For example, the '80s were warmer than the 70s,
The 90s were warmer than the 80s,
The 2000s were warmer than the 90s, etc.
It is true that replacing forests with grasslands, or agriculture, does cause some warming.
It's only in the last couple thousand years that there have been enough people alive on earth to do that on a global scale.
Prior to that, changes in rainfall were the major culprit.
You're going to see distractions, like: "Jim Z: 'If you use your common sense, it is obvious that crops would also utilize photosynthesis to remove CO2. Since they haven't had a very good history of honesty, I would take their statistics with a grain of salt.' "
The error with that is that crops get eaten, metabolized, and the carbon is turned back into CO2.
The problem that exists is the extra CO2 that's added to the carbon cycle by burning fossil fuels.
And he has the gall to question someone else's honesty.
The problem today is that there's 40% more CO2 in the atmosphere, and lots more has been absorbed by the oceans. That's causing the oceans to become more acidic, which is hard on ocean life. Specifically animals that make shells, including coral. That's also causing the earth to warm -- to retain more of the energy we get from the sun. The amount we get hasn't changed, what's changed is that extra CO2 causes the earth to lose that energy more slowly.
You'll also see that it has been both warmer and colder in the past, which is true. That's not what's being argued about, except by some AGW deniers, to distract attention from the current problem. The problem is that our cities and farms and seaport locations are determined by the climate that the world has experienced in the last few hundred years. The problem is going to be the population dislocation that will be associated with the warmer world.
For America in particular, the are a couple likely problems. First, coastal flooding around Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, the Chesapeake Bay, etc. The other major problem could be a return to dust bowl days, when we couldn't grow food in the nearly desert areas of the Midwest.
SO, when you see warming, "Is not happening", or "Is not important", that's wrong.
When you see "It's been hotter before", that doesn't matter today.
When you see "Warmer is better", that's wrong -- it's not.
When you see people that would like the environment to be as consistent as possible, that's good.
They want the world's population to be as stable as possible.
There are things we'd like to see.
A "natural" reduction in population, accomplished by a reduction in birth rate would be good.
A change to reduce burning fossil fuel would be good.
We don't want to be radical.
We want to be rational. There is a difference.
The fact that the biosphere has increased greatly since 1980 (anywhere from 6% to 11% all over the World) never seems to filter into an alarmist's point of view. Pollen counts are rising right along with the biosphere growth which means CO2 is doing what is suppose to do (circulating). Just goes to show that a normal temperature increase in 130 years of 0.7C (and holding steady) helps more life begin and sustain itself through the carbon cycle.
Modern agriculture is more Government controlled and regulated simply because of the financial rewards and is definitely less productive in its processing. A very large % of harvested crops never make it to the table because of our inability to efficiently transport it. Governments have become a HUGE problem when it comes to feeding the World efficiently and effectively.
NO. I live in the NORTHWEST part of America. There are about 125,000 acres all around me, except for a river. Each time they cut trees down, they replant, so whats taken is replaced by all timber companies. I have another solution that grows trees 4 to 5 feet wide 200 feet tall in 15 years. Have a nice day. Mike
Much of the deforestation in tropical regions is for biofuels which has been pushed by alarmists trying to save the planet. Instead, their policies have probably led to more destruction of the tropical forests but we are supposed to ignore the actual consequences of their policies and only focus on their intentions. If you use your common sense, it is obvious that crops would also utilize photosynthesis to remove CO2. Since they haven't had a very good history of honesty, I would take their statistics with a grain of salt.
Alarmism is simply a branch of leftist politics and tree huggers, also leftists, need to have a bone thrown to them so instead of a scientific analyses of the consequences of deforestation, we get gobbledygook and gibberish.
Deforestation
Land use change is a major factor in global warming, however, it is not as useful for the current agenda which calls for blaming everything on CO2. Roger Pielke Sr has been publishing on the effects of land-use change, but his contributions to IPCC and other reports tend to get edited out, and he is frequently mislabeled as a skeptic for his efforts.
Deforestation is a major contributing cause of climate change, mostly deforestation of the tropical rain forests. Net carbon emissions from land-use change (mostly deforestation) in the past 10 years are about 3.3 billion tons of CO2 annually; that is about 10% of all human emissions.
There are more trees in North America now than when Columbus discovered it.
We destroyed much of the world's forests so that we build farms and cities, especially during the recent two centuries, so they don't absorb as much carbon as they once did. Did that accelerate artificial climate change? Also, I read that early people collected more foods from trees, such as nuts, and less from grains which grow in fields, and domesticated animals require more open space than wild ones, of which early people ate more. Does modern agriculture factor in this?
