Climatechangevangelistas! Please explain this...

[ding]

After they die they do.

So when a plant dies it releases CO2 24/7?

How much CO2 does a plant release after it dies?

 

[edthecynic]

Can you show me the material balance on that?

Yes, and from the very "expert" Unhealthy cited.

Carbon Sequestration by Leaves and Dead Plants Carbonisation - WDCD Climate Challenge

challenge.whatdesigncando.com

As you can see from the graph 60GtC is absorbed each year and the same 60GtC is released each year unless you recycle 5GtC into activated carbon and other products..

 

[edthecynic]

So when a plant dies it releases CO2 24/7?

How much CO2 does a plant release after it dies?

All that it has stored in its sugars.

 

[ding]

Yes, and from the very "expert" Unhealthy cited.

Carbon Sequestration by Leaves and Dead Plants Carbonisation - WDCD Climate Challenge

challenge.whatdesigncando.com

As you can see from the graph 60GtC is absorbed each year and the same 60GtC is released each year unless you recycle 5GtC into activated carbon and other products..

Ummmm... they are recycling their own CO2, Einstein. That's why the Keeling curve has seasonal fluctuations.

 

[edthecynic]

Ummmm... they are recycling their own CO2, Einstein. That's why the Keeling curve has seasonal fluctuations.

So the net carbon sequestration per year by trees is ZERO without recycling some of the dead leaves, branches, etc.

 

[ding]

So the net carbon sequestration per year by trees is ZERO without recycling some of the dead leaves, branches, etc.

Not exactly. Most rainforest trees stay evergreen.

 

[edthecynic]

Not exactly. Most rainforest trees stay evergreen.

They still die don't they, after all, evergreen does not mean everlasting.

 

[ding]

They still die don't they, after all, evergreen does not mean everlasting.

Not according to the link you provided. According to that link they stated that "The Keeling Curve process of rise and decline of CO2, in the way it is, depends mostly on the Siberian and forests across the Northern Hemisphere."

 

[edthecynic]

Not according to the link you provided. According to that link they stated that "The Keeling Curve process of rise and decline of CO2, in the way it is, depends mostly on the Siberian and forests across the Northern Hemisphere."

The keeling curve does not mean evergreens are everlasting. It simply means the Northern Hemisphere forests dominate the absorbing and and release of CO2 by trees.

 

[ding]

The keeling curve does not mean evergreens are everlasting. It simply means the Northern Hemisphere forests dominate the absorbing and and release of CO2 by trees.

Just telling you what your link said.

Of course they also said we should pay people to rake up the leaves on the planet and collect them and pay people to stop cutting down forrests.

I was thinking about cutting down a tree in my yard, would you pay me not to cut it down?

 

[ding]

FWIW I have no problem being paid not to do things. I think that's a brilliant idea.

 

[edthecynic]

Just telling you what your link said.

Of course they also said we should pay people to rake up the leaves on the planet and collect them and pay people to stop cutting down forrests.

I was thinking about cutting down a tree in my yard, would you pay me not to cut it down?

Hell no.

 

[ding]

Hell no.

Would you pay me to not fuck your girlfriend?

 

[edthecynic]

Would you pay me to not fuck your girlfriend?

Grow up child!

 

[ding]

Grow up child!

So that's a no?

What about your boyfriend? Would you pay me to not fuck your boyfriend?

 

[Shareprofit]

As opposed to plants releasing CO2 24/7?

Yes plants do excrete CO2 all the time like any living organism. Do you deny that?

 

[ding]

Yes plants do excrete CO2 all the time like any living organism. Do you deny that?

I would never doubt anything from such an obviously super intelligent person as yourself.

 

[edthecynic]

So that's a no?

What about your boyfriend? Would you pay me to not fuck your boyfriend?

 

[Crick]

I was watching network news tonight with the weather person describing the "1 in 500 years" rain in NYC and stating it was clearly caused by "climate change".
It made me wonder then about these two FACTs that the global warming evangelistas seemingly are unaware of.

Fact 1.
Fifty-five million years ago the North Pole was an ice-free zone with tropical temperatures, according to research.
A sediment core excavated from 400m (1,300ft) below the seabed of the Arctic Ocean has enabled scientists to delve far back into the region's past.

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic's tropical past uncovered

Fact 2.
Projections show that the area of land and sea that falls within the Arctic Circle is home to an estimated 90 billion barrels of oil, an incredible 13% of Earth's reserves.

Why Is There So Much Oil in the Arctic?

Why is there so much oil beneath the Arctic — and do we really need it?

www.livescience.com

So please tell me you global warming, climate change "evangelistas"......
BIG question ?
Why 50 million years ago did the North Pole have tropical temperatures... was there "global warming"?
(Tropical climates are characterized by monthly average temperatures of 18 ℃ (64.4 ℉)
2nd Big question ?
If oil is formed from mixtures of hydrocarbons that formed from the remains of animals and plants (diatoms) that lived millions of years ,
how come there is 90 billion barrels in the Arctic Circle? Was there "global warming" when this animals and plants were in the Arctic Circle?

I've provided the FACTS that support the premise "global warming" has occurred in the past... Now refute these facts.

The tectonic plate that currently sits at the North Pole was NOT sitting at the North Pole 55 million years ago. The world's average temperature has risen and fallen but the poles have always been the coldest places on the planet.

 

[Crick]

Yes plants do excrete CO2 all the time like any living organism. Do you deny that?

Excrete it? They consume it. They enzymatically use chlorophyll and sunlight to create sugar from CO2 and water. Plants excrete oxygen.