[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I think Andy has expressed a similar viewpoint to mine in the past actually--the idea that global warming will exacerbate existing preoblems adn inequalities as opposed to it being a thing itself.

That's not what I'm seeing here, and not what you appeared to be encouraging.

Very well, prove me wrong. Explain to Andy how it is possible that much higher levels of CO2 than anything man could cause have come and gone in the past.

Give him the secret knowledge that there is much debate on how much the contribution of man is. I've seen estimates of 2% (I showed them to you). Andy posted one for 30%. He appears to believe now that that is the truth straight from God, because he saw it on SkepticScience.com, or something.

Make it clear to him that yes there is an addition, but we don't actually know what the exact value is. Estimates range from very large to very tiny.

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Yes, but there are other paths first. The best one I've heard of is; rather than chopping down the forests to ship the wood to china to build things, teach the locals to build the things instead. Keep the vast hardwood forests where they are, selectively log the best timber and let the rest age and give homes to the local animals.

How are the locals to Brazil going to build wooden homes in China?

Or are you thinking of wooden goods? Well the answer to that is capital investment in machinery, expertise in production, cost of labor and cost of energy.

If the local's can't beat China even with the savings in shipping costs then they aren't able or ready to compete.

Selective logging is a mixed issue, for ground with steep hills it's desirable but the massive majority of hills are not steep enough to prevent the next year's growth from keeping the soil in place. Clear cutting in patch work patterns creates effective clearings and diversity in plant life that attract animals.

I'm not an expert on tropical rainforests but in BC very large areas km^2 or more at a time can be cut and they will attract wild life as soon as plants start growing in size.

Hunting by sitting at the top of clear cut looking down a hill has served me well for years.

So long as the rainforests are replanted or allowed to return to trees rather than just being used for cattle grazing you have a way to extract CO2 from the air and trap it in long lived useful wood products.

Trees grow faster than lumber decays, so we can trap CO2 in lumber as an above ground useful carbon capture system. I'm sure the government of Brazil has a good idea how to log their forests in a sustainable manner, even if they don't use those methods in large scale.

[N_Fiddledog]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I claimed no such thing. I recalled that post, and stated my recollections from it. You responded to my post back in March, so you did have knowledge of it, yet you claimed earlier in this thread that claims of such studies could not be challenged! You yourself claimed it was inarguable, not me.

Caught with your pants down by the "lunatic", again. I think this will be a very good year.

This is how it began here. You retreated to superior arguments from Xort by going grammar Nazi on him.

Somebody supported you. You replied.

$1:

If all he can do is attempt to ridicule me, which I realize is all he has left, at the very least proper grammar would show some small effort on his part.

Now at that point I see an arrogant, braggart's claim of fact that I know does not exist. And your claim now appears to be you've disproved that by offering up more arrogance and braggadocio.

My claim remains the same for both threads. There is no inarguable proof of overall negative consequences in CO2 assisted plant growth. There are only claims that in certain cases there can be results which might be considered negative. As to the Permian extinction, get real. Nobody know what caused that.

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

That's not what I'm seeing here, and not what you appeared to be encouraging.

Very well, prove me wrong. Explain to Andy how it is possible that much higher levels of CO2 than anything man could cause have come and gone in the past.

Give him the secret knowledge that there is much debate on how much the contribution of man is. I've seen estimates of 2% (I showed them to you). Andy posted one for 30%. He appears to believe now that that is the truth straight from God, because he saw it on SkepticScience.com, or something.

Make it clear to him that yes there is an addition, but we don't actually know what the exact value is. Estimates range from very large to very tiny.

The emissions of CO2 in 2013 are estimated at 36 Gt. It takes 7.7 Gt CO2 to raise the CO2 level in the atmosphere 1 ppm. The levels are currently increasing at around 1.5 to 2 ppm/year.

[N_Fiddledog]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

That's not what I'm seeing here, and not what you appeared to be encouraging.

Very well, prove me wrong. Explain to Andy how it is possible that much higher levels of CO2 than anything man could cause have come and gone in the past.

Give him the secret knowledge that there is much debate on how much the contribution of man is. I've seen estimates of 2% (I showed them to you). Andy posted one for 30%. He appears to believe now that that is the truth straight from God, because he saw it on SkepticScience.com, or something.

Make it clear to him that yes there is an addition, but we don't actually know what the exact value is. Estimates range from very large to very tiny.

The emissions of CO2 in 2013 are estimated at 36 Gt. It takes 7.7 Gt CO2 to raise the CO2 level in the atmosphere 1 ppm. The levels are currently increasing at around 1.5 to 2 ppm/year.

And why is the math I showed you once before incorrect, while this is indisputable? (If you keep your PMs, check for one from me). There's no way of knowing any of that is absolute. There are feedbacks. Hey is that the IPCC, or is that the one from RealScience?

[Zipperfish]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

And why is the math I showed you once before incorrect, while this is indisputable? (If you keep your PMs, check for one from me). There's no way of knowing any of that is absolute. There are feedbacks. Hey is that the IPCC, or is that the one from RealScience?

I don't keep my PMs, sorry. Feel free to repost.

I didn't say these numbers were indisputable. There is no way of knowing anything absolutely. There are feedbacks, but who knows what they are. Clearly not all the CO2 we emit ends up accumulating in the atmosphere or the concentration would be increasing even faster than it is now.

The numbers I derived myself, except the estimate of emissions which I pulled off of Google.

[Jabberwalker]

All of this hot CO2 being generated on here ...

[DrCaleb]

Xort Xort:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Yes, but there are other paths first. The best one I've heard of is; rather than chopping down the forests to ship the wood to china to build things, teach the locals to build the things instead. Keep the vast hardwood forests where they are, selectively log the best timber and let the rest age and give homes to the local animals.

How are the locals to Brazil going to build wooden homes in China?

Or are you thinking of wooden goods?

Hardwoods make beautiful furniture, but are not usually used in home construction. China gets most of their softwoods from Russia and it's vast (but slow growing) forests.

Xort Xort:

So long as the rainforests are replanted or allowed to return to trees rather than just being used for cattle grazing you have a way to extract CO2 from the air and trap it in long lived useful wood products.

Some areas of the rainforest are unique, and cannot be replanted no matter how we try. Saving little bits here and there isn't an answer either, although it's better than nothing.

As for sequestration, the flaw in N_F's argument that the earth's atmospheric CO2 has been higher in the past is that the plants that existed then and had adapted to those conditions are now extinct. I would have thought that obvious, given he posted it on a chart superimposed on of all the extinction events . . .

There were huge insects and dragonflies at one point in history, because the concentration of Oxygen was also higher and could support the larger bodies. They could not adapt, they died.

Xort Xort:

Trees grow faster than lumber decays, so we can trap CO2 in lumber as an above ground useful carbon capture system. I'm sure the government of Brazil has a good idea how to log their forests in a sustainable manner, even if they don't use those methods in large scale.

Plants we have now adapted to the conditions we have now, over millions of years. As Andy and Zip point out; if we keep emitting carbon dioxide, we will reach a point that they have not adapted to sooner than they can adapt for it and that will affect global temperatures.

And the government of Brazil is known for it's corruption and willingness to turn a blind eye to illegal logging in protected forests, if the price is right.

A project I was reading about in the US, uses 18th century technology (things they can reproduce themselves onsite) to teach South American craftsmen to turn the local resources into marketable products, without all the environmental damage. I just with I could remember the name, or I'd post a link.

[DrCaleb]

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

I claimed no such thing. I recalled that post, and stated my recollections from it. You responded to my post back in March, so you did have knowledge of it, yet you claimed earlier in this thread that claims of such studies could not be challenged! You yourself claimed it was inarguable, not me.

Caught with your pants down by the "lunatic", again. I think this will be a very good year.

This is how it began here. You retreated to superior arguments from Xort by going grammar Nazi on him.

"Superior Argument", that's rich! "Oh wait, UR serious." is now the superior debate argument! I'll have to remember that for the future! It's so much better than dropping the mic and walking offstage!

When Xort, or anyone else acts like a adult, I treat them like an adult. When they get all pedantic, they get treated appropriately.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

Somebody supported you. You replied.

$1:

If all he can do is attempt to ridicule me, which I realize is all he has left, at the very least proper grammar would show some small effort on his part.

Now at that point I see an arrogant, braggart's claim of fact that I know does not exist. And your claim now appears to be you've disproved that by offering up more arrogance and braggadocio.

And yet, I have yet to see this earth shattering quote where I claim to have absolute proof of anything, let alone in this thread. And the studies offered with respect to higher carbon dioxide effect on plants, you have yet to offer a counter for, so I highly doubt your assertion that you know the conclusions do not support the data.

And, calling me names means you lost the argument, not won.

N_Fiddledog N_Fiddledog:

My claim remains the same for both threads. There is no inarguable proof of overall negative consequences in CO2 assisted plant growth. There are only claims that in certain cases there can be results which might be considered negative. As to the Permian extinction, get real. Nobody know what caused that.

And I have offered none. I simply state that while "Carbon dioxide emissions help tropical rainforests grow fast" it also has been shown to make them 'die sooner'.

[Zipperfish]

I AM GROOT.

[Jabberwalker]

Is "GROOT" a new synonym for "TROLL", by any chance?

[2Cdo]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I AM GROOT.

Someone into the sauce a little early maybe?

[Zipperfish]

2Cdo 2Cdo:

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

I AM GROOT.

Someone into the sauce a little early maybe?

I'm done until my birthday in March. Not a drop. *Sigh*

[Jabberwalker]

I AM GROOT.

[Xort]

DrCaleb DrCaleb:

Some areas of the rainforest are unique, and cannot be replanted no matter how we try. Saving little bits here and there isn't an answer either, although it's better than nothing.

Which areas, and why can't they grow back to how they are now?

For saving little bits, it's a patch work of cutting some areas then letting the plants grow back. You leave surrounding areas as they are to support the plant and animal life. It's not setting aside one part to not be logged it's logging trees in rotation.

$1:

As for sequestration, the flaw in N_F's argument that the earth's atmospheric CO2 has been higher in the past is that the plants that existed then and had adapted to those conditions are now extinct. I would have thought that obvious, given he posted it on a chart superimposed on of all the extinction events . . .

So your statement is that current plants will die from high CO2 amounts and that past plant life was specially adapted to it and that's why they didn't die?

How do we know that current plants will die from higher CO2? The links from the last time this came up didn't deal with the topic and didn't make any statements in support for your CO2 kills plants idea.

$1:

There were huge insects and dragonflies at one point in history, because the concentration of Oxygen was also higher and could support the larger bodies. They could not adapt, they died.

Are you sure that those insects were not just filling the biological roll of modern birds, and after an extinction event were replaced by modern birds?

$1:

Plants we have now adapted to the conditions we have now, over millions of years. As Andy and Zip point out; if we keep emitting carbon dioxide, we will reach a point that they have not adapted to sooner than they can adapt for it and that will affect global temperatures.

What is that point, and how was the number reached? You said that tree and plants will grow so fast they will become unable to support their continued life and die off, and that has been proved by tests. What tests proved that high CO2 kills plants? No the ones linked, because they don't show that.

$1:

And the government of Brazil is known for it's corruption and willingness to turn a blind eye to illegal logging in protected forests, if the price is right.

They also let their people chop down trees to graze cattle and other livestock. That's most of the forestry activity. Anyway my statement was more like the government has at sometime figured it out and they know what is sustainable, that they opt not to do that doesn't meant they don't know how.

It's not like their government closed their Fisheries libraries down and destroyed all their scientific knowledge like Canada did.

$1:

A project I was reading about in the US, uses 18th century technology (things they can reproduce themselves onsite) to teach South American craftsmen to turn the local resources into marketable products, without all the environmental damage. I just with I could remember the name, or I'd post a link.

Sound like some hippy shit to me, based on overly optimistic sales projections and a healthy distain for reality. Then again I could be wrong.

What makes you think Brazil can't make modern equipment? They manufacture modern jets and the supporting industry for that.