What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

climate change times are a changin'

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: climate change times are a changin'

mookie1995 said:
It is Franken who thinks he's won?!? :p
Click to expand...

You laugh, but half the country thought Dubya won his debates. For the vast majority of us, maybe all, "winning" a debate means "he agrees with me." :p
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

joecct said:
Radio listeners thought Nixon won. TV viewers thought Kennedy won.
Click to expand...

As great as that story is, I have read it's actually a myth. IIRC, some polls of TV viewers showed a Kennedy edge but more showed a Nixon win. However, I wasn't aware it was a myth until a couple years ago, and it's in every sociology textbook written since 1960. Like Kitty Genovese, when the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

FreshFish said:
Photosynthesis.
Click to expand...

Yes, because not only stopping worldwide deforestation but reversing it is clearly effective, easy, and cheap.

Then again, if we continue to pollute the oceans with fertilizer run-off, maybe the massive algae blooms will counteract some of the deforestation. :rolleyes:
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Kepler said:
As great as that story is, I have read it's actually a myth. IIRC, some polls of TV viewers showed a Kennedy edge but more showed a Nixon win. However, I wasn't aware it was a myth until a couple years ago, and it's in every sociology textbook written since 1960. Like Kitty Genovese, when the legend becomes fact, print the legend.
Click to expand...

I think The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance did it better :p
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Now this is grim news indeed....the world's largest and most efficient engine of removing CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from the atmosphere may be in trouble.

The Amazon rain forest has long absorbed more carbon than it releases and acted as a vital brake on climate change. An extensive study now suggests that it is losing its ability to suck up the excess carbon dioxide being emitted into the atmosphere by human activities.

The main reason: the large-scale death of trees in the rain forest, according to the study.

Mortality rates of trees in the region have increased by more than a third since the mid-1980s. As a result, the amount of new carbon stored each year in the form of growing tree stems, new leaves, roots and organic matter in the soil, is diminishing, the study says.

Each year, human activity releases about 35 billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere. For the past few decades, about a quarter of those emissions have been absorbed by the oceans, while another quarter is taken up by trees and other terrestrial sources. The other half stays in the atmosphere and is believed to be the main driver of man-made climate change.

Plants have thrived in that excess CO2. Partly because of the increased availability of the gas, the global land carbon sink has grown since the mid-1990s.

About half of the carbon sink on land consists of intact tropical forests. The Amazon, which is 15 times the size of California, is at least half of the global tropical forest. Its 300 hundred billion trees store one fifth of all carbon in the earth’s biomass.

While increasing CO2 emissions fueled a growth spurt for the Amazon’s trees, that growth rate of new trees has leveled off since 2000. At the same time, the trees’ death rate has gone up.
Click to expand...
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

Isn't the taiga forest or even the world's oceans far more of a CO2 consumer than the Amazon ever was?
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

dxmnkd316 said:
Isn't the taiga forest or even the world's oceans far more of a CO2 consumer than the Amazon ever was?
Click to expand...


Apparently, the amount of CO[SUB]2[/SUB] sequestered by a forest each year depends upon the ratio of new growth to old growth. New growth withdraws additional CO[SUB]2[/SUB] from the atmosphere and stores it in branches and leaves. Old growth, while already having locked up a substantial amount of CO[SUB]2[/SUB], no longer sequesters any additional CO[SUB]2[/SUB], and since it is a living being, it actually emits CO[SUB]2[/SUB] at night through respiration.

Forests and the oceans have been storing much of the CO[SUB]2[/SUB] emitted, and in fact the extra CO[SUB]2[/SUB] has helped forests grow faster, helping provide some additional impetus toward equilibrium. However, the faster growth also leads to an earlier maturation, ending the incremental sequestration sooner.

Based on the studies I've read, it is completely feasible for us to scale up plant growth to a level at which we can absorb as much CO[SUB]2[/SUB] as we emit when we also implement sensible non-draconian emissions reductions: reduce emissions somewhat, absorb more, a balanced approach that doesn't require drastic reductions in the standard of living to which most people in the world aspire and have not yet reached.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

dxmnkd316 said:
Isn't the taiga forest or even the world's oceans far more of a CO2 consumer than the Amazon ever was?
Click to expand...

Climate change has been changing the Taiga, too. Not sure whether the new mix of trees will be a better CO2 sponge.
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

FadeToBlack&Gold said:
Why would I pay for the WSJ or NYT, when Freerepublic and Democratic Underground offer the same opinions from a far more entertaining cast of lunatics? ;)
Click to expand...

Good point. :)

Though with the WSJ, whenever money is at stake (i.e., the business section), they are quite hard-headed and non-ideological. It is only in their editorials that they are a clone of The Economist ;)
 
Re: climate change times are a changin'

FreshFish said:
Good point. :)

Though with the WSJ, whenever money is at stake (i.e., the business section), they are quite hard-headed and non-ideological. It is only in their editorials that they are a clone of The Economist ;)
Click to expand...

Not even close. The Economist despises the Echo Chamber.

It is true that WSJ is still reputable when it comes to factual business reporting. It's only their editorial slant that's juvenile.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top