Yet another positive feedback for global warming.
 

On Nov 26, 1:30 pm, LiquidSquid wrote:
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.

The reaction that removes CH4 from the atmosphere is with the hydroxyl
radical which gives an atmospheric lifetime of ~10 years, however OH
is only present at low concentrations so a sudden increase in CH4
could lead to a much longer lifetime due to a deficiency in OH.
Some CH4 makes it to the stratosphere where it reacts to form H2O,
it's believed to be a major source of the increase in humidity in the
stratosphere.





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

Yet another positive feedback for global warming.
 

On Nov 26, 9:52 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
"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.

I will say it yet again.,I did it myself it is true.It was easy to do.
All I did was substitute Methane for CO2 in a greenhouse gas
warming experiment .
Are you simply too indolent and inept to do the test ?
Do you fear that you will get the same result ?
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.
I've informed Parliamentarians,Government
Departments, Curriculum Authorities,Education Authorities
and Schools in the UK of my results.
None suggest that I am lying.
Only thick inept trolls such as yourself suggest
that. People who wish to argue should first
check their facts and you are not willing to do that.

Yet another positive feedback for global warming.
 

"chemist" wrote in message
...
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.

False.

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 )

You are not worth the effort.

Yet another positive feedback for global warming.
 

"Bill Ward" wrote in message
etcom.com...
On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 13:52:21 -0800, chemist wrote:

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 )

The bogus "experiments" you are exposing show nothing about the greenhouse
effect of the gases.

Bill Ward lies outright again. lol

Any differences in temperature are because of the
density and related thermal conductivity of the gases, not the IR
absorption properties.

Bill Ward lies outright again. lol

You could try water vapor, a known GHG, and you
would likely get no temperature increase relative to air. With its MW of
18, I would expect it to act much like CH4, except for the lower vapor
pressure due to the hydrogen bonds.

I don't think the issue is whether CO2, CH4, and H20 are greenhouse gases,
because their IR spectra are well known. The unproven assertions made by
AGWers is that anthropogenic CO2 has a significant effect on surface
temperatures, and that the net feedback from water is positive. To my
knowledge, neither has been measured.

The overall effect of water feedback is not yet accurately modeled, but
when and if it is, I expect to see overwhelmingly stabilizing negative
feedback effects from the phase changes of water. Until models can be
proven accurate, the AGWers are arguing from a position of ignorance.
Their assertions that water has a positive overall effect is simply an
unproven simplistic assumption.

Bill Ward lies outright again. lol


The sham "experiment" they shamelessly use to scare school children has
no relationship to the greenhouse effect, any more than a witch doctor's
mask is related to medicine.

Bill Ward lies outright again. lol

Yet another positive feedback for global warming.
 

"chemist" wrote in message
...
On Nov 26, 9:52 pm, "Ouroboros_Rex" wrote:
"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.

I will say it yet again.,I did it myself

Nobody cares.

it is true.It was easy to do.
All I did was substitute Methane for CO2 in a greenhouse gas
warming experiment .
Are you simply too indolent and inept to do the test ?
Do you fear that you will get the same result ?
The experiments that are supposed to prove that CO2 is
a greenhouse gas show that methane is not.

Simply a lie. Methane's absorption spectrum is well known and easily
reproducible in the lab.

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.
I've informed Parliamentarians,Government
Departments, Curriculum Authorities,Education Authorities
and Schools in the UK of my results.
None suggest that I am lying.
Only thick inept trolls such as yourself suggest
that. People who wish to argue should first
check their facts and you are not willing to do that.

Still no cites whatsoever to prove even a single one of your lies. lol

Keep running your mouth, bumbling inept coward.

Yet another positive feedback for global warming.
 

David wrote:
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).

It is an honest question that deserves an honest answer:

Is the carbon that is released originally from CO2 (sequestered by the
plant), or converted from elemental carbon to CO2?

Yet another positive feedback for global warming.
 

Peter Franks wrote:
David wrote:
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).

It is an honest question that deserves an honest answer:

Is the carbon that is released originally from CO2 (sequestered by the
plant), or converted from elemental carbon to CO2?

From the air, mainly.

Yet another positive feedback for global warming.
 

On Mon, 26 Nov 2007 19:42:52 -0800 (PST), "Phil."
wrote:

snip
The reaction that removes CH4 from the atmosphere is with the hydroxyl
radical which gives an atmospheric lifetime of ~10 years, however OH
is only present at low concentrations so a sudden increase in CH4
could lead to a much longer lifetime due to a deficiency in OH.
snip

I imagine, though I cannot say if I've actually read a report on it,
that CO from incomplete combustion since humans started using fossil
fuels on a large scale has also competed for atmospheric hydroxyls,
which exist in small quantities (I would guess -OH is created by photo
disassociation of H2O or from lightning and similar discharges.) If
so, the CO competition for hydroxyl scrubbing might also contribute to
that longer lifetime of CH4.

Jon

--
Man will never be free until the last king is strangled
with the entrails of the last priest. [Denis Diderot]