• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

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

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.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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.
 
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.
 
Or we can get rid of fossil fuels over the next 20-30 years by the time the trees would have any real impact.
 
Good grief.



But that’s just weather.



OTOH


Annual_AK.png
 
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 1970’s and going up exponentially, hence tree planting is the cheapest current way to effect the load in the atmosphere.
 

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.
 
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."...
 
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-emissions-could-peak-10-years-earlier-than-paris-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.
 
Back
Top