Earth Summit in Johannesburg

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by Jeshoe

If you want to start your research off this year in a great new direction why don't you start researching what the Japanese have been working on for 50 years since you A O's dropped your A - Bomb and wake up and smell the coffee. How many Evil imposters does it take to fool a burning Bush? Thousands!!!!

Now this is a productive way to make a point. It deserves an appropriate response......

In the words of Cartman from South Park

"BLAME CANADA"

Seriusly, The bomb ended WWII mate.



Peace to all.

[Angela Harlem]

I am incredulous this place is filled to the brim with such intelligent, thoughtful, educated and carefully researched replies. Clearly this place attracts those with the smarts.

And you continue to insult each other with names and baseless insults.

What part of no name calling do you all not understand? All of you who have continued to do so, please reply in here and ask and we will go over it ONE MORE TIME. You are breaking forum rules. You are undoing the brilliance in some of your replies by adding such ridiculous insults to your replies.

It is beyond me how some people cannot see this.

The last chance for this thread's life starts now.

[garibaldo]

Originally posted by Jeshoe
O buddy!! The Scientists are the problem on one hand and the solution on the other. Its bloody hot air mainly guy. And yes you will never be able to have one clear answer scientifically as to the culprit if the models can be manipulated. So while the rest of the world cleans up and the US continues to stagnate as it is and has been doing this Millenium you can all ride your Lincoln Side-steps into your own Armageddon. The USA is up against the whole world it seems this time.
In the future when your nation lays amongst the Third world and ten thousand scientists with differing opinions are battling it out still on whether those miles of black coal smoke are harming or not you will all be so so very sorry for the 20th Century and maybe even the 21st and how you all tried to steal the show.
Don't tell me to grow up, I may not be as smart as you but I am sure wiser. You go raise your attitude higher now ya hoke! The goal is ELevation (lol, bet you don't understand half U2's lyrics)

p.s. And I bet that if you go invade IRAQ they will have a big suprise for you this time. They have been waiting so hop on the peace train. They aren't stupid and they have been around a lot lot longer than the dinky usa. Why don't you let them work through their own problems in their region. You folks have got a lot of problems in your home country that you need to work on and exercising your `Machines of Death and WOrld Liberation' don't seem to be too popular anymore.
and to top it all off your whole country is propaganda, its sick sick sick sick sick!!! I pity you.

This thread smacks of ugly anti-Americanism and a MAJOR inferiority syndrome. You don't know that any of this is true or if any of this will happen. You just hate the fact that America has so much power and wealth and you WISH it upon us because of that. How very sad.

"Don't tell me to grow up, I may not be as smart as you but I am sure wiser. You go raise your attitude higher now ya hoke! The goal is ELevation (lol, bet you don't understand half U2's lyrics)"

How old are you? I'm guessing you're <18.

[DrTeeth]

Originally posted by garibaldo
Richard Lindzen, professor of meteorology at MIT and member of the National Academy of Sciences in an article published by the Wall Street Journal claims that: "There are many indications that carbon dioxide does not play a significant role in global warming...
climate change estimates that a doubling of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere would produce a temperature increase of only one degree Celsius."

I find it strange that, while in the same post you make a (good) case against the use of complex environmental/meteorological models, you do not question the validity (sp?) of Lindzen's statement about the effect of doubling the amount of CO2. Are these climate change estimates made without the use of models?

I'm also very curious about these 'indications' he speaks of. Recent studies in the arctic circle have shown that an increase of mean anual temperature in the past has always been preceded by an increase of carbon dioxide. I also find the comment about carbon dioxide being reduced by forests ludicrous. Last time I checked, there was a large decrease of biomass (deforestation, for example...). Besides, why does anybody think CO2 reduction by forests solve the problem?

Unless anybody thinks a tree lives forever, the ammount of carbon will increase in every part of the carbonic cycle so it will also increase in the atmosphere. And even if there was an significant reduction by forests, carbon particles are known to stay in the atmosphere for 50 to 100 years untill they move to another environmental compartment (for instance biomass).
This means the carbon which is (temporarely) immobilized by trees at this very moment, comes from the CO2 ejected at the start of the industrial revolution. And we all know emissions from around 1900-1920 pale in comparison to the ones from 2002.

[garibaldo]

Originally posted by DrTeeth


I find it strange that, while in the same post you make a (good) case against the use of complex environmental/meteorological models, you do not question the validity (sp?) of Lindzen's statement about the effect of doubling the amount of CO2. Are these climate change estimates made without the use of models?

I'm also very curious about these 'indications' he speaks of. Recent studies in the arctic circle have shown that an increase of mean anual temperature in the past has always been preceded by an increase of carbon dioxide. I also find the comment about carbon dioxide being reduced by forests ludicrous. Last time I checked, there was a large decrease of biomass (deforestation, for example...). Besides, why does anybody think CO2 reduction by forests solve the problem?

Unless anybody thinks a tree lives forever, the ammount of carbon will increase in every part of the carbonic cycle so it will also increase in the atmosphere. And even if there was an significant reduction by forests, carbon particles are known to stay in the atmosphere for 50 to 100 years untill they move to another environmental compartment (for instance biomass).
This means the carbon which is (temporarely) immobilized by trees at this very moment, comes from the CO2 ejected at the start of the industrial revolution. And we all know emissions from around 1900-1920 pale in comparison to the ones from 2002.

Your arguement is all confused. Lindzen's model was used to point out that within the field very prominent climatologists can come to very different conclusions. I don't know what the answers are. I'm just saying that there is no consensus amongst the scientists.

:Recent studies in the arctic circle have shown that an increase of mean anual temperature in the past has always been preceded by an increase of carbon dioxide."

I'd appreciate it if you could show me the journal articles. Again, the old scientific adage of "correlation is not causation" applies here.

I also find the comment about carbon dioxide being reduced by forests ludicrous. Last time I checked, there was a large decrease of biomass (deforestation, for example...). Besides, why does anybody think CO2 reduction by forests solve the problem?

Last time you checked some environmentalist told you that the forests had all been destroyed!? Hahahaa...there are still plenty of trees in the world if you haven't ventured past suburbia lately. The amount that they rerelease back into the atmosphere is less than what they take in because much of that is fixed into creating structural components of the tree. If they're around for potentially hundreds of years (or even 50-100 yrs) and they trap CO2, then this could account for a lot of trapped carbon. And, unless trees are going somewhere anytime soon, they will continue to reabsorb this carbon when new trees form. Of course, this is all assuming for the sake of arguement that CO2 is the source of our problems, which I'm not convinced it is.

Here is a quote from a NASA webpage:
The land and oceans are known to store half of the total carbon emitted annually from fossil fuel burning and industrial activities. The other half is accumulating as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, which is thought by many to be responsible for global climate change. Researchers found that America's forests soaked up 140 million tons of carbon a year, while most Canada's boreal forests were found to be losing carbon. Russia, the country with most forests, accounted for almost 40 percent of the biomass carbon sink.

http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/stories/carbonsink_20011211/

[Ft. Worth Frog]

Looks like Jeshoe couldn't come up woth facts to back up his beliefs! How typical. Anyway, I find it hard to believe that so many people hate a country that the world is dependent on. No United States, no free world. Gosh, I wonder who liberated Europe from Hitler? Who contained the SOviet Union in the cold wat? Without the U.S., Saddam would now be master of the Middle East. This is not to say the U.S. never makes mistakes, but seriously folks, think before you speak and look at HISTORY. We have never fought a war in a country and left them to build back up on their own. Remember the Marshall Plan? Also, we helped rebuild Japan into an economic superpower. So, next time you condemn the U.S. for being warlike, remember why we had to be like that.

[mug222]

Originally posted by garibaldo



Last time you checked some environmentalist told you that the forests had all been destroyed!? Hahahaa...there are still plenty of trees in the world if you haven't ventured past suburbia lately. The amount that they rerelease back into the atmosphere is less than what they take in because much of that is fixed into creating structural components of the tree. If they're around for potentially hundreds of years (or even 50-100 yrs) and they trap CO2, then this could account for a lot of trapped carbon. And, unless trees are going somewhere anytime soon, they will continue to reabsorb this carbon when new trees form. Of course, this is all assuming for the sake of arguement that CO2 is the source of our problems, which I'm not convinced it is.

I completely forgot about this thread, and it seems I owe you a full-length response, which I hope I can get around to sometime.

In the meantime, I'd like to take issue with this paragraph, which is riddled with half-truths.

First off all, please do not fall back on the "CO2 is not the issue" argument, which has been successfully refuted time and time again. Please show me a respectable study that indicates otherwise.

Secondly, the most recent research shows that the rainforest--formerly thought to be our greatest hope for carbon sequestration--is NOT NEARLY as successful a sink as we'd hoped. In fact, many studies have shown that it does not sequester carbon whatsoever. Biosphere 2, which conducts testing in its sealed rainforest environment, has all but reached this conclusion, as has the following study:

"Christian Korner, working in Switzerland at the University of Basel with rainforest species in a mesocosm, conducted an experiment which showed that photosynthesis and respiration remained balanced (there was no sink) as CO2 concentration of the air was increased. They suggest that feedback processes would tend to keep photosynthesis from exceeding respiration over time and limit the capacity of rainforests to act as sinks for atmospheric CO2. "

There is a real need for research into alternative methods for carbon sequestration. You just can't see the forest for the trees

[V Nura]

mug comment might have been strong...the word murderous...should probably have read...negligent.


However The United States is the worlds only super power..and has to lead the way more than what it's doing....the status quo isn't enough right now. And the US being head honcho on the planet needs to take the first step in greater initiative.

[Dreadsox]

Originally posted by Arun V

However The United States is the worlds only super power..and has to lead the way more than what it's doing....the status quo isn't enough right now. And the US being head honcho on the planet needs to take the first step in greater initiative.

Does anyone here believe this president will take the lead on issues like this in economic times like these?

I agree the US needs to take the lead on these issues, but it seems that taking the lead (ie Iraq) is not what the world wants.

[V Nura]

Dread I agree....I think the rest of the world has its' head up it's ass on the iraq issue....They dont' understand that the resolutions were passed..and they were broken, thye need to be enforced and it digusts me that iraq is actually dictating terms in the UN. A regime change is by far teh best thing for the iraqi ppl.



But...what's going on in africa may be the most important thing in the world right now. And the US at least needs to look like it's goign to do soemthign about it once iraq is off the plate.