Climate Change Denial

[Nrkl]

Speaking of forest management, at one point in time the scientific consensus was that growth of forests, and plants for that matter, was mainly driven by the availability of resources to them. So the u fortunate consequence of that was that all the unwanted trees would be pruned out in order not to compete and hinder the growth of the cash crops.

Well in the end it turned out that trees take part in complex underground economies and family units that trade and share resources, and diversity of species in fact increased growth over the long term.

Why is this relevant to climate change? We get so entrenched in our models of the world that we actually believe that we understand complex biological systems. If you do a 5 why’s (or more) analysis on climate change you’re going to find that human hubris and intervention is at the root of our climate problems. Focusing on CO2 will necessarily lead to more problems as long as it means more interventions, faster and at larger scales. Which of course our connected world and the urgency of the problem amplify.

Focusing on CO2 cause perverse situations where it might look better to have large, efficient, machine driven monocrop systems that destroy the life in the soil, compared to animal and plant driven local food systems.

There is a lot of somewhat cutting edge science that paints a much more organic picture of the biosphere over the mechanistic view, that changes the whole set of solutions that we should pursue. Consensus science is necessarily somewhat behind, at least if you accept the premise that we have more to learn.

My personal view is that we are ducking things up faster and wider than we have ability to learn how those changes affect our globe, and there is truly no hope in this trajectory we are on. Think of it as trying to fix things before we even know what the effects of the previous fix are. This leads to the system to wild oscillations and inevitable collapse. Bracing for impact is the sane course of action.

Human interventions, their speed and scale are really the only things that matter.

 

[mspohr]

Speaking of forest management, at one point in time the scientific consensus was that growth of forests, and plants for that matter, was mainly driven by the availability of resources to them. So the u fortunate consequence of that was that all the unwanted trees would be pruned out in order not to compete and hinder the growth of the cash crops.

Well in the end it turned out that trees take part in complex underground economies and family units that trade and share resources, and diversity of species in fact increased growth over the long term.

Why is this relevant to climate change? We get so entrenched in our models of the world that we actually believe that we understand complex biological systems. If you do a 5 why’s (or more) analysis on climate change you’re going to find that human hubris and intervention is at the root of our climate problems. Focusing on CO2 will necessarily lead to more problems as long as it means more interventions, faster and at larger scales. Which of course our connected world and the urgency of the problem amplify.

Focusing on CO2 cause perverse situations where it might look better to have large, efficient, machine driven monocrop systems that destroy the life in the soil, compared to animal and plant driven local food systems.

There is a lot of somewhat cutting edge science that paints a much more organic picture of the biosphere over the mechanistic view, that changes the whole set of solutions that we should pursue. Consensus science is necessarily somewhat behind, at least if you accept the premise that we have more to learn.

My personal view is that we are ducking things up faster and wider than we have ability to learn how those changes affect our globe, and there is truly no hope in this trajectory we are on. Think of it as trying to fix things before we even know what the effects of the previous fix are. This leads to the system to wild oscillations and inevitable collapse. Bracing for impact is the sane course of action.

Human interventions, their speed and scale are really the only things that matter.

I think we know that burning stored it CO2 from fossil fuels and clearing forests is what has raised atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 400+ in just a few hundred years.
We need to stop burning stuff and figure out how to put the CO2 genie back in the bottle.

 

[Nrkl]

I think we know that burning stored it CO2 from fossil fuels and clearing forests is what has raised atmospheric CO2 from 280 to 400+ in just a few hundred years.
We need to stop burning stuff and figure out how to put the CO2 genie back in the bottle.

Agreed, but that won’t solve the existential problem. Every action in a complex system has unintended consequences. The problem with the negative unintended consequences is that they are more consequential. So if we spend lots of energy at speed and at scale to solve the problem via positiva, e we will end up in a dead end regardless of what happens with CO2.

Ending CO2 emissions via negativa 100% yes. But there’s no profit in that.

 

[Nrkl]

Agreed, but that won’t solve the existential problem. Every action in a complex system has unintended consequences. The problem with the negative unintended consequences is that they are more consequential. So if we spend lots of energy at speed and at scale to solve the problem via positiva, e we will end up in a dead end regardless of what happens with CO2.

Ending CO2 emissions via negativa 100% yes. But there’s no profit in that.

i know people cling onto the sliver of hope that the “green” economy provides, but its nothing but fools hope. We are driving a car at high speeds with fast steering but slow feedback. There’s no other way than a crash.

 

[mspohr]

i know people cling onto the sliver of hope that the “green” economy provides, but its nothing but fools hope. We are driving a car at high speeds with fast steering but slow feedback. There’s no other way than a crash.

The old "it's too late \ complicated \expensive to do anything" argument.

 

[Nrkl]

The old "it's too late \ complicated \expensive to do anything" argument.

that’s not at all my argument. My argument is that the living globe is not for us to fix. The more fixing we do the more problems we will create. I’m not arguing for status quo, quite exactly the opposite of that.

 

[DrGriz]

that’s not at all my argument. My argument is that the living globe is not for us to fix. The more fixing we do the more problems we will create. I’m not arguing for status quo, quite exactly the opposite of that.

It sounds like you are saying we're too clever for our own good.

So yeah. Stop what we're doing and quit burning stuff.

 

[nwdiver]

that’s not at all my argument. My argument is that the living globe is not for us to fix. The more fixing we do the more problems we will create. I’m not arguing for status quo, quite exactly the opposite of that.

'Fixing' and not 'breaking more' are not the same thing. We're not 'fixing' anything by quitting our insane addiction to fools fuel. We're just doing less harm.

 

[tangible1]

Reforestation can be good if managed well, but management requires the use of fossil fuels for now, as well as controlled burns. Otherwise it just adds literal fuel to fires that are already burning.

In other words, I think we are past the time when simply planting trees will solve the problem. We need to amazingly scale back fossil fuel burning first.

tell it to China and India
all that our chest-thumping virtue-signalling is doing, is setting an example of how to burn money for a supposedly noble cause.
China negotiated their contribution to start in 2030. At which time they'll argue for (infinite) extensions.
India just laughed at us, and took the Paris Accords money anyway.

Germany has been at it far longer and has acknowledged their spending produced negligible improvements, now they're back burning coal and importing LNG from the Saudis.

Tree planting would be symbolic at best; and as you say, without proper forestry practices it will become tinder again.
So pay Georgia Pacific to manage the trees instead of the Government, and you'll get efficient and cost-effective resource management instead of platitudes and forest fires.

 

[JRP3]

Tree planting would be symbolic at best; and as you say, without proper forestry practices it will become tinder again.

Forests have existed for millions of years without "proper forestry practices".

 

[DrGriz]

Forests have existed for millions of years without "proper forestry practices".

They had millions of years to adapt to life on earth, then, we pulled a switcheroo on them.

 

[mspohr]

Climate Change / Global Warming Discussion

Good stuff! Their findings, published in Current Biology, revealed that an estimated 13.12 gigatons of CO2 is transferred from plants to the fungi annually, transforming the soil beneath our feet to a massive carbon pool and the most effective carbon capture storage unit in the world. The...

teslamotorsclub.com

 

[JRP3]

They had millions of years to adapt to life on earth, then, we pulled a switcheroo on them.

Well yes but they also have had to deal with rapid climate changes as well, just not man made. I have a problem with the implication that we shouldn't plant a tree because someday it might catch fire.

 

[kpanda17]

Interesting, we live near the ocean and see low tides being less deeep

meaning the rising oceans are minimizing low tides
Tides are normal and necessary as they cleanse the coastline

 

[tangible1]

Forests have existed for millions of years without "proper forestry practices".

been smelling any Canadian air lately?
a natural part of forests is FIRE

 

[eevee-fan]

been smelling any Canadian air lately?
a natural part of forests is FIRE

Have they been raking their forests? LOL

 

[DrGriz]

Well yes but they also have had to deal with rapid climate changes as well, just not man made. I have a problem with the implication that we shouldn't plant a tree because someday it might catch fire.

The point was not that we shouldn't plant trees. I certainly do. It's that planting a trillion trees is not a panacea.

 

[mspohr]

Forester's Blog: So, How much forest is there in the U.S. and Canada? - forests.org

A recent Twitter post by EcoWatch stated that “A new study has found an alarming loss in forest areas.”

forests.org

According to EcoWatch, “While illegal logging plays a part in forest loss, the No. 1 cause of deforestation is agriculture, as more and more land is razed for growing crops or raising livestock. More monitoring, preservation, and reforestation globally is necessary to maintain forested land and prevent major biodiversity loss.”

So, the message is that we’re not losing forests in the US and Canada. We’re retaining what we have and, in the US, establishing more forest. And in the US we’re growing more than we harvest. That’s compelling evidence of sustainability.\\

Fire only 2% this year.

 

[Nrkl]

It is delusional to think that if we only change the way we produce energy that we use to impact our planet will result in a homeostasis wrt climate and other environmental issues. The impact will mostly stay the same whether we burn or not. It’s rooted in this left-brain dominant thinking that we can splice and slice complex systems and understand them, and that we can manipulate and change them at will. Because science. Nothing will change as long as we continue manipulating the environment the way we do. The speed and scale of that just makes a failure of the system inevitable. It’s quite simple to think through if you just think of a complex dynamic system you’re trying to “control”, where you are making changes quicker than you get the feedback from those changes.

lots of people in this thread denying human’s real impact on our living planet. Just changing the way we produce the energy we use to destroy the earth is not going to fix anything.

 

[DrGriz]

Forester's Blog: So, How much forest is there in the U.S. and Canada? - forests.org

A recent Twitter post by EcoWatch stated that “A new study has found an alarming loss in forest areas.”

forests.org

According to EcoWatch, “While illegal logging plays a part in forest loss, the No. 1 cause of deforestation is agriculture, as more and more land is razed for growing crops or raising livestock. More monitoring, preservation, and reforestation globally is necessary to maintain forested land and prevent major biodiversity loss.”

So, the message is that we’re not losing forests in the US and Canada. We’re retaining what we have and, in the US, establishing more forest. And in the US we’re growing more than we harvest. That’s compelling evidence of sustainability.\\

Fire only 2% this year.

Agree that agriculture is a big threat to forests, and we should pay close attention to that. The article's information on Canadian forests is dated however, and record fires have already claimed 25 million acres, more than ever before, with a couple more months of fire season to go.