81–90 of 214 posts
Launch solar shade! @ Sea levels drop.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Doesn't methane break down in the atmosphere fairly rapidly? From what I'm reading, methane lasts about 12 years while CO2 can stay in the atmosphere for potentially thousands. Unless we choke to death on methane isn't this less of an issue than CO2 buildup?
Methane is a very potent greenhouse gas, and the release would be absolutely huge. The momentary spike would well cause a lot of CO2 to be released.
Arctic ice has 1400Gt of carbon locked up as methane. [1] This is equivalent to 1400/10 = 140 years of human 2016 activity. [2]. Methane also has a stronger effect than CO2. If ice starts to melt, we are doomed. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_emissions#Contr... [2]: https://www.co2.earth/global-co2-emissions
Can someone PLEASE tell me why there haven't been more efforts underway to have commnities around the world plant more trees and engage in planned reforestation? This is as close as you can get to a globally available mechanism for pulling carbon dioxide out of the air (and methane can burn leaving carbon dioxide). I mean this very seriously. Richard Branson is looking to fund ways to pull Carbon out if the atmospher…
Couldn't agree more. Here in the UK we have a lower percentage of forested land than many other European countries and I much prefer forest to the barren green fields which we have in many places. Sadly I think lots of my countrymen think of green fields being the default state of rural UK and don't realise it's the legacy of deforestation by stone age man.. I can only imagine what the UK must have been like prior to…
Can someone PLEASE tell me why there haven't been more efforts underway to have commnities around the world plant more trees and engage in planned reforestation? This is as close as you can get to a globally available mechanism for pulling carbon dioxide out of the air (and methane can burn leaving carbon dioxide). I mean this very seriously. Richard Branson is looking to fund ways to pull Carbon out if the atmospher…
There is a lot of land that cannot support a forest though.
Where we really go wrong is not lighting forest fires every year. As a result dead trees build up until the slightest spark (lightening) results in a hot fire that burns up everything in a massive fire that cannot be controlled. All the carbon turns back into CO2. If instead we lit a fire every year the smaller cooler fire would result in a lot of carbon that isn't turned into CO2 and just sits on the ground. The result is sequestered carbon in the form of charcoal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I came to that realization after taking an environmental education class where they " left out the feedback loops". I disagree with your sentiment that they had to leave things like this out of the model. If it was left out it was probably not well understood. Its pretty easy to see that any form of mitigation is irrelevant until it becomes a real problem because getting large groups to agree on things isn't a scient…
One of the major flaws of this species is that we don't do anything inconvenient, that requires global agreement, until it becomes literally an existential threat. And even then we may dither, and there will be special interests that will keep spreading out misinformation about it, etc. Seriously, the "sapiens" part in the name of our species is a bit of an exaggeration.
I wouldn't be surprised if such feedback loops have been excluded from the models of climate change because they paint a picture so dire that no amount of mitigation (if there were any serious attempts at mitigation going on) could save our way of life. "Sooner and worse than expected" is a phrase I expect to hear with increasing frequency.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
One of the major flaws of this species is that we don't do anything inconvenient, that requires global agreement, until it becomes literally an existential threat. And even then we may dither, and there will be special interests that will keep spreading out misinformation about it, etc. Seriously, the "sapiens" part in the name of our species is a bit of an exaggeration.
This isn't a flaw in the species. It's a consequence of game theory and evolution and would likely be found in any species that was a product of evolution.
and we can't even get people to agree that there's a problem. and we have no leadership to guide our response. and we can't winnow our way out of this alone. what now?
The answer to "what now" is start a company that is in the business of carbon sequestration or climate affect mitigation and become a leader. It's obvious!