Who else believes...

[lgalla]

In the 1960's Mel Lastman gave refigerators to the Eskimos for promotion for Badboy stores.Did he see what was coming?Makes sence doesn't it?Give the eskimos airconditioners and global warming will be elimated.Sorry for the poor joke,but is there a solution?

[totally_screwed]

Originally Posted by lgalla As humans we like to control the enviroment.Forest fires are natural,but our efforts to control them is causing a worse problem.Natural fires were generally small only burning the underbrush leaving larger trees standing and free to grow.Constant fire fighting has allowed the brush to accumalate making forest fires enfernos.California perfect example.So much fuel accumalated in under brush that any fire is huge and uncontroable.I have been in the "bush"in northern Canada.The underbrush is so thick I wonder how a moose can get through it.Any solution?I dont think so as the damage done from fire fighting over the last 100 years has made all fires into big ones. Larry

Larry,
Isn't it amazing, that human kind with its so-called intelligence seems to make the same type of mistake again and again. The basic problem is always that we know we can do things better than nature, but we completely fail to appreciate that life on Earth has evolved to cope with natural events and disasters over millions of years. In consequence, organisms of all kinds do not need human intervention, except where humans have already screwed things up.

In attempting to improve things, we make things worse, often much worse.
To put this principle in a nutshell - If it ain't broke don't fix it!

Back to your observations
I read an article about this very matter, pre internet [at least for me anyway, so I think around 1998]. I it might have been in Scientific American or National Geographic, but it might have been elsewhere.

As I remember the normal Forestry Service practice up to that time had always been to fight all fires, irrespective of origin. The result that the underbrush was building-up [like you mention] and when fires ignited [either deliberately or naturally] the fires were rapid growing, often reaching huge and impossible to control sizes, they also were burning very hot. According to the article, a decision was made to only fight man-made fires, but to leave natural wildfires to burn themselves out. It wasn't clear how the distinction between man-made and natural was made.

Apparently allowing the natural reduced the levels of underbrush and left a natural irregular patchwork of burnt and unburnt areas. Also, I seem to remember that because these wildfires fires were less hot, that certain trees [one or more types of conifer] which at that time had not been seeding well if at all, started producing viable seedlings. I think the conclusion was drawn that the seeds were able to survive the temperatures of a wildfire, but the previously encountered huge uncontrollable fires [from all that accumulated underbrush] to which you refer burned far too hot for seeds to remain viable.

I must admit that based upon the article, I rather thought US forestry Practice had changed. I must admit that I thought that the Canadians would have done the same sort of thing.

In retrospect, like many other things, it all seemed rather obvious. Isn't hindsight a wonderful thing!

On a completely different issue - I did foresee a disaster happening in Iraq if we invaded. Although I admit that things have got a lot worse there than I could have imagined!

Chris

[Geof]

Originally Posted by totally_screwed ....I read an article about this very matter, pre internet [at least for me anyway, so I think around 1998]. I it might have been in Scientific American or National Geographic, but it might have been elsewhere. ..... .......I must admit that based upon the article, I rather thought US forestry Practice had changed. I must admit that I thought that the Canadians would have done the same sort of thing......

You should maybe try to find the article again. To my knowledge the only fire that was allowed to burn freely was the one in Yellowstone several years ago. Fires near communities are still suppressed as before, unsurprisingly, if you owned a house somewhere out there would you be happy if everything was just allowed to burn "because that is the natural way"?

It is not possible to suddenly change practices like flicking a switch. All the underbrush and extra tree growth that has built up over almost century or so of diligent fire suppression will not go away. Allowing fires to simply run wild through this is not the solution, however, a few years ago when a proposal was put forth to allow or encourage logging in some areas with the added condition that thinning and undergrowth clearance be carried out in adjacent areas there was an outcry from the greenies.

It is correct that this situation has developed over two or three human generations due to the well meaning intervention policy and it is all very well to preach that if it ain't broke don't fix it, but that does not provide a solution.

[totally_screwed]

Originally Posted by Geof You should maybe try to find the article again. To my knowledge the only fire that was allowed to burn freely was the one in Yellowstone several years ago. Fires near communities are still suppressed as before, unsurprisingly, if you owned a house somewhere out there would you be happy if everything was just allowed to burn "because that is the natural way"? It is not possible to suddenly change practices like flicking a switch. All the underbrush and extra tree growth that has built up over almost century or so of diligent fire suppression will not go away. Allowing fires to simply run wild through this is not the solution, however, a few years ago when a proposal was put forth to allow or encourage logging in some areas with the added condition that thinning and undergrowth clearance be carried out in adjacent areas there was an outcry from the greenies. It is correct that this situation has developed over two or three human generations due to the well meaning intervention policy and it is all very well to preach that if it ain't broke don't fix it, but that does not provide a solution.

How true! The way to Hell is paved with good intentions!
But the point I was really trying to make is that mankind has a long track record of making things worse by trying to make things better [and failing miserably in the process]. And that before we try to fix things that aren't all that bad, that it's a good principle to stop and think first, before acting.
This has all the whiff of a decision that no-one actually made, I bet that it 'just happened', no-one either ever really thought about it nor its consequences.
The root cause was most probably either in the education of the staff or the structure of the management organisation of the Parks Authority / Forestry Service, [I'm not sure which].

I bet that the idea of allowing wildfires to burn themselves out either came from an ecologist, or a really canny old woodsman. Although many management structures have a poor record of disregarding advice from anyone outside their own organisation. Some management structures still don't even listen to those lower down.

In a way, I was offering a generic solution of how not to get into the mess in the first place! It was neither proposed nor intended as a realistic solution out of the greatly worsened state.

Update
I did a search of www.nps.gov looking for wildfires, their term is prescribed burn, they have derived a sophisticated process somewhat different from the method mentioned in the article I read, all fires are suppressed. However a systematic process of prescribed burns is scheduled in the colder & wetter times of the year to consume the ~70 years of accumulated forest debris. Over time this should really pay off.

Edited quote from http://www.nps.gov/wica/parkmgmt/firemanagement.htm
In 1968, there was a radical change in the fire management policy for the National Park Service. This policy recognized the legitimate role that fire plays in the environment. It is a three part policy: first, it recognized that prescribed burns are needed to maintain a healthy environment; second, it allows naturally caused fire to burn so long as lives and property are not endangered; and last, it allows for total fire suppression when and where needed.

[lgalla]

Another story.
I lived in Sudbury Ontario 45years ago,the nickle capital of Canada.As a young boy at the time I used to play on the rocks.There was no trees or vegation which I thought normal.We knew of pollution back then as when someone landed a fish from Ramsy lake it made headlines in the local paper.Sudbury was used to test lunar landing modules as the terrain was so similar to the moon.
In the winter I remember some days the snow was pink from pollution from the smelters.This does not happen now as the smokestacks are much higher now.Reasuring is it not?
Why no trees?Apparently the Sudbury area was forested,but when Chicago burnt there was great demand for timber which came from the Sudbury area.
At the same time the mining and smelters started and the resulting pollution
did not support any vegetation or tree growth.Thinking back so long ago,Really there was one skimpy tree per mile in a wasteland.We knew of pollution effects 50 years ago and the solution seems to be higher smoke stacks.Nothing ground breaking has been done in half a century.Actually we the consumer are guilty as we want products which pollute the enviroment.
Larry

[NinerSevenTango]

Who would have settled in Sudbury if it were not the site of a meteor impact? It seems the mineral deposits were the source of income that attracted people to the area.

Wikipedia, although not an authoritative source, gives a slightly different interpretation. It says dramatic changes have been made in Sudbury in the last 50 years:

"In the late 1970s, private, public, and commercial interests combined to establish an unprecedented "regreening" effort. Lime was spread over the charred soil of the Sudbury region by hand and by aircraft. Seeds of wild grasses and other vegetation were also spread. In twenty years, over three million trees were planted. The ecology of the Sudbury region has recovered dramatically, due both to the regreening program and improved mining practices, and in 1992 the city was given the "Local Government Honours Award" by the United Nations, in honour of its innovative community-based strategies in environmental rehabilitation. More recently, the city has begun to rehabilitate the slag heaps that surround the Copper Cliff smelter area, with the planting of grass and trees."

Also, the use of multi-cyclones, electrostatic precipitators and bag houses to limit emissions has dramatically reduced atmospheric contamination from the smelters.

They also say that the "moonscape" story is a myth.

"During the Apollo manned lunar exploration program, NASA astronauts trained in Sudbury, to become familiar with shatter cones, a rare rock formation connected with meteorite impacts. However, the popular misconception that they were visiting Sudbury because it purportedly resembled the lifeless surface of the moon dogged the city for years."

If consumer preferences changed and stainless steel went out of fashion, a lot of people in the area would be out of work.

It was a lot worse in the beginning days, when technology did not exist to efficiently process the ore. In those days, they used an open roasting process that used local trees. It put a huge amount of stuff into the air. Everybody involved knew what it was doing to the local environment, but the decision was consciously made to do it in order to make a living at it.

In the final analysis, most heavy metals are considered environmental poisons, and that includes nickel and copper. And the sulphur that they are bound up with is some stinky-ass poisonous stuff that makes for real acid rain when it is put into the air. If the wild environment in the area would be better off undisturbed, what would the value to humans be?

--97T--

[jetski]

Your channel CNN last Wed or Thursday just screwed up major. I am sure we will never hear this report again. In a writen blurb running across the bottom of the screen I read the following bit of news. The souther polar ice cap of Mars is melting the planet appears to be warming! See I told you those damn Martians are screwing up their atmosphere too. Those sick and twisted poluter. I think they have the heat ray pointed at our poles. All I want to know now is how the left will explain our polution is affecting Mars. Stay tooned Al G. and Stephen H. have a hell of alot of congering to do to pull the table cloth out from under this to blame it on us. I am sure it could have nothing to do with solar flares. Has anyone thought who is on the sun that needs help? Hey they are shooting flares. It must be at night when it is dark out. Our Mars mission must have taken just enough polution inside of one of the steril cans to screw up the whole Martin atmosphere. HOW WILL THE DEMOCRATS EXPLAIN THE PROBLEM WITHOUT A REPUBLICAN ON THE SURFACE OF MARS? Did someone just hear the house of card start to fall? LOL I am having a good day now. Think I will go mow the yard at noon and crush some styrofoam. Oh yea and turn a few more lights on at Al Gores house please. Oh yea done think because you don't drive into on comming trafic that you are smarter than the rest of us. Wow am I having fun here.

[Shotout]

Originally Posted by lgalla Another story. I lived in Sudbury Ontario 45years ago,the nickle capital of Canada.As a young boy at the time I used to play on the rocks.There was no trees or vegation which I thought normal.We knew of pollution back then as when someone landed a fish from Ramsy lake it made headlines in the local paper.Sudbury was used to test lunar landing modules as the terrain was so similar to the moon. In the winter I remember some days the snow was pink from pollution from the smelters.This does not happen now as the smokestacks are much higher now.Reasuring is it not? Why no trees?Apparently the Sudbury area was forested,but when Chicago burnt there was great demand for timber which came from the Sudbury area. At the same time the mining and smelters started and the resulting pollution did not support any vegetation or tree growth.Thinking back so long ago,Really there was one skimpy tree per mile in a wasteland.We knew of pollution effects 50 years ago and the solution seems to be higher smoke stacks.Nothing ground breaking has been done in half a century.Actually we the consumer are guilty as we want products which pollute the enviroment. Larry

Higher smoke stack construction:

Generally means that scrubbers have been added to exceed the gov't regulations on emissions. I say exceed since it is an expensive undertaking and industry doesn't want the new expense every few years when the gov't tightens those standards. Case in point a local P&G plant has a water curtian system to filter the exhaust from their boilers, even before it was required. Eco friendly boilers that use pecan shells, peanut hulls and various waste woods from local timber processing plants, abudant in SW GA, that would otherwise end up in an inert waste landfill. The water that is used is treated with a solution that causes impurities to settle out and nuterilizes it with the sludge going to dumpsters and the clear water is recirculated. Meaning the waste water is of drinking quality and the small portion that escapes is not a hazard.
On a cold day you see steam issuing from the smoke stacks. Local eco nuts decided to protest, got the Atlanta affiliate of NBC down to cover it, up until a spokesman (drafted engineer) went out to give an interview. Cameras packed up and left, protesters left with no aduance, read rebels without a clue.
The sludge is taken to a local landfill and dumped in the compost section along with what little ash is left from the combustion chamber and sold to fertiziler companies in bulk lots. Very eco friendly but the ill informed, which most passionate people that are anti-industry and pro-envronment are, still tried to make an issue out of it. So have you asked the local plant people about their smoke stacks??? Hmmm might be a good idea if you haven't.

Scott

[One of Many]

While I prefer to keep my state of denial, only with an ounce of circumspection. Given the additional information(old news) like melting ice caps on Mars to be far more relevant to the cause and effect relative to solar system temperatures, than any human activity on earth. Considering that Mars is further from the sun and shows natural tendencies reacting to sun spots and/or solar flares. The effects on earth would likely be compounded in that reaction, being closer to the source.

If we look at this pragmatically, there are some coincidental evidences at minimum to be aware of and not totally ignore. Specifically the rate of global growth in both population and economies which will produce and thereby increase consumption of energy of all types. The exponential pollution in the distant future will likely have an effect on several aspects of the global environment. There should be a lot more effort spent to circumvent that besides serendipitous rants of the rich and famous.The people that are jumping on this bandwagon produce more greenhouse gasses preaching to the choir in the last few years than I will in my entire lifetime if not several average lifetimes. There must be no shame in polluting for the cause, to send the commoner on a guilt trip. Carbon credits do not sell themselves. Eventually we may be forced to pay into the system regardless if it ever returns a dimes worth of technological advances in generations to come. I imagine these companies to be run as non-profits that render huge paychecks and not much else.

I have read the current estimate of fossil fuels could run out or become very limited in the next 100 years. So far what has been proposed as alternative energy rarely has any advantages. Most appear to be circus potions with such tall claims to even consider large scale usage. Many just exchange one form of pollution for another. Others are economically unfeasible and far less efficient. Never expect to reach unity from a waste product that can be reused, without putting more energy in it than we can ever get back out.

Although the current hyped urgency is over blown, I'm not willing to forego my creature comforts using my lawn or recreational equipment to satisfy a few worry warts. My concern is that there will be additional taxation and restrictive laws supporting a vain effort to satisfy the will and con-science of a few with the power and influence to do so. The very same mentality that decries tracking phone conversations as a civil liberties issue despite its intended purpose, wants to dictate your use of their world above and beyond your consent.

I'll do my part by cutting down on my bean intake!

DC

[NinerSevenTango]

Cut your energy use to conserve it for China. They will need it to perform the manufacturing industries that we are driving out of North America.

--97T--

[lgalla]

97T Right on.I am inthe speaker business in Canada and major players have closed and moved to China.Previously they were only buying parts but have closed here only having distribution.Need a job?Move to China.
Larry

[cadfish]

My opinion on global warming,,that pretty much sums it up. I think we need to worry about that massive rock floating above our heads first.