3 ms·

You seem to obfuscate pretty simple concepts through some pointless math. Yes if we burn a forest that took 20 years to grow, to capture the same amount of carb

You seem to obfuscate pretty simple concepts through some pointless math. Yes if we burn a forest that took 20 years to grow, to capture the same amount of carbon you will need to grow the same amount of trees for 20 years (or equivalently double the trees for 10 years ...). The recapture is 100% efficient and 100% reversible or are you suggesting that carbon is somehow transformed into a different element. If a tree contains e.g. 1 tonne of carbon it needed to extract that amount of carbon from the atmosphere. The thing is, growing trees happens much more frequently than forest fires. So we can capture significant carbon from the atmosphere by planting more trees (with the added side effect that it would make places more pleasant to live). Regarding coal-seam fires, the amount of carbon they release compared to the amount of coal we burn purposefully is negligible (that doesn't mean we should not put them out though)

robomartin 4y ago
> The recapture is 100% efficient and 100% reversible Nothing is 100% efficient. Nothing. On the question of time. here's an easy read [0]: Quoting: "Changes to our atmosphere associated with reactive gases (gases that undergo chemical reactions) like ozone and ozone-forming chemicals like nitrous oxides, are relatively short-lived. Carbon dioxide is a different animal, however. Once it’s added to the atmosphere, it hangs around, for a long time: between 300 to 1,000 years. Thus, as humans change the atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide, those changes will endure on the timescale of many human lives." This article is very interesting in that it shows just how some of our assumptions --things we thought we knew-- are wrong. For example: "We’re seeing that Earth’s tropical regions are a net source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, at least since 2009. This changes our understanding of things." Sadly climate-change has mutated into an area dominated by some of the most incredible fantasies I have seen in pseudo-science. This is one of them. Looking at burning trees or wood as carbon neutral with the benefit of ignoring the most important variable in the equation: Time. Others are claims to be able to reduce CO2 at supernatural rates (save the planet in 20, 50 or 100 years), etc. If there's on thing I have learned by taking a deep dive into this subject is that most of what is out there in political and popular circles is somewhere between a fantasies and outright lies. The real science is having trouble getting out to the surface because it has no political or financial value. You can't get votes if you talk about dropping CO2 by 1 ppm in a thousand years. If, on the other hand, you convince people that we are all going to turn into goo in two decades and we can fix the problem --if you give me money, power or both-- well, that's powerful. And so climate change turns into a cult to the benefit of politicians and those able to make money out of the narrative. [0] https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-...

robomartin 4y ago

> The recapture is 100% efficient and 100% reversible Nothing is 100% efficient. Nothing. On the question of time. here's an easy read [0]: Quoting: "Changes to our atmosphere associated with reactive gases (gases that undergo chemical reactions) like ozone and ozone-forming chemicals like nitrous oxides, are relatively short-lived. Carbon dioxide is a different animal, however. Once it’s added to the atmosphere, it hangs around, for a long time: between 300 to 1,000 years. Thus, as humans change the atmosphere by emitting carbon dioxide, those changes will endure on the timescale of many human lives." This article is very interesting in that it shows just how some of our assumptions --things we thought we knew-- are wrong. For example: "We’re seeing that Earth’s tropical regions are a net source of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere, at least since 2009. This changes our understanding of things." Sadly climate-change has mutated into an area dominated by some of the most incredible fantasies I have seen in pseudo-science. This is one of them. Looking at burning trees or wood as carbon neutral with the benefit of ignoring the most important variable in the equation: Time. Others are claims to be able to reduce CO2 at supernatural rates (save the planet in 20, 50 or 100 years), etc. If there's on thing I have learned by taking a deep dive into this subject is that most of what is out there in political and popular circles is somewhere between a fantasies and outright lies. The real science is having trouble getting out to the surface because it has no political or financial value. You can't get votes if you talk about dropping CO2 by 1 ppm in a thousand years. If, on the other hand, you convince people that we are all going to turn into goo in two decades and we can fix the problem --if you give me money, power or both-- well, that's powerful. And so climate change turns into a cult to the benefit of politicians and those able to make money out of the narrative. [0] https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-handle-on-carbon-dioxide https://climate.nasa.gov/news/2915/the-atmosphere-getting-a-...