35 Inconvenient Truths - 8 Years On

[Flashermac]

Between 1945 and 1975 forest cover in Thailand declined from 61% to 34% of the country's land area. Over the next 11 years, Thailand lost close to 28% of all of its remaining forests. This means that the country lost 3.1% of its forest cover each year over that period. The Thai Highlands in Northern Thailand, the most heavily forested region of the country, were not subject to central government and settlement until the second half of the nineteenth century when British timber firms, notably the Bombay Burmah Trading Corporation and the Borneo Company Limited, entered into the teak trade in the late 1880s and early 1890. The Royal Forest Department, created in 1896 and staffed by a British forester until 1925, sought to conserve the forests against the worst business practices of British, Thai, and Chinese timber firms who worked in the region.

 

During the twentieth century, deforestation in Thailand was driven primarily by agricultural expansion, although teak deforestation happened as a direct result of timber-cutting. Much of Thailand's recent economic improvement can be attributed to increased agricultural production for export. The country was able to increase production by clearing much of their forests and converting them to cropland.

 

Currently, after assessing the extent of the damage, the Thai government is beginning to emphasize forest restoration.

 

...

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation_in_Thailand

[Coss]

... and that is the problem! You completely ignore the studies that correlate CO2 increases with the use of fossil fuels. You don't need citations to back your belief. You just know.

 

I don't argue against "CO2 increases with the use of fossil fuels" it does. I argue that the amount measured, should not make us culpably responsible for any significant amount of warming or cooling, or more change or less. There have been times in the recent (geological time frames) past, where the temperature has been much higher than it is today, but the the CO2 levels were lower, so my argument stands, the egg and chicken aspect of warming (remember we don't call it warming any more because we're not seeing too much of it) and CO2 levels, is worth examining.

 

​Note that I am arguing, I am presenting an opposing opinion, I don't claim the truth, I suggest the current narrative is flawed.

 

Oh and in the spirit of entertaining debate, my lack (sometimes) of citations, could easily be countered by citations from yourself.

 

I have a good memory and am happy to admit I'm wrong where I am shown to be so. I'd happily admit defeat in this argument if you could provide citations showing my assertions to be wrong, factually wrong.

 

The problem is that a lot of what the media present as fact, is merely projection based belief - AlGore and the Hockey Stick graph is a prime example. citation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hockey_stick_controversy

 

 

 

Anyone factor in the reduction in the jungles and forests that "eat" CO2???

 

Plant life needs CO2 to survive and people/animals need the plants to eat the CO2 and give us O2.

 

Quite right, forests are large carbon sinks and "based on data from typical perennial grasslands and mature forests in Australia, forests are typically more than 10 times as effective as grasslands at storing carbon on a hectare per hectare basis."

 

citation: http://www.chiefscie...sts-or-grasses/

[baa99]

Your argument doesn't stand, because it doesn't fit the temperature data. It also doesn't stand because scientists can differentiate between CO2 from fossil fuels and CO2 from burning or permafrost reductions.

 

https://www.skepticalscience.com/CO2-emissions-correlation-with-CO2-concentration.htm

 

Show me the data that supports your assertion,

where the temperature has been much higher than it is today, but the the CO2 levels were lower.

 

You can find the graphs for the past 400,000 years here,

 

http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html

[Guest]

We will be hit by a meteor that will wipe us long before so called climate change would ever become a worry, humankind would have adapted in the meanwhile in anycase. There are hundreds ont here way right now, and only a matter of time before one hits us ....

[Flashermac]

Not to worry. I remember that when Skylab was coming down, Thai shops were having sales on motorcycle helmets.

[Coss]

Your argument doesn't stand, because it doesn't fit the temperature data. It also doesn't stand because scientists can differentiate between CO2 from fossil fuels and CO2 from burning or permafrost reductions.

 

https://www.skeptica...ncentration.htm

 

 

I've already said - 'I don't argue against "CO2 increases with the use of fossil fuels" it does.' I just don't buy into the assertion that the world will end because of human influence.

 

Show me the data that supports your assertion,

where the temperature has been much higher than it is today, but the the CO2 levels were lower.

You can find the graphs for the past 400,000 years here,

http://www.geocraft....t_400k_yrs.html

 

It's difficult to find this data exactly, which should be no surprise given the media's slavish 'believer' stance. But this graph demonstrates the assertion. Quite a famous one it seems.

 

 

http://theinconvenie...-core-analysis/

 

"Taylor Dome is a local ice-accumulation area that is part of the East Antarctic ice sheet. It is a ridge about 20 by 80 km just inland of the Transantarctic Mountains and provides ice to outlet glaciers entering Taylor Valley and McMurdo Sound.

Deep drilling at Taylor Dome successfully reached bedrock at a depth of 554 meters during the 1993-1994 austral summer season at latitude 77°47'47'' S, longitude 158°43'26'' E, elevation 2365 m above sea level.

 

The Taylor Dome ice core is only the second core (after Vostok) to provide a stratigraphically undisturbed record through the entire last glacial cycle (that is, the last 130,000 years or more) It has the advantage over many other Antarctic cores in being relatively shallow (554 meters), meaning that gas bubbles trapped in the ice have not reached pressures sufficient to cause significant clathrate formation, even for ice that is pre-Holocene (greater than ~11,000 years) in age. This has enabled researchers to obtain what are likely the best CO2 and delta 13C of CO2 measurements ever made of the ancient atmosphere." http://www.ncdc.noaa...lor/taylor.html

 

and http://nsidc.org/dat..._ahn/index.html

 

 

Not to worry. I remember that when Skylab was coming down, Thai shops were having sales on motorcycle helmets.

 

55555 now that sums up 'Thainess'

[Coss]

Here's an interesting graph, CO2 vs Temperature

 

 

 

Source:

http://www.biocab.or..._Timescale.html

[Coss]

And another - Continental Flooding, Temperature and CO2

 

 

Source:

http://www.biocab.org/SL_and_CO2.jpg

[Coss]

One more - Temperature vs Time

 

 

Source:

https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/entire_earth_history_record.gif

[Coss]

I like this one -

 

 

Source:

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png