Talk-Polywell.org

I have been wondering if we aren't up to "ice-oponic" gardening. Hmmm?

MSimon, the sun was cooler long ago. It's actually evidence that CO2 + ecosystem creates a balance between sun-temperature and greenhouse forcing.

And as I said, as long as you have 1,000 W m^2 of light you should be able to grow crops. You can actually grow them in half that. It just requires technology.

Of course, I'm not advocating a return to an ice age, I am only advocating saving our coastlines.

MSimon: one interesting thing I noticed: that upper "rail" seems to have dropped about 250 million years go. I don't remember my geological history, but might that be around when Pangaea broke up?

[edit]Fix missing "million" pointed out by MSimon.

Looking at the CO2 levels in that chart, I got to wondering how uncomfortable humans would be in that 7000ppm period. It turns out, most of us wouldn't even notice (some of the more sensitive people might get a little sleepy, though).

Wikipedeia
Inspectapedia


On a side note, I recently realized that ignoring industrialization, every single living thing on this planet is a net carbon sink (though some less so than others). Plants (and any other photosynthetic organism) absorb CO2 from the atmosphere and produce sugars, cellulose and other hydrocarbons (along with much needed (by non-photosynthetic organisms) O2). Although non-photosynthetic organisms produce CO2 as a metabolic byproduct, they are still net carbon sinks, otherwise they would not grow and/or multiply: the carbon in all those protein chains has to come from somewhere, and that somewhere is indirectly (though food) from the atmosphere.

My conclusion: without human intervention, CO2 will continue being sucked out of the the air to the point where photosynthesis collapses. This will cause massive species die-offs as food supplies dwindle. All that will be left living is fungoids and maybe deep sea dwellers that don't rely on food from the surface. CO2 levels might rise again after that, and photosynthetic organisms might make a comeback.

Save the planet! Produce more CO2! (I'm about 3/5 serious. I'm sure there are flaws in my thinking).

I just had another thought: while many deserts can be attributed to man's activities, might their rapid (?) spread be due to low CO2 levels not allowing plants to grow fast enough to "overpower" the spread?

However, there is the problem with lack of "food" for plants in the sand.

taniwha wrote:MSimon: one interesting thing I noticed: that upper "rail" seems to have dropped about 250 Million years go. I don't remember my geological history, but might that be around when Pangaea broke up?

Corrected

Yes.

But then you have to ask. What is the best temperature for the Earth? Medieval Optimum? Little Ice Age? Yesterday's? The depth of the last ice age? The Roman Warm? Next summer's? Three Summers Ago?

I have never been able to get anyone to tell me why ice age temperatures (such as we have now) are the best. BTW we are in an interglacial (a little warmer) part of an ice age.

Now if we take the average temperatures for the last 500,000 years (not counting from 1900 to 2010. We should set the thermometer of the planet lower. Say glaciers covering most of Canada.

Or should it be warm enough to uncover all the Viking Villages on Greenland?

My conclusion: without human intervention, CO2 will continue being sucked out of the the air to the point where photosynthesis collapses. This will cause massive species die-offs as food supplies dwindle. All that will be left living is fungoids and maybe deep sea dwellers that don't rely on food from the surface. CO2 levels might rise again after that, and photosynthetic organisms might make a comeback.

That worries me too. Suppose we overshoot in taking CO2 out of the atmosphere and a LOT of plants die off?

The most immediate thing to do is to warm the oceans so they hold less CO2.

After that we can start reducing carbonate rocks. Anyone have a use for a LOT of free calcium?

MSimon wrote:But then you have to ask. What is the best temperature for the Earth?

My view? Whatever temperature mantains our coastal cities. I'd love for it to be hotter, but I know what that means for the coastal cities, and about a billion or two people.

Josh Cryer wrote:

MSimon wrote:But then you have to ask. What is the best temperature for the Earth?

My view? Whatever temperature mantains our coastal cities. I'd love for it to be hotter, but I know what that means for the coastal cities, and about a billion or two people.

I'd say about 10 deg C cooler. Otherwise a lot of Holland could be under water.

We need hundreds of trillions in new taxes to save us.

We need to destroy our economies to save us.

We need politicians dictating our every move to save us.

We need a leader to saves us.

Josh Cryer wrote:

MSimon wrote:But then you have to ask. What is the best temperature for the Earth?

My view? Whatever temperature mantains our coastal cities. I'd love for it to be hotter, but I know what that means for the coastal cities, and about a billion or two people.

I say the coastal cities will be always and forever poor. And New Orleans will always be under water.

Of course a sea level rise of 1 ft. in 100 years is a clear and present danger to those cities.

If we don't give Al Gore all our money we are doomed.

Oh. Yeah Josh.

You failed to name a temperature and how you plan to arrive at it.

It is like I gave you an order: build a house.

Or some one gave me an order: build a circuit.

And let me add:

I favor

WHATEVER

too!

I don't go by temperature, I go by ppm. Whatever ppm was per-industrial should be a goal.

Josh Cryer wrote:I don't go by temperature, I go by ppm. Whatever ppm was per-industrial should be a goal.

I go by what ppm is best for plants. More plants = more animals.

5,000 ppm is probably optimum. But I will settle for 2,000.