NASA bias exposed?

First off the Obama created climate division of NASA blames man for climate change which is debatable but they seem to focus specifically on our C02 input while giving an also ran to deforestation. They say it like it's fact but I have seen no in depth studies to validate this expressed opinion. Can any of you true believers enlighten me on this? Where are the studies and experiments and data to prove this assertion? It seems to me that there assumption that our C02 input is automatically more important than deforestation is due to the political agenda of the movement. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

"On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO2. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities has increased concentrations of greenhouse gases".

https://climate.nasa.gov/causes/


For the sake of argument let's say the Earth is warming due to more C02 in the atmosphere. How do we know this is not entirely due to deforestation and if we had not cleared large parts of the Earth it would handle are miniscule addition to natural C02 without a hiccup?

 

Pollution is one of the biggest killers of children world-wide. Why are you defending a known child killer?

 

C02 kills children? Care to expound?

 

Deforestration is a real issue, accounting for roughly 15% of CO2 emissions. Cars and trucks roughly 14%.

Are you suggesting that NASA is biased for researching the other 85% of emissions?

 

Where do those numbers come from? Show me the hard data that proves them.

 

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/deforestation-and-global-warming/

And heres\'s a UN programme that is combating the problem in 64 different developing countries.

http://www.unredd.net/about/what-is-redd-plus.html

 

That's what I thought, no studies showing me how these numbers were arrived at, just the same old repeated dogma.

"By most accounts, deforestation in tropical rainforests adds more carbon dioxide to the atmosphere than the sum total of cars and trucks on the world’s roads. According to the World Carfree Network (WCN), cars and trucks account for about 14 percent of global car most analysts attribute upwards of 15 percent to deforestation".

 

ER, it doesn't take much to find the numbers but of course that would be too much of an intellectual effort for you to substantiate your opinions.

So deforestration contributes about 15% to the CO increase. That leaves 85% from other causes, of which nearly all of them are attributable to our actions.

 

Yes the numbers are easy to find but how they were arrived at not so easy. Seems like they were just made up and agreed on by the cult.

 

Oh please. Its pretty damn straightforward algorithm and the data is widely available. Peer review means nothing to you as it is all part of a global conspiracy/cult that involves tens of thousands of scientists.

Fallacious dismissal is a classic tactic in denying reality.

 

Just s

Show me the method used to arrive at these numbers and relate it to the OP. Assuming for the sake of argument that man's C02 has warmed the climate how do we know that if we hadn't cleared so much forest that Earth could have easily handled our infinitesimal contribution? It looks to me like emphasis is put on industrialization in America instead if deforestation in the third world for political reasons. Show me where I'm mistaken.

 

Interesting...I just did a google scholar search on "global carbon dioxide budget" and found thousands of peer reviewed publications on the topic.

 

You've just confirmed that the words you quoted "Seems like they were just made up and agreed on by the cult." are true.

 

If you can find the methodology used to come to these consensus conclusions I'd appreciate a link. I can't find how they arrived at these agreed on numbers. Beyond that and back to my original question I'd like to see methodology used that makes these climatologists so certain that it is man's contribution to C02 and not how man has deforested the planet that has led to rapidly rising C02 levels.

Let's look at this closer. Assume man cut every tree on the planet. I think we can both agree that would drastically change Earth's climate and C02 levels. Then assume we cut half the trees on the planet. Again I think we would both agree that would change Earth's climate and C02 levels. So now to reality and what percentage of trees are no longer here due to man. Does anybody know exactly? Once you establish a percentage of missing trees best estimate does anybody really know exactly how that effects C02 levels? I doubt it. Seems to me if you are truly concerned about C02 the first place to look is how we have altered the ecosystem of the planet. My take on this is that the AGW movement is more politics than science and their default position is to emphasize industrialization and America as the Boogeyman here instead of the more obvious cause which would be deforestation.

 

Maybe this is how they are calculating deforestation and its contribution to C02 levels. If so it is a flawed number because it's just a snapshot per year of actually C02 produced by clearing forest and ignores the big picture of how the cumulative effect over decades and even centuries of less and less forest on the planet effects C02 levels.

"It is estimated that more than 1.5 billion tons of carbon dioxide are released to the atmosphere due to deforestation, mainly the cutting and burning of forests, every year".

https://www.climateandweather.net/global-warming/deforestation.html


I did find this and that's only in the last two decades. Even just this recent 10% loss of forest has to effect C02 levels drastically plus whatever occurred before that.

The Earth Lost 10 Percent of Its Wilderness in Only 2 Decades

https://www.climateandweather.net/global-warming/deforestation.html

 

More info on this and my previous assertion that nobody would argue that if we cut 50% of the forest down the Earth's C02 level would drastically rise.

"They also determined that since the early days of agriculture-based civilization some 12,000 years ago, the number of trees worldwide has decreased by 46%."

http://projectearth.us/there-are-8-times-more-trees-on-earth-than-we-thought-1796423350

 

No comment after my further information on this?

 

What happened to you? I was hoping for comments on my further information on this subject. You fell and you can't get up? Should I call 911?

 

Probably not. It is self evident and of course, you just cannot argue facts with the faithful...

Like the current spate of exceptionally cold weather having been produced by "warming". Just another example of the stupidity of the faithful and their dogmatic observance of the ritual.

 

Sorry, I don't know. It'll take me time to look it up. There's a lot of stuff to go through. It's a good question though. I'm interested in learning the methodology as well.

I agree with your statements about land use changes effecting the climate. The estimates I'm familiar with are that about 10% of the carbon dioxide budget imbalance is due to land use changes.

AGW itself is not a political movement. It's just a theory that tries to explain why the climate is changing right now. It became the subject of politicization because political types want to use it when forming political and economic policy.

 

Sorry. I've been getting a lot of forum alerts lately and this thread got lost in the chaos. At any rate. I don't have any comments at the moment because I don't know enough about the subject. Like I said, it's a good line of discussion. I'm just going to have to educate myself on it first before participating.

 

Thanks, I was honestly wondering your opinion on this. My opinion is C02 levels rising is being laid off on man's meager input of 3% when it's obvious that 50% of forest being gone would be a much bigger contributing factor and politics is the reason why.

 

Happens to me too

 

The poster in question seems like he could be open to the fact that 50% less forest on Earth might contribute more to rising C02 levels than man's tiny addition to naturally occurring C02. I'll be interested to see what he says after a little research although my previous post on this are well documented with good links.

 

You're probably right. Interesting study out today about erosion and climate change. Perhaps, if enough peer review is exerted we may have a more credible answer based on actual science. The CO2 sequestration component though seems extraneous to me.