• 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:
It has been suggested that the accumulated CO2 release from naturally caused forest fires throughout the ages has released many more times the CO2 into the atmosphere than the total amount of CO2 released by man since the dawn of modern man.

Why wasn't the climate impacted then?


This is an article that touches on the subject. There is something quite interesting about the study, and the matter of follow up to it's implications.

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - U.S. Fires Release Enormous Amounts of Carbon Dioxide - US National Science Foundation (NSF)
Click to expand...

Because when a forest burns, the subsequent new forest growth in the coming decades sequesters the carbon that was released by the initial forest fire. This is carbon cycle 101 here.
 
Meister said:
CO2....regarding global warming has been a lagging indicator and a leading indicator, which means what to you?
Click to expand...

I just explained it. If you can't understand the science behind basic chemistry in terms of dissolved gasses in water and positive feedback's, then you are obviously completely ignorant of the science behind AGW. You probably should read up on it before debating it further.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Because when a forest burns, the subsequent new forest growth in the coming decades sequesters the carbon that was released by the initial forest fire. This is carbon cycle 101 here.
Click to expand...

Your scientists don't back your claim. Perhaps you can provide a link that supports your theory, rather than demanding it be seen as infallible. Basis logic 101.
 
iacardsfan said:
I see nothing inherently wrong with this. I do believe global warming is a thing, but that does not mean that the government should do anything. If these people stopped petitioning the Government to step in and regulate and appeal straight to the companies that they believe are ruining the environment, this could be fought much more effectively. The US government can only do so much. If, on the other hand, people work together to force the hand of large corporations by using market forces, then this issue could be solved much more efficiently.
Click to expand...

It's nice to believe that, if the government stepped out of the picture, people would fix the problem themselves. But you know that's not going to happen, human nature being what it is. For me, the big news here is that the lamestream media infotainment industry, which used to cover news, did not cover this event.
 
sangha said:
tea_party_littler_912.jpg


575bc5dc_trash5.jpeg
Click to expand...

And you'll notice with the TP rally, the trash can is full and all the overflow grouped around it for pickup. Not just thrown in the street like the green rallies.
 
Glen Contrarian said:
Ah...so it's only lazy unemployed people who want action on climate change? Perhaps you should have a talk with the CEO of Google sometime....
Click to expand...

You missed the point. First I was agreeing with you, they could have all been from the city. And second, I was pointing out again that it wasn't really that large a crowd. Just a messy one. And finally, if you took a look at any video or photos of the event, it's not a stretch to think the majority are unemployed socialists.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
I just explained it. If you can't understand the science behind basic chemistry in terms of dissolved gasses in water and positive feedback's, then you are obviously completely ignorant of the science behind AGW. You probably should read up on it before debating it further.
Click to expand...

No you didn't.
Might try and bone up on the Milankovitch Cycles....
 
Meister said:
No you didn't.
Might try and bone up on the Milankovitch Cycles....
Click to expand...
Yes as I explained they're typically the initial catalyst for more or less carbon being naturally sequestered in the oceans. In the past, c02 was a positive feedback resulting from initial warming.
 
ocean515 said:
It has been suggested that the accumulated CO2 release from naturally caused forest fires throughout the ages has released many more times the CO2 into the atmosphere than the total amount of CO2 released by man since the dawn of modern man.

Why wasn't the climate impacted then?


This is an article that touches on the subject. There is something quite interesting about the study, and the matter of follow up to it's implications.

nsf.gov - National Science Foundation (NSF) News - U.S. Fires Release Enormous Amounts of Carbon Dioxide - US National Science Foundation (NSF)
Click to expand...

Ehhh...the CO2 never accumulated in the atmosphere...plants and animals consumed the CO2, died, decomposed and were buried under layers and layers of mud, rock, and sand. We now call that "accumulated" CO2 fossil fuels....
 
clownboy said:
And you'll notice with the TP rally, the trash can is full and all the overflow grouped around it for pickup. Not just thrown in the street like the green rallies.
Click to expand...

And we all know that NYC has an abundance of unfilled trash cans :lamo
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
Yes as I explained they're typically the initial catalyst for more or less carbon being naturally sequestered in the oceans. In the past, c02 was a positive feedback resulting from initial warming.
Click to expand...
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.
 
sangha said:
And we all know that NYC has an abundance of unfilled trash cans :lamo
Click to expand...

Actually, it's a very clean city these days. Has been for some time now. You should know this.
 
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...

Large emissions of CO2 in the past have caused rapid climate change...the Kalkaridnji eruptions in the Mid-Cambrian period and eruptions during the Permian period in Siberia are both examples of rapid climate change due to CO2.

CO2 being a "lagging indicator" is only because the changes mentioned are generally started by Earth's orbital cycles triggering the warming or cooling. The cooling and warming of the earths oceans lead to less/more CO2 in the atmosphere and magnified cooling/warming.
The reason we have such drastic changes in temperature is due to the greenhouse effect.
 
SouthernDemocrat said:
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou..._UHgEwvtj1To7iNRA&sig2=oYJrjxsBVpKH8nvQyFGZ2A
Click to expand...

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.
 
iliveonramen said:
Ehhh...the CO2 never accumulated in the atmosphere...plants and animals consumed the CO2, died, decomposed and were buried under layers and layers of mud, rock, and sand. We now call that "accumulated" CO2 fossil fuels....
Click to expand...

Ehh, that's not what science has shown. Perhaps you can provide a link that shows how multi thousand square mile forest fires that burned for years somehow didn't deposit the released CO2 in the atmosphere.
 
ocean515 said:
Ehh, that's not what science has shown. Perhaps you can provide a link that shows how multi thousand square mile forest fires that burned for years somehow didn't deposit the released CO2 in the atmosphere.
Click to expand...

I was responding to this portion of your post

It has been suggested that the accumulated CO2 release from naturally caused forest fires throughout the ages has released many more times the CO2 into the atmosphere than the total amount of CO2 released by man since the dawn of modern man.
Click to expand...

CO2 didn't accumulate because large potions of CO2 were trapped underground and eventually became oil, gas, and coal.

As for large forest forest occurring and pumping out CO2, no one has ever stated that the earth doesn't every day release CO2 into the air and have methods of taking CO2 out of the air. The whole global warming thing is that human kind has come about and started releasing large amounts of CO2 while deforesting large portions of the land which is upsetting the natural balance.
 
iliveonramen said:
I was responding to this portion of your post



CO2 didn't accumulate because large potions of CO2 were trapped underground and eventually became oil, gas, and coal.

As for large forest forest occurring and pumping out CO2, no one has ever stated that the earth doesn't every day release CO2 into the air and have methods of taking CO2 out of the air. The whole global warming thing is that human kind has come about and started releasing large amounts of CO2 while deforesting large portions of the land which is upsetting the natural balance.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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...

Can you link the "multi-year mega fire" article? Most of the literature I've read states that mega fires are a new phenomenon
http://sfrc.ufl.edu/cfeor/LogIn/log in docs/recent research/mega fires.pdf

Typically listing the 1970's as the time frame they've started occurring.

In many parts of the world, the prevalence of massive, high-intensity wildfires that were rare only a couple decades ago has been increasing at an alarming rate.
Click to expand...
While ignition sources vary (some of the fires were set deliberately for agricultural purposes), fire scientists say most so-called megafires stem from a combination of climate change-induced drought, land use and human mismanagement that has combined to turn landscapes into tinderboxes.
Click to expand...
High-Intensity 'Megafires' a New Global Danger
 
iliveonramen said:
Can you link the "multi-year mega fire" article? Most of the literature I've read states that mega fires are a new phenomenon
http://sfrc.ufl.edu/cfeor/LogIn/log in docs/recent research/mega fires.pdf

Typically listing the 1970's as the time frame they've started occurring.



High-Intensity 'Megafires' a New Global Danger
Click to expand...

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?
 
danarhea said:
It's nice to believe that, if the government stepped out of the picture, people would fix the problem themselves. But you know that's not going to happen, human nature being what it is. For me, the big news here is that the lamestream media infotainment industry, which used to cover news, did not cover this event.
Click to expand...

It is human nature to weed out things that they do not support. It is the fault of the government that we do not act on these impulses. The government acts as a placebo and does very little to deter companies from actually changing their actions
 
TeleKat said:
Is there any kind of environmental legislation you would support? Even reluctantly as a matter of pragmatism?
Click to expand...
It would depend on the legislation, I am not totally against the use of the government. But i feel as if that is the first impulse for everyone. I think that there should be a multi-front approach, with consumers leading the push, and a supplemental role if any for the government. I must reinforce though, the government only has jurisdiction over the United States, the government cannot legislate the world. If there is to be any major climate change progress made, it has to be an international coalition. Market forces will provide the necessary push in that case.
 
iacardsfan said:
It would depend on the legislation, I am not totally against the use of the government. But i feel as if that is the first impulse for everyone. I think that there should be a multi-front approach, with consumers leading the push, and a supplemental role if any for the government. I must reinforce though, the government only has jurisdiction over the United States, the government cannot legislate the world. If there is to be any major climate change progress made, it has to be an international coalition. Market forces will provide the necessary push in that case.
Click to expand...

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?
 
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...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom