here comes the next ice age

[Crunch]

I meant to add, man-made CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect when you factor in water vapor.

[Crunch]

But I think that if Daemon and Crunch take the time to think about what I've actually said, that they will agree that humans have indirectly affected climate change by cutting down forests and destroying coral reefs.

Yes, there has been some effect.  How much?  I'll talk about the US since we have better data and are one of the biggest consumers of forest products.  From wikipedia: The majority of deforestation took place prior to 1910 with the Forest Service reporting the minimum forestation as 721,000,000 acres (2,920,000 km2) around 1920.  The forest resources of the United States have remained relatively constant through the 20th century.  The 2005 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Global Forest Resources Assessment ranked the United States as seventh highest country losing its old growth forests, a vast majority of which were removed prior to the 20th century.  So when we talk about cutting down forests, we're largely talking about something the was a problem over 100 years ago and has largely been addressed through conservation efforts.

For perspective, more than 83 million acres have been lost to wildfire from 2005 to date.  Because urban development is expected to continue, an estimated 23 million acres of forest land is projected be lost by 2050. So over the last 11 years, almost 4 times as much forestland had been lost than we reasonably expect to lose to human activity over the next 33 years.  Human activity is not the primary driver of deforestation in the US, it's wildfire.  Rather than trying to control human effects, we'd get far bigger bang for the buck by investing in better ways to control wildfires.

Should we be stripping all forests without any conservation efforts?  Of course not.  But we shouldn't be hanging it all on human activity either.

[NobleHunter]

So is it a stretch that there is some effect? No.  It is, however, a massive stretch (past the breaking point actually) to claim that the 0.28% of greenhouse gas effects coming from human sources are the ones that are driving a planetary apocalypse.  The math simply does not support it.

I've never found arguments from incredulity particularly convincing.

It also doesn't need to be a planetary apocalypse to be unfortunate for humans. The planet and its ecosphere will hum along fine if the temperature changes by a degree or two. Our agriculture could be rather severely disrupted.

[DonaldD]

So over the last 11 years, almost 4 times as much forestland had been lost than we reasonably expect to lose to human activity over the next 33 years.

Well, no.  I won't get into a fruitless debate about the relative importance of deforestation to global climate, but trees that are replaced by housing developments, infrastructure or agriculture are permanently removed from the global forest budget, whereas fires have occurred, naturally or human-initiated since the invention of trees in the former case, and since the invention of fire in the latter; those forests have grown back, are in the process of growing back, or will grow back once future fires burn them down. In effect, some fraction of forests worldwide is continuously in the process of regrowing post-fire.

Trees use fire as a very effective means of procreation,

[Pete at Home]

But I think that if Daemon and Crunch take the time to think about what I've actually said, that they will agree that humans have indirectly affected climate change by cutting down forests and destroying coral reefs.

Yes, there has been some effect.  How much?  I'll talk about the US since we have better data and are one of the biggest consumers of forest products.  From wikipedia: The majority of deforestation took place prior to 1910 with the Forest Service reporting the minimum forestation as 721,000,000 acres (2,920,000 km2) around 1920.  The forest resources of the United States have remained relatively constant through the 20th century.  The 2005 Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) Global Forest Resources Assessment ranked the United States as seventh highest country losing its old growth forests, a vast majority of which were removed prior to the 20th century.  So when we talk about cutting down forests, we're largely talking about something the was a problem over 100 years ago and has largely been addressed through conservation efforts.

For perspective, more than 83 million acres have been lost to wildfire from 2005 to date.  Because urban development is expected to continue, an estimated 23 million acres of forest land is projected be lost by 2050. So over the last 11 years, almost 4 times as much forestland had been lost than we reasonably expect to lose to human activity over the next 33 years.  Human activity is not the primary driver of deforestation in the US, it's wildfire.  Rather than trying to control human effects, we'd get far bigger bang for the buck by investing in better ways to control wildfires.

Should we be stripping all forests without any conservation efforts?  Of course not.  But we shouldn't be hanging it all on human activity either.

Why do we have to continue to strip harvest old growth at all?

It doest stop forest fires when we strip harvest our few remaining forests, to sell wood to China, and buy it back for more money as furniture.

And our behavior affects our credibility when we ask other nations to spare their vast remaining forests. And their behavior affects our climate.

[Crunch]

So is it a stretch that there is some effect? No.  It is, however, a massive stretch (past the breaking point actually) to claim that the 0.28% of greenhouse gas effects coming from human sources are the ones that are driving a planetary apocalypse.  The math simply does not support it.

I've never found arguments from incredulity particularly convincing.

It also doesn't need to be a planetary apocalypse to be unfortunate for humans. The planet and its ecosphere will hum along fine if the temperature changes by a degree or two. Our agriculture could be rather severely disrupted.

Snipping that one piece out to make a point about logical fallacies is, itself, a logical fallacy.  It's not an argument from incredulity but a argument from mathematics.  The conclusion, after showing the mathematical impossibility of the claims of AGW, is just a statement of how the match does not work out.

And, if the temperature does increase, agriculture will not be disrupted.  The airborne fertilizer CO2 along with lengthened growing seasons means we get better crop yields and an increased food supply.  Not a negative outcome.

[Crunch]

So over the last 11 years, almost 4 times as much forestland had been lost than we reasonably expect to lose to human activity over the next 33 years.

Well, no.  I won't get into a fruitless debate about the relative importance of deforestation to global climate, but trees that are replaced by housing developments, infrastructure or agriculture are permanently removed from the global forest budget, whereas fires have occurred, naturally or human-initiated since the invention of trees in the former case, and since the invention of fire in the latter; those forests have grown back, are in the process of growing back, or will grow back once future fires burn them down. In effect, some fraction of forests worldwide is continuously in the process of regrowing post-fire.

Trees use fire as a very effective means of procreation,

I've no idea what your point is.  The whole thing was about losing forests and the fact is much, much more is lost to fire than human activity.  That's what I said, not that it was a bad or good thing.  You argue that natural deforestation is good while the much less effect caused by humans is bad?

[Crunch]

Why do we have to continue to strip harvest old growth at all?

It doest stop forest fires when we strip harvest our few remaining forests, to sell wood to China, and buy it back for more money as furniture.

And our behavior affects our credibility when we ask other nations to spare their vast remaining forests. And their behavior affects our climate.

Why should we stop?

Our behavior has led to a stable level of forestation for about 100 years within the US.  IT appears we have all the credibility we need to promote global conservation.

[Pete at Home]

As Pete mentioned in the last post we absolutely know that man is changing the environment.  We see it at a regional level and it is extremely well documented.  We create cities, turn deserts into green zones, and green zones into deserts all of which can change regional rain fall and temperatures.  I'm not sure why the idea that man can trigger changes at a global level by changing the atmospheric equilibrium is so a stretch.

Of course there is an environmental impact from human activity - just as there is from the activity of other animals (beavers and their dams come to mind).

There is a big difference between regional effects and global.  That there are regional effects does not make measurable, significant, global effects a certainty.  The argument that "it must do something" is a very misleading one.  Take, for example, CO2.  We've added an estimated 12 ppm to the atmosphere. Does it have some effect?  Sure.  What is the net effect once you account for the other 388 ppm from natural sources?   Due to the strongly logarithmic nature of CO2, the effect is marginal at best.  That's just the mathematics of the situation. 

Accounting for the rest of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effects - Water Vapor 95%, CO2 3.6%, Methane 0.36%,  Nitrous Oxide 0.95% and then even more trace gases like CFC's account for about 0.07% we find that, all together, total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect with natural sources accounting for the other 99.72% of the effect.  In other words, if we had the technology to somehow remove ALL greenhouse gases from human sources, every molecule of it, you'd reduce the greenhouse effect by less than 3 tenths of 1 percent.

So is it a stretch that there is some effect? No.  It is, however, a massive stretch (past the breaking point actually) to claim that the 0.28% of greenhouse gas effects coming from human sources are the ones that are driving a planetary apocalypse.  The math simply does not support it.

Crunch, all the "apocalyptic fart" warriors have left the discussion, but you are still arguing about human emissions.  Please set that aside since Mynnion and I are talking about the human effects via destruction of the coral reefs and old growth forests.  I understand it's confusing arguing against a second, distinct global warming issue, but here's where we are.  Please note that I've referred to the Kyoto Treaty as "another flavor of climate denial" since it does little to stop (and in Brazil actually rewards) the cutting of old growth forest.

[Pete at Home]

So over the last 11 years, almost 4 times as much forestland had been lost than we reasonably expect to lose to human activity over the next 33 years.

Well, no.  I won't get into a fruitless debate about the relative importance of deforestation to global climate, but trees that are replaced by housing developments, infrastructure or agriculture are permanently removed from the global forest budget, whereas fires have occurred, naturally or human-initiated since the invention of trees in the former case, and since the invention of fire in the latter; those forests have grown back, are in the process of growing back, or will grow back once future fires burn them down. In effect, some fraction of forests worldwide is continuously in the process of regrowing post-fire.

Trees use fire as a very effective means of procreation,

I've no idea what your point is.  The whole thing was about losing forests and the fact is much, much more is lost to fire than human activity.  That's what I said, not that it was a bad or good thing.  You argue that natural deforestation is good while the much less effect caused by humans is bad?

In a word, yes.  There is an upside to natural deforestation.  Just as there would be an up-side to human logging if we logged selectively rather than strip-logging whole forests.

[Pete at Home]

Why do we have to continue to strip harvest old growth at all?

It doest stop forest fires when we strip harvest our few remaining forests, to sell wood to China, and buy it back for more money as furniture.

And our behavior affects our credibility when we ask other nations to spare their vast remaining forests. And their behavior affects our climate.

Why should we stop?

Our behavior has led to a stable level of forestation for about 100 years within the US.  IT appears we have all the credibility we need to promote global conservation.

?  Appears from what?  Brazil is cutting down its forests to grow corn to make ethanol for Kyoto credits.  You support that?  No, not falling into Daemon's fallacy; you just said that we already are successfully promoting "global conservation" and I want to know what you mean.  China's great wall of sand. Indonesia chopping rain forest. Central Africa chopping rain forest. Brazil chopping rain forests.  Guess where they are all selling their lumber to?  To China.  Same as we are doing with our strip-logged forests.  Some example of "conservation" we are setting.

If you call the status quo "conservation," I can only conclude that your idea of conservation is chopping down our old growth forests, selling the wood to China, and buying it back for more money as furniture.  What exactly are we "conserving?"

[TheDeamon]

And I'm not sold on "old growth" forests being better CO2 sinks than younger forests.

The primary reason that "old growth" forests tend to be better carbon sinks is somewhat related to moisture and biodiversity as you mentioned but it is more than that.  A tree cut down in the jungles of Brazil can actually be carrying more than it's own weight in mosses, algae, and other plants.  It takes generations for the mass of these additional carbon sinks to reach full potential.

Rain forest clearing IS a problem, and measures are in place, and continue to be tightened down to further discourage the process. Also, "the CO2 Absorption efficiency" of a forest is also largely contingent on the types of trees in question. With commercial forresty, those notorious (Dark leaved) trees typically "peak" in their late teens and their efficiency declines from that point on. Which is all well and good for the lumber industry, as that means it's a viable site to revisit within 30 years so they can start the process over again.  (And oh, hey, the logging road is already there and waiting for them, so one less expense to cover)

And as to those trees already planted having a darker albedo, now that it's been identified as an issue that is (slightly) contributing to warming, it's something forestry managers  and planers can take into account when they replant the recently harvested areas. Although in terms of what "big lumber wants" that's probably going to also require some shifts in what the upstream consumers are wanting when it comes to lumber products. Be it for paper, 2x4's or something else.

Which also seems to be the other thing a select group of people on this forum seem to want to buy into. The American and Canadian(and probably western European as well) lumber industries don't just strip the countryside bare and leave it to its own devices anymore. They replant new trees as they go.

Now that isn't to say there aren't bad practices happening in a number of third world countries where many lumber barons from 19th Century (and early 20th Century) America would be right at home. But that isn't how the industry as a whole, operates anymore.

[TheDeamon]

Additionally, I believe someone (I thought it was Daemon?) mentioned that the new growth trees being planted on the whole have darker leaves than the older growth taller trees, and therefore act as more of a heat sink whereas the old growth forest reflected more heat.

The color of the leaves had nothing to do with the darker albedo. What changed was the species of tree being replanted in place of what was there natively, as they planted a tree that would both grow back more quickly, straighter, and with fewer large knots. Making for a faster turnaround on the next harvest and creating more "board feet" per tree on the next pass.

[TheDeamon]

It also doesn't need to be a planetary apocalypse to be unfortunate for humans. The planet and its ecosphere will hum along fine if the temperature changes by a degree or two. Our agriculture could be rather severely disrupted.

Yes and no, farming strategies for different area will have to change as the conditions do. People who suddenly find themselves in a drier area will have to adopt techniques and practices better suited to dry conditions. People who find themselves in wetter areas will have to shift to crops that hold up better under wetter conditions. Instead of the current practice of being able to try to grow just about everything everywhere and brute forcing it by artificial means(often with lots of irrigation water) when needed.

[NobleHunter]

Snipping that one piece out to make a point about logical fallacies is, itself, a logical fallacy.  It's not an argument from incredulity but a argument from mathematics.  The conclusion, after showing the mathematical impossibility of the claims of AGW, is just a statement of how the match does not work out.

I made a point about arguments, not fallacies. Saying or implying that it's impossible to believe that such small numbers could have the claimed effect could be a valid argument. Just not a particularly good one.

And, if the temperature does increase, agriculture will not be disrupted.  The airborne fertilizer CO2 along with lengthened growing seasons means we get better crop yields and an increased food supply.  Not a negative outcome.

So if it increases enough to lengthen the growing season, no regions will become too hot for their current crops? There will be no changes in rainfall causing some harvests to fail? No weeds will prove better adapted to the new conditions that causes them to inhibit crop growth or soil quality?

[TheDeamon]

Well, no.  I won't get into a fruitless debate about the relative importance of deforestation to global climate, but trees that are replaced by housing developments, infrastructure or agriculture are permanently removed from the global forest budget, whereas fires have occurred, naturally or human-initiated since the invention of trees in the former case, and since the invention of fire in the latter; those forests have grown back, are in the process of growing back, or will grow back once future fires burn them down. In effect, some fraction of forests worldwide is continuously in the process of regrowing post-fire.

The one thing I will grant is "Forest fires don't build logging roads, and they don't haul nutrients away from the area by the ton." (Although landslides and erosion can remove plenty of tonnage on their own)

As to the agriculture thing, I think you'd be surprised at the Ag numbers, the total acreage being worked in the US has been under steady decline for decades. Both in terms of actively worked farmland, and rangeland(helped in no small part by environmental groups taking steps to block large swaths of land from being used by ranchers). A lot of that farmland that went fallow was reclaimed forest back in the 19th century. Well, after sitting fallow and being allowed to go "back to nature" over the ensuing decades, lo and behold, those old farmsteads are full of trees now.

Which isn't to mention residential neighborhoods, in particular ones built in areas that were forested(and many that never were) , they seem to have this uncanny ability to end up being filled with trees about 20 to 30 years after initial construction. Even further, they tend to be well watered and cared for. Unlike their peers in the wild.

[NobleHunter]

Yes and no, farming strategies for different area will have to change as the conditions do. People who suddenly find themselves in a drier area will have to adopt techniques and practices better suited to dry conditions. People who find themselves in wetter areas will have to shift to crops that hold up better under wetter conditions. Instead of the current practice of being able to try to grow just about everything everywhere and brute forcing it by artificial means(often with lots of irrigation water) when needed.

Therefore, disruption.

[TheDeamon]

Why do we have to continue to strip harvest old growth at all?

It doest stop forest fires when we strip harvest our few remaining forests, to sell wood to China, and buy it back for more money as furniture.

We don't strip harvest old growth for the most part any more, there are exceptions, but as they're "exceptions" that indicates by the very definition that it isn't the normal mode of operation any more.

Of course some of this also gets to the definitions being used for "old growth" and a list of other things. The vast majority of lumbering that is going on now is basically "tree farming" at this point. They're cutting down a tree that some lumberjack planted 30 years ago after he had cut down some trees that someone else had possibly planted 30 years prior to that, and so forth. In some regions, I understand the turn around is much quicker, sometimes ranging down to as little as 8 to 10 years per "generation" of trees being harvested, but that's usually to feed a paper mill rather than a lumber mill.

[Fenring]

Surely farmland and farming technology are not a primary concern when considering whether to take drastic measures to try to affect global climate. Not only is farming technology changing all the time (including new indoor farming methods), but I see no chance whatsoever that there will be any sort of food shortages that could be called emergencies. Maybe some sorts of foods might be affected somewhat, but on the aggregate there is 'plenty of food' to go around. When we note that there are laws in place to prevent deflation of farmed goods we know that shortage of supply is a non-issue.

To me the only considerations that should suggest the need for drastic measures (e.g. altering or halting worldwide production methods) would be the runaway effect where tilting the climate over some threshhold were to cause major tsunamis and other catastrophic mayhem, or maybe if entire islands like Manhattan would go underwater, as has been suggested in the past. Regarding the runaway climate-related global disaster scenario, I think it would have to be shown that we've been magically sitting just at the threshhold of this happening absent human contribution, and the small amount that human efforts have heated the planet pushes it just over the edge into the danger zone. If that is so then we were dangerously close to the brink even before doing anything! That would be pretty random, for the climate to magically have already been right at the safe temperature limit prior to "The Day After Tomorrow" happening. I guess it's possible, and if that was actually the case it would certainly warrant emergency measures. It only takes watching Superman or reading a comic or two to get that feeling of how stupid people would be to do nothing to save themselves from an apocalypse. But do we have a Jor-El who can tell us this is really what's going to happen?

[NobleHunter]

Surely farmland and farming technology are not a primary concern when considering whether to take drastic measures to try to affect global climate. Not only is farming technology changing all the time (including new indoor farming methods), but I see no chance whatsoever that there will be any sort of food shortages that could be called emergencies. Maybe some sorts of foods might be affected somewhat, but on the aggregate there is 'plenty of food' to go around. When we note that there are laws in place to prevent deflation of farmed goods we know that shortage of supply is a non-issue.

To me the only considerations that should suggest the need for drastic measures (e.g. altering or halting worldwide production methods) would be the runaway effect where tilting the climate over some threshhold were to cause major tsunamis and other catastrophic mayhem, or maybe if entire islands like Manhattan would go underwater, as has been suggested in the past. Regarding the runaway climate-related global disaster scenario, I think it would have to be shown that we've been magically sitting just at the threshhold of this happening absent human contribution, and the small amount that human efforts have heated the planet pushes it just over the edge into the danger zone. If that is so then we were dangerously close to the brink even before doing anything! That would be pretty random, for the climate to magically have already been right at the safe temperature limit prior to "The Day After Tomorrow" happening. I guess it's possible, and if that was actually the case it would certainly warrant emergency measures. It only takes watching Superman or reading a comic or two to get that feeling of how stupid people would be to do nothing to save themselves from an apocalypse. But do we have a Jor-El who can tell us this is really what's going to happen?

Local crop failures can be a ******. You don't even need people to run out of food, just a price increase. IRRC, one of the major factors driving the Arab Spring was a rise in food prices.

[TheDeamon]

Yes and no, farming strategies for different area will have to change as the conditions do. People who suddenly find themselves in a drier area will have to adopt techniques and practices better suited to dry conditions. People who find themselves in wetter areas will have to shift to crops that hold up better under wetter conditions. Instead of the current practice of being able to try to grow just about everything everywhere and brute forcing it by artificial means(often with lots of irrigation water) when needed.

Therefore, disruption.

Opportunity cost.

Natural Variability of climate.

Adaptability.

The climate varies over centuries without respect to activities undertaken by man. It is an unavoidable fact of life, and we have 1, and arguably 2 stark examples of that in North America alone. For that matter, the Roman Empire arguably bore witness to it as well as the Vikings centuries later.

Taking steps to mitigate any disruption that may occur is always a smart play, so long as the measures are "within reason." The "within reason," limiter is key. If the costs of taking the mitigating measures far exceeds any likely cost I'm likely to incur from having done nothing, then that particular mitigation option isn't viable and should be ignored.

Because hey, a 777 might fall out of the sky and crash into my house. I could theoretically have my built to such a specification that it could survive a direct hit in such a scenario. But realistically, it'd be more cost effective for me to set that extra money aside, buy some regular insurance policies, and in the event that my house does get destroyed by having a jetliner crash into it, I just build a new house. Because the cost multiplier of having my house built as an above-ground bunker just doesn't make it viable as a top-shelf  mitigation option.

But if my house is on a floodplain, then it wouldn't be unreasonable for me to budget up to a significant fraction of the house's value into taking proactive measures to protect it against a 100 year flood event, or even going for a 200 or "500 year" event depending on how the costs scale as you move up the chain. Of course, in this case, we're into moral hazard territory as your neighbors would think you're crazy, up until they get flooded out and you're high and dry. Because well "That's what we have flood insurance for" while ignoring the whole matter of the whole idea behind insurance is to never need to use it.

From my perspective, a LOT of the push going on with AGW is the "build a bunker to withstand the 777" approach, rather than latter option. What is being pursued in many cases just is not reasonable.

To put it a different way, they're basically telling someone that just qualified as an Olympic Sprinter that in order prevent a health issue they'll develop in 30 years, we need to cut their Achilles Tendons next week and reattachment can never happen.  Of course, that means the sprinter can't compete. What do you think their response will be?

[Fenring]

Local crop failures can be a ******. You don't even need people to run out of food, just a price increase. IRRC, one of the major factors driving the Arab Spring was a rise in food prices.

Even if that's so (and I have a hard time believing it was the most relevant factor even if so) it does bear mentioning that the public morale would already have to have plummeted below a certain margin for the population to consider overthrowing the government over food prices and other inconveniences. Basically there would already have to be a near-rebellious situation, and the price hike was the last straw. I see inflationary price hikes all the time, sometimes fairly significant ones, and yet you won't hear talk in the U.S. or Canada about setting yourself on fire over it. So maybe some countries actually would see significant unrest if farming efficiency was reduced there, but then again painting production methods of industrial countries as being "the cause" of that would take some chutzpah, when the state of those countries would have been what it was regardless of adding some marginal stressor that pushes the people there over the edge. If that's really the edge case pushing production reform, then maybe a cheaper (and also more effective (and humane)) plan should be to work with those countries to make living conditions better for their people :p

[DonaldD]

Originally posted by Crunch:
I've no idea what your point is.  The whole thing was about losing forests and the fact is much, much more is lost to fire than human activity.  That's what I said, not that it was a bad or good thing.  You argue that natural deforestation is good while the much less effect caused by humans is bad?[/b]

Clearly. I thought I made the points as simple as possible, but I'll try again.

I did not say either type of deforestation was "bad" or "good".

I was pointing out that a forest that is replaced by the asphalt, concrete and gravel that is a city does not grow back in even a decades-long time span. A forest that is burned out completely starts regenerating immediately: many species of trees actually depend on the high heat of a forest fire to kick-start germination.

My other point is that fires that raze forests are not a new phenomenon - they existed before your 2005 start date.  More to the point, the forests that burned down completely in 1995, 1985 and 1975 were during your reference period (2005 to present) in the process of regrowing.  The forest loss due to fire varies widely year to year, but forest loss and replacement is basically a steady state process.  You said it yourself, but probably didn't understand what you were paraphrasing: "The forest resources of the United States have remained relatively constant through the 20th century."

To summarize:
1. Forests lost due to being replaced by urban centres do not regrow.
2. Forests lost due to fire start replacing themselves almost immediately.
3. Suggesting that the temporary "loss" due to point #2 outweighs the effect of the permanent loss due to point #1 shows a basic misunderstanding.

[yossarian22c]

There is a big difference between regional effects and global.  That there are regional effects does not make measurable, significant, global effects a certainty.  The argument that "it must do something" is a very misleading one.  Take, for example, CO2.  We've added an estimated 12 ppm to the atmosphere. Does it have some effect?  Sure.  What is the net effect once you account for the other 388 ppm from natural sources?   Due to the strongly logarithmic nature of CO2, the effect is marginal at best.  That's just the mathematics of the situation. 

Accounting for the rest of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effects - Water Vapor 95%, CO2 3.6%, Methane 0.36%,  Nitrous Oxide 0.95% and then even more trace gases like CFC's account for about 0.07% we find that, all together, total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect with natural sources accounting for the other 99.72% of the effect.  In other words, if we had the technology to somehow remove ALL greenhouse gases from human sources, every molecule of it, you'd reduce the greenhouse effect by less than 3 tenths of 1 percent.

So is it a stretch that there is some effect? No.  It is, however, a massive stretch (past the breaking point actually) to claim that the 0.28% of greenhouse gas effects coming from human sources are the ones that are driving a planetary apocalypse.  The math simply does not support it.

First that human activity only accounts for 12 ppm of the 400 ppm in the atmosphere seems extraordinarily low.  I have no idea looking at the CO2 data how any claim that low can be taken seriously.

However accepting your claim that we have increased the impact of the greenhouse effect by .28% I get the following rough calculation:

Code: [Select]

W/(m^2 day) M^2 (trillion) W (trillion/day)  % Delta W/day J (trillion/s) J/C Mass Atm deg/s      deg C/year
160                510     81600 0.0028     228.48   2644444444 1 5.148*10^18 5.1368*10^-10 0.0161995338

Which is a really, really rough estimate since I didn't include anything that wasn't air in the mass and specific heat computation.  But even using your numbers you end up predicting a rise in global temps of about 1.6 degrees C over the next 100 years (assuming the system was in equilibrium before humans gave it a nudge).

[Pete at Home]

This:

1. Forests lost due to being replaced by urban centres do not regrow.
2. Forests lost due to fire start replacing themselves almost immediately.
3. Suggesting that the temporary "loss" due to point #2 outweighs the effect of the permanent loss due to point #1 shows a basic misunderstanding.

at best.

Why do we have to continue to strip harvest old growth at all?

It doest stop forest fires when we strip harvest our few remaining forests, to sell wood to China, and buy it back for more money as furniture.

We don't strip harvest old growth for the most part any more, there are exceptions, but as they're "exceptions" that indicates by the very definition that it isn't the normal mode of operation any more.

Which entirely begs my question of why we are strip-logging old growth forest in Washington and Oregon, selling the wood to China, and buying it back for more money as furniture. 

Of course it isn't the "norm" because we hardly have any old growth forest anymore. 

If you don't know the answer to my question, please, please, do not act like you've answered it.

What we're doing in Washington and Oregon is being duplicated all over the world in places that do have lots of rain forest.

Yossarian debunked your assumption that new trees substitute for old growth forest as the trees are often less than half of the whole carbon sink in old growth.

I have no problem with loggers cutting down the crap they planted 30 years before.  That's not old growth and it's not a massive carbon sink.

I have no problem with loggers taking wood selectively from Old Growth forest so that the bulk of non-tree carbon sinks can fill right back in with the newer trees.

Wiping out old growth forest is also wiping out plant and animal species, many of them unstudied, with God knows what chemicals that we haven't looked at, cures for cancer, antivirals, and whatnot.  And we're flushing it down to China, while setting a shameful example for the rest of the world.

Why are we strip logging in WA and OR?  The only answer I can see is, because that's our last Old Growth forest.   Do you have a better answer? Actual answer?

[Pete at Home]

Additionally, I believe someone (I thought it was Daemon?) mentioned that the new growth trees being planted on the whole have darker leaves than the older growth taller trees, and therefore act as more of a heat sink whereas the old growth forest reflected more heat.

The color of the leaves had nothing to do with the darker albedo. What changed was the species of tree being replanted in place of what was there natively, as they planted a tree that would both grow back more quickly, straighter, and with fewer large knots. Making for a faster turnaround on the next harvest and creating more "board feet" per tree on the next pass.

Great.  So we replace forest with tree farms.  And families with orphanages.  Save all the wild animals in zoos.  Fish in fish farms and aquariums.  Kind of a crappy world if you ask me.

[Wayward Son]

The argument that "it must do something" is a very misleading one.  Take, for example, CO2.  We've added an estimated 12 ppm to the atmosphere. Does it have some effect?  Sure.  What is the net effect once you account for the other 388 ppm from natural sources?   Due to the strongly logarithmic nature of CO2, the effect is marginal at best.  That's just the mathematics of the situation. 

Accounting for the rest of the atmospheric greenhouse gas effects - Water Vapor 95%, CO2 3.6%, Methane 0.36%,  Nitrous Oxide 0.95% and then even more trace gases like CFC's account for about 0.07% we find that, all together, total human greenhouse gas contributions add up to about 0.28% of the greenhouse effect with natural sources accounting for the other 99.72% of the effect.  In other words, if we had the technology to somehow remove ALL greenhouse gases from human sources, every molecule of it, you'd reduce the greenhouse effect by less than 3 tenths of 1 percent.

This reminds me of the argument of why an elephant doesn't weigh much.

The world's largest dinosaur is estimated to have weighed between 30,000 and 60,000 kg.  Elephant weigh a mere fraction of that, as little as 6.7 percent.  Marginal at best.

This mathematically proves that, if an elephant steps on your foot, it won't hurt.

We have a great deal of greenhouse gas effects in our atmosphere.  We need that effect to keep us from having a frozen ball of ice.  But that's not what we are concerned about.

What we are concerned about is how much the increased levels of CO2 will warm our atmosphere now.  Saying it only a fraction of the total doesn't tell us anything about how much it will increase temperatures now.  It only tells us how it compares to historical averages.

You have to look at how CO2 is increasing temperatures NOW.  You also have to look how it affects the system as a whole.  Will it melt ice that is reflecting infrared light back into space, revealing dark rock that will absorb the heat instead?  Will it evaporate more water, which will cause more clouds, which will reflect more infrared from space back into space and reflect more infrared from Earth back to Earth?  Will increased temperatures make deserts expand, drying out forests and causing increased wildfires?

Just saying it is a small fraction of the total effect tell us nothing about these things.  And stating that they are insignificant, marginal, and ignorable tell us nothing about the actual temperature change they create.

Saying it is marginal doesn't mean it won't crush your foot.

[TheDeamon]

Great.  So we replace forest with tree farms.  And families with orphanages.  Save all the wild animals in zoos.  Fish in fish farms and aquariums.  Kind of a crappy world if you ask me.

Some of your subsequent posts have clarified things a bit. To be clear:
I'm not "OK" with "old growth logging" at least within certain constraints. If it's on private property, then  the government has minimal rights or business getting involved in what the land owner decides to do. If we're talking public lands, then go ahead and ban the practice(which I think it already is within the US and Canada).

So in that respect, you're complaining about people exercising their rights as private land owners. If you find what they're doing objectionable, give them a better offer yourself, or donate to an organization that can/will give them a "better offer" which doesn't take the form of the Government seizing their land at bargain basement prices.

[TheDeamon]

You have to look at how CO2 is increasing temperatures NOW.  You also have to look how it affects the system as a whole.  Will it melt ice that is reflecting infrared light back into space, revealing dark rock that will absorb the heat instead?  Will it evaporate more water, which will cause more clouds, which will reflect more infrared from space back into space and reflect more infrared from Earth back to Earth?  Will increased temperatures make deserts expand, drying out forests and causing increased wildfires?

On a tangential note regarding melting glaciers, there is a side bar to be had about "legacy inputs" into the system, and still ongoing inputs in others(south-east asia).

Namely in the form of industrial soot pollution. There is white snow, and then there is WHITE snow, or as certain tribes of eskimos would claim, there are several hundred different words for various colors/shades of white snow.

A lot of soot was spewed into the atmosphere during the 20th century, which resulted in marginally darker snow, which means it has a slightly lower albedo, and if that snow's legacy happens to be the stuff on top, well, you get a mass of ice that is easier to melt with sunlight than it would have been otherwise. While such precipitation should be largely deeply buried in a lot of glaciers, there is one exception to that rule/expectation: Along the fringes of the glaciers where it is calving off/breaking apart, as portions of those "sooty" layers are once more exposed to sunlight.

As to increased cloud cover. I think we have something on an informal answer as to that question from what happened on September 11th/12th 2001. Where the daily temperature swing across the nation increased by about 1.5 Degrees(F) on both ends of the spectrum, IIRC. So all the increased cloud cover is likely to do is to further stabilize the temperature variation that is experienced, you'll have to look elsewhere to determine if there is a net warming/cooling effect from there. A large part of that would likely be decided by the elevations at which the clouds form, where they form, and a number of other variables. But "worst case" is (H20) clouds are likely to just stabilize the temps at wherever they already are.

The "other side" of that in regards to H20 in particular is the whole "heat index" thing, where the more moisture content there is in the air, the more energy that is required in order to increase the temperature by 1 degree. From one such example given that I can recall, the "heat index" vs actual temperature comparison could also at times be almost literally compared to "This is what the temperature would have been if the humidity level was below XX%" (I think the "baseline"  is set in the 20/30% range)

Of course,  H20 itself is a funny critter because it actually is "a Greenhouse Gas" as well, but "because it's short lived" in the atmosphere(typically measured in days/weeks rather than years), most groups ignore it as atmospheric pollutant. But then, that H20 is fuel for extreme thunderstorms doesn't seem to cross the minds of those same people.

[Pete at Home]

Great.  So we replace forest with tree farms.  And families with orphanages.  Save all the wild animals in zoos.  Fish in fish farms and aquariums.  Kind of a crappy world if you ask me.

Some of your subsequent posts have clarified things a bit. To be clear:
I'm not "OK" with "old growth logging" at least within certain constraints. If it's on private property, then  the government has minimal rights or business getting involved in what the land owner decides to do. If we're talking public lands, then go ahead and ban the practice(which I think it already is within the US and Canada).

So in that respect, you're complaining about people exercising their rights as private land owners. If you find what they're doing objectionable, give them a better offer yourself, or donate to an organization that can/will give them a "better offer" which doesn't take the form of the Government seizing their land at bargain basement prices.

Libertarian souflee!  So you drop the previous argument that it's "not normal"?

So while the govt uses eminent domain to build roads, Costcos, and CASINOS, you balk at using it to fulfil our international treaties, to save species from extinction, to save old growth forests.  I don't get you.

[Pete at Home]

I meant to add, man-made CO2 contributions cause only about 0.117% of Earth's greenhouse effect when you factor in water vapor.

That's misleading enough to be suicidally wrong.  Since you're only factoring in emissions, and leaving out the cumulative CO2 in the atmosphere because humans permanently destroyed old growth forests and coral reefs.

[Pete at Home]

As to the agriculture thing, I think you'd be surprised at the Ag numbers, the total acreage being worked in the US has been under steady decline for decades. Both in terms of actively worked farmland, and rangeland(helped in no small part by environmental groups taking steps to block large swaths of land from being used by ranchers). A lot of that farmland that went fallow was reclaimed forest back in the 19th century. Well, after sitting fallow and being allowed to go "back to nature" over the ensuing decades, lo and behold, those old farmsteads are full of trees now.

So log those and don't log the species-rich old growth forests.

[TheDeamon]

Libertarian souflee!  So you drop the previous argument that it's "not normal"?

IT isn't "normal" all the same, without even looking for the stats, I'd put pretty good odds on it(harvesting of "old growth forests") not even making up 1% of the timber industry in the United States.  Unless of course they're including forests that were previously harvested/replanted by man more than X number of decades ago.

So while the govt uses eminent domain to build roads, Costcos, and CASINOS, you balk at using it to fulfil our international treaties, to save species from extinction, to save old growth forests.  I don't get you.

I don't agree with eminent domain being used strictly for commercial development purposes("building a Costco"), but I would support eminent domain for building/enlarging existing roads. One has been practiced for centuries, the other didn't get (Supreme) Court approval until the 21st Century, and I think that was a very bad ruling.

On the international treaties, none of them have been ratified, none of them could get ratified, even when the Dems held the Senate, and in that light, the PotUS shouldn't have been signing the US up for those obligations.

As to saving things from extinction, I do believe that we're doing that already? That's the most surefire way for an environmental group to get a project stopped dead in its tracks, even on private land, if they can demonstrate it will threaten "an endangered species."

[Pete at Home]

I don't agree with eminent domain being used strictly for commercial development purposes("building a Costco"), but I would support eminent domain for building/enlarging existing roads

Fair enough, I agree.

Would you support eminent domain to build a post in or near the woods to build infrastructure for fire fighting? To stop forest fires.  How about the building of a commercial dock on a populated island?

[Pete at Home]

I Orem Utah there was a blind girl whose house was razed to expand a Costco parking lot.

[Seriati]

So while the govt uses eminent domain to build roads, Costcos, and CASINOS, you balk at using it to fulfil our international treaties, to save species from extinction, to save old growth forests.  I don't get you.

Which treaties are we not meeting our commitments under?

[Pete at Home]

So while the govt uses eminent domain to build roads, Costcos, and CASINOS, you balk at using it to fulfil our international treaties, to save species from extinction, to save old growth forests.  I don't get you.

Which treaties are we not meeting our commitments under?

Didn't say we weren't. But if we are meeting Kyoto, we do so from an expensive ethanol boondoggle that technically hits Kyoto metrics.  Preserving old growth means absorbing more carbon. Meaning emissions needless policing. If industry means as much to you as you say, saving old growth is the way to go.

[TheDeamon]

Didn't say we weren't. But if we are meeting Kyoto, we do so from an expensive ethanol boondoggle that technically hits Kyoto metrics.  Preserving old growth means absorbing more carbon. Meaning emissions needless policing. If industry means as much to you as you say, saving old growth is the way to go.

"W" Withdrew us from Kyoto. But, IIRC we hit the targets anyway, and it wasn't due to ethanol. It was due to massive expansion of natural gas harvesting operations causing the price to drop to such a point that many coal fired plants were being pulled offline because it was more cost effective to build new plants and run them off of natural gas rather than continue to operate the existing coal plant. The Obama Admin then implemented further policies that just put additional nails in that particular coffin.

[Pete at Home]

Hot damn.  You mean that environmental regs that prevented (for global warming reasons) oil rigs from just venting all the methane as they got to the oil, actually turned around and provided a source of cheap energy?

[Seriati]

So while the govt uses eminent domain to build roads, Costcos, and CASINOS, you balk at using it to fulfil our international treaties, to save species from extinction, to save old growth forests.  I don't get you.

Which treaties are we not meeting our commitments under?

Didn't say we weren't. But if we are meeting Kyoto, we do so from an expensive ethanol boondoggle that technically hits Kyoto metrics.

Pete, Kyoto was never ratified and hence is not a treaty of the US.  Complying with it is not a "boondoggle," Kyoto itself is the boondoggle of technical rules that do nothing on net to help the environment.  It's front and center for demonstrating how "climate" change treaties have nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with social justice goals. 

Flat out, it would be better for the environment for the US to increase it's carbon production by producing more in cleaner first world factories and put the dirty third world factories out of business.

Preserving old growth means absorbing more carbon. Meaning emissions needless policing. If industry means as much to you as you say, saving old growth is the way to go.

I think preserving old growth is a good idea.   I think having a rational policy to protect natural resources is a great idea.  We don't need a climate treaty to do that, we need an intelligent cost benefits analysis that looks at the global impact of a decision (including who is going to be picking up the slack).

[TheDeamon]

Pete, Kyoto was never ratified and hence is not a treaty of the US.  Complying with it is not a "boondoggle," Kyoto itself is the boondoggle of technical rules that do nothing on net to help the environment.  It's front and center for demonstrating how "climate" change treaties have nothing to do with the environment and everything to do with social justice goals.

One not-so little nitpick on this one. Under international law, and under provisions for many/most treaties, just being a signatory without ratification still makes you subject to the stipulations of the treaty. Albeit, withdrawal from said treaties is a lot easier to do for a signatory vs a nation that went whole-hog and ratified, for somewhat obvious reasons.

Of course, that could raise questions of whether or not a President who signs onto a treaty where Congress responds not just with a "no" but a "hell no!" couldn't be brought up on charges of high treason among other things, particularly if they refuse to withdraw their signature from it.

[Seriati]

One not-so little nitpick on this one. Under international law, and under provisions for many/most treaties, just being a signatory without ratification still makes you subject to the stipulations of the treaty.

No.  US law is clear on treaties.  A President who doesn't get it ratified is little more than a rogue official pretending to have the authority to act.

The US does not recognize any version of international law as superior to the US Constitution, even treaties themselves - when properly ratified - are below the Constitution under US law.

Of course, that could raise questions of whether or not a President who signs onto a treaty where Congress responds not just with a "no" but a "hell no!" couldn't be brought up on charges of high treason among other things, particularly if they refuse to withdraw their signature from it.

No he can't, because like I said there is no treaty.  The other signatories are fully aware that a President alone can't create a treaty obligation.

[Pete at Home]

The US does not recognize any version of international law as superior to the US Constitution, even treaties themselves - when properly ratified - are below the Constitution under US law.

True, but the constitutional power to treaty imbues the Senate with powers that it doesn't have under normal legislation.  For example, Congress could not pass national laws regarding divorce law, but it could ratify international treaties that constrain state law on divorce.

[Seriati]

Not sure that's true as a practical matter Pete.  It would be unConstitutional to usurp authority reserved to the states.  Would ultimately depend on who sits on the SC when the case came before it.

But we've definitely seen federal usurpation of state authority overtime, heck take a look at the consent decrees that the feds have used to collude with cities to put federal authority behind state police actions eliminating any effective oversight of the people.

[Pete at Home]

To the extent that divorce i*substantive* law is a 10th. Amendment matter, sure.  But divorce jurisdiction treaties exist, such as Le Hague, and afaik they bind stated

[Seriati]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding.  International jurisdiction is a federal law matter, as are cross-state disputes, is it not?  Thought you meant that the Feds could work an end around on substantive state law, not procedural.

[Pete at Home]

Maybe I'm misunderstanding.  International jurisdiction is a federal law matter, as are cross-state disputes, is it not?  Thought you meant that the Feds could work an end around on substantive state law, not procedural.

Choice of law is not considered a "procedural" matter.  According to my "Conflict of Laws" professor and my BarBri course, jurisdictional law aka "conflict of law law" (yes, that's two "law"s in a row; some actually say it that way!) is a third class of law, neither procedural nor substantive.  Federal courts sometimes enforce substantive state law, but use their own procedure.  State courts always use their own procedural law.  However, "choice of law" issues are governed by individual state law unless there is a superceding international treaty.  And Le Hague also governs between states as well as between the US and other countries.

Edited to add: Believe it or not, a cross-state divorce dispute is *not* a federal matter.  This is weird territory and I haven't looked at it since 2007 when I was prepping for the bar exam.  But just untangling the laws regarding "choice of law" is tangled enough that there are whole courses dedicated to the topic.

[Seriati]

Cross-state divorce, substance is not a federal matter.  Whether a state has to honor another state's marriages though is (or else they'd never have need the federal defense of marriage law).  Seems like a bit of mixed bag.  Choice of law is not going to be an area that I claim any knowledge on.

[Pete at Home]

Cross-state divorce, substance is not a federal matter.  Whether a state has to honor another state's marriages though is (or else they'd never have need the federal defense of marriage law).

You are absolutely right. I forgot about that part.  THAT very specific aspect of marriage and divorce law is backed by the "due faith and credit" rule of the constitution.  It also empowers the feds to force states to recognize each others' rulings in other matters.  But I'm talking about the question of who gets to try the matter in the first place.

One example of a horrible faith and credit law is the sex offender statute.  I've told you the story of the client of mine who offered a cop a blow job in Louisiana, and because of the odd morals of orality in that state, was labeled a "sex offender" because Louisiana views BJs as a "crime against nature" despite the fact that most creatures in nature lick each others nads.  So my client ends up treated as a "sex offender" regardless of where she moves in the country.

[Seriati]

In light of Trump maybe removing us from the Paris Accord, and the total outrage this appears to have spawned on the NYT's message forums I decided to take a look at what we'd be removed from.

Based on Wiki's page on Intended Nationally Determined Contributions (INDCs), which are picked by each country, are not binding and have no penalties for violating, I'm not seeing how this deal is reasonable.

Most of the goals are for reductions per unit of GDP, which means they are efficiency goals not pollution reductions.  In fact,the page says that carbon emissions increased 24% from 1990 to 2010.  If the countries involved meet their targets the increase from 2010 to 2030 would be 11-23%!  It also looks like the US might be agreeing to cut carbon, while others are only agreeing to be more efficient in making pollution.

What am I missing?