Official Global Warming thread (merged)

#7,751
#7,751
InVOLuntary said:
I went back and forth on it. I bought the property and timbering was a way to offset the cost. Of 50 acres I clear cut 14. We live on the property and I didn't want to make a mess of the place. All my misgivings were completely misplaced. It was the best thing I could of done. We would occasionally see a deer rarely see a turkey. Within two years we were over run with deer and turkey. Within 5 years you could hardly tell it was clear cut. It is truly amazing how quickly the forest recovers.
Click to expand...

I'd love to trade places with you and have to make those kinds of decisions. It sounds like you did it right. Enjoy what you have!
 
#7,752
#7,752
InVOLuntary said:
I went back and forth on it. I bought the property and timbering was a way to offset the cost. Of 50 acres I clear cut 14. We live on the property and I didn't want to make a mess of the place. All my misgivings were completely misplaced. It was the best thing I could of done. We would occasionally see a deer rarely see a turkey. Within two years we were over run with deer and turkey. Within 5 years you could hardly tell it was clear cut. It is truly amazing how quickly the forest recovers.
Click to expand...
One thing that amazed me about the Big Island of Hawaii was how fast vegetation grew out of what was molten lava not long before. The volcano erupted and it left places looking like they had been paved over, and in a few years, they became lush and green again, and the island got bigger.
 
#7,754
#7,754
1972 Grad said:
One thing that amazed me about the Big Island of Hawaii was how fast vegetation grew out of what was molten lava not long before. The volcano erupted and it left places looking like they had been paved over, and in a few years, they became lush and green again, and the island got bigger.
Click to expand...

I think many underestimate the power of mother nature. She's not as fragile as many are lead to believe.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7,755
#7,755
CountVolcula said:
Weather Channel: " According to computer models, tomorrow will be mostly sunny with a slight chance of rain"

Rains most of day

Person 1: "Weathermen are so unreliable. They are just mostly guessing"

Person 2: "Well, to be fair, predicting weather is not an exact science"

Weather Channel: "The drastic changes in our weather is being caused by excess levels of CO2 in the atmosphere caused by burning of fossil fuels"

Person 1 and Person 2 : " Global warming is caused by man. The Weather Channel confirms it"
Click to expand...

Comparing weather vs global climate are two completely different things.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7,757
#7,757
PKT_VOL said:
Physics is settled? That's news to me. I was under the impression that physicists were desperately trying to unify Einsteinian physics and QM, despite both theories being some of the most successful theories mankind has deduced. Quantum gravity has revealed that our understanding, despite being very successful theories, is fundamentally wrong.

In other disciplines, the advent of more power tools of observation and crossapplication of various disciplines reveal flaws in theories we previously didn't understand.
Click to expand...

What is it about "a very lot of" you don't understand. Is it not up your alley? Don't look down, there might be a spin on this subject that'll charm your socks off.

When the magic islands appear and stability will reassert itself as valleys of magic numbers.
 
#7,758
#7,758
Persian Vol said:
Comparing weather vs global climate are two completely different things.
Click to expand...

Indeed and strengthens his point.

Weather, a short time period, can be reasonably predicted. But even in a short prediction...say 7 days, you begin to see less and less accuracy the more days they go out.

Climate, weather over a long period, would be exponentially more difficult to predict.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7,759
#7,759
CountVolcula said:
Nature can't be controlled

A warming planet is part of nature

A cooling planet is part of nature

Floods are part of nature

Tornados

Hurricanes

Earthquakes

Droughts
Click to expand...


Humans releasing 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every year is not part of nature and can be controlled.
 
Last edited:
#7,761
#7,761
allvol123 said:
Indeed and strengthens his point.

Weather, a short time period, can be reasonably predicted. But even in a short prediction...say 7 days, you begin to see less and less accuracy the more days they go out.

Climate, weather over a long period, would be exponentially more difficult to predict.
Click to expand...

I don't believe you are grasping the difference.

Climate is not liferally "weather over a long period" in the sense where you predict the future weather over a long period. Climate is average weather within a long period based on the past to determine average weather patterns for a region. Climate is far more generalizable than weather. Predicting that temperatures will increase and will lead to "x" weather effects in the future on average is not the same as predicting whether it will or will not rain in exactly two weeks from now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7,762
#7,762
InVOLuntary said:
You may be right but I was timbering some of my property and I listed the help from the TN Forestry department. I was talking to him about misgivings about it, particularly clear cutting. He, a biologist explained to me that forest really like anything else. They get to a certain point and the they die. He explained to me that clear cutting was the best option because it allowed the sun to reach the forest floor and made it easier for new trees to grow more rapidly.

I asked him about deforestation statewide and he told me we were planting more trees than we were cutting. He said that the state was more forested today than 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

TN needs to hire better scientists. That's a crock of smelly stuff. Forests that die usually die due to pests (normally things like foreign beetles that were introduce by biologists), disease, etc... But rarely do they completely die.

And there is little to no benefit for a forest ecosystem in clearing all the trees to allow sunlight to the forest floor. Everything on that forest floor is there because its niche is to live on... wait for it... a forest floor of dappled to deep shade. Flooding it with sunlight is a net negative to the ecosystem. Killing the trees, whose roots spread out as the backbone of subsoil life, is a net negative. Getting rid of the trees, that pump and power the local water cycle of the forest, is a net negative to the ecosystem. Stripping all the trees that are home to the wildlife that helps make a healthy ecosystem, is a net negative to the ecosystem. Stripping the trees causes horrible soil erosion from wind, rain and sun, which is a net negative.

NO forest is designed to be wiped out as a positive to the ecosystem. In temperate climates such as ours, the land wants to be a forest. It is always working towards being a forest. Its many stages of development are all driving toward being a forest.

Once a forest, the overstory trees will drop seeds, and younger trees will sprout up and grow up to understory and await a break in the overstory (usually from a single overstory tree dying from old age or calamity).

In other words, short of a widespread calamity, forests don't die. Trees in a forest die, and there are almost always younger trees waiting to take their place, thus renewing the forest.

TN staff scientists suck.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,763
#7,763
MT LeConte said:
Former Presidents & famous celebrities & today's politicians flying all over the world & the country on their personal jets with such gusto releasing 40 billion tons of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere every is not part of nature and can be controlled.

Post has been fixed there sparky..:hi:
Click to expand...
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7,764
#7,764
Persian Vol said:
I don't believe you are grasping the difference.

Climate is not liferally "weather over a long period" in the sense where you predict the future weather over a long period. Climate is average weather within a long period based on the past to determine average weather patterns for a region. Climate is far more generalizable than weather. Predicting that temperatures will increase and will lead to "x" weather effects in the future on average is not the same as predicting whether it will or will not rain in exactly two weeks from now.
Click to expand...

Difference between weather and Climate, is time. Go play with your buddies at NASA if you have a problem with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#7,765
#7,765
Orange_Crush said:
TN needs to hire better scientists. That's a crock of smelly stuff. Forests that die usually die due to pests (normally things like foreign beetles that were introduce by biologists), disease, etc... But rarely do they completely die.

And there is little to no benefit for a forest ecosystem in clearing all the trees to allow sunlight to the forest floor. Everything on that forest floor is there because its niche is to live on... wait for it... a forest floor of dappled to deep shade. Flooding it with sunlight is a net negative to the ecosystem. Killing the trees, whose roots spread out as the backbone of subsoil life, is a net negative. Getting rid of the trees, that pump and power the local water cycle of the forest, is a net negative to the ecosystem. Stripping all the trees that are home to the wildlife that helps make a healthy ecosystem, is a net negative to the ecosystem. Stripping the trees causes horrible soil erosion from wind, rain and sun, which is a net negative.

NO forest is designed to be wiped out as a positive to the ecosystem. In temperate climates such as ours, the land wants to be a forest. It is always working towards being a forest. Its many stages of development are all driving toward being a forest.

Once a forest, the overstory trees will drop seeds, and younger trees will sprout up and grow up to understory and await a break in the overstory (usually from a single overstory tree dying from old age or calamity).

In other words, short of a widespread calamity, forests don't die. Trees in a forest die, and there are almost always younger trees waiting to take their place, thus renewing the forest.

TN staff scientists suck.
Click to expand...


Possibly. But forest fires are a natural and healthy phenomena for large forested regions. I didn't take the original comment to mean the entire forest dying but rather areas of trees. The GSMNP staff are really excellent at what they do so I wouldn't pull the generalization
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,766
#7,766
allvol123 said:
Difference between weather and Climate, is time. Go play with your buddies at NASA if you have a problem with that.
Click to expand...

Climate is the average weather (or average weather trend) over a period of time. Predicting average weather patterns and temperature is not the same as predicting specific weather patterns at a specific point in time.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,767
#7,767
Persian Vol said:
Climate is the average weather (or average weather trend) over a period of time. Predicting average weather patterns and temperature is not the same as predicting specific weather patterns at a specific point in time.
Click to expand...

That's the problem. They can't predict the weather for tomorrow. What makes you believe they can read and actually understand the data from 1,000,000 years ago?
 
#7,768
#7,768
Persian Vol said:
Climate is the average weather (or average weather trend) over a period of time. Predicting average weather patterns and temperature is not the same as predicting specific weather patterns at a specific point in time.
Click to expand...

Indeed, we all know it is hot in August in TN.

Predicting it is going to get hotter in future similar months in similar regions based on man's actions, is quite assinime.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#7,769
#7,769
ShowSomePride said:
Possibly. But forest fires are a natural and healthy phenomena for large forested regions. I didn't take the original comment to mean the entire forest dying but rather areas of trees. The GSMNP staff are really excellent at what they do so I wouldn't pull the generalization
Click to expand...

I was using sarcasm against the singular.

Forest fires rarely wipe out a forest. We used to burn our forests on a schedule and the overstory always survived. Wild fires that would wipe out a forest are rare in nature.

The advice to clear-cut a forest to help that forest is pure idiocy. No other way to put it. Now, if one wants to clear-cut a forest they own, go for it. I cleared a section of my property in order to make other uses of it, with no hint of grief over the decision. But I also didn't fool myself into thinking that I did it to benefit the land/forest. I did it for my own benefit--for what I wanted. Again... Not what the land needed.
 
#7,770
#7,770
Obsessed said:
That's the problem. They can't predict the weather for tomorrow. What makes you believe they can read and actually understand the data from 1,000,000 years ago?
Click to expand...

Predicting tomorrow's weather and analyzing climate patterns for the last "x" amount of years are not the same thing.
 
#7,772
#7,772
InVOLuntary said:
I asked him about deforestation statewide and he told me we were planting more trees than we were cutting. He said that the state was more forested today than 100 years ago.
Click to expand...

I would ask what kind of forest has been clear-cut as opposed to the kind of "forest" that has been planted as replacement. It takes a standard Hickory/Oak forest (the predominant forest ecosystem in TN) generations to grow to maturity and stability. Are they clear-cutting hardwood forests and replanting with softwoods such as pine stands?

Is that to be considered a net neutral for TN ecology?

Secondly, I would ask how they are distributing the forests, if they are regrowing forests at all. More "trees" != more healthy forests. Forests need a certain amount of undisturbed area to be considered forests, and to support healthy wildlife ecosystems. Think of it as "the land between the edges".

What with urban sprawl, I would be very surprised to know that the amount of healthy, true forest (especially native hardwood forests) has grown, as opposed to cheap, disposable, fast-growing trees being planted for harvest and/or suburb beautification.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#7,773
#7,773
Orange_Crush said:
I would ask what kind of forest has been clear-cut as opposed to the kind of "forest" that has been planted as replacement. It takes a standard Hickory/Oak forest (the predominant forest ecosystem in TN) generations to grow to maturity and stability. Are they clear-cutting hardwood forests and replanting with softwoods such as pine stands?

Is that to be considered a net neutral for TN ecology?

Secondly, I would ask how they are distributing the forests, if they are regrowing forests at all. More "trees" != more healthy forests. Forests need a certain amount of undisturbed area to be considered forests, and to support healthy wildlife ecosystems. Think of it as "the land between the edges".

What with urban sprawl, I would be very surprised to know that the amount of healthy, true forest (especially native hardwood forests) has grown, as opposed to cheap, disposable, fast-growing trees being planted for harvest and/or suburb beautification.
Click to expand...

Just to add to this, sometimes they plant what turns out to be invasive trees and plants. I'm dealing with this myself with chinaberry trees sprouting up darn near everywhere from the original three that were planted by the previous occupants. Same thing to a lesser extent with the thorny locust, but those are on a part of the property I tend to ignore.

Sometimes good intentions can become a problem in the long run. Kudzu being the blatantly obvious example of this.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top