Towards the New Carboniferous
-
In this thread I would like to challenge an idea I have seen many Peaters reinforce: the idea that more carbon in the atmosphere is necessarily good, thus we should not be concerned with limiting anthropogenic additions of carbon to the atmosphere.
The analogy is drawn between human physiology and the biosphere that CO2 is protective and associated with increased metabolism. The idea is that the greenhouse effect is beneficial to the biosphere and involves an increase in planetary metabolism and that more CO2 in the atmosphere can only be a good thing for life on Earth. This notion is reinforced by Peat's own words on page 52 of Generative Energy where he says "I don't consider the "greenhouse effect" to be a problem."
I have no knowledge of Peat ever elaborating on his understanding of the greenhouse effect beyond that line in GE. Bioenergetics is the future, and it could be potentially disastrous if we were to disregard the dangers of a runaway greenhouse effect. If anyone could provide more insight into what Peat's thoughts might be please comment. The evidence in favor of the greenhouse effect is too strong to disregard it so easily.
The Carboniferous Period may help us gain some understanding. At the beginning of the period, CO2 levels in the atmosphere were as high as 1500 ppm (compare to 400ppm today). How could it be that there was no runaway greenhouse effect during the Carboniferous? Could it be linked to other factors, like cosmic radiation?
It is my understanding that gamma radiation has a correlation with cloud nucleation and some studies reflect this. I have heard that higher levels of gamma radiation increase the formation of cumulonimbus clouds. I can find no evidence of this in the scientific literature but if it were true it could have some interesting consequences. Cumulonimbus clouds are very dense and have the opposite effect of stratospheric clouds in that they reflect sunlight and lead to cooling near the surface of the earth. The Earth is currently on a galactic trajectory that leads us to receive increasing levels of gamma radiation from the galactic center. The effect is likely small, but it is possible that over a long time period we could see greater cloud density and thus greater cooling of the Earth's surface.
If this hypothesis holds, our management of the carbon system will take a new shape. By managing carbon addition with carbon sequestration in balance with csomic influences on climate we may move towards a New Carboniferous on Earth.
The Kali Yuga is ending. Is this the path into the next ascending Age?
-
My general view of the situation is that the emphasis on CO2 in the climate change system is beneficial to groups who engage in actual pollution but need a metric which they can performatively use to appear like they are making positive change. It also serves to disenfranchise the common man, making it so his only hope of saving the world is to put his trust and resources in the hands of large multinational corporate entities and the states they own.
All roads that don't place the emphasis on the much more abstract methods of CO2 sequestration are treated as secondary to it at best, and anything that would cause even the slightest hiccup to international commerce is shut down.
It's fundamentally an intrinsic problem with technological "advancement", and their proposed solution to untying this proverbial knot is, as always, that they need to add more rope.
-
great thread
-
Bioenergetics is the future, and it could be potentially disastrous if we were to disregard the dangers of a runaway greenhouse effect. If anyone could provide more insight into what Peat's thoughts might be please comment. The evidence in favor of the greenhouse effect is too strong to disregard it so easily.
There is an abundant evidence for anthrogenic global warming- it's one of the most believable and obvious phenomenon regarding humans. People are correct when they say that increasing the CO2 in the air will increase plant activity and thereby count as a boost to the planet's metabolism.
However, this ignores that metabolism is not just food but water and micronutrients, as well. When we do "real world" studies replicating the effect of increased global CO2 on normal plants(ie without the careful grooming of a greenhouse attendant), then we see very different results than greenhouse studies. Significantly lower production than in a greenhouse(still higher than non-added CO2), decreased protein, decreased minerals, and increased production of tannins and, in plants that produce cyanide, more cyanide. Also, the effect of increasing plant growth outside of careful attendance results in soil breakdown, which furthers the loss of nutrients.
How could it be that there was no runaway greenhouse effect during the Carboniferous?
The CO2 during Carboniferous was higher than present day but was itself a significant decrease from previous eras and was decreasing throughout the Carboniferous. It's also worth noting that the Carboniferous is considered to have had a higher avg. global temperature than today until it cooled to about the temperature we have now. This cooling was coupled with increased aridification in areas(higher temps increase humidity and rainfall, etc. from that) and is the reason why there was mass flora and fauna die-off.
The Earth is currently on a galactic trajectory that leads us to receive increasing levels of gamma radiation from the galactic center. The effect is likely small, but it is possible that over a long time period we could see greater cloud density and thus greater cooling of the Earth's surface.
Possibly.
We will need to alter how we relate to agriculture and the planet. I'm personally not too worried about CO2 as much as I'm worried about land policy, pollution, and the social consequences of food scarcity, land degradation, etc.
