Oh no, they do to a very small extent. Just not enough to cause runaway warming, or even the warming we've seen over the last 30 years.
No, my contention is it is not a faita compli that cutting down trees in one area means the planet is being deforested.
How can there be "localized" deforestation in a man centered Global Warming thread? A tree is felled locally, however the effect globally is negligible.
i don't know you're the one that keeps implying its localized then switch to an argument of "its not enough" or as I said earlier the rate at which the trees are being cut down is less then the rate at which the trees are growing.
You have not stated that as an affirmative fact, are trees being cut down faster than they are being replaced on a Global reference? A tree can be cut down locally, but Globally what is the effect and how is that provable with certainty?
I stated at the beginning that is the current theory of deforestation. Do we really want to turn this into a how can you prove that for sure for sure argument? Remember it cuts both ways.
I thought you were discussing whether plants could grow fast enough to counter the heat caused by CO2? And by "countering", you meant excessive, problematic, unwanted heat? Maybe I misunderstood you, but CO2 doing that, is an assumption and not a fact.
ok gotcha. then to if it does not counter alot, you would have to assume the amount of waves coming in is a small number no?
And the evidence that is used to support that theory is? Why not? To me one of the problems with this entire line of thought, and the entire issue, is people have not said "prove it" enough as well as questioning the basis for the belief. For example, this thread was began with the leading climate gathering to decide how best to explain why they were incorrect in their projections and how they would explain that to the public before someone else did...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation#Rates_of_deforestation Your evidence to support the fact that the trees are growing at a faster rate is? Then you assume the scientists have not said prove it enough. Or it was about the fact that the sun surface has been less active in less years...........
Not quite sure I get you here. I wasn't commenting on trees countering CO2 levels (although I think its possible with crop management). As far as waves, are you talking about the radiative transfer?
Indeed: My evidence is found in your own source unlucky: your own C&p contradicts your theory, "a wide range of estimates" Okay...what are their estimates based on, has there been third party reviews of those estimates and has any new information arisen to upset either theory? It is like that over and over in this discussion, a "fact" once assumed becomes a near and dear friend who shall never be departed from no matter the evidence that makes the fact as reliable. Or does this: From your own source not bolster my somewhat theory? For every one acre cut down, 50 have replaced it see! seee! the Trees are taking over man... If the cause is the sun has been less active, then wouldn't logic demand a recalcualtion of the dominant theory to account for less solar activity?
sure. But still no evidence that the rate at which the forests are growing back. Basically your argument is it has to be this because, this other theory might have some flaws.....
hmmmmmmmm you lost me. aren't you saying that co2 does not block a large amount of heat, therefore, the trees are enough to counter the co2 enough for there to be little to no effect?
It was your own source unlucky, I haven't bothered to look as simple logic would deem a tree being cut down in the amazon will be replaced by a tree growing in Siberia...
i think you are still missing the point. I understand a tree can be replaced by another tree in another area, of course assuming they both do the same amount of work. Lets assume for the moment they do. The question is though, if we cut down two trees an hour, and one tree grows an hour, the rate of trees being cut down will eventually overtake the rate at which trees are growing, leading to very little/ no trees. Its the tortoise and the hare problem. If the tortoise moves at a constant rate, and the hare moves at a faster rate, then unless the hare rests for infinity, he will eventually overtake the tortoise.
From your source: Mathematical modeling based on? http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/30/science/earth/30forest.html Also from your wiki article...new rainforests?
And that is the assumption being made, why isn't 3 tree growing for every one being cut down? Why is that?
Yes! this is what I was saying. The physical properties of CO2 just don't allow it. It can only absorb radiation (heat) at few selected bandwidths, while the rest, or vast majority of radiation passes right by it untouched and is absorbed by other gases like water vapor, methane, nitrous, ect. In other words, CO2 is a piss poor excuse for a greenhouse gas. CO2 can reach a saturation point in the atmosphere rather quickly, as some already think it has (at certain altitudes anyway). This means that there are enough CO2 molecules preoccupying those few absorbable bandwidths, and that adding any more, would result in the excess CO2 essentially sitting around doing nothing, as all the others down below are having all the fun. This is precisely why atmospheric CO2 has been at levels 15 times today, yet it was incapable of pulling us out of the coldest ice ages in the geologic record. It simply can't drive temps the way some would like you (us) to believe. I think crop management could absolutely lower atmospheric CO2 levels, which would make some people real happy. But again, I don't think it would have an effect on temperatures.
sheesh.. Padre.. you derailed the entire thread with your tree cutting argument.. this is what always happens.. a good discussion begins and somehow it is sidetracked with some obscure element and the focus is lost.
its funny but I remember reading some renowned scientist saying that the next environmental scare would either be global cooling, water shortage or oxygen shortage?! I didnt know if he was being serious or was making a joke lol
Well, in some ways that is correct and some ways it is not, my theory is most of the Global Environmental reason to exist is based on a failure to ask why certain assumptions are made, from the thought that a tree being cut down in Brazil means a net loss of trees instead of looking for trees growing elsewhere that would mean a net gain of trees. CO2 in the atmosphere is inherently "bad" when in fact it makes up a tiny percentage of the total mix, and when CO2 is required for plant life to thrive. Which makes the tree theory and even odder proposition, "if" CO2 is a boon to plant growth, and the level is supposedly increasing massively, then it would not be illogical to assume that additional tree growth will occur, and yet the deforestation theory claims the opposite in fact. As for the real focus, it was my intention to see "why" that panel of experts was meeting to try and come up with an explanation why their models will not be accurate for the next 10 to 20 yrs when the theory is Global Temps will rise like an up escalator. Their explanation that a longer term view must be taken is also odd to me because they have based their theory on a relatively short period of geological time with 1998 being the peak year, and even the peak amounted to little more than one half of one degree...
because you would need some proof. what you have cited is some proof. but, according to you its all irrelevant anyways since we can't trust the scientist to make good assumptions correct?
Global cooling, by far is the real threat, and not global warming. Most of the classic doomsday senarios you keep hearing are actually associated with a cooler Earth, not a warming one. Vicious storms, droughts, mass starvation/extinctions, yada yada yada, all much worse when the Earth was colder. Sea levels obviously would rise during warming due to ice melt and thermal expansion. But interestingly enough, the oceans got into a cooling trend in 2003, ice melt has been vastly exaggerated by alarmists in the scientific community and the willing media, and lo and behold..... sea levels have not only flattened, but the have actually dropped as of late. Now, definitely way too soon to know if this continues or not, but it sounds just a little different than the usual, "It's worse than we thought" crap, doesn't it?
Wow, I'm amazed, thank you everyone. Marty I understand your concern but in reading all the extra input, including tree growth among other things, is wonderful. I have a saying "For every smoking gun there is always a bullet of truth in it." While I'm sure to those of you who believe one side or the other these side roads are a little upsetting to someone who just wants to learn; the side roads are illuminating to say the least. Again thanks!
The next 20 years? How about the "why" in their abysmal track record during the first 20 years. The answer, I suspect you already know. It's called "Damage Control".
