Apparently when a certain temperature is reached plants emit more carbon as part of their normal cycle as well as the ability to absorb carbon is decreased.
I don’t believe a word of. I can cite this one major fact: I don’t want to believe it. I can back that up with one other fact: I don’t want you destroying what is left of the old natural world off of some science study that may not be accurate in the field when the real thing happens. If this is the case why didn’t the planet reach runaway effect in past episodes of warming? Well, I could think of a scenario of why so even I could debunk that one. But science has been wrong before and even you cannot debunk that one!
So at this stage I become one of the greatest global warming risks on the planet, because I am a staunch environmentalist and believe in that cause more than global warming.
But in reality I believe in global warming and any threat of that magnitude needs to be dealt with conservatively, prudently, as opposed to bleeding hearts bringing blindness.
But if humans totally cut their emissions like they are suppose to it gives the old natural world a better shot at being preserved, and a better shot at acclimating to the heat change, if there is such a thing in this.
If humans created heat traps and carbon sinks with water in places around the globe using desalinated and purified rising sea level could they knock the surface temperature down to normal cycle levels, or below present levels?
The surface temperature is where plant life grows. Effects made to this may be more relative to the respire problem because of the localized effect on the plant life as opposed to the vast problem of an atmospheric bubble with little to no adequate ways to tackle it more directly (as in more directly getting out of the atmosphere what is already there).
Experts say we have only 20 to 30 years before the Respire of carbon thing becomes a problem from plant life.
Is that enough time to tackle the problem? For the human species, yes if we go all the way and heat traps work; but for the human species with economics, no it is not enough time to tackle the problem, and the land can be utilized for other things and the timber can be sold, so, well, economic concerns would indicate that… and there goes a carbon sink.
“so that about wraps it up for the old natural world, good-by nature”
Desalinating the rising sea level and making wetlands and lakes or whatever acts as a better coolant is a good idea but in a time crunch scenario it may be better to use the water that does not need desalination and the time it takes, and in the rainy season the higher rivers could be used to capture hoards of water around the world and be moved by trains and trucks and tankers.
Is the human species going to try to do this over the next 20-30 years? Not likely at all. This is one of the major areas that we should be doing but wont get done, or dome well enough if it is, and this is due to economics.
People not only need a change from the way they have been living, not all but many, but as well we need a better approach to doing things than economics leaves us with. We need to be able to tackle some big issues as a people without the costs in the way and without people’s time being taken up by needing to work a job.