Guided Missile Posted 24 November, 2013 Share Posted 24 November, 2013 (edited) To put this in "climate change mitigation" spend in perspective, the total aid budget per year for poorer countries, in the form of official development assistance (ODA) was about $120 billion in 2009. Indefensible to spend anything on global warming, IMO... Edited 24 November, 2013 by Guided Missile Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank's cousin Posted 24 November, 2013 Share Posted 24 November, 2013 To put this in "climate change mitigation" spend in perspective, the total aid budget per year for poorer countries, in the form of official development assistance (ODA) was about $120 billion in 2009. Indefensible to spend anything on global warming, IMO... So answer Hokie's question - what is it - global, EU, UK? and inflation adjusted? its peanuts and you know it in comparison to global GDP. Secondly, there is value in this spend in terms of a return, through cleaner, more efficient energy returns, improved air quality and health care spend reduction.... but you fail to acknowledge any of this, let alone answer any questions.... Do you know what the cost will be of treating some 300 million Chinese workers who have have advanced COPD and other lung related illnesses in 2030? Or like your Grand children, dont you 'give a f*ck'? For someone who professes to have a modicum of intelligence you dont half act like a complete ignorant tw&t on here. This issue is and should be apolitical...as many venture capilalists with a brain recognise - (notice you never actually address ANY of the issues that rip your opinions and post to shreads...) GM you may be on the mother of all wind ups, who knows... but your knowledge of true scientific review is...flawed.... your opinions antiquated, a relic of 80s beardy's v Torys - (science has moved on from that one), your attitude ignorant of the current TRUE scientific opinion based on currently available evidence - which is ambiguous, often contradictory and without accurate enough models to be confident of eliminating all hypothesis... yet you retain the arrogance of f*ckwit politico... I have met you and you were an arrogrant ***** then so obviously nothing has changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 24 November, 2013 Share Posted 24 November, 2013 (edited) $73bn pa to mitigate global climate change? That would be 0.1% of global gdp in 2012. Britain's share would be £1.6bn ($2.4bn) - a lot less than the £5bn subsidies paid to farmers so they can buy stuff like herbicides. Also a lot less than doing nothing and allowing runaway climate change to take hold. The global aviation business has revenues of $600bn pa, oil & gas industry around $4.8 trillion - about 60 times more than the costs of mitigation. Even at current levels the UK's air passenger duty raises £2.8bn pa - enough to mitigate climate change and pocket the £1.2bn change. Edited 24 November, 2013 by buctootim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hokie Posted 24 November, 2013 Share Posted 24 November, 2013 So, you'd rather have Saddam Hussein, who was responsible for the deaths of 50-100,000 Kurds, (including an attack on the town of Halabja with a mix of mustard gas and nerve agents, killing 5,000 and maiming, disfiguring, or seriously debilitating 10,000 more), who threatened to annihilate half of Israel with chemical weapons and who was responsible for a war with Iran, in which hundreds of thousands died, rather than the chance of a slightly warmer planet. You and Frank, dumb and dumber... Yes, yes, yes. That was exactly my point. You remind me of the Groucho Marx line, "I'd challenge you to a battle of wits, but I refuse to fight an unarmed man." Seriously though, is a billion as you present it a thousand million, or million million. I'd dare say that cost estimates that differ by 10^3 are key to an intelligent discussion. Also, are those UK costs, or global, or what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hokie Posted 24 November, 2013 Share Posted 24 November, 2013 Because a few years back, one side declared "the debate over as there was a now a consensus"....Yup they really did I think they still do. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus Okay, I'd say scientifically no debate is ever "over", but the existing data is definitively in support of the theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 24 November, 2013 Share Posted 24 November, 2013 I think they still do. http://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus Okay, I'd say scientifically no debate is ever "over", but the existing data is definitively in support of the theory. So what kind of scientist's would effectively declare an unproven scientific "theory" a law?......Total head cases like "Coal trains of death" Hansen and the 'Mad Hadley Climategate Hatters, that's who...The same peeps who just happen to have been spearheading the frenzy pretty much from the start and have done very nicely out of it too... Hide the decline Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Stickman Posted 8 December, 2013 Share Posted 8 December, 2013 Okay, I’m on neither one side nor the other concerning the man-made global warming debate; however, I would genuinely appreciate some help with – or opinions on – the following: I often read temperatures quoted to more than one decimal place; today, for example, I read on Wikipedia a figure from NASA Data quoting the “combined land-surface air and sea-surface water temperature anomaly” for the years 1880 – 1889 as being minus 0.274˚C compared to the 1951 – 1980 mean. Have world temperatures always been measured to 3 decimal places of a ˚C, even in the 1880s, or do these (seemingly) very precise figures occur as a result of averaging? If it’s the latter, I was always taught that precision (or accuracy) cannot be introduced as a result of averaging, and that an averaged result should never be quoted in significant figures exceeding those of the measured data, e.g. if I measure the temperature in my garden every day for a week as 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 and 9, then I can only quote the average daily temperature as 10 and not as 9.857 (69 divided by 7) What am I missing here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 8 December, 2013 Share Posted 8 December, 2013 So what kind of scientist's would effectively declare an unproven scientific "theory" a law?......Total head cases like "Coal trains of death" Hansen and the 'Mad Hadley Climategate Hatters, that's who...The same peeps who just happen to have been spearheading the frenzy pretty much from the start and have done very nicely out of it too... Hide the decline Oh for the love of god George, are you still desperately clinging on to that 'climategate' bullsh*t? I realise that nothing I or anybody else can post will ever make you realise how wrong you are about climate science, but do you seriously not realise how much of a tool you look by carrying on using that as 'evidence' to support your argument? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 8 December, 2013 Share Posted 8 December, 2013 Okay, I’m on neither one side nor the other concerning the man-made global warming debate; however, I would genuinely appreciate some help with – or opinions on – the following: I often read temperatures quoted to more than one decimal place; today, for example, I read on Wikipedia a figure from NASA Data quoting the “combined land-surface air and sea-surface water temperature anomaly” for the years 1880 – 1889 as being minus 0.274˚C compared to the 1951 – 1980 mean. Have world temperatures always been measured to 3 decimal places of a ˚C, even in the 1880s, or do these (seemingly) very precise figures occur as a result of averaging? If it’s the latter, I was always taught that precision (or accuracy) cannot be introduced as a result of averaging, and that an averaged result should never be quoted in significant figures exceeding those of the measured data, e.g. if I measure the temperature in my garden every day for a week as 10, 10, 10, 10, 10, 10 and 9, then I can only quote the average daily temperature as 10 and not as 9.857 (69 divided by 7) What am I missing here? Good question. My understanding is that you are correct regarding decimal places or significant figures. In science whenever you write an equation you should always present your answer to the same significant figures as the value with the lowest in the calculation. I just did a quick search for something where I could find some raw data and came across this (I know the observatory at Mauna Loa records air temperatures because that's where the monitoring of CO2 concentration began) and it looks as though they are indeed using 3 decimal places... http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/6/1685/2010/cpd-6-1685-2010.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Stickman Posted 9 December, 2013 Share Posted 9 December, 2013 Good question. My understanding is that you are correct regarding decimal places or significant figures. In science whenever you write an equation you should always present your answer to the same significant figures as the value with the lowest in the calculation. I just did a quick search for something where I could find some raw data and came across this (I know the observatory at Mauna Loa records air temperatures because that's where the monitoring of CO2 concentration began) and it looks as though they are indeed using 3 decimal places... http://www.clim-past-discuss.net/6/1685/2010/cpd-6-1685-2010.pdf Thanks Bexy, that’s interesting. I wonder how long people have been able to measure temperatures that accurately? I find it hard to believe they could have recorded them with that about of precision back in the1880s, yet temperatures pertaining to that period are often quoted to 3 decimal places. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buctootim Posted 9 December, 2013 Share Posted 9 December, 2013 Liquid in glass thermometers have been around since the 1880s and can measure up to +/- 0.01 degrees - ie two decimal places not three. I've no idea if other more accurate instruments were available, sorry. Its a fair mathematical point, but Im not sure it matters much in practice since the actual range of temperature change is far more than 100ths of degrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halo Stickman Posted 9 December, 2013 Share Posted 9 December, 2013 Liquid in glass thermometers have been around since the 1880s and can measure up to +/- 0.01 degrees - ie two decimal places not three. I've no idea if other more accurate instruments were available, sorry. Its a fair mathematical point, but Im not sure it matters much in practice since the actual range of temperature change is far more than 100ths of degrees. Oh, that’s interesting, tim, I didn’t realise thermometers were that accurate back then. Yes, I appreciate in the grand scale of things that it wouldn’t matter too much – unless people were rounding up (or down) their readings to the nearest whole number… and even then, I suppose, rounded up numbers would cancel out rounded down numbers. Anyway, it’s not such an issue as something I read the other day; apparently, the average man sleeps with 11.7 different women in his life time. How many men sleep with 0.7 of a women? Some of us struggle to score 11 whole women ffs! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 9 December, 2013 Share Posted 9 December, 2013 Liquid in glass thermometers have been around since the 1880s and can measure up to +/- 0.01 degrees - ie two decimal places not three. I've no idea if other more accurate instruments were available, sorry. Its a fair mathematical point, but Im not sure it matters much in practice since the actual range of temperature change is far more than 100ths of degrees. Yup, and most of those thermometers in recording stations during the 1800's and earlier 1900's, were located in relatively rural areas....The same locations have now become urban heat islands and guess what?...yup, they're recording higher temperatures....Now there's a surprise. | Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andysstuff Posted 9 December, 2013 Share Posted 9 December, 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/dec/09/us-navy-arctic-sea-ice-2016-melt?CMP=twt_gu Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 9 December, 2013 Share Posted 9 December, 2013 Yup, and most of those thermometers in recording stations during the 1800's and earlier 1900's, were located in relatively rural areas....The same locations have now become urban heat islands and guess what?...yup, they're recording higher temperatures....Now there's a surprise. | LOL. I did heat island effect in GCSE geography I would be very surprised if it wasn't factored in. It could me measured very easily by comparing results to records from rural locations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saint George Posted 9 December, 2013 Share Posted 9 December, 2013 LOL. I did heat island effect in GCSE geography I would be very surprised if it wasn't factored in. It could me measured very easily by comparing results to records from rural locations. I'm sure the hundreds, if not thousands of recording sites like these, with heat from sewer treatment plants, exhaust fans, AC condenser coils, aircraft, parked vehicles, etc. etc. have all been factored in perfectly accurately....yessiriee http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=831 oh look! http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=901 http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=3396 oh look! http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/images/forest_grove_plot.png http://www.surfacestations.org/images/Lodi_fire2.jpg oh look! http://www.surfacestations.org/images/lodi_plot.jpg http://www.surfacestations.org/images/petaluma_west.jpg oh look! http://www.surfacestations.org/images/Petaluma_station_plot.gif etc etc etc oh....and this http://surfacestations.org/images/lovelock_mig480.jpg :-" pics from http://www.surfacestations.org Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 9 December, 2013 Share Posted 9 December, 2013 Oh no! Scientists have put air temperature gauges in urban areas! The entire foundations of climate science must be false!!!! George you are such a muppet I don't know why I bother engaging you, but stupidity like yours needs to be challenged. The accounting and adjusting for the urban heat island effect is taught to 1st year students. Jesus, even I learned about it in an Open University taster course that's lower even than level one. Do you honestly think that the world's climate science community has completely overlooked it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 9 December, 2013 Share Posted 9 December, 2013 Do you honestly think that the world's climate science community has completely overlooked it? Yes he does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trousers Posted 14 December, 2013 Share Posted 14 December, 2013 http://twitchy.com/2013/12/13/snow-in-the-middle-east-amazing-photos-tell-the-story/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 15 December, 2013 Share Posted 15 December, 2013 All sorts of influences at work. http://www.uu.nl/EN/Current/Pages/Wereldwijdonttrekkenvangrondwaterleidttotzeespiegelstijging.aspx http://economicdroplets.com/2013/11/12/groundwater-extraction-and-sea-level-rise/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 15 December, 2013 Share Posted 15 December, 2013 All sorts of influences at work. http://www.uu.nl/EN/Current/Pages/Wereldwijdonttrekkenvangrondwaterleidttotzeespiegelstijging.aspx http://economicdroplets.com/2013/11/12/groundwater-extraction-and-sea-level-rise/ If groundwater extraction does contribute to sea level rise then we should be even more concerned about adding to it with climate change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 16 December, 2013 Share Posted 16 December, 2013 4 years don't mean a thing, we're still doomed unless we throw money in the direction NGO's tell us, we have to cut CO2 emissions, etc., etc., etc..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 16 December, 2013 Share Posted 16 December, 2013 4 years don't mean a thing, we're still doomed unless we throw money in the direction NGO's tell us, we have to cut CO2 emissions, etc., etc., etc..... At least give the link : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25383373 " Data from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft suggests there were almost 9,000 cu km of ice at the end of this year's melt season. This is close to 50% more than in the corresponding period in 2012. It is a rare piece of good news for a region that has witnessed a rapid decline in both area cover and thickness in recent years. But scientists caution against reading too much into one year's "recovery". "Although the recovery of Arctic sea ice is certainly welcome news, it has to be considered against the backdrop of changes that have occurred over the last few decades," said Prof Andy Shepherd of University College London, UK. It's estimated that there were around 20,000 cu km of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today's minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years," Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OldNick Posted 16 December, 2013 Share Posted 16 December, 2013 At least give the link : http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25383373 " Data from Europe's Cryosat spacecraft suggests there were almost 9,000 cu km of ice at the end of this year's melt season. This is close to 50% more than in the corresponding period in 2012. It is a rare piece of good news for a region that has witnessed a rapid decline in both area cover and thickness in recent years. But scientists caution against reading too much into one year's "recovery". "Although the recovery of Arctic sea ice is certainly welcome news, it has to be considered against the backdrop of changes that have occurred over the last few decades," said Prof Andy Shepherd of University College London, UK. It's estimated that there were around 20,000 cu km of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today's minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years," Of course has the ce reduced by the same amount it would not be seized upon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 It is a rare piece of good news for a region that has witnessed a rapid decline in both area cover and thickness in recent years. But scientists caution against reading too much into one year's "recovery". "Although the recovery of Arctic sea ice is certainly welcome news, it has to be considered against the backdrop of changes that have occurred over the last few decades," said Prof Andy Shepherd of University College London, UK. It's estimated that there were around 20,000 cu km of Arctic sea ice each October in the early 1980s, and so today's minimum still ranks among the lowest of the past 30 years," Meanwhile, in the Antarctic.... 74 Global warming scientists and advocates plus the ships crew went to Antarctica In an ice-strengthened ship to prove to the world that Antarctic sea ice had disappeared because of manmade global warming (caused by CO2 they claim.) This was done in celebration of the trip made 100 years ago and to follow in the footsteps of explorer Douglas Mawson. They got stuck in ten foot thick sea ice they claimed melted away from global warming. A hundred years ago, the entire region, right up to the shore, was completely clear of ice. Explorer Douglas Mawson got within 50 yards of shore in a wooden ship with only a sextant, and was only stopped because of low water. He then traveled 300 miles inland. Those on board the Academic Shokalskiy with GPS navigation, on-board Internet, radar, and satellite communications only got within miles of shore. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2531159/Antarctic-crew-build-ice-helipad-help-rescuers.html#ixzz2pEPixaGe Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook Thank God they have been saved by a helicopter and fossil fuel.... What a bunch of crackpots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 The voice of reason from down under... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 Of course has the ce reduced by the same amount it would not be seized upon Yes by the press and the ignorant (eg. see numb-nut's posts above). Serious scientists will look at it in context of long term trends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 Meanwhile, in the Antarctic.... Thank God they have been saved by a helicopter and fossil fuel.... What a bunch of crackpots. http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/12/30/18748547.php "The Paradox of Antarctic Sea Ice and Global Warming Denial: Research vessel trapped in ice" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 http://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2013/12/30/18748547.php "The Paradox of Antarctic Sea Ice and Global Warming Denial: Research vessel trapped in ice" Ohhh, I see, some Chinese nerd researcher, relying on funding for his computer modelling, has taken time off from his X Box, to postulate that it is the wind, that is causing the abnormally high extent of the ice cap, in the middle of summer, in Antartica. Pity him and the other experts on Climate Science didn't let the captain of the Russian icebreaker trapped for the foreseeable future, know about the problems before they set sail 5 weeks ago. Really, that paper is a scientific joke, full of b0ll0x. I've underlined the b0ll0x, so you can recognise it in the future: What Zhang doesn’t know is why the vortex has gotten stronger. It could simply be a result of natural climate variations, with no connection to human activity. It could also be related to the ozone hole that still persists over the southern continent. That manmade gap in the planet’s protective ozone layer isn’t a result of global warming; its cause is manmade ozone-destroying chlorofluorocarbons, whose use has been phased out, but which still linger in the polar stratosphere. But the loss of ozone above Antarctica has altered the local energy balance in the atmosphere, and could, in principle, make the polar vortex stronger. It’s plausible, Zhang said, but the dynamics of the polar atmosphere are “very, very complicated. I haven’t seen a clear explanation yet of why the winds have gotten stronger The best quote is from the mental case who got everyone to pay for the voyage. "Climate change may have prompted the iceberg to shatter and float into the previously open sea", where the mostly Australian team finds itself stranded, Turney said. “The ice was swept across to this area by the South-East wind, its pieces creating a knock-on domino effect,” Turney told FoxNews.com, speaking from a tent erected on the stranded ship’s top deck. “We were just in the wrong place at the wrong time.” Or it could be that your outlandish theory is wrong, mate and man is having little or no effect on the extent of the polar ice caps... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 GM, you have convinced me - you're articulate use of the word 'nerd', astute discernment of his being a 'mental case', and accurate assessment of just about every thing ever written on the subject as b0ll0x, are all the evidence I need that we are having no effect on the environment whatsoever; deforestation is definitely improving the landscape of Amazonia, dumping sewage and thousands of tons of plastic into the oceans makes for happier turtles and dolphins, over fishing means there is much more room for those fish that remain, and the whole AGW thing is a complete fairy tale. I am honoured to share this thread with such an advanced and superior intellect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Whitey Grandad Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 GM, you have convinced me - you're articulate use of the word 'nerd', astute discernment of his being a 'mental case', and accurate assessment of just about every thing ever written on the subject as b0ll0x, are all the evidence I need that we are having no effect on the environment whatsoever; deforestation is definitely improving the landscape of Amazonia, dumping sewage and thousands of tons of plastic into the oceans makes for happier turtles and dolphins, over fishing means there is much more room for those fish that remain, and the whole AGW thing is a complete fairy tale. I am honoured to share this thread with such an advanced and superior intellect. There are a lot of unrelated issues in there. Anything else that you'd like to get off your chest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 There are a lot of unrelated issues in there. Anything else that you'd like to get off your chest? Have you got any further with your cosmic ray theory yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 There are a lot of unrelated issues in there. Actually, IMO, they are not - deforestation and pollution of the oceans are part of the theory of AGW, as impacting these 'carbon sinks' reduces the ability of the planetary ecosystem to compensate for human action by removing CO2 from the atmosphere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 Actually, IMO, they are not - deforestation and pollution of the oceans are part of the theory of AGW, as impacting these 'carbon sinks' reduces the ability of the planetary ecosystem to compensate for human action by removing CO2 from the atmosphere. You could always increase the health of the rainforests by increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Oh, hang-on, you want to remove it.... Brilliant... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
View From The Top Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 You could always increase the health of the rainforests by increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Oh, hang-on, you want to remove it.... Brilliant... For a clever bloke that is an extraordinarily dumb post. We improve the health of the rainforests by not cutting and burning them down on the 1st place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 You could always increase the health of the rainforests by increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Oh, hang-on, you want to remove it.... For a clever bloke that is an extraordinarily dumb post. Seconded. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 For a clever bloke that is an extraordinarily dumb post. We improve the health of the rainforests by not cutting and burning them down on the 1st place. Read badgerx16's post again. The contention in the post was that deforestation is part of the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming. I don't know what your point was, apart from the contention that I am dumb... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 I think the role of the rain forests in the theory of man made climate change is quite obvious to anyone with a GCSE in science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 Seconded. You and View From The Top should keep posting and I'm sure you'll soon get a PM from a couple of villages that are short of an idiot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 I think the role of the rain forests in the theory of man made climate change is quite obvious to anyone with a GCSE in science. Enlighten me on the link then, Sherlock. I would say there is no link between the two whatsoever. De-forestation is caused by chain saws and plants need CO2 to grow. Actually, I'm going to start a new theory you lot will love. Obesity levels have only started increasing since CO2 levels started increasing. Reduce CO2 levels and we'll cure obesity... I'm a genius, I must admit... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
badgerx16 Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 You and View From The Top should keep posting and I'm sure you'll soon get a PM from a couple of villages that are short of an idiot. We'd be behind you in the queue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 Enlighten me on the link then, Sherlock. I would say there is no link between the two whatsoever. De-forestation is caused by chain saws and plants need CO2 to grow. Actually, I'm going to start a new theory you lot will love. Obesity levels have only started increasing since CO2 levels started increasing. Reduce CO2 levels and we'll cure obesity... I'm a genius, I must admit... Seriously? You claim to have a background in chemistry and yet you can't see the quite obvious link between the removal of biomass and the subsequent weakened ability of the remaining biomass to absorb atmospheric CO2? Seriously??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 Seriously? You claim to have a background in chemistry and yet you can't see the quite obvious link between the removal of biomass and the subsequent weakened ability of the remaining biomass to absorb atmospheric CO2? Seriously??? Obvious? Seriously??? You don't even understand the definition of biomass and confuse the term with rainforests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Verbal Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 You could always increase the health of the rainforests by increasing the level of CO2 in the atmosphere. Oh, hang-on, you want to remove it.... Brilliant... Aside from anything else, where is the evidence, or even the idea, that primary rainforests were "unhealthy" before the recent rise in CO2 levels? Primary rainforests are less able to function as carbon sinks for the simple reason that they have been comprehensively trashed in a remarkably short time. There is just less of them. Do you really have a scientific background? It seems to me you'd qualify for a post-school diploma in anger management (although clearly not graduate from it) but little else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 Obvious? Seriously??? You don't even understand the definition of biomass and confuse the term with rainforests. Bi-o-mass noun 1. Ecology . the amount of living matter in a given habitat, expressed either as the weight of organisms per unit area or as the volume of organisms per unit volume of habitat. So cutting down vast areas of rainforest and replacing it with grazing land does not constitute removal of biomass then, no? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Weston Saint Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 Deforestation is not causing an increase in Carbon Dioxide. How can it! However Deforestation is resulting in less Carbon Dioxide, caused by other means, being absorbed. There is a subtle difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aintforever Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 Enlighten me on the link then, Sherlock. I would say there is no link between the two whatsoever. De-forestation is caused by chain saws and plants need CO2 to grow. Actually, I'm going to start a new theory you lot will love. Obesity levels have only started increasing since CO2 levels started increasing. Reduce CO2 levels and we'll cure obesity... I'm a genius, I must admit... **** it, you've convinced me. I'm on your side now, it's all nonsense. I'm going to ignore the consensus of the World's leading scientists and concur with some bloke who names himself after a missile and posts anonymously on a football forum. That's the sensible way forward, our country's leaders should take note. When deciding on policy instead of consulting the experts go on a football website and see what the local sarcastic arsehole has to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sheaf Saint Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 Deforestation is not causing an increase in Carbon Dioxide. How can it! However Deforestation is resulting in less Carbon Dioxide, caused by other means, being absorbed. There is a subtle difference. You say that, but the giant earth-movers and chainsaws burn hydrocarbons for fuel, so it can be truly said that the process of deforestation does contribute to CO2 emissions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 Aside from anything else, where is the evidence, or even the idea, that primary rainforests were "unhealthy" before the recent rise in CO2 levels? Primary rainforests are less able to function as carbon sinks for the simple reason that they have been comprehensively trashed in a remarkably short time. There is just less of them. Rainforests have not been "trashed" to use your scientific term. The rate of deforestation is lower now than it has been for a long time and much of the deforestation in the world is down to the use of the land for pasture and growing soy beans for, you've guessed it, biofuels (Soy production has already destroyed 21 million hectares of forest in Brazil). I can understand someone being concerned that deforestation may reduce biodiversity, but to suggest that replacing forests with other crops may affect global CO2 levels and thus our climate, by any meaningful measure is absurd. Still, I think it is time for me to leave this playpen. The level of informed debate by the posters responding to me, has reached an intellectual level I'm finding hard to stoop to. Just plain lazy, uninformed and ignorant responses based on superstitious scare stories ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guided Missile Posted 2 January, 2014 Share Posted 2 January, 2014 You say that, but the giant earth-movers and chainsaws burn hydrocarbons for fuel, so it can be truly said that the process of deforestation does contribute to CO2 emissions. Clever... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now