Whilst watching yet another piece on the news last night about how climate change is going to kill us all, but it won't if we stop releasing Carbon into the atmosphere, it got me thinking, what if all these changes are nothing to do with carbon in our atmosphere, but are actually linked into the magnetic poles shifting? Scientists think that the poles are about to flip so the magnetic north pole will be at the south, and this could be why all the temperatures are changing because the magnetic field won't be as effective at the moment as it should be, this is why the temperatures are changing, more of the suns power is getting through the atmosphere. Also they are always blaming climate change on us cutting down to many trees, yet most of the carbon in our atmosphere is absorbed by the algae in the sea, not trees on the surface, so it doesn't really make sense. Just a theory, what do you think?

I study climate change professionally. First, let me say that climate is always changing. There have been about 30 major shifts since the Ice Age. What we are experiencing is just a run-of-the-mill temperature excursion. We had a horrendous drought in Oklahoma about 300 years ago: long before the Industrial Revolution started adding CO2 to the atmosphere. It was a tree-killer. We have not had anything nearly that bad since, even during the Dust Bowl. We had about five large droughts last century, all of which were worse than the current one.

Atmospheric CO2 levels have been climbing from about 280 ppm in 1750 to about 365 ppm today, following an exponential curve. Atmospheric temperatures only started acting up about 1880. CO2, rather than driving global warming, appears to follow it; it is an effect, not a cause; although, it does affect where the results of increasing temperatures will be felt. Isotopic studies indicate that most atmospheric CO2 is coming from natural sources, not burning of fossil fuels; although, there is a small amount of CO2 coming from industrial pollution.

For a listing of global temperature anomalies see:

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts######

So far, 2006 is running 0.02 degrees Centigrade cooler than the 2001-2005 average.

Time series analysis of temperature proxies, such as oxygen isotope ratios do not show anything unusual going on in the operation of the climate system. Two of the current models predict that global warming will top out within the next six years and the earth will experience a long, slow return to 1960s temperatures over the next 120 years.

If you want to worry about climate, consider:

The current warm period COULD melt off Arctic pack ice, darkening the ocean surface, resulting in greater warming of ocean water. That in turn could result in increased evaporation, increased rainfall and dilution of the sea surface, shutting down the Gulf Stream and starting a new Ice Age. OR, the increased evaporation might start a new thermohaline basin in the Arctic Ocean that pulls tropical water northward, permanently warming the Arctic. Get the idea we still have a lot to learn?

It's far too soon to let demagogues from either side of the aisle start making major changes in our life-style using climate change as an excuse. There are some real climate issues that could use some attention, but the sky is not falling.

--DJS

I could kiss you but I think my wife might get pissed.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

You'll often hear the left lecture about the importance of dissent in a free society.

Why not give it a whirl?

Start by challenging global warming hysteria next time you're at a LoDo cocktail party and see what happens.

Admittedly, I possess virtually no expertise in science. That puts me in exactly the same position as most dogmatic environmentalists who want to craft public policy around global warming fears.

The only inconvenient truth about global warming, contends Colorado State University's Bill Gray, is that a genuine debate has never actually taken place. Hundreds of scientists, many of them prominent in the field, agree.

Gray is perhaps the world's foremost hurricane expert. His Tropical Storm Forecast sets the standard. Yet, his criticism of the global warming "hoax" makes him an outcast.

"They've been brainwashing us for 20 years," Gray says. "Starting with the nuclear winter and now with the global warming. This scare will also run its course. In 15-20 years, we'll look back and see what a hoax this was."

Gray directs me to a 1975 Newsweek article that whipped up a different fear: a coming ice age.

"Climatologists," reads the piece, "are pessimistic that political leaders will take any positive action to compensate for the climatic change. ... The longer the planners delay, the more difficult will they find it to cope with climatic change once the results become grim reality."

Thank God they did nothing. Imagine how warm we'd be?

Another highly respected climatologist, Roger Pielke Sr. at the University of Colorado, is also skeptical.

Pielke contends there isn't enough intellectual diversity in the debate. He claims a few vocal individuals are quoted "over and over" again, when in fact there are a variety of opinions.

I ask him: How do we fix the public perception that the debate is over?

"Quite frankly," says Pielke, who runs the Climate Science Weblog (climatesci.atmos.colostate.edu), "I think the media is in the ideal position to do that. If the media honestly presented the views out there, which they rarely do, things would change. There aren't just two sides here. There are a range of opinions on this issue. A lot of scientists out there that are very capable of presenting other views are not being heard."

Al Gore (not a scientist) has definitely been heard

- and heard and heard. His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth," is so important, in fact, that Gore crisscrosses the nation destroying the atmosphere just to tell us about it.
"Let's just say a crowd of baby boomers and yuppies have hijacked this thing," Gray says. "It's about politics. Very few people have experience with some real data. I think that there is so much general lack of knowledge on this. I've been at this over 50 years down in the trenches working, thinking and teaching."

Gray acknowledges that we've had some warming the past 30 years. "I don't question that," he explains. "And humans might have caused a very slight amount of this warming. Very slight. But this warming trend is not going to keep on going. My belief is that three, four years from now, the globe will start to cool again, as it did from the middle '40s to the middle '70s."

Both Gray and Pielke say there are many younger scientists who voice their concerns about global warming hysteria privately but would never jeopardize their careers by speaking up.

"Plenty of young people tell me they don't believe it," he says. "But they won't touch this at all. If they're smart, they'll say: 'I'm going to let this run its course.' It's a sort of mild McCarthyism. I just believe in telling the truth the best I can. I was brought up that way."

So next time you're with some progressive friends, dissent. Tell 'em you're not sold on this global warming stuff.

Back away slowly. You'll probably be called a fascist.

Don't worry, you're not. A true fascist is anyone who wants to take away my air conditioning or force me to ride a bike.

http://www.denverpost.com/harsanyi/ci_3899807

Well I agree in a manner of speaking. I consider myself a passive enviornmentalist and from all the data I have seen, man-made global warming is pretty conclusive and I was skeptical for a long while. The BBC are currently running a documentary series with much of the data and evidence presented in a clear and non-sensationalist manner and they only people they can find to say Global Warming is not man made are mainly nutcases in the USA who work for either the oil companies or the current US administration and the "science" they present to challenge the global warming reality is absolutely halarious. With one claiming that even if global warming is man made from carbon emissions (WHICH IT ISN'T!!!) think of all the vegtables and fruit which we can grow. The most ironic and tragic element of this US governmental denial of global warming is that the USA is the first country on earth to have Global Warming refugees from Katrina in Louisiana and Alaskan natives moving their villages north because the ice is melting.

I do agree that a lot of envionmentalists are nutcases as well, and I really do not think we should not go back to some kind of hippie agarian society.

Like I said, I am an enviormentalist and I think that nuclear energy is our best option going forward. It's the only real alternative to oil and coal which allows us to maintain our modern lifestyle with minimum impact on the planet.

Bottom lines remains, global warming due to carbon emmission is fact.

You have no idea how glad I am to see another environmentalist say that. Too many of them freak out over nuclear power without understanding it. What they don't seem to realize is it's not the power itself that's the problem (since it really is a different form of steam power) but it's the waste disposal that is really the issue. Nuclear power itself is perfectly safe.

On another note, just because the magnetic poles are shifting, doesn't mean there's less protection. The poles have shifted so many times in the earth's history, it's hardly going to cause armageddon. The only real problem we'll have when it happens is all our electronic gizmos going wonky on us. But that doesn't mean society will collapse and the earth will be a desert wasteland.

unfortunately, Dr. Gray (world's foremost hurricane expert from Colorado State), Doug who posted above me and studys this professionally, and over 17,000 other *Real* scientists disagree with that "fact" (articles below). And unfortunately, you should trust the BBC as much as we can trust CBS.

Check out the facts in this peice. Since Al Gore is trumpeting Global Warming it does concern him too. Dated Today. (has the 17,000 figure)




Or these

Of course, the thing we have to realize is that we've been on a global warming trend for the past 10,000 years. Of course there's been "mini ice ages" here and there and shifts one way or the other, but in the general trend of things, we're getting warmer and we really can't stop it. It's a geological thing, not entirely human. A typical volcanic eruption (like Mt. Pinatubo) puts out more pollutants and toxins than we have since the Industrial Revolution.

Now, that's not to say we aren't helping things go along faster. We certainly are doing our share. Just looking at Denver on a typical August day shows the kind of crap we spew out. Global warming is going to be detrimental to us because we have to live here, but in the grand scheme of things, it's just another warming trend. Hardly the Day After Tomorrow (don't even get me started on that) kind of scenario.

P.S. I know I've only been academically studying geology for 9 years, but I'd like to think that my research into global warming and past climatic trends hasn't been for nothing.

And here's the peice referenced above from WND, dated 2000... so the dated #'s more accurate with more recent as above.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article....RTICLE_ID=19633

Is 'global warming' hot air?
Geoff Metcalf interviews renowned atmospheric scientist, Dr. S. Fred Singer

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: May 7, 2000
1:00 a.m. Eastern


By Geoff Metcalf
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

Dr. S. Fred Singer, former director of the National Weather Satellite Center and renowned atmospheric scientist from George Mason University, says concerns about "global warming" -- most prominently emanating from presidential hopeful Al Gore -- may be a lot of hot air. The author of "Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming's Unfinished Debate," Singer was interviewed by WND reporter Geoff Metcalf.

Question: Is there such a thing as global warming?

Answer: Of course. The atmosphere is constantly changing so that there is a warming -- and there is a cooling. Most of these we can explain.

The atmosphere warms during the summer and cools during the winter. Everyone understands that. The problem is to understand why the atmosphere changes from year to year and if there are any trends. In this last century, we had a warming trend before 1940, a cooling trend between 1940 and 1975, a warming trend between 1975 and 1980, and essentially no trend for the last 20 years.


Q: Those are rather short windows to look at. If you look at a larger chunk of time, what kinds of cycles are routine and has there been a variance in those in recent times?

A: That's very hard to say. The routine thing is the seasonal variation and that, of course, we all understand has to do with the motion of the earth. Another kind of variation we are starting to understand is the ice ages -- and that's on a time scale of 100,000 years. In between, you have all kinds of variations of temperature in the atmosphere in thousands of years, hundreds of years, decades ... which we don't fully understand. We think many of those are connected with the sun which is, after all, the major body that determines what happens to the earth's atmosphere.

Q: And, right now, isn't there a whole bunch of solar activity?

A: Yes, there is. And wherever the solar activity peaks, as it is right now, you would expect the atmosphere to warm.

Q: But that eventually goes away, right?

A: Yes. Because the sun has an 11-year cycle and you can clearly see this in some of the temperature records.

Q: This 11-year cycle of warming is followed by an 11-year cycle of cooling?

A: Something like that. Nothing is that simple in the atmosphere but you are essentially correct.

Q: What is it that the Al Gores of the world pin on global warming?

A: To understand the motives of people who support or promote global warming is very difficult. Obviously there are many people who are really genuinely concerned. But there are also people who have their own vested interests in this and it usually has to do with making more money or getting grants or having a bigger empire or bigger office. Bureaucrats like to have more prestige.

Q: We always see this list of 2,500 scientists who say they subscribe to the government concept of global warming.

A: That is not really true. You hear about 2,500 scientists who worked on this report for the United Nations. First of all, the number is less than 2,000 and secondly, of these, perhaps 100 are qualified to say something about the climate -- and they have never been polled. We don't know whether they agree with the main conclusion or not. I would say a handful does agree with the main conclusions of the U.N. report, but, many of them do not.

Q: How do you know?

A: We know that because they have been interviewed and those interviews have been published.

Q: I have also heard there are about 17,000 scientists who say this global warming thing is a hoax?

A: That is absolutely correct. 17,000 have actually signed a petition against the Kyoto protocol -- the agreement that would force us to reduce our energy consumption by 35 percent or so. But one shouldn't go by numbers. Science doesn't work that way. You can't take votes and say that this science is correct.

Q: But it is significant to realize that there is not unanimity within the scientific community about the concept of global warming.

A: That is the point -- that there is a debate going on -- and the public is entitled to know that there is a debate and that the debate is not finished. It is still going on. In fact, the subtitle of my book is "Global Warming's Unfinished Debate."

Q: Regarding data: we had a situation here in California a few years ago where the Environmental Protection Agency had instructed scientists to destroy data they had that did not conform with policy. Do we see this happening in the global warming debate?

A: No, I'm not aware of anyone destroying data. But, I am aware of the fact that people neglect to mention data that disagrees with their biased view. Take, for example, the U.N. report. When you look at the summary -- which is all people really read -- it doesn't mention that weather satellites are collecting data about the atmosphere. One would think that weather satellites are the most important data-gathering instruments we have. It is the only thing that collects data on a worldwide basis. The fact that satellites are collecting data is not even mentioned.

Q: Why?

A: Because the satellite data shows that the atmosphere is not warming. And that, of course, is why it is not even mentioned.

Q: One of the arguments is that a key mitigating element to climate change is us ... human beings. And the scope of this change will probably exceed what is natural or normal. How do you respond to that?

A: Human beings are able to adjust to all sorts of climates. In fact, they do. We can adjust better now than we could a hundred years ago. We now have air conditioning and heating ... very good heating. So climate is of little concern to people because we can adjust to it.

Q: What about agriculture?

A: Agriculture benefits from a warmer climate. So warming is generally beneficial for the economy and for forests. The reason forests benefit is because more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere means the trees will grow faster.

Q: And trees produce oxygen.

A: Yes.

Q: The question of 'surface record' has come-up in discussions elsewhere. What the heck is that all about?

A: Thermometers taking temperature readings on the surface do show a warming in the last 20 years. But the satellite record measuring the atmosphere on a worldwide basis does not show a warming. Something is wrong here.

Q: Are there any clues as to what is wrong?

A: The clues come from California, which has a lot of weather stations. We find that the weather stations that are located in heavily populated areas do show a warming trend in the last 100 years. The weather stations that are located in counties that have few people do not show a warming. So, clearly, the warming we see is artificial. It is local and it is induced by the fact that cities are growing and therefore the areas around the weather stations are becoming warmer.

Q: Do these claims of global warming refer to atmosphere only or to oceanic temperatures? We hear about the ice cap being depleted. Glaciers being 5 to 10 percent of what they were and ice keys have melted. Is there either volcanic action or pollution of the ocean?

A: Global temperatures that are being reported over the last century include the ocean temperatures to some extent. We don't have very good observations on the ocean. Observations come from ships that travel on certain routes that leave lots of the ocean completely unmeasured and unexplored. However, the satellites do cover the whole atmosphere and do measure every part of the atmosphere from North Pole to South Pole, including the entire ocean. Unfortunately, the satellite data only covers the last 20 years.

Q: What about the ice cover melting?

A: The ice cover did shrink from about 1950 to about 1980 or '90 and may have stopped shrinking by now. But it did shrink and I think the reason has to do with the climate warming from 1900 to 1940. It takes a long time for that warming to translate itself into melting ice. The ice doesn't melt right away. There is a time lag and what we are seeing here is the time lag -- the melting caused by an earlier warming.

Q: There are three elements: surface temperature, atmospheric temperature and oceanic temperature. You don't just average them all together. How do you determine the trends?

A: It's a little complicated. It's a little bit of a black art.

Q: I'm getting the feeling they can manipulate data to get the results they want?

A: I don't think they quite do that. However, the different laboratories publishing their work get somewhat different results -- showing that there is a lot of personal element involved in turning-out this data. Fortunately, since we now have satellite data, this has disappeared. Satellite data is absolutely correct in that you can only get one interpretation.

Q: Who was John Tyndell and what did he do?

A: That is a very important work and goes back over a century. That was when they discovered for the first time that there are gases in the atmosphere -- like water vapor and carbon dioxide -- that absorb very, very strongly in what we call infrared. They absorb heat radiation. But, they are perfectly transparent in the optical radiation, the visible radiation that comes from the sun.

You cannot see carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. It is colorless. But in the infrared that we can't see, carbon dioxide absorbs very strongly. This was discovered only about 150 years ago. From that, people have finally figured out that maybe it's because of this water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere that the earth has managed to keep fairly warm.

Without them, the earth would have been a frozen planet.

Q: How do you distinguish from warming that might be produced from more carbon dioxide and that from sun?

A: That is difficult. First of all, you make measurements. With the sun, of course, we know it heats the earth only during the day, while the effect of the gases in the atmosphere is present day and night. So that is one way of distinguishing.

Q: What about currents? Can shifting ocean currents affect the climate significantly?

A: Yes. They certainly do cause climate fluctuations. In fact, by now it is quite well known that there are oscillations. The El Nino / La Nina oscillation has a profound effect on the weather. This has nothing to do with human influences, of course. These are natural oscillations that take place but we cannot predict them. We do not know enough about the atmosphere and the ocean yet to make sure predictions. Once the oscillation gets going, it is easy to make rough predictions.

Q: What about the depletion of the ozone layer? Although this could naturally occur throughout history, do you know if it has ever been as bad as it reportedly is now?

A: We have only been measuring ozone, in a real way, for about 40 years. So our record of ozone is very, very brief. We do know, however, that ozone depends very strongly on the solar cycle. For example, like right now when the sun is very strong and when we get a lot of activity from the sun, this increases the amount of ozone in the stratosphere. There is a very strong 11-year cycle.

Then there is a very strong yearly cycle. It has a maximum in the spring and then it decays and then it comes back again. These variations are in the order of 50 percent. That's quite large. The depletion of ozone due to human activities -- due to freons, CFCs, cloroflorocarbons -- that has been quite small. The amount that has been measured and published by the U.N. report is about four percent. Four percent is not a great deal when you get an annual variation of 50 percent and you get day to day variations in the order of 50 to 100 percent.

The interesting question is, what has ozone done in the past? We don't have good information on that. We do know something about the sun-spot cycle going back approximately 300 to 400 years. And, from that, we can kind of figure out what ozone might have been. There was a period -- about 1700 -- when ozone was probably quite low because the sunspots suddenly disappeared.

Q: You've referenced this 11-year solar cycle. How long does it take from the time of peak solar activity for that to have an impact on the environment?

A: The impact on ozone is almost instantaneous -- within hours or days. The impact on other parts of the environment can be very slow or delayed. The impact on climate could be on the order of years.

Q: Finally, what does burning of fossil fuels do?

A: Burning of fossil fuels does one thing and one thing only. It does add to the carbon dioxide content of the atmosphere. And that, theoretically, should increase the natural greenhouse warming by a little bit. The natural greenhouse warming is what keeps us warm. Otherwise, we would be on a frozen planet and there would be nothing on the earth. No plants, no animals, no people.

=======================

Edit: I can't find a story on the EPA destroying nonconforming data. Any links would be appreciated.
Edit2: Back when I first was reading about this stuffs I remember it, and thought I'd always be able to find it. Thought wrong.

I totally agree with that, and think we should do everything we can to reduce or eliminate that. But it's not global warming and I think people confuse the two?

I don't understand how people can't believe human development has effected this planet. Do you really think all these years of increasing carbon emissions along with losing more & more tree's has had no effect what so ever on the atmosphere?

I'm willing to say that it Might, but not willing to act conclusively on it because there is too much doubt that that's the case in relation to the harm that may come in trying to do... Something/Anything. I'm also not convinced that If there were an effect you're talking about, that it would necessarily be Bad/Harmful.

Combined with the articles above (and others) I'm loathe to do anything until all the facts are in, and an HONEST debate has taken place.

I'll believe 17,000 scientists over Al Gore and 2,000 UN funded patsies any day... but still... I'd rather wait for the real deal than give an inch that will yield a mile. This whole global warming scare feels like a pushy salesman or door to door evangelist.

Problems with saying that it is or it isn't a concern is we still don't know what will happen, we still don't know enough about our planet's climate/ecosystem to make a definite answer, yes we can make estimates based on past occurences and trends and models based on the information we do have, however that knowledge is still limited, and a difference was we weren't around when the really big climate shifts occured in our planets history, so we have no basis to determine what changes our prescense will cause.

My opinion is we should err on the side of caution, and do what we can to mitigate any negative effects our prescense may cause, that way we come out ahead whether or not its much ado about nothing.

(Celumnaz, there was a time when you probably could have gotten 17,000 scientists to say that there was no such things as black holes, so saying 17,000 say no to global warming isn't proof in itself, since even among scientists there is a division of opinion on the subject, and scientists work on the data they have available.)

Excellent post.

We should be shifting away form oil and natural gas anyways as these power sources tend to be in unstable regions and leads to wars.

I think countries such as France, Finland, Sweden and Holland provide good models going forward. During the 1970's oil crises they started building nuclear reactors, coupled with high capacity electric rail networks and good spatial planning - all this has led to a situation were the oil could be cut off tomorrow by Saudi Aribia or the natural gas pipelines from Russia blocked and the impact on these countries would me minimal. There is very high car onwership in these countries, but the private car is not the only option. This is intelligent contingency regardless of climate issues.

The funny thing about forests is that people only thing of the decimation of the rain forest and panic over the loss of oxygen and pollutant scrubbers that will bring. However, at the same time, the amount of forests in first world, industrialized countries (especially the United States) is higher than it was in the 1800s. We went on a massive logging operation (up through the 50's) and vast tracts of treeless plains were considered a mark of progress. That's one reason the Great Plains were purposefully wooded, so they could be harvested later.

Europe had pretty much decimated their forests before the Americas were colonized. After colonization, the tall lodgepole pines out east were highly prized and were harvested soley for European use, especially as masts on ships, since that kind of wood wasn't found in Europe anymore. The east coast forests got pretty much decimated as well.

Now, thankfully we know better. Even the "evil" logging companies know better. They've been planting not just one tree for every tree cut, but up to five trees planted for one cut. This has resulted in forests springing up where there weren't any before and forests restored where they had been destroyed. Of course they're used for logging, but hey, at least they are being replanted at a proper rate.

Europe has been trying to reforest some areas, though there are some places (I personally saw some in England) where only one type of tree was planted. So when one tree got a disease, they all got it and the forests are struggling to survive. It was kind of sad seeing large tracts of forest just dying.

Sadly, in my home state (Arkansas) they still haven't gotten the idea and are clearing land left and right for livestock grazing. There is a correlation between poverty and loss of forested areas. In the south American countries, where rainforests are being cleared, it's because the people who are doing the actual clearing are so desperate to make a living, they'd do anything, even if they didn't like it. And agriclture, like grazing livestock, is a far more valuable commodity there than keeping the rainforest pristine.

So yeah, while the rainforest loss is a very big problem, at least we won't be suffocating any time soon, unless someone higher up decides to relax the laws enough so replanting doesn't get done. Which wouldn't make sense. If you wipe out all the trees, then how will you make money logging?

I think I had a point in there somewhere, but my brain got distracted by a shiny object.

I worked for the Park Service for several years and did a stint in forestry management. My father did forest service firefighting so I learned a lot about what makes a healthy forest tick.

Ivy, its like you said they've taken steps to mitigate the effects of deforestation by planting trees, this is exactly my point, take the steps that will mitigate our influence on the supposed problem, that way if it turns out to be an issue, well you've lessened the impact, and if its not a big deal, well you've made the quality of life better , so its a win-win regardless.

That argument's not for me. Have to speak a language others can understand, and unfortunately, saying 17,000 > 2,000 will sway some to at least slow down on their global warming hyperventilation. Especially the ones that rely on that UN report. I've been told "You're going to argue with 2,500 scientists!?"

I guess I could tell them "there was a time when you probably could have gotten 2,500 UN scientists to say that there was no such things as black holes". Thanks for that line! I'm gonna use it.

While I don't think we should take any steps to "fix" a *supposed* problem, that doesn't mean I still want the status quo.

I still want my water powered flying car, my free clean tesla energy, my handheld supercomputer... to go to clean beaches, live in clean cities... BUT still be in a position to help others in a tight spot... and I think things like Kyoto and doing things for the sake of doing things without understanding what true impact it's going to have would hinder my ability as an individual, and my country's ability as a nation, to help in the most effective ways possible.

That can't work for long though, eventually the soils nutrients will run out and the land will become infertile, won't it?

That's true, to an extent, with crop farming. Grain crops leech nitrogen from the soil, which reduces the yield significantly after several years. Crops like soybeans, which are nitrogen-fixing, replenish it back in, so after a year or two of soybean crops, grains can be planted again.

With a forest, it's different. They don't plant trees and then harvest them a year later. It's many years before the trees can be harvested, and in the meantime, other plants are living and dying, animals are making the forest their home, leaves are being shed to cover the ground, etc. Nutrients are all going back into the soil from the dead material. The cycle of a forest is a very slow process, so if there is depleteion of nutrients, a long-term study would be required to discover it. But I think that isn't a problem since forests have been around for millions of years. Medicine Bow national forest here thrives in soil that's nutrient-poor, so I'd think if there was an eventual deficiency, it would have made itself known hundreds of years before now.

Now, my knowledge goes as far as how to keep a forest healthy, logging/planting practices, and fire management (and tree physiology), so if the forests are kept devoid of undergrowth and animals from the time of planting to harvest, that could have a negative impact. Also, I don't know if they introduce nutrients into the soil before they plant or while they care for the growing trees. Your basic herbaceous garden plants can die if the soil is too nutrient-rich, I've discovered. So I'd have to find more information to know for sure. It's been several years since I've done anything in forestry.

Danger with doing nothing is if it does turn out to be an issue, you've just missed any window of opportunity to do anything about it, and to be concerned about things like Kyoto's effect on our economy is foolish when compared to our rising national debt, issues with the trade deficit etc., if you're worried about economic detritments, there are far bigger issues than what things like Kyoto would do.

If I were to limit my position to Just the economy and only and selectively look at data that supports a panicky "we've got to do something/anything!" position, then yes I agree, it would indeed be foolish.

It's a given we don't understand it completely. Why do we want to take drastic measures with long range concequences and most likely lower standards of living worldwide when it very well may make climate matters worse?

I like windmills. I use solar in certain applications. I don't buy the popular panic being sold to me as a reason to make major policy changes.

I do encourage adaptive and resiliency strategies. Also, any non-restrictive strategies that provide benifit whether global warming is a problem or not can be pursued and implemented ASAP.

You were inferring that our abiltiy as a country would be hurt by taking actions towrads global warming, that indicates our economic health, because our economy determines our national ability, you have yet to show anything that these steps would inflict more damage than what has been inflicted on our economy by our rising debt and other economic policies, if you're concerned about our national ability, focus on the actual issues pertaining to that topic, saying that taking steps to reduce our emissions output will lower our standard of life is like complaining about how the rain is ruining your picnic, while ignoring the tornado bearing down on you.

You also assume that i'm calling for any drastic measure based on panicky results, when all i've said is that we take steps which we know will reduce our emissions output, hardly anything that requires drastic action, and to assume that us lowering our emissions output would somehow cause a negative result just plain ignores the facts, since as you said yourself, our emissions are in addition to whatever is naturally released, lowering our output will in no way affect that, so then how could our cutting back cause any negative effects.