i think they return carbon to the ground, not into the air.Quote:
Originally Posted by carjunkieanon
Printable View
i think they return carbon to the ground, not into the air.Quote:
Originally Posted by carjunkieanon
Your theoretical 9 acres of trees would soak up your carbon emissions continuously, no need to plant more every year. I'd imagine that you would harvest mature timber and bury the waste instead of burning it to maximise your carbon into the soil. Dunno what burning does to the carbon balance. The method of working out how much carbon stays put in your soil is complex.
Where does charcoal, or black carbon, in soils go?
I got 100%, but only because I answered q1 wrong.
I've studied ice core samples, and although the climate has stabilised to what it was in the past, just like a ripple getting smaller in a pond, we still see the qarming and cooling cycles of the past. currently we are overdue for a warning cycle.
But. ...what we find according to the ice core data is that this warming cycle is happening a lot quicker than any time in observable history.
Sent from my SM-G900I using AULRO mobile app
Slaps forehead, I should've seen that I wouldn't need to plant annually (better leave the math's homework to my wife). Though, I gather mature trees take up less carbon than new growth, so I'd probably need to plant a few 9 acre plots throughout my life. [bigwhistle]Quote:
Originally Posted by bee utey
No you only have to plant them once the trees will convert CO2 all the life of the tree. Yes when the tree dies carbon will be released via burning or decomposition, but no where near what was converted during the life of the tree.Quote:
Originally Posted by carjunkieanon
Chris
If the pollies were really worried about this they would limit population growth, it is the elephant in the room.
The biggest problem with that as I see it is that what happens when the existing population ages? We are already seeing the issues this is causing the welfare system. Imagine if you had net zero population growth - in a few generations the average age would be dramatically higher with a lower number of the working population trying to support them.Quote:
Originally Posted by kenl
I don't disagree we have too many people on the planet, but slowing the growth down would have many long reaching implications.
I don't know what the answer is - cataclysmic weather events to wipe 100's of millions out? That's the way it will probably go eventually - Mother Nature will intervene and restore the balance.
Yes, it seems that is why China has had to relax its one child policy.
Finding solutions to problems is easy. Finding solutions that don't create other problems is more difficult.
I got 6 out of 9, one was a hit the wrong one by mistake one was couldn't remember whether it was 2025 or 2030 as the target and the other I had no clue.
My opinion on Climate change is, yes I know it's happening and yes we are affecting it in some way, and yes we need address it, but I also think that most of the change is due to the planets natural cycle, will us reversing what we have done, help slow the planets natural cycle, assuming our affect has sped it up, I have no idea.
I know one thing for sure, Australia isn't doing enough compared to the rest of the world.
I would respectfully disagree. Being less than half of one percent contributor of CO2, with a similar share of global GDP, the large proportion of our media attention and federal budget is certainly honorable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Redback
It has already been shown that a carbon tax costs us a fortune and makes NO difference to the globe, considering the basic facts that the BIG contributors to 'green house gasses' are India, China and Russia. Let's stop punching above our weight and pretending that we can lead the world on this and every other 'good Samaritan' project, we simply don't have the revenue and contrary to some minority government opinion, the developing world doesn't march to the beat of an Australian drum.
** correlation does not imply causation **
More data in the mix...
Pirates and global warming
Below linked chart - showing that in 1820 there were 25,000 pirates and the global average temperature was 14.2 degrees C, while in 2000 there were 17 pirates and the global average temperature was 15.9 degrees C.
Henderson presented the argument that "global warming, earthquakes, hurricanes, and other natural disasters are a direct effect of the shrinking numbers of pirates since the 1800s".[7]
In 2008, Henderson interpreted the growing pirate activities at the Gulf of Aden as additional support, pointing out that Somalia has "the highest number of pirates and the lowest carbon emissions of any country".[40]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying...mp%28en%29.svg
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster