Arguing global "warming" is almost as bad as arguing abortion.
Only total dolts fail to recognize that weather patterns are shifting, and that measurable changes are occuring. Only a few more ingorami (lol, plural much?) deny that human activity is partly responsible for some of these changes ...
... but where the real debate lies is, what do we do,
and SHOULD IT BE MANDATED.
Right?
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Arguing global "warming" is almost as bad as arguing abortion.
Only total dolts fail to recognize that weather patterns are shifting, and that measurable changes are occuring. Only a few more ingorami (lol, plural much?) deny that human activity is partly responsible for some of these changes ...
... but where the real debate lies is, what do we do,
and SHOULD IT BE MANDATED.
Right?
So how have humans affected weather patterns? It is the sun. Look it up. The warmest centuries on record were between 1000-1200 AD, today's weather isn't even close. So was that because of all the cars back then?
So how have humans affected weather patterns? It is the sun. Look it up. The warmest centuries on record were between 1000-1200 AD, today's weather isn't even close. So was that because of all the cars back then?
I guess i failed to seperate those two sentences\seperate thoughts properly.
So i will do numerals.
1. The climate is changing. I don't mean hotter or colder, but patterns are changing, and measurable differences in certain quantifiable things like plankton, ice melt, sea level, rain fall patterns, etc.
2. Humans are very capable of causing certain environmental problems that can become global in their scope.
I didn't say, or mean to imply ANYTHING about a direct link between humans and temperature or weather patterns directly. And honestly, i could care less about those direct connections.
What I view (and a whole lot of scientists) as undeniable is that human activities can very clearly contribute to certain potentialy catastrophic problems that affect ecosystems (and if you want to try to bridge the gap in current scientific understanding, possibly weather... hey, if a butterfly flaps its wings, right?) ... So when i said "human activity is partly responsible for some of these changes", i meant things like deforestation around coast lines tends to sever the process of evapotranspiration from coastal lands to inlands. This thus furthers the process of desertification... since, as water is no longer evaporating from trees on the coast, hitting the clowds, blowing inland, and raining on the interior forests, those trees begin to dry and die. In turn, the loss of CO2 absorbing plant life can add Co2 to the atmosphere, and also the loss of the cooler microclimate created by tree cover leads to more rapid and severe warming of the interior landscapes.
And that is just ONE example of how humans can, by a process seemingly "unrelated" to "weather" have an effect on "weather". Chop down enough trees, you affect the weather.
See where i'm going with this?
And i do NOT dispute that solar flares are intensifying ... and i also find that to be quite troubling\worrisome. But i'm also not stupid enough to deny that man has a VERY real and (in some cases) measurable adverse affect on his own global ecosystem. :(
Also, FYI, my opinion on automobiles is that the greatest problem they pose (besides that their increasing use in once pedestrian countries like China is sucking the remaining global oil reserves dry, thus leading to an impending food production collapse and mass starvation) is NOT their emissions (which, if all cars were destroyed today, would have the smallest of measurable affects on the environment, by what calculations i have seen) ... it is the PERMANENT LOSS OF PRODUCTIVE ECOSYSTEMS ... in other words, pavement is, for all practical purposes, UNRECLAIMABLE land. The increasing "road-ification" of the world is destroying ecosystems. The amount of land already permanenetly taken out of any sort of bioloigical production by roads is fucking staggering, and it will only get worse and worse. Further, the simple act of bisecting lands with roads really fucks shit up. You cut off migratory patterns of some species, you seperate some predators from their prey, you infring on the necessary foraging requirements of some species that MUST have X amount of available acres available in order to sustain life, you damage mating habits, lets not forget about just blanket infilling and paving over of important ecosystems like swamps, wetlands, and marshes ... to be honest, we aren't even aware of some of the affect building roads has on ecosystems. THAT kind of shit is the stuff that can really fuck the world. Not silly old emissions.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
So how have humans affected weather patterns? It is the sun. Look it up. The warmest centuries on record were between 1000-1200 AD, today's weather isn't even close. So was that because of all the cars back then?
...
The new study looked at observations of solar brightness since 1978 and at indirect measures before then, in order to assess how sunspots and faculae affect the Sun’s brightness. Data collected from radiometers on U.S. and European spacecraft show that the Sun is about 0.07 percent brighter in years of peak sunspot activity, such as around 2000, than when spots are rare (as they are now, at the low end of the 11-year solar cycle). Variations of this magnitude are too small to have contributed appreciably to the accelerated global warming observed since the mid-1970s, according to the study, and there is no sign of a net increase in brightness over the period.
...
There is considerable evidence for solar influence on the Earth’s pre-industrial climate
and the Sun may well have been a factor in post-industrial climate change in the first half
of the last century. Here we show that over the past 20 years, all the trends in the Sun
that could have had an influence on the Earth’s climate have been in the opposite
direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures.
...
But again,
i'd just like to point out that after 3 pages of arguing and debate,
we have done little (okay, NOTHING) to address the ISSUE AT HAND:
WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO DO ABOUT IT?
I'll be brutaly honest here.
After years of hobbyist interest in environmental issues, i think i have to side with the NWO crew.
Mass reduction of humanity is necessary for the continued sustenance of ALL life.
Thats not mental masturbation, thats the hard truth.
The global resource base is WAY over extended. We are over-leveraged on natural resources worse than the banks are currently on their credit. Oil production is starting to decrease while demand is still increasing.
Population is WAY unsustainable by ANY historical measure.
Oil will run short and people will starve in unthinkable numbers.
Anyone done any looking at current grain\staple crop reserves?
They are at like 30-70 year lows.
The global population is within just a few short years of being able to consume annually more food than all the arable lands of the world can realisticaly (not to mention SUSTAINABLY) produce. Current agricultural production is already (and has been for quite sometime) 100% unsustainable ... it is run on the back of cheap oil ... and not only is that cheap oil running out ... it is running the top soil in to the ground (hah, no pun) ... seriously, petrochemical fertilizers FUCK the soil ... and BAD.
What are we going to do?
The darwinian answer at hand seems to be that oil supplys will do what they are going to do ...
and so will the global population.
This is not a situation humanity is going to solve with our ingenuity ... it is one we are going to have to accept at a devastating human cost. The laws of nature will play out ... food production will start to fall, as population in the 3rd world continues to attempt to rise ... and at some point famine will right the balance. :(
If you're wondering WHAT that has to do with global warming, it is my opinion that the majority (if not all) of the problems with human impact on the environment are not so much related to WHAT we are doing but in what QUANTITY we are doing it. In other words 100million people with cars may not be a problem for the world, but 100billion is. As oil runs out and runs the population back down to what this planet can sustain without petro-subisidy, i fully believe that life will continue forward without much problem.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I guess i failed to seperate those two sentences\seperate thoughts properly.
So i will do numerals.
1. The climate is changing. I don't mean hotter or colder, but patterns are changing, and measurable differences in certain quantifiable things like plankton, ice melt, sea level, rain fall patterns, etc.
2. Humans are very capable of causing certain environmental problems that can become global in their scope.
I didn't say, or mean to imply ANYTHING about a direct link between humans and temperature or weather patterns directly. And honestly, i could care less about those direct connections.
What I view (and a whole lot of scientists) as undeniable is that human activities can very clearly contribute to certain potentialy catastrophic problems that affect ecosystems (and if you want to try to bridge the gap in current scientific understanding, possibly weather... hey, if a butterfly flaps its wings, right?) ... So when i said "human activity is partly responsible for some of these changes", i meant things like deforestation around coast lines tends to sever the process of evapotranspiration from coastal lands to inlands. This thus furthers the process of desertification... since, as water is no longer evaporating from trees on the coast, hitting the clowds, blowing inland, and raining on the interior forests, those trees begin to dry and die. In turn, the loss of CO2 absorbing plant life can add Co2 to the atmosphere, and also the loss of the cooler microclimate created by tree cover leads to more rapid and severe warming of the interior landscapes.
And that is just ONE example of how humans can, by a process seemingly "unrelated" to "weather" have an effect on "weather". Chop down enough trees, you affect the weather.
See where i'm going with this?
And i do NOT dispute that solar flares are intensifying ... and i also find that to be quite troubling\worrisome. But i'm also not stupid enough to deny that man has a VERY real and (in some cases) measurable adverse affect on his own global ecosystem. :(
Also, FYI, my opinion on automobiles is that the greatest problem they pose (besides that their increasing use in once pedestrian countries like China is sucking the remaining global oil reserves dry, thus leading to an impending food production collapse and mass starvation) is NOT their emissions (which, if all cars were destroyed today, would have the smallest of measurable affects on the environment, by what calculations i have seen) ... it is the PERMANENT LOSS OF PRODUCTIVE ECOSYSTEMS ... in other words, pavement is, for all practical purposes, UNRECLAIMABLE land. The increasing "road-ification" of the world is destroying ecosystems. The amount of land already permanenetly taken out of any sort of bioloigical production by roads is fucking staggering, and it will only get worse and worse. Further, the simple act of bisecting lands with roads really fucks shit up. You cut off migratory patterns of some species, you seperate some predators from their prey, you infring on the necessary foraging requirements of some species that MUST have X amount of available acres available in order to sustain life, you damage mating habits, lets not forget about just blanket infilling and paving over of important ecosystems like swamps, wetlands, and marshes ... to be honest, we aren't even aware of some of the affect building roads has on ecosystems. THAT kind of shit is the stuff that can really fuck the world. Not silly old emissions.
Transvaporation from the coast has little effect on inland forests. That moisture usualy comes from the sea evaporating. Sea temperatures incidently cause most of our weather patterns.
I think the earth can recover quite well from most things humans can do. Lake Erie used to be so polluted it caught on fire. It is much better now. Animals can adapt. It's amazing how animals adapt to what people do. Somthing will fill the gap. Look at the peppered moth. There are bacteria that eat oil. We killed most of the predators in the Northeast, and the deer have taken over. They should probably bring the predators back, but something filled the gap.
Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem. --Ronald Reagan
But again,
i'd just like to point out that after 3 pages of arguing and debate,
we have done little (okay, NOTHING) to address the ISSUE AT HAND:
WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO DO ABOUT IT?
I'll be brutaly honest here.
After years of hobbyist interest in environmental issues, i think i have to side with the NWO crew.
Mass reduction of humanity is necessary for the continued sustenance of ALL life.
Thats not mental masturbation, thats the hard truth.
The global resource base is WAY over extended. We are over-leveraged on natural resources worse than the banks are currently on their credit. Oil production is starting to decrease while demand is still increasing.
Population is WAY unsustainable by ANY historical measure.
Oil will run short and people will starve in unthinkable numbers.
Anyone done any looking at current grain\staple crop reserves?
They are at like 30-70 year lows.
The global population is within just a few short years of being able to consume annually more food than all the arable lands of the world can realisticaly (not to mention SUSTAINABLY) produce. Current agricultural production is already (and has been for quite sometime) 100% unsustainable ... it is run on the back of cheap oil ... and not only is that cheap oil running out ... it is running the top soil in to the ground (hah, no pun) ... seriously, petrochemical fertilizers FUCK the soil ... and BAD.
What are we going to do?
The darwinian answer at hand seems to be that oil supplys will do what they are going to do ...
and so will the global population.
This is not a situation humanity is going to solve with our ingenuity ... it is one we are going to have to accept at a devastating human cost. The laws of nature will play out ... food production will start to fall, as population in the 3rd world continues to attempt to rise ... and at some point famine will right the balance. :(
If you're wondering WHAT that has to do with global warming, it is my opinion that the majority (if not all) of the problems with human impact on the environment are not so much related to WHAT we are doing but in what QUANTITY we are doing it. In other words 100million people with cars may not be a problem for the world, but 100billion is. As oil runs out and runs the population back down to what this planet can sustain without petro-subisidy, i fully believe that life will continue forward without much problem.
Dude, chill out. Plenty of room for everyone. Thats just hysteria.
Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem. --Ronald Reagan
This is Sep 12 2007
"Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery."
Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem. --Ronald Reagan
The earth will be just fine. It's people that won't be.
Exponential population explosion. The framework is being quietly put into place to cope with societal unrest. I think there's going to have to be a cull of some sorts unless people can evolve faster than the resources/proximity equation.
On a brighter not I believe the just came out with a 3x more efficient solar panel for the same price/materials.
Every suburbia will become it's own mini city, and everything goes electric.
Google the great pacific garbage patch (I already posted a rather informative thread on it a while back)....that's some messed up shit... fish ingesting plastic and that goes up through the food chain to people.... not good.
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
Dude, chill out. Plenty of room for everyone. Thats just hysteria.
what Roland said above me.
Also, google "What A Way To Go: Life At The End of Empire TORRENT" and download it, watch it, and get back to me.
Tell me if i am just spreading "hysteria" or if there are lots and lots of scientists (liberal conservative or wahtever your pleasure) that don't agree: we're fucked.
F-U-C-K-E-D, fucked.
:(
and that is MINUS any conspiracies.
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Hmmm... I have always read, been lectured, etc etc... that Greenland is named as such because vikings were tricking rival clans/groups/etc into thinking Greenland was green and Iceland was mostly ice, which in fact it is just the opposite. This was done to confuse invading tribes in regards to their location.
And I certainly haven't ever heard of grapes being grown in Greenland. Weird.
Although I have seen on the History channel that vikings did inhabit Greenland in places that are now uninhabitable... but they certainly weren't "fertile vineyard areas" either.
Just sayin'...
On a different subject, what in the world is your (not replying to depopulationINC here) agenda if you are trying to disprove global warming or man's causation of global warming? Does it really matter if it really is our fault? Shouldn't we be protecting this beautiful earth which we cannot exploit to its end because we have nowhere else to fucking go? Shouldn't we conserve natural resources, keep the earth clean, and BE GOOD STEWARDS OF OUR LAND? Please tell me why we SHOULDN'T!!!
Even if it is a "left winger radical conspiracy," don't the means justify the end? Isn't it a good thing if we wean ourselves off of Saudi Arabia's giant oil titty? The only people who believe oil is a renewable resource are the stupid Rush Limbaugh cronies. So shouldn't we get started transitioning to clean energy (renewables, solar, wind, hydro, nuclear, even natural gas)??? If not because it has to be done sooner or later, because it just might mean a cleaner, safer earth that is livable?
"When you come to think about it, Greenland is a pretty weird name for anyone to give to a country that is now 99% glacier or barren rock and 1% lichens. Not the sort of name that springs to mind for such a grey, treeless and windswept place, is it?
But wait. A thousand years ago, Greenland was settled by the Vikings, who prospered, and grew wheat and flax there, and it was at that time that it received its name." http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/hotair4.html
apparently it was yorkshire that was grape growing country...according to this article...but I know I have read of grape growing in greenland as well. Plentiful grain crops is just as profound as well though.
The only thing I enjoy is having no feelings....being numb rocks!
And I won't make the same mistakes
(Because I know)
Because I know how much time that wastes
(And function)
Function is the key
Transvaporation from the coast has little effect on inland forests. That moisture usualy comes from the sea evaporating.
I'd also like to pick at this statement a bit.
What the hell does that actually mean?
You say that "Transvaporation from the coast has little effect on inland forests." and then immediately after that you seemingly paradoxicaly pronounce, "That moisture usualy comes from the sea evaporating."
WTF?
So the moisture that comes from evaporated water at the coast line does not affect inland moisture because most of that inland moisture comes from evaporated water from the coast?
DID YOU NOT STOP AND SMACK YOURSELF IN THE HEAD WHEN YOU WROTE THAT?
When populations settle near a coast line and chop down entire strands of forest to replace them with civilizations, it DEEPLY impacts the evapotranspiration cycle.
How can you not see the connection between the coastal waters, the trees that absorb this mositure, and the clouds that carry the rain inland.
The trees are the middle man. Clouds don't always make it straight from the coast to the center of a giant land mass. They deposit rain in fits and spurts along the way. It is up to the ground biomass to absorb, process, and release that water back in to the atmosphere through transvaporation in order that it be reabsorbed up in the clouds for further transport inland.
When the trees go, that cycle gets broken.
I'm not gonna plow through all the books on my shelf to find the various sources to back me on that, but suffice to say i'm no environmental illiterate. I may be no natural science major ... but you sure don't seem to be either.
Can you either re-clarify what it is exactly you meant by your statement, thereby explaining the apparent contradiction inherent in those two sentences, or otherwise elighten me?
Thanks
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
This is Sep 12 2007
"Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery."
Ah, a book advertisment
At least the book wasn't funded by oil companies... It was funded by the chairman of Natural Gas Services, Inc., of Midland, Texas.
It isn't peer reviewed itself, it is them looking at peer reviewed literature and disagreeing with a bunch of it. The list of names is the same list that Inhofe released a few months ago, as far as I can tell, which contains many fossil fuel funded scientists, a bunch of tv weathermen, economists, mathematicians, etc.
If you wanted to you could find a bunch of sources explaining in detail why a bunch of his claims do not hold up. Just google their names together, and I'm sure you'll find something.
Google the great pacific garbage patch (I already posted a rather informative thread on it a while back)....that's some messed up shit... fish ingesting plastic and that goes up through the food chain to people.... not good.
I hear you. They estimate 10% of the plastics manufactured every year ultimately end up there. Plastic, which does not biodegrade, and lots of it.
I'd also like to pick at this statement a bit.
What the hell does that actually mean?
You say that "Transvaporation from the coast has little effect on inland forests." and then immediately after that you seemingly paradoxicaly pronounce, "That moisture usualy comes from the sea evaporating."
WTF?
So the moisture that comes from evaporated water at the coast line does not affect inland moisture because most of that inland moisture comes from evaporated water from the coast?
DID YOU NOT STOP AND SMACK YOURSELF IN THE HEAD WHEN YOU WROTE THAT?
When populations settle near a coast line and chop down entire strands of forest to replace them with civilizations, it DEEPLY impacts the evapotranspiration cycle.
How can you not see the connection between the coastal waters, the trees that absorb this mositure, and the clouds that carry the rain inland.
The trees are the middle man. Clouds don't always make it straight from the coast to the center of a giant land mass. They deposit rain in fits and spurts along the way. It is up to the ground biomass to absorb, process, and release that water back in to the atmosphere through transvaporation in order that it be reabsorbed up in the clouds for further transport inland.
When the trees go, that cycle gets broken.
I'm not gonna plow through all the books on my shelf to find the various sources to back me on that, but suffice to say i'm no environmental illiterate. I may be no natural science major ... but you sure don't seem to be either.
Can you either re-clarify what it is exactly you meant by your statement, thereby explaining the apparent contradiction inherent in those two sentences, or otherwise elighten me?
Thanks
Try and follow. Transvaporation from the trees has little to do with Inland trees. It is the clouds from the sea. Trees don't help that cycle, in fact they most likely slow it down.
Trees don't release water into the air. They release oxygen. They aborb water through there roots etc, and use it in internal processes, and store it. Ground biomass?
Government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem. --Ronald Reagan
Try and follow. Transvaporation from the trees has little to do with Inland trees. It is the clouds from the sea. Trees don't help that cycle, in fact they most likely slow it down.
Trees don't release water into the air. They release oxygen. They aborb water through there roots etc, and use it in internal processes, and store it. Ground biomass?
Trees DO release water vapour into the air. They also release oxygen. You are right in that they store water and do absorb through their roots but they also release water vapour. It is called transpiration. If you clear cut large tracts of forest, it can break a cycle and transfer of water vapour inland and lead to dought conditions further along.
Trees DO release water vapour into the air. They also release oxygen. You are right in that they store water and do absorb through their roots but they also release water vapour. It is called transpiration. If you clear cut large tracts of forest, it can break a cycle and transfer of water vapour inland and lead to dought conditions further along.
Thanks SD.
I knew i wasn't an idiot.
Like i said, I'm no earth scientist, but i've read PLENTY of books on subjects regarding the environment & sustainability, and the authors of many of those books are natural science practitioners.
PS - by the way, i'd like to defend my use of the term evapotranspiration as also being correct here. You said it's called "transpiration" and it IS. But transpiration is also part of the definition of evapotranspiration and the fact that rah007 denies that evapotranspiration is important to the process of carrying water inland is extremely perplexing to me. Whats worse, rah007's use of the term while denying that trees release water is even more confounding since the actual definition IS (per first line of wikipedia) "a term used to describe the sum of evaporation and plant transpiration from the earth's land surface to atmosphere".
Why would you use a term to describe plants releasing water in to the air, and then sit there and say plants don't release water in to the air? SURE THEY DO, YOU JUST USED THE TERM TO DESCRIBE IT.
BTW, Rah007, the point here is that if trees are removed en masse from the coast line, rainfall from clouds carrying water off the sea\coast has no way to find storage IN THE GROUND in order to evaporate back to the atmosphere and continue inland. Trees provide this necessary storage medium. Their roots control runoff by absorbing water, using and processing it, and releasing some of it back to the atmosphere through their leaves. However if trees are missing, that water INSTEAD BECOMES RUNOFF AND TRAVELS RIGHT BACK TO THE SEA.
Trees don't SLOW DOWN the process, they make it POSSIBLE.
:cool:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Comments
Arguing global "warming" is almost as bad as arguing abortion.
Only total dolts fail to recognize that weather patterns are shifting, and that measurable changes are occuring. Only a few more ingorami (lol, plural much?) deny that human activity is partly responsible for some of these changes ...
... but where the real debate lies is, what do we do,
and SHOULD IT BE MANDATED.
Right?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
So how have humans affected weather patterns? It is the sun. Look it up. The warmest centuries on record were between 1000-1200 AD, today's weather isn't even close. So was that because of all the cars back then?
http://www.climatechangeissues.com/cci-research.php
http://www.marshall.org/article.php?id=49
I guess i failed to seperate those two sentences\seperate thoughts properly.
So i will do numerals.
1. The climate is changing. I don't mean hotter or colder, but patterns are changing, and measurable differences in certain quantifiable things like plankton, ice melt, sea level, rain fall patterns, etc.
2. Humans are very capable of causing certain environmental problems that can become global in their scope.
I didn't say, or mean to imply ANYTHING about a direct link between humans and temperature or weather patterns directly. And honestly, i could care less about those direct connections.
What I view (and a whole lot of scientists) as undeniable is that human activities can very clearly contribute to certain potentialy catastrophic problems that affect ecosystems (and if you want to try to bridge the gap in current scientific understanding, possibly weather... hey, if a butterfly flaps its wings, right?) ... So when i said "human activity is partly responsible for some of these changes", i meant things like deforestation around coast lines tends to sever the process of evapotranspiration from coastal lands to inlands. This thus furthers the process of desertification... since, as water is no longer evaporating from trees on the coast, hitting the clowds, blowing inland, and raining on the interior forests, those trees begin to dry and die. In turn, the loss of CO2 absorbing plant life can add Co2 to the atmosphere, and also the loss of the cooler microclimate created by tree cover leads to more rapid and severe warming of the interior landscapes.
And that is just ONE example of how humans can, by a process seemingly "unrelated" to "weather" have an effect on "weather". Chop down enough trees, you affect the weather.
See where i'm going with this?
And i do NOT dispute that solar flares are intensifying ... and i also find that to be quite troubling\worrisome. But i'm also not stupid enough to deny that man has a VERY real and (in some cases) measurable adverse affect on his own global ecosystem. :(
Also, FYI, my opinion on automobiles is that the greatest problem they pose (besides that their increasing use in once pedestrian countries like China is sucking the remaining global oil reserves dry, thus leading to an impending food production collapse and mass starvation) is NOT their emissions (which, if all cars were destroyed today, would have the smallest of measurable affects on the environment, by what calculations i have seen) ... it is the PERMANENT LOSS OF PRODUCTIVE ECOSYSTEMS ... in other words, pavement is, for all practical purposes, UNRECLAIMABLE land. The increasing "road-ification" of the world is destroying ecosystems. The amount of land already permanenetly taken out of any sort of bioloigical production by roads is fucking staggering, and it will only get worse and worse. Further, the simple act of bisecting lands with roads really fucks shit up. You cut off migratory patterns of some species, you seperate some predators from their prey, you infring on the necessary foraging requirements of some species that MUST have X amount of available acres available in order to sustain life, you damage mating habits, lets not forget about just blanket infilling and paving over of important ecosystems like swamps, wetlands, and marshes ... to be honest, we aren't even aware of some of the affect building roads has on ecosystems. THAT kind of shit is the stuff that can really fuck the world. Not silly old emissions.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
"It is the sun." is a pretty bold claim. Anything to support it?
http://www.ucar.edu/news/releases/2006/brightness.shtml
http://publishing.royalsociety.org/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf
i'd just like to point out that after 3 pages of arguing and debate,
we have done little (okay, NOTHING) to address the ISSUE AT HAND:
WHAT DO YOU INTEND TO DO ABOUT IT?
I'll be brutaly honest here.
After years of hobbyist interest in environmental issues, i think i have to side with the NWO crew.
Mass reduction of humanity is necessary for the continued sustenance of ALL life.
Thats not mental masturbation, thats the hard truth.
The global resource base is WAY over extended. We are over-leveraged on natural resources worse than the banks are currently on their credit. Oil production is starting to decrease while demand is still increasing.
Population is WAY unsustainable by ANY historical measure.
Oil will run short and people will starve in unthinkable numbers.
Anyone done any looking at current grain\staple crop reserves?
They are at like 30-70 year lows.
The global population is within just a few short years of being able to consume annually more food than all the arable lands of the world can realisticaly (not to mention SUSTAINABLY) produce. Current agricultural production is already (and has been for quite sometime) 100% unsustainable ... it is run on the back of cheap oil ... and not only is that cheap oil running out ... it is running the top soil in to the ground (hah, no pun) ... seriously, petrochemical fertilizers FUCK the soil ... and BAD.
What are we going to do?
The darwinian answer at hand seems to be that oil supplys will do what they are going to do ...
and so will the global population.
This is not a situation humanity is going to solve with our ingenuity ... it is one we are going to have to accept at a devastating human cost. The laws of nature will play out ... food production will start to fall, as population in the 3rd world continues to attempt to rise ... and at some point famine will right the balance. :(
If you're wondering WHAT that has to do with global warming, it is my opinion that the majority (if not all) of the problems with human impact on the environment are not so much related to WHAT we are doing but in what QUANTITY we are doing it. In other words 100million people with cars may not be a problem for the world, but 100billion is. As oil runs out and runs the population back down to what this planet can sustain without petro-subisidy, i fully believe that life will continue forward without much problem.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Transvaporation from the coast has little effect on inland forests. That moisture usualy comes from the sea evaporating. Sea temperatures incidently cause most of our weather patterns.
I think the earth can recover quite well from most things humans can do. Lake Erie used to be so polluted it caught on fire. It is much better now. Animals can adapt. It's amazing how animals adapt to what people do. Somthing will fill the gap. Look at the peppered moth. There are bacteria that eat oil. We killed most of the predators in the Northeast, and the deer have taken over. They should probably bring the predators back, but something filled the gap.
Dude, chill out. Plenty of room for everyone. Thats just hysteria.
you got any science or fact to back that statement up?
Otherwise i will continue to be "paranoid".
Either way, i'm not unchill.
i'm PERFECTLY chill.
i'm just pointing out an "inconvenient truth".
har har.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
http://www.earthtimes.org/articles/show/news_press_release,176495.shtml
This is Sep 12 2007
"Sept. 12 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- A new analysis of peer-reviewed literature reveals that more than 500 scientists have published evidence refuting at least one element of current man-made global warming scares. More than 300 of the scientists found evidence that 1) a natural moderate 1,500-year climate cycle has produced more than a dozen global warmings similar to ours since the last Ice Age and/or that 2) our Modern Warming is linked strongly to variations in the sun's irradiance. "This data and the list of scientists make a mockery of recent claims that a scientific consensus blames humans as the primary cause of global temperature increases since 1850," said Hudson Institute Senior Fellow Dennis Avery."
Exponential population explosion. The framework is being quietly put into place to cope with societal unrest. I think there's going to have to be a cull of some sorts unless people can evolve faster than the resources/proximity equation.
On a brighter not I believe the just came out with a 3x more efficient solar panel for the same price/materials.
Every suburbia will become it's own mini city, and everything goes electric.
Google the great pacific garbage patch (I already posted a rather informative thread on it a while back)....that's some messed up shit... fish ingesting plastic and that goes up through the food chain to people.... not good.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
what Roland said above me.
Also, google "What A Way To Go: Life At The End of Empire TORRENT" and download it, watch it, and get back to me.
Tell me if i am just spreading "hysteria" or if there are lots and lots of scientists (liberal conservative or wahtever your pleasure) that don't agree: we're fucked.
F-U-C-K-E-D, fucked.
:(
and that is MINUS any conspiracies.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
"When you come to think about it, Greenland is a pretty weird name for anyone to give to a country that is now 99% glacier or barren rock and 1% lichens. Not the sort of name that springs to mind for such a grey, treeless and windswept place, is it?
But wait. A thousand years ago, Greenland was settled by the Vikings, who prospered, and grew wheat and flax there, and it was at that time that it received its name."
http://www.sovereignty.org.uk/features/eco/hotair4.html
apparently it was yorkshire that was grape growing country...according to this article...but I know I have read of grape growing in greenland as well. Plentiful grain crops is just as profound as well though.
And I won't make the same mistakes
(Because I know)
Because I know how much time that wastes
(And function)
Function is the key
I'd also like to pick at this statement a bit.
What the hell does that actually mean?
You say that "Transvaporation from the coast has little effect on inland forests." and then immediately after that you seemingly paradoxicaly pronounce, "That moisture usualy comes from the sea evaporating."
WTF?
So the moisture that comes from evaporated water at the coast line does not affect inland moisture because most of that inland moisture comes from evaporated water from the coast?
DID YOU NOT STOP AND SMACK YOURSELF IN THE HEAD WHEN YOU WROTE THAT?
When populations settle near a coast line and chop down entire strands of forest to replace them with civilizations, it DEEPLY impacts the evapotranspiration cycle.
How can you not see the connection between the coastal waters, the trees that absorb this mositure, and the clouds that carry the rain inland.
The trees are the middle man. Clouds don't always make it straight from the coast to the center of a giant land mass. They deposit rain in fits and spurts along the way. It is up to the ground biomass to absorb, process, and release that water back in to the atmosphere through transvaporation in order that it be reabsorbed up in the clouds for further transport inland.
When the trees go, that cycle gets broken.
I'm not gonna plow through all the books on my shelf to find the various sources to back me on that, but suffice to say i'm no environmental illiterate. I may be no natural science major ... but you sure don't seem to be either.
Can you either re-clarify what it is exactly you meant by your statement, thereby explaining the apparent contradiction inherent in those two sentences, or otherwise elighten me?
Thanks
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Ah, a book advertisment
At least the book wasn't funded by oil companies... It was funded by the chairman of Natural Gas Services, Inc., of Midland, Texas.
It isn't peer reviewed itself, it is them looking at peer reviewed literature and disagreeing with a bunch of it. The list of names is the same list that Inhofe released a few months ago, as far as I can tell, which contains many fossil fuel funded scientists, a bunch of tv weathermen, economists, mathematicians, etc.
If you wanted to you could find a bunch of sources explaining in detail why a bunch of his claims do not hold up. Just google their names together, and I'm sure you'll find something.
Trees don't release water into the air. They release oxygen. They aborb water through there roots etc, and use it in internal processes, and store it. Ground biomass?
Thanks SD.
I knew i wasn't an idiot.
Like i said, I'm no earth scientist, but i've read PLENTY of books on subjects regarding the environment & sustainability, and the authors of many of those books are natural science practitioners.
PS - by the way, i'd like to defend my use of the term evapotranspiration as also being correct here. You said it's called "transpiration" and it IS. But transpiration is also part of the definition of evapotranspiration and the fact that rah007 denies that evapotranspiration is important to the process of carrying water inland is extremely perplexing to me. Whats worse, rah007's use of the term while denying that trees release water is even more confounding since the actual definition IS (per first line of wikipedia) "a term used to describe the sum of evaporation and plant transpiration from the earth's land surface to atmosphere".
Why would you use a term to describe plants releasing water in to the air, and then sit there and say plants don't release water in to the air? SURE THEY DO, YOU JUST USED THE TERM TO DESCRIBE IT.
BTW, Rah007, the point here is that if trees are removed en masse from the coast line, rainfall from clouds carrying water off the sea\coast has no way to find storage IN THE GROUND in order to evaporate back to the atmosphere and continue inland. Trees provide this necessary storage medium. Their roots control runoff by absorbing water, using and processing it, and releasing some of it back to the atmosphere through their leaves. However if trees are missing, that water INSTEAD BECOMES RUNOFF AND TRAVELS RIGHT BACK TO THE SEA.
Trees don't SLOW DOWN the process, they make it POSSIBLE.
:cool:
If I opened it now would you not understand?