Global Warming

[mapleoak]

I do not think i mentioned the ‘logging industry’ or anything about industrial makeups. I stated that destroying forests, is not a very good thing for the planet. Do you disagree?

Forests don’t deforestate themselves except through wildfire. As to whether it is good or bad for the planet, surely it doesn’t affect the planet in the least. Whether it is good for mankind depends. Agriculture is certainly beneficial, wouldn’t you agree?

 

[vz71]

I do not really know what you would like from me. I was trying to say that the impact humans have on the world is very rairly a positive one. We tend to be very destructive to the eco systems that we inhabit. If you agree with this. I would think you would agree that being a little less destructive is not a bad thing.

As I said.
I need you to be specific.

‘bad’ doesn’t mean anything.

You wish to label the impact of man as a bad thing.
I want you to specify what it is that is bad.

And while you are at it, you need to remember, ‘man’ in the context you are speaking is implied at a species level.

What is it that we all are doing that is so ‘bad’?

 

[vz71]

Every creature in the animal kingdom has some sort of impact, usually negative.

Bull.

Before you make sweeping statements, you need to be prepared with concrete evidence.
Good luck backing your statement.

 

[Oscarthecat]

So I am curious just what terms would you like us to use.

It seems to me people have a problem with the terms no matter what terms are used… Really though who gives a you know what if people use terms like skeptic and believer and climate change and global warming and AGW and whatever else? I guess I just donlt get why such terms are such an issue with a few people.

Language matters. How we express things matters because it shapes WHAT we are expressing, and HOW it is received by others.

For example, calling someone who disagrees with your position a “skeptic” is very different than simply referring to them as “someone who disagrees with you.” A “skeptic” is not someone who simply disagrees with you, they are someone who is innately inclined to question or doubt, particularly in the face of legitimate authority. In effect, calling someone a “global warming skeptic” is an attempt to reduce their position to nothing but a symptom of their persistent, maladaptive tendency to set themselves at odds with the truth.

Global warming proponents have put a lot of effort into labeling people who disagree with them as uninformed, unintelligent, or at odds with some fabricated consensus .

If you claim not to see that, you’re either being coy or naive.

 

[Valke2]

As long as we are discussing language, I don’t think it is correct to refer to people a “proponents” of global warming. I don’t champion the cause of global warming. I just believe we are responsible for it and need to take steps to address it.

From what I’ve read on these threads anyway, it is a bit two faced to accuse those who believe that we are effecting the climate of spinning the language. After all, in the last few days I’ve been called a worshiper of Al Gore,a liberal nut, and a global conspiricist who advocates the use of violence against those who drive cars.

 

[mapleoak]

I just believe we are responsible for it and need to take steps to address it.

Of course you have to be content with the notion that it is only an opinion and one which lacks sufficient backup.
One major problem with any assertion that mankind is in some way responsible for heating up the earth is lack of reliable data which can attribute this effect to man.
What we have is governments seeking to form policy based on opinion. Or rather, they have other agenda in mind and global warming is conveniently their stooge.

 

[Highwayhound]

Bull.

Before you make sweeping statements, you need to be prepared with concrete evidence.
Good luck backing your statement.

Here is just one such animal which causes a form of destruction as well having a negative economic impact.

If you look up “Itemizer Observer” you can read the whole article. I tried posting a link, but the link would not work.

Grumbling over geese
Story by: Craig Coleman Date Published to Web: 2/4/2009

From the article:

As many as 300,000 Canada geese spend six months of the year in the Willamette Valley foraging, he said. He also noted a 1997 Oregon State Extension Service study that showed geese caused **$15 million in damages **by eating grass being grown for seed production.

Grass seed farming is huge here. So when geese destroy crops they ruin a family’s income.

That is just one example.

God bless

 

[Valke2]

Of course you have to be content with the notion that it is only an opinion and one which lacks sufficient backup.

No. I have to be content that no matter how much science and fact back up my understanding, there will always be people who will remain unconvinced.

One major problem with any assertion that mankind is in some way responsible for heating up the earth is lack of reliable data which can attribute this effect to man.

I have seen plenty of reliable data, there’s probably about 200 links to data in this and other threads on the subject.

 

[mapleoak]

I have seen plenty of reliable data, there’s probably about 200 links to data in this and other threads on the subject.

Truth is, there IS no data which has sufficient controls in place to ensure that any rise in Earth temperature can be properly attributed to anything on the part of mankind.

 

[a_burger]

I just read that a newly planted tree absorbs much more carbon diosxide than a mature tree. I read it in a science magazine.

By the way it’s not global warming
It’s Revelation stupid!

 

[Calliso]

Ok time for another info post…this one about the greenhouse effect mainly and whether or not carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas.

First lets start with the greenhouse effect and how that works.

here is a video youtube.com/watch?v=J_K14qcxiy8&feature=related

pewclimate.org/docUploads/Climate101-Science-Jan09.pdf and on page two of this is a nice diagram as well.

And yes carbon dioxide is one of the greenhouse gases. lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/gases.html

aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

I think my next info post will be about whether or not the rising C02 levels are due to man.

 

[mapleoak]

I just read that a newly planted tree absorbs much more carbon diosxide than a mature tree. I read it in a science magazine.

Does the age of the tree matter, or just that it be newly planted?

 

[Valke2]

Do you have a link? And what did the article say about the new tree’s ability to prevent soil eroision or contribut to the natural habitat? Did it mention how much Co2 is released from burnining down the old tree?

Deforestation takes a huge toll on biodiversity. At a minimum, this results in a loss of genetic material which may hold the cure for everything from Alzheimers to cancer. As of 1991, 25% of all pharmefuticle were derived from tropical plants.

Soil in rain forests is very low in nutrients. What little nutrients are in the soil are washed away as a result of deforestation. Replanting trees may not even be possible if soil erosion progresses too far. And it isn’t difficult for this to happen.

One of the major contributions to Co2 levels in the atmosphere is Co2 released from decaying wood. Cut down too many trees and there aren’t enough living trees and plants to absorb the extra Co2.

But to put it more simply: Does anyone believe that if we were to cut down 600 square miles of rain forest and replace it with 600 square miles of new trees that we zero out or reverse the effect of deforestation in this area? And what new trees are typically planted?

 

[goofyjim]

How exactly should we respond? The globe may be warming but it is not that pesky little creature called man that is at fault. This is a blatant attempt to portray humanity as evil. It won’t work in my book.

 

[Valke2]

tropical trees in undisturbed forest are absorbing [ark] nearly a fifth of the CO2 released by burning fossil fuels. Nature, “Increasing carbon storage in intact African tropical forests”, February 19, 2009, Vol 457. sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090218135031.htm

Not only do ancient rainforests reliably store massive amounts of carbon but they continue to remove enormous amounts of carbon every day they remain standing and are non-degraded.

Our remaining tropical forests remove 4.8 billion tons of CO2 each year from the atmosphere. Over the past 40 years, each hectare of intact African forest was found to have annually trapped an extra 0.6 tonnes of carbon. This builds upon last year’s studies that found old-growth forests are “carbon sinks” and continually absorb carbon dioxide, and that their first time logging releases 40 percent of their carbon. Nature 455, 213-215 (September 11, 2008).

 

[mapleoak]

Do you have a link? And what did the article say about the new tree’s ability to prevent soil eroision or contribut to the natural habitat? Did it mention how much Co2 is released from burnining down the old tree?

Deforestation takes a huge toll on biodiversity. At a minimum, this results in a loss of genetic material which may hold the cure for everything from Alzheimers to cancer. As of 1991, 25% of all pharmefuticle were derived from tropical plants.

Soil in rain forests is very low in nutrients. What little nutrients are in the soil are washed away as a result of deforestation. Replanting trees may not even be possible if soil erosion progresses too far. And it isn’t difficult for this to happen.

One of the major contributions to Co2 levels in the atmosphere is Co2 released from decaying wood. Cut down too many trees and there aren’t enough living trees and plants to absorb the extra Co2.

But to put it more simply: Does anyone believe that if we were to cut down 600 square miles of rain forest and replace it with 600 square miles of new trees that we zero out or reverse the effect of deforestation in this area? And what new trees are typically planted?

Around here, forests are logged using a system of selective cutting and a host of advanced forest management techniques which result in a sustainable agricultural commodity. In fact, for being one of the most (if not the most) heavily logged areas of the country, it also happens to be one of the most prolific of broadleaf systems.

One of the major contributions to Co2 levels in the atmosphere is Co2 released from decaying wood. Cut down too many trees and there aren’t enough living trees and plants to absorb the extra Co2.

Another way in which logging is beneficial. Forests left to themselves are either burnt down or have masses of old growth and large diseased tracts of land which result in dead trees littering the forest floor with decay. Logged forests do not have trees left to decay, since there is no point in cutting down trees just to have them rot and decay. Therefore, no extra Co2 to worry about how to absorb.

 

[vz71]

Here is just one such animal which causes a form of destruction as well having a negative economic impact.

Very good.
I’ll concede the point that this animal can cause destruction.

However I must point out that the initial conjecture said nothing about ‘economic’ impact.
Here is the initial quote in case you missed it…
*

Every creature in the animal kingdom has some sort of impact, usually negative.

Now how about the rest of them?

 

[vz71]

No. I have to be content that no matter how much science and fact back up my understanding, there will always be people who will remain unconvinced.

Agreed. There are still people that believe the moon landing was a hoax.

I have seen plenty of reliable data, there’s probably about 200 links to data in this and other threads on the subject.

And nearly as many pointing to unreliable data.
And all of them biased one way or the other.

It would seem a much better solution to simply live by your belief instead of pushing it upon others.

 

[Valke2]

How exactly should we respond? The globe may be warming but it is not that pesky little creature called man that is at fault. This is a blatant attempt to portray humanity as evil. It won’t work in my book.

Who said anything about humanity being evil? Failing to address the problem isn’t any more evil than failing to do anything else God has charged us with. It isn’t any more evil than not feeding the hungry or doing anything else that you might view as proper.

You can’t have humanity without problems. Problems are not evil. That doesn’t mean they can’t kill us.

 

[Valke2]

Around here, forests are logged using a system of selective cutting and a host of advanced forest management techniques which result in a sustainable agricultural commodity. In fact, for being one of the most (if not the most) heavily logged areas of the country, it also happens to be one of the most prolific of broadleaf systems.

That’s great. And no one is seriously fighting to ban logging. Trees are a resource that will continued to be used. However, about 60% of the world’s logging is illegal (and ocurring in countries outside the US).