More trees less carbon?

[jameswhite1979]

Can we solve global warming by planting more trees?

Is it this simple....?

 

[futuristicmonkey]

Last numbers I heard were one average tree will process 26 lbs of CO2 per year.

 

[dkozloski]

Adding co2 to the atmosphere stimulates plant growth. Growers of flowers in hot houses add co2 as a matter of course in their operation. This is the ironic part of the panic about climate change. Plant and animal life thrive when the temperature is raised and co2 levels are increased.

 

[BrownTown]

Only to a very limited extent, obviously a tree is made of hydrocarbons, so there is some CO2 sequestered in it, but when the tree dies most of that is released as it decomposes. So alot of trees will take some CO2 out of the atmosphere at first, but eventually it gets to a break even point where the new trees growing only replace the CO2 being generated by the old trees decomposing. Some of the organics do get locked ungerground though, but its a very slow process. Essentially burning all these hydrocarbons from underground is like releasing the remains from millions of years of decomposed plants over a few hundred (more complex then that obviously, but on the simplest level).

 

[CTho9305]

Originally posted by: dkozloski
Adding co2 to the atmosphere stimulates plant growth. Growers of flowers in hot houses add co2 as a matter of course in their operation. This is the ironic part of the panic about climate change. Plant and animal life thrive when the temperature is raised and co2 levels are increased.

Sure, as long as you happen to like the plants and animals that benefit most more than you like the ones that benefit least. Algae and faster reproducing plants (e.g. "noxious weeds") tend to adapt to new climates fantastically. On the plus side, maybe we'd end up being less corn and more other stuff . I know mosquitos love warmer winters too... this whole climate change thing looks fantastic! :roll:

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: CTho9305
I know mosquitos love warmer winters too... this whole climate change thing looks fantastic! :roll:

Ever been to Alaska? Those mosquitos tend to disprove that. Warmer/Colder < species specialization, migration, and range. Otherwise, there would be no life on this planet.

 

[Crusty]

Originally posted by: gsellis

Originally posted by: CTho9305
I know mosquitos love warmer winters too... this whole climate change thing looks fantastic! :roll:

Ever been to Alaska? Those mosquitos tend to disprove that. Warmer/Colder < species specialization, migration, and range. Otherwise, there would be no life on this planet.

How does a mosquito liking a warmer winter have anything do with them being in Alaska?

 

[dkozloski]

FWIW, on the North Slope of Alaska there are more tons of mosquitos per square mile than any other creature that lives there according to my old Air Force survival manual. None carry malaria. I've seen people driven over the edge into total panic in less than thirty minutes by mosquitos.

There are absolutely no trees there if that matters.

 

[NanoStuff]

The density of vegetation is very proportional to the amount of CO2. So the solution to the CO2 problem is to pump out more CO2, which will create more vegetation which in turn will eat more CO2.

If you have been paying attention, the solution to global warming is global warming itself.

 

[Smilin]

Trees *ARE* CO2.

We tend to think of trees being made of the nutrients gathered from soil and water but really trees are made from carbon pulled from the air. The whole process of turning air into wood is solar powered as well.

For me this didn't sink in until I watched something being grown hydroponically (sp?) for a few weeks. I realized that this plant is either made from H2O or CO2. It couldn't be anything else because the only thing being introduced was a "fishfood pinch" of fertilizer once every week.

So if you grow a 3 ton tree you've basically pulled 3 tons of carbon out of the air.

Problem is keeping it that way. If you burn the tree or allow it to decompose it's going to end up right back in the air.

 

[Smilin]

Originally posted by: CTho9305

Originally posted by: dkozloski
Adding co2 to the atmosphere stimulates plant growth. Growers of flowers in hot houses add co2 as a matter of course in their operation. This is the ironic part of the panic about climate change. Plant and animal life thrive when the temperature is raised and co2 levels are increased.

Sure, as long as you happen to like the plants and animals that benefit most more than you like the ones that benefit least. Algae and faster reproducing plants (e.g. "noxious weeds") tend to adapt to new climates fantastically. On the plus side, maybe we'd end up being less corn and more other stuff . I know mosquitos love warmer winters too... this whole climate change thing looks fantastic! :roll:

That's the kicker isn't it.

"Save the Earth" is such a silly concept. The Earth is going to be fine looooong after it has killed us off . The Earth will solve the CO2 problem by wiping out animals (us). If things get out of balance in the other direction and ice up the Earth will basically wipe out tons of plants. It all works out (for the Earth at least).

 

[AllGamer]

I say, we should revitalize and replant the entire Sahara Dessert, just that alone, will bring back a long dead Rain Forest , that can restore the Earth temperature, and weather pattern, not to mention product 100% more oxygen, and restore the Ozone layer.

Stupid ancient people, burned EVERYTHING, and turned what used to be a rich fertile ground, into SAND.

if they invented light and electricity several thousands years ago, they would have had no need to burn off all the plants for lighting, and food cooking.

 

[BrownTown]

Originally posted by: AllGamer
I say, we should revitalize and replant the entire Sahara Dessert, just that alone, will bring back a long dead Rain Forest , that can restore the Earth temperature, and weather pattern, not to mention product 100% more oxygen, and restore the Ozone layer.

Stupid ancient people, burned EVERYTHING, and turned what used to be a rich fertile ground, into SAND.

if they invented light and electricity several thousands years ago, they would have had no need to burn off all the plants for lighting, and food cooking.

And where are we gonna get the fresh water to do that exactly?

 

[Gibsons]

Originally posted by: BrownTown

Originally posted by: AllGamer
I say, we should revitalize and replant the entire Sahara Dessert, just that alone, will bring back a long dead Rain Forest , that can restore the Earth temperature, and weather pattern, not to mention product 100% more oxygen, and restore the Ozone layer.

Stupid ancient people, burned EVERYTHING, and turned what used to be a rich fertile ground, into SAND.

if they invented light and electricity several thousands years ago, they would have had no need to burn off all the plants for lighting, and food cooking.

And where are we gonna get the fresh water to do that exactly?

I say we jump start the inevitable - dig a large canal or two from the Pacific to Death Valley and fill it with water. Dunno if it'll help global warming, but Arizona Bay might provide some good fishing and recreation. Just build some very large nuclear powered bulldozers and plow the canal through downtown LA.

(kudos to Bill Hicks)

 

[AllGamer]

that's not a bad idea at all, i actually though about that as well but....

too bad in real life everything involves a MONEY $ cost, and stupid governments will not do crap about saving the planet, if it cost them a penny.

Concept: the reason Sahara is so depleted of green, is due the sparse amount of water, and plants strong enough to survive in the dry dry extremely dry lands
Solution: reforestation, and bring moisture back to the dry sand, so it can be converted back into ground material for plants life

Possible solution #1, a man made canal from the nearest sea, river, or lake, to the Sahara dessert
Possible solution #2, Irrigation systems setup throughout, Sahara, and plants that can survive under drought conditions, when provided with constant nutrients and water
Possible solution #3, reforest the entire dessert with plants that already can survive in sahara with little to no care, then introduce more variety of organic materials and moisture, like grass and ragweed that can survive in those environments, to prepare the land for further materia like pine tress and cherry trees in the future.

 

[Greymatter6]

Originally posted by: dkozloski
Adding co2 to the atmosphere stimulates plant growth.

I do not believe this is so for all plants, from partially watching an educational channel that featured a similar experiment ( "BioCON" link) the plants that were grown in altered conditions had different sized "respiration" pores.
(I don't recall exactly in the tv presentation if the plant leaf pores were smaller or larger, but am thinking that the pores were smaller.)

*Note: I am not a biologist, but feel that BioCON and similar experiments can add to the discussion
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On BioCON:

"BioCON (Biodiversity, CO2, and Nitrogen) is an ecological experiment started in 1997 at the University of Minnesota's Cedar Creek Natural History Area."

"BioCON's goal is to explore the ways in which plant communities will respond to 3 environmental changes that are known to be occurring on a global scale: increasing nitrogen deposition, increasing atmospheric CO2, and decreasing biodiversity."

 

[spikespiegal]

the plants that were grown in altered conditions had different sized "respiration" pores.

Very true, and other experiments have shown this out. As CO2 levels in the atmosphere increase plants then increase their ability to 'respirate' it.

At several times in the earth's past C02 levels were higher than they are now. A hundred million years ago atmospheric pressures and C02 levels were MUCH higher. Consequently the carbon that was fixed out of that denser atmospheric soup is now being burned up quite rapidly as fossil fuels.

Higher C02 levels are not a sign of a malfunctioning earth, but something that will eventually be gobbled up by the ecosystem. If you were to ask a tree on the edge of the artic tundra it would probably be on the pro side of climate change while a coral polyp would argue the contrary. The results of higher C02 levels are however extremely inconvenient for homo-sapiens because we've based our economy around a unrealistic eco model of an environment that never changes.

 

[Nathelion]

It's true. The earth will do just fine with climate change. In a couple of million years, any degree of devastation due to warming or cooling will be but a memory as new species arise to fill new niches created by the changed climate.

Bummer is, we won't be around anymore...

Adding co2 to the atmosphere stimulates plant growth. Growers of flowers in hot houses add co2 as a matter of course in their operation. This is the ironic part of the panic about climate change. Plant and animal life thrive when the temperature is raised and co2 levels are increased.

This is true, but only to a certain extent. The big limiter on plant growth is not the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere (if it were, then why isn't Sahara covered in plants right now? Or the tundra? There's just as much CO2 there as there is anywhere else...). While a small, but significant, increase in vegetation can be seen in experiments when CO2 levels are elevated, it doesn't take long until other factors come into play that prevent further growth.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: dkozloski
Adding co2 to the atmosphere stimulates plant growth. Growers of flowers in hot houses add co2 as a matter of course in their operation. This is the ironic part of the panic about climate change. Plant and animal life thrive when the temperature is raised and co2 levels are increased.

Why is that ironic?

For the scientists, climate change was never about the danger to plant and animal life. It's about the upset to human living patterns and agricultural regions. The earth compensates as it always has, with different species thriving and perishing in different regions as change overtakes them...we're the ones who think that cockroaches and rats are nastier than cheetahs and frogs, or that what was once productive farmland should remain so in perpetuity.

Plants are actually not that huge when it comes to CO2 holdup and cycling. Marine algae and, surprisingly enough, geological reactions are much bigger factors. (As part of the lecture series here at the UW, I attended a presentation where the visiting prof claimed that simply dumping enough water on certain rock formations in Ethiopia would reduce the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere to pre-industrial levels.)