Atmospheric CO2 - a datapoint

Forums › Off topic › Atmospheric CO2 - a datapoint

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1649311 11-Oct-2016 16:29

tdgeek:

its a VERY easy thing for me to plant one tree, its not a drama of time and consents and rules.

To someone living in a highrise apartment in Hong Kong (and I can think of a dozen more examples), it won't be easy at all.

Make a tree day, where we have time to pickup our tree, then on global tree day, 7 billion trees are planted. Bang, one worthwhile effort rather than listening to speeches on it

Except that, on any given day, in half the world it's the wrong season to plant a tree. And, in another large chunk of the inhabited world, there isn't enough water to sustain trees. And, in another large chunk of the inhabited world, the herbivores will eat the tree before it grows.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1649319 11-Oct-2016 16:38

frankv:

tdgeek:

its a VERY easy thing for me to plant one tree, its not a drama of time and consents and rules.

To someone living in a highrise apartment in Hong Kong (and I can think of a dozen more examples), it won't be easy at all.

Make a tree day, where we have time to pickup our tree, then on global tree day, 7 billion trees are planted. Bang, one worthwhile effort rather than listening to speeches on it

Except that, on any given day, in half the world it's the wrong season to plant a tree. And, in another large chunk of the inhabited world, there isn't enough water to sustain trees. And, in another large chunk of the inhabited world, the herbivores will eat the tree before it grows.

As I said where 1 to 3 trees is to much for my property, one or two of my trees go elsewhere. Miles away, a country away, a sea away, it doesnt matter

Ok, so the tree day is two or three tree days, in the tree year. But your nitpicking

Is it not a good idea to have the humans do something quick and easy by planting 7 billion trees? How long would that take in real time? Bout 10 to 20 minutes

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1649324 11-Oct-2016 16:42

tdgeek:

Very much flawed. They measure water temps already, and sea levels. Suns radiation is not what the issue is, its the heat trapped inside, and that doesnt reflect away as the ice covered parts of the planet are reducing. Its just simple physics really. I read once that if we stopped it TODAY, it would take the globe 50 years to settle. I think some of the pollutants settle or dissipate is a decade or three

One of the main problems as in the post I referred to is apparent denial.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1649529 11-Oct-2016 23:37

MikeB4:

tdgeek:

Very much flawed. They measure water temps already, and sea levels. Suns radiation is not what the issue is, its the heat trapped inside, and that doesnt reflect away as the ice covered parts of the planet are reducing. Its just simple physics really. I read once that if we stopped it TODAY, it would take the globe 50 years to settle. I think some of the pollutants settle or dissipate is a decade or three

One of the main problems as in the post I referred to is apparent denial.

I cannot follow the denial. The science is massive. There are clear barriers, well one barrier, money. (Country, not individual). If oil was running out in 7 years, the world would be all over it. But oil isn't running out soon, coal is everywhere. Its cheaper for countries to spiel support, but do nothing. Countries do not deny GW, they know its real, but it don't suit right now, thanks. Individuals should watch a few docos, and ignore any bias (watch docos for and against, that what I did), but focus on the science.

The globe is a super big terrarium that is self supporting. But its not that big.

jpoc

1043 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 289

#1649541 12-Oct-2016 00:35

frankv:

jpoc:

The oxygen that we breath is produced by the plants that we grow for food. (Or that we grow as fodder for the animals that we eat.)

That is a perfectly balanced cycle. It has to be.

Why does it have to be? Why couldn't we consume more oxygen than food plants can convert back to oxygen? Especially in a situation where there are lots of non-food plants converting CO2 to oxygen?

The cycle of the oxygen that we breath and the food that we eat must be balanced. It cannot not be. You cannot consume more oxygen than was produced by growing the food that you eat. How on earth could you?

Some plant absorbs one molecule of CO2 from the air. It harvests some sunshine and uses the energy in the light to convert that one molecule of CO2 into a single carbon atom that it can accumulate into it's tissue and it releases the two oxygen atoms into the air in the form of one molecule of O2. You eat that one atom of carbon and your body metabolizes it in a process that means that you breath in one molecule of O2 - two oxygen atoms - and you combine them into one molecule of carbon dioxide which you breath back out into the air.

You cannot consume more, or less, oxygen that was produced in the course of growing your food.

The upshot is that, while there are many good reasons to grow lots of trees, producing the air that we breath is not one of them.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1649557 12-Oct-2016 07:23

jpoc:

frankv:

jpoc:

The oxygen that we breath is produced by the plants that we grow for food. (Or that we grow as fodder for the animals that we eat.)

That is a perfectly balanced cycle. It has to be.

Why does it have to be? Why couldn't we consume more oxygen than food plants can convert back to oxygen? Especially in a situation where there are lots of non-food plants converting CO2 to oxygen?

The cycle of the oxygen that we breath and the food that we eat must be balanced. It cannot not be. You cannot consume more oxygen than was produced by growing the food that you eat. How on earth could you?

Some plant absorbs one molecule of CO2 from the air. It harvests some sunshine and uses the energy in the light to convert that one molecule of CO2 into a single carbon atom that it can accumulate into it's tissue and it releases the two oxygen atoms into the air in the form of one molecule of O2. You eat that one atom of carbon and your body metabolizes it in a process that means that you breath in one molecule of O2 - two oxygen atoms - and you combine them into one molecule of carbon dioxide which you breath back out into the air.

You cannot consume more, or less, oxygen that was produced in the course of growing your food.

The upshot is that, while there are many good reasons to grow lots of trees, producing the air that we breath is not one of them.

My idea was that if we have populated the atmosphere with extra CO2, the extra trees can help drug this levels down.

Geekzone support

Support Geekzone with one-off or recurring donations Donate via PressPatron.

floydbloke

3646 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4554

ID Verified

#1649571 12-Oct-2016 08:19

tdgeek:

....The globe is a super big terrarium that is self supporting. But its not that big.

Once humanity has self-destructed, the planet will recover itself in no time (relatively speaking).

Sometimes I use big words I don't always fully understand in an effort to make myself sound more photosynthesis.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30012 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1649589 12-Oct-2016 09:09

floydbloke:
tdgeek:

....The globe is a super big terrarium that is self supporting. But its not that big.

Once humanity has self-destructed, the planet will recover itself in no time (relatively speaking).

Lol you're assuming nobody starts a chain reaction of weapons of eternal destruction.

The more likely scenario is humanity doesn't self destruct but stay alive and increase consumption and adjust to smog.

MikeB4

MikeB4
18775 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12765

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1649593 12-Oct-2016 09:17

joker97:

Lol you're assuming nobody starts a chain reaction of weapons of eternal destruction.

The more likely scenario is humanity doesn't self destruct but stay alive and increase consumption and adjust to smog.

There needs to be a huge attitude adjustment fir us to stand a glimmer of hope, there is so much denial (evident often on these Forums) and folks get so angry at those making proposals or trying to save the only home we have.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

frankv

5705 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 3666

Lifetime subscriber

#1649623 12-Oct-2016 09:54

jpoc:

frankv:

jpoc:

The oxygen that we breath is produced by the plants that we grow for food. (Or that we grow as fodder for the animals that we eat.)

That is a perfectly balanced cycle. It has to be.

Why does it have to be? Why couldn't we consume more oxygen than food plants can convert back to oxygen? Especially in a situation where there are lots of non-food plants converting CO2 to oxygen?

The cycle of the oxygen that we breath and the food that we eat must be balanced. It cannot not be. You cannot consume more oxygen than was produced by growing the food that you eat. How on earth could you?

Currently, we can (and do) produce more CO2 than plants (food plants and trees and phytoplankton combined) can consume... i.e. we're currently using more oxygen than *all* plants can produce. So your assertion that there has to be a perfect balance between oxygen breathed and that produced by food plants is nonsense.

Firstly, excluding trees from the equation is unrealistic. They are as much a part of the carbon cycle as food plants. We *could* (and do) depend on CO2-to-oxygen conversion done by NON-FOOD plants (e.g. trees). About half the oxygen produced is in the ocean by phytoplankton, which we don't eat, even indirectly. We're also making CO2 by burning trees.

Secondly, we're burning fossil fuels... these are in effect plants that generated their O2 millennia ago (adding to the atmospheric O2 reservoir). The oil and coal reserves are in effect reservoirs of carbon, which we're converting (back) to CO2. The oxygen they produced wasn't breathed by anyone because there was no-one to breathe it at the time... but maybe that's moot, because there also wasn't anyone to eat them.

Thirdly, the atmosphere and especially the oceans act as a reservoir of CO2 & O2.

We're filling the CO2 reservoir (and depleting the oxygen reservoir) BECAUSE we're producing more CO2 than *all* plants are consuming.

Lastly (and somewhat pedantically), where oxygen is particularly valuable (space station, submarines), there are non-plant ways to remove CO2 from the air, and to generate oxygen.

I agree that, long-term, we *must* live within our means and only consume as much oxygen as is being generated. But separating out what we breathe and what *food* plants produce is an irrelevant red herring.

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#1673900 18-Nov-2016 22:33

Relevant to this topic. What is really warming the world?

A look at each possible source of warming and how it fits into the overall warming that is now completely undeniable.

If there are any anthropomorphic climate change skeptics after looking at this, then they may as well be flat-earthers.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1673966 19-Nov-2016 09:09

Linuxluver:

Relevant to this topic. What is really warming the world?

A look at each possible source of warming and how it fits into the overall warming that is now completely undeniable.

If there are any anthropomorphic climate change skeptics after looking at this, then they may as well be flat-earthers.

The only one of any interest is Trump, but I imagine, like every other policy/comment/promise, it will be diluted back to sensibility by the people in the back office, talking to the people in the Oval office

Linuxluver

5833 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1639

Trusted

Subscriber

#1674019 19-Nov-2016 10:32

tdgeek:

Linuxluver:

Relevant to this topic. What is really warming the world?

A look at each possible source of warming and how it fits into the overall warming that is now completely undeniable.

If there are any anthropomorphic climate change skeptics after looking at this, then they may as well be flat-earthers.

The only one of any interest is Trump, but I imagine, like every other policy/comment/promise, it will be diluted back to sensibility by the people in the back office, talking to the people in the Oval office

We can only hope.

Of almost as much concern are the people like Canada's opposition Conservative party who were demanding the government wind back moves to address climate change in light of Trump's election because they might cost jobs in Canada.
So much stupid, wrong-headedness tied into that approach it beggars belief.

_____________________________________________________________________

I've been on Geekzone over 16 years..... Time flies....

TwoSeven

1712 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 304

Subscriber

#1674031 19-Nov-2016 11:18

Linuxluver: March 2015 was the first month in recorded history with atmospheric carbon dioxide at 400ppm (parts per million) concentration. No month ever in recorded history had reached that level

Just being pedantic, but wasent it higher in the cambrian period?

Although, I think the point being made was that it was only 280ppm in the 18th Century

Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
A.I. (Automation rebranded)
Gender Neutral
(a person who believes in equality and who does not believe in/use stereotypes. Examples such as gender, binary, nonbinary, male/female etc.)

...they/their/them...

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1674302 19-Nov-2016 19:53

TwoSeven:
Linuxluver: March 2015 was the first month in recorded history with atmospheric carbon dioxide at 400ppm (parts per million) concentration. No month ever in recorded history had reached that level

Just being pedantic, but wasent it higher in the cambrian period?

Although, I think the point being made was that it was only 280ppm in the 18th Century

I lost my diary during the Cambrian period... :-) Lots of disasters occurred over the millennia, particularly eruptions. They were natural, and for a limited time frame. But the human factor is repetitive. Its artificial. And its denied. It will have e very minimal effect on us, but what about our kids, grandkids, great grandkids and so on????

While we talk about terraforming Mars..... and we ignore our backyard? And we know less about our deep seas than we know about the moon. Something is awry.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4