Trees contribute to global warming?? Anybody else heard about this?

Question

I actually saw this on the news this morning. Yes on the news. Not an email or blog, but on the news. Mainstream media that is. I wish I had a link, I haven't has time to find it right now.
They talked about proof that scientists had that dense forests in the frozen parts of the world actually cause a rise in average mean temperatures by up to ten degrees by trapping heat.
Forrests in tropic and sub tropic climates actually do help in the removal of green house gases, but in frozen areas it can contribute to it from what they said.

My main point it is this. With still so many un-answered questions about global warming, why have so many made up their minds that Al Gore and his entourage are right? I mean, this guy has a so called "carbon footprint" that equals about 20 families worth of energy usage. Why would anybody believe such a poor leader of example as well as a hypocrite?

Every time I've asked this type of question about global warming, I get the feeling that Libs think cons are out to destroy the planet.
No con I've ever met thinks that we shouldn't take care of our environment. It just point blank is the right thing to do.
The thing most cons disagree with is the "man made warming " myth.
Until it is unequivocally proven, don't make mankind completely change his or her lifestyle because it's the "popular" thing to do.

Uhhhhh Nick F

It's also a FACT that H2O vapors trap more heat than CO2. Now how are we going to stop that????

Answer 1

global warming IS a scare tactic. it is a natural occurence that cannot be prevented. mother nature will do as she pleases. there have been 15 ice ages in recorded geological history. one as recent as a couple hundred years ago.. this is just a tactic by the extreme wacko leftist environmentalists to try and disrupt industry. now i'm not saying we shouldn't do what we can to cut pollution or find alternate fuels... but, i'm really against people like gore just trying to make money by scaring people. or just because they're against corporations.

Answer 2

I didn't read the same news that you did, and you did not provide a link. Therefore, I can only answer in general terms.

As the Earth warms, and the poles melt, areas formerly covered with snow (which, being white, reflects sunlight rather than absorbing it) for most of the year are increasingly left barren. The dark earth exposed then absorbs sunlight, actually increasing warming of the planet.

Therefore, the process feeds upon itself. Global warming causes more melting at the poles, which then absorb more sunlight. I assume that the trees in these areas were part of this process, but did not "cause" the global warming.

Why do so many people support Al Gore? Because global warming is real, and he is putting it in a format that everyone can understand.

There is a project at Ohio State University's Byrd Polar Research Center in which core samples are being taken from glaciers in Greenland. The ice has been there in Greenland for over 100,000 years. The further down one goes, therefore, the further back in time.

Scientists are able to analyze tiny bubbles of trapped air in these core samples to find out what the Earth's atmosphere was like in the past. The samples have shown that the CO2 currently in the atmosphere is the highest it has ever been.

A graph shows parts per million CO2 plotted against time. The level over 100,000 years ago was close to ZERO. It did not start to rise significantly until the 1800s, which just happens to coincide with the development of industrial manufacturing. When you look at the graph, the level for the present day rises on a LOGARITHMIC scale and goes off the chart at somewhere over 500 ppm. Note that this study IS the evidence that the pseudoscientists say does not exist.

Furthermore, all of the world's reputable scientists have agreed that global warming is real, and will cause major climate change in the very near future. This will affect people's ability to grow crops, water availability, etc.

You can already see the affects of global warming around the planet. The number and strength of storms has increased because of warming of the Earth's oceans. We are also seeing increased flooding (from increased rainfall in some areas) and wildfires (from droughts in other areas). The weather seems to have many more extremes, and more volatility than it did when I was a child.

Additionally, as regional climates change drastically, the animals that live there often can't adapt quickly (such adaptations take millions of years), and therefore die. The world's scientists now agree that we will see large numbers of extinctions in the next century.

Large corporations, especially those in the oil and gas industry, coal, electricity, and others which produce the most CO2, have the most to lose, as they may be required to spend large amounts of money to trap CO2 in the future. Therefore, these people hire "scientists" to dispute the findings on global warming. These people are paid lots of money by the big corporations to say what they say.

Some politicians also say they don't believe in global warming. But again, these politicians are well-paid by lobbyists from the CO2-emitters.

As far as Al Gore's "carbon footprint" goes, his detractors (the same people mentioned above) can twist the data any way they see fit. Al Gore's house is said to be over 10,000 square feet, and is located in an area of the country which gets very humid in the summer and cold in the winter. It was compared to an "average household" using a national, and not a regional, figure.

Again, it's the big CO2-emitting corporations who are out to discredit Gore. Their response to the crisis is to "kill the messenger".

However, as people witness the effects of global warming with their own eyes, they too become concerned. Polls show that most people now report being concerned about global warming.

Answer 3

Yup. I've read that too. There's too many things we DON'T know about the delicate balance of nature and the environment to make radical changes, because to DON'T know what the changes may cause, let alone if they will have an impact.

I've read that it would take billions of dollars to implement many of the recommendations by the global warming zealots and that when all is said and done it might not do any good. For instance, they wail about how global warming could increase mosquito populations that could lead to malaria outbreaks. Well instead of spending billions on that, why not spend a few thousand and just get the medication to those who might need it?

How about the push to decrease aerosals many years back, because scientists theorized that it contributed to the ozone hole. Now scientists believe that the subsequent decreases in aerosol use are contributing to global warming. The law of unintended consequences clearly illustrated.

Answer 4

Wow, that's some major misinformation.

Yes, forests do contribute CO2 to greenhouse gases. Plants absorb CO2, though they also emit some too through decay and death.

But that's natural.

The issue is, what are the EXACERBATING (look it up) activities of humans that are causing CO2 levels to rise beyond their historic and natural limits?

[added] In response to your additional detail, about waiting until the proof is "unequivocal" (by which you are implying that there is still doubt, I assume), here's a question...

Do you know the difference between a Type I error and a Type II error?

A Type I error is occurs when action is taken and it turns out that no action was ever required. The risk is the cost (dollars, for this discussion) of incurring the action. Relevant example would be if global warming turns out to be NOT occurring, but we incur costs of emissions regulation, capital for new technologies, etc.

A Type II error occurs when action MIGHT be needed but no action is taken (and no costs incurred) because of perceived inconvenience or disutility of said action. The risk is that the action turns out to be necessary, but by the time this is known, the costs of action are prohibitive and/or the technological challenge to rectify the situation is insurmountable. Relevant example is if global warming IS occurring but we do nothing now to mitigate it.

To simplify, we have the choice:
1) Incur KNOWN and MANAGEABLE costs now (estimated at 1% of world GDP if action is initiated in the next five years and sustained); or
2) Just wait and see, such that by the time we "see", it may be too late for literally millions of people who WILL be driven forever from coastal lands and/or be struck by disease and pestilence that cannot be anticipated.

Answer 5

President Reagan said that trees cause pollution, and he is a nearly infallible patron saint of Republican politics. If trees cause pollution, then certainly they contribute to global warming even though they remove CO2 from the air and replace it with oxygen. hmmm....

You should read a little of global warming argument, and see if you still think that the global warming theory is in doubt. That's the only way you can really know whether or not scientists have answered some of the questions you pose.

Answer 6

While fossil fuel power plants are the largest manmade contributor of green house gas's, 39% of man made gas's.

The oceans are the largest contributor of green house gas's on earth. Something like 70%.

Should we ban the oceans ?

Are oceans evil neocon Republicans trying to kill us all ?

And have ya ever wondered, why the people talking about global warming the most, are the same people, the most against solving the problem.

The largest man made contributor is fossil fuel power plants.

But the global warming crowd does not want to replace them with the only alternative available.

Nuclear power.

If the global warming crowd hadn't politically blocked nuclear power back in the 70's. And we had continued to build nuclear power plants.

We probally wouldn't have global warming today.

Answer 7

The whole global warming canard can best be summed up by examining those who side with the fantasy vision of Al Gore. These are the same people who see America as a flawed country in need of serious changes, they reject capitalism as the best form of economic progress, they feel guilt over their modern lifestyle, they want to feel self important by pretending they live at the end of time, they think that only through government controll of resources and production can man ever archive a level of fairness they see as important in salving their guilt. They are in effect Luddites. A small percent of these people are driven to the cause by either self interest(they get paid to preach the Gore gospill, or have devised carbon offset schemes for personal gain)or a desire to impose controll(UN and other internationalist groups bent on forcing traditional societies to give up their culture for the benefit of secular goals) To sum this up, those who go with Gore are anti-human, those who oppose him see the goodness in man.

Answer 8

This flawed logic dates back to a period during the Reagan presidency. He made some half baked remark about trees polluting and that it would be good to cut them down, or some nonsense to that effect.

The failure to fully document the negative effects that human generated pollution is creating in the environment is no reason to dismiss it or ignore it.

And this constant campaign against Al Gore has been debunked during several interviews. His 'footprint' is far smaller than most people in his income bracket. And he's a successful capitalist. No wonder folks want to tear him down.

Your logic is flawed and there is no basis in fact for the claims in your question.

Answer 9

I heard that from my climatology professor. Trees absorb heat from the sun. The trees actually cancel out the effect on climate due to air scrubbing, (removing CO2), due to their absorbtion of heat alone. Personally I'm confused how this doesn't work the same in the tropics. (convenient, that's where the rainforests are)

Trees lead to global warming, not global cooling.

Answer 10

It's a FACT that CO2 traps the suns heat

It is also a FACT that we are adding large amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere

uhh actually it's a fact that water vapor makes clouds which reflect heat...