• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Global warming over

Shaft

Well-known member
RobertMac,

Sometimes Mother Nature throws a few curveballs into the mix.

http://www.canada.com/topics/technology/science/story.html?id=7a327244-d0cb-4e0c-90d7-f4569327987e&k=665

I wouldn't blindly rely on increased plant growth to soak up the excess CO2. Especially given that we have cut down most of the trees that once covered the Earth and, as others have noted, paved over much of the finest farmland on the planet (and continue to do so).

Doom and gloom isn't my mantra, but neither is the ostrich approach. I believed my beloved Grannie when she told me that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Still do. It fits well with my life experience so far.

Don't need an SUV, thanks, but a 4WD minivan is always welcome.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Shaft said:
I wouldn't blindly rely on increased plant growth to soak up the excess CO2.
Nature's done a fairly decent job for millions of years...but I'm sure she is due to fall on her face. :?

Shaft said:
Especially given that we have cut down most of the trees that once covered the Earth and, as others have noted, paved over much of the finest farmland on the planet (and continue to do so).
If I'm not mistaken, there are more trees in N.A. today than in the early 1900s.

Where does the majority of O2/CO2 exchange take place?
 

Shaft

Well-known member
RobertMac,

"Land gains and loses carbon by various processes: some natural-like photosynthesis and decomposition, some connected to land use and land management practices, and some responding to the increases of carbon dioxide or other nutrients necessary for plant growth. These gains or losses dominate the net land exchange of carbon dioxide with the atmosphere, but some riverine loss to oceans is also significant. Most quantifiable, as by forest and soil inventories, are the above- and below-ground carbon losses from land clearing and the gains in storage in trees from forest recovery and management. Changes in the frequency of forest fires, such as from fire suppression policies, and agricultural practices for soil conservation may modify the carbon stored by land. Climate variations, through their effects on plant growth and decomposition of soil detritus, also have large effects on terrestrial carbon fluxes and storage on a year-to-year basis. Land modifications, mainly in the middle latitudes of the northern hemisphere, may have been a net source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere over much of the last century. However, quantitative estimates have only been possible over the last two decades, when forest clearing had shifted to the tropics."

Maybe we should both just suck it up and buy the book.

http://books.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=10139

I'm willing to pretend I understand all this stuff if you are.
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Shaft,

You are far smarter than I, as you have already established my blissful ignorance, so please help me out here...

How does this CO2 increase compare with the daily consumption of CO2 by plants and any other organisms that use CO2?

How much of the Earth's surface is relatively unaffected by mankind?

Let me make clear that I'm not against addressing pollution issues...my issue is with the politics of global warming.

As for a book,I think I'll start here...you might need it for a little balance. :wink:

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm

These articles speak to the underlying politics of the climate research...

http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=16907

http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-is-NOT-funded-by-Exxon.htm

If you pretend to be objective, I will too.

Have a good one! :)
 

Shaft

Well-known member
RobertMac,

Thanks for the links. Seems like either Roy Spencer is right or else the majority of the world's scientists are right. I have young children, so I'm actively pulling for Roy, but please forgive my skepticism. I hope he's right, but just can't seem to make myself believe it at the moment.

As for the CO2 cycle don't ask me, ask someone in the field. I seek out the best in the business, whoever they may be, when I want the straight goods.

How much of the Earth is relatively unaffected by mankind? I respectfully suggest you download Google Earth (no plug intended) and have a look for yourself. The results may surprise you.

All the best.
 

Shaft

Well-known member
Ooops. Found some friends for Roy. Some big fat compelling friends.

http://www.sepp.org/publications/NIPCC-Feb%2020.pdf
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
Shaft, most of the Earth's surface is water...combine the shear volume of water and the fact that it's an enormous eco-system that is responsible for the vast majority of O2/CO2 exchange makes the oceans, lakes and rivers the most controlling factor in climate change. Note the climate differences in northern and southern hemispheres because of more ocean area in the south.
Nature always seeks balance...if CO2 atmospheric concentration increases, the organisms that benefit from CO2 will increase to utilize it.

Glad to have you on board actively pulling for Dr.Roy!!! :) :D

Take care.
 

Shaft

Well-known member
The ice shelves in Canada's High Arctic have lost a colossal area this year, scientists report.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7595441.stm

"Loss of ice in the Arctic, and in particular the extensive sea-ice, has global implications. The "white parasol" at the top of the planet reflects energy from the Sun straight back out into space, helping to cool the Earth.

Further loss of Arctic ice will see radiation absorbed by darker seawater and snow-free land, potentially warming the Earth's climate at an even faster rate than current observational data indicates."

RobertMac and Porker, my brothers, the earth is indeed covered with a vaste amount of water and the polar icecap is covered with a vast amount of ice. That ice is melting at an unprecedented rate. This is not speculation, it is measured fact.

I held my breath hoping that the polar melting trend of the past few years would stop or at least slow down. Unfortunately it continues to accelerate. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out the potential effects on the temperature of the earth and global climate conditions thereby through replacing millions of square miles of white reflective surface with dark absorptive surface.

Not good news, to be sure, but not news that can safely be ignored with impunity in my respectful view.
 

Latest posts

Top