Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Sounds like Brazil's problem. Maybe they would be best pursuing policies that make deforestation in their country not worth the effort.At what rate they are being cut down and by whom?
Are the trees just being cut down and the forests getting paved over?
Whether or not they are being paved over is irrelevant, particularly in the tropics, such as Brazil. The soil is so poor there that once you cut down the forest, every little will grow back.
Deforestation Facts, Deforestation Information, Effects of Deforestation - National Geographic
Deforestation is clearing Earth's forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality of the land. Forests still cover about 30 percent of the worlds land area, but swaths the size of Panama are lost each and every year.
On the other hand, when timber is treated as a renewable cash crop, as it is in America and elsewhere, there's no money in deforestation without replanting.
Even if emissions stop, carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries
Posted November 24, 2013; 01:00 p.m.
Even if carbon dioxide emissions came to a sudden halt, the carbon dioxide already in Earth's atmosphere could continue to warm our planet for hundreds of years, according to Princeton University-led research published in the journal Nature Climate Change. The study suggests that it might take a lot less carbon than previously thought to reach the global temperature scientists deem unsafe.
The researchers simulated an Earth on which, after 1,800 billion tons of carbon entered the atmosphere, all carbon dioxide emissions suddenly stopped. Scientists commonly use the scenario of emissions screeching to a stop to gauge the heat-trapping staying power of carbon dioxide. Within a millennium of this simulated shutoff, the carbon itself faded steadily with 40 percent absorbed by Earth's oceans and landmasses within 20 years and 80 percent soaked up at the end of the 1,000 years.
Princeton University - Even if emissions stop, carbon dioxide could warm Earth for centuries
You all missed the major point there. Cattle are primarily fed grass, not corn. The ethanol program has not driven cattle production to Brazil. McDonald's might have, but McDonald's is not the responsibility of American environmentalists, is it.
You're not an environmentalist. You're a fascist who joined a cult claiming to save the world.
According to whom?No. The CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for a great long while. But so will the CO2 we put there ten, fifty, a hundred years from now. We need to take serious action, NOW, to reduce our GHG emissions.
The residence time of CO2 is at maximum, 15 years. Try again silly person.
We are putting it into the atmosphere faster than its coming out (and most that comes out only goes into solution in the ocean). It WILL be a great long while before that is not the case. My statement is correct. Silly person.
Chicken Little lives.
Tell me exactly what will happen. You can't. You can't even say with any certainty that the 2 degree prediction is accurate.
The fact that the GW crowd keeps upping the ante tells me they don't know what's going to happen. But the more they scare you the more you can be controlled.
Does it make you comfortable knowing that we can't predict all the effects? If so, why?
If you can't predict it, you can't measure it. If you can't measure it, it's not scientific. It's PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC.
AGW is a farce just like Obama is for hope and change.
CO2 does not drive climate, never has.
On what evidence are you basing your conclusion?
The fact that no empirical evidence exists to support your hypothesis. Simple.
Any concern they may have had has been trampled down by their need to control individual lives with the threat of government violence.I'm not even convinced they mean well anymore.Just like the huge dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico that's caused by environmentalists.
Ethanol responsible for this year's expected record dead zone, researcher says | NOLA.com
But, hey...they MEAN well, and that's all that matters.
If they truly meant well, they would recognize the harm they have caused and cease their foolishness.
It's what progressives always devolve into, if allowed. Always.
You all missed the major point there. Cattle are primarily fed grass, not corn. The ethanol program has not driven cattle production to Brazil. McDonald's might have, but McDonald's is not the responsibility of American environmentalists, is it.
No, the ethanol program is killing the Gulf of Mexico.
I bring that point up in many environmental threads. It NEVER gets acknowledged by leftists.
Maybe you can be the first...?
No. The CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for a great long while. But so will the CO2 we put there ten, fifty, a hundred years from now. We need to take serious action, NOW, to reduce our GHG emissions.
The residence time of CO2 is at maximum, 15 years. Try again silly person.
We are putting it into the atmosphere faster than its coming out (and most that comes out only goes into solution in the ocean). It WILL be a great long while before that is not the case. My statement is correct. Silly person.
Any concern they may have had has been trampled down by their need to control individual lives with the threat of government violence.I'm not even convinced they mean well anymore.
If they truly meant well, they would recognize the harm they have caused and cease their foolishness.
It's what progressives always devolve into, if allowed. Always.
The threat of government violence? Wow, take your meds, Dave..
And when did Obama, the Environmental President, end the ethanol mandate?You all missed the major point there. Cattle are primarily fed grass, not corn. The ethanol program has not driven cattle production to Brazil. McDonald's might have, but McDonald's is not the responsibility of American environmentalists, is it.
No, the ethanol program is killing the Gulf of Mexico.
I bring that point up in many environmental threads. It NEVER gets acknowledged by leftists.
Maybe you can be the first...?
Bush is a leftist? When did that happen?
Any concern they may have had has been trampled down by their need to control individual lives with the threat of government violence.
It's what progressives always devolve into, if allowed. Always.
The threat of government violence? Wow, take your meds, Dave..
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.
Does it make you comfortable knowing that we can't predict all the effects? If so, why?
If you can't predict it, you can't measure it. If you can't measure it, it's not scientific. It's PSEUDO-SCIENTIFIC.
Nonsense. We measure the weather all the time, but our predictions are still not all that good. Why? Because weather is a chaotic system. Since climate is the sum of all the weather systems in the world over time, predicting what it will do in the future is even more problematic. What we can so is look at past climate and see how it reacted, and when we do that, what we find doesn't look promising at all for our future.
No, you can't. Your climate models are so worthless that even with knowledge of all variables involved they can't recreate what occurred one week ago. Your entire AGW climate fraud is based on worthless computer models.
And when did Obama, the Environmental President, end the ethanol mandate?No, the ethanol program is killing the Gulf of Mexico.
I bring that point up in many environmental threads. It NEVER gets acknowledged by leftists.
Maybe you can be the first...?
Bush is a leftist? When did that happen?
On what evidence are you basing your conclusion?
The fact that no empirical evidence exists to support your hypothesis. Simple.
I'd like to see his answer to the question. As to yours, of course there is plenty of empiric evidence. That you deny that fact comes as no surprise to anyone.
Tissue?The threat of government violence? Wow, take your meds, Dave..
Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to vote Democrat.
Those who misdirect the topic at hand are doomed to be seen as trolls. Congratulations.
And when did Obama, the Environmental President, end the ethanol mandate?Bush is a leftist? When did that happen?
Gee, more misdirection. Surprise surprise.
The threat of violence is the only tool that any government has.Any concern they may have had has been trampled down by their need to control individual lives with the threat of government violence.I'm not even convinced they mean well anymore.
If they truly meant well, they would recognize the harm they have caused and cease their foolishness.
It's what progressives always devolve into, if allowed. Always.
The threat of government violence? Wow, take your meds, Dave..
And when did Obama, the Environmental President, end the ethanol mandate?
Gee, more misdirection. Surprise surprise.
...says the guy who blamed Bush.
*ahem*According to whom?The residence time of CO2 is at maximum, 15 years. Try again silly person.
We are putting it into the atmosphere faster than its coming out (and most that comes out only goes into solution in the ocean). It WILL be a great long while before that is not the case. My statement is correct. Silly person.
How have they parsed out, beyond any reasonable doubt, the CO2 released via natural processes vs. anthropogenic sources?
