Global warming the fuck exists

DriftingByTheStorm

rah0027 wrote:

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.

depopulationINC

he still stands wrote:

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.

DriftingByTheStorm

rah0027 wrote:

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

WMA

rah0027 wrote:

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."

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.

stratomaster

RolandTD20Kdrummer wrote:

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.

rah0027

DriftingByTheStorm wrote:

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?

sourdough

rah0027 wrote:

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.

DriftingByTheStorm

sourdough wrote:

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: