Climate change: The other greenhouse gases

I've planted many trees and will be planting plenty more this year. I also had my nuts lowered by Dr. Stop (his real name believe it or not) years ago so no more kids;-0

Seriously though, you're absolutely right!

Do you have arthritis?

No arthritis!

We also need to plant more trees throughout the world,

We have planted 1000s over the last 15 years. I am planting another 200+ this spring. We get them through a program in NYS as 2 foot saplings. We have put much of the old farm back into forest and plan to continue this.

Dr Stop, the nut stopper.

If he still is practicing mf, pass that along to him.

If he still is practicing mf, pass that along to him.

No he passed on. He was famous though.

I know this thread is a little off topic and I'm partly to blame but what the hell...

Isn't it cool to go back and look at a tree you planted years ago? I love eastern white pines and planted a 2' twig at my first house. That tree is easily 50' tall now. As for me I'm about an inch shorter.

Planting a tree is the mindset of a person who knows he or she may never get to see it in its full grown state. Planting a sapling tree is one of the most generous gifts a person can give to a community or a piece of land- it is for a future generation. We are only trustees of all that we say we have or own.

If only the slash and burn methods in the equatorial rain forests could be halted, and the inhabitants helped with another way to make enough to support themselves other than this destructive type of farming. This alone would make a big difference in the global carbon dioxide/to oxygen exchange.

I love eastern white pines

Think about planting some eastern red cedar, too. For a long time this tree has been considered a weed. But recent work found that it contains compounds that are effective against antibiotic bacterial strains like MRSA.

Looks like Juniper to me, with its berries. Good makings for gin!

We lost our last elm last year, now it is standing dry timber.

Look up Dutch elm disease. It is another case of an invasive organism.

It swept through my area in the 60s and wiped out 90 some percent of the elms. They keep trying to come back, but most die in 10 to 20 years. Some are naturally immune and in another 200 years we may have some of these grand mature trees again.

In developed areas the planted other trees. In the rural areas new trees come up all the time on their own. The elm keep trying to come back, too. The disease doesn't seem to effect the younger trees. Unlike the pine in the west, elm was just one of many species and genera of trees. We still have maple, oak, cheery, hickory, locust, birch, beech, apple, walnut, pines, hemlock, cedar, linden, and many others. All mixed together. So when the big, old elm went it wasn't like a side of a mountain was suddenly denuded of trees. More like one out of 50 or 100 trees in an area died, but they were all elm.

No that is what we are getting with the pine beetle. The conifer forests of the west are much less diverse in tree species and genus than the eastern hardwoods. And they grow back faster. In 20 years it can be hard to tell where an area has been clear cut or the soil disturbed.

Dutch elm is an ongoing problem here still. But with other species filling in behind them as they die it is hard for the beetle to find them and so few that the beetle population deflated. Those trees with greater resistance live longer. If they live long enough to reproduce, the population and strength of resistance increases. Given another 20 or 30 generations they may become immune.

I knew a biologist at Montana State U that was trying to do genetic engineering to include immunity in the elm to the disease in the 80s. I haven't followed it since then, so I don't know if anything came of it. He was on the committee of a friend of mine. Caused quite a stir.

• Dispute on Tree Injections Surprises Experimenter

  SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES
  The scientist who injected elm trees with genetically altered bacteria without Federal approval says he did not anticipate the outrage many scientists have expressed about his experiment. And he says he is not sure he would do it again. "I would question whether I'd do it again, because of the turmoil it has caused to my family, to my colleagues on campus and to the university," said Gary Strobel, a professor of plant pathology at Montana State University here. "I didn't anticipate the reaction - I didn't anticipate it at all. " "My reaction is, did...
  August 20, 1987

It looked promising early on, but I stopped following it shortly thereafter. Can't remember if they cut them down or not. The scandal involved planting them in the field without sufficient review. We are talking genetically engineered organisms with all the potential risks they present.

A large source of nitrogen oxides in the atmosphere comes from modern high compression IC engines. Reducing the number of vehicles that rely on this power train can significantly reduce these gases. Hybrids using low compression engines and electric vehicles recharged from renewable energy stations are important and easy methods of reducing the use of high horse power gas and diesel engines.

There is compelling evidence of a high leakage rate of gas into the atmosphere as a result of fracking.

Exactly right, mf. It's so bad, in fact, that Cornell scientists say this:

Methane Leaks Can Make Fracking Gas ‘Dirtier’ than Coal Or Oil

Extracting natural gas from the Marcellus Shale could do more to aggravate global warming than mining coal, according to a Cornell study published in the May issue of the peer-reviewed journal Climatic Change Letters.

While natural gas has been touted as a clean-burning fuel that produces less carbon dioxide than coal, ecologist Robert Howarth warns that we should be more concerned about methane leaking into the atmosphere during hydraulic fracturing.

“The take-home message of our study is that if you do an integration of 20 years following the development of the gas, shale gas is worse than conventional gas and is, in fact, worse than coal and worse than oil,”

Having said that, I'm pleased that the U.S. is taking this step. Given our current political climate, it's probably the best we can do for now.

And it's a start. But it's a very far cry from what actually needs to be done in order to turn this around.

Good seed, McSpocky.

Methane, which comes from decaying organic matter,

This is one reason why we should be collecting all of this biomass and using it to generate methane for human use. It creates local economies in energy production for land owners, growers, harvesters, transporters, technicians, and businesses that utilize this inexpensive local energy source. All the jobs are required to be local. The methane is not released to the atmosphere, but used as an energy source. The CO2 that is released is carbon neutral since it is from biomass and therefore the atmosphere originally.

Or we can use this biomass in the pyrolysis process to produce natural gas and the equivalent to light crude petroleum reducing the amount of fossil fuels we need as we transition to other form of primary energy.

Do you have a link for that article, OGS? Because I can't find it.

No feeding the short furry guys who sometimes live under bridges and eat goats.

Whatever you say spoockly.

When you said "I think OurGov didn't really see such a story" among other statements. That would be the same thing as calling me a liar.

The average height of a raincloud is about 1 kilometer, Sam. Most of the atmospheric CO2 is well above that - in the other 99 kilometers that we define as our atmosphere.

That leaves only biological uptake, and dissolving into the ocean, as the mechanisms we have to remove atmospheric CO2.

But biological uptake is carbon neutral, because every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing any CO2 it absorbed while living.

And while dissolution of CO2 into the oceans happens rapidly, the problem is that the top layer of the ocean is becoming saturated with CO2. Only the transfer of surface waters with deep ocean waters can fix this, and allow more absorption.

And since that transfer takes 500 - 1000 years, we're looking at a warming potential on the order of at least 500 years for a CO2 molecule.

Also CO2 saturation in the ocean is increasing acidification which is playing havoc with the ocean food chains.

And Sam you can't add fractions of different dimensions. The one is a fraction of temperature rise and the other of CO2 emissions.

Sam, when it comes to alarmists, the truth is as flexible as a rubber band. It's called post normal science. Belief trumps science. It's confirmation bias running wild. Anything that doesn't match the narrative must be wrong. Anything that may support the narrative is exaggerated beyond belief. In other words, facts and data aren't as important as the narrative. Science it ain't.

(#62) And Sam you can't add fractions of different dimensions. The one is a fraction of temperature rise and the other of CO2 emissions.

Now that was a well thought out response, mf-3735877, ……. me thinks Physicist-retired could use that comment in one of his postings.

Physicist-retired, you never cease to amaze me with your display of brilliance in/on matters of science and the world around you.

(#6.1) The average height of a raincloud is about 1 kilometer, Sam. Most of the atmospheric CO2 is well above that - in the other 99 kilometers that we define as our atmosphere.

YUP, sure is P-r, as is most of the atmospheric O2 and N2 "well above that - in the other 99 kilometers that we define as our atmosphere." But it makes no difference to the CO2 where the water droplets are, whether at 50 ft. elevation or are in Cumulonimbus clouds above 22+K feet or 7 kilometers, ….. when the water droplets “strip” the CO2 from the air then more CO2 will move in to take their place after the H2O droplets vacate the premises. It is apparent to me that you are clueless about Dalton's Law of Partial Pressures.

(#6.1) That leaves only biological uptake, and dissolving into the ocean, as the mechanisms we have to remove atmospheric CO2. But biological uptake is carbon neutral, because every tree that grows will eventually die and decompose, thereby releasing any CO2 it absorbed while living.

Physicist-retired, as usual, you are obfuscating again, but whether intentionally or cluelessly I do not know. P-r, it appears you are also telling everyone that all the limestone, chalk, calcite, sea shells, etc., etc., will eventually die and decompose, …… right?

(#6.1) And while dissolution of CO2 into the oceans happens rapidly, the problem is that the top layer of the ocean is becoming saturated with CO2. Only the transfer of surface waters with deep ocean waters can fix this, and allow more absorption.

Mercy me, I can see the brilliance shining through on that one. Tell us, P-r, just what is the “saturation point” for CO2 in ocean water. Is it as high or as much as in an unopened can of Pepsi or Coke? And iffen not, P-r, then tell us why not. But splain it out, don’t be citing Henry’s Law.

(#6.1) And since that transfer (from deep ocean waters) takes 500 - 1000 years, we're looking at a warming potential on the order of at least 500 years for a CO2 molecule.

HA, P-r, the Industrial Revolution only started 200 years ago …… so apparently the increase in atmospheric CO2 that you proponents of AGW have been blaming on it, …… is in fact, …. the direct result of the ingassing (rapid dissolution as you called it) of CO2 into the ocean’s waters following the Medieval Warm Period (1,000 years BP), the Roman Warm Period (2,100 years BP) and/or even the Minoan Warm Period (3,300 years BP), all three (3) of which were one hell of a lot warmer than our current Period ….. and the CO2 absorbed (ingassed) by the ocean following those warmer times is just now being outgassed from what once was deep water currents.

Does your foot hurt much, ....... P-r, ........ after you just got thru shooting it?

Castor B, I liked that "post normal science" thingy. Well stated.

Alternative recommendation, don't read the above recommendation and DO read the article, your braincells will appreciate the exercise.

My recommendation, don't waste your time on this article

My recommendation: Don't waste time on global warming deniers. They're not critical thinkers and have no care for overall right and wrong. Their concern is what's right for them, which is generally motivated by some unholy combination of selfishness and paranoia.

The deniers are to science what ants are to a picnic. Minor pains in the ass.

Hmmm. Increased CO2 results in increased temperatures. Increased temperatures results in higher water vapor content in the atmosphere. Higher water vapor content results in higher temperatures. We can control how much CO2 we add, water vapor is a natural feedback to higher CO2 levels. Castor's conclusion: Don't worry about CO2, worry about the feedback step.

As Mr. Spock would say, "that is illogical".

There's one problem Tim. There is both a positive and a negative feedback to the clouds. At night the clouds help to keep the warmth from radiating into space and during the day they cool by blocking the sun's energy. Everyone who has been outside on a hot day has felt the difference when a cloud passes in from of the sun.

The inadequate climate simulation models that are predicting the earth to burn to a crisp only consider water vapor to be a positive feedback.

Another scientific fact that I'm sure that you're not aware of is the logarithmic effect of CO2 in the atmosphere. The more you add, the less the effect. That's why for the last 10 to 15 years the CO2 levels have steadily increased but the global temperature has been statistically steady. We've gotten about all the warming that we are going to get from CO2.

The inadequate climate simulation models that are predicting the earth to burn to a crisp only consider water vapor to be a positive feedback.

Which models do that, Castor? Please list them here.

total ocean rise from that 1 trillion tons a year would be about .00274 millimeters.

there is roughly 29,960,000 cubic km of ice on earth so at 1 trillion tons a year it would take about 30,275 years for it to melt.

Just putting it in perspective.

The speed at which the arctic is warming is increasing

McSpocky, could you please tell us what the “global average temperature” of the earth would currently be, ….. in degrees C or F, …… if the atmospheric H2O vapor ppm during the past 200 years was never greater than 100 ppm more than the current atmospheric CO2 ppm was?

You know, like when the current CO2 ppm increased from say 230 ppm to the current 393 ppm ….. then the H2O vapor in the atmosphere during the past 200 years would have always been less than 494 ppm no matter where it was measured.

And McSpocky, iffen you don’t rightly know offhand what the “global average temperature” would now be ….. then maybe you could ask Physicist-retired, ….. the Vine’s resident expert on AGW, …. to give you a learned approximation within 4 or 5 degrees. He should surely know but he might not want to tell you so you’se might hafta prod him a little for an answer.

Cheers

McSpocky, could you please tell us what the “global average temperature” of the earth would currently be, ….. in degrees C or F, …… if the atmospheric H2O vapor ppm during the past 200 years was never greater than 100 ppm more than the current atmospheric CO2 ppm was?

I fail to see what your point is here, Sam.

As increases in CO2 (a greenhouse gas) warm the atmosphere, that warmer atmosphere will necessarily hold more water vapor. And, as you know, water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.

It's just one of the positive feedback loops involved in global warming, along with a reduced albedo from melting polar/glacial ice, tree-killing insect invasions in areas previously too cold to allow the survival of such insects, massive dust storms in China, Africa, and other places due to changing rainfall patterns, and a host of other mechanisms (increased methane being a prime example).

There can be no such thing as increased atmospheric CO2 without a corresponding increase in atmospheric water vapor on this planet.

Your question makes no sense.

(#8.4) I fail to see what your point is here, Sam.

Physicist-retired, for someone who is constantly portraying and verbalizing his “brilliance & intelligence” on all subjects related to Climate Change, Global Warming and the causes of Globaal Average Temperature fluctuations …… you sure know how and when to feign your ignorance at the most opportune times, don’t you?

(#8.4) As increases in CO2 (a greenhouse gas) warm the atmosphere, that warmer atmosphere will necessarily hold more water vapor. And, as you know, water vapor is also a greenhouse gas.

It's just one of the positive feedback loops involved in global warming, along with a reduced albedo from melting polar/glacial ice, tree-killing insect invasions in areas previously too cold to allow the survival of such insects, massive dust storms in China, Africa, and other places due to changing rainfall patterns, and a host of other mechanisms (increased methane being a prime example).

Physicist-retired, it was not only irrelevant to my question ……. but was also dastardly disingenuous of you for posting the above rhetoric as a form of “push piffle” in hopes of achieving similar success with the “public” as does “push polling” achieves.

(#8.4) There can be no such thing as increased atmospheric CO2 without a corresponding increase in atmospheric water vapor on this planet.

Physicist-retired, ….. GIVE US A BREAK, …… that was a blatantly false statement, …… but given your ignorance of Science in general and specifically your ignorance of earth’s geologic history …… I will ignore your comment.

P-r, are you being guilty of what they say about Christians, that “lying for Jesus is still lying”?

Physicist-retired, 800K years of ice core proxies consistently show that atmospheric CO2 ppm always lags behind any change in global average temperature. And to think or believe otherwise, Physicist-retired, such as the claim of “CO2 caused AGW”, is both asinine and foolish because if it was actually "true n' factual" then planet earth would now be uninhabitable for most life forms because it would either have an extremely thick canopy of H2O vapor in the lower atmosphere that would block 90+- % of Sunlight from reaching the earth’s surface and/or the aforesaid would trigger another morphing into a Snowball Earth cycle.

Physicist-retired, ….. GETTA CLUE, …… if, …. as the AGW’ers claim, …… that increasing atmospheric CO2 is driving an increase in Global Temperatures, ….. and that increase in temperature is driving an increase in liquid H2O evaporation, ….. and that increase in liquid H2O evaporation is driving an increase in atmospheric H2O vapor …… which will result in the lower atmosphere becoming saturated with H20 vapor and blocking all Sunlight, and which said H2O vapor will in turn displace or “push” the bulk of the CO2 into the upper atmosphere where it will only exacerbate the AGW claimed heating effect.. And the blocking of Sunlight will exacerbate the formation of ice at the poles which will cause their encroachment toward the equator and thus a new Snowball Earth cycle.

BUT, Physicist-retired, given the fact that the earth is not currently experiencing a Snowball Earth cycle then the Industrial Age CO2 emissions are not the “global warming culprit” that the AGW’ers claim it is.

(#8.4) Your question makes no sense.

Physicist-retired, making that false claim to forego answering my “question” is both petty and unprofessional. Viva the Christians.