Man vs. Earth

[Treetopflyer]

Mt. St. Helens CO2 output during its eruption cycle was 650 metric tons per day.
During that same period, CO2 emissions from human activity was over 20 gigatons per day.
Not even close.
If you include all natural CO2 emissions, they are fairly close to equal.
If you stab someone and seriously hurt them, it is unlikely that stabbing them again will have no effect. The most probable scenario would be that they will die sooner.

Wait one minute .. How about throwing salt in the wound ? Lol

 

[Redtree]

Basicall

Great little write up.

I did like this write up. It gives great perspective to where people sit on this issue. And I believe most of those titles of citizens are out there in great numbers.
So let's say there is no proof of global warming or climate change. Does this mean we should carry on with business as usual.
We know for certain that too many species have gone extinct. I wonder why no one debates that? Probably because there is no further respectable argument.
Further to that the level of pollution with current practice is as excessive as our consumption, and as ignorant too.
Lastly, what about people's values? The levels of alienation, isolation, and depression, I would guess are all increasing. The more 'productive' and busy we become, it seems the more distant and private we become. Working together less and competing more. Maybe we shouldn't have called it the 'human race'. Like two trees racing for the upper level in the canopy, something's gonna break. Maybe we should stop and look around. What are we all working for? If we could focus on the main things like growing food, shelter and health care, then what else is there? Fun, family time, playing. When was the last time you 'played around'?
I just don't understand what half the population is doing with there time. Wasting carbon as they do it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Leroy]

Mt. St. Helens CO2 output during its eruption cycle was 650 metric tons per day.
During that same period, CO2 emissions from human activity was over 20 gigatons per day.
Not even close.
If you include all natural CO2 emissions, they are fairly close to equal.
If you stab someone and seriously hurt them, it is unlikely that stabbing them again will have no effect. The most probable scenario would be that they will die sooner.

Dang, worth a shot though!

 

[evo]

I am on a mission this coming year 2016 to plant asany trees as possible. Every time I perform a removal. I'm trying to sell or ..give away even..ugggghhhhh I said it.. under certain circumstances Tree plantings. I loved what you said in a previous post something along the lines of sustainable Forestry ..really just man not taking more than he needs to use or more than earth can provide is what it boiled down to. I really want places that are having trees destroyed to stop . Replant with planning for the future. I just had a talk with a Dr of natural resources and some other fancy titles I forget but we ta talked about planting trees for the year 2070 . It's amazing what is being predicted for how drastically the landscape will be changed by then based on the facts of today of course. Cold hardiness zones will shift , along with moisture levels. I'm on a serious planting kick for this year with far future in mind. Picking the correct cultivar that will thrive in the future is not an easy task.

I'll make a deal with you. Lets agree not to remove any tree with out replanting. Ofcouse only where applicable, but simply turn down the job. Around here we can get bareroot natives for less than $1 per tree, and it takes about 10 minutes to plant. If the client wants something else that could be a charge.
I've been playing around with the idea of cultivating trees that I remove from cuttings, or seed. Even trees that I prune. How cool would it be if you can tell your customer if you want to see the parent of this little oak, drive down to 32nd street, and Lincon Ave.
Another option is to find a location that needs to be "restored" and add in the cost of each removal (non hazardous) planting with in this restoration priject.

 

[Treetopflyer]

I'll make a deal with you. Lets agree not to remove any tree with out replanting. Ofcouse only where applicable, but simply turn down the job. Around here we can get bareroot natives for less than $1 per tree, and it takes about 10 minutes to plant. If the client wants something else that could be a charge.
I've been playing around with the idea of cultivating trees that I remove from cuttings, or seed. Even trees that I prune. How cool would it be if you can tell your customer if you want to see the parent of this little oak, drive down to 32nd street, and Lincon Ave.
Another option is to find a location that needs to be "restored" and add in the cost of each removal (non hazardous) planting with in this restoration priject.

Sounds like a hell of a deal evo . I enjoy the idea of much of your post . Maybe I'm just not sure in context of when you say " of course only where applicable, but simply turn down the job "
What your getting at ? The grapes got the best of me this evening...

 

[evo]

Well if say the removal is a tree 3' from the house. and the property has built to the property line. We wouldnt want to plant a Douglas Fir in that little ol patch of soil would we? Or if it's an area that really needs to be thinned for stand health. Perhaps planting shrubs or ferns would be more applicable in that situation.
Here's a sobering fact for you. The single leading source of CO2 emmisions is from deforestation. More than all of the worlds transportation combined.
Granted our part in that is small, it's mostly palm oil plantations, and land converision. BUT we are playing out part with every removal, urban, or rural
I just did my part today. Refused two bigleaf maple removals that were un-nessary, called the client back and told him that if he kept the trees I would prune them for a discount.

 

[Pelorus]

What was your intention in typing this? Was it to look like a condescending prick? If so it worked.

Calling me "a condescending prick" seems a bit harsh, but whatever floats yer boat, I guess.

 

[Redtree]

Merry Christmas,

with a politically correct, lit up tree.

This is an French Lilac. Then I had to rig reduction cut offs from a Norway Maple, to balance out the right side.
I wanted to shine some light on our alien invasives problem.
THE ONLY THING MORE INVASIVE THAN THESE EUROPEANS IS US EUROPEANS. US as in you and I, not as in 'U.S.' I don't want to forget Canadian Europeans, we're invasive too.
But seriously, merry Christmas. Now go buy some plastic shit from oversees and place it under the tree. Isn't it beautiful. Looks good, is good?
Also see merry Christmas on topping trees thread too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Stihlmadd]

So let's say there is no proof of global warming or climate change.

Hey Jeff can you debunk this one for us?

 

[Stihlmadd]

called the client back and told him that if he kept the trees I would prune them for a discount.

professional to a tee.

 

[JeffGu]

...can you debunk this one...

Easily... but it won't change anybody's mind... once you buy into the Tooth Fairy, you'll leave quarters under your pillow no matter what anyone says...

A lot of hoopla about James Hansen's report on global warming back around 2013, and an IPCC climate modeling report/chart from around the same time. The chart was leaked while it was in a draft stage, in which the data baseline was just figures from 1990, one of the hottest years on record. The final version used figures from the period 1961-1990... when the baseline is corrected, the models are quite accurate, indeed. Whitehouse, Curry and Steve McIntyre all blogged their misunderstandings of the information in typical climate denial fashion. Whitehouse is an astrophysicist, not a climatologist. Curry just keeps referring back to McIntyre as though he knows secret stuff... because she buys into this conspiracy theory that the IPCC, and anyone who is actually a peer reviewed scientist, are all in cahoots to deceive us into thinking that a gazillion tons of crap in the air is not good for us.

Had they bothered to do a real analysis of the data/charts with the correct baseline, they would have seen clearly that the trends were identical. In other words, the initial baseline in the draft was wrong, not the model's trend graph. Apparently, although the researchers caught the error and fixed it, that just means it has to be a conspiracy and we're all being bamboozled. They're still beating this dead horse.

The trick is, when you see a "scientist" claiming the work of all other scientists is wrong, but they've got it right, just look them up and see if they have published any peer reviewed research that backs up their version of reality. What you usually find is that they haven't... usually because they're claiming expertise in a field that they have no knowledge or educational background in. You wouldn't ask an orthopedic surgeon to remove a brain tumor. Sure, he's a doctor, but he's probably never seen the inside of a living person's head.

 

[Redtree]

Well, that video is more convincing than the last I suppose. Now I'm not convinced of anything. I'm almost wondering now if I'm on the fence. As a denier of warming or a believer, I guess so. But I'm not sitting on the fence if we debate whether or not we need to change. And change is imminent, anyway. But how will we change our pattern of change? The answer is there. People have it, we're just greedy. That's nature. Nature is not perfect.
The accurate reflections of some passionate people, show us the level of pollution, deforestation, animal extinction, and direct and indirect, horrible, more than relative human affect that we have had on this earth. Especially since 1900. We've learned how to produce, thrive, and live loud. ENOUGH ALREADY. WE NEED TO LEARN TO PRESERVE, AND CONSERVE. I know I'm no example, just a participant in the game.
It doesn't mean we need to live like we did 2000 years ago. We don't need to work like ants. We don't need to all agree. We just need to increase our respect for Mother Earth. One thing is for sure. We only have one earth, why test it? We know we are pushing it. if space is our escape I can just imagine the fight to get on that small rocket ship.

With regards to the forest and monocultures we impose on it, what will people do, after the garden is gone? Give Neil young a listen especially the living with war album. That guy drives an electric Lincoln continental. Another passionate guy that reflects relative issues. Keep on rockin in the free world. I just hope it can stay a treed world. A garden.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[BRT]

This is about the changing thats needs to happen. It is agriculture based but as tree guys there is plenty that you will understand. A novel thought, to work with the world, instead of against it.

Man vs earth is about changing what and how we do things.

That was 1hr & 20 mins. well spent. Great speaker, logical, and he has performed his own experiments. Almost makes me wanna go work on a farm--but them guys get up a 4 and don't come home til after dark

 

[Treetopflyer]

Well if say the removal is a tree 3' from the house. and the property has built to the property line. We wouldnt want to plant a Douglas Fir in that little ol patch of soil would we? Or if it's an area that really needs to be thinned for stand health. Perhaps planting shrubs or ferns would be more applicable in that situation.
Here's a sobering fact for you. The single leading source of CO2 emmisions is from deforestation. More than all of the worlds transportation combined.
Granted our part in that is small, it's mostly palm oil plantations, and land converision. BUT we are playing out part with every removal, urban, or rural
I just did my part today. Refused two bigleaf maple removals that were un-nessary, called the client back and told him that if he kept the trees I would prune them for a discount.

Well if say the removal is a tree 3' from the house. and the property has built to the property line. We wouldnt want to plant a Douglas Fir in that little ol patch of soil would we?

No, choosing the right Tree for the right place is the right thing to do, of course ..consideration to site specific s are of the up most importance. To try and play naive or ignorance in where ,what Tree grows best , just for the sake of putting a Tree in ground isn't conservative or progressive. You never can know, theres a pest ready to attack a native species for example ,and with the changes we can't predict. Being naive and just planting a tree without thought of" Will this Tree flourish when its mature?"To have the consideration of the future is difficult. Not even thinking like the world will be all that different in form or climate , let alone trying to be in tune to how a trees environment will change naturally..I get it ..what is naturally? Who really knows , this is where being acute to current science is important ,Things just want to live, sure. Trees can't move on their own , they live in the averages and die at the extremes. I'm no expert just try to be observant of each situation I encounter. Not an easy task. We as arbs ,urban foresters, all Tree people have an awesome opportunity to help with awareness for others and when you love what you do its not about the money.. I've often said I'd do this job for free. So giving away trees in some instances is just icing on the cake if they stand for something and communicating the value to whomever is concerned so they share the value is a beautiful thing imo. Nothings for nothing but I've already been payed forward . Time to give back for me.

 

[Treetopflyer]

Well, that video is more convincing than the last I suppose. Now I'm not convinced of anything. I'm almost wondering now if I'm on the fence. As a denier of warming or a believer, I guess so. But I'm not sitting on the fence if we debate whether or not we need to change. And change is imminent, anyway. But how will we change our pattern of change? The answer is there. People have it, we're just greedy. That's nature. Nature is not perfect.
The accurate reflections of some passionate people, show us the level of pollution, deforestation, animal extinction, and direct and indirect, horrible, more than relative human affect that we have had on this earth. Especially since 1900. We've learned how to produce, thrive, and live loud. ENOUGH ALREADY. WE NEED TO LEARN TO PRESERVE, AND CONSERVE. I know I'm no example, just a participant in the game.
It doesn't mean we need to live like we did 2000 years ago. We don't need to work like ants. We don't need to all agree. We just need to increase our respect for Mother Earth. One thing is for sure. We only have one earth, why test it? We know we are pushing it. if space is our escape I can just imagine the fight to get on that small rocket ship.

With regards to the forest and monocultures we impose on it, what will people do, after the garden is gone? Give Neil young a listen especially the living with war album. That guy drives an electric Lincoln continental. Another passionate guy that reflects relative issues. Keep on rockin in the free world. I just hope it can stay a treed world. A garden.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Wow, redtree hell of a good post! I feel what you mean about not being am example of .. Sometimes I feel terrible about how easy it is to fall into the wastfulness .. It's everywhere and hard to avoid. We all want easy street and that can be wasteway ave all the same. Not that it has to be .
Tom D mentioned recycle reduce reuse in a previous post.
There's ways to close the loop. Just what's the specifics? Any ideas from anyone? Simple easy day to day things to ease stress to our individual environments? Sharing info is caring ..lol.. It's all just kid stuff,we learned in a nursery rhymes don't be blinded by lifes not at all about it. You can't take it with you and your kids can't eat it when the world's to pollute to eat anything else.I know I quoted you redtree ,but thst pitch was Not @ anyone just typing on lunch.
But back to you redtree
That's a great Neil album and I watched Neil somewheres talk about that ride you mentioned, pretty cool stuff.

 

[Treetopflyer]

 

[BRT]

View attachment 35332

Not an actual picture--artist rendition. Don't you just love the way the media takes full advantage of our visual over-stimulation. Average public school student can't even read the article, let alone digest the information. But they see that fish swimming in "particles of plastic" & lets make everyone sell their car and start pedaling bikes.

 

[Leroy]

Calling me "a condescending prick" seems a bit harsh, but whatever floats yer boat, I guess.

My bad, I thought you were implying that the article was beyond my comprehension.

 

[Treetopflyer]

Not an actual picture--artist rendition. Don't you just love the way the media takes full advantage of our visual over-stimulation. Average public school student can't even read the article, let alone digest the information. But they see that fish swimming in "particles of plastic" & lets make everyone sell their car and start pedaling bikes.

I don't know what the hell's going on anymore.

 

[BRT]

I don't know what the hell's going on anymore.

I admit, I haven't tagged along for the entire thread, but the title says it all, "Man Vs. Earth."

The article in question is 100% optics. This culture is so dumb, they believe anything they see. Including that fish "photo".