Climate change

[J'sRacing]

Yes it does. Animals will go extinct whether at an accelerated rate or not. All we can do is observe and admire the remaining specimens. Or as my mother would say "let go"
There are various reasons as to why these animals are going extinct, including arctic oscillation, climate change, exploitation or natural invasion from other species. And no its not because the government isn't moving a few million from a multibillion military budget. In fact i sure hope they don't, cause obviously preserving animals are more important than say investing in our kids or our healthcare system right?

How exactly can this ecology professor even calculate the amount of new species? Considering the fact that humans don't even know 99% of the species in the deeper sea, or the fact that we humans don't know all the insect species or other aerial birds that live in non populated islands or mountains. Exactly. No one knows.

I highly disagree with "we are causing species to be lost at rates of 100 to 1000 times faster" What is the natural rate? There is no natural rate, as Earth itself has proven time and time again. Look at the wipe out of the dinos, or the last ice age or even the multiple ice ages before.

The total global nuclear arsenal is about 30,000 nuclear warheads with a destructive capacity of 5,000 megatons (5,000 million tons of TNT).

An air burst (detonating a bomb above the surface) would produce far more damage and death via radioactive fallout than one detonating at ground level.

A single 100 megaton air burst would be enough to cause a nuclear winter and pollute the Earth for many many years. Theoretically, a 100 megaton bomb detonated below ground could produce a massive earthquake and the constant explosions of a full blown nuclear war may also cause numerous earthquakes around the globe. But this would not destroy the world nor all human life.

Globally there are not enough nuclear bombs to completely kill every human. The Tsar Bomb (largest bomb ever detonated) had a fallout of 1000 square kilometres, and was 50 MT. The world is close to 150 million square kilometres, and the human population covers close to 18 million square kilometres.

Therefore to get a rough idea we can say hypothetically that the 5000 megatones of nuclear warheads was 100 Tsar Bombs (the same value in megatons). If these bombs were detonated their total radioactive fallout would cover 100,000 square kilometres.

It may be surprising to hear that this covers less than 1% of the area that the human population covers, which should give a general idea of the miniscule size of impact this would have on the total world's surface. Therefore it can be shown that we do not have the capacity at the moment to destory the world with nuclear warheads.

However, there are factors we have overlooked, which include:
- Tsar Bomb has a very small radioactive fallout in comparison with its megatone value
- Nuclear wardheads can be assumed to target densly populated locations, and
- Nuclear winter which would result in the radioactive fallout

To put curiousty to rest, even if we replaced our Tsar Bomb equation with nuclear warheads that had a higher radioactive yield to fulfill the 5000 megatons global nuclear arsenal we would still not come close to the amount of radioactive fallout required to cover the area the human population covers, let alone destroy the world.

If nuclear warheads were targeted at densly populated locations it would increase the fatalities of a nuclear war, however this would still not wipe out humanity, let alone destroy the world.

Nuclear winter can in lamer terms be contrasted with the ice age. The ice age did not destory the world, and did not wipe out all life, therefore neither would nuclear winter. Humanity is extremley resilient, and although many of the world's population die due to starvation if they did not die from the initial nuclear war or radiation, life will find a way.

So no...i'm not worried.

[cpool]

Here is quote from Al Gor:
"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gor

Al Gor has also testified to congress that he stands to make over a billion dollers if his cap an trade system is used.

It isn't hard to see where motives on the "Green" side are coming from.

I simply cannot believe that .001% of extra CO2 will make a hill of beans of a difference. No way no how.

[J'sRacing]

Here is quote from Al Gor:
"In the United States of America, unfortunately we still live in a bubble of unreality. And the Category 5 denial is an enormous obstacle to any discussion of solutions. Nobody is interested in solutions if they don't think there's a problem. Given that starting point, I believe it is appropriate to have an over-representation of factual presentations on how dangerous (global warming) is, as a predicate for opening up the audience to listen to what the solutions are, and how hopeful it is that we are going to solve this crisis." -- Al Gor

Al Gor has also testified to congress that he stands to make over a billion dollers if his cap an trade system is used.

It isn't hard to see where motives on the "Green" side are coming from.

I simply cannot believe that .001% of extra CO2 will make a hill of beans of a difference. No way no how.

The biggest problem with that, is the fact that he is creating a fake crisis in the hopes to make big money.
It just so happens that we are releasing CO2, but the underlying cause is much greater than our "pollution"

[J'sRacing]

Articles Tagged "Dan Pangburn" | Climate Realists

Interesting website

[Ursus sapien]

"Don't forget this whole climate change because of CO2 was fabricated by Al Gore..."
That's just a silly assertion. The issue was on the table long before "An Inconvenient Truth" and the evidence is strong to convince over 70% of scientists who consider the issue. The majority of scientists who disagree work for vested interests or conservative think-tanks.

NYTimes
World Bank
NASA
Wikipedia: Scientific opinion...

and just for fun... Made Wade 'Who Cares About This Planet?'

[J'sRacing]

"Don't forget this whole climate change because of CO2 was fabricated by Al Gore..."
That's just a silly assertion. The issue was on the table long before "An Inconvenient Truth" and the evidence is strong to convince over 70% of scientists who consider the issue. The majority of scientists who disagree work for vested interests or conservative think-tanks.

NYTimes
World Bank
NASA
Wikipedia: Scientific opinion...

and just for fun... Made Wade 'Who Cares About This Planet?'

If you actually think the IPCC work for the conservative think tanks...you're sorely misinformed.
I'm assuming you didn't actually read any of what i typed. Cause only 40 scientists (including climatelogists, physicists etc) signed for their initial global warming paper. Later over 1000 scientists signed a petition and more to revoke that so called scientific paper. To add salt to the wound, some of those 40 scientists were found to have manipulated and distorted the data (look up climate-gate scandal)

The NYtimes is a heavily heavily edited paper. In fact its a business, its written and presented in a way to sell. One easy and effective way to sell is to appeal to the ordinary joe blow. IE YOU GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO READ. The references i have are to scientific papers.

The world bank? really? For any written material or any paper really, bias will be there. But the world bank is not considered a great resource in terms of research work, even in the research world. Ask me how i know.

NASA is the most interesting. Please refer to my previous discussion on the authenticity of the NASA reports. In short: the scientists that worked on the research for the main thesis, spoke out to public about forging and rigging data.

And how many times must i say. WIKIPEDIA is not a good source for anything.

[Ursus sapien]

If you actually think the IPCC work for the conservative think tanks...you're sorely misinformed.
I'm assuming you didn't actually read any of what i typed. Cause only 40 scientists (including climatelogists, physicists etc) signed for their initial global warming paper. Later over 1000 scientists signed a petition and more to revoke that so called scientific paper. To add salt to the wound, some of those 40 scientists were found to have manipulated and distorted the data (look up climate-gate scandal)

The NYtimes is a heavily heavily edited paper. In fact its a business, its written and presented in a way to sell. One easy and effective way to sell is to appeal to the ordinary joe blow. IE YOU GIVE THEM WHAT THEY WANT TO READ. The references i have are to scientific papers.

The world bank? really? For any written material or any paper really, bias will be there. But the world bank is not considered a great resource in terms of research work, even in the research world. Ask me how i know.

NASA is the most interesting. Please refer to my previous discussion on the authenticity of the NASA reports. In short: the scientists that worked on the research for the main thesis, spoke out to public about forging and rigging data.

And how many times must i say. WIKIPEDIA is not a good source for anything.

I have no idea how many times you've said anything. The quality of Wiki pages varies depending on page and author.

Discover Blogs/ Bad Astronomy: NASA criticism refuted
Discover Blogs/ Bad Astronomy: Climategate was manufactured
NASA (yes, I know, you don't find them credible): Global Climate Change info page
Skeptical Science: Explaining climate change science & rebutting global warming misinformation
Phys Org: Waiting on climate is 'escapism': top UN scientist
Phys Org: Climate skeptic physicist Richard Muller, director Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, changes his mind
Phys Org: get ready for extreme weather
Phys Org: burden of proof
Phys Org: humans primary cause of warming oceans
Phys Org: changes in Antarctic sea ice
Phys Org: carbon effects climate
Phys Org: carbon's role in climate:
Phys Org: US Dept. of Energy, biggest carbon jump on record:
Scientific American: the physical science behind climate change

for fun:
Scientific American: John Rennie's 7 Answers to Climate Contrarian Nonsense
Scientific American: NCSE picks fight with deniers

[J'sRacing]

Well like i've said, its hard to change the opinions of others, this is no different, there is so much contrasting evidence. So while some people go protect the Earth. I'm going to go drive my car and enjoy life.

[stratos]

Seems like some prominent climate skeptics are changing their minds: Climate change study forces sceptical scientists to change minds | Environment | The Guardian

Meanwhile, statistical analyses look to be the way to convince the remaining skeptics (over time) :

Droughts show global warming is 'scientific fact' - World - CBC News

[J'sRacing]

Cool story bro.

Prove to me that the rest of the IPCC back climate change now please.