Global Warming simplest solution: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Philosophy of Science » Science » Global Warming simplest solution » Global Warming simplest solution

Global Warming simplest solution
Just the most real and effective solution

Global Warming simplest solution

llanquihue
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 26, 2005
Location: Chile
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 20

Posted 03/16/08 - 06:29 PM: Subject: Global Warming simplest solution	#1
Being an Agronomic Engeneer I can not understand why I have not heard of the most basic and simple solution for global warming, this is to use the basic property of plants in order to extract the CO2 from the air. I see the most reliable real and fast solution to the global warming will be to re-forest vast deforestated areas, creating a great vegetable mass that with it's natural photosynthesis process will extrac the CO2 from the air and will fix it on it's structures, leaves, branches, wood, etc. Whenever you see a plant growing what you are seing is CO2 being fixed from the air and now being part of the plant structure. So what needs to be done is to protect current forests and to re-forest as much as possible. I believe that funds can be arised to plant forest, protect current forest and the forest owners in order them not to cut it's vegetable mass. I can not understand why this simple solution is not being debated.

keda
dumbo

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2005
Location: Finland
Total Topics: 21
Total Posts: 2260

Posted 03/16/08 - 08:37 PM:	#2
I think we should release more CO2 so plants and animals will flourish and live longer and healthier like in the past where we had 10 times more CO2 in the atmosphere. As it is now, we are all starving because there is too little CO2 and O2.
_____________________ Free Europe Now The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. -Benjamin Franklin If my sons did not want wars, there would be none - Gutle Rothschild It's not the people who vote that count, it's the people who count the votes - Josef Stalin Sometimes Satan comes as a man of peace - Bob Dylan A prolonged peace favours the predominance of a mere commercial spirit, and with it a debasing self-interest, cowardice, and effeminacy, and tends to degrade the character of the nation. - Immanuel Kant

llanquihue
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 26, 2005
Location: Chile
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 20

Posted 03/17/08 - 12:35 AM:	#3
a) Humans have serious health problems at 10 times more CO2 specially infants and children : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide Toxicity Carbon dioxide content in fresh air varies between 0.03% (300 ppm) and 0.06% (600 ppm) ... The current threshold limit value (TLV) or maximum level that is considered safe for healthy adults for an eight-hour work day is 0.5% (5,000 ppm). The maximum safe level for infants, children, the elderly and individuals with cardio-pulmonary health issues is significantly less. b) Plants are absorbing lot of the CO2 we expulse to the air but if we reduce the plant surface we are indanger of high CO2 increase rate. c) Deforestation causes loses of soil due to erosion this derives in soil erosion and desertification, dry lands. d) The vegetative mass also produces a buffer effect of the temperature. If we reduce the vegetative mass we are reducing also the evaporative surface of the earth. e) Plants does not grow now alone, humans beings control when and were we want them to grow. We have the power of increase the amount of plants growing by cultivation, fertilization, irrigation, etc. Edited by llanquihue on 03/17/08 - 12:43 AM

Orang
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 20, 2007
Location: Bandung
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 26

Posted 03/17/08 - 10:57 AM:	#4
Reforestation needs money and land. Deforestation generates money and land. I don't know if you are aware this but we're living in a planet full of short and narrow minded greedy people which some of them are very powerful. Not to mention there are a lot of people that lives in extreme poverty or war that they'll be grateful just to see another day. Ten or twenty years ahead prospect is so far away for them. Any way that's why that solution is not being worked globally. It's costly and doesn't pay back immediately. But as of it's not being debated? Well I don't really know but I think it is being debated or talked about. Some countries at least keep reforesting as they deforest.

llanquihue
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 26, 2005
Location: Chile
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 20

Posted 03/20/08 - 07:51 PM:	#5
I agree with you Orang. Certainly there are signals that not all recognizes, as when you see a river with water not transparent but brown color, what you are seing is the most fine particles of the soil, the clay components, being in suspension on the water, this means soil is being erosionated before that point. Vasts surfaces ot the earth are on a desertification process. As more areas get desertificated the climate gets more extreme because we are loosing our vegetable layer wich has the buffer capacity of moderating the temperatures, increasing the evaporation on dry times, and improving the water absortion by improving the soil structure on rainy times. This properties are more benefits of the vegetable surface over the known propierties of fixing he CO2 of the atmosphere into it�s structure so controling the global warming. I wonder if we'll reach a point were the system will not resist more and CO2 will increase so rapidly wihout the capacity of being absorbed at the same rate as now. We are reducing forests every year so the CO2 absortion amount is being reduced and we are saturating the oceans with more CO2 every year so maybe we�ll soon reach a point of inflection so we need to act now. Edited by llanquihue on 03/21/08 - 03:48 AM

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 516

Posted 03/21/08 - 06:32 AM:	#6
llanquihue I agree that deforestation and the need for regrowth is one of the priorities, if not the priority for tackling global warming. Indonesia is one of the largest emitters of CO2 for this reason alone, it seems the problem is political as much as technical. However, if a fraction of the money that is going into hi-tech solutions is directed into paying the military to police these areas I doubt if there would be a problem. It is also important that all wood must be traceable or otherwise it should be assumed to be illegally logged, and the company and/or country should be forced to pay for reforestation. This does nothing to solve the underlying problem of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning which still constitutes the majority of emissions however. Moreover, once the available land is used up and the forests mature they will simply attain a steady state (unless the wood is burnt as fuel or sequestered in some way which is a method not being seriously considered at present). Another problem is that reforestation only works well in the tropics since the decrease in albedo (reflectivity) in Boreal regions more than offsets any advantage in temperature reduction caused by the carbon absorption, since forests are usually darker than the grasslands they replace. Moreover, we must be confident that those reforested areas are not subject to climate change to the extent that the forests will simply return their carbon to the environment due to fire or rotting wood.
_____________________ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

llanquihue
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 26, 2005
Location: Chile
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 20

Posted 03/21/08 - 06:44 PM:	#7
It is also important that all wood must be traceable or otherwise it should be assumed to be illegally logged, and the company and/or country should be forced to pay for reforestation. This is a good idea that should be implemented in order not to cut protected natural forests or forests without management or forest without reforestation. This does nothing to solve the underlying problem of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning which still constitutes the majority of emissions however. Perseus I see two approaches that needs to be implemented one is what you mention here in order to control the current level of emissions and the other is to increment the CO2 extraction from the athmosphere. This second approach is the one I have not heard about and as the first is not being implemented really and every year we see more forests in fire, more vehicles, etc, the second should be implemented urgently. Really the boths needs to be implemented in order to reach a previous status on CO2 concentration. Moreover, once the available land is used up and the forests mature they will simply attain a steady state (unless the wood is burnt as fuel or sequestered in some way which is a method not being seriously considered at present). The vegetables have the capacity and they are using it now that when you increment the CO2 concentration they also increment their absortion. But this is increment in absortion is not linear nor ilimited, it reduces and can reache a saturation point were an increment on athmosphere CO2 does not really increases the plant absortion rate. Now we are reducing the amount of green surface so we are reaching more rapidly this saturation point. Also the oceans CO2 absortion are reaching a saturation point. This is my worry on when we'll reach a point of inflection and the CO2 increment will be at higher rates than now. On the other side, incrementing the vegetable cover they increment at a higher rate the CO2 uptake. I see enormous extensions of deforestated lands also now this lands are reaching a state of desert. This are the lands that needs to be reforestated. This areas at their beggining have to be forestated with dry resistant species and under their shadows another not so dry tolerant species can be planted. As you see, at this areas we have an inestable equilibrium this means that a deforestation here does not naturally recovers by the contrary the desertification begins, so only human intervention can recover the inestable equilibrium of this enormeous extension areas. Another problem is that reforestation only works well in the tropics since the decrease in albedo (reflectivity) in Boreal regions more than offsets any advantage in temperature reduction caused by the carbon absorption, since forests are usually darker than the grasslands they replace Reforestation works well all over the globe except the poles due to the media temperature. The vegetative mass reduces the hot temperatures but also causes the contrary effect on moderating the coldest temperatures due to the water mass they maintain in it's structures (you know the caloric power of the water). Grass lands do not have this effect by the contrary they are not a great mass of water as forests are. So the vegetable mass causes a buffer moderating effect on global temperatures. Moreover, we must be confident that those reforested areas are not subject to climate change to the extent that the forests will simply return their carbon to the environment due to fire or rotting wood. If a forests burns it liberates the previously sequestrated CO2 from the air, this is a closed CO2 cicle. Edited by llanquihue on 03/21/08 - 07:18 PM

Lord Drivel
rambler

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 29, 2006
Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 139

Posted 03/21/08 - 09:48 PM:	#8
Another 'simple' solution is to limit the human population. Think how comfortable this planet would be for EVERYONE if there were only 3 billion people on it. Maybe nature will arrange that.

llanquihue
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 26, 2005
Location: Chile
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 20

Posted 03/22/08 - 06:46 AM:	#9
It's not really the amount of people on the planet earth, but what our behaviour is. If the population is reduced but the current behaviour continues we have no solution. If the population is increased but the current behaviour changes we do have a real solution. A good small sign on the CO2 emiting control side I see here in Santiago is that I have known of a company that is selling electric cars imported from China. They say they are the first on South America. This cars can not go too far with one charge but it's an advance and I believe they are ok for a city car. ( http://www.autoselectricos.cl/ ) Hopefully they get massified and also imitated by other companies/countries. If get massified now we'll do have to control how our electricity is generated. But the most real and effective control at this times, before the electric cars get massified and before we control how we generate electricity is to increment our forested areas specially the deforestated and desertificated ones. Even thow we could control our emissions we need to work on this. Edited by llanquihue on 03/22/08 - 07:32 AM

jimRH7
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 09, 2008
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 54

Posted 03/23/08 - 03:29 PM:	#10
Lord Drivel wrote: Another 'simple' solution is to limit the human population. Think how comfortable this planet would be for EVERYONE if there were only 3 billion people on it. Maybe nature will arrange that. I agree with this guy, the problem isn't going to stop until we've burnt so much coal and oil that it becomes more economical to burn wood. Even then, farming contributes something like 45% of CO2 (plus methane etc which are ozone depleting), and we can't exactly just stop eating! personally, i think it'll probably end in war or something.

perseus
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 31, 2006
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 516

Posted 03/27/08 - 02:16 PM:	#11
llanquihue you said "Reforestation works well all over the globe except the poles due to the media temperature" Are you familiar with the studies relating forestation to net temperature change? http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v408/n6809/f...this states "in many boreal forest areas, forestation could therefore exert a net positive radiative forcing of climate, rather than a negative forcing as intended" I have however seen other studies that suggest reforestation other than the tropics would result in net warming. The reason why this doesn't happen in the tropics is because the forests release moisture that produce reflective clouds. In other words reforestation outside tropical zones could well re-enforce climate change. I suspect it depends on the rate of growth and removal of mature forest, but rapid growth requires fertilisers and herbicides that produce other greenhouse gases. It's difficult to win. However reforestation and stopping deforestation in the tropics is a no brainer and is preferable to crop production for biofuels in most cases. Edited by perseus on 03/27/08 - 02:20 PM
_____________________ The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man. George Bernard Shaw

llanquihue
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 26, 2005
Location: Chile
Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 20

Posted 03/30/08 - 08:07 PM:	#12
I have the feeling that these kind of studies are very specific and that they do not include all the variables. The link you present does this and relates global warming to only one variable thats albedo. One can see different studies with different results considering the behaviour of only one variable. But the main problem is not only the warming of the ambient, the global warming problem is the modification of the atmosphere gases composition. This is causing the global warming and the decreasing of Ocean pH. During the near past we had lot more forests and our climate was more friendly due to it. Aren't we suffering of drought all over the globe ? This is due to the reduction on the evaporative surfaces of the globe. We can revert this by increaing the forested areas. Others have commented as a solution to block by different means the sunlingt. Will this solve the basic problem that is our gases composition?. Of course not. the forests release moisture that produce reflective clouds This does occurs in all the forests the tropics and the boreal ones all them evaporates water that produces clouds and more rain and more pure water that we need. apid growth requires fertilisers and herbicides that produce other greenhouse gases. Native forests does grow without any fertilizers. New forest as the ones for celulose industry does need very few fertilizers at the planting and maybe at the first years. Specially micronutrients to correct some deficits. But this is almost nothing. Most of their nutrients are extracted directly from the soil. However reforestation and stopping deforestation in the tropics is a no brainer and is preferable to crop production for biofuels in most cases. Yes Forestation is preferable than crops for biofuels. But Biofuels crops when planted in deforestated areas would be preferable that extracting petrol. As for the comment of jimRH7 farming contributes something like 45% of CO2 For ground crops when your crop is growing we have a net extraction of the CO2. If we burn all the residues after the harvest we are again delivering CO2 at the athmosphere. Burning the residues is not advisable for soil protection nor for reducing the CO2. There are methods of zero tillage systems (conservationist) that does not burn nothing and does not moves the soil at all , it sow the previous crop residues so it great benefits the soil biology and the net sequestration of CO2 from the air and also decreases the microerosion to zero. Between the both systems we do have the one that does not burn the residues and incorporates them into the soil. This ia also a good system that has a net extraction of CO2 from the athmosphere. When considering high crops as the fruit trees we are not burning them so we do have a net gain in CO2 sequestration on their structures, and ussualy pruning residues are re-incorporated at the soil. The Oceans are reaching the point of saturation with CO2 reducing their pH. The cold forests should be now reaching the point were an increase in CO2 does not produces more photosynthesis. So we do need now more forests to absorb the athmospheric CO2. Edited by llanquihue on 03/30/08 - 08:21 PM

jimRH7
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 09, 2008
Total Topics: 8
Total Posts: 54

Posted 05/03/08 - 07:29 AM:	#13
llanquihue wrote: As for the comment of jimRH7 For ground crops when your crop is growing we have a net extraction of the CO2. If we burn all the residues after the harvest we are again delivering CO2 at the athmosphere. Burning the residues is not advisable for soil protection nor for reducing the CO2. There are methods of zero tillage systems (conservationist) that does not burn nothing and does not moves the soil at all , it sow the previous crop residues so it great benefits the soil biology and the net sequestration of CO2 from the air and also decreases the microerosion to zero. Between the both systems we do have the one that does not burn the residues and incorporates them into the soil. This ia also a good system that has a net extraction of CO2 from the athmosphere. When considering high crops as the fruit trees we are not burning them so we do have a net gain in CO2 sequestration on their structures, and ussualy pruning residues are re-incorporated at the soil. It is not growing crops that releases CO2, it's the tractors that plough the feilds, the animals that breathe it out, the destruction of the FORESTS that the farms replace etc.

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.