Bookmarking for reference point.
Posted on 06/22/2006 9:55:46 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
The only thing with which I disagree in the article is the de-emphasis placed upon aggressive introduced species. It's a real problem. I probably see three to five new weeds PER YEAR. No extant system can reasonably expect to accommodate such rapid change without damage to its constituents any more than we can integrate tens of millions of illegals and expect to retain our existing culture.
bump
Right. So putting it back into the atmosphere by any means other than the natural order of nature would have a positive effect, not a net zero effect.
Net zero means that trees are sucking up that CO2 and hanging onto it. Burning them prevents that second part from happening.
Thanks for the reply.
IMO, the entire balance issue is fallacious to begin with. My question is how to point out to these people that their fantasy of a fuel source that doesn't "upset the balance" is just that. A complete and utter fantasy.
It drives me crazy, because when you are dealing with a completely false premise, there is so much to debunk, it is nearly impossible in a conversation.
Kind of like dealing with Liberals in general, I suppose. LOL.
Now let's not go spoiling Gore's campaign film. He is so proud of it. :)
Finally, a global warming prediction that I'm willing to accept. I think this one is right on the money.
No, if the trees are sucking up the CO2 and hanging on to it, that's a decrease in atmospheric CO2.
The overall cycle returns to "net zero" when the wood burns or rots.
Take a look at the chart here of global temperatures over the last 425,000 years. Even to my non-scientific eye, it looks like a cycle to me.
http://www.seed.slb.com/en/scictr/watch/climate_change/change.htm
If there is a natural cycle wherein growing trees suck up CO2 and dying trees release it, then overall there is a NET ZERO effect on the CO2 levels.
If you chop down the trees and burn them and disrupt the cycle, then you are having a positive effect on the cycle. (Enviro-whackos will call it a negative effect on the environment, naturally.)
We're arguing perspective. Like the guy jogging at 5mph on the top of top travelling 60 mph. If you're on the train, has going 5 mph. If you're on the ground, he's going 65 mph.
TS
Not really. Just go to the philosophical roots and cut out their legs. Then propose a serious alternative. That's what I did.
Soils can sequester carbon for millenia, but the real sink is when those soils get washed into the ocean and consumed by dynoflagellates, which then sink and form deposits of calcium carbonate.
Thank YOU! Your book I assume?
I will check it out.
Each carbon atom in the cellulose ultimately combines with two oxygen atoms to form CO2. Whether it happens slowly or quickly you end up with the same net effect.
"...consumed by dynoflagellates"
Who you callin a dynoflagellates?????
This fact infuriates me: Al Gore has 4 children! There is nothing more stressful on the Earth, with unlimited future compound damage, than making multiple copies of yourself. He's behaving like there's going to be a technological solution to climate control and that global warming is just another doomsday cult.
I think you may have forgotten the opposite trend that occurs over the same time interval in the Southern Hemisphere.
Foraminifera.
I don't think that the climate effects of our election cycles propogate into the Southern Hemisphere. :=)
Net Zero = Al Gore
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.