We were not pumping co2 from fossil fuels back then either. The issue is not CO2 itself, it's CO2 from millions of years ago that cannot be absorbed today.
Call me crazy... I'm one who believes the bible is the book of God. And, consequently I don't believe all the crap I hear about global warming, and I don't believe the earth is 4 billion years old either. I believe God has made it clear how life on this planet will end I'm not going with the global warming idea. Just me. No sense trying to draw me into a debate about it. I don't have the energy and I'm sure in the end nobody would be convinced to change their perspective. My $.02 worth.
I think the biggest point of contention is that humans are having a significant or noticeable effect. It is true that anthropogenic changes are not significant, but that does not mean they are not setting up for future impacts. It is a progressive trend. There is no doubt humans are accelerating the warming; many of you may say this is cyclical, which is true, but thats not the whole story. If you look at the condition of the atmosphere you will no without a doubt how much of an impact humans are having. Currently there is more carbon in the atmosphere than there has ever been, and the scary thing is that it is still increasing and shows no signs of slowing down or decreasing. People just dont realize that this does actually have an impact. You can dismiss science for whatever reason, but that does not change the facts. Carbon sinks are decreasing because of humans are changing our environment... the oceans cannot absorb as much carbon, there are far fewer mature forests to uptake carbon, so it has nowhere else to go but to the atmosphere, where it impacts the greenhouse effect so that more of the suns rays are absorbed and the result is a warmer earth. When you take into account the half lives of some of the compounds being released into the atmosphere, the emissions that are occurring today will have an impact hundreds even thousands of years into the future. This is why there are regulations on things like aerosols. CFC's are dangerous and can have a tremendous effect on our atmosphere. It may not be our generation who suffers, but 100 years from now our earth may be drastically different. If you look around the world there are areas already feeling the effects. Deforestation occurs because of feedback mechanisms that transform natural habitat. Deserts are growing because the effects of natural fires cannot be reversed at this point. Ice in the north is disappearing, which is further magnifying the problem. The overall albedo is changing; ice has a high degree of reflectivity, and as there is less and less ice returning each year, less of the incoming suns rays are reflected back to space and more are absorbed by the ocean. Also, ice melting in certain regions releases methane which has similar effects as carbon in the atmosphere.
"there are far fewer mature forests to uptake carbon"....just a point to consider(if you are referring to 'old growth' which I think is what you are doing here)...In the Great Lakes states(and most other forested areas in the U.S.)younger forests have more vitality and actual volume growth occurring and thereby 'uptake' more carbon than old growth. Using wood for building products does not release the carbon into the atmosphere so it is therefor still bound to the earth - just as it would be(and actually the part that we use is already 'dead' while the tree is still growing) if out in the woods or buried by volcanic ash(or whatever). The effects of natural fires being 'wildfires'(which in the U.S. is a direct effect of the SmokyBear campaign) can be reduced by our actions before the fires occur if we reduce the amount of tree litter(blowdowns, dead snags, etc) and organic matter build up with some type of harvesting system coupled with small controlled burns. BTW - I am just throwing this out there as a viable counter point to humans only helping to speed up global warming...it's obvious that some humans/activities are also slowing it down. It is funny how people think that the earth is supposed to be the way it was before our industry started to ruin it, that the temps and ocean levels should be remaining static. Iceland and Greenland were settled by the vikings when the ice cap was smaller....just sayin
The professor in Wisconsin is using facts also. Just ask him. Who checked the facts, did you? Did she actually conduct any of these studies? Or, is she just taking someone elses word as fact? If I told you that there was a recent study proving that there is five times more carbon in the snow that fell on my lawn this week than there was thirty years ago, would you believe it?
Absolutely this!!! I don't want to get off on a tangent and some can agree and disagree, but fletch's comment reminded me of how evolution is taught in schools as the absolute truth. No mention of creation what so ever! What's crazy is they teach evolution and when you dig into it there's very little evidence backing the theory. They just spew out their opinions on a subject and young minds perceive it as truth.
This is the thing with science. Until science is PROVEN to be fact, it is a theory. There is no "consensus" that can change that. Evolutuon is a theory, it may or may not be true. There is no way to prove it to be fact . As far as I know, there is still the missing link. One I always find interesting is carbon dating. They treat it as factual data when there is no way to prove it . How do you calibrate a machine to be accurate when there is no basis of calibration? Funny how they retest something with different results. I work with machines and tools that have to be calibrated to standards all the time and they are only as accurate as the standard being used. sent from my samsung note 2
young growth does not have the capacity to store carbon that old growth does. I dont think your getting the point. You are focusing on the U.S., when in reality it is mostly third world countries that are causing these problems. Underdeveloped countries rely too much on wood for fuels and are cutting down forests at a rate that is not sustainable. Also, what are you trying to say with Iceland and greenland? People been able to inhabit northern areas for thousands of years. That is no different. Here are some pictures that should help you understand... http://www.plu.edu/~hoodbs/img/deforestation.jpg http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/004/cache/teak-logs_400_600x450.jpg http://environment.nationalgeograph...ation/#/madagascar-slash-burn_278_600x450.jpg http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&...nh=194&tbnw=186&start=20&ndsp=27&tx=111&ty=69
This site is funny sometimes, one person says the earth is round, and then there are always the same few guys that will argue that it isn't, just cuz...LMAO!
You are making yourself sound like an idiot. If you understood science you wouldnt be saying this. Its a fact of life that plants use photosynthesis to grow. CO2 is a part of this process... it is taken in by the plant. If you understand chemistry you would know that C is carbon. Snow is what? H2O. Science is a little more logical than you think. Just because you dont understand it or you refuse to accept it doesnt make it untrue.
Thats all fine and good but to take that info and extrapolate it to changing weather patterns is nothing more than theory. Many scientist are in disagreement that there is man made global warming, yet they are ignored. Purely because it doesn't fit the agenda. Say it is true, what the heck can we do about it? Quit driving automobiles? Change to battery operated cars.(where are you going to put all the old batteries) we have reasons other than global warming for cleaner burning fuels. We will find alternatives without global warming driving the debate. What can we do about China? Imo and many scientist, global warming (or cycles)will still exist, regardless of what we do . sent from my samsung note 2
A good read from the "other side" or would dark side be more fitting. http://www.thenewamerican.com/tech/...-in-shambles-real-scientists-battle-un-agenda sent from my samsung note 2
If you don't think that shooting chemicals into the air inside bad for you, put your mouth around the exhaust pipe of an engine. Just spray some hairspray into your mouth and tell me that it's good for you, try to grow some plants where a diesel engine exhaust is located and tell me how well those plants grow. Are we trying to say that dumping chemicals into oceans and rivers aren't damaging our environment? Again, the argument isnt that we should be a planet standing still, its that we are accelerating it faster than we can cope with it.
Another one. This one is pretty good. He talks about what drives the "science" he is a controversial figure but none the less, there are many that argue from this point of view. He basically says to follow the money. http://newmexico.watchdog.org/15128...e-global-warming-in-sandia-labs-presentation/ sent from my samsung note 2
Be careful smart guy. I am packing around an extremely high I.Q. in this thick head of mine. Not only do I fully understand the "science" of it all, I also understand the fact that the science is largely theory at this point in the realm of global warming. If you were able to use some of your high intellect, you would obviously see the point that I was trying to make. If some professor was to tell a classroom of wanna-be intellectuals that there is an increase in carbon in our snow, many of them would take it to the bank. If you want to believe everything your teacher tells you, you might as well get your education from the internet. Sorry I was not more clear, I was under the impression that you were formally educated. My bad.
Again, that doesn't have a damn thing to do with changing weather. Just because it will kill a human doesn't mean it will warm the planet. sent from my samsung note 2
Fletch, dont take this the wrong way here, but, both sides of this argument expects us to believe someones theory. You are right Tfox, bad examples.
tfox, why do you insist on staying on topic? You are making it very difficult for others to introduce "science" into this thread. Please, quit making so much sense and allow them to take it off track so we can find the underlying truth. I'm gonna call Al Gore, he will tell me the truth and then I will report back. It's supposed to get a little warmer here today, hope our snow doesnt melt so fast that the carbon released kills my deer herd. Somebody told me that could happen.
I can appreciate that and agree. That is exactly the point. It is just theory. But some folks dont see that. They choose to believe an unknown as fact.
