They Just Don't Really Know...but That Doesn't Stop Them...

[2aguy]

Yeah...remember how deforestation was a problem...well...maybe not...or maybe it is...they don't know...

Climatistas Can 8217 t Keep Their Story Straight Power Line

We take time out from the conformism of “the science is settled” (because 97 percent!) to remind everyone to do their good deed and plant a tree for the planet. Except—what’s this? Planting trees might not be good for the planet? That’s the argument that appeared yesterday in the New York Times from Yale chemist Nadine Unger. Yup: the article is “To Save the Planet, Don’t Plant Trees.”

Start oiling up your chainsaw, because:

Deforestation accounts for about 20 percent of global emissions of carbon dioxide. The assumption is that planting trees and avoiding further deforestation provides a convenient carbon capture and storage facility on the land.

That is the conventional wisdom. But the conventional wisdom is wrong.

In reality, the cycling of carbon, energy and water between the land and the atmosphere is much more complex. Considering all the interactions, large-scale increases in forest cover can actually make global warming worse.

Complex, you say? Maybe we don’t understand the phenomenon fully? But 97 percent!

But the Green Gods must be appeased...we must seize this heretic...for his heresies...right?

 

[Crick]

Deforestation "WAS" a problem? You don't think it's a problem any more?

 

[2aguy]

did you read the article posted? Or the link to the article highlighted by the writer of the scientist....? The scientist in question is bringing up the heresy of wether or not fore station effects,the myth of man made global warming...of course he probably believes the myth....

In order to grow food, humans have changed about 50 percent of the earth’s surface area from native forests and grasslands to crops, pasture and wood harvest. Unfortunately, there is no scientific consensus on whether this land use has caused overall global warming or cooling. Since we don’t know that, we can’t reliably predict whether large-scale forestation would help to control the earth’s rising temperature

 

[SSDD]

Read? He doesn't read anything that questions his religion. In a related vein...a new study was recently published in Earth System Science Data Discussions which found that climate science has vastly under estimated the amount of CO2 being sequestered in natural sinks... For example, our CO2 output has increased by 65% since 1990, but atmospheric CO2 has only increased 11%. This indicates that 85% of our CO2 emissions are being absorbed by natural sinks....The study goes on to point out that CO2 residence times have been grossly overestimated by climate science. Not that CO2 matters anyway, This does point out that even if one does believe that increased CO2 will increase the temperature in spite of the observational data, the imagined problem isn't near as bad as one imagined it to be



ESSDD - Abstract - Global carbon budget 2014

 

[Crick]

No difference to the amount of CO2 going in to the atmosphere. More in the sinks means more that will come OUT of the sinks as temperatures rise.

Speaking of ignoring data: how exactly do you justify using ONLY the last 15 years to draw conclusions about CO2 (conclusions completely in conflict with all the experimental evidence) but ignore the previous 150 and, for that matter, ignore the dozens of instances in Earth's history in which CO2 brought out of sequestration by temperatures raised by Milankovitch cycles took over the heating process with the far more effective greenhouse effect (See Shakun 2012)? Eh?