Global warming not caused by fuels

Let us assume, that atmospheric CO2 rise is the cause of observed warming.

It is known, that influx of CO2 is balanced by plant photosythesis.

I bet that decline in forestation is the reason of CO2 rise, not the fossil fuels.

So, the right way to prevent global warming is to have more forestation and other plants.

ES

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes ... it is true that plants and trees have some influence on the influx of CO2 ... but it is a very small mechanism compared to the overall influx balance of the atmosphere.

For one, even if you planted a tree right now in your back yard, it would take on average 25 years before it reaches maturity and only then it can contribute to the removal of CO2 at peak efficiency.

The other thing is that CO2 removal through photosynthesis is a minor process when you look at the overall picture. The holding capacity of CO2 for the biosphere is relatively small compared to that of the atmosphere, ocean, and fossil rocks. Most of the CO2 being emitted are injected into the atmosphere first and the vast majority are absorbed through the oceans ... not the biosphere.

Consider this, if 100 units of CO2 has been emitted into the atmosphere, it will stay there for about 500 years before it's completely absorbed through the oceans and biosphere ... whereas about 98 units are absorbed through the ocean. These are very rough numbers but the point is the same, most of the CO2 emission will not get absorbed through the biosphere as quickly as you think. For one, it will take hundreds of years before that CO2 gets absorbed and secondly, the biosphere is a small fraction of the entire system for CO2 removal.

So planting trees everywhere won't do much to remove a suitable amount of CO2 from the atmosphere.

But it is true that deforestation does add to the total amount of CO2 currently in the atmosphere. But I wouldn't say that's the primary reason we're experiencing global warming.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

if you look at the chemistry of the atmosphere you will see that there is alot of reactions also, Co2 reacts with other chemicals in the atmosphere in both good ways and in bad there is tons of papers and research on this do a google and you will see what I am talking about

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The data I am looking at, show that it is practically 100pct of the removal:

http://www.radix.net/~bobg/faqs/scq.CO2rise.html

ES

 

My prof recently mentioned something about hydrogen bomb testing affecting the ozone layer. I might have heard him wrong, being sleepy. Is it true?

 

cant see how it would affect the ozone layer, when you let off a hydrogen bomb it just releases water vapour, nothing to alter the O3 layer

 

So what's with the whole nuclear winter possibility? Where does that come from?

 

ok we have set off numerous nukes here in the USA and there has not been a nuclear winter yet...But on another side who knows what would happen to our climate if say 200 - 500 or even a 1000 nukes went of in a war, sure we might see one then but not too many people would be around to see that one.

 

The nuclear winter theory is that the dust kicked up by the explosions of alot of nukes would block sunlight, producing a cooling effect. I don't know about the experimental work, but we've never had the oppurtunity to examine it in real life. It's sounds realistic though, provided a large scale nuclear exchange. The other part is that alot of this dust would be irradiated by the nuclear reaction, and a fair bit would be radioactive. You have this hanging around in the atmosphere for a while too.

The small number(relatively) of nukes set off in atmospheric tests couldn't begin to produce the dust clouds required.

The effect of a nuclear explosion on the ozone layer, if present, would only last as long as the agents causing the problem remain in the stratosphere. A hydrogen bomb doesn't produce water vapor. Unless you drop it in water. I could see it then.

 

Time to plant a tree:

We are geting warmer 0.2 C grades a year.

es

 

No, right now the trend is 0,00024 degrees per year in the last seven years.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

damn decimal points lol

 

Sorry,

I missed a point, it is 0.02 grades per year, last 20 years.

ES

 

Just because plant synthesize CO2 doesn not mean that planting more trees will necessarily stop global warming. Besides, there are more greenhouse gases that contribute to the trend. Either way, it could all just be a natural phenomenon that has happenned in years past (ie. the "Mini Ice Age" that spanned approx. 1450-1850).

 

Extrasense, I've noticed in several threads about your opinion that planting trees (increasing vegetation) is the solution to our global warming "crisis".

Well, there is no simple solution to this problem of global warming. You cannot just simply plant trees everywhere and expect all our problems about global warming to just disappear. If it were that simple, then it would have been done a long time ago.

I posted a while back concerning something similar in nature. Through simple calculations, it would require approximately 68 billion cubic meters of wood to stabalize CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere at its current level ... that is considering that emission levels don't increase, which is very unrealistic. If you want to decrease CO2 concentrations, then you need an excess of about 100 billion cubic meters of wood to make a noticeable difference in CO2 concentrations. One tree only absorbs 200 - 250 kg of CO2 per year ... which is very small compared to the whole system.

Also, once a tree is planted, it would take 25 years before it is fully matured, and by then we would have to plant more trees to compensate for the increase in CO2 emissions since the planting started.

If you look at the whole picture, there isn't enough productive land area on the planet to accommidate the planting of 68 billion cubic meteres worth of trees. Most of the land north of the 50 degree latitude band is frozen tundra, a good part of the land on either side of the equator (15 - 25 degree latitude bands) is covered by deserts half of the time, and this doesn't take into account all the land that is occupied by high density cities and communities. Don't forget, the worldwide population is about 6.34 billion and it's expected to rise to about 9 billion within this century ... all those people has to live somewhere.

Another thing, no one wants to pay the billions of dollars required to carry out planting all those trees; in terms of buying the seeds, paying thousands of workers, and paying for matainence during it's first several years of development.

Planting trees are not the solution ... deforestation may be a partial cause for global warming (and I mean partial, it is by no menas the main culprit) but it is certaintly not the solution. :m:

 

Are you suggesting that volume / or CO2 consumption / of trees can not be increased 3 pct over next several decades?

You must be pessimist

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

es

 

I'm not necessarily saying that it can't be done. That statement takes into consideration the rate of territorial expansion, population increase, farmland expansion, alterations in local climate, and so on. I should have made that statement clearer. If you stop economic development and halted population increases, then we would have enough land to pull it off but you know this could never happen. The economy is a run-away freight train and the degredation of the climate won't stop it.

You have to consider that humans are changing the way land is being used everyday as well. For every community that is built, for every new transportation network established, and for every field turned into farmland ... it results in the change in productivity of a specific area.

Also consider that no one wants to pay for the complete re-establization of the woodlands. It may be 3% but in terms of complete global area coverage, that's still a fairly large piece of land to cover with trees. I'm not being pessimistic about it, it's just the way the world works and even though I would like to see it happen, I just can't see anything being done about it in the next decade.

 

The importent thing is to get out the information.

Virtually nobody knows, that the main source of the Global Warming, is decline of forestation, being it because of economic development or because of economic stagnation.
Everyone acts based on the lie that emissions are the culprit. Whatever actions and expenses are directed at wrong goals of fighting it, will be a waste and disappointment.

If you are saying, that this information are going to be ignored, how can we be sure of that? I think it worth a try

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

es

 

Again, I wouldn't go as far as saying that deforestation is the main source of global warming. It is one of the leading factors combined with other factors, such as emissions through land use, climate variability, and topographical/geological alterations (to name a few). From this, I'm not even claiming the CO2 emissions are the main culprit either, there are too many variables to make that claim. The thing with global warming is that it stems from a multitude of sources ... not solely one source.

The problem with getting the information out is that many people aren't properly educated in this respect. Many people don't understand the seriousness of the situation at hand ... you just have to look at those individuals who still go out and buys SUV's every day. The last thing on their mind is the environment.

 

See, you did not get it at all.
You just stick to the nonsense propaganda , that emission is the problem.
It is not!
Plants take out of the atmosphere 20 pct of ALL CO2 that there is, every year, by photosythesis!!!
Antropogenic CO2 adds 0.5 pct.

1 pct of increase in vegetation is equivalent reduction of emission by 40 pct.

open your eyes!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

es