Global Warming

[GrigoriySidelnikov]

interesting information on Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

Global Warming Frequently Asked Questions

[russianrocket]

Here is even more interesting information
Probing the cosmic-ray–climate link - physicsworld.com
Sun Causes Climate Change Shock – Telegraph Blogs
Perry Vs. Gore - Investors.com


If you actually pay close attention, all these climate changes have been going on long before man would have been able to cause them. All the earth quakes and the hurricanes, have been happening as well.

[garentee]

That climate change is occurring is not debatable.. It is happening and it is going to continue. As a farmer I am very aware of what is happening in the weather and do keep some records of what the weather was like over the course of a given season and over several seasons. One of the most striking things that I have noticed is the amount of severe thunderstorms that are hitting my area. Hail used to happen quite rarely, but in the past 5 years hail storms have become a lot more frequent. Long trends of excessive ly wet weather has plagued our region in two of the past 4 years to the point of serious crop damage and massive flooding.
There are also other harbingers of change.. many species of birds are coming back earlier from down south and staying later.. this may not seem like a big deal, but it can be if their food supply is not in season when they return...
Bottom line is that Global climate change is going to affect ALL of us in a big way in ways we cannot imagine right now...

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by garentee

That climate change is occurring is not debatable.. It is happening and it is going to continue. As a farmer I am very aware of what is happening in the weather and do keep some records of what the weather was like over the course of a given season and over several seasons. One of the most striking things that I have noticed is the amount of severe thunderstorms that are hitting my area. Hail used to happen quite rarely, but in the past 5 years hail storms have become a lot more frequent. Long trends of excessive ly wet weather has plagued our region in two of the past 4 years to the point of serious crop damage and massive flooding.
There are also other harbingers of change.. many species of birds are coming back earlier from down south and staying later.. this may not seem like a big deal, but it can be if their food supply is not in season when they return...
Bottom line is that Global climate change is going to affect ALL of us in a big way in ways we cannot imagine right now...

Have you been a farmer for the past 200 or even 2000 years? If not, then, you probably haven't been around long enough to claim that climate change IS happening, or even in what direction it's happening, or if this is normal. We barely have any record. We can't say that storms were not like this 100 years ago. Maybe hail used to happen quite often, and slowed down? There really is very little we can say. Lets not pretend.

And if it wasn't debatable, then why do so many people debate it? Climate change is one of the biggest DEBATES going on right now. I'd say climate change is debatable.

[garentee]

True enough I have not been around for that long...However most of the information of older weather data can be sourced from tree rings and ice core samples.. and a lot of it does point towards climate change that is not of a normal nature..certainly the climate is always changing however it does not generally change quite as erratically as it has been.. in my mind it is not debatable..
Maybe we ought to leave the Jungles in tact instead of cutting them down... I believe that has a lot to do with the changes we see...

[WarrenG]

russianrocket,

Are you debating that the globe is getting warmer, or that the change is man-made?

Even if it's the latter, the physics world link describes a lab study that implies that the suns rays could impact atmospheric temperature, but closer to the Earth, something else is needed in addition to that to cause warming, which may or may not be man-made. And it says more research is needed.

The other link talks about wasted money on looking for renewable sources of energy etc., but even if it wasn't man-made, there are other reasons not to burn fossil fuels and move to more renewable sources, such as, fossil fuels are a finite resource, and the less there is, the more expensive it becomes to extract, and the higher the chance of conflict there is over what's left. This would not be a good scenario if sea levels are rising, food production is shifting, and people are migrating.

[Clint Cora]

I just feel for the polar bears - maybe it's a Canadian thing.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by garentee

True enough I have not been around for that long...However most of the information of older weather data can be sourced from tree rings and ice core samples.. and a lot of it does point towards climate change that is not of a normal nature..certainly the climate is always changing however it does not generally change quite as erratically as it has been.. in my mind it is not debatable..
Maybe we ought to leave the Jungles in tact instead of cutting them down... I believe that has a lot to do with the changes we see...

Climate change is never fake. What’s fake is that man is causing it. But no one knows what the climate is changing to, and what it should be. It’s just easier to blame an alleged weather "anomaly" on man. "It’s hot, so it must be global warming." But if you look back 100 years, there were PLENTY of weather anomaly. You can't say it hasn't general changed as erratically. Tree rings only go so far. Ice core samples still don't tell the whole story. We've had the ice age, yet no man to make it. We've had the world extremely hot, and no man to make it. Anyone that claims that we know just how the world works, is a liar.

If you look into it, the amount of trees that have been cut down, is negligible. The vast majority of forests, are still packed with trees.

You keep having scientists outed, as fakers. You have an entire climate research group, caught lying in their results, once their emails are hacked. You have the biggest proponent of global warming, which is now climate change, which used to be global cooling, who has the most invested into the company that makes money from carbon credits. This is a multii multi billion dollar industry we are talking about here. Come on. Open your eyes, if not to see that it's fake, but to see that this is not even close to an open and shut case. Even that whole " most scientists agree" is bullcrap.

[WarrenG]

You keep having scientists outed, as fakers. You have an entire climate research group, caught lying in their results, once their emails are hacked.

What do you mean? Are you referring to the "Trick" thing that got a lot of press a couple of years ago? Or something else?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by WarrenG

What do you mean? Are you referring to the "Trick" thing that got a lot of press a couple of years ago? Or something else?

Hacked E-Mail Is New Fodder for Climate Dispute - NYTimes.com


As I said. Climate change is a multi billion dollar industry. Lets not pretend that it's unbiased.

[WarrenG]

But what about this?:

6. Climate Change -- Those hacked e-mails - YouTube
Clearing up misconceptions regarding 'hide the decline'

[russianrocket]

we can just keep posting articles back and forth. I have at least 100 to refute what ever you might post up.

You have a million websites both for, and against global warming/climate change/anthropomorphic change.

That alone should tell you not to believe crap that you read. Me, I'd rather er on the side of caution, and go for the side that has the least money invested, and the least amount of media behind them. Whether or not it's true, I feel much more comfortable being on this side.

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

we can just keep posting articles back and forth. I have at least 100 to refute what ever you might post up.

You have a million websites both for, and against global warming/climate change/anthropomorphic change.

That alone should tell you not to believe crap that you read. Me, I'd rather er on the side of caution, and go for the side that has the least money invested, and the least amount of media behind them. Whether or not it's true, I feel much more comfortable being on this side.

Can you refute what the guy in the video said? Cos I haven't seen a decent rebuke to that, if you know of any please let me know. And can they be better sources than the Telegraph if possible?

Also, isn't the side of caution to assume that it is man-made, because if it isn't, and we get to renewable energy by 2050 etc, that had a load of other benefits, at least from the point of view of maintaining our current lifestyle (which I'm guessing is what you'd prefer, I'm not so sure myself but the alternative involves a lot of pain so it's not an easy decision to come to).

[ChrisGinsburg]

From my perspective it is clear that the earth goes through periods of climate change completely on its own. It is also clear that there are a number of things as a species we are doing to help push the pendulum of climate in one way or another perhaps faster or in a direction we can not predict. The oceans are clearly rising and increasing in temperature in many areas. The ice caps are showing increased melting. Pollution and man made chemical combinations are being released into the air with little understanding of the full impact. Sure, it may all be one giant coincidence with the earth's natural changes but it's kind of like the guy who eats McDonalds his whole life who gets colon cancer. Sure, it may have just been a genetic predisposition but lets not discount the obvious.

[Donatas Kaulinis]

we can just keep posting articles back and forth. I have at least 100 to refute what ever you might post up.

Is the fact that there are a lot of articles refuting what other articles say make them valid and trustworthy? There are lot's of sites where you can read that the earth is 6000 years old, moon landing was faked and the end of the world will undeniably happen in 2012.

The only way to argue this topic without being a climatologist is regurtitating things you heard from other people who are more knoledgable on this than you. Who and why do you trust?

I have never heard scientists with degrees say that climate change is only man made. I have never heard anyone say that. It doesn't make any sense.

Have you seen The Most Terrifying Video You'll Ever See?

EDIT: This may be considered a sort of a louzy argument but Stephen Hawking agrees that Global Warming is significantly effected by human kind's actions.

[garentee]

[QUOTE=russianrocket;.

If you look into it, the amount of trees that have been cut down, is negligible. The vast majority of forests, are still packed with trees.

[/QUOTE]

That is patently untrue.. Half of the worlds Jungles have been either burned or cut down.. that is hardly negligible.. it is a serious issue and it has serious consequences for all of us.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by garentee

That is patently untrue.. Half of the worlds Jungles have been either burned or cut down.. that is hardly negligible.. it is a serious issue and it has serious consequences for all of us.

The united states, for example, GAINS a million acres every day. China is just a little bit further behind. The total global acres lost every year has been cut in half since 10 years ago. Don't talk to me about something being PATENTLY untrue. Show me where HALF the worlds jungles have been burned or cut down. Most of the trees cut down, can go back over 100 years ago. We have zero control over that. The only reason you are so comfy on your computer right now, probably has a big part to do with deforestation. So don't look a gift horse in the mouth. As far as that 50% figure. it's funny, cause every website I looked at, doesn't actually say 50% starting from WHEN. 100 years ago? 1000? 10,000?

99.9% of all species of animals is gone from the planet.

Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East are the biggest cutters of trees. Yet, in those areas, there is no longer any deforestation, and regrowth has now occurred.

it's like global warming. You have 2 different sets of people throwing out two completely different sets of data.

[James Fletcher]

My position on the issue stands:

Climate change "science" should never be treated as dogma.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

The united states, for example, GAINS a million acres every day. China is just a little bit further behind. The total global acres lost every year has been cut in half since 10 years ago. Don't talk to me about something being PATENTLY untrue. Show me where HALF the worlds jungles have been burned or cut down. Most of the trees cut down, can go back over 100 years ago. We have zero control over that. The only reason you are so comfy on your computer right now, probably has a big part to do with deforestation. So don't look a gift horse in the mouth. As far as that 50% figure. it's funny, cause every website I looked at, doesn't actually say 50% starting from WHEN. 100 years ago? 1000? 10,000?

99.9% of all species of animals is gone from the planet.

Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East are the biggest cutters of trees. Yet, in those areas, there is no longer any deforestation, and regrowth has now occurred.

it's like global warming. You have 2 different sets of people throwing out two completely different sets of data.

A forest takes a LONG time to become a forest and I highly highly doubt that the US is adding anywhere near a million acres per day.. merely planting trees does not make a forest.. a forest depends on many species of trees and animals to be considered a forest. Moreover the rainforest once cut does not regenerate to what it once was.. once it is cut or burned (Mainly for agricultural uses), that is generally it. I will grant you that there is generally not a set date that we have lost that much forest land, BUT it is happening at a high rate.. consider what is in the jungle .....Rainforest Facts

[Mariana Trench]

Originally Posted by garentee

A forest takes a LONG time to become a forest and I highly highly doubt that the US is adding anywhere near a million acres per day.. merely planting trees does not make a forest.. a forest depends on many species of trees and animals to be considered a forest. Moreover the rainforest once cut does not regenerate to what it once was.. once it is cut or burned (Mainly for agricultural uses), that is generally it. I will grant you that there is generally not a set date that we have lost that much forest land, BUT it is happening at a high rate.. consider what is in the jungle .....Rainforest Facts

Exactly. The statistics RR sites include the monoculture logging replants that are going to be clear cut and planted again. Those aren't forests, but they look good to count.

[WarrenG]

Originally Posted by James Fletcher

My position on the issue stands:

Climate change "science" should never be treated as dogma.

Nor should any science.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Exactly. The statistics RR sites include the monoculture logging replants that are going to be clear cut and planted again. Those aren't forests, but they look good to count.

I'm not quoting this as fact but I was watching a National Geographic special yesterday and they were talking about mass clear cutting in the rainforest. They pointed out that it can take upwards of 1000 years for it to fully grow back.

[Sfumato]

WHO said we don't have weather records going back hundreds of years?!

Ever read the Whitehall weather logs of the 1700's? The Roman "navy" also kept records of weather patterns to help determine the best times to sail. It does not have to be scientifically codified, metered and measured by modern instruments for the record to be accurate. Nearly all humans can look outside and say "Damn its raining alot this week" or and Naval scribe to record prevailing winds and weather. There exists fairly good weather records from the worlds military forces that some have argued show a clear pattern of climate changes over both short term and long term periods.

Incidentally, how do most of you compare the climate patters seen in 1920's and 1930's North America and today? Not specifically the destruction of the fields in the mid-west (we know that was directly linked to the industrialization of farming in lands that were not capable of supporting heavy Agro) but the actual climate shift that help bring the "dust bowl" about.

[Acting Like Godot]

I was thinking about trees and global warming.

Planting trees is considered environmental because trees absorb carbon dioxide from the air, converting the C in CO2 into wood, thereby reducing CO2 levels, thereby reducing the greenhouse effect, thereby reducing global warming.

So goes the theory.

Now, the reality is that when trees die, decomposition occurs, the wood breaks down and Co2 is released back into the atmosphere. This is true for plants in general, including shrubs, herbs, bushes, grass etc.

Trees are regarded as more effective though, simply because they are much larger and more long-lived than other plants, that is, they absorb more carbon dioxide and hold the carbon much longer before it goes back into the atmosphere.

Nevertheless trees eventually die anyway, and if they decompose completely, they re-release all the carbon dioxide they had absorbed and utilized to make wood.

So it turns out that to reduce global warming, what we should do is use more treated wood (which does not decompose) for durable products with a long lifespan, as opposed to using other materials (such as metals, plastic etc).

Eg use wooden tables, chairs, flooring, doors, fences, bed frames etc.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I was thinking about trees and global warming.

Planting trees is considered environmental because trees absorb carbon dioxide from the air, converting the C in CO2 into wood, thereby reducing CO2 levels, thereby reducing the greenhouse effect, thereby reducing global warming.

So goes the theory.

Now, the reality is that when trees die, decomposition occurs, the wood breaks down and Co2 is released back into the atmosphere. This is true for plants in general, including shrubs, herbs, bushes, grass etc.

Trees are regarded as more effective though, simply because they are much larger and more long-lived than other plants, that is, they absorb more carbon dioxide and hold the carbon much longer before it goes back into the atmosphere.

Nevertheless trees eventually die anyway, and if they decompose completely, they re-release all the carbon dioxide they had absorbed and utilized to make wood.

So it turns out that to reduce global warming, what we should do is use more treated wood (which does not decompose) for durable products with a long lifespan, as opposed to using other materials (such as metals, plastic etc).

Eg use wooden tables, chairs, flooring, doors, fences, bed frames etc.

While this is true that all the carbon is released from a dying plant or tree, it is not ALL released back into the atmosphere... it goes back in to the soil as well.. which makes the soil healthier.. and does keep carbon dioxide out of the air..but it is a very complex situation with many m any components. I think we cannot buy our way out of this kind of a situation... the market will NOT solve the problem...
For interesting reading Check out anything having to do with the carbon cycle....

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Mariana Trench

Exactly. The statistics RR sites include the monoculture logging replants that are going to be clear cut and planted again. Those aren't forests, but they look good to count.

Does it matter if they are monoculture logging? We are in a "global warming" thread, not an environmental protection thread.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I was thinking about trees and global warming.

Planting trees is considered environmental because trees absorb carbon dioxide from the air, converting the C in CO2 into wood, thereby reducing CO2 levels, thereby reducing the greenhouse effect, thereby reducing global warming.

So goes the theory.

Now, the reality is that when trees die, decomposition occurs, the wood breaks down and Co2 is released back into the atmosphere. This is true for plants in general, including shrubs, herbs, bushes, grass etc.

Trees are regarded as more effective though, simply because they are much larger and more long-lived than other plants, that is, they absorb more carbon dioxide and hold the carbon much longer before it goes back into the atmosphere.

Nevertheless trees eventually die anyway, and if they decompose completely, they re-release all the carbon dioxide they had absorbed and utilized to make wood.

So it turns out that to reduce global warming, what we should do is use more treated wood (which does not decompose) for durable products with a long lifespan, as opposed to using other materials (such as metals, plastic etc).

Eg use wooden tables, chairs, flooring, doors, fences, bed frames etc.

So, what you are saying, is that cutting down trees, and planting new ones, actually helps to not release the carbon dioxide they had absorbed, instead of letting them grow and die? sweet.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

So, what you are saying, is that cutting down trees, and planting new ones, actually helps to not release the carbon dioxide they had absorbed, instead of letting them grow and die? sweet.

Absolute PAP.Leave the forests alone. For every tree we cut down we are actually wiping our asses with our future...simply replanting trees does not replace the vast biodiversity that a forest offers.. not only that it does take a while to get to the point where the trees actually are large enough to mitigate the amount of carbon dioxide in the air....
What really galls me the most is the people are bending scientific fact to justify all sorts of bad behavior.. weather it is displacing or killing indigenous people from their forests in order to make money or ignoring how the succession of forests work.. so you cannot just cut down large swaths of forest and replant and hope to have the same ecosystem that was in place before..
I should say that I am a proponent of selective cutting over clear cutting.. thus leaving the forest in tact.. I do realize that we do use wood in many different applications, but there are an awful lot of other natural fibers that we could be using that would make an awful lot of sense... Clearing forests is shortsighted and is only driven by people seeking profit....

[russianrocket]

So, the Texas fires, the 100'000 acres burnt, and the HUGE clouds of smoke.

This has happened countless times through out history. It's still the fault of cutting down trees, and the smoke coming out of our cars?

[garentee]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

So, the Texas fires, the 100'000 acres burnt, and the HUGE clouds of smoke.

This has happened countless times through out history. It's still the fault of cutting down trees, and the smoke coming out of our cars?

Wild fires are a natural part of a lot of ecosystems. Many species of trees require fire to aid in germination. The only reason fires are deleterious to anything is because it generally tends to raise insurance rates and threatens our homes.. Otherwise fire is completely part of the natural cycle of many forests and many praries. If you live in a fire ecosystem it is best to expect that you may well lose your house to fire...

Climate change is the result of many things.. not the least of which is emissions from vehicles but more likely has a LOT to do with deforestation especially in the rainforest...Bottom line is that while the climate is changing constantly... it is changing very qucikly and with life threatening consequences for a lot of the life forms on the planet...