Is Global Warming a Myth?

by Sirona 80 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  ThiChi

  ""what if our oxygen producing capacity is greatly depleted, then what happens to this excess CO2?"

  ""What about the ice caps?""

  Despite breathless media reports and speculation of an ice-free Northwest passage, Holloway, a scientist with the Institute of Ocean Science in Victoria, suggests that it's far more likely that the ice has just been moved around in the cycles of arctic winds. "It's more complicated than we thought," The Canada National Post quotes Holloway as saying. The original theory was based on declassified records from the trips of U.S. submarines under the ice.
  
  Satellite photos have clearly shown that the surface area of the ice has decreased about 3% a year for the last 20 years. The question always was: How thick was it? Here's the truth, from a physicist - sound science, not junk science rooted in fear - sea ice is not melting as we've been told. Do you have the courage to believe it?

  Cooling earth temperatures between A.D. 1000 and 1900 have been linked to deforestation during that period, according to environmental researchers. Using computer simulations to test their theories, researchers at the Lawrence Livermore laboratory concluded that the regions on Earth which cooled more over those 800 years were also the hardest hit by deforestation. The researchers' discovery casts doubt on the debated notion that a great abundance of trees on earth can slow global warming. It's just the opposite.

  These "climate predictors" have now learned that deforestation results in cooling, and as a result, they are actually complaining! A monkey wrench has been thrown into the works that upsets the whole political agenda of global warming - because cutting trees is never, ever good. Now, we find out that the number one environmentalist cause, global warming, can be retarded, maybe even averted by clear-cutting - and that these warmer temperatures are actually healing the ozone and not causing the ice caps to melt!
• 

  FreeWilly

  Ok, now add the fact the the world is depleting it's forests at an alarming rate. ... So, what if our oxygen producing capacity is greatly depleted, then what happens to this excess CO2?

  This is actually a common misconception. Rainforests are oxygen neutral. They consume the same (or more) amount of Oxygen as they give off. There is no excess Some scientists suggest they may even be slight Oxygen users, thus contributing to the C02 in the atmosphere. The continuous decay of organic matter uses at least as much Oxygen as the Forest gives off during photosynthisis. Green plants also consume Oxygen and give off CO2 when not undergoing photosynthesis (at night).

  Also rainforests are a relatively new phenomenon in Earths history, emerging in only the past ~15000 years. If Tropical rainforests were to disappear completely and revert back to the savanah grasslands that existed in that area before them, the Oxygen/CO2 cycle would remain unchanged. Green plants, regardless of whether they are in the form of grass, shrubbery, secondary or primary forests, all maintain a balanced Oxygen/CO2 cycle in relative equilibrium.

  These facts do not advocate deforestation, rather it paints a clear picture of the worlds problems and which ones need the most attention. The eco-doomsday claims like 40% Rainforest destruction hurt the environmental cause. Tropical rainforests today are 90% intact according to the latest satellite imagery. In my opinion, Biodiversity is the biggest loss suffered by deforestation. Second to that is the nutrient loss from the clear cutting techniques. Third is their appreciation value.

  I believe the world is getting warmer as it has in the past. The evidence of vegetation (like flowers) in the Antarctic and ice core data shows a warmer Earth so Humanity should expect this trend to re-emerge.

  High levels of CO2 and fossil fuel byproducts are disturbing. A recent study showed that children living in large cities are twice as likely to have asthma as those who live in rural areas. Other respiratory complications are more likely in these areas too. This however does not have the same impact as a doomsday scenario that radical eco groups profit so much from. When people initially buy into this fear tactic, only to find out it's predominantly hyped, people may turn away from environmental causes altogether.
• 

  Abaddon

  Great discussion; I'm pretty much with people like Gretchen and FreeWilly in feeling there's a combination of factors.

  I think the "there's nothing to see here, move along" brigade are just as likely to be wrong as the "doom is nigh" crowd.

  It is a bit of a coincidence that industrialisation has coincided with some climate trends we see. It is prudent therefore to be careful. Treating the atmosphere like an ashtray is obviously not very clever.

  Whilst forests are indeed oxygen-neutral, or even negative, it is the freeing-up of the carbon they contain that is the issue. Just as it is the issue of millions of years of accumilated carbon deposits being burned in the space of a few decades.

  It beggers belief that there is no connection.

  Prudence, therefore, keeping environnmental impacts at current levels, investment in fusion and other bleeding-edge physics methods of energy production, utilisation of fuels made from short-cycle crops (which don't dump millions of years of carbon into the atmosphere), pollution controls. It's all pretty obvious.

  I think nuclear power is a short-term stop-gap until cleaner high-tech methods come online. It's been demonised. There's more radoactives released by a coal-fired power station each year than a good nuclear installtion; obviously coal power stations don't do such damage when they go balls-up, but only one really has, and the staff were mucking around (Chernobyl).
• 

  heathen

  Some good points all around .... There are clearly alternatives that the governments reject that are far better than what is being used . From what I understand the cleanest burning fuel in the world comes from hemp oil . Hemp is one of the most environment freindly alternatives to anything mentioned from politicians just because they are affraid somebody might light up some reefer and chill out for a couple of hours .. All these people with stress disorders would probly mellow and make the world a better place but instead they make synthetic drugs to try and produce the same chemical reaction that is easily and naturally grown ........
• 

  Nicolas

  If you live in Canada, during the winter, you'll find it very hard to believe that the earth is warming ;-) . A temperature of -10 fahrenheit isn't rare during the cold months of January and February, here in Québec. Often, our car won't start because of a dead battery, ah the pleasure of our winter.
• 

  BrendaCloutier

  "It's more complicated than we thought,"

  Duh!

  I appreciate all of the comments, science, and pseudo-science tossed about here. This planet we live on is most facinating.

  Hugs

  Brenda
• 

  ThiChi

  ""Ok, now add the fact the the world is depleting it's forests at an alarming rate. "" Really? Source: Los Angeles Times Headline: Commentary: Greens Don't See Forest for the Trees Byline: Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, president of Greenspirit Dateline: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 "It has become a principle of the environmental movement to insist that wood and paper products be certified as originating from sustained, managed forests. ... Lord help those who don't fall in line, as big-box retailers and builders discovered when Greenpeace and the Rainforest Action Network became their judge and jury - hanging corporate reputations from the rafters with the TV cameras rolling."

  "The environmental movement's campaign to force industry into accepting it as the only judge of sustainable forestry is pushing consumers away from renewable forest products and toward nonrenewable, energy-intensive materials such as steel, concrete and plastic."

  "Wood is the most renewable and sustainable of the major building materials. On all measures comparing the environmental effects of common building materials, wood has the least impact on total energy use, greenhouse gases, air and water pollution and solid waste. So why isn't the environmental movement demanding that the steel and concrete industries submit to an audit for "sustainability"? ... Because emotive images of forests sell memberships."

  "The environmental movement has unfortunately led the public into believing that when people use wood, they cause the loss of forests. This widespread guilt is misplaced. North America's forests are not disappearing. In fact, there is about the same amount of forest cover today as there was 100 years ago, even though we consume more wood per capita than any other region in the world. Isn't this proof positive that forests are renewable and sustainable?"

  "When we buy wood, we are sending a signal to plant more trees to satisfy demand. If there were no demand for wood, landowners would clear away the forest and grow something else instead."
• 

  Mary

  The link between the burning of fossil fuels and global warming is a myth. It is time the world's leaders, their scientific advisers and many environmental pressure groups woke up to the fact. Copyright © 2004 Daily Mail

  Oh well, seeing as The Daily Mail ran this story, I guess it's gotta be true.

  Am I the only one here who thinks that the pollution that goes into the environment every day is helping to ruin this planet? Think of all the garbage dumps and landfills there are......it's disgusting. The earth can only take so much abuse and I don't think what's happening is all just part of a "natural cycle". That's like saying smoking for 50 years doesn't affect your health.
• 

  Brummie

  I think we should be very concerned about Global Warming.

  Thats all :)

  Brummie
• 

  heathen

  Mary --- obviously the polution is ruining parts of the planet that's why recycling is important so as to keep the garbage dumps from filling too quickly . There was a huge scare over stirofoam products so people stopped using as much of it because it cannot be recycled . There are problems with tires and disposing of them as well or anti freeze in auto mobiles , stuff like that is jut plain not good to get in the water supply . There are plenty of herbacides and chemicals that are dangerous when igested by humans or animals . I think the animals have as much a right to live on the planet as humans so to me protecting wildlife habitats is very important . I think the danger with environmentalists is over exagerating the facts but if we are to error I would rather be on the side that says we need to do things to improve the environment .

  Thi chi--- I agree the wooded areas are being replennished to support supply and demand but there are natural disaster such as forest fire that has been ravaging north americas forests . Once again I propose the hemp plant as being a very good supply for pulp , oil and clothing or ropes even instead of nylon .