How Bad Is Global Warming?

[Burnt Hill]

The solution for the melting polar ice caps may be hiding in the rainforest
Dr Paul Salaman
There was already dramatic evidence that our planet is undeniably warming before 30 December 2015, when the world heard that the ice at the North Pole was melting. (The temperature on 30 December 2015 was, by some reports, 33ºF [0.7ºC], 50ºF above average).

And yet one immediate, effective way to fight climate change and save polar ice caps is half a world away, in the tropics. Tropical forest conservation and restoration could constitute half of the global warming solution, according to a recent peer reviewed commentary in Nature Climate Change.

Reducing carbon emissions, as the nations of the world promised to do in Paris last month, is essential, but simultaneously pulling carbon out of the atmosphere (which is what rainforests do) would immediately and significantly reduce atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) at a surprisingly low cost, providing a crucial bridge to a post-fossil fuel era.

The potential of rainforest conservation to address global warming should be enough to galvanize massive worldwide rainforest conservation efforts. The natural regrowth and subsequent protection of hundreds of millions of acres of degraded rainforest would result in massive absorption of carbon as the trees grow. While it is crucial that we transition away from the use of fossil fuels, the reality is that rainforest protection can happen much more quickly.

But that is only part of the story.

Rainforest conservation is also incredibly economical. One acre of Amazon rainforest in Peru, which stores up to 180 metric tonnes of CO2, can be protected for just a few dollars; the same is true elsewhere in Latin America and Africa. The implications here are astounding and should give us pause: for the cost of a meal – or even a coffee – each of us could save an area of forest about the size of four football pitches and safely store about 725 metric tonnes of CO2. To put this in perspective, the annual emissions of a typical passenger vehicle in the United States is less than 4.5 metric tonnes of CO2.

Carbon storage, however, is only one benefit of rainforest conservation. Not only do rainforests protect animals such as elephants, tigers and orangutans, they provide a refuge for hundreds and thousands of other lesser-known species. Among other benefits, the medicinal properties of undiscovered and unstudied plants may hold the key to successfully treating cancer and other deadly diseases.

And rainforests provide the world with a disproportionately high percentage of its oxygen and fresh water – the Amazon River alone contains 20% of the world’s freshwater– and act as natural engines that keep the planet’s tropical ecosystems running smoothly.

Although wholesale clear-cutting and selective logging have destroyed massive areas of rainforest, vast areas remain intact. And degraded rainforest, if allowed to regenerate, is amazingly resilient. In 10 years, seedlings can grow into 50-foot [15-meter] trees. Diverse wildlife can return and rebound within two to three years.

Both the remaining pristine rainforest and degraded forest require the world’s attention: a vigorous, concerted effort is needed if we are going to react appropriately to the staggering demands being placed on our planet’s rainforest.

Deforestation in the name of economic development has occurred routinely over many decades without regard to its devastating consequences. It is completely unsustainable for governments to continue to provide concessions, subsidies and tax breaks to business when logging, oil extraction, mining for minerals, fires, palm oil plantations, large scale commercial agriculture, cattle ranching and road construction continue to diminish the earth’s finite, invaluable rainforests.

The case for rainforest preservation – already overwhelmingly strong – can no longer be cast as a niche effort of conservationists and scientists; it needs to be everyone’s concern. For those wishing to tackle our planet’s greatest environmental challenge, there is no better place to begin than saving our tropical rainforests.

[Burnt Hill]

Deryng says the study is sturdier than past research, because it uses new data from experiments done in actual farm fields, and a half-dozen global crop models, several of which only recently became available. Nevertheless, she says, the uncertainties remain large.

Science, which has been condemned by others posting here, being done by actual scientists is being used to show some imagined potential benefit from Anthropogenic Climate Change?
Not the point of the article at all.
So mathematical models when used to show a supposed benefit from climate change are to be taken as valid, but models used to show potential harm from climate change are somehow invalid?
Not implied in the article at all.

Deryng cautions that the study should not be interpreted to mean that increasing carbon dioxide is a friend to humanity—only that its direct effects must be included in any calculation of what the future holds.

Kinda hard to determine "its direct effects," considering "the uncertainties remain large."

That's sorta right, there is a lot of work to be done. Its a good thing that this research is ongoing though, is it not?

[Joe Hillshoist]

Good to have you back on this thread Joe, how are things? How's the baby? Yeah I just saw that video posted this week, I think it's very recent.

Cheers. I'm good thanks, and everyone here is ok. New babies are good things to watch. Seasonal flu things, pollen etc but that always happens here at this time of year. How's the city of brotherly love treating you?

The Condomine isn't that far from here. The headwaters are on the Western side of a sprawling set of mountain ranges that we live on. Probably less than 100 km as the crow flies. Its in Queensland tho. Things are different there.

There is an election coming up. So that guy is being political by setting that river on fire. its very symbolic.

BTW There is often some debate about whether voting matters. That CSIRO report above - its a very direct result of the election of a particular side of Australian politics. I guess if you think cred or independence are saleable commodities then eventually you'll sell however much of either you have.


And be left with none.

[Iamwhomiam]

Yes, Burnt Hill, of course it is "good" to grow our knowledge about our environment. Who would argue it wouldn't be?

I also appreciate your posting the article above about the severe loss of rainforest, our planet's greatest carbon sinks.

Regarding what I wrote not being referenced in the article: Not all responses to your offerings are directed to you, as mine wasn't. I was speaking to those who deny science because it seems they believe all science is done in the scientist's own self-interest to maintain funding. In fact, my comments above, to which you claim one is "not the point of the article at all" is indeed the point of the article. Her science modeling is valid and research should continue. My other comment, that her science was valid, but other climate sciences are not, was intended to provoke one of those who does not believe in anthropogenic climate change to come forward to also condemn this scientist's work on those same grounds.

It's not always all about you, BH.

I do hope you will sometime soon respond to validate the claims against me you've made, which I contend do not exist, that I have repeatedly smeared you, or your retraction of your false charges with an apology.

I would never call you a sanctimonious prick, as you have called me.

[Burnt Hill]

Considering you quoted the article I posted I assumed you were referring to that article,
and that your reply was based on the content of the article.
You are the one that keeps making it about me,
from before challenging me to a carbon dick off,
up to somehow assuming my replying to your recent response made it about me.
It doesn't.
I have no desire to continue to follow your need to derail threads with personal off topic conjecture.

[Iamwhomiam]

So, it's just fine of you to falsely claim I have "smeared" you on three occasions, and now to refuse to support your claim with evidence?

We're only off-topic because you made took it off-topic when you posted Judge Judy nonsense and alleged I had smeared you repeatedly. I ask you to prove your claims, sir, or admit they are false. I have not smeared you at all and you owe the board an apology for lying about another member, which some would call "smearing" their character. You sir, are guilty of the charges you've leveled against me.

Your sort of morality I find offensive. You lie about me and call me a sanctimonious prick and I'm the bad guy.

And while we're off-topic I'd like to remind btia he still hasn't told us what he found disgusting in my writing:

Iamwhomiam wrote:

Yup, more intelligent offerings from BH. Of course, you are Right. But you already know that.

Have anything on topic to comment upon, pig farmer?

That is one of the most disgusting comments I have ever seen allowed to pass through this forum with not so much as even a whisper.

Would you please point out for me and for everyone else reading this why you find my comment to Burnt Hill to be "...one of the most disgusting comments you have ever seen allowed to pass through this forum with not so much as a whisper"? Was it something particular you found disgusting? A certain word, perhaps? If so, please share with us what that particularly disgusting thing was. Perhaps you'll be kind enough to point out the few other disgusting comments you've seen allowed to pass through this forum without a whisper. Perhaps you'll recall this one?

Seems to me you're doing more than whispering, with all that typing.

"anybody smart enough, and industrious enough, to raise their own food has to be stupid"

I certainly didn't write that. They way you've placed it makes it appear you are quoting me. You should note for all readers benefit who it is you're quoting.

Are you this offensive and brave in the real world or is this just your bully internet persona?

Well, I still don't know why you think I've been offensive, I'm certainly not a bully here or anywhere else. I am brave, though.

You are laughable Iam, truly laughable. You are beneath this forum and why you are allowed to engage in these sorts of personal attacks is a mystery...

Yes. My personal attacks. Of course. Makes me wonder too, It's all about my personal attacks, and of course, not yours. I am laughing, the irony is overwhelming!

I suppose that upon a rereading, btia has realized I had written nothing at all that could possibly be considered to be disgusting and is too embarrassed to admit it.

[zangtang]

2 and a half page long pissant victimology contest shitting all over what could realistically be the most important thread on the forum.

If this utterly tedious shit continues to page 158 I'm going to run to mummy and then I'm going to start fucking small furry creatures in the mouth.

[backtoiam]

Don't grab a small furry creature yet bro let me help you. We can talk about the real boots on the ground impact of this situation to ease your mind ok?

bye bye real food. we will try to remember when you were not crushed into a capsule labeled "food."

Denmark Calls For Tax On Red Meat To Fight Climate Change

(Adam Withnall) Denmark is considering proposals to introduce a tax on red meat, after a government think tank came to the conclusion that “climate change is an ethical problem”.

The Danish Council of Ethics recommended an initial tax on beef, with a view to extending the regulation to all red meats in future. It said that in the long term, the tax should apply to all foods at varying levels depending on climate impact.

The council voted in favour of the measures by an overwhelming majority, and the proposal will now be put forward for consideration by the government.

In a press release, the ethics council said Denmark was under direct threat from climate change, and it was not enough to rely on the “ethical consumer” to ensure the country meets its UN commitments.

“The Danish way of life is far from climate-sustainable, and if we are to live up to the Paris Agreement target of keeping the global temperature rise ‘well’ below 2°C, it is necessary both to act quickly and involve food,” the council said.

Cattle alone account for some 10 per cent of global greenhouse gas emissions, while the production of food as a whole makes up between 19 and 29 per cent, the council said.

Danes were “ethically obliged” to change their eating habits, it said, adding that it is “unproblematic” to cut out beef and still enjoy a healthy and nutritious diet.

“For a response to climate-damaging food to be effective, while also contributing to raise awareness of the challenge of climate change, it must be shared,” said council spokesman Mickey Gjerris.

“This requires society to send a clear signal through regulation.”

It has been a tough few months for fans of red meat, with consumption down after the World Health Organisation warned of an associated cancer risk.

http://www.govtslaves.info/denmark-call ... te-change/

[Iamwhomiam]

Yeah, sorry about that. I'm sure you, too, would defend yourself and your reputation if wrongfully accused of committing acts you are not guilty of.

Please don't do that to small furry creatures under any circumstance.

I agree it is an important thread and I dislike it being derailed by those seeking to distract away from the topic. I think little of those who do so by injecting unwarranted invective and false accusations about anyone, all the more so, when they cannot admit their own transgressions once the fallacy of their claims have been noted.

Please note that you were not the one called a sanctimonious prick.

[Iamwhomiam]

Unfortunately, btia, that would penalize those who raise beef sustainably. (meaning pastured and grass fed.)

But it would be good to apply to cafos, concentrated animal feeding operations. Concentrated = Confined

Edited to correct my erroneous attributing of the Danish Beef Tax article to 82

[Elihu]

The monies raised by such a tax would go to lower costs for transitioning to renewable energy.

what an incredible fantasy. it's never been about warming or not warming or cooling or melting or rising. for me, i will live every day in joy and expectancy waiting for your ridiculous ELE and hope it gets here PDQ rather than suffer the stultification of the dismal hypocritical slave empire your carbon tax will ultimately bring to perfection. saved the world alright but turn it into a living hell? not worth savin bro. consider your ways, unless you are gettin paid in which case i understand...

[DrEvil]

Wait.. paying taxes creates a slave empire and turns the world into a living hell?

I just did my taxes! Help!

[Iamwhomiam]

Please explain how a carbon tax, one tax among many, would bring about a perfected slave empire.

I'm not writing legislation, so It would be no more my tax than it would be yours, elihu.

Yeah, the world's a regular Garden of Eden right now, for you perhaps, but not for most of the world's people. Some even call it "a living Hell, because of the horrors they've endured.

Maybe you have no children to be concerned about their future. I do and I care about making the world as good a place as I'm able, for the benefit of all who come after me.

Your sentiment is to let the world die while you enjoy yourself. Good for you.



Consider you own ways, elihu. I do not sit in judgement of you.

There is no escaping the future.

The future is yours to do with as you please.

Edited typo 'their' to 'there'

[Sounder]

Well said Elihu, of course the Dr. has nothing to say about your main point which negates any good a tax might do.

what an incredible fantasy. it's never been about warming or not warming or cooling or melting or rising.

This is an asset redistribution plan, from the poor to the already wealthy, same as the green revolution, the drug, terror and cancer wars.

It's all the same; rob the poor so that the rich can get their rent.

[Iamwhomiam]

Sometimes there is no intelligent way to overcome the ignorance of people with fantastic prejudices.