http://www.appanet.org/treeben/calculate1.asp
http://www.treelink.org/joa/2002/may/01nowak.pdf
OK, those aren’t Florida specific, but the info can apparently be found.
actually the book does present many solutions, and the liklihood of their success.
the question is, will any of them (or all of them) work?
my own approach is different from yours. i do not close my eyes to a problem unless the author or presenter “presents solutions”. i need to *first *learn about the problem and get the truth. then, after, i worry about ‘solutions’. i gotta first learn about the problem.
who knows, maybe I will be the one who comes up the solution. and i would have never have come up with it unless i was presented with the problem *first *and open to learning about it. i guess it all comes down to whether you are a follower or a leader.
If you want to get the other side of the story from Gore’s movie, this is a good source:
http://epw.senate.gov/109th/Carter_Testimony.pdf
I would imagine the “human caused global warming alarmists” will have a difficult time. Actually, I doubt they will even read it.
Carter is a well-known GW “denialist” whose claims have been discredited time and again (he consistently misquotes study findings and engages in very dodgy math), and who has not produced any peer-reviewed publications that back up his claims. Look around the Web at the criticism of this guy if you want the truth behind “the other side of the story.” I doubt you will.
If what is needed is less CO2, how about building some giant scrubbers. They used to be called forests. How hard can it be to grow some big mother forests in areas that are now without trees? I have yet to see a discussion of techniques to do this or what varieties of trees would be most efficient. If the Earth actually does warm, it is pretty clear to me that mother nature will do this herself anyway, and you now have the negative feedback loop which must exist or the Earth would have turned into either Mars or Venus long ago.
Where, exactly, would you find these treeless areas? Areas that are treeless are so for one or more reasons. Two main reasons are that existing forests were cut down for crops or living space, and that the climate is not conducive for forestation. The latter precludes forestation (or do you think we should put forests in the Sahara?). As for the former, who will give up their cleared areas for these new forests? Wheat farmers in Kansas? Good luck. And there won’t be reforestation of the rain forests any time soon, as the soil will be for generations too poor to support such growth.
As for Mother Nature, yes, it will prevail. Of course, we’ll be gone in the process.
actually the book does present many solutions, and the liklihood of their success.
the question is, will any of them (or all of them) work?
my own approach is different from yours. i do not close my eyes to a problem unless the author or presenter “presents solutions”. i need to *first *learn about the problem and get the truth. then, after, i worry about ‘solutions’. i gotta first learn about the problem.
…
Great someone proposing solutions, will look for the book.
Secondly, I don’t think your approach is any different from mine. I am not closing my eyes to a problem. I KEEP ASKING FOR THE SOLUTION I understand the damn problem and don’t have the smarts to come up with a solution.
Really folks the problem is not there hard to understand. The CAUSE is and apparently the Solutions are but most everyone knows the problem and agrees to it; The earth is warming at a faster rate than in the past.
I am not closing my eyes, i have read enough to understand that there are several ideas on why its warming, and lots of time/energy/money is spent and made debating the what caused the GHG to increase. WHO CARES. lets spend that time/energy/money on figuring out how to reduce them. SHIT if its as simple as planting more trees. Stop spendin money on debates and propaganda, and buy a bunch of trees to plant in state parks/ private property and the like.
I would make the same guess, but that is exactly what it is. A guess.
I haven’t and won’t see an intelligent discussion of it, since it won’t further anyone’s political agenda. The greatest depth of the discussion will be planting tree, good. Cutting trees, bad. That discussion creates good guys and bad guys, so you will hear that all day.
I sent you some information about carbon sequestration rates across tree species, and suggested you contact the US Forest Service or other agency that, most likely, has the information you seek. But you don’t, instead you whine about political agendas and guessing. Your whole “what should I do about my 120 unit apartment complex” thread was a troll attempt to show that environmentalists have their evil agenda.
I have to go with GregX on this one. We can search for “solutions” all day long, a little of this, a little of that, swap some carbon credits here, balance the cost with growth etc… The phrase “no free lunch” comes to mind. We’ve hooked ourselves on energy, and our growth and appetite has exceeded natures ability to feed us without us going into ecological debt. We change our environment in intentional and unintentional ways exponentially over time, and our focus on economics as the governing factor, instead of ecological sustainability, will prevent us from reversing this process.
Population growth = energy demand increases = resource consumption = deforestation = less carbon sinks = increased GHG = ?
At some point, we will find ourselves out of luck.
Uhm, if I read that right, and I hope I have not.
Your saying were screwed, lets not talk about solutions, lets just debate the cause till were dead?
I KEEP ASKING FOR THE SOLUTION
No, you keep asking for a solution that you like.
NO tell me any solution. I have a city lot, less than 1/4 acre I have 15 trees on the lot at least that I have planted and at least that many that God did. I do what I can to conserve energy in heating and cooling of my house.
Without getting to drastic personal measures I would be hard to reduce my carbon footprint much more.
I work about 30miles from home, and riding my bike is not practical.
I can not afford to buy a hybrid vehicle now.
Most people I know are not going to even go to what has been my normal living for over 15 years. It’s going to take more than just telling people to use less.
OH and I don’t think using less energy will solve this problem fast enough. AL laid out a fairly convincing argument that we are already over the edge, (Ice caps melting ect…) and something bigger needs to be done now. IMHO
I did look around. All I found were references to Carter being a “Global Warming Denialist” by people who disagreed with him, without citing any actual evidence to discredit what he is saying.
Perhaps you could help me by telling me what parts of the paper I listed are false, misquoted, or use dodgy math.
I did look around. All I found were references to Carter being a “Global Warming Denialist” by people who disagreed with him, without citing any actual evidence to discredit what he is saying.
Perhaps you could help me by telling me what parts of the paper I listed are false, misquoted, or use dodgy math.
http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/ as an example of citing evidence to discredit what he has said.
Ken,
I followed the link, and the sites that he uses to refute Carter’s claims (realclimate.org) seems biased.
For example, they claim that the “hockey stick” is completely verified, and that there is no urban heat island effect. (or if there is it is negligible.)
If I do a google, I find a lot of sites which don’t agree with either of those statements.
that’s the problem with hypocrits like Al Gore. quick to point out the problem, but never offer a solution.
Pointing out a problem and not offering a solution does not make you a hypocrite.
Pointing out a problem and getting people to recognize we have one is the first step in doing something about it, which Gore is trying to do and I think he deserves credit for that.
apparently he also deserves credit for inventing the internet, and all kinds of ingenuis things.
Hmm. Will have to curl up with that. Looks interesting.
Methane is an ideal GHG. It is 17-20 times more effective than CO2. However, methane only accounts for about 1% or less of emissions.
Actually Another greenhouse gas, methane, comes from landfills, coal mines, oil and gas operations, and agriculture; it represents 9 percent of total emissions.
By your math then, methane is by far the bigger problem compared to CO2. That has been my understanding for some time.
I have guessed that CO2 receives all the press because CO2 emitters make better bad guys. Am I being excessively consipiratorial in that opinion?
Well, Art seems we are both just feeding each other but you gotta read this.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2006-08-09-gore-green_x.htm
Just because no one wants to debate your mirror idea doesn’t mean they’re not interested in solving the problem, just not interested in doing your research for you. Why don’t you do a feasibility study on your mirrors, expense, efficacy, etc… and come back with an actual engineering proposal with a little bit of data to back you up.
That’s because realclimate.org represents science, conducted by the scientists actually doing the research while ‘stites’ you can Google rarely do. Here’s an easy one for you, find us some current peer-reviewed research articles arguing humans have not contributed to global warming.