It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The global mean concentration of CO2 in 2005 was 379 ppm, leading to an RF of +1.66 [±0.17] W m–2. Past emissions of fossil fuels and cement production have likely contributed about three-quarters of the current RF, with the remainder caused by land use changes.
...My point was that - as an uncontested feature of food-chains - if you eat organisms higher up the food chain, more energy has to go in at the bottom to sustain you --> the reason that a lot of agriculture (especially here in the UK - I mean, 60-something million people on an island this size?) is done away from the point of consumption is that the amount of land (usually proportional to the amount of energy you can get into the system) required to sustain current dietary practices would be extremely expensive relative to transport costs. By changing dietary practice to focus more on food from a lower trophic level (i.e. reduce - even without eliminating - meat), we can reduce the area required for food production....
the forest will have already experienced three extreme dry spells in just 12 years, two of which occurred during the past five years: 1998, 2005 and 2010.
But the damage done by long past farming practice aside, I can see why exhausted land is used for grazing. And I have to agree 100% that improved practice is required (hard to see how anyone could disagree), although I have to add that such improved farming practice probably wouldn't involve shipping fodder from overseas to feed the livestock.
Ever gave this a thought? Let's say 'climate change' is making our world hotter. They ( scientists ) say that its due to gasses forming in the atmosphere causing a 'greenhouse effect'. Which in turn heats the planet and melts, dries and cools the planet from that point onwards....
"Most of the studies and debates on potential climate change, along with its ecological and economic impacts, have focused on the ongoing buildup of industrial greenhouse gases in the atmosphere and a gradual increase in global temperatures. This line of thinking, however, fails to consider another potentially disruptive climate scenario. It ignores recent and rapidly advancing evidence that Earth’s climate repeatedly has shifted abruptly and dramatically in the past, and is capable of doing so in the future.
Fossil evidence clearly demonstrates that Earth vs climate can shift gears within a decade....
But the concept remains little known and scarcely appreciated in the wider community of scientists, economists, policy makers, and world political and business leaders. Thus, world leaders may be planning for climate scenarios of global warming that are opposite to what might actually occur..."
Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started....
..Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present... As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean diminished. Late Holocene cooling reached its nadir during the Little Ice Age (about 1250-1850 AD), when sun-blocking volcanic eruptions and perhaps other causes added to the orbital cooling, allowing most Arctic glaciers to reach their maximum Holocene extent...
"We want to compare the sun's brightness now to its brightness during previous minima and ask: is the sun getting brighter or dimmer?"
The answer seems to be dimmer. Measurements by a variety of spacecraft indicate a 12-year lessening of the sun's "irradiance" by about 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at EUV wavelengths."
Geophysicists in Finland and Germany have calculated that the Sun is more magnetically active now than it has been for over a 1000 years. Ilya Usoskin and colleagues at the University of Oulu and the Max-Planck Institute for Aeronomy say that their technique – which relies on a radioactive dating technique - is the first direct quantitative reconstruction of solar activity based on physical, rather than statistical, models (I G Usoskin et al. 2003 Phys. Rev. Lett. 91 211101)
... the Finnish team was able to extend data on solar activity back to 850 AD. The researchers found that there has been a sharp increase in the number of sunspots since the beginning of the 20th century. They calculated that the average number was about 30 per year between 850 and 1900, and then increased to 60 between 1900 and 1944, and is now at its highest ever value of 76.
“We need to understand this unprecedented level of activity,” Usoskin told PhysicsWeb."
The biggest problem I have with the CAGW theory, is it assumes no (little) changes in the energy from the sun received by the earth.
Originally posted by peck420
reply to post by mc_squared
I didn't mean how much co2 get's released during deforestation.
What I meant was that we are adversly affecting the environment by reducing the carbon recovery cylce by land and vegetation.
Think of it like water usage.
I don't actual care about my absolute water resource, I care about my actual yearly recovery rate. If my usage exceeds my recovery rate it is just a mater of time....
Same with the forests, I really don't care about the carbon released when a tree is deforested, I care far more about the yearly rate of absorbtion that is now gone. The further the natural recovery cycle is damaged the more damaging our emissions become.
You are aware, aren't you
I think it was termites, not dung beetles, that produce a lot of Methane, not CO2. You are aware, aren't you, that hotter isn't the only thing that tropical plants need to grow? If it also becomes drier- because, for example, the changing temperature has altered cloud dispersal patterns at a rate faster than seed distributions...
Willis Eschenbach on negative feedback and "The Thermostat Hypothesis"
The Thermostat Hypothesis is that tropical clouds and thunderstorms actively regulate the temperature of the earth. This keeps the earth at a equilibrium temperature.
Several kinds of evidence are presented to establish and elucidate the Thermostat Hypothesis – historical temperature stability of the Earth, theoretical considerations, satellite photos, and a description of the equilibrium mechanism. …
Two recent severe droughts in the Amazon region, one in 2005 and one in 2010 may cause the rainforest to change from a carbon sink into a net emitter says a recent study.
Read more: www.economicvoice.com...
The forest usually soaks up 1.5 billion tons of carbon a year but the team involved in the study written in 2010 believe that this would not be achievable in 2010 and 2011. The study should be seen as an initial estimate said one of the co-authors as more research was needed to evaluate the number of trees killed off by the drought. The impact of forest fires had also not been included in the study.
Read more: www.economicvoice.com...
Climate tipping points
Scientists know from the geological record that the Earth's climate can change rapidly. They have identified a number of potential tipping points where relatively small amounts of global warming caused by human activities could cause large changes in climate. Some tipping points, like the losses to the Amazon forests, involve positive feedback loops and could lead to runaway climate change.
Arctic ice cap: The white ice cap is good at reflecting the Sun's warming light back into space. But when it melts, the dark ocean uncovered absorbs this heat. This leads to more melting, and so on.
Tundra: The high north is warming particularly fast, melting the permafrost that has locked up vast amounts of carbon in soils for thousands of years. Bacteria digesting the unfrozen soils generate methane, a potent greenhouse gas, leading to more warming.
Gas hydrates: Also involving methane, this tipping point involves huge reservoirs of methane frozen on or just below the ocean floor. The methane-water crystals are close to their melting point and highly unstable. A huge release could be triggered by a little warming.
West Antarctic ice sheet: Some scientists think this enormous ice sheet, much of which is below sea level, is vulnerable to small amounts of warming. If it all eventually melted, sea level would rise by six metres.
Originally posted by korathin
reply to post by mc_squared
I think the problems of the Amazon have more to do with Brazil destroying the rain forest for cropland instead of taking care of the land through crop rotations.
It is similar to the Dust Bowl.
So no need to begin advocating global marxism and your failed attempt at stirring up white guilt is over with.