Consolidated Climate Change/CO2/Global Warming Thread

Discussion in 'Science' started by hlokk, Feb 12, 2007.

  1. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    15,878
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    yes. totally. as consumers.
    say i earn an income providing a service or a commodity. the problem remains. how do i derive that income in the most sustainable way.
    ?
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2019
  2. shredder

    shredder Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Messages:
    12,082
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Housing is an indelible human need, ultimately. More people = more of the planet converted from non-human to human.

    Land development is nasty in it's own ways. I know it well, from full involvement behind the scenes in my earlier career.

    Sometimes very intelligent, church-going pillars of the community - whose lives happens to be dedicated to systematically converting the planet into maximum commercial return, 100 or 1000 sections at a time.

    And the thing is, it's such a massive lock-in. Money, politics, legislation, media, culture and other factors, are all cogs in 'the machine', in which one factor cannot be easily altered individually.

    I also worked on large scale GIS development, including sourcing and processing data from government agencies etc. As elvis says, it is indeed very interesting what information is out there. e.g. the other day, elsewhere in the forums, I posted a nice map I found (not being aware of this thread, at the time).
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2019
  3. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    15,878
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    the universal factor is population in direct relationship with land use. fix that. and the cumulative environmental deterioration also stabilises.

    very basic.

    as to who is doing what within that system of production and consumption :rolleyes:

    ..oh yeah, pray for rain. that'll help...
     
    Last edited: Sep 29, 2019
  4. shredder

    shredder Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2001
    Messages:
    12,082
    Location:
    New Zealand
    A seaside suburb of my city, during the last king tide. That's the road he's driving on. I remember that suburb as a child. Rode my bicycle round that road. I think know the entire suburb will be gone within a few decades. Each and every of the hundreds of properties will be some nice family's million dollar nightmare. This mechanism will add additional pressure on the housing market as the decades pass.
    upload_2019-10-4_12-34-56.png

    A local highway, also during king tide. It will be abandoned (within 20 years), and a new highway built inland on the public purse. These public financial burdens are going to become widespread and huge as the effects of climate change exponentiate.
    upload_2019-10-4_12-36-46.png

    The "funny" thing is, we're just starting to feel the ramping up of the consequences.

    If you live near the seaside, climate change is already a lot more than a theory for you.

    I'm glad my house is at 100m elevation, well away from the danger zone.

    Widespread ice sheet melting in Antarctica could raise sea level by 20m over centuries, NZ-led study finds
    https://www.stuff.co.nz/environment...ould-raise-sea-level-by-20m-nzled-study-finds
     
    Last edited: Oct 4, 2019
    Sankari, Phido and adamsleath like this.
  5. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    15,878
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    well. we got some rain yesterday. quite a decent fall. nearly filled the water tank and the garden is finally watered :)
    and more rain. today. It's a miracle! happy clappy prayers answered! Thankyou Scomo!
    ==========
    https://www.unenvironment.org/news-...m-restoration-offers-unparalleled-opportunity
    United Nations recognition of the issues of most concern to me.
     
    Last edited: Oct 18, 2019
  6. BurningFeetMan

    BurningFeetMan Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2003
    Messages:
    8,356
    Location:
    Veg City
    An interesting read;

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10...rt-scrapping-frequent-flyer-programs/11616262

    Written by Doctor Richard Carmichael from Imperial College in London for the Committee on Climate Change, the report recommends that instead of being rewarded, frequent flyers should be slugged with a tax called an "escalating air mile levy" — meaning that people who flew the furthest distances should pay the most for their tickets.
     
  7. koss

    koss Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Messages:
    5,676
    Location:
    Vic
    Just make it illegal for poor people to fly, and put the airlines out of business like Thomas Cook.
     
  8. MR CHILLED

    MR CHILLED D'oh!

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2002
    Messages:
    143,782
    Location:
    Omicron Persei 8
    adamsleath and shredder like this.
  9. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    15,878
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    "being an mp not linked to wisdom"
    confirmed by 97% of scientists.
     
    clonex likes this.
  10. neRok

    neRok Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2006
    Messages:
    3,344
    Location:
    Perth NOR
    Well some new numbers are out, and the melting permafrost giving way to more plants is working great :rolleyes:

    Climate change has turned permafrost into a carbon emitter

    Until now, little was known about winter emissions from permafrost and the soil above it. Even scientists assumed the microbial processes that release the gases came to a halt in the cold.

    "Most people think in the winter, there's no respiration, that the microbes eating the carbon that produce these emissions aren't active, which isn't actually the case," Egan said.

    The scientists placed carbon dioxide monitors along the ground at more than 100 sites around the circumpolar Arctic to see what was actually happening and took more than 1,000 measurements.

    They found much more carbon was being released than previously thought
    The results found carbon dioxide emissions of 1.7 billion tonnes a year are about twice as high as previous estimates.

    Arctic plants are thought to take in just over one billion tonnes of the gas from the atmosphere every year during growing season. The net result is that Arctic soil around the globe is probably already releasing more than 600 million tonnes of CO2 annually.

    Scientists previously thought carbon absorbed by tundra plants during the summer more or less made up for what was emitted in the winter as well as for what was released from melting permafrost during warm months.

    That's not what's happening, said Egan.
     
  11. koss

    koss Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Messages:
    5,676
    Location:
    Vic
    Normally theu use the chain to clear the land quickly so it can be used for something else like planting tulips, or a car park.

    The chain is a fast method, that's all. They don't care about the trees, they just want them out.

    As a result, we now have a global shortage of trees compared to the past. That's the real CO2 issue, not coal burning.

    Speaking of trees, have you ever wondered why all the coal in the world is found in one geological layer?

    It's called the carboniferous period which spans 360million to 300million years ago, a drop in the ocean compared to the age of the earth. Before 360 million years ago, plants existed but there were no trees, one day evolution decided to create Lignin, a cross-linked phenolic polymer, which helps form the cell walls for wood and bark. This took off like wildfire and trees spread around the globe.

    The fungi and bacteria that cause wood to rot (breaking down Lignin) didn't exist back then, so for 60million years dead trees just piled up on top of each other, locking up valuable atmospheric carbon, that other plants needed to grow. Like the plants before, the bacteria and fungi evolved into forms that could break down trees, so that was the end of coal formation. Game over man.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
    adamsleath likes this.
  12. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    15,878
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
  13. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    38,421
    Location:
    Brisbane
    False dichotomy. We can improve both situations simultaneously.
     
  14. clonex

    clonex Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    21,147
    Location:
    north pole

    forestry you need a shit load of land to make it worthwhile ideally at different ages.

    ideally you need +1000 hectares otherwise its just passed onto next generation to harvest as it grows.

    weve got some forest back home and the oldest crops planted date back to late 1920's.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
  15. koss

    koss Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2009
    Messages:
    5,676
    Location:
    Vic
    So you are trying to convince us that we do not have a global shortage of trees?


    BTW. the mean atmospheric CO2 level during the Carboniferous period was 800ppm.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carboniferous

    I hope that spurs some thoughts for the more scientifically minded readers here.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
  16. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    15,878
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    balancing the rates of harvest. that's why the fast turnover crowds went for mass planting of pine trees (in se qld). grows fast and straight.

    just as well those fishies in the oceans, rivers lakes what have you, grow quickly.
    =========
    http://www.senseandsustainability.net/2012/02/05/why-we-need-forests/
    Also, their role in rainfall.

    https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/Milankovitch
    the tilt of the earth's axis is so slow as to be negligible in anything but the cycles estimated at around 11,000 year intervals. we are still coming out of a cooler period (in terms of this cycle) ie getting warmer....but this is not our immediate concern the peak of the cycle is estimated to be around 10,000 a.d. or something like that.

    what the overall climate effects will be of eradicating forests and replacing them with crops etc. i do not know. as such an analog is not to be found in hominid history ..trees have been around for about 300 million years or so.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree

    hominids around 3 million years....
    mammals for...a bit longer.. :D
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_mammals
    ====

    ***********less rainfall over land masses as a result of the net loss of evapotranspiration from forests is my guess....particularly tropical ones.
    Measurements of transpiration per unit area of forest (by type) no doubt are available...around the interwebs. :rolleyes:

    https://what-when-how.com/earth-science/evapotranspiration-and-precipitation/
    so, of course. make water scarce. procure fresh water via energy intensive artificial means and sell it. brilliant ! commercial capitalism at its finest.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
  17. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    38,421
    Location:
    Brisbane
    I'm not sure how you landed there. Allow me to expand (and before anyone complains I'm saying obvious things, I'm explaining it because the quote statement above is entirely wrong, so clearly *something* needs explaining).

    The false dichotomy is that it's A vs B. i.e.: your statement "we now have a global shortage of trees compared to the past. That's the real CO2 issue, not coal burning."

    It's not A vs B. It's A *and* B.

    One of my clients right now is the department of environmental sciences (also mining too, so there's a balance in terms of politics). I'm assisting them by upgrading and installing a tonne of new software and tools into their various high performance computer / cluster setups, including (but not limited to) their remote sensing area (it's one of about a dozen different specialist units I'm helping). These people (highly qualified, world class data scientists) run complex tools that analyse petabytes of satellite imagery to come up with hard, scientific evidence around questions like climate science (and other things like agriculture, farming, forestry, mining and tonnes more).

    One of the many things they happen to do is develop machine learning software that can count trees. They do this routinely on regular satellite passes, and calculate numbers (in general, but also now to species levels in some cases - helpful when there's something like a disease outbreak that only affects one species of plant). It's an objective fact that right now we're clearing more trees legally in Australia than there are trees being burned in the Amazon rain forest. Those numbers are not up for debate. They are hard figures. To call the global climate impact of this substantial would be a severe understatement.

    None of that changes the fact that burning fossil fuels is ALSO an issue. The same remote sensing teams as well as a few others in their own expert areas also look at worldwide carbon emissions through a variety of sampling systems at temperature, ground, atmosphere, plant, grass, animal, rainfall/drought and oceanic level. The data coming back from that, year on year, is worsening. Every single bit of data in isolation suggests it's a problem. Together, the picture is dire.

    So back to your statement - "the issue is X, not Y". No. The issue is both, as well as a bunch of other things too. It's a complex problem with a complex solution. There is no "one true way". There is no silver bullet. There is no "three word slogan". And there is certainly no false dichotomy. We, as a species, globally, need to get our shit together and fix hundreds of things simultaneously. The data demonstrates that very clearly. Cherry picking a favourite thing and exclaiming it's more or less worse than others, so therefor we can ignore it, is utterly incorrect.
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
    Phido likes this.
  18. clonex

    clonex Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    21,147
    Location:
    north pole
    grows fast as in 30, 50yrs? thinning happens at first after 10-15yrs
     
  19. adamsleath

    adamsleath Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    15,878
    Location:
    Sunnybank Q4109
    not sure. faster than that i think. in the tropics you can get a pretty big tree in around ten years....and i mean a native.

    also, warmer temperature results in more evaporation. so there is that to consider.
    again, whether that ends up falling onto a parched landscape? depends on cool spots to force precipitation from moist air.

    and pressure differences....n shit.

    i suppose that's why we rely on climate scientists that know more than we do. :p
     
    Last edited: Oct 29, 2019
  20. clonex

    clonex Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    21,147
    Location:
    north pole
    what goods length if you got no girth to match:D
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: