Comments by "Magnús Örn" (@magnusorn7313) on "Why Japan Isn't Cutting Down Enough of its Trees" video.

  1. its not the amount, its how densely they are packed and that they are a monoculture
    23
  2.  @nerdnairbnordnirbu9044  its not their choice, they where planted that way, and it does hurt people, its bad for the ecology and exasperates the pollen issue in the nation
    2
  3.  @I_am_Diogenes  how could you misunderstand the graph so bad?
    2
  4. so changing the climate does not.... mean climate change? the amount of co2 in the atmosphere is part of the climate, by changing that figure we are ALREADY changing the climate
    1
  5. you say that as if non industrialized countries arent industrializing
    1
  6. you technically dont "need" to do anything so i dont get your point
    1
  7. its not that there are too many, its that where there are forests they are too dense for anything to grow on the ground and for wildlife to inhabit them
    1
  8. ok boomer
    1
  9.  @irishstew5867  cash cash money ground foliage yo
    1
  10. 8:35 does it?
    1
  11. well it depends on what happens to the wood after you cut it down
    1
  12.  @benedict6962  if removing 20% of the trees means the other trees can grow more than 20% better then i think it would be of interest to do so and use the cut wood for some purpose that locks it away
    1
  13.  @benedict6962  in geologically stable areas wooden skyscrapers are viable i mean, do you know how much carbon radiates out of concrete walls? its not nothing, and with the concrete jungles that is cities and with innovations into ways to build out of wood so that it wont be a fire hazard more cities should be turning to wood rather than concrete
    1
  14. which specific assumption?
    1
  15. how would you know about them?
    1
  16.  @americana4193  they arent planting trees for climate change, they arent claiming to do so for climate change did you not pay attention?
    1
  17.  @americana4193  or maybe you've let something go to your head and you dont see the issue with your claim
    1
  18. "and the continuing nuclear radiation" pretty sure there isnt any
    1
  19. read up how rain works also the dilution effect on plants thats two reasons not to terraform our atmosphere that hace nothing to do with greenhouse effects
    1
  20.  @thejarjosh  yes, plants are bigger, thus are food has less nutrients, how nice how nice of a trade off it s also to ave so much pathetic birch growing in north america, totally makes up for the loss of tropical rain forests
    1
  21.  @thejarjosh  yes nutrition does depend on what you give the plant, but there is a cap and nutritional density is the main problem here it will only exaggerate the obesity epidemic
    1
  22.  @thejarjosh  my mind is not entirely made, and you bringing up the "unexpected" result as an example of how little we truly know is a great argument against carbon emissions because we truly dont know, all we have are guesses if we had proof that there was not a single adverse side effect that could possibly come from changing this variable in our atmosphere then fine but without proof of that it would be seriously a bad idea to just go ahead anyways
    1
  23.  @thejarjosh  nuclear should be used more than solar and wind and even if we have some things pointing towards one direction i suggest we stick with how its been during the existence of our species because of the risk
    1
  24. and live longer than most of us
    1
  25. it might just mean it would be too late to do anything, or to be able to do anything large scale not that we would be gone
    1
  26. how? what change are they trying to inspire? is sharing interesting information not a goal in itself?
    1
  27. well the basic idea wasnt flat out wrong
    1
  28. soil in my country is eroding because we dont have enough trees
    1
  29. i think they mean that if we wait that long it will be too late to fix it as any project we would start would take too long to make a difference
    1
  30. when did he say they where wrong? japan agrees on this, thats why they are doing something about it did you watch the video or did you just read the title an leave an angry comment?
    1
  31.  @D1KHEAD808  so if someone from lets say china says that it was wrong for Europeans in the middle ages to not bathe as it made the plague affect them much worse why is that wrong to do? i mean europeans today even agree
    1
  32. your comment should be called "Japanese researchers find out thinning forests might be beneficial to capturing more co2 and helping the local environment, but then a white person talks about the exact same thing so now im gonna be racist"
    1
  33. to strengthen the forests in japan
    1
  34. it only applies to densely packed artificial mono-culture forests
    1
  35. enlisch
    1
  36. they arent trying to make it so less areas are forested, just thin out the planted trees so wildlife can actually live in the forests
    1
  37. then why did they plant them there in the first place?
    1
  38. did you not watch the video? by thinning the forests it would lock up more carbon
    1
  39. because by then carbon emissions will be higher and by looking at the rate of deforestation and desertification we would probably have lost another 20% of the amazon and china and africa would have more dessert land all in all its a problem that is harder to face the longer we wait
    1
  40. dense monocultures are no joke and they need to be thinned. its serious
    1
  41. well its not really important since no one is suggesting we lower co2 levels to less than they where in pre industrial times
    1
  42.  @hahahano2796  200 years ago carbon levels where much lower than they are now
    1
  43.  @hahahano2796  "Millions of years ago" big difference, in that magnitude of time species can adapt, not to mention that these changes in levels lead to mass extinctions, both the rise to that level and the lowering of that level to closer to what we have now change is dangerous to life, even more so when it happens fast "higher temps for longer less than 100 years ago" what temps are you talking about? global temperatures have gone up
    1
  44.  @hahahano2796  "So when it is obvious humans could not have caused it" can you specify "it" "there are other reasons its bad and the sky is always falling" again "it" and no, there are independent studies that without communication graph the rise in temperature and the fact that they match up nearly identically shows they couldnt have made it up i mean, it could if you believe there is some sort of conspiracy of thousands of scientists collaborating to fool the masses
    1
  45.  @hahahano2796  "it" could be rising tempratures, could more broadly by climate change, or if we are getting real specific you could mean carbon emissions "despite people demonstrating their flaws" they are when they are reliably repeatable to show their flaws you repeat them but dont get the same result i was pointing out that they had been repeated with the same results
    1
  46.  @hahahano2796  ok so i started watching one video and he has lots but i clicked one that had iceland in the title he goes on talking about how alarmists are selective about their data and that they use it in misleading ways he goes on to show this by showing how readings of temperatures in iceland show how it there was a temperature spike that is larger than readings from 5 or so years ago thats not misleading? debunking the claim of GLOBAL temperatures going up and using regional data? especially when secondly yes, his point that people start counting up from the coldest date is a misleading practice, but the pre 1940 spike being followed by cooling has been explained plenty and is not denied
    1
  47.  @hahahano2796  im still like, not fully processed on this i cant really read your comment at the moment because of your claim that global temperatures are going down because i have spoken with LOTS of climate change deniers online and the vast majority just think humans arent causing it, some think its not getting warmer at all but every time i have followed up someones claim about that they stop responding, but holy cow cooling! im just, wow i dont even, like when it comes to debating the average majority of deniers who talk about how humans havent caused it im already versed in that debate and have a memory maze of the stuff i know on the topic that they can consider credited enough that they dont just call it propaganda by globalists but i dont even know where to start with this, i guess im going to read your comment fully tomorrow, watch some more of tonys stuff, look up reply videos on him, read comments and whatever idk man, youre crazy, peace out, see you maybe later
    1
  48. cant be, what defines "old growth"?
    1
  49.  richard mccann  do you have statistics on that?
    1
  50. try, try and try again you got it wrong, its not try examine mistakes and give up
    1
  51. im pretty sure forests would be better if they had ground vegetation and animals could actually live in the forests
    1
  52. thank god you cant do that anymore
    1
  53. trees have offspring before they die some of it also such as parts of the roots are sometimes locked underground thus storing the carbon somewhere it wont rot i mean coal got into the ground some way, right?
    1
  54. why would you ask when you could have just watched the video
    1
  55. no, the dense monorcultures of japan where also caused by people
    1
  56. because the abused forests abroad like koreas forests when they occupied it and they where also so smart that they planted their trees so tight together that no ground vegetation grows and the forests cant support wildlife within them
    1
  57. try to explain what?
    1
  58. did you WATCH the video?
    1
  59.  @I_am_Diogenes  its counting in units of 10 years so its 0 ten years, then 5 ten years (50 years) then 10 ten years (100 years)
    1
  60.  @I_am_Diogenes  yes, each period (singular) is ten years then it denotes o 5 and 10 units https://academic.oup.com/forestry/article/90/1/125/2605858 feel free to read the actual article "Sounds like science filtered through politics to me" you are free to be skeptical but next time check the source ot be sure before you make accusations or you will find yourself barking at nothing like right now ". At least you tried to explain how I misread it (which I obviously didn't) " you will see that you have when you read the article "I have never seen one labeled as you claim this one is" i have seen plenty labeled like this, in my math class last year our teacher as avid on us understanding how to read and make all types of graphs " If I have to read a paper to explain a graph then someone needs to hire someone else to make their graphs" well if it says "10 year period" and then has 0, 5, 10, 15 and 20 then what are those numbers? is it that the 10 year period unit is divided into 20 parts?
    1
  61. there are more trees, they are all just weak thin birch trees which are useless
    1
  62. looks at all the extinction events that have happened those times "nature sorted itself out"
    1
  63. you mean treelon musk?
    1
  64. im pretty sure 20% of the amazon was not cut down my "climate nuts"
    1
  65. what is this comments about?
    1
  66. no, did you watch the video or just read the title?
    1