Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Time Out, Ican and Parados! Y'all goin' around in circles - break, break, break!

Good news for polar bears, even if no ice is left in the oceans: their DNA shows they've gone through an interglacial much warmer than now about 100,000 years ago and came out of it just fine >>

Quote:

Professor Ingolfsson is hopeful the bears will cope - and believes the palaeo-record will offer some reassurance.

"The polar bear is basically a brown bear that decided some time ago that it would be easier to feed on seals on the ice. So long as there are seals, there are going to be polar bears. I think the threat to the polar bears is much more to do with pollution, the build up of heavy metals in the Arctic.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7132220.stm

>> but as many of us have said all along, pollution with heavy metals is by far the greater threat to them, and to us!

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44106000/jpg/_44106700_polarbearap203b.jpg

0 Replies

That's where I think our environmental gurus should be focusing instead on futile efforts to alter what is most likely normal climate fluctuations. I would like for us to be concentrating all our efforts on controlling and/or eliminating substances that are proved to be harmful to the enviroment and all living creatures on our planet, including us. I do hope they use better science to determine what is and is not harmful overall, however, than they seem to use to prove a case for global warming.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Yeah, the debate is over... for Al Gore.
A March poll by Gallup on Americans shows that global warming ranks 9th in the list of environmental worries and down 4 points compared the same poll made in 2007:
http://www.gallup.com/poll/104932/Polluted-Drinking-Water-No-Concern-Before-Report.aspx

The more the AGW crowd gets hysterical, the more Americans get cool Cool

Al Gore must be picking up his quick & scam money like crazy before the turn of the tide.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

parados wrote:
okie wrote:
parados wrote:
Are you sure you want to use a site that lists historical papers and measurements that have since been shown to be wrong as your source for what you think CO2 has been the last few centuries?

I don't know about you okie, but I wouldn't use a paper from 1958 as my source since Mauna Loa measurements had not yet been nor had the present ice cores been done.

I'm not bragging on the data, but I wouldn't brag on ice cores either, parados. If its all we have, its all we have. By the way, you dodged the CO2 emissions by plants. Which is it, they absorb more or the same or less, and what are you including, living plants or the entire plant cycle? You can't have it both ways, and I think you have tried.

When did I claim it wasn't the entire cycle that created a zero sum?

I hardly dodged it. I ignored it because you have nothing to base your wild accusation on. By changing the type of plants or increasing the amount of biomass you can change the cycle but the natural cycle has been pretty much a zero sum game for centuries.

So given this bit of scientific information re this zero sum game, why does the IPCC recommend carbon credits be extended to those countries with large amounts of vegetation? Would you say that this policy recommendation is based on faulty science?

http://www.bicusa.org/en/Article.3454.aspx

Not cutting down forests is a way to reduce CO2 emissions.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

parados wrote:
When did I claim it wasn't the entire cycle that created a zero sum?

I hardly dodged it. I ignored it because you have nothing to base your wild accusation on. By changing the type of plants or increasing the amount of biomass you can change the cycle but the natural cycle has been pretty much a zero sum game for centuries.

"Wild accusation?" Earth to Parados, I am only asking you a question and pointing out an inconsistency: You claim the natural cycle is pretty much a zero sum game, but in the next breath you claim it would really matter to plant trees or certain kinds of plants, I guess it has to be certain kinds of trees or plants, and it only works while they are alive for however long they live? I guess you want to pretend some plants don't die and rot?

Trees can and do live for centuries. You did know that didn't you okie?

4,700 year old pine tree

0 Replies

AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE °K INCREASE 1975 TO 2005
287.0281 °K + 0.6365 °K = 287.6646 °K. That's a 0.2217% increase.

CARBON DIOXIDE PPM INCREASE IN THE ATMOSPHERE 1975 TO 2005
331 ppm + 48 ppm = 379 ppm. That's a 14.5% increase.

CARBON DIOXIDE BMT INCREASE IN THE ATMOSPHERE 1975 TO 2005
76.25 bmt + 76.25 bmt = 152.5 bmt. That's a 100% increase.

0 Replies

High Seas wrote:

Time Out, Ican and Parados! Y'all goin' around in circles - break, break, break!

I am just curious why you haven't corrected ican about his statements High Seas. Can we assume your silence means you agree with his math and logic?

http://www.able2know.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3136213#3136213

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE °K INCREASE 1975 TO 2005
287.0281 °K + 0.6365 °K = 287.6646 °K. That's a 0.2217% increase.

CARBON DIOXIDE PPM INCREASE IN THE ATMOSPHERE 1975 TO 2005
331 ppm + 48 ppm = 379 ppm. That's a 14.5% increase.

CARBON DIOXIDE BMT INCREASE IN THE ATMOSPHERE 1975 TO 2005
76.25 bmt + 76.25 bmt = 152.5 bmt. That's a 100% increase.

Could you comment on this statement High Seas? I would love to see if you think CO2 can increase only 14.5% in ppm at the same time it increases 100% in BMT as ican just claimed.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

ican711nm wrote:
AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE °K INCREASE 1975 TO 2005
287.0281 °K + 0.6365 °K = 287.6646 °K. That's a 0.2217% increase.

CARBON DIOXIDE PPM INCREASE IN THE ATMOSPHERE 1975 TO 2005
331 ppm + 48 ppm = 379 ppm. That's a 14.5% increase.

CARBON DIOXIDE BMT INCREASE IN THE ATMOSPHERE 1975 TO 2005
76.25 bmt + 76.25 bmt = 152.5 bmt. That's a 100% increase.

Could you comment on this statement High Seas? I would love to see if you think CO2 can increase only 14.5% in ppm at the same time it increases 100% in BMT as ican just claimed.

Finally, Parados, you have begun to get it!

My calculation of percentages is based on IPCC numbers, not my numbers. Keep up the good work, Parados. There are at least two more IPCC logical flaws there for you to discover.

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

parados wrote:
ican711nm wrote:
AVERAGE GLOBAL TEMPERATURE °K INCREASE 1975 TO 2005
287.0281 °K + 0.6365 °K = 287.6646 °K. That's a 0.2217% increase.

CARBON DIOXIDE PPM INCREASE IN THE ATMOSPHERE 1975 TO 2005
331 ppm + 48 ppm = 379 ppm. That's a 14.5% increase.

CARBON DIOXIDE BMT INCREASE IN THE ATMOSPHERE 1975 TO 2005
76.25 bmt + 76.25 bmt = 152.5 bmt. That's a 100% increase.

Could you comment on this statement High Seas? I would love to see if you think CO2 can increase only 14.5% in ppm at the same time it increases 100% in BMT as ican just claimed.

Please post a link to the source for your numbers.

Lets see their use vs your use.

The fault lies not in the IPCC ican but in yourself ican. Please give us exact cites from the IPCC since you claim the numbers came from them.

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Trees can and do live for centuries. You did know that didn't you okie?

4,700 year old pine tree

So how many 4,700 year old trees do you own, or how many does Al Gore own, Parados? With a straight face, tell me that you have alot of trees that you have planted or that Al Gore has planted that will live more than a hundred years, or maybe in some cases a few hundred years. Big deal anyway, a hundred years or a few hundred years is miniscule in in the grand scheme of things.

And the big question is why should you get credit for something that will most assuredly die at some point and eventually cancel out the credit? Will your children or grandchildren have to pay your carbon debts for your dying trees?

P.S. I have seen bristlecone pine trees, have you? They are not that plentiful and the effort to get one to grow is not an easy or quick thing I would bet, and the likelihood that you could grow enough to amount to a hill of beans, carbon credit wise is preposterous. Besides, they only grow at high elevations.

0 Replies

hate to tell you this, okie, but we're pretty minuscule in the grand scheme of things too. If we foul our own nest, the universe is not gonna give a sh*t. No free passes for us. If we screw up, we're gonna have to get ourselves out of it. And in human terms, a hundred years is a long time, as Brazil keeps chopping down the rainforest to grow beef for your Big Mac, I say good for Al Gore planting trees, and keeping that good oxygen coming. Hell of a lot better to breathe oxygen than CO2. Hell of a lot cooler too.

0 Replies

If we are so miniscule, then how are we capable of destroying the earth? I think you have it all wrong. It is the environmental crowd that is totally arrogant that they first of all think that they need to "save the earth," and secondly that they are even capable of it if it actually needed saving. The whole proposition of saving the earth is preposterous in my opinion. It is nothing more than liberal bilge that was dreamed up and foisted upon our children to indoctrinate them in school.

Chopping down trees is not going to destroy the earth. Besides, in areas like Oklahoma, there are literally hundreds of thousands, if not millions of trees more than existed before it was settled by Europeans. I would venture to guess that there are more trees in the U.S. than existed prior to 1776. I saw a study once many years ago that indicated that to be the case. I haven't researched it recently, but my experience of traveling around the country tends to indicate it probably is the case.

And the whole point of the debate with Parados was, in case you missed it, was the fact that he claimed that plants are pretty much a zero sum game in terms of absorbing CO2 when you consider the entire life cycle to include dying and rotting plants. When Foxfyre wondered why environmentalists thought planting trees did any good, then he has now resorted to the idea that well, if you plant trees that live a long time, then it is beneficial! Now if you buy that as logical, then good luck. He hasn't changed anything, but instead just lengthened the cycle, but with the same result. I guess if the trees outlive him, then his children or grandchildren can pay the carbon debts, is that it? I don't think the reasoning is very brilliant if you ask me.

0 Replies

The above, except for my introductory paragraph is from this site:

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0221-soil_carbon_lovell_interview.html

0 Replies

0 Replies

username, I am glad you have all of that figured out. It should now be easy to feed all of that data that is pinned down so exact into a computer and come up with exactly what the problem is and what we need to do to fix it. The scenarios you present are very straightforward, and free of any potential errors, interpretations, and calculations. Laughing

0 Replies

parados wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
parados wrote:
okie wrote:
parados wrote:
Are you sure you want to use a site that lists historical papers and measurements that have since been shown to be wrong as your source for what you think CO2 has been the last few centuries?

I don't know about you okie, but I wouldn't use a paper from 1958 as my source since Mauna Loa measurements had not yet been nor had the present ice cores been done.

I'm not bragging on the data, but I wouldn't brag on ice cores either, parados. If its all we have, its all we have. By the way, you dodged the CO2 emissions by plants. Which is it, they absorb more or the same or less, and what are you including, living plants or the entire plant cycle? You can't have it both ways, and I think you have tried.

When did I claim it wasn't the entire cycle that created a zero sum?

I hardly dodged it. I ignored it because you have nothing to base your wild accusation on. By changing the type of plants or increasing the amount of biomass you can change the cycle but the natural cycle has been pretty much a zero sum game for centuries.

So given this bit of scientific information re this zero sum game, why does the IPCC recommend carbon credits be extended to those countries with large amounts of vegetation? Would you say that this policy recommendation is based on faulty science?

http://www.bicusa.org/en/Article.3454.aspx

Not cutting down forests is a way to reduce CO2 emissions.

Yes, that is my understanding too, but you can't have it both ways. Either plants remove CO2 from the atmosphere or the plant cycle is a zero sum gaime.

0 Replies

The former UK's PM Tony Blair will lead a new international team to tackle the intractable problem of securing a global deal on climate change.
A group, which has the backing of the USA and China.

Act urgently or global warming will be irreversible, he warns:

Blair to lead campaign on climate change

Quote:

Blair said: "Essentially what everyone has agreed is that climate change is a serious problem, it is man-made, we require a global deal, that there should be a substantial cut in emissions at the heart of it, and this global deal should involve everyone, including in particular America on the one hand and China on the other, so it is the developed and developing world.

0 Replies

username wrote:

Increasing soil-sequestered carbon can minimize global warming, desertification and biodiversity loss, and it makes good long-term economic sense as well, once you look beyond the five-year balance sheet.

"mongabay.com
February 21, 2008

...
Tony Lovell of Soil Carbon P/L in Australia ...

And of course, Lovell just cares about "saving the planet", not about his 5-year BS (oops, balance sheet). Rolling Eyes

0 Replies

Global Warming...New Report...and it ain't happy news

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know