Thanks for the link Paul. There's some interesting numbers there. I
won't pretend I understand it all. I think Lee is suggesting that
additional man-made CO2 works like compound interest while these other
scientists are saying the amount being added by mankind is too miniscule
to be worried about!
I understand there is propaganda on both sides. Big Oil and Big Coal
want to minimize any bad reports so they can minimize any future
regulation while keeping their profit margins high. While Big Government
and their sycophants want to maximize the bad reports so they can
continue to milk the taxpayers for more money for grants, studies,
programs, and other mostly unproductive activities.
There are enough studies out there where you could argue either way so
why not change the argument? Forget about global warming and climate
change.
As I said before let's just try and get a good energy policy that will
reduce our use of fossil fuel (especially coal and imported oil) and
work to reduce deforestation while practicing good silviculture on the
rest. We can do this without a big cost to the taxpayer but I don't
expect either side to use real logic since there is so much money at
stake. And that's what it's really all about: trillions of dollars of
money transfers.
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Jost
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 8:46 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] Re: High elevation forest response to
climate change and other factors
FYI: It looks like the blogger got his info from this
site or one of it's references:
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/greenhouse_data.html
PJ
----- Original Message -----
From: Mike Leonard <mailto:[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 5:19 AM
Subject: [ENTS] Re: High elevation forest response to
climate change and other factors
Lee,
I got this from a blog in the Economist:
"CO2 accounts for about 3% of the greenhouse gas theory,
and man made CO2 is about 3% of the total atmospheric CO2."
If true, are other agents or gases (like Methane) more
responsible for the slight warming of the earth (about one degree) and
could these agents or influences be natural or cyclical (ocean currents,
volcanic eruptions, sunspot activity, etc.)?
If the numbers above are not true, what do you think the
real numbers are?
Mike
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Lee Frelich
Sent: Friday, June 05, 2009 9:09 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: [ENTS] Re: High elevation forest response to
climate change and other factors
Mike:
CO2 in the laboratory and in the real world atmosphere
traps more heat.
There is absolutely no doubt there. Its as well proven
as the existence
of gravity. Physicists had established the validity of
that conclusion
within a few decades after it was proposed by Arrhenius
in his paper
published in 1896, and have continued to reaffirm it
time after time
with more sophisticated equipment and observations in
recent decades.
Where we find the difference between the lab and real
world ecosystem is
for the effects of increasing CO2 on plant growth.
Growth increases in
the laboratory, but apparently not in real ecosystems.
Water, nitrogen,
and other factors become limiting when plants are
supplied with more
CO2, and therefore growth does not increase much if at
all. That was
proven at least for one savanna ecosystem in Minnesota
by the free air
carbon enrichment project where several plots of land
were fumigated
with CO2 so that it was at 560 ppm for several years.
Water and N became
limiting almost immediately and there was no increase in
growth. If we
could also supply more water and N everywhere to match
the increase in
CO2, then growth would increase. In areas that
experience increased
drought as a result of climate change, the opposite
happens, there is
less water available and the trees can't make use of the
extra CO2. N is
particularly limiting in most temperate ecosystems, and
water is often
limiting.
Also, the enhancement of rate of photosynthesis by
increasing CO2
eventually reaches an assymptote, and we are approaching
the flat part
of the curve already at our current CO2 concentration.
Using 180 ppm CO2
at the end of the last glaciation as a starting point, a
large majority
of the increased growth that we might have seen (if
water and N were not
also limiting) would already be behind us (having
occurred during the
Mid Holocene), and future increases in growth (again
with ideal water
and N supplies) would likely be on the order of 15 or
20%.
I agree that invasive species and deforestation are two
of the major
problems we have today.
Lee
Mike Leonard wrote:
>
> Lee,
>
> Yes more CO2 increases plant growth while I agree that
more CO2 in
> laboratory conditions traps more heat. You admit that
scientists have
> different opinions on the methods for filtering out
different factors
> so it will remain a complicated puzzle. Maybe the best
thing to do is
> to agree to disagree and work on some commonly
accepted goals like
> supporting a real energy policy that will declare a
moratorium on all
> new coal fired power plants and reduce our use of all
fossil fuels. I
> am very concerned with how continued acidic
precipitation is changing
> soil chemistry i.e., leaching important nutrients like
calcium and
> magnesium. While more CO2 increases plant growth, this
leaching slows it.
>
> We also need to do a better job of protecting more
forest land and
> slowing down deforestation not only here but around
the world. I heard
> the state of Maryland is promoting a no net loss of
forest land?
>
> Finally, the introduction of non-native plants,
insects, and diseases
> continues to be a major problem which has reduced
forest diversity and
> threatens whole ecosystems.
>
> Too much energy (no pun intended) has been wasted on
the CO2 boogeyman
> taking attention and money away from these other
problems. Climate
> Expert Hansen says we need to keep CO2 levels down to
330 ppm. Well
> you can just forget about that especially since Obama
and Reid have
> killed nuclear power as an option when they pulled the
plug on Yucca
> Mountain.
>
> So if we reduce our forest fuel use while protecting
as much forest as
> we can then I think we won't have to worry about the
extra CO2. Some
> may say that's wishful thinking but I think the cure
(cap & trade)
> being proposed by the climate change scaremongers is
much worse than
> the disease.
>
> Mike
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]]
> On Behalf Of Lee Frelich
> Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2009 12:58 PM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: [ENTS] Re: High elevation forest response to
climate change
> and other factors
>
>
> Mike:
>
> The direct impacts of increasing CO2 would lead to
wider rings, due to
>
> CO2 fertilization and possibly modestly increased
drought resistance.
>
> However, severe droughts, competition from other trees
and other local
>
> factors that affect growth could easily override the
rather modest
>
> direct impacts of CO2 (i.e. direct CO2 effects may
only partially offset
>
> other negative influences).
>
> Increasing CO2 in the atmosphere causes heat to be
retained near the
>
> surface of the earth (i.e. global warming), which
causes a change in
>
> atmospheric circulation systems and redistribution of
heat around the
>
> world, with varying climate change in different
regions (warmer, cooler,
>
> drier, wetter in various combinations). If a given
region gets drier as
>
> a result of climate change, then increased drought
frequency will show
>
> up as narrower ring indices. It is possible to factor
out various
>
> influences in tree ring analyses, including factors
such as tree age,
>
> competition, temperature and phenomena such as El Nino
(although climate
>
> change itself might change El Nino frequency or
intensity, and it might
>
> be the object of study rather than something to factor
out). These
>
> factors can be taken into account in experimental
design (i.e. choosing
>
> trees that are more likely to be influenced by the
factor of interest
>
> and less likely to be influenced by unwanted factors
in a given study),
>
> as well as by filtering the tree sequences themselves.
>
> There are hundreds of papers in the scientific
literature that present
>
> methods for filtering out various factors, and one
scientists junk to be
>
> filtered out may be another scientists signal to be
retained. For
>
> example, in many studies of climate, competition among
trees is factored
>
> out (i.e. information on competition is thrown away as
junk), whereas
>
> most of my studies have done the opposite, and
filtered out the climate
>
> influences to retain just the competition signal,
because I am
>
> interested in releases from suppression in trees and
reconstructing the
>
> history of succession into gaps.
>
> Lee
>
>
>
>
> >
<BR
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to [email protected]
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
