Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/thepayto/public_html/stonescryout/index.php:1) in /home/thepayto/public_html/stonescryout/wp-content/plugins/all-in-one-seo-pack/app/Common/Meta/Robots.php on line 87

Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/thepayto/public_html/stonescryout/index.php:1) in /home/thepayto/public_html/stonescryout/wp-includes/feed-rss2-comments.php on line 8
Comments on: Things Heard: e316n1 https://stonescryout.org/?p=6459 If they keep silent... Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:00:45 +0000 hourly 1 By: Mark O. https://stonescryout.org/?p=6459&cpage=1#comment-87428 Thu, 18 Sep 2014 16:00:45 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=6459#comment-87428 In reply to Ed Darrell.

Mr Darrell,

You would benefit from close reading and paying attention to logical fallacies. Your points:

Oh, yeah — you’re using WUWT as a source

Hmm. We start of with Argumentum ad hominem. Niiice.

Trees grow faster, but we’re clearing them faster than they can grow. The faster growing trees in the remaining forests cannot absorb all the CO2 released from tropical and temperate zone forest clearing. So we’re still losing.

This is a logical fallacy. When testing the hypothesis of the harmful effects of CO2 (vs possible benefits) you cannot cite as a harmful effect CO2 increase (modus ponens).

Faster growing wood isn’t as strong as slower growing wood. In sequoiahs, for one example, there isn’t time for the sap to accumulate to make redwood. The non-redwood redwood trees are not resistant to insects, nor fire, so they don’t provide the protections of the land that slower-growing sequoiahs do.

Cite a reference that shows that since the 1960s increased CO2 has resulted in poor quality hardwoods.

Faster growing pines are more susceptible to pine bark beetle infestation.

Yes. More tree means more beetles. So?

All trees that grow faster are more susceptible to wind damage — they simply cannot stand up to winds as well.

Actually in the 50 year period the study found healthier stands of tree with less dead wood. From the abstract, “Stands still follow similar general allometric rules, but proceed more rapidly through usual trajectories.” Sounds like your conclusion is not born up.

What’s your point? Were you hoaxed by Watts into thinking that was good news?

If the study found slower growth you’d be telling me why that was bad. Your items sound a lot like a person complaining on getting a raise that, now he has investments, can’t file by 1040EZ, his kids have to suffer under higher expectations, they’ll be able to afford more and have to find room for all the stuff, &c.

Try again.

]]>
By: Ed Darrell https://stonescryout.org/?p=6459&cpage=1#comment-87351 Thu, 18 Sep 2014 06:21:28 +0000 http://stonescryout.org/?p=6459#comment-87351 More CO2 makes trees grow moderately faster? So does that mean we should sacrifice civilization for slightly faster growing forests?

Oh, yeah — you’re using WUWT as a source.

Consider:

Trees grow faster, but we’re clearing them faster than they can grow. The faster growing trees in the remaining forests cannot absorb all the CO2 released from tropical and temperate zone forest clearing. So we’re still losing.

Faster growing wood isn’t as strong as slower growing wood. In sequoiahs, for one example, there isn’t time for the sap to accumulate to make redwood. The non-redwood redwood trees are not resistant to insects, nor fire, so they don’t provide the protections of the land that slower-growing sequoiahs do.

Faster growing pines are more susceptible to pine bark beetle infestation.

All trees that grow faster are more susceptible to wind damage — they simply cannot stand up to winds as well.

Forests that don’t do what we need forest to do, forests that are more likely to explode into destructive wildfires, forests that cannot make up for the harvestable wood lost . . .

What’s your point? Were you hoaxed by Watts into thinking that was good news?

]]>