Glaciers are melting in Greenland. The frozen Arctic is becoming smaller with the global rise in in temperatures. Greenland is expected to defrost making oil reserves available to be mined as-well as valuable minerals. Sea levels will rise as the icecaps slowly melt away. Vast frozen regions of Siberia that are presently too cold to inhabit with large population cities could become climatically reasonably bearable to build up with cities. Some Arctic wildlife could become extinct in the region. Wildlife such as Polar bears could perhaps be placed in a similar environment to the Arctic where food would be more bountiful. A breading population of 300 Polar Bears from the Arctic could be transported to the Antarctic to prevent extinction, where they could bread, and would have Penguins to eat as-well as their natural food seals.
QUOTE (maxwords+May 27 2008, 04:24 PM)
A breading population of 300 Polar Bears from the Arctic could be transported to the Antarctic to prevent extinction, where they could bread, and would have Penguins to eat as-well as their natural food seals.
Is that bread as in dough or bread as in money?
So you want to make endangered penguins extinct to save polar bears?
Is that bread as in dough or bread as in money?
QUOTE
where they could bread, and would have Penguins to eat as-well as their natural food seals.
So you want to make endangered penguins extinct to save polar bears?
This is all hogwash. 
Global cooling is the problem. High humidity and cooler temperatures are the norm. 
Global cooling is the problem. High humidity and cooler temperatures are the norm.
The Arctic is melting because the sea temperature is rising..
when that ice is gone...... drought and heat...
while down south, cold and dry and Ice Clouds day in day out
Eventually both will join in harmonious drought, with stagnant Ice Clouds.....
until..... and.... and .... then a global Ice Age.....extinction
This picture is not a CO2 forcing scenario
when that ice is gone...... drought and heat...
while down south, cold and dry and Ice Clouds day in day out
Eventually both will join in harmonious drought, with stagnant Ice Clouds.....
until..... and.... and .... then a global Ice Age.....extinction
This picture is not a CO2 forcing scenario
Forget the doom and gloom Zarkov. The planet has seen this cycle for billions of years already.
QUOTE
this cycle for billions of years already.
another fool who would rather be blinkered and told soothing words
What is happening with the world's climate is entirely unnatural
It is not correct to state it has happened before, and that the past is a pointer to the future.
The past cycles were natural cycles, slow and measured... with the thermal and hydrological factions in harmonic unity
Today is rapid, fractured and completely fatal.... you just have no understanding, the thermal and hydrological cycles are totally out of kilter...fatal !
Keep thinking THEY have it under control
QUOTE (maxwords+May 28 2008, 04:24 AM)
A breading population of 300 Polar Bears from the Arctic could be transported to the Antarctic to prevent extinction, where they could bread, and would have Penguins to eat as-well as their natural food seals.
Introducing polar bears to the Antarctic is not a good idea as they will wipe out the penguins.
I predict that any attempt at this introduction will be met with strong resistance by environmentalists. Very strong. I personally will then be supporting the Antarctic polar bear cull.
Sorry, but it is a very bad idea.
I read recently that polar bears have been shown to interbread with other bears (brown or black, I can't remember which). Realistically, this might be their only chance.
Introducing polar bears to the Antarctic is not a good idea as they will wipe out the penguins.
I predict that any attempt at this introduction will be met with strong resistance by environmentalists. Very strong. I personally will then be supporting the Antarctic polar bear cull.
Sorry, but it is a very bad idea.
I read recently that polar bears have been shown to interbread with other bears (brown or black, I can't remember which). Realistically, this might be their only chance.
QUOTE
A breading population of 300 Polar Bears from the Arctic...
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A breading population of 300 Polar Bears from the Arctic... |
...where they could bread, and would have Penguins to eat as-well as their natural food seals.
I don't know about you but breaded Polar Bear sounds pretty tasty, even breaded Penguin! I'm hungry.
QUOTE
Breading is a dry grain-derived coating for a piece of food such as meat, vegetable, poultry, fish, shellfish, crustacean, seitan, or textured soy, etc., made from breadcrumbs or a breading mixture with seasonings. Breading can also refer to the process of applying a bread coating to a food. Breading is well suited for frying because it lends itself to creating a crispy coating around the food. Breading mixtures can be made of flour or cornmeal and seasoning that the item to be breaded is dredged in before cooking. If the item to be breaded is too dry for the coating to stick, it may be coated with something like buttermilk or raw egg first. Breading contrasts with batter which is a grain-based liquid coating for food that produces a smoother and finer texture, which can be less crispy overall.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breading
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+May 28 2008, 10:35 AM)
I don't know about you but breaded Polar Bear sounds pretty tasty, even breaded Penguin! I'm hungry.
To get the best flavour from a nice juicy polar bear steak, it would be best cooked straight onto a hot plate and not cooked more than medium rare. Breading would make the meat cook too slowly, so it would easily over-cook.
Adult penguins are too tough to cook by any method other than a slow cooker, but are very good when done this way in a curry.
But you do have a point when it comes to eating baby penguins. They are much more tender and cook well breaded.
To get the best flavour from a nice juicy polar bear steak, it would be best cooked straight onto a hot plate and not cooked more than medium rare. Breading would make the meat cook too slowly, so it would easily over-cook.
Adult penguins are too tough to cook by any method other than a slow cooker, but are very good when done this way in a curry.
But you do have a point when it comes to eating baby penguins. They are much more tender and cook well breaded.
BBQ at NOMs' as soon as we can figure out how to get 300 polar bears and a bunch of penguins there. Yahoo! 
QUOTE (xtrmn8r+May 27 2008, 06:35 PM)
I don't know about you but breaded Polar Bear sounds pretty tasty, even breaded Penguin! I'm hungry.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breading
Let's not forget the hummingbird tongues for garnish. Might as well go full decadent.
maxwords, forgive the jokes. The word you should have used was "breed."
Putting all the culinary thoughts aside, what was your post for?
QUOTE (maxwords+May 27 2008, 11:24 AM)
Glaciers are melting in Greenland. The frozen Arctic is becoming smaller with the global rise in in temperatures. Greenland is expected to defrost making oil reserves available to be mined as-well as valuable minerals. Sea levels will rise as the icecaps slowly melt away. Vast frozen regions of Siberia that are presently too cold to inhabit with large population cities could become climatically reasonably bearable to build up with cities. Some Arctic wildlife could become extinct in the region. Wildlife such as Polar bears could perhaps be placed in a similar environment to the Arctic where food would be more bountiful. A breading population of 300 Polar Bears from the Arctic could be transported to the Antarctic to prevent extinction, where they could bread, and would have Penguins to eat as-well as their natural food seals.
You do realize Greenland is called "Greenland" for a reason, don't you?
Because about 1000 years ago, before the Little Ice Age, Greenland had no ice!!
Zarkov's statement, "What is happening with the world's climate is entirely unnatural."
Is completely inaccurate and mis-informed due to global warming alarmist propaganda.
The fact is, major shifts in the earth's properties, whether temperature, atmospheric compositon, magnetosphere, etc, ARE natural, and for the most part even cyclical.
You do realize Greenland is called "Greenland" for a reason, don't you?
Because about 1000 years ago, before the Little Ice Age, Greenland had no ice!!
Zarkov's statement, "What is happening with the world's climate is entirely unnatural."
Is completely inaccurate and mis-informed due to global warming alarmist propaganda.
The fact is, major shifts in the earth's properties, whether temperature, atmospheric compositon, magnetosphere, etc, ARE natural, and for the most part even cyclical.
QUOTE
Zarkov's statement, "What is happening with the world's climate is entirely unnatural."
Is completely inaccurate and mis-informed due to global warming alarmist propaganda.
Is completely inaccurate and mis-informed due to global warming alarmist propaganda.
if anything I am conservative here
if you knew what is really going to happen you will really freak
so keep do'n what you are do'n... some take the threat of extinction a little more seriously
hey, how about anotha beer !
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+May 28 2008, 11:20 AM)
You do realize Greenland is called "Greenland" for a reason, don't you?
Because about 1000 years ago, before the Little Ice Age, Greenland had no ice!!
Never no ice, but certainly less. It was named Greenland as propaganda to encourage settlers.
Polar bears are not in danger of extinction. Eating them still sounds like a good idea
Polar bears are not in danger of extinction. Eating them still sounds like a good idea
Indeed, Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a bear biologist with the Canadian government, wrote in 2006: “There is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”
Because about 1000 years ago, before the Little Ice Age, Greenland had no ice!!
Never no ice, but certainly less. It was named Greenland as propaganda to encourage settlers.
QUOTE (Quantum_Conundrum+)
Zarkov's statement, "What is happening with the world's climate is entirely unnatural."
Is completely inaccurate and mis-informed due to global warming alarmist propaganda.
Is completely inaccurate and mis-informed due to global warming alarmist propaganda.
Completely inaccurate and mis-informed sums up all of Flexi's posts rather well.
QUOTE
A breading population of 300 Polar Bears from the Arctic could be transported to the Antarctic to prevent extinction...
Polar bears are not in danger of extinction. Eating them still sounds like a good idea
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| A breading population of 300 Polar Bears from the Arctic could be transported to the Antarctic to prevent extinction... |
Polar bears are not in danger of extinction. Eating them still sounds like a good idea
Indeed, Dr. Mitchell Taylor, a bear biologist with the Canadian government, wrote in 2006: “There is no need to panic. Of the 13 populations of polar bears in Canada, 11 are stable or increasing in number. They are not going extinct, or even appear to be affected at present.”
The Arctic Thaw is inevitable as a consequence of the volumes of CO2 greenhouse gas emissions that will be produced by Asia, Africa and the Americas in the next 100 years to come. The warming up of the planet may be horrible to people living in tropical and near equatorial regions. However previous inhospitable frozen wilderness areas such as Scandinavia, Canada, Siberian coastline, Alaska could become climatically comfortable to inhabit in mass with large scale real-estate and city development projects in the future. As Sea-Levels rise the will be big business in gradually building up inland all the coastal cities as the beachfront coastline moves inland with the rising seas. What factories have to do is to if not prevent CO2 emissions into the atmosphere they have to at-least prevent carbon particle emissions in the CO2. Because micron carbon particles form the basis around what microscopic ice-crystals form and reflect the Suns rays back into space. These microscopic ice crystals diminish evaporation rates of sea water causing droughts. If the carbon particle emissions stopped the evaporation of water from the Earths seas would increase, producing more rainfall and prevent the horrible droughts that we are now experiencing in some regions around the world.
How much rise do we need to lose Florida? 6 or 7 ft? How can I help? I'll take a big hairdryer to Greenland if that will help.
As long as at some point the rise in ocean levels is enough to completely inundate the state of Florida then I'm thrilled. If we have to lose London, New York, New Orleans and large portions of other coastal cities at the same time it's worth it. There is absolutely nothing in the state of Florida that would be a loss to humanity.
By the way ... I've always heard that Greenland and Iceland were named such as part of a disinformation campaign so that Viking rivals would be fooled into settling in Greenland and leaving Iceland for themselves.
As long as at some point the rise in ocean levels is enough to completely inundate the state of Florida then I'm thrilled. If we have to lose London, New York, New Orleans and large portions of other coastal cities at the same time it's worth it. There is absolutely nothing in the state of Florida that would be a loss to humanity.
By the way ... I've always heard that Greenland and Iceland were named such as part of a disinformation campaign so that Viking rivals would be fooled into settling in Greenland and leaving Iceland for themselves.
2006 USA CENSUS Data shows California to have the most people with 36,457,549
Florida is 4Th on the list with 18,089,888 people. But still it would mean trillions in relocating and rebuilding if it was covered by water.
Another interesting Census fact is `Low Blacks 94.8% White West Virginia' has a median income of $33,993 Whilst in high blacks 63.6% Whites I'm better than you MARYLAND the situation is much more capitalistic with a median income of $57,019. Seems a trend with small states and median income inversely related to white percentage population. The blacks do all the hard jobs no-one else wants to do, so the state prospers.
Florida is 4Th on the list with 18,089,888 people. But still it would mean trillions in relocating and rebuilding if it was covered by water.
Another interesting Census fact is `Low Blacks 94.8% White West Virginia' has a median income of $33,993 Whilst in high blacks 63.6% Whites I'm better than you MARYLAND the situation is much more capitalistic with a median income of $57,019. Seems a trend with small states and median income inversely related to white percentage population. The blacks do all the hard jobs no-one else wants to do, so the state prospers.
Here is an interesting thought. Up to about the 1970's, autos did not have all the pollution control devices they have today. Back then, there was no energy loss due to emissions control devices, so cars were more efficient (relative to the times). The disadvantage was the pollution due to unburned fuel. Here is the irony. The better pollution control devices reduced unburned fuel and smoke, but made autos generate CO2 with far more efficiency. There is also the extra fuel needed to work the devices, to make even more CO2. The question is, did this more efficient automobile production of CO2 have a significant impact on global warming?
What is weird is before the emission control laws got too far, there where autos sold that could get 40-60 MPG using gas and diesel. But after getting bogged down with devices, autos increased the horsepower to burn more fuel with improved CO2 production.
What is weird is before the emission control laws got too far, there where autos sold that could get 40-60 MPG using gas and diesel. But after getting bogged down with devices, autos increased the horsepower to burn more fuel with improved CO2 production.
QUOTE (maxwords+May 27 2008, 04:24 PM)
Glaciers are melting in Greenland. The frozen Arctic is becoming smaller with the global rise in in temperatures. Greenland is expected to defrost making oil reserves available to be mined as-well as valuable minerals. Sea levels will rise as the icecaps slowly melt away. Vast frozen regions of Siberia that are presently too cold to inhabit with large population cities could become climatically reasonably bearable to build up with cities. Some Arctic wildlife could become extinct in the region. Wildlife such as Polar bears could perhaps be placed in a similar environment to the Arctic where food would be more bountiful. A breading population of 300 Polar Bears from the Arctic could be transported to the Antarctic to prevent extinction, where they could bread, and would have Penguins to eat as-well as their natural food seals.
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/DanielChen.shtml
The sea level rising would cause some cities to be flooded. But at what rate are the seas going to start rising? The surface area of water on the Earth is 361,800,000 square kilometers.
Could utilizing nuclear power-stations and electrolysis, could we convert one cm of sea level per year into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen to be stored as fuel for future generations when needed? Assuming that sea levels at some future date will stat to rise by one cm per year the we would be breaking even by storing the excess water as hydrogen and oxygen fuel on land.
1000 meter's in a km means 1000^2 sq meter's.
100 cm in a metre means 100^2 sq cm
=(1,000,000 x 10,000 x 361,800,000 x 1 cm) cubic centimeter rise per year due to global warming.
Take the cube root, then divide by 100, then raise to the power of three.
=15351.7^3 = 3,618,000,000,000 = 3618 Trillion cubic meter's of sea water per year to be converted into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen by electrolysis using nuclear power.
1)How many nuclear power stations would that take at what power level output?
2)How many tonnes of Uranium per year would these power stations use up per year?
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/DanielChen.shtml
The sea level rising would cause some cities to be flooded. But at what rate are the seas going to start rising? The surface area of water on the Earth is 361,800,000 square kilometers.
Could utilizing nuclear power-stations and electrolysis, could we convert one cm of sea level per year into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen to be stored as fuel for future generations when needed? Assuming that sea levels at some future date will stat to rise by one cm per year the we would be breaking even by storing the excess water as hydrogen and oxygen fuel on land.
1000 meter's in a km means 1000^2 sq meter's.
100 cm in a metre means 100^2 sq cm
=(1,000,000 x 10,000 x 361,800,000 x 1 cm) cubic centimeter rise per year due to global warming.
Take the cube root, then divide by 100, then raise to the power of three.
=15351.7^3 = 3,618,000,000,000 = 3618 Trillion cubic meter's of sea water per year to be converted into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen by electrolysis using nuclear power.
1)How many nuclear power stations would that take at what power level output?
2)How many tonnes of Uranium per year would these power stations use up per year?
QUOTE (maxwords+Jul 5 2008, 04:52 AM)
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2001/DanielChen.shtml
The sea level rising would cause some cities to be flooded. But at what rate are the seas going to start rising? The surface area of water on the Earth is 361,800,000 square kilometers.
Could utilizing nuclear power-stations and electrolysis, could we convert one cm of sea level per year into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen to be stored as fuel for future generations when needed? Assuming that sea levels at some future date will stat to rise by one cm per year the we would be breaking even by storing the excess water as hydrogen and oxygen fuel on land.
1000 meter's in a km means 1000^2 sq meter's.
100 cm in a meter means 100^2 sq cm
=(1,000,000 x 10,000 x 361,800,000 x 1 cm) cubic centimeter rise per year due to global warming.
Take the cube root, then divide by 100, then raise to the power of three.
=15351.7^3 = 3,618,000,000,000 = 3618 Trillion cubic meter's of sea water per year to be converted into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen by electrolysis using nuclear power.
1)How many nuclear power stations would that take at what power level output?
2)How many tonnes of Uranium per year would these power stations use up per year?
3618 Trillion cubic meters of water equals 3618 cubic kilometers of sea water to be converter into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen per year. That's not only impossible, it's ridiculous, we couldn't do it.
And that's just 1 centimeter of sea level. When the planet heats up and all the ice melts the sea level would have risen by 120 foot in altitude leaving the Earth with much less than 30% land surface area. And unfortunately a vastly much bigger world population by then then we have now.
However even if we converted just one cm and left it at that at whatever rate it would solve the worlds energy needs.
Deuterium from the 1 cm could be distilled to power new fusion reactors. Everything would run on hydrogen and oxygen and the byproduct from the combustion of the two gases would be used a clean drinking water and water to irrigate deserts.
The sea level rising would cause some cities to be flooded. But at what rate are the seas going to start rising? The surface area of water on the Earth is 361,800,000 square kilometers.
Could utilizing nuclear power-stations and electrolysis, could we convert one cm of sea level per year into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen to be stored as fuel for future generations when needed? Assuming that sea levels at some future date will stat to rise by one cm per year the we would be breaking even by storing the excess water as hydrogen and oxygen fuel on land.
1000 meter's in a km means 1000^2 sq meter's.
100 cm in a meter means 100^2 sq cm
=(1,000,000 x 10,000 x 361,800,000 x 1 cm) cubic centimeter rise per year due to global warming.
Take the cube root, then divide by 100, then raise to the power of three.
=15351.7^3 = 3,618,000,000,000 = 3618 Trillion cubic meter's of sea water per year to be converted into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen by electrolysis using nuclear power.
1)How many nuclear power stations would that take at what power level output?
2)How many tonnes of Uranium per year would these power stations use up per year?
3618 Trillion cubic meters of water equals 3618 cubic kilometers of sea water to be converter into liquid hydrogen and liquid oxygen per year. That's not only impossible, it's ridiculous, we couldn't do it.
And that's just 1 centimeter of sea level. When the planet heats up and all the ice melts the sea level would have risen by 120 foot in altitude leaving the Earth with much less than 30% land surface area. And unfortunately a vastly much bigger world population by then then we have now.
However even if we converted just one cm and left it at that at whatever rate it would solve the worlds energy needs.
Deuterium from the 1 cm could be distilled to power new fusion reactors. Everything would run on hydrogen and oxygen and the byproduct from the combustion of the two gases would be used a clean drinking water and water to irrigate deserts.
Are you trying to see how many stupid ideas you can fit into a single thread Chris?
CO2 is not a cause of global warming, it's a side effect. Right now, I am located near one of the greatest preventable ecological disasters humanity has ever known. It makes the Exxon Valdeez spill look like a spit in a lake. I am talking about the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation in British Columbia, Canada. And it is all the enviromentalist's and former New Democratic Party's fault. It all started in a park on the North Coast. The loggers saw what was happening and said "We should cut this down so the bugs don't get away." The enviromentalist's said "Oh no, we can't let these evil people go into a park, with their evil tree destroying machines." So we didn't go in and prevent the disaster. So know we have an area of Texas and Great Britain combine of formerly growing trees. Now, we have red as far as the eye can see. And they are putting out more CO2 than they are sucking up, and they are tinder dry. A firestorm waiting to happen, and more CO2 output than everything put out in 10 years at the least.
On top of it, we are now finding that the other planets are warming up. Why would that be I wonder? Could it be that we are dumping CO2 on Jupiter? No, it's because the sun is getting hotter, getting ready to fuse He3 instead of hydrogen. CO2 is just being released. We may not be helping with our own emissions, but decreasing our emissions will do squat diddly.
As for the oceans rising, look at the volume of sea ice compared to glaciers. You never see the level of your highball rise once the ice is gone, do you?
On top of it, we are now finding that the other planets are warming up. Why would that be I wonder? Could it be that we are dumping CO2 on Jupiter? No, it's because the sun is getting hotter, getting ready to fuse He3 instead of hydrogen. CO2 is just being released. We may not be helping with our own emissions, but decreasing our emissions will do squat diddly.
As for the oceans rising, look at the volume of sea ice compared to glaciers. You never see the level of your highball rise once the ice is gone, do you?
QUOTE (Falconer13+Jul 8 2008, 05:28 AM)
CO2 is not a cause of global warming, it's a side effect. Right now, I am located near one of the greatest preventable ecological disasters humanity has ever known. It makes the Exxon Valdeez spill look like a spit in a lake. I am talking about the Mountain Pine Beetle infestation in British Columbia, Canada. And it is all the environmentalist's and former New Democratic Party's fault. It all started in a park on the North Coast. The loggers saw what was happening and said "We should cut this down so the bugs don't get away." The environmentalist's said "Oh no, we can't let these evil people go into a park, with their evil tree destroying machines." So we didn't go in and prevent the disaster. So know we have an area of Texas and Great Britain combine of formerly growing trees. Now, we have red as far as the eye can see. And they are putting out more CO2 than they are sucking up, and they are tinder dry. A firestorm waiting to happen, and more CO2 output than everything put out in 10 years at the least.
On top of it, we are now finding that the other planets are warming up. Why would that be I wonder? Could it be that we are dumping CO2 on Jupiter? No, it's because the sun is getting hotter, getting ready to fuse He3 instead of hydrogen. CO2 is just being released. We may not be helping with our own emissions, but decreasing our emissions will do squat diddly.
As for the oceans rising, look at the volume of sea ice compared to glaciers. You never see the level of your highball rise once the ice is gone, do you?
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Forests/Canada/BC/Beetle/
If the Sun is getting hotter, ready to fuse He3(P2N1) that's an additional problem, to the CO2 greenhouse effect happening around the world. (Greenhouses do work)
The Sun would be fusing Helium 3 with what?
P2N1 + P2N would give P4N2 + Energy? I'm not convinced a Beryllium atom will hold together with only 2 neutrons(Too many protons per neutron). Perhaps He3 + D = P2N1+ P1N2 = Lithium 6 = P3N3 + Energy.
On top of it, we are now finding that the other planets are warming up. Why would that be I wonder? Could it be that we are dumping CO2 on Jupiter? No, it's because the sun is getting hotter, getting ready to fuse He3 instead of hydrogen. CO2 is just being released. We may not be helping with our own emissions, but decreasing our emissions will do squat diddly.
As for the oceans rising, look at the volume of sea ice compared to glaciers. You never see the level of your highball rise once the ice is gone, do you?
http://www.davidsuzuki.org/Forests/Canada/BC/Beetle/
If the Sun is getting hotter, ready to fuse He3(P2N1) that's an additional problem, to the CO2 greenhouse effect happening around the world. (Greenhouses do work)
The Sun would be fusing Helium 3 with what?
P2N1 + P2N would give P4N2 + Energy? I'm not convinced a Beryllium atom will hold together with only 2 neutrons(Too many protons per neutron). Perhaps He3 + D = P2N1+ P1N2 = Lithium 6 = P3N3 + Energy.
Your going to pull that card? I have a counter for that. I do work in the logging industry, my family has been in the industry for more than 30 years, and we don't just go along hacking down trees and not paying attention.
In the natural scheme of things, without any human intervention, the beetles would have gotten away, but they would also have been checked by forest fires. Humans have been putting out the forest fires for the past 50 years, if not more. So, we have removed the only other natural check to the bugs, besides a minimum of two weeks of -40 degree Celsius weather, which we haven't had in nearly 20 years. So, with no fires or freezes, the bugs have gone to town. And no pictures you see will do any justice.
But since humans are here and mucking with things, we have to find a way to mimic the fires. That is that oh so horrible word "clearcut". Now, there is an upside to this clearcutting, if you look solely at the climate change angle. Treated wood does not decay as fast as dead standing timber, and is also removed from the carbon cycle for a longer period of time. As it is, we have the mother of all firestorms sitting a lightning strike away, which is the reason why forests benefit from a bug attack like this. The trees burn up, the ash and nutrients reinvigorate the soil, and the seed cones open. The problem with clear cutting is how they do it. Right now, we cut down the trees, bring the trees to a certain spot, prepare them for shipping (which includes removing the branches and tops), pile up the leftovers, and burn the piles. What should happen is the piles should be spread across the harvested area, and then do a ground burn. This way the seed cones will open, and the ash from the fire will enter the soil, providing for the new trees. This would be the closest thing to a forest fire you could get, without the loss of wood.
In the natural scheme of things, without any human intervention, the beetles would have gotten away, but they would also have been checked by forest fires. Humans have been putting out the forest fires for the past 50 years, if not more. So, we have removed the only other natural check to the bugs, besides a minimum of two weeks of -40 degree Celsius weather, which we haven't had in nearly 20 years. So, with no fires or freezes, the bugs have gone to town. And no pictures you see will do any justice.
But since humans are here and mucking with things, we have to find a way to mimic the fires. That is that oh so horrible word "clearcut". Now, there is an upside to this clearcutting, if you look solely at the climate change angle. Treated wood does not decay as fast as dead standing timber, and is also removed from the carbon cycle for a longer period of time. As it is, we have the mother of all firestorms sitting a lightning strike away, which is the reason why forests benefit from a bug attack like this. The trees burn up, the ash and nutrients reinvigorate the soil, and the seed cones open. The problem with clear cutting is how they do it. Right now, we cut down the trees, bring the trees to a certain spot, prepare them for shipping (which includes removing the branches and tops), pile up the leftovers, and burn the piles. What should happen is the piles should be spread across the harvested area, and then do a ground burn. This way the seed cones will open, and the ash from the fire will enter the soil, providing for the new trees. This would be the closest thing to a forest fire you could get, without the loss of wood.
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/hfp/mountain_pine_beetle/faq.htm
Does the mountain pine beetle have natural predators?
Birds - particularly woodpeckers - enjoy feasting on mountain pine beetles. Beetle larvae can also be susceptible to some parasites and insect predators. However, the current epidemic is far beyond the level at which the beetle’s natural enemies can be much help in B.C.’s battle against the beetle.
Does the mountain pine beetle have natural predators?
Birds - particularly woodpeckers - enjoy feasting on mountain pine beetles. Beetle larvae can also be susceptible to some parasites and insect predators. However, the current epidemic is far beyond the level at which the beetle’s natural enemies can be much help in B.C.’s battle against the beetle.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.