The end of the line.

[Heather]

No.
Honestly, Marco - this is a great discussion! We need more of this stuff around here, if you ask me!

 

[Marco]

No.
Honestly, Marco - this is a great discussion! We need more of this stuff around here, if you ask me!

fine....who said i wanted to hug you anyway?

kidding i was just bored....i need to get a life...well that or get studying...
-------

i for one don't think the earth is in balance if it was we would still have salmon swimming up the hudson. i wouldve loved to see that.

as for more on co2, global warming and the green house effect go here

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/globalchange/keeling_curve/01.html

"Every spring, when trees leaf out and grasslands and farmlands green, the carbon dioxide in the air decreases, reflecting the uptake from photosynthesis. Conversely, in fall, when leaves and wilted plants are returned to the soil and decay, the carbon dioxide rises again. Thus, one can envision the Earth ?breathing? on an annual cycle, and we can measure how deeply."

now with all the deforestation going on this curve is going to keep sliding up at an increasing rate whats gonna take up the junk going into the air?

so yeah eventually were gonna suffocated, burn and die in our own toxic discharges.....

 

[Mahon]

Does anyone know anything about whether the habitat of P. mahonium has been destroyed yet? If not, I think we should start a board fundraising project to protect it.

That sounds like a great idea

Paph. mahonium, obviously, is a made up species... it was part of practicing publication layouts... I also I had Tolumnia poopsiclii once... very rare as well

-Pat

 

[lienluu]

obviously, is a made up species... it was part of practicing publication layouts.

All fine and dandy but when you start using various people's names and claiming authorship of other people's works ...well...

 

[Kyle]

Actually, CO2 is not the contributing factor to "Global Warming"... instead, it is the sun getting hotter than it was before. The Ozone layer has the triatomic oxygen molecules (O3) that shield us from the sun's radiation. The pollution that goes into the atmosphere will eventually cycle, as the earth is in a perfect cycle and in order.

-Pat

Yikes, I read this and had to reply.

CO2 and H20 vapour are two of the main greenhouse gases. Well documented... Never heard the sun is getting hotter hypothesis...

When I get back to Canada I will post some pictures I took last week in Ecuador of deforestation. Like Gonewild said, this wasn't lumber companies, but rural farmers who wanted to graze thier cattle. On some of the fallend tries we found lepenthes and macroclinium.

As for species that have been expatriated from the wild. Ecuagenera have a few. For example Masd pinnochio. Only one plant was found and I think the habitat has been destroyed. Eucagenera has succesfully proagated the plants and now have thousands for sale. The same goes for masd virgo-cuenca, that habitat gone, but they have breed hundreds.

They also own 3 reserves. They actively reintorduce F1 species into these reserves. They are trying to buy the land surrounding a population of phrag besseae.

I had no idea about the 30 ha of land for peruvians, thanks for the information Lance! Do you know if Ecuadorians have the same right. Sometimes it seems that way.

Kyle

 

[Kyle]

Jon,

Where can I find their entire publication? I can only find news articles about their publication, which doesn't have details of the research...

-PM

You really shouldn't extrapolate the information in abstracts.

 

[Kyle]

Awesome... you have thoroughly convinced me that I must be the dumbest person around.

I don't think we need kentuckiense to do that, your doing a pretty good job of it yourself!

 

[gonewild]

QUOTE=Kyle]
They also own 3 reserves. They actively reintorduce F1 species into these reserves. They are trying to buy the land surrounding a population of phrag besseae.

A local company or person buying land for preserves works well as contrasted to outside NGOs. Local people can relate to this as their own progress.

I had no idea about the 30 ha of land for peruvians, thanks for the information Lance! Do you know if Ecuadorians have the same right. Sometimes it seems that way.

I don't know if Ecuador has the same law. I would almost assume they do. It is designed to give persons without monetary wealth the opportunity to create a place to live self sufficiently. It also has the great benefit to the country of pulling the population out of over crowded cities to become pioneers to tame the wilderness. This is not necessarily good for the normal concept of conservation.
The USA had the same law until some years back. It was called the Homestead Act. When I was younger I recall Canada had the same as well.

Peru has taken this concept a step further and created a program which actually does work for conservation (maybe). In Peru working through INRENA a person or organization can get a concession on a large tract of land for a small annual rental fee. This can be a conservation concession designed to preserve land. So for a relatively small amount of moneya large tract of land can be set aside as a preserve.

 

[Mahon]

I don't think we need kentuckiense to do that, your doing a pretty good job of it yourself!

Kyle,

I am glad you think this way. Ok, now that I am regarded as 'stupid' by you (of course, the genius of the world), then you must know about this too:

The Arctic Circle's ice is in fact breaking apart and thinning. But disregard the South Pole? Antarctica is accumulating more ice then ever...

Now, another theory is that the earth's axis is slowly changing. Speaking of bores, why don't we discuss the bores in Antarctica? When drilling down, they recovered Palm trees (or something similar). Perhaps it is not the gasses in the atmosphere causing the earth to get hotter, but the slow changing of the poles, as it has most likely done millions of years ago (I don't have an exact number, and I don't believe anyone can get an exact number).

And Kyle, knowing how you regard yourself as a higher intellect over me (seeing that I am about half your age), don't you think the people that "research" the greenhouse gasses as the cause of global warming make money off of it all? I mean, look at it this way, everyone is after money (unless you are brain dead). Donations to these organizations that support... wait, what do these organizations for Global Warming actually do? Hmmm... perhaps use donations to go around talking about Global Warming... while the rest goes into private pockets... if you make a donation to an organization for Global Warming, what exactly are you supporting besides their website and their bills? Perhaps the researcher's pay to come up with some specualtions upon phenomena... like hurricanes, red tide, and almost everything else to being linked to Global Warming.

Sincerely,
-Stupid

 

[kentuckiense]

The Arctic Circle's ice is in fact breaking apart and thinning. But disregard the South Pole? Antarctica is accumulating more ice then ever...

"The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has reported that sea level is currently rising at about 1.8 millimetres per year, largely through melting of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets as a result of global warming. But the panel also expected that climate change would trigger an increase in snowfall over the Antarctic continent, as increased evaporation from the oceans puts more moisture into the air."
http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050516/full/050516-10.html

Now, another theory is that the earth's axis is slowly changing. Speaking of bores, why don't we discuss the bores in Antarctica? When drilling down, they recovered Palm trees (or something similar). Perhaps it is not the gasses in the atmosphere causing the earth to get hotter, but the slow changing of the poles, as it has most likely done millions of years ago (I don't have an exact number, and I don't believe anyone can get an exact number).

Ok, I'm trying to figure out what you're saying here. They found palm trees in ice bores? If that's what you're trying to say, then you're making that up. If you're saying they've found fossilized tropical flora, then you're correct. That's because of continental drift. Ginkgos and cycads could be found on Antarctica during the Jurassic and the continent had a tropical climate up until about 70 million years ago. Antarctica has not always been where it is now. At one point, part of it was even in the northern hemisphere.

And Kyle, knowing how you regard yourself as a higher intellect over me (seeing that I am about half your age), don't you think the people that "research" the greenhouse gasses as the cause of global warming make money off of it all? I mean, look at it this way, everyone is after money (unless you are brain dead). Donations to these organizations that support... wait, what do these organizations for Global Warming actually do? Hmmm... perhaps use donations to go around talking about Global Warming... while the rest goes into private pockets... if you make a donation to an organization for Global Warming, what exactly are you supporting besides their website and their bills? Perhaps the researcher's pay to come up with some specualtions upon phenomena... like hurricanes, red tide, and almost everything else to being linked to Global Warming.

You've been reading "State of Fear" by Michael Crichton, I see. Crichton took statistics out of context and generally was dishonest in his use of references and quotes. Crichton is a fiction writer who went to med school.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=74

 

[slippertalker]

Here's a related article regarding the loss of pollinators:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1019-05.htm

This is a trend that not only effects industrialized country but also the declining forests in 3rd world countries. I would not be surprised to see diminishing numbers of insects, birds, bees and other pollinators in many areas of the world.

 

[kentuckiense]

Here's a related article regarding the loss of pollinators:

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/1019-05.htm

This is a trend that not only effects industrialized country but also the declining forests in 3rd world countries. I would not be surprised to see diminishing numbers of insects, birds, bees and other pollinators in many areas of the world.

Incredibly interesting article. The rammifications are so far reaching.

Edit: looks like I can't spell "ramifications" correctly.

 

[PHRAG]

I was going to a take a back seat on this one, but I think something needs to be said.

Mahon,

I know you and I haven't exactly ever "hit it off" and become pals. I am going to offer you some advice here, and you can take it or leave it.

I believe you are smart. I think you have a good degree of intelligence, that someone your age rarely has. I know when I was your age, I was a stupid kid who thought I knew it all. In many ways, I am still trying to figure out how to turn that kid I was, into the man I know my parents always wanted me to be. Sometimes I succeed, and many times not.

What I would ask of you, Mahon, is this. Take a break from trying to impress us with science and botanical knowledge, and just talk to us. Don't tell us of your plans on reintroducing local species, which we can't help but question because of other situations you have placed yourself in on the forum. Just let us get to know you for a decent guy. You don't have to stop learning, just stop trying to teach. I just don't think you are quite there yet. I am not there yet either, and I am twice your age.

Don't be afraid to ask questions, rather than try to spout knowledge that is unrefined at best. We want to like you, believe it or not. But you have to work with us on this, or I can tell you it's only going to get worse from here. As I said, maybe I am not the one to be saying this, but I felt it needed to be said. I hope you understand, and I truly believe this will turn for you if you give it an honest chance.

I am writing this for my own benefit just as much as I am yours. I still have some growing up to do.

John

 

[Mahon]

Zach,

Very interesting information upon Antarctica. Our information sources conflict. Don't you think it is possible that neither researchers really know what is happening to the earth?

As for finding fossilized plant material in Antarctica, that's about what I meant. I forgot to mention that there are also dinosaur bones being recovered...

Personally, I think it is a bunch of junk. To date something in the millions of years range, if they are even 1 million years off, that is a VERY LONG time. and for some reason, they are all nice and squared off, like 50 million years, or 140 million years... the margin of error is so enormous, that it should be regarded as 'unknown'... we can give theories, but that's about it... even Carbon dating is not always reliable...

I think we better get the HAARP out and start testing it out.

I personally do not think that some of these sciences are very reliable. Did you realize that most of the dinosaurs are either a few real bones put together with the rest of them made of plaster, or that a whole dinosaur was constructed by the find of a single bone? Then we date their existence, what they ate, where they lived, colors, shape, etc.... I remember I had to learn about Dinosaurs as if they were exactly pictured in the books, though now I know that they really don't exist as they were pictured...

And no, I am not reading any of Michael Crighton, I am merely asking what has become of the research on Global Warming that these organizations are utilizing all the donations... nothing. We are still talking about it like we really know what is going on on earth.

And do not think I am trying to be nasty nor in any way mean in these posts, as Kyle was towards me. I am merely "debating" ideas and thoughts... I do think that most of these sciences are phony and are to benifit those who can make other believe their "research"... just because an idea is widely accepted does not mean that it is the actual truth.

-Pat

 

[Mahon]

I was going to a take a back seat on this one, but I think something needs to be said.

Mahon,

I know you and I haven't exactly ever "hit it off" and become pals. I am going to offer you some advice here, and you can take it or leave it.

I believe you are smart. I think you have a good degree of intelligence, that someone your age rarely has. I know when I was your age, I was a stupid kid who thought I knew it all. In many ways, I am still trying to figure out how to turn that kid I was, into the man I know my parents always wanted me to be. Sometimes I succeed, and many times not.

What I would ask of you, Mahon, is this. Take a break from trying to impress us with science and botanical knowledge, and just talk to us. Don't tell us of your plans on reintroducing local species, which we can't help but question because of other situations you have placed yourself in on the forum. Just let us get to know you for a decent guy. You don't have to stop learning, just stop trying to teach. I just don't think you are quite there yet. I am not there yet either, and I am twice your age.

Don't be afraid to ask questions, rather than try to spout knowledge that is unrefined at best. We want to like you, believe it or not. But you have to work with us on this, or I can tell you it's only going to get worse from here. As I said, maybe I am not the one to be saying this, but I felt it needed to be said. I hope you understand, and I truly believe this will turn for you if you give it an honest chance.

I am writing this for my own benefit just as much as I am yours. I still have some growing up to do.

John

John,

I guess I will take your advice.

As for re-introducing FL native species, this can be verified by many people. It is important to me to let people know that it is being done. I personally do not care about recognition, but I do want people to know that propagation and conservation of FL orchid species is being done, and successfully.

Also, I won't be here much longer. I won't be able to contribute to orchids, so I am hurrying up and seeing what useful things I can contribute.

Lastly, I am not here to impress... I am here to learn and see if anything I have experimented with can help someone. Humus was my biggest discovery, but has been disregarded.

-Pat

 

[littlefrog]

I don't think you'll find a credible scientist alive who doesn't believe in global warming. If you find one, let me know, and I'll tell you why you shouldn't believe him. Pretty much the same thing with evolution, but that is a different topic. There are still some small questions about the cause of global warming, but it is definitely happening. CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere is definitely contributing to increasing the overall temperature of the planet, no way around that. There could also be contributing factors from long term solar cycles or lord knows what else, but that is really not well documented.

Local climates may indeed get colder or see more snow as the average temperature of the atmosphere increases. That doesn't mean that global warming doesn't occur. CO2 is definitely a greenhouse gas, and releasing huge amounts of previously locked up CO2 (in the form of hydrocarbons) into the atmosphere can't possibly be neutral in terms of climate change.

Now, if you aren't a scientist and don't care to look up facts and do some thinking for yourself, you might disbelieve any number of things. You might believe CO2 is not a greenhouse gas. You might believe that evolution is all made up. You might think flying pink elephants mow your lawn while you sleep, for all I know. But please, if you don't care to think for yourself, at least listen to trained scientists (specialists in these topics are preferred to generalists) and not preachers and oil company lobbyists. And for heaven's sake, don't listen to Rush Limbaugh or those other whackos, who are not in the business of providing facts, but rather incendiary opinion (this keeps their ratings up).

Now, a more interesting question is whether climate change is bad... It is certainly locally bad (many species will go extinct). And if the global conveyor ocean circulating currents stop (and they have in the past), a lot of places that rely on warm ocean breezes to stay habitable will get a whole lot colder, even as average world temperature rises. We would expect to see heavy precipitation in many areas that don't normally see it, and greatly reduced precipitation in other areas. In other words, things will change a lot. A whole lot of people will die, which may be a good thing. But the earth has been warmer in the past, and it is still here with life on it. I doubt climate change could result in extinction of humans (might make life very difficult, however). Personally, I am kind of used to the planet the way it is, so I'd lobby in favor of keeping it this way. But, we could get hit with a killer comet before global warming gets us, too.

 

[kentuckiense]

Very interesting information upon Antarctica. Our information sources conflict. Don't you think it is possible that neither researchers really know what is happening to the earth?

Well then, I'd like to see your information source. I wasn't referencing a single researcher. I was drawing upon decades of research by hundreds(if not thousands) of people.

As for finding fossilized plant material in Antarctica, that's about what I meant. I forgot to mention that there are also dinosaur bones being recovered...

I don't think the discovery of dinosaur bones changes anything. Antarctica has not always been a frozen mass on the "bottom" of the earth.

Personally, I think it is a bunch of junk. To date something in the millions of years range, if they are even 1 million years off, that is a VERY LONG time. and for some reason, they are all nice and squared off, like 50 million years, or 140 million years... the margin of error is so enormous, that it should be regarded as 'unknown'...

So your only argument here is "I don't think it can be done." Absolute dating methods certainly have a margin of error, so what exactly is wrong with rounding up or down to a more manageable number within that range? In addition, please tell me how "enormous" the margins of error are.

we can give theories, but that's about it... even Carbon dating is not always reliable...

Carbon-14 dating is only useful up to 60,000 years ago. Potassium-Argon is what would be used for dinosaur fossil dating.

As for the Global Warming organizations, if it is out of context, please explain to me what is? Please explain what contributions to Global Warming they have done with donation money... or what they have done, period. I think we better get the HAARP out and start testing it out.

Point out an international climate change organization that is funded by "donations." The IPCC, formed in 1988, is funded by countries. It's research has been applied by the UNFCCC to create the Kyoto Protocol. You never hear about it because the USA was one of the few to not sign it.

Perhaps we should use our brains more, and realize that everything does NOT have an exact reason. Did you realize that most of the dinosaurs are either a few real bones put together with the rest of them made of plaster, or that a whole dinosaur was constructed by the find of a single bone? Then we date their existence, what they ate, where they lived, colors, shape, etc.... I remember I had to learn about Dinosaurs as if they were exactly pictured in the books, though now I know that they really don't exist as they were pictured...

...okay? I don't think there is any research going on about dinosaur color.

And no, I am not reading any of Michael Crighton, I am merely asking what has become of the research on Global Warming that these organizations are utilizing all the donations... nothing. We are still talking about it like we really know what is going on on earth.

See above.

And do not think I am trying to be nasty nor in any way mean in these posts, as Kyle was towards me. I am merely "debating" ideas and thoughts... I do think that most of these sciences are phony and are to benifit those who can make other believe their "research"... just because an idea is widely accepted does not mean that it is the actual truth.

I hear that a lot when debating creationists. Reject accepted scientific theories if you'd like. I can't stop that. Keep in mind that you were the one who came into the thread and trumpeted a bunch of stuff about the sun getting hotter being the cause of climate change. So apparently that research is rock solid and the research you disagree with is "phony?"

 

[Mahon]

Zach,

First, I will post the site with diagrams about Antartica not warming:
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=894

Here is the same site, an article about the Arctic temperature remaining unchanged for about 7 decades:
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=889

As for rounding years off, I think that rounding to the millions (even the thousands) of years is an enormous range...

I do not care enough to post the names of all the Global Warming organizations which are funded by donations. The ones I have been looking at have a web address which ends in '.org'...

My point on Dinosaurs was to show a science which is quite fake... Dinosaurs are made up of a few real bones... sometimes, they don't even know where they belong... one species of Dinosaur, that I know about, is described upon a sinlge bone found. There may be a few actual complete dinosaurs, maybe one complete and in a sand matrix...

Accepted theories are just that... theories... a person's idea, thought, etc., that people either like or sounds somewhat reasonable...

-Pat

 

[littlefrog]

No, theories in science are not 'thoughts, ideas', or even hypotheses. They are well tested systems of understanding the natural world that give consistent results. They are built on facts.

Or, for another definition, this one is at wikipedia
"In science, a theory is a proposed description, explanation, or model of the manner of interaction of a set of natural phenomena, capable of predicting future occurrences or observations of the same kind, and capable of being tested through experiment or otherwise falsified through empirical observation. It follows from this that for scientists "theory" and "fact" do not necessarily stand in opposition. For example, it is a fact that an apple dropped on earth has been observed to fall towards the center of the planet, and the theory which explains why the apple behaves so is the current theory of gravitation."

Theories are generated through hypotheses. This is exactly why science is not understood by the general public. They hear 'theory' and assume 'guess'. Scientists hear something entirely different. We really need a better word. The current word allows idiots to spout off random crap as 'theories' that are merely guesses. A theory is not at all a guess. Yes, theories can be wrong, but it takes substantial proof to overturn an established theory. For example, Newtonian physics was shown to be inadequate at the atomic level, but only after technology made it possible to understand that. Quantum physics is now used to examine things at the atomic level, but newtonian physics still applies to almost all other cases.

 

[kentuckiense]

Zach,
First, I will post the site with diagrams about Antartica not warming:
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=894

Here is the same site, an article about the Arctic temperature remaining unchanged for about 7 decades:
http://www.globalwarming.org/article.php?uid=889

That website is run by "National Comsumer Coalition," a free-market-capitalism-at-all-costs organization that can't even manage to keep up with the payments on its website. Once again, I addressed the "Antarctica is cooling" argument in a previous post.

As for rounding years off, I think that rounding to the millions (even the thousands) of years is an enormous range...

So knowing that something lived between 50 and 60 million years ago is worthless and should be ignored? We aren't talking about bootstrap values here.

I do not care enough to post the names of all the Global Warming organizations which are funded by donations. The ones I have been looking at have a web address which ends in '.org'...

Chances are that .org sites are lobby groups. However, since you refused to post any, I can't address that.

My point on Dinosaurs was to show a science which is quite fake... Dinosaurs are made up of a few real bones... sometimes, they don't even know where they belong... one species of Dinosaur, that I know about, is described upon a sinlge bone found. There may be a few actual complete dinosaurs, maybe one complete and in a sand matrix...

What do dinosaurs and archeaologists have to do with climate change and climatologists? You're just trying to make a strawman.

Accepted theories are just that... theories... a person's idea, thought, etc., that people either like or sounds somewhat reasonable...

Then you have no idea what a scientific theory is. A scientific theory is not just conjecture or an unsubstantiated guess. It is based upon scientific laws and it is a framework for describing natural phenomena. A scientific theory is supported by mountains of empirical evidence.

I find it incredibly ironic that this entire argument started because you were parading around inconclusive research as fact. Go back and read your first post.