[jsh3180]

I think I'll short lumber futures today, obviously we're going to have to cut down all the trees, thereby causing a glut on the market.

[jsh3180]

ping

[Fierce Allegiance]

Someone else agrees carbon credits are about the dumbest thing going.

[gotribe]

Must kill the carbon units.

[johniegrad]

The world has gone insane.

[rickylc]

I worked under an NSF grant studying GW problems @ U of M biostation for two years. There was a researcher there doing experiments on forests as carbon sinks, of course, going in on the premises they would be carbon sinks. You should have seen the squirming and backtracking and making up of false reasons when it turned out forests were net carbon sources.

The discussion section of that paper was sheer fiction because they were trying to make up reasons why their results didn’t match their forgone conclusion, ya don’t want that grant money drying up ya know!

[EBH]

This is one of the most convuluted pieces of reasoning I’ve read in a long time.

First we were to plant trees to offset carbon...

Second we learned that trees actually raise the temperature

Now we have to count them as emitters of CO2, not carbon sinks

And lastly then there is this:

Is this a Freudian Slip? I thought kyoto was to deal with ANTHROPOGENIC emissions, not natural phenome! The author works real hard to make global warming ‘the cause’ for the beetle infestation, when it is a natural phenome resulting not from global warming, but lack of forest diversity and lack of natural predation of the beetle.

“The problem is that ultimately we’re going to have to include our forests because forests and ecosystems can be bigger emitters (of greenhouse gas) than industry,” said Brinkman.

[Beowulf]

This is nuts.

[listenhillary]

Cutting down forests is good for the planet. That'll tie the environmentalilsts heads in a knot.

[saganite]

We’re in Bizarro world, through the looking glass, on another planet etc. etc.

[rdax]

We need to add volcanoes into the equation, too.

Or plug them somehow.

And add underground coal fires.

Or put them out.

[Joe Miner]

"The problem is that ultimately we're going to have to include our forests because forests and ecosystems can be bigger emitters (of greenhouse gas) than industry," said Brinkman.

Didn't they ridicule President Reagan when he said this?

[sgtbono2002]

The whole thing is farcical,except while laughing we are getting ready to pay out actual money for this scheme being figured out by educated idiots.

[OKSooner]

Click on POGW graphic for full GW rundown

FReepmail me to get on or off

New!!: Dr. John Ray’s GREENIE WATCH

Hononlulugal and I are doing the POGW ping list while xcamel is on vacation.

[Always Right]

Perhaps we can spray the forests with DDT and cover them with asbestos.

[Jabba the Nutt]

If anyone had any doubt, that climate change, carbon credits and all that nonsense was NOT science, here's proof that it's politics:

"Instead of forests being used as a credit to offset other emissions, the government is now afraid that including forests in the formula could drive up Canada's climate-change burden."

Forests are forests and they do what they do. Science is about uncovering the reality of what forests do in their gas exchanges, growth, disease, etc. Politics is deciding how to "credit" what forests do as a positive or negative to some political formula thought up by governments.

It can't get any clearer.

[Matchett-PI]

Growing more forests in United States could contribute to global warming (Save Earth! Cut trees!)
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ^ | December 5, 2005 | Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1534904/posts

LIVERMORE, Calif. ­ Planting trees across the United States and Europe to absorb some of the carbon dioxide emitted by the burning of fossil fuels may just outweigh the positive effects of sequestering that CO².

In theory, growing a forest may sound like a good idea to fight global warming, but in temperate regions, such as the United States, those trees also would soak up sunlight, causing the earth’s surface to warm regionally by up to 8 degrees Fahrenheit.

Forests affect climate in three different ways: they absorb the greenhouse gas, carbon dioxide, and help to keep the planet cool; they evaporate water to the atmosphere, which also helps keep the planet cool; and they are dark and absorb a lot of sunlight, warming the Earth.

Using climate models, researchers from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology have found that forests in the mid-latitude regions of the Earth present a more complicated picture. Trees in these areas tend to warm the Earth in the long run.

The darkness of these forests absorbs abundant sunlight, warming the land. While the darkness of the forest lasts forever, the effect of the forest sequestering carbon dioxide slows down over time as the atmosphere exchanges CO² with the ocean.

The conclusion: Planting a forest in the United States could cool the Earth for a few decades, but would lead to planetary warming in the long term. These are the results of a study that will be presented at 8:30 a.m. Wednesday, Dec. 7, at the American Geophysical Union Fall Meeting in San Francisco.

“On time scales longer than a few centuries, the net effect will actually be warming in these regions,” said Govindasamy Bala of the Livermore team. “We thought planting trees across the northern hemisphere would help curb global warming by the CO² absorption but what we found was a different story.”

The authors discovered that a global replacement of current vegetation by trees would lead to a global warming of 2.4 degrees Fahrenheit. Global replacement with grassland led to cooling of about 0.7°F.

The researchers also found that planting trees between 30 and 50 degrees latitude worldwide saw the global mean surface air temperature increase by 0.7°F. Regional warming in North America and Eurasia was as high as 8°F. In earlier studies, planting trees in the boreal forest regions (found mostly in the upper half of the Northern Hemisphere) caused a warming of surface temperatures.

“Although it was previously known that trees could have an overall warming effect in the boreal forests (north of 50 degrees), this is the first study to show that temperate forests could lead to net global warming,” said Livermore’s Seran Gibbard, lead author of the study.

The story is different for the tropical forests. In tropical regions, forests help keep the Earth cool by not only absorbing carbon dioxide, but by evaporating plenty of water as well.

“Should we give carbon credit to the planting of forests? Probably not for countries in mid and high latitudes,” Bala said. “But the tropical forests present a win-win because they cool the planet by evaporative cooling and the uptake of carbon.”

Co-author Ken Caldeira of the Carnegie Institution warned that proposals to grow more forests to cool the planet should be greeted with caution.

“I like forests. They provide good habitats for plants and animals, and tropical forest are good for climate, so we should be particularly careful to preserve them,” he said. “But in terms of climate change, we should focus our efforts on things that can really make a difference, like energy efficiency and developing new sources of clean energy.”

The research, also authored by Thomas Phillips and Michael Wickett of Lawrence Livermore, will appear online in the Dec. 8 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters.

Founded in 1952, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has a mission to ensure national security and apply science and technology to the important issues of our time. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is managed by the University of California for the U.S. Department of Energy’s National Nuclear Security Administration. bttt

The Gaia Religion’s “holy trinity” - “saviors of mother earth”, are pictured here:

James Hansen, Deepak Chopra, and Algore’s plan to “End the war on Terra” http://www.championtrees.org/climate/WaketheFolkUp.htm

[Anitius Severinus Boethius]

We have to kill the trees before they kill us all...

[HamiltonJay]

Canada,

You are being had, reducing CARBON DIOXIDE emissions will have ZERO impact on anything other than adding more burden and slowing down your economy. It will do didly squat for “global warming”.. you are being conned.

Total CO2 in in the atmosphere is about 350 parts per MILLION, or to put it another way, that’s 350/1000000 or .035% of the total atmosphere of the earth is Carbon Dioxide... of that only a very tiny percentage of it comes from human activity...

I believe its something like 3-4% so that’s about .0014% of the Atmosphere is CO2 caused by human activity.. and only about 25% of that is CO2 caused by economic activities the other 75% is created simply because of the fact we BREATH and deficate, and basically live....

So, the amount of the atmosphere that can remotely be contributed to burning of fossil fuels over the past few hundred years is .... Wait for it.... 0.00035% of the atmospheric content, or 3.5 parts per MILLION... so there are another 3.5 parts per Million in the atmosphere of CO2 because of human burning of fossile fuels over the last few hunhdred years, than there would be if we didn’t burn them at all.

Now, if you think an additional 3.5 Parts per Million over 200 years is causing global warming, you are frankly insane.