WVU biologists uncover forests’ unexpected role in climate change

WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY

Research News

IMAGE
IMAGE: WVU ALUMNUS JUSTIN MATHIAS HOLDS A TREE INCREMENT BORER TO EXTRACT TREE CORES AT GAUDINEER KNOB IN WEST VIRGINIA. MATHIAS AND RICHARD THOMAS, PROFESSOR OF FOREST ECOLOGY AND CLIMATE CHANGE,… view more CREDIT: WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY

New research from West Virginia University biologists shows that trees around the world are consuming more carbon dioxide than previously reported, making forests even more important in regulating the Earth’s atmosphere and forever shift how we think about climate change.

In a study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Professor Richard Thomas and alumnus Justin Mathias (BS Biology, ’13 and Ph.D. Biology, ’20) synthesized published tree ring studies. They found that increases in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere over the past century have caused an uptick in trees’ water-use efficiency, the ratio of carbon dioxide taken up by photosynthesis to the water lost by transpiration – the act of trees “breathing out” water vapor.

“This study really highlights the role of forests and their ecosystems in climate change,” said Thomas, interim associate provost for graduate academic affairs. “We think of forests as providing ecosystem services. Those services can be a lot of different things – recreation, timber, industry. We demonstrate how forests perform another important service: acting as sinks for carbon dioxide. Our research shows that forests consume large amounts of carbon dioxide globally. Without that, more carbon dioxide would go into the air and build up in the atmosphere even more than it already is, which could exacerbate climate change. Our work shows yet another important reason to preserve and maintain our forests and keep them healthy.”

Previously, scientists have thought that trees were using water more efficiently over the past century through reduced stomatal conductance – meaning trees were retaining more moisture when the pores on their leaves began closing slightly under rising levels of carbon dioxide.

However, following an analysis using carbon and oxygen isotopes in tree rings from 1901 to 2015 from 36 tree species at 84 sites around the world, the researchers found that in 83% of cases, the main driver of trees’ increased water efficiency was increased photosynthesis – they processed more carbon dioxide. Meanwhile, the stomatal conductance only drove increased efficiency 17% of the time. This reflects a major change in how trees’ water efficiency has been explained in contrast to previous research.

“We’ve shown that over the past century, photosynthesis is actually the overwhelming driver to increases in tree water use efficiency, which is a surprising result because it contradicts many earlier studies,” Mathias said. “On a global scale, this will have large implications potentially for the carbon cycle if more carbon is being transferred from the atmosphere into trees.”

Since 1901, the intrinsic water use efficiency of trees worldwide has risen by approximately 40% in conjunction with an increase of approximately 34% in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Both of these characteristics increased approximately four times faster since the 1960s compared to the previous years.

While these results show the rise in carbon dioxide is the main factor in making trees use water more efficiently, the results also vary depending on temperature, precipitation and dryness of the atmosphere. These data can help refine models used to predict the effects of climate change on global carbon and water cycles.

“Having an accurate representation of these processes is critical in making sound predictions about what may happen in the future,” Mathias said. “This helps us get a little closer to making those predictions less uncertain.”

The study is a product of the researchers’ seven-year research collaboration during Mathias’ time as a doctoral student. After graduating from WVU, Mathias joined University of California, Santa Barbara as a postdoctoral researcher.

“Since moving to California, my work has taken a turn from being in the field, collecting measurements, analyzing data and writing manuscripts,” Mathias said. “My new position is more focused on ecological theory and ecosystem modeling. Instead of measuring plants, I form hypotheses and seek out answers to questions using computer models and math.”

In the future, Mathias aspires to become a professor at a research university to continue these research pursuits.

“I would love to run my own lab at a university, mentor graduate students and pursue research questions to continue building on the work we’ve already accomplished. There’s been a lot of progress in our field. There are also an infinite number of questions that are relevant moving forward,” Mathias said. “I owe everything to my time and training from the people at WVU. My long-term goal is to be in a position where I can continue moving the field forward while giving back through teaching and mentoring students.”

###

From EurekAlert!

3.5 10 votes
Article Rating
171 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Scissor
February 8, 2021 6:06 pm

We could always use an honest ring counter.

Alexy Scherbakoff
February 8, 2021 6:09 pm

As my wife would say ‘get a haircut’.

Tim Gorman
February 8, 2021 6:10 pm

Instead of measuring plants, I form hypotheses and seek out answers to questions using computer models and math.”

Once again, models all the way down!

Science *used* to be measuring things in order to form hypotheses. Today it is creating a model that matches what you *think* should be reality and who cares if it actually describes what is happening in the field.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 8, 2021 6:36 pm

Feelings have replaced hard observation and result replication in our postmodern science. That’s because nature doesn’t care about human feelings, hoiwever computer model simulations can. Hence, “model love”.

Ron Long
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 9, 2021 5:05 am

Joel, you have that right! In Geology there is a famous quote that says “In Geology if you want to know the truth, you must go to the field” This quote, in several forms has been attributed to several authors, all of them famous-successful Geologists. When I was the CEO and President of a mineral exploration company, I would listen to a project presentation, including expensive drill funding, I would say “sounds good, now let’s go to the field and stand on the rocks”, which was what I was taught and practiced all my career. Now this guy wants to sit in the office and model?

nyolci
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 9, 2021 12:42 am

Once again, models all the way down! Science *used* to be measuring things in order to form hypotheses.

Hey [TJ]im, you may be the Tsar of Metrology 😉 but the Muzhik of Reading Comprehension. However, this is your Lucky Day, I’m here to the rescue! Lemme give you a helping hand, you’re apparently lost. Again. Must be a familiar situation 🙂
This guy [Justin Mathias] speaks about his plans in his new position in California, after a very long and seemingly fruitful research in West Virginia where they measured a lot and “synthesized published tree ring studies”. See? Easy! Just you have to understand the text.
So our Justin wants to utilize the results of measurements (including his own ones), making sense of it w/r/t current Climate Science.

Last edited 25 days ago by nyolci
fred250
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 2:50 am

WOW, d’nyholist come out with a manic RANT pertaining to absolutely nothing.

““synthesized published tree ring studies””

.

you mean the tree rings studies were synthetic..

.. isn’t that what everyone has been saying . you are a moron, d’nyholist.

Reply to  fred250
February 9, 2021 3:17 am

You are bending over for nyolci, and he’s gonna ream you, bro’ (say bra). “Synthesize” means to form a whole from many parts.
Why, oh why, dear lord, do they hide the dictionary under their bible? Then they read neither!

D.Anderson
Reply to  paranoid goy
February 9, 2021 8:15 am

I hope you people are not like this in real life.

Reply to  D.Anderson
February 9, 2021 9:33 am

No, actually, we have to get wally drunk before we grow any sense of humour. Then we descend into beligerence. Before long, we imagine we can dance. Back home, we snarf down a microwave burrito before we switch on the interweb-thingy.
I don’t have a cat to kick…

fred250
Reply to  paranoid goy
February 9, 2021 12:25 pm

“I don’t have a cat to kick…”

.

Just yourself. and you do it regularly.

ATheoK
Reply to  fred250
February 9, 2021 7:48 pm

And tough to do with both feet stuck at the adenoids.

ATheoK
Reply to  D.Anderson
February 9, 2021 7:47 pm

This is real life.

ATheoK
Reply to  paranoid goy
February 9, 2021 7:47 pm

And another claiming others lack reading comprehension. Then totally gets the definition of synthesize entirely wrong.

synthesize verb

syn·​the·​size | \ ˈsin(t)-thə-ˌsīz  \

synthesizedsynthesizing

Definition of synthesize

transitive verb

1

to combine or produce by synthesis

2

to make a synthesis of

3

to produce (something, such as music) by an electronic synthesizer

intransitive verb

to make a synthesis”

Reply to  ATheoK
February 9, 2021 10:46 pm

Ooohh! So clever! In the context the word was used, and misinterpreted, my definition is sufficient and correct. Whereas your definitions are from a thesaurus, not a dictionary.
Now go look that up.

ATheoK
Reply to  fred250
February 9, 2021 7:43 pm

And the clueless d’nyholist believes it has the credibility to slight others as lacking reading comprehension…

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 8:53 am

Nyloci —> Maybe it would behoove you to take a remedial course in reading comprehension. Learning to read the whole article is part of being a good reader!

The article ends with “Instead of measuring plants, I form hypotheses and seek out answers to questions using computer models and math.”

Exactly what does that tell you? It tells me he is no longer measuring plants, but instead he uses a computer to make up hypotheses and find answers to those hypotheses using models.

In other words, models all the way down!

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
February 9, 2021 10:00 am

Maybe it would behoove you to take a remedial course in reading comprehension. Learning to read the whole article is part of being a good reader!

Trying to turn the tables? You should try harder 🙂

It tells me he is no longer measuring plants, but instead he uses a computer to make up hypotheses and find answers to those hypotheses using models.

You (or your Tim alter ego) was fumbling about the following:

Science *used* to be measuring things in order to form hypotheses.

But it turned out Justin would be doing exactly this.

DonM
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 11:26 am

What the hell are you babbling about?

Justin: “Since moving to California, my work has taken a turn from being in the field, collecting measurements, analyzing data and writing manuscripts,” Mathias said. “My new position is more focused on ecological theory and ecosystem modeling. Instead of measuring plants, I form hypotheses and seek out answers to questions using computer models and math.”

Past: used to work in the field and utilize field work.

Now: ecological theorist using models and math.

Nycoli (BAD PARAPHRASE): “So our Justin wants to utilize the results of measurements (including his own ones), making sense of it w/r/t current Climate Science.”

There is no need to re-write what our Justin said. It is clear. He wants to be an ecological theorist and dabble in ecosystem modeling (computers and math), while mentoring others … instead of measuring plants.

It’s certainly not ‘models all the way down’, but if you feel the need to exaggerate to make your point (what is it anyway?), then You must be aware that there is something wrong with your point. Don’t exaggerate … just say ‘Hey, he actually did field work for the subject article … it appears that the guess work with the models and theory start now … now that he has a PhD.’

stinkerp
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 11:42 am

Try reading for comprehension. Gorman didn’t address the findings or the measurements they did for this particular study which we all read and understood, as did Gorman, I’m sure. He was making a separate point about the fact that climate science is mostly derived from models, not from measurements.

In fact that’s the fundamental reason that the findings of climate scientists reported in the media are so divorced from reality; because it has almost nothing to do with the real world. But very few people know that because they haven’t take the time to see how they derive their apocalyptic declarations. For example, models say up to 4.8° C warming and 0.82 meters of sea level rise (or more) by 2100, but measurements suggest around 1.4° C and 0.3 meters of sea level rise (or less), consistent with recent natural warming since the end of the Little Ice Age in the late 1800’s.

Last edited 25 days ago by stinkerp
David A
Reply to  nyolci
February 10, 2021 7:15 am

Diverting the post to petty linguistic debate misses the take away from the substance of major CO2 benefits, in this case;

“Since 1901, the intrinsic water use efficiency of trees worldwide has risen by approximately 40% in conjunction with an increase of approximately 34% in atmospheric carbon dioxide.”

The same is true for every crop on the planet. Do you cognise these overwhelming benefits, or only focus on theoretical harms that fail to manifest?

Will
Reply to  Tim Gorman
February 9, 2021 4:03 am

Their computer model “results” are nothing more than an extension of their hypothesis…if they even have one.

Last edited 25 days ago by Will
noaaprogrammer
February 8, 2021 6:15 pm

“There are also an infinite number of questions that are relevant moving forward,” Mathias said.

(Therefore, there are also an infinite number of grants, he thinks.)

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  noaaprogrammer
February 9, 2021 4:02 am

Forestry research has been intense for the past century. There are libraries full of it at universities that teach forestry. There is little new research being done. What this guy says is nothing new. Anyone who likes wood products- beware, the researchers will soon be saying we must lock up all the forests to save the climate.

Marc L.
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 9, 2021 7:16 am

Thankfully most forestry engineers still believe in wood harvesting because younger trees use up more CO2, so harvesting wood stimulates the capture of CO2.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Marc L.
February 9, 2021 7:25 am

Yes, forestry folks (foresters, loggers, sawmills, biomass facilities, forest owners) still believe in it- but- some governments are making it more difficult every day- with over regulation and simply outlawing biomass power plants. Here in Massachusetts- the state owns several hundred thousand acres of forest but most of it is locked up. The state is now pitching the idea that the prime value of forests should be to store carbon- not produce wood products and energy. They fail to grasp that without wood products, how will homes and furniture be made? Paper products? I keep reminding state politicians and enviros about this but they ignore me.

aussiecol
February 8, 2021 6:22 pm

”…Our work shows yet another important reason to preserve and maintain our forests and keep them healthy.”

All the more reason to have a vibrant forest industry. A continual rotation of young trees is co2 positive. A mature forest is co2 neutral with associated rotting vegetation and rot within the trees emitting as much co2 as they absorb.
The argument used by greens that forests should be locked up to mitigate climate change is a furphy.
Even the IPCC states,
”A sustainable forest management strategy aimed at maintaining or increasing forest carbon stocks, while producing an annual sustained yield of timber, fibre or energy from the forest, will generate the largest sustained mitigation benefit.”

Loydo
Reply to  aussiecol
February 8, 2021 6:42 pm

I don’t think you’ll find anyone disagreeing with that statement.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Loydo
February 9, 2021 4:06 am

Maybe not on this blog- but they’re out there- especially in Massachusetts. A leader of this movement to end forestry is Dr. Bill Moomaw, a former professor at Tuffs. He’s been pushing a new, ignorant theory, he calls “proforestation”- which essentially says we must lock up the forests. He was active on the IPCC for many years. He recently had a discussion with the Dali Lama and saint Greta Thunberg- it’s on YouTube. This ending of all tree cutting is a plank in the new climate alarmist religion.

Loydo
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 9, 2021 11:42 am

Moomaw is not against agroforsety or plantation forestry, so calling proforestaion a call to end forestry is incorrect.

aussiecol
Reply to  Loydo
February 9, 2021 1:14 pm

Tell that to Bob Brown and Adam Bandt

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  aussiecol
February 8, 2021 8:53 pm

Loydo is confused.

The GreenTards present a choice:
Wood chips for “renewable” bio fuel or forests left for future generations?
Pick one.
That is not a False Dilemma Fallacy. That is actually where we are.
And without Fossil Fuels and no Nuclear power … the forests will be sacrificed by future generations if we impoverish them today with Green Virtue.

Last edited 26 days ago by joelobryan
Loydo
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 8, 2021 11:08 pm

Do you disagree?

LdB
Reply to  Loydo
February 9, 2021 5:39 am

From observation and comments most greens seem to prefer we burn the whole forest in seasonal bushfires which takes threatened species to the brink of extinction. On the bright note once all the trees and rare species are gone it makes it ideal areas for new housing subdivisions.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 9, 2021 4:16 am

You don’t know what you’re talking about. I do as I’ve been a forester since Nixon was in the White House. We can produce wood chips and IMPROVE the forests. And, most of all, it’s NOT something the greens want- they actually hate it. I’ve been debating them for many years over this subject. The irony is that the greens worship wind and solar- so much- that they’re willing to sacrifice millions of acres of forest to install wind and solar “farms”- but then in the same breath- they tell us to end forestry to save the climate. Harvesting LOW GRADE trees for chips helps us do the bet possible forestry- without that market, we’d need to leave those low grade trees in the forest- it’s called “high grading”- which lowers the future potential of the forest. Also, nobody is going to cut a tree containing a sawlog and burn it. A strong market for chips will allow us to grow better sawlogs worth a great deal- and that will encourage owners to do better long term forestry. You’re right that Green Virtue will sacrifice the forests- but not for chips- but to install those monstrous solar farms. Already, several thousand acres of forest in Mass. have been destroyed for solar “farms”. The state’s energy czar just claimed that even if every building in the state has solar on its roof- and if we install several thousand wind turbines- we’ll still need to have 60-120 thousand acres of solar “farms” to be net free by 2050. And most of that will be in forests. So, the forests will be sacrificed for solar, not chips- though, to destroy the forests, much of the wood will have to go to firewood and what few biomass power plants still exist in New England.

menace
Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
February 9, 2021 8:33 am

Actually genetic (mad) science may be of help there…

https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/article/scientists-have-discovered-a-way-to-make-trees-grow-bigger-and-faster/

grow more tree mass on less acreage to harvest for paper mills, etc.

so may be no need to harvest from natural forests to expand for wood chip production if you can increase existing tree farm production dramatically

nut unlike the agricultural green revolution breakthroughs that dramatically increased farm productivity in the latter 20th century and staved off the Malthusian mass starvation predictions

this article was 2015 wonder if much progress has been made – you’d think paper industry would be investing

nyolci
Reply to  aussiecol
February 9, 2021 1:45 am

A mature forest is co2 neutral with associated rotting vegetation and rot within the trees emitting as much co2 as they absorb.

Actually this study above says otherwise. They say “the main driver of trees’ increased water efficiency was increased photosynthesis – they processed more carbon dioxide.” They didn’t say anything about mature forests, did they? 😉
Like Tim above, you need to improve your Reading Comprehension skills. You need more practicing. Work on it!

DonM
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 11:33 am

This post/study says nothing about the age of the trees/forest.

Again, if you feel the need to exaggerate (to protect your view) then You must know that there is something wrong with your point of view.

aussiecol
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 1:19 pm

Simply making an observation Nyolci, of how hypocritical so called green logic can be.

Bill Rocks
Reply to  aussiecol
February 9, 2021 5:34 am

aussiecol is correct.

Study shows that conifer forests of the Pacific Northwest (USA & southern Canada) are the most effective forests for capturing CO2 from the atmosphere and the effect is significant. The extraordinary uptake of carbon occurs when the trees are young whereas growth greatly diminishes when the trees age to about 60+ years. Yes, old forests of this type have a great deal of dead and rotting wood = transforming back to CO2. But, admittedly, the old forests do have many desirable characteristics, also.

Bob Hunter
Reply to  aussiecol
February 9, 2021 11:17 am

Actually much of the rotting vegetation within the trees is absorbed into the soil
ie not carbon neutral for a mature tree

Bill Everett
Reply to  aussiecol
February 10, 2021 12:52 pm

Why does the mapping of CO2 using satellite data show high CO2 levels where broadleaf vegetation, and especially forests, are located?

February 8, 2021 6:26 pm

“making forests even more important in regulating the Earth’s atmosphere and forever shift how we think about climate change.”

indicating they were CO2 starved

Robert of Texas
Reply to  billtoo
February 8, 2021 6:57 pm

The Greenies will say we are making our trees obese.

PCman999
Reply to  Robert of Texas
February 8, 2021 9:42 pm

You genuinely made me laugh! I could see it too, when CO2 reaches 450 or more with no climate collapse, but the world say 50% greener than when satellites first started measuring it – we’ll have to stop fossil fuels use to stop the runaway greening effect!

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Robert of Texas
February 9, 2021 4:20 am

What’s important to a forester is to make some obese but not others. We want high value species- and excellent specimens of those species to become obese- and very valuable. Veneer quality timber- that is large- is worth a fortune. If a forest is producing value at a fast rate- it’s just like any investement in your investment portfolio- you’ll keep investing in the same place. High value growth in forests is the best way to conserve the forests. When the value growth is low, private forest owners look for ways to dump the land- and that often means development, or, God forbid, solar/wind “farms”.

Climate believer
Reply to  billtoo
February 8, 2021 11:06 pm

“indicating they were CO2 starved”

Bingo!

nyolci
Reply to  billtoo
February 9, 2021 1:47 am

indicating they were CO2 starved

Well, no. Indicating that they are acting differently when CO2 levels are higher. (Just try to find anything about CO2 starvation in the article below.)

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 2:44 am

d’nyholist is at it yet again

Showing its blatant IGNORANCE and d’nyholism about plant growth

So empty-sock !

“Indicating that they are acting differently when CO2 levels are higher.”

.

Yes, because PLANTS NEED CO2,

…. and 280ppm or below is like asking a leftist to live on stale bread and water.

MUCH MORE is needed to reach optimum plant growth.

Marc L.
Reply to  fred250
February 9, 2021 7:27 am

At CO2 levels of 400 or above, they go from bread and water to quinoa and kale.

Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 3:46 am

It’s to pay attention not to decrease CO2 to the lower level of trees needs as we had with the presumed 280 ppm in the atmosphere

DonM
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 11:41 am

Growing more vigorously, and utilizing water/nutrients more efficiently is not ‘acting differently’.

… more exaggeration …

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 11:56 am

If an increase of any nutrient causes the plant to grow better, that is evidence that the tree wasn’t getting as much of that nutrient as needed. IE, it was starved of that nutrient.
Once again nyolci refuses to understand what is in front of him. However his ego won’t permit him to admit that, so he has to pretend that it’s others who don’t know what they are doing.

Peta of Newark
February 8, 2021 6:28 pm

So many wrongs……

Steve Reddish
February 8, 2021 6:38 pm

“This study really highlights the role of forests and their ecosystems in climate change,” said Thomas,

No, the study revealed changes in tree growth in response to increased CO2 in the atmosphere, not any role of forests in causing climate change, or any responses to climate change.
They don’t understand the difference?

Last edited 26 days ago by Steve Reddish
Mike
Reply to  Steve Reddish
February 8, 2021 8:52 pm

They don’t understand the difference?”

For them co2 caused warming is a given. It’s totally beyond question.
I’ve heard many times….”It’s not about the science anymore, it’s about doing the right thing.”

PCman999
Reply to  Steve Reddish
February 8, 2021 9:44 pm

The difference that needs to be understood is that he gets a larger grant with less fuss if he mentions climate change.

nyolci
Reply to  Steve Reddish
February 9, 2021 1:53 am

not any role of forests in causing climate change, or any responses to climate change.

Hey, you genius, they were speaking about role in climate change. Not role in causing climate change. They didn’t claim forests cause climate change. They actually claim forests indirectly (and slightly) moderating climate change. Neither they claim this shows any response to climate change. This is response to CO2 levels.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 2:56 am

“This is response to CO2 levels.”

.

Yep , and PLANT LIFE IS LUVIN’ that extra CO2.

Increased atmospheric CO2 is, in fact, THE BEST WAY TO “GREEN” THE PLANET.

Wouldn’t you agree, d’nyholist !!

comment image

Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 3:51 am

You didn’t understand what Steve said, it is his opinion, not stating what the paper said.

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 9, 2021 10:05 am

You didn’t understand what Steve said, it is his opinion, not stating what the paper said.
Well, Steve said “[as opposed to their claim the study did not reveal] any role of forests in causing climate change, or any responses to climate change.” But hey, the study didn’t claim anything like this.

Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 11:59 am

Better read again what Steve said, as often as possible for better understanding.

Steve Reddish
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 6:44 am

“This is response to CO2 levels.”
Your concluding point is almost a direct quote of my point:
“the study revealed changes in tree growth in response to increased CO2 in the atmosphere”.
I’m glad I was able to help you understand the truth of the study.

nyolci
Reply to  Steve Reddish
February 9, 2021 10:10 am

“the study revealed changes in tree growth in response to increased CO2 in the atmosphere”

and this is clearly has a role in climate change as per the study’s author, contrary to what you claim.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 11:58 am

WRONG as always

CO2 has NOTHING to do with real climate change.

Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:00 pm

You miss the point again. Who wonders ?

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:21 pm

“and this is clearly has a role in climate change as per the study’s author”

.

Of course the author had to make a “climate change” reference (even thought totally irrelevant and not part of anything that was actually studied)

It was an added-in BASELESS opinion.. like your comments.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 11:58 am

Once again, nyolci’s desperate need to feel superior to others, causes him to strain at gnats in order to find something, anything, to disagree with.

February 8, 2021 6:43 pm

Can trees be…you know….too successful….suck up too much CO2? What about algae? Why don’t you study algae? Algae matters too.

LdB
Reply to  T. C. Clark
February 9, 2021 5:41 am

They suck up CO2 until they burn 🙂

Steve Reddish
February 8, 2021 6:47 pm

2nd point: Are tree biologists learning that temperature isn’t the only variant affecting ring size?

Davidf
Reply to  Steve Reddish
February 8, 2021 7:10 pm

Any forester would have told them that

PCman999
Reply to  Davidf
February 8, 2021 9:46 pm

But that would require leaving the computer in the comfy office for the trip into the scary forest where their fancy shoes might get dirty.

nyolci
Reply to  PCman999
February 9, 2021 1:57 am

But that would require leaving the computer in the comfy office for the trip into the scary forest

This is the “how to be wrong again” day… The guy on the lead picture is the principal author of the study. Taking measurements in the fukkin forest.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 2:59 am

‘d’nyholist at its worst, yet again

displaying its totally inadequate reading and comprehension skills

““My new position is more focused on ecological theory and ecosystem modeling. Instead of measuring plants, I form hypotheses and seek out answers to questions using computer models and math”

Last edited 25 days ago by fred250
Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 4:24 am

Sure, but “forest researchers” don’t spend much time out there like “working stiff foresters” who spend their lives out there. yet, the researchers don’t listen to the working stiff foresters since most of us don’t have PhDs from ivey league colleges.

nyolci
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 9, 2021 10:13 am

yet, the researchers don’t listen to the working stiff foresters

What a piece of bs… Yes, they do.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:00 pm

Isn’t it amazing how nyolci in addition to everything he believes he knows, is now familiar with all the foresters and researchers.

Jim Gorman
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 9:05 am

Read the whole article you twit.

The article ends with “Instead of measuring plants, I form hypotheses and seek out answers to questions using computer models and math.”

He is no longer stuck in the field measuring plant. Can you not read?

nyolci
Reply to  Jim Gorman
February 9, 2021 10:21 am

He is no longer stuck in the field measuring plant.

And what? I was reacting to PCman99’s strawman argument. PCstrawman99 if you wish.
Anyway, Justin started with measurements, now it’s hypothesis time! As you wanted. But didn’t notice. Furthermore, he’ll be doing measurements for sure. Old habits don’t die.

DonM
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 11:45 am

fer sur man

Doonman
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 11:51 am

Wow, not only can nyolci read better than anyone else, he is psychic too.

fred250
Reply to  Doonman
February 9, 2021 12:00 pm

he is psychic too.

.

You meant, “a psycho” didn’t you !

nyolci
Reply to  Steve Reddish
February 9, 2021 1:55 am

Are tree biologists learning that temperature isn’t the only variant affecting ring size?

Ugh, a genius again. So, they weren’t talking about ring size. They were talking about isotopic variations in rings.

Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 3:56 am

But you know, in climate science they use to take tree ring size as thermometer, so it’s not bad at all to mention what Steve said.

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 9, 2021 10:21 am

in climate science they use to take tree ring size as thermometer

When they reconstruct temperature. Not in this case. You genius…

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:03 pm

Are you really as clueless as your posts make you sound?

Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:03 pm

You genius don’t understand any meaning.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 4:28 am

Yuh, but that resulted in increased photosynthesis- resulting in larger growth rings. He couldn’t just say there were larger rings- that might not get passed peer review. He had to sound more technical- more bullshit.

nyolci
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 9, 2021 10:24 am

He couldn’t just say there were larger rings

They didn’t care about ring size you doofus. They investigated isotopic relations.

DonM
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 11:49 am

If trees grow faster (ring size) and they didn’t care about it (as any kind of a variable), then they are biased and doing something wrong. It may not have been included as primary, but they should have cared about it.

Again, saying they didn’t care about it … exaggeration (for what purpose?).

Last edited 25 days ago by DonM
MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:03 pm

isotopic relationships as measured by changing ring sizes.

Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:04 pm

They always care about, ever. it’s their job.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:01 pm

In nyolci’s world, changing tree ring sizes has nothing to do with changing tree ring sizes.
It looks like nyolci really doesn’t understand the meanings of the big words he’s found.

RickWill
February 8, 2021 6:52 pm

trees around the world are consuming more carbon dioxide than previously reported, making forests even more important in regulating the Earth’s atmosphere and forever shift how we think about climate change.

Does not shift my view so I hope the author is not including me in “we”. I have always considered more CO2 important for forest and crop productivity. There is no doubt that trees make any land more suited to habitation.

Maybe not a 60m tall eucalyptus tree situated a few metres from a house in Australia but certainly small trees in the vicinity of the house and large forest trees 100 to 200m from the house. Forest canopy certainly improves the local climate of an area.

MarkW
Reply to  RickWill
February 8, 2021 7:48 pm

If trees are consuming more CO2, it’s a safe bet that most other types of plants are doing so as well.

TonyG
Reply to  MarkW
February 9, 2021 8:21 am

There isn’t a model for that, so obviously they are not.

Reply to  RickWill
February 9, 2021 3:24 am

“There is no doubt that trees make any land more suited to habitation.”
Come see waht happens when you plant millions of eucalyptus all over the landscape where they don’t belong. Watch the water table drop, the grassland die off, the undergrowth consisting of nothing but dry eucalyptus leaves…
Generalisations and unsubstantiated truisms are as bad as climastrology.

DonM
Reply to  paranoid goy
February 9, 2021 11:52 am

nit

Robert of Texas
February 8, 2021 6:56 pm

(Palm to face)

So he is going from real science where you measure real things, collect the data, and then analyze it…to building a model, making up data, and producing whatever output that most pleases you?

Models are 100% useless without real data and observation to compare them to… PLEASE keep getting out into the field.

DonM
Reply to  Robert of Texas
February 9, 2021 11:54 am

My guess is that he was saying he wanted to mentor students (have them in the field doing the work for him), while he perfected the field of ‘theoretical ecologist’.

Last edited 25 days ago by DonM
Conor Duggan
February 8, 2021 6:56 pm

I find it interesting considering how many of these studies emphasize the importance of forests that few articles even mention the boreal forest.
That gigantic carbon sink in the northern hemisphere is barely mentioned, even by the federal Canadian government who wants to spend taxpayer’s money planting more trees in a country that already has billions of acres of them. When things open up again I’d encourage anyone who has a notion to do so to take a trip up to Whitehorse and view the endless sea of green that is just a portion of this giant natural forest. That way you can see with your own eyes what politicians, the media and sections of academia seem to have forgotten the exists.

Chris*
Reply to  Conor Duggan
February 8, 2021 9:44 pm

The Chinese are chopping down the Siberian forest at a rate exceeding that which the Russians agreed upon. This may have interesting consequences.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Chris*
February 9, 2021 4:32 am

Once consequence is that they’re flooding the world timber markets with that cheap lumber- hurting the forest industries in Europe and North America. And when we import that lumber into North America, it brings in invasive pests.

DonM
Reply to  Chris*
February 9, 2021 11:57 am

consequences will include massive fire as they fail to manage the re-growth.

Pat from kerbob
Reply to  Conor Duggan
February 9, 2021 6:45 am

We have 300 billion trees
Trudeau’s inevitably broken pledge to plant 2 billion is unnoticeable

Steve Reddish
February 8, 2021 7:00 pm

Point 3: “This helps us get a little closer to making those predictions less uncertain.”
Is he admitting the uncertainties in their predictions are huge? I noticed he didn’t say their predictions were getting more certain.

nyolci
Reply to  Steve Reddish
February 9, 2021 2:01 am

Is he admitting the uncertainties in their predictions are huge?

No. This was the short and very obvious answer. The longer answer (that will show you why it’s obvious) is that “decreasing uncertainty” doesn’t say anything about the extent of uncertainty. It only says that the resulting uncertainty will be smaller than before. I hope you can understand this. I have doubts…

Steve Reddish
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 7:01 am

“”decreasing uncertainty” doesn’t say anything…”
You are using quotes (the inner quotes are yours) around words not actually written?
A misquote is actually a false claim, known as a “lie” to most.
Why are you so driven to denigrate others on this forum that you have to lie?

nyolci
Reply to  Steve Reddish
February 9, 2021 10:26 am

You are using quotes (the inner quotes are yours) around words not actually written?

No. I used quotes to signify an expression. I could’ve used italics or whatever. And this didn’t change the fact that you were plain wrong.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:05 pm

The errors in the predictions are huge, regardless of whether you and this future forester admit it.

DonM
Reply to  Steve Reddish
February 9, 2021 12:00 pm

I noticed that too. But I gave him a little credit for not saying ‘… making those predictions MORE certain”.

Smart Rock
February 8, 2021 7:06 pm

You mean – it’s not as bad as we thought?

Heresy! Apostay! Fire that guy! Cut off his funding! Deplatform him! Cancel him!

Davidf
February 8, 2021 7:07 pm

Foresters have been using Growth Models for decades. The difference to Climate scientists, is that there is a whole network of Permanent Sample Plots established across the spectrum of sites and species, that are measured periodically. These measurements are used to validate the model outputs, or to update the models where required. Without that process, the models are completely lacking in any facility to predict future stand growth, and to be of use in planning and managing future forest growth and yield.

The contrast to how Climate models are being utilized is stark!

No validation, no use!

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  Davidf
February 9, 2021 4:37 am

Those permanent plots are OK but not really sufficient to validate models as there is roughly one plot per 10 square miles. But it’s a lot better than the data used to model climate.

John in Oz
February 8, 2021 7:28 pm

New research from West Virginia University biologists

Our research shows that forests consume large amounts of carbon dioxide globally.

Is this really new research? I thought the action of trees absorbing CO2 was settled science and known for some time.


nyolci
Reply to  John in Oz
February 9, 2021 2:09 am

Is this really new research? I thought the action of trees absorbing CO2 was settled science and known for some time.

Well, they were speaking about a different thing. I know it’s hard to understand, that’s why science is done by trained experts (scientists), they don’t get confused by a statement like above. Normally, a forest is carbon neutral (there are seasonal variations etc.). Increased CO2 increases a forest’s CO2 absorption. This is still common sense. The guy above proved that this increase was even bigger than they had thought before. Scientists start to understand these mechanisms with increased precision. All in all forests slightly moderate CO2 buildup in the atmosphere, and this effect is stronger than they assumed before.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 3:09 am

“I know it’s hard to understand, that’s why science is done by trained experts”

.

Its obvious that d’nyholist has never done any science, despite all it yapping.

Its more like a trained monkey.

How many time have we said that PLANTS LUV CO2 !

And that CO2 is one of the major necessities for ALL LIFE ON EARTH.

At least the d’nyholist may be starting to realise just how important it is to continue to feed the world’s plant life,

…and just how ANTI-SCIENCE and ANTI-LIFE the CO2-hatred campaign is.

Seems d’nyholist has finally realised that if we want to ensure a thriving green planet for the future…

… the very last thing the world should be doing is trying to minimise CO2 emissions.

Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 3:30 am

“..guy above proved..”wharra wharra wharra. Dude, stop being so rude to everyone. ‘the guy above’ didn’t prove no nothing, at least not as far as the article goes, which is full of assertions, and zero proof. Do you have the chemical analysis, exact dates exact CO2 levels, exact air chemistry analysis, exact water chemistry, soil analysis etc that MAY be used as EVIDENCE for his hypothesis? His evidence could be indicative of weather on Venus and Jupiter, for all we know…
You do remember from your extensive readings and regurgitations thereof, that evidence does not constitute proof, yes?

nyolci
Reply to  paranoid goy
February 9, 2021 3:51 am

Dude, stop being so rude to everyone

I can’t! You always provoke me 🙂

Last edited 25 days ago by nyolci
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 5:01 am

I see your one provocation and raise you three self-biased assholes. Playing devil’s advocate is fun, but sometimes you don’t even read what you are dissing. Makes the rest of your thoughts seem self-admiring? To the point certain people jerk their knees just seeing your name. Which is their problem, I know… maybe be the adult in the room you think you are. Your haters often aren’t.

Loydo
Reply to  paranoid goy
February 9, 2021 8:39 pm

in 3, 2, 1…

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:03 pm

d’nyholist’s bluster is its way of hiding its deep seated inferiority simplex.

Arrogance to hide blatant ignorance.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:07 pm

Saying things you disagree with counts as provoking?
Definitely a far left progressive.

Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 4:03 am

Your sarc detector, if present, has a large defect.
Climate Sciece and what’s related with, is settled, we hear and read every day. And every day appears a study, a first, a new telling us, science is all, but not settled.
Did you understand that now ?
I doubt 😀

nyolci
Reply to  Krishna Gans
February 9, 2021 10:38 am

And every day appears a study, a first, a new telling us, science is all, but not settled.

“settled” means we know the large picture. These new results don’t change that but refine the results. Just as an example, consider Physics. It has two incomplete and incompatible mathematical models, the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics. In everyday life we overwhelmingly use a third model, the Newtonian, that is an approximation of both above models at certain sizes and energy levels. Actually, both theories are kinda refinements of the good old Newtonian. We don’t say the Newtonian is wrong. So climate science is settled, but we don’t know a lot of details with enough precision.

Doonman
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:03 pm

Yes, climate science is settled. All arctic ice has melted and children no longer know what snow is. We’ve already reached that point of the prediction based on the theory.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:06 pm

roflmao

What a load of zero-thought garbage in a vain attempt to make a pointless.

“means we know the large picture.”

.

Like you , they only “think” they do..

Like you, they are plumb ignorant.

—-

“These new results don’t change that but refine the results.”

.

Wont be long until they wake up to the whole picture

PLANTS NEED CO2, and will use up what is available to ENHANCE plant growth.

Plants provide sustenance for ALL LIFE ON EARTH

Now all they have to do is figure out the fact that enhanced atmospheric CO2 DOES NOT affect the climate in any way whatsoever,

… and all these dumb and idiotic “zero carbon” and other anti-CO2, anti-life agendas can be relegated to the GARBAGE where they belong.

Last edited 25 days ago by fred250
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:12 pm

Blah, blah, blah
Climate Science is settled, so settled, it needs no discussion, everybody being skeptic is an heretic, we have consense.
For you information, we even don’t know the large picture, because CO2 is the knob controling all. Never heard ?
Learn something bevore telling BS.

Joseph Zorzin
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 4:38 am

“Normally, a forest is carbon neutral”
No, unless mature, the forest is growing- so it’s carbon negative.

nyolci
Reply to  Joseph Zorzin
February 9, 2021 10:39 am

No, unless mature, the forest is growing- so it’s carbon negative.

Yep, I meant mature forest.

Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:13 pm

Show me a mature forrest. Most forrest if not all have young and new trees, more or less successfull becoming adult.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:07 pm

Once again, nyolci let’s his ego get in the way of actually understanding the subject in front of him.

MarkW
February 8, 2021 7:47 pm

If trees are using water more efficiently, does this mean that humidity is going down in forest lands?

PCman999
Reply to  MarkW
February 8, 2021 9:51 pm

Trying to follow your logic, but even in a closed system, if the trees were more efficient water users they would use less, leaving more in the environment. But the real world isn’t that easy. I would think in a warming world the global humidity would be going up.

Rud Istvan
February 8, 2021 7:55 pm

Two observations.
First, it should never take 7 years to get a PhD. I almost (long story) did it at Harvard in 6 months. Chose the HLS/HBS joint program as more profitable.

Second, the fact that all C3 plants thrive with more CO2 and less water is NOT new news. Their leaf stomata mechanism has been known for decades, and explains observed Sahel greening. The recent evolution of rarer C4 ‘dry’ plants is in perfect accord.

Erik Magnuson
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 8, 2021 8:44 pm

The key point was that the leaf stomata mechanism turns out to be a minor contributor to water use efficiency based on data taken of carbon and oxygen isotopes. That raised my eyebrows…

gringojay
Reply to  Erik Magnuson
February 9, 2021 1:32 am

Instead if fixating on stomata the research credits elevated CO2 (eCO2) assimilation benefit of water interaction with photosynthesis. Plants use water to supply electrons used processing CO2 in photosynthesis & hydrogen ions.

The chloroplasts integral to photosynthesis have sub-units spanning the leaf thylakoid membrane with sub-units entering the stroma of a chloroplast. These coupled mechanisms are an enzyme complex, which when the ring sub-unit of the intervening lipid layer rotates gets H+ hydrogen ions (derived from water) moving through the coupled feature.

Basically, when H+ gets moved in a chloroplast coupling array differences in the concentration of H+ between places where the chloroplast spans creates different pH gradient conditions. It is how & where this electro-chemical pH gradient exists (not, as one might assume, the flow of electrons occasioned by photosynthesis) that higher plants use to make their ATP in light.

Remember, assimilation of every 3 CO2 requires 9 ATP (+ some other things) to yield the 3 carbon molecule building block “3PGA” C3H3O3P (+ some other things).
And then ATP is needed to regenerate for reuse the Rubisco involved in forming 3PGA.

Now readers should be made aware that eCO2 is known to reduce internal plant ammonia. By allaying the level of ammonia that gets into the thylakoid lumen below a strategic molar concentration the ammonia that gets in avoids being proton-ated and subsequently forming ions of ammonium; whereas a high ammonia concentration in there provokes the formation of ammonium ions.

In effect, by limiting the production of ammonium ions eCO2 where chloroplasts operate sustains the vital pH gradient (outlined 3 paragraphs above). Meaning that the use of H+ from water is more efficient under eCO2 since each CO2 the leaf gets in requires 3 ATP (+ some other things) to assimilate that CO2 molecule into becoming part of the plant.

nyolci
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 9, 2021 2:23 am

First, it should never take 7 years to get a PhD.

Hm, a 6 month PhD would look a much easier target if I wanted to throw insults 🙂 Well, let’s say that I don’t thing Justin needs your mentoring. FYI at our (research) uni 3.5 years was considered extremely fast, and 5.5 was typical for a PhD (after the completion of MSc) in the mid 90s. Those PhDs were legendarily hard to obtain though. Most graduates continued in research afterwards.

Their leaf stomata mechanism has been known for decades

They explicitly state that this is not the leaf stomata mechanism. That only accounts for 17% of “greening”.

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 3:12 am

yep, processing more CO2 as well..

….because there is more CO2 available to be processed.

WOW, who woulda guessed, hey !!!

It really does bring into focus the UTTER STUPIDITY of trying to reduce CO2 emissions, ..

…. doesn’t it d’nyholist.

Last edited 25 days ago by fred250
nyolci
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 3:53 am

I don’t thing

Oops, ugly typo… “I don’t think”

Right-Handed Shark
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 4:53 am

We know you don’t think. No need for clarification.

nyolci
Reply to  Right-Handed Shark
February 9, 2021 10:42 am

We know you don’t think

‘Cos I want to be like you! 😉 I have to actively refuse thinking for that. Extremely hard and tiring. How can you do that with that ease?

fred250
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:08 pm

Poor d’nyholist.

trying SO HARD to cover up his ignorance with arrogant bluster.

So empty-sock.

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:10 pm

Anyone who doesn’t think as you do, doesn’t think.
Definitely a far left progressive.

Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:15 pm

Do you know what thinking is ?
Or reflecting ?
I’m quite unvertain 😀

MarkW
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:09 pm

What typo, I thought you had finally decided to recognize reality?

DonM
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 12:13 pm

Thank You,

Finally a post without exaggeration.

LdB
Reply to  nyolci
February 9, 2021 6:04 am

Most STEM areas have caps on the time at usually 7-8 years and the regular time to finish a PhD is typically three to four years and fast would be less than two. Go any longer than that and doctoral thesis will be so out of date to render it useless. It’s a biological science thesis area so the time probably doesn’t matter but it is slow.

Gordon A. Dressler
February 8, 2021 7:56 pm

This is, of course, very unsettling news.

Patrick MJD
February 8, 2021 10:25 pm

So a previously unknown unknown may now be a potential known? Who knew that!

David Hartley
February 8, 2021 10:36 pm

This is not new, the correlation between CO2 uptake and water efficiency, but I’m damned if I can remember where I picked up on it before. Are they already having to rehash things….oh wait a minute.

February 9, 2021 12:13 am

Hang on I’m confused – just a few hours ago trees were bad because bats like trees and bats make coronaviruses. Now trees are good again for absorbing CO2?

Make up your mind – do you want more CO2, or more bats 🦇 ??

Rod Evans
Reply to  Hatter Eggburn
February 9, 2021 12:58 am

Hatter,
It is an amusing conundrum for the Greens or Nut Nuts as they are being retitled these days. If you tell them the way to reduce human influence of the global ecosystems is to have less humans, they will nod in reserved general agreement Prince Charles will ask his mate the Oak tree as the bottom of the garden what he should think. We may come back to that. Anyway, if you then tell the Nut Nuts a study has found the advance in green growth brought on by the increase in CO2 means the virus hosting bat population is exploding and is giving rise to human population decrease, through deadly virus infection, they start to become confused. Think of Prince Charles’ father here, as he wants to be reincarnated as a deadly virus so he can decimate the world population, (seriously that is what he advised on air he wanted to do).
So if you want to save the natural world and you are a Nut Nuts advocate, the way to do it is to increase CO2, increase the bat habitat thus increase the virus load and if you really want to save the “Planet of the No Humans Allowed” invest in virus research at somewhere like Wuhan.
I write this as the snow continues to fall here in snowless Britain, if only Al had been even partly right, we could have been growing pineapples here in central UK by now.
Hey ho, Prince Philip (Charles’, I talk to the trees father) in not far off his desired deadly virus reincarnation, so you never know.

Right-Handed Shark
February 9, 2021 2:13 am

Well, it’s a step forward. However, it will be two steps back when they discover that living trees emit methane.

How far is it from West Virginia to Delaware?

Last edited 25 days ago by Right-Handed Shark
Sean
February 9, 2021 3:27 am

Interesting he ended up at UCSB. Using water more efficiently and more rapid photosynthesis means forest management in dry western climates becomes more critical for fuel load control. I don’t see the eco-zealots or the bureaucrats they empower embracing the action the science dictates.

Sara
February 9, 2021 4:39 am

So someone has finally figured out that the REAL world of biology works fine, and we are not doomed….? Just askin’.

OK, I will put away the “Doom On You!” t-shirts for now.

Just curious about the plant population coverage now, compared to the Carboniferous period, since we don’t have large herbivorous mammals roaming around (except for a couple of places, like Joe’s Bar & Grille – Tuskers Welcome), munching up all the green stuff.

Gordon A. Dressler
Reply to  Sara
February 9, 2021 7:31 am

” . . . since we don’t have large herbivorous mammals roaming around . . .”

Yeah, instead we have the human practice of clearcutting forests.

Sara
Reply to  Gordon A. Dressler
February 9, 2021 8:47 am

Yes, we do and I’m waiting to see just how much erosion of productive soil results from that practice, never mind hillsides and valleys. And it’s coming.

fretslider
February 9, 2021 4:59 am

 Instead of measuring plants, I form hypotheses and seek out answers to questions using computer models and math.”

Instead of growing crops, I draw them.

leowaj
Reply to  fretslider
February 9, 2021 8:05 am

Hey, hey, hey! People can eat the paper it’s drawn on! /extreme sarcasm

ResourceGuy
February 9, 2021 6:13 am

But the EU and UK mantra is cut it, mash it, shred it, cube it, and burn it–preferably from North American forests after hauling it.

beng135
February 9, 2021 7:19 am

Plants take up and use CO2 — who knew?

Sara
Reply to  beng135
February 9, 2021 8:48 am

Well, I knew and you knew, too, beng, so that means HE didn’t know.

Gerald Machnee
February 9, 2021 9:11 am

So then what is the purpose of the 400+ biofuel forest cutting sites in the USA as exposed by Michael Moore’s film?

February 9, 2021 10:21 am

“We demonstrate how forests perform another important service: acting as sinks for carbon dioxide.”

Was I wrong to suppose that to be obvious?

Doonman
February 9, 2021 11:34 am

“There are also an infinite number of questions that are relevant moving forward,” Mathias said.

But Al Gore said “The science is settled”.

Say, what ever happened to Al Gore anyway? Is he busy inventing new things or is the democrat party ignoring him on purpose?

Major Meteor
February 9, 2021 11:38 am

“I would love to run my own lab in a University, completely insulated from the real world and soak up taxpayer grant money”. That’s what he should have said. Just another trough feeder. However, his grants might get cut if he keeps producing studies that don’t sound scary.

Steve Z
February 9, 2021 12:59 pm

Mr. Mathias should concentrate on his measurements on plants, instead of becoming a research professor, disconnected from the real world.

His research is important, showing that the increase in CO2 concentrations in the air is making the earth greener.

RoHa
February 9, 2021 8:43 pm

But we’ve got to cut down the trees to feed the Drax power station. How else can we save the planet?

February 13, 2021 6:21 am

Their computer model “results” are nothing more than an extension of their hypothesis…if they even have one.

%d bloggers like this: