Climate Change

[NoPunIn10Did]

I think deforestation might be a bigger issue regarding climate change than CO2 emissions.

Absolutely agree with this comment & think in years to come, we’ll look back in amazement at how stupid we were to not realise it at the time.

You do realise that deforestation is linked to CO2 emissions, right? That it’s not just one or the other?

[V]

I think deforestation might be a bigger issue regarding climate change than CO2 emissions.

Absolutely agree with this comment & think in years to come, we’ll look back in amazement at how stupid we were to not realise it at the time.

You do realise that deforestation is linked to CO2 emissions, right? That it’s not just one or the other?

Yeah, I have a BSc (Hons) in applied science...But forests are involved in far more than just atmospheric CO2.
I stand by my comment in full.

[Crunkus]

Yeah, I have a BSc (Hons) in applied science...But forests are involved in far more than just atmospheric CO2.
I stand by my comment in full.

The actual effect of reforestation is being studied pretty hotly right now, here's a nice overview article from January 2019 Nature on the topic.

The latest findings are piling on even more complexity. Ecologist Sunitha Pangala at Lancaster University, UK, spent much of 2013 and 2014 in the Amazon rainforest, where she placed gas-measuring chambers around the trunks of more than 2,300 trees. “What we were really surprised about was the magnitude at which these trees are emitting methane,” says Pangala. She and Vincent Gauci at the Open University in Milton Keynes, UK, and their colleagues reported in 2017 that trees account for around half of the Amazon’s total methane emissions5. Researchers had previously assumed that methane leaked into the air directly from the soil, where it is produced by microbes. The new work suggests that trees could be another conduit for that microbial methane, potentially explaining why more methane has been detected above tropical wetlands than has been measured emanating from soil alone.

When considering all the variables involved reforestation might even be pretty contextual...depends where you are talking about. I found that interesting.

To estimate the climate impact of planting forests in different parts of the United States, ecologist Christopher Williams at Clark University in Worcester, Massachusetts, is combining global satellite data collected over more than a decade with carbon-sequestration figures based on data from the US Forest Service. He has found in preliminary work that adding trees to the US west coast and to regions east of the Mississippi River makes sense, climatically speaking. But albedo changes make forest planting in the Rockies and the southwestern United States a bad deal for the climate in most cases, because the conifers that thrive in those regions are dark and absorb more sunlight than do underlying soils or snow. He hopes to turn this research into a standardized methodology that forest managers can use to assess a project’s climate impact.

It's interesting and I can see how it must be a struggle to collect and properly publish data with the added context of not wanting to encourage further deforestation just because the process of further understanding the interplay between forests and the climate might be used inappropriately to drive a deforestation agenda.

I'm not sure what you mean with regard to the affect of atmospheric CO2 and how much you feel that it's role in one capacity or another has been perhaps overemphasized, but I'd like to learn more.

[V]

Hi Crunkus,

You have clearly investigated the emissions of forests better than I.
Although not a “Climate Denier” I have grave doubts the world’s obsession with CO2 in the atmosphere will prove as critical as many believe, in preventing the progression of climate change.

I personally believe atmospheric water vapour has a far greater role in controlling global warming than has been acknowledged so far by the “Climate Scientists” & until we understand the mechanisms of climate control better (& the role of water vapour in this process) it’s going to be hard to quantify to what extent each component influences the outcome.

However 10% of all water vapour in our atmosphere is thanks to plants & regarding microclimates far from large bodies of water, I suspect the transpiration from forests could contribute greatly towards controlling the climate in a given area.

I am no longer a practicing scientist & although still paying some attention to the developments, I’ve become disenchanted by the amount of politics clearly evident in “Climate Science”. At one time I felt that reading a scientific paper was solely an exercise in observing it’s scientific merit. Recently I’m finding I spend more time wondering what agenda the author is trying to demonstrate (for whatever motive) & sometimes whatever the evidence!

Cynicism takes a grip as old age advances & I live in a tropical paradise, so cannot be too bothered about how mankind goes about destroying the other bits. We have a sane government here, with excellent environmental protection & I intend to enjoy it as long as I’m able.

Best Regards V

[Crunkus]

Hi Crunkus,

You have clearly investigated the emissions of forests better than I.
Although not a “Climate Denier” I have grave doubts the world’s obsession with CO2 in the atmosphere will prove as critical as many believe, in preventing the progression of climate change.

Hi, V! I wouldn't bet on it. I'm untrustworthy. Ask anyone.

The only problem I have with this sentence is with the word "world's". I think it needs serious unpacking. We can talk about People magazine and what various easy to disagree with sources have to say on the topic, but without properly unpacking who you are exactly talking about when you start talking about those "obsessed" (needlessly loaded language) with CO2 in the atmosphere I think the conversation becomes a bit more interesting. If that's something you're into. But no doubt there is a lot to learn and a lot to lose by suppressing, particularly selectively suppressing research into the topic.

I personally believe atmospheric water vapour has a far greater role in controlling global warming than has been acknowledged so far by the “Climate Scientists” & until we understand the mechanisms of climate control better (& the role of water vapour in this process) it’s going to be hard to quantify to what extent each component influences the outcome.

I'm honestly fascinated what process you use to justify quoting "Climate Scientists" in that way. Like what you mean to imply precisely, it really does sincerely interest me. I mean we're talking about actual professionals with careers and such. Like I feel like I would pay good money to see you sit down there in a room and try pulling that with one of those "Climate Scientists". I jest, but don't you think if the point is strong you don't need that sort of thing? Maybe you are right, but that sort of thing makes my alarms ring.

At the end of the day, we know we need to act, and we need to act big. It really isn't that controversial. Details and study, all important (though not if you're running around calling people "Climate Scientists" (what's the point then?) but you've got to recognize the reality at some point or be thoroughly unprepared for it in ways that cost many lives and trillions of dollars...a point that seems increasingly hard to argue you with as I sit here typing with a mask on and the world continues to live this current situation we all find ourselves in.

I am no longer a practicing scientist & although still paying some attention to the developments, I’ve become disenchanted by the amount of politics clearly evident in “Climate Science”. At one time I felt that reading a scientific paper was solely an exercise in observing it’s scientific merit. Recently I’m finding I spend more time wondering what agenda the author is trying to demonstrate (for whatever motive) & sometimes whatever the evidence!

You quoted your credentials earlier...you describe yourself as a formerly practicing scientist? My educational credentials are similar. I would not. I wore lab coats and worked in a variety of research settings and capacities...I would not describe myself as having been a practicing scientist with a straight face personally. Maybe at a party with lots of alcohol and scientist groupies and what I imagine to be Devo playing in the background. Certainly not while simultaneously using the "Climate Scientists" routine. But maybe you're a different case than I. I'm really just asking.

Cynicism takes a grip as old age advances & I live in a tropical paradise, so cannot be too bothered about how mankind goes about destroying the other bits. We have a sane government here, with excellent environmental protection & I intend to enjoy it as long as I’m able.

Fair beans, I suppose. Sounds nice. Here's to cynicism and old age, but I insist on tempering mine with a bit of waking up to the realities I ignored personally for all too long. Then again, it gets cold here a lot.

Best Regards V

Right back atcha,
C

[V]

Hi Crunkus,

I see my disdain for the climate science community became rather too apparent by inappropriate use of “”.
Yep I despair at their efforts. My brother is one of them (Professor Emeritus) so I’ve often sat in a room & had lively discussion with one of the breed (as you suggested I might try).

My science “career” if it could be called that, was very short with only very modest success, but I do keep in constant touch with a couple of the “real things”, that dedicated their entire lives to science after University (when they were mere drinking buddies) & have become fairly eminent. They are specialists in cancer biochemistry & trauma, so again not climatologists, but they share my dismay with the climate science community.

For all the international climate conferences & huge amount of media output generated, there is still so little solid science enabling actions that will demonstrably be of benefit. If medical science was run that way, we’d all be sitting around panicking about pandemic viruses, or something equally stupid:-)

We know so little about our climate & how it is impacted by mankind, I think we will always be playing catch up & responding to adversity rather than preventing it, but such is reality. As long as people care there is some hope that we won’t destroy everything around us before changing our ways. If this stops being a topic of interest then we know trouble is ahead.

Enjoy those cold times wherever you are on this planet. I’ll let you do my share of enjoying them too (I hate the cold).

Best Regards V