# Could Tree's be the answer to global warming??

### Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

#### brettskij

##### Member
Tree's absorb c02 and store it in their wood, they can release thousands of pounds of oxygen per year.
They absorb not deflect the suns rays, the shade they produce is 10 to 15 degrees cooler...
Total no brainer, and with the tech we have these days the planet could be shaded within our life times

We are frogs in a pan, ie:

In france the most humane way to cook a frog is to put it in a pan of cold water on the lowest heat, the frog swims around, then passe's out at a certain temp totally unaware, instead of being boiled.

So on that note can you guys put a rocket together to get to proxima b as we need to get out of dodge

#### Salvage-1

##### Certified
Yes we need more trees.

But the frogs are screwed
In 1869, while doing experiments searching for the location of the soul, German physiologist Friedrich Goltz demonstrated that a frog that has had its brain removed will remain in slowly heated water, but an intact frog attempted to escape the water when it reached 25 °C

#### jimn

##### Well-Known Member
Tree's absorb c02 and store it in their wood, they can release thousands of pounds of oxygen per year.
They absorb not deflect the suns rays, the shade they produce is 10 to 15 degrees cooler...
Total no brainer, and with the tech we have these days the planet could be shaded within our life times

We are frogs in a pan, ie:

In france the most humane way to cook a frog is to put it in a pan of cold water on the lowest heat, the frog swims around, then passe's out at a certain temp totally unaware, instead of being boiled.

So on that note can you guys put a rocket together to get to proxima b as we need to get out of dodge
The average frog in the average pond is subject to slow heating every sunny day for much of the year. They don't die, they move to a cooler place. Can we please put this myth to rest?

#### OverTheTop

##### Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
If the trees burn they add to global warming wink and the carbon is re-introduced into the biosphere.

#### MikeyDSlagle

##### Well-Known Member
Bamboo.
Planted en masse could reverse global warming in no time. Some varieties grow 3 foot a day. Can be used for furniture, rope, paper, and clothes. And we can make us a raft if the ice caps do melt... I'm not terribly far from the coast.

Who boils frogs? Chop off the kegs and deep fry em.

#### OverTheTop

##### Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Bamboo burns easier than trees...

#### Igotnothing

##### Well-Known Member
Any discussion of global warming - without hard science on the moving and circulating ocean of molten rock beneath the ever-changing crust of the planet - is just about as pointless as can be imagined. That kind of geothermal heating explains the huge oil and coal deposits in the artic - it got warm up there.

Did you know the U.S. Federal government ended all it's own work, and zeroed all funding to NGO research into understanding that ocean, as soon it was realized that carbon could be used as a political weapon? Sure, there are a few NGO scientists are still looking into it, but the big money is gone. Geologists, women and children hardest hit.

The point? Govt made sure we can't really know how the temperature might change due to the largest, proximate influence.

#### CORZERO

##### Well-Known Member
Any discussion of global warming - without hard science on the moving and circulating ocean of molten rock beneath the ever-changing crust of the planet - is just about as pointless as can be imagined. That kind of geothermal heating explains the huge oil and coal deposits in the artic - it got warm up there.

Did you know the U.S. Federal government ended all it's own work, and zeroed all funding to NGO research into understanding that ocean, as soon it was realized that carbon could be used as a political weapon? Sure, there are a few NGO scientists are still looking into it, but the big money is gone. Geologists, women and children hardest hit.

The point? Govt made sure we can't really know how the temperature might change due to the largest, proximate influence.
Everyone knows global warming is a hoax.

#### MClark

##### Well-Known Member
Trees grow absorbing CO2.
They die, decompose, releasing the CO2
Net zero

#### scsager

##### Slightly burned-out old guy
Well the thread isn't locked yet... so I can insert my :2:

Over the past 50 years we have done this >>> Link

... and now you think we should plant trees???

... I think you're right!

#### hornet driver

##### Well-Known Member
Bamboo.
Planted en masse could reverse global warming in no time. Some varieties grow 3 foot a day. Can be used for furniture, rope, paper, and clothes. And we can make us a raft if the ice caps do melt... I'm not terribly far from the coast.

Who boils frogs? Chop off the kegs and deep fry em.
-

#### Salvage-1

##### Certified
Trees grow absorbing CO2.
They die, decompose, releasing the CO2
Net zero
^ whoa!

and then more trees grow?? baby groots?? saving the universe?? (planet)

#### DeeRoc29

##### Well-Known Member
Trees absorb way more co2 in their lifetime than they will emit in decomposition.

#### MikeyDSlagle

##### Well-Known Member
Well the thread isn't locked yet... so I can insert my :2:

Over the past 50 years we have done this >>> Link

... and now you think we should plant trees???

... I think you're right!
We are talking about global warming, trees and frogs. Why the heck would it be locked already.

#### OverTheTop

##### Well-Known Member
TRF Supporter
Trees absorb way more co2 in their lifetime than they will emit in decomposition.
Same amount of carbon that goes into the tree comes out of it.

#### Sooner Boomer

##### Well-Known Member
Same amount of carbon that goes into the tree comes out of it.
Sort of. Gaseous CO2 goes into a plant and with sunshine, converts it (plus water) into sugars (cellulose, hemicellulose) and lignin. When the plant decomposes, only a fraction is released back as decomposition (gas, liquid). A significant portion of solid remains behind.

#### Sooner Boomer

##### Well-Known Member
For about five years I worked at OU on a research project in biofuels. The idea was to grow a native tall prairie grass, switchgrass, for use as feedstock for making fuel or fuel additives. The process involved rapid pyrolysis in a fluidized bed reactor. (Pyrolysis is heating in the absence of oxygen until the substance breaks down. If oxygen were present, it would burn). The idea was that this would be a renewable, carbon-neutral way to make fuel.

#### manixFan

##### Not a rocket scientist
Do a little research and you'll find that planting trees in the wrong place can actually make global warming worse. They have to be planted near the equator for them to help. The further away from the equator the more likely they are to trap heat and increase the atmospheric temperature. As the OP states they absorb sunlight which decreases the earth's albedo, which is the opposite of what we want in northern climes. So it's not a no brainer. Done wrong and it has the exact opposite effect of what we want:

https://science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/green-science/5-green-myths5.htm

When I was in debate many moons ago one of the plans was to cool the earth by dispersing a super fine white reflective powder in the extreme upper atmosphere. It would reflect small amounts of sunlight back into space before it could warm the planet. By varying the amount of reflectivity we supposedly could offset the heating caused by CO2 levels. But of course no one could figure out back then how it might affect the world's weather or what other unintended consequences it might have so it was considered too risky. In fact some scientists believe that the fine particulate matter in smokestack emissions did just that, helped to offset rising CO2 by reflecting sunlight.

But then of course we decided all that particulate matter was bad for our lungs and we started scrubbing it and only emitting the CO2. The law of unintended consequences is always right around the corner.

Or something like that.

Tony

#### CORZERO

##### Well-Known Member
I think it's great that people love to learn about the environment, but it would further mankind's progress if people were learning in an attempt to actually contribute something productive instead of bolstering their stance on one side or the other of a moot argument that was created by an elitist agenda to make a buck.

Here is the population of the entire world, on Manhattan Island:

Ponder this image for a bit then tell me a couple factories and few folks on an island are going to put a dent in worldwide temps. The sad truth is, drastic climate spikes and troughs, even those causing extinction level events, date back millions of years but none that humans can be held responsible for prior to a hundred years ago. I love how smart everyone thinks they are on this subject until they're asked to explain evidence like this:

In the grand, cosmic sense of "things", we don't know anything at all, and those who think they do only know how to jump on a bandwagon.

#### dr wogz

##### Fly caster
Global warming is caused by motor cars & dryers. All the hot air they spew into the atmosphere is slowly warming up the planet.

There I said it. Hot air form dryers (clothes, hair, cement, etc.. those types of dryers), heat exchangers, engines, a good number of bosses and other loudmouths along with cows. Always blame a cow..

#### manixFan

##### Not a rocket scientist
I think it's great that people love to learn about the environment, but it would further mankind's progress if people were learning in an attempt to actually contribute something productive instead of bolstering their stance on one side or the other of a moot argument that was created by an elitist agenda to make a buck.

Here is the population of the entire world, on Manhattan Island:

View attachment 325528

Ponder this image for a bit then tell me a couple factories and few folks on an island are going to put a dent in worldwide temps. The sad truth is, drastic climate spikes and troughs, even those causing extinction level events, date back millions of years but none that humans can be held responsible for prior to a hundred years ago. I love how smart everyone thinks they are on this subject until they're asked to explain evidence like this:

View attachment 325529

In the grand, cosmic sense of "things", we don't know anything at all, and those who think they do only know how to jump on a bandwagon.
Well you can't argue with someone who admits they can be swayed by an infographic and then dismisses everyone else's opinion as simply jumping on a bandwagon.

You can't fix ignorance, misinterpretation, and a desire to ignore science.

Tony

Last edited:

#### jderimig

When the plant decomposes, only a fraction is released back as decomposition (gas, liquid). A significant portion of solid remains behind.
Let behind as what? In what form? Where is that carbon sequestered after decomposition?

Not arguing but would like to know.

#### Winston

##### Lorenzo von Matterhorn
April 26, 2016
Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds

https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2016/carbon-dioxide-fertilization-greening-earth

High Carbon Dioxide Boosts Plant Respiration, Potentially Affecting Climate And Crops

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090209205202.htm

On the entire issue, until you can show me conclusively that preventing anthropological global warming is cheaper than adapting to it, go away. But they can't. Why? Because the error bars in both the climate models and the even more wonky economic models make any accurate prediction of that impossible. Oh, yeah, and this:

Verification, Validation, and Confirmation of Numerical Models in the Earth Sciences
Naomi Oreskes,* Kristin Shrader-Frechette, Kenneth Belitz
SCIENCE * VOL. 263 * 4 FEBRUARY 1994

Abstract: Verification and validation of numerical models of natural systems is impossible. This is because natural systems are never closed and because model results are always non-unique. Models can be confirmed by the demonstration of agreement between observation and prediction, but confirmation is inherently partial. Complete confirmation is logically precluded by the fallacy of affirming the consequent and by incomplete access to natural phenomena. Models can only be evaluated in relative terms, and their predictive value is always open to question. The primary value of models is heuristic.

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/c75d/9457985303b84d3726440151a46d7135a428.pdf

Excerpt:

Numerical Models and Public Policy

Testing hypotheses is normal scientific practice, but model evaluation takes on an added dimension when public policy is at stake. Numerical models are increasingly being used in the public arena, in some cases to justify highly controversial decisions. Therefore, the implication of truth is a serious matter. The terms verification and validation are now being used by scientists in ways that are contradictory and misleading. In the earth sciences-hydrology, geochemistry, meteorology, and oceanography-numerical models always represent complex open systems in which the operative processes are incompletely understood and the required empirical input data are incompletely known. Such models can never be verified. No doubt the same may be said of many biological, economic, and artificial intelligence models.

#### Winston

##### Lorenzo von Matterhorn
And considering the above, WHY would anyone be pushing the "prevent it" angle? Because of this and it's not just Goldman Sachs who would be profiting massively from it:

The Great American Bubble Machine
From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression -- and they're about to do it again
April 5, 2010

https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405

Excerpt:

And instead of credit derivatives or oil futures or mortgage-backed CDOs, the new game in town, the next bubble, is in carbon credits &#8212; a booming trillion dollar market that barely even exists yet, but will if the Democratic Party that it gave $4,452,585 to in the last election manages to push into existence a groundbreaking new commodities bubble, disguised as an "environmental plan," called cap-and-trade. The new carbon credit market is a virtual repeat of the commodities-market casino that's been kind to Goldman, except it has one delicious new wrinkle: If the plan goes forward as expected, the rise in prices will be government-mandated. Goldman won't even have to rig the game. It will be rigged in advance. Here's how it works: If the bill passes, there will be limits for coal plants, utilities, natural-gas distributors and numerous other industries on the amount of carbon emissions (a.k.a. greenhouse gases) they can produce per year. If the companies go over their allotment, they will be able to buy "allocations" or credits from other companies that have managed to produce fewer emissions. President Obama conservatively estimates that about$646 billion worth of carbon credits will be auctioned in the first seven years; one of his top economic aides speculates that the real number might be twice or even three times that amount.

The feature of this plan that has special appeal to speculators is that the "cap" on carbon will be continually lowered by the government, which means that carbon credits will become more and more scarce with each passing year. Which means that this is a brand new commodities market where the main commodity to be traded is guaranteed to rise in price over time. The volume of this new market will be upwards of a trillion dollars annually; for comparison's sake, the annual combined revenues of all electricity suppliers in the U.S. total $320 billion. The bank owns a 10 percent stake in the Chicago Climate Exchange, where the carbon credits will be traded. Moreover, Goldman owns a minority stake in Blue Source LLC, a Utah-based firm that sells carbon credits of the type that will be in great demand if the bill passes. Nobel Prize winner Al Gore, who is intimately involved with the planning of cap-and-trade, started up a company called Generation Investment Management with three former bigwigs from Goldman Sachs Asset Management, David Blood, Mark Ferguson and Peter Harris. Their business? Investing in carbon offsets. There's also a$500 million Green Growth Fund set up by a Goldmanite to invest in green-tech &#8230; the list goes on and on. Goldman is ahead of the headlines again, just waiting for someone to make it rain in the right spot. Will this market be bigger than the energy futures market?

"Oh, it'll dwarf it," says a former staffer on the House energy committee.

#### Bat-mite

##### Rocketeer in MD
I wish we would get some global warming at my house. This has been the coldest August I can remember. Normally we wake up at about 75F and rise to near 100F in early August. This year we have been waking up at 59F and only reaching 85F. I haven't been able to get out my kiddie pool for the little 'uns. Please, global warming, COME MY WAY BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!

#### Winston

##### Lorenzo von Matterhorn
I wish we would get some global warming at my house. This has been the coldest August I can remember. Normally we wake up at about 75F and rise to near 100F in early August. This year we have been waking up at 59F and only reaching 85F. I haven't been able to get out my kiddie pool for the little 'uns. Please, global warming, COME MY WAY BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE!
I recently heard someone joking that US migration trends prove that most people want that.

#### manixFan

##### Not a rocket scientist
snipped to get to the point:
...
From tech stocks to high gas prices, Goldman Sachs has engineered every major market manipulation since the Great Depression -- and they're about to do it again
...
You also can't argue with conspiracy theorists. Any evidence to the contrary will be dismissed as part of the conspiracy.

I mistakenly thought some science was involved here. We've taken billions of pounds of CO2 that has been locked in the earth for millions of years and have released it into the atmosphere. Saying that the earth is too big to be affected by 7 billion people or that it's part of a natural cycle when there is nothing natural about burning fossil fuels that have been trapped underground for millions of years is to completely deny any reason or science. The fact that one party argues it's baloney based on a couple of graphics and then another argues it's all a giant conspiracy says a lot about the level of scientific reasoning here, or lack of it.

I personally studied the effects of rising CO2 concentrations on the ambient air temperatures in college. It related to greenhouses. There is a very clear positive relationship between CO2 levels and temperature. Through human activity we have increased the CO2 levels by burning fossil fuel - that is undeniable. To deny that we have impacted our environment is to deny our very role on this earth. It is mind boggling that anyone can look at the very basic science involved and then deny that we can impact the earth's climate. It's like folks who claim cigarettes don't cause cancer, it's all fun and games until someone they know dies from it.

Your grandchildren will not think kindly of you as they deal with the consequences of climate change if you try and pretend it isn't happening and want to prevent any efforts to try and mitigate it's effects.

Tony

#### Winston

##### Lorenzo von Matterhorn
Want to address the entire CO2 issue in a comparatively DIRT CHEAP manner?

Then actually put some effort behind developing new reactor designs which are INHERENTLY walk-away safe which also "burn" 97% of their nuclear fuel instead of the current <1% in the PWR -ANTIQUE- tech we still use, thereby producing FAR fewer long-half-life, highly radioactive transuranic elements as waste!

But NOOOOO!:

Analysis highlights failings in US's advanced nuclear program
August 9, 2017

Excerpts:

Lead researcher Dr Ahmed Abdulla, from UC San Diego, said: "In theory, advanced, non-light water reactors are a promising carbon-free technology, which could complement or replace light water reactors. Some of these reactors would operate at higher temperatures, providing energy services that existing reactors cannot. Others, meanwhile, could reduce future nuclear waste burdens by operating for decades without refuelling, burning up more of their fuel and generating smaller volumes of waste.

"However, despite repeated commitments to non-light water reactors, and substantial investments by NE (more than $2 billion of public money), no such design is remotely ready for deployment today." The researchers investigated how effectively those resources were allocated, and how NE has performed as a steward of nuclear technology innovation. What they found was an office beset by problems and violating much of the wisdom about how to effectively run an applied energy research program. Dr Abdulla said: "There were often inconsistencies in the annual budget documents. The budget itself varies significantly over the period of study, which is fine if these variations are part of a coherent vision that is being pursued, but that is not the case. At all levels, NE favours existing technologies and fuels over innovation, and, where it does support truly innovative research, it is prone to changing priorities before any concrete progress has been made. "One example of this lack of vision is the gap that exists between the advanced reactor and advanced fuel programs. Investing in advanced fuels research is critical to developing a new nuclear reactor technology. However, NE has mostly invested in one fuel type while exploring multiple reactor designs, most of which do not use that fuel. This disjunction between the two programs is naturally problematic." Dr Abdulla said: "Despite substantial expenditure and commitments to this future, NE lacks the funding and programmatic focus required to execute its mission. Even if the program had been well designed, it still would have been insufficient to demonstrate even one non-light water technology. "It has dedicated only$2 billion over the past 18 years to all advanced reactor and fuel initiatives. While that may appear to be a substantial sum, by NE's own estimates it is not enough to ready even one such design for commercial deployment."