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

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

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, 1:19 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, 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?

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, 1:30 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

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]