Slashdot Mirror

Friend I have to say you are clearly no expert on this topic. First of all, it would be the easiest thing in the world to cite sources until your eyes bleed, all you have to do is the simplest of Google searches to find endless research papers written on thousands of different topics all relating to changing global climate and biochemistry. Here, just try this search: "impact of increased greenhouse gases on environment". Just remember to "hide personal results", or you'll just keep getting the same stupid stuff as usual (I in fact stopped using mine because I'm interested in both or more sides of any conversation.)

As for how little we know... that's just a plain and simple falsification. We have ocean cores, we have ice cores, we have thermal analysis of rock stratum, we have samples of air, and pollen, and biota going back hundreds of millions of years from a vast assortment of fossils (we've even recently reconstituted organic dinosaur tissues from mineral fossils, recovering both DNA and cellular matrix.) We know more about earth's climate than you can possible imagine. We know about its chemistry, the impact of ice ages and past CO2 events, and mass extinctions, plant species and the complex interaction between atmospheric chemistry, plants and the animals that ate them. The tremendous bulk of our evidence (those ice and ocean floor cores), provides us with information about the atmosphere, ocean, and climates over the last 5 million years. Over the past 300 years we have accurate weather records. Over the past 50 years we have satellites and intensive global research on climate and atmospheric chemistry. Over the last 200 years we have good solar records. The fact is, we have literally mountains of data and the models though not complete are good (notice I didn't say they were great.) Recent study suggests there are feed-backs we have not accounted for. The recent rise in greenhouse gas should have precipitated more warming than we're actually seeing. This is probably good. The system is more dynamic and able to rebound than we suspected. That doesn't mean the basic premises are wrong or that we should just carry on burning down the planet. The point I'm trying to make is that science isn't exact... it's a quantum thing... but you simply can't escape the basic physics of this. Thermodynamics ultimately doesn't care what your core beliefs are.

Brazil is razing millions of acres of rainforest to get a few seasons of sugarcane after that, the nutrients are used up, the top soil is washed away and they are left with a dead spot of sandy clay.

Brazil is a huge country. Here are some maps for you:

http://www.rain-tree.com/graphics/map2.jpg shows where the Amazon forest is.

http://oronero.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/mapa-das-usinas-de-etanol-no-brasil.jpg Ethanol is produced in the black areas.

To counter significant new CO2 inputs that are *not* balanced by carbon sinks, you must increase the planet's rate of sequestration, to trap more of the carbon taken from the atmosphere

Here's just a thought. Everyone keeps talking about how we're continually adding more C02 to the atmosphere, but it's rarely mentioned how deforestation in the world's natural carbon sinks might be affecting the overall CO2 levels our planet is seeing. Last time I checked this stuff is food more pretty much everything that's green on our and it's not like they've got to pony up their hard earned cash to buy it. We're practically giving it away.
Hmm..

Unfortunately, the studies done thusfar show that the rate of natural sinks' carbon sequestration ability is declining, not rising, as our planet warms and our CO2 concentrations rise

Pretty much what I was saying. Did their studies happen to include any hypothesis as to why this was happening? I'm thinking giant swaths of rainforest razed for (tasty tasty) Argentinian beef might have something to do with it. A quick google gets me this (which admittedly probably isn't the most reliable source, but is on par with some of the info coming out of the AGW camp)

We are losing Earth's greatest biological treasures just as we are beginning to appreciate their true value. Rainforests once covered 14% of the earth's land surface; now they cover a mere 6% and experts estimate that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years. http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

So an 8% decrease in the world's carbon sinks vs how much of an increase in the overall level in the atmospheric CO2 level? I'm sure it's out there and I'd love to be informed, but each time this argument comes up the only facets of the model are discussed are the increase in the C02 levels produced and I've yet to see anything that takes into account the reduction in the carbon sink that we've created. I'm somewhat still on the fence as to whether the recent changes we've seen in climate change are man made, natural or a mix of both. Rationally I have to assume we've had some effect, but I'm not sure it's entirely the effect that is continually coming out of the mouths of the 'AGW faithful'.

US forestlands covered 732 million acres in 1920; today they cover 747 million acres.

A gain of 15 million acres over 85 years.

Roughly 176,471 acres gained a year.

Meanwhile, worldwide, we are losing rainforests to the tune of 1.5 acres per second.

That works out to 47,336,400 acres lost a year...more than 268 times the rate forestlands are growing in the U.S.

yep the trees used for paper production are farmed. So if you print less the land will be used for something else and there will be less trees.

Not exactly true, according to these Rainforest Facts

::

"One pulpwood project in the Brazilian Amazon consists of a Japanese power plant and pulp mill. To set up this single plant operation, 5,600 square miles of Amazon rainforest were burned to the ground and replanted with pulpwood trees. This single manufacturing plant consumes 2,000 tons of surrounding rainforest wood every day to produce 55 megawatts of electricity to run the plant. The plant, which has been in operation since 1978, produces more than 750 tons of pulp for paper every 24 hours, worth approximately $500,000, and has built 2,800 miles of roads through the Amazon rainforest to be used by its 700 vehicles.

..... If the present rate continues, it is estimated that the paper industry alone will consume 4 billion tons of wood annually by the year 2020

Specifically it must have beenL. olivacea which I guess means olive colored, since as in the photo it had no markings, it just looked like a beautiful hunk of chalky, greenish colored velvety living stone. Can't believe I found it. Some really bizarre, ugly, and beautiful pics on this page. Also more interesting photos here>/a> and here.

I also am thinking of throwing out the pencil plant (Euphorbia tirucalli) stem which will certainly take root by itself, but apparently causes cancer! I wouldn't want a cat to eat it.

Do you think new drugs just grow on trees?

Some of them do.