# The end of the line.



## PHRAG (Oct 17, 2006)

Every now and then, someone mentions how hard it is to find a certain slipper in cultivation, or other orchid species for that matter. Just as business runs in cycles, plants come-into and go-out-of favor with breeders and therefore collectors. 

I was thinking about this. With CITES regulations preventing the collection (or at least making it more subversive) of orchid species from the wild, does that mean that some species might possibly disappear from collections alltogether? Have some already? Is that a bad thing and in which cases? Which species no longer appear in any sort of sustainable wild habitat and depend on human intervention to prevent them from extinction? Does line breeding change plants enough that re-introducing them into the wild would be a bad idea in the instance that someday a species faces extinction?

Let's discuss.


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 17, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> EWith CITES regulations preventing the collection (or at least making it more subversive) of orchid species from the wild,


From what I understand, CITES only deals with the international trade of plants. Even then, countries can pick which parts of the framework they'd like to enforce. Every country has its own rules and regulations addressing the actual collecting. (from what I understand. Don't kill me if I'm wrong.)

As for the issue of reintroduction of line-bred plants:
The way I see it, the plants seen growing in nature are the results of eons of fine tuning. A single plant may be only result of a a fruit containing hundreds of thousands of seeds. That plant had what it took to survive in that environment. With line breeding, we are selecting for traits that natural selection may not have selected for. For example, huge bloom size and increased flower number could simply result in a wild plant blooming to death or not sucessfully attracting a pollinator, etc. That's not to say that reintroduction of line bred plants is a totally bad thing. If all else fails, then why not? In addition, an introduction of new genes may be the kickstart a natural population needs. However, that is still just natural succession running its course. This is quite the complicated issue.


----------



## PHRAG (Oct 17, 2006)

This IS quite the complicated issue. It seems, at the root level (bad pun) to be tied into money and the orchid business. If a species isn't profitable to cultivate and sell, it may not stay in the sales loop for long, if it ever makes it at all. 

I don't pretend to know all that much about CITES regulations, except to say that I don't like them : ) 

I started thinking about it more when I was reading about Angraecums. With over 200 species identified, I wondered why only a handful seemed to be available in cultivation. Were the others not as attractive to breeders and growers? Is it irresponsible to wonder what it would be like to try and grow the others, knowing that parent plants would have to be taken from the wild to get them into cultivation?

I wonder about Mexipedium too. With seven known plants in existence, and only two "clones" in cultivation, should something be done to make sure that the other plants genetic material be preserved for future use in case something happens to the colony?

I may be talking out of my butt here, and I certainly have more questions than I have answers, but I thought this could be an interesting topic.


----------



## Heather (Oct 17, 2006)

It is a fascinating topic. 

Without responding, at least right now, to the CITES issues....

I have noticed just in the last two years that different things are more readily offered. Often, one has to ask the smaller vendors for unusual crosses, at least with regards to Mulits, in order to find out what's available. Norman's is a good example. True philippinense is a good example ...much harder to find lately in my experience! Two years ago Norman's had a LOT more multis available and now it is most often very common complex hybrid Phrags that are listed. At least in bloom. 

I've also found, recently being ensconsed in finding a particular primary hybrid (sshhhhhh, I am NOT obsesssed!!!!!!!!), that if you ask around you will find it, but no one is listing it publicly. 

Are they that rare? I don't think so. Why are people holding back?


----------



## slippertalker (Oct 17, 2006)

I will be the devils advocate on this one......

How many orchids have we already killed over the last century by inordinate collecting or habitat destruction? Collectors in the 1800's would strip all visible plants from the habitat, pack them up and put them on a ship to Europe. After a journey of a few weeks or a month they would arrive, and my guess is that most never survived, and nothing was known about growing them. Put them in a hothouse and steam them to death.....

No matter how many we kill, there will be a few that are tough enough to survive despite our efforts. Of course, the diversity will be long gone and some species will be lost before they are ever found. Many plants are never produced artificially, and many are just not commercially viable. Does that make them undesireable?

How many plants are killed by most orchid growers? I would assume that the numbers are mind numbing.....

Blame it all on CITES or government intrusion, but that is just a portion of the problem. Unlimited defoliation of the native forests will create the final solution. Of course the asteroid could hit us in 2025 and make this all just a fun discussion!


----------



## Heather (Oct 17, 2006)

Yeah, how many are killed, or eradicated by clear-cutting?


----------



## PHRAG (Oct 17, 2006)

slippertalker said:


> Of course the asteroid could hit us in 2025 and make this all just a fun discussion!


 
I can honestly say I never saw this discussion going that route. Though, it doesn't surprise me. : )

Anyone want to discuss what the orchids will look like a million years from now when the effects of the asteroid that hit us wear off?


----------



## Heather (Oct 17, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> I can honestly say I never saw this discussion going that route. Though, it doesn't surprise me. : )
> 
> Anyone want to discuss what the orchids will look like a million years from now when the effects of the asteroid that hit us wear off?



Sure, but you have to see the Deep Jungle Episode with the Brazil Nut tree first. oke:


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 17, 2006)

slippertalker said:


> Unlimited defoliation of the native forests


Yeah. I agree that this is what it all comes down to.


----------



## PHRAG (Oct 17, 2006)

So who is collecting plants from these areas and holding them for the sake of keeping species alive? Anyone? 

And I am not talking about keeping them for breeding and sales purposes. 

Is there an orchid bank?


----------



## Heather (Oct 17, 2006)

I don't think anyone. For the most part, if places like this are clearcut, it is against CITES to harvest them for protection even. Right?


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 17, 2006)

Heather said:


> I don't think anyone. For the most part, if places like this are clearcut, it is against CITES to harvest them for protection even. Right?


Orchids are pretty much the pandas of the plant world. Therefore, many countries have laws preventing orchid removal without special permits. If the area is being clearcut and you don't have a permit? Risk jail time or don't collect.


----------



## PHRAG (Oct 17, 2006)

So maybe smugglers aren't all bad. : )

Maybe I should look at a career change.


----------



## Mahon (Oct 17, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> So who is collecting plants from these areas and holding them for the sake of keeping species alive? Anyone?
> 
> And I am not talking about keeping them for breeding and sales purposes.
> 
> Is there an orchid bank?



I personally am doing so with the FL natives... and re-introducing them back into habitats. Right now, I am going to be starting some _Triphora ricketii_ seeds, and hopefully, I can keep harvesting seed year after year... this species is by no means a pretty orchid, nor are the flowers remotely interesting... but the species is a VERY rare endemic orchid to certain areas in counties in Northern Florida... 

-Pat


----------



## Marco (Oct 17, 2006)

slippertalker said:


> Blame it all on CITES or government intrusion, but that is just a portion of the problem. Unlimited defoliation of the native forests will create the final solution. Of course the asteroid could hit us in 2025 and make this all just a fun discussion!



I blame it on human greed. Every facet of life is derogated from utopia because of it. This world is dying. But then again it really sucks cause its necessary otherwise we wouldn't know what happiness is if things didn't suck so bad. 

The double edged sword, life's insatiabilities. What a beautiful thing ain't it.

(**edit** thought about this in the can....figured id add it)

So it depends on the perspective. On one edge, smuggling/deforestation is the only means some people have in order to make money to feed their family, you have families dont you. On the other, people that love/care, for whatever their reason asthetic or not..whatever, the plants who wish to lengthen the natural existence for their particular reason. you love certain things dont you?. Now back to the other edge, unlimited legal collecting would allow sooner in-vitro propogation of species which would keep the species alive. And now back to the other edge, ok so if species can be kept alive in an unatural atmosphere why do we need the trees? etc...etc...etc...the debate can seesaw to either edge indefinately.....because in our own little world.....we're all right in a sense....


----------



## silence882 (Oct 17, 2006)

Too.... many.... issues....

As I understand CITES, Zach's right. The treaty provides guidelines, but the signatories are responsible for its interpretation and enforcement. In order to import plants, a valid export permit from the originating country is needed. How closely this is followed and how easy it is to circumvent the rules depends on the country.

A lot of countries don't allow people to collect orchids from future logging / agricultural / etc. sites. They argue that the collectors might stray from the doomed area and use it as a cover for collecting outside the lines. This argument, to me, is insanely naive and reckless. (e.g., The US state governments make aquiring permits for collecting from future logging sites extremely difficult).

Overall, collecting is a shadow of the threat that deforestation poses.

--Stephen


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Oct 17, 2006)

With all the deforestation and catch 22 laws, I will never speak badly of smugglers. There are already enough species extinct in the wild because their habitat no longer exists, but thankfully anyone can get one cheap because they were brought to people who cared about them that propagated them ensuring them a future, artificial or not. I'm sure some plants have been overcollected, and supposedly that is what drove them to extinction in the wild, but that will happen despite any law due to the almighty dollar. To prevent this people would have to not like them...and I don't ever see this happening.

I would much rather see a living plant in person that hasn't been in it's home country for generations, than see it as a picture in a book of what once was.

There are of course exceptions to this. Some plants don't take to cultivation, and their existance in the wild is being supervised by caring people. To remove these plants because of greed alone would be a great shame. 

I can see how this may sound contradictive, but personally it is very clear to me. I would feel no guilt growing a jungle division paph, or seedlings from a seedpod that was smuggled into the US, but would be appalled if someone dug up a Corallorhiza from a nature preserve to try to grow it in their garden.

Jon
________
UNIVERSAL HEALTH WAREHOUSE


----------



## PHRAG (Oct 17, 2006)

So what specifically are the regions where cutting is destroying habitat as we speak?


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 17, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> So what specifically are the regions where cutting is destroying habitat as we speak?


Everywhere.

Any developing country.
Any developed country. Think condos in Florida.

In addition, I'd like to echo the sentiment that it's far too easy for us to pass judgement upon those that must destroy habitat for survival. Our first world consumerism is what drives a lot of third world destruction.


----------



## slippertalker (Oct 17, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> So what specifically are the regions where cutting is destroying habitat as we speak?



There are large deforestations going on in practically all third world tropical countries. Central and South America (Amazon), Africa, Borneo, Malaysia, etc. the list is too long. There are some oasis' out there where the jungle is protected like Costa Rica, and some protected national parks where poaching still occurs. 
Sometimes the clearcutting opens up habitat for orchids that desire open conditions, but at the cost of an entire ecosystem.


----------



## PHRAG (Oct 17, 2006)

So I see how bad it is, but what can be done to reverse it? I don't think it's exactly as simple as sending a check to a smuggler and wishing them a happy hunt.  

What charities exist (WWF, Greenpeace) that are actively attempting to save not just orchids, but the environment they inhabit?

What plants need to be cultivated in collections, or face extinction? Let's make a list.

Have species of orchids been identified as extinct already? What were they?


----------



## gonewild (Oct 17, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> So what specifically are the regions where cutting is destroying habitat as we speak?



All of Tropical America, except those that were done before you began this conversation. I can speak about Peru.

In reality it is not the lumber companies nor the persons supplying them with lumber that threaten orchid habitat. If you can accept that trees can be harvested without habitat destruction, then you see that "lumbering" in the rainforest is not clear cutting. But that is another subject.

The cutting of trees in Peru for lumber is not what is destroying the rainforest. Family subsistence farming is the root of the destruction. In Peru any Peruvian can claim (for free) 30 hectares of land. All they need do is clear a portion of it and live on it. In the past generally most families would clear about 5-10 hectares to grow enough crop to live off of, the rest remained in forest. In the last few years the trend has changed and the new educated (schooled) generation are taking it a step further. Farm more, make more money. But the only part they ever achieve is to clear cut (slash and burn) their entire 30 hectares. And they work very hard doing it. They soon realize they can't care for that much farm land and leave to seek their "fortune" working in a city. They never make their fortune by the way.

Along the route of the new Trans Amazonian Highway which crosses the department of Madre de Dios and Cusco there is as we speak massive clear cutting of land that has more orchids than you can imagine. This land is worthless for farming except to grub out a meager existence. It is being cut and burned in an order to simply claim the land in anticipation of the coming road. A small shack is built and no one ever moves in. But the land now belongs to someone. It has put "paper" wealth into someones portfolio.

It is a shame the orchid species cannot be harvested and sold. But in the name of conservation they can not. Imagine standing on a dirt road and looking up a grassy mountainside that rises 3000 feet and realizing that all the grass is actually millions of orchid plants. It is still there today but will be gone soon. I can guarantee you that hillside has more than one unknown orchid specie on it.

Orchids could be harvested sustain ably buy Peruvian families, A family only needs (wants) $5 per day beyond their 2 hectare farm to live. But then those folks in charge of INRENA and the rest of the government would not hold title to the land if we made that happen. 

CITES made this happen in Peru.


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 17, 2006)

Lance,
That was fantastic. I'm currently writing a little paper on a similar subject (the human rights implications of preservation-only policies) for an ethics class. Do you mind if I quote you once or twice?


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Oct 17, 2006)

Unfortunately the problem is MUCH bigger than that John. The orchids are but one piece of an incredible and intricate puzzle. Deep Jungle made a great example of this, but it was about Brazil nuts.

Brazil nuts exist because they produce seeds. These seeds are produced because the flowers are pollinated by a certain species of bee. These bees exist because they reproduce. To find a mate, they "perfume" themselves with the scent of an orchid that grows in another area(Gongora species I think). The orchid grows large enough to bloom because conditions exist where environmental conditions exist to allow it and the symbiotic fungus required for it's seeds to sprout. If the orchids died out, the bees would soon follow, and ultimately so would the brazil nuts.

Many orchids do not just rely on growing conditions like humidity, rain, and shade in the wild, but an enormous amount of other factors such as pollinators and symbiotic funguses. 

Don't get me wrong, there are charities that exist to buy up land, but the amount bought to be habitat compared to the amount deforested is quite astounding.

Jon
________
MERCEDES-BENZ 380 SPECIFICATIONS


----------



## Mahon (Oct 17, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> Have species of orchids been identified as extinct already? What were they?



I will say that alot of the Pleurothallids are extinct... often times, the herbarium specimen made as an entry for either another no-named new species or newly described species, is the only existing plant of that taxon (described or not). I am almost sure there are hundreds (if not more) extinct orchid species that we don't know about... there are a few that we knew about, but they went extinct. A good example was a new species of Spiranthes discovered off an exit ramp here in Florida. The plant died, and no other plants can be found. It is completely gone. 

Also, just for information sake, Corallorhiza and Hexalectris are able to grow in cultivation. I have seed propagated both genera, and hope to get my hands on some of the rarer species seeds (like Hex. warnockii)... I think also someone from University of Florida seed propagated Hexalectris (finally). 

This is an interesting thread! 

-Pat


----------



## gonewild (Oct 17, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> So I see how bad it is, but what can be done to reverse it? I don't think it's exactly as simple as sending a check to a smuggler and wishing them a happy hunt.



The smuggler is only the middle man. If you want to reverse it you need to put the income and benefit into the hands of the rural people. Make the harvest, sale and export of orchids legal under controlled conditions. The conditions must be controlled and available to anyone not just a few nurseries. Of course this won't achieve the goal, no system will work because of human nature.




> What charities exist (WWF, Greenpeace) that are actively attempting to save not just orchids, but the environment they inhabit?



Forget it! All big conservation organizations are corrupt or at least horribly wasteful. At least once they reach into the countries of need they are. Sometime over a campfire I would be happy to tell you how they function. If you really Want to help you must personally get your money to the source. It can be done. I do know of one man in Peru who has made his 30 hectares an orchid sanctuary. He refuses to sell an orchid. He even has control of an uncollected site of P.kocvachii. At his own expense he pays a guard to protect the trail. Send him your unsolicited donation. I'm sure every country has someone that would make good use of a donation, but not the big NGOs



> What plants need to be cultivated in collections, or face extinction? Let's make a list.



Holy cow! don't make the list on paper or even print it out.  



> Have species of orchids been identified as extinct already? What were they



Just because no scientist can find one during their 2 week research expedition does not mean they are extinct. But CITES will argue that point.


----------



## gonewild (Oct 17, 2006)

kentuckiense said:


> Lance,
> That was fantastic. I'm currently writing a little paper on a similar subject (the human rights implications of preservation-only policies) for an ethics class. Do you mind if I quote you once or twice?



Quote me all you like and ask any specific questions you like. We lived and worked for years in the midst of this bad problem. We have many friends that are on both sides of the scale.


----------



## PHRAG (Oct 18, 2006)

So now that I feel like complete garbage for eating a fat steak tonight in my air conditioned apartment, and looking in on the orchids that were purchased with enough money to support an entire third world family for years, I begin to wonder why I keep asking questions.

I feel like sh*t.


----------



## gonewild (Oct 18, 2006)

> PHRAG said:
> 
> 
> > I was thinking about this. With CITES regulations preventing the collection (or at least making it more subversive) of orchid species from the wild, does that mean that some species might possibly disappear from collections alltogether?
> ...


----------



## gonewild (Oct 18, 2006)

Heather said:


> Yeah, how many are killed, or eradicated by clear-cutting?



One for each star in the Milky Way. :sob: 
But "clear-cutting" implies logging. That is a small part of the whole problem of human population expansion.

Heather, you've said you want to visit Peru. You should go see for yourself how many orchids are being destroyed. You can see it from the car window.


----------



## gonewild (Oct 18, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> I can honestly say I never saw this discussion going that route. Though, it doesn't surprise me. : )
> 
> Anyone want to discuss what the orchids will look like a million years from now when the effects of the asteroid that hit us wear off?



They are going to have hair on their heads, two legs, two arms and be writing on a forum about whether to breed that weird little human specie.


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Oct 18, 2006)

Lance, I'm so glad you don't just lurk anymore!



gonewild said:


> Maybe skips and jumps are the role of the hominids in evolution



I couldn't agree more. It's been said before how wise orchids are, what better pollinator could you target?

Jon
________
List of engines


----------



## PHRAG (Oct 18, 2006)

Ok, so now I feel a tiny bit less like sh*t. But not much.

So how does one go about supporting the purchase of preserves in Peru, and beyond? If that is the best course of action that I can in some way be involved in, and I have to believe that it is, how do I start?

I am also going to give in to one point made above, that I never thought I would be saying. If the line breeding and hybridization of plants for awards draws more people into the orchid community, and that in turn gets more people involved in trying to fix the problems that we are discussing here, then I guess line breeding and orchid showing is a good thing. That could be a mighty big if, but there you go, I have eaten my hat.


----------



## PHRAG (Oct 18, 2006)

Jon in SW Ohio said:


> Lance, I'm so glad you don't just lurk anymore!


 
You got that right.


----------



## gonewild (Oct 18, 2006)

silence882 said:


> Too.... many.... issues....
> 
> As I understand CITES, Zach's right. The treaty provides guidelines, but the signatories are responsible for its interpretation and enforcement. In order to import plants, a valid export permit from the originating country is needed. How closely this is followed and how easy it is to circumvent the rules depends on the country.
> 
> ...



You are right on Stephen. 

I'd like to add that even if the originating country allowed the collection of wild plants and and issued export permits there is a problem. The USDA does not allow import of wild collected plants. This means the collected plants would need to be grown and propagated in the foreign country. This takes the process beyond rural people and into the arms of corruption.


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Oct 18, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> I am also going to give in to one point made above, that I never thought I would be saying. If the line breeding and hybridization of plants for awards draws more people into the orchid community, and that in turn gets more people involved in trying to fix the problems that we are discussing here, then I guess line breeding and orchid showing is a good thing. That could be a mighty big if, but there you go, I have eaten my hat.



Exactly John, exposure is everything. Your average person barely knows what an orchid is, let alone cares about their future existance. If you can make people aware of something and they like it, they are much more likely to care and do their part to help. This is why I will always admire Steve Irwin. I can't find the quote I'm looking for, but basically he always said if you can make people passionate about something, that is the best way to encourage conservation.

Jon
________
TOYOTA PUBLICA SPORTS HISTORY


----------



## PHRAG (Oct 18, 2006)

Well, I admitted it could be a good thing, but that doesn't mean I want to do it. : )

I still want a greenhouse full of first generation orchids.


----------



## gonewild (Oct 18, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> So now that I feel like complete garbage for eating a fat steak tonight in my air conditioned apartment, and looking in on the orchids that were purchased with enough money to support an entire third world family for years, I begin to wonder why I keep asking questions.
> 
> I feel like sh*t.



Whoa! Time for an attitude adjustment!
Don't feel in any way shape or form ashamed for your good fortune. You ask questions because you can. Obviously orchids are taking you on a journey in life. Maybe a vision quest?

The day you and your peers quit asking questions is the day orchids are for sure to become extinct.


----------



## gonewild (Oct 18, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> Ok, so now I feel a tiny bit less like sh*t. But not much



So stop feeling sorry for yourself and get busy.oke: 



> So how does one go about supporting the purchase of preserves in Peru, and beyond? If that is the best course of action that I can in some way be involved in, and I have to believe that it is, how do I start?



As host (or co host?) of this forum you have an audience. So you are already in motion to take a step. 

You have now caused me to think and you might regret it. :evil: 

I mentioned the person in Peru who has a private orchid reserve. He has land near Moyabomba and has created the reserve with his own resources. I believe he is trying to personally do exactly what you were getting at, creating a place where orchid species can grow wild and be protected. I don't know if he has ideas of reintroduction in the future but his concept sure does create a specie bank. I do not know if he needs money (of course he does). I don't think he is wealthy, I think he is just a man with a dream. 

Why not make a forum project and offer to sponsor his efforts? A little money would go a long way. Just remember this is your idea.



> I am also going to give in to one point made above, that I never thought I would be saying. If the line breeding and hybridization of plants for awards draws more people into the orchid community, and that in turn gets more people involved in trying to fix the problems that we are discussing here, then I guess line breeding and orchid showing is a good thing. That could be a mighty big if, but there you go, I have eaten my hat.



It is not an if! Take a poll, how many people now in love with orchids got started with a hybrid from the supermarket? 
_(Don't really take a poll, I hate polls)_


----------



## gonewild (Oct 18, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> Well, I admitted it could be a good thing, but that doesn't mean I want to do it. : )
> 
> I still want a greenhouse full of first generation orchids.



First generation specie or hybrid orchids?

But you like bonsai. In the "tree world" bonsai are more like hybrid orchids than species. They are created by humans. You like them for their beauty and what the represent not for the specie of plant they are. Si or No?


----------



## PHRAG (Oct 18, 2006)

gonewild said:


> First generation specie or hybrid orchids?
> 
> But you like bonsai. In the "tree world" bonsai are more like hybrid orchids than species. They are created by humans. You like them for their beauty and what the represent not for the specie of plant they are. Si or No?


 
Species.

I wasn't trying to start the same argument I seem to start every time I start a thread on this board. I realize other people may not agree with me, but I prefer species orchids over hybrids, and "unfooledaroundwith" species at that. The less that the species have been changed through breeding for darker color, larger flowers, and bigger spikes then the better I think they are. It's just a preference, not a judgement of anyone for liking something different.

Part of me actually worries that when I do get the chance to see an orchid species that I love growing in the wild, that will be it. I will stay there and not come home. 

So with that in mind, my "dream greenhouse" is filled with plants that are the first generation offspring of wild plants. I don't want wild collected plants if they are growing happily where they are without danger of being destroyed. I just want one of their chids : ) And if that means all of my besseae are not awardable, and have color breaks on the petals, that's fine with me. They aren't defects to me, it's nature, and she is beautiful without our help. Again, my opinion.

I don't feel comfortable discussing Bonsai on a deep level. I am way too new at it to discuss it with any idea of what I am saying. But I will say this. The first thing all the books tell you is don't replicate nature's "mistakes" in your trees. And to me, those "mistakes" are what make trees so great. So I fully intend to ignore that advice for better, or more probably in most people's eyes, worse. : )


----------



## Heather (Oct 18, 2006)

gonewild said:


> The day you and your peers quit asking questions is the day orchids are for sure to become extinct.



Right on! 

(and now back to reading...)


----------



## slippertalker (Oct 18, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> I can honestly say I never saw this discussion going that route. Though, it doesn't surprise me. : )
> 
> Anyone want to discuss what the orchids will look like a million years from now when the effects of the asteroid that hit us wear off?



Actually that's an interesting point. There is evidence that orchids began at some rudimentary level about 100 million years ago. Of course the killer asteroid that happened 65 million years ago wiped out the dinosaurs and the vast majority of life on this plant. The fact that some fragment of the orchid population survived and then flourished into many forms probably gives us some sense of the reslience of these plants. 

Mass extinctions have been a part of Earth's story from the beginning. Even more recent are the extinctions of the mammoths, saber tooth tigers, and many other species in the paleolithic period. Even more recent than that are cases of animals like the passenger pigeon that filled the skies of the eastern U.S. with several million birds. They were slaughtered by hunters just for the sport, and the last one is stuffed in the Smithsonian.

In the grand scheme of time we are barely a blink, and something new will evolve long after we are gone. 

That being said, CITES is ridiculous, habitat destruction will not only obliterate species (not just orchids, but many flora and fauna), but it will continue to contribute to the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. Global warming will eventually kill a lot more plants than any collectors. It is already killing forests in the north due to warmer temperatures and insect predatation.

What will an orchid look like in 1 million years? Probably much like they do today with adaptations to their environments and pollinators.


----------



## Marco (Oct 18, 2006)

the keeling curve


----------



## gonewild (Oct 18, 2006)

PHRAG said:


> Species.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Heather (Oct 18, 2006)

I'd like to discuss some of these organizations and what people know/think about them. I guess with all the discussion in this thread I wonder how successful any of them are...

Orchid Conservation Alliance
http://orchidconservationalliance.org/

Orchid Conservation International
http://www.orchidconservation.org/

And Orchid Conservation Coalition (and their 1% for orchid conservation program - our society is a member, is yours?) 
http://www.orchidconservationcoalition.org/


----------



## Rick (Oct 19, 2006)

Way to go Heather.

I know the AOS also has a conservation program. It may be under the umbrella of one of the sites you listed.


----------



## Mahon (Oct 19, 2006)

slippertalker said:


> That being said, CITES is ridiculous, habitat destruction will not only obliterate species (not just orchids, but many flora and fauna), but it will continue to contribute to the build up of CO2 in the atmosphere. Global warming will eventually kill a lot more plants than any collectors. It is already killing forests in the north due to warmer temperatures and insect predatation.



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


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 19, 2006)

Mahon said:


> Actually, CO2 is not the contributing factor to "Global Warming"... instead, it is the sun getting hotter than it was before.



Wow. Back that one up, please.

Earth has natural climactic cycles... There's no debate about that. However, recent (400,000 years as illustrated by the Vostok ice core) climate cycles have proceeded at relatively uniform rates. And that's what it all comes down to. Rate of change. Combine the Vostock CO2 vs. Temp graph with the Keeling curve(atmospheric CO2 measurements since the 1950s), and you'll see that modern CO2 levels are the highest they've been in measurable history. Something in the neighborhood of 380ppm now as opposed to a max of 290ppm then. Before the industrial revolution of the 1850s, the CO2 concentration was 280ppm. That's a difference of 100pm. It took us 150 years to do that. In the Vostok core, it took 140,000 years to make a 100ppm jump (180ppm to 280ppm).

Now it's time to add something to the mix. In the Vostok core, CO2 concentration is in direct correlation with with temperature. That is, CO2 increase is quickly followed by a temperature increase. Once again, when you combine the Vostok core with the Keeling curve and look at global average temps, you see they are exactly in line with CO2 levels. What does that mean for us? Well, the rate of temperature increase, as illustrated earlier, is much faster than anything in recent history. Then, species had time to adapt/move/do what it takes to survive. These days, the changes occur too quickly for most species to adapt. Take a look at our biodiversity hotspots: coral reefs are being bleached and the tropical cloud forests are dessicating(they are watered by mist that is disappearing).

Greenland is melting. A huge river of freshwater flows into the North Atlantic. As more of the ice cap melts, greater is the chance of the thermohaline cycle collapsing due to the indundation of freshwater. The thermohaline cycle is what keeps northern Europe and northeastern North America relatively warm. Thermohaline cycle collapse is often labeled as the cause of the last(and some previous? I don't know) ice age.

Even if anthropocentric climate change is proven to be a bunch of BS(which I highly doubt), the measures required to halt or slow it are no-regret solutions. We would have cleaner air, cleaner water, and less of a dependence on fossil fuels. They are things we should be doing anyway to preserve our home!

You have absolutely, positively, NO IDEA what you are talking about. It's mindblowing.


----------



## Mahon (Oct 19, 2006)

kentuckiense said:


> You have absolutely, positively, NO IDEA what you are talking about. It's mindblowing.



That is quite a solid statement you have made there. I am glad I have AMAZED and entertained you. If you feel the need, you can AMAZE yourself by reading more about it...

First of all, I am not up for a debate on this, I was relaying some of the newer research upon the sun. I didn't know I was dealing with an expert. Please tell us all about global warming; perhaps I should shut up and listen... and please explain why you disincluded the fact that the sun is getting hotter? And please explain where I don't know what I am talking about... because I don't know where it is... help!

-PM


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Oct 19, 2006)

Mahon, you obviously didn't read the whole work of Dr. Solanki, and Dr. Bill Burrows and Dr. Viner's and Dr. Jones' perspectives and just skimmed the first couple paragraphs...

Jon
________
1957 Ford


----------



## Mahon (Oct 19, 2006)

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


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 19, 2006)

Mahon said:


> That is quite a solid statement you have made there. I am glad I have AMAZED and entertained you. If you feel the need, you can AMAZE yourself by reading more about it...


I have. Perhaps you should read a bit more about it yourself:

"Dr Gareth Jones, a climate researcher at the Met Office, said that Dr Solanki's findings were inconclusive because the study had not incorporated other potential climate change factors."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/07/18/wsun18.xml

You're citing an "inconclusive" study from 2003. Why have we not heard more about it lately? You'd think there would be research going on if it was such a pressing issue.




Mahon said:


> First of all, I am not up for a debate on this, I was relaying some of the newer research upon the sun.


2003 is newer?



Mahon said:


> I didn't know I was dealing with an expert. Please tell us all about global warming; perhaps I should shut up and listen... and please explain why you disincluded the fact that the sun is getting hotter?


I never said that the sun wasn't getting hotter. However, it is almost universally accepted that CO2 concentration is the leading agent. In your post, you completely discounted CO2 as a cause of global climate change. Did you completely ignore what I wrote about the Vostok ice core? CO2 increase followed by temperature increase.



Mahon said:


> And please explain where I don't know what I am talking about... because I don't know where it is... help!


Sure thing! This is where:



Mahon said:


> Actually, CO2 is not the contributing factor to "Global Warming"



Basically, you ignored my entire argument and and just threw around the term "newer research."


----------



## Mahon (Oct 19, 2006)

Awesome... you have thoroughly convinced me that I must be the dumbest person around. Sorry to have interefered with your superior intellect... as a suggestion, maybe you should help out with the global warming research? 

-Pat


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 19, 2006)

Mahon said:


> Awesome... you have thoroughly convinced me that I must be the dumbest person around. Sorry to have interefered with your superior intellect... as a suggestion, maybe you should help out with the global warming research?
> 
> -Pat



So I take that as Mahon-speak for "I fold."

Don't get pissed off when someone calls you out for making flippant and wildly inaccurate statements.



Anyone up for a trip to Peru?


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Oct 19, 2006)

I love these posts that start as one topic and go in a different direction every night. I can't wait to see what the conversation is when we hit page 20!

Jon
________
Tube 8


----------



## gonewild (Oct 19, 2006)

> Heather said:
> 
> 
> > I'd like to discuss some of these organizations and what people know/think about them. I guess with all the discussion in this thread I wonder how successful any of them are...
> ...


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 19, 2006)

I was sent this link today:

http://www.phytosophy.org/

Any opinions?


----------



## Heather (Oct 19, 2006)

kentuckiense said:


> I was sent this link today:
> 
> http://www.phytosophy.org/
> 
> Any opinions?



I think Steve T (who never did join up here, hmph! he promised!) 
started Phytosophy with good intentions but it never really seemed to get off the ground. I used to pop over there occasionally but there were never any new posts. Unfortunately, as with Paphiopedia, I think he was a little late (Stephen Manza was a bit quicker on the uptake in getting the slippers covered). JMHO. 

OCI is indeed based out of Kew. 
I haven't really had much of a chance to delve into the other organizations myself...maybe later today...

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.


----------



## Marco (Oct 19, 2006)

another brief interjection.

can we have a big group hug?


----------



## Heather (Oct 19, 2006)

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


----------



## Marco (Oct 19, 2006)

Heather said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2006)

Heather said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2006)

Mahon said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2006)

Mahon said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2006)

Mahon said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2006)

Mahon said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2006)

> 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 (Oct 19, 2006)

Kyle said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2006)

Mahon said:


> 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



Mahon said:


> 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.



Mahon said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2006)

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 (Oct 19, 2006)

slippertalker said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2006)

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 (Oct 19, 2006)

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 (Oct 19, 2006)

PHRAG said:


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




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 (Oct 19, 2006)

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 (Oct 19, 2006)

Mahon said:


> 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.



Mahon said:


> 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.



Mahon said:


> 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.




Mahon said:


> 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.



Mahon said:


> 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.



Mahon said:


> 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.



Mahon said:


> 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.



Mahon said:


> 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 (Oct 19, 2006)

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 (Oct 19, 2006)

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 (Oct 19, 2006)

Mahon said:


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


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.



Mahon said:


> 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.



Mahon said:


> 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.



Mahon said:


> 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.



Mahon said:


> 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.


----------



## Mahon (Oct 19, 2006)

I see that you added to your last post when I posted mine... 

I have not claimed that any research is rock-solid... I have disagreed with most research that has been either conflicting with itself, or it does not make all that much sense. It seems reasonable that if the sun gets hotter, that the earth could get hotter... This thread has also led me to believe other things about how the earth is getting hotter. We know that radioacticity makes things hot (not going into specifics, as it is unimportant)... the Uranium inside the earth's core could be heating up the atmosphere through volcanoes, and possibly releasing radioactivity into the air... also, another factor could be the background radioactivity in the air... radioactive particles (I would assume Alpha radiation from Uranium-235, unless it was from man-made Plutonium) are still falling down to the earth's surface from old test atomic bombs...

-Pat


----------



## Mahon (Oct 19, 2006)

...you made another addition to your last post...

OK, maybe you didn't get this... at first, it may have been an argument... but now it is a discussion and possibly a debate... I have already lost interest in it all now. 

-Pat


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 19, 2006)

Mahon said:


> also, another factor could be the background radioactivity in the air... radioactive particles (I would assume Alpha radiation from Uranium-235, unless it was from man-made Plutonium) are still falling down to the earth's surface from old test atomic bombs...



You honestly have no idea when to quit.

Edit: Oops, looks like you do.


----------



## Heather (Oct 19, 2006)

I'd like to take this thread in a slightly different direction and talk about fashion - why certain species and hybrids seem to go through peaks and valleys of popularity and ease of location. For a while, it was really hard to find a normal colored venustum. Now it seems easier to find phil. var. roebellinii than a true philiipinense. What about plants like adductum and randsii (which I know is somewhat related to it's resistance to breeding) that are just so hard to locate robust mature plants of. Are people just hoarding them? What about some of the older awarded plants that aren't being used to produce new hybrids anymore...will we just stop seeing plants with roth. 'Rex' in the background someday? An example of this is Lady Isabel made w/ roth 'Bion' x stonei 'Bion'. There were a bunch of people selling the cross a while back, but now it seems to not be as widely available. 

Let's discuss!


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 19, 2006)

Isn't randsii a pain to grow?


----------



## PHRAG (Oct 19, 2006)

Heather, that was the original concept I wanted to discuss with the very first post. I think you phrased it much better than I did.

I think it's also interesting to note, that breeders keep "improving" their breeding lines, and as newer plants come into fashion, older crosses which are great in their own right disappear, which I find kind of sad in a way. In some plants, you can see a major gap in between how the wild species is shaped and colored, and the way the newest line breds are shaped and colored. 

The reason this is frustrating to me, is because after second and third generation, it becomes nearly impossible to find first generation plants unless someone divides, or releases some that they were hoarding as it were.


----------



## littlefrog (Oct 19, 2006)

kentuckiense said:


> Isn't randsii a pain to grow?


And in my opinion, not terribly attractive to boot...

I don't know that older crosses necessarily become hard to find. For example, I still see people selling flasks of Hanne Popow, when there are plenty of 2nd, third, and maybe fourth generation hybrids available. Paph. St. Swithin, still see flasks. That is just two. I think primary hybrids don't really go out of style (if they are good).

Complex breeding is something else. I collect the weird and old, whenever I can. That kind of thing tends to disappear within a plant generation or two.


----------



## dustywoman (Oct 19, 2006)

Thanks Heather

Back on track. 
For the rest of you, I have enjoyed learning from *all of you!*

IMHO, this forum has a wonderful blend of great knowledge and wisdom. No matter how young nor how old. It is amazing what the members bring to this forum. 

Cannot we build upon each other's inate collective wisdom?

This cause should allow us to transcend our egos and to hopefully let us all
(and I empahsize ALL) figure something out.


----------



## PHRAG (Oct 19, 2006)

Rob, I think you see more "dissapearing" crosses in species. Newer improved versions of hybrids don't cause the hybrid itself to become unpopular. Or maybe they do, just at a slower rate than species? Hrmm. 

And I think in any public situation, there are always going to be conflicting personalities. And there are going to be days when everyone just seems to itch for someone to spar with. I think this is normal, and can be constructive. I think some of the frustration that presented earlier in this thread has been building for some time, and now its had a release. 

The thing is, as long as we are all nice enough not to call each other names, this kind of disagreement is welcome here. Free speech and all that. I would hate to see this forum go any other way. At the end of the day, we are all still here and discussing these plants we are all so passionate about. That's the best we can hope for.


----------



## gonewild (Oct 19, 2006)

Heather said:


> I'd like to take this thread in a slightly different direction and talk about fashion - why certain species and hybrids seem to go through peaks and valleys of popularity and ease of location.
> Let's discuss!



Heather,
Can you move your new subject to a new thread? I would like to discuss the fashion scene but I don't really want to add on to global warming. A discussion about changing orchid styles will be a good archive subject and it would be nice to have a clean slate to read through. Sorry if asking this is out of line for a newcomer.


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Oct 19, 2006)

I agree, debating ideas and theories despite how ugly it might get has it's positives. I now know more about global warming than I would have ever cared to before this thread. It's like sharpening our mental knives.

Heather I wish I had the answer to your question! So many plants have gone the wayside. It's not a new phenomenon, people used to ignore species paphs in general for the complex hybrids. New blood has brought new ideas of what is ideal, it just takes time for things to happen. Gemstone's Randchild is still one of my all time favorite crosses, and it used to be quite popular, now the only ones I know of are in private collections. I don't think randsii has ever been a common plant in the wild or in collections, and now that it's much harder to import, it will take some doing to remake the old primaries. Plus, remaking these old primaries is a gamble, and you never know what will be all the rage in another decade.

Jon
________
Vaporizer Manufacturer


----------



## dustywoman (Oct 19, 2006)

Please pay me no heed, but I'm about to say something really stupid. I have absolutely no scientific back up for it. It is just because whenever I am visiting in New York, I get to watch all these movie reruns and the first Jurassic Park has been on alot. 

One of the characters says something to the effect that 'life is strong and will continue and will find a way.' I know he was talking about the dinos and the nasty raptors, but I'd like to think it could apply to orchids, too. I would like to think that an orchid species, if reintroduced into the wild, would find a way to survive, despite how far removed the breeding might be from the original. I'd like to believe that these plants have an inate wisdom to continue and that natural selection would get them back into their evolutionary path. 

Just my two cents.


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Oct 19, 2006)

Just a note about the sun getting warmer....yes, the output of the sun has been increasing over the last 4.5 b years. It was James Lovelock, in his "Gaia" model of the earth's temperature regulation, who pointed out that it is the continuous "fine tuning" of the CO2 balance in the atmosphere that has maintained global temperatures in the habitable range. The problem comes when the "fine tuning" by plants, phytoplankton, and carbonate shelled marine organisms is thrown off by the release of tons and tons of carbon that had been sequestered for millions of years. And as for plant popularity...I agree, hybrids seem to stick around forever...but it has gotten harder to get normal venustum, even harder to get straight hirsutissimum, and how often does anyone see argus or acmodontum anymore? Take care, Eric


----------



## Kyle (Oct 20, 2006)

gonewild said:


> 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.
> 
> 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.



I've heard the same about the NGO. Apparently the locals are not to fond of a Nature Conservancy reserve up near Mindo in Ecuador. Which by the way is probably full of orchids. I've only seen it from across a river.

I think the Homestead act in Canada/US had a different purpose. They were to populate the country and to create some type of economy in the new colonies. The same in principal, but the two cultures have different values.

Kyle


----------



## gonewild (Oct 20, 2006)

> =Kyle]I've heard the same about the NGO. Apparently the locals are not to fond of a Nature Conservancy reserve up near Mindo in Ecuador. Which by the way is probably full of orchids. I've only seen it from across a river.



So the same feeling is in Ecuador as I thought might be the case. The NGOs just work with unfullfilled promises. I could cite so many examples.



> I think the Homestead act in Canada/US had a different purpose. They were to populate the country and to create some type of economy in the new colonies. The same in principal, but the two cultures have different values.
> Kyle



Aw, but is is for the same reason and their true values are the same. The free land is not for the good of the people. It is to solve a problem for the country. It is to conquer the wilderness. It is to colonize (populate) and create economy. The children (grown) of the settlers are the cutters of the wood which drives the economy of the country and feeds the hungry in the cities. The next generation will change from rice and corn to soy. Soy will supply the country with economy.


----------



## NYEric (Oct 20, 2006)

OK people, I've tried to stay away from this thread as long as possible, but now I'm going to throw my 2 cents in. First of all, I'm as interested in ecology, conservation, and protecting the environment as any left-wing, Ivy educated minority child of the 60's. However, some people imply that human interaction is alien or un-natural. Whether or not you believe in a God or Nature or Gaia, you should believe that humans, along with their capacity to build and create destructive devices, are part of the planets system. No matter how destructive, mankinds interactions are part of a nutural selection. [Sure, for some species-wrong place, wrong time.] I just hope the people who influence social and economic factors realize that something should be done to protect the environment because the resources wont last without the help.


----------



## gonewild (Oct 20, 2006)

NYEric said:


> OK people, I've tried to stay away from this thread as long as possible, but now I'm going to throw my 2 cents in. First of all, I'm as interested in ecology, conservation, and protecting the environment as any left-wing, Ivy educated minority child of the 60's. However, some people imply that human interaction is alien or un-natural. Whether or not you believe in a God or Nature or Gaia, you should believe that humans, along with their capacity to build and create destructive devices, are part of the planets system. No matter how destructive, mankinds interactions are part of a nutural selection. [Sure, for some species-wrong place, wrong time.] I just hope the people who influence social and economic factors realize that something should be done to protect the environment because the resources wont last without the help.



You have 2 very good cents. I agree.


----------



## SlipperFan (Oct 20, 2006)

NYEric said:


> OK people, I've tried to stay away from this thread as long as possible, but now I'm going to throw my 2 cents in. First of all, I'm as interested in ecology, conservation, and protecting the environment as any left-wing, Ivy educated minority child of the 60's. However, some people imply that human interaction is alien or un-natural. Whether or not you believe in a God or Nature or Gaia, you should believe that humans, along with their capacity to build and create destructive devices, are part of the planets system. No matter how destructive, mankinds interactions are part of a nutural selection. [Sure, for some species-wrong place, wrong time.] I just hope the people who influence social and economic factors realize that something should be done to protect the environment because the resources wont last without the help.


And so we come back to the November elections in the US...


----------



## Heather (Oct 20, 2006)

SlipperFan said:


> And so we come back to the November elections in the US...



Amen to that!


----------



## slippertalker (Oct 20, 2006)

I wouldn't hold my breath on any quick solutions....and this is more than just a USA problem. Nature has its ways of handling dominant species that are out of control.


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Oct 20, 2006)

slippertalker said:


> I wouldn't hold my breath on any quick solutions....and this is more than just a USA problem. Nature has its ways of handling dominant species that are out of control.



Hopefully that way of handling doesn't involve Korea.

Jon
________
Extreme q vaporizer


----------



## Mahon (Oct 20, 2006)

*Global Warming*

Zach,

I cannot keep up with your posts; too critical about the less important matter... your post from yesterday 5PM was changed twice just minutes after it was posted, then you changed it today around 11AM... 

As for background radiation, yes, there is some, just not in a dangerous level... wherever you go (unless you are completely shielded), there is radiation. I have these measurements for you that I took: 

Inside an ordinary room (at least here in Florida); about 15cpm
Outside (Florida); about 21cpm

Unfortunately, the device is only quantitative, not qualitative... if I had a direct source, then perhaps we would be in the more qualitative range...

Everyone,

Perhaps all of you 'global warming experts' should read this Speech delivered by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), who is Chairman of the Senate Enviroment & Public Works commitee. Here is the link;

http://epw.senate.gov/speechitem.cfm?party=rep&id=263759

Here are a few excerpts from his speech, in case you all become to 'closed minded' (I mean, that would be hypocritical, wouldn't it?)...

-->"Since 1895, the media has alternated between global cooling and warming scares during four separate and sometimes overlapping time periods. From 1895 until the 1930’s the media peddled a coming ice age.

From the late 1920’s until the 1960’s they warned of global warming. From the 1950’s until the 1970’s they warned us again of a coming ice age. This makes modern global warming the fourth estate’s fourth attempt to promote opposing climate change fears during the last 100 years."

Bill Bryson's 'A Short History On Nearly Everything' is a good book to look at too... 

-PM


----------



## Eric Muehlbauer (Oct 21, 2006)

Yes, Bryson's book "A Short History of Nearly Everything" is an excellent book, which I would recommend for everyone...but the current situation regarding global warming is not something that can be blamed on the media. The average worldwide climate is changing...no, not El Nino or local heat waves, or maybe even hurricane frequency, but temperature's are increasing, on average, worldwide...glaciers are melting...the North Pole was at least partially ice free last summer...don't know about this summer...for the first time in recorded history. And yes, these temperature variations have been normal, in overall prehistory. But, logically- CO2 is the main heat trapping gas...and while organisms on earth fix CO2 into tissues, volcanism releases CO2, respiration releases CO2, all of this has been more or less balanced...fluctuations, yes...CO2 drops, ...increases in marine life take up much CO2, climate cools.....not enough CO2, plant life, carbonate using phytoplankton decline...CO2 increases, climate warms again...all normal. But, over countless millenia a certain amount of carbon is removed from the system-sequestered- as organisms die and are buried in sediment, isolated from the overall carbon cycle. And so it goes for millenia........then, in the space of a several decades, a split second, geologically, all that sequestered carbon is released back into the atmosphere. How is it possible that it will not affect the climate? The earliest computer models predicting a rise in temperature due to CO2 increase were well over 20 years ago....and so far, they are not being refuted. The process could be reversed of course....in terms of warming...Yellowstone may blow up tomorrow, and the amount of dust thrown into the upper atmosphere could well reverse global warming for years...as I recall, the global temperature increase stopped in 1992 when the effects of Mt Pinatubo were felt all over the world. But to dismiss the current global warming as media hysteria or exploitation is something only a politician or an oilman could do....Take care, Eric


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 21, 2006)

Mahon said:


> I cannot keep up with your posts; too critical about the less important matter... your post from yesterday 5PM was changed twice just minutes after it was posted, then you changed it today around 11AM...


It changed once a minute or two after it was posted. I added that last phrase. As for the edit today, I noticed that I had used "my" instead of "by" once. I'm not going back and changing arguments or whatever.



Mahon said:


> As for background radiation, yes, there is some, just not in a dangerous level... wherever you go (unless you are completely shielded), there is radiation. I have these measurements for you that I took:
> 
> Inside an ordinary room (at least here in Florida); about 15cpm
> Outside (Florida); about 21cpm
> ...


I don't think anyone here is debating that radiation exists.



Mahon said:


> Everyone,
> 
> Perhaps all of you 'global warming experts' should read this Speech delivered by Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), who is Chairman of the Senate Enviroment & Public Works commitee. Here is the link;
> 
> ...


http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/recips.asp?Ind=E01&Cycle=2002&recipdetail=A&Mem=N&sortorder=U
Check out number two on that list.

As for the rest of his tirade, that was him making a claim. I can't find any references for his "fourth attempt" thing or whatever. Even if I could, I don't exactly think media trends from 1895 are exactly a big deal. Wasn't phrenology still a legit practice then? And once again, he says MEDIA. I didn't hear mention of scientific community. The media LOVES shock-science stories; like the one in your first post in this thread.

Quote mine all you want.


----------



## Mahon (Oct 21, 2006)

Speaking of Yellowstone, isn't the Old Faithful geyser blocked up? I actually don't know though... 

How are we to be sure that the climate is actually, overall, warming up though? Now knowing that there have been 3 other, similar "occurances", with "domcumented research", I actually question that there is even a real noticable fluctuation...

This entire day, I have had nothing to do except rejuvinate orchid media and research everything I could on global warming. I noticed that Greenland is a big topic, but read in at least 2 places that though parts of Greenland are melting, the precipitation is accumulating more inland... 

Then again, if there is in fact temperature fluctuation, then perhaps we are possibly witnessing natural selection in the proccess? I have heard that Polar Bears are drowning because of the large distance between thin ice floes?

Ok, but lets disregard EVERY source I could find concerning the falseness of global warming, and see what would become of the world if we had the opprotunity to absolutely elminate ALL pollution (including excess amounts of CO2)... If we use Nuclear Power plants (which I completely support), isn't a waste product steam (I am not going technical in this)? I think it was said earlier that H2O is also a greenhouse gas, so wouldn't excess amounts of this become a new concern for global warming? Then what do we use for general transportation? And how about it's efficiency; not only the energy saved by the product, but all the energy used in order to make and achieve this "efficiency"? 

-Pat


----------



## Mahon (Oct 21, 2006)

kentuckiense said:


> It changed once a minute or two after it was posted. I added that last phrase. As for the edit today, I noticed that I had used "my" instead of "by" once. I'm not going back and changing arguments or whatever.
> 
> 
> I don't think anyone here is debating that radiation exists.
> ...




Zach,

I see that we are involving politics... as you can see, then global warming has EVERYTHING to do with politics... just some people benifit from it...

He does discuss alot about media, as that is how science is getting to most of us (I am almost sure you didn't just bump into a scientist mumbling his global warming research)... but he also does make mentions of scientists' "research" which have now been disregarded... and that section about the 60 scientists also minimizes the research on global warming:

The 60 scientists wrote:

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=3711460e-bd5a-475d-a6be-4db87559d605

“If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.” The letter also noted:

“‘Climate change is real’ is a meaningless phrase used repeatedly by activists to convince the public that a climate catastrophe is looming and humanity is the cause. Neither of these fears is justified. Global climate changes occur all the time due to natural causes and the human impact still remains impossible to distinguish from this natural ‘noise.’” 

Some interesting things...

Also, I thought you had some silent disagreement with the radiation statement I made... sorry about the misunderstanding... 

-Pat


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Oct 21, 2006)

________
BUY GLASS BONGS


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 21, 2006)

Mahon said:


> Speaking of Yellowstone, isn't the Old Faithful geyser blocked up? I actually don't know though...


Absolutely no idea. That would be somewhat comical, though.



Mahon said:


> How are we to be sure that the climate is actually, overall, warming up though?


Look at any average surface temperature vs. time graph.



Mahon said:


> Now knowing that there have been 3 other, similar "occurances", with "domcumented research", I actually question that there is even a real noticable fluctuation...


Call me a skeptic, but Inhofe isn't my top choice for climactic information. And why put documented research in quotations? Inhofe sure never used it in his speech.



Mahon said:


> This entire day, I have had nothing to do except rejuvinate orchid media and research everything I could on global warming. I noticed that Greenland is a big topic, but read in at least 2 places that though parts of Greenland are melting, the precipitation is accumulating more inland...


Increased temperatures = increased moisture in atmosphere = increased precipitation.
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006GL026075.shtml



Mahon said:


> Then again, if there is in fact temperature fluctuation, then perhaps we are possibly witnessing natural selection in the proccess? I have heard that Polar Bears are drowning because of the large distance between thin ice floes?


Natural selection is just a mechanism inherent to any environment in which there is life.



Mahon said:


> Ok, but lets disregard EVERY source I could find concerning the falseness of global warming,


Politicians who recieve the majority of their donations from the energy/fossil fuel sector don't count.



Mahon said:


> and see what would become of the world if we had the opprotunity to absolutely elminate ALL pollution (including excess amounts of CO2)... If we use Nuclear Power plants (which I completely support), isn't a waste product steam (I am not going technical in this)? I think it was said earlier that H2O is also a greenhouse gas, so wouldn't excess amounts of this become a new concern for global warming?


CO2 doesn't just condense out of the atmosphere like water. Think about all of the places on Earth that are already at 100% humidity naturally. Furthermore, steam doesn't even _have_ to be released. Correct me if I'm wrong, but couldn't it just be condensed on site?



Mahon said:


> Then what do we use for general transportation?


From the scenario you presented, the electricity from above.



Mahon said:


> And how about it's efficiency; not only the energy saved by the product, but all the energy used in order to make and achieve this "efficiency"?
> -Pat


Well, you'll have to look into the numbers for nuclear fission. Is there a net gain in energy after the mining/processing/disposal of the Uranium? I don't know.

Nuclear fusion does sound promising, though. I'd like to hear more about it.


----------



## Mahon (Oct 21, 2006)

...so, should we get more pirates, or get rid of what's left of them?


----------



## gore42 (Oct 21, 2006)

Jon,

Your graph must not count all those kids that used Napster as pirates.  And everyone else now thats using edonkey and direct connect and....

- Matt


----------



## Mahon (Oct 21, 2006)

kentuckiense said:


> Absolutely no idea. That would be somewhat comical, though.
> 
> 
> Look at any average surface temperature vs. time graph.
> ...



Again, you have proved that global warming is politics... I am glad we can see something in common... now, as you can see, Inhofe is gaining something off politics and global warming, I agree with you and those statistics (unless it is somehow completely bogus). Why should he quit now, even if he truly believes that global warming is phony? He is getting money by defending that the earth is not facing global warming like the scientists and media project it to be... now, I am sure that the other side that supports global warming is getting someting out of it too... I am unsure about any details, and I am only speaking out of reasoning, but possibly the end of global warming ceases to exist when oil producers are finished? Perhaps global warming is propaganda... can this not all be realted to Nazi Germany? There are two sides to this, and it seems to be more political than scientific. I am sure a bribe can waffle and scientist's "research"... 

Net gain, that is a term that is more useful to me! I am unsure if there is a net gain from mining, refining, and utilizing Uranium-235 through nuclear fission. Personally, I would assume that there is, depending upon percent used (I don't think you can really store the power, so there is bound to be lots of loss at different times)... on Navy ships, it is very rare (and sometimes dangerous) to operate under "full power"... but I will have to ask for statistics possibly tommorow, as my Navy recruiter is in the Nuclear Power Program...

But how can we utilize the electricity from nuclear power to machines and automobiles? Should we be trying to re-invent Nikola Tesla's electricity tower? I don't think that batteries are all that efficient, and I don't see Plutonium batteries coming out to replace any other battery, as it poses many health risks and dangers...

-Pat


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 21, 2006)

Mahon said:


> Zach,
> 
> I see that we are involving politics... as you can see, then global warming has EVERYTHING to do with politics... just some people benifit from it...
> 
> ...



I actually combed the list and counted those that were in the climatology or meteorology field. There were 29 out of the original 60. Now think about how many advanced climatologists/meteorologists did not want to participate in this petition. It somewhat reminds me of Project Steve.


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 21, 2006)

Mahon said:


> Again, you have proved that global warming is politics...


In order to get ANYTHING done the poltical arena has to be entered. That is how change is brought about. I'm not really understanding why that's a huge issue.



Mahon said:


> I am glad we can see something in common... now, as you can see, Inhofe is gaining something off politics and global warming, I agree with you and those statistics (unless it is somehow completely bogus). Why should he quit now, even if he truly believes that global warming is phony? He is getting money by defending that the earth is not facing global warming like the scientists and media project it to be... now, I am sure that the other side that supports global warming is getting someting out of it too... I am unsure about any details, and I am only speaking out of reasoning, but possibly the end of global warming ceases to exist when oil producers are finished? Perhaps global warming is propaganda... can this not all be realted to Nazi Germany? There are two sides to this, and it seems to be more political than scientific. I am sure a bribe can waffle and scientist's "research"...


It was about time for Godwin's Law to be invoked!



Mahon said:


> But how can we utilize the electricity from nuclear power to machines and automobiles? Should we be trying to re-invent Nikola Tesla's electricity tower? I don't think that batteries are all that efficient, and I don't see Plutonium batteries coming out to replace any other battery, as it poses many health risks and dangers...
> 
> -Pat


In terms of battery technology, I think we're pretty darn close. A congressional physicist who specializes in batteries spoke to a class of mine last semester. She blames the paucity of battery powered vehicles upon a stubborn auto industry that resists change. Ironically, she is the wife of Dan Reifsnyder (the USA's representative during Kyoto talks). Her name escapes me at the moment.


----------



## Mahon (Oct 21, 2006)

kentuckiense said:


> In order to get ANYTHING done the poltical arena has to be entered. That is how change is brought about. I'm not really understanding why that's a huge issue.



It is a big issue because that is possibly what it is all about... I think if I were to compete for markets and enormous amounts of possible money, I would be cashing in on my "scientists", who are telling us and the media that global warming is occuring, and if we keep like this, this is the horrible picture will what earth will become... what are your opinions upon this? I do realize that politics influence almost everything, yet there must be some motive why there is an actual competition for acceptance of their global warming studies... I mean, we are competing for acceptance of our ideas right this very moment, while on other subjects, I would normally be more passive and silent... (?)

BTW, I don't ultimately expect you to believe what I believe... it is nearly impossible to convince someone to believe something, especially after they have defended it... 

That is very interesting about Godin's Law...lol 

-Pat


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 21, 2006)

Mahon said:


> It is a big issue because that is possibly what it is all about... I think if I were to compete for markets and enormous amounts of possible money, I would be cashing in on my "scientists", who are telling us and the media that global warming is occuring, and if we keep like this, this is the horrible picture will what earth will become... what are your opinions upon this? I do realize that politics influence almost everything, yet there must be some motive why there is an actual competition for acceptance of their global warming studies... I mean, we are competing for acceptance of our ideas right this very moment, while on other subjects, I would normally be more passive and silent... (?)


Do you honestly think that climate scientists are such a dishonest bunch that only those 29 would come forward? Even in their letter they mention nothing about "competing for markets" or money. They just object to the science. And what do you mean about competition for acceptance? 



Mahon said:


> BTW, I don't ultimately expect you to believe what I believe...


 Good... I didn't want you to be let down.


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 21, 2006)

I'm cross posting this and answering it here.


Mahon said:


> And what about the Ice Age, if we can actually prove this to be ABSOLUTELY true... what, did human interaction with earth not exist enough? Did we need more caveman fires? Come on, isn't it really possible that we don't actually know what is going on with earth, assuming that global warming actually exists?



From what I understand to be a major theory, the ice age of 10,000 years ago was likely caused by a failure of the thermohaline cycle which was in turn caused by melting Greenland/Arctic ice. The melting occured do to an increased average global temperature due to a steady CO2 increase as illustrated in the Vostok ice cores.

And before you say that what we are experiencing now is just part of the same cycle, take note that current rates of CO2 and temperature increase are unprecidented in the Vostok cores.


----------



## Mahon (Oct 21, 2006)

kentuckiense said:


> Do you honestly think that climate scientists are such a dishonest bunch that only those 29 would come forward? Even in their letter they mention nothing about "competing for markets" or money. They just object to the science. And what do you mean about competition for acceptance?



I am not even going by that speech from Senator Inhofe... I am going by my ideas and reasoning... it stands to reason that there are two sides to this global warming theory, as both sides are benifiting from the "scientist's research"... otherwise, I don't see a reason not to agree to a single accepted theory unless there is somewhere competition and money involved...

I would hate to convince you to believe what I believe, then there is no fun in this debate 

-Pat


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 21, 2006)

Mahon said:


> I am going by my ideas and reasoning... it stands to reason that there are two sides to this global warming theory,


This is true. The scientific community as a whole vs. politicians funded by oil money.

"IPCC is not alone in its conclusions. In recent years, all major scientific bodies in the United States whose members' expertise bears directly on the matter have issued similar statements. For example, the National Academy of Sciences report, Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions, begins: "Greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth's atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise" [p. 1 in (5)]. The report explicitly asks whether the IPCC assessment is a fair summary of professional scientific thinking, and answers yes: "The IPCC's conclusion that most of the observed warming of the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations accurately reflects the current thinking of the scientific community on this issue" [p. 3 in (5)].

Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

The 928 papers were divided into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Of all the papers, 75% fell into the first three categories, either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view; 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position."
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/306/5702/1686



Mahon said:


> as both sides are benifiting from the "scientist's research"... otherwise, I don't see a reason not to agree to a single accepted theory unless there is somewhere competition and money involved...


I still don't understand who you are trying to say is benefiting from research that agrees climate change is anthropomorphic. I'm going to go on MY ideas and reasoning... I don't think climate scientists are doing this for job security and I don't think the UN is trying to topple the United States economy. After all, almost everyone else(most notable exception is Australia) signed onto Kyoto.


----------



## kentuckiense (Oct 21, 2006)

It's 3:37a.m. so that means bed time for me.


----------



## Mahon (Oct 21, 2006)

It's 3:46AM... definitely sleepy time... perhaps we can reach the goal of 20 pages? 

-Pat


----------



## Heather (Oct 21, 2006)

kentuckiense said:


> Even if I could, I don't exactly think media trends from 1895 are exactly a big deal. Wasn't phrenology still a legit practice then?



Phrenology was common in the 1840's but I think its popularity had waned by 1895. Anyone wish to discuss whether J. H. Kellogg was a klismaphiliac?  

J/K..carry on....


----------



## Jon in SW Ohio (Oct 21, 2006)

Mahon said:


> It's 3:46AM... definitely sleepy time... perhaps we can reach the goal of 20 pages?
> 
> -Pat



We shall! And by that time we will have covered the Kennedy Assasination and the Moon landing and find out why they are all tied to the same event.

Jon
________
Roor Bongs


----------



## slippertalker (Oct 23, 2006)

Heather said:


> I'd like to take this thread in a slightly different direction and talk about fashion - why certain species and hybrids seem to go through peaks and valleys of popularity and ease of location. For a while, it was really hard to find a normal colored venustum. Now it seems easier to find phil. var. roebellinii than a true philiipinense. What about plants like adductum and randsii (which I know is somewhat related to it's resistance to breeding) that are just so hard to locate robust mature plants of. Are people just hoarding them? What about some of the older awarded plants that aren't being used to produce new hybrids anymore...will we just stop seeing plants with roth. 'Rex' in the background someday? An example of this is Lady Isabel made w/ roth 'Bion' x stonei 'Bion'. There were a bunch of people selling the cross a while back, but now it seems to not be as widely available.
> 
> Let's discuss!



Orchids have always gone through phases of popularity since they were first discovered. The latest thing on the block is always under more demand than something that is more common, at least until the roles are reversed. 
Paph species were very much in demand in the late 1800's, then were supplanted by hybrids by reasons of rariety as much as anything. Complex paph hybrids were very sought after until the late 60's when species became the cat's meow again. The advent of newly found species led to new primary hybrids which are the current rage. Slowly but surely, complex hybrids will become more desireable again.

Paph adductum and randsii are generally just not fast growers. Randsii appears to be difficult to obtain seed from, much like parishii and on top of that grows slowly. Randsii is not the most exciting flower.........and there are just not a lot of plants out there. 

Specific crosses like your Lady Isabel example are made by one nursery and were made a number of years ago. There are limited numbers that exist.

Even more rare are old turn of the century primary crosses, many of which have not been recreated. Over time, they led to complex hybrids, but they had interesting character in themselves. We have a few examples like Leeanum, but there were many others of interest. Much of the genetic material from these crosses only exists through their progeny. 

With the amount of plants that were imported over 100 years ago, how many unique forms of species are gone forever?


----------

