LOL...
Scientific American also thinks soot is a greenhouse gas!
link: How to Buy Time in the Fight against Climate Change: Mobilize to Stop Soot and Methane
Specifically, in the case of rapid action to slow catastrophic climate change, the best alternatives appear to be: methane and black carbon (otherwise known as soot). A new economic and scientific analysis published in Science on January 13 of the benefits of cutting these two greenhouse gases finds the benefits to be manifold—from human health to increased agricultural yields.
as the population increases, more and more trees are cut down to make living space. Trees turn carbon dioxide into oxygen. As the population increases more, there are more cars being driven and more cows releasing methane into the air. Just my common sense assumption. im no scientist but this in a nuts is what i believe. its getting hotter baby get ur beach towels!
Poor penguins
There are more trees now than there were 100 years ago. But yes, the cattle industry is a problem. Beef is what is feeding the world right now as more and more countries have gone to beef as their primary source of protein.
This GW train can't be stopped as far as the man made part of it because the BRIC nations, Brazil, Russia, India, China will have nothing to do with curbing their growth and cutting back. China is the number 1 polluter and they've made it clear, 'go yourselves'.
" more trees now than there were 100 years ago"
link?
How about this from Mother Nature Network:
link: More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!
First paragraph:
Over the years, I have seen other studies saying the same thing as a global total. Yes, mankind clear-cuts, deforests vast areas, etc. However mankind is also a steward of the forests too. Include the capability to put out forest fires like we couldn't in the past, and the global tree population is more than it was 100 years ago.The numbers are in.
In the United States, which contains 8 percent of the world's forests, there are more trees than there were 100 years ago. According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO), "Forest growth nationally has exceeded harvest since the 1940s. By 1997, forest growth exceeded harvest by 42 percent and the volume of forest growth was 380 percent greater than it had been in 1920." The greatest gains have been seen on the East Coast (with average volumes of wood per acre almost doubling since the '50s) which was the area most heavily logged by European settlers beginning in the 1600s, soon after their arrival.
So?
The size of the forests have become smaller. However, the smaller acreage of land is healthier and with more trees and other vegetation.
What is that?About 385 million hectare total in 1850 to about 305 million hectares in '97? under equal health, density, etc. the 1850 number would have 26% more trees.
What if, there is less than half the fire damage today than in 1850? See why your chart of land area doesn't matter?
More trees per acre is not a good thing. There's a reason why after periods of drought very dense forests that are very dry burn very hot. Also, more trees isn't a good thing when slow growing trees that occur in a forest are cut down and replaced with fast growing trees meant to be harvested.
But I see WC is now also an expert on Forestry as well as every other subject he constantly talks about.
I'm not claiming the good forests are denser than the forests 100 years ago. I'm saying the forests overall are healthier. We now control fires. We didn't have the means to do so 100 years ago like we can today.
Figure out yet why you warmers are wrong about CO2 warming the oceans? I see you bailed on that other thread.
Controlling fires is one of the main reasons why forests are NOT healthier. Pretty much everything you post is wrong. You're just an uneducated moron who thinks he can google his way to understanding how the physical sciences apply in the world but there's a reason you work from a manual some one else writes for you for machines someone else designs.
Never seen a know it all be so consistently wrong.
http://e360.yale.edu/feature/megadro...globally/2665/
Forests will likely change completely by the year 2100 and be gone in many places in the American southwest. But sure, their healthier now because WC says so. He's the expert after all. Which is why I can't wait for him to tell me how all of these scientists are wrong.
it wasnt that bad. my AC was broken and i didnt even notice. Texas was much hotter where i lived. the outback was probably cooking though, but i'll never go there.
Yes, there is controversy on if it is better to let the forests burn, and other things.
I was originally responding to the fact that there are more trees today than 100 years ago. If you wish to make it more than that, then start a new thread.
Figure out yet why you warmers are wrong about CO2 warming the oceans? I see you bailed on that other thread.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defores...zon_Rainforest
Global Palm Oil Demand Fueling Deforestation
http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6059
What's Killing the Aspen?
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/scienc...ns-200812.html
and AGW is killing US mountain pine forest, millions of tree (pine beetle)
new forestation is usually the much less biologically valuable industrial monoculture/farming, not naturally diverse forestation, and is as sterile and lifeless as every Iowa corn/soy crop.
Last edited by boutons_deux; 06-30-2013 at 07:52 AM.
So your 100 year time frame is meaningless.
First, it has been long recognized that the total fire suppression policy has not resulted in healthier forests in fact just the opposite. That's why the forest service has changed it's policy and now allows some fires to burn and also does prescribed burns.
Second, wildfires have increased in number and severity. So it's stupid to say "We now control fires".
Third, you don't know what you're talking about. There's an old saying "Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt."
I guess it depends on what you are claiming healthy is.
Again, I was supporting the claim that there are in fact more trees today than 100 years ago in post #6. I will yield to factors like health.
Last edited by Wild Cobra; 07-02-2013 at 03:48 PM.
Current Conditions at Death Valley, California at 2:25AM: 98 degrees
http://www.usatoday.com/story/weathe...ecord/2480019/
All-time record June high tied in Death Valley on Sunday
The 129 degrees recorded Sunday was just 5 degrees below the all-time world record high temperature.
The all-time U.S. high temperature record for June was tied Sunday in Death Valley, Calif., according to the National Weather Service.
The temperature soared to a beastly 129 degrees late Sunday afternoon in the desert location, generally regarded as one of the hottest locations on the planet. This ties the all-time June record high for both California and the entire United States.
A 129-degree reading was also recorded at Volcano, Calif., (a former town near the Salton Sea) on June 23, 1902.
The 134-degree temperature measured in July 1913 in Death Valley remains the all-time world-record temperature.
Temperatures in the upper 120s are again forecast Monday and Tuesday at Death Valley before "cooling off" to the mid-120s by midweek.
They are celebrating the 100th anniversary for the highest temp ever measured. 100 year anniversary.
http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/vef/deathvalley/
I don't like using daily highs to prove anything since its one data point out of context but...
LOL @ Darrin trying to discredit it being hot by saying that it wasn't the all time hottest temperature ever recorded. ing hillarious.
What it imply is that the extra CO2 today still hasn't beaten a past record.
Wow, the hottest place on Earth is, well, er, hot. Imagine that.
In other news, Vostok Station, Antarctica, is ing cold.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
