Duck Hunting Forum banner
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
With the advent of hurricane Ida the cries of man made global warming again rise to a fevered pitch. But let us not forget that a mere 12,000 years ago where I sit in Northern Wisconsin sat a blanket of ice over 100 feet deep. This occurred with no cars, no factories and very few humans, which should point to natural cycles of dramatic weather changes that earth not man creates.
Having said that, I do wonder what the increasing number of forest and brush fires in the west are having on our immediate or short term weather. Over the last roughly 30 to 50 years western foresters began buckling to hard core eco- radicals who believe in the no harvest approach to forest management. If you look at an old photo of a western pine forest from over a half a century ago the first thing you notice is that the tree spacing is normally such that the tree crowns (limbs) do not touch which made it much harder for fires to spread unchecked. When the canopy or crowns began presenting a increase risk for fire the area was select cut to once again minimize fire risk.
Large fires of any kind can be monsters in the ability to destroy and there inability to be contained. As a young U.S. Forest Service employee in the late 1970's I got to go to California and Oregon to fight huge fires at Big Sur and along the Salmon River and I seen first hand the devastation left behind. We were told how these fire will and do create there own weather patterns and although there may be no rain you may get a barrage of lightning strikes perpetuating other fires.
This summer was one of several in a row that were exceptionally bad forest fires. Dozens of fires burned tens of thousands of acres, doing hundreds of millions of dollars in damage, producing millions of tons of carbon and killing possibly millions of animals, wild and domestic.
So, my question to Government is; If you are truly concerned in atmospheric health for whatever reason, would it not be wise to return to tried and true techniques that have shown effectiveness in curbing many of these fires. Or are you in fact using these catastrophes events to push a left wing power grab with Smart Cars and more government intervention in every ones day to day life?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
671 Posts
You hit the nail on the head. They haven't cared for a long time. I was a logger for 28 years starting in the mid 70's. When we had fired going we put them out. The Forest Service is sloppily afraid to cut a tree. They would rather watch them burn. The real kicker is they won't even salvage the burnt stuff. All this participate matter in the atmosphere should produce shade and hopefully a colder winter for a change. Global warming is a nice buzz word for what cycle the earth is now in.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
506 Posts
I'm an old forester myself, although my forestry degree has been used in careers first as an arborist and for the last 27 years as a park naturalist. The New Jersey Pine Barrens, where I live, is considered the second most fire-prone habitat in the US, after the worst parts of California. Fire is a natural part of the environment here, but it can be more harmful after decades of built up fuel from putting out every little fire, combined with no other forestry management. It was learned here long ago to conduct prescribed burns on a regular basis, to avoid having fuel build up, creating a tinderbox. Infrequent even hotter crown fires are better yet, reducing more fuel and improving habitat, but that isn't practical near population centers. The newer management technique to duplicate the effects of crown fires is to thin the forest, creating the same less-dense forest, with scattered openings, that wildfire would. That will result in less devastating fires as well as create habitat for declining species like Bobwhite Quail and many others which once thrived in a environment that burned more frequently.

As far as global warming, it is indeed part of a natural natural cycle that has repeated itself many times, which the Left needs to be reminded of. But that fact does not preclude man having an impact, perhaps even accelerating it, which the Right needs to be aware of. Dinosaurs went extinct before we were around but that doesn't meant we can't, and haven't, caused extinction. It's about science, not politics, but too many think their political ideology makes them more knowledgeable about issues unrelated to politics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25,264 Posts
many think their political ideology makes them more knowledgeable about issues unrelated to politics
It doesn't? :unsure:

It's about science, not politics
It's also about value judgments.

The earth is warmer than it otherwise would be if not for the human produced emissions of CO2, CH4, etc. The question is how much warmer and what are the impacts. The impacts are both good and bad. The relative importance of the impacts, even if we knew them with absolutely certainty, doesn't tell us how important they are overall. That is a value judgment. Science cannot tell us how we should value different things. That is where the political process weighs them and ideally everyone's values are given the same weight. Of course, that is not the case. People's values you disagree with are disregard sadly by far too many.

The other thing is what is the cost of preventing it. Even if we all agree it is a net negative. The cost of prevention can exceed the cost of living with it.

People are completely unrealistic about the cost of reducing GLOBAL emissions sufficiently. China is building a massive amount of coal plants today. No matter what they say, they will not scrap their billions in capital investments. They want us to harm our economy so they can expand their power and influence. Unless you are a Chinese communists, nearly every American and everyone else on the planet views this as harmful. So we can't have a "solution" where we harm ourselves, empower the Chinese, and global emissions continue to rise. That is effectively the current plan.

I was at a low carbon workshop at MIT a number of years ago. This was experts in relevant fields from across a wide spectrum of expertise. The "solution" to China proposed by some was such economic penalties that would risk war. It was truly scary.

There are huge potential economic, social, health, and national security costs and risk that come with seriously trying to achieve the reduction in global emissions necessary to limit CO2 levels to what most outspoken advocates say we must do in the next 20 or 30 years or catastrophe will ensue (it will not). Their solutions represent potential catastrophic risks in many other areas.

Not a direct analogy, but a major factor in Japan's decision to attack Pearl Harbor was America cutting off oil supplies. Now the "solution" is to cut of oil supplies to everyone on the planet. How is that really going to go?

The best solution is to mitigate and adapt. Nothing else is realistic without miracle techological breakthroughs. Would be nice. Not going to happen.

Thankfully, the science says that for the U.S., even in the worst case, the economic cost will be imperceivably. We will be far wealthier on average, but slightly less so on average. The real risk are for economically dysfunctional countries that don't have the dynamic economies to adapt. That does far greater harm than the harm of greater CO2. The harm of more expensive energy is also much more harmful for these poor countries than it is for a prosperous nation like the U.S. Few Americans appreciate that the average American is much wealthier than the average European. Even what we consider poverty in America is wealthier than than a large fraction of the planet, probably well over half, but I didn't look up the data. Making energy, food, basically everything more expensive for the poor is far worse than the impacts of global warming. We could do great harm. The chance of flatten the curve, let alone actually bending it over to near zero are zero.

It's not just the value judgments of America either. We are wealthy. The harm of making everything more expensive is significant, but far less than nearly every other country and in most cases dramatically so. The same with individuals within the U.S. For most of us, the cost is just less eating out or cheaper vacations. For people that are struggling, it's far more harmful. There is just no consideration for the cost and consequences for most impacted. That's what happens when you get obsessed by one issue and ignore everything else of importance.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Top