More CO2 is Good for Aspen

[Okrafarmer]

I would just say that I am a young earth creationist myself. I've come to my conclusions through much research and I don't expect anyone else to share my views, nor do I regard anyone else as a moron because they believe evolution is how we got here. I've sure had a few folks try to straighten me right out for being such a dummy however  That's all I'll say about the issue, back to the issue of CO2 and Aspen growth, how do we know we had more CO2 in the past? (That's an honest question, I don't how scientists measure this) If atmospheric CO2 was higher, why was it higher and how do we know that the rising levels we see now aren't a natural cycle, rather than man made? 

Thanks for stepping out there, BB, I'm glad I'm not the only dummy around here. Thanks for your post, Jeff, I knew it was dangerous to say something, and maybe I shouldn't have started down that road, but please understand I was not trying to make people angry-- funny how stating one's opinion and couching it with phrases like "I don't expect to change peoples' minds, this is just how I believe" can cause such anger-- I used to get angry about a lot of things in life but I've learned that anger rarely helps-- when I disagree with somebody and it isn't doing me or them immediate harm, I try not to get upset. I just hope people can understand that there's no need to be alarmed that somebody believes differently than you do-- instead of being alarmed, take a look at their position and remind yourself all the reasons you have your own convictions. I mean, come on, we could be arguing about which is better, Chevy or Ford, and I mean, both sides are very passionate and "know" they are right, and can't even begin to believe how silly that other person can be for believing Chevy or Ford is better-- or beef vs. chicken for lunch, or country vs. rock (I don't listen to either one) or pistol versus shotgun, or Woodmizer versus Timberking, etc etc etc.

So I'm sorry for offending anybody, and btw, just for the record, I was looking again for the 900' tree and although I found the website it was on I won't say that I believe that particular website to be totally reliable, and they quoted it from an old newspaper article, and we ALL know that newspapers aren't reliable. . . . right?  I would like to find the original article and see if I could locate the thing in person. . . . .

[John Mc]

Regardless of any personal belief on creationism vs evolution, I'd be interested to see it if you came across that 900 foot tree article, Okrafarmer. I had always thought tree height was limited by the limits of capillary action (or however trees get water and nutrients up to their crown). If there was something 900 ft tall, I wonder how it did it. If the climate was wet enough, it might be able to capture rainwater somehow. How to get nutrients up to the crown might still be a problem.

[JimTwoSticks]

Jeff, the Detroit Lions comment was all for you  . I noticed you were from MI and also remember seeing you post something about a lions game - I think related to the call to end the bears/lions game this year - so I figured I would jab you a little. It has been a long run of terrible in the lions camp but truthfully that should turn around with the talent you guys have managed to pick up....definitely should not be 0-3 this year with how much better they've played than in years past. Also, would not argue with you being "the man" of the forum and having your decision be the final judgment rendered.

With regard to the never ending creation "debate". I can assure you I wasn't getting angry, nor have I ever gotten angry (sometimes confused or shocked though) with anyone's opinion about this topic. I was simply pointing out what I see as blatant disregard for established biological principles. Okra, the arguments you presented Ford v. Chevy, pistols v. shotgun, country v. rock, etc. are not the same as the argument between life on earth being derived through the process of evolution and all life occurring in it's present form because God made it so a few thousand years ago. The latter argument involves clear cut data that is unambiguous while the others you mentioned deal with people's preferences. Are their unanswered questions that scientists regularly argue about? Definitely, that's how science advances. With evolutionary processes the vast amount of data collected and analyzed disagree with the idea that a "young earth" creation event occurred.

I've been reading this forum on and off for a couple years and have never really found any of the regular participants to be completely unreasonable. Passionate about some issues sure, but certainly not unreasonable. We are all adults and therefore should be able to carry on an argument about things like this without getting angry. If I offended anyone, I apologize and would hope that the member would let me know that what I posted offended them. My response would be to immediately stop pushing the issue and move on to reading other topics with the limited amount of time I have to read the forum on any given day.

So, back to the discussion. The 900 ft. tall tree also intrigues me. I seem to remember a theoretical maximum for tree height based on how water can flow through capillary action from undergrad forestry classes. Perhaps one of the more math oriented members knows how to calculate it or knows the answer off the top of their head.
The CO2 discussion has been fascinating to me for quite a while. Sure we can measure the ancient CO2 concentration from ice cores and can measure the current concentration through other devices but I don't see how the man-made global warming proponents can take this data and say that man is causing a change in the climate and if tomorrow we stopped producing CO2 the earth would be better off. Computer models I guess, but they are always full of assumptions.

[SwampDonkey]

Well, we are putting more stuff up there simply by burning more carbon based substances. But, if you guys follow Dr. David Suzuki and heard his theories on climate back in the 70's. He was convinced we were heading into global cooling. We had a few wet and very cold falls and winters. So happens the previous record was in the 70's for snowfall and before that in the 50's and the most recent is 2007. So it seems every 25-30 years we have a new record winter. Now I just surmise here, why normal highs and lows are calculated every 10 years on 30 year data. The way to think of that is you have a roll of film, say 90 frames worth. You have a viewing device that can only look at 10 frames at once. And as you advance up in frames another 10 frames you have another 10 years coming up in advance. But, the 10 frames looked at between 20th and 30th frames back aren't in the new average. Every 30 years the frost hardiness zone maps get updated, they just got adjusted again in the last year or so. For New Brunswick there was no change, but southern Ontario a slight increase in temps. Well it's getting build up a lot and there is such a thing as cities amplifying temperatures because of all those extra buildings and asphalt and so on. New Brunswick population in comparison has actually remained much the same, 50 % of us live out in the country.

I just realized why some of our coal fired plants are being taken offline. First the utility didn't want to upgrade them to keep them online. The Fed's have mandated more efficient and clean burning, so those all get shut down. In Europe they have been using 20 % or so biofuel (can't remember exactly), probably wood pellets, to cogen with coal. Found it burns cleaner, so I read in "Canadian Biomass Magazine" if anyone thumbed through the link in another thread.

[Okrafarmer]

"The latter argument involves clear cut data that is unambiguous while the others you mentioned deal with people's preferences. Are their unanswered questions that scientists regularly argue about? Definitely, that's how science advances. With evolutionary processes the vast amount of data collected and analyzed disagree with the idea that a "young earth" creation event occurred."

I Respectfully disagree. If you really want to know, I can show you many things that are evidence for a young earth. However there is no point discussing them if you have already made up your mind. Notice I said evidence, not proof. I do not claim to have proof. But I also claim that no one has proof of an old earth, either. But I guess this has progressed beyond aspens and C02. 

[JimTwoSticks]

Okra,
Do you really farm Okra?
 
I agree, it appears that this has progressed beyond aspen's response to CO2 concentration.

A really good friend of mine is a young earth creationist and we never got anywhere in our discussions either. But I can guarantee he has sent me many of the websites you have in mind in addition to nearly a bookshelf FULL of books describing the fundamentalist christian worldview  . I've read a great deal about it but the main contention I have with folks who follow this line of thinking is that scientific advancement is constantly occurring and you need to adjust how you feel about certain topics when the evidence presented shows that you may be incorrect.
The same thing happened when folks like Galileo suggested that the earth was not the center of the universe and in fact moved around the sun...not the other way around  . The church at that time went absolutely Ape S%$T. Turns out the guy was right and the church was wrong. This is just one of many examples.

I think the main point that needs to be made is that science and religion need not be at odds. I know many christian, jewish, hindu, muslim (you name it) scientists who view learning about our planet as exploring the place that god created. While I do not practice a particular religion and disagree with them I can appreciate their view that an all knowing, all powerful being could have easily created a system like the natural world with it's many complexities and interactions....including macroevolution and an incredibly old earth (4.6 billion years).
Note: I have yet to see any evidence for a young (approximately 6-7,000 yrs old) earth that passes the smell test.

[Okrafarmer]

"The same thing happened when folks like Galileo suggested that the earth was not the center of the universe and in fact moved around the sun...not the other way around  Shocked  . The church at that time went absolutely Ape S%$T. Turns out the guy was right and the church was wrong. This is just one of many examples."

Just to clarify-- the church was wrong, but the Bible was not. Yes, the Bible uses terms like "the sun rises in the east" but that is the same idiom we use today-- the people writing the Bible had a better idea of the universe than the "church" people of Galileo's day. The Bible does not teach an earth-centered universe, nor a sun-centered universe. We "Christians" are not all of the same mind, as you are no doubt aware, and my people would have had nothing in common with those who persecuted Galileo and his fellows. Galileo also would have called himself a Christian, but he had a bright, open, inquisitive, truth-seeking mind. The thought that life could have evolved would have been unthinkable to him. He was willing to face torture for his beliefs, and so are many people I know today. (not as many as I wish, though).

Anyway, I've produced a lot of hot CO2 discussing this topic, but I'm in good company if people don't take me seriously-- I understand old Noah had that problem too. 

To try to give this thread back to its original intentions, I invite anybody who would seriously like to know more of my thoughts on this subject to pm me and I will be happy to discuss it with you in private, but I will now close this tangent issue from this thread, at least as far as my own postings, though if anybody has any parting shots, feel free to let them fly. Or we could start a new thread about "I wonder what kind of sawmill Noah used to build the ark. . . ."

[JimTwoSticks]

The "do you really farm okra?" question was something I was really curious about. It's a pretty cool plant (with a loooong history  of cultivation)...and it tastes pretty good in gumbo.

Found an interesting article about temp and CO2 concentration rise that may not be good for all tree species in all areas. Pretty interesting but puts some of the interactions between the variables into perspective. (it's attached - it would have been anyway...but it's too large - over 600kb -  here is the link http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0011543


Well, I'll take my last parting shot on the issue unrelated to the post topic.
Okra, you can't rewrite the history books. What the church believed was not considered out of touch. It was the consensus of the time that the earth was the center of the universe. Nobody before copernicus (i think that's who first suggested it) suggested that the earth may not be the center of the universe. Also, when the bible was written the earth was still flat....and no, the writers did not know that it was a sphere. 

[SwampDonkey]

I much prefer buckwheat in my pancakes.

[Okrafarmer]

The "do you really farm okra?" question was something I was really curious about. It's a pretty cool plant (with a loooong history  of cultivation)...and it tastes pretty good in gumbo.

I do really raise it and sell it if that constitutes farming. I do like to make gumbo with it. It is pretty neat stuff.

[JimTwoSticks]

Sounds more like farming than some of the giant corporate farm operations that are nearly completely run by machine

[Okrafarmer]

Sounds more like farming than some of the giant corporate farm operations that are nearly completely run by machine

Yep. You hit the hammer on the head.  You said it very proficiently.