Damned fossil fueled moose
Researchers claim that moose are potentially a leading cause of climate change and that the species should be balanced, suggesting they are “one of the biggest potential single sources of carbon emissions from wooded parts of Norway.”
The Norwegian University of Science and Technology studied moose in Norwegian forests for several years and concluded that the species have a major effect on vegetation growth and are altering the carbon cycle by dining on tree buds. “Moose are an ecosystem engineer in the forest ecosystem, and strongly impact everything from the species composition and nutrient availability in the forest. A grown animal can eat 50 kilograms of biomass each day during summer,” Gunnar Austrheim, an ecologist at the NTNU University Museum, said in a press release.
Moose tend to eat birch and young samplings in clearcut forests, an act researchers claim is where the ungulates “gobble up” possible carbon storage in trees.
“It was really a surprise to see how much moose can influence vegetation growth, the carbon cycle and the climate system,” said Xiangping Hu, a researcher at NTNU’s Industrial Ecology (IndEcol), said in the release.
Hold on, hold on. You mean nature has an impact on climatic changes? How in the hell did that happen? I was assured by Experts that it was mostly/solely your fault.
The solution suggested to the latest climate change theory was to balance moose numbers and forest management in an effort to limit CO2 emissions. “We don’t only regulate the amount of animals, we very carefully regulate the proportion of females, males and calves. So there’s a stronger management for moose than for most livestock in Norway,” Francesco Cherubini, director of IndEcol Programme said. “I think as we get more of an understanding of how all these different things are interrelated, land managers could come up with an optimal plan. That could be a much-needed win-win solution for climate, for biodiversity and for timber value.”
Hmm, so, killing them is the solution? Also, what could possibly go wrong when Experts start messing around with their numbers?
These assclowns give science a bad name. Talk about a collection of over educated idiots.
[…] Pirates Cove […]
We should have thought of that for the snail darter and other obnoxious species.
This has to be satire, right? Unfortunately, these clowns are dead serious….
Boris Badenov and Natasha Fatale were unavailable for comment, but Fearless Leader was, allegedly, rubbing his hands with glee.
Boris Badenov: “We’ve been trying to kill Moose and Squirrel for 35 years”.
Moose are funny looking!
Here’s the actual journal article.
Net Climate Effects of Moose Browsing in Early Successional Boreal Forests by Integrating Carbon and Albedo Dynamics
In boreal forest* tracts timbered by clear cutting, moose selectively eat sprouting deciduous trees “nipping them in the bud”, so to speak. The scientists found that this had two counterbalancing effects – increased albedo (increased reflectivity of incoming light, DECREASING warming) and decreased flora absorption of CO2 (INCREASING warming).
from the article:
FOX Nooze dials this up to 11, because moose are funny looking.
______________________
*boreal forests: vast northern cold-weather forests of Canada, Russia, Alaska. Like tropical and temperate forests, boreal forests are an important carbon sink.
Teach only reads those parts of articles that he WANTS
The rest he refused to acknowledge.
Mr Teach, ever the victim, whines:
Perhaps he can explain how clear-cut boreal forests is ‘natural’. The article ONLY looked at the changes on regrowth after clear cutting.
The inmates run the asylum-“moose ‘potentially’ a leading cause of climate change”. Hmm-potentially. Now, who reads what they want to? Take away the moose population, even take away Norway, and it wouldn’t change a thing as long as China continues its increased coal usage.
(For those of you scared of the CO2 molecule)
You should read the actual journal article, not the FOX Noose version.
Did you? “We find moose browsing cools the climate by increasing surface albedo and warms the climate by limiting forest carbon sequestration. These two effects tend to compensate for each other, but there are large regional variations. Given the ‘potential’ effects on both tree growth and the climate……”
So, they tend to offset each other and “potentially” something could happen. Plus, how long has this type of clear cutting been done in Norway where moose populations reside? 100 years? 200 years? 75 years?
Jl typed: Did you?
Yes. Hours ago. So why are you arguing if we agree? Mr Teach and FOX Noise mis”read” the article shared their disinformation.
Please realize that American right-wingers like to enrage each other.
And where in there does any of that disprove what I said? It doesn’t. In my first post, I mentioned “potentially”. In the plain language portion of the paper it distinctly says potentially. I said it wouldn’t matter if all the moose in Norway were gone, or Norway gone. That is true. Never mentioned Fox News. Apparently you didn’t
Why do you wish to argue over an issue where we agree? FOX and Mr Teach exaggerated the article which was about local effects of moose on boreal forest regrowth after clear-cutting. As I’ve said twice, the authors concluded the increased albedo and decreased CO2 retention effects on global warming largely offset each other.
We both agreed that reading the original research article was valuable.
I give, you win.