Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Global Warming Myth
Sonne
Member (Idle past 5929 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 05-20-2006


Message 16 of 21 (356367)
10-13-2006 7:18 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by Quetzal
10-12-2006 8:52 PM


Hi Quetzal,
Well, the best evidence I've seen indicates that CH4 constitutes almost 25% of the current greenhouse effects (about 70% of current methane emissions are anthropogenic).
Are you able to provide me with a link to this information? It would be great to have this on hand.
Now for the bad news: there is roughly 3000 times the current level of methane locked up in methane hydrates - part or all of which could be released if global warming causes a melting of permafrost and/or rises in sea levels. Talk about a runaway heat wave!
Scarey stuff! I guess the good thing here is that farming is not the backbone of the country it used to be. More and more farmers are selling off their land - often to property developers (which isn't so great). The legendary Shania Twain bought a huge station in the South Island
I would also like to hear your opinion on the most effective method for carbon sink planting? i.e. grow and harvest versus reforesting?
Thank you for you thoughts
Kakariki

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by Quetzal, posted 10-12-2006 8:52 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by Quetzal, posted 10-13-2006 8:06 PM Sonne has replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 17 of 21 (356385)
10-13-2006 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by Sonne
10-13-2006 7:18 PM


Are you able to provide me with a link to this information? It would be great to have this on hand.
There are a number of technical studies available from Nature and Science, but those mostly require expensive subscriptions. Here's a pretty handy site from U. of Oregon that has some very nice graphics. National Academy Press has a couple of good "primers" on climate change: Surface Temperature Reconstruction for the last 2000 years, and Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Key Questions. Another book you might enjoy is Understanding and Responding to Multiple Environmental Stresses. Although not specifically about global warming, it does take into consideration climate change as a factor. Interesting read.
I would also like to hear your opinion on the most effective method for carbon sink planting? i.e. grow and harvest versus reforesting?
I of course have an opnion . Unfortunately, I don't have much to back it up. I strongly favor reforestation - as long as it is done in the context of either rebuilding a natural ecosystem OR analog/silvopastoral agroforestry. Mature forest IMO is substantially more likely to perform the duties of carbon sink than either a forestry monoculture (as was done in Costa Rica) or pasturage.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by Sonne, posted 10-13-2006 7:18 PM Sonne has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by Sonne, posted 10-13-2006 8:37 PM Quetzal has replied

  
Sonne
Member (Idle past 5929 days)
Posts: 58
Joined: 05-20-2006


Message 18 of 21 (356390)
10-13-2006 8:37 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by Quetzal
10-13-2006 8:06 PM


Thank you Quetzal for the links.
Mature forest IMO is substantially more likely to perform the duties of carbon sink than either a forestry monoculture (as was done in Costa Rica) or pasturage.
This is my opinion too The conservation group I work with is starting to move into the carbon sink planting field, but encorporating it into our reforesting mission. I guess also, it's like the old saying "if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well" - we may as well use it to address other environmental issues too.
Kakariki

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Quetzal, posted 10-13-2006 8:06 PM Quetzal has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by Quetzal, posted 10-13-2006 8:48 PM Sonne has not replied

  
Quetzal
Member (Idle past 5872 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 19 of 21 (356391)
10-13-2006 8:48 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by Sonne
10-13-2006 8:37 PM


More Links
I realize it wasn't really fair of me to dismiss your request for links by pawning them off (laziness) on Science, etc. So I dug around the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (which is kind enough to publish their full text articles on-line for those of us too cheap to buy a subscription to Nature). So here are a few more general technical papers:
Hansen J, et al, 2000, “Global warming in the twenty-first century: An alternative scenario”, PNAS 97: 9875-9880
Friedlingstein P, et al, 2005, “Contributions of past and present human generations to committed warming caused by carbon dioxide”, PNAS 102: 10832-10836
Hansen J, et al, 2006, “Global temperature change”, PNAS 103: 14288-14293
And one that has a good discussion of CH4, West JJ, et al, 2006, “Global health benefits of mitigating ozone pollution with methane emission controls”, PNAS 103: 3988-3993
This is my opinion too The conservation group I work with is starting to move into the carbon sink planting field, but encorporating it into our reforesting mission. I guess also, it's like the old saying "if a job's worth doing, it's worth doing well" - we may as well use it to address other environmental issues too.
Heh. Half of my job consists in convincing local farmers, etc, that they can increase yields by doing some basic agroforestry, silvopasture, or other reforestation processes using native species. I still haven't gotten anyone to bite on trying an analog forestry project yet - maybe someday.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by Sonne, posted 10-13-2006 8:37 PM Sonne has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 20 of 21 (356421)
10-13-2006 10:43 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by Sonne
10-13-2006 1:39 AM


I wonder however if it's a case of '6 of one, half dozen of the other'.
There is energy going to waste that heats the ground in the clear-cut area, but not in the mature forest where it gets used to remove carbon from the atmosphere.
You would also have to look at the depth of the biomass in each. If you considered (thought experiment) pulverizing each environment down to similar sized micro-pellets, and seeing how deep the resultant dross would be, I don't think there is much question that a mature forest would end up deeper than saplings and grass ... the ground cover in a mature forest would probably do that.
That's a measure of how much carbon is already locked up.
Now when he clear cuts the area to plant those saplings ... how is he disposing of the materials that are removed? Burning? It'll take a LOT of sapling growth to recapture all the carbon that has just been released eh?

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS/HIV} {Protenes} and {Cancer} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by Sonne, posted 10-13-2006 1:39 AM Sonne has not replied

  
bgmark2
Member (Idle past 6158 days)
Posts: 18
Joined: 05-04-2007


Message 21 of 21 (401318)
05-19-2007 7:07 AM


Hopefully helen clarke solved the problem in nz, by getting that fleet of hybrid cars...and essentially doing nothing else...an example to polititions around the world who have stupuid voters and buy into tv global warming hysteria.
Is intereting the russians don't believe in kyoto but have signed up to it purely for economic reasons as they have 10 years of credits up there sleaves.

What about coconuts?

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024