Mike,
Certainly the energy suppliers _might_ take a big hit with whatever legislation is produced with global warming. But, it is unclear how "Big Government" profits. I mean, when sea level rises, what kind of engineering will be needed to protect Manhattan [and all the other heavily-settled, low-lying areas around the world, for example]. And, who will fund this? Why would a government want to be responsible for such action? More importantly, there is not conspiracy on the scientific end. The IPCC report is produced through the efforts of thousands of scientists, a significant proportion who might not like each other that much and would love to disprove the efforts of the "Big Dog" scientists; science is incredibly competitive, especially in the US where many non-medical science budgets have been flat-lined budgets since the Clinton administration. So, in reality, evidence of conspiracy in terms of "pro-global warming" [does anyone know anyone who is really happy about global warming?] in at least the scientific spectrum of this issue is really lacking [similar to the amount and quality of studies suggesting that we are not living in most likely the warmest era of the last 1000 yrs that coincides with the highest levels of CO2 in the last 700k yrs or more]. neil On Jun 7, 10:20 am, "Mike Leonard" <[email protected]> wrote: > 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
