Remember me
▼ Content

The field of carbon sequestration?


The field of carbon sequestration?05-08-2019 21:39
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
https://hackaday.com/2019/08/05/a-trillion-trees-how-hard-can-it-be/

The article it's self, is sort of silly, in a medicinal marijuana way, but the comment section is almost amusing. Unfortunately, there are complaints of replies being deleted, from 'deniers'. I think they probably got 'reported', and auto-deleted, somebody got scared by the truth. Still a good mix of believers and deniers, even people who just want to stay focused on the article.

Basically, they want to plant 1 trillion trees, to remove CO2 from the atmosphere, and conveniently, there is a failing company with a plan to do it. Pretty obvious plea for bail-out bucks. Should have brought this up with Obama.

The plan involves the donation of about 250 C-130 cargo planes, to drop seedlings. They make growing trees sound simple... The truth is that very few survive, to maturity. Tree farming is a lot of work, tender young trees are good eating for bugs and animals. Lot of fungus and other tree diseases, that can sometime be removed on mature trees, are devastating, and quick on young trees, spreads rapidly too. The number of trees the want to plant, will use up a lot of water and nutrients, needed for other kinds of plants, which are more food friendly. Didn't go into where they would plant, that wouldn't interfere with the massive solar and wind farms.

Pretty silly article, maybe it was intend to start a debate, generate some fresh interest in Climate Change, since it's becoming less popular, little tired.
05-08-2019 21:58
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5229)
HarveyH55 wrote:Pretty silly article, maybe it was intend to start a debate, generate some fresh interest in Climate Change, since it's becoming less popular, little tired.


From the article:

these trees could store 205 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, which would account for 2/3rds of the carbon dioxide humans have added to the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution.


I left a comment.

What if the trees get the wrong CO2 and absorb CO2 that was not added to the atmosphere by humans? Trees have been known to make that mistake before. Will the trees receive any sort of training before being deployed?



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
06-08-2019 04:16
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
IBdaMann wrote:
HarveyH55 wrote:Pretty silly article, maybe it was intend to start a debate, generate some fresh interest in Climate Change, since it's becoming less popular, little tired.


From the article:

these trees could store 205 gigatonnes of carbon dioxide, which would account for 2/3rds of the carbon dioxide humans have added to the atmosphere since the start of the Industrial Revolution.


I left a comment.

What if the trees get the wrong CO2 and absorb CO2 that was not added to the atmosphere by humans? Trees have been known to make that mistake before. Will the trees receive any sort of training before being deployed?


I didn't leave a comment, most everything was being covered pretty well, got there a little late. I probably would have worded some a little differently, but didn't seem necessary to repeat the same things.

Might go back and mention that CO2, specifically the carbon part, is essential to all living things, not just trees. We have a lot more living things, than pre-industrial times. What they are scheming, would be like removing oxygen from the atmosphere, since fires can't burn without it. No burning, no CO2, no more climate problem, which wouldn't matter anymore, since we all would be dead anyway. Would much rather take my chances with a 1.5 C warmer climate, and catastrophic weather events... Wait a minute, I moved to Florida 30 years ago, and it's way more than 1.5C warmer, than Oregon, and there are frequent catastrophic weather events every year, hasn't killed me yet...
06-08-2019 08:06
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
IBdaMann wrote:What if the trees get the wrong CO2


Pretty funny! I think it's funny how few people realize that a rotting dead tree and a burned tree have the same release of CO2. But a cut down tree turned into furniture "traps Co2" for as long as you keep the furniture anyway.

To offset fossil fuels I think we need to grow things and bury them.

Doesn't sound very Earth Day to bury trees alive but that would be tit for tat.
06-08-2019 10:17
HarveyH55
★★★★☆
(1513)
Trees don't rot underground? Maybe I just never buried any deep enough... How much CO2 would be released by the heavy equipment need to dig the holes, move the trees, and cover them up? They would need turn a lot of fuel planting and caring for those young trees, first few years. The trees buried, would need to be replace, more fuel burned. Would the trees sequester enough CO2, to offset what was produced to plant them, and dispose of them?
06-08-2019 11:21
tmiddlesProfile picture★★★★☆
(1585)
HarveyH55 wrote:
Trees don't rot underground?


The chemistry of rotting and burning hydrocarbons are the same:

2 C8H12 + 25 O2 ---> 16 CO2 +18 H2O

I thing it wouldn't matter if it was trees or algae or anything. You'd just need to cut the oxygen supply.
06-08-2019 16:44
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(5229)
tmiddles wrote: To offset fossil fuels I think we need to grow things and bury them.

I'd be interested in the reasons behind your belief that hydrocarbons and coal somehow need to be "offset."

Note: There is no such thing as a fossil fuel. Fossils don't burn. Hydrocarbons, on the other hand, exist ... and they burn. Coal is carbon, which is an element.


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
06-08-2019 19:17
Into the NightProfile picture★★★★★
(10256)
tmiddles wrote:
IBdaMann wrote:What if the trees get the wrong CO2


Pretty funny! I think it's funny how few people realize that a rotting dead tree and a burned tree have the same release of CO2. But a cut down tree turned into furniture "traps Co2" for as long as you keep the furniture anyway.

To offset fossil fuels I think we need to grow things and bury them.

Doesn't sound very Earth Day to bury trees alive but that would be tit for tat.


We don't use fossils for fuel. They don't burn. I assume you mean carbon based fuels, such as coal, oil, or propane, natural gas, etc.

They don't need to be 'offset'. CO2 has absolutely no capability to warm the Earth.


The Parrot Killer




Join the debate The field of carbon sequestration?:

Remember me

Related content
ThreadsRepliesLast post
Let us hang the bar high: We need to achieve a carbon neutral way of life210-12-2019 02:01
Technology will solve problem with carbon capture826-11-2019 20:48
Why cant we suck carbon out of the air?1226-08-2019 19:25
Uses for solid carbon2413-08-2019 18:21
carbon footprint16309-06-2019 20:27
▲ 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