217 replies to this topic

[mikeinnaples]

Regardless of your take on global warming, one has to wonder why people are so short sighted. The earth is a fishbowl and like a fishbowl, if you keep taking a dump in it without cleaning it ...eventually the fish are going to die. Global Warming .... Global Dimming .... Particle Pollution .....Ozone holes .....massive deforestation ...coral reef bleaching ....hormones in the water ....hormones in our food .... whatever your flavor or whatever you beleive, be it fictional or based on science is irrelevant. At some point common sense has to prevail. Unfortunately, until people are immortal and have to live with thier own consequences, mankind will always fail as a species to see past the spans of our lives. Until then, we will just keep dumping on our children and our children's children just like are parent's generation did to us.

[Lallante]

OTOH, what cracks me up is how people keep peddling the AGW propaganda even though they have no answers to these key questions on the matter:
1. How do you get from a historical graph of CO2 levels rising later than temperature to the idea that CO2 levels drive the temperature?
2. How do you get from a mere correlation between the upward evolution of temperature and CO2 levels since 1970 to the idea that one is causing the other? (If it's via the logical fallacy of cum hoc ergo propter hoc, the conclusion remains unproven.)
3. How do you get a "prediction" of 3-6 degrees of temperature increase over the next century by looking at a real, measured increase of 0.8 degrees over the past century (which doesn't show any signs of acceleration, like an exponential curve, either)?
4. Where do you get off calling a climate computer model "reliable" when clearly (because of insufficient processing power) it doesn't simulate:
- the most powerful and abundant GHG of them all, H2O (clouds)
- the most important atmospheric heat transfer mechanism, convection
?

It would be lovely to have some actual rational answers to these questions from the climate-catastrophist crowd for once, instead of their usual lies, fallacies and distortions.

<hr>- After all, Number One, we're only mortal.
- Speak for yourself, sir. I plan to live forever.

Cherry picking certain environmental measures, or demonstrating that particular models of AGW or their predictions are flawed give pretty much zero insight on whether AGW exists or not.

The issue is distorted by zooming in on a particular element of the equation, the important question is the broader one:
Is humanity having an appreciable effect on the environment, and if so, is it a significantly negative one?

Whatever the debate may be on specific models, or measures, or explanations, at the end of the day the science is utterly conclusive the the answer to both of these questions is yes. There is a reason that not a single reputable national or international scientific body in the world denies AGW...

For the record, the vast majority of scientists are happy to accept that all models of climate change are fundamentally flawed and that the world is much more complex than we can model for or yet make accurate predictions about. Using this fact to try to justify opposition to measures to limit man's impact on the environment is like refusing to let people board the lifeboats of a sinking ship until someone personally shows you the hole in the hull and explains how it got there.

Edited by Lallante, 20 April 2010 - 05:10 PM.

[donjoe]

2. http: //scienceblogs. com/illconsidered/2006...-is-causing. php

There is no argument here, just more repetition of the AGW dogma. It is admitted that in order to "prove" something in science you have to reproduce the effect you're claiming is real, yet at the same time it is admitted that it is impossible at this time to reproduce the Earth's climatic conditions in order to show conclusively what happens when you add/remove only the anthropogenic CO2. A claim is also made that the preponderence of "evidence" suggests the causative link is clear, yet the link provided in that statement leads to a completely irrelevant further article that talks only about the evidence of warming-in-itself, not "evidence that (anthropogenic) CO2 is the cause", which is what I was talking about.
So again you have a non-answer.

3. I think that the answer to this is that temperature increases are not linear.

Non-linear may or may not mean "accelerating". I see no proof of acceleration at this time. For the past decade, from a statistical perspective the warming has almost stopped. This is very inconsistent with the idea of an (exponential?) acceleration.

Also, there are other factors which come into account as the planet warms which may accelerate temperature rise.

When you use the word "may", you bring into question the probabilities of the "predictions". On that note, I fail to see the basis for the more "high-confidence" "predictions" of climatic catastrophe (e.g. "+3 to +6 degrees of warming over the next century").

4. [...] "All of the Atmospheric Global Climate Models used for the kind of climate projections reported on by the IPCC take the effects of clouds into account.

To "take into account" by manually plugging in some "estimated" values is not the same as to simulate a factor as you would any other part of the model, able to influence and be influenced by the others "freely" (so to speak). Sorry, not what I asked for.

Re: convection, I'm not 100% sure, but don't Radiative-convective models do this?

Do what, "take it into account" like the above? Yes, they probably try to. But it's not the same as simulating it, which is so far still impossible with our current knowledge and processing power. Yet this is one of the most important (if not the most important) heat transport mechanisms in the atmosphere. You'd think it would be crucial to be able to simulate it properly before you came out with any claims of prediction accuracy.

---

- After all, Number One, we're only mortal.
- Speak for yourself, sir. I plan to live forever.

Edited by donjoe, 20 April 2010 - 11:45 PM.

[donjoe]

Regardless of your take on global warming, one has to wonder why people are so short sighted.

I wonder about this myself, every time I hear someone push idiotic anti-carbon policies on a planet dominated by carbon-based life, instead of talking about increasing said life's resilience against all types of natural disasters, be they associated with extreme heat, cold, pressure, humidity or whatever. Has anyone stopped to consider that the next ice age is already overdue and that maybe we should be preparing to face that one instead, as it could start any decade now?

Cherry picking certain environmental measures, or demonstrating that particular models of AGW or their predictions are flawed give pretty much zero insight on whether AGW exists or not.

As does using fallacious arguments and incomplete models, like climate-catastrophists do. You may or may not have noticed, but every argument you've ever read in the press that had the form "it is warmer now that it has been since X" does nothing more than cherry pick the X. There is no argument ever presented why X was the "ideal" we should be comparing the present with, nor that such an "ideal" is even possible to define for the fundamentally chaotic system that is the climate.

The issue is distorted by zooming in on a particular element of the equation

No, it is not. I'm saving time by focusing on the most important elements in the equation, having accepted the notion that not all elements are equal (not even the anti-carbonists deny this, they just choose the wrong Major Responsible).

the important question is the broader one:
Is humanity having an appreciable effect on the environment, and if so, is it a significantly negative one?

If you want to make the question even broader, you have to accept that the problem becomes even more complicated and the possible answers even harder to discriminate conclusively.
Frankly, I don't give a rat's ass what effect we're producing on the "environment", my concern is preserving intelligent life for as long as possible. If some dose of environmental protection is a means to this end, so be it, but I will never confuse it with the end in itself, which should always have to do with intelligent life and not with the "environmental" rocks and puddles that may be lying around.

the science is utterly conclusive the the answer to both of these questions is yes.

You are utterly wrong and you cannot prove otherwise.

Using this fact to try to justify opposition to measures to limit man's impact on the environment is like refusing to let people board the lifeboats of a sinking ship until someone personally shows you the hole in the hull and explains how it got there.

No, it is not, this is a false analogy. First of all, the climatic conditions we're seeing are far from unprecedented in the history of humanity. Secondly, the increased CO2 concentrations have boosted plant and animal growth measurably, so all life is in fact doing better now than before. Thirdly, there has been no increase in the number of natural disasters since the 70s (which might have been attributable to anthropogenic CO2 or its warming effect).
There is no sinking ship, quite the contrary.

---

- After all, Number One, we're only mortal.
- Speak for yourself, sir. I plan to live forever.

Edited by donjoe, 20 April 2010 - 11:48 PM.

[Grail]

1. http: //scienceblogs. com/illconsidered/2006/02/co2-lags-not-leads. php

Illogical and purely speculative answer. We're asked to believe that when we have two similar trend curves with a lag of 800 years, for the first 800 years of the first curve the cause is X, but suddenly after 800 years when the second curve starts a similar evolution, it becomes the cause of the first curve instead of X. That sounds like total bollocks, a very strained and implausible "explanation", as if natural causative phenomena could instantly switch places or turn themselves on and off to fit some people's preconceived notions of "what the conclusion must be, despite the evidence".
Furthermore, if it were in fact so, we would expect also a change in the shape of the first curve as the second starts rising, because the second is proposed as an additional positive feedback for the first, yet your quoted authorities don't even try to argue that this is the case. Which is of course consistent with their ad-hoc "explanation" being total bollocks.

The explanation is neither "strained" nor "implausible". That's simply your opinion, which in my view is based on a misunderstanding of the material presented. Also, simply because you imagine that the curves should show something which isn't clearly visible, doesn't mean that they will just for your benefit. I'm not a climate scientist, but it's entirely probable that what you're expecting to see isn't what actually happens in such a scenario. Because a feedback mechanism is introduced doesn't mean that that the "shape" of the curve should perceptibly change when condensed in such a fashion. It's not necessary for the rate of temperature increase to change drastically, just because a feedback mechanism comes into play. The amplification could be seen as the temperature reaching greater heights than would be possible without it; there does not need to be an easily detectable change in the rate of the increase for amplification to be occurring.

All that the data you're referring to demonstrates is that there is no reason to believe that CO2 has no role in the global warming evidenced, simply because of the 800 year lag. The article doesn't claim that suddenly the CO2 causes the whole curve, but that it could act as amplification to extend the heights to which the curve ultimately ascends.

[Grail]

2. http: //scienceblogs. com/illconsidered/2006...-is-causing. php

There is no argument here, just more repetition of the AGW dogma. It is admitted that in order to "prove" something in science you have to reproduce the effect you're claiming is real, yet at the same time it is admitted that it is impossible at this time to reproduce the Earth's climatic conditions in order to show conclusively what happens when you add/remove only the anthropogenic CO2. A claim is also made that the preponderence of "evidence" suggests the causative link is clear, yet the link provided in that statement leads to a completely irrelevant further article that talks only about the evidence of warming-in-itself, not "evidence that (anthropogenic) CO2 is the cause", which is what I was talking about.
So again you have a non-answer.

I'm not sure anyone is saying that CO2 is the sole cause of global warming, but the evidence suggests that it is a major driver of global temperature increases. Once again, there is no such thing as "proof" in science, there is simply a burden of evidence that points to a particular conclusion, coupled with the elimination or reduction of importance of other possibilities. What would you consider as "proof" that CO2 can be a major driver of global temperature increases?

How is this "dogma"?

3. I think that the answer to this is that temperature increases are not linear.

Non-linear may or may not mean "accelerating". I see no proof of acceleration at this time. For the past decade, from a statistical perspective the warming has almost stopped. This is very inconsistent with the idea of an (exponential?) acceleration.

I guess that depends on what statistics you look at, and how you interpret them.

I don't know about you, but to me this graph clearly suggests an accelerating temperature increase over the last 100 years. It is ridiculous to propose that you should be able to see an acceleration year by year. If your response is "well I don't trust the data for this graph", then look up analyses of the data used. I'm not going to do that for you.

Also, there are other factors which come into account as the planet warms which may accelerate temperature rise.

When you use the word "may", you bring into question the probabilities of the "predictions". On that note, I fail to see the basis for the more "high-confidence" "predictions" of climatic catastrophe (e.g. "+3 to +6 degrees of warming over the next century").

I used "may", because I recognise that there are no certainties in scientific predictions. and there are many factors which may help to accelerate warming, but they won't all definitely come to pass. AFAIK, the IPCC fourth assessment predicted warming between 1.1 and 6.4 °C over the next century. That's hardly a 3 degree minimum prediction. If you fail to see the basis of the prediction, read the report.

4. [...] "All of the Atmospheric Global Climate Models used for the kind of climate projections reported on by the IPCC take the effects of clouds into account.

To "take into account" by manually plugging in some "estimated" values is not the same as to simulate a factor as you would any other part of the model, able to influence and be influenced by the others "freely" (so to speak). Sorry, not what I asked for.

Taking clouds "into account" is not as simple as you have supposed. See here. Hang on, doesn't a climate model "simulate" climate purely through "manually plugging in" values determined through other methods? I think you are misunderstanding how the modelling is actually done. What do you really mean when you say "simulate", and what is the difference between what they have done with clouds, and what they have done with other factors in the model? Clouds are an odd case anyway, as there is great variability to the feedback they actually apply.

Re: convection, I'm not 100% sure, but don't Radiative-convective models do this?

Do what, "take it into account" like the above? Yes, they probably try to. But it's not the same as simulating it, which is so far still impossible with our current knowledge and processing power. Yet this is one of the most important (if not the most important) heat transport mechanisms in the atmosphere. You'd think it would be crucial to be able to simulate it properly before you came out with any claims of prediction accuracy.

We don't have another Earth or the time to record what happens on one. The kind of simulation you're after is impossible as you say, which is why there is no exact temperature increase that has been predicted, but rather a predicted potential variation between 1.1 and 6.4 °C over the next century. That's why the predictions are so spread out. The point is, that any of these increases could be a big problem, and some vastly more so than others.

[Grail]

Using this fact to try to justify opposition to measures to limit man's impact on the environment is like refusing to let people board the lifeboats of a sinking ship until someone personally shows you the hole in the hull and explains how it got there.

No, it is not, this is a false analogy. First of all, the climatic conditions we're seeing are far from unprecedented in the history of humanity. Secondly, the increased CO2 concentrations have boosted plant and animal growth measurably, so all life is in fact doing better now than before. Thirdly, there has been no increase in the number of natural disasters since the 70s (which might have been attributable to anthropogenic CO2 or its warming effect).
There is no sinking ship, quite the contrary.

1. http://www.newscient...e-big-deal.html

2. Please provide evidence for your claims. Better than when, the ice age? 100,000,000 years ago? Also, it's not just the increase that's the problem, it's the speed of it.

3. http://www.newscient...al-warming.html

[shifter]

The sooner we stop blaming ourselves as the cause of global warming the sooner we can find a solution. Mother Nature Forces play a far bigger role. Underwater volcanoes, permafrost in the Artic containing millions of tonnes of CO2 and methane, sun cycles etc. All beyond our control and all happening.

Said it before and I'll say it again, we need to stop logging the trees, and start planting them instead. Trees are natures air filters. In an indirect way, logging contributes to more CO2.

WHEN that permafrost melts, we better hope we still have lots of trees.

[rwac]

Said it before and I'll say it again, we need to stop logging the trees, and start planting them instead. Trees are natures air filters. In an indirect way, logging contributes to more CO2.

You are confused. Logging actually sequesters carbon by logging trees and storing them in the form of say houses.

So the logging industry is a net carbon *sink*.

[Grail]

The logging industry may sequester the carbon, of the trees that it logs, but as to whether it is a net sink, it depends on whether you are replacing the trees cut down, with how many, and with what kind of vegetation.

Deforestation is different from logging, and this certainly must be curbed, as it removes a carbon sink without replacing it with an equal or better one.

Shifter, natural forces have been taken into account in climate models. Over the last 10,000 years at least, every gigatonne of natural emissions was cancelled out by a gigatonne being taken out of the natural system. However small in comparison our emissions may be, we have upset the climactic balance. The release of methane caused by melting arctic permafrost is one of the consequences of global warming, and indeed a feedback mechanism, as is the melting of the cryosphere, which thus reflects less heat out to space before it is absorbed by the Earth.

[Lallante]

Said it before and I'll say it again, we need to stop logging the trees, and start planting them instead. Trees are natures air filters. In an indirect way, logging contributes to more CO2.

You are confused. Logging actually sequesters carbon by logging trees and storing them in the form of say houses.

So the logging industry is a net carbon *sink*.

This is complete nonsense, not least since the energy requirements to get any given tree to market as, say, planks of wood is likely to be vastly greater than the co2 sequestered in the wood , and that wood will eventually (within 100 years) rot and release said sequestered carbon. In the same time, the lack of a forest where there once was one has a huge impact.

[platypus]

Said it before and I'll say it again, we need to stop logging the trees, and start planting them instead. Trees are natures air filters. In an indirect way, logging contributes to more CO2.

You are confused. Logging actually sequesters carbon by logging trees and storing them in the form of say houses.

So the logging industry is a net carbon *sink*.

This is complete nonsense, not least since the energy requirements to get any given tree to market as, say, planks of wood is likely to be vastly greater than the co2 sequestered in the wood , and that wood will eventually (within 100 years) rot and release said sequestered carbon. In the same time, the lack of a forest where there once was one has a huge impact.

The wood in the forest will also rot and release the carbon unless it's logged before that. Whether a forest is a carbon sink or not depends on its age - young growing forests are clearly sinks but in mature forests the situation might be different.

[rwac]

This is complete nonsense, not least since the energy requirements to get any given tree to market as, say, planks of wood is likely to be vastly greater than the co2 sequestered in the wood , and that wood will eventually (within 100 years) rot and release said sequestered carbon. In the same time, the lack of a forest where there once was one has a huge impact.

Numbers for the energy requirements, please.

Some of the wood may rot, but there will be more houses a hundred years from now, a net carbon sink.

The logging industry replants forests, of course. It's pretty automatic in the US. Even in the amazon, the forest reclaims logged areas over time.

Edited by rwac, 21 April 2010 - 12:51 PM.

[Lallante]

Said it before and I'll say it again, we need to stop logging the trees, and start planting them instead. Trees are natures air filters. In an indirect way, logging contributes to more CO2.

You are confused. Logging actually sequesters carbon by logging trees and storing them in the form of say houses.

So the logging industry is a net carbon *sink*.

This is complete nonsense, not least since the energy requirements to get any given tree to market as, say, planks of wood is likely to be vastly greater than the co2 sequestered in the wood , and that wood will eventually (within 100 years) rot and release said sequestered carbon. In the same time, the lack of a forest where there once was one has a huge impact.

The wood in the forest will also rot and release the carbon unless it's logged before that. Whether a forest is a carbon sink or not depends on its age - young growing forests are clearly sinks but in mature forests the situation might be different.

While the wood in the forest will also eventually rot (usually over a longer period), forests are self-renewing so during that time new (baby!) trees would grow and sequester more carbon to replace that lost by the rotting tree.

[Lallante]

This is complete nonsense, not least since the energy requirements to get any given tree to market as, say, planks of wood is likely to be vastly greater than the co2 sequestered in the wood , and that wood will eventually (within 100 years) rot and release said sequestered carbon. In the same time, the lack of a forest where there once was one has a huge impact.

Numbers for the energy requirements, please.

Some of the wood may rot, but there will be more houses a hundred years from now, a net carbon sink.

The logging industry replants forests, of course. It's pretty automatic in the US. Even in the amazon, the forest reclaims logged areas over time.

The size of the world's rainforests has decreased by 80% due to human deforestation.

[rwac]

The size of the world's rainforests has decreased by 80% due to human deforestation.

Source please.

Forest in the US is mostly unchanged for the last 100 years.

By 1907, the area of forestland had declined to an estimated 307 million hectares or34 percent of the total land area. Forest area has been rel-atively stable since 1907. In 1997, 302 million hectares—or 33 percent of the total land area of the United States—was in forest land.

Source: http://docs.google.c...SjEe0WzXr12gBOw

[Lallante]

The size of the world's rainforests has decreased by 80% due to human deforestation.

Source please.

Forest in the US is mostly unchanged for the last 100 years.

By 1907, the area of forestland had declined to an estimated 307 million hectares or34 percent of the total land area. Forest area has been rel-atively stable since 1907. In 1997, 302 million hectares—or 33 percent of the total land area of the United States—was in forest land.

Source: http://docs.google.c...SjEe0WzXr12gBOw

My 80% figure didn't include new rainforest growth over the same period (or to be precise, I should have said that 80% of the worlds primeval rainforests have been destroyed by humans). It turns out the actual overall figure is closer to the (still terrifying) 60%. http://www.rain-tree.com/facts.htm

Here is a fun old-growth forest map of the US:

Edited by Lallante, 21 April 2010 - 03:31 PM.

[rwac]

Here is a fun old-growth forest map of the US:

Old growth forest doesn't absorb CO2. However, once it is cut down, the young growing trees do absorb CO2.

So virgin forest is not terribly relevant to the carbon issue, at least.

Are we, in the developed world, to blame for the rain forest being cut down ? I have my doubts.

[donjoe]

The explanation is neither "strained" nor "implausible". That's simply your opinion, which in my view is based on a misunderstanding of the material presented.

Then explain the material so that I don't "misunderstand" it.

Because a feedback mechanism is introduced doesn't mean that that the "shape" of the curve should perceptibly change when condensed in such a fashion. It's not necessary for the rate of temperature increase to change drastically, just because a feedback mechanism comes into play.

Well, there must be some testable consequence of your proposed explanatory mechanism, otherwise it's non-falsifiable and thus non-scientific.

there does not need to be an easily detectable change in the rate of the increase for amplification to be occurring.

If the change were not easily detectable, we would have to conclude that CO2, far from being a "major cause" of anything, had in fact had no discernible influence. Is this where you want to go?

[shifter]

Trees old or not, should still have an impact on our climate. Where there is no plant life, there is far less rain. There is far less moisture in the air and less clouds. And with less trees, there is less cloud movement/appearance across a country.

We can cut down all the old trees and wait about 50 years for some form of replacement, but in that time, the damage to the climate may have already been done.

We shouldn't be looking for a net replacement of trees, but a positive one. Besides, most of the wood used in homes today is covered by bricks, painted over and once its been done with, probably buried in landfill. Just like all the other byproducts from trees such as paper.

From an environmental perspective, the tree is more useful in the forest than as framework for somebodies house.

[eternaltraveler]

We can cut down all the old trees

in the developed world all the old trees are already cut down. Any tiny bastillions of real old growth forest remaining here are already protected in one form or another, which is fine because they take up almost no land area as to be virtually completely inconsequential toward any other use.

In other areas timber is managed the same as any other crop. I planted 1000 trees last week myself with every intention of utilizing their timber when they grow up (i'm also trying to help breed blight resistant american chestnut to use as timber as well, and because it's neat).

Many important species of tree do not grow in old growth forests. Most of the oaks, black walnut, cherry. Only trees whose seedlings are very shade tolerant can grow in such forests (beech maple climax forests etc.).

see http://en.wikipedia....ki/Silviculture

Edited by eternaltraveler, 22 April 2010 - 03:33 AM.

[niner]

The worst thing that can happen to wood or paper is for it to end up in a landfill where oxygen is largely excluded. It can be digested by anaerobic bacteria and converted to methane, which is a far worse global warming gas than is CO2. Wood that is under deep water or buried in the sediment of a river does not degrade (at least not quickly) and today there is a small industry involving the recovery of old growth timber from river bottoms. Looking for a way to have a positive impact on the concentration of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere? The next time the granola-head clerk at Trader Joe's or Whole Foods gives you a paper bag, ask them for a plastic one. Because of their much lighter weight and smaller volume, plastic bags use far less energy in manufacture, transportation, and storage that paper bags. If either one of them ends up in a landfill, the plastic bag is benign, but the paper bag can create methane. Life cycle analyses show that when it comes to the great question, "paper or plastic", plastic is better for the environment. Another case of what everyone "knows" being wrong.

[Grail]

Better yet, use a reusable bag. Plastic bags are still a massive environmental problem.

[Nootropic Cat]

Sorry for dumbing this down, but do the hardcore sceptics have any rational arguments for not pushing to restore the atmosphere to its natural (by which I mean pre-industrial age) state? I see plenty of reasons for debate at this point on an intellectual level, and yes, I get that there's a tax-grabbing bandwagon in play, but I fail to see why anybody would not just assume that the safest bet is to trust in the planet's natural homeostasis mechanism.

(I'm fully aware that the 'natural state' is far from static, but it doesn't follow from that that it's ok to tinker with a system that is driven by chaotic (read: extrapolative) elements.)

[eternaltraveler]

any rational arguments for not pushing to restore the atmosphere to its natural (by which I mean pre-industrial age) state?

it's prohibitively expensive, and also pretty close to the atmosphere of today. Given more advanced technology the cost should decline drastically(which may well end up in the atmosphere being altered to a state different from both today and preindustrial times as whoever controls said technology tinkers away).

Cost matters.

Edited by eternaltraveler, 22 April 2010 - 05:39 AM.

[JLL]

The natural state is the ice age. I'm sure environmentalists would love to live in their community igloos.

[platypus]

The wood in the forest will also rot and release the carbon unless it's logged before that. Whether a forest is a carbon sink or not depends on its age - young growing forests are clearly sinks but in mature forests the situation might be different.

While the wood in the forest will also eventually rot (usually over a longer period), forests are self-renewing so during that time new (baby!) trees would grow and sequester more carbon to replace that lost by the rotting tree.

That is not correct. Once the forest is mature the biomass per area is not really increasing anymore and the forest cannot anymore work as an effective carbon sink.

[Lallante]

The wood in the forest will also rot and release the carbon unless it's logged before that. Whether a forest is a carbon sink or not depends on its age - young growing forests are clearly sinks but in mature forests the situation might be different.

While the wood in the forest will also eventually rot (usually over a longer period), forests are self-renewing so during that time new (baby!) trees would grow and sequester more carbon to replace that lost by the rotting tree.

That is not correct. Once the forest is mature the biomass per area is not really increasing anymore and the forest cannot anymore work as an effective carbon sink.

Buried dead biomass continues to accumulate in the soil, thus the overall level of stored carbon continues to increase. Plus the trees get thicker at a steady rate as they get older so I'm not sure that you are right that even the biomass of the forest itself is not really increasing.

[Lallante]

I just attended my firm (massive international corporate law firm - many energy companies as clients (actually its a speciality) including one of the best oil & LNG teams) briefing on Global Warming.

It was given by one of the most senior partners in our Energy team, and very widely attended.

Pretty much 2/3 of the room probably consider themselves "right of centre". 95% would probably describe themselves as pro-business, pro-market and anti-excessive regulation.

It was pointed out at the start that there are four main questions in relation to global warming:

1) Are atmospheric levels of 'greenhouse' gasses (CO2, Methane, N20, Fleurocarbons) increasing?
2) Is the increase substantially man made?
3) Is, or will, this cause atmospheric warming?
4) If yes, to what extent (and how quickly) will this cause humanity problems?

It was asked at the start to raise your hand if you beleived that there was an "almost certain" scientific case for, in turn, each of the first three questions.

I was incredibly surprised, and elated, to see that both 1) and 2) had 100% affirmative responses, and 3) had about 90%.

The talk went through all of the main evidence, the flaws in it and what the overall position was - the end conclusion was that AGW is happening, and will cause huge problems in the next 100 years (primarily through its effect on the water supply).

I asked the speaker afterwards why there was such great opposition to the concept of AGW. He replied lack of education, a modern obsession with conspiricies, and the strength of vested interests. I agree with this utterly.

Thought someone might find this interesting.

[platypus]

That is not correct. Once the forest is mature the biomass per area is not really increasing anymore and the forest cannot anymore work as an effective carbon sink.

Buried dead biomass continues to accumulate in the soil, thus the overall level of stored carbon continues to increase. Plus the trees get thicker at a steady rate as they get older so I'm not sure that you are right that even the biomass of the forest itself is not really increasing.

Soil is not necessarily a sink at all when the biomass decomposes, these are not simple issues. I'm pretty sure that from a carbon viewpoint cutting down an old forest, storing the trees in a dry mine and planting a young forest in its place would create an effective sink.