/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11073815
We aren't going to starve trees by planting a bunch. There is more then enough CO2 int he atmosphere for them, if they get to the point of starving we will have bigger problems. Like 6 foot long dragonflies.

>starving trees to death
kek

>>11073815
What the fuck are you trying to say?

Trees are carbon neutral and don't store dick for carbon. Plant as many as you want, or don't. It doesn't matter.

>>11073842
>carbon neutral
Nigga what. Trees are literally built from CO2 they suck up from the air. They don't just eat a trees worth of dirt. hahahaha

>>11073850
And then they fall down and rot and release all the CO2 in the air again. Peat bogs store more carbon. Algal blooms in the sea store more carbon.
Trees are still nice though.

>>11073859
Store, not indefinitely keep trapped. Some trees have been storing for hundreds of years.

>>11073815
High end humor.

>>11073815
If you worry about not having enough CO2 just keep importing 3rd worlders into our society.
Problem solved.

>>11073869
Irrelevant. The dead trees release CO2 at the same average rate over time as the living trees suck it up. It's further made irrelevant by the fact that biomass only stores like 1% of the total carbon.

>>11073842
What we need to do is figure out more solutions for construction using carbon negative engineered wood based composites.

>>11074043
They all rot so they're still carbon neutral. Great sustainable building material though

Who the fuck told you planting trees was bad for the environment? Was his last name "Koch" because I have something to tell you anon

>>11074192
Planing trees is bad if it's not accompanied by a corresponding increase in CO2 because it puts a strain on their food supply

>>11074260
CO2 is not the limiting factor for tree growth anywhere on Earth

>>11073815
>additional trees will decrease CO2 in the atmosphere
Not really. It's very local; not that much and the average tree only lives for 50-100 years.

>>11073859
>all the CO2 in the air again
Not all. Plenty of that carbon enters the food chain and the carbon cycle.
Life in general is a pretty good carbon sink, so long as you don't burn millions of years of bio-accumulation in a century and a half and tip anything over.
You could also have tree farms where you harvest and replant them, then weigh down the logs and toss them into the ocean. Wood rots a lot more slowly under water, and you're creating more habitats for sea life.
I do agree that there are bigger contributors to the carbon cycle, but trees do their part too.

>>11074260

We have an extremely dangerous over abundance of CO2. If yogg-sothoth started eating us right now, it would be like the beans scene from blazing saddles. The plants're gonna be fine.

>>11073981
what the fuck does migrant population have to do with a country's net production of CO2?
it makes more sense that what is available for use in that particular country contributes more to CO2 output than the population.
if you gave africa a million cars their CO2 would rise too

Tree absord CO2 when they are growing, but after they've grown they actually start releasing CO2. Plants "breath" at night and photosynthesize during the day. Planting trees will never be significant enough to halt global warming.

>>11073815
There is no possibility of “starving trees to death” because you planted some

>>11073815
>600 lbs fatty worried about being underweight
retard

>>11073815
This is a climate denialist thread in disguise, fuck you.

>>11074746

>>11074040
Right, but as long as a forest exists, the carbon that makes up that forest isn't in the atmosphere.
So planting new forests sequesters carbon.

>>11075119
You *store* the carbon in this way you do not *sequester* it. Besides the semantics, all of the biomass on land represents less than 1% of the Earth's carbon so if you managed to double the mass of all the forests on Earth than you still only have 2% of Earth's carbon tied up. We've added significantly more than that to the atmosphere from fossil fuels so you literally accomplish nothing with this massive undertaking.

>>11074260
Is this true?

>>11074746
he lives in a fantasy land where, industrialization of third world nations isn't possible. Let alone inevitable and happening as we speak.

>>11075815
Your original point was that trees don't store carbon.

>>11074260
>>11076960
No, it's nonsense.

>>11077190
My original point was that they don't store dick for carbon. 1% isn't dick.

>>11074040
Where do you think all those coal deposits came from?

>>11074746
>what the fuck does migrant population have to do with a country's net production of CO2?
The moment an impoverished wetback touches American soil, he instantly gets an air-conditioned McMansion and three SUVs.

>>11077258
From peatlands like bogs and mashes. We don't have much of that around today, at least comparatively.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peat

>>11074746
>a decline in total population doesn't lead to less co2 output compared to a growth in total population

>>11077157
every climate plan ever created limits the growth of CO2 emissions from Third World nations to levels lower than they were at their peak in First World nations.