Comments on: IPCC Report - The Role of Deforestation? http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/02/12/136/ Ed Ring's EcoWorld Posts Sun, 5 Jul 2009 03:24:50 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7.1 hourly 1 By: jeff scherer http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/02/12/136/comment-page-1/#comment-15355 jeff scherer Sat, 05 May 2007 05:18:58 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/02/12/136/#comment-15355 THE ENDLESS DEBATES ABOUT THINGS THAT WOBBLE UP AND DOWN WITH EACH NEWLY DISCOVERED FACTOR MISSES THE WHOLE POINT THAT NO MATTER WHAT IS CAUSING TEMPERATURE RISE ELIMINATING NONRENWABLE CO2 FOSSIL FUELS AND CROP BASED RENEWABLES CO2 FUELS BY NOT BURNING THEM IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY ASAP TO COOL THE EARTH. WE MUST GO TOIALLY TO OCEAN WAVE ELECTRIC POWER AND WITH THE LATEST 40% SPACE SOLAR CELLS THAT ARE ABOUT TO BE MASSIVELY REDUCED IN SIZE BECAUSE I HOPE OF A NON-HYPE HOLO-CONCENTRATOR, WE CAN GET RID OF FOSSIL FUELS BY REPURPOSING THEM TO PLASTICS WHICH SHOULD KEEP THE MIDDLE EAST UNCHANGED AND ALL FOSSIL FUEL RELATED COMPANIES HAPPY. COMBINING THE STOCKS OF ALL ENERGY RELATED AND CHEMICAL COMPANIES WHILE LEAVING THOSE COMPANIES INDEPENDANT TO BE DIRECTED BY GOVERNMENT MANDATES TO RID ALL TOXIC FUEL PRACTICES SHOULD SOLVE MUCH. FUTURE CARS ARE IMPORTANT. THE ENDLESS DEBATES ABOUT THINGS THAT WOBBLE UP AND DOWN WITH EACH NEWLY DISCOVERED FACTOR MISSES THE WHOLE POINT THAT NO MATTER WHAT IS CAUSING TEMPERATURE
RISE ELIMINATING NONRENWABLE CO2 FOSSIL FUELS AND CROP BASED RENEWABLES CO2 FUELS BY NOT BURNING THEM IS ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY ASAP TO COOL THE EARTH.

WE MUST GO TOIALLY TO OCEAN WAVE ELECTRIC POWER AND WITH THE LATEST 40% SPACE SOLAR CELLS THAT ARE ABOUT TO BE MASSIVELY REDUCED IN SIZE BECAUSE I HOPE OF A NON-HYPE HOLO-CONCENTRATOR, WE CAN GET RID OF FOSSIL FUELS BY REPURPOSING THEM TO PLASTICS WHICH SHOULD KEEP THE MIDDLE EAST UNCHANGED AND ALL FOSSIL FUEL RELATED COMPANIES HAPPY.

COMBINING THE STOCKS OF ALL ENERGY RELATED AND CHEMICAL COMPANIES WHILE LEAVING THOSE COMPANIES INDEPENDANT TO BE DIRECTED BY GOVERNMENT MANDATES TO RID ALL TOXIC FUEL PRACTICES SHOULD SOLVE MUCH.

FUTURE CARS ARE IMPORTANT.

]]> By: Role of deforestation : IPCC (Technorati / Ecoworld) « Desertification http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/02/12/136/comment-page-1/#comment-11834 Role of deforestation : IPCC (Technorati / Ecoworld) « Desertification Tue, 03 Apr 2007 16:45:59 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/02/12/136/#comment-11834 [...] http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/02/12/136/ [...] [...] http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/02/12/136/ [...]

]]> By: Ed Ring http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/02/12/136/comment-page-1/#comment-11795 Ed Ring Tue, 03 Apr 2007 03:41:09 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/02/12/136/#comment-11795 Piet: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I might suggest that "vast majority" and "good second" are not entirely compatible phrases - yet you use them in your lead sentence. Remember, not only is change in land status already deemed a "good second" by the IPCC in terms of causing global warming due to increased convection and decreased reflectivity - due to deforestation, desertification and drought (caused by deforestation) - but CO2 absorption is also compromised. If you really think CO2 is causing global warming, you are only performing half of the requisite analysis to point out that the C14 isotope allows us to determine the contribution of fossil fuels to atmospheric CO2. You must also take into account the degree to which 5.0 million square miles - 10% of the earth's surface - has no longer been able to absorb CO2. That is how much tropical rainforest we have already lost, and moreover, tropical rainforest, unlike the great forests in the northern latitudes, absorbed CO2 all year around. Let's not forget that the warming from deforestation, desertification and drought may actually cause CO2 release. If you are truly looking for answers, and the tone of your comment suggests you are, then please read this post "<a title="Inconvenient Questions" href="/blog/2007/03/16/inconvenient-questions/" rel="nofollow">Inconvenient Questions</a>." In spite of numerous attempts, I can't find any climate scientists, anywhere, who are willing to sit down and provide a rebuttal to each of these questions.  Our position since 1995 has been to promote reforestation, and everywhere we turn, the world's last remaining tropical forests are being decimated to grow "carbon neutral" biofuel.  It is a disaster, and environmentalists don't seem to care anymore. Piet: Thank you for your thoughtful comment. I might suggest that “vast majority” and “good second” are not entirely compatible phrases - yet you use them in your lead sentence. Remember, not only is change in land status already deemed a “good second” by the IPCC in terms of causing global warming due to increased convection and decreased reflectivity - due to deforestation, desertification and drought (caused by deforestation) - but CO2 absorption is also compromised. If you really think CO2 is causing global warming, you are only performing half of the requisite analysis to point out that the C14 isotope allows us to determine the contribution of fossil fuels to atmospheric CO2. You must also take into account the degree to which 5.0 million square miles - 10% of the earth’s surface - has no longer been able to absorb CO2. That is how much tropical rainforest we have already lost, and moreover, tropical rainforest, unlike the great forests in the northern latitudes, absorbed CO2 all year around. Let’s not forget that the warming from deforestation, desertification and drought may actually cause CO2 release.

If you are truly looking for answers, and the tone of your comment suggests you are, then please read this post “Inconvenient Questions.” In spite of numerous attempts, I can’t find any climate scientists, anywhere, who are willing to sit down and provide a rebuttal to each of these questions.  Our position since 1995 has been to promote reforestation, and everywhere we turn, the world’s last remaining tropical forests are being decimated to grow “carbon neutral” biofuel.  It is a disaster, and environmentalists don’t seem to care anymore.

]]> By: Piet Martens http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/02/12/136/comment-page-1/#comment-11682 Piet Martens Mon, 02 Apr 2007 06:36:59 +0000 http://www.ecoworld.com/blog/2007/02/12/136/#comment-11682 Sir, It would be most helpful if you critically examined your sources before writing such strong conclusions. Contrary to your statements it has been shown conclusively that the vast majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from fossil fuels with deforestation a good second. The key is the measurement of the carbon isotopes C13 and C14. C14 is completely depleted in fossil fuels, and a sharp decline in atmospheric C14 commensurate with what would be expected from fossil fuel burning amounts since the industrial revolution has been clearly established. C13 is depleted in carbon originating from live material (both rainforests and fossil fuel), and again there has been a commensurate relative C13 decline in the atmosphere. Note that C14 depletion is not expected in carbon originating from rainforests, so the contribution from fossil fuels and rainforest can be separated. Finally, an hemispheric CO2 imbalance exists, with the Northern hemisphere showing an excess; again a clear indication of fossil fuel burning contributing strongly to the CO2 increase. I guess, what is left now, is to argue that CO2 really doesn't contribute greatly to the greenhouse effect... Sir,

It would be most helpful if you critically examined your sources before writing such strong conclusions. Contrary to your statements it has been shown conclusively that the vast majority of the increase in atmospheric CO2 is from fossil fuels with deforestation a good second.

The key is the measurement of the carbon isotopes C13 and C14. C14 is completely depleted in fossil fuels, and a sharp decline in atmospheric C14 commensurate with what would be expected from fossil fuel burning amounts since the industrial revolution has been clearly established. C13 is depleted in carbon originating from live material (both rainforests and fossil fuel), and again there has been
a commensurate relative C13 decline in the atmosphere. Note that C14 depletion is not expected in carbon originating from rainforests, so the contribution from fossil fuels and rainforest can be separated.

Finally, an hemispheric CO2 imbalance exists, with the Northern hemisphere showing an excess; again a clear indication of fossil fuel burning contributing strongly to the CO2 increase.

I guess, what is left now, is to argue that CO2 really doesn’t contribute greatly to the greenhouse effect…

]]>