100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Heated discussions on a hot topic.
User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12060
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 11:49 pm

Bobbo

Stop being a ninny.
Increasing forest cover permanently will sequester carbon at the rate of 50 tonnes per acre. That is simple math. Not only that, but it is already happening, though not at a rate sufficient to compensate for new CO2. Certainly it is not a complete solution, as I have said many times, but it is a contribution towards a solution. There is no other method available in today's world to sequester large amounts of carbon.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16254
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 » Sun Dec 23, 2018 12:26 am

C'mon lance. I agree it "helps" in an ignorance/FOCUS of what is needed. Its like the Titanic has hit the iceberg and your solution is to start bailing. It would "help" in the same way and fail for the same reason that planting trees will: IT SIMPLY ISN'T ENOUGH. And all efforts spent in that direction would be better spent in carbon extraction. TENTH TIME: you simply are not taking into account the relevant risk/reward curves.

Please try to be responsive rather than repetitive?
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
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9055
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sun Dec 23, 2018 12:26 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sat Dec 22, 2018 11:49 pm
Bobbo

Stop being a ninny.
Increasing forest cover permanently will sequester carbon at the rate of 50 tonnes per acre. That is simple math. Not only that, but it is already happening, though not at a rate sufficient to compensate for new CO2. Certainly it is not a complete solution, as I have said many times, but it is a contribution towards a solution. There is no other method available in today's world to sequester large amounts of carbon.
Increasing forest cover permanently will sequester carbon???
That's the most insane comment so far. Wood decays and releases its carbon into the atmosphere. It could take 50 years for the acre of forest to sequester 50 tonnes of carbon. Corn will sequester 11 tonnes of carbon in one year. Most of the residue from the corn crop is incorporated back into the soil as sequestered carbon.
https://renewablefarming.com/index.php/ ... nvironment
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16254
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 » Sun Dec 23, 2018 12:32 am

How much fertilizer are we going to manufacture and truck to the forest for all this growth? How much gas will be burn to guard the forest against wood theft, careless campers, bug infestations.

No.....its only provides an unreachable 25% solution and then only in a vacuum against competing interests
....a Titanic failure.
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: 12060
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 23, 2018 1:47 am

You guys do not realise how ridiculous you are being.
Like how much fertilizer. Actually, you need zero.

Note, that my quote of 50 tonnes per acre carbon is in natural forest. Managed forest can store up to three times as much, due to the extra care. But I am talking of something that requires very little, if any care.

Increasing forest cover will store carbon, most definitely. Sure, some parts die off and decay. But natural forest is in a constant state of regrowth. As long as the forest is left untouched, it will hold that 50 tonnes per acre of carbon. A tree dies, and another one grows.

The situation today is that, in developed nations, as agriculture gets more efficient, marginal land is left to go back to forest. In this way, forest cover is increasing, and there is no reason why it should not stay in that increased state. In third world countries, very sadly, there is deforestation. But the ratio is 4 parts of increase to 3 parts of deforestation. So right now, the net result is that carbon is being sequestered by growing forests. We could do much more by stopping the deforestation.

As far as corn is concerned, corn farmers are not in it to put carbon into soil. They are into it to make as much saleable seed as possible, and the detritus is normally allowed to rot or is burned. Sure, corn detritus should be plowed into the soil, but mostly that does not happen.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9055
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sun Dec 23, 2018 2:19 am

Lance, your plan to stop deforestation would amount to genocide in some countries. Billions of people cut wood each day to cook their meals and heat their homes. Why do you want to take their fuel away? In your looney world, the planet is covered with trees and people will have to disappear to make your crazy plan work. Are you proposing eugenics? How else will you displace people off the land, so that you can plant trees on it? Maybe you can enslave them all to bury all the logs in the ground so that the carbon will be sequestered. There certainly won't be any way to support them for long.

The largest forest in the world is the northern boreal forest that encircles the northern hemisphere. If you've ever walked it as I have, you see a large number of fallen, dead trees. They rot. The carbon is returned to the atmosphere as methane and carbon dioxide. This is how the carbon cycle works. Forests are in stasis with the carbon cycle.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9055
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sun Dec 23, 2018 2:32 am

Besides carbon, forests also recycle a number of other nutrients. These are generally recycled when old trees die, to be taken up by the roots of younger trees. A "managed" forest is one where timber is removed instead of leaving it to rot. This also takes nutrients out of the nutrient cycle. It's not a sustainable solution; eventually the nutrient levels will be so low that the forest growth will be much reduced.

Just stop burning fossil fuels and we can get back to a sustainable and stable carbon cycle. No amount of fiddling with hair-brained reforestation schemes will ever move the needle on man-made climate change.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12060
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 23, 2018 4:00 am

Landrew
Please do not go off the rails. I am not suggesting we cover the world with forest or take energy sources away from the poor. All I am saying its that reforestation is currently the best way of sequestering carbon. Simply, humanity does not have another cost effective method. If we expand permanent natural forest, which is easy to do, we sequester 50 tonnes of carbon per acre of permanent forest.

In developed countries, this is already happening. In third world nations, there is the reverse. Deforestation, which adds to the problem. Stopping the deforestation is not stopping the poor from getting the energy they need, since the bulk of that deforestation is not being done by the poor. It is the relatively wealthy who are committing those ecological crimes.

I am well aware of the recycling of carbon in climax forests. My suggestion is to increase natural forest area. Each new acre of natural forest means another 50 tonnes of carbon taken from the atmosphere. Obviously, this cannot go on indefinitely, but there is ample scope for such increase over, for example, the next 50 years. To increase natural forest cover globally by 10% would make a massive difference to global climate change. If we could do that in the next 50 years, that would be a big help. Sure we have to stop dumping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere as well. But no single strategy will be enough. Adding to natural forest is part of an effective overall strategy.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9055
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:46 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 4:00 am
...To increase natural forest cover globally by 10% would make a massive difference to global climate change. If we could do that in the next 50 years, that would be a big help.
I disagree. The change to global climate change would not be massive, but the disruption to human lives would be massive. Nearly all human beings love trees, and we tend to plant them everywhere, but we do need to cut them down for economic reasons sometimes. It's not going to be easy to mandate even a 1% increase in global forestry.

Reduced-tillage (no fallowing) of food crops will sequester massive amounts of carbon into the soil at roughly 10 times the rate of forestry sequestration. Soil humus is a much more stable form of sequestered carbon than woodpiles of timber, and far more economically beneficial.

But as we both agree, sequestration is only a poor band-aid to the real problem which is the massive carbon emissions that continue year to year, which takes us closer to several potential tipping points which could escalate global warming catastrophically. Either the melting of frozen hydrates on the ocean floor, or the release of methane from frozen tundra, or the shut-down of the gulf stream or the decrease of solar albedo due to reduced snow cover; all of these perils are drawing closer every year. The less time we spend fiddling around with stuffing logs into steel shipping containers or burying wood in bogs, the more chance we can focus on the real problem: carbon emissions. If we focus on that, we may just survive.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12060
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 23, 2018 6:16 pm

Landrew

Still off on your own tangent? Who said we would put logs in shipping containers or bury them in bogs? Certainly not me.

No. It is very simple. Allow natural forest to increase by 10% over the next 50 odd years, and that will make a big contribution to mitigating global warming. An extra 10% of natural forest would tie up 100 ppm of CO2 out of the air, reducing it from 400 to 300 ppm based on today. That would alone be enough to bring global warming back 100 years. Of course, there may be a further 100 ppm in the air in 50 years, which means the 10% increase in forest cover would bring it back to 2018 levels.

Right now, there is a lot of deforestation in third world nations which should be stopped. For example, in Brazil, a lot of rainforest is felled and turned into cattle ranches for the rich. This is a double whammy, in terms of climate. Loss of forest and methane from cattle. BANG !

All we need to do is stop the deforestation in third world nations that is designed to make rich people richer. There is enough new forest growing in developed nations to achieve the 10% goal. But I have planted my own 4 acres. I know that burns some of you up, since you cannot do the "holier than thou" thing over me, but tough !

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16254
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 » Sun Dec 23, 2018 6:45 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 6:16 pm
Landrew

Still off on your own tangent? Who said we would put logs in shipping containers or bury them in bogs? Certainly not me.

No. It is very simple. Allow natural forest to increase by 10% over the next 50 odd years,
so you DO MEAN to be totally irrelevant. Yes....you don't see it??????????? Always amuses me just how right I am: hysterical blindness. aka: not pragmatic at all, just in a dope haze of denial.
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
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9055
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:07 pm

bobbo_the_Pragmatist wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 6:45 pm
Lance Kennedy wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 6:16 pm
Landrew

Still off on your own tangent? Who said we would put logs in shipping containers or bury them in bogs? Certainly not me.

No. It is very simple. Allow natural forest to increase by 10% over the next 50 odd years,
so you DO MEAN to be totally irrelevant. Yes....you don't see it??????????? Always amuses me just how right I am: hysterical blindness. aka: not pragmatic at all, just in a dope haze of denial.
Too much focus on minuscule details, which are functionally irrelevant. Lance is hung up on some sort of "gesture" that he imagines will do some incremental good, making him feel like he has accomplished something useful. Then he expects that billions of other people will all do the same, and the world will get all fixed up with good intentions. Lots of people think like that. Too many, and that's why so little is actually getting done. It's like a ship sinking while everybody squabbles about the number of oars in the lifeboats.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16254
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 » Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:13 pm

landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:07 pm
Lots of people think like that. Too many, and that's why so little is actually getting done.
Yea, verily. .............and, its SO OBVIOUS. Only the hysterically blindly naive spout such sentiments...........over, and over, and over again. Its almost like they can't process new information.
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
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9055
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:39 pm

You won't stop deforestation in the third world by any means. It's already been tried in South America and the results have been laughable to say the least. Big money was spent by environmental organizations to protect a few acres, but meanwhile millions of acres of forest were turned under to grow corn and soybean in an effort to corner the world markets. At least that's how it was presented to me at a seminar about South American agriculture a few years ago.

Once again, people are much too hung up on feeble gestures, expecting that everyone else will join in and "make a difference." Sounds good, but it's not happening.

It's just not happening.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16254
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 » Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:42 pm

landrew wrote:
Sun Dec 23, 2018 7:39 pm
Once again, people are much too hung up on feeble gestures, expecting that everyone else will join in and "make a difference." Sounds good, but it's not happening.

It's just not happening.
..............and the larger recognition: EVEN IF everybody DID DO IT: it wouldn't matter, aka not significantly make a difference so as to justify the effort.

CRITICAL PATH. Its an analytical/planning tool to tell {!#%@} from shinola. Reforestation ain't on the path=====>when preventing catastrophe from AGW is the 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
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12060
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 » Mon Dec 24, 2018 12:11 am

My argument is not whether we CAN persuade the powers that be in third world nations to stop deforestation. I am well aware that is not easy. My argument is that increasing natural forest area is an effective method, among other methods, of helping to mitigate global warming.

However, the net forest area globally IS increasing. The increase comes from developed nations and from China. All of which is a big help. More would be better, and the world still needs to work on those wealthy people in third world nations who continue to devastate their forests.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9055
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Mon Dec 24, 2018 1:15 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 12:11 am
My argument is not whether we CAN persuade the powers that be in third world nations to stop deforestation. I am well aware that is not easy. My argument is that increasing natural forest area is an effective method, among other methods, of helping to mitigate global warming.

However, the net forest area globally IS increasing. The increase comes from developed nations and from China. All of which is a big help. More would be better, and the world still needs to work on those wealthy people in third world nations who continue to devastate their forests.
What's your evidence that reforestation is a "big help?" Do we see any decrease in atmospheric CO2? Even a slight slowing of the increase? What's your definition of "big help?" Based on your previous posts, you seem oblivious to orders of magnitude. You can't affect climate change by growing a few more trees any more than you can level Mt. Everest with a pick and shovel.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16254
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 » Mon Dec 24, 2018 1:58 am

Effective.?==>"I do not think that word means what you think it means."
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: 12060
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 » Mon Dec 24, 2018 2:42 am

Landrew

I am not talking of a "few" more trees. I am talking of substantial expansion of natural forest. It would take just under a billion extra acres of forest (an increase of another 10% of world forest cover) to drop CO2 in the atmosphere by 100 parts per million. But that would make a very big difference.

The number is 50 tonnes per acre of new natural forest of carbon sequestered. On a billion acres that is massive. Also effective.

Of course, that will not happen if everyone is like you and Bobbo. Total naysayers. Why not give up now guys? Make the world really, really hot due to total lack of willingness to accept effective mitigation methods.

Globally, the atmosphere contains 870 billion tonnes of CO2. The world's forests currently absorb 4.2 billion tonnes per year, according to ScienceDaily. That means that, if humans were not emitting extra CO2, the level in the air would drop by a quarter in 50 years (that is, by 100 ppm, bringing it back to 300 ppm, which is enough to reduce the warming to 1970 levels).

But of course, people are still burning coal and doing other destructive and greenhouse gas enhancing activities. But forest growth is the biggest activity actually moving counter to all the warming actions. Planting more trees will enhance this.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9055
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Mon Dec 24, 2018 3:47 am

You are living in a weird fantasy world. Your numbers are changing all the time, getting more and more unrealistically inflated. Those you call "naysayers" are simply people with a better grasp on reality. "If only" everyone shared your pipe dream, the world would be all fixed, would it?
Dream on, the rest of us want to focus on reality.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12060
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 » Mon Dec 24, 2018 3:58 am

Landrew

Again with the straw man.

I have been open about the fact that planting trees will not, by itself, solve the problem. My claim is simply that planting trees and expanding natural forest will help. It is you guys who live in a fantasy, ignoring an action that actually helps.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16254
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 » Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:49 am

Lance: "logic." Tree will not solve the problem. "Something else" will solve the problem........if anything. ERGO: SPEND YOUR TIME on that something else and NOT on that which you agree will not work.

Why does the logic escape 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
ElectricMonk
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4576
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 » Mon Dec 24, 2018 7:24 am

The data is absolutely clear that even if we turned all deserts into managed forests, it wouldn't be enough to compensate for current emissions. For one, forestation itself requires vast amounts of carbon-emitting machines etc.
Forests also absorb sunlight more than barren ground does, trapping more, not less heat from the sun.
So while every little bit helps, this doesn't help nearly as much as one might think.

The obvious solution is to trap carbon at the point of emission and store it underground. And then extend the technology to capture it out of the air.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9055
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Mon Dec 24, 2018 5:16 pm

ElectricMonk wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 7:24 am
The data is absolutely clear that even if we turned all deserts into managed forests, it wouldn't be enough to compensate for current emissions. For one, forestation itself requires vast amounts of carbon-emitting machines etc.
Forests also absorb sunlight more than barren ground does, trapping more, not less heat from the sun.
So while every little bit helps, this doesn't help nearly as much as one might think.

The obvious solution is to trap carbon at the point of emission and store it underground. And then extend the technology to capture it out of the air.
There always seems to be a "fallacy of unlimited resources" in these discussions. The space program was a massive effort that was successful, but it doesn't mean we can do as many big things as we want, spend unlimited money and accomplish all the things we set out to do. For example, you can't reforest the deserts. There simply isn't the water for it, and imagine the infrastructure needed.

It's easy to say we should increase global forests by 25% but that is a massive number that's outside the realm of possibility, even with a "space program-like" effort. Space-program-like efforts don't grow on trees. And if it were somehow accomplished, would it move the needle on climate change? So far nothing else seems to have done that. It's just a wishful promise.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12060
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 » Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:12 pm

The principle here seems to be that, when losing an argument, switch to a strawman.

I have never said that planting trees would be enough. I have made it quite clear from the beginning that many measures will be needed. So cut out this bull shite argument that many measures will be needed, making planting trees unnecessary.

Many measures will be needed, but increasing natural forest cover is one of the valuable measures. We need to cut fossil fuel use, find ways to stop farming emitting all that methane, and increase forest cover, plus more. Many measures.

My suggestion, Bobbo, was to increase global natural forest cover by 10%, not 25% (another straw man). That is entirely within the realms of the possible, requiring only the political will. Nor did I suggest planting deserts. There is ample poor farming land, which are still good prospects for new natural forest.

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9055
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:04 pm

The human race tends to deal with big problems post-crisis. We aren't good at pro-active problem-solving. Hitler could have been easily contained in the 1930s, but inaction by the major powers led to a chain of events that led to WWII and over 60 million deaths and massive destruction. Impending climate change is likely to be addressed in a similar way. The damage will stack up for decades before the nations of the world are forced to get together to seriously tackle climate change. Of course I'm optimistic that we will eventually solve this problem, but that's not to be confused with naive wishful thinking. Unfortunately some people who discuss the climate have no idea how we will eventually prevail, and only propose ridiculous grandiose projects that have no hope of getting started. We need realistic, practical plans, not wacky science fiction ideas that have nothing to do with reality.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16254
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 » Mon Dec 24, 2018 8:51 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 6:12 pm
My suggestion, Bobbo, was to increase global natural forest cover by 10%, not 25% (another straw man). That is entirely within the realms of the possible, requiring only the political will. Nor did I suggest planting deserts. There is ample poor farming land, which are still good prospects for new natural forest.
Lance: "logic." Trees will not solve the problem. "Something else" will solve the problem........if anything. ERGO: SPEND YOUR TIME on that something else and NOT on that which you agree will not work.

Why does the logic escape 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: 12060
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 » Mon Dec 24, 2018 10:41 pm

Bobbo

It is YOUR logic that is failing.
The "something else" you refer to includes many measures, of which increasing natural forest cover is one that is effective and important.

Your illogic is like saying that chemotherapy can cure cancer, so surgery and radiotherapy and other drug therapy are not needed. If I had cancer, I would want each and every effective measure to be used. That is the case with climate change. Use every effective measure.

Simple logic. There is just under 10 billion acres of natural forest in the world. 10% is near enough to a billion acres. Each acre of natural forest contains 50 tonnes of carbon, so that 10% will contain 50 billion tonnes.

Humans put 4 billion tonnes of CO2 into the air each year (1 billion tonnes of carbon). So 50 billion tonnes of carbon, taken up by a 10% increase in natural forest cover, represents 50 years of CO2 dumped into the air by humans. When looking at these numbers, do not confuse tonnes of carbon with tonnes of CO2, which is four times the amount.

Not quite that simple, of course, since humans emit 9 billion tonnes of CO2 each year (2.25 billion tonnes of carbon). But 2 billion goes into the sea, and the rest is taken up on land, with about half of that going into existing forests, according to NASA.

But increasing forest cover will substantially increase the amount of carbon sequestered.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16254
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 » Mon Dec 24, 2018 11:18 pm

I only read the first sentence. Lance: as always.....you can't think beyond what your first thought.

Learn to think: deal with the hypo.
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
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9055
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Tue Dec 25, 2018 12:17 am

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Mon Dec 24, 2018 10:41 pm
Bobbo

It is YOUR logic that is failing.
The "something else" you refer to includes many measures, of which increasing natural forest cover is one that is effective and important.

Your illogic is like saying that chemotherapy can cure cancer, so surgery and radiotherapy and other drug therapy are not needed. If I had cancer, I would want each and every effective measure to be used. That is the case with climate change. Use every effective measure.

Simple logic. There is just under 10 billion acres of natural forest in the world. 10% is near enough to a billion acres. Each acre of natural forest contains 50 tonnes of carbon, so that 10% will contain 50 billion tonnes.

Humans put 4 billion tonnes of CO2 into the air each year (1 billion tonnes of carbon). So 50 billion tonnes of carbon, taken up by a 10% increase in natural forest cover, represents 50 years of CO2 dumped into the air by humans. When looking at these numbers, do not confuse tonnes of carbon with tonnes of CO2, which is four times the amount.

Not quite that simple, of course, since humans emit 9 billion tonnes of CO2 each year (2.25 billion tonnes of carbon). But 2 billion goes into the sea, and the rest is taken up on land, with about half of that going into existing forests, according to NASA.

But increasing forest cover will substantially increase the amount of carbon sequestered.
This doesn't look like honest accounting. Forests release about as much carbon as they sequester. You continue to try to evade this fact. How do you account for the carbon released by decaying wood? For every ton of carbon being assimilated into the forests, another ton is released into the atmosphere. 10% more forests means 10% more carbon tied up AND 10% more carbon released into the atmosphere. Are you going to continue to ignore this fact?
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12060
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 25, 2018 12:38 am

Landrew

Why do you keep repeating the same fallacy?

The extra carbon is taken up by the EXPANSION in forest cover. Duh, and duh again. You either do not bother reading, or you are seriously defective in ability to understand.

We are talking of a 10% increase in natural forest cover. An EXTRA billion acres of forest. Each acre taking up 50 tonnes of carbon. Sheesh !

Bobbo.

If you only read the first sentence, you are doomed (doomed, I tell you!) to perpetual ignorance.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16254
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 25, 2018 12:55 am

Lance: "logic." Trees will not solve the problem. "Something else" will solve the problem........if anything. ERGO: SPEND YOUR TIME on that something else and NOT on that which you agree will not work.

((((Your answer reminds me of the Joke about Polish Accounting. Every sale is a loss and you expect to make it up by volume.)))) A bunch of can't work and won't get the job done solutions will NOT add up to success.

Why does the REALITY escape you? (I do know why the logic does....................)
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: 12060
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 25, 2018 1:28 am

Bobbo

Forests contain 50 tonnes per acre of carbon. That carbon is taken from the air. More new forest grown means more carbon taken from the air.

If you cannot follow that, there is something wrong with your ability to think.

I am not alone in my view. The FAO agrees.
www.fao.org/forestry/climatechange/53459/en/
With the statement "forests have the potential to absorb one tenth of carbon emissions over the first half of this century."

Also look at
http://www.iucn.org/resources/issues-br ... ate-change
With the statement "forests have the potential to contribute one third of the total climate change mitigation scientists say is required by 2030."

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16254
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 25, 2018 7:44 am

Its comical how you can do nothing but repeat yourself, as here, actually making the counterpoint to what you think your posts mean.

Eg: celebrating the effort it takes to temporarily and subject to recapture 10% of atmospheric co2 leaves you how much to go? Why are you hung up on 10% and giving insufficient if any concern to the 90%. Your focus is OFF by a magnitude of X NINE.

No insight at all..........................
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
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9055
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Tue Dec 25, 2018 5:20 pm

Magnitudinally challenged thinking. Some people look out the window and they imagine they can solve the problems of the world in their own back yard. I recommend going to Google Earth, and zooming out from your house, slowly enough so that you can digest the massive scale of the earth compared to your little neighborhood. Analogies don't always help, but try to imagine the difference between a grain of sand on the beach and the ocean beside it.

The environmental movement is roughly 50 years old, and almost since the beginning it's been plagued by hysterical and illogical thinking. Much has changed in 50 years, and many changes have been for the better environmentally, but it wasn't hysteria or wild exaggerations that got it done, it was mostly hard science and facts. We need more of that for the job ahead.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12060
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 25, 2018 6:21 pm

How about you guys learn to read, for Finagle sake ?

Although, when losing an argument, all you have left is repeated straw men. Please do NOT argue against things I never said.

Now what is so difficult about this ?
10% of the world's forests comes to a billion acres.
Each acre contains 50 tonnes of carbon, obtained by photosynthesis from the air.
Therefore an increase of 10% means 50 billion tonnes of carbon removed from the air.

Now seriously guys, why cannot you understand this very, very simple idea .

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 9K Posts
Posts: 9055
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: 100 Million Could Die From Climate Change By 2030

Post by landrew » Tue Dec 25, 2018 7:51 pm

Lance Kennedy wrote:
Tue Dec 25, 2018 6:21 pm
How about you guys learn to read, for Finagle sake ?

Although, when losing an argument, all you have left is repeated straw men. Please do NOT argue against things I never said.

Now what is so difficult about this ?
10% of the world's forests comes to a billion acres.
Each acre contains 50 tonnes of carbon, obtained by photosynthesis from the air.
Therefore an increase of 10% means 50 billion tonnes of carbon removed from the air.

Now seriously guys, why cannot you understand this very, very simple idea .
No straw men, just facts. Forests, bushes, grasslands, crops, weeds; it's all plants fixing carbon. Anywhere a plant can grow, it will grow and fix carbon. The only difference between a weed and a tree is that the tree will hold carbon longer, then release it. How about we allow plants like buckwheat or corn to grow, harvest the seeds, and then work the other 90-95% of the plant into the soil so that the carbon will be fixed in the form of organic matter which will improve the fertility of the soil? A forest takes 50 years to fix 50 tonnes of carbon per acre. Corn fixes 11 tones of carbon per year into the soil. This is much more practical than planting billions of trees. An increase of 10% in the amount of forests will cause a decrease of 10% of the amounts of plants on the land where the trees are planted. There is no net gain, no additional 50 billion tons of carbon fixed. It's simply not a very good idea.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
Lance Kennedy
Has No Life
Posts: 12060
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 25, 2018 8:53 pm

Landrew

A forest holds a lot more carbon than corn. Not only that, but corn is turned over annually. Very little goes into soil, because that would take a lot more effort and investment by the corn farmer. In theory, it may be possible to sequester 11 tonnes per annum, but in practical reality, it does not happen.

But a natural forest will grow itself. If you leave a few acres of marginal farming land to go barren, then in time it will become forest. No effort. No money. No fertilizer. Nothing. This is already happening throughout the developed world, since agriculture has become more productive, and there is no incentive to work your little heart out to try to return a harvest off poor land.

But a lot more could still be done. In particular, the tragedy is all the forest being felled in third world nations. This is a tragedy to wild life, to rainfall catchment and horrible flooding, to erosion abatement, and to climate change.

You and Bobbo are nuts in refusing to accept that new forest has a place in mitigating climate change. It is only one of many measures, but is an important measure, that should not be neglected.

bobbo_the_Pragmatist
Has No Life
Posts: 16254
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 25, 2018 9:57 pm

Lanced: Its comical how you can do nothing but repeat yourself, as here, actually making the counterpoint to what you think your posts mean.

Eg: celebrating the effort it takes to temporarily and subject to recapture 10% of atmospheric co2 leaves you how much to go? Why are you hung up on 10% and giving insufficient if any concern to the 90%. Your focus is OFF by a magnitude of X NINE.

No insight at all..........................
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: 12060
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 25, 2018 10:43 pm

Bobbo

The reason I suggest a 10% increase in forest cover is that it is relatively easy to achieve, and still significant. But even a 5% increase would be useful.

Nor am I talking about anything temporary. Currently, the land area of the world is roughly 30% covered in forest. Increase that to 33% and keep it covered in forest to help mitigate global warming. The increase to 33% should be permanent.

That is why I talk of natural forest rather than plantation forests. A plantation forest will sequester a lot more carbon, up to 200 tonnes per acre. But it is later felled, and a lot of that carbon will return to the air. A natural forest that is permanent, perhaps official wilderness area, will only hold 50 tonnes per acre, but it should not be felled.

Now let me fend off the obvious strawman reply. This is just one measure, and a lot more must also be done. But it is an important measure (for wild life, erosion control and flood control as well.)