Plants, CO2 and temperature

[iceaura]

But it's utterly impossible to live carbon neutral.

It's not.

So can we conclude that the tree huggers arguement is, "We are all pending doom, but any chance of slowing it down a couple of hundred years?".

The tree hugger's observation - supported by a body of research as consistent and coherent and replicable in its findings as all but a couple of investigated matters - is that slowing AGW down by as much as we possibly can will significantly reduce the risk of collapsing human civilization and causing a major global extinction event requiring millions of years to recover. It will also reduce the hardship of dealing with the effects of AGW that fall short of destroying human civilization and most major ecological communities altogether.

It's like reducing the risk of a large asteroid impact, if the risk were being created by people building the large asteroid and launching it into a killing orbit in the first place (they needed jobs, see). The tree hugger goal right now is to get people to build only a smaller asteroid, launch it into a less dangerous orbit, and maybe as a last resort figure out how to deflect it or reduce its speed if it looks like it's getting too close.

An EV car will cut your travel co2 footprint by 25% to %50, but it still means you're producing co2.

For thousands of years humans managed to live without cars at all.
Lots of people still don't travel by car. Lots of people who do don't seem to need head snapping acceleration or eight cylinders of maximally inefficient internal combustion to get to the bar or visit the parents.

We know we can live, and live well, without cars - we've done it, and many still do. We don't know whether we can even survive in large numbers, let alone live well, with them. We're only a century or so into the experiment of living with them, and right now it's not looking too good.

 

[iceaura]

Apparently, mankind (or gender neutral kind to keep the freaks happy) produces 30 trillion tonnes per year. This is why tree huggers are concerned.

Nope.

Tree huggers (and informed tree haters, and tree value neutralists who have been paying attention) are concerned because the lower atmospheric concentration of CO2 is rising very rapidly, and that is almost certain to jack the planet's weather into new and difficult patterns. We depend on the old patterns for food, clothing, and shelter - as well as most people's enjoyment of life, especially as children. They have also discovered that the entire rise is an accumulation of the CO2 humans produce by burning fossil fuels and manufacturing cement using fossil carbon and so forth. This is something we are doing to ourselves.

That's good news. If it were due to subsurface oceanic volcanoes or something like that we'd be screwed - there'd be nothing we could do.

 

[billvon]

Did you know, the earth produces and absorbs 780 trillion tonnes of co2 per year, it's in equilibrium.

It was. Now it's not, because we are producing more CO2 than the planet can absorb. That's why CO2 concentrations are rising.

But it's utterly impossible to live carbon neutral.

Only for the ignorant. It's entirely possible to live carbon neutral. Keep in mind that you can absorb CO2 as well as emitting it. Right now there are financial benefits for emitting it and none for absorbing it. That's why we emit so much.

 

[Write4U]

Or do you "honestly" believe you are going to save the planet (in whatever form that is)?

No, the planet doesn't need saving. It has withstood much greater calamities than mankind. The planet is not going anywhere, we are!

Unless we want to save ourselves. The planet doesn't care one way or another. If we want to save ourselves, we better get off our fat asses and practice some restraint in our excesses.

 

[sculptor]

What's your response to exchemist's post #27, for example?

Rubbish

1/2 truths and assumptions (with attitude)

have I asked for input on these subjects
yes

I believe that more people should be asking these questions

.................................................................................................................
"a mind is like a parachute---it only works when it's open."

 

[Benson]

No, the planet doesn't need saving. It has withstood much greater calamities than mankind. The planet is not going anywhere, we are!

Unless we want to save ourselves. The planet doesn't care one way or another. If we want to save ourselves, we better get off our fat asses and practice some restraint in our excesses.

And that won't happen and it won't make a shred of difference.

 

[Benson]

It was. Now it's not, because we are producing more CO2 than the planet can absorb. That's why CO2 concentrations are rising.

Only for the ignorant. It's entirely possible to live carbon neutral. Keep in mind that you can absorb CO2 as well as emitting it. Right now there are financial benefits for emitting it and none for absorbing it. That's why we emit so much.

Go on then Einstein, please explain how you manufacture goods, transport yourself across the planet, heat or cool your home etc .. and be carbon neutral? I like to hear this wacko idea.

Are you gonna rivet everything together because as soon as use a welding torch......you got it, co2!

I think you're in cloud cuckoo land.

 

[Write4U]

And that won't happen and it won't make a shred of difference.

The Anthropocene (6th) extinction event is primarily man-made and can be undone by man if we are willing to sacrifice.

Therein lies the problem. There are those who believe that if everyone else dies, they will be left to run the world.
Several religious groups adhere to the belief in an apocalypse and salvation for the few select devout.

It is believed by many Christians that the biblical Book of Revelation depicts an "apocalypse", the complete destruction of the world, preceding the establishment of a new world and heaven.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocalypse

We are already beginning to see signs of this survivalist by force mindset, such as trying to destroy the democratic system of governance and capturing the government to serve a few groups of superior individuals.

This can be seen today in Afghanistan by the slaughter that is taking place as we speak.

 

[exchemist]

Rubbish

1/2 truths and assumptions (with attitude)

have I asked for input on these subjects
yes

I believe that more people should be asking these questions

.................................................................................................................
"a mind is like a parachute---it only works when it's open."

Well half-truth does seem to be a speciality of yours, on this topic.

You claimed it was "the current mantra of the climatologically illiterate" to attribute the abnormal weather in Brazil to man-made climate change, suggesting instead the solar activity cycle. But when I quoted a Reuters report, in which no fewer than 4 climatologists, all from different institutions, said this year's spate of extreme weather events are indeed due to made-made climate change, you changed tack and claimed you never suggested solar activity was responsible. And you refused to address the issue of whether you are claiming these climatologist are climatologically illiterate.

So yeah, half-truth just about sums you up. And that's being charitable.

 

[sculptor]

Well half-truth does seem to be a speciality of yours, on this topic.

You claimed it was "the current mantra of the climatologically illiterate" to attribute the abnormal weather in Brazil to man-made climate change, suggesting instead the solar activity cycle. But when I quoted a Reuters report, in which no fewer than 4 climatologists, all from different institutions, said this year's spate of extreme weather events are indeed due to made-made climate change, you changed tack and claimed you never suggested solar activity was responsible. And you refused to address the issue of whether you are claiming these climatologist are climatologically illiterate.

So yeah, half-truth just about sums you up. And that's being charitable.

The article you directed me to was written by a young woman whose education culminated in a masters in journalism.
If that doesn't make her a climatologist, maybe nothing will?

 

[Write4U]

This may be of interest.

Global Greenhouse Gas Emissions Data

Emissions and sinks related to changes in land use are not included in these estimates. However, changes in land use can be important: estimates indicate that net global greenhouse gas emissions from agriculture, forestry, and other land use were over 8 billion metric tons of CO2 equivalent,[2] or about 24% of total global greenhouse gas emissions.[3]

In areas such as the United States and Europe, changes in land use associated with human activities have the net effect of absorbing CO2, partially offsetting the emissions from deforestation in other regions.

https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data#

AFAIK, plants absorb the most CO2 during growth. That's why Hemp is such an ideal CO2 scrubber. It is one of the fastest growing plants and has many industrial non CO2 emitting uses.

 

[sculptor]

I'm making more biochar.
Still cleaning up after the derecho.
We made some biochar a couple years ago and rototilled it into one row
2 rows in the potato garden one with biochar one without
The plants in the biochar row were much more robust, greener, and seemingly healthier.
I'll know more when we dig the potatoes up next week............................................?

 

[Write4U]

I'm making more biochar.

Thanks for that little gem. Had never heard of the term.

New Approaches and Applications in Agriculture
EDITOR: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Fırat BARAN

Figure 3. Conversion process of biomass to bio-char (Tan et al., 2015)

Bio-char (BC) is a carbonated organic material produced from carbon (C) based raw material under oxygen-free conditions. Bio-char is produced to bind carbon to soil and to maintain and improve the physical, chemical and biologic characteristics of soil (Lehmann and Joseph, 2009; Brassard et al., 2019). Pyrolysis is defined as the action to thermally process raw materials under oxygen-free conditions and separate the chemical compounds of organic matters. Furthermore, pyrolysis occurs naturally in high temperatures between 300- 1000°C (Bruun et al., 2017).

The characteristics of bio-char depend on the materials used during production and the pyrolysis conditions. 313 Chemical compound of bio-char has a heterogeneous structure. Chemical compound of bio-char includes stable C, variable C and ash (Wijitkosum and Jiwnok, 2019). The C-holding levels of bio-chars produced in higher temperatures are higher than the bio-chars produced in lower temperatures (Novak et al., 2009).

Water holding capacity, content of volatile compound, ash content, pH, pore size, volume weight and specific surface area are the most important quality parameters of bio-char used in agricultural practises (Mu and Wang, 2019). 2.1.

The Effect of Bio-Char on Soil Characteristics Bio-char defines the effect/efficiency of the physical, chemical and biologic characteristics of soil on soil functions. Bio-char provides important data about the process and functions of soil characteristics. It also provides information on the scope of bio-char’s interaction level in soil and the time-changes inside the soil system to understand the improvement of soil and the contribution it makes to protect the soil from negative effects.

The important characteristic effect of bio-char on soil is the fact that it has high surface area and porosity level (Major et al., 2009). It is also a suitable adsorbent to hold nutrients and water molecules. This creates a good environment for the bio-char microorganisms to develop. It has an active duty that increases water and nutrient intake to plants so the plant and soil microorganisms can be fed.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653514015008

 

[sculptor]

Thanks for that little gem. Had never heard of the term.

New Approaches and Applications in Agriculture
EDITOR: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Mehmet Fırat BARAN

Figure 3. Conversion process of biomass to bio-char (Tan et al., 2015)
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0045653514015008

The first I read of this was as terra preta discovered by a german archaeologist Sombroek(?) along the reo negro river in the '60s. It seems to have been made between 7kyrs ago to about 1300. The anthropogenic soil these people made is still fertile 700 years after they stopped making it.
So, I was intrigued. (when you find the best------copy it?)
Their population circa 1300 seems to have been over 10 times the current level in the areas where they farmed and created this soil.

 

[billvon]

Go on then Einstein, please explain how you manufacture goods, transport yourself across the planet, heat or cool your home etc ..

Manufacture goods - most energy for manufacturing comes from electricity. That can easily be generated renewably.
Transport - sails for ocean voyages. EV's for personal transport. Trains for long distance.
Heat/cool your home - solar plus heat pump.

I like to hear this wacko idea.

Sorry you are unable to understand such simple concepts. You're like one of those people who explained over and over how cars could NEVER replace horses. It was impossible! It was a wacko, cloud cuckoo idea! Why, there weren't even any gas stations. Where are you going to get fuel, Einstein?

 

[billvon]

The article you directed me to was written by a young woman whose education culminated in a masters in journalism.

Yep. That's what journalists do. Write articles.

It referenced four studies by climatologists. You must have missed that part in your zeal to find some way to attack the article.

 

[Benson]

It's not.

The tree hugger's observation - supported by a body of research as consistent and coherent and replicable in its findings as all but a couple of investigated matters - is that slowing AGW down by as much as we possibly can will significantly reduce the risk of collapsing human civilization and causing a major global extinction event requiring millions of years to recover. It will also reduce the hardship of dealing with the effects of AGW that fall short of destroying human civilization and most major ecological communities altogether.

It's like reducing the risk of a large asteroid impact, if the risk were being created by people building the large asteroid and launching it into a killing orbit in the first place (they needed jobs, see). The tree hugger goal right now is to get people to build only a smaller asteroid, launch it into a less dangerous orbit, and maybe as a last resort figure out how to deflect it or reduce its speed if it looks like it's getting too close.
For thousands of years humans managed to live without cars at all.
Lots of people still don't travel by car. Lots of people who do don't seem to need head snapping acceleration or eight cylinders of maximally inefficient internal combustion to get to the bar or visit the parents.

We know we can live, and live well, without cars - we've done it, and many still do. We don't know whether we can even survive in large numbers, let alone live well, with them. We're only a century or so into the experiment of living with them, and right now it's not looking too good.

You cannot live carbon neutral, if you want a ship or car, the steel is welding and welding produces various greenhouse gases, as well as co2.

Transportation accounts for 30% of global emissions. Vehicles on the road account for 72% of this 30%. Buying an EV reduces the overall emissions of an ICE vehicle over it's lifespan by 25% to %50. So if everyone suddenly switch to EV's overnight, per year over the average lifespan of the car, mankind will reduce co2 emissions by 25% to 50% of the 72% of 30%. Global emissions are 70 billion tonnes per year.

So 30% of 70 billion, take 7

Manufacture goods - most energy for manufacturing comes from electricity. That can easily be generated renewably.
Transport - sails for ocean voyages. EV's for personal transport. Trains for long distance.
Heat/cool your home - solar plus heat pump.

Sorry you are unable to understand such simple concepts. You're like one of those people who explained over and over how cars could NEVER replace horses. It was impossible! It was a wacko, cloud cuckoo idea! Why, there weren't even any gas stations. Where are you going to get fuel, Einstein?

Oh good grief, you've gotta make the fucking equipment to produce the fucking electric. If your brains were TNT, you haven't got enough to blow your hat off.

Are you being utterly thick on purpose because surely no one is that naturally stupid.

 

[billvon]

You cannot live carbon neutral, if you want a ship or car, the steel is welding and welding produces various greenhouse gases, as well as co2.

And if you generate solar and send more back to the grid than you use, you REMOVE CO2 from the environment (by removing the need to generate that energy for other people via natural gas power plants.) As long as your pluses equal your minuses, you are carbon neutral.

I realize that's math, but ask a liberal to explain math to you.

transportation accounts for 30% of global emissions. Vehicles on the road account for 72% of this 30%. Buying an EV reduces the overall emissions of an ICE vehicle over it's lifespan by 25% to %50. So if everyone suddenly switch to EV's overnight, per year over the average lifespan of the car, mankind will reduce co2 emissions by 25% to 50% of the 72% of 30%.

Or you could install your own power system and reduce it very close to zero (and then bring it below zero by donating the rest of that energy back to the grid, as explained above.)

Oh good grief, you've gotta make the fucking equipment to produce the fucking electric.

Yep. And when you make solar panels, they produce more energy than they take to make after 3 years. So if you use one for (say) 20 years, you avoid far more CO2 than you produce.

Again, ask a liberal to explain this to you, because it requires an understanding of math.

 

[exchemist]

The article you directed me to was written by a young woman whose education culminated in a masters in journalism.
If that doesn't make her a climatologist, maybe nothing will?

How feeble. Young, eh? And a woman, too? Clearly not someone to trust, then, in your universe.

Look, you are not such a fool as to think this journalist was just writing up her own, non-expert, opinion. She was reporting expert opinion about what the IPCC report was likely to say, and citing the views of no fewer than four climatologists. And in fact, the prediction made in her article has been vindicated: their report says exactly what she said it would say.

Secondly, you are not such a fool as to be unaware that Reuters is the about the most reliable news source on the planet, respected for its accuracy and for having no agenda or political bias of its own. So it's pretty feeble if your only comeback is to try to denigrate a Reuter's journalist for being professionally trained as, er, a journalist.

And, Mr Half-Truth, in spite of your claim, now, to dismiss ad hominem the credentials of this Reuter's report, you took it seriously enough just a few days ago to reverse your position that the Brazil extreme weather could be due to the solar activity cycle, instead of man-made climate change.

You are all over the place. Your agenda is clear: to cast doubt in any way you can on the man-made climate change hypothesis. But you have absolutely zero by way of a coherent argument: just a series of ad hoc and mutually inconsistent bits and pieces of data, that you try to insinuate don't fit the hypothesis. But if anyone challenges them, you just drop them, or pretend you didn't insinuate anything after all, while hastily trying to cover them up with some new factoid. You are just like a creationist.

 

[Q-reeus]

...Yep. And when you make solar panels, they produce more energy than they take to make after 3 years. So if you use one for (say) 20 years, you avoid far more CO2 than you produce....

These days, recycling is becoming a must and that 3 years break even figure ignores the end of life issue that may require more energy and effort than the manufacturing part:
https://www.discovermagazine.com/environment/solar-panel-waste-the-dark-side-of-clean-energy
https://www.hazardouswasteexperts.com/solar-panels-wear-out-hazardous-waste/