Bamboo isn't the best way. Apparently, the least expensive way is to scatter huge amounts of soluble iron over wide stretches of ocean. The limiting factor for phytoplankton growth is iron, and experiments have shown that scattering iron across large areas of ocean will cause a large increase in phytoplankton. It's quick, too. And since the oceans are the largest well of photosynthesis in our world, it seems like a good approach.
OK. The thought with bamboo and dumping it into the sea was to keep it fixed as a solid, and not permit it back into the atmosphere. What happens to phytoplankton once it grows and dies? Does the carbon ultimately return to the atmosphere or does it too stay put? As I mentioned, just harvesting bamboo and burning it defeats the purpose since that would just release again all the sequestered carbon, and I figure that if it instead gets waterlogged and sinks to the bottom of the ocean that it would stay in the sea.
So long as it can be done peacefully, justly, and without imprisoning, fining, or otherwise penalizing people with police or government to do so, that's OK with me. But if those things can't be avoided, then I'd just assume keeping pouring carbon into the air and let the chips fall where they may.
The other problem with rising CO2 is the fact that it reduces the nutritional value of crops. While breeding for carbon dioxide tolerance is a long-term solution, in the short term, we have a major problem.
How? I'm thinking of corn, wheat, rice, soy---what is the nutritional detriment effect of current and projected carbon levels in the air on these and other massive food crops?
OK. The thought with bamboo and dumping it into the sea was to keep it fixed as a solid, and not permit it back into the atmosphere. What happens to phytoplankton once it grows and dies?
Some drops to the bottom, gets covered by sediment, and become geologically locked, like coal, oil, and natural gas. One huge wild card is the enormous amount of carbon locked in permafrost. If it thaws, it will be rapidly released, mostly as methane, which is a much more effective greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide. We just don't know right now, how much that will warm up things.
How? I'm thinking of corn, wheat, rice, soy---what is the nutritional detriment effect of current and projected carbon levels in the air on these and other massive food crops?
It's still being investigated but we have some findings now...
Ziska recently teamed up with an international group of scientists to study whether high CO2 had an effect on the rice's nutrition. "Was it changing not just how the plant grew, but the quality of the plant?" he asked.
They tested how 18 different kinds of rice responded to CO2 levels that are projected by the end of the century, based on conservative estimates, Ziska says.
The technique they used, called free-air CO2 enrichment, allowed them to grow the rice and add CO2 to the air immediately surrounding the plants using a big hoop in the middle of a field, Ziska explains. They did this over multiple years in facilities in Japan and China.
And the effect was clear: Higher CO2 reduced multiple key measures of rice's nutritional value. Across the different types of rice, they observed average decreases of 10 percent in protein, 8 percent in iron and 5 percent in zinc. Four important B vitamins decreased between 13 and 30 percent. The research was recently published in Science Advances.
Higher carbon dioxide is not just affecting rice. There's evidence that the scope of this is much bigger. Harvard's Sam Myers, who studies the impact of climate change on nutrition, has tested CO2's impact on the protein, iron and zinc of a number of staple crops using the same free-air CO2 enrichment technique.
"Most of the food crops that we consume showed these nutrient reductions," Myers says.
Climate Change Means 'Virtually No Male Turtles' Born In A Key Nesting Ground
The Two-Way
Climate Change Means 'Virtually No Male Turtles' Born In A Key Nesting Ground
Flat Earthism and the idea that human activity is not responsible for climate change are two of the most prevalent conspiracy theories today. Both have been increasing in popularity since the late 20th century. Currently, 16% of the US population say they doubt the scientifically established shape of the Earth, while 40% think that human-induced climate change is a hoax. But proponents of one of these theories are not necessarily proponents of the other, even though both are often motivated by a common mistrust of authority. In fact, they regularly contradict one another.
Flat Earthers, for example, tend to disbelieve organisations such as NASA on the shape of Antarctica – or indeed, that there is a southern hemisphere at all. Yet the president of the Flat Earth Society, Daniel Shenton, is quite convinced – presumably at least in part thanks to information from NASA – that climate change is happening and espouses a fairly conventional view on the subject.
Former White House communications director, Anthony Scaramucci (dismissed by president Trump after ten days in office), meanwhile, believes that the Earth is in fact round, but does not believe in anthropogenic climate change, as he made clear in an interview with CNN.
Such selective reasoning is common among conspiracy theorists who often lack consistency with one other. Despite this, the media, celebrities and even politicians regularly make broad comparisons between climate change scepticism, Flat Earthism and other conspiracy theories.
Indeed, one of the few commonalities which exist between all major conspiracy theories is that somehow scientists and governments are involved in a grand conspiracy for reasons unknown.
A major part of the scientific anthropogenic climate change argument is that there is an increase in temperature extremes in both summer and winter. Evidently, a Flat Earth model cannot support this; in fact, the most accepted Flat Earth model, which maintains that the sun rotates in a non-variable circular orbit over the flat disk, implies that there should be no seasons at all, let alone multi-decadal seasonal extremes due to climate change. Nevertheless, to quote Shenton:
Climate change is a process which has been ongoing since (the) beginning of detectable history, but there seems to be a definite correlation between the recent increase in worldwide temperatures and man’s entry into the industrial age.
...
Anthropogenic climate change sceptics, on the other hand, are often willing to accept the science behind the Earth’s natural cycles, which they blame – instead of human activity – for the world’s weather woes. Clearly, we again find an implicit difference of opinion between a Flat Earth model, and a non-anthropogenic climate change one.
It is also clear that many climate change sceptics believe in the (approximately) spherical Earth, even if only subconsciously, by their use of scientifically accepted global maps when discussing data – not to mention when calling it “global” warming.
But the problem isn’t likely to go away any time soon. The US has the highest number of believers in both flat-Earthism and anthropogenic climate change scepticism, and the UK is not far behind. The US also has a high number (more than 50%) of senior political figures who deny man-made climate change, not to mention a democratically elected leader vocally believing the same. There are also numerous well-known celebrities who question the established shape of our planet.
Here's an (perhaps inadvertently) honest explanation as to why so many flat Earthers are creationists:
However, there are those in the movement who believe that the Bible teaches that the earth is flat, and that to accept the man-made scientific models in rejection of the Bible is folly.
But… isn’t that what WE say? Don’t creationists argue that we should stand on the word of God and reject man-made scientific models which clash with His unchanging word? ARE Creationists… flat earthers?
On the surface, this sounds very similar because, to an extent, it is similar. We do believe that our authority is the Bible. We do believe that scientific models which clash with the Bible should be rejected because the Bible is our authority (and ultimately they will be shown to be false). However, there is one very important KEY difference between how Young Earth Creationists and Flat Earthers treat the Bible: Flat Earthers insist we stand firm on what the Bible SAYS, but we Young Earth Creationists believe we should stand firm on what the Bible MEANS. https://creationtoday.org/flat-earth-vs-creationism-a-biblical-perspective/
Notice that this creationist is using the same argument against flat-Earthers that mainstream Christians use against creationists.
According to many scientists, the earth was greatly covered with ice not that long ago. And it warmed greatly before cars and factories, etc. etc. Go figure.
Since Christianity in general teaches its followers to take care of the environment, then it's clear that Christians will have to find ways to minimize the effects of climate change.
Since Christianity in general teaches its followers to take care of the environment, then it's clear that Christians will have to find ways to minimize the effects of climate change.
Persoanlly, I seriously doubt mankind can breech the boundaries GOD has ordained.
It is GOD that controls the course and boundaries of the cosmos and creates the paths of the elements that cause the seasons.
To put it bluntly, I do not believe mankind has the capacity to change the course of the seasons that GOD Himself established the boundaries of.
Israel was a "land of milk and honey." Rome cut down forests, abused the land and created a semi-desert. Men also did that to the "fertile crescent" of Mesopotamia (Iraq). Israel, for decades, has been converting the land back to its Biblical condition.
So clearly the stewardship God gave man was an effective one.
Because it's a mountain? Falling out of the sky at 20000 ft/s?
NASA looks for rocks that are 0.14 km in diameter and larger---what if Mt. Everest is out there? How big would that be? It would be something like 16-20 km in diameter (figuring half of it's above ground and the rest is underground). 16-20 km vs. 0.14 km. 0.14 km was chosen because at that size apparently the devastation would be noteworthy, if it directly hits a city e.g.
What if Everest hits a city? Or, anywhere, really? Rock's specific gravity is close enough to 2.5, and an 18 km diameter sphere is about three trillion cubic meters, and a cubic meter is 1000 liters, and so each liter weighs 2.5 kgs, so Mt. Everest must weigh on the order of 75 percent of 10,000 trillion kilograms. The kinetic energy of it traveling at 20000 ft/s must be about 14% of a trillion trillion joules of energy, and a quick conversion equates that, where one trillion joules is 239 tons of TNT, 14% of a trillion times that, so about 33 trillion tons of TNT worth of energy at impact.
A megaton is 1000000 tons, and largest nuke ever detonated was something like 50 MT. That explosion broke glass windows hundreds of miles away from the blast. If Everest hits the earth, it will be like 666,000 of those bombs all exploding in one spot all in an instant.
Spoiler
I've done all I can to paint the picture of what this will look like.
I don't want to arrange deck chairs on the Titanic. I don't mind figuring out how to turn them into lifeboats though. And I definitely do not give a speck of poop about bananas.
Science guarantees it's going to happen. They can't say when, but they can say That. This link suggests they have only identified 1/3 of the total number of mountains way up there in outer space streaking around our neighborhood of our galaxy. They're obviously going to have a tough time with mountains that don't spend much time around us (like the 'cigar' shaped mountain, spotted in the past couple years).
I really, really don't care about climate change. But I'm not being irrational. I think that you are, and I think that everybody who thinks that the banana is worth the opportunity cost is also. The mountain will also change the climate. It will change the climate so much in the blink of an eye that whatever we do in the meantime to hopefully adjust the climate will be either nullified or accelerated so severely that it will not have mattered at all, which is why I'm drawing the parallel between this and arranging deck chairs on the Titanic.
And all of the money that's going to change hands, and people who will be arrested, fined, sued, imprisoned, over climate change, not a single thing will matter once the mountain arrives, but we know that it will arrive one day, Science guarantees it. And, the same Science can't even say that we'd even have a day's warning beforehand either. We might have a century's warning, but also it could happen next week. Or anywhere in between. Or not for millions of years. Science cannot say.
Since Christianity in general teaches its followers to take care of the environment, then it's clear that Christians will have to find ways to minimize the effects of climate change.
The USA is a major power that has the highest percentage of believers in the Judeo-Christian God.
The USA is the world leader in real environmental efforts.
Therefore, Christians have already found ways to minimize the effects of pollution.
But, the anthropomorphic climate change hoax that claims we need to destroy the economy of the USA in order to do nothing to effect climate change keeps appealing to the mindless masses.
The USA is a major power that has the highest percentage of believers in the Judeo-Christian God.
The USA is the world leader in real environmental efforts.
Therefore, Christians have already found ways to minimize the effects of pollution.
But, the anthropomorphic climate change hoax that claims we need to destroy the economy of the USA in order to do nothing to effect climate change keeps appealing to the mindless masses.
Have you ever seen how much contribution to global pollution China is responsible for, all by themselves? I have not, but they are sure burning a lot of coal and petroleum fuel over there.
Since Christianity in general teaches its followers to take care of the environment, then it's clear that Christians will have to find ways to minimize the effects of climate change.
Have you ever seen how much contribution to global pollution China is responsible for, all by themselves? I have not, but they are sure burning a lot of coal and petroleum fuel over there.
Then we should put all the blame for the climate change scare on the Chinese and stop trying to destroy the USA for something that is someone else's fault.
Then we should put all the blame for the climate change scare on the Chinese and stop trying to destroy the USA for something that is someone else's fault.
