by Sirona 80 Replies latest jw friends
""Too bad you're a Californian ""
Wow. That comment took me back to when I was a teenager visiting, of all places, Grants Pass, Oregon In the 1970s..... This old man (a witnesses) stated to me that "California is a graveyard for Jehovah?s Witnesses." I feel sorry you are from California.....
That is funny how certain words can cause a flash back.....
Well, I feel sorry I am from California too! .
Heathen:
good point....
ThiChi
You supplied information relating to North American forestation in responding to a post about global forestation.
Either you made a mistake (a careless one) by not reading what you were C&Ping, or you were 'trying one on'. Of course, if one cuts and pastes material one has READ AND UNDERSTOOD, there's no problem...
As you don't even have the honesty to admit you made a mistake...
Do you think people are STUPID or something, that they won't notice what you do?
At any rate, in fact, the same holds true world wide. In fact, Europe has a much more aggressive Forest management plan than we do....
And you keep making the same, false, argument. PROVIDE FIGURES RELATING TO THE LEVEL OF WORLDWIDE FORESTATION PRIOR TO WWII AND NOW. A fifth of tropical rain forest was lost between 1960 and 1990. The LOW estimate of rain forest clearance in the 1990's is 55,630 km² a year.
You are arguing, using statements about North America and Europe "the same holds true world wide". Prove it.
Don't try to change the arguement; people were taking about the world; you know, big blue and green thing hanging in space? If you want to start a thread about levels of forestation in Europe or North America, do so. We are talking about worldwide trends in global warming.
thichi,
At any rate, in fact, the same holds true world wide. In fact, Europe has a much more aggressive Forest management plan than we do....The co2 is driving all forests throughout the world through the roof, so to speak. America?s example is relevant since it is by far the largest consumer and producer of wood products for the whole world. So the points are valid to rebut the claim made.
yes this holds true for europe and the US (both of which have cut down their forests previously....europe was completely covered with forrests originally). if we would not manage the forrests they would be gone soon.
the problem lies in the destruction of the rain forrests around the world.
i don't think global warming is a threat to humanity as a whole (especially since there is a abiological correction mechanism which keeps the CO2 level low) but it certainly can make life more difficult.
we are conducting a gigantic experiment by putting that much CO2 in the atmosphere....no one can predict for sure what this is gonna do. i don't think it is wise to take the risk.
""ThiChi
You supplied information relating to North American forestation in responding to a post about global forestation.
Either you made a mistake (a careless one) by not reading what you were C&Ping, or you were 'trying one on'. Of course, if one cuts and pastes material one has READ AND UNDERSTOOD, there's no problem...
As you don't even have the honesty to admit you made a mistake...""
Wow, it sure is smoky in here....
You can?t rebut the information, so you hang your hat on this non-issue. Again, just for you, this information is relevant because;
1. An acclaimed Environmentalist admits an "agenda" regarding this topic, so the information makes a powerful point regarding all information on this subject. In fact, his claim is based, inpart, on DeFries and Field's study that includes "world wide" figures.
2. America is the foremost producer and consumer of lumber in the world, so this information is relevant, especially since it is not the leader in Forest management, worldwide. It really goes without saying that many here hold America as responsible for consumption of lumber in the world, and expects the US to take the lead/blame for this situation. This information rebuts this situation in America.
3. For your benefit, I then provided more information as an example outside America that debunks the same agenda, this time in South America.
4. Your argument does not pass the intelligence test. When claims are made like "world wide" or "everywhere" you should realize this begs the question. Yes, somewhere in the world, a land area has less trees than when it started. So, the only way to address the problem worldwide is to look at areas that are under attack the most. I started with America and S America.
Your argument that we have to only speak in general terms about the "whole world" without any specific examples, is ludicrous and overly simplistic. I sand by this information as relevant to the topic at hand. This is the logic I used to determine the information was relevant. There is an honesty problem, but it is not coming from me......
"""You are arguing, using statements about North America and Europe "the same holds true world wide". Prove it.""
A fair question!
In a study presented at the meeting of the Ecological Society of America in Spokane, Washington, scientists reported that the amount of vegetation that has been lost to logging, burning, and agriculture throughout human history is the equivalent of about 180 billion tons of carbon-carbon transferred to the atmosphere as the greenhouse gas carbon dioxide.
DeFries and Field's study used an "untouched-by-human-hands" model of the Earth's vegetation cover extrapolated from current land-use data, and compared the model to data collected by National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Association (NOAA) satellites.
The study looked at carbon loss by considering areas where forests were turned into cropland or pasture, where woodlands have been degraded, and where savannas have turned into desert as a result of human activity. Prior to 1850, massive portions of European, Asian, and North American forests were cleared. The study showed that we had deforested much of the mid-latitudes before the start of the last century. The largest amount of carbon loss came from Asia with about 70 billion tons. North America, Europe and Africa lost between 20 and 30 billion tons each since humans began altering the landscape, according to the study.
Today, a variety of practices including farmland abandonment and subsequent forest regrowth in the mid-latitudes; changing agricultural practices; and, the prevention of forest fires have now generated plant growth to a point that the claim that we have more trees than 100 years ago is correct. The study was supported by NASA's Earth Observing System program.
"""You are arguing, using statements about North America and Europe "the same holds true world wide". Prove it.""A fair question!
Thank you.
Prior to 1850, massive portions of European, Asian, and North American forests were cleared. The study showed that we had deforested much of the mid-latitudes before the start of the last century. The largest amount of carbon loss came from Asia with about 70 billion tons. North America, Europe and Africa lost between 20 and 30 billion tons each since humans began altering the landscape, according to the study.
You do realise, I assume, that 'Prior to 1850', includes all pre-historic deforestation? Contrary to the fondly held noble savage myth, ancient man were very good at deforestation and species extinction!
The figure arrived at by the above calculation shows that all of history and prehistory prior to 1850 released 160 bllion tons of carbon.
Since then;
From 1850 to 1990, deforestation worldwide (including the United States) released 122 billion metric tons of carbon into the atmosphere, with the current rate being approximately 1.6 billion metric tons per year
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Deforestation/deforestation_3.html
For a total of 282 billion tons of carbon of which 43% was between 1850 and 1990. The figure given in your quote (see, I don't mind if you read 'em before pasting 'em) of 'about 180 billion tons' (for carbon released by deforestation et. al. over all time) is hard to arrive at given the figures I've provided; quite how we are meant to have only released 20 million tons since 1850, I don;t know..
A further 22.4 billion tons have been released since 1990, or 7.4% of the all-time global total.
So, given that 47% of all carbon EVER released by human deforestation was in the past 154 years...like I said... it is REASONABLE to be prudent? Or just to assume that there will be no effect on climate?
Especially as we are also releasing the carbon from over 80 million barrels of oil PER DAY; that's 6 bllion tons per year.
Yes, indeedy; what ever elegent way you try to present data, when you boil down to it 47% of carbon released by human deforestation has been in the past 154 years, and we are additonally polluting with other carbon at a rate five times as high as that from deforestation by burning fossil fuels.
It defies reason that this can't have an effect. It also ignores issues such as bio-diversity, which are hugely impacted by deforestation.
But thank you ThiChi for actually bring global data to a global discussion; you may not have meant to be misleading originally, but as you didn't highlight the partial nature of the data you presented in answer to a global question it was inevitable you would be.
A truly perplexing response. The "challenge" to me was not the effects or amount of Co2 on/in our world, but that I had to "prove" the fact that the majority of trees were cleared prior to our century. And that more trees exist today than 100 years ago. This is a fact.
""You do realize (spelling corrected), I assume, that 'Prior to 1850', includes all pre-historic deforestation""
As it should. Your "since WWII/1850" arguments are misleading and out of context, "begging the question" and leading many to "false dilemmas" PLease see my post below for more information.
However, since you morphed the Issue lets address your naive Co2 claims:
Again, you mislead us by not considering the geological/Atmospheric history of our planet. It is clear from other indicators that Carbon abundances were much higher in the past.
That's because of the Faint Sun Paradox, which is a long story for another time (very, very briefly: On Earth, the deuterium/hydrogen and 16 O/ 18 O ratios imply that warmer temperatures existed on Earth in the past. This is perplexing, especially given that ice-albedo feedback models, which predict that the Earth should be permanently locked in an ice age if it started out cold. The best explanation is that earth initially had a massive CO2 atmosphere, allowing it to stay warm).
Basically, though, the Sun was about 30% fainter long ago, but Earth's temperatures were similar to today, and the reason for the balance is the increased amount of CO2 back then. So over the very long haul, natural sources *have* had a much greater effect that what we are currently doing.
Notwithstanding:
we see that a massive increase in CO2 emissions isn't apocalyptic:
Larger quantities of CO2 in the atmosphere and warmer climates would lead to an increase in vegetation. During warm periods in history vegetation flourished, at one point allowing the Vikings to farm in now frozen Greenland.
I also regret that you did not comment on the South America Rainforest information....
""""But thank you ThiChi for actually bring global data to a global discussion; you may not have meant to be misleading originally, but as you didn't highlight the partial nature of the data you presented in answer to a global question it was inevitable you would be.""""
Your disingenuous remarks and backpedaling are very telling. I proved my claim, and I had to "spell out" the powerful implications of the information presented for you, which information seemed important to others here. Does this fact indite me or you? Who knows....
""It also ignores issues such as bio-diversity, which are hugely impacted by deforestation."
Agian, you are way off the mark:
""The typical narratives on deforestation take their outset in a ??before?? situation which usually was about 30-40 years ago, (wow who does this sound like...?) or, eventually, something close to the turn of the century or time for colonisation. That is the case with West Africa (Fairhead & Leach 1995) as well as Himalaya (Guthman 1997; Thompson & Warburton 1985). In both cases, there is good evidence that major forest clearance took place two or three centuries ago. The time scale is of course of outmost importance if one is to establish the rate of a change.
The ??before?? situation has a relation to the discussions over ecological paradigms (see Leach & Mearns 1996: 10). The traditional ecological theory, the Clementsian climax paradigm tells us that succession will lead to a stable climax system which is stable and in equilibrium with the natural conditions in the location. This has led to the false induction that the forests in fact were in this climax condition in the ??before?? situation, or in other words: confusing the potential vegetation with the actual vegetation in what is perceived as the good, old days.
Human activity has had an influence on the forest succession for thousands of years. A nice, but forgotten account of fire management of west African rangelands was presented by the Mungo Park, a British doctor who travelled Gambia and its hinterlands in 1795-97 in his ??Travels in Africa??.
The ??new?? ecological theories tend to emphasise dynamics and variability of ecosystems. This has several implications: it allows for the existence of several meta-stable sub-climaxes (e.g. fire-dependent savannah woodlands), also for several ??climax?? ends of successions, and in this way it will also deny the normative aspects of succession theory which have been confusing conservation biology. This last argument relates to the discourses of bio-diversity conservation.
There are many cases where early or secondary successions have a higher bio-diversity than old, dense forests (and the rare or threatened species may occur in any end of a succession).
Fairhead, James and Leach, Melissa (1995): False Forest History, Complicit Social Analysis: Rethinking Some West African Environmental Narratives. World Development, Vol. 23, No. 6, pp. 1023-1035"""
I remember the hype about "The spotted Owl can only exist in Old Growth Forests!" Again this begs the question, Where did the Owl live when the Forest was new?
And as I commented, clearing allows more light than dense old, forests, creating more Bio-Diversity, not less. I am too lazy today to present the Less Light Studies to support this claim....but it is out there.
thichi,
without doubt there have been warmer times in the past. without doubt the vegitation as well as fauna has changed immensly over the past billion years. Clear is also that time and again mass existincions happened.
However, we know too little about the possible behaviour of complex systems to predict what causes mass extinctions (except for obvious reasons like asteroid impacts). Similar, we know way too little about the effects that releasing this much CO2 can have on the biosphere or the effects of destroying the rainforrests, killing the plankton, etc.
It is possible, though not very likely, that the whole ecosystem collapses once it has been pushed too far out of equilibrium (a property of all chaotic systems). in this case we might get in serious trouble.
over all the only thing we can say for sure is that we are conducting a very risky global experiment which might or might not get off lightly. (i am saying this as a biologist who naturally knows quite a bit about this matter)
However, we do know that vast amounts of co2 existed in the past, and you and I are living proof things worked out quite well......
At any rate, my only claim is that the earth has already experienced more amounts of CO2 than what we are doing today.
Unlike some, I refuse to speculate or fear monger the issue. I can only point to the past....
I recommend this Book:
In Climate of Fear: Why We Shouldn?t Worry about Global Warming, Thomas Gale Moore, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, says no. Despite many dire predictions, global warming?should it occur?would benefit most people.
Moore looks at historical evidence and finds that the temperature of the earth has fluctuated dramatically over the past 200,000 years. And he reports that mankind has "prospered during warm periods and suffered during cold ones." For example, agriculture was made possible by warmer climates. "From its origins around 8000 b.c.," writes Moore, "agriculture spread northward, appearing in Greece about 6000 b.c., Hungary in 5000 b.c., France in 4500 b.c., and Poland in 4250 b.c. Is it chance that this northward spread followed a gradual warming of the climate that made agriculture more feasible at higher latitudes?"
Life spans also increased in periods characterized by warmer weather. Moore looks at life expectancy from 8000 b.c. to a.d. 1400 and finds that the "warmest periods, the Neolithic, Bronze Age, and the thirteenth century, enjoyed the longest life spans of the entire period."
Would mankind benefit from higher temperatures during the next several decades or centuries? That is, would history repeat itself? Moore argues that it would. He predicts that increased carbon dioxide emissions, coupled with warmer autumns and winters, would boost agricultural production, reduce heating costs, improve transportation, and cut fatalities. Moreover, many people simply prefer warmer weather.
Even if such benefits were not realized, it would still be foolish to impose regulations aimed at curbing global warming. Cutting carbon dioxide emissions by a third?as some environmentalists have advocated?would decrease world economic output and wealth much more than would the negative effects of global warming.
Moore urges policymakers to take a sensible look at global warming, one based on sound scientific and economic reasoning, not emotion and hysteria. "Except for those measures that make sense in any case, such as eliminating subsidies to energy and energy use," concludes Moore, "Congress should stand fast against any steps to limit greenhouse gas emissions."
I
