Reply With Quote
Since when did forests become climate change experts?
Since when did forests become climate change experts?
Nothing new here. EVERYTHING causes global warming. Even when it gets colder and snows more, it's evidence of global warming.
People are getting bored of this topic.
I agree.
I agree.
Clearly the solution is to cut down the conifers that are taking the place of the larch thus, "allowing the vast, snow - covered ground to reflect the sunlight and heat"
Larch trees drop their needles in the fall, allowing the vast, snow-covered ground in winter to reflect sunlight and heat back into space and helping to keep temperatures in the region very cold. But conifers such as spruce and fir retain their needles, which absorb sunlight and increase the forest's ground-level heat retention.
Problem solved. Global destruction averted.
Artificial Leaf Could Be More Efficient Than the Real Thing
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/20...tories+2%29%29
Now that's cool and it looks like it was licensed to Tata. That's a company that has it's together.
The forests changing just proves we don't have to worry about climate change, since nature will adapt.
Or a big ass forest fire.
Erm... if the point of cutting down trees was to allow the snow to reflect sunlight, I don't think a big ass forest fire would accomplish that goal.
Errr...you really think it would never snow again?Erm... if the point of cutting down trees was to allow the snow to reflect sunlight, I don't think a big ass forest fire would accomplish that goal.
Touche!Hoisted by my own pe . Whatever that means.
The flora and fauna of the Earth were constant until automobiles were invented.
Sincerely,
T.Rex
The flora and fauna have changed before and life still exists, therefore, no amount of man-made change could have any sort of negative influence over the planet.
Sincerely,
DarrinS
I agree man can definitely change the environment. 200+ years ago South Texas was pretty much all fertile grassland. The Indians would burn it off every spring as the buffalo moved north. Then we invented barbed wire and the concept of fencing private property. No more burns and the mesquite, brush and prickly pear took over...
which of course begs the question...which was "natural?"
I think the more important thing is determining how much man can change the climate in any given area, and then, determining which climate change is beneficial overall and which isn't.
Obviously, not an easy task.
1) A century of CO2 emmisions have raised the global temp. anomaly by 1 degree. If you believe Al Gore's psy-fi docudrama, this will eventually lead to cities being inundated with sea water.
2) Nature can also lead to cities being inundated with sea water.
Of (1) and (2), which do we have indisputable evidence for?
Answer:
Did anyone else read that as the changing forests increasing the global temperature? What if it has been a factor all along, rather than a feedback?
Why are climatologists "stuck on stupid" in calling everything a positive feedback, instead of seeing that maybe their theory is wrong?
Science begins with "I don't know." Skepticism is suppose to rule, and you are suppose to do all to disprove a hypothesis instead of building arguments to support one.
This is a good thing Manny. Serious.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terence...uman_evolutionThe "Stoned Ape" hypothesis of human evolution
McKenna hypothesized[citation needed] that as the North African jungles receded and gave way to savannas and grasslands near the end of the most recent ice age, a branch of our tree-dwelling primate ancestors left the forest canopy and began to live in the open areas outside of the forest. There they experimented with new varieties of foods as they adapted, physically and mentally, to their new environment. McKenna also called last glacial period hominids "fruit eating" in what he calls a gender-equal "paradise [...] the golden age of humanity" that he dated as ending 10,000 years ago.[17] However, the most recent ice age, also known as the Last glacial period that stretched from 110,000 years ago to 10,000 years ago, when meat-eating, biologically evolved -Sapiens were already in Europe. Capability for language, present in the human FOXP2 gene was already developed.[citation needed]
According to McKenna's hypothesis, among the new food items found in this new environment were psilocybin-containing mushrooms growing near the dung of ungulate herds that occupied the savannas and grasslands at that time. To support this hypothesis, McKenna referenced the research of Roland L. Fisher.[citation needed] The cited work by Fischer does not mention paleo-anthropology, Africa, or the ice ages.[18][19][20][21] Echoing Fisher on the effects of psychedelics, McKenna claimed that enhancement of visual acuity was an effect of psilocybin at low doses, and supposed that this would have conferred an adaptive advantage. He also argued that the effects of slightly larger doses, including sexual arousal, and in still larger doses, ecstatic hallucinations and glossolalia — gave selective evolutionary advantages to members of those tribes who partook of it. There were many changes caused by the introduction of this psychoactive mushroom to the primate diet. McKenna hypothesizes, for instance, that synesthesia (the blurring of boundaries between the senses) caused by psilocybin led to the development of spoken language: the ability to form pictures in another person's mind through the use of vocal sounds.
About 12,000 years ago, further climate changes removed psilocybin-containing mushrooms from the human diet.[citation needed] McKenna argued that this event resulted in a new set of profound changes in our species as we reverted to the previous brutal primate social structures that had been modified and/or repressed by frequent consumption of psilocybin.
Beware the mushroom. You DO NOT want to overindulge. Bad Bad JuJu.
A pe is a metal cage, often on a long boom. It was filled with gunpowder and then swung towards a wall in a seige with the intent to breach the wall with the resulting explosion.Touche!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pe
(entry also explains phrase)
Winter is over, time for the birds to sing, flowers to bloom, and liberals to start global warming threads once again.
"Forests reacting to changing climate"
If it had been a factor all along, we would be able to tell by the species of trees found in any given fossil record. We certainly have rather recent evidence of the types of tree in any given area to know whether they are conifers or not.
You didn't really read the article did you?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
