NASA: Al Gore, It's The Sun Stupid!
- Thread starter pspr
- Start date
Sorry, but you just landed TOTALLY out in LEFT field........the FACT no scientific group can PROPERLY determine the full effects of the sun on the earth's climate has this ENTIRE debate in a VERY VERY NON-OPTIMAL trade!
We will NEVER have a clean and HONORABLE debate until everyone finally comes to grip with this REALITY (and then separate themselves from their "directed" agendas......look who backs several of the top GW scientific groups.......BINGO!!!).
NO REAL SUN INFLUENCE DATA = NO HONORABLE GW DEBATE!!!
Go get that NEEDED and PROPER Sun influence data and then let's see where the chips really fall!!!
BTW, stop getting caught in the "directed" trap of tieing humans pollution problems (which should already be VERY OBVIOUS to everyone........SEPARATE ISSUE) together with the GW "agenda" debate. If you ACTUALLY study the origins of the GW debate you will have an eye opening experience.......:eek:
I'm avid outdoorsman, but I think the following has some merit. It's from Neal Boortz's site:
You would think that over time the people of this country would finally get somewhat of a handle on just what is going on with these so-called "environmentalists. Sure, some of them are truly concerned about the environment. Those would be the ones that appear to be reasonable when you hear them speak or read their pronouncements. The bulk of the environmental movement is based more on anti-capitalism and a desire to weaken America than it is to protect the Earth's environment.
Patrick Moore was the founder of Greenpeace. He called himself a "radical environmentalist." Several years after founding Greenpeace Patrick Moore walked away. Moore said that the fall of communism brought a lot of anti-corporate extremism to the environmental movement. Here's his explanation:
" ..... suddenly, the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
A lot of those in the peace movement were anti-American and, to an extent, pro-Soviet. By virtue of their anti-Americanism, they tended to sometimes favor the communist approach. A lot of those people, a lot of those social activists, moved into the environmental movement once the peace movement was no longer relevant."
Moore went on to say that these environmental activists " are now using the rhetoric of environmentalism to promote other collectivist agendas, such as class struggle..."
You would think that over time the people of this country would finally get somewhat of a handle on just what is going on with these so-called "environmentalists. Sure, some of them are truly concerned about the environment. Those would be the ones that appear to be reasonable when you hear them speak or read their pronouncements. The bulk of the environmental movement is based more on anti-capitalism and a desire to weaken America than it is to protect the Earth's environment.
Patrick Moore was the founder of Greenpeace. He called himself a "radical environmentalist." Several years after founding Greenpeace Patrick Moore walked away. Moore said that the fall of communism brought a lot of anti-corporate extremism to the environmental movement. Here's his explanation:
" ..... suddenly, the international peace movement had a lot less to do. Pro-Soviet groups in the West were discredited. Many of their members moved into the environmental movement, bringing with them their eco-Marxism and pro-Sandinista sentiments.
A lot of those in the peace movement were anti-American and, to an extent, pro-Soviet. By virtue of their anti-Americanism, they tended to sometimes favor the communist approach. A lot of those people, a lot of those social activists, moved into the environmental movement once the peace movement was no longer relevant."
Moore went on to say that these environmental activists " are now using the rhetoric of environmentalism to promote other collectivist agendas, such as class struggle..."
Quote from Tresor:
Guys, I am really enjoying this thread. Do not conclude it too fast
I think it ended some time ago. Your newest thesis, that "Surface doesn't matter." and "Mature forrest is not an effective CO2 intaker." are provably wrong.
In fact, leaf surface area is important as because the more photosynthesis that is occurring, the more CO2 is being absorbed. ("The seasonal cycle in atmospheric CO2 shows that the lifetime of a CO2 molecule in the air before it is exchanged with another in the land biosphere is about 12 years.")
And, in fact, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency performs periodic estimates of carbon sequestration in plants:
"The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) estimates annual U.S. carbon sequestration in 2003, based on data generated by the U.S. Department of agriculture (USDA), at 828.0 million metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MMTCO2e), a decline of approximately 21 percent from the 1,042.1 MMTCO2e sequestered in 1990 (Table 33). Land use, land-use change, and forestry practices offset approximately 16.9 percent of total U.S. anthropogenic carbon dioxide emissions in 1990 and 11.9 percent in 2003."
bigdavediode,
I can't believe my eyes. Such a great environmentlist as yourself can put in doubt the very basic biology knowledge.
I promised we would go through elementary school biology lessons. And I will keep my word. Later in this thread we will also tackle geography and physics.
Biology. This is very, very simple. Any organism undergoes metabolism. When an organism (a plant, a cow and surprisingly even you) is growing, this organism needs lots of food food - this is an anabolic stage, i.e. more cells are created than die. Trees are no different. When more cells die than are created the organism is in a catabolic stage.
Same with plants. Here is a quote from wikipedia: ''A growing forest will absorb many tons of CO2 each year, but a mature forest will produce as much CO2 from respiration and decomposition of dead specimens (e.g. fallen branches) as is used in biosynthesis in growing plants.''
What's the solution? Let's fucking cut all old trees and plant young trees instead
I wasn't talking about the surface of the leaf. I was talking about the surface of the land! 100 sqm of grass absorbs more CO2 during one day than 100 sqm of rain forrest!
Yeah, yeah, US Environmental Something Agency, US Dept. Something ... million metric tons .... Table 33 ... 11.9 percent....
Bigdave, please do yourself a favour and stop reading bullshit. Start using your brain and the knowledge your teachers offered to you while you were in elementary school. Please, do this for me.
And we'll quick move on to geography and physics
Physics should be exciting given your, uhh, unusual math skills.
Same with plants. Here is a quote from wikipedia: ''A growing forest will absorb many tons of CO2 each year, but a mature forest will produce as much CO2 from respiration and decomposition of dead specimens (e.g. fallen branches) as is used in biosynthesis in growing plants.''
What's the solution? Let's fucking cut all old trees and plant young trees instead
Wikipedia? Seriously? My favorite Wikipedia related headline is "Wikipedia Celebrates 750 Years of American Independence."
http://www.theonion.com/content/node/50902
Wikipedia isn't a source.
A science journal, such as Nature is a good source. And luckily for you, they've published recent studies debunking your claims on the carbon sequestration of old growth forests. Guess what? Surprise, surprise, you have your facts wrong and old growth forests are not just emitting the same carbon as they're absorbing:
"We find that in forests between 15 and 800 years of age, net ecosystem productivity (the net carbon balance of the forest including soils) is usually positive. Our results demonstrate that old-growth forests can continue to accumulate carbon, contrary to the long-standing view that they are carbon neutral."
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v455/n7210/full/nature07276.html
Why would you think that a thin covering of grass is so much more efficient than a full forest with ground cover and large trees? Apart from being so obviously contrary to common sense.
It's not up for debate. I can get you a multitude of sources regarding the carbon sequestration of trees.
The guys who are doing carbon sequestration studies, just as the one I just spoon fed you, are not using elementary school knowledge.
CO2 molecules don't absorb IR anymore.
Surface area doesn't matter.
Mature forests don't absorb net carbon.
King Arthur: [after Arthur's cut off both of the Black Knight's arms] Look, you stupid Bastard. You've got no arms left.
Black Knight: Yes I have.
King Arthur: *Look*!
Black Knight: It's just a flesh wound.