Fix for global warming

Land management is a major way we change the regional weather. More so than CO2 in the air I believe.

It is the fear of CO2 that most of us opposed to your beliefs disagree with. It is a fertilizer for plants and should net be classed as a pollutant. It also is showing not to have the forcing claimed as now we are in this long hiatus. When it comes to other matters of climate change, we mostly agree, but still disagree on qualifications of each component.

What the alarmist side needs to realize is that as long as they act like "Chicken Little," they will be ignored by the people who need the truth.

 

I finally watched the video. He gives more credit to the exchange of CO2 than I have considered in the past. Is he right? I don't know.

If he is correct about returning CO2 levels to postindustrial levels with land management of livestock, then maybe the CO2 increases are natural to begin with?

I'm not saying it is. Right now, we attribute about half out CO2 output as being sequestered by nature. However, if at the same time as the industrial revolution, we have been causing desertification, then maybe it is more land use than added man-made levels.

Interesting perspective just the same. Afterall, we offset the balance of the carbon cycle by about 4%, which many people think nature should absorb anyway.

 

Actually the deserts have been greening.

 

Have they? As a global average? I don't think that's true.

 

Deserts 'greening' from rising CO2

Increased levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) have helped boost green foliage across the world’s arid regions over the past 30 years through a process called CO2 fertilisation, according to CSIRO research.

 

I'm aware of that, but there are regions that are becoming deserts that didn't used to be. I'm pretty sure that we are losing more land with plants than gaining. Especially in Africa.

This is as bad as alarmist material. They stay factual, but allow the reader to fill in the blanks.

 

Ah! More straw men

Who "fears" CO2
Please name them

Which "alarmists" are acting like "chicken little"?

It is not "Fertiliser" and should not be classified as a noxious pollutant agreed but then anything CAN be a pollutant if it is in the wrong place and the wrong amount at the wrong time
As for the so called hiatus

 

Yup the extinction of our vile human race is around the corner shouldn't you all be celebrating? I mean humanity is a parasite that has been leeching off the planet for sometime now. Sooner or later earth will have to rid itself of us.

 

Little tip for those who like their facts straight up - if something seems to be counter intuitive read the ENTIRE article

So a couple of excerpts

11 percent eh? Be still my beating heart - what a win 11% increase on this



Quick! Cut down more rainforests seems we don't need them anymore /sarcasm

I will skip right over the whole "mathematical model" thing which was used to calculate this because seems I have heard more than a few denialists repeating the meme about how unreliable models are........

 

you bring up an interesting point. Just what did happen to the Sahara Rain Forest? Geologists tend to agree that 10000 years ago, the Sahara was a lush svelt wet land. Man was not around then. So tell us, or great rocket scientist, what happened to it?

- - - Updated - - -

more cartoons and anecdotal stories............yep, like that's proof

 

Where would that be? For instance, the Southwest has been drying out long before Europeans set foot in America.

 

You are probably one of those that hail the 4% decrease of the Arctic ozone hole as significant.

You also may be unaware that new growth forest absorb much more CO2 than old growth does or that much of the rainforests produce most of the gases like methane.

 

Well, none of us were around to see the full extent of changes. We only see proxy evidence.

However...

10,000 years ago I will with a small degree of confidence say it's likely because during the ice age, the desert regions were enough cooler that they had a totally different climate. It probably takes centuries to change.

 

okkkkkkkkkk, so the next question is, since Man wasn't here with his pollution, what caused the warming?

 

Probably the Milankovitch cycle. However, this too is the best we can decipher from our known sciences.

Do you have a serious question?

 

There are ONLY questions about the Milankovitch cycle.

"Our known sciences" say the earth is warming and that the primary cause is anthropogenic.

 

Rotting vegetation produces methane - but it has to be in certain conditions so overall NO rainforests are not part of the problem

As for old growth

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/jan/15/trees-grow-more-older-carbon

 

The trees mentioned don't apply. We don't make buildings out of pine. If you wish to counter the argument, look for ones that focus on trees like Douglas Fir. You will find the argument true, that the young rapid growing trees sequester more than the older ones. Proper forestry will sequester vast amounts of CO2 and building material that lasts.

 

Sorry but I proved my point - You want to prove a counter point then it is not up to me to do the research - until; then research your own points

 

no, my point all along was indicating that we might be going through such a cycle or change in global climate even without our presence because this event, as far as we know,is unique that Man is here to record changes.
This planet has been changing since its birth 4.5 billion years ago and it will continue to change until its end. There is nothing we can do to stop this.
Have we polluted? you can count on it. But is our presence precipitating this event? I don't thinks so. People give man too much credit for his affect on the planet. This world will do what ever it's going to do with or without us.
Ice core samples demonstrate this.
We are only bug poo on the windshield on the history of the planet. [4.5 billion >.....................................................................................................us>..........................................................................................the end of the planet's history
It's just easier to blame us and then charge us to fix something that will occur anyway

 

LOL... In your dreams. The trees mentioned in the article aren't going to be used for construction purposes. They have little practical use.

This is a topic I have seen for many years, living in the Pacific Northwest, which used to have a robust logging industry. I find it laughable that you find articles that use trees that are not targeted as useful old growth trees.

 

I don't disagree that most of what we see is natural. I just don't take consensus of any viewpoint as truth.

I actually agree solar is the primary cause of the warming we have seen. Scientists agree we have had three significant solar increases since the year 1700. The only disagreement is by how much. In fact, I am a proponent that the increases were larger than could be equalized in short order, within the ocean surface. I say it takes decades to equalize, and have calculated that if the ocean component only equalized to the atmosphere at a 3% annual rate, the solar peak in 1958 would finally equalize in 2004:



The data I used is what is currently in consensus, and the reconstruction data used at the SORCE site. The response 1 is the ocean to atmosphere equalization assuming 3% annual equalization. The response 2 is an attempt to use a faster equalization for land and ocean combined.

This was originally just an exercise to show there are other possibilities.

 

That would be fine IF the old growth forests were being logged for housing timber
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/26/world/americas/26iht-paper.1.20453524.html

A significant amount of logging is because you Yanks like your Tushie Tissue soft and will not man up and use recycled paper like the rest of us

 

So many laugable items in that article.

Greenpeace

less than 2% of premium brands.

Eucalyptus trees.

Includes old growth

It does confirm second growth being large CO2 absorbers.

Keep throwing that horse pucky. Maybe some day, something will stick.

Most certainly, once again, not the old growth wanted for building.

 

In an earlier post I linked to the research article that showed the higher absorption rates for old growth forests - and the percentages of toilet paper do not mean much when there is such a lot of it being used. And your argument about sequestration of carbon in timber housing is fallacious - it is the equivalent of bailing out the great lakes with a teaspoon

Here are SOME of the articles written on old growth forests and CO2

http://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?q=old+growth+forest+co2+consumption&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5