Another negative climate feedback: Warmer plants cool the planet Another powerful negative-feedback mechanism which acts to reduce the effects of global warming has been identified, as scientists say that rising temperatures cause plants to emit higher levels of planet-cooling aerosols. "Aerosol effects on climate are one of the main uncertainties in climate models," explains Pauli Paasonen …
One of my lecturers back in 84 talked about increased cloud cover leading to more heat being reflected back into space, thus cooling the earth. Of course this doesn't solve the problem of heat from man made sources being stuck in the "greenhouse" but that's another problem (that isn't directly solved by most alternative "green" power sources).
Abolutely right. Some friends from Imperial College and I did a simple bit of analysis years ago to find out how much energy would be released if all of the world's oil was burned. With some basic estimates and energy density numbers from the internet, we compared it to the total solar irradiation.
The result was that burning the earth's entire oil reserves released just less than the solar energy reaching the earth in one year.
Heat itself isn't really the problem now, but given a few decades and more efficient power sources (e.g. thorium, fusion) then everyone on the planet having the same ability to generate energy might be an issue. Energy always ends up as waste heat.
I'm confident that the whole AGW thing is an artefact of natural variation, made into a problem by dodgy global temperature measurement and statistical fiddling. At worst it is scientific fraud. Hope not though.
"Some friends from Imperial College and I did a simple bit of analysis years ago to find out how much energy would be released if all of the world's oil was burned. With some basic estimates and energy density numbers from the internet, we compared it to the total solar irradiation."
I hope you realize that has nothing to do with AGW.
The heat from AGW comes from an enhanced greenhouse effect, not from direct heat emissions by humans.
>>I'm confident that the whole AGW thing is an artefact of natural variation, made into a problem by dodgy global temperature measurement and statistical fiddling. At worst it is scientific fraud. Hope not though.
The scientific shame brought about by selecting and massaging figures to put forward and support a point of view doesn't mean that point is invalid, if there was a piece of string attached to the apple that hit Newton on the head doesn't invalidate gravity, yes they were wrong, and yes their careers are in tatters for it, but like the cold fusion experiments, this doesn't mean there's nothing going on or that we might benefit from finding out about.
Take these two (vaguely related) arguments;
#1 Climate change is affected by burning fossil fuels -> Find alternatives
#2 Climate change is not affected by fossil fules -> Keep burning
This is what most people end up arguing about, enter the conspiracy nut argument;
#3 Those invested in fossil fuels want us to keep us distracted by arguing so they can keep making shed loads of money -> FInd alternatives
(those opposed just back to #2)
But!
There's a far simpler argument;
#4 Fossil fuels are being used faster than they are being discovered, from the smogs of the 50's to the people in China dying from pollution they are not good for the environment, even if there are natural feedback loops and controls preventing/slowing/controlling climate change we should consider how to make these cleaner and find alternatives (while continuing to study the changing climate, natural or otherwise).
At the end of the day, this is one occasion when Pascals wager has some legs because if we do nothing we could very well have a perfectly OK climate, but also no fossil fuels left and no alternatives either.
Perhaps we have '00s of years of oil left? No idea, just throwing the idea in.
But if you were part of a multi-billion dollar cartel would you want this info out there pushing oil prices down to pennies per barrel, nope.
2 reasons -
They'd lose waaaay to much money.
it would be too costly to drill for it so there is some argument to keep oil at a sustainable even profitable level, problem is that it's at a very or extremely profitable level most of the time.
There's a difference between total fossil fuel reserves and economic fossil fuel reserves. The new reserves are almost all at the very high end of the price spectrum and would have been completely uneconomic even ten years ago. We have adapted to a world where oil costs $75-100 a barrel, we might be prepared to go even higher.
@Mike Richards
>>We have adapted to a world where oil costs $75-100 a barrel, we might be prepared to go even higher.
We have, and we will, it all comes down to "Energy returned on energy invested" or "ERoEI" the cost is what's invested, and the return is what we get for that money, but don't forget as it gets more costly to invest for a lower return the cost goes up, this particular feedback loop is not self maintaining, it escalates as the ERoEI ratio drops, this is why coal was dropped in favour of oil, not just the energy that could be released, but the logistics of moving it, burning it (mechanical vs pumps), UK coal will be mined again (and not just the open pits that have some resurgence).
This still doesn't change the fact that no matter how much money you have if it costs more in energy to get the energy you've already lost.
>>Except fossil fuel resources are being verified as quickly as we are using them. Thirty years ago we had 20 years of oil left and we still do.
Well, that's nonsense for several reasons, firstly the "20 years of oil left" is a number (I suspect) you pulled out of your arse, or you are regurgitating someone else's arse sourced data.
Secondly, there are some studies that are based on actual data, there's a concept called "peak oil" a well known, measured quantity, constantly being (like the oil) refined, peak oil (approximately half way through the resource) is easy to define for known sources and fields, and you can predict with confidence when current technology will exhaust it - there is no debate here.
What you're alluding to is discovering more sources with the implication that this can go on for ever, hence the "we had 20 years of oil left and we still do", there is obviously some truth in this, we are also using shale oil, fracking, better gas usage etc. etc.
If you actually think about #3 this obviously can't go on forever, we know some major fields have hit peak, and we have discovered new fields, and new ways of exploiting existing fields, but this can't go on forever (if you think it can, please explain), I don't think that anybody believes we have only 10 years left, but (fag packet estimate) approximately 5 trillion barrels left would last 150 years at current usage, this obviously disregards increasing use and new discoveries, but it's ball park.
For arguments sake, lets take that "reasonable" number of 150 years until complete depletion, that means we must have absolutely no dependence on fossil fuels by then, but it's not going to be a switchover from one to the other in 150 years, it has to be a gradual move away from fossil fuels.
But the argument is accedemic, make that 150 years 1,000 years or 10,000 years it's inevitable, and the only reason not do do something now is because you're indifferent to future generations.
Unconvinced? seriously - don't take my word for it, look for the Hirsch report (The Inevitable Peaking of World Oil Production) it's a good starting point, make your own mind up, but do so with facts not anecdotes pulled out of your arse.
"You really have no idea of how minuscule the output of heat from man made sources is compared to the heat the Earth receives from the Sun, or even the heat due to tidal forces from the Moon, do you?"
CO2 concentrations have increased by nearly 40% since pre-industrial times. Activity such as burning fossil fuels, deforestation, methane from cattle and so on has increased the amount of CO2 and other so-called greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. As the name suggests greenhouse gas absorb more thermal radiation which in turn affects the ambient surface temperature.
The "miniscule" argument doesn't even bear much scrutiny either. Even if it were miniscule If you had a set of scales perfectly in balance then dropping a "miniscule" weight on one side (and continuously doing it over time) will still cause the system to come out of equilibrium.
You figure it out, or read the IPCC reports which will explain it to you. Or just deny it. Reach for one of the usual gambits of the denialist movements to pretend man kind has absolutely nothing to do with it.
Shell, re-re-re-hashing misinterpretations of the past is not a particularly successful way of discrediting current science. Scientists are not gods, they do make mistakes, but lucky you, science is a self-correcting discipline, unlike politics. So, kudos for knowing that previously mistakes were made; big dodo for not knowing this mid+ 20th century finding has been thoroughly debunked in science. And yes, scientists are human and as such will continue to make mistakes, but the body of science as a whole does not suffer from stupidity.
Correction.
Tidal forces are not generated by the moon, or the sun come to that, but by the Earth. If the earth did not rotate there would be no tide.
The idea of taking energy from the tide is to take energy from the earth's rotation. Let me ask you do you fancy living on Earth with a 30hr day or even longer? It would be baking the day and freezing at night no matter where you tried to live.
Tidal power is total crap and never never ever renewable.
The thing with clouds is that they are very complex indeed. There isn't a simple "reflects heat back into space" strapline that you can attach to them, at least because they're not a 100% mirror, so some of that energy will get through the cloud layer and then be trapped below it.
Like I said though, clouds in themselves are a multi-Phd subject and not accurately reduceable into nice little soundbytes like "the are cooling because they reflect the sun back into space."
"Like I said though, clouds in themselves are a multi-Phd subject and not accurately reduceable into nice little soundbytes like "the are cooling because they reflect the sun back into space.""
I think (like a lot of climate modelling) clouds are a case of "it depends."
High altitude they reflect sunlight away from the Earth. Lower down they reflect re-emitted IR back to the ground. And of course possibly the simplest question (to ask, not to answer) clouds of what? Water vapour, Sulphur compounds, soot etc.
It is *because* climatology studies a complex phenomenon that dire predictions of a 2-3 degree rise by 2100 should not become the daily fodder of the media and AGW apologist websites.
It is because a 2-3 degree rise by 2100 would simply put us in a temperature regime similar to the ecologically diverse mid-pliocene that we should not be bemoaning the heart-wrenching, drama-queen, loss of whales, polar bears and poor helpless sharks. But at least they can take heart in the purported high-latitude plague of malaria-bearing mosquitoes, fleas, locusts, frogs, camera-clicking tourists and the like.
It is because the world is not going to dissolve in a horrible bubbling effervescent acid-bath of CO2-ed ocean, and it is because the balance of carbo-philic plants, marine and terrestrial will simply take over where carbo-phobic species are compromised, and because carbophilic genes could be transplanted into many useful plants, and because the paleohistorical ecological diversity of the Earth does not show any more marked aversion to CO2—in fact the oceanic fauna suffered a 4-fold *increase* during the high-CO2 (and oddly coldish) late Ordovician—than it does to warmth that professor emeritus Al Gore, et al. should go jump in a cool lake.
It is because, although it's hard to 'falsify' hypotheses entailed by a complex system, the predicted steady thermal rise is risking a breach of the low end of the 95% confidence level envelope we should be alarmed that AGW computer-crystal-ball-prognosticators are developing an increasing stranglehold on the minds of world leaders who have the next decades' multi-terabuck economic decisions to make.
In short, carbocalyptic prophets should get off our leaders' backs.
"and because the paleohistorical ecological diversity of the Earth does not show any more marked aversion to CO2—in fact the oceanic fauna suffered a 4-fold *increase* during the high-CO2 (and oddly coldish) late Ordovician"
It's not the level, it's the rate of change. Change ocean pH slowly over millions of years and species have millions of generations to adapt. But make the same change over two centuries, they only have 200 or so generations.
I'm assuming that the core climate models are being updated with the new inputs, either positive or negative as in this case... Have we had updates on existing papers etc showing changes and effects on the likely global climate as well as matching against the historical record?
Give them a few days, and I'm sure new papers will appear. With all the free parameters in current climate models (even more than the 'Standard Model' of physics), matching the historical record is no great feat. As no less a scientist than John von Neumann remarked:
If you allow me four free parameters I can build a mathematical model that describes exactly everything that an elephant can do. If you allow me a fifth free parameter, the model I build will forecast that the elephant will fly.
At about this spot in the time series the temperature is supposed to start dropping precipitously. We need to get cracking on solving this problem before we escape the end-holocene event and have to go on as a culture for another 50,000 years - or perhaps indefinitely (shudder).
All this shrill noise about the climate is wasted. Nobody is going to do anything about it.
>All this shrill noise about the climate is wasted. Nobody is going to do anything about it.
Wow finally a comment that doesn't matter which side of the debate you are on to agree with. If the Chinese (much bigger polluters than the US these days) tolerate their cities so clogged with smog they can't see the sun doesn't really matter if you buy that Prius or not sadly.
The joke was about desperately hoping to end the Holocene and have everybody freeze to death. That last bit wasn't part of the joke.
That's just an observation: there is money to be made, and there are regions like Russia and Canada that would wholeheartedly embrace a world that's 8C warmer. Have a look at a globe sometime. There are other places that just don't care as long as they can boil their water today. Since reducing global CO2 output requires the simultaneous cooperation and discipline of everybody on the planet - many against their own immediate self interests - it will not happen short of a global unified totalitarian government that is not to be wished.
Take coal for example. What with the US now has oil and gas coming out their ears there is not as much need to burn coal for power generation. Are the mines shutting down? No. Oil is powering trains that take the coal to ports, where it's loaded on ships that burn the worst sort of oil as they steam for foreign ports.
"The effect of enhanced plant gas emissions on climate is small on a global scale -- only countering approximately 1 percent of climate warming, the study suggested. "This does not save us from climate warming," says Paasonen."
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130428144921.htm
How did that become:
"But he and his colleagues consider that it means forecasts should be adjusted downward by around a degree, which is a big deal in global-warming terms"
in the register article?
Another page in the Canon of False Hope?
"Various other previously unknown cooling or negative-feedback effects have been identified in recent research"
??
"Here's how it works: Cite sources, say what you want them to say and hope nobody follows them up, it's becoming an MO."
Climate change deniers tore a page from the same book of denial tactics used by creationists, 9/11 truthers, holocaust deniers, moon hoaxers, anti-vaxxers.
1. Make liberal use of mined quotes. Make sure they're out of context and preferably presented to imply the original author supports the position even when they're usually against it. Or that the author is part of some vast conspiracy to fabricate the evidence or further some agenda.
2. Cherry pick data. Pick out the favourable data even when it belongs to a larger data set which goes the other way.
3. Pseudoscience. Employ it liberally and often.
4. Place enormous weight on unreliable or low quality information and use it to deny or ignore high quality information. e.g. favour crank blogs over peer reviewed publications.
5. Compile a list of canards and repeat them ad nauseum no matter how many times they are debunked.
6. Nitpick. Get so lost in the minutiae and statistical uncertainty that the big picture somehow magically becomes irrelevant.
7. Arguments from authority. Compile big long lists of scientists who "question" the conventional explanation, even if most of them on inspection turn out to have little or no expertise in relevant specialisations.
8. On no account ever produce a credible alternative theory which more adequately accounts for the data
@DrXym
When making a point you may need to ensure your soapbox is a solid foundation. Everything you said could apply to cultists of the 'we all gonna die' and the 'nothing is happening'. By being certain of either side makes both cults wrong as the science isnt set. We dont know enough to be certain either way.
It is interesting that the cult of the MMCC co2 theory was quickly recognised to be a religious cult and now that very misunderstanding by those cultists is being used to call deniers creationists. Its like watching 2 religious sects brand each other heathens.
The only thing we know about climate is it is damn complicated. However your point number 8 is very wrong to a religious degree. You might as well say that god made the earth and deniers dont produce any credible alternative theory. You have 2 huge flaws-
1. Credible to who? Most of the statements supporting MMCC co2 theory are far from credible unless said in the right crowd. What is credible evidence to a cult?
2. The onus of proof is on the shoulders of those presenting the theory. A wrong theory isnt right because nobody has come up with an alternative one yet. A theory has to be proven right and competing theories require proving right too. When one is proven wrong it goes back to the drawing board and furthers our understanding.
Also from an IT perspective I take issue with point 7 too. The weakest link in security is often the human element and perceived levels of authority. This has been an ongoing problem for those claiming the theory is fact as they have been caught out plenty.
It's good to see that scientists are still working to improve our comprehension of the Real World (tm) and thus our models of it.
The dogs bark, the caravan of science passes.
Climate is difficult, based on thermodynamics which is a very difficult subject. Anything that forwards our knowledge in the subject is good to take, regardless of the changes in our conclusions it can bring. We need to finally understand how our climate works sooner rather than later, in order to shut up the zealots (on both sides) and get on with doing what is really necessary.
The emphasis is a bit different.
The preview
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo1800.html
describes biosphere produced aerosols as contributing "roughly 50%" of cloud condensation nuclei across Europe.
Which sounds pretty significant.
SD OTOH says they counter 1% of global temperature rise but possibly 30% in rural, forested areas.
So I'd say the journal preview is a bit more positive than the science website.
But thumbs up for more field work (11 sites around the world) to capture actual data and hopefully incorporate it into the GCM's.
It is like boiling water. The temperature rises quickly to boiling temperature and then stays there until the water is gone. Then it rises again to never seen heights. The problem with all these models is that the fundamental parameters are not all known. So many feedback loops, either positive or negative. The earth will survive, whether we do is yet to be seen. The only really known is that, at some point, there will be no more fossils left to burn. The human species may be around to see that happen, but it also may go extinct way before then.
The media has made the whole thing into a fantastic headline frenzy. "We're all going to die!", "We'll be heated to extinction", "No problem, only 0.1 degree", etc... Media meddling in the discussion over fractions of a degree in one or the other way is just hype, no more. The fact is, nobody knows what exactly will happen in the long term. The only consensus is that our "previous" lifestyle will no longer cut it. Whether this is due to 1, 2, 3 or 6 degrees temperatures is irrelevant. The timescale is also irrelevant for all practical intends. It is our children and children's children who will need to adapt (and they will curse us no matter what we do).
I'd suggest that the media concentrates on reporting on (practical) solutions for the human species to survive in the long run, seen in the light of a changing climate. That may actually help us all so that our children and children's children still are there to curse us (and may curse us a little bit less if we do a good job).
That the climate is damn complicated, and simplistic politicians answers don't work...
Climate change will happen sooner or later, whether artificial or not, just like, sooner or later an asteroid strike will happen. In both cases, depending on scale, the effects could be catastrophic and we ought to be ready to cope with it.
The problem I have with the *A*GW fanatics is that they are convinced that there is only way to deal with climate change. That method is ferociously expensive and probably ineffective, and if the cause doesn't turn out to be what they would like to think it is guaranteed ineffective. That means there's an awful lot of losses, but not many gains. Its like betting that the next big meteor strike will come from one specific direction, and spending a fortune on a system that's useless if it comes from another direction...
"But he and his colleagues consider that it means forecasts should be adjusted downward by around a degree, which is a big deal in global-warming terms"
No, they really don't. I've read the full paper and they suggest the feedback they identify is responsible globally for roughly −0.01 W m−2 K−1 (watts per meter kelvin). This is nothing like enough to adjust global forecasts downward by a degree and the paper makes absolutely no attempt to do suggest that.
The effect is more like the one percent quoted here- "The effect of enhanced plant gas emissions on climate is small on a global scale -- only countering approximately 1 percent of climate warming, the study suggested. "This does not save us from climate warming," says Paasonen.(Paasonen being the lead author of the paper) http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/04/130428144921.htm
In fact the only place one degree of change is really discussed is in the supplementary methods section where they explain they used a hypothetical one degree of warming to do the calculations needed to figure out the feedback effect...
...we need not worry about changing the composition of the atmosphere.
I have absolutely no problems with articles trying to get to the bottom of more accurate understanding of global climate, but it's a rather big leap to see such articles and conclude that we need not be concerned.
All things being equal, the less we change things, the better. That should be the starting point.
Sure, the earth changes dramatically anyway. Sure it might be that the changes we have made to the planet have merely caused an extinction event which will be patched over in the long term by evolution.
But there are plenty of idiots on both sides of this debate who take a political decision and then selectively rake through the evidence to push their political viewpoint.
Let's not have this sort of thing happening on The Register. If I want that, there's an endless list of alternative sources to not bother reading.
@cnapan
Re:"But there are plenty of idiots on both sides of this debate who take a political decision and then selectively rake through the evidence to push their political viewpoint."
Too true. One of the difficulties of this public debate on whether or not 'Climate Change' is important is that both extreme sides are ... well ... extreme. I am not fond of what I consider improper ad hominem attacks on people because they are 'liberals', 'lefties' or whatever. I am firmly on the skeptic side of this debate, but I identify as a someone well left of center. I can appreciate why some of the people in the camp promoting the Climate Alarm Narrative get their hackles up. Insults are not just invalid as an argument, they are unpleasant.
I was speaking to a friend who is an atmospheric chemist about this, she said that this is nothing new, there are loads of these feedbacks known about, most people in the subject have a rough idea of how they work. What's new here is that the funding has been given for a paper into the subject, so it's formalised and peer reviewed. The problem is that there are more things known about and known to need to be researched than there is funding or time to do the work.
Another I told you so.
This kind of remind me of medical science and the continued back and forths had over the benefits/ dangers of coffee. Coffee is bad for you, don't drink it.... Oh, wait, coffee is good for you drink lots of it.... Wait, I take that back, its bad, drink little, and switch to decaf,. Ooops my bad, decaf is bad and regular is good, drink up....
And on and on.
Bottom line is simple - we don't no chit from shinola, and the more we learn, the dumber we confirm we are when it comes to climate.
Fear not, for we shall do what all otyher creatures do - adapt or perish. We can certainly adapt. But nothing we are doing is going to change any of this, as the planet will do what the planet has been doing long before mankind began haunting this little rock in the universe.
But the charlatains want your money - and power over your lives, so the doom and gloom will be adjusted to "account" for the "new discoveries", while coming up with the next batch of whoppers to keep their little party rolling.
Translation, you do realize that the dynamics of our climate and all the potential variables that could come into play are still not fully known, let alone understood, yet we still have a cadre of kooks setting policy against what the charlatains claim to know, yet in truth know squat.
Kinda like Lovelock's great admission - we thought we knew exactly what the climate was doing and why 20 years ago. Today we know that is not the case.
Yet, we still have the brain damaged followers of the cult of AGW looking for any turd in the toilet left floating to latch onto? As if there does exist a way to pick up said turd by the "clean end"? The great charade is over. Time for the adults to take control back of this mess, and let the children who have royally screwed up policy and landscape alike (see the useless aned expensive eyesores known as wind farms and solar arrays), driving everyone into the poor house for lighting up their homes and charging their "smart phones", tax schemes that amount to punishment for breathing, and stick these brats where they belong... In a dark corner with a dunce cap on and a sign the states, "I finally learned science is not consensus after all", or perhaps "Kick me, I made your energy bills skyrocket for nothing"?
'nuff said.
When they follow the cult, and the "methodology" is science by consensus, well.....
As for Lovelock, just a refresher from 4/23/2102
http://worldnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2012/04/23/11144098-gaia-scientist-james-lovelock-i-was-alarmist-about-climate-change?lite
The exact quote: “The problem is we don’t know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books – mine included – because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn’t happened,” Lovelock said.
I can understand why you do not want to debate.....
Any other Q's? Just ask.....
Your friendly-neighborhood award-winning Conservationist...... ;)
Thanks for the common sense statement that we really don't "know" what makes the climate tick, we can only speculate.
My problem comes from the fact that AGW proponents have the fervor of religious zealots, not the common sense of rational humans who are able to see both sides of the argument.
When zeal supersedes facts and rational thought, then there is no sense even trying to discuss the subject. It's about as fruitful as arguing the existence of God.
So: You're smart because you don't believe in God, you think that the climate scientists are all religious zealots, therefore they're all idiots and you're correct. All this despite not knowing anything about the subject or probably religion either.
To put it another way: You believe you're smart, you look for something which confirms that you're smart in your own terms, you see some people that you don't like, therefore you believe they must do the opposite of the thing which makes you smart, therefore they're all idiots. It's a completely false argument and like the girl at the Muse concert with the banner reading "Muse: Intelligent music, for intelligent people" slaps you on the back confirming your own choices on the way.
Go and learn some science, rather than self confirming what you want to believe.
It isn't belief in AGW (or in God) that makes it "religious", it is belief where nothing contrary to one's belief is given any consideration because it is obviously wrong. You can't argue the existence of God with a fundamentalist any more than you can argue the existence of gravity with a physicist. A fundamentalist assumes the existence of God. It is likewise with people who have a religious belief in AGW, they assume it is happening, the only questions left to ask are how bad will it get and what steps can be taken to minimize its impact.
That's not to say there aren't plenty of people who strongly believe in AGW, but leave open the possibility that it could be wrong. However, it is still pointless to debate with them, because unless they are a climate scientist, their argument is eventually based on appeal to authority. They are not qualified to argue the facts and methods when even climate scientists who have spend decades studying this can't always agree on the facts (correctness of temperature records) and methods (models used to predict future climate)
Those do not accept AGW are similarly unable to argue the facts and methods, and the only defense to an appeal to authority is providing past examples of groupthink that turned out badly. That's why arguments over AGW not involving climate scientists tend to reach a stalemate rather quickly.
@DougS - There is nothing wrong with appealing to authority - When you break your leg, do you go to an A&E department to have an expert fix it, or do you go to the quack who says that rubbing it with Berdock or some such will fix it? Naturally, you side with the expert, you don't side with the person who doesn't follow the vast weight scientific knowledge.
This article is interesting and the scientists suppose that the number of plants and plant-life remains constant. However, it is indisputable that human population growth is causing the disappearance of very large tracts of forests and jungles. Look to the Amazon over the past 50 years for evidence. Also, the heat is being held in the depths of the ocean, where the plants will have little impact. I'm not sure that this study was done with all the valid inputs and outputs considered regarding global warming.
I shall throw the BS flag on this one, as deforestation in the Amazon over the past 50 years is eerily similar to the deforestation of the NE United States back in the 19th Century (1800s).
Did you know that when the Mayflower landed on Plymouth Rock in 1620, much of the NE USA was forested, and by the mid-1800's through the turn of the 20th Century, many of the forests were hewn down for construction materials for the expansion west?
To get specific, NYS, it is speculated, was @ 60% forested at the time of European settlement. Over the course of 200+ years, NYS Forest declines to under 10% of NYS being forested (areas that have maintaind forests were Northern Zone, or Adirondack Park region, the Catskills along the SE NY/ NW NJ/ NE PA Border, and in Allegany State Park SW NY/ NW PA border). The rest of NYS was a few woodlots, expansive grasslands and farms, etc., with the timber predominantly used for construction materials and fuel. Looks like this trend bottomed out @ 1920, and reforestation efforts started to develop. Now, nearly 100 years later, NYS is 63% forested in total, but I have heard this number may be even higher from the professionals I work with at the NYS DEC.
How can this be? The entire state, and indeed the NE USA was just about completely deforested - by 1920, yet we had no "global warming" crises being bandied about back then? Certainly today with 63%+ of NYS being once again forested, much of this occurring naturally (natural succession), while some as well from re-planting efforts from paper mills, NYS Government and volunteers/ land owners planting saplings and such.
In terms of plantlife, terrestrial plantlife, ebbs and flows always happen, regardless of our overall practices (yes we do have an impact in this area), but the planet and nature takes care of this over time. After all meadows want to turn into forests, then a big old fire wipes out said mature forest, and the process starts all over again.
So, while we see damage done in the Amazon, other regions of the world see forests coming back. I think if we are speaking about GLOBAL climate, then it may be best to look at GLOBAL canopy/ forest cover, as in one area we may see forests disappearing, while in other areas forests regenerating.
Also, in terms of oceans holding temperatures, sure water holds temperature better than air, yet we have not really devled into sub-marine volcanic activity, or the like with temperatures down in the deep.
Again, no magic bullets in this magazine....
> However, it is indisputable that human population growth is causing the disappearance of very large tracts of forests and jungles. Look to the Amazon over the past 50 years for evidence.
That may change with Amazon's switch from dead-tree books to ebooks. Makes me wonder how the Vashta Nerada will manage.
The argument "it was warmer at geological time X" only really works if you don't mind being personally involved in an extinction event.
Some people look forward to these things with either lust or fear; others glibly assume it will be someone else who carries the can. Delusion coupled with comforting stories has been the natural state of humans since we developed the capacity for abstract thought. It's easy to put into place. Science is a radical shift in ways of knowing and it doesn't sit comfortably with 99% of the human race.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
