World War III

[TheBlackOut 7]

Of course they are. Singapore if far more friendly with the western powers than China

 

Exactly. We like the countries in there Asia, we just don't like Commies. It's been that way since the 40's.

[Redmond Boyle 0]

Or maybe a Meteor hits earth and earth explodes and we all die...

[Louis EX 0]

Of course they are. Singapore if far more friendly with the western powers than China

 

Exactly. We like the countries in there Asia, we just don't like Commies. It's been that way since the 40's.

Hehe, feels good to know.

 

Or maybe a Meteor hits earth and earth explodes and we all die...

Lol...

[TheBlackOut 7]

Or maybe a Meteor hits earth and earth explodes and we all die...

 

Yup, no one saw THAT coming. Cept the guys who've been saying for 50 years we need to do something bout comets hitting Earth but w/e they've never been laid.

[Redmond Boyle 0]

It would be kinda the best way to die...Because it propably feels annoying for some american to know he's going to die to a Korean missile(for an example)...so the best way for the world to die is some instant destruction where no-one has time to worry about it.

[F15pilotX 4]

Here's your Article

 

Climate Change detection over different land surface vegetation classes

International Journal of Climatology

Volume 27, Issue 2, page 211

 

There's one on short notice. Give me some time and I will get you more.

Wow, this will be fun...

 

As to the effects of carbon dioxide on nature, do you have any idea how little of the atmosphere it makes up? 376 parts per million. As opposed to 316 parts per million.

 

Another example: pretend a 100 yard football field is the atmosphere; nitrogen takes you to the 78 yard line and oxygen takes you to the 99 yard line. most of what's left is argon (an inert gas); it bings you close to the end: 3 and 1/2 inches from it (approximately 17.5 centimeters, I think). Only 1 INCH of the remaining 3 and 1/2 is CO2. One INCH of 3600 inches in a football field.

 

Do you really think that will make such a huge effect on the world? In fact, what effects do you suppose it would have if it was real?

 

My source: The United Nations...even though I don't believe the earth's that old, but that's for a later discussion

[Alphabear 11]

Hmm did you even read the article or just take a guess at it?

 

And as for your graph, yes the temperate haas changed quite dramatically since the Earths accretion. The problem with the current change occuring is the rate that it is changing. With temperates and ecosystems changing so rapidly, the natural environment is unable to keep up. Addaption to new environments takes many many generations. Hell even the caption that goes with the image you just posted from the UN explains this if you cared to take notice.

 

Here's another example showing the change in the rate of increase in more detail.

[F15pilotX 4]

notice that it has leveled off in the 40 year chart...the reason why it started was the industrial revolution in 1850

 

now, could you just give me some effects that you think might be caused by 'global warming'?

[Redmond Boyle 0]

I can give examples of what happens in global warming:

 

1 Places turn to desert (like afrika)

 

2 Storms appear more often

 

3 More Exotic plants appear

 

4 Malaria Spreads!!

 

It really happens, trust me...

[F15pilotX 4]

I can give examples of what happens in global warming:

 

1 Places turn to desert (like afrika)

oh really? well check out an article by New Science written in 2002:

 

Africans go back to the land as plants reclaim the desert

 

* 21 September 2002

* Fred Pearce

* Magazine issue 2361

 

Farming is becoming viable again in what were until recently some of the most arid parts of Africa, thanks to a spectacular re-greening of the southern Saharan belt

 

AFRICA'S deserts are in retreat. Burkina Faso, one of the West African countries devastated by drought and advancing deserts 20 years ago, is growing greener again - so much so that families who fled to wetter coastal regions are starting to go home.

 

New research confirming this remarkable environmental turnaround in one of Africa's most arid countries is to be presented to Burkina Faso's ministers and international aid agencies in November. And it's not just Burkina Faso. New Scientist has learned that a separate analysis of satellite images completed this summer reveals that dunes are retreating right across the Sahel region on the southern edge of the Sahara desert. Vegetation is ousting sand across a swathe of land stretching from Mauritania on the shores of the Atlantic to Eritrea 6000 kilometres away on the Red Sea coast.

 

Nor is it just a short-term trend. Analysts say the gradual greening has ...

Link to Article

If this was due to 'global warming', then obviously plants would not be retaking the desert

2 Storms appear more often

Wrong again; actually, there were very few hurricanes in the 90's to hit the US...14. So far there have been 14 in the 2000's to hit the US...that indicates no increase whatsoever.

 

What is interesting is that excepting the 20's, 1960-2007 has seen the least number of hurricanes per decade as has ever been seen all the way back to 1861 (when hurricanes were started to be recorded). Where is that "extreme weather you are talking about?

Link to Article

3 More Exotic plants appear

If you mean that more plants will thrive because of the increase of CO2 (however minute), then yes, I agree that the rise of CO2 will do that

4 Malaria Spreads!!

Are you kidding me? that is solely due to DDT being effectively banned in the 70's by the US government, and if other poor countries didn't, they didn't get foreign aid. At the time DDT was banned, 50,000 people (out of ~5 billion at that time) around the world died each year of malaria; now, 2 million die each year, and since the tragedy, around 50 million people have died from malaria.

 

PLEASE, PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE....that article is a VERY interesting read, not boring at all, and not long either

 

 

Before my next post, would you agree that most temperature measurements used to create averages for the world teperature would come from urban areas?

[Alphabear 11]

Nope, most are taken from research stations.

[Mighty BOB! 5]

hurricane stuff

 

Actually, you are wrong. You're only citing US hurricane strikes instead of total hurricane statistics.

 

2005 was the most active hurricane season ever on record.

 

The 2005 Atlantic hurricane season was the most active Atlantic hurricane season in recorded history, repeatedly shattering previous records. The impact of the season was widespread and ruinous with at least 2,280 deaths and record damages of over $128 billion USD

 

Almost every storm in 2005 has set a record for early formation.

 

A record twenty-eight tropical and subtropical storms formed, of which a record fifteen became hurricanes. Of these, seven strengthened into major hurricanes, a record-tying five became Category 4 hurricanes and a record four reached Category 5 strength, the highest categorization for Atlantic hurricanes. Among these Category 5 storms was Hurricane Wilma, the most intense hurricane ever recorded in the Atlantic.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Atlantic_hurricane_season

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2005_Atlantic...ason_statistics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_storm...urricane_season

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:North_A...ane_History.png

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Atlan...rricane_seasons

 

Note references and external links.

[TheBlackOut 7]

And yet 2006 was a VERY slow hurricane season. What gives? :?

[Alphabear 11]

notice that it has leveled off in the 40 year chart...the reason why it started was the industrial revolution in 1850

 

now, could you just give me some effects that you think might be caused by 'global warming'?

 

• Heat-waves and periods of unusually warm weather

Ocean warming, sea-level rise and coastal flooding

Glaciers melting

Arctic and Antarctic warming

Spreading disease - The warmer temperature increase the mosquito range and also increases both their bitting rate and their ability to infect humans.

Earlier spring arrival

Plant and animal range shifts and population changes

Coral reef bleaching

Downpours, heavy snowfalls, and flooding

Droughts and fires

 

Thats the main primary effects of global warming. From these a large range of secondary effect occur such as damage to biodiversity and extinction of species etc.

 

Are you kidding me? that is solely due to DDT being effectively banned in the 70's by the US government, and if other poor countries didn't, they didn't get foreign aid. At the time DDT was banned, 50,000 people (out of ~5 billion at that time) around the world died each year of malaria; now, 2 million die each year, and since the tragedy, around 50 million people have died from malaria.

 

PLEASE, PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE....that article is a VERY interesting read, not boring at all, and not long either

 

For starters the last sentence of that main paragraph has been taken directlly from a fiction novel by Michael Crichton, hardly what i would call a reliable source. Also DDT was never actually banned completely. There is nothing preventing developing nations from using DDT in controled environments. The restrictions are on widespread, uncontroled DDT use and exports.

 

Yes I read that article you posted, and I have spent half an hour searching scientific journal databases for the source that articles argument is based on. So far i have found no record that the journal article exists. On the contrary there are numerous scientific studies showing a direct relation between DDT levels, and a wide range of health effects on humans and other wildlife species such as damage to reproductive capabilities and reproductive failure, weakening of bone strength, cancer, as well as recent research showing a corelation between DDT levels and diabetes. There is also evidence showing that around the time DDT was "banned" the mosquitoes had already developed a resistance to DDT. Thats why in the years prior to its "banning" DDT use had declined dramatically because it had become ineffective.

[Redmond Boyle 0]

Myaxe wrote:

 

2 Storms appear more often

Wrong again; actually, there were very few hurricanes in the 90's to hit the US...14. So far there have been 14 in the 2000's to hit the US...that indicates no increase whatsoever.

I meant storms like thunder storms and other like that...but whatever...

 

New Science Magazine wrote:

 

Africans go back to the land as plants reclaim the desert

 

* 21 September 2002

* Fred Pearce

* Magazine issue 2361

From 2002?!?! Dude that's outdated! and I bet that in sometime like 2030 there's a lot more desert than now...

 

some other effects of global warning:

 

Southern-Europe/North Africa turn to desert by 2050 (...okay this is another desert thing...)

 

When the arctic poles melt there will be Floods

 

Diseases spread

 

Winters will be warm and wet (like autumns)(at least in Southern/middle Finland) and there there will be huge improvements to finnish farming due to warmer climate...

 

I can farm Oranges when I retire

[F15pilotX 4]

Actually' date=' you are wrong. You're only citing US hurricane strikes instead of total hurricane statistics. [/quote']All the statistics I cited were based on hurricane strikes...of COURSE! Why would I list sub-tropical storms or storms that didn't affect any land? That would be utterly ridiculous!

 

Anyway:

Globally there has been no increase in tropical cyclone frequency over at least the past several decades (Lander and Guard 1998; Elsner and Kocher 2000). In addition to a lack of theory for future changes in storm frequencies' date=' the few global modeling results are contradictory (Henderson-Sellers et al 1998; IPCC 2001). Because historical and observational data on hurricanes and tropical cyclones are relatively robust, it is clear that storm frequency has not tracked recent tropical climate trends. Research on possible future changes in hurricane frequency due to global warming is ambiguous, with most studies suggesting that future changes will be regionally-dependent, and showing a lack of consistency in projecting an increase or decrease in the total global number of storms (Henderson-Sellers et al. 1998, Royer et al. 1998; Sugi et al. 2002). These studies give such contradictory results as to suggest that the state of understanding of tropical cyclogenesis provides too poor a foundation to base any projections about the future. While there is always some degree of uncertainty about the future and model-based results are often fickle, the state of current understanding is such that we should expect hurricanes frequencies in the future to have a great deal of year-to-year and decade-to- decade variation as has been observed over the past decades and longer.[/quote']

 

notice that it has leveled off in the 40 year chart...the reason why it started was the industrial revolution in 1850

 

now' date=' could you just give me some effects that you think might be caused by 'global warming'?[/quote']

 

• Heat-waves and periods of unusually warm weather

Ocean warming, sea-level rise and coastal flooding

Glaciers melting

Arctic and Antarctic warming

Spreading disease - The warmer temperature increase the mosquito range and also increases both their bitting rate and their ability to infect humans.

Earlier spring arrival

Plant and animal range shifts and population changes

Coral reef bleaching

Downpours, heavy snowfalls, and flooding

Droughts and fires

 

Thats the main primary effects of global warming. From these a large range of secondary effect occur such as damage to biodiversity and extinction of species etc.

 

Also DDT was never actually banned completely. There is nothing preventing developing nations from using DDT in controled environments. The restrictions are on widespread' date=' uncontroled DDT use and exports. [/quote']That's why I said "effectively banned". The US banned ever practical use of it, and the international community put pressure on poorer nations to do the same :roll:

 

Yes I read that article you posted' date=' and I have spent half an hour searching scientific journal databases for the source that articles argument is based on. So far i have found no record that the journal article exists. On the contrary there are numerous scientific studies showing a direct relation between DDT levels, and a wide range of health effects on humans and other wildlife species such as damage to reproductive capabilities and reproductive failure, weakening of bone strength, cancer, as well as recent research showing a corelation between DDT levels and diabetes. There is also evidence showing that around the time DDT was "banned" the mosquitoes had already developed a resistance to DDT. Thats why in the years prior to its "banning" DDT use had declined dramatically because it had become ineffective.[/quote']ever think of looking at the sources at the bottom of the article? :roll:

 

You realize that in one experiment, people ingested DDT for 2 years, and nothing happened to them at all? It is PERFECTLY SAFE!

 

According to scientific testing by Dr. Philip Butler, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Sabine Island Research Laboratory, “92 percent of DDT and its metabolites” vanish from the environment after 38 days. Furthermore, as the former director of the World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged decades ago, “DDT is so safe that no symptoms have been observed among the 130,000 spraymen or the 535 million inhabitants of sprayed houses [over the years in which DDT spraying was legal]. No toxicity was observed in the wildlife of the countries participating in the malaria campaign.”

Just because of a claim in a book by rachel carson, the whole world freaked and got rid of DDT

[sith_wampa 6]

^^WTF?!

 

Global warming is not being caused by us. Mars' ice caps are melting as well. The warming of the Earth is part the Sun expanding and also the fluctuation between ice ages.

 

Back on topic.

 

WWIII will be a little complicated, but I will tell it like I see it.

 

Iran will be pissed at America still and seek immediate help from North Korea. Although it hasn't been 'officially' confirmed, anyone with half a brain can see that Iran and North Korea are being supplied by the Russians. China, being surrounded by the three is going to be like "HOLY ****!! WTF?! HELP!!!" And America being a good neighbor and a guardian of the world's economy will defend China. Meanwhile Europe is going like "Oh **** were dumbasses. WTF do we do now?!?" because Russia is blitzing their asses to get their factories and materials for themselves. Germany will be screwed because they have nothing, France will be like "**** NO NOT AGAIN!" and UK will be like "zOMFG HALP US!!" So the US will go help Europe as well as China. And Japan will be like "**** you China, but we'll help you anyway because we listen to America."

 

And the UN will be more useless than ever

[Alphabear 11]

Yes I read that article you posted' date=' and I have spent half an hour searching scientific journal databases for the source that articles argument is based on. So far i have found no record that the journal article exists. On the contrary there are numerous scientific studies showing a direct relation between DDT levels, and a wide range of health effects on humans and other wildlife species such as damage to reproductive capabilities and reproductive failure, weakening of bone strength, cancer, as well as recent research showing a corelation between DDT levels and diabetes. There is also evidence showing that around the time DDT was "banned" the mosquitoes had already developed a resistance to DDT. Thats why in the years prior to its "banning" DDT use had declined dramatically because it had become ineffective.[/quote']ever think of looking at the sources at the bottom of the article? :roll:

No i never thought of doing that, i was looking for some random article that was never mentioned:roll: I was talking about the article that it had referenced. I was interested to have a look at the research conducted, that was until i found no evidence of it actually existing.

 

You realize that in one experiment, people ingested DDT for 2 years, and nothing happened to them at all? It is PERFECTLY SAFE!

You realise that the effects mentioned are long-term effects. Also do you have any references to this experiment?

 

According to scientific testing by Dr. Philip Butler, director of the Fish and Wildlife Service's Sabine Island Research Laboratory, “92 percent of DDT and its metabolites” vanish from the environment after 38 days.

I will look into his research later but my information is rather different. According to the ATSDR, the mean half-life for DDT in US soils is 5.3 years. In a study of forest soils that had been sprayed in Maine, the mean halflife was notted to be between 20 and 30 years. The data you have may have been based on DDT in river water in which case the half life is just over 30 days

 

Furthermore, as the former director of the World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged decades ago, “DDT is so safe that no symptoms have been observed among the 130,000 spraymen or the 535 million inhabitants of sprayed houses [over the years in which DDT spraying was legal]. No toxicity was observed in the wildlife of the countries participating in the malaria campaign.”

Just because of a claim in a book by rachel carson, the whole world freaked and got rid of DDT

 

That seems like a strange statement for a director of the WHO to make when they still to this day recognise that DDT poses a significant risk to humans and wildlife. The WHO encourages the use of DDT in helping prevent malaria but only under strict controls and only indoors as i mentioned earlier. Again i can provide you with the scientific evidence of the effects of DDT on wildlife as i have mentioned earlier

[sith_wampa 6]

Umm... STFU about this off topic **** plz.

 

WWIII is the topic in case you forgot. :wink:

[F15pilotX 4]

So your saying one fiction novel is more reputable and is more likely to convince someone who studies Environmental Science that global warming is all made up than actual scientific research.

The storyline may be fictitious' date=' but if you read it, you'll see that the research is thorough, and based on scientific sources

 

Some of his sources include:

[list']

Wilfred Beckerman (Professor of Economics at Oxford and former member of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution

Chase Alston (Degrees at Harvard, Princeton and Oxford, and professor at the former two)

Peter Huber (College at Harvard and MIT)

Bjørn Lomborg (Ph.D. at University of Copenhagen, Assistant, and later Associate professor at University of Aarhus)

Aaron Wildavsky (Professor at University of California, Berkeley from 1962-1993)

Furthermore' date=' as the former director of the World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged decades ago, “DDT is so safe that no symptoms have been observed among the 130,000 spraymen or the 535 million inhabitants of sprayed houses [over the years in which DDT spraying was legal']. No toxicity was observed in the wildlife of the countries participating in the malaria campaign.”

Just because of a claim in a book by rachel carson, the whole world freaked and got rid of DDT

 

That seems like a strange statement for a director of the WHO to make when they still to this day recognise that DDT poses a significant risk to humans and wildlife. The WHO encourages the use of DDT in helping prevent malaria but only under strict controls and only indoors as i mentioned earlier. Again i can provide you with the scientific evidence of the effects of DDT on wildlife as i have mentioned earlier

Of course it does: it's supposed to KILL MOSQUITOES!

 

Anyway, it appears WHO has changed it's position ( :roll: ):

 

WHO Calls for More DDT Use Vs. Malaria

 

 

 

By all means, POST your sources instead of saying you have them

[TheBlackOut 7]

Umm... STFU about this off topic s*** plz.

 

WWIII is the topic in case you forgot. :wink:

 

No... This could impact WWIII, so it's on topic. Either get with it, or stop complaining.

[Alphabear 11]

Yes, I realize they are...the experiment was performed over 38 years ago Wink

Yes but the experiment does not continue for 38 years. There is no record of the test continuing past 1969. Infact the same author of that journal has since had journals published where he makes reference to the ingestion of DDT to be dangerous eg

Furthermore, as the former director of the World Health Organization (WHO) acknowledged decades ago, “DDT is so safe that no symptoms have been observed among the 130,000 spraymen or the 535 million inhabitants of sprayed houses [over the years in which DDT spraying was legal]. No toxicity was observed in the wildlife of the countries participating in the malaria campaign.”

Just because of a claim in a book by rachel carson, the whole world freaked and got rid of DDT

 

That seems like a strange statement for a director of the WHO to make when they still to this day recognise that DDT poses a significant risk to humans and wildlife. The WHO encourages the use of DDT in helping prevent malaria but only under strict controls and only indoors as i mentioned earlier. Again i can provide you with the scientific evidence of the effects of DDT on wildlife as i have mentioned earlier

Of course it does: it's supposed to KILL MOSQUITOES!

 

Anyway, it appears WHO has changed it's position ( :roll: ):

 

WHO Calls for More DDT Use Vs. Malaria

 

Yes it does kill mosquitoes. The problem is it kills a lot more than just that. And its effects on the ecosystem are still taking their toll decades later.

 

Um did you even read the source you just posted in response. It said the WHO encourages the use of indoor spraying. Which is Exactly what I just said. There is a big difference to that and widespread outdoor spraying.