Peak Oil News and Message Boards

I replied earlier, but the post vanished! (bloody office internet) Yes I'm referring to the burning of the trees, thus converting carbon sinks to carbon source and then replacing them with farting cows!

Currently we have the eco holocaust of the Indonesian palm oil fires that barely registers as a MSM story to go with the Amazon. Who cares? Almost no one. We must have more growth. Listen to the leaders and environmentalists at COP21 as they tell the sheep that we can solve climate change AND continue growth. Insane and impossible on both counts. Climate change is not the problem and neither is deforestation - we are. The rapicious ape that never evolved any control mechanisms like other mammals. We're not going to stop - ever, but we will be stopped. Africa, the last of the untouched/undeveloped wilderness, is the next and last place for our cancer to spread. Like all cancers we will be a victim of our own success.



Huge development projects could doom Africa’s environment

http://news.sciencemag.org/africa/2015/ ... nvironment

The other thing that can happen with lots of dead trees laying around is massive termite activity that can generate considerable amounts of methane, which we all know is a much more powerful gas than CO2, by a couple orders of magnitude on decadal time scales.

But even with all these elements included, I would like to see reference to a study that includes all of these (and other) factors to come up with a carbon footprint for ag higher than that for all ff burning, other the oft-cited one by the UN (iirc).

Peter Garret, one of Australia's greatest, sellout hypocrite. Left 'rock n roll' to lead the Australian Conservation Foundation, which under his leadership went from audible to wimpering under a rock, before joining the labour party, setting up a famously botched home insulation program which killed a few kids, then another few years voting as a team member, achieved virtually nothing, now going back to his fake rock roots. Self promoting fraud.

Or was he scape-goated?: "Garrett was demoted, losing responsibility for the insulation program, because Rudd had a shocking interview on the ABC TV 7.30 Report and needed a scapegoat"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Garrett

Deforestation in Brazil increased 30% in 12 months, agency says

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2017/02/16/brazil-lost-almost-one-third-its-amazon-rain-forest-in-12-months-agency-says.html

RIO DE JANEIRO – In the 12-month period that ended last August, deforestation in Brazil increased in almost 30 percent.

It is an all-time record that has set off a loud alarm among scientists, environmentalists and everyone who knows that the region is not only the so-called “lung of the planet” but also home to about 2.5 million species of insects, tens of thousands of plants and about 2,000 birds and mammals.

According to the latest report by the National Institute for Space Research (INPE), the Brazilian agency that monitors deforestation, between July 2015 and August 2016 roughly 3,100 square miles went up in smoke mostly to give way to farmland and further cement the country’s position as the world’s top exporter of meat products.

pstarr wrote:Trees grow back.

Only if allowed to and the soil hasn't been eroded away.

And frequently they are not the same species thereby changing the Eco system. Frequently the trees that "grow back" are a monoculture planted by the landowners for pulp.

So yes,mores grow back, but the ecosystem is perrmanetly altered or destroyed.

Here in California, the old growth redwoods are gone, except for a precious few in our parks. But we still have commercially grown redwood trees, planted in rows, fertilized, and "harvested" as they reach two feet in diameter. So much redwood that it remains a competitive deck building material, and the rot-resistant, termite-resistant redwood "construction heart" is also used in structures.

You may see that around the West. Not so much in other places.

Trees DONT do well without soil, that's just silly. Air plants do well without soil. They are not trees.

AND your response was to a comment about Brazil's rain forest.

How does your picture relate to the rain forest?

pstarr wrote:KJ, redwoods are rarely, if ever planted. They sprout and regrow from their own stumps. The only redwood tree farm I've seen was adjacent to Pacific Lumbers' mill. I suspect it was some kind of public relations. Looked silly with all the clear cuts on the hillsides surrounding it.

-snip-

The Santa Cruz mountains belie what you say. The old growth stumps were harvested for burl wood decades ago. My kid's Girl Scout Troop spent a weekend on a local lumber company land back in the 1990's planting greenhouse seedlings and running drip irrigation that both waters and feeds the trees. Those trees are being harvested as we speak, all are in the 18" to 24" size at the base.

It's still redwood, but it's relatively soft stuff, lacking both the tightly packed growth rings and the extensive heartwood center of the old growth, or even the second growth stuff that sprouted naturally from the roots around old growth stumps. But I still bought quite a bit of rough-sawn 1X's in three different widths. I'll be making a porch swing for her house in Wisconsin. She'll have a story to tell the grandkids about that swing.

Think of it as carbon sequestration, when you build a durable furniture item from wood. It interrupts the carbon dioxide cycle by locking up the wood in solid form. It may be 50 years before it's burned if you build it stout and keep it from absorbing water.

I know it's not a pristine redwood forest, but at least it is the same species that originally dominated that forested area. Without the redwood cultivation we do South of the Bay, we would be stripping the Northern California woodlands of lumber and burls, an unsustainable practice.

pstarr wrote:dolan made a sweeping statement. I countered it with a specific.

I actually countered a sweeping statement with another, one which was relevant to the point in hand.

Pete

RAINFOREST!

Obfuscation and miss-direction tactics noted.

Allow me to assure you your continual attack upon AGW adherents is tiresome to both sides. So why not just relax and let those concerned with the issue discuss it.

Clearly you are not convincing anyone of anything factual.

You start to come across as a troll. You made a nonsencical post that was not relevant to the topic. When corrected you made a specious argument that had nothing to do with the topic.

Actually this thread is about people destroying forests, not global warming. For someone who claims ecological training the difference is stark and right in your face Pstarr, whats up with that?

+1