Would the last raise in temps (all graphs of high and low peeks have the last few high peeks higher than we are right now) where man had zero influence impereled human existence?
Quoting a “christian news” website for their views on anything science related is about as stupid as embracing Donald Trump as a paragon of christian virtue.
They use goat herds here.
Works pretty damn well.
Considering that the great bulk and most destructive of the California wildfires were on federal land, wouldn’t that be the government’s job?
That’s nice. Do the goat herds clearmillions of acres of national forest? Are all forests suitable for goat herds?
They could if you leave them there to do their job.
There is roughly 23.5 m acres of National Forest in my state. Not all would require that tactic due to terrain and make up of the land.
You’ve obviously never seen what a herd of hundreds of goats can do in a short time.
They are just below locusts.
LoL. If you say so.
I do say so. They used them on the land next to us and many other areas around us.
I’ll take personal experience over you not knowing about the subject any day of the week.
Maybe you should try Google to see how this whole thing works. 
Just curious. How much of an acre of brush can a herd of 100 goats clear in a day?
I have no idea as I don’t have goats myself. According to “Goat World” however:
How Many Goats Do I Need?
The number of goats required to control brush is subjective. It largely depends on how large an area you want controlled, what type(s) of brush you are controlling and how quickly you want the area controlled. An unwritten estimate of the number of goats needed per acre is 3 to 4 “full sized” goats.In discussing “brush control goats” with others who have either been successful or not, they generally agree upon approximately 3 to 4 "full sized goats per acre. A slight variation to this figure is that the Pygmy and Nigerian Dwarf breed of goats are not full sized goats and they will need to be doubled to achieve the results that 3 or 4 of their full sized counterparts will consume on a daily basis. This is not to discourage you from using smaller goats as they are extremely useful for those “hard to get” areas where the big goats will shy away from or not be able to browse.
As you already know, certain types of weeds and plants have different growth rates. Some weeds such as kudzu are capable of growing up to one foot per day. Wild grapes and other such vines are capable of growing at least six inches per day during their growing season. Other types of weed and brush seem to appear overnight, grow quickly to full size and then stop while other types of weed and brush just grow at a slow rate, but lay down roots and runners that multiply the overall infestation. There is also the type of weed and brush that grows quickly and seeds quickly. This too is a nuisance and controlling these types is usually very difficult if not dealt with swiftly before being allowed to bloom.
When I got up this morning I never thought I’d end my day by looking at a website called ‘goat world’. 
The link didn’t really have an answer to my question, but I thought maybe with your personal observation you’d have a guesstimate.
I’ve just been contemplating the math and logistics of it all.
Well I don’t. I only know they are effective with brush control. Saved the Tribe many dollars and time I’m sure when they used them to control their forested acreage. You aren’t of course going to let thousands of them loose willy nilly on hundreds of thousand of acres at a time. It’s more controlled than that.
I guess I’m having a hard time understanding how some people don’t know about this methods. People been rentin’ out goats for brush control for quite a long time. People are making bank in the"goat renting business. 
Yep changes every day the sun rises.
They have been having fires and mud slides out there as long as I can remember. Part of the problem is people saturating the landscape where they do not belong. They need better zoning regarding where people are allowed to live in California the ecosystem is very sensitive.
1 Like
Oh, I didn’t mean to imply that goats and brush control can’t be done. But the scale of the national parks makes it untenable.
I actually do agree with much of what you say here. My intent here was to have a discussion of what predictions have been made years ago bout what would happen if specified reductions were not done and ultimately did not come to pass. The hope was that the discussion would look at what those specific predictions were and potentially what was the flaw in those predictions. The one area I do disagree to some extent with you is about whether predictions come to pass or not is absurd. Predictions is one of the hallmarks of all science, and all good theories seek to be predicative. Now I do agree that whether a prediction comes true or not does not invalidate the science it can simply mean that the theory needs to be modified or improved.
I do not believe the “theory” of global warming is precise enough to make the kinds of predictions you might be seeking, or that others may claim. It isn’t really a theory anyway in the scientific sense. The models predict only trends. I’ve seen claims that certain trends are happening slower or faster than “expected.” So what?
Predictions follow from theories. For example, the bending of light by massive objects is predicted by the theory of general relativity. Newton’s law of gravity was superseded by general relativity, yet it still works pretty well for putting satellites in space.
I agree with you. I only used the word “theory” for lack of a better description. Although I do believe the predictions can be called theoretical. As I’m sure you will agree not all science fits into the “Law” or “Theory” category nice and neatly. For example there are claims that PVC can last 100 years based on certain testing although PVC isn’t 100 years old yet.
Here’s a question that is more specific to this thread. From my understanding there were predictions that by 2020 the sea level rise would be greater than it actually is, correct? If that predication was wrong what was the flaw in that original model?
I completely agree with you here. I view population growth as the “elephant in the room” that few bring up anymore. More people means more space and more housing is needed which means less trees. Hard to fight CO2 when you need to cut down more trees. Regarding the reasons for the population growth I would think that modern medicine is one of the biggest reasons, although I would have to do more research on that.
“You”? Don’t you mean, “we”?
