Some enviromental sense ?

[Observer II]

Seems a new study has discovered enough suitable sites on the planet (totalling the size of the US);  that could be used to plant trees, thus sucking in most of the carbon footprints we're producing.  Meanwhile, we're losing swathes of the amazon rain forest (which contributes 25% of our oxygen) to deforestation, in order to graze cattle;  no doubt for export to the EU as part of their new trade deal !

[Evil Sid]

What i have been trying to find out is this.

What is the amount of co2 taken in by a tree and what is the amount of co2 given out by a tree by comparison. If a tree takes in say 100 units of co2 during the day,24 hours, how many does it release back during that same day.

Not found any definitive answer as yet, all websites seem to say that there is a net drop in co2 because of trees ,but not one gives any figures for this.(not even in simple to understand terms) in fact some don't even admit that trees do give out co2 as such merely hint that they might. i have even come across the odd website that suggest that because of the amount of wildlife in forests that they are actually contributing more cdo2 than they are taking in. All veiled in if's,buts and maybes of course.

Just about all the websites agree that trees produce more oxygen than they use but getting any sort of agreement as to how much between two or more is about as rare as unicorn tears.

[Confused52]

Sid,

There is not a single answer as far as I can see. The tree uses light during daytime to make glucose. Some of that glucose is used in respiration at all times, day and night. That respiration uses the glucose and produces carbon dioxide. The rate of respiration falls at night to around half of the rate during the day. You will see that the answer to your question varies according to the type of tree, the time of year, location and weather.

If the tree grows well then the excess glucose is locked away in the wood but the net carbon dioxide reduction each day is not capable of expression by a single number.

[asperity]

It doesn't really matter what effect plants have on the CO2 content of the atmosphere, what matters is the effect the CO2 content of the atmosphere has on plant AND animal life. Without CO2 there would be no life as we know it, and at present the CO2 content of the atmosphere is at a near historic low point. CO2 has little effect on the temperature of the atmosphere either, it's all down to the sun. But without "Climate Change" the general public (hereinafter known as the gullible plebs) cannot be scared into giving up rights and freedoms, and more importantly their money to keep the climate hoaxers in the fashion they have become accustomed to. Now that stupid woman has decided, unilaterally and without democratic debate, to mortgage our future and our decendants futures on a scam that will affect the global climate not one iota. Me? Annoyed? Very much so. 🤬

[Stallard12]

Well put Asp.    However, the thing always conveniently overlooked is that without the participation of India, Pakistan and China any discussion becomes irrelevant.   The peoples of these countries are just beginning to feel the benefits which we have enjoyed for years, jet travel, automobiles, large houses, do you think that they are going to cut back on those things now ?  Of course it's all irrelevant, cos climate changes are natural and cyclic, but of course, you can't redistribute wealth with that principle.

[Davy51]

Aren't trees & plants supposed to absorb CO2 & give out oxygen ?

[Bill]

I think they do but maybe they go into reverse during the night. I used to have a large pond with a lot of algae in it and the dissolved oxygen content would increase during the day and decrease overnight but whether or not there was any net gain I'm not sure. 

I seem to remember seeing something on telly that suggested that wetland areas are more efficient at taking in CO2 than trees although again how the heck does anyone make any comparisons?

Bill

[Confused52]

1 hour ago, Davy51 said:

Aren't trees & plants supposed to absorb CO2 & give out oxygen ?

Indeed they do during photosynthesis, So when it is light they convert carbon dioxide and water to sugar and oxygen. However they use some of that sugar to fuel themselves just like every living thing. Using the sugar with oxygen produces carbon dioxide and water vapour. The sugar is stored and can keep the plant going when the sun goes down, Sid's question was only about the carbon dioxide.

The trees produces a net positive amount of oxygen when the sun is shining but produce carbon dioxide all of the time. Well that is how I understand it anyway. It is subtly different from going into reverse at night but the net effect is just as Bill describes. Gases dissolve in water to an extent which means ponds and the sea acts as a reservoir for dissolved gases. Absorption by the oceans is the mechanism by which carbon dioxide levels reduce naturally but is slow enough to be why it takes so long. I don't think the climate scientists actually understand the oceans part in removing carbon dioxide properly yet.

[Observer II]

On a slightly different tack: I listened to the Leader of the Green Party tonight (CH4 news) , who  wasn't supportive of the advent of the electric car revolution, basically arguing that it still means congestion, obesity etc and boiling her arguments down; she seemed to be advocating a return to the 50's when we all walked or rode a bike;  can't see that going down well with the mothers who drop their kids off at school, with their cars pumping out lung damaging emissions or with their kids mithering for a car when they reach 17.  So, it looks like the Greens have an uphill battle.    😎

[asperity]

Anyone who still believes in this climate change scam, I've got a bridge to sell you. If they were convinced 25 years ago that man was causing climate change, why do they need £Billions more for "research", just show us this irrefutable "evidence". They can't, but they can produce a load of scare stories to frighten the plebs into handing over their cash and their freedom. They have indoctrinated the children in schools now to hector their parents into believing in the scam as well. A little bit of research shows what a pack of lies we are being peddled. Follow the money is always a good idea, and the money isn't going to the so-called "climate change deniers" (how can anyone deny that climate change happens?), it goes to the people perpertrating the myth of anthropogenic climate change. The climate is changing the same as it has done for the billions of years the earth has existed, and will continue to change once we've all buggered off. In 30 years time I don't expect I'll still be here to say "I told you so", when millions of people are freezing to death in winter because the government has made it impossible to afford home heating. Or perhaps that's the plan. 🤔

[Stallard12]

Bravo Asp, as an engineering (scientist) I couldn't put it better.

 

[Observer II]

I agree Asp, and the same sentiments can be applied to current cultural theories as well.

[Evil Sid]

14 hours ago, Davy51 said:

Aren't trees & plants supposed to absorb CO2 & give out oxygen ?

Yes they do but they also take in oxygen and give out CO2. There is more oxygen given out than taken in and less CO2 given out than taken in. trees do have a tendency to give out more CO2 during the night but even then still give out oxygen but at a reduced rate.

I have seen one website that suggests that it could be dangerous to sleep under trees at night because of the increase in CO2 given out by them. Sounds logical but so does an increase in CO2 due to vegans eating oxygen producing plants and releasing more methane into the atmosphere because of it.💨

[asperity]

It's another of those myths put about that CO2 is poisonous. On board ships, especially tankers, it is drummed into crew members that entry into enclosed spaces that haven't been ventilated, and the atmosphere tested for toxic gasses and for adequate oxygen content (21%), can be fatal. This is not because a build up of CO2 is toxic but rather that the CO2 has displaced the oxygen and reduced it to an unsafe level (below 19% will probably knock you out, below 16% and you're dead). So sleeping under trees at night, assuming you are outside in fresh air anyway, isn't going to cause you to die from lack of oxygen. The atmosphere contains about 21% oxgen but only 0.04% CO2.

Despite all the training and information about enclosed spaces on ships crew members are still dying because of it. The usual scenario being that careless and/or lazy crew don't bother testing the atmosphere in an enclosed space, one man enters and collapses. Another man enters to help the first and also collapses and so on until someone realises what's happening and raises the alarm/fetches breathing apparatus.

[Davy51]

Well Sid, having heard about cattle being blamed for  causing the hole in the ozone layer maybe veganism should be outlawed. And drinking in pubs that sell bad ale.

[Davy51]

It seems to me that the only problem with our planet today is the human race. Whether we are some form of aberration as far a nature is concerned we will probably never know. Whereas every other species on earth has been given the capacity to adapt to the environment it finds itself in ,we have been given the capacity to change our environment & lifestyles & life expectancy to suit ourselves which in no way reflects the rest of nature. As far as the planet is concerned, our superior intelligence ,compared to pond life ,is surely only going to end one way ,a barren ,uninhabitable wasteland until nature can begin its cycle again X million years into the future. Are we,the human race, really better than everything else we share the planet with or just an accidental occurrence that has disturbed earth's natural balance irreparably ?

[asperity]

Does the planet have a natural balance? Is there a certain global temperature that should be maintained, a certain number of cyclones per year? A certain amount of rain falling on each part of the earth? A fixed ratio of cloudy days to sunny days? Of course not. The climate of the planet is chaotic dependant upon many varying factors like the varying distance from the sun, the inclination of the poles, solar activity or lack thereof (sunspots), volcanic activity and many other variables. The idea that us mere mortals are able to affect the climate to any significant degree is laughable, but this is the message these climate charlatans are trying to force upon us.

[Davy51]

I think as far as wildlife is concerned  & taking humans out of the equation , everything on the planet had a means of sustenance ,everything on the planet developed its bodily functions to fit the environment it found itself in & many animals had the migratory instinct to follow food & water & even the seasonal weather they were designed for. The naked ape came along & gradually gained the knowledge & skill to provide for & shelter his family from the elements. Humans learned to make clothes & fire ,build structures & grow crops without having to forage for food. This gave them an advantage over the rest of the animal kingdom ,great at the time but have we developed too much, to the extent we are over populated & are forever dependent on elements that we know are bad for Planet Earth ?

[Stallard12]

I think the human race is pretty great and the world is in better shape than ever ( except for liberal socialists!).   All this whining about how evil and destructive we are, no mention of the great developments since the Victorian age.  The air and water quality is better than it's ever been, essential services and they are essential to a civilized world, have been engineered to almost perfection.  Developments in agriculture enable food to be grown in previously barren places.   Still they moan !    A week after it was announced that global warming (as it was then) was about to kill us all, New York City got buried in six feet of snow !    Some people will only be happy when we are back in caves, which will only happen when gullible politicians force it on us.

Surprised we are discussing this, isn't the world scheduled to end in 2000?  Oops, my mistake, I think that's been moved up till next week.

 

[asperity]

6 hours ago, Davy51 said:

I think as far as wildlife is concerned  & taking humans out of the equation , everything on the planet had a means of sustenance ,everything on the planet developed its bodily functions to fit the environment it found itself in & many animals had the migratory instinct to follow food & water & even the seasonal weather they were designed for. The naked ape came along & gradually gained the knowledge & skill to provide for & shelter his family from the elements. Humans learned to make clothes & fire ,build structures & grow crops without having to forage for food. This gave them an advantage over the rest of the animal kingdom ,great at the time but have we developed too much, to the extent we are over populated & are forever dependent on elements that we know are bad for Planet Earth ?

How do we know that they "are bad for planet earth"? Because the likes of Attenborough tell us? Fossil fuels are part of the planet's development, we didn't put them there. In fact there is natural seepage of oil to the surface and into the oceans that the "experts" never mention. Volcanoes spew millions of tonnes of toxic gasses into the atmosphere, were they put there by man? Humans are as much a part of the natural world as any other animal and have managed to adapt to varied environments better than any other animal. Time to jump off the guilt trip.

[Davy51]

Which is my point ,that we are too successful compared to the rest of the natural world. 

[Confused52]

When the ice age resumes the environmentalists will soon realise how puny mankind actually is.

[asperity]

1 hour ago, Davy51 said:

Which is my point ,that we are too successful compared to the rest of the natural world. 

How is that a problem? When has being "too successful" actually been a thing? Dinosaurs were successful and ruled the world for a few million years, but it didn't last.

[Davy51]

Luckily ,it is just a thought that crossed my mind , you don't have to buy into it. However, should n't success have to be within the parameters of your environment & success has never really been achieved  to such a degree as to test its limits. The human race has expanded over time & has no remorse about ruining  anything to keep expanding. Where will it end ?

As for the natural resources ,they have been there all the time but it is only humans that have a capacity to do anything with them & to manufacture anything  . The rest of the wildlife kingdom is stuck in its own environment & does no more than hunt or forage for food.

 

[asperity]

The thing about the success of the human race is that, although the numbers have been rising, the more successful humans get the less need we have to keep expanding those numbers. So it is that it is widely accepted that world population will soon stop increasing and will, thereafter, start declining.