Wildfire in northern British Columbia, 300 foot flames

[Jfet]

So photosynthetic organisms were able to take ancient Earth's atmosphere from 0% oxygen to 21% oxygen and CO2 to less than 1%, are not photosynthetic organisms still able to handle a slight increase in CO2 today? Wildlife managers will tell you that if you want to increase living organisms increase the required nutrients. Photosynthetic organisms require CO2. If we are increasing CO2 into the atmosphere is it not possible to start to see photosynthetic activity increase. Have we seen the complete cycle?

I hunt and people call me a murderer but yet scientific studies show that sport hunting benefits wildlife. I question man made global warming and people call me a denier. In most cases these are the same people. Good science is founded on questions. The first principal of the scientific method is to ask questions. The next principal is that you never prove anything correct. You are always testing to see if you can prove it wrong. Unfortunately the science that we call Man Made Global Warming does not allow you to do that. You are ridiculed if you question the validity of Man Made Global Warming. You cannot dismiss the involvement of politics because many of the quotes you used are government funded scientific agencies. Right now in the U.S. people are being elected to office because they are using the fear of global warming. "Elect me and I will correct it." Well, if you as a scientist are looking for government funding, do you need to be able to show that your research may support a politician's dialogue in order to obtain funding? Does this generate good science?

Please note in this graph the prey population peaks and right behind it the predator population peaks. So if CO2 is rising photosynthetic organisms should start to increase. Have we been studying this concept long enough to see this trend?

The graph above also shows that life is a series of peaks and valleys. We as humans really like the average. It is what we know and what we are use too. Unfortunately, that is not how the earth operates. It changes constantly. I am concerned that if we allow people to continue to propose the concept of Man Made Global Warming with out proper questioning of the science behind it a solution will be proposed. It is a solution that is scary to contemplate.

Ok, lets get on to the important things. If I bring the beer and steaks can you give me a tour of BC. It is amazing video of nature at work. Thanks for sharing it.

 

[Spooksar]

I drove through there yesterday afternoon, thank God we had 2 good days of rain. There was a big area burnt, some places still smouldering. I spend 14 years in Fort Nelson and the fires where never this bad. It's been 6 years since I was up there and it's way dryer then I remember.

 

[Ardent]

Indeed it's brutal, and JFet easy answer, no change has never occurred this fast, and as a result the natural mechanisms for absorbing the greenhouse gases are out ranged. Nothing developed to cope with sustained emissions at this rate. I'll apologise this will be short, I'm writing in a helicopter cockpit on a smartphone in the down time.

Furthermore, humans didn't evolve in the Cambrian, our existence depends on a very finite set of conditions. I think we'd agree on a point neither of us have touched upon, ALL change is natural- if humans are causing an acceleration in climate change that is natural too and perhaps just the way the earth was destined to go. This said, arsenic is natural too, and some natural events are very undesirable to us.

It isn't argued by either side of the debate that emissions of greenhouse gases are not elevated by humans, only whether or not earth's systems can cope with it. If somebody does want to argue it's not a human problem, they need to study the carbon 12 ratio- yes humans are unequivocally emitting the carbon we're sampling as the rise in atmospheric concentrations.

Now this said CO2 is only one facet of it, methane is actually likely more worrisome long term, and we're setting ourselves up for a tipping point release from the permafrost. In 2006 17 million tons of methane, again 84 times more potent as a greenhouse gas than CO2 were emitted from the permafrost. In 2006 it was 3.8 million tons, and before that? 0.5 million. Sadly this is just the tip of the iceberg as we're only starting to see the ramp up really get rolling. This all ignores all the other toxins we're dumping and emitting, deforestation, mercury concentrating higher up the food chain...

We clearly aren't changing either of our minds, I spent too many years studying this to be able to brush it off as a natural course- which I did for a long time. I too am likewise a professional killer like you, outfitting here in British Columbia. I fly helicopters for big oil and gas companies in the off season as it pays the bills, and that's where I filmed this footage we're protecting oil and gas wells. So I'm not trying to be high and mighty, I'm fully involved in this mess, and believe me it would be a big load off and relief to believe the science is all quackery.

After many papers on the subject, and numerous defences against the onslaught of the human causation argument, I ended up realising the argument was too good. You disagree, and I fully respect you for it, I did too for a long time. My actual position is one of sadness, realising none of our western lifestyles are sustainable with our rates of extreme consumption, travel, and comfortable living. I'm afraid I enjoy the comforts of a home rather than a tent, a boat, flying helicopters are work rather than walking, etc. I've begrudgingly accepted that this is a natural course, and hopefully we can do as little damage on the way down as possible, and perhaps technology will rapidly advance to the point we can save ourselves from ourselves.

Let's chat by PM from here out, would be happy to host you in beautiful BC, even if our opinions differ. Makes for better campfire discussions.

 

[Ardent]

Some photos from the burn, and Spooksar I actually lived in Fort Nelson too, spent too much time at Dan's.

Fire was hot enough to deform the glass at a burned trapper cabin, and that was only on the fringe of the fire.