"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.