Remember me
▼ Content

Amazon forest fire


Amazon forest fire24-08-2019 06:26
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
Just trying to understand how bad the situation is.
I know that the Amazon is considered the lungs of the earth, absorbing 20 of the CO2 from the atmosphere. Now, instead of being able to absorb the CO2 it is sending a large amount of CO2 into the atmosphere, much more than the usual amount that goes airborne. Double whammy.
It is a fact that plants absorb CO2 but when a plant dies, all the CO2 that it absorbed in its life goes back into the atmosphere as it rots. Now all the CO2 that the burning amazon trees ever absorbed is going into the atmosphere all of a sudden instead of gradually.
Another fact is that the smoke will prevent some of the sun's energy from reaching earth. I need to understand this better?
Does anyone know what this fire will do to the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere.
No smart as remarks please. This could be serious in the short term as well as long term.
Edited on 24-08-2019 06:29
24-08-2019 06:35
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
keepit wrote:all the CO2 that it absorbed in its life goes back into the atmosphere

Not to downplay how horrible the fires are but technically if the forest grows back then it will result in whatever CO2 impact there was being reset.

I think the threat to the value of the rainforest, of which there are many, is that it will be replaced with farms. Or knowing Brazil's president, Bolsonaro, he might burn it down just for spite. He is a real turd. Make Trump look good he's so bad.

But back to the chemistry I think it's like this: Wood, celcusose, trees, are hydrocarbons. Plants breath CO2 and incorporate the carbon into their mass. The larger and heavier a plant is the more carbon it's made part of itself.

However it's not how long a plant has been breathing carbon but how large it is that determines it's "lifetime CO2 impact".

Also fires in the rainforset are common. The question is how unusual is this not that there are fires at all.


Edited on 24-08-2019 06:35
24-08-2019 06:39
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
tmid,
It's good that it isn't a permanent hit to the atmosphere. I'm just trying to understand how long term the effect will be.
24-08-2019 06:55
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
Just guessing, but trees are renewable, carbon-neutral, so it's no big deal. As long as it's not fossil fuels burning, we're good.

Does sort of bring up another question though. Heard on the news earlier, that they think those fires are being set deliberately by loggers and ranchers, who want to use the land. Not sure if that make much sense though. Trees will get a little scorched, but should be fine after a while, but mostly it's the underbrush that usually gets burned. It's not like the land will be cleared, and replaced with grazing land anytime soon. Nor, would I expect the surviving trees to be exactly premium for logging, least not for a few years.

It will be interesting to see how the IPCC uses this though. The need to keep man-made CO2, fossil fuels, as the primary cause, and not let anything else compete with that. My guess is they use it as a 'sign' of what to expect, if we don't change our evil ways. They'll down play the CO2 from wildfires, can't tax that, or control it much. Even with all the efforts they put into fighting fires, usually the best they can do is save a few homes, maybe cities, but need a good rain to get it under control.
24-08-2019 07:04
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Just guessing, but trees are renewable, carbon-neutral, so it's no big deal. As long as it's not fossil fuels burning, we're good


Yes true.

Really for those very concerned about CO2 there should be a

"PLANT 1,000,000 TREES AND THEN BURY THEM ALIVE" foundation : )

I can just see the drum circle now as trees are heeped into a landfill to sequester that carbon.
24-08-2019 07:08
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
Does look bad though

24-08-2019 08:08
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1482)
tmiddles wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:
Just guessing, but trees are renewable, carbon-neutral, so it's no big deal. As long as it's not fossil fuels burning, we're good


Yes true.

Really for those very concerned about CO2 there should be a

"PLANT 1,000,000 TREES AND THEN BURY THEM ALIVE" foundation : )

I can just see the drum circle now as trees are heeped into a landfill to sequester that carbon.


But trees suck CO2 out of the atmosphere. Why would you want to do that? The more plants and trees you've got growing, the less CO2 you'll have in the atmosphere. Sort of like Bernie Sanders and all the climate preachers telling us to stop burning fossil fuels, then hop on their private jets, and fly to the next state, or across the world, to deliver the same message, over, and over again. Couldn't they just do a lot of that on TV, or a podcast? The same people who would go and see the live sermon, would be just as likely to tune in to the digital version, just like most folks, who missed the event, because they have jobs.
24-08-2019 18:44
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
The thing with the fire is that the CO2 that was going to be in the trees and plants for a number years is now going into the atmosphere. It will elevate the CO2 level for hundreds to a thousand years. In other words, that CO2 has left the earth and it ain't coming back anytime soon.
Meanwhile it takes time for the replacement trees and vegetation to grow back and THEN assert their CO2 collection effect.
All in all, that leaves a big gap in CO2 collection. I just don't know haw big that gap is relatively speaking.
24-08-2019 18:48
keepit
★★★☆☆
(713)
Trees are fossil fuels since burning them sends CO2 into the atmosphere.
24-08-2019 19:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
The thing with the fire is that the CO2 that was going to be in the trees and plants for a number years is now going into the atmosphere. It will elevate the CO2 level for hundreds to a thousand years. In other words, that CO2 has left the earth and it ain't coming back anytime soon.
Meanwhile it takes time for the replacement trees and vegetation to grow back and THEN assert their CO2 collection effect.
All in all, that leaves a big gap in CO2 collection. I just don't know haw big that gap is relatively speaking.


CO2 does not leave the Earth. It does not travel into space.

CO2 does not have the capability to warm the Earth. Don't worry about it.


The Parrot Killer
24-08-2019 19:56
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(9878)
keepit wrote:
Trees are fossil fuels since burning them sends CO2 into the atmosphere.


Fossils don't burn. Trees are not fossils.


The Parrot Killer
24-08-2019 23:39
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
keepit wrote:
The thing with the fire is ... It will elevate the CO2 level for hundreds to a thousand years.


If a section of forest burns down and grows back just as massive the net chemistry, molecular distribution, is no change at all. CO2 would be released when it burns and reused when it grows back.

But of course that's if it grows back.
25-08-2019 01:48
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
tmiddles wrote:But back to the chemistry

You aren't a chemist.

tmiddles wrote:I think it's like this: Wood, celcusose, trees, are hydrocarbons.

Nope. Neither wood nor coal are hydrocarbons.

The carbon in coal is what burns. Wood vaporizes from high temperatures and the released carbon and hydrogen burn.

tmiddles wrote:However it's not how long a plant has been breathing carbon but how large it is that determines it's "lifetime CO2 impact".

Which is zero as it is currently defined.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
25-08-2019 12:24
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1399)
IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. Neither wood nor coal are hydrocarbons.


oops I stand corrected thanks IBdaMann
"a hydrocarbon is an organic compound consisting entirely of hydrogen and carbon"

So to rephrase: Wood contains hydrogen and carbon. When it burns CO2 is release.
25-08-2019 16:38
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5032)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:
Nope. Neither wood nor coal are hydrocarbons.


oops I stand corrected thanks IBdaMann
"a hydrocarbon is an organic compound consisting entirely of hydrogen and carbon"

So to rephrase: Wood contains hydrogen and carbon. When it burns CO2 is release.

Correct.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

When the alt-physics birds sing about "indivisible bodies," we've got pure BS. - VernerHornung

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist




Join the debate Amazon forest fire:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Amazon, The End Is Near...920-09-2019 21:36
NOAA and Keeling caught liar liar pants on fire109-02-2016 23:25
▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact