This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.
The RPGPundit's Own Forum Rules
This part of the site is controlled by the RPGPundit. This is where he discusses topics that he finds interesting. You may post here, but understand that there are limits. The RPGPundit can shut down any thread, topic of discussion, or user in a thread at his pleasure. This part of the site is essentially his house, so keep that in mind. Note that this is the only part of the site where political discussion is permitted, but is regulated by the RPGPundit.

Author Topic: "Earth Day" And the Future or Doom of Humanity  (Read 3627 times)

Nexus

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • N
  • Posts: 5919
"Earth Day" And the Future or Doom of Humanity
« Reply #30 on: April 25, 2016, 06:05:32 PM »
Curb Appeal is important.
Remember when Illinois Nazis where a joke in the Blue Brothers movie?

Democracy, meh? (538)

 "The salient fact of American politics is that there are fifty to seventy million voters each of whom will volunteer to live, with his family, in a cardboard box under an overpass, and cook sparrows on an old curtain rod, if someone would only guarantee that the black, gay, Hispanic, liberal, whatever, in the next box over doesn’t even have a curtain rod, or a sparrow to put on it."

Trond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2743
"Earth Day" And the Future or Doom of Humanity
« Reply #31 on: April 29, 2016, 01:35:42 PM »
Quote from: jeff37923;894373
I agree, but the times have changed since the EPA was created. The Cuyahoga River no longer catches on fire for starters. So progress has been made, but you would think that we are a hairs breadth away from the destruction of all life on Earth if you listened to environmental radicals.
That progress did not happen because nitwits were sitting on their asses talking empty words. Tell me, where can I find a passenger pigeon these days? They say they were a good meal, and America's most numerous bird.

Progress has been made because people made noise. If nobody were tree huggers then California would now have zero redwoods (about 95 percent gone) which, it turns out is probably one of the most efficient carbon sinks on earth and also a major tourist attraction.

jeff37923

  • Knight of Common Sense
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18318
"Earth Day" And the Future or Doom of Humanity
« Reply #32 on: April 29, 2016, 02:07:11 PM »
Quote from: Trond;894807
That progress did not happen because nitwits were sitting on their asses talking empty words. Tell me, where can I find a passenger pigeon these days? They say they were a good meal, and America's most numerous bird.

Don't know. From your post, I'd say somebody's dinner plate. My question is, what irrevocable negative effect has the loss of the passenger pigeon had on the environment?

Quote from: Trond;894807
Progress has been made because people made noise. If nobody were tree huggers then California would now have zero redwoods (about 95 percent gone) which, it turns out is probably one of the most efficient carbon sinks on earth and also a major tourist attraction.

So, were California redwoods "saved" because they were good tourist revenue sources for California state or because they are good carbon sinks?

(I disagree that a tree is good carbon sink. Blue-green algae pound for pound metabolizes more carbon dioxide in to oxygen then any tree known. Environmentalists like to claim that trees are more effective carbon sinks because a tree is more photogenic than pond scum.)
"Meh."

Trond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2743
"Earth Day" And the Future or Doom of Humanity
« Reply #33 on: April 29, 2016, 04:28:06 PM »
Quote from: jeff37923;894813
Don't know. From your post, I'd say somebody's dinner plate. My question is, what irrevocable negative effect has the loss of the passenger pigeon had on the environment?
You've got to be kidding. That WAS part of the environment. In terms of resources, this was a resource that was destroyed by Americans in the 1800s-early 1900s.


Quote from: jeff37923;894813

So, were California redwoods "saved" because they were good tourist revenue sources for California state or because they are good carbon sinks?

Who cares which of those reasons was used? Before, it was more a tourism/preservation thing. That still applies today in addition to the carbon.
Quote from: jeff37923;894813
(I disagree that a tree is good carbon sink. Blue-green algae pound for pound metabolizes more carbon dioxide in to oxygen then any tree known. Environmentalists like to claim that trees are more effective carbon sinks because a tree is more photogenic than pond scum.)



Not true by the way. Algae are more important because the seas make up a bigger part of the earth's surface, not pound for pound. On top of that, we are talking about redwoods, and those are in a bit of category of their own when it comes to carbon absorption.

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8330
"Earth Day" And the Future or Doom of Humanity
« Reply #34 on: April 29, 2016, 09:23:53 PM »
Quote from: dragoner;894384
Which I don't, so no problem.

Thinking of some first contact scenario where the aliens find out we have trashed the planet would damage our prestige, or a least make them leery of us.


Fuck those guys. They've got no moral high ground to stand on, what with the abductions and anal probing.
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

Trond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2743
"Earth Day" And the Future or Doom of Humanity
« Reply #35 on: April 29, 2016, 09:37:49 PM »
Quote from: Ratman_tf;894900
Fuck those guys. They've got no moral high ground to stand on, what with the abductions and anal probing.


Hope I don't get banned for saying this, but I think those are false accusations :D

Ratman_tf

  • Alt-Reich Shitlord
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 8330
"Earth Day" And the Future or Doom of Humanity
« Reply #36 on: April 29, 2016, 11:17:23 PM »
Quote from: Trond;894903
Hope I don't get banned for saying this, but I think those are false accusations :D


As planned...
The notion of an exclusionary and hostile RPG community is a fever dream of zealots who view all social dynamics through a narrow keyhole of structural oppression.
-Haffrung

jeff37923

  • Knight of Common Sense
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18318
"Earth Day" And the Future or Doom of Humanity
« Reply #37 on: April 30, 2016, 12:43:00 AM »
Quote from: Trond;894855
You've got to be kidding. That WAS part of the environment. In terms of resources, this was a resource that was destroyed by Americans in the 1800s-early 1900s.


And I see no negative effects from that.

This may be a shock to you, but species go extinct all the damn time. History is full of extinct species. Mother Nature is bitch like that.


 
Quote from: Trond;894855
Who cares which of those reasons was used? Before, it was more a tourism/preservation thing. That still applies today in addition to the carbon.

No, because earlier you were saying we needed the California Redwood because they made great carbon sinks and now it seems that we need them for the economic reason of supplying the California tourism industry something else to look at. Big difference.



Quote from: Trond;894855
Not true by the way. Algae are more important because the seas make up a bigger part of the earth's surface, not pound for pound. On top of that, we are talking about redwoods, and those are in a bit of category of their own when it comes to carbon absorption.


Really? If you took a California redwood tree and the same mass of algae, you believe that the Califfrnia redwood would metabolize more carbon dioxide into oxygen than the algae? Where did you get this idea?
"Meh."

Trond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2743
"Earth Day" And the Future or Doom of Humanity
« Reply #38 on: April 30, 2016, 10:05:14 AM »
Quote from: jeff37923;894914
And I see no negative effects from that.

This may be a shock to you, but species go extinct all the damn time. History is full of extinct species. Mother Nature is bitch like that.

 
You see no negative effect because they were long gone by the time you were born. This is another bullshit argument. The current extinction level is many times higher than the background extinction. Wars also happen all the time, so let's not even try to avoid the next one.
 
Quote from: jeff37923;894914

No, because earlier you were saying we needed the California Redwood because they made great carbon sinks and now it seems that we need them for the economic reason of supplying the California tourism industry something else to look at. Big difference.  
Read it again, I said both at the same time.

Quote from: jeff37923;894914

Really? If you took a California redwood tree and the same mass of algae, you believe that the Califfrnia redwood would metabolize more carbon dioxide into oxygen than the algae? Where did you get this idea?


From science. You should check it out. It's about net absorption of the forest. Land plants often produce tissues that become part of the soil while algae often break down quicker, releasing the carbon. On top of that redwoods are the most productive land plants in that regard.

jeff37923

  • Knight of Common Sense
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18318
"Earth Day" And the Future or Doom of Humanity
« Reply #39 on: April 30, 2016, 03:09:12 PM »
Quote from: Trond;894956
You see no negative effect because they were long gone by the time you were born. This is another bullshit argument. The current extinction level is many times higher than the background extinction. Wars also happen all the time, so let's not even try to avoid the next one.


So, again, no noticeable negative effect.

Unless any kind of extinction is bad, in which case that whole bit about the dinosaurs being wiped out and thus allowing mammals to become dominant life forms which thus allowed humans to evolve to become the dominant species is also bad.
 
 
Quote from: Trond;894956
Read it again, I said both at the same time.


Yes, you did. However you were trying to emphasize the carbon sink aspect.


Quote from: Trond;894956
From science. You should check it out.


If that is so, then you should have no trouble citing your sources.

Quote from: Trond;894956
It's about net absorption of the forest.


Changing the goalposts? OK, if it about the net absorption of the forest, we shall compare that with the net absorption of a similar sized body of water for the algae.

Quote from: Trond;894956
Land plants often produce tissues that become part of the soil while algae often break down quicker, releasing the carbon. On top of that redwoods are the most productive land plants in that regard.


Algae has a higher reproductive rate than a California redwood or any other tree.

When algae dies, it doesn't just disintegrate into its constituent chemical elements you know. It also becomes part of the sea floor. Trees release their carbon when they become soil in the same manner.

Holy crap, and you tell me to try science?
I've included two text files of information on Algae and its use in metabolizing carbon dioxide into oxygen for closed loop life support systems (I was doing some research into CLLSS rules for Traveller).
"Meh."

Trond

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2743
"Earth Day" And the Future or Doom of Humanity
« Reply #40 on: April 30, 2016, 04:33:40 PM »
Quote from: jeff37923;894998
So, again, no noticeable negative effect.

Unless any kind of extinction is bad, in which case that whole bit about the dinosaurs being wiped out and thus allowing mammals to become dominant life forms which thus allowed humans to evolve to become the dominant species is also bad.
 
 

Yes, you did. However you were trying to emphasize the carbon sink aspect.




If that is so, then you should have no trouble citing your sources.



Changing the goalposts? OK, if it about the net absorption of the forest, we shall compare that with the net absorption of a similar sized body of water for the algae.



Algae has a higher reproductive rate than a California redwood or any other tree.

When algae dies, it doesn't just disintegrate into its constituent chemical elements you know. It also becomes part of the sea floor. Trees release their carbon when they become soil in the same manner.

Holy crap, and you tell me to try science?
I've included two text files of information on Algae and its use in metabolizing carbon dioxide into oxygen for closed loop life support systems (I was doing some research into CLLSS rules for Traveller).

 "Higher reproductive rate". Eh, you do realize that this doesn't matter? A tree consists of millions of cells.

What are those files? Your own notes? Have you published in a scientific journal? I have. Eight times.

According to Sarmiento et al., (2010) "Trends and regional distributions of land and ocean carbon sinks", about 33% of the human emitted carbon is absorbed by oceans, and 11% by terrestrial biosphere. Yup, that is three times more by the oceans, BUT water covers about 70% of the planet, AND water will itself absorb CO2, even without algae. The 11% is literally land plants and nothing else. Notice that National Geographic says that algae produce about half of the earth's oxygen (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html). The rest is mostly produced by land plants. Your statement that a tree is "not a good carbon sink" is false. In fact trees tend to absorb more and more as they get older, AND much of the previous absorption is retained in the wood, often eventually becoming part of the soil.

I hate to use wikipedia, but they actually have a good figure here: take a look at the figure in the article on "carbon sinks". See a difference between net terrestrial uptake and net ocean uptake? There is also an increasing awareness that while oceans tend to release CO2 as it gets warmer, terrestrial plants tend to grow faster. Redwoods has been shown to do this more than anything.

Here's a quote that has been known for some time in the scientific community "As a result of accelerated growth, northern coastal redwood forests are producing two to three times more plant biomass than any other forest in the world and storing an incredible amount of carbon." http://baynature.org/article/redwoods-growing-faster-in-a-warmer-climate/

In other words, the redwoods are among the best climate buffers we have. Do you still think redwood trees are "not a good carbon sink"? Think again.

But here I am arguing with you, the guy who has strong opinions on extinctions, but who had never heard of passenger pigeons. Sorry but I don't have time for this anymore. I have students waiting for their grades.

Spinachcat

  • Toxic SocioCat
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 14805
"Earth Day" And the Future or Doom of Humanity
« Reply #41 on: April 30, 2016, 11:23:09 PM »
Quote from: thedungeondelver;894282
I'm telling you man a Venus terraforming project would be super cool.


Hell yeah! Its great RPG adventure fodder.


Quote from: jeff37923;894298
Except they could not because their own regulations made it illegal to push MI to fix the problem. That is a pretty damning argument against the regulations right there. If the charter your agency is working under cannot allow that agency to legally do its job, then you have a problem with the regulatory standards you are operating under. The EPA needs a top down overhaul.


I agree the EPA needs an overhaul. The damning argument isn't against regulations, but about politicians constantly creating regulations without providing the oversight and regulatory agency support needed to do their job with any legal teeth.

Safe drinking water isn't a Left vs. Right political football. Or it shouldn't be.


Quote from: merc;894316
I didn't burn any tires, styrofoam, and truck batteries this year. :(


Slacker!


Quote from: jeff37923;894337
I keep finding sources that say that man-made climate change is not real as well.


The same sources that say Obama is from Kenya and Bigfoot is real?

Earth's atmosphere is closed system. Humans are making a fuckton of heat and carbon dioxide in that system. That's gonna have an effect over time, especially as we eliminate the carbon sinks in the system while increasing the heat and carbon dioxide.  


Quote from: jeff37923;894813
So, were California redwoods "saved" because they were good tourist revenue sources for California state or because they are good carbon sinks?


Both? We can do things for two good reasons.


Quote from: jeff37923;894813
(I disagree that a tree is good carbon sink. Blue-green algae pound for pound metabolizes more carbon dioxide in to oxygen then any tree known. Environmentalists like to claim that trees are more effective carbon sinks because a tree is more photogenic than pond scum.)


What about square footage? I am wondering how much area is necessary for the redwood vs. the bluegreen algae to act as equal carbon sink.

jeff37923

  • Knight of Common Sense
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 18318
"Earth Day" And the Future or Doom of Humanity
« Reply #42 on: May 01, 2016, 05:49:57 AM »
Quote from: Trond;895020
"Higher reproductive rate". Eh, you do realize that this doesn't matter? A tree consists of millions of cells.


No, actually it does because it still takes time to grow all those millions of cells.

Quote from: Trond;895020
What are those files? Your own notes? Have you published in a scientific journal? I have. Eight times.


Really? I pooped today and it seems to have as much significance as your claim.

Quote from: Trond;895020
According to Sarmiento et al., (2010) "Trends and regional distributions of land and ocean carbon sinks", about 33% of the human emitted carbon is absorbed by oceans, and 11% by terrestrial biosphere. Yup, that is three times more by the oceans, BUT water covers about 70% of the planet, AND water will itself absorb CO2, even without algae. The 11% is literally land plants and nothing else. Notice that National Geographic says that algae produce about half of the earth's oxygen (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/06/0607_040607_phytoplankton.html). The rest is mostly produced by land plants. Your statement that a tree is "not a good carbon sink" is false. In fact trees tend to absorb more and more as they get older, AND much of the previous absorption is retained in the wood, often eventually becoming part of the soil.


The Most Important Organism - Algae.

Oh, hey! Look at this Wikipedia article on Photosynthetic Efficiency. It looks like algae wins again!

I know, lets ask Reddit! Which plant is the most efficient at converting CO2 to O2? Holy shit! It's algae again!

Hmmm, I wonder what Microbe World has to say about algae? Wow! 75% of the world's oxygen is produced by algae! Incredible!

Here, I saved a National Geographic Education plan for you. It is called Save The Plankton, Breathe Freely.

Quote from: Trond;895020
I hate to use wikipedia, but they actually have a good figure here: take a look at the figure in the article on "carbon sinks". See a difference between net terrestrial uptake and net ocean uptake? There is also an increasing awareness that while oceans tend to release CO2 as it gets warmer, terrestrial plants tend to grow faster. Redwoods has been shown to do this more than anything.


Nice cherry-picking there. The article on Carbon Sinks you refer to, but did not link to, has large sections where they discuss the importance of oceans and associated algae as carbon sinks. Not that a scholar such as yourself would stoop to such fuckery as leaving out important information that does not support your assertion.


Quote from: Trond;895020
Here's a quote that has been known for some time in the scientific community "As a result of accelerated growth, northern coastal redwood forests are producing two to three times more plant biomass than any other forest in the world and storing an incredible amount of carbon." http://baynature.org/article/redwoods-growing-faster-in-a-warmer-climate/


Good thing I read that article because what it actually says is:

Quote from: baynature article
Researchers believe that increased temperatures could be lengthening the growing season for giant sequoias in the snowy Sierra Nevada, while the decrease in fog along California’s coastline means that coastal redwoods, which receive ample rainfall, are receiving more sunlight.

“Sunlight, enough water and warm conditions is the perfect recipe to grow happy redwoods,” said  Burns, “and that’s what we’re seeing.”


Nowhere does it say that the redwoods are more efficient carbon sinks than algae.

So lets do some research! I will use Trond's Bay Nature article for the growth rate of California redwoods and this source for the growth rate of algae.      

A California redwood can grow at a max rate of roughly 1.61 cubic meters per year while algae may grow at a rate of (K=1) a doubling of size every 0.693 days. Do a little math and we get a rate of doublings equal to 252.945. So assuming the size of the California redwood and the algae bloom are the same at the outset (1 cubic meter), the algae will be 252.945 cubic meters in size while the California redwood will be 2.61 cubic meters in size.

So even if algae were less efficient carbon sinks than California redwoods, the fact that they out grow the trees by a factor of 100 means that they are still the winner!

Quote from: Trond;895020
In other words, the redwoods are among the best climate buffers we have. Do you still think redwood trees are "not a good carbon sink"? Think again.


Obviously, I have thought again on the off chance that you are correct. You are not. But it is OK, California redwoods are prettier than algae pond scum.


Quote from: Trond;895020
But here I am arguing with you, the guy who has strong opinions on extinctions, but who had never heard of passenger pigeons. Sorry but I don't have time for this anymore. I have students waiting for their grades.


Best get cracking on grading your students! Indoctrination must not be impeded! Keep their critical thinking skills stunted so they do not dare question what they are being taught!
"Meh."

Rincewind1

  • Have YOU got any
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 7685
    • http://www.smerf.fero.pl
"Earth Day" And the Future or Doom of Humanity
« Reply #43 on: May 01, 2016, 07:08:08 AM »
In your calculations you seem to be forgetting one very important point Jeff - algae livelenght is "much" lower than redwood's. Secondly, banking everything on just one organism seems to be somewhat irresponsible.
« Last Edit: May 01, 2016, 07:11:59 AM by Rincewind1 »
Furthermore, I consider that  This is Why We Don't Like You thread should be closed

Warboss Squee

  • Lord of the Dance
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3040
"Earth Day" And the Future or Doom of Humanity
« Reply #44 on: May 01, 2016, 09:25:09 AM »
Quote from: Rincewind1;895153
In your calculations you seem to be forgetting one very important point Jeff - algae livelenght is "much" lower than redwood's. Secondly, banking everything on just one organism seems to be somewhat irresponsible.

I'd also argue that not only is algae a more delicate organism (temperature and light being big factors in it's life-cycle), last I checked, lot's of things eat algae, while the only thing eating the redwoods are us.  So while algae might be the better carbon sink (and I'm not advocating one way or the other until I've actually had time to study the numbers) redwoods would at least be the more stable...until we cut them all down.