There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998

[shropshire 0]

<>

That sounds counterintuitive..... do you have link?

Also, more trees may not, in and of it's self mean much , if say they are spindley small things, where as the number of Massive Redwood types may have been reduced a lot.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 23]

Are you listening to that right now too?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 23]

Quote

<>

That sounds counterintuitive..... do you have link?

Also, more trees may not, in and of it's self mean much , if say they are spindley small things, where as the number of Massive Redwood types may have been reduced a lot.

I am looking for the data now. It is quite startling when you see it. As for special trees like the redwoods? well that is another issue.

I will post the data when I find it again

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>Does anyone think the United States should take on (costly) anti-pollution
>measures to combat global warming if China and India don't do the same?

Because we emit more CO2 than either one of them.

>Why?

There are a lot of reasons, many of which have been listed here already. I'll add another -

Cleaning up the planet is becoming a big industry. Wouldn't it be nice if the US started exporting stuff again (solar panels, scrubbers, li-ion battery controllers, inverters) to supply that industry? We get a cleaner planet, more jobs for US workers and we start fixing the trade imbalance.

Or I guess we can ignore the problem until we can't ignore it any more, let other countries invent the solutions, then import trillions of dollars of stuff from China to try to fix our problems. Sadly we've proven we really can be that short-sighted.

[kallend 2,027]

Quote

Oh, and by the way, there are WAY more tree in this country than when Columbus came here to begin with

Columbus didn't come here. Nice try, though

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Oh, and by the way, there are WAY more tree in this country than when Columbus came here to begin with

Columbus didn't come here. Nice try, though

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[shropshire 0]

Cheers mate.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Are you listening to that right now too?

If you're talking about CNBC, then yes?

I got my info on livestock's contribution to greenhouse gases from http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2062484.ece.

For those who doubt claims about current forest acres in the US, consider our ability to put out forest fires is relatively new.

[billvon 2,991]

> For the tropics the change in forcing from 0-360 ppmv is ~0.4 Wm-2 . . .

Not sure where you are getting those numbers, but a change from zero to 360ppm of CO2 would have a hell of a lot more forcing effect than .4 watts per meter. It would be more on the order of tens of watts per meter. Take a look at the IR absorption bands of our atmosphere - without any CO2 the planet would be a lot colder at night.

> and from 360-560 ppmv (roughly current to double pre-Industrial
> Revolution levels) the change is <0.1 Wm2.

From 280 to 380 (i.e. from pre-industrial days to today) the change is about 1.5 watts per square meter. The remaining forcing comes from other greenhouse gases like methane. Total is about 2.4 watts/sq m - which gives us the warming we are seeing now.

[shropshire 0]

I understand that forest fires are part of the natural cycle and putting them out is not entirely a good thing (unless your property is in the line!!)

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Royd 0]

Quote

In the US at least we've grown to expect an extremely energy-intensive lifestyle. We live miles from school, our kids drive their own cars, and after-school activities are all far apart and after hours, requiring individual transportation.

We set play dates with kids who are miles away, and then drive the kids there, rather than have them play with the kids close by (who are the wrong something, even if it's just that they don't play the same games).

Whose fault is that? Keep their ass at home and make them work in the garden. Oh, wait. We don't have land for a garden because we chose to live a lifestyle of convinience, and live in a condo or a development. Besides, making a child earn their keep would be considered abuse. Oh well. Throw them in the suv, and take them across town to ball practise.

[Royd 0]

Quote

Oh, and by the way, there are WAY more tree in this country than when Columbus came here to begin with

I would have to disagree with you on observation and basic logic. Most land dedicated to farming in the East, Midwest, and the South have been cut out of forests.

It amazes me when driving across the Mississippi Delta, the millions of acres that had to be cleared to plant the crops that we use everyday.

[speedy 0]

Quote

Not sure where you are getting those numbers, but a change from zero to 360ppm of CO2 would have a hell of a lot more forcing effect than .4 watts per meter. It would be more on the order of tens of watts per meter.

http://climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu/2006/05/05/co2h2o/
From what I gather, water vapour plays a much more important role in the tropics, it's warm an wet there.

Quote

The remaining forcing comes from other greenhouse gases like methane.

http://www.newu.uci.edu/showArticle.php?id=5182
Well the good news is that methane levels seem to have stabalized recently.

Dave

Fallschirmsport Marl

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Oh, and by the way, there are WAY more tree in this country than when Columbus came here to begin with

I would have to disagree with you on observation and basic logic. Most land dedicated to farming in the East, Midwest, and the South have been cut out of forests.

It amazes me when driving across the Mississippi Delta, the millions of acres that had to be cleared to plant the crops that we use everyday.

A valid point was made in response to me earlier that stated that the number may be greater but larger tree numbers have to be less.

Trying to remember I think this was correct. (I still have not been able to find the report)

Anyway, the reports main point was that ?? square feet of grass used more CO2 and cleaned more air than x number of 30 plus trees.

I wish I could find it as it was interesting reading.

It did state however that there are more trees in the US than in the beginning. Large forested areas are down but what was added throuhg the planes out counted the loss of forested areas, and the trees were younger and smaller.

But unles I can find it .......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,991]

>From what I gather, water vapour plays a much more important role
>in the tropics, it's warm an wet there.

I agree that water vapor is a powerful greenhouse gas - but then again, so is oxygen (easily converted to ozone.) The sum total of the effects of all gases in the atmosphere are what produces the climate we see today.

CO2 is not the dominant gas in the mix by a long shot. But unlike water vapor, it doesn't change on a daily basis. It's taken us decades to get it up to its current value (around 380ppm) and it will take decades to get it out of circulation again. That's a signal that will always be there, even when other greenhouse gases (like water vapor) make their normal yearly fluctuations. Which is why it's been causing the trouble it has been.

(BTW if the article is referring to condensing water vapor as well as clear-sky readings, the .4 w/m^2 makes sense; clouds greatly overpower all other atmospheric forcings. If that's the case, sounds like he thinks that the clear-sky cases for the subtropics range from 3 to 14 watts/sq m.)

>Well the good news is that methane levels seem to have stabalized recently.

That is good news overall. Sounds like the efforts that have gone into preventing natural gas leaks/releases have done some good.

[kallend 2,027]

So what do you think about the melting rate of arctic sea ice?

nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[SpeedRacer 1]

it's all a lie from those damn liberal polar bears!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[billvon 2,991]

Reality does have a well-known liberal bias.

[rushmc 23]

Quote

So what do you think about the melting rate of arctic sea ice?

nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

Growing in one area shrinking in another. The researchers I read say a net wash and normal.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Reality does have a well-known liberal bias.

We all have our unique perspectives.

[billvon 2,991]

>Growing in one area shrinking in another. The researchers I read say a net wash and normal.

Nope. No sane researcher thinks the arctic ice cap is growing (or even staying the same on average.)

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

The researchers I read say a net wash and normal.

Which researchers would those be?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[NCclimber 0]

Quote

Quote

So what do you think about the melting rate of arctic sea ice?

nsidc.org/sotc/sea_ice.html

Growing in one area shrinking in another. The researchers I read say a net wash and normal.

I bet you're thinking of the icecap/iceshelf down in Antarctica.

Quote

between 1992 and 2003, the East Antarctic ice sheet gained about 45 billion tonnes of ice

I think it has something like 80% of the world's ice...

And it's growing.

How about that!

[billvon 2,991]

>between 1992 and 2003, the East Antarctic ice sheet gained about 45 billion tonnes of ice . . .

Yep. As predicted, the east antarctic ice shelf is getting more snow even as the west antarctic ice melts and the peninsula loses its ice sheets. Warmer oceans are the cause. (Warmer water = more evaporation = more snow in areas that never get above freezing.) The good news in terms of sea levels is that the peninsula's ice sheets are floating on seawater - so no net change in sea level as a result of their melting.

[NCclimber 0]

So you're saying that warm water promotes increased snowfall? And this is bad?