Effect of amazon fire ?

[tvbcof]

If the forests burnt down, a new one would start forming within days.  Basically, provided that there is water and something resembling soil, all available solar radiation is intercepted by some plant and that process off-gasses oxygen.

The scare tactic about '20% of the oxygen' is beyond ridiculous.  It relies both on nearly complete ignorance among the peeps of basic science and a near total blindness to the natural world.

Now if one covers an area in solar panels then the solar energy does not result in photosynthesis (the process by which CO2 converts to O2.)

If somehow the 'whole Amazon' burnt, or even significant portions of it, it would actually create some notable impacts on the environment from soil erosion and the like and some of these would suck.  Further, it would be a genuine disaster for ecology generally and certain rare species.  Fortunately the current crisis has all the markings of being nearly 100% hoax.  All I need to see is the list of celebrities put forward by the Globalists in order to smell that rat.

[af_newbie]

When someone talks about the destruction of the Amazon, all I hear is this song from way back when:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejorQVy3m8E

[semobo]

If the forests burnt down, a new one would start forming within days.  Basically, provided that there is water and something resembling soil, all available solar radiation is intercepted by some plant and that process off-gasses oxygen.

It may starts to recreate in weeks but how many years needed for the plant to get grow as a tree,it will take atleast two decades for small trees and few centuries to get into a big tree.

[tvbcof]

If the forests burnt down, a new one would start forming within days.  Basically, provided that there is water and something resembling soil, all available solar radiation is intercepted by some plant and that process off-gasses oxygen.

It may starts to recreate in weeks but how many years needed for the plant to get grow as a tree,it will take atleast two decades for small trees and few centuries to get into a big tree.

So what?  You get 50 trees where before there was one.  The smaller trees die off as the forest grows.

You probably were conditioned to believe without thinking about it much that only evil humans and their chainsaws and fires ever killed a tree, huh?

[semobo]

If the forests burnt down, a new one would start forming within days.  Basically, provided that there is water and something resembling soil, all available solar radiation is intercepted by some plant and that process off-gasses oxygen.

It may starts to recreate in weeks but how many years needed for the plant to get grow as a tree,it will take atleast two decades for small trees and few centuries to get into a big tree.

So what?  You get 50 trees where before there was one.  The smaller trees die off as the forest grows.

You probably were conditioned to believe without thinking about it much that only evil humans and their chainsaws and fires ever killed a tree, huh?

So you are justifying that cutting the trees for our modern and useless furniture which takes years to grow is correct.If the trees die themselves then its the system but when we cut it means it something done for our purpose.

[tvbcof]

If the forests burnt down, a new one would start forming within days.  Basically, provided that there is water and something resembling soil, all available solar radiation is intercepted by some plant and that process off-gasses oxygen.

It may starts to recreate in weeks but how many years needed for the plant to get grow as a tree,it will take atleast two decades for small trees and few centuries to get into a big tree.

So what?  You get 50 trees where before there was one.  The smaller trees die off as the forest grows.

You probably were conditioned to believe without thinking about it much that only evil humans and their chainsaws and fires ever killed a tree, huh?

So you are justifying that cutting the trees for our modern and useless furniture which takes years to grow is correct.If the trees die themselves then its the system but when we cut it means it something done for our purpose.

'Modern' furniture is typically made of plastic.  Hominids have been using trees for furniture since about the time of Homo Habilis at least.  That's a few million years ago for you scientific illiterates.

As for 'useless' furniture, I assume you sit your ass on something while you type nonsense on a keyboard.  Even if it is a chair provided by the government in a public library, it's still made of something.  Making furniture out of wood the old fashioned way provides a lot more jobs than using a robotically controlled extruder.

Indeed, if you want to 'sequester carbon', you want to harvest wood and use it for buildings and furniture because otherwise it lays on the forest floor, rots, and puts CO2 back into the atmosphere.  Actually what you want are peat bogs since just about every other land-based ecosystem (including the Amazon) are basically carbon neutral (which also means their are effectively oxygen neutral).  But this is vastly beyond the intellectual capability of indoctrinated human-hating drones who regurgitate this kind of tripe.

[semobo]

If the forests burnt down, a new one would start forming within days.  Basically, provided that there is water and something resembling soil, all available solar radiation is intercepted by some plant and that process off-gasses oxygen.

It may starts to recreate in weeks but how many years needed for the plant to get grow as a tree,it will take atleast two decades for small trees and few centuries to get into a big tree.

So what?  You get 50 trees where before there was one.  The smaller trees die off as the forest grows.

You probably were conditioned to believe without thinking about it much that only evil humans and their chainsaws and fires ever killed a tree, huh?

So you are justifying that cutting the trees for our modern and useless furniture which takes years to grow is correct.If the trees die themselves then its the system but when we cut it means it something done for our purpose.

'Modern' furniture is typically made of plastic.  Hominids have been using trees for furniture since about the time of Homo Habilis at least.  That's a few million years ago for you scientific illiterates.

As for 'useless' furniture, I assume you sit your ass on something while you type nonsense on a keyboard.  Even if it is a chair provided by the government in a public library, it's still made of something.  Making furniture out of wood the old fashioned way provides a lot more jobs than using a robotically controlled extruder.

Indeed, if you want to 'sequester carbon', you want to harvest wood and use it for buildings and furniture because otherwise it lays on the forest floor, rots, and puts CO2 back into the atmosphere.  Actually what you want are peat bogs since just about every other land-based ecosystem (including the Amazon) are basically carbon neutral (which also means their are effectively oxygen neutral).  But this is vastly beyond the intellectual capability of indoctrinated human-hating drones who regurgitate this kind of tripe.

Anyone here agrees that all the modern furniture were not made of wood,its from plastics?

I am having most in woods so I am old fashioned?

Rotten bogs may turn into a natural fertilizer in very few days of time.

[tvbcof]

...

...

Rotten bogs may turn into a natural fertilizer in very few days of time.

No they don't, and they are about the only terrestrial environment which does not.  They turn into coal beds and sequester carbon under the surface of the earth for millions of years.

[semobo]

...

...

Rotten bogs may turn into a natural fertilizer in very few days of time.

No they don't, and they are about the only terrestrial environment which does not.  They turn into coal beds and sequester carbon under the surface of the earth for millions of years.

Fired wood will turn into the coal beds but the rotten wood will not turn into coal bed as far as I know.

https://www.dkfindout.com/us/animals-and-nature/habitats-and-ecosystems/rotting-log/

Which will turn into a place for million tiny organisms and also stops soil erosion.

[tvbcof]

...

...

Rotten bogs may turn into a natural fertilizer in very few days of time.

No they don't, and they are about the only terrestrial environment which does not.  They turn into coal beds and sequester carbon under the surface of the earth for millions of years.

Fired wood will turn into the coal beds but the rotten wood will not turn into coal bed as far as I know.

https://www.dkfindout.com/us/animals-and-nature/habitats-and-ecosystems/rotting-log/

Which will turn into a place for million tiny organisms and also stops soil erosion.

Forests don't form coal beds.  You should be able to verify this by simply going for a walk.  Peat bogs and swamps do.  The bio-accumulation overloads the ability of insects, fungi, and microbes to break down the hydrocarbons and turn them back into CO2.

Living roots are the primary method by which erosion is hampered.  Cutting down a forest can cause big problems with erosion in some environments.  Of course in other environments large tree roots force apart rocks so it's a mixed bag.

But generally one of the only real problems with timber harvest (and forest fires) has to do with silting of streams and in some cases landslides for a relatively brief period following the harvest.  Another problem is increased solar radiation on streams which can increase the water temperature.  In places where there is responsible harvest practices a buffer zone is left.

In places where the 'watermelons' have gained power these 'buffer zones' are expanded to ridiculous levels.  That's a social issue related to some people's political feelings about ownership of private property.  Has nothing to do with science or protection of the environment (even if the 'useful idiots' think it does.)

[BADecker]

Effect of amazon fire?

Some people who live above the Arctic Circle, are moving there (the amazon) just to get warm.

 

[semobo]

Effect of amazon fire?

Some people who live above the Arctic Circle, are moving there (the amazon) just to get warm.

 

Better get some firewood and burn it from your places to get warm.Its more economical though.

[Virtualis Games]

This fire won't have more impact than people who are eating meat and where we need to deforest the entire planet just for making their meat. Without talking about greenhouse gas.

[tvbcof]

This fire won't have more impact than people who are eating meat and where we need to deforest the entire planet just for making their meat. Without talking about greenhouse gas.

Your English and style sure is a good match for Semobo.  So is the style and use of logic.  Same person (or algorithm)?

Anyway, if omnivorous humans required the 'entire planet' to be grazing lands in order to satisfy their needs for meat, then why is the 'entire planet' not currently deforested?

[Virtualis Games]

This fire won't have more impact than people who are eating meat and where we need to deforest the entire planet just for making their meat. Without talking about greenhouse gas.

Your English and style sure is a good match for Semobo.  So is the style and use of logic.  Same person (or algorithm)?

Anyway, if omnivorous humans required the 'entire planet' to be grazing lands in order to satisfy their needs for meat, then why is the 'entire planet' not currently deforested?

No it's a new account that i made today because i got a negative feedback saying that my main account is an alt account (which is not the case) but the feedback is not moderated according to others members on the forum. So i had to make a new account like people adviced me to do (because i have a project to expose, so i can't use an account with a negative feedback...). My old account is "StonerStanley" so i don't know who is "Semobo" and i have nothing to hide.

Omnivorous human don't require the entire planet at the moment but more and more everyday, and it kills a lot of animals for nothing helpful to be honest. I have been omnivorus
for decade and i was insulting the vegans, now i'm vegan. Eating meat is responsible for more than 60% of the deforestation of the Amazon without talking about how much water we need
to make the meat (and the fact that we could eat only plants so it's useless to kill animals)

It's not the subject of the debate but i'm just saying.

And what, my english is so bad ?  

[semobo]

This fire won't have more impact than people who are eating meat and where we need to deforest the entire planet just for making their meat. Without talking about greenhouse gas.

Your English and style sure is a good match for Semobo.  So is the style and use of logic.  Same person (or algorithm)?

Anyway, if omnivorous humans required the 'entire planet' to be grazing lands in order to satisfy their needs for meat, then why is the 'entire planet' not currently deforested?

I am not that kind of person though because for something which needs to be grower to give us meat which itself needs plants to eat for themselves so without plants the whole system will collapse.

[Virtualis Games]

Ok i'm just realizing now that "semobo" is the author of the thread  

[haseeb ahmed]

Amazon is known as the lungs of earth and definitely if lungs get damage whole body will face threat and the most intimidating part is speed with which it got burn.

[tvbcof]

Amazon is known as the lungs of earth and definitely if lungs get damage whole body will face threat and the most intimidating part is speed with which it got burn.

The 'lungs of the earth' is a jingly sound-bite for people who really don't have even the slightest idea of even the most basic science behind any of this stuff.

Seems like it is very very common these days for lands which 'environmentalists' seek to take control over to mysteriously catch fire.

I use air-quotes around 'environmentalist' because these people really have no relationship to environmentalists of 40 years ago or environmentalists such as myself.  Most people who are labeled environmentalists these days are basically terrorist funded by the global elite who's job is to arrange for their funders to have complete control over lands and resources.  For every one of these 'neo-environmentalists' there are about 10,000 drooling idiots who get off on catchy phrases like 'lungs of the earth' and who will believe in the hearts that humans eating ungulates will kill the whole planet.

The tiny fraction of global elite bankers basically bought the 'environmentalist movement' in part by first buying the so-called 'education system'.  When you can produce an infinite amount of money out of nothing you can, over time, buy just about anything you like.

Back to the fires in the Amazon, from what little research I've done they don't seem particularly extraordinary this year compared to the historical record.  Seems like the main feature is that the global elite decided to move this 'get the Amazon' project forward and are using their 'social media properties' as one of the tools to do so.  And probably some local operatives with their cans of diesel as well.

[BADecker]

^^^ I concur.