http://eh2r.blogspot.com.au/2017/09/the-very-good-work-of-mits-professor.html

This blog purports that Hurricanes may indeed become an increasing insurance concern.

What happens to the Western World when it gets officially blamed by it's own market forces for purposely endangering the lives of the third world?

(Further, was Osama Bin Laden interested in Climate Change?)

When the Obama ben Laden warming warning of Africa terror cells across the Atlantic ripped into West Texas crude the markets closed at $47.48 . Florida gas stations are closed for the night due to forces of Irma, IS and Saudi Finance Minister: “I Wouldn't Care If The Oil Price Is Zero .

Quote "I Wouldn't Care If The Oil Price Is Zero"

Problem is that the cost at the pumps bears very little relation to the price per barrel.

The cost per barrel almost halved but the price at the pump virtually stayed the same, very little movement downwards.

Rigged market or what?

The planes had little downward movement when they went up.
The 767 Freighter carries up to 23,980 gallons (90,770 l) of fuel – enough to fill 1,200 minivans. It takes only 28 minutes to fill the airplane. It took only 9-11 minutes to empty.

All plant-life needs CO2. It always has, and always will. Without CO2, nothing grows and we would quickly starve to death. So the earth has always had an 'acceptable' level of CO2 which has been absorbed by plant-life, trees, crops, your back garden.

Is man-made production of CO2 always above that level ? Or is some of it absorbed by plant-life, and in fact produced MORE plant-life ? Remember when global warming was called 'the green-house effect' ? Why was that ?

So what level of world-wide fossil-fuel production is quite acceptable (wash my mouth out !) ? If governments planted large areas of forests, orchards, etc., that would kick up the actual need for MORE CO2. Can increased fossil-fuel use make up that deficit ?

Joe

No.
Antarctica is green and Greenland has summer fires. Raising the temperature by 4 degrees may just keep up with demand if Myanmar can be burnt out.

Loudmouth, of course there is a level of man-made CO2 that is acceptable to life continuing... no one is arguing there isn't!

But to say industrialisation is a good thing because CO2 makes plants grow is an oversimplification because CO2 is not the only limiting factor to plant growth.

Nothing grows exponentially and that includes plant growth with respect to CO2: it's the heart of what makes a complex system and you have somehow decided plant growth versus CO2 is a simple relationship!!

Wow- very interesting <rolls eyes>

Wow

Sorry, Embarrassment, I've read my previous post over and over and I can't see any suggestion that industrialisation was necessarily a good thing.

My point was simply (sorry if it's still too complicated) that, since the plant-life of the Earth absorbs a certain level of CO2 naturally, what level of CO2 produced by human economic activity might push that level to a sort of tipping-point, just too much for all that plant-life to absorb ?

Of course, one problem in any such calculation is that, the more CO2 is produced, the more is utilised by plant-life to stimulate more growth, (hence the old-fashioned and politically-abandoned term, 'green-house effect') so any target output level is a sort of moving point.

Obviously, we strictly shouldn't be aiming for that point but for something a bit less, to give the Earth a breather, so to speak.

Equally obviously, since it will take some time for our technologies to develop to that point, fossil fuels which produce the least CO2 should be exploited, gas for instance over oil and coal, oil over coal, and black coal over brown coal.

Ideally, one day, renewable energy infrastructure, solar panels and arrays, and wind towers, will be built using renewable energy only.

Joe

Joe, if you believe that nonsense then Venus must be a very green planet indeed.

"Unless humans slow the destruction of Earth's declining supply of plant life, civilization like it is now may become completely unsustainable."
"Scientists estimate that the Earth contained approximately 1,000 billion tons of carbon in living biomass 2,000 years ago. Since that time, humans have reduced that amount by almost half. It is estimated that just over 10 percent of that biomass was destroyed in just the last century."
""You can think of the Earth like a battery that has been charged very slowly over billions of years," said the study's lead author, John Schramski, an associate professor in UGA's College of Engineering. "The sun's energy is stored in plants and fossil fuels, but humans are draining energy much faster than it can be replenished."
"Studies show that the vast majority of losses come from deforestation, hastened by the advent of large-scale mechanized farming and the need to feed a rapidly growing population. As more biomass is destroyed, the planet has less stored energy, which it needs to maintain Earth's complex food webs and biogeochemical balances."

From; Human Domination of the Biosphere Schramski JR, Gattie DK, Brown JH, as published by University of Georgia. in "Continued destruction of Earth's plant life places humans in jeopardy." ScienceDaily, 14 July 2015. In response to Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

A note from lead author John Schramski "I'm not an ardent environmentalist; my training and my scientific work are rooted in thermodynamics. These laws are absolute and incontrovertible; we have a limited amount of biomass energy available on the planet, and once it's exhausted, there is absolutely nothing to replace it."

Dear Paul,

An excellent argument for conservation by Prof. Schramski, thanks!

What a pity that this important issue is being mired by the AGW nonsense. There is no problem with CO2 in the air - the problem is that carbon levels are significantly lower in the earth's biomass and this carbon is unfairly denied from the more-intelligent species that will succeed the human race.

//My point was simply (sorry if it's still too complicated) that, since the plant-life of the Earth absorbs a certain level of CO2 naturally, what level of CO2 produced by human economic activity might push that level to a sort of tipping-point, just too much for all that plant-life to absorb ?//

Doesn't work like that, Joe. Over the course of their entire existence plants aren't carbon sinks; they're carbon neutral. They're only effective carbon sinks while they're growing. Once they stop they're essentially carbon neutral. And when they die, what do you think happens to all that carbon they absorbed during their lifetime? It goes straight back into the environment, and your plant becomes a carbon source. Without an effective way to sequester the carbon plants absorb when growing, planting more trees isn't much of a solution.

And if we're deforesting faster than we're reforesting, it's even less of a solution.

That being said, there are lots of other good reasons to plant trees. For one thing, they're just nice. Who wants to live in a desert?

//There is no problem with CO2 in the air//

I conducted a seance, yuyutsu. The 1746 Cameroonians who asphyxiated in the Lake Nyos event all think you talk shite, and there's a hell of a lot of coalminers voicing their furious agreement.

There's also it's pesky habit of absorbing IR radiation and heating the place up, with resulting damage that causes to ecosystems. But who cares about them?

Hi Paul & Toni,

Sorry if it's too complicated: I was asking (and of course I'm dimly aware that the whole calculation would be immensely complicated) how much CO2 does the plant life across the Earth absorb each year, is there or is there not an acceptable level of man-made CO2 production within the capacity of the Earth's plant-life to cope with ? What might be the effects of extra atmospheric CO2 on stimulating plant-life ?

OF COURSE, there is a limit [case study: Venus], that's my point: what is it ? Yes, I know it's very complicated. Yes, I know plants absorb CO2 only while they are growing, so clearly, any tree-planting - as at present - would take into account the growing life of trees, with a view to using that timber once the trees are mature, and constant re-planting. Hence, in my view, furniture timber species, etc. should be favoured. Such trees shouldn't be allowed to 'die' and just rot, Toni, how dumb would that be ?

There are all sorts of ways to put carbon back into the soil rather than let trees 'die', or burn them. And after all, the more carbon there is in the soil, the healthier and more rapid plant growth is.

If handled right, carbon is not the enemy, CO2 is not the enemy. So how much is an acceptable level of production, since one way or another, we will always be producing CO2, as life on Earth has done for a billion years.

Any more red herrings or false dilemmas or misrepresentations ? Bring them on :)

Joe

gw religion! And to think these dunces critize Christianity. How dumbed down can one become.

How To Use CO2 When Growing Marijuana
At some point in your marijuana growing career, you will have a desire to incorporate CO2 into your recipe. Chances are, that is why you are reading this article. I have grown marijuana for a long time, and I know first hand that there is a lot of junk information out there on the web in regards to marijuana plants and CO2. Below is some great information that I found on some of our partner sites that I wish I had when I first started growing marijuana:

Bottled CO2 can be obtained at most hydroponic or welding stores. You need a regulator/flow meter to get the CO2 out of the bottle in a measured manner.. A few calculations will be needed to set your CO2 levels correctly. You can also use a CO2 PPM controller to maintain your levels.

used with permission from Culture Magazine

DR. WHO is a Southern California expert in plant cultivation. Reach him atdrwho@freeculturemag.com.

Kim Jong-Un Marijauana Supplies will increase CO2 by burning San Francisco.

Hi Nick,

Or just ask your local green-house vegetable-grower.

Joe

Legislation to enable the cultivation of cannabis was passed by Parliament on 29 February 2016. A detailed regulatory framework has been put in place to enable applications for licences and permits for the cultivation, production and manufacture of cannabis products. Domestic cultivation of cannabis will enable sufficient quantities of raw materials to be available to meet the needs of local manufacturers. This will include Liddell power station, STRUCTAflor particle board , Pine Gap Joint Defence Facility near Alice Springs managed by the US National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), Magpie Dog Food with Herbs and Kalgoorlie Rain Forests .

Hi Paul & Toni,

Silence was the stern reply.

As Rahm Emmanuel, mayor of Chicago, said once: "Every crisis is an opportunity." It seems that global warming has been the cause of increased rainfall across northern Australia. Hence, far more possibilities for tree-planting, especially by unemployed people in remote Aboriginal communities from one side of Australia to the other, for ever.

And of course, with more rainfall, the spread of greenhouse production can spread south across our tropics and sub-tropics, into hitherto unproductive areas. Perhaps people don't realise that a huge proportion of our zucchinis, pumpkins, tomatoes, etc., etc., are already grown in greenhouses and sub-tropical areas in the north. So even more unemployed Aboriginal people could be employed for the rest of their lives right across Australia, if they wished, thanks to global warming.

What do you reckon ?

Joe

Well, Joe, you would be right in that there would be some level where the plants thrive: but not all plants are the same so it's just an evolutionary thing where some survive and some don't.

Also, CO2 is not the only limiting factor to plant growth but you seem to acknowledge that now.

Nick was talking about using co2 for tomatoe plants and I imagine you couldn't just turn it up to 11 and walk away without supplying extra food and water.

As for alleged red herrings you just seem sore you didn't state your initial case in better fashion.

Cupric,

Well, duh ! Of course. Three times, of course, for each of your points. Why go to extremes in order to try to prove a point ?

Massive infrastructure would be required, but eventually for massive returns, and probably forever. The sticking point in my Grand Schemes would be to persuade Aboriginal people to work on them. But the possibility will always be there.

Joe

//As Rahm Emmanuel, mayor of Chicago, said once: "Every crisis is an opportunity." It seems that global warming has been the cause of increased rainfall across northern Australia. Hence, far more possibilities for tree-planting, especially by unemployed people in remote Aboriginal communities from one side of Australia to the other, for ever.//

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY-P3D63Z18

Can't hurt to try. Still, I have my doubts that it will be a particularly effective solution to climate change.

Toni,

Of course not, it wouldn't be a 'solution', but it can't hurt to try to find ways to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, while our economies are elsewhere adding to it. We'll always need furniture timber, and vegetables, so why not make use of environmental changes, at the same time as we try to reduce CO2 emissions ?

Alternatively of course, we could stay sitting on our quoits and lament the evils of capitalism. Your choice :)

Joe

The professor linked to at the beginning of this thread predicted that hurricanes would become MORE frequent and MORE powerful.

He was remarkably accurate so long as we ignore the fact that they aren't becoming more frequent and that they aren't becoming more powerful. </sarc off>

UK Forestry Commission believes that planting trees will help reduce climate change and says how,

http://www.forestry.gov.uk/forestry/infd-869ga8

So does Tony Abbott, but seeing as he doesn't even believe in Climate Change then maybe he just really likes trees.

Maybe they are a way to train bike riding without getting too far away from Parliament? It must take time getting out of the lycra and so forth...