| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/26/2009 03:39:47 PM · #26 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Or on the other side of the coin, you could look at the carbon that used to be taken out of the environment by the 13 million hectares of the world's forests are lost to development and slash and burn agriculture each year. No human influence there either I'm sure. |
Most agricultural burning is dead vegetation to remove seeds or to clean logging areas for more vegetation plantings (either new trees for future harvest or agriculture for food, drugs, etc). Agreed, some land development have losses, but some folks plant a lot of grass, gardens, and trees. When I bought my old house the prior owners cleared the property. Now I have almost an acres of total vegetation in three canopies. I wonder if Gore will give me credits for that?
:) |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:45:17 PM · #27 |
| To be fair, CO2 released from burning is not very important in the equation as any CO2 released has only been sequestered on the order of months to decades. I suppose there is an effect if the land is then not replanted with an equivalent biomass, but that would come indirectly in future impediment to CO2 sequestering. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:46:52 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
How many metric tons of carbon dioxide are sequestered by plant and animal life, over the entire globe, including the oceans, in that same day? |
The oceans represent the biggest global carbon sink, however rising water temperatures reduce the solubility of carbon dioxide, and lead to stratification. Rising levels of CO2 also affect ocean acidity, with adverse consequences for coral, shellfish and crustaceans. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:47:23 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by farfel53:
How many metric tons of carbon dioxide are sequestered by plant and animal life, over the entire globe, including the oceans, in that same day? |
Animal life creates CO2, plants take it out, there was a balance. Now people and animals make more, and we have fewer plants. Guess what is happening. |
I think maybe all animal life on earth uses carbon to build it's own body, does it not? Are we not "carbon based life forms"? Yes, we consume oxygen, and give off carbon dioxide as simple respiration products...but let's not say we don't sequester any carbon. Most of this fluff around my middle is, I dare say, CARBON BASED!
|
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:49:14 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by farfel53:
How many metric tons of carbon dioxide are sequestered by plant and animal life, over the entire globe, including the oceans, in that same day? |
The oceans represent the biggest global carbon sink, however rising water temperatures reduce the solubility of carbon dioxide, and lead to stratification. Rising levels of CO2 also affect ocean acidity, with adverse consequences for coral, shellfish and crustaceans. |
You have a number for the amount released. Is there a number for the amount absorbed?
|
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:51:44 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Would NOT addressing the environment save any money? The 2005 hurricane season alone cost something like $128 billion USD. Add to that the cost of western wildfires, midwest floods, southeast droughts, impacts to fishing, forestry, tourism and other industries affected by environmental change, and pretty soon it starts to add up to real money. Not to say that all of that could have been avoided, but ignoring the problem is not without its own [growing] costs. |
You forgot the cost of converting all those New York City taxis to Venice-style gondolas ... |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:52:31 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Blue Moon:
yes, but what about the frogs with too many legs?
mutant frog
|
You obviously didn't read the entire article.
Multiple appendages were explained. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:53:40 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
I know most of you will not read this to the end, but here are a few expert that do not believe in it.
Dr. Jay Lehr is science director of The Heartland Institute and editor of several leading scientific reference books, including McGraw-Hill's Handbook on Environmental Science, Health and Technology. |
Dr Lehr and the Hearland institute are a libertarian / conservative think tank that have 2 major areas of interest; Trying to prevent curbs on tobacco use, and denying global warming. They make a lot of statements using a lot of reputable people names.
Of course they craft what they report to suit their needs and the needs of their corporate sponsors.
"In April 2008, environmental journalist Richard Littlemore wrote that a bibliography written by Dennis Avery and posted on Heartlandâs Web site, titled "500 Scientists with Documented Doubts of Man-Made Global Warming Scares,â[8] included at least 45 scientists who neither knew of their inclusion as "coauthors" of the article, nor agreed with its claims regarding global warming. Dozens of the scientists asked the Heartland Institute to remove their names from the list; for instance, Gregory Cutter of Old Dominion University wrote, "I have NO doubts... the recent changes in global climate ARE man-induced. I insist that you immediately remove my name from this list since I did not give you permission to put it there." Dr. Robert Whittaker, Professor of Biogeography, University of Oxford wrote "Please remove my name. What you have done is totally unethical!" [9]
In response, the Heartland Institute refused to remove any names from the list. It quoted Dennis Avery saying âNot all of these researchers would describe themselves as global warming skeptics,â said Avery, âbut the evidence in their studies is there for all to see.â Heartlandâs president, Joseph Bast, wrote âThey have no right -- legally or ethically -- to demand that their names be removed from a bibliography composed by researchers with whom they disagree. Their names probably appear in hundreds or thousands of bibliographies accompanying other articles or in books with which they disagree. Do they plan to sue hundreds or thousands of their colleagues? The proper response is to engage in scholarly debate, not demand imperiously that the other side redact its publications.â [10]" |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:54:04 PM · #34 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Global warming is about as likely to be debunked as heliocentricity. |
Global warming has already been debunked. The current
theory is called climate change. As nothing ever stays
the same, I'd say climate change would be a normal
condition. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:54:36 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by farfel53:
How many metric tons of carbon dioxide are sequestered by plant and animal life, over the entire globe, including the oceans, in that same day? |
Animal life creates CO2, plants take it out, there was a balance. Now people and animals make more, and we have fewer plants. Guess what is happening. |
I think maybe all animal life on earth uses carbon to build it's own body, does it not? Are we not "carbon based life forms"? Yes, we consume oxygen, and give off carbon dioxide as simple respiration products...but let's not say we don't sequester any carbon. Most of this fluff around my middle is, I dare say, CARBON BASED! |
The point is none of that carbon is coming out of the atmosphere. It's coming from other animals or plants and it all comes ultimately from plants. And while we are all carbon based, we are far from carbon dioxide based. It would be a similar error to say we are all diamond based. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:56:16 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
I think maybe all animal life on earth uses carbon to build it's own body, does it not? Are we not "carbon based life forms"? Yes, we consume oxygen, and give off carbon dioxide as simple respiration products...but let's not say we don't sequester any carbon. Most of this fluff around my middle is, I dare say, CARBON BASED! |
You acquire carbon in stable forms from plants (or animals which eat plants) and return it to the environment as carbon dioxide -- you body functions exactly analogously to a coal-fired power plant: convert solid or liquid hydrocarbons/carbohydrates into power, heat, and CO2. Such is the nature of all beasts ... |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:56:31 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
You have a number for the amount released. Is there a number for the amount absorbed? |
I had a number for the manmade amount released, not the total. The oceans have absorbed about a third of manmade CO2 emissions. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 03:59:37 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by farfel53:
How many metric tons of carbon dioxide are sequestered by plant and animal life, over the entire globe, including the oceans, in that same day? |
The oceans represent the biggest global carbon sink, however rising water temperatures reduce the solubility of carbon dioxide, and lead to stratification. Rising levels of CO2 also affect ocean acidity, with adverse consequences for coral, shellfish and crustaceans. |
You have a number for the amount released. Is there a number for the amount absorbed? |
Look here.
Footnote to the above chart. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 04:02:06 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
The popular tool of denial there is that the planet IS warming, but that it's a natural cycle rather than a result of human influence. |
Human influence is natural. Doesn't your theories posit that human life evolved on this earth? Then human life is a natural part of the earths biosphere. Our only decisions are how we wish to control our burden on this system. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 04:03:26 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by FireBird:
Human influence is natural. Doesn't your theories posit that human life evolved on this earth? Then human life is a natural part of the earths biosphere. Our only decisions are how we wish to control our burden on this system. |
By that screwed up logic, there's no such thing as "artificial." |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 04:04:27 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
I think maybe all animal life on earth uses carbon to build it's own body, does it not? Are we not "carbon based life forms"? Yes, we consume oxygen, and give off carbon dioxide as simple respiration products...but let's not say we don't sequester any carbon. Most of this fluff around my middle is, I dare say, CARBON BASED! |
Yes and plants use oxygen too, but would you say that they on the whole release or sequester carbon?
If you look at how you live and eat, from driving between air conditioned home to air conditioned office, while drinking from a disposable plastic water bottle of Fijian water, and eating grapes from Chile. Yes, you are sequestering carbon to build your body, but its about 0.001% of the carbon that you are causing to be released in the course of modern life. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 04:19:21 PM · #42 |
Damn I thought I was on a photography website. WTF does any of this have to do with photography? Do any of you ever use your camera anymore? Go take some pictures people!
Matt |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 04:20:01 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
Most agricultural burning is dead vegetation to remove seeds or to clean logging areas for more vegetation plantings (either new trees for future harvest or agriculture for food, drugs, etc). |
Where do you get this notion? It is factually wrong. Forest loss is not what is going on at Wherehouser, modern tree farming is a great sequestering device. Forestry loss in the tropics is real and yes, farms go in after slash and burn enriches poor soil, but the nitrogen peters out in less than a decade, and farms move into the forest again, leaving behind soil that cant support people and will take centuries to reforest if it ever can. This is where forest are being lost, and eight years of corn production is not going to produce the same environmental effect as a robust self sustaining five layer canopy. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 04:20:56 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
The point is none of that carbon is coming out of the atmosphere. It's coming from other animals or plants and it all comes ultimately from plants. And while we are all carbon based, we are far from carbon dioxide based. It would be a similar error to say we are all diamond based. |
No, I would argue that ALL of that carbon is coming out of the atmoshpere, in the form of carbos and protiens, which is CO2 converted by plants. And yes, I do put most of it back in as waste gas or solids, but in the overall, I DO sequester carbon. My pants and shirts say so.
And yes, I would suppose that I do have a positive carbon footprint, Brennan. But I would also suppose that the vast mass of life on earth would have a net negative carbon footprint. No A/C, no car, no Tahitian water...only eat, drink, and shit...grow bones and teeth, or shells and scales, and die.
|
|
|
|
06/26/2009 04:27:38 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
Seems that the enviros were wrong again. So, is global warming finally going to be debunked next? I hope so before they tax us out of all out money.
BBC article |
I'd like to congratulate you on a most successful troll. I give y ou an 8 out of 10. You could have scored more points had this thread been moved to Rant. But this could still happen. Many of the posters in this thread thought that they'd beat their last on this particular dead horse. It has been refreshing to see their energy restored and a renewed vigor affected in the pursuit of their prey. (even though it wasn't moving)
Seriously it was an interesting article and I suspect that "real" scientists (whatever the hell they are) will now take this study to task and perhaps find this theory is responsible for most of the abnormalities. Or not. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 04:28:12 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Originally posted by vtruan:
I know most of you will not read this to the end, but here are a few expert that do not believe in it.
Dr. Jay Lehr is science director of The Heartland Institute and editor of several leading scientific reference books, including McGraw-Hill's Handbook on Environmental Science, Health and Technology. |
Dr Lehr and the Hearland institute are a libertarian / conservative think tank that have 2 major areas of interest; Trying to prevent curbs on tobacco use, and denying global warming. They make a lot of statements using a lot of reputable people names.
Of course they craft what they report to suit their needs and the needs of their corporate sponsors.
|
Oh well some of us believe AlGore, one of the most Liberal hipocrites Democrats there is, with his extremely large CO2 use from his mansions and some don't. I guess all you want is just one side of the discussion, kind of like congress right now. How can you learn the truth if you don't listen both sides of a story. I done think you want to be considered a follower do you? Don't you think both sides of this argument are slanted toward their views, I do. I know the slants of the media, do you? You probably hate FOX News because they provide a different view than ABC, CBS, NBS, CNN , et al. So your point is kind of biased and uneducated to some of us.
Message edited by author 2009-06-26 16:32:34. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 04:30:47 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by farfel53:
No, I would argue that ALL of that carbon is coming out of the atmoshpere, in the form of carbos and protiens, which is CO2 converted by plants. And yes, I do put most of it back in as waste gas or solids, but in the overall, I DO sequester carbon. My pants and shirts say so. |
You are still mistaking "carbon" as being equivalent in this coversation to "carbon dioxide". |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 04:32:08 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
Oh, well some of us believe AlGore one of the most Liberal hipocrites Democrats there is, with his extremely large CO2 us on is mansions. I guess all you want is just one side of the discussion, kind of like congress right now. How can you learn the truth if you don't listen both sides of a story. I done think you want to be considered a follower do you? Don't you think both sides of this argument are slanted toward their views, I do. I know the slants of the media, do you? You probably hate FOX News because they provide a different view than ABC, CBS, NBS, CNN , et al. So your point is kind of biased and uneducated to some of us. |
Ad hominem attacks. The grasping for straws of a drowning man...
Message edited by author 2009-06-26 16:32:32. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 04:37:04 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by vtruan:
Oh, well some of us believe AlGore one of the most Liberal hipocrites Democrats there is, with his extremely large CO2 us on is mansions. I guess all you want is just one side of the discussion, kind of like congress right now. How can you learn the truth if you don't listen both sides of a story. I done think you want to be considered a follower do you? Don't you think both sides of this argument are slanted toward their views, I do. I know the slants of the media, do you? You probably hate FOX News because they provide a different view than ABC, CBS, NBS, CNN , et al. So your point is kind of biased and uneducated to some of us. |
Ad hominem attacks. The grasping for straws of a drowning man... |
Not really, he showed up in D.C. yesterday preaching his propaganda didn't he. Oh, I guess he backed off so he wouldn't affend the fence riders.
Hey its Friday, and a big storm is brewing to my east, Storm Chasing is about to happen. Have a great weekend all, if this thread is still going I'll visit it then. I hope to look for frogs without parts too. Thanks for the fun discussion Van
Message edited by author 2009-06-26 16:38:36. |
|
|
|
06/26/2009 04:38:34 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by vtruan:
How can you learn the truth if you don't listen both sides of a story. I done think you want to be considered a follower do you? Don't you think both sides of this argument are slanted toward their views, I do. I know the slants of the media, do you? You probably hate FOX News because they provide a different view than ABC, CBS, NBS, CNN , et al. So your point is kind of biased and uneducated to some of us. |
You are right, I don't watch Fox news often, because they slant their stories and flat out misreport events. If I want to balance out my admittedly liberal bias I read the Weekly Standard or the National Review, prefer George Will, or the late lamented William Buckely as a source of civil and honorable conservative though, to the leering attack dogs like Limbaugh and Hanity. If Fox news is the sort of trash you consume, no wonder you are so confused. |
|
