I did find a newer source which is from 2013. The study however was concentrated on the northeast region of Pennsylvania to Maine. I do remember discussions on another bulletin board in dial up days about how the US has less forests in colonial days than now. Problem was the discussion then as now was not properly restricted to region of the current US that was part of the initial colonial areas. Which I did not do when I said there is more forest lands now than in colonial days.
Included below is a link to a report and a quoted portion of the report. If you do go and peruse the site and the referenced material it includes studies and historical records linked to and compiled from earlier reports and archeological studies.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3762820/
The following is a cut and paste from the above website.
The land use history of the northeastern United States is well documented but its ecological consequences remain poorly understood, especially at a regional scale [1]–[4]. For more than 10,000 years native people cleared modest areas along waterways and seasonal settlements and managed some upland areas through sporadic understory burning [5]. Even so, the region was overwhelmingly forested and chiefly governed by non-anthropogenic disturbances and successional dynamics until around 1650, when two centuries of logging and agricultural clearing were initiated that removed more than half of the forest cover and cut over almost all of the rest. Outside of the far north and rugged mountainous regions, the northeast became a predominantly humanized agrarian landscape. Forest cover reached its nadir in the mid nineteenth century, after whichagricultural expansion to the Midwest and eastern industrialization resulted in widespread farm abandonment, population concentration and, in turn, a century of natural reforestation and forest growth [6],[7]. The emerging forest supported new wood-based industries and natural processes including forest succession interrupted by damage from severe storms such as the powerful 1938
Last edited by gneebore; 09-09-2017 at 10:29 AM.
Sorry but there are also "scientists" now that are in as you call them in the "deniers" camp. Like the report and discussion about cosmic rays actually causing global warming. And just so you know I do believe there is a natural cycle of cooling and warming. Not as extreme as the Al Gore cool aid drinkers with their doomsday predictions. You kind of have to accept some sort of cyclical warming/cooling if you refer to the Arctic ice cap being so shrunken in 1905 that a sailing vessel could complete a northwest passage like I have twice. And other archeological finds that have revealed evidence of Nordic explorers being exposed by a receding Greenland glacier. Yeah I remember a classmate in junior college history class read a report of early pre-Colombian visitors to North America.
Like others that reference any study funded by a political or commercial interest is bound to be slanted. So the report funded by the former head of CBS will be put into same category by me as "is man made pollution causing global warming" funded by petrochemical sources.
How about the the actual language of the bill for the Canadian Parliaments website.
Government Bill (House of Commons) C-16 (42-1) - Royal Assent - An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act and the Criminal Code - Parliament of Canada
And a little bit of cut and past and here you go actual language from the bill.
Criminal Code2014, c. 31, s. 12
3 Subsection 318(4) of the Criminal Code is replaced by the following:
Definition of identifiable group
(4) In this section, identifiable group means any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, national or ethnic origin, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or mental or physical disability.
1995, c. 22, s. 6
4 Subparagraph 718.*2(a)*(i) of the Act is replaced by the following:
(i) evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or on any other similar factor,
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons
I also doubt that there would be too much algae. As you may or may not know algae is food for plankton, shrimp and other small aquatic animals and oh coral reefs. Plankton is a food source for other larger sea creatures like oh say blue whales. Might be good for the oceans to have algae multiple.
Just for information
https://www.sciencedaily.com/release...0828140713.htm
If there is one American institution that I believe in it is NASA. They conclude that the earth's climate is warming and likely due to human activities.
"Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals1 show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position."
https://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/
One of the things I would bring up, concerning climate change, is the Dust Bowl. I'm no expert on the subject. I've done just a little more than watch the Ken Burns series on it (if you haven't seen it, you'll want to go ahead and marathon watch it right now--it's really good.)
According to everything I know on it, we took the fruitful plains and practically turned them into a giant dessert. Then we took the same area and turned it back into farmland. This is a huge area and we definitely had an impact on it. First in a bad way then in a good way. All within in a single decade.
The reason I point this out is to demonstrate that YES, we do have influence over our planet. And we have to pay attention to what we're doing. I believe we should be good stewards. But again, this was regional. I just don't see any evidence that we're changing anything globally.
Bookmarks