|
Deadly Ham Sandwich posted:Why red states? I don't get it. Well, if the coasts are going to flood they might as well continue building solar/wind farms in OK/KS/ND/MO because its not like anything else is out there and its smart to do to avoid future flooding and such.
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 06:04
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
Deadly Ham Sandwich posted:Why red states? I don't get it. I listened to the Cliff Notes version on the Ted radio hour. The idea seems sound, and certainly land management today is real hosed up. Walking through supposedly good grazing land in California or the montane west can be real depressing, because so much of it is so badly damaged, and there seems to be so little done about it. However although I like the concept, the talk set off a few red flags, particularly when he mentions other managers have had trouble replicating his results. I don't know who is wrong and you'd probably have to look at the actual studies in question, but it seems like there's not universal acceptance of his theories. Also he does mention methane emissions briefly.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 06:54
|
|
|
Squalid posted:I listened to the Cliff Notes version on the Ted radio hour. The idea seems sound, and certainly land management today is real hosed up. Walking through supposedly good grazing land in California or the montane west can be real depressing, because so much of it is so badly damaged, and there seems to be so little done about it. However although I like the concept, the talk set off a few red flags, particularly when he mentions other managers have had trouble replicating his results. I don't know who is wrong and you'd probably have to look at the actual studies in question, but it seems like there's not universal acceptance of his theories. Feed the ruminants seaweed: quote:Professor of aquaculture at James Cook University in Townsville, Rocky De Nys, has been working with the CSIRO studying the effects seaweed can have on cow's methane production. Unfortunately, seaweed farming's difficult to industrialize.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 08:35
|
|
|
Yeah that's insane and brings a lot of optimism but I don't see how our society will change if we don't supercede our profit driven economy through government policies. Everything seems to fall apart in an economic sense because fossil fuels and their representatives will do everything they can to mitigate their profits and company livelihood. Fighting to deter THE money machine entities in our global capitalistic system .... Drove passed ConocoPhillips and Shell hq today, as if everything was OK in Houston and the world.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
Deadly Ham Sandwich posted:I know TED talks can be a lot of dumb bullshit to make people feel better, but how is this dudes idea? Basically using grazing animals for land management to reverse desertification of grasslands; the new fauna and top soil should absorb a lot of carbon. Is this dumb bull poo poo? Check out this sweet statistic from that video: Every year, burning grasslands in Africa gives off more and more damaging pollutants than 6 trillion cars. [statistic linked in the video below] Yeah, I think I might not trust his judgment. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpTHi7O66pI&t=651s
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 14:51
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Check out this sweet statistic from that video: i cant actually find the thing you seem to be talking about in the video so im just gonna respond based on guesses and sssumption... this means nothing in isolation. do the grasslands that are burned give off more pollution than they absorb from the air with their growing? thats the important metric. i mean, i am not entirely sure how they could so this sort of reads like huge support for them if just the ones that burned were able to absorb enough carbon and poo poo to account for that many vehicles, ignoring any carbon left behind in the ash
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 14:56
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Check out this sweet statistic from that video: Welp, Climate Change is disproven. Pack it in, folks, we're not experiencing AGW, Placid Marmot has disproven it again. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:i cant actually find the thing you seem to be talking about in the video so im just gonna respond based on guesses and sssumption... also what specific pollutants
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 15:10
|
|
I CANNOT EJACULATE WITHOUT SEEING NATIVE AMERICANS BRUTALISED!
|
Squalid posted:I listened to the Cliff Notes version on the Ted radio hour. The idea seems sound, and certainly land management today is real hosed up. Walking through supposedly good grazing land in California or the montane west can be real depressing, because so much of it is so badly damaged, and there seems to be so little done about it. However although I like the concept, the talk set off a few red flags, particularly when he mentions other managers have had trouble replicating his results. I don't know who is wrong and you'd probably have to look at the actual studies in question, but it seems like there's not universal acceptance of his theories. Land management is really important for erosion, biodiversity, and a lot of other things, but its not so great at sequestration. By the time it was effective humans would have evolved into something else. When you press hard on the car's gas pedal you are literally undoing hundreds of thousands of years of biomass compaction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 15:35
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:Land management is really important for erosion, biodiversity, and a lot of other things, but its not so great at sequestration. By the time it was effective humans would have evolved into something else. When you press hard on the car's gas pedal you are literally undoing hundreds of thousands of years of biomass compaction. Eh. Peat works. It only takes thousands of years instead of millions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
Arctic sea ice extent is up from yesterday by +131,901 sq km, which is a lot better than yesterday. It's still too little, though. Some of this seeming variability between one day and the next might be due to the movement of sea ice coinciding with the orbital passes of the satellites, as they look only at narrow portions of the Earth. In other news: quote:A new NASA and university study using NASA satellite data finds that tide gauges -- the longest and highest-quality records of historical ocean water levels -- may have underestimated the amount of global average sea level rise that occurred during the 20th century. Basically, because Greenland is losing mass, the oceans are flowing away from it. This flow away from Greenland mitigates the rise from an increase in sea level dependent upon proximity; closer areas will see less rise, while further away areas will see higher rise. Oh, you might not want to think too much about what might happen Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 16:03 on Dec 3, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 15:59
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:i cant actually find the thing you seem to be talking about in the video so im just gonna respond based on guesses and sssumption... I linked the video at the start of his claim (10:51): "burning one hectare of grassland gives off more and more damaging pollutants than 6,000 cars, and we are burning in Africa - every single year - more than one bilion hectares" First off, what does the first half of that claim even mean? It's a non-scientific and functionally meaningless measure (6,000 average cars driven in an average way in an average year?), designed only to present a large number that people who don't like pollution will be dismayed by. The second half of the claim - 1 billion hectares are burned in Africa per year - is grossly implausible, given that Africa has a total area of 3 billion hectares. If we generously assume that there are 1.5 billion hectares of grassland in Africa (not being able to find a figure more precise than "nearly half of Africa is grassland", which includes savanna that may be highly wooded), then it is impossible to burn 1 billion hectares per year if at least half does not regrow over the following year and the other half over the following year. How can this grassland (or any) regrow if not by absorbing roughly the same CO2 that it emitted when it was burned? Edit: forgot to add this. Burning/burned grassland may not significantly increase GHG emissions from that area. "Results indicate that fire did not increase post-burning soil GHG emissions in this tropical grasslands characterized by acidic, well drained and nutrient-poor soil." http://www.biogeosciences.net/7/3459/2010/bg-7-3459-2010.pdf
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 18:02
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Edit: forgot to add this. Burning/burned grassland may not significantly increase GHG emissions from that area. That's loving obvious to anyone with a basic understanding of acidic, well drained and nutrient-poor soil. Because acidic, well drained and nutrient-poor soil is essentially sand. Which does not release CO2 just because the sun shines on it. What I meant to say is that Ted talk guy needs to get basic science facts right.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:18
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Arctic sea ice extent is up from yesterday by +131,901 sq km, which is a lot better than yesterday. It's still too little, though. Some of this seeming variability between one day and the next might be due to the movement of sea ice coinciding with the orbital passes of the satellites, as they look only at narrow portions of the Earth. What's with the antipodal land rise in the Greenland melt map?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:28
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:What's with the antipodal land rise in the Greenland melt map? Postglacial rebound probably (the crust got bent down by sitting under ice, once released it bends back up).
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:30
|
|
|
blowfish posted:What I meant to say is that Ted talk guy needs to get basic science facts right. Which is why the TED talk is dumb and we should not promote turning Africa's grasslands into cattle ranches.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Which is why the TED talk is dumb and we should not promote turning Africa's grasslands into cattle ranches. Yeah. He's quite popular with celebrities who treat conservation as a cause celebre rather than as a serious technical and societal tasks that needs to be planned by specialists, e.g. Prince Charles.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:35
|
|
|
Uncle Jam posted:Land management is really important for erosion, biodiversity, and a lot of other things, but its not so great at sequestration. By the time it was effective humans would have evolved into something else. When you press hard on the car's gas pedal you are literally undoing hundreds of thousands of years of biomass compaction. Today good land management is the only sequestration system that works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:39
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Today good land management is the only sequestration system that works. Replant forests, specifically tropical peatland forests.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:42
|
|
|
blowfish posted:Postglacial rebound probably (the crust got bent down by sitting under ice, once released it bends back up). Australia though?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:Which is why the TED talk is dumb and we should not promote turning Africa's grasslands into cattle ranches. Most of Africa's grasslands are already cattle ranches
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:What's with the antipodal land rise in the Greenland melt map? These are two different things, though linked by glaciers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 19:58
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:It's the change in sea levels derived from GRACE measurements, not land rising. Ah - was there an existing event causing Australia to not see rising sea levels already?
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Most of Africa's grasslands are already cattle ranches That depends on the density of cattle needed to call an area a "ranch" and how many trees per hectare it takes to distinguish savanna grassland from wooded savanna; if "most of Africa's grasslands are already cattle ranches", the guy in the TED talk is using bogus figures to promote the creation of a situation that already exists. Another thing to note is that raising cattle for food is different from allowing an equal mass of wild animals to browse the same area, as the fertility is taken from the farmed area and ends up in cities and then the sea when the area is farmed, while the fertility is cycled with lesser losses in the natural state; turning [the remaining] grasslands into ranches will deplete the soil eventually.
|
|
#
?
Dec 3, 2016 23:33
|
|
|
Placid Marmot posted:That depends on the density of cattle needed to call an area a "ranch" and how many trees per hectare it takes to distinguish savanna grassland from wooded savanna; if "most of Africa's grasslands are already cattle ranches", the guy in the TED talk is using bogus figures to promote the creation of a situation that already exists. Another thing to note is that raising cattle for food is different from allowing an equal mass of wild animals to browse the same area, as the fertility is taken from the farmed area and ends up in cities and then the sea when the area is farmed, while the fertility is cycled with lesser losses in the natural state; turning [the remaining] grasslands into ranches will deplete the soil eventually. His theory is that by using extremely high density, short duration, low frequency grazing to mimic natural mass migrations that no longer occur in small fragmented parks or pastureland you can improve soil health and forage quality over what is achievable with other management strategies. It sounds ecologically plausible but I don't know if it works in practice. I'm not sure what your point is but it doesn't really sound like you're seriously addressing his theory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 00:27
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:Ah - was there an existing event causing Australia to not see rising sea levels already? I am uncertain of the reason for Australia's low sea level rise, but it's a loving weird place.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:33
|
|
|
On the bright side it's gonna be neat seeing what the land looks like under all that ice up in Greenland 
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 01:46
|
|
|
RedneckwithGuns posted:On the bright side it's gonna be neat seeing what the land looks like under all that ice up in Greenland It's just gonna be all wet and pruny.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 02:52
|
|
|
The growth yo-yo continues. Arctic sea ice extent increased by +104, 504 sq km yesterday; two thirds of December 2nd's change, and a fifth higher than the change on December 1st. Here's the area compared to previous year trend and previous year trend if it were offset to start in December of 2016, up through December 2nd:
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 15:46
|
|
|
In unsurprising news at this point, Arctic sea ice extent gained a meager 30,631 sq km on December 4th, putting total extent a smidgen over 10 million sq km. I mean hey, it's still rising... but that ain't good: 
Evil_Greven fucked around with this message at 03:50 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 00:37
|
|
|
Squalid posted:Today good land management is the only sequestration system that works. Unfortunately it's insufficient by several orders of magnitude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 14:40
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:In unsurprising news at this point, Arctic sea ice extent gained a meager 30,631 sq km on December 4th, putting total extent a smidgen over 10 million sq km. why are there 2 red, yellow, blue lines?
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 15:09
|
|
|
double nine posted:why are there 2 red, yellow, blue lines? Edit- its a double post so you missed the explanation in the first one 
Harold Fjord fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Dec 6, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 15:28
|
|
|
double nine posted:why are there 2 red, yellow, blue lines? Evil_Greven posted:Here's the area compared to previous year trend and previous year trend if it were offset to start in December of 2016, up through December 2nd:
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 15:30
|
|
|
I honestly don't think that representation is very useful.
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
That's fair, I suppose. It's an attempt to show what scenarios might be realistic for the end of the year ice. Oh, and Arctic sea ice area decreased on the 5th of December. Extent barely increased for the same day; under 20,000 sq km. By the way, this graph has been updated - note the inversion of the humps compared to prior years:
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
So this happened. Note, antarctic. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...m=.d29763a76ebf 
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
I don't quite understand what's different about this year. What threshold has been crossed to cause this? I would think that the decline would be a slow thing over many years, not a sudden drop. Can anyone explain this to me?
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 10:21
|
|
|
spankmeister posted:I don't quite understand what's different about this year. What threshold has been crossed to cause this? I would think that the decline would be a slow thing over many years, not a sudden drop. Can anyone explain this to me? It's an el nino year. The next couple of years will be colder than this and people will start going "where's your global warming now?!"
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 10:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 22:39 |
|
|
spankmeister posted:I don't quite understand what's different about this year. What threshold has been crossed to cause this? I would think that the decline would be a slow thing over many years, not a sudden drop. Can anyone explain this to me? Besides El Nino, there's also the fact that a lot of systems are non-linear. A bunch of different inputs might seem to have no effect, or a small effect, until suddenly there's a much larger change. Think tipping points or phase transitions. For example, the economic crisis of 2008 was a relatively sudden thing, but it was because of a huge number of problems that were allowed to build up over a long period of time. Or, take water. If you have 1 gram of water at 90 degrees and add one calorie of energy, it goes up to 91, then 92, etc. Then at 100 degrees, you can dump 539 calories into the water and see no change, but then when you add 1 more calorie, the water transitions to steam. The system appears linear at first, but is not. Then, the system appears to not be reacting at all, until it suddenly reacts in a major way. This ice level may be just a brief anomaly because of El Nino, but we can expect that many of Earth's systems have tipping points they'll reach where they will suddenly and drastically change. The problem is that these systems are extremely complicated, and predicting when a tipping point will occur is difficult.
|
|
#
?
Dec 7, 2016 11:11
|
|
