posted by gut

I agree with everything else you posted, but the above is ridiculous.  We were @ 280ppm BEFORE industrialization.

I have no idea what "optimal" CO2 concentrations are and no one does.  It's just assumed that "more CO2 = bad", but the science is pretty suspect.  My guess is the true "goldilocks" zone is somewhere between 400-800ppm, but the speed we get there is potentially a problem.

We DO KNOW at @ 160ppm the planet dies.  The last million years or so has cycled several times between about 190-300, so several times the planet has come perilously close to extinction long before modern man came on the scene.

250-300 is the ideal zone for humans since we have leveled much of the old growth forest we'll have to keep it lower than the pre-industrialization number to keep our crops going. 280 was ideal for 7ft plus diameter white oak and ash trees. them some bitches are long dead.

posted by j_crazy

250-300 is the ideal zone for humans since we have leveled much of the old growth forest we'll have to keep it lower than the pre-industrialization number to keep our crops going. 280 was ideal for 7ft plus diameter white oak and ash trees. them some bitches are long dead.

LOL, no just no.  You realize the planet has been getting greener?  You do realize that crops are plants that eat CO2?

Also, CO2 concentrations are partly a function of plants.  Optimal CO2 doesn't become lower because you have less plants, but rather fewer plants means less absorbtion of emissions.

800 ppm is estimated optimal for plant life, which means it's optimal for animals given plants are the foundation of the food chain.  Above 800ppm there are diminishing margins of return, though not necessarily negative.  In the dinosaur era, life flourished between 1000-2000 ppm.

250ppm puts us much, much closer to extinction than 800ppm.

algea consumes most of the co2, not trees. 

posted by kizer permanente

algea consumes most of the co2, not trees. 

And the other interesting thing is 97% of CO2 emissions are natural.  Man contributes ~3%, about half of which is "magically" absorbed by a system "in balance".  The other half is man's contribution to rising CO2, roughly 3-4ppm per year.  Not sure there's even enough fossil fuel in the earth to get to 800ppm, given proven reserves are only estimated to last 60-80 more years.

posted by j_crazy

i work in O&G, i agree with your sentiment. but everyone has this same ask, "get out of being dependent on oil", but no one has a plan. We can't mine the lithium required without gas powered vehicles currently but even if we did we could never get 100% off of oil and gas and people need to understand that. the only viable option if we want to truly get serious is to develop and IMPLEMENT carbon capture and sequestration. 

something else that doesn't get much coverage and people call me a conspiracy theorist for calling out is the fact that solar and wind are 100% ponzi schemes and if we stopped subsidizing them they would collapse wholly in 3-5 years. the only reason they still push forward is because the money getting filtered to friends of politicians to keep building this crap. these folks are aware of the cliff they are approaching and they are BANKING on a government bailout when the bottom falls out. 

long term the energy policy we need to get to is simple but tough to accept if you want to virtue signal for votes or popular opinion. the time for easy choices are long gone. none of the correct decisions we have left are easy, we need to limit the negative impact of our existence while knowing we cannot eliminate it. nature/mother earth is just as chaotic and deadly as it was for the cavemen that came before us. our existence is made easy because of tremendous consumption of natural resources (i.e. energy) its up to us to act in order to prevent us from reverting back to the past. our choice in spending sadly is leading us to certain doom.

1. get 100% of electricty supplied by nuclear (ideally fusion, but fission at a minimum)

2. get 100% of ground and sea transportation (public and private) on electric. this means huge investments in light rail to drive down the necessity for personal vehicle use.

3. limit oil and gas production to only volumes necessary for fertilizer production, road maintenance and plastic needs that can't be sourced by recycling and only until such time as sustainable technology catches up on the plastic side.

4. aggresive carbon capture and sequestration funding and installations to get CO2 levels below 300ppm (ideally below 250)

I agree with everything you are saying I was just saying that given its a 10-20 year process we should be starting now even if its just planning.

Also I just got gas and I feel violated

Sounds like the Russians may have fired rockets in their own territory, at villages, so they can blame Ukraine.

posted by gut

LOL, no just no.  You realize the planet has been getting greener?  You do realize that crops are plants that eat CO2?

Also, CO2 concentrations are partly a function of plants.  Optimal CO2 doesn't become lower because you have less plants, but rather fewer plants means less absorbtion of emissions.

800 ppm is estimated optimal for plant life, which means it's optimal for animals given plants are the foundation of the food chain.  Above 800ppm there are diminishing margins of return, though not necessarily negative.  In the dinosaur era, life flourished between 1000-2000 ppm.

250ppm puts us much, much closer to extinction than 800ppm.

your argument is wrong. the CO2 consumption you're arguing for is for fully mature plants (.12kg/hr/100m2) what do we do with mature plants that we consider crops? we harvest (i.e. kill them) since 97% of our old growth forest on this continent have been cleared for crops, we will never get to that CO2 consumption again without severe famine. since that's not on the table, we need to aim for 300ppm to do what we need to do.  while limiting/eliminating global temp rises.

and for the argument that algae needs the CO2 to grow and keep things in check how do we feel every june when the west coast of florida becomes a mass fish kill zone? 

posted by BR1986FB

Sounds like the Russians may have fired rockets in their own territory, at villages, so they can blame Ukraine.

dang. bold move but when you have total control of the populace why not.

posted by BR1986FB

Sounds like the Russians may have fired rockets in their own territory, at villages, so they can blame Ukraine.

Hitler would be proud.

posted by j_crazy

your argument is wrong. the CO2 consumption you're arguing for is for fully mature plants (.12kg/hr/100m2) what do we do with mature plants that we consider crops? we harvest (i.e. kill them) since 97% of our old growth forest on this continent have been cleared for crops, we will never get to that CO2 consumption again without severe famine. since that's not on the table, we need to aim for 300ppm to do what we need to do.  while limiting/eliminating global temp rises.

and for the argument that algae needs the CO2 to grow and keep things in check how do we feel every june when the west coast of florida becomes a mass fish kill zone? 

So, so much stupid in that post.  Plants thrive at 800ppm.  A quick google search will show that.  Similar to people thriving at oxygen levels at sea level, but at the top of Everest where the air is much thinner you start to suffocate.

You're confusing concentration with consumption.  Very different arguments.  What you are confusing yourself attempting to argue is carbon cycle balance.  CO2 is increasing, so clearly there aren't enough plants & algae to offset the increase supplied by humans.  But that doesn't change the fact that plants much, much much prefer 800ppm over 250ppm.  That is plainly evident in the overall greening of the plant in recent decades.

How long before Lindsey Graham gets one of Putin's Chernobyl salads?

No doubt.  Gotta wonder what would happen if somebody  took Putin out. 

posted by QuakerOats

No doubt.  Gotta wonder what would happen if somebody  took Putin out. 

Knowing the way Russia works, the new leader could be more deranged than Putin.  

posted by majorspark

How long before Lindsey Graham gets one of Putin's Chernobyl salads?

America can only hope!

posted by QuakerOats

No doubt.  Gotta wonder what would happen if somebody  took Putin out. 

You know that is illegal under international law right?

Also, be careful, because what's to stop some general from taking that as a direct assault from the US and launching nuclear weapons at us? 

Are willing to take out Putin if it means a city is taken out? 

There is a reason there are different rules for nuclear weapon states. 

posted by Dr Winston O'Boogie

Knowing the way Russia works, the new leader could be more deranged than Putin.  

Would this shock anyone? But I'd think they'd want someone a bit more moderate, not as old school/hardcore.

If Putin's going to be taken out it's going to be from within, someone closer to him. Can't see a revolt or someone from outside the country (i.e. US) accomplishing it.

posted by BR1986FB

Would this shock anyone? But I'd think they'd want someone a bit more moderate, not as old school/hardcore.

If Putin's going to be taken out it's going to be from within, someone closer to him. Can't see a revolt or someone from outside the country (i.e. US) accomplishing it.

That's a worst case scenario. Do you really want a coup that may leave Russia's nuclear stockpile up for grabs? 

You all really need to go back and dig into the fall of the Soviet Union and how the world freaked out because we had no idea who was in charge of the nukes. 

Hell, it was even plot of movies in the 90s...see Crimson Tide. 

posted by BR1986FB

Would this shock anyone? But I'd think they'd want someone a bit more moderate, not as old school/hardcore.

If Putin's going to be taken out it's going to be from within, someone closer to him. Can't see a revolt or someone from outside the country (i.e. US) accomplishing it.

Yesterday or the day before, I saw a random headline stating that one of the Russian oligarchs put a $1M bounty on Putin.

After reading that, I thought that if, hypothetically, I was a Bond movie caliber hitman-type who'd be up for that sort of thing, my response would be along the lines of, "That's all? For Putin? Lol, add a couple zeros to that bounty and I'll take it under consideration."

I wonder what would happen if we deployed a deadly nerve agent in a Russian town in an assassination attempt that ended up killing a Russian citizen. 

posted by majorspark

I wonder what would happen if we deployed a deadly nerve agent in a Russian town in an assassination attempt that ended up killing a Russian citizen. 

Considering if we should have one,  it would violate the Biological Weapons Convention of which we are a member, we would get a ton of international outcry. 

Probably get a shit ton of blowback from NATO too. 

Russia is getting flak for cluster bombs and targeting nuclear power plants, rightly so. 

posted by Heretic

"That's all? For Putin? Lol, add a couple zeros to that bounty and I'll take it under consideration."

posted by ptown_trojans_1

You know that is illegal under international law right?

Also, be careful, because what's to stop some general from taking that as a direct assault from the US and launching nuclear weapons at us? 

Are willing to take out Putin if it means a city is taken out? 

There is a reason there are different rules for nuclear weapon states. 

Couldn't give a fiddler's fuck about the first sentence, but the rest are valid concerns.

posted by queencitybuckeye

Couldn't give a fiddler's fuck about the first sentence, but the rest are valid concerns.

If the US doesn't follow international law and rules, why should Russia or China then? 

Maybe a coup doesn't look so bad after Putin threatens to use nukes?

Not saying that's a credible threat, but when you start turning the screws [and they haven't REALLY, not yet] on the oligarchs I don't think the expectation is that they're going to say "Vlad, please stop" and he listens.