ALL BLOG POSTS AND COMMENTS COPYRIGHT (C) 2003-2016 VOX DAY. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. REPRODUCTION WITHOUT WRITTEN PERMISSION IS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED.

Monday, October 10, 2016

Reforestation

The greening of Europe and the consequences thereof.
Within the last 100 years, Europe has experienced two World Wars, the end of communism, the emergence of the European Union and a series of other transformative political and economic developments. A team of scientists has now been able to visualize the impact of historical events in maps that show the growth and decline of settlements, forests and croplands.

The map, shown above, is the result of a research project led by Dutch scholar Richard Fuchs from the University of Wageningen. Besides regional political and economic trends, Europe's landscape was shaped by several larger developments of the 20th century, according to Fuchs.

"More than 100 years ago, timber was used for almost everything: as fuel wood, for metal production, furniture, house construction. Hence, at around 1900 there was hardly any forest areas left in Europe. Especially after World War II, many countries started massive afforestation programs which are still running today," Fuchs told The Washington Post.

As a result, Europe's forests grew by a third over the last 100 years. At the same time, cropland decreased due to technological innovations such as motorization, better drainage and irrigation systems: Relatively fewer area was needed to produce the same amount of food. Furthermore, many people migrated from rural to urban areas, or overseas.

Fuchs' fascinating conclusion: Forests and settlements grew at the same time and Europe is a much greener continent today than it was 100 years ago. A closer look at different regions and countries reveals Europe's recovery from the deforestation of past centuries.
Now, I'm absolutely all for more trees and greener continents, but correct me if I'm wrong here. Since plants give off carbon dioxide, wouldn't more trees tend to explain more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Yes, I know plants take in more than they give off, while they are alive, but then they release it all again when they die.

During their lifetimes, plants generally give off about half of the carbon dioxide (CO2), that they absorb, although this varies a great deal between different kinds of plants. Once they die, almost all of the carbon that they stored up in their bodies is released again into the atmosphere. 

I don't believe global warming is good science, given its complete failure as a predictive model, but if we were to assume for the sake of argument that global warming exists and if it is the result of the greenhouse effect, wouldn't greener continents be one of the obvious factors, however minor? Or does logging in the Amazon and Asia counterbalance more trees in Europe and North America?

Labels:

127 Comments:

Blogger James Dixon October 10, 2016 3:38 PM  

> Yes, I know plants take in more than they give off, while they are alive, but then they release it all again when they die.

Only the shortest lived trees have had time to die in the time frame they're discussing (http://www.hellistreeconsultants.co.uk/kbi1000042_how_long_do_trees_live.html). To date, the effect should have been reduced amounts of carbon dioxide.

Blogger BCD October 10, 2016 3:39 PM  

More forests will never increase the amount of CO2, since they only release with decay that which they absorbed during their life. While they are alive, however, they store a certain amount that would otherwise be in the atmosphere.

Blogger Steve October 10, 2016 3:40 PM  

Plants give off oxygen during the day and carbon dioxide by night. However, I believe that they are giving back some of the carbon dioxide that they absorbed.

Anonymous Helton Strom October 10, 2016 3:46 PM  

Expanding forests is a net pull of CO2 from the atmo. The release back doesn't happen until they burn or rot. So the forest is nature's "CO2 sequestration" scheme. Higher CO2 levels means greening sahel and deserts, improving crop growth on marginal land, reduces the need for irrigation because plant stoma can be smaller and more widely dispersed, etc. Plants LOVE higher CO2 levels. They don't cause it. That would be the ocean warming and out-gassing dissolved CO2 as it circulates (the golder the water, the greater its ability to dissolve gases).

Blogger Matamoros October 10, 2016 3:48 PM  

Another prophecy come true on the order of Camp of the Saints.

De Mattei: From a migratory invasion to civil war

http://rorate-caeli.blogspot.com/2016/10/de-mattei-from-migratory-invasion-to.html

Anonymous Ezekiel Cassandros October 10, 2016 3:52 PM  

The more living plant biomass you have, the less carbon in the atmosphere. Dying plants release it, and new plants re-absorb it, but the carbon in the net biomass was taken (largely, as I recall) from the atmosphere.

Greener continents can in part be an effect of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere; the more CO2 they can take in, the faster they can grow. This makes biomass a sort of negative feedback in the climate; the more CO2 there is in the atmosphere, the faster the plants take it out.

Blogger Jesse Lucas October 10, 2016 3:56 PM  

Charles C. Mann posited the theory that massive reforestation after the epidemics that depopulated North America sucked so much CO2 out of the atmosphere it caused the Little Ice Age. Very cool if true.

Blogger Anachronda October 10, 2016 4:04 PM  

easy peasy. all we need to do is plow the dead trees under to create a coal resource for future generations to enjoy.

Blogger Balázs Varga October 10, 2016 4:06 PM  

Now it had been some years I have studied about the subject, but I think it is a net loss of CO2 from the atmosphere, IF the plants are not burned. If they become firewood, they release all the CO2.

Anonymous FKA Max October 10, 2016 4:07 PM  

Interesting article from Newsweek:

Planting The Wrong Trees in Europe Made Climate Change Worse: Why Reforestation Isn't That Easy

"Even well-managed forests today store less carbon than their natural counterparts in 1750," Kim Naudts, of the Laboratory of Climate Science and Environment in Gif-sur-Yvette, France and an author on the paper told the BBC. "Due to the shift to conifer species, there was a warming over Europe of almost 0.12 degrees, and that is caused because the conifers are darker and absorb more solar radiation."

In my opinion, the most important function of forests is the prevention of top soil erosion:

'' The Role of Forests in Erosion Regulation

Southern forests help keep soil intact and prevent it from eroding into nearby bodies of water in a number of ways. By intercepting rain, a forest canopy reduces the impact of heavy rainfall on the forest floor, reducing soil disturbance. Leaves and natural debris on the forest floor can slow the rate of water runoff and trap soil washing away from nearby fields. Tree roots can hold soil in place and stabilize stream banks. In addition, coastal forests and forested wetlands protect coastlines by absorbing some of the energy and impact of storm surges, thus reducing erosion and other in-shore impacts.

This erosion control provides a number of benefits to people. For instance, it can help reduce the deposition of sediment behind hydroelectric dams—the Tennessee Valley Authority alone has 30 dams—and thereby reduce the need for expensive dredging. ''

Blogger Salt October 10, 2016 4:08 PM  

Trees need to be in balance. This could be a dangerous situation. Too many trees on one continent and not enough on another might throw the Earth Out Of Balance, like Congressman Johnson said about Guam tipping over if too many people were on it.

Where's Al Gore when you need him?

Blogger Cataline Sergius October 10, 2016 4:09 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous Takin' a Deplorable Look October 10, 2016 4:10 PM  

CO2 is absolutely essential for plant growth. We need at least 2,000 to 4,000 ppm of CO2 instead of the paltry 400 ppm we have today. Below 150 ppm, all plants that depend on C3 isotopes _die_. Only C4 isotope plants (mostly grasses and sedges) can continue thriving below that threshold.

The Pleistocene has already had many glacials where CO2 has fallen to 180 ppm.

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey October 10, 2016 4:13 PM  

"Once they die, almost all of the carbon that they stored up in their bodies is released again into the atmosphere."

Sort of. This may sound like a minor quibble, but it's actually not-- the carbon is released as CO2 when they ROT. The equilibrium level of CO2 in the atmosphere presumably depends in part on the amount of available carbon that is "locked up" in solid form, whether living or dead. Mostly the same thing in the long run, but the rate of decomposition does matter. The extreme example, of course, is organic carbon that is transformed into coal amd oil, and thus removed from circulatiom for thousands of years.

A shorter term example is earthworms. I seem to recall reading that earthworms are not native to large areas of Canada, for example, resulting in very slow rates of decay for fallen leaves. Introducing earthworms into these areas results in significantly faster turnover, thus increasing the equilibrium CO2 level in the atmosphere.

If net reforestation occurs at a significant rate, this should reduce the CO2 level as more carbon is fixed during the growth phase, with probably some overshoot then a small rise as it achieves equilibrium.

If just Europe is affected, all of this would be pretty much noise as far as global CO2 levels, of course. I'm pretty sure that net deforestation in the Amazon/ Asia outweighs European reforestation, though I don't know the nunbers. There has been very significant reforestation in large areas of the US over the last 100 years, as well, of course. You can't walk in the woods anywhere in New England without running into stone walls.

The truth or falsity of anthropogenic global warming as a hypothesis has always seemed to me to by almost a side issue compared to the chosen method of mitigating it. If true, it is quite clearly a "tragedy of the commons" type of negative externality on an almost unimaginably complex scale. To attack this problem via carbon regulations would require global government with significant powers of enforcement.

I'm sure it's just a coincidence that those in power have seized on this "solution" for the problem, rather than pursuing technological solutions such as interventions to alter the reflectivity of the atmosphere, or population control in the Third World. It's not as if they want a strong global government anyway, and are looking for a justification for it...

Blogger Cataline Sergius October 10, 2016 4:13 PM  


What I love about the lefties is that they are the ones that fucked up the planet in the first place.

And it wasn't a side effect so much as it was plan A.

They used to hate nature and I'm not kidding.

This is from H.G. Wells: Things to Come (1936)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=wqH1jyiHCyo#t=3904

Blogger Francis Parker Yockey October 10, 2016 4:17 PM  

This comment has been removed by the author.

Anonymous DT October 10, 2016 4:17 PM  

As pointed out by others, the net impact of forestation would be to reduce CO2. The evidence does show that global increases in CO2 are due primarily to fossil fuel use.

Where AGW theory goes off the rails is in its assessment of the climate's sensitivity to CO2. The general assumption is that there is a large water vapor feedback. This feedback is responsible for most of the predicted warming, not CO2 itself.

The H2O feedback does not fit the evidence. My guess is if we were to pull it completely from some of the GCMs they would accurately model what we've observed to date.

But then they would also show that CO2's impact is trivial and not worth all the grant money.

Anonymous BluePony October 10, 2016 4:18 PM  

"easy peasy. all we need to do is plow the dead trees under to create a coal resource for future generations to enjoy."

Or make chairs 'n tables 'n flooring 'n stuff.

Or fainting couches. This is Europe, after all.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop October 10, 2016 4:20 PM  

Since plants give off carbon dioxide, wouldn't more trees tend to explain more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?

No, the opposite. Trees are made out of water and CO2. They are net vacuum cleaners that sift the CO2 out of the air. Some of the carbon goes back later, some of it gets buried in the ground (topsoil, peat, coal) and has to be replaced from geological processes.


As a result, Europe's forests grew by a third over the last 100 years. At the same time, cropland decreased due to technological innovations such as motorization, better drainage and irrigation systems

This is only one part of the story. Most of the Earth has become noticeably greener over the past few decades- ever since the atmospheric CO2 level has risen. Details here-

https://www.scribd.com/document/319906948/The-Solution-to-the-Ice-Age-Extinctions
http://www.greeningearth.info

This is the secret that the Climate Change IPCC racket is hiding. They are not going to be able to hide it for much longer. I've done some 'market testing' on this. The most violent reactions to this wonderful news come from the most fanatic environmentalists. Go figure.

Blogger Zundfolge October 10, 2016 4:22 PM  

Interesting lecture by Matt Ridley ( http://www.mattridley.co.uk/ ) on how Fossil Fuels are greening the planet.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-nsU_DaIZE

Blogger Johnny October 10, 2016 4:24 PM  

Some people think that up to half the C02 increase is due to the clearing of equatorial areas. In the hot climates all the carbon goes back into the air when the plant life dies, and the soil is apt to go to sand. While farming can retain some of it, the great store of carbon is in wild areas.
Most of the CO2 is stored in the ocean.

One of the features of the oceans is that they are iron deserts. That keeps down the plant life and greatly reduces the rate of oxygen production on planet earth. It is a measure of just how political everything is that they do not get more involved with seeding the ocean with iron. There is no simple way but I believe it could be done if they worked at it.

No data, but I seriously doubt what they do in Europe has anything to do with anything. Soils farmed for a thousand years are not going to change much in carbon content, and if the trees are harvested how much carbon is going to accumulate? Seems unlikely to me that would be a lot.

And, by the way, H20 is the major global warming gas. The effects of CO2 are trivial by comparison. How cloudy it is makes a lot of difference. Plus dirt in the atmosphere blocks a lot of sun. But then practical solutions to practical problems do not rise to importance for SJW's.

Anonymous Roundtine October 10, 2016 4:28 PM  

This is why you do carbon capture. Use wood to build houses and furniture.

Anonymous RabidRatel October 10, 2016 4:30 PM  

Salt wrote:Trees need to be in balance. This could be a dangerous situation. Too many trees on one continent and not enough on another might throw the Earth Out Of Balance, like Congressman Johnson said about Guam tipping over if too many people were on it.

Where's Al Gore when you need him?

Shh... you want everybody to realise that with most people in the northern hemisphere the earth is out of balance and is soon going to start throwing people into orbit? That is the whole deal with NWO - reduce people to get rid of the top-heavy spinning top. ;)

Anonymous Rolf October 10, 2016 4:34 PM  

@13- I think you mean C3 and C4 photosynthesis, not isotope.

https://infogalactic.com/info/C4_carbon_fixation

Anonymous Forrest Bishop October 10, 2016 4:41 PM  

Takin' a Deplorable Look wrote:CO2 is absolutely essential for plant growth. We need at least 2,000 to 4,000 ppm of CO2 instead of the paltry 400 ppm we have today. Below 150 ppm, all plants that depend on C3 isotopes _die_. Only C4 isotope plants (mostly grasses and sedges) can continue thriving below that threshold.

The Pleistocene has already had many glacials where CO2 has fallen to 180 ppm.


1. You're right, except "C3 isotopes" should be "C3 (and C4) photosynthesis". Go read my paper.

2. You also make me sound like a piker. 1600 ppm would be most excellent, with 800 ppm as our Phase 1 target. See the all-important graph, page 7. We're at 400 ppm right now so this will take awhile. 4000 ppm is not at all objectionable- we can go all the way up to maybe 40,000 ppm without ill effects on animal life. At about 50,000 ppm CO2 it becomes lethal to humans and probably most animals.

3. It's a shame it doesn't cause Global Warming, though. We'll have to come up with some other means for that.

Anonymous Bob Just October 10, 2016 4:42 PM  

VD,

You're just viewing the tip of the iceberg - think about what you don't see below.

What is the largest organism on earth?

Honey fungus

Fungi can form symbiotic (or parasitic) networks with trees (exchanging carbon and nitrogen)

Then, do fungi sequester carbon?

http://phys.org/news/2013-03-fungi-responsible-carbon-sequestration-northern.html

Blogger Johnny October 10, 2016 4:42 PM  

If I remember correctly plants are not efficient at energy conversion. Only something like 2% of the suns energy shows up as captured carbon. Run of the mill photo cells push up to around 10% energy conversion, and costly versions can get well above that. But then a field of corn is a whole lot cheaper than a field of photocells.

Anonymous Java Cup October 10, 2016 4:47 PM  

The one thing that's always overlooked: forest fires. Which have become more common with drought conditions.

Australia, the Western US, and South America burn every summer. Not to mention the ongoing underground coal fires in the Northeast US.

That's a lot of CO2.

Blogger Johnny October 10, 2016 4:47 PM  

Honey fungus...

None of that stuff way up north can do much conversion owing to climate. Way down south is where the action is. Sugar Cane plantations can outproduce corn for ethanol production by nearly ten times. Even Florida is too far north for a top quality crop of Sugar Cane.

Anonymous User October 10, 2016 4:50 PM  

What about that far more dangerous gaseous hydrogen hydroxide that accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect?

Blogger James Dixon October 10, 2016 4:50 PM  

> Sort of. This may sound like a minor quibble, but it's actually not-- the carbon is released as CO2 when they ROT.

Rot or are burned. An important caveat is that if they're buried the rotting is slowed to even halted completely.

> easy peasy. all we need to do is plow the dead trees under to create a coal resource for future generations to enjoy.

Pretty much, yes.

Blogger ChickenChicken Sweep October 10, 2016 4:51 PM  

@10 - It's almost as if human knowledge about how the planet actually operates is terribly imperfect, and the many half-cocked and often hysterical (in both senses) attempts to 'fix' things only make everything worse.

Seriously though, how do European "scientists" manage to pick the wrong kind of trees? How hard a choice could it have been?

Anonymous BGKB October 10, 2016 4:52 PM  

Or make chairs 'n tables 'n flooring 'n stuff. Or fainting couches. This is Europe, after all.

How many fainting couches counterbalance a burned koran?

Only something like 2% of the suns energy shows up as captured carbon. Run of the mill photo cells push up to around 10% energy conversion

Photo cells don't build themselves and are "dirty to build"

OT: VOX can you vet the lib media claim that under Native American Medicine flies landing on people means they are strong?

"The lesson of fly is in the value of carrying your emotions, thoughts and feelings in order to act quickly in sometimes unfavorable or uncomfortable conditions...just moments before the start of the debate, her opponent, Donald Trump, took to Facebook Live with three women who have accused her husband, former President Bill Clinton, of sexual assault. That would likely be a humiliating experience for any woman, but Hillary Clinton had to steady her emotions and take the debate stage with a composed demeanor immediately afterward."
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/that-time-a-fly-landed-on-hillary-clintons-face-during-a-presidential-debate/

Anonymous Mr. Rational October 10, 2016 4:57 PM  

Since plants give off carbon dioxide, wouldn't more trees tend to explain more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere? Yes, I know plants take in more than they give off, while they are alive, but then they release it all again when they die.
The standing carbon inventory of a forest is vastly greater than a lawn's.  Releasing it when they die is not much of an issue because something else is growing to soak it up.  Astrophysicist Frank Shu has a scheme to deal with situations where growth is not making up the difference.

does logging in the Amazon and Asia counterbalance more trees in Europe and North America?
Drainage of forests in SE Asia has dried out peat and allowed the very soil to burn, dumping more CO2 in 2015 than Germany did.

Note that the recovery of forests was allowed by their replacement as energy sources by fossil fuels.  Those same fossil fuels add to the net atmospheric/oceanic/biomass carbon inventory; they do not merely shift it around.  This is happening in a geological eyeblink, such that natural processes like weathering will take thousands of years to catch up.

James Dixon wrote:Only the shortest lived trees have had time to die in the time frame they're discussing
In N. America, the Chestnut blight, Dutch Elm disease, the emerald ash borer, and some other exotic pests are wiping out whole species from existing forests.  Climate change is making native pests like the pine bark beetle much worse.

@8 Read the first link.

@13 Learn the difference between an isotope and a biological cycle.

@14 They have come in against nuclear power, which could solve the whole mess rather easily.

@21 What water does depends on where it is.  High clouds are cold and block IR so cause warming, low clouds reflect incoming while still radiating fairly well and cause cooling.  One of the biggest uncertainties in climate models is the behavior of clouds.

Blogger Johnny October 10, 2016 5:00 PM  

I am not a big fan of photocells, but cost wise they are getting close to practical in sunny climates. That is if there is no need to store energy.

Insects in general are attracted to more vigorous people. It is an odor thing. For Hillary it would probably be a makeup issue. What does that smell like? Plus it is sort of weird the way she didn't swat it away. Botox?

Anonymous Takin' a Deplorable Look October 10, 2016 5:11 PM  

@ Forrest Bishop, thank you for the correction. I'd actually realized my brainfart just a few minutes ago and smacked myself on the forehead.

Anyways, I may be a rube regarding isotopes vs photosynthesis methods, but I do know that the current ice age is due to the position of the continents and resulting ocean patterns, nothing to do with CO2. As long as Antarctica remains isolated and the isthmus of Panama remains intact, we are going to have severe glacials.

Blogger dc.sunsets October 10, 2016 5:15 PM  

I never tire of watching the same people who couldn't possibly coordinate the factors of production to make socialism work talk forthrightly about manipulating the environment of planet Earth, orders of magnitudes more complex than any economy.

The level of assumption of knowledge required is so delusional as to defy proper description.

Ants might as well discuss building a steam engine.

Blogger Brian Thomas October 10, 2016 5:17 PM  

This reminds me of something from my youth....

30 years ago next month, I landed in (West) Germany for my first tour of duty in the US Army. About a week in, we were attending some "welcome to (West) Germany" orientations. At one of them, we were told that, due to ACID RAIN (remember that scare??), no new trees were growing, the existing ones were dying, and that, sometime in the 1990s, western Europe would be heavily deforested.

Hmm...my first (of many) experiences with how full-of-shit the environmentalist doomsaying crowd are.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents October 10, 2016 5:26 PM  

OT
The Saxons are learning to hate

Blogger Jesse Lucas October 10, 2016 5:27 PM  

Takin' a Deplorable Look wrote:As long as Antarctica remains isolated and the isthmus of Panama remains intact, we are going to have severe glacials.

Are you implying that we could dig a really wide Panama Canal and melt the icecaps?

Blogger pyrrhus October 10, 2016 5:32 PM  

We are entering a solar minimum phase, which normally produces colder weather and lower crop yields, even crop failures. Want to bet that all those forests will still be around in 50 years?

Anonymous JI October 10, 2016 5:33 PM  

When most plants die, CO2 makes up a lot of the decay product. Certain plants, including some wheat species, decay mostly into carbon into the soil and not CO2. If the whole climate change, aka global warming, thing was true, there would be a massive worldwide effort to plant vast areas of the planet with the types of plants that decay more into carbon as opposed to CO2. In fact, some species do extremely well in semi-arid or arid areas, and further, some grow in saline soil. So there are plenty of places around the world where such plants could be grown, yet in spite of discussion about this idea since the early-1990's, there has been no action as far as I know.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop October 10, 2016 5:43 PM  

Takin' a Deplorable Look wrote:I do know that the current ice age is due to the position of the continents and resulting ocean patterns, nothing to do with CO2.

You're welcome. We do not know for sure what causes the deep part of the ice ages. We also do not know for sure just how rapidly they can turn on and off. (I think the variable power level of the electric Sun has a lot to do with it.) One major clue is the forbs in the mouths and stomaches of still-standing Mammoths. Judging from that fact, an ice age might begin in a single day, like in the movie. We have little or no idea what day that might be, but an ice age is a far greater threat than global warming.

You were right there with the 180-ppm-CO2 Pleistocene clue, then veered off. You didn't read my paper. It a problem that would have been solved several years ago by the pros, but for the artificial 'CO2 is pollution' meme set.

Anonymous Takin' a Deplorable Look October 10, 2016 5:43 PM  

@ Jesse Lucas.

It's not really width so much as _depth_ you'd need to excavate about a mile down to get proper current flows between the Pacific and Atlantic. Then you'd also have to do the same with the Sinai canal, the Dardanelles, the Turgai depression. It would help to dig out channels up into the great lakes in North America and one from Superior to Hudson Bay.

This does several things, establishes an equatorial current, allows warm water to pool and flow inland and northwards to warm the land.

But none of that really does much unless we raise the sea floor between Terra del fuego and the Antarctica peninsula. That circumpolar current is what keeps Antarctica an icebox.

If we left Antarctica as is, we'll have climate conditions similar to the Pliocene. No real glacials, mosaic woodland steppe in the Arctic as far north as Greenland. Still very cold in winter but more like Montreal or even Vancouver than Nome.

Anonymous BGKB October 10, 2016 5:46 PM  

Are you implying that we could dig a really wide Panama Canal and melt the icecaps?

Kratman's newest everyjoe article covers the best uses of nukes.

Anonymous Takin' a Deplorable Look October 10, 2016 5:47 PM  

I shall read indeed.

Blogger Snidely Whiplash October 10, 2016 5:50 PM  

Java Cup wrote:Australia, the Western US, and South America burn every summer. Not to mention the ongoing underground coal fires in the Northeast US.

There have always been forest (and brush) fires in North America. Perhaps (but only perhaps) fewer, but they burned unhindered until they ran out of fuel. Some of those coal fires are thousands of years old.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop October 10, 2016 5:57 PM  

JI wrote:f the whole climate change, aka global warming, thing was true, there would be a massive worldwide effort to plant vast areas of the planet... yet in spite of discussion about this idea since the early-1990's, there has been no action as far as I know.

But there has been a truly massive, worldwide increase in vegetation on the land, something around 10% increase on average. It is becoming impossible to hide this fact. Even the mainstream journals are having to acknowledge it. The article that Vox references is an attempt to divert attention away from a most-important cause: CO2 in the atmosphere. Nobody cut trees down in the Arctic regions or Tibet, yet these are some of the areas with the greatest increase, well over 10% since the 1980's.

Example. If an acre of land had 100 tons of biomass (plants and stuff) on it in 1980, then with a 10% increase it has 110 tons now. 10 tons of new life has been created that could not have existed before the CO2 level increased.

Global Greening, The Greening of the Earth, is the fact that is going to destroy the globalist's Carbon Cap & Trade scheme.

Blogger Noah B October 10, 2016 5:58 PM  

How long has it been since Boris was claiming that that growth of the Arctic ice extent would reverse, and we'd be seeing an ice-free Arctic? Was that two or three years ago?

Blogger David The Good October 10, 2016 6:05 PM  

If one was interested in sequestering carbon for generations, massive biochar production could be the key. Oxygen-restricted kiln-produced charcoal. Till it into croplands and the carbon is locked up for ages all while providing increased soil fertility due to its mineral, fungi and bacterial holding capacity. This is a hot topic in the climate change world. That said, I believe more Carbon Dioxide would be a fine thing and anthropogenic global warming is nonsense.

The return of forests is a very good thing as it restores the soil, cleans the air, increases rainfall, lowers erosion, allows for greater species diversity and is an excellent place for wild foraging of useful items such as nuts, firewood and mushrooms.

Blogger David The Good October 10, 2016 6:09 PM  

pyrrhus wrote:We are entering a solar minimum phase, which normally produces colder weather and lower crop yields, even crop failures. Want to bet that all those forests will still be around in 50 years?

Forests are significantly more stable and resistant to weather changes than annual crops. This is why I regularly encourage people to plant food forests or at least orchards. An apple tree may bear poorly in a cold or a dry year... but the corn may fail to yield at all. Trees represent high level ecosystems more able to adapt. Agroforestry should be the future, as J. Russell Smith argued in his visionary book "Tree Crops" almost a century ago. Unfortunately, man's short time horizon has meant much of his ideas were ignored. Groves of chestnuts could produce flour with less input compared to wheat - and the productive life is measured in centuries, not months.

Blogger bob k. mando ( Ich bin ein Fuhrer auf die Alt-Retard ... and you can too ) October 10, 2016 6:10 PM  

the oceans hold three ( 3 ) orders of magnitude more heat than the atmosphere does and covers some +70% of the world surface.

therefore, there are only two important functions of the atmosphere with regards to the planetary climate:
1 - how it acts as a cooling medium between the world ocean and space
2 - how cloud formation ( and thence, albedo ) impacts solar heating of the ocean

any analysis not founded on those concepts is utter bullshit.

and even Mr. Rational admits that we still don't understand clouds / formation, therefore can make no significant assertions about the relationship to solar heating of the oceans.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Deplorable Cents October 10, 2016 6:11 PM  

@48

The entire Arctic was "predicted" to be ice-free by 2016 more than once by climate "science".

Well?

Blogger Azimus October 10, 2016 6:14 PM  

34. Johnny October 10, 2016 5:00 PM
Insects in general are attracted to more vigorous people


Do you have any kind of link for this?


Anonymous Forrest Bishop October 10, 2016 6:17 PM  

David The Good wrote:If one was interested in sequestering carbon for generations, massive biochar production could be the key. Oxygen-restricted kiln-produced charcoal. Till it into croplands and the carbon is locked up for ages all while providing increased soil fertility due to its mineral, fungi and bacterial holding capacity. This is a hot topic in the climate change world.

I know you know where the bodies are buried...

Anyway, myself and others are working on exactly the opposite problem: how to increase the CO2 level up to at least double or quadruple the current amount and hold it there, 'forever'. This might involve self-replicating machines www.iase.cc and/or genetically engineered doo dads that will work without supervision. Burning coal and the rest won't cut it, there is not nearly enough to go around. So limestone.

Anonymous Takin' a Deplorable Look October 10, 2016 6:18 PM  

@ David the Good

This Ted Talk is very interesting.

https://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_deserts_and_reverse_climate_change/transcript?language=en

Blogger Noah B October 10, 2016 6:20 PM  

@52 I think my last exchange with Boris was around September 2013 when he triumphantly predicted we'd see yet another decline in Arctic sea ice extent in 2014. Oops.

Blogger cheddarman October 10, 2016 6:25 PM  

Woody plants and grasses are made up of 3 main polymers: cellulose, hemicellulose and lignin.
Hemicellulose is made up of sugar molecules and is broken down quickly by soil microorganisms and fungi
Celluose occurs mainly in a crystaline form, so it breaks more slowly than hemicellulose.
Lignin is a sort of natural plastic, made up of phenol rings that are fused together. Lignin takes a much longer time to break down than the other two polymers. Oxidized lignin in soil gives it a brown or black appearance.
A forest or pasture will build up lignin in the soil over time. I assume a mature forest or pasture reaches an equilibrium point for lignin accumulation, as there are natural processes that break it down (soil organisms, sun light, forest fires, etc) so you cant accumulate an infinite amount of lignin in the soil.

Blogger Paul October 10, 2016 6:27 PM  

As someone mentioned, trees are a CO2 sink. Large masses of large industrial mammals cause global warming. The quickest, most efficient way to stop global warming would be to remove China from the planet, as with a Sino-specific plague. The mineralization of the corpses would result in only a temporary, transient CO2 dump.

Ironically, the Western push for renewable wind and solar may have decidedly unintended consequences. Human civilizations can only be as large as the energy densities they can access. Short of a Dyson sphere, wind and solar can support only so many people at only such a level of civilization, the more people, the lower the level; the higher the level, the fewer the people.

Who do we suppose will be most interested in keeping the highest civilizational ground in any wind-solar energy economy? If and when they do, what then happens to everyone else? Correct: Haiti, Somalia, Sudan, and extinction.

Blogger Johnny October 10, 2016 6:27 PM  

@53
Azimus wrote:34. Johnny October 10, 2016 5:00 PM

Insects in general are attracted to more vigorous people


Do you have any kind of link for this?



I was thinking about mosquitoes actually. Google Healthy people attract mosquitoes or whatever. Lots of stuff out there.

Blogger Noah B October 10, 2016 6:30 PM  

Mosquitoes are attracted to carbon dioxide emissions. Flies are attracted to death and decay.

Blogger BCD October 10, 2016 6:30 PM  

@10 I'm skeptical about that claim of more warming with darker trees. What matters is not the total energy absorbed, but how much of it is dissipated as heat: if conifers use more efficient energy mechanisms, they will emit less heat. All analysis I've seen just looks at net insolation, rather than empirical temperature measurements.

Blogger Phillip George October 10, 2016 6:41 PM  

the resident irrational atheist is back at it....

fools till Armageddon is the point.

Just recapping the First Law of Thermodynamics. The number of carbon atoms in the biosphere is a fixed. Trees neither create nor destroy. What's buried in the ground it lost. It needs to be liberated.
The atmosphere still has dangerously low levels of CO^2 though obviously not as bad as they were 150 years ago.
Optimal for plant growth and life on earth is about 1200 parts per million.

Coal came from Noah's flood.

The re-greening of the entire world is taking place. Deserts are shrinking. Crops yields are up everywhere.

CNN are still idiots working for globalists and every bit a pathetically stupid as the irrational atheists here and elsewhere.

Blogger Arvid Eriksson October 10, 2016 6:43 PM  

Earth is greening because of increased carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. This is good news for humans because we can produce more food. Nobody knows whether carbon dioxide has any impact on global temperatures or not. All we know is that it greens the earth.

Blogger Arvid Eriksson October 10, 2016 6:48 PM  

Here you can find an excellent blog debunking the popularized climate science:

http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/

Blogger pyrrhus October 10, 2016 6:56 PM  

@50 Thanks for your response, David. Loved your book! I agree that forests in the temperate zones will resist cold weather quite well...I was thinking, however, that lack of food, and possibly energy, for a large population including many immigrants, might result in the logging of a lot of forests, both for wood and to create farmland.

Blogger Bob Loblaw October 10, 2016 7:10 PM  

A shorter term example is earthworms. I seem to recall reading that earthworms are not native to large areas of Canada, for example, resulting in very slow rates of decay for fallen leaves. Introducing earthworms into these areas results in significantly faster turnover, thus increasing the equilibrium CO2 level in the atmosphere.

Yep.

http://ecosystems.serc.si.edu/earthworm-invaders/

European earthworms changed the entire North American ecosystem.

Blogger Elder Son October 10, 2016 7:18 PM  

@28

Imagine the fire problem before the advent of fire protection services.

Every car in America, properly tuned, will put out 13 to 15 PPM CO2.

Blogger tz October 10, 2016 7:25 PM  

but correct me if I'm wrong here. Since plants give off carbon dioxide

Plants, almost by definition absorb Carbon Dioxide and give off Oxygen, at least in the sunlight. They may release some CO2 when burning stored energy, but net-net, the more trees, the less CO2. Plants and some animals (coral and such that create calcium carbonate skeletons that tend to fall to the bottom of the ocean or form reefs) incarcerate CO2.

It is a long (as in paleo time) cycle where more CO2 causes more plants to grow, that causes less CO2 (and Oxygen is inversely correlated, currently at 20% but it was higher and caused hotter forest fires).

Blogger Josh (the gayest thing here) October 10, 2016 7:45 PM  

I can't comment on the science, but I have the feeling that Chesterton, Tolkien, and Lewis would support the re-greening of Europe.

Anonymous Mr. Rational October 10, 2016 7:56 PM  

Johnny wrote:cost wise they are getting close to practical in sunny climates. That is if there is no need to store energy.
The whole point of "net metering" is to throw the cost of storage (backup) on other customers, or the utility itself.  It's to artificially make solar panels look much better than they are.

This is a good deal for those who jumped on the gravy train when the tax credits were good, and the vendors and their lobbyists.  Nobody else.

@36  The environment of Earth was majorly modified by the rise of termites, which ended the carboniferous.  They have no intellect at all.  Before that, the bugs which left stromatolites created free oxygen in the atmosphere and wiped out a lot of anaerobic life.  They didn't even have nervous systems.

All of that happened by accident.  You're telling the people who recognize that our climate accident is already happening that such an outcome is impossible.  Yeah, right.

@37  So that was 1986.  What could have happened to change that?

Berlin wall fell, 1989.  (extremely dirty) E. German industry and powerplants shut down in droves post-unification, 1990+ (Ein fur ein put the factories out of business).  Pollution controls went onto the rest.

In short, people did something about it... and here you are, saying that they were irrelevant.  Idiot.

Anonymous URL IRL October 10, 2016 8:10 PM  

@57 - Cheddarman, that was a informative and concise! David the Good should put that in his book.

@49 The return of forests is a very good thing as it restores the soil, cleans the air, increases rainfall, lowers erosion, allows for greater species diversity and is an excellent place for wild foraging of useful items such as nuts, firewood and mushrooms.

Instead of being managed for timber, I'd like to see some of our western forest lands managed for food production and wildlife habitat. A mix of nut trees, nitrogen fixing trees, fruit trees and shrubs. Food for people and a boom in wildlife. Even planting non-native food species will benefit native wildlife, especially the kind you hunt. These tracts would be relatively near population centers, not wilderness.

Blogger David The Good October 10, 2016 8:29 PM  

pyrrhus wrote:@50 Thanks for your response, David. Loved your book! I agree that forests in the temperate zones will resist cold weather quite well...I was thinking, however, that lack of food, and possibly energy, for a large population including many immigrants, might result in the logging of a lot of forests, both for wood and to create farmland.

It is a distinct risk. If private property rights erode it is very possible, as we have seen in the massive deforestation of Haiti. Other islands in the Caribbean are utterly covered in forests (Dominica being one gorgeous example) yet the "tragedy of the commons" has led to no one owning, and therefore everyone exploiting, the forests of Haiti and leading to a low-level and very fragile geography.

Blogger David The Good October 10, 2016 8:34 PM  

URL IRL wrote:@57 - Cheddarman, that was a informative and concise! David the Good should put that in his book.

@49 The return of forests is a very good thing as it restores the soil, cleans the air, increases rainfall, lowers erosion, allows for greater species diversity and is an excellent place for wild foraging of useful items such as nuts, firewood and mushrooms.

Instead of being managed for timber, I'd like to see some of our western forest lands managed for food production and wildlife habitat. A mix of nut trees, nitrogen fixing trees, fruit trees and shrubs. Food for people and a boom in wildlife. Even planting non-native food species will benefit native wildlife, especially the kind you hunt. These tracts would be relatively near population centers, not wilderness.



Agreed. Man has the capacity to increase the productivity of nature by leaps and bounds. First observe what the native environment "wants" to do (i.e., is it naturally prairie? Forest? Swamp?), then tweak for maximum production. In North Florida where I built my intricate little food forest, I observed that canopy species included oak and hickory. Both of those are useful trees; however, their cousins chestnut and pecan are much better for human needs and occupy the same ecological niche so I made them the "top" of my food forest. There were also native persimmons growing in the woods. I replaced that niche with improved Japanese persimmons grafted onto native rootstock. High yield and without the dioecious drawback of the natives. I grafted fat plum varieties onto the native rootstock, planted peach pits from locally productive trees... it was all tweaking nature. And I had crazy yields compared to the wild woodland.

Blogger Phillip George October 10, 2016 8:39 PM  

It's important for people to get their heads around an extremely simple but profound concept.
When you look at a tree, plant, bush, shrub - and understand that it is material substance that can be cut, made into a ship to sail the seven seas, burned, or eaten, the vast majority of the mass of the thing comes out of "thin air".

Trees are a reorganisation of the atmosphere and sunlight. When a tree grows the ground around it doesn't sink. What you "see" - what your eye beholds, or holds up your bum on a wooden chair, or carries you on the sea in a tall ship - came from the atmosphere.
It can all be safely returned to the atmosphere, exactly like water has a cycle.

No-one is stupid enough to want water to remain on the ground or in the ground. So it is with carbon atoms cycling through the atmosphere. The carbon cycle is exactly like the H2O cycle.

Carbon buried in coal is wasted. Denied life in the cycle of life.

the above poster is 100 percent correct. No-one has anything like a predictive algorithm for cloud condensation nuclei distribution/ predictive model for cloud height and density. It doesn't exist. So the most important vector for energy movements within the atmosphere has no model for it's very existence.

CNN whores do bad science.

Blogger Lobo Util October 10, 2016 8:40 PM  

The answer to excess CO2 is simple. Stop all recycling of plastics and paper, which are rich in carbon, and bury them instead. Then pay farmers throughout the US to grow hemp, which produces prodigious quantities of carbon rich stems and leaves, then bury it all. That is the most efficient way to get CO2 out of the air.

Anonymous Mr. Rational October 10, 2016 8:42 PM  

Forrest Bishop wrote:The article that Vox references is an attempt to divert attention away from a most-important cause: CO2 in the atmosphere. Nobody cut trees down in the Arctic regions or Tibet, yet these are some of the areas with the greatest increase, well over 10% since the 1980's.
Talk about a total failure of thinking.  Forests in the arctic are limited by growing season and permafrost (which roots can't go into).  Extend the growing season and melt permafrost through warming, and you will get more woody vegetation.  This is even somewhat of a feedback loop, because the standing vegetation is darker than empty snow and thaws sooner in the spring.

If an acre of land had 100 tons of biomass (plants and stuff) on it in 1980, then with a 10% increase it has 110 tons now.
Meanwhile, pine bark beetles wipe out 50% of a forest in California.  Not worth the trade.

bob k. mando ( Ich bin ein Fuhrer auf die Alt-Retard ... and you can too ) wrote:Mr. Rational admits that we still don't understand clouds / formation, therefore can make no significant assertions about the relationship to solar heating of the oceans.
Wrong.  We understand them more than well enough to put bounds on the climate models, and those bounds were recently narrowed.  Not by "skeptics", but by climate scientists and other atmospheric researchers.

Phillip George wrote:the resident irrational atheist is back at it....

fools till Armageddon is the point.

Irony, thy name is creatonut.

The number of carbon atoms in the biosphere is a fixed. Trees neither create nor destroy.
Coal is not part of the biosphere.  Neither is limestone.

Crops yields are up everywhere.
Forests are dying from California through British Columbia.

What's buried in the ground it lost. It needs to be liberated.
Earth's sedimentary rocks contain about 100 million petagrams of carbon (100 million billion metric tons).  Converting that fixed carbon to atmospheric CO2 would put over 700 tons over every square meter of surface:  instant Venus.

You are an idiot, as dumb as any libtard.  Maybe dumber.  Worse, you're a dangerous idiot.  Perhaps you can be cured by shipping you and your co-idiots to Venus, where you can learn first-hand about the ill effects of too much CO2.  You shouldn't be allowed back until you have admitted your folly.

Coal came from Noah's flood.
And that explains why you can't turn your brain on.  The threat of damnation drummed into you from childhood is even more powerful than the libtard's fear of being called out for "insensitivity".

Anonymous BGKB October 10, 2016 8:52 PM  

So I guess planting fruit/nut trees that are on opposite edges of the USDA zone recommendations would be best.

It is a distinct risk. If private property rights erode it is very possible, as we have seen in the massive deforestation of Haiti

Haiti and the DR are on the same land mass but that 15 point difference in avg IQ that came from not killing white women or 1/2 breeds on the DR side yielded massive differences.

Anonymous FKA Max October 10, 2016 9:09 PM  

BCD wrote:@10 I'm skeptical about that claim of more warming with darker trees. What matters is not the total energy absorbed, but how much of it is dissipated as heat: if conifers use more efficient energy mechanisms, they will emit less heat. All analysis I've seen just looks at net insolation, rather than empirical temperature measurements.

The following research supports your skepticism, since conifers produce aerosol more efficiently than deciduous trees above a certain temperature, which forms more clouds, and contributes to surface cooling:

'' During high temperatures, coniferous forests emit more terpenes to cool off and combat heat stress.

Coniferous trees constantly emit these gases, but higher temperatures spur more emissions. Abbatt said, “Often the northern and boreal forests, which contain more of the coniferous trees, tend to be colder than forests in the tropics, so they tend to put out fewer of these aerosol-forming gases.” However, the researchers’ investigation spanned an unseasonably warm period during the Canadian summer. As temperatures rose, so did the amount of terpenes the trees emitted. Van Donkelaar said, “It was a very unique event in that aerosol levels had been much higher than had previously been observed.”

The researchers’ study also provided clues about how these tree emissions might behave once in the atmosphere. Abbatt said, “Isoprene will form aerosols, but it just doesn’t form them as efficiently as terpenes.” Once in the atmosphere, both of these gases react with existing chemicals to form aerosols. However, because the pine forests north of Toronto emitted terpenes, they were responsible for producing more aerosols than the deciduous forests south of the city. ''

'' Could plants help to slow the march of global warming?

It's possible, suggests a new study, which finds that as climates warm around the world, plants may respond by releasing more aerosol particles into the atmosphere.

The research, published online April 28 in the journal Nature Geoscience, finds that these natural aerosols can fuel cloud formation, which may help cool a warming climate. [The Reality of Climate Change: 10 Myths Busted] ''

Blogger James Dixon October 10, 2016 9:17 PM  

> Coal is not part of the biosphere.

Really? Where did it come from then?

Blogger Harold October 10, 2016 9:20 PM  

Submarines try to keep CO2 below 8000 PPM. Not harmful at those levels, or even higher. But- some of us were able to detect when CO2 got to the high limits because of headaches. Level from This article.

Blogger Phillip George October 10, 2016 9:45 PM  

only a particular sort of fool is going to try to exploit reductio ad absurdum out of all rational context.
But then rational isn't what your name implies

Anonymous Jack Amok October 10, 2016 10:01 PM  

The return of forests is a very good thing as it restores the soil, cleans the air, increases rainfall, lowers erosion, allows for greater species diversity and is an excellent place for wild foraging of useful items such as nuts, firewood and mushrooms.

And provides lots of good places to hang a hammock.

Blogger John rockwell October 10, 2016 10:07 PM  

@David the Good

I think the concept of wealth should be augmented considering how the wilderness provided for people in the past prior of civilization for those who knew where to look and what to enhance.

Its ridiculous for people on a tropical Island with plenty of food like coconuts and mangoes,materials for building and medicines from plants truly be considered poor even if they are primitive.

Civilization just transforms what is already in existence to other forms of wealth or pollution which is destructive.

Of course people are starting to learn that destroying natural world is not good stewardship and actually decreases natural wealth.

Blogger John rockwell October 10, 2016 10:10 PM  

@James Dixon
The biosphere is Biotic. While non-livings are abiotic which although influencing the biosphere does not constitute it.

The biosphere consists of all living things.

Blogger David The Good October 10, 2016 10:21 PM  

BGKB wrote:So I guess planting fruit/nut trees that are on opposite edges of the USDA zone recommendations would be best.

Yes. We may not be able to predict the changes, but we can plan for a range of them. Antifragility.

Blogger David The Good October 10, 2016 10:25 PM  

John rockwell wrote:@David the Good

I think the concept of wealth should be augmented considering how the wilderness provided for people in the past prior of civilization for those who knew where to look and what to enhance.

Its ridiculous for people on a tropical Island with plenty of food like coconuts and mangoes,materials for building and medicines from plants truly be considered poor even if they are primitive.

Civilization just transforms what is already in existence to other forms of wealth or pollution which is destructive.

Of course people are starting to learn that destroying natural world is not good stewardship and actually decreases natural wealth.


Absolutely. Cultures that overgraze livestock (goats, in particular, have been called the "desert makers") may end up with Ethiopian level problems, whereas hunter/gatherer societies such as the ancestors of our host, though not "civilized" in the sense of building cities, etc., can lead pretty nice lives. Some places may be counted as "poor" but realistically they will be in a better shape than someplace such as New York thanks to their abundant ecosystems. You can live on coconuts and fish. If you cut them down and build condos (hello, South Florida) you will be in big trouble if cheap energy is cut off.

Blogger Lazarus October 10, 2016 10:35 PM  

John rockwell wrote:Its ridiculous for people on a tropical Island with plenty of food like coconuts and mangoes,materials for building and medicines from plants truly be considered poor even if they are primitive.

One can only eat so much Poi before they are desperately carving dugouts to go somewhere else.

Anonymous URL IRL October 10, 2016 10:54 PM  

I like your style DTG. I graft pear onto hawthorne around here. I am keeping my eyes open for American chestnut from a blight free stand. I'd like to have one on my property.

Blogger BCD October 10, 2016 11:06 PM  

@78 Good lord, I thought the errors of climate scientists were honest mistakes caused by broad but shallow knowledge. Turns out they're shallow AND narrow.

@86 It's been argued that the Near East was deforested as a consequence of systematized killing of lions, which kept the goat population in check.

Blogger Scott Birch October 10, 2016 11:24 PM  

Tarmac sequesters carbon. Build lots of roads.

Blogger pyrrhus October 10, 2016 11:33 PM  

@66 Earthworms were part of the Columbian Exchange, apparently escaping from some dirt brought over by Columbus and others. Earthworms native to North America were wiped out by the glaciation, but the replacements brought over about 1500 are still spreading....

Anonymous Jack Amok October 11, 2016 12:10 AM  

The biosphere consists of all living things.

No, the biosphere consists of the parts of the globe where living things are, not the living things themselves. Buried coal and limestone are in the lithosphere, and the lithosphere is - since living things are found in it (e.g. earthworms for one) - part of the biosphere.

Which you would understand if you were paying attention to context when James asked "where did the coal come from?" Obviously it came from previously living organisms that fixed large amounts of carbon and - after dying - were compressed into coal. So even if you want to argue that the coal is too deep to be part of the biosphere (but then, there are humans - much to Hillary and Obama's chagrin - down there digging it up, so that would make the coal deposits part of the biosphere anyway), even if you wand to claim the lithosphere isn't part of the biosphere, the basic argument - "The number of carbon atoms in the biosphere is a fixed. Trees neither create nor destroy" is still true for practical purposes. Carbon can move between coal-dom and tree-dom, but it is neither created nor destroyed.

Anonymous Johnny Caustic October 11, 2016 12:31 AM  

Anyone interested in carbon dioxide on earth should reader Dr. Patrick Moore's (Greenpeace co-founder, now at odds with them) speech about how earth's current relatively low levels of CO2 are limiting plant growth.

http://www.thegwpf.org/patrick-moore-should-we-celebrate-carbon-dioxide/

He also claims that earth's real "carbon sequestration" scheme is invertebrate marine animals that use CO2 to make their shells, thereby removing it from the ecosystem forever, because the shell material doesn't break down. They've been drawing down atmospheric CO2 for 150 million years, and they might lead to the extinction of life on earth after some millions more.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop October 11, 2016 1:17 AM  

Johnny Caustic wrote:He also claims that earth's real "carbon sequestration" scheme is invertebrate marine animals that use CO2 to make their shells, thereby removing it from the ecosystem forever, because the shell material doesn't break down. They've been drawing down atmospheric CO2 for 150 million years, and they might lead to the extinction of life on earth after some millions more.

Yes, that's right, except for the "(150) millions of years" part. Moore, a founder of Greenpeace, independently came to much the same conclusions that I did; that's why I gave him the last word in the references in

https://www.scribd.com/document/319906948/The-Solution-to-the-Ice-Age-Extinctions

Atmospheric CO2 has been consistently drawn down throughout the history of life on Earth, starting from a level that was toxic to life on the land. (I didn't mention it in the paper due to brevity, but this is probably why animal life on the land had to wait.) We are now very close to the bottom, the end. An extinction-level event can now occur in the space of a few bad years. We do not know- and cannot know- how, how quickly, and when, that might happen. All the more reason to abolish the global-warming scam right now, as a first step. The second step is to increase our "carbon footprint" on a massive scale. Coal is the fastest and most efficient way to do that, Mr. Trump.

Anonymous A Paradigm Is More Than Twenty Cents October 11, 2016 1:17 AM  

He also claims that earth's real "carbon sequestration" scheme is invertebrate marine animals that use CO2 to make their shells, thereby removing it from the ecosystem forever, because the shell material doesn't break down.

Eventually that stuff is called "limestone" or maybe "marble". It seems to erode away in the presence of fairly mild acid.

Blogger Phillip George October 11, 2016 1:21 AM  

They've been drawing down atmospheric CO2 for 150 million years, We agree on the phenomenon not in the detail. 150 million years +/- 150 million. With error margins built in, you are quite right.

rhetorical: how do you fossilise a leaf [and anything]? An: quickly. They all buried quickly.

Blogger Bob Loblaw October 11, 2016 1:29 AM  

Forests in the arctic are limited by growing season and permafrost (which roots can't go into). Extend the growing season and melt permafrost through warming, and you will get more woody vegetation.

And light. You're not going to see a lot of woody vegetation at the higher latitudes no matter how warm it gets because there isn't enough light.

Blogger bob k. mando ( Ich bin ein Fuhrer auf die Alt-Retard ... and you can too ) October 11, 2016 1:48 AM  

53. Azimus October 10, 2016 6:14 PM
Do you have any kind of link for this?



yeah, because whenever i stand next to a carcass, the flies always leave the carcass and swarm me ...


79. James Dixon October 10, 2016 9:17 PM
Really? Where did it come from then?



shush, you. he's busy telling us how stupid we are for wanting tropical forests in Antarctica ... like he tells us there used to be.

that's the most hilarious thing about all these idiots demanding a static climate. on the one hand they tell us that it has been both warmer and colder than it is today ( quite often much colder ).

on the other, they demand that all climate change cease because ... we've never had a more perfect climate than right now?



76. Mr. Rational October 10, 2016 8:42 PM
Wrong. We understand them more than well enough to put bounds on the climate models, and those bounds were recently narrowed.

33. Mr. Rational October 10, 2016 4:57 PM
One of the biggest uncertainties in climate models is the behavior of clouds.


i do so enjoy it when someone who pretends to be rational spends so much time contradicting himself.

so, you have no comment on my point about the oceans?

IF you can't accurately predict El Nino / La Nina ( and you can't )
THEN you don't know shit about the climate or what it's going to do.

and asserting otherwise makes you a bald faced liar.

the single most elementary step in climatology is knowing, understanding AND PREDICTING variability in ocean temperatures.

best get on that. otherwise you're going to keep having stupid shit like expeditions to Antarctica getting caught in ice pack that wasn't supposed to exist.

and i haven't even brought up how climatologists also just *assume* no variability in the heat generated by the core of the planet.

which, you know, IS producing heat. that's where volcanoes come from.

Anonymous Mr. Rational October 11, 2016 2:10 AM  

Johnny Caustic wrote:He also claims that earth's real "carbon sequestration" scheme is invertebrate marine animals that use CO2 to make their shells, thereby removing it from the ecosystem forever, because the shell material doesn't break down.
He's not senile like Lovelock, he's just wrong.  Calcium-based shells dissolve when the water gets deep and cold enough.  In some places like the Florida keys, added CO2 is making carbonates unstable at surface conditions.

They've been drawing down atmospheric CO2 for 150 million years
And subduction plus volcanoes have been putting it in since the planet was formed.  The major long-term extraction mechanism is weathering, which frees the metal ions which allow the formation of stable carbonates.

Most of this is freshman chemistry or simpler, folks.

bob k. mando ( Ich bin ein Fuhrer auf die Alt-Retard ... and you can too ) wrote:and i haven't even brought up how climatologists also just *assume* no variability in the heat generated by the core of the planet.

which, you know, IS producing heat. that's where volcanoes come from.

Measured in milliwatts per square meter, and if you knew ANYTHING about heat flow you'd realize that even wild annual changes in heat output by Earth's core would be averaged to small changes over millions of years by the time they reached the surface.  Look up Fourier, and what he was analyzing when he developed his famous transform (hint, it wasn't audio).

MPAI.  Especially people who think they have debunked mainstream science, but can't do math.

Blogger bob k. mando ( Ich bin ein Fuhrer auf die Alt-Retard ... and you can too ) October 11, 2016 3:41 AM  

99. Mr. Rational October 11, 2016 2:10 AM
MPAI. Especially people who think they have debunked mainstream science, but can't do math.


the world ocean has 1000 times the heat capacity of the entire atmosphere.

tiny changes ( <.1% ) of variability in ocean temps will swamp all your climate models.

hell, simply changes in surface temps ( El Nino / La Nina ) in the southern hemisphere swamp atmospheric conditions in the North America.

and that's just straightforward physics. don't even need no maths to understand it.


99. Mr. Rational October 11, 2016 2:10 AM
and if you knew ANYTHING about heat flow you'd realize that even wild annual changes in heat output by Earth's core


there's variability in the heat generation itself.

and there's also variability in the rate that heat is transferred into the biosphere.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrothermal_vent#Black_smokers_and_white_smokers

but, you know, we'll just assume that's a constant and not bother considering it.

just the same way that climatologists USED to ASSUME that solar irradiance was constant.

Blogger James Dixon October 11, 2016 4:43 AM  

> The biosphere consists of all living things.

Traditionally, it also consists of the soil, minerals, and water which supports those living things.

One of which is the condensed carbon remains of formerly living things.

It's a strange (and almost certainly faulty) model when the byproducts of a system are considered not part of that system.

Blogger James Dixon October 11, 2016 4:48 AM  

> and if you knew ANYTHING about heat flow you'd realize that even wild annual changes in heat output by Earth's core would be averaged to small changes over millions of years by the time they reached the surface.

Averaged, yes. But there can be extreme local variations, which affect things.

Anonymous Johnny Caustic October 11, 2016 5:11 AM  

And subduction plus volcanoes have been putting it in since the planet was formed.

"Putting it in" to what? I'm not sure whether you mean "putting it into the atmosphere", "putting it into the ground", or "putting it into the sea".

The major long-term extraction mechanism is weathering, which frees the metal ions which allow the formation of stable carbonates.

What are those carbonates? (I.e., what metals are involved?) Where do the stable carbonates end up in the long term?

if you knew ANYTHING about heat flow you'd realize that even wild annual changes in heat output by Earth's core would be averaged to small changes over millions of years by the time they reached the surface.

I can't speak for what Mr. Mando meant, but my impression is that variability in undersea volcanic activity accounts for some of the year-to-year variability of surface weather.

BTW, I very much appreciate the education and the information you have to offer, but the condescending tone is wasted keystrokes.

Blogger Doom October 11, 2016 5:16 AM  

Burn! Burn the trees! That'll... wait... *scribbles* Yeah, well. Actually, what trees, the ocean, the earth itself, clouds, and et. al. have to do with C02? They don't know. They don't even know what part clouds play in just planetary warming and cooling, or whether much of that is automated and self-correcting (in the way peer reviewed science actually isn't). Bleh.

Blogger Phillip George October 11, 2016 5:49 AM  

Bob,

I reckon that partial pressures of CO^2 will also effect oceans via Henry's Law. Increased plankton and algae growth, more fish food, will affect surface turbidity currents and regional seasonal albedo. These factors shouldn't be discounted.

Great migrations occur due to CO^2 partial pressures, Henry's Law/ Daltons Law,

Regional albedo as a result of surface turbidity isn't trivial and isn't modelled. Plants create their own climates to a significant extent.

the fools don't get it.

eg. glaciers on Kilimanjaro.

and ps. a Super Cray can't model a specific outcome in a single compound pendulum. Chaos won't allow that. Fools don't get bigger pictures on a frequent basis.

Blogger szopen October 11, 2016 6:01 AM  

(1) Increasing CO2 may very well increase plant growth, but that will include weeds, and will benefit also the various insects. That means that one would need more pesticides etc. The discussion of overall impact on crops may be found in chapter 7 of IPCC report (those in this thread who claim "the effect is ignored by IPCC" should really first read the report before saying something is or is not within the report)

(2) It is true that carbon dioxide level would have to be far, far, far higher to be toxic for humans or animals. Nevertheless, I hope you are aware why there are advices to have a good ventilation in places where mental activity is required.

First googled link, ignore the site and propagandist brouhaha, you can just google for the study:

"study found “statistically significant and meaningful reductions in decision-making performance” in test subjects as CO2 levels rose from a baseline of 600 parts per million (ppm) to 1000 ppm and 2500 ppm."

https://thinkprogress.org/exclusive-elevated-co2-levels-directly-affect-human-cognition-new-harvard-study-shows-2748e7378941#.163z0ari3

(3) IPCC also reports on different methods to capture carbon dioxide, and role of forests was discussed more than decade ago (maybe further away in time, but I wasn't interested in the subject before, so I don't know).

Blogger Phillip George October 11, 2016 7:07 AM  

in human anatomy physiology your blood carries CO^2 with a partial pressure in the superior vena cava around 1000 times current atmospheric pressures of the vital life sustaining gas.

CO^2 for those who give a f...k is clear colorless odourless and tasteless non toxic in normal concentrations. It absorbs nearly nothing in the visible wavelengths.


The above poster, is right. CO^2 levels are entirely tolerable to humans at around 5000 ppm.

Submariners might like to avoid 8000 ppm as it will cause a headache in some crew members.

ie. at 20 times current atmospheric levels some people will experience problems/ when levels rise to roughly a tenth of what is in the human body.

A humans ability to live in an atmosphere ten times current levels is not in any doubt.

The fear mongering/ disinformation/ outright lies/ junk science/ junk theology, junk geology around this subject is impossible to compare.

Martin Amis rightly said: Stupefied by relativism.

very few seem to give a f.......k about the empirical evidences/ laboratory results. cheers

God bless you, the sane reader

Blogger szopen October 11, 2016 7:33 AM  

Philip, you do realise, that ability to tolerate high levels of CO2 does not mean that there are absolutely no adverse effects of higher CO2 levels? For starters, people can survive without food more than month, but it does not mean fasting for two weeks won't impact people's ability to think clearly or work hard (though some claim otherwise; I don't know, I was fasting max for one week and all I felt was headaches, pain, fatigue etc)

Blogger Phillip George October 11, 2016 7:47 AM  

So long as the concentration gradient at the alveoli allows a decent rate of clearance the effects long term are negligible.
think of it this way.
too much blood in the brain causes swelling. Increased CO2 will paradoxically increase blood flow./ a mild headache in some.

NASA studied this stuff ad nauseum pardon the pun. Now it is as if they are trying to hide their results.

CO^2 is a very effective means of suicide precisely because it is harmless physiologically until the point at which it simply prevents oxygen uptake. People asphyxiate before CO^2 does them much harm physiologically. Respiratory acidosis is a slightly different thing. External CO^2 levels in people with normal lung function are insignificant to ten times current atmospheric levels.

CO^2 is actually harmless to ten times current levels.

Blogger szopen October 11, 2016 7:49 AM  

In thread above there was claim we should aim for 4000ppm (6.5 times current rate, 0.4% if i am not mistaken) and 40.000 rate would not be objectionable. That could be compared to the CO2 levels in ISS: in international space station, the CO2 concentration are commonly stated to be in range of 0.5% (+-0.2%). The astronauts there reported often having headaches and being lethargic. Yes, this is not an argument that their behaviour was solely result of increased CO2 levels; but there is extensive research on this topic, even with mixed results. In general, however, it seems to me that at least some impact on people is possible (and please do not create strawman here: it is NOT about dying or getting sick, but about SOMEWHAT LOWERING effectiveness, SOMEWHAT INCREASING fatigue etc).

Blogger Phillip George October 11, 2016 8:19 AM  

sorry those numbers don't make sense. Current atmosphere is about .04 percent/ not .4%
So 4000 ppm is 10 times current, not 6.5 times.

I can't see 5000 ppm being a problem.

Lethargy and headaches have many causes. Is the Schumann frequency being simulated / maintained on the ISS?

40,000 parts per million can be endured for short periods of time but then problems with respiratory acidosis/ laboured breathing would definitely take place. You can control a certain amount of the problem with alkalising agents but only temporarily.

No-one would advise prolonged exposure to over 10.000 ppm. From memory the comments above about submariners are correct.

Blogger szopen October 11, 2016 8:49 AM  

In the comment above it should read "even IF with the mixed results".

As for 0.4% I was saying about 4000ppm, and you are right about current rate being 400ppm, not 600ppm. Sorry, I was reading the paper where they stated about raising CO2 level from "baseline of 600ppm" and had not checked the current rate - 6.5x600 is 3900, hence my "roughly 6.5 times the current rate, to the 0.4% ie 4000ppm"

But I'd say that even 4000ppm could decrease work productiveness, creativity etc. This seems to be hardly controversial, given that it is widely accepted that sitting in poorly ventilated buildings affects badly mental abilities (even if CO2 level is raised to mere 1000ppm).

Blogger szopen October 11, 2016 8:54 AM  

I do not know whether this should be considered a problem, or not - but human mental abilities seems to be affected by raised CO2 levels (even though there is also another, Danish study mentioned there which had not found the effect).

"Student volunteers enlisted by the team engaged in the game-like simulation, working at desks in a chamber sealed tightly with a door like that on a refrigerator. Over three short trials, they breathed air containing 600, 1,000 and 2,500 ppm of carbon dioxide. The results astounded Mendell. Indoor air experts generally don’t consider carbon dioxide to be a health problem unless breathed at levels far higher, at which point it causes respiration changes. “I didn’t know what to think,” he says. There were “moderate” declines in decision making performance at 1,000 ppm compared to 600 ppm. At 2,500 ppm, the drop in mental capacity was “astonishingly large.”"

http://www.yaleclimateconnections.org/2016/07/indoor-co2-dumb-and-dumber/

Anonymous David of One October 11, 2016 10:10 AM  

I do suppose that taking a plant, especially dead/decaying, and measuring it's production/off-gassing of CO2 produces very accurate data in a closed system experiment. But on a large scale "active system" ... like a forest ... one might see a substantial difference of CO2 production/off-gassing and the intake of CO2 and production of O2.
I would guess there is a lot of data about the relationship of gaseous input/output by plant species and such. Unfortunately, nowadays, the results and conclusions need be highly suspect by fraudulent "science" of the type that equates to sophistry.

Additionally, a more mentally "visual" comparison (using 400 ppm) of CO2 in the atmosphere would equate to 25 seats in a 62,500 seat stadium or 1 seat in an auditorium of 2,500 seats.

Anonymous Forrest Bishop October 11, 2016 11:36 AM  

Thanks to szopen, David of One, Phillip George and Harold for their useful comments, especially on CO2 concentration.

Blogger David The Good October 11, 2016 12:22 PM  

URL IRL wrote:I like your style DTG. I graft pear onto hawthorne around here. I am keeping my eyes open for American chestnut from a blight free stand. I'd like to have one on my property.

Thank you. I share the sentiment. There are occasional living trees here and there. The Dunstan was what I planted at my place but getting a true, full-blooded (full-sapped?) American chestnut would be amazing.

Blogger bob k. mando ( Ich bin ein Fuhrer auf die Alt-Retard ... and you can too ) October 11, 2016 1:47 PM  

105. Phillip George October 11, 2016 5:49 AM
These factors shouldn't be discounted.



i'm not saying they should. i'm just pointing out that when 'climatologists' can't be bothered to consider obvious PRIMARY input variables, the idea that they are accounting for all relevant tertiary variables is ludicrous.





106. szopen October 11, 2016 6:01 AM
"study found “statistically significant and meaningful reductions in decision-making performance” in test subjects as CO2 levels rose from a baseline of 600 parts per million (ppm) to 1000 ppm and 2500 ppm."



irrelevant.

office settings do NOT control for oxygen percentage ( any more than they control for CO2 content ), therefore the performance deficit is much more likely to be due to oxygen depletion ( which is an already known problem ) than to excess carbon. remember, ALL of the new CO2 is coming from people breathing in O and converting it.

therefore, in a sealed environment Oxy goes down in direct proportion to rise in CO2.

IF excess CO2 was the issue with cognition
THEN submariners would not permit 8000ppm

you'll note that in a submarine they are actually monitoring AND CONTROLLING both aspects of the atmo mix and are injecting Oxy as needed. they are also removing CO2 as needed ... which is not necessary until concentrations many multiples higher than current ambient.

as a funding seeking paper to be presented to idiot legislators, the paper serves it's intended function. as actual science, it's garbage.

this is like the idiocy about needing to find out what the chemical composition of fracking oil is due to trains exploding.

... the fuck?

you want to know what the chemical composition of fracking oil is, go to the goddamn refinery to which the oil is being shipped.

THEY ALREADY DAMN WELL KNOW exactly what's in that oil, the chem. engineers HAVE to know the content of their feedstocks before they send it up the cracking tower so they can control their output product.

or that retard California doctor who was pretending she didn't understand why faggot communities had significantly higher rates of transmission of communicable diseases ...

duh.

Anonymous David of One October 11, 2016 2:32 PM  

Well said Bob!

Blogger szopen October 11, 2016 2:45 PM  

IF excess CO2 was the issue with cognition
THEN submariners would not permit 8000ppm

Assuming, of course, that Navy would be aware of the problem - which may or may not be true.

Blogger szopen October 11, 2016 2:56 PM  

@117 Bob k. mando:

...AAaand:" Mendell says that his team received inquiries from officials at the Navy and NASA, concerned about crews in sealed subs and spacecraft. “They were shocked that there might be big effects at 2,500 ppm,” he recalls."

Aaaand: this was not about oxygen depletion, as the rooms were sealed, but ventilated: CO2 was injected. The control group was is the same sealed room, but amount of CO2 level injected was lower; hence, you are incorrect to state that the effect was due to oexygen depletion (because in all three groups they would have exactly the same oxygen depletion rate, so any effect had to be from difference in CO2 level injected into the room).

Effect confirmed also by Russian study on effect on increased CO2 on students in schools.

Berkeley Lab study shown that impact was not the same on all kinds of mental abilities.

Those studies indicate that 4000ppm won't mean you would get sick or anything like that; it would simply mean your performance will likely be lower.

Blogger szopen October 11, 2016 3:03 PM  

Though, fopr another perspective, contradicting what I linked above:

http://archive.rubicon-foundation.org/xmlui/handle/123456789/3861

Blogger bob k. mando ( Ich bin ein Fuhrer auf die Alt-Retard ... and you can too ) October 11, 2016 4:19 PM  

120. szopen October 11, 2016 2:56 PM
Aaaand: this was not about oxygen depletion, as the rooms were sealed, but ventilated: CO2 was injected. The control group was is the same sealed room, but amount of CO2 level injected was lower; hence, you are incorrect to state that the effect was due to oexygen depletion (because in all three groups they would have exactly the same oxygen depletion rate, so any effect had to be from difference in CO2 level injected into the room).



okay, that's relevant then.

Blogger Phillip George October 11, 2016 6:36 PM  

thanks
szopen.

adaptation based on duration of exposure is the key. Also daily circadian rhythms.

0.5 percent really is harmless.

I'd like to know what other control variables were at play.

Remember that by raising CO^2 on its own you are going to induce a state something akin to sleeping under a doona in winter. Blood flow increases to the brain. Total metabolic rate drops/ oxygen demand drops/ oxygenation increases even in an environment with decreased local partial pressures. ie. you are environmentally inducing a sleep state.

slowly increasing long term space station/ submarine exposure to CO^2 triggers adaptive responses in Ph buffering. Nil deficits encountered.
Raising the entire earth's CO^2 will certainly be adaptive and beneficial.

Plants are already benefiting with the extremely small increases, to a mere 400 ppm

Blogger Phillip George October 11, 2016 7:35 PM  

or to put that in better language - 'adaptation' implies intergenerational.

versus "acclimatization" duration exposures.

versus confected extremely short duration exposures/ example: a co2 fire extinguisher used in a confined area.

three different animals.

Anonymous Clay October 11, 2016 8:09 PM  

I apogogige to begin. I haven't had the chance to read all this thread...

Pine Trees. Especially Long-Leaf varieties. I've seen forest fires, and the pines still survive. I've seen hurricanes, tho the trees are bent, you can still see they survive. Even today, after Camille if you're driving down I55 S, or 49S.

I bought 15 acres, just to let the pine grow upon it.

It's amazing how fast you can harvest it, and how fast it reproduces itself.

Blogger Michael Maier October 11, 2016 9:26 PM  

Brian Thomas wrote:This reminds me of something from my youth....

30 years ago next month, I landed in (West) Germany for my first tour of duty in the US Army. About a week in, we were attending some "welcome to (West) Germany" orientations. At one of them, we were told that, due to ACID RAIN (remember that scare??), no new trees were growing, the existing ones were dying, and that, sometime in the 1990s, western Europe would be heavily deforested.

Hmm...my first (of many) experiences with how full-of-shit the environmentalist doomsaying crowd are.


I was in Heilbronn 1983-87. I remember hearing that acid rain bullshit too. My friends and I would trek the woods above the vineyards and get lost in the trees. They seemed healthy enough then to us.

Post a Comment

Rules of the blog
Please do not comment as "Anonymous". Comments by "Anonymous" will be spammed.

<< Home

Newer Posts Older Posts