DescentBB

Pandora wrote:

woodchip wrote:Grendel, you may want to look at my link and see what a number of actual scientists found out about mean average global temps. there seems to be a bit of variation yet the averages show just prior to 2000 the temps had peaked and were coming down. No correlation to sunspot activity tho:

Hogwash.

Loehle's proxies ended in the 1970 to 90ies (most of them much earlier), so his data do not allow any conclusions about whether temperature has peaked "just prior to 2000". Of course, we also know from the actual instrumental record that they had NOT peaked, but continued to rise quite a bit. So even if you use Loehle's flawed paper (admitted by himself and now partially corrected) you'll find that temperatures now are much higher than even at the warmest points (e.g. medieval warming perior) in Loehle's reconstruction.

So you have a link that shows temp. increase past the year 2000? Do you have a link to where Loehle admits to his Jan 2008 paper as being flawed?

Sergeant Thorne,

Which means what? Do you have any notion how much is that compared to the amount they deal with over the course of their lives?

I'm afraid these points are terribly incomplete.

Please read my sentence again. When the trees die and rot they release ALL of the CO2 they took out of the air it in the course of their lives. So, NOTHING is gained in the long run.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Trees are only one of the ways that CO2 is put to productive use in this world. What about other greenery, and what about oceanic flora?

People have been trying to find alternative ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere since the eighties when the CO2 problem first became apparent. For a long time, plankton enriched with iron seemed to be THE solution. However, the experiments they did since then have not been encouraging. First, as it was the case for the trees, the areas of the see that you would need to get rid of the massive amounts of CO2 we release into the atmosphere are simply too large

[...} simply adding iron to the ocean may not result in enhanced removal of carbon dioxide from surface waters to the deep ocean. "You would have to keep doing it over, and if you wanted to have a big impact the size of the area required is bigger than the Southern Ocean.

Second, the resulting algae bloom wreak havoc on the oceans ecosystem.

Fish and other aquatic animals and plants stand little chance against cyanobacteria. The algae crowds the surface water, shading out plants -- fish food -- below. The fish generally avoid cyanobacteria, so they're left without food. And when the algae die they sink to the bottom where their decomposition can lead to extensive depletion of oxygen.

Pandora wrote:...When the trees die and rot they release ALL of the CO2 they took out of the air it in the course of their lives. So, NOTHING is gained in the long run...

So we need to implement world wide legislation to punish countries that have trees and exempt those that harvest their trees since planting a tree and letting it soak up the CO2 for thirty years then cutting it down and turning it into wood products would eliminate the rotting and releasing' factor.

And we could set up an industry where the countries in violation can buy rotting tree credits where by every tree they let rot can be offset by paying American forestry companies to cut down a tree and plant a new one in it's place and the american companies that do this work will make a fantastic profit AND be given big time tax breaks for their work to save the planet and everything will be hunky dory....I think Al Gore is the one most experienced in this line of work and ready to add this branch of eco mercenary industry to his existing Cap and Trade business so he should be the one to do it /sarcasm mode

woodchip wrote:Do you have a link to where Loehle admits to his Jan 2008 paper as being flawed?

What you call his 2008 paper is actually already the correction to his paper appearing in 2007, in which he partially(!) adressed the criticism raised by "actual climate scientists" against his work. Your .pdf is the supplementary material to this correction. You find the actual correction here. Look closely at how his graph looks now ... no going down just before 2000 anymore.

He writes in the correction:

Some of the input data were also integrated values or sampled at wide intervals. Thus it is not possible to compare recent annual data to this figure to ask about anomalous years or decades.

also:

The main significance of the results here is not the details of every wiggle, which are probably not reliable, but the overall picture of the 2000 year pattern showing the MWP and LIA timing and curve shapes. Future studies need to acquire more and better data to refine this picture.

Finally, current knowledge is that the medieval warming period was restricted to the northern hemisphere. Look at his map (in the correction). As you can see, most of his proxies are from the northern hemisphere, so his paper just confirms what we already knew.

woodchip wrote:So you have a link that shows temp. increase past the year 2000?

That would be comparing apples and oranges. The work you pointed to is based on 30/29 year averages, in order to get the more detailed picture you need a diffentent algorithm to calculate average temps.

Pandora wrote:Please read my sentence again. When the trees die and rot they release ALL of the CO2 they took out of the air it in the course of their lives. So, NOTHING is gained in the long run.

I actually read your sentence a few times...

Pandora wrote:4. Finally, when the trees die and rot they release all the CO2 that they have stored so far.

You said "stored", not taken out of the air. If the amount of CO2 released back into nature when a tree meets its end is equivalent to all of the CO2 it takes in throughout its lifetime then you're right... however, in the meantime we've still got more trees, which means less CO2...

And here...

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Trees are only one of the ways that CO2 is put to productive use in this world. What about other greenery, and what about oceanic flora?

I'm arguing against people calculating the impossibility of trees' effect on CO2 levels using only trees as consumers in their calculations (which is what it sounded like to me).

hmm then maybe things should stop dieing???


you sure about this whole \"Stored\" thing? The way I understood photosynthesis is that the CO2 is taken into the plant and converted into other compounds. Any gas emission from a dead organism is directly from the chemical and physical change of the material. Trees don't have \"CO2 bladders\".

Get over it. CO2 is NOT a bad gas. CO is. It kills people every years .. and as we have pointed out dieing is a bad thing .. oh wait. Only if you're a tree. ..o_0

Duper wrote:you sure about this whole "Stored" thing? The way I understood photosynthesis is that the CO2 is taken into the plant and converted into other compounds. Any gas emission from a dead organism is directly from the chemical and physical change of the material. Trees don't have "CO2 bladders".

Yes, I am relatively sure about that. See, for example, here.

Trees absorb carbon dioxide from the atmosphere for photosynthesis. Some of this carbon is used by the tree for growth and will remain locked up within the cell structure until the tree is burnt or felled. In this way, a tree acts as a carbon sink. At the end of the tree's life cycle that carbon is released back to the atmosphere as carbon dioxide. When forests are unmanaged there is no net change in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis is balanced by the release of carbon dioxide from rotting trees.

Of course, as clear from the original post (see page 1), it may not be stored as actual CO2 in the tree. Nevertheless, the CO2 is efficiently taken out of the air, converted to sugar and so on, stored in the tree, but released back as CO2 when it rots. So, trees are indeed efficiently acting as a bladder for CO2 (I love the analogy!).

Sergeant Thorne wrote:I actually read your sentence a few times...

Yes, sorry, I see now I was being unclear. Just to reiterate my understanding of the process (again, see Insurrectionists first post and associated link for some details):

(1) trees take up CO2 from the atmosphere
(2) some of it will be released back to the air through respiration (so no net gain for CO2 levels)
(3) the other part is being used by the tree to build new biomass (leaves, etc).

The net reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere therefore results exclusively from process number 3: the storage/conversion of CO2 into biomass. This means, however, that all gains will be lost, when the tree rots and all the CO2 gets released into the air again.

Sergeant Thorne wrote:Trees are only one of the ways that CO2 is put to productive use in this world. What about other greenery, and what about oceanic flora?

I think I have addressed oceanic flora above (plankton, algae bloom). The way I understand it, trees are the most efficient CO2 sinks, because CO2 is stored in plants as biomass. I think you will be hard matched to find an equivalent for trees in the biomass they hold per square meter.

Pandora wrote:The way I understand it, trees are the most efficient CO2 sinks, because CO2 is stored in plants as biomass. I think you will be hard matched to find an equivalent for trees in the biomass they hold per square meter.

Actually the oceans are the largest carbon sink around and seemingly can hold quite a bit of C per sq.m (think vertical).

you're right, of course. Was just thinking of the land based flora...

Pandora wrote:(1) trees take up CO2 from the atmosphere
(2) some of it will be released back to the air through respiration (so no net gain for CO2 levels)
(3) the other part is being used by the tree to build new biomass (leaves, etc).

The net reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere therefore results exclusively from process number 3: the storage/conversion of CO2 into biomass. This means, however, that all gains will be lost, when the tree rots and all the CO2 gets released into the air again.

All the more reason to harvest trees, and turn them into patios. CO2 locked out for 100 years or more, is still pretty good. Mind you, I’m arguing that trees are only one small part of the solution.

Don’t forget trees also provide oxygen, wildlife habitat and other good things, like water purification.

The science here is not a problem, you plant a forest, a ★■◆● load of carbon is stored, it doesn’t matter that trees die, because they are replaced with new trees, and in the end you still have an entire forest’s worth of carbon stored.

Now as far as the will or space to grow trees…that is a problem, but like I said, the science is good.

To be honest, the impression I get from these arguments is, some people just want carbon taxes…period.

That's what I think too Spidey. As I hear it, their plans are that every nation participate, and based on their co2 output, pay a certain fee. This fee would be collected by an world agency that at the moment does not exist but is being assembled. Based on that line of reasoning, I'd want the science to be sure. If every nation participates that would be a great amassing of wealth by one agency.

[quote="Spidey"]The science here is not a problem, you plant a forest, a ***** load of carbon is stored, it doesn’t matter that trees die, because they are replaced with new trees, and in the end you still have an entire forest’s worth of carbon stored./quote]

Exactly. And, no matter how small it may seem, I never bought a real tree for Christmas. I could never see the reason for killing a tree just to decorate it. We use an artificial one that's now about 10 years old.

Plant more trees...

Bee

I don't celebrate Chrismas anyway, because it's not truly a Christian holiday at its roots, but that tree you're talking about was grown, commercially, to be cut down, B... kind of like the produce that you buy at the store... or the lumber that went into building your house (perhaps). Yes?

Definately plant more trees, though. Trees are awesome, and they're so useful (until some hippy doesn't want them to suffer).

As far as christmas trees you could always buy or rent a living tree and plant it in the ground after the holiday.

http://www.livingchristmastrees.org/

Pandora wrote:

When forests are unmanaged there is no net change in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide since the removal of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere through photosynthesis is balanced by the release of carbon dioxide from rotting trees.

This statement is pure poppycock. I wonder if whomever made this statement ever took a walk thru a mature forest. If he did he would of seen that the living trees far outnumbered the fallen decaying trees. The carbon sequestration by a mature forest is such that it effectively removes CO2 and stores it, not it takes in as much as it releases:

"Forests store large amounts of carbon. In the US, forests make up 90% of the US carbon sink and sequester approximately 10% of US CO2 emissions"

http://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/niacs/forests/ ... estration/

"Enhancing the natural processes that remove CO2 from the atmosphere is thought to be one of the most cost-effective means of reducing atmospheric levels of CO2, and forestation and deforestation abatement efforts are already under way."

http://www.fossil.energy.gov/sequestrat ... index.html

so Pandora, not sure who gave you your quote but perhaps he/she should do a little more research.

eh? how does any of this contradict what I have been saying/my quote above?

Your quote says no net change as forests give off as much as they take in. My links say there is a net reduction in Co2 from forests taking in more than they release.

I guess your link is just a bit sloppy in its wording. Go to your first link, go to the sidebar, then click on 'carbon cycle' There you'll read:

The carbon cycle involves the flux, or flow, of carbon between different earth systems. An object or process that absorbs and stores carbon is called a sink, while one that releases carbon faster than it is absorbed is termed a source. For example, a healthy plant is a carbon sink because it is taking in CO2 from the air and storing it in new leaves and roots and a larger stem. However, a plant can become a source of carbon if the amount of CO2 going out exceeds the amount taken in. This might happen if a plant is eaten and an animal utilizes its carbon for energy or if CO2 is sent back into the atmosphere through decomposition or fire.

So, trees are only carbon sinks as long as they are living and growing. That is what your link is referring to. When the tree dies and rots, however, it becomes a source of carbon, and the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere.

So as Will has alluded to above, if you manage to capture all the wood and turn it into wood projects etc., you can, of course, break the cycle. For a time, at least, until the life cycle of the product is over and it is thrown away and burned.

Well one things for sure. There are a whole lot less trees than there used to be. Pandora, your date of 1950 also coincides with close to the time the building industry really started going commercial and the subsequent deforestation that occurred. LOL I'm gonna say it. Plant a tree

Pandora wrote:
So, trees are only carbon sinks as long as they are living and growing. That is what your link is referring to. When the tree dies and rots, however, it becomes a source of carbon, and the CO2 is released back into the atmosphere.

In case you missed my earlier point, go into a healthy forest. Count the number of dead rotting trees and then count the number of living trees. So unless one rotting tree balances out 100 healthy trees then you have not convinced me

Pandora wrote:So as Will has alluded to above, if you manage to capture all the wood and turn it into wood projects etc., you can, of course, break the cycle. For a time, at least, until the life cycle of the product is over and it is thrown away and burned.

Look at it another way. Remove man from the equation and go back to when the forests were dominate and pristine and you will see that forests are carbon sinks and not as you propose "A balancing act". A few examples:

"Reaching across North America and into Russia, the Boreal Forest forms a “green halo” across the top of the globe and is even larger than the Amazonian Rainforest. Ontario has a significant portion of Canada’s Boreal Forest, which is characterized by large tracts of old-growth White and Black spruce, Jack pine and Balsam fir. North of an imaginary line along the 51st parallel, Ontario’s Boreal Forest is largely intact, meaning it has not yet been destroyed by human activity.

Essential Ecological Functions

The Boreal Forest performs a wide variety of ecological functions that are crucial to all life on the planet. The Boreal Forest is the world’s largest terrestrial carbon sink, absorbing 34% of global carbon emissions. This means that it plays an essential role in limiting climate change and acts as a protective shield. If the Boreal Forest is destroyed, the planet won’t be able to absorb as much carbon, and all the carbon that has been stored over hundreds of years in the Boreal Forest will be released back into the atmosphere; both of which will contribute significantly to global warming. In a time when global warming is threatening our planet, we need to ensure that the largest carbon sink on earth is protected."

http://earthroots.org/index.php/Alerts/ ... rests.html

Note the term "sink" and not "source".

"Many ecologists think the Amazon rainforest is one of the major "carbon sinks" that keep atmospheric CO2from rising more quickly than it already has."

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4 ... nging.html

Once again, a source proposing a forest takes in more C)2 than it releases. Yes if you burn a forest down a lot of CO2 will be released, but then I'm not talking about potential releases. I'm talking about forests living through their natural evolutionary cycles, during which, they take in more CO2 than they release. To say a forest gives off as much CO2 as it takes in is pure balderdash.

Woody, your own quote says that all the CO2 is released back when the forest dies.

If the Boreal Forest is destroyed, the planet won’t be able to absorb as much carbon, and all the carbon that has been stored over hundreds of years in the Boreal Forest will be released back into the atmosphere;

edit, the best explanation I have found so far is from the Ask a biologist forum.

All normal plants, in the process of photosynthesis, take up carbon dioxide by day and release oxygen. This switches over in the dark, and they then produce carbon dioxide through respiration in the same way as animals. While they are growing, they take up more carbon dioxide overall than they give out, which gets turned into plant tissues (especially cellulose and, in the case of trees, lignin).

When a plant reaches full size, the difference between the carbon it takes up by day and emits by night drops. Trees still take up more carbon than they give off, because they continually produce leaves, repair tissues, increase their root network and add to their trunks. A lot of this carbon ends up back in the air though – when leaves and branches fall and rot, the carbon is simply released again. The forest as a whole can be approximately in balance, or can even lose carbon due to other processes (which is where the bad science reporting comes in).

There may be some occasions when a tree raises its respiration rate above photosynthesis – this might occur when producing lots of flowers or leaves, fighting a pathogen or creating chemical defences. This will, however, only be a short-term effect. Also, many deciduous trees in Europe rot in the middle of their trunk – you may see some old British oaks like this. It’s usually not harmful to the tree, but it does mean that they ‘give off’ carbon dioxide, albeit not because the tree intends to! When the tree is dying the same will happen

So how about growing trees for the sequestration of carbon dioxide. We plant trees enough to offset the output of all cardon dioxide for a year. We let the trees muture cut them down and buried them in old surface mines cover them with soil. Cut off from the air in this manner, the wood would not change, even over long periods. It could in principle be dug up in the future and used. Replant the trees to offset the carbon dioxide again. If you're really smart I bet there would be a way to tax people to make it all work too.

If you're really smart you might not buy into the big scare in the first place.

Pandora wrote:Woody, your own quote says that all the CO2 is released back when the forest dies.

If the Boreal Forest is destroyed, the planet won’t be able to absorb as much carbon, and all the carbon that has been stored over hundreds of years in the Boreal Forest will be released back into the atmosphere;

Man we seem to be on different wavelengths. Unless man comes along, the forest keeps living and regenerating itself. It is not like a forest grows for a hundered years, has a mass die off and then grows anew. The operative word in the above quote is "If".

in the mean time there is a giant space rock out there with our name on it that will trump all of this.

Game over man.

Nibiru???????

Woodchip, let's take a step backward. maybe we are in complete agreement without realizing it.

What the links above are saying is that a forest is only soaking up CO2 while it expands. A mature forest is essentially carbon neutral. The little growth that is still happening is counterbalanced by the decay that goes on. The forest still stores all the CO2 it has soaked up during its growth stage, though.

So maintaining this forest does not help you to reduce the impact of human emissions further. But burning it or letting it die will hurt a lot. Planting new trees will help, and particularly when they are in the tropics.

Can you let me know if there is anything in these statements that you do disagree with?

Pandora wrote: A mature forest is essentially carbon neutral. The little growth that is still happening is counterbalanced by the decay that goes on. The forest still stores all the CO2 it has soaked up during its growth stage, though.

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"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/programmes/ ... ture.shtml

So no to the balance idea.

hmmm, seems we are in good agreement, then.

We both agree that CO2 is only removed from the air when the forest/the tree is growing. You only disagree that forests can never be in balance, but that they are always growing. I think that the production of biomass is limited by space, nutrients, access to sunlight, forest fires, hurricanes, other competitors like grasses and moss, pests, and so on, so that growth and decay can roughly be in balance.

But I can live with this disagreement. It might be different for every forest you look at. It is also not really important for the discussion at hand, I believe. Or is there a specific point you want to make?

There are other plants in abundance that do the same job as trees. ... many many more..

yeah, Duper, but - as said above - they don't have as much biomass, the production which is critical for CO2 to be removed from the air.

I highly doubt that.

we are talking about plant matter that covers more area including the area of trees.

soft plants die off quicker and regrow more over than trees do. Trees live at least 30 years. Grass and other broad leaf vegitation does not.

this does not include alge or other plant life that grows in fresh and saltwater.

yes, and when plants die they release all the carbon they stored so far. The long life time of trees is the other thing that makes them efficient carbon sinks.

With regard to oceans, measurements suggest that the ability to absorb CO2 is more or less reached. Algae could help, but they completely mess the ecosystem (links further up in the thread).

Ummm...Pandora, you should google \"diatoms CO2\" and you will discover they continually take out CO2. When they die their bodies drift down to the ocean floor where the sediments then trap the CO2 in the diatoms bodies. So in no way is the ocean ability to absorb CO2 \"Maxed out\".

I said \"more or less\" reached. All of the recent measurements show that the ocean's capacity to extract CO2 from the atmosphere has decreased. Don't have time right now, but I'll try to find some links to the studies. We have discussed them already in previous threads on the topics.

global warming is a farce

END OF DISCUSSION!

=)

Burleyman wrote:global warming is a farce
END OF DISCUSSION!

But don't you think it might be more useful if you explained WHY you believe this?

Kilarin wrote:

Burleyman wrote:global warming is a farce
END OF DISCUSSION!

But don't you think it might be more useful if you explained WHY you believe this?

Why you gotta be so difficult Kil, the discussion has ended