26,000 sq km of Amazon Rainforest eliminated last year. 1/5
- Login to post comments
The problems with deforestation are many. The one that bothers me most is the loss of species. If it doesn't bother you then you need to read up on where our pharmaceuticals come from.John, you will find that if any of your kids or friends' kids get chilhood leukemia, it will be an obscure little plant that will likely pull them through it.
For immediate release:From the associated screw ball express:Micky Dees and Burger King can help stop deforestation of rain forests.The management of these two fast food chains have been in negotiations with Brazilian Leaders for months on the sale of Brazilian citizens for meat processing to make burgers for third world countries.Brazilian leaders have been holding out for more money per head executives say but they are very close to working out a equitable price. If we can get them for half the price of cattle we can make a huge profit in our outlets across the globe as well as rid society of the unwanted population that are only a burden on society, one executive said. Also by riding Brazil of its population there will be no one left to cut down the rain forests. “If we can make this work it will be a good model for other countries that want to rid their population of unwanted citizens“. When one Brazilian official was contacted and asked his opinion he stated it was a win win situation for everyone. He and the fast food chains could get rich off the deal and the forests would be saved. It will also relive these unwanted people from their meaningless existence. "How more Humanitarian can we be?", one offical said. It is expected that Brazilian Citizens will beat out soy as Brazil’s number one export by 2008 if the deal goes through.Greenpeace was ecstatic about the deal. Kill the people and save the forest has always been our motto. One executive was quoted as saying they are just a bunch of unwanted tree monkeys anyhow. The sooner we get them into the food chain the better. I hear they taste like chicken another spokesman said.Initial taste tests in China and Mexico showed great popularity with the new Brazilian chicken burger as it will be called. The sale of the new burgers are expected to hit fast food chains by 2006.[ 05-19-2005: Message edited by: Rickie Keim ]
Great post by Michelle. The growing problem of illiteracy gets a great deal of publicity. A neglected field that receives so little attention that the term is virtually unknown is "innumeracy". That is the situation in our country where the average citizen has no understanding of fundamental numerical facts. It makes them unable to make rational decisions. The problem is particularly acute in Augusta where innumerates seem to be drawn together by some force not yet understood. There was a popular book a few years back that very clearly explained, "Why Johnny Can't Read". A follow up book is titled, "Why Johnny Can't Add". Now there is a book titled, "Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong". It seems we have been taken over by a system where there is no right or wrong. Back around 1970 there was a book titled, "I'm OK; You're OK". The premise was that everything is OK and if you say something is not OK then you are the problem. We have documented here on these pages that Maine is gaining 77,000 acres of forest per year and we are now the most heavily forested state. We can afford to gain a little less. If we don't reduce the rate of forest takeover we might evetually lose Augusta to forest. How bad would that be? Some ice fields in the northern hemisphere are receding. The calamitous predictions of global sea rises are not happening. Why not? There are two simple reasons. Ice in the ocean floats. When the ice melts it's like ice melting in a drink. The glass does not overflow when ice melts in a drink and the ocean does not overflow when ice melts there either. There is no change in mass.The other reason there is no rise is that the ice sheet in the Antarctic is increasing. Global warming is caused by the sun, just like global cooling. It is not caused by factories, cars or hair spray. It has been going on forever, since long before cars or hair spray. The earth is in a relatively stable mass balance and it is the epitomy of conceit that the environmental industry believes man can disrupt climate on a global scale. The environmental industry has its limited success with this scam because so much of the population is innumerate and easily fooled.
Yo' CHRIS...start a boycott of BURGER KING, WENDYS, and MCDONALDS burgers in Maine.An analysis I read, states that the clearcuts are needed to create pasture and crops for cattle which are mostly ground up to make those cheap burgers people in LA love to eat.So if you really want to stop the destruction of the Amazon, you have to get the DEM's to boycott the fast food burger joints in Maine...and learn that everything is interconnected in some way.fjh.
quote:Originally posted by Roger Ek:
Some ice fields in the northern hemisphere are receding. The calamitous predictions of global sea rises are not happening. Why not? There are two simple reasons. Ice in the ocean floats. When the ice melts it's like ice melting in a drink. The glass does not overflow when ice melts in a drink and the ocean does not overflow when ice melts there either. There is no change in mass.The other reason there is no rise is that the ice sheet in the Antarctic is increasing. Global warming is caused by the sun, just like global cooling. It is not caused by factories, cars or hair spray. It has been going on forever, since long before cars or hair spray. The earth is in a relatively stable mass balance and it is the epitomy of conceit that the environmental industry believes man can disrupt climate on a global scale. The environmental industry has its limited success with this scam because so much of the population is innumerate and easily fooled.
Once again, a conservative doesn't understand the science.Yes, ice melting in a glass (if the ice is below the water line) doesn't raise the total water line. In fact it actually lowers the total height of the water line (because ice is less dense- takes up more volume than water- not because of "equal mass" like you said). However, this is grade 3 science and climate change experts, astoundingly, take it into consideration when calculating predictions. Much of the ice sheets are ABOVE sea level and thus, when they melt, they RAISE the sea level. The sea level has gone up measurably in the past 100 years.Secondly, yes, the antarctic ice is growing. This is a product of increased snowfall over the southern pole predicted by global warming models. However, temperatures are still rising and if the melting effect overtakes the rate of snowfall deposition then we will have a serious problem on our hands.
News LinkThe University of Maine is taking part in the research on whether or not the antarctic ice is melting. Link
quote:Originally posted by thinkabit:
The sea level has gone up measurably in the past 100 years.
How much? "Measurably" is such a wiggly word. Since science is capable of measuring things at the molecular level, your remark means little unless you tell us how much.I know, for example, that sea levels have risen enough in just the last 1,300 years to completely bury a 7th century city in India. However, since the city had been hidden beneath the ocean long enough that it's existence was remembered only as a myth when the first Western account was written in the 1700s, it'll be hard for today's Chicken Littles to blame that ocean rise on SUVs. Also the speed of the apparent sea level rise (of what, 100' to bury a city?) occurred makes it clear that dear Ms. Gaia is perfectly capable of sudden change without the intervention of Exxon or soccer moms. Perhaps the continent sank? (I can hear it now, "The continent is sinking! The continent is sinking!")I mention this not because I want to challenge the notion that the earth may indeed be warming, or to question whether it's something we should indeed pay attention to. I mention it because I wish more people would bother to see through the willfully misleading "warnings" of those people would react to "global warming" with the same reckless approach they insisted on in forest fire management in the West, or with the outrageous excesses imposed under guise of the endangered species act.Excuse my distrust, but I can't help but observe that "global warming" is being used as a tool by the radical left as an excuse for taking a meat cleaver to the global (and particularly the U.S.) economy on the premise that the world must take immediate action to reverse or reduce global warming, when in reality the target is "capitalism". As this thread demonstrates, it's impossible to have a reasoned discussion about any environmental issue with the vocal and radical left that wants to own the debate. If you disagree, you are a "conservative" with a "third grade" mentality. Today's committed "activist" use the same dire warnings and predictions of gloom and doom that were used to kill the further development of nuclear power in the U.S. in the 1970s and 80s -- a time when it was clear we needed to move away from oil. It could be argued (easily) that the radical left are themselves responsible for the U.S. dependence of foreign oil, and that their arch nemesis, "Dick Cheney", is a creation of their own making.Fueling my distrust of the motives of the radical environmental-socialist left -- that their true target is the U.S. economy, not environmentalism -- is my own observation that, once they killed nuclear power development in the U.S., they lost interest. I don't recall much in the way of protests in the beloved socialist enclave of France, which increased its reliance on nuclear power unhindered through the 80s and 90s, and which now enjoys today perhaps the best breeder reactor technology in the world.I could go on. My point, when I read the self-righteous posts of people like Thinkabit, is that I can't help but wonder if they are merely the useful idiots of the neo-Leninist socialist movement, or if they can possibly truly believe the BS they spew.Sure, let's talk about Global Warming if you want. But if you think I need to sign on to a piece of political BS like Kyoto to be heard, you can buzz off.[ 05-20-2005: Message edited by: NoneDare ]
quote:Originally posted by NoneDare:
How much?
Only about a centimeter a decade. And the sunken city in India was not caused by sea level rising, but most likely by an earthquake or erosion. The land went down, the sea did not go up. It has NOTHING to do with sea level rises due to global warming.
quote:Originally posted by NoneDare:
Excuse my distrust, but I can't help but observe that "global warming" is being used as a tool by the radical left as an excuse for taking a meat cleaver to the global (and particularly the U.S.) economy on the premise that the world must take immediate action to reverse or reduce global warming, when in reality the target is "capitalism".
Some people who hate capitalism do use global warming as a reason. I am a capitalist, myself, but global warming is a good example that capitalism fails to deliver the best result for everyone when certain actors (polluters) can push external costs onto others. A pure capitalistic system works best without subsidies, but pollutors are subsidizing their activities on the rest of us without our permissions, and that is wrong, and can only be corrected by government action. There is good government action and bad government action. Yet, one can be a capitalist in general and still support Kyoto. You are confusing "capitalist" with "fundamentalist conservative." They are not identical. The world does not exist in black and white.
quote:Originally posted by NoneDare:
As this thread demonstrates, it's impossible to have a reasoned discussion about any environmental issue with the vocal and radical left that wants to own the debate. If you disagree, you are a "conservative" with a "third grade" mentality.
I didn't say a third grade mentality- I said third grade science. And it was. If it wasn't, please explain to me why it wasn't. I'm sorry for calling it like it is. Where have I not been having a "reasoned" discussion? When I dispute poster's facts that are wrong?
quote:Originally posted by NoneDare:
I could go on. My point, when I read the self-righteous posts of people like Thinkabit, is that I can't help but wonder if they are merely the useful idiots of the neo-Leninist socialist movement, or if they can possibly truly believe the BS they spew.
I'm only presenting the science, which is not given a fair shake on this board. But thanks for letting me know you're reading. You may call me idiotic, but it is people thinking the way I think that make your medicine, cure your wounds, and improve your quality of life. If scientists used the level of scientific inquiry presented from some posters on this board, we'd still be learning how to make toast.[ 05-20-2005: Message edited by: thinkabit ]
You can make toast? Really? Cool! Ummm...can you e-mail me how?
Do you seriously think Kyoto would have any noticable effect on global warming compared to the very noticable effect it would have on Western economies?http://www.asmainegoes.com/ubb-scripts/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=1&t=030090
Whoa, hold on a minute. We've got unresolved issues. Please tell me why my analysis of the "third-grade" science of the ice-cube example was not "reasonable." Please tell me what the Indian city has to do with sea level rises, because I'm dying to know.
THINKABIT....screw the science and all those fancy models; all you have to do is examine records of Maine Lighthousekeepers. You should get very accurate measures of sea level for the past 300 years, throughout the seasons and for both high and low tides. I think the sea was higher in the 1700's....just want to save you some time and math.fjh.
Time for me to be serious for a moment.
quote:Originally posted by FJH:
I think the sea was higher in the 1700's.
If that’s true FJH then ocean levels don’t mean very much in the measurement of global warming.THINKABIT couldn’t land changes under the ocean raise or lower water levels as well? The Hawaiian islands of course were created by volcanoes and are expanding today because of them. There are many other examples of volcano’s and other things under the ocean that are always changing.When you talk about “incremental†levels over decades this “could†be caused by many different things other then melting ice caps. I also must point out that the caps as you have said are “Growing†not shrinking. Knowing that I would have to attribute very slowly rising ocean levels (almost immeasurable) to other things like changing land mass under the ocean. For instance if the bottom of the ocean rose 1/100 of a inch because of expanding hot gasses, lava and so on in the earth then the oceans would raise the same level would it not? We know volcano’s can grow in size for 100’s sometimes thousands of years before they explode and the oceans are a hugely unexplored place.You use the term “General consensus of scientists†to show you are right. In high school 20 years ago the “General consensus of scientists†on what could be considered a like issue was that the universe was 7 to 8 billion years old. Now the “General consensus of scientists†on the age of the universe is 15 billion or more. It is quite conceivably possible that they are wrong now.
5 years ago the “General consensus of scientists†was that the universe was slowing down in its expansion because of course gravity. One man with no real scientific background has changed the “General consensus of scientists†and now shown that the universe is not slowing down, it is in fact according to the data speeding up in its expansion going against all known physics. In other words this is impossible unless we change the laws of physics and as you probably know that would be like trying to change 2+2=4 to 2+2=3 or 6. Or trying to change Einstein’s equation of E=MC2 which has held up under great scrutiny since the day he thought of it.And of course the “General consensus of scientists†(if they could be called that at the time, more like religious observations) was the world was flat. Just one person thinking “outside the box†proved them all wrong.We have taken core samples in Antarctica of ice from thousands upon thousands of years ago that tell us the “Green house gas†levels at different times on the earth have been far higher then they are today. This of course is attributed to huge Volcanic eruptions the likes of which man has never seen. For instance like Yellowstone erupting. Now after all that my point is simply this. The earth has undergone many changes in its time. Scientists, even when they agree can be very very wrong. The earth has faced far higher “green house gas†levels yet man is still hear and managed to survive. So has plant and animal life of many different kinds.The “Were Doom!†cry from environmentalists is really without merit and falls on many deaf ears today. You can only cry wolf so many times before people just don’t listen.[ 05-20-2005: Message edited by: Rickie Keim ]
Rickie,No one says were doomed. We're saying "maybe it would be smarter to not cause the problem rather than work around it later."Second, land can change ocean depth as well. But it works both ways and tends to cancel itself out. And this effect is smaller than global warming, which acts by:
- melting ice, which adds water to the ocean
- warming ocean temperatures, because warmer water has a higher volumeThis article goes into the scientific debate over ocean rising, and how it is basically a debate over which causes more: the expansion of water at higher temperatures or the increase in water from melting glaciers.The paper below goes into sea-level rising in more depth. It is discussing methods of measurement, but gives a brief overview of the problem.http://ibis.grdl.noaa.gov/SAT/pubs/papers/2004BackscatterSSH.pdfThe antarctic ice cap is growing, yes, but the northern ice cap is shrinking.
NASAAnd as far as the consensus of scientists issue goes- Yes, scientists are often wrong.The age of the universe- they were wrong. It was older. But the first estimate was based on the best evidence at the time, and the second evidence is based on the best evidence now. But no one has presented any real evidence (not previously dismissed) that scientists today are wrong about global warming. The accelerating expanding universe jury is still out. It is related to the cosmological constant, not E=MC squared. It is not changing the laws of physics, but yes, it would be a big deal and would change ideas about the balance of mass and energy in the universe. (Dark energy)Volcanoes - please provide data. I am unaware of any volcanic eruptions that would increase CO2 to higher than it is today within the history of the ice cores (although undoubtedly huge volcanic eruptions millions of years ago might have). Show me the ice core data where CO2 was higher than today. Please.Man has certainly never faced higher levels of CO2.Those who believed the Earth was flat I wouldn't call scientists. The greek who did the math showing it was round, I would call him a scientist.If you choose not to believe the consensus, fine. But almost all the time, the consensus is right and any errors are simply refinements of earlier estimates.But it is very, very rare that a non-scientist ever proves the scientific consensus wrong. Very, very rare indeed.(To be clear, a scientist is defined as someone using the scientific method- they do not need to be funded with grants or "inside" the system, but if they are outsiders they must still use the same open methods of research and be willing to discuss their results critically- not simply write a book with a political slant, which is the type of "scientist" I fear many of you follow.)[ 05-20-2005: Message edited by: thinkabit ][ 05-20-2005: Message edited by: thinkabit ]
quote:Originally posted by FJH:
THINKABIT....screw the science and all those fancy models; all you have to do is examine records of Maine Lighthousekeepers. You should get very accurate measures of sea level for the past 300 years, throughout the seasons and for both high and low tides. I think the sea was higher in the 1700's....just want to save you some time and math.fjh.
Those determining that the sea level is rising use data such as you suggest, but from around the entire world, as well as recent satellite data. The sea is rising.
thinkabit,You selectively ignore, but insist I repeat myself to answer you? Not.You make your position clear by supporting junk politics like Kyoto.
:Sigh:Please, folks, please, please, all of you, sit down before you hurt yourselves.First, let's get the science straight. Ice melting in a glass in your cup at home does not raise the water level. Water is very unusual in that it is less dense when it first freezes. However if you continue to cool ice it does indeed grow more dense, to the point where volume expands when melting. As I recall that happens around 20 degrees farenheight. Remember PV=nRT for a gas? Those basic relationships usually still hold when the substance is a solid.Roger, it is true that melting polar ice does not raise water levels. But that is not the problem at all. The problem is that you are replacing a bright, white reflecting substance with an albedo of .9 (snow) with a dark, energy-absorbing substance with an albedo of, say, .4 or .5 (liquid water). That is a lot of surface area and a lot more solar energy being absorbed by the oceans.SIMPLE DEMONSTRATION I: Did you ever notice how you notice 'earthshine' in mid-winter? (earthshine is when light reflects off the earth and enables you to see the dark portion of the crescent moon). That is a real effect. During our winter the north pole, snow covered and highly reflective, is blasting more light back towards the moon. In fact, studying earthshine is one way to see whether overall northern ice is increasing or decreasing.:SIGH:OK, keep sitting folks. Keep your fingers off the darned keyboards.Roger and others are right that Antarctic ice does not seem to be melting. This is because, as the air gets warmer, it holds more water and snows more there. Snow is an EXTREMELY rare event in parts of antarctica.OK, so Antarctica is not the problem. HOWEVER, the evidence is incontrovertable that the Greenland ice sheet is melting, as are inland glaciers and snow packs. This is enough water to raise ocean levels by 7 meters!
HOWEVER, this STILL is not the big problem. The big problem is in that formula I quoted earlier, PV=nRT. Water expands when it gets warmer. Again, it is a charactaristic of almost all liquids. SIMPLE DEMONSTRATION II. Overtop your gas tank during the hottest portion of the day. You'll have 55 degree farenheit gas going in; park the car in 95 degree heat and watch the outpouring gasoline ruin your driveway.Ocean levels will rise because the water will warm, and because Greenland and other ice packs are melting. This will also mess with ocean currents, particularly bad for Europe.Finally, there is also no question that a whole lotta carbon is being released through slash and burn agriculture, i.e., deforestation. So greenhouse gasses are being pumped into the atmosphere.:WHEW:
Now, are there systems on the earth that help moderate global warming? SURE! For example, more moisture means more clouds; clouds are white and reflective, so have a cooling effect similar to snow packs. (They can also hold heat in).Also, in many places land masses are RISING! Coastal plains that were crushed under ice sheets are still rebounding, with that weight lifted from them. Except where the glaciers deposited a whole lot of material. Then there's uplift from plate tectonics ... THE MESSAGE HERE IS the earth is one heck of a complex system. We need to rely on computer models to predict where things are going. I am confident that the measurement problems are being solved through satellites such as TOPEX/POSIEDON. So it will come down to the computer models and the limits of what we can calculate with our given technology. We will get some answers, and we will get them soon. I see no reason to rush things. But it would also be foolhardy to wait too terribly long before taking action.HOWEVER (getting back to deforestation); what is an ABSOLUTELY proven effect of deforestation is Loss of Species. And that, more than anything, is where our own self interest here lies. More than 40% of all pharmaceuticals are discovered in botantical sources. Every time you cut one square mile of rain forest in Brazil, you likely lose a species. An obscure little flower is a main reason the survival rate for childhood leukemia has risen from 20% to 80%. Not to mention penicillan and other antibitoc miracle drugs. Think of every species as a little computer program that has run for thousands of years, and has solved a problem. It had to, to survive as a species. Maybe that problem has little use to us. But maybe it does. Why do sharks not get cancer? What is that about? Your common wood frog, right here in Maine, lives as far north as the tundra. Part of it freezes solid every winter, its heart never beats. Yet it survives. Somehow, the frogs' cells flood with glucose, which protects the cell membranes from being punctured by ice crystals. How can this be used to preserve donated human organs longer, or even to put someone to sleep until a cure is found for their now-incurable ailment?Another local example: Ever wonder why beech trees have smooth bark? Didja didja? It's to keep the orchids off. That's right, beech (and red oak) were once tropical rainforest plants! Another: Dr. James Christianson of the University of Iowa, one of the greatest herpetologists of our time, is doing research on turtles. After four decades of tracking individuals and populations, he has come to the conclusion that a couple of species may not have a set lifespan. That's right -- there's no internal parking meter that runs out. Left alone, some may live forever. Think about THAT.Another turtle mystery: The problem with cooling people down to super low temperatures for, say, a long space flight, or to treat a disease, is that while we may slow down, bacteria do not. They basically will eat you alive. But turtles have a cell that functions at very low temperatures, to kill bacteria. It has solved that problem. Think of the applications: a whole new way to fight infection and, perhaps, thousand year naps.Zea diploperennis. I bet John doesn't worry a lot about Zea diploperennis. It grows on one mountainside in mexico. It is corn. Like many wild varieties, it is disease resistant. But it has one unique feature that sets it apart from all other corn species: it is a perennial.Native prairie, near and dear to my heart. A good blacksoil Iowa prairie has two to four hundred plant species, all on a few acres. And yet, despite more than a hundred years of trying to 'plant' prairie, no one has been able to get more than about 100 species to grow. Why not? The answer is amazing. Underground there is a series of linear fungi. When a prairie plant grows, it send out chemical signals that connect the fungi to its roots. When a plant -- say, corn -- has excess nutrients, it transmits them to the fungi; another plant -- say, a bean plant -- takes it up and, in turn, puts what it has extra into the fungi. It is a huge, underground, road network carrying nutrients from one species of plan to another. The plants may even tell each other what they need. Kind of gives a whole new meaning to the definition of 'plant community', eh?Imagine the implications for agricutlure here; to produce tremendous biomass (food), and a diverse crop, year after year, without every plowing or planting or fertilizing, all the time BUILDING the soil?The above are just a few examples of the problems that species and communities have solved. Every time you cut a square mile of rainforest, you lose a species. It is as if we found a huge library of books, filled with cures for diseases, new ways to feed ourselves, to improve our lives and maybe even travel to the stars. But instead of reading these books, we sell them for firewood. We burn them and say 'that's not something I ever have to worry about.' Species loss is, to me, is the outcome of deforestation that we will regret the most. Yes, we should all worry about this problem, for it is a loss to all of us and to future generations. Will they forgive us if we ignore this problem? I think not. I KNOW not.
Thank you, K, for writing some very rational explanations. I'd like to go over my lessons from these postings.I have not "ignored" anything. I've tried my darndest to answer every post no matter how strange it is. Rather it is I who has been selectively ignored in almost all of my posts. It usually goes like this.Someone posts: No global warming because of A... (Volcanoes, ice-cube ideas, whatever)I say, but actually, A is not true. (Source)Someone posts: But there is still no global warming because of B!I say, but actually, B is not true either. (Source) No one has contradicted any evidence I've posted. No one. Not one of my links has been argued on the merits. I don't even know if people are reading them. People inevitably jump around to a completely different argument. I guess they think (and rightly so) that its harder to hit a moving target.No one seems to care about the true trends from the ice core data. No one seems to care about the history of CO2 levels. No one seems to care about the truth behind the "one volcano=more pollution than all of mankind" myth (which has come up twice!), or where it comes from, and what else the originator of that little story has to say. No one seems to care that the leading anti-global warming "scientist" who started most of these myths has been repeatedly shown to be a fraud. No one seems to care that that, when all factors are considered, the enormous, gigantic, highly respected consensus is that global warming is real AND humans are causing no small part of it.From this, all I can conclude is that every poster here believes in an enormous global conspiracy. Apparently, all climate scientists are involved because they are:
1. Socialists
2. Liars
3. Highschool dropouts (What? We should think about whether or not the ice is floating or on land? No way!)
and, 4., and this is the biggest- they are completely united. Climatologists act as one because they are EVIL! Not because of any "evidence." There couldn't be any "evidence!" They simply want to F*** you over. They know where you live. They know about you, they hate you, and so they made up this story to get back at you.Of course, there is no conspiracy. It is all in your head. Climatologists accept criticism. They spend years pouring over data and considering every possible conclusion. They do this, usually, for little reward other than pure knowledge, some respect in their field, and a small paycheck. They put up with frauds, who rarely write any peer reviewed papers yet often publish books placed right under Ann Coulter's latest in your local bookstore. The climatologist simply writes a response, it is published in "Nature" or something else no one here has ever read, and forgotton about. Meanwhile, Mr. Fraud convinces people like YOU of his myths, and not coincidently, makes a lot of money doing it!NoneDare, finally (I guess all the other myths about global warming had been taken), argues that we just can't trust science anyways. Where the hell does that leave us.As Ksher has said, something very, very important is at stake. The only thing I can take from this discussion that is positive is that, thank god, scientists are at least still allowed to write what they want even if no one listens. Someday, I fear that will change.
Boy do you sound like Lewiston Liberal. Nobody understands you.
quote:
NoneDare, finally (I guess all the other myths about global warming had been taken), argues that we just can't trust science anyways. Where the hell does that leave us.
Tell me where I made such an argument. In fact, I made a point to say I don't argue with the notion of “global warming" at all. I am not interested in arguing ice cube minutia with you. It's plain to me that everything predicted by "global warming" has already happened in earth history and will again, regardless of what we do. Don't take that as an argument for abuse of natural resources, wanton pollution, careless inattention to our responsibility to the other life on earth, or lack of concern for genetic diversity.Global warming is politics.
Thinkabit: This is a link to a chart on Climate Records from the Vostok Ice Core Covering over the Last 420,000 Years
linkYou will notice there is definitely a trend every 100,000 years or so of rises in Carbon dioxide and methane in the atmosphere without mans help and it has been higher then today even with our interference. As I have said they have no answers of what might have caused these changes but volcanic activity could be a definite factor. Of course there are many others as well.You will notice though that it shows very slow and gradual increases over 100,000 years (we are comming close to the end of another 100,000 year cycle) and then in less then 10,000 years it drops back to the bottom and starts all over again. Almost like volcanic activity isn’t it? Volcano’s lay dormant for many years, in some cases thousands before erupting. Perhaps the earth goes through a very active volcanic period every 100,000 years or so? Maybe one large volcano like Yellowstone erupting every 100,000 years? Guess work of course but plausible. I’m sure scientists s have debated it over the years.Whatever does it however the earth has no problem dealing with it for in a relatively short period of time it returns the atmosphere to what could be considered very low levels of these gases. One could speculate that the earth could move into a now “inactive†volcanic period of time explaining the quick drops in gasses. Of course again a lot of speculation on my part.No one truly knows how much of these gases it would take to devastate the earth (wipe out life or change it significantly or if it will do any real damage at all). What is told by this chart is it will take much more then there is now. I could now surmise that if we entered into this “increased†volcanic activity now added with our own “artificial†increases in gases this could cause devastating effects to the environment. Again plausible.But what should we call devastating effects? For instance the rain forests will turn to deserts but no one talks about other side effects that most likely would happen. Other places on the earth could turn into new and lush rain forests. Areas that are too cold most of the year to grow plants and for animals to live will now be able too. Shorter winters and warmer climates in northern hemispheres could be a good thing and it will be a very slow transition causing very little problems for the human race I suspect. Of course again this is all speculation for many reasons. There is no way to see what kind of changes in weather patterns would occur around the world. What I have learned from “Weather†models is they are usually wrong.As far as the universe goes perhaps I was unclear. It is now thought that the universe is expanding at a execrated rate. This is a relatively new revelation on new data. I’m sure we will hear much more about it in the future. In short a man found a way to find super novas in distant galaxies on demand. In other words on any given night they could look up and find one. This was as with everything else once thought to be impossible. While I don’t pretend to understand it they needed at least 50 super novas to calculate the speed of expansion of the universe. They found them of course and all data so far says it is expanding at a faster and faster rate. It should be slowing down. This is impossible within the laws of physics. Physics of course is using mathematics to understand many things. 2+2=4 and so on. Given the size, distances, gravity and so on this can’t be happening but it is. Now either the laws of physics are wrong or there is some unknown force in the universe that is pushing or pulling the galaxies apart. I think it’s the later or they are wrong to start with but only time will tell. :) Sorry to get so far off the subject of the thread but I find the universe a very interesting place. :D[ 05-20-2005: Message edited by: Rickie Keim ]
A poster said:'Global warming is politics. 'Yeah, and the right has made it so. What, do you believe Rush Limbaugh over peer reviewed articles in Nature or Science? A standard tactic of Rush's -- and of the right -- is to accuse the left of what the right is, in fact, doing itself.A climate scientist has no incentive to be proved wrong. That is not a path to success in academia -- to always be wrong. What, do you think there is a conspiracy here, between climate scientists and the left? That the climate scientists are ruining their own careers for some poltical agenda?The sad truth is that most Americans do not understand science and cannot tell what is real and what is baloney. Rush and the right make use of that. You can believe the scientists, you can believe Fox news. Or, you can learn to evaluate the research for yourself.I mean, look at that thread a while back on 'Gay Marriage' research. It quoted a brochure by a fellow named Cameron. It was being pushed by The Family Research Council, a so called 'Christian' organization. People here on AMG were taking the guy's research seriously -- calling it 'well researched', acting like it was the last word -- even though common sense showed it to be a pack of lies. I pointed out the many flaws and lies in the brochure -- it was not hard; I waited for a response and .... nothing. No response. None. The thread just ended. A lot of people here don't want to be confused by the facts. They'd rather tune in to talk radio, nod their heads in agreement as Rush or Savage villifies the left, and feel good about how smart and truly american they are compared to the lexus driving leftie socialist commie enviro-nuts Rush invents.I am not optimistic about the future for science or our country, given this politicization of science, and the public's apparent inability to tell hyperbole from fact. Look at how many Americans believe in alien flying saucers, ghosts, the earth being 7,000 years old, and woman literally being created from the rib of Adam. We cannot compete in a global economy like this, no way.
Rickie said:
====================
They found them of course and all data so far says it is expanding at a faster and faster rate. It should be slowing down. This is impossible within the laws of physics. Physics of course is using mathematics to understand many things. 2+2=4 and so on.
=====================Actually, one little constant added to Einstein's field equations describes this phenomenon just fine. He added this constant himself when shown evidence that the universe was expanding; he later retracted it, saying that it was the biggest blunder of his career. Now it looks like he may have been right originally. Another possibility is that the 'constant' is not really constant, but a function of time.It is possible that this 'constant' is a stand in for the energy contained in the extra dimensions required for string theory to be correct. Another piece of evidence that Einstein's equations are not exactly right, is the 'Pioneer Anomaly'.Remember Pioneer 10 and 11, which first scoped out Jupiter and Saturn three decades ago? You know, the one with the Playboy Model on a gold plaque, and instructions showing alien civilizations what planet they need to go to to meet her? We tracked them for a long time before we lost contact. And they are NOT where they ought to be. They are many hours behind where they should be, as predicted by our existing physics. So the first time we send probes into (almost)interstellar space, we find our physics does not describe their behavior. I love that about science and discovery. This could, again, be evidence of extra dimensions, absorbing energy at a small but measurable rate, and requiring some tweaking of Einstein.
I have a question. This "rain forest" that you refer to; is it the same place that used to be called a "jungle?"Why is it gone? Why won't it grow back like other "forests?"
posted 05-20-2005 11:53 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have a question. This "rain forest" that you refer to; is it the same place that used to be called a "jungle?"
Why is it gone? Why won't it grow back like other "forests?" ----------------Good question. Yep, I'm sure that in many cases it would be called a jungle -- though I'm not sure that all jungle is rain forest.My understanding is that when rain forest is cut and burned, it is usually managed for cattle or row cropped for a few years, then abandoned. The soils are typically (paradoxically) very poor in nutrients. Almost everything is being used or recycled so efficiently in a rain forest, soil and nutrients do not really build up. I'm no ecologist, but from what I've picked up, that's how it works.I would imagine, given the rainfall, you would eventually get forest back. But it would take a long time, and of course the extinct species would not come back. Evolution would continue, and something else might evolve to fill the empty niches, I would think. But this all takes time, lots of time. Again, my concern is not so much for the amount of forest cover, but for the quality/diversity of what is there.There is a general rule that the closer you are to the equator, the more diversity you get. More energy (direct sunlight) means more raw materials for plants and critters to work with which means more niches/ways of making a living for species. So as wonderful as Maine Woods are, they simply do not compare with tropical forests in terms of biodiversity, nor even with more southern U.S. forest types.
thanks for the note, thinkabit, but your settings do not allow for a reply (you are not accepting private messages)
"The environment ministry said 26,000 sq km of forest were chopped down in the 12 months prior to August 2004."That's 6.4 million acres or 17,500 acres per day. That's about 3/4 of a Maine township every day for a year. Environmentalists and liberals of every stripe are too quick to publish numbers. The number of slaves supposedly thrown overboard from ships in the Atlantic exceeded the population of Africa if you run the numbers. They need to pay more attention to orders of magnitude and decimal points.The "third grade arithmetic" poster who questioned my credibility has confused mass with specific gravity. It's specific gravity that changes as ice melts, not mass.
This whole thread is a reaction to a BBC article quoting Greenpeace. BBC and Greenpeace? I can't think of a combination more likely to produce a distorted story.
They were quoting the Brazilian government...Whatever..c.
The figures check out.There's a pretty map here:http://rainforests.mongabay.com/amazon/amazon_destruction.html
And I should mention that this is a VERY easy number to obtain from satellite imagery. At 3m resolution, and using erdas/imagine, you would get to a pretty good number pretty quickly. Forest and open land have very different spectra, and if you catch it at the right time of year the analysis is trivial -- you can pick forest and open land out with the naked eye. (I have done it).
- Login to post comments
Hey,I heard on the news the other night that President Bush likes to cut wood and Brush when hes at his ranch...Just where is this ranch Hmmmmmmmmm?