31,000 scientists reject 'global warming' agenda

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Human involvement is miniscule compared to what this planet has done to itself. Guilt trips, my god!

[Peikko 1,575]

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Human involvement is miniscule compared to what this planet has done to itself. Guilt trips, my god!

As I said there are quite a few examples of how human activity has negatively influenced the environment across quite large areas.

Desertification and the exacerbation of marine erosion being just two examples.

About one half of the forests that covered the Earth are gone. Each year, another 16 million hectares disappear. The World Resources Institute estimates that only about 22% of the world's (old growth) original forest cover remains "intact" - most of this is in three large areas: the Canadian and Alaskan boreal forest, the boreal forest of Russia, and the tropical forest of the northwestern Amazon Basin and the Guyana Shield (Guyana, Suriname, Venezuela, Columbia, etc.)

Today, forests cover more than one quarter of the world's total land area, excluding polar regions. Slightly more than 50% of the forests are found in the tropics and the rest are temperate and boreal (coniferous northern forest) zones.

Seven countries (Russia, Brazil, Canada, the United States, China, Indonesia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire) account for more than 60% of the total.

For millennia, humankind has influenced the forests, although much of the impact has been relatively minor. Today, the impact is enormous. Deforestation is expanding and accelerating into the remaining areas of undisturbed forest, and the quality of the remaining forests is declining. Today we examine global patterns in deforestation, assess the human and ecological costs of forest loss, and discuss some of the steps that can help to rectify this alarming situation.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalch...t/deforest.html

Until quite recently, most of the deforestation occurred in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. By the beginning of this century, these regions had been mostly converted from the original cover. Now, deforestation in these regions has stabilized and regrowth is occurring (though second growth forests have quite different character, see below). In the last few decades, the vast majority of deforestation has occurred in the tropics - and the pace still accelerates. The removal of tropical forests in Latin America is proceeding at a pace of about 2% per year. In Africa, the pace is about 0.8% per year and in Asia it is 2% per year.

The USA has already experienced its wave of deforestation, with the exception of small areas in the west and Alaska. Our old growth forests were mostly harvested by 1920, particularly in the East. Pacific Northwest forests and UP Michigan forests were heavily cut after 1920 until quite recently, and harvest of old growth continues today in Southeast Alaska. Interestingly, deforestation rates at their peak in the Midwest were ~2% annually, about the rates now seen in Amazonia. At that rate, how much of existing forest will remain in 70 years? Just one-fourth. However, much forest re-growth has occurred in the eastern USA during the 20th Century, although these second-growth forests differ in structure and composition from their predecessors.

Thats talking about old growth forest. That has been replanted. The total number of trees in the US is more than it was at the turn of the 20th century.

I also understand that its only new trees that are the most effective at absorbing CO2.

[Marilyn. 340]

About one half of the forests that covered the Earth are gone. Each year, another 16 million hectares disappear. The World Resources Institute estimates that only about 22% of the world's (old growth) original forest cover remains "intact" - most of this is in three large areas: the Canadian and Alaskan boreal forest, the boreal forest of Russia, and the tropical forest of the northwestern Amazon Basin and the Guyana Shield (Guyana, Suriname, Venezuela, Columbia, etc.)

Today, forests cover more than one quarter of the world's total land area, excluding polar regions. Slightly more than 50% of the forests are found in the tropics and the rest are temperate and boreal (coniferous northern forest) zones.

Seven countries (Russia, Brazil, Canada, the United States, China, Indonesia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire) account for more than 60% of the total.

For millennia, humankind has influenced the forests, although much of the impact has been relatively minor. Today, the impact is enormous. Deforestation is expanding and accelerating into the remaining areas of undisturbed forest, and the quality of the remaining forests is declining. Today we examine global patterns in deforestation, assess the human and ecological costs of forest loss, and discuss some of the steps that can help to rectify this alarming situation.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalch...t/deforest.html

Until quite recently, most of the deforestation occurred in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. By the beginning of this century, these regions had been mostly converted from the original cover. Now, deforestation in these regions has stabilized and regrowth is occurring (though second growth forests have quite different character, see below). In the last few decades, the vast majority of deforestation has occurred in the tropics - and the pace still accelerates. The removal of tropical forests in Latin America is proceeding at a pace of about 2% per year. In Africa, the pace is about 0.8% per year and in Asia it is 2% per year.

The USA has already experienced its wave of deforestation, with the exception of small areas in the west and Alaska. Our old growth forests were mostly harvested by 1920, particularly in the East. Pacific Northwest forests and UP Michigan forests were heavily cut after 1920 until quite recently, and harvest of old growth continues today in Southeast Alaska. Interestingly, deforestation rates at their peak in the Midwest were ~2% annually, about the rates now seen in Amazonia. At that rate, how much of existing forest will remain in 70 years? Just one-fourth. However, much forest re-growth has occurred in the eastern USA during the 20th Century, although these second-growth forests differ in structure and composition from their predecessors.

Thats talking about old growth forest. That has been replanted. The total number of trees in the US is more than it was at the turn of the 20th century.

yeah there might be more trees but they aren't the same as the old trees...

Human involvement is miniscule compared to what this planet has done to itself. Guilt trips, my god!

yeah but like has already been mentioned the Earth gives itself time to bounce back.. us spewing ####### everywhere isn't giving the Earth a chance to fight back..

and I think Frances mentioned that the Earth probably will be here for awhile longer but us humans probably will not because we will make the Earth so uninhabitable... or something like that...

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

Human involvement is miniscule compared to what this planet has done to itself. Guilt trips, my god!

As I said there are quite a few examples of how human activity has negatively influenced the environment across quite large areas.

Desertification and the exacerbation of marine erosion being just two examples.

Could you please describe what an ancient forest fire might do as far as damage. We look at burnt forests as ugly and terrible what does the earth see it as.

Human perspectives dont work.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

We can only affect what we do in our own country. That is why I specified the US. But to the point, trees are not the main agent of CO2 removal, it's ocean plankton.

That is I suspect where a lot of the controversy comes in - given that noone has exclusive ownership of the oceans outside of tracts of territorial waters. Nature doesn't respect human territorial boundaries - logically speaking our environmental policies shouldn't either.

[Pinocchio Liberal 268]

If anyone wants to blame the cycles of this planet on us, keep it up!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Human involvement is miniscule compared to what this planet has done to itself. Guilt trips, my god!

As I said there are quite a few examples of how human activity has negatively influenced the environment across quite large areas.

Desertification and the exacerbation of marine erosion being just two examples.

Could you please describe what an ancient forest fire might do as far as damage. We look at burnt forests as ugly and terrible what does the earth see it as.

Human perspectives dont work.

Quite simply - forest fires are short term and the damage is repaired relatively quickly, certainly when compared to erosional processes like desertification.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Nature doesn't respect human territorial boundaries...

You know, Marx shared the environments disdain for territorial boundaries. Now we know which side the environment is on. I'll stick to the side that beat Marxism, thank you very much.

[GaryC 7]

yeah there might be more trees but they aren't the same as the old trees...

Since we are talking about trees in relation to CO2 removal then that is a different argument.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Nature doesn't respect human territorial boundaries...

You know, Marx shared the environments disdain for territorial boundaries. Now we know which side the environment is on. I'll stick to the side that beat Marxism, thank you very much.

Once we've taught those terr'ists a lesson we can declare our next great war.

War on the Environment!

Our next president can do a Caligula and have our armed forces bombard the seas.

[GaryC 7]

Human involvement is miniscule compared to what this planet has done to itself. Guilt trips, my god!

As I said there are quite a few examples of how human activity has negatively influenced the environment across quite large areas.

Desertification and the exacerbation of marine erosion being just two examples.

About one half of the forests that covered the Earth are gone. Each year, another 16 million hectares disappear. The World Resources Institute estimates that only about 22% of the world's (old growth) original forest cover remains "intact" - most of this is in three large areas: the Canadian and Alaskan boreal forest, the boreal forest of Russia, and the tropical forest of the northwestern Amazon Basin and the Guyana Shield (Guyana, Suriname, Venezuela, Columbia, etc.)

Today, forests cover more than one quarter of the world's total land area, excluding polar regions. Slightly more than 50% of the forests are found in the tropics and the rest are temperate and boreal (coniferous northern forest) zones.

Seven countries (Russia, Brazil, Canada, the United States, China, Indonesia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo (formerly Zaire) account for more than 60% of the total.

For millennia, humankind has influenced the forests, although much of the impact has been relatively minor. Today, the impact is enormous. Deforestation is expanding and accelerating into the remaining areas of undisturbed forest, and the quality of the remaining forests is declining. Today we examine global patterns in deforestation, assess the human and ecological costs of forest loss, and discuss some of the steps that can help to rectify this alarming situation.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalch...t/deforest.html

Until quite recently, most of the deforestation occurred in Europe, North Africa, and the Middle East. By the beginning of this century, these regions had been mostly converted from the original cover. Now, deforestation in these regions has stabilized and regrowth is occurring (though second growth forests have quite different character, see below). In the last few decades, the vast majority of deforestation has occurred in the tropics - and the pace still accelerates. The removal of tropical forests in Latin America is proceeding at a pace of about 2% per year. In Africa, the pace is about 0.8% per year and in Asia it is 2% per year.

The USA has already experienced its wave of deforestation, with the exception of small areas in the west and Alaska. Our old growth forests were mostly harvested by 1920, particularly in the East. Pacific Northwest forests and UP Michigan forests were heavily cut after 1920 until quite recently, and harvest of old growth continues today in Southeast Alaska. Interestingly, deforestation rates at their peak in the Midwest were ~2% annually, about the rates now seen in Amazonia. At that rate, how much of existing forest will remain in 70 years? Just one-fourth. However, much forest re-growth has occurred in the eastern USA during the 20th Century, although these second-growth forests differ in structure and composition from their predecessors.

Thats talking about old growth forest. That has been replanted. The total number of trees in the US is more than it was at the turn of the 20th century.

I also understand that its only new trees that are the most effective at absorbing CO2.

I remember reading somewhere that grasslands are better at removing CO2 than forests are. I may be wrong but I do seem to remember reading that. It's the rate of growth that makes the difference and not the size of the plant. Grass grows faster than trees do.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Our next president can do a Caligula and have our armed forces bombard the seas.

[Peikko 1,575]

Human's have to take some "personal responsibility' when it comes to the earth. The fact that nature could also render the earth uninhabitable for mankind without human intervention is missing the point. At this juncture, humans are responsible for the destruction of the natural environment as it stands at this point in the evolutionary process. Nature hasn't had to deal with such a rapid wholesale destruction and change in its environment EVER in any part of its history.

Still, run with your denial. Why not? One way or another these changes will have an impact on all our lives - we could affect the impact positively with a global approach or we can just continue with our haphazard unilateral policies and hope for the best. Sound plan, right?

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

Our next president can do a Caligula and have our armed forces bombard the seas.

Assuming the historical record is correct he did actually do that. Had his army line up on the beach and let loose with the archers and siege engines - before having his infantry advance into the surf to hack and stab the water.

Of course there was that Persian king who had the sea flogged because a storm blew up and wrecked his boats - delaying his campaign against the Greek mainland.

Edited June 3, 2008 by Number 6