|
||||||
| FAQ | Members List | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
Topic Review (Newest First)
|
| May 8th, 2003 09:29 AM | ||
| mburbank |
Since Vince is too lazy to do his own work, I found a reference for him. It was really hard. I enetered the words 'trees' 'emissions' and 'Nature' into a search engine. Here's the article. Read for context. This is just the old Regan trees pollute Canard. Associated Press E-mail this Article E-mail this Article Print this Article Print this Article Ottawa — Coniferous forests around the world may be emitting more smog-causing nitrogen oxides than traffic and industry combined, suggests a report in the prestigious journal Nature. The report, released Wednesday, flies in the face of the accepted view that forests reduce pollution by absorbing it — a theory Canada relied on in demanding credit for forests as pollution "sinks" under the Kyoto climate change accord. But environmentalists aren't about to blacklist Scotch pine trees. They note that forest emissions are part of a natural balance that has existed since pre-industrial times and say man-made emissions are behind most pollution and global warming. Scotch pine needles release nitrogen oxides directly into the atmosphere when exposed to ultraviolet light, says a study led by Perrti Hari of the University of Helsinki. Nitrogen oxides are smog precursors: They combine with other pollutants to form ground-level ozone, a major component of smog. The emissions from Scotch pines increase in proportion to the amount of ultraviolet radiation they receive, says the study. "Although this contribution is insignificant on a local scale, our findings suggest that global NOx emissions from boreal coniferous forests may be comparable to those produced by worldwide industrial and traffic sources," says the report. Former U.S. president Ronald Reagan caused an uproar in 1980 when he said trees cause just as much pollution as cars. Quentin Chiotti, a scientist with Toronto-based Pollution Probe, acknowledged that forests contribute a variety of chemicals to the atmosphere, but was surprised at the comparison with traffic and industry. "If I walk through a forest am I going to be at risk for my cardiac and respiratory health? Unless it's a very unusual forest ... I can't imagine our health being at risk." Even though the emissions may seem large when calculated for the globe they have no local health effects because they are diluted in the global atmosphere, he said. Henry Hengeveld, a scientist with Environment Canada, said emissions from vegetation are part of a balance that doesn't change much over time. "They should be pretty steady at a pre-industrial level," he said. What matters for human health is the increments to that background level, he said. Kevin Percy of the Canadian Forest Service in Fredericton said he has problems with the suggestion that emissions from coniferous trees could exceed those from traffic and industry. "From my perspective, that would be pure conjecture at this point." To give Vinth his due, he was not wrong that this report exists, he was even correct as to where iit was published. If in the future he looked shit up before saying something (and seriously, it takes, literally, seconds) he'd increase his credability. Here's the problem, though. While conifers will produce some greenhouse gasses when exposed to UV light, the amount they are producing is going DOWN not up. Why? The amount of evergreens on Earth is significantly less right now than at any time in the fossil record of earth. Moreover, the benefits of Evergreens far outweigh their the costs, and you can't engineer more efficient trees. When cars start preventing soil errosion, providing habitats and renewable resources and emitting Oxygen, I'll be somehwta more forgiving reguarding their greenhouse gasses. Now! Vinth! On to cow farts and Methane pollution! |
|
| May 7th, 2003 05:38 PM | ||
| AChimp | It's true that plants will release small amounts of carbon dioxide, but it would take an entire forest to be equivalent to just one car. Claiming that plants are responsible for global warming is ridiculous. | |
| May 7th, 2003 05:16 PM | ||
| ranxer |
Quote:
 hot dawg.. the right IS as i thought, um not all for yes, i do have some rightwing friends that think. |
|
| May 7th, 2003 04:59 PM | ||
| FS | There was an ample library of data on the subject, but unfortunately, the roommate of the professor who was conducting the research threw it out. | |
| May 7th, 2003 11:49 AM | ||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
|
|
| May 7th, 2003 10:43 AM | ||
| VinceZeb |
sspadowsky, why do you deny something that was reported by scientists? I can't help it disagrees with your idiotic views, but please don't talk shit about something you know you have no defense against. You need to get back to doing something more useful, like being the center of a circle jerk for the Log Cabin Republicans. |
|
| May 7th, 2003 10:37 AM | ||
| sspadowsky |
Quote:
EDIT: By any chance, did the author of that article used to work for a tobacco company? Maybe you could provide us a link to it. Or maybe, like your submarine letter, it just doesn't exist. ________ Honda cbr600f4i history |
|
| May 7th, 2003 10:23 AM | ||
| mburbank |
Vinth: There are multiple sources for making highly accurate world climate models for the middle ages. Ice cores, the geologic record of glaciation, chemical analysis of soil samples, records of sea levels and ocean currents, what crops were harvested where... Nature? You mean the british journal of Natural Sciences? Or were you, like, thinking of Ranger Rick? I'll look for it. You could shorten your posts that hav anything to do with science by just cutting and pasting this sentence: "Vinth don't know nuthin' bout no science." |
|
| May 7th, 2003 09:03 AM | ||
| Spectre X |
eh, Vince, the middle ages were about 1000 years ago. not 10000. and if Europe sucks ass for having VERY cold winters and therefore feel the need to keep themselves from freezing or keeping crops to go bad or whatever, you suck ass even more. |
|
| May 7th, 2003 08:32 AM | ||
| VinceZeb |
Hey, guess what people? Studies showed that it was HOTTER during the Middle Ages! Now we all know the world was crowded with SUVs during the Crusades and all..... Dumbasses. And I am a dumbass for even bringing that up. How the fuck do we know how hot it was 10000 years ago? We can only go by shady evidence. Besides, there was reports as recently as 4 months ago that TREES give off greenhouse-type gasses. Should we go and cut the trees down? I believe this was in Nature Magazine, if I am not mistaken. But I guess that is a big right-wing magazine 
|
|
| May 6th, 2003 11:42 PM | ||
| AChimp |
He'll only want it if those dirty hippies are somehow prevented from breathing it; afterall, they didn't work for it. 
|
|
| May 6th, 2003 07:14 PM | ||
| Jeanette X |
Quote:
The entire treaty is not rendered fruitless by a minor setback. Besides Vince, don't you want clean air? |
|
| May 6th, 2003 06:59 PM | ||
| Sethomas |
life cannot be dictated by stupid little protocols about decreasing something that has been proven time and time again we have no control over So if we have no control over the greenhouse effect, why would the EU suck ass for having failed to curb its emissions--which you would surely find completely irrelevant--in a particularly arduous period? If we have "no control over" such things, then wouldn't the observation about which this article war written be impossible in the first place? I mean, it's one idiotic thing to have a double standard, but when each standard cancels out the other you fall quite beyond the normal threshold of stupidity. Please, for sake of the unlikely chance that you might someday be able to breed, please smash your own testicles NOW. |
|
| May 6th, 2003 06:37 PM | ||
| AChimp | At least the EU decided to at least try to reduce emissions, whereas the U.S. refused to even think about it. | |
| May 6th, 2003 03:19 PM | ||
| mburbank |
"Max is intelligent enough to look up information without me telling him where to look." Indeed I am. Are you intelligent enough to 'back up' what you said? I may take you up on it, but since at this point I do all my own fact finding and about half of yours, I'm not terribly inclined. Minus the homoerotic invective, our conversation seems more and more like me talking to myself. |
|
| May 6th, 2003 03:14 PM | ||
| FS |
"Proof"? Gasp! More like ROCK HARD EVIDENCE! ARGH! If this were a John Grisham novel, Vince would at this point be screaming in Europe's face, causing it to loudly cry out "YES! YES! WE DO SUCK ASS! ARE YOU HAPPY NOW!" |
|
| May 6th, 2003 03:13 PM | ||
| Zosimus |
To Vince: I'm SO sorry that there are people like you in the world... It is indeed a very sad state for our planet that there are people like you that would support a complete MORON in his execution of our earth and mind you, please remember that we only have this one to live in/on/for!!! Why don't you do the world a GREAT favor and suck on a tail-pipe, afterall Bush said it wouldn't be so bad.... |
|
| May 6th, 2003 01:25 PM | ||
| hatezealots |
Quote:
|
|
| May 6th, 2003 01:03 PM | ||
| Protoclown | That's nice. Just be sure to wipe your lips of all the creamy evidence of his "owning" you. | |
| May 6th, 2003 12:56 PM | ||
| VinceZeb |
Well, proto, why don't you put down the DM book and add something intelligent to the conversation? Max is intelligent enough to look up information without me telling him where to look. |
|
| May 6th, 2003 12:50 PM | ||
| Protoclown | That 'spineless ignoramus' schtick is cute, Vince. I think you should stick with that one. | |
| May 6th, 2003 12:37 PM | ||
| VinceZeb | You have the internet, don't you? Go look it up yourself. I'm not here to hold your hand. | |
| May 6th, 2003 12:34 PM | ||
| mburbank |
So, what you mean then (and I don't agree, I'm just trying to help you reach some sort of clarity) is that the Kyoto Protocol 'sucks ass' and by extention, it's signatories also 'suck ass'? Do you believe that any attempt to agree between nations on a reduction of Greenhouse Gasses would be fruitless and so 'suck ass'? And what proofs are you siting, because it was my impression the bulk of the world scientiffic community agrees significant climate change is taking place due to human activity, that it will take decades to reverse the potentially drastic effects, and that the sooner we start, the better. But if you're conversant with studies I'm unfamilliar with, I'd be interested in hearing about it. I mean, I'd hate to think some columnist just told you that and you blindly believed it. That sort of lck step behavior would certainly 'suck ass' if you don't mind my saying. |
|
| May 6th, 2003 12:12 PM | ||
| VinceZeb | No, it shows that the Kyoto Treaty is bullshit and that life cannot be dictated by stupid little protocols about decreasing something that has been proven time and time again we have no control over. | |
| May 6th, 2003 11:55 AM | ||
| mburbank |
Wow, Vince. Europe is really big place with a lot of countries. Do they really all 'suck ass', or is that just a really ignorant, lazy, slipshod title for this thread? It WAS a really cold winter. I wonder how much our greenhouse emissions went up? If ours went up more than the EU per capita, does that mean we suck MORE ass than Europe? Or is it the fact that their greenhouse emission went up AND they signed the Kyoto Protocol? Do you see that as in some way hypocritical? While I certainly see this as a bad sign for their level of progress, since the signatpory commitments are not to take effect until 2008-20012 (as stated in the article you pasted) how do you see this as a sign that they 'suck ass' as opposed to say, had a much colder winter than last year? Since the US has refused to even sign on to reduction goals as anything beyond voluntary, might it not be the US that 'sucks ass'? Perhaps you are reffring to this line: "On present trends, it appears to stand almost no chance of keeping its promise. " That would indeed, 'suck ass', but it presumes no progress between now and 2008. Think of all the money England had to sink into the war this year that might otherwise have gone to green technologies. Think of the current state of the world economoy. Are you saying you believe the world economoy will not improve over the next six years? That's a pretty gloomy prediction. "The Europeans have all along been the protocol's most enthusiastic supporters, and their faltering performance will be deeply embarrassing to them. " I agree. That embrassment might even spur them to work harder. It might spur european voters to elect people more commited to reducing global warming. That would significantly reverse the 'present trend'. So I guess I'm mystified by your choice of the phrase 'suck ass', unless it was some veiled reference to bio-methane. I hope you were deeply gratified by how I responded to the article. |
|
| This thread has more than 25 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
