion, which has no basis in science.

while i do agree that we need to do all we can to help the environment, i'm not willing to completely change my life to do so. and yes, i have been in environmental discussions with extremeists who have said that in order to really truly save the environment, we need to become vegan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it is also my opinion that the human species is not meant to be above everything else on earth that we can perish just like any other species. dinosaurs once lived here and were killed off long before homo sapiens existed. who's to say that homo sapiens won't die off and some other species will come after us? the only thing saying that is religion, which has no basis in science.

The big difference is that humanity, which is unique amongst all other species on this planet, has the intellectual ability to do something to keep it from happening if we collectively have the will to do so. Saying we are as hopeless in the matter as the dinosaurs again is a pointless excuse for not doing anything about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The big difference is that humanity, which is unique amongst all other species on this planet, has the intellectual ability to do something to keep it from happening if we collectively have the will to do so. Saying we are as hopeless in the matter as the dinosaurs again is a pointless excuse for not doing anything about it.

if you have that much faith in humanity, more power to you. i don't. while i do agree that humans are unique and have a higher intellectual ability, i disagree that we have the ability to steer nature in whatever direction we choose. yes, we can keep an increased rate of global warming from occurring, but we cannot keep the natural processes and order of things from occurring. global warming does happen naturally (which is one of the theories as to why the dinosaurs died off), as does global cooling (there were more than one ice age with periods of warmth in between).

i just read somewhere (and it could've been a complete farce) that the poles were actually quite warm at one time. i'll have to find that article.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People, in looking for excuses for denying that global warming isn't anything to be concerned about, would be better served expending the time and effort on helping to solve the problem.

For that to happen, those of us who don't believe in global warming would either have to start believing in it or simply humor those who do. I choose to do neither, because it's nothing more than a crock. It's amazing how the general public can be so easily duped, through the power of suggestion, to believe that a simple theory is actually fact.

Fact: Our planet goes through cycles of warming and cooling. It's nature and it's proven.

Theory: Humans are partially responsible for the warming of the planet. It's a combination of mankind and nature.

I don't buy into the theory, therefore I don't see the need to try and search for a solution. Why should people involve themselves with trying to solve a problem they don't even believe exists?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i just read somewhere (and it could've been a complete farce) that the poles were actually quite warm at one time. i'll have to find that article.

Check the first post on the thread...

I agree with the "wacko environmentalists" argument a little bit. PETA argues for everyone to go vegan partly for the sake of our environment. They argue by stating how many acres and how much methane released into the air it takes to raise cattle for use as food or dairy. I agree that we all eat too much meat, but you're not going to change thousands of years of cutural and even physical evolution just like that. Just like alcohol, our bodies are becoming somewhat used to meat (just look at how Europeans can handle their liquor in general vs. a Native American ... our bodies do evolve even in short periods of time), and our culture is not going to give it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fact: Our planet goes through cycles of warming and cooling. It's nature and it's proven.

Theory: Humans are partially responsible for the warming of the planet. It's a combination of mankind and nature.

There are maps of where the most greenhouse gases are released into the air .. and the "reddest" parts of the globe are located in South America and Africa where rain forests are being burned down to the ground.

Yeah we do go through cooling and warming, and in the historical past it usually was a relatively overnight change. The middle ages saw a warming period in which people lived on large settlements on greenland (which theoretically served as a "launching pad" to the canadien maratimes) followed by a colder period known as the "little ice age". We're in between the two right now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Check the first post on the thread...

I agree with the "wacko environmentalists" argument a little bit. PETA argues for everyone to go vegan partly for the sake of our environment. They argue by stating how many acres and how much methane released into the air it takes to raise cattle for use as food or dairy. I agree that we all eat too much meat, but you're not going to change thousands of years of cutural and even physical evolution just like that. Just like alcohol, our bodies are becoming somewhat used to meat (just look at how Europeans can handle their liquor in general vs. a Native American ... our bodies do evolve even in short periods of time), and our culture is not going to give it up.

our bodies are not becoming more used to meat. our bodies were meant to eat meat, just look at our teeth. humans were meant to be omnivores. our front teeth for tears and shredding (found in carnivores) and our back teeth for grinding (found in herbivores).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


There are maps of where the most greenhouse gases are released into the air .. and the "reddest" parts of the globe are located in South America and Africa where rain forests are being burned down to the ground.

the destruction of the rain forests is worse for the world than anything americans are doing (unless we're aiding in their destruction).

also, natural disasters occur. wild fires out west, for example, are natural and before anyone lived out there, they happened and took care of themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion on this matter has always been that yes, the earth does go through warming and cooling phases, and yes, solar output does fluctuate. However, we as humans are seriously contributing to the warming of the earth (through many different mediums we all know). So, when we are in a warming phase and we continue to pump the air full of greenhouse gases, cut down trees, etc. etc., we're in real trouble. Are we in a warming phase right now? I have no clue, but if we are, we're certainly not helping the matter. I guess my overall point is that to deny natural causes for global warming is ludicrous, but to deny man-made causes is just as ludicrous. They're both valid.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My opinion on this matter has always been that yes, the earth does go through warming and cooling phases, and yes, solar output does fluctuate. However, we as humans are seriously contributing to the warming of the earth (through many different mediums we all know). So, when we are in a warming phase and we continue to pump the air full of greenhouse gases, cut down trees, etc. etc., we're in real trouble. Are we in a warming phase right now? I have no clue, but if we are, we're certainly not helping the matter. I guess my overall point is that to deny natural causes for global warming is ludicrous, but to deny man-made causes is just as ludicrous. They're both valid.

You make very good points. It doesn't matter whether you believe in global warming or not. The environment is very important to the health and well-being for generations in the future. It is important to protect and seek balance between the 2.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You make very good points. It doesn't matter whether you believe in global warming or not. The environment is very important to the health and well-being for generations in the future. It is important to protect and seek balance between the 2.

i'm still questioning what nature has in store for us... i'd be willing to bet that with current nature trends we will experience warming possibly to the point of perishing. there's more to it though... like over population, although i believe nature will also take care of that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the question we need to ask ourselves is how important is it that we protect human life on the planet? as in... are we really greater than anything else, including nature, or are we just part of it and will perish when nature decides it's time?

This is something I have thought plenty about before. The way I see it, humans are basically a detriment to this planet and to most species on this planet, but I beleive that we shouldn't bend over backwards to change. Humans evolved to a point where we are capable of things that are not possible in the natural world, and if we become too hazardous to the planet I'm confident that we will be "phased out," nature has ways of dealing with parasitic species, in our case we will likely doom ourselves.

I agree that we all eat too much meat, but you're not going to change thousands of years of cutural and even physical evolution just like that.

Humans did not evolve to eat meat, we have always been primarily meat eaters, eating plants only when we need to and to help digestion. Our bodies process meat much more efficiently than plants and our teeth are obviously designed to deal with more meat that plant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans did not evolve to eat meat, we have always been primarily meat eaters, eating plants only when we need to and to help digestion. Our bodies process meat much more efficiently than plants and our teeth are obviously designed to deal with more meat that plant.

We don't have the same canines that carnivores have, and the fact that we'd have to cook the same meat that our dogs and cats would eat raw and not get sick says otherwise. Their stomachs I believe are more acidic than ours and are more capable of killing bacteria that ours wouldn't.

I don't think humans ate too much meat until they ventured into cold climates where they needed to hunt to survive the winters. The added protein enabled our brains to grow larger over time...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Humans did not evolve to eat meat, we have always been primarily meat eaters, eating plants only when we need to and to help digestion. Our bodies process meat much more efficiently than plants and our teeth are obviously designed to deal with more meat that plant.

forgot that part... that's why veggies keep us regular. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We don't have the same canines that carnivores have, and the fact that we'd have to cook the same meat that our dogs and cats would eat raw and not get sick says otherwise. Their stomachs I believe are more acidic than ours and are more capable of killing bacteria that ours wouldn't.

I don't think humans ate too much meat until they ventured into cold climates where they needed to hunt to survive the winters. The added protein enabled our brains to grow larger over time...

Yeah, eating meat is what allowed us to evolve from apes into humans, without meat our brain simply won't develop properly. As soon as you see our ancestors begin to make tools you see them begin to eat far more meat. Humans can eat raw meat, often without getting sick, however our bodies and immune systems have devolved and become weakened as we are used to eating cooked meat. The reasons humans began eating cooked meat to begin with was because it was easier to digest, and easier to extract nutrients from.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, eating meat is what allowed us to evolve from apes into humans, without meat our brain simply won't develop properly. As soon as you see our ancestors begin to make tools you see them begin to eat far more meat. Humans can eat raw meat, often without getting sick, however our bodies and immune systems have devolved and become weakened as we are used to eating cooked meat. The reasons humans began eating cooked meat to begin with was because it was easier to digest, and easier to extract nutrients from.

no such thing as de-evolution. our bodies evolved to where we can't eat raw meat anymore. it's all evolution, whether it benefits you or hampers you.

there's less waste in cooked meat than raw meat. all that fat and nastiness gets cooked out (unless you like bacon cooked the way i do).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...... Our bodies process meat much more efficiently than plants and our teeth are obviously designed to deal with more meat that plant.

Of course this is not true. Prior to the development of tools, meat eating by humans primairly occured on the rare occasion when an animal died. And even after the development of primitive tools, the capture of meat for consumption was a very energy intensive process and did not happen that often. Have you tried to catch any animal? Humans evolved eating mostly plant foods and the first settlements were based on farming of plants, not raising livestock.

The current huge consumption of meat is also a relatively new phenomena that has only existed for about the last 125-150 years and with a few exceptions is still mostly an American one as well. In the last 50 years meat consumption in this country has risen to unprecidented levels in human history and is one of the reasons that Americans have become the fattest nation on the earth with a host of diseases afflicting the population that are not seen elsewhere.

It's interesting that despite the medical advances made over the last 50 years that the current generation of 20 somethings and younger are one of the most unhealty generations in the last 100 years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.