Man made carbon emission causes AGW?

I think man made carbon emission is causing anthropogenic global warming.


  • Total voters
    14

Red1966

Well-Known Member
What do RIU members think of this issue? Where do we weigh in on it?
Carbon and carbon dioxide are two different things. How is it that nobody caught that? Carbon, by itself, isn't a greenhouse gas. Water vapor and methane in the atmosphere contribute to temp changes than co2. Humans only produce 3% of the co2 in the air. We're barking up the wrong tree.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Doc, to the best of my knowledge the numbers are good. 400 ppm equates to .04% of total atmospheric co2 measured from all sources, man made, biomass and ocean. Of course they are scientific best estimates, but most any source from either view will be in the ball park. And I agree that co2 ppm historic range is wide. If the co2 # I'm quoting is wrong than let's cite an accurate one. Here's a quick google, hopefully reputable. http://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2011/atmosphericco2.html I think the benchmark is the one from Hawaii, they've been consistently monitoring and releasing data. Point is, the actual percentage of co2 in atmosphere is tiny. Even smaller is mans contribution. Estimates bantered are in the 10-18 % range of total co2, which again is currently 400ppm, .04% of total atmosphere.
Keynes dropped the ball on that one. 400 ppm DOES = 0.0004 or .04% . 2% would be 20,000 ppm, fatal to plants and animals both. As I think any grower would know.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Ozone is tinier yet at appx. 0.6 ppm, so not even two thousandths of CO2. Yet that tiny amount of ozone is vital to us and all land creatures. You showed earlier the vast size of the biotic CO2 reservoir being exchanged compared to the small amount we produce. And yet the atmospheric pCO2 has been going up in lockstep with human emissions. This suggests that the vast swings in biotic/natural CO2 are at a saturation point in the atmosphere/ocean/land system. Were we not at saturation, why else would it go up and up in precise proportion to what we add from fossil sources? And since we seem to be at saturation, there is nowhere left for that CO2 to go. This is why so many leading scientists see danger. We're screwing with a heavily-leveraged (positively cooperative) system at its limit. We could get a casino payout hundreds of times stronger than the input, which took a century of uninterrupted fossil fuel burning. cn
This implies that deforestation may be a bigger problem than increased emissions.
 

UncleBuck

Well-Known Member
Carbon and carbon dioxide are two different things. How is it that nobody caught that? Carbon, by itself, isn't a greenhouse gas. Water vapor and methane in the atmosphere contribute to temp changes than co2. Humans only produce 3% of the co2 in the air. We're barking up the wrong tree.
you should publish a peer reviewed article on the matter, gain international acclaim for your insight, collect your millions of dollars, and retire.
 

TroncoChe

Active Member
Global climate change is not influenced by guilt or innocence. I contend we should be more concerned with our normal return to a massive glaciation period of, what, 250,000 years , before worrying about warming to what, medieval times, if that. Look at a historical temp chart that covers the last million years ago.............................................."Obliquity, the angle between Earth's equatorial and orbital planes or the tilt in Earth's axis, varies between 22.5 and 24 degrees during a cycle of 41,000 years. As the tilt increases, so does the annual average sunlight reaching high latitudes, and these are the conditions under which Huybers and Wunsch find that glaciations end. Earth's tilt is currently 23.5 degrees and decreasing. Without the much more rapid anthropogenic or human influences on climate, Earth would probably be slowly moving toward glaciation."

The poll questioned asked if humans are causing global warming. Until there is evidence to support such a claim, then "man" is innocent. Your preaching to the choir.
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
you should publish a peer reviewed article on the matter, gain international acclaim for your insight, collect your millions of dollars, and retire.
If you insist only replying to my posts, could you at least say something not retarded?
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
This implies that deforestation may be a bigger problem than increased emissions.
They are both big problems imo ... they are awfully expensive to fix. We need to abandon an economic engine (all that wood for the taking!) and then spend from our diminished coffers to replant. Onto land that would have grown food or more money crops.
Deforestation was a huge, huge topic 20 and 30 years ago. I hear much less about it today. It's possible that it's slowed way down ... but it's likely that the relevant commercial interests are simply not interested in publicity, and are winning, so to speak. cn
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Reforestation occurs naturally. But very, very slowly. The roving eye of the media has moved on from the topic of deforestation. Much of the tree cutting (actually, more is burned) occur in marginal at best rain forest areas. The soil is so thin that crops can only be grown a year or two. Then new forest is cleared for the next crop. Would we want to ban this land clearing and deprive indigenous farmers the ability to eek out a meager living?
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Reforestation occurs naturally. But very, very slowly. The roving eye of the media has moved on from the topic of deforestation. Much of the tree cutting (actually, more is burned) occur in marginal at best rain forest areas. The soil is so thin that crops can only be grown a year or two. Then new forest is cleared for the next crop. Would we want to ban this land clearing and deprive indigenous farmers the ability to eek out a meager living?
Someone with a utilitarian philosophy would say Yes. The welfare of thousands at a cost to the welfare of billions?

Other philosophies come up with other answers.

It can be argued that the rain forests being cleared are very very important as carbon sinks and as climate anchors. The removal of rain forest interrupts the weather that sustains those forests. This has been shown throughout the tropics. It's a classic case of the tragedy of the commons, with these commons "decommunized" by property laws. cn

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=77060
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
I wonder if there is some cash crop that can be grown in those areas that would absorb co2 as effectively as forest, or at least as near as possible. That could be a win-win situation. How about it? Any "real" farmers in here? Considering the soil quality of most forests, this might not be feasible.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
I wonder if there is some cash crop that can be grown in those areas that would absorb co2 as effectively as forest, or at least as near as possible. That could be a win-win situation. How about it? Any "real" farmers in here? Considering the soil quality of most forests, this might not be feasible.
Part of it is that forests are much more than just carbon sinks. Rain forests in particular are unparalleled "biodiversity reserves" and soil anchors. The soil under a rain forest is too poor to grow much else, and once the jungle has been cleared, erodes quickly. No profitable crop will do either. cn
 

Red1966

Well-Known Member
Denuded, barren land is less a""biodiversity reserve" than any crop land. Any crop would be a soil anchor. The poor soil, or lack of it, remains the major hurdle. At least these areas tend to have suitable weather.
 

Dr Kynes

Well-Known Member
I wonder if there is some cash crop that can be grown in those areas that would absorb co2 as effectively as forest, or at least as near as possible. That could be a win-win situation. How about it? Any "real" farmers in here? Considering the soil quality of most forests, this might not be feasible.


the "rainforests" are not a single thing nor are they easily defined except by their HUGE annual rainfall. when people think of "rainforests" they assume tropical jungles, but this is not the case at all. theres even a "rainforest" in alaska. (http://acrc.alaska.edu/)

when ever your dealing with 70-80 inches of rain a year you get two natural choices

Rainforests:
characterized by HUGE trees and often a 2-3 layer canopy making the forest floor dark as fuck and the ground eternally damp. the massive trees (like redwoods) store huge ammounts of "carbon" inside their living structures and this is released after the tree dies by biological action from fungi or bacteria, or rapidly by burning. using that wood dto construct something durable of course takes that "Carbon" out f the cycle for the duration,, just like plastics do, but no matter how you slice it, "rainforests" are not really "carbon sinks" unless they are expanding. standing rainforests are at best "carbon cyclers" with fungi eating dead plant material and plants getting bigger by eating that CO2.

Swamps:
swamps bayous, and the PC "wetlands" produce co2 and methane, they dont store it. swamps are pretty much just "rainforests" without the forests, their bology depending mostly on algae bacterium and fungi, not plants which "store carbon"

neither of these two terrains can be converted into croplandseasily, and unless you do it right, the massive rainfall will drown your crops and erode the soil. in the higher elevations of the "rainforest" (where it's not really a rainforest any more) shade grown coffee is a fine example of jungles becoming agricultural lands, and eventually the natural jungle trees can be eliminated as the mango, avocado and papaya trees get big enough to shade the coffee trees. rice crops can displace swamp "ecosystems" quite handily, but the rice market worldwide makes rice a largely subsistence crop with little in the way of profits for smallholders.

the "deforestation" claims of the 80's and 90's were based on a faulty premise,, the 'deforestation" images and videos were actually images of people clearing room for towns to exploit the gold fields in the amazon basin, not clearance of agricultural land. yall got lied to.
most jungle's-edge farmers live in the highlands, and still fight a seasonal battle with encroaching forests. few have the resources to expand, as just keeping the jungle back has proved quite the job already. trying to tame the deep basin jungles of the amazon is a pipedream crafted by the fainforest action network and other envirowacko gangs who will lie to you first, and slowly bring forth the truth as a last resort.

as to the fertility of forest soil, it's often extremely rich, but all the goodness washes away fast under 70-80 inches of rain if the forest isnt keeping the freshness in. replacing forest with cropland isnt easy, and it's hard as a mofo if you want that cropland to produce. grasslands are usually much easier to convert to farm, plus theyre often flat already so thats a plus.

we already have a working model of how smallholders can turn forests (even jungles) into farms without destroying the forests as a whole, and thats the beaver dam meadow. it's not economically feasible, and it;s not profitable, and it certainly isnt fast but it works.
replacing the 2nd tier canopy with shade loving crop trees like coffee, cocoa, and even coca is the only really workable plan available now to allow impoverished tropical jungle dwellers an economic alternative

it's a complex problem, but my personal favorite option is small patch clearing of the undergrowth and 2nd tier canopy, and growing coca cannabis or coffee. all three have proven track records as cash crops that dont require removal of the forest canopy before the soil is already secured by established plants.
 

cannabineer

Ursus marijanus
Denuded, barren land is less a""biodiversity reserve" than any crop land. Any crop would be a soil anchor. The poor soil, or lack of it, remains the major hurdle. At least these areas tend to have suitable weather.
"so don't denude" ... ? cn
 

BadDog40

Well-Known Member
you should publish a peer reviewed article on the matter, gain international acclaim for your insight, collect your millions of dollars, and retire.

Better yet he should run for office so everyone can hear his ideas and vote him permanently crazy.
 

Kervork

Well-Known Member
Wow.. just fucking wow. 98% of the scientists believe it's true, 65% of our ignorant population doesn't.

If the same amount of marketing had been applied to chloroflourocarbons we would all be living without any ozone now instead of just big holes at the poles.

When the human race dissappears due to it's stupidity it will not be missed.
 

Harrekin

Well-Known Member
Wow.. just fucking wow. 98% of the scientists believe it's true, 65% of our ignorant population doesn't.

If the same amount of marketing had been applied to chloroflourocarbons we would all be living without any ozone now instead of just big holes at the poles.

When the human race dissappears due to it's stupidity it will not be missed.
Ozone layer is on track to be completely renewed within the next 5 decades.

The sky still isn't falling.

One potential way to help would be to replace most of the chopped down rain forest with cannabis/hemp, it grows ANYWHERE (even places with shitty rain, shitty soil, etc) and as (Id hope) we all know hemp/cannabis has huge root systems for their size, perfectly suited to anchoring soil.

The problem is its an annual (some varieties seem perennial when you're waiting for them, I know I know) , so something would have to be worked out cos it's not a year round solution, but HUGE fields of hemp would produce one other vital thing...bio fuel AND it'd help buffer human CO2 emissions because you'd only ever be releasing what has gone into it, not huge carbon reservoirs like an oil well.

Itd also reduce the pressure on other biofuel producing food crops, lowering the price of corn, etc.

It's not a solution, but it'd at least help.
 
Top