Global Warming. Is the hype coming to an end?

[BigStewMan]

Rain forest provides a considerable amount of oxygen...just read in the National Geographic that it is 40% of the earth’s oxygen.

[Travis In Austin]

15 minutes ago, BigStewMan said:

Rain forest provides a considerable amount of oxygen...just read in the National Geographic that it is 40% of the earth’s oxygen.

That would be a fundamental shift in their longstanding research.

 

Their site still cites the longstanding 70% figure.

 

http://www.nationalgeographic.org/activity/save-the-plankton-breathe-freely/

[Mallette]

17 minutes ago, mungkiman said:

Was he talking about food?

Yes, but more than that.  Of course, no food is enough.

Dave

[BigStewMan]

@dwilawyer  Travis, Here is where i read that.

 

Found in the tropical climate near the equator, rain forests make up six percent of the earth's land surface, but produce 40 percent of its oxygen.

 

http://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/habitats/rain-forests/

[mungkiman]

Just now, Mallette said:

Yes, but more than that.  Of course, no food is enough.

Dave

 

No food seems to be not enough.

 

[Mallette]

45 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

I'd like to see more hydro.

So would I.  But it's pretty much totally harnessed already and has been for years.  What we really need...and could get fairly quickly with national investment...is fusion.  Solar is next best.

 

Dave

[Mallette]

Just now, mungkiman said:

No food seems to be not enough.

Enough for me not to care about anything else.

Dave

[wvu80]

2 hours ago, Rivernuggets said:

2 hours ago, oldtimer said:

it still has to be dealt with, as does pollution

+1

Whether humans are affecting the environment less or more, it's better to be preventive and on the safe side.

Tell you what, you come out to the Great State of West Virginia, breath our air, know that most of our electric is from coal fired plants, and tell me if you think the air is clean.

 

Then go to China, and after comparing both, tell me where you think air and water pollution can be cleaned up the most.

 

Go ahead and tell me who really needs to clean up their pollution the most.

 

I trust you. 

 

[mungkiman]

3 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

Go ahead and tell me who really needs to clean up their pollution the most.

 

Because we don't?

 

[Travis In Austin]

49 minutes ago, Mallette said:

Crikey, barely remember that post or thread.  However, your math doesn't add up.  You suggest the planet dies if the oceans tip and it happens in a decade as they contribute twice as much as forests, but if the forests die instead of the assumed 2 decades based on the oceans it is eons? 

Dave

Math doesn't work that way with essential biological inputs like food, water and oxygen. 

 

Here is the easiest way to explain it.  If you have a fenced acre of land that will support 5 cows for a year, and you put 10 cows on it and return in a year how many can you take to0 market?

 

ZERO, cows cannot self regulate, agree to give a little more to the skinny one, ration it out, etc. They eat it down in 6 months, there is nothing left and they all die.

 

If the oceans tip, it will be sudden, relatively speaking.  The oceans alone can support oxygen supply on their own, the forests can't.  With only forests generating O2, it's a major net decrease, every year, O2 levels drop drastically, even with the forests producing O2 If the forests go, net decrease is minor and would take eons.

 

Obviously, unlike food and water, O2 cannot be stored in any significant amount to make a difference.  It's too big a jolt to overcome, and O2 would depleted exponentially. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Mallette]

I'll think on it.  But the math is more compelling and

3 minutes ago, dwilawyer said:

Math doesn't work that way with essential biological inputs like food, water and oxygen. 

isn't convincing. 

Dave

[wvu80]

8 minutes ago, mungkiman said:

Because we don't?

 

OF COURSE we can always become cleaner, but after looking at the pics ^^^ doesn't seem like there are other countries we might help clean up that could help the planet, BEFORE we reduce our pollutants from 40 parts per billion to 20 parts per billion?

[mungkiman]

3 minutes ago, wvu80 said:

OF COURSE we can always become cleaner, but after looking at the pics ^^^ doesn't seem like there are other countries we might help clean up that could help the planet, BEFORE we reduce our pollutants from 40 parts per billion to 20 parts per billion?

 

EXACTLY! Why should we have to clean up OUR environment at this point? Doesn't seem fair...

 

[Rivernuggets]

1 hour ago, wvu80 said:

OF COURSE we can always become cleaner, but after looking at the pics ^^^ doesn't seem like there are other countries we might help clean up that could help the planet, BEFORE we reduce our pollutants from 40 parts per billion to 20 parts per billion?

Us....Them.  It needs to be done.  I do agree with your statement that some countries severely need to reduce their emissions.  But 'them first'?   There's no proper order in who should reduce their footprint.

[jjptkd]

8 hours ago, wvu80 said:

Oh, I don't think that's quite true.  Maybe some of us have explored more facts than you have and have come to a different conclusion.

 

You never  know. 

I have done extensive research on this subject and there's plenty of reputable sources out there that claim the "man made" portion of global warming is nothing more than political hype and a money grab. Carbon taxes and credits is potentially a trillion dollar market and will do next to nothing according to their own numbers. Did you know that China agreed to the Paris agreement but they don't have to cut their emissions until after 2030?

 

The 97% of Scientist that agree about the looming "Crisis" don't actually agree there is a crisis. That number was based on a survey which simply asked; is the earth warming? Can CO2 impact warming? Does man contribute CO2? It does not go onto so say how much of man's CO2 or even CO2 itself contributes to warming (it is a trace gas) or if the effects are even bad.

 

There's a large number of scientist who actually believe more CO2 will benefit man kind in larger crop yields that need less water. Despite all of the deforestation globally the earth is actually significantly greener now than has been.

 

 

[DizRotus]

Science is not based upon a referendum.  The fact that nearly 100% of the Earth's population, at one time, believed the Earth to be the center of the universe did not make it so.

[jimjimbo]

10 hours ago, wvu80 said:

Maybe some of us have explored more facts than you have and have come to a different conclusion.

Well, that has a familiar ring to it....

[jjptkd]

I think Ben is spot on with his assessment:

 

 

 

[Mallette]

2 hours ago, jjptkd said:

The 97% of Scientist that agree about the looming "Crisis" don't actually agree there is a crisis. That number was based on a survey which simply asked; is the earth warming? Can CO2 impact warming? Does man contribute CO2? It does not go onto so say how much of man's CO2 or even CO2 itself contributes to warming (it is a trace gas) or if the effects are even bad.

You don't even have to be a scientist to understand that for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.  Yes, that is Newton but applicable in that while climate change adversely affects some areas it greatly improves others.  Further, the changes so far or even projected are not even close to the climate swings even in recorded human history much less more meaningful geologic time.  For instance, it was MUCH warmer at the peak of the Roman Empire when North Africa was the "breadbasket" of the Empire.  Until the cooling that culminated in the "Little Ice Age" of the 15th century the best wine was grown in Britain, not France.  France was too cold.  Greenland was, indeed, heavily forested during that time.  Even the severe changes from climate change in the early part of the late middle ages that resulted in suffering, may have contributed to the spread of bubonic plague, and reversed the above "good things" also hastened the Renaissance and the advent of the industrial revolution by deforesting Europe (for fuel) forcing the switch to coal.  And, of course, many other "pluses" all over the globe.  These are facts, not opinion. 

 

Point is, change is neither good nor bad, but just change.  Good for some, problematic for others, but inevitable whether from human actions or other causes.  It has been argued that the immense plumes of coal smog that spread over Europe in the 19th century hastened the end of the "Little Ice Age" long before our current situation...or it may have been the massive volcanic eruptions like Krakatoa and the Siberian meteor impact spewing far greater stuff into the atmosphere.  Point is, Earth is constantly in change.  Get used to it.

 

Dave

 

 

[Ski Bum]

1 hour ago, DizRotus said:

 

Science is not based upon a referendum.

 

Peer review and scientific consensus are a bit like a referendum among the experts who directly study the issue in question.  Those who fight against this expose their partisan tribal identity more than they undermine the science.  The facts just don't care about ideology, it seems.