climate change times are a changin'

[dxmnkd316]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Isn't the taiga forest or even the world's oceans far more of a CO2 consumer than the Amazon ever was?

[FreshFish]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Isn't the taiga forest or even the world's oceans far more of a CO2 consumer than the Amazon ever was?

Apparently, the amount of CO₂ sequestered by a forest each year depends upon the ratio of new growth to old growth. New growth withdraws additional CO₂ from the atmosphere and stores it in branches and leaves. Old growth, while already having locked up a substantial amount of CO₂, no longer sequesters any additional CO₂, and since it is a living being, it actually emits CO₂ at night through respiration.

Forests and the oceans have been storing much of the CO₂ emitted, and in fact the extra CO₂ has helped forests grow faster, helping provide some additional impetus toward equilibrium. However, the faster growth also leads to an earlier maturation, ending the incremental sequestration sooner.

Based on the studies I've read, it is completely feasible for us to scale up plant growth to a level at which we can absorb as much CO₂ as we emit when we also implement sensible non-draconian emissions reductions: reduce emissions somewhat, absorb more, a balanced approach that doesn't require drastic reductions in the standard of living to which most people in the world aspire and have not yet reached.

[Kepler]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Isn't the taiga forest or even the world's oceans far more of a CO2 consumer than the Amazon ever was?

Climate change has been changing the Taiga, too. Not sure whether the new mix of trees will be a better CO2 sponge.

[FreshFish]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Why would I pay for the WSJ or NYT, when Freerepublic and Democratic Underground offer the same opinions from a far more entertaining cast of lunatics?

Good point.

Though with the WSJ, whenever money is at stake (i.e., the business section), they are quite hard-headed and non-ideological. It is only in their editorials that they are a clone of The Economist

[Kepler]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

Good point.

Though with the WSJ, whenever money is at stake (i.e., the business section), they are quite hard-headed and non-ideological. It is only in their editorials that they are a clone of The Economist

Not even close. The Economist despises the Echo Chamber.

It is true that WSJ is still reputable when it comes to factual business reporting. It's only their editorial slant that's juvenile.

[unofan]

Good point.

Though with the WSJ, whenever money is at stake (i.e., the business section), they are quite hard-headed and non-ideological. It is only in their editorials that they are a clone of The Economist

I don't think you've read the Economist lately. Then again, that's more proof that right wing Europe would be left wing America.

[Kepler]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

I don't think you've read the Economist ever. Then again, that's more proof that right wing Europe would be left wing America.

Fixed your post. The Economist is "conservative" in the sense that it is a holdover of 19th century European "classical liberalism." Or to put it another way, The Economist is conservatism with a brain, something not seen in the US since Buckley retired.

[unofan]

Fixed your post. The Economist is "conservative" in the sense that it is a holdover of 19th century European "classical liberalism." Or to put it another way, The Economist is conservatism with a brain, something not seen in the US since Buckley retired.

I'm a subscriber, so you don't need to explain it to me.

(I also subscribe to the Sunday NYT - so we'll let Fishy sort that out in his head).

[Kepler]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

(I also subscribe to the Sunday NYT - so we'll let Fishy sort that out in his head).

I'd be willing to bet most American conservatives have never heard of The Economist. They use big words, and they talk about a mythical world outside our borders.

[huskyfan]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

I'd be willing to bet most American conservatives have never heard of The Economist. They use big words, and they talk about a mythical world outside our borders.

and any serious conservative I know, those who have brains and wish to discuss issues and not name call, do read The Economist.

[Kepler]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

and any serious conservative I know, those who have brains and wish to discuss issues and not name call, do read The Economist.

It must make them pretty angry, since it's spent the last 10 years as a rearguard action scolding the GOP for sacrificing genuine conservatism on the altar of herpa-derpdom.

[FreshFish]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

It must make them pretty angry, since it's spent the last 10 years as a rearguard action scolding the GOP for sacrificing genuine conservatism on the altar of herpa-derpdom.

There have been so many different people at so many different times remind you that conservative <> GOP that your continued insistence on conflating the two is deliberate and willful blindness.

Unless you are merely playing Three Billy Goats Gruff with us again.

[geezer]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

There have been so many different people at so many different times remind you that conservative <> GOP that your continued insistence on conflating the two is deliberate and willful blindness.

Unless you are merely playing Three Billy Goats Gruff with us again.

I thought the valid point Kepler made was that conservatives are sad because they don't have a party that upholds their values. As in "conservationist" conservatives.

[Kepler]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

There have been so many different people at so many different times remind you that conservative <> GOP that your continued insistence on conflating the two is deliberate and willful blindness.

If you paid half as much attention to other posts as you do to cutting and pasting from Red State and NRO, you'd know that I and other people continually bend over backwards not only not to conflate them, but to point out all the ways America's self-described "conservatives" fail every test of genuine conservatism.

I'm surprised to find that you acknowledge the difference, however, given that you dutifully shill literally every talking point from the JPod / Kristol / Malkin mimeograph machine all the while cross-dressing as the type of Burkean conservative who would not give those frauds the time of day.

[Kepler]

Re: climate change times are a changin'

I thought the valid point Kepler made was that conservatives are sad because they don't have a party that upholds their values. As in "conservationist" conservatives.

If Fish were intellectually honest and an actual conservative he'd get that. As he is neither, he's up to the Breitbart game again.

There are small 'c' conservatives all over the country with no party to represent them. Some of them hold their nose and pull the lever for 'R' the way small 'l' liberals do for 'D.' I'll bet most of them are so turned off by the criminals who have appropriated their identity that they've withdrawn from active political life, which is why we don't hear from more of them.