×
Login Register an account
Top Submissions Explore Upgoat Search Random Subverse Random Post Colorize! Site Rules Donate
27

magic machine

submitted by boekanier to whatever 2.6 yearsOct 12, 2022 02:11:02 ago (+27/-0)     (u.smutty.horse)

https://u.smutty.horse/mjrfalzsdru.jpg



16 comments block


[ - ] _Obrez 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 12, 2022 05:24:21 ago (+0/-0)

I'm not gonna tell you the carbon sink effect of trees is insignificant but the oxygen release and respiration causing humidity which creates rain is probably the most significant element for tye carbon cycle, clouds can capture carbon and rain it back down, forests are vital to the rain cycle and thus pulling carbon from higher in the atmosphere back down to earth. Though it seems young trees seem to produce a load of methane in their first couple years. Likely through stimulation of soil bacteria.

The oxygen trees release is good for breaking the methane down into the carbon cycle slowly over time, the level of atmospheric oxygen is a bottleneck for the carbon cycle.

Trees are the solution but sequestering carbon is only one part of their value.

To be clear my position on climate change is distinct skepticism but 8 do oppose air pollution outright and want the level of atmospheric oxygen to increase because I'm betting we could raise IQs on that basis alone, if the so called greenhouse effect is real we should have longer, stronger winters and milder summers it will create bad conditions for niggers.

[ - ] Name 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 12, 2022 06:49:20 ago (+0/-0)

Got a minute to answer some questions about climate change? I haven’t spent time reading about this in a decade and I am too lazy to wade through all of the propaganda.

I had a retired geologist, university professor who I was friends with and he tried to convince me and I did all of his assigned reading, but my information is 10 years outdated. Are they still doing a timeline countdown based on average global temperature increase? I think that around one degree of temperature increase we would start to see desertification again in the US and would have another dust bowl? Maybe around one and a half degrees of temperature increase it would mess up the Gulf Stream current which warms Europe and cause another miniature Ice Age there? Rising sea levels were blown off back then with an attitude of “it’s going to happen, but so slowly that we will have time to adjust.”

Just wondering how much my outdated information differs from the modern consensus; if you have an opinion.

[ - ] boekanier [op] 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 12, 2022 09:54:50 ago (+0/-0)

I have no opinion.

[ - ] deleted -1 points 2.6 yearsOct 12, 2022 06:39:47 ago (+0/-1)

deleted

[ - ] HeavyBrain 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 12, 2022 05:33:50 ago (+0/-0)

No no no, they need to go for the totally effecitve windmills.

[ - ] StarylDrawberry 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 12, 2022 07:34:46 ago (+0/-0)

And at night it releases carbon. Trees are carbon neutral.

[ - ] SUMBICH 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 12, 2022 08:37:27 ago (+0/-0)

by your logic, burning firewood releases no carbon.

[ - ] NiggerNiggerZooPals 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 12, 2022 11:53:04 ago (+0/-0)

Trees aren’t actually very good at capturing and removing carbon since they fall over and release the carbon while they are decaying. Most of the carbon that gets captured must be put into the ground where it doesn’t get broken down by other organisms.

You know what is a good system? Grass fed livestock. The grass grows tons of roots deep into the soil that die as soon as the grass gets eaten. Then the livestock shit fertilizes the grass and helps it grow more.

[ - ] HowDoYouDoFellowNiggers 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 12, 2022 13:12:20 ago (+0/-0)

There is also solar powered meat production called herbivores

[ - ] Not_C 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 12, 2022 14:06:40 ago (+0/-0)

Trees are only temporary storage devices for CO2.

Trees take in the CO2, but when the leaves fall and decompose, or the tree itself decomposes, the exact same amount of CO2 is released back into the air that the tree had absorbed.

The only natural and easy way to permanently remove CO2 from the atmosphere is to convert the CO2 to methane, then the methane breaks down completely after 8 years.

Yes methane is 6x harsher as a greenhouse gas. But CO2 will stay in the atmosphere for centuries. While methane breaks down and is completely gone after 8 years.

To convert CO2 to methane - Have a cow eat plants that have absorbed CO2 (grass, weeds, crops, etc.) the cow's digestive system will naturally convert it to methane. The cow will burp and fart out methane and instead of the CO2 being in the atmosphere for centuries, the methane will be gone after only 8 years.

[ - ] Portmanure 1 point 2.6 yearsOct 12, 2022 02:16:52 ago (+1/-0)

You made a lot of posts in a short time and not a single boobie.. I’m reporting you for violating the boobie rule. It’s my rule and you are in violation.

[ - ] boekanier [op] 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 12, 2022 03:01:32 ago (+0/-0)

not in a short time, buddy

[ - ] NiggerNiggerZooPals 2 points 2.6 yearsOct 12, 2022 09:40:23 ago (+2/-0)

Trees aren’t actually very good at capturing and removing carbon since they fall over and release the carbon while they are decaying. Most of the carbon that gets captured must be put into the ground where it doesn’t get broken down by other organisms.

You know what is a good system? Grass fed livestock. The grass grows tons of roots deep into the soil that die as soon as the grass gets eaten. Then the livestock shit fertilizes the grass and helps it grow more.

[ - ] Teefinyomouf 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 12, 2022 10:48:18 ago (+0/-0)

All of it converts CO2 to humus and charcoal which improves the soil. Plants have better photosynthetic efficiency in higher CO2 concentrations. Of course that makes more food, fuel, shelter, building materials, and habitat. Animal life will follow. A lump of coal is just a tree from before microbes ate lignin. Burn it today and it becomes CO2, then plants, then soil. Coal can't simply cycle through a cow. Coil, oil, wood, etc all just go back to the cycle of life from which they came. Libs hate life though, so naturally they hate carbon. The real environmental danger is strip mining which destroys soil and shuts off part of Earth's photosynthetic engine for a long time. This actually harms the carbon cycle rather than simply feeds it like burning fossil fuels does. The Earth can support a lot more people than it is currently, and population is projected to grow. We're going to need all that entombed carbon airborne soon to ever have a hope and feeding that population. More fossil fuels = more C02 = more plants = more cows = more people.

[ - ] germ22 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 12, 2022 10:51:06 ago (+0/-0)

Too few people know about this. If i remember correctly, only about 0.02% of the carbon trees capture stays captured as it fossilizes.

[ - ] Not_C 0 points 2.6 yearsOct 12, 2022 15:07:14 ago (+0/-0)

You're neglecting to state the fact that cows produce methane which is 6x worse greenhouse gas than CO2.

Another fact is that CO2 stays in the atmosphere for centuries, while methane breaks down and disappears after only 8 years.

Because there were millions of cows on Earth 8 years ago converting CO2 to methane, there is far less greenhouse gases blanketing our plant today.
And by having as many cows as possible on this planet today, we will have far less greenhouse gases blanketing our planet by 2030.