Climate Change and forestry in Canada

[Tonington]

Since this seems to be a point of contention...here's the published findings that have examined the field of views in climate research.

97.4% of publishing climatologists answered yes to the following question:

Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?
http://tigger.uic.edu/~pdoran/012009_Doran_final.pdf
​

And then of course there is the actual findings that are being published relating to anthropogenic climate change (ACC) by climate researchers:

Here, we use an extensive dataset of 1,372 climate researchers and their publication and citation data to show that (i) 97–98% of the climate researchers most actively publishing in the field support the tenets of ACC outlined by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and (ii) the relative climate expertise and scientific prominence of the researchers unconvinced of ACC are substantially below that of the convinced researchers.
Expert credibility in climate change
​

The only reason studies like this even occur is because it's a talking point by those who suggest there is a great deal of debate amongst scientists on this question. If you break it down to more technical questions of matters of fact, like say cloud feedback, or climate sensitivities, then the opinions become much more diverse. On a simple matter of yes or no though relating to human activities and the effects on climate, it's about as surprising as the answer you would get from nutritionists if the question is whether or not a net surplus of dietary energy consumption will lead to weight gain.

More radiative energy trapped, more energy retained. More energy consumed than metabolized, leads to an increase in body mass. Not really controversial at all.

 

[skookumchuck]

"97.4% of publishing climatologists answered yes to the following question:"

How would the grants and publishing go if they said no or even unsure? I really hate the smell of used oats.

 

[Tonington]

"97.4% of publishing climatologists answered yes to the following question:"

How would the grants and publishing go if they said no or even unsure?

Did you read the link? No names mentioned.

But it's astounding really. So despite all the contributions science and technology have made in the past century, now we can all be jaded because the scientists have the temerity to conduct science without paying for it from their own pockets? How is it any better if, like my position, I'm paid to do research for a corporation with shareholders? What's your alternative? What's this gld standard we should be using?

Medical advancements, scientists received grants. Computer technology, researchers received grants. Engineering advancements, there's grants for that too.

This is when you know your argument is scraping the bottom of the barrel. If you can be straight and say all of the scientific advancements using grants are somehow suspect because scientists have to apply for grants to study the universe around us. Unbelievable.

OK...

You're now in league with conspiracy theorists, which by the way, someone investigated the prevailing views of the so-called climate skeptics, and that group has more in common with moon landing hoax believers and 9/11 conspiracy theorists than those who are not identifying themselves as climate skeptics. But many of us knew that was true already.

 

[skookumchuck]

Nope but nice try not taking the peer and management factor into consideration regarding grants. I have no problem with grants, just who abuse them as has appeared to be common among climate researchers. I do not dispute the tendency to be warmer during this cycle and i do not give a rat's azz about AGW as, if it is happening we can do next to nothing but waste money that would be better spent adapting.
I cannot be guilt tripped by those with an agenda more suited to developing a huge and useless group of followers than planning for the worst.

 

[gerryh]

Google to the rescue.

I would suggest that you avail yourself of google, or bing, or any other search engine to increase your knowledge since you seem to be quite lacking.

 

[Dexter Sinister]

The begats are in the new testament (Matthew 1) but why let ignorance get in the way of lefty propaganda.

That's just Jesus' genealogy, there are others in the OT. You might have a look at Genesis 5 for the generations from Adam to Noah, for instance. You're not in a strong position to accuse others of ignorance.

 

[Tonington]

Nope but nice try not taking the peer and management factor into consideration regarding grants. I have no problem with grants, just who abuse them as has appeared to be common among climate researchers.

There's that conspiracy thinking peeking out again, and right on time! :lol:

 

[beaker]

Nope but nice try not taking the peer and management factor into consideration regarding grants. I have no problem with grants, just who abuse them as has appeared to be common among climate researchers. I do not dispute the tendency to be warmer during this cycle and i do not give a rat's azz about AGW as, if it is happening we can do next to nothing but waste money that would be better spent adapting.
I cannot be guilt tripped by those with an agenda more suited to developing a huge and useless group of followers than planning for the worst.

What do you consider to be common among climate researchers. How many incidents have you heard of compared to the incidents where there was no abuse? Any numbers and cases? What are you considering abuse? Is there cases where you believe charges should be laid? Like what?

You don't dispute that the climate is changing. You don't care if it is human caused. And you think that we should put our emphasis on adapting. Fine, One of our best adaptive/mitigative strategies is to cut down on our abuse of fossil fuels that are causing the problem. We have no problem.

Well other than you seem to think that I would profit from gaining a huge and useless group of followers. Doubtless I could if I had a mind to. I think in this I am part of the solution. Now where do you stand?

 

[EagleSmack]

You don't dispute that the climate is changing. You don't care if it is human caused. And you think that we should put our emphasis on adapting. Fine, One of our best adaptive/mitigative strategies is to cut down on our abuse of fossil fuels that are causing the problem. We have no problem.

And what have you done? Have you changed lifestyle drastically? What about carbon credits? Are you carbon neutral?

 

[beaker]

And what have you done? Have you changed lifestyle drastically? What about carbon credits? Are you carbon neutral?

And if I told you what I had done, restructuring homes to make them more energy efficient, that when I was a kid I had a '65 Merc pick-up with a three speed 352 that could burn rubber, literally, in all three gears, and that I don't do that anymore, and that I am carbon sequestered positive, what difference would that make to you? This isn't a thread about that, but all are true.

where does that leave you with our forests and the impacts they will have because of anthropogenic global warming?

 

[Walter]

I would suggest that you avail yourself of google, or bing, or any other search engine to increase your knowledge since you seem to be quite lacking.

Yes, dear.

That's just Jesus' genealogy, there are others in the OT. You might have a look at Genesis 5 for the generations from Adam to Noah, for instance. You're not in a strong position to accuse others of ignorance.

Yes, dear.

 

[beaker]

Yes, dear.

Yes, dear.

Glad to see that you are learning from your mistakes. Painful isn't it?

Manitoba has looked at aspects of this issue with some info here,

Biological sequestration

"Re-growth of harvested forests,
According to Natural Resources Canada, reducing timber harvesting in Canada would have very little impact on carbon dioxide emissions. With sustainable forest management, less than 0.5% of the managed forest is harvested in any given year in Canada. These harvested areas regenerate to become forests again, so there is substantial new storage of carbon occurring in the areas previously harvested. Additionally, the amount of carbon released from each year to forest fires and other natural disturbances is about 2.5 times the amount of carbon lost in harvesting.


New forest (aforestation)
Because growing vegetation absorbs carbon dioxide, the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and the Kyoto Protocol both recognize the importance of forests for addressing climate change.

However, Article 3.3 of the Kyoto Protocol calls for the maintenance of forests by afforestation, reforestation, and controlling deforestation (ARD). Afforestation and reforestation credits are obtained, while deforestation is associated with debits. Article 3.4 provides credits for increases in the carbon sequestered by managed forests. Thus, there is a role for forest sequestration under these agreements.

Although a role for sustainable forest management (SFM) is not explicitly articulated in the Kyoto Protocol, SFM is recognized in the UNFCCC."

 

[B00Mer]

[youtube]FzOcqgnqWG8[/youtube]

 

[petros]

Canadians are sking already. Earliest opening date EVER!

How did SK end up where AB is?

 

[arty]

It is normal for environmentalists to speak and write Untruth that has no science behind it whatsoever.I believe it to be part of the liberal left to put down conservative efforts to grow the Canadian economy.It is sad that a good portion of our educators in our universities are so biased. They put forth the socialist lefty idea. This can not support our nation.Lots of the bogus claims by environmentalists are just plain stupid as are they.