Forests: REDD or dead?
There's pretty strong criticism this week for the UN-backed initiative on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and forest Degradation (REDD) - criticism timed for the opening, in New York, of the UN Forum on Forests.
Reducing deforestation is something of a no-brainer - forest loss harms wildlife, releases carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, can damage water supplies and often brings no lasting benefit to communities living in the area - so why wouldn't you want to reduce it?
Whether everything is rosy in the REDD garden is, however, another matter.
For several years now, observers have pointed out that if you have a global initiative on forests that has rewarding carbon storage and retention as its single goal, you run the risk of damaging forests in other ways - at its direst, ending up with monoculture plantations of carbon-absorbing trees where no bird or monkey is seen.
Hence the development of REDD+, which aims to include measures to protect the rights of forest communities and enhance biodiversity, along with the carbon storage.
But according to the new analysis from the International Union of Forest Research Organizations (IUFRO), the trouble with REDD goes a lot deeper.
Effective forest protection policies entail a move away from top-down initiatives such as REDD, they argue.
Instead, governments must resolve to attack head-on the pressures that remove forests - such as the drive to open up new agricultural land, or to connect commodity supply with demand through the construction of roads that fragment habitat.
Says Jeremy Rayner, a professor at the University of Saskatchewan in Canada and chair of the IUFRO group behind the new report:
“We are not saying we need to abandon a global approach to forest governance, but we do need to establish the appropriate roles.”
Basic pressures such as demand for timber must be addressed, the report concludes
Players who must be found appropriate roles include governments, communities, businesses and civil society organisations, it says.
The report's a massive one and I won't attempt to summarise it all here - if you do want to dive in but don't have a couple of hours to spare I suggest you begin around Chapter Five, which looks at what we mean by forest sustainability and some ideas about how it can be achieved.
The writers argue that there are successful examples in the world that can be used as models, or at least as sources of ideas.
A few weeks ago, in a radio programme I made for BBC World Service, Costa Rica's former environment minister Carlos Manuel Rodriguez discussed several lessons learned from his country's attempts to curb the rate of forest loss and then replenish the stock.
They include:
-
effective rule of law and an end to corruption
-
financial penalties on forest destruction and things that encourage it, such as fossil fuel use
-
financial rewards for preservation.
As a middle-income country, Costa Rica managed to halt and reverse deforestation through this raft of policies. Brazil seems to be going along a similar path; China has embarked on a huge tree-planting programme, partly in response to previous decades of rampant logging.
Western Europe has begun to increase its forested area largely through having a stable population size, finding much of its food from imports and having chunks of the citizenry who are prepared to be quite vocal about their desire to have intact forests, not least for recreation.
So it can be done and it is being done in different places; but it's a patchwork.
As a global initiative, REDD+ takes the implicit view (as many other initiatives have before) that forests are in part a global resource, and saving them a global duty.
But IUFRO is not sanguine about the capacity of such initiatives to deliver:
"Global forest governance has not managed to halt forest loss or degradation.
"It is not even clear that international forest institutions can claim any credit for the fact that rates of deforestation, although 'still alarmingly high' (FAO 2010), have slowed."
Nevertheless, REDD is politically very much a going concern, and has the potential to deliver about $30bn per year for forest protection into the developing world.
So you can see why people concerned at the "alarmingly high" rate of deforestation are keen to give it a shot.
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~55~RS~)
I'm Richard Black, environment correspondent for the BBC News website. This is my take on what's happening to our shared environment as the human population grows and our use of nature's resources increases.
© 2012
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
“Instead, governments must resolve to attack head-on the pressures that remove forests - such as the drive to open up new agricultural land………”
And we are back to population again, the issue that won’t go away.
Last week I watched the first of BBC’s “Human Planet”, at one point a group of people were hunting a whale from a small boat armed with home made weapons. For the whale it was an eight hour death, for the hunters it was extremely dangerous but if they did not do it then their families would go hungry. I could not help thinking why do we need so many people, a smaller world population means more to go around, less need to risk life and limb and less impact on the environment.
Complain about this comment
One of the greatest threats to rain forest is its conversion into oil palm plantations. Now the pressure is increasing as palm oil -- formerly used mainly as a processed food ingredient -- now becomes an attractive source of bio-fuels due to the limited amount of refining required.
Most insidious is the attempt by some governments to re-classify oil palm plantations as forest.
http://www.globalwitness.org/library/campaigners-criticise-proposals-define-palm-oil-plantations-forests
It's important to oppose all attempts to use rainforest unsustainably.
http://www.rainforest-rescue.org/
Complain about this comment
Is this still happening?
"Privatising forestry: Can they see the woods for the fees?
By Geoffrey Lean Politics Last updated: October 31st, 2010
It is perhaps the most audacious, and controversial, sell-off ever contemplated – the privatisation of Britain’s wild places. But no sooner have ministers’ plans to dispose of forests and nature reserves begun to emerge, than they have run into serious trouble."
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geoffreylean/100061608/privatising-forestry-can-they-see-the-woods-for-the-fees/
Complain about this comment
Bit of irony here:
"Costa Rica's former environment minister Carlos Manuel Rodriguez discussed several lessons learned from his country's attempts to curb the rate of forest loss and then replenish the stock.
They include:
•effective rule of law and an end to corruption
•financial penalties on forest destruction and things that encourage it, such as fossil fuel use
•financial rewards for preservation.
-------------
First, the vast majority of the land suitable for agriculture in Costa Rica has already been converted to that use.
The irony relates to the concept that "fossil fuel use" somehow encourages forest destruction there. The primary reason that as much land has been protected there is the "financial rewards for preservation" that come from eco-tourism - now an important part of that country's economy. And all those eco-tourists require fossil fuels to get there. Thus fossil fuel use is arguably the reason those areas were protected - just the opposite of what is suggested here.
In terms of CO2 emissions I think ecotourism is the most hypocritical activity possible (next to climate change conferences) but the protection that it encourages more than makes up for that.
Complain about this comment
Richard - Did you know this fellow Peter Sissons?
"Whatever the United Nations is associated with is good — it is heresy to question any of its activities."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1349506/Left-wing-bias-Its-written-BBCs-DNA-says-Peter-Sissons.html
Complain about this comment
Most everybody who is working on implementing REDD+ would agree with the highlights that Richard picked out of the report. This includes myself, working for the UN-REDD Programme in Vietnam. What is needed includes stronger governance, less corruption, more stakeholder involvement and an effective strategy to deal with the drivers of deforestation. Where the report breaks down, in my view, is the proposed solution of "forests+": a "learning architecture" composed of "a more comprehensive approach to knowledge management", "a networked approach to learning", "improved network management" and "better use of e-governance tools" does not really come across as a game changer to me. In some form or other these have all been part of my work programme for quite some time already.
The big success of Cancun - REDD+ effectively exists, even if all the rules and procedures still have to be defined - has given REDD+ practitioners a big boost. Quite a few of the weak spots are patched up. REDD+ actions should be, quoting from the UNFCCC AWGLCA texts, "consistent with the conservation of natural forests and biological diversity, ensuring that actions (...) are not used for the conversion of natural forests, but are instead used to incentivize the protection and conservation of natural forests and their ecosystem services, and to enhance other social and environmental benefits". In other words, no conversion of natural forests into "monoculture plantations of carbon-absorbing trees where no bird or monkey is seen" or other scare-mongering alternatives.
Similarly, there has to be "full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular, indigenous peoples and local communities", which effectively rules out a top-down implementation. Following UNFCCC guidance on the application of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights on Indigenous Peoples (in a footnote!) the UN-REDD Programme requires all participating countries to apply the principle of Free, Prior and Informed Consent, giving the indigenous peoples the opportunity to define how they would like to achieve the REDD+ objectives on their territory.
While there may be a lot of merited criticism on the REDD+ mechanism, I have yet to learn of a better alternative. By its very nature, REDD+ will make itself obsolete (deforestation can be reduced to zero only once, forests will ultimately achieve maturity and not absorb additional carbon); we must use the time and the (financial) resources available to use now to achieve a situation in which the forest is properly managed with full consideration for all of its values and the people being depending on it.
Complain about this comment
The caption to that photo of that spectacularly beautiful frog reads:
"Forest destruction is a major cause of biodiversity loss around the world."
This is true when it really is "forest destruction" - the permanent conversion of a forest to agriculture or pavement - and/or when that destruction and/or temporary conversion (e.g. logging old stands) is excessive.
For example, if we look at that aerial photo, the flaws with this simplistic statement become evident. Let us assume that that whole area was formerly a mature forest, and that the disturbance there is from logging (which appears to be the case as some disturbed areas appear to be growing back).
Thus, formerly, the only species there would have been species adapted to mature forests. But now, with all the other successional stages (as forests grow back), there is now more habitat diversity and thus MORE biodiversity. The trick is to maintain the habitat balance. Obviously, if most or all of the mature forest is removed, species adapted to it will be reduced or lost.
This is something that every birder in the universe, if they know anything at all besides basic bird ID, understands.
This is, as usual, much more complicated that the simplistic green fairy tales.
Complain about this comment
6. Patrick Van Laake wrote an excellent post which gets into some of the complexities.
Notably: "forests will ultimately achieve maturity and not absorb additional carbon."
This is a point which is almost always missed in terms of well managed logging (like the kind we now have in Canada).
A mature forest absorbs almost no net carbon. But a young rapidly growing forest absorbs a lot. If CO2 emissions and carbon sinks were the only concern, we would eliminate old-growth forests... but fortunately that is not the only concern, to put it mildly.
Complain about this comment
@Patrick Van Laarke
I'd suggest that while forests certainly reach maturity, they never reach a steady state where they stop locking up further carbon. Anyone who has walked in a forest knows that the soil beneath the trees is constantly being built up by layers of debris -- leaves, branches and so on. Even where streams wash the soil away, it's carried downstream and some of it will eventually wash out to sea where it's deposited on the deep ocean floor.
Having said that, the problem of deforestation is primarily that of releasing the CO2 locked up in mature forest; although theoretically if all the logged timber is used for furniture and building, the carbon it contains will remain locked-up long-term. Then if the forest is allowed to regenerate, in the long term (100 years plus) the total amount of carbon locked up could end up being greater than that released by logging.
This suggestion, of course, takes no account of the damage deforestation does to biodiversity.
Complain about this comment
@ CanadianRockies: You write much that is ill-considered (e.g. Costa Rica and taxing fossil fuels), but your Canadian example I like much better. As a matter of fact, the emphasis on avoiding fire (a natural phenomenon) has led to a build up of biomass and subsequent massive fires of the kind that we still see annually all over the Rockies. Rather than let nature have its course, the Canadians now have prescribes burns in the interest of creating a "natural landscape" with higher biodiversity (another point CanadianRockies raised somewhat out of context) at lower carbon content.
@John Russell: A mature forest sees very little soil washed away - another excellent ecosystem service as far as hydro operators are concerned. On furniture and other long-term uses of timber: the IPCC already has a concept of Harvested Wood Products (HWP) with oxidation delayed for decades. The pain is in the efficiency: only about 10% of a typical tree get used up in furniture, the remainder is branches, leaves and mill waste. Still, replacing bamboo for concrete to build houses, as an example, is an environmental boo-boo.
REDD+ is not about putting a fence around the forest. It is about converting forest management into something multi-dimensional and efficient, considering the global environment but also the plight of the local people.
Complain about this comment
@Patrick Van Laake
I agree that little soil gets washed away, but do you accept that a forest floor -- particularly of the wet-woodland type -- builds up over time? I own woodland and it's something I've observed over many years. Just a foot down the soil is anaerobic -- and let's face it, is that not how fossil fuels formed in the first place?
BTW, I'd be interested to know what is meant by 'boo-boo'. Not come across that before -- is it an Americanism?
Complain about this comment
#10. Patrick Van Laake wrote:
@ CanadianRockies: You write much that is ill-considered (e.g. Costa Rica and taxing fossil fuels), but your Canadian example I like much better. As a matter of fact, the emphasis on avoiding fire (a natural phenomenon) has led to a build up of biomass and subsequent massive fires of the kind that we still see annually all over the Rockies. Rather than let nature have its course, the Canadians now have prescribes burns in the interest of creating a "natural landscape" with higher biodiversity (another point CanadianRockies raised somewhat out of context) at lower carbon content."
Well, my comments on Costa Rica are on one of my consistent tangents here; that is, trying to emphasize that things are always far more complicated than simple green fairy tales suggest. Thus I am constantly frustrated by Richard's almost constant emphasis on grand generalizations and his lack of coverage of specific cases where these complexities are always revealed.
I am very familiar with the fire story in the Rockies, and in my former career was directly involved in that. However, it should be emphasized that most prescribed burns are in the national parks. The only significant change outside of them is that in some juridictions, in some cases, they allow fires to burn when before they would have automatically tried to put them out. This practise is even more prevalent in the US but, as you noted, the increased fuel buildups - the legacy of the Smokey the Bear era combined with the elimination of aboriginal burning practises - makes these fires much more intense... which is, of course, always blamed on The Warming.
Again, that pre-Euro 'natural forest' was created primarily by aboriginal burning.
And, no, despite what some people may be saying now, a "lower carbon content" was NEVER an objective for prescribed burning - unless you are simply confusing that with lower fuel buildups.
This also relates to that other false poster child of The Warming, the mt pine beetle epidemics that swept through large areas of British Columbia and extreme western Alberta recently. As I have explained here before, no matter how warm early winters were (which allowed more beetle survival further north), if there was no habitat for these beetles those huge epidemics could never have happened. But, due to fire suppression, there was an abundance of prime mt pine beetle habitat, primarily even-aged lodgepole pine forests. Now that almost all of those mature stands have been killed, that epidemic is over. Now the challenge is to manage those forest lands to prevent the same scenario happening again in 60-80 years.
(Those beetles are always in the larger forest landscape, attacking mature to old trees, and typically only kills them when they are weakened by drought or other factors.)
This is all tied in with the ecology of lodgepole pines, which are a classic short-lived fire-adapted species; not the kind of fire adaptation that allows them to survive fires but rather a larger strategic adaptation that INVITES fires which destroy their competition and replant new even-aged lodgepole pine stands.
The other pine species affected by this beetle, notably the Ponderosa Pine, are the kind of fire-adapted species that can survive REGULAR fires... but fire suppression allowed too much undergrowth which, when burned, now kills the mature trees of that species too.
Could go on but... However, I would like to ask why you said that I raised the point of biodiversity 'out of context'?
And finally, if REDD really is about what you say in your final sentence, that would be excellent. But, given the 'top down' and 'global' approach, somehow I doubt that it actually is.
Complain about this comment
CanadianRockies said "Oh. I see you are an NPR fan. "
Perhaps you would like to share your source for your earlier false assertion the Al Gore got James Hansen his job at GISS? Or did you just make it up?
Complain about this comment
Smiffie @1
No one has the right to decide that other people should not have children or that certain types of people should not have children, the challenge for environmentalists is to ensure that everyone who is born has enough for their needs in a sustainable way and that no one has too much.
Complain about this comment
#7 canadianrockies
"This is, as usual, much more complicated that the simplistic green fairy tales."
you start out by making some good and relevant points about the complexities of managing forests and biodiversity and then some red mist descends and you decide to have a rant about the boogie-men in your head. virtually everyone is an 'environmentalist' from those trying to re-plant forests to those saving a hedgehog from a busy road.
the real cognitive dissonance occurs in the way we try to preserve the environment and the outdated economic structures that destroy it.
the solution will only come from a compromise, which given the destructive force of our current economic systems means reining it in first (which rather perversely could help prevent economic collapse - just have to look at the plans to break up the banks for the sake of the economy!)
Complain about this comment
Unusually quite here which demonstrates the public’s surprising apathy towards environmental issues, perhaps it is all getting a bit old hat. Most people, it would appear, would rather have bio-fuels than forests, although in an ideal world it would be nice to have both.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
He said:
"the general issues on overall global temperature, on sea level and so on, are all pretty unequivocal"
That's pretty much correct. The general issues on global temperature, such as how much there has been, etc and on sea level rise, how much there has been, is pretty unequivocal. That leaves open some disagreement, although really for the general issue there really isn't any justified disagreement.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#15. rossglory wrote:
"#7 canadianrockies
"This is, as usual, much more complicated that the simplistic green fairy tales."
you start out by making some good and relevant points about the complexities of managing forests and biodiversity and then some red mist descends and you decide to have a rant about the boogie-men in your head."
Thanks rossglory, for your positive review of some of my comments.
You do seem a little upset that the content of those comments inevitably lead to my observation about the simplistic green fairy tales that some people spout and others believe. I notice that you do not actually deal with that point, or any substance, but rather veer off into your own ideological rant.
Still, it is good that we can agree on something.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
REDD+ will only be effective if agricultural productivity at least increases with the rate of population increase.
Over a ten-year period I compared population increase with the rate of deforestation in all sub-Saharan African countries assuming their agricultural productivity rates for cereals. The need for new arable land accounted for an average of 95% of the deforestation. Expansion for pastoral land or urbanization was not considered.
The above is written up in a book entitled Climate change and Africa, chapter 11. Natural resources: population growth and sustainable development in Africa. Cambridge University Press 2005. Editor Pak Sum Low.
By 2050, the population of Africa will nearly double to just under 2 billion. How is food and other services to be provided to this population (and in general to the increased world population) without a massive investment in agriculture (and population control)? Planting nitrogen-fixing trees on farm could help increase productivity as could managing the wood resources better. At present the average growth of wood is 3-5 times annula consumption, so more wood products could be used, especially wood and other forms of biomass ene4rgy, without reducing the capital growing stock.
REDD+ is akin to sticking the finger in the dike, especially if it just wants to preserve the forests rather than using them sustainable for all their good and services.
Complain about this comment
I was on a train journey, going to London, and the beverages attendant started talking to me about his dream of returning to his country and starting an export business. The intention was to export wood from natural forests. I could see this person's point of view in an instant. The attendant wanted a better life for himself and his family, and he wanted a more lucrative income.
Multiply this dream by thousands, as thousands of people want to carve out a better life for themselves and their families. Here lies the problem! I don't think that much of what is happening is about individual greed.
The deforestation and other exploitive activities are a consequence of humankind's drive and need to 'better themselves.'
Perhaps sociological investigations should be about how low income families could be allowed to 'better themselves' without causing catastrophic environmental degradation. Any inclusive ideas?
Complain about this comment
#16 Smiffie wrote:
"Unusually quite here which demonstrates the public’s surprising apathy towards environmental issues, perhaps it is all getting a bit old hat. Most people, it would appear, would rather have bio-fuels than forests, although in an ideal world it would be nice to have both."
I believe there is a two-fold answer to this comment:
1. When the subject is perceived to be generally 'straight forward' as in
saving whales, let's say, one does not feel a need to reiterate the
obvious. I have found this to be the 'pattern' and have so stated
previously.
2. I believe I have noticed a dramatic loss of overtly 'green' people
commenting because of what I perceive as a gratuitous 'circle j**k'
by contributors of the opposite creed. Mind you, I know that there
is a positive depth to most of these person's... and everyone has
a right to speak. But, if you're a person of a 'green' persuasion
you might think: 'Why do I even want to bother posting, here?'
One could say to this: 'If you can't stand the heat, get out of
the kitchen.' However, in the case of this blog, 'Why bother'
seems a better fit.
I wrote a paper once for a speech class. I was booed and jeered
and the instructor claimed that I was not the author as did my
classmates. Imagine standing there and receiving that kind of
an onslaught... when the truth was and is I did write every word.
Not one bit was stolen or copied. Unless you want to consider
living and breathing and having a brain as being a crime (As an
aside: I was flattered because it meant that it must have been
pretty good. So good no one believed that I could come up with it
on my own). By the way, I got an F. I moved to another school
the following year. Which brings me back to my point of 'Why bother.'
Complain about this comment
b5happy
i would give you a B+ just for sheer effort and continuity of ideas. There must be teachers out there who would love to have you as a student in their class. You would motivate everyone to communicate enthusiastically rather than the usual yawn and grunt of an answer.
Complain about this comment
b5happy @#26
'Why bother? because this is the BBC. I could ask why bother posting on blogs that agree with you, hardly anyone is going to see your pearls of wisdom, but the BBC is very popular lunchtime reading in the UK and beyond. You are not just debating with the handful of regulars who post here, you are getting your views across to a much wider audience.
Complain about this comment
I was up in the São Paulo high-altitude Auricaria forests last week - I had forgotten what deep brown forest litter & humus rich soil looked like in Brasil. I have become much more used to sandy 'soils' in tropical (coastal) rain forests where litter-accumulation and soil-creation is minimal.
I did note that, in the highland forest, non-native planted coniferous forests were being removed but no replanting programme for the highly protected Auricaria was in place. The new highland grassland has become sheep land, now subject to erosion and spate run-off.
If medium density grazing is to become the norm, the Brasilian highlands will become as degraded as Scotland. We need massive tree cover where it is possible, high protection from corruption and illegal use of woodland products, and serious reversions to native species. I know imported Eucalyptus look nice and grow fast, but all species tend to grow fast throughout most of the sub-continent.
Wrt the replacement of 'virgin' forest with (eg) palm oil plantations, I can see that the cattle ranchers are not natural vegetable-oil-men. They will not willingly let their hard-won rainforest margin land revert to forest, nor will they become palm plantation owners unless the price is right.
REDD+ is right in that there is a value and a price on everything, and money talks in forest protection and forest maintenance the same as it does in all facets of life on earth. To try to manage the extent of global floristic resources without recognising its intrinsic worth is naive in the extreme.
Complain about this comment
sensiblegrannie wrote @ 25:
"I was on a train journey, going to London, and the beverages attendant started talking to me about his dream of returning to his country and starting an export business. The intention was to export wood from natural forests. I could see this person's point of view in an instant. The attendant wanted a better life for himself and his family, and he wanted a more lucrative income.... The deforestation and other exploitive activities are a consequence of humankind's drive and need to 'better themselves.'
Perhaps sociological investigations should be about how low income families could be allowed to 'better themselves' without causing catastrophic environmental degradation. Any inclusive ideas?"
.................
I understand a man's desire to carve a modest future for his family from the 'jungle', Grannie, but here the problem is not the 'little man', it is the Coronel - the endowed fazenda owning families of colonial origin, who carve up the thousands of square miles in their ownership into grazing ranches, who eat away at the rainforest, and who (by the use of GIS monitoring) are being progressively exposed as the wreckers of the rainforest.
This is *still* the land of the gun and the quiet execution of those standing against them - there is a parallel with the paradigm of the ranchers of the North American mid-west of the 1850s.
With corruption endemic in state and federal administrative and judicial structures there is a long way to go before we can be confident that forest degradation can become a thing of the past.
Complain about this comment
Interesting aspect, the harvesting of wood for carbon-storage as furniture, enabling new forest growth to sequester 'new' released geological carbon.
It only delays re-release and re-cycling of this carbon but it gives us a chance to 'set a new house in order'. Unfortunately, as stated, prime wood comes with *lots* of brash which, when burned, offsets against the carbon stored as furniture. The Secondary Wood Products (MDF etc) sector has a long way to go in third world localities.
I see here in Brasil a massive, extensive (and not just 'cottage') industry of collection of *used* hardwoods, and re-manufacture as aged-wood furniture. This commands a HIGH price, even here in Brasil, as does virgin hardwood lumber.
I can see the time coming when home-grown softwoods dominate the furniture market in Brasil, as elsewhere.
Complain about this comment
Corporate interest trump everything in this world. The crumbs that are tossed to save the environment are simply to slow down the destruction, not to end it. Governments only respond when it is a crisis and usually too late. They pretend they were never warned of the outcomes and present their initiatives has if they were designed to do something other than what happens. They are always surprised. Governments are dishonest, in every way on every matter. Governments represent corporate interests and the interest of the people are patronized but never acted upon. Greed is still the primary function of government. Don't worry it will all collapse one day.
Complain about this comment
I know a lot of people here like to think you have to be a seasoned, orthodoxy-loving, authority-sanctioned, academy-approved "expert" to make a scientific discovery. (A great historian of science, Thomas Kuhn, thought otherwise.) To help change your minds, here's a heartwarming story about a novelist who made a scientific discovery:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/01/science/01butterfly.html?_r=1&ref=science&pagewanted=all
And here's a scientific discoverer whom a novelist wrote a heartwarming story about:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ed_Ricketts
Complain about this comment
Oh. I see the censors were busy overnight.
Complain about this comment
On the one hand we have a natural desire to preserve forests and on the other hand we have the needs of an increasing population for new land to grow food and bio-fuel.
CanadianRockies and others – In order not to have your comments censored using the off topic pretext you should always start your post with something that is on topic.
Complain about this comment
#33 bowmanthebard
ah that mighty biological schism, that earth shattering paradigm shift, the massive threat to darwinian evolution (i can see dawkins quaking in his boots)........and all caused by the flap of the wings of the polyommatus blues.
leave it out bowman, i love the idea of amateur science and your saviour may one day arrive and trash the theory of agw, but i would set the probability at millions to one against.
that is why i believe i am a man of reason.
Complain about this comment
Top-down solutions will always invoke the law of unintended consequences.
The trouble is the left wingers prefer to use top-down rather than market solutions and it is the left wingers, like the BBC, that still push this agenda.
Complain about this comment
36. At 09:59am on 27 Jan 2011, rossglory wrote:
the massive threat to darwinian evolution
i love the idea of amateur science and your saviour may one day arrive and trash the theory of agw, but i would set the probability at millions to one against.
The "theory" of AGW? Beyond a bit of secondary-school physics accepted by warmists and sceptics alike, there is no "theory" of AGW -- just some blind inductions inspired by the hope that the future will resemble the past. That's hardly a "theory"! A theory has to explain something. For example, Darwin's theory of evolution explains the diversity of life. What does AGW "theory" explain? -- Nothing, beyond what it has misappropriated from basic physics.
Mere extrapolations do not explain anything beyond what the basic physics explains; to liken your own extrapolation to (arguably) the greatest explanatory creation of the mind of man is laughable.
I love your use of numbers though -- "millions to one against" -- what spectacular rigour!!
Complain about this comment
Anthropogenic CO2 rise - Is that a theory? Decades ago it was a hypothesis where scientists postulated that the level of human emissions might be sufficient to overwhelm natural buffers and be causing CO2 levels in the atmosphere to rise.
Now it's pretty much scientific fact based on multiple lines of evidence showing that CO2 level is rising due to human emissions. So has anthropogenic CO2 rise become a theory? If it has, what does it explain other than explaining why CO2 is rising?
Common descent of species, as a theory, is different. While it too is also scientific fact it explains a lot of things other than explaining the relationship of species. For example it explains the geographical distribution of species, the pattern of the fossil record, etc. The power of being able to explain these things provides confidence for the theory.
Anthropogenic CO2 rise doesn't have that, but it turns out it doesn't need it. There is more than one way to skin a cat and a scientific theory doesn't need to be based on explaining phenomenon external to the phenomenon the theory is a direct explanation for.
So I think AGW can be a theory too as an explaination for why the planet is warming without having to explain anything external.
Complain about this comment
quake #39 wrote:
Anthropogenic CO2 rise - Is that a theory?
It's too small in scope to count as a full "theory", but it is a hypothesis, one accepted by almost all sceptics and warmists alike.
Complain about this comment
Today's Telegraph: "Himalayan glaciers not melting because of climate change, report finds"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/environment/climatechange/8284223/Himalayan-glaciers-not-melting-because-of-climate-change-report-finds.html
(Nothing on the BBC, though to be fair they do ask "Why do economists get it so wrong?", which I count as a first step to waking up and smelling the "experts"!)
Complain about this comment
@Quake #39
Sadly, the analogy doesn't hold I can watch evolutionary biology in action on a petri dish or in test tube, sometimes within an alarmingly short number of generations.
I can't do that with AGW theory and please don't mention the table top experiment with a couple of coke bottles and a fire extinguisher, as it's not even vaguely the same thing and that particular experiment breaks down as soon as remove the very tight boundary conditions of the coke bottle ;-)
The same cannot be said for evolutionary biology.
Sadly, that's one of the reasons why we're in this mess – Scientists(and I use that word quite loosely) that apparently don't understand science, it's methods or indeed the nature of observational experimentation.
A succession of highly tweaked models, does not science make. They might one day become good enough to be of some actual use, but that day’s quite far away.
And before you say it’s not just the models. The models are used to both predict sensitivity and provide the signal to noise ratio (look it up). Both of which are key to your case, very key to you case, if you ever want to invoke a "C" for your AGW theory.
There is still a lot of interesting chatter on models, both pros and cons, over on Judith Curry’s blog if anyone’s interested:
http://judithcurry.com/category/climate-models/
Regards,
One of the Lobby
Complain about this comment
Isn't it funny how each group attacks each other, all this accusations and name calling, arrogantly dismissing each others arguments out of hand.
However thinking back to work on population and reproductive dynamics its clear to me that at least in large groups - that humans are no smarter than insects. Thats all humans, the group 'unity' subsumes our intelligence and like flocks of sheep we all follow the ones who are the strongest and most aggressive who shout the biggest and loudest. And if we don't follow the rest bully us into following.
Like all arguments between sheep its about who can bleat loudest not who's actually right or wrong. - And by the definition of all trhese debates by the time we know who's right or wrong it will be far to late either way anyway.
We're talking about the destruction of forests in the third world while their just about to get sold off and destroyed here..
And now an added punchli..[removed rant about popping Cameron's head like an overinflated spot - really shouldn't watch the news while writing these. ]
Complain about this comment
Re 42. blunderbunny:
You can watch humans evolving from apelike ancestors in a petridish? That's amazing.
Complain about this comment
I thought that the new REDD+ agreement was one of the few possitive things to come out of COP16.
Complain about this comment
I agree, 4cmr.
It would be nice to get back on topic; REDD+ is really important.
- I have tried a number of times but the current clientele - with the exception of Rockies - seem to have little interest in forestry or, it seems, any other branch of botany or zoology, economic or natural.
Geoff.
Complain about this comment
@Quake #44
Well not exactly, but you can look at DNA and Mitochondrial DNA and that'll get you quite a way back. You can trace when species and sub-species diverge and where they diverged from to your heart's content ;-)
But obviously, there's some real science involved in all that... The same things that go on in the petri dish, go on in the real world - it's a direct corollary, it's one and the same thing... It's quite unlike climate science, hence my picking up on your earlier post @ #39
Regards,
One of the Lobby
Complain about this comment
Re 47 blunderbunny
"The same things that go on in the petri dish, go on in the real world - it's a direct corollary, it's one and the same thing"
So does CO2 absorption. The same absorption being demonstrated by CO2 in a bottle style experiments also goes on in the real world. It's one and the same thing.
The petri dish experiment is the equivalent of the CO2 in a bottle experiment. Both experiments demonstrate the mechanism behind the theory in lab conditions at small scale. But neither actually demonstrate the full blown real world extent and scale of the phenomenon each theory is proposing.
It is interesting that you would dismiss the CO2 in a bottle style experiments as if they aren't science while promoting the petridish experiments as if they prove evolution. Two completely opposite positions on such similar level experiments.
If you try your argument on evolution skeptics you will recieve the kind of response I am used to from AGW skeptics.
Evolution skeptics will dismiss your petri-dish experiments as "micro evolution", they will emphasise that they accept the results of the experiment but will hammer you for trying to suggest the experiments are evidence for larger evolutionary changes claimed (eg ape into human). They will point out that all the experiments show is that small evolutionary changes are possible and thus the experiments are *useless* because they don't demonstrate anything bigger (as if the experiment is designed to - see co2 in a bottle experiments for more of the same). Then they might say the false extrapolation of petri-dish results as proof of ape to human evolution is just the kind of sloppy non-empirical agenda driven "science" that evolutionary biologists perform.
AGW skeptics dismiss CO2 in a bottle style experiments. They accept the fact that CO2 absorbs infrared, but they insist that the experiments prove nothing because they don't demonstrate the global warming claimed (eg 3C warming per doubled CO2). They deride scientists for unscientifically "extrapolating" co2 bottle experiment results.
You quite reasonably say:
"you can look at DNA and Mitochondrial DNA and that'll get you quite a way back. You can trace when species and sub-species diverge and where they diverged from to your heart's contentBut obviously, there's some real science involved in all that... "
But this is not dissimilar to me pointing out the power of climate models including pointing out that climate modelling is some real science.
Because it won't wash an evolution skeptic. They will take one look at your DNA argument and point out that it's just calculations based on theories about DNA and not observational proof. No caveats, no in depth consideration of what it does suggest, or show in the larger picture of the science. So they will dismiss it out of hand because they can get away with saying it isn't "good enuf science"
Welcome to skepticism being about setting the bar so high that valid science gets dismissed with a wave of the hand.
Complain about this comment
@ 41 Bowmanthebard
Today's Telegraph " Himalayan glaciers not melting..." new report.
Reuters report this story quoting lead author of the report saying
" Overall in the Himalayas, the glaciers are melting"
Never trust the Telegraph they have people like Delingpole working for them.
Complain about this comment
#49. izeezee
Unless you did not read those articles, you would know that your point is bogus.
That report revealed that many glaciers are not melting but "overall" they are. This reveals that this subject is not the simplistic 'ALL glaciers are melting'"because of climate change" scary tale that the AGW gang has been flogging.
So, based on your selective summary, based only on the headlines, it seems clear that readers here need to 'peer review' your comments.
Complain about this comment
#48. quake
The evolution of the drug-resistant 'superbugs' is all the proof anyone needs that that process happens, and is happening.
I don't see any comparison between the hard real world evidence for evolution and flaccid model evidence for AGW.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re 51. CanadianRockies wrote:
"The evolution of the drug-resistant 'superbugs' is all the proof anyone needs that that process happens, and is happening."
No that is micro-evolution. They are still bugs. They didn't turn into a new "kind" of creature did they? The theory of evolution's biggest claims are about common descent of species, reptiles into mammals, birds from dinosaurs. That kind of thing. What you describe happening in a lab doesn't demonstrate that kind of change unless you are willing to extrapolate.
What you've done is similar to me providing you with experiments showing that CO2 absorbs infrared in the atmosphere and then claiming that this proves man-made global warming because we can just extrapolate the results.
What's flabbergasting is that you would dismiss that AGW argument in a heartbeat even as you promote the analogous argument for evolution as "hard real world evidence".
So what hard science do you actually have for evolution? Obviously I am not saying it doesn't exist, but you'll find it's very less obvious and straight-forward as simply observing it happening in the lab. Just like the hard science behind man-made global warming.
Complain about this comment
@Quake #A Few Posts
Nope, sorry mate, but the two are not alike at all and therein lies the problem.
If you look at a bug in petri dish, the environment itself whilst simple is capabable of sustaining life and allowing to multiply. The complex thing here is the life iteslf, the bug. No Relevant complexities have been removed from the system in question, because in this case the bulk of the complexities reside within the organism. I can therefore make observations that would be equally true in the real world because nothing that was really important from the real world has been lost or changed.
If we now look at the coke bottles, these are attempting to model the atmosphere in a very tightly constrained environment. The complexity has been removed, it's a bit like a greenhouse (if you'd like). Add to this, the much greater percentages of CO2 and the much higher pressures and your experiment begins to descend into farce......
Still unperturbed, you now use this model atmosphere to draw some conclusions. Then armed with these, you remove the bottle.... i.e. the simple, tightly controlled environment and very artificial boundary conditions and what can you tell me about this very complex heat engine that we call an atmosphere and how it interacts with both the planet and the oceans (Bear in mind, you’ve excluded the complexities from the experiment)?
Not much and with not much certainty, even of that......
You seek equivalence between the two experiments without actually understanding either of them.
You, like many of your pro-CAGW fellows, actually understand very little and yet you seek to say a lot and it's getting more than a little annoying.
Regards,
One of the Lobby
Complain about this comment
quake #48 wrote:
The petri dish experiment is the equivalent of the CO2 in a bottle experiment.
Of course, but apart from the occasional crank no one denies the greenhouse effect. That's part of respectable physics. My complaint is with the bit where climate science leaves physics in its methodology -- just as astrology leaves cosmology in its methodology -- and fraudulently claims the successes of its supposed "parent" as its own.
Complain about this comment
quake #53 wrote:
So what hard science do you actually have for evolution?
Now I wonder what that means. Please explain what that is supposed to mean.
Complain about this comment
#53. quake wrote:
"Re 51. CanadianRockies wrote:
"The evolution of the drug-resistant 'superbugs' is all the proof anyone needs that that process happens, and is happening."
No that is micro-evolution. They are still bugs. They didn't turn into a new "kind" of creature did they? The theory of evolution's biggest claims are about common descent of species, reptiles into mammals, birds from dinosaurs. That kind of thing. What you describe happening in a lab doesn't demonstrate that kind of change unless you are willing to extrapolate."
Quake, all evolution is micro-evolution, but over long periods it adds up. So, to answer your question, these 'super-bugs' have not become a new species YET. (A question which, of course, is not so simple due to the fuzzy definition/meaning of "species.")
And, given sufficient time and ongoing survival, this 'super-bug' genetic line could indeed eventually evolve into something completely different. That's how evolution works.
But no need to extrapolate into the future with evolution because we can look at the past. (The "hard science" for evolution was in the hard fossil evidence and that is now stiffened by DNA analysis.) Same thing for the climate - we can look at the past - which is why I KNOW that there is nothing unprecendented about anything we have seen in the climate lately, or for the last 1000 years.
Let me know when we are warmer than the MWP or cooler than the LIA.
Complain about this comment
Interesting discussion, I can't resist adding this from the Institute for Creation Research, http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_scientificcaseagainstevolution/
"The scientific method traditionally has required experimental observation and replication. The fact that macroevolution (as distinct from microevolution) has never been observed would seem to exclude it from the domain of true science. Even Ernst Mayr, the dean of living evolutionists, longtime professor of biology at Harvard, who has alleged that evolution is a "simple fact," nevertheless agrees that it is an "historical science" for which "laws and experiments are inappropriate techniques"2 by which to explain it. One can never actually see evolution in action."
Ho ho
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS