- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,594
- Reactions
- 7,472
Well that was a pleasant way to win friends and influence people wasn't it Wayne ?
Bye.
Bye.
Resisting Climate Hysteria
- Thread starter Mickel
- Start date
wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,950
- Reactions
- 13,241
As it is breathtakingly obvious. I nred not point out your hypocrisy.
Surely an invocation of Dale Carnegie could only come from a current practitioner of the art?
Surely an invocation of Dale Carnegie could only come from a current practitioner of the art?
- Joined
- 29 August 2006
- Posts
- 909
- Reactions
- 148
Scientists say the Arctic has been ice free in summer for the last 4 years.
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/n...=c76d05dd-2864-43b2-a2e3-82e0a8ca05d5&k=53683
http://www.canada.com/topics/news/n...=c76d05dd-2864-43b2-a2e3-82e0a8ca05d5&k=53683
There are lots of scientist with integrity who are also skeptics.
Do you have a link to your statement that "EVEN SKEPTICS ACKNOWLEDGE THAT CO2 IS CONTRIBUTING TO GLOBAL WARMING"
Out of some 32 billion tones of GREEN HOUSE GASES induced into the atmosphere, only about 5.5 billion is man made....the balnce would be due to natural bush fires and volcanoes. after all bush fires burn fossil fuel.......how do you overcome bush fires which are a natuarl phenomenon mostly started by lightning. Refer my post 4976.
I once read about the bush fires in the southern part of Australia, allied with a cold stream of air coming down from the Himilayas, creates the moonsoon rains in the northern part of Australia
- Joined
- 21 June 2009
- Posts
- 5,880
- Reactions
- 14
Article was written on NOVEMBER 16, 2007 !!!!!
But but but in 2013 the floe has increased by 50% from 2012 and the volume had increased by 9,000 cubic kms?
Read post #4996 please.
noco, your like watching a moth at the porch light. The CO2 aspect is physics, it like methane and nitrogen oxide absorb light in the infra-red part of the spectrum, (the bit that feels warm when the sunlight hits you; yes there are other parts to, that's why it's called a spectrum). That trapped heat is then radiated to its surroundings, in our case the Troposphere,(thats the bit of the atmosphere where all the life goes on, except for the bit under the water but we'll keep things simple)...
Fossil fuel burning, and no bush fires don't burn fossil fuel, has changed what was a balance in atmospheric CO2. Before the industrial revolution circa 1850, CO2 had been more or less steady for many hundreds of thousands of years at around 285 ppm(parts per million) The bush and the fires which result are part of the troposphere, the CO2 released is absorbed back into regrowth of new forrest and or other CO2 utilising organisms and doesn't effect the long term balance.
Burning long (many millions of years) buried fossil fuel does, now 2014 the level of atmospheric CO2 is at 400ppm and rising. More CO2 equals more trapped heat .
All about balance noco, CO2 out of balance. And now we're on a journey into the unknown to find where the Earths new heat balance will take us.
Learn the science. It's not 'commo' or 'greenie' it's just science. And it scares the **** out of some deeply vested interests. Did you know that science can change the very timber that gets burnt for no good purpose in those bush fires you talk of into Kerosene(jet-A) or non sulphur diesel. It can, true. Imagine a government policy that mandated a little percentage of that in the 'National tank'.
or just go and buy yourself a new pair of shoes and stop worrying.
Anthropoenic CO2 emissions come from the combustion of carbon based fuels principally wood, coal, oil and natural gas.......correct if I am wrong but don't bush fires burn wood?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_gas
The natural resources of CO2 is 20 times than any human acyivity.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,299
- Reactions
- 17,535
Wood does emit CO2 when burned (and under certain conditions can also emit CH4 (methane) as well as other things) but wood can be burned without necessarily being a net source of CO2 emissions.
Grow a tonne of wood in new trees and burn a tonne of wood from old trees. There's no net addition of CO2 to the atmosphere there, it's taking with one hand and giving with the other assuming it's a naturally occurring fire. If it's man made (eg a fireplace) then there would be some net emissions from the chainsaw (petrol) used to cut the tree down, splitter (petrol) used to split the wood and the truck (diesel) use to cart it but there is no net emission from the wood itself as long as the trees are regrown.
The key point there being that trees are carbon neutral only if they are actually replanted. Clearing a forest and not replanting would certainly release CO2. But if you're logging, say, 1 million tonnes each year and also growing 1 million tonnes of replacement wood then overall it's in balance.
Fossil fuels on the other hand aren't normally regenerated, at least not on a timescale anywhere near comparable to the rate of extraction. So burning a tonne of coal (or using oil or gas) releases CO2 to the atmosphere without a corresponding absorption of CO2 by new coal (since you can't just go and plant a tonne of coal each time you dig one up). So the use of coal, oil and natural gas does add CO2 to the atmosphere whereas that may or may not be the the case with wood depending on whether or not it is regrown.
- Joined
- 10 December 2012
- Posts
- 3,632
- Reactions
- 9
We're down to around 30% of the earths land area covered by forests, but clearign them at a rate of the size of Panama, or over 75,000 Square KM being lost to sugar cane and palm oil.
So yes, the remaining plants don't really care where a molecule of CO2 comes from, it's just unfortunate that there's less and less of them each year to try and scrub the increasing amounts of CO2 we're releasing into the atmosphere.
- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,688
- Reactions
- 1,231
The last time I checked, sugar cane and palms were plants!
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,299
- Reactions
- 17,535
They are plants yes, but from an ecological perspective a sugar cane field or palm plantation is very different to a natural forest.
It's like swapping gold for aluminium. They're both metals but I can't see anyone buying an aluminium wedding ring anytime soon.
- Joined
- 10 December 2012
- Posts
- 3,632
- Reactions
- 9
Yes, thousand of square kilometres of commercial scale monoculture producing the white death and least healthy mass produced edible oil is just what we need. I can just see people saying no need to visit the national park, lets visit the palm oil plantation since they're all just plants and trees. Makes u wonder why we have botanical gardens
You'd also find that a forest is absorbing more carbon than crops grown, especially when you consider in a lot of tropical forest areas the amount of peat like ground cover. Just have to look to Indonesia to see how poorly things go when the corrupt companies light the firest to clear more area for farming. The smoke blankets much of Asia. The net effect is more CO2 in the atmosphere.
Unless you believe that the atmospheric testing is a lie and the level of CO2 in the atmosphere hasn't increased over the last 250 years, then physics simply says more C02 HAS to increase heat absorption and retention. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed. If burning fossil fuels isn't the cause of the increase of atmospheric C02, then what is?
- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,688
- Reactions
- 1,231
Mammalian respiration.
Humans and our mammalian livestock exhale CO2.
Did your learned scientists forget to take this factor into account in their measurements?
- Joined
- 22 November 2010
- Posts
- 3,661
- Reactions
- 11
- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,688
- Reactions
- 1,231
- Joined
- 22 November 2010
- Posts
- 3,661
- Reactions
- 11
IFocus
You are arguing with a Galah
- Joined
- 8 September 2006
- Posts
- 7,653
- Reactions
- 4,730
trying not to be nasty but last time I checked they fu(ked the ecosystems needed to support life.......any life.
