Proof that the temperature readings showing global warming are bogus!

[Soggy in NOLA]

soggy, I will try and type more slowly in an effort to reduce my mistakes and increase your reading comprehension. Obviously you are struggling with understanding my two previous questions.

Do you believe in God?
Do you believe in evolution?
or maybe a combination?

Simple, easy to understand questions.
Even you should be able to understand them and form an answer.
Of course, I dont have your level of education.
So did I type slow enough for you? These little tablet keyboards are tough for my sore arthritic hands to navigate. But I tried to follow all the rules of grammar and spelling that I could recall.
You get me again where I missed something?

Yes I believe in God... Yes I believe in evolution..... what does this have to do with the AGW scam? Are you really serious when you say that God invented carbon and then stored it underground? Fossil fuels were created over time through decomposition and pressure, not from the big bang.

Good Lord....

Good Lord is right. You know, either God or evolution is responsible for ALL of this. From big bang to now.

Oil and coal are both formed from carbon. Stored in a manner where they had little to no effect on the earths atmosphere.

Man has now mined and drilled and burnt billions of tons of this stored carbon and returned it to the atmosphere.

Simple question; IF God or evolution or both saw fit to store carbon as a solid or liquid, where it has no effect on the atmosphere, it stands to reason that adding all that carbon BACK (by burning it) to the atmosphere would have a negative effect. It was stored inert before. Now it is returned to the atmosphere as a gas.

SO you all seem so sure that doing this is NOT having a negative effect, I just wonder how it is that you all think you know this?

Your education in science did explain to you that simply because you burn a solid or a liquid, it doesnt cease to exist?

Now Evolution is to blame?

How does evolution factor into fossil fuels?

Are you high?

 

[healthmyths]

soggy, I will try and type more slowly in an effort to reduce my mistakes and increase your reading comprehension. Obviously you are struggling with understanding my two previous questions.

Do you believe in God?
Do you believe in evolution?
or maybe a combination?

Simple, easy to understand questions.
Even you should be able to understand them and form an answer.
Of course, I dont have your level of education.
So did I type slow enough for you? These little tablet keyboards are tough for my sore arthritic hands to navigate. But I tried to follow all the rules of grammar and spelling that I could recall.
You get me again where I missed something?

Yes I believe in God... Yes I believe in evolution..... what does this have to do with the AGW scam? Are you really serious when you say that God invented carbon and then stored it underground? Fossil fuels were created over time through decomposition and pressure, not from the big bang.

Good Lord....

Good Lord is right. You know, either God or evolution is responsible for ALL of this. From big bang to now.

Oil and coal are both formed from carbon. Stored in a manner where they had little to no effect on the earths atmosphere.

Man has now mined and drilled and burnt billions of tons of this stored carbon and returned it to the atmosphere.

Simple question; IF God or evolution or both saw fit to store carbon as a solid or liquid, where it has no effect on the atmosphere, it stands to reason that adding all that carbon BACK (by burning it) to the atmosphere would have a negative effect. It was stored inert before. Now it is returned to the atmosphere as a gas.

SO you all seem so sure that doing this is NOT having a negative effect, I just wonder how it is that you all think you know this?

Your education in science did explain to you that simply because you burn a solid or a liquid, it doesnt cease to exist?

Deal with the numbers first ok?
FACTS:
1) Carbon emissions reach 40 billion ton high: World faces 'dangerous climate change' - and China, the US and India are the worst offenders
China, US, India push world carbon emissions up
2) Earth's trees number 'three trillion' that is 3,000,000,000 OK?
Earth's trees number 'three trillion' - BBC News
3) A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old. [1]
Tree Facts - American Forests

So multiply 3 trillion trees time 48 lbs divide by 2,000 lbs per ton equals 72 billion tons...

PLUS in addition to the above absorption of Carbon... total forgot this absorption:
Recent estimates have calculated that 26 percent of all the carbon released as CO2 from fossil fuel burning, cement manufacture, and land-use changes over the decade 2002–2011 was absorbed by the oceans. (About 28 percent went to plants and roughly 46 percent to the atmosphere.) During this time, the average annual total release of was 9.3 billion tons of carbon per year, thus on average 2.5 billion tons went into the ocean annually.
How Much CO2 Can The Oceans Take Up? | The Keeling Curve

 

[healthmyths]

So given these FACTS: FACTS:
1) Carbon emissions reach 40 billion ton high: World faces 'dangerous climate change' - and China, the US and India are the worst offenders
China, US, India push world carbon emissions up
2) Earth's trees number 'three trillion'
Earth's trees number 'three trillion' - BBC News
3) A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old. [1]
Tree Facts - American Forests

So multiply 3 trillion trees time 48 lbs divide by 2,000 lbs per ton equals 72 billion tons...

PLUS in addition to the above absorption of Carbon... total forgot this absorption:
Recent estimates have calculated that 26 percent of all the carbon released as CO2 from fossil fuel burning, cement manufacture, and land-use changes over the decade 2002–2011 was absorbed by the oceans. (About 28 percent went to plants and roughly 46 percent to the atmosphere.) During this time, the average annual total release of was 9.3 billion tons of carbon per year, thus on average 2.5 billion tons went into the ocean annually.
How Much CO2 Can The Oceans Take Up? | The Keeling Curve

Who the hell cares if the globe is warming ? The earth with trees/ocean/grasslands absorbs 74 billion tons against 40 billion tons emitted. That leaves growth
of 34 billion more tons of carbon if need be or 44% MORE capacity to sequester. What is the problem???
YOU guys don't have to believe my simple math....just follow the above LINKS...

 

[Wilbur Right]

Hey. will the oceans get warmer absorbing all that carbon? Or do you suspend belief in science about everthing?
Do oceans effect climate? Or does that depend on who you ask?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Hey. will the oceans get warmer absorbing all that carbon? Or do you suspend belief in science about everthing?
Do oceans effect climate? Or does that depend on who you ask?

You really need a remedial English class....

 

[Wilbur Right]

Does your calculations take into effect winter and decidious trees? You know they (trees) dont work for about half the year. No leaves. To absorb carbon. You dont think bark and branches absorbs carbon. Do you?

So factor that in and run your calcultions again and report. OK?

 

[Wilbur Right]

Hey. will the oceans get warmer absorbing all that carbon? Or do you suspend belief in science about everthing?
Do oceans effect climate? Or does that depend on who you ask?

You really need a remedial English class....

LMAO. English isnt your first language. Is it?
Which part/questions are you having such a hard time with? The simple ones?

Lot easier for you to trade insults than try and respond to reasonable questions.

And if you have asked your self what does happen when we burn all that oil and coal, and you came to the conclusion that nothing bad happens, or that we dont know because its never been done before, then you are too fucking stupid to carry on a conversation about the topic.

What you think about that? Did you get my message? Did I write clearly enough for ya and ya alls NO education?

 

[Wilbur Right]

Health,

So given these FACTS: FACTS:
1) Carbon emissions reach 40 billion ton high: World faces 'dangerous climate change' - and China, the US and India are the worst offenders
China, US, India push world carbon emissions up
2) Earth's trees number 'three trillion'
Earth's trees number 'three trillion' - BBC News
3) A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old. [1]
Tree Facts - American Forests

So multiply 3 trillion trees time 48 lbs divide by 2,000 lbs per ton equals 72 billion tons...

PLUS in addition to the above absorption of Carbon... total forgot this absorption:
Recent estimates have calculated that 26 percent of all the carbon released as CO2 from fossil fuel burning, cement manufacture, and land-use changes over the decade 2002–2011 was absorbed by the oceans. (About 28 percent went to plants and roughly 46 percent to the atmosphere.) During this time, the average annual total release of was 9.3 billion tons of carbon per year, thus on average 2.5 billion tons went into the ocean annually.
How Much CO2 Can The Oceans Take Up? | The Keeling Curve

Who the hell cares if the globe is warming ? The earth with trees/ocean/grasslands absorbs 74 billion tons against 40 billion tons emitted. That leaves growth
of 34 billion more tons of carbon if need be or 44% MORE capacity to sequester. What is the problem???
YOU guys don't have to believe my simple math....just follow the above LINKS...

You gotta like your question about who cares if the earth is warming? People who live by oceans and on islands care.
But thats only a billion and a half or so.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Nobody cares... well, except the AGW moonbat brigade.

 

[BlindBoo]

Hey what does the burning of all that stored carbon (oil and coal) DO to the enviroment?

Do you think that carbon smply disappears when it is burnt?

Why did God make it so that all that carbon was stored underground to begin with?

If we cut down all the oxygen generating forests and burn all the carbon we can dig up and drill for, what will happen in the long term?

FACTS not guesses, not hyperbole as you depend on... come on do some research before you comment! That's how you learn!

A) More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!
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.
More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!
B) A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old. [1]
One large tree can provide a supply of oxygen for two people. [2]
American Forests has estimated that our tree planting projects average 450 trees per acre, which leaves us with one final calculation:
753 million acres of forested and other lands benefit from some kind of protection.
450 trees per acre or 338.9 billion trees . At 48 pounds per tree.. or 8.132 billion tons of Carbon sequestered.


C) More lawns..How much carbon is actually stored in lawn?
Sahu’s report combines data from several studies to produce this averaged result (stated on page 12, if you’re looking for it): one acre of managed turfgrass will hold about 1.03 Mg/ha/yr. In regular language, this is 0.46 tons, or 920 lbs. of carbon in a year.
Is Lawn a Carbon Sink?
in 2005, researchers estimated there are 40 million acres of turf grass in the U.S., covering 1.9 percent of the land.
Lawns vs. crops in the continental U.S. » Scienceline
So 40 million acres sequester 20 million tons of carbon.


So with the United States emitting 5.3 billion tons which are absorbed by the 8.155 billion tons sequestered by trees and lawns.

Unless you sequester the leaves throughout it's life, and the wood once a tree dies, it has a zero sum effect on the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere. Trees are a part of the natural carbon cycle.

 

[BlindBoo]

Hey what does the burning of all that stored carbon (oil and coal) DO to the enviroment?

Do you think that carbon smply disappears when it is burnt?

Why did God make it so that all that carbon was stored underground to begin with?

If we cut down all the oxygen generating forests and burn all the carbon we can dig up and drill for, what will happen in the long term?

FACTS not guesses, not hyperbole as you depend on... come on do some research before you comment! That's how you learn!

A) More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!
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.
More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!
B) A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old. [1]
One large tree can provide a supply of oxygen for two people. [2]
American Forests has estimated that our tree planting projects average 450 trees per acre, which leaves us with one final calculation:
753 million acres of forested and other lands benefit from some kind of protection.
450 trees per acre or 338.9 billion trees . At 48 pounds per tree.. or 8.132 billion tons of Carbon sequestered.


C) More lawns..How much carbon is actually stored in lawn?
Sahu’s report combines data from several studies to produce this averaged result (stated on page 12, if you’re looking for it): one acre of managed turfgrass will hold about 1.03 Mg/ha/yr. In regular language, this is 0.46 tons, or 920 lbs. of carbon in a year.
Is Lawn a Carbon Sink?
in 2005, researchers estimated there are 40 million acres of turf grass in the U.S., covering 1.9 percent of the land.
Lawns vs. crops in the continental U.S. » Scienceline
So 40 million acres sequester 20 million tons of carbon.


So with the United States emitting 5.3 billion tons which are absorbed by the 8.155 billion tons sequestered by trees and lawns.

In other words, on a global scale, you and your NO buddy have no fucking idea what buring all that carbon and cutting down rain forests will do to the long term climate forecast.

Why didnt you just say so? I know the two of you werent climate scientists but you seem to think you know everything. But not this time eh? Thats ok, no one else knows for sure either.

But it does look like putting all that carbon back into the atmosphere is not doing good things.

You and your buddy are just to fucking stubborn and stupid to admit it.

So the US absorbs all the 5.3 billion plus 2.8 billion tons of the rest of the world.
We are doing our share.

But the point though of the thread was global warming is a hoax.
You tell me you can see this thermometer discretely enough to tell 1 degree difference between 76 and 77 degrees?
View attachment 55928

With 12.5% of the land mass missing in temperature readings for the last 70 years don't you think that biases the temperature readings?
Finally here is a number for:
Earth's trees number 'three trillion'
Earth's trees number 'three trillion' - BBC News
So average tree absorbs 48 lbs of carbon per year... or 72 billion tons absorbed by trees alone..
Carbon emissions reach 40 billion ton high: World faces 'dangerous climate change' - and China, the US and India are the worst offenders
China, US, India push world carbon emissions up

So let's see... Trees alone 3 trillion absorb 48 lbs or 72 billion tons. hmmmm did I answer your query something you could have done!
Total sequester by trees: 72 billion tons
total carbons emitted: 40 billion tons
Have an excess of 32 billion!

PLUS grasslands/pastures total acres in the world: 8,501,932,660 at .46 tons per acre sequester equals 3.91 billion tons.
Hmmm...
So that means there is nearly 36 billion tons of EXTRA carbon that can be sequestered!

What the hell is this concern???

That is amusing. Damn the way you figure it atmospheric CO2 % must be decreasing.......except it's not.

Next quackpot theory.

 

[BlindBoo]

You dont think bark and branches absorbs carbon. Do you?

They retain carbon until they die and decompose.

 

[healthmyths]

Hey what does the burning of all that stored carbon (oil and coal) DO to the enviroment?

Do you think that carbon smply disappears when it is burnt?

Why did God make it so that all that carbon was stored underground to begin with?

If we cut down all the oxygen generating forests and burn all the carbon we can dig up and drill for, what will happen in the long term?

FACTS not guesses, not hyperbole as you depend on... come on do some research before you comment! That's how you learn!

A) More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!
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.
More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!
B) A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old. [1]
One large tree can provide a supply of oxygen for two people. [2]
American Forests has estimated that our tree planting projects average 450 trees per acre, which leaves us with one final calculation:
753 million acres of forested and other lands benefit from some kind of protection.
450 trees per acre or 338.9 billion trees . At 48 pounds per tree.. or 8.132 billion tons of Carbon sequestered.


C) More lawns..How much carbon is actually stored in lawn?
Sahu’s report combines data from several studies to produce this averaged result (stated on page 12, if you’re looking for it): one acre of managed turfgrass will hold about 1.03 Mg/ha/yr. In regular language, this is 0.46 tons, or 920 lbs. of carbon in a year.
Is Lawn a Carbon Sink?
in 2005, researchers estimated there are 40 million acres of turf grass in the U.S., covering 1.9 percent of the land.
Lawns vs. crops in the continental U.S. » Scienceline
So 40 million acres sequester 20 million tons of carbon.


So with the United States emitting 5.3 billion tons which are absorbed by the 8.155 billion tons sequestered by trees and lawns.

In other words, on a global scale, you and your NO buddy have no fucking idea what buring all that carbon and cutting down rain forests will do to the long term climate forecast.

Why didnt you just say so? I know the two of you werent climate scientists but you seem to think you know everything. But not this time eh? Thats ok, no one else knows for sure either.

But it does look like putting all that carbon back into the atmosphere is not doing good things.

You and your buddy are just to fucking stubborn and stupid to admit it.

So the US absorbs all the 5.3 billion plus 2.8 billion tons of the rest of the world.
We are doing our share.

But the point though of the thread was global warming is a hoax.
You tell me you can see this thermometer discretely enough to tell 1 degree difference between 76 and 77 degrees?
View attachment 55928

With 12.5% of the land mass missing in temperature readings for the last 70 years don't you think that biases the temperature readings?
Finally here is a number for:
Earth's trees number 'three trillion'
Earth's trees number 'three trillion' - BBC News
So average tree absorbs 48 lbs of carbon per year... or 72 billion tons absorbed by trees alone..
Carbon emissions reach 40 billion ton high: World faces 'dangerous climate change' - and China, the US and India are the worst offenders
China, US, India push world carbon emissions up

So let's see... Trees alone 3 trillion absorb 48 lbs or 72 billion tons. hmmmm did I answer your query something you could have done!
Total sequester by trees: 72 billion tons
total carbons emitted: 40 billion tons
Have an excess of 32 billion!

PLUS grasslands/pastures total acres in the world: 8,501,932,660 at .46 tons per acre sequester equals 3.91 billion tons.
Hmmm...
So that means there is nearly 36 billion tons of EXTRA carbon that can be sequestered!

What the hell is this concern???

That is amusing. Damn the way you figure it atmospheric CO2 % must be decreasing.......except it's not.

Next quackpot theory.

You provided NOTHING to substantiate your crackpot statement!
Prove to me with research that CO2% is InCREASING because all I'm showing are the facts that:
1) 3 trillion trees absorb 72 billion tons of carbon.
2) Total carbons emitted 40 billion a year.
3) DUH... that leaves 32 billion that can be absorbed!

Prove otherwise...

 

[BlindBoo]

Hey what does the burning of all that stored carbon (oil and coal) DO to the enviroment?

Do you think that carbon smply disappears when it is burnt?

Why did God make it so that all that carbon was stored underground to begin with?

If we cut down all the oxygen generating forests and burn all the carbon we can dig up and drill for, what will happen in the long term?

FACTS not guesses, not hyperbole as you depend on... come on do some research before you comment! That's how you learn!

A) More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!
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.
More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!
B) A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old. [1]
One large tree can provide a supply of oxygen for two people. [2]
American Forests has estimated that our tree planting projects average 450 trees per acre, which leaves us with one final calculation:
753 million acres of forested and other lands benefit from some kind of protection.
450 trees per acre or 338.9 billion trees . At 48 pounds per tree.. or 8.132 billion tons of Carbon sequestered.


C) More lawns..How much carbon is actually stored in lawn?
Sahu’s report combines data from several studies to produce this averaged result (stated on page 12, if you’re looking for it): one acre of managed turfgrass will hold about 1.03 Mg/ha/yr. In regular language, this is 0.46 tons, or 920 lbs. of carbon in a year.
Is Lawn a Carbon Sink?
in 2005, researchers estimated there are 40 million acres of turf grass in the U.S., covering 1.9 percent of the land.
Lawns vs. crops in the continental U.S. » Scienceline
So 40 million acres sequester 20 million tons of carbon.


So with the United States emitting 5.3 billion tons which are absorbed by the 8.155 billion tons sequestered by trees and lawns.

In other words, on a global scale, you and your NO buddy have no fucking idea what buring all that carbon and cutting down rain forests will do to the long term climate forecast.

Why didnt you just say so? I know the two of you werent climate scientists but you seem to think you know everything. But not this time eh? Thats ok, no one else knows for sure either.

But it does look like putting all that carbon back into the atmosphere is not doing good things.

You and your buddy are just to fucking stubborn and stupid to admit it.

So the US absorbs all the 5.3 billion plus 2.8 billion tons of the rest of the world.
We are doing our share.

But the point though of the thread was global warming is a hoax.
You tell me you can see this thermometer discretely enough to tell 1 degree difference between 76 and 77 degrees?
View attachment 55928

With 12.5% of the land mass missing in temperature readings for the last 70 years don't you think that biases the temperature readings?
Finally here is a number for:
Earth's trees number 'three trillion'
Earth's trees number 'three trillion' - BBC News
So average tree absorbs 48 lbs of carbon per year... or 72 billion tons absorbed by trees alone..
Carbon emissions reach 40 billion ton high: World faces 'dangerous climate change' - and China, the US and India are the worst offenders
China, US, India push world carbon emissions up

So let's see... Trees alone 3 trillion absorb 48 lbs or 72 billion tons. hmmmm did I answer your query something you could have done!
Total sequester by trees: 72 billion tons
total carbons emitted: 40 billion tons
Have an excess of 32 billion!

PLUS grasslands/pastures total acres in the world: 8,501,932,660 at .46 tons per acre sequester equals 3.91 billion tons.
Hmmm...
So that means there is nearly 36 billion tons of EXTRA carbon that can be sequestered!

What the hell is this concern???

That is amusing. Damn the way you figure it atmospheric CO2 % must be decreasing.......except it's not.

Next quackpot theory.

You provided NOTHING to substantiate your crackpot statement!
Prove to me with research that CO2% is InCREASING because all I'm showing are the facts that:
1) 3 trillion trees absorb 72 billion tons of carbon.
2) Total carbons emitted 40 billion a year.
3) DUH... that leaves 32 billion that can be absorbed!

Prove otherwise...

Trees are a part of the natural carbon cycle, unless the wood is sequestered all the CO2 they absorb during their lifetime will be released back into the air.

Look up carbon cycle.

 

[healthmyths]

"Science" has stated:
The world's most current data for atmospheric CO2 is measured at the Mauna Loa Observatoy in Hawaii.
CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, so observations of concentrations from a single site like the Mauna Loa Observatory are an adequate indicator of world trends for atmospheric CO2.
Current Data for Atmospheric CO2 | CO2 Now | Current CO2

This place is the ONLY place in the world where the entire basis that CO2 emissions have increased.

So we are to believe that ONE site in the entire world is sufficient to indicate CO2 increasing.

At Mauna Loa, the remote location, undisturbed air, and minimal influences of human activity and vegetation are ideal for monitoring consituents in the atmosphere that can cause climate change.

"minimal influences of human activity..(no utilities in other words...) and "vegetation" (low amount of plant life to absorb CO2)
so based on this ONE and only site in the entire world WE have "scientific consensus" that CO2 is increasing over the ENTIRE
world.
BullCrap!

 

[healthmyths]

FACTS not guesses, not hyperbole as you depend on... come on do some research before you comment! That's how you learn!

A) More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!
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.
More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!
B) A tree can absorb as much as 48 pounds of carbon dioxide per year, and can sequester one ton of carbon dioxide by the time it reaches 40 years old. [1]
One large tree can provide a supply of oxygen for two people. [2]
American Forests has estimated that our tree planting projects average 450 trees per acre, which leaves us with one final calculation:
753 million acres of forested and other lands benefit from some kind of protection.
450 trees per acre or 338.9 billion trees . At 48 pounds per tree.. or 8.132 billion tons of Carbon sequestered.


C) More lawns..How much carbon is actually stored in lawn?
Sahu’s report combines data from several studies to produce this averaged result (stated on page 12, if you’re looking for it): one acre of managed turfgrass will hold about 1.03 Mg/ha/yr. In regular language, this is 0.46 tons, or 920 lbs. of carbon in a year.
Is Lawn a Carbon Sink?
in 2005, researchers estimated there are 40 million acres of turf grass in the U.S., covering 1.9 percent of the land.
Lawns vs. crops in the continental U.S. » Scienceline
So 40 million acres sequester 20 million tons of carbon.


So with the United States emitting 5.3 billion tons which are absorbed by the 8.155 billion tons sequestered by trees and lawns.

In other words, on a global scale, you and your NO buddy have no fucking idea what buring all that carbon and cutting down rain forests will do to the long term climate forecast.

Why didnt you just say so? I know the two of you werent climate scientists but you seem to think you know everything. But not this time eh? Thats ok, no one else knows for sure either.

But it does look like putting all that carbon back into the atmosphere is not doing good things.

You and your buddy are just to fucking stubborn and stupid to admit it.

So the US absorbs all the 5.3 billion plus 2.8 billion tons of the rest of the world.
We are doing our share.

But the point though of the thread was global warming is a hoax.
You tell me you can see this thermometer discretely enough to tell 1 degree difference between 76 and 77 degrees?
View attachment 55928

With 12.5% of the land mass missing in temperature readings for the last 70 years don't you think that biases the temperature readings?
Finally here is a number for:
Earth's trees number 'three trillion'
Earth's trees number 'three trillion' - BBC News
So average tree absorbs 48 lbs of carbon per year... or 72 billion tons absorbed by trees alone..
Carbon emissions reach 40 billion ton high: World faces 'dangerous climate change' - and China, the US and India are the worst offenders
China, US, India push world carbon emissions up

So let's see... Trees alone 3 trillion absorb 48 lbs or 72 billion tons. hmmmm did I answer your query something you could have done!
Total sequester by trees: 72 billion tons
total carbons emitted: 40 billion tons
Have an excess of 32 billion!

PLUS grasslands/pastures total acres in the world: 8,501,932,660 at .46 tons per acre sequester equals 3.91 billion tons.
Hmmm...
So that means there is nearly 36 billion tons of EXTRA carbon that can be sequestered!

What the hell is this concern???

That is amusing. Damn the way you figure it atmospheric CO2 % must be decreasing.......except it's not.

Next quackpot theory.

You provided NOTHING to substantiate your crackpot statement!
Prove to me with research that CO2% is InCREASING because all I'm showing are the facts that:
1) 3 trillion trees absorb 72 billion tons of carbon.
2) Total carbons emitted 40 billion a year.
3) DUH... that leaves 32 billion that can be absorbed!

Prove otherwise...

Trees are a part of the natural carbon cycle, unless the wood is sequestered all the CO2 they absorb during their lifetime will be released back into the air.

Look up carbon cycle.

WOW... that is your proof? You are f...king dumb!
Trees USE CO2 to create what ?? Oxygen!
How hard is it to use the Internet to get the facts you idiot?

"A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs./year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings."
- McAliney, Mike. Arguments for Land Conservation: Documentation and Information Sources for Land Resources Protection, Trust for Public Land, Sacramento, CA, December, 1993


"One acre of trees annually consumes the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent to that produced by driving an average car for 26,000 miles. That same acre of trees also produces enough oxygen for 18 people to breathe for a year."
- New York Times
How Much Oxygen Does One Tree Produce?

 

[BlindBoo]

"Science" has stated:
The world's most current data for atmospheric CO2 is measured at the Mauna Loa Observatoy in Hawaii.
CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, so observations of concentrations from a single site like the Mauna Loa Observatory are an adequate indicator of world trends for atmospheric CO2.
Current Data for Atmospheric CO2 | CO2 Now | Current CO2

This place is the ONLY place in the world where the entire basis that CO2 emissions have increased.

View attachment 55946

So we are to believe that ONE site in the entire world is sufficient to indicate CO2 increasing.

At Mauna Loa, the remote location, undisturbed air, and minimal influences of human activity and vegetation are ideal for monitoring consituents in the atmosphere that can cause climate change.

"minimal influences of human activity..(no utilities in other words...) and "vegetation" (low amount of plant life to absorb CO2)
so based on this ONE and only site in the entire world WE have "scientific consensus" that CO2 is increasing over the ENTIRE
world.
BullCrap!

What the science says...
CO2 levels are measured by hundreds of stations scattered across 66 countries which all report the same rising trend.

How reliable are CO2 measurements?

 

[BlindBoo]

In other words, on a global scale, you and your NO buddy have no fucking idea what buring all that carbon and cutting down rain forests will do to the long term climate forecast.

Why didnt you just say so? I know the two of you werent climate scientists but you seem to think you know everything. But not this time eh? Thats ok, no one else knows for sure either.

But it does look like putting all that carbon back into the atmosphere is not doing good things.

You and your buddy are just to fucking stubborn and stupid to admit it.

So the US absorbs all the 5.3 billion plus 2.8 billion tons of the rest of the world.
We are doing our share.

But the point though of the thread was global warming is a hoax.
You tell me you can see this thermometer discretely enough to tell 1 degree difference between 76 and 77 degrees?
View attachment 55928

With 12.5% of the land mass missing in temperature readings for the last 70 years don't you think that biases the temperature readings?
Finally here is a number for:
Earth's trees number 'three trillion'
Earth's trees number 'three trillion' - BBC News
So average tree absorbs 48 lbs of carbon per year... or 72 billion tons absorbed by trees alone..
Carbon emissions reach 40 billion ton high: World faces 'dangerous climate change' - and China, the US and India are the worst offenders
China, US, India push world carbon emissions up

So let's see... Trees alone 3 trillion absorb 48 lbs or 72 billion tons. hmmmm did I answer your query something you could have done!
Total sequester by trees: 72 billion tons
total carbons emitted: 40 billion tons
Have an excess of 32 billion!

PLUS grasslands/pastures total acres in the world: 8,501,932,660 at .46 tons per acre sequester equals 3.91 billion tons.
Hmmm...
So that means there is nearly 36 billion tons of EXTRA carbon that can be sequestered!

What the hell is this concern???

That is amusing. Damn the way you figure it atmospheric CO2 % must be decreasing.......except it's not.

Next quackpot theory.

You provided NOTHING to substantiate your crackpot statement!
Prove to me with research that CO2% is InCREASING because all I'm showing are the facts that:
1) 3 trillion trees absorb 72 billion tons of carbon.
2) Total carbons emitted 40 billion a year.
3) DUH... that leaves 32 billion that can be absorbed!

Prove otherwise...

Trees are a part of the natural carbon cycle, unless the wood is sequestered all the CO2 they absorb during their lifetime will be released back into the air.

Look up carbon cycle.

WOW... that is your proof? You are f...king dumb!
Trees USE CO2 to create what ?? Oxygen!
How hard is it to use the Internet to get the facts you idiot?

"A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs./year and release enough oxygen back into the atmosphere to support 2 human beings."
- McAliney, Mike. Arguments for Land Conservation: Documentation and Information Sources for Land Resources Protection, Trust for Public Land, Sacramento, CA, December, 1993


"One acre of trees annually consumes the amount of carbon dioxide equivalent to that produced by driving an average car for 26,000 miles. That same acre of trees also produces enough oxygen for 18 people to breathe for a year."
- New York Times
How Much Oxygen Does One Tree Produce?

Oxygen was created inside a star, it is not created inside a tree. What do trees emit when there is no sunlight?

 

[mamooth]

As far as I am aware, historical raw multiple temperature data from weather stations has never attempted to account for observer error.

So you're ignorant of the science and the history of it, and based on that ignorance, you went off on a strange conspiracy theory. Had a kind of rambling Unibomber quality to it, it did, the way it jumped randomly from strange claim to strange claim, and never came anywhere near a coherent point.

 

[healthmyths]

As far as I am aware, historical raw multiple temperature data from weather stations has never attempted to account for observer error.

So you're ignorant of the science and the history of it, and based on that ignorance, you went off on a strange conspiracy theory. Had a kind of rambling Unibomber quality to it, it did, the way it jumped randomly from strange claim to strange claim, and never came anywhere near a coherent point.

And once again the point has gone WAY WAY over your head!
It is NOT too hard to imagine that from 1860 to at least 1990s the ONLY thermometers were mercury and you tell me if you can
distinguish between 76 degrees and 77 degrees on this thermometer:

Can you do it while standing in freezing weather or hot sun AND then log it. Then repeat that log
on a master handwritten log!
YOU tell me how accurate you can be over 365 times a year...
The point is you can't do it accurately and for over 100 years that's how temperatures were recorded.
Add to that 12.5% of the land mass , i.e. [Siberian] stations increased from 8 in 1901 to 23 in 1951 and then decreased to 12 from 1989 to present only four (4) stations, those at Irkutsk, Bratsk, Chita and Kirensk, cover the entire 20th century.
IEA analysts say climatologists use the data of stations located in large populated centers that are influenced by the urban-warming effect more frequently than the correct data of remote stations…
The scale of global warming was exaggerated due to temperature distortions for Russia accounting for 12.5% of the world’s land mass.
The IEA said it was necessary to recalculate all global-temperature data in order to assess the scale of such exaggeration.
Climategatekeeping: Siberia

NOW you idiot, Where is there a "conspiracy" in that?
tell me again where is the fallacy that human errors over 100+ years make it possible to believe

If you are using data from 100’s of thermometers scattered over a wide area, with data being recorded by hand, by dozens of different people, the observational resolution should be reduced. In the oil industry it is common to accept an error margin of 2-4% when using manually acquired data for example.

As far as I am aware, historical raw multiple temperature data from weather stations has never attempted to account for observer error.
The Metrology of Thermometers