Comments on: Deniers delight — a negative climate feedback!

By: busby seo challenge

busby seo challenge — Tue, 26 Aug 2008 15:55:19 +0000

was being released due to Pine Beetles and other pests killing off huge swaths of forest in British Columbia and comparing it to industry and transport emissions

By: RhapsodyInGlue

RhapsodyInGlue — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:48:41 +0000

Rest assured, your irony was. The coverage on say PlanetGreen TV, however, presented this study as if it actually meant fires would help mitigate GHGs.

I believe individual studies are misused by both sides of the debate. Caveats, limitations and nuances are often left out of coverage and sadly, most people are ill equipped to make an informed decision about the prudent interpretation of scientific results.

The business as usual crowd has done a very good job of convincing the public that it’s valid to demand that science be debated as part of the political discourse. That is a flawed notion.

By: Joe

Joe — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 19:18:18 +0000

Tom, Rhapsody — I had hoped my irony was more obvious.

By: RhapsodyInGlue

RhapsodyInGlue — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:04:49 +0000

I believe this is yet another case of the dangers of reporting individual scientific papers in mainstream media. Papers are often very narrowly focused. This paper for instance is focused on the aerosol effects of fires. Right in it is a disclaimer that it doesn’t look at the albedo change effects from the soot.

I doubt any of the scientists involved would say that it implies fires are a negative feedback, merely that while briefly aerosolized in the atmosphere the particles have a negative feedback effect.

I find it very ironic that our citizenry ranks horribly low when it comes to math and science education, and yet everyone seems to think they know enough to debate the implications of every new scientific paper. Most Americans have such poor grasp of what science is about that merely thinking about it creates a reasonable doubt in the their minds… and a tendency to inaction.

By: jorleh

jorleh — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 07:49:19 +0000

As you pointed, the deniers are blind. The facts are there to see and taste, and these criminals continue business as usual. Why? Because they are evil.

By: Tom G

Tom G — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 17:35:10 +0000

The fires release CO2.
The fires also leave blackened earth which will draw more heat. The smoke will shield the dark earth, but the smoke will not last forever. Even if the fires burn until the winter snows puts them out; the dark earth will be there next spring.
The smoke will drop soot over a very wide area including Arctic ice. Of course soot is black, draws heat and will increase the rate of melt unless it is quickly covered with snow.
I consider this smoke a positive feedback disguised as a negative.
Sorta like pushing in the clutch on a stick-shift vehicle.
There’s an interruption of power, but next up is a higher gear…

By: Adrian

Adrian — Mon, 28 Jul 2008 14:12:08 +0000

“Weeks to months”, huh? Is that enough time for all of the carbon emitted by the fires to disappear or does the smoke just give us a temporary lull before continuing faster than ever?

I had read about how much additional carbon was being released due to Pine Beetles and other pests killing off huge swaths of forest in British Columbia and comparing it to industry and transport emissions. I’ve gotten used to thinking about human activity first, but these secondary effects can be just as large and often go unconsidered.