Reforestation - why don’t we make deserts green again?

they capture carbon, basically if we dont lower the carbon levels soon life is going to be very hard for us. We wont die but crops will start to fail & the snowball effect will be us dying.

Attached: graph_grid.png (1600x800, 144K)

China has been taking some shots at it to stop the Gobi from expanding. Last I checked, they still haven't been terribly successful, especially when it comes to being able to scale the operation up enough to make a difference.

Trees grow back

Crops thrive on higher carbon dioxide levels. Good grief. What are they teaching the children in schools these days?

It's not about the oxygen buddy, it's about the carbon the trees capture. Also that statement is not true.

would you believe that forest fire are actually a vital part of forestry, and by preventing it for hundred of years we created an ironically adverse effect where the underground of most forest is now stupidly thick, which make it extremely prone to forest fire that are near impossible to truly put down since the cinders continue to burn within deep roots and sediments. Also many trees like white pine actually need fire to allow their pine cone to spread their seed, and it also reinvigorate the soil.

Just how big of an impact did aboriginals burning down the rain-forests covering australia for thousands of years have on the global climate?

>crops will fail because more CO2
Bro.... read what you just said. I hope to fucking kek you’re larping

>buddy
Sounds so tough. CO2 is not pollution.

Attached: CO2_chart.png (1851x1082, 58K)

That's what I learned in middle school (grew up near a large pine forest). But what's even crazier is that they don't even put in firebreaks. Fuckin' my old IBM PC had a text-mode game called fire.exe where you had to learn about planning out your firebreaks in addition to other things relevant for managing forest fires.

This. You HAVE to clear brush and dead trees to at least some extent. If you don’t you created a really big Cub Scout camp fir e

WATER IS EXPENSIVE FAGGOT

Yes that's right transportation of clean useable water is expensive to remote dry areas. So yeah say what you said one more time you uneducated fuck.

Plants love CO2

Attached: greenhouse_levels.jpg (960x720, 123K)

You're joking, right? Higher C02 will lead to greater crop yields, not less. Wtf dude, basic biology class middle school shit here.

I'm fully aware crops do better with carbon dioxide, carbon capture plants even sends carbon to green houses to increase efficiency.

What does high levels of carbon do in the atmosphere... higher temperatures... *drum roll* what does high heat do to crops.... *drum roll*

kill crops.

Do you have any idea how many Mexicans that would take you dumb faggot?

You have misidentified the problem.
You said we need to lower carbon levels.
Why?
What's the goal of lowering carbon level?

We're pretty far along the scope of parts per million in that image. I'm more curious about 500 and 550. Are there diminishing returns? What about crops vs. trees?

Did you know that the IMF has a program to transplant eucalyptus tree monoculture as firewood for other countries? Is the worst thing, they grow like mad, use too much water, harm crops living downwind and just take over.

Attached: serveimage.png (700x466, 696K)

Environmentalists don't want replanting. It's like when a forest fire burns down a bunch of trees. We can clear the land, replant and have it back to full grown in thirty years. Environmentalists want nature to take it's course, taking 80 years to get back to normal. There's always some excuse but the big one they use now is lack of genetic diversity.

lot of money for a lot of failure. CO2 levels have been much higher in the past, and animals have continued to survive just fine.

Why even desalinate water directly for trees when we can use it for human use, treat it in a sewage plant then put it on the trees?

>What does high levels of carbon do in the atmosphere... higher temperatures...
Without limit?
Also what do trees do to temperature?
If the goal is to lower temperatures then you need to be sure that forests don't have higher temperatures than grass lands.

Extra high-frequency UV radiation from the sun will do more to kill crops than some barely measurable temperature variation. What does kill crops is major cooling periods or atypical weather patterns like the late cold growing season in the US this year or the repeated fires in Russia a few years back.

There are diminishing returns on investment, if you are paying to pump in CO2, but if it is free then it is just good news.

Attached: fertilizer.jpg (960x720, 112K)

How the Aussies firebombed California

Jews want to turn every square inch of land into condos and apartment blocks.

Israel and portugal have unstoppable wildfires through those trees. They come from australia.

Because reforestation is an actual solution.

And the people talking about climate change doesnt want actual solutions, they want political and economical control.

Attached: 1559145948772.jpg (1000x1250, 237K)

>What does high levels of carbon do in the atmosphere... higher temperatures...
proof it faggot, oh right there's is no correlation between co2 levels and temperature

They complain so much about CO2, but the attention isn't being drawn to methane. Nothing really utilizes methane, despite it being much stronger of a greenhouse gas than CO2. In the past methane was the cause of a snowball Earth, as a lot of methane was frozen in the ocean bottom. It is happening again, but at a slightly slower rate.

It's not really profitable, it's cheaper to keep cutting down existing forests then planting new ones.

CO2 extraction

Attached: cambrian_life_explosion.png (817x859, 46K)

Post your permaculture and sustainable farming protips

Attached: BF343322-0FCE-4E37-B03C-6F04A52378EB.jpg (736x952, 133K)

Only managed forests are net carbon extractors. You gotta pull put trees constantly.

Not too worried

Attached: 21_per_oxygen.png (994x785, 36K)

Environmentalism is another consumerist scam.
>don't buy that product, buy this GREEN product
>don't get your electricity from there, get it from the GREEN source
>it has a leaf on the package, must be good for the enivornment
>eat the bugs, goy
It's another way to sell identity to the deracinated masses while finding new and bizarre ways of cramming ever more soulless mocha-colored bugpeople together, trapped on this mudball.

Attached: sleep-pod-noi-bai-airport-1.jpg (600x369, 74K)

2000ppm is where health problems start. That’s why sitting in a 4000ppm car all day with windows closed can get you serious headaches... and why they recommend open windows in bedrooms or good ventilation.

Because it takes a fuckton of time to actually have an effect on the environment. You, nor a few generations of your grandchildren, if you even breed, will be effected greatly by the increase. You'll feel a hotter summer, as its been every summer, manageable. You'll maybe have one day where it soars above 110F for a day, then it'll go back to being a miserable 90F for the rest of the summer.

Rain doesn’t take Mexicans

Sometimes I think it would be great if my place of work had some of those. Then I think about how packed and dirty they would be and I'm happy to crawl into my favorite out-of-the-way stairwell next to one of the mechanical rooms and catch some winks.

Not one liberal city list "climate change" as a risk factor. Know why? They went into court and claimed under oath that it was not real when they were sued for not disclosing the risk.

Attached: bonds.jpg (1944x1728, 384K)

You use diverse seeds rather than seedlings.

>plant trees in desert
>trees will survive
>retardation=reforestation
Nah, best to plant SAGE!

sure it does.

Attached: CO2_by_type_location.png (1750x959, 111K)

I would prefer a tsunami of young boys into my weekend sex bungalow.

Attached: 1564889098786.png (487x410, 165K)

No it does not. But you know what does? Planting a billion god damn trees. And irrigating them. Because desert.

This will ruin the desert ecosystems, Helga.

Attached: rekt_8.jpg (1024x595, 74K)

The real redpill on actionable climate change intervention involves Big Ag(riculture, not silver you double nigger), everything else is a distraction. Plant trees, recapture C02, grow more animals to destabilize the globohomo Plant Based™ conspiracy today.
>tons of unnecessary söy/corn/etc farmland propped up by subsidies that could be either reforested or converted to rangelands, especially in Brazil where corn subsidies make US look like a joke
>heaps of steppe/plains that could be windfarmed/grazed and folded into the grid instead of irrigated and farmed

Attached: 8qq33g0mknz11.jpg (2518x1024, 427K)

if you want to get real and talk about pollution, there is really only one place to start - big cities.

Attached: tax_populated_cities.png (950x938, 782K)

The scale of the type of project that would be needed, we would need to turn a place like Nevada into a giant forest. I suppose you could make 9 water desalination plants in Californian & pipe it to Nevada. Maybe 1 or 2 Trillion would be the costs of making the forest, but in 10-15 years could easily be making 100+ billion a year from harvesting trees, it would be a huge natural resource for America which if looked after would last forever. Even people who dont care/believe in the issue mite go alone with the forest idea because of the long term economic benefit of having a manage supersized forest as a resource.

Daily reminder that the organism which produces the most oxygen on earth is not a tree but algae, thus oceans actually being lungs of the world, not the rain forests.

also happened in cali
theres at least 1 good maymay cap about aussies tricking califaggots into buying a tree with a 100 year blooming/germination period (am ignorant) only for them to be one of the contributing factors in one of the recent wildfire sprees, like 2 years ago

Make canals and waterways so there's always flowing water

Build dikes

Attached: 1370949258764.jpg (216x234, 9K)

Didn't work out so well for Gadaffi.

What’s “sure it does”? The problem with having an outside 1000ppm CO2 concentration by 2100 that non-ventilated indoor concentrations go up ... and not linear but more than that. A significant part of the population doesn’t feel that’s tolerable long term.

Attached: 90A1CD73-CC1F-478A-9C9A-0C9C87A05C3D.png (850x590, 51K)

What’s rain?

Something not often found in a desert. That's kind of why it's a desert.

shouldve just quietly killed the kikes rather than being a loudmouth tryhard attention whore

>planting same trees
That's not how nature works.

BUILD. DIKES.

Attached: 1373130339562.jpg (216x234, 50K)

Trees are actually more like the liver and kidneys and skin and gut of the terrestrial ecosystem. Passive immune system and fluid cleansers/regulators

Negative effects might start as low as 2,000 in terms of cognition reduction, but long term harm that is health problems are not caused by CO2 exposure, you either die or you get better within a few hours of lower concentration air.

The safe limit for space travel was put at 5,000 which is intended to be multi month duration.

Trees are not just good for absorbing CO2.

They are fantastic for maintaining soil composition. For containing the spread of deserts. For keeping rivers from flooding. For other plantlife. For insects. For birds. For wildlife in general.

They are not good for ((capitalists)) that want to feed massive useless cities with massive consumer-eater populations because they limit the amount of farmlands. Ofc, those same capitalists doesnt realise that aggriculture is destroying the soil composition and draining all the nutrients from the food we get from that soil due to the lack of biodiversity. Due to the lack of insects, trees and weeds that keep the soil from being drained by monoculture.

Look at Aggriculture yields. Crops are failing more frequently. Floods have larger effects on the soil, due to the lack of biodiversity keeping the soil compact and resistant to increased waterflow.

The food you eat also has less nutrients, vitamins and minerals than they used to way back. Compare a carrot from today and one from 1900, or one from way earlier. The one farmed today has next to no minerals and vitamins in it, empty calories. No wonder people are so fucking fat, their bodies are screaming for vitamins and minerals so they keep eating, but its only getting empty calories.

As aggriculture monoculture became the norm due to demands on farmers to feed massive city populations. They needed to farm more efficiently for maintaining profits for more expensive equipment and costs etc as well, due to governments in the cities printing money.

Its unsubstainable. The same fucking thing happened in the Roman empire. Once you start seeing small time farmers get booted off their farms due to taxes and finance, and the rich ((urbanites)) start to purchase their properties, then you should really start to fucking worry.

Attached: 1563841477270.jpg (738x960, 65K)

Physically or philosophically?

If we are currently around 430+ppm CO2, and your charts reads ideal CO2 is 485ppm - 1015ppm I think you have made the case for increasing CO2 not decreasing. Meaning the opposite of what climate change cult members believe. Everything in that graphic sounds touchy feely.

You create the rain. What did you think was the proposal? You can’t irrigate deserts without rain. You create the rain over the oceans by making rain clouds.

It would be nearly physically impossible to raise our CO2 ppm to 1000 given our current biosphere and amount of liquid water. We don't have that much carbon to release and continue to do so given that raised rater of plant growth.

30%+ of the population have problems with long term concentrations of 1500ppm to 5000ppm. Astronauts are specifically selected for their CO2 tolerance.

We’re not there yet Fritz.

So we have a situation here where moist air blows in from the Pacific and then it smacks into a an area of substantial elevation, causing it to drop its rain on the Western parts of California, Oregon, and Washington. Then the air keeps blowing Eastward, but now it doesn't have enough moisture to rain much until it gets past the Rocky Mountains and hits the midwest.

Sure, there's an opportunity for water projects, but the size of your entire country is like somebody spilled a can of paint in the middle of our desert. And the environmentalists don't want anybody building water projects. That's not part of UN Agenda 21.

485ppm is a perfectly ventilated city room. Perfect.

In reality, offices are typically 800ppm to 1000ppm even with good vents.

Forget saving the climate. I just want more forests because forests are the coolest places on earth. Vibrant, full of life, and beautiful.

Attached: 4F98A89C-E1AE-46DC-A217-F23756FB848B.jpg (1500x881, 326K)

You create rain by condensing water vapor, you add water vapor by lowering the relative humidity of the air (and then pulling water from liquid sources), either by lowering the amount of water vapor in the air or by raising the temperature of the air.

1000ppm is the baseline scenario for 2100 given current levels of output and population growth.

>30%+ of the population have problems with long term concentrations of 1500ppm to 5000ppm. Astronauts are specifically selected for their CO2 tolerance.
They are not selected for CO2 tolerances.
Humans are perfectly able to live in 5,000ppm forever.

Attached: co2harm.jpg (1273x612, 154K)

Fuck forests, they're itchy.

Why don’t you just come over here and show us? We have plenty of desert and Mexicans are there waiting for you. You can pick them up in front of any Home Depot.

A part of that twice as fast turn around is using seedlings that we know are healthy and ready to grow. But it's not like we can't use more diverse seeds to grow the seedlings. It's just an excuse to not let loggers touch it.

>1000ppm is the baseline scenario for 2100 given current levels of output and population growth.
It's a retarded linear extrapolation of the raise of CO2 without looking at any of the carbon cycle.

Simply put they extended the graph line from the data points made it into a straight line and claimed that in 400,000 years the atmosphere will be 99.9% CO2.

Quoting my own post for truth. You don't have to plant trees in the desert, just stop unnecessary farming in more temperate climates and facilitate reforestation therein, and convert semi-arid farms to rangelands once the subsidies for grain are gone. Simple as. Government intervention is ultimately to blame, not half of which are the dietaey guidelines/factory farming that enable such practices.

not like it fucking matters at this point. the jews fucked the whole god damn north east here by release their fucking weaponized lymes disease

Forests are nice, you should make more.

Attached: Wendigo1.jpg (500x665, 55K)

And we will never reach 1500ppm in any foreseeable future.

No, the Brazilians have done diverse seeds reforestations. Within 10yrs they had dense forests, which had way more biodiversity and plat growth per m2 than seedling based reforestation. These reforestations are also a lot cheaper and more stable.

The 1000ppm is based on wealth and population growth that causes CO2 emissions mitigated by technology use in the West and partially in China.

Based and consumerpilled.

Says who? Because we’ll all die before then?

This. Absent bullshit conditions like black flies or mosquitos or whatever, if you don't like chilling in a forest then you aren't white.