Trees cause global warming!

[thrashaholic]

A German study has found that plants give off methane:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm

This certainly puts a rocket up the environmentalists. What it shows is that all this business is far to complex for us to understand even partially, let alone fully enough to take firm action against it.

Either way, I thought this was pretty interesting...

[Just A Girl]

I thought it was "cfc's" and general Pollution caused By Burning. more than Methane which was the Major cause of global warming.

All animals/mamals Including humans produce methane.
rotting materials produce methane.
human/animal Waste producese methane.....

if methane was A hige a contributor to global warming as cfc's and generall polution...
Wed be LONG gone by now,

[Rodion Romanovich]

This certainly puts a rocket up the environmentalists. What it shows is that all this business is far to complex for us to understand even partially, let alone fully enough to take firm action against it.

On the contrary, it puts a rocket up the anti-environmentalists. You might want to think about what the implications of the study really are.

- CO2 and Methane cause global warming
- Plants transform CO2 to O2
- Humans need O2 to breathe
- Without plants, we can't get O2 for breathing

The conclusion is: if we are to decrease global warming we can't chop down the trees, or we suffocate. We need the trees, which cause global warming, in order to survive. But if we need many trees we REALLY need to cut down on other sources of global warming to be able to survive. The conclusion is that the environmentalists get more support for their claims that industrial and end-user pollution must be cut down.

[Efrem]

except they still can't provide the faintest piece of evidence that the less than 1% of greenhouse gasses humans make would matter if we cut it in half.

[Rodion Romanovich]

What makes you think it's less than 1%?

And in reply to the other reaction, it's the same as saying:
"Look, let's use a political policy which leads to world war, people die anyway so the few percent we kill can't matter much. Some very educated people who call themselves scientists in politics claim it's bad for us to do so, but from my everyday life today I don't notice any signs of world war killing anyone, so where is the proof? By the way, many provocative political policies haven't led to world war, so why be so afraid? If it doesn't kill huge amounts of people with 100% chance and those deaths aren't more enough than the existing natural deaths, it's cool. FIVE YEARS LATER. Look, see what I said? Still no war. Ha, those anti-world war policy researchers are so funny. The ten wars we had weren't world wars, so it's cool. FORTY YEARS LATER. Oops!"

[Byzantine Mercenary]

I thought it was "cfc's" and general Pollution caused By Burning. more than Methane which was the Major cause of global warming.

All animals/mamals Including humans produce methane.
rotting materials produce methane.
human/animal Waste producese methane.....

if methane was A hige a contributor to global warming as cfc's and generall polution...
Wed be LONG gone by now,

Cfcs are a greehouse gas, but their main effect is the destruction of the ozone layour, a different issue, methane is a greenhouse gas so it would be good to cut down methane emmisions but i think that carbon dioxide and water vapour are the main causes of global warming.

[Byzantine Mercenary]

except they still can't provide the faintest piece of evidence that the less than 1% of greenhouse gasses humans make would matter if we cut it in half.

what ever carbon dioxide we emit will warm the world even if it is only slightly so and cause more water to evaporate over the ocean, this water vapour is also a greenhouse gas and so warms the world up even more, it is a downward sprial like lighting the fuse of a bomb.
Of course the biology of earth is more complex then that, so none can predict what exacly will happen so we are left with the question is it worth the risk?

[Marcellus]

The thread title is a bit misleading, trees may produce methane but they still remove carbon dioxide. The ratio of CH4 produced:CO2 removed (net) needs to be known before their net effect on global warming can be known. Since CH4 (methane) is over twenty times as powerful a greenhouse gas as CO2, trees must take in a lot more CO2 (net) than they produce methane to help to counteract the greenhouse effect. But they still produce oxygen for us to breath, so are still vital. And they look nice. And they provide habitats for a huge variety of life. And they were here first.

[Reenk Roink]

I don't care what trees cause, they are a sight for sore eyes, and just great things all around .

[Viking]

A German study has found that plants give off methane:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm

This certainly puts a rocket up the environmentalists. What it shows is that all this business is far to complex for us to understand even partially, let alone fully enough to take firm action against it.

Either way, I thought this was pretty interesting...

Yeah, and thanks to the deforestation and spread of deserts, trees are clearly the cause of the recent extra global warming.

[Reenk Roink]

No offense meant to anyone, but this topic can be compared to someone who drives a Hummer saying "Fuel efficient cars cause pollution!" and then feeling smug...

[Duke Malcolm]

On the contrary, it puts a rocket up the anti-environmentalists. You might want to think about what the implications of the study really are.

- CO2 and Methane cause global warming
- Plants transform CO2 to O2
- Humans need O2 to breathe
- Without plants, we can't get O2 for breathing

The conclusion is: if we are to decrease global warming we can't chop down the trees, or we suffocate. We need the trees, which cause global warming, in order to survive. But if we need many trees we REALLY need to cut down on other sources of global warming to be able to survive. The conclusion is that the environmentalists get more support for their claims that industrial and end-user pollution must be cut down.

On the contrary, trees provide a relatively small proportion of Oxygen. Algae produces 90%, I believe

[Don Corleone]

I'm the first one to admit I don't have the answer on global warming.

I think you have to admit the average temperature of the earth is for the most part rising. That's indisputable, either the metrelogical evidence is there or it's not, and AFAIK, it is.

The question then isn't whether or not the Earth is warming, it's if, and to what extent, man's activity is causing it. Does anybody have some websites representing different viewpoints with which I might be able to educate myself on this particular point?

As an aside, one thing I've never understood about the more stringent schools of enivronmentalism... man is the only animal that is unnatural. But in my mind, we are natural. By virtue of the fact we are in the ecosystem, we must be a part of it, no? Nobody talks about the right of a species of grass to spread to new ground, it's just assumed. Why is it so awful that we do?

[Lanemerkel1]

A German study has found that plants give off methane:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/4604332.stm

This certainly puts a rocket up the environmentalists. What it shows is that all this business is far to complex for us to understand even partially, let alone fully enough to take firm action against it.

Either way, I thought this was pretty interesting...

the Environmentalists just got owned by a tree!

[Reverend Joe]

Does anyone really care about this anymore? I mean, you do all know that we are pretty much ****ed by now, don't you? So, why bother? The ecosystem is collapsing like a rotten floor- let's PARTY! Go out and burn a mixture of old trash, tires and raw oil- just for the hell of it! Throw live uranium pellets into rivers and watch the fish come floating up in the balefuls!

I have an idea- let's have a contest to see who can exterminate the most endangered species in one week! Ready... GO!

[Ironside]

As an aside, one thing I've never understood about the more stringent schools of enivronmentalism... man is the only animal that is unnatural. But in my mind, we are natural. By virtue of the fact we are in the ecosystem, we must be a part of it, no? Nobody talks about the right of a species of grass to spread to new ground, it's just assumed. Why is it so awful that we do?

Well the main difference between humans and the rest of the animals is that they adapt to the environment, while we adapt the environment to us. Luckily there seems to be some natural and human checks and balanses that keep the worst from happening.

[Vladimir]

You all do know that sunlight breaks down methane right?

[Viking]

You all do know that sunlight breaks down methane right?

Yes of course! Where have I buried my brain? CO2 is more dangerous than CH4 after all.

[Devastatin Dave]

Time to cut down the trees, use them as a huge bon fire for the SUV's!!!

[Rodion Romanovich]

On the contrary, trees provide a relatively small proportion of Oxygen. Algae produces 90%, I believe

I don't think so. Do you have any source?