Your premise is wrong. So-called "global warming" is what caused the tree to fall. No one was able to perceive the tree would fall until it did, then there was no doubt scientifically that someone driving an SUV caused the tree to come down.
I realize this is a joke... but...
Trees do not release their stored CO2 until they decay. A tree falling in the forest, therefor, would not have any effect on global warming aside from the miniscule amount of CO2 it absorbs, that single tree, being taken out of the biological carbon cycle. Also, the CO2 stored in the tree is already part of that biological carbon cycle. Global warming, mainly, concerns that being taken out of the geological carbon cycle. AKA fossil fuels.
A little bit, in theory, as it decays. However, if the space it previously occupied is filled by another tree of similar size, as usually happens in a forest, then the net effect is pretty close to zero (or possibly even slightly positive, as the tree is unlikely to *completely* decay)
Not unless it has a volume equal to a large fraction of all the world's forest trees, e.g. if James Cameron grew it by magic to use in Avatar.
Not unless there is a way to tax the tree for falling.
yes - everything causes Global Warming
If a man is talking in a forest with no woman around to hear him, is he still wrong?
Yup, and I'm surprised you're the first one to address this. Congratulations.
Ha ha
No. Because if that happened, no politician would know about it. And if they don't know about it, they can't tax it. (But they are working on it.)
yes
if it falls in the autumn, it won't
Same as "Schroeders cat"
No it won't.
No, silly
maybe
