I'm probably going to get flamed for this, but ...

Discussion in 'Science and Nature' started by tHe LoNLy StOnR, Jan 9, 2013.

  1. ... what role does increased deforestation play in global warming?

    Science has proven [citation not needed] that global warming increased exponentially over the last few decades. Could this mean that global warming could be stopped by utilising marijuana?

    Think about it: If we used hemp pulp instead of traditional pulp, we could basically stop global warming and start global chilling, man. :smoke:

    NEWSFLASH: We'd still need trees to make other products such as furniture, but seeing as there's an ongoing aesthetic shift, our dreams of a GREENER tomorow might just be a possibility.

    Any thoughts?
  2. Increased deforestation leads to a greater surface area of soil exposed to the sun. As the soil's temperature increases, stored up carbon is released into the atmosphere. In addition, the heat also disrupts the physiology of beneficial soil microbes, hindering their ability to break down the carbon. This is quite an unchecked issue in the taiga, where several billion tons of carbon are stored and exposed due to the sparse and almost non existent forest canopy. Deforestation is also a huge threat to biodiversity.

    The Americas are choked for agricultural land. The need for agricultural land for conventional crop is increasing as urban demand for produce increases. Not to mention the sheer amount of resources needed for agriculture. There is a statistic out there (from the U of Minnesota I believe) that says agriculture is the single greatest producer of carbon emissions in America (something like 30% of all emissions).

    Theres a lot more to having a hemp industry than simply a mindset. At least it's better than the opposite.
  3. What do you make of data indicating that average temperatures are rising on all the planets in our solar system?
  4. Could you indulge us by presenting this data?
  5. I agree humans probably did have some effect on the climate, but to say we caused it all in light of that evidence.....
  6. *Looks towards Colorado*
  7. #8 seculardave, Jan 10, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 10, 2013

    Nobody is saying that we single handedly caused climate change in light of the fact that we have an influence over our climate. Sounds like a straw man to me. And what do you mean by "did have some effect", past tense?

    The prevailing scientific consensus is that greenhouse gas emissions are currently the predominant (but not necessarily the only) influence on positive radiative forcing. humans release ludicrous amounts of greenhouse gases, and so human activities are the driving force of the climate change we are currently witnessing. This is the view of every major research institute that legitimately has something to say about this topic. If you want to dispute it, fine, but you're standing is stark opposition to the people are in the best possible position to know about this topic.

    IPCC - Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
    Climate Change: Causes
  8. As in we did and probably still are.

    And because of the political agenda behind climate research I strongly question it.

  9. What is this political agenda you speak of?
  10. Al Gore is pushing it.

    You think Al Gore is just a nice guy who cares about the environment?

    Meanwhile he has 4 houses and drives an SUV and flies in private jets.
  11. #12 seculardave, Jan 10, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 10, 2013
    I would question your presupposition that there's a political agenda within academia. There's certainly a public controversy and agenda within politics but that is entirely separate from the scientific research. Numerous independent research teams, government funded and not, vested interest and not, have reached the same conclusions. You can't just sit back and say "well, I'm sceptical of this because there's a political controversy" and leave it at that. Nobody who is serious about the truth of the issue cares about the political controversy. How about you concentrate on what is actually demonstrable rather than the spin you're fed.

    If you cannot distinguish between the political and the academic discourse on this issue then you will always be far from having an unbiased opinion. If you're of the conspiracy persuasion and you think that political ideology has made its way into scientific methodology, then demonstrate it, I'm all ears.

    And Al Gore.. seriously. I've never read a single article from Al Gore yet I've managed to learn enough about the topic to understand that anthropogenic climate change is a serious issue. The fact that you base your scepticism on political ideology and your distaste for Al Gore makes it clear how one-sided your understanding of this issue is. This is not a political agenda being pushed by Al Gore.

    Clearly you've engaged with the public and political controversy's on this issue. Maybe it's time to engage with the academic literature so that you might have a more well rounded and evidence based opinion.

  12. So I guess you also reject the counter position? After all, large oil companies are pushing it.

    You think Exxon is just a nice guy (corporations are people) who cares about the environment?

    Meanwhile he (Exxon) has many oil rigs and drives many trucks and sails many ships.

    Al Gore has as much to do with the actual science of climate change as my left testicle.
  13. What was climate-gate?

    I think it is getting hotter dude. Humans are causing it to go faster.

    And mostly the fact that it is happening is just used to push laws that introduce new taxes and don't realy do anything substantial to change anything.

  14. I think the question here is, what do YOU think 'climate-gate' was?

    How to respond to climate change is an issue completely separate to the discussion of the science and is best not had in parallel.
  15. oh shit sorry thought I was in the politics forum.

    and no exxon is just like Al gore just out to make money and they don't give a fuck about you or the environment
  16. What I'm getting at is that if Al Gore's 'vested interest' is your reason for rejecting AGW, then you must also reject the anti-AGW argument given that this argument is advocated by oil companies with an equal if not greater 'vested interest'.
  17. #18 seculardave, Jan 10, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 10, 2013
    Ah, Climate Gate. So I'm guessing that you've never bothered to look up any of the explanations for the bloated claims made by science deniers? Do you ever consider evidence against your intuitive positions? Because you should. There is no climate gate scandal. There's a climate gate hoax, if anything.

    Have you ever read the emails? Would you like to post the most damning email (in your opinion) and we can go through it together?
  18. More deforestation means less trees and vegetation.

    Less trees and vegetation means less CO2 is consumed by the earth itself during springtime.

    Less CO2 consumption by the earth means CO2 levels rise and get stored in our upper atmosphere.

    More CO2 stored in our upper atmosphere means light photons from the sun that would normally be reflected back into space by the earths oceans, ice caps, and anything else reflective are no longer able to do so; they are inhibited by the smallest % of the rising CO2 in our atmosphere.

    Thats the greenhouse effect for you in a nutshell.

    There is not enough vegetation on earths surface to consume the amount of CO2 we as humans produce. (Breathing, car exhaust, or anything that gets burned.) Which is why CO2 levels have been on the rise for the past number of decades.

Share This Page