Environmentalists fail to prove their case | High Sierra Topix  

Environmentalists fail to prove their case

Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
User avatar

Postby dave54 » Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:06 pm

hikerduane wrote:...I didn't know it was modeled after Collins Pine. Everyone should look at their practices. Although I don't like the plantation look when going into the Caribou Wilderness via Hay Meadow...


That plantation at the bottom of the 10 Road is from a 1940's fire. Started at the old Chester dump.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=



User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Postby dave54 » Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:11 pm

The Meadow Valley and Creeks Projects are specifically designed to restore the forest structure and composition to pre-settlement conditions. The environmental industry supports that idea in concept (or give lip service to the idea), but oppose anyone actually trying to accomplish it with actions on the ground.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Postby hikerduane » Thu Jan 26, 2006 8:27 pm

One of the meetings that I attended of the Friends of Plumas Wilderness, they were discussing roadless areas and how much could be logged on the forest per year. They came up with a figure that was close to what the timber industry wanted to log. I believe it was between 190 to 230 million board feet a year, maybe only up to 210 million board feet. This is a number that the local environmentalists came up with. I would have to look it up, but from what I have seen in the local paper I believe is where I have seen it, that the amount of timber harvested now is just a small fraction of that amount.
Piece of cake.
User avatar
hikerduane
Founding Member
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:58 am
Location: Meadow Valley, CA, Carson City, NV
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Postby dave54 » Thu Jan 26, 2006 9:37 pm

hikerduane wrote: ... I believe it was between 190 to 230 million board feet a year, maybe only up to 210 million board feet...


Sounds plausible.

There's more than one way to define sustained yield, but by any definition used current harvest levels are wwwaaaayyyy below that number.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=
User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
 
Posts: 775
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.
Experience: N/A

User avatar

CO2 and climate change

Postby gdurkee » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:49 pm

but wasn't there something out recently about ice samples from thousands of years ago showing CO2 levels are higher now then they were then? Meaning there is global warming from the story. I was doubting the global warming thing but have some doubts now after that. Anyone else put a spin or further interpretation on the story?


Duane:

You remembered right. There are two articles that have pushed me pretty firmly into the "yep, it's human caused" camp. That was from a series of studies on CO2 in Antactic glaciers. From SCIENCE Nov. 25, 1005

The results confirm that the modern atmosphere is highly anomalous and reinforce the view that greenhouse gases and climate are intimately related.

and:

"We find that CO2 is about 30% higher than at any time, and methane 130% higher than at any time; and the rates of increase are absolutely exceptional: for CO2, 200 times faster than at any time in the last 650,000 years."

The other study I found interesting was a literature review of all the peer reviewed stuff published in the last 5 (?) years on climate change. None suggested it wasn't happening; most agreed it's human caused.

So anyway, both those articles swung me into the whacko rad-enviro commie-lovin' Clinton column. Happy to be there... .

g.
User avatar
gdurkee
Founding Member
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm
Experience: N/A

User avatar

and now some news from the ozone

Postby gdurkee » Fri Jan 27, 2006 9:49 pm

Ozone hole might not recover until the year 2065

Sid Perkins

From San Francisco, at a meeting of the American Geophysical Union

The ozone-free zone that develops high in the atmosphere over Antarctica each summer was a result of the presence of chlorine- and bromine-containing chemicals may not heal until 2065, about 15 years later than previously projected.

Over most of the world, an ozone layer blocks much of the sun's ultraviolet radiation from reaching Earth's surface. However, in the extremely cold air over Antarctica, the combination of sunlight and certain gases, such as the chlorofluorocarbons used in refrigeration, readily destroys ozone.

At its yearly peak in early October, the ozone hole covered about 24.3 million square kilometers, an area about the size of North America. That's down from the hole's largest extent of 26.2 million km2 in 1998 but not by as much as scientists had expected, says Dale F. Hurst, an atmospheric chemist with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration in Boulder, Colo.

The production of many ozone-destroying chemicals was banned by international agreement in 1995, says Hurst. But concentrations of some of those chemicals low in the atmosphere over the United States and Canada—parcels of air that end up high over Antarctica 5 to 6 years later—hint that the chemicals are still used in significant quantities.

The recent measurements suggest that stockpiles of such gases may be larger than scientists had estimated. Recycling and reuse of those chemicals may be extending the life of such stockpiles, Hurst notes.

Using estimates of the atmospheric lifetimes of the ozone-destroying chemicals, researchers had projected that by 2050 the ozone hole over Antarctica would shrink to the size it was in 1980, the year that it was first noted. The atmospheric data gathered over the United States and Canada now suggest a 15-year delay in recovery, says Hurst.
User avatar
gdurkee
Founding Member
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Postby hikerduane » Fri Jan 27, 2006 10:37 pm

I haven't consulted with my environmental expert, Rush for a number of years now. I better tune in to his show and get up to speed on all this. In the same camp as Mr. Clinton, oh no, what is my world coming to. Thank you coming up with more info.

What I find interesting was a show on the Discovery Channel a few years ago about the effect melting glaciers were having on compacted earth. After the ice receded, the earth was springing back. To my way of thinking, the earth was warmer then cooled down to allow the ice to form. Not a good explanation, I'm not too good with words. That has been my line of thought and why I have had some doubts about the global warming thing. Rush had also mentioned that the hole in the ozone opened and closed all the time.
Piece of cake.
User avatar
hikerduane
Founding Member
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:58 am
Location: Meadow Valley, CA, Carson City, NV
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Postby AldeFarte » Fri Jan 27, 2006 11:07 pm

I predict that the ozone hole will continue to shrink , then get bigger, then shrink some more, then get bigger, etc. One thing you can make bet on is the next year we have unusual high volcanic activity, there will be a larger ozone hole. Whoever "discovered" the thinning area of ozone must have really been a chicken little looking for a sinister cause to go with a convenient effect. jls
User avatar
AldeFarte
Topix Regular
 
Posts: 215
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 10:46 pm
Location: Eklutna, Ak.
Experience: N/A

User avatar

You've seem to forget the herbicides

Postby cmon4day » Wed Mar 29, 2006 4:52 pm

AldeFarte wrote: I have read and am old enough to have witnessed the fact that sometimes the ugliest timber harvest is the best for the resource, because it scarifies the land and that is what a healthy forest needs to replinish.


When forests are cut down as you describe. The only way for the timber companies to control unwanted growth of the shrubs which prolifereate after a clear cut is by the use of herbicides. The herbicides then get into the water and kill off the fish most of us like to catch and eat/release. Wow, responsible forest management!

Vic
User avatar
cmon4day
Topix Regular
 
Posts: 213
Joined: Wed Mar 29, 2006 3:08 pm
Location: Dublin, CA
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Postby krudler » Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:10 pm

WASHINGTON (AP) -- The rumblings of global warming are echoing across Greenland.

Groups of scientists studying ancient climate, tweaking computer models of future climate and even listening to earthquakes add to the evidence that global warming is melting polar ice, according to a series of papers in this week's issue of the journal Science.

At the current rate of rising temperatures, by the year 2100 Arctic summers could be as warm as they were 130,000 years ago. Back then, in a time known as the last interglacial, the oceans were 20 feet higher than they are now.

That does not mean the researchers are predicting a 20-foot ocean rise by the end of this century; more like a couple of feet, they think. But such a warming is expected to accelerate melting of the polar ice and could lead to considerable additional sea-level rise, they said.


The article (you can read it on CNN.com) goes on...
Hmmm...seems that the earth was once warmer than it is now? Could it be that not all "global warming" is caused by evil humans?

Another interesting point in the same article was that the polar ice caps on Mars have also been shrinking steadily for a while now. Now, this could be caused by SUV's, of course, but it would seem more likely to be an effect of some kind of increase in the output of solar radiation. I mean, the thing burns at what, a couple billion degrees? Seems to me like the few degrees of extra heat that are routinely cited as the cause of "global warming" (ie, my fault), could in fact possibly be caused by what amounts to little more than a statistically insignificant flare-up of solar activity.

Don't get me wrong, I'm cool with cutting back some, but I don't think that some of the Holy Grail proposals that have been bandied about are the way to do it.
This was an interesting article from the Wall Street Journal (yes, that purveyor of evil capitalist thought!) a few days ago. Just food for thought:

Kyoto? No Go.
How to combat "global warming" without destroying the economy.

BY PETE DU PONT
Tuesday, March 28, 2006 12:01 a.m. EST

Did the 1970s mark the beginning of an ice age? Scientists and the press thought so. In 1971 Global Ecology forecast the "continued rapid cooling of the earth." The New York Times reported in 1975 that "many signs" suggest that the "earth may be headed for another ice age," and Science magazine that this cooling could be the beginning of "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age." It seemed sensible because, as NASA data show, there was indeed a 30-year, 0.2-degree Celsius cooling trend from 1940 to 1970.

So are we now at the beginning of a global warming catastrophe? Again, scientists and the press think so: the same NASA data indicates a 0.7-degree warming trend from 1970 to 2000. The Washington Post's David Ignatius reflects the media view in saying that "human activity is accelerating dangerous changes in the world's climate."

But it is not clear that human activity is wholly responsible. The Washington Policy Center reports that Mount Rainier in Washington state grew cooler each year from 1960 to 2003, warming only in 2004. And Mars is warming significantly. NASA reported last September that the red planet's south polar ice cap has been shrinking for six years. As far as we know few Martians drive SUVs or heat their homes with coal, so its ice caps are being melted by the sun--just as our Earth's are. Duke University scientists have concluded that "at least 10 to 30 percent of global warming measured during the past two decades may be due to increased solar output."

So what is causing these cooling and warming increases? Normal temperature trends? Solar radiation changes? Or human-caused global warming? There is little we can do about historical temperature or solar heat cycles, but if human actions are in fact causing global warming, what could be done to reduce it?

One remedy is improved technology, and here America is making significant progress. Philip Deutch's article in the December edition of Foreign Policy lays it out: "Today's cars use only 60 percent of the gasoline they did in 1972; new refrigerators about one third the electricity; and it now takes 55 percent less oil and gas than in 1973 to generate the same amount of gross domestic product." The cost of wind power production is down 80% over 20 years, and "the cost of solar power has fallen from almost $1 per kilowatt to less than 18 cents."
On the other hand, there are some remedies that are not being pursued. "More than 50 percent of U.S. consumers," Deutch notes, "have the option of buying electricity generated from renewable energy sources. . . . Only 1 or 2 percent actually do." And while two dozen low-pollution nuclear power plants are under construction in nine nations (and another 40 are planned), in America government regulation has virtually stopped nuclear plant construction. Our last nuclear plant was ordered in 1973 and completed in 1996, and no others are under construction.

We also know that the Kyoto Treaty will do little to solve the carbon-dioxide problem. Masquerading as a global environmental policy, Kyoto exempts half of the world's population and nine of the top 20 emitters of carbon dioxide--including China and India--from its emissions reduction requirements. It is in fact an effort to replace the world's markets with an internationally regulated (think U.N.) global economy, perhaps better described as a predatory trade strategy to level the world's economic playing field by penalizing the economic growth of energy efficient nations and rewarding those emitting much greater quantities of noxious gasses. Which explains why in 1997 the U.S. Senate voted 95-0 to oppose the signing of any international protocol that would commit Western nations to reduce emissions unless developing countries had to do so as well.

As The Wall Street Journal recently pointed out, almost none of the nations that signed on are meeting Kyoto's requirements. Thirteen of the original 15 European signatories will likely miss the 2010 emission reduction targets. Spain will miss its target by 33 percentage points and Denmark by 25 points. Targets aside, Greece and Canada have seen their emissions rise by 23% and 24%, respectively, since 1990. As for America, our emissions have increased 16%, so we are doing better than many of the Kyoto nations.

In the December 2004 issue of Environment, Princeton professors Robert Socolow and Stephen Pacala calculated what actions would be necessary to keep global emissions at their current levels for the next 50 years. Rejecting the Kyoto approach, they conclude that new energy strategies would be monumental efforts that "must be implemented on a massive scale across all sectors of the economy and in countries at all stages of economic development":
For starters, replace every burned-out incandescent light bulb in the world with a compact fluorescent bulb, which is four times as energy-efficient.

Then construct two million new wind turbines--a 50-fold expansion of wind power machines. To function properly they must be far enough apart to allow wind pressure to flow between them, so about five turbines per square mile can be installed. But windmill construction is controversial. The environmentally dedicated Kennedy family has already forbidden wind power off their summer island of Nantucket. Why? Because, says Robert Kennedy Jr., a lawyer with the Natural Resources Defense Counsel, the wind farm would "damage the views from 16 historic sites." One of them, of course, is the Kennedy family summer compound.

Using natural gas instead of burning coal would help a great deal too. Messrs. Socolow and Pacala say that "50 large liquefied natural gas (LNG) tankers docking and unloading every day" would do it, or "building the equivalent of the Alaska natural gas pipeline . . . every year." In America today LNG terminals and pipelines can't get anywhere near the support they need from members of Congress or state legislators, for both are believed to be too dangerous and too environmentally risky.

One million square miles--about the size of India--of cropland to grow sugar cane to turn into ethanol is another option the Princeton scholars offer up.

Finally there is the nuclear energy option, not one that the U.S. has been willing to participate in for the past 30 years. Globally some 700 new nuclear plants would be needed to meet the carbon-dioxide reduction goal, assuming of course that we can deal with the nuclear weapons risk posed by each of these plants, as we are now trying to do with Iran.

None of these startling recommendations--except perhaps the light bulbs--are economically or politically inexpensive, and none are going to come to pass in the foreseeable future. So the Princeton professors suggest a 10-year, 20% solution as a first step: just 400,000 new wind turbines, 140 nuclear plants, 10 natural gas pipelines and so forth.

As these politically explosive ideas are endlessly debated, the best things we can do are, first, to reduce carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses in ways that do not reduce economic growth; and second, to keep improving technology--in cars, electric generating plants and manufacturing machinery. Third, we must keep researching the real cause of climate change to understand better the sun's solar output and the historical rise and fall of global temperatures.
Finally, we must permanently reject the Kyoto concept, for international regulation of the world's economic process would be the beginning of the end of the world's opportunities.
"Krusty, you know Bette Midler?"
"Yeah we own a racehorse together - the Krudler!"
User avatar
krudler
Founding Member
 
Posts: 177
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 6:51 pm
Location: Irvine, CA
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Postby hikerduane » Wed Mar 29, 2006 8:37 pm

Unless it is private property, application of herbicides would not done by timber companies. It would be up to the Park Service, USFS or even the BLM maybe here in CA. Timber companies are made out to be worse than they are. Blame logging on the government not timber companies too. They contract to do a job.
Piece of cake.
User avatar
hikerduane
Founding Member
 
Posts: 1194
Joined: Sun Nov 06, 2005 9:58 am
Location: Meadow Valley, CA, Carson City, NV
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Postby ERIC » Wed Mar 29, 2006 9:07 pm

I know timber companies own a lot of harvestable land elsewhere; but do they own much in CA and NV anymore? I'm under the impression they don't. But in cases where it is their own (harvestable) land, I do know that they have a lot more freedom to control what they want, how they want.
New members, please consider giving us an intro!
Follow us on Twitter @HighSierraTopix. Use hashtags #SIERRAPHILE #GotSierra? #GotMountains?
Follow us on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/HighSierraTopix
User avatar
ERIC
Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
Your Humble Host & Forums Administrator
 
Posts: 2909
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 9:13 am
Location: between the 916 and 661
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

PreviousNext

Return to The Campfire



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests