4 ms·

> As these are very large trees, establishing large colonies can have a relatively meaningful impact in carbon capture. Also, they're fast growing, so they cap

> As these are very large trees, establishing large colonies can have a relatively meaningful impact in carbon capture. Also, they're fast growing, so they capture carbon quickly, and store it for a long time. Plus the fact that, if they're harvested, the wood is relatively rot-resistant. So carbon could be stored over even longer periods, if the wood were used for ~permanent structures. Still, there's something ironic about that way of thinking. Or at least, something anthrocentric. I recall seeing a huge tree in ~coastal Washington, perhaps this Sitka Spruce.[0] And I recall a large sign, which explained how much could be built with it. Arguably the same attitude, but with different goals. Funny. 0) https://www.americanforests.org/big-trees/sitka-spruce-picea-sitchensis-2/ https://www.americanforests.org/big-trees/sitka-spruce-picea...

airstrike 8y ago
So if I'm understanding this correctly, we're essentially terraforming Earth...
- justtopost 8y ago
  We have been clear cutting for centuries, we have to learn sooner or later. You know, for when we leave this world polluted to terraform the new one. /s?
  - samstave 8y ago
    I deeply hope that the redwoods of marin county can be restored. The redwood forests of marin are still beautiful, but humans decimated them over the lasr 200 years, and we cant really understand just how magnificent those trees were in the past - trunk diameters of 30+ feet were common in the past.
- jniedrauer 8y ago
  The only human activity so far on a large enough scale to impact the biosphere as a whole is fossil fuel use. If you want to count that as "terraforming." We could add nuclear weapons to that list, if we ever decided to use them.
  - kaybe 8y ago
    No, the changes in land use had significant and detectable impacts far before that. The albedo change between forest and fields alone is quite large.
    - mirimir 8y ago
      Yeah. The North American "indigenous peoples"[0] transformed huge areas of the Midwest from savannah and sparse forest to open prairie. Basically, they burned every spring. It improved habitat for their game of choice, and made hunting them more convenient. 0) Rather, the first known settlers. But then humans have arguably been settlers everywhere, except for particular parts of Africa.
    - jniedrauer 8y ago
      These are all localized effects. A lot of localized effects can add up to global changes, but they're not the same thing. Terraforming implies global changes.
  - arcticfox 8y ago
    > The only human activity so far on a large enough scale to impact the biosphere as a whole is fossil fuel use. If you want to count that as "terraforming." I must be misunderstanding you; the majority of places in the world today are radically different than they were pre-human. That seems pretty inarguable.
    - jniedrauer 8y ago
      It's death by a thousand cuts though. A bunch of localized effects that add up. That's not "terraforming." No one thing has impacted the entire planet except for fossil fuels. We dispersed a lot of lead globally in the mid 20th century, but that was also fossil fuel related. Plastic buildup in the ocean is also fossil fuel related. And of course the atmospheric changes.
      - mirimir 8y ago
- mirimir 8y ago
  Yes, we've been "terraforming" it. But not in a way that's good for us, I think. Not to mention all the other species that have evolved for pre-human conditions. And have increasingly experiencing conditions for which they're not well adapted. Worse, conditions that have been changing far too fast for evolutionary adaptation. Or even mass migration. So they're getting screwed. What we're now calling the Anthropocene Extinction Event. So perhaps "terraforming" isn't the appropriate term. Maybe more like "un-terraforming". If CO2 goes runaway enough, we might even wipe out enough photosynthetic capacity (especially in the oceans) to undo the Great Oxygenation Event. And make the planet safe for anaerobes again.
joelhoffman 8y ago
It might have also been this one: http://www.oregonphotos.com/Sitka-Spruce.html http://www.oregonphotos.com/Sitka-Spruce.html -- it was destroyed by a windstorm in 2007, but I believe it did have such a sign before that. Probably all of the "worlds biggest" trees do.
- mirimir 8y ago
  Yes, it was that one. Thanks. I sort of remember that it was in Oregon, but doubted myself when I found the one in Washington.

airstrike 8y ago

So if I'm understanding this correctly, we're essentially terraforming Earth...

justtopost 8y ago
We have been clear cutting for centuries, we have to learn sooner or later. You know, for when we leave this world polluted to terraform the new one. /s?
- samstave 8y ago
  I deeply hope that the redwoods of marin county can be restored. The redwood forests of marin are still beautiful, but humans decimated them over the lasr 200 years, and we cant really understand just how magnificent those trees were in the past - trunk diameters of 30+ feet were common in the past.
jniedrauer 8y ago
The only human activity so far on a large enough scale to impact the biosphere as a whole is fossil fuel use. If you want to count that as "terraforming." We could add nuclear weapons to that list, if we ever decided to use them.
- kaybe 8y ago
  No, the changes in land use had significant and detectable impacts far before that. The albedo change between forest and fields alone is quite large.
  - mirimir 8y ago
    Yeah. The North American "indigenous peoples"[0] transformed huge areas of the Midwest from savannah and sparse forest to open prairie. Basically, they burned every spring. It improved habitat for their game of choice, and made hunting them more convenient. 0) Rather, the first known settlers. But then humans have arguably been settlers everywhere, except for particular parts of Africa.
  - jniedrauer 8y ago
    These are all localized effects. A lot of localized effects can add up to global changes, but they're not the same thing. Terraforming implies global changes.
- arcticfox 8y ago
  > The only human activity so far on a large enough scale to impact the biosphere as a whole is fossil fuel use. If you want to count that as "terraforming." I must be misunderstanding you; the majority of places in the world today are radically different than they were pre-human. That seems pretty inarguable.
  - jniedrauer 8y ago
    It's death by a thousand cuts though. A bunch of localized effects that add up. That's not "terraforming." No one thing has impacted the entire planet except for fossil fuels. We dispersed a lot of lead globally in the mid 20th century, but that was also fossil fuel related. Plastic buildup in the ocean is also fossil fuel related. And of course the atmospheric changes.
    - mirimir 8y ago
mirimir 8y ago
Yes, we've been "terraforming" it. But not in a way that's good for us, I think. Not to mention all the other species that have evolved for pre-human conditions. And have increasingly experiencing conditions for which they're not well adapted. Worse, conditions that have been changing far too fast for evolutionary adaptation. Or even mass migration. So they're getting screwed. What we're now calling the Anthropocene Extinction Event. So perhaps "terraforming" isn't the appropriate term. Maybe more like "un-terraforming". If CO2 goes runaway enough, we might even wipe out enough photosynthetic capacity (especially in the oceans) to undo the Great Oxygenation Event. And make the planet safe for anaerobes again.

joelhoffman 8y ago

It might have also been this one: http://www.oregonphotos.com/Sitka-Spruce.html http://www.oregonphotos.com/Sitka-Spruce.html -- it was destroyed by a windstorm in 2007, but I believe it did have such a sign before that. Probably all of the "worlds biggest" trees do.

mirimir 8y ago
Yes, it was that one. Thanks. I sort of remember that it was in Oregon, but doubted myself when I found the one in Washington.