|
-
Originally Posted by The PNP
Re: 'said's' post #43:
It's within that 0.1% of trace gasses that the 0.04% of CO2 is to be found.....A figure approx double the pre-industrial level for that particular greenhouse gas. And a figure that last time around, equated to sealevels being much higher than present day levels. Seems to me that we either find a way of removing half the CO2 pronto, or future inhabitants will have to relocate Southport to somewhere about 100ft up Parbold Hill!
You could show the way by refusing to burn healthy trees.
Just be yourself, no one else is better qualified!!
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
-
Originally Posted by said
Because my friend, I can tell you straight off, but you all keep screaming 'link, link' So I look for the first link I can find knowing that none of you will be any the wiser by its content.
Rather like you hopefully, knowing what two and two adds up to. You give your answer on this site and someone wants 'a link' to show how you arrived at the answer. Got it?
Erh No to be honest.
I can quite happily accept attributions from elsewhere.
From my understanding you say you have "special access" to material and information that we don't, although how you know what I and others have access to is an issue.
The rather odd thing though is you copy and paste from the very source you denigrate in preference.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
On Yer Bike!
www.20splentyforus.co.uk
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by The PNP
N.B. I would have no argument with Govts, if they were to buy up commercial plantations. In that I would include parcels of private woodland that come onto the market. This in order to protect all these areas from felling. I would also support issuing of Govt grants to landowners for planting new trees.
When you see a tree you see fuel, but does the above mean that there are certain trees you don't see as fuel?
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Desert Region
When you see a tree you see fuel, but does the above mean that there are certain trees you don't see as fuel?
I see most trees as carbon sinks, rather than fuel. Only when I pass a forestry plantation, do I see a product that will become newsprint, fenceposts, lumber or logs.
On Yer Bike!
www.20splentyforus.co.uk
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Desert Region
When you see a tree you see fuel, but does the above mean that there are certain trees you don't see as fuel?
He refuses to acknowledge or, simply hasn't the wit to understand that, trees absorb carbon dioxide. So, leave ALL the trees in the ground and keep planting more. Then try other more environmentally friendly forms of heating.
Just be yourself, no one else is better qualified!!
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Nick2
He refuses to acknowledge or, simply hasn't the wit to understand that, trees absorb carbon dioxide. So, leave ALL the trees in the ground and keep planting more. Then try other more environmentally friendly forms of heating.
The problem with leaving all trees in the ground is that as they mature they shed leaves which rot which whilst providing nutrients for the ground they also emit gases and the tree itself also decays eventually.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Alikado
The problem with leaving all trees in the ground is that as they mature they shed leaves which rot which whilst providing nutrients for the ground they also emit gases and the tree itself also decays eventually.
Depends which trees one plants. Many species survive for 100s of years.
Just be yourself, no one else is better qualified!!
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Nick2
A) He refuses to acknowledge or, simply hasn't the wit to understand that, trees absorb carbon dioxide. So, leave ALL the trees in the ground and keep planting more.
B) Then try other more environmentally friendly forms of heating.
A) Nice idea, but how are you going to persuade ALL forestry businesses to walk away from their crops without adequate Govt compensation for their considerable investment in land, labour, machinery and materials ? And let's not forget about timber imports, which will surge massively when you shut down UK forestry - would those be stopped too?
B) Such as?
Last edited by The PNP; 24/09/2021 at 09:24 AM.
On Yer Bike!
www.20splentyforus.co.uk
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Nick2
Depends which trees one plants. Many species survive for 100s of years.
They will always shed leaves, needles and branches.
What we need to do is reduce the harvesting to only essential needs. Why do we have wooden fence panels, probably because they are cheap, should we not look for alternatives such as recycled plastic?
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 2 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by said
PnP made a reference to media claims in the 1950's that stated wwe were heading for another Ice Age. Fifty years later we are heading into Global warming. Which is it to be? An Ice age does not occur within fifty years and suddenly change into a warming event.
Nobody said we would be in an ice age in 50 years. Duncet said: Don't forget that climate scientists were telling us, when I was 8 years old, that we were about to enter an ice age.
No suggestion whatsoever that we'd be in an ice age now.
You are claiming that the media 'experts' are far more knowledgeable than most scientists?
No I'm not. Where did I say that? Total bull.
How would you be able to tell what is the truth and what is not? Almost every scientist will disagree on various things, so they all argue with one another - that is how the truth is discovered.
Yes, they've argued for decades, and 97% of all climate scientists agree that humans activity has caused a sudden increase in global warming.
But you do not have the opportunity to listen to debates on the media because you are only given one point of view and expected to accept that as gospel truth, fully and without question. So, unless you have an understanding of science, you will never know what is true and what is not.
And you do? You've discerned, by apparently having some privileged access to 'debates', that 97% of the scientific community is wrong, and 3% is right? More bull. Nobody needs to 'listen to debates'. Everyone can read the results of the research into millennia of data on climate change. And we are physically witnessing the effects.
'An understanding of science' is a bit of a sweeping statement. You're suggesting that you do have an 'understanding', yet you deny simple cause and effect. We don't need to sift through decades of research to draw conclusions, any more than we do with medicine, IT, chemistry or any other science to know that which is true. We don't need to know how to produce penicillin to know it works. We don't need to write code to know if a program works. We see the results of the science.
For Climate and human biology there is no pattern, therefore, no formula.
Yes there is. Human biology is fixed on a cellular level. We simply discover more ways of treating people or changing treatment. Climate is cyclical. We know this through millennia of data. So any sudden changes are apparent.
How often have the Weather forecasts been exactly correct? Hardly ever. They spent £billions on apparatus with the intention of forecasting weather correctly, and they still have not managed it.
Weather and climate are entirely different. Weather changes from minute to minute. The variables are infinite. Climate changes usually take centuries or more, hence the obvious difference humanity is making now.
So where is the Conspiracy theory? The above facts are completely accurate and can be found in any encyclopedia/journals etc., In fact where is the 'theory'? It is all facts.
You haven't written a single fact.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 2 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by The PNP
A) Nice idea, but how are you going to persuade ALL forestry businesses to walk away from their crops without adequate Govt compensation for their considerable investment in land, labour, machinery and materials ? And let's not forget about timber imports, which will surge massively when you shut down UK forestry - would those be stopped too?
B) Such as?
(A) That's a cop-out! Remember the coal mining industry.
(B) You've never heard of wind or solar power?
Just be yourself, no one else is better qualified!!
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by The PNP
I could, and if I thought it will help, I would. But switching to gas isn't going to reduce my carbon footprint - quite the reverse!
This silly debate about sustainably grown timber supposedly adding to atmospheric CO2, has been going round in circles for some time now. So let's picture it in numbers:
The formula is as follows:
(A-T) + T = A
Where A is the atmospheric level of CO2 when tree is planted.
Where T is the CO2 the tree absorbed.
Let's do the above calculation with simple numbers:
(10-5) + 5 = 10
You will note that 'A' has the same value both before and after the tree existed. Which is my argument, i.e. that sustainably managed woodland adds no CO2 to the atmosphere. On the contrary, a commercial plantations standing tonnage of timber acts as a carbon sink, retaining a significant amount of CO2. Therefore without sustainable commercial forestry, there would be more CO2 in the atmosphere.
N.B. I would have no argument with Govts, if they were to buy up commercial plantations. In that I would include parcels of private woodland that come onto the market. This in order to protect all these areas from felling. I would also support issuing of Govt grants to landowners for planting new trees.
It's not silly you polluting the atmosphere and burning the Co2 absorbers.
What is rather amusing is your attempt at using maths to support your barmy theories.
The old adage rubbish in rubbish out seems apposite.
Still, I can have a go;
1 PNP + 1 SAID = 2 DUNCES.
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Alikado
The problem with leaving all trees in the ground is that as they mature they shed leaves which rot which whilst providing nutrients for the ground they also emit gases and the tree itself also decays eventually.
An old-growth forest – also termed primary forest, virgin forest, late seral forest or primeval forest – is a forest that has attained great age without significant disturbance and thereby exhibits unique ecological features and might be classified as a climax community. Sadly these are very few and far between.
Moreover, old-growth forests are more efficient at sequestering carbon than newly planted forests and fast-growing timber plantations, thus preserving the forests is important to climate change mitigation.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old-growth_forest
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 1 Likes, 0 Dislikes
-
Originally Posted by Nick2
(A) That's a cop-out! Remember the coal mining industry.
(B) You've never heard of wind or solar power?
Yes I remember it well, our coalmines got shut down and we've relied on huge coal imports ever since. Same will happen to timber products if you shut down UK forestry.
B) Domestic solar and/or wind doesn't generate anywhere near enough power to heat a house. Any other ideas?
On Yer Bike!
www.20splentyforus.co.uk
-
Member Post Likes / Dislikes - 0 Likes, 0 Dislikes
|
Search Qlocal (powered by google)
Privacy & Cookie Policy
Check Todays Deals On Amazon.co.uk
Check Todays Deals on Ebay.co.uk
Booking.com
Supporting Local Business
Be Seen - Advertise on Qlocal
UK, Local Online News Community, Forums, Chats, For Sale, Classified, Offers, Vouchers, Events, Motors Sale, Property For Sale Rent, Jobs, Hotels, Taxi, Restaurants, Pubs, Clubs, Pictures, Sports, Charities, Lost Found
UK,
UK News,
|