The Natural CO2 Cycle

[SixFoot]

I wasn’t calling you one of the Climate Cultists earlier by the way.

[SixFoot]

@Hexenbiest

There are so much that can done with trees. They are already companies working with genetically engineered trees that take in way more carbon than the standard tree. Innovation not taxation will help reduce carbon. Either that or people quit having so many children starting with China and India.

Bonus points if they do that to fruit trees that feed people.

[Nemesis]

Oh I know. When you insult me you just whack me over the head with it LOL.

Though sometimes mate, your threads are above my head so a lot of googling takes place for me to catch up.

[Impenitent]

everyone who believes that human created CO2 is destroying the planet can stop exhaling anytime…

[SixFoot]

@Nemesis

Oh I know. When you insult me you just whack me over the head with it LOL.

Though sometimes mate, your threads are above my head so a lot of googling takes place for me to catch up.

That’s why I’m gradually having a conversation about net O2 producers (like me ), starting with trees.

All I have done so far is point out that the trees in this country sequester more CO2 than Statista’s stated total output in the USA. I assume my sources are acceptable.

Some others have contributed interesting thoughts, like GMO trees, or the fact that some rain forests still have a lot of wiggle room in remaining a carbon sink.

We’re outside the beltway, having a mere discussion.

[Zander]

@Nemesis

I think jay is making a good point. From reading the Statista report The CO2 emissions they are factoring are from our energy output not naturally occuring CO2 such as humans breating.

To make an accurate calculation would you not have to include all forms of CO2 emission including naturally occuring in nature and for want of a better word artificially from human activity.

Its a fascinating discussion though.

I couldn’t understand any of this because the words are hyperventilating and there are no emojis.

Is CO2 the only green house gas question mark

[Samm]

@Nemesis

I think jay is making a good point. From reading the Statista report The CO2 emissions they are factoring are from our energy output not naturally occuring CO2 such as humans breating.

To make an accurate calculation would you not have to include all forms of CO2 emission including naturally occuring in nature and for want of a better word artificially from human activity.

Its a fascinating discussion though.

The obvious solution to man-emitted CO2 is to eliminate Mankind. Of course then it won’t matter what happens to the atmosphere and global temperature because there won’t be anyone around to complain about it. The atmospheric CO2 ranged between 100 ppm and 5000 ppm for billions of years before man made his debut and life went on just fine. It will continue to go on long after we are gone.

[SixFoot]

@Nemesis

From reading the Statista report The CO2 emissions they are factoring are from our energy output not naturally occuring CO2 such as humans breating.

So, total energy output meaning all of our industry and agriculture, not human breath or dead bodies decaying in the wild, or even the occasional volcanic eruption.

Cool. Our trees alone recycle over 130% more CO2 than our annual output. That’s fantastic news no matter who you vote for. lol

Again, we haven’t even gotten to the cyanobacteria, algae, etc…
We haven’t discussed the fact that the Earth has been warming precisely since the Little Ice Age ended.
We haven’t discussed the fact that our current inter-glacial period is one of the coldest inter-glacial periods on Ice Core record.

All we’ve done so far is prove that our trees alone are recycling more CO2 than our industry generates.

[JayJay]

@SixFoot

@Nemesis

I think jay is making a good point. From reading the Statista report The CO2 emissions they are factoring are from our energy output not naturally occuring CO2 such as humans breating.

To make an accurate calculation would you not have to include all forms of CO2 emission including naturally occuring in nature and for want of a better word artificially from human activity.

Its a fascinating discussion though.

Good thing that point was already made from the start then.

@SixFoot

There must be more to factor here, like volcanism and general decay, right?

There is discomfort among the Climate Cult Faithful. lol

Yes you made that point.

But your conclusion was obviously flawed since the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing.

The only way that can happen is if carbon sinks are not sufficient to capture all the carbon being emitted (from whatever source).

Trees being but one of many carbon sinks…it is impossible for there to be enough trees to handle all CO2 emissions.

Unless you think it’s also a lie that the amount CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing?

[JayJay]

@SixFoot

@Nemesis

From reading the Statista report The CO2 emissions they are factoring are from our energy output not naturally occuring CO2 such as humans breating.

So, total energy output meaning all of our industry and agriculture, not human breath or dead bodies decaying in the wild, or even the occasional volcanic eruption.

Cool. Our trees alone recycle over 130% more CO2 than our annual output. That’s fantastic news no matter who you vote for. lol

Again, we haven’t even gotten to the cyanobacteria, algae, etc…
We haven’t discussed the fact that the Earth has been warming precisely since the Little Ice Age ended.
We haven’t discussed the fact that our current inter-glacial period is one of the coldest inter-glacial periods on Ice Core record.

All we’ve done so far is prove that our trees alone are recycling more CO2 than our industry generates.

Yet CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing, not decreasing.

CO2 from industry are but one category of emitted CO2.

[SixFoot]

@JayJay

your conclusion

You obviously missed the conclusion entirely by a wide margin while others were easily able to keep up and even add to the discussion.

I’m not gonna help you if you’re just gonna focus on making an ASS of your own ME. Go play. lol

[JayJay]

@SixFoot

@JayJay

your conclusion

You obviously missed the conclusion entirely by a wide margin while others were easily able to keep up and even add to the discussion.

I’m not gonna help you if you’re just gonna focus on making an ASS of your own ME. Go play. lol

I got the conclusion just fine.

Human emissions not that big of a deal because the trees can sop them up.

The problem is…that conclusion is not true.

There are additional reasons why it’s not true even given your numbers…but I thought I’d keep it as simple as you seem to want to.

I realize that you gotta do you.

[Samm]

@SixFoot

@JayJay

your conclusion

You obviously missed the conclusion entirely by a wide margin while others were easily able to keep up and even add to the discussion.

I’m not gonna help you if you’re just gonna focus on making an ASS of your own ME. Go play. lol

His point is valid Six. The fact is, global atmospheric CO2 is and has been for decades, increasing by about 1% every year. That is, the gross from all carbon emitting sources is 1% greater than the absorption by all carbon sinks. The science doesn’t discriminate as to where it comes from or where it goes. Regardless, it’s slowly but steadily increasing.

[conan]

@JayJay

Unless you think it’s also a lie that the amount CO2 in the atmosphere is increasing?

CO2 is no doubt increasing. decaying forest puts out more CO2 than man caused CO2.

Now this is just my idea…well not just mine but we need to find a use for CO2 instead of trying to use that to control people.

So maybe kids stop protesting and start studying and find that solution…just my 2 cents worth.

[conan]

@JayJay

Human emissions not that big of a deal because the trees can sop them up.

The problem is that decaying trees releases that CO2 after it dies.

[Samm]

In the long term, trees are carbon neutral.

[conan]

@Samm

In the long term, trees are carbon neutral.

Precisely…even planting billions of more trees won’t help. Once they dies it will only release that carbon.

So what’s alternative? Find a use for CO2 that won’t decay…or possibly turn it into another chemical that we can use. Again just thinking out loud here, not expert nor do I pretend to be one.

What I do know crying about it is not going to help…quit your bitching and find a solution. Right Samm?

[Jezcoe]

@conan

@Samm

In the long term, trees are carbon neutral.

Precisely…even planting billions of more trees won’t help. Once they dies it will only release that carbon.

So what’s alternative? Find a use for CO2 that won’t decay…or possibly turn it into another chemical that we can use. Again just thinking out loud here, not expert nor do I pretend to be one.

What I do know crying about it is not going to help…quit your bitching and find a solution. Right Samm?

Could the solution be to reduce carbon emissions?

[conan]

@Jezcoe

Could the solution be to reduce carbon emissions?

You first…or are you going to demand others to make that sacrifice?

[Samm]

@Jezcoe

Could the solution be to reduce carbon emissions?

Nobody is stopping you. Go for it.