Why Cut Down the Trees

[Crick]

Says the guy who'd rather drill for oil and gas, mine coal, burn it and send its waste to the wind's four quarters.

 

[SSDD]

Says the guy who'd rather drill for oil and gas, mine coal, burn it and send its waste to the wind's four quarters.

Still waiting for the first piece of observed, measured evidence that supports your belief that it alters the climate in any way....any luck with that yet?

 

[Crick]

www.ipcc.ch, AR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 all present mountains of evidence showing that CO2 alters climate. The problem here is not my lack of evidence, it is your abysmal moral shortcomings. You're a fucking liar and you always have been.

 

[SSDD]

www.ipcc.ch, AR 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 all present mountains of evidence showing that CO2 alters climate. The problem here is not my lack of evidence, it is your abysmal moral shortcomings. You're a fucking liar and you always have been.

So you keep saying...but you don't seem to be able to bring a single piece hear for us to have a look at. Why? Because there is nothing there...models and models of models...poor dupe that you are, you wouldn't recognize actual evidence if it bit you on the ass.

 

[Crick]

I and others have brought hundreds of items of evidence to this forum. You simply reject them out of hand. Besides, as I have stated previously, convincing YOU, with your smart photons and smart matter of anything is a complete waste of time. You're about as important to this argument as would be arguing with the shithouse wall. The only reason you're not on ignore is the entertainment value to be found in your blatant trolling.

 

[SSDD]

I and others have brought hundreds of items of evidence to this forum. You simply reject them out of hand. Besides, as I have stated previously, convincing YOU, with your smart photons and smart matter of anything is a complete waste of time. You're about as important to this argument as would be arguing with the shithouse wall. The only reason you're not on ignore is the entertainment value to be found in your blatant trolling.

Same old lies...neither you, nor anyone else has brought anything even approaching observed, measured evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis...what you have brought has been nothing more than evidence that you wouldn't know what actual evidence was if it bit you on your stupid ass.

So go ahead crick...bring a piece of actual observed, measured evidence that supports the AGW hypothesis over natural variability...just one...

Of course we both know that you won't...because you can't...because none exists.

 

[Crick]

As I have said repeatedly, there is no point in attempting to satisfy YOUR demands. You aren't playing on the same field. You're off by yourself in "I-can-make-up-anything-I-want-Land".

However, for the sake of others:

The observed spectrum of radiation from the atmosphere, measured from the Earth's surface and from space, show the spectral signatures of greenhouse gases precisely as the greenhouse theory predicts. The amount of warming calculated to have been provided by the increased greenhouse gases and major feedback mechanisms matches observations. No other causation can come anywhere close to explaining the thermal behavior of the Earth's atmosphere over the last century. NONE.

Now SSDD will claim that this is nonsense because, as he and only he claims, infrared photons cannot travel to matter warmer than their source. Ask him why this should be so and he will say something like "there are great mysteries in this universe that we are simply not meant to know".

SSDD is trolling this board and always has been. Management would be doing us all a favor to kick him off.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The Forestry Service is just a way for the government to make money clear-cutting trees. It's not there to preserve wildlife or trees, they mow down old Oaks just to get to the pulpwood pines. The whole thing is a farce.

You know what produces Oxygen much more than trees? Grass.

You'll notice grass is never included in the AGW wackjobs' charts, because it's CO2 saturation point is 4-5X higher than the highest plant they post.

 

[Moonglow]

It has been claimed that there are more trees east of the Mississippi then there were when the white man arrived. I don’t know about that but it is a fact that trees are great mitigators of carbon in the atmosphere.

While driving to NC on I-75 south of Atlanta I marveled at the forest of full grown trees on the expressway right of way. It was beautiful and intensely green from all the rain. No more. From Macon North some genius has decided to cut every piece of green down. Mulchers and chainsaws have cut it all. Every cloverleaf in north Georgia is being for all intents and purposes clear cut. Why? Where are the environmentalists? What is the point. How much is this costing. How much more will it cost to replant? This is just plain stupid and ugly. What could possibly be the reason for this?

Money.

 

[Crick]

It has been claimed that there are more trees east of the Mississippi then there were when the white man arrived. I don’t know about that but it is a fact that trees are great mitigators of carbon in the atmosphere.

While driving to NC on I-75 south of Atlanta I marveled at the forest of full grown trees on the expressway right of way. It was beautiful and intensely green from all the rain. No more. From Macon North some genius has decided to cut every piece of green down. Mulchers and chainsaws have cut it all. Every cloverleaf in north Georgia is being for all intents and purposes clear cut. Why? Where are the environmentalists? What is the point. How much is this costing. How much more will it cost to replant? This is just plain stupid and ugly. What could possibly be the reason for this?

Trees are wonderful things, particularly regarding CO2. That said, I would have to guess that the current number of trees east or west of the Mississippi are significantly lower than when humans (either aboriginal or European) arrived. Think of all the land that has been cleared for agriculture, roadways and human habitation. The odds that we have planted more area than that is exceedingly unlikely. I'll continue trying to find some numbers.

Easy enough. Here is the opening paragraph of Wikipedia's "Forests of the United States"


Tongass National Forest, Alaska

It has been estimated that before European settlement, forests in the United States covered nearly 1 billion acres (4,000,000 km2). The arrival of Europeans, however, caused a decline in native populations, and since the natives were largely agricultural, this caused reforestation of agricultural lands.[1] Since the mid-1600s, about 300 million acres (1,200,000 km2) of forest have been cleared, primarily for agriculture during the 19th century.

 

[Old Rocks]

The Forestry Service is just a way for the government to make money clear-cutting trees. It's not there to preserve wildlife or trees, they mow down old Oaks just to get to the pulpwood pines. The whole thing is a farce.

You know what produces Oxygen much more than trees? Grass.

You'll notice grass is never included in the AGW wackjobs' charts, because it's CO2 saturation point is 4-5X higher than the highest plant they post.

LOL Another sad sack at logic. Yes, grass produces oxygen. Then when it burns or decays, it converts that oxygen right back into CO2. Neither a gain nor a loss for either gas with grass. However, trees, left uncut, sequester huge amounts of oxygen in the wood. Eventually, that goes back to CO2, but, for many decades, for some trees, centuries, that carbon is out of the atmosphere.

 

[Marion Morrison]

The Forestry Service is just a way for the government to make money clear-cutting trees. It's not there to preserve wildlife or trees, they mow down old Oaks just to get to the pulpwood pines. The whole thing is a farce.

You know what produces Oxygen much more than trees? Grass.

You'll notice grass is never included in the AGW wackjobs' charts, because it's CO2 saturation point is 4-5X higher than the highest plant they post.

LOL Another sad sack at logic. Yes, grass produces oxygen. Then when it burns or decays, it converts that oxygen right back into CO2. Neither a gain nor a loss for either gas with grass. However, trees, left uncut, sequester huge amounts of oxygen in the wood. Eventually, that goes back to CO2, but, for many decades, for some trees, centuries, that carbon is out of the atmosphere.

 

[Old Rocks]

Now tell me, John, what was incorrect in what I stated?

 

[Marion Morrison]

Now tell me, John, what was incorrect in what I stated?

What happens when those trees get burned?

 

[eagle1462010]

The lumber companies and the Paper mills do cut down areas of forest......They replant them and there are also controlled burns all the time in the South............

Been doing it forever...........they are replanted............grow.....Wash Rinse Spin Dry and repeat

 

[Marion Morrison]

The lumber companies and the Paper mills do cut down areas of forest......They replant them and there are also controlled burns all the time in the South............

Been doing it forever...........they are replanted............grow.....Wash Rinse Spin Dry and repeat

They never leave any section uncut or unburned, though.

 

[eagle1462010]

The lumber companies and the Paper mills do cut down areas of forest......They replant them and there are also controlled burns all the time in the South............

Been doing it forever...........they are replanted............grow.....Wash Rinse Spin Dry and repeat

They never leave any section uncut or unburned, though.

True..........but when I go to Lowe's to buy 2 by 6's they had to come from some where.
They've always done pretty good at replanting.

 

[SSDD]

As I have said repeatedly, there is no point in attempting to satisfy YOUR demands. You aren't playing on the same field. You're off by yourself in "I-can-make-up-anything-I-want-Land".

Yeah....yeah...yeah...you say all sorts of shit...but when the rubber meets the road and it comes down to actually providing some observed, measured evidence...you can't do it...and why? because none exists.

The observed spectrum of radiation from the atmosphere, measured from the Earth's surface and from space, show the spectral signatures of greenhouse gases precisely as the greenhouse theory predicts. The amount of warming calculated to have been provided by the increased greenhouse gases and major feedback mechanisms matches observations. No other causation can come anywhere close to explaining the thermal behavior of the Earth's atmosphere over the last century. NONE.

And the talk continues...what doesn't happen, however is producing some actual observed, measured evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability. We all know that the greenhouse hypothesis predicted a hell of a lot more warming than has actually happened..even with the incredible amount of data tampering and infilling that has rendered the global temperature record useless...then there is the fact that the greenhouse hypothesis and its bastard stepchild, the AGW hypothesis predict that this altered path of escape for IR radation leaving the surface of the earth would result in a pronounced, unmistakable, and undeniable hot spot in the upper troposphere. Alas, it didn't happen...no evidence, just more talk and a revision of what climate science predicted....same old shit different day.

Now SSDD will claim that this is nonsense because, as he and only he claims, infrared photons cannot travel to matter warmer than their source. Ask him why this should be so and he will say something like "there are great mysteries in this universe that we are simply not meant to know".

And the talk continues...got a single measured observation of energy moving spontaneously from coo to warm?...A single one? Of course you don't...and why? Because it doesn't happen. The second law of thermodynamics states explicitly that energy can't move spontaneously from cool to warm....and yet, you belive it does.

What is missing from your attempt to divert attention from the fact that you can't produce a single shred of observed measured evidence supporting the AGW hypothesis over natural variability?

Why the observed measured evidence itself...where might it be?

SSDD is trolling this board and always has been. Management would be doing us all a favor to kick him off.

Trolling? I am just asking for you to deliver a single shred of the evidence that you claim exists in copius quantities? Evidence which you don't seem to be able to deliver...not even a single piece. Alas, as with all liberal warmers...you accuse others of the very behavior you are guilty of. By your own words...people who provide web addresses hoping that you will go find something that satisfies you, but don't actually bring the evidence here are just talking out of their asses... Isn't talking out of your ass and making claim after claim that you can't support, by definition being a troll?

 

[Shrimpbox]

More trees than there were 100 years ago? It's true!

While this is a typical article of environmental “well something good is happening but it is really not that good and not near enough” it misses what the biggest reason for forests coming back. In 1900 Vermont was 10% forest and 90% cleared land. Today it is 90% forest and 10 cleared land. Marginal farm land across the country is being reclaimed by the forests as the country as fewer and fewer people need to farm to feed themselves. This is historic and going on right under our noses. When I was young all up and down the east coast I never saw a wild turkey, now they are everywhere. Just one other point, the great American chestnut was once the mainstay of the east coast forests before the bug wiped,them out, they are also being replanted. If you travel and get out from the computer you will find we are in pretty good shape with our forests. The country is very blessed.

 

[Crick]

Don't let Pruitt hear about it. He'll man up his whole department with chain saws and send them forth on the new Trumpian Quest - DENUDE THE LANDSCAPE!!!