hollanda88
Fish Addict
But with things like deforestation we don't just deforest, we go on to replace that forest with palm oil plantations for biofuel which stores 21X less co2 than secondary forest (fire damages, logged...).
andrew
I Found This Upsetting For Me.
- Thread starter Truck
- Start date
But with things like deforestation we don't just deforest, we go on to replace that forest with palm oil plantations for biofuel which stores 21X less co2 than secondary forest (fire damages, logged...).
andrew
Very true I suppose.
But you can't win. If we dig up all the oil then greenpeace moan, if we deforest to create biofuel then greenpeace moan.
dont even go there....
climate change is nothing new, it's been going on for 4billion years or so, we have clear evidence that there have been periods when there are no ice caps at all, and the UK was tropical.....
sea ice levels have been declining for the last 10000 years or so...when they reached down to the English channel & covered nearly all of north America... so the seas much have been much more salty then ....but somehow life on the planet was not totally destroyed (odd that).... what you wont hear is the rapid increases in continental ice in the southern hemisphere..... ( how peculiar)
the "eternal tropical rainforests" are nothing of the sort....ditto the northern pine & deciduous forests, they are relatively recent phenomena.... oh no how did the planet survive then
, corals as we know them are also a relatively recent phenomenon.
If salinity levels have changes that much in 200 years then the animals living in that environment must already be very adaptable otherwise they would already be dead......especially as anthropogenic GW is supposedly a phenomena of the last century, and particularly the latter part thereof... so why the increase in the preceding 150 years?.....
As for increasing the extinction rate all will say is complete and utter bollocks... we don't know what natural extinction rates are, (yes species do die out without man's interference...I know major revelation)... we don't know how many species there are, we don't know how many new species are developing ( a natural consequence of evolution, although most seem to think it has stopped for some reason ???....), we don't know or understand the phenomena of "natural" mass extinction. For all the above we cannot say what percentage is at risk, not at risk, has enhanced viability etc, because statistics without baseline data is just a guess, and a guess is just a bias with plausible sounding justification.
climate change is nothing new, it's been going on for 4billion years or so, we have clear evidence that there have been periods when there are no ice caps at all, and the UK was tropical.....
sea ice levels have been declining for the last 10000 years or so...when they reached down to the English channel & covered nearly all of north America... so the seas much have been much more salty then ....but somehow life on the planet was not totally destroyed (odd that).... what you wont hear is the rapid increases in continental ice in the southern hemisphere..... ( how peculiar)
the "eternal tropical rainforests" are nothing of the sort....ditto the northern pine & deciduous forests, they are relatively recent phenomena.... oh no how did the planet survive then
, corals as we know them are also a relatively recent phenomenon.If salinity levels have changes that much in 200 years then the animals living in that environment must already be very adaptable otherwise they would already be dead......especially as anthropogenic GW is supposedly a phenomena of the last century, and particularly the latter part thereof... so why the increase in the preceding 150 years?.....
As for increasing the extinction rate all will say is complete and utter bollocks... we don't know what natural extinction rates are, (yes species do die out without man's interference...I know major revelation)... we don't know how many species there are, we don't know how many new species are developing ( a natural consequence of evolution, although most seem to think it has stopped for some reason ???....), we don't know or understand the phenomena of "natural" mass extinction. For all the above we cannot say what percentage is at risk, not at risk, has enhanced viability etc, because statistics without baseline data is just a guess, and a guess is just a bias with plausible sounding justification.
dcarmor927
Fishaholic
Just had to say, lol, if youre referring to Marijauna, you dont get withdraw symptoms...your body is reacting, but its nothing you even notice, certainly nothing compared to some hardcore drugs...
as for the global warming, personally i think that the earth is changing all on its own. As per my geology and geography professors: we are coming out of an ice age, which will heat the earth obviously. The amount of carbon now in the atmosphere is around 300 ppm where as the average for the planet is around 600 ppm...I think that humans can do their part to help slow it down, but ultimately, there is nothing we can do...fyi if you are going to retort i probably wont say anything back lol...just wanted my opinion out there
Spot on i'd say - we're at the peak between the usual cycle of an ice age i.e. the warmest. We should start to cool down soon (in geological terms) and head toward the next ice age.
I wonder in 5,000 years time if when the glaciers are heading this way will people blame cars still (if cars still exist!).
Anyway, i think the RS4 needs a run, it's a bit chilly out there
I wonder in 5,000 years time if when the glaciers are heading this way will people blame cars still (if cars still exist!).
Anyway, i think the RS4 needs a run, it's a bit chilly out there
OP
OP
Truck
UKAPS
co2 is not the main contributer to global warming, methane is, im more bothered about the fact that sea water PH is dropping at an alarming rate and a fear it will not be able to adapt quick enough
Trod
The indecisive one
Found this Truck don't really understand it myself 
but it may help you some [URL="http
/wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocea...ion-and-corals/"]http/wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocea...ion-and-corals/[/URL] and this http/co2.cms.udel.edu/Ocean_Acidification.htm
It really appears that for every positive report there is a negative one, but what I beleive it comes down to in the end is, life will adapt to the change
but it may help you some [URL="http/wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocea...ion-and-corals/"]http/wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/31/ocea...ion-and-corals/[/URL] and this http/co2.cms.udel.edu/Ocean_Acidification.htmIt really appears that for every positive report there is a negative one, but what I beleive it comes down to in the end is, life will adapt to the change
OP
OP
Truck
UKAPS
i can see some scientists theories, but that happened over millions of years not 200. albeit the nuclear bomb thing was interesting
hollanda88
Fish Addict
everyone seems to be denying mankinds contribution to problems
As for biofuel tho, it has no reason to be called bio fuel just because its made from plant derrived oil?!?!?!?!?!
Biofuel contributes as the main driver of deforestation and releasing the most carbon from carbon sinks, all because the advertisers don't advertise that big lol
Hydrogen fuel cell cars, come on companies hurry up and make them cheap and in all garages
andrew
As for biofuel tho, it has no reason to be called bio fuel just because its made from plant derrived oil?!?!?!?!?!
Biofuel contributes as the main driver of deforestation and releasing the most carbon from carbon sinks, all because the advertisers don't advertise that big lol
Hydrogen fuel cell cars, come on companies hurry up and make them cheap and in all garages
andrew
OP
OP
Truck
UKAPS
they may release carbon but you have to realise that there mass is mainly carbon any way and how do they get that? through photosynthesis taking CO2 from the air, bio fuels are carbon neutral.everyone seems to be denying mankinds contribution to problems
As for biofuel tho, it has no reason to be called bio fuel just because its made from plant derrived oil?!?!?!?!?!
Biofuel contributes as the main driver of deforestation and releasing the most carbon from carbon sinks, all because the advertisers don't advertise that big lol
Hydrogen fuel cell cars, come on companies hurry up and make them cheap and in all garages
andrew
and how do you think we get hydrogen? through fractional distillation and electrolysis, both require electric to work but fractional distillation can also be fuel powered.
hollanda88
Fish Addict
who is they???
OP
OP
Truck
UKAPS
the plants used to make bio fuel
hollanda88
Fish Addict
Sorry im not understanding you, The rainforest (most biologically diverse ecosystem on earth) locks up co2 in the plants (carbon sinks), chopping them down releases this co2 and repleacing the rainforest with oil palm is replacing the diverse ecosystem with a crappy plantation which can hold no species as the bush meat trade kills them all
andrew
OP
OP
Truck
UKAPS
palm oil trees will still take in CO2 only when burned will it release it again
Sorry im not understanding you, The rainforest (most biologically diverse ecosystem on earth) locks up co2 in the plants (carbon sinks), chopping them down releases this co2 and repleacing the rainforest with oil palm is replacing the diverse ecosystem with a crappy plantation which can hold no species as the bush meat trade kills them all
andrew
hollanda88
Fish Addict
palm oil trees will still take in CO2 only when burned will it release it again
Sorry im not understanding you, The rainforest (most biologically diverse ecosystem on earth) locks up co2 in the plants (carbon sinks), chopping them down releases this co2 and repleacing the rainforest with oil palm is replacing the diverse ecosystem with a crappy plantation which can hold no species as the bush meat trade kills them all
andrew
you don't get it. the palm oil plantations hold less co2 than the rainforest in the first place, and hold a lot less species of animal and plant.
andrew
Similar threads
Most reactions
-
538 -
306 -
260 -
256 -
227 -
185 -
180 -
149 -
146 -
144 -
85 -
76 -
73 -
72 -
68