Finally an explanation about what looks like global cooling

Page 4 of 4 [ 61 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

07 Mar 2015, 2:01 am

I believe that part of Eastern New Mexico is considered to be "shortgrass prairie", not desert.

Of the color regions, left to right: shortgrass prairie, mixed grass prairie, and tallgrass prairie:

Image



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

07 Mar 2015, 2:06 am

Image

Image



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

07 Mar 2015, 3:04 am

Um, it doesn't really look like a short grass prairie at all. It looks like desert and it's got these cool rocks. It looks like another planet. I wanna say moonscape but it doesn't really look like earth's moon. I've never seen nothing like it any other place.

It definitely doesn't look like this state, I can tell you that. It might resemble the Texas panhandle sorta but Texas doesn't have those cool rocks jutting up all over. Those things are awesome looking. Love the way that place looks! When I first drove through New Mexico, I thought how totally cool something so neat looking and different is so close by. It's mind blowing. I can see why it has the UFO motif going on. It does look...alienish.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

07 Mar 2015, 3:36 am

Check out this article on the last time CO2 concentration was as high as in Febuary:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... SA_Twitter

Quote:
February is one of the first months since before months had names to boast carbon dioxide concentrations at 400 parts per million.* Such CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have likely not been seen since at least the end of the Oligocene 23 million years ago, an 11-million-year-long epoch of gradual climate cooling that most likely saw CO2 concentrations drop from more than 1,000 ppm.


With that info, I am surprised climate change isn't more extreme considering it 11 million years for gradual climate change to occur. Look how quickly humans put all that CO2 back! That's pretty extreme.

They also came up with a name for it.

Quote:
...scientists have proposed that the world has entered a new geologic epoch, dubbed the Anthropocene and marked by this climate shift, among other indicators.


And you can see mankind's contribution referenced there.

Scientists want to capture carbon from the atmosphere:

Quote:
The current high levels of CO2 have spurred calls, most recently from the National Academy of Sciences, to develop technologies to retrieve carbon from the atmosphere. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relies for that on growing plants, burning them instead of coal to produce electricity, capturing the resulting CO2 in the smokestack and burying it—or in the argot: BECCS, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, a few examples of which are scattered around the globe. Other schemes range from artificial trees to scour the skies of excess CO2 to fertilizing the oceans with iron and having diatoms do the invisible work for us.


My plan for moving humans to specific city zones with surrounding agriculture zones, returning the rest of the earth to plants and other species, along with birth control would solve a lot of problems. If things get too bad and people too desperate, just wait. What governments do might be actually worse than my plan, and much harsher.



eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

07 Mar 2015, 8:51 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Check out this article on the last time CO2 concentration was as high as in Febuary:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... SA_Twitter

Quote:
February is one of the first months since before months had names to boast carbon dioxide concentrations at 400 parts per million.* Such CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have likely not been seen since at least the end of the Oligocene 23 million years ago, an 11-million-year-long epoch of gradual climate cooling that most likely saw CO2 concentrations drop from more than 1,000 ppm.


With that info, I am surprised climate change isn't more extreme considering it 11 million years for gradual climate change to occur. Look how quickly humans put all that CO2 back! That's pretty extreme.

They also came up with a name for it.

Quote:
...scientists have proposed that the world has entered a new geologic epoch, dubbed the Anthropocene and marked by this climate shift, among other indicators.


And you can see mankind's contribution referenced there.

Scientists want to capture carbon from the atmosphere:

Quote:
The current high levels of CO2 have spurred calls, most recently from the National Academy of Sciences, to develop technologies to retrieve carbon from the atmosphere. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relies for that on growing plants, burning them instead of coal to produce electricity, capturing the resulting CO2 in the smokestack and burying it—or in the argot: BECCS, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, a few examples of which are scattered around the globe. Other schemes range from artificial trees to scour the skies of excess CO2 to fertilizing the oceans with iron and having diatoms do the invisible work for us.


My plan for moving humans to specific city zones with surrounding agriculture zones, returning the rest of the earth to plants and other species, along with birth control would solve a lot of problems. If things get too bad and people too desperate, just wait. What governments do might be actually worse than my plan, and much harsher.


So you would rather starve everyone to death?



The_Walrus
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 27 Jan 2010
Age: 31
Gender: Male
Posts: 8,878
Location: London

07 Mar 2015, 4:31 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
My plan for moving humans to specific city zones with surrounding agriculture zones, returning the rest of the earth to plants and other species, along with birth control would solve a lot of problems. If things get too bad and people too desperate, just wait. What governments do might be actually worse than my plan, and much harsher.

How is this different to the current state of affairs?



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

07 Mar 2015, 4:39 pm

The_Walrus wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
My plan for moving humans to specific city zones with surrounding agriculture zones, returning the rest of the earth to plants and other species, along with birth control would solve a lot of problems. If things get too bad and people too desperate, just wait. What governments do might be actually worse than my plan, and much harsher.

How is this different to the current state of affairs?

Oh it's very different because right now everyone sprawls everyplace and that takes away from the "sinks" places where carbon dioxide can be taken from the atmosphere and put into other endeavors, tree leaves, for example. but that's not the only one. Trees can take that CO2 and trap it in their bodies. It's pretty neat and it makes them really strong, like those cool beings on Avatar who were also carbon based life forms, like trees, and notice the connection to the memory tree? Pretty awesome. It would be cool to be more tree like because we would be really strong and thrive on all this carbon dioxide.

My plan would concentrate humans into human zones, and their animals, too but the rest of it would be left to the wildlife and plants and some places right here in the US and elsewhere would never see people roaming around in them even though they would have water, trees, wildlife and would appear very hospitable. Only places like that now are regions mankind feel are too harsh, deserts, mainly. People will venture into the forests and other areas with plants and complain about wildlife who are just trying to exist. It's ridiculous. I would give them more space. In fact, the sprawl would pretty much disappear, being replaced by truly wild places existing like they did before humans found the industrial revolution and science. They would make the perfect sinks, imo, and provide balance.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

07 Mar 2015, 4:40 pm

eric76 wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Check out this article on the last time CO2 concentration was as high as in Febuary:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... SA_Twitter

Quote:
February is one of the first months since before months had names to boast carbon dioxide concentrations at 400 parts per million.* Such CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere have likely not been seen since at least the end of the Oligocene 23 million years ago, an 11-million-year-long epoch of gradual climate cooling that most likely saw CO2 concentrations drop from more than 1,000 ppm.


With that info, I am surprised climate change isn't more extreme considering it 11 million years for gradual climate change to occur. Look how quickly humans put all that CO2 back! That's pretty extreme.

They also came up with a name for it.

Quote:
...scientists have proposed that the world has entered a new geologic epoch, dubbed the Anthropocene and marked by this climate shift, among other indicators.


And you can see mankind's contribution referenced there.

Scientists want to capture carbon from the atmosphere:

Quote:
The current high levels of CO2 have spurred calls, most recently from the National Academy of Sciences, to develop technologies to retrieve carbon from the atmosphere. The U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change relies for that on growing plants, burning them instead of coal to produce electricity, capturing the resulting CO2 in the smokestack and burying it—or in the argot: BECCS, bioenergy with carbon capture and storage, a few examples of which are scattered around the globe. Other schemes range from artificial trees to scour the skies of excess CO2 to fertilizing the oceans with iron and having diatoms do the invisible work for us.


My plan for moving humans to specific city zones with surrounding agriculture zones, returning the rest of the earth to plants and other species, along with birth control would solve a lot of problems. If things get too bad and people too desperate, just wait. What governments do might be actually worse than my plan, and much harsher.


So you would rather starve everyone to death?


To be honest, I worry about something like that happening if things stay as they are right now.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

07 Mar 2015, 9:11 pm

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I think it's unique to witness that transition, the way two ecosystems blend into each other but when you look at what's in The Land Of Enchantment, and having to drive hundreds of miles across the prairie/desert of the Texas Panhandle...it can get monotonous. Then you have that sprawler Amarillo although I like the layout. Seems most anything a traveler needs is right there, on the way. It is convenient.

If by that prairie/desert of the Texas panhandle and eastern New Mexico you're talking about the Llano Estacado then yes, it is monotonous. I wasted part of my youth living in that desolate and eternally boring place so I know.....


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson


eric76
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 31 Aug 2012
Gender: Male
Posts: 10,660
Location: In the heart of the dust bowl

07 Mar 2015, 9:42 pm

Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I think it's unique to witness that transition, the way two ecosystems blend into each other but when you look at what's in The Land Of Enchantment, and having to drive hundreds of miles across the prairie/desert of the Texas Panhandle...it can get monotonous. Then you have that sprawler Amarillo although I like the layout. Seems most anything a traveler needs is right there, on the way. It is convenient.

If by that prairie/desert of the Texas panhandle and eastern New Mexico you're talking about the Llano Estacado then yes, it is monotonous. I wasted part of my youth living in that desolate and eternally boring place so I know.....


Just because we don't have a bunch of trees and mountains cluttering up the scenery, there's no reason to think it is boring.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

08 Mar 2015, 1:19 am

Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I think it's unique to witness that transition, the way two ecosystems blend into each other but when you look at what's in The Land Of Enchantment, and having to drive hundreds of miles across the prairie/desert of the Texas Panhandle...it can get monotonous. Then you have that sprawler Amarillo although I like the layout. Seems most anything a traveler needs is right there, on the way. It is convenient.

If by that prairie/desert of the Texas panhandle and eastern New Mexico you're talking about the Llano Estacado then yes, it is monotonous. I wasted part of my youth living in that desolate and eternally boring place so I know.....


So have you been to New Mexico? What is your opinion on it? You already probably know I love New Mexico and feel uplifted when I am there. It's a magical place to me.



ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 18 Jun 2008
Gender: Female
Posts: 12,265

08 Mar 2015, 1:25 am

eric76 wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I think it's unique to witness that transition, the way two ecosystems blend into each other but when you look at what's in The Land Of Enchantment, and having to drive hundreds of miles across the prairie/desert of the Texas Panhandle...it can get monotonous. Then you have that sprawler Amarillo although I like the layout. Seems most anything a traveler needs is right there, on the way. It is convenient.

If by that prairie/desert of the Texas panhandle and eastern New Mexico you're talking about the Llano Estacado then yes, it is monotonous. I wasted part of my youth living in that desolate and eternally boring place so I know.....


Just because we don't have a bunch of trees and mountains cluttering up the scenery, there's no reason to think it is boring.

Well, ya know a lot of people think this entire region, the south plains, and the northern ones, or "great plains" are all boring, flat, tiresome. It's not entirely unheard of. I find elevation a key ingredient in shooing away that dull feeling of monotony. Ever feel when you are rising in altitude you just feel like your spirit is lifting right along with you? That is how I feel when I head west, into New Mexico and Arizona.



Raptor
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 8 Mar 2007
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,997
Location: Southeast U.S.A.

08 Mar 2015, 5:12 am

ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
Raptor wrote:
ooOoOoOAnaOoOoOoo wrote:
I think it's unique to witness that transition, the way two ecosystems blend into each other but when you look at what's in The Land Of Enchantment, and having to drive hundreds of miles across the prairie/desert of the Texas Panhandle...it can get monotonous. Then you have that sprawler Amarillo although I like the layout. Seems most anything a traveler needs is right there, on the way. It is convenient.

If by that prairie/desert of the Texas panhandle and eastern New Mexico you're talking about the Llano Estacado then yes, it is monotonous. I wasted part of my youth living in that desolate and eternally boring place so I know.....


So have you been to New Mexico? What is your opinion on it? You already probably know I love New Mexico and feel uplifted when I am there. It's a magical place to me.

I you love it that's all that counts.


_________________
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."
- Thomas Jefferson