I didn’t read this whole thing and realize that it’s all “Much more complex” than what I’m about to say.
But if indeed we hosed the atmosphere in 150-200 years by pumping crap into it…why can’t we fix it by pumping it back out in 150-200 years? Just saying, 1K years seems excessive especially considering the natural CO2 pumps that already exist.
~Matt
“But if indeed we hosed the atmosphere in 150-200 years by pumping crap into it…why can’t we fix it by pumping it back out in 150-200 years?”
Seems like you could look at it like oil and water. It takes seconds to dump a bunch of oil into a body of water. It is almost impossible to get it all back out again.
I don’t think theres any reason in theory why you can’t
Just nobody has any idea how you would do that, heh.
especially without burning more fossil fuels to do it! lol
We need to plant more trees. We also need to pay off the Brazilians to stop chopping down rainforest.
planting more trees apparently doesn’t actually do any good according to the climatologists are realclimate. I don’t recall why, I think its just a drop in the bucket basically.
Just nobody has any idea how you would do that, heh.
~Matt
Seems like you could look at it like oil and water. It takes seconds to dump a bunch of oil into a body of water.
But that’s not the case as I understand it. We aren’t dumping a “bunch”, in relative terms, in at once just dumping in more than what can naturally be removed. The relative rise is pretty slow in PPM.
It is almost impossible to get it all back out again.
Not really.
Let’s just throw out the idea that we can over a period of 50 years drop the influx into the atmosphere in half. But at the same time we are “Reducing” we start a serious “Reforestation” project.
I have no idea what the numbers would look or number of trees that needed to be planted, but it would see like it would be feasible.
In fact I believe there is “History” with a similar “Algae” bloom that had a similar effect.
All of this “Sans” any new technology. Cut back on CO2 creation and increase “Growing plants”.
~Matt ** **
It doesn’t do any good if you plant them, cut them down and burn them or if for every one you plant 2 are cut down.
But creating “Old growth” long term forests and letting them go would certainly have an effect. Also not just trees but anything that uses CO2 will do. As stated in a previous post there was a period in earth history that apparently there was a massive algae bloom that had some serious effect on CO2.
~Matt
No, even creating old growth long term forrest doesn’t have an appreciable effect. Keep in mind we are putting millions of years of old growth forrest carbon back into the area every decade. Growing one generations worth doesn’t do much to get rid of that. An effect, yes, but not enough to matter much, apparently (according to those who have done the math, which I have not)
Breeding some kind of superalgea might indeed work, grab all that c02 and send it to the ocean floor.
might affect the sea life quite a bit though!
But creating “Old growth” long term forests and letting them go would certainly have an effect. Also not just trees but anything that uses CO2 will do. As stated in a previous post there was a period in earth history that apparently there was a massive algae bloom that had some serious effect on CO2.
~Matt
"We aren’t dumping a “bunch”, in relative terms, in at once just dumping in more than what can naturally be removed. The relative rise is pretty slow in PPM. "
Maybe so. Seems like 150 or 200 years is still pretty fast in terms of the life of the planet.
"I have no idea what the numbers would look or number of trees that needed to be planted, but it would see like it would be feasible. "
The articles I’ve read indicate that it would take a metric shit-ton of new forest growth to make any significant dent, and we would simultaneously have to drastically reduce the amount of new pollution we are expelling. And, in light of the other thread about massive population growth, I’m not sure there’s enough room to plant enough trees, even if we covered every spare square foot of available land.
Once the permafrost has thawed due to warming, you can’t just lower the temperature and re-freeze it. The damage has been done, and the carbon has been released. For example.
Keep in mind we are putting millions of years of old growth forrest carbon back into the area every decade.
Well obviously we’d never catch up with a “Natural” CO2 scrubber as long as we continue to dump the stuff into the atmosphere at the current rate. I’m say if we significantly cut our output we have many natural methods that would take far shorter than 1K years to get it out.
Breeding some kind of superalgea might indeed work, grab all that c02 and send it to the ocean floor.
might affect the sea life quite a bit though!
Zactly what apparently happened at one point. I’m not suggesting that we do that, but this is another option to explore. In short anything most plant life that grows suck up CO2. Unfortunately what we do most of the time is grow something, burn it or let it go back into the atmosphere. What we are “Burning” was sequestered and then left there.
~Matt
I can see a definite “Tipping” point where natural influx of GH gases becomes significantly greater. However same thing. Assuming we quit adding our bit and make moves to removing it 1K still seems like a long time.
~Matt
The articles I’ve read indicate that it would take a metric shit-ton of new forest growth to make any significant dent, and we would simultaneously have to drastically reduce the amount of new pollution we are expelling. And, in light of the other thread about massive population growth, I’m not sure there’s enough room to plant enough trees, even if we covered every spare square foot of available land.
Well without doubt we have to lower or eliminate the “human” factor to the problem. If we continue to add at our current rate there’s no number of trees or anything else that would turn the tide. Like you said simply not enough land to plant on.
Of course I’m not suggesting “just tree” either.
Maybe I’m too “Optimistic” but it seems to me that if we have so many easily attainable methods for “Scrubbers” that with a little technology we could probably make a pretty massive difference just as we made a massive difference in the opposite direction. In short it never ceases to amaze me how quickly “Mother nature” heals itself in even the worst conditions.
1K years is a LONG time and seems excessive to me. Could be wrong, often am, but just doesn’t seem like a realistic number.
~Matt
“The articles I’ve read indicate that it would take a metric shit-ton of new forest growth…”
It sounds as if they’ve added some new units since I first learned the metric system in elementary school. 