Lowaicue
英語在香港
You could well be right.
APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?"
- Thread starter tinfoil
- Start date
You could well be right.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Hey chuckles, if you'd bothered to read your information, you'll note that it is NOT covering every aspect of what contributes to global warming. I pointed this out, and you're just either too stubborn or dumb to see that. Hell, I even conceded your point. Pull your head out of your neocon ass and READ before you type. Also, understand that deforestation is ANOTHER ASPECT OF WHAT IS CURRENTLY HAPPENING TO THE PLANET.
Got that, bunky?
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
But if you continue the rate of deforestation and urbanization, you won't have the plants to handle the increase in CO2 out put by industrialization, you nit!
That's been my point all along.
1) yes, a miniscule amount of forcing is been produced by humans. The increased 3% of CO2 (97% is naturally occuring) humans contribute amounts to very little extra forcing. The greater the concentration of CO2, the less effect additional CO2 has on overall forcing.
The first 80% of the greenhouse effect forcing is achieved at 10ppm
10 parts per million!!!
Do you get it?
Do you consider yourself to be totally free of obligation towards the husbandry of this planet?
Yes. I'm an insignificant carbon footprint in a world of carbon trails.
Besides, CO2 forcing HAS BEEN OVERSTATED AND IS NOT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING OR CLIMATE CHANGE!!!!!!!!!
How long are you going to believe the lies? The stats were fraudulent. Don't expect the governemnt to tell you that. They want to tax you.
Lowaicue
英語在香港
The statistics are/were not fraudulent. The interpretation of those statistics might, in the course of time, be subject to criticism.
You mention your carbon footprint. A measure you have clearly investigated and to which you have supplied data. I would suggest that this might indicate a level of concern on your part. You have used it to exonerate yourself instead of extrapolating the data to cover the whole country or even just your street and understanding the possible consequences.
Even if you are squeaky clean you are not excused from concern about the behaviour of others. I can almost guarantee that my family's carbon footprint is lower than 90% of Americans'. It does not let me off the hook. But, as what you might pejoratively term, a liberal, I see myself as having a shared responsibilty to do what I can not to screw up the planet.
Why dont you?
For an intelligent man you appear quite irresponsible. The big strong shoutin' and shootin' yank is no longer to be admired, for we know that it, all too often, means he is somewhat short in the wedding tackle department.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Right....because reducing the Amazon Rain Forest to about a third of what it was less than a century ago has only a negligible effect....combined with the urbanization across the globe that replaces forests and grasslands with heat reflective concrete and steel....let alone the countless millions of automobiles, thousands of factories. Yep, all that smog over major cities around the globe is just a pittance in the scheme of things.
You need to get your head out of the Hieb brothers butts and THINK beyond what you like to hear.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
DAMN, your masters must have really gotten to you.
A well know phrase of saying??
Let's see; how about: NoIQ can fuck off.
*sigh*
And still you cannot define how I could possibly be considered a neocon by pointing out your hypocrisy. That was one long and worthless read without substance or facts. I ask a simple question, I get vowel movement from the spin factory.
So, I'll point it out again.
Somebody said, while mocking Obama, that MSNBC is not a "real news organization"...
You translated that into some inanity.
I pointed out that if the one is translated that way, then Obama must also be (as they were mocking Obama to begin with) or you are a huge hypocrite.
You said, instead of providing any information that would suggest any differently, "You are a neocon!"
I asked, "Please define it so we can determine how you could possibly say that pointing out your hypocrisy is the same thing as being a "neocon"...
You have since, in very, very long posts tried to distract from the question and have yet to answer it.
Please, just post a definition of neocon, the one that suggests pointing out Taichi's hypocrisy is part of the definition... or just move on. Walls of text mean nothing when there is no substance to them.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Damo, you're a liar....plain and simple. I detest liars. You throw a hissy fit every blessed time you're proven wrong. Grow up...or have the last disproven, repetitive word as it means so much to you.
[ame="http://www.justplainpolitics.com/showpost.php?p=541462&postcount=135"]Just Plain Politics! - View Single Post - APP - The BBC asks "where's global warming?"[/ame]
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
One tree skewed the entire climate record.
SCIENCE!!!
MORE SCIENCE!
http://www.fao.org/newsroom/EN/news/2006/1000385/index.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/global_warming/Tropical-Deforestation-Basics.pdf
Good Luck
New member
All I see is two articles making the same unsupported claims about deforestation being related to global warming.
What those claims ignore is the fact that of photosynthetic plant life (ie: life that converts CO2 into oxygen) the tropical forests comprise less than 3% of the total biomass. The vast majority of photosynthetic life resides in the ocean, and most of that is phytoplankton. Though one would think a forest full of very large trees would result in more photosynthesis than a bunch of phytoplankton and algae, the truth is different. For one thing, for all it's size, only a small portion -specifically the leaves - of a tree are actually engaged in photosynthesis. With algae, 100% of the plant is engaged. So a mass of algae weighing less than 1/50th of a large tree would actually absorb more CO2 and release more oxygen. Add that to the facts that tropical forest only cover less than 8% of the surface of Earth, while water bearing phytoplankton and/or algae covers almost 75% of the surface, and the result is, for all the ballyhoo by the brain dead, deforestation (while not a good thing) cannot be held to be a contributor to atmospheric CO2 fluctuations.
In short, the articles are full of shit.
What those claims ignore is the fact that of photosynthetic plant life (ie: life that converts CO2 into oxygen) the tropical forests comprise less than 3% of the total biomass. The vast majority of photosynthetic life resides in the ocean, and most of that is phytoplankton. Though one would think a forest full of very large trees would result in more photosynthesis than a bunch of phytoplankton and algae, the truth is different. For one thing, for all it's size, only a small portion -specifically the leaves - of a tree are actually engaged in photosynthesis. With algae, 100% of the plant is engaged. So a mass of algae weighing less than 1/50th of a large tree would actually absorb more CO2 and release more oxygen. Add that to the facts that tropical forest only cover less than 8% of the surface of Earth, while water bearing phytoplankton and/or algae covers almost 75% of the surface, and the result is, for all the ballyhoo by the brain dead, deforestation (while not a good thing) cannot be held to be a contributor to atmospheric CO2 fluctuations.
In short, the articles are full of shit.
Thst's what he seems to not be able to gleen from our posts. You can lead a horse to water...
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Your myopic ramblings mean nothing. Why don't I remove 3% of your lung capacity so you can tell me how negligible it is?
And then, I'll increase the number of people who smoke in your place of residence about one every 2 years. No problem, right?
Oh, and if you have any plants on your property, I'll just add a little acid rain, which will kill out some of them....absolutely negligible, right? You'll be relatively okay.
And when you go down to the beach or lake for some relief, I'll just direct the sewage treatment plants to dump in the general vicinity, and then dicker about who dumps what gargbage where. Then I'll direct all the run off of pesticides, etc. to that area. Shouldn't have any effect on the algae and plankton....or will it? http://users.rowan.edu/~wagnerf/efgb/pollution.pdf
But hey, you just keep juggling the numbers and stats and ignore what you don't like. It'll all work out for you, right? I mean, what's facts and reality have to do with it, right bunky? Good luck with that.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Like you...he just ignores what he doesn't like and tries to isolate some facts and numbers.
And I can't get two jackasses to move....Your myopic ramblings mean nothing. Why don't I remove 3% of your lung capacity so you can tell me how negligible it is?
And then, I'll increase the number of people who smoke in your place of residence about one every 2 years. No problem, right?
Oh, and if you have any plants on your property, I'll just add a little acid rain, which will kill out some of them....absolutely negligible, right? You'll be relatively okay.
And when you go down to the beach or lake for some relief, I'll just direct the sewage treatment plants to dump in the general vicinity, and then dicker about who dumps what gargbage where. Then I'll direct all the run off of pesticides, etc. to that area. Shouldn't have any effect on the algae and plankton....or will it? http://users.rowan.edu/~wagnerf/efgb/pollution.pdf
But hey, you just keep juggling the numbers and stats and ignore what you don't like. It'll all work out for you, right? I mean, what's facts and reality have to do with it, right bunky? Good luck with that.
You idiot, pollution has nothing to do with the faulty theory of CO2 concentration controlling climate changes.
WTF is wrong with you that you can't follow what the argument is about?
Good Luck
New member
Neither the web page, nor the .pdf file have any references posted. Where is the documentation? Where are the references to the scientific studies that support these conclusions.Your myopic ramblings mean nothing. Why don't I remove 3% of your lung capacity so you can tell me how negligible it is?
And then, I'll increase the number of people who smoke in your place of residence about one every 2 years. No problem, right?
Oh, and if you have any plants on your property, I'll just add a little acid rain, which will kill out some of them....absolutely negligible, right? You'll be relatively okay.
And when you go down to the beach or lake for some relief, I'll just direct the sewage treatment plants to dump in the general vicinity, and then dicker about who dumps what gargbage where. Then I'll direct all the run off of pesticides, etc. to that area. Shouldn't have any effect on the algae and plankton....or will it? http://users.rowan.edu/~wagnerf/efgb/pollution.pdf
But hey, you just keep juggling the numbers and stats and ignore what you don't like. It'll all work out for you, right? I mean, what's facts and reality have to do with it, right bunky? Good luck with that.
All you have is a bunch of equally narrow minded idiots writing crapo for their charities (I wonder why?) about how deforestation is a primary cause of global warming. Nothing is, as you claim, "documented".
Try pulling up the documentation showing deforestation reduces photosynthesis enough to make a difference in total atmospheric CO2, instead of the bunch of unsupported rhetoric you like so well to post and claim as fact, and maybe you'll have a leg to stand on. Meanwhile you're just another sqealing mindless blowhard.
BTW: tropical forests, world wide, comprise about 3% of total photosynthesis on the planet. Unless you want to claim we have cut them all down, 3% is not what has been diminished. It's actually closer to 0.3% total diminished capacity in the tropical forests.
EXCEPT, mankind has greatly INCREASED photosynthesis with greatly enhanced domesticated crops, which grow 3-5 times as fast as wild plants would in the same area. 3-5 times as much growth means 3-5 times as much CO2 exchange. Since only about 5% of the tropical forest's biomass is involved with photosynthesis, and most (not all, but most) of that biomass is replaced with cropland, composed of much-more rapidly growing plants (therefore much more photosynthesis) the total is, at worst, a trade-off, if not an actual gain in CO2 exchange. Add in growth-enhanced crops in lands that used to grow weeds and sagebrush, and human activity, if analyzed truthfully, has increased CO2 exchange through photosynthesis.
And, while we're at it, let's look at what is done with much of that biomass. While a good deal of it is burned off as waste (which, BTW, also happens in naturally occurring forest fires) most of the wood is made into lumber, which is then turned in a variety of human constructions. A tree which dies naturally simply decays and releases its carbon back into the atmosphere as CO2 and methane. The wood of a tree made into a house can last several hundred years beyond the lifetime of the trees from which it is made. Indirectly, making houses (and other long-lasting constructs) out of wood ends up sequestering carbon.
As for pollution, that is a different topic. This topic is about human contribution to the observed phenomenon of global climate change (which used to be called global warming until their statistical analyses started blowing up in their faces). As such, all your whining like a baby without his pacifier, implying that if I don't blindly believe your AGW nonsense, then I must not care about other kinds of pollution, is a dictionary-level example of strawman argument.
One other item, which is quite amusing if you think about it, is the FAO (one of your "references") has a slogan about feeding the world's hungry, yet are railing against using tropical forest land to grow human crops (which, if you care to think instead of squeal mindlessly) FEEDS people.
Last edited:
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
The amount of CO2 taken in is proportional to the amount of time the plant exists, whether its a new plant or not.
God you guys get more and more retarded with every passing second. Just a bunch of foolish cranks on the internet thinking they're going to disprove everything in their 15 minutes of spare time, when everyone who's taken an in-depth look at the subject is on the side of fact, rather than the side of cranks. It's like the guys who say pi is really 3.2.