The circle of life.

[Spidey]

LOL

[Insurrectionist]

Mawhahahaa

[Sergeant Thorne]

Hehe

Burlyman cut the Gordian Knot.

[Jeff250]

I know you guys can be more intellectually responsible than this. Does anyone actually have anything left to say against anything Pandora has argued in this thread?

[Sergeant Thorne]

I already said it, and Pandora never really seemed to acknowledge the mistakes in what he was claiming, with regard to trees. Particularly the notion that more trees wouldn't make an appreciable difference in CO2 levels (which I don't believe to be hazardous anyway) because trees die...

[Pandora]

Where, specifically, would this mistake be, then?

[Sergeant Thorne]

So one of us has to be not-lazy enough to go back and find it? Sorry, you caught Superman on a lazy day.

The mistake of thinking that more trees wouldn't contribute significantly to a reduction of CO2 because trees give off CO2 when they die (and you say they give it all off in the end... I don't necessarily accept that). If you have more trees you have less CO2 floating around. Period. Maybe I'm mistaken, and that's not what you were saying. I guess you could have been arguing that trees are not CO2 consuming factories, but rather part of a CO2 cycle where no CO2 is actually lost. If they really do give all of their CO2 back in the end, then that's true. But even then, do they? What about lumber products? That's wood matter that's going to be around for a while.

Here's what I'd like to know, and I don't suppose I'm going to get it from the Global Alarming (er, Warming) crowd... what known natural process actually reduces carbon dioxide in our atmosphere? I'd bet a lot that it happens. We've been burning carbon products for hundreds of years now, at least, that are a result of natural (if not catastrophic) processes. All of that carbon is the same as the C in CO2, but it's in solid form rather than in the atmosphere.

I've been thinking, and I think I could make a solid case that burning trees in fires which leave charcoal actually takes some CO2 out of the system.

How much carbon from trees is never released back into the atmosphere (at least not in the foreseeable future)?

[Sergeant Thorne]

I've got a question for anyone that might know (substitute know with have heard, if you feel lucky). How is the state of the atmosphere a global thing? Shouldn't atmosphere be local, to whatever degree? Even high-altitude atmosphere? Is it all the same? Does it even out like a temperature change in a heat-sink, or must it be more localized?

[Spidey]

Somebody I know is fond of saying…The atmosphere is global, but the weather is local.

[Burlyman]

Okay, so now that the discussion has ended... perhaps we can move on to talking about electric gravity.

[Pandora]

Maybe I'm mistaken, and that's not what you were saying. I guess you could have been arguing that trees are not CO2 consuming factories, but rather part of a CO2 cycle where no CO2 is actually lost. If they really do give all of their CO2 back in the end, then that's true. But even then, do they? What about lumber products? That's wood matter that's going to be around for a while.

Thorne, that is more or less my position, yes. I was definitly NOT arguing that trees do not help. My point is that trees are not the super-awesome panacea with which we can magically make our carbon footprint disappear. I tried to point out the problems that come with tree-based approaches:
- that they give carbon back when they die
- that we would need much more trees than space available
- that their CO2 effect is counterbalanced by a warming effect outside of the tropics,
- that old forests are mostly maxed out with regard to the CO2 they can sequester.
But all this does NOT negate that every new tree - particularly in the tropics - helps reduce the CO2 footprint, and we should of course encourage planting them. Conversely, burning forests is an incredibly bad idea. Just don't expect any wonders --- in the long run there is no alternative to drastically reducing our emissions; of course you would have to accept the negative influence of CO2 first.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Well, the negative influence of CO2 would have to be proved first, and not by some snake-oil, liberal salesman.

If CO2 really is a problem, any conservative is going to have a really hard time hearing it, because liberals and other assorted idiots have hijacked the subject for their own social and political ends (\"Global Warming,\" and now, \"Climate Change\"). And it seems to me that \"conservative\" representatives have failed, at least in some cases, to sort the scientific concern from the liberal or globalist political thought in their scramble to be politically relevant.

Believe what you want to believe, I am far from convinced, and no ulterior motive will cause me to yield.

[Spaceboy]

The global warming debate is irrelevant in my mind: why bring it to a debate about Co2 levels?

We are currently burning a random chemical that makes a large explosion into the atmosphere as fast as we possibly can. This in itself is a negative thing, but it is a limited resource. If we don't slow down, soon we'll HAVE to find an alternative, why procrastinate?

I don't see it as a controversial subject, I just see it as inevitable.

[Sergeant Thorne]

The global warming debate is irrelevant in my mind: why bring it to a debate about Co2 levels?

Because it's the only reason anyone is talking about CO2!

[Pandora]

Well, the negative influence of CO2 would have to be proved first, and not by some snake-oil, liberal salesman.

well, the warming properties of CO2 were established in the lab for the first time in 1859, when Tyndall tried to find out why the earth is not freezing, given how far away from the sun it is.

Tyndall set out to find whether there was in fact any gas in the atmosphere that could trap heat rays. In 1859, his careful laboratory work identified several gases that did just that. The most important was simple water vapor (H2O). Also effective was carbon dioxide (CO2), although in the atmosphere the gas is only a few parts in ten thousand. Just as a sheet of paper will block more light than an entire pool of clear water, so the trace of CO2 altered the balance of heat radiation through the entire atmosphere.

The first calculations indicating that rising CO2 levels would heat up the earth were made in 1896.

If CO2 really is a problem, any conservative is going to have a really hard time hearing it, because liberals and other assorted idiots have hijacked the subject for their own social and political ends ("Global Warming," and now, "Climate Change"). And it seems to me that "conservative" representatives have failed, at least in some cases, to sort the scientific concern from the liberal or globalist political thought in their scramble to be politically relevant.

totally agree.

[Insurrectionist]

The most important was simple water vapor (H2O)

Wow, the most important when it comes to trapping heat in the atmosphere is water vapor.

[Pandora]

of course! Where have you been the last 150 years?

[Insurrectionist]

Last I heard is that when you burn a gallon of gas you produce a gallon of water vapor along with other gases and chemicals. Even burning natural gas produces water vapor and other gases. Since water vapor is the most important gas for trapping heat in the atmosphere could it not be that water vapor is the real enemy? Could you image the Al Gore crowd tell people water is bad and toxic.

Edit: No one ever answered the question of growing trees untill mature then burying them for later uses.

Ancient Kauri trees grew for around a 2000 years. These trees were preserved underground for 50,000 years by some unexplained act of nature. So it could be done. Bio-mass will be maintained no CO2 released into the atmosphere.

[Spidey]

The atmosphere can hold but only so much water vapor, depending on the variables, such as barometric pressure, temp. etc.

The problem with sequestering carbon that way is two fold…

1. Someone will inevitably dig it up and burn it.
2. It would probably cost more in carbon emissions than it’s worth.

IMHO

This can’t be true right?

[Insurrectionist]

I would say yes it is true.

[AlphaDoG]

Which further proves that climate change is NOT a man made deealio!

[flip]

Global warming is just a farce. A common enemy created to force all of mankind to pitch in together and lose their sense of nationalism and separatist mentality .

[Spidey]

You mean like space invaders?

[TheCope]

You mean like space invaders?

or mexicans, terrorists, and pirates?

[Duper]

You mean like space invaders?

or mexicans, terrorists, and pirates?

oh my....

[Pandora]

This can’t be true right?

Have been busy, so I'm not sure if their numbers are true, but it does not really matter, because the whole water vapor idea is totally misleading anyways. As most of the "skeptic" sites, it tells only half of the story, and hopes that people do not double check.

Water vapor produces a large part of the greenhouse effect, this much is true, but this is the part of the greenhouse effect that we are always having --- it does not change due to external events. As Spidey said:

The atmosphere can hold but only so much water vapor, depending on the variables, such as barometric pressure, temp. etc.

Because of this, every bit of vapor that we release (or which is released naturally for that matter) will come down more or less immediately due to rain and so on. So, unlike the warming due to CO2 emissions, this (large) part of the greenhouse effect stays constant --- it can therefore not explain the recent warming.

The only way water content in the atmosphere changes is when it get's warmer: the atmosphere will store more water then. And this is why it cannot produce warming by itself, but produces a dangerous feedback loop: Imagine any event that heats up the earth - e.g. more CO2 emissions - then the water content will also rise, creating even more warming, and - when worst comes to worst - create a runaway warming system.

And by the way, all climate scientists are aware of it, and factor it into their models.

[Pandora]

Hey Woodchip, here's a quick update on our disagreement.

This part is what I would disagree on.
Trees are continually growing and adding new growth rings each year.Each growth ring is in essence a new layer of carbon sequestration. Just because the tree is considered "mature", does not mean it has stopped growing. As the forest canopy rises in height, undergrowth starts developing. In jungles the term is "triple canopy"

A new paper is out (well, last year, actually) that has actually measured it. Turns out we are both right.
- You are right in that most forests, even the old ones, still sequester more carbon as they emit.
- I was right that forests can become sources of carbon rather than sinks, and this probability increases with age: the probability of a 80 year old forest to be a source of carbon is 20%, for a 180 year old forest 25%, and for a 300 year old forest 35%.

[woodchip]

Interesting find Pandora. I was struck by this:

\"Thus,
our findings suggest that 15 per cent of the global forest area, which
is currently not considered when offsetting increasing atmospheric
carbon dioxide concentrations, provides at least 10 per cent of the
global net ecosystem productivity8.\"

I interpret this as the carbon offset crowd is not taking these forests in consideration as to how much offsets need to be calculated when figuring out carbon taxes.

[Pandora]

could be, Woody. I have no idea how carbon offsets are calculated. If they are just based on the actual measurable rate of increase, these forests won't matter, because they are already here, and have already contributed (negatively) to the increase. As such, it could be just a note of warning that any disturbance of these forests might prove fatal and severely increase the rate of CO2 increase.

[flip]

http://www.digital-almanac.com/digitala ... /?folio=68

http://www.almanac.com/weather/patterns ... dium=email

Another view point from the Farmers Almanac.

By \"solar activity,\" do you mean sunspots?

A. The subject of sunspots' influence on our weather has been both touted and ridiculed for centuries and is still a hotly debated topic. In late 1979 and early 1980, the Nimbus 7 and Solar Maximum Mission satellites, respectively, began measuring the daily mean solar irradiance and showed that the solar constant is not a constant but does vary with activity on the Sun, of which sunspots are one manifestation. So, yes, solar activity includes sunspots.

Q. What, then, do you take into consideration besides sunspots?

A. The visible, ultraviolet, X-ray, and radio wavelength emissions from the Sun, for instance; also the geomagnetic activity, the solar wind, and, yes, the high-speed streams that appear to be associated with coronal holes and open magnetic field lines in conjunction with the eruption of solar flares.

Q. You feel that all this solar activity directly influences our weather?

A. With respect to the weather side of the so-called solar-terrestrial relationship, one of the long-term indicators of the effect of changes in the radiant energy from the Sun on the Earth's climate is the change in the orbital parameters defining the motion of the Earth about the Sun and the mounting evidence that these changes were the cause of past ice ages.

\\tIn the shorter term, in addition to the so-called Little Ice Age during the late 17th and early 18th centuries, when there was little or no sunspot activity for about 70 years, various investigators have found increasing evidence for an approximate 22-year period of rainfall in certain regions and drought in other regions (including the midwestern part of the United States) that appears to be related to a double sunspot cycle or, more specifically, to the 22-year magnetic cycle on the Sun.

Q. Do you take into account anything else besides solar activity?

A. Many other factors influence Earth's weather - the extent of snow and ice cover; the surface temperature of the oceans and the velocity of their major currents; the type of ground cover and the soil moisture content; the amount and type of cloud cover as it affects the reflection and absorption of the incoming solar radiation and the absorption of the outgoing infrared radiation from the Earth; the effect of major fires or the ejecta from major volcanic eruptions; and the dynamic state of the atmosphere and its composition - including infrared absorbing molecules such as water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and oxides of nitrogen.

That's just naming a few of the things that we take into account. We don't profess to understand or always incorporate all of these and other factors into our Almanac forecasts. But we are continually striving to improve our methods.

People need to send this to Congress before they start taxing the air I exhale.