Gore/global warming supporters.. please explain the following...

Well myths, not only do I understand fully what sequestration means, I also understand that the normal areas of sequestration are rapidly declining. The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas. Much of the Arctic is an emitting rather than absorbing area now as the permafrost warms. And the Arctic Ocean Clathrates are emitting big time.

Now if you wish to lecture someone, perhaps you should start with your peer level. About the third grade.

Again with the OLD MYTHS and cliches!
Deforestation of WHAT part of the earth?

Not the USA which is what I was specifically describing!

Yet YOU want the USA to pay for the Amazon deforestation?


FACTS about "deforestation" in the USA first!
"Over the past 50 years, net growth has consistently exceeded removals in the United States," said Smith, the tree expert.

1) It hit bottom in 1920, when only 735 million acres of woodlands were left.

2) As a result, the land area covered by forests has risen slightly, from 735 million to 749 million acres.

Trees now occupy one-third of the nation's territory.

Only 10 percent of the land in Ohio was forested in 1910, according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Today trees cover more than 30 percent of the state, although its population has more than doubled.

U.S. forest growth spotty, not likely to last | McClatchy


SO again.. with the cliched out of date ohh... we are in your totally inaccurate words.." The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas."
MAYBE right in the rest of the WORLD but the USA your out of date cliche is totally WRONG!

AGAIN just so you understand how WRONG you are:
1) early 1600s more then 1 billion acres of forests.
2) 1920 735 million acres left OR about 30% less..
3) Today..almost 750 million acres and GROWING!!!

So as I said.. old out of date cliches..OLD TIMER!!!
 
Really lame, Code. You look at the graph, and we came out of the little ice age about that time, just got back to normal by mid 1800's and then started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And the temps started going up. And continue to go up.

Hey you idiot!
Ever hear of "sequestration"???
Ever hear of "net carbon sink"??? Evidently you don't!

The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent)
in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks). This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors.
More information on U.S. carbon sequestration estimates and historical trends can be found under the National Analysis section of this Web site.
Frequent Questions | Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Just in case that is too complicated for you..
There are enough trees in the USA to absorb ALL the CO2 emitted by the USA PLUS another 15% ! Understand now "net sequestration"???
That's really funny, mythingbrains. I can't figure out if you're a paid troll trying to spread misinformation and lies or whether you're just really retarded and can't understand what you post.

You quote this line from an EPA site: "The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits. " and totally misrepresent what it says. Are you really that stupid or are you trying to fool people? The line refers to the amounts of carbon the natural "U.S. landscape" emits and sequesters every year, not the United States as a whole, cities, industry, cars and all. You even go on to stick in a quote that explicitly states the truth and then you get it backwards and totally wrong when you try to 'set us all straight'. LOL. That takes some real stupidity. Here's the line you quoted: "Net sequestration... in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent ... This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors." Are you incapable of understanding plain English, mythingbrains? It says that natural sequestration in the U.S. only offsets about 15% of total American CO2 emissions. You are actually moronically arrogant enough at this point in your post to say this: "Just in case that is too complicated for you.. There are enough trees in the USA to absorb ALL the CO2 emitted by the USA PLUS another 15% ! Understand now "net sequestration"???" LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....I guess ordinary English is "too complicated" for you.

table1-2002.gif

Source: EPA (2004) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2002 (PDF) (304 pp, 22MB).

Moreover the whole line of debate here is about global warming caused by global carbon emissions so even claiming (mistakenly) that natural U.S. carbon sequestration exceeded our emissions is meaningless when the U.S. only occupies about 2% of the Earth's surface area. Nevertheless, you continue with that nonsense in a later post, once again trying to deflect the debate into just considering America. A common failing of half-witted rightwingnut brains like yours, is a weird false impression that America is the whole world and nothing outside our borders counts somehow.


Well myths, not only do I understand fully what sequestration means, I also understand that the normal areas of sequestration are rapidly declining. The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas. Much of the Arctic is an emitting rather than absorbing area now as the permafrost warms. And the Arctic Ocean Clathrates are emitting big time.

Now if you wish to lecture someone, perhaps you should start with your peer level. About the third grade.

Again with the OLD MYTHS and cliches!
Deforestation of WHAT part of the earth?
Most of it, actually. LOLOLOL....hilarious.....you imagine that world deforestation is an "OLD MYTH" and a "cliche". You really are confused and deluded, little dimwit.




Not the USA which is what I was specifically describing!
Actually you were specifically getting it wrong about how much natural sequestration offsets American CO2 emissions.



Yet YOU want the USA to pay for the Amazon deforestation?
Totally meaningless strawman. If we keep on pumping 30 gigatons of fossil carbon into the atmosphere every year and continue to make the ultimate consequences of global warming even worse, everybody "pays".




FACTS about "deforestation" in the USA first!
"Over the past 50 years, net growth has consistently exceeded removals in the United States," said Smith, the tree expert.
1) It hit bottom in 1920, when only 735 million acres of woodlands were left.
2) As a result, the land area covered by forests has risen slightly, from 735 million to 749 million acres. Trees now occupy one-third of the nation's territory.
Only 10 percent of the land in Ohio was forested in 1910, according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Today trees cover more than 30 percent of the state, although its population has more than doubled.
U.S. forest growth spotty, not likely to last | McClatchy
SO again.. with the cliched out of date ohh... we are in your totally inaccurate words.." The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas."
MAYBE right in the rest of the WORLD but the USA your out of date cliche is totally WRONG! AGAIN just so you understand how WRONG you are:
1) early 1600s more then 1 billion acres of forests.
2) 1920 735 million acres left OR about 30% less..
3) Today..almost 750 million acres and GROWING!!!
So as I said.. old out of date cliches..OLD TIMER!!!

LOL. I still can't quite tell if you're just retarded or lying on purpose. The fact is the discussion is about global carbon emissions and global warming, not just the U.S., nutbag. As oldrocks' comment to which you responded made clear: "The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas." "Of the Earth", moron!!! The U.S.A. = 2% of Earth's surface area. Get it?

World deforestation decreases, but remains alarming in many countries
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations

(excerpts)

25 March 2010, Rome - World deforestation, mainly the conversion of tropical forests to agricultural land, has decreased over the past ten years but continues at an alarmingly high rate in many countries, FAO announced today.

Globally, around 13 million hectares of forests (about 50,000 square miles) were converted to other uses or lost through natural causes each year between 2000 and 2010 as compared to around 16 million hectares per year during the 1990s, according to key findings of FAO's most comprehensive forest review to date The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. The study covers 233 countries and areas.
 
Last edited:
Really lame, Code. You look at the graph, and we came out of the little ice age about that time, just got back to normal by mid 1800's and then started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. And the temps started going up. And continue to go up.

Hey you idiot!
Ever hear of "sequestration"???
Ever hear of "net carbon sink"??? Evidently you don't!

The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent)
in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks). This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors.
More information on U.S. carbon sequestration estimates and historical trends can be found under the National Analysis section of this Web site.
Frequent Questions | Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Just in case that is too complicated for you..
There are enough trees in the USA to absorb ALL the CO2 emitted by the USA PLUS another 15% ! Understand now "net sequestration"???
That's really funny, mythingbrains. I can't figure out if you're a paid troll trying to spread misinformation and lies or whether you're just really retarded and can't understand what you post.

You quote this line from an EPA site: "The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits. " and totally misrepresent what it says. Are you really that stupid or are you trying to fool people? The line refers to the amounts of carbon the natural "U.S. landscape" emits and sequesters every year, not the United States as a whole, cities, industry, cars and all. You even go on to stick in a quote that explicitly states the truth and then you get it backwards and totally wrong when you try to 'set us all straight'. LOL. That takes some real stupidity. Here's the line you quoted: "Net sequestration... in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent ... This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors." Are you incapable of understanding plain English, mythingbrains? It says that natural sequestration in the U.S. only offsets about 15% of total American CO2 emissions. You are actually moronically arrogant enough at this point in your post to say this: "Just in case that is too complicated for you.. There are enough trees in the USA to absorb ALL the CO2 emitted by the USA PLUS another 15% ! Understand now "net sequestration"???" LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....I guess ordinary English is "too complicated" for you.

table1-2002.gif

Source: EPA (2004) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2002 (PDF) (304 pp, 22MB).

Moreover the whole line of debate here is about global warming caused by global carbon emissions so even claiming (mistakenly) that natural U.S. carbon sequestration exceeded our emissions is meaningless when the U.S. only occupies about 2% of the Earth's surface area. Nevertheless, you continue with that nonsense in a later post, once again trying to deflect the debate into just considering America. A common failing of half-witted rightwingnut brains like yours, is a weird false impression that America is the whole world and nothing outside our borders counts somehow.



Most of it, actually. LOLOLOL....hilarious.....you imagine that world deforestation is an "OLD MYTH" and a "cliche". You really are confused and deluded, little dimwit.





Actually you were specifically getting it wrong about how much natural sequestration offsets American CO2 emissions.



Yet YOU want the USA to pay for the Amazon deforestation?
Totally meaningless strawman. If we keep on pumping 30 gigatons of fossil carbon into the atmosphere every year and continue to make the ultimate consequences of global warming even worse, everybody "pays".




FACTS about "deforestation" in the USA first!
"Over the past 50 years, net growth has consistently exceeded removals in the United States," said Smith, the tree expert.
1) It hit bottom in 1920, when only 735 million acres of woodlands were left.
2) As a result, the land area covered by forests has risen slightly, from 735 million to 749 million acres. Trees now occupy one-third of the nation's territory.
Only 10 percent of the land in Ohio was forested in 1910, according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Today trees cover more than 30 percent of the state, although its population has more than doubled.
U.S. forest growth spotty, not likely to last | McClatchy
SO again.. with the cliched out of date ohh... we are in your totally inaccurate words.." The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas."
MAYBE right in the rest of the WORLD but the USA your out of date cliche is totally WRONG! AGAIN just so you understand how WRONG you are:
1) early 1600s more then 1 billion acres of forests.
2) 1920 735 million acres left OR about 30% less..
3) Today..almost 750 million acres and GROWING!!!
So as I said.. old out of date cliches..OLD TIMER!!!

LOL. I still can't quite tell if you're just retarded or lying on purpose. The fact is the discussion is about global carbon emissions and global warming, not just the U.S., nutbag. As oldrocks' comment to which you responded made clear: "The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas." "Of the Earth", moron!!! The U.S.A. = 2% of Earth's surface area. Get it?

World deforestation decreases, but remains alarming in many countries
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations

(excerpts)

25 March 2010, Rome - World deforestation, mainly the conversion of tropical forests to agricultural land, has decreased over the past ten years but continues at an alarmingly high rate in many countries, FAO announced today.

Globally, around 13 million hectares of forests (about 50,000 square miles) were converted to other uses or lost through natural causes each year between 2000 and 2010 as compared to around 16 million hectares per year during the 1990s, according to key findings of FAO's most comprehensive forest review to date The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. The study covers 233 countries and areas.




This is one of those international problems that really isn't a problem in the USA, isn't it?

We have more trees now than at any time since WW2. It's getting better here. not worse.

To make a positive change, you really need to argue in an international context. We are the heroes in this, not the villains. It should be pretty obvious that the rest of the world can do as they please with no regard to what we desire.
 
Hey you idiot!
Ever hear of "sequestration"???
Ever hear of "net carbon sink"??? Evidently you don't!

The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits.
Two types of analyses confirm this:
1) atmospheric, or top-down, methods that look at changes in CO2 concentrations; and
2) land-based, or bottom-up, methods that incorporate on-the-ground inventories or plot measurements.
Net sequestration (i.e., the difference between carbon gains and losses) in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent (or about 230 Tg or million metric tons of carbon equivalent)
in 2001 (Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks). This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors.
More information on U.S. carbon sequestration estimates and historical trends can be found under the National Analysis section of this Web site.
Frequent Questions | Carbon Sequestration in Agriculture and Forestry | Climate Change | U.S. EPA

Just in case that is too complicated for you..
There are enough trees in the USA to absorb ALL the CO2 emitted by the USA PLUS another 15% ! Understand now "net sequestration"???
That's really funny, mythingbrains. I can't figure out if you're a paid troll trying to spread misinformation and lies or whether you're just really retarded and can't understand what you post.

You quote this line from an EPA site: "The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits. " and totally misrepresent what it says. Are you really that stupid or are you trying to fool people? The line refers to the amounts of carbon the natural "U.S. landscape" emits and sequesters every year, not the United States as a whole, cities, industry, cars and all. You even go on to stick in a quote that explicitly states the truth and then you get it backwards and totally wrong when you try to 'set us all straight'. LOL. That takes some real stupidity. Here's the line you quoted: "Net sequestration... in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent ... This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors." Are you incapable of understanding plain English, mythingbrains? It says that natural sequestration in the U.S. only offsets about 15% of total American CO2 emissions. You are actually moronically arrogant enough at this point in your post to say this: "Just in case that is too complicated for you.. There are enough trees in the USA to absorb ALL the CO2 emitted by the USA PLUS another 15% ! Understand now "net sequestration"???" LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....I guess ordinary English is "too complicated" for you.

table1-2002.gif

Source: EPA (2004) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2002 (PDF) (304 pp, 22MB).

Moreover the whole line of debate here is about global warming caused by global carbon emissions so even claiming (mistakenly) that natural U.S. carbon sequestration exceeded our emissions is meaningless when the U.S. only occupies about 2% of the Earth's surface area. Nevertheless, you continue with that nonsense in a later post, once again trying to deflect the debate into just considering America. A common failing of half-witted rightwingnut brains like yours, is a weird false impression that America is the whole world and nothing outside our borders counts somehow.



Most of it, actually. LOLOLOL....hilarious.....you imagine that world deforestation is an "OLD MYTH" and a "cliche". You really are confused and deluded, little dimwit.





Actually you were specifically getting it wrong about how much natural sequestration offsets American CO2 emissions.




Totally meaningless strawman. If we keep on pumping 30 gigatons of fossil carbon into the atmosphere every year and continue to make the ultimate consequences of global warming even worse, everybody "pays".




FACTS about "deforestation" in the USA first!
"Over the past 50 years, net growth has consistently exceeded removals in the United States," said Smith, the tree expert.
1) It hit bottom in 1920, when only 735 million acres of woodlands were left.
2) As a result, the land area covered by forests has risen slightly, from 735 million to 749 million acres. Trees now occupy one-third of the nation's territory.
Only 10 percent of the land in Ohio was forested in 1910, according to the Ohio Department of Natural Resources. Today trees cover more than 30 percent of the state, although its population has more than doubled.
U.S. forest growth spotty, not likely to last | McClatchy
SO again.. with the cliched out of date ohh... we are in your totally inaccurate words.." The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas."
MAYBE right in the rest of the WORLD but the USA your out of date cliche is totally WRONG! AGAIN just so you understand how WRONG you are:
1) early 1600s more then 1 billion acres of forests.
2) 1920 735 million acres left OR about 30% less..
3) Today..almost 750 million acres and GROWING!!!
So as I said.. old out of date cliches..OLD TIMER!!!

LOL. I still can't quite tell if you're just retarded or lying on purpose. The fact is the discussion is about global carbon emissions and global warming, not just the U.S., nutbag. As oldrocks' comment to which you responded made clear: "The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas." "Of the Earth", moron!!! The U.S.A. = 2% of Earth's surface area. Get it?

World deforestation decreases, but remains alarming in many countries
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations

(excerpts)

25 March 2010, Rome - World deforestation, mainly the conversion of tropical forests to agricultural land, has decreased over the past ten years but continues at an alarmingly high rate in many countries, FAO announced today.

Globally, around 13 million hectares of forests (about 50,000 square miles) were converted to other uses or lost through natural causes each year between 2000 and 2010 as compared to around 16 million hectares per year during the 1990s, according to key findings of FAO's most comprehensive forest review to date The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. The study covers 233 countries and areas.




This is one of those international problems that really isn't a problem in the USA, isn't it?
No, numbnuts, this is one of those international problems that really is a huge problem in the USA. The US is not in a separate dimension from the rest of the world, as rightwingnuts seem to imagine. We are all part of the same planet and in regard to global warming and the ongoing loss of natural carbon sequestration, the consequences of deforestation anywhere on Earth affects us too.




We have more trees now than at any time since WW2. It's getting better here. not worse.
North America suffered extensive deforestation after the European arrival. In some areas there has been some regrowth, mostly of plantation farmed trees lacking biodiversity, but the US is still losing primary forest land every year.

Area of primary forests in the United States (lower 48)
(around 1620, top; and 1850 middle; 1920, bottom)

defores9.JPG

Since 1600, 90% of the virgin forests that once covered much of the lower 48 states have been cleared away. Most of the remaining old-growth forests in the lower 48 states and Alaska are on public lands. In the Pacific Northwest about 80% of this forestland is slated for logging.




To make a positive change, you really need to argue in an international context. We are the heroes in this, not the villains. It should be pretty obvious that the rest of the world can do as they please with no regard to what we desire.
What an idiotic rationalization. The US is definitely not "the heroes in this". America has in fact added the most carbon to the atmosphere over the last century or so. We are the most responsible for the current unnatural abrupt warming trend but also the most resistant to doing anything significant about dealing with the problem.

A history of CO2 emissions
The Guardian
2 September 2009
(excerpts)

Developing countries argue that any CO2 cuts agreed by developed countries at Copenhagen should incorporate the principle of historical responsibility. In other words, the rich should pay in the near future for its considerable past contributions to global warming.

Data from 1900-2004 supports such an argument, when you keep in mind the size of countries' populations. The US has the biggest historical share (314,772m metric tonnes of carbon dioxide), while European countries such as Germany (73,625) and the UK (55,163) cast a shadow over developing nations such as India (25,054), Brazil (9,136) and Indonesia (6,167). China is on 89,243.

 
That's really funny, mythingbrains. I can't figure out if you're a paid troll trying to spread misinformation and lies or whether you're just really retarded and can't understand what you post.

You quote this line from an EPA site: "The U.S. landscape acts as a net carbon sink—it sequesters more carbon than it emits. " and totally misrepresent what it says. Are you really that stupid or are you trying to fool people? The line refers to the amounts of carbon the natural "U.S. landscape" emits and sequesters every year, not the United States as a whole, cities, industry, cars and all. You even go on to stick in a quote that explicitly states the truth and then you get it backwards and totally wrong when you try to 'set us all straight'. LOL. That takes some real stupidity. Here's the line you quoted: "Net sequestration... in U.S. forests, urban trees and agricultural soils totaled almost 840 teragrams (Tg) of CO2 equivalent ... This offsets approximately 15% of total U.S. CO2 emissions from the energy, transportation and other sectors." Are you incapable of understanding plain English, mythingbrains? It says that natural sequestration in the U.S. only offsets about 15% of total American CO2 emissions. You are actually moronically arrogant enough at this point in your post to say this: "Just in case that is too complicated for you.. There are enough trees in the USA to absorb ALL the CO2 emitted by the USA PLUS another 15% ! Understand now "net sequestration"???" LOLOLOLOLOLOL.....I guess ordinary English is "too complicated" for you.

table1-2002.gif

Source: EPA (2004) Inventory of U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions and Sinks: 1990-2002 (PDF) (304 pp, 22MB).

Moreover the whole line of debate here is about global warming caused by global carbon emissions so even claiming (mistakenly) that natural U.S. carbon sequestration exceeded our emissions is meaningless when the U.S. only occupies about 2% of the Earth's surface area. Nevertheless, you continue with that nonsense in a later post, once again trying to deflect the debate into just considering America. A common failing of half-witted rightwingnut brains like yours, is a weird false impression that America is the whole world and nothing outside our borders counts somehow.



Most of it, actually. LOLOLOL....hilarious.....you imagine that world deforestation is an "OLD MYTH" and a "cliche". You really are confused and deluded, little dimwit.





Actually you were specifically getting it wrong about how much natural sequestration offsets American CO2 emissions.




Totally meaningless strawman. If we keep on pumping 30 gigatons of fossil carbon into the atmosphere every year and continue to make the ultimate consequences of global warming even worse, everybody "pays".






LOL. I still can't quite tell if you're just retarded or lying on purpose. The fact is the discussion is about global carbon emissions and global warming, not just the U.S., nutbag. As oldrocks' comment to which you responded made clear: "The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas." "Of the Earth", moron!!! The U.S.A. = 2% of Earth's surface area. Get it?

World deforestation decreases, but remains alarming in many countries
Food and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations

(excerpts)

25 March 2010, Rome - World deforestation, mainly the conversion of tropical forests to agricultural land, has decreased over the past ten years but continues at an alarmingly high rate in many countries, FAO announced today.

Globally, around 13 million hectares of forests (about 50,000 square miles) were converted to other uses or lost through natural causes each year between 2000 and 2010 as compared to around 16 million hectares per year during the 1990s, according to key findings of FAO's most comprehensive forest review to date The Global Forest Resources Assessment 2010. The study covers 233 countries and areas.




This is one of those international problems that really isn't a problem in the USA, isn't it?
No, numbnuts, this is one of those international problems that really is a huge problem in the USA. The US is not in a separate dimension from the rest of the world, as rightwingnuts seem to imagine. We are all part of the same planet and in regard to global warming and the ongoing loss of natural carbon sequestration, the consequences of deforestation anywhere on Earth affects us too.




We have more trees now than at any time since WW2. It's getting better here. not worse.
North America suffered extensive deforestation after the European arrival. In some areas there has been some regrowth, mostly of plantation farmed trees lacking biodiversity, but the US is still losing primary forest land every year.

Area of primary forests in the United States (lower 48)
(around 1620, top; and 1850 middle; 1920, bottom)

defores9.JPG

Since 1600, 90% of the virgin forests that once covered much of the lower 48 states have been cleared away. Most of the remaining old-growth forests in the lower 48 states and Alaska are on public lands. In the Pacific Northwest about 80% of this forestland is slated for logging.




To make a positive change, you really need to argue in an international context. We are the heroes in this, not the villains. It should be pretty obvious that the rest of the world can do as they please with no regard to what we desire.
What an idiotic rationalization. The US is definitely not "the heroes in this". America has in fact added the most carbon to the atmosphere over the last century or so. We are the most responsible for the current unnatural abrupt warming trend but also the most resistant to doing anything significant about dealing with the problem.

A history of CO2 emissions
The Guardian
2 September 2009
(excerpts)

Developing countries argue that any CO2 cuts agreed by developed countries at Copenhagen should incorporate the principle of historical responsibility. In other words, the rich should pay in the near future for its considerable past contributions to global warming.

Data from 1900-2004 supports such an argument, when you keep in mind the size of countries' populations. The US has the biggest historical share (314,772m metric tonnes of carbon dioxide), while European countries such as Germany (73,625) and the UK (55,163) cast a shadow over developing nations such as India (25,054), Brazil (9,136) and Indonesia (6,167). China is on 89,243.




What are you talking about? Deforestation or CO2 increase?
 
What are you talking about? Deforestation or CO2 increase?

All part of the same thing, isn't it? Deforestation decreases the effectiveness of an important carbon sink, leading to an increase in atmospheric CO2.


An increase in CO2 is just that.

Deforestation can cause a number of other things like specie extinction or erosion or habitat destruction.

He was talking about deforestation and in the USA, we have addressed this and have reversed it. By setting up the straw man of international deforestation, he is imploring our government to increase the number of trees we enjoy when that is already happening.

Deforestation is almost always detrimental to the local ecology. The increase in CO2 is not always detrimental to the local or even the global ecology.

Right now, we are at the all time high of CO2 and the temperature is cooling over the last ten years. If CO2 was the primary or even and important driver of our climate, this would be impossible regardless of the other factors.

If CO2 was a weak or even impotent driver of climate this would be expected.

You tell me. Is CO2 the strongest driver of climate or impotent?
 
America has in fact added the most carbon to the atmosphere over the last century or so. We are the most responsible for the current unnatural abrupt warming trend but also the most resistant to doing anything significant about dealing with the problem.

]



You have yet to prove that CO2 is driving the rise in temperature.

We are at the all time high in CO2 and yet the temperature has dropped over the last ten years.

How can this be true if CO2 is the primary driver of climate?
 
What are you talking about? Deforestation or CO2 increase?

All part of the same thing, isn't it? Deforestation decreases the effectiveness of an important carbon sink, leading to an increase in atmospheric CO2.


An increase in CO2 is just that.

Deforestation can cause a number of other things like specie extinction or erosion or habitat destruction.

He was talking about deforestation and in the USA, we have addressed this and have reversed it. By setting up the straw man of international deforestation, he is imploring our government to increase the number of trees we enjoy when that is already happening.

Deforestation is almost always detrimental to the local ecology. The increase in CO2 is not always detrimental to the local or even the global ecology.

Right now, we are at the all time high of CO2 and the temperature is cooling over the last ten years. If CO2 was the primary or even and important driver of our climate, this would be impossible regardless of the other factors.

If CO2 was a weak or even impotent driver of climate this would be expected.

You tell me. Is CO2 the strongest driver of climate or impotent?

You tell me. Couldn't it be even colder? Warming is relative. If as you say the extra CO2 is a good thing, you still have to explain what happens to the extra trapped IR radiation in light of the principle of Conservation of Energy.
 
Well myths, not only do I understand fully what sequestration means, I also understand that the normal areas of sequestration are rapidly declining. The forested area of the Earth is declining as we cut more and more of the old growth and replace it with farmland or urban areas. Much of the Arctic is an emitting rather than absorbing area now as the permafrost warms. And the Arctic Ocean Clathrates are emitting big time.

Now if you wish to lecture someone, perhaps you should start with your peer level. About the third grade.





If you're going to try and come across as "mr. MENSA BOY" you should at least learn how to spell your current conspiracy theory's name correctly. So, that would be CALTHRATES MENSA BOY! And if they are emitting so much how come the global temp is remaining static?

Clathrate hydrate - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Clathrate hydrates (or gas clathrates, gas hydrates, clathrates, hydrates, etc.) are crystalline water-based solids physically resembling ice, in which small non-polar molecules (typically gases) or polar molecules with large hydrophobic moieties are trapped inside "cages" of hydrogen bonded water molecules. In other words, clathrate hydrates are clathrate compounds in which the host molecule is water and the guest molecule is typically a gas or liquid. Without the support of the trapped molecules, the lattice structure of hydrate clathrates would collapse into conventional ice crystal structure or liquid water. Most low molecular weight gases (including O2, H2, N2, CO2, CH4, H2S, Ar, Kr, and Xe), as well as some higher hydrocarbons and freons will form hydrates at suitable temperatures and pressures. Clathrate hydrates are not chemical compounds as the sequestered molecules are never bonded to the lattice. The formation and decomposition of clathrate hydrates are first order phase transitions, not chemical reactions. Their detailed formation and decomposition mechanisms on a molecular level are still not well understood.[1][2] Clathrate hydrates were first documented in 1810 by Sir Humphry Davy.[3]

Clathrates have been found to occur naturally in large quantities. Around 6.4 trillion (i.e. 6.4x1012) tonnes of methane is trapped in deposits of methane clathrate on the deep ocean floor.[4] Such deposits can be found on the Norwegian continental shelf in the northern headwall flank of the Storegga Slide. Clathrates can also exist as permafrost, as at the Mallik gas hydrate field in the Mackenzie Delta of northwestern Canadian Arctic. These natural gas hydrates are seen as a potentially vast energy resource, but an economical extraction method has so far proven elusive. Hydrocarbon clathrates cause problems for the petroleum industry, because they can form inside gas pipelines often resulting in plug formation. Deep sea deposition of carbon dioxide clathrate has been proposed as a method to remove this greenhouse gas from the atmosphere and control climate change.

Clathrates are suspected to occur in large quantities on some outer planets, moons and trans-Neptunian objects, binding gas at fairly high temperatures.
 
All part of the same thing, isn't it? Deforestation decreases the effectiveness of an important carbon sink, leading to an increase in atmospheric CO2.


An increase in CO2 is just that.

Deforestation can cause a number of other things like specie extinction or erosion or habitat destruction.

He was talking about deforestation and in the USA, we have addressed this and have reversed it. By setting up the straw man of international deforestation, he is imploring our government to increase the number of trees we enjoy when that is already happening.

Deforestation is almost always detrimental to the local ecology. The increase in CO2 is not always detrimental to the local or even the global ecology.

Right now, we are at the all time high of CO2 and the temperature is cooling over the last ten years. If CO2 was the primary or even and important driver of our climate, this would be impossible regardless of the other factors.

If CO2 was a weak or even impotent driver of climate this would be expected.

You tell me. Is CO2 the strongest driver of climate or impotent?

You tell me. Couldn't it be even colder? Warming is relative. If as you say the extra CO2 is a good thing, you still have to explain what happens to the extra trapped IR radiation in light of the principle of Conservation of Energy.




It's gotten cold enough to drop the snow level down to 2500 feet in the Antelope Valley about 50 miles north of LA. That's cold baby. Hasn't been that low since 1962 when the AGW crowd were predicting a new ice age.
 
What an idiotic rationalization. The US is definitely not "the heroes in this". America has in fact added the most carbon to the atmosphere over the last century or so. We are the most responsible for the current unnatural abrupt warming trend but also the most resistant to doing anything significant about dealing with the problem.
You have yet to prove that CO2 is driving the rise in temperature.
That's your delusion and denier cult dogma but the climate scientists of the world disagree with your ignorant nonsense.




We are at the all time high in CO2 and yet the temperature has dropped over the last ten years.
That's another of your dumbass denier cult delusions. 2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record in the last 160 years. World average temperatures have continued to rise over the last decade.




How can this be true if CO2 is the primary driver of climate?
Climate scientists expect some year to year variability due to El Nino/La Nina changes and other factors. The long term trend is still towards increasing temperatures and this trend is being driven by the increasing CO2.
 
What an idiotic rationalization. The US is definitely not "the heroes in this". America has in fact added the most carbon to the atmosphere over the last century or so. We are the most responsible for the current unnatural abrupt warming trend but also the most resistant to doing anything significant about dealing with the problem.
You have yet to prove that CO2 is driving the rise in temperature.
That's your delusion and denier cult dogma but the climate scientists of the world disagree with your ignorant nonsense.




We are at the all time high in CO2 and yet the temperature has dropped over the last ten years.
That's another of your dumbass denier cult delusions. 2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record in the last 160 years. World average temperatures have continued to rise over the last decade.




How can this be true if CO2 is the primary driver of climate?
Climate scientists expect some year to year variability due to El Nino/La Nina changes and other factors. The long term trend is still towards increasing temperatures and this trend is being driven by the increasing CO2.




Only because of proven shenanigans. Remove the alterations and all of a sudden they ain't so warm anymore.


Tsk, tsk.
 
You have yet to prove that CO2 is driving the rise in temperature.
That's your delusion and denier cult dogma but the climate scientists of the world disagree with your ignorant nonsense.


That's another of your dumbass denier cult delusions. 2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record in the last 160 years. World average temperatures have continued to rise over the last decade.


How can this be true if CO2 is the primary driver of climate?
Climate scientists expect some year to year variability due to El Nino/La Nina changes and other factors. The long term trend is still towards increasing temperatures and this trend is being driven by the increasing CO2.
Only because of proven shenanigans. Remove the alterations and all of a sudden they ain't so warm anymore. Tsk, tsk.

LOLOLOL.......you are such a funny, funny retard, walleyed....just hilarious.....but your delusions are still insane. No "alterations", no "proven shenanigans" except maybe in your crazy little denier cult bizarro-world hallucinations. There are so many observed signs and indications of rising temperatures all around the world, the fact that you imagine that the thermometer records are the only evidence is just another indication of how extremely ignorant you are about this whole subject. But then, denying reality is what you're all about.
 
An increase in CO2 is just that.

Deforestation can cause a number of other things like specie extinction or erosion or habitat destruction.

He was talking about deforestation and in the USA, we have addressed this and have reversed it. By setting up the straw man of international deforestation, he is imploring our government to increase the number of trees we enjoy when that is already happening.

Deforestation is almost always detrimental to the local ecology. The increase in CO2 is not always detrimental to the local or even the global ecology.

Right now, we are at the all time high of CO2 and the temperature is cooling over the last ten years. If CO2 was the primary or even and important driver of our climate, this would be impossible regardless of the other factors.

If CO2 was a weak or even impotent driver of climate this would be expected.

You tell me. Is CO2 the strongest driver of climate or impotent?

You tell me. Couldn't it be even colder? Warming is relative. If as you say the extra CO2 is a good thing, you still have to explain what happens to the extra trapped IR radiation in light of the principle of Conservation of Energy.

It's gotten cold enough to drop the snow level down to 2500 feet in the Antelope Valley about 50 miles north of LA. That's cold baby. Hasn't been that low since 1962 when the AGW crowd were predicting a new ice age.

Thanks for the weather report, but can we get back to discussing climate?
 
You tell me. Couldn't it be even colder? Warming is relative. If as you say the extra CO2 is a good thing, you still have to explain what happens to the extra trapped IR radiation in light of the principle of Conservation of Energy.

It's gotten cold enough to drop the snow level down to 2500 feet in the Antelope Valley about 50 miles north of LA. That's cold baby. Hasn't been that low since 1962 when the AGW crowd were predicting a new ice age.

Thanks for the weather report, but can we get back to discussing climate?





Why bother. Every rain drop or storm is a "weather event" supporting your particular delusion. Oh did you hear??? Seeee ya!

"TORONTO (AP) — Canada's environment minister said Monday his country is pulling out of the Kyoto Protocol on climate change.

Peter Kent said that Canada is invoking the legal right to withdraw and said Kyoto doesn't represent the way forward for Canada or the world.

Canada, joined by Japan and Russia, said last year it will not accept new Kyoto commitments, but renouncing the accord is another setback to the treaty concluded with much fanfare in 1997. No nation has formally renounced the protocol until now."






Canada pulls out of Kyoto - Yahoo! News
 
What an idiotic rationalization. The US is definitely not "the heroes in this". America has in fact added the most carbon to the atmosphere over the last century or so. We are the most responsible for the current unnatural abrupt warming trend but also the most resistant to doing anything significant about dealing with the problem.
You have yet to prove that CO2 is driving the rise in temperature.
That's your delusion and denier cult dogma but the climate scientists of the world disagree with your ignorant nonsense.




We are at the all time high in CO2 and yet the temperature has dropped over the last ten years.
That's another of your dumbass denier cult delusions. 2010 is tied with 2005 as the hottest year on record in the last 160 years. World average temperatures have continued to rise over the last decade.




How can this be true if CO2 is the primary driver of climate?
Climate scientists expect some year to year variability due to El Nino/La Nina changes and other factors. The long term trend is still towards increasing temperatures and this trend is being driven by the increasing CO2.




Sure thing blunder. Here I present you two maps. The 1st one is post temp adjustments. The 2nd one is actual temp readings.
 

Attachments

  • $animationimage2759.jpg
    $animationimage2759.jpg
    45.2 KB · Views: 60
  • $animationimage2760 unadjusted.jpg
    $animationimage2760 unadjusted.jpg
    43.1 KB · Views: 59
As usual, the Climate Change sheeple confuse cause and effect.

Then enlighten us. Given your post, you haven't proven you know the difference either. You can't be saying "warming causes CO2", can you? Well..., that's a cause AND an effect. Get back to us when you figure that one out or just read a few of Old Rocks' posts.
 

Forum List

Back
Top