Hi JF,
You might find this interesting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-XOkVbkmd4

We Can Solve Algae | Ashlee Balcerzak | TEDxToledo

Here it is in Adelaide, late Spring, October 24, and I'm huddled over a bloody oil heater. Global warming, yeah right.

Yes, I know, one swallow doesn't make a summer, we shouldn't confuse weather with climate.

Does anybody recall a rather tepid discussion some time ago about massive tree-planting across the North ? i.e. where our largest-volume rivers are ? i.e. not that far from a thousand Aboriginal communities, where people are crying out for work ?

Imagine if half of those settlements got involved, permanently, in tree-planting ? After all, most have running water, therefore ability to install irrigation systems ? They could plant a few million trees a year, and full-time jobs would be permanently available in building systems of small reservoirs, nurseries, workshops, eventually timber mills ? Even the Toyota rangers could do something useful driving water trucks.

How much CO2 would a few million trees suck out of the atmosphere every year ? Could it match the amount of CO2 being put into the atmosphere by increased coal consumption ? Is there a sort of 'balance' between one and the other ?

Just asking.

Joe

I'm not sure Joe, but as I said to ttbn earlier, whether CO2 existed as a problem or not, it doesn't make any kind of sense to be digging up coal, oil and gas just to burn it and we should stop doing that as soon as we can.

Once it did, but now we know that carbon in a highly reduced form is extremely valuable industrial input for all sorts of things and that those uses are likely to explode as smart people do more work on things like polymer chemistry, graphene and other stuff that no doubt exists which I don't know anything about.

The air was a bit on the chilly side of comfy up here in Godzone country as well. All the hot air is obviously being drawn to Canberra.

Hi Craig,

Have now seen the above link Ted+ lecture.

Some scientists are saying nitrogen is the problem.
From farming savvy I understand the algae problem is from the total nutrient load, all the combined nutrients that make up the total load.

That lecture and budding scientist fail to address city and town sewage nutrient dumped daily into waterways.

Really the problem is all the food we eat, and human instinct to not notice our own waste and where it goes and what the outcome is.
Add to that the politics of it all, for example with sewage and water rates already being used on other government business.

From my understanding the solutions include interest free capital for governments to develop productive business and employment generating infrastructure to manage whole of water ecosystems - including the world ocean.

A huge focus like that is going to require honest scientists to engage in debate about consequences of inaction compared to opportunities from action.
For example, viably producing biofuel and more affordable fertilizer and feed from algae. It's likely the oil people don't want more fuel.

It seems obvious to me to reduce or prevent the nutrient overload going into the water ecosystem in the first place.
Wipe dinner plate food scraps into the bin for landfill.
Develop modern bioreactors for modern water treatment.
Retrofit older treatment plants.

It can be done and it must be done.

But right at the moment nobody seems to know how many honest scientists there are and where they are and if those honest ones will ever speak up.

Hi Craig,

My point was that, if enough trees get planted, industries can use as much coal as they like, it's a win-win situation ?

Apart from the fact that, down the track, those trees are harvested for furniture, house-frames, etc., and more trees re-planted, which would provide more permanent jobs for Aboriginal people on their land. And of course, this might make a dint in the thirty billion annual Indigenous welfare budget :) Win-win-win !

It's not rocket science !

Cheers,

Joe

The 97% claim is a fraudulent and elitist appeal to authority. To start with, nearly all the “97%” are not doing, and never have done, research on the question of what drives climate variation. Canadian Journo Donna Laframboise (Google her) has painstakingly debunked this figure by referring to the lack of scientific expertise of most of those included by the IPCC as “climate scientists”. But even among the tiny remaining minority purporting to study drivers of climate variation, one must discount all those who pretend to study the topic by showing correlations between temperature and CO2 concentration – correlations based on a very small elapsed time. To grasp the changes over the past 125000 years (still only a blip in the grand scheme of things), have a look at the results of the O-18/deuterium isotope data unearthed (or uniced) at the Vostok station in Antarctica:
https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/paleobefore.html

These data, describing times almost exclusively prior to our species having the effrontery to build a scientific and industrial revolution which AGW cultists wish had never happened and ask us to reverse, show CO2 concentrations FOLLOWING temperature changes far greater than the two or three degrees a century that has them pushing real issues off the table and going on as if the sky is falling down.

The number of scientists actually studying the drivers of temperature variation (and therefore worth describing as “the science”) can be counted on the fingers of one hand. Names that come to mind include Nir Shivav of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Institute in Copenhagen.