Global warming causes soil to release carbon -study

[JBMoney]

Reuters (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/07/MTFH63428_2005-09-07_17-49-21_MOL764095.html) - Global warming is causing soil to release huge amounts of carbon, making efforts to fight global warming tougher than previously thought, scientists said on Wednesday.

...International efforts like the Kyoto protocol, which came into effect in February this year, have been aimed at stopping climate change by reducing the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by industry. But those efforts don't take into account carbon trapped in soil, about 300 times the amount released each year by burning fossil fuels. - Whole Story (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/07/MTFH63428_2005-09-07_17-49-21_MOL764095.html)

[gopsdragon]

Reuters (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/07/MTFH63428_2005-09-07_17-49-21_MOL764095.html) - Global warming is causing soil to release huge amounts of carbon, making efforts to fight global warming tougher than previously thought, scientists said on Wednesday.

...International efforts like the Kyoto protocol, which came into effect in February this year, have been aimed at stopping climate change by reducing the amount of greenhouse gases released into the atmosphere by industry. But those efforts don't take into account carbon trapped in soil, about 300 times the amount released each year by burning fossil fuels. - Whole Story (http://www.breitbart.com/news/2005/09/07/MTFH63428_2005-09-07_17-49-21_MOL764095.html)

It puzzles me that Republicans have not pointed this out more often. This has been a known fact for at least ten years. I have video from junior college about it. Now in this article it's still made to look like a bad thing, BUT the release of carbon dioxide is a good thing for a growing population. CO2 is better for plant growth. With increased CO2 comes increased crop yields, something that is needed with increasing population. It's all part of God's natural balance.

[JBMoney]

I think this article fails from a lack of focus.

The important point they probably want to make is the dramatic INCREASE IN THE RATE at which natural carbon is being released. We had a similar article a while ago about the rate at which the tundra was thawing out in Siberia and releasing mass amounts of CO2.

You expect a certain amount to be released and keep a natural balance (as you say). Moving too far beyond that balance though will create living conditions that not even a Republican could put a happy face on.

What some would argue is that man-made influences on global warming has tipped us past the balance point, creating drastic releases of natural CO2, which will in turn accelerate global warming even faster.... etc. Hence the two articles evidencing the increase in natural releases.

Of course, another side of the issue would say that if natural releases are typically 300 times more than man-made ones, human emissions are a fairly moot point.

[gopsdragon]

You expect a certain amount to be released and keep a natural balance (as you say). Moving too far beyond that balance though will create living conditions that not even a Republican could put a happy face on.

The balance will still be there it just doesn't mean it will always benefit human population growth. As tundras thaw and the food production increases, population will continue to grow and at some point living conditions will reach the point where only the strongest survive and at some point population will begin to decrease.

[JBMoney]

The balance will still be there it just doesn't mean it will always benefit human population growth. As tundras thaw and the food production increases, population will continue to grow and at some point living conditions will reach the point where only the strongest survive and at some point population will begin to decrease.

No, if it's man-made emmissions that are causing it, it's not a natural balance, we'd be pushing it to a point faster than it would go naturally.... but yeah, everything will certainly 'balance' at some point. You could argue the same if we all nuke each other, eventually there will be a new balance, with talking cockroaches, cockroach hairdressers & manicurists, and all that.

[gopsdragon]

No, if it's man-made emmissions that are causing it, it's not a natural balance, we'd be pushing it to a point faster than it would go naturally....

Wasn't the point of the article not emissions but the release of it from the soil? That is natural and part of the process. I know that they are trying to insinuate that emissions are now setting off this greater reaction but that tells me two things

1. Auto emissions are not the great global warmer they thought.

2. Now that there is a great source that theoretically could lead to global warming they still want their original premise to hold some truth.

So unless they come up with a study that demostrates that this wouldn't have happened with an absence of autos and industry, their original premise is void. Increased population leads to increased CO2 - not a surprise. What is a surprise is that now enviros are being forced to admit that for all the Al Gore banging against the internal combustion engine the problem is not industry.

I don't for a second however belief that if this is their new theory that this isn't just the first step for some equivalent of Kyoto treaty dealing with worldwide population control. Yippee. Who's the Hitler that gets to make that call.

[JBMoney]

I'm not advocating anything and I don't support Kyoto, but you're initial statement is overly simplistic and dismissive, IMO. I'm just trying to put in laymen's terms why this article and others might be important, not to support any premise.

CO2, in this case, is certainly being released 'naturally'. The rate at which this release is increasing across previously frozen areas is possibly not. The increase in the rate of release complicates the global warming scenario exponentially, assuming you believe in that scenario... more excess CO2 equals more warming equals more natural releases equals more warming and so on.

Not only have have man-made releases impacted the global warming scenario (that's the arguable item), but man-made deforestation has DECREASED the rate at which any excess CO2 can be absorbed.

So, before we destroyed the majority of forests on pretty much every continent except Antarctica and Australia, natural CO2 release probably didn't matter a whole helluva lot.

So, saying any balance we get to after that fact is natural, is not entirely accurate.

[gopsdragon]

So, saying any balance we get to after that fact is natural, is not entirely accurate.

Well I guess it depends on the definition's nature of natural. Without humans would it have happened, probably not, but also without humans forest fires from lightning strikes etc would rage unchecked so we can't be sure what the "natural" amount of tree life would be.

And humans are a part of nature. I don't think they were left out of the original equation. I guess it's a War of the Worlds type scenario. Who knows about the new one but Orson Well's laid out this horrific series of events and then when you get to the end they all just die out of nowhere and the explanation is God in his wisdom planned for it. I view this as pretty much the same way. Humans are a part of nature - they don't exist apart from it. So, really what's happening is hard to say it's not natural, especially when the reaction from the earth makes the necessary adjustment to continue the behavior of what's been happening thus far (population growth).

Additionally, maybe in our lifetime we are not used to seeing areas that were tundra thaw out, but many say North America and Europe used to be under ice but the ice age ran out. Is this a problem? or have we not reached the end of the thaw that originally made the tundra of North America and Europe into arable land usuable for humans?

So the article is interesting, but I don't think my initial statement is overly simplistic. There is just as much a possibility that this is no different than what made other parts of the earth liveable as there is that we are headed towards disaster.

[JBMoney]

Even more interesting than this article is how far people will go to deny that what we do on earth has any negative impact whatsoever at all on future generations and/or to justify whatever abuse we want to dish out on the planet.

You've spent way too much time writing government doublespeak Gops. Your position could justify pretty much any abuse imaginable (to someone waiting for another campaign contribution), and admits no possibilty that conservation might be prudent in any respect.

I think you were probably reincarnated from the whatever tribal stick-pusher told the Easter Islanders it was OK to tear down all their trees. No one left to share that story though.

[gopsdragon]

You've spent way too much time writing government doublespeak Gops. Your position could justify pretty much any abuse imaginable (to someone waiting for another campaign contribution), and admits no possibilty that conservation might be prudent in any respect.

Not really. Population growth is natural, which is way different than say strip mining, or pouring chemicals in a creek.

If we didn't have deer hunting eventually the herds would get big enough that there would not be enough squaw grass found under the snow to feed the herd in winter. Eventually much of the herd would die from starvation until it reached sustainable levels. The whole process is completely natural. I don't see anybody saying deer are upsetting nature by eating all the squaw grass in winter.

[JBMoney]

:shrug: Uhh yeah... ok (http://members.tripod.com/JB5353/rushhour/words.wav)

And now for something almost as pointless...

Hamsters impacted by cigarette smoke (http://news.com.com/2061-11204_3-5854857.html) - Hamsters exposed to cigarette smoke are significantly less likely to conceive, according to a recenty study from the University of California at Riverside. The researchers found that he microscopic hairs, or cilia, inside the oviduct, which transport eggs, cannot move it to where fertilization occurs.

When the upper region of the hamster oviduct alone was exposed to six types of cigarette smoke, eggs were 50 to 90 percent more likely to stick to the oviduct than was the case in control animals that were not exposed.

The concern, of course, isn't about infertile rodent couples. The study shows that cigarette smoke impacts a variety of organs, which has greater implications for humans.

[gopsdragon]

:shrug: Uhh yeah... ok (http://members.tripod.com/JB5353/rushhour/words.wav)
Like it or not human population growth is natural. You can't deny it simply by saying yeah ok. If population growth is not natural tell my why.

[JBMoney]

Like it or not human population growth is natural. You can't deny it simply by saying yeah ok. If population growth is not natural tell my why.

We're not even on the same page. :logout:

[Farouka Hookah]

Even more interesting than this article is how far people will go to deny that what we do on earth has any negative impact whatsoever at all on future generations and/or to justify whatever abuse we want to dish out on the planet.


Great point. I often see folks who don't believe in Global warming rely on historical evidence that the earth is prone to extreme peaks and valleys in temperature change so any warming we see is the natural result the earth's balance. This is of course true but is also deceiving in that the danger that scientist point out is human impact on the earths temperature at the same time the planet is experiencing a spike in temp.

[RicardoHead]

Bean eating causes ass to release methane -study (http://www.heptune.com/farts.html)

[mark717]

excellent book on the real truth behind global warming...

http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~bgmark_quik/global-warm250[1].jpeg