lot to do with
Quite the opposite. There is no distinction whatsoever other than maybe the % isotope of carbon.
Bret Cahill
lot to do with
Quite the opposite. There is no distinction whatsoever other than maybe the % isotope of carbon.
Bret Cahill
The alternative that will work is, as I posted, more smog. Plants will have increased growth with increased CO2 but CO2 is released when the plants burn or decompose. And our use of fossil fuels is not sustainable.
No answer?
What is _your_ carbon footprint?
With $0.60 / watt PV fresh water is no longer an issue. Similar developments on carbon sequestration are guaranteed.
Bret Cahill
We have more immediate problems.
Bret Cahill
a lot to do with
for the future.
And of course you are oblivious to the amount.
Is there even any distinction (other than intent) between conventional farmers [unintentionally] altering the biosphere, i.e., chopping down rain forests, etc. and geoengineering [intentionally] altering the biosphere?
The scale is not even necessarily larger with geo engineering if you just want to tweak the climate by a miniscule amount. Nor does geo engineering hinge on the burning of fossil fuels either. It just happens to be the best escape from the current dire crisis.
So what is the distinction? Why is one activity bad while the other is A-OK?
Is it somehow preferable for humans to _not_ intentionally affect the environment? Why not "get back to nature" on health care, housing, and food production?
The only real distinction left between humans and animals is humans invent.
IP got us into this mess and IP will get us out.
Bret Cahill
Sure, blame it on internet protocols.
No answer?
Here, try again:
What's the difference between farming and geoengineering?
Why is it OK to unintentionally alter the climate but not to intentionally alter it?
Bret Cahill
More Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere is not necessarily good for plants.
An argument, made by those who deny man made Global Warming, is that the Carbon Dioxide that is being released by the burning of fossil fuels is actually good for the environment. Their argument is based on the logic that, if plants need CO2 for their growth, then more of it should be better. We should expect our crops to become more abundant and our flowers to grow taller and bloom brighter.
However, this "more is better" philosophy is not the way things work in the real world. There is an older, wiser saying that goes, "Too much of a good thing can be a bad thing." For example, if a doctor tells you to take one pill of a certain medicine, taking four is not likely to heal you four times faster or make you four times better. It's more likely to make you sick.
It is possible to help increase the growth of some plants with extra CO2, under controlled conditions, inside of greenhouses. It is based on this that 'skeptics' make their claims. However, such claims are simplistic. They fail to take into account that once you increase one substance that plants need, you automatically increase their requirements for other substances. It also fails to take into account that a warmer earth will have an increase in deserts and other arid lands which would reduce the are available for crops.
Plants cannot live on CO2 alone. They get their bulk from more solid substances like water and organic matter. This organic matter comes from decomposing plants and animals or from man made fertilizers. It is a simple task to increase water and fertilizer and protect against insects in an enclosed greenhouse but what about doing it in the open air, throughout the entire Earth?
What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general? The following points make it clear.
On the other hand, as predicted by Global Warming, we are receiving intense storms with increased rain throughout of the world. One would think that this should be good for agriculture. Unfortunately, when rain falls down very quickly, it does not have time to soak into the ground. Instead, it builds up above the soil then starts flowing to the lowest level. It then quickly floods into creeks, then rivers, and finally out into the ocean carrying off large amounts of soil and fertilizer.
See:
Agreed.
Just wanted to make sure you weren't ignoring the general temporary nature of carbon sequestration in plants, that extra growth we got here in California from a wet spring is now a fire danger. But grasses seem be be better for carbon seqestration in the soil, as long as the soil doesn't erode. And I heard of a type of grass that could store carbon in a more stable state. However even with genetic engineering, which has it's own problems, I believe it would only account for a fraction of our output which is increasing world wide.
Biochar will sequester carbon for hundreds of years.
Who is going to complain about GM biochar?
Bret Cahill
Denier reasoning is like "Gasoline is necessary for your car to run therefore pouring the gas onto the engine and igniting it is A-OK."
Or "water is necessary for life therefore you should inhale it."
Depends if you are farming above sea level. If the ocean floods your land then any extra growth from CO2 is moot.
Most libertarians think linear algebra is a Marxist plot.
Bret Cahill
True.
Who is going to pay for it?
Yes, all of them -- every single one of them -- caused by over population of humans which in turn is caused by religion. (Unless one is a Christian in which case the stork is responsible.)
We'ld have problems w/o religion. Just look at the lemmings.
Bret Cahill
Christian terrorism. Islamic terrorism. Religion is the world's worse problem bar none.
What?!!! No hops?
/BAH
PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.