(no title)
deepbluev7 | 1 year ago
However regarding the study you linked, while it does show a downward trend in burned area, I am not sure how that relates to our "debate"? It clearly shows that the reduction of burned area each year is down mostly because of humans burning down fewer wooded areas intentionally (3.3.1). Meanwhile the area burned down because of the effects of climate change is actually up (3.3.2). Which does match up with the studies I linked to. However, the study you linked actually only covers up to 2007, which is soon close to 20 years ago. Meanwhile what I linked to covers until 2021. There has been a significant increase in global temperatures in that time (~0.5°C, which considering the limit from Paris is 1.5°C), as such it is very likely the impact of global warming has increased for the time periods after the ones covered in the study. And your study also shows no significant decrease in burned area each year in Europe, so it doesn't really say much about Germany. It also only covers burning. Most of the recent area reduction actually hasn't necessarily been through burning. Plenty of trees died because of drought and then either not having the necessary water to grow or failing to defend against harmful insects and similar.
Climate change won't necessarily burn your house down or make you drown in rising sea levels. Most people will probably be impacted by food shortages, diseases spreading, wars and other factors. As such I am a bit confused about why you linked that study. It seems to focus on a rather narrow factor of forest reduction. But it doesn't cover much of the recent times with the highest temperature increases (https://www.climate.gov/news-features/understanding-climate/...), doesn't disagree with any of my statements and only says the amount of reduction reduced. It doesn't say that forests actually started to increase (because they didn't).
Considering how upset you seemed about humans cutting trees down, I just don't follow what you are trying to argue about anymore? Did you just want to point out, that from 1940 until 2007 the area lost each year to fire reduced by around 30%, so clearly climate change is not that big of a problem, even though the study says the impact of climate change is increasing and in Germany we lost about 5% of the total forested area in 4 years in a later period not covered by your study and burning isn't the only reason for losing forests? It probably would help me, if you tied your argument into the previous discussion. From my perspective it seems to mostly just agree with what I said, in which case I don't understand, why I would have to be more open to debate, since there doesn't seem to be anything to debate?
I probably must have misunderstood you somewhere, so please enlighten me, if that is the case. Apart from that, have a nice day and sorry that I seem to not understand what you are trying to tell me!
t0bia_s|1 year ago
Because human activity rise in urban areas, temperatures from rulal areas have not increased that much. Satellite and balloon measures proofs that. (1)
Also rising temperatures is not new phenomena. Greenland ice core project (2) showing that there was about 25 dramatic climate changes in history. Its called Dansgaard–Oeschger event. (3), (4) and shows that for example during Younger Dryas (5) there was dramatic temperature decline and increase in few decades.
Back to topic. Why Germany need so much renewable source of energy and having most expensive energy price in same time? Shouldn't they build more nuclear power plants instead of cutting trees for unreliable source of energy?
(1) https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/christytest...
(2) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenland_ice_core_project
(3) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dansgaard%E2%80%93Oeschger_eve...
(4) https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/sites/default/files/2021-11/2%20He...
(5) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas