Have you told Mr Trump we are all going to die down here?

It's not funny...it's simply not pertinent...

 

Almost no facts in your comments and I'm not going to argue the nonsense...I'm not interested in everything you deny in life...

 

2.2.3.2. Reforestation
Reforestation refers to "the establishment of trees on land that has been cleared of forest within the relatively recent past." Operational forestry definitions of reforestation often include the establishment of trees on land that has just been harvested. With such a definition, areas subject to conventional forest harvesting and regeneration cycles would come within the domain of Article 3.3 of the Protocol at their first post-1990 harvest and regeneration cycle. This definition could have major implications for the size of the land base included as lands under Article 3.3 (see Chapter 3).

In some definitions, reforestation is the conversion of land use back to forest after a period of some other land use. The IPCC Guidelines, which were developed explicitly for carbon inventory, used such a definition of reforestation: "the planting of forests on lands which have, historically, previously contained forests but which have been converted to some other use."

Most of the definitions for reforestation collected by Lund (1999) arise from this forestry perspective and appear to include regeneration after harvesting. Some are very explicit: "Reforestation areas are temporarily unstocked areas caused by harvesting, wind breaks, natural disasters and so on. These areas have to be reforested artificially (usually within 3 years, under certain circumstances within maximal 8 years) or with methods of natural regeneration (usually within 8 years, under certain circumstances within maximal 11 years). In Austria, reforestation has always been recognized as a part of forest management and has never been linked to land-use change."

Such definitions of reforestation do not involve transition from a non-forest to forest state (unless, for example, a strict canopy-cover definition of forest is used). Instead, these definitions are activity-based; they do not reflect a change of land-use designation. This factor raises several options for combinations of definitions based on land use, land cover, and activities that are considered in the definitional scenarios of Chapter 3.

One must consider the different types of reestablishment methods. Decision 9/CP.4 includes the phrase "direct human-induced activities of afforestation, reforestation, and deforestation." Some definitions of reforestation restrict the activity to the planting of trees (e.g., the IPCC definition) or the "artificial establishment" of trees (see Chapter 3), which could be taken to exclude methods based on more natural regeneration. Most forest regeneration is carried out through "natural" reestablishment from seed remaining on the site or from retained seed-trees. Sometimes the seed-bed is prepared by mechanical or chemical treatment. Only a small percentage of forest area is reestablished by direct planting. If the definition is broadly encompassing with regard to regeneration methods, other questions still arise. For example, should land-use practices that lead to an increase in woody cover (e.g., invasion by woody weeds) be counted as reforestation? Chapter 3 deals with some aspects of this issue; Chapter 4 (Section 4.4.3) takes up other aspects.

 

Of course it is, the AGW cult wants to run around hysterical with out giving out all the facts.


.

 

Try reading it again, you must have read it with ambiguity, I never said that. I never said it never falls back down to ground level, I said if the atmosphere was to increase in temperature it could not fall back down.

 

We might as well press the ''button'' now and just destroy ourselves fast . If we become extinct it is as if we never were, then anything we think we ever accomplished was just in vein. We do not need to have a world new order where everywhere becomes a military zone. What we need is one of the world leaders grow a pair and say ''hey look, we don't really need money or gold let us work out something different for a change, where work equals food and holidays etc.
Money is just a concept to control, The USA provides the world with lots of food etc, your bargaining chips are worth way more than gold etc.

Literally use your ''loaf''

Go drop all your gold reserves on North Korea, even Kim would see the funny side of it, send him a fax telling him you are going to give them all your gold, it is worthless.

 

Sounds to me you want the entire world to be a version of Cuba, no thanks I like earning skills = benefits.

.

 

Wouldn't you prefer to go work, provide a services etc, then have the service returned? no cost involved , we are here to serve each other and that is what it is all really about. While you rest and play I work, while you work, I rest and play. Simplicity my friend with no arrogance from anyone. Equality is the only state that matters, inequality is the cause of wars.

P.s your time has the same value as the next man.

 

Does your skills and out puts equal mine at my profession ? When I come back to work and you play will my case loads not double?

Or in reality I get a phone call when I am sleeping and have to come in to fix a machine because your to in competent to do it..

We are not all equal.



.

 

We are not equal! An arrogant , I am better than you statement, something typical of what a celebrity would say. Your time is no more valuable than my time period. A man digs for a living, uses more energy in one day than you probably do in week. Do you also think you have more worth than this man?

 

Start a thread on it I will respond I forgot what topic we were in.


.

 

Whatever will Chicken Little do now?

 

What part of "average" is difficult to understand?

 

It will balance

look at Venus

 

Because, gravity?

Wait. I get it! Trump is trying to corner the market on air! That bastard! He's making sure only those in the highest floors of his expensive high rises have air!

 

Amazing

Then why is it that the "AGW cult" are the only one to reference material? Case in point Oldmanonfire has given a rebuttal regarding reforestation that included link to the relevant material

 

I know amazing isn't it?

 

Or look at Mars?

 

Amazing did it get out to the main stream media? No it only puts out hysterics and relies on the gullible and politics for support to outlandish claims by the AGW

 

Because of thermal expansion and charge.

 

Do not confuse good science with poor journalism

 

Comedy gold

 

If you like But Mars has too little atmosphere to really get benefit from the greenhouse effect. Now if we ever want to colonise Mars it would be worth our while to see if we can find a nice big fluffy pile of frozen methane somewhere and crash it into the planet

 

If only it were comedy and not the laws of physics. More energy per volume of air = thinner air. (I have put it in baby language).