Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 northville
Joined: 1/15/2009
Msg: 138
Credibility of, re. The Science of GWPage 6 of 9    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9)
So, when 95% of the scientists agree on something, its meaningless? Suppose that 100 people wittness a crime. 95 say ," yes, suspect X did it". True they could be wrong but any court in the land would find their combined testimony compelling. Also,comparing modern science to Galileo Galilei era science is fallacious. Science then was quite different because of the influence of the church.
OK, its possible that 95% of the world's scientists are wrong because of ignorance due to the era and level of knowledge we have at this time. However, the odds of that are VERY slim. Also, if we follow your argument we can never make any projections about anything. Well 95% of scientists say that smoking is bad for you. Well...I'll ignore them because we just dont have the present knowledge to be 100% sure they are right.
Nothing is 100% sure. Even the fact that the earth goes around the sun is only 99.999999999999999 % certain. Certainty is only for God not humans. However, to demand 100% certainty before making a decision is absurd.
 northville
Joined: 1/15/2009
Msg: 139
Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 1/30/2009 4:17:48 PM
I have a low opinion of human nature, but even I would not say that 95% of the world's scientists falsify data in order to gain money! Sure it happens but as a % its rare.
As for my example of the 95/100 witnesses that identify the defendent. Would you say that it is legitamate for the defendent's lawyer to say, " well, they are only doing it for the publicity"I would claim that the defendent's lawyer should be required to defend such an outrageous claim. Your speculation that 95% of the world's scientists are altering data so they can benifit personaly is an equaly outrageous claim. One could even call it an extraordinary claim, in other words a claim that requires extraordinary evidence!
 wvwaterfall
Joined: 1/17/2007
Msg: 140
view profile
History
Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 1/30/2009 4:19:15 PM
Two points:

First, we've got new players rehashing the old debate as to the veracity of anthropogenic climate change theory. As I've mentioned many times before, until presented with a credible scientific argument that HAS SURVIVED APPLICATION OF THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD I'll continue to subscribe to the position maintained by every climate-related scientific organization and every national government on the planet - that human activities play a significant role in a warming planet.

Second, the only people I ever hear mentioning a carbon tax are those opposed to one. I know of no government anywhere proposing such a tax, no legislative body, no panel on climate change policy, etc.... If any of you are aware of ANYONE who is proposing implementation of a carbon tax, please enlighten the rest of us.

Dave
 Donderundblitzen
Joined: 12/27/2008
Msg: 141
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 1/31/2009 4:39:29 AM
In her writing of last Sunday (the 25th), Novascotialass summed up the debate situation quite nicely:

"In my mnd, it's not a black and white situation where one side is right and the other is wrong; there a a myriad of factors contributing to our climate, some of which we understand, some that we don't."

In some of the postings written here, I've noticed that some of you have made remarks concerning the consensus of the "scientific community." This and the "significance" of the human role in climate change. Perhaps one should ask different questions, rather than assume the support of so many scientific organizations. Most, you'll see, support the position that human-produced greenhouse gasses play a "significant" role in recent climate change; which I've stated before as agreeing with my professional opinion of the topic. A better question to ask is how significant is that role? I would consider 10% causality as "significant," although the current science considers anthropogenic greenhouse gas production to play a greater role than that. From discussions with my peers, I would submit to you that there is great variety of opinion on the matter; in my own mind, it's subject to open question. Most of my peers hold that the human greenhouse gas production accounts for between 20%-85% of the climate changes of the last century.

What I propose to ask of those who agree with this position (that anthropogenic greenhouse production plays a significant role in causing current climate change) to state, generally, how much that role is. For instance, is it minor (one among many more or less equal causal factors), major (more than any other single factor), or dominant (more than all other factors combined). I, for one, would like to see the variety of opinion of the authors here on this particular question.
 b0rg
Joined: 12/14/2007
Msg: 142
Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 2/2/2009 1:03:36 PM
When it comes to taxation, cabbies may not be the best authority. It’s hard to blame a tax for a net loss, when that tax wasn’t even levied yet and even at this time, is revenue neutral.
.
.
.
Some specific answers…

Msg 323…

I was in BC about a year ago and a taxi driver was complaining about the carbon tax people were paying on gasoline. It was driving up his costs and he was losing money.

Hi Nova,

That cabbie wasn’t being entirely upfront about the situation. About a year ago would be at the latest, last spring (say April or May of 2008). In British Columbia, not a single penny of carbon tax was collected until the first of July last year. How it was driving up his costs is beyond explanation unless his taxi was a stainless steel Delorean with a Flux capacitor. It sounds more like he was shilling for a bigger tip.

As far as losing money, it should be noted that in the first year of this tax there is only a 2.4 cent per litre levy applied (note that weekly, the price at the pump rises and falls 10 cents a litre on some other “cycles” in the price strategy too). This tax is also intended to be revenue-neutral, and a one percent tax cut for small business came into effect on the same day. Each taxpayer, regardless of whether they operate a motor vehicle also received a $100 cheque from the Provincial government in June. Here’s a little more clarity on the BC carbon tax:

http://www.ey.com/Global/assets.nsf/Canada/Tax_Alert_2008_No_10/$file/TaxAlert2008No10.pdf

Certainly, governments have been known to leverage “revenue-neutral” into something a little more lucrative, but that is politics, and unless even ONE of these conspiracy theorists can come up with a little evidence of collusion by climate science to deceive the public (AND that such deception is funded by “the government”), it is not even relevant.
.
.
.
When it comes to taxation, cabbies may not be the best authority. It’s hard to blame a tax for a net loss, when that tax wasn’t even levied yet and even at this time, is revenue neutral.

You have engaged The B0rg
“Resistance is Futile”
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 143
view profile
History
The divergence on The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/3/2009 8:15:04 PM
To limit the discussion to the science, one would have to define what is true observation and analysis and what is parroting some prior work. If its preponderance of evidence based on the loudness of the chorus or the variety of ways to observe the same parameters, its a campaign and a vote, not science. That's fine for society's various decisions but it's circumstantial at best and prone to willful deception. Its obvious that "justice" can be bought or obtained simply though celebrity. Guilt becomes a jury's decision and truth takes a back seat to the presentation.

There is a great deal of money to be made from a society's choice to decide guilty when it concerns CO2. The vast majority of celebrities testify for that choice yet have appear to have very little analytical skills or technical training. The only entity painted as supporting the defense are the oil companies as if they are some evil monsters and not simply corporations of thousands of employees and investors. The "experts" in this trial are themselves invested in a guilty verdict though their income.

I have been accused of parroting the same old "debunked" arguments yet these claims have no path back to the claimed debunking. I have done my own analysis of CO2 and its IR spectrum of absorption and radiation based on my own work in this area. I have related this the radiation spectrum on our water dominated planet and the "color" temperature that can be expected from our planet. It falls short. The only counter seems to be traceable to a single computer model analysis. It reminds me of an inter-department "proof" of arguments also used in the 70's and 80's. The process was to print your analysis on green bar computer paper and management would believe anything you want because computers don't make mistakes or lie. Now we have the internet and all its preponderance of truth. (Invented by the leader of the global warming movement?)

To address Darfur mentioned earlier; I would suggest study of the climate CYCLES the Sahara has gone through. If the Sahara's rather long cycle repeats itself, the Sahara will continue expanding quite a bit larger before reversing. The ploy of linking a religious-racial-political genocide to the science of global warming is an emotional diversion, not science but not surprising considering the nature of the debate. The press, politicians, celebrities, bureaucrats, and even "scientists" have reason to promote the guilty verdict. The destruction of old growth forest, the growth of the gulf dead zone, and the shortages and cost of relief food for places like Darfur is a direct result of the global warming HYPE.


The alternative conclusion seems to be that either climate disruption does not exist.....

Actually, observations are dominated by natural cycles that are not somehow more gentle than most other natural events. Nature is more often explosive and abrupt in it changes. From the daily event of a sunrise peaking over the horizon to volcanoes earthquakes etc. Where some see acceleration in trends, I see the harmonic distortions of abrupt cycles from fundamental frequencies with periods longer than the existence of man. I see the mechanics of these cycles and see why they are both abrupt and cyclic. The only unknown is exact phase and magnitude of the cycles and all the forcing functions.

The question I would ask is: are you thinking for yourself or simply singing along because the music is so loud?
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 144
view profile
History
Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/4/2009 6:26:31 AM

So I say go forward with plans to lower CO2 levels because it certainly doesn't harm us or the environment.

The alcohol mandates and biofuels are a direct result of the efforts to cut CO2 from fossil fuels and they are resulting in destruction of rain forests, old growth forests, native grass lands, and a massive increase in the dead zones around river estuaries from the algae blooms from the fuel crop cycles. The competition with food crops has resulted in a lack of supply and higher cost for famin relief food. Many thousands have died as a result. Although there appears to be no investigation, much less conclusions, into the climate impact of wind turbines, my technical background tells me that not only will they have an impact, that impact will result in drought.

I guess I'm just off key when so many are singing the praises of Al Gore, the inventor of the internet. Many people seem to bow down and submit to the idea "Might as well, it can't do any harm." Sorry if I find that concept flawed. The road to ruin is paved with good intentions. Please don't pave over me! I think for myself, please do the same. Parroting the opinions of others as some proof through shear volume is not thinking.
 b0rg
Joined: 12/14/2007
Msg: 145
Credibility of, re. The Science of GW
Posted: 2/4/2009 10:44:54 AM
Lucky you weren’t walking on the street at the time.
.
.
.
Some specific answers…

Hi Nova,

Msg 334…

Borg: maybe my internal clock is off, but here is an event to place my trip for you: If you live in Vancouver you might remember the blackout that occurred that shut down several downtown blocks for a couple days? I was lucky enough to be in a hotel about 3 buildings down from the underground fire responsible for the blackout. Anyway, that's when I was in BC and the cabbie made the comment to me about the carbon tax. Maybe it was in May or June 2008. I've made a few trips in the last couple years, so I might have been confused. So was the cabbie looking for a large tip? Perhaps....that certainly would not surprise me.

The Event you speak of occurred on Monday, July 14, 2008. Operatives closer to Vancouver, BC have provided this link…

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20080714/BC_downtown_vancouver_080714?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

This places you temporally after the introduction of the BC Carbon tax, but at 2.4 cents a litre the cabbie was “losing” a maximum of 3 or 4 dollars a day (although he or she wasn’t REALLY losing it either when one considers the savings he or she will gain from the concurrent tax reduction). There is also legislation that will require all new cabs entering fleets to be energy-efficient types (as if higher fuel costs if one doesn’t isn’t incentive enough). The cabbie was shilling for sure.

So far, the BC government has actually kept this a revenue-neutral policy (something that doesn’t seem to happen a lot).


Msg 334…

Anyway, a carbon tax to reduce consumption is one thing, but the real problems arise when companies who pollute buy carbon credits from countries where old-growth forest is cleared and crops are planted (you can buy credits from said countries to plant trees, but obviously removing the old growth is the bigger atrocity). I'm not sure how much that happens, but I have heard of it.

These indiscretions did indeed happen in the early 2000’s and such is the folly of allowing “old boys” clubs to act with impunity. That is the very same politics at work that spawn the doubt where there really isn’t any. Fortunately there is hope if humanity stands up “collectively” and says they have had enough of bullying from them.

More recent studies may help this along…

http://www.pacificforest.org/publications/pubpdfs/ForestCarbonReport-07Update.pdf

Your assessment that controlling demand via the management of population is on the mark. One of the methods humans can maintain and increase overall quality of life is by the careful meting of this aspect. The challenge is to effectively implement this in the areas where it is required without being accused of artificially reining the growth of these collective entities for “political” reasons.

The abuses of mitigation strategies (real or projected) are more indication that corporate entities need to be policed far more rigorously than they have been in the past. As in any arena (the global economy, federal government, local strata council, these forums, etc…), abusers are usually few but cause a disproportionate amount of trouble. Once these entities are dealt with, progress can happen that much more quickly and efficiently.

Let’s get back to the science…
.
.
.
Lucky you weren’t walking on the street at the time.

You have engaged The B0rg
“Resistance is Futile”
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 146
view profile
History
Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/4/2009 6:13:57 PM

There has been research and its come to the opposite conclusions. If anything, there is increased rainfall and it's being researched if wind turbines are a feasible solution to drought due to this.

Cite please. I am guessing the wind energy industry itself. You cannot extract energy from a system without reducing its energy. The energy that powers many of the the wind turbines in the US also carries gulf moisture north. Each wind turbine slows the air to extract energy. Downwind, this slowed movement spreads vertically as well as horizontally. Anyone with any experience sailing will know this effect personally. I have been sailing inland since I was 10. Something as small as a tree can be felt a half mile away. In college, I worked on alternate energy projects based on wind power.


I have no clue what you are speaking about in reference to him being the father of the internet.

This needs no explanation.


Would you please provide the links to the research

Its not something I practice as virtually any side of any argument can be found on the internet. You claimed such earlier. I would suggest you research gulf dead zone and you will find both sides argued. The mechanism is the surges of nutrients from crop cycles that result in algae blooms. When the surge subsides, the algae dies and decays. This starves the water of Oxygen killing almost everything. And where do you think the Oxygen went in this process? In normal decay process, CO2 and CH4 are generated. Now research the size of the Mississippi river "dead zone".
I tend to try to understand the mechanisms, not quote someone else's observations and conclusions. It you prefer to pass off your own ability to think on others, that is your choice. To paraphrase an old saying: You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him think.
 zcy220
Joined: 1/14/2009
Msg: 147
Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/4/2009 7:05:38 PM

Some other facts: artctic sea ice extent is now back where it was in 1979.


Really?

Got some data to back up this assertion?



Ok, the alarmists will now tell you "it's much thinner than it was then", but they have no idea whether this is normal or not, because they haven't been measuring it for very long. In any case, they talk about albedo - so the thickness of the ice really has no relation to the capacity of the ice to reflect the Sun's energy. 1ft of ice is just as white as 5 ft of ice.


I suppose you never took into consideration the observation that it takes significantly less time for 1 foot of ice to melt compared with 5 feet of ice?

And, I suppose you never took into consideration the observation that when 1 foot of ice melts earlier during the summer in the Arctic than 5 feet of ice there is, as a result, a reduced overall Arctic ice-based albedo effect during that period of time?
 zcy220
Joined: 1/14/2009
Msg: 148
Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/4/2009 8:01:45 PM

I guess I'm just off key when so many are singing the praises of Al Gore, the inventor of the internet.


As far as I can tell, Al Gore NEVER actually stated that he "invented" the Internet.

What Al Gore DID say was the following:

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/1999/03/09/president.2000/transcript.gore/index.html

Of course, some people might choose to use the words "invent" and "create" interchangeably. However, these two words do have distinctly different meanings in the English language. And, as Vint Cerf-who is truely one of the major "inventors" of the Internet-has stated, "(Al Gore) has played a powerful role in policy terms that has supported (the Internet's) continued growth and application, for which we should be thankful."

http://web.archive.org/web/20000125065813/http://www.mids.org/mn/904/vcerf.html

For more thoughts on this falsehood, and perhaps poorly-communicated role in the emergence of the Internet by Al Gore, please refer to the following links:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/gore032199.htm

http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp
 Ahoytheredave
Joined: 8/29/2006
Msg: 149
view profile
History
Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/4/2009 8:12:14 PM
And how do observations of climate change prove CO2 is the cause of the change? There are plenty of natural mechanisms that can explain accelerating polar ice melt along with records of such cycles long before man was doing wholesale environmental wreckage. There are also plenty of problems with the CO2 "green house gas" theory as well. Why choose to ignore these other mechanisms to attack CO2 with even more environmental wreckage?

The arctic is generally pretty cold. Whatever IR it radiates, is being radiated by water and is very long wave or deep IR. CO2 only absorbs three bands of short wave IR. Explain how fractional changes in CO2 causes faster ice melting when it is transparent to the IR being radiated?

Ocean currents are not propelled simply by heat but by temperature differentials. Where do you think it gets a heat sink to dump its tropical heat? The phase change of melting ice absorbs a lot of heat. As the ice melts, it accelerates the very currents doing the melting. At some point, the ice supply cannot support the current and it retreats away from the pole. Ice begins to form again. The end of the ice is preceded by accelerating change and the abrupt end of supply. New ice reflects solar heat and without ocean currents to bring heat, the ice forms quickly. This machine is not a sinusoidal function but a highly distorted waveform. Such waveforms generate a lot of harmonics that are also usually highly distorted. If one were to only see accurate data for a narrow window, say a few decades, one would likely see a "hockey stick" trend.

If you wish to debate these points, please do but citing some internet source or anecdotal observations of other mechanisms is not debating, it's dogma.

Most internet sources have some reason to exist and that is usually money. It could be grants or budgets for some bureaucracy that needs to sell a political "need to exist." Some, such as Al Gore, not only make millions SELLING the theory but has been praised with the Nobel prize and an Oscar. Not bad for the "inventor" excuse me "creator" of the internet.
 forum_moderator
Joined: 1/24/2003
Msg: 150
view profile
History
Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/4/2009 9:48:58 PM
THREAD LIMITED TO 5 Replies per Poster
 WanderingRain
Joined: 3/9/2008
Msg: 151
view profile
History
Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/4/2009 11:01:22 PM
Forget about the science and evidence.

What about MOTIVES?

To me, it seems the motives of the global warming people seem to be:
1) encourage less pollution
2) encourage better use of resources
3) encourage people to improve technology
4) were the same people ideologically who came up with recycling, better more efficient ways to use wood, etc.
5) were against asbestos
6) for tighter regulations on chemical dumping on rivers

Who stands to benefit if we have better technologies and more efficient ways to use fuel? All of us! Rich and poor alike all benefit from cleaner air and water.

What about the other side?
The nay sayers all seem to want to:
1) keep things the way they are, despite the inefficiencies
2) want to keep burning fossil fuels (which fund Muslim extremists, by the way) or do things exactly as they used to do.
3) don't seem to want a cleaner earth. Why?
4) seem to be the same bunch ideologically who were against recycling,
5) FOR more logging
6) seemed to naysay all the science about ASBESTOS. (remember that???)


Who benefits from the status quo? Terrorists and unscrupulous and dare I say, traitorous businessmen whose only allegiance is to money, not country. You, joe on the street, HOW do you benefit from this stance? Can you explain me that?

I could go on and on... WHY?
Why don't the second group want a cleaner earth? Whose interests are they protecting?
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 152
view profile
History
Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/5/2009 1:47:27 PM
Something interesting to check out...

The Great Global Warming Swindle - Documentary Film

http://www.garagetv.be/video-galerij/blancostemrecht/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle_Documentary_Film.aspx
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 154
view profile
History
Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 2/22/2009 10:50:23 AM
Things that don't make sense to me...

They are running adds that corn syrup is great, and why should it be an issue for its usage... Hmmm it has mercury in it, how, that is something I'd like to know, probably the "fertilizer" that is used... If Fertilizer can make a bomb big enough to blow a building apart, how can it be good to ingest???

I live in Vancouver Wa, we had a HUG run off of the snow, OR should I say the passes in Oregon, reason given, because of the heavy amounts of CO2 from the vehicles going over the passes...Thus little cities and towns down river were flooded..

I have a disorder that now afflicts millions...They call it Fibromyalgia, yet nothing is really known about it, we just know it popped up as a growing problem in the 80's and hasn't stopped.

There is NO REAL treatment, and if a person has it, it doesn't kill the person, but debilitates their body to extremely painful and exhausting proportions... One thing that helps is booting out all the artificial crap in foods, fluids, and eating fruit and veggies that aren't gwon in petroleum based products...

It isn't just global warming that CO2 is effecting, it is the people that live in the toxic environment... I often wonder what makes some people immune to these toxins, and others bodies are broken down from the...

No matter what, stop putting crap in the environment...
 rossomycoo
Joined: 8/29/2008
Msg: 155
view profile
History
Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 3/9/2009 8:50:32 PM
How does one explain the climate change on the surrounding planets? The cars, industry or farting cows? Global warming is a consensus and science is anything but a consensus. [sp?]
 niceguy4u937
Joined: 10/2/2007
Msg: 156
Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 3/26/2009 10:34:59 PM
Floods caused by global warming- major update


March 26 (Reuters) - Flooding in the upper reaches of the United States bordering Canada could affect the seeding of spring wheat in as many as 500,000 acres (200,000 hectares)across North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota and Montana.

Scientist say these floods are caused by global warming trend. Scientist said "This is a very strange trend for the United States" In report made March 25 leading global warming experts told us. "This new disturbing trend of global warming will be issued and new scientific name" When asked what the new name for this scientific phenomenon would be called the expert replied.."SPRING"
 maemae7
Joined: 3/4/2009
Msg: 157
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 3/31/2009 10:06:42 PM
My view on this is prove it to yourself if it's right or wrong; do your own research online and read articles on what's being affected and judge for yourself.I have done many college papers on global warming.You would be surprised what has happened over time and most recently.Type in global warming look up whales, sea lions, and other polar ice animals and read some on how their life is changing and what they feed on.Follow the food chain and see the effects of what global warming is doing.Don't take my word for it.The world evolves, the world has changed and wheither it's for the good or bad,you decide.
 WanderingRain
Joined: 3/9/2008
Msg: 158
view profile
History
Climate disruption, re. The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 3/31/2009 11:25:58 PM
To me, here's my way of looking at it:

Cause and effect:

there's two results for the people who believe Global warming exists :

1) If they are correct, people take steps to prevent it (mostly control man's consumption and excess). Planet is saved.
2) if they turn out to be wrong, you will still have cleaner air, better water and a more robust environment because efforts have been made to curb excesses.

Let's look at people who don't believe, do nothing and refuse to acknowledge man's responsibility to nature:

1) if they are correct that global warming does not exist, we will still have dirty air, less water, and a poorer environment since we're doing nothing but keep the status quo.
2) if they turn out to be wrong, humanity is screwed big time. (there is no do-over) There will be wars for water resources, more sickness, more death. If the world tips into a terrible imbalance, you will lose massive numbers of people to starvation.
 jinglehimmer_smith
Joined: 12/4/2008
Msg: 159
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 4/1/2009 12:10:55 PM
My biggest question about global warming is even if it exist, who cares? What gives us the right to say this enviorment is better than the one were headed for? What if i like 150 degree weather? If you believe evolution is true, then we'll all adapt anyway. If your smart and have reasoned the necessity of God's existence, then you have nothing to worry about either. Its kinda like Socrates' old theory that death cant be bad!
 neopol
Joined: 9/26/2006
Msg: 160
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 6/6/2009 9:47:17 AM
U.N. report: Nature best controls climate gases June 6 2009
------------------------------------------------------------------------
AMSTERDAM (AP) — Nature's way is best for controlling the gases responsible for climate change, the U.N. Environment Program said in a report Friday.
The report said better management of forests, more careful agricultural practices and the restoration of peatlands could soak up significant amounts of carbon dioxide, the most common of the gases blamed for global warming.

"We need to move toward a comprehensive policy framework for addressing ecosystems," said co-author Barney****on, releasing the report at the U.N. climate negotiations in Bonn, Germany. The event was webcast worldwide.

Millions of dollars are being invested in research on capturing and burying carbon emissions from power stations, but investing in ecosystems could achieve cheaper results, the report said.

It also would have the added effects of preserving biodiversity, improving water supplies and boosting livelihoods.

Halving deforestation by mid-century and maintaining that lower rate for another 50 years would save the equivalent of five years of carbon emissions at the current level, said****on, the agency's head of climate change and biodiversity.

The loss of peatlands, mainly drained for palm oil and pulp wood plantations in Southeast Asia, contributes 8% of global carbon emissions. China could capture about 5% of its carbon emissions from burning fossil fuels by returning straw to croplands, it said.

Agriculture has the largest potential for storing carbon if farmers use better techniques, such as avoiding turning over the soil and using natural compost and manure rather than chemical fertilizers, it said.


http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2009-06-05-greenhouse-gases-united-nations_N.htm?csp=27&RM_Exclude=Juno
 nexthyme
Joined: 9/12/2007
Msg: 161
view profile
History
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/26/2009 2:52:59 PM
I didn't go through all the 15 pages, but I have came across a documentary that states the sun is in a heating cycle, or getting hotter.
http://www.lubbockonline.com/news/092897/study.htm
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/science/093097sci-sun.html
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/november2006/161106suvjupiter.htm

To me it would seem that between "greenhouse effect", which is logical when you see large amounts of pollutants with no place to go, Forrest removals, et al. The other things people shouldn't ignore is the fact that matter and energy is never lost, it just changes form, thus we have created a greenhouse of the earth, which when added to the hot cycle of the sun, people are going to have to acclimate which isn't realistic to expect to happen as fast as the heating cycle of this world is occurring.

I often wonder why people want to fight the fact that we humans may need to change our lives style so as to NOT expedite the global warming trend.

I also have to wonder why people have to look at these things as one or the other, and NOT both.

I think it is unrealistic to say our poles aren't melting, that we are having hotter seasons, and that these changes are occurring with resulting changes of weather patterns.

If we are to believe the bones of the dinosaurs, there was something that happened that caused them to all die out after a very long existence on this planet. In fact according to the time table of dinosaurs, it was a LOT LONGER than homo sapiens as we know them to have existed.

Why are humans so arrogant to think that we could handle an extreme weather change?

What is it with people that want to deny that polluting waters and the air, along with naturally occurring geological issues, as well as weather pattern changes, adding yet another factor is going to speed the process.

I don't have to be a scientist to understand that IF dinosaurs had a long run on this planet, and none of these large creatures survived, WITH OUT man made problems, why would we a much more fragile system creature.

I find it funny when people say God won't let this happen... Really??? Why not. If according to the bible a fluid killed off all undeserving people, and Sodom and Gomorrah were wiped out because of a displeased God... What would make this God, feel there is a need to save human kind now??? What have we done to be considered worth of NOT being wiped off this planet???

Can't be because we are good stewards of this planet, and or the creatures on it. can't be because we treat each other so well, when daily there are wars, and hate filled havoc of mass proportions.

If there is a God, and he got pissed off at humans for their piss poor behavior back then, why not now??? We are NOT kind and loving creatures to this planet...
 yna6
Joined: 1/21/2007
Msg: 162
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 7/26/2009 7:14:21 PM
Global warming? Rain 4-5 days of the week with longer winters and record snowfalls. Where's the "warming" part? I fail to see it affecting us here! Tempuratures below the norms most of the tme.
Perhaps because we are getting the brunt of the polar cap melting? Who knows?
But...there is ALWAYS an upside. Global warming will open up Antartica...a whole new continent that is just waiting for us! Overpopulated areas will have a place to expaand. New farmlands and mining opportunities. the land rush will be on, just like it was when the Americas opened up...but no native issues! Great!
 u_and_me_
Joined: 4/24/2009
Msg: 163
The Science of Global Warming
Posted: 8/17/2009 9:41:17 AM
i had to say that im not a believer of global warming or what ur sayin.its like u said, ur not a climatologist. u even said urself that the amout of co2 released in2 the oceans is an overestimation.how do u know the others arent.im sorry but the weatherman cannot predict the weather accurately for tomorrow yet every1 believes thier predictions for 100 years from now.i have a question for peacethx.do u own a vehical?shop at walmart or other big corporations?if so ur contributing to global warming just like every1 else.what do u people expect to do?live like pre-industrial times?i cant see it happening.im just tired of hearing about this subject.it was a publicity stunt by al gore which worked extremely well.if he had never done it nobody would even be talkin about it.does every1 expect the planet to not change?its called evolution and sometimes its not beneficial to all species.maybe this time some of us is gettin the crappy end of the stick while the beatles and other species are laughin.lol.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  >