Jump to content


For God Sake Fix the Matchmaking


  • Please log in to reply
188 replies to this topic

CardinalMite #41 Posted 16 May 2019 - 03:41 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 29493 battles
  • 1,171
  • Member since:
    04-18-2014

View PostVindictus_Maximus, on 16 May 2019 - 02:57 AM, said:

 

This planet has gone through constant and extreme climate change for millions of years, absent any humans at all, as has the planets in the solar system.

 

The above is scientific fact, man made climate change is but a loose hypothesis. 

 

You true believers are like religious zealots, useful idiots... Just my luck that I share this planet with such gullible fools that are trying to forcibly convert me to their stupid climate change religion.

 

 

Actually if you read the actual science you will understand that no one with actual expertise in the subject is saying the climate never changed sans human intervention.

 

The fact that it changes in multiple cycles (both short and long) does not mean that human activity cannot influence the rate of change though.

 

But please keep going with your feels based debate philosophy versus actual evidence.

 

 


“Holiday ops is balanced for Asia because a good player opening 11 boxes will get just as many decorations as a noob opening 75..”—.Murazor new head of global festive events.

Ezz #42 Posted 16 May 2019 - 04:05 PM

    How many flipping posts do I need to get past Major?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 68705 battles
  • 36,131
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012

View Postcrud, on 16 May 2019 - 03:24 PM, said:

given you believe in evolution hot top in it's self

About as hot as whether the earth is flat or the moon landings right?


Who the [edited] are you? Get Spoofed! "wouldn't be a proper WG balance change if they didn't [edited] something up after all "

>9000 cynicism brought to you by P2W, RIP Balance and the Cartoon Connection

Currently moderating your English speaking community : AALGMadibaCenturion_NZ, Elite911, Moonbase Patrol Copter 7

R. Pubbie: "why are all PBKAC players so rude, arrogant and nasty? and why do Mods favor them?"


FramFramson #43 Posted 17 May 2019 - 02:07 AM

    Major

  • Member
  • 43655 battles
  • 3,546
  • [AVAST] AVAST
  • Member since:
    02-22-2015

LT-playing masochist. It's too much fun to be a mosquito.


Sir_Direkin #44 Posted 17 May 2019 - 04:04 AM

    Purveyor of Salt

  • Member
  • 12127 battles
  • 1,316
  • [VERTX] VERTX
  • Member since:
    12-16-2016

I see I've been missing out on some actual tin-foil hattery here.

 

View PostVindictus_Maximus, on 10 May 2019 - 09:32 PM, said:

This phenomena has nothing to do with carbon. It has something more to do with the planets itself heating up. The increased tectonic activity  is corresponding with this warming period we are undergoing

 

 

 

All this indicating in terms of planetary planetary warming, carbon is actually the effect, not the cause. And the Greenhouse effect is a fraud.

 

I can't believe no one's touched this one yet. It's what's called a spurious correlation. Are earthquakes and volcanism increasing in line with global warming, or is it simple down to the fact that we have better, more sensitive equipment, more monitoring stations worldwide, and improved communication? (Hint: it's the latter).

 

This kind of reminds me of a bible basher on Facebook who now and then posts "omg another earthquake! No one can explain why it's happening there. Proof of the end times. Jesus is coming, yadda, yadda, yadda". I take a look, and they're all on major fault lines.

 

View Postmttspiii, on 13 May 2019 - 12:42 PM, said:

The surprising thing about a good decent volcanic eruption is that it actually somewhat helps our climate saving efforts. Sheer ash thrust into the stratosphere blocked sunlight enough for a 1-2 degree temp reduction for a decade or two.

 

Indeed, but it doesn't do us any favours in terms of food supply. Much like in 1816, the Year Without a Summer. 1883 also had a volcanic winter with the eruption of Krakatoa. There's also a game, Frostpunk, set in an alternate 1886 where catastrophic eruptions triggered an ice age.


https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCumyqpRUeOPCy1RcKXl96VA

2nd MoE: A15 Crusader, AMX 12t, KV-85, M6 Heavy, M10 Wolverine, M24 Chaffee, SU-85, T-34, T-50, T1 Heavy, VK 16.02 Leopard


wasaabi #45 Posted 17 May 2019 - 05:37 AM

    This Dude Abides

  • Senior Moderator
  • 22396 battles
  • 6,758
  • [-1AR-] -1AR-
  • Member since:
    07-15-2012

Moving this thread to Off Topic as the topic has changed course.

 

~Wasaabi


The Dude abides.

 
Spoiler

 


TheBudgiesmuggler #46 Posted 17 May 2019 - 09:11 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 28815 battles
  • 333
  • [PXR] PXR
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View Postjumphonner, on 09 May 2019 - 08:33 AM, said:

 

Team 1 full of Specials

 

Team 2 full of people with functioning brains.

 

One sided

 

which team are you on?

TheBudgiesmuggler #47 Posted 17 May 2019 - 09:16 AM

    Staff sergeant

  • Member
  • 28815 battles
  • 333
  • [PXR] PXR
  • Member since:
    03-18-2013

View PostEzz, on 16 May 2019 - 06:05 PM, said:

About as hot as whether the earth is flat or the moon landings right?

 

Your ancestors aren't monkeys their rocks.....

MagicalFlyingFox #48 Posted 17 May 2019 - 09:50 PM

    Destroyer of Tier 6 CW

  • Beta-Tester
  • 32697 battles
  • 13,572
  • [YETI] YETI
  • Member since:
    10-03-2012

View PostSir_Direkin, on 17 May 2019 - 07:04 AM, said:

 

 

 

Indeed, but it doesn't do us any favours in terms of food supply. Much like in 1816, the Year Without a Summer. 1883 also had a volcanic winter with the eruption of Krakatoa. There's also a game, Frostpunk, set in an alternate 1886 where catastrophic eruptions triggered an ice age.

With such drastic climate change and the runaway wosrt-case scenario, food supply is going to be a massive issue with a change in water tables from changing rain patterns and climate reducing crop yields. 

 


http://www.theuselessweb.com/

 A. Guy on 02 June 2018 - 12:40 AM, said:

Destroyer of Tier 6 CW... says it all about you.


Haku #49 Posted 17 May 2019 - 10:56 PM

    Captain

  • Beta-Tester
  • 19314 battles
  • 1,951
  • [DPS] DPS
  • Member since:
    03-09-2012
Some things just never change.

僕の最愛心 、宮本雪子は。。。


mttspiii #50 Posted 18 May 2019 - 05:30 AM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 31758 battles
  • 17,031
  • [CALM] CALM
  • Member since:
    04-15-2012

View PostSir_Direkin, on 17 May 2019 - 04:04 AM, said:

Indeed, but it doesn't do us any favours in terms of food supply. Much like in 1816, the Year Without a Summer. 1883 also had a volcanic winter with the eruption of Krakatoa. There's also a game, Frostpunk, set in an alternate 1886 where catastrophic eruptions triggered an ice age.

 

But back in those days, most of the people (who cared enough to measure food production and were important enough to have their data stored) lived at colder latitudes. Now the population distribution, and thus food production, is skewed towards the tropicals. The 1902 and 1912 VEI 6 eruptions didn't cause a noticeable volcanic winter either, though the 1991 did.

 

Volcanic eruptions also punch holes in the ozone with enough strength; thankfully we stopped use of the older CFC's before 1991.

 

Edit: Can we ask kyjo if he would like this thread renamed to "kyjo's matchmaking rant and global climate thread"


Edited by mttspiii, 18 May 2019 - 05:40 AM.

I'm fierce and I'm feeling mighty,

I'm a golden girl, I'm an Aphrodite

 

 


southerner #51 Posted 18 May 2019 - 05:51 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 17824 battles
  • 1,559
  • [2MEKE] 2MEKE
  • Member since:
    09-01-2013

I still dont buy the theory that man made industrial and agricultural uses are changing the climate. As mentioned above climate change has been happening for billions of years. Earth has a living biosphere and that biosphere is changing all the time. Over the past billion years living orgasms change (evolve) or go extinct and something else takes their place in the biosphere. People are talking about excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but do people know that the extra carbon dioxide is stimulating extra forest growth for the last number of years the forest regeneration is increasing in the millions of hectares. Of course trees absorb carbon during the daylight photosynthesis cycle and egest oxegen.

 

As i said the earths biosphere is a living thing of all its combined species and if things swing to far one way then the biosphere reacts to balance things out. The only thing the biosphere cannot react fast enough to are a big meteor strike or a big series of volcanic eruptions that over welm the biosphere by mass extinctions.

 

As I said climate change is happening all the time by swings and roundabouts. And i might add that individuals, corporations and governments are pushing this climate change issue because its a lucrative way of picking up easy money by taxation and outright fraud.

 

Now with all that being said, I still agree that polluters should be shut down and fined. We should look after our environment as we are the stewards for the next generations that will eventually live here. This is where i think a lot of people get confused with environmental issues being confused with climate change. We should be recycling a lot of our waste. Did you know that all tyres and plastics could be converted into crude oils just by heat and pressure in a few hours ? Then that crude is the fractioned into fuels. There are millions of tons of plastics in our oceans. This is a pollution issue not a climate change issue. And as i described the solution is fairly simple. And thats just one pollution issue.

 

Another big issue is radioactive wastes and its long half lifes, one way of stabilising waste, is to mix it with slag from metal mills, this spreads the individual elements and stops to large a heat build up. The word is stabilisation. Then the slag can be buried deep in abandoned mines. Some abandoned copper mines are 4 miles deep. So you are getting rid of two things there, slag and radionuclides.


Edited by southerner, 18 May 2019 - 06:04 PM.

indignatio regis nuntii mortis et vir sapiens placabit ea 

Ezz #52 Posted 18 May 2019 - 08:54 PM

    How many flipping posts do I need to get past Major?

  • Beta-Tester
  • 68705 battles
  • 36,131
  • [PBKAC] PBKAC
  • Member since:
    07-17-2012
Anyone surprised about 47%?

Who the [edited] are you? Get Spoofed! "wouldn't be a proper WG balance change if they didn't [edited] something up after all "

>9000 cynicism brought to you by P2W, RIP Balance and the Cartoon Connection

Currently moderating your English speaking community : AALGMadibaCenturion_NZ, Elite911, Moonbase Patrol Copter 7

R. Pubbie: "why are all PBKAC players so rude, arrogant and nasty? and why do Mods favor them?"


MagicalFlyingFox #53 Posted 18 May 2019 - 09:20 PM

    Destroyer of Tier 6 CW

  • Beta-Tester
  • 32697 battles
  • 13,572
  • [YETI] YETI
  • Member since:
    10-03-2012

View Postsoutherner, on 18 May 2019 - 08:51 PM, said:

I still dont buy the theory that man made industrial and agricultural uses are changing the climate. As mentioned above climate change has been happening for billions of years. Earth has a living biosphere and that biosphere is changing all the time. Over the past billion years living orgasms change (evolve) or go extinct and something else takes their place in the biosphere. People are talking about excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but do people know that the extra carbon dioxide is stimulating extra forest growth for the last number of years the forest regeneration is increasing in the millions of hectares. Of course trees absorb carbon during the daylight photosynthesis cycle and egest oxegen.

 

As i said the earths biosphere is a living thing of all its combined species and if things swing to far one way then the biosphere reacts to balance things out. The only thing the biosphere cannot react fast enough to are a big meteor strike or a big series of volcanic eruptions that over welm the biosphere by mass extinctions.

 

As I said climate change is happening all the time by swings and roundabouts. And i might add that individuals, corporations and governments are pushing this climate change issue because its a lucrative way of picking up easy money by taxation and outright fraud.

 

Now with all that being said, I still agree that polluters should be shut down and fined. We should look after our environment as we are the stewards for the next generations that will eventually live here. This is where i think a lot of people get confused with environmental issues being confused with climate change. We should be recycling a lot of our waste. Did you know that all tyres and plastics could be converted into crude oils just by heat and pressure in a few hours ? Then that crude is the fractioned into fuels. There are millions of tons of plastics in our oceans. This is a pollution issue not a climate change issue. And as i described the solution is fairly simple. And thats just one pollution issue.

 

Another big issue is radioactive wastes and its long half lifes, one way of stabilising waste, is to mix it with slag from metal mills, this spreads the individual elements and stops to large a heat build up. The word is stabilisation. Then the slag can be buried deep in abandoned mines. Some abandoned copper mines are 4 miles deep. So you are getting rid of two things there, slag and radionuclides.

 

Plastic -> crude oils and fuel is fictional. Not even hydrocarbon plastics like PET, HDPE and LDPE can be turned back into oils. It is like how your computer cannot turn back into the rock is started as. 

Climate change does happen, but at the rate it is happening right now? Unheard of. Your claim on forest is blatantly incorrect. Just google "Deforestation". Carbon capture in the form of trees is extremely slow. It is not even enough to maintain the status quo. 

 

I can't be bothered to deconstruct anything else because of how blatantly incorrect it all is.

 


http://www.theuselessweb.com/

 A. Guy on 02 June 2018 - 12:40 AM, said:

Destroyer of Tier 6 CW... says it all about you.


mttspiii #54 Posted 19 May 2019 - 02:25 AM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 31758 battles
  • 17,031
  • [CALM] CALM
  • Member since:
    04-15-2012

Right, so I just came from a wedding and might have had too much tequila, but here it goes:

 

View Postsoutherner, on 18 May 2019 - 05:51 PM, said:

I still dont buy the theory that man made industrial and agricultural uses are changing the climate. As mentioned above climate change has been happening for billions of years. Earth has a living biosphere and that biosphere is changing all the time. Over the past billion years living orgasms change (evolve) or go extinct and something else takes their place in the biosphere. People are talking about excessive carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, but do people know that the extra carbon dioxide is stimulating extra forest growth for the last number of years the forest regeneration is increasing in the millions of hectares. Of course trees absorb carbon during the daylight photosynthesis cycle and egest oxegen.

 

As i said the earths biosphere is a living thing of all its combined species and if things swing to far one way then the biosphere reacts to balance things out. The only thing the biosphere cannot react fast enough to are a big meteor strike or a big series of volcanic eruptions that over welm the biosphere by mass extinctions.

 

Er, you underestimate our logging capabilities. Medieval-era Europe had an acute deforestation problem by the 1500's that they had to rely on charcoal instead of wood for fire, and ships have to be made from New World timber. The global forest / jungle area has been halved since 1947, with most of the timber taken from the tropics to feed the demand for deforested temperate countries. Indeed, current-day France has a problem with the recent Notre Dame fire: there's not enough wood in the whole of France to replace the original structure. We're looking at a man-made biosphere change, and what concerns scientists isn't its effects on total global biodiversity, but its effects on us humans.

 

70% of the world is covered in water which in itself is a significant heat sink, and its algae as a significant CO2 sink; Mother Nature will survive even if we cut down all the trees simply because of its massive oceanic reserves of biomass. But we won't fare as well as the rest of nature; we will have to rely on science to make up for us being unable to evolve quickly enough (or perish by the billions like in the last mass extinction event; how do you think H. erectus and the other [edited] hominid (because WG censors our own genus name) species died off?). All the scientists ask is for a little more time to develop that science to let us adapt to the upcoming climate change event, a climate change event which is being accelerated by human consumerism.

 

View Postsoutherner, on 18 May 2019 - 05:51 PM, said:

As I said climate change is happening all the time by swings and roundabouts. And i might add that individuals, corporations and governments are pushing this climate change issue because its a lucrative way of picking up easy money by taxation and outright fraud.

 

This reminds me of the 50's when tobacco companies were funding counterstudies on the initial research linking smoking and lung [edited] carcinoma (I also forgot that WG censors diseases pertaining to oncology).

And no, this does not mean scientists are faultless either: in the 60's the FDA was paid off by the sugar industry to link what is today called metabolic syndrome to fats instead of simple sugars. But that's medicine; always a politically charged science with strong biases for people. Climate science wasn't always this biased, or this exciting.

In the 70's the oil crisis shook the West, and thus the energy industry lost the trust of the people; this was one of the events that started making climate science politically polarizing (prior to this both Conservative and Democratic were in agreement that climate change is a significant - if slow-moving - problem).

In the 80's Exxon actually did research on what may be the climate effects of atmospheric CO2 (a known science since 1800's), and internal research did note some 'noticeable effects' by the early 2100's.

And like typical Exxon, instead of doing something smart like invest in alternate energy, they twiddled their thumbs like they did with the Exxon Valdez and relied on lobbying instead.

 

The funny thing about climate change is that the skeptics' stance has changed from "it's not happening" to "it's not our (humanity's) fault". Not even they can deny that there's a definite change in the client, the only thing that's not changed is the efforts for making sure laws and consumers are still favorable to them.

 

View Postsoutherner, on 18 May 2019 - 05:51 PM, said:

Now with all that being said, I still agree that polluters should be shut down and fined. We should look after our environment as we are the stewards for the next generations that will eventually live here. This is where i think a lot of people get confused with environmental issues being confused with climate change.

 

It's easy to say those things about "polluters" since they don't have the extensive lobbying network of the energy industry, because most of the 'dirty' industrial work has transferred to China already. All we have left of "polluters" were CFC's which were simply reformulated into more modern refrigerants to stop them from punching holes in the ozone layer (an early victory for climate change over an industry), and the asbestos companies which Trump was mollycoddling back in 2017.

 

And speaking of China, you do realize something is wrong when a country that will gain the most from ignoring climate change - the world's factory - actually set stringent standards for CO2 and massive investments in renewable energy technology. If their own scientists could verify that man-made global warming is a hoax then they'd not have bothered regulating their own factories.

 

If Fallout happens in our timeline, it might still happen in 2077, but the reason won't be oil: it would be food production disrupted by climate change.

 

View Postsoutherner, on 18 May 2019 - 05:51 PM, said:

We should be recycling a lot of our waste. Did you know that all tyres and plastics could be converted into crude oils just by heat and pressure in a few hours ? Then that crude is the fractioned into fuels. There are millions of tons of plastics in our oceans. This is a pollution issue not a climate change issue. And as i described the solution is fairly simple. And thats just one pollution issue.

 

Another big issue is radioactive wastes and its long half lifes, one way of stabilising waste, is to mix it with slag from metal mills, this spreads the individual elements and stops to large a heat build up. The word is stabilisation. Then the slag can be buried deep in abandoned mines. Some abandoned copper mines are 4 miles deep. So you are getting rid of two things there, slag and radionuclides.

 

Turning tyres and plastics back to crude oil is uneconomical; the sheer costs for the heat and pressure required far outstrips the cost of crude oil, especially now that new sources of crude oil are slowly becoming more and more economical (read: normal oil's becoming so expensive that the expenses in fracking and shale has become 'worth it' ). Unless you harness the power of a minor volcano as a reactor, or you create a solar mill. Burning coal or crude oil, to melt plastics back to crude oil, simply consumes more than it produces.

 

As for the nuclear option, I strongly suspect that their concern with it is that nuclear waste simply isn't an inert substance to dispose of. Its radioactive effects is just plain too scary to let humanity of the future handle, especially since future humans would've probably nuked themselves back to the stone age (this is Cold War tech and mindset after all). That said, I do think that we are too afraid of radiation to not let us use nuclear power; Chernobyl wildlife has started to grow back since humans are too afraid to grow near it, and they aren't 3-eyed horses or anything, though they do look a little albino compared to normal creatures.

 

In a way, Chernobyl wildlife is somewhat symbolic of nature's relation to this current man-made ecologic impending disaster: nature will survive, with or without us. But we can't. And that's the point of climate change science: it's weather control on a massive scale to slow down our own extinction.


Edited by mttspiii, 19 May 2019 - 02:29 AM.

I'm fierce and I'm feeling mighty,

I'm a golden girl, I'm an Aphrodite

 

 


southerner #55 Posted 19 May 2019 - 05:40 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 17824 battles
  • 1,559
  • [2MEKE] 2MEKE
  • Member since:
    09-01-2013

 

The process is called pyrolysis. There is this vid and a whole lot of other vids on the process as well.


indignatio regis nuntii mortis et vir sapiens placabit ea 

southerner #56 Posted 19 May 2019 - 05:50 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 17824 battles
  • 1,559
  • [2MEKE] 2MEKE
  • Member since:
    09-01-2013

and one of many nuclear waste research videos

 

 

.


indignatio regis nuntii mortis et vir sapiens placabit ea 

southerner #57 Posted 19 May 2019 - 05:56 PM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 17824 battles
  • 1,559
  • [2MEKE] 2MEKE
  • Member since:
    09-01-2013

Forests are regenerating some naturally some by human help and mass replantings, With the extra carbon dioxide in the air the trees are doing very well. As i said plenty of other vids to choose from.

 


indignatio regis nuntii mortis et vir sapiens placabit ea 

MagicalFlyingFox #58 Posted 19 May 2019 - 08:03 PM

    Destroyer of Tier 6 CW

  • Beta-Tester
  • 32697 battles
  • 13,572
  • [YETI] YETI
  • Member since:
    10-03-2012

Search: Financially viable.

 

Once we are able to massively reduce inefficiencies in our electricity generation and transmission, then are we able to even think about utilising any of those technologies, even IF it scales well.

 

 

One of the biggest challenges any solution has is the scalability of them. The reason why most breakthrough technologies never make it to the real world. 

 

 

And all you have there is a "Reforestation project". That doesn't address the chopping down of existing mature rainforests:

https://myanimelist.net/anime/32673/Udon_no_Kuni_no_Kiniro_Kemari?q=udon

 


http://www.theuselessweb.com/

 A. Guy on 02 June 2018 - 12:40 AM, said:

Destroyer of Tier 6 CW... says it all about you.


mttspiii #59 Posted 19 May 2019 - 09:11 PM

    Major

  • Beta-Tester
  • 31758 battles
  • 17,031
  • [CALM] CALM
  • Member since:
    04-15-2012

View Postsoutherner, on 19 May 2019 - 05:40 PM, said:

The process is called pyrolysis. There is this vid and a whole lot of other vids on the process as well.

 

This technology is still in its infancy, and shows a lot of promise. That said, I do believe we both agree that humans use too much plastic for packaging, and the carbon cost for recycling plastics does not (yet) put into account the carbon cost for running a pyrolytic reactor, nor the carbon cost for shipping. If we are to judge Tesla by the carbon cost for shipping and manufacturing battery metals, we should thus judge all future technology, green or dirty, by the same metric.

 

But it has potential. Hooked to, say, a future energy source (wind, solar, geothermal, nuclear), this can alleviate some of our oil concerns. It's interesting, really, than the invisible hand is very slow in policing plastic; the price per barrel of crude oil is on the rise and filling up the petrol tank hurts the wallet, and yet plastics are ridiculously cheap that supermarkets give it away. Plastic bags that should be going to my fuel tank, not to keep my groceries in.

 

View Postsoutherner, on 19 May 2019 - 05:50 PM, said:

and one of many nuclear waste research videos

 

As Iran has shown, nuclear is a definite political shitstorm you wouldn't want going anywhere. It's probably the best of the current alternative energy sources, but is too easy to weaponize as compared to, say, a windmill or a solar panel. Climate change is political enough without bringing back the shadow of the Cold War.

 

View Postsoutherner, on 19 May 2019 - 05:56 PM, said:

Forests are regenerating some naturally some by human help and mass replantings, With the extra carbon dioxide in the air the trees are doing very well. As i said plenty of other vids to choose from.

 

That's more of a tree farm, not an actual forest. A monoculture where the biodiversity has been reduced badly, and all you have left are "economical" trees which still takes decades to grow to viability. If you think fur is bad, wood is worse: you can farm fur and it only takes years, but a tree farm takes decades. That biodiversity is an extra challenge to botanists (like FeetFood I think); gotta account for all the potential uses and drugs you can extract from those rare fabled forest flowers before they get denuded and extinct. I have a feeling that USA's current bee problem is also because the economical trees are not necessarily the trees for the bees either...but that's only a wild unsubstantiated personal guess on my part.

 

Unfortunately, it's still much cheaper to cut down the last few remaining jungles from third-world countries, especially now that deforested China has a rising demand for wood (it's apparently elegant) and has turned to African wood; it's long and strong after all.

 

So......sorry to be a damp towel on all this, but the best cure for the current pollution and global warming woes is to simply stop spending needlessly. Consumerism and planned obsolescence simply have to go. And that's definitely something no government or economist wants to hear. 


I'm fierce and I'm feeling mighty,

I'm a golden girl, I'm an Aphrodite

 

 


southerner #60 Posted 20 May 2019 - 06:33 AM

    Captain

  • Member
  • 17824 battles
  • 1,559
  • [2MEKE] 2MEKE
  • Member since:
    09-01-2013

mttspiii  wrote :

 

That's more of a tree farm, not an actual forest. A monoculture where the biodiversity has been reduced badly, and all you have left are "economical" trees which still takes decades to grow to viability. If you think fur is bad, wood is worse: you can farm fur and it only takes years, but a tree farm takes decades. That biodiversity is an extra challenge to botanists (like FeetFood I think); gotta account for all the potential uses and drugs you can extract from those rare fabled forest flowers before they get denuded and extinct. I have a feeling that USA's current bee problem is also because the economical trees are not necessarily the trees for the bees either...but that's only a wild unsubstantiated personal guess on my part.

 

Unfortunately, it's still much cheaper to cut down the last few remaining jungles from third-world countries, especially now that deforested China has a rising demand for wood (it's apparently elegant) and has turned to African wood; it's long and strong after all.

 

So......sorry to be a damp towel on all this, but the best cure for the current pollution and global warming woes is to simply stop spending needlessly. Consumerism and planned obsolescence simply have to go. And that's definitely something no government or economist wants to hear.

 

Southerner replies

 

Sorry maybe I used the wrong terminology, Its the rate of regrowth in some areas. Take Pripyat for example, the city of 12000 was abandoned after the Chenobyle nuclear accident in 1986, in the last 36 years the city has almost been taken over by reforestation. In some areas you can hardly see the buildings anymore.

 

In other parts of the world native trees are generally hardwoods and are very slow growing and can take up to 1000 years to reach full maturity, once they are gone, they are gone. Thats why in New Zealand  we have laws that make it damn hard to log native species. On the other hand we plant most of the country in pinus radiata which is a softwood and reaches maturity in 25 years. If its for paper production it is generally milled at 12 to 15 years to make high quality paper. We have a programme at the moment to plant 1 billion pine trees in the next 10 years. The government sells the forests to overseas bidders when they are ready for milling. But only the forest is sold, NOT the land that they grow on. So as you can see we have a lot fast maturing tree regeneration going on, I just guess we are lucky as a country because our climate is ideal for fast tree regrowth. The government is replanting native trees but that is a long term project. New Zealands largest native tree forest are on the West Coast of the South Island and up in Northland and as I said earlier are not for sale to anybody. The only wood that comes out of these forests are trees that have been knocked over by storms and the tree is cut up and helicoptered out so the native woods are extremely expensive but there is a market for it.

 

The climate issue is an emotional one, and i still get the feeling that there is a lot of fake science involved. I have studied a lot of science over the last 40 years and it pays to know the science of what is really involved and why. You get a lot of doomsayers screaming the end of the world or the end of civilization at the drop of a hat.

A good example is Chenobyle worts nuclear accident at the time in 1986 but notice the anti nuclear movement in the 1960's and 1970's saying one nuclear 


indignatio regis nuntii mortis et vir sapiens placabit ea 




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users