When Seeking Success = Avoiding Failure (Was: As Wildfires Rage in U.S. West, Scientists Predict Worse Blazes in Future: Scientific American

On 6/17/12 10:23 AM, M Purcell wrote:


I don't see an alternative working. But that's just my opinion.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/17/12 1:59 PM, M Purcell wrote:

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.
1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? Rainwater is not sufficient for current agriculture and the aquifers they rely on are running dry throughout the Earth (1, 2).
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.
2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to be constantly producing artificial fertilizers from natural gas which will eventually start running out. By increasing the need for such fertilizer you will shorten the supply of natural gas creating competition between the heating of our homes and the growing of our food. This will drive the prices of both up.
3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.
4. The worse problem, by far, is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. However, soil conditions will not necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.
5. When plants do benefit from increased Carbon Dioxide, it is only in enclosed areas, strictly isolated from insects. However, when the growth of Soybeans is boosted out in the open, it creates major changes in its chemistry that makes it more vulnerable to insects, as the illustration below shows.
See: http://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On 6/17/12 4:10 PM, M Purcell wrote:

Agreed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Biochar will sequester carbon for hundreds of years.
Who is going to complain about GM biochar?
Bret Cahill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

True.
Who is going to pay for it?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Sure, blame it on internet protocols.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Broccoli, cauliflower, artichokes, capers, corn, peas, beans, kale, spinich, bok choy, tunips, lettuce, endive, garlic, onions, leeks, ginger, celery, rhubarb, asparagus, potatoes, carrots, yams, soybeans, parnsips, beets, tomatoes, cucumbers, squash, pumpkins, peppers, eggplan okra, avacados, dates, strawberries, lentils, peanuts, coffee, tea, watermelon, radishes, daikon, shallots, cabbage, and wood are not useful, ass hat?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
snipped-for-privacy@specsol.spam.sux.com wrote:

What?!!! No hops?
/BAH
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Humans are interfering with the self-balancing aspects of the environment which functioned for millions of years before the human zoo institutionalized nature.
Oxygen and fire - Why did oxygen remain at 21 per cent, and not rise higher? I think the answer is fire. The correlation between oxygen abundance and flammability is steep. Below 15 per cent, nothing will burn: above 26 per cent combustion is instant and awesome fires would rage, destroying all forests. Charcoal layers in the geological record show that oxygen has long been above 15 per cent, and remains of ancient forests show that it has not exceeded 25 per cent. But how could the oxygen-fire relationship in practice act as a Gaian regulatory mechanism? An answer could lie in the fire ecology of forests: certain species, the conifers and eucalypts, do include fire in their evolutionary strategy; others do not. As with the dark and light daisies in Daisyworld, the competition for space between the trees could provide a feedback control on oxygen and fire.
http://www.gaianvariations.com/learn/np114.htm
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We have more immediate problems.
Bret Cahill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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.)
--
http://www.skeptictank.org /
Vote Romney November 6th, enjoy your pink slip on November 9th.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

We'ld have problems w/o religion. Just look at the lemmings.
Bret Cahill
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Christian terrorism. Islamic terrorism. Religion is the world's worse problem bar none.
--
http://www.skeptictank.org /
Vote Romney November 6th, enjoy your pink slip on November 9th.
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Polytechforum.com is a website by engineers for engineers. It is not affiliated with any of manufacturers or vendors discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.