Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JoshuaFH]

I seen something on "How It works", on the Discovery Channel, about these "super trees" (Poppler trees that are genetically controlled through breeding or something) and these giant tree farms that are just hundreds of acres of these Poppler trees that grow really quickly. These trees are used for construction lumber and paper and plywood.

They said, with the way it's set up, these tree farms will simply never run out of trees. They'll be able to harvest from them constantly forever.

These tree farms help to protect natural forests and provide enormous amounts of wood. Maybe more of things like these will help.

[umiman]

If it's any consolation, changes in the environment usually only take effect decades after the damage has been done. So more likely than not, our children are all already fated to live in a world... quite distinct from this. Contrary to what you've been taught, we really have no real idea how the world and people will adapt to a changing ecosystem. Also remember that these changes would take place over years and years. We might not even notice it.

So wait, at first you start saying that we're all doomed, then you go onto say how it will be a gradual change that we might not even notice?

The one thing that gets me irritated about all this global warming talk is that everyone seems to think its this horrible horrible thing that we must stop, but really, noone actually knows what is going to happen.

Incorrect, I said that the ignorant will doom us all. Perhaps I wasn't being clear, but this is more of a generalization and a figure of speech than a view on the current topic.

My view was quite clearly stated in the first post. Hehe...

Chaoticjosh: It's true that those renewable sources of wood could theoretically last forever. Remember that space has value as well, and there are a lot of indirect costs to having a super-massive tree farm. Just like wind power, quick-growing trees won't grow (without gratuitous amounts of soil work) where trees aren't supposed to grow in large numbers and you can't situate large masses of land to become farmable forests near urban centers.

What does this mean then? You'd have to turn existing areas where these trees originally thrive (read: forests and jungle) into these renewable tree farms. The problem is that because these renewable tree farms are "farmed" on a daily basis, there isn't enough time for the environment to form a decent ecosystem, unlike the previous jungle or forest. Furthermore, it is up in debate whether it is trees or actually algae that really helps deal with CO2 emissions and the like, which would put into question the environmental benefits of these tree farms. That's how that business works.

[Onlyhestands]

If the trees are growing really fast, then are cut down, then wont the soil eventually become sterile? There will be very little detrius as the trees are consumed by whatever industry, and cannot rot.

[PTTG??]

I agree, let's drop the global warming argument, for the sake of peace.
There's a few things that can be done to avoid soil nutrient loss- one thing would be returning the wood ash to timberlands during re-seeding projects, though this would entail large amounts of transport from forests to homes, then from homes to ash stockpiles, then from there to the forests again. It would work best within local areas- having each town have a woodland just outside which is regularly worked, rather than having, for instance, a California or Texas state timber farm. Less communism is good, right?

Also, let's not forget geothermal power. It is cheaper than coal and cleaner than hydroelectric, after you've built it- though the initial drilling makes it more expensive to start. It can be built anywhere, though it is cheaper in some areas. It will never melt down or spill, or accidentally microwave miles of countryside. What's not to like?

[JoshuaFH]

One question I always had that my Teacher's were never able to answer is: What keeps the inside of the planet hot?

[codezero]

The environmental benefits of trees is that unlike anything else, they're completely carbon neutral. As long as you plant one for every one you cut down. In Australia, I heard on the news some years ago that we have 5% of the rainforests we had 200 years ago, so there's no shortage of suitable land.

If you could couple foresting with food production, fauna as well as flora, that would solve a lot, but it would require less specialisation then we're used to. A truck laden with all sorts of shit or a truck with pure wheat. Intuitively , compare a wheat farm to a forest, if we could find a use for everything in a forest, what would provide more resources?

If you were then to replace every product you took out of it with the waste that product generated (excluding human manure), you would have an ecosystem.

[Il Palazzo]

One question I always had that my Teacher's were never able to answer is: What keeps the inside of the planet hot?

Due to high pressure, caused by gravitational contraction, the temperature of the planet's core incrases(similar to the ideal gas state law). Then, slowly, the heat is being transfered to the crust(if present) by convection and conduction, then radiated out into space. This process is hastened if the crust is tectonically active.
In short: it's gravity.
And it does not really 'keep' the heat. With sufficient time any planet(or star) will get cold.

[PTTG??]

Correct, Palazzo. There is also a theory that radioactive elements in the core decay and produce some heat as well. In effect, we are using geothermal to tap into a nuclear reactor.

Of course, I'm not sure of the current state of that theory.

[sneakey pete]

The one thing that gets me irritated about all this global warming talk is that everyone seems to think its this horrible horrible thing that we must stop, but really, noone actually knows what is going to happen.

Oh, but it's easy. It's not like predicting winning numbers at the lottery, here, there are but three options: it gets warmer, it gets colder, it stays the same way it is now. It's not that difficult to imagine the effects of the first two outcomes, and get prepared/scared.

Err...?

See, this is what i was talking about. People seem to be afraid of global warming without reason. How much colder/warmer will it get? just how much higher will sea levels get? will it be enough for me to give a shit?

The fact is, we don't know how mild or extreme the change is. We're not sure that if in 100 years the world could be a giant ice sheet (i doubt that) or that we'll just have 10% stronger storms in 100 years time. We don't know. Yet we go on about climate change like its a giant meteor heading towards the earth, set to wipe out all life. Newsflash: it wont.

[Little]

I think humanity will wipe itself out without the help of pollution.

[Aqizzar]

The fact is, we don't know how mild or extreme the change is. We're not sure that if in 100 years the world could be a giant ice sheet (i doubt that) or that we'll just have 10% stronger storms in 100 years time. We don't know. Yet we go on about climate change like its a giant meteor heading towards the earth, set to wipe out all life. Newsflash: it wont.

Not that I'm specifically arguing here, but I love how you go on for two paragraphs that nobody knows anything for sure, while flatly stating your own observations as concrete proof.  You don't know any better that anyone, probably less since the flow of the conversation suggests you're neither a climatologist, nor particularly up on developments therein.


Alright, I dragging up PTTG??'s post from a couple days ago, because it stopped me in my e-tracks when I saw it.  I couldn't respond when it was posted, because appropriately enough, I was marooned in Rural Village type area just as he described.  Or rather, entirely unlike he described.

To establish my cred for my wall of rebuttals, the Rural Village I was trapped in was my father's neighborhood, outside of Fink, TX.  Even Village might be a misnomer, as no one lives in incorporated Fink - it consists of five buildings: a gas station, a u-store-it boat yard, what might have once been a diner, a liquor store, and a water tower.

It makes a rather good model of a rural American town, with it's highschool football, abundance of dangerously bored police officers, and crumbling economy.  It's also comparatively well off, with a huge artificial lake providing a lot of tourism money, so the area is a good case study of what you can do with a rural town with more funds than open land would generate.

Rural areas have longer travel times, but are non-centralized, meaning no rush hour as every body moves into commercial areas and back out.

There is absolutely a rush-hour in rural areas, made all the worse because businesses are so far away from homes.  The commercial crunch specifically is around the WalMart/Chedder's/ChickFaLay block of Pottsboro's extant consumer economy.

-Neighborhoods and communities do not form as readily; there is an isolating feeling, though this varies significantly depending on the architecture and culture of an area. Rural communities are generally more close knit.

There is a sense of community to be found in rural towns, but only if you can squeeze into the Sarah Palin / Larry the Cable Guy parody they have turned into a badge of honor.  Any deviation from that mold brings immediate ostracism.  The town despises my father (what few dozen people know of him anyway) for his witchcraft powers of analytical reasoning and technical instruction.  He despises them in turn for being slack-jawed hayseeds, even more than he hated our neighbors in suburban Fort Worth.

Lower-density housing in rural areas does not rely on water or heating grids.

I don't know where you got this idea.  Rural areas have utility services just like any developed part of America, except the water is filthy and the heating gas is unreliable.  Only well-off people have their own wells, and there's barely enough money around for most people to afford the houses.  Everything is pretty cheap, compared to in the city, but there's far less money to be made.

-Aesthetics: Rural homes are unique, built with character and growing with families (though I admit the results are sometimes not pretty).

This is complete bollocks.  Again, only land-barons and similarly wealthy people can afford to even buy an original-styled house, much less build one.  The vast majority of people live in pre-fabs trucked into the area.  Just as tacky as McMansions with none of the good qualities.

As that last one shows, this is an objective thing in many ways. I am no expert at modern social organization, and I am certainly bigoted to prefer the rural climate. I would be very interested in hearing from an expert, and I'd like to hear your view.

You got it all right.  Educated?  No, but with a lot of down home experience.  I've lived in rural areas around Michigan, Tennessee, and Texas half of my life.  And I can tell you the only reason anyone should ever live in such areas is as a natural outgrowth of the necessary infrastructure to support farms.  The yeoman myth of rural life is so full of holes you can dispel it with a single afternoon in Grayson County.

If I had to pick a reason, it'd be complete lack of economic opportunity for anyone not directly involved to producing resources.  The natural optimism of situation all people feel turns all the problems associated with this into marks of pride.  Lack of exposure to abundant, different people become distrust and outright hatred of the unknown.  Solidarity in hardship makes education and healthcare into the devil's work.  And all the while, these area's adopt all the ignorant accoutrement of suburbs (evergreen yards, fat camps, and I can find as many rap stations as country stations on the local radio) because they and the rest of the country are constantly told that they're the middle-class heartland of America, from which all norms and values must flow.

[Qmarx]

There is no question that the global warming situation will be resolved.

Why?

Our port cities are far too valuable.  If rising sea levels start threatening them, somebody will take action.  It's currently both possible and feasible to load up some naval guns with extremely small mirrored plates (manufactured in a similar manner to silicon computer chips), and shoot them into the stratosphere over the poles. 

Sure, there'd be massive ecological damage, but the increased albedo of the Earth would be enough to forestall climate change.

The real question is how much collateral damage the situation will cause before resolution.  As is, the price of dealing with it is so insignificant (a 1% decrease in the global economy in thirty years, or so.  Keep in mind the global economy grows at a rate of 3% a year) relative to the potential costs, that we might as well do it.  If it turns out there is no problem, no harm done. 

Besides, if we don't burn oil there'll be more material available for plastic manufacturing.

[PTTG??]

Well, I have to say that I'm glad I put that legalese bit there about the objectivity of the matter. I see what you mean, Aqizzar, and first off I have been using the term 'rural' poorly. I'm thinking of a form of village structure that doesn't exist much more, and basing much of this off of the area I live in. Much of what I said about suburban areas applies to the truly rural areas you've described.

In particular, the small town I live in (Grass Valley, CA, for those of you who wish to examine the local maps) is what I'd describe as somewhat rural, though it isn't farming centered, but a mining/tourism town. The mine hasn't been open in decades, of course (though there are plans to reopen it). The businesses here are pretty sparse and mixed, and so there's only light traffic most of the time.
Outside of the town itself, it's hard to get anything other than power and telephone. Everybody has a well and fireplace.
It's true that we have our share of prefabs, but driving around you'll see plenty of rather lovely old homes, too, though this may have something to do with the touristy idea.

I'll admit that I wrote the bits about rural communities while misty-eyed with nostalgia for an impossible dream of Utopian villages. Perhaps my mistaken impressions may stem from my Californian perspective, where everything is perfect and there's no taxes and every Friday, statewide, is casual pizza day, and you can hardly walk ten feet without tripping over A, a Hollywood Starlet, B, a Pixar animator, C, a Google programmer, or D, an extremely well-groomed young man and his partner Bill.

[Il Palazzo]

It's currently both possible and feasible to load up some naval guns with extremely small mirrored plates (manufactured in a similar manner to silicon computer chips), and shoot them into the stratosphere over the poles.

Albedo increases, it get's colder, ice capes get larger causing albedo to increase, it gets colder, ice caps get larger, albedo...

[Qmarx]

It's currently both possible and feasible to load up some naval guns with extremely small mirrored plates (manufactured in a similar manner to silicon computer chips), and shoot them into the stratosphere over the poles.

Albedo increases, it get's colder, ice capes get larger causing albedo to increase, it gets colder, ice caps get larger, albedo...

I didn't say it was a good idea, just that it was possible with today's technology, and would solve the problem (with awful side effects, of course). 
They mirrors'd leave the atmosphere eventually.