Notices
Results 1 to 36 of 36

Thread: Global Warming is a Lie

  1. #1 Global Warming is a Lie 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1
    “If you tell a big enough lie and tell it frequently enough, it will be believed.”- Adolf Hitler. This quote is a perfect fit for the concept of global warming. The term “Global Warming” is misinterpreted by many people and if you actually search for the definition of global warming on www.google.ca, you get over 20 different definitions. If you break apart the term and define it separately, you derive the obvious definition of the globe warming up. According to many scientists, the reliable sources of temperature data show no global warming trend. Only land-based temperature stations show a warming trend and these stations do not cover the globe, and they are subjected to human error unlike the satellite readings of temperature in the lower troposphere. These show no warming since readings began 23 years ago. These readings are accurate to within 0.01ºC, and are consistent with data from weather balloons.

    The most shocking fact against global warming is that the ICPP (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) did not prove that human activities are causing global warming. This organization is a United Nation Organization. This report is really important but around 90% of the people who believe in global warming have no idea about the presence of the actual organization or the report.

    What really warms the earth? Maybe the sun? Of course, the sun warms up the earth and if you check the solar output against global temperature measurements, you will find that they follow the same path. When the sun gets hotter, for some strange reason the earth seems to get warmer too. Probably because they ARE directly related! Also, if global warming is man-made, then why is Mars warming up at the exact same rate as the solar output and same rate as the Earth. Is man-kind so powerful that we can affect other planets and cause them to have a change in their climate

    Do you really think green bags can make a difference in the climate of the Earth? Entrepreneurs are taking advantage of the idea of global warming. There are so many different new products that are supposed to “help” the environment. Companies don’t care about the Earth. As long as they are making money, they are happy. If a new theory is brought out and people start believing it, there will be new products produced to support that theory. On http://www.cafepress.com/buy/global+warming, there are over 500,000 products related to global warming. If these companies cared about global warming, they would understand the amount of energy they waste to produce these products.

    There are 192 countries in the world according to the United Nations and only 57% of them believed that human activity caused global warming and are doing something in response to global warming. The United Nations would urge countries to come together as one and to something to prevent global warming. As of right now, the United Nations has no proof that humans are contributing to global warming. If you seem to notice, the majority of the countries that believe that human activity causes global warming are “power-house” countries such as United States, China, and Germany. These countries just want to gain more power over citizens and make it seem like the citizens must do what they say otherwise everyone is going to die.

    Many people think that this fact is a lie but actually over 17000 scientists do not believe in global warming. Most scientists do not believe human activities threaten to disrupt the Earth’s climate. There is a petition that has been started by the Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine saying, in part, “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” (Go to www.oism.org for the complete petition and names of signers.) Would you rather believe in approved scientists or the media? The media has a big input in people’s beliefs these days. If there is a report stating that there is going to be an earthquake tomorrow, people are likely to go crazy not knowing what to do. The media wants to control people. If the media recommends a certain laptop, chances are that the majority of the people will get that laptop. The media just says what is in their benefit, so “don’t believe everything you hear.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: Global Warming is a Lie 
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by Farhad230148
    The term “Global Warming” is misinterpreted by many people and if you actually search for the definition of global warming on www.google.ca, you get over 20 different definitions.
    Of course you would. That goes for anything, not just “global warming” – if you search for anything on Google, you will get thousands of different defintions about it. Remember: anybody can post anything on the Internet – any moron with an ISP can post their their own nonsense on it – and Google simply finds everything on the Internet without sorting the wheat from the chaff. Learn to use Google properly, and to distinguish reliable from unreliable information.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farhad230148
    What really warms the earth? Maybe the sun? Of course, the sun warms up the earth and if you check the solar output against global temperature measurements, you will find that they follow the same path. When the sun gets hotter, for some strange reason the earth seems to get warmer too. Probably because they ARE directly related! Also, if global warming is man-made, then why is Mars warming up at the exact same rate as the solar output and same rate as the Earth. Is man-kind so powerful that we can affect other planets and cause them to have a change in their climate

    Do you really think green bags can make a difference in the climate of the Earth? Entrepreneurs are taking advantage of the idea of global warming. There are so many different new products that are supposed to “help” the environment. Companies don’t care about the Earth. As long as they are making money, they are happy. If a new theory is brought out and people start believing it, there will be new products produced to support that theory. On http://www.cafepress.com/buy/global+warming, there are over 500,000 products related to global warming. If these companies cared about global warming, they would understand the amount of energy they waste to produce these products.
    Well, you’re clearly one of those people referred to by yourself who have misinterpreted the term “global warming”. You are only making up your own straw-man defintion of the concept and attacking it rather than the actual idea of global warming.

    “there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.”
    Now you’re getting somewhere – if at all. Unfortunately, it seems you are only quoting blindly and don’t even have a clue what you’re quoting. :?

    Well, anyway …

    What happens in global warming is that the Earth absorbs the Sun’s radiation and then tries to send excess radiation back into space. But the sent-back radiation has a longer wavelength than the original radiation. Whereas the original shorter-wavelength radiation could penetrate the carbon dioxide in the Earth’s atmosphere, the longer-wavelength radiation re-emitted by Earth can’t. As a result, the excess radiation gets trapped in the Earth’s atmosphere (the so-called “greenhouse effect”). This is basically what is meant by global warming.

    The fact is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been on the increase since the 20th century (or even before). What’s causing this? Certainly human activities have played a part. But is it just a negligible part, with nature contributing to the bulk of the increase, or has the part played by humans been significant enough to make us all blamable for global warming?

    So you want to argue that the latter is not the case. Well, though I disagree with you :P I’m not trying to argue with you here. I’m just trying to help you make a much better argument than you’ve just presented.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Wow thats an awful lot of bollocks you've written there.

    the satellite readings of temperature in the lower troposphere. These show no warming since readings began 23 years ago.
    Of course, the sun warms up the earth and if you check the solar output against global temperature measurements, you will find that they follow the same path.
    Also, if global warming is man-made, then why is Mars warming up at the exact same rate as the solar output and same rate as the Earth.
    actually over 17000 scientists do not believe in global warming
    Please, please, please do provide some sort of link to support those claims.

    ----------------

    Also you have contradicted yourself by saying this......
    unlike the satellite readings of temperature in the lower troposphere. These show no warming since readings began 23 years ago.
    And then this.......
    then why is Mars warming up at the exact same rate as the solar output and same rate as the Earth.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    The impression I got was that Farhad is thinking of “global warming” as nothing more than the Sun heating up the Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farhad230148
    What really warms the earth? Maybe the sun? Of course, the sun warms up the earth …. When the sun gets hotter, for some strange reason the earth seems to get warmer too.
    I’ve tried to explain to Farhad that “global warming” refers to something more complex than that.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    The Doctor Quantime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    4,546
    Global warming may be bollocks, but I'm definatley sure that climate change, isn't.
    "If you wish to make an apple pie from scratch, you must first invent the universe". - Carl Sagan
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    The impression I got was that Farhad is thinking of “global warming” as nothing more than the Sun heating up the Earth.

    Quote Originally Posted by Farhad230148
    What really warms the earth? Maybe the sun? Of course, the sun warms up the earth …. When the sun gets hotter, for some strange reason the earth seems to get warmer too.
    I’ve tried to explain to Farhad that “global warming” refers to something more complex than that.
    I did read your explanation, hopefully Farhad did the same as he would learn a great deal. However the impression i got was not one of misunderstanding but rather someone trying to pass-off blatant lies and twisted truths as fact.

    ----------------

    I do however have one small criticism

    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    The fact is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been on the increase since the 20th century (or even before). What’s causing this? Certainly human activities have played a part. But is it just a negligible part, with nature contributing to the bulk of the increase
    We know that the a large bulk of the CO2 increase is due to humans because fossil fuels contain no carbon-14 (c-14 has a half life of around 6000 years). Levels of C-14 in the atmosphere fell slightly between 1850-1950 and 1990-today (between 1950-1990 levels of C-14 increased, this was due to nuclear testing which produced large amounts of C-14), the levels of Carbon-12 which is produced by fossil fuel has increased consistently during this period.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    Quote Originally Posted by Cat1981(England)
    I do however have one small criticism

    Quote Originally Posted by JaneBennet
    The fact is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been on the increase since the 20th century (or even before). What’s causing this? Certainly human activities have played a part. But is it just a negligible part, with nature contributing to the bulk of the increase
    You are quoting me slightly out of context.

    Quote Originally Posted by I actually
    The fact is that the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has been on the increase since the 20th century (or even before). What’s causing this? Certainly human activities have played a part. But is it just a negligible part, with nature contributing to the bulk of the increase, or has the part played by humans been significant enough to make us all blamable for global warming?

    So you
    [Farhad] want to argue that the latter is not the case. Well, though I disagree with you
    I agree with what you say. I just felt there was no point telling it to Farhad, who didn’t even have a clue what he was talking about (let alone trying to dispute).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Man caused Global Warming or the causes for any problem in society, are generally address by any individual from other than scientific reasoning.
    There are not many things mentioned by the author, that can't be found in some report.

    Generally in my discussions, on the issue, there has always been an underlying agenda t the persons opinions, which rarely is deter by the any degree of apparent intelligence. Most often IMO and surprising is the dislike for Capitalism (the industrial complex), then to politics. PEW Research, has two current surveys on the issue; GW Caused by man,
    yes 23% Republican - 75% Democrat of college graduates, non grads
    32% R vs. 52 Dems. As a top concern they found 12% Rep and 38% Dems.

    There are two interesting theory being explored. NASA, last year sent up a couple Satellites to explore, are the effects of solar activity on our outer atmospheres. The other involves conditions our solar system encounters during its 250 million trip around the galaxy core. Other theory, such as solar flares, magnetic field effects, even our whether patterns are also taking on interest. Moisture certainly has a stronger effect on GW, than 3-400 parts per billion of CO2. Not only in retaining heat, but not allowing heat to reach the ground.

    IMO; The increase in 200 years from about a billion little people and the energy used, to our current 6.6 billion and a somewhat increased energy used per in all the activity, should be showing up a whole lot more than a .7 degree in temperature or a few parts of CO2, if indeed a problem for natures natural reactions to whats on the planet or the combined totals of nature and mans ability to effect change.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Ph.D. Cat1981(England)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    South Downs.
    Posts
    934
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Man caused Global Warming or the causes for any problem in society, are generally address by any individual from other than scientific reasoning.
    There are not many things mentioned by the author, that can't be found in some report.
    After i had finished posting last monday and had worked my way down though the forum and i saw that he was loged-on. 6 days later he still hasn't provided any links or reports to support his claims. Should he come back and try to make a debate out of this, i will be able to provide him with reports/links/papers which will show his claims to be wrong.

    Generally in my discussions, on the issue, there has always been an underlying agenda t the persons opinions, which rarely is deter by the any degree of apparent intelligence. Most often IMO and surprising is the dislike for Capitalism (the industrial complex), then to politics. PEW Research, has two current surveys on the issue; GW Caused by man,
    yes 23% Republican - 75% Democrat of college graduates, non grads
    32% R vs. 52 Dems. As a top concern they found 12% Rep and 38% Dems.
    Thats the whole problem with this issue, it has become too politicised. I have seen suggestions that MMGW was invented by Thatcher and Reagan to provide a reason to build nuclear power stations and other renewable power sources so the west can become less energy dependant on Russia and the middle east. Another one is that it is again a western idea to slow the development of China and India.

    There are two interesting theory being explored. NASA, last year sent up a couple Satellites to explore, are the effects of solar activity on our outer atmospheres. The other involves conditions our solar system encounters during its 250 million trip around the galaxy core. Other theory, such as solar flares, magnetic field effects, even our whether patterns are also taking on interest.
    There are thousands of different forcings on the planet, some cooling, some warming. Until we have a near perfect picture of what those forcings are and what affect they have on the planet it's going to be impossible to build a complete picture and produce accurate computer simulations. To solve this more funding and man power is needed, however, the moment any scientific institution or government funded project does ether of those the accusation is instantly made that the scientist working on these ideas are only in it for the money and any findings which support the theory of MMGW is biased so as to gain further funds.

    Moisture certainly has a stronger effect on GW, than 3-400 parts per billion of CO2. Not only in retaining heat, but not allowing heat to reach the ground.
    Whether water vapour is positive or negative forcing is still debatable, however it is generally presumed to be a positive forcing. It is also part and parcel of the MMGW theory. The man made green house emissions are only the first domino. Though this initial increase in temperatures, other forcings are increased such as glaciers melting, lowering of natural carbon sinks capacity to hold green house gases and warmer air holding more water vapour.

    IMO; The increase in 200 years from about a billion little people and the energy used, to our current 6.6 billion and a somewhat increased energy used per in all the activity, should be showing up a whole lot more than a .7 degree in temperature or a few parts of CO2, if indeed a problem for natures natural reactions to whats on the planet or the combined totals of nature and mans ability to effect change.
    Approximately half of all our GHG are absorbed by the worlds carbon sinks, many such as the south Atlantic are showing signs that they starting to reach full capacity, this means that in future a lot more of our GHG emissions will stay in the atmosphere increasing temperatures much more quickly than in the recent past. Also other forcings such as the suns solar output have decreased slightly over the last few decades.
    Eat Dolphin, save the Tuna!!!!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Cat; Activist have been around for some time. To exaggerate the point, think was Nero, during the Roman Empire was upset about smoke and banned fires in Rome. In my years and I feel where the current hysteria comes from, started in the 50's, with issues on population, no room, food or water to support -X- number of people. Factory pollution into the streams, then into the air. The GW probably did stem from the Global Cooling which many were concerned about in those days. Those and many other viewpoints, that almost made the activist seem unable to be satisfied, led to political movements and today those same people are objecting to some really trivial things. Incorporating into GW, has given new life.

    Thatcher, I heard today, stockpiled food for a period, thinking a food shortage was pending. Today, activist including a lot of people not normally involved are trying to blame bio-fuel production on food shortages around the world. No doubt some truth, but the real fact is the cost of transport and/or distribution has tripled in a short period. Most product used for bio fuel, has a by product used to feed animals etc., net loss to the markets, very little. My point hysteria, leads to most problems in society, which includes potential GW, IMO.

    On referencing or arguing with sites, it seems useless to me, especially on GW, man made or not. As you suggest, there are probably thousands of reason, which could be reasons for any trend in actual weather patterns or even changes in atmosphere make up. High BP zones tend to set over areas for long periods, for instance and play havoc on both local weather and local atmosphere condition. As for moisture, with 70% of the earth being oceans, in any given period the majority is over those oceans, your going to have some long term effects over land areas...and so on.

    On carbon storage, trees and plant life are 50% carbons. Even our increased food supplies has helped hold down CO2 levels, even NASA observations are indicating additional forestry over the planet. This is to me, just natures way of balancing the current. This doesn't mean natures is protecting humans or any life, just a natural action/reaction to what exist.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    956
    I’ve just stumbled across the following BBC News article which I think may be relevant to the discussion here:

    Nature’s carbon balance confirmed

    Scientists have found new evidence that the Earth’s natural feedback mechanism regulated carbon dioxide levels for hundreds of thousands of years.


    But they say humans are now emitting CO<sub>2</sub> so fast that the planet’s natural balancing mechanism cannot keep up.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7363600.stm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    NASA observations are indicating additional forestry over the planet
    Reference please.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Additional forestry, or forests?!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I assumed jackson33 was referring to reforestation of previously deforested areas, or afforestation of previously un-forested areas. This is occurring in some areas. I browsed the NASA website without finding anything to support the idea that the rate of reforestation might approach or exceed the rate of deforestation, if this is what he meant. Perhaps he'll clarify.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Quote Originally Posted by Bunbury
    I assumed jackson33 was referring to reforestation of previously deforested areas, or afforestation of previously un-forested areas. This is occurring in some areas. I browsed the NASA website without finding anything to support the idea that the rate of reforestation might approach or exceed the rate of deforestation, if this is what he meant. Perhaps he'll clarify.
    Since NASA has not been around very long, much is probably reforestation, at least by them. There is other evidence, that plant life has expanded, often used as a sign of GW itself. Tree lines climbing in elevations on mountains and growth of many types growing further north than before etc...

    Having spent some time of farms, their problems in part are keeping the natural process from reforesting (even forestation) from happening. Pasture land as well. I might add, in many places on the planet, orchards are fed CO2 to stimulate growth today, not so much in the US.

    Certainly from the mini ice age of about 1k, 14k or 100k years ago, conditions for vegetation growth is or could be peaking.

    For the record...
    The actual quote, was taken from a 'Rush Limbaugh' program, mentioned several times about a year ago. I don't remember where/what article he was quoting and its now off his site.

    Jane; CO2 is NOT a stable element. The actual time offered before breakdown is disputed, but 30-100 years are mentioned. There are already means to extract CO2 from the atmosphere and in part, Catalytic Converters removed some from auto emissions today. In declaring CO2 the total problem for earths future existence or even just the humans on the planet, don't you think a little more emphasis would be in that extraction. To complicate the issue, Oxygen is a stable element, 22% or so of the total air we breath. Below 16% or above (think 25%), with our barometric pressure, we as humans will have an even larger problem.
    Mess with natures ability to handle .001% (or less) of CO2, you are more likely to compromise Oxygen production...in my opinion.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Additional forestry, or forests?!
    Rofl, I'm quite sure there is additional forestry going on, those Argentinian cattle ranchers are cutting up a storm .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    The actual quote, was taken from a 'Rush Limbaugh' program,
    You're quoting that idiot on science without checking his source? Of course, ol' Rush is known for his accuracy and objectivity.

    Give me a break.

    Here's one of his "facts":

    "We have more trees in this country today than when the Declaration of Independence was written. The wackos will tell you that's impossible. "
    From those wackos at the US Forestry Service:

    Forest Land Area Acreage - 1630 to 2002 - USFS/FIA

    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Bunbury; As to Mr. Limbaugh, yes I should check the source before quoting, however the probability is he had or his staff. The actual wording was probably vegetation, which is unquestionable true...

    The plant is 71% covered in water, 29% land mass. Of the land mass, about 30% are natural forest of one kind or another, 37% suitable for agriculture 12-14% - 12-14% crops, 25% for Orchards or grazing. Urban areas account for 3%. The remainder is desert or glazer (ice covered).

    A couple major flaws are in irrigation farming and tree farms, at least in the US. A good share of California and Arizona to a lessor degree are not classified 'suitable', but with fertilizer and irrigation, literally feed the world and long before required, ALL major lumber/wood/paper producers have been planting more trees than used.

    I don't know who your post was directed to, but trees are not the sole plant life, which require CO2 for growth. With out checking the figures I would guess the corn fields in the US alone, use up more CO2, than all the US forest alone. As for your charts and those 'wackos'. I was not aware they were around in the 1600's, however I suppose they were estimating. Tree and/or plant life has suffered many natural problems over the years, probably the 'dust bowl' days of the 30's the worst. IMO, I see no reason why tree for tree, there would be less today (over all) than in 1776, in the US. In Arizona there where 10's of thousands of pecan trees alone (SE of Tuscon to the Mexican border) where nothing was before. Same in Central California with all forms of fruits and nuts. Xmas tree farming and individual people alone have planted millions, in their yards, farms, parks and recreational ares.

    As for the CO2 argument itself, all the above feeds off CO2 in part, to no less degree than all humans or animal life is dependent on what those plants/trees produce. Food or oxygen. When messing with nature, the environmental extremist (IMO) are hurting both mankind and those forest more than helping anything. Clearing underbrush, from National Forest alone, would supply the paper needs for the world, reduce the natural clearing nature provides (fire), but is fought daily by those pretending concern.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    I don't know who your post was directed to, but trees are not the sole plant life, which require CO2 for growth.
    My post was a direct response to your claim that “even NASA observations are indicating additional forestry over the planet”. Forest generally means trees, not corn or wheat.

    I am just trying to keep the discussion factual, while you continually make unsupported claims. This was a prime example. Where is this NASA observation published? I’ve looked for it, because it was an interesting and important claim, but evidently you haven't bothered to look. Then, laughably, you bring up Limbaugh as a reference.

    Now here you trot out another claim:

    Clearing underbrush, from National Forest alone, would supply the paper needs for the world
    Do you have a reference for this, or is this another of Limbaugh’s “facts”?

    And who are these environmental extremists who are “messing with nature” and trying to prevent brush clearing? Do you have a reference for that?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    I don't know where 'More trees today than in 1776' came from (not me), but I did suggest vegetation today is probably peaking....Still do and may grow...On Limbaugh or for that matter any person, that is no different than mentioning an article, think you call source. Day after day, while watching Fox or any network, its easy to find error in whats given as fact. Limbaugh, over all is probably more accurate than most, at least to what was written, since he rarely gives his opinion, until after the reason to offer that opinion. That is right or wrong, its some one else's article, he replies to...

    Have stated and will again; When it comes to GW, you can find a referance to confirm any single point and to either side of any issue.
    Your chart on US Forest a good example, showing a drop from 1040 million acre to 740 million. Thats just incorrect IMO. I'll debate your opinions, but seems rather senseless to debate every 'tom dick & harry' or start giving links to counter other sites...

    On Environmentalist and fires, whether from property damages (grass line restrictions) to the forest themselves, your darn well know, every little fire that is publicized, many feel restrictions of one sort or another are 'said' instrumental in there spreading and most come from environmentalist or if you prefer, said to be. One Eastern Ariz. fire, I was involved with, was written up at 'Stateline.org' 2002 Az Wild Fire, triggers heated rhetoric.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    One Eastern Ariz. fire, I was involved with, was written up at 'Stateline.org' 2002 Az Wild Fire, triggers heated rhetoric.
    Very good and balanced article, that doesn't support your claims.

    Stephen J. Pyne, a historian and Arizona State University biology professor who has written several books and numerous articles on fire, said the problems in America's Western forests are much more complex than those "advancing political agendas" understand.

    The buildup to this summer's fires has been centuries in the making, Mr. Pyne said. Settlement in the West led to the thinning of native herds of deer and other large animals that helped keep grasses and brush in check. Once industrialization took hold in America, society took it upon itself to fight all fires that have helped restore the ecological balance and, over the long run, would have made the gigantic Rodeo-Chediski fire less likely.
    Still not spotting those dam enviro-extremists.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    I don't know who your post was directed to, but trees are not the sole plant life, which require CO2 for growth. With out checking the figures I would guess the corn fields in the US alone, use up more CO2, than all the US forest alone. As for your charts and those 'wackos'. I was not aware they were around in the 1600's, however I suppose they were estimating. Tree and/or plant life has suffered many natural problems over the years, probably the 'dust bowl' days of the 30's the worst. IMO, I see no reason why tree for tree, there would be less today (over all) than in 1776, in the US. In Arizona there where 10's of thousands of pecan trees alone (SE of Tuscon to the Mexican border) where nothing was before. Same in Central California with all forms of fruits and nuts. Xmas tree farming and individual people alone have planted millions, in their yards, farms, parks and recreational ares.
    Besides the fact that cyanobacteria in the oceans are responsible for most removal of CO2 from the atmosphere, those corn fields are not beneficial to CO2 levels because the industrial fertilizer used requires immense amounts of energy to produce, then most of that corn is used to feed cattle which produce methane, yet another greenhouse gas .
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    cyanobacteria in the oceans are responsible for most removal of CO2 from the atmosphere
    Yes. It's the oceans, not the forests. We ought to give Japan carbon credits for their whaling activities.

    *runs*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Quote Originally Posted by Pong
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    cyanobacteria in the oceans are responsible for most removal of CO2 from the atmosphere
    Yes. It's the oceans, not the forests. We ought to give Japan carbon credits for their whaling activities.

    *runs*
    Actually global warming is bad for the cyanobacteria also lol, it's disrupting the ocean flora making it more favourable for diatoms that trap nutrients when they die and thus depleting nutrients from the ocean that are needed by the cyanobacteria.

    I personally think it can't hurt to have more trees, but it's really insignificant in the grand scheme of the climate change problem. Regulating our emissions is more important, and the forest are more valuable as refuges for biodiversity than CO2 removing factories.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    IFT; The point is, we as the human society require the food produced, directly from corn or the meat that comes from the feed. With todays per acre productions (over 1900 or 1960) additional CO2 is consumed by these plants. Yes, water and fertilizers are required, but for maximum production and yes until recently most corn was used for animal feed. It still is today, but between the field and feed lots, much is creating bio fuels.

    Methane is another minor GW factor and all animals create a portion, but it does degrade more rapidly, think about 20 years.

    On the ocean factor; There are many foreseeable problems with ocean content, than the simple CO2 dropped into it, through rain/snow fall, primarily on just what all has dissolved into it.

    My concerns or basic opposition to MMGW by advocates are in the proposed solutions and then when they should occur. While these advocates have no problem with Mid-Eastern, Canada, Mexico or a number of oil producers, pumping oil and all society bickering over prices, transporting effects on the earths environment and to eminent breakdown of that society, they argue where the US can and cannot explore, drill and process energy. Realistically, we are not going to transform to any single alternative and the adoption into society of all alternatives will take a great deal of time. Even the alternatives are fought, birds die where wind is used, bio fuels are bad (pick your reason) and Nuclear is out of the question. It would seem to me, there are groups fighting groups, all bent of social chaos...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    I don't know where you get that from because of the 3 oil mines in the Alberta oil sands of Canada, 2 are American and one is Dutch. Americans do most of their drilling outside of the USA. No one has any influence on where the USA drills in it's own territory except the US government, you can hardly make these claims that no one resists deforestation (which I doubt occurs very much in the Middle-East ) or pollution in other countries.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Quote Originally Posted by i_feel_tiredsleepy
    I personally think it can't hurt to have more trees, but it's really insignificant in the grand scheme of the climate change problem.
    Agreed.

    Clearly our largest footprint in terms of surface area has been on "marginal" land, e.g. prairie. We've altered most of this land with erosion resistant crops as well as irrigation. Dust won't blow off anymore. I think this was/is significant because formerly these lands supplied airborne particles necessary to cloud formation... now what, sandy deserts (!?) we're working to damp those down too. Less seeding = less clouds. Suicide. Water vapour alone does not form clouds!

    Try plugging that pre-agricultural cloud recipe into our climate model. See how diminished cloud cover tends to dry the soil, promoting dust, which then promotes cloud formation? Self-regulating, it was.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    BB; I have been trying to locate an article, think about 2000 or 01, where Kimberly Clark, probably in a Company Report, laid it on the line, with what permission to clean underbrush could mean to there company. At the time, assuming current problem; Environmentalist did not want private industry involved in clean up of National forest. KC, is the largest producer of Tissue (Diapers to Toilet Paper), but also produces a good share of particle board, somewhat used in place of plywood. They also are big in reprocessing or recycling paper. Both these products lines, use what is underbrush, chips and small limbs, which lumber companies generally do not use.


    IFT; Are we on the same topic...Oil Companies are restricted, by government, only on National Lands. Private property can be regulated and under laws of a particular state. Alaska for instance, wants A2 drilled, but is in a National Park, same as all off shore sites are under Federal Jurisdiction. Private lands, which much of the 'Bakken Oil Formation' is on and a good many other potential sites, require permits from a number of State/local authorities. (Federal, could have some permit but not aware of right to prevent (restrictions) actions on private land). This is true for any enterprise, but Environmental concerns fight corporations to the limits, where ever energy is involved...Yes, US Oil Companies are involved all around the world. They are the best at what they do and I'll add Halibuton
    (know your favorite), which is the best in their area. They are 'International Companies', and though have or maintain US Offices, most of there income (bottom lines) come from outside the US. In short, playing the US poetical/legal game, its cheaper for them...

    I would enjoy seeing some Activist Group, go into Saudi Arabia or China and attempt to do what they do in the US.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    Jackson,

    I hope you find the report because I'd like to read it. Meanwhile don't forget the claim you made:
    Clearing underbrush, from National Forest alone, would supply the paper needs for the world
    You are going to substantiate it aren't you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Bunbury; There are hundreds of ways to produce paper and/or paper products, wood pulp not the only nor is 100% pulp ever used...

    Clearing underbrush, is a little more than weeding your garden. Small trees, fallen branches, dead trees and many things are involved.

    There is no set figure for pulp per cord, as the type of tree and texture of paper will differ in how and density of the pulp. A cord of wood, however will produce up to 2000 pounds (1 ton) of very high quality paper. A cord is 128 cubic foot (4x4x8 ft, easily fitting on most pick up trucks). Cardboard, tissue and many paper products, require much less wood pulp and there are some products produced that use no pulp.

    There are 1,724,229 acre of National Forest in the US, most with a great deal of underbrush. Although no one is suggesting, even a reason to clean all this, the fact is or should be, doing so could supply the world with paper for some period of time.

    Many small forest, even parts of forest off the National forest land are on private property. Paper/Wood loggers or contractors, are often called on to clear (thin) these lands, in many cases being paid to clear a product they use and where lumber is involved the owners will be paid.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    5,305
    Routine brush clearing isn't practical.

    Gone are the days when we'd skid logs by horse a quarter mile through trees and flow them downstream. We use roads now, and road-based extraction machinery. In this model, the forest is densely networked with gawdawful roads, divided into blocks. We then carefully extract select trees, careful not to crush or scrape younger, naturally seeded trees, or we clear the whole block if it was planted as a single harvest (easier). The only exception to this is large clearcut.

    How are we going to work routine floor clearing? We go in and start dragging stuff out, we compact the soil, cause erosion in sloped lands, and certainly harm a lot of immature trees in the process. What kind of equipment could we use? A skidder wrecks everything in its path. Clearing in a standing woodlot is hugely labour intensive too.

    I think the only realistic time to extract "undergrowth" is when that's part of the "slash" generated by normal logging - either every 30-50 years in case of clearcut, or a modest volume of opportunity, maybe every 5, in the case of selective.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    The following data have been googled in the last ten minutes or so. I apologise for not quoting the references for the first two, but will go back and find them again if you like. I will also admit to mixing US and metric tons but they are close enough for this:

    1. World paper consumption is 300,000,000 tons per year.
    2. It takes about 2 tons of wood to make a ton of paper.
    3. The tonnage of underbrush in a certain forest (the only reference I could find and it isn't a US forest http://www.ejpau.media.pl/volume8/issue1/art-14.html) averages around 2.5 tons per hectare, and the maximum is 13 tons per hectare. Let's use the maximum of 13. A hectare is 2.471 acres so that's 5.26 tons per acre.

    Using the above data, we would need 600,000,000 tons of wood per year, and if underbrush is assumed to be 100% wood we would need to clear 600,000,000/5.26 = 114,068,441 acres of underbrush per year to supply the world with paper.

    There are (per your post) 1,724,229 acres of national forest in the US, so we could clear all the national forest underbrush and supply the world with paper for 1,724,229 /114,068,441 years, or 5.5 days.

    I think this is right, but feel free to correct any mistakes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard i_feel_tiredsleepy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Montreal
    Posts
    2,256
    Sounds right, I was always under the impression that the best source for paper production was small soft wood lumber, the pulp and paper industry in Quebec, which is the largest province in Canada, has left 5% of our forest uncut. We produce a massive amount of paper, but even with our huge forestry industry we don't come close to supplying the world.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Think, I understand the problem; The statement was intended rhetorical, not factual. Obviously the underbrush is not going to feed the world paper supplies into perpetuity. I am sure the original statement, had some referance to a time line, but even here the point was to emphasize the potential of 'using' rather than burning, at the time. I figured we understood underbrush, is an accumulation over years, in some cases centuries, cleaning it up was to a purpose (prevention of bodily or property) damage and some control over fires, from natural or man made cause.

    Quote Originally Posted by jackson33
    Bunbury;
    As for the CO2 argument itself, all the above feeds off CO2 in part, to no less degree than all humans or animal life is dependent on what those plants/trees produce. Food or oxygen. When messing with nature, the environmental extremist (IMO) are hurting both mankind and those forest more than helping anything. Clearing underbrush, from National Forest alone, would supply the paper needs for the world, reduce the natural clearing nature provides (fire), but is fought daily by those pretending concern.
    IFT; Canada and US, probably do supply most of the worlds 'paper product'. We were talking from underbrush. We use the majority at any rate and IMO could easily take production to 100%.

    On BB's figures, the point is there and figures correct, but a good share of paper products are in packaging, cardboard of sorts and display which are low grade paper products. As mentioned particle board, pressed wood chips, co uses the same material paper pulp comes from.

    This has been interesting, but before some one else mentions it, we have gotten a little off topic...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Isotope Bunbury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Colorado
    Posts
    2,590
    This rhetorical too?

    NASA observations are indicating additional forestry over the planet
    How about this?

    Clearing underbrush, from National Forest ... is fought daily by those pretending concern.
    Is it all rhetoric?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    1,595
    Well back, I altered to vegetation (forest/cropland) included (42-44%), somewhat drifting from Limbaugh quote. I do not disagree with his quote, but IMO, cropland does work the same for CO2 dispersement. By the way, the aguments opposed to Limbaugh, were that planted or tree farms are not equal to natural, which should/could be true for animal welfare or regenerations of soil, but are not valid for carbon storage.

    Your chart, is near correct on todays US forestry, which is about a third of the total US acreage. Where I and assume others would disagree are the estimates from earlier years, or that mankind could have been responsible. The relatively few people around, wouldn't have the means, ability or capacity to destroy 370 million acres of forest, slightly less than half of what exist today. Thats absurd...Then during and through the start of our 'industrial revolution', where telegraph/telephone lines, railroad tracks and sawed lumber, among other things, were thriving, your chart shows an increase. I did learn one thing though; 1.7 MA of National Forest is very low to the figure for total forestry 730-750 MA. I had thought a much higher percentage.

    Environmentalist, under any name or for any reason IMO, are and have been destructive to the very causes they pretend to protect, in most cases. What you believe, is for you or any person to decide. As a National Society, we cherish both the right of free speech and the use of courts to to achieve an end. The problems come from economics, which in the end cost each person, by loss in jobs, cost to products and ultimately the destruction of that society though social engineering.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •