100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
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 8:04 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
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.
Facts are like that. they tend to lodge themselves very firmly.

You apparently won't read my posts and acknowledge their underlying rationale, which is solid. Read it and then come back to try to refute
my rationale if you can. So far you are just making declarations. Not good enough.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
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 8:11 pm

Austin Harper wrote:
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.
So trees die, releasing carbon, new trees grow using carbon. As I said, it's a wash, it doesn't keep pace with the amount of new carbon entering the atmosphere each year.
Knock yourself out, plant trees until the cows come home, but that isn't moving the needle on climate change one bit. That's the point you keep missing.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 8:13 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
HEY OSTRICH.....and sand would be a much superior place in which to lodge your head. That is not at all what I said. subtlely and humor....what a missed opportunity.

Lance: you "say" a lot and in truth when challenged you do have a source for what you post....but often enough to be challenged, your sources have caveats that you don't include.

please provide a link to your source that confirms your quote above. aka: I don't believe it. The headline?==>yes. The details I assume you skip over is that "it can't practicably be done." I'll wait and see.
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: 10846
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 8:38 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:13 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.
What do your clear numbers say about how much new carbon is added to the atmosphere over that 60 years? Let's say, for argument's sake that you are right, and you manage to stop all reforestation. Let's ignore the fact that crops are being grown on that deforested land that fix carbon much more quickly and efficiently than trees. (C4 plants like corn are far more efficient than C3 plants like most trees). Let's say someone decides to store all that corn in silos forever to sequester that carbon. So a quarter of the CO2 is removed from the atmosphere (hard to believe I know, but we are doing an exercise here) over 60 years. What will the CO2 levels be in 60 years from now minus the quarter from current levels?

I can't continue this exercise, it's just too silly. Let's just leave the carbon in the ground instead of putting it into the atmosphere.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 8:45 pm

landrew wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:38 pm
I can't continue this exercise, it's just too silly. Let's just leave the carbon in the ground instead of putting it into the atmosphere.
Do you mean exactly what you post or is it only on the way to the ballpark??? Issue: as posted many times in this thread: we need to do MORE THAN JUST leave carbon in the ground. We need to remove and permanently sequester co2 from the air IN ADDITION TO...not burning more fossil fuel. Since burning fossil fuel is going to continue to increase over the foreseeable future..........the NECESSITY for sequestration only grows.

I've heard it more than three times, that people need to be told a fact three times in order for a chance that it be remembered. Whats your number landrew?
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: 10846
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 8:52 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:45 pm
landrew wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:38 pm
I can't continue this exercise, it's just too silly. Let's just leave the carbon in the ground instead of putting it into the atmosphere.
Do you mean exactly what you post or is it only on the way to the ballpark??? Issue: as posted many times in this thread: we need to do MORE THAN JUST leave carbon in the ground. We need to remove and permanently sequester co2 from the air IN ADDITION TO...not burning more fossil fuel. Since burning fossil fuel is going to continue to increase over the foreseeable future..........the NECESSITY for sequestration only grows.

I've heard it more than three times, that people need to be told a fact three times in order for a chance that it be remembered. Whats your number landrew?
We don't have the power to permanently sequester more than a minuscule fraction of CO2, and the ones that do work are ridiculous in their expense and orders of magnitude too small to be of any practical use. Forget sequestration; it's a pipe-dream which will do nothing but bankrupt us long before we will ever move the needle on climate change. Sorry to pour cold water on your good intentions, but they do tend to pave the way to Hell sometimes.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 8:59 pm

Sorry landrew. There is NO OTHER SOLUTION. I'll let you think about what that means. Post back when the light comes on?????
Spoiler:
Say goodbye to landrew?==>bhahahahahahaha ((if he followed directions....which is the nut of the problem: no one does))
:idea:
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: 10846
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 9:05 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 8:59 pm
Sorry landrew. There is NO OTHER SOLUTION. I'll let you think about what that means. Post back when the light comes on?????
Spoiler:
Say goodbye to landrew?==>bhahahahahahaha ((if he followed directions....which is the nut of the problem: no one does))
:idea:
Your behavior has become disgraceful. It's a sure sign of how you lose a debate; you start making personal comments. It's not whether I can handle it, I have a very thick skin, but I won't be engaging you unless you can think of a better way to debate than to have a tantrum.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 9:29 pm

Derp. Using your hurt feelings to make an exchange go your way? Silly. ..... and obviously, not effective.

Stop the whining.

Post back when the light comes on.
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: 12934
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 9:48 pm

Landrew has got into his head that any carbon sequestered by growing trees will later be emitted.

Not so. In fact, agricultural science is going ahead and we need less land to grow our food. That is why in developed countries, forest cover is increasing (and in China). So the extra land released can be planted in forest, and usually is. Since we no longer need that land for crops, the forest can be left unfelled. We sequester carbon and leave the forest alone, so that it holds the carbon out of the atmosphere long term.

Sadly, third world countries are still felling forest and this is reducing the impact of growing forests. As I pointed out, for every 3 units of forest felled in third world nations there is 4 units of new forest in developed nations.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 10:39 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:48 pm
Landrew has got into his head that any carbon sequestered by growing trees will later be emitted.
A simple truth that cannot/shouldn't be ignored? As stated: my own google 2 hour reviewed reported: actually a co2 contribution, 20 years, long time. What are you thinking Lance? That a ship dragged up from the Bosphorous over 2000 years old is "forever?" No. Its only 2000 years. Its CALLED A CARBON CYCLE for a reason: it ALL cycles back. Now.....I can assume you mean that trees can sequester carbon for several hundred years or even a thousand....along with wood products that continually go into landfills..but still ITS CALLED A CYCLE FOR A REASON. So...yes...its a very small step that by multiples of effect will not solve AGW. ONLY PERMANENT REMOVAL AND SEQUESTRATION WILL STOP 100 Millions per x from dying. Its cause and effect. OF COURSE: all remedial actions should be undertaken, each to their own preference. I do like growing trees.....I just know its my preference, and not a cure at all.

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 9:48 pm
Not so. In fact, agricultural science is going ahead and we need less land to grow our food. That is why in developed countries, forest cover is increasing (and in China). So the extra land released can be planted in forest, and usually is. Since we no longer need that land for crops, the forest can be left unfelled. We sequester carbon and leave the forest alone, so that it holds the carbon out of the atmosphere long term.
Yes....long term. Got a number on that, or happy just to feel good in a general non specific way?

Working on that link?
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?

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 11:15 pm

Image
This website put some labels on it. "Fast Carbon Cycle" vs "SLOW carbon cycle." Its only Bias Confirmation that allows one to think all tree planting is SLOW carbon cycle when my gut tells me most of it is Fast. but "I don't know." Just saying.

Diagram from: https://serc.carleton.edu/eslabs/carbon/2a.html a didactic review of the basics. Still no good numbers.
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: 12934
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 11:49 pm

Bobbo

The forests of the world hold about three to five times the carbon tonnage of the atmosphere, and has done so for millions of years. Is this long term enough for you ?

This happens because carbon released by trees dying, and by parts of trees rotting is compensated for by new trees growing. The cycle of life uninterrupted by people will maintain those forests, even though individual plants die and are replaced.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 3:51 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Thu Dec 20, 2018 11:49 pm
Bobbo

The forests of the world hold about three to five times the carbon tonnage of the atmosphere, and has done so for millions of years. Is this long term enough for you ?
Gee Lance: thats not the issue at all. The issue is: how much co2 can the trees take out of the atmosphere as we continue to burn fossil fuels. Back when co2 was 1000ppm and the temp was 10C higher: the earth was covered in maximum vegetation for millions of years. Way to totally loose track of the subject.

Still working on finding the Link? Like your post right here: you don't understand what is relevant from what is close but not relevant at all. Amusing.
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: 12934
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 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 4:24 am

Bobbo

Tree growth is not the full story as I have agreed.
But growing more trees does work to reduce CO2 if you are not adding more. Sure, growing trees will not, by itself, overcome the emissions of burning coal etc. But it is a damn sight better than doing nothing. Maybe some day in the future, someone will invent a super dooper method of artificially removing CO2 from air. But right now, the only cost effective way of doing it is to grow trees.

How much CO2 can trees remove ?
Assuming we stop the deforestation in third world countries, and continue with the current expansion of first world forests, it comes to about 100 ppm in 60 years. If we replant third world forests, that could be doubled. That is probably over optimistic, though. I do not see that scale of replanting happening.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:30 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 4:24 am
Sure, growing trees will not, by itself, overcome the emissions of burning coal etc. But it is a damn sight better than doing nothing.
Thanks Lance. I do simply honestly disagree by the rationale I have already posted. It does SO LITTLE, as to be a misdirection of resources. IF it was done as supplemental to a full boat WAR footing of Sequestration....then...OK....although it would probably be a lie...........and again, you just aren't dealing with the time curves involved.

I also apologize for my post just above.............how long a healthy maintained forest can keep co2 out of the atmosphere was a side issue on its own...but it is so side, so to as just above: act as a misdirection of resources. I do tend to focus on the Central/Controlling issues and it does sometimes bias my own clear thinking. Clear Thinking: always a stretch goal.
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
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5127
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:37 am

Pure logic makes it obvious that forests cannot absorb enough CO2 to matter decisively. bobbo is right that carbon sequestration is a must.
And we can do it, given sufficient cheap energy.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12934
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 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:18 am

EM

If you are looking at what is essential, then stopping the release of greenhouse gases is what people must do. As far as removing CO2 from the air is concerned, humans do not strictly have to do anything. There are at least three totally natural mechanisms I can think of that do exactly that, without human intervention. But preserving and increasing forest cover is the most cost effective human intervention for increasing carbon sequestration.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5127
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:55 am

Lance, think about it:
what would be the "natural mechanism" for removing the carbon created during millions of years, both by plants and plankton? We would need multiple times the size of the oceans and land to have at a given time enough organically-bound carbon.
The only natural mechanism takes another few millions of years for "natural" carbon sequestration. And we don't have that time,

Reducing greenhouse gasses is, of course, necessary, but it can not possibly be enough.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:30 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:18 am
EM

If you are looking at what is essential, then stopping the release of greenhouse gases is what people must do. As far as removing CO2 from the air is concerned, humans do not strictly have to do anything. There are at least three totally natural mechanisms I can think of that do exactly that, without human intervention. But preserving and increasing forest cover is the most cost effective human intervention for increasing carbon sequestration.
Thats criminally retarded. One step forward for respecting your "fact based" analysis....two steps back for not rank ordering the priorities.....or understanding them in order to rank order......and evidently, your refusal to learn.
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: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Fri Dec 21, 2018 5:09 pm

Don't ignore the amount of carbon that can be sequestered in the soil as organic matter. Most plants have about half their biomass under the soil as roots. For each 1% organic matter in the soil, it amounts to about 10,000 pounds of carbon per acre. Native prairie soils once contained from 1-12% organic matter based on the climate/moisture regime. Cultivation and erosion have destroyed much of that organic matter over the years. Continuous cultivation of grasses and cereals can begin to rebuild the humus in the soil, sequestering carbon in the process.
https://agronomypro.com/Soil-Organic-Ma ... ycling.pdf

Of course as the amount of carbon continues to flow into the system by burning fuels, our sequestration efforts will fall behind. The best that can be hoped for is that sequestration will partially slow the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12934
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 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 6:32 pm

EM
With all due respect, but your last posting is insane.

Carbon is finite. It does not matter how many millions of years pass. There is only so much carbon. It is not, as you so unwisely said, "created". It is simply passed from one form to another.

For your information, carbon is removed from the air in four ways naturally.
1. By plant growth, incorporating it into their biomass.
2. By absorption into the oceans.
3. By chemical reaction with silicate rocks, forming carbonates.
4. By forming organic matter into long term storage such as coal, peat and oil.

It is returned to the atmosphere as CO2 by such things as burning, respiration, rotting of organic matter, and from the rocks, with geothermal processes such as volcanoes.

The balance becomes the carbon cycle. This balance has been upset by humans emitting CO2 through such things as deforestation and burning fossil fuels. To restore the balance, we stop those harmful practices, and encourage the reabsorption by the processes listed above. This definitely includes increasing forest cover.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:36 pm

organically-bound carbon.
Wut?
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
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11960
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by OlegTheBatty » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:15 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 7:36 pm
organically-bound carbon.
Wut?
As opposed to non-organically bound carbon, such as CaCO3, or non-bound carbon, such as diamonds.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:35 pm

OK.........thanks.

organic: (chemistry) relating or belonging to the class of chemical compounds having a carbon basis /// which I thought meant any combo with carbon in it?........But I agree, Diamonds don't strike me as "organic". some quality of "Life" is missing in my simple first source definition. I agree, we all stumbled towards what was clearly meant.
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: 12934
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 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:41 pm

Thank you, Oleg. Nice to see a little bit of scientific sense here.

Now for a little more data, in the vain hope that solid data and rational argument might break through the fallacies being posted here. In this case, the fallacy that forests do not matter.

There are roughly 10 billion acres of forest in the world today. Each acre holds roughly 50 tonnes of carbon (note, carbon, not CO2.). That means the forests of the world have tied up 500 billion tonnes of carbon.

There is a total of about 200 billion tonnes of carbon in the atmosphere. Less than half the amount of carbon in forests.

Now please do not try to fell me that forests do not matter in keeping CO2 levels in our atmosphere down. Please do not tell me that growing more forest, at 50 tonnes carbon per acre, will not help.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 8:53 pm

Thats right Lance: it will not help because totally implemented: AGW will still kill millions. The time, money, effort, ATTENTION: has to be on a SOLUTION. Not feel good BS.

You really should stop mindless repetition of your first stated position and actually engage the issue. Can you?
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: 12934
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 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:01 pm

Bobbo

My position on this, unlike yours, is based on data.

I have already presented you with the numbers. Each new acre of forest will take 50 tonnes of carbon out of the atmosphere. As long as the forest stands, that 50 tonnes will stay out of the air. Planting forest will reduce CO2. To reduce atmospheric CO2 from the current 400 ppm to 300 ppm (enough to reverse global warming) would take a billion acres of new forest. This is a 10% increase in current forest cover, and hence quite doable.

Of course, it also requires we stop burning fossil fuels, but we have always known we need to do that. Basically, Bobbo, in spite of the idiotic stance you and landrew have taken, it is very clear, based on solid data, that planting trees is a useful strategy in combatting global warming.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5127
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by ElectricMonk » Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:13 pm

Lance, the carbon from gas and oil came not from a single year of forests or plankton bloom - its millions of years of this. We would need multiple earths to bind it all at the same time in organisms.
Hope you get it now.

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11960
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by OlegTheBatty » Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:19 pm

Newly planted trees are little. They do not sequester much. It takes 50 - 80 years depending on species to reach maturity.

Your 50t/acre is gross, not net of whatever was being sequestered before the trees were planted. If it was grassland, the net gain will be much less than the 50t.

A year of two after clear-cut logging, the cut site will have significant growth. In BC, the first species to arrive are poplar, shrubby willows, fireweed, and grasses.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
OlegTheBatty
Has No Life
Posts: 11960
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2008 2:35 pm
Custom Title: Uppity Atheist

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by OlegTheBatty » Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:23 pm

Proven oil reserves: ~ 1.4 trillion barrels. At 7 barrels/ton, that's 200 billion tons. Even if it were all carbon, that is less than the biosphere sequesters now.
. . . with the satisfied air of a man who thinks he has an idea of his own because he has commented on the idea of another . . . - Alexandre Dumas 'The Count of Monte Cristo"

There is no statement so absurd that it has not been uttered by some philosopher. - Cicero

.......................Doesn't matter how often I'm proved wrong.................... ~ bobbo the pragmatist

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12934
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 » Fri Dec 21, 2018 11:03 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:13 pm
Lance, the carbon from gas and oil came not from a single year of forests or plankton bloom - its millions of years of this. We would need multiple earths to bind it all at the same time in organisms.
Hope you get it now.
EM

You are ignoring the numbers. The data shows it would not require multiple earths. Each of those millions of years contributing to coal and oil build up resulted in only a small amount. That is why it took millions of years. Forest growth is much, much faster.

Oleg

The net will be close to the gross. Depends what existed before planting forest, but a 30 meter high tree carries an awful lot more biomass than a little grass.

Certainly planting trees is not a instant fix. My four acres is 15 years from when I began planting, and my tallest tree is only 7 meters (25 feet) high. It will be many years before there is 50 tonnes of carbon per acre. This is a long term thing.

Nor do I suggest that planting trees is a total cure. It is just one of many strategies we need to combat global warming. But it is an effective strategy. Currently we lack the technology to remove CO2 in useful amounts from the atmosphere EXCEPT by planting trees.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5127
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by ElectricMonk » Sat Dec 22, 2018 1:29 pm

All these calculations only makes sense if we chopped the trees after ~50 years and then buried them in a bog. But most of them we use in ways that eventually release the carbon in them again - that is why the carbon in circulation is irrelevant to the question of reducing carbon: everything bound is released again within human timeframes.
But the oil / gas was sequestered millions of years ago, and we have to re-sequester for at least thousands of years it if we want to reduce total carbon on the air.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sat Dec 22, 2018 4:59 pm

My reference said that we have about 3 trillion tons of CO2 in the atmosphere, which may translate roughly to 1 trillion tons of carbon in the atmosphere, increasing all the time as we continue to liberate sequestered carbon as wood, coal, oil and natural gas. Nearly all 7 billion of us are in the business of burning carbon for heat, light and cooking throughout the planet. By 2030, there will be 8.5 billion of us doing that, so the amount of carbon being sent into the atmosphere will be all that much more.

So let's all of us stop cutting wood, plant a few acres of trees, bury them all in bogs after 50 years and our troubles are over.
Simple as that.
:roll: :roll: :roll:
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5127
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by ElectricMonk » Sat Dec 22, 2018 5:02 pm

My solution: buy more books.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sat Dec 22, 2018 5:06 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 5:02 pm
My solution: buy more books.
Bury them in the bogs too, so they won't release their carbon.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
ElectricMonk
Has More Than 5K Posts
Posts: 5127
Joined: Thu Mar 26, 2015 6:21 pm
Custom Title: The Baby-eating Bishop

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by ElectricMonk » Sat Dec 22, 2018 5:33 pm

landrew wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 5:06 pm
ElectricMonk wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 5:02 pm
My solution: buy more books.
Bury them in the bogs too, so they won't release their carbon.
If we put them in the Trump Presidential Library, no one would ever disturb them.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12934
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 » Sat Dec 22, 2018 6:18 pm

EM

Certainly, if people plant trees, grow them, then chop them down and burn them, it will not reduce carbon in the atmosphere. That is why I referred to increasing forest cover. That increase needs to be permanent. Not only will that reduce carbon, but it also provides more park land and more habitat for a wide variety of wild life.

User avatar
landrew
True Skeptic
Posts: 10846
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am
Location: Fox Meadows

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sat Dec 22, 2018 7:14 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 6:18 pm
EM

Certainly, if people plant trees, grow them, then chop them down and burn them, it will not reduce carbon in the atmosphere. That is why I referred to increasing forest cover. That increase needs to be permanent. Not only will that reduce carbon, but it also provides more park land and more habitat for a wide variety of wild life.
Tell the people who lost their homes from wildfires that we need more trees. It's not so easy to find more places to plant trees when the land is being used for other things. The great plains were once kept fairly clear of trees by wildfires. Since then we have allowed trees to spring up all over the plains where only grassland once stood. The native grassland soils that once contained billions of tons of carbon as organic matter in the soil and have since been degraded.

You are evading the obvious. All trees have a lifespan and then they die. Most trees have a lifespan of 50-100 years. All wood rots sooner or later. It's safe to say that wood is rotting at roughly the same net rate that it's being created. What's your plan for the carbon contained in dead trees? Stockpile the wood in massive warehouses? Bury it underground? Maybe you can store it in a million shipping containers. What's your plan for how to replace the yearly demand for lumber? Recycled garbage? Things are so easy in your world.

Google tells me that 31% of the earth is forested. Forget about reforesting deserts, the arctic and the land on which people grow their food. What's your plan for how to increase the forest cover by 25%? And if we manage to do that, is it a solution? Or is it just a few years of a dip in the rising atmospheric CO2 graph? This is getting repetitive. You obviously ignored all of this the first time around, so I can't expect much different this time.

I can't wait for your next brilliant idea for how to save the planet. Since you seem to believe money is no object, why haven't you bought 4000 acres instead of 4?
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 18857
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 » Sat Dec 22, 2018 10:02 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:01 pm
To reduce atmospheric CO2 from the current 400 ppm to 300 ppm (enough to reverse global warming) would take a billion acres of new forest. This is a 10% increase in current forest cover, and hence quite doable.
BWHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!! Lance! WoW MoM WoW. I know very little about forest sequestration of carbon and even I know this is complete hogwash. You really are digging into your hole. Why don't you climb out, look around, and head towards the sunrise? ((Thats a metaphor for the future.))
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Fri Dec 21, 2018 10:01 pm
..............Of course, it also requires we stop burning fossil fuels,
Oh......a fig leaf followed by half the real solution? At least you have some of the relevant elements. its that Rank Order thing isn't it....hard to juggle balls when your fingers are magic glued to just one of them?

And as stated FIVE FRICKEN TIMES NOW: The solution is negative co2 contribution, aka removal and permanent sequestration, aka: suck it out of the air and turn it into something that can be stored away....like concrete, or road material, or hope of all hopes: additional photo voltaic systems????

Lance: really. control yourself. I hope you were giggling like a school girl when you posted that. I'm just not sure.
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?