Lukster:
"Angus, one of the articles you just quoted said that ice is breaking off from Antarctica at an alarming rate. I mentioned this before and pointed out that since Antarctica is no where near melting, any part of it, this can only be caused by an increase in the amount of ice building up there. Won't you agree then that that author is being either very disingenuous or ignorant?"
Firstly, do you have a source there?
Secondly, tell me from WHAT is the sea level rising?
For although the N-Pole is melting swiftly that icemass bobbing in the ocean does NOT raise the SL.
Thirdly, why is there only an increased meltdown up north ???? N-Polar melting exclusive?
And Jackal:
"As said before.....granted. But if mass areas of forest/vegetation are left untended/unthinned/unharvested, such as would be the case in your mass forests theory, they will emit more C02 than can be bound, It will enter the atmosphere. (rotting,decomposition) Otherwise you wouldn`t be worried or concerned about the permafrost."
Absolute nonsense and this has gone 180 degrees in your head.
"Free" or "Wild" forests bind more material then they release. It's called soil. Therefore it has been excercized in quite notable amounts in the 20th century to take a "rotting" forest, burn it down for quick access to the soil (thereby emitting all the Charbon tied in the upper biomass) then planting and replanting the soil untill all the "juice" is gone. The leftover will corrode or become a modest grassland. Lovely and smart, isn't it. Example: Brazil.
And that IS why I worry about the meltings of the Tundra. The permafrost stores ancient remains of boglands and other dead greenmass. It contains vast amounts of C and Methane. Ooops, how does vegetation store methane?
Second one.
"No Angus, I disagree. It is you that are lost IMHO. You are still using magic wand as if the said tractor or tractors magical appear on location of use. Not the case. You are not even considering iron ore exploration, mining, refining to the point of use. Then the shiiping and production of metal for parts, the factories involved in the making of the parts......more shipping ....more factories for production.....more shipping. Factories and operations, vehciles to shp..all belching mass, mass quanities of C02 in the process. Same with oil exploration, drilling , refining , shipping..on and on and on."
Give me a number. It has to be very very high. To axcept your point is 2 things:
1. Mechanized Agriculture cannot but emit more C than it binds.
2. Therefore non-mechanized Agriculture would be better.
And again, show some figures. Flash the cash. Like I said, this is a calculable point, - a point of pivot where the energy costs of creating machinery exceed the practical level. Claim this if you like, but I've sure never heard anyone claim it before.
I didn't claim they appear in thin air, don't try to turn things into such nonsense. But there is a limit to the cost.
BTW, a Typical tractor like mine will probably consume a few times its own price worth in fuel. If the energy costs in creating that piece of equipment are more than what it costs on the market, who bears the loss? Get me?