Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed


Forgot your password?
DEAL: For $25 - Add A Second Phone Number To Your Smartphone for life! Use promo code SLASHDOT25. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! ×

Comment Re:We All Wish (Score 1) 872

To counter significant new CO2 inputs that are *not* balanced by carbon sinks, you must increase the planet's rate of sequestration, to trap more of the carbon taken from the atmosphere

Here's just a thought. Everyone keeps talking about how we're continually adding more C02 to the atmosphere, but it's rarely mentioned how deforestation in the world's natural carbon sinks might be affecting the overall CO2 levels our planet is seeing. Last time I checked this stuff is food more pretty much everything that's green on our and it's not like they've got to pony up their hard earned cash to buy it. We're practically giving it away.

Unfortunately, the studies done thusfar show that the rate of natural sinks' carbon sequestration ability is declining, not rising, as our planet warms and our CO2 concentrations rise

Pretty much what I was saying. Did their studies happen to include any hypothesis as to why this was happening? I'm thinking giant swaths of rainforest razed for (tasty tasty) Argentinian beef might have something to do with it. A quick google gets me this (which admittedly probably isn't the most reliable source, but is on par with some of the info coming out of the AGW camp)

We are losing Earth's greatest biological treasures just as we are beginning to appreciate their true value. Rainforests once covered 14% of the earth's land surface; now they cover a mere 6% and experts estimate that the last remaining rainforests could be consumed in less than 40 years.

So an 8% decrease in the world's carbon sinks vs how much of an increase in the overall level in the atmospheric CO2 level? I'm sure it's out there and I'd love to be informed, but each time this argument comes up the only facets of the model are discussed are the increase in the C02 levels produced and I've yet to see anything that takes into account the reduction in the carbon sink that we've created. I'm somewhat still on the fence as to whether the recent changes we've seen in climate change are man made, natural or a mix of both. Rationally I have to assume we've had some effect, but I'm not sure it's entirely the effect that is continually coming out of the mouths of the 'AGW faithful'.

Comment Re:It's not about the government (Score 1) 269

Seriously it's not about a big brother / little brother rivalry. We honestly don't care about that. What we do care about over the past few years is getting lumped in with the US foreign policies. You are correct in your assumption that we do not want to be associated with the US based on our accents, and for good reason. The Maple Leaf is our equivalent of your stars and strips and we're proud of what it represents (and we'd be more than happy if your citizens stopped wearing our badge while on foreign retreats). We have a global reputation of being polite, honest people and its true that most people won't ask someone wearing the maple leaf if they are American because they know enough about who we are to realize that it is an insult. Americans abroad seem to wear the Canadian flag as camouflage, to avoid having to be able to answer for their own mistakes. I may be able to agree though on the big brother / little brother argument, though reversed. The US may be the overweight "FAT" one but we are the elder, more mature brother and are more able to cope with the requirements of today's society.

Slashdot Top Deals

Computers don't actually think. You just think they think. (We think.)