According to the EPA, in 2020 (latest complete data I could find) the US produced a little north of 13 trillion pounds of CO2. Also, according to the EPA, a tree absorbs 48 lbs of CO2 a year. According to the US forest service we have 228 billion trees in the US.

So if I take those three government reported items as fact, 85% of all CO2 we produce is absorb by our trees. Then you have to look at things like grasslands absorb 3,600 lbs of CO2 per acre and the feds alone manage over 4,000,000 acres of grasslands. And we have even looked at things like pastures, people’s yards, bushes, etc.

In simple terms, the process of nature absorbs ever bit of CO2 we produce and actually most likely creates a deficit. Countries like Canada and Russia have unbelievably high deficits.

So the question becomes, why would we ever use land to build solar farms or wind farms when that use destroys the very mechanism we need to clean the air? Next question, is our government really so stupid they can not do this same simple math?

(09-13-2023 01:03 PM)banker Wrote:  According to the EPA, in 2020 (latest complete data I could find) the US produced a little north of 13 trillion pounds of CO2. Also, according to the EPA, a tree absorbs 48 lbs of CO2 a year. According to the US forest service we have 228 billion trees in the US.

So if I take those three government reported items as fact, 85% of all CO2 we produce is absorb by our trees. Then you have to look at things like grasslands absorb 3,600 lbs of CO2 per acre and the feds alone manage over 4,000,000 acres of grasslands. And we have even looked at things like pastures, people’s yards, bushes, etc.

In simple terms, the process of nature absorbs ever bit of CO2 we produce and actually most likely creates a deficit. Countries like Canada and Russia have unbelievably high deficits.

So the question becomes, why would we ever use land to build solar farms or wind farms when that use destroys the very mechanism we need to clean the air? Next question, is our government really so stupid they can not do this same simple math?

They aren't, but they believe all of us are. Their climate cult religion depends on it.

When did CO2 become poison?

Where do you think the CO2 goes when trees die (and decompose) or are burned?

(09-13-2023 01:15 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  Where do you think the CO2 goes when trees die (and decompose) or are burned?

Other trees?

(09-13-2023 01:18 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:15 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  Where do you think the CO2 goes when trees die (and decompose) or are burned?

Other trees?

Blasphomy..... Trees don't need Co2 to thrive...

(09-13-2023 01:18 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:15 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  Where do you think the CO2 goes when trees die (and decompose) or are burned?

Other trees?

Back to the atmosphere, where, yes, it can be absorbed by trees again.

That cycle has been playing out since photosynthesis was a thing. Vegetation grows and absorbs CO2, then decomposes and releases CO2.

Now what do you think happens when you add an ADDITIONAL 13 trillion lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere?

Once we all submit to the left/liberal/climate/democrat agenda the crisis will be over.

(09-13-2023 01:15 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  Where do you think the CO2 goes when trees die (and decompose) or are burned?

That's part of the 13 trillion pounds currently produced

(09-13-2023 01:03 PM)banker Wrote:  According to the EPA, in 2020 (latest complete data I could find) the US produced a little north of 13 trillion pounds of CO2. Also, according to the EPA, a tree absorbs 48 lbs of CO2 a year. According to the US forest service we have 228 billion trees in the US.

So if I take those three government reported items as fact, 85% of all CO2 we produce is absorb by our trees. Then you have to look at things like grasslands absorb 3,600 lbs of CO2 per acre and the feds alone manage over 4,000,000 acres of grasslands. And we have even looked at things like pastures, people’s yards, bushes, etc.

In simple terms, the process of nature absorbs ever bit of CO2 we produce and actually most likely creates a deficit. Countries like Canada and Russia have unbelievably high deficits.

So the question becomes, why would we ever use land to build solar farms or wind farms when that use destroys the very mechanism we need to clean the air? Next question, is our government really so stupid they can not do this same simple math?

Sounds like you're making an assumption that they're clearing trees to make solar farms?

A new farm near me was just placed in a large open farm field that never had any trees.

Apologies if that's not what you're implying.

Obviously not what he was implying. Apologies that you can't read.

(09-13-2023 01:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:15 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  Where do you think the CO2 goes when trees die (and decompose) or are burned?

That's part of the 13 trillion pounds currently produced

You sure about that?

Even if that was the case, any fossil fuels we burn are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere that was previously sequestered in the ground for millions of years.

(09-13-2023 01:27 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:18 PM)Eagleaidaholic Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:15 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  Where do you think the CO2 goes when trees die (and decompose) or are burned?

Other trees?

Back to the atmosphere, where, yes, it can be absorbed by trees again.

That cycle has been playing out since photosynthesis was a thing. Vegetation grows and absorbs CO2, then decomposes and releases CO2.

Now what do you think happens when you add an ADDITIONAL 13 trillion lbs of CO2 into the atmosphere?

Plants and trees grow faster. There was a time on Earth in which Volcanoes were everywhere. That's what most islands are made of. CO2 is a natural occurring gas in our atmosphere. And yet, here we are. Humans on Earth make up a millisecond of time in the history of Earth. Earth will be around as long after humans as it has been before. My area is 10 times cleaner now than it was when I was a kid. When we would go across the bridge from Gautier into Pascagoula there was always a smog bank over the Pascagoula River and you could smell Moss Point. Sometimes you could smell Moss Point from Biloxi with a dry East wind. That is no longer the case.

(09-13-2023 01:57 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:15 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  Where do you think the CO2 goes when trees die (and decompose) or are burned?

That's part of the 13 trillion pounds currently produced

You sure about that?

Even if that was the case, any fossil fuels we burn are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere that was previously sequestered in the ground for millions of years.

I'm sure that anyone actually trying to solve a problem would have considered precisely that. Otherwise you're not actually presenting the problem. I understand that frequently happens with the 'pro-green' side where they ignore the environmental issues of rare earth mineral mining or the environmental issues of producing electricity today when looking at 'green' solutions, but I can assure you that those who are skeptical of such claims do not make this sort of mistake.

The 6.3 million metric tons (13 trillion pounds) comes from the EPA. If they aren't considering ALL sources, that's on them. I'd also note that they mention 'soil sequestration' (which is essentially the same thing, but from soil) in their release of that number... so again, if they don't include that, it's on them for not being honest.

FTR, burning trees does not release carbon from the ground. It releases carbon from the trees.... so plant new trees and the 'old' carbon is re-absorbed. That's the whole point.... and the 'age' of the co2 being released doesn't really make any difference. Whether we burn 1 gal of billion year old oil or a newly honed, 2 yr old pine 2 x 4 is really immaterial.

To the 'missing the point' comments... rather than building wind farms, maybe the solution is to plant switchgrass or trees or what have you on that same or similar space? Probably takes a whole lot less energy and environmental damage to plant and sew switchgrass than it does to build a wind farm.

If politicians would stop breathing perhaps we would not have to worry about CO2. Their speeches alone account for 80% of the hot air. I just planted a tree in their honor...call me a hero if you like.

(09-13-2023 03:12 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  If politicians would stop breathing perhaps we would not have to worry about CO2. Their speeches alone account for 80% of the hot air. I just planted a tree in their honor...call me a hero if you like.

You are my hero +3

0.04% of the atmosphere is CO2. Plant life starts to die at .02%. CO2 is not a problem. It's a cash grab.

(09-13-2023 02:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:57 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:15 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  Where do you think the CO2 goes when trees die (and decompose) or are burned?

That's part of the 13 trillion pounds currently produced

You sure about that?

Even if that was the case, any fossil fuels we burn are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere that was previously sequestered in the ground for millions of years.

I'm sure that anyone actually trying to solve a problem would have considered precisely that. Otherwise you're not actually presenting the problem. I understand that frequently happens with the 'pro-green' side where they ignore the environmental issues of rare earth mineral mining or the environmental issues of producing electricity today when looking at 'green' solutions, but I can assure you that those who are skeptical of such claims do not make this sort of mistake.

The 6.3 million metric tons (13 trillion pounds) comes from the EPA. If they aren't considering ALL sources, that's on them. I'd also note that they mention 'soil sequestration' (which is essentially the same thing, but from soil) in their release of that number... so again, if they don't include that, it's on them for not being honest.

FTR, burning trees does not release carbon from the ground. It releases carbon from the trees.... so plant new trees and the 'old' carbon is re-absorbed. That's the whole point.... and the 'age' of the co2 being released doesn't really make any difference. Whether we burn 1 gal of billion year old oil or a newly honed, 2 yr old pine 2 x 4 is really immaterial.

First, I don't believe that CO2 entering the atmosphere is accounted for in that 13 trillion pound estimate. From the information presented below, it seems to consider human-caused sources of CO2 emissions. [Note - info below is from 2021; CO2 emissions were down in 2020 due to COVID, it increased to approximately 14 trillion lbs in 2021].

In the footer of the graphic, it mentions that land use, land-use change, and Forestry in the US account for a 12% offset of our greenhouse gas emissions. That means 88% is not being reabsorbed and adds to the total concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere.



https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources...-emissions

The natural cycle of vegetation growth and die-off prior to the industrial revolution kept the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere between 180 and 300 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years. By burning fossil fuel, we are releasing CO2 that was sequestered deep underground from carboniferous organisms that existed 300 million years ago.



https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

So yes there is a difference between burning a 2-year old pine and burning fossil fuels. Burning pine is releasing carbon that said pine absorbed during it's lifetime. It absorbed X amount of CO2 during it's life and in the process of burning (or decomposition), it releases X amount of CO2 back into the atmosphere.

Burning fossil fuels releases carbon that hasn't been in the natural atmospheric cycle since the time of the dinosaurs.

(09-13-2023 03:43 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 02:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:57 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:15 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  Where do you think the CO2 goes when trees die (and decompose) or are burned?

That's part of the 13 trillion pounds currently produced

You sure about that?

Even if that was the case, any fossil fuels we burn are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere that was previously sequestered in the ground for millions of years.

I'm sure that anyone actually trying to solve a problem would have considered precisely that. Otherwise you're not actually presenting the problem. I understand that frequently happens with the 'pro-green' side where they ignore the environmental issues of rare earth mineral mining or the environmental issues of producing electricity today when looking at 'green' solutions, but I can assure you that those who are skeptical of such claims do not make this sort of mistake.

The 6.3 million metric tons (13 trillion pounds) comes from the EPA. If they aren't considering ALL sources, that's on them. I'd also note that they mention 'soil sequestration' (which is essentially the same thing, but from soil) in their release of that number... so again, if they don't include that, it's on them for not being honest.

FTR, burning trees does not release carbon from the ground. It releases carbon from the trees.... so plant new trees and the 'old' carbon is re-absorbed. That's the whole point.... and the 'age' of the co2 being released doesn't really make any difference. Whether we burn 1 gal of billion year old oil or a newly honed, 2 yr old pine 2 x 4 is really immaterial.

First, I don't believe that CO2 entering the atmosphere is accounted for in that 13 trillion pound estimate. From the information presented below, it seems to consider human-caused sources of CO2 emissions. [Note - info below is from 2021; CO2 emissions were down in 2020 due to COVID, it increased to approximately 14 trillion lbs in 2021].

In the footer of the graphic, it mentions that land use, land-use change, and Forestry in the US account for a 12% offset of our greenhouse gas emissions. That means 88% is not being reabsorbed and adds to the total concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere.



https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources...-emissions

The natural cycle of vegetation growth and die-off prior to the industrial revolution kept the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere between 180 and 300 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years. By burning fossil fuel, we are releasing CO2 that was sequestered deep underground from carboniferous organisms that existed 300 million years ago.



https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

So yes there is a difference between burning a 2-year old pine and burning fossil fuels. Burning pine is releasing carbon that said pine absorbed during it's lifetime. It absorbed X amount of CO2 during it's life and in the process of burning (or decomposition), it releases X amount of CO2 back into the atmosphere.

Burning fossil fuels releases carbon that hasn't been in the natural atmospheric cycle since the time of the dinosaurs.

Regardless of the amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere, the environmental change models used to estimate the impact of it are simply trash. None of the models comes even close to predicting what we have actually seen happen over the last 25 years.

The alarmism from the models of the past is not justified. Something is wrong with the modeling.

The science is wrong.

(09-13-2023 03:43 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 02:58 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:57 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:47 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-13-2023 01:15 PM)BobcatEngineer Wrote:  Where do you think the CO2 goes when trees die (and decompose) or are burned?

That's part of the 13 trillion pounds currently produced

You sure about that?

Even if that was the case, any fossil fuels we burn are releasing CO2 into the atmosphere that was previously sequestered in the ground for millions of years.

I'm sure that anyone actually trying to solve a problem would have considered precisely that. Otherwise you're not actually presenting the problem. I understand that frequently happens with the 'pro-green' side where they ignore the environmental issues of rare earth mineral mining or the environmental issues of producing electricity today when looking at 'green' solutions, but I can assure you that those who are skeptical of such claims do not make this sort of mistake.

The 6.3 million metric tons (13 trillion pounds) comes from the EPA. If they aren't considering ALL sources, that's on them. I'd also note that they mention 'soil sequestration' (which is essentially the same thing, but from soil) in their release of that number... so again, if they don't include that, it's on them for not being honest.

FTR, burning trees does not release carbon from the ground. It releases carbon from the trees.... so plant new trees and the 'old' carbon is re-absorbed. That's the whole point.... and the 'age' of the co2 being released doesn't really make any difference. Whether we burn 1 gal of billion year old oil or a newly honed, 2 yr old pine 2 x 4 is really immaterial.

First, I don't believe that CO2 entering the atmosphere is accounted for in that 13 trillion pound estimate. From the information presented below, it seems to consider human-caused sources of CO2 emissions. [Note - info below is from 2021; CO2 emissions were down in 2020 due to COVID, it increased to approximately 14 trillion lbs in 2021].

In the footer of the graphic, it mentions that land use, land-use change, and Forestry in the US account for a 12% offset of our greenhouse gas emissions. That means 88% is not being reabsorbed and adds to the total concentration of CO2 in our atmosphere.



https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/sources...-emissions

The natural cycle of vegetation growth and die-off prior to the industrial revolution kept the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere between 180 and 300 ppm for hundreds of thousands of years. By burning fossil fuel, we are releasing CO2 that was sequestered deep underground from carboniferous organisms that existed 300 million years ago.



https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/carbon-dioxide/

So yes there is a difference between burning a 2-year old pine and burning fossil fuels. Burning pine is releasing carbon that said pine absorbed during it's lifetime. It absorbed X amount of CO2 during it's life and in the process of burning (or decomposition), it releases X amount of CO2 back into the atmosphere.

Burning fossil fuels releases carbon that hasn't been in the natural atmospheric cycle since the time of the dinosaurs.

The problem is that graph is nonsensical, it’s simply made up based on projected data with miles between each slightly reliable data point. Then they amplify the impact by presenting it in a narrow band that over represents the amount and timeframe of the recent change. It’s an agenda driven graph.