Posted on 11/16/2007 6:38:26 PM PST by Tall_Texan
When Hurricane Katrina slammed into the Gulf Coast two years ago, the storm devastated 320 million trees.
Now the United States is suffering the worst forest catastrophe in its history, according to a new analysis by the journal Science.
< snip >
Deforestation already accounts for nearly one in every five tons of carbon dioxide that humanity worldwide puts into the atmosphere. And Katrina's wake has now added to this deforestation. Such hurricanes become more likely, say many scientists, as global warming accelerates due to greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists call this phenomenon a feedback loop; the warmer it gets, the more likely that storms could kill more forests, which would release even more greenhouse gas. "A major source of greenhouse gases that are contributing to climate change is actually the loss of forests," Prickett said.
(Excerpt) Read more at abcnews.go.com ...
Typical of MSM fearmongering and agenda-driven spinning. Yes, Katrina was an environmental catastrophe. There's no debating that. And there's also no question that the loss of trees will reduce shade and probably lead to some hotter conditions while the forests rebound.
However, is Katrina the only Category 4 hurricane to ever hit a densely forested area? How did the planet survive all those other major hurricanes that came before her? Only someone with the intelligence of a gnat would think that this is the first time a range of forest land was laid out by a hurricane and left with thousands of rotting trees. So, no, I don't see how this will increase the chances of global warming or add to the hysteria of predicting more devastating hurricanes (it's been two years now, folks. Where *are* those devastating hurricanes?).
But ABC feels the need to peddle this alarmism and baseless agenda-mongering without so much as even a fact check. Not that anyone should be surprised.
Bush’s fault.
This is complete BS! There were actually far fewer trees in the 19th century U.S. than there are today because of all the farm clearing/slash and burning and industrialization that went on at that time.
“This is complete BS! There were actually far fewer trees in the 19th century U.S...”
True. Most of the eastern U.S. was clear cut and open farmland in the mid to late 1800’s and early 1900’s.
http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases/2005/NR-05-12-04.html
Lawrence Livermore Lab says Models Show Growing More Forests In Temperate Regions Could Contribute To Global Warming
We’re doomed! < /sarc>
I expect these guys will probably send someone around to arrest me when I touch off my brush pile next week.
Food crops and feed crops are 12% - 26% MORE now than just a few years ago due to the increased CO2, and there is NO indication from ANY weather prediction (except the AGW extremists) that warmer temps will increase hurricanes and tropical storms.
(It is slightly more likely that high latitude (north Atlantic) storms in winter may be 5-10% stronger. So far, that has NOT happened over the 25 years.
Then again, there has been NO increase in temps for the past 9 years - and the ONY time in the preceding 150 years that both temperatures and CO2 have at the same time is the period from a low point in 1972 through 1998.
@7 years out of 150 is supposed to be a trensdjustifying trillions in taxes from American Taxpayers to EU bureaucrats, Russian mafia sponsors, and African dictators?
More important than the loss of the trees is what happens to them now that they are down. A few years ago we lost millions of trees in the Boundary Waters in Northern Minnesota after a huge storm blew through. The environmentalists would not allow the trees to be logged even after they were down and the result was a first-class, A-number-one fire hazard.
It’s being better and better established that man-made global warming is fiction. But you’d never guess it from “news” reporting like this.
The states affected by Katrina are all substantial tree lots. Most of the trees that were damaged were being grown as pulp wood or lumber. Many of the damaged trees were likely harvested at some point after the storm.
Link below is a report from the Mississippi Forestry Commission (PDF) that paints a different picture from the hysteria of ABC News:
http://www.mfc.state.ms.us/pdf/MIFI/Katrin_Impacts_Gulf_Coast.pdf
[”The livestock sector generates more greenhouse gas emissions as measured in CO2 equivalent than transport,” said the report by the Rome-based Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO).]
[By this yardstick, livestock now accounts for 18 percent of man-made carbon emissions, driven by the surge in demand for meat and dairy products, FAO said.]
That’s how you can tell Gore is not for real. If he was a Green he would weigh 160 pounds instead of 300. Gore is in it for the money.
Conversely, the media has been fear mongering about the drought in Georgia, and there’s no doubt it has been dry, becasue there have been few Atlantic cyclonic storm systems this year which is where most of the moisture comes from...
Which way do they want it??
These idiots are too ridiculous for words.
~~ AGW™ ping~~
I seem to remember a certain tv talking head standing at Mt. St Helen back in the 80s, intoning about how the entire area had been devastated “forever”. What a hack!
I have read that one great volcanic explosion like Pinatubo puts more crap in the air than all the cars ever. Now this.
What does Mr. Bore prescribe to prevent the next hurricane or volcano from causing global warming.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.