Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2019 8:51:35 GMT -5
Yahoo had an article this morning that reported on a study regarding reforestation as a way to reverse climate change. The authors of the study concluded that if an area the size of the USA were reforested in areas around the world that will support the growth of trees and is currently unused, that amount of reforestation would absorb all of the excess carbon that's being pumped into the air. I haven't yet read the study, so I don't know what assumptions were made, but they concluded that reforestation would be the most effective, most economical, and fastest way to break the current cycle and turn it around. I assume that botanists would have to determine the best type trees to plant in the different areas where such reforestation would be feasible. That's probably the best news I've read on this subject because that solution is low-tech and might get people sufficiently motivated to do something. From a personal perspective, and for people who are interested in doing something to help alleviate the problem and also have the financial capability to do so, it offers a potential way to offset energy usage. Unforested land that's too rugged for modern farming or habitation could be purchased and trees could be planted. That kind of land is usually cheap because it's not appealing to developers. The biggest problem would be determining the necessary width of firebreaks and maintaining them because the likelihood of prolonged droughts and future fires will increase as temps rise. In Tennessee we have lots of steep hilly land that was once cleared and farmed, but now lies unused and overgrown with weeds. I'll be interested to find out how much CO2 can be removed per tree by specie and size. Stay tuned. And while there's a dark sort of satire to this idea, it's also not necessarily a bad one: perhaps Monsanto can donate some research and I.P. into a gene splice that would increase the absorption rate of the species' planted. Have you ever thought of contacting the creator of Black Mirror, Charlie Brooker.. twitter.com/charltonbrooker?lang=enHe might be able to make something view-able with your ideas. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 6, 2019 8:58:04 GMT -5
Well, is weather climate, or not?  There's a ski area here in town that used to be packed every winter, but hardly sees use now. I remember what it was like up here when I was a kid: the snow came by early December at the latest and you wouldn't see the ground again until March at the earliest. We obviously had a stretch of warm winters, but over the past 20 years that's been trending the other way -- but definitely not steadily. This past spring was unusually cold here. Obviously, the prospect of a salinity crash in the North Sea that plunges the jet stream south is why they changed the terminology to climate change from global warming .. it's just, noone's ever seen anything like this, so the predictions will almost certainly be off in one way or another. In terms of the oceans absorbing CO 2 does that account for depth, as well, or are the samples only being done close to the surface? Yes, we once had a ski resort near Crossville, TN, but it soon went bankrupt from lack of snow. I vaguely remember the last time there was enough snow for skiing, and that was about 40 years ago. I think that all of the ski resorts in Gatlinburg are pretty much now defunct, but they still use the lifts for sightseeing. I'm not sure how they measure the ph of the ocean, but my understanding is that the ph varies with depth, as does the salinity. As an example, for some reason there are ultra-high saline lakes on the seafloor in certain areas that are extremely toxic. I watched a nature show where they filmed some sort of unusual eel that can dive into these seafloor lakes for short periods of time in search of some kind of food, but it they stay too long, they go into toxic shock. I'll have to check but I think the ph is measured within the top 700 feet because I've seen that number come up a lot. Apparently the heat of the ocean is also rising only in the top 700 feet and remains at a steadier and colder temp below that level. I assume that as the top 700 feet heats up more and more, it will gradually begin to affect deeper and deeper levels, but I'd need to read more about this to know for sure. I suspect it's the same sort of thing as earth temp. The surface ground where I live may be 80 degrees, but the earth 8 feet down is a fairly steady 55 degrees. who knew that climate change bore a similarity to existential insight in that it might sometimes be a matter of depth! |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 6, 2019 8:58:12 GMT -5
Yahoo had an article this morning that reported on a study regarding reforestation as a way to reverse climate change. The authors of the study concluded that if an area the size of the USA were reforested in areas around the world that will support the growth of trees and is currently unused, that amount of reforestation would absorb all of the excess carbon that's being pumped into the air. I haven't yet read the study, so I don't know what assumptions were made, but they concluded that reforestation would be the most effective, most economical, and fastest way to break the current cycle and turn it around. I assume that botanists would have to determine the best type trees to plant in the different areas where such reforestation would be feasible. That's probably the best news I've read on this subject because that solution is low-tech and might get people sufficiently motivated to do something. From a personal perspective, and for people who are interested in doing something to help alleviate the problem and also have the financial capability to do so, it offers a potential way to offset energy usage. Unforested land that's too rugged for modern farming or habitation could be purchased and trees could be planted. That kind of land is usually cheap because it's not appealing to developers. The biggest problem would be determining the necessary width of firebreaks and maintaining them because the likelihood of prolonged droughts and future fires will increase as temps rise. In Tennessee we have lots of steep hilly land that was once cleared and farmed, but now lies unused and overgrown with weeds. I'll be interested to find out how much CO2 can be removed per tree by specie and size. Stay tuned. And while there's a dark sort of satire to this idea, it's also not necessarily a bad one: perhaps Monsanto can donate some research and I.P. into a gene splice that would increase the absorption rate of the species' planted. Yes. I did read an article about which trees should be planted, but that article was more about NOT planting invasive species that have little value as wood and grow aggressively (such as alyanthus), and sugar maples that are heavy but soft and frequently have huge limbs that fall off and damage homes. I wondered the same thing about which trees would have the highest CO2 uptake, and I thought that this could be interesting research work for botanists. I didn't think about Monsanto and gene splicing, but if Monsanto could make money from doing that, I'm sure that they'd patent the trees and charge everyone for planting them! FWIW, I had a friend who was in a major lawsuit with Monsanto because they were trying to extort bean sprout producers by claiming that some sort of bean sprouts were patented by them. My friend won the lawsuit, but it cost him and other bean sprout producers a ton of money to fight with M. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 6, 2019 8:59:04 GMT -5
And while there's a dark sort of satire to this idea, it's also not necessarily a bad one: perhaps Monsanto can donate some research and I.P. into a gene splice that would increase the absorption rate of the species' planted. Have you ever thought of contacting the creator of Black Mirror, Charlie Brooker.. twitter.com/charltonbrooker?lang=enHe might be able to make something view-able with your ideas. hadn't occurred to me no, thanks for the suggestion. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Jul 6, 2019 9:02:19 GMT -5
And while there's a dark sort of satire to this idea, it's also not necessarily a bad one: perhaps Monsanto can donate some research and I.P. into a gene splice that would increase the absorption rate of the species' planted. Yes. I did read an article about which trees should be planted, but that article was more about NOT planting invasive species that have little value as wood and grow aggressively (such as alyanthus), and sugar maples that are heavy but soft and frequently have huge limbs that fall off and damage homes. I wondered the same thing about which trees would have the highest CO2 uptake, and I thought that this could be interesting research work for botanists. I didn't think about Monsanto and gene splicing, but if Monsanto could make money from doing that, I'm sure that they'd patent the trees and charge everyone for planting them! FWIW, I had a friend who was in a major lawsuit with Monsanto because they were trying to extort bean sprout producers by claiming that some sort of bean sprouts were patented by them. My friend won the lawsuit, but it cost him and other bean sprout producers a ton of money to fight with M. This is the kind of thing that actually leads me to being sanguine about the possibility of the AI "singularity". These out-of-control artificial systems that damage us are hardly anything new under the sun. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 6, 2019 11:01:39 GMT -5
Have you ever thought of contacting the creator of Black Mirror, Charlie Brooker.. twitter.com/charltonbrooker?lang=enHe might be able to make something view-able with your ideas. hadn't occurred to me no, thanks for the suggestion. ..  welcome |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 6, 2019 12:52:43 GMT -5
Yes, we once had a ski resort near Crossville, TN, but it soon went bankrupt from lack of snow. I vaguely remember the last time there was enough snow for skiing, and that was about 40 years ago. I think that all of the ski resorts in Gatlinburg are pretty much now defunct, but they still use the lifts for sightseeing. I'm not sure how they measure the ph of the ocean, but my understanding is that the ph varies with depth, as does the salinity. As an example, for some reason there are ultra-high saline lakes on the seafloor in certain areas that are extremely toxic. I watched a nature show where they filmed some sort of unusual eel that can dive into these seafloor lakes for short periods of time in search of some kind of food, but it they stay too long, they go into toxic shock. I'll have to check but I think the ph is measured within the top 700 feet because I've seen that number come up a lot. Apparently the heat of the ocean is also rising only in the top 700 feet and remains at a steadier and colder temp below that level. I assume that as the top 700 feet heats up more and more, it will gradually begin to affect deeper and deeper levels, but I'd need to read more about this to know for sure. I suspect it's the same sort of thing as earth temp. The surface ground where I live may be 80 degrees, but the earth 8 feet down is a fairly steady 55 degrees. who knew that climate change bore a similarity to existential insight in that it might sometimes be a matter of depth! Indeed! Well, after a quick search and reading several articles, the ocean ph issue is somewhat complex, but the major takeaways include: 1. Measurements are taken at the surface of the ocean because that's where the immediate uptake of CO2 occurs. 2. The aragonite saturation level is the ph level that affects creatures who build calcium carbonate structures as part of their bodies. As the ph level drops, these animals have a harder and harder time surviving because it takes more and more energy to build the structures. This is why the corals are dying. 3. Cold water absorbs more CO2 than warm water. 4. The mixing time of surface water with deep water is very long and slow, so some effects of the increased uptake at lower depths may not be known for a long time. 5. There are many factors that affect the ph depending upon the location. 6. There are three major testing locations including Bermuda, Hawaii, and the Canary Islands. 7. Ships sample the ph at the same locations on sequential trips. 8. The oceans have absorbed 28% of the CO2 that humans have cranked out, which corresponds to a .1 drop in ph over the last century. This is actually quite significant on a worldwide scale because of the volumes of water we're talking about and the number of metric tons of CO2. 9. One problem with the oceans becoming more acidic is what it might do to the food chains and how that would affect all marine life, not to mention how it would affect humans who depend upon a significant amount of protein from the oceans. To get a better sense of the overall picture the EPA has some interesting information online. |
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Jul 6, 2019 17:23:18 GMT -5
Always good to wander around the marketplace and see who is selling an opposing view and why.
|
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Jul 6, 2019 17:29:24 GMT -5
Climate change debate at Oxford Union with leading climate change sceptic Richard Lindzen. Note the word zen at the end of his name
|
|
|
|
Post by bluey on Jul 7, 2019 1:16:26 GMT -5
Here's an interesting interview with Professor William Happer, Princeton University who claims if anything we need more carbon dioxide especially for the different types of plants around the world and rejects the man made effects of global warming too. I once saw him in a debate on climate change but the moderator only allowed a few minutes for each scientist on each side to debate so it wasn't a good debate imo.
I do feel people need to be more energy rich.
Anyway enjoy, I'm off to work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 7, 2019 3:44:10 GMT -5
I do feel people need to be more energy rich. Anyway enjoy, I'm off to work. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 7, 2019 6:31:54 GMT -5
I do feel people need to be more energy rich. Anyway enjoy, I'm off to work. Great film. (If you haven't seen it, some heavy questions explored along the way, identity especially. The Prestige, the 3rd part of a magic trick). Another good Bowie film, The Man Who Fell To Earth. |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 7, 2019 13:09:58 GMT -5
Great film. (If you haven't seen it, some heavy questions explored along the way, identity especially. The Prestige, the 3rd part of a magic trick). Another good Bowie film, The Man Who Fell To Earth. That looks like an interesting movie--"The Prestige." I had never heard of it. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Jul 7, 2019 16:27:22 GMT -5
Great film. (If you haven't seen it, some heavy questions explored along the way, identity especially. The Prestige, the 3rd part of a magic trick). Another good Bowie film, The Man Who Fell To Earth. That looks like an interesting movie--"The Prestige." I had never heard of it. Oh yes, I can highly recommend. Watch very carefully. Don't investigate it...you want zero spoilers... |
|
|
|
Post by zendancer on Jul 7, 2019 17:36:15 GMT -5
I'm currently reading an interesting book titled, "The Water Will Come." If nothing else, the book contains some fascinating facts, and the writer has a good sense of humor. A quick example: "If Antarctica melts, the ocean will rise 200 feet; if the Greenland ice cap melts, the ocean will rise 22 feet; if all of the humans in the entire world jumped into the ocean at exactly the same time, the ocean would rise one hundredth of an inch."
|
|
welcome
