Slashdot Mirror

In my lifetime I've planted over 80,000 trees. How's that for a carbon sink? :-p
A relative of mine bought some land that had a huge open farm field out front and back in the 80's he decided to build a house there and didn't want to see the road. So we rented a tree planter (a terrifying, arm severing device, if you ever see one) and we filled quite a few acres with trees. It's now basically a small forest.

I've continued planting them all over the place... at every house and even apartments I've lived at. It's funny, if you plant a tree, put an orange flag next to it and surround it with chicken wire... everyone leaves it alone and even the property owners don't bother it.

Anyways... if you'd like to plant trees to. Go here: http://www.arborday.org/index....
The Arbor Day foundation membership is $10, and you get 10 free trees with the membership. Then you can buy trees for between $1 and $10 delivered to your door. Pines are easy and grow fast... Arborvitas grow at Insane rates, but if you really want to sequester CO2, pines are not a good choice. They have a high mortality rate. Plant hardwoods like Walnut and Oaks (depending on your Zone) 2 full sized Oaks would likely be enough to sequester all the CO2 you produce in your lifetime. So pick a place you know they wont get messed with. Public parks, etc...

Also, before you get the wrong idea... I'm not a big Carbon credit nut. I doubt all of us planting lots of trees will make much of a difference. I just like trees and they take a while to grow. So get planting.

Instead of potentially dangerous experiments, may I suggest the oldest known and proven solution to global warming?

This is extremely complicated, so please bear with me for a minute or two:

Plant. More. Trees.

Don't believe me? Fine, don't take my word for it. Heck, even that bastion of free enterprise, The Economist got behind that idea!

So, why is not implemented on a large scale? Because planting trees is not techonologically "sexy" - it is well known, has been well known for centuries, and, for maximum effect, would require rich countries to invest serious money in poorer countries, to save the rainforest (which is where tree-planting would have maximum impact). And we cannot allow these natives to get money to do something as simple as plant a tree, right?

In other words, the wealthiest have decided it is a lot more fun to throw money at dangerous or even foolish and ineffectual solutions rather than provide for jobs and development in the poorest countries of the world -- precisely the countries that will suffer the most due to global warming. Make of that what you will.

You are confused about who is claiming what, though it is likely that I, too, have reduced my CO2 footprint by about a ton per year.

"Gradual" is in the eye of the beholder. My childhood home was a zone 9, now it is a zone 10; I have seen the changes with my own eyes. Plant zones have moved about 100 miles north in 16 (?) years. (The baseline might be from earlier, so perhaps it is longer.) Assuming this continues, this should put pressure on peaches and pecans in Georgia and South Carolina in a few decades -- those are two crops that I know don't do especially well in zone 9. We can, of course, move our orchards north, but we had better start soon; some trees take a long time to grow to full production. Other annual crops, we can move more quickly.

My "feelings" are backed by scientific evidence, I merely did not include links. An earlier version of this is what first caught my attention, back in the early 1990s. That does not establish a causal link, but it does establish both an increase in CO2 and a hemisphere-wide warming trend. This is a nice discussion (with references) of direct measurements of predicted CO2 greenhouse effects; so it is a greenhouse gas, both in the lab, and in the atmosphere.

SO. Do you have scientific evidence that (a) it is not getting warmer or (b) there is not more CO2 in the air or (c) CO2 is not a greenhouse gas? I am quite familiar with all the usual claims about water vapor, alternate sources of CO2, solar radiation, etc, and would rather not preemptively post links to debunking sites, but seriously, what is the case for your position? Could you, perhaps, define "gradual", "long", and "adaptable"? Those are mighty squishy words from someone who insists on the use of Science.

I personally know of a small growth of pine trees in Eastern Washington that have taken nearly 30 years to grow to a height of 15-20 feet. If these trees had gotten more than a few inches of water a year they'd probably 2 or 3 times that height.

Apparently pine trees are considered fast growing trees and here's some info on what is considered, slow, medium and fast growing rates

âoeThe designation slow means the plant grows 12â or less per year; medium refers to 13 to 24â of growth per year; and fast to 25â or greater.â

So yeah, those trees I know of should be about 60' high by now.

I personally know of a small growth of pine trees in Eastern Washington that have taken nearly 30 years to grow to a height of 15-20 feet. If these trees had gotten more than a few inches of water a year they'd probably 2 or 3 times that height.

Apparently pine trees are considered fast growing trees and here's some info on what is considered, slow, medium and fast growing rates

âoeThe designation slow means the plant grows 12â or less per year; medium refers to 13 to 24â of growth per year; and fast to 25â or greater.â

So yeah, those trees I know of should be about 60' high by now.

Join the National Arbor Day Foundation and they'll send you 10 living saplings for cheap (10-15 bucks).

Of course, that means that people might have to get outside once in a while.

Though "paid liar" may be the most charitable thing I could call you.

If we'd listened to that butterfly collector back in the early 70s, we'd have put lamp black across the north and exacerbated whatever situation we seem to now be finding ourselves.

Except that we never saw any hint of an imminent ice age. Advancing glaciers, later spring thaws... none of these things showed themselves.

We see all the signs of global warming, from temperature anomalies to the northward shift of plant hardiness zones. It's the difference between a theory having no basis, and a theory being irrefutably correct in the basics. This debate is exactly analogous to the scientific issues vs. political controversy over evolution: the scientists are talking about selection mechanisms and evidence of gene co-option, and the pols are listening to the cranks demanding that the science classroom discussions include "GODDIDIT".

Your role in this is to be an extra in the mob of cranks.

The current manmade global warming stuff is also a media driven thing - this time with some 'scientists' jumping on board the gravy train.

The cooling and contraction of the stratosphere is not a media-driven thing. It is a greenhouse-gas driven thing, as more and more IR radiation is filtered out of the windows where the gases of the stratosphere can absorb them. You might note that this is itself absolute proof that the surface warming is not driven by the sun; greater solar input would warm the stratosphere, not cool it.

And this rhetoric is typical of you propagandists. It's always "gravy trains" and "alarmist industries", without the slightest attention to the evidence. Evidence is the difference between alarmism and warning of a real threat, and it's the evidence that you cannot debate or even allow yourself to look at.

I guess that makes you an amateur and a true believer who knows even less than the professional you attacked at the beginning of your post. Knowing that which is incorrect is paramount to knowing less than nothing.

While you have been relentlessly attacking me for several posts (without linking to, or even mentioning, a single verifiable fact - for reasons which are no mystery anymore) you have never named the professional I allegedly attacked. Well, you won't find anyone named, or even referred to, in it. To borrow a phrase, it appears that every word you've written is a lie, including "and" and "the".

(aside before I end this: even Robert Zubrin is with me on the merits of hydrogen. He has a strong record in aerospace research; all you have is bald assertion.)

Let's talk about consequences here. If the scientific models are wrong but we act on them anyway, we might lose GDP equivalent to a small recession. Or we might show overall gains; most anti-GW measures are "no regrets" actions which have benefits beyond climate, such as reduced pollution and consequent improved public health. The march of technology makes this outcome highly likely - and it's the GW denialists (such as TXU) who want to build dozens of poorly-scrubbed coal plants which will dump particulates in the air and mercury in the food chain.

If the scientific models are right and we fail to act on them, we will lose GDP equivalent to a major global recession. We will also lose coastal cities around the world, and entire ecosystems along with millions of species. We'll lose all the fertile land in the world's river deltas which winds up under salt water. And the billions of people who lived on that l

"All together now:

Weather is not climate.
Weather is not climate.
Weather is not climate.


You are correct, weather rides on climate but abberations may not always be directly related to climate. The envelope of weather extremes can be affects and obviously, with warming, the averages shift. Here is a cool video of the rapid change in hardiness zones that is climate related: http://www.arborday.org/media/mapchanges.cfm

My point is about the cumulative effect of climate change that runs faster than evolutionary adaptation can manage. Should ecosystems cease to function, our time here is limited.

In any case, it is easy to do something about it. Check out another video on http://www.jointhesolution.com/mdsolar to get an idea.

If you're willing to do the planting, the National Arbor Day Foundation will send you 10 trees for $10. http://www.arborday.org/shopping/Memberships/membe rships.cfm Get 10% of the registered users on Slashdot to sign up for this (and plant them) and you're close to a million.

I often find myself thinking about the environment. First, I started at home: changed out all incadescent lights for compact florescents; took advantage of Salt Lake's curb-side recycling program; compost everything we can. We've reduced our power bill by 25% and we can go 2-3 weeks without taking the trash cans to the curb.

I figure living as an example, and showing it doesn't take much "sacrifice", is a great way to start. You know, the whole "think global, act local" mantra.

We also patronize Native Seeds for our garden's seed supply. These folks propogate heirloom varieties of crop seed suited to the southwestern US region. Since I live in Utah (mostly desert), these varieties require less water, which is a good environmental goal. It also allows me to thumb my nose at Monsanto and other big Evil(tm) agriculture companies. :)

Also, I've looked seriously into mutual funds that target certain ethics of investors. A search on Google should yield many mutual funds which agree with your cause. Certainly not as direct as funding a proactive organization, but companies affect the environment, too.

I've personally contributed to NPR? (which does a good job at showcasing enviromental issues), the National Arbor Day Foundation (self explanatory), and the local chapter of the Humane Society (ferral pets cause local environmental damage).

I haven't put out a lot of money to these groups (maybe a couple of hundred a year, total), but every little bit counts. If everyone ponied up $50/year for a cause, the world just might improve a little.

I dug it. One of my sites was the topic of someone's successful article submission and it made the front page. I figure the high number of articles being posted lowered the bar enough for me to get posted. Heh. Seriously though, there's some balance between the fark-ish 80 items per hour and Slashdot's 8 per day that the blackout hit just right, IMO.

So, yeah, have a Blackout whenever y'all want.

Hey, if it gets more stories (with fewer comments; after a couple hundred it gets Usenetish) on the front page, then I'm all for it. In fact, maybe we could make it a regular event, perhaps a Geeks from Space replacement? Easier on your guys (except for approving submissions, maybe). Or maybe it could be like Arbor Day and every /16 could decide when they want to hold their own Slashdot Blackout Week. Keep it rotating, cut down on the the jibba jabba a bit.

-B

Contributions to the National Arbor Day Foundation?