4 ms·

I'm not downplaying. I'm looking for ways to run the numbers to validate a hypothesis that this is a really major factor and also beginning to research mitigat

I'm not downplaying. I'm looking for ways to run the numbers to validate a hypothesis that this is a really major factor and also beginning to research mitigation. But I'm only one person. If I have to figure everything out with no help, this goes nowhere fast.

lazide 3y ago
Your comment - ‘“the industrial revolution" is not really the primary cause of human caused climate change but perhaps largely coincidental’ reads to me like downplaying it? I added some math to my comment, hopefully it helps. One way to estimate might be a simplistic, volume/density one. How much carbon is there in the applicable geography/land column? In a forest, it would be the trees themselves (above ground) + the soil. In a wetland, the vegetation + mud/sediment. There should studies with core samples + samples of vegetation that can give good estimates. Then extrapolate. And you’ll have at least a rough estimate of the potential upper and lower bounds, assuming all that carbon instantly turned atmospheric (or at some assumed rate). Combine that with numbers like I gave above (I’d do some googling for Coal numbers and add that too), and you should be able to estimate the maximum relative contribution of each source. We’re burning Coal in the billions of tons/yr quantities, and each short ton of coal produces well over a ton of co2 - so that is billions of tons/yr of co2 on its own.
- DoreenMichele 3y ago
  Thank you for taking me seriously. From my profile: Peatlands cover just 3 percent of the planet’s surface but they store about 30 percent of all land-based carbon, or twice as much as all of the world’s forests combined. Coastal wetlands remove atmospheric CO2 up to fifty-five times faster than rain forests. I'm not downplaying anything. I'm just seeing data that suggests wetlands loss is a really big deal.
  - lazide 3y ago
    Of course! I look forward to your analysis on how big a deal it is (or could be).

lazide 3y ago

Your comment - ‘“the industrial revolution" is not really the primary cause of human caused climate change but perhaps largely coincidental’ reads to me like downplaying it? I added some math to my comment, hopefully it helps. One way to estimate might be a simplistic, volume/density one. How much carbon is there in the applicable geography/land column? In a forest, it would be the trees themselves (above ground) + the soil. In a wetland, the vegetation + mud/sediment. There should studies with core samples + samples of vegetation that can give good estimates. Then extrapolate. And you’ll have at least a rough estimate of the potential upper and lower bounds, assuming all that carbon instantly turned atmospheric (or at some assumed rate). Combine that with numbers like I gave above (I’d do some googling for Coal numbers and add that too), and you should be able to estimate the maximum relative contribution of each source. We’re burning Coal in the billions of tons/yr quantities, and each short ton of coal produces well over a ton of co2 - so that is billions of tons/yr of co2 on its own.

DoreenMichele 3y ago
Thank you for taking me seriously. From my profile: Peatlands cover just 3 percent of the planet’s surface but they store about 30 percent of all land-based carbon, or twice as much as all of the world’s forests combined. Coastal wetlands remove atmospheric CO2 up to fifty-five times faster than rain forests. I'm not downplaying anything. I'm just seeing data that suggests wetlands loss is a really big deal.
- lazide 3y ago
  Of course! I look forward to your analysis on how big a deal it is (or could be).