Ask Me Help Desk

Ask Me Help Desk (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forum.php)
-   Current Events (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/forumdisplay.php?f=486)
-   -   Global warming, the crisis that didn't happen (https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/showthread.php?t=751861)

  • Jun 2, 2013, 03:52 PM
    paraclete
    Global warming, the crisis that didn't happen
    For a long time I have been saying global warming wasn't happening the way scientists have lead us to believe, that is something other than CO2 is the culprit well what do you know? This has been confirmed

    Cosmic Rays And CFCs Are Key Culprits For Ozone Depletion And Global Climate Change - Science News - redOrbit

    Appearently a new study shows CFC is the problem not CO2 so now we can all go back to behaving sensibly about CO2 while finding more ways to limit CFC emissions

    What is also confirmed contrary to recent announcements is that cooling not warming is the trend I wonder what this will do for the pronouncement that CO2 is pollution
  • Jun 2, 2013, 06:28 PM
    joypulv
    Nothing new (sort of) - I know scientists who knew about CFCs decades ago, but also CO2.
    There is an insidious lobby in the US and possibly elsewhere to put a lid on any talk of global warming, and there are Congresspeople who claim to have been threatened by lobbyists who can get them ousted, and have.
    As for cooling? Gimme a break. Look at the snowcaps disappearing like crazy. Some ocean currents are bringing cold water down as Arctic ice melts, cooling certain coastlines, sure. But overall WARMING is indeed the statistical trend.
    It won't be Kevin Kostner's Water World - we will be in a lot of trouble way before then. It will be a few billion people not having the drinking water they rely on from mountain snow melt.
  • Jun 2, 2013, 06:55 PM
    tomder55
    We are in an interglacial warm period .Not sure how long it will last . The last ice bridge between Asia and the Americas melted some 8,000 years ago. Long before the advent of the internal combustion engine.
  • Jun 2, 2013, 08:39 PM
    paraclete
    I think the debate should be reignited, warming period or not, things are changing but not for the reasons we have been given. The present solar cycle is somewhat benign, and despite dire predictions CO2 doesn't appear to be the culprit, so we have taken action on CFC, should we attack methane a far more risky element than CO2 and give CO2 a rest
  • Jun 2, 2013, 10:01 PM
    smkanand
    Cfcs are the problem. There are changes in weather pattern. And wild life is highly getting affected.
  • Jun 3, 2013, 06:44 AM
    paraclete
    They are doing it aginsn the climate change nuts are denying the research

    All I can so is Yankee go home and preach your message there

    Climate campaigner warns of burning need to keep coal in the ground
  • Jun 3, 2013, 07:13 AM
    speechlesstx
    Geez, now we're back to CFCs. Besides we're entering a cooling phase.
  • Jun 3, 2013, 07:25 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Around 1250 A.D. historical records show, ice packs began showing up farther south in the North Atlantic. Glaciers also began expanding on Greenland, soon to threaten Norse settlements on the island. From 1275 to 1300 A.D. glaciers began expanding more broadly, according to radiocarbon dating of plants killed by the glacier growth. The period known today as the Little Ice Age was just starting to poke through.

    Summers began cooling in Northern Europe after 1300 A.D. negatively impacting growing seasons, as reflected in the Great Famine of 1315 to 1317. Expanding glaciers and ice cover spreading across Greenland began driving the Norse settlers out. The last, surviving, written records of the Norse Greenland settlements, which had persisted for centuries, concern a marriage in 1408 A.D. in the church of Hvalsey, today the best preserved Norse ruin.

    Colder winters began regularly freezing rivers and canals in Great Britain, the Netherlands and Northern France, with both the Thames in London and the Seine in Paris frozen solid annually. The first River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1607. In 1607-1608, early European settlers in North America reported ice persisting on Lake Superior until June. In January, 1658, a Swedish army marched across the ice to invade Copenhagen. By the end of the 17th century, famines had spread from northern France, across Norway and Sweden, to Finland and Estonia.

    Reflecting its global scope, evidence of the Little Ice Age appears in the Southern Hemisphere as well. Sediment cores from Lake Malawi in southern Africa show colder weather from 1570 to 1820. A 3,000 year temperature reconstruction based on varying rates of stalagmite growth in a cave in South Africa also indicates a colder period from 1500 to 1800. A 1997 study comparing West Antarctic ice cores with the results of the Greenland Ice Sheet Project Two (GISP2) indicate a global Little Ice Age affecting the two ice sheets in tandem.

    The Siple Dome, an ice dome roughly 100 km long and 100 km wide, about 100 km east of the Siple Coast of Antartica, also reflects effects of the Little Ice Age synchronously with the GISP2 record, as do sediment cores from the Bransfield Basin of the Antarctic Peninsula. Oxygen/isotope analysis from the Pacific Islands indicates a 1.5 degree Celsius temperature decline between 1270 and 1475 A.D.

    The Franz Josef glacier on the west side of the Southern Alps of New Zealand advanced sharply during the period of the Little Ice Age, actually invading a rain forest at its maximum extent in the early 1700s. The Mueller glacier on the east side of New Zealand’s Southern Alps expanded to its maximum extent at roughly the same time.

    Ice cores from the Andeas mountains in South America show a colder period from 1600 to 1800. Tree ring data from Patagonia in South America show cold periods from 1270 to 1380 and from 1520 to 1670. Spanish explorers noted the expansion of the San Rafael Glacier in Chile from 1675 to 1766, which continued into the 19th century.

    The height of the Little Ice Age is generally dated as 1650 to 1850 A.D. The American Revolutionary Army under General George Washington shivered at Valley Forge in the winter of 1777-78, and New York harbor was frozen in the winter of 1780. Historic snowstorms struck Lisbon, Portugal in 1665, 1744 and 1886. Glaciers in Glacier National Park in Montana advanced until the late 18th or early 19th centuries. The last River Thames Frost Fair was held in 1814. The Little Ice Age phased out during the middle to late 19th century.

    The Little Ice Age, following the historically warm temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period, which lasted from about AD 950 to 1250, has been attributed to natural cycles in solar activity, particularly sunspots. A period of sharply lower sunspot activity known as the Wolf Minimum began in 1280 and persisted for 70 years until 1350. That was followed by a period of even lower sunspot activity that lasted 90 years from 1460 to 1550 known as the Sporer Minimum. During the period 1645 to 1715, the low point of the Little Ice Age, the number of sunspots declined to zero for the entire time. This is known as the Maunder Minimum, named after English astronomer Walter Maunder. That was followed by the Dalton Minimum from 1790 to 1830, another period of well below normal sunspot activity.

    The increase in global temperatures since the late 19th century just reflects the end of the Little Ice Age. The global temperature trends since then have followed not rising CO2 trends but the ocean temperature cycles of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) and the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO). Every 20 to 30 years, the much colder water near the bottom of the oceans cycles up to the top, where it has a slight cooling effect on global temperatures until the sun warms that water. That warmed water then contributes to slightly warmer global temperatures, until the next churning cycle.

    Those ocean temperature cycles, and the continued recovery from the Little Ice Age, are primarily why global temperatures rose from 1915 until 1945, when CO2 emissions were much lower than in recent years. The change to a cold ocean temperature cycle, primarily the PDO, is the main reason that global temperatures declined from 1945 until the late 1970s, despite the soaring CO2 emissions during that time from the postwar industrialization spreading across the globe.

    The 20 to 30 year ocean temperature cycles turned back to warm from the late 1970s until the late 1990s, which is the primary reason that global temperatures warmed during this period. But that warming ended 15 years ago, and global temperatures have stopped increasing since then, if not actually cooled, even though global CO2 emissions have soared over this period. As The Economist magazine reported in March, “The world added roughly 100 billion tonnes of carbon to the atmosphere between 2000 and 2010. That is about a quarter of all the CO2 put there by humanity since 1750.” Yet, still no warming during that time. That is because the CO2 greenhouse effect is weak and marginal compared to natural causes of global temperature changes.

    At first the current stall out of global warming was due to the ocean cycles turning back to cold. But something much more ominous has developed over this period. Sunspots run in 11 year short term cycles, with longer cyclical trends of 90 and even 200 years. The number of sunspots declined substantially in the last 11 year cycle, after flattening out over the previous 20 years. But in the current cycle, sunspot activity has collapsed. NASA’s Science News report for January 8, 2013 states,

    “Indeed, the sun could be on the threshold of a mini-Maunder event right now. Ongoing Solar Cycle 24 [the current short term 11 year cycle] is the weakest in more than 50 years. Moreover, there is (controversial) evidence of a long-term weakening trend in the magnetic field strength of sunspots. Matt Penn and William Livingston of the National Solar Observatory predict that by the time Solar Cycle 25 arrives, magnetic fields on the sun will be so weak that few if any sunspots will be formed. Independent lines of research involving helioseismology and surface polar fields tend to support their conclusion.”

    That is even more significant because NASA’s climate science has been controlled for years by global warming hysteric James Hansen, who recently announced his retirement.

    But this same concern is increasingly being echoed worldwide. The Voice of Russia reported on April 22, 2013,

    “Global warming which has been the subject of so many discussions in recent years, may give way to global cooling. According to scientists from the Pulkovo Observatory in St.Petersburg, solar activity is waning, so the average yearly temperature will begin to decline as well. Scientists from Britain and the US chime in saying that forecasts for global cooling are far from groundless.”

    That report quoted Yuri Nagovitsyn of the Pulkovo Observatory saying, “Evidently, solar activity is on the decrease. The 11-year cycle doesn’t bring about considerable climate change – only 1-2%. The impact of the 200-year cycle is greater – up to 50%. In this respect, we could be in for a cooling period that lasts 200-250 years.” In other words, another Little Ice Age.

    The German Herald reported on March 31, 2013,

    “German meteorologists say that the start of 2013 is now the coldest in 208 years – and now German media has quoted Russian scientist Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov from the St. Petersburg Pulkovo Astronomical Observatory [saying this] is proof as he said earlier that we are heading for a “Mini Ice Age.” Talking to German media the scientist who first made his prediction in 2005 said that after studying sunspots and their relationship with climate change on Earth, we are now on an ‘unavoidable advance towards a deep temperature drop.’”

    Faith in Global Warming is collapsing in formerly staunch Europe following increasingly severe winters which have now started continuing into spring. Christopher Booker explained in The Sunday Telegraph on April 27, 2013,

    “Here in Britain, where we had our fifth freezing winter in a row, the Central England Temperature record – according to an expert analysis on the US science blog Watts Up With That – shows that in this century, average winter temperatures have dropped by 1.45C, more than twice as much as their rise between 1850 and 1999, and twice as much as the entire net rise in global temperatures recorded in the 20th century.”

    A news report from India (The Hindu April 22, 2013) stated, “March in Russia saw the harshest frosts in 50 years, with temperatures dropping to –25° Celsius in central parts of the country and –45° in the north. It was the coldest spring month in Moscow in half a century….Weathermen say spring is a full month behind schedule in Russia.” The news report summarized,

    “Russia is famous for its biting frosts but this year, abnormally icy weather also hit much of Europe, the United States, China and India. Record snowfalls brought Kiev, capital of Ukraine, to a standstill for several days in late March, closed roads across many parts of Britain, buried thousands of sheep beneath six-metre deep snowdrifts in Northern Ireland, and left more than 1,000,000 homes without electricity in Poland. British authorities said March was the second coldest in its records dating back to 1910. China experienced the severest winter weather in 30 years and New Delhi in January recorded the lowest temperature in 44 years.”

    Booker adds, “Last week it was reported that 3,318 places in the USA had recorded their lowest temperatures for this time of year since records began. Similar record cold was experienced by places in every province of Canada. So cold has the Russian winter been that Moscow had its deepest snowfall in 134 years of observations.”

    Britain’s Met Office, an international cheerleading headquarters for global warming hysteria, did concede last December that there would be no further warming at least through 2017, which would make 20 years with no global warming. That reflects grudging recognition of the newly developing trends. But that reflects as well growing divergence between the reality of real world temperatures and the projections of the climate models at the foundation of the global warming alarmism of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Since those models have never been validated, they are not science at this point, but just made up fantasies. That is why, “In the 12 years to 2011, 11 out of 12 [global temperature]forecasts [of the Met Office] were too high — and… none were colder than [resulted],” as BBC climate correspondent Paul Hudson wrote in January.

    Global warming was never going to be the problem that the Lysenkoists who have brought down western science made it out to be. Human emissions of CO2 are only 4 to 5% of total global emissions, counting natural causes. Much was made of the total atmospheric concentration of CO2 exceeding 400 parts per million. But if you asked the daffy NBC correspondent who hysterically reported on that what portion of the atmosphere 400 parts per million is, she transparently wouldn’t be able to tell you. One percent of the atmosphere would be 10,000 parts per million. The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 deep in the geologic past were much, much greater than today, yet life survived, and we have no record of any of the catastrophes the hysterics have claimed...
    Read the rest here :
    To The Horror Of Global Warming Alarmists, Global Cooling Is Here - Forbes
  • Jun 3, 2013, 07:28 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Geez, now we're back to CFCs. Besides we're entering a cooling phase.

    Beat me to it .
  • Jun 3, 2013, 07:47 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    beat me to it .

    Double the fun.
  • Jun 3, 2013, 08:01 AM
    joypulv
    Based on one person's study you are saying 'the crisis didn't happen' (implying it's over?) and that his theory is 'confirmed' (how many theories about anything in the universe are actually 'confirmed?). Two specious arguments.

    Anyone who uses ice ages as argument is completely oblivious to the rates of change happening now.
  • Jun 3, 2013, 08:08 AM
    speechlesstx
    Nothing is happening now, it's called weather.

    Quote:

    Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

    DEBATE about the reality of a two-decade pause in global warming and what it means has made its way from the sceptical fringe to the mainstream.

    In a lengthy article this week, The Economist magazine said if climate scientists were credit-rating agencies, then climate sensitivity - the way climate reacts to changes in carbon-dioxide levels - would be on negative watch but not yet downgraded.

    Another paper published by leading climate scientist James Hansen, the head of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, says the lower than expected temperature rise between 2000 and the present could be explained by increased emissions from burning coal.

    For Hansen the pause is a fact, but it's good news that probably won't last.

    International Panel on Climate Change chairman Rajendra Pachauri recently told The Weekend Australian the hiatus would have to last 30 to 40 years "at least" to break the long-term warming trend.

    But the fact that global surface temperatures have not followed the expected global warming pattern is now widely accepted.
  • Jun 3, 2013, 09:23 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    ow many theories about anything in the universe are actually 'confirmed?
    That's funny... I said the same thing for years about the "settled science " .
  • Jun 3, 2013, 03:10 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    that's funny .... I said the same thing for years about the "settled science " .

    And that's what I'm saying Tom the "settled science" isn't settled in fact it has been the greatest load of garbage foisted on a guillable public since satan sudduced Eve. I heard a politician say yesterday that renewables aren't sustainable

    This one should interest you being close to home
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/carbo...409-2hhys.html
  • Jun 3, 2013, 04:14 PM
    paraclete
    Food for thought on the sustainability of renewables

    Sun shines on local schemes in search for path to renewables
  • Jun 3, 2013, 04:43 PM
    NeedKarma
    Quote:

    since satan sudduced Eve.
    That's a tall fable in itself!
  • Jun 3, 2013, 06:44 PM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    food for thought on the sustainability of renewables

    Sun shines on local schemes in search for path to renewables

    A grant to turn it into a museum and tourist destination. Well done!
  • Jun 3, 2013, 06:58 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    a grant to turn it into a museum and tourist destination. Well done!

    Yes that's all most of it is good for, museum exhibits, sort of like a science fair in the middle of nowhere, you can't get any further from anywhere than White Cliffs
  • Jun 3, 2013, 06:59 PM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by NeedKarma View Post
    That's a tall fable in itself!

    You might think so, but interestingly we are all bearing the consequences and they are very obvious
  • Jun 5, 2013, 02:55 AM
    paraclete
    When it comes to settled science we should remember Albert Einstein

    “The whole of science is nothing more than a refinement of everyday thinking.”
  • Jun 5, 2013, 06:01 AM
    joypulv
    I'm trying to think of a well known scientific fact that hasn't been refuted, often over and over, and who is to say when it's over.
    Why the sky is blue, I guess.
  • Jun 5, 2013, 06:13 AM
    tomder55
    At best ,the speculation I've seen about climate change are hypothesis . It really didn't help the man made anthropogenic climate change crowd when their scientists were caught falsifying data .
  • Jul 24, 2013, 07:39 AM
    speechlesstx
    Speaking of false data, seems the Obama administration is vastly underestimating the number of victims of wind energy companies it refuses to prosecute.

    Quote:

    A new study found that the federal government underestimated the number of birds that die colliding with wind turbines across the country.

    In fact, bird deaths were found to be 30 percent higher than previous estimates given by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in 2009.

    “I estimated 888,000 bat and 573,000 bird fatalities/year (including 83,000 raptor fatalities) at 51,630 megawatt (MW) of installed wind-energy capacity in the United States in 2012,” writes K. Shawn Smallwood, author of the study that was published in the Wildlife Society Bulletin.

    “As wind energy continues to expand, there is urgent need to improve fatality monitoring methods, especially in the implementation of detection trials, which should be more realistically incorporated into routine monitoring,” Smallwood added.

    Wind turbines have been a dividing issue among environmental groups, as different priorities are placed on promoting renewable energy to curb global warming versus saving wildlife.

    “It is the rationale that we have to get off of carbon, we have to get off of fossil fuels, that allows them to justify this,” said Tom Dougherty, a former National Wildlife Federation employee. “But at what cost? In this case, the cost is too high.”

    Last month, environmentalists and bird enthusiasts watched in horror as the rare White-throated Needletail flew into a wind turbine and died on the Outer Hebrides.

    Read more: Feds underestimate how many birds killed by wind turbines | The Daily Caller
    Meanwhile, as Virginia's two Democratic senators introduced legislation to end Obama's offshore drilling ban while the House passed their own version, the admin joyously announced an auction of 112,800 acres off the Virginia coast for wind energy leases instead.

    Save the birds from this reckless and ugly expansion!
  • Jul 24, 2013, 09:56 AM
    joypulv
    A recent study revealed that 1.4 - 3.7 BILLION birds are killed by cats in the US each year. It was part of a three-year Fish and Wildlife Service-funded effort to estimate the number of birds killed by predators, chemicals and in collisions with wind generators and windows.

    Could be the same source that your 573,000 birds killed by wind turbines came from.

    Sure, those big blades are a concern. So is the entire problem of huge gulping consumption of finite energy sources.

    Oh - and cats.
  • Jul 24, 2013, 10:33 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by joypulv View Post
    A recent study revealed that 1.4 - 3.7 BILLION birds are killed by cats in the US each year. It was part of a three-year Fish and Wildlife Service-funded effort to estimate the number of birds killed by predators, chemicals and in collisions with wind generators and windows.

    Could be the same source that your 573,000 birds killed by wind turbines came from.

    Sure, those big blades are a concern. So is the entire problem of huge gulping consumption of finite energy sources.

    Oh - and cats.

    It's not illegal for cats to kill sparrows and I'm sure they're no match for a bald eagle.

    It is illegal to kill birds protected by the Eagle Protection and Migratory Bird Treaty Acts, yet only wind energy companies are being exempted from penalty and prosecution while others are not - while the administration is underestimating the impact. Why is that?
  • Jul 24, 2013, 11:09 AM
    joypulv
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    It's not illegal for cats to kill sparrows and I'm sure they're no match for a bald eagle.

    It is illegal to kill birds protected by the Eagle Protection and Migratory Bird Treaty Acts, yet only wind energy companies are being exempted from penalty and prosecution while others are not - while the administration is underestimating the impact. Why is that?

    Good point. Probably the same old reason - once the wheels are in motion, etc.
  • Jul 25, 2013, 12:05 PM
    speechlesstx
    More unintended consequences of the war on global warming. Aside from the fact that paper grocery bags "require more energy to produce and transport" and those reusable bags can be hazardous to your health, it's come to this...

    Plastic bag ban leads to nationwide increase in shoplifting rates
  • Jul 25, 2013, 08:08 PM
    paraclete
    Not only that speech but you have to cut down trees to make paper bags, whatever are they thinking. Around here we are insisting on biodegradable bags and that thing with the green bags, it has come and gone
  • Jul 26, 2013, 04:38 AM
    speechlesstx
    Trees are renewable, recyclable and biodegradable plus our forest growth has exceeded the harvest since the 40s.
  • Jul 26, 2013, 05:15 AM
    paraclete
    Ok so forest products it is then, filthy great paper mills, pollution, etc its preferable to a bi-product of petroleum which is there anyway
  • Jul 26, 2013, 06:25 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    Ok so forest products it is then, filthy great paper mills, pollution, etc its preferable to a bi-product of petroleum which is there anyway

    I love wood, love to saw, cut, carve, nail, paint and stain it. Wonderful stuff.
  • Jul 26, 2013, 06:35 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Trees are renewable, recyclable and biodegradable plus our forest growth has exceeded the harvest since the 40s.

    We have maintained the same levels of forest in the US since 1900 and many areas in the plains have been returned to wild as our farmlands became more productive and efficient
  • Jul 26, 2013, 06:43 AM
    paraclete
    Some how you don't get it, using wood puts CO2 in the atmosphere sooner or later, there is a great deal of waste in the forest products industry, yes wood is renewable but it still has a footprint and is better left absorbing carbon. This is a planet wide thing it isn't about whether you have more or less forest, it is whether you are a consumer of rain forest timbers or worse still the soya grown where the forest was cut down. How efficient are your farmlands when farmers are sucking on the government teat? Stop fooling yourself and stop growing corn for fuel
  • Jul 26, 2013, 06:47 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    some how you don't get it, using wood puts CO2 in the atmosphere sooner or later, there is a great deal of waste in the forest products industry, yes wood is renewable but it still has a footprint and is better left absorbing carbon. this is a planet wide thing it isn't about whether you have more or less forest, it is whether you are a consumer of rain forest timbers or worse still the soya grown where the forest was cut down. How efficient are your farmlands when farmers are sucking on the government teat? stop fooling yourself and stop growing corn for fuel

    God left us as stewards of the planet to use the resources . A forest over grown is a forest that will burn . The US is a net carbon sink because we for the most part properly MANAGE the forests (at least we did until foolhardy environmentalists took steps to prevent managed logging )
  • Jul 26, 2013, 06:47 AM
    speechlesstx
    Yep, we actually do have more trees than 100 years ago...

    Quote:

    In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920." The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival.


    This is great news for those who care about the environment because trees store CO2, produce oxygen — which is necessary for all life on Earth — remove toxins from the air, and create habitat for animals, insects and more basic forms of life. Well-managed forest plantations like those overseen by the Forest Stewardship Council also furnish us with wood, a renewable material that can be used for building, furniture, paper products and more, and all of which are biodegradable at the end of their lifecycle.
  • Jul 26, 2013, 06:49 AM
    tomder55
    Quote:

    stop fooling yourself and stop growing corn for fuel
    Completely agree... Me ;I burn logs in my fireplace ;not corn.
  • Jul 26, 2013, 06:52 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by paraclete View Post
    some how you don't get it, using wood puts CO2 in the atmosphere sooner or later, there is a great deal of waste in the forest products industry, yes wood is renewable but it still has a footprint and is better left absorbing carbon. this is a planet wide thing it isn't about whether you have more or less forest, it is whether you are a consumer of rain forest timbers or worse still the soya grown where the forest was cut down. How efficient are your farmlands when farmers are sucking on the government teat? stop fooling yourself and stop growing corn for fuel

    Dude, almost every scrap of wood is utilized it's very efficient. More trees suck up more CO2, and our levels of emissions are at a 20 year low - without any silly emissions trading schemes.
  • Jul 26, 2013, 06:53 AM
    speechlesstx
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by tomder55 View Post
    completely agree ... Me ;I burn logs in my fireplace ;not corn.

    Don't have a fireplace but I use plenty of apple, cherry, hickory and mesquite during grilling/smoking season. I don't think corn would give the desired result.
  • Jul 26, 2013, 06:54 AM
    talaniman
    We need a lot more trees then to arrest the rising CO2 emission from refineries, and all that shale oil bubbling out of the ground in many locations in the US, and Canada, not to mention another oil rig burning in the gulf. Heck we never cleaned up from Exxon Valdez!

    Drill baby drill and frack some more jack, and let the trees clean up the mess.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1792167.html

    Quote:

    Also, while natural gas burns cleaner than coal, it still emits some CO2. And drilling has its own environmental consequences, which are not yet fully understood.

    "Natural gas is not a long-term solution to the CO2 problem," Pielke warned.
  • Jul 26, 2013, 06:55 AM
    paraclete
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by speechlesstx View Post
    Yep, we actually do have more trees than 100 years ago...

    I don't know what those managed forests look like where you are but here they are softwood, not native to the land, they create a monoculture where animals don't live, Nothing lives there but the trees, they are clear felled and replanted every twenty five years and the spores in the air cause asthma. Our wonderful cedar forests were all lost a century ago. I suspect you might have something similar

  • All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:00 AM.