I think that there are 2 issues here fidget: yes plants do take up CO2, but they also release it during normal cellular metabolism, and, secondly the massive destruction of forests, has meant that there are not enough trees to utilise the increased production of CO2.
Plankton also releases CO2 in the same way that plants and trees do.
How can you lie there and think of England When you don't even know who's in the team
The barrier reef suffered a massive bleaching event in April 1998. I was there. I went back three years later to find what had been fantastic coral reefs, totally flattened. By 2006 they had recovered somewhat. The April 1998 bleaching event was caused by the water temperature, the El Nino had raised the water temperature to 31 C. Nice to dive in but devastating in it's results. The El Nino events seem to be getting closer together, but the barrier reef has had devastating events at regular intervals for thousands of years. Some corals can withstand the higher temperatures, it may just accelerate evolution.
I have read about this fidget, but the report from which I copied the map, suggested that the destruction in some areas is so great, that there is not enough coral left to make evolution a realistic option.
Is El Nino affected by man?
How can you lie there and think of England When you don't even know who's in the team
Coral larvae travel huge distances on ocean currents. Those growing in warmer areas, some will carry to cold areas and then die. If the new area is too warm for the old coral , it may be just right for a settlement of the type that can cope with higher temperatures. Nature abhors a vacuum and will find ways to fill it.
I am more worried about the problems caused by the nitrates from treating sugar cane that runs off into the inner parts of the G B R . Building work in Sharm el Sheik has devastated the coral because the bulldozers have dumped sand and rubbish on the reef. In Indonesia and Malaysia, rubbish is dumped at sea and there is a huge amount of damage being caused to reefs and islands in the Indian ocean where the currents carry it. Man is causing all this damage, a changing climate may be accelerating El Nino events, The pacific ring of fire (Volcanic) is very active at the moment, spewing vast amounts of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Have we caused that? Could we stop it? could King Canute hold back the tide. ?
Interpretation of the evidence is not easy for the layman and I assume that is why the subject is so controversial.
A political ruse ? Could very well be. America's plan to burn more fossil fuels in the future is certainly politically inspired. As always, most countries seek to do what is best for their economy so nothing new there.
The subject is not controversial among scientists. It is politicians and the vested business interests they represent that create the impression of disagreement, helped by a mainstream media requirement for balance which dictates that any statement must be presented with the contrary view given equal prominence, even when that contrary view is gibberish.
'Countries' have less to do with the economic counter arguments than do business. Ultimately, fossil fuel resources are privately owned, whether by corporations or corporate nation states, and the systems which make and distribute energy from those are almost all profit making organisations. It is not in the interests of those who own the mineral rights or those who sell energy to democratise our power systems - i.e. to encourage the take up of local renewable energy. Hence the emphasis in car development on hydrogen (which can still be manufactured, controlled and sold centrally) rather than electric, which is harder for the likes of Esso to own.
If you take a hard look at it, I think that cartoon Chicky has posted is right to the point. There is no real downside to the vast majority of the world's population if we decarbonise our energy systems. The greatest losers will be some very large corporations. So the PR Operation Muddy the Waters keeps on rolling.
Gardening on the edge of Exmoor, in Devon
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
With the electric cars, they are heavily dependent on Lithium batteries. The price of lithium is shooting up. The owner of Tesla is buying up shares in the companies controlling Lithium production. Crude oil price goes down, Batteries price goes up. The end consumer rarely wins. I don't for one second think that Lithium production is a nice clean process. All heavy metal pollution is bad for the environment. The next generation of solar panels that can recharge batteries and feed into the grid, will be of benefit to householders, always supposing that they have the funds to afford it in the first place.
Did anyone see Guy Martin in China.? They have recycling machines for bar coded bottles and cans that credit money on to a debit card, that can then be used for public transport. 4 million bicycles in Beijing have been replaced by cars and gridlock. I think the local Tesco used to have something similar, putting green Tesco points on to a card, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. I thought it was a good idea.
Posts
That's the theory behind 'carbon capture' isn't it? But is it keeping pace with the problem?
Gardening in Central Norfolk on improved gritty moraine over chalk ... free-draining.
I think that there are 2 issues here fidget: yes plants do take up CO2, but they also release it during normal cellular metabolism, and, secondly the massive destruction of forests, has meant that there are not enough trees to utilise the increased production of CO2.
Plankton also releases CO2 in the same way that plants and trees do.
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
I meant to add that when you chop down a tree, not only do you remove its capability to absorb CO2, but also cause the release of the "stored" CO2.
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
The barrier reef suffered a massive bleaching event in April 1998. I was there. I went back three years later to find what had been fantastic coral reefs, totally flattened. By 2006 they had recovered somewhat. The April 1998 bleaching event was caused by the water temperature, the El Nino had raised the water temperature to 31 C. Nice to dive in but devastating in it's results. The El Nino events seem to be getting closer together, but the barrier reef has had devastating events at regular intervals for thousands of years. Some corals can withstand the higher temperatures, it may just accelerate evolution.
I have read about this fidget, but the report from which I copied the map, suggested that the destruction in some areas is so great, that there is not enough coral left to make evolution a realistic option.
Is El Nino affected by man?
When you don't even know who's in the team
S.Yorkshire/Derbyshire border
Coral larvae travel huge distances on ocean currents. Those growing in warmer areas, some will carry to cold areas and then die. If the new area is too warm for the old coral , it may be just right for a settlement of the type that can cope with higher temperatures. Nature abhors a vacuum and will find ways to fill it.
I am more worried about the problems caused by the nitrates from treating sugar cane that runs off into the inner parts of the G B R . Building work in Sharm el Sheik has devastated the coral because the bulldozers have dumped sand and rubbish on the reef. In Indonesia and Malaysia, rubbish is dumped at sea and there is a huge amount of damage being caused to reefs and islands in the Indian ocean where the currents carry it. Man is causing all this damage, a changing climate may be accelerating El Nino events, The pacific ring of fire (Volcanic) is very active at the moment, spewing vast amounts of sulphur dioxide into the atmosphere. Have we caused that? Could we stop it? could King Canute hold back the tide. ?
The subject is not controversial among scientists. It is politicians and the vested business interests they represent that create the impression of disagreement, helped by a mainstream media requirement for balance which dictates that any statement must be presented with the contrary view given equal prominence, even when that contrary view is gibberish.
'Countries' have less to do with the economic counter arguments than do business. Ultimately, fossil fuel resources are privately owned, whether by corporations or corporate nation states, and the systems which make and distribute energy from those are almost all profit making organisations. It is not in the interests of those who own the mineral rights or those who sell energy to democratise our power systems - i.e. to encourage the take up of local renewable energy. Hence the emphasis in car development on hydrogen (which can still be manufactured, controlled and sold centrally) rather than electric, which is harder for the likes of Esso to own.
If you take a hard look at it, I think that cartoon Chicky has posted is right to the point. There is no real downside to the vast majority of the world's population if we decarbonise our energy systems. The greatest losers will be some very large corporations. So the PR Operation Muddy the Waters keeps on rolling.
“It's still magic even if you know how it's done.”
With the electric cars, they are heavily dependent on Lithium batteries. The price of lithium is shooting up. The owner of Tesla is buying up shares in the companies controlling Lithium production. Crude oil price goes down, Batteries price goes up. The end consumer rarely wins. I don't for one second think that Lithium production is a nice clean process. All heavy metal pollution is bad for the environment. The next generation of solar panels that can recharge batteries and feed into the grid, will be of benefit to householders, always supposing that they have the funds to afford it in the first place.
Did anyone see Guy Martin in China.? They have recycling machines for bar coded bottles and cans that credit money on to a debit card, that can then be used for public transport. 4 million bicycles in Beijing have been replaced by cars and gridlock. I think the local Tesco used to have something similar, putting green Tesco points on to a card, but that seems to have fallen by the wayside. I thought it was a good idea.
Lithium is not a heavy metal, it is the lightest of all the metals.