Study: Aspen warm to extra CO2 in air (http://www.startribune.com/local/78486102.html?elr=KArksUUUycaEacyU)
Aspen trees, the backbone of Minnesota's paper industry, are liking the extra carbon dioxide in the air linked to global warming.
New research published Friday found that aspen growth rates increased by 53 percent during the past half-century, as carbon dioxide in the atmosphere increased about 20 percent.
Aspens thrive on CO2 but try tell the farmers around here this. ::) They seem to be knocking as much of the treed lands down as they can because cultivated acres sell much higher than those with trees. In the farmland areas much of the treed land is not maintained at all and deemed as useless land. Trees are useless as far as most of them are concerned. >:( The good thing about this is that I can get alot of aspen for next to nothing. ;D Aspen is our main species of wood here until you get a bit further north.
Brad.
carbon sequestration is important to a lot of industry, and will become more and more important as global carbon emissions increase
CO2 is what plants need to live. Some species may respond more dramatically than others to CO2 increases. Generally most plants should do better. Which means. . . . .
They'll make more oxygen! ;D
Most plant life evolved when atmospheric CO2 levels were significantly higher than they are now. One of the "secrets" of growing vigorous plants in commercial greenhouses is to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in the greenhouses.
Studies done by agronomists at Purdue University indicate that there is the potential to increase grain yields by as much as 30% if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to increase.
Quote from: Woodcarver on September 28, 2010, 12:13:45 AM
Most plant life evolved when atmospheric CO2 levels were significantly higher than they are now. One of the "secrets" of growing vigorous plants in commercial greenhouses is to add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere in the greenhouses.
Studies done by agronomists at Purdue University indicate that there is the potential to increase grain yields by as much as 30% if atmospheric carbon dioxide levels continue to increase.
There are some of us who believe that there is no such thing as evolution-- that God created the earth in a much more excellent state than it is now, and later destroyed the wicked civilization of mankind by a devastating flood. Taking that view, we generally understand that the pre-flood atmosphere was far different than what we have today, probably with higher atmospheric pressure, and likely with different amounts of oxygen and CO2 than we have today. There may also have been a denser atmospheric canopy protecting the earth from solar radiation. Fossil trees have been found some 900 feet long, and it has been shown that much of the earth was once covered in redwoods. Creation scientists believe the massive coal deposits are a result of the one-time flood that buried vast lush forests and swamps that were far richer in flora (and fauna) than we have today. After the flood the mud hardened into rock rather rapidly, and today's earth is a meager ghost of what the former one was. But God gave mankind grace and fitted Noah and his progeny to survive in this altered world. BTW, I'm just stating my opinion, not trying to get in a fight here. If my opinions differ from others, I'm not trying to offend anyone and you are free to think of me as being crazy or foolish, I'm used to it!
I have seen a decline in aspen personally. The aspen that was cut around here the last 25 years got pretty big, so big we had to have special "over sized" tickets to move the wood at some mills. They would only take so much volume of that big wood. I find the suckered stuff doesn't look all that great, a lot of disease and shoot blight. Some years are better than others. The last couple years haven't been too bad. But for 3 years before, the tips of the trees died off from some kind of blight. Turned black. This was mostly in trembling. However we did some thinning in aspen this year, on a dry knoll a bunch of large tooth grew up and most every one were dry stubs, tops missing or just a 3 or 4 leaves left up there. It wasn't moose unless they can fly way up there in the tree tops. ;D My friend who is a bug man, says it's called aspen decline and is happening on a large scale. I can see on my woodlot there was a bad year about the 3 rd year the aspen had suckered, almost every aspen has a J-crook in the stem at the same level. These would be even aged. You can also see a crook in older pole wood in another stand of even aged trees, same height as surrounding trees. Much higher up in the canopy because they would be 10 years older than the most recent cut.
Okra, thought you were joking at first....wow.
:-[ :'(
First I've heard of 900 ft. long fossil trees. I managed to keep a straight face while reading your post until "creation scientists"
Craziness is relative and your opinions are just that. However, having an opinion on an issue is totally different than completely ignoring how nature works.
Briefly, there is no evidence of a great flood. "Redwoods" did not cover the earth; trees similar to them were present millions of years ago...it's a member of a very old lineage of woody plants. "After the flood the mud hardened into rock rather rapidly", huh? ???
If there ever has been a 900 foot tall tree someone please inform me...never heard of it.
Quote from: JimTwoSticks on September 28, 2010, 08:41:42 AM
Okra, thought you were joking at first....wow.
:-[ :'(
First I've heard of 900 ft. long fossil trees.
If there ever has been a 900 foot tall tree someone please inform me...never heard of it.
Whoa, that was what I was thinking too! A 900' tree? Can you imagine if it was a pine and you were standing next to it and a pine cone fell from the top and hit you on the head? Ouch!
I read a few years ago that one species that responds dramatically to increased levels of CO2 in the atmosphere is poison ivy... something to look forward to, huh?
I do have to wonder who thought up the experiment of putting poison ivy in an environment where they could artificially increase the CO2 levels and monitor the results.
Quote from: northwoods1 on September 28, 2010, 09:49:02 AM
Quote from: JimTwoSticks on September 28, 2010, 08:41:42 AM
Okra, thought you were joking at first....wow.
:-[ :'(
First I've heard of 900 ft. long fossil trees.
If there ever has been a 900 foot tall tree someone please inform me...never heard of it.
Whoa, that was what I was thinking too! A 900' tree? Can you imagine if it was a pine and you were standing next to it and a pine cone fell from the top and hit you on the head? Ouch!
Nobody has to believe it. I'm not offended.
http://s8int.com/WordPress/?tag=giant-petrified-trees
http://www.lachlanhunter.deadsetfreestuff.com/JB/Big-Trees/big-trees.htm
"A short drive from Florissant, Colorado, is the Pike (also called the Colorado) Petrified Forest. It is small, but the sequoias that once grew here were towers. One of the stumps has a
base diameter of 27 feet. The height of the live tree can only be conjectured. The
largest tree yet discovered is also a sequoia - 14 feet, not the greatest diameter, but the trunk can be traced to
295 feet. Weight may be 500 tons. It rests prone, partly covered by desert sand in the Emerald Formation of Southwest Nevada near Coaldale"
And one of many organizations that teaches Creation:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
For those who want to go deep and scientific in a peer-reviewed way
http://www.creationresearch.org/
And here is Dr. Walt Brown's exhaustive study of the Genesis flood, which I've found most informative, and after objectively reading what he wrote, I tentatively agree with at least 80-90% of his conclusions though I would question some of his minor points. He, by the way, is at least humble enough to admit that he might be wrong about some of it, which is always the best way to go about bringing forth ideas you can't actually prove beyond a shadow of a doubt.
http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/Preface.html
I'm not asking anyone to change your beliefs unless you should wish to, just showing you where I come from and that I'm not alone. Foolish or crazy I may be, but I don't take it personally.
BTW, old Noah may have been one of the greatest sawmill operators on earth. . . . . perhaps.
Yeah, but you can't just scale the stump and assume the height will match, trees dont work that way. There are Kauri recorded here in NZ that were 25ft dia at the stump, but only 100-150ft tall. Once a tree reaches a certain height it becomes difficult for the tree to bring water and nutrients up from the ground, plus the top is out exposed in the weather, so if gets beaten up in storms. The trunk keeps growing, and while the crown may spread it doesn't get much taller. Kauri reach close to their max height in about 100 years, then spend the next 1,000+ getting fatter.
So I don't argue with the stump size, trees that big have existed for sure. But to say that 3X the stump size = 3X the height, nope, doesn't work like that.
Ian
Petrified trees now, but they grew way up on the Queen Elizabeth Islands. How long ago do you suppose they were growing there? And how long for the oil they are extracting there? ;D Now how old is the bible and how much geography and scope, flora and fauna is described? Any mention of giant lizard-like beasts eating other giant lizards and maybe people? When did we war against them and destroy them? Or where they just as vile as man and consumed in the flood? Seems to me the bible said two of every kind were on that ark. ;)
Well, SD, I have "my" answers to all those questions, if you really want to know. The short answer is-- the great flood changed the entire environment and crust of the earth in vast ways that we are just now capable of discovering. As for the dinosaurs, Noah did take them on the ark (small juvenile ones no doubt so they didn't take up much room) and they survived the flood. However, they were probably not well suited for the changed atmospheric conditions on the postdeluvian planet. Still, there are many many historical accounts of dinosaurs (usually called dragons or monsters) being encountered by people throughout Europe, Asia, and Africa in particular through the medieval period and possibly up to the present time in the Congo. These modern day beasts may not be anywhere near as big as their antedeluvian ancestors, due to genetics selecting for the postdeluvian atmospheric conditions-- and possibly increased gravity from the earth's crust collapsing in on itself (the planet may be denser today than it was before the catastrophic flood, as the Bible states that great underground fountains of water broke up to cause the flood, the rain was the least of their worries)
Dinosaurs are mentioned in the bible, called "behemoth" in Job and referred to as dragons elsewhere.
Here is a link exploring the possibilities of dinosaurs existing today-- there are many other sites out there-- yes it is speculative in regards to some of it, and there may not be any, but I lay out there that there is a possibility. Species do become extinct when their environment is destroyed or they are hunted to death.
http://www.genesispark.com/genpark/behemoth/behemoth.htm
Well that certainly is amazing. I must be missing a few chapters and books in my book. Need to look into getting the revised copy.
I don't even know where to start.... :)
Here in no specific order are a few points I can think of off the cuff in a couple of minutes.
A. A global flood is not possible. Was it fresh water or salt? Where did it come from?
B. 6000 years (if that's when the flood happened since the earth is only 6600 years old right?) is not enough time to get the genetic variation we see in the human race if at time zero (6000 yrs ago) 9 individuals who all happened to be related (Noah and his family) started procreating....gross :(
C. The ark could not have existed. A wooden boat carrying 2 "of every kind" - or whatever argument you young earth creationists fire back when asked how 2 of every animal could possibly fit in the boat let alone be collected - would have been too large to reliably float. What about the animal crap? What about the food?
D. What about plant life? The majority of terrestrial plants cannot survive if submerged for any amount of time.
E. If it did happen (it didn't by the way) where did the water go once it receded? Keep in mind, earth is essentially a closed system.
Unrelated to the flood ridiculousness but related to the conversation. The creation research society creationresearch.org is not a recognized science organization. In actual science, any conclusions drawn from the data are acceptable if they are justified with repeatable experiments and fit the data presented. If you read the abstracts from the "peer-reviewed" journal published by this society you will find they tow the company line and are therefore NOT composed using the true scientific method.
I'm sorry to get condescending about this stuff but you are completely ignoring how this place (earth) works in favor of a literal interpretation of a storybook.
You're opinions are just that but when they are wrong, they're wrong.
For instance, if I believed the detroit lions were the best football team in the NFL and that they were 3-0 this season it would be my personal belief, but would still be completely false.
Go Packers!
Okay, I was standing by allowing the creation debate to go for a little bit, but I gotta draw the line on picking on the Detroit Lions. ;)
Seriously, this conversation, or variants there of has occurred on the Forestry Forum before. Each time its ended badly. Why? Because there are people that just can't debate a point without becoming personal, emotional or just outright angry.
So, here is fair warning, go ahead and continue your conversation if you will, but be forewarned that if I see ANY type of post that *I deem over my line of good conduct or judgement with one another *("I" means I don't care what you think, because I get to make the rules so don't try to argue the point with me) Then I will pull the plug on this conversation and the person or persons I feel responsible will find themselves on a different website when they try to visit here for a day or two.
Okay, now continue two by two if you want with extreme caution.
I would just say that I am a young earth creationist myself. I've come to my conclusions through much research and I don't expect anyone else to share my views, nor do I regard anyone else as a moron because they believe evolution is how we got here. I've sure had a few folks try to straighten me right out for being such a dummy however ::) That's all I'll say about the issue, back to the issue of CO2 and Aspen growth, how do we know we had more CO2 in the past? (That's an honest question, I don't how scientists measure this) If atmospheric CO2 was higher, why was it higher and how do we know that the rising levels we see now aren't a natural cycle, rather than man made?
Quote from: barbender on September 29, 2010, 09:25:08 PM
how do we know we had more CO2 in the past? (That's an honest question, I don't how scientists measure this) If atmospheric CO2 was higher, why was it higher and how do we know that the rising levels we see now aren't a natural cycle, rather than man made?
From what I know, air is trapped in ice in glaciers and scientists have the ability to measure the components of those ancient air bubbles.
Yes, we do know the amount of CO2 in the air changes with time.
And the last question is the $64 question. The global warming crowd claims that the increase is primarily due to man's activities. And the opponents say there are holes in that theory. And one big hole is the timeline for the increase that started before humans began mass burning of fossil fuels.
So there are your answers in a nutshell. But then again, anything that can be put in a nutshell belongs there. ;D
We know that we are adding, in round numbers, 24 million tons of CO2 per day to the atmosphere. This has been occurring on an incline to present day numbers for about 100 years. It isn't a stretch to believe that these quantities would have some impact on the atmosphere.
Quote from: barbender on September 29, 2010, 09:25:08 PM
I would just say that I am a young earth creationist myself. I've come to my conclusions through much research and I don't expect anyone else to share my views, nor do I regard anyone else as a moron because they believe evolution is how we got here. I've sure had a few folks try to straighten me right out for being such a dummy however ::) That's all I'll say about the issue, back to the issue of CO2 and Aspen growth, how do we know we had more CO2 in the past? (That's an honest question, I don't how scientists measure this) If atmospheric CO2 was higher, why was it higher and how do we know that the rising levels we see now aren't a natural cycle, rather than man made?
Thanks for stepping out there, BB, I'm glad I'm not the only dummy around here. Thanks for your post, Jeff, I knew it was dangerous to say something, and maybe I shouldn't have started down that road, but please understand I was not trying to make people angry-- funny how stating one's opinion and couching it with phrases like "I don't expect to change peoples' minds, this is just how I believe" can cause such anger-- I used to get angry about a lot of things in life but I've learned that anger rarely helps-- when I disagree with somebody and it isn't doing me or them immediate harm, I try not to get upset. I just hope people can understand that there's no need to be alarmed that somebody believes differently than you do-- instead of being alarmed, take a look at their position and remind yourself all the reasons you have your own convictions. I mean, come on, we could be arguing about which is better, Chevy or Ford, and I mean, both sides are very passionate and "know" they are right, and can't even begin to believe how silly that other person can be for believing Chevy or Ford is better-- or beef vs. chicken for lunch, or country vs. rock (I don't listen to either one) or pistol versus shotgun, or Woodmizer versus Timberking, etc etc etc.
So I'm sorry for offending anybody, and btw, just for the record, I was looking again for the 900' tree and although I found the website it was on I won't say that I believe that particular website to be totally reliable, and they quoted it from an old newspaper article, and we ALL know that newspapers aren't reliable. . . . right? ??? I would like to find the original article and see if I could locate the thing in person. . . . .
Regardless of any personal belief on creationism vs evolution, I'd be interested to see it if you came across that 900 foot tree article, Okrafarmer. I had always thought tree height was limited by the limits of capillary action (or however trees get water and nutrients up to their crown). If there was something 900 ft tall, I wonder how it did it. If the climate was wet enough, it might be able to capture rainwater somehow. How to get nutrients up to the crown might still be a problem.
Jeff, the Detroit Lions comment was all for you :D . I noticed you were from MI and also remember seeing you post something about a lions game - I think related to the call to end the bears/lions game this year - so I figured I would jab you a little. It has been a long run of terrible in the lions camp but truthfully that should turn around with the talent you guys have managed to pick up....definitely should not be 0-3 this year with how much better they've played than in years past. Also, would not argue with you being "the man" of the forum and having your decision be the final judgment rendered.
With regard to the never ending creation "debate". I can assure you I wasn't getting angry, nor have I ever gotten angry (sometimes confused or shocked though) with anyone's opinion about this topic. I was simply pointing out what I see as blatant disregard for established biological principles. Okra, the arguments you presented Ford v. Chevy, pistols v. shotgun, country v. rock, etc. are not the same as the argument between life on earth being derived through the process of evolution and all life occurring in it's present form because God made it so a few thousand years ago. The latter argument involves clear cut data that is unambiguous while the others you mentioned deal with people's preferences. Are their unanswered questions that scientists regularly argue about? Definitely, that's how science advances. With evolutionary processes the vast amount of data collected and analyzed disagree with the idea that a "young earth" creation event occurred.
I've been reading this forum on and off for a couple years and have never really found any of the regular participants to be completely unreasonable. Passionate about some issues sure, but certainly not unreasonable. We are all adults and therefore should be able to carry on an argument about things like this without getting angry. If I offended anyone, I apologize and would hope that the member would let me know that what I posted offended them. My response would be to immediately stop pushing the issue and move on to reading other topics with the limited amount of time I have to read the forum on any given day.
So, back to the discussion. The 900 ft. tall tree also intrigues me. I seem to remember a theoretical maximum for tree height based on how water can flow through capillary action from undergrad forestry classes. Perhaps one of the more math oriented members knows how to calculate it or knows the answer off the top of their head.
The CO2 discussion has been fascinating to me for quite a while. Sure we can measure the ancient CO2 concentration from ice cores and can measure the current concentration through other devices but I don't see how the man-made global warming proponents can take this data and say that man is causing a change in the climate and if tomorrow we stopped producing CO2 the earth would be better off. Computer models I guess, but they are always full of assumptions.
Well, we are putting more stuff up there simply by burning more carbon based substances. But, if you guys follow Dr. David Suzuki and heard his theories on climate back in the 70's. He was convinced we were heading into global cooling. We had a few wet and very cold falls and winters. So happens the previous record was in the 70's for snowfall and before that in the 50's and the most recent is 2007. So it seems every 25-30 years we have a new record winter. Now I just surmise here, why normal highs and lows are calculated every 10 years on 30 year data. The way to think of that is you have a roll of film, say 90 frames worth. You have a viewing device that can only look at 10 frames at once. And as you advance up in frames another 10 frames you have another 10 years coming up in advance. But, the 10 frames looked at between 20th and 30th frames back aren't in the new average. Every 30 years the frost hardiness zone maps get updated, they just got adjusted again in the last year or so. For New Brunswick there was no change, but southern Ontario a slight increase in temps. Well it's getting build up a lot and there is such a thing as cities amplifying temperatures because of all those extra buildings and asphalt and so on. New Brunswick population in comparison has actually remained much the same, 50 % of us live out in the country.
I just realized why some of our coal fired plants are being taken offline. First the utility didn't want to upgrade them to keep them online. The Fed's have mandated more efficient and clean burning, so those all get shut down. In Europe they have been using 20 % or so biofuel (can't remember exactly), probably wood pellets, to cogen with coal. Found it burns cleaner, so I read in "Canadian Biomass Magazine" if anyone thumbed through the link in another thread.
"The latter argument involves clear cut data that is unambiguous while the others you mentioned deal with people's preferences. Are their unanswered questions that scientists regularly argue about? Definitely, that's how science advances. With evolutionary processes the vast amount of data collected and analyzed disagree with the idea that a "young earth" creation event occurred."
I Respectfully disagree. If you really want to know, I can show you many things that are evidence for a young earth. However there is no point discussing them if you have already made up your mind. Notice I said evidence, not proof. I do not claim to have proof. But I also claim that no one has proof of an old earth, either. But I guess this has progressed beyond aspens and C02. ;)
Okra,
Do you really farm Okra?
I agree, it appears that this has progressed beyond aspen's response to CO2 concentration.
A really good friend of mine is a young earth creationist and we never got anywhere in our discussions either. But I can guarantee he has sent me many of the websites you have in mind in addition to nearly a bookshelf FULL of books describing the fundamentalist christian worldview :P. I've read a great deal about it but the main contention I have with folks who follow this line of thinking is that scientific advancement is constantly occurring and you need to adjust how you feel about certain topics when the evidence presented shows that you may be incorrect.
The same thing happened when folks like Galileo suggested that the earth was not the center of the universe and in fact moved around the sun...not the other way around :o . The church at that time went absolutely Ape S%$T. Turns out the guy was right and the church was wrong. This is just one of many examples.
I think the main point that needs to be made is that science and religion need not be at odds. I know many christian, jewish, hindu, muslim (you name it) scientists who view learning about our planet as exploring the place that god created. While I do not practice a particular religion and disagree with them I can appreciate their view that an all knowing, all powerful being could have easily created a system like the natural world with it's many complexities and interactions....including macroevolution and an incredibly old earth (4.6 billion years).
Note: I have yet to see any evidence for a young (approximately 6-7,000 yrs old) earth that passes the smell test.
"The same thing happened when folks like Galileo suggested that the earth was not the center of the universe and in fact moved around the sun...not the other way around Shocked . The church at that time went absolutely Ape S%$T. Turns out the guy was right and the church was wrong. This is just one of many examples."
Just to clarify-- the church was wrong, but the Bible was not. Yes, the Bible uses terms like "the sun rises in the east" but that is the same idiom we use today-- the people writing the Bible had a better idea of the universe than the "church" people of Galileo's day. The Bible does not teach an earth-centered universe, nor a sun-centered universe. We "Christians" are not all of the same mind, as you are no doubt aware, and my people would have had nothing in common with those who persecuted Galileo and his fellows. Galileo also would have called himself a Christian, but he had a bright, open, inquisitive, truth-seeking mind. The thought that life could have evolved would have been unthinkable to him. He was willing to face torture for his beliefs, and so are many people I know today. (not as many as I wish, though).
Anyway, I've produced a lot of hot CO2 discussing this topic, but I'm in good company if people don't take me seriously-- I understand old Noah had that problem too. ;)
To try to give this thread back to its original intentions, I invite anybody who would seriously like to know more of my thoughts on this subject to pm me and I will be happy to discuss it with you in private, but I will now close this tangent issue from this thread, at least as far as my own postings, though if anybody has any parting shots, feel free to let them fly. Or we could start a new thread about "I wonder what kind of sawmill Noah used to build the ark. . . ."
The "do you really farm okra?" question was something I was really curious about. It's a pretty cool plant (with a loooong history ;) of cultivation)...and it tastes pretty good in gumbo.
Found an interesting article about temp and CO2 concentration rise that may not be good for all tree species in all areas. Pretty interesting but puts some of the interactions between the variables into perspective. (it's attached - it would have been anyway...but it's too large - over 600kb - here is the link http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011543
Well, I'll take my last parting shot on the issue unrelated to the post topic.
Okra, you can't rewrite the history books. What the church believed was not considered out of touch. It was the consensus of the time that the earth was the center of the universe. Nobody before copernicus (i think that's who first suggested it) suggested that the earth may not be the center of the universe. Also, when the bible was written the earth was still flat....and no, the writers did not know that it was a sphere.
I much prefer buckwheat in my pancakes. :D
Quote from: JimTwoSticks on October 01, 2010, 10:03:08 AM
The "do you really farm okra?" question was something I was really curious about. It's a pretty cool plant (with a loooong history ;) of cultivation)...and it tastes pretty good in gumbo.
I do really raise it and sell it if that constitutes farming. I do like to make gumbo with it. It is pretty neat stuff.
Sounds more like farming than some of the giant corporate farm operations that are nearly completely run by machine :)
Quote from: JimTwoSticks on October 01, 2010, 04:36:31 PM
Sounds more like farming than some of the giant corporate farm operations that are nearly completely run by machine :)
Yep. You hit the hammer on the head. ::) You said it very proficiently.