CO2 and Deforestation: Back of the envelope calculation.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 08:02:27 -0700, Tunderbar wrote:

On Jul 4, 1:07Â*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...w-much-co2-by-
weigh...

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

Â*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 = Â*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�!

Mature trees don't "suck up" much CO2. Young growing plants do. When you
deforest an area, it starts growing new vegetation, ergo more CO2 is
"sucked up" as a result. Feel free to add that to your calculations.

And in the end, with all the big numbers you are throwing around, the
atmosphere and the hydrosphere are many orders of magnitude bigger than
your numbers. CO2 is still trace amounts of the atmosphere.

So, Tunderbar would have people believe that the way for humans to shrink
their carbon footprint is to cut down old growth forests so that new
growth trees can suck up carbon.

Really?

You can't make this **** up.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 18:29:59 -0400, bjacoby wrote:

On 7/5/2012 8:43 AM, Dawlish wrote:
On Jul 4, 7:07 pm, wrote:

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/...009summercoll/
Barnet2_InfraRadTran.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.
*))


You are a waste of perfectly good skin, Dawlish. It's all been explained
to you a thousand times and yet you are still pretending to be willfully
ignorant.

Take him at face value. He is not *pretending* to be willfully ignorant.

CO2 AT MOST produces only 20% of supposed warming:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...JD014287.shtml

And in spite of the fact your supposed "causality" between CO2 and
"radiative forcing" has fallen apart such that there isn't even a
correlation, let alone a casualty, still you keep pretending to to be
ignorant of science in hopes of training the gullible to be as ignorant
of science as you pretend to be.

Somehow all you whackjobs seem to think that nobody is smart enough to
figure out what you are all up to.

Who knows? Maybe with enough "postive feedbacks" that theory could be
right as well?

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 15:54:33 -0700, Brad Guth wrote:

On Jul 5, 7:56Â*am, Desertphile wrote:
On Wed, 4 Jul 2012 15:42:16 -0700 (PDT), Brad Guth









wrote:
On Jul 4, 11:07Â*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...w-much-co2-by-
weigh...

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

Â*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 = Â*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?

It isn't a problem of figuring out the effects: it's a problem of
rejecting the facts and evidence.

Â*http://groups.google.com/groups/search
Â*http://translate.google.com/#
Â*Brad Guth,Brad_Guth,Brad.Guth,BradGuth,BG,Guth Usenet/â€�Guth Venusâ€�

--
"RESPECT ARE - COUNTRY SPEAK ENGLISH" --- sign at a "tea party" rally

I must continually reject those unwilling to interpret the best
available science. It's called mainstream obfuscation, and those
opposed to any GW/AGW that's human caused are always good at obfuscating
their butts off.

The all-inclusive affects of humans isn't insignificant.

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

Wait... aren't you the guy who wants to dig tunnels on the moon and don't
believe in special relativity?

CO2 AT MOST produces only 20% of supposed warming:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...JD014287.shtml

Where does it say only 20% of the _increase_ in temperature comes from
CO2?

.. . .

Somehow all you whackjobs seem to think that nobody is smart enough to
figure out what you are all up to.

It's a safe bet you never passed and college level math or science
courses.

It's an even safer bet even the fossil fuel industry doesn't want you
on their side.

Maybe Heartland thinks you are a useful idiot.


Bret Cahill

On 7/6/2012 12:08 AM, Bret Cahill wrote:
CO2 AT MOST produces only 20% of supposed warming:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...JD014287.shtml

Where does it say only 20% of the _increase_ in temperature comes from
CO2?

Oh cute. It only causes 20% of TOTAL warming, but now you are going to
say that somehow the "increase" comes from somewhere other than the
total sources? Is there no limit to the amount of drugs you can imbibe?

Somehow all you whackjobs seem to think that nobody is smart enough to
figure out what you are all up to.

It's a safe bet you never passed and college level math or science
courses.

Presumably you are a Democrat and as research shows are far less
educated than your conservative counterparts. So I'd guess it's a pretty
safe bet that you dropped out of school in the 8th grade to try to be a
rap star after viewing the movie "8 Mile" with Eminem .

It's an even safer bet even the fossil fuel industry doesn't want you
on their side.

It's a pretty safe bet that the tax whores pushing the AGW tax are NEVER
going to make you a millionaire like Dr. Hansen. You are allowed to go
out and bring back burgers for the meeting, however.

Maybe Heartland thinks you are a useful idiot.

Lessee. "useful idiot"? Wasn't that a Leftard "progressive" term used by
Lenin speaking of his "workers"? We need you to post that reference
again showing that those who know the least always think they know the
most.

On 05/07/2012 19:56, David Friedman wrote:
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:

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.

I think the hypothesis being advanced was that the cutting down of
forests was a major cause of increases in atmospheric CO2--am I
mistaken? If so, your point above doesn't seem to follow from your
argument. If we have one cause that is increasing the ratio of C12 to
C13 and another that is having the opposite effect, one would have to
put numbers to the changes in both directions to figure out what the net
change would be--which you have not done.

Am I missing something in your argument?

The amount of the change in the stable isotope ratios observed and the
direction of deltaC13 is unambiguous - the *increase* in atmospheric CO2
is from burning old fossil fuels. Observations trump hand waving.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:24:47 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

On 05/07/2012 19:56, David Friedman wrote:
In article ,
Martin Brown wrote:

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.

I think the hypothesis being advanced was that the cutting down of
forests was a major cause of increases in atmospheric CO2--am I
mistaken? If so, your point above doesn't seem to follow from your
argument. If we have one cause that is increasing the ratio of C12 to
C13 and another that is having the opposite effect, one would have to
put numbers to the changes in both directions to figure out what the
net change would be--which you have not done.

Am I missing something in your argument?

The amount of the change in the stable isotope ratios observed and the
direction of deltaC13 is unambiguous - the *increase* in atmospheric CO2
is from burning old fossil fuels. Observations trump hand waving.

You're ignoring all the other sources of sequestered carbon, like
carbonate rocks from both the manufacture of portland cement and from
dissolving carbonate rocks in the ocean.

If it was all due to fossil fuels, you'd have to believe that fossil fuel
sourced CO2 was magical and will take a long time to enter the ocean,
when in reality many gigatons per year enter the ocean.

On Thu, 05 Jul 2012 21:08:08 -0700, Bret Cahill wrote:

CO2 AT MOST produces only 20% of supposed warming:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/201...JD014287.shtml

Where does it say only 20% of the _increase_ in temperature comes from
CO2?

Right there in the abstract:

"With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that
water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by
clouds (∼25%) and then CO2 with ∼20%."

Or are you playing a childish semantic game?


. . .

Somehow all you whackjobs seem to think that nobody is smart enough to
figure out what you are all up to.

It's a safe bet you never passed and college level math or science
courses.

It's an even safer bet even the fossil fuel industry doesn't want you on
their side.

Maybe Heartland thinks you are a useful idiot.


Bret Cahill

On Jul 6, 12:45*pm, Marvin the Martian wrote:
On Fri, 06 Jul 2012 10:24:47 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
On 05/07/2012 19:56, David Friedman wrote:
In article ,
* Martin Brown wrote:

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.

I think the hypothesis being advanced was that the cutting down of
forests was a major cause of increases in atmospheric CO2--am I
mistaken? If so, your point above doesn't seem to follow from your
argument. If we have one cause that is increasing the ratio of C12 to
C13 and another that is having the opposite effect, one would have to
put numbers to the changes in both directions to figure out what the
net change would be--which you have not done.

Am I missing something in your argument?

The amount of the change in the stable isotope ratios observed and the
direction of deltaC13 is unambiguous - the *increase* in atmospheric CO2
is from burning old fossil fuels. Observations trump hand waving.

You're ignoring all the other sources of sequestered carbon, like
carbonate rocks from both the manufacture of portland cement and from
dissolving carbonate rocks in the ocean.

If it was all due to fossil fuels, you'd have to believe that fossil fuel
sourced CO2 was magical and will take a long time to enter the ocean,
when in reality many gigatons per year enter the ocean.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Nobody, ever, in any published paper, has said that "it is all due to
fossil fuels". It's just yet another denier crock. You are just an
alien who doesn't don't think that CO2 is the main cause of the
current warming. You are in a tiny minority for believing that; you
don't like it and you'll say anything to justify your crazy beliefs.
Won't you?

On 7/6/12 6:47 AM, Marvin the Martian wrote:
"With a straightforward scheme for allocating overlaps, we find that
water vapor is the dominant contributor (∼50% of the effect), followed by
clouds (∼25%) and then CO2 with ∼20%."


Increased CO2 makes more water vapor, a greenhouse gas which amplifies
warming

When skeptics use this argument, they are trying to imply that an
increase in CO2 isn't a major problem. If CO2 isn't as powerful as water
vapor, which there's already a lot of, adding a little more CO2 couldn't
be that bad, right? What this argument misses is the fact that water
vapor creates what scientists call a 'positive feedback loop' in the
atmosphere — making any temperature changes larger than they would be
otherwise.

How does this work? The amount of water vapor in the atmosphere exists
in direct relation to the temperature. If you increase the temperature,
more water evaporates and becomes vapor, and vice versa. So when
something else causes a temperature increase (such as extra CO2 from
fossil fuels), more water evaporates. Then, since water vapor is a
greenhouse gas, this additional water vapor causes the temperature to go
up even further—a positive feedback.

How much does water vapor amplify CO2 warming? Studies show that water
vapor feedback roughly doubles the amount of warming caused by CO2. So
if there is a 1°C change caused by CO2, the water vapor will cause the
temperature to go up another 1°C. When other feedback loops are
included, the total warming from a potential 1°C change caused by CO2
is, in reality, as much as 3°C.

The other factor to consider is that water is evaporated from the land
and sea and falls as rain or snow all the time. Thus the amount held in
the atmosphere as water vapour varies greatly in just hours and days as
result of the prevailing weather in any location. So even though water
vapour is the greatest greenhouse gas, it is relatively short-lived. On
the other hand, CO2 is removed from the air by natural geological-scale
processes and these take a long time to work. Consequently CO2 stays in
our atmosphere for years and even centuries. A small additional amount
has a much more long-term effect.

So skeptics are right in saying that water vapor is the dominant
greenhouse gas. What they don't mention is that the water vapor feedback
loop actually makes temperature changes caused by CO2 even bigger.

See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/wate...nhouse-gas.htm