Political Crossfire Forums

[Citizendave]

YIKES! Thanks for the worst moment of my day, Combatbaby!

The term "Geoengineering" sent shivers up my timbers. Here's a breakdown: (Pilotr, I found those terrible Space Mirrors that cause you to flinch!)

Quote: Abstract: Geoengineering is the intentional large-scale manipulation of the environment, particularly manipulation that is intended to reduce undesired anthropogenic climate change........There is a continuum of human responses to the climate problem that vary in resemblance to hard geoengineering schemes such as space-based mirrors.
[url]
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/about_us/meet_us/roger_pielke/envs5000/week11/Keith_Geoengineering_the_Climate.pdf [/url]



Well, I think we all should reassess our positions on GW. I mean, hell, none of us wants to walk to work! Just a little mirror here or there.....(keep an open mind!).

Just because the climate was run by NATURE (who the hell is "that" anyway?) for the last few million years, it doesn't mean that we shouldn't take over and do what we need to do.

Soylent Green is people!

[combatbaby]

planting a lot of trees for the purpose of cooling the earth is geoengineering. people tend to think of the mirrors and fake volcanic eruptions when they hear that word but geoengineers are just tinkering with those ideas. most think it would be best to put geoengineering to work on the small scale, like making roads white instead of black, building roofs that would reflect light, and planting more trees in cities. geoengineers know mirrors would cost billions of dollars... it's just an idea

[Citizendave]

Ah yes, and now I see that I was too quick to get all snotty. In fact the article I quoted also says:

Quote:

The distinction between geoengineering and mitigation is therefore fuzzy.



If planting trees is geoengineering, then sign me up. But it's not as if I would support generating a huge sheet of white plastic to replace the reflective capabilities of several hundred million acres of sea ice which has melted away (HEY!).

[Piotr]

I did a quick google search (Solution plant trees Global Warming) and apparently the idea has already been suggested before, and seemingly both rejected and embraced. But some of the problems that challenge it seem so simple (trees give off CO2 in very wet conditions? Plant them in a drier place not likely to get so wet!)...I don't see why it should be abandoned, at least not yet. Certainly, planting a tree can be very beneficial.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&client=safari&rls=en&q=Solution+plant+trees+Global+Warming&btnG=Search

I think that geoengineering will have to be big at some point in the future- especially when the world population becomes significantly bigger than today. The planet Earth might even become one big tranformable resource itself, as might asteroids or moons, ready to be transformed to suit needs as they arise. Who knows...

[perdidochas]

Piotr wrote: I did a quick google search (Solution plant trees Global Warming) and apparently the idea has already been suggested before, and seemingly both rejected and embraced. But some of the problems that challenge it seem so simple (trees give off CO2 in very wet conditions? Plant them in a drier place not likely to get so wet!)...I don't see why it should be abandoned, at least not yet. Certainly, planting a tree can be very beneficial.

Trees can only possibly give off CO2 temporarily.

[Piotr]

perdidochas wrote: Piotr wrote: I did a quick google search (Solution plant trees Global Warming) and apparently the idea has already been suggested before, and seemingly both rejected and embraced. But some of the problems that challenge it seem so simple (trees give off CO2 in very wet conditions? Plant them in a drier place not likely to get so wet!)...I don't see why it should be abandoned, at least not yet. Certainly, planting a tree can be very beneficial.

Trees can only possibly give off CO2 temporarily.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but the reason I brought it up is because of this excerpt from this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3246938.stm

"A US-Brazilian team has found that some parts of the Amazon rainforest emit more carbon dioxide (CO2) than they absorb in very wet conditions."

Sure it might be temporarily, but more trees in conditions like that that could prolong themselves would be counterporductive, for example. In other words, it's a problem that can be worked on and around (plant trees in places that aren't as wet or that are as wet for shorter periods, for example).

[perdidochas]

Piotr wrote: perdidochas wrote: Piotr wrote: I did a quick google search (Solution plant trees Global Warming) and apparently the idea has already been suggested before, and seemingly both rejected and embraced. But some of the problems that challenge it seem so simple (trees give off CO2 in very wet conditions? Plant them in a drier place not likely to get so wet!)...I don't see why it should be abandoned, at least not yet. Certainly, planting a tree can be very beneficial.

Trees can only possibly give off CO2 temporarily.

Yes, I'm aware of that, but the reason I brought it up is because of this excerpt from this link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3246938.stm

"A US-Brazilian team has found that some parts of the Amazon rainforest emit more carbon dioxide (CO2) than they absorb in very wet conditions."

Sure it might be temporarily, but more trees in conditions like that that could prolong themselves would be counterporductive, for example. In other words, it's a problem that can be worked on and around (plant trees in places that aren't as wet or that are as wet for shorter periods, for example).

That's a special circumstance, and by wet, they mean totally flooded.

[Citizendave]

Here's something which figures into the equation somehow:


Quote:

Atmosphereic CO2 Accumulating Faster Than Ever
16:04 15 March 2006
NewScientist.com news service
Fred Pearce

.....NOAA said the average atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide in 2005 reached 381 parts per million, an increase of 2.6 ppm since 2004. The annual increase, which has been recorded since the 1950s, has now exceeded 2 ppm for three of the past four years – an unprecedented rate. Half a century ago, the annual increase was less than 1 ppm.

.....Peter Cox, an expert on interactions between plants and the atmosphere at the Centre for Ecology and Hydrology in Dorset in the UK, says the recent surge “may be the first evidence of a feedback from the carbon cycle, in which plants under heat stress from global warming start to absorb less carbon dioxide”.

[url] http://www.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn8850.html [/url]



If we are going to tree-plant our way out of this problem, we are going to have to overcome not only deforestation, world pop increase, and expanding American style consumerism, we are going to have to compensate for the "heat stress" factor. No wonder the leading advocates are saying that we need to cut back on CO2 output.

I still want to research this intriguingly simplistic idea, and I especially appreciate the folks who are putting up links. The aticle I quoted from above sketches out the current relationship between vegetation and CO2 output:

Quote: The increase is caused by manmade emissions from the burning of fossil fuels, which currently adds up to about 7 billion tonnes of carbon per year. But roughly half of those emissions are absorbed by vegetation and the oceans.

[Citizendave]

Here's something I did not know, and goes in the direction of supporting the idea that this thread is based upon:

Quote:

Tropical deforestation is responsible for approximately 20% of total human-caused carbon dioxide emissions each year.....


[url] http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/solutions/recognizing-forests-role-in-climate-change.html [/url]



However, I've recieved a response to one of my e-mails from a government researcher. He pointed me towards the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC:

Quote: "the estimated global potential of biological mitigation options is in the order of 100GtC (cumulative), although there are substantial uncertainties associated with this estimate, by 2050, equivalent to about 10% to 20% of potential fossil fuel emissions during that period."

[url] http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg3/005.htm [/url]



According to that assessment, it's not even close. We cannot "tree plant" our way out of this problem. I'm wondering now if another organization has done any estimation on this concept.

[bob.appleyard]

Piotr wrote: It seems to make sense, doesn't it?

Trees are just as good at releasing carbon (and other greenhouse gases, like water vapour) as they are at absorbing them. They should be seen as a temporary sink for these compounds.

Whereas, pulling carbon out of the ground releases it into the carbon cycle permanently.

"Carbon neutrality" is a con (and a rather profitable one, if I'm not mistaken).

[perdidochas]

bob.appleyard wrote: Piotr wrote: It seems to make sense, doesn't it?

Trees are just as good at releasing carbon (and other greenhouse gases, like water vapour) as they are at absorbing them. They should be seen as a temporary sink for these compounds.

No, living, growing trees are net sinks for carbon. Admittedly, when the trees die, they start to release it.

bob.appleyard wrote: Whereas, pulling carbon out of the ground releases it into the carbon cycle permanently.

No, just temporarily, at least on a geologic time scale. Where do you think that carbon in the oil initially came from? Of course, the atmosphere.

[bob.appleyard]

perdidochas wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: Piotr wrote: It seems to make sense, doesn't it?

Trees are just as good at releasing carbon (and other greenhouse gases, like water vapour) as they are at absorbing them. They should be seen as a temporary sink for these compounds.

No, living, growing trees are net sinks for carbon. Admittedly, when the trees die, they start to release it.

Which every tree does.

Quote: bob.appleyard wrote: Whereas, pulling carbon out of the ground releases it into the carbon cycle permanently.

No, just temporarily, at least on a geologic time scale. Where do you think that carbon in the oil initially came from? Of course, the atmosphere.

Trees don't work on a geological time scale, and nor do we.

[perdidochas]

bob.appleyard wrote: perdidochas wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: Piotr wrote: It seems to make sense, doesn't it?

Trees are just as good at releasing carbon (and other greenhouse gases, like water vapour) as they are at absorbing them. They should be seen as a temporary sink for these compounds.

No, living, growing trees are net sinks for carbon. Admittedly, when the trees die, they start to release it.

Which every tree does.

But sometimes not for quite some time. Also, trees do live for a fairly long time. In addition, wood is a pretty good carbon sink.

bob.appleyard wrote: Quote: bob.appleyard wrote: Whereas, pulling carbon out of the ground releases it into the carbon cycle permanently.

No, just temporarily, at least on a geologic time scale. Where do you think that carbon in the oil initially came from? Of course, the atmosphere.

Trees don't work on a geological time scale, and nor do we.

Well, trees get closer to it than we do...... Forests definitley work on the geological time scale.

[bob.appleyard]

perdidochas wrote: bob.appleyard wrote: perdidochas wrote:
No, living, growing trees are net sinks for carbon. Admittedly, when the trees die, they start to release it.

Which every tree does.

But sometimes not for quite some time. Also, trees do live for a fairly long time. In addition, wood is a pretty good carbon sink.

The soil around them is better. And many of the trees being planted in these "carbon neutrality" forests don't live a long time at all.

Quote: Quote: Quote: bob.appleyard wrote: Whereas, pulling carbon out of the ground releases it into the carbon cycle permanently.

No, just temporarily, at least on a geologic time scale. Where do you think that carbon in the oil initially came from? Of course, the atmosphere.

Trees don't work on a geological time scale, and nor do we.

Well, trees get closer to it than we do...... Forests definitley work on the geological time scale.

Some do. The ones we're planting in the name of "carbon neutrality" won't, though.