CO2 and Deforestation: Back of the envelope calculation.

Back of the envelope cutting TREES and CO2
===
http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/gl.../deforest.html
40 million acres per year. Trees destroyed each YEAR!

CO2 stored per acre per year: 3.67 metric tons CO2 .

Calculation of CO2 in atmosphere.

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007...he-atmosphere/

1750-1960 Produced 1190 million tons CO2 per year into atmosphere.

From 1960 to 2007 produced 12,127 million tons per year.

For drill we will assume that trees are on average 50 years old and all
CO2 stored in trees ends up being freed by burning, decay etc.

40 x 3.67 x 50 = 7140 million tons of CO2 EACH YEAR produced by Forest
destruction!

Note that this is 60% of the CO2 increase that is being claimed as ONLY
due to fossil fuels.

And there is one more thing: The trees cut down are no longer sucking up
CO2 so their YEARLY UPTAKE must be ADDED to the total which is another
150 million tons per year.

The point of this exercise is not to produce an exact theory of CO2 and
deforestation but simply to do a quick calculation to show that
deforestation is likely a MAJOR cause if not THE major cause of the
alarming, dramatic and accelerating CO2 levels in the atmosphere that is
being attributed to fossil fuel use.

I’d say we are damn lucky CO2 does NOT cause “global warming”!

On 7/4/2012 3:21 PM, David Friedman wrote:
In ,
wrote:

And there is one more thing: The trees cut down are no longer sucking up
CO2 so their YEARLY UPTAKE must be ADDED to the total which is another
150 million tons per year.

That part of your analysis is wrong. A forest in equilibrium isn't
"sucking up CO2," since the total mass of carbon locked up isn't
changing.

Not true. A tree sucks in CO2 and turns it into wood. While you are
right about the fine point that trees grow slower as they age, they
never stop growing until they die. A careful study (which this was not)
would take the sprouting and dying of trees into account, but still
living trees keep growing. That's where all those "tree rings" come
from! That's where those tons of CO2 "locked up" go. If you cut down
the trees and burn them (like commonly done in Brazil to raise cows)
then not only are those trees no longer sucking in CO2 to make wood, but
the CO2 already locked into the wood is released back into the air!
Obviously this is a CO2 problem when large amounts of forests are
cleared. Or at least that was the point the calculation addressed.

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 14:07:28 -0400, bjacoby
wrote:


I’d say we are damn lucky CO2 does NOT cause “global warming”!

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal.../410355a0.html

Increases in greenhouse forcing inferred from the outgoing
longwave radiation spectra of the Earth in 1970 and 1997

John E. Harries, Helen E. Brindley, Pretty J. Sagoo & Richard J.
Bantges

Space and Atmospheric Physics Group, Blackett Laboratory, Imperial
College, London SW7 2BW, UK

Correspondence to: John E. Harries. Correspondence and requests
for materials should be addressed to J.E.H. (e-mail: Email:
).

The evolution of the Earth's climate has been extensively studied
(1, 2), and a strong link between increases in surface
temperatures and greenhouse gases has been established (3, 4). But
this relationship is complicated by several feedback processes---
most importantly the hydrological cycle--- that are not well
understood (5, 6, 7). Changes in the Earth's greenhouse effect can
be detected from variations in the spectrum of outgoing longwave
radiation (8, 9, 10), which is a measure of how the Earth cools to
space and carries the imprint of the gases that are responsible
for the greenhouse effect (11, 12, 13). Here we analyse the
difference between the spectra of the outgoing longwave radiation
of the Earth as measured by orbiting spacecraft in 1970 and 1997.
We find differences in the spectra that point to long-term changes
in atmospheric CH4, CO2 and O3 as well as CFC-11 and CFC-12. Our
results provide direct experimental evidence for a significant
increase in the Earth's greenhouse effect that is consistent with
concerns over radiative forcing of climate.

Global, Regional, and National Fossil-Fuel CO2 Emissions
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/emis/overview_2006.html

Stable isotope ratio mass spectrometry in global climate change
research
http://www.bgc.mpg.de/service/iso_ga...PG_WB_IJMS.pdf

Global oceanic and land biotic carbon sinks
http://bluemoon.ucsd.edu/publication...eeling2006.pdf

Measurements of the Radiative Surface Forcing of Climate
http://ams.confex.com/ams/Annual2006...per_100737.htm

How do we know more CO2 is causing warming?
http://www.skepticalscience.com/empi...use-effect.htm

Changes in Atmospheric Constituents and in Radiative Forcing
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-re...1-chapter2.pdf

NOAA: Past Decade Warmest on Record According to Scientists in 48
Countries; Earth has been growing warmer for more than fifty years
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories...heclimate.html

Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html

The Carbon Dioxide Greenhouse Effect
http://www.aip.org/history/climate/co2.htm

"Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect"
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/...idt_etal_1.pdf

"Infrared radiation and planetary temperature"
http://ptonline.aip.org/journals/doc...s_1/33_1.shtml
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pap...odayRT2011.pdf

"Te - the surface temperature of the earth if there were no
atmosphere, is known as the effective emission temperature. It is
determined solely by the insolation and the planetary albedo. On
Earth, Te is much colder than the observed global-mean surface
temperature of 15C or 288 K. The difference must be due to the
atmosphere. The warming effect of the atmosphere, known as the
greenhouse effect, is best understood as follows. The atmosphere
is opaque in the infrared, which means that the mean emission
level is lifted off the ground. The mean temperature at the
emission level (i.e. the mean brightness temperature) must be Te
in order for emission to match absorbed insolation. But the
atmosphere has a positive lapse rate, and so the temperature at
the ground must be greater than Te." Wow!

Taken from the excellent free lecture notes on Physical
Meteorology, Page 132.
http://mathsci.ucd.ie/met/msc/PhysMe...tLectNotes.pdf

The History of Atmospheric Carbon Dioxide on Earth
http://www.planetforlife.com/co2history/index.html

"Proof of the Atmospheric Greenhouse Effect:"
http://arxiv.org/abs/0802.4324

Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperature
http://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/pap...odayRT2011.pdf

Attribution of the present-day total greenhouse effect
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2010/...idt_etal_1.pdf

Scientific Evidence - Increasing Temperatures & Greenhouse Gases
http://www.whrc.org/resources/primer_fundamentals.html

Actual Calculations: The Physical Chemistry of Climate Change
(Fritz Franzen)
http://edu-observatory.org/Franzen/index.html

The radiative forcings give a decent picture of why the earth is
globally warming. As you can see there are many contributors to
the radiative forcing, with human generated CO2 leading the way.

http://edu-observatory.org/olli/IPCC_SPM.2.png

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...rcings.svg.png



--
REALITY NEEDS ALLIES!
"RESPECT ARE - COUNTRY SPEAK ENGLISH" --- sign at a "tea party" rally

On Jul 4, 11:07*am, bjacoby wrote:
Back of the envelope cutting TREES and CO2
===http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/defo...
40 million acres per year. Trees destroyed each YEAR!

CO2 stored per acre per year: 3.67 metric tons CO2 .

Calculation of CO2 in atmosphere.

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007...h-co2-by-weigh...

1750-1960 *Produced *1190 million tons CO2 per year into atmosphere.

*From 1960 to 2007 produced 12,127 million tons per year.

For drill we will assume that trees are on average 50 years old and all
CO2 stored in trees ends up being freed by burning, decay etc.

40 x 3.67 x 50 = *7140 million tons of CO2 EACH YEAR produced by Forest
destruction!

Note that this is 60% of the CO2 increase that is being claimed as ONLY
due to fossil fuels.

And there is one more thing: The trees cut down are no longer sucking up
CO2 so their YEARLY UPTAKE must be ADDED to the total which is another
150 million tons per year.

The point of this exercise is not to produce an exact theory of CO2 and
deforestation but simply to do a quick calculation to show that
deforestation is likely a MAJOR cause if not THE major cause of the
alarming, dramatic and accelerating CO2 levels in the atmosphere that is
being attributed to fossil fuel use.

I’d say we are damn lucky CO2 does NOT cause “global warming”!

Which fossil fuels (aka hydrocarbons) do not consume atmosphere?

Which hydrocarbons w/atmosphere are not negative energy?

Assuming Earth was chemically and thermal-dynamically balanced before
modern humans ever came along, and if we modern humans contribute 70
TW/hr, where's the problem in figuring out this GW/AGW thing?

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 12:21:33 -0700, David Friedman wrote:

In article ,
bjacoby wrote:

And there is one more thing: The trees cut down are no longer sucking
up CO2 so their YEARLY UPTAKE must be ADDED to the total which is
another 150 million tons per year.

That part of your analysis is wrong. A forest in equilibrium isn't
"sucking up CO2," since the total mass of carbon locked up isn't
changing.

You've not spent much time in old growth and new forest, I take it.

The old forests are huge. It is generally dark in the old forests.

New forests look like overgrown Christmas tree farms.

Go visit the redwood groves sometime, and see the thousand year old trees
and come back and say more silly things about how forests don't gather
carbon dioxide.

On 7/4/2012 5:59 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
wrote:

Back of the envelope cutting TREES and CO2

Back of the stupid spewing idiot nonsense of which he knows nothing.

Rice-a-roni. NOT a scientist or any science knowledge. An ignorant
writer whose only skill is to use words to prevaricate. If you want
some credibility then lets see YOUR calculation! Ooooo! NUMBERS! Writers
don't do numbers. They only do lies!

So your bottom line is I know nothing, but you are too ignorant to prove
it and in your opinion cutting down and burning forests is a GOOD thing.
Glad we know where you stand on all this.

Don't you realize you are embarrassing yourself and all "progressives"
in a world-wide public forum?

On Jul 4, 7:59*pm, bjacoby wrote:
On 7/4/2012 5:59 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:

*wrote:

Back of the envelope cutting TREES and CO2

Back of the stupid spewing idiot nonsense of which he knows nothing.

Rice-a-roni. NOT a scientist or any science knowledge. An ignorant
writer whose only skill is to use words to prevaricate. *If you want
some credibility then lets see YOUR calculation! Ooooo! NUMBERS! Writers
don't do numbers. They only do lies!

So your bottom line is I know nothing, but you are too ignorant to prove
it and in your opinion cutting down and burning forests is a GOOD thing.
Glad we know where you stand on all this.

Don't you realize you are embarrassing yourself and all "progressives"
in a world-wide public forum?

ZNR FUD-masters like Fredric are only doing their public-funded jobs,
of topic/author stalking and keeping all independent investigative
types like yourself from getting any mainstream media or K12
attention.

http://groups.google.com/groups/search
http://translate.google.com/#
Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/”Guth Venus”

On 04/07/2012 20:21, David Friedman wrote:
In article ,
bjacoby wrote:

And there is one more thing: The trees cut down are no longer sucking up
CO2 so their YEARLY UPTAKE must be ADDED to the total which is another
150 million tons per year.

That part of your analysis is wrong. A forest in equilibrium isn't
"sucking up CO2," since the total mass of carbon locked up isn't
changing.

In a natural forest where the trees grow and then fall over and rot away
again you would be right (apart from situations where the dead wood gets
into an anaerobic environment and gets buried first). Peat bogs are also
pretty good at laying down carbon long term. That was what happened when
the coal measures were laid down.

But in a commercially maintained forest with replanting the wood gets
removed and used for a few decades at least and centuries at best. Many
trees are long lived and can grow for a few hundred years if left alone.
The stuff that is removed and burned as fuel is neutral.

But the key point here is that cutting down trees would not alter the
isotopic ratio of atmospheric CO2 in the *direction* that is being
observed so the hypothesis advanced here is total bunkum and can be
dismissed on that evidence alone.

Plants preferentially concentrate the faster moving light isotope of CO2
containing C12 so when fossil fuels are burned the measured value of
deltaC13 shifts accordingly. It would shift in exactly the opposite
direction if the atmospheric changes were due to lack of trees.

http://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/graphics_...ic_trends.html

Equally old carbon that has been in the ground for a very long time
(many half lives) has depleted level of the radioactive isotope C14.
Again the experimental record also shows that this is the case.
(although measurements of C14 data around the time of atmospheric
nuclear weapons testing are a bit of a mess when we were directly
injecting C14 into the atmosphere locally by neutron capture reactions).

It is left as an exercise to the reader to work out how much oil and
coal is produced and burned annually.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Wed, 04 Jul 2012 22:59:57 -0400, bjacoby wrote:

On 7/4/2012 5:59 PM, Fredric L. Rice wrote:
wrote:

Back of the envelope cutting TREES and CO2

Back of the stupid spewing idiot nonsense of which he knows nothing.

Rice-a-roni. NOT a scientist or any science knowledge. An ignorant
writer whose only skill is to use words to prevaricate. If you want
some credibility then lets see YOUR calculation! Ooooo! NUMBERS! Writers
don't do numbers. They only do lies!

So your bottom line is I know nothing, but you are too ignorant to prove
it and in your opinion cutting down and burning forests is a GOOD thing.
Glad we know where you stand on all this.

Don't you realize you are embarrassing yourself and all "progressives"
in a world-wide public forum?

Breathtaking, isn't it? The Eco-Nazis, with some justification, complain
about cutting down old growth forests, and now that it is on the side of
being a cause of the CO2, suddenly these guys SUPPORT it as having no
impact at all.

Whatever fits the argument of the day. Tomorrow, cutting down the Amazon
will go back to being an evil right wing plot.

On Jul 4, 7:07*pm, bjacoby wrote:
Back of the envelope cutting TREES and CO2
===http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange2/current/lectures/defo...
40 million acres per year. Trees destroyed each YEAR!

CO2 stored per acre per year: 3.67 metric tons CO2 .

Calculation of CO2 in atmosphere.

http://micpohling.wordpress.com/2007...h-co2-by-weigh...

1750-1960 *Produced *1190 million tons CO2 per year into atmosphere.

*From 1960 to 2007 produced 12,127 million tons per year.

For drill we will assume that trees are on average 50 years old and all
CO2 stored in trees ends up being freed by burning, decay etc.

40 x 3.67 x 50 = *7140 million tons of CO2 EACH YEAR produced by Forest
destruction!

Note that this is 60% of the CO2 increase that is being claimed as ONLY
due to fossil fuels.

And there is one more thing: The trees cut down are no longer sucking up
CO2 so their YEARLY UPTAKE must be ADDED to the total which is another
150 million tons per year.

The point of this exercise is not to produce an exact theory of CO2 and
deforestation but simply to do a quick calculation to show that
deforestation is likely a MAJOR cause if not THE major cause of the
alarming, dramatic and accelerating CO2 levels in the atmosphere that is
being attributed to fossil fuel use.

I’d say we are damn lucky CO2 does NOT cause “global warming”!

Every now and then, some nutbar comes on here and says this.

Read this, will you? CO2 most certainly does cause warming. You are
simply ignorant of the fact and the physics - like others of your ilk:

http://www.jcsda.noaa.gov/documents/...fraRadTran.pdf

Now come back on and tell us that CO2 does not cause global warming.
You won't, because you can't justify your idiot assertion. You'll
probably have a go at me instead for showing you up as a nutbar again.
*))