60 years? What the presumed still then classified as 'developing economies' would be putting up with efficiency wise by still using ~ 2000 level tech amorphous/polycrystalline/single-crystal silicon PV panels is probably mute. As this Wikipedia article makes plain, the arena is a very diverse fast changing one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photovoltaics And quite beyond that particular focus, where the world will be by then energy technology and global politics wise is anybody's guess
Uh huh. Your oft stated black and white worldview where Dems = Left = Good vs Reps = Right = Bad is noted. Nice and convenient it happens to gel well with the extant SF mods own position. I think there was one token 'right winger' mod who used to post on rare occasions, but haven't seen an appearance in quite some time. Oh happy times for those in step with PC norms here.
No-----not impossible take the link: https://greyareanews.com/news/world/climate-change-larch-trees-growth/ of course, that was the boreal forest which doesn't sequester all that much CO2 to begin with. It exists tenuously on permafrost, ergo---small climate change has a more noticeable effect Thanks for your link princess tree amazing and Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Agreed. Now abandon your "all warming is good" political agenda and face real facts. We just drove for over a thousand miles through redwood, fir and spruce forests. For most of the trip the smoke from the dozens of massive fires made it hard to see the trees. In places where you can see the trees clearly, a large percentage of them are dying from the crown down. This happened after the 110+ degree heat wave that covered the area. Those trees are either crippled or dead - and when the next fire comes they will be excellent fuel. How does losing a good percentage of our forests to warming play into your "it will be a green miracle!" narrative? Abandon your agenda and open your mind. https://www.oregonlive.com/wildfire...n-heat-waves-could-be-vulnerable-to-fire.html
One thing is true. It takes from 20 to 80 years to grow a fully mature tree with sufficient leaf production to be an effective CO2 scrubber. But it cannot be said it is a renewable resource. When a 1000 year old tree dies it takes a 1000 years to replace that tree. @ 4 month growth to maturity, Hemp is a renewable resource. You get to grow and harvest at least 2 crops p/yr.
That doesn't add up. A 1000-year-old tree became mature centuries ago. Where I live we have a very short growing season - June, July, August without frost. On the bright side, global warming should give us a longer growing season. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Do you know the definition of a "mature tree"? Mature Tree definition Question; How big is a 1000 yr. old tree? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! 8. Grizzly Giant Age : 1,900 – 2,400 years Location: Yosemite National Park, California, USA Species: Giant Sequoia (Sequoiadendron giganteum) Still Alive: Yes Mariposa Grove https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariposa_Grove Hemp and Cold Temperatures BY OUTCROPN https://blog.uvm.edu/outcropn/2019/10/22/hemp-and-cold-temperatures/#
Apparently I do. It only takes a tree a few years to grow to 8 inches. In order to get two crops around here, you'd be going from near -10 F to about +12 F to near -10 F.
It takes a hemp plant about 3 weeks to grow 12 inches How fast does hemp crop grow? Regardless, from 1 season (3 months), 1 acre of hemp will scrub CO2 the equivalent of 4 acres of trees. Summary https://hemp-copenhagen.com/images/Hemp-cph-Carbon-sink.pdf How much CO2 does hemp absorb compared to trees? https://hemptechglobal.com/page83/page83.html It is an inescapable fact that Hemp is an excellent eco-friendly cash crop. It has so many ecologically beneficial properties, that it far outpaces all other cash crops in general agricultural utility.
Well for one Hemp is not a vegetable. But it makes a perfect rotator crop with other cash crops. Hemp "fixes" the soil. George Washington, one of our founding fathers grew and traded hemp. Then until very recently it was illegal to grow it. Why it was illegal is a matter of speculation. My bet: Oil! Hemp is extensively grown and used all around the world. It is estimated that its uses and products run into the thousands. That is why we know so much about its potentials. It has been grown and used for centuries in clothing, paper, rope, building blocks, organic plastics, oils, seeds . Hemp paper is no more expensive but lasts four times as long and can be recycled many more times than wood paper. And it restores soil and fixes CO2 when it is growing. Growing Hemp has utility at all stages of development and every part of the plant can be used for very specific purposes. In short, the US is woefully backward in growing hemp. But we're beginning ....... Growth Rate: CAGR of 15.8% from 2020 to 2027 Industrial Hemp Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Product (Seeds, Fiber, Shives), By Application (Animal Care, Textiles, Food & Beverages, Personal Care), And Segment Forecasts, 2020 - 2027 Report Overview https://www.grandviewresearch.com/industry-analysis/industrial-hemp-market#
? You've been corrected on that bs several times. Sl0w learner? I have never - not once - stated that Dems = Left. I have never posted anything even remotely similar to that. I have asserted, argued, claimed, repeated, stated, the exact opposite - literally hundreds of times. I have done that so often and so insistently that I have been explicitly threatened with "moderation", by the guardians of civil discourse on this forum - you know, the people who allow people like you to post falsehoods and slanders and pages of consecutive posts containing nothing except attempts at personal attack about me at will - for harassment in this matter. I have insisted - dozens of times, for years now, including in direct reply to you - that the established Democratic Party is in general Rightwing Authoritarian. It's one of my most frequently repeated assertions here. And since I also claim to favor Left Libertarian governance and ideology, you can see that nowhere do I claim and never have I believed that Dem = Good. I have also stated - at least several times, in plain English, right here - that I regard Authoritarian Left governance and ideology as usually bad. Not good: bad. That subset of the Left often = bad, in all my posting and throughout my tenure here. So any claim that I think Left = Good is clearly not based on my posting here - you can't have "noted" it; it isn't there. Even more revealing: In point of relevant circumstance, I have called you and your Tribal pals out - you personally, right here, several times - on your practice of confusing Left and Dem in your posts. I have quoted examples by the dozen. In other words, that is something you and your buddies do - not me. I never do that. You do it frequently. So once again your inveterate confusion of Dem and Left acts as evidence of your devotion to the cesspool of wingnut propaganda you have chosen as your political world. You have no remaining source for information - you apparently can't even read my posts, let alone actual journalism - and have been reduced to parroting whatever idiocy the current Limbaugh/Reaganesque tool (Tucker Carlson? Trump?) has shat into your brain this week from whatever whacked out media fit unto your screen (Dem = Left? Lefties think Dem = Good? Why not - you'll believe anything). And that fetches us up against the thread and OP "topic" (no actual argument, just innuendo), in which denial of physical reality has become the foundation of an advocacy that endangers us all. Trees in general cannot save us from the current CO2 buildup, and will not for centuries benefit from the new climate regime we will have created - the graph posted in the OP is many decades and an entirely different research setup short of supporting the innuendo desired by its poster, as the research results from many more thorough sources and longer timelines demonstrate (the long term behavior of perennial and woody plants is discovered by long term research). So the only interesting aspect of those posts is the durability of their apparent obliviousness to physical reality. And the most interesting aspect of that is the question of whether it's honest or not. Both posters have been corrected repeatedly for those same falsehoods in earlier posts, and clearly such posting is an available troll tactic - but the proper troll followup seems to be missing. Guys like that and the half dozen others here who have told me I think Dems are good or left, studies of the short term response of plants to carefully controlled CO2 enrichment and consequent AGW contradicts the warnings of longer term field studies and all other research, etc, seem to actually care whether they are right or wrong - so why do they post such goofy falsehoods? What is their problem?
Gee, so sorry to have pushed your button hard there. My awful confusion must have originated from your very frequent Reps = Right = Bad polemics, which suggested a political opposite existed. My bad.
You might as well pretend to apologize for posting - that kind of crap is about all you have for content in these matters. Nope. You need to read the posts, not spin your tribal memes, if you want to attain some kind of relevance or enter a real discussion. I do not post Right=Bad. I don't specifically post Reps = Right or Reps = Bad either, because I object to the forum norm (established by the Tribe) of the one-way equality symbol. I word it differently - I post to the effect that Rep ->Right and Rep -> Bad, (to avoid implying that Right -> Rep or Bad -> Rep - I think that many Dems and others are Bad, Right, or both, and I post that opinion often). That the Reps are Bad and Right, both, is kind of a n0-brainer, since the Reps were taken over by fascism and became the American fascist Party decades ago. Fascism is both rightwing and bad, and its Party is of course rightwing and bad, both. But fascism is not the only rightwing ideology, or the only bad kind of politics. Simple enough, no? And I am willing to grant that you have no idea how you could have spotted that fact for yourself - that is, I am willing to stipulate that you are honestly and sincerely in need of yet another clarification of this basic matter, that you are not simply lying this time either, but are instead honestly oblivious still - despite your many encounters with the reality of my actual posts and your inevitable misreadings of them. So the following isn't for you, directly, but for reference by some imaginary passers by: Once again, simply to counter your Tribe's repetition of that wingnut meme (as I have posted many times: the repetition is the central issue, goal, purpose, tactic, etc.): I post denigration and mockery and whack-a-mole denial of Corporate Authoritarian Rightwing propaganda. I also post a proportionately smaller amount of such denigration and mockery of Centralized Authoritarian Leftwing propaganda (there's much less of it, in the US, because the major news media and outlets are all rightwing authoritarian corporate framers). And the reason I do that is still, years after I began repeating this over and over, that I have come to think that unopposed repetition is how fascist propaganda wins - that it wears out opposition by overwhelming it with repetition. No, it didn't. There is no such political "opposite" - that's a bothsides claim, and bothsiding everything is a Republican/fascist/corporate rightwing propaganda meme. It's another of those wingnut propaganda memes that move in where carelessness and ignorance give them room to root. My posts contain no such suggestion - they are full of contradiction and counter evidence to such a claim. Or to quote the bumper sticker and T-shirt slogan often found among the American Left: "Both Sides Don't". Thread specifically: several sides do not try to hide the effects of rapid CO2 boosting behind a squid-ink fog of happy trees and a nice warm planet. Some sides have grasped the basic issue of rate of change, the chaos and damage and disasters attending rapid dislocation of key environmental factors; one side has fallen down the rabbit hole of corporate rightwing agitprop.
Update to your True Position noted. Nothing further worth exchanging my end. Just hope it's the same your end.
Actually it is factually correct as to size and mass and leaf surface area. A 1000 year old tree will scrub 10 x the amount of a 100 yr old tree. See post #88 It takes 1000 years growth to replace a 1000 yr old tree, that is factually correct. Trees do not stop growing at maturity.
