Climate Changing for the Better
Advertise with us Click for Rates
Results 1 to 9 of 9
Like Tree6Likes
  • 2 Post By Popeye
  • 1 Post By Stevejet
  • 2 Post By Stamps6
  • 1 Post By Fitasc Shooter

Thread: Climate Changing for the Better

  1. #1
    Ancient Gaseous Emanation Popeye's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sacramento area, CA
    Posts
    51,651

    Default Climate Changing for the Better

    Mark Gelhaus
    September 10, 2019


    The idea that climate change is a negative thing, an unnatural thing, and an inevitably destructive thing predominates in our society. In truth, climate change and carbon emissions have overwhelmingly positive effects.

    CO2 is incredibly good for plant growth. Plants see significant improvement in growth with higher CO2 levels. Greenhouses commonly increase CO2 levels to 1,500 ppm and the temperature to 80 F or higher. For comparison, atmospheric CO2 levels are a bit above 400 ppm, and the average surface temperature on earth in 59 F. CO2 also increases photosynthesis. The production of carbohydrates increases as CO2 increases. The fact that CO2 increases plant productivity is not only demonstrated in laboratory settings but also in nature. In [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] artificially doubling CO2 from pre-industrial levels increased tree productivity by around 23 percent, wheat improved by 11.5 percent, and corn by 8.4 percent. NASA satellites confirm the earth is greening. Each year, [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] of green leafy area is added to the world. The earth’s green area has grown over 5% since the early 2000s. CO2 is also beneficial in that it increases fresh-water efficiency. With increased CO2 levels, plants can produce the same with less water, or produce more with the same amount of water. Plants become more efficient at photosynthesis, which means less water released into the atmosphere, and more moisture retention on land. Higher temperatures due to a warming planet means a longer growing season. Per the EPA, the U.S. growing season has [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] since the beginning of the 20th century. Longer growing seasons give farmers increased crop yields and give farmers more options as to crop selection.

    Higher temperatures from climate change also lead to increased precipitation. Precipitation has [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] in the United States since 1900. Increased precipitation leads to better crop productivity, and to decreased droughts and decreased wildfires. The lesser need for crop growing area means less wild land is turned into cropland. This is environmentally friendly in that preserving wild lands helps animals and plants survive. The greater water efficiency and increased precipitation means less use of fresh water. The increased precipitation replenishes our aquifers and refills our reservoirs. The ability of nature to become more productive in a changing climate shows the resilience of the natural world.

    Climate change may bring about greater energy conservation as well. Regulating building temperatures is one area. More energy is needed to heat homes and buildings than is needed to cool them. Increased cloud cover, from the increased precipitation, means milder temperatures, less extreme highs and less extreme lows. Lesser energy would be needed for cooling and heating.

    There are significant advantages of hydrocarbons (oil, natural gas, and coal) as a fuel source. Hydrocarbons provide a reliable, steady, cost-efficient energy. The common renewables of wind and solar do not provide a steady source of energy. Nor are wind and solar energy always obtainable. These unsteady sources must be backed up by reliable sources. Natural gas is a great backup. Natural gas has high thermodynamic efficiency, produces less nitrogen oxides, less sulfur oxides, and fewer particulates than other common powerplant types. When green energy fails to deliver the necessary, a simple cycle natural gas plant is often switched on in order to supply power. A simple cycle natural gas plant is operated by propelling hot gas through a turbine to generate electricity. Such plants may take only 10-15 minutes to reach maximum capacity. Combined cycle plants will kick in later, typically after about half an hour. Combined cycle plants use hot gases to propel a turbine, and also use that heat again to create steam which turns turbines as well. Comparatively, a coal power plant may take four to eight hours. Nuclear power plants can take hours, with newer plants having the ability to make changes more rapidly. Hydroelectric power also has issues. Low water levels can impede the ability to turn electric turbines.

    If there does come a day where the negative impacts of increased CO2 levels outweigh the benefits, there are several solutions. One solution could be to pump seawater into reservoirs in places like the Sahara. This would mitigate the issue of rising sea levels. In these reservoirs, we would grow types of plankton, algae, and seaweed that are specially bred to pull large amounts of CO2 from the atmosphere. The aquatic plants could be grown, then harvested for use as fertilizer. We could green the arid regions around the world, like the Sahara. Terrestrial plants like trees could be grown as well. Another method could be recycling of carbon. Typically, when we burn energy, it is released to the atmosphere. We could capture those carbon emissions and find an energy effective way to turn those carbons back into a usable form of energy. The earth is always changing. Life is always adapting.




    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    Mad Scientist and gvaldeg1 like this.
    The difference between a Socialist and a Communist is that the Socialist doesn't have all the guns yet.

  2. #2
    Grand Imperial Poobah NGF Addict! Mad Scientist's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    17,608

    Default

    Well said!
    Hidden Content



    "The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - George Washington, the first President of the United States (1789-1797)

  3. #3
    Senior Member NGF Addict! Stamps6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northern NJ.
    Posts
    3,151

    Default

    Less snow to plow and shovel. Better pool and lake seasons. Less fuels burned for heat. Better nuclear reactors for clean electricity means life is good and summer is better than winter.

  4. Remove Advertisements
    NationalGunForum.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2016
    Location
    PA
    Posts
    904

    Default

    I hope you are correct...however, in the Philadelphia area, last year we had a "first frost" in mid-October (usually around Nov. 7) and a 4" snow mid-November (usually first snow happens rarely before mid December). But we've certainly gotten rain...50% over normal last year, and currently about 35% over normal.

  6. #5
    Senior Member NGF Addict!
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Southern Kalifornia
    Posts
    16,969

    Default

    While I am wholly in favor of nuclear power plants, we haven't yet developed the backbone to address disposal or safe storage of our accumulated nuclear-waste. Someone really needs to get working on this and get the damn storage site and facility established.
    Popeye likes this.

  7. #6
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    173

    Default

    The op article reads like a paid fabrication by exxon mobil. meant to obfuscate the facts. And encourage people to ignore the fact that their products is killing us by their own research.

    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    Quote:
    During the 1990s and 2000s Exxon helped advance climate change denial internationally.[Only registered and activated users can see links. ][Only registered and activated users can see links. ] ExxonMobil was a significant influence in preventing ratification of the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] by the United States.[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] ExxonMobil funded organizations critical of the Kyoto Protocol and seeking to undermine public opinion about the scientific consensus that [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] is caused by the burning of [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]. Exxon was a founding member of the board of directors of the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], composed of businesses opposed to greenhouse gas emission regulation.[Only registered and activated users can see links. ][Only registered and activated users can see links. ][Only registered and activated users can see links. ] According to [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] magazine, between 2000 and 2003 ExxonMobil channelled at least $8,678,450 to forty organizations that employed disinformation campaigns including "skeptic propaganda masquerading as journalism" to influence the opinion of the public and political leaders about global warming.[Only registered and activated users can see links. ][Only registered and activated users can see links. ] ExxonMobil has funded, among other groups, the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ].[Only registered and activated users can see links. ][Only registered and activated users can see links. ][Only registered and activated users can see links. ] Since the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], Exxon has given more than $20 million to organizations supporting climate change denial.[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


    Between 1998 and 2004, ExxonMobil granted $16 million to advocacy organizations which disputed the impact of global warming.[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] Of 2005 grantees of ExxonMobil, 54 were found to have statements regarding climate change on their websites, of which 25 were consistent with the scientific consensus on climate change, while 39 "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence," according to a 2006 letter from the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] to ExxonMobil. The Royal Society said ExxonMobil granted $2.9 million to US organizations which "misinformed the public about climate change through their websites."[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] According to [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] [Only registered and activated users can see links. ], ExxonMobil contributed about 4% of the total funding of what Brulle identifies as the "climate change counter-movement."[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] The Drexel research found that much of the funding that direct sourcing from companies like ExxonMobil and [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] was later diverted through third-party foundations like Donors Trust and [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] to avoid traceability.[Only registered and activated users can see links. ] In 2006, the [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]-based watchdog organization [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] said "ExxonMobil invests significant amounts in letting think-tanks, seemingly respectable sources, sow doubts about the need for [European Union] governments to take action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Covert funding for climate sceptics is deeply hypocritical because ExxonMobil spends major sums on advertising to present itself as an environmentally responsible company."[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]


    ------

    the More Co2 good for plants comment is a load of crap.
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

    Too much Co2 interferes with plants ability to adsorb necessary nutrients and dies.
    shorter warmer winters is actually bad for the Midwest hardwood forest its is receding north and dying off over time.
    The problem with this article is it looking at things too "one dimensional"

    yea sure longer growing season but your depleting the ground nutrient that much faster and also because we base our farming on the longer growing season it is MUCH MORE susceptible to "normal winter damage/loss" normal winter being the shorter season and the ground freezing .

    There are ALWAYS trade offs. energy is never created or destroyed its only changed form.

    we are losing our biodiversity, that is the bad anchilies heel. Around here trees been dying younger and younger due to disease and pests surviving the warmer winters.

    that higher CO2 is also killing life in the oceans because it is changing the chemistry in the water to a form that is TOXIC.
    [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]
    Last edited by Gimp; 09-11-2019 at 04:51 PM.

  8. #7
    Senior Member NGF Addict! Stamps6's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2016
    Location
    Northern NJ.
    Posts
    3,151

    Default

    Kids! You guys will believe anything the “ experts” who have a financial stake in global warming. Relax because there ain’t squat anyone, including the Chinese and India. It’s just natural changes taking place. I damn Volcano and the world is changed. If the Yellow Stone super Caldera erupts, you can kiss your ass goodbye and that thing is about 1000 years over due to pop. One good meteorite and same thing, Bub Bye!
    Popeye and Wag like this.

  9. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2019
    Posts
    173

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stamps6 View Post
    Kids! You guys will believe anything the “ experts” who have a financial stake in global warming. Relax because there ain’t squat anyone, including the Chinese and India. It’s just natural changes taking place. I damn Volcano and the world is changed. If the Yellow Stone super Caldera erupts, you can kiss your ass goodbye and that thing is about 1000 years over due to pop. One good meteorite and same thing, Bub Bye!
    Life bounces back from single natural events you mentioned. What we are doing is ongoing unnatural change using technology. Earth is not equipped to bounce back from that.

    Technology is allowing us to override natural regulators. especially in the food area where our manipulation is allowing us to grow a population that is absolutely unsustainable in the natural world. If you look at the various population levels right before a almost extinction event. first plants go them we do.

    technology is allowing us to deplete the ground nutrients at an unsustainable level. to replenish those nutrients we need volcanic activity to basically fertilize whole regions. with a wide range of nutrients and minerals. tthen it takes thousands of years and biodiversity to change all that to a form we need.

    PS technology is allowing us to change land use so fast that its impossible for nature to keep up. areas we tried to reforest and or revert back to nature after industry is done with it is NEVER the same and very fragile to environmental stressors. like pine forest out west and in Canada.
    Last edited by Gimp; 09-11-2019 at 05:03 PM.

  10. #9
    Senior Member NGF Addict! Fitasc Shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    5,822

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Stevejet View Post
    While I am wholly in favor of nuclear power plants, we haven't yet developed the backbone to address disposal or safe storage of our accumulated nuclear-waste. Someone really needs to get working on this and get the damn storage site and facility established.
    Called a breeder reactor where fuels rods are recycled; absent that, shooting them into space, dropping them in a volcano, or dozens of other ways. Nukes are the most reliable form of mass electric generation
    Wag likes this.
    "Never argue with an idiot. They will only bring you down to their level and beat you with experience", George Carlin

    FITASC: Fédération Internationale de Tir aux Armes Sportives de Chasse.

Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)