Page 144 of 145 FirstFirst ... 4494134139140141142143144145 LastLast
Results 2,861 to 2,880 of 2881

Thread: Lectro was RIGHT--post1626--(climate related)

  1. #2861
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    67,017
    If you can't tell the bottom is sarcasm, it's on you.

    BTW, one of the reasons there are so many trees is for tree plantations not for uses like this.

    The reality is the paper said without cutting emissions, it's not going to have any effect.

  2. #2862
    Steve Lepore
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Greensboro,NC
    Posts
    1,161
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    A TRILLION trees...that's a BILLION trees per year for 1000 years.

    Currently, there are THREE trillion trees on the Earth. Where would the land come from to add 1/3 for this to happen?

    By the way you and others have dishonestly forgotten to include the following:

    "The study in the journal Science, first reported by The Associated Press, found that planting trees could be the most effective way to remove carbon from the atmosphere, but cautioned that it would have little effect without a reduction of emissions around the globe."
    RJ,
    Part of the study was a global evaluation of areas that could add trees to, authors have mapped the earth and you can view mapping on their site by tomorrow from their own reports, I believe the authors said the number of trees would only need 1/3 of the usable land. The usable land does not include any current agricultural areas nor inhabited areas, as someone who cares deeply about the climate problem I feel like this is worth exploring.

  3. #2863
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    67,017
    You are still missing the key point- emissions would have to be cut.

    By the way if you added 100 million trees per day on that land it would still take 10,000 days to plant 1 trillion trees. By the way, where is the water going to come from to feed these trees?

  4. #2864
    Robert O'Kelley
    ConnorEl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem
    Posts
    7,262
    Melting glaciers.



    Anyhow, trees will plant themselves (they're funny that way).

    But have at the planting, fine with me.

    Just quit destroying the forests.
    I love mankind...itís people I canít stand!!

  5. #2865
    Steve Lepore
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Greensboro,NC
    Posts
    1,161
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    You are still missing the key point- emissions would have to be cut.

    By the way if you added 100 million trees per day on that land it would still take 10,000 days to plant 1 trillion trees. By the way, where is the water going to come from to feed these trees?
    No RJ, I am not missing the point, the authors state unequivocally that emissions need to be cut and I fully believe that. This is a long term solution even though they do acknowledge that the greatest uptake occur in the initial stages of the program as CO2 uptake is greatest during periods of early growth. All technologies need to be used. This is just a low tech aid to our CO2 problem that can offer great long term results.

  6. #2866
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    67,017
    Or we can get rid of fossil fuels over the next 20-30 years by the time the trees would have any real impact.

  7. #2867
    Scott "Rufio" Feather
    WFcatamount22's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    5,645
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Or we can get rid of fossil fuels over the next 20-30 years by the time the trees would have any real impact.
    Why are you against planting trees?

  8. #2868

  9. #2869
    Robert O'Kelley
    ConnorEl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem
    Posts
    7,262
    Good grief.



    But thatís just weather.



    OTOH


    I love mankind...itís people I canít stand!!

  10. #2870
    Robert O'Kelley
    ConnorEl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem
    Posts
    7,262
    Or...

    I love mankind...itís people I canít stand!!

  11. #2871
    Steve Lepore
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Greensboro,NC
    Posts
    1,161
    Quote Originally Posted by RJKarl View Post
    Or we can get rid of fossil fuels over the next 20-30 years by the time the trees would have any real impact.
    We could but that would do nothing to reduce the level of CO2 currently in the atmosphere, this level needs to come down to reduce our impact on the environment, as I understand the current level is 400 ppm which is double the level from the 1970ís and going up exponentially, hence tree planting is the cheapest current way to effect the load in the atmosphere.

  12. #2872
    Quote Originally Posted by ConnorEl View Post
    Or...

    This is a really interesting figure that highlights the challenges of time series temperature data. If you decided to start your time series in the late 70s or late 90s and run the analysis up to last year, you might conclude that there was a neutral or even negative trend...but carry the analysis all the way back to the 1930s and it is obviously increasing. Time series analyses are tricky and you should always use all of the available data.
    Birds are real.

  13. #2873
    Jesus this thread is a fucking mess of disinformation and shitty takes

  14. #2874

  15. #2875
    Quote Originally Posted by JuiceCrewAllStar View Post
    Very concerning numbers, and the way July has been going I don't expect next month's report to get much better.

  16. #2876
    Meanwhile, out in Trump country, federal taxpayers are subsidizing the crop losses of a bunch of Trump voters who don't believe in climate change, even when it destroys their farms. $8 billion a year and rising. https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt...uts-to-farmers

  17. #2877
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    40,643
    definitely not socialism

  18. #2878
    Robert O'Kelley
    ConnorEl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem
    Posts
    7,262
    Climate change: Current warming 'unparalleled' in 2,000 years


    The speed and extent of current global warming exceeds any similar event in the past 2,000 years, researchers say.
    They show that famous historic events like the "Little Ice Age" don't compare with the scale of warming seen over the last century.

    The research suggests that the current warming rate is higher than any observed previously.

    The scientists say it shows many of the arguments used by climate sceptics are no longer valid...


    ...Today's warming, by contrast, impacts the vast majority of the world.
    "We find that the warmest period of the past two millennia occurred during the 20th Century for more than 98% of the globe," one of the papers states.
    "This provides strong evidence that anthropogenic (human induced) global warming is not only unparalleled in terms of absolute temperatures but also unprecedented in spatial consistency within the context of the past 2,000 years."...


    ..."They have done this across the globe with more than 700 records over the past 2,000 years; they have corals and lakes and also instrumental data," said Prof Daniela Schmidt from the University of Bristol, UK, who was not involved with the studies.

    "And they have been very careful in assessing the data and the inherent bias that any data has, so the quality of this data and the coverage of this data is the real major advance here; it is amazing."

    Many experts say that this new work debunks many of the claims made by climate sceptics in recent decades.

    "This paper should finally stop climate change deniers claiming that the recent observed coherent global warming is part of a natural climate cycle," said Prof Mark Maslin, from University College London, UK, who wasn't part of the studies.

    "This paper shows the truly stark difference between regional and localised changes in climate of the past and the truly global effect of anthropogenic greenhouse emissions."...
    I love mankind...itís people I canít stand!!

  19. #2879
    Robert O'Kelley
    ConnorEl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Winston-Salem
    Posts
    7,262
    I love mankind...itís people I canít stand!!

  20. #2880
    Despite everyone complaining about China not doing anything, they are actually turning their entire economy around, have said they will increase the ambition of their climate pledge, and a new study shows they could peak their emissions between 2021 and 2025: https://www.carbonbrief.org/chinas-e...climate-pledge

    The government has recommended a peak year of 2025 for their next 5-year plan, which is 5 years earlier than their initial commitment in 2014.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •