Jump to content
semente

The Environmental thread + Conventional (HI-FI) wisdom is almost always invariably wrong

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

15 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

 

This is a blandishment.  There is little to support that the biosphere is self-regulating (which is no doubt what you mean by Earth ecosystem; and ecosystem is a biological community in a certain area plus all the abiotic components involved).

 

Indeed, there are usually multiple stable points and limit cycles in even simple dynamical systems, such as competition or predator-prey interactions.  Within a single population there do appear to be some factors that are self-regulating, but often popns. are regulated by extrinsic factors.

 

Want math?

 

 

Extrinsic factors? Do you mean from outside the Earth? We are in a mostly closed system. Unless you are talking about the sun radiation or a meteor hitting earth, I don't see too many other extrinsic factors. Maybe a nearby supernova...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There has been an awakening in the Force...

 

Austrian elections: support for far-right collapses

Support for Austria’s Freedom party (FPÖ) has plunged by more than a third as voters punished the far-right group in national elections for a corruption scandal that brought down the government.

The former chancellor Sebastian Kurz, 33, looks certain to reclaim his position as the youngest leader in the world after his People’s party (ÖVP) secured 37.1% of the vote – its best result since 2002.

The Green party was the other big winner on Sunday, achieving its best result at national elections with 14%. The centre-left Social Democratic party (SPÖ) plummeted to a historically low 21.7% but was still the second-biggest party.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/sep/29/austrian-elections-exit-polls-collapse-far-right-support-sebastian-kurz-victory


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, esldude said:

I think he means extrinsic to a given population or ecosystem which would still be on earth.  Though meteors and sun output would qualify as well. 

 

The so called tipping points are the real concern.  Methane release could happen in a big way in a decade or two, and cause really rapid warming.  And while the methane would go away in another decade the warmed earth would tend to stay warmed.  Warmed to the point most of the globe is uninhabitable by humans and many other forms of life. 

 

yes, an example re self-regulation

 

extrinsic factors for climate change could include (or have included) atmospheric dust from collisions with meteors or comets; solar output changes - one might as well include long time-scale events like the jitter from large-scale vulcanism (Google Deccan Traps*) etc.

 

 

* and BTW, Deccan Traps would be a great name for a brand or bass traps for room treatments

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, esldude said:

I think he means extrinsic to a given population or ecosystem which would still be on earth.  Though meteors and sun output would qualify as well. 

 

The so called tipping points are the real concern.  Methane release could happen in a big way in a decade or two, and cause really rapid warming.  And while the methane would go away in another decade the warmed earth would tend to stay warmed.  Warmed to the point most of the globe is uninhabitable by humans and many other forms of life. 

 

That's why I mentioned methane.

 

We need to change cropping systems in the way agricultural land is managed. Especially in crops that are renewed annually, such as grains and fodder.

 

Renew trees for species not so much and easy combustion, such as conifers, which is what is most in North America and Europe. I keep in mind the constant fires in California!

 

Of course, emissions from vehicles and fossil fueled industry is a crime, which we will gradually improve. There has been a good deal about it, but we need a lot more.

 

https://www.extension.iastate.edu/agdm/articles/others/TakApr08.html

 

https://ameriflux.lbl.gov/methane-production-and-emission-in-upland-and-wetland-trees-and-forests/

 

Roch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finally the real truth comes out.  And without wgscott's link I would have missed.  Many have thought climate change and sea level rise was a conspiracy of some sorts.  Now, from an unexpected group of conspirators the truth is out. 

 

https://www.theonion.com/study-finds-rising-sea-levels-result-of-expansive-colon-1830752818

Illustration for article titled Study Finds Rising Sea Levels Result Of Expansive Colonization Effort By Dolphins


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finance doing what they do best:

 

Banking on Climate Change – Fossil Fuel Finance Report Card 2019

World's top banks have poured $1.9 trillion into fossil fuel financing since the Paris Agreement was adopted, with financing on the rise each year

 

https://www.banktrack.org/article/banking_on_climate_change_fossil_fuel_finance_report_card_2019


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey, sun shades at the Lagrange point L1 is what I'd suggest.  Get the material from moon mining to build and put it in place.  Much less of a gravitational well operating from the moon.  Blocking 2% of the sunlight will counteract all the carbon increases in the atmosphere.  Best plan to put into place if you aren't some maladjusted fearfully panicked northern European teenage girl.  Maybe someone should point it out to her as a solution.  Our future is so bright we have to wear shades.  We got it made in the shade.

 


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, esldude said:

Hey, sun shades at the Lagrange point L1 is what I'd suggest.  Get the material from moon mining to build and put it in place.  Much less of a gravitational well operating from the moon.  Blocking 2% of the sunlight will counteract all the carbon increases in the atmosphere.  Best plan to put into place if you aren't some maladjusted fearfully panicked northern European teenage girl.  Maybe someone should point it out to her as a solution.  Our future is so bright we have to wear shades.  We got it made in the shade.

 

 

Don't make me lose faith, because we always have Superman !!!

Superman.gif.25e016b58f9cc4c1ca77a295a100f8a7.gif

 

 

Roch

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, elcorso said:

 

Don't make me lose faith, because we always have Superman !!!

Superman.gif.25e016b58f9cc4c1ca77a295a100f8a7.gif

 

 

Roch

 

Actually I do consider moderately long term this is the best idea (the shade at L1).  We know what it would take.  While a massive undertaking so are the other solutions.  It would also stimulate some other technologies.  It would be the most finely controllable of all solutions. We know for sure it would work. 

 

If I'm to believe Democrats in the USA, money is a complete non-issue due to MMT.  Even they have advisers that tell them you can't have an unlimited GDP, but with the place to put excess production  at L1 it should take right off.  

 

Developing the ability to place those shades also likely leaves us well able to have orbiting solar power plants.  Meaning we can quickly stop fossil fuel use.  Is it doable soon enough?  No.  So far neither is anything else proposed short of everyone becoming enlightened world wide and voluntarily living like it was a millennium ago. 

 

Anybody have a better idea?


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a space shade would divert $$ from PV deployment and R&D into carbon capture

 

it does nothing to affect the GHGs in the atmosphere now and consequent effects for the next 40 years)

 

it does nothing to affect ocean acidification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Ralf11 said:

a space shade would divert $$ from PV deployment and R&D into carbon capture

 

it does nothing to affect the GHGs in the atmosphere now and consequent effects for the next 40 years)

 

it does nothing to affect ocean acidification

The modeling of the effect I've seen is that 2% shading would maintain temperature with the GHG's already in the atmosphere and likely to be burned in the near term interim.  Carbon capture can then be worked on over a longer time period as the interval until temperature ratchets up has been taken care of.  Eventually taking care of carbon via carbon capture will help with ocean acidification though maybe not before damage is done.  You have to admit the current prospects of controlling ocean acidification are around the slim and none category.  

 

Carbon capture or shade?  Both are too expensive to pursue at once.  Choices have to be made.  PV deployment is likely to proceed thru the sheer economics of it. 

 

Oh well, chances are none of it will be accomplished in time.  Some group of people will in some way adapt to changed conditions and some of the earth may or may not become too hot to inhabit full time.  


And always keep in mind: Cognitive biases, like seeing optical illusions are a sign of a normally functioning brain. We all have them, it’s nothing to be ashamed about, but it is something that affects our objective evaluation of reality. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fossil fuel big five 'spent €251m lobbying EU' since 2010

Report comes amid calls for set up of firewall to protect politics from industry influence

 

https://www.theguardian.com/business/2019/oct/24/fossil-fuel-big-five-spent-251m-lobbying-european-union-2010-climate-crisis


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To eat or not to eat: 10 of the world’s most controversial foods

 

Deforestation. Child labour. Pollution. Water shortages. The more we learn about the side-effects of food production, the more the act of feeding ourselves becomes fraught with anxiety. How can we be sure that certain foods are “good” or “bad” for society and the planet? As Tim Lang, professor of food policy at City University of London and the co-author of Sustainable Diets, puts it: “When you come to ‘judge’ food, you end up with an enormous list of variables, from taste to health outcomes to biodiversity.” Here are some of today’s most controversial products – and some thoughts that may help you when shopping.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/nov/20/to-eat-or-not-to-eat-10-of-the-worlds-most-controversial-foods


"Science draws the wave, poetry fills it with water" Teixeira de Pascoaes

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...