250 News - Your News, Your Views, Now

October 27, 2017 8:20 pm

Warm November Temperatures Impacting Forest Health

Saturday, November 12, 2016 @ 6:55 AM

Prince George, B.C. – Prince George residents may be enjoying the record breaking warm temperatures this month but it’s not all good news.

Kathy Lewis, chair of Ecosystem Science and Management at UNBC, says it can have negative consequences on the health of our forests.

“I think we do need to be paying attention to that and it’s not just the single events like we just recently experienced,” she says. “It’s also the slow and steady climb in temperature and a change in precipitation.”

Lewis says northerners are well aware the impacts that can have.

“So anytime that the climate changes, pathogens and insects are highly driven or controlled by the environment,” says Lewis.

“As an example we just finished experiencing the major mountain pine beetle outbreak and that had a number of causes behind it but one of the major ones is we aren’t getting the cold winters any more which kill the larva off. And so now populations are able to expand greatly.”

Consequently, she says we’ll soon be seeing a reduction in timber supply which will have far reaching effects “for quite a few years.”

Lewis says climate change will bring other problems too.

“We’ve been observing an increase in a foliar pathogen called dothistroma which really needs moist conditions to reproduce and to spread and some areas of the province are getting wetter,” she says.

“Like in the northwest around Smithers and even parts around Prince George we’re seeing increase in the impact of this foliar disease and 20 years we didn’t hardly even know about it.”

So, what could government could do to address the issue?

“I think we really need to be putting pressure on the powers that be to really get serious about trying to mitigate climate change,” says Lewis.

“In my opinion we really need to hit it at the source, and not just think about moving tree species around to accommodate for changes in the climate but actually try to slow down and hopefully even reverse some of the changes that we are experiencing.”


This makes me laugh. Yes, changes are happening and more are about to happen. I think though that we have to get smarter in adapting to the changes, rather than trying to stop them.
Us having any impact on the weather or climate change, is like a man in the water trying to push a freighter against the wind.

    I totally agree with you. I am not a climate change denier, but I do not know how much, if anything, we are contributing to the problem.

    I also believe that one approach to solving a problem is rarely the way to go about it, other than if we have multiple successful experiences in doing so. Reacting to climate change is not one of those. To me, climate change is something which needs to be tackled in several ways and many of those ways are location dependent. Some locations will be better able to cope.

    When it comes to the forest industry it is going to be tough due to the vastness of the forested land and the length of time it takes for trees to mature to the harvesting stage. However, it seems to me that working on finding a solution to battle the pathogens of the traditional tree species; selecting additional tree species which may now survive in the region that are also commercially viable and planting them in cutblocks; and doing further research on how to cope with climate change and to what degree reducing CO2 release mitigates the effects of climate change, if any.

    I think we should have gone beyond “thinking about moving trees around to accommodate for changes in the climate” a long time ago .. say 10 to 15 years ago when the downturn in the AAC was predicted. Faster growing trees may not have the same fibre qualities, but they are better than having nothing to harvest for another 50 to 70 years, if the trees survive that long under new climate conditions.

    I do not know what all these beetle action coalitions accomplished. A waste of money as far as I can see.

I agree changes are coming and we have to learn to adapt to these changes however it will be costly especially to resource industries that rely on the changing seasons to do certain things which will adversely affect many industries leading to job losses and some industries disappearing completely.

While this may be good news for the tree huggers, Eco-terrorists and environmentalists they have to remember resource industries drives BCs economy and it is a multi-billion dollar industry start cutting into that it will affect our provincial economy adversely and guess what no money coming in means no jobs no jobs means nobody is spending money nobody spending money means no income no income means economic depression.

I’ve lived through 3 economic Depressions now and its no fun I don’t know about you guys but I like having money to spend and a job.

So back to we need to adjust to the new realities and find ways to move forward and live in this new world of warmer temperatures

So in other words if you have an illness just learn to live with it and don’t try and prevent it from happening again.

Sure oldman1 the people did not creat the fact we need jobs in return for money. It’s a proven fact that Volcanos produce more global warming than industry as a whole. Until humans can stop volcanos from erupting I suggest we learn how to live with global warming. After all the earth used to be coved in ice until global warming happened to melt the is. Trouble is the earth has not stopped warming.

I’ll make sure I take Lenoardo DiCaprio’s new movie seriously, as he hops around the world on his private planes telling us all to live a little cleaner. Meanwhile China and India pump billions of tons of co2 into the air without any consequences.

    Trudeau’s $1,129,219.42 bills to the tax payer for stupid stuff. how much carbon did we need to burn out of industry to generate enough tax revenue to pay for this. We do understand how government gets tax revenue? From carbon burning industry is the answer!! Until we see Trudeau taking consideration how much carbon his spending puts into the Environment just flying that big jet all over the world with only a few passengers on board, on trips that have no benefit, then we might care about the environment. But spending tax dollars on bad things forces us to pollute more. It’s not rocket science.

Dearth:- “I don’t know about you guys but I like having money to spend and a job.”

If you had a choice, which one of the two would you like to have most, “money to spend” or “a job”?

So maybe Glen Fry with all of his journalist abilities can point to the paper that proves Mann’s co2 is affecting climate, how much, how little if any at all. Glen show us the virifiable proof. Come on Glen it must be out there somewhere?

Myself looking at climatic history, applying that over the next few years, mitigation will involve long underwear.

    Glenn Fry is a musician, you know….the Eagles ? You read about as well as you spell. And could you please point out where the author of the article expresses his personal opinion ?

      He has posted similar articles and unless I missed it has not posted a sceptic view. Say from Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Tim Ball, Donna Laframboise.

Lewis seems to be confused about climate. She mentions climate changes, yes true climate is always changing. Then seems to go off the rails seemingly inferring only man induces climate change. She offers up no proof what so ever. Maybe just digging for more funding. Also maybe worried with Trump being elected the gravy train will dry up along with paid trips to exotic locations for conferences. So gotta make some noise now.

    And you seem to not read for content due to your biases.

    Here is what she is quoted as saying: “In my opinion we really need to hit it at the source, and not JUST think about moving tree species around to accommodate for changes in the climate”

    The operative word is JUST. She is not saying to stop “moving tree species around”.

    However, given that, I have asked for over 10 years why we are not planting Aspen stands such as they have been doing in Oregon, and such as they have as natural stands in Minnesota, for instance. If we had started to plant Aspen in cutblocks some 15 years ago, we would have had some fibre to use in the transition period.

    Of course, everyone seems to continue to plant Pine assuming that the MPB will go away magically or the weather over the winters will provide the cold temperatures required to kill the beetle larvae. What proof is there of that? If they are not working on a more reliable control mechanism, it is time they did.

    We really do not have a good summary from Kathi, UNBC and other researchers of the totality of the research which is taking place, do we?

      I was commenting about the so called climate change, the money maker in the article. Did you miss that with your bias.

      ” If we had started to plant Aspen in cutblocks some 15 years ago, we would have had some fibre to use in the transition period.” .. not sure where you live but around here there are acres and acres of aspen (poplar), it grows like a weed. And not sure what it is really good for, except maybe finishing wood, you can’t use it for structural lumber or any of the more common uses for SPF wood. If they simply want fibre for pulp there is more than enough aspen stands around. How wood the more merchantable timber be able to grow if you filled up all the cutblocks with a weed?

      “Moving tree species around” is an idea based on ignorance. Lodgepole pine is abundant in the south as well as up here, it’s perfectly adapted to a warmer climate.

How is global warming good news for the tree huggers, Eco-terrorists and environmentalists? Who says there is nothing we (the human race) can do to prevent or reverse global warming? The “defeatist” attitude reflected in the first two comments on this thread are the real problems with the issue of global warming, coupled with the infamous three “deniers” that frequently post comments about this subject on this site. One of them is spewing their denialist garbage on this discussion thread already.

Anyone remember acid rain? Anyone remember the hole in the ozone layer? Both were climate related, both were brought under control by a collective effort from us through government legislated change. For those who do not know, or remember, Freon gas was a commonly used refrigerant and was banned from use after its ozone depletion effects were discovered.

Unfortunately, scientific evidence points to our use of fossil fuel products as the cause of climate change / global warming. The big difference between our past successful efforts on changing climate related phenomena, and now is; the fossil fuel industry refuses to cooperate, and has actively resisted our efforts to reduce our dependence on their products. Makes sense that they would do so, since they would cease to exist if we did manage to wean ourselves off of their products.

So, it comes down to a choice for us; our survival, our children’s survival, and our planet’s survival, or the survival of the fossil fuel industry… and with the recent election of a climate change denying US President, it looks like the fossil fuel industry is winning.

    I wish I could give you my copy of Tony Seba’s book Clean Disruption ? To argue reality with deniers is useless . They are fact resistant humans . Facts do not penetrate the bubble of denial . If you can’t afford his book you can veiw one or more of his many seminars on YouTube for free . The disruption is under way already and it has nothing to do with climate change . The disruption is happening globally because of simple human greed and self interest . The fact driving the disruption is the law of diminishing returns , the laws of thermodynamics and efficiency. I’m surprised that they are not also automation/ robotics deniers . But then they wouldn’t be able to think a robot could take their vacuuming jobs .

    “Who says there is nothing we (the human race) can do to prevent or reverse global warming?”

    Effecting climate change to reverse a change which is predominately created by nature, with SOME help from humans, is like thinking about it as the variable ability to effect weather change by cloud seeding with dry ice in order to try to cause precipitation.

    There is a vast order of magnitude difference in addition to needing to address the fickle nature of humans, countries and politics.

    BeingHuman, I was just going to mention the chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) refrigerants that cause ozone depletion, but you already did. It is verifiable scientifically proven and by the fact that banning some of them actually worked in the real world!

    As for mankind’s contribution to global warming…you will NEVER get an answer (I have tried many times on this site!) to the questions:

    *How did it happen that 197 countries and their scientific communities agreed in Paris to curtail the emissions of CO2/Greenhouse Gases? Were they all duped?*

    The countries and their university educated scientists were somehow duped? Step up and tell us how! A conspiracy theory of global gigantic proportions? Get real!

    Give me a break!

      It really doesn’t matter what they ( deniers) say . They think that what humanity is Doing is some how diminishing their returns because of their susceptibility to fossil propaganda . “The Gaildorf project ” would make them crazy . What ever you do deniers , do not check out the project or General Electrics other projects that are making their shareholders wealthier

      PG here are some facts for you

      There was NEVER any proof (even after over 10 years of NASA Balloon Studies) that Freon Releases in the Northern Hemisphere could somehow affect the Atmosphere over the South Polar Region. After 25 years of “Freon Ban”, no Measurable reduction in the Ozone Hole has been observed. Additionally, there is no Proof that the Ozone Hole is not a naturally occurring phenomenon. The fact that a Satellite capable of measuring Ozone was launched in the 70s is no proof that the Ozone Hole first appeared when first measured. One FACT does remain, however, when the first astronauts circled the Southern Hemisphere, the comment was made “Gee – Look at all the Lightning”. See Lightning Strikes on Seawater generates free Chlorine – the best known Ozone Killer. Along with the famous Ring of Fire, which again lies mostly in the Southern Hemisphere, RATIONAL human beings can conclude that the source of the Ozone killing Chlorine over the South Pole is Naturally occurring and that the Ozone Hole has been there for Millions of years!

      here is some more information

      Brown seaweed, marine algae, and other naturally terrestrial sources such as soil bacteria, release millions of pounds of halogenated hydrocarbons into the atmosphere every year. Including some fluorinated compounds. See here for a review.
      Natural halocarbons include chloroform, methyl chloride, and methyl bromide, along with many other volatile organics and even chlorinated dioxins. All of them are released to the atmosphere.
      The huge natural releases of halocarbons were not known in the 1970’s and are still not widely appreciated. Natural sources dwarf human releases. The chlorine and fluorine in the stratosphere are not a human signature.
      Given a naturally warming climate, the production and release of marine and soil halocarbons may well have increased across the 20th century. Allowing that stratospheric halogens do play a role in the Antarctic ozone hole, its increased size may well be due to increased natural fluxes of halocarbons, rather than from the very much smaller human releases.

    The hole in the ozone is a natural phenomenon and nothing we did or can do will make any difference to it. It was discovered in 1956 by Dobson and a paper by Rigaud & LeRoy was published a few years later explaining the natural causes. In 1985 NASA noticed the hole showing up in their satellite photos and pushed the panic button. However, one scientist thought that big a hole couldn’t have showed up all of a sudden, it must have been building for years, so he looked at the archived photos. Sure enough, it was there for as long as NASA had satellites taking images, but it had been dismissed as distortion caused by refraction due to the curvature of the earth’s atmosphere. But nobody would listen. Rigaud & LeRoy re-printed their paper but it was ignored, the scare story was more popular than the science.

    The same goes for the global warming scam, only bigger. There’s a lot of money to be made by the global warming industry and the truth be damned.

Well then show the proveable virifiable scientific proof, easy peasy right? Oh wait.

Did you know rain is most always acidic, naturally.

Ozone hole, well that one more evidence it is natural than evil human causes.

It is you that denies climate change.

What we see in climate today is inside the bounds of natural variability. Do you deny that? Does Lewis deny that?

The ONLY parts of the globe that have had any real warming in the satellite era have been those areas directly affected by El Nino events and ocean oscillations.
There are many parts of the globe that have NO WARMING for most of that time, even though CO2 is well mixed.
There is no CO2 warming signal in the satellite temperature data..
That is just how it is.

Where is the polar amplification in the Antarctic?
ht tp://s19.postimg.org/5dm8qkc4z/UAH_So_Pol_All.png

Where is the warming in the Southern ex-tropical?
ht tp://s19.postimg.org/4khzxrbzn/UAH_So_Extropical.png

Where was the warming even in the Arctic region before the 1998 El Nino.
ht tp://s19.postimg.org/iwoqwlg1f/UAH_before_El_nino.png

And from the end of that El Nino effect in 2001, to just before the current subsiding El Nino?
ht tp://s19.postimg.org/b9yx58cxf/UAH_after_El_nino.png

It’s been hotter 50% of the Holocene than the present day.
What are you going to do?

Now if one wants to talk about mitigation vs adaptation here is something to think about.

One frequentlyquotedstudy of the global costs of mitigating climate change put them at around $3 trillion by 2100, with the main benefits being felt between 2100 and 2200. Here is alternative way to spend around the same amount of money with around the same timescale of payback: terraforming Mars. A standard estimate is that, for about $2-$3 trillion, in between 100 and 200 years we would be able to get Mars from its current “red planet” (dead planet) status to ” blue planet” (i.e. a dense enough atmosphere and high enough temperature for Martian water in the poles and soil to melt, creating seas) – achievable in about 100 years – and from there to microbes and algae getting us to “green planet” status within 200 to 600 years.
There are two standard objections to such terraforming. First, it is said to be too expensive, altogether, to be plausible. Second, it is said to require too long a timescale to be plausible.  Both of these objections appear decisively answered by climate change policies and indeed energy policies in general. Between now and the 2035 alone, global investment in energy and energy efficiency (in many cases with a many-decades payback period) is estimated at about $40 trillion, of which $6 trillion is in renewables and $1 trillion in low-carbon nuclear. We are willing to spend many trillions on projects that could take over a century to come to fruition.

    Tell me HOW 197 countries with their thousands of scientists were duped into agreeing to urgently tackle the reduction of GHG emissions! Obviously you have no answer. The Amish still use horse drawn carriages, but they do it for religious reasons. There still is a Flat Earth Society but it doesn’t take itself seriously. Science has made tremendous strides in the last few decades, it does not make sense to suggest that thousands of scientists are ignorant dupes. To suggest that the universities of 197 countries hand out degrees to scientists who have no integrity and can be duped or bought to publicly state nonsense is utterly agenda driven.

      The Rothchilds and the big central bank owning families own the central banks of every country that signed the Paris climate accord. He who owns the right to print money makes the rules by funding the political class. It was the Rothschilds that first came up with the global warming agenda as a way to redistribute wealth from the wealthy nations to the third world nations. It’s at its genus as simple as that.

      They didn’t agree to urgently tackle the reduction of GHG emissions.

      They agreed that the successful western capitalist countries should cut their emissions (or pay $billions to the rest of the nations) while the rest of the countries would continue to ramp up emissions.

      What? You didn’t know that? You’re being duped.

      A few quotes that should tell you what’s going on:

      “Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?” – Canadian Maurice Strong, head of the 1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro and Executive Officer for Reform in the Office of the Secretary General of the United Nations.

      “the Kyoto Protocol is the first component of an authentic global governance”. Jacques Chirac, former president of France.

      “Kyoto was about hobbling America’s economy, to give socialist Europe a fighting chance”. Margaret Wallstrom, vice president of EU communications

    The big objection to terraforming Mars is it’s impossible. Science fiction. It’s a dead planet, out of the “goldilocks zone”, too small to hang onto a thick enough atmosphere and it doesn’t have an electromagnetic field that would protect from UV radiation. Besides which we have a perfectly good planet right here.

If you’d like a nice little tonic to inoculate yourself against any thing you’ve read from the denier today . Read greaterfool.ca today’s blog is quite centring . And my fav . It’s about the money .

    Thanks for the vote Ataloss, Dow up the highest it’s been in five years.

    How’s your free Sun driven energy system doing? Dam you must be pocketing a fortune?

    Dow up the highest it’s been in five years ? You really don’t have a clue do you ? Cap gain and arbitrage and you talk fossils as if you had a clue . Good thing too . I don’t think you could handle it or afford to play .

      Think things aren’t changing ? Airstream is now offering a trailer with a solar power system that will power an 8,000 btu air conditioner and juice up all the sockets for a week between hook ups and it will also charge up your EV . The folks at airstream aren’t going to miss the EV revolution that is under way . Smart people , are they not ?

    ya and that Airstream costs well over a hundred grand and has a generator for when the sun don’t shine.

    Ataloss home come you call sceptics deniers, what are you inferring? It is you that seems to deny climate change, climate always changes and just be thankful it has been relatively benign for the last hundred years or so.

    Oh lots of rv’s use solar power, nothing new there. They use solar, battery banks and hey a generator, imagine that. Myself parked say out at Carp lake I don’t have a solar system just run my gen. for an hour. Keeps me comfy.

      You need to read before you spout . It costs $219,000 U.S. . And it doesn’t have a generator . Have you never been to the airstream website ? Why would you ? Who needs a round roof ? Snow makes it ride better ,eh ?

Gopg2015. You have got to be kidding. Plant aspen! They are still calling aspen pest and spraying tons of defoliant on the forests to destroy species like willows, aspen, cottonwood, etc. When forest companies get these permits to spray, most people think they are spraying insect pests. That is not the case at all. The pest species they are targeting are aspen and other plants that compete with the pine trees. Forestry has little knowledge of how to deal with climate change.

Scientists cannot accurately predict weather out more that a few days so why would anyone think they have proven that climate change is man-made, especially when climate change has occurred naturally for the history of the earth? Temperature records don’t prove anything. There is a lot of money to be made on this and huge leverage by big government control freaks who can use this to dictate every aspect of your life so I am suspicious. The facts aren’t convincing at all. Why did the control freaks change the name from global warming to climate change? Because all the cold weather made people realize that global warming wasn’t really happening anything near what the control freaks were claiming. In any case precisely what causes climate to change is a guess – there are just too many variables. That being the case, the 31000 people who signed a petition saying it was a hoax are just as credible as those who signed any other petition. Fact is, no one knows why, its always been changing, and there is no evidence that this happened because I drove my car to work. To those who continue to buy into this, how do you explain the authors other points about source of CO2, record snow, moose coming back, etc? When I was in college the big scare was about the sun dieing and another period of extreme cold. Maybe we should start worrying about that when we are done worrying about this.

If you want to experience real global warming, wait until the Feds put the carbon tax in place.

You’ve probably heard over and over that 99% of scientist believe in global warming well the opposite is true. That talking point came from a study where only 75 scientists said they believe in global warming on the other hand over 31,000 scientists have signed a petition saying they don’t believe in Catastrophic Man-Made Global Warming.

    “Multiple studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals show that 97 percent or more of actively publishing climate scientists agree: Climate-warming trends over the past century are extremely likely due to human activities. In addition, most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.”

    ht tp://climate.nasa.gov/scientific-consensus/

    Unlike you happy13, I back up my posts with credibly sourced (NASA) links, where is the link to your pie-in-the-sky study?

      Thanks! The NASA link to the scientific consensus is going to be ignored by those who deny that scientists can come up with real evidence. 30% of the global CO2 emissions is being absorbed by the oceans. Coral reefs are becoming lifeless underwater deserts. Whole islands are becoming flooded by the increased water levels of the oceans. People who inhabited them for as long as anyone can remember are on the move to higher ground.

      I am still waiting for the answer to the question how did 197 countries in Paris, together with their scientists get DUPED into giving in to a global conspiracy concocted by some nebulous group of bankers and purveyors of fossil fuel ideology?

      No answer, of course!

      All 97% BS refuted.

      ht tp://www.populartechnology.net/2014/12/all-97-consensus-studies-refuted-by.html

      Inconvenient: Giant Coral Reef That ‘Died’ In 2003 Teeming With Life Again

      ht tps://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/08/18/inconvenient-giant-coral-reef-that-died-in-2003-teeming-with-life-again/

      “In peer-reviewed research, Kelly argued carbon dioxide should be considered the byproduct of the “immense benefits” of a technologically advanced society. Cutting carbon, he added, could result in a dramatic reduction in the world’s quality of life that would usher in mass starvation, poverty and civil strife. Massive decarbonization is “only possible if we wish to see large parts of the population die from starvation, destitution or violence in the absence of enough low-carbon energy to sustain society.”

      COP21 “will be an irrelevance within a few years,” Kelly said to CNBC via email, “as the the bills pile up, and … the promises are reneged upon.”

      ht tp://www.cnbc.com/2016/06/04/climate-accord-irrelevant-and-co2-cuts-could-impoverish-the-world-scientist.html

The Paris treaty on climate change was more about globalist taking control than it was about the environment. It’s just a tool to take down national boundaries and empower transnational governance like TPP and the UN through rationing of energy affordability and global initiative laws that supersede national laws.

For Ataloss, all about solar

The Million Solar Roof Initiative – Solar Salvation or Solar Scam?
California PV Solar Farms – A Bitter Harvest!

Costly, dangerous to the environment, Co2 reduction, ya right

ht tp://www.gosolarcaliforniainformation.com/

Notice how our “green university” does not have solar panels sprouting up all over! Must be a reason for that. Hey where are their wind generators?

    Obviously you are unaware of the power plant at UNBC which provides energy to the university by burning a renewable type of fuel instead of non-renenable fossil fuels. Ah, well…..

      PrinceGeorge – “the power plant at UNBC which provides energy to the university by burning a renewable type of fuel”

      Yeah. Wood, isn’t it? And if everyone converted from fossil fuels to wood, how long would the forests exist?

    The greenish university is following the advise that you provide daily here . It’s obvious how powerful your message is that more , free , clean energy added to the bountiful energy we enjoy is a bad thing . More is bad . Less is good . You are a genius . All this exponential growth in renewables world wide has got to stop . Thank goodness we have you . It will never seep into PG ! Fortress Fossil Will Stand !

The gases and dust particles thrown into the atmosphere during volcanic eruptions have influences on climate. Most of the particles spewed from volcanoes cool the planet by shading incoming solar radiation. The cooling effect can last for months to years depending on the characteristics of the eruption. Volcanoes have also caused global warming over millions of years during times in Earth’s history when extreme amounts of volcanism occurred, releasing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.
Volcanoes also release large amounts of greenhouse gases such as water vapor and carbon dioxide. The amounts put into the atmosphere from a large eruption doesn’t change the global amounts of these gases very much. However, there have been times during Earth history when intense volcanism has significantly increased the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere and caused global warming.

It’s also a know fact that if you challenge the Global warming folks they get real defensive. As there are scientists who make their living with the global warming “THEORY” and really need to sell it to the United Nations so Governments around the globe donate tax payers money. United States have donated $8.3 billion along with Canada’s $4.4 billion to settle my argument. Now BeingHuman your pie in the sky argument has absultly no meat to and only proves you can read. Cheers.

    When volcanoes erupt, they emit a mixture of gases and particles into the air.

    Some of them, such as ash and sulphur dioxide, have a cooling effect, because they and their byproducts reflect sunlight away from the earth.

    Others, such as CO2, cause warming by adding to the the greenhouse effect.

    As a long-term average, volcanism produces about 5X10^11 kg of CO2 per year; that production, along with oceanic and terrestrial biomass cycling maintained a carbon dioxide reservoir in the atmosphere of about 2.2X10^15 kg.

    Current fossil fuel and land use practices now introduce about a (net) 17.6X10^12 kg of CO2 into the atmosphere and has resulted in a progressively increasing atmospheric reservoir of 2.69X10^15 kg of CO2.

    Based on those numbers, volcanic eruptions produce about 3% of the total CO2 with the other 97% coming from biological resources and anthropogenic sources.

    Based on Morse and Mackenzie, 1990, Geochemistry of Sedimentary Carbonates.

happy13, did you know that Carbon Dioxide produced by all the worlds’ volcanoes produces, just 1% of the amount of Carbon Dioxide emitted by worldwide fossil fuel emissions?

“Our studies show that globally, volcanoes on land and under the sea release a total of about 200 million tonnes of CO2 annually… Because while 200 million tonnes of CO2 is large, the global fossil fuel CO2 emissions for 2003 tipped the scales at 26.8 billion tonnes. Thus, not only does volcanic CO2 not dwarf that of human activity, it actually comprises less than 1 percent of that value.” ~ US Geological Society

ht tp://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volcanowatch/archive/2007/07_02_15.html

Be like me, state your sources happy13.

    So now we have two sources posted here. One source says volcanoes cause 3% of earth’s CO2 emissions and the other says 3%. That is a 3 fold difference.

    Can we get any other opinions and then spin a wheel to see which number we will rely on?

    The question is,
    1. how much is caused by human activity,
    2. where are the main sources of those activities,
    3. by how much can those activities be altered,
    4. what will be the change in CO2 emissions
    5. to what extent will the change in CO2 alter the global warming
    6. to what extent will the change effect the lifestyle of the human population.


    Then, just to make the conversation even more interesting, let us throw in the wild card, population growth.

    What would be the effect on the climate of the planet of changing the rate of population increase to reduce it to 0% increase and then a reduction through birth control, increase in the living standards, etc. What will be the effect on the still lingering fear that the human racial distribution will change from the past and the present “status quo”.

Being human did you know human contribution to atmospheric co2 is only 4% of total.

All you warmers ignore the sun, planetary orbit and position. Why is That?

Why are the left against democracy especially the snowflake Generation?

    the snowflake generation?

    I have cleared my driveway of snowflakes. ;-)

Ok BeingHuman. Here is one source. 1981 +17. Trudeau’s message. Send money so he can Maybe fill his Swiss bank account. Apparently his account number is only 1 digit difference from Obamas.

Cooler Temperatures on the Way
By Greg Fry
Saturday, November 12, 2016 @ 3:29 PM
Prince George, B.C. – It looks like the warm spell Prince George residents have been enjoying this month will soon be over.

Environment Canada meteorologist Lisa West says the Pineapple Express has ended and things will likely return to normal shortly.

“As we get into next week we’re going to see a bit of a dive, going down to only a high of plus 4 on Monday and then highs of plus 2 and plus 1 as we get into the mid week.”

This after Prince George enjoyed 10 days of temperatures in the double digits up to November 11, including a record breaking 18 degrees on Tuesday.

That surpassed a previous November high of 17 degrees set back in 1981. The average November temperature in Prince George is negative 2.5.

But despite the return of cooler temperatures she notes in the short term at least, we’ll avoid snow.

“We’ve got one last major system coming onto the coast which will move into the interior on Sunday, but we still have a high of 6 so that’s just going to fall in the form of showers.”

« Previous story: Preview: Cougars at Blazers

“In my opinion we really need to hit it at the source, and not just think about moving tree species around to accommodate for changes in the climate but actually try to slow down and hopefully even reverse some of the changes that we are experiencing.”
I think one must hedge . Test farms for species servivablity would be the way to go . Why plant pine trees that the pine beetle will eat ? Or maybe cross with southern yellow pine if you must have pine .

    You don’t know what you’re talking about. The pine beetle infestation is over. It was caused primarily by the fact that our forests were OLD! When a beetle bores into a tree, it fights back by pushing it out with sap flow. The older the tree, the slower the sap flow. Take a drive into the forest around PG and you’ll notice the young pine plantations, oasies of green in the dead forest because they were too vigorous for the beetles to kill.

    At the start of the current infestation, we had 4 times more mature/overmature pine than 100 years ago. Why? Because when us Europeans arrived we started fighting forest fires instead of letting them burn. We also stopped the natives from lighting forest fires, a practice they had followed for centuries. There are far more resources for a hunter-gatherer society in a re-growing forest than in an old mature stand, so if nature didn’t burn enough, they would occasionally light it up.

    Lodgepole pine (the local pine)is not a northern specie. It grows all over the interior including all the way to the southern border and beyond. If a warm climate is what caused the beetle infestation, why do we have pine trees down south where it’s warmer than we will ever be? Why did this major infestation start in central BC and spread to the south instead of vice-versa?

    And yes, the beetles eat Yellow Pine (and White Pine too) just as much as Lodgepole.

      You do not know what you are talking about either.

      I can remember driving down the forest roads towards Vanderhoof with a forester working in silviculture less than 10 years ago. He showed me where some of the stands which his company planted a decade or two before that was starting to get hit with beetles.

      ——————– a quote from the link below —————-


      New research from the University of Alberta’s Faculty of Agricultural, Life and Environmental Sciences shows that pine beetle attacks not only lead to the death of adult trees, but can also leave the next generation of pine vulnerable to future insect attack.

      “The next pine forest is at risk,” said Justine Karst, an assistant professor in restoration ecology in the Department of Renewable Resources. She’s the co-lead author of a new study with Nadir Erbilgin, Canada Research Chair and associate professor in forest entomology and chemical ecology.

      Karst said the beetles, which have damaged or killed more than 47 million hectares of mainly lodgepole pine forests in western North America in the past decade, start an unexpected chain of events that increase the vulnerability of future forests to damage.

      “There was no reason to think that death of mature trees would affect the resistance of young trees to insect attack, too,” said Karst.

Climate Change: What Do Scientists Say?

ht tps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwqIy8Ikv-c

    Lindzen is also known as a “climate misinformer”.


    How many “experts” can we line up in the whole spectrum of experts from one extreme viewpoint to another?

    Once we have done that, how can we determine who is right?

    In the absence of indisputable facts, what does a logical person do? In my world, one looks at risk of the extreme of doing nothing to the other, more variable side of doing one or more series of things which are most likely to have an effect at lowest cost and risk to societal well-being.

Comments for this article are closed.