Polar Bears dying From Climate Change

In my opinion we as humans are destroying the planet with fossil fuels as did the Deccan Traps Volcanism-Greenhouse Dinosaur Extinction Theory explains (see link)...

http://filebox.vt.edu/artsci/geology/mclean/Dinosaur_Volcano_Extinction/pages/studentv.html

"....Beginning in the 1980s, two theories became the topic of intense scientific debate. These are: (1) the K-T impact extinction theory originated by the Nobel physicist, Luis Alvarez, and his team, and (2) the K-T Deccan Traps volcanism-induced carbon cycle perturbation extinction theory originated by the author which, for short, I call the volcano-greenhouse theory. "


They say we might have 50 years of oil left, but i doubt the earth will make it that long without a HUGE Climate change. ...Thank god for our new "green" attitude, without it i think we would see pure chaos

fdd2blk said:

er, ever seen one of these.

Click to expand...

...And the hotter we make the planet with our stupidity, the more of these (^^^^^) we will see

pretty big chip on that shoulder to think we are controlling the PLANET.

fdd2blk said:

pretty big chip on that shoulder to think we are controlling the PLANET.

Click to expand...

last time i checked we are on top of the food chain bub. Is there some other creature with 6.5 billion (prob 7 now) occupants?

We RULE this planet. Thing is human nature is to not care about what we rule, we use it however we want, without remorse.

Global warming is a faith based religious movement.



Polar Bear Scare on Thin Ice

Heartland Perspectives > September 2007
Environment
Environment > Endangered Species

Email a Friend
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Heartland Perspectives > September 2007
Publication date: 09/11/2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on September 7 claimed that two-thirds of the world's polar bears may die by 2050 due to global warming. Such claims are strongly contradicted by real-world evidence.
There are currently more than 25,000 wild polar bears in the world, and their numbers are growing – not declining – at an explosive pace in this time of "unprecedented global warming." According to the February 7, 2005 Edinburgh Scotsman ( http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=143012005), "The world's polar bear population is on the increase despite global warming.
"According to new research," the Scotsman reports, "the numbers of the giant predator have grown by between 15 and 25 per cent over the last decade.
"We're seeing an increase in bears that's really unprecedented, and in places where we're seeing a decrease in the population it's from hunting, not from climate change," Canadian polar bear expert Mitch Taylor told the Scotsman.
The March 9, 2007 London Telegraph confirmed the ongoing polar bear population explosion ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml). "A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining," the Telegraph reports.
"In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today," added the Telegraph.
Indeed, polar bears evolved from brown bears anywhere from 200,000 years ago ( http://www.alaskazoo.org/willowcrest/polarbearhome.htm) to 3 million years ago ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/7.shtml). They survived at least one period when polar temperatures were at least 6 degrees Celsius warmer than today ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png) and perhaps temperatures as warm as 15 degrees Celsius warmer than today ( http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070705/greenland_dna_070705/20070705?hub=SciTech).
Given that polar bear numbers are rapidly increasing and that they survived substantially warmer periods than is expected anytime in the foreseeable future, it is safe to dismiss this latest global warming scare as little more than fantasy.




http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/are-polar-bears-dying

puffpuffPASSEDOUT said:

last time i checked we are on top of the food chain bub. Is there some other creature with 6.5 billion (prob 7 now) occupants?

We RULE this planet. Thing is human nature is to not care about what we rule, we use it however we want, without remorse.

Click to expand...

"bub"? shows a lot of intelligence there. i'm done with you.

azborder said:

Global warming is a faith based religious movement.



Polar Bear Scare on Thin Ice

Heartland Perspectives > September 2007
Environment
Environment > Endangered Species

Email a Friend
Written By: James M. Taylor
Published In: Heartland Perspectives > September 2007
Publication date: 09/11/2007
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
The U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) on September 7 claimed that two-thirds of the world's polar bears may die by 2050 due to global warming. Such claims are strongly contradicted by real-world evidence.
There are currently more than 25,000 wild polar bears in the world, and their numbers are growing – not declining – at an explosive pace in this time of "unprecedented global warming." According to the February 7, 2005 Edinburgh Scotsman ( http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/international.cfm?id=143012005), "The world's polar bear population is on the increase despite global warming.
"According to new research," the Scotsman reports, "the numbers of the giant predator have grown by between 15 and 25 per cent over the last decade.
"We're seeing an increase in bears that's really unprecedented, and in places where we're seeing a decrease in the population it's from hunting, not from climate change," Canadian polar bear expert Mitch Taylor told the Scotsman.
The March 9, 2007 London Telegraph confirmed the ongoing polar bear population explosion ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml). "A survey of the animals' numbers in Canada's eastern Arctic has revealed that they are thriving, not declining," the Telegraph reports.
"In the Davis Strait area, a 140,000-square kilometre region, the polar bear population has grown from 850 in the mid-1980s to 2,100 today," added the Telegraph.
Indeed, polar bears evolved from brown bears anywhere from 200,000 years ago ( http://www.alaskazoo.org/willowcrest/polarbearhome.htm) to 3 million years ago ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/wildfacts/factfiles/7.shtml). They survived at least one period when polar temperatures were at least 6 degrees Celsius warmer than today ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ice_Age_Temperature.png) and perhaps temperatures as warm as 15 degrees Celsius warmer than today ( http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070705/greenland_dna_070705/20070705?hub=SciTech).
Given that polar bear numbers are rapidly increasing and that they survived substantially warmer periods than is expected anytime in the foreseeable future, it is safe to dismiss this latest global warming scare as little more than fantasy.




http://eteam.ncpa.org/commentaries/are-polar-bears-dying

Click to expand...

Hmmm ok... Read these


1. Llasa, Tibet — Warmest June on record, 1998. Temperatures hovered above 77°F for 23 days.

59. Garhwal Himalayas, India — Glacial retreat at record pace. The Dokriani Barnak Glacier retreated 66 ft (20.1 m) in 1998 despite a severe winter. The Gangorti Glacier is retreating 98 ft (30 m) per year. At this rate scientists predict the loss of all central and eastern Himalayan glaciers by 2035.

91. Nepal - High rate of temperature rise. Since the mid-1970s the average air temperature measured at 49 stations has risen by 1.8°F (1°C), with high elevation sites warming the most. This is twice as fast as the 1°F (0.6°C) average warming for the mid-latitudinal Northern Hemisphere (24 to 40°N) over the same time period, and illustrates the high sensitivity of mountain regions to climate change.

95. Tibet - Warmest decade in 1,000 years. Ice core records from the Dasuopu Glacier indicate that the last decade and last 50 years have been the warmest in 1,000 years. Meteorological records for the Tibetan Plateau show that annual temperatures increased 0.4°F (0.16°C) per decade and winter temperatures increased 0.6°F (0.32°C) per decade from 1955 to 1996.

126. Bhutan - Melting glaciers swelling lakes. As Himalayan glaciers melt glacial lakes are swelling and in danger of catastrophic flooding. Average glacial retreat in Bhutan is 100-130 feet (30-40 m) per year. Temperatures in the high Himalayas have risen 1.8°F (1°C) since the mid 1970s.

127. India - Himalayan glaciers retreating. Glaciers in the Himalayas are retreating at an average rate of 50 feet (15 m) per year, consistent with the rapid warming recorded at Himalayan climate stations since the 1970s. Winter stream flow for the Baspa glacier basin has increased 75% since 1966 and local winter temperatures have warmed, suggesting increased glacier melting in winter.

130. Mt. Everest - Retreating glacier. The Khumbu Glacier, popular climbing route to the summit of Mt. Everest, has retreated over 3 miles (5 km) since 1953. The Himalayan region overall has warmed by about 1.8°F (1°C) since the 1970s.



Ever heard of this thing called the Industrial Revolution? ... I think it has alil something to do with all these events


... I dont need polar bears dying to realize that the world is "warming up"... Should i describe what happens when the world warms up and the ice caps melt? ...in short, the ocean currents stop moving, and then does the weather caused by these currents, and then we all die from starvation.

Edit: even if some how we werent causing global warming, through common sense we know that it contributes to global warming. So why make it worse it? ...Go green. ..do it for the children.

fdd2blk said:

"bub"? shows a lot of intelligence there. i'm done with you.

Click to expand...

Geeeez, would you smoke one for me please? lol


..all im saying is through our own ignorance we are destroying the planet. We need to educate everyone, otherwise our time is near.

puffpuffPASSEDOUT said:

Geeeez, would you smoke one for me please? lol


..all im saying is through our own ignorance we are destroying the planet. We need to educate everyone, otherwise our time is near.

Click to expand...

what if you are wrong? because you really can't know at this point.


about the time the "planet gets too hot" we will be out of oil. then shits gonna get cold, QUICK. try winter without a friggin' heater. you're gonna be praying for "global warming".

fdd2blk said:

what if you are wrong? because you really can't know at this point.


about the time the "planet gets too hot" we will be out of oil. then shits gonna get cold, QUICK. try winter without a friggin' heater. you're gonna be praying for "global warming".

Click to expand...

True, but i have faith in the future of fussion and fission nuclear power plants. Thing is everyones to afraid to live near one. We need to get over this fear or we are gonna be in for a big hurt in the years to come. These plants are our safest bet for energy, and the cleanest. Our country would do a 180 if we would switch. Imagine a city without smog... with clean air... Oh how great it could be if we only open our eyes


PS: If the ice caps melt its only a matter of time before another iceage comes. ...Once the caps melt and the currents stop, study shows theres a period of drought then immediate ice age. Basically killing everything dependant on land.

puffpuffPASSEDOUT said:

True, but i have faith in the future of fussion and fission nuclear power plants. Thing is everyones to afraid to live near one. We need to get over this fear or we are gonna be in for a big hurt in the years to come. These plants are our safest bet for energy, and the cleanest. Our country would do a 180 if we would switch. Imagine a city without smog... with clean air... Oh how great it could be if we only open our eyes


PS: If the ice caps melt its only a matter of time before another iceage comes. ...Once the caps melt and the currents stop, study shows theres a period of draught then immediate ice age. Basically killing everything dependant on land.

Click to expand...

during the ice age the ice caps only went halfway down the u.s. so it definitely didnt kill everything dependant on land

sittinherebored said:

during the ice age the ice caps only went halfway down the u.s. so it definitely didnt kill everything dependant on land

Click to expand...

True but then again there wasnt as many occupants back then etheir. Alot of our croplands would be basically unfarmable so our food supply would be reduced drastically. ... i think a hell of alot of people would starve to death if this happens. ...hell i wouldnt even doubt we become cannibals and eat each other

Also you have to figure that the currents will have already been ceased for 100+ years, so how would we grow crops without rain? ..no rain..no grain..no animals..no nothing but death and disease

puffpuffPASSEDOUT said:

True but then again there wasnt as many occupants back then etheir. Alot of our croplands would be basically unfarmable so our food supply would be reduced drastically. ... i think a hell of alot of people would starve to death if this happens. ...hell i wouldnt even doubt we become cannibals and eat each other

Click to expand...

thats why us growers will live fine because as long as there is still electricity i know i will have a garden

lol you must not comprehend to amount of chaos that would be a result of such events... Not only would we become "cave men" again, who live by the rules of "the survival of the fittest", but we would become "educated" cave men, with extreme tactics and extreme weapons. ...better hope you have a few .50cal machine turrets surounding your garden haha

...But i see what your saying

Lets get some facts straight:

The earth does move through temperature cycles. We have had periods of warming and cooling approx. every 100,000 years. We have had ice ages before and we have had great melts. This can all be witnessed with an ice sample in Antarctica or in sediment layers.

The issue with the current trend is the pace at which the warming is occurring. In the last 100 years, and mostly the last 50, the average temperature of our planet has risen about 4 degrees F. 100 years is a geological blink of an eye. There is evidence to suggest that CO2 levels are causing this. While that cannot be proven (as we can only observe the past through geological study) it appears there is a strong connection between the two. The earth has cycles - the water cycle, the nitrogen cycle, and the carbon cycle. Carbon is naturally absorbed into the ground as animals die. The problem is that we have dug up millions of years' worth of carbon that has been stored as coal and oil. We are releasing millions of years worth of carbon over a century and that is upsetting the cycle dramatically. We have no way of knowing how the upset of this cycle will affect the planet. One fact to consider - every gallon of gasoline burned produces 19 lbs of carbon dioxide. (Ethanol is composed of chains of carbon - they bond to oxygen in the air and that is where all the extra weight comes from).

The main source of carbon dioxide and monoxide emissions is not transportation though - it is residential and commercial use. The majority of power provided in the world comes from coal fired power plants which spew tons of carbon dioxide by the minute. Factories across the world which create all the products we enjoy suck up megawatts of power to produce everything we use, from office supplies to the metal within our buildings. Billions of homes suck power all day everyday to provide for larger and larger televisions and computers, gaming consoles, etc. Yes it has improved our quality of life but it has reduced the quality of the planet.

So something to think about is your personal impact at home - since you are on this site I assume you are an indoor grower, and as all indoor growers are concerned and limited by their power consumption, think about the effect that 1140W ballast is having on this planet - and ultimately the polar bear...

puffpuffPASSEDOUT said:

lol you must not comprehend to amount of chaos that would be a result of such events... Not only would we become "cave men" again, who live by the rules of "the survival of the fittest", but we would become "educated" cave men, with extreme tactics and extreme weapons. ...better hope you have a few .50cal machine turrets surounding your garden haha

...But i see what your saying

Click to expand...

i just think that we have the technology right now to survive. and just in case, the garden is already well defended

spazstic said:

Lets get some facts straight:

The earth does move through temperature cycles. We have had periods of warming and cooling approx. every 100,000 years. We have had ice ages before and we have had great melts. This can all be witnessed with an ice sample in Antarctica or in sediment layers.

The issue with the current trend is the pace at which the warming is occurring. In the last 100 years, and mostly the last 50, the average temperature of our planet has risen about 4 degrees F. 100 years is a geological blink of an eye. There is evidence to suggest that CO2 levels are causing this. While that cannot be proven (as we can only observe the past through geological study) it appears there is a strong connection between the two. The earth has cycles - the water cycle, the nitrogen cycle, and the carbon cycle. Carbon is naturally absorbed into the ground as animals die. The problem is that we have dug up millions of years' worth of carbon that has been stored as coal and oil. We are releasing millions of years worth of carbon over a century and that is upsetting the cycle dramatically. We have no way of knowing how the upset of this cycle will affect the planet. One fact to consider - every gallon of gasoline burned produces 19 lbs of carbon dioxide. (Ethanol is composed of chains of carbon - they bond to oxygen in the air and that is where all the extra weight comes from).

The main source of carbon dioxide and monoxide emissions is not transportation though - it is residential and commercial use. The majority of power provided in the world comes from coal fired power plants which spew tons of carbon dioxide by the minute. Factories across the world which create all the products we enjoy suck up megawatts of power to produce everything we use, from office supplies to the metal within our buildings. Billions of homes suck power all day everyday to provide for larger and larger televisions and computers, gaming consoles, etc. Yes it has improved our quality of life but it has reduced the quality of the planet.

So something to think about is your personal impact at home - since you are on this site I assume you are an indoor grower, and as all indoor growers are concerned and limited by their power consumption, think about the effect that 1140W ballast is having on this planet - and ultimately the polar bear...

Click to expand...

EXACTLY! Coal power plants are #1 on my list of things we need to change. They need to be replaced with nuclear power plants, or the like. (fission, fussion)

A few facts i found about Coal vs Nuclear and etc:

"coal-burning electric power plants have fouled the air with enough heavy metals and other noxious pollutants to cause 15,000 premature deaths annually in the US alone, according to a Harvard School of Public Health study. Believe it or not, a coal-fired plant releases 100 times more radioactive material than an equivalent nuclear reactor - right into the air, too, not into some carefully guarded storage site. (And, by the way, more than 5,200 Chinese coal miners perished in accidents last year.) "

"Unlike the usual green alternatives - water, wind, solar, and biomass - nuclear energy is here, now, in industrial quantities. Sure, nuke plants are expensive to build - upward of $2 billion apiece - but they start to look cheap when you factor in the true cost to people and the planet of burning fossil fuels. And nuclear is our best hope for cleanly and efficiently generating hydrogen, which would end our other ugly hydrocarbon addiction - dependence on gasoline and diesel for transport. "

"Western Europe is quietly backing away from planned nuclear phaseouts. Finland has ordered a big reactor specifically to meet the terms of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change. China's new nuke plants - 26 by 2025 - are part of a desperate effort at smog control"

"And the worst - by far - is yet to come. An MIT study forecasts that worldwide energy demand could triple by 2050. China could build a Three Gorges Dam every year forever and still not meet its growing demand for electricity. Even the carbon reductions required by the Kyoto Protocol - which pointedly exempts developing countries like China - will be a drop in the atmospheric sewer"

...Plus we have to take in account how we already have Yucca Mountain, which is a giant facility in the Nevada mountains where we plan to put alot of nuclear waste.

..Also there is Plutonium reprocessing:

"An alternative to burying all of the used fuel is to recycle it. The original vision of nuclear power in the United States involved mining uranium, enriching it from the 0.7% U-235 found in nature, and using it as fuel in nuclear reactors. The spent fuel rods would then be sent to reprocessing plants. Plutonium, a waste product and suitable reactor fuel, along with any unburned uranium would be dissolved, chemically separated, and reused as fuel. The recycled fuel would first be used in conventional reactors, then later in breeder reactors, which produce plutonium. Breeder reactors make more plutonium than they consume, leading to a nearly unlimited source of energy. The capture of neutrons by U-238 (99% of natural uranium) forms plutonium. Breeder reactors can eventually consume all of the U-238 present in natural uranium by converting it to plutonium, increasing the amount of energy obtained from natural uranium by a factor of 100. The problem with reprocessing is that the chemical separation of plutonium for commercial purposes is the same process used to make nuclear weapons. On April 7, 1977, President Carter announced a ban on all reprocessing in the United States. He was mainly concerned about proliferation issues and was hoping to set an example for the world. Currently reprocessing is illegal in the United States, but some pro-nuclear activists are trying to change that"



Alot of people do not understand how useful and safe nuclear energy really is. All they think about is The Chornobyl, or Three Mile Island incidents. We should be atleast over 50% dependant on nuclear energy, not under 20.

puffpuffPASSEDOUT said:

Alot of people do not understand how useful and safe nuclear energy really is. All they think about is The Chornobyl, or Three Mile Island incidents. We should be atleast over 50% dependant on nuclear energy, not under 20.

Click to expand...

I agree. With today's technology, nuclear fission is very safe and the reprocessing of fissionable fuel makes it a very safe and efficient way to generate power. However, there is still the matter of nuclear waste which remains radioactive for thousands of years. That is the major downfall to nuclear fission. Also, the US has laws that prevent the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, since it is technically enriching uranium/plutonium and the same process could be used to create weapons grade material.

Fusion is still years away. We can create fusion, but only for a split second and it takes many times the power in than it puts out. However, I do believe fusion is the future of power. It just always seems to be 20 years away. There is absolutely no danger of a meltdown with fusion, the reaction cannot get out of hand, and the longest any nuclear waste can stay radioactive with fusion is 100 years, usually it is around 20 years.

France is running nearly 90% of their country on fission. The rest of the world should follow. USA is giving new permits for nuclear reactors - they only need a state and county that will take them.

spazstic said:

I agree. With today's technology, nuclear fission is very safe and the reprocessing of fissionable fuel makes it a very safe and efficient way to generate power. However, there is still the matter of nuclear waste which remains radioactive for thousands of years. That is the major downfall to nuclear fission. Also, the US has laws that prevent the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel, since it is technically enriching uranium/plutonium and the same process could be used to create weapons grade material.

Fusion is still years away. We can create fusion, but only for a split second and it takes many times the power in than it puts out. However, I do believe fusion is the future of power. It just always seems to be 20 years away. There is absolutely no danger of a meltdown with fusion, the reaction cannot get out of hand, and the longest any nuclear waste can stay radioactive with fusion is 100 years, usually it is around 20 years.

France is running nearly 90% of their country on fission. The rest of the world should follow. USA is giving new permits for nuclear reactors - they only need a state and county that will take them.

Click to expand...

You know theres this idea that has been floating in my head for many years... Take our waste (useless trash, useless waste) and put it on venus, or someother planet that is inhabitable.

..Thing is getting the waste into outerspace

Green solution:

A pipe the could hold Tons of waste and launch it into space. How? ..ok this gets tricky. Ever been to six flags? do you know what the tower of doom is? (for those who dont know its a rollercoaster ride where the "sled" is hoisted up to the top of this tower and then dropped.) Basically this is what im talking about but on a much larger scale. Would it be huge? yes. Would weight be a problem? yes. We would have to research into lightwieght materials (which we already have alot of knowledge on already).

Get what im saying? We would wench, or somehow hoist a counterweight to the top of the pipe and then drop it, launching the "lauch pad" and waste into space to be collected by an advanced waste management system.

...Its just an idea and i think it can be done. What do you think?

Edit: To make this "pipe" more green, we would build its own power source...A nuclear power plant

puffpuffPASSEDOUT said:

You know theres this idea that has been floating in my head for many years... Take our waste (useless trash, useless waste) and put it on venus, or someother planet that is inhabitable.

..Thing is getting the waste into outerspace

Green solution:

A pipe the could hold Tons of waste and launch it into space. How? ..ok this gets tricky. Ever been to six flags? do you know what the tower of doom is? (for those who dont know its a rollercoaster ride where the "sled" is hoisted up to the top of this tower and then dropped.) Basically this is what im talking about but on a much larger scale. Would it be huge? yes. Would weight be a problem? yes. We would have to research into lightwieght materials (which we already have alot of knowledge on already).

Get what im saying? We would wench, or somehow hoist a counterweight to the top of the pipe and then drop it, launching the "lauch pad" and waste into space to be collected by an advanced waste management system.

...Its just an idea and i think it can be done. What do you think?

Edit: To make this "pipe" more green, we would build its own power source...A nuclear power plant

Click to expand...

yeah that's it, just throw the trash out the window.