Author Topic: global warning update. (Read 6871 times)

Angus · « **Reply #90 on:** June 07, 2006, 05:36:08 AM »

Thinned as in you breathing without lungs. Must work fine.

Jackal1 · « **Reply #91 on:** June 07, 2006, 05:40:44 AM »

If you don`t thin em, you are promoting more emissions.

Don`t worry about it though. After the planting and the building of all the aquaducts, the AE`s will have to have something to do. We`ll put em on thinning crews.

Angus · « **Reply #92 on:** June 07, 2006, 05:47:34 AM »

You have this the wrong way jackal. It's grammar school issue. Forests tie up charbon. Plants tie up charbon.
Plants: 6H2O + 6CO2 + lj¨®s ¡ú C6H12O6 (gl¨²k¨®si) + 6O2
That was how charbon gets tied as glucose. Well, you have glucose/fructose, and you have starch and you have wood - they all need the same ammo, which is CO2, Water, Light and Temperature. Get it?

Jackal1 · « **Reply #93 on:** June 07, 2006, 05:51:27 AM »

Rotting vegetation produces C02 which is released into the atmosphere. Just like anything else...........too much of a good thing can cause more harm than good. Besides that, as discussed before, the forests do not plant themselves.

Get it?

Angus · « **Reply #94 on:** June 07, 2006, 06:33:38 AM »

Some vegetation rots, the rest becomes soil, which has charbon in it. Capiche?
And who planted the ancient forests? Who planted the grand leave forests of the US? Who planted the rainforests? Who planted the pines in the arctic? Who planted the European forests? (in the EU there is actually a subvention on maintaining meadows so the forests don't quite take over).
In short, once you have a forest and leave it alone, it actually will plant itself. Trim it, and it will yeald you material and fuel, don't trim it, and it will grow dense and darker, some material will rot, the rest forms soil.
BTW, the charbon emission of a "rotting" forest actually had its origin in the atmosphere before. Get it?
And the Egyptians, yes, you lost what I ment when I referred to them.
They are irrigating a vast area of desert, and turning large areas green. That means that in addition to sand, there will be forming of topsoil. And topsoil contains.....amongst other things....CHARBON.
PFFFT
(free minutes)

Skuzzy · « **Reply #95 on:** June 07, 2006, 06:49:15 AM »

I am reminded of two children who are standing face to face yelling, "No it isn't", and "Yes it is" back and forth. The argument being a neighborhood yard. One thinks it is green, the other says it is brown.
Truth is, they are both right. The yard contains brown and green, but the two kids both have slight color perception issues, with one seeing green better and the other seeing brown better.

The Internet has created so many experts in this area. Truth is, you can find whatever supporting data you want for your argument. It does not make anyone right nor wrong. If you think you have a handle on it, you are just being ignorant, or happy to take things out of context.

There is not a scientist on the planet who can say with 100% affirmation what is really going on. They cannot model all the variables involved. And if they could, the process to determine what is happening would not be completed in thier lifetimes.

Just because some scientist is content to make some grand statement as to what is happening does not make it fact. Even less so if it is on the Internet. Anyone can fudge up a site which would have you believing little green men from Alpha Centari are the ones responsible for the Earth's climate and sight all kinds of data to support it. None of it would be real though. But it would do for many of the posters purposes in this thread, I am sure.

It you are unwilling to challenge any data presented, you are a sheep.at the mercy of anyone who is good at creating fiction. There are no absolutes in this. You are kidding yourself if you think there are.

Curval · « **Reply #96 on:** June 07, 2006, 06:50:02 AM »

lol

This is hilarious.

Angus · « **Reply #97 on:** June 07, 2006, 06:57:16 AM »

Well, you will get the scientists to agree on
1. What's in soil
2. Plants use sunlight, heat, water and CO2 to tie up charbon.
3. Vast areas of forests bind carbon and release oxygen.

And what we know is going on is...that the globe is warming.

The one to debate this is the kid in the yard

lazs2 · « **Reply #98 on:** June 07, 2006, 08:25:25 AM »

curval.. I have linked these before..

http://www.ncpa.org/ba/ba256.html

http://www.oism.org/pproject/s33p36.htm

mostly... greenhouse gases are water and methane... Co2 is a small part. Man produces about 2-4% of co2.

It is also noted that Co2 does not proceed global warming it trailers it.. it is a result not a cause.

Also as noted... a doubling of Co2 (100 years at current rates) will increase temp by 1-3 degrees by even the most pessemistic models. levels would have to increase to 5000 ppm to be a threat to health (currently 320ppm)

The increase in Co2 increases plant growth tho. If starvation is a factor in our survival...we need more co2. It is a good thing.

Volcanoes cause mass releases of Co2 gases. One volcano eruption would cause more than man could cause in a decade.. we could reduce to zero and one volcano could undo all our efforts.

There are wide swings in temp over the life of the earth... the warming trends are followed by co2 levels rising.. We are in a warming trend.

There is nothing we can do about it. We are a very insignificant part of it. If we were in a cooling trend for instance... we could not stop it.

If we were in a cooling trend I doubt that the chicken littles here would be suggesting that we emmit more co2.

lazs

lazs2 · « **Reply #99 on:** June 07, 2006, 08:36:47 AM »

for more than a half century I have listened to the chicken littles of this world.... "we are all gonna freeze to death in the new ice age by the year 1999" Then... when temp rises half a degree.... "we are in the throes of global warming and will destroy the planet in twenty years."

or... " We will all starve to death by the year 2000" but when Co2 increases (and plant growth) we scream... "there is too much co2!"

or... "we will run out of the most important (and they name ten) minerals by the year 1990" and then... it is found that there are more of every one they named by 1990 than were in 1950.

"we will run out of oil by the year 2000" and then... we have more reserves than were known in 1975..

It seems that some just like to panic while others have a vested interest (profit) in getting people to have em "do something" Governments love people to panic and beg em to "do anything to save us...you are our only hope."

People love to mob up with the chicken littles and beg for more expense and government and a savior... some just like the feel of oppression that doom and gloom gives em.... makes their life seem not so bad when there is a huge crisis that threatens the very planet! Some.... are just jealous of others and want to blame them and punish them... they do things like kyoto and such.

Lots of suckers born every year it seems...

I imagine that someone will tell us that the days are increasing (or decreasing) in length more now than any other time in history once the man made global warming fad is over. Can't wait for that one.

lazs

Jackal1 · « **Reply #100 on:** June 07, 2006, 08:43:27 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Skuzzy
Anyone can fudge up a site which would have you believing little green men from Alpha Centari are the ones responsible for the Earth's climate and sight all kinds of data to support it. None of it would be real though.

Yes it is.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #101 on:** June 07, 2006, 08:45:26 AM »

Can anyone tell me who climatologists are funded by?

lukster · « **Reply #102 on:** June 07, 2006, 08:57:50 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2

I imagine that someone will tell us that the days are increasing (or decreasing) in length more now than any other time in history once the man made global warming fad is over. Can't wait for that one.

lazs

It's true! We're using up the daylight that belongs to our children and grandchildren. Just say no to daylight savings time!

Jackal1 · « **Reply #103 on:** June 07, 2006, 08:59:26 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Ripsnort
Can anyone tell me who climatologists are funded by?

The Ancient Egyptian Society For Cleaner Air.

Curval · « **Reply #104 on:** June 07, 2006, 09:23:51 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by lazs2
Lots of suckers born every year it seems...

Yup.

Some read a book or two...or a web page or two and take it as gospel.

For example, lets take a quick peek at your first linked organisation:

Funding
The NCPA web site states that it "receives 70% of its funding from foundations, 20% from corporations, and 10% from individuals." Between 1985 and 2001, the Center received $4,031,000 in 75 separate grants from only twelve foundations (http://www.mediatransparency.org/recipientgrants.php?recipientID=246).

Castle Rock Foundation
Earhart Foundation
JM Foundation
Koch Family Foundations (David H. Koch Foundation, Charles G. Koch Foundation, Claude R. Lambe Foundation)
John M. Olin Foundation, Inc.
Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation
Philip M. McKenna Foundation, Inc.
Scaife Foundations (Scaife Family, Sarah Mellon Scaife, Carthage)
DaimlerChrysler Corporation Fund
El Paso Energy Foundation
ExxonMobil Foundation
Eli Lilly and Company Foundation
Lilly Endowment Inc.
Procter & Gamble Fund

LOL!

Big business is telling you not to worry lazs...all is well.