Tuesday, April 10, 2007

Woodsman, Fell That Tree

The Scientific American writes: "More Trees, Less Global Warming, Right? -- Not Exactly. A 150-year simulation of worldwide deforestation finds that tropical forests are carbon sinks and boreal forests contribute to warming." Not exactly, eh? Ok. Now that we really understand the climate, can the EPA, which now has the power to regulate Greenhouse Gases, whether it likes it or not, order boreal forests chopped down to "Save the Planet"?


Blogger Doug said...

The DOD should determine the geographic distribution and strengths of future Hurricanes associated with different patterns of tree cover and detail the national security implications of each scenario.
Be Prepared!

4/10/2007 05:47:00 PM  
Blogger Pyrthroes said...

"Global warming" is cyclical, not linear. Short-term, over 800 years from AD 1313, the cycle derives from Earth's passage at a shallow angle through an annular ring of dust in the plane of the ecliptic between Mars and Venus.

Over some 550 years, to about 1875, Earth experienced a Little Ice Age. This reached its low in 1713, when wine froze in the goblets at the palace of Versailles. From 1913 to 2113, we remain above the upswing baseline, on a 200-year climax which will terminate like clockwork 106 years from 2007.

From 1890 - 1939, fifty years, Earth's rebound from the Little Ice Age drove record highs. Then from 1940 to 1979, forty years, we experienced pronounced cooling. Currently, from 1980 - 2009, warming has persisted over thirty years. From 2010 - 2030, twenty years, odds are the global "thermostat" will noticeably cool. After 2030, amplitudes and frequencies of such phases will fibrillate until the system crashes downward, probably before the cycle's 2113 cutoff.

Note that atmospheric CO2 is completely marginal. At .0095% of atmospheric constituents, since 1990 Mount St. Helens and Pinatubo alone have blasted more "greenhouse gas" aloft in twenty minutes than all industrial civilization over 200 years.

Paradoxically, volcanic CO2 does not warm but cool the atmosphere, because as warm air rises, colder currents sweep in underneath. Over 10-million years, CO2 in excess of 300 parts per million (PPM) has invariably preceded ice-age onsets. At 306 PPM today, with the current interglacial period 500 - 1500 years past the 11,000 year historic average, this 21st Century will very probably experience downside climate shifts unlike any conceivable before.

Think deep-ocean volcanism warming global seas, driving evaporative cooling processes akin to air-conditioning-- not only will atmospheric currents shift, but major oceanic ones such as the Gulf Stream will reverse course as well.

Combining geophysical history with basic meteorolgy, allied to long-term plate-tectonic and intra-solar factors, it is simply astounding to see climatologists wilfully misrepresent such robust evidence. But their abstruse models, based on selective data and flawed extrapolations like the notorious "hockey stick" graph beloved of the contemptible Al Gore, are subjective and irrelevent. Blind casuistry such as "global warming" has no place in science.

Here is a valid, falsifiable, hard-data based projection: By 2010 - 2012, ocean warming/atmospheric cooling will result in a minimal 20-year global temperature drop similar to that of 1940 - 1979, probably more concentrated and intense. The downtick may well be starting early. Let's hope our children and grandchildren don't face 120,000 years of ice piled two miles above the summit of Mount Washington, stretching thousands of miles north of Hudson's Bay.

On this topic, there will be other "speeches by Toad." Meantime, Nature will go her glaciated way.

4/10/2007 06:50:00 PM  
Blogger Reliapundit said...

maybe they'll raise taxes to buy a huge christo artwork that can cover the entire northern hemisphere's forests with white fabric?

4/10/2007 07:00:00 PM  
Blogger fred said...

I'm not a scientist and I have no background in climatology or meteorology. I just try to read as many "layman friendly" articles as I can.

Would someone please explain to me why solar activity and slight alterations in the planet's orbit around the sun are not more powerful influences on climate changes?

Why do these global warming CO2 fanatics seem to think that the only influences that matter are those that we can control? What about powerful natural forces that we have nothing to do with?

I am not denying that CO2 is not, in some way, contributing to global warming. But, I am not convinced that it is CAUSATIVE and I remain skeptical that it is the most powerful force driving this.

And if we are indeed going through a period of intense sunspot activity such that our boreal forests and their pine needle beds are retaining more of that heat energy, what possible benefit would eliminating those forests accomplish beyond contributing to the disastrous erosion of sparse topsoil?

Honestly, do these people ever think their ideas through to their logical conclusions?

4/10/2007 09:20:00 PM  
Blogger Steve said...

I think this report is simply the first step in an attempt to deny America any carbon credit for trees or forests in North America.

4/11/2007 08:20:00 AM  
Blogger Dewage said...

I love a good rant as much as anyone. The one currently going around titled "Global Warming will wipe out humanity!" is most excellent. I don't know who wrote it, but that guy is good. He's got all the useful idiots so spun up they're ready to create a global totalitarian bureaucracy funded by some bs "Carbon Tax". If I was a conspiracy-minded paranoid, I'd be suspicious -- oh, wait, I am... And, I am... Hmm.

Of course, someone has to be named the head of this con job and given a suitable title, such as "Mr. Bigshot, High Mucky-muck, King-of-the-World and Head of the Global Government Kabuki." Someone from France, no doubt.

4/11/2007 01:44:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home

Powered by Blogger