Save the world, stop global warming. Simply cut down the trees.

The problem is she's not continuing as she has. Eons ago I don't think there was this pollution I can see driving around here. What you have there is a faulty premise.

Wrong. There are many examples of Indian tribes calling certain valleys the "Valley of the smokes" and other similar names long before the White settlers arrived.

Although most photochemical air pollution (smog) comes from anrthropogenic sources, there are many natural sources of photochemical air pollution not the least of which are trees.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2001/01/010109223032.htm

Trees And Air Pollution

ScienceDaily (Jan. 11, 2001) — Australia's native plants emit chemical compounds that can interact with other air pollutants to exacerbate smog formation over Australian cities, researchers have found.

Scientists from Australia's federal science agency, CSIRO have been commissioned by the state of New South Wales Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) to investigate emissions of organic compounds from Australian eucalypt trees and grasses that contribute to the formation of photochemical smog.

"It's not just cars and industry that cause air pollution," says Mr Ian Galbally, from CSIRO Atmospheric Research.

"Plants release highly reactive hydrocarbons that can add significantly to photochemical smog problems. That is, smog caused by the reaction of sunlight with chemical compounds like those from industry, car exhausts - and now, as we've discovered, plants," he says.

"The blue haze you often see over the Dandenong Ranges in Victoria and in the Blue Mountains near Sydney is caused in part by the gases released by vegetation. We found that grasses, particularly when cut, are potent emitters of reactive hydrocarbons."

"Plants release these compounds into the atmosphere in large quantities. These volatile compounds add to the photochemical smog in the same way as emissions from human sources - there is no discrimination," says Dr Peter Nelson, senior research scientist with CSIRO Energy Technology.

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn6526

In the past few decades, the introduction of more efficient engines and catalytic converters has dramatically reduced these emissions.

But trees also produce VOCs, which tend to be ignored by scientists modelling the effects of ozone on pollution. So a team led by Drew Purves at Princeton University investigated the impact of newly planted forests on VOC levels in the US.

The researchers used the US Forest Service Industry Analysis, a database of 250,000 randomly sampled forest plots around the country, and the known VOC emission rate for each tree species for the study.

They calculated that vegetal sources of monoterpenes and isoprene rose by up to 17% from the 1980s to the 1990s – equivalent to three times the industrial reductions.

Farmland reverting to scrub, pine plantations and the invasive sweetgum tree were behind most of the increases in the US.

Journal reference: Global Change Biology (vol 10, p 1737)
 
So this loon funded by corporations that have a vested interest in denying their impact on the environment will cherry pick some writings that support his position.

Then maybe I'll go find some articles that support global warming. Should be easy since there's so many more of them. Maybe something like this:

"The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[20] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[21] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming_controversy#Existence_of_a_scientific_consensus

Then Gonz or someone else will say "I hate Al Gore and therefore will not concern myself with being responsible".

Then we can go back and forth while you cherry pick some article and I cherry pick some other article.

You'll continue to act like there's no reason for you to give a hit about your effect on the environment and I'll look out my window and see all the pollution that's fucking up the kids in areas around here.

Sound like a pretty boring proposition. I'm sure you have no interest in actually being open to anything resembling responsibility and would just be wasting my time.

I have posted a list of several hundred scientists -- yes, real scientists -- who have signed documents which state their doubts on anthropogenic global warming elsewhere on this site. Apparently, no one wants to listen to those with a dissenting opinion on this subject.

There is no concensus on AGW. There is only a CLAIMED concensus.
 
Wrong. There are many examples of Indian tribes calling certain valleys the "Valley of the smokes" and other similar names long before the White settlers arrived.

Although most photochemical air pollution (smog) comes from anrthropogenic sources, there are many natural sources of photochemical air pollution not the least of which are trees.

Go ahead and claim the smog here was the same before a bazillion cars started sitting out there on the highways and I will just laugh and laugh. Go ahead please. :D

This will be good.
 
I have posted a list of several hundred scientists -- yes, real scientists -- who have signed documents which state their doubts on anthropogenic global warming elsewhere on this site. Apparently, no one wants to listen to those with a dissenting opinion on this subject.

And I just posted a whole ton that disagree. We done yet?

There is no concensus on AGW. There is only a CLAIMED concensus.

No consensus, certainly a majority. Massive majority if you discount the ones paid by corporations or oil companies.
 
Go ahead and claim the smog here was the same before a bazillion cars started sitting out there on the highways and I will just laugh and laugh. Go ahead please. :D

This will be good.

Nice nonsensical post. You even quoted what I said and you apparently didn't even read it before you did.
 
And I just posted a whole ton that disagree. We done yet?

I'm sorry but I must have missed where you JUST POSTED that list.

No consensus, certainly a majority. Massive majority if you discount the ones paid by corporations or oil companies.

But the ones that get university grants, and depend on those grants for their other research, are okay with you as long as they come up with the result you want.

Grants are just that -- granted monies from the government. If you cannot come up with the desired result the cash spigot gets turned off. Gee, I wonder what incentive your guys could have for coming up with their results.
 
Nice nonsensical post. You even quoted what I said and you apparently didn't even read it before you did.

I sure did read it. Maybe what you said wasn't worded properly.

Seemed you were disagreeing with me. Do you think that the pollution I see has been the same for eons or not?
 
I'm sorry but I must have missed where you JUST POSTED that list.

Better start reading closer then.

"The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[20] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[21] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations"


But the ones that get university grants and depend on those grants for their other research are okay with you as long as they come up with the result you want.

Actually you might want to point out where I said that first. Then explain. Universities don't have the same interest one way or the other corporations and oil companies do.
 
I sure did read it. Maybe what you said wasn't worded properly.

Seemed you were disagreeing with me. Do you think that the pollution I see has been the same for eons or not?

I stated, quite cearly I thought, that there were sources of photochemical air pollution long before the White settlers arrived. I didn't think it necessary to state that the amounts now are greater than at that time as I left that to the sensible reader to logically ascertain.

I then, also quite clearly, stated "Although most photochemical air pollution (smog) comes from anrthropogenic sources, ..." which leaves no wiggle room for the logical reader to ascertain.

I then continued "... there are many natural sources of photochemical air pollution not the least of which are trees." This was merely a scientifically proveable statement of fact. I then included two links, and quotes therefrom, to scientific journals which have elucidated this fact.

Have I parsed what I said to your satisfaction? If not, please let me know what needs further clarification; and I will attempt to do so to a standard to which you can relate.
 
Ok so you weren't disagreeing and do believe that humans affect the environment and specifically the smog levels here. Nice roundabout way of agreeing with me. Thanks anyway.

On another positive note looks like from the debate tonight that a good portion if not most of the Republican candidates are determined to tackle climate change. Yay.
 
Better start reading closer then.

"The conclusion that global warming is mainly caused by human activity and will continue if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced has been endorsed by at least 30 scientific societies and academies of science, including all of the national academies of science of the major industrialized countries. The U.S. National Academy of Sciences,[20] the American Association for the Advancement of Science,[21] and the Joint Science Academies of the major industrialized and developing nations"

That was not a list. That was a single quote from a Wiki post.

Actually you might want to point out where I said that first.

You didn't have to say that. The inference is clear.

Then explain. Universities don't have the same interest one way or the other corporations and oil companies do.

Are you then saying that you do not believe that universities are not big business and live or die by the almighty buck? If so, then you are either jaded, illusory, or a fool. Perhaps it would be apropos to change your handle to Pollyanna.
 
That was not a list. That was a single quote from a Wiki post.

List: A series of names, words, or other items written, printed, or imagined one after the other.


You didn't have to say that. The inference is clear.

Where?

Are you then saying that you do not believe that universities are not big business and live or die by the almighty buck? If so, then you are either jaded, illusory, or a fool. Perhaps it would be apropos to change your handle to Pollyanna.

I didn't say that. Maybe you should read what I did say.
 
Ok so you weren't disagreeing and do believe that humans affect the environment and specifically the smog levels here. Nice roundabout way of agreeing with me. Thanks anyway.

On another positive note looks like from the debate tonight that a good portion if not most of the Republican candidates are determined to tackle climate change. Yay.

Don't watch what they say; watch what they do. They will tell you ANYTHING to get your vote; and climate change -- the new buzzword, by the way, since "global warming" became inappropriate -- is a popular wedge issue.

Anyway, good talking. Got to get to bed. Talk tomorrow.
 
Go ahead and claim the smog here was the same before a bazillion cars started sitting out there on the highways and I will just laugh and laugh. Go ahead please. :D

This will be good.

spike, I can recall the valley in the 60's. Do you?

Do you remember when LA smog was so thick you couldn't see the end of the block? I do. I also lived there again in the 80s & early 90s. There is no smog. Now, there are just too damned many people living in a bowl. Get used to it or move.
 
There's no smog? :rofl3:

This bowl is a good place to see the effects of humans more readily.

Mexico City too.

Mexico-01.jpg


All natural though. :laugh:
 
The Republicans are lying to us?

Of course. That is what politicians -- all politicians -- do. The SCoTUS has even ruled that the people cannot force a politician to perform as s/he has promised and that lying by politicians is simply okay and is to be expected.
 
There's no smog? :rofl3:

This bowl is a good place to see the effects of humans more readily.

Mexico City too.

Mexico-01.jpg


All natural though. :laugh:

You take what is said that acknowledges that most photochemical air pollution is manmade and that there are also other natural sources anfd turn that statement into "All photochemical air pollution is natural".

I posted:

Although most photochemical air pollution (smog) comes from anrthropogenic sources, there are many natural sources of photochemical air pollution not the least of which are trees.

You then take that and make it into "All natural though." in your post with the picture above.

I didn't even post about volcanoes or how some volcanoes, like Mauna Loa, have been erupting for decades. How much nitrogen oxide, the key component in photochemical air pollution, do you think they spew into the atmosphere?
 
If it weren't for sunlight, you would not be able to see the air pollution from ozone and nitrogen oxide at all. You would only see the actual particulate pollution such as smoke, dust, and pollen.
 
Back
Top