Is Global Warming a Myth?
Topic: Is Global Warming a Myth?
Evidence presented by Thi Chi in this argument was partial (applying to North America) in a direct answer to a question about global systems.
Thi Chi then provided data which backed claim of overall levels of forestation being the same as 100 years ago, as it was a global study.
I then pointed out (as the topic was "Is Global Warming a Myth?"), in view of 47% of all carbon released by human deforestation was in the past 154 years AND we we releasing fives times as much in terms of fossil fuels as in terms of deforestation, it might be best to be prudent.
I don't know what discussion you were having, but there you go.
I suppose that even the most conservative estimates of species loss (some are a bit high), much of which is due to destruction of habitat, are just another coincidence then? Funny how you miss the largest concentration of climax vegetation, which would of course undermine your "move along here, nothing to see" approach.
Whilst I don't think doom is neigh, as some would have it (as I said eariler), I think you're equally likekly to be wrong, as it beggers belief to think we're having no influence on climate.
Whether that global warming (if taking place) would cause major problems (after a raise in sea level) is moot.
Both the doom mongers and the nay-sayers are guessing, as indeed am I. I distinctly remember a feared ice age in the 70's, and then nuclear winter, then global warming. Now we have the failure of the Gulf Stream and asteroidal impacts. We're still here. And I never saw no Armagedon either.
But even the 'smallest' things we do (the switch to unleaded petrol lead to massive drop in numbers of predatory birds preying on small mammals by highways in the UK, DDT, the sparrow population in the UK is 5% it was twenty year ago and no one knows why, Chernobyl) have an impact.
Millions of years of stored carbon being burnt in a few decades has got to be a silly idea.
The data is inconclusive. Which is why prudence is wise.
""I suppose that even the most conservative estimates of species loss (some are a bit high), much of which is due to destruction of habitat, are just another coincidence then?""
What happened to the Global question? We can now get more specific? Good for you. What specific "species loss" do you have in mind? And how does Co2 or deforestation play into the total loss?
Amazon. Rainforest. Clearance (Deforestation, duh). Habitat loss. Extinction. Head. Brickwall.
Conservative estimates of species density, and the relative frequnecy of unknown species in similar habitats to those being cleared indicate species are being subjected to habitat loss before they are even known to science.
Areas of forest do not have universally smooth disrtibution of species. Extinction of unknown species will occur due to intensive AND extensive nature of clearance, based on simple probability, let alone loss of known species.
CO2 increase unless associated with demonstrable habitat change obviously wouldn't cause extinctions. Why would you think it would Thi Chi? I certainly didn't imply that.
I just pointed out destroying habitat can cause extinctions. Pretty obvious to me. I don't think you are suggesting that habitat loss never causes extinction. That would be silly.
So Thi Chi, do you believe that man's activities have NO environmental impact? Or do you just believe global warming is a myth, but that undoubtedly there are other environmental impacts due to man's activities?
I only asked for specifics of "species loss." You gave none. Your sweeping abet "qualified" statements cannot be addressed if you cannot give a specific.
However, you have implied some claims we can examine. Let us look at just one. Your example of the Sparrow in the UK. 5% left, no one knows why....
The fact is a study published Nature, however, blames the decline on changes in farming practices that mean there's less food for birds in winter. Wow! A far cry from your implications.
The fact is Wild Animals on the whole tend to do better in close proximity to Man....
""So Thi Chi, do you believe that man's activities have NO environmental impact? Or do you just believe global warming is a myth, but that undoubtedly there are other environmental impacts due to man's activities?""
No one has made this claim. However, nothing is that simple. I don?t buy most the hype because I have found most information is agenda driven and/or based on junk science, which, I feel I have proved with some specifics.
Regarding your "Duh" Claim, I repost this for your benefit:
"""The scientific evidence paints a much brighter picture of deforestation in the world. Looking at the NASA Landsat satellite images of the deforestation rates in the Amazon rainforest as an example, about 12.5 percent has been cleared. Of the 12.5 percent, one half to one third of that is fallow, or in the process of regeneration, meaning that at any given moment up to 94 percent of the Amazon is left to nature. Even the Environmental Defense Fund and Sting's Rainforest Foundation concede, among the fine print, that the forest is nearly 90 percent intact.
Philip Stott of the University of London and author of the new book, "Tropical Rainforests: Political and Hegemonic Myth-making," maintains that the environmental campaigns have lost perspective.
"One of the simple, but very important, facts is that the rainforests have only been around for between 12,000 and 16,000 years," he says. "That sounds like a very long time, but in terms of the history of the earth, it's hardly a pinprick. The simple point is that there are now still -- despite what humans have done -- more rainforests today than there were 12,000 years ago." ""
are you telling me you read the book you recommended?
Moore looks at historical evidence and finds that the temperature of the earth has fluctuated dramatically over the past 200,000 years. And he reports that mankind has "prospered during warm periods and suffered during cold ones." For example, agriculture was made possible by warmer climates. "From its origins around 8000 b.c.," writes Moore, "agriculture spread northward, appearing in Greece about 6000 b.c., Hungary in 5000 b.c., France in 4500 b.c., and Poland in 4250 b.c. Is it chance that this northward spread followed a gradual warming of the climate that made agriculture more feasible at higher latitudes?"
"mankind" has prospered from the end of the ice age. However, while northern parts of the hemisphere became accessible parts in todays middle east, egypt, etc. turned into a desert. Further increasing the temp will cause most likely a further spread of the deserts.
increasing temp. will also cause increased sea levels...which will cause immense problems for the coast lines.
Life spans also increased in periods characterized by warmer weather. Moore looks at life expectancy from 8000 b.c. to a.d. 1400 and finds that the "warmest periods, the Neolithic, Bronze Age, and the thirteenth century, enjoyed the longest life spans of the entire period."
Since you read his book a quick question...how does he determine the life expectancy in 8000b.c.? just curious!
Would mankind benefit from higher temperatures during the next several decades or centuries? That is, would history repeat itself? Moore argues that it would. He predicts that increased carbon dioxide emissions, coupled with warmer autumns and winters, would boost agricultural production, reduce heating costs, improve transportation, and cut fatalities. Moreover, many people simply prefer warmer weather.
again, it is very likely that higher temps will cause a spread of deserts, increase in hurricanes and extreme weather, increase fatalities from heat (in france thousands of old people died one years ago becasue of the heat wave), spread of tropical diseases...and lastly increase in air conditioner costs!
all this takes neither into account the possibility of a total ecosystem collaps nor the possiblity of exhausting the oil reserves (which would cause a big problem for the industry).
--> it would be more reasonable to reduce CO2 production, preserve rain forrests and reduce oil consumption.
I remember the hype about "The spotted Owl can only exist in Old Growth Forests!" Again this begs the question, Where did the Owl live when the Forest was new?
It evolved to life in a diverse Old Growth forest? We are, afterall, talking about 12,000+/- years ago, 3000-5000 years after the Siberian nomads transited the Aleutian land bridge.... Cold climate warming up.
Global warming is nothing new, but a continuing earth phenomena. However, you can't have 6 billion human bodies on the earth, many with "modern" polluting technology, and not have an affect. Negative or positive. With mankind, it's usually negative. Note the polynesians and their deforestation of Easter Island and other islands in the Pacific. Humans have been, by some people, said to be a cancer on the planet.
Interesting site. -B
Earth's Icehouse History
Beginning about 18,000 years ago the Earth started warming up, halting at least temporarily a 100,000-year-long Ice Age, during which the upper latitudes of almost all the continents lay buried under thick sheets of glacial ice.
The Earth was a much colder and drier place then. Deserts were more extensive, summers were short, and winters brutal. Approximately 1/5 of the forests on the planet were obliterated by the great ice sheets. Over 1/2 of the continent of North America was a desolate wasteland of ice.
At the peak of glaciation, oceans were 300 feet lower than they are today, allowing animals and men to walk from Siberia to Alaska across the Aleutian Land Bridge, causing changes to the ecosystem of North America. It wasn't until about 15,000 years ago that global warming caused the great glaciers to retreat, allowing establishment of our accustomed environment. (my ephasis) Average global temperatures have risen about 5° C since the last Ice Age.
So there - Pfffttth!
It sounds like you need to read the book...can I loan you mine? you present no convincing evidence to disprove his claims...
""Further increasing the temp will cause most likely a further spread of the deserts.""
not true, in fact, the evidence shows the opposite is true. As stated and proved, more vegetation exists today than 100 years ago, using isolated areas do not the whole story make....The green belt has expaned and the green belt moves, who knows we may be farming Greenland agian one day...Larger quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer climates would lead to an increase in vegetation. During warm periods in history vegetation flourished, at one point allowing the Vikings to farm in now frozen Greenland.
""It evolved to life in a diverse Old Growth forest?""
It would take many more years than 20,000 to "evolve" the time frames just don?t add up. Who knows?
"...deforestation of Easter Island "
The "Similar Cases" argument used here does not hold water and "begs the question". An Island is not a far comparison . It is isolated, and poor land management was the cause in this very isolated environment.
It would take many more years than 20,000 to "evolve"
Not necessarily true, as adaptation and suvival and interbreeding of those best suited to the environment IS evolution in process. Shorter wider wingspands allowing a bird or two or three deeper in the diverse growing forest results in continued breeding of this genetic alteration. Many will be born with longer, higher aspect wings, but a few will be born with the lower aspect wings, perpeutating the genetic difference.
Does a spotted owl today occasionally produce a high aspect winged owel? I don't know. If my reasoning is spot-on, it's possible, and that owl may now be the evolutionary owl taking over..... Just a thought.