RRC Archives

alien2 wrote:We need to find ways to trap CO2. CO2 is the main problem behind global warming which in turn warms the oceans, land, etc. In turn, causing big natural disasters. Trees "breathe in" and store carbon dioxide (CO2), a major greenhouse gas, from the atmosphere as they grow. In one year, a mature tree absorbs as much CO2 as a car produces, driving 30,000 miles. Healthy, growing trees do not solve the source of the greenhouse gas/smog problem, but they can reduce its terrible impact on our air quality and health. These living “carbon sinks” ease the effects of climate change.

this makes me sad.. makes me think crichton knew more than i guessed when he wrote "state of fear".

maybe i should explain my frustration:

first, most people understand that trees use co2 to get their energy and subsequently sequester it. explaining it to us seemed like something of a lecture.

second, where did you get that statistic about trees "absorbing" 30,000 miles worth of driving? think about the math there and it doesn't make any sense. there's (give or take) about twenty pounds of carbon dioxide in a gallon of gasoline. if the car gets 30mpg, then that tree ends up weighing ten tonnes.. i've cut and moved "mature trees" and they don't add ten tonnes a year.

third, carbon dioxide isn't the major problem with air quality and health. that mostly comes from carbon monoxide and the nitrous oxides that cars produce. trees do nothing for this. in fact, it's mostly the sun that screws up there: the sun converts the nitrous oxides into more corrosive and volatile forms of the gases, giving cities their mid-day haze.

maybe i'm being a little harsh but i'm frustrated: this sounds entirely too much like the ridiculous propaganda that gets shuffled through the mail, on tv, and on the web. there's very little empirical evidence for the claims you make (the amount of carbon absorption by trees, global warming's impact on natural disasters, that removing co2 would improve health and air quality). for the most part, they're inflated statistics that are meant to get people to react quickly and on poor information. it's a campaign that's focused on a single aspect of a global problem that, if anyone would look back at history, has only been hindered by such specialized focus. the study of the environment, ecology, is only beginning to understand some of the most basic concepts because there are so many different factors and variables. it's the classic "hole in a dam" problem: plug one hole and you create another. for instance, where do you want to plant these trees? would you plant them in the prairies of central america or the outback of australia? are we talking native or exotic species? are these trees that support or discourage already established invasive species?

the world is full of our ecological mistakes. but just because you're doing "something" doesn't mean it's the right thing.. did you know that overall global production (that's primary production by plants, algea, etc.) may have actually increased because of humans? the last i heard on this, though, is that it's decreased a little.. but that could change with the next journal article. did you know that coral reefs are actually considered carbon sources? or how about the fact that if we wanted to, we could (probably) create the next ice age simply by salting the oceans with iron? and it wouldn't take that much.. iron is the limiting factor for algea in the middle of the ocean and if we gave it to them, they'd take out enough co2 to throw us into an ice age (possibly.. no guarantees).

i'm just tired of the propaganda that calls for simple solutions, one-stop-shopping answers, or campaigns that villainize people or corporations.

that being said, currently i'm a member of the sierra club.. a fact that i'm not as proud of as i once was. this is the last year i'll be a part of it.

1) Not intended to be a lecture. More of just leading up to a point. Being a need to have more trees to sequester C and remove pollutants from the air.

2) I looked into what my reference said about the 30,000 mi statement. I think what they meant to say was a mature tree holds the same amount of carbon generated from one car going 30,000 miles. From a better source, every year a tree cleans 330 lbs of CO2 (90 lbs C) from the atmosphere through direct sequestration in the tree's wood. This tree reduces the same amount of atmospheric CO2 as released by a typical car driven 500 miles. Each person in the U.S. generates approximately 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. An acre of forest stores about 2.6 tons each year. The U.S. Forest Service estimates that all the forests in the United States combined sequestered a net of approximately 309 million tons of carbon per year from 1952 to 1992, offsetting approximately 25% of U.S. human-caused emissions of carbon during that period.

3) Trees also do a good job at removing pollutants from the air and water (see first link below). Trees also remove other gaseous pollutants by absorbing them with normal air components through the stomates in the leaf surface. In one urban park (212 ha.) tree cover was found to remove daily 48lbs. particulates, 9 lbs nitrogen dioxide, 6 lbs sulfur dioxide, and 2 lb carbon monoxide and 100 lbs of carbon.

http://www.coloradotrees.org/benefits.htm#pollutants
http://www.carboncyclescience.gov/description.html
http://www.powertreecarboncompany.com/program.htm


It is very well know that temperature and CO2 concentrations follow one another. We, humans, have shot the CO2 levels well above what they have been for the last 400,000 years. We are starting to see the effects.
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precau ... /New_Data/
http://www.daviesand.com/Choices/Precau ... index.html

alien2, although most of that is sound, some of it is still up in the air.... (heh)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/science/cl ... -trees.htm

You can't deny the fact that a full grown tree is made up of 50% carbon dry weight. A big tree holds a lot of carbon. Who cares about the leaves as far a carbon goes plus they give back nutrients to the soil. All the USA Today article is saying is that a higher CO2 concentration will have little effect on increased growth due to the higher CO2. It's just saying nutrient deficiencies will come into play and be the limiting factor on growth. They'll just grow as fast as they usually do. In addition, if trees are used as lumber for a home, the carbon will be trapped for a long time while a new forest can be growing on the same plot. Trees are not the solution but a step toward a solution. Every little bit helps.

alien2 wrote:2) I looked into what my reference said about the 30,000 mi statement. I think what they meant to say was a mature tree holds the same amount of carbon generated from one car going 30,000 miles. From a better source, every year a tree cleans 330 lbs of CO2 (90 lbs C) from the atmosphere through direct sequestration in the tree's wood. This tree reduces the same amount of atmospheric CO2 as released by a typical car driven 500 miles. Each person in the U.S. generates approximately 2.3 tons of CO2 each year. An acre of forest stores about 2.6 tons each year. The U.S. Forest Service estimates that all the forests in the United States combined sequestered a net of approximately 309 million tons of carbon per year from 1952 to 1992, offsetting approximately 25% of U.S. human-caused emissions of carbon during that period.

again, you're using the forest service as your source. they have a direct interest in making forests seem beneficial. now i don't doubt that they're numbers are probably decent, but i'd hesitate to take them at their word on any of that. especially when they already admit it's an approximate.

alien2 wrote:3) Trees also do a good job at removing pollutants from the air and water (see first link below). Trees also remove other gaseous pollutants by absorbing them with normal air components through the stomates in the leaf surface. In one urban park (212 ha.) tree cover was found to remove daily 48lbs. particulates, 9 lbs nitrogen dioxide, 6 lbs sulfur dioxide, and 2 lb carbon monoxide and 100 lbs of carbon.

you may very well be right about that and that's my fault for not checking my back: my bad. but one thing i did forget was that it's been recently observed is that trees release just as many, if not more, voc's (volatile organic compounds, usually carcinogens or at least respiratory irritants). check out the link for more info on that.. especially sweet gums, which i see plenty of in lexington (they're the trees with the star-shaped leaves)

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/04/q3/0927-trees.htm

alien2 wrote:It is very well know that temperature and CO2 concentrations follow one another. We, humans, have shot the CO2 levels well above what they have been for the last 400,000 years. We are starting to see the effects.

as charlie said, a lot of it isn't for sure. no good scientist would say that there is conclusive evidence of global warming or that humans have anything to do with it. that being said, i believe it's a real phenomenon. however, we have to remember that we might be wrong and that correlation doesn't dictate causation.

too many bad things have happened at the hands of good intentions. that's needs to stop.

Paul3eb wrote:too many bad things have happened at the hands of good intentions. that's needs to stop.

What harm would come from planting a tree? In the other direction, you have everything to lose.

Colclusive evidence?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=160
http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-58/iss-5/p16a.html
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=148

Proof for my main point - The atmospheric concentrations of CO2 coming off the pacific are lower when they exit North America and go into the Atlantic. North America is a huge carbon sink. Mostly due to reforestation efforts.

http://www.princeton.edu/pr/news/98/q4/1016-carbon.htm

..this is exactly what makes me sad.

..with science you have to understand that nothing is "conclusive", everything is open to other interpretations and other possibilities. that theories and ideas are constantly changing based on the last observations is the very base of science. certainty is not part of science. skepticism is.

what's the harm in planting one tree? none.. but that's not what you're proposing. if you want a national reforestation effort, you're going to have to think about wetlands, prairies, bird populations, joining ecosystems, water flows, biotic interactions in general, parasitic dispersal..

as for north america being a carbon sink, who said it must be the trees? couldn't it be the fact that so much of america is farmland?

my point is that things aren't always what they seem and it's not always that easy. take a look at past "wildlife management" schemes.. they had the best intentions and thought, "what's the harm?" but found out only later because they didn't research and consider the consequences of their actions. take a look at ohio.. where are the wetlands? there's a fraction.. a very small fraction left of their original range. in their place.. forests. that's the harm.

and by the way, look again at your graph. how well does that really fit?

maybe this does better?



be open.. not closed.

Has anyone heard of Murphy's Law? Damn all these bleeding heart liberals.