Eye roller: Changing climate to bring more landslides on logged land

From the “trees, not models, hold the soil together” department:

Changing climate to bring more landslides on logged land, say WSU researchers

Study is first to look at landslide and climate change in Pacific Northwest

Image: OregonWild

PULLMAN, Wash. – Washington State University researchers say landslides on logged forests will be more widespread as the Northwest climate changes.

In a study modelled on clear-cut lands on the Olympic Peninsula, they anticipate the climate of 2045 and conclude that there will be a 7 -11 percent increase in the land that is highly vulnerable to landslides. The researchers say their findings are applicable to the Cascade Mountain Range area as well.

The study, published in Engineering Geology, is the first to look at landslides and climate change in the Pacific Northwest. The University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group “State of Knowledge” report in 2015 looked at reasons behind climate-influenced landslides — earlier snowmelt, more rain, less cohesive soils — but stopped short of predicting an increase in landslides.

The WSU study goes a step further.

“Logged landscapes become more susceptible to landslide activity under climate change,” said Jennifer Adam, an associate professor of civil and environmental engineering and associate director of the State of Washington Water Research Center.

Warning and tool

Adam said the study can serve as both a warning and a tool, helping land managers identify several features of vulnerable slopes that can guide their harvesting decisions. The researchers found vulnerable slopes tend to be at elevations over 1,600 feet, with slopes in the range of 40 or more degrees and talus or sandy soils.

“This study allowed us to look at exactly what characteristics of the landscape became more susceptible, allowing us to identify win-win situations in which both environmental and economic outcomes can be improved by targeted logging locations,” Adam said.

‘Don’t log because you’re going to have more landslides.’

The study, said lead author Muhammad Barik, “is telling people, if you are cutting trees on this slope, it might be OK today. But in the future, it might not be, so plan according to that. If you do logging in this area without considering future projections, it might become susceptible to landslides.”

Oso landslide

Washington witnessed the deadliest landslide in U.S. history three years ago when 270 million cubic feet of mud barreled through a neighborhood outside Oso, Wash., killing 43 people and destroying 49 homes. A subsequent engineering report found that recent logging may have increased the amount of water on the slope, though the report did not pin the slide on any single cause.

Landslides also can lead to billions of dollars of economic losses and damage aquatic habitats, including those used by the region’s endangered salmon, the researchers write. Clear-cutting reduces the rainfall that can be intercepted by leaves and reduces the ability of roots to reinforce soil that is more likely to be saturated under the Northwest’s changing climate.

“Wet soil is not cohesive, so it becomes very unstable,” said Adam. “If you don’t have a lot of vegetation and deep roots holding that soil in place, then it becomes susceptible to landslides.”

Olympic Forest

Adam and Barik looked at one of the wettest locations in the continental United States, the Queets watershed in the Olympic Experimental State Forest, which receives between 96 and 236 inches of rain a year. While they chose the area for its varied geography, it is typical of rainforest from southern Oregon to southeast Alaska. Their hydrologic model, which is commonly used around the Pacific Northwest, considered variations in soil, land cover, topography and subsurface moisture as it simulated water-induced slope failures. They factored in meteorological data, a digital landslide database and satellite imagery.

Climate change is expected to bring warmer and wetter winters to the region, as well as more frequent extreme rainfall events.

“The combination of warming, precipitation and less snow means more liquid precipitation, which will then sit in the soil and keep it wet and unstable,” said Adam.

To anticipate the climate of 2045, the researchers used two greenhouse-gas emission scenarios of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. One scenario, which predicts the lowest emissions, saw an average 7.1 percent increase in the area highly susceptible to landslides. The other scenario, which predicts the highest emissions, saw an average increase of 10.7 percent.

“We’re giving you a tool to see into the future,” said Barik, who did the research as part of his WSU doctoral studies. “Most of the landslide studies are based on historical data. Here, along with historical data, we also used climate models so you can look at future projections.”

###

The paper: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0013795216307682?via%3Dihub

I really had to laugh at this, I mean seriously, logged areas are already susceptible to landslides, and the authors assume “climate change” weather patterns are predictable and that companies that do logging do so with no mitigation or reforestation. Here is a list of Forest Preactice laws (including reforestation) for Washington. This paper looks like little more than a feeble and transparent attempt to stop logging by environmentalists.

Advertisements

210 thoughts on “Eye roller: Changing climate to bring more landslides on logged land

    • Weaving a climate change narrative into your mundane research on how clear-cutting affects slope slippages is the Golden Ticket to grant renewal and tenure. $$$ Cha – ching!!! $$$

    • To ozzy Robert, I am becoming increasingly worried by CO2. As the “scientists” tell us that it is absolutely terrible for everything you can possibly think of. I am yet to hear a single thing CO2 is good for….from a “scientist”…maybe we can put it in warheads and shoot it at North Korea.
      Can anyone out there remember a single thing “scientists” say CO2 is good for?
      If it is something we don’t like, climate change makes more of it, and if its something we do like CC kills it.
      Flies…more Coral reefs…less
      Poisonous spiders….more Dolphins….less
      Rats and other vermin….more Porpoises…less
      Stinging sea creatures….more Whales…less
      Brush fires…more Indigenous peoples….less
      Terrorism…more Nice weather…less
      Droughts…more Edible fish stocks…less
      Floods…more Snow…less
      Extreme heat….more Ice caps at the poles…less
      Extreme cold….more Birds…less
      Extreme wind…more trees….less
      Snakes …more Rain….less
      Extreme weather events…more Elephants…less
      Murders….more Tigers…less
      Car accidents…more Endangered species…less
      Crown of thorn starfish…more Koala Bears…less
      Disease…more Polar Bears…less
      Likelihood of plagues…more Sharks….less
      Diarrhea…lots more Oysters…less
      Hemorrhagic fevers…more Happiness…less
      Wars….more Critical habitat for endangered species…less
      Violent crime…more Food….less
      Rape…more Wine…less
      Mosquitoes…more Coffee…less
      Etc. Etc.

      Thankfully we have all these wonderful “scientists” to save us from the hellish ravages of the dreaded CO2 or our lives obviously would soon be…less.

      • (SNIP) it, I wrote a more column as well and the stupid site didn’t print it….more mosquitoes, poisonous sea creature etc. Anyway you know what I mean, has anyone seen a single thing the …”scientists”….say CO2 is good for?

        (I looked for your comment,failed to see it) MOD

      • Having a bad hair day, I see all of my reply to ozzy Rob is still sort of there after all..but not as I wrote it..its just been mutilated by the digital age and my lack of knowledge about computers. Dang it all to heck!

      • Yeah we need scientists to educate us as to the perils of modern society and save us from ourselves no proof needed .

      • Can anyone out there remember a single thing “climate scientists” are good for?

        All I can think of are:
        Luxury hotels
        Conference centres
        Expensive restaurants
        Vineyards
        Airlines
        Psychiatrists
        Care Homes
        Artisan Jam makers (not sure about this one)

  1. This must be an offshoot of Jerry Brown’s declaration that California is in a Global Warming induced “Permanent Drought with no end”. Well … yeah, that was said BEFORE last seasons MASSIVE rainfall and snowpack in CA … and certainly before the early season DELUGE my house received last night in Northern CA. But those must simply be aberrations to the PERMANENT CA drought. I am looking forward to reading all the stories this winter about the Global Warming-induced LANDSLIDES in the Global Warming-caused Sonoma wildfire zones … a real quadruple-whammy of Global Warmism … drought – fire – deluge – landsliding – ohhhhhh mammmma … All because you don’t drive a Tesla saloon.

      • They are all interrelated:
        Flooding rains cause massive overgrowth of brush.
        Ensuing drought then dries out overgrown brush.
        Wildfires feed on overgrown brush and grow to massive sizes and spread like…um…wildfire.
        Slopes stripped of vegetation are inundated by floods in the next rainy season, which is fast on the heels of fire season.
        Inundated slopes with no vegetation give way in massive landslides
        Redistributed weight of overlying ground and lubricated by rapidly infiltrating rains causes faults to slip…completing the cycle of disasters.
        Lather, rinse, rebuild, repeat.

      • Toss in a busted dam here and there, and the occasional volcanic eruption, and the only thing to do is wait for a mega-tsunami to complete the rosy picture of life in paradise.

      • the Olympic peninsula has 2 seasons. rain and more rain. hard to see how climate change is going make this any wetter. sea levels would have to rise thousands of feet.

      • I guess a lot of people want to live in California for the “variety” or should I say diversity of seasons. Landslide season is very real but not for the reasons in the article, it just gets too wet sometimes. Poor Montana, the seasons are just Snow and Fire. Wyoming is similarly afflicted. But, as has been said before, it keeps some of the riffraff away.

    • I learned everything I needed to know about landslides in Kindergarten … playing in the sandbox. Huh?! And I hadn’t even HEARD of Global Warming as a 5yo in 1960.

  2. What happened to the severe droughts along the West coast they claimed would result from CO2 emissions? There’s no question that deforesting steep terrain has a much larger impact on promoting landslides than anything else man can do, except perhaps logging the same steeps with dynamite.

    • The IPCC covered all possible outcomes with rising CO2. Thus anything can be blamed. The ultimate corruption of the physical and biological sciences.

      IOW, it’s the Gravy Train to guaranteed grant success for a young or mid-career scientist/researcher. To hop on board that train, all a researcher has to do is read the latest IPCC AR and then weave a narrative of how something they study may get worse under RCP 8.5 into your manuscripts. That paper then becomes the Golden Ticket to hopping on the Gravy train.

      • “Did they also mention that mudslides are more frequent the sharper the incline?”

        That’s incline change, not climate change.

  3. ““The combination of warming, precipitation and less snow ”

    Has it been warmer? US has zero trend in USCRN apart from the recent El Nino bulge

    Has anyone got rainfall data or snow data? Are they decreasing or increasing?

    Nearly always when I check these things.. they aren’t happening

  4. Uh… hate to burst their bubble here, but when a forest is logged THE STUMPS AND ROOTS REMAIN IN THE GROUND.

    An Oregon Dept. of Forestry study done decades ago found no correlation between recently-logged areas and landslides.

    • And whats wrong with landslides? ALL the land on EVERY slope in the Pacific NW has slid at some time in the past. It is a part of the natural process of the evolution of land. The ONLY time landslides are troublesome is when structures built by man are involved. There are few man made structures in the forest – that is why they are called forests. GET OVER IT!

      • Is anyone taking into account CO2 fertilization?
        And do they not usually replant almost immediately?
        The owners of that land are not idiots…they are business men and women.
        Trees grow back fast…once they are replanted.

      • co2isnotevil – November 9, 2017 at 6:45 pm

        When you loose the canopy, erosion by rain is far faster

        There is no scientific truth to what you stated.

        The canopy will only “slow down” or decrease the time it takes for the rainfall to reach the “surface”, ….. by 30 seconds to 2 or 3 minutes, depending on the height of the canopy.

        Many people think that the canopy will “hold” a lot of rainwater, …. but it won’t. And that’s why trees, with or without their summer canopy, will come crashing to the ground iffen they are subject to an “ice storm”. At over 8 lbs. to the gallon, that rainwater (or ice & snow) is quite heavy.

      • Samuel,

        It’s not that the canopy is holding a large amount of water, but that the canopy absorbs the force of the rain water as it was accelerated by gravity and it eventually hits the ground with less force resulting in a little less erosion. The evidence of this is pretty clear if you have ever hidden under a tree during a rainstorm (but not a thunderstorm …).

      • the canopy absorbs the force of the rain water as it was accelerated by gravity and it eventually hits the ground with less force resulting in a little less erosion.

        Co2isnotevil,

        The compaction and/or erosion of the soil by the “force-of-impact” of raindrops only applies when the soil surface is bare, …… meaning “bare dirt” (no grass, no leaf clutter, etc.) …… and then only iffen they are large raindrops (1/4” wide) and/or “wind-driven” at accelerated speeds.

        Your “little less erosion” or “little more erosion” doesn’t apply where there is no trees for to have a canopy, ….. or where there are trees and NO canopy such as in early Spring, late Fall and Wintertime, ……. now does it

        Anyway, …… mountainside or “slope” erosion will often-time occur, regardless of barren or covered soil, when the rainfall amounts are greater than 3” to 4” per hour for an extended period of time and the rainwater is diverted laterally into becoming a per se, “mini-flood”, rushing down slope and taking soil, rocks, leaf clutter, etc. along “on the ride”.

        And Co2isnotevil, ……. I have been a “student of the natural world” since I t’was bout 5 years old,….. a hunting, a fishing, a trapping, etc., on/in the creeks n’ streams n’ rivers …… and the mountains n’ valleys n’ hillsides …… in the State of West Virginia, ….. and “Yes”, all told, I have probably spent several hours leaning against tree trunks to protect myself from getting wet due to the drizzling rain, rainstorms and even thunder & lightning storms.

        And my love for the “natural world” is probably the reason I earned my AB Degree in the Biological and Physical Sciences, circa 1963.

        Now I can only offer you …… my knowledge of “the natural world”, ….. but nothing compels you to accept it.
        Cheers

      • Samuel,

        I also spend a lot of time outdoors, mostly in the Sierra’s in and around where clear cut logging is common and where the pitch and exposure is good for skiing. There’s only been 1 month this century where I didn’t ski somewhere in California and during the summer, this means going pretty deep into the back country.

        Whenever I’ve seen the results of a clear cut, it’s mostly down to dirt from all the heavy equipment. When the winter rains arrive, the surface will become mud after even a light rain.

        We have the same vulnerabilities when a fire or an avalanche takes out the trees. In Sonoma, there will be more mudslides than usual this winter owing to the recent fires. They’re already taking steps to try and stabilize some of the more vulnerable slopes.

        Even in the winter when trees are still present, the forest floor is not dirt as the leaves that fell in the fall have not fully decomposed. Around here, the trees are mostly coniferous, so the canopy is present year round. Additionally, the slopes are quite a bit steeper than in WV and strong winds and heavy precipitation are not uncommon.

        This is not to say that mudslides can’t happen with the trees still there, even on less steep slopes, especially if a cut was made downhill, for example, to make room for a road. Of course, there are always exceptions and slopes that have been stable throughout their recorded history have slid unexpectedly.

      • Co2isnotevil,

        Good post, enjoyed reading it.

        But now you be careful about stating such things as this, to wit:

        Additionally, the slopes are quite a bit steeper than in WV

        The “slopes” in the eastern mountains and in the southern coal fields are quite steep …… and those areas are where most “flash flooding” occurs.

    • “when a forest is logged THE STUMPS AND ROOTS REMAIN IN THE GROUND.”

      They do (except if you grub them out for biofuel), but dead trees stop transpiring, so there will be a lot more waterlogging for a number of years.

  5. “Study is first to look at landslide and climate change in Pacific Northwest”

    Funny that. My late Father in Law was studying this sort of thing in developing nations in the 50’s as a UN Forester. Excluding the climate effect, which didn’t exist then either.

    Seems he wasted his time.

    • These supposedly well educated academics should take a few history courses. Forest management was a big deal for the ancient Greeks. link It’s painful that they seem to think they are treading new ground.

      • Being completely and 100% ignorant of all other human gathered knowledge is a prerequisite to being a climate panicmonger.
        Lord knows they have demonstrated amply their extreme ignorance of pretty much every aspect of history and actual science.

  6. “Wet soil is not cohesive, so it becomes very unstable,” said Adam. “If you don’t have a lot of vegetation and deep roots holding that soil in place, then it becomes susceptible to landslides.”

    If one assumes there is no vegetation, of course the soil will be susceptible to landslides.
    If there is vegetation(which will often be the case), then increasing CO2 DECREASES the susceptibility of landslides.

    Under elevated CO2, the increase in the root mass of plants is even greater than the increase in vegetative growth.

  7. Well, more CO2 makes trees grow faster, so:
    1. you can presumably log the same acreage more often, and
    2. the new trees will grow back faster, as Mike Maguire pointed out, and
    3. less forest needs to be logged to produce the needed amount of wood.

    My guess is that stumps hold the earth pretty well for a couple of years, until the termites do their job. So the question is, how long does it take to grow new trees on the cleared land, and sink roots in to hold the soil?

    Actually, that’s not really a question. They grow back much better and faster with elevated CO2 levels:

      • Even with more CO2, trees still need some water. They need less water than when CO2 levels are lower, but they can’t get along with no water at all.

        Elevated CO2 is greening the Earth, especially in arid regions:

        #1: Here’s a map:
        https://www.sealevel.info/greening_earth_spatial_patterns_Myneni.html

        #2: Here’s a National Geographic article, about how even the Sahara Desert (really the Sahel) is greening: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/07/090731-green-sahara.html

        Here’s an excerpt:

        Images taken between 1982 and 2002 revealed extensive regreening throughout the Sahel, according to a new study in the journal Biogeosciences. / The study suggests huge increases in vegetation in areas including central Chad and western Sudan. …
        “Before, there was not a single scorpion, not a single blade of grass,” he said. “Now you have people grazing their camels in areas which may not have been used for hundreds or even thousands of years. You see birds, ostriches, gazelles coming back, even sorts of amphibians coming back… The trend has continued for more than 20 years. It is indisputable.”

      • Thank you daveburton. You have acknowledged the fact that there are other factors besides CO2 that can influence plant growth. So, tell me, which factor is more important, water or CO2? Are you proficient at ANOV and multivariate regression/correlation ?

      • OMG remy, did you really think anyone here actually thinks CO2 is the only plant requirement.

        We are not like climate scientists.

        There are MANY things that influence plant growth,

        … but the ABSOLUTE REQUIREMENTS are CO2 and H2O and a source of the right light.

      • daveburton and AndyG55……….

        Farmers are smart. They know what to invest their capital into. Most farmers will invest in irrigation pumps, pipes for irrigation , and chemical fertilizers to grow their crops. Hardly any farmers invest in equipment that increases the CO2 in their fields. I think farmers know more about stimulating plant growth than either of you two.

      • No, I’m not a statistician, Remy (though I occasionally dip my toes in that pool). But this isn’t a statistics problem, it’s a botany problem.

        Some people, who might vaguely recall reading about something called “Liebig’s law of the minimum,” assume that if drought stress is curbing plant growth, then extra CO2 will not not benefit the plants, because water, rather than CO2, is the limiting factor. That is incorrect.

        Extra CO2 makes plants — even C4 plants! — more drought resistant and water-efficient, by improving stomatal conductance relative to transpiration.

        When air passes through plant stomata (pores), two things happen: the plant absorbs CO2, and the plant loses water through transpiration. When atmospheric CO2 levels are higher, the ratio of CO2 absorbed to water lost increases, which improves both plant growth and drought resistance. The plants also commonly respond to elevated CO2 by reducing the density of the stomata in their leaves, which reduces water loss. That’s one of the reasons that deserts and near-deserts are greening.

        The fact that CO2 fertilization is greening the Earth is unambiguously good news. Here’s a good article:
        https://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/the-world-is-getting-greener-why-does-no-one-want-to-know/

        CO2 fertilization has many benefits. For instance, CO2 fertilization allows mankind to grow the crops we need on much less land. If we didn’t have the additional productivity we get from having CO2 at ~405 ppmv, rather than ~280 ppmv, we could almost make up for the loss of that productivity by putting all of the world’s rainforests under the plow. Almost, but not quite.

      • daveburton, how do you disprove the conjecture that the increase in CO2 has increased global temperatures, which has increased the amount of ocean evaproation, which then increases rainfall in arid areas?

      • daveburton you say: “CO2 fertilization allows mankind to grow the crops we need on much less land.”

        The problem with that statement is that CO2 fertilization also increases the growth of weeds, which decreases the growth of crops.

      • Remy wrote, “increase levels of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases the nutritional value of crops?”

        That’s a fallacy. The studies have not found evidence that the overall nutritional value of crops is reduced by the improved plant productivity from CO2 fertilization. Rather, they’ve found that when crops are grown in iron-poor or zinc-poor soil, the larger yields may contain lower levels (though not lower overall quantities!) of those micro-nutrients. Likewise, if there’s insufficient nitrogen fertilization, the larger yields due to higher CO2 levels may contain lower levels (though not lower overall quantities!) of protein.

        Most studies do not find a net protein or micronutrient reduction due to CO2 fertilization, because the increase in growth rates is greater than the protein or micronutrient level reductions.

        The faster crops grow, the more nutrients they need. Farmers know that, and fertilize accordingly (or, for nitrogen, they may plant legumes — which, fortunately, benefit greatly from extra CO2). But if you fail to follow best agricultural practices, and don’t fertilize according to the needs of your crops, then the result may be reductions in protein and/or micronutrient levels in the resulting crops.

        The cause of those reductions is not higher CO2 levels, the cause is poor agricultural practices.

        Inadequate nitrogen fertilization reduces protein production relative to carbohydrate production, because proteins contain nitrogen and carbohydrates don’t. Here’s a relevant paper:
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2773101/
         

        Remy also wrote, “Hardly any farmers invest in equipment that increases the CO2 in their fields. I think farmers know more about stimulating plant growth than either of you two.”

        That’s only because it’s hard to keep the extra CO2 from blowing away before the plants can utilize it. In greenhouses, where the CO2 is confined in an enclosure, most commercial growers do invest in equipment & fuel to raise the CO2 levels, because it is dramatically beneficial to the crops they grow.

        Human activities (mostly fossil fuel use) have raised outdoor CO2 levels by about 125 ppmv, from about 280 ppmv to the current 405 ppmv. By comparison, commercial greenhouses typically use CO2 generators to keep CO2 levels at 1200 to 1500 ppmv, which is an increase 6 to 9 times as great. Greenhouse operators spend the money to keep CO2 levels that high because doing so dramatically improves the growth of most plants, a fact which has been known to science for a century. Here’s an article about it from Scientific American way back in 1920; they called anthropogenic CO2 “the precious air fertilizer!”
        http://tinyurl.com/1920sciamCO2

        If the modest increase in outdoor CO2 levels were making crops significantly less nutritious, then crops grown in greenhouses at dramatically higher CO2 levels would necessarily be dramatically less nutritious than crops grown outdoors. But they aren’t, of course. Studies show that food grown in greenhouses at elevated CO2 levels has about the same nutritional value as food grown in open fields at ambient CO2 levels.
        Here’s an excellent literature review on the topic:
        http://www.co2science.org/subject/p/summaries/protein.php

        Excerpt:

        Rogers et al. (1996)… observed CO2-induced reductions in the protein concentration of flour derived from wheat plants growing at low soil nitrogen concentrations, no such reductions were evident when the soil nitrogen supply was increased to a higher rate of application. Hence, Pleijel et al. (1999) concluded that the oft-observed negative impact of atmospheric CO2 enrichment on grain protein concentration would probably be alleviated by higher applications of nitrogen fertilizers; and the study of Kimball et al. (2001) confirmed their hypothesis.”

        Here are some additional references:
        1. doi:10.1071/PP9960253
        2. doi:10.1016/s0167-8809(98)00185-6
        3. doi:10.1046/j.1469-8137.2001.00107.x

      • Remy Mermelstein November 9, 2017 at 6:27 pm “Did you know that increase levels of CO2 in the atmosphere decreases the nutritional value of crops?”

        I am not a crops specialist in agriculture or horticulture, but my understanding is that while nutritional value may decline, such as a greenhouse, the overall increased growth productivity makes for much more volume of crop therefore there is net increase of overall nutrition than if no CO2 was involved in growing a crop. Would you agree or disagree with that assessment?

      • Remy,
        The reason farmers don’t try to increase Co2 in their fields is because it would be prohibitively expensive. However; greenhouse operators do this routinely and often boost levels to many times ambient.

        Yes, increased temperatures also increases the rate of the chemical processes driving plant life, except that there has been nowhere near enough of an increase, even if you accept the over-hyped claims of warming by those who require CAGW in order to justify their beliefs and ideology.

        To disprove the conjecture of CAGW, all you need to do is apply the known laws of physics. The claim is that 1 W/m^2 of forcing increases surface temperatures by 0.8C and their emissions by 4.3 W/m^2. To maintain temperature, incident power must replace emissions. How does 1 W/m^2 of forcing get turned into 3.3 W/m^2 of ‘feedback’ to replenish the emissions in excess of the forcing without violating COE?

      • Thank you daveburton: ” Farmers know that, and fertilize accordingly ”

        Tell me, why are farmers not increasing CO2 concentrations in their fields?……The answer is that it is not cost effective. Another way of putting that is that nitrogen fertilization is more important than CO2 fertilization. Also, farmers invest in irrigation instead of CO2 fertilization because it is also more cost effective. These two facts do not support your assertion that CO2 is “greening” the earth.

        Please remember that correlation is not causation, and the “greening of the Earth” cannot be attibuted to CO2 because there are confounding factors.

        Now you post: “In greenhouses, where the CO2 is confined in an enclosure, most commercial growers do invest in equipment & fuel to raise the CO2 levels,” which is irrelevant for two distinct reasons. First off, crops for food are not grown in greenhouses. Secondly, the proportion of greenhouses using elevated CO2 is minuscule due to the extremely poor return on investment in equipment. Greenhouses are built because they increase the temperature of the air inside them, which benefits plant growth much more than CO2 fertilization. Keep your daytime job, and don’t even think of investing your money into farming.

      • co2isnotevil writes: “To disprove the conjecture of CAGW”
        ,,
        ,,
        There is no need to disprove the conjecture of CAGW. CAGW is a starwman posited by science rejectionists. There is no “C” in the science of AGW.

      • Remy:

        “It’s not the things you don’t know that are the problem, it’s the things you know that aren’t so.”
        – Will Rogers (paraphrased) (also sometimes attributed to Mark Twain or Josh Billings)

        Remy, you wrote, “Tell me, why are farmers not increasing CO2 concentrations in their fields?……The answer is that it is not cost effective. Another way of putting that is that nitrogen fertilization is more important than CO2 fertilization.”

        Wrong. I already answered that. I wrote, “That’s only because it’s hard to keep the extra CO2 from blowing away before the plants can utilize it. In greenhouses, where the CO2 is confined in an enclosure, most commercial growers do invest in equipment & fuel to raise the CO2 levels, because it is dramatically beneficial to the crops they grow.”

        Was that unclear? Did you not read it before replying?
         

        Remy, you wrote, “Please remember that correlation is not causation, and the “greening of the Earth” cannot be attibuted to CO2 because there are confounding factors.”

        Wrong. There are no “confounding factors” — you just made that up — and the studies find that at least most of the greening is due to CO2. I already gave you this reference, which begins with a “source” reference, which would tell you (among other things):

        The satellite data show that there has been roughly a 14 per cent increase in the amount of green vegetation on the planet since 1982, that this has happened in all ecosystems, but especially in arid tropical areas, and that it is in large part due to man-made carbon dioxide emissions.

        Here’s another reference:
        https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25369401
         

        Remy, you wrote, “crops for food are not grown in greenhouses”

        Here on planet Earth, crops are definitely grown for food in greenhouses. Try a google search:
        https://www.google.com/search?q=greenhouse+vegetables

        I’m surprised that someone who is so sure of his or her agricultural expertise would not know that. What is your background?
         

        Remy, you wrote, “the proportion of greenhouses using elevated CO2 is minuscule due to the extremely poor return on investment in equipment…
        Keep your daytime job, and don’t even think of investing your money into farming.”

        I’m not a farmer, but you obviously know even less about agriculture than I do. That’s two errors in one short sentence.

        1. The use of CO2 generators to raise CO2 levels in commercial greenhouses is standard practice, and

        2. the greater part of the cost is not equipment, it is fuel.

        If the use of CO2 generators for greenhouses were “minuscule” do you think a google search would return 170,000 hits?
        https://www.google.com/search?q=%22CO2+generator*%22

      • Remy Mermelstein wrote, “There is no “C” in the science of AGW”

        Bravo! At last, a point of agreement!

        We apparently agree that, for example, James Hansen’s 2009 book, “Storms of My Grandchildren: The Truth About the Coming Climate Catastrophe and Our Last Chance to Save Humanity” is not science.

        Right? We agree on that, don’t we, Remy?

      • 1) ” most commercial growers do invest in equipment & fuel to raise the CO2 levels, ” …..

        Citation please

        2) Most “commercial growers” don’t use greenhouses, the plant their crops in fields. Another term for “commercial growers” are ….. FARMERS
        ..
        3) RE: confounding factors: ” you just made that up”……nope.
        ..
        The earth is warmer. How can you differentiate the cause of the “greening of the Earth?” Is it because the earth is now warmer? Is it because there’s more rainfall? Is it because of less sunspots?…… You are confusing correlation of increased CO2 with increased “greening.” Same mistake warmists are making.
        ..
        daveburton writes: ” crops are definitely grown for food in greenhouses.” Not corn. Not wheat. Not barley. Not oats. Not alfalfa. Not hay. Not apples, pears, oranges or pumpkins. It’s plainly obvious you have no idea about farming. They don’t feed cattle, pigs or chickens with vegetables grown in greenhouses. Have you ever eaten a steak?

        Daveburton writes: “I’m not a farmer” ………yes you are not. You read too many opinionated blogs, and you don’t know anything about the underlying science.


        Daveburton posts a link to a google search……..I understand you. You think you know something about plants because you can search Google. Thanks for the laugh.

      • “Remy Mermelstein
        November 9, 2017 at 6:29 pm Edit

        AndyG55, did you know that increased CO2 in the atmosphere stimulates the growth of weeds in the fields of planted crops? Increased weed productions decreases crop yields.”

        Did you know that good farmers routinely deal with weeds as part of their farming practice,that is why you see so little of them in the fields.

        Your ignorance was exposed.

      • Sunsettommy says: “Did you know that good farmers routinely deal with weeds as part of their farming practice”……

        You are correct. However with the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, they have to expend more time, effort and money dealing with the faster growing weeds. It affects their bottom line.

      • Remy on a roll with silly statements:

        “Tell me, why are farmers not increasing CO2 concentrations in their fields?……The answer is that it is not cost effective. Another way of putting that is that nitrogen fertilization is more important than CO2 fertilization. Also, farmers invest in irrigation instead of CO2 fertilization because it is also more cost effective. These two facts do not support your assertion that CO2 is “greening” the earth.”

        You seem to imply that some farmers in the past did broadcast CO2 on their fields,but no longer do so because it is not cost effective…., Ha ha ha….

        You are making dumb statements here, because CO2 is an ESSENTIAL part of the Photosynthesis process,but plants can get by without Nitrogen Fertilizers being applied. No CO2/NO plant growth. No Nitrogen fertilizer/less plant growth. Plants of the world through history manage to grow without fertilizers being applied,but ALWAYS have to use the Photosynthesis process to live and grow,

        Additional CO2 in the air does increase growth,and more efficiently too. I see Dave posted pictorial examples,that you ignore because it doesn’t fit your belief.

        There are many published science papers attesting to this as well,CO2 increase in the air does increase plant growth and health.

        Farmer MUST invest in Irrigation or they don’t grow most crops at all,with exception for DRY LAND farming of Wheat. Farmer NEVER try to apply CO2 gas because it isn’t practical,cost effective claims are IRRELEVANT!

        You have never farmed since you bring up bogus arguments. I was an Irrigator for 18 years,visited farms and worked on three of them. They NEVER ever think about adding CO2,only YOU brought up that bogus babble. Farmers take care of the weeds from the first day they plant,thus weeds are rarely seen at all.

      • “Sunsettommy says: “Did you know that good farmers routinely deal with weeds as part of their farming practice”……

        You are correct. However with the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, they have to expend more time, effort and money dealing with the faster growing weeds. It affects their bottom line.”

        NO!

        Weed control starts the first day they plant,or applied once after germination and growth to first true leaf stage. Weeds only needs to be killed once.

        You have never been a farmer,Remy, Good farmers don’t allow weeds do much of anything on their land. There is NO increase in herbicide cost since weeds never resurrect from the dead. Some crops are planted with the herbicide on them,thus weeds stopped cold from the first day.

      • OMG we have another NUTTER that doesn’t know anything about agriculture.

        CO2 is an absolute requirement for plant growth, Remy.

        Up to 1200ppm is used in real greenhouses

        There is NO drop in nutrient with proper application of other trace requirements.

        Weeds can be easily controlled and have been for hundreds of years.

        There is NO PROOF that CO2 causes warming in a convectively controlled atmosphere.

        There is NO CO2 warming signal in the satellite data, only warming from El Nino and other ocean effects.

        FFS, STOP YOUR IGNORANT YAPPING!!

      • I have many friends who are framers, one particularly who works with CO2 enhanced greenhouses.

        Farmers are LOVING the extra yields they are getting.

        Nutrient levels are up as well.

        They are having no more issue with weed control than they ever had in the past.

        Its a load of propaganda pap, that fools like Remy fall for every time.

      • “Tell me, why are farmers not increasing CO2 concentrations in their fields?”

        ROFLMAO.. !

        Its amazing the idiocy that people like Remy will stoop to.

        1. They don’t need to, the atmosphere is naturally increasing in CO2 as the carbon cycle ramps up.

        2. Its costly unless you can maintain the level and stop it escaping (hence its use to 1200ppm in greenhouses)

      • Sunsettommy displays his ignorance of what Darwin showed all of us. The atmospheric level of CO2 selects for plants that are less efficient at capturing and utilizing CO2 than plants that survived when CO2 levels were lower. The earth has always been “green.” Many of the plants you see in the wild survived when atmospheric CO2 was < 300 ppm. Do they grow better at higher CO2 levels? You can't tell, because when you grow plants in greenhouses, you've introduced the confounding variable of temperature. Everyone knows the inside of a green house is warmer than outside of it. So…..tell me…..did the CO2 cause the results of Burton's pictures, or did the elevated temps inside of the green houses cause them?

        I find it amusing that everyone that says "CO2 greens the earth" is making the same mistake as the warmists that say "CO2 is warming the earth."

        Correlation is not causation.

      • Not apples, pears, oranges or pumpkins.”

        They most definitely are sometimes grown in greenhouses.

        Your IGNORANCE seems to know no bounds.

        Dig, dig, dig, little worm. Deeper and deeper.

      • Oh dear, Remy has never studied anything to do with even basic biology, botany or horticulture.

        The willful ignorance and DENIAL of science , is strong with this one.

      • So AndyG55, tell me……why don’t farmers grow corn, wheat, oats, barley and alfalfa in greenhouses? You’d think they’d get better yeilds with your magical 1200 ppm.

      • Remy, the inner city de-caf latte farmer. A greenie from the ghetto.

        So funny to see such a wanton display of gross nil-education.

        A Technicolor spew of all the erroneous propaganda non-science he can lay his hands on.

        Get for a laugh. :-)

      • Remy,
        If you google ‘greenhouse CO2 enhancement’, you will find links to peer reviewed papers. Here’s a non technical link for you:
        https://fifthseasongardening.com/regulating-carbon-dioxide
        You apparently don’t eat tomatoes, most of which are grown in greenhouses. Where else do you think tomatoes come from during the winter?
        It’s also pretty silly to conflate Nitrogen fertilizer with CO2. While both are necessary, all the nitrogen in the world will be useless without CO2 to provide the carbon that’s the most important element in all of organic chemistry. Apparently, you need some education in multivariate regression/correlation.
        You apparently don’t understand what the controversy is about. It’s about the magnitude of the climate sensitivity which is over-estimated by the IPCC by such a wide margin that it defies the known laws of physics. Not only do they overestimate the sensitivity, they overstate imagined harm as they ignore all possible benefits. Frankly, even if they weren’t so wrong about the climate sensitivity, any resulting warming still wouldn’t be catastrophic.
        No skeptical SCIENTIST I know of doesn’t understand that Co2 is a GHG, that man is putting more into the atmosphere and that GHG’s contribute to warming the surface. We all dispute the conclusions of the IPCC and its self serving ‘consensus’ that claims the effect is so large that it will lead to catastrophic warming,m hence the C. Moreover; we must spend trillions of dollars to fix it where the fix is to redistribute wealth from the developed world to the developing world under the guise of climate reparations. The conflict of interest at the IPCC, UNFCCC and World Bank behind the scam driving the so called consensus is a pox on science that will harm all science for decades to come. Your misunderstanding of basic plant biology in a vain attempt to support your otherwise anti-science views on the climate is an indication that this harm is already in effect.

      • Yes little remy,

        Trials of cereal crops in greenhouses have provided massive yield increases.

        Were you IGNORANT of that FACT as well?

      • AndyG55: “Remy, the inner city de-caf latte farmer. A greenie from the ghetto”

        Name calling suits you well. You have nothing else. I’m surprised your comment wasn’t modderrated.

      • Poor little remy still doesn’t understand that greenhouse trial holding all things equal except CO2 level have given strong growth and yeild increases.

        Its called “science” remy.

        You should try some some time instead of bathing in propaganda klimate kool-aide.

      • Also studies using REAL SCIENTIFIC METHODS show increased root development, less use of water, more resistance to insects, etcetc etc

        Trees LOVE CO2 , it is what builds their very structure.

        And that CO2, with H2O and sunlight, is what feeds ALL LIFE ON EARTH.

        At 400ppm, it is still way too low. !

      • AndyG55: “have given strong growth and yield increases”

        Citation please.
        ….
        AndyG55: “Trials of cereal crops in greenhouses have provided massive yield increases.”

        Citation please.

        AndyG55, tell all of us……….how much warmer is it inside of a greenhouse as compared to the temperature outside of the greenhouse?

        Don’t plants like it warmer…………like it is inside of a green house?

      • Now remy is crying because I described him properly as an inner city latte farmer.

        Seem to think it was an insult.. oh dear.. too close to the bone, hey, remy.

        Remy, you have obviously never been near a farm in your life.

      • Oh dear , poor little latte farmer doesn’t understand scientific principles.

        Greenhouse.

        Same temperature

        More CO2 = MORE GROWTH.

        Live with it., latte farmer.

      • AndyG55, please tell us all why with all of the benefits of the increased CO2 in the atmosphere, there still is very little plant life in Death Valley. Should be teaming with plant life no?

      • Now Remy enters the twilight zone of botany ignorance:

        “Sunsettommy displays his ignorance of what Darwin showed all of us. The atmospheric level of CO2 selects for plants that are less efficient at capturing and utilizing CO2 than plants that survived when CO2 levels were lower. The earth has always been “green.” Many of the plants you see in the wild survived when atmospheric CO2 was < 300 ppm. Do they grow better at higher CO2 levels? You can't tell, because when you grow plants in greenhouses, you've introduced the confounding variable of temperature. Everyone knows the inside of a green house is warmer than outside of it. So…..tell me…..did the CO2 cause the results of Burton's pictures, or did the elevated temps inside of the green houses cause them?

        I find it amusing that everyone that says "CO2 greens the earth" is making the same mistake as the warmists that say "CO2 is warming the earth."

        You are now deflecting since you KNOW you can't dispute the well supported science research showing that significant CO2 increase in the air DOES improve plant growth. Very obvious in GREENHOUSES with hundreds of different plant varieties,that is why they increase the CO2 levels into 1200-1750 range in the buildings. To make them grow faster,and healthier for a profit,even to shell out a lot of money for CO2 generators,they are smarter than you Remy,they know what they are doing as the owners are often well educated in the field.

        How can you miss the obvious,Remy?

        I find it amusing that you ignore the published research, my personal work experience. You called me ignorant,while I actually worked on farms,greenhouses,got a college education in agriculture and did professional irrigation planning and maintenance work for 18 years.

        You make clear you have no idea how they do their research:

        "Everyone knows the inside of a green house is warmer than outside of it. So…..tell me…..did the CO2 cause the results of Burton's pictures, or did the elevated temps inside of the green houses cause them?"

        Yes the CO2 did the difference,since water,temperature and fertilizer were carefully applied the same.I have read the paper for that study. There are many published papers with such control of the plots they grew the chosen plants in.

        It is clear you never read the science papers,since you make ignorant statements surrounding it.

      • And no, often greenhouses are held at ambient temperature in trials.

        Again, your were ignorant of that too, weren’t you.

      • Does little latte farmer even understand the mechanisms that allow for better plant growth and less water use once CO2 levels are pushed far enough above the “subsistence” level of about 250ppm?

        Do you understand the biology AT ALL???

        Or are you CLUELESS about that as well.

      • “often greenhouses are held at ambient temperature in trials”

        Thank you AndyG55

        You have no clue about real greenhouses.

        You obviously have never been in one.

      • Your ignorance continues.

        Yes greenhouse are generally warmer because they stop convection, but trial are often done regulating the inside temperature to the outside temperature.

        Sometimes done with a large circular shield to maintain the higher CO2 level..

        same temperature inside as out.

        Again, if you don’t know how these trials are done, why are you digging yourself deeper and deeper, displaying more and more of your ignorance with each post? !!

      • Poor remy. digging deeper every post.

        You have shown you have ZERO comprehension how scientific greenhouse trials are carried out.

        Yes, non-science little latte farmer, they can be held at ambient temperature .

        Can you see a roof in the ones in the picture at the top.

        Same temperature each time.

        MORE CO2 = MORE and BETTER GROWTH.

        Stop your child-minded DENIAL of science, its PATHETIC.

      • AndyG55: “but trial are often done regulating the inside temperature to the outside temperature.”

        Citation please.
        ….
        Also note that controlled laboratory conditions are never representative of what happens in the real world.

      • “You obviously have never been in one.”

        ROFLMAO.

        I friend of mine runs a farm on the Central Coast with some 500 greenhouses on it.

        You do not know what you are talking about.

      • AndyG55, tell me, does your “friend” with the 500 greenhouses air condition them so that they remain at ambient temps, or does he allow them to WARM UP and run hotter than ambient?

        Oh……and tell me….how much corn, wheat, and soybeans does he grow in his green houses. Any oats, or alfalfa?

      • Remy writes,

        “Yes I know Tommy, you enclose the newly transplanted items in a plastic “greenhouse” so that they have time in a WARM environment, much like the greenhouse they were germinated in.”

        Nope,that is not it.

        Try again,city boy.

      • “So, tell me, which factor is more important, water or CO2”

        Oh dear……. and the ignorance continues.

        Go and study some basic biology, latte farmer.

        Look into the chemistry of organic matter. and photosynthesis.

        See if you can at least find a clue. !!

      • Remy tries to be smart, but shows his ignorance all over again, he wrote this stupid line:

        “Oh……and tell me….how much corn, wheat, and soybeans does he grow in his green houses. Any oats, or alfalfa?”

        Here is a number of published papers on additional CO2 effect on Corn:

        Percent Dry Weight (Biomass) Increases for
        300, 600 and 900 ppm Increases in the Air’s CO2 Concentration:

        http://www.co2science.org/data/plant_growth/dry/z/zeam.php

        When will you stop parading your enormous ignorance of the subject?

      • Remy remains a clueless latte farmer.

        Get out of your inner city ghetto and learn something about real life, instead of dwelling in the CO2-hatred that has infected the planet like a rancid disease.

        Fortunately, with 1600 new coal fired power stations being built around the world, and China and India, South Africa and many other countries continuing to rapidly expand their use of fossil fuels, there will be PLENTY of that PLANT GROWTH FOOD for a long time to come.

        And no amount of inner-city willful ignorance is going to stop that happening :-)

        So little latte farmer…. keep mindlessly yapping.. its all you have.

      • AndyG55: “Look into the chemistry of organic matter”

        Don’t have to.

        I assume you are unable to provide citations for your assertions I asked for above.

        Oh….and could you please be civil, and dispense with the derogatory name calling, i.e. “latte farmer.?” I haven’t called you names…..because I’ve learned a long time ago that it doesn’t work.

      • “Don’t have to.”

        Yep, its very obvious you are content in your TOTAL and WILLFUL IGNORANCE of anything to do with plant growth or the chemistry behind it.

        Remaining ignorant and yapping mindlessly…..its what you choose to do.

      • Too many decaf lattes today, hey remy.

        Most of these 1600 new coal fired power stations are in places where they haven’t had much before.

        Its called DEVELOPMENT..

        …. as opposed to the REGRESSION that the CO2-hatred agenda would wish on the world.

        PLENTY of that WONDERFUL and TOTALLY BENEFICIAL CO2 for the foreseeable future.

        Get used to it, and try not to get too depressed. ;-)

        We will try to make sure you have plenty of reliable electricity for your lattes and to keep you warm or cool at night and watch your favorite girlie sit-com on the big screen TV.

      • “Remy Mermelstein
        November 9, 2017 at 9:59 pm Edit

        Still waiting for the citations…………..”

        Why?

        You ignored most of Burton’s links,even making a fool of yourself with your stupid ignorance in your replies to him.

      • For Remy,

        Andy, knows about the 1600 coal plants since he talk’s about it in some detail on other blogs:

        “Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries. Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal.Jul 1, 2017”

        and,

        “But new data on the world’s biggest developers of coal-fired power plants paints a very different picture: China’s energy companies will make up nearly half of the new coal generation expected to go online in the next decade.

        These Chinese corporations are building or planning to build more than 700 new coal plants at home and around the world, some in countries that today burn little or no coal, according to tallies compiled by Urgewald, an environmental group based in Berlin. Many of the plants are in China, but by capacity, roughly a fifth of these new coal power stations are in other countries.

        Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.”

        Once again you are exposed as being ignorant.

      • Oh dear, Remy brushes the propaganda surface yet again.

        China has too much power available at the moment. they don’t NEED those extra plants

        But they are building them in many other countries.

        and yes, they have a pollution problem by NOT from new coal fired power plants.

        They have many other issues to fix that will take time.

        Yes USA use of coal has declined, because of GAS. !!!

        You seem tom be ignorant of basically everything except the propaganda pap you have been spoon fed. !!

      • Ha ha ha,

        I see that Remy post two anti Coal links, that are highly MISLEADING,since Coal construction is way up with 700 to be built. They stopped 100 others as they realized they were building too many too fast.

        Now it is clear you are a typical warmist ecoloonie,since your links are from Vox and Sierra Club/Greenpeace/coalswarm sources.

        LOL

        Meanwhile your other link explains the reason for the decline of Coal

        “Coal’s share of electricity generation has been falling, largely because of competition with natural gas. Environmental regulations affecting power plants have also played a role. About 30% of the coal capacity that retired in 2015 occurred in April, which is when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule went into effect. Some coal plants applied for and received one-year extensions, meaning that many of the coal retirements expected in 2016 will likely also occur in April. Several plants have received additional one-year extensions beyond April 2016 based on their role in ensuring regional system reliability.

        Much of the existing coal capacity in the United States was built from 1950 to 1990 during a time when electricity sales were growing much faster than population and gross domestic product. In more recent years, electricity sales growth has slowed or fallen, and net capacity additions (of all fuel types) have been relatively low. The coal units that were retired in 2015 were mainly built between 1950 and 1970, and the average age of those retired units was 54 years. The rest of the coal fleet that continues to operate is relatively younger, with an average age of 38 years.

        The coal units retired in 2015 also tended to be smaller than the rest of the coal fleet. The net summer capacity of the average retired coal unit was 133 megawatts (MW), compared with 278 MW for the rest of the coal units still operating.”

        NG was the main cause of Coal cutback,but it will not end Coal since NG cost will go up in the future. Coal will still continue to be a major generator of power for years to come.

      • https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/03/forget-paris-1600-new-coal-power-plants-built-around-the-world/

        https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-coal-exports/u-s-coal-exports-soar-in-boost-to-trump-energy-agenda-data-shows-idUSKBN1AD0DU

        http://statements.qld.gov.au/Statement/2017/9/7/queensland-exports-break-more-records–681-billion–52-higher-since-last-election
        “The value of coal exports increased by $15.5 billion in the year to be $36.8 billion in the 12 months to July 2017.”

        Increasing coal use and world CO2 emissions for a LONG TIME TO COME.

        Wonderful news for plants and for all life on the planet, wouldn’t you agree. :-)

      • “typical warmist ecoloonie”

        And like nearly all “ecoloonies” he doesn’t have the slightest clue about plant biology, horticulture, chemistry

        …… or ANYTHING to do with anything actually living !!

        Nor does he want to know.

        Just so long as his latte is still available at his corner cafe when he leaves his grannie’s basement,

        ….. he will be happy to use as much fossil fuel as is necessary.

        Hypocrisy….. at its most PATHETIC stage.

      • He didn’t read his own link,since it shows that worldwide coal use is INCREASING!:

        “Over all, 1,600 coal plants are planned or under construction in 62 countries, according to Urgewald’s tally, which uses data from the Global Coal Plant Tracker portal. The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.”

        His ecoloonie links ignored this part with their misleading anti coal crap.

        Bwahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!

      • “The new plants would expand the world’s coal-fired power capacity by 43 percent.””

        WOW, that is a BIG INCREASE.

        Plants are really gunna LUV IT !! :-)

        And more food for the world’s increasing population. :-)

      • Sunsettommy wrote, “Here is a number of published papers on additional CO2 effect on Corn…”

        Indeed — and corn, being a C4 plant, actually benefits less from extra CO2 than most other crops. C3 & CAM plants benefit even more: that includes all vegetables, all fruits except cacti, all nuts & trees, as well as rice, wheat and barley, oats, soybeans & cotton.

        The only important C4 crops are corn, sugarcane, sorghum, and millet.

        Here’s a photo from nearly 100 years ago, of potatoes grown at then-ambient ~300 ppmv CO2 (on the right) contrasted with potatoes grown with CO2 supplementation (on the left):

        Here’s the article, from Scientific American, — it called anthropogenic CO2 “the precious air fertilizer.”
        http://tinyurl.com/1920sciamCO2

      • “There is no “C” in the science of AGW.”

        Yup, No “C” and no “A”, and not “G”, either.

        No “C”arbon, no proof that CO2 causes warming in our convectively controlled atmosphere.

        and no “A”nthropogenic effect on global temperatures (except in data manipulation, but that’s not real)

        And the slight warming is not “G”lobal either.

        Only those parts affected by El Nino and other ocean oscillations have shown a slight warming.

      • In fact, since Remy is probably around 16, I’d say that the ONLY warming in his insignificant little lifetime, has been from the recent El Nino.

        Just a nice, highly beneficial rise in atmospheric CO2, which he should be very grateful for.

        Like he should be grateful to his granny for allowing him the heating and cooling and other uses of fossil fuel sourced electricity that make his inner-city ghetto existence possible… pointless as it is.

      • dave, I don’t think they really got the terminology correct on those potatoes.

        CO2 isn’t so much a “fertiliser”…..

        more, it is the FUNDAMENTAL BUILDING BLOCK.. not just of plants..

        …. but of ALL LIFE ON EARTH.

        At 250ppm or less, plants really struggle to get the CO2 from the air, (stale bread and water)

        Anything above 300ppm starts to allow them to breathe a bit, (add some cheese and protein.),

        ….. and pushing it up to 1200ppm is like a good three course meal.

        Plants LUV it !!!

      • “How do you know that the increase in “Annual Gross Productivity” is not due to temperature instead of CO2?”

        Take a look at the spatial pattern. Temperature may be a factor in the taiga/tundra zone, but at lower latitudes the greening is clearly in warm low precipitation areas. The greenery in Sahel is not limited by low temperatures!

      • So, tell me, which factor is more important, water or CO2?

        CO2 is below the optimum everywhere. Water is not everywhere below the optimum. CO2 helps in surviving in dry conditions. There is no answer to your question as such, it is ill-posed.

        Farmers are smart. They know what to invest their capital into. Most farmers will invest in irrigation pumps, pipes for irrigation , and chemical fertilizers to grow their crops. Hardly any farmers invest in equipment that increases the CO2 in their fields. I think farmers know more about stimulating plant growth than either of you two.

        Farmers know that. CO2 is delivered to a greenhouses. But CO2 is not cheap to deliver for maize, wheat or forest.

        BTW, you spam the thread with crap. Not interesting to read rhetoric questions like above as they actually don’t state anything and just lead to talking about the strawman error.

      • Based on the ignorance of this child, there can be no doubt that the NY primary education system has failed. Unfortunately, I’ve seen this in far too many kids whose impressionable young minds have been polluted with far left rhetoric that demonizes anything that promotes success and progress (and they call themselves progressives). It’s like so much else where the words they use are crafted to disguise their own faults by conferring them on others. It’s unfortunate that weak minds are so easily fooled and that the education system is actively cultivating weak mindedness.

        Remy – I hope that your interest in weather drives you to be a climate ‘scientist’ because your generation will definitely see the the pseudo science pushed by the IPCC crash and burn. The lies have persisted only due to being bolstered by a corrupt ‘consensus’ driven by an organization hell bent on robinhood economics and that requires the corruption in order to support their agenda. Science corrupted by politics is unsustainable and in the end, the actual science will always win.

      • I see the remy character is another couch farmer/philosopher and imaginary scientist.

        “Remy Mermelstein November 9, 2017 at 9:39 pm

        AndyG55, tell me, does your “friend” with the 500 greenhouses air condition them so that they remain at ambient temps, or does he allow them to WARM UP and run hotter than ambient?

        Oh……and tell me….how much corn, wheat, and soybeans does he grow in his green houses. Any oats, or alfalfa?”

        Really deep into lala land there remy.

        Farmers and greenhouse operators allow the actual greenhouse effect, that is caused by the closed convection of greenhouses, to warm up the greenhouse into summer temperatures. Since that is where maximum plant growth occurs and maximum ripening.

        Yes, greenhouse operator run cooling equipment. Most run what is commonly called a “swamp cooler” where air is run over/through thick wet sheets of fabrics. Evaporation cools the air and maximizes humidity.
        These growers also open roof vents to allow hot air to vent.
        Plants grow best with strong ventilation. Swamp coolers provide ventilation air movement, add humidity and cool the systems when excess heat is problematic.

        All of that glass acreage lets heat escape easily when it is cold outside. Greenhouses require heating far more than they need cooling.

        Grain crop harvests are tallied as “bushels per acre”.
        Those harvest are after the growing/maturing/ripening cycle.

        Yes, there are greenhouse operations covering tens of acres, but those growers focus on high value products that can provide continuous harvest. Fresh greens, tomatoes, peppers, orchids, poinsettias, whatever.

        Grain crops earn minimal profit per crop. Greenhouses are expensive to construct, expensive to maintain, expensive to staff and extremely expensive to heat during cold spells.
        One greenhouse grower describes meltwater running down the outside of his greenhouse as “ground up and burned dollars”.

        When faced with elimination of the corn to alcohol subsidies, corn farmers shrieked. After corn prices peaked over a decade ago, corn farmers earn very little per acre of corn. The same goes for other grain and legume growers as the farmers struggle to keep customers and earn their living.

        But then, the ignorant do as the ignorant want to, since experience nor knowledge do not hamper their delusions.

      • Yep, pretty obvious that little remy has never been near a commercial greenhouse operation.

        Probably only ever seen greenhouses on TV, where they grow tropical plants in cold climates… the meme.

        Does NOT understand that commercial greenhouses provide for a “controlled” environment which can be hot , cold, wet, dry.. whatever is required. Controlled atmospheric and soil moisture as well.

        Some of my friend’s greenhouses can be air-conditioned bliss in summer. 40ºC outside, 25ºC inside.

      • Another looney that doesn’t really read the links he links to:

        “Remy Mermelstein November 9, 2017 at 10:20 pm
        AndyG55, 1600 coal plants: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=25272

        “Remy Mermelstein November 9, 2017 at 10:22 pm
        1600 coal plants: http://www.powermag.com/industry-in-turmoil-coal-plants-shutting-down-around-the-world/

        From your link:

        Closing small older coal facilities.

        “The amount of coal capacity retired in 2015 was about 4.6% of the nation’s coal capacity at the beginning of that year. Nearly half of the 2015 retired coal capacity was located in three states—Ohio, Georgia, and Kentucky—and those states each retired at least 10% of their coal capacity in 2015. Other states that traditionally have had high levels of coal-fired electricity generation, such as Indiana, West Virginia, and Virginia, each retired at least one GW of coal capacity in 2015.”

        Only 4.6% retired. And most of those were either converted or replaced by LPG fired generation facilities.

        “More than 80% of the retired capacity was conventional steam coal. The coal-fired generating units retired in 2015 tended to be older and smaller in capacity than the coal generation fleet that continues to operate.

        Coal’s share of electricity generation has been falling, largely because of competition with natural gas. Environmental regulations affecting power plants have also played a role. About 30% of the coal capacity that retired in 2015 occurred in April, which is when the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Mercury and Air Toxics Standards (MATS) rule went into effect.”

        Imagine that!? 30% of the closures were caused by Obama politics.

        “Remy Mermelstein November 9, 2017 at 6:52 pm
        daveburton, how do you disprove the conjecture that the increase in CO2 has increased global temperatures, which has increased the amount of ocean evaproation, which then increases rainfall in arid areas?”

        A) The CO2 hypothesis has never been proven in real world conditions. Trillions of dollars have been spent while ignoring that CO2 AGW & CAGW in strictly a theory.

        B) Every climate and weather prediction made by AGW and CAGW believers has been falsified as prediction dates pass.
        – a) One failure would have disproved Einstein’s theory. But then, Einstein was a true scientist.
        – b) None of the climate models work. Averaging models and pretending the averaged result is useful is pure delusion.

        C) All of the critical claims by alarmists have been falsified.
        – a) The Arctic is not melting unusually. And the Arctic appears to be entering a cool cycle while the Antarctic enter a warming cycle. Neither cycle is dependent upon a trace gas.
        – b) Storms are not more frequent nor more powerful.
        – c) Rising temperatures are in line with recovery from the Little Ice Age (LIA)
        – d) Sea levels are rising just as slowly as the last few centuries.
        – e) Polar bears are thriving. Walruses and seals are thriving.
        – f) Rain is not more frequent, floods are not more frequent, deluges are not more common.
        – g) Droughts have been less common; so people should dread returning to historical drought frequencies.
        – h) Hurricanes are not more frequent or more powerful. Again, people should dread Earth returning to historical hurricane frequency.
        – i) Oceans are not heating up. What increases are alleged by NOAA require centuries for increases measured by degree C°. N.B. that NOAA did not include error rates for equipment that is not verified and certified upon deployment or after maintenance.
        – j) NOAA and other activist meteorology stations, much like yours, fail to track, aggregate and present errors inherent is their temperature collection sites, locations and equipment. Yet their entire AGW model worlds are dependent upon calculating tenths of a degree anomalies while ignoring errors and error propagation.
        – k) N.B. NOAA model worlds freely and frequently “adjust” temperatures, including using stations up to 1200km away to “correct” recorded temperatures. In the real world, adjustments are equivalent to acknowledged error. When a temperature is “adjusted” 2 degrees; that is admission that there is a minimum error for that temperature of 2°.

        D) Then again, in the real world, people who “adjust” recorded numbers are prosecuted, pay fines and are often incarcerated.

      • “Remy Mermelstein November 9, 2017 at 6:47 pm
        “That’s one of the reasons that deserts and near-deserts are greening.”

        Death Valley is a desert, and it is not greening”

        What an ignorant ‘equus africanus asinus’!

        Obviously, you’ve never spent time in Death Valley.
        Perhaps you think the dried salt lake fills up with water every year?

        When rain falls, the desert blooms and greens magnificently. Only, moisture laden clouds have difficulty reaching Death Valley. Especially since the entire American West South and East of Oregon are arid lands.

        One can easily spot the rare rain shower or thunderstorm’s path across the deserts by lush growth where rain fell. If one is there at the correct time after rain falls, the flowers are incredible.

        Six months later, those green plants will be back to brown and rapidly resembling the neighboring arid areas the rain missed.

        Ignorant deluded couch pilot.

    • I agree with Dave about CO2 being added to Greenhouses,for the singular purpose of promoting increased growth and health of plants. That is why the greenhouse grown nursery stock that just arrived at the stores and Nurseries looks splendid.

      I avoid them because when you buy those plants,plant them in the ground at home,they sulk a while before they get going,because they are now exposed to far less CO2 than in the greenhouse. I always bought the ones that have been at the stores a while for them to lose their appetite for a rich CO2 diet,they hit the ground growing better….

      I have worked in a Nursery and the greenhouse,I have seem the transformation of dark green leaves change to light green in a week or so,due to having far less CO2 to maintain their level of vigor they had in the Greenhouse.

      • Yes Remy they are in shock,but you have no humor at all in you,since you couldn’t understand why I wrote it that way.

        I know how to plant them in a way to avoid the shock ,which very green thumb people have learned to do. Do you know what it is Remy?

      • Yes I know Tommy, you enclose the newly transplanted items in a plastic “greenhouse” so that they have time in a WARM environment, much like the greenhouse they were germinated in.

      • I see that he has avoided my reply:

        He wrote:

        ” Remy Mermelstein
        November 9, 2017 at 9:35 pm Edit

        Yes I know Tommy, you enclose the newly transplanted items in a plastic “greenhouse” so that they have time in a WARM environment, much like the greenhouse they were germinated in.”

        I replied,

        “Nope,that is not it.

        Try again,city boy.”

        You don’t know apparently,even though I gave you the answer in other comments,it wasn’t temperature,it was something else.

        Can you figure it out now,city boy?

      • Gosh Remy, you are a genuine science know-nothing.
        You have not made a single correct statement yet, which may be a new record, given the incredibly streak of rapid fire trolling you have engaged in.
        As someone who has spent many years engaged in actual greenhouse production, I can tell you that, 100% for sure, you have no idea what you are babbling about.
        And BTW…do your own homework.
        No one here will play the “citation please” game with you for long.
        You are ignorant of even common knowledge.
        How old are you…about 14?

      • i hope this comment will drop right in the line :)

        My god Remy you seem to not know anything about plants and CO2…

        having a lot of farmers in my family a first debunk of a “half truth”

        Remy is on one thing right that the increased volume caused by CO2 does decrease the nutritional value, but there is a big BUT: this only counts for nutritional value per ounce (or grams) and is less important then the increase in volume of the harvest.
        this means that a 10% bigger tomato from a increased CO2 greenhouse does NOT contain 10% less nutrient value per ounce or gram, the decrease is around 2% so overall your crop contains more nutrients. (farmers test this a lot you know Remy)

        so in short the increase of volume compensates largely for the decrease of nutritional value so the harvest per plant does increase on all levels.

        Overall there is a threshold for this CO2 increase where gain and cost are becoming less interesting and where safety also becomes an issue but still then plants their productivity continue to increase.

        On the other hand your soil need to be able to “follow, with decidious trees this following is pretty obvious but also with evergreen plants there is more decomposing plant material at hand, also rain is important

        “in death valley there is no greening”

        Remy deserts are for one reason deserts: because there is not enough water to sustain a permanent vergetation. that’s why they are called deserts. without water to dissolve the nutrients in the soil so that plants can use them and keep their evapo-transpiration cycle intact that distrubutes thies nutrients plants will simply die. Never figured that out? How long would you stay alive without food and water?

        Where food is abundant there is definitely a greening where food is less abundant there is a status quo as next to the greening factor food is also a must.

        just to let you know…

      • Very few deserts are devoid of life.
        The deserts that are actually bare sand are relatively rare, especially in North America.
        These are primarily salt flats or sand dunes, or dry lake beds…with seasonal or occasional water.
        High concentrations of soluble salts prevents growth in many such areas.
        There is a special name for a place where nothing grows due to large amounts of shifting sand…they are called erg deserts.
        The areas in and around Death Valley are not all erg deserts or dry lake beds, not at all.
        In places like furnace creek, just south of the golf course, is a huge alluvial fan on which nothing much grows. but at the base of that fan is a zone of scrub that is alive year around. A little further out to the West, North, and South, is a zone of dry lake bed and sand that is barren. Above the alluvial fan are hills and scarps with some vegetation.
        The creek beds and lakes beds in the region are frequently devoid of a single growing thing, but other areas are not…not at all.
        For someone who likes to tell other people you have never met what they know or where they have or have not been, I think I can say with certitude that you have never in your life driven to Death Valley, or even looked at it on a map site like Bing or Google, Remy.
        If you had, you would know you are full of shit. Which cannot be ruled out…you may be purposefully trolling…saying things you know are not true just to tie up the thread with nonsense.
        For one thing, there are trees within and surrounding Death Valley (the pic just below is from Death Valley, and those are Joshua trees), and you do not have to go far to find huge forests.

        These forested regions are expanding, as are the regions of scrub and the amount of scrub, and the length of time the scrub is actively growing is increasing ever more rapidly.
        This is what is meant when we speak of the ongoing greening of marginal lands…there are more and bigger plants, and they are spreading and becoming more diverse, as plants which may not sustain at 300 PPM of CO2 are able to sustain at 403 PPM.
        At 500, 600, 900, 1200…the differences will become vividly evident.
        But warmistas never go outside, or else they would not be warmistas. Who could spend time outside and travelling around in wilderness areas and think the planet is dying?
        And by the way Remy…do you know what happens in deserts when they do get rain?

        Some more pics of Death Valley vegetation:

        Go see the actual world Remy, and learn how badly you have been lied to and misled.
        You will not regret it, and will see some wondrous sights…all the more wondrous for not having known they existed.

      • The Panamint range is within the bounds of Death Valley National Park.
        These mountains have large zones of coniferous forests…mainly pinyon pines, but also a few other species.
        The native Americans that formerly inhabited this area harvested pinyon nuts in the dry months as a major food source.
        So, there are in fact two wooded habitats in Death Valley, coniferous forest and desert woodlands.
        Panamint range (those are charcoal kilns, built by a mining company a while back. The wood for the charcoal came from the trees in the hills to the right…in Death Valley)

    • I see that Remy thinks Greenhouse plant growers are too dumb to be applying CO2 generators,when all they have to do is make it warm in there.

      ” Remy Mermelstein
      November 9, 2017 at 9:22 pm Edit

      LOL @ AndyG55……commercial greenhouses are WARMER than the places they are built in. You don’t need any “scientific method” to know this, just visit one.”

      You are so FREAKING ignorant since there are a lot of greenhouses that grow plants at DIFFERENT temperature levels. Some like it hot,medium or even cool. Plants wants the CO2 no matter what the Greenhouse temperature is.

      Here is an example of what growers do to increase CO2 in the greenhouses:

      Carbon Dioxide Enrichment Methods

      “Biologists and plant physiologists have long recognized the benefits of higher CO2 content in the air for plant growth. Horticulturists and greenhouse growers have used CO generators to enhance growth rates on plants for many years with good results.

      With the advent of home greenhouses and indoor growing under artificial lights and the developments in hydroponics in recent years, the need for CO2 generation has drastically increased. Plants growing in a sealed greenhouse or indoor grow room will often deplete the available CO2 and stop growing. The following graph will show what depletion and enrichment does to plant growth:”

      https://www.hydrofarm.com/resources/articles/co2_enrichment.php

      • Don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone so unbelievably NAIVE and IGNORANT.

        He can only be a rabid inner-city greenie.

      • Remy is obviously a child.
        And an ignorant one to boot.
        Imagine, not knowing that people that are engaged in a commercial enterprise have experimented with every variable in order to maximize profits?
        Astounding.
        Apparently Remy is unaware that commercial greenhouses are typically cooled with huge fans and evaporative coolers…if the crop will grow faster in cooler conditions.
        Or that greenhouses and hot conditions and increased growth came first…CO2 fertilization and faster growth came later…this is not some new development, grower have known this for many decades.
        At least since the 1950s.
        State extension services do carefully controlled trials in which all variables are controlled for, varied, and optimized, and the results published and available for free.

      • It is pretty sad really.
        This is symptomatic of the dumbing down of youth…telling them WHAT to think, and depriving them of any education in the tools used TO think.
        So all they know how to do is mindlessly quote the nonsense they have been spoon-fed by the warmista jackasses.
        And you know you have someone who is genuinely incurious when they keep asking for references, instead of just googling the key words and seeing for themselves.
        At least very few of the trollish class bother with such idiotic shenanigans any more…it is incredibly tiresome and annoying.
        Everyone online has instant access to whatever it is they claim to need a citation for, and they and those they pester know it.
        Ever notice how the people that ask for some confirmation of every assertion seem to feel no need to provide citations for their own regurgitated pablum?
        Even the witless ranting of someone who does not know why death valley does not have trees oughta have some basis in factual information.
        That is how one can tell you are being ranted at by either a child or a dullard.

      • Additional point for Remy; Many ‘greenhouses’ are now polytunnels and polyethylene is transparent to IR. How do you explain the greenhouse effect when the greenhouse is made of a material that does not absorb IR? (There are more expensive grades of polytunnel coverings that do absorb IR but they are used to prevent scorching of tender crops if their additional cost is less than the cost of the scorching.)

  8. “Adam and Barik looked at one of the wettest locations in the continental United States, the Queets watershed in the Olympic Experimental State Forest, which receives between 96 and 236 inches of rain a year.”

    Almost half an order of magnitude annual variation in rainfall? What is the probability of landslide as a function of rainfall? How dependable is any forecast, based on such a variable input?

    I grew up in the town of Bellingham, Washington. A local highway to points south was Chuckanut Drive, which was dynamited out of the sandstone face of Chuckanut Mountain. It is a serpentine, 2-lane road, with a 500-foot vertical cliff on the water side and a similar vertical face of rock on the inland side. I recall from my youth that, during the rainy season, there was the occasional rock fall that would block the road with sandstone boulders. (A similar problem occurred for a parallel stretch of Interstate 5 on the east side of Chuckanut Mountain.) Over the decades this has become rare.

    I notice the future scenario description is not mentioned. It is hard to imagine that there would be more rain. It is equally hard to imagine there would be less rain. Pullman, by the way, is located in the dry part of the state, where the only thing that grows on the hills is grass or scrub.

    • There’s a farmer in south Australia that has modified his tractor exhaust so all emissions get ploughed into the ground when doing crops , I don’t have a link but his results were amazing .

      • Exactly similar to why farmers in Germany in the 1920’s were upset about the change from smoky old steam trains to electric ones.
        How and why VW got into so much trouble, why diesel cars are becoming subject to a Toxic Tax(es), why folks can’t breathe in city centres..

        Why Scandinavian foresters were equally bemused and saddened by the panic stricken British installing scrubbers ( and using 10% of their electricity to drive them) to prevent ‘Acid Rain falling on their trees.
        It was working as a fertiliser – , Norwegian, Swedish and Finnish tree yields went down 25% when the British started scrubbing their power stations.
        Fairly important to those folks, trees are almost the only things that that will grow there. They know about trees and what does and does not make them grow.

        The Aussie farmer here is feeding into his soil what the Scandinavian foresters were dismayed about the lack of and what everyone (Dave, Andy & Tommy) is missing.
        Its what EVERY farmer on the planet KNOWS to make huge expansive growth and produce greenery

        (water soluble) Nitrogen
        Also sulphur.

        You get soluble nitrogen whenever you burn anything in an atmosphere containing oxygen and nitrogen gasses

        PS It is also what is making the Planet greener while magically increasing the levels of CO2 (as seen by OCO satellite) above tropical forests. If the forest was growing better with ‘more CO2’, there would be LESS CO2 hanging over them – yet there is more.
        Any other explanation……..

      • Here in Florida it is thought that lightning is a major, perhaps THE major, source of natural nitrogen.
        Florida is a very green place for having such heavily leached and poor soils over much of it’s terrain.

  9. The studies I saw indicated what was going on above the slide area is sometimes more important than what is happening in the slide area, such as say logging on a flatter spot above the slide, since that changes the local hydrology of water in the soil that is migrating downhill. The flip side of the general argument is that there is a lot of weight from the live trees on the land, and that contributes to slope failure. Also, sometimes the logging practise itself is responsible for the degrading of the slope, especially if heavy equipment is involved in the logging. High lead cable logging does not generally start until slopes are above 40 degrees since is so expensive compared to mechanized skidder/cat logging. Especially if putting in lateral sidecut skid trails with a bulldozer for skidding and then there is a higher recipe for slope failure. In my 40+ years in forestry and logging experience, slope failure is higher where it has been logged, and is a very serious issue where homes and communities are below. Such as what happened at Oso, Washington State with 43 dead. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Oso_mudslide This wasn’t totally blamed on logging, since was a known slide area for years previous.

    The roots of conifers die and begin to rot fairly quickly, especially in a wet soil. A live tree root and stump has much greater holding power than a stump that is even a few years old. That is why if you are building road or clearing land, you are relieved to be in a area where it was logged several years earlier. The stumps will split a lot easier and pop out if they have been dead a few years, compared to fresh cut green stumps, especially Douglas Fir. There is a mycelium type of living roots that do hold the soil better than a dead stump. A clear cut on a steeper slope has changes in underground water flows, since the trees had stored a lot of the water in the tree when alive and green. Generally, you get a much higher surge of water flow off clearcuts than a forested area, whether rain or snow melt, which excess water gets to saturate the ground. Also, a forest sublimates a lot of water directly (especially snow) to atmosphere without turning to ground water, which (excess water) is the general root cause of soil failure. Re-planting immediately does help in re-estabablishing the forest back to a normal condition with a thick matt of root and vegetation. Nothing a Geotech Engineer can’t figure out.

  10. It rains here in the Great North Wet. It rains a lot and for nearly 8 months of the year. The soils get saturated, on the flood plains, in the urban areas, and up in the hills and mountains. Saturated soils in the hills regularly slide down hill. It blocks railways and roads a couple of times a year. It has been doing this since God made dirt and rain.

    Does CO2 cause rain to fall? If true (It’s not, for those in San Francisco…), this could be the 1st true justification for reducing CO2 levels. Less rain would mean fewer mudslides.

  11. I do not know if WSU still has a very large “stream table” — here is a small version:

    Then, research involved lots of material (dirt like stuff) and water from sprinklers that acted as rain.
    The model was real — not a set of equations — and the simulation might add information to an equation, namely, the Universal Soil Loss Equation. You can look it up.

    For the record, much of the landscape in WA and OR show the results of various sorts of slope failures over long periods of time — hundreds of thousands of years in many locations, and in others the ice had to melt first, so <15,000 years.
    For my WSU friends: Go Cougs!

  12. Hmmm… I wonder if the CAGW models used in this study factored in the CO2 fertilization effect, which increases tree-root growth at higher CO2 levels, and also accelerates tree growth recovery in clear-cut logging areas…

    I think we all know their models did no such thing…

    Another thing… According to the following statements in IPCC’s 2013 AR5 Report, there haven’t been any increasing trends in flooding, droughts or thunderstorms for the past 70 years:

    1) “In summary, there continues to be a lack of evidence and thus low confidence regarding the sign of trend in the magnitude and/or frequency of floods on a global scale”

    2) “In summary, there is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale severe weather phenomena such as hail and thunderstorms.”

    3) “In summary, the current assessment concludes that there is not enough evidence at present to suggest more than low confidence in a global-scale observed trend in drought or dryness (lack of rainfall) since the middle of the 20th century.”

    “It’s models ALLLLL the way down”….

  13. Back..up this discussion to subject of trees and forestry practices ……. I always understood it that the Greeks and Romans de..forested the lands under their control about three times over before the land was so exhausted that it was incapable of supporting further silviculture (owing to nutrient..loss, and erosion resulting from slope..stability loss) . And that N. North Africa was forested until the aforesaid Greeks and Romans clear..cut all the trees down, leaving the deserts we now inherit.
    Please advise me where I am wrong here …..

    • Yes, the Romans burned a lot of trees…

      If you look at the ruins of Rome today and see the millions upon millions of fired Roman bricks, you can see that just the kilns for those used one heck of a lot of biomass.

      But the Sahara is largely there as a result of changes to climate following the ice age.

      2 to 4 thousand years ago a lot of it was savannah, with elephants etc found withing a few hundred miles of the Mediterranean coast. The climate became drier and rivers dried up (incidentally driving the rise of ancient Egypt)

      However the agricultural practice in Roman N Africa was pretty sophisticated, with barrages and cisterns used to impound winter rainfall an extensive irrigation. It was a major wheat growing area. The system fell into disuse with the end of Roman rule and aspects of it are being looked at as a means of increasing production again today, now we’ve noticed it…

      https://www.quora.com/Why-was-North-Africa-considered-the-breadbasket-of-the-Roman-Empire-considering-how-infertile-it-is-Was-it-just-because-of-Egypt

      • @ Griff – November 10, 2017 at 1:16 am

        GEEEZE, ….. Griff, ……. I’m truly amazed and somewhat impressed, the above is the most sensible of all your postings that I have read.

        But just one critique, you are off by several thousand years via this statement, ….. “2 to 4 thousand years ago a lot of it was savannah”, …….

      • Relentlessly PC as always Griffie

        Corrections:

        “The climate became drier and colder

        “The system was destroyed after the moslem invasion” (Read Ibn Khaldûn if you don’t believe me)

      • Yes, the wettest period was during the Holocene Climate Optimum, and as it got cooler the lush Saharan savannah dried up.
        Has anyone ever heard about what New Mexico looked like 150 years ago?
        They were not fighting over land of the sort we see today…the whole state was verdant.

    • Not only did the Romans and Greeks clear cut, the Greeks a couple of times for ship building, they also raised goats which tends to prevent reforestation unless carefully herded. Europeans after the Romans clear cut much of Europe several times. Napoleon clear cut when trying to build a fleet large enough to defeat the English at the beginning of the 19th Century.

      • Pennsylvania has some of the largest stands of old growth hardwood forests in the United States.
        Now, why would this be?
        Interesting story.
        By the end of the civil war, the people at the head of the columns of the Union armies were the woodsmen, who became so fast at clearing a path that they would have to stop and wait for the troops and supply wagons to catch up. As fast as an army could march, these people cleared a path a mile wide, and used the lumber to build bridges, and corduroy roads through the swamps, and whatever else was needed.
        After the war, was a building boom. So, when these woodsmen returned to their northern home states, they hired out their services.
        The entire state of PA was clear cut in the late 1860s to early 1870s, from east to west. The whole state, north to south, east to west, clear cut.
        After that, there was no logging or lumberjacking to be done, and the industry folded and the trade disappeared from the state.
        What we have today is what grows back in 150 years or less with no replanting or tending or anything.
        First came grasslands, then some conifers began to grow, in the typical succession we all learn about in physical geography classes in grade school. And finally the mixed hardwood/conifer climax forest we see today.
        The forests are so dense and the deer so out of control that there is virtually zero understory of small young trees or scrub plants. It is a real problem.
        BTW, the forests that were cut consisted of many trees that were later blighted out of existence, trees like the elms and chestnuts. They would have died and rotted if they were not harvested…so…

      • The problem with people in or fresh out of college is…they think 20 0r 30 years is a long time…they have no perspective.
        They simply are incapable of understanding that within the short span of their own lives, which will pass with an astoundingly quick blink of an eye, entire forests can and do grow.
        And not once either.
        A lifetime is plenty of time for several forests to grow and be cut and grow back.
        In the 1990s, I discontinued work at my family farm/plant nursery in Pasco county in Florida.
        At that time, mid 1990s, the land was pasture that we paid to mow, although we had a neighbor who was a hay farmer who would often cut it for free if we let him make and keep the hay…which of course I did, knowing what happens to land that is not mowed.
        My brother felt differently…he did not see the point or understand what would happen…and he felt it unfair that “someone make(s) money on our grass”.
        So once I left it was never mowed again.
        I recently went back there to see about selling the land, and was amazed at what I found…I could barely recognize the place…and in fact I thought I was on the wrong land at first…it was mind boggling how fast and how completely the place became not just overgrown but forested by oak and other hardwoods, and huge palm trees (the state tree of Florida, cabbage palms, Sabal Palmetto) that had attained a size I could not believe, even knowing what I know about plant and tree growth.
        The fact is, in a place like Florida, it is a little faster than some other places.
        If not cleared or mowed, untended land will have bushes and small saplings after one year that are hard to mow with a bush hog. After two years, it will be very difficult to mow at all. After three years…forget it, you have to go in with heavy machinery to clear it.
        Five years you have some trees throwing shade, and ten years…woods, small at first, but oaks in Florida grow astoundingly fast.
        Other tropical species grow even faster…I have a few royal Poinciana trees in front of my house I bought at home depot after I moved in in 2013…it might have been a year later, not sure…that were basically sticks with no leaves. They were badly overgrown for the pots they were in…10 feet high in 12″ pots, and defoliated but the wood was still alive.
        I bought them for $10, knowing they were a bargain.
        Those trees are now 6-8″ in diameter at the base, and were taller than my house at over 25′ before the recent hurricane, which broke off the tops and longer side branches (I found one behind my house imbedded in the sand about 24″. Anyone outside in that storm would have died badly.) But they are already flushed out with new growth, and will be stronger and more compact for the damage.
        Trees grow fast, and faster now than ever before.
        Some trees are growing twice as fast as they were in the 1980s, from what I have heard.
        This is how people make a living with tree farms…no one would do it if it took a lifetime.
        I wish I understood this back in the day…I would have planted that acreage in Pasco with high value palm seedlings starting the day we bought the land.

      • Thanks, menicholas, ….. I enjoyed reading your 2 posts.

        And iffen I may, I would like to offer a correction to this stated claim, to wit:

        The entire state of PA was clear cut in bythe late 1860s to early 1870s, from east to west. The whole state, north to south, east to west, clear cut.

        The railroads were constructed across Pennsylvania and western Virginia (now West Virginia) prior to the start of the Civil War, for the primary purpose of transporting coal, coke and sawed lumber to build and power the “great cities” along the East Coast, namely New York, Philadelphia, Baltimore and Washington, DC, ……… and thus the reason for the “clear cutting” of much of Pennsylvania and western Virginia.

        And it was because of the B&O RR tracks that connected the Baltimore/Washington urban area to the Ohio River, …. via a “right-of-way” across the northern part of western Virginia, …. that prompted President Lincoln to violate the COTUS by declaring that the “western” part of Virginia be recognized as the new State of West Virginia, …. to wit

        Article IV, Section. 3, Clause 1 of the United States Constitutions provides:

        New States may be admitted by the Congress into this Union; but no new States shall be formed or erected within the Jurisdiction of any other State; nor any State be formed by the Junction of two or more States, or parts of States, without the Consent of the Legislatures of the States concerned as well as of the Congress.

        “DUH”, the Legislature of the State of Virginia DID NOT give its consent for said secession.

        Anyway, the illegally created State of West Virginia joined the Union as a “northern state” and Lincoln then had control of the RR to the Ohio River, which he desperately needed iffen he was going to “win the war”.

  14. Yeah, things go worser with climate.
    Take space alien invasions. Please.
    Yes indeed, climate change will make space alien invasions worse. I just need a few $million to show how. I can take a checque, banquers or otherwise. Sorry, no bitcoin though.

  15. Two (2) notable excerpts from the above published commentary:

    In a study modelled on clear-cut lands on the Olympic Peninsula, they anticipate the climate of 2045 and conclude that there will be a 7 -11 percent increase in the land that is highly vulnerable to landslides.

    And just where in the Northwest are they “clear-cutting” the timber and not re-seeding the “cut” with young seedlings?

    And if re-seeded in 2017, …. by the year 2045 …… those young “seedlings” will have acquired 28 years of growth and will be pretty close to being ready for another “clear-cutting”, especially iffen for “pulpwood”.

    A subsequent engineering report found that recent logging may have increased the amount of water on the slope, though the report did not pin the slide on any single cause.

    And here I have always been thinking that it was the severity/duration of the rainstorms that determined the amount of rainwater that falls on the slope of that mountainous terrain.

  16. the entire premise of this article is wrong. logged area hold LESS water than forested areas. the water runs off logged areas which leads to increased soil loss due to erosion.

    a logged area will weigh hundreds of. thousand of tons less than a forested area simply due to the missing trees.

    science fail.

  17. during a landslide the trees and roots come down the hill along with the dirt and rocks. the shear zone is between the soil and bedrock. not between the soils and the tree roots as these authors seem to believe.

  18. one could argue that it is trees that cause landslides. the action of their roots breaks down the rocks on. mountain sides creating soil over hundreds of years. it is this soil that eventually gives way to gravity and creates a landslide.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s