Things Heard: e316n1
Wednesday, September 17th, 2014 at
7:41 pm
At long last, more links.
- More CO2.
- Yikes.
- I have to say, vis a vis corn, that comparing corn grits and cream of wheat and how hungry I am four hours later in the morning, corn beats wheat hands down.
- The minority leader and doing self parody right. Man, she has teh stupid in buckets, eh?
- Some politicians around the globe, however, are make Ms Pelosi look less worse.
- Neat interior design.
- Tranadol found in trees, or more precisely, not found in trees. Interesting though.
- ‘cuse me, any “theory of tattoos” has to include “alcohol was involved in the decision making”.
- Heh.
- On banning prayer at games. Reminds me of the Soviet era story of the pols proclaiming to the crowd how religion in the USSR was dead and gone … somebody in the crowd shouted “Christ is Risen” and the whole crowd responded back automatically “He is Risen Indeed”.
- Looking into the near future crystal ball, optimistically.
- Relics of the Cross.
Like this post? Subscribe to my RSS feed and get loads more!
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?
Mr Darrell,
You would benefit from close reading and paying attention to logical fallacies. Your points:
Hmm. We start of with Argumentum ad hominem. Niiice.
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).
Cite a reference that shows that since the 1960s increased CO2 has resulted in poor quality hardwoods.
Yes. More tree means more beetles. So?
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.
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.