| Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Save the Earth!; Cut down the trees! | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Dec 6 2005, 10:28 AM (310 Views) | |
| Jolly | Dec 6 2005, 10:28 AM Post #1 |
![]()
Geaux Tigers!
|
I ain't makin' this up.... http://www.llnl.gov/pao/news/news_releases...R-05-12-04.html |
| The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States.- George Soros | |
![]() |
|
| The 89th Key | Dec 6 2005, 11:27 AM Post #2 |
|
Save the trees! Eat a beaver!
|
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 6 2005, 12:29 PM Post #3 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
This is rather counterintuitive -- one thing forests do is shade the earth from thermal solar gain. Organic matter is much more insulative, and inorganic matter is more conductive. So the trees don't absorb and radiate heat as do rocks. I am not seeing where this is accounted for in the study. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| big al | Dec 6 2005, 12:32 PM Post #4 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
This apparently counter-intuitive result is just an example of how devilishly difficult climate modelling really is. Our current approach to the possibility of global warming due to greenhouse gases makes me think of someone sticking a fork into a toaster and wiggling it around. Maybe we'll pull the toast out and not get fried in the process, but isn't it quite a bit safer not to have to get into the toaster in the first place. Maybe we can contrive some combination of CO2 controls, carbon sequestration, reforestation, raising the reflectivity of some areas, and numerous other ideas that have been suggested, but isn't it simpler and safer to avoid, as much as possible, doing things that may have adverse effects. In other words, in the lack of complete knowledge, try to preserve the status quo. Doing otherwise is wandering around in the dark in a field that may or may not have some very deep pits to fall into. Big Al |
|
Location: Western PA "jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen." -bachophile | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Dec 6 2005, 12:34 PM Post #5 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
I'm guessing it's "accounted for" in the political agenda of said "study". I don't see how this is very credible. Besides, environmentalists know pretty well that right now, long-term global climate models have about as much uncertainty as a Magic 8-ball. They're getting better, but there's so many out there, each with ridiculously diverse forecasts. I wouldn't put too much stock into them as of yet. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| big al | Dec 6 2005, 01:24 PM Post #6 |
|
Bull-Carp
|
My point exactly, AL. My experience in commissioning industrial plants strongly suggests that their operation is not improved by people who don't know what they're doing tampering with the controls. Furthermore, things usually run better when you can maintain a steady-state condition. Things like refineries or blast furnaces are much more likely to blow up when you're trying to start or stop them. We're already tampering with the controls of Planet Earth by emitting vast quantities of greenhouse gases, cutting down tropical forests, discharging wastes into the oceans, paving the landscape and making innumerable modifications to the evironment without anything approaching complete knowledge of the potential effects. All I'm saying is we should, insofar as we can, maintain at least the present status and not make further modifications without knowing what we're doing. If we can retrace our steps backward to less greenhouse gases and fewer impacts on the land and oceans, we should only increase our margin of safety against catastrophe. Big Al |
|
Location: Western PA "jesu, der simcha fun der man's farlangen." -bachophile | |
![]() |
|
| Nunatax | Dec 6 2005, 01:33 PM Post #7 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
I have of course not seen the model they've used, nor am I specialised in climate models. But I have seen schemes of models, and normally they take all the heat fluxes of a system into account. So if these guys have not taken the heat fluxes from and to rocks into account, then they need to review their model (or just quit their jobs). It depends on the vegetation type you're "replacing" with forests. They probably mainly looked at grasslands and what would happen if they replaced it by a forest. Who would plant a forest there where there are mostly rocks anyway? |
| You seem somewhat familiar. Have I threatened you before? | |
![]() |
|
| ivorythumper | Dec 6 2005, 01:39 PM Post #8 |
|
I am so adjective that I verb nouns!
|
Come and visit Arizona, Nun -- the land which was once Sonoran desert and rocks has been irrigated and planted with citrus and date palms, and a huge assortment of ornamental trees. My back yard is 10 degrees cooler than the street. |
| The dogma lives loudly within me. | |
![]() |
|
| Aqua Letifer | Dec 6 2005, 01:45 PM Post #9 |
|
ZOOOOOM!
|
Maybe it's because I've never been, but geez, the midwest seems TOTALLY dissimilar from the Northeast in terms of environment. Your rivers, soil, air fronts, groundwater, and climate in general are so different! It's pretty fascinating out there, I think. |
| I cite irreconcilable differences. | |
![]() |
|
| Nunatax | Dec 6 2005, 01:50 PM Post #10 |
|
Middle Aged Carp
|
Quite possible, but I don't know where they are planning to plant the save-the-world-from-global-warming-trees... Do you? Turning the desert and rocks of Arizona into a citrus/palm forest was most likely done to make the place more inhabitable. But if they want to plant a big forest that takes up lots and lots of CO2 in the hope to reduce the greenhouse effect, then I doubt it's favourable to plant it in a rocky desert. |
| You seem somewhat familiar. Have I threatened you before? | |
![]() |
|
| DLP | Dec 6 2005, 03:25 PM Post #11 |
|
Advanced Member
|
The models are unpredictable - and that lack of predictability is the bet that the reinsurance market is working to cover. They are building additional $B's in reserves to cover the consequences of more radical weather related disruptions and disasters. DP |
![]() |
|
![]() Join the millions that use us for their forum communities. Create your own forum today. Learn More · Sign-up Now |
|
| « Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic » |








4:50 PM Jul 10