Let's debunk what CO2 does. Let's also explain what it does not do.

Trees convert carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide into oxygen, which is essential to all life....quit cutting all the trees on the planet down, and plant more trees...end of so called "global warming" and "climate change" which is all a hoax.

 

Not exactly, although I am on your side in terms of calling the climate change hoax what it is.
Plants are constrained by the extremely low level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Figure out what 400 parts per million is in percentage. When plants are grown in an atmosphere rich in carbon dioxide, they grow much faster. So more trees are still constrained, and in any event, they do not convert CO2 into O2. Plants convert water into O2 and CO2 into carbohydrates.
But climate change is still the biggest hoax of the 20th and 21st centuries, following on the heels of Darwinism.

 

And that faked moon landing was pretty bad. LOL

 

What happens to the carbon in the trees when they are cut down or burnt? Does it change?

 

Lovely question! Thank you for it. Carbon remains carbon. Isn't it superb how atoms go from here to there and back again, being reused almost infinitely as far as we can tell. You think atomic structure just made itself? Out of nothing?
What else is so cool that made itself out of nothing? Show it to me.

First of all, the carbon in trees is always part of a long chain carbohydrate, consisting of hydrogen, carbon, oxygen, and some trace elements such as nitrogen and magnesium. When the wood is cut down, it may remain in such a state for a thousand years, as in the case of Egyptian sarcophagi in our museums. When it is burned, it may have other elements burned away leaving only carbon, which can likewise remain in that state for thousands of years, as it does in coal or graphite. Most of it, however, oxydizes into carbon dioxide and is recycled by plants back where it was before, just maybe on the other side of the world. Or if it is consumed as in fruits and vegetables, it becomes part of you.

It is estimated that each of us has several molecules of water in our bodies that were once inside Abraham Lincoln.
And all the ancients, one would suppose..

Addendum in the interest of things interesting:



With just a smattering of research, I learned of wood tools dating back to 400,000 years ago in Germany. These are called the Schöningen Spears, eight in number. They were discovered between 1994 and 1998.

Some people feign their own sophistication with the claim that making our universe, much less a tree is simple. Everything made itself, out of a quantum vacuum. I'd like to see them start by just making one tree, not from some imaginary quantum vacuum, but from air and water.

Wood is composed primarily of two organic polymers (long term chains of these molecules), cellulose C6H10O5, and lignin C9H10O2, plus C10H12O3, and C11H14O4 . [See diagrams of chemical structure of cellulose and lignin below at left. The basic molecular building blocks of cellulose are warped, while those of lignin are flat.] Just three elements, carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen are necessary to make wood from carbon dioxide and water . Gas and liquid are broken down and reassembled to make a solid so durable that spruce spears have been discovered near Hanover, Germany which have been carbon dated as 400,000 years old. Synthesis of wood by trees is extremely complex and sophisticated. To the best of my knowledge, it has yet to be duplicated in any laboratory. Wood is crudely imitated by man, but not duplicated.

 

One or two more trees in a couple of backyards in America is NOT going to reverse the huge amounts of deforestation that is contributing to global warming by 1/4

 

Oh! For!!!
SOME plants do better with a higher CO2 but a lot do a lot worse

https://www.skepticalscience.com/Increasing-Carbon-Dioxide-is-not-good-for-plants.html

http://news.stanford.edu/pr/02/jasperplots124.html

https://www.newscientist.com/articl...-will-boost-plant-growth-and-food-production/
And they cannot live on CO2 alone
https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

And they cannot thrive when they are levelled for grazing

 

am I right I need remembering that carbon dioxide is a by product of combustion?
Sorry, I just noticed the bit about oxidation . Is all the CO2 reabsorbed by plants? And what happens when timber rots?

 

Grasslands are very important. Grasslands not only reduce the effect of climate change but filter water, build,(or better grow) soil, and add economic value to land. It also reduces or stops erosion. Grass also adds carbon to the soil with root exudates. It literly pumps liquid carbon into the soil. The problem with modern agriculture is not leaving the soil covered. You can actually watch carbon rise in the atmosphere during the months tilling is done. You can also see it fall during the months the crop cover comes up. NASA has the videos available.

 

Ya, but most wood rots. And what about carbon that has been stored for millions of years...suddenly being burned?

 

You obviously don't klnow what you are talking about....trees convert co2 into Oxygen..plain and simple...whether you want to go into your denial or not...

 

Yes Sallyally
There are "Carbon Sinks". (Ref.: Yes Virginia there is a Santa Claus, New York Sun).

One of the most under appreciated per Science magazine (real, AAAS publication, not digest nor editorial.) A most under appreciated, under calculated by the Global Warming Chicken Littles is in YOUR neighborhood. The South Pacific. Plankton thingies making calcium structures to later die and fall to the bottom of the sea. Sequestered calcium from CO2.

It is sort of like mentioning the Medieval Warm Up to the Chicken Littles with grapes in Vinland and England too. Better than France's at the time. The end of the Dark Ages and Part 2 of the Middle Ages.

The under appreciated Carbon Sink of the South Pacific will just be met with denial by those who did not read the article and are unfamiliar with Science magazine because it is not a "digest".
And of course the written accounts by those who lived the Medieval Climate Optimum, from China to English monasteries can be . . . .
Hard to debate "faith" in the mask of Science
Good Luck

BTW - Green Power. No CO2
Consider investing in solar electrolysis of water. Harvest the hydrogen and
run it through a fuel cell for power. You got lots of solar so who cares if
solar electrolysis is inefficient. It's good enough for an O.Z.
You could always invite Toyota to build it for you as the Toyota Home Power System.
And your home serves as a model residential system.
Toyota is marketing fuel cells in American Hydrogen powered cars now.
So they got the fuel cells. Offer them the opportunity. They love OZ-Land, don't they.
I saw the movie with Toni Collette.

Moi

r > g

How do you like your undefended border now? Eh
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

There are water sinks too. But we ain't gonna drink enough water to make a difference. The two biggest carbon sinks are the ocean and our soils... In that order.

 

When water has enough Carbon Dioxide in it, I can tell since I enjoy carbonated beverages.

 

And if you tested it with a piece of litmus paper you would find it tested ACID

Guess why the Great Barrier Reef is under threat?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification

 

Your extensive detail plus a brief mention of CO2 exposes your agenda, which is to spin and lie to put your point across. When wood is burned it generates a large amount of CO2. In fact, most of it but any unburned coals is converted to CO2. And when a tree falls and rots, and large amount of it is gradually converted to CO2 and methane, plus raw materials, like carbohydrates and other compounds, for other plants to absorb. And very little is converted to coal or preserved wood.

So much for your "science" that you use like a club in an effort to intimidate us into submission.

 

Toss in some Bicarbonate of Soda and problem soon solved.

 

Some of us find it extremely curious as to the good condition of so much of the Great Barrier reef while a part of it is harmed. But I don't plan to put too much effort today in studying Australia's problem. Perhaps they need to do as those of the Coral Triangle do and be better stewards of their coral.

 

Which movie? Little Miss Sunshine? And I remember seeing something about the acidification of the oceans affecting the diatoms. Can't remember what though.

 

Yes ocean acidification due to high CO2 is suppose to lead to Oysters "on the no shell".
All those shelled critters and skeletons are going to dissolve into the acid solution.

CO2 levels were 5 times higher than today in dinosaur times yet, oysters survived and still have shells.


Japanese Story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Story


Moi
Invite Toyota to Solar Electrolysis to Hydrogen to Fuel Cell your home today.


r > g

Stop Creeping ism
Across an immense, unguarded, ethereal border, Canadians, cool and unsympathetic,
regard our America with envious eyes and slowly and surely draw their plans against us.​

 

They could simply call it less base and not cause a fuss. But by tossing in the term acid, it sounds very dangerous. Which is why they call it acidification.

Frankly since some is caused by a starfish that does not belong there (great barrier reef) it can't be true the same starfish damages all corals. They latch onto warming since that fits the agenda of some. But check out overfishing. There is more to learn than warming causes it.

 

I am a chemical engineer, and you are what? Methane was burned in the presence of an isotope of oxygen to produce labeled carbon dioxide. Then that special carbon dioxide was subjected to plants which broke it down. None of the labeled oxygen from the CO2 was converted into O2. None of it. Your cocksure attitude is typical of the Left. It is unintelligent and anti-scientific, as I have previously stated many times.

 

Sally, My Love, "acidification" is yet another misleading term tossed casually around by the pretentious Left. The ocean is 18.4 times more alkaline than pure water! Its pH is 8.2 on a logarithmic scale. Don't ask cornergas what that means. He'll simply respond in his usual unpleasant and uninformed way.

When water temperature increases, carbon dioxide in solution outgases, or bubbles up to the surface, like you see beer and soda do when they are uncorked and warming up. Solids, such as sugar and salt, can concentrate more in warmer water. Gases, like carbon dioxide and oxygen, do exactly the opposite. This is another of the countless remarkable creations God gave us. The Left calls such observations "The Argument from Incredulity." In so doing, they commit "The Argument from Pretentiousness."

 

You do realize that you are talking to an atheist, don't you. I have no religious zeal. Also, I'm sure you understand the word "apocalyptic".

a·poc·a·lyp·tic
əˌpäkəˈliptik/
adjective

1. describing or prophesying the complete destruction of the world.
   "the apocalyptic visions of ecologists"
   • resembling the end of the world; momentous or catastrophic.
     "the struggle between the two countries is assuming apocalyptic proportions"
     synonyms: doomsday, doom-laden, ominous, portentous; More

Your usage of phrases like "apocalyptic propaganda" is clearly just your lame attempt at justifying, perhaps to yourself, your denial of AGW.

No one who understands AGW is prophesying the complete destruction of the world. You are either woefully ignorant or willfully misstating facts.

This isn't about the extinction of the human race. It is about large scale economic disruptions.

 

Please justify your comment regarding "hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars for AGW *research*".