• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Hundreds Of Thousands Turn Out For People's Climate March In New York City

ocean515 said:
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?
Click to expand...

Tree Rings Reveal That 'Megafires' Mostly Caused By Human Interference - Science News - redOrbit

This is an intersting article on megafires
 
iliveonramen said:
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.
Click to expand...

The Forest Service has learned the hard way that immediate fire suppression has added to the fuel load, and harmed the ecosystem in the forests they control. While I vacationed in Sequoia National Park a few weeks ago, one of the big topics from the Rangers was their controlled burn program. They have learned the health of the forest depends on fire to clear out the ground, and provide the acidic soils needed by the trees.

I don't know what the percentages are regarding man caused versus natural cause, but a significant number of fires in the Pacific Northwest and other forested states are caused by lighting. It doesn't take much to get a fire going, and with the tree ring records showing significant periods of drought going back over thousands years, it's not hard to imagine a fire burning from Washington State and on to Montana.
 
TeleKat said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
iacardsfan said:
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.
Click to expand...

We're pretty much on the same page then. :)
 
TeleKat said:
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?
Click to expand...
Hello, From my point of view, our next step will be using carbon neutral man made fuels.
Using hydrocarbon as the energy storage mechanism, where the carbon is extracted
from atmospheric CO2.
The Oil refiners can make whatever liquid fuel is needed, and they already have the
distribution infrastructure in place.
The energy could come from Solar, wind, nuclear, ect, only now we have the ability
to store that energy until needed.
 
ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
I think the turn on climate change will be like the sudden collapse of the opposition to gay marriage. Basically conservatives always are involve in rear-guard actions that appeal to America's worst instincts. But ultimately, the better angels of our nature win out and conservative policies are defeated. It has been true about every single major political development in the country, from workers rights, to women's suffrage, to the anti-war movement, to civil rights.

Now, it's happening with climate change as Americans are finally rejecting the conservative's anti-science rhetoric and facing reality. The huge demonstration is probably the first in a movement which will result in conservatives losing on another issue.
 
Meister said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ocean515 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

Call me crazy, but I tend to think its a good idea to go with scientific consensus. For example, when it came time to vaccinate my kids, rather that looking at every crack pot site on the internet on the subject, I went with the official position of the CDC and AMA. When I was in high school and most of my friends took up smoking, I supposed I could have bought into the claims by tobacco companies that there was no proven link between tobacco use and cancer, but I figured it was best to go with what the AMA and the American Lung Association said about it. When I shop at the grocery store I buy butter instead of margarine to avoid hydrogenated oils, even though 30 years ago doctors recommended margarine over butter. The way I figure it, no one goes to the doctor with cancer and says "Hey give me your best treatments from 30 years ago." Modern science progresses and I recognize and accept that. Similarly, when the National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, The Royal Academy of Sciences, the American Geophysical Society, and every other major scientific society in the modern world with expertise in climate states that Anthopogenic Global Warming is real, and we need to be concerned about, well you know I go with them because frankly scientists the spend a lifetime working a field know a hell of a lot more about it than you or I do, or the WSJ editorial board does.
 
Last edited:
ocean515 said:
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?
Click to expand...

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.
 
ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

Moreover, I don't know of any studies that claim that recent forest fires have added more CO2 into the atmosphere than human activity has. If that were the case, atmospheric C02 concentrations would have doubled in the last year or 2. I mean the argument he is trying to make defies even common sense.
 
CanadaJohn said:
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.
Click to expand...

Good afternoon CJ. No question it has been learned overly aggressive fire management added to the fuel load of fires in previous years. Nature does have a way to doing things, and clearing the way for new growth is one of the ways nature has used fire to it's advantage.

Considering the forested land coverage of many hundreds and thousands of years ago, under the right conditions, these naturally caused fires must have been quite the sight.
 
clownboy said:
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.
Click to expand...

BUZZZZZ! 180 degrees wrong.

The timber industry stopped control burns because they wanted all the timber. The Forest Service, in the thrall of the industry, acquiesced.

It was the environmentalists, in conjunction with ecologists and conservation biologists, who finally got the Forest Service to follow science instead of political lobbying. This began in the 1960s with the so-called Leopold Report, which took years to be implemented due to industry obstructionism.


Leopold Report - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Honestly, you shouldn't get your information about environmentalism from Fox News.
 
sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :peace
 
ocean515 said:
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. :peace
Click to expand...

Your contention seems to be that recent catastrophic forest fires have released more CO2 into the atmosphere than human activity has since the dawn of the industrial age. If that is the case, then why has atmospheric CO2 concentrations not doubled in the last few years as a result of those fires?
 
ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
ocean515 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Forest fires (large uncontrolled ones) are in fact proximately and indirectly often the result of human activity. So even if your claim were correct, it argues against your position.
 
sangha said:
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.
Click to expand...

Well not entirely. Land use changes are a factor as well as they can change the albedo of the earth's surface. CO2 aside, I don't get how anyone could think we could develop 40% of the world's land surface and not have any impact on the climate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom