Remember me
▼ Content

Co2A (Co2 Atmosphere) = SUM(SOURCES)-SUM(SINKS)


Co2A (Co2 Atmosphere) = SUM(SOURCES)-SUM(SINKS)14-07-2012 14:21
pbcahill
☆☆☆☆☆
(1)
That's adding up all the SOURCES of Co2 and then subtracting all the SINKS for Co2. E.g. some gets belched by volcanoes and animals (SOURCES) and some gets consumed by plants and the oceans (SINKS). The overall majority of Co2 sources are non human in origin. No one even looks at the other side of this equation (SINKS) any more and its as important if not more important than the SOURCES side.

In my view the real culprit for Co2 increases is deforestation. Human emissions are a tiny % of the Co2A and do not correlate with the Co2A increases. Cutting down trees removes the O2 sources and at the same time the Co2 sinks thereby having a larger effect on the Co2 % increase as trees belch oxygen and consume Co2. Co2 emissions alone has less net effect in the Co2A equation or at least no one is talking about industry consuming Oxygen while emitting Co2.

Recent NASA satellite records show an alarming reduction in the worlds' Co2 sinks (forests). Replanting these forests is actually going to make a real and tangible difference as more forests = more sinks. Unfortunately the market for tree farm lumber has wained in recent years so it needs government investment to make it happen. Doing the Carbon Tax jig is going to delay solving the real problem. If there were a way to fit planted forests into the economic models then even the economists would find it hard to argue and anyway why are we listening to a bunch of economists instead of the basic science?
Edited on 14-07-2012 14:21
11-02-2020 19:14
CzarnyZajaczek
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
Deforestation causes roughly 1.5 bn t CO2 emissions
https://www.climateandweather.net/global-warming/deforestation.html

China alone exceeded 10 bn t CO2 emissions from fossil fuels yearly (over 6 bn t CO2 yearly in 2010)

World CO2 emissions from fossil fuels exceeded 37 bn t CO2 yearly in 2017
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions#Fossil_CO2_Emissions_by_country/region

More important is what happens after deforestation - most of deforestation is done for agriculture. Food production is responsible for roughly half of global warming.
11-02-2020 19:32
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6266)
CzarnyZajaczek wrote: Deforestation causes roughly 1.5 bn t CO2 emissions

How exactly?

CzarnyZajaczek wrote: China alone exceeded 10 bn t CO2 emissions from fossil fuels yearly (over 6 bn t CO2 yearly in 2010)

Who measured this?

CzarnyZajaczek wrote: World CO2 emissions from fossil fuels exceeded 37 bn t CO2 yearly in 2017

Who calculated this?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
11-02-2020 21:09
gfm7175Profile picture★★★☆☆
(433)
Looks like a bunch of made up numbers to me...
12-02-2020 04:58
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2525)
pbcahill wrote:...trees belch oxygen and consume Co2.


They don't "digest" the CO2 in some permanent way. The photosynthetic reaction produces hydrocarbons. But when those hydrocarbons are digested, burn, rot, the CO2 comes back.

So a standing forest has a fixed CO2 quantity in it and is not removing anything more than what it puts back out as dead wood rots.

Technically we would need to be burying trees or making a whole lot of wood crafts and preserving them, to sequester the carbon.
12-02-2020 05:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6266)
tmiddles wrote:So a standing forest has a fixed CO2 quantity in it and is not removing anything more than what it puts back out as dead wood rots.

Really?

Does it have a standing CO2 content, or a standing carbon content that could potentially become CO2 during combustion, for example?


.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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
12-02-2020 05:13
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★★
(2525)
IBdaMann wrote:...standing carbon content...
Yes, I misstated it.
12-02-2020 17:32
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(11789)
tmiddles wrote:
pbcahill wrote:...trees belch oxygen and consume Co2.


They don't "digest" the CO2 in some permanent way.
The CO2 is destroyed. That's permanent.
tmiddles wrote:
The photosynthetic reaction produces hydrocarbons.

WRONG. Plants convert CO2, water, and sunlight to carbohydrates.
tmiddles wrote:
But when those hydrocarbons are digested, burn, rot, the CO2 comes back.

WRONG. The plant is not storing CO2.
tmiddles wrote:
So a standing forest has a fixed CO2 quantity in it and is not removing anything more than what it puts back out as dead wood rots.

Plants don't store CO2.
tmiddles wrote:
Technically we would need to be burying trees or making a whole lot of wood crafts and preserving them, to sequester the carbon.

Why are you afraid of carbon?


The Parrot Killer
13-02-2020 14:06
CzarnyZajaczek
☆☆☆☆☆
(23)
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:
More important is what happens after deforestation - most of deforestation is done for agriculture. Food production is responsible for roughly half of global warming.


Well I've just checked, and it turns out that agriculture contributes 13%, and land use change (which includes deforestation) contributes 11% of global warming. So food production is responsible for significantly less than half of global warming even if included deforestation.

https://skepticalscience.com/animal-agriculture-meat-global-warming.htm
13-02-2020 18:05
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(6266)
CzarnyZajaczek wrote:Well I've just checked, and it turns out that agriculture contributes 13%, and land use change (which includes deforestation) contributes 11% of global warming. So food production is responsible for significantly less than half of global warming even if included deforestation.

Fallacy 22. What exactly is this Global Warming to which agriculture "contributes." Does Global Warming = End World Hunger? You need to clarify.


Unambiguous definitions preferred.

.


Sea level varies from place to place in the world - keepit

Clouds don't trap heat. Clouds block cold. - Spongy Iris

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

If Venus were a black body it would have a much much lower temperature than what we found there.- tmiddles

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 Co2A (Co2 Atmosphere) = SUM(SOURCES)-SUM(SINKS):

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
The Prevention of Climate Change Through CO2 Removal2328-03-2020 22:32
Do I have the CO2 calamity math right? (help from an expert please)23024-02-2020 23:13
CO2 Behavior in the Atmosphere2412-02-2020 03:53
could we slow co2 release in enviornment by engineering a virus to kill wood eating bacteria?810-02-2020 01:42
Can CO2 capture be a starter for geothermal energy?806-02-2020 21:12
▲ 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 © 2009-2020 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact