Rising forest density offsets climate change: study

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
New growth trees are carbon Neutral, deforestation is largely carbon negative.

Because in deforestation, trees 500 or more years old are chopped down and often simply burned, releasing all the carbon in the cellulose of the tree straight into the atmosphere. With the resulting land being less capable of supporting future carbon capture vegetation.

With new growth forests, we still get efficient carbon capture as these new trees grow.
But because these new growth forests usually do not support trees that have a very long life, they eventually die and fall to the forest floor. And regardless if they rot or are burned, they release all the carbon captured in cellulose right back into the atmosphere.

Meanwhile Non Prof John fails to mention, small effects of MMGW are releasing massive amounts of methane trapped in global permafrosts, with methane about 17 times as effective as a greenhouse gas when compared to CO2. Not to mention all the fossil fuels we are burning. And lest we forget, Brazil just passed new laws making Amazon deforestation far easier.

But if one wants to be a MMGW denier, the only thing with any scientific hope might be in global dimming.

Lemon Head is so much fun to read. You realize that KGB who posted in this thread is not really a member of the KGB right (Or IS he?!)? And 'First' wasn't the first member here. 'airdata' is probably neither air, nor data.. Infohawk is likely not a hawk, although its possible he's just a really intelligent one who learned to type. I love the hard-on you have for Prof John.. perhaps you could tweet him some pictures of your wiener to satisfy your man-crush? LOL.
 

Fear No Evil

Diamond Member
Nov 14, 2008
5,922
0
0
I don't know who's threads are sillier... PJ's or Anarchist420's.

Personally I think YOU are probably doing more to damage the environment than PJ.. driving from BFE to St. Pete all the time. Why do you hate the earth? :biggrin:
 

Tom

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
13,293
1
76
Yet another study that shows us how little we really know about climate change and how the worlds climate works.

Working to save forests and increase energy efficiency and find forms of cleaner energy are good. But the last thing we should be doing is passing carbon taxes and trying to regulate something that we really don't understand yet.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_climate_forests

you could be correct about the level of understanding we have, but a carbon tax still makes sense in that it's a way to pay for some of the hidden cost of our current policies, instead of passing them all along to future generations.

And if you're correct that we don't know how severe the problem is, it's prudent to take reasonable steps. If fossil fuels cost 5% more because of a carbon tax, that wouldn't bankrupt the world, the cost of energy fluctuates more than that for any number of reasons.

Of course, we shouldn't throw the revenue away on bad investments, so that's a difficut area to address.
 

WHAMPOM

Diamond Member
Feb 28, 2006
7,628
183
106
Yet another study that shows us how little we really know about climate change and how the worlds climate works.

Working to save forests and increase energy efficiency and find forms of cleaner energy are good. But the last thing we should be doing is passing carbon taxes and trying to regulate something that we really don't understand yet.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/us_climate_forests

Your topic packs all the pathos of watching a panicked horse running back into the burning barn.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
OP is like a broken record. Grasping at any straws that fit his deregulation agenda.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
No, let me explain this to YOU, you ignorant, partisan jackass:

1) Nowhere in the study does it say denser forests are "MORE than making up" for deforestation of rainforests. The actual words used were that denser forests are HELPING to OFFSET. And specifically:

If I cancel a drive today, it'll help offset the global warming damage.

This proves by PJ logic that the science is bogus and we don't have any info!