Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics > #538968 > unrolled thread

Now comes the tough part: The world's carbon diet starts

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics

Contents

  Now comes the tough part: The world's carbon diet starts Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-13 20:41 -0600
    Re: Now comes the tough part: The world's carbon diet starts jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 03:29 +0000
    Re: Now comes the tough part: The world's carbon diet starts gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-13 23:09 -0600
      Re: Now comes the tough part: The world's carbon diet starts gilber34 <fafa@invalid.com> - 2015-12-14 13:22 -0600
    Re: Now comes the tough part: The world's carbon diet starts Double-A <double-a3@hush.com> - 2015-12-14 14:01 -0800
      Re: Now comes the tough part: The world's carbon diet starts Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> - 2015-12-14 16:10 -0600
        Re: Now comes the tough part: The world's carbon diet starts jimp@specsol.spam.sux.com - 2015-12-14 22:47 +0000

#538968 — Now comes the tough part: The world's carbon diet starts

Now comes the tough part: The world's carbon diet starts
> http://phys.org/news/2015-12-tough-world-carbon-diet.html


> The world is about to go on a carbon diet. It won't be easy—or
> cheap.
>
> Nearly 200 nations across the world on Saturday approved a
> first-of-its-kind universal agreement to wean Earth off fossil fuels
> and slow global warming, patting themselves on the back for showing
> such resolve.
>
> On Sunday morning, like for many first day dieters, the reality sets
> in. The numbers—like calorie limits and hours needed in the gym—are
> daunting.
>
> How daunting? Try more than 7.04 billion tons (if you really want to
> have your eyes bug out, that's 15.5 trillion pounds). That's how much
> carbon dioxide needs to stay in the ground instead of being spewed
> into the atmosphere for those reductions to happen, even if you take
> the easier of two goals mentioned in Saturday's deal. To get to the
> harder goal, it's even larger numbers.
>
> In the pact, the countries pledged to limit global warming to about
> another degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) from now—and if they
> can, only half that.
>
> Another, more vague, goal is that by sometime in the second half of
> the century, man-made greenhouse gas emissions—which includes methane
> and other heat-trapping gases as well as carbon dioxide—won't exceed
> the amount that nature absorbs. Earth's carbon cycle, which is
> complex and ever-changing, would have to get back to balance.
>
> In practice, that means the world has to emit close to zero
> greenhouse gases by 2070 to reach the easier goal, or by 2050 to
> reach the harder one, said John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam
> Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
>
> Oh and by the way, the harder goal—limit warming by another half a
> degree Celsius (0.9 Fahrenheit)— is probably already impossible, said
> Joeri Rogelj at the International Institute for Applied Systems
> Analysis in Austria. Most likely the best the world can hope for is
> overshooting that temperature by a few tenths of a degree and then
> somehow slowly—over decades if not centuries—come back to the target
> temperature.


   We are going to have to get back to healthy soil and agricultural
   practices, remove CO2 from the atmosphere, green building and move
   completely to green energy.



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#538991

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> Now comes the tough part: The world's carbon diet starts
>> http://phys.org/news/2015-12-tough-world-carbon-diet.html
> 
> 
>> The world is about to go on a carbon diet. It won't be easy?or
>> cheap.

Or will it actually happen.

>> Nearly 200 nations across the world on Saturday approved a
>> first-of-its-kind universal agreement to wean Earth off fossil fuels
>> and slow global warming, patting themselves on the back for showing
>> such resolve.
>>
>> On Sunday morning, like for many first day dieters, the reality sets
>> in. The numbers?like calorie limits and hours needed in the gym?are
>> daunting.

The reality is the agreement is meaningless.

>> How daunting? Try more than 7.04 billion tons (if you really want to
>> have your eyes bug out, that's 15.5 trillion pounds). That's how much
>> carbon dioxide needs to stay in the ground instead of being spewed
>> into the atmosphere for those reductions to happen, even if you take
>> the easier of two goals mentioned in Saturday's deal. To get to the
>> harder goal, it's even larger numbers.
>>
>> In the pact, the countries pledged to limit global warming to about
>> another degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) from now?and if they
>> can, only half that.
>>
>> Another, more vague, goal is that by sometime in the second half of
>> the century, man-made greenhouse gas emissions?which includes methane
>> and other heat-trapping gases as well as carbon dioxide?won't exceed
>> the amount that nature absorbs. Earth's carbon cycle, which is
>> complex and ever-changing, would have to get back to balance.
>>
>> In practice, that means the world has to emit close to zero
>> greenhouse gases by 2070 to reach the easier goal, or by 2050 to
>> reach the harder one, said John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam
>> Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
>>
>> Oh and by the way, the harder goal?limit warming by another half a
>> degree Celsius (0.9 Fahrenheit)? is probably already impossible, said
>> Joeri Rogelj at the International Institute for Applied Systems
>> Analysis in Austria. Most likely the best the world can hope for is
>> overshooting that temperature by a few tenths of a degree and then
>> somehow slowly?over decades if not centuries?come back to the target
>> temperature.
> 
> 
>   We are going to have to get back to healthy soil and agricultural
>   practices, remove CO2 from the atmosphere, green building and move
>   completely to green energy.
 
While all holding hands and singing kumbaya in the cold. 
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#539001

On 12/13/2015 8:41 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Now comes the tough part: The world's carbon diet starts
>> http://phys.org/news/2015-12-tough-world-carbon-diet.html
>
>
>> The world is about to go on a carbon diet. It won't be easy—or
>> cheap.

>
>
>    We are going to have to get back to healthy soil and agricultural
>    practices, remove CO2 from the atmosphere, green building and move
>    completely to green energy.

so kill off all the cows, pigs, chickens now.

plant marajuania crops to keep the masses stoned.

destroy all oil, coal electrical generating plants.

allow only battery powered cars on the road, no trucks.

destroy all dezile and gasoline engines

hand out tweezers to the unemployed to pick out the CO2 atoms from the air.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#539136

On 12/13/2015 11:09 PM, gilber34 wrote:
> On 12/13/2015 8:41 PM, Sam Wormley wrote:
>> Now comes the tough part: The world's carbon diet starts
>>> http://phys.org/news/2015-12-tough-world-carbon-diet.html
>>
>>
>>> The world is about to go on a carbon diet. It won't be easy—or
>>> cheap.
>
>>
>>
>>    We are going to have to get back to healthy soil and agricultural
>>    practices, remove CO2 from the atmosphere, green building and move
>>    completely to green energy.
>
> so kill off all the cows, pigs, chickens now.
>
> plant marajuania crops to keep the masses stoned.
>
> destroy all oil, coal electrical generating plants.
>
> allow only battery powered cars on the road, no trucks.
>
> destroy all dezile and gasoline engines
>
> hand out tweezers to the unemployed to pick out the CO2 atoms from the air.
>
>
>

must stop all ships at sea too, they run on dezzel oil,

make them use wind, like they did in the 1800's

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#539189

On Sunday, December 13, 2015 at 6:41:36 PM UTC-8, Sam Wormley wrote:
> Now comes the tough part: The world's carbon diet starts
> > http://phys.org/news/2015-12-tough-world-carbon-diet.html
> 
> 
> > The world is about to go on a carbon diet. It won't be easy--or
> > cheap.
> >
> > Nearly 200 nations across the world on Saturday approved a
> > first-of-its-kind universal agreement to wean Earth off fossil fuels
> > and slow global warming, patting themselves on the back for showing
> > such resolve.
> >
> > On Sunday morning, like for many first day dieters, the reality sets
> > in. The numbers--like calorie limits and hours needed in the gym--are
> > daunting.
> >
> > How daunting? Try more than 7.04 billion tons (if you really want to
> > have your eyes bug out, that's 15.5 trillion pounds). That's how much
> > carbon dioxide needs to stay in the ground instead of being spewed
> > into the atmosphere for those reductions to happen, even if you take
> > the easier of two goals mentioned in Saturday's deal. To get to the
> > harder goal, it's even larger numbers.
> >
> > In the pact, the countries pledged to limit global warming to about
> > another degree Celsius (1.8 degrees Fahrenheit) from now--and if they
> > can, only half that.
> >
> > Another, more vague, goal is that by sometime in the second half of
> > the century, man-made greenhouse gas emissions--which includes methane
> > and other heat-trapping gases as well as carbon dioxide--won't exceed
> > the amount that nature absorbs. Earth's carbon cycle, which is
> > complex and ever-changing, would have to get back to balance.
> >
> > In practice, that means the world has to emit close to zero
> > greenhouse gases by 2070 to reach the easier goal, or by 2050 to
> > reach the harder one, said John Schellnhuber, director of the Potsdam
> > Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany.
> >
> > Oh and by the way, the harder goal--limit warming by another half a
> > degree Celsius (0.9 Fahrenheit)-- is probably already impossible, said
> > Joeri Rogelj at the International Institute for Applied Systems
> > Analysis in Austria. Most likely the best the world can hope for is
> > overshooting that temperature by a few tenths of a degree and then
> > somehow slowly--over decades if not centuries--come back to the target
> > temperature.
> 
> 
>    We are going to have to get back to healthy soil and agricultural
>    practices, remove CO2 from the atmosphere, green building and move
>    completely to green energy.


What a load of political crap!  CO2 is good for plants.  You can say that CO2 is actually very GREEN!

Double-A

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#539193

On 12/14/15 4:01 PM, Double-A wrote:
> CO2 is good for plants.

   Correction: Plants Will Not Flourish as the World Warms
> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/correction-plants-will-not-flourish-as-the-world-warms/

 > In all the bad news about climate change, one bright spot was the
 > forecast that rising temperatures would help plants grow worldwide,
 > especially in the cold, high latitudes. But a new study rips that
 > idea out by the roots. “There is more to climate change than just
 > temperature,” says Camilo Mora, an assistant professor of geography
 > at the University of Hawaii in Mānoa, who led the work. Drought and
 > limited sunlight will undermine any gain from a warmer atmosphere. By
 > 2100, Mora says, “there could be an 11 percent reduction in the plant
 > growing season worldwide.”
 >
 > One primary reason is that heating the Arctic will not bring
 > pineapples to Alaska. There is insufficient sunlight year-round at
 > high latitudes to support lush vegetation. In addition, the tropics
 > will lose up to 200 “suitable growing days” a year—days when
 > temperature, soil moisture and sunlight favor growth rather than
 > retard it—because of excessive heat and drought. Overall, “the
 > decreasing number of suitable growing days in the tropics will offset
 > optimistic projections at mid- and high-latitudes,” the study
 > concludes. It was published on June 9 in PloS Biology.
 >
 > Mora did not expect this result when he began the study, inspired by
 > notes he swapped with a climate denier. In 2013 Mora published a
 > high-profile study in Nature showing that climate change would harm
 > plants and animals in the tropics sooner than it would hurt them in
 > the Arctic. He says he received numerous e-mails and phone calls
 > attacking the results. “In one such phone call I decided to talk to
 > the person,” he explains. “The guy, one of the so-called climate
 > deniers, claimed that climate change would actually be good for the
 > planet.” The argument is known as the greening effect—that warmer
 > temperatures and higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere would increase
 > plant growth. Mora found several serious papers reaching that
 > conclusion. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing
 > Group.)



-- 

sci.physics is an unmoderated newsgroup dedicated
to the discussion of physics, news from the physics
community, and physics-related social issues.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#539202

Sam Wormley <swormley1@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/14/15 4:01 PM, Double-A wrote:
>> CO2 is good for plants.
> 
>   Correction: Plants Will Not Flourish as the World Warms
>> http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/correction-plants-will-not-flourish-as-the-world-warms/
> 
>> In all the bad news about climate change, one bright spot was the
>> forecast that rising temperatures would help plants grow worldwide,
>> especially in the cold, high latitudes. But a new study rips that
>> idea out by the roots. “There is more to climate change than just
>> temperature,” says Camilo Mora, an assistant professor of geography
>> at the University of Hawaii in Mānoa, who led the work. Drought and
>> limited sunlight will undermine any gain from a warmer atmosphere. By
>> 2100, Mora says, “there could be an 11 percent reduction in the plant
>> growing season worldwide.”
>>
>> One primary reason is that heating the Arctic will not bring
>> pineapples to Alaska. There is insufficient sunlight year-round at
>> high latitudes to support lush vegetation. In addition, the tropics
>> will lose up to 200 “suitable growing days” a year—days when
>> temperature, soil moisture and sunlight favor growth rather than
>> retard it—because of excessive heat and drought. Overall, “the
>> decreasing number of suitable growing days in the tropics will offset
>> optimistic projections at mid- and high-latitudes,” the study
>> concludes. It was published on June 9 in PloS Biology.
>>
>> Mora did not expect this result when he began the study, inspired by
>> notes he swapped with a climate denier. In 2013 Mora published a
>> high-profile study in Nature showing that climate change would harm
>> plants and animals in the tropics sooner than it would hurt them in
>> the Arctic. He says he received numerous e-mails and phone calls
>> attacking the results. “In one such phone call I decided to talk to
>> the person,” he explains. “The guy, one of the so-called climate
>> deniers, claimed that climate change would actually be good for the
>> planet.” The argument is known as the greening effect—that warmer
>> temperatures and higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere would increase
>> plant growth. Mora found several serious papers reaching that
>> conclusion. (Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing
>> Group.)
 
The idiot that wrote this has obviously never been to Phoenix. 
 

-- 
Jim Pennino

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics

csiph-web