Official Global Warming thread (merged)

[Sin City Vol]

Let me ask the screechers ones who oppose Trump pulling out of the Treaty something...

Do you honestly feel it was fair the US was going to have to start paying into the UN green climate fund to pay for other nation's climate change efforts? $100 billion into that program for "developing nations."

I've seen a lot of complaining about Trump adding money to the Defense budget and gnashing of teeth over cutting other budgets, but it's perfectly okay to give away said money into a UN lush fund?

That's the elephant in the room none of you want to talk about.

I personally don't care that he got us out of this program and yes I do believe in climate change. What bothers me more, just like with the healthcare bill... I believe he supports something he knows nothing about. I may be wrong but honestly think he clueless to many things but loves to be controversial and get praise from his core base.

 

[allvol123]

I personally don't care that he got us out of this program and yes I do believe in climate change. What bothers me more, just like with the healthcare bill... I believe he supports something he knows nothing about. I may be wrong but honestly think he clueless to many things but loves to be controversial and get praise from his core base.

In this case, he supported the US taxpayer not paying for an international scam. He was plenty knowledgeable in that fact.

 

[Sin City Vol]

In this case, he supported the US taxpayer not paying for an international scam. He was plenty knowledgeable in that fact.

What I mean is he knows nothing about climate change. This move has Bannon written all over it

 

[allvol123]

What I mean is he knows nothing about climate change. This move has Brannon written all over it

He knew enough not to write a check for it.

 

[Persian Vol]

We all understand this jack rabbit.

But you failed to answer his quesriom.

You failed to understand the logical fallacy I was pointing out in his question. Our ability to predict tomorrow's weather is unrelated to our ability to analyze X amount of years of past weather patterns. Those are two completely different processes.

 

[CountVolcula]

I have no problem lowering emissions and cleaning the air. Only a fool wouldnt

I dont like how the PCA was designed

I hear the argument "The PCA must be good because 100+ countries signed off on it"

Well skippy, 90% of those countries were about to get paid. Of course they would vote for free money. Hell, they just voted Democrat

Environmental bribe money was the heart of the PCA. On top of that, they could get paid and still not abide by the treaty. It was non-binding.

Only a fool bets money on a horse with 2 broke legs

Make penalties instead of rewards for not complying. Most of those countries get foreign aid already. Pull it if they don't comply. Pull out all foreign industry and investment.

But liberal socialist did come up with this half-assed deal..so

 

[CountVolcula]

He knew enough not to write a check for it.

Exactly

 

[FLVOL_79]

I dont know about anyone else but this whole climate change doomsday idiocy gloom and doom did nothing to deter stocks this week. I killed it!

 

[Sin City Vol]

I dont know about anyone else but this whole climate change doomsday idiocy gloom and doom did nothing to deter stocks this week. I killed it!

Congrats!!!

 

[Persian Vol]

Show me an example of it done once. Accurate prediction with evidence man's behavior caused the result.

Like PKT eluded to earlier, based on our understanding of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and our increase of expenditure of CO2 into the environment, conjoined with the occurrence of an unusually expedited increase in global temperatures, gives us a good reason to believe that humans are very likely influencing climate change. Is it possible to determine an absolute cause and effect factor considering all the possible confounding variables, no. But this tendency to definitively assert that humans are not involved due to said confounding variables is a weak argument, as there is unquestionable evidence that there is a greater likelihood that humans are influencing behavior than there is not.

 

[AM64]

I personally don't care that he got us out of this program and yes I do believe in climate change. What bothers me more, just like with the healthcare bill... I believe he supports something he knows nothing about. I may be wrong but honestly think he clueless to many things but loves to be controversial and get praise from his core base.

That's the nature of all politicians. Too many can't see the wisdom of not wading in quicksand. Obamacare is a great example - it's screwed and was completely flawed from the beginning; but now that it's been implemented and sucked millions of people into it's craw, how the hell do you get rid of it? You'd think mankind has been around long enough to quit following others over the cliff, but then for those politically bent it's just usually about lining their own pockets and screw everyone else.

 

[Orange_Crush]

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.

I agree. I could see people planting stands of invasive, fast-growing Russian Olive trees and saying: "See? You'd never know it had been clear-cut!"

Except: Kudzu is only a problem (invasive) with highly disturbed edge areas. Nature uses kudzu and its like to cover bare earth--specifically to cover dirt and begin repairing the soil by building up biomass and pulling nutrients up out of the subsoil after the topsoil has washed away and soil life has died. It will never, ever get a foothold in a healthy, mature ecosystem.

Ever. It's can't compete in that niche.

It's an emergency repair tool. Kudzu is not a problem. It's nature's solution. The fact that it has become so invasive and unstoppable in the US is a reflection of the sate of the ecosystems in the US, not kudzu.

It's no wonder, considering we apparently have state extension agencies recommending deforestation for the benefit of the forests. SMH...

 

[Orange_Crush]

In this case, he supported the US taxpayer not paying for an international scam. He was plenty knowledgeable in that fact.

:good!:

 

[Orange_Crush]

I have no problem lowering emissions and cleaning the air. Only a fool wouldnt

I dont like how the PCA was designed

I hear the argument "The PCA must be good because 100+ countries signed off on it"

Well skippy, 90% of those countries were about to get paid. Of course they would vote for free money. Hell, they just voted Democrat

Environmental bribe money was the heart of the PCA. On top of that, they could get paid and still not abide by the treaty. It was non-binding.

Only a fool bets money on a horse with 2 broke legs

Make penalties instead of rewards for not complying. Most of those countries get foreign aid already. Pull it if they don't comply. Pull out all foreign industry and investment.

But liberal socialist did come up with this half-assed deal..so

It was a bald faced redistribution of wealth, and our President was having none of it.

 

[Grand Vol]

I personally don't care that he got us out of this program and yes I do believe in climate change. What bothers me more, just like with the healthcare bill... I believe he supports something he knows nothing about. I may be wrong but honestly think he clueless to many things but loves to be controversial and get praise from his core base.

I might think you are wrong about this idea he knew nothing about it. It was certainly in the news enough and he's been in office for a sufficient amount of time to get briefed. I honestly think it's the fine print that pushed him to back us out of it.

I wouldn't be surprised if he knew what the ramifications were going to be five and ten years down the road about this treaty. We get our economy smashed during the next 13 years while China, India and others were allowed free reign to continue (and expand) their pollution levels. While we are one of the major CO2 producing countries, China is still above us, still growing and gets a pass until 2030. Doesn't exactly sound fair to me.

Furthermore, it's been pointed out in the thread that private industry is now taking up where our government is leaving off. Doesn't sound so bad does it? Private industry actually doing the same thing this treaty outlined without having the government interfere and make things mandatory? Unintended consequences for certain. Good ones though. And the government isn't paying into a UN slush fund for other countries to "go green."

There is a silver lining here if you get past the gnashing of teeth and heads exploding over what Trump did.

 

[InVOLuntary]

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.

Well in my case he was 100% correct. He wasn't talking about the whole forest dying he was talking about mature trees dying off at a faster rate. I see it in the sections we didn't cut. Huge trees dying for no apparent reason. Also, huge trees are more susceptible to weather blowing them over and lightening strikes. I had one huge oak fall over and it took three large hardwoods with it this this spring. I would do it again with no reservations for it had to do it again.

Just a question, what kind of training do you have in forests management?

 

[InVOLuntary]

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.

Again, I question your knowledge. I've seen first hand the benefit of clear cutting. Your welcome to your opinion but I think I'll stick with what I've seen with my own two eyes.

As far as forest fires. We have literally thousands of acres burned very year, some naturally occurring and some an made. There are species for trees that require the heat of the fire for germination.

 

[InVOLuntary]

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.

If you go back and look at the history of the Cumberland plateau you would discover that it was large expanses of grassland. It is now almost completely forested. Back years ago, elk were native to the plateau. Many think the loss of these grasslands were a direct contributor to the elk disapearing.

Also, most planting of trees does not consist of ornamental but different species of pines for future harvest. Trees are a great renewable resource.

 

[FLVOL_79]

Isn't it interesting all the people clamoring about the impeding doom of the earth because of man made climate change are using products made from petroleum and powered by fossil fuels to spout their untenable environmental talking points online? Bet they drive vehicles with combustion engines and live in domiciles with climate control as well..

Silly hypocritical dolts..YOU ARE KILLING THE PLANET. :birgits_giggle:

 

[allvol123]

Like PKT eluded to earlier, based on our understanding of CO2 as a greenhouse gas and our increase of expenditure of CO2 into the environment, conjoined with the occurrence of an unusually expedited increase in global temperatures, gives us a good reason to believe that humans are very likely influencing climate change. Is it possible to determine an absolute cause and effect factor considering all the possible confounding variables, no. But this tendency to definitively assert that humans are not involved due to said confounding variables is a weak argument, as there is unquestionable evidence that there is a greater likelihood that humans are influencing behavior than there is not.

Not weaker than this drivel you just pecked out.

 

[Carl Pickens]

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.

Kudzu has spawned numerous goat rental businesses in Tennessee

 

[Persian Vol]

Not weaker than this drivel you just pecked out.

Drivel? What exactly was drivel?

 

[Orange_Crush]

Well in my case he was 100% correct. He wasn't talking about the whole forest dying he was talking about mature trees dying off at a faster rate. I see it in the sections we didn't cut. Huge trees dying for no apparent reason. Also, huge trees are more susceptible to weather blowing them over and lightening strikes. I had one huge oak fall over and it took three large hardwoods with it this this spring. I would do it again with no reservations for it had to do it again.

Just a question, what kind of training do you have in forests management?

I have studied forestry for a decade and a half, between college courses and personal development to manage my own forested property, as well as reworking my property into various types of production--from productive forestland to redeveloping cleared forest into other productivity types.

How about you?

And, I'm educated enough in forestry and agro-forestry to be very specific in my vocabulary. I know what clear-cutting forests is. I'll post a picture, since you've used that term, and ask again if you consider this a net positive to a mature forest:

Again, I question your knowledge. I've seen first hand the benefit of clear cutting. Your welcome to your opinion but I think I'll stick with what I've seen with my own two eyes.

As far as forest fires. We have literally thousands of acres burned very year, some naturally occurring and some an made. There are species for trees that require the heat of the fire for germination.

Again, I question your use of vocabulary. You consider
14 acres of this as beneficial to mature forests? If so, your questioning of my knowledge is laughable.

I say that if you clear-cut 14 acres of mature hardwood forest and now claim in five years that no one would ever know it was clear-cut... well, let's just say that I don't believe you.

If you go back and look at the history of the Cumberland plateau you would discover that it was large expanses of grassland. It is now almost completely forested. Back years ago, elk were native to the plateau. Many think the loss of these grasslands were a direct contributor to the elk disapearing.

You should read in detail about the America that original settlers found, and the transformation Europeans/Settlers had on America's East coast and inland as they moved westward. It's eye-opening.

To infer that Tennessee wants to be a Grassland or Savannah is ridiculous. Ask the average homeowner how much money, time and resources they spend on their lawn. Do you know why they spend that much money, time and resources on their lawn? Because they are fighting against that's lawn's natural tendency to mature from grassland and eventually into a forest or woodland.

That's just what it wants to be here. If there is ever a time that it is not, or has not been, it's because we've disturbed it and regressed it from its natural tendency. Like, for instance, by clear-cutting.

Also, most planting of trees does not consist of ornamental but different species of pines for future harvest. Trees are a great renewable resource.

Which is what I surmised was probably the case when the extension office told you there are more trees now that x-amount of years ago. I reaffirm that "more trees" does not equate to "more or equivalently ecologically valuable forests".

 

[InVOLuntary]

I have studied forestry for a decade and a half, between college courses and personal development to manage my own forested property, as well as reworking my property into various types of production--from productive forestland to redeveloping cleared forest into other productivity types.

How about you?

And, I'm educated enough in forestry and agro-forestry to be very specific in my vocabulary. I know what clear-cutting forests is. I'll post a picture, since you've used that term, and ask again if you consider this a net positive to a mature forest:

Again, I question your use of vocabulary. You consider
14 acres of this as beneficial to mature forests? If so, your questioning of my knowledge is laughable.

I say that if you clear-cut 14 acres of mature hardwood forest and now claim in five years that no one would ever know it was clear-cut... well, let's just say that I don't believe you.




You should read in detail about the America that original settlers found, and the transformation Europeans/Settlers had on America's East coast and inland as they moved westward. It's eye-opening.

To infer that Tennessee wants to be a Grassland or Savannah is ridiculous. Ask the average homeowner how much money, time and resources they spend on their lawn. Do you know why they spend that much money, time and resources on their lawn? Because they are fighting against that's lawn's natural tendency to mature from grassland and eventually into a forest or woodland.

That's just what it wants to be here. If there is ever a time that it is not, or has not been, it's because we've disturbed it and regressed it from its natural tendency. Like, for instance, by clear-cutting.



Which is what I surmised was probably the case when the extension office told you there are more trees now that x-amount of years ago. I reaffirm that "more trees" does not equate to "more or equivalently ecologically valuable forests".

All I have to go on is my own experience. While it looked like your pictures for a couple of years it recovered quickly and is more suitable for wildlife. If you like I would be happy to climb the ridge and post pictures if you like. As to savanna, Catoosa wildlife management area has spent thousands of dollars to return part of it's holdings back to it was a hundred or more years ago.

I never claimed Tennessee wanted to revert back to Savanah but it goes to what the forestry agent said that there is more trees today than a hundred years ago.

I realize you obviously don't like clear cutting but many biologist and forestry people do. Just because you don't doesn't make you right. It means you have a different opinion. How bout we just agree to disagree?

Also, I wasn't calling you out, I was genuinely interested in your background.

 

[Biopsyman]

Summer is hot... Global warming