Interested in carbon sinking

Climate-Debate.com > Discussion Forum > Climate debate in general > Interested in carbon sinking

Interested in carbon sinking08-12-2020 13:43
Snail ☆☆☆☆☆ (1)	I'm new here, but not convinced this is what I'm looking for as far as a discussion panel about climate change. (threads about Covid19, Trump voting and how to be a millionaire in 100 days in 'Climate change general discussions') but here it goes. When wondering about the effectiveness of tree planting vs sinking CO2, some say it isn't part of a sustainable solution : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXkbdELr4EQ I suppose these are my thoughts : When you think about what we're doing (on a grand scale) : we're taking carbon from underground and turning it into a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. If a tree can take that greenhouse carbon gas and turn it back into solid carbon, we could take that solid carbon and push it back into the ground. To do this as efficiently as possible, you could plant a tree and wait for it to mature to a point where its rate of growth has slowed (turned a large amount of CO2 into solid carbon) and at that point, the tree could be turned into a *product that would be subsequently buried, effectively sinking your carbon in the same way that it was initially before we extracted it. You would then replant a tree and restart the process. In this way, you wouldn't simply be using the land to carbon sink once, but to continuously sink carbon back where it was before we interfered with it. I'm aware that such a process of burying a solid tree deep into the ground isn't something that is done (we do with CO2 gas however) but what I'm saying is we should try to mimic what nature has done over millions of years and we'll need to do it more efficiently, using renewable resources of course. And this would need to be done along with a serious and meaningful reduction of our carbon greenhouse gas production to have the quickest effect. So yes, I do think that planting trees is a necessity and a vital key to our future existence. It's what we do with a mature tree that would need to be rethought. Just a thought. Am I out in the left field? Is this a feasible idea? Am I in the wrong place on the internet? Feel free to comment/insult. Cheers, Bill from Montreal
08-12-2020 14:01
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	Consider this.Is CO2 creating warming.The answer is no .is a bit of warming a problem .The answer is no The theory is CO2 will continue to increase and run the temperature out of control but even if it was doing that it peaks and thats it.Plants absorb CO2 Human activity is responsible for 3%.I have a CO2 meter and it is around 400ppm which is nothing.The sea levels have not gone up and the ice has not melted.This forum was informative until the main players went insane over Covid then the election of which I have no interest at all.Question who is going to pay to bury perfectly good grown timber?
08-12-2020 14:07
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	Snail wrote: I'm new here, Bill from Montreal Montreal Bill, rewrite your post. Try beginning with a clear problem statement. Define all your terms. Explain clearly what is supposedly to be discussed. It would appear that you mistakenly think CO2 is somehow a bad thing as opposed to recognizing it as the life-essential compound that it is, upon which all life on the surface of planet earth depends. Bonne journée. I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles 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 Edited on 08-12-2020 14:08
08-12-2020 16:57
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Snail wrote: I'm new here, but not convinced this is what I'm looking for as far as a discussion panel about climate change. (threads about Covid19, Trump voting and how to be a millionaire in 100 days in 'Climate change general discussions') but here it goes. When wondering about the effectiveness of tree planting vs sinking CO2, some say it isn't part of a sustainable solution : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EXkbdELr4EQ I suppose these are my thoughts : When you think about what we're doing (on a grand scale) : we're taking carbon from underground and turning it into a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. If a tree can take that greenhouse carbon gas and turn it back into solid carbon, we could take that solid carbon and push it back into the ground. To do this as efficiently as possible, you could plant a tree and wait for it to mature to a point where its rate of growth has slowed (turned a large amount of CO2 into solid carbon) and at that point, the tree could be turned into a *product that would be subsequently buried, effectively sinking your carbon in the same way that it was initially before we extracted it. You would then replant a tree and restart the process. In this way, you wouldn't simply be using the land to carbon sink once, but to continuously sink carbon back where it was before we interfered with it. I'm aware that such a process of burying a solid tree deep into the ground isn't something that is done (we do with CO2 gas however) but what I'm saying is we should try to mimic what nature has done over millions of years and we'll need to do it more efficiently, using renewable resources of course. And this would need to be done along with a serious and meaningful reduction of our carbon greenhouse gas production to have the quickest effect. So yes, I do think that planting trees is a necessity and a vital key to our future existence. It's what we do with a mature tree that would need to be rethought. Just a thought. Am I out in the left field? Is this a feasible idea? Am I in the wrong place on the internet? Feel free to comment/insult. Cheers, Bill from Montreal Why bury perfectly good trees? Trees provide a whole lot of useful products. If you have shopped the paper product isle lately, there is a toilet paper shortage going on... Since you are interested in nature, and the natural uses of things... Have you ever thought to look a little deep, get under the skin a little? Every living on the planet, exists, because of carbon-based molecules. There is only one type of living thing, that can pull carbon, directly from the environment, plants. The carbonized meals your wife serves you, doesn't digest, just passes through. You don't metabolize charcoal, coal, or any petroleum product, to get the carbon you need to exist. We need plants to capture the carbon, and convert it to molecules we can use, as with all other life on this planet. Planet actually grow a lot better, with a higher level of CO2, around 800 ppm. Plants also do a lot better in warmer climates. If we need to feed the growing populations, of all species, we need more plant growth, not less. Plants don't grow, or mature, when CO2 is reduced to 180 ppm, and they starve and die at 150 ppm. CO2 isn't evenly distributed, like a blanket, as illustrated in the global warming videos. Plants are pretty resilient, and can survive months of less than ideal conditions. Commercial greenhouses, nurseries, indoor growing, all commonly augment CO2, to around 1200 ppm, in the growing areas. It's safe for people to work in, and ensures that their products get all the CO2 they can use, constantly. Instead of planting trees, just to bury, we should just plant more food crops, trees, and any other vegetation we commonly us. A lot of that CO2 won't be going directly back into the atmosphere any time soon. Even at 800 ppm, CO2 would be considered a trace gas, and couldn't possibly cause any warming effect, which is unfortunate right now. It's damn cold right now, not even 50 F outside yet, mid morning. Even if we did reduce CO2, there are other 'greenhouse' gases, higher volume, and greater warming to deal with. Water vapor, though not actual a gas, is the number one, but not much we can do about it, and certainly can't apply ball-crushing, economy-killing taxes and restrictions. CO2 is targeted, because it is the most profitable, and energy is a medium of control over the population. Less CO2, will also impact food production, reducing the population through starvation. Hungry people, are compliant people. You were sucked into a global domination cult. The 'science' is faith-based, mostly computer generated 'data'. We have know way of actually studying what happened during past inter-glacial periods, how long it'll last. We don't know what 'normal' is, to base any crisis on.
08-12-2020 21:13
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	Snail wrote: I'm new here, Welcome to the forum! Snail wrote: but not convinced this is what I'm looking for as far as a discussion panel about climate change. (threads about Covid19, Trump voting and how to be a millionaire in 100 days in 'Climate change general discussions') but here it goes. People here usually discuss so-called 'climate change' much of the time. Other topics of more immediate political importance do come up from time to time, such as the recent problems with the recent election. Snail wrote: When wondering about the effectiveness of tree planting vs sinking CO2, some say it isn't part of a sustainable solution : While trees and forests are nice (I live on the Wet Side in Washington!), it is grass that consumes the most CO2, that and other faster growing plants like shrubs. A plant produces carbohydrates by consuming CO2, water, and light. The resulting reaction also produces excess O2, which is vented to the atmosphere. Fast growing plants are making carbohydrates faster. It's the food for the plant (and us!). Snail wrote: I suppose these are my thoughts : When you think about what we're doing (on a grand scale) : we're taking carbon from underground and turning it into a greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. If a tree can take that greenhouse carbon gas and turn it back into solid carbon, we could take that solid carbon and push it back into the ground. To do this as efficiently as possible, you could plant a tree and wait for it to mature to a point where its rate of growth has slowed (turned a large amount of CO2 into solid carbon) and at that point, the tree could be turned into a product that would be subsequently buried, effectively sinking your carbon in the same way that it was initially before we extracted it. You would then replant a tree and restart the process. The carbon cycle already occurs, even in the deserts. Even prickly stuff like cactus and Joshua trees consume CO2. Animals couldn't survive in the desert without it, and there are actually quite a few animals out there. Snail wrote:* In this way, you wouldn't simply be using the land to carbon sink once, but to continuously sink carbon back where it was before we interfered with it. I'm aware that such a process of burying a solid tree deep into the ground isn't something that is done (we do with CO2 gas however) but what I'm saying is we should try to mimic what nature has done over millions of years and we'll need to do it more efficiently, using renewable resources of course. And this would need to be done along with a serious and meaningful reduction of our carbon greenhouse gas production to have the quickest effect. There is no need to reduce carbon dioxide (carbon isn't a gas). It has absolutely no capability of warming the Earth. The 1st law of thermodynamics is E(t+1) = E(t) - U, where 'E' is energy, 't' is time, and 'U' is work (or force applied over distance). This law expresses the conservation of energy law in thermodynamics. To increase temperature of anything, you must increase it's energy (specifically thermal energy). It is not possible to create energy out of nothing. The 2nd law of thermodynamics is e(t+) >= e(t), where 'e' is entropy, and 't' is time. Entropy is simply the randomness of something. This defines the word 'heat' and what it means (the flow of thermal energy). Something 'hot' is a concentration of energy. Something 'cold' is a relative void of energy. Energy always dissipates across a given system until it is uniform. This is known as a 'closed system'. Earth can be a closed system, the Earth-Sun-space system is a closed system, etc. You are required to use the same system consistently. If you consider just Earth as the system, heat will flow from the warmer surface into the colder atmosphere. It never flows in reverse. A colder gas in the atmosphere, such as CO2 is incapable of heating the surface. That would mean a reduction of entropy, which is not allowed. In other words, you cannot trap thermal energy on the surface using any kind of magick gas or vapor. If you consider the Earth-Sun-space as the system, radiant heat comes from the Sun, which increase the thermal energy of Earth (warming it). Radiant heat from Earth into space reduces thermal energy of Earth (cooling it). All substances above absolute zero radiate heat in the form of light. In other words, you cannot trap heat. You cannot trap light. You cannot trap thermal energy. There is always heat. The Stefan-Boltzmann law states: r = Cet^4, where 'r' is radiance (light) in watts per square area (usually meters), 'C' is a natural constant (which serves to convert the relation to our units of measurement), 'e' is emissivity (how well a substance emits light -- a measured constant), and 't' is temperature in deg K. This law describes one way of producing light. Thermal energy can convert directly to light in this way. It is independent of the substance emitting the light. Only the thermal energy of a substance (temperature is the average thermal energy in a substance) determines how much light (intensity) is emitted. There is no frequency component either. All frequencies of light combined are considered. In other words, it is not possible to trap light. There is always radiant heat. Less radiant heat can only mean the Earth is cooler, not warmer. Snail wrote: So yes, I do think that planting trees is a necessity and a vital key to our future existence. It's what we do with a mature tree that would need to be rethought. Go ahead and plant as many trees as you like. Johnny Appleseed made quite a name for himself planting apple trees everywhere. Learn forestry. There's more to it than people realize. Snail wrote: Just a thought. Am I out in the left field? Is this a feasible idea? Am I in the wrong place on the internet? No, you are in the right place. This is a forum that discusses these things most of the time. We do wander a bit here, but the central topic is about 'global warming' or 'climate change'. A big problem is that 'global warming' and 'climate change' have never been defined. Just what are they? The only definitions I see here use the same undefined phrase to define itself in some way. Do you have a way to define 'global warming' or 'climate change' that isn't a circular definition? Snail wrote: Feel free to comment/insult. I don't throw insults for my conversation here. A lot of people do. That is not a valid conversation. Such things contribute noting as an argument to anything. They are considered a fallacy when used that way. The topic of 'global warming' or 'climate change' (whatever they actually mean) is a political one. Insults are common with political topics. It is also a religious one. Believers of 'global warming' or 'climate change' only have their own claim of 'global warming' to support them, thus forming a circular argument, or an argument of faith. Religious topics also invite a lot of insults. How would you measure the temperature of the Earth? Temperature can vary as much as 20 deg F per mile. How does NASA or NOAA measure the temperature of the Earth to build their database? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

09-12-2020 02:39
duncan61 ★★★★★ (2021)	I need more information ITN.Call me captain thicko but I am sure without an atmosphere we would burn in the day and freeze at night.Is the atmosphere not made of gasses?The claim is we are changing the atmosphere burning fuel and consequently changing the climate.I can see how CO2 radiates light it is the amount that has been exaggerated.I can insulate plumbing pipes in a flow and return situation and retain heat energy to be more efficient without adding more energy.
09-12-2020 15:42
IBdaMann★★★★★ (14416)	duncan61 wrote:I need more information ITN.Call me captain thicko but I am sure without an atmosphere we would burn in the day and freeze at night. Could you point me to where he has written otherwise? Yes, we would be just like the moon if we were just like the moon. Are you under the impression that you are the only one holding this position or that Into the Night somehow does not? duncan61 wrote: Is the atmosphere not made of gasses? Is the atmosphere not part of the earth? duncan61 wrote:The claim is we are changing the atmosphere The science says that it doesn't matter. When we "change" the atmosphere do we somehow move it closer to the sun? duncan61 wrote: burning fuel and consequently changing the climate. What does that mean beyond pure gibberish? duncan61 wrote: I can see how CO2 radiates light The science calls it the Stefan-Boltzmann law. What do you call it? duncan61 wrote:I can insulate plumbing pipes What does insulation have to do with the vacuum of space? duncan61 wrote: ... and retain heat energy What does this mean beyond pure gibberish? From The MANUAL Heat: noun In the Global Warming theology, "heat" means whatever it needs to mean at any given moment. The term is employed by Global Warming believers to shift semantic goalposts as necessary. Its meaning can shift fluidly between "temperature," "increase in temperature," "thermal energy," "flow of thermal energy," "convection," "absorption of electromagnetic radiation," "energy," "friction," "conduction," "infrared," "plasma," "work," "radiance," "power," "radioactivity," "electrical energy" and others as convenient. . I don't think i can [define it]. I just kind of get a feel for the phrase. - keepit A Spaghetti strainer with the faucet running, retains water- tmiddles 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
09-12-2020 16:15
tmiddles★★★★★ (3979)	Snail wrote: ... the tree could be turned into a product that would be subsequently buried, effectively sinking your carbon in the same way that it was initially before we extracted it. You would then replant a tree and restart the process. ...l Yeah that's how I've understood it. If the wood isn't allowed to rot into the atmosphere (same as burning chemically) then you've sunk the carbon. Trees are a great option too because both trees and wood are a pleasant environment aesthetically. Basically it makes sense to do it even without CO2 level concerns. "Good tests kill flawed theories; we remain alive to guess again." - Karl Popper ITN/IBD Fraud exposed: The 2nd LTD add on claiming radiance from cooler bodies can't be absorbed Max Planck debunks, they can't explain:net-thermal-radiation-you-in-a-room-as-a-reference & Proof: no data is valid for IBD* or ITN Edited on 09-12-2020 16:19
09-12-2020 18:04
HarveyH55★★★★★ (5197)	Where is all the energy used to dig those deep holes, and bury perfectly good trees, going to come from? Solar panels and windmills? They aren't talking about a couple of trees, occasionally, they are talking about thousands of acres, every year, except California. They burn theirs, like the are right now... Moving a lot of dirt, burns a lot of diesel, what's the 'green' alternative, to do the same monumental amount of work, without releasing CO2? Forest fires are a natural occurring processes. How are you going to keep those hundreds of thousands of acres, of carbon-sinking trees safe, until funeral time? Like pretty much everything 'global warming', it looks possible, to people that never spent much time outside their home, office, or lab. Everything seems so small and manageable on paper. None of them seem to really grasp, just how large this planet is, and how little control they really have.
09-12-2020 21:06
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	duncan61 wrote: I need more information ITN. Certainly. duncan61 wrote: Call me captain thicko Nah. This stuff has simple laws of physics, but the ramification of applying those laws is astounding. duncan61 wrote: but I am sure without an atmosphere we would burn in the day and freeze at night. Certainly one way to describe it. The International Space Station, which orbits Earth, regularly sees skin temperatures on it's daylit side easily reach 250 deg F. On it's 'night' side, temperatures easily plummet to -250 deg F. Nowhere on the surface of Earth have we measure such extreme temperatures. The answer IS the atmosphere. Because it's mass, it takes time to heat it up and to cool it down. The answer also is in the oceans. Because it's mass, it also takes time to heat it up and cool it down. Every bit of matter has what is called the thermal heat index. This varies depending on what the substance is. You can find various engineering tables to look up the values for some common substances (including CO2). Water has the highest thermal heat index of any common substance. It takes MORE energy to make it heat up by a single degree. It has to give up all that energy too, just to lose a single degree. It is why the land heats up and cools down faster than ocean water and lake water. The temperature of the Earth doesn't change. Only the range of temperatures seen is what changes. The Earth as a whole stays the same temperature. What is that temperature? No one knows. duncan61 wrote: Is the atmosphere not made of gasses? Yes. Those gasses have mass. It takes time to heat them up and cool them down, like any mass. duncan61 wrote: The claim is we are changing the atmosphere burning fuel and consequently changing the climate. Climate has no quantity or unit of measurement. It is a subjective word. What is changing? How would you describe such changing? duncan61 wrote: I can see how CO2 radiates light it is the amount that has been exaggerated. No, the Stefan-Boltzmann law does not exaggerate. duncan61 wrote: I can insulate plumbing pipes in a flow and return situation and retain heat energy to be more efficient without adding more energy. True. What you are doing is reducing heat. That's what blankets, insulation, and coats do. Remember that the hot water in those pipes is becoming hot by using a boiler or hot water heater. That is converting some kind of fuel or electricity into thermal energy. All you are doing is reducing heat loss to the surrounding air by using insulation. Putting a coat on a dead body will not warm it up. Putting a blanket on a rock will not warm it up. This argument, which I call the Magick Blanket Argument, is based on ignoring the heat source that you are trying to prevent loss from by reducing conductive heating. That heat source is in turn the result of burning a fuel of some kind or consuming electricity. Blankets work both ways. They are also good at keeping warmer air from reaching colder fluid in pipes. For Earth, the Sun is the source of energy. Earth does not heat itself. There is no blanket around Earth. If you could imagine a perfect thermal insulator, built a box out of it, and put a thermometer in that box and sealed it, the temperature in that box will stay the same, whether it's in the coldest reaches of the Arctic, or in the hottest regions of the Outback in summer. It would even stay the same temperature in open space or in the heart of the Sun (assuming the box was indestructible of course! ). NO insulation is perfect. Heat always flows through any insulation. A thin blanket on a cold night is not enough. On a warm evening in the summer it may be too much. The key thing to remember is that you are heating yourself by converting chemical energy into thermal energy using the food you eat. Put a coat on a frog and you will kill it. It can't warm up enough to go hunting to feed itself. It is cold blooded. A frog is solar powered. It doesn't eat enough to maintain it's own internal temperature. The frog will simply go into hibernation until it starves. It is the same with all reptiles and insects. The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan
09-12-2020 21:08
Into the Night★★★★★ (21600)	tmiddles wrote: Snail wrote: ... the tree could be turned into a product that would be subsequently buried, effectively sinking your carbon in the same way that it was initially before we extracted it. You would then replant a tree and restart the process. ...l Yeah that's how I've understood it. If the wood isn't allowed to rot into the atmosphere (same as burning chemically) then you've sunk the carbon. Trees are a great option too because both trees and wood are a pleasant environment aesthetically. Basically it makes sense to do it even without CO2 level concerns. Did you know that the ground is porous? The Parrot Killer Debunked in my sig. - tmiddles* Google keeps track of paranoid talk and i'm not on their list. I've been evaluated and certified. - keepit nuclear powered ships do not require nuclear fuel. - Swan While it is true that fossils do not burn it is also true that fossil fuels burn very well - Swan

Join the debate Interested in carbon sinking:

Threads	Replies	Last post
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Terrestrial Agroecosystems	841	26-04-2024 23:06
Happy fourth of July. I wonder how many liberals are eating carbon cooked burgers	1	06-07-2023 23:52
Uses for solid carbon	30	06-07-2023 23:51
Maximizing Carbon Sequestration in Wetlands	96	23-06-2023 14:49
Biden wants to force 'carbon capture'	8	21-06-2023 12:55