... The Canadian destruction of their forests to my mind is beyond recklessly criminal. ...

Even though deforestation of boreal regions is proven effective in reducing global warming?...

Care to try to explain that one somehow? Reliably even??...

Already posted a few posts ago...

And the post/ref is please?...
(Note there is one of you to be helpful to directly give a link and to avoid lots of wasted time for everyone else trying to guess what you might mean...)
All on our only one planet,
Martin

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=76156&postid=1642010#1642010

"In fact, according to this model, by the year 2100, if all the forests were cut and left to rot, the annual global mean temperature would decrease by more than 0.5 degree Fahrenheit. "

(Note there is one of you to be helpful to directly give a link and to avoid lots of wasted time for everyone else trying to guess what you might mean...)

I thought you might actually read you own thread, but apparently not ....

@WK Thanks

---

... The Canadian destruction of their forests to my mind is beyond recklessly criminal. ...

Even though deforestation of boreal regions is proven effective in reducing global warming?...

Care to try to explain that one somehow? Reliably even??...

Already posted a few posts ago...

And the post/ref is please?...

(Note there is one of you to be helpful to directly give a link and to avoid lots of wasted time for everyone else trying to guess what you might mean...)


All on our only one planet,
Martin

http://setiathome.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=76156&postid=1642010#1642010

Thanks for that. So... Just the usual Charpentier cherry picking games.

So from that you have the example:

... In nontropical areas, Caldeira explains, "the real significant factor is whether there's snow on the ground in the winter." If a forest covers a snowy expanse, "that has a strong warming influence,"...

And for the Canadian example, I'm sure there's still no chance for snow to form on the oil polluted mess that has replaced the thousands of years of forest recently ripped up for polluting short term profit.


That narrow article is interesting for the overall carbon and temperature balance. What is completely ignored is the contribution to weather and habitat and the richness of our planet. Really, instead burn all the trees?!

Only on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

And for the Canadian example, I'm sure there's still no chance for snow to form on the oil polluted mess that has replaced the thousands of years of forest recently ripped up for polluting short term profit.

Cite.
Both of your assertions.
1) That most of Canada is an oil polluted mess
2) That snow will not fall or stay on oil polluted soil

---

And for the Canadian example, I'm sure there's still no chance for snow to form on the oil polluted mess that has replaced the thousands of years of forest recently ripped up for polluting short term profit.

Cite.
Both of your assertions.
1) That most of Canada is an oil polluted mess
2) That snow will not fall or stay on oil polluted soil

And so in your world of denial, black is now white?

And the Canadian "Burn Baby Burn" is supposedly of no significance?...

Can you cite anywhere honestly claiming that the Canadian boreal forest was somehow warming our planet by a greater extent than the vast Canadian lust for burning and selling oil and the pollution and desolation be damned?...

(Ooops, and their toxic dams do burst to poison their rivers and the Great Lakes...)


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

And for the Canadian example, I'm sure there's still no chance for snow to form on the oil polluted mess that has replaced the thousands of years of forest recently ripped up for polluting short term profit.

Cite.
Both of your assertions.
1) That most of Canada is an oil polluted mess
2) That snow will not fall or stay on oil polluted soil

And so in your world of denial, black is now white?

And the Canadian "Burn Baby Burn" is supposedly of no significance?...

Can you cite anywhere honestly claiming that the Canadian boreal forest was somehow warming our planet by a greater extent than the vast Canadian lust for burning and selling oil and the pollution and desolation be damned?...

(Ooops, and their toxic dams do burst to poison their rivers and the Great Lakes...)

Seems that you don't like that the solution to global warming may be an even bigger environmental disaster than global warming. That or you refuse to believe the models are correct that cutting down the boreal forest will reduce warming. Of course if you reject the models, you reject global warming.

Martin, you are in a catch 22 and seem to be wanting to scream your way out of it. Sorry, but that path is not available. Both of your assertions are false and you know it. You got caught in a lie.

I'm not advocating the forest be cut down, I'll leave that the the proponents of global warming. I'm not advocating extraction of oil from Canadian deposits either. Cutting down the forest does not imply that oil will be extracted!

I'm here to tell you that you are in denial of the magnitude of the problem. There is no technological solution that will not cause more environmental damage than warming will. The only known solution is to reduce the number of industrialized humans on the planet, which will also reduce other pollution and environmental damage. As to the needed rate of reduction, run some models. Maybe one child works, but until models are run it is unknown.

Martin, you can bury your head in the tar sands, or you can be a useful part in getting a real solution to a vexing issue. Now you can continue to rant and expect not to have anyone listen to you, or you can grow up and deal with the issue in an adult manner, realizing that every proposal will have real, sometimes extremely unpleasant, consequences, especially when deployed on planetary scales which must compete head to head with cheap fossil fuel, without the aid of global tax policies to unbalance supply demand curves.

---

What academics are really saying:)
https://twitter.com/conradhackett/status/566665686622011392
“In my experience” = Once
“In case after case” = Twice
“In a series of cases” = Three times

North pole at record lows for sea ice extent



http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/


Click on picture

---

Not exited it's just that time of the year when it is at it's max for the season a update if you will

---

North pole at record lows for sea ice extent
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Click on picture

Oil companies from the US, Russia and Norway loves that the monthly January ice extent for 1979 to 2015 shows a decline of 3.2% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.!

This Video Of The Largest Breakage Of Ice From A Glacier Ever Filmed Is Absolutely Frightening
http://uk.businessinsider.com/largest-ice-glacier-calving-filmed-2015-1

North pole at record lows for sea ice extent
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Click on picture

Oil companies from the US, Russia and Norway loves that the monthly January ice extent for 1979 to 2015 shows a decline of 3.2% per decade relative to the 1981 to 2010 average.!

Is 1979 to 2010 relevant.
Or is it a Warming, from the Cooling, starting in the 1940's and ending in the 1970's?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

Average Monthly Arctic Sea Ice Extent.
Look at Figure 5 January 2015 compared to previous years and you can see that the North Pole are shrinking in a steady pace.
From 15.4 in 1978 to 13.6 million square kilometers in 2014. 13% less ice within 36 years.
Within about 300 years there may not be a North Pole.
The reason is probably global warming, both in the atmospere and in the sea.
Also the global warming in the polar caps and glaciers are much higher in these regions.

Footnote: Although a thin layer of ice doesn’t tell us much about the overall state of ice loss at the Arctic, it does tell us a great deal about Albedo, the property of ice to reflect heat back into space. When the sea ice diminishes, more heat passes into the oceans. That heat melts the thick ice and speeds up the melting of thinner sea ice, which in turns allows more heat to accumulate in the oceans. This is an example of a positive feedback.

Putin says "ypa".

Lucky Russia:)
I read this in my newspaper today.
Dozens of new craters in the permafrost found in northern Russia.
http://siberiantimes.com/science/casestudy/news/n0127-dozens-of-mysterious-new-craters-suspected-in-northern-russia/
Scientists believe that the explosions caused by pockets of methane gas are released as a result of temperatures rising in the area. Indirectly, it could well be an effect of global warming.

Many countries would gain from global warming.
Sweden also but the main average temperature will drop due to more cloudy and rainy weather:(
But forgot trips to the Mediterraine...

Excuse me if these two points have been made earlier in this thread.

1) By using the scare phrases "Hottest on record, or "Coldest ever recorded", the alarmists fail to mention that actual recording of temperatures can only have occurred since 1597 (Galileo). That is an infinitesimal amount of empirical data when considering a time scale of even 1 billion years.

2) A Major sustained eruption of just Bardarbunga in Iceland would negate all of the carbon reduction activities of man in very little time.

We are conceited in the belief that the puny efforts we 'bring to the problem' will affect the final outcome. A fairytale solution to a problem that cannot be solved used to justify taxes whose revenue will be siphoned away by greedy governments and NEVER applied to it's intended purpose.

---

"Sour Grapes make a bitter Whine." <(0)>

Anthropogenic emissions (industrial, heating, shifting cultivation, agriculture, transport) of CO2 is estimated at about 27 billion tons per year.
Volcanoes, regardless of massive individual outbreaks (these do not affect the statistics significantly) contribute to somewhere between 145-255 million tonnes CO2 per year. That is not even one percent of what the anthropogenic emissions pose.
http://volcanoes.usgs.gov/hazards/gas/index.php

But it is a clear tendency that the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere has risen sharp the last 150 years, despite the Filipino volcano Pinatubo in June 1991 which was unusually large and lowered global temperatures by half a degree over two years.

And the Krakatau eruption that was even bigger didn't change the CO2 concentration by much.

Consider this.

World population today
1 billion in North and South America.
1 billion in Europe.
1 billion in Africa.
4 billion in Asia.

World population 2050 (statistically proven)
1 billion in North and South America.
1 billion in Europe.
2 billion in Africa.
5 billion in Asia.

Climate changes will mostly affect Africa and Asia.
Deserts are getting bigger all the time and the water supply becomes more scarce.
Africas population will DOUBLE in a few decade.
Where will all people move?

... Where will all people move?

Thus we are creating Biblical wars...


All on our only one planet,
Martin

---

See new freedom: Mageia Linux
Take a look for yourself: Linux Format
The Future is what We all make IT (GPLv3)

Daddy?: Yes Dear.

It's 10 Degrees Out. You said I could go out and play, if temp went up to 10 Degrees.

Sure Dear, Ok. Put your Bunglies On and have fun. For only 10 Minutes tho.

Oh Daddy!

You know what happened to your friend, remember?

Yes Daddy.

Ok Dear.

Daddy? Do you think temp will ever Rise to 12 Degrees?

Well, Experts said 30 years ago, when I was your age...never mind about that. Hurry up and Enjoy.

Ok Daddy, I'm hurrying.

Yep.

---

May we All have a METAMORPHOSIS. REASON. GOoD JUDGEMENT and LOVE and ORDER!!!!!

World population 2050 (statistically proven)

Statistically predicted, not proven. They can't be proven for another 35 years.

---

Life on earth is the global equivalent of not storing things in the fridge.

World population 2050 (statistically proven)

Statistically predicted, not proven. They can't be proven for another 35 years.

It's a fact.
Pleese see this. Start at 10 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BlHcwFeK9TQ
Hans Rosling and Ola Rosling: How not to be ignorant about the world
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sm5xF-UYgdg