UK global warming 'expert' tries to scare people again

Post Reply New Topic

The thing with the plants is right, the problem is you cannot know if this will function as it had, because earth never had so few plants and woods as nowadays. So if you hack a tree and burn it, you need to grow another tree the same size to consume the carbon dioxide you freed by burning the first tree.

So when it comes to you math, we needed to build up the forests we destroyed, because of the wood we needed. Which means nearly everywhere. Then for the areas you cant regrowth because of cities, streets, industry, agrar cultury (a square meter cultivated corn consumes much less carbon dioxide than a square meter forest. (When you mention the fertilizer, the agrar sqauremeter even produces carbondioxid) you needed to find an area where the plants could grow, that shall consume the Carbondioxide that got free by clearing the mentioned areas from the woods. This part is only about re-consuming the carbondioxide that got free, by burning wood, destroying plants and so on. So if you could find free areas, I agree that you could re-consume the carbondioxide.

The other thing is, we blew up great amount of fossils into the air in about 200 years. These were plant rests that gathered themself over 100.000 and millions of years. To reconsumption these carbondioxide you would need additional areas for forests and plants to grow. (Following your example, we now did regrow the original forests and created flying islands to grow forests and plants instead of the areas we couldnt regrowth, because of existing civilisation.) The alternative is letting plants rot, wait for the continental plates to move some Kilometers, until the rotted plants are in a depth of about 4 km, and then wait some 100.000 years until it becomes oil again.

So I do not generally disagree with you. Technically your facts are correct. The question I have: Where are we able to let your "flourishing vegetation" grow? There can be the best possibilities, but if we dont let it grow, it wont. This is a part of the problem, that we have to less natural forests and areas, because of us needing the space for food, for industry, for living, ... Which country will be willing to destroy half of his agrarculture areas, so that natural forests can regrow there to bind the carbondioxid?

Another problem is: We are very fast. As told we put many carbondioxide into the air, by burning fossile oil. As you said yourself, normally earth has handled such things. But a problem right now is, that more than 50% of the plants that consume carbondioxide are in the seas. Agreeeing with you, maybe we can even find plants that could help us bind more carbon dioxid in it, and have no problems with the free areas, because surface of the sea, ist still a free space for the most part. So here could be the solution for the problem we already talked above in your idea - the missing areas on land for plants to regrow. And scientists are already on it.

The problem is, that the babykindergarden for most kind of seaweeds, plankton, ... are shore areas and coral reefs. Which are dying right now, because corral reefs are not able to withstand the temperature difference in the seas, in the short time it has already occured the last decades. And wether is the dying of the coral reefs a myth, nore is it a myth that they are essential for life in the sea. Which means essential for maybe the only possibility your plan could work.

So generally I agree. There have been temperature differents in the past and earth itself will not die from it. But many people could. They are already. Because of the changes around the last decade, fewer food has grown, prices got higher, people that couldnt afford these prices were dying. And right now, we do it on the wrong order. So normally first you should see what kind of problems could occure, because of your doing, then you seek solutions to this problems, so you are prepared when they finally come. Right now its the opposite. Instead of doing research to localize plants and solutions so we can allow us to enhance our carbondioxid pollution, we pollute like idiots for idiotstuff in a time so shortly, that our possible sollutions for the problems are dying before we discover them. -.-

Earth wont die, and humanity will not. But is is it really necessary to worsen our own coming lifes for cars, fashion, advertisiment, lifestyle and so on? Thats what sucks. If it was about necessary stuff, ok you cant discuss necessary stuff. So nobody wants to die from hunger or because of an infected appendix. But I-Pads or pimped cars or wasting fuel for driving around out of fun... -.- I could puke because of that s**t.

I've been bumped a growing zone, 7 now instead of 6.
The old timers say the river would freeze and you could skate,butcher a hog and it would stay cold enough to hang the meat and cure it.
The daffodils are blooming in my yard,honey bees are out.
None of this should be happening till March.
There was even a bullfrog out and the chipmunks are out.
All too soon.
And we didn't used to have armadillos.

As a child growing up in the sixties the permafrost in the Tanana Flats had a temperature of 31.5 F, -0.23 C.
Two years ago it reached 32 F, 0 C. The grams per calorie to melt ice is 6 times as much as it takes to raise water 1 degree C so there are a few years yet to go.

The tip point has been reached, when the permafrost reaches 33 F, 0.5 C, it will no longer be solid. At places it is 1300', 400 m, deep. This will drain off and the glacial silt will blow away in the wind.
Permafrost based tundra from Finland to Kamchatka is going through the same change.
More than the warming trend itself, it is this transition from solid to liquid over such large areas and the release of trapped gasses and blowing sands that is going to cause collateral damage.

I find it highly unlikely any human activity is going to cause long term change, but in the short term...just delaying it long enough to get new strains of food crops developed would save many lives.

Is there nothing in what you have written that seems a little hysterical to you?

The bouquet of nature unfolds its beautiful presence for you and all you see is fear?

Hysterical? I'm not saying the change is coming tomorrow, even though our actions are speeding up the natural heating/cooling caused by the carbon cycle, we'll all probably be dead before the real changes begin.

And because this is different than how it's happened in the past, we really can't be sure how things will go down. There will be surprises.

But that doesn't mean nothing should be done.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/06/world ... .html?_r=0
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-12-0 ... ities.html

But my friend, how to solve the problem of heat in the houses? When it is impossible to breathe because of the unbearable heat and your aircon service company comes almost every week as the aircon fails due to the fact that it almost does not turn off I don't know if it's global warming but it is terrible to realize that air conditioners also contribute to this and at the same time it is impossible without them.

The guy is a highly educated scholar in his field. And you think you are smarter than him?
Have you taken courses in meteorology, glaciology, biology... What qualifications to you have to ridicule a person with his credentials speaking about the results of his research?

This thread is nearly seven years old and nearly all the users who have posted in it do not post here any more.

I appreciated the nostalgia trip though.