|
Post by garfield on Jan 13, 2013 11:09:09 GMT 10
Futile gestures that achieve nothing are a waste of time and money
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 13, 2013 11:09:57 GMT 10
Like our posting on this board??
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Jan 13, 2013 11:14:10 GMT 10
Like you even getting up in the morning.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 13, 2013 11:15:51 GMT 10
At least he has a crap after he gets out of bed unlike you.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Jan 13, 2013 11:16:56 GMT 10
True, until I've had my morning coffee I can make "good morning" sound like a declaration of war ...
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Jan 13, 2013 11:20:16 GMT 10
At least he has a crap after he gets out of bed unlike you. At least I shit out of my arse instead of my ears like you do.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Jan 13, 2013 12:22:41 GMT 10
But it's all you do.
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Feb 9, 2013 5:56:13 GMT 10
Told ya co2 is good gear ;D
Amazon forest more resilient to climate change than feared - study
Reuters) - The Amazon rainforest is less vulnerable to die off because of global warming than widely believed because the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide also acts as an airborne fertilizer, a study showed on Wednesday.
The boost to growth from CO2, the main gas from burning fossil fuels blamed for causing climate change, was likely to exceed damaging effects of rising temperatures this century such as drought, it said.
"I am no longer so worried about a catastrophic die-back due to CO2-induced climate change," Professor Peter Cox of the University of Exeter in England told Reuters of the study he led in the journal Nature. "In that sense it's good news."
Cox was also the main author of a much-quoted study in 2000 that projected that the Amazon rainforest might dry out from about 2050 and die off because of warming. Others have since suggested fires could transform much the forest into savannah.
Plants soak up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and use it as an ingredient to grow leaves, branches and roots. Stored carbon gets released back to the atmosphere when plants rot or are burnt.
A retreat of the Amazon forests, releasing vast stores of carbon, could in turn aggravate global warming that is projected to cause more floods, more powerful storms and raise world sea levels by melting ice sheets.
"CO2 fertilization will beat the negative effect of climate change so that forests will continue to accumulate carbon throughout the 21st century," Cox said of the findings with other British-based researchers.
ROOT AND BRANCH
The scientists said the study was a step forward because it used models comparing forest growth with variations in the rising levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere.
It estimated that the damaging effects of warming would cause the release of 53 billion tons of carbon stored in lands throughout the tropics, much of it in the Amazon, for every single degree Celsius (1.8F) of temperature rise.
The benefits of CO2 fertilization exceeded those losses in most scenarios, which ranged up to a 319 billion ton net gain of stored carbon over the 21st century. About 500 to 1,000 billion ton of carbon are stored in land in the tropics.
Climate change would be more damaging for the Amazon if greenhouse gases other than CO2, such as ozone or methane which do not have a fertilizing effect, take a bigger role, the study said.
It did not factor in damaging effects from deforestation, mostly burning to clear land for farms, that is blamed for perhaps 17 percent of world greenhouse gas emissions from human activities.
Brazil has sharply reduced forest losses in recent years. But predictions of a die-back in coming decades had led some people to conclude that there was no point safeguarding trees.
"Some people argued bizarrely that it would be better to chop them down and use them now," Cox said, adding that the new findings meant that reasoning was no longer valid.
By underlining the importance of trees for soaking up CO2, the study could also bolster slow-paced efforts to create a market mechanism to reward nations for preserving tropical forests as part of U.N. negotiations on a new treaty to slow climate change, due to be agreed by the end of 2015.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2013 6:28:55 GMT 10
Dear oh dear...all one can do is shake ones head at how Garflunkle can interpret's something to which can only be described as warped logic of ...changing the climate is a good thing...there is just no hope for the lad..
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Feb 9, 2013 6:54:11 GMT 10
Were not changing the climate, just adding a bit of plant food is all
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 9, 2013 8:29:00 GMT 10
Yup, you sure are the intellectual equivalent of plant food judging by all the fertiliser you spout.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2013 8:44:24 GMT 10
Garflunkle....the polar ice is melting, seas are rising, the weather is changing ......your rationale is...'oh well CO2 is good for plants...who cares about the climate disasters'...spose someone like Garflunkle needs to be told on a daily basis...your a knucklehead mate..
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Feb 9, 2013 8:47:47 GMT 10
I don't make this stuff up myself you know, its science, take it up with the scientists if you don't like what they write.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 9, 2013 8:55:07 GMT 10
99% of scientists disagree with your scientists so stick that in your pipe and smoke it!
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Feb 9, 2013 9:02:00 GMT 10
99% my arse, you'll believe any old BS. ;D
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 9, 2013 9:12:46 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Feb 9, 2013 9:20:42 GMT 10
What rot.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 9, 2013 9:23:39 GMT 10
Great comeback. Not.
|
|
|
Post by tam on Feb 9, 2013 10:20:38 GMT 10
Stop cutting down the forests. This is a major cause of our climate today.
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Feb 9, 2013 10:51:26 GMT 10
So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.
Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.
That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)
The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 9, 2013 11:16:41 GMT 10
Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
|
|
|
Post by slartibartfast on Feb 9, 2013 11:38:28 GMT 10
97% of climate experts agree humans are causing global warming. Science achieves a consensus when scientists stop arguing. When a question is first asked – like ‘what would happen if we put a load more CO2 in the atmosphere?’ – there may be many hypotheses about cause and effect. Over a period of time, each idea is tested and retested – the processes of the scientific method – because all scientists know that reputation and kudos go to those who find the right answer (and everyone else becomes an irrelevant footnote in the history of science). Nearly all hypotheses will fall by the wayside during this testing period, because only one is going to answer the question properly, without leaving all kinds of odd dangling bits that don’t quite add up. Bad theories are usually rather untidy. But the testing period must come to an end. Gradually, the focus of investigation narrows down to those avenues that continue to make sense, that still add up, and quite often a good theory will reveal additional answers, or make powerful predictions, that add substance to the theory. When Russian scientist Dmitri Mendeleev constructed his periodic table of elements, not only did he fit all known elements successfully, he predicted that elements we didn’t even know about would turn up later on – and they did! So a consensus in science is different from a political one. There is no vote. Scientists just give up arguing because the sheer weight of consistent evidence is too compelling, the tide too strong to swim against any longer. Scientists change their minds on the basis of the evidence, and a consensus emerges over time. Not only do scientists stop arguing, they also start relying on each other's work. All science depends on that which precedes it, and when one scientist builds on the work of another, he acknowledges the work of others through citations. The work that forms the foundation of climate change science is cited with great frequency by many other scientists, demonstrating that the theory is widely accepted - and relied upon. In the scientific field of climate studies – which is informed by many different disciplines – the consensus is demonstrated by the number of scientists who have stopped arguing about what is causing climate change – and that’s nearly all of them. A survey of all peer-reviewed abstracts on the subject 'global climate change' published between 1993 and 2003 shows that not a single paper rejected the consensus position that global warming is man caused. 75% of the papers agreed with the consensus position while 25% made no comment either way, focusing on methods or paleoclimate analysis (Oreskes 2004). Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities. We should also consider official scientific bodies and what they think about climate change. There are no national or major scientific institutions anywhere in the world that dispute the theory of anthropogenic climate change. Not one. In the field of climate science, the consensus is unequivocal: human activities are causing climate change.www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 9, 2013 12:23:52 GMT 10
Slarti ....You'll have to excuse Garflunkle, his brain is O2 starved from his CO2 use that he thinks will make the hairs on his chest grow bigger.
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Feb 9, 2013 12:27:20 GMT 10
77 scientists is your consensus ;D
|
|
|
Post by garfield on Feb 9, 2013 12:28:52 GMT 10
7000 thought the questionaire was such a load of bullshit they didn't even bother to respond ;D
|
|