Posted on 09/23/2014 2:36:48 AM PDT by Libloather
**SNIP**
Of course, this is counterintuitive. We all learn in school how trees effortlessly perform the marvel of photosynthesis: They take up carbon dioxide from the air and make oxygen. This process provides us with life, food, water, shelter, fiber and soil. The earth’s forests generously mop up about a quarter of the world’s fossil-fuel carbon emissions every year.
So it’s understandable that we’d expect trees to save us from rising temperatures, but climate science tells a different story. Besides the amount of greenhouse gases in the air, another important switch on the planetary thermostat is how much of the sun’s energy is taken up by the earth’s surface, compared to how much is reflected back to space. The dark color of trees means that they absorb more of the sun’s energy and raise the planet’s surface temperature.
Climate scientists have calculated the effect of increasing forest cover on surface temperature. Their conclusion is that planting trees in the tropics would lead to cooling, but in colder regions, it would cause warming.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
So falling temperatures proves global warming, deforestation creates global warming... and growing trees creates global warming.
Got it.
George Orwell predicted all this with:
2+2=5 (if the party says so)
Part of the motivation for this sudden trees-are-bad insight is that the US is one of the few countries with large forests and the US-hating libs don’t want us to get credit for that.
Best tree video ever, watch to the very end
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G880gxjj9dI&feature=related
All the liberal earth worshippers should move to the Sahara or Gobi deserts to set an example of the perfect lifestyle in the perfect environment.
The author is from Yale.
So he must be right!
Correction: SHE must be right!
Can’t always tell when they’re from Yale.
Bookmark
Those advocating tree-planting and trying to stop logging in the name of the environment never made much sense.
If they really wanted to remove more CO2 from the atmosphere, they would advocate logging as many mature trees as possible. That is because mature trees do not remove net CO2 from the air—only growing trees remove net CO2 since they use it to make the permanent structures like trunk and branches. As long as that CO2 remains locked up in the wood, it is not contributing to the CO2 content of the atmosphere.
There has never been consistency between liberal words and deeds.
How many of the Climate Change morons walked or rode a bicycle to the march yesterday? This has little to do with climate and everything to do with bringing our economy to third-world status so it’s “fair.”
There is a reason its called environMENTALism.
ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha
NY Slimes funny pages?
So what happens to all of that money for “offsets” that planted trees to make up for carbon use? Was the money wasted? Should they no longer be sold?
One of my favorite vids. Another is the Rainbow guy.
These people are batsh*t insane and change their “scientific opinion” every 5 minutes, I would take the word of a tv “psychic” or voodoo priest over a “climate scientist”.
I concur.
PLEASE, make it stop!
Creating an excuse for an increase in CO2 by reducing the numbers of the very organisms that consume CO2 as part of their respiration?
the NYT is saying “cut down the rainforest”?
It’s for the children. The world can’t wait!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.