Research; Trees are the solution: Open discussion

[Into the Night]

Yet another thread started in the kiddie pool. Bring it out for open discussion.

 

[Into the Night]

Researchers say an area the size of the US is available for planting trees around the world, and this could have a dramatic impact on climate change.
The study shows that the space available for trees is far greater than previously thought, and would reduce CO2 in the atmosphere by 25%.
The authors say that this is the most effective climate change solution available to the world right now.
But other researchers say the new study is "too good to be true".
'Football pitch' of Amazon forest lost every minute
Tropical tree loss persists at high levels
Climate change made heat five times more likely
The ability of trees to soak up carbon dioxide has long made them a valuable weapon in the fight against rising temperatures.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-48870920

Plant more. Quit cutting them down.

That's exactly what places like Weyerhauser do. They are tree farmers. They plant trees and harvest them later for lumber, paper, and other products.

CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. You are still ignoring the 1st law of thermodynamics. You create energy out of nothing.

Define 'climate change'.

 

[Into the Night]

re: planting trees

What we need is more people actively for it.

You want to plant trees? Buy some land and plant them. No one is stopping you.

BTW, did you know that there is a plant that is far more efficient at converting carbon dioxide to carbohydrates and oxygen? Yup. there is. It also grows in every corner of the Earth, even in Antarctica. It's called 'grass'.

 

[Into the Night]

Do your part: Stop using products made of, or with, wood.

This is actually the WORST thing you can do. If the market for wood products dry up, there is no reason for places like Weyerhauser to exist, and no trees will be planted by them anymore. You will LOST forests as they age and die.

 

[moon]

Ooooh lookie ! A loser troll who actually wants to remote-troll a tree thread ! Haw, haw, haw, haw.............haw.

Get a life, moron.

 

[Into the Night]

Dumbass troll.

Another one of your typical responses. This one was made against Granule, who was simply counseling you to use less wood products and thus reducing the need to cut down trees. Aren't you trying to save trees?

Which way do you want it, dude?

 

[Into the Night]

I have a better idea. Why don't we cut down a few trees, and plant more to replace what we've cut down?

Already being done.

 

[archives]

"Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do." -- Ronald Reagan, 1981
But what about the killer trees?

 

[Adolf_Twitler]

re: planting trees


You want to plant trees? Buy some land and plant them. No one is stopping you.

BTW, did you know that there is a plant that is far more efficient at converting carbon dioxide to carbohydrates and oxygen? Yup. there is. It also grows in every corner of the Earth, even in Antarctica. It's called 'grass'.

Greatest plug for the legalization of MARIJUANA EVER! Thanks!

 

[Into the Night]

Global greening is happening faster than climate change, and it’s a good thing

by Matt Ridley, writing in Die Weltwoche

REJOICE IN THE LUSH GLOBAL GREENING CO2 is plant food. The greening of the earth means more food for animals and greater crop yields for humans. Why is no one talking about it?

Because the Church of Global Warming stems from the Church of Karl Marx. CO2 production is linked to industrial activity, which is targeted by Marxism.

Global greening is happening faster than climate change, and it’s a good thing

Since 'climate change' has no meaning, this statement has no meaning. There is nothing to compare with.

Amid all the talk of an imminent planetary catastrophe caused by emissions of carbon dioxide, another fact is often ignored: global greening is happening faster than climate change. The amount of vegetation growing on the earth has been increasing every year for at least 30 years. The evidence comes from the growth rate of plants and from satellite data.

Satellites have been seeing more expansive areas of vegetation, true. A good part of this is improved farming practices.

In 2016 a paper was published by 32 authors from 24 institutions in eight countries that analysed satellite data and concluded that there had been a roughly 14% increase in green vegetation over 30 years. The study attributed 70% of this increase to the extra carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. The lead author on the study, Zaichun Zhu of Beijing University, says this is equivalent to adding a new continent of green vegetation twice the size of the mainland United States.

That's about right.

Global greening has affected all ecosystems – from arctic tundra to coral reefs to plankton to tropical rain forests – but shows up most strongly in arid places like the Sahel region of Africa, where desertification has largely now reversed. This is because plants lose less water in the process of absorbing carbon dioxide if the concentration of carbon dioxide is higher. Ecosystems and farms will be less water-stressed at the end of this century than they are today during periods of low rainfall.

It has more to do with improved farming practices rather than CO2. As measured at Mauna Loa, CO2 is still only 0.04% of the atmosphere, still pretty low for optimal plant life.

There should have been no surprise about this news. Thousands of experiments have been conducted over many years in which levels of CO2 had been increased over crops or wild ecosystems and boosted their growth. The owners of commercial greenhouses usually pump CO2 into the air to speed up the growth of plants. CO2 is plant food.

That's a bit like calling oxygen 'human food'.

Plants manufacture carbohydrates by combining CO2, water, and sunlight. An excess bit of oxygen is released from the reaction as well, which recombines into O2. The rest of the oxygen remains in the plant as part of the carbohydrate. Carbohydrates are also food for us. It's why we eat plants.

This greening is good news. It means more food for insects and deer, for elephants and mice, for fish and whales. It means higher yields for farmers; indeed, the effect has probably added about $3 trillion to farm incomes over the last 30 years. So less land is needed to feed the human population and more can be spared for wildlife instead.

The effect of 0.035% of CO2 vs 0.04% CO2 is unknown. We DO know that improved farming practices have made quite a difference.

Yet this never gets mentioned. In their desperation to keep the fearmongering on track the activists who make a living off the climate change scare do their best to ignore this inconvenient truth. When they cannot avoid the subject, they say that greening is a temporary phenomenon that will reverse in the latter part of this century. The evidence for this claim comes from a few models fed with extreme assumptions, so it cannot be trusted.

Computer models are not a test or valid data.

This biological phenomenon can also help to explain the coming and going of ice ages. It has always been a puzzle that ice ages grow gradually colder for tens of thousands of years, then suddenly warmer again in the space of a few thousand years, at which point the huge ice caps of Eurasia and North America collapse and the world enters a warmer interlude, such as the one we have been enjoying for 10,000 years.

Attempts to explain this cyclical pattern have mostly failed so far. Carbon dioxide levels track the change, but these rise after the world starts to warm and fall after the world starts to cool, so they are not the cause. Changes in the shape of the earth’s orbit play a role, with ice sheets collapsing when the northern summers are especially warm, but only some of these so-called “great summers” result in deglaciation.

The ice ages are regular, periodic, and are linked solely to changes in Earth's orbit as part of the overall interaction between all the planets and the Sun.

Recent ice cores from the Antarctic appear to have fingered the culprit at last: it’s all about plants.

Ice cores don't mean much. They do not indicate either temperatures in the past nor CO2 levels in the past. Proxy data is not used in science. Direct measurements are the only thing used. Proxy data involves preconclusions that are quite possibly wrong.

For example, CO2 is permeable to ice. The indications of the amount of CO2 in past ages is incorrect.

During ice ages, the level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere steadily drops, because colder oceans absorb more of the gas. Eventually it reaches such a low level – about 0.018% at the peak of the last ice age – that plants struggle to grow at all, especially in dry areas or at high altitudes. As a result gigantic dust storms blanket the entire planet, reaching even Antarctica, where the amount of dust in the ice spikes dramatically upward. These dust storms blacken the northern ice sheets in particular, making them highly vulnerable to rapid melting when the next great summer arrives. The ice age was a horrible time to be alive even in the tropics: cold, dry, dusty and far less plant life than today.

All projections and conjectures.

As Svante Arrhenius, the Swede who first measured the greenhouse effect, said:

“By the influence of the increasing percentage of carbonic acid in the atmosphere, we may hope to enjoy ages with more equable and better climates.”

Poor Arrhenius. So misquoted and so abused by the Church of Global Warming. He did not discover the 'greenhouse effect'. There is no 'greenhouse effect'. CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth. He DID discover that CO2 absorbs certain frequencies of infrared light, converting it to thermal energy. That does not warm the Earth.

Enjoy the lush greenery of the current world and enjoy the fact that green vegetation is changing faster than global average temperatures.

...deleted redundant link...

It is not possible to measure the temperature of the Earth. We don't have anywhere near enough thermometers.

 

[Into the Night]

No need for replanting trees in a healthy forest lol.

True. Pretty much by definition.

I sold some timber off my land in the mid-90’s and the replacement trees are already well past the sapling stage.
The Forest regenerates itself. When a large tree drops [for whatever reason] it leaves a hole in the canopy for light to come through and younger ones fill the gap. It’s also an important process for deer and other wildlife habitat.

Yes. The forest is quite capable of replacing itself as long as harvesting does not exceed the regeneration rate.

The amount of trees here in WV is unfathomable lol. We chuckle at the tree huggers here. Rejoice in that new oak floor, no need to feel guilty about it. There’s plenty more where that came from.

Liberals have a very different idea of sex in the bushes. They don't mean how plants multiply and regenerate.

 

[Into the Night]

re: Darth Omar's comment:

Good. Quite clearly- you'd be a supporter of the movement to create many more forests.

Obviously, you haven't been paying attention to his argument, have you?

 

[Into the Night]

The Great Green Wall is taking root in Africa's Sahel region, at the southern edge of the Sahara desert - one of the poorest places on the planet.

Sahel is not the desert. The trees being planted there are simply replacing the grass that already existed there.

More than anywhere else on Earth, the Sahel is on the frontline of climate change

The Sahel in a area at the edge of the Sahara desert and the southern savannas. Define 'climate change'.

and millions of locals are already facing its devastating impact.
https://www.greatgreenwall.org/about-great-green-wall

There is no impact from an undefined phrase.

 

[Into the Night]

All species of trees require CO2 to survive so all of them are carbon sinks.

The same is true of all plants.

All of the hardwoods are marketable and most of the conifers are useful in construction. If man-induced climate change is an actual ‘thing’ then one of the good effects is plants and trees should thrive on the CO2 boost in the atmosphere.

True. All plants are useful. Grasses are food for grazing animals and many insects. Various bushes have berries and are also eaten by animals.

 

[Into the Night]

Ooooh lookie ! A loser troll who actually wants to remote-troll a tree thread ! Haw, haw, haw, haw.............haw.

Get a life, moron.

YALIF. I will parallel any thread that some lower in the kiddie pool decides to start that I think is better for open discussion.

YOU can't handle the open discussion, wimp.

 

[Into the Night]

I imagine that broadleaves are better than conifers ?

Yes- I can't think of any species which isn't good for something.

No one is saying a tree is good for nothing.

 

[Into the Night]

There are some that aren’t marketable for much.

‘Better’ depends on its use. You can make a pretty pine floor but it won’t hold up for long. Pine is good for construction because it’s easier to work with. You can frame a house out with oak—it would be really strong but frightfully expensive. And good luck trying to drive nails into it lol. That said, oak was used in construction in the past.

These days oak is used almost strictly for veneer. I expect a lot of it goes into flooring.

Pine is a softwood. It is easier to build a frame with it, it grows faster than oak does, and it provides a straight grain giving it a good structural strength.
Oak is a hardwood. It takes longer to grow oak, especially to the sizes needed for usable framing lumber. Skinning the logs for plywood produces an attractive finish and a sturdy panel, though expensive.

 

[archives]

As with most Flat Earthers, this one throws out the phraseology with the proper vernacular to attempt an image of competence aimed at presenting a false paradigm. When challenged, he falls back upon lame theorized explanations of Science attempting to neutralize common sense. Been there, done that, boring

In reality, all one needs to know regarding "night's" position on climate change is pretty much summed up in his line "CO2 production is linked to industrial activity, which is targeted by Marxism"

Next

 

[Celticguy]

Im good with reforestation.
Has nothing to do with global warming, just a good idea.

 

[Into the Night]

Wrong, there are thousands of houses in New England that have floors that are pine and hundreds of years old.

True. Pine can last a long time, given reasonable care. So can fir, oak, or almost any other framing wood.

Post and beam frames are often oak but sometimes fir.

Usually fir or pine these days.

Oak floors are not veneer.

They might or might not be. Oak decking (the stuff used to lay hardwood floors) is often a laminate these days. Some places use oak planking. Many a tall ship used oak decks made of planking.

Is there anything you do know?

Pine flooring also appears, and will last a good length of time given proper care. It is a softwood though, so it is more subject to nicks and damage. When used, it is usually used as planks.