No more global warming?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Man's factor has always been cutting down the trees (who absorb the carbon)

No it is not, not really a factor, and that is why I am often disgusted at the whole green movement, which I detest with passion, mainly due to their own blind pursuit of agenda, blind in the sense that their scientific foundation is resting on sand, metaphorically speaking. The impact of trees on the atmospheric levels of oxygen is comparatively very insignificant.

The vast, colossal majority of oxygen is produced by much more primitive and diminutive lifeforms, such as primarily the ocean phytoplankton, which is the chief factor in the CO2 reduction as well as O2 increase. There is a reason why serious climatologist and biologists as well as palaeontologists/palaeoclimatologist debate over iron seeding and not planting more trees, as the brainless sheep, a.k.a the Greens do. The reason is because those scientists realise what does what. Phytoplankton is the big issue, not trees. In addition, I believe the global warming is a positive thing, as do many scientists whose fields start with the "palaeo" prefix. This is why - Azolla event.

The chief problem with climate change is that it is destabilising and transition periods are always rough. For one, status quo is very much welcomed in geopolitical arena, as no one planned for such drastic changes that will surely follow. Then you will have the massive extinctions, with other species severely shrinking in population. Climate is swift to change, speaking as a palaeontologist, whereas flora and fauna will take millions of years to fully adapt.

[Louis VI the Fat]

When a tree dies, the carbon that is stored in it is released again. Otherwise known as rotting. What would help, is dead trees sinking in the mud instead of rotting away. Then they can slowly turn themselves into oil and gas again.

However, I'd say that humanity's ability to burn the carbon locked in oil and gas is much greater than nature's capacity to form oil over millions of years again. So no, trees are not the solution.

There is a reason why serious climatologist and biologists as well as palaeontologists/palaeoclimatologist debate over iron seeding and not planting more trees, as the brainless sheep, a.k.a the Greens do. The reason is because those scientists realise what does what. Phytoplankton is the big issue, not trees. In addition, I believe the global warming is a positive thing, as do many scientists whose fields start with the "palaeo" prefix. This is why - Azolla event

Fascinating reads.

Give me an unlimited budget and a few decades, and I'll give you any climate you want on earth. From tropical paradise or iceworld.

Bizzarly, it isn't all that expensive or difficult to remove any amount of CO2 from the atmosphere that we want. I think this ought to be the focus of climate change debate.

We are not victims of nature's wrath. We are in the process of becoming its master. The question is not how to stop climate change, but how to work towards the climate we desire.

[Fragony]

ask yourself this, why is there doubt, in your heart? you are not invited to my party

the screamers here EVEN FASTER turned out to 'accidently' meassure higher temperatures much to the amazement of serious scientists who got different results. Faulty equipment, oops. Yeah that can happen, didn't the ipcc miss an icemass the size of texas. oops?

[Samurai Waki]

I kind of realized that when we were hit by a massive snow storm, and twenty degree weather all last week. I'm ready for warm again! and summer ended only a couple weeks ago...

[InsaneApache]

Well the eco nutjobs didn't help their cause with the 'hockey stick', did they?

Then there's Lords Melchitt and Porrit who want to limit/reduce the human population to sustainable levels.

So I say, let's bring it on. Pump as much CO2 into the atmosphere as you can manage. Paint the poles jet black. Get your electric fire outside and on full bore. Get that temperature up guys.

Then when the ice cap melts and releases all that water, drowning a significant amount of people, we can reduce our carbon footprint for those that are left. The greens will be happy and so will I. I live atop a mountain.

Jobs a good 'un.

[Furunculus]

The amount of anthropogenic warming has been overstated.
The amount of anthropogenic warming from CO2 has been greatly overstated.

This directly results from Louis's deductive method when applied to a complex system where the record is uncertain, and the model is poorly understood.

The computer model looks at x amount of past warming, along with y concentration of CO2, and extrapolates z amount of future warming, and yet people are surprised when the model doesn't work because they refuse to recognise the contribution of a, b, and c to natural climate variation.

none of which means that i do not believe their could be catastrophic climate change in our near future, but it does mean that i believe spending trillions worrying about CO2 is an utter waste.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Paint the poles jet black.

Seems a bit drastic. Why not the russians, there's lots more of them?

[Aemilius Paulus]

Seems a bit drastic. Why not the russians, there's lots more of them?

Wrong, our population is falling too quickly, whereas the Poles are falling at a slower rate.

As for the apparent growing scepticism of global warming in .Org, I will however have to point out that the Arctic icecap is melting, and that is highly abnormal, as it has never done so for millions of years, not since the time before the First Ice Age.

[Vuk]

No it is not, not really a factor, and that is why I am often disgusted at the whole green movement, which I detest with passion, mainly due to their own blind pursuit of agenda, blind in the sense that their scientific foundation is resting on sand, metaphorically speaking. The impact of trees on the atmospheric levels of oxygen is comparatively very insignificant.

The vast, colossal majority of oxygen is produced by much more primitive and diminutive lifeforms, such as primarily the ocean phytoplankton, which is the chief factor in the CO2 reduction as well as O2 increase. There is a reason why serious climatologist and biologists as well as palaeontologists/palaeoclimatologist debate over iron seeding and not planting more trees, as the brainless sheep, a.k.a the Greens do. The reason is because those scientists realise what does what. Phytoplankton is the big issue, not trees. In addition, I believe the global warming is a positive thing, as do many scientists whose fields start with the "palaeo" prefix. This is why - Azolla event.

The chief problem with climate change is that it is destabilising and transition periods are always rough. For one, status quo is very much welcomed in geopolitical arena, as no one planned for such drastic changes that will surely follow. Then you will have the massive extinctions, with other species severely shrinking in population. Climate is swift to change, speaking as a palaeontologist, whereas flora and fauna will take millions of years to fully adapt.

AP, I find myself agreeing with you for the first time since you/I joined this forum. I don't think that 'global warming' is an issue either. Personally (As someone living in WI), I wouldn't really mind if it was a few degrees warmer.
(See, I knew you could not have been that bad of a bloke. )

EDIT: This is interesting.