So, what did happen to all that warmth?

CO2 helps keep us warm right ? so if it gets a little warm and the ocean releases CO2 its gets yet warmer, so when will it be getting cold so that the CO2 goes back into the water ???

Global warming is very real, it just effects diferent areas in a diferent way.
we get temperatures up to 50C in the summer, the thermometer only goes that far so it could be more
and this winter we have had -3 for a few days, i've only been alive 17 years, but the only time i was in sub-0 temps was in birmingham last new years eve, and now here...
global warming isnt a beleive or not beleive thing, it's real, you either face the facts or dont. either way, its still there.
It doesnt mean everywhere will suddenly get warmer, but as you have noticed, everything is pretty unstable, and that exactly what it causes, weather instability.

Thunderchild said:

CO2 helps keep us warm right ? so if it gets a little warm and the ocean releases CO2 its gets yet warmer, so when will it be getting cold so that the CO2 goes back into the water ???

Click to expand...

You try to boil our atmosphere down too simplistically. It isn't.

amando96 said:

Global warming is very real, it just effects diferent areas in a diferent way.
we get temperatures up to 50C in the summer, the thermometer only goes that far so it could be more
and this winter we have had -3 for a few days, i've only been alive 17 years, but the only time i was in sub-0 temps was in birmingham last new years eve, and now here...
global warming isnt a beleive or not beleive thing, it's real, you either face the facts or dont. either way, its still there.
It doesnt mean everywhere will suddenly get warmer, but as you have noticed, everything is pretty unstable, and that exactly what it causes, weather instability.

Click to expand...

Indeed, global warming is very real. Just as it was in 1100 AD. Somehow we made out of it OK. And it was nature back then just as it is nature now.

The temperature has been rising, since the last Ice Age. The glaciers are melting, and will soon disappear. The majority of the Ice Age glaciers melted a long time ago. CO2? we all produce it, as well as most every living thing on the planet. Volcanoes spew out large quantities when they erupt. If CO2 bothers you, stop exhaling so much. Its a minor component, in a complex system. The data doesn't match up, there is way to much manipulation, filtering, and adjusting to be conclusive. It's all a guess, a fantasy, a scam. I'm not even sure there is any certainty that the CO2 is the cause of the warming, or an effect from warmer temperatures. Heat is energy, more energy, more activity, CO2 is a byproduct.

There will eventually be a turning point, and we will go into a cooling trend, and another eco-scare over something mankind is doing, or not doing. We just don't understand enough about how this planet works. We've studied the weather for hundreds of years, but how accurate are the forecasts these days? Can we control an aspect of severe weather? Can we bring rain during droughts? Stop flooding? Tornadoes? Hurricanes? No, we have no control, nothing ever tried had any effect.

I'm so concerned about the CO2, it's natural and normal. I'm more concerned about the other crap we dump into our living space. This planet is our home. We keep our houses clean, don't make a mess, or clean it up, but we don't go beyond our property line with this. The scare tactics haven't worked out in the past, mostly people don't care to listen to it anymore, they figure it's all a bunch of lies. The truth is that should be taking care of the planet, just like we would our own homes.

Double posted

I keep hearing about deforestation being a cause. If I understood it correctly most forested areas are being cleared to make farm land. Most crops have equal to greater annual CO2 absorption rates than did the biomass of trees in the same area that they replaced. That converted CO2 is what we eat and use to make our lives better. So where are the problems with that?

Also what biomass of the crop we do not use gets tilled back into the land and partly reused by next years crops as a source of nutrients.

If you want to see where that carbon goes take a good look at long term usage farm land that has been properly maintained as is common of any modern farming practices.
What you will find is that much of the farm land now has a healthy fertile soil horizon that is far thicker than that of common unfarmed native land!
Our local fields have top soil horizons 8 -14 inches thick in most places now yet native prairie soil horizons that can be found ten feet away in a pasture are about 1/3 of that or less.

Once again us dirty little parasitic humans are helping out the environment on a large scale and not getting credit for it.

You can't believe that farmland has more biomass than a rain forest? I mean, I'm not an enviro-wacko by any means but you'll never get me to believe that a cornfield cycles more CO2 than a rain forest. No way.

ke5frf said:

You can't believe that farmland has more biomass than a rain forest? I mean, I'm not an enviro-wacko by any means but you'll never get me to believe that a cornfield cycles more CO2 than a rain forest. No way.

Click to expand...

Actually he is right some slow growth trees have been found to collect less that that of other trees in the Amazon Rain forest. Once believed to be no older than that of some trees so, in terms of the overall collective capabilities they fair no better and are much older than previously believed.


kv

Edit: CO2

The only difference would be the need to fertilize and add additional CO2 to the atmosphere by maintaining it using fossil fuels.

Let me explain the consequences and reason for deforestation as I understand them.

Yes, a large percentage of South American rain forests have been cleared for farmland. The primary crop here is corn alcohol. Why? Alternative fuels and additives for "cleaner", global warming friendly energy. Bio-fuel.

So, one of the alternative solutions for the AGW scare is to clear virgin rain forests to make way for corn based fuels. I think you are way off the mark to believe that these cornfields are cycling CO2 more efficiently than a rain forest. WAY off base. In other words, the "solution" is part of a bigger problem in the long run. But thats a little tidbit they don't want the common Joe on the street to know about.

killivolt said:

Actually he is right some slow growth trees have been found to collect less that that of other trees in the Amazon Rain forest. Once believed to be no older than that of some trees so, in terms of the overall collective capabilities they fair no better and are much older than previously believed.


kv

Edit: CO2

The only difference would be the need to fertilize and add additional CO2 to the atmosphere by maintaining it using fossil fuels.

Click to expand...

This doesn't prove that a cornfield cycles more CO2 than a rain forest. "Some" trees collect less CO2, sure I'll buy that...but the overall biomass of the entire rain forest? All of it? That is a lot of leaf surface area for photosynthesis by order of magnitudes larger than a corn stalk.

I don't buy it. I've read plenty to the contrary and common sense just doesn't jive with it.

If you really want to learn some interesting carbon cycle and plant biology facts talk to a good agri science specialist. You know, those scientific farmer guys who measure and nit pick every detail of everything that has ever grown.

Ask them what they think about human produced CO2 and the CO2 cycle in general. I would bet you wont find one of them that thinks human sources of CO2 dont acount for anything in the grand scale of the earths biosphere and related cycles.
If anything they may just tell you how beneficial and symbiotic rather than parasitic we really are! But be prepared to have to go out in a field to talk to one. They dont spend much time in town.
Which could explain why they know so much more than the city folk do about how nature really works.

Farmland is usually set up for maximum production, which means packing in as many plants as you can, but leaving enough space to grow well, and quickly. Of course there is the issue of variety, and who knows what is being destroyed.

Forest fires are natural, and occasionally needed for a healthy forest. We fight them, and try to minimize the burn, so doubt that the CO2 factor is really an issue. Although a large number of forest fires are set by man these days.

Our country used a lot of the same methods, in the early years. I remember when farmers use to burn off their fields, to prepare for the next year's crops. Not sure if they still do. We burned coal to generate electricity, long before we dammed river for hydro plants. Developing countries are just following in our footsteps. Seems silly to tell them 'no', but do nothing to provide them with a better solution. Just another reason we are being scammed. They really don't want to change anything, just control and tax more. It is a real problem, and we do need to work on some better technology, be we aren't going to get it this way. The better, green, alternatives should already be available, and at reasonable cost, and effectiveness.

I prefer driving used cars, clunkers. They are cheap, can do my own repairs, don't need full coverage insurance. A new car puts you in debt, takes up a considerable amount of time (scheduled maintenance), full coverages insurance, and all repairs must be done by an authorized repair shop, takes a good portion of your paycheck. Both will get you to work, or where ever you need to go. Developing countries want to grow, and improve their lives, but don't have the money to spend on the latest technology. They just want to do the best they can, with what is available.

This doesn't prove that a cornfield cycles more CO2 than a rain forest. "Some" trees collect less CO2, sure I'll buy that...but the overall biomass of the entire rain forest? All of it? That is a lot of leaf surface area for photosynthesis by order of magnitudes larger than a corn stalk.

I don't buy it. I've read plenty to the contrary and common sense just doesn't jive with it.

Click to expand...

I am pretty sure they plant more than one corn stock per acre.
However many forests have surprisingly little plant life below the primary canopy. Many of those large old growth forest trees take up nearly an acre of area alone at the top and there are only a few per acre on the ground at best in those types of forested locations.

Not all forests are that way and corn is just one of hundreds of common crops that have naturally high CO2 absorption characteristics. On the averages of large scale most farming practices do in fact out sequester forests on the CO2 aspects! And in many cases also prove to be far more diversified in land and soil management plus have greater beneficial plant and insect populations.

Also much of the worlds farm land is not located in forested areas but on open plains lands where crop carbon cycles greatly outperform the native plant capacities! Around here farmers plant large tree rows around their farm land as well so it not like they get plowed under to never be seen again!

Look, obviously they don't plant "one" corn stalk per acre. And I do understand that canopy and floor density are different. HOWEVER, I don't think that either of us have spent time hanging out in a Brazilian rain forest to get a real feel for just how dense the foliage is. I'm only going on my knowledge of temperate virgin forests (I am originally from the Knoxville, TN about 20 minutes away from the Great Smokey Mountain NP). I know for a fact that the Smokies are orders of magnitude more dense and cycle more CO2 than a South American cornfield on "a good day"...And that is considering that Woodland forests are seasonal, with broadleaf foliage from around March-October plus the evergreen density that is always there. Brazilian rain forests are not seasonal, they are the same all year long. I imagine the corn fields are there all year long as well, HOWEVER, you have to subtract a few months a year for tilling, resowing, and growth to maturity. That fact alone will cut the CO2 cycle by at least a third. So, even if a square acre of mature corn plants cycle CO2 comparably to the original virgin forests, they lose ground by being bare earth and seedlings for a good part of the crop cycle.

Like I said, I'm no enviro-nut and I do not believe in AGW. But I do not see how clear-cutting virgin rain forests, destroying habitat for a vast diversity of wildlife, and also destroying many species of potential pharmaceutical resources in the form of undocumented flora (i,e many drugs and medical breakthroughs come from exotic chemicals found in such plants)...I don't see how this is a good thing for mankind. Especially considering the fact that so much of these crops are being used for bio-fuels that are "supposed" to be eco-friendly.

Thats exactly the whole point! No one single action or location is the root cause or effect or cure. The whole natural process happens world wide and that also means that every single plant and organism is part of it. And what works well in one location is bad in another.

I dont like the idea of clear cutting forests either but unfortunately a lot of that has more to do with politics than anything else. Many third world countries have to clear cut forests to make room for farm land so that they can support themselves because the well off countries like ours wont sell them food because we dont like their government or because of some other politically based reasoning.

People will do what they need to do to survive, it is a fact of our nature. When you have the resources to live comfortably and cheaply you also have the time and resources to look at your world and how you interact with it.
When your dirt poor and have absolutly nothing your biggest concern is with how are you going to live another day. The last thing on your mind is how you may impact the greater part of the world in the future while doing what ever you have to do to survive.

I keep hearing about deforestation being a cause. If I understood it correctly most forested areas are being cleared to make farm land. Most crops have equal to greater annual CO2 absorption rates than did the biomass of trees in the same area that they replaced. That converted CO2 is what we eat and use to make our lives better. So where are the problems with that?

Click to expand...

Biological organisms must consume a certain amount of energy relative to their mass. For example; a Humpback whale consumes about 2000 pounds of food a day where as a human might only consume a few pounds.

A corn field could hardly consume the same amount of CO² as the behemoth trees of the rain forest.

There is a much bigger issue than the loss of CO² by the rain forest. These trees provide a large amount of O² and offer a home to a very diverse eco-system. A loss of this eco-system would ripple across the entire food chain including humans living in the southern Americas.

The die-off of bees would lead to a die-off of certain flowers which would effect the bird population, in turn certain fruit production would be affected. I am not sure I made my point, but disrupting an eco-system results in a domino affect and can take thousands of years to correct.

well your certainly right there we are treating our planet like a dump and it will come back on us

A corn field could hardly consume the same amount of CO² as the behemoth trees of the rain forest.

Click to expand...

Well the numbers I found suggest that an acre of corn absorbs around 17 tons(42 tonnes per hectare) of CO2 per year. As suggested here **broken link removed** . Other sites have a similar range of numbers as well. Even a bad growing season for corn still tops 10 tons per acre!

Trees on the other hand even in the best growing conditions and with the ideal trees dont top 5 tons per acre per year. (fast growing poplar hybrids)

Most species of trees in an natural environment are well under 1 ton per acre. Most websites suggest 500 pounds to 1500 pounds per acre per year is the realistic rate of CO2 absorption of natural growth forest.

OK, I'm researching the forest carbon sequestration rate to shut this argument up

One of my first hits is Austrailian Eucalyptus forests....

"Australia's temperate Eucalyptus forests are champions of carbon storage, sequestering up to 2,844 metric tons of carbon per hectare"

Temperate forests store more carbon than tropical forests, finds study

I simply can't believe there is a vast difference between Australian forests and other forests. 2,844 metric tons. Thats a freakin lot. Let's see if more data comes forth.