- Joined
- Sep 23, 2011
- Messages
- 11,273
- Reaction score
- 5,733
- Location
- On a Gravy Train with Biscuit Wheels
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Liberal
I suppose I could. But is that really necessary?
For example, it's a fact there are tree species that use fire to propagate. The giant sequoia for one, and it can live beyond 2,000 years. That didn't occur overnight. With forested areas far larger than today, and no forest fire suppression efforts of any kind as little as a couple hundred years ago, why would naturally caused mega fires be only a modern phenomena?
From what I've read one major issue IS forest fire suppression which stops natural smaller fires from clearing out dead underbrush. In Florida we're really good at doing yearly controlled burning and even during periods of drought we don't experience mega-fires.
Also, you typically need lightning for ignition of a forest fire in nature. Pretty much all of the recent mega-fires have started due to humans igniting a fire in dry, windy, sunny conditions.
I would tend to agree, but what kind of "supplemental role" would the government play in such a movement? Do you have anything specific in mind?
I favor stripping of frivolous regulations. For example, the efficiency standards for dishwashers, among countless others. Once these unnecessary regulations are out of the way it will pave the way for the federal government to enforce other laws and regulations already in place. The penalties and swiftness of action can be much harsher because the government is no longer bogged down with these other violations. Essentially, I want to punish companies for actually directly destroying the earth and endangering people, and not for not meeting a certain standard for dishwasher efficiency. Legislation wise, I would support legislation focused on preventing the injury of humans. For example, if a company is dumpoing unsafe materials into drinking water, I have a problem with that. Those are the people we need to pursue, not manufacturers failing to meet a standard.
Hello, From my point of view, our next step will be using carbon neutral man made fuels.I would tend to agree, but what kind of "supplemental role" would the government play in such a movement? Do you have anything specific in mind?
Why is the liberal response always "more government?"
You should read your own links:
Filling in the gaps
First, there is a need for research on carbon storage in ecosystems with surface- or mixed-severity fire regimes, where stand-replacing fires may lead to land cover conversions that could move the carbon from the forest to the atmosphere—possibly for centuries. Second, the landscape effects of fuel treatments on forest carbon storage need to be investigated. To fully understand the carbon consequences of fuel treatments requires a landscape scale study of current and projected fire intervals as well as information on regeneration.
And Dr. Ryan specifically emphasizes the need for regeneration research: “I think that’s the thing we need to be looking at next. We [the Forest Service] don’t have a good sense of how this last decade of fires has actually regenerated. We need to conduct a broadscale study in a number of different forest types. We need to know what the probability of regeneration really is. Do we have a
problem in this area or don’t we?” By continuing to work towards understanding these (among other) unknowns surrounding the interactions of forests, fire, and carbon, we can better refine our management strategies to realize significant carbon sequestration in accord with other land management practices aimed at improving the health of our forests.
Sorry, but that would be referred to as FAIL.
So your saying when CO2 is a leading indicator it's global warming and when it's a lagging indicator it's global warming?
Might try and bone up on the Milanovitch Cycles.
I suppose I could. But is that really necessary?
For example, it's a fact there are tree species that use fire to propagate. The giant sequoia for one, and it can live beyond 2,000 years. That didn't occur overnight. With forested areas far larger than today, and no forest fire suppression efforts of any kind as little as a couple hundred years ago, why would naturally caused mega fires be only a modern phenomena?
Good afternoon Ocean,
I believe the answer to that question would be the forestry and underbrush management protocols put in place that ended many controlled burns and clearing of underbrush coupled with traditional drought cyclical conditions, coupled with encroachment of residential building and increases in human activity in many of these areas and you have the makings of some pretty serious man-made infernos.
But there's no doubt that fire is natures way of cleansing the landscape and starting fresh.
The vast majority of carbon not sequestered in fossil fuels, peat, and permafrost, is in the oceans. When we come out of ice ages, the oceans warm, when the oceans warm they cannot sequester as much carbon and thus more is released into the atmosphere. As more carbon is released into the atmosphere, warming is amplified. A good explanation of this is here:
CO2 lags temperature - what does it mean?
You should look at what science has to say about a topic before you become so arrogant as to think that something has occurred to you that has not occurred to scientists that have spent a lifetime working in that field.
He is talking about the time it takes for a western forest to regenerate after a catastrophic fire. Stand replacing fires are not that naturally common and are practically unheard of in wetter forest ecosystems. Its 6th grade science that forests burn and release carbon -> new forests grow and sequester carbon.
Seems to me it's pretty darn arrogant to think you or they understand the Earth's climate system to any significant degree. We're only scratching the surface.
It is well known the Earth was covered by far more forested land just a few hundreds of years ago. Fire was so common, many tree species depend on it to propagate their species. Studies have shown that a single major fire releases more CO2 in an area than is produced by all man-made activities in the surround state does in a single year.
Again, it has been estimated the size and unchecked nature of these multi year mega fires, and the amount of CO2 released, exceeded what man has caused to be released during "his" entire existence on Earth. So the question remains.
Why didn't these massive releases of CO2 into the atmosphere have the impact that is being sold today?
It's standard logic to determine there are some who clutch at straws to hold on to an untenable position. In light of the author admitting there needs to be more research into understanding probability of regeneration, it's clear who is clutching.
You're missing the forest for the trees.
The fact is that forest fires have always occurred. A forest fire, or even several, including large ones, is just one part of the puzzle. What counts overall is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
Good afternoon Ocean,
I believe the answer to that question would be the forestry and underbrush management protocols put in place that ended many controlled burns and clearing of underbrush coupled with traditional drought cyclical conditions, coupled with encroachment of residential building and increases in human activity in many of these areas and you have the makings of some pretty serious man-made infernos.
But there's no doubt that fire is natures way of cleansing the landscape and starting fresh.
We had that decades ago. The NIMBYs made us stop, and a congress centered on a East Coast forest management style took the reins away from the Forest service. The Sierra Clubs and the enviroweenies of the time hated controlled burns and forest management.
You're missing the forest for the trees.
The fact is that forest fires have always occurred. A forest fire, or even several, including large ones, is just one part of the puzzle. What counts overall is the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
If you would like to start a thread in the science section on forest fires and regeneration, I am happy to debate you on the subject there. When he made that statement, he was talking about catastrophic stand removing fires in the arid west. That does not apply to the vast majority of forest fires. If it did, we would not have a forest left on earth as just about every forest on this planet experiences fire at some point.
Moreover, an increase in the frequency of stand replacing fires in arid areas is projected with increased temperatures in a warming climate, and is also projected to be a positive feedback.
Fair enough. We'll leave the massive CO2 releases from forest fires for some other thread topic. Much easier to continue the AGW argument to the experts marching in support of the theory, without clouding the issue with facts.eace
I don't believe I have missed anything. I am merely citing research into the subject. Perhaps you're missing the part about the quantity of CO2 released during these fires, compared to that caused by human activity.
I don't believe I have missed anything. I am merely citing research into the subject. Perhaps you're missing the part about the quantity of CO2 released during these fires, compared to that caused by human activity.
Yes you are. You are missing the most important thing, and the only thing that counts as far as global warming goes - the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?