Thread: The Science Is Settled!! Stop Doing Science!!!

http://sustainability.umich.edu/news...ping-buffer-cl

Ya you could be right dbs.

http://www.csiro.au/multimedia/A-for...-problems.html

are you supporting or decrying the use of federal funds to suss out these questions?

Originally Posted by jfost

are you supporting or decrying the use of federal funds to suss out these questions?

decrying of course!!!

i was told the "science was settled". thats pretty clear isnt it? not a lot of ambiguity there.

Here's your science. Look at the air in this video. Brown. Polluted beyond all recognition. All of China is like that. I don't want China.

well, I likey the science. Nobody other than political agenda-pushers ever says "the science is settled" only that "current studies show..."

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

http://sustainability.umich.edu/news...ping-buffer-cl

Wait, I thought global warming was a hoax? Make up your fucking mind, doosh.

wait, are you joking Mofro? I can't quite tell...

Confusing smog with co2 just makes you stupid.

I am going to break one of my own rules and use wiki as a source but fuck it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide

It's settled. Ilikecandy=retart.

confusing smog with smug is worse.

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

http://sustainability.umich.edu/news...ping-buffer-cl

From your linked article,

"Zak stressed that growth-enhancing effects of CO2 in forests will eventually "hit the wall" and come to a halt. The trees' roots will eventually "fully exploit" the soil's nitrogen resources. No one knows how long it will take to reach that limit, he said."

So this article's conclusion, at most, means that there will be a small blip in the upward trend of atmospheric carbon dioxide, as whatever US forests the "greed is good" Republicans are willing to leave un-logged absorb a little more carbon dioxide for a few more years.

Meanwhile global fossil fuel combustion is releasing carbon that was sequestered over many millions of years of biological activity in a few decades. There is no way that the rate of biological carbon sequestration from tree growth is anywhere near the order of magnitude of the rate of carbon release from fossil fuel combustion. If it took 100 million years to sequester a given amount of carbon as coal and oil last time, it will likely take around the same period of time to sequester the carbon we are currently releasing (and the rate variations discussed in the article are many decimal points away from fixing the problem).

I know, as usual I am responding with a fact-based response to silly trolling, but someone has to play the straight man.

Originally Posted by doughboyshredder

I've been saying this for years:


If the powers that be had a half a clue they would quit cutting down the fucking trees. Ending deforestation would be a hell of a lot more helpful than trading carbon credits.

Maybe, maybe not. The science isn't settled

Old-Growth Forests Can Actually Contribute to Global Warming
05.19.08

Last year, the Canadian government commissioned a study to determine the quantity of carbon sequestered by the country's woodlands, which account for a tenth of global forests. It hoped to use the CO2-gathering power of 583 million acres of woods to offset its Kyoto Protocol-mandated responsibility to cut greenhouse gas emissions. No such luck. The report found that during many years, Canadian forests actually give up more carbon from decomposing wood than they lock down in new growth.


http://www.wired.com/science/planete...sies_04forests

Also:

Originally Posted by MeatPuppet

"April 10, 2007
WARMING AGENT: A new study suggests that forests in snow-covered areas may actually contribute to global warming."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?cha...B83ECB&ref=rss



December 5, 2005
Using climate models, researchers from Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory and the Carnegie Institution Department of Global Ecology have found that forests in the mid-latitude regions of the Earth present a more complicated picture. Trees in these areas tend to warm the Earth in the long run.
“We thought planting trees across the northern hemisphere would help curb global warming by the CO² absorption but what we found was a different story.”

http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_re...-05-12-04.html


"November 17, 2006
"Randerson's findings have implications for tree-planting projects designed to sequester carbon by trapping it in forests. If large areas are reforested, he says, "it might be that you accumulate carbon in the forest, but you might darken the surface, too." Darkening the surface with forests could cause more radiation to be absorbed, which in turn could lead to climate warming."

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?art...=related_links



"Apr 12th 2007
Carbon-offset outfits should take note of Dr Bala's paper. Planting trees in convenient places such as Europe and North America may actually be counterproductive."

http://www.economist.com/science/dis...ory_id=8998216

you be looking in the wrong places yo.
none of the forest aspects come remotely close to the energy stores of the oceans.

Originally Posted by tommyvee

From your linked article,


So this article's conclusion, at most, means that there will be a small blip in the upward trend of atmospheric carbon dioxide, as whatever US forests the "greed is good" Republicans are willing to leave un-logged absorb a little more carbon dioxide for a few more years.

Meanwhile global fossil fuel combustion is releasing carbon that was sequestered over many millions of years of biological activity in a few decades. There is no way that the rate of biological carbon sequestration from tree growth is anywhere near the order of magnitude of the rate of carbon release from fossil fuel combustion. If it took 100 million years to sequester a given amount of carbon as coal and oil last time, it will likely take around the same period of time to sequester the carbon we are currently releasing (and the rate variations discussed in the article are many decimal points away from fixing the problem).

I know, as usual I am responding with a fact-based response to silly trolling, but someone has to play the straight man.

your understanding of the carbon cycle is unassailable as usual

why dont you read that link shredder posted before you further embarrass yourself

Originally Posted by wendigo

you be looking in the wrong places yo.
none of the forest aspects come remotely close to the energy stores of the oceans.

carbon =/= energy (well not in this context anyway)

but your point is well taken. oceanography is probably way more important than atmospheric effects in regards to climatology, and we really dont know jack shit about oceanography, even less than we understand about atmospheric systems

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

carbon =/= energy (well not in this context anyway)

but your point is well taken. oceanography is probably way more important than atmospheric effects in regards to climatology, and we really dont know jack shit about oceanography, even less than we understand about atmospheric systems

I'm glad you are finally agreeing to more research!

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

your understanding of the carbon cycle is unassailable as usual
why dont you read that link shredder posted before you further embarrass yourself

The point is that carbon sequestration in forests is a short-term effect, while adding carbon to the atmosphere will have impacts for millenia. So if trees take up carbon slightly faster than earlier estimates, it really makes no impact in the bigger picture, because eventually (somewhere between 25 and 80 years from the link below) the forest will reach carbon equilibrium, while humans continue to add carbon to the atmosphere that will remain in the atmosphere for thousands of years (each year geological sequestration would remove some into oceans and land, but this is many times slower process).
http://www.epa.gov/sequestration/duration.html

"Closely related to the permanence issue is the fact that carbon sequestration eventually saturates. As trees mature, for example, their growth and thus carbon sequestration rates slow and eventually level off. If left undisturbed, carbon saturation in trees may not occur until at least 80 years in the U.S. For agricultural soils, carbon sequestration rates may saturate after about 15-30 years (see the Practices section of this Web site for more information on typical saturation periods)."

Whatever the current rates of carbon sequestration in trees, human carbon additions are clearly outweighing the combined effects of biological and geological sequestration, so a percentage change in one aspect of biological sequestration has no significant impact on the problem.


But I realize that your interest is not climate change but trolling, or you would not indulge in such obvious cherry-picking of data.

Originally Posted by tommyvee

I'm a complete hypocrite.

Yay! The complete hypocrite is back!!!

This calls for a Gary Numan video!:

Lets say everything is reforested with mature forest, best case scenario. How much co2 is that? 20 ppm? 50 ppm? Someone has to have figured that out.

Originally Posted by tommyvee

But I realize that your interest is not climate change but trolling, or you would not indulge in such obvious cherry-picking of data.

Goddamn scientific scientists............

Originally Posted by ilikecandy

carbon =/= energy (well not in this context anyway)

but your point is well taken. oceanography is probably way more important than atmospheric effects in regards to climatology, and I really dont know jack shit about oceanography, even less than I understand about atmospheric systems so I am going to quote articles that I don't understand that I think make my point, but in reality prove my point wrong and make me look like a bigger retard then I already look

Fixed it

^^^ Funny but I fixed it in my mind but was too lazy and didn't care enough to post it. We camped next to a professor of oceanography this summer who specializes in the whole CO2 sink thing and is working on a couple studies as we speak. Picked his brain for three days just scrapping the surface of his knowledge at best.