Another setback for Teh Global Warming™ - Page 4

Link doesn't link to anything.

Where I live here in Japan, it is easy to see the reduction of forests and trees. Almost ever year, yet another hill just outside of town is converted into a housing area, losing all of its trees (sure, they plant a few around for aesthetics). Country clubs also exist everywhere, carved out of wild forest.

The managed forests are also visible almost everywhere because the cedar trees are so different from the natural forest. Tall and straight and great for lumber, yet not popular with the birds and other wildlife. Entire tracts covering entire slopes get chopped at once, leaving the countryside bare. While bare, the risk of landslides increases dramatically (especially in this country that is often hit by drenching typhoons). Much forest land has been lost due to rainfall.

Sadly, Japan's demand for wood far exceeds the production in its limited managed forests and so it imports lumber from countries further south, depleting their forests. One reason for this is cost: it is far cheaper to import lumber from south Asia than to cut it in Japan.

If I recall, the US also imports an incredible amount of lumber.

The really odd thing here is that the US also is a leading exporter of lumber. There is an interesting duality here that uses more fuel.

http://wfi.worldforestrycenter.org/trade-2.htm

This link works. So does this one: (exporters and importers)
http://wfi.worldforestrycenter.org/trade-1.htm

Some good reading here:

Some countries have finally reversed or balanced deforestation, but it is only a beginning:

ftp://ftp.fao.org/docrep/fao/009/a0773e/a0773e00.pdf

... you still haven't provided any proof that there were less trees in 1600 AD (or 1700 AD or 1800 AD for that matter), than there are/were trees in 2000 AD (or 2008 AD for that matter). \

Here's one definition of Forest;

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Classification

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Here's another recent link with further forest definitions;

DEFINITIONS OF FOREST, DEFORESTATION, AFFORESTATION, AND REFORESTATION

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Are you still with me so far?

So we know that forests have different definitions, and that those areas that don't fit whatever definition of "forest" you use, will have other land uses, such as urban areas, deserts, grasslands, prairies, agricultural lands, tundra, glaciers, etceteras.

In other words, trees are definitely in areas not defined as forests. D'oh! \

So, in 1600 AD the current lands of the USA were 46% forested, and today roughly 32% of the USA is forested.

What does all this mean?

It means that a very simple model can be developed to estimate the total number of trees at any point in time for the USA.

10% tree coverage < forests < 30% tree coverage (the break point for defining forests)

70% coverage < non-forests < 90 % (complementary break point for non-forests)

49 sq. ft. < per tree coverage < 100 sq. ft.

Tree coverage = 65% (mean/median for 30% forest definition), = 60% (mean/median 20% forest definition), = 55% (mean/median 10% forest definition).

Tree coverage = 15% (mean/median for 70% non-forest definition), = 10% (mean/median 80% non-forest definition), = 5% (mean/median 90% non-forest definition).

Are you still with me? I seriously doubt it, but whatever. \

The bottom line is that a simple model (i. e. spreadsheet) can be constructed that covers the full range of tree conditions for the USA assuming the processes are Gaussian (or normally distributed). Now I know I've lost you. \

The end result, you ask?

Conservatively (e. g. low estimate), between 76,000,000,000 < total trees lost < 184,000,000,000 between 1600 AD and 2000 AD. That's 76 billion < total trees lost < 184 billion!

Non-concervatively (e. g. high estimate), between 153,000,000,000 < total trees lost < 368,000,000,000 between 1600 AD and 2000 AD. That's 153 billion < total trees lost < 368 billion!

I'll go with the more conservative estimates and round down to one significant digit, or 100 billion total trees lost between 1600 AD and 2000 AD.

So it doesn't matter what the USA land use patterns are, given the reduction in forested lands from 46% in 1600 AD (~1.04 billion acres) to 32 % in 2000 AD (~ 0.72 billion acres).

All plausible scenarios produce a net loss of trees

Here's another word for you to absorb, Evapotranspiration.

so quit using trees...

Why didn't I think of that one, better yet, let's stop using all of Earth's resources.

I'm glad you have evidence to back this up. Both parties only hear what they want. Get over it. If you think it's worse with one party over the other, you're naive.



From a technological perspective, he is right. From an implementation perspective, though, which party is it that's protecting the coal lobbies and miner unions? Who has consistently been the barrier to expansion of our nuclear infrastructure? Not Bush. The fact is, without CO2, Gore and his cronies have no revenue stream. They sell CO2 offsets.

I agree that there's no question the Republicans are more interested in the potential for GDP gain via the green movement than they are with the preoccupation of ecological damage. However, I give them cred for being totally transparent here. Gore and his cronies (not the Democratic party as a whole) have made a lot of fuss, but they don't propose solutions. There's no indication that they aren't in this entirely for the money, either, and they have the onus of trying to maintain the lie that they actually care on a deeper level.

Split atoms, not wood?

What is wrong with trying to clean things up?

Acid rain (primary cause is, drum roll, human activity)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acid_rain#Human_activity

I really want to take my kids to this forest for an afternoon picnic:


Link to the large image. PLease click on it; it is such a beautiful sight. These trees must really do a great job scrubbing the air.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Acid_rain_woods1.JPG

This turtle must be exercising:


Link to the big picture:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:T...ost_net%29.jpg

Want to go to the beach? Might want to check the BEACH report first to see if it's safe... from pollution.
http://www.epa.gov/waterscience/beac...html#establish

Again, whether or not global warming is actually true, there is plenty of evidence right now that man is severely impacting upon the environment in many ways that may not be reversible. Do we actually really want to do this just for the monetary benefit of the few in the immediate future as opposed to the well-being of every living creature on the planet for the remainder of history?

Whatever the cause, something is going on.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...434356,00.html

Post some content, and stop with the "hit and run" posts with zero content of your own of contrarians talking amongst themselves. \

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Jennifer Marohasy

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Institute of Public Affairs

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

American Enterprise Institute

[CENTER]
[/CENTER]

Counterpoint (Radio National)

Now for the truth of the matter;

[CENTER][/CENTER]

GISS Surface Temperature Analysis - Global Temperature Trends: 2007 Summation

Oh and I see you never replied to my post on your bogus tree argument, that makes you zero for six!

His version works for him, so your evidence doesn't compute.

I will ask again:

If we are right about global warming and try to do something to correct it, then we get a cleaner place to live and perhaps save ourselves from doom. What is there to lose?

If we are wrong about global warming and try to do something about it, we at least get a cleaner place to live. What is there to lose?

If we are wrong about global warming and do nothing about it, then we don't lose anything, do we?

If we are right about global warming and do nothing about it, what do we have to win?

Is that a chance we are willing to take just to save a few bucks?

Yes that's right, two contrarians, doing their social grooming schtick, neither of which are experts on climatology. Both clearly showing bias with intent, and clearly wrong to boot.


I really am astonished by your complete lack to interpret two graphs plotted side be side, so here they are again;

[CENTER][/CENTER]

(a) Global Temperature, no peak in 1998, just a persistent and steady rise since ~ 1975. D'oh!

Pull your head out of the sand, wash the sand off your face, open your eyes, and put your reading glasses on!

(b) U. S. Temperature, it's not representative of the global mean temperature since the U. S. only encompasses ~ 5% of the Earth's total surface area. D'oh-D'oh!

If it doesn't happen in the US......

Six temperature plots do not represent the global mean temperature which is taken as an average from thousands of temperature records! D'oh-D'oh!

There are several HUNDRED temp plots from all over the world on that page...

This one is interesting...

Co2 goes up, check.
Temperature, at that single station does not go up, check.
From my previous post, global mean temperature goes up, checkmate!

A quote from your source "Polar amplification is an expected characteristic of global warming, as the loss of ice and snow engenders a positive feedback via increased absorption of sunlight."

The numbers in the polar reigon...










Sea level...

here's some more numbers...

Here's the best one...
sea level...

Yes SDW the earth is flat and Galileo is wrong.
We must save ourselves from progress it could make things better. Edison was an idiot for trying. It would be so mush better if we could all still live in caves!


The few thousand inventions along the way could make several billion $$$ and save our economy. As we can now clearly see the invention of even the best weaponry and massive defense spending does not improve security. However, most power lies in intellectual property. Toyota i.e is making massive $$ from licensing hybrid technology to US car makers. Not reacting to Global Warming has already harmed the US economy greatly. My personal decision to "Go Green" has saved me ~100k in the last 3 years. It has accelerated my 3 businesses since "Green" is a major selling point and a very effective advertising slogan.

Only Stupid Dim Wits can not see this. SDW is anti business, anti progress, anti American, anti conservative and anti life.

(Is it you George?)

Global warming



vs

American Republicanism

What we HAVE done is accomplish nothing, destroying our economy as a result.


You would think that the typical republiscum having formed an orderly queue to rape their grandchildrens lives for a buck profit in warmongering - would be all over global warming - as indeed there is a ton of money to be made from it - and unlike most profit-related ventures, there could well be a vast improvement in the quality of life for everyone on the planet if we can do it right.

But you have to wonder, i know we all do regularly, what is seriously wrong with the republiscums?

ask them if they would like to carpet bomb a country they do not even know the location of - with the consequence that trillions of dollars will disappear down a black hole, hundreds of thousands of lives lost - nothing achieved except the killing of the most secular leader in the ME, leaving a gaping hole for extremist militants to fill the void, increasing the price of oil by 400% leaving little money left in the pockets of people so that they can keep the economy afloat. - They'll jump for it.

Ask them if they'll take their unnafordable tax cuts now, and have their grandchildren pay it all back for them - They jump for it

Ask them if they'll use all this money to overheat the economy and lead to the worst boom-bust situation in living memory - They'll jump for it

Ask them if they want to deregulate the financial markets so crooks can sell bits of paper noones ever seen for hundreds of billions that are essentially worthless. Maybe putting the economy into a 1920's depression - They'll jump for it.

BUT

ask them if they would like to invest in some real infrastructure to avert the single most pressing issue of everyones human existance - that would clear the smog from our cities, remove the poisons from the seas, stop trillions of dollars of revenue from ending up in the hands of dictators and human rights abusers, alleviate the most pressing national security issue. Offering them the chance to make money from a new developing industry as it replaces an outdated dirty ancient practise....


And they'll find every silly little reason to sabotage the effort...."Risking a few $'s might dent our economy"....

You shouldn't laugh at the mentally ill, handicapped spastics of our society, the losers who just dont get it, the weak of mind and the scared little sheep, but SDW....

Oh I forgot, Jesus is coming next week so it dont matter

10,000 plots of temperature on the wall,
10,000 plots of temperature,
you take one down,
you pass it around,
9,999 plots of temperature on the wall,

9,999 plots of temperature on the wall,
9,999 plots of temperature,
you take one down,
you pass it around,
9,998 plots of temperature on the wall,

.
.
.

And then?

The only one panicking is you, oh seriously dim witted one...

Many of us are already making big $ AND cleaning up our acts in the process. I am even installing solar panels in China... AND forcing them to grow organic cotton.
Global Warming is the single biggest international business opportunity of the last several centuries. Denying it is bad for business.

DO SOMETHING BESIDES BEING STUPID!!!

(Note: This chart is not based on empirical data of any type)

There is NO link between CO2 and temp...

... three things;

1) Plotting a short time period is not representative of the entire temperature record or the many proxies that exist,
2) CO2 uptake by the ocean/land sinks is a slow process, but not as slow as global temperature increases due to increased atmospheric CO2 levels, in other words increased mean global temperature (MGT) will lag CO2 levels by decades, and
3) even if humans capped CO2 emissions at the current level today, and all other GHG emissions for that matter, CO2 levels would continue to rise asymptotically, as would (MGT), assuming all other processes were held constant (not likely due simply to continued population growth and increased land use patterns (e. g. deforestation)).

[CENTER]
^................................^
|.................................|
|.................................|
Mystic......................Yours Truly [/CENTER]

When you loose an argument you resort to name calling. The fact is, You are wrong.

Brillient reply Dude.

It's quite clear that you don't have the slightess inkling of what the climate science speaks to with respect to Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW).

Throwing up single point source temperature data (ad infinitum) and very short period time series records is not acceptable practice in the field of climateology, or any other scientific or engineering discipline for that matter.

You clearly have no basic understanding of the scientific method, have not been educated as a scientist, and lack any experience in understanding empirical and observational measurements.

And furthermore, you are clearly unable to articulate whatever point of view it is your trying to make with your replies.

You only seem capable of posting data from a known contrarian who is now deceased and had no scientific training in climateology, one John L. Daly;


See What's Wrong With John L. Daly for a thorough rebuke of this contrarian.

OK. And you'd be the one claiming there is categorically 'no link between C02 and temperature' and proving it with a graph covering... a decade, right?

This is the first Teh Global Warming Doesn't Exist and Soon We Will be Farming the Surface of Teh Venus!!!!! thread you've read, yes? Because this has been done to death backwards, forwards and upside down and bum-shagged with graphs and citations from here to kingdom come, yea, even unto to the point that the people who think Teh Global Warming is Teh Plot to Stop Americans Using Their Jet-Packs!!!!!!!!! agree that there is a link between the emission of C02 and temperature.

In a picture of a human and a dog, he compared himself to the dog, and you to the human... and YOU feel insulted?

Geez.....

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7313264.stm

edit: I was curious how large/small the Isle of Man is.

It is 33 miles long, 13 miles wide....That's a fairly large chunk of ice to suddenly go floating off to..eventually melt.

Mister Peabody is a fictional dog who appeared in the late 1950s and early 1960s television animated series Rocky and His Friends and The Bullwinkle Show (collectively referred to as Rocky and Bullwinkle).

Peabody appeared in these segments alongside his adopted boy, Sherman (in a twist on the "a boy and his dog" stereotype). Peabody, who was a genius (and arguably a polymath), decided to adopt Sherman so he'd have some company in his life. Sherman's personality was that of a naive but fairly bright, energetic young boy. They both wore black, over-sized horn-rimmed glasses.

In the series, Peabody constructed for his and Sherman's use the WABAC (pronounced "wayback") machine, its name also a play on early computers such as UNIVAC and ENIAC. The WABAC was a time machine which Peabody and Sherman would use to travel back in time to witness various historical events. However, on each visit, they would discover that things didn't happen the way they were supposed to (such as Paul Revere not being able to make his ride due to only having a statue of a horse instead of a real one), and would subsequently wind up working to fix whatever the problem was (using Peabody's great intellect to do so), so that history would be accurate.

The WABAC (pronounced "wayback") machine was from the Peabody's Improbable History segment of the early '60's cartoon series The Rocky and Bullwinkle Show. The machine was constructed by Mr. Peabody, a professorial, bow tie-wearing dog, to be able to visit famous historical events. At the request of Mr. Peabody, Sherman, Peabody's "pet boy" assistant, would set the WABAC machine to a time and place of historical importance, and the two would be instantly transported there.

Oh, I have definitely seen my share of Rocky & Bullwinkle and Mr. Peabody.

I was just poking fun at Mystic's righteous indignation at your "name calling".

I'll leave the "When you loose an argument..." part of his post for someone else.

The correct term would be anthropogenous.
very short time peroids? Your "chart" only goes back to 1880. The Central England data I posted goes back to 1659.
I clearly have no basic understanding of the scientific method, have not been educated as a scientist, and lack any experience in understanding empirical and observational measurements?
How did you come to that conclusion? Again you are wrong.

Here is another list of deceased contrarians:

Darwin
COPERNICUS
Galileo
Newton
Tesla
Volta
Freud
Kepler
Heisenberg
Schrodinger
Edison

Do you really think that we should discount their work because they are dead?