Global severe deforestation? Nope. Only the countries that are undergoing land-clearing have recorded high losses of forestation in the past 10 years.
http://ifs.nic.in/rt/misc/fwstats04/table16.pdf
The United States and Canada have more forest land than they did 150 years ago. Partly because of Theodore Roosevelt and the Park service, but also because the logging industry at the same time shifted to tree farming instead of clearing natural forests.
Today, none of the wood or paper products you buy are made from natural forestation. They're made entirely from trees grown specifically for producing wood products.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jamesqf
Most of those either have no effect, or one too small to measure
|
Really? Volcanoes worldwide have and continue to have the power to directly alter cloud coverage percentages. In 1883 the Krakatoa eruption was large enough to directly alter global average temperatures by just over 1C.
Volcanic winter - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And historically, solar activity directly tracks with global temperature averages.
Has man caused climate change? - physicsworld.com
The vast bulk of Global Warming research I've seen in the past 4 years has worked very hard to hinge itself on only one or two variables, while ignoring the contributions of everything that goes into the system. No individual factor is all-powerful. You have to view them as a combined whole.
Not all of the research is hooey. But many climatologists have complained that a great deal of climate research has been left on the wayside because only research that includes "Global Warming" or "Climate Change" in it will get funding.
40 years ago the scientific "consensus" was that we were slipping into an Ice Age. And that was the prevailing politically popular opinion then.
If you want to paint me as a pariah or a luddite, fine. That's what's happening in the scientific community right now. What I want to make clear is that it's not practical or even sensible to assume that THE WHOLE SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY unanimously agrees with such a young and inadequately tested theory.
All I'm guilty of is having a subscription to
NewScientist, which has had many articles discussing both the merits and demerits of modern global climatology.
For your consideration