Comments on: CO2 or Rainforests? http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/ Ed Ring's EcoWorld Posts Sat, 11 Oct 2008 15:38:04 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6 By: Gary Hoffman http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/#comment-73144 Gary Hoffman Mon, 31 Dec 2007 23:03:33 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/#comment-73144 Pielke's comments regarding land use would seem to resolve the apparent disparity between increasing ground temperatures, on the one hand, and the lack of any corresponding increase in the upper atmosphere according to satellite and weather balloon datasets, on the other. That, together with observations that ground temperature has not changed for the last decade, more or less, suggest that rising levels of CO2 may not be an indicator at all with regard to global warming. Rather CO2 levels may relate to some other factor(s), which may or may not influence global climate change (including global cooling). How can anyone seriously propose radical public policies until these phenomena receive a reliable explanation? Pielke’s comments regarding land use would seem to resolve the apparent disparity between increasing ground temperatures, on the one hand, and the lack of any corresponding increase in the upper atmosphere according to satellite and weather balloon datasets, on the other. That, together with observations that ground temperature has not changed for the last decade, more or less, suggest that rising levels of CO2 may not be an indicator at all with regard to global warming. Rather CO2 levels may relate to some other factor(s), which may or may not influence global climate change (including global cooling). How can anyone seriously propose radical public policies until these phenomena receive a reliable explanation?

]]> By: Wondering Aloud http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/#comment-69789 Wondering Aloud Tue, 18 Dec 2007 20:00:46 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/#comment-69789 Fire is a human created problem? Ed Ring has hit it on the head, biofuels will likely be a net negative no matter how you slice it. The cure is likely to be much worse than the disease. If people seriously believe that CO2 is leading to catastrophic warming; why aren't they pushing for nuclear power and geothermal development? These could easily cut emissions by more that 50% and even make hydrogen and electric vehicles practical. Answer: They don't believe it, they are using it to advance a political agenda Fire is a human created problem?

Ed Ring has hit it on the head, biofuels will likely be a net negative no matter how you slice it. The cure is likely to be much worse than the disease.

If people seriously believe that CO2 is leading to catastrophic warming; why aren’t they pushing for nuclear power and geothermal development? These could easily cut emissions by more that 50% and even make hydrogen and electric vehicles practical.

Answer: They don’t believe it, they are using it to advance a political agenda

]]> By: Ed Ring http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/#comment-66447 Ed Ring Sat, 08 Dec 2007 03:31:53 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/#comment-66447 Several commenters - who clearly are not familiar with our editorial position on global warming - might find the following posts interesting and hopefully informative as well: "<a href="/blog/2007/07/06/redwoods-seven-point-pledge/" rel="nofollow">A Counterpledge to Gore</a>," or this "<a href="/blog/2007/10/09/vaclav-klaus-vs-the-un/" rel="nofollow">Vaclav Klaus vs. the UN</a>" Several commenters - who clearly are not familiar with our editorial position on global warming - might find the following posts interesting and hopefully informative as well: “A Counterpledge to Gore,” or this “Vaclav Klaus vs. the UN“

]]> By: Arnd http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/#comment-66204 Arnd Fri, 07 Dec 2007 16:46:12 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/#comment-66204 The "history" of Arctic warming started in winter 1918/19 lasting until 1940, which H.W. Ahlmann called a "climatic revolution"*), an event that could have only be generated and sustained by the ocean. As long as this phenomenon is not explained how can climatologists claim that they understand very much about climatic changes? *) H.W. Ahlmann; “Research on Snow and Ice, 1918-1940”, The Geographical Journal, 1946, p.11-25. The “history” of Arctic warming started in winter 1918/19 lasting until 1940, which H.W. Ahlmann called a “climatic revolution”*), an event that could have only be generated and sustained by the ocean. As long as this phenomenon is not explained how can climatologists claim that they understand very much about climatic changes?
*) H.W. Ahlmann; “Research on Snow and Ice, 1918-1940”, The Geographical Journal, 1946, p.11-25.

]]> By: Tony Edwards http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/#comment-66173 Tony Edwards Fri, 07 Dec 2007 14:34:18 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/#comment-66173 The interviewer obviously has a very short view of history when he says "EcoWorld: But what about the northern icecap shrinking this September to possibly possibly its smallest size in history (exposing more than 1 million square miles of open water)". This "history" goes back to, I believe, somewhere around 1977, when satellites started taking pictures of the Arctic. Before that there are many reports of open water in the Arctic and passages through the Northwest Passage. The interviewer obviously has a very short view of history when he says “EcoWorld: But what about the northern icecap shrinking this September to possibly possibly its smallest size in history (exposing more than 1 million square miles of open water)”.
This “history” goes back to, I believe, somewhere around 1977, when satellites started taking pictures of the Arctic. Before that there are many reports of open water in the Arctic and passages through the Northwest Passage.

]]> By: Michael Smith http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/#comment-66153 Michael Smith Fri, 07 Dec 2007 13:14:39 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/#comment-66153 I've been listening to hysterical warnings about dire global disasters from "global warming" for 35 years -- the first such warnings I can remember coming in a Time magazine article in 1972. 35 years!! So where is my global warming?!? Where are all the disasters, the species extinctions, the rising sea levels, the spread of equatorial diseases, where is it all?!? The fact is, the whole thing is a myth. The IPCC, like all UN programs, is another attempt to find an excuse to destroy America or at a minimum make her hostage to the rest of the world's demands. It, and all of you "global warming" advocates, are rotten to the core. I’ve been listening to hysterical warnings about dire global disasters from “global warming” for 35 years — the first such warnings I can remember coming in a Time magazine article in 1972. 35 years!!

So where is my global warming?!? Where are all the disasters, the species extinctions, the rising sea levels, the spread of equatorial diseases, where is it all?!?

The fact is, the whole thing is a myth. The IPCC, like all UN programs, is another attempt to find an excuse to destroy America or at a minimum make her hostage to the rest of the world’s demands. It, and all of you “global warming” advocates, are rotten to the core.

]]> By: Lee http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/#comment-65099 Lee Tue, 04 Dec 2007 23:32:27 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/#comment-65099 I don’t know of any environmentalist who thinks that burning the rainforest is a good thing for any reason. “An Inconvenient Truth” deals with the problems of rainforest deforestation and the burning of the rainforest and the CO2 that comes from that fire and fire in general, which are again human created problems. I still believe the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming with deforestation, fire and its byproducts a major part of the equation. I too have a problem with biofuels, and do not think they are the solution. I don’t know of any environmentalist who thinks that burning the rainforest is a good thing for any reason. “An Inconvenient Truth” deals with the problems of rainforest deforestation and the burning of the rainforest and the CO2 that comes from that fire and fire in general, which are again human created problems. I still believe the burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of global warming with deforestation, fire and its byproducts a major part of the equation. I too have a problem with biofuels, and do not think they are the solution.

]]> By: Ed Ring http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/#comment-65015 Ed Ring Tue, 04 Dec 2007 20:08:08 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/#comment-65015 Lee: I will reword the statement "what if it isn’t anthropogenic CO2 that is the primary cause of climate change?" to read "what if burning fossil fuel is <em>not</em> the primary cause of climate change?" My point is that rainforest destruction - to grow biofuel - may be a greater cause of climate change than burning fossil fuels. Mainly because of the increased heat absorption and decreased rainfall throughout deforested equatorial regions. The increased CO2 from the burning of rainforests (Brazil & Indonesia are the 3rd & 4th largest emitters of CO2 because of rainforest burning) and the decreased perennial CO2 absorption once these forests are burned are yet another potential cause of warming, but not the primary cause, in my opinion. Isn't it ironic that we may be destroying the world in order to save it? Isn't it ironic that biofuel subsidies created the market for palm oil and cane ethanol which in turn may have unleashed more harmful impacts on climate - by completing the deforestation of the tropics - than burning fossil fuel ever could? That is what needs to be said in Bali this week. Of course Orangutans aren't burning their rainforest - people are - because CO2 alarmists in Europe created a market for biofuel. Lee: I will reword the statement “what if it isn’t anthropogenic CO2 that is the primary cause of climate change?” to read “what if burning fossil fuel is not the primary cause of climate change?”

My point is that rainforest destruction - to grow biofuel - may be a greater cause of climate change than burning fossil fuels. Mainly because of the increased heat absorption and decreased rainfall throughout deforested equatorial regions. The increased CO2 from the burning of rainforests (Brazil & Indonesia are the 3rd & 4th largest emitters of CO2 because of rainforest burning) and the decreased perennial CO2 absorption once these forests are burned are yet another potential cause of warming, but not the primary cause, in my opinion.

Isn’t it ironic that we may be destroying the world in order to save it? Isn’t it ironic that biofuel subsidies created the market for palm oil and cane ethanol which in turn may have unleashed more harmful impacts on climate - by completing the deforestation of the tropics - than burning fossil fuel ever could?

That is what needs to be said in Bali this week. Of course Orangutans aren’t burning their rainforest - people are - because CO2 alarmists in Europe created a market for biofuel.

]]> By: Lee http://ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/#comment-64999 Lee Tue, 04 Dec 2007 19:24:18 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/12/04/co2-or-rainforests/#comment-64999 I am not sure what you read but Al Gore and the IPCC discuss extensively these issues as causes and these causes are done by humans. I don't think the Orangutans are burning down the rainforests and altering the land use. These are part of the anthropogenic causes of global warming. I am not sure what you read but Al Gore and the IPCC discuss extensively these issues as causes and these causes are done by humans. I don’t think the Orangutans are burning down the rainforests and altering the land use. These are part of the anthropogenic causes of global warming.

]]>