|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 28, 2015 4:37:57 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by cuttydyer on Jan 28, 2015 5:24:16 GMT
 SNIP "They created a computer animation to show where they believed CO2 was emitted and how it traveled around the globe. They were hoping that their new satellite would bolster their theory but the data came back saying just the opposite that the primary sources of CO2 on the planet are coming from below the equator from the tropical rainforests." SNIP What's NASA to do? I'd suggest "adjustments" be made to the rainforests so they fall into line with the modeling & stop producing evil pollutants - cut them all down? |
|
|
|
Post by acidohm on Jan 28, 2015 19:15:44 GMT
Nasa seem to think the c02 from these areas is due to slash and burn techniques or other human activities.
I would have thought a rainforest would be a net absorber of c02? But then I'm only thinking of photosynthesis, not considering breakdown of vegetation matter (what else happens in a forest?)
|
|
|
|
Post by nautonnier on Jan 28, 2015 20:11:11 GMT
Nasa seem to think the c02 from these areas is due to slash and burn techniques or other human activities. I would have thought a rainforest would be a net absorber of c02? But then I'm only thinking of photosynthesis, not considering breakdown of vegetation matter (what else happens in a forest?) Rain forests have a huge - that is inestimably large - number of species and numbers of that species of insects. Just termites alone emit more CO2 than mankind and all its industry. One of the limitations of people is that they are totally unaware how small humankind actually is - a continual overestimation of our own importance. Reminds me of:
"Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..."Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy - Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 29, 2015 6:49:43 GMT
Nasa seem to think the c02 from these areas is due to slash and burn techniques or other human activities. I would have thought a rainforest would be a net absorber of c02? But then I'm only thinking of photosynthesis, not considering breakdown of vegetation matter (what else happens in a forest?) that is correct. A mature and stable forest is not a net absorber of CO2. Cutting down an old growth forest and using the wood for construction does a better job of sequestering carbon than cutting young forests as is the current practice. Young forests are net absorbers of carbon until they reach full maturity. We need to do a better job educating people that everything is not black and white and that human development/enhancement is not always a bad thing. |
|
|
|
Post by scpg02 on Jan 29, 2015 7:15:16 GMT
Nasa seem to think the c02 from these areas is due to slash and burn techniques or other human activities. I would have thought a rainforest would be a net absorber of c02? But then I'm only thinking of photosynthesis, not considering breakdown of vegetation matter (what else happens in a forest?) that is correct. A mature and stable forest is not a net absorber of CO2. Cutting down an old growth forest and using the wood for construction does a better job of sequestering carbon than cutting young forests as is the current practice. Young forests are net absorbers of carbon until they reach full maturity. We need to do a better job educating people that everything is not black and white and that human development/enhancement is not always a bad thing. Cutting mature old growth means profits for the logging companies and we can't have that now can we? |
|
|
|
Post by flearider on Jan 29, 2015 14:35:09 GMT
if they replant it's a good thing if they don't well that's a bad thing ..
|
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jan 29, 2015 18:18:06 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 29, 2015 19:03:48 GMT
if they replant it's a good thing if they don't well that's a bad thing .. thats a bit of a yes and no situation. A clearcut forest automatically becomes a net absorber of CO2 whether you replant it or not. Certainly though management by man can greatly improve its ability to do that and replanting the same trees that were cut for construction timber is a very good way of doing that. I have had an interest in old growth timber most of my life. I particularly love building with old growth woods and I love visiting old growth forests. Finding a balance where we can enjoy the best of both worlds is a real challenge because regrowing a natural forest can take 3 or 4 times as long as a tree farm. Replanting generally will not create a natural forest as it foregoes natural progressions and actually dramatically changes the resulting trees (taller, straighter, fewer knots, weaker from fast growth, and lacking the old growth surrounding biology). Building with old growth woods gives you fantastic opportunities for building stronger and more beautiful stuff. The results are very pleasing appealing to the natural attraction of naturally grown things. So I don't know the answer but have a clue. A balance of objectives that would include old growth farms/forests that are cut under a sustainable plan that provides for visitors visiting totally uncut areas, other areas that are harvested sustainably as old growth, production tree farms. and of course a healthy dose of lands available for ownership choices. That might entail some fewer farms growing grapes and perhaps other food stuffs so such a plan obviously would be very difficult both planning wise and politically. Probably the worst use is cutting old growth and replacing it with a vineyard and winery. . . .a very popular outcome in California as wealthy people create thousands of personal wineries and/or vineyards. Not only do you lose the old growth and create a cycle of sequestering carbon in grapes for consumption (not a way to sequester CO2), really wine is not good for you as much as some would want you to believe. The old prohibitionists had the right objective just the wrong way of getting there. But even that might not be a solution from the forest standpoint as even wine does supply calories and nutrition which would need replacement. Generally speaking I hate too much government planning and restriction of private property but my number one idol was Teddy Roosevelt primarily because of his efforts to manage and preserve forests in the west and avoid the almost complete loss of them as seen in the east. There is a natural heritage that can viewed as a public resource for all types of lands. The navigable waters are already mostly managed as public resources. The air is managed as such too. I think private ownership is an important element of helping ensure continuing freedom and there is already too much fiddling with private ownership. But public ownership of lands is important too. Life is never easy. |
|
|
|
Post by icefisher on Jan 29, 2015 19:16:43 GMT
Russ is a good guy! The area he is working is over controlled by governments. Obviously some of his ideas are fairly radical but they need to be given a chance. Russ is an A1 environmentalist that drives other environmentalists to the brink of insanity. But the fact is we need some freedom to test out ideas like what Russ has been working on for a couple of decades and mostly run into a buzz saw of irrational opposition. There are a number of concepts that supports Russ' contentions. The number one culprit I believe responsible for the claimed Fe depletion is land development and irrigation of lands that limit dust blowoff into the oceans, particularily over reclaimed deserts (like southern California and Northern Africa) but on the other hand Fe may be naturally depleted in the oceans relative to highest productivity for the oceans. If the former is the case then what Russ is trying to do could be looked at as mitigation for land development and agriculture. If the latter is the case then what Russ is trying to do could be looked at as mitigation for our extraction of resources from the ocean. Radical environmentalists see Russ as the most evil of industrialists looking for more ways of exploiting the oceans. IMO, no matter your position on the matter Russ is a lightning rod. I like him, I have met him, and believe he is genuine. How valuable his ideas are I think is something worthwhile to seriously fiddle with and learn something from it. Getting past the fear that his idea will rake in riches and create a gold rush that will be bad for the planet is the most difficult part to deal with. |
|
|
|
Post by nonentropic on Jan 30, 2015 2:35:10 GMT
That's interesting and supports the idea that there is a real opportunity to "responsibly" reinstate the ocean depletion resulting from fishing and land use.
The lack of debate on this concept and when it is discussed its viciously disposed of exposes the background drivers of the Green movement.
Remember the old saying, they are watermelons, green on the outside red on the inside. The driver is central control rather than a sound solution to issues such as fish depletion, malnutrition, distribution of wealth to poorer fisherman and environmental improvement.
Marx did not see the rise of the middle-class and the goal of much off the green movement is to redefine the middle-class as poor through wealth reduction with energy poverty thus reinvigorating the classic class war.
Just saying!
|
|
|
|
Post by missouriboy on Nov 18, 2015 18:06:58 GMT
I seem to have missed this whole thread whose content was contributed over 3 days in January ... think I was out-of-state getting warm. But this seemed as good a place as any to post this link to maps and their use in 'telling stories'. As a GIS guy, I have a warm spot in my heart for the art form. As usual, many of these are not particularly inspired ... nor do they push the art form as it relates to science and spatial communication anywhere near its limits. I post it largely for those who have an affinity for spatial communication and its possibilities. None of these, that i see are climate related ... but they could be, as everything we deal with on this forum has multiple spatial components. storymaps.arcgis.com/en/gallery/#s=30 |
|
