Interesting article and the issues it deals with like much of what surrounds the GW debate remain uncertain. The claim that the Amazon rain forrest is a great sink for CO2 has always bothered me as that claim is opposite to what some naturlists told me when I visited the rain forrest. They told me that the soils there were very poor and cutting the forrest to clear land for farming was in their opinion a bad idea. The concept they described was that the rain forrest quickly recycled and reused the dead plants and animals that inhabit it. Taking that a step leads me to believe that over long periods of time the rain forrests are not a sink for CO2. For example, a big tree falls. It holds a lot of the CO2 it consumed while alive in the form of plant matter/cellouse. The now dead tree decomposes and releases that plant matter back into the environment as product of decay and that is quickly used by other plants, etc. An interesting idea you may want to read more about is the concept of fertilizing the southern ocean so the phytoplankton will consume CO2 and when they die the carbon remains in the ocean. A quote from this article: " There are three major areas of the ocean where iron is a limiting factor in the growth of these plants: the sub-Arctic Pacific, the Equatorial Pacific, and the Southern Ocean. By adding iron to the ocean's surface, the tiny plants, called phytoplankton, increase in number in these locations. The plants need carbon dioxide -- an important greenhouse gas -- to live. The source of their carbon dioxide is the atmosphere, and more plants means more carbon dioxide is taken from the atmosphere. By enriching the plants with iron, carbon dioxide is transferred from the atmosphere to the ocean. Iron was more plentiful in the atmosphere during the ice ages because the Earth was drier at that time. The dryness caused more dust to be picked up by the wind, and the dust contained iron, which then fertilized the ocean. More plant productivity in the ocean meant a reduction in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Brzezinski, one of 17 principal investigators, took part in a major expedition to the Southern Ocean to test the theory. He spent 42 days at sea. With technician Janice Jones and graduate student Mark Demarest, both from UCSB, he took part in the dropping of a yellowish powder of iron sulfate, mixed with ocean water, into two areas of the Southern Ocean. The goal was to observe the growth and fate of the marine plants under such enriched conditions. In order to simulate ice-age conditions, the scientists added iron to surface waters in two patches, each 15 kilometers on a side, so that the concentration of this micronutrient reached about 50 parts per trillion -- a 100-fold increase over ambient concentrations. Even at this low concentration, massive blooms of phytoplankton occurred at both locations. These blooms covered thousands of square kilometers, and were visible in satellite images of the area. Each of these blooms consumed over 30,000 tons of carbon dioxide. Of particular interest to the scientists was whether this carbon dioxide would be returned to the atmosphere, or would sink into deep waters as the phytoplankton died or were consumed by grazing marine organisms. " Here is a link to one such description of this process; http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/04/040420013836.htm DS
Thanks to banjo for posting this: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050708...MWXPdKs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTA3MzV0MTdmBHNlYwM3NTM- nitro
zzzs quote "Many evangelicals don't give a shit about the earth, as they think they are headed to heaven, so why not destroy it while they are waiting for the rapture to come and take them away...." More bullshit from zzz. Evangelicals preach that we are supposed to be stewards of the environment.
As is often the case with Evangelicals, what they preach, and what they do are diametrically opposed. How many Evangelicals give money to the Sierra Club? How many Evangelicals march on Earth day? How many Evangelicals buy organic foods to protest against corporate farming and the poisoning of the earth? LMAO...you are so full of shit....
Nitro, While I remain skeptical re. the extent of global warming that is caused by human activity mainly because the models used to predict the effect don't and they can't even go backwards. As someone pointed out, would you trade a model that did not backtest well? However, there is certainly some connection between climate and human activity. Fairly recently, scientists have started to look at the ocean for evidence of GW as the ocean is a much greater heat sink than the atmosphere and may impose a time delay in seeing GW effects in the atmosphere, and they seem to be finding evidence of GW in the ocean. A good article on this is: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=124
The models are only confused by one thing - why some of the polar regions may be getting colder and not warmer as perviously thought should occur by climatologists. In a paper I gave you above it gives a possible explanation for that discrepancy. It is a challenge that they will have to work out, but as we have more data I am convinced the explanation will come. You believe the models are bad, or that there is no evidence - fine. I do think they are good and that like all experimentally dominated sciences, the GW models will get more and more accurate with time as they get more data. I am glad that the people that are in charge of making the decisions are coming around to the fact that there is global warming and that human beings take a role in that problem too. That is what matters to me most. I plan to do my small part in helping out by avoiding at all costs things that perpetuate the problem, like buying a really efficient car (my current car is very inefficient,) or not taking a plastic bag at a store when I don't have to. I plan to raise my child with the awareness that this is a finite world (closed system) and that for every push, there is a pull. Most importantly, it is an important lesson to my daughter and I that once you suspect some behavior is damaging, that it is unethical to continue to pretend as if that behavior is ok. Really, it is a great opportunity to teach a child and ourselves the implications of our current way of living and the way that governments try to deal with complex issues presenting dangers to the future of all civilizations. There is no free lunch. nitro
Yes, which paper? The ones I looked at showed as much doubt about GW as they did to support it. Maybe I missed the link or didn't read the part of it you are referring to. Please point me again to it. If you are referring to the paper on the "Day After Tomorrow" effect, I posted a link to a paper that refutes it. To me a bigger issue is if by jumping on the bandwagon, we spend trillions and nothing good happens because we got the science wrong or missed some key element. For example, there is some good science that supports soot as the main reason the arctic region is heating up. Here is the lead paragraph from a NASA report on the role of soot: "New research from NASA scientists suggests emissions of black soot alter the way sunlight reflects off snow. According to a computer simulation, black soot may be responsible for 25 percent of observed global warming over the past century." full: "http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NasaNews/2003/2003122216328.html So if we limit GHGs and do little about soot, what good has come? As has been pointed out, Kyoto will do nothing to improve the GW situation and will give China and India a much larger economic advantage. So if this is what the public sees, there may be distrust the next time scientists call for a trillion dollar program to alleviate a problem in addition to the backlash against the GW supporters. Some tough issues to deal with and tough choices to make. DS ps-for the record, I'm anti Bush, but like a broken clock he may be correct in his position this time.
It's pointless to debate this, or any other issue really, with liberals. For them it's all about feeling good about themselves, as one of the above posts makes clear. They just get annoyed if you confuse them with facts or legitimate doubt. It doesn't make them feel better, so they don't want it. The proof is how utterly oblivious they are to the absence of any practical effect from all their feel good programs, whether it is recycling or not using plastic or whatever. For them, the payoff is in moral superiority, not in any real world benefit. That is why they are angered and indeed baffled that thinking people raise doubts about global warming and the draconian measures proposed to alleviate it.
exactly -- regarding recycling. did you know that only the recylcing of cans actually works economically and enviornmentally. The others lose money and actually harm the envoronment. Again we have a ---------- like zzz talking out his ass again. I have shown him to be taking out his ass on two other current threads. Now he is somehow asking about christians and environmentalism. If the ______ knew anything he would know there is a big movement to eat well among the families in christan churches. Organic food and eating well is as much the rage or more so in Christian chruches as anywhere else. In fact the epicenter of that eat well deal may be southern cal and there are tons of evangelicals in north county and organge county. There are Christian speakers who lecture about eating well and one at least one guy who talks about eating kosher because it is healthier. He would also know that in california there are tons of born again surfers, many whom are members of the surf rider foundation and some of whom are members of the sierra club or go to the meetings. How do I know this stuff. From experience. Do I say this anecdotal evidence is conclusive-- no. But do I know zzz is talking out his ass on this issue. Yes.