My tremendous thread about planting trees

[robocop (actually)]

Trees come in different sizes.
So how much carbon do they absorb?

Some like maple, drop a seed, and
you will get a tree. Cheap.

When I googled it it said trees absorb 55 g/day.

Maple sounds like a great candidate!

 

[robocop (actually)]

If I plant any more trees and shrubs in my yard, I'd hafta plant them on the roof of my home and garage. Friends have accused me of planting so much so as to hide from my wife-- but I will deny this, of course.

IOW, I have long believed that we need to do this, and we need to do it NOW!

Well, supposedly we are doing it now or very soon. That is, on the 1.2 trillion tree scale. We already are in the billions.

 

[columbus]

Planting 1.2 Trillion Trees Could Cancel Out a Decade of CO2 Emissions, Scientists Find

There is enough room in the world’s existing parks, forests, and abandoned land to plant 1.2 trillion additional trees, which would have the CO2 storage capacity to cancel out a decade of carbon dioxide emissions, according to a new analysis by ecologist Thomas Crowther and colleagues at ETH Zurich, a Swiss university.

Planting 1.2 trillion trees won't matter if 99% die and you exhausted more co2 to plant them than the survivors will absorb in 30 years.
By then, the climate could have changed so much that the rest of them could die.
It doesn't matter how many pines you plant 6 inches above sea level, if they all die before they reach maturity because of sea level rise.

Tom

 

[robocop (actually)]

Planting 1.2 trillion trees won't matter if 99% die and you exhausted more co2 to plant them than the survivors will absorb in 30 years.
By then, the climate could have changed so much that the rest of them could die.
It doesn't matter how many pines you plant 6 inches above sea level, if they all die before they reach maturity because of sea level rise.

Tom

That's true that a lower bound is 225 ppm CO2 when plants suffocate and a billion people die, but I think the upper bound is much more serious here.

 

[columbus]

lower bound is 225 ppm CO2 when plants suffocate

You really think that plants suffocate from co2?

Seriously, buddy, I don't know where you're getting your information from but it's total wrong.
Tom

ETA ~Is it the same source you get your information about masturbation?~

 

[Subduction Zone]

You really think that plants suffocate from co2?

Seriously, buddy, I don't know where you're getting your information from but it's total wrong.
Tom

I think that he meant without a minimal amount of CO2 plants will die. I would not call it suffocation, but he is probably correct. But the lower bounds are going to be less than the figure that he mentioned, of course it will be species and environmentally dependent.

 

[columbus]

I think that he meant without a minimal amount of CO2 plants will die. I would not call it suffocation, but he is probably correct. But the lower bounds are going to be less than the figure that he mentioned, of course it will be species and environmentally dependent.

What he said was:

lower bound is 225 ppm CO2 when plants suffocate and a billion people die,

How many people will die from low atmospheric co2?
A billion?
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

What he said was:

How many people will die from low atmospheric co2?
A billion?
Tom

Actually if plants die people will starve to death. I know his post was rather garbled to say the least. But I understand how if plants all died people would die. That is of course not going to happen. Even the direst AGW predictions do not claim anything like that. Nor could we lose that so much CO2 that plants would die from lack of carbon.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Actually if plants die people will starve to death. I know his post was rather garbled to say the least. But I understand how if plants all died people would die. That is of course not going to happen. Even the direst AGW predictions do not claim anything like that. Nor could we lose that so much CO2 that plants would die from lack of carbon.

Subduction Zone has my back.

 

[columbus]

Subduction Zone has my back.

So, who is going to explain to you how much and what is wrong with what you posted?

Doesn't appear to be the religious authorities you depend on.
Tom

 

[Subduction Zone]

So, who is going to explain to you how much and what is wrong with what you posted?

Doesn't appear to be the religious authorities you depend on.
Tom

Sometimes it is best to try to understand what a poster means. Otherwise one can be accused of making a strawman argument.

But let's go over his one big error. The lower bound is not 225 ppm, in fact plants do quite well at that level. In fact in the last half million years there were levels as low as 180 ppm and no sign of plants dying out. So that was rather wrong:

Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

 

[robocop (actually)]

So, who is going to explain to you how much and what is wrong with what you posted?

Doesn't appear to be the religious authorities you depend on.
Tom

Sometimes it is best to try to understand what a poster means. Otherwise one can be accused of making a strawman argument.

But let's go over his one big error. The lower bound is not 225 ppm, in fact plants do quite well at that level. In fact in the last half million years there were levels as low as 180 ppm and no sign of plants dying out. So that was rather wrong:

Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

I'm not depending on religious authorities for this one. My church's only statement that I've ever seen on climate change science is "Maybe it's a problem."

I got the 225 ppm from a dude who wasn't very much in agreement with others on another site. I understood properly that the ppm could be too low, but now I see that 225 is not the limit.

However if the ppm did get too low, plants would "suffocate" and humans would die.

Edit: I just remembered that there was an old, unofficial textbook in my Church that said that overpopulation was a problem so that some people do not want to have kids, but since there is a commandment to multiply in Genesis 1 we should conserve energy instead.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Sometimes it is best to try to understand what a poster means. Otherwise one can be accused of making a strawman argument.

But let's go over his one big error. The lower bound is not 225 ppm, in fact plants do quite well at that level. In fact in the last half million years there were levels as low as 180 ppm and no sign of plants dying out. So that was rather wrong:

Graphic: The relentless rise of carbon dioxide – Climate Change: Vital Signs of the Planet

As a side note, just because the CO2 has been below 225 ppm before, that doesn't mean plants could handle it now or that 1 billion people wouldn't die if it got there now.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As a side note, just because the CO2 has been below 225 ppm before, that doesn't mean plants could handle it now or that 1 billion people wouldn't die if it got there now.

Since that was very recent on an evolutionary timescale it does mean that it would not be a problem.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Since that was very recent on an evolutionary timescale it does mean that it would not be a problem.

I'm just speculating and I'm not as sharp as you in science.
Could there be more plants now than then? Could that have something to do with it?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm just speculating and I'm not as sharp as you in science.
Could there be more plants now than then? Could that have something to do with it?

No, that would really not make much of a difference. Changes in the amounts of carbon dioxide are not the limiting factor in plant life right now. Temperature, precipitation, and sunlight are far more limiting.

 

[robocop (actually)]

No, that would really not make much of a difference. Changes in the amounts of carbon dioxide are not the limiting factor in plant life right now. Temperature, precipitation, and sunlight are far more limiting.

OK. I will relay that to the other board where the guy told me.

 

[robocop (actually)]

Changes in the amounts of carbon dioxide are not the limiting factor in plant life right now. Temperature, precipitation, and sunlight are far more limiting.

OK; we'll see what he says.

 

[robocop (actually)]

No, that would really not make much of a difference. Changes in the amounts of carbon dioxide are not the limiting factor in plant life right now. Temperature, precipitation, and sunlight are far more limiting.

I'm a little confused, but the dude claims humans did almost die whenever that CO2 was low.

 

[Heyo]

I'm a little confused, but the dude claims humans did almost die whenever that CO2 was low.

Low CO2 level coincide with ice ages. Not the best time for life.