Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Regarding the "alleged" global warming issue. (Which, incidentally, I do not believe exists, but I digress).
*If* the planet is undergoing a global warming crisis. And *if* that global warming crisis is directly related to the levels of CO2 in the air (Carbon Dixode).
How come we don't just plant more trees?
Trees turn CO2 into oxygen (unless my highschool science teacher lied to me).
Instead of clear cutting BAZILLIONS of acres of treed forests to build McMansions, developments, resorts, and shopping malls, why don't the ecology minded people simply ENCOURAGE people to plan more trees?
I went to a lecture a couple of years ago. The historian stated that when Lewis and Clark traversed this country a couple of hundred years ago (whenever it was....I don't remember the exact year, sorry) that "as far as they went", it was SOLID Forest. And we're not talking 100 acre woods here. Forest that you could almost not GET THROUGH because the tree growth was so incredibly dense. Ga-Jillions of trees for thousands and thousands of miles.
All turning carbon dioxide into oxygen.
Am I the ONLY PERSON who sees how simple the solution to this "alleged" crisis is?
I don't get it.
20yrsinBranson
Great point although it will never catch on due to the fact that Al Gore didn't think of it. Now he could take your idea and claim it as his own (such a creating the internet).
I went to a lecture a couple of years ago. The historian stated that when Lewis and Clark traversed this country a couple of hundred years ago (whenever it was....I don't remember the exact year, sorry) that "as far as they went", it was SOLID Forest. And we're not talking 100 acre woods here. Forest that you could almost not GET THROUGH because the tree growth was so incredibly dense. Ga-Jillions of trees for thousands and thousands of miles.
The "Historian" was full of heifer dung. The U.S.A. was NOT mostly trees. The Great Plains were treeless grasslands, for the most part. So were the deserts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 20yrsinBranson
All turning carbon dioxide into oxygen.
Am I the ONLY PERSON who sees how simple the solution to this "alleged" crisis is?
I don't get it.
20yrsinBranson
You should be aware that the major contributor of atmospheric CO2 is the ocean, as in warm water outgassing CO2. (Like warm soda losing its fizz...)
The infamous chart that shows CO2 and temperature increase is cleverly separated so as to hide the fact that CO2 FOLLOWS the rise in temperature, not precedes it. If CO2 was the cause of warming, it would precede the rise.
Again, this is evidence of the widespread propaganda associated with the "Global Warming" hysteria.
Remember, water vapor is the #1 greenhouse gas - but since no one has figured out a way to tax steam or regulate evaporation, it's not getting the same press.
Atmospheric data:
The Earth's atmosphere (or air) is a layer of gases surrounding the planet Earth that is retained by the Earth's gravity. Dry air contains roughly (by volume) 78.08% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.038% carbon dioxide, and trace amounts of other gases. Air also contains a variable amount of water vapor, on average around 1%.
H2O = 1%
CO2 = 0.038%
Guess which gas has a more profound affect on climate and weather?
For those who hold to the myth that preserving the rainforests is necessary for the indigenous peoples might be surprised to learn that prior to the massive die off in the 16th century, the indigenous people WERE farming in the Amazon basin.
The Spanish explorer Francisco de Orellana, the 16th Century explorer who was the first European to transverse the Amazon River, reported densely populated regions running hundreds of kilometers along the river, suggesting population levels far exceeding even those of today.
This civilization was decimated by exposure to European diseases, and the jungle reclaimed the farmlands as well as the cities and roads.
However, this disputes the "purist" claim that the rain forest ecosystem must be preserved as is. The indigenous peoples of the 16th century Amazon were quite adept at biological engineering (see: terra preta), and their farming would be viewed as incompatible with "environmental green think".
Regarding the "alleged" global warming issue. (Which, incidentally, I do not believe exists, but I digress).
*If* the planet is undergoing a global warming crisis. And *if* that global warming crisis is directly related to the levels of CO2 in the air (Carbon Dixode).
How come we don't just plant more trees?
Trees turn CO2 into oxygen (unless my highschool science teacher lied to me).
Ga-Jillions of trees for thousands and thousands of miles.
A lot of us are planting more trees, for that "alleged" reason among many other proven scientific suggestions and aesthetic preferences. Where have you (the OP and anyone else) been to feel so alone in figuring that out?
So what are you waiting for? Get out there and start planting!
That's the spirit!
Ideologues on either side can blather on all they want. Once too much is said, they're all inevitably stumbling upon silly conjecture about things that are too massive/dynamic to control, anyway.
All of this glazes over the fact that trees make anywhere better to live, and anything that can be done for cleaner air is worth some research and development.
I'm biased toward nuclear, so among ideologues I find little support on either side, while among the scientists and military folks at work I get a good dose of reality. The criticality potential of Chernobyl is a thing of the past. Coal, oil, and natural gas should be things of the past (for mainstream power). Solar and wind should be seen for what they are (not ready for mainstream power). Hydrogen is awesome, but good luck making that safe or affordable in the next few lifetimes. Even if a nuclear plant did result in a criticality (extremely unlikely with current data and specs), the cleanup methods of today are very feasible within the limited range of such a criticality. The R&D is already done, so the only major expense we'd have to foot as taxpayers/consumers would be the construction and commissioning costs. Once that's done right, operations and maintenance, not to mention cleanliness, would be much more reasonable than the continued mining of coal, oil, and natural gas. Those industries wouldn't die, either, because they have plenty of practical applications in transportation and households, which we can count on to grow constantly and even exponentially (an issue of its own).
Algae appears to have an outstanding raw ability to absorb carbon emissions. There have been efforts throughout the World to restore reefs that have been damaged by rising sea temps - hopefully the massive amounts of iron that have been released as a result of melting ice will remove enough of the CO2 to matter.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
