Turn deserts green to combat climate change and save Florida! - Page 5

Geist · #61 May 9, '12, 2:52 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farsight001

Tilt of Earth's axis? No. The entire African continent was once much further south because the continent itself has moved.

No.

Continental drift was too long ago, the last cycle it was green humans were inhabiting the Sahara.

vz71 · #62 May 9, '12, 3:04 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

Isn't that sort of like saying, potable water won't be around for ever, so let the children figure out some way to get theirs...

No. It is more like saying it may run out, so we need to use what we have to find a way to find alternatives.

Farsight001 · #63 May 9, '12, 6:01 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geist

No.

Continental drift was too long ago, the last cycle it was green humans were inhabiting the Sahara.

Too long ago? It is literally happening right now as we read this at an average of about 5cm a year. A very precise GPS can read the movement in real time.

Where in the world are you getting your facts, man?

lynnvinc · #64 May 9, '12, 6:32 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by vz71

No. It is more like saying it may run out, so we need to use what we have to find a way to find alternatives.

Why do we have to wait until it runs out. Why not find alternatives now. Amory Lovins (energy efficiency expert) says, "the stone age did not end because the world ran out of stones."

vz71 · #65 May 9, '12, 6:40 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

Why do we have to wait until it runs out. Why not find alternatives now. Amory Lovins (energy efficiency expert) says, "the stone age did not end because the world ran out of stones."

No one said wait.
The time to increase efficiency and find alternatives is now.

We can make the vast supplies we have last for a very long time.
And should they ever run out, we can be prepared.

But that does not happen by cutting off the spigot when there is plenty of supply.

DennisTate · #66 May 14, '12, 3:59 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geist

The Sahara was a massive forest, three times actually. It appears to cycle back and forth with the tilt of earths axis.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...st-desert.html

National Geographic had a really good article on it a few months back.

Thank you immensely for this trivia Geist!

I had read that part of Antarctica was once covered in the type of forest that would indicate that the south pole was perhaps 2000 miles further north?!

DennisTate · #67 May 14, '12, 4:13 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

This is known as a geo-engineering measure, and it doesn't seem dangerous like some other schemes, such as emitting SO2 into the atmosphere to cool the planet (but only temporarily and at the cost of killing many people through the SO2 and acid rain).

One of the problems, however, is that a warmer atmosphere holds more water vapor, desiccating & harming/killing plants and soil, contributing to conditions ripe for wildfires, which along with stronger wind storms (which I believe are also expected with AGW) are indeed causing greater wildfires around the globe.

Now I think your idea should be pursued, but it should also be kept in mind all the inputs that would be required to do that -- does the output outweight the inputs, or is it a boondoggle that contributes more to AGW. It's worth looking into to see if it could be part of our arsenal to mitigate AGW.

Ultimately we need to do everything at all levels from individuals & families to businesses to governments to the UN. That's going to mainly be a matter of becoming more energy/resource conservative/efficient. It would also entail getting onto alt energy as much as possible. And some methods of drawing down the CO2...of which your greening project could be a help. I've also looked a bit into biochar and olivine (peridot) sequestering -- see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biochar & http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivine

But step one for us has been to reduce our GHG emissions, which we were able to do cost-effectively by about one-third or more. Then when we moved to Texas, we got onto Green Mountain 100% wind energy, and I guessimate that (along with our other measures) brought down our GHG emissions to 50% below our 1990 emissions. And now just 3 months ago we bought a Chevy Volt, which we plug into that wind energy and drive on the wind. It was expensive, but since we've been saving $1000s by implementing our other environmental measures, we were in good shape to buy it, plus I figure it too will be saving us $1000s after it pays for the difference in the other car we looked at in about 6.5 years. And I guesstimate that (along with the other measures) has brought down our GHG emission perhaps 70% below our 1990 emissions. And all have been money-saving measures. Maybe we should look into sacrificing a bit, bring it down to 75% below our 1990 emissions, or there are still many many cost-effective measure we have yet to implement.

I think when we retire in a couple of years, we may look more into the biochar measure -- maybe turning our moringa trees (which grow fast like weeds, even in poor, drought, and flooded soils & provide us nutritious food, and spring back after killing freezes -- see the PowerPoint in the right column of http://www.treesforlife.org/our-work...atives/moringa ) into a stead feed for biochar.

We need to pursue every avenue, but make sure they are not more harm than good (there are also some issue re biochar, which have to be studied more).

I just saw a documentary a few weeks ago where it was speculated that a nation like Bangladesh might try the SO2 plan in the event of rapid rising of ocean levels!

The government of a nation where so many people could become climate change refugees so rapidly would probably be willing to take risks that another nation with much less of their population at risk would never consider!

I deeply appreciate everybody's participation in this poll that I posted here in this forum:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=413854

Quote:

View Poll Results: Do you like the idea of combatting climate change through greening the deserts?

Yes, it makes more sense than a carbon shift or carbon tax policy! 5 21.74%

No, only by reducing carbon emission can we combat climate change. 6 26.09%

Yes, I live near the sea so rising ocean levels worry me. 3 13.04%

Yes, over thirty percent of our 6.5 billion are refugees so another hundred million refugees could cause many wars. 3 13.04%

No, we do not have the technology to turn the deserts green. 6 26.09%

I am not at all worried about climate change. God will handle it. 10 43.48%

lynnvinc · #68 May 14, '12, 7:57 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DennisTate

I just saw a documentary a few weeks ago where it was speculated that a nation like Bangladesh might try the SO2 plan in the event of rapid rising of ocean levels!

The government of a nation where so many people could become climate change refugees so rapidly would probably be willing to take risks that another nation with much less of their population at risk would never consider!

I deeply appreciate everybody's participation in this poll that I posted here in this forum:

http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=413854

By SO2 plan, you mean they would emit tremendous SO2 into the atmosphere to bring about temporary cooling?

That's really a dangerous boondoggle that would cause much more harm than good.

For one thing SO2 is only a temperary solution -- it stays in the atmosphere only a few weeks. By comparison CH4 stays some 10 years and a portion of CO2 can stay for up to 100,000 years. There is no way we could keep pumping SO2 into the atmosphere for 100s of years.

Also SO2 is a pollutant that causes health problem, and it can turn into sulfuric acid and do great harm to trees, lakes, soil, and lungs.

The other issue would be that if Bangladesh emits that, it will likely travel over other nations and harm them.

Here are some discussions of geo-engineering you might be interested in from RealClimate:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...eoengineering/ (they make a distinction between "solar radiation management" (SO2 projects) and "carbon capture and sequestration" (greening of the Sahara)).
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...hey-are-wrong/

vz71 · #69 May 14, '12, 8:41 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by lynnvinc

For one thing SO2 is only a temperary solution -- it stays in the atmosphere only a few weeks. By comparison CH4 stays some 10 years and a portion of CO2 can stay for up to 100,000 years. There is no way we could keep pumping SO2 into the atmosphere for 100s of years.

Source?

I question that they can determine the amount of time any given amount of CO2 remains in the air.

I also question that the 'SO2' plan is a problem, but other types of global engineering are not.

lynnvinc · #70 May 14, '12, 3:45 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by vz71

Source?

I question that they can determine the amount of time any given amount of CO2 remains in the air.

I also question that the 'SO2' plan is a problem, but other types of global engineering are not.

I'm not sure about SO2 in the stratosphere, but I've read that the usual SO2 emissions (e.g. from burning coal) stay a few weeks.

I had always read the CO2 that stays in the atmosphere (about half is drawn down fairly soon) stays for about 100 years. But then I read this: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...-warming-last/

This latter actually sounds right, within earlier parameters, bec the end-Permian great warming hystersis lasted for some 100,000 to 200,000 years.

lynnvinc · #71 May 14, '12, 3:59 pm

Quote:

Originally Posted by vz71

Source?

I question that they can determine the amount of time any given amount of CO2 remains in the air.

I also question that the 'SO2' plan is a problem, but other types of global engineering are not.

I also think other geo-engineering schemes should be looked into, esp the ones that draw down CO2. I'd hope they do a holistic analysis, considering all the inputs and results so as to avoid boondoggles, or things that end up more harmful than helpful.

Almuth Ernsting at BiofuelWatch alerted me to some problems with "bio-char" (which would draw down CO2 and sequester it in agri fields in a way that would help increase crop productivity) -- which I was getting all excited about.

See: http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/biocharbriefing.pdf
and http://www.biofuelwatch.org.uk/docs/...a_briefing.pdf

I still think we need to seriously look into bio-char and olivine, etc...

Mickey Finn · #72 May 14, '12, 6:07 pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ORRUJ...yer_detailpage

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...Power_Alliance

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ERq86...yer_detailpage

They've had this plan on the shelf for a few years now. Maybe the time is finally right, to put it in play. Though, I imagine the enviromental faction would keep it tied up in court. For a century or more.

ATB

DennisTate · #73 May 17, '12, 7:36 am

It may not be a coincidence that today is celebrated as the Day of Ascension!

When Is Ascension 2012? - Date of Ascension 2012
Question: When Is Ascension 2012?

Quote:

The Ascension of Our Lord, a holy day of obligation, celebrates the day that Christ, in the presence of His apostles, ascended bodily into Heaven. The Ascension occurred 40 days after Easter Sunday, so it falls on a Thursday; however, in most dioceses in the United States, the celebration of the Ascension has been transferred to the following Sunday.
Answer: Ascension Thursday falls on May 17, 2012, and it will be celebrated on that day in the ecclesiastical provinces of Boston, Hartford, New York, Newark, Philadelphia, and the state of Nebraska.

Ascension of Jesus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

The Ascension of Jesus (anglicized from the Vulgate Latin Acts 1:9-11 section title: Ascensio Iesu) is the Christian teaching found in the New Testament that the resurrected Jesus was taken up to heaven in his resurrected body,[Acts 1:9-11] in the presence of eleven of his apostles, occurring 40 days after the resurrection. In the biblical narrative, an angel tells the watching disciples that Jesus' second coming will take place in the same manner as his ascension.[1]

DennisTate · #74 May 17, '12, 7:45 am

For the record, I personally have been EXTREMELY interested in becoming a Catholic. I sensed something of a fear of people like myself who may be too into Judaism so I have wondered if perhaps the time might not be right...but I wrote up a blog a few years ago regarding how I feel that the Roman Catholic Church is in an amazing position to take point on combatting climate change through the creation of a Vatican Currency Unit.

I would suggest a Vatican Dollar?!

http://greendesertstoreducecarbon.blogspot.ca/
Combat Climate Change by Turning Deserts Green!
Friday, January 22, 2010
Is Pope Benedict XVI In The Best Position to Effectively Combat Climate Change?
Homily for January 17, 2010 by Dennis Tate. Assignment #2 for MNST 130 class at St. Francis Xavier University.

Megan7 · #75 May 17, '12, 8:30 am

Quote:

Originally Posted by DennisTate

A New Mexico biologist has an alternative theory on how to combat climate change that could be great news for everybody living in Florida, and New Orleand and the Netherlands and Bangladesh.....

Carl Cantrell:
"So how is our problem of continental drying causing global warming? It all has to do with vegetation and sunlight. When sun light hits a plant, it causes a process which we call photosynthesis where the energy from the sun light creates oxygen for us to breathe, water for us to drink, and is stored as sugar for plants and animals to use. When the same sun light hits the soil, all of its energy turns into heat and is radiated back into the atmosphere.. ."

"Therefore, the less vegetation you have on the planet, the more sunlight is being turned into heat and the warmer the planet becomes...."

"Just take a look at any satellite picture of the earth showing heat and you will see that our deserts are the warmest spots on the planet by far. More heat is being generated by just one of the top four or five deserts than by all of our cities combined.... "

"The truth is that you can do more to decrease global warming by just reducing the average temperature for the Sahara Desert by one or two degrees than if we humans completely quit using fossil fuels and returned to the cave…."

"So, how would you start working to resolve this problem? Easy, cool the deserts and get some vegetation growing on them as soon as possible. But the method is much more complex than that. You have to use the prevailing trade winds in relation to the deserts to get the best results as quickly as possible and it will be extremely expensive…."

"Then we build desalination plants along the coast near these water sheds and pipe water to the tops or ridges of the water sheds…"

"We need to start working on this as soon as possible because, if the planet reaches a point to where it is warming faster than our technology can possibly stop or reverse this warming trend, then our planet is lost and all life will cease to exist on this planet within a relatively short period of time. We will need to start with the largest and hottest deserts because cooling them will have the greatest benefit in the least time (Global Warming II by biologist Carl Cantrell)."

Thank you!