Trees Will Save Us From Global Warming? Scratch That

re: Trees Will Save Us From Global Warming? Scratch That

adsd23 — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 00:34:14 GMT

It would be "amusing" if it weren't so terrifying. In addition to the results of the Nature study, increased deforestation in much of the world is also decreasing the capacity of plants to process CO2, and the increasing CO2 in the oceans is leading to acidification that will harm corals and other calcium carbonate based life. This is a problem that affects us on multiple fronts, and doesn't even consider the effects of other gases that are more harmful than CO2.

re: Trees Will Save Us From Global Warming? Scratch That

bamboolife — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 05:40:13 GMT

I wonder if similar studies were run or could be run with bamboo as the plant source. It grows 3 feet per day, sustains itself under a variety of conditions and puts 35% more oxygen in the air than a strand of trees.

re: Trees Will Save Us From Global Warming? Scratch That

dobermanmacleod — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 06:05:00 GMT

"Leemans and Eickhout (2004) found that adaptive capacity decreases rapidly with an increasing rate of climate change.

Their study finds that five percent of all ecosystems cannot adapt more quickly than 0.1 C per decade over time. Forests will be among the ecosystems to experience problems first because their ability to migrate to stay within the climate zone they are adapted to is limited. If the rate is 0.3 C per decade, 15 percent of ecosystems will not be able to adapt.

If the rate should exceed 0.4 C per decade, all ecosystems will be quickly destroyed, opportunistic species will dominate, and the breakdown of biological material will lead to even greater emissions of CO2. This will in turn increase the rate of warming" --Leemans and Eickhout (2004), "Another reason for concern: regional and global impacts on ecosystems for different levels of climate change," Global Environmental Change 14, 219–228

"Few seem to realise that the present IPCC models predict almost unanimously that by 2040 the average summer in Europe will be as hot as the summer of 2003 when over 30,000 died from heat. By then we may cool ourselves with air conditioning and learn to live in a climate no worse than that of Baghdad now. But without extensive irrigation the plants will die and both farming and natural ecosystems will be replaced by scrub and desert. What will there be to eat? The same dire changes will affect the rest of the world and I can envisage Americans migrating into Canada and the Chinese into Siberia but there may be little food for any of them." --Dr James Lovelock's lecture to the Royal Society, 29 Oct. '07

re: Trees Will Save Us From Global Warming? Scratch That

nejking — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 19:06:13 GMT

Wait. Didn't you write an article not that many months ago that said New York would be overrun by poison ivy because of the excess CO2? Oh, I get it now. Depending on which study fits into your predetermined biases, that's the direction you go in. Shame on you, Ms. Begley. This isn't about picking sides, but actually investigating what 'new' study is being rammed down our throats. Did the study use the double-blind method? Did they have one area dedicated as a control group? What types of plants? Do these plants, like most others, have a built-in system of feast or famine depending on the climate, which determines their rate of growth, reproduction, etc....? Do more plentiful plants on our planet react differently? What about plankton, the king of gobbling CO2? This left more questions unanswered then answered! Usually you do your homework, but when it comes to climate, it's obvious you've made up your mind. Will you blame the scientists when AGW turns out to be as phony as Mann's hockey stick graph? Or will you take responsibility for lousy reporting or will so much time have passed that no one remembers your complicity in the scam? Oh well.

re: Trees Will Save Us From Global Warming? Scratch That

tadchem — Mon, 22 Sep 2008 13:15:24 GMT

I found the following on www.junkscience.com:

"... Begley really is dire at this, isn't she? Sharon, drought inhibited prairie grass in this failed experiment -- it was their uncontrolled variable and yes, drought is actually not good for plants (even puts the poor dears off their food -- CO2). For those not aware the comparison Begley should have made is between CO2-boosted plants and 'natural-state' controls in the same years to see what effect increased CO2 has rather than merely looking at boosted plants in consecutive years. This is where she would have seen that the Greening Earth Society is quite correct, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide is indeed good for plants (NASA even put out a release a few years ago about how the world is, in fact, greening in response to elevated carbon dioxide and their GSFC did similarly back in 2001). More importantly, Begley would have discovered that increasing atmospheric CO2 makes plants more water efficient and drought resistant (or she could have gone to say, co2science.org and got hundreds, probably thousands of references on plant growth enhancement and drought resistance with increased carbon dioxide).

"The one point Begley accidentally got right is that trees will not 'save us' from global warming -- but only because we are not in any danger from same."