Posted on 04/10/2007 12:30:03 AM PDT by malamute
Why don’t we just put a whole bunch of white dye in the oceans so they can reflect more and absorb less.
Now I will owe millions !!!
To think they ridiculed Ronald Reagan for saying much the same thing.
"North of 20 degrees [latitude] forests had a direct warming influence that more or less counterbalanced the cooling effect of carbon removal from the atmosphere," said Prof Caldeira. Past 50 degrees, forests warmed the Earth by an average of 0.8C. But in the tropics forests helped cool the planet by an average of 0.7C.
Fiction 2: Gore cites disappearing snow on Africa's Mt. Kilimanjaro as proof that global warming (caused by humans, of course) is dramatically changing the planet.
The truth: Snow cover has disappeared on the mountain's peak since 1970, however, it has nothing to do with global warming (human-induced or not). In fact, satellite data confirm just the opposite is true:
The top of Mt. Kilimanjaro is actually colder than it was in 1970 when it had a large snow cover. Why has the snow disappeared? Because farmers have removed large areas of forest around the base of the mountain. Those forested areas held the moisture that allowed the clouds to form that created the local snow event at the peak. Without the forests to supply sufficient moisture, the cycle that produced the snowy peak has been broken.
I hope that some of the trees planted with the help of Algore’s “carbon offsets” are not in snowy areas.
No carbon credit purchases allowed from Finnish companies.
Here is another laugher from the Boston Globe via Drudge—
David G. Hawkins , director of the Climate Center at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said some emerging research suggests that dramatic changes in ocean temperatures could hamper the ability of warships to operate in some regions of the world.
“[Submarines] take advantage of the ocean having certain characteristics,” Hawkins said. “You could wind up with weapons that are no longer optimal because they were designed for the climate that existed thirty years before.”
Comment not needed
"If," he said tersely, "we could for a moment move on the subject of fiscal policy..."
"Fiscal policy!" whooped Ford Prefect. "Fiscal policy! How can you have money if none of you actually produces anything? It doesn't grow on trees you know."
"If you would allow me to continue. . ."
Ford nodded dejectedly.
"Thank you. Since we decided a few weeks ago to adopt the leaf as legal tender, we have, of course, all become immensely rich. But we have also run in to a small inflation problem on account of the high level of leaf availability, which means that, I gather, the current going rate has something like three deciduous forests to one ship's peanut. So in order to obviate this problem, and effectively revalue the leaf, we are about to embark on a massive defoliation campaign, and. . .er, burn down all the forests. I think you'll all agree that's a sensible move under the circumstances."
World’s Scientists Conclude 30% of Humankind Is At Risk From Global Warming; Maybe That Will Get Bush’s Attention
By Joe Rothstein
Editor, USPolitics.einnews.com
April 6, 2007
http://uspolitics.einnews.com/article.php?nid=255234
The truth......
https://www.conservativebookclub.com/Join/SingleBookJoin.asp?sour_cd=sb242az&prod_cd=c7020
the idea of global warming came from the conclusions of The Iron Mountain Report in 1967. There is no Global Warming caused by humans and it’s not to the level that the MSM is reporting. The purpose of Global warming has little to do with caring about the enviroment.
There is unrest in the forest. There is trouble with the trees. For the maples want more sunlight and the oaks ignore their pleas.
This article is tailor made for Rush's "Timber Update" (to the tune of "Born Free").
First we're supposed to stop logging and plant more trees. Now trees are the problem.
Therefore, we must immediately CLEAR CUT all of Canada, Scandanavia, and Siberia.
Sincerely
The Lumberbroker
Background: Reagan was repeating a joke going around in scientific circles at the time. In fact the whole Idea of reducing emission of NO's (ie... the catalytic converter) is based on this. And of course the catalytic coverter was first adopted by CA, thus RR was well aware of the science.
Anyway, trees and other vegetation account for 99.9% of the free hydrocarbons in the atmosphere. These hydrocarbons react with the NO coming out of the tailpipe to create air pollution. NO's react with any hydrocarbon, thus reducing hydrocarbon emissions in cars is completely inaffective. You need to either destroy all vegetation (trees cause smog) or eliminate the No's.
blame Canada!
PING!
What a joke study. These same snowy forests maintain their snow cover much longer than an open field.
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.