Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Guess the trees will stop eating CO2.
Guess the trees will stop eating CO2.
At the rate they are all being cut down, there may not be any left to absorb the CO2 in the future.
The difference between the height of the little ice age and today is around 2c.
The difference between those mile high glaciers over Chicago and looking up at them on staten island is around 8c.
2c in 100 years is a oh shit moment!
Chicken Little lives.
Tell me exactly what will happen. You can't. You can't even say with any certainty that the 2 degree prediction is accurate.
The fact that the GW crowd keeps upping the ante tells me they don't know what's going to happen. But the more they scare you the more you can be controlled.
First of all, we cannot say 'exactly' what will happen. But we can say that it will not be good for a population of over 7 billion humans that depend on a stable climate for food. And that 2 degrees figure is an optimistic one, one that does not consider the feedback effects we are seeing in the Arctic.
For those of you who like to quote the IPCC
World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online
the leaked report makes the extraordinary concession that over the past 15 years, recorded world temperatures have increased at only a quarter of the rate of IPCC claimed when it published its last assessment in 2007.
Back then, it said observed warming over the 15 years from 1990-2005 had taken place at a rate of 0.2C per decade, and it predicted this would continue for the following 20 years, on the basis of forecasts made by computer climate models.
But the new report says the observed warming over the more recent 15 years to 2012 was just 0.05C per decade - below almost all computer predictions.
Read more: World's top climate scientists confess: Global warming is just QUARTER what we thought - and computers got the effects of greenhouse gases wrong | Mail Online
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I have to wonder what else the IPCC is wrong about.
Except that the IPCC report DOES NOT say that "climate scientists confess" global warming is just QUARTER what we thought. What they confess is that the rate of increase in the last 15 years is 1/4 what we thought, and can and has been explained, as has been pointed out in the text of your post, AND in nearly every such thread on this forum.
Does it make you comfortable knowing that we can't predict all the effects? If so, why?
Because you people are using dubious predictions to impose controls on millions of people
How does that make you comfortable?
At what rate they are being cut down and by whom?Guess the trees will stop eating CO2.
At the rate they are all being cut down, there may not be any left to absorb the CO2 in the future.
At what rate they are being cut down and by whom?Guess the trees will stop eating CO2.
At the rate they are all being cut down, there may not be any left to absorb the CO2 in the future.
Are the trees just being cut down and the forests getting paved over?
Deforestation is clearing Earth's forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality of the land. Forests still cover about 30 percent of the worlds land area, but swaths the size of Panama are lost each and every year.
No, it will be there about five and a half years.No. The CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for a great long while. But so will the CO2 we put there ten, fifty, a hundred years from now. We need to take serious action, NOW, to reduce our GHG emissions.
No, it will be there about five and a half years.No. The CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for a great long while. But so will the CO2 we put there ten, fifty, a hundred years from now. We need to take serious action, NOW, to reduce our GHG emissions.
http://thermosymposium.nist.gov/archive/symp17/pdf/Abstract_289.pdf
Fossil Fuel Emissions and Fossil CO2 in the Atmosphere
Luciano Lepori S, Gian Carlo Bussolino, Andrea Spanedda and Enrico Matteoli C
IPCF-CNR, Pisa, Italy
The comparison of fossil fuel emissions (6.4 GtC/yr) with the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (3.2 GtC/yr) suggests
that about half of the anthropogenic CO2 has not remained in the atmosphere: it has dissolved in the ocean or has
been taken up by the land. The isotope ratio C13/C12 of atmospheric CO2 has been measured over the last decades
using mass spectrometry. From these data the fraction of fossil CO2 in atmospheric CO2 is straightforwardly
calculated: 5.9 %(1981) and 8.5 %(2002). These results indicate that the amount of past fossil fuel and biogenic CO2
remaining in the atmosphere, though increasing with anthropogenic emissions, did not exceed in 2002 66 GtC,
corresponding to a concentration of 31 ppm, that is 3 times less than the CO2 increase (88 ppm, 24 %) occurred in
the last century. This low concentration (31 ppm) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is consistent with a
lifetime of t(1/2) = 5.4 years, that is the most reliable value among other in the range 2-13 years, obtained with
different measurements and methods. Contrary to the above findings on the concentration of fossil CO2 and its
residence time in the atmosphere, in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change it is stated that almost 45 % of anthropogenic emissions, corresponding to 88 ppm or 24 % of the total CO2,
have remained in the atmosphere with a mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years. On these assumptions are based both
the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the climate models.
Yes, that's what they call me when they realize the science simply isn't on their side.No, it will be there about five and a half years.No. The CO2 in the atmosphere will be there for a great long while. But so will the CO2 we put there ten, fifty, a hundred years from now. We need to take serious action, NOW, to reduce our GHG emissions.
http://thermosymposium.nist.gov/archive/symp17/pdf/Abstract_289.pdf
Fossil Fuel Emissions and Fossil CO2 in the Atmosphere
Luciano Lepori S, Gian Carlo Bussolino, Andrea Spanedda and Enrico Matteoli C
IPCF-CNR, Pisa, Italy
The comparison of fossil fuel emissions (6.4 GtC/yr) with the growth rate of atmospheric CO2 (3.2 GtC/yr) suggests
that about half of the anthropogenic CO2 has not remained in the atmosphere: it has dissolved in the ocean or has
been taken up by the land. The isotope ratio C13/C12 of atmospheric CO2 has been measured over the last decades
using mass spectrometry. From these data the fraction of fossil CO2 in atmospheric CO2 is straightforwardly
calculated: 5.9 %(1981) and 8.5 %(2002). These results indicate that the amount of past fossil fuel and biogenic CO2
remaining in the atmosphere, though increasing with anthropogenic emissions, did not exceed in 2002 66 GtC,
corresponding to a concentration of 31 ppm, that is 3 times less than the CO2 increase (88 ppm, 24 %) occurred in
the last century. This low concentration (31 ppm) of anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere is consistent with a
lifetime of t(1/2) = 5.4 years, that is the most reliable value among other in the range 2-13 years, obtained with
different measurements and methods. Contrary to the above findings on the concentration of fossil CO2 and its
residence time in the atmosphere, in the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change it is stated that almost 45 % of anthropogenic emissions, corresponding to 88 ppm or 24 % of the total CO2,
have remained in the atmosphere with a mean lifetime of t(1/2) = 30.5 years. On these assumptions are based both
the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming and the climate models.
^ Denier!
Heretic!
Racist!
By itself, such a decrease of atmospheric carbon dioxide should lead to cooling. But the heat trapped by the carbon dioxide took a divergent track.
After a century of cooling, the planet warmed by 0.37 degrees Celsius (0.66 Fahrenheit) during the next 400 years as the ocean absorbed less and less heat. While the resulting temperature spike seems slight, a little heat goes a long way here. Earth has warmed by only 0.85 degrees Celsius (1.5 degrees Fahrenheit) since pre-industrial times.
Sounds like Brazil's problem. Maybe they would be best pursuing policies that make deforestation in their country not worth the effort.At what rate they are being cut down and by whom?At the rate they are all being cut down, there may not be any left to absorb the CO2 in the future.
Are the trees just being cut down and the forests getting paved over?
Whether or not they are being paved over is irrelevant, particularly in the tropics, such as Brazil. The soil is so poor there that once you cut down the forest, every little will grow back.
Deforestation Facts, Deforestation Information, Effects of Deforestation - National Geographic
Deforestation is clearing Earth's forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality of the land. Forests still cover about 30 percent of the world’s land area, but swaths the size of Panama are lost each and every year.
Another reason to get away from coal is it causes cancer.
Is that a better reason for you?
Sounds like Brazil's problem. Maybe they would be best pursuing policies that make deforestation in their country not worth the effort.At what rate they are being cut down and by whom?
Are the trees just being cut down and the forests getting paved over?
Whether or not they are being paved over is irrelevant, particularly in the tropics, such as Brazil. The soil is so poor there that once you cut down the forest, every little will grow back.
Deforestation Facts, Deforestation Information, Effects of Deforestation - National Geographic
Deforestation is clearing Earth's forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality of the land. Forests still cover about 30 percent of the worlds land area, but swaths the size of Panama are lost each and every year.
On the other hand, when timber is treated as a renewable cash crop, as it is in America and elsewhere, there's no money in deforestation without replanting.
Sounds like Brazil's problem. Maybe they would be best pursuing policies that make deforestation in their country not worth the effort.Whether or not they are being paved over is irrelevant, particularly in the tropics, such as Brazil. The soil is so poor there that once you cut down the forest, every little will grow back.
Deforestation Facts, Deforestation Information, Effects of Deforestation - National Geographic
On the other hand, when timber is treated as a renewable cash crop, as it is in America and elsewhere, there's no money in deforestation without replanting.
One motivation for clearing those rain forests is that American Beef has gotten so expensive (because of corn prices) that we cannot compete for export. And places like Brazil are filling the vacuum.. IN FACT --- the fast food industry in the US is IMPORTING more and more "rainforest beef" every year..
Gee THANKS enviro-nuts.... ANOTHER unintended consequence of your "plans"??
At what rate they are being cut down and by whom?At the rate they are all being cut down, there may not be any left to absorb the CO2 in the future.
Are the trees just being cut down and the forests getting paved over?
Whether or not they are being paved over is irrelevant, particularly in the tropics, such as Brazil. The soil is so poor there that once you cut down the forest, every little will grow back.
Deforestation Facts, Deforestation Information, Effects of Deforestation - National Geographic
Deforestation is clearing Earth's forests on a massive scale, often resulting in damage to the quality of the land. Forests still cover about 30 percent of the worlds land area, but swaths the size of Panama are lost each and every year.
