100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12991
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Sun Dec 16, 2018 10:10 pm

Realist. Not alarmist.
I am not into crazy predictions like 100 million dead. Global warming will be a pain in the arse for humanity, but not a major killer. We need to get real. Do what is required and is sensible. I also recognize that measures taken will be slow at first and build up later. For example, we need to eliminate the burning of coal, but burning natural gas (which produces less than half the greenhouse gases per unit energy released) will continue for a lot longer.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10941
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Mon Dec 17, 2018 7:29 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sun Dec 16, 2018 8:30 pm
I have the impresssion that much of Africa and Middle East are ALREADY UNDER SERIOUS CLIMATE EFFECTS.....The money part needs to catch up already?

"serious and substantial......." //// That seems like a turn towards the Alarmist to me. Good boy, thats all I've been urging. Let us know when you reach a WW2 response.....or are you already? If not, why not? WW2 would be easier to win NOW.......RATHER THAN any year later.
I think you may need to brush up on the definition of "alarmist." So far, you've been using it to mean "being very concerned," or "raising an appropriate alarm."
I've been using this dictionary definition:
a·larm·ist
/əˈlärməst/
noun
1. someone who is considered to be exaggerating a danger and so causing needless worry or panic.
synonyms: scaremonger, fearmonger, doomster, doomsayer, Cassandra, Chicken Little
"until I saw the map and radar photos of the hurricane, I thought he was being an alarmist"
adjective
1. creating needless worry or panic.
"alarmist rumors"
I think we are well past the point of recognizing that we disagree over the appropriateness of the word.
I'm sure we all agree that the situation is alarming. We only disagree on the appropriate response.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Dec 18, 2018 12:16 am

landrew: you are quite right in all respects.

Heh, heh: we need a new word. What should we call emphasizing the need to react is already upon us if not in fact somewhat past done and the consequences of failure to act will be great harm. Harm that could have been avoided if we had dealt with reality rather than fictions, or worse the manipulations of those benefiting from their own short term gains to the loss of everyone else? So far, I think the closest we have identified is "speak loudly"?

Its all about priorities. Seems to me that until AGW really is SOLVED to the agreement of qualified scientists, money spent on just about anything else ((other than some indirect AGW solutions like warm weather ice cream)) is "poorly spent." I haven't heard for some time now......is it still a firing offense to mention AGW in the State of Florida?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12991
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Dec 18, 2018 12:51 am

We all agree that action to mitigate climate change is wise.

Where we disagree is where we decide what action is reasonable.

Myself (and my wife) acted by buying 4 acres of land about 16 years ago, and planting it in native rain forest trees. Those trees are now growing well, some being up to 8 meters tall. According to an article in New Scientist (by a strange coincidence, published just before I bought that land.) one acre of growing forest will absorb the greenhouse gases put out by one average western adult. We have 4 acres, so we are mitigating our own greenhouse gases, plus those of another adult couple.

So what action is reasonable ? As far as I am concerned, any action that does not cause human suffering. Sadly, those I refer to as alarmists appear to have no concern about human suffering, and just want to promote drastic and idiotic actions that hurt people.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:28 am

I agree. Everyone should buy 4 acres in NZ and plant trees.

Problem solved.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12991
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Dec 18, 2018 2:28 am

Instead of being facetious, Bobbo, perhaps you could tell me what you are doing.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:04 am

Ha, ha..............my point, not too subtle, is that you aren't doing anything..............and you are proud of it.

Moi?==========>I'm raising the Alarm, every chance I get.

enjoy your estate: I'm envious.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10941
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Tue Dec 18, 2018 4:27 am

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 1:28 am
I agree. Everyone should buy 4 acres in NZ and plant trees.

Problem solved.
I'm going to call it (no offense) a drop in the ocean. I'm tired of seeing minuscule and insignificant gestures that enable people to claim they are helping to "solve" the environmental problem. Mathematically, yes, small things add up, but also mathematically sometimes even the sum total of such gestures is accomplishing virtually nothing.

An example I read about is a massive grant given to an oil company, where they pumped CO2 into caverns underground instead of releasing it into the atmosphere. Sounds good right? Actually that would do about as much to help climate change as if you set out to drain Lake Mead with a teaspoon. We need to call out slacktivism for what it is, basically nothing but trivial symbolic actions in lieu of real action.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:07 am

I would say that pumping co2 underground is a teaspoon and on proof of action could lead others to join in. It would be an actual "start" and if scaled up by others joining in would be part of a solution.

In this analogy...planting your own acerage with trees: is not even a teaspoon, but much less. Could even be a net negative depending on how the trees are cared for and what ultimately happens to them.

SEQUESTERING CO2 is what will need to be done: on an industrial scale.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12991
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Tue Dec 18, 2018 8:34 am

Everything requires a start. Planting 4 acres in trees is not going to solve global warming. But a billion people each planting lots of trees .....

One person buying an electric car versus a billion. Mitigation begins with a small step.

I promote nuclear power when I can, and a major reason for that is that it is a big step towards reducing carbon emissions. I have been doing this for the last 20 years, and it is interesting to see that others are now starting to get on board. I notice that the Coalition of Concerned Scientists, that previously opposed nuclear power is now supporting it. Maybe even those ultimate morons, who call themselves Greenpeace, will stop opposing it.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10941
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Tue Dec 18, 2018 3:53 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Tue Dec 18, 2018 6:07 am
I would say that pumping co2 underground is a teaspoon and on proof of action could lead others to join in. It would be an actual "start" and if scaled up by others joining in would be part of a solution.

In this analogy...planting your own acerage with trees: is not even a teaspoon, but much less. Could even be a net negative depending on how the trees are cared for and what ultimately happens to them.

SEQUESTERING CO2 is what will need to be done: on an industrial scale.
I'd say we've had a crapload of "making a good start." Enough symbolic gestures; let's get down to doing the things that actually make a difference.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:38 pm

Planting trees is BS...........aka..............NOT a start. Its only not understanding the issues.

Everything has a start. The good, the bad, everything inbetween and outside.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12991
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:14 am

Planting trees is currently the ONLY way we have of cost effectively sequestering CO2. Maybe sometime in the future someone will invent a better method, but in the mean time, planting lots of trees is a good action. Of course, plenty of forest has other benefits as well.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10941
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:56 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 3:14 am
Planting trees is currently the ONLY way we have of cost effectively sequestering CO2. Maybe sometime in the future someone will invent a better method, but in the mean time, planting lots of trees is a good action. Of course, plenty of forest has other benefits as well.
The only way? A field of corn will sequester many times more carbon per hectare, but the problem is the same for both; the carbon is released again when the plant material decays. A better way is to increase the organic content of soils agriculturally, which can hold carbon for decades or centuries.

Better still, when carbon emissions are reduced, the biosphere will remove it at a greater ratio than it's being emitted. Eventually it will stabilize at some point. We simply need to find a way to stop emitting sequestered carbon from fossil fuels. I say "simply" a bit facetiously, but it really is that simple.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12991
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Dec 19, 2018 6:26 pm

Landrew

A field of corn is not such a good way of sequestering carbon, since it recycles that carbon rather quickly. A growing forest will continue to tie up carbon in its tree biomass for decades, and even after climax will contribute carbon to leaf litter and to increasing carbon in the soils.

The need to reduce fossil fuels being burned is not argued. Definitely. Growing more forests is only part of the solution to greenhouse gases, and other things also need doing.

One good method is adding carbon directly to soils, plowing it in, which increases soil fertility and improves soil structure while sequestering carbon.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10941
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Wed Dec 19, 2018 6:58 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 6:26 pm
Landrew

A field of corn is not such a good way of sequestering carbon, since it recycles that carbon rather quickly. A growing forest will continue to tie up carbon in its tree biomass for decades, and even after climax will contribute carbon to leaf litter and to increasing carbon in the soils.

The need to reduce fossil fuels being burned is not argued. Definitely. Growing more forests is only part of the solution to greenhouse gases, and other things also need doing.

One good method is adding carbon directly to soils, plowing it in, which increases soil fertility and improves soil structure while sequestering carbon.
I won't argue with you about corn vs trees; neither is a good way to sequester carbon. All trees eventually die and rot, therefore the net effect is the same. You're only buying time, and rather poorly at that. Unless you plan to stockpile lumber in massive underground caves, it's all going to go back to the atmosphere. I have a better idea: let's leave the sequestered carbon in the ground as coal, gas and oil.

And you are completely wrong about forests building carbon in the soil. It's completely the opposite. Forest leaf-litter releases acids that break down the organic matter in soils, releasing CO2 and leaving them carbon-poor. Grasslands build up organic carbon in the soil, and trees have been encroaching on those lands, breaking down the humus in soils, and releasing the stored carbon into the atmosphere. Quite the reverse. Trees have been "unsequestering" carbon from the soil since we started controlling the wildfires that kept the grasslands clear.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12991
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:56 pm

Humm

My reference tells me that well managed forests do increase organic soil carbon.
Admittedly it is a slow process, and grass that is plowed under will, no doubt, do it more quickly.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Wed Dec 19, 2018 8:16 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:56 pm
My reference tells me that well managed forests do increase organic soil carbon.
Yes. Well Managed: remove agriculture, cities, and animal husbandry. aka: NOT a fit for the 12 Billion you are happy to accommodate.
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:56 pm
Admittedly it is a slow process,...
Yea Verily: making it WORTHLESS as a counter to AGW. The time scales simply don't work.

Don't get me wrong: I love trees. I plant them on every property I have owned. I do it for personal pleasure, and don't confuse it with solutions to AGW. Try it.....you are already half way there.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10941
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Wed Dec 19, 2018 8:32 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 7:56 pm
Humm

My reference tells me that well managed forests do increase organic soil carbon.
Admittedly it is a slow process, and grass that is plowed under will, no doubt, do it more quickly.
I'm sure there are different types of forests, but generally forests degrade organic carbon in the soil. In the rain forests, slash and burn agriculture is only good for as long as organic matter from roots remained in the soil, rotting and releasing nutrients. This was generally just a year or two. That's why new forests are continually slashed and burned. It's just temporary fertility. The vast majority of forest soils are known to be low in organic carbon.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10941
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:49 pm

If all 7 billion people on earth did something symbolic, we would be a planet of slacktivists. We need to focus more on the real, and less on the symbolic.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12991
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:53 pm

Obviously, if you cut down a forest, you are causing harm. A living forest, though, is an asset, both to the local ecosystem, and to mitigating global warming.

I might add that we are now in a position to increase forest area. Due to good agricultural technology, more food can be grown on less land. The surplus can be forested.

I am not suggesting it as more than a partial cure. The biggest priority, as I keep saying, is to stop burning coal.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10941
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Wed Dec 19, 2018 10:30 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Wed Dec 19, 2018 9:53 pm
Obviously, if you cut down a forest, you are causing harm. A living forest, though, is an asset, both to the local ecosystem, and to mitigating global warming.

I might add that we are now in a position to increase forest area. Due to good agricultural technology, more food can be grown on less land. The surplus can be forested.

I am not suggesting it as more than a partial cure. The biggest priority, as I keep saying, is to stop burning coal.
A stable forest is assimilating and releasing CO2 at a constant rate. There is no net increase. If you plant trees on land that had been grassland for centuries, the forest will degrade and release the carbon that was sequestered in the soil as organic matter. There is simply nothing significant about using small plots of trees to mitigate climate change. The net effect is too minuscule to be considered significant.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12991
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:42 am

Not so, landrew.
A big rainforest tree can exceed 50 tonnes in weight. Half of that is carbon, and there are a lot of trees per acre. A healthy natural forest has 40 to 60 trees per acre, meaning about 1200 tonnes of carbon bound up. Plantation forests often have two or three times this amount, since they are grown deliberately to maximize wood production. A growing forest sequesters a lot of carbon.

The USA has more than a billion acres of forest. Do your own sums.

Even a mature forest is still sequestering carbon, since it is constantly shedding leaves and twigs. These fall to the forest floor and build up a layer of leaf litter. Some of that leaf litter is grabbed by soil animals and dragged underground as food.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10941
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 20, 2018 1:56 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 12:42 am
Not so, landrew.
A big rainforest tree can exceed 50 tonnes in weight. Half of that is carbon, and there are a lot of trees per acre. A healthy natural forest has 40 to 60 trees per acre, meaning about 1200 tonnes of carbon bound up. Plantation forests often have two or three times this amount, since they are grown deliberately to maximize wood production. A growing forest sequesters a lot of carbon.

The USA has more than a billion acres of forest. Do your own sums.

Even a mature forest is still sequestering carbon, since it is constantly shedding leaves and twigs. These fall to the forest floor and build up a layer of leaf litter. Some of that leaf litter is grabbed by soil animals and dragged underground as food.
Look, I'm trying not to insult you, but you are doing practically nothing for climate change by growing trees. If it eases your conscience, good for you, but tons of carbon temporarily tied-up as wood is nothing compared to the trillions of tons of carbon that we need to get out of the atmosphere. Reforestation is not the way forward for addressing climate change.

It's impossible to sequester enough carbon out of the atmosphere to mitigate the climate. The only hope we have is to eventually cut carbon emissions to the point where natural sequestration will balance it out.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12991
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:28 am

Landrew
There is a bit under a trillion tonnes of carbon in the world's atmosphere. There is a bit more than a trillion tonnes of carbon tied up in the forests of the USA alone. How can you say it is insignificant ?

Since currently there is more forest growing than being felled, there is a net billion tonnes of carbon being sequestered per year. That comes from 4 billion absorbed by growing forests, less 3 billion released by deforestation in third world countries. If we could put a stop to deforestation, and start replanting in those third world nations, it would make a substantial difference.

If we could stop the deforestation, we could reduce the CO2 in the world's atmosphere by a quarter in 60 years, just from growing trees. That would make a massive difference to global warming. Of course, we would also have to stop burning coal etc. But as I have always said, growing trees is just one of the measures needed.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Austin Harper » Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:45 pm

Landrew, your argument seems to be that if planting trees won't fix the entire problem, it's not worth planting them. But there is a point. But in combination with other efforts, it is helpful in reaching the final goal.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10941
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:05 pm

Austin Harper wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 2:45 pm
Landrew, your argument seems to be that if planting trees won't fix the entire problem, it's not worth planting them. But there is a point. But in combination with other efforts, it is helpful in reaching the final goal.
That's exactly what I'm saying; it's such a tiny gesture that it amounts to virtually nothing. It's not helpful. Repeating myself again, the answer is not in the sequestration end, because it's nearly all temporary storage of carbon. The true answer comes from reducing emissions.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Austin Harper » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:18 pm

So I shouldn't bother paying my mortgage this month since that won't pay off my house?
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10941
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:25 pm

Austin Harper wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:18 pm
So I shouldn't bother paying my mortgage this month since that won't pay off my house?
Silly analogy. Your amortization reveals a realistic plan for paying it off. Forestry sequestration is many orders of magnitude smaller, and it's just borrowing to pay a debt. If you owed a million dollars, and you took out a loan of $10 at a time to pay it off, you start to get the picture for how 4 acres of trees is going to solve climate change, even if millions of people do it.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Austin Harper » Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:57 pm

It's an analogy, of course it doesn't line up perfectly. Each mortgage payment get me .3% closer to paying off the house. Each tree helps sequester some carbon. The point of the exercise is that it's easy to plant trees and they do help. Nobody is saying that trees alone will solve the problem, just like each mortgage payment doesn't pay off the house, but it moves us in the right direction.

Essentially, you are claiming that carbon in the atmosphere is a sorties paradox. Each tree removing carbon from the atmosphere does not reduce the levels by a significant amount, therefore planting trees does not accomplish anything.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10941
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 20, 2018 5:08 pm

Austin Harper wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 4:57 pm
It's an analogy, of course it doesn't line up perfectly. Each mortgage payment get me .3% closer to paying off the house. Each tree helps sequester some carbon. The point of the exercise is that it's easy to plant trees and they do help. Nobody is saying that trees alone will solve the problem, just like each mortgage payment doesn't pay off the house, but it moves us in the right direction.
No it doesn't move us in the right direction. The carbon being tied up in the trees will eventually be released back into the atmosphere, as I explained before. No net progress is being made. The total amount of carbon in the biosphere continues to increase as we burn fossil fuels. We need to stop doing that. Sequestering carbon here and there in tiny places like trees, is like hiding dirt under the carpet. The house continues to get dirtier and dirtier. Reforestation will make no measurable difference. Ever.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12991
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:37 pm

If forest is planted and is not cut down, there will be substantial carbon sequestered and not later released. That is a step in the right direction.

Landrew
You clearly did not take note of the numbers in my last post. This is NOT insignificant.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 20, 2018 6:46 pm

I spent a few hours googling (forest carbon cycle) and could not find any source "directly" providing an answer. I got Net Carbon Contributing, 20 years, and a "long time" for how effective trees/jungles/sawgrass/mangroves are for sequestering carbon. aka: so complicated, you can conclude whatever your a priori opinion, gained from who know what source that you have, .... is.

EVERY source I read said it could help (eg: clear cutting and replanting adds carbon for a few decades...the young small growth does not sequester more than is being released) but even the MOST effective reforestation/management efforts could not avert negative impacts of AGW. The ONLY solution, best implemented decades ago and only getting worse now: is REMOVAL and SEQUESTRATION. One article even did mention my favorite: removing co2 from the air and making concrete out of it. Evidently, it can be done? Sadly....it will take a WAR effort....and sadder still only after our enemny has made its abundantly announced "sneak" attack..........if you don't take the already happened damages as attacks in themselves.
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10941
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:10 pm

Face it: There's no sequestration scheme we could ever devise that will ever move the needle on climate change.
The processes that sequestered carbon as coal, oil and gas eons ago were many, many orders of magnitude above our ability to do anything similar now and for the foreseeable future. Sequestration is a fool's errand.

As long as we continue to ignore the constant flow of carbon from fossil fuels into our biosphere, the problems will continue to escalate while we fiddle with and do feelgood home projects to fool ourselves into thinking we are doing something about climate change. Neville Chamberlain and his friends thought they had averted World War Two by waving sheets of paper to cheering crowds. In fact they were just fiddling while Rome burned. We are doing the same when we engage in feelgood slacktivism.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 19020
Joined: Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:39 am
Custom Title: After being pimped comes-----

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by bobbo_the_Pragmatist » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:15 pm

landrew wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:10 pm
Face it: There's no sequestration scheme we could ever devise that will ever move the needle on climate change.
WAR is all about doing the impossible once its necessity is recognized. Turning what was once waste into a resource even allows for normal market forces to be brought to bear.

I've been thinking of what to do with "my estate." Small though it is....maybe I should donate it to some University Program researching Carbon Sequestration. In my google search, there are several such organizations, some even with publications. One article mentioned a "solution" was to turn One Hundred Million old shipping containers into co2 capturing devices. i thought THAT was unworkable. Building stuff out of wood was mentioned as a good solution for PERMANENT sequestration....but permanent in such a case might mean only 200 years? Concrete is more permanent....perhaps several thousand years if not more?
Real Name: bobbo the contrarian existential pragmatic evangelical anti-theist and Class Warrior.
Asking: What is the most good for the most people?
Sample Issue: Should the Feds provide all babies with free diapers?

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12991
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:22 pm

Boy, talk about ostriches with their heads in the sand !

I have shown, with clear numbers, that stopping deforestation will by itself, over 60 years, remove a quarter of all CO2 in the atmosphere.

And both Bobbo and landrew keep saying that trees make no difference. Sheesh !

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10941
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:23 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:15 pm
landrew wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:10 pm
Face it: There's no sequestration scheme we could ever devise that will ever move the needle on climate change.
WAR is all about doing the impossible once its necessity is recognized. Turning what was once waste into a resource even allows for normal market forces to be brought to bear.

I've been thinking of what to do with "my estate." Small though it is....maybe I should donate it to some University Program researching Carbon Sequestration. In my google search, there are several such organizations, some even with publications. One article mentioned a "solution" was to turn One Hundred Million old shipping containers into co2 capturing devices. i thought THAT was unworkable. Building stuff out of wood was mentioned as a good solution for PERMANENT sequestration....but permanent in such a case might mean only 200 years? Concrete is more permanent....perhaps several thousand years if not more?
Sure let's wait for the "war" to start and then we can all set about to do the impossible. Why not start now, stabilize the carbon cycle eventually, and then we can all live happy lives?

By all means, donate your "two cents" to the to the trillion dollar problem, so you can feel good about it. But in the meanwhile, we need a lot more action. Without action on climate change, nothing will be happening at all.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10941
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:32 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:22 pm
Boy, talk about ostriches with their heads in the sand !

I have shown, with clear numbers, that stopping deforestation will by itself, over 60 years, remove a quarter of all CO2 in the atmosphere.

And both Bobbo and landrew keep saying that trees make no difference. Sheesh !
You haven't shown that halting deforestation will remove a quarter of the carbon, you merely found the source you were looking for. Yes, if you could somehow "halt" deforestation, it would reduce CO2 levels but it's only temporary. All that wood will eventually die and decompose as all forests do.

What will our descendents think of us for just postponing the problem and dumping it on them? As we continue to pump CO2 from fossil fuels into the atmosphere, the problem gets worse and worse. That's the problem we need to focus on. It's a long withdrawal process to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, but the sooner we get at it, the sooner it get's done. The less time we spend talking about stupid sequestration projects like filling millions of shipping containers with CO2, the more likely it is that we will actually be doing something constructive to resolve climate change.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Austin Harper
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5514
Joined: Wed Sep 21, 2011 2:22 pm
Custom Title: Rock Chalk Astrohawk
Location: Detroit

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Austin Harper » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:44 pm

landrew wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:32 pm
Yes, if you could somehow "halt" deforestation, it would reduce CO2 levels but it's only temporary. All that wood will eventually die and decompose as all forests do.
And in the place of dead trees, new trees grow, which absorb the equivalent amount of CO2 as the dead ones, as long as you don't keep clearing forest area.
landrew wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:32 pm
What will our descendents think of us for just postponing the problem and dumping it on them? As we continue to pump CO2 from fossil fuels into the atmosphere, the problem gets worse and worse. That's the problem we need to focus on. It's a long withdrawal process to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, but the sooner we get at it, the sooner it get's done. The less time we spend talking about stupid sequestration projects like filling millions of shipping containers with CO2, the more likely it is that we will actually be doing something constructive to resolve climate change.
Yes, we should focus on eliminating the burning of fossil fuels, but doing so doesn't preclude the beneficial act of reforestation.
Dum ratio nos ducet, valebimus et multa bene geremus.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12991
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 10:20 pm
Custom Title: Super Skeptic
Location: Paradise, New Zealand

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by Lance Kennedy » Thu Dec 20, 2018 7:58 pm

Thank you Austin.

Sadly, landrew has so firmly locked into his head the idea that growing trees is useless that even hard data cannot change his views.