Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please stop posting that stuff here where it doesn't belong... The other thread is not closed or anything so feel free to continue your user-specific attacks there...
I was not aware you are a moderator. If the post not in response to you bothers you, skip it and move along. I think it is important to delve into the understanding of science those making environmental pronouncements have.
This is the insane GREEN movement!!! Got people freaked out!! The road to destruction is paved with good intentions!
WE got billions of gallons of oil right under our feet!! GOD put it there for us to use!! AND WE DON'T WANNA USE IT!!
I know!! LET'S BURN THE FOOD HE GAVE US INSTEAD!!
I guess the problem behind all that is our lack of willingness to change our lifestyles. So many of us are happy when the industry presents an alternative solution that at first glance seems better than fossil fuels. We are simply longing for the green light to carry on like before without making real changes.
I was not aware you are a moderator. If the post not in response to you bothers you, skip it and move along. I think it is important to delve into the understanding of science those making environmental pronouncements have.
Hello, you are in the wrong thread, in case you haven't noticed. Since you are stubborn, you forced me to report you because of hijacking this thread...
Hello, you are in the wrong thread, in case you haven't noticed. Since you are stubborn, you forced me to report you because of hijacking this thread...
Nope I responded to another poster, directly you didn't like it , too bad.
I did't call cellular respiration insignificant. I called the amount of CO2 produced insignificant. Re-read the post.
Sure, a tree net removes CO2 from the atmosphere - but very little in comparison to the gross amount of CO2 is actually uses for photosynthesis. The vast majority of CO2 taken in by the tree is then expelled during respiration. That's hardly insignificant.
Sure, a tree net removes CO2 from the atmosphere - but very little in comparison to the gross amount of CO2 is actually uses for photosynthesis. The vast majority of CO2 taken in by the tree is then expelled during respiration. That's hardly insignificant.
That's not the case, the vast majority of carbon is retained. Of course it is all released upon the death of the tree.
That's not the case, the vast majority of carbon is retained. Of course it is all released upon the death of the tree.
Not true.
Two main (extremely oversimplified) processes:
Photosynthesis: Light + CO2 = O2 + Carbon molecules
Respiration: Carbon molecules + O2 = CO2 + ATP (energy molecules)
Trees take in a lot of CO2 and from in make oxygen and carbon molecules. Some of those carbon molecules are retained in the tree - as evidenced by the tree getting bigger. Most however, are consumed by the tree to power the tree's metabolism. One of the waste products of this process is CO2 (which is emitted from the tree - and if emitted during the day is very likely sucked right back into the tree to fuel photosynthesis).
Lets assume my tree grows 30 pounds in a year. Lets just say half of that weight comes from carbon from CO2. So 15 pounds of carbon from CO2 is retained in this tree each year. To get 15 pounds of carbon you need 55 pounds of CO2. That means, in essence, 55 pounds of CO2 was retained by the tree.
A tree breaths in a lot more than 55 pounds of CO2 in year. Very little of it is retained. A not insignificant amount of the CO2 taken in by a tree is subsequently consumed by the tree.
Two main (extremely oversimplified) processes:
Photosynthesis: Light + CO2 = O2 + Carbon molecules
Respiration: Carbon molecules + O2 = CO2 + ATP (energy molecules)
Trees take in a lot of CO2 and from in make oxygen and carbon molecules. Some of those carbon molecules are retained in the tree - as evidenced by the tree getting bigger. Most however, are consumed by the tree to power the tree's metabolism. One of the waste products of this process is CO2 (which is emitted from the tree - and if emitted during the day is very likely sucked right back into the tree to fuel photosynthesis).
Lets assume my tree grows 30 pounds in a year. Lets just say half of that weight comes from carbon from CO2. So 15 pounds of carbon from CO2 is retained in this tree each year. To get 15 pounds of carbon you need 55 pounds of CO2. That means, in essence, 55 pounds of CO2 was retained by the tree.
A tree breaths in a lot more than 55 pounds of CO2 in year. Very little of it is retained. A not insignificant amount of the CO2 taken in by a tree is subsequently consumed by the tree.
You are simply wrong. Trees produce vastly more oxygen than carbon dioxide it simply isn't debatable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
