Posted on 03/06/2008 4:13:54 PM PST by EPW Comm Team
What is “high” CO2 concentration? What is a “high” temperature.
I will have to look up the reference (don’t have time this evening and I’m away from my home library where I think I put my finger on it- will IM later).
In regards to increased levels of photosyntheis via agriculture- I would be hesitant to agree. Acres in crops has declined with increased productivity per acre due to fertilization and modern methods. Also, deforestation is not always, and maybe even seldom, linked to agriculture. Devlepoment and logging may take a big chunk.
Also, I think I remember your comment concerning plankton related photosyntheis being true, or consistent with your comment. However, with increased CO2 production through industrial release, there is no mechanism that increases plankton production for balance.
“All the news they (don’t) feel fit to print ...”
I don’t find it so terrible to be created by God.
Actually, increases in temperature PRECEDE increases in CO2.
Also, the solution to disappearing forests is more industrial development. It is the poor countries where one find forests being devastated.
>>This whole Global Warming scam is nothing more than the Global Communists attempting to take control of the Global economy.
I guess the UFO alien overseer invasion global takeover sort of lost its traction in the “age of info” so the oligarchy dropped back to “global warming” in its centuries old neo-feudal rape and pillage of scientific method.
Our industrial release of CO and C02 is constantly on the rise and the natural check on these gases, photosynthesis, is constantly on the decline with the destruction of forest.
Wrong. Dead wrong.
Globally, forests (tropical and mid-latitude) are NOT disappearing: today, they are 99.5% as much as they were at mid-century, and in the US in particular, have increased significantly.
CO2 has been much, much higher previously, and temps (at the same time) have been both much higher, and much lower, than now. There simply is NO link in ANY record at ANY time between CO2 levels and temperatures.
Wrong. Dead wrong.
Worse: The worst deforested areas are those LEAST able to get coal or oil burning energy. IF we could generate heat and power for these people - which their rulers refuse too permit, and which the enviro's cannot let start - THEN we would see deforestation for firewood eliminated.
Current levels of CO2 have INCREASED production of ALL plant matter and forests - the AVERAGE increase in production of food and fodder and woodlands is 17% - with most crops growing more than 12-27% MORE productively than at lower CO2 levels. Plus, HIGHER CO2 levels let crops tolerate MORE heat - though now we may be approaching a cold spell.
Let us hope it is “only” the usual few hundred years, not a full-scale Ice Age.
“Actually, increases in temperature PRECEDE increases in CO2.”
This jury is still out and I saw a good argument refuting this finding. The work is not published yet, but I saw a discussion that showed the original work had problems with the calibration of C-14 dates.
Again, I’ll have to find the reference when I return home, but the short discussion I saw seemd reasonable.
Also, your industrial argument is a little bit short sighted. Did you consider that increased industrialiazation for its own sake feeds the need for raw materials. Besides, third world countries log because there is big bucks in it. Poor logging practices elsewhere cause occassional bottle necks which make it attractive to cut virgin forests in undeveloped countries.
While the first of those statements is true - with some notable caveats - the second is clearly false.
Without outright disagreeing...do keep in mind that heat does not equal temperature, and there are some rather enormous holes in our knowledge of the physics - rather larger than the expected temperature change. I'd further point out that the climate models generally don't even pretend to include clouds in any meaningful manner.
“Globally, forests (tropical and mid-latitude) are NOT disappearing: today, they are 99.5% as much as they were at mid-century, and in the US in particular, have increased significantly”
This is not true on many, many levels.
You are misusing the term “forest”. A natural forest is represented by a wide range of plants (and animals) that are part of the system referred to as a forest. A forest has large mature tree, intermediary aged trees, young trees, canopy, understory, substrate each providing uniqe environments for a wide rnage of bacteria, algae, animals, understory plants, and ultimately the trees. You get the picture.
We may have lots of trees now, but there are so many acres of commercial tree farms and pine plantations that many people mistake for real, ecological, forests. These operations control develoment and what types of trees are grown, they kill off all other plants, no or limited understory, etc. You get the picture. You cannot compare commercial tree growing operations to natural forests. Its like dumping a large bag of salt into a swimming pool and then declaring that we have more ocean now then before- hey its a big body of salt water.
I may concede that there may be more trees (not forests) in the US since the middle of the century (1940’s-1950’s). After WWII there was a (GI BIll) construction boom that called for a tremendous amount of wood. At the same time modern ag practices increased productivity and allowed for fewer acres in crops. Lots of farmers may have found acres of pine may have brought a higher profit then then crops.
Next Point- Deforestation for firewood is a tiny bit of the problem. The biggest problem is commercial, raw material procurement. Coal and oil is not much of an issue.
In regards to increased production via CO2. Could be a blip and wouldn’t be surprising. However you are mistaking crop productivity with photosynthesis. Crop productivity isn’t really a good measure of photosynthesis potential. NAtural forest land provides the diversity that allows for different fluctuation. Ag fields and controlled commercial tree plantations are not that helpful in the long run.
You are aware that CO2 is plant-food, yes? More CO2 means more plankton and generally more rapidly growing plant life. This is pretty well documented each generally, and in detail. Also, look at the difference between C3 and C4 photosynthesis in plants...some types of plants have mechanisms for survival in the relatively sub-optimal CO2 levels currently existing. Optimum for many plants is around 4000ppm, and long-term levels below 180ppm is fatal for those without the pumping and storage mechanisms.
You might also find the daily CO2 variance in areas with lush plant life interesting. I've previously posted graphs from a metering station in Luxembourg (it was the one I found) which has levels varying between 200ppm in late day, up to nearly 500 ppm just before sunrise.
To the extent that there is a difference - and in some areas there is quite a bit of one - much of it is due to the overpopulation of deer. One Smithsonian report found areas where there hasn't been a new young tree in 20 years or more in some of the study areas. Likewise, a comparison of areas where deer are plentiful and where they are completely excluded concluded that based upon where deer are excluded, the areas where deer are plentiful reduces the populations of birds and small mammals by roughly 90%.
As you pointed out the biomass exists underground as well, though that is also less disturbed by most logging.
Or...they are more helpful, as they don't simply recycle CO2 between parts, but absorb for growth and storage.
The original argument against the Man made Global Warming mantra back in '98-2000, was that it was simply "Natural Climate Change"..
It was very soon there after, that the GW crowd began to Hijack the term Climate Change as an interchangeable term for GW.
Many of us arguing back then, objected, as they were confusing the terms.
So, I, among many others, began using the term "Anthropogenic" climate change to further distinguish and identify the objectionable theory being promoted.
This is is sometimes shortened to "Anthrogenic", but still translates to BS.
So far, using the Anthro prefix has sufficed to distinguish the two sides of the argument, ( as opposed to Natural or Geological ) but I'm sure the "GoreBull Warming" crowd is working on new terms to muddy the issue and keep the masses confused.
ping
Now that's back-peddling.
Dr. Hansen, who charged that he was getting 'suppressed', had something over 1000 interviews over the past few years. Hansen is one of the NASA officials who was doing the suppressing of skeptical views of Dr. Zagoni.
ping
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.