Limiting Global: How CO2?

Warming and Climate Change: causes, consequences, analysis ... Debate on CO2 and other greenhouse gas.
User avatar
Paul72
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 684
Registration: 12/02/20, 18:29
Location: Sarthe
x 139

Re: Limit the warming: how many CO2?




by Paul72 » 15/09/20, 09:54

Ahmed wrote:Sicetaitsimple, you are making commendable efforts not to understand my words and to disguise them: I have never spoken of a global plot ... For my part, I do not see what justifies this systematic and all-out contemptuous tone? ...


It's called trolling. We must not forget that the French forest has come a long way ... And that this is a special case, the future of which as a "storage" forest is not guaranteed (I have already linked a detailed study on this subject according to the exploitation prospects for the current century)

And of course we have to deal with the climate change which is only in its infancy https://www.futura-sciences.com/planete ... ees-82965/

And which will undoubtedly have a strong impact on the forest, which will have to adapt (death of trees which will be replaced by more suitable ones but this will have the consequence of pushing back carbon storage)

And we should not focus on the French case but have a global vision.
1 x
I'm allergic to idiots: sometimes I even get a cough.
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Limit the warming: how many CO2?




by Ahmed » 15/09/20, 10:25

I do not agree on one point: it is not about trolling, but intolerance of divergent points of view (I am not the only one targeted!).
I had effectively omitted the issue of climate change, because I have already spoken on this subject. However, you are right to point out.

What is important to understand is that in times of "fat cows" a minimum of attention is deployed towards, in particular, the forest, but when the impossibility of continuing the usual mode of operation, because the external constraints increase, then changes occur which reduce to nothing the few previous respects and one awaits the salvation of all that comes to hand ... and one fires of all wood!
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
Rajqawee
Grand Econologue
Grand Econologue
posts: 1322
Registration: 27/02/20, 09:21
Location: Occitania
x 577

Re: Limit the warming: how many CO2?




by Rajqawee » 15/09/20, 10:35

izentrop wrote:
Ahmed wrote:the qualification of carbon neutrality of wood is in itself very worrying, all this so that nothing changes on the other aspects which do not interest anyone ...
"lutopik" had made an interesting report on this subject page 8. http://www.lutopik.com/Lutopik_8web.pdf

Since then, the newspaper has closed, too bad it was really detailed information, not copy and paste as has become the norm.


I read. Thank you for sharing. Somehow I suspected it a little (that reforestation was not a coincidence either against the tide of everything else), but not that it was so "serious".
Indeed, suddenly, in the current state, to put forward these reforestation figures as "good news", it is intellectually dishonest ... at best, we should say "we did not do the worst we could have. could".

One sentence moved me: "90% of the value of the forest is its biodiversity".

I had heard of an Asian model which reforests plots by planting, very densely, a lot of different species of trees and shrubs, and then doing nothing at all. And these forests are doing very well. When will there be reforestation projects whose goal is not exploitation?
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Limit the warming: how many CO2?




by Ahmed » 15/09/20, 10:48

There are already non-productive forests: peri-urban areas are often dedicated to walking and enjoying city dwellers, slope forests often have an exclusive role in maintaining soil and some areas are in any case inaccessible to mechanization; we can also cite the degraded forests which succeed agriculture and which interest no one ...
A "reasonable" exploitation is quite possible with clear and coherent objectives (which recognize its diversified roles), but it must be recognized that too often the idea that a forest in which one does not intervene is doomed to "degenerate. "and to get poorer is a nameless nonsense that has been denied for 600 million years!
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
Obamot
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 28725
Registration: 22/08/09, 22:38
Location: regio genevesis
x 5538

Re: Limit the warming: how many CO2?




by Obamot » 15/09/20, 12:05

Ahmed wrote:Sicetaitsimple, you make commendable efforts not to understand my words and to disguise them:

He is one of the professionals of the genre.

At my modest level, if my memory serves me well, I think I remember that:

- Forests are the lungs of the planet, and ...
- it would be better to maintain them, because the carbon footprint of a rotting / decomposing tree would be unfavorable, and ...
- so as long as it is done it would be better to burn it (without wanting to be categorical, I no longer have the figures).

This well understood cycle would be the reason why wood would enter renewable energies ...

According to Milankovitch cycles, it would be better to keep the coal for the next glaciations, we might need it : Cheesy: and the release of Co2 during these will be of no consequence ... and in the meantime, let's plant wood everywhere!
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Limit the warming: how many CO2?




by Ahmed » 15/09/20, 13:46

Whether trees rot naturally or are burned does not change the atmospheric carbon cycle point of view. As for the carbon footprint of a "natural" forest, it is strictly neutral over time, but the initial phase immobilizes CO.2 en masse. So extending the forest mantle where possible is a good thing, especially since the influence of the forest is strongly manifested in terms of rainfall (emissions of micro particles that trigger the formation of droplets in the clouds) and temperature (in the sense of greater freshness).
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9773
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Limit the warming: how many CO2?




by sicetaitsimple » 15/09/20, 14:37

Ahmed wrote:Whether trees rot naturally or are burned does not change the atmospheric carbon cycle point of view.


It is correct, in the short or long term there will have been release of CO2 into the atmosphere, whether by combustion or by progressive degradation of organic matter.
But if you burn it to heat yourself in a stove or boiler, you will still normally have avoided the combustion of a generally fossil product (coal, fuel oil, gas) which will have remained stored in the geological layers.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Limit the warming: how many CO2?




by Ahmed » 15/09/20, 15:35

Of course, but I have never been hostile to the energy use of wood, only when industrial dimensions which take into account only certain factors (mainly economic) threaten by their magnitude the sustainability of local forests (or not, as in Gardanne) or are absurd in essence (sic), like this biomass power station (low yield) in the Tonnerrois, a place where trees grow very slowly on limestone soils ...
I can only be outraged by the presentation of wood energy as a miraculous and "new" solution which will allow us to continue doing anything, replacing fossil fuels.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
sicetaitsimple
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 9773
Registration: 31/10/16, 18:51
Location: Lower Normandy
x 2638

Re: Limit the warming: how many CO2?




by sicetaitsimple » 15/09/20, 15:46

Ahmed wrote:I can only be outraged by the presentation of wood energy as a miraculous and "new" solution which will allow us to continue doing anything, replacing fossil fuels.


Taking into account the discussions that we have already had on the subject "biomass" in the broad sense, I dare to hope that you do not classify me in this category of "presenter"!
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Limit the warming: how many CO2?




by Ahmed » 15/09/20, 16:31

I am obviously addressing you, among others, however my words are general and do not target you personally in any way.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."

Back to "Climate Change: CO2, warming, greenhouse effect ..."

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 134 guests