Climate warming computer models off by a tree-mendous factor
Yesterday Thomas Lifson wrote of a university study that demonstrates that the world’s deserts are greening due to higher atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide – that same atmospheric carbon dioxide that has hysterical global warmists wringing their sweaty hands and crying that the sky is falling. Reading that blog post brought to mind another study referenced by Lifson some months ago – a Yale study that upwardly revised the total estimated tree count in the world from 400 billion to 3.04 trillion, a game-changing increase.
Most likely some of that higher tree count overlaps with the expanded greening of the deserts, certainly in the outer fringe areas. But the bottom line is that there are a lot more carbon dioxide-breathing, oxygen-exhaling life forms on this planet than all these so-called climate change computer models had programmed into it when they were developed to predict the future climatic conditions of this planet.
If these computer models used “settled science’s” accepted figure of that time of 400 billion trees in this world breathing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, then their input was so incredibly far off base as to render their projections of worldwide heating and subsequent human disaster worthless. An extra 2.6 trillion trees can suck up a whole lot of all those tons of anthropogenic atmospheric carbon dioxide that was programmed into those models. It just could be that the famed hockey stick has just taken on the predictive dimensions of a hockey puck in all those elaborate equations.
So could someone please give Cheryl Crow a heads-up that there are a whole lot more trees than the poor girl believed when she publicly pledged to use a single panel of toilet tissue for her most intimate cleaning purposes? Bet those musical dudes who ride on her biodiesel bus, or Uber, or whatever she’s using for transport nowadays would sure appreciate it.
Countdown till some pointy-headed liberal professor produces a study that predicts with absolute certainty that mankind is endangered by trees taking over the world: ten…nine…eight…
Crossposted at American Thinker
Category: Politics
Cheryl Crow + single panel of toilet tissue = Stink finger!
What she forgot to say was she is brewing beer between her legs
BHWHAHAHAHAHAHAHA ! ! ! ! !
I doubt she’s actually doing that. It’s just more “look at me” bullshit.
Her father said she has ‘issues’ and needs help. I think she may be past the ‘issues’ stage and has advanced to crazy.
Selectivity bias much, Poe?
Thousands of papers and studies. The overwhelming majority of the scientific community says you are wrong in your ridiculous system of belief.
Why even bother with this nonsense? It just makes you look foolish.
Aaaah, BULLSHIT!!! I remember the climate doom propaganda I was being fed back in the late eighties when they were saying that at least 50% of the human population was going to be dead by the year 2000 due to crop lands turning into deserts, deforestation, acid rain and the ozone layer was going to be gone by then. Today there is more forested acreage in CONUS than there was in the 1920s and thirties and we don’t hear jack shit about the ozone layer anymore, do we?
You lose.
Lars is one to talk about bias and selectivity. I remember the same crap from elementary school (early to mid ’90s for me). Then I got into high school as the dreaded year 2000 approached and suddenly they stopped talking about it, though a lot of them did jump on the Y2K bandwagon (remember that shit?).
Oh SHIT YEAH, I was making my living as an Over The Road (OTR) Trucker and I remember seeing “Y2K Stores” selling wind-up powered radios and flashlights, freeze dried foods, etcetera along with plenty of nuthatches “predicting” the end of this world because computer glitches were going to make Russia’s ICBM’s launch, the power grid was gonna fail… New Year’s Eve 1999 I was heading West to Chicaco while listening to the radio that night and one by one Correspondents were calling in from the time zones they were in, “Well it’s after midnight in Malaysia and it’s all still here, the power grid is up…”, “It’s after midnight in Moscow and the power is still on, no Nuclear Missiles were accidentally launched…” and in the months after that all of the wind-up radios and flashlights along with the other stuff were being sold DIRT CHEAP and the “Y2K Stores”? Closed up, moved out and GONE.
AFAIK, doomsday prepping is still pretty trendy among certain populations. Only this time around they also need to stockpile enough ammo to invade a small country because the bile, l ron hubbard, or some random street hobo say the end is nigh.
Same shit, different toilet.
Back in 1978, Time Magazine waspublishing articles warning of the coming ice age if we didn’t find a way to stop global cooling.
The article is available online with a simple search. Interestingly enough, if you replace global cooling with global warming,you’d swear it was written by the same gaggle of dead-head chicken littles we are hearing from today.
Oh, and for Lars’ sake,and others, “consensus” is not science.
Shut up, Lars. YOu don’t know your ass from a hole in the ground about this.
I support your remark Ex-PH2!
Commissar does not know me.
Mom ?
Nope, I thought you knew shit better than that!!
Nope I thought you knew your shit better than that!
“The overwhelming majority of the scientific community says you are wrong in your ridiculous system of belief.”
– L. Taylor
Lying sack of shit.
The “overwhelming majority” of the scientific community that Lars pays attention to does not include the majority of the scientific community. Even among the ones who buy into climate change, there’s a lot of dissent and disagreement as to how it’s supposed to work. But that doesn’t fit the bullshit narrative, therefore it’s denied.
Like I said above, “consensus” is NOT science. 🙂
You’re right! We should pay attention to the settled science! Thousands of papers proving that the world is moving into a new ice age cannot be argued with! Wait, that was the 1970s.
You’re right! We should pay attention to the settled science! Thousands of papers proving that global warming will increase the temperature of the planet to levels unlivable cannot be argued with! Wait, that was the 2000’s.
I’m seeing a pattern here, and it rhymes with bullshit.
Ah the 70’s. Nuclear War (MAGD) right around the corner, global ice age approaching, ozone layer disappearing…….damn I miss the good ol days.
Yeah, I think we were supposed to be facing an 18-year long el Nino or something back then. And that was after the discovery of the correspondence between sunspot activity and the Pacific/Atlantic oscillations.
Oh, well – what’s next?
Lars
The overwhelming majority of the this aint hell community says you are wrong in your ridiculous system of belief
Why even bother with this nonsense? It just makes you look foolish.
L. Taylor: I think what you meant to say was “BAAAAAAH!” since you are obviously one of the sheople who believe what you are told. Explain to me how the data can be true even after the hockey stick model was debunked. Explain why there are no reliable in vivo studies of your hypothesis. Explain how warming trends centering on urban centers have a stronger corollary to square feet of pavement as opposed to cubic feet of emissions. Explain how the warming trend on the planet Mars has occurred over the same time period, with no life forms and therefore no carbon emissions. Why did bill Nye fail to get his PhD? How is it that Al Gore got a C- in the only undergraduate hard science course he took, and yet he is an “expert”? Name 5 “scientists” who support the theory of man made global warming who do not have a financial interest in carbon offsets!
What “scientific community”, Lars? Only a tiny fraction of the so-called “scientific community” even has the expertise to know the difference between positive vorticity advection and a hole in the ground, and the vast majority of THEM (that don’t otherwise have an $$$ AGENDA $$$–there’s your “selectivity and bias”) confirm that the whole climate-change thing is utter nonsense. FACT: temperature variation is cyclical. Always has been, always will be.
The overwhelming majority of the scientific community also used to believe the Earth was flat and the heavens turned around the earth.
See my Comment Below.
Easy Mr. Taylor these loons can jump off the rails from time to time.
Semper Fi.
Jeez Lars. The ‘Global Warming’ crap was overcome be events (reality) long ago. That ship sailed (and sank). Why do you think they started calling it ‘Climate Change’? Because they realized it was full of crap, just like ‘The Coming Ice Age’ horsepucky.
It’s really that horrible thing that it’s been all along – weather. Sometimes it’s good and sometimes it’s bad, but it basically doesn’t give a flip if cows fart or people smoke or Lars flaps his gums. It just keeps on keepin’ on. Learn to live with it.
I used to buy a can of Aquanet every week, and empty it right at the ozone layer. I quit after they said the hole shrunk, and moved.
“Thousands of papers and studies”
I’m sure that has nothing to do with the readily available funding to pursue papers which agree with the current establishment’s agenda.
“Thousands of papers”
THAT’S where all of those missing trees went!
If these ‘consensus’ asshats would quit producing papers we’d have more trees, less ‘climate change’ and fewer morons like Lars.
Um, foolish, Lars? You mean like Al Gore and those other predictors of imminent doom from global warming’s effects? Or perhaps you’re referring to those members of the warming movement who were, but a couple of decades ago, predicting a new, imminent, glaciation period, Lars? Then again, you could be referring to the Chicken Littles who back in the 80’s were absolutely swearing the world would be facing widespread famine before the end of the century? Perhaps you’re alluding to the proponents of “Peak Oil” who were certain that resource would be totally depleted by now? Checked that market lately, Lars?
You see, sonny, it is the nature of mankind that some of the more foolish among us seem always to have a need to be fearful of impending calamities. And, interestingly, the usual propagators of these fear campaigns seem to be liberal academics, like yourself, for the most part. I’ve lived through all of those great fear campaigns cited above, and I have been justifiably and laughably skeptical of all of them.
So I ask you, Lars, “Just who is it here who looks like a gullible sucker regarding this latest liberal fear fad, me, the skeptic, or you and your latest flock of Chicken Littles?
That’s the Al Gore who had a dick bulge airbrushed into his full-length pic for Rolling Stone, right? The guy who doomed and gloomed millions of kids and gullible types with his flood/tornado/earthquake/green-to-brown flick, right? The Al Gore who travels by jet and has a 25,000 room mansion or something while telling everyone else to go green or some bullshit. That Al Gore? Pkukem.
I’m a skeptic either way on this but I have to say – an estimate that we have an extra two trillion trees just smells wrong. Total area of the Earth’s surface per a quick search is a little less than 200,000,000 square miles, of which a bit less than 60,000,000 is dry land. I may have dropped a zero here and there but that works out to an error of about 4300 trees per square mile additional… that dog won’t hunt
I’m not saying it right or wrong. I just abhor the validity by affiliation reasoning.
Urban tree planting has increased the number of trees per square mile immensely. In some places, the tree census is as dense as any forested area.
Where I live right now, the tree count is two maples per house. That’s a lot of maple trees, never mind evergreens and sumacs.
I think you’re assuming there are no more areas of dense woodlands. That’s incorrect.
There are 640 acres per square mile, which would work out to less than 7 trees per acre. It might be a stretch, but it’s not that much of a stretch.
I live in an older neighborhood and have 8 trees in just my front yard – admittedly I probably have more than most in my area, but that is one of the reasons I bought the place was for all that lovely shade and greenery (except for fall, which we won’t discuss.) I have no problem assuming extra trees in many areas… but when you consider how many square miles are steppe, desert, open plains, etc. I think the math is shall we say highly improbable. Twice as many trees as estimated? Maybe. Trillions more? Uh, no. Lived in both Kansas and New Mexico.
OK, let’s check the numbers for plausibility.
Let’s assume 1/4 of the land area of the planet is forested. That’s about 15,000,000 sq mi.
If one assumes that trees in the forested areas are distributed on average in a 10′ square grid, that means (527 x 527 = 277,729) trees would exist per square mile. (It’s 527 to avoid double-counting either the left+top or right+bottom rows for adjacent square miles.) That in turn yields a total number of trees of 15,000,000 x 277,729 = 4,165,935,000,000. And that’s only the forested areas of the planet.
A tree on average every 10 feet or so in a forest seems about right to me. And the above study says the total number of trees on earth is only about 3/4 of that – e.g., 3.05 trillion.
I don’t know if the study is accurate or not, but the numbers certainly appear plausible.
Hondo, I think you’ve simply supported what I said: plants outnumber us enormously.
I did indeed. I also directly confirmed that the 3.05 trillion figure for trees on earth in the study PT cited above is plausible.
I don’t know whether it’s correct or not. But it’s certainly not impossible, and in fact only requires trees in forested areas to be distributed in roughly a 12′ square grid on average to total that amount (3.05T). And that’s only the planet’s forested areas – as you observed, urban and other non-forested areas also contain a substantial number of trees.
It’s entirely possible that if a fertile but barren landscape like the farmlands of Afghanistan were reforested with a quick-growth tree of some kind – maybe ash or sumac – there might be a reduction in the idiocy over there. I know they grow fruit trees like apricots over there.
Just an idea, not a fact. Speculating is always worthwhile.
Think you would find that in any decent-aged area that 10′ could be off by a factor of 2 or 3…below the canopy the growth can be pretty open. But that 15 million is pretty mcu spot-on the UN figures.
And in other areas (young forests, pulpwood farms, etc . . . ) the tree spacing is far higher. Ever seen planted trees being raised for paper pulp? They’re usually spaced considerably closer than a 10′ square grid, if I recall correctly.
My point is that the numbers in the study turn out to indeed be plausible. A better estimate would require better data and more time than I have, and would consider the effects of things like type of forest (old-growth, second growth, new growth, farming, etc . . . ) on the number of trees per square mile.
While doing that would be quite interesting, I simply don’t really have the time to do that level of analysis.
Another fact about trees is that NO ONE plants more trees than the American Paper and Lumber industries. In the American Deep South a new crop of pine trees can be raised in as little as 12 to 14 years if the acreage is properly managed and maintained. TREES are a renewable resource!
You forgot about Christmas trees, which include a variety of evergreen species. Pulpwood pines are a specific species, with inherited rapid growth.
My brother-in-law works for the VA Dept of Forestry and manages their tree farms. They raise trees in the millions each year to provide stock for replanting just in VA.
I don’t know if there are 3+ trillion trees in the world or not, but I think the number is plausible. The 400 billion number is likely on the low side (I wouldn’t put it past the so-called ‘climate scientists’ to have picked a number for their calculations that gave them the numbers they wanted from their inaccurate ‘models’.
Okay, since LARZ has stuck his oar into something he read about, I thought I’d set up a counterwave to his maunderings. So here goes. Last year, I did a little math on the subject of grass plants per square mile, partly as a brain fart and partly for the hell of it. Here’s what I came up with. A square mile is 640 acres of cropland, a/k/a a full section of cropland. Here’s the arithmetic: 5,280 ft x 5,280 ft = one square mile or 27,878,400 square feet. In a census count of grass in your front yard (or mine) there are 50,000 grass, plants, if you take care of your lawn. Or even if you don’t. That gives you, in simple arithmetic, a total of 1,393,920,000,000 grass plants per square mile. That’s one quadrillion to start. Figure the rest out for yourself, Lars, if you can. Use all your fingers and toes. If the census count of plants is reduced to a typical crop such as wheat or oats, it becomes about 1,500 per square foot. That still gives a high plant count of 41,817,600,000 per square mile of wheat or oats or other grasses like oats, rye, and barley. Since corn is a grass that’s been domesticated for several thousand years like wheat, the crop load is measured in bushels per acre. Even soybeans have a bushels per acre. The most recent per acre yields for 2015 are 167.5 bushels for corn, and 47.1 bushels for soybeans. Both corn and soybeans are pushed to produce the highest yields possible per acre to meet the demands of the ethanol and food industries. I’m not going to go into the damage being done to marginal land and water resources by the frantic scramble to produce ethanol, but the damage is as bad now as it was in the 1930s, with erosion of marginal land and excessive fertilizer use that rivals the worst excesses ever. And yes, LARS, you moron, I can back that up. My point here is that the number of plants in one square mile wildly outnumber… Read more »
Here’s a bit of backup for the tree count, for the City of New York.
Approximately 5.2 million trees grow on public and private property in New York City, according to a U.S. Forest Service study.
592,130 of those trees grow on New York City streets, according to the 2006 Street Tree Census, the largest participatory urban
forestry project in any city in the United States. More than one thousand Parks Department staff and volunteers spent a combined
30,000 hours taking down the species, size, location and condition of 592,130 trees in neighborhoods across New York City.
Here’s the source for that:
http://www.milliontreesnyc.org/downloads/pdf/street_tree_fact_sheet.pdf
This is an urban/suburban setting as opposed to farmland. Does anyone want the tree count for Chicago? It’s denser than ever since Richie Daley decided to make that one of his projects 20 years ago.
Africa changes climate in regular cycles, and drives weather change for much of the world. Shifting ocean currents and wind patterns alter monsoon and other rain patterns. The importance of monsoon timing and placement cannot be overlooked. Much of the world relies on regular rains and monsoons for agriculture.
Africa was green 5000 years ago, and even supplied much of the grain for the world during the Roman period. River channels beneath the sand tell a story of a wet, green history.
Yes, and there are rivers in the midst of the Sahara that have oases with crocodiles and game animals, probably left over from the last time that switch took place.
Ex, you made my head hurt.
Please stop. 😉
Sweetie, take two aspirin and call me in the morning.
The density on my own land is tremendous. I was PTing in the field when I surprised some deer. They skittered off quickly.One ran down a path and veered of on a smaller trail. The other took a direct route, jumped right into the treeline, but just bounced back out with its limbs sprawled in the air before recovering and deciding to follow its buddy.
I wonder what they count as trees. Bamboo for example can be ridonculously dense.
Bamboos are a group of woody perennial evergreen plants in the true grass family Poaceae. Some of its members are giants, forming by far the largest members of the grass family. There are 91 genera and about 1,000 species of bamboo. – Science Daily. Here’s the link: https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/bamboo.htm
Oh, thanks. I new what they were relative to taxonomy. My question was more about how that particular study classified them, i.e. were they considered trees in that study.
knew….damn typos
I don’t know if they were counted, since they are a grass. But there are jungles in the world – Borneo, for instance, and some places in Vietnam – where humans have not set foot and the jungle is so dense you’d have to cut your way through it, or find a way to walk from tree to tree.
Same thing in Siberia: forest so dense that humans literally cannot move through it on the ground. Some of the trees are over 850 years old.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong, but I remember the climate doomsday propaganda in the late eighties predicting that the Polar Ice Caps would be mostly if not completely melted by 2000 and today they’re still growing. I also remember reading sports in the nineties that the ice caps on Planet Mars were also melting back then HEY WAIT, Mars is THE ONLY Planet in our Solar System that is populated only by robots – THAT’S IT, ROBOTS ARE CAUSING GLOBAL WORMENING!!!
I honestly think we need to STOP GLOBAL WHINING, that would improve things!
Well, Robert Heinlein did predict that surface water in its frozen form would be found on Mars in ‘Red Planet’. And last year, surface water melt in the Martian spring was detected by the MRO orbiter. Here’s the NASA link from last fall.
http://mars.nasa.gov/mro/news/whatsnew/index.cfm?FuseAction=ShowNews&NewsID=1858
I’d like to point out for the benefit of anyone (including Commissar) who only reads papers, that theories, propositions, and forecasts are fine, but they are frequently proven wrong by physical evidence.
Last week, the LIGO teams confirmed Einstein’s theory of gravity waves by physical detection when two black holes imploded (merged) into one, at a distance of 1.3 billion light years from Earth.
It took over 100 years for that theory to be confirmed. Like I said, theories and the rest of it are fine, but they are frequently proven wrong by physical evidence. It makes it worse when the FACTS and data are altered to get money from taxpayers.
yep, and it’s a basic science dictum that if your facts don’t match your theory,you should modify your theory first. I’m still uncomfortable with an estimated tree count being off by a factor of damn near 10-fold, but as Hondo showed, theoretically it’s possible. If I believed all scientific estimates were 100% golden, I’d still be worried about the new Ice Age I was taught was coming when I was in college.
Keep an eye on the monsoonal winds in the Indian Ocean. If they continue to move toward the Arabian peninsula and not northeast to Pakistan and India, that can be a sign that the African sahel is going to change even more.
So, what do people like Lars plan on doing with every body of open water, on the planet?
Wanting to regulate it even down to Farmers’ and Cattlemens’ drainage ditches and ponds.
PS: the first ice age crisis er dooms day came out in 1972…
I remember seeing the cover of Time forecasting that “doom and gloom”
I remember reading in the seventies that “experts” were predicting a man made ice age caused by particulates from burning fossil fuels blocking out sunlight and that hasn’t happened either. I also remember scientists saying that the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in the PI put more particulates and pollutants (sulfates to name one) into the atmosphere than all of the entire Industrial Age put together, maybe they’ll screech for Volcano Control Laws as well?
Michael Mann – Stolen Valor (Nobel Prize Version):
https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/2012/10/28/michael-mann-retracts-false-nobel-prize-claims-in-humiliating-climbdown/
More on the subject at hand here:
https://johnosullivan.wordpress.com/
Global Warming e-mails:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2011/11/23/climategate-2-0-new-e-mails-rock-the-global-warming-debate/#60237e87988d
http://www.conservapedia.com/Climategate
And filanny – arrsesting people that deny global warming:
http://dailycaller.com/2015/09/17/scientists-ask-obama-to-prosecute-global-warming-skeptics/
Jonn, you should be grateful to me for elevating the level of discourse here at TAH: all these detailed discussions of tree and plant varieties, numbers and densities, complete with supportive mathematical equations.
All that with only minimal discussion of the skid marks in Cheryl Crow’s panties.
Truly impressive.
Heh…
Yeah, not bad fer a bunch o knuckle draggers, huh?
Ok, I am going to take a stab at this. I realize Mr. Taylor has earned a certain amount of vitriolic disdain in the past. But I give credit where credit is due. He has made an effort to be less caustic with his posts even if his positions are diametrically opposed to many. Climate change is not one of the things that can be explained with a meme. The current polarization of the political landscape makes it nearly impossible to discuss. I generally read posts about it without comment. Climate change is a fact, it is not an opinion or a belief system. The Earth is retaining more energy from the sun than in the recent past. Fact. The only thing about climate change that is open for debate is how much impact human activity has on it. Anyone that believes 7 billion people have no impact at all is deluded. People that run around screaming the sky is falling are equally deluded albeit in the opposite direction. There have been numerous occasions where ‘Global Warming’ activists have been exposed for deliberately using false data to support their position. They were exposed by other scientists upon peer review for the most part. The oceans are responsible for the production of oxygen and the absorption of CO2 for the most part. Plants contribute but to a much lesser degree. Forests are also responsible for the production of VOC’s, considered a form of air pollution. Counting trees as a means test is about the same as measuring snowfall in the Antarctic. Both are predicted by climate models but have little to do with causality. I don’t believe anyone supports the unrestricted contamination of our environment. Believing human kind is the primary mover in climate change is naive. I do not deny climate change or the fact that the Earth is retaining more energy than in recent history. Life forms can and do make a dramatic impact on our environment. The early Earth had no significant levels of free oxygen, all that we breath was created by early life forms over billions… Read more »
DH: during the past 700,000 years, there have been four major periods of glaciation. Modern man (homo sapiens) has been around for precisely one of them; and that one occurred well before the beginning of human agriculture and when the human population of earth was likely less than 5 million. (Some scientists believe that the human population during the final ice age may have fallen to as few as a few hundred individuals.) Obviously, mankind is not responsible for either causing or ending that last glacial period or the three that preceded it.
When those predicting runaway anthropomorphic global warming can demonstrate a theory that successfully explains those four prior periods of glaciation; the “little ice age” associated with the Maunder Minimum; and the cold snap which followed during the early/mid 1800s, I’ll give their theories credence. Until then, I hold that mankind doesn’t really have a freaking clue regarding what drives the earth’s climate over either the mid- or long-term.
Personally, I think it’s far more likely that long-term solar variations are to blame for that variability, and that humanity has at best a slight effect on the Earth’s climate. But I admit I could be wrong. Dunno. I don’t have a direct line to God, so I can’t ask Him.
My beef with the “man is causing global climate change true believers” is that they hold that to be an article of faith; refuse to admit they have neither a working theory or a clue; refuse to admit that the available hard data is insufficient to validate any theory, and is ambiguous at best; and are all too willing to crucify those who refuse to pray at the altar of their great god, Anthromophic Climate Change. But they appear all too willing to use their claims to both chase their second god (Research Funding!), as well as fudge data to keep the money flowing.
Hondo,
What you said!
I agree with you completely. What I think gets lost in the banter is our need to make “reasonable” efforts to protect our environment.
Making huge areas of military installations unavailable for training to ‘protect’ a woodpecker is wrong on many different levels.
Not contaminating the drinking water with chemicals by digging holes in the ground to get rid of them makes perfect sense.
While the rants from polarized camps on the issue rage on, what is really needed gets lost.
Yes, we are causing global climate change. There is undeniable truth to that statement. What we are not doing is being a major factor in the overall process. Our impact has been grossly overstated. The backlash to that is people saying we make no impact at all. Both of those arguments are false.
About 650 million years ago it appears the entire planet froze. “Snowball Earth” wiped out any visible form of life on earth. Compared to that, Ice Ages are minor disruptions in the overall scheme of things but will be catastrophic to life as we know it.
Abuse of money and power hidden behind the curtain of protecting the environment is tyranny, plain and simple.
Pretending that we have no impact on it whatsoever is not a tenable position either.
I don’t have a direct line with a God either brother, but you are correct,”Research Funding” seems to be abused.
Dave, gotta take issue with your statement, “Yes, we are causing global climate change,” until such time as there is more empirical evidence to support such a contention, if ever. Yes we are contributing in a small way to the increase in atmospheric Co2, but whether our contribution is significant enough to have any actual impact on events that may be occurring naturally has yet to be determined.
Who’s to say that an increase in Co2 is necessarily harmful to the planet? It certainly is beneficial to plant life and generally what is good for plant life also benefits the animal kingdom and homo sapiens.There are simply too many natural events operating here that we can’t begin to predict.
What I was trying to say is if these turkeys are basing their predictions on computer models that failed completely to account for the Co2 uptake of almost 4 trillion trees, then everything those models have predicted up to now has to be seriously flawed.
Personally, I believe we will find someday when the hysterics have settled down that the sun with its cycles and varied output has far more to do with climate change than man ever possibly could. Ditto the minor changes in earth’s tilt and solar orbit possibly due to variations in solar, lunar and planetary gravitational forces.
One thing’s for sure: we’re talking about processes far larger than anything developed by mankind. And as for the loons like Lars who claim they have all the answers, they’ve been wrong on virtually every claim of this type up to now so why start giving them any credence at this point?
Dave, one point I failed to address: You dismiss the possible causality of more than three trillion trees yet you have no qualm as to accepting the causality of the Co2 output of a mere seven billion humans.
Do you have any idea how much Co2 those trees suck up every day? Neither do I and for that reason I certainly wouldn’t be so quick to dismiss them as a causal factor.
Vegetation does have a major role. The plants that live in the ocean are many times more abundant than what is on land. Most land has little growing on it.
These people that think the rain forests have some tremendous effect are dreaming. I have no idea what the parity is, but my wild guess is all the rain forests on earth are 1/1000th of the total vegetation. They do make up a consderable part of the “forested land”. Two different things.
Dont get me wrong, it bothers me horribly that there are some people who consume any oxygen at all. I encourage them to help save the planet as often as possible.
Oh, I don’t think I have said. “Fuck Muhammad and his goofy invisible sock puppet Allah” lately. I try to do that as often as possible too. Thanks for the opportunity, I feel much better now.
Fair enough, I agree with you. I should have been more specific by saying, “We are having some impact on Climate Change. We are not the cause of climate change.”
No doubt whatsoever the Solar cycles, Earths orbital cycles, Earths axis cycle, magnetic pole fluctuations, changing ocean currents, Continental drift, and the angle of deviation the solar system has in the galactic plane have a greater effect than humankind.
Notwithstanding those facts, our presence on the planet does have an impact. An impact that we can influence without all the polarized hyperbole.
Crowe has obviously never been to a paper mill. The trees they use are entirely made up of cultivated hybrid trees. They would no sooner let a wild tree into the mix than they would let a flame thrower in a gun powder plant. The cost of doing that is catastrophic. Using wads of shit paper at a time does not same one tree in the wild.
If she wants to stop the cutting of most forests, she should put an end to backyard grilling with charcoal and ban wooden pallets.
Mr Taylor has exercised a copious amount of reserve lately. Besides, I still think he has pretty eyes.
You are of course correct about Lars behavior today. He did in fact start out this time just calling me a fool instead of a dumb shit. Considering the boy’s natural proclivities towards incivility, I suppose you are right to commend him for restraint.
You are also correct regarding humankind’s responsibility for pollution of our environment. However I am far more concerned about the land, both rural and urban, and our inland and coastal waterways than I am about Co2 levels in the atmosphere.
In that regard, this nation is an exemplary pillar of responsibility when compared to Russia, China, India and countless smaller polluters.
Its progress on Mr. Taylors part. I often wonder how I would react posting on some blog full of Libtards. (Disclaimer: not all liberals are retarded, not all retarded people are liberal, no liberal or retards were harmed during the posting of this messege.)
People are just too sensitive these days. Archie Bunker would be banned from social media these days.
Keep writing bro, its always interesting.
You left out belching, farting, and sneezing, never mind loud snoring and unkempt greasy hair requiring repeated shampoos and extensive waste of perfectly good water.
No argument that humans have some effect. But as I said: at most it’s IMO a minor one, and likely negligible in the proverbial “great scheme of things”. Modern humans weren’t around for the vast majority of this planet’s glacial periods, and human industrial society wasn’t around for any of them.
Yes, we should reduce what we do to pollute the environment. Proper landfills and recycling are good things. Ditto more efficient devices that inherently use less power, and use of less polluting sources for power production (and there are NO “non-polluting” sources – everything produces some degree of pollution or environmental impact). Nuclear would be my choice for primary; major power production, very low emission, exceptionally safe when designed/sited/run properly, and we know how to handle the tiny amount of waste it produces. Others also have their place.
However, we have to balance that against human needs and both technological feasibility. No manufacturing or energy generation process is perfect or truly has no environmental impact (even wind, solar, and hydro have impacts – just ask conservationists what they do to birds and fish, for starters). So demanding “no pollution” or “zero environmental impact” is just stupid; that can’t be done. And we do have between 6 and 7 billion souls on this planet who need to eat, drink water, etc . . . . In a modern society, that equates to manufacturing, transportation, and farming – which all generate both goods and waste. Unless you want to kill off most of humanity, we therefore will produce some pollution that must be handled. And the amount won’t be zero any time soon – if ever.
But claiming mankind is “changing the planet’s climate” and that a “crash” will occur in the next century or two? Call me unconvinced. When the “man-made global warming” crew can explain prior ice ages that occurred w/o mankind; the Little Ice Age, and the early/mid 1800s cold period; call me. Until then, don’t bother – because until they can, they don’t really know what’s going on and their predictions therefore can’t be trusted.
Dave, the reason all of us denier-apostate-heretic mofos are so looney is because of the chemtrails. That, and thinking about Sheryl Crow’s panties…
I prefer not to think about her skid marks, thank you.
Celebrities that pimp out there name for causes just erode any credibility they had with me.
Gary Sinise and people like him are an exception rather than the rule. They go about their efforts without making themselves the center of attention. I am always in awe of that man.
Sheryl Crow does little for me, with or without panties.
“I spent all my money on trashy women and booze. The rest I wasted.”
Back in the 1970s, I used to read sci-fi on my lunch hour. One of those ‘The Million Year Hunt’ by Ken Bulmer, was about the theory that the universe was in entropy and would soon end. The nasty Statque (Status Quo) police were given the job of hunting down and punishing anyone who disagreed with them. As it turned out, only human civilizations experience entropy. The universe is much slower.
You can say the same thing about Planet Earth. Ask a dinosaur.
I wonder if it’s possible that the reason the original estimate of 400 billion trees was either because of a changed definition of what constitutes a “tree” for counting purposes, or because the original number of 400 billion was not really a “Measure” but a WAG that someone pulled out of their 4th Point of Contact in the first place. ;_
That’s what I was wondering when I asked of they were counting things like bamboo. Gotta know their definition of tree as applied to this study. I guess I shoulda checked by now, but I’ve been kinda busy.
400 Billion Trees? Always wondered where the expression “Can’t see the forest for the trees” came from. Now I know.
Trees? Did someone say Trees? Be careful when you use the “T” word. Remember what happened to Sonny Bono and Michael Kennedy! (Conspiracy groups are still denying that Tree Harvey Oswald acted alone). Oh, if only BHO would throw away his clubs and take up skiing (I’m still punch drunk from the Jenkins, Dead or Alive Blog).
Don’t forget George of the Jungle.
I knew I forgot someone. Good catch, IDC SARC. 🙂 At least Tarzan is not on the T’s list (because he is truly the Lord of the Jungle…or was..did he die of old age…never did read the book…only watched the Black and White movies..)
And don’t forget “Tarzoon – Shame of the Jungle”, either. (smile)
Warning: might not want to Google and watch any clips from that at work. (smile)
It’s going to be in the 70’s all weekend at Fort Riley.
Cool. If it’s the early 70s, will there be sit-ins and protests and hippies, acid, VW buses and draft-card burnings and…Oh. Did you mean the temperature?
2/17 Air Cav: Hmmm, must have you mixed up with someone else. Thought you were older. Could have sworn all of those events you mentioned took place in the 60s. Thought the 70s were Bubble Gum music type behavior.
I hit the 70s when I went to get my driver’s license renewed. Got a discount, too.
Speed Limit? Just messin with ya, Ex-PH2. Happy Belated Birthday.
<3 <3 <3
Weekend's coming. Supposed to be a nice one. The starlings are already starting to show their summer plumage.
No, man. They spilled over into the 70s. That’s why I wrote “early 70s.”
Thumbs Up. My error. Didn’t see the forest because of all those durn trees (apologies to Poe, Dave H. Hondo, Ex-PH2 for some of my comments…had to take a break from reading this blog…it was making my head hurt)
LMAO, posting here is like having hemorrhoids, just when you think its going to be ok, the pain comes back in spades.
Yeah, hemmorrhoids. Probably why Sheryl Crow cut back on the toilet paper. She did not want her secret to become known…and so did her publicist.After all, who can imagine ANY celeb having hemmorroids.
I hate spell check. And is there even a word such as what was posted in my comment (the “H” word)
All of you people make my ass twitch. All of you.
No crepes avec boeuf et champignons for any of you.
Durn it, Ex-PH2, was going to ask you to make me a good concoction for this Blog headache since I’m allergic to aspirin, but guess will suffer the rest of the day ( Guilt trip?) 😉
Allergic to aspirin?
Have you tried a little chicken soup?
Cold washcloth on the eyes. Chocolate chip ice cream, perhaps?
Or don’t read the blog. Just look at the pictures.
The science is settled. 9 out of 10 government funded scientists agree we need more funding to stop the environment from killing us by paying it not to do so with tax payer money. That is its only weakness carbon taxation to feed nature’s greed lust.
Donate today. You don’t want to anger nature do you? Remember The Happening? It was a documentary you jackass anti science creationists.
Sure. We should refrain from poisoning ourselves with toxins. Also, we should not trash civilization on rumors and fear mongering, and highly cooked books and ‘secret’ data sets that have to be hidden to ‘avoid fueling skeptics’.
The constant ‘adjusting’ of historical temperatures in the last century is also highly suspect, as is the universal prescription of “more socialism” and “more authority” as the cure, when such societies tend to be the worst polluters.
But those with true faith in this crooked scam will exceed the worst ravages of other faiths given half a chance. The camps, and the stake, await the heretics.
We all exhale CO2. That is the “original sin” postulated by the Climate Believers.
And did you notice how many of them also say “too many humans”, tsk tsk. Almost as if they had some sort of a hope that someone might Do Something about all those extras….
Extras? Okay, let’s start with them.
It’s the idea that humans are able to control anything on this planet, when they can barely control themselves, that gives me the gigglesnorts.
Here’s a little weekend homework for you.
http://maps.unomaha.edu/maher/plate/week3/contrift.html
If anyone is interested, the last volcanic eruptions on the Rio Grande Rift were between 5,000 and 10,000 years ago,and while it’s been fairly quiet, it’s starting to warm up again. Fly geysers are part of the process of rifting. Making magma boil up from the core takes time.
You may enjoy knowing that the Afar rift zone is increasingly active. The British Geo Survey decided that the crack that opened up in 2006 at 8 ft wide and 35 feet long, and is now 450ft wide and 37 miles long, is mostly a like dike intrusion, but that is not slowing down the rifting process. And western Antarctica sits on a volcanically active rift zone, too. Some day, that may split wide open.
I’ve wondered for a long time how the dinosaurs felt when Pangaea was breaking up.
And when this baby goes off the next time (and it’s due) the libs will really have something to protest:
https://www.google.com/search?q=yellowstone+Caldera&oq=yellowstone+Caldera&aqs=chrome..69i57.10088j0j4&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Yeah, I’d like to see that protest, too. A little dance on Erta Ale’s crate rim, perhaps.
Oh, yeah – where I put ‘like dike’ that should be ‘lava dike’. My bad.
Remember around 2010 when Al Gore (he of the Global Warming/ManBearPig fame) bought this home on the coast in California:
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/04/al-gores-new-villa-in-california.html
Guess ManBearPig isn’t afraid that his palatial estate is going to go underwater anytime soon…
To put a point of it:
We are still exiting an ice age. The glaciers are retreating, but are still melting away. We may or may not get to 100% melt before the next cycle starts.
Non-anthropomorphic solar influence.
Non-anthropomorphic climate cycles and climate variability.
Why do the Martian ice caps roughly mirror the behavior of Earth’s ice caps. Did we land fleets of SUVs there? It is almost as if some gigantic variable heat source was acting across millions of miles of space….. Nah. Must be humans.
Not to be pedantic, but are the articles actually using the term anthropomorphic? I would think that should be anthropologic.
Anthropomorphic means applying human characteristics to non-human objects or animals etc.
(Don’t kill me, I’m just curious.)
Try ‘anthropogenic’ – originating in human activity.
Yes, that would be even more descriptive, but doesn’t answer my question. Guess I’ll just have to read when I have the time. Thanks tho.
“Anthropogenic Global Warming” or “AGW”
And my sometimes tragically funny word choice often leads to some interesting and amusing “oopsies” at my own expense.
I think ‘Anthropomorphic’ Global Warming might be “Gaia is bitching about hot flashes”.
No?
To be even more particular, the warmists believe in CAGW, that is Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming.
Now known as Extreme Weather.
AKA The Sky Is Falling!!!!!
Gaia has her own agenda.
Well, here’s a bit of news from Sky & Telescope this week. It seems that the methods of counting and identifying sunspots since that started in the 18th century have not been as consistent as once was thought, and the sun is not only not getting hotter, but… well, you read it. It’s got the climate alarmists in a twizzle. They may, in fact, not survive their disappointment.
http://www.skyandtelescope.com/astronomy-news/how-astronomers-count-sunspots15022016513/
So, there are some who want to change the sunspot count and conclusion, to show no solar output increase over time.
Because “accurate” data should fit the theory, and inaccurate data should be corrected or discarded.
Hmm.
Exactly. Change historical records to suit your propaganda machine. Hasn’t someone done that before?