5 ms·

Not well, IMO. Or, at least, "it's complicated." Take for example, the boreal forest, which produces roughly equivalent amounts of oxygen as the Amazon. A larg

Not well, IMO. Or, at least, "it's complicated." Take for example, the boreal forest, which produces roughly equivalent amounts of oxygen as the Amazon. A large swatch of canada is covered by boreal forest. As the climate warms, the growing season could become elongated. However, there actually isn't any more arable land in Canada without deforesting. Grassland goes right up to the forest, and the forest doesn't stop until the arctic circle. Maybe you could EVENTUALLY grow in the arctic circle, but even then you face significant developmental/logistical challenges So, what do you do? Do you tear down the forest, as is happening in S. America, make room for homesteading and civilization? probably not wise. And yet, in the south, if I had to guess, the desert in the southwest will continue to creep up into the grasslands to the north and east. So say that you do decide to deforest to turn that land into something more than just forest—what then? Increasing turbulent/violent weather poses significant challenges. Arguably one of the worst parts of climate change is not just the extra warmth, but the extreme weather that it brings. Hailstorms are becoming more likely. Early frosts are becoming more likely. And both of these things will kill your crops in one fell swoop. So the existing arable land's yield is going down, not up. But yes, we'll get a new shipping lane.

upsidesinclude 4y ago
For everything you described the opposite is also true. Now that we've largely settled on "climate change" instead of all the other catastrophic descriptors which didn't last a decade... There will be places where what you claimed is true and places where the opposite is true, if the climate changes in the way you propose. The benefits to many places will be immense, there is no rigorous science measuring at this point, because no one will pay for that investigation to take place publicly. The new paradigm with "denialism" being a career sinking position means honest appraisal is not happening publicly. The southwest US had a seven year drought through the nineties, now they experience exceptional monsoons. It is not hotter there by any measure that humans can appreciate. Data shows us it is hotter in the cities, but the climate is not warming outside of the cities once the city data is expunged. What do you do with that information? Historical data suggests that there is no safer time to be alive. And yet, people are dying from starvation, not because we don't have food, mind you. Because we won't get food to people that starve. Isn't it funny. We can focus on a future catastrophe and never have to help people or be kind now. We can be vicious and mean to people and they deserve to starve to death because they won't do as they're told and follow "the science"
- MAGZine 4y ago
  There's a lot of science doing done. It's being paid for people are volunteering. The IPCC is the largest collaborative effort. They produce reports continuously that researches exactly what we're talking about. It does not agree with what you're saying. They just finished a report this year, you should read it. Fwiw, as the earth heats, I don't think you're going to find less desert, only more. I'm all for kindness, and that starts with caring deeply about climate change because the rich west will weather the storm the best. Countries in Africa have a lot to lose here as wet bulb temps begin killing people.
vkou 4y ago
Forests aren't even something we should take into account when it comes to carbon balance, since over years and decades, they are ~net-zero carbon sinks.
- MAGZine 4y ago
  That's only partially true. You can cut forests down before they burn and finish the product into something that won't just be burnt. Then people can store the carbon compacted, and in their homes. Or honestly, you could just bury it underground if you wanted. Trees are biological mechanisms for capturing carbon. We don't need to invent anything new.
  - echelon 4y ago
    Would it be practical to grow entire farms of trees (or something fast growing - bamboo, kudzu, certain crops), harvest them, and bury the results? Repeat over and over at scale to sequester carbon. You'd need mineral inputs, of course, but maybe you can recoup these.
    - MAGZine 4y ago
      That's a good question. I suspect it matters on the composition of the wood. Wood that locks in a lot of moisture instead of carbon might be counter-intuitive. I don't really know what I'm talking about here, I'm just thinking aloud. There's probably some woods better than others, though that's not a very interesting statement by itself.
    - MrVandemar 4y ago
      Not really. A big part of the issue is fossil fuels. These are essentially vast amounts of carbon from millions of years ago that we are digging up and pumping into the atmosphere. Burying trees is not the answer, not digging up the old ones and not burning them would help a lot. Also, bury trees and you bury the nutrients they use to grow, locking them away from the next generation of trees and plants. To plant, grow, cut down and bury trees on any scale you also require machines ... that run on fossil fuels.

upsidesinclude 4y ago

For everything you described the opposite is also true. Now that we've largely settled on "climate change" instead of all the other catastrophic descriptors which didn't last a decade... There will be places where what you claimed is true and places where the opposite is true, if the climate changes in the way you propose. The benefits to many places will be immense, there is no rigorous science measuring at this point, because no one will pay for that investigation to take place publicly. The new paradigm with "denialism" being a career sinking position means honest appraisal is not happening publicly. The southwest US had a seven year drought through the nineties, now they experience exceptional monsoons. It is not hotter there by any measure that humans can appreciate. Data shows us it is hotter in the cities, but the climate is not warming outside of the cities once the city data is expunged. What do you do with that information? Historical data suggests that there is no safer time to be alive. And yet, people are dying from starvation, not because we don't have food, mind you. Because we won't get food to people that starve. Isn't it funny. We can focus on a future catastrophe and never have to help people or be kind now. We can be vicious and mean to people and they deserve to starve to death because they won't do as they're told and follow "the science"

MAGZine 4y ago
There's a lot of science doing done. It's being paid for people are volunteering. The IPCC is the largest collaborative effort. They produce reports continuously that researches exactly what we're talking about. It does not agree with what you're saying. They just finished a report this year, you should read it. Fwiw, as the earth heats, I don't think you're going to find less desert, only more. I'm all for kindness, and that starts with caring deeply about climate change because the rich west will weather the storm the best. Countries in Africa have a lot to lose here as wet bulb temps begin killing people.

vkou 4y ago

Forests aren't even something we should take into account when it comes to carbon balance, since over years and decades, they are ~net-zero carbon sinks.

MAGZine 4y ago
That's only partially true. You can cut forests down before they burn and finish the product into something that won't just be burnt. Then people can store the carbon compacted, and in their homes. Or honestly, you could just bury it underground if you wanted. Trees are biological mechanisms for capturing carbon. We don't need to invent anything new.
- echelon 4y ago
  Would it be practical to grow entire farms of trees (or something fast growing - bamboo, kudzu, certain crops), harvest them, and bury the results? Repeat over and over at scale to sequester carbon. You'd need mineral inputs, of course, but maybe you can recoup these.
  - MAGZine 4y ago
    That's a good question. I suspect it matters on the composition of the wood. Wood that locks in a lot of moisture instead of carbon might be counter-intuitive. I don't really know what I'm talking about here, I'm just thinking aloud. There's probably some woods better than others, though that's not a very interesting statement by itself.
  - MrVandemar 4y ago
    Not really. A big part of the issue is fossil fuels. These are essentially vast amounts of carbon from millions of years ago that we are digging up and pumping into the atmosphere. Burying trees is not the answer, not digging up the old ones and not burning them would help a lot. Also, bury trees and you bury the nutrients they use to grow, locking them away from the next generation of trees and plants. To plant, grow, cut down and bury trees on any scale you also require machines ... that run on fossil fuels.