Global warming - random thought of the day

Global warming, climate change, whatever you want to call it.

I had a random thought. I don't want to get into the politics and whether it is real or not etc, but consider this.

We've been constantly told since the 1980s that the planet, on average, is going to warm up steadily because of the greenhouse effect of too much CO2 in the atmosphere.

Eco sorts proclaim that we need more trees to combat this, as trees absorb carbon from the atmosphere and lock it up.

But here's my random thought. Trees are great, but one of the things they do is draw moisture from the earth, up into their leaves, where the wind draws it out through evaporation, and so you get airborne water vapour. Lots of airborne water vapour = clouds. All those with an interest in gardening will know that on a winters day, we know if we're likely to get frost through the night by how clear the sky is, as clouds act as a big blanket reflecting warmth back down, whereas on a clear night the warmth at ground level is free to radiate back into space.

So, more trees means more water vapour in the air, which means more greenhouse effect, so more global warming

 

Thats a good point Dave, better than the alternative of using all the planets bulldozers to dirty up the snow fields in an attempt to stop the heat reflecting back into space.

When politicians preach to us plebs about global warming, they never start the speaches with Atmospheric CO2 is at its lowest level in geological history since the Carboniferous period 300 million years ago.

It was 400 parts per million then, today its 385 ppm.

In the Cambrian period it was 6000 ppm & there was still land, probably not as much as today though.

 

Beg your pardon, according to wicki its currently 392ppm

Carbon dioxide in Earth's atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not sure where they are getting this from though?

As according to "A Correlated History of Earth" CO2 was between 400-500ppm 20 MYA.

What i'm saying is that these are dangerously low levels to have if the Sun goes into a hibernation period.

 

Not sure it works that way Clueless.
Whilst it is true that cloud cover provides a blanket effect at night, preventing temperatures from falling, as I understand it the opposite is true during the day, when cloud cover reflects some of the suns energy back out into space.
So more cloud cover means lower temperatures overall.

Let's not forget the many other advantages of trees either;

They produce Oxygen.
They act as a 'rain filter' allowing rainfall to percolate slowly through the soil, thus helping to prevent flooding.
Their roots help to bind the soil together, preventing erosion.
They provide habitat for numerous other species of insects, birds, mosses and lichens etc. The Oak alone can support 284 different insect species.

The Value of Living Trees - Living Tree Educational Foundation

 

There is still the same amount of water on the planet regardless of how many trees there are. I think the problem is that the trees have been replaced by factories and houses and fields full of cows that produce far more greenhouse gas than the trees once there...if we had no tree everywhere would flood

 

global warming is a term used to confuse the gullibale and tax the stupid

The Global Warming Scam

 

Very interesting Dim, liked that last video.

 

For 5 billion years, this planet has had millions of volcanoes pumping trillions of tons of toxins into the atmosphere. Yet, according to the econuts the damage has only been caused in the last 200 years when man started burning coal. As dim says, it`s just a reason to keep slamming us with "green taxes".:D

 

I should point out, i'm not opposed to trees. I like trees, and I think we need more of them. As has been mentioned, they regulated the amount of water at ground level, drinking it up and spraying it into the air as vapour as the wind draws water from the leaves.

In any case, apart from the massively huge list of technical reasons why trees are brilliant, they are also very beautiful.

Personally, if by some bizarre miracle, I woke up one morning and found out I'd suddenly become the boss of the UK, one of the first things I'd do is kick the sheep and the toffs off the north yorks moors, to give native trees a chance to come back, as opposed to being either eaten at seedling stage, or burnt off along with the heather when shooting season is coming (their are some eco benefits to burning the heather, but I doubt if that's the real motive for doing so).

I guess my original point is that there's nothing we can do safely to adjust the climate either way. Mother nature spent several billion years fine tuning the system we have in place. As far as species go us human sorts might be quite clever, but at the end of the day we're still just monkeys. We're not really clever enough to manipulate our environment on a global scale in any meaningful and controlled way.

 

Well i'm voting for you.

Dave for P.M.:yess::yess::yess:

 

Well hopefully nature will wash our species off the planit one day and the earth will one day recover :D

 

I've never understood why, so called, conservationist, spend so much time and money trying to conserve man made habitats for alien plants and insects.
The National Trust appear to be just one organisation using grazing animals in this way.

Trouble with the human race is they think they rule the world, and therefore are capable of altering it long term.

 

I do believe that global warming is a problem. Personally, I don't have all the facts, however I think we should be willing to listen to the vast majority of the scientists who do have the facts and do worry about it.

However, I can't see what the point is of reducing our CO2 output - if the world population continues to increase. That's no different from a fireman suggesting that there is no point in trying to put out a fire as long as local council officials are still pouring petrol on it.