Climate Change?

[mtrycrafts]

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2019/06/harvard-chemist-permafrost-n2o-levels-12-times-higher-than-expected/

Let's not get carried away. Just get used to it. Adopt to live with it. It is cheaper.

 

[lovinthehd]

Let's not get carried away. Just get used to it. Adopt to live with it. It is cheaper.

Better for your old stock portfolio.

 

[GO-NAD!]

The two views don't correlate because the Harvard researchers were just interpreting some measured data on a large population, and noticed that economic mobility was rare, and gave their study an attention-grabbing caption. On the other hand, I noticed that mobility often happens, but requires education, preparation, and focus that most don't or won't do. The fact that most people are ill-prepared due to a poor environment or simply don't want to do whatever is necessary is not an indicator that mobility is illusory. It is just an indicator that most people won't do what's necessary, either because it wasn't important enough to them, or they were in adverse environments (like parents who didn't give a damn about their children's education). If you're brought up to expect to have an hourly wage job and you don't aspire to anything else, you probably won't be upwardly mobile.

I just provided one link regarding the issue of social immobility. There have been multiple studies confirming it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2015/07/america-social-mobility-parents-income/399311/
The factors you mentioned that tend to hold people back certainly exist, I wouldn't argue that. But, there are other factors that are beyond their control - I don't think I need to list them, as I've read a lot of your posts and it's clear to me that you are a smart person.

OK, but with the huge number of people who have pulled themselves out of poverty, are you saying that it can't happen? Of course, it can. People come here from all over the planet, looking for a better life and if you think they all spoke English when they arrived, I have news for you- they often didn't speak a word of it. What do they do? They live among people who speak their language and learn as they go, getting jobs in their community and many soon own a business. Those who don't may stay in their own community, but many move into the general population and can do very well for themselves.

Anecdote, or not- many people from other countries have done far better for themselves than those who were born in the US. Why? Because they freaking showed up- they try harder. The US has slipped in educational ranking for many years and it's all because there's less teaching and more coddling.

I never claimed that it doesn't happen. That would be silly. We all know people who dragged themselves from rags to riches, but they are the rare exceptions. What I AM saying, is that social mobility isn't a simple matter of smarts and determination. Most poor people stuck at the same socio-economic status as there parents aren't feckless, mouth-breathing, layabouts. The odds are simply stacked against them.

The wealthier people are, the greater the ability to leverage that status to their advantage - and often to the disadvantage of the less affluent. It's not just America either:
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2018/jun/15/social-mobility-in-richest-countries-has-stalled-since-1990s

That said, I apologise if I've steered this thread into the weeds.

 

[herbu]

So kids in wealthy families have advantages kids in poor families don't have? WOW! Mind blown!!! We must do something about that. I know. Let's think of various ways to take money from the wealthy and give SOME of it to the poor. (We can KEEP the rest of it for ourselves and nobody will notice.) Those poor people will vote for us as long as we keep giving them stuff. We win, poor people win, and only the rich lose. That's two out of three. Cool!!!

 

[GO-NAD!]

So kids in wealthy families have advantages kids in poor families don't have? WOW! Mind blown!!! We must do something about that. I know. Let's think of various ways to take money from the wealthy and give SOME of it to the poor. (We can KEEP the rest of it for ourselves and nobody will notice.) Those poor people will vote for us as long as we keep giving them stuff. We win, poor people win, and only the rich lose. That's two out of three. Cool!!!

If you think that's what I'm suggesting, you're off the mark.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Now THIS is encouraging, if it's acted on.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tree-planting-climate-change-1.5201102

 

[mtrycrafts]

Now THIS is encouraging, if it's acted on.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tree-planting-climate-change-1.5201102

Read that or heard about this.
Now, planting 1 tree a second for a day is 86400 per person. That is roughly 10 million days.
Then, how many can one person plant per a shift?
How many people would participate for free?
Do we have 1T trees available for planting?
Where is the space, exactly?
Is it cost effective?
Then what we do with CO2 release into the atmosphere in the meantime?
More CO@, released, more trees to plant.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Read that or heard about this.
Now, planting 1 tree a second for a day is 86400 per person. That is roughly 10 million days.
Then, how many can one person plant per a shift?
How many people would participate for free?
Do we have 1T trees available for planting?
Where is the space, exactly?
Is it cost effective?
Then what we do with CO2 release into the atmosphere in the meantime?
More CO@, released, more trees to plant.

Of course there aren't a trillion seedlings ready to plant! I don't think it was implied that it could happen over night, but when seedlings are created there are machines that plant trees, so it's not a matter of sending millions of people out with picks and shovels although there's nothing stopping anyone so inclined.

Where?
"Russia, the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil and China have the most room for new trees, the report said."

Is it cost effective?
"This is by far — by thousands of times — the cheapest climate change solution, study co-author says"

 

[panteragstk]

Of course there aren't a trillion seedlings ready to plant! I don't think it was implied that it could happen over night, but when seedlings are created there are machines that plant trees, so it's not a matter of sending millions of people out with picks and shovels although there's nothing stopping anyone so inclined.

Where?
"Russia, the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil and China have the most room for new trees, the report said."

Is it cost effective?
"This is by far — by thousands of times — the cheapest climate change solution, study co-author says"

Texas alone has an assload of empty space for trees.

 

[Irvrobinson]

Texas alone has an assload of empty space for trees.

But very little water...

 

[KEW]

Texas alone has an assload of empty space for trees.

But very little water...

That does beg the question of how effective various trees are. I suspect a deciduous absorbs much more CO2 than the conifer/scrub pine that might naturally grow in much of Texas.

 

[herbu]

Now THIS is encouraging, if it's acted on.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/technology/tree-planting-climate-change-1.5201102

Interesting. Deforestation has been happening a long time. Urban sprawl. Especially bad around here, (Raleigh, NC). Funny. Have not seen condemnation or even analysis about the urban sprawl tree cutting impact on climate change. Odd. Here's the conservative spin. Yankees are fleeing their failing democratic urban centers and moving here for the jobs, environment and slower pace. They cut acres and acres of trees to build their houses, then pat themselves on the back for including a "greenway" or "park". They bring their yankee inconsiderate and harried ways with them and complain about our slower lifestyle. They are trying to turn us into the same failed urban areas they left, and destroying the environment in the process.

Now when some guy writes an article about planting trees, it is the libs that pick it apart and poo poo the idea. Why? Why would somebody support a nuclear option like outlawing coal burning and internal combustion engines, but poo poo planting trees? How is cutting down trees in the rain forest a bad idea, and planting trees also a bad idea? To me, planting trees seems like low hanging fruit. Helpful and low social/economic impact.

 

[highfigh]

Of course there aren't a trillion seedlings ready to plant! I don't think it was implied that it could happen over night, but when seedlings are created there are machines that plant trees, so it's not a matter of sending millions of people out with picks and shovels although there's nothing stopping anyone so inclined.

Where?
"Russia, the United States, Canada, Australia, Brazil and China have the most room for new trees, the report said."

Is it cost effective?
"This is by far — by thousands of times — the cheapest climate change solution, study co-author says"

OK, those places have the space, but are the conditions conducive to the survival of those trees?

Seedlings can be planted without picks and shovels- the root isn't very long and in sole soil, it's just a matter of sticking a bar into the ground, rotating it and making a conical hole, putting the seedling in and pressing the soil down to hold it. If they need picks and shovels, they're doing it in the wrong place.

What about the tropical rain forests, which have been clearcut, to allow cattle grazing? The equator is where this happened and that's where the trees need to be.

 

[TankTop5]

You guys do realize there’s more trees on earth in there ever has been. North America especially were planting more trees that were cutting by a large margin.


Sent from my iPad using MySpace

 

[Irvrobinson]

You guys do realize there’s more trees on earth in there ever has been. North America especially were planting more trees that were cutting by a large margin.

This isn't even remotely correct. It is true that forests in some locales are expanding, like in the Northeast US, but compared to total forest cover in the 1600s we're down by 25% or more in the US, and much more in the rest of the world. This report by the USDA for the US is from 2014, but it apparently hasn't changed much:

https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf

For the world:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ag.lnd.frst.zs

The situation world-wide is actually pretty dismal.

 

[TankTop5]

This isn't even remotely correct. It is true that forests in some locals are expanding, like in the Northeast US, but compared to total forest cover in the 1600s we're down by 25% or more in the US, and much more in the rest of the world. This report by the USDA for the US is from 2014, but it apparently hasn't changed much:

https://www.fia.fs.fed.us/library/brochures/docs/2012/ForestFacts_1952-2012_English.pdf

For the world:

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/ag.lnd.frst.zs

The situation world-wide is actually pretty dismal.

You’re absolutely correct, after further reading almost every article contradicts the previous article!


Sent from my iPad using MySpace

 

[Irvrobinson]

That does beg the question of how effective various trees are. I suspect a deciduous tree puts out much more CO2 than the conifer/scrub pine that might naturally grow in much of Texas.

I think you mean that deciduous trees *absorb* more CO2 than scrub pines do.

 

[GO-NAD!]

Interesting. Deforestation has been happening a long time. Urban sprawl. Especially bad around here, (Raleigh, NC). Funny. Have not seen condemnation or even analysis about the urban sprawl tree cutting impact on climate change. Odd. Here's the conservative spin. Yankees are fleeing their failing democratic urban centers and moving here for the jobs, environment and slower pace. They cut acres and acres of trees to build their houses, then pat themselves on the back for including a "greenway" or "park". They bring their yankee inconsiderate and harried ways with them and complain about our slower lifestyle. They are trying to turn us into the same failed urban areas they left, and destroying the environment in the process.

Now when some guy writes an article about planting trees, it is the libs that pick it apart and poo poo the idea. Why? Why would somebody support a nuclear option like outlawing coal burning and internal combustion engines, but poo poo planting trees? How is cutting down trees in the rain forest a bad idea, and planting trees also a bad idea? To me, planting trees seems like low hanging fruit. Helpful and low social/economic impact.

I'm confused. What libs are picking it apart?

 

[pewternhrata]

Doesn't speak for the entire world but seems the US is on a good path
https://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilderness-resources/stories/amp/more-trees-than-there-were-100-years-ago-its-true

 

[lovinthehd]

I'm confused. What libs are picking it apart?

The ones he imagines as usual. It's the deep state!