Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 248 guests, and 1 robot.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
H
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I WERE WRONG . IF YOU READ THIS BEFORE , PLEASE REMEMBER I ONLY TRY TO IMPROVE KNOWLEDGE ABOUT CO2 PROBLEM . THIS IS MY WORK .
The atmosphere of the earth = 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases .

The atmosphere of the earth = total atmosphere of all countries so each country basically have to create 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases base on the area of that country .

We can call the plant create O2 value and decrease CO2 value base on the area of 1 country is A1 , original O2 /CO2 value of country A without the appearance of citizens of A .
When citizens of country A appear , they use O2 and create CO2 so country A have to create O2 value and decrease CO2 value for citizens of A , then citizens of A destroy tree / plant of country A ( build house , build road , .... ) so country A have to restoring O2value and decreasing CO2 value of tree / plant when they destroy tree / plant .I call this is A2 value - O2 / CO2 value of country A must have for the appearance of citizens of country A .

So real O2 / CO2 value of country A or A0 = A1 “+” A2

Ex : we have 1 original Earth ( without human kind ) which 1000 plants . Total water of original Earth is 1000 gallons . Here for easiest , I choose 1000 trees . This is a fresh environment , no pollution . And then human kind appear , we destroy environment to build our society , example use trees to make furniture , destroy trees to build a house , here I choose human destroy 500 trees . 1 tree absorb 1 gallon water .Human kind use water , here I choose human use 100 gallons water . North Pole and South Pole , ice is thawing , I choose total water is 100 gallons . Temperature of 1 tree = 21 C degree , 1 human being = 37 C degree . 1 mature tree give O2 enough to 2 human being and here human = 100 persons human use 50 cars , 6 trees can decrease CO2 of 1 car.Earth weight 1000 lbs , every day human use 10 lbs petrol/gas , petrol made from oil , we use petrol /gas meant our engine / house burn petrol/gas . , . So :

The total water of Earth ( can make flood , rising sea water ) : 1000 + 500 – 100 + 100 = 1500 gallons water because original Earth have 1000 gallons , destroy 500 meant 500 gallons are not absorbed by trees , 500 gallons water come back to sea , atmosphere , - 100 because human use 100 gallons , + 100 because ice is thawing …. . That’s why sea water is rising .

A0 = A1 “+” A2 : to restore fresh environment , our Earth must have : 1000 trees ( original Earth ) + ( 100 trees / 2 ) + ( 50 * 6 )= 1350 trees . Tree here is a representation of O2 / CO2 value .

The temperature of the Earth = average temperature of each position of the Earth . So 1 person 37 C degree stand near 1 tree 21 C degree => average temp of this position = (37 + 21 )/2= 29 C degree .

So decrease the temperature of each position on this world is really important if we want to decrease the temperature of our hot Earth .Earth is hot , 80% come from sea . 1 day , human burn 10lbs petrol/gas , we decrease weight of Earth everyday , weight of Earth = 1000 – 10 = 9990 lbs . Earth is hot 80% come from sea because weight of Earth is decreased everyday but the core’s temperature of Earth doesn’t change , between water and rock , stone , water is easiest to become hot , that’s why Ocean become hot . THIS IS THE MAIN EXAMPLE I USE TO ANALYZE THE DESIGN OF NOAA’S BUILDING CENTER FOR WEATHER AND CLIMATE PREDICTION .

Sea water is rising . We destroy alot of forest and to many lands become desert. Trees absorbs fresh water . If we call trees are absorbing water sources so when we decrease absorbing water sources , of course sea water is rising a little . And land with living trees will absorb more water than desert . My formula need a lot of trees it's meant trees can absorbs a lot of water . Tree , plant are the connection between sea water and CO2 , we want sea water become lower and decreasing CO2, we need more absorbing water and CO2 sources and trees are the best , plants are the second .
Today , structure of CO2 = original CO2 value ( before human kind appear ) and additional CO2 come from oil , coal , gas , …… , human . Oil , coal , … all things are under the ground before human kind appear . The additional CO2 value from oil , gas , coal are the new part of material , add to the original atmosphere of the Earth before human kind appear . North Pole and South Pole , ice is thawing , this is the new part of sea water supply to the original sea water ( before human kind appear ) .

We have :O2 / CO2 value of country A or A0 = A1 “+” A2
Human kind is thing that original Earth don’t have . We have more sea water come from Ice that original Earth don’t have .We have CO2 come from oil , petrol , coal , …. That original Earth don’t have . A2 is a thing that original Earth don’t have but with more sea water and more CO2 value from coal , oil , …. I meant we have more material , the material we use to remove the pollution of human kind from inside the Earth and Ice . ( The CO2 from oil , coal , … is a material to create more O2 ) . It’s a really difficult job but we have a lot of deserts can become absorbing water and CO2 sources .
Decreasing CO2 will never solve climate change . Continue to make people and all governments understand about global warming like that is a crime . Continue to solve global warming by decreasing CO2 will make it destroy the whole world .I don’t want to see the world think they are doing good things in NEXT 40 or 50 years but finally have a really bad result .We need to warn the world , at least with decreasing CO2 solution .

For 1 country : 1 country need to create the original O2 value of that country + O2 value for activities of citizens of that country . 1 country need to decrease CO2 value just like the original country did and decrease CO2 value of activities of citizens of that country .

All of our governments gather in many meeting and talk about “ decreasing CO2 “ but sadly , decreasing CO2 will never can stop climate change . Only restore a environment base on a correct formula of rate of CO2 , O2 , …. just like a atmosphere before human kind appear , land and trees , plants must absorb more water to decrease total water on this Earth , prevent rising sea water . More plants , trees are best for each position on this Earth will help to decrease average temperature of every position on this Earth .
A1 , A2 , A0 this formula look like the conversation of mass when weight of Earth is decreasing every day
and weight of atmosphere is increasing every day .



Ex : we have 2 area A and B , area A= area B= 4 parts . We plant A only with grass and plant B , 2 parts use grass and 2 parts use very high trees . Of course value of O2 and CO2 of B area > value of O2 and CO2 of A area because high tree always give more O2 and decrease CO2 better than grass .
But according to http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/is_there_enough_oxygen.htm , mass of O2 of atmosphere = (1.2 x 1018 kg) , we can finish Oxygen in 15 000 years . So here , we can stop focus on Oxygen and pay attention on CO2 – subject of all climate summits

When we destroy a forest and use wood to make many things , we leave wild grass and low height tree . But wild grass and low height tree taller a lot than grass we plant in of our building , and value of O2 and CO2 of wild grass and low height tree > O2 and CO2 of grass in front of a building because people usually cut grass every weak . It’s meant grass of building worse than wild grass and low height tree of a destructive forest.

When architectures destroy tree/plant and build many famous places such as White House , NATO headquarter , WHO , United Nation , .... , our architectures didn’t compare the value of O2/CO2 of tree / plant they destroy ,this is A1 and O2/CO2 of tree / plant they re – create around the building after they build the building , we call this is A2 . When people work in that building , they and their cars use O2 and create CO2 , I call this is A3 so tree / plant of that area must :
A0 = A2 + A3 , A2 must = A1 or O2 / CO2 of plants they re –create must = original O2 / CO2 of plants which they destroyed .

I will analyze 1 best building and it’s environment before and after they build the building : NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction , this building finish in 2009 with 50 acres – section and 26 acres for grassland .



Google Earth image .
This is image of NOAA . Above are original place of NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction , before US build NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction, College Park, Maryland and after they build the building . Sadly , the architecture don’t know about the original O2/CO2 come from this area .

3 buildings , only 1 have a chance to restore the original environment but the architecture don’t take this opportunity for a better environment , they use this for worse environment . This things is a serious errors all around this world when they choose grassland .
NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction have 800 employees include staff work inside the building .“ More than 50 percent of the roof surface covered with plants, including chive, sedum, and flowers for better insulation and protection “ ( Credit : NOAA )

I use Google Earth for measuring and I have 26 acres of grassland so I only analyze the 26 acres section to find out did US government protect the environment or not

The original place ( A + B + C = 26 acres ) before US government build are 26 acres of trees and wild grass area. With black white image , I estimate 1 acre of tree have 300 mature trees and 2/3 area for grass .

"A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs per year- McAliney, Mike. Arguments for Land Conservation: Documentation and Information Sources for Land Resources Protection, Trust for Public Land, Sacramento, CA, December, 1993

On average, one tree produces nearly 260 pounds of oxygen each year. Two mature trees can provide enough oxygen for a family of four. Environment Canada, Canada's national environmental agency

So 26 acres( A + B + C = 26 acres ) of trees with 300 trees per acre = 26 * 300 = 7800 trees .

In 1 year , 26 acres of trees absorb : 7800 *48 = 374400 lbs CO2 .
In 1 year , 26 acres of tree produce : 7800 * 260 = 2028000 lbs O2 .

.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
I'm not sure I fully understood what you are saying, but I think I got the general idea. My first thought is that trees are not necessarily the best CO2 captors. Other plants may be better. Algae are probably the best. But another factor is that plant life is not a long term solution. Plants absorb CO2 during their life, but when they die they begin to decay and release the CO2 they have absorbed back into the atmosphere. If we could stop using fossil fuels and use bio-fuels then the increase of CO2 in the atmosphere would be much reduced.

The global warming problem is basically caused by the use of fossil fuels. Fossil fuels are just that, fossils. They are the remains of plants which were buried and did not decay normally. So the CO2 they captured during their lives was stored away under ground until we started pulling them out of the ground and burning them. When that happens the CO2 they captured is released at an accelerated pace, much faster than it was captured originally.

While your solution may be interesting I am afraid that it is not a complete solution to the global warming problem.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
H
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
Sorry , but I need time to update my 1st post tomorrow

Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
H
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
Continue :

In 1 year , 26 acres of trees absorb : 7800 *48 = 374400 lbs CO2 .
In 1 year , 26 acres of tree produce : 7800 * 260 = 2028000 lbs O2 .





Mature grasslands sequester 2400 - 3600 lbsCO2 per acre each year – Technical Assessment of the Carbon Sequestration Potential of Managed Turfgrass in the United State ,Dr . RanajitSahu , 2008 at the request of the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute .

It is estimated that a 50 by 50 foot lawn (2,500 square feet), releases enough oxygen for a family of four, while absorbing carbon dioxide, hydrogen fluoride and perosyacetyle nitrate This means that one square foot of grass will produce approximately half a kilogram of oxygen a day .

Because wild grass / native plants usually grow under the trees so I estimate 2/3 of 260acres are wild grass / native plants .2/3 of 26 acres are wild grass / native plants . It’s meant about 17 acres are wild grass / native plants . 1 acre = 43560 square feet . I will choose lowest CO2 value for wild grass and native plants : 2400 lbs CO2 per acre per year .

In 1 year , 17 acres of wild grass / native plants absorb : 2400 * 17 = 40800 lbs CO2 .
In 1 year , 17 acres of wild grass / native plants produce : 43560 * 0.5 * 17 * 365 = 135144900 kg O2 .
1 kg = 2.2 lbs so 135144900 kg = 135144900 * 2.2 = 297318780 lbs O2 .



The original O2 value of 26 acres before US build NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction are :2028000 + 297318780 =299346780 lbs O2 for creating O2 per year .
The original CO2 value of 26 acres before Us build NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction are :374400 + 40800 = 415200 lbs CO2 for absorbing CO2 per year .




After US build NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction , they choose grassland in front of the building :
If US use best grass type and I choose highest CO2 value according Dr .RanajitSahu : 3600 CO2 lbs per year so the value of CO2 of 26 acres of grassland can absorb of NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction :

26 * 3600 = 93600 lbs CO2 per year .
And the value O2 of 26 acres of grassland :43560 * 0.5 * 365 * 26 = 206692200 kg O2 .
1 kg = 2.2 lbs so 206692200 * 2.2 = 454722840 lbs O2 .




NASA assumes each person needs 1.9 pounds of oxygen per day , I choose 2 lbs O2 for short . Employees in US work 5 days per week and 12 days for annual leave ( Wiki ) .1 year = 52 weeks = 365 days
So total day 800 employee work at NOAA per year is : 365 – ( 52 * 2 ) – 12 = 249 days
800 employees work 249 days and each employee work 8 hours per day so they need : ( 800 * 2 lbs O2 )* 249 = ( 800* 2 ) * 249 / 3 = 398400 lbs O2 / 3 =132800 lbs per year .

According to Wiki , 1 person emit approximately 2.3 CO2 lbs per day per person so value of CO2 800 employee of NOAA work 249 days and each employee work 8 hours per day is : ( 2.3 * 800 ) * 249 / 3 = 152720 lbs per year .

A car emit about 8.2 kg CO2 per one gallon of gasoline. A car in US emit average 16,940 pounds CO2 per year. 800 employees work 249 days in NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction .If 800 employees use cars so the CO2 pollution value of NOAA’s employees when they use car to go to work is :
( 16940 / 365 * 249 ) * 800 = 9245063 lbs CCO2 per year .

9245063 lbs CO2 is a estimate CO2 value when 800 employees of NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction go to work by cars .
According to http://jg2090.newsvine.com/_news/2009/09...0-pounds-of-co2

A gallon of gasoline weighs 6.3 pounds and is comprised of 87% Carbon (C) and 13% HydrogenA CO2 molecule has one carbon atom (atomic weight 12) and two oxygen atoms (atomic weight of 16 each). A carbon atom has a weight of 12, and each oxygen atom has a weight of 16, giving each single molecule of CO2 an atomic weight of 44 (12 from carbon and 32 from oxygen).

Therefore, to calculate the amount of CO2 produced from a gallon of gasoline, the weight of the carbon in the gasoline is multiplied by 44/12 or 3.7.
Since gasoline is about 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen by weight, the carbon in a gallon of gasoline weighs 5.5 pounds (6.3 lbs. x .87).

We can then multiply the weight of the carbon (5.5 pounds) by 3.7, which equals 20 pounds of CO2.
A H2O molecule has two Hydrogen atoms (atomic weight 1) and one oxygen atom (atomic weight of 16 each). Each Hydrogen atom has a weight of 1, and the oxygen atom has a weight of 16, giving each single molecule of H20 an atomic weight of 18 (2 from Hydrogen and 16 from oxygen).
Therefore, to calculate the amount of H2O produced from a gallon of gasoline, the weight of the Hydrogen in the gasoline is multiplied by 18/2 or 9.

Since gasoline is about 87% carbon and 13% hydrogen by weight, the Hydrogen in a gallon of gasoline weighs 0.8 pounds (6.3 lbs. x .13). We can then multiply the weight of the Hydrogen (0.8 pounds) by 9, which equals 7 pounds of H2O or water and water vapor.
How is 21 pounds of Oxygen removed from the atmosphere?:
The combined total weight of the CO2 and the H2O produced by the burning of one gallon of gasoline is 27 pounds. Since we started with one gallon of gas that weighed 6.3 pounds, the amount of Oxygen converted to H2O or CO2 by burning the gasoline is (27-6.3) or 21.7 pounds.
This 21 pounds of breathable Oxygen was removed from the atmosphere by passing through your car's air filter, through the engine, and out the tailpipe as H2O and CO2.

So each 20 lbs CO2 we need 21.7 lbs O2 . 9245063 lbs CO2 is a estimate CO2 value when 800 employees of NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction go to work by cars so the value of O2 we need is : 9707316 lbs O2 .
So this is the total info :



The 26 acres of trees / wild grass / native plants of original of NOAA can absorb 4.42 % CO2 of 800 employees and 800 cars every year when they work or go to NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction .
The 26 acres of grassland in front of NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction ( after US build the building ) can absorb < 1% CO2 of employees and 800 cars every year when they work or go to NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction because 1% of 9397783 = 93977.83 and I estimate CO2 value grassland can absorb is 93600 lbs .We don’t care about O2 . Things really need is how many lbs CO2 we can decrease . The design of NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction area decrease smaller CO2 than the original area of NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction area . It’s not good when CO2 level are increasing everyday .
Next I will calculate the water can absorb by plants between 26 acres original area and 260 acres grassland after they build NOAA . I will choose the wild grass / native plants can absorb half of mas of water the present grass type of NOAA can absorb and in 1 day have 1 time rain .
The average 10,000-square-foot lawn can absorb more than 6,000 gallons of water from a rainfall event, limiting the potential for runoff. (University of Missouri Extension) .

1 acre = 43560 square foot so 26 acres can absorb : ( 43560 / 10000 ) * 26 * 6000 = 4.356 * 26 * 6000 = 679536 gallons water in 1 day have 1 time rain – the is mass of water 26 acres of grassland can absorb in 1 day in front of NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction . The building is a candidate for silver certification by the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED™ Green Building Rating System ( Source – NOAA ) .

And original area of 26 acres in front of NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction :
Because 17 acres of wild grass and native plant can absorb half of mass of water the present grass type in front of NOAA Center for weather and Climate prediction can absorb so 17 original acres of wild grass and native plant can absorb : ( 43560 / 10000 ) * 17 * 3000 = 4.356 * 17 * 3000 = 222156 gallons water .

According to multi – sources :
American forest organization :http://www.americanforests.org/discover-forests/tree-facts/ .
North Carolina State University : http://www.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.htm
http://forestry.about.com/od/treephysiology/p/tree_water.htm
http://www.ask.com/answers/49918861/how-much-water-does-a-tree-absorb-in-a-day
http://www.ask.com/question/how-much-water-does-a-tree-absorb-in-a-day
……….
1 tree can absorb 50 – 100 gallons water per day . date of the black and white picture , base on Google Earth – history image are 23rd April 1989 . And I choose 7800 trees here are adult trees , which 1 tree can absorb 100 gallons water per day . So 7800 adult trees of 26 original acres can absorb : 7800 * 100 = 780000 gallons water .




If 7800 trees are young trees absorb 50 gallons water each tree so total water 7800 trees can absorb : 7800 * 50 = 39000 gallons water . So the total water the original 26 acres of NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction can absorb in 1 day is : 222156 + 390000 = 612156 gallons water if all the trees are young trees . 222156 + 780000 = 1002156 gallons water if all the trees are mature trees .



When I take a look at this image with the date : 1989 I really think that all trees are mature trees , can absorb 100 gallons water per day per tree . Even if someone estimate 1 acre only have 120 trees , the value of CO2 can absorbed by trees can be 149760 lbs per year and bigger than ….. , this still a really bad design environment .
Generally , about CO2 and water , the design of 26 acres in front of this building is bad .



All the small images in the picture are National Research Council of Canada , five building , five area , how many lbs CO2 can be decreased ? I don’t know . Do they do CO2 research level every day ? Do they have a speech at Climate summit 2013 at Warsaw ? Except all the areas , in the future they will build something , if not it's really bad area when we think about Climate Change , Rising Sea Water .



Cambridge University on the left and NATO Headquarter on the right have the same problem like NOAA CWCP .



The positions are Central park of USA , a park in UAE , an un know name park ,…… If we design a park like this , it’s better than we keep the original area , don’t touch anything .

This problem appear all around the world . On my blogspot , I have about 193 building have the same problem , a lot of universities around this world , a lot of industrial area have the same design like NOAA CWCP , a lot of parks …… and more inside my computer . If we fix all the areas have problem , we can raise our head when talk about Climate Change at Climate summit , if not it’s just like a joke when government , scientist talk about Climate , CO2 level , ….. Please do not think too far , look at your position you’re working right now or your home first . How many position on this world can have this problem ?
The US, a country of around 301 million people has around 125 million houses [all housing data come from the American Housing Survey of the United States, published by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development every two years, most recently in August 2006, available here].
So in US , at least more than 1 million positions have this type of problem like NOAA CWCP because all the architecture found a area with trees , destroyed that place , build a house and than place some trees of course will smaller than number of trees original area . I don’t want to talk about this .
All I want to say are all public buildings belong to government , parks , organizations , universities , companies , industrial area ( I found a lot off positions inside my country and outside my country ) , non government organization , buildings , school , college , ……. On my blogspot , I have more than 193 positions belong to many countries , on my PC , I have more than that , ….. Perhaps around this world can have 193 000 position like this or more than that , 1 000 000 position , ……
I really hope all organizations when you have this document will help me officially talk about this problem to help the world fix this problem . When Climate is Changing , and Climate Summit at Warsaw have a amazing result enough to disappoint people , keep silent about this look like a crime when we can fix a lot of positions have this problem . Really huge problem . BECAUSE ABSORB MAXIMUM CO2 / WATER IS NOT A STANDARD OF US GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL . All try to reduce CO2 , not try to absorb maximum CO2 as they can , weakness of our standards . O2 is not as important as CO2 at climate summit . Even I have a better way to calculate but my accuracy belong to data I found . This is my best . If you have a better data , show me but I confirm that NOAA CWCP ‘s environment is a worst design if we think about CO2 / water but good about O2 .

[img:center]http://i1196.photobucket.com/albums/aa40...zpsaae58420.jpg[/img]

Please zoom into the image and read all standards of US Green Building Council . Is there a rate of CO2 / water / O2 must absorb / create base on environmental area around the building to decrease pollution come from people / cars of building ?

For more info and more images please go to :
http://globalwarmingandtheanswer.blogspot.com/

Huynh PhuDat , Vietnam Id : 023750260
Email :huynhphudat023750260@gmail.com
023750260irock@gmail.com@gmail.com
Address : 16 street 49 . Tan Tao ward .Binh Tan District . Ho Chi Minh city .Vietnam . The data I found on Internet . I’m a amateur scientist . I hope someone will tell me I was right or wrong .

This is part 1 . Part 2 will come next in 1 or 2 days

Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
You still haven't addressed the fact that this is not a long term solution to the problem. Plants can absorb CO2, but they don't hold it for long periods. When they die the CO2 is returned to the atmosphere unless some way is found to sequester it.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
H
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
I ABSOLUTALY AGRREE WITH YOU about Algae . But our earth have many different kind of topography , we can't bring water to all the mountains... , all the valleys , ... for Algae . In front of your house and my house , and everybody's house , we can't let our kids play with Algae all days . No one build a building than bring water and place Algae in front of the building smile

I like Algae grin

Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
. 1 day , human burn 10lbs petrol/gas , we decrease weight of Earth everyday , weight of Earth =


we dont decrease the weight of the earth by burning petrol/gas
the petrol/gas is converted into other forms.


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
H
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
This is the green LEED standard :

Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
H
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
When we do research Climate research , we have many results just like the temperature of Earth or many locations , areas increase or decrease , we know how strong a storm , tornado is , the speed of storm ,we know how many storm ….. . We know ocean , plants absorb CO2 / water and create O2 , ….. . We have many data system . It’s really good . I – Huynh Phu Dat really respect your works , scientific work . And than many scientific reports appear on many respective magazine like Nature , ….. . with amazing definition for solving Climate Change : decreasing CO2 will solve Climate Change . I can’t understand why all of you – real scientist - do that . Why tell your governments and human kind a answer like that ? We need focus more on Climate Change and CO2 / water are main problems .
Even how great the data results you have , about Earth , Plants , Ocean , Atmosphere , …. Please realize : the CO2 of atmosphere is increasing because ocean , plants , land , ……..CAN’T ABSORB ALL CO2 , Or :
Value of CO2 pollution of human kind > Value of CO2 that plants , ocean , lands , …………… can absorb . Well done , NOAA CWCP when finished NOAA CWCP building at 2009 . And Value of CO2 pollution of human kind minus Value of CO2 that plants , ocean , lands , …………… can absorb => value of CO2 pollution increased of atmosphere .
If the value of ocean , plants , land , …… totally absorb 1 lbs CO2 every year . And we create 2 lbs CO2 every year . So ocean , plants , land absorb 1 lbs CO2 . 2 – 1 = 1 . 1 lbs is a value that ocean , plants , land , …. can’t absorb . Solving CO2 pollution by decreasing CO2 emission sound great and what is the limit of CO2 that land , ocean , plants can absorb? Can 7 000 000 000 human kind decrease CO2 pollution to the limit of CO2 than land , ocean , plants , ….. can absorb ? Please remember we destroy forest everyday and our population is increasing every day . China is a very polluted 1 billions citizens country , it’s nice to see China now allow family can have more than 1 child , what will happen with polluted 2 600 000 000 citizens country ? What is the limit of China’s population base on China’s area ?
What is the limit of the population the world should have ? Shall the population should keep about 5 or 6 billion . Is it the time we stop increase population ? Is each country base on area , have a limit of population and population of each country should smaller than that because of limit of CO2’s pollution of each country include land , plants , ocean , ….. can absorb .
I don’t believe CO2 pollution of human can decrease equal with value of CO2 that plants , ocean , lands , …………… can absorb at least in next 5 or 10 years .
Perhaps we can’t solve all human pollution , but begin with small part like building , we can have a better hope . I am working with part 2 . I hope I can finish this work in 2 or 3 days .

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: Huynh Phu Dat
When we do research Climate research.... We know ocean , plants absorb CO2 / water and create O2 , …... with amazing definition for solving Climate Change : decreasing CO2 will solve Climate Change . I can’t understand why all of you – real scientist - do that . Why tell your governments and human kind a answer like that ? We need focus more on Climate Change and CO2 / water are main problems.
Please realize : the CO2 of atmosphere is increasing because ocean , plants , land , ……..CAN’T ABSORB ALL CO2.


Solving CO2 pollution by decreasing CO2 emission sound great and what is the limit of CO2 that land , ocean , plants can absorb? I don’t believe CO2 pollution of human can decrease equal with value of CO2 that plants , ocean , lands , …………… can absorb at least in next 5 or 10 years .
...You seem to easily see the root of the problem.

Yes, over 100 gigatonnes (billion metric tons) of carbon is cycled (from CO2, into biomass, and back to CO2) annually through the seasons by nature; so cutting our emissions by a few hundred million tons, or even a few billion tons of carbon, will not help much.
But if just a few percent of that biomass could annually be shunted into stable soil carbon, then we could partially offset out emissions while also improving the earth’s ability to “soak” up the rest of our (hopefully reduced) emissions.

A recent report from the American Society for Microbiology explains how we can solve many poverty, hunger, and disease problems (globally) by improving our soils... to better partner with the soil microbes, so that plant productivity is improved and pollution is reduced
[ http://academy.asm.org/index.php/browse-all-reports/800-how-microbes-can-help-feed-the-world ].
The best way to partner with soil microbes is to provide the best soil possible; restoring degraded soils, improving marginal soils, and conserving and maintaining good soils.

Soil structure, chemistry, biology, biodiversity, and nutrient retention are naturally improved by adding “stable soil carbon” to the soil. Charred biomass is the easiest and cheapest way to add stable carbon to the soil, especially if the biomass is local waste from either agricultural, municipal, or household sources. Charred biomass also slows the decay of humus in the soil, which allows more labile carbon (unstable carbon that can more easily be oxidized into off-gassed CO2) to be stored in the soil without being oxidized. This creates “richer” soils, compared with similar (parent) soils that do not have the extra added and retained carbon.

Charred biomass, also called charcoal, can be used as a soil amendment... instead of as a fuel. Especially if the charcoal is produced using “green” technologies and practices (and the charcoal is used as a soil amendment), then the charred biomass is called biochar. Search: International Biochar Initiative [ http://www.biochar-international.org/ ], for loads of connections, resources, research, and projects. The biochar concept/name has sometimes also been used by “land-grabbers” as a part of green-washing their “project,” so don’t confuse the bad reports of a few uses with the many reports of beneficial uses, socio-economic co-benefits, and potential environmental benefits.

The green technology to create charred biomass is called pyrolysis, which is basically “burning” biomass in low-oxygen conditions. When not enough oxygen is available, much of the biomass turns into solid char, instead of oxidizing into CO2. There are stoves which can be used for cooking, which convert raw waste biomass into charcoal through an almost smoke-free process. The smoke is converted into charcoal also, so much less smoke is released. People could make their own, if they already cook with open fire.

Pyrolysis can also be done on an industrial scale, to support large-scale agricultural application of charred soil carbon, which should be a valuable new economic sector of any sustainable economy.

Reading, or just reading about, the book by Ruddiman, called “Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum” [ http://press.princeton.edu/titles/8014.html ] and Pyne’s “Vestal Fire” [ http://www.washington.edu/uwpress/search/books/PYNVES.html ] will show you how your basic perspective is very insightful... and basically correct... even if your solutions are focused on minor parts of the larger problem of a global agricultural (and total ocean/forestry/ag resource harvesting) system that is unsustainably degrading the planet’s ability to absorb CO2 naturally. Have you heard about dead zones, peak phosphorus, or the extra nitrogen being added to the global system?

Meeting with a biogeochemist recently (Chair of the Soil & Crop Sciences Dept.), I was shocked to learn just how recently the carbon-rich, best agricultural soils (Mollisols and Chernozems) developed (or evolved), here on our planet. It is only just within the past few million years, at the end of the Cenozoic and during the Quaternary period. They are sometimes also called “interglacial” soils, and we have barely begun to realize what a powerful and precious resource they constitute.
A land of milk and honey will be found where the land is filled with rich grasses, honeybees, and earthworms. Look into the evolution of the temperate grasses, honeybees, and earthworms, and see how recently they all came to predominance.

Learn also about the Rhizosphere, the new frontier that will provide for our future, if we learn to manage it sustainably; that is, fulfilling our destiny as masters of both fire and our domain... the land and its biodiversity.

~ Good Luck!

p.s. I have an old presentation on this topic, many slides of which can be viewed at:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4982370396231&l=441fac41d8

Last edited by samwik; 01/26/14 01:49 PM. Reason: add p.s.

Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
H
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
How to solve NOAA CWCP problem ? When CO2 pollution become 0 , can we solve Climate Change ?





Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
H
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
NOAA CWCP base on 50 acres area . 24 acres for building , 26 acres for grassland .

So first they need to re - create the 26 acres become grassland + ( 300 trees / per acre * 26 )

And because of A0 = A1 " + " A2 . If the Earth only have 1 building create CO2 pollution , so even they we have more 26 acres back to normal ( we must wait about 15 years for all the trees become adult so they can absorb 48 lbs CO2 per year ) , we lost 24 acres for the building , 24 acres never can absorb CO2 / water as the past . So we need more 24 acres of grassland + ( 300 trees * 26 acres ) . We use area for building , we must have another area with same size for replacement .

And for pollution of 800 cars , we need more area with plants to absorb CO2 of 800 cars . Relly plant more trees or plants , and not base on the original Earth - Original Earth don't have 1 building NOAA CWCP .

So how many State of US have a rule : you spent 1 square foot for the building , you must find another 1 square foot don't have trees , plants and then plant trees / plants for replacement 1square foot of building you build .

And the owner / company / org of the building must solve CO2 of cars of employees .

We build a city near a forest and then increase the size of the city , destroy forest , the area of the city ( house , road , buildings , ......... will under cement , stone , .... not asorb CO2 / water anymore ) . We need absorbing source of CO2 / water for replacement . All countries did it , all countries have the same !!!!

US EPA Region 5 Cleveland Office:25089 Center Ridge Road
Westlake, OH 44145-4170 . EPA Science and Ecological System Support Division 980 College Station Rd Athens, Georgia 30605
. Where is my absorbing source of CO2 / water for replacement when they destroy forest for EPA buildings ? This is what a United States Environmental Protection Agency can do in Climate Change ?

Even CO2 of cars , nucleAR POWER PLANT , Coal power plants , planes , ... become 0 , we still make Climate Change .

Next will be a exercise .

Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
H
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
50 - 26 = 24 . The replacement of NOAA CWCP is 24 acres , not 26 acres

Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
H
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
I have a question : when I use Google search for land absorb CO2 . I can't find the land , type , soil , ..... under the cement , the floor , the stone , sidewalk , asphalt , .... or under skyscraper , can them absorb CO2 like before they built every thing above them ? It's not like natural soil , things we can plant every kind of plants . And cement , the floor , the stones , bricks , sidewalk , asphalt , ...... all things we use to create the surface of a city , can it absorb CO2 ? Thank you .

Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
H
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
( Please correct me if I was wrong )

( Our forefathers , ancestors should know this truth thousand years ago , ..... sadly )

A Earth before human kind appear is fresh by large amount of plants around the Earth . Human appear( 1 ) . We change the Earth , build house , road , building , airport , stadium , ............ exploit wood ( 2 ) . And we , our cars , bus , plane , gas , oil .....create CO2 ( 3 ) .

Here , just focus on O2 , CO2 , water of area :

( 1 ) This is a environment before human appear :



We mainly choose to build society near a place have water , rivers and that place will have plants . Or original Earth , original area have plants . Or original Earth , original area create O2 , absorbs CO2 / water . Than we build our society :

(2 )




Ex : we use 100 square acres for a building , 50 acres for a building , 50 ACRES FOR GRASSLAND . 100 acres in the past have adult trees , wild grass . So if we restore the environment after build the building , we MUST MAKE 50 ACRES IN PRESENT ABSORB CO2 VALUE = CO2 ABSORBING VALUE OF 100 ACRES OF TREES + WILD GRASS IN THE PAST . It’s meant about value of CO2 , O2 , water , after human use this area , it’s doesn’t change . It’s equal between past and present . Human don’t decrease absorbing CO2 , water , creating O2 value of that area . If after human restore the 50 acres and absorbing CO2 / water , creating O2 value less than 100 acres of the past , so we must find another area and create plants that absorb CO2 / water , create O2 in supply for the absorbing CO2 / water, creating O2 that we need , want . CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 .

Have you ever stand in front of a row of trees ,on the left are some skyscrapers , on the right is a road . Just imagine the environment in the past of area of all building’s size , the floor and the environment of the road . So the question is : The value of absorbing CO2/ water value , creating O2 value will equal with value of absorbing CO2 /water , creating O2 of the area of all skyscrapers ( left area ) add with the area of the row of trees in the past , what was here ( between ) add with value of absorbing CO2 , water , creating O2 of the environment of the road in the past ( right ) . Think about CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 .

We build a lot of roads . And a road go through a wild grass area , bush trees , a forest . Roads decrease of absorbing CO2 , water , creating O2 value of wild grass area , forest , …… We don’t have a CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 .

Have you ever see aairport ? No plants at landing field .If we destroy all plants for airport . We should find a empty place , and plant any kind plants , to make it replace absorbing CO2 , water , creating O2 value = value of absorbing CO2 , water , creating O2 of the airport’s environment ( plants )in the past .

And many things more , ………

All the process is 100 % comparison of absorbing CO2 , water , creating O2 value of the past and the present , for CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 .

All CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 of buildings , roads , house …. Add with CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 of forest we destroy , exploit for wood .
CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 of buildings , roads , house , forests , ….. => CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 of town , city , state , ……. => CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 of country => CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 of Earth’s plants .

After we have CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 of Earth’s plants . ( original Earth )

Add with :
(3)

We know cars , bus , ship , plane absorb O2 , create CO2 , CO2 of fossil fuel , gas , …….. So we must have area of plants for of absorbing CO2 , creating O2 if we don’t want CO2 from these things are our problem .

The architecture don’t know about CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , no one know it before .

And no one can confirm land , soil in a city , town which under asphalt , rock , boardwalk , …. Will absorb , store CO2 equal with natural land , soil before we build city , town ( plants have root , root make land become good quality , and which asphalt , boardwalk , stone , brick above , no plant’s roots under it )

Just walk into town , city , look around and calculate . Even your city , town design with 70 % for plants and 30 % for buildings , house , it's not correct .

Even how large average plants size per each persong you have , it's not base on CO2 , O2 , water . Plants have different type , some absorb a lot of CO2 , some are just for fun .

So things are not simple .

Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
H
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
Update Time

The CO2 of atmosphere is increasing because of emitting CO2 value of cars , bus , human , …. Bigger than absorbing CO2 value of plants , lands , ocean , …….



Compare time :

Decreasing CO2 solution until this solution can absorb CO2 of atmosphere : Only Red go down .



Decreasing CO2 and increasing CO2 absorbing at the same time make the absorbing CO2 of atmosphere Process begin faster .



When both Red move down and Green move up , the process will faster than just only Red go down – or we only choose decreasing CO2 .

This is a present for my friend Sam A . Mitchell - samwik . Happy Birthday . All the best for you .

Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: Huynh Phu Dat
Update Time

When both Red move down and Green move up , the process will faster than just only Red go down – or we only choose decreasing CO2.


Thanks for that! It is nice to see somebody else thinks we need to not only reduce the CO2 emissions, but also increase the absorption (biosequestration) of the already emitted CO2, to restore stability in temperate-zone climates especially, the stability of the arctic, and climate stability in general.

The carbon-richness in soils, which is critical to restoring and maintaining productive soils, comes from CO2 that plants have converted into "root exudates" that then "feed" and help grow the soil.
Just the large water content, of healthy soils, acts as a huge thermal buffer ...in regional climate systems.
===

Mostly, high-tech strategies for cutting emissions are being developed and/or implemented. Only a very few emission-cutting strategies use natural (low-tech) means, and none of these(? that I know of) recognize the "carbon negative" potential in some strategies ...such as growing more productive soils!

See: http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/intro.php

& the teacher's guide at: http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/pdfs/teachers_guide.pdf

See also, general info at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stabilization_Wedge_Game
===

So to grow more productive soils:
The most significant advance toward recognizing the significance of carbon-rich soils (Mollisols & Chernozems) for developing productivity and for stabilizing atmospheric carbon levels, comes from a recent report by the American Society for Microbiology; and there is a description and link to the pdf report at: http://academy.asm.org/index.php/browse-all-reports/800-how-microbes-can-help-feed-the-world ...

The actual report in .pdf format can be found above or searched online under: HOW MICROBES CAN HELP FEED THE WORLD [2013].

It's not about eating microbes, but rather about using microbes to help build and maintain carbon-rich, productive soils.
Here are the page numbers, for some key points I've been ranting about since 2011, in that ASM report, "How microbes can help feed the world [2013]."

The significance of evolutionary relationships is highlighted well on page 6-7, especially the first two sentences (of main text) on p.6 ...and the first paragraph on p.7 ...plus the hilarious line ...about the evolution of plants:
"How did they [plants] manage to avoid being consumed, especially since they cannot run away?"

There is also a fascinating chart on page 9.

And then on page 12, in the last paragraph, is the most significant information (new discovery), which I have been promoting in one of my "slides" ...about the rhizosphere.

"It has been estimated that up to 30% of a plant's primary production (that is, the amount of carbon the plant turns into organic matter through photosynthesis) actually leaves the plant as exudate into the soil; the microbes must be making a fairly substantial contribution to earn such a high investment of the plant's resources."
===

If you want to learn about all the connections between civilization and land use, then some good books to read (or just read summaries of) would be:

Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum ...by Ruddiman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plows,_Plagues_and_Petroleum

Vestal Fire ...by Pyne
http://www.washington.edu/uwpress/search/books/PYNVES.html
...with table of contents!

Changes in the Land ...by Cronin
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Changes_in_the_Land:_Indians,_Colonists,_and_the_Ecology_of_New_England
& http://www.rsiss.net/ecology/changesinland.html
(review © 2003 by Justin Symington and RSiSS [Religious Studies in Secondary Schools] Palmer Trinity School; Miami, Florida)

Larding the Lean Earth ...by Stoll
https://www.kirkusreviews.com/book-reviews/steven-stoll/larding-the-lean-earth/
& http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=9321
"Phosphorus is one of the nutrient elements essential for plant growth, and when farmers run out of it they buy it from quarries in Florida. After corn rich in Florida phosphorus rises on the Illinois prairie, it is sold to New England dairy farmers, who feed it to their Holsteins. The cows void what they can't use. Now at least three times displaced, the phosphorus is discharged into the watershed of the Connecticut River Valley, where it leaches through grainy tilth to foul steams and groundwater. There are all sorts of overlapping cycles linking agriculture to the rest of nature, not all of them beneficial. Soil fertility now depends on far-flung networks and can be implicated in the debasement of ecological systems, but this was not always so."

1491 ...by Mann
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1491:_New_Revelations_of_the_Americas_Before_Columbus

Enjoy your homework!
~SA


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
H
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
A real homework !!!

Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
H
Junior Member
OP Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Jan 2014
Posts: 23
Actually , after I read environmental law of some countries , and LEED rating systems , and many " green " system . I can confirm : we have Global serious errors of design . And it's sad when design our world in some thousand years

Last edited by Huynh Phu Dat; 02/23/14 10:59 AM.
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,164
Originally Posted By: Huynh Phu Dat
Actually , after I read environmental law of some countries, and LEED rating systems, and many "green" system, I can confirm: we have Global serious errors of design.
...I think (but I want to confirm) that when you are talking about “Serious errors of design” and "environmental laws," that you mean how:

1.) These environmental laws only focus upon cutting CO2 emissions (by building more efficiently designed structures, using “greener” materials, cutting wastes, etc.); but that those environmental laws don’t focus on the “already stored carbon” (soil + biomass such as trees/plants/grasses, roots, insects, microbes, and even animals), nor do those laws focus upon the “natural” or previous or new absorption RATES by the biosphere of ambient levels of carbon (current and new emissions) in the atmosphere.

2.) And basically, all the building and paving, which civilization does, is reducing the planet’s natural ability to soak up CO2.

3.) And also, if we increased the planet’s ability to soak up CO2, then our extra emissions would be turned into fertile new soil.

4.) Therefore, we should “offset” whatever soil capacity that exists (for absorbing and storing carbon), which is lost by building and paving, with an equal or greater capacity to absorb and store carbon somewhere else ...to maintain the balance ...of carbon absorption and storage by healty soils.
===

Thanks!
~ smile


Pyrolysis creates reduced carbon! ...Time for the next step in our evolutionary symbiosis with fire.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5