RyushiBlade on 26/9/2006 at 03:28
Though the majority of North America's native woodland has disappeared, there are more 'man-made' forests today. This is what I've heard and I'm looking for a citation, but I'm a bit pressed for time right now. Don't be surprised if I don't have one until tomorrow.
However, the few sources I've found (I'm looking for something more concrete) says we have more forests today than we did in the 1920's--the year the graphs stop in the wikipedia link you provided, TTK. On another forum, someone else seems to have the idea that we have 80% more woodland than we did in 1600, so atleast I know I'm not the only one to have been told this. Like I said, I'm just looking for something more concrete to satiate your thirst.
TTK12G3 on 26/9/2006 at 04:30
Quote Posted by RyushiBlade
However, the few sources I've found (I'm looking for something more concrete) says we have more forests today than we did in the 1920's--the year the graphs stop in the wikipedia link you provided, TTK. On another forum, someone else seems to have the idea that we have 80% more woodland than we did in 1600, so atleast I know I'm not the only one to have been told this. Like I said, I'm just looking for something more concrete to satiate your thirst.
OK, sure. Oh, and... (
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/gg97rpt/chap7.html) update.
EDIT: Yes, I can see that it's growing back, to a sorry extent, but your argument that there was more woodland now than in the seventeenth century is simply illogical. In order for that to happen, there should have been a MASSIVE reforestation project that involved transforming empty landscapes into something more hospitable to trees. There was no such project, obviously. Note that some areas have actually gotten much worse.
RyushiBlade on 26/9/2006 at 05:04
You flatter me. To say that I was posing an argument is far too much of an honor! I was merely stating a piece of information I have been told. The fact that I'm actively seeking confirmation instead of asserting it as fact and forcing you to do the research yourself should support this. I'll even admit that so far I can only find a few references here and there.
Ko0K on 26/9/2006 at 06:15
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
Isn't that highly dependent on geological factors though? My understanding is it's only viable in certain areas due to the composition of the ground, ease of drilling, etc.
I can't speak for any other jurisdictions, but around here it's a costly and time-consuming process that is not for most homeowners. I don't know about the type that uses coils buried in shallow trenches dug into soil, but the ones that are lowered down bore holes would be difficult to install, especially if bedrock is the substrate. Other than geologic factors, logistics regarding access for the drill rig, possible damage to unmarked utility lines, and the permit process may be enough to turn most people off. The upside to that system, however, is that it occupies a much smaller lateral area than the trench system. Anyway, I believe that commercial building owners may be inclined to install systems like that because they can see the saved energy cost offsetting the installation cost in a relatively foreseeable future, not to mention that the installation cost can be factored into the rent especially if the building is located in a markettable area.
Rogue Keeper on 26/9/2006 at 07:09
Quote Posted by Gingerbread Man
If we run out of geothermal resources, what then? Enjoy the quick death of the planet in a couple of centuries?
:weird:
TTK12G3 on 26/9/2006 at 15:41
Quote Posted by RyushiBlade
You flatter me. To say that I was posing an argument is far too much of an honor! I was merely stating a piece of information I have been told. The fact that I'm actively seeking confirmation instead of asserting it as fact and forcing
you to do the research yourself should support this. I'll even admit that so far I can only find a few references here and there.
I'll go no further on the subject then, for now. ;)
RyushiBlade on 27/9/2006 at 00:07
I'm far too lazy to continue searching. Atleast I can say with some degree of certainty that we have many, many more forests in the United States than we did in the 1920's, the peak of... loggery. In my opinion, losing the alpine and boreal forests are the biggest threat. This wide band of trees goes all the way around the world, through Canada, Russia, and Northern Europe. They're just as important than the rainforests in CO2 'consumption.'
Jonesy on 27/9/2006 at 00:28
That statistic is slightly misleading as the majority of that is replacement of logged sections with large amounts of the same tree; getting rid of any real diversity there.
RyushiBlade on 27/9/2006 at 05:39
Diversity isn't the same thing as numbers. 80% more implies numbers, not species, and so the statistic isn't misleading. It's just not what some want to hear. I won't say one tree is like another, but I will say that more trees are better than no trees.
Gingerbread Man on 27/9/2006 at 05:53
Depends how fast you're running and whether or not YOU'VE GONE BLIND
