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)

"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.....

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" 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.

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.

"chemist" wrote
I do not lie...

Now what were you saying about CO2 and Methane not being greenhouse
gasses?

Ahahahahahahahah......

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.

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, 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.