Forests absorb not only carbon dioxide, but also the sun's rays and heat. Deforestation causes more sunlight to be reflected back out into space, which greatly mitigates the greenhouse effect. That's another one they don't pound too hard about. 
More Americans convinced of climate change after extreme weather
- Thread starter EnglishLady
- Start date
EnglishLady
Veteran Expediter
Forests absorb not only carbon dioxide, but also the sun's rays and heat. Deforestation causes more sunlight to be reflected back out into space, which greatly mitigates the greenhouse effect. That's another one they don't pound too hard about.
Deforestation, without reforestation, damages habitats, leading to possible extinction of plants and animals, and on the human side ... deforestation usually incurs soil erosion thereby creating a wasteland which in turn can lead to population displacement.
All this aswell as the adverse impacts on the capture of carbon dioxide.
Thats a lot for cutting down some tree's eh
There ya go..right there...carbon dioxide increasing...Forests absorb not only carbon dioxide, but also the sun's rays and heat. Deforestation causes more sunlight to be reflected back out into space, which greatly mitigates the greenhouse effect. That's another one they don't pound too hard about.
Just look at all this construction this year...widening the highways from 2 to 3 lanes for city expansion...more green space gone..look at the burbs of most major cities....more and more logistic warehouses covering massive amounts of acreage that used to grow crops.....now are asphalted over....
Forests absorb not only carbon dioxide, but also the sun's rays and heat. Deforestation causes more sunlight to be reflected back out into space, which greatly mitigates the greenhouse effect. That's another one they don't pound too hard about.
Forests do absorb carbon dioxide. Many types of trees, however, absorb the most of that gas between the ages of one to five years. After that their conversion rate drops off.
So called 'Old Growth' forests, known has climax forests to foresters. They are called that because they have reached end of their life cycle. They net users of oxygen. They also produce more 'greenhouse gasses' than they recycle. The rotting vegetation produces methane.
There needs to be a mix of forest ages and types.
Turtle said .... "In order for scientific fact to actually become fact, it must be irrefutable, and be reproducible by observation and/or experiment, and the cause and effect must not be surmised by anecdotal evidence"
I totally agree ...... which is why I said ...... ROFL
I agree with OVM about the inner city temps ....... again lets look outside the US aswell as the US .... deforestation is everywhere
We have no control over what takes place outside of the US. What other countries do is frankly not our business. Our forests are in very good shape and will likely remain so unless the 'tree huggers' keep interfering with sound forest management practices.
If the US was to start managing the world's forests they would likely improve and increase. We would start in areas that have been, for the most part, been deforested. Like the British Isles.
EnglishLady
Veteran Expediter
LOL I wasn't suggesting that the US look after anything
I was trying to get ppl to see the "problem" is worldwide. There is a world outside of the US lol ....... we are all on the same planet so it should be of interest to all Earth ppl (residing space aliens should also be included
)
EnglishLady
Veteran Expediter
This is quite interesting .... Its quite long so I will put a link in
BBC
Earth: Have we reached an environmental tipping point?
If there’s one thing I hope this column achieves, it’s illustrating just how pivotal a point this is in human history. We are now living in the Anthropocene: humans are the main driver of planetary change. We're pushing global temperatures, land and water use beyond anything our species has experienced before. We’re polluting the biosphere, acidifying the oceans, and reducing biodiversity. At the same time, our global population will grow from seven billion to nine billion by 2050, and all will need food, water and clean air.
As if to illustrate the point further, last month Arctic monitors showed the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has passed 400 parts per million (before the Industrial Age, carbon dioxide levels were 275 ppm). New data shows the rate of climate change could be even faster than thought.
Perhaps most worryingly of all, 22 scientists warned last week we are approaching a planetary tipping point, beyond which environmental changes will be rapid and unpredictable. Basing their alarming conclusion on studies of ecological markers from species extinction rates (currently 1,000 times the usual rate, and comparable to those experienced during the demise of the dinosaurs) to changes in land use (more than 40% of land is dominated by humans and we affect a further 40%), these scientists fear we will enter a new, unknown state, and one which threatens us all.
So what can we do about it?
Two tribes
There are almost as many opinions on the best way forward as there are problems to solve. But the most prominent views fall into two camps: what I would call the 'conservative' camp and the ‘radical’ camp.
The conservative camp believes the answer is for humans to do less of everything. The radical camp believes technology and human ingenuity will prevent catastrophe. Conservatives argue that we should reduce consumption, waste, population, fertiliser use, pesticides, fishing, etc., and in this way reduce our species' influence back to being just another part of the biosphere, rather than its driving force. Radicals argue that as we run out of things replacements and improvements will be found, as has been the case before – the rate of population growth has diminished and global poverty levels have reduced, for example.
I think the answer lies in both camps. Technology and innovation has already saved us from plagues, low crop yields, water shortages, reliance on fossil fuels and more. But the planet is finite – there is nowhere else for us to live except Earth and we depend on it for our every need. And we have never before in the history of our species experienced living in some of the conditions we are creating; where average temperatures are on track to exceed anything humans have experienced (perhaps as soon as 2070), where nitrates and other pollutants are greater than anything our ecosystems have evolved to function in, and where our own hungry population is above seven billion, for example.
Boundaries or opportunities?
A way forward was proposed in 2009 by a group of scientists, suggesting we focus on observing specific “planetary boundaries”. Johan Rockstrom of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, and colleagues, identified nine biophysical thresholds that must be observed if humanity is to remain in the “safe operating space” of Holocene-like conditions, including climate change, ocean acidification, ozone depletion, change in land and freshwater use. The concept was enthusiastically embraced by institutions such as the United Nations and large NGOs like Oxfam, who adapted the idea to include social boundaries
Page 2
BBC - Future - Science & Environment - Earth: Have we reached an environmental tipping point?
BBC
Earth: Have we reached an environmental tipping point?
If there’s one thing I hope this column achieves, it’s illustrating just how pivotal a point this is in human history. We are now living in the Anthropocene: humans are the main driver of planetary change. We're pushing global temperatures, land and water use beyond anything our species has experienced before. We’re polluting the biosphere, acidifying the oceans, and reducing biodiversity. At the same time, our global population will grow from seven billion to nine billion by 2050, and all will need food, water and clean air.
As if to illustrate the point further, last month Arctic monitors showed the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has passed 400 parts per million (before the Industrial Age, carbon dioxide levels were 275 ppm). New data shows the rate of climate change could be even faster than thought.
Perhaps most worryingly of all, 22 scientists warned last week we are approaching a planetary tipping point, beyond which environmental changes will be rapid and unpredictable. Basing their alarming conclusion on studies of ecological markers from species extinction rates (currently 1,000 times the usual rate, and comparable to those experienced during the demise of the dinosaurs) to changes in land use (more than 40% of land is dominated by humans and we affect a further 40%), these scientists fear we will enter a new, unknown state, and one which threatens us all.
So what can we do about it?
Two tribes
There are almost as many opinions on the best way forward as there are problems to solve. But the most prominent views fall into two camps: what I would call the 'conservative' camp and the ‘radical’ camp.
The conservative camp believes the answer is for humans to do less of everything. The radical camp believes technology and human ingenuity will prevent catastrophe. Conservatives argue that we should reduce consumption, waste, population, fertiliser use, pesticides, fishing, etc., and in this way reduce our species' influence back to being just another part of the biosphere, rather than its driving force. Radicals argue that as we run out of things replacements and improvements will be found, as has been the case before – the rate of population growth has diminished and global poverty levels have reduced, for example.
I think the answer lies in both camps. Technology and innovation has already saved us from plagues, low crop yields, water shortages, reliance on fossil fuels and more. But the planet is finite – there is nowhere else for us to live except Earth and we depend on it for our every need. And we have never before in the history of our species experienced living in some of the conditions we are creating; where average temperatures are on track to exceed anything humans have experienced (perhaps as soon as 2070), where nitrates and other pollutants are greater than anything our ecosystems have evolved to function in, and where our own hungry population is above seven billion, for example.
Boundaries or opportunities?
A way forward was proposed in 2009 by a group of scientists, suggesting we focus on observing specific “planetary boundaries”. Johan Rockstrom of the Stockholm Resilience Centre, and colleagues, identified nine biophysical thresholds that must be observed if humanity is to remain in the “safe operating space” of Holocene-like conditions, including climate change, ocean acidification, ozone depletion, change in land and freshwater use. The concept was enthusiastically embraced by institutions such as the United Nations and large NGOs like Oxfam, who adapted the idea to include social boundaries
Page 2
BBC - Future - Science & Environment - Earth: Have we reached an environmental tipping point?
LOL I wasn't suggesting that the US look after anything
I was trying to get ppl to see the "problem" is worldwide. There is a world outside of the US lol ....... we are all on the same planet so it should be of interest to all Earth ppl (residing space aliens should also be included
The 'rest of the world' often tries to blame the US for man made global warming/climate change while the rest of the world does nothing in their own countries.
Want to see the largest fresh water estuary reclamation project in North America and one of the largest in the world? Just turn left on Dixie Hwy as you leave the area you live and drive up about 10 miles to Pointe Moulliee. That project is keep alive with everyday people doing the primary fund raising.
I only point this out to make this point. All problems are local problems. The US should clean up our mess and the rest of the world should just mind their own business and clean up theirs. Most are not. Same with people here. They want to ban this or that but do NOTHING to solve the problem. They don't take part in projects like Pointe Moullie or work at fund raisers at Ducks Unlimited or similar things. THOSE groups are doing POSITIVE work, real LIVE work rather than complaining and waiting for government to do it. Government won't.
Just how fast is mother earths healing powers kick in?
We blow a hole in the ozone layer every time someone launches a rocket...
We blow a hole in the ozone layer every time someone launches a rocket...
Very fast, in "G" time. Just go look at the area around Oil City/Titusville, PA. That area was a disaster area not all that long ago. Now, unless you go back into the woods and see the remaining ruins for the worlds first oil boom. It only took a few years for the problems to repair themselves.
EnglishLady
Veteran Expediter
PSBPS
Is the Hole in the Ozone Fixing Itself?
For years the hole in the ozone layer over Antarctica has worried scientists and citizens a lot because of what it implies with regards to the affect of pollution on the environment. Scientists have long been predicting that the ozone would begin to heal itself eventually, but recent studies have shown that this healing process has begun faster than scientist initially predicted. The Montreal Protocol of 1989 was a big stride in the right direction, when a number of nations came together and decided to start phasing out chemicals that were having a negative impact on the environment.
Many researchers though that the earliest signs of improvement would not be visible until at least 2023, but new research by scientists in Australia has proved that there has been an incremental improvement in the ozone recovery ever since the late 90s. When the hole in the ozone layer was first discovered in 1985 scientists realized that it was directly attributable to chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). The chlorine molecules in CFCs react with ozone molecules to destroy the ozone layer. Studying all the variable involved with complex atmospheric fluctuations requires a lot of scientists plowing through tons of data.
In order to study the problem better the scientists in Australia were able to use computer models to study the dynamic forces that affect atmospheric conditions. As with most scientific research every one is not completely sold on the idea. Some scientist support the idea that while there has been a slowdown in the rate of ozone depletion the actual recovery has not reached an extent where it is detectable yet. These same scientists have suggested that better models need to be used to detect the fluctuations in the atmosphere as well as the accompanying affect on the ozone.
Regardless of whether the ozone layer is actually recovering or if it is merely a decrease in its destruction, the good news is that the situation is improving. Most scientists predict that the ozone will not heal completely until 2070. In the meantime we all have much that we can be doing to help our environment
The Great Lakes are far cleaner now than they were 40 years ago. Fish populations are doing wonderful. Insects levels are in great shape. Frogs and turtle populations are stable in the areas where wetlands are being restored.
The air is far cleaner than 40 years ago.
North American waterfowl populations are at modern highs. The vast majority of all wildlife in the US and most of North America is thriving. Numbers, for the most part, are increasing or remaining stable. These trends will continue as habitat restoration and conservation efforts continue.
The work is primarily being done by non-government organizations without restricting private property rights.
Things are looking pretty dog gone good around here. NOW, if we can keep that dang gum jumping carp out of the Lakes and get rid of some other invasive species we can REALLY do some good!
The air is far cleaner than 40 years ago.
North American waterfowl populations are at modern highs. The vast majority of all wildlife in the US and most of North America is thriving. Numbers, for the most part, are increasing or remaining stable. These trends will continue as habitat restoration and conservation efforts continue.
The work is primarily being done by non-government organizations without restricting private property rights.
Things are looking pretty dog gone good around here. NOW, if we can keep that dang gum jumping carp out of the Lakes and get rid of some other invasive species we can REALLY do some good!
Mother Nature has amazing way of balancing things out....remember the lamprey scare?...then Zebra mussels?....
almost forgot.them little gobi fellows...
Lampreys are still a major problem, causing LOTS of damage. The zebra mussels are still causing millions of dollars of damage and added costs to power plants. They are also causing problems for diver ducks and other diving birds that eat them. They have little food value and it costs the bird that eats them calories. Birds can starve eating them. Water flees are a big problem in Lake Michigan and the invasive phragmites are one of the greatest threats to marsh health in North America.
Nature has not compensated for these things.
Article on invasive species.
Eating Lionfish - The Perfect Way to Get Rid of Invasive Species - Popular Mechanics
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-meaning-in-u-s-carp-rampage-adam-minter.html
jimmy
Eating Lionfish - The Perfect Way to Get Rid of Invasive Species - Popular Mechanics
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-...-meaning-in-u-s-carp-rampage-adam-minter.html
jimmy
Last edited:
'How dare you!' Greta Thunberg lambasts world leaders at U.N.
"How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words," Thunberg said.
www.nbcnews.com
Greta Thunberg is certainly a piece of work. Why is it that people like her, Leonardo DeCaprio, Flea and Al Gore fly around the world preaching the doom and gloom of climate change? They have no science credentials.
Listening to Greta Thunberg's at the U.N. reminded me of a song from the 1960's written by P.F. Sloan and made famous by Barry McGuire.
The Eve Of Destruction
The whole world, it is roastn',
glaciers melting', penguins toastin',
You know how to swim, but nothing bout boatin',
You don't believe in warming, but what's that thermometer you're totin',
And even the Cuyahoga river has bodies floatin',
But you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
Ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.
Don't you understand, what I'm trying to say?
And can't you feel the fears I'm feeling today?
When the big melt comes, there's no swimming away,
There'll be no one to save with the world in a watery grave,
Take a look around you, boy, it's bound to scare you, boy,
And you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
Ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
LOLing at the title. First thing that came to mind was...
Don't like the weather, wait 5 minutes.
Don't like the opinion of most Americans, wait 5 minutes.
Don't like the weather, wait 5 minutes.
Don't like the opinion of most Americans, wait 5 minutes.
Tennesseahawk
Veteran Expediter
The thing is - the right doesn't want to believe in something that costs it money and control. The left wants to blow things up into a huge mountain when the solution is quite simple. In actuality, the power structure of the left doesn't REALLY want to stop climate control anymore than a dentist wants to cure gingivitis; they just want to profit from it. Reminds me of the right (and left) making a bigger deal about ISIS, and other terrorist du joir groups, in order to keep the military industrial machine oiled and working. If they REALLY wanted to be rid of ISIS, why did they create them in the first place? But I digress...'How dare you!' Greta Thunberg lambasts world leaders at U.N.
"How dare you! You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words," Thunberg said.
Greta Thunberg is certainly a piece of work. Why is it that people like her, Leonardo DeCaprio, Flea and Al Gore fly around the world preaching the doom and gloom of climate change? They have no science credentials.
Listening to Greta Thunberg's at the U.N. reminded me of a song from the 1960's written by P.F. Sloan and made famous by Barry McGuire.
The Eve Of Destruction
The whole world, it is roastn',
glaciers melting', penguins toastin',
You know how to swim, but nothing bout boatin',
You don't believe in warming, but what's that thermometer you're totin',
And even the Cuyahoga river has bodies floatin',
But you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
Ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.
Don't you understand, what I'm trying to say?
And can't you feel the fears I'm feeling today?
When the big melt comes, there's no swimming away,
There'll be no one to save with the world in a watery grave,
Take a look around you, boy, it's bound to scare you, boy,
And you tell me over and over and over again my friend,
Ah, you don't believe we're on the eve of destruction.
I was not a big believer in climate change. To the point of how extreme the left takes it - I'm still not. However, I believe that we are capable of creating deserts, which in turn changes our climate. Desertification is a very real issue, but as I say, the cure is as simple as more cowbell. With all of the hubub about cow farts destroying the Earth and everything on it - cows are what can reverse the deserts we've created. Here's how...
To make a long story short, healthy grasses have the power to make springs flow into streams and ponds, thus cooling the earth. Grass is healthy when it does not grow to the point where it tells itself that it's time to die. Herding animals graze it before it gets to that point, thus replenishing the vegetation. At the same time, the waste products of the herds makes it fertile enough for more plants to grow, thus making herds bigger, and so on.
Cattle are being more utilized by American ranchers to act as the wild herds of Africa and early America - whereas they are grouped into small clusters of grazing fools, in order to protect themselves from predators. What are the predators you ask? Electric fence. Every day or two the farmers move their cattle to a fresh paddock surrounded by the predator; and each day the herd turns the longer (but not 'death' long) grass into healthy short grass. Again, the feces and urine create soil that strengthens the vegetation. Healthy soil holds more water, thus the grasses do not need as much rain to grow.
Allan Savory, whom the documentary above is about, is replicating this very idea in the southern African deserts - so it is possible. There just isn't enough money in it to satisfy the power brokers.Plus, it's always easier to kick the can while feigning concern. It's time people start to form their OWN opinions on matters such as climate change, instead of relying on their chosen tribes to tell them how to think. Chances are it's not what one side or the other is touting it to be, but rather somewhere in the middle - and a cheap fix at that.
My late comment on Great Lakes...
Yellow perch fishing, the mainstay of every kid's summer adventure on the Lakes, is rapidly disappearing. Fewer fish, and according to wildlife officers, almost no young fish found that were growing to adulthood. Mussels are eating too many micro-plants, breaking the food chain, fish fry can't eat enough to grow old.
Without fish fry, I can't have a fishfry.
Yellow perch fishing, the mainstay of every kid's summer adventure on the Lakes, is rapidly disappearing. Fewer fish, and according to wildlife officers, almost no young fish found that were growing to adulthood. Mussels are eating too many micro-plants, breaking the food chain, fish fry can't eat enough to grow old.
Without fish fry, I can't have a fishfry.
A friend who has a degree in forestry something or other spent about 4 years in Niger, West Africa with the Peace Corps. This was during the late 1970s and early 1980s. Before global warming and climate change became all the rage and near the end of the acid rain scare. He was in the Bouza region in northeast Niger. He worked on a project to reclaim or at least halt the encroachment of the Sahara desert. Their approach was similar to what Allan Savory talked about in the above video. But at that time Mr. Savory blamed animals, especially herds of elephants for desertification. He has since changed his stance on desertification 180º. Linking desertification with global warming/climate change has given Allan Savory some fame and I'm sure money. Just like Greta Thunberg, Al Gore etc. Follow the money.
The Sahara has been expanding for thousands of years. Glaciers have been retreating for millions of years. The Earth and its climate are not static. Climate change did not ruin Greta Thunberg's childhood. Her parents and a group of activist are responsible for that.