On Nov 26, 12:17 pm, LiquidSquid wrote:
forests, are the best absorbers of CO2.

-LS

Oh and... If that wood were instead harvested into firewood/wood
pellets, sold (for profit of course) just like a crop, and used for
heating homes up here in the NE US and Europe in the winter, then it
is that much less fossil fuel burned to heat homes, so we wind up
SAVING CO2. *gasp!* a real use for trees that fell down.

A real solution, and people make money. What more do you want? Oh,
wait, some environmentalist probably wont let me import wood from
another state because of fear of disease spread in the woodlands, and
another environ"mental"ist wont let me burn wood because it makes
smoke that they can see, smells funny, and makes the sunset prettier.
(As they sit in their 5000 sq foot house smelling my smoke while
eating nuts and twigs).

-LS

Firewood is, in fact, a form of "biomass" energy. When the firewood
is harvest from "plantation" style forests like those that
Weyerhaueser maintains, maybe environmentalists should be supporting
it.

Massive deforestation, whether brought about by timber industry clear-
cutting or by other causes (e.g. Katrina), does have some other
negative consequences, too. Dangers to watersheds from flooding,
siltation and increasing erosion; the loss of habitat for a host of
different forest critters, etc. And the environmental impacts are
particularly severe when old growth forests, with advanced canopy
characteristics and "climax" ecosystem characteristics, are clearcut
to produce new tree plantations.

On Nov 26, 1:14 pm, john fernbach wrote:
On Nov 26, 11:15 am, LiquidSquid wrote:



natural wetlands remain the single largest source of methane emissions,
accounting for about one third of the global annual total from the Earth..
I propose we destroy all wetlands.

Hey, its a good thing we drive cars around rather than horses/cows/
donkeys etc. Otherwise think of all of the methane! Fart city. I
wonder if anyone has correlated localized "global warning" with any
festivals like beer-drinking or chili cook-offs.

Seriously I think the research on the felled trees and their
contribution to global warming is like a zit on the ass of an
elephant. It will just go unnoticed in the grand scheme of things.
What make this research a real waste? OMFG, they grow back! And
perhaps now that a bunch of homes are ruined and people have moved
elsewhere, more trees will take their place and absorb even more CO2
fertilizer. Whats even more crazy about this poor science is the fact
that by the time these felled trees are fully rotted, young saplings
will already be absorbing/scrubbing the air of CO2 at (a wild guess
here) a similar rate at which is is being released. Unless of course
we decide to turn all of those trees into a parking lot or a series of
1 million mowed lawns instead.

Of larger impact is the various large fires around the world this
year, which pumped an immediate surge of heat and CO2 into the
atmosphere. Still a zit, but a larger one than a bunch of felled
trees. However, they will grow back too, and with proper land and
forest management, may have a significant effect on removing the CO2
and heat they produced in the near future. Young forests, not mature
forests, are the best absorbers of CO2.

-LS

LS - I don't really know the science on CO2 absorption/emissions and
trees.
But your comments here are ignoring the whole questions of the 320
million dead and rotting trees giving off methane, aren't you?

And isn't methane a greenhouse gas that's some 20 times more potent
than CO2? So that the young saplings you're talking about would need
to be absorbing about 20 times more CO2 as they grow to maturity as
the dead trees will be giving off in methane as they decay?

Methane does not exist very long in the atmosphere, it is broken down
into CO2 and water via interaction with UV and oxygen. Essentially a
slow burn. It does take a while (a lot of factors such as temperature/
pressure/etc), but considerably less time than CO2 can stay in the
atmosphere. Well, that doesn't equate well, since CO2 can stick around
a very long time, but it does break down quickly. Someone more
knowledgeable about the half-life of Methane in the atmosphere could
chime in here... It may be in the order of days, not years. It is a
decay process however, so dump in a lot of Methane, it takes a lot of
time to go back down to 1% of the original amount.

When you burn the wood, it just speeds the process considerably. Goes
straight from wood to CO2 water and other trace stuff. Keeps my feet
toasty.

-LS

On Nov 26, 1:19 pm, john fernbach wrote:
On Nov 26, 12:17 pm, LiquidSquid wrote:



forests, are the best absorbers of CO2.

-LS

Oh and... If that wood were instead harvested into firewood/wood
pellets, sold (for profit of course) just like a crop, and used for
heating homes up here in the NE US and Europe in the winter, then it
is that much less fossil fuel burned to heat homes, so we wind up
SAVING CO2. *gasp!* a real use for trees that fell down.

A real solution, and people make money. What more do you want? Oh,
wait, some environmentalist probably wont let me import wood from
another state because of fear of disease spread in the woodlands, and
another environ"mental"ist wont let me burn wood because it makes
smoke that they can see, smells funny, and makes the sunset prettier.
(As they sit in their 5000 sq foot house smelling my smoke while
eating nuts and twigs).

-LS

Firewood is, in fact, a form of "biomass" energy. When the firewood
is harvest from "plantation" style forests like those that
Weyerhaueser maintains, maybe environmentalists should be supporting
it.

Massive deforestation, whether brought about by timber industry clear-
cutting or by other causes (e.g. Katrina), does have some other
negative consequences, too. Dangers to watersheds from flooding,
siltation and increasing erosion; the loss of habitat for a host of
different forest critters, etc. And the environmental impacts are
particularly severe when old growth forests, with advanced canopy
characteristics and "climax" ecosystem characteristics, are clearcut
to produce new tree plantations.

Most forest managers with half a skull know that clear-cutting is only
a short-term cash cow for "cut and run" a-holes. After that, it takes
a long time to get money back from the land again. Selective cutting
has a lot less money per harvest year, but over many years, it has a
much better net gain. Not only that you have a healthier forest with a
much more diverse set of wildlife due to the varying ecosystems and
cover provided by the leftover tree tops, you also can grow more wood
per acre due to a variety of natural factors.

Of course some bozo has to come up with some kind of willow (shrub)
that can produce more energy per acre than wood so we may wind up with
a lot of mono-culture land like corn in the interest of "saving the
world" from ourselves.

-LS

On Nov 26, 3:38 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
"chemist" wrote in message

...



On Nov 26, 6:54 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
Trees felled by Katrina weighed as factor in global warming
By John Pope, in the Times Picayune
Saturday, November 24, 2007

As if Hurricane Katrina's wind and water hadn't inflicted enough
damage, a group of researchers led by a Tulane University biologist
has found that the monster storm may well have accelerated global
warming.

When Katrina roared through coastal forests in August 2005, it
destroyed thousands of trees. As those trees decompose, the carbon
they release will be enough to offset a year's worth of new tree
growth in other parts of the United States, said Jeffrey Chambers, an
assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology. The team's
report has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Science.

Forests are important adversaries of global warming because they
remove carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis, thereby
lowering the production of carbon dioxide. However, an increase in
this compound warms the climate, resulting in more intense storms and,
eventually, more trees that will decompose, the scientists found.

The Tulanians collaborated with researchers from the University of New
Hampshire.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/i...-25/1195885441...

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The abstract for the article is Science is
at:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../318/5853/1107

It says:

Science 16 November 2007:
Vol. 318. no. 5853, p. 1107
DOI: 10.1126/science.1148913
Brevia
Hurricane Katrina's Carbon Footprint on U.S. Gulf Coast Forests
Jeffrey Q. Chambers,1* Jeremy I. Fisher,1,2 Hongcheng Zeng,1 Elise L.
Chapman,1 David B. Baker,1 George C. Hurtt2
Hurricane Katrina's impact on U.S. Gulf Coast forests was quantified
by linking ecological field studies, Landsat and Moderate Resolution
Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) image analyses, and empirically
based models. Within areas affected by relatively constant wind speed,
tree mortality and damage exhibited strong species-controlled
gradients. Spatially explicit forest disturbance maps coupled with
extrapolation models predicted mortality and severe structural damage
to ~320 million large trees totaling 105 teragrams of carbon,
representing 50 to 140% of the net annual U.S. forest tree carbon
sink. Changes in disturbance regimes from increased storm activity
expected under a warming climate will reduce forest biomass stocks,
increase ecosystem respiration, and may represent an important
positive feedback mechanism to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide.

1 Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Tulane University, 400 Lindy
Boggs, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA.
2 Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of
New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:


-.-. --.- Roger

I suppose it is the methane produced from the rotting trees
that causes the feedback warming.

There is a problem with this analysis Methane has not and
cannot be demonstrated experimentally to have any
properties of a so called greenhouse gas, neither has CO2
( in a properly constructed scientific experiment)

Poor Bull**** Bolger just keeps on lying!

PROVE IT there is nothing to stop you

On Nov 26, 3:39 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
"chemist" wrote in message

...

On Nov 24, 4:07 pm, "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"
wrote:
"chemist" wrote

There is a problem with this analysis Methane has not and
cannot be demonstrated experimentally to have any
properties of a so called greenhouse gas, neither has CO2
( in a properly constructed scientific experiment)

Kook-a-doodle-doo And Chemist is a non-scientist toooooooooooooo.....

Here we go again I am and you are definitely not
I note that Roger does not reply.

You're not worth a reply. The only reason I still bother with you is that
you lied about me and I hate liars.

I do not lie,Roger has been caught lying many times.

"chemist" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 3:39 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
"chemist" wrote in message

...

On Nov 24, 4:07 pm, "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"
wrote:
"chemist" wrote

There is a problem with this analysis Methane has not and
cannot be demonstrated experimentally to have any
properties of a so called greenhouse gas, neither has CO2
( in a properly constructed scientific experiment)

Kook-a-doodle-doo And Chemist is a non-scientist toooooooooooooo.....

Here we go again I am and you are definitely not
I note that Roger does not reply.

You're not worth a reply. The only reason I still bother with you is
that
you lied about me and I hate liars.

I do not lie

You lie routinely.

On Nov 26, 6:10 pm, john fernbach wrote:
On Nov 26, 9:40 am, chemist wrote:

On Nov 24, 4:07 pm, "HangEveryRepubliKKKan"

wrote:
"chemist" wrote

There is a problem with this analysis Methane has not and
cannot be demonstrated experimentally to have any
properties of a so called greenhouse gas, neither has CO2
( in a properly constructed scientific experiment)

Kook-a-doodle-doo And Chemist is a non-scientist toooooooooooooo.....

Here we go again I am and you are definitely not
I note that Roger does not reply.

Chemist, I can't speak for Roger. But speaking for myself, it seems
the breadth and scope of your claims about CO2 and methane, which
repudiate mainstream science on this subject for the past century or
so, suggests that if you're correct in your claims, you're really
another Einstein or Galileo figure. Another Copernicus.

If your claims are correct, they will rock the scientific world and
mark a major shift in how CO2 and methane are understood.

Again, I can't speak for Roger, but I'm just not qualified to debate
science with another Einstein or another Copernicus. So I don't.

Hats off to you if you're one day proven right and are written up in
the history books for it, chemist.

In the meantime, though, I think most of us will stick with the
mainstream view on CO2 and methane as articulated by NOAA, the
National Academy of Sciences and the IPCC.

The experiments that are supposed to prove that CO2 is
a greenhouse gas show that methane is not.
It is as simple as that.
The American Professor who is responsible for one
of the greenhouse gas experiments, the German PhD
responsible for another one and Roger Coppock are all
unable to offer an explanation for these facts but not
one them has called me a liar.
(only the tail chewer does that )

"chemist" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 3:38 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
"chemist" wrote in message

...



On Nov 26, 6:54 am, Roger Coppock wrote:
Trees felled by Katrina weighed as factor in global warming
By John Pope, in the Times Picayune
Saturday, November 24, 2007

As if Hurricane Katrina's wind and water hadn't inflicted enough
damage, a group of researchers led by a Tulane University biologist
has found that the monster storm may well have accelerated global
warming.

When Katrina roared through coastal forests in August 2005, it
destroyed thousands of trees. As those trees decompose, the carbon
they release will be enough to offset a year's worth of new tree
growth in other parts of the United States, said Jeffrey Chambers, an
assistant professor of ecology and evolutionary biology. The team's
report has been published in the peer-reviewed journal Science.

Forests are important adversaries of global warming because they
remove carbon from the atmosphere during photosynthesis, thereby
lowering the production of carbon dioxide. However, an increase in
this compound warms the climate, resulting in more intense storms and,
eventually, more trees that will decompose, the scientists found.

The Tulanians collaborated with researchers from the University of New
Hampshire.

http://www.nola.com/news/t-p/metro/i...-25/1195885441...

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

The abstract for the article is Science is
at:http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/conten.../318/5853/1107

It says:

Science 16 November 2007:
Vol. 318. no. 5853, p. 1107
DOI: 10.1126/science.1148913
Brevia
Hurricane Katrina's Carbon Footprint on U.S. Gulf Coast Forests
Jeffrey Q. Chambers,1* Jeremy I. Fisher,1,2 Hongcheng Zeng,1 Elise L.
Chapman,1 David B. Baker,1 George C. Hurtt2
Hurricane Katrina's impact on U.S. Gulf Coast forests was quantified
by linking ecological field studies, Landsat and Moderate Resolution
Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) image analyses, and empirically
based models. Within areas affected by relatively constant wind speed,
tree mortality and damage exhibited strong species-controlled
gradients. Spatially explicit forest disturbance maps coupled with
extrapolation models predicted mortality and severe structural damage
to ~320 million large trees totaling 105 teragrams of carbon,
representing 50 to 140% of the net annual U.S. forest tree carbon
sink. Changes in disturbance regimes from increased storm activity
expected under a warming climate will reduce forest biomass stocks,
increase ecosystem respiration, and may represent an important
positive feedback mechanism to elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide.

1 Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Tulane University, 400 Lindy
Boggs, New Orleans, LA 70118, USA.
2 Institute for the Study of Earth, Oceans, and Space, University of
New Hampshire, Durham, NH 03824, USA.

* To whom correspondence should be addressed. E-mail:


-.-. --.- Roger

I suppose it is the methane produced from the rotting trees
that causes the feedback warming.

There is a problem with this analysis Methane has not and
cannot be demonstrated experimentally to have any
properties of a so called greenhouse gas, neither has CO2
( in a properly constructed scientific experiment)

Poor Bull**** Bolger just keeps on lying!

PROVE IT there is nothing to stop you

Sure.

There is a problem with this analysis Methane has not and
cannot be demonstrated experimentally to have any
properties of a so called greenhouse gas, neither has CO2
( in a properly constructed scientific experiment)

Now, you may proceed to run away when I ask you for a cite, as you always
do when you lie.

Roger Coppock wrote:
Trees felled by Katrina weighed as factor in global warming
By John Pope, in the Times Picayune
Saturday, November 24, 2007

As if Hurricane Katrina's wind and water hadn't inflicted enough
damage, a group of researchers led by a Tulane University biologist
has found that the monster storm may well have accelerated global
warming.

When Katrina roared through coastal forests in August 2005, it
destroyed thousands of trees. As those trees decompose, the carbon
they release...

For each tree, where did the carbon originally come from?

Peter Franks wrote:
Roger Coppock wrote:
Trees felled by Katrina weighed as factor in global warming
By John Pope, in the Times Picayune
Saturday, November 24, 2007

As if Hurricane Katrina's wind and water hadn't inflicted enough
damage, a group of researchers led by a Tulane University biologist
has found that the monster storm may well have accelerated global
warming.

When Katrina roared through coastal forests in August 2005, it
destroyed thousands of trees. As those trees decompose, the carbon
they release...

For each tree, where did the carbon originally come from?

From the Fizz Fairy, over a period of many decades. They decompose
much faster (especially during fires).