Global Warming & Climate Change Discussion

[CAPSLOCKSTUCK]

Scientists have vastly underestimated how many trees are living on the planet, a new study has revealed.

A Yale University report has estimated that there are more than three trillion trees worldwide - around eight times more than some previous estimates.

However, experts were quick to point out that deforestation is still a major threat as around 15 billion trees are lost each year.

They also added that number of trees on Earth has almost halved since the beginning of human civilisation.

Since the start of human civilisation around 11,700 years ago the total number of trees has fallen by around 46 per cent, it estimates.

The researchers collected on-the-ground data for the number of trees in more than 400,000 plots of forest from all continents except Antarctica.

They used satellite imagery to assess how the density of trees in the plots was related to local characteristics such as the climate, vegetation, soil conditions and the impacts of human activity, and used the information to build models for the number of trees in various regions.

The global map generated suggests there are around 3.04 trillion trees, or around 422 for each person, on Earth.

A country-by-country breakdown reveals there are more than three billion trees in the UK, or around 47 for each Briton, while in Ireland there are some 709 million trees, equating to 154 for each person.

The highest densities of trees are found in the forests of the sub-Arctic regions of Russia, Scandinavia and North America, but the largest forest areas were in the tropics, which are home to around 43 per cent of the world's trees.

The information on tree populations will help efforts to model global systems such as carbon storage, the changing climate and the distribution of animal and plant species, the researchers said.

Lead author Thomas Crowther, post-doctoral fellow at Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, said: 'Trees are among the most prominent and critical organisms on Earth, yet we are only recently beginning to comprehend their global extent and distribution.

'They store huge amounts of carbon, are essential for the cycling of nutrients, for water and air quality, and for countless human services.

'Yet you ask people to estimate, within an order of magnitude, how many trees there are and they don't know where to begin,' he said, adding he was 'certainly surprised' to find the estimate was in the trillions.

He said: 'We've nearly halved the number of trees on the planet, and we've seen the impacts on climate and human health as a result.

'This study highlights how much more effort is needed if we are to restore healthy forests worldwide.'

The study was prompted by a request by Plant for the Planet, a youth initiative leading the United Nations Environment Programme's 'billion tree campaign', for baseline estimates of tree numbers to help set targets for for tree-planting initiatives.

The previous global estimate was of just over 400 billion trees worldwide.

The study was published in Nature.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14967.html


How many trees are there in the world?

 

[SK-1]

Scientists have vastly underestimated how many trees are living on the planet, a new study has revealed.

A Yale University report has estimated that there are more than three trillion trees worldwide - around eight times more than some previous estimates.

However, experts were quick to point out that deforestation is still a major threat as around 15 billion trees are lost each year.

They also added that number of trees on Earth has almost halved since the beginning of human civilisation.

Since the start of human civilisation around 11,700 years ago the total number of trees has fallen by around 46 per cent, it estimates.

The researchers collected on-the-ground data for the number of trees in more than 400,000 plots of forest from all continents except Antarctica.

They used satellite imagery to assess how the density of trees in the plots was related to local characteristics such as the climate, vegetation, soil conditions and the impacts of human activity, and used the information to build models for the number of trees in various regions.

The global map generated suggests there are around 3.04 trillion trees, or around 422 for each person, on Earth.

A country-by-country breakdown reveals there are more than three billion trees in the UK, or around 47 for each Briton, while in Ireland there are some 709 million trees, equating to 154 for each person.

The highest densities of trees are found in the forests of the sub-Arctic regions of Russia, Scandinavia and North America, but the largest forest areas were in the tropics, which are home to around 43 per cent of the world's trees.

The information on tree populations will help efforts to model global systems such as carbon storage, the changing climate and the distribution of animal and plant species, the researchers said.

Lead author Thomas Crowther, post-doctoral fellow at Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Studies, said: 'Trees are among the most prominent and critical organisms on Earth, yet we are only recently beginning to comprehend their global extent and distribution.

'They store huge amounts of carbon, are essential for the cycling of nutrients, for water and air quality, and for countless human services.

'Yet you ask people to estimate, within an order of magnitude, how many trees there are and they don't know where to begin,' he said, adding he was 'certainly surprised' to find the estimate was in the trillions.

He said: 'We've nearly halved the number of trees on the planet, and we've seen the impacts on climate and human health as a result.

'This study highlights how much more effort is needed if we are to restore healthy forests worldwide.'

The study was prompted by a request by Plant for the Planet, a youth initiative leading the United Nations Environment Programme's 'billion tree campaign', for baseline estimates of tree numbers to help set targets for for tree-planting initiatives.

The previous global estimate was of just over 400 billion trees worldwide.

The study was published in Nature.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nature14967.html


How many trees are there in the world?

They also blew the total ocean sea-life count by a factor of only... 10
THERE ARE 10 TIMES MORE FISH IN THE SEA THAN WE THOUGHT
http://www.popsci.com/article/there-are-10-times-more-fish-sea-we-thought

 

[AphexDreamer]

I found this posted on reddit but I can't verify its source https://i.imgur.com/pLFblKg.jpg

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/3kw8wr/awesome_response/

 

[TheMailMan78]

I found this posted on reddit but I can't verify its source https://i.imgur.com/pLFblKg.jpg

https://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/3kw8wr/awesome_response/

That's a politician being a politician. After all that's the same UN that's watching ISIS kill thousands of human beings which is causing the immigration issue in Europe, Russia invading sovereign nations and people using chemical warefare without repercussions except getting an updated delivery system of said chemical warefare. The EXACT THINGS the UN is supposed to stop. Yet we are to believe their tax plan......err scientific reports are to be taken seriously?

Sorry but the UN has a credibility problem.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

California is responsible for California's drought.

 

[CjStaal]

I had no idea so many people in this forum think global warming is a scam. It most definitely is not. Look at the water shortages in California. The reason the shortages are there is because their water resoviors were up north, to take in the melting snow in the mountains. Since there hasn't been snow since it's been so warm for so long, they have no water. Take a look at the temperature records in the past 100 years and tell me, how many cold vs hot records have been broken? Much more hot than cold. The Earth is heating, and it's from us.

 

[dorsetknob]

California is responsible for California's drought.

the law of diminishing returns

you cannot take more than is supplied (by Nature in this case) which is what California's doing.
you want more then you have to source alternative supplies

California should invest in a Water Pipeline from the North it needs water more than Oil

 

[dorsetknob]

Those who follow climate-change matters are well aware that in one important respect - that is, temperatures measured around the world - there hasn't actually been any climate change for the last fifteen years or thereabouts. Now, a new report from the British weather bureau says that this lack of global warming may persist for a while.
The Met Office scientists say that a long-foretold El Nino is at last starting to kick off in the Pacific Ocean. This will probably cause significant warming. The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), another ocean mechanism in the Pacific, also looks set to bring some warmth.
But, no doubt upsettingly for some, there's a third and very powerful factor to consider: the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO).
The AMO has actually been heating the world up since the mid-1990s, though not strongly enough to raise temperatures, but now it looks set to swing into a negative phase and cool the planet off, probably for a long time, as AMO phases typically last several decades. The Met Office's new report (pdf), just out today, has this to say about the AMO:
The current warm phase is now 20 years long and historical precedent suggests a return to relatively cool conditions could occur within a few years ... Observational and model estimates further suggest AMO shifts have an effect on global mean near-surface temperatures of about 0.1°C. A rapid AMO decline could therefore maintain the current slowdown in global warming ...
The Met Office doesn't care for phrases such as "hiatus" or even "pause" to describe the absence of global warming for the last fifteen years or so: it describes the flat temperatures as a "slowdown".
But it's all the same thing. One should note that the Met Office report is strongly hedged – its title even ends in a question mark, in the style of headlines-to-which-the-answer-is-no. But it isn't just the Met Office that believes the AMO may be headed into a cold spell. Scientists studying Atlantic hurricanes have noted that these massive storms have been mostly less common and less
powerful in recent years, and the suggestion is that this trend may be set to continue, with the underlying mechanism being a switch in the AMO to a negative phase.
Meanwhile, it appears quite possible that 2015 will be a record warm year globally – though not in Europe or America. However, as NASA climate chief Gavin Schmidt pointed out in 2013, "one more year of numbers isn't in itself significant".
Just as it took quite a few years before the hiatus could be said to be ongoing, it will require several years of climbing temperatures before it can be said to be over. Those climbing temperatures may be imminent - but they just may not be, either.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

California should invest in a Water Pipeline from the North it needs water more than Oil

No, first thing they need to do is redesign their water system to collect rain water that falls on cities like Los Angeles instead of sending it directly into the ocean.

Second thing they need to do deliberately and systematically reduce the population in the south.

Third thing they need to do is stop trying to grow every damn type of crop in central California and switch to species that are native to the climate.

Fourth thing they need to do in the South is like Phoenix as done: severely restrict water use for lawns and make it permanent with high fines. People will be forced to grow species that are native to the climate that don't require constant watering.

Fifth thing they need to do is to change policies to disincentives people from living in the mountain side forests and provide incentives for them to move away. Forest fires are a natural thing and wasting water putting out fires is very, very wasteful. Forest fires are part of nature's rejuvenation process.

 

[TheMailMan78]

What we need to do is start building and perfecting desalination plants. Israel did it, I am sure they would lend us the design for an F-18 or two.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Desalination requires power. The only source of clean, reliable power available right now is nuclear power. Nuclear power is not a good idea on a fault line.

There's ultimately no substitute for nature. Even a brief shower dumps more water on land than a large desalination plant could process in a year.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Desalination requires power. The only source of clean, reliable power available right now is nuclear power. Nuclear power is not a good idea on a fault line.

There's ultimately no substitute for nature. Even a brief shower dumps more water on land than a large desalination plant could process in a year.

There are already like 5 nuclear plants in California.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

There's only two reactors left and both are operating at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant:
http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/

https://www.google.com/maps/place/D...2!3m1!1s0x80ecfdc9ded1a09b:0x14546b020e931c01

Probably the only reason why they're still running is because it is so far from any population centers.

 

[64K]

I sure as hell wouldn't want to live near a nuclear plant near a fault line. Fusion power may become a reality in another decade.

 

[dorsetknob]

Never mind building a water pipline here is the PROPER AMERICAN WAY OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM.

Spoiler: HOW TO SOLVE THE AMERICAN WATER CRISIS

Wars Have been fought ove access to Oil and countries invaded to ensure supplys and when Wars are fought over Water the USA will invade Canada

 

[qubit]

@dorsetknob Yeah, that will definitely "solve" it.

 

[64K]

Never mind building a water pipline here is the PROPER AMERICAN WAY OF SOLVING THE PROBLEM.

Spoiler: HOW TO SOLVE THE AMERICAN WATER CRISIS

Wars Have been fought ove access to Oil and countries invaded to ensure supplys and when Wars are fought over Water the USA will invade Canada

Without oil the Western Nation's economies would grind to a halt. Imagine being hungry and there is no food at your grocery store because a truck (lorry) driver couldn't put diesel in his rig to deliver.

Unrestricted flow of oil is a matter of National Security for both of our countries.

 

[TheMailMan78]

There's only two reactors left and both are operating at the Diablo Canyon Power Plant:
http://www.nrc.gov/info-finder/reactor/

https://www.google.com/maps/place/D...2!3m1!1s0x80ecfdc9ded1a09b:0x14546b020e931c01

Probably the only reason why they're still running is because it is so far from any population centers.

There used to be more. Thanks for the enlightenment. I guess they closed down the ones to the north. Even still they could easily build desalination plants using either one of those reactors and that would free up a ton of water for Cali. That and not letting run off go into the F#$KING ocean. Its funny one of the most liberal/eco states in the Union has the WORST environmental issues. ALL of their issues were made by poor government management and zero to do with the actual environment.

Just goes to show you anything with "eco" involving the government is just code words for high taxes. That fixes everything! MORE MONEY!

 

[Aquinus]

Its funny one of the most liberal/eco states in the Union has the WORST environmental issues.

Do you think deregulation or a different government is going to fix California's problems. California has a water problem because they simply use more than gets replenished. California isn't the only state that's eating up aquifers for things like farming.

Also, lets put everything into perspective. More people live in California than in Canada. That's a lot of people and not much water. It's simply unsustainable as it stands right now.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Do you think deregulation or a different government is going to fix California's problems. California has a water problem because they simply use more than gets replenished. California isn't the only state that's eating up aquifers for things like farming.

Also, lets put everything into perspective. More people live in California than in Canada. That's a lot of people and not much water. It's simply unsustainable as it stands right now.

Yes it will. Look up Delta smelt and a simple thing such as regulating yard water would change everything. California's water issue 100% from crappy government and moronic liberal policies.

Shutting the boarders would help also.

 

[Aquinus]

Yes it will. Look up Delta smelt and a simple thing such as regulating yard water would change everything. California's water issue 100% from crappy government and moronic liberal policies.

Tell that to midwestern states that are dying up their aquifers because of farming on a mass scale. You don't need to be liberal to be stupid about water management, that's my point. Look at Arizona and Phoenix. Plenty of Republicans and they'll be out of water before you know it.

I find your reasoning to be overly partisan and missing the point.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Tell that to midwestern states that are dying up their aquifers because of farming on a mass scale. You don't need to be liberal to be stupid about water management, that's my point. Look at Arizona and Phoenix. Plenty of Republicans and they'll be out of water before you know it.

I find your reasoning to be overly partisan and missing the point.

Phoenix Arizona would have been dead a 100 years ago if they had California's policies. Its not partisan. Its just fact.

 

[dorsetknob]

The mailman is so complacent because he has his own water supply

As long as he can piss into a 2 ltr diet coke bottle he has his own water supply

 

[TheMailMan78]

The mailman is so complacent because he has his own water supply

As long as he can piss into a 2 ltr diet coke bottle he has his own water supply

I'm far from smug. All you have to do is a little research and cut out the emotion and the evidence presents itself. Simply there is a drought in California because of crappy government actions based mostly off partisan politics and raw emotion. Its exactly what is being accused of me. However if you do just 10 minutes of research you will find it has nothing to do with "climate change" and everything to do with big government thinking they know everything.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/forget-the-missing-rainfall-california-wheres-the-delta-smelt-1430085510

 

[Aquinus]

I'm far from smug. All you have to do is a little research and cut out the emotion and the evidence presents itself. Simply there is a drought in California because of crappy government actions based mostly off partisan politics and raw emotion. Its exactly what is being accused of me. However if you do just 10 minutes of research you will find it has nothing to do with "climate change" and everything to do with big government thinking they know everything.

I'm sure that the fact that the sierra nevada having less and less average snow pack every passing decade has nothing to do with it. I also know someone who grew up in Phoenix and I've had discussions about water with him and I can say that your statement is false. They waste it pretty bad which is why they won't have in a few decades. People in Pheonix still water their lawns despite the local shrubbery is anything but grass.

Keep drinking the kool aid TMM. I won't stop you but, you're only kidding yourself.