What Do We Think About Climate Change

Usually, I do not agree with Boston or Masrapido, but I am unconvinced that they are wrong in their stand on DDT.
Having said that, I think GMF is a much greater threat to our ecosystem than DDT could ever be.
One University of Arizona professor even ate DDT to prove it harmless.
As I heard it, he ate DDT every day for a month. On the last day of the month, he went to put on his pants and his fly died.

 

I personally believe that mans unwanted effects on the planet are inevitable and impossible to change . Change will occur and man will adapt and thats it , there is nothing more to discuss .

If the man wants to make amends in someway then how about spending all the billions presently spent on worthless discussion and analysis on something worthwhile . In my mind civilisation obviously began what are now the most inhospitable areas on earth - lets say the sahara desert became a desert because civilisation began there . Man bled the land dry and moved on , thousands of years later the land has not recovered . A few billion would turn this desert into another Amazon and so begin the regeneration of the planet .

 

Yep. Ahab the logger cut down the Sahara Forest and now look at it!

http://science.jrank.org/pages/114/Africa-Origin-Sahara-desert.html

 

Hoytedow the link you provide offers no input ?

The humid and dry periods were inevitably affected by by natural vegitation and therefore the lack of it due to human needs . The Amazon is so dense in vegitation it actually produces its own eco system and ensures rain , cut down its trees and it will inevitably become a desert in time .

Incidentally the Sahara was only used because it is a well recongnised desert .

 

You must take into account wind and terrain patterns. The rain forests don't create the rain. The rain creates the rain forest. Always keep cause and effect in the right order.

 

The point was that the desertification of the Sahara 5-6 thousand years ago is still expanding and ruining farms; not the other way around.

 

actually, in the center of the amazon, the evaporation of water through the trees is what causes the majority of the rainfall in that area. Rain forests create their own rain in the centers of them. So if you do cut down all the trees in the amazon, there will be no rain in that area and desertification will begin

 

From http://www.met.utah.edu/zipser/ez_paper/slivadias_2002.pdf

"[13] The effects of deforestation on precipitation in the
Amazon have been addressed in modeling studies. Nobre et
al. [1991] showed that a complete change of vegetation
from forest to pasture in the Amazon Basin would lead to an
increase of surface temperature and a decrease in precipitation.
However, the Amazon is being deforested gradually
and in specific patterns as the one seen in Figure 3 for the
state of Rondoˆnia where deforestation is observed around
the main roads in geometrical patterns (the so-called fish
bone deforestation). Most of the results have focused on the
dry season effects of deforestation. Cutrim et al. [1995]
showed that shallow cumulus form over deforested areas in
the dry season as well as over elevated terrain. Silva Dias
and Regnier [1996] and Souza et al. [2000] have shown that
local circulations develop during the dry season from forest
to pasture enhancing low level convergence. Fisch et al.
[1996] showed also in the dry season that the maximum
mixed layer over pasture was several hundred meters higher
than over forest. Forests in the Amazon have an evapotranspiration
behavior that is almost aseasonal [Wright et al.,
1992; Maia Alves et al., 1999] while pasture has a strong
seasonal cycle so that differences between wet and dry
season would be expected mainly for deforested areas.
Wang et al. [2000] numerically simulated the impact of
deforestation on rainfall during wet, dry and transition
seasons in Rondoˆnia. ...

[14] From the above summary it is seen that there are
gaps in the understanding of moist convection in the
Amazon and its interaction with the surface and with the
large-scale circulation. The LBA, and more specifically,
the WETAMC/LBA and the TRMM/LBA campaign preliminary
results address some of this gaps. He found a negligible impact
of deforestation on rainfall in the wet season although his main
focus was in very wet periods."

 

So what your saying Hoyt is that science has no common sense and that the planet as a whole would not benefit in any way at all if we gave life back to the places destroyed by man ?

 

No, what I am saying is that man did not cause the Sahara Desert or its present spread. The Amazon Rainforest is another matter which must be managed responsibly to avoid barren areas due to its poor lateritic soil which does not in itself promote plant growth. That does not, however, negate its value as a renewable natural resource if managed responsibly. Avoid clear-cutting. Harvest mainly snags and the forest overall health may actually increase. You don't have to destroy the environment to be a good capitalist.

 

In fact this post has become a perfect example of all that is wrong . Imagine each seperate comment was a different Gov debating what should be done . We would now be in our tenth year having spent 200 billion gathering what are little more than personal opinions so we can pat ourselves on the back and congratulate each other on our ability to do nothing whatsoever .

Set down an initiative based on simple common sense and act on it .

Professional proscrastination puts personal providence first .

 

"No, what I am saying is that man did not cause the Sahara Desert or its present spread"

But mankind has the ability to not only stop the present spread but also reverse it .

I firmly believe in the benefits of cultivation , the trouble is capitalism has always focused on cultivating existing natural reserves , why not create (even for capital gains) new stock in areas that produce non naturally .

 

Since the people inhabiting the Sahara region seem to have little interest in planting trees, I suppose you expect us to plant them, only to see them be cut down so they can roast a goat. I don't think so.

 

We don't need a plan if there is no crisis, that is the debate. The real undoctored and non - distorted data show there is no crisis nor cause for alarm.

Capitalism focuses on maximizing return on investment, and that has raised more populations out of misery and poverty than all the social experiments of the left. If a new product will make money for less effort, the status quo goes down the toilet.

What would be the climatic effect of turning the Sahara into verdant pastures? Would it necessarily be beneficial to the rest of the world or just allow the raising of beef herds in the area? Wouldn't we be disturbing and altering the eco-system of the Sahara and endangering the species that thrive in that environment? We are not willing to protect children and adults from Malaria by using the best and least expensive method. The DDT debate is the perfect example of emotionalism and junk science conjoining to produce a resulting spiral in death rates in order to resolve a crisis that never existed due to DDT. I don't think we should be more concerned about growing grass in the desert for the sake of making the desert feel better about itself.

WHO IS JOHN GALT?

 

From http://www.factmonster.com/ce6/world/A0860871.html:
"The Sahara has one of the harshest climates in the world. Located in the trade winds belt, the region is subject to winds that are frequently strong and that blow constantly from the northeast between a subtropical high-pressure cell and an equatorial low-pressure cell. As air moves downward from the high-pressure into the low-pressure cell, it becomes warmer and drier. The desiccating and dust-laden winds are sometimes felt north and south of the desert, where they are variously known as sirocco, khamsin, simoom, and harmattan. The northern slopes of the Atlas Mts. intercept most of the moisture from winds blowing inshore from the Mediterranean Sea."