My thoughts and opinions on Climate Change

Discussion in 'The big picture' started by Earth's Internet, Nov 8, 2012.

  1. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Not only that, a new study has found that as tropical forests warm, their ability to sink carbon is reduced, in fact they become carbon positive:

    To investigate the cause of this, the researchers used a large model of the Earth's systems that took weeks to run on a supercomputer.

    This told them that at warmer temperatures photosynthesis of trees actually fell, while the respiration of microbes in the soil increased.

    "You're spewing more CO2 into the atmosphere from the soil and you're taking less CO2 into the plants through photosynthesis."


    Full article: ABC Science, 23 July 2013, Tropical warming boosts carbon dioxide
     
  2. Unmutual

    Unmutual Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I'm fairly sure it's statements like this one that confuses the hell out of people when it comes to carbon and climate change.

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCarbon/ spells out the oceans' carbon cycle. So it isn't a 50% discount by any means, it's more like a deal with the devil. In exchange for the carbon sink, the oceans are becoming acidic though the manufacturing of carbonic acid(this is where all that carbon goes). That "50% discount" is also not static because some years are better than others, including years that the oceans vent carbon instead of sinking it.

    Global warming is a misnomer. Climate change is fast becoming a misnomer. How about Environmental Change?
     
  3. Earth's Internet

    Earth's Internet Junior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 21, 2012
    Messages:
    280
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Totally agree

    Again, totally agree here. I've often used complete environmental breakdown. There are so many components to the breakdown, that I think the hangup on focusing on strictly CO2s, Carbons and Warming Temps has more to do with politics between competing ideologues more than anything else. The thing least focused on are the mechanisms for which run this planet.

    BTW, this came out today: Could Phoenix Soon Become Uninhabitable?
    The city is at the crossroads of climate change—and, for a host of reasons, an unsustainable future.



    -
     
  4. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    if the oceans and trees can take up 50% then hey cut the tax because 50% of 1.6% is .8%, that will be an amazing cost free result that will have the (not interested in CC other than talk) world applauding us, just think china's 22% will be cut to 11%, amazing how science eventually comes through with truth.

    science will defend mightily against anything that threatens their theory, even going against the obvious.

    take care all

    len
     
  5. Xio

    Xio Junior Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2013
    Messages:
    23
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    2 good posts. Some sanity prevails.

    Xio

    - - - Updated - - -

    2 good posts. Some sanity prevails.

    Xio
     
  6. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Quite right. That particular ABC article was not the most well written piece of literature I have ever come across, but it does serve to highlight the fact that studies now show warming tropical forests are less likely to sequester CO2 and more likely to emit it. Just another nail in the coffin of a 'runaway' (positive carbon-climate cycle) scenario.

    Yes, ocean (hydrosphere) acidification is a hugely important topic. However, it is also important to not lose sight of why it is occurring: That as, as a direct result of human activities - burning fossil fuel (80%) and deforestation (20%) - causing a net result of too much CO2 being emitted.

    It would be great if everyone had as much knowledge of climate, what drives it, and how in turn it affects all life on the planet (biosphere) as the people on here mostly do. But, the sad reality is, they don't. Scientific literacy, let alone climate literacy, remain unattainable for the majority of the people.

    I think it is for this reason why it is important for us to continue to have this conversation, and most importantly, how we can go about changing the situation.

    Hydrosphere, atmosphere, biosphere and geosphere - all are connected in a finely balanced, highly tuned, interstellar vehicle known as spaceship Earth. When we, the alpha travellers started to tinker with the engine (climate) of our spaceship without really knowing (and later, caring) about the consequences, we set in motion a terrible turn of (weather i.e. storm, flood, drought, fire and ocean/land acidification) events, the worst of which we (including all of the other non-human spaceship travellers) have yet to experience. Turning around this horrible future will not be easy; to begin with, spaceship Earth is slow to react to any of our ministrations. But, the first most important thing we can do is rebalance the carbon cycle, and in order to do this, we need to push the carbon tiller back the other way, hard, to negative. Decarbonising our total economy is essential if we are to not crash our spaceship and kill most of the passengers aboard her. Politicians, of all persuasions, will bicker and snipe like the back seat drivers that they are, and eventually they will steer us into oblivion, if we let them. Industry, the big end of town, they know all about it, but they don't care. They think they have enough power and influence to buy a ticket to another spaceship, a newer model. In the end, it is up to us - the approximately 10% of us who both know and care - to pull together, and together apply the brake to avert the worst of the impending collision.

    Thanks for reading, M.
     
  7. permasculptor

    permasculptor Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2007
    Messages:
    727
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    18
    I call it Ecocide
     
  8. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Sums it up, perfectly.
     
  9. Unmutual

    Unmutual Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2012
    Messages:
    599
    Likes Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Since we're having this conversation, I think I'll add to some of the questions.

    First off, this carbon that is being released in to the atmosphere is from past life on this planet and has been sequestered over millions, if not billions of years, right? The oil and natural gas we're using to fuel our great human empire is just the anaerobic composting of long dead matter under high pressure.

    Now, matter can not be created or destroyed, only changed. This also goes for energy too. All this sequestered carbon that we're releasing has been out of circulation for a long time, so it must go somewhere or get changed. Carbon, being the glue that holds all known living things together, is very important for life. So we have basically converted oil in to more humans over the last couple of hundred years with a lot of surplus carbon floating around and causing havoc(ie: pollution). Exactly how many trees does a barrel of oil symbolize? Well, I went ahead and did some searching to find that answer:

    https://www.epa.gov/cleanenergy/energy-resources/refs.html (please note, EPA is not one of my favorite government entities) says that a barrel of oil will produce about 0.43 tons of CO2. That's a hell of a lot when you think on it. with ~44 US gal per barrel(36 imperial).

    According to https://www.carbonfootprint.com/plantingtrees.html, a broad leaf tree will sink one ton of carbon over its lifespan(100 years). So basically, one century lived tree can sink 2 barrels of carbon in 100 years.

    We humans used 82.4 million barrels per day in 2004, for a grand annual total of 30,076,000,000 barrels for the year. Granted, this isn't the average and granted, the numbers could be off. So to sink the carbon for just 2004 we would need to plant 15 billion trees and leave them alone for their lifetime of at least 100 years.

    Now, if we're looking at something like an oak tree(pick your variety), then we could probably get away with something like 10ft spacing(~3m), Spacing varies per species, but you're looking at 5-12 ft spacing for red or white oak. I figured 10 ft because then you can also interplant other species, especially understory species. But anyway...at 1 tree per 100 sqft(please correct me if that's wrong), we'd be looking at an area of roughly 54,000 square miles. If we divide that by people, then each and every person would need to plant 2.14 oak trees. And that's just for 2004!

    Actually, when you put it down to those kinds of numbers, 2.14 converts to 214 per 100 years. 214 oaks at 100 sqft each means every person only needs to have planted roughly half an acre of oaks, with plenty of space in between for nurse trees, fruit trees, etc.

    I think I calculated previously that if we divided land up evenly, each person could have about 4 acres(at current population levels). Holy crap. This ain't as bad as I thought.

    So now all we have to do is figure out how to make planting trees profitable enough to where politicians can get kickbacks. America could probably sink its own carbon(plus some) just by reforesting areas out west and also relieve flash flooding, erosion and desertification. AND have really good timber for building really good housing in the future.

    Assuming that my math is correct...
     
  10. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    That math will do your head in, there are just so many variables (as the previous couple of links to studies suggest). But, it's good to at least try to get one's head around it. Thanks for having a crack.

    I think we do know one thing for certain, and that is this: It is the rate at which we are releasing carbon that is the problem. Even if we were to start planting entire ecosystems across vast swathes of desert, would we still buy ourselves enough time to hold of the worst affects of a runaway climate scenario?* I dunno... but I'm sure there are studies out there that test this hypothesis, maybe someone might like to take this on as a project? I'm a little snowed under with work at the present.

    Of course, in the meantime, and by all means, let's try to stop the destruction of existing ecosystems, let's re-establish new systems, and above all, let's stop pumping - at an alarming rate - CO2 derived from fossilised ecosytems into the atmos/hydrosphere.

    I feel this is very constructive discourse, and far better than the destructive that this topic can often devolve into. Thanks for sharing, M.

    *Answered (in part) my own question, here:

    https://www.ucsusa.org/publications/ask/2012/reforestation.html
     
  11. gardenlen

    gardenlen Group for banned users

    Joined:
    May 14, 2004
    Messages:
    3,464
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    hey unmutual?

    they clear felled 200+ year old trees up to 80 meters high down tassie way reduced them all to mulch, up at the northern end of the sunny coast qld, where lots of maleleuca wetland type forest has been cleared to plant weed trees aka radiata pines, lots of riparian and wet scarrion forest went as well lots went to build a highway new extension to same highway will take out remnant rain forest and maleleuca forests. i was saying up our way there are advertisements on local bulletin board enquiring about standing hardwood and ash, just had 3 that we know of jinkas out here taking eucalypts mostly, not old growth but new growth 20 to 30 meters high and over 1 meter across, yet one bloke cleard same sort of trees on his block top and bottomed then look nice and straight couple have hollows and no ne will take them from him, they'd rather kill living trees.

    most land here is planted with radiata pine, left over of past gov' failing, they get pushed into piles then burnt. so much for CO2.

    so anyway science will ever admit that trees can do the job corrupt and self interest takes over. now they say co2 levels in aussie land are increasing yet just the other day they claimed in 6 months since co2 tax that our levels of co2 have dropped.

    len
     
  12. Pakanohida

    Pakanohida Junior Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2011
    Messages:
    2,984
    Likes Received:
    20
    Trophy Points:
    38
  13. Peter

    Peter Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    CSIRO did this sort of thing for Gillard.
     
  14. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Exactly what 'sort of thing' are you referring to, Peter?
     
  15. Peter

    Peter Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Climate Change documents.
    Everyone knows that Gillard wanted Carbon Tax (even though she promised against it) so wether for money or politics CSIRO released documents that lacked factual evidence and were of a very speculative nature to simply support arguments in favour of the need for climate tax.
     
  16. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't suppose you have the names/dates of these 'documents', Peter?
     
  17. Peter

    Peter Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No I don't. I just remember about them as I thought it was a scam to release fairy tale documents like they did for either money or political purposes.
     
  18. Grahame

    Grahame Senior Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2008
    Messages:
    2,215
    Likes Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    36
    Peter, do you have any interest in permaculture? Or are you only interested in coming here to make unsubstantiated sweeping and potentially slanderous statements? Because if it's just the latter, please do us a favour...
     
  19. Peter

    Peter Junior Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2013
    Messages:
    158
    Likes Received:
    0
    Trophy Points:
    0
    My life is dedicated to making the world a better place by promoting the use of natural products for agriculture and fighting against chemical agricultural products.
    I have personally funded many projects in Indonesia and East Timor where my objective was to give the underprivileged people the opportunity of a better life style.
    A long time ago I identified that a secure agriculture industry was a major issue internationally. With fertilizer prices rising and the world’s climate change problems. From this I decided to risk everything I had in developing agricultural microbial formulas to help growers reduce (if not eliminate) chemical products. I felt it necessary to resign from all my other business activities to concentrate on this and not only invested money, but a lot of time and personal resources to initiate a research program to investigate the growingly important microbial science for agricultural yield enhancing. I believed that it could be possible to not only improve yields, but control pathogens while decreasing the need for excessive use of agricultural chemical products.
    I now have world-class technology and have created a permanent foundation for a bright green sustainable future for all.
     
  20. ecodharmamark

    ecodharmamark Junior Member

    Joined:
    Nov 9, 2005
    Messages:
    2,922
    Likes Received:
    2
    Trophy Points:
    0
    All reads as wonderful, Pete, but where is the evidence?
     

Share This Page

-->