Well said!
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 one study, 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, 2 million square miles 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 increased by 14 days 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 increased approximately 5% 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.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/climate_changing_for_the_better.html
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 one study, 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, 2 million square miles 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 increased by 14 days 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 increased approximately 5% 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.
https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2019/09/climate_changing_for_the_better.html
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy
Quote:
During the 1990s and 2000s Exxon helped advance climate change denial internationally.[SUP][26][/SUP][SUP][27][/SUP] ExxonMobil was a significant influence in preventing ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the United States.[SUP][28][/SUP] ExxonMobil funded organizations critical of the Kyoto Protocol and seeking to undermine public opinion about the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Exxon was a founding member of the board of directors of the Global Climate Coalition, composed of businesses opposed to greenhouse gas emission regulation.[SUP][29][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP] According to Mother Jones 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.[SUP][32][/SUP][SUP][33][/SUP] ExxonMobil has funded, among other groups, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council and the International Policy Network.[SUP][34][/SUP][SUP][35][/SUP][SUP][36][/SUP] Since the Kyoto Protocol, Exxon has given more than $20 million to organizations supporting climate change denial.[SUP][37][/SUP]
Between 1998 and 2004, ExxonMobil granted $16 million to advocacy organizations which disputed the impact of global warming.[SUP][38][/SUP] 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 Royal Society to ExxonMobil. The Royal Society said ExxonMobil granted $2.9 million to US organizations which "misinformed the public about climate change through their websites."[SUP][39][/SUP] According to Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, ExxonMobil contributed about 4% of the total funding of what Brulle identifies as the "climate change counter-movement."[SUP][40][/SUP] The Drexel research found that much of the funding that direct sourcing from companies like ExxonMobil and Koch Industries was later diverted through third-party foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital to avoid traceability.[SUP][41][/SUP] In 2006, the Brussels-based watchdog organization Corporate Europe Observatory 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."[SUP][42][/SUP]
------
the More Co2 good for plants comment is a load of crap.
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-carbon-dioxide-air-restrict-ability.html
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.
https://www.newsweek.com/great-barrier-reef-coral-reef-extinction-survival-946890
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ExxonMobil_climate_change_controversy
Quote:
During the 1990s and 2000s Exxon helped advance climate change denial internationally.[SUP][26][/SUP][SUP][27][/SUP] ExxonMobil was a significant influence in preventing ratification of the Kyoto Protocol by the United States.[SUP][28][/SUP] ExxonMobil funded organizations critical of the Kyoto Protocol and seeking to undermine public opinion about the scientific consensus that global warming is caused by the burning of fossil fuels. Exxon was a founding member of the board of directors of the Global Climate Coalition, composed of businesses opposed to greenhouse gas emission regulation.[SUP][29][/SUP][SUP][30][/SUP][SUP][31][/SUP] According to Mother Jones 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.[SUP][32][/SUP][SUP][33][/SUP] ExxonMobil has funded, among other groups, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, George C. Marshall Institute, Heartland Institute, the American Legislative Exchange Council and the International Policy Network.[SUP][34][/SUP][SUP][35][/SUP][SUP][36][/SUP] Since the Kyoto Protocol, Exxon has given more than $20 million to organizations supporting climate change denial.[SUP][37][/SUP]
Between 1998 and 2004, ExxonMobil granted $16 million to advocacy organizations which disputed the impact of global warming.[SUP][38][/SUP] 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 Royal Society to ExxonMobil. The Royal Society said ExxonMobil granted $2.9 million to US organizations which "misinformed the public about climate change through their websites."[SUP][39][/SUP] According to Drexel University environmental sociologist Robert Brulle, ExxonMobil contributed about 4% of the total funding of what Brulle identifies as the "climate change counter-movement."[SUP][40][/SUP] The Drexel research found that much of the funding that direct sourcing from companies like ExxonMobil and Koch Industries was later diverted through third-party foundations like Donors Trust and Donors Capital to avoid traceability.[SUP][41][/SUP] In 2006, the Brussels-based watchdog organization Corporate Europe Observatory 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."[SUP][42][/SUP]
------
the More Co2 good for plants comment is a load of crap.
https://phys.org/news/2015-06-carbon-dioxide-air-restrict-ability.html
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.
https://www.newsweek.com/great-barrier-reef-coral-reef-extinction-survival-946890
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.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!
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.
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 generationWhile 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.
1 - 9 of 9 Posts
- This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
National Gun Forum
A forum community dedicated to all firearm owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, gunsmithing, troubleshooting, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Top Contributors this Month
View All
Mad Scientist
794 Replies
Yosemite Sam
275 Replies
IowaShooter
169 Replies
Recommended Communities
