Cause of Global Warming

[dragonfly]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(ZenCruiser @ Aug 12 2006, 05:43 PM) [snapback]302283[/snapback]</div>

We should instead be printing out "Save the Humans" stickers. We sure as hell have our own self-interests at heart, maybe that might make people think....
[/b]

I like it!

[DaveinOlyWA]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Godiva @ Aug 12 2006, 03:27 PM) [snapback]302276[/snapback]</div>

Wow, I didn't know that about grass. I just consider it an annoyance. I got rid of my lawn because of watering and mowing and stuff.

Does this mean all grasses or only wild ones or long ones or ones that turn in to hay or something?

So if I can't plant a lot of trees, I should at least plant grass? What about regular bushes? It seems the very plants that are good for the environment are also the ones that burden my water bill. [/b]

actually we are looking at pastures which has a mix of grasses, clovers, etc. any time a grass gets chewed or cut, it immediately balances "roots to shoots" that takes a few days. during this crucial period, the plant must live off the reserves since the cow has removed its ability to get energy from the sun. then it goes into accelerated growth for a varying period lasting up to 14 days after which the plant starts to get woody. cows do not prefer the woody part as it takes more to digest and the carbon content is not as high. the objective is to get the cows to eat the grass just before the end of the fast growth cycle and move on. a well managed pasture can process more carbon than all but the rain forest areas simply because look at a pasture. its completely covered in something. no farm, or most forests for that matter can boast near 100% solar energy converters. no shade to cover any plants, etc.

Godiva, you are a book person, read the book "The Omnivore's Dilemma, A Natural History of Four Meals" by Michael Pollan... very very good read

and yes, if you want to help slow global warming, plant a lawn, do not use fertilyzer, mow it every other week.

[Godiva]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Aug 12 2006, 06:24 PM) [snapback]302308[/snapback]</div>

if you want to help slow global warming, plant a lawn, do not use fertilyzer, mow it every other week.
[/b]

I don't do fertilizer. Not even manure. Sorry to say not compost. I tried but I don't generate enough of the correct waste to do any good. I live alone.

While I have nothing against grass per se...it's the mowing part. I don't mow. And I'm not in the position to hire someone to mow for me.

Is there anything I can plant that doesn't require mowing but would still be good? I know not *as* good, but good? How about vegetables instead of perennials? I don't mind picking or pruneing or trimming or even replanting. I just don't like mowing. And lawns take a lot of water.

[DaveinOlyWA]

well we would then have to get into things that regenerate a reasonable amount of biomass. i would think that fruit trees would be one possibility or even grape vines. double benefit there. but the goal here is sequestration of carbon below ground. hard beat grass on that level.

the book i was reading tells about how cows will come in to a field for one day, eat, then get moved. after 4 days, they move in this portable chicken coop. the reason they wait 4 days is that that is the prime time for maggots at their plumpest. the chicken pick the maggots out of the cow dung in the process, they scatter the dung, remove the larvae that would have born flies which would have spread dieases. the chicken manure which is high in nitrogen would help to replenish the pasture is also left.

this process is repeated over and over and is the cleanest way to convert solar energy into food that we can eat. the overall ratio is still about 100 calories to one by the time we are involved but the beauty of this process is the only energy expended is from the sun.

the average processed food, the ratio is about 90 calories to one. but over half of the calories are man made and generated mostly by fossil fuels. the distillation, crushing, processing, cooking, etc, of the processed food we eat all takes energy that has to be generated some how.

[stevedegraw]

The human contribution to global warming can't be proven either for nor against because the experiment that is needed can't be done.

The experiment ? Measurement of the planet with humans and without humans over the same time period.

[Godiva]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(DaveinOlyWA @ Aug 12 2006, 07:25 PM) [snapback]302334[/snapback]</div>

well we would then have to get into things that regenerate a reasonable amount of biomass. i would think that fruit trees would be one possibility or even grape vines. double benefit there. but the goal here is sequestration of carbon below ground. hard beat grass on that level.

the book i was reading tells about how cows will come in to a field for one day, eat, then get moved. after 4 days, they move in this portable chicken coop. the reason they wait 4 days is that that is the prime time for maggots at their plumpest. the chicken pick the maggots out of the cow dung in the process, they scatter the dung, remove the larvae that would have born flies which would have spread dieases. the chicken manure which is high in nitrogen would help to replenish the pasture is also left.

this process is repeated over and over and is the cleanest way to convert solar energy into food that we can eat. the overall ratio is still about 100 calories to one by the time we are involved but the beauty of this process is the only energy expended is from the sun.

the average processed food, the ratio is about 90 calories to one. but over half of the calories are man made and generated mostly by fossil fuels. the distillation, crushing, processing, cooking, etc, of the processed food we eat all takes energy that has to be generated some how.
[/b]

So my choices are fruit trees and grape vines or buying a cow and some chickens.

I think I'll go with the fruit trees and grape vines. I've got a good spot for a tree out front. And a place for a grape vine in the back. I took out a bougainvilla to replace a fence and it's bare and sunny out there. I was thinking of a rose vine, but a grape vine is OK. And an apricot tree for the front. My nephews get all of the apricots before I get to my parents house, so now I'll have some of my own. With fall coming I'll be able to get them in in a few months, after some good rain.

BTW my parents are doing more than their fair share as far as their yard. They have over a dozen fruit trees, a garden, grape vines and still have grass, which my Dad does mow but not very often. Plus two huge camphor trees, a willow and my Mom has lots of roses, annuals and perennials. Rotten fruit gets thrown in the canyon or in the garden to decompose itself, but their isn't that much of it. My mother mulches with leaves and the Christmas tree. (We also gift the foxes and coyotes with a turkey carcass at Christmas and Thanksgiving.) Their yard must be eco-friendly as we see wildlife or signs of it. Lizards love to sun themselves on the walls. There is a fox that visits regularly. There was a nice snake in the treehouse a few weeks ago. And opposums are probably still getting some fruit at night. There are also squirrels. (and gophers) They live in the city but on the edge of a protected canyon. My Dad wants a wind turbine (not sure what he plans to do with the power.)

I'm been trying to get them from their Caddy into a hybrid. Maybe it won't be so hard after all when the time comes.


<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Karnac @ Aug 13 2006, 11:51 AM) [snapback]302569[/snapback]</div>

The human contribution to global warming can't be proven either for nor against because the experiment that is needed can't be done.

The experiment ? Measurement of the planet with humans and without humans over the same time period.
[/b]

I think the naysayers are working on the "without humans" part.

[buyaninsight]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Aug 11 2006, 04:02 PM) [snapback]301673[/snapback]</div>

For those of you who believe that human's are not significantly influencing the current GW trend, can you please enlighten us as to the natural factors that are in play, that are causing it? This would make a kick a** paper for Scientific American, so I'd love to get your data. I'll even make you a co-author.
[/b]

BECAUSE IT WILL BE A COLD DAY IN HELL BEFOR YOU LOSE YOUR CLOUD OF SMUG...oops capslock

oh and you car emits polution to so your also part of your own problem...making what you just said equivalent to

"ha see that hole i drilled in the side of the ship? well that let us find the bigger hole. No their both leaking water but everyone needs to look at how amazing my hole is"

[SSimon]

Daveinolywa I thought you may be interested in this link. It's a study regarding the use of native flora for sustainable fuels. I'm wondering if you have any knowledge about the benefit of planting natives for carbon sequestration??? I have restored my yard with all native species for wildlife, drought and biodiversity reasons but am wondering if carbon sequestration is also occuring on my lot. I'm going to google and see if I can come up with anything.

Here's the link regarding native flora and sustainable fuels.......

http://www1.umn.edu/umnnews/Feature_Storie...able_fuels.html

[Marlin]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Dragonfly @ Aug 11 2006, 04:02 PM) [snapback]301673[/snapback]</div>

For those of you who believe that human's are not significantly influencing the current GW trend, can you please enlighten us as to the natural factors that are in play, that are causing it? This would make a kick a** paper for Scientific American, so I'd love to get your data. I'll even make you a co-author.
[/b]

One theory that I think has merit is the increased solar activity. Solar activity is at a 1000 year high and has shown a sharp increase in the 20th century. (Quite a coincidence, don't you think?)

Solar activity reaches new high

And before someone here dismisses that with talk of watts per square meter and how the increased solar output can't account for the increased heat, one should note releated theories about the Sun's influence on cosmic rays that reach Earth and cosmic rays' influnce in cloud production.

The theory is as follows... The Sun's solar wind and magnetic field partially shields the Earth from cosmic rays. The more active the Sun is, the fewer cosmic rays reach Earth. Cosmic rays are thought to be a factor in cloud production, which in turn shield the Earth from the Sun's energy by reflecting sunlight back into space. The more active the Sun is, the fewer cosmic rays reach Earth. The fewer cosmic rays reach Earth, the fewer clouds the Earth has. The fewer clouds the Earth has, the more of the Sun's energy reaches the Earth's surface. The more the Sun's energy that reaches the Earth's surface, the hotter it gets.

Cosmic rays 'linked to clouds'

Cosmic rays 'explain climate conundrum'

So, for the watts per square meter folks... The indirect effect of the increase in Solar activity is that a larger percentage of the Sun's energy reaches the Earth's surface, rather than being reflected back into space. Therefore, the overall energy gain is higher than simply the increase in the amount of solar energy per square meter at the Earth's equator.

[dragonfly]

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Marlin @ Aug 14 2006, 12:00 PM) [snapback]303047[/snapback]</div>

One theory that I think has merit is the increased solar activity. Solar activity is at a 1000 year high and has shown a sharp increase in the 20th century. (Quite a coincidence, don't you think?)

Solar activity reaches new high

And before someone here dismisses that with talk of watts per square meter and how the increased solar output can't account for the increased heat, one should note releated theories about the Sun's influence on cosmic rays that reach Earth and cosmic rays' influnce in cloud production.

The theory is as follows... The Sun's solar wind and magnetic field partially shields the Earth from cosmic rays. The more active the Sun is, the fewer cosmic rays reach Earth. Cosmic rays are thought to be a factor in cloud production, which in turn shield the Earth from the Sun's energy by reflecting sunlight back into space. The more active the Sun is, the fewer cosmic rays reach Earth. The fewer cosmic rays reach Earth, the fewer clouds the Earth has. The fewer clouds the Earth has, the more of the Sun's energy reaches the Earth's surface. The more the Sun's energy that reaches the Earth's surface, the hotter it gets.

Cosmic rays 'linked to clouds'

Cosmic rays 'explain climate conundrum'

So, for the watts per square meter folks... The indirect effect of the increase in Solar activity is that more of the Sun's energy reaches the Earth's surface, rather than being reflected back into space. Therefore, the overall energy gain is higher than simply the increase in the amount of solar energy per square meter at the Earth's equator.
[/b]

Excellent work Marlin! I agree here, this is potentially a viable hypothesis that warrants further study. So let me ask you, do you personally believe that this overwhelmingly accounts for the temperature rise, in lieu of any significant anthropogenic contribution?