61–70 of 88 posts
I find data presented in such a manner, without comment, quite a bit more compelling than much of what passes for debate these days.
A significant part of the debate is simply scientists going, "please, for the love of god, look at the data."
Cool graphic from NASA. The Earth has been around for 4 billion years. When we have 1 million year's worth of temperature measuring, we might then be able to comprehend the Earth's environment on a geologic scale as well as human impact, if any.
And maybe when you've been around on this Earth for 200 million years you'll understand how pissed off most lifeforms are that we are quickly eradicating the places where they live.
so here's a fun question: it's become quite trendy in policy circles in california to incentivize the removal of lawns and gardens as part of water conservation efforts. doesn't removal of fertile topsoil and replacement of it with rocks and cacti at scale actually reduce carbon sequestration and heat absorption capacity?
[EDIT: Below I have demonstrated a slow brain rot that has robbed me of my ability to do basic dimensional analysis. My lecturers are spinning in their graves, least of all because I forgot that the kilogram is between the gram and the tonne. Luckily I was off by 3 orders of magnitude in both directions so I guess it sort of balances out?] The heat absorption is a good point, I don't know what native foliage is like…
500 sqm X 85 g/yr is 42.5 kg/yr
Also, 190 gpd / 1000 gal = 0.19 kgal per day
0.004 tons per kgal per day x 0.19 x 365 days = .277 tons per year
Therefore 0.0425 tons sequestered, 0.277 tons produced by irrigation.
The ratio of carbon sequestered to carbon produced on irrigation is the same as your original calculations.
But I think the major source of carbon won't be in irrigation, but in the maintenance, mowing the lawn, transportation for the landscaper, transporting pesticides and fertilizers, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
[EDIT: Below I have demonstrated a slow brain rot that has robbed me of my ability to do basic dimensional analysis. My lecturers are spinning in their graves, least of all because I forgot that the kilogram is between the gram and the tonne. Luckily I was off by 3 orders of magnitude in both directions so I guess it sort of balances out?] The heat absorption is a good point, I don't know what native foliage is like…
> - The average Californian lawn is ~500 sqm [0] > - Grass sequesters ~ 85g of carbon per sqm per year, or 42 tonnes per year [1] 500 * 85g/m2 = 42500 g/m2 - that's 42.5 kg, not 42.5 tonnes. I haven't checked your original sources, but based on the numbers you provided you're off by 3 orders of magnitude. Intuitively this makes sense, I mean 42 tonnes is a huge amount of carbon to sequester in a lawn. Where would all…
It's misleading to imply that this is an exponential process, rather than an S-curve. If we look where all the oil came from, we could deduce that by burning it all we would be just going back to similar environment. I.e. the absolute worst thing that could happen is a tropical paradise.
The transition from today's world to tropical paradise would include mass extinctions and a lot of human suffering.
This visualisation is misleading because the visual area covered increases quadratically as the radius increases, and (less misleading) the velocity of the 'pen' increases linearly too. But it's measuring a difference (not an absolute quantity): so velocity and (especially) area are arbitrary. I could take the same graph and apply it to the period between 1890 and 1945 and it would seem just as concerning, with a dif…
Also, the fact that it uses anomalies isn't of much consequence, given that there is widespread understanding of "normal" temperatures, to which the anomalies can be compared - this is unlike many situations where readers might not have an understanding of usual absolute values, making the plotting of differences prone to being misleading. According to [0] the anomaly difference for 1890-1945 is 0.44 K, whereas for 1880-2021 it is 1.01 K, so presumably someone who was concerned by the former would be (approximately) doubly concerned by the latter.
[0] https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think so in any meaningful way. Also, removing and wasting the water to keep a lawn green heats the river that water was pulled from. Plus, mowing a lawn is usually done with some of the dirtiest engines out there. Removing lawns is always a net good.
sure, but don't we put lawns on roofs in cities to try and cool them down in the summer? i understand the notion of returning to existing vegetation, but these places are already irreversibly altered by the presence of humans anyway. buildings and parking lots and roads and sidewalks have been built. it's pretty striking when you see what little soil remains being replaced with rocks.
This visualisation is misleading because the visual area covered increases quadratically as the radius increases, and (less misleading) the velocity of the 'pen' increases linearly too. But it's measuring a difference (not an absolute quantity): so velocity and (especially) area are arbitrary. I could take the same graph and apply it to the period between 1890 and 1945 and it would seem just as concerning, with a dif…
It could be misleading the other way too, if the starting radius was extremely large and the increments very small, then it could be made to look like no big deal. But that's the thing with temperature. We rarely start graphs at absolute zero (-273C), so what's your point again?
Like maybe plot temperature changes vs CO2 over time on a linear scale, and compare with changes that led to previous ice ages on that same scale. Or something of this vein.
This visualisation is misleading because the visual area covered increases quadratically as the radius increases, and (less misleading) the velocity of the 'pen' increases linearly too. But it's measuring a difference (not an absolute quantity): so velocity and (especially) area are arbitrary. I could take the same graph and apply it to the period between 1890 and 1945 and it would seem just as concerning, with a dif…
In what way are you trying to interpret the area, or indeed the velocity (indeed the angular velocity is constant)? As I understand it, the intent of the visualisation is simply to make clear the temperature (anomaly) trend, which is encoded in the radius - that is all you need to consider to understand what is being shown. Also, the fact that it uses anomalies isn't of much consequence, given that there is widesprea…
It's encoded in the radius, but the area is visually more impactful - to me anyway - until the end when it's shown from the side, which was good.
The point about comparing up to 1945 is that since the scale is arbitrary I can have it end at the same radius.
It's misleading to imply that this is an exponential process, rather than an S-curve. If we look where all the oil came from, we could deduce that by burning it all we would be just going back to similar environment. I.e. the absolute worst thing that could happen is a tropical paradise.
A "tropical paradise" at the poles, with uninhabitable equatorial regions, and untold disruption to human civilization as we know it. The transition to that global configuration is unlikely to look paradisal.