I've got 3/4 pages.. need consequences, solutions, and a conclusion..SEREVENT wrote:
Hmmm.
Want me to do the whole essay for you?
hmmm.Funky_Finny wrote:
I've got 3/4 pages.. need consequences, solutions, and a conclusion..SEREVENT wrote:
Hmmm.
Want me to do the whole essay for you?
Last edited by Funky_Finny (2008-06-19 11:43:28)
Brazil's #1 argument:- Europe and America cut their forrests down. Why can't we? I know they are started to use less of the "slash and burn method" and using sustainable development. But the damage is done. Prevention is better than cure.ELITE-UK wrote:
Replant the raiforests.
Kmarion wrote:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm
Lol'd at the list though, but Acne???Funky_Finny wrote:
(Something I don't believe in but hey we'll run with it.)
Why would you be doing an essay on Global Warming in Geography? That seems a bit out of place.Funky_Finny wrote:
Doing a dissertation for Geography and need a list of consequences for global warming. (Something I don't believe in but hey we'll run with it.)
I google'd.. believe me I did, but they were all so un-origional, and I really want to get a good grade for this paper.
Go.
Last edited by imortal (2008-06-19 13:34:29)
US has more Trees now than in the 1700s.SEREVENT wrote:
Brazil's #1 argument:- Europe and America cut their forrests down. Why can't we? I know they are started to use less of the "slash and burn method" and using sustainable development. But the damage is done. Prevention is better than cure.ELITE-UK wrote:
Replant the raiforests.
The temperature will go up.Funky_Finny wrote:
Doing a dissertation for Geography and need a list of consequences for global warming. (Something I don't believe in but hey we'll run with it.)
I google'd.. believe me I did, but they were all so un-origional, and I really want to get a good grade for this paper.
Go.
okay, I will call BS on that one. The US used to have a huge forest from the east coast to the Mississippi river. Gone. I doubt the trees planted in the other areas compensate for that.Lotta_Drool wrote:
US has more Trees now than in the 1700s.SEREVENT wrote:
Brazil's #1 argument:- Europe and America cut their forrests down. Why can't we? I know they are started to use less of the "slash and burn method" and using sustainable development. But the damage is done. Prevention is better than cure.ELITE-UK wrote:
Replant the raiforests.
interesting bit about the blue-green algae producing more O2 than trees. if the ocean temps rise enough to disrupt this, then the CO2 levels would rise (because of lack of the sufficent quantity of algae to process it), and this CO2 contributes to greenhouse effect no? i'm unsure how hot the ocean would have to be in order to kill off the algae though. certainly, the temps raising would have potential effects on currents and breeding of sea animals so that impact could be a problem.imortal wrote:
okay, I will call BS on that one. The US used to have a huge forest from the east coast to the Mississippi river. Gone. I doubt the trees planted in the other areas compensate for that.Lotta_Drool wrote:
US has more Trees now than in the 1700s.SEREVENT wrote:
Brazil's #1 argument:- Europe and America cut their forrests down. Why can't we? I know they are started to use less of the "slash and burn method" and using sustainable development. But the damage is done. Prevention is better than cure.
I am not a tree hugger by any means. The majority of our CO2 >>> O2 cycle is conducted by blue-green algae in the oceans anyway. But they look pretty.
Here is the fun thing about raising water temps: Microbes love warmer temperatures... well, they still reproduce in 37o C/100o F temps. But, as the water temp rose, the algae would be able to spread more into the northern and southern areas currently too cold for the algae to survive. So, as CO2 rises, the water gets warmer, the algae is able to spread more, more CO2 is stripped from the atmosphere and converted to oxygen, temperatures fall. The oceans are a temperature regulator for our planet in more ways than one.CaptainSpaulding71 wrote:
interesting bit about the blue-green algae producing more O2 than trees. if the ocean temps rise enough to disrupt this, then the CO2 levels would rise (because of lack of the sufficent quantity of algae to process it), and this CO2 contributes to greenhouse effect no? i'm unsure how hot the ocean would have to be in order to kill off the algae though. certainly, the temps raising would have potential effects on currents and breeding of sea animals so that impact could be a problem.imortal wrote:
okay, I will call BS on that one. The US used to have a huge forest from the east coast to the Mississippi river. Gone. I doubt the trees planted in the other areas compensate for that.Lotta_Drool wrote:
US has more Trees now than in the 1700s.
I am not a tree hugger by any means. The majority of our CO2 >>> O2 cycle is conducted by blue-green algae in the oceans anyway. But they look pretty.
but then again, what does it take really to increase the temp of the oceans? i would think that's a very tough thing to do over a short time.
my guess is that most of the perceived climate changes we are experiencing now are due to cyclic behaviors due in larger part to the orbit of our planet around the sun as opposed to the atmosphere. in the industrial revolution days, there were huge problems with polution yet we didn't experience climate changes based soley on these factors. In fact, Pittsburgh was so black with soot that noon looked like midnight on a new moon - completely black - and that wasn't so long ago.
i can kind of see both sides of the global warming argument but i still have my doubts as to the true motives of the Goracles. my gut tells me that they are in it for the money and not to save the earth.