Plants, CO2 and temperature

Discussion in 'Earth Science' started by sculptor, Aug 8, 2021.

  1. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    ain't no panacea

    and more subsides

    We voted to pay extra for electricity to build out the wind farms and a couple years later electricity went from 2 cents/kilowatt hour to 10 cents
    what the hell did we vote for?
    and why?

    (ain't the first mistake I ever made)
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    I have a strong feeling that sometime down the track, the landscapes (and some offshore seascapes) worldwide will be littered with the obsolete clutter of overnight dinosaur industries. Time will tell.
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member


    Well, you're right. We, the intelligent species, are currently driving a lot of species to extinction by heating the atmosphere of the planet with our carbon emissions. If we try hard enough, we might even manage to drive ourselves to extinction, or at least reduce our population by a significant fraction.

    It really depends on what you value. If you like having live polar bears in the world, say, then you'd probably want to act to mitigate global heating, because it's driving them to extinction. If, on the other hand, you don't really care about anything apart from yourself, I guess you can choose to go on with business as usual. Your children, and their children, and their children's children, etc., won't thank you, of course, because your action (or, more accurately, lack of action) will have made their lives harder in many ways. Excuse me if I don't play grab my fiddle to join you while Rome burns.
    You don't seem to understand. It's our fault. Humanity's fault that this is happening. Love yourself or loath yourself, that fact will remain. More important, we know what we have to do to fix the problem we created. You can stick your head in the sand, but please get out of the way of the rest of us who actually care. Stop putting obstacles in our way.
    Seeing as we're comparing credentials and all, where exactly does your expertise lie in the field of climatology? From which university did you get your Earth Sciences qualification(s)?

    BTW, having a Master's degree in journalism probably means the woman in question knows something about writing a well-researched, balanced jouralistic article.

    Where did your education culminate? Do you finish high school?
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    You missed the point. It's not in equilibrium. Human beings are adding greenhouse gases to the atmosphere at such a rate that the total concentration of those gases is increasing over time, not staying the same. That's why the planet is heating up, silly.

    Maybe you should read the latest IPCC report - you know, from the experts on this stuff. They always include a summary of the key findings, so you don't have to read the whole thing.

    If sufficient action is taken, we can avoid some of the more unpleasant effects of extreme climate change. Get it?
  8. sculptor Valued Senior Member


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    There are, most likely, between 22,000 and 31,000 polar bears alive---lets say 27,000.
    Each bear eats about 43 seals annually, so, about 1,151,000 seals are eaten by polar bears annually. (if male bears can't find seals, they'll eat polar bear cubs, and the occasional human---yummy)
    If the bears didn't reduce the seals numbers, the seals would breed out of control creating an ecological disaster.
    So, we would have to employ hundreds or thousands of Norwegians to go up there and club 1,151,000 seals to death annually. In order for this to work, you'd most likely need to develop a taste for seal skin clothing, and add seal meat to your gourmet diet.

    A curious thing about polar bears is that there is no consensus of/on when they evolved from brown bears, or grizzly bears, or a common ancestor to brown bears and polar bears.
    The estimated dates of the divergence vary wildly from 70,000 years to 6 million years(before arctic ice). There seems to be a clustering of possible dates from about 600,000 years to about 1,500,000 years.
    lets guess at 1,000,000 years. That means that these bears with translucent fur(lets heat energy in--much like a portable greenhouse) have survived several previous interglacials, many of which were much warmer that this Holocene. During at least four that I know of, the arctic desert and tundra were replaced by arctic forests,
    and the southern half of Greenland was ice free and forested.
    The polar bears survived and survived again and again.

    Are your worried about the polar bears chance of survival?
    If so, why so?
  9. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    In the news recently: A team of scientists was going north to investigate the effect of global warming on ecosystems. Their indigenous guides told the news media that they used to see polar bears only a few times a year; now they see them every time they go out.

    The polar bears are coming south.

    I don't particularly want to see them in my own back yard but I'm a little less worried about their chances of survival.
  10. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Larch trees ... grew more from 2005 to 2014 than in the preceding 40 years. The findings also show the oldest trees have had the biggest growth spurts: Trees older than 400 years grew more rapidly in those 10 years than in the past 300 years, according to the new study.

    CO2 and warmth

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    (if the trees could talk---much like in the musical 'Oliver' they could be heard to be saying "Please sir, I want more".)

    Put your hubris and self loathing guilt aside and appreciate and understand this world and biome for what it is.
    Last edited: Aug 18, 2021
  11. billvon Valued Senior Member

    1) If you want to recycle them, great! The glass and aluminum (80% of the panel by weight) is super easy to recycle.
    2) Better yet just reuse them. A panel that is at "end of life" and generating 70% of its original power would be a boon for developing countries.
    3) If you are really opposed to recycling just put them in a landfill like everything else. You'll generate far less waste (per kwhr delivered) than, say, a coal power plant.
  12. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Given that man is changing the environment as fast as he can - that's funny!

    Get your head out of the sand and face reality.
  13. Benson Registered Senior Member

    What a retard, read my post
  14. Write4U Valued Senior Member

    We voted for green energy, not for lower costs. That comes much later. The initial investment is always very expensive.

    As techniques improve cost will become lower. That is the problem with a general conversion from a fossil fuel market economy to a clean energy market economy. This will take many years and will require billions of dollars in investments.

    The cost of fossil fuel was always high. We just didn't realize what form that cost would take. But oil is a limited resource and when it runs out all oil-based industries will disappear at great replacement cost.
  15. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Yep. The three principles of climate change denial: manufacture fear, uncertainty and doubt.

    Fear: "If we reduce CO2 emissions they will take away your car!" This has been used over the decades; the car industry tried a similar approach in the 1970's. Some actual quotes from CEO's and VP's of car companies: if the "EPA does not suspend the catalytic converter rule, it will cause Ford to shut down." 1970's fuel economy standards might "outlaw a number of engine lines and car models including most full-size sedans and station wagons. It would restrict the industry to producing subcompact size cars-or even smaller ones-within five years." This was in 1974. If CAFE becomes law (which it did) the move could result "in a Ford product line consisting either of all sub-Pinto sized vehicles." How scary! If you make people afraid enough they are easier to control.

    Uncertainty: Confuse the issue. "Well, of course there is MIS 11 and MIS 13 and that's a lot of stuff to think about! No one can be sure about climate change." "Maybe climate change will be good! See all these trees?" By sowing uncertainty, you can make the claim "well, since we're not sure about this and that, how can we be sure about mitigating the problems?"

    Doubt: Manufacture doubt. "Here is a study where scientists were wrong! If they were wrong once, they can be wrong again, so maybe everything is wrong." "They said to worry about cooling, now they say worry about warming! They don't know what they are talking about." This is the same technique used to profit the tobacco companies in the 1960's and 1980's, by casting doubt on the risks of smoking and the risks of secondhand smoke. If we manufacture some doubt about the risks, maybe people will be more comfortable with smoking, and be able to ignore the consequences. In fact (fun fact here) exactly the same people who did this for tobacco companies did it for big oil companies (Seitz was one.)
    exchemist likes this.
  16. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Jeez Sometimes(too often for my tastes)
    You guys are really dense.
    I ain't a climate change denier
    far from it
    I embrace climate change
    see post 67 above
    (for those of you who intend to be slow, I'll explain what that post means)
    the young trees are growing 4 times faster it means that they are sequestering 4 times more CO2
    the mature trees are growing 30 times faster that means that they are sequestering 30 times more CO2
    And, that is just the taiga.
    Why is this hard to understand
    Why is this hard to appreciate?
    The taiga is the largest terrestrial carbon sequestering biome on the planet
    Just think
    As the treeline moves to higher latitudes and altitudes The forest will greedily consume all the CO2 that they can.
    embrace this.

    Just think; when the trees inhabit the 4526900 square miles of the arctic desert and tundra
    they may well number over 1,498,608,000,000 trees
    1 and 1/2 quadrillion trees
    building 75 quadrillion pounds of biomass
    while sequestering well over 40 quadrillion pounds of CO2


    Get over your species centric hubris and recognize how you it into this eco-system.
    Get rid of your self loathing guilt.
    as the taiga moves pole ward, the hardwood forests will move in behind it
    and the biome will reap untold benefits.

  17. billvon Valued Senior Member

    I didn't say you were. I listed the tenets of climate change denial; this thread is a good example.

    Methinks thou dost protest too much.

    A list of types of climate change deniers: (Note - this does NOT mean that you are a denier, unless you see yourself here of course)

    1) "The climate's not changing, stupid!"
    2) "OK so maybe it's changing but it's all natural, stupid!"
    3) "OK so maybe we had something to do with it - but the changes are good and will fix themselves, stupid!"
    4) "OK so maybe it's bad, but we can't do anything about it, stupid!"
  18. sculptor Valued Senior Member

    Me thinks thou dost not look at the science.

    A mind is like a parachute.
    It only works when it is open.
    Open yours and behold the wonders of our shared biome.
  19. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    You seem not to have read the two articles I linked to. It's the messy issue of dealing with the toxic elements also used that creates the real recycling problems.
    Perovskite cells may get to the point of useful longevity and efficiency and ruggedness to be a viable replacement for current silicon based panels, apparently greatly reducing the toxic waste issue.
    How many developing countries would accept such a hand-me-down-your-2nd-hand-discards arrangement? And presumably they would be lumped with dealing with the final, nowhere near original 20-25 year useful lifespan, end of life issues.
    Maybe some countries would continue to allow that, but increasingly unlikely in any 1st World ones.
  20. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Again, I am saying that if you want to recycle them, and don't want to deal with the toxins, then recycle the 80% of the panel that is aluminum and glass. They are not toxic and recycling for aluminum and glass is well established.
    Perhaps! More likely they will be used in tandem with single crystal silicon cells.
    I spent a month in Africa, and 80% of the kids I saw there were wearing second hand US clothing. So apparently they do not have the same issues you might.
    Yes. After 60 years or so they'd have to deal with that.
  21. Write4U Valued Senior Member


    But they don't. It is physically impossible.

    The Fastest Growing Trees in the Northeast

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Fast growing trees like cottonwood and hybrid poplar are often used in broadscale plantations like this one in Oregon
  22. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    The lefties asked them - and answered them - decades ago.
    That is, the people we call lefties now - researchers, analysts, careful and honest investigators, those kinds of folks.
    It makes her a journalist.
    Your climate change sources - the bizarre crapdealers you find "informative" - are propagandists.
    Gardening does tend to make people hippies and lefties. I think it's because gardeners deal with physical reality, and get feedback - same reason biologists and climatologists end up getting slandered by the corporate media.
    Changing the subject does not create amnesia in lefties and liberals.
    Or may not - you know, depending on physical realities in the near future (If the Republicans retake the US government, for example, or any more States, recycling will not be a "must" - or even benefit from economies of scale and development).
    So five years to break even, at current new tech prices.
    They last longer than that.
    Plus they are already cheaper than the available alternatives (thermal solar is not available, for some reason) - so more money for other measures, such as conservation and refugee aid (or mechanical crop pollination).

    Now if we could get the Republicans and "independent" bullshitters to consider the recycling and end of life issues we face with CO2 boosting and Commons Tragedies and coal and nukes and fracking and and internal combustion engines and plastic everything and corporate agriculture and military expansion and so forth - - - - - right now we can't even get them to remember who screwed the pooch in Iraq/Afghanistan, or how and why the US became plague central for the planet, with the bodies piling up in front of them. Anticipating the butcher's bill for climate change would require that they reason from evidence before the hammer drops.
  23. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    You do remember why that doesn't help much, according to the research and analysis, don't you?
    About that CO2 and warmth growing "trees" and "plants" in some kind of flourishing forest:

    You've been linked to the science, reminded of the science, and responded to by posters referring to the science, at least a half dozen times. Likewise Schmelzer, in discussions you were following. You found Schmelzer "informative", and never considered the science at all as far as one can tell by your posts.

    Whether you looked at the science or not I can't tell - it's the same old question: are they lying, or are they stupid?

Share This Page