happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 16, 2015 6:31:31 GMT -5
Yeah I saw something on the news about that last night.
The US is not prepared to defend their rights up in the Artic, and Russia is sitting there with something like 40 icebreakers (we have 2). They're primed to exploit this new opportunity that the rising temperatures have afforded them, while we're sitting there flatfooted - and by the way, ice breakers take 10 years to build, so it's not something we can whip out in a hurry.
The Russians have been holding war games up there, too - another bad sign.
Wonder how we got caught with our pants down - maybe because we're too busy insisting global climate change isn't a 'thing' so no one considered the possibility that Russia might swoop in to pick up some prime resources when the ice started melting?
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 16, 2015 6:42:29 GMT -5
Why Do We need ice breakers if all the ice is melting??
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 16, 2015 6:51:27 GMT -5
Why Do We need ice breakers if all the ice is melting?? Used to be the ice pack was so thick it was dangerous/impossible to go that way except in the height of summer. You ran the risk of getting your ship trapped in the ice and even an icebreaker couldn't get you out. Now, the ice is thin enough an ice breaker can keep the passageway clear, turning what used to be a dangerous and unreliable passageway into a viable sea channel, kind of like a Panama Canal in the north. It reduces the amount of time it takes to ship stuff from one side of the planet to the other. Sounds like a wonderful benefit of climate change, right? Except that the Russians are clearly planning to seize control of the passageway, and they have the ice breakers to keep it clear and defend it from us.
|
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 63,512
|
Post by Tennesseer on Sept 16, 2015 7:09:15 GMT -5
Why Do We need ice breakers if all the ice is melting?? Those ice breakers need to be sent to the Polynesian islands, specificslly around Tahiti, right oldcoyote? After all, you did claim the waters around Alaska were warmer than around Tahiti.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 16, 2015 8:37:14 GMT -5
OC where do you find these stories? I've never heard of Quartz, but it looks fairly heavily Green/liberal. I have a daily subscription to it, It is pretty well rounded. Again, as I have said before, I am making fun of the way the media uses pictures, graphs, and videos that have nothing to do their propaganda. The start of this thread, I am making fun at Google Earth showing almost all of the ice being gone at the North Pole. When it is not. I looked for NASA global Warming videos, grab one of the first one that come up. www.ibtimes.com/pulse/climate-change-2015-heres-what-nasa-found-after-12-years-studying-global-warming-1883547 So with twelve years of study we can now predict the out come of global warming for the next ten, hundred, or thousand years? I came across this interview with a NASA JPL global warming scientist, Who Specialized in rising ocean levels. This was an eye opener, He now has me convinced. He talks about how accurate the satellite measurement are, How stable the sea levels were a thousand , even ten thousand years ago. .
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 16, 2015 8:40:20 GMT -5
Why Do We need ice breakers if all the ice is melting?? Used to be the ice pack was so thick it was dangerous/impossible to go that way except in the height of summer. You ran the risk of getting your ship trapped in the ice and even an icebreaker couldn't get you out. Now, the ice is thin enough an ice breaker can keep the passageway clear, turning what used to be a dangerous and unreliable passageway into a viable sea channel, kind of like a Panama Canal in the north. It reduces the amount of time it takes to ship stuff from one side of the planet to the other. Sounds like a wonderful benefit of climate change, right? Except that the Russians are clearly planning to seize control of the passageway, and they have the ice breakers to keep it clear and defend it from us. Ahhh yes, the Russians have out maneuvered us again, Thanks to our glorious leadership.
|
|
OldCoyote
Senior Associate
Joined: Dec 21, 2010 10:34:48 GMT -5
Posts: 13,449
|
Post by OldCoyote on Sept 16, 2015 8:46:27 GMT -5
I came across this interview with a NASA JPL global warming scientist, Who Specialized in rising ocean levels. This was an eye opener, He now has me convinced.
He talks about how accurate the satellite measurement are, How stable the sea levels were a thousand , even ten thousand years ago. I do wonder where he got the satellite data, ten thousand years ago, Also his second thing is being a comedian, which in this case works well for his first job also.
|
|
weltschmerz
Community Leader
Joined: Jul 25, 2011 13:37:39 GMT -5
Posts: 38,962
|
Post by weltschmerz on Sept 16, 2015 11:32:58 GMT -5
Yeah I saw something on the news about that last night. The US is not prepared to defend their rights up in the Artic, and Russia is sitting there with something like 40 icebreakers (we have 2). They're primed to exploit this new opportunity that the rising temperatures have afforded them, while we're sitting there flatfooted - and by the way, ice breakers take 10 years to build, so it's not something we can whip out in a hurry. The Russians have been holding war games up there, too - another bad sign. Wonder how we got caught with our pants down - maybe because we're too busy insisting global climate change isn't a 'thing' so no one considered the possibility that Russia might swoop in to pick up some prime resources when the ice started melting? That's exactly it. Americans continue to deny, deny, deny. Even candidates like Ben Carson continue to insist it's not happening, that it's nothing but propaganda. Other countries consider these people crackpots. Unbelievable. They'll deny it even as they're bursting into flames.
www.alternet.org/environment/climate-change-more-divisive-abortion-blame-republicans
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 16, 2015 13:26:08 GMT -5
Why Do We need ice breakers if all the ice is melting?? for the floating blobs of ice that are not connected to the ice mass any more?
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Sept 16, 2015 13:41:46 GMT -5
Look, this has me scratching my head.
I want to believe the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community...and maybe they are on to something. Weather patterns certainly seem to have gotten more erratic and extreme...but I'm still waiting for the palm trees to grow in Clinton Square up here in Syracuse.
Obviously, there can be no doubt that we are damaging the earth...but something tells me the earth is resilient and will outlast us all.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 16, 2015 13:45:45 GMT -5
Used to be the ice pack was so thick it was dangerous/impossible to go that way except in the height of summer. You ran the risk of getting your ship trapped in the ice and even an icebreaker couldn't get you out. Now, the ice is thin enough an ice breaker can keep the passageway clear, turning what used to be a dangerous and unreliable passageway into a viable sea channel, kind of like a Panama Canal in the north. It reduces the amount of time it takes to ship stuff from one side of the planet to the other. Sounds like a wonderful benefit of climate change, right? Except that the Russians are clearly planning to seize control of the passageway, and they have the ice breakers to keep it clear and defend it from us. Ahhh yes, the Russians have out maneuvered us again, Thanks to our glorious leadership. Since it takes 10 years to build an ice breaker, I don't think you can blame the current lack of ice breakers on Obama. To have more today, when the passageway is opening up, the Bush administration would have had to set aside money for them ten years ago. Which they didn't, because they were convinced climate change was goofy.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 16, 2015 13:59:44 GMT -5
Look, this has me scratching my head. I want to believe the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community...and maybe they are on to something. Weather patterns certainly seem to have gotten more erratic and extreme...but I'm still waiting for the palm trees to grow in Clinton Square up here in Syracuse. Obviously, there can be no doubt that we are damaging the earth...but something tells me the earth is resilient and will outlast us all. The expected outcome of climate change (as I understand it - there are many different models of what may happen) isn't that the whole earth heats up over time, but that the weather becomes more violent and more unpredictable. Places that used to get a lot of rain don't get much, maybe for 4 or 5 years, and then they get floods. Places that never went below freezing now do. Places that stayed temperate suddenly have scorching summers. This poses two big problems - agricultural failures, with farmers not being able to predict what to plant, and crops killed in droughts/freezes/floods (we need a lot of food to prevent global political instability) and the second problem is the impact it will have on ecosystems. Yes the earth is resilient and species can evolve to adapt to new conditions, but evolution takes thousands of years, generally. Also we're experiencing a catastrophic number of extinctions right now, even without the impact of global warming, and that will only accelerate if and when global warming kicks in. The more species of plants and animals an ecosystem has, the more resilient and flexible it is. Ecosystems like the tundra, where you have a limited number of types of plants and animals, tend to be very unstable (which can cause even more extinctions). Then there is the issue of rising sea levels flooding out low lying islands and coastal areas - which for people, just means we have to abandon the coastlines and move further in (unless you live on an island). The problem is there are many models, and they don't all agree. Hard to be exactly sure what will happen with such an enormous system. And some people consider climate change the same way they do evolution - if they can't actually sit down and watch the climate change (or an organism evolve) then it doesn't exist.
|
|
Robert not Bobby
Well-Known Member
Joined: Jan 29, 2013 17:45:55 GMT -5
Posts: 1,392
|
Post by Robert not Bobby on Sept 16, 2015 14:39:04 GMT -5
Look, this has me scratching my head. I want to believe the overwhelming consensus of the scientific community...and maybe they are on to something. Weather patterns certainly seem to have gotten more erratic and extreme...but I'm still waiting for the palm trees to grow in Clinton Square up here in Syracuse. Obviously, there can be no doubt that we are damaging the earth...but something tells me the earth is resilient and will outlast us all. The expected outcome of climate change (as I understand it - there are many different models of what may happen) isn't that the whole earth heats up over time, but that the weather becomes more violent and more unpredictable. Places that used to get a lot of rain don't get much, maybe for 4 or 5 years, and then they get floods. Places that never went below freezing now do. Places that stayed temperate suddenly have scorching summers. This poses two big problems - agricultural failures, with farmers not being able to predict what to plant, and crops killed in droughts/freezes/floods (we need a lot of food to prevent global political instability) and the second problem is the impact it will have on ecosystems. Yes the earth is resilient and species can evolve to adapt to new conditions, but evolution takes thousands of years, generally. Also we're experiencing a catastrophic number of extinctions right now, even without the impact of global warming, and that will only accelerate if and when global warming kicks in. The more species of plants and animals an ecosystem has, the more resilient and flexible it is. Ecosystems like the tundra, where you have a limited number of types of plants and animals, tend to be very unstable (which can cause even more extinctions). Then there is the issue of rising sea levels flooding out low lying islands and coastal areas - which for people, just means we have to abandon the coastlines and move further in (unless you live on an island). The problem is there are many models, and they don't all agree. Hard to be exactly sure what will happen with such an enormous system. And some people consider climate change the same way they do evolution - if they can't actually sit down and watch the climate change (or an organism evolve) then it doesn't exist. happyhoix...almost brilliant. I don't disagree. Now that you have so well stated the problem(s), what, in your mind is the solution, or one of them?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 11:11:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2015 14:53:58 GMT -5
I never said every prediction was wrong. (that was jkapp) Your point doesn't explain how global atmospheric CO2 levels can increase during a decrease of global fossil fuel usage. Are you one of those that only acknowledge the data that pertains to what you believe ? So do you think that the CO2 levels should respond to increases or decreases in global fossil fuel usage as if someone was adjusting a giant thermostat someplace? Krakatoa erupted in 1883. The resulting ash plume caused significant disruption in the global surface temperature and amount of rainfall up until 1888. The problem didn't just stop when the volcano stopped producing ash in 1883. And that was just one large volcano. There's something called the 'carbon cycle' occurring in the atmosphere. Go google it. Carbon can get taken up and released in multiple ways, sometimes being stored a while, sometimes not. 1)No, thermostats are used for temperature control. And also yes. If reducing CO2 output by mans emissions is supposed to reduce AGW. If it didn't reduce in 2009 atmospheric samples, how is coal power plant elimination going to reduce it? 2)Ash is a solid that needed to settle out of the atmosphere. Not comparable to CO2 gas properties. 3) Glad to see that the closed carbon cycle loop is now moving to the forefront of your thought process on this subject. Have you been reading my past posts with more comprehension ?
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 11:11:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2015 14:57:57 GMT -5
Big oil wouldn't exist if we didn't buy their product. Do you buy their product ? Just because I use products made from petroleum based material doesn't mean I'm not allowed to complain about how the oil companies mislead the public and try to imped production of more sustainable energy and products. In the same way that, being an American doesn't preclude me from being critical of some of our policies and politicians. Your helping finance their activities. You complaining about what they do doesn't mean a whole lot when you're paying for it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 11:11:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2015 14:59:25 GMT -5
Of course global warming is taking place. It has since the last little ice age. cool. then WE have nothing more to discuss. have a nice day. And yet two posts later your still quoting me about it.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 11:11:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 16, 2015 15:19:57 GMT -5
Which are you referring to ? Your previous statements on increasing CO2 levels says "AGW" edit: really? where? link please. i try to avoid saying ANYTHING about AGW. i would be surprised if i have done so recently.but you never actually said which one. actually, i have. numerous times. by the way- i am curious why you are riding my ass about this right now, but you never ride Paul's ass when he fails to make the same distinction. I'm not riding you in any way, just trying to clarify where you stand on the subject. I'm not really too emotional about this because I already know all the laws of physics that apply to the subject. As an aside I really, really, don't care how many people are convinced in ignorance, that man's carbon emissions are causing global warming (AGW). I spend way more time on physics sites/blogs than I do here. Continual requests for clarification is just the norm and doesn't stand out as any type of semantic argument. I tend to be directly blunt. Please forgive in advance as I don't mean anything by it. Edit; Paul has never disagreed with any physics papers I've linked to in a post. He's always been in agreement so far, so the distinction seemed irrelevant.
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 16, 2015 16:30:16 GMT -5
actually, i have. numerous times. by the way- i am curious why you are riding my ass about this right now, but you never ride Paul's ass when he fails to make the same distinction. I'm not riding you in any way, just trying to clarify where you stand on the subject. I'm not really too emotional about this because I already know all the laws of physics that apply to the subject. As an aside I really, really, don't care how many people are convinced in ignorance, that man's carbon emissions are causing global warming (AGW). I spend way more time on physics sites/blogs than I do here. Continual requests for clarification is just the norm and doesn't stand out as any type of semantic argument. I tend to be directly blunt. Please forgive in advance as I don't mean anything by it. Edit; Paul has never disagreed with any physics papers I've linked to in a post. He's always been in agreement so far, so the distinction seemed irrelevant. Paul denies the possibility of AGW. do you?
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 17, 2015 10:34:56 GMT -5
The expected outcome of climate change (as I understand it - there are many different models of what may happen) isn't that the whole earth heats up over time, but that the weather becomes more violent and more unpredictable. Places that used to get a lot of rain don't get much, maybe for 4 or 5 years, and then they get floods. Places that never went below freezing now do. Places that stayed temperate suddenly have scorching summers. This poses two big problems - agricultural failures, with farmers not being able to predict what to plant, and crops killed in droughts/freezes/floods (we need a lot of food to prevent global political instability) and the second problem is the impact it will have on ecosystems. Yes the earth is resilient and species can evolve to adapt to new conditions, but evolution takes thousands of years, generally. Also we're experiencing a catastrophic number of extinctions right now, even without the impact of global warming, and that will only accelerate if and when global warming kicks in. The more species of plants and animals an ecosystem has, the more resilient and flexible it is. Ecosystems like the tundra, where you have a limited number of types of plants and animals, tend to be very unstable (which can cause even more extinctions). Then there is the issue of rising sea levels flooding out low lying islands and coastal areas - which for people, just means we have to abandon the coastlines and move further in (unless you live on an island). The problem is there are many models, and they don't all agree. Hard to be exactly sure what will happen with such an enormous system. And some people consider climate change the same way they do evolution - if they can't actually sit down and watch the climate change (or an organism evolve) then it doesn't exist. happyhoix...almost brilliant. I don't disagree. Now that you have so well stated the problem(s), what, in your mind is the solution, or one of them? Unfortunately, that I don't know. With something as large as the global climate system, with so many variables (not all of them completely understood) it's impossible to predict outcomes with 100% accuracy. Plus then you have the unintended consequences. We are always trying to 'fix' things in nature - like transplanting Kudzu vines from Japan to the southern US to help prevent erosion - and now Kudzu has become the Vine that Ate the South. Frankly even if there was a solution that we were sure would help, you would then have to get all the countries in the world to agree to impliment that solution, and that has zero chance of happening. It will require someone way smarter than me to figure out what to do. Possibly, we're already too late anyway.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 17, 2015 10:56:40 GMT -5
So do you think that the CO2 levels should respond to increases or decreases in global fossil fuel usage as if someone was adjusting a giant thermostat someplace? Krakatoa erupted in 1883. The resulting ash plume caused significant disruption in the global surface temperature and amount of rainfall up until 1888. The problem didn't just stop when the volcano stopped producing ash in 1883. And that was just one large volcano. There's something called the 'carbon cycle' occurring in the atmosphere. Go google it. Carbon can get taken up and released in multiple ways, sometimes being stored a while, sometimes not. 1)No, thermostats are used for temperature control. And also yes. If reducing CO2 output by mans emissions is supposed to reduce AGW. If it didn't reduce in 2009 atmospheric samples, how is coal power plant elimination going to reduce it? 2)Ash is a solid that needed to settle out of the atmosphere. Not comparable to CO2 gas properties. 3) Glad to see that the closed carbon cycle loop is now moving to the forefront of your thought process on this subject. Have you been reading my past posts with more comprehension ? No, sorry, your past posts are not comprehensible, in that they are not based in science. Scientists are open minded and never believe they know 100% about any subject, or that they are 100% right about any subject.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 11:11:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 12:46:29 GMT -5
I'm not riding you in any way, just trying to clarify where you stand on the subject. I'm not really too emotional about this because I already know all the laws of physics that apply to the subject. As an aside I really, really, don't care how many people are convinced in ignorance, that man's carbon emissions are causing global warming (AGW). I spend way more time on physics sites/blogs than I do here. Continual requests for clarification is just the norm and doesn't stand out as any type of semantic argument. I tend to be directly blunt. Please forgive in advance as I don't mean anything by it. Edit; Paul has never disagreed with any physics papers I've linked to in a post. He's always been in agreement so far, so the distinction seemed irrelevant. Paul denies the possibility of AGW. do you? AGW can be caused by other things than atmospheric carbon levels. So I won't deny the possibility of anything.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 11:11:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 17, 2015 13:13:23 GMT -5
1)No, thermostats are used for temperature control. And also yes. If reducing CO2 output by mans emissions is supposed to reduce AGW. If it didn't reduce in 2009 atmospheric samples, how is coal power plant elimination going to reduce it? 2)Ash is a solid that needed to settle out of the atmosphere. Not comparable to CO2 gas properties. 3) Glad to see that the closed carbon cycle loop is now moving to the forefront of your thought process on this subject. Have you been reading my past posts with more comprehension ? No, sorry, your past posts are not comprehensible, in that they are not based in science. Scientists are open minded and never believe they know 100% about any subject, or that they are 100% right about any subject. Great semantics/posturing. If you don't even know the difference between a gas and a solid I can't put much faith in your ability to judge what's based in science. Here's a link to a paper on the second law of thermodynamics and how it applies to atmospheric carbon. I tend to get too "mathy" and have been accused of being a math troll on other forums/blogs. It's in easy layman terms with answers to commonly asked questions at the end. www.earth-climate.com/psi_radiated_energy.pdf
|
|
djAdvocate
Member Emeritus
only posting when the mood strikes me.
Joined: Jun 21, 2011 12:33:54 GMT -5
Posts: 75,135
Mini-Profile Background: {"image":"","color":"000307"}
|
Post by djAdvocate on Sept 17, 2015 23:17:16 GMT -5
Paul denies the possibility of AGW. do you? AGW can be caused by other things than atmospheric carbon levels. So I won't deny the possibility of anything. i do. i deny the possibility that Myley Cyrus will ever write anything of consequence. i deny the possibility that Rick Santorum will be our next president. i deny the possibility of one of us transgendering and marrying the other. and a billion other things. but good, you don't deny the possibility of AGW. neither do i.
|
|
happyhoix
Distinguished Associate
Joined: Oct 7, 2011 7:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 20,901
|
Post by happyhoix on Sept 18, 2015 11:57:22 GMT -5
I saw a statistic today that said sea life was at half the population that it was four decades ago. www.cnn.com/2015/09/17/world/oceans-report/index.htmlApparently the sharks have really been hit hard, due to the human fondness for shark fin soup. We might lose 25% of the shark species within 10 years due to that practice. Not sure if this is due to climate change (although I have heard that some of the large corral reefs are dying out due to warming waters - corals can't pick up and relocate themselves), pollution, overfishing, or a combination of all those things, but it's alarming. It's one thing to be the dominant species, it's another to be one of the few remaining species. Course we'll probably nuke ourselves before long, the insects will reign supreme for several million years, and then a different dominant life form will evolve to replace us. Hopefully one that isn't so violent and selfish.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 11:11:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2015 10:48:12 GMT -5
AGW can be caused by other things than atmospheric carbon levels. So I won't deny the possibility of anything. i do. i deny the possibility that Myley Cyrus will ever write anything of consequence. i deny the possibility that Rick Santorum will be our next president. i deny the possibility of one of us transgendering and marrying the other. and a billion other things. but good, you don't deny the possibility of AGW. neither do i. Ugh, you had to mention Myley Cyrus. Now I have pictures of tongues running through my brain.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: May 4, 2024 11:11:26 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 22, 2015 10:56:54 GMT -5
I saw a statistic today that said sea life was at half the population that it was four decades ago. www.cnn.com/2015/09/17/world/oceans-report/index.htmlApparently the sharks have really been hit hard, due to the human fondness for shark fin soup. We might lose 25% of the shark species within 10 years due to that practice. Not sure if this is due to climate change (although I have heard that some of the large corral reefs are dying out due to warming waters - corals can't pick up and relocate themselves), pollution, overfishing, or a combination of all those things, but it's alarming. It's one thing to be the dominant species, it's another to be one of the few remaining species. Course we'll probably nuke ourselves before long, the insects will reign supreme for several million years, and then a different dominant life form will evolve to replace us. Hopefully one that isn't so violent and selfish. Here's a good recent list of species diversity that is set up as a hard science listing. You might find it interesting as diversity isn't going away anytime soon. You might want to take note of the known species tally of animalia. It's well over 1 million living species. www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&frm=1&source=web&cd=3&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDIQFjACahUKEwje2cic_4rIAhXBCZIKHW_9CFA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.catalogueoflife.org%2Fcol%2Finfo%2Ftotals&usg=AFQjCNHleNmNk1FesWPAcwsRIwidM4XQeQ
|
|