The Great Global Warming Swindle

[mastacox]

Well, what the hey. I'll jump into the political forum with a global warming video. I watched the whole thing (1 hour fifteen minutes long) and thought it was quite good, even if it was a little dumbed down, and might have too many ad-hominem attacks in it...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=4499562022478442170&q=the+great+global+warming+swindle

[oly884]

I'll give it a lookie, thanks!

[oly884]

Well, I just watched it today.

I have to say, they bring up many good points regarding the current status of global warming. There seems to be many reputable scientists that come from some pretty big backgrounds.

I must say that I do have a bias towards this movie due to my belief of global warming falling closer to this than what the "main stream" is today. That being said, I really suggest people watch it because this IS what science is, both sides have evidence and both sides make valid arguments. However, there is one side that seems to be getting swept under the rug and this film addresses it. Global warming is NOT a debate like the 9/11 attacks or creationism vs evolution, there is science mixed with politics, not about conspiracy and deeply held beliefs.

[91_4x4runner]

I watched the entire video this evening as well. It seems to have quite reputable scientists (with some actual credentials, not just Gore) that represent the facts accurately. The only way to let this propagate is to pass it on, so I may as well.

[MTL_4runner]

What's really frosting my cookies is that regardles of whether global warming is occuring or has legitimate science to back it up, some people (including actors and politicians) are making big money by trying to sway the public into thinking that if you're rich enough, you can just buy carbon offsets (and in companies that only promise to offset in the future no doubt!!!) while everyone else needs to actually reduce their consumption or usages. Well, that is just a bunch of hogwash, do as I say, not as I do crapola. If you want to talk the talk you gotta walk the walk too my friends. I guess my belief is in living as efficiently as possible and whether you're rich or not shouldn't matter if you truely do care about the environment.

Thanks for the video link, I'll watch it when I have time.

[anthony1]

It's all politics man.
In the mean time, the third world countries in Africa can't use the natural resources that they have cause the already developed countries don't want them to cause more global warming effect.
Instead, they tell the poor country to use expensive alternative resources that they cant' afford. Which in tern keeping them from developing as a nation.
..

ok...steping down from the soap box..

[fustercluck]

.......there is science mixed with politics,.....


......a fatal combination.

[xcmountain80]

Let it burn I'll bring the marshmellow's


Aaron

[calrockx]

Let it burn I'll bring the marshmellow's


Aaron


the marshmellow's what?

[BruceTS]

Let the truth be known......

[fustercluck]

Let it burn I'll bring the marshmellow's


Aaron


http://www.jonco48.com/blog/marshmallow_20bra.jpg

[BruceTS]

now U got me hungry for some sweets......

[xcmountain80]

Not what I had in mind but that works.


Aaron

[BruceTS]

http://www.jonco48.com/blog/peep_20bikini2.jpg
http://www.jonco48.com/blog/peep_20bikini1.jpg


Dang global warming, making those bunnies stick so well!

[xcmountain80]

I see! Where the hell did you find this stuff. And now anyone reading is utterly confused, and likely not suffering from global warming but a slightly warm front in the southern hemisphere.

Aaron

[AxleIke]

Those marshmellow pictures are hilarious. I love it.

As for global warming, I agree with one point here, which is the media skews this issue, and people are trying to make money off of it.

As for the science, there is no debate anymore. global warming is happening. What is unsure is the effect this phenomenon will have on the human race. So far, the Earth is warmer than any point the history we've been able to discover. However, we don't yet have all the data, nor all the history. That data is coming.

Be warned, DO NOT believe the hype you hear about on TV. It is mostly garbage.

Basically the take home message is this: try to cut down on your pollution. This doesn't mean selling your truck and becoming a hippy. This means, try to walk or ride your bike or a bus when you can, try to turn the lights off when you leave a room, try not to run the water for no reason, etc. Really, its just smart. By cutting down on these things, you save money in your monthly bills, and you do a little for the environment too.

[Texas Jim]

I like yellow bunnies!! TJ

[mastacox]

As for the science, there is no debate anymore. global warming is happening. What is unsure is the effect this phenomenon will have on the human race.


Perhaps it is, but is this warming MAN-MADE... And there should always be debate.



So far, the Earth is warmer than any point the history we've been able to discover. However, we don't yet have all the data, nor all the history.

Actually, the Earth was much warmer during the "Holocene Maximum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Optimum)," which was but a few thousand years ago, and during many periods in prehistoric times as well...

I'm curious, how is it AGW advocates have decided the earth's current climate is the end-all-be-all optimum one, and should never change?

[AxleIke]

As for the science, there is no debate anymore. global warming is happening. What is unsure is the effect this phenomenon will have on the human race.


Perhaps it is, but is this warming MAN-MADE... And there should always be debate.



So far, the Earth is warmer than any point the history we've been able to discover. However, we don't yet have all the data, nor all the history.

Actually, the Earth was much warmer during the "Holocene Maximum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_Climatic_Optimum)," which was but a few thousand years ago, and during many periods in prehistoric times as well...

I'm curious, how is it AGW advocates have decided the earth's current climate is the end-all-be-all optimum one, and should never change?


Ahhh, you are correct. Should have said warming, not warmer. My mistake, good catch.

There will always be debate, perhaps even good debate. But for the science, it seems to be pretty one sided towards warming. I freely admit that there is much room for error and that i haven't seen every climate scientists' work in the world. But i've seen a fair number, and they all say the same thing.

As for man made or not, i'm not sure yet. I don't think we are helping things, but this is the area where there is no consensus i've seen yet. Some scientists say our pollution is warming, others refute that and swear we are cooling the planet, though not as fast as the natural warming cycle.

Regardless of one's view on global warming, i would think we could all get together on the "pollution is bad" part though.

GLOBAL WARMING, which is my way of designating the green hysteria that has swept the nation and put all this on the map, is really just the ozone layer from the 90's. Remember that? Oh, we're all gonna die, the ozone has a hole. Its the same thing, now its just "oh were all gonna die, global warming". GLOBAL WARMING is just a wannbe hippy enviro pussy orgasm point. They get off marching around doing nothing, and protesting things.

Sorry for rambling. I didn't understand your last question, as i didn't understand "AGW"

[oly884]

axleike, AGW i think is anthropogenic global warming.

You are also spot on with your post!

[mastacox]

AGW = Anthropogenic Global Warming = Man-Made Global Warming



Sorry for rambling. I didn't understand your last question, as i didn't understand "AGW"


Well, the basic idea is that there are a few assumptions that have to be made for a person to believe the AGW mantra:

1) Man is directly responsible for the current climate changes occurring.

2) The climate that we currently have around the world is the best one, hence we would not want it to change to any other state.

The first assumption is severely suspect in my opinion, especially since the "largest problem" according to the AGW advocates is CO2, which is not anywhere close to the largest greenhouse contributor (the largest one BY FAR is, you guessed it, water vapor).

The second one is such a basic question, it seems no one has even asked it: how do we know the climate changing would be a bad thing? I think this question speaks for itself, people fear change, although the only constant in the universe is that EVERYTHING changes. In years past, warming has been accompanied by longer growing seasons, and greater overall productivity around the world...

[AxleIke]

Well, growing season's are one thing, but i think the greater concern is melt water.

I agree, we could be changing it for the better, or the worse, we don't know. I think where we lose farmland to drought, we will gain farmland in the north.

However, there are a great many cities that will have to change or move if ocean levels rise. Most of the perdictions have been wildly innacurate, but there are several places around the globe where even a mild sea level increase could be a major problem. New Orleans comes to mind, as does much of the Netherlands.

However, i believe that these sea level changes will occur over a pretty long time scale for human standards, say 50-100 years. Assuming the government gets its act together, there would be more than enough time to correct the problems.

I'm a little confused on one point, since the title of this thread indicates that perhaps you don't think anything is changing at all, and that we are not warming, while your posts seem to indicate that you do think things are changing. Just that the changes might not be the "doomsday" that the enviro lobby wants you to believe.

Disclaimer: Since i've had so many issues with this in the past, whenever discussing something like this, i usually point out that my posts are in effort to have a good, and stimulating discussion, and not meant to be read in a condescending or otherwise "jerk-like" tone. I think your points are valid, and I hope we can continue in a civil manner.

[mastacox]

My beliefs are simple:

- The earth's climate is currently (and will always) be in a state of flux. The changes we are currently seeing are small, and not any more incredible than any other climate changes in earth's very long history.

- Man has little to nothing to do with this.

As for the title- the video linked at the start of the thread titled "The Great Global Warming Swindle" is a documentary by the BBC that covers the AGW theory and how it has progressed into a sort of religion that brands people that don't believe as heretics, while the scientific facts that have been thoroughly peer-reviewed have been overrun by the media hysteria that feeds on famine, death, destruction, and disaster. AGW theory these days is all about belief and has little to nothing to do with fact.

And I think this conversation has been quite civil compared to others I have been involved in on other forums not associated with Yota's.

[AxleIke]

I wasn't insinuating that it wasn't, just trying to keep my post from being taken out of context.

I completely agree with your point on belief vs fact.

I completely dissagree with your view that we have little impact.

Time will tell which one of us is right.

[mastacox]

I completely dissagree with your view that we have little impact.


Let me ask you this, do you think that it is our addition of CO2 to the atmosphere that is causing this warming?

[AxleIke]

Not all by itself, but i believe it to be a signigicant contributer. As was pointed out, water is the biggest "greenhouse gas", but CO2 helps. As you warm the globe, even slightly, you evaporate more water from the oceans, which in turn warms the atmosphere a little more, and so on.

We also release a great many other things, like nitrates and hydrocarbons that contribute, along with sulfer dioxide, to smog. Smog is a heat trap as well, and while it is more local, the number of cities affected by it world wide is growing. As those particles make it into the upper atomosphere, the act like a "cloud" just like H20 does, and help to trap heat.

[Henrythewound]

Check out the graphs of CO2 in our atmosphere since the industrial revolution. It is SKYROCKETING. Water vapor and many other greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter/aerosols are naturally added to the atm via volcanos and other natural processes. I don't think anyone is refuting that climate changes on its own, but the addition of massive amounts of CO2 and methane into the atm are directly related to man.

The US had a chance to join in w/ the Kyoto protocol which is at least trying to make a dent in how we keep pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. GUess what, we didn't join citing lack of proof that these considerations would help and that we don't really know for sure we are the cause of recent warming.

If you look at ice cores that record the amount of CO2 in our atm over the past thousands of years you will see that it changes naturally, you will not see as rapid a change as we have experienced in the past 100 years due to natural causes.

I'm not saying we will end up with a runaway greenhouse effect like Venus, but we will definitely warm, resulting in more melting of presently frozen glacial and polar ice. This in turn makes for less reflective portions on earth (white (ice and snow) reflects incoming solar radiation, darker colors like blue (ocean) and brown (land) absorb this radiation). We will have a positive feedback system where melting induces more meltin, and thus continued warming. Tell anyone living within a few meters os current sea levels this isn't a problem. Tell anyone depending on current weather patterns (monsoons, winter rains, etc) this isn't a problem.

100 years is not a long time, in fact it is a blink of an eye as far as Earth's geologic history is concerned.

Humans HAVE had an impact, there are some scientists that want to name a new geologic time period called the Anthropocene based on the impact we now have on the earth.

[AxleIke]

If you look at ice cores that record the amount of CO2 in our atm over the past thousands of years


As it turns out, I do. :D

[mastacox]

Check out the graphs of CO2 in our atmosphere since the industrial revolution. It is SKYROCKETING. Water vapor and many other greenhouse gases (GHGs) and particulate matter/aerosols are naturally added to the atm via volcanos and other natural processes.

It's interesting that you would mention that, because if atmospheric CO2 is directly linked to global temperature averages why is it that the data doesn't match up? Why is it that the majority of the warming we have seen occurred before the industrial revolution? Why is it with the advent of the industrial revolution, CO2 levels began to rise, yet temperatures actually DECREASED?

You say that CO2 levels are rising as if they are a dangerous pollutant, yet CO2 is a natuarlly occurring part of the environment, not a heavy chemical leftover from industrial processes... The video I linked to in the very first post argues that CO2 levels are actually a function of mean global temperture, not visa-versa. Based on findings from ice core samples in Antarctica, CO2 levels seem to for the most part proportionately follow mean global temperture, but lag behind by 50 or 60 years. It is not CO2 which drives global temperture, but rather global temperture that drives CO2.




The US had a chance to join in w/ the Kyoto protocol which is at least trying to make a dent in how we keep pumping more and more CO2 into the atmosphere. GUess what, we didn't join citing lack of proof that these considerations would help and that we don't really know for sure we are the cause of recent warming.

Well, what's wrong with asking for definitive proof that it will help before trying to hobble industry and spend billions of dollars? If there is no substantive evidence showing that CO2 is directly conected as a driver of global temperature, then obviously money can be better spent elsewehere. "The fuzzy feeling you get" is not good enough.



If you look at ice cores that record the amount of CO2 in our atm over the past thousands of years you will see that it changes naturally, you will not see as rapid a change as we have experienced in the past 100 years due to natural causes.


I find this statement suspect. Got some hard data to back it up? Even if it were true, saying this still doesn't prove we are directly responsible for the changes.



I'm not saying we will end up with a runaway greenhouse effect like Venus,


That good, because I laugh at and incessantly nag THOSE people.



but we will definitely warm

I have seen no irrrefutable evidence that we are to blame for it though...



resulting in more melting of presently frozen glacial and polar ice. This in turn makes for less reflective portions on earth (white (ice and snow) reflects incoming solar radiation, darker colors like blue (ocean) and brown (land) absorb this radiation). We will have a positive feedback system where melting induces more meltin, and thus continued warming.


Now this is nothing but speculation... Trying to use "common sense" arguments along with slippery slope scenarios proves nothing; it is nothing more than a theory.



Tell anyone living within a few meters os current sea levels this isn't a problem. Tell anyone depending on current weather patterns (monsoons, winter rains, etc) this isn't a problem.


This is also a common tactic used by AGW propnents- guilt. I should feel guilty for not caring about what happens to the poor slobs living on the coast that might have to move in 60 years; I should feel guilty for driving my SUV and dumping terrible CO2 into the atmosphere becasue I am bringing about the downfall of mankind... I should feel guilty for not wanting to buy into an ill-prepared "treaty" that wants to spend billions trying to limit CO2 production when it will in all probability do nothing.



100 years is not a long time, in fact it is a blink of an eye as far as Earth's geologic history is concerned.


On that we can agree. However, in its own way this statement undermines your arguments that the changes we have seen in the past 50-60 years are significant and out of the ordinary.



Humans HAVE had an impact, there are some scientists that want to name a new geologic time period called the Anthropocene based on the impact we now have on the earth.


Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. There really isn't even regular evidence... just theories and speculation.

[mastacox]

You know, industrial processes and automobiles create as much or even more H2O than CO2 as a byproduct of their processes... Since H2O(g) is a far more powerful greehouse gas, I propose we limit the production of water vapor by industry the world over.

[fustercluck]

GLOBAL WARMING FEARS
Norway's Moose Population in Trouble for Belching
The poor old Scandinavian moose is now being blamed for climate change, with researchers in Norway claiming that a grown moose can produce 2,100 kilos of methane a year -- equivalent to the CO2 output resulting from a 13,000 kilometer car journey.


DPA
Now poor moose are being blamed for global warming.
Norway is concerned that its national animal, the moose, is harming the climate by emitting an estimated 2,100 kilos of carbon dioxide a year through its belching and farting.

Norwegian newspapers, citing research from Norway's technical university, said a motorist would have to drive 13,000 kilometers in a car to emit as much CO2 as a moose does in a year.

Bacteria in a moose's stomach create methane gas which is considered even more destructive to the environment than carbon dioxide gas. Cows pose the same problem (more...).

Norway has some 120,000 moose but an estimated 35,000 are expected to be killed in this year's moose hunting season, which starts on September 25, Norwegian newspaper VG reported.

cro





: Blogs discussing this story

RELATED SPIEGEL ONLINE LINKS
Blame Bovine Belching: Changing Cows' Diet Could Cut Emissions (07/10/2007)

© SPIEGEL ONLINE 2007
All Rights Reserved

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/0,1518,501145,00.html

http://bluebison.net/sketchbook/2006/0706/moose_in_a_swamp.jpg

[AxleIke]

resulting in more melting of presently frozen glacial and polar ice. This in turn makes for less reflective portions on earth (white (ice and snow) reflects incoming solar radiation, darker colors like blue (ocean) and brown (land) absorb this radiation). We will have a positive feedback system where melting induces more meltin, and thus continued warming.


Now this is nothing but speculation... Trying to use "common sense" arguments along with slippery slope scenarios proves nothing; it is nothing more than a theory.

Speculation? That is a pretty fair description of the Earth's Albedo and the effect he has described may be theory, but it is, if not completely, than nearly, universally accepted in the scientific community.

Here is another point which is disturbing in your post. It doesn't sound like you can be convinced. You stated that even if he had hard data, you would not be convinced that humans were responsible. If hard data can't convince you, then I don't think anything can.

[oly884]

You know, industrial processes and automobiles create as much or even more H2O than CO2 as a byproduct of their processes... Since H2O(g) is a far more powerful greehouse gas, I propose we limit the production of water vapor by industry the world over.


Tell the oceans to stop evaporating!

Time to protest!!!

[mastacox]

Speculation? That is a pretty fair description of the Earth's Albedo and the effect he has described may be theory, but it is, if not completely, than nearly, universally accepted in the scientific community.

Here is another point which is disturbing in your post. It doesn't sound like you can be convinced. You stated that even if he had hard data, you would not be convinced that humans were responsible. If hard data can't convince you, then I don't think anything can.


This is the problem- the scenario he presents suggests the Earth's climate is sitting at an unstable node, like trying to balance one sphere on top of another. According to the theory, a small change results in a cataclysmic chain reaction; i.e. the world heats slightly, ice starts to melt, less ice = more water = more heat, and so the effect spirals out of control until the ice caps melt an everything ends up underwater.

Observation of previous climate patterns would suggest that the previous example is not the case, and in fact the earth's climate is in more of a semi-stable or stable node like a ball in a dish, in that one change gets balanced by something else; more CO2 in the atmosphere sparks more plant growth, higher mean temperatures on the planet result in higher radiation losses to space, and so on. It seems to me that if the planet's "modern" climate were so unstable, it would have spiralled out of control long ago... but then I'm just speculating.

I can be convinced of anything as long as there is sufficient scientific data and analysis to back it up, but there is just too much junk floating around these days to believe EVERYTHING. I try to give most ideas at least some thought, but all of the arguments here so far have been ones I have heard (and heard refuted) before.

As for not even being convinced by data, I said that I did not think the earth is currently warming faster than EVER before; and even if there was credible data that showed this to be true, that data set alone would not prove that Humans were the cause of the warming.

:argue:

[AxleIke]

Not trying ot be picking at you, but it seemed a little off.

As for the chain reaction, it is only one of the factors. As you warm the planet, you also get increased greenery. greenery brings in CO2, and exhales O2. That will cut down on the run away progress. But, the idea of decreasing reflectivity causing increased melting and warming is pretty accepted.

As for data, i don't think we can present you with any that will change your mind. It seems you've seen the same data we see, that the level of CO2 is rapidly increasing in our atmosphere, as well as a number of water evaporation and melting effects that contribute to warming, since, as you point out, H20 is the biggest greenhouse gas. If you can see all of that, and not think that humans are responsible, than i don't think anything will convince you.

I haven't seen direct proof that humans are responsible either. But everything else has been ruled out. It isn't volcanic outgassing, and it isn't some strange reverse photosynthesis. We do know that humans are deforresting, and burning fossil fuels. Both of those things weren't going on 100 kya. It is a conclusion i arrived at by process of elimination.

Anyway, again, just trying to have a discussion. Not trying to piss anyone off. I am very biased, and admit that. However, I enjoy these discussions, as i like to see the other sides' points.

Cheers.

[calrockx]

This video hasn't reached the thread yet?
Oh well, now it has.

http://www.break.com/index/tough-to-argue.html
Interesting look at it.

[AxleIke]

A good watch. Thanks for posting

He left out the fact that acting is beneficial in other ways: less smog, less health problems, cleaner planet all around, so the cost of acting and GCC being wrong is defrayed by having a cleaner, healthier population.

[calrockx]

Yeah, he was pretty much taking it to extremes (as he said I think), but I noticed that too.

Also, he assumes if we act that it'll be enough to adequately combat GCC. Well I hope so. That'll take a good deal more participation.

If we act, either way some good will come of it.

[mastacox]

Mastacox's recommended reading list on the diverse subjects surrounding environmental hysteria:

- State of Fear, Michael Crighton

Very cool fiction novel that also has a great compilation of real data detailing the AGW debate. Fun read, and informative. Sure, by itself it is neither a scientific paper, nor peer reviewed; but in the end it gives a great metaphor for the current state of the AGW/environmental movement.

- The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, Bjorn Lomborg

By far one of the most deatiled books I have ever read on environmental issues (the book's 'works cited' section has well over 1000 entries). Covers everything from overpopulation, to food production, to deforestation issues. It's actually a little slim on the AGW debate, but AGW isn't the only environmental issue in the world today. This is definitely a MUST read for anyone that wants to consider environmental issues AND their best solutions.

[mastacox]

I haven't seen direct proof that humans are responsible either. But everything else has been ruled out. It isn't volcanic outgassing, and it isn't some strange reverse photosynthesis. We do know that humans are deforresting, and burning fossil fuels.

Not true, it would seem that solar cycles and the earth's orbital wobble should be heavily considered, being that all of Earth's atmospheric energy comes from the Sun.

[fustercluck]

Are any other bodies in our solar system experiencing climate change similar to ours?

[AxleIke]

I haven't seen direct proof that humans are responsible either. But everything else has been ruled out. It isn't volcanic outgassing, and it isn't some strange reverse photosynthesis. We do know that humans are deforresting, and burning fossil fuels.

Not true, it would seem that solar cycles and the earth's orbital wobble should be heavily considered, being that all of Earth's atmospheric energy comes from the Sun.


I dissagree.

The sun cycles its output on a roughly 11 year cycle, and the majority of that output is in higher energy radation. I've yet to see any major climate cycling with that period.

Please clarify what you mean by orbital wobble. Do you mean deviations from a smooth curve on the earth's orbit, or the slight ovoid shape of the earth's orbital path?

[AxleIke]

Mastacox's recommended reading list on the diverse subjects surrounding environmental hysteria:

- State of Fear, Michael Crighton

Very cool fiction novel that also has a great compilation of real data detailing the AGW debate. Fun read, and informative. Sure, by itself it is neither a scientific paper, nor peer reviewed; but in the end it gives a great metaphor for the current state of the AGW/environmental movement.

- The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, Bjorn Lomborg

By far one of the most deatiled books I have ever read on environmental issues (the book's 'works cited' section has well over 1000 entries). Covers everything from overpopulation, to food production, to deforestation issues. It's actually a little slim on the AGW debate, but AGW isn't the only environmental issue in the world today. This is definitely a MUST read for anyone that wants to consider environmental issues AND their best solutions.



I will have to check out those books. Thanks!

I really like Micheal Crighton's other books. I have high expectations for that one.

The other book looks very interesting as well.

[mastacox]

Well, unfortunately there is no "easy" solution for describing activity on the sun; are we talking sunspots, electromagnetics, radiation, or cosmic rays? All that I'm trying to point out is that there are factors that affect the environment which were not listed... solar activity being the biggest one.



Please clarify what you mean by orbital wobble. Do you mean deviations from a smooth curve on the earth's orbit, or the slight ovoid shape of the earth's orbital path?


Well, I am essentially referring to so-called "Milankovitch cycles," which are observed and calculated variations in the Earth's orbit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milankovitch_cycles

[AxleIke]

I agree that Milankovitch cylces are very important, in fact, i'd say far more important than sun cycles, to climate change.

However, Milankovitch cylces force the climate on very long time scales. 25ky is about what you need to observe the full cylce from hottest to coldest to hottest again. So, a warming cylce would take roughly 12.5 ky. Now, glacial maximums occur around every 100ky. And, glacial minimums (the hottest times of the climate), occur on about the same interval. The difference between these two is usually 10 deg C + 2 or so degrees. For back of the envelope calculation, figure 10 degrees warming to go from a glacial min to max, and about 50ky to acomplish that warming, thats about 1 degree every 5000 years. We've already warmed 1 degree in the last 100 years.

If orbital variations were to account for the rate of warming we have been experiencing these last years, i would think the orbit of the earth would have to be decaying at a frighning pace, since temperatures are warmer both in winter and summer.

I'm not saying these factors do not play a part, I'm saying that they cannot account for the entirety of the warming.

[fustercluck]

An inconvenient fact
Despite the anti-forestry scare tactics of celebrity movies, trees are the most powerful concentrators of carbon on Earth Dr. Patrick Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace and chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. in Vancouver.
Patrick Moore, Special to the Sun
Published: Wednesday, August 29, 2007
It seems like there's a new doomsday documentary every month. But seldom does one receive the coverage that Hollywood activist Leonardo DiCaprio's latest climate-change rant, The 11th Hour, is getting.

When we're bombarded anew with theatrical images of our earth's ecosystems when the film opens across B.C. this Friday, I'm concerned that we're losing sight of some indisputable facts.

Here's a key piece of information DiCaprio, collaborator and long-time activist Tzeporah Berman and the leadership of my old organization Greenpeace are ignoring when it comes to forests and carbon: For British Columbians, living among the largest area of temperate rainforest in the world, managing our forests will be a key to reducing greenhouse gases.


Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font: ****As a lifelong environmentalist, I say trees can solve many of the world's sustainability challenges. Forestry is the most sustainable of all the primary industries that provide us with energy and materials. Rather than cutting fewer trees and using less wood, DiCaprio and Berman ought to promote the growth of more trees and the use of more wood.

Trees are the most powerful concentrators of carbon on Earth. Through photosynthesis, they absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and store it in their wood, which is nearly 50 per cent carbon by weight. Trees contain about 250 kilograms of carbon per cubic metre.

North Americans are the world's largest per-capita wood consumers and yet our forests cover approximately the same area of land as they did 100 years ago. According to the United Nations, our forests have expanded nearly 100 million acres over the past decade.

The relationship between trees and greenhouse gases is simple enough on the surface. Trees grow by taking carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and, through photosynthesis, converting it into sugars. The sugars are then used as energy and materials to build cellulose and lignin, the main constituents of wood.

There is a misconception that cutting down an old tree will result in a net release of carbon. Yet wooden furniture made in the Elizabethan era still holds the carbon fixed hundreds of years ago.

Berman, a veteran of the forestry protest movement, should by now have learned that young forests outperform old growth in carbon sequestration.

Although old trees contain huge amounts of carbon, their rate of sequestration has slowed to a near halt. A young tree, although it contains little fixed carbon, pulls CO2 from the atmosphere at a much faster rate.

When a tree rots or burns, the carbon contained in the wood is released back to the atmosphere. Since combustion releases carbon, active forest management -- such as removing dead trees and clearing debris from the forest floor -- will be imperative in reducing the number and intensity of fires.

The role of forests in the global carbon cycle can be boiled down to these key points:

n Deforestation, primarily in tropical forests, is responsible for about 20 per cent of global carbon dioxide emissions. This is occurring where forests are permanently cleared and converted to agriculture and urban settlement.

Despite the anti-forestry scare tactics of celebrity movies, trees are the most powerful concentrators of carbon on Earth Dr. Patrick Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace and chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. in Vancouver.
Patrick Moore, Special to the Sun
Published: Wednesday, August 29, 2007
n In many countries with temperate forests, there has been an increase in carbon stored in trees in recent years. This includes the United States, Canada, New Zealand and Sweden.

n The most important factors influencing the carbon cycle are deforestation on the negative side, and the use of wood, from sustainably managed forests, as a substitute for non-renewable materials and fuels, on the positive side.

To address climate change, we must use more wood, not less. Using wood sends a signal to the marketplace to grow more trees and to produce more wood. That means we can then use less concrete, steel and plastic -- heavy carbon emitters through their production. Trees are the only abundant, biodegradable and renewable global resource.


Email to a friend

Printer friendly
Font: ****DiCaprio's movie, The 11th Hour, is another example of anti-forestry scare tactics, this time said to be "brilliant and terrifying" by James Christopher of the London Times.

Maybe so, but instead of surrendering to the terror, keep in mind that there are solutions to the challenges of climate, and our forests are among them.

This film should be a good, clear reminder for us to put the science before the Hollywood hype.

Dr. Patrick Moore is a co-founder of Greenpeace and chairman and chief scientist of Greenspirit Strategies Ltd. in Vancouver.




© The Vancouver Sun 2007


http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/editorial/story.html?id=67623834-a1af-42e4-91cb-28492a462651

[04 Rocko Taco]

Good find Fuster!

[AxleIke]

Damn Decrappio.

[arjan]

A good read fuster, it's bang on.

[fustercluck]

None of it really matters to me anyway...



































...I buy carbon credits :hillbill:

[arjan]

Pay off your guild and keep on polluting ;)