Sadly this sort of image would pass as “analysis” and “science” even at a modern, elite, American University. I’ll buy coffee for comments providing the best analogy. By the way, if we started this stupid clock at the year 1900 you might come to the conclusion that the entire planet (certainly the U.S.) would be inundated with woods in just a few seconds, which of course would be unsustainable.
So many Malthusian, Luddite, Marxist Cassandras on the internet these days!
Malthus was sure we would have exponential population growth but arithmetic food production – and we would all die … He was wrong. Humans innovate – especially when things of use become rare. This will be true for forests. The price of the above ‘destruction’ will be felt, adapted to and then most probably reversed. According to Matt Ridley, the food revolution has in fact increased forest land in the US since the 1970’s. (The Rational Optimist)
Geez, during the 40 million years of the Ordovician Period there were no trees at all. Much of the earth was covered with water, as hot as 113 degrees F., and the CO2 content of the atmosphere was likely as much as 4200 ppm., over 15 times the present level. Maybe a return to that stasis would be proper.
What does this tell us about theories regarding climate change stimulated by human activity?
Chuck, how do you know that? With all due respect sincerely offered, how do you know that?
I do not wish to pick a fight with anyone here, but where is the science, and what is the foundation for it?
If I really believed that reducing CO2 emissions by promoting government mandated electric cars and by mandating CAFE standards, along with mandatory recycling would keep the oceans from flooding south New Jersey, Long Island, Tonga, and the properties of relatives of friends living in south Florida. I just do not believe carbon dioxide is a bigger problem than water vapor, which insulates us, and which we cannot control, either, not with all the money in the world,
Saying this, Chuck, I do not mean to imply you subscribe to idiocy. Far from it.
That said, how do you know that?
Geologists have examined physical evidence that has provided them with much information about the history of planet earth. These are the same folks that can tell us what dinosaurs looked like, the extent and kind of vegetation millions of years ago and the most likely places to successfully drill for oil. Unlike the so-called climate scientists, they don’t predict the future, they tell us about the past, which, since it is the past, has actually occurred. For instance, there’s no argument that the present Red River Valley, on the border of North Dakota and Minnesota and extending into Manitoba was once the bottom of glacial Lake Agassiz, the largest body of fresh water on earth at the time, approximately 8500 years BCE. There may be details that have yet to be determined but nonetheless the general outlines of the earth’s physical history are now well understood, which is more than can be said about even the last 200 years of human history.
I am trying to understand what that image portrays. Part of it looks like a deciduous leafless tree upside down.
Yes, Mike, I too have read that, for example, there is more forest in New England now than there was in 1776.
Of course, by then the King of England had cut down most of the really big trees. Just look at all that paneling in Downton Abbey.
Thank goodness there was enough carbon dioxide to keep all this vegetation alive.
We are all concerned about sustainability. Forget the trees, worry about ayatollahs with ICBMs.
I suppose you can reverse the analogy with something like this:
This baby was born weighing 8 lbs 0 ounces and 20 inches long. 36 weeks ago, it was the size of a poppyseed. In the last 10 weeks, it has increased its weight by 267%. At this rate, the baby will be over 400 lbs before the baby is one year old, and more than 5,500 lbs before the age of two. THIS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE.