-Caveat Lector-
Steve Wingate wrote:
>
> -Caveat Lector-
>
> Experiments suggest trees disappointing sink for carbon dioxide
>
> Copyright © 2001 Nando Media
>
> By PETER N. SPOTTS, Associated Press
>
> (May 24, 2001 11:14 p.m. EDT) - North Carolina pine stands are sending a
> sobering message to governments as they prepare for a new round of
> global climate talks in Bonn, Germany, in July.
>
> The message: Don't count too heavily on forests to bail you out of reducing
> greenhouse-gases emissions. This verdict comes via experiments in which
> forest plots were subjected to sustained increases in carbon dioxide.
THESE IDIOTS ARE USING THE WRONG TREES!!!! Pine trees are fast growing
conifers. These are the wrong trees to study. It's the broad leafed trees
which are the effective co2 scrubbers.
Joshua2
>
> The news could alter computer models used to forecast how much heat-
> trapping carbon gas can be "locked up" in tree trunks, leaves and soil. To
> date, the models have predicted that until 2050, forests - particularly those
> in the northern hemisphere - will soak up much of the CO2 that humans
> pump into the air.
>
> But after nearly eight years of experiments, Duke University researchers
> are less optimistic. "Our results are clear. Forests will be a modest, if not
> disappointing, sink for carbon dioxide," says William Schlesinger, a Duke
> biogeochemist who led one of two teams reporting results yesterday in the
> journal Nature.
>
> The results come as the Bush administration is trying to craft an alternative
> to the 1997 Kyoto protocols, which would commit industrial countries to cut
> greenhouse-gas emissions by 2012 to levels 5 percent lower than those in
> 1990. Conflicts over how much credit countries should receive for their
> forest "carbon sinks" scuttled efforts to agree on ground rules for the
> protocols in talks last November.
>
> In March, the President effectively rejected the treaty. It has also drawn
> opposition in the U.S. Senate, which would have to ratify it. Earlier this
> week, a senior administration official was quoted as saying he hopes to
> have an alternative ready for Mr. Bush to take to Europe in June. Leaders
> there have heaped scorn on the administration for backing away from the
> Kyoto accord.
>
> Scientists began the ongoing North Carolina experiments in 1993, with a
> prototype plot to see how forests would react to CO2 levels projected to
> exist by 2050.
>
> By 1996, the experiment included three more stands of loblolly pine, with an
> array of towers injecting C02 into the air overhead, plus three control
> stands that received no extra carbon.
>
> The trees initially responded to higher CO2 levels by producing 24 to 34
> percent more wood than the control trees, but growth tapered off to
> marginal increases after about three years. The limiting factor appeared to
> be soil nutrients. When the researchers added nitrogen fertilizer to half the
> trees in one CO2-rich ring, their growth accelerated compared to the
> unfertilized trees. Trees not receiving extra CO2 also grew faster when
> fertilized, but not as fast at the trees getting more fertilizer and more CO2.
> Moreover, a drought in 1999 cut by 25 percent the amount of CO2
> sequestered.
>
> The notion that plant growth depends on moisture and soil nutrients, as well
> as what's in the atmosphere, is something of a "no-duh" proposition, says
> Ram Oren, leader of the Duke team measuring tree growth . "Even farmers
> in Mesopotamia should have known that."
>
> But these factors have not been adequately captured by computer
> simulations.
>
> A team led by Dr. Schlesinger looked at how effectively forest soils would
> lock up carbon dioxide. While they found that leaves and other forms of
> forest litter built up more quickly in the CO2-rich sites, the gas also returned
> quickly to the atmosphere - in about three years.
>
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
