Welcome!

Welcome to our community forums, full of great people, ideas and excitement. Please register if you would like to take part.

Register

Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Saskatchewan v. Canada (Carbon Tax)

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Here's one opinion.

    . No photo description available.







    No teacher, cake are square, pie are round.

    Comment


    • A very alarming read .....

      'Record-setting' doesn't do our CO2 levels justice. This chart does.
      www.popsci.com


      We’re officially living on a planet with an atmosphere no previous human being has ever experienced. You’ll probably be able to say the same thing tomorrow.

      Carbon dioxide levels recorded at the Mauna Loa Observatory in Hawaii reached 415 parts per million on Friday. Not only is that the highest number the observatory has recorded since it first started analyzing atmospheric greenhouse gases in 1958, but it’s more than 100 ppm higher than any point in some 800,000 years of data scientists have on global CO2 concentrations.

      This means levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are now nearly 40 percent higher than ever in human history. And because the measurement directly correlates with things like global temperature and ocean acidification, this record concentration is further proof that humans are changing the environment at an unprecedented rate.

      We’ve Wasted More Plastic Than You Can Imagine

      Powered by Minute Media



      While it’s true that atmospheric carbon levels (and, by extension, global temperatures) have fluctuated a great deal throughout Earth’s geologic history, they’ve never done it this quickly. And they’ve never come close to current levels in the nearly 1 million-year snapshot of atmospheric data scientists have taken using the Mauna Loa Observatory and miles-deep ice cores from the poles. If there’s one graph that shows how alarming carbon emissions really are, it’s the one that illustrates their findings:

      For nearly a million years, carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have maintained an average of about 280 ppm, not going above 300 ppm or below 160 ppm. Global warming (and cooling) trends have played out on thousand-year time scales. The latest human-caused warming event is occurring over just a couple of centuries, which is so quick in comparison that the trend line appears vertical as it approaches today.

      The last time these levels reached 300 ppm, Homo sapiens didn’t even exist. It’s believed that modern humans evolvedbetween 300,000 and 200,000 years ago, tens of thousands of years after that prehistoric maximum. Our ancestors lived through several warming and cooling periods as they progressed, developing modern practices like farming after the end of the last Ice Age about 15,000 years ago. Global warming did occur at this point, but at a much slower rate than it is now.

      In the late 18th Century, coinciding with the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in Europe, atmospheric carbon skyrocketed as humans began burning fossil fuels, emitting unprecedented amounts of greenhouse gases. We know this because ice cores taken from the Antarctic ice sheet have been preserving the greenhouse gas concentrations of the atmosphere for hundreds of millennia. When snow falls on the ice sheet and compacts into ice, it traps air, essentially taking a snapshot of the atmosphere at that moment. Scientists unearth these air bubbles by extracting sometimes mile-long cylinders of ice, analyzing the concentration of greenhouse gases in the layered air bubbles.

      By the time the Mauna Loa Observatory began observing greenhouse gas levels directly from the atmosphere 60 years ago, the concentration was already at 315 ppm. In 2013, these levels exceeded 400 ppm for the first time in human history.

      Are humans really the cause of this carbon uptick? The answer is a clear, resounding yes. Not only does the upward trend directly correlate with the start of the Industrial Revolution, but based on tracked data on human emissions and our understanding of the rate at which nature absorbs some of those emissions (mainly through the oceans and photosynthesis), there’s an increasing amount of leftover carbon dioxide in the air that only our activities can account for.

      Human emissions have sent atmospheric carbon dioxide levels on a runaway rise, increasing the average concentration nearly every year. But given the disastrous effects of the warming this causes, this new record is nothing to celebrate.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by jenius View Post
        Here's one opinion.

        . No photo description available.






        The trees do indeed take in CO2, but only while they are alive. They give it up when dead and decomposing, or by fire. Its a zero-sum, which is to say the "CO2 in = the CO2 out"... if the forest stays the same size. If the forest grows, then yes, we are sequestering more carbon, however the opposite is true considering logging and fires.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by squish View Post

          The trees do indeed take in CO2, but only while they are alive. They give it up when dead and decomposing, or by fire. Its a zero-sum, which is to say the "CO2 in = the CO2 out"... if the forest stays the same size. If the forest grows, then yes, we are sequestering more carbon, however the opposite is true considering logging and fires.
          I am interested in your opinion. Basically less than 5% of our tree's absorb all our CO2. How does the other 95% not more than compensate for anything dead or fires etc.. Lets assume a large majority of the tree's in the country are alive.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Ripper View Post

            I am interested in your opinion. Basically less than 5% of our tree's absorb all our CO2. How does the other 95% not more than compensate for anything dead or fires etc.. Lets assume a large majority of the tree's in the country are alive.
            Ok, so first of all, its not an opinion. Think of the forest as a sink. A big ol sink, with a drain at the top and a tap spilling into it. The sink is full to the point where new water into the sink, displaces other water which falls down the drain. Thats how a carbon sink (like a forest) acts. It holds a certain amount of CO2, always has, but as trees die, more new ones grow, and the amount of CO2 in the forest remains the same. Always has been the same, since long before mankind was expelling CO2. The forest sink has always been full, no more will fit in.

            Now if we cut down the forests, or there are larger forest fires, the sink gets a bit smaller, and can hold less CO2. Conversely, if we reforest more land, the sink gets bigger and can offset more. Which is really the only way to have our forests "count" as being able to sequester new carbon.

            Hope that helped.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by squish View Post

              Ok, so first of all, its not an opinion. Think of the forest as a sink. A big ol sink, with a drain at the top and a tap spilling into it. The sink is full to the point where new water into the sink, displaces other water which falls down the drain. Thats how a carbon sink (like a forest) acts. It holds a certain amount of CO2, always has, but as trees die, more new ones grow, and the amount of CO2 in the forest remains the same. Always has been the same, since long before mankind was expelling CO2. The forest sink has always been full, no more will fit in.

              Now if we cut down the forests, or there are larger forest fires, the sink gets a bit smaller, and can hold less CO2. Conversely, if we reforest more land, the sink gets bigger and can offset more. Which is really the only way to have our forests "count" as being able to sequester new carbon.

              Hope that helped.
              Interesting. Thanks

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Ripper View Post

                Interesting. Thanks
                I think what's interesting is when you say 5% of our forests will capture all of our carbon, we could then say if we were able to grow our forests by 5% (no small feat) we would indeed then be sequestering the additional carbon that Canadians are producing. However with logging, it is most going the other way, despite replanting efforts.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by squish View Post

                  I think what's interesting is when you say 5% of our forests will capture all of our carbon, we could then say if we were able to grow our forests by 5% (no small feat) we would indeed then be sequestering the additional carbon that Canadians are producing. However with logging, it is most going the other way, despite replanting efforts.
                  Planting more tree's is a good idea and would be easy to do. Here is a another question. I would think the amount of CO2 absorbed in a tree would be relevant to the size of the tree, would it not. Small tree, small amount and so on. Would the amount it could absorb not increase as the tree got bigger. Would it not continue to absorb more over its life time as it grew?

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by squish View Post

                    Ok, so first of all, its not an opinion. Think of the forest as a sink. A big ol sink, with a drain at the top and a tap spilling into it. The sink is full to the point where new water into the sink, displaces other water which falls down the drain. Thats how a carbon sink (like a forest) acts. It holds a certain amount of CO2, always has, but as trees die, more new ones grow, and the amount of CO2 in the forest remains the same. Always has been the same, since long before mankind was expelling CO2. The forest sink has always been full, no more will fit in.

                    Now if we cut down the forests, or there are larger forest fires, the sink gets a bit smaller, and can hold less CO2. Conversely, if we reforest more land, the sink gets bigger and can offset more. Which is really the only way to have our forests "count" as being able to sequester new carbon.

                    Hope that helped.
                    If the tree dies doesn't the carbon stay in the fuel until its burnt, in theory if we buried wood for millions of years we would in theory create coal.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Ripper View Post

                      Planting more tree's is a good idea and would be easy to do. Here is a another question. I would think the amount of CO2 absorbed in a tree would be relevant to the size of the tree, would it not. Small tree, small amount and so on. Would the amount it could absorb not increase as the tree got bigger. Would it not continue to absorb more over its life time as it grew?
                      On an individual tree basis, yeah, but a forest sink would take into account all trees of all sizes and they would just put one number on the whole shmeer. I think though, that's probably where you get into "old growth" forests, and how important they are, because of the bigger trees and their ability to store more. You chop down old growth, you don't actually replace it's capacity for a century or more despite refoorestation.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Bignorm View Post

                        If the tree dies doesn't the carbon stay in the fuel until its burnt, in theory if we buried wood for millions of years we would in theory create coal.
                        Yes, also true, but only if it didn't decompose. Coal beds are created where forests become overrun by rising seawater, the trees fall and land in this swamp which is anoxic (has no oxygen) so the tree doesn't ever decompose via bacteria, but rather gets buried and compressed into coal. Most trees in the forest though, fall and are consumed by bacteria and other organisms that poop out CO2.

                        So, the lesson is don't ever try to get rid of a body in a swamp, it won't rot away.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by jenius View Post
                          Here's one opinion.

                          . No photo description available.






                          Lol. Straight from the annals of Facebook.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by pappcam View Post

                            Lol. Straight from the annals of Facebook.
                            Memes > science nowadays.

                            Comment


                            • in other news, the Province is caught somewhat red handed burying a report on the effects of the carbon tax on the province, only to turn around and fund another that backs up their claims.

                              https://thestarphoenix.com/news/sask...9-c714b00346da

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by Green_and_White View Post
                                in other news, the Province is caught somewhat red handed burying a report on the effects of the carbon tax on the province, only to turn around and fund another that backs up their claims.

                                https://thestarphoenix.com/news/sask...9-c714b00346da
                                Lots of interesting twists in the CT file. Most oil companies support it. Massive amounts of work done to bury that fact. In fairness I doubt that the oil sands producers support it as they are the biggest offenders, therefor the biggest target.

                                Comment

                                Announcement

                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.

                                Announcement

                                Collapse
                                No announcement yet.
                                Working...
                                X