Climate Change and Global serious errors of design .

[iRock]

If someone help me edit this manuscript better , teach me about manuscript ( he / she become a co author of this manuscript too ) than I send to a scientific magazine , than they publish it . Reporters read article Climate Change and Global serious Errors of Design , than they go to US EPA , ask the representations of US EPA and they can ask all US EPA employees about the problem in the article , all of them can not comment anything . US EPA’s prestige is down . But reporters and communications systems will not focus on US EPA only , next target is all US government’s buildings . And communication systems focus on all governement and their buildings around the world . If government don’t fix the errors of the buildings , they can stop tell us protect the environment . Law maker will have to fix the problem in law system . You help me , you will become famous because it’s a world scandal , the biggest scandal in human history . Do you disagree with me ? Or US EPA and US don’t fix the problem so they face vox populi ? Can they ? And other governments too , can they face vox populi of their countries ? I think they can’t . Law system of the world must change , that is a history . I need 1 person help me , hep the world when all of you understand the problem clearly .

 

But if all government , and all school , universities can face vox populi and don’t plant trees , plants at somewhere for their buildings , and all law maker don’t fix the problem of the protecting environment law , they can stop teach people protect the environment if they have shame . If they don’t have shame can continue teach people protect environment , people will smile into their face . If a magazine use this manuscript , publish it , I finish my wish , tell people the risk of environmental law , ........ . My consicence can relaxed because I tell people the risk .

Time to talk about money .

About University of Texas at Dallas , first academic building in Texas to receive LEED Platinum status. This is the area of University of Texas at Dallas :

The wild grass area = 14.6 acres can absorb 58152712 kg CO2 * 2.2 = 127935966.4 lbs O2 .

1 tree absorb average 45 lbs CO2 per year so to restore the environment , we need : : 127935966 / 45 = 2843021 trees . To much trees , right ?

But according to http://www.everything71.com/2012/02/10-type-of-trees-most-carbon-dioxide.html

10 type of trees :

1. Trembesi (Samanea saman) : Carbon dioxide is absorbed reaches 28.488,39 kg/year.

2. Bamboo (Bambuseae) : Carbon dioxide that absorbed by bamboo still do not know for sure, but it is estimated 14 tons/year.

3. Cassia (Cassia sp) : Carbon dioxide is absorbed reaches 5.295,47 kg/year.

4. Cananga/Kenanga (Canangium odoratum) : Carbon dioxide is absorbed reaches 756,59 kg/year.

5. Pingku (Dysoxylum excelsum) : Carbon dioxide is absorbed reaches 720,49 kg/year.
6. Banyan/Beringin (Ficus benyamina) : Carbon dioxide is absorbed reaches 535,90 kg/year.

7. Krey Payung (Fellicium decipiens) : Carbon dioxide is absorbed reaches 404,83 kg/year.
8. Matoa (Pometia pinnata) : Carbon dioxide is absorbed reaches 329,76 kg/year.
9. Mahogany (Swettiana mahagoni) : Carbon dioxide is absorbed reaches 295,73 kg/year.
10. Saga (Adenanthera pavonina) : Carbon dioxide is absorbed reaches 221,18 kg/year.

Trembesi Wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albizia_saman

If University of Texas want to restore the environment and we use Trembesi to absorb CO2 : 58152712 kg CO2 / 28488 = 2042 Trembesi trees .

University of Texas at Dallas : http://www.utdallas.edu/news/2011/9/20-12831_Nearly-33-of-UT-Dallas-Students-Are-New-to-Campus_article.html

If plant 1 trees need 5 USD so plant 2042 trees need 5 * 2042 = 10210 USD . UTD has 19000 students , if all student and all emplyees of UTD donate 1 USD per , we can have 4084 Trembesi trees easily . And every year , all people donate 1 USD is enough to take care 4084 Trembesi trees ( We make a better environment when we make environment absorb more CO2 than the past , perhaps )

NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction : Absorb 415200 lbs CO2 = 188727 lbs CO2 .

We use Trembesi : 188727 lbs CO2 / 28488 lbs CO2 = 6 trees

NOAA CWCP have 800 employees so all 800 employees of NOAA CWCP should plant 800 trees for a better environment .

Dear God , please let 1 person here give me a little help . I wait too long . Just 1 manuscript about conservation of absorb CO2 , create O2 .

Edited March 9, 2014 by iRock

[Johnny Electriglide]

 

Essay

"Yes, the focus on cutting emissions only, and not also including the soil's capacity to store extra carbon (or become a source of emissions itself, if it's disturbed, oxidized, and degraded) is a source of great consternation and heartache"

Good healthy soils are carbon sinks, and the problem is so much(~75%) of the world's soils depleted in various ways. With old and new techniques, the soil can be rebuilt with less effort than some other CO2 reduction ideas, and for increasing, or stopping as much decrease on crop yields.

Part of the problem is planting enough trees to absorb Human CO2. Last year's 36.2 Billion tons equals the absorption capacity of

over 72 trillion trees. With tree life spans and maturing this equals 7 trillion trees should be planted each year. More or other means like "Nano Trees", healthy soils mass initiative, and stopping almost all slash/ burn, and fossil fuel use is also needed, FAST.

Well, the unfortunate reality is one of continued soil depletion/degradation and future sequested remaining CO2 released from the heat of near thermal max conditions in 3-500 years.

I plant trees each year, but 10, not 1000 like everyone would theoretically have to do. I think it is an impossible task to stop this Juggernaut of overpopulation and greed induced HGHG emissions, from knowledge of human psychology. All must be done before the major tipping point of tundra methane self release first observed by 3 groups of scientists in 2009, is fully developed into an unstoppable natural phenomenon of a positive feedback loop(in comes that darn implementation time), Like PETM on steroids, 10 to increasing to 40 times faster, and at least 20% more sequestered CH4 and CO2, with a significantly longer resequestration time (180K yrs. X 1.2=216K years min. From a PETM EL of 30% to the present one being worse than K-T with 85-90% EL.(2M.Y. for PETM would be at least 50% longer or 3 M..Y. to get back the biosphere to healthy diversity.)

PM me for links(they are in my threads at www.Envirolink.org/forum/index.php ).

Edited March 9, 2014 by Johnny Electriglide

[iRock]

With all

 

 

Essay

"Yes, the focus on cutting emissions only, and not also including the soil's capacity to store extra carbon (or become a source of emissions itself, if it's disturbed, oxidized, and degraded) is a source of great consternation and heartache"

Good healthy soils are carbon sinks, and the problem is so much(~75%) of the world's soils depleted in various ways. With old and new techniques, the soil can be rebuilt with less effort than some other CO2 reduction ideas, and for increasing, or stopping as much decrease on crop yields.

Part of the problem is planting enough trees to absorb Human CO2. Last year's 36.2 Billion tons equals the absorption capacity of

over 72 trillion trees. With tree life spans and maturing this equals 7 trillion trees should be planted each year. More or other means like "Nano Trees", healthy soils mass initiative, and stopping almost all slash/ burn, and fossil fuel use is also needed, FAST.

Well, the unfortunate reality is one of continued soil depletion/degradation and future sequested remaining CO2 released from the heat of near thermal max conditions in 3-500 years.

I plant trees each year, but 10, not 1000 like everyone would theoretically have to do. I think it is an impossible task to stop this Juggernaut of overpopulation and greed induced HGHG emissions, from knowledge of human psychology. All must be done before the major tipping point of tundra methane self release first observed by 3 groups of scientists in 2009, is fully developed into an unstoppable natural phenomenon of a positive feedback loop(in comes that darn implementation time), Like PETM on steroids, 10 to increasing to 40 times faster, and at least 20% more sequestered CH4 and CO2, with a significantly longer resequestration time (180K yrs. X 1.2=216K years min. From a PETM EL of 30% to the present one being worse than K-T with 85-90% EL.(2M.Y. for PETM would be at least 50% longer or 3 M..Y. to get back the biosphere to healthy diversity.)

PM me for links(they are in my threads at www.Envirolink.org/forum/index.php ).

 

Will all of my respect , that forum - Envirolink.org - delete both of my acc and my topic , Johnny Electriglide .

I need someone help me with the manuscript , I'm just a poor man try my best to make my consience can feel better . I'm still have a long post will coming .

[Essay]

"Yes, the focus on cutting emissions only, and not also including the soil's capacity to store extra carbon (or become a source of emissions itself, if it's disturbed, oxidized, and degraded) is a source of great consternation and heartache" -Essay

 

Good healthy soils are carbon sinks, and the problem is so much (~75%) of the world's soils depleted in various ways. With old and new techniques, the soil can be rebuilt with less effort than some other CO2 reduction ideas, and for increasing, or stopping as much decrease on crop yields.

 

Part of the problem is planting enough trees to absorb Human CO2. Last year's 36.2 Billion tons equals the absorption capacity of

over 72 trillion trees. With tree life spans and maturing this equals 7 trillion trees should be planted each year. More or other means like "Nano Trees", healthy soils mass initiative, and stopping almost all slash/ burn, and fossil fuel use is also needed, FAST.

 

Well, the unfortunate reality is one of continued soil depletion/degradation and future sequested remaining CO2 released from the heat of near thermal max conditions in 3-500 years.

I plant trees each year, but 10, not 1000 like everyone would theoretically have to do. I think it is an impossible task to stop this Juggernaut of overpopulation and greed induced HGHG emissions, from knowledge of human psychology. All must be done before the major tipping point of tundra methane self release first observed by 3 groups of scientists in 2009, is fully developed into an unstoppable natural phenomenon of a positive feedback loop(in comes that darn implementation time), Like PETM on steroids, 10 to increasing to 40 times faster, and at least 20% more sequestered CH4 and CO2, with a significantly longer resequestration time (180K yrs. X 1.2=216K years min. From a PETM EL of 30% to the present one being worse than K-T with 85-90% EL.(2M.Y. for PETM would be at least 50% longer or 3 M..Y. to get back the biosphere to healthy diversity.)

PM me for links (they are in my threads at www.Envirolink.org/forum/index.php ).

 

 

I agree (and science is figuring this out also) that our biological carbon reservoirs could be managed better, so as to even draw down current atmospheric carbon faster than normal, or at least offset current emissions; and that we still need to cut current emissions also.

 

It just amazes me that with the overwhelming need for jobs around the world, how nobody seems to see an opportunity to employ billions of people restoring soils, building new soils, and planting trees. The value that such a change would create, over just a generation or so, is even more overwhelmingly great when compared to the value that any other scheme to fix things would create (per unit of change). Of course that is counting socio-economic and health dimensions, in addition to the ecological and environmental dimensions.

 

 

With all of my respect, that forum - Envirolink.org - deleted both of my acc and my topic, Johnny Electriglide.

 

I need someone help me with the manuscript , I'm just a poor man try my best to make my consience can feel better . I'm still have a long post will coming .

 

They may have deleted your account if they thought you didn't know what you were talking about, or were a spam or marketing agent, or just some sort of wild nut. Your translation and typing may contribute to that, at first glance, without a closer look. Sorry, the world is quick to judge. But....

===

 

Speaking of judgement, the authority of an author ...or how much credibility that author has... is a major factor in getting a manuscript published. Unless you are an established scientist, who has already been accepted as a "co-author" on other scientific papers or manuscripts, then you generally don't have enough authority to even be accepted into the "peer-review process," which is the first part of scientific publishing. In general....

 

The best you could hope for currently, is to write a "letter to the editor" of some magazines, and even newspapers; and hope somebody will print your information, observations, and recommendations. And making it short and easy-to-understand is key to getting anything accepted for general publication. You might do best by just copying quotes from other sources, that also see the same solutions, and then arrange them into a short and simple thesis.

 

My presentations, about these same solutions, are based on quotes from scientific books and reports, and magazine articles. The citations then, for those quotes, are "the authority" for the information I try to share with others. As you can see from what was said above by Johnny E, "Part of the problem is planting enough trees to absorb Human CO2," others agree with you.

 

And others also see that soils are an even larger reservoir of carbon, which we could manage better, that could also strongly and quickly affect the future climate. The scientific evidence for this has been discovered just within the past decade or so, at most, and so that information has not yet become widely known or taught yet. And often, discoveries in one discipline of science, are not recognized as significant to the concerns of other disciplines, until a more integrated perspective is developed.

 

The newly recognized significance of soil carbon has only just recently been making it into the scientific books and reports, and some magazine articles, as journalist look for new advances to write about. But most journalists (and scientists too) think that soil carbon is only about agriculture, instead of also being about climate. And it is a complicated link with climate to explain through simple journalism.

 

That is another part of the problem, since these solutions are not exciting journalistic topics. Bio-sequestration solutions are not high-tech, except in some unique ways, and they don't involve exotic new materials or high-priced equipment that requires various specialists to operate properly. A few people can't get rich quickly, but billions of people could double or triple their subsistence level of income; and that is just not exciting enough, it seems.

 

Keep working at this! Within a few years, or decades at most, these new discoveries and "paradigm shifts" will become widely known enough to be seen as obvious, low-cost, high-return, value-generating, solutions.

Soil-carbon is a good investment for the future; buy low-carbon soil, sell high-carbon soil.

 

~

[iRock]

Before I post my topic on this forum , I have some topics with same info on some others forums :

 

http://www.scienceagogo.com/forum/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=50828&page=2

http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/report-climate-change-and-global-serious-errors-of-designing-technology--d6-e283.php

http://philosophychatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=26468

 

3 environmental sub-forums add 2 forums which delete my topic add this forums = 6 scientific forum .

 

http://www.thescienceforum.com/ , this forum is protected by blocked software , even I use best hide IP software , I couldn’t join this forum to warn members here .

 

 

 

 

I try my best , I don’t have a lot of choice .

 

“The best you could hope for currently, is to write a "letter to the editor" of some magazines, and even newspapers; and hope somebody will print your information, observations, and recommendations. And making it short and easy-to-understand is key to getting anything accepted for general publication. You might do best by just copying quotes from other sources, that also see the same solutions, and then arrange them into a short and simple thesis “

My friend , no one talk about this problem before . So how can I find any quote ? I’m HELPLESS .

http://philosophychatforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=23&t=26468 is the last topic about this problem . I will finish it in the future .

 

After that , I will finish some important things . God give me conscience and I tried . Human and their governments , even they know or don’t know about this problem is not my problem anymore . Conscience make me feel really bad , if I can’t suffering anymore , the last chance is suicide . Very simple . Everyday I think about it .

[hypervalent_iodine]

!

Moderator Note

iRock, you were warned on the previous page to go back and answer some of the questions asked of you. You have still not done this. Please make a coherent attempt at responding to what others here have asked you (and try to be concise). If you do not do this, this thread will be closed.

 

I am also not sure what your last post means? You have quite obviously managed to join SFN.

 

Do not respond to this mod note in the thread. Please use the report feature or PM a member of staff if you have a problem with this note.

[iRock]

If you are familiar with the concept of an abstract or summary please make one for your hypothesis and post it here. Thank you.

The abstract of this topic : show people problem of urban design or any name of this problem . Because when we learn about environment at university , perhap no one teach us about calculate how much CO2 is absorbed before we build a building and after we build a building , is it equal or not , and what will happen if CO2 is absorbed smaller than the past . ANd this topic is also show people even a building with green standard can have a problem . Thank you .

[iRock]

If you are familiar with the concept of an abstract or summary please make one for your hypothesis and post it here. Thank you.

Thank you for told me about : Abstract .

 

Abstract : Do we protect environment good or not ? Example we design our city with 90% area is plants and 10% area is buildings . Is it correct 100% ?No , it’s not correct . Example before we build constructions , the area which wild plants , trees absorb 1 million lbs CO2 , and then we build some buildings , the area which trees , grassland only absorb 900 000 lbs CO2 . So we damage environment , we lost 100 000 lbs CO2 should absorbed by trees , plants , right ? And our environmental law allow that , or legislator , environmental scientists absolutely don’t have knowledge about conservation of absorbing CO2 , creating O2 , absorb water in urban design , ……. And in Climate Change , it’s really not good , when environment which we restore absorb less CO2 than environment of the past , right ? Scientist need to know about this problem . Do we build our cities , towns without comparing value of absorbing CO2 , before and after we build city , town …. 100% around the world ? Yes . Is that a global serious errors of design , yes . All the scientific forum I posted my topic , they're all biology expert , physics expert , ...... but all of them almost silent when read my topic, no one can confirm I was wrong .

 

There is a hope : : MIT ClimateCoLab , James Greyson - Climate Rescue , both follow me : https://twitter.com/HuynhPhuDat

 

http://www.climatecolab.org/web/guest/plans/-/plans/contestId/1300210 .

 

Thank you for some questions members here ask me , it make my project better . Thank you !!!

[iRock]

I'm back for a petition :
I found a global environmental problem: To build a building on an area which grow grass , bush , tree we have to destroy the plants . After finishing , we never replant the same kind of these destroyed plants at others places . In reality , the environmental standard , LEED current version of all the countries on the world never force us to grow these plants again at others places . We can get LEED certificate of Green Buildings , ISO 14000 - Environmental Management certificate or meet US EPA environmental standards even we never replant destroyed plants . Our environmental standards were wrong , only focus on air , water , energy & forget destroyed plants . People need to know this issue . If we solve this issue globally by planting destroyed plants , may be we can solve Climate Change , pls sign to stop this issue . How bad the wrong environmental standards damage our countries :

 

 

Climate Change is attacking our countries ( snow storm ? ) , action pls .

Pls sign & share: https://www.change.org/p/tom-harris-stop-serious-wrong-environmental-standard

Edited November 21, 2014 by iRock

[iRock]

To build a building on an area which grow grass , bush , tree we have to destroy the plants . After finishing , we never replant the same kind of these destroyed plants at others places . In reality , the environmental standard , LEED current version of all the countries on the world never force us to grow these plants again at others places . We can get LEED certificate of Green Buildings , ISO 14000 - Environmental Management certificate or meet US EPA environmental standards even we never replant destroyed plants . Our environmental standards were wrong , only focus on air , water , energy & forget destroyed plants . People need to know this issue .

 

If we look at 1 top view image of a city , that is a set of errors , which each building , house , supermarket , police station , ......... is a sign of error of lost ecosystem which have CO2 sequestration ability . This error decrease legally CO2 sequestration ability of Earth . Urban planners don't know lost ecosystems . Every city , house , building got this problem . This is a hugest problem that we ever know .

 

Example : to build a build we have to destroy 100 trees which can absorb 100 lbs CO2 , if we don't replant 100 trees , we lost 100 trees & we decrease CO2 sequestration ability of our country 100lbs 

We need a policy for destroyed plants to make Co2 sequestration of Earth bigger than CO2 emission , after soak all CO2 at Earth , it begin to soak CO2 of atmosphere .

If we solve this issue globally by planting destroyed plants , may be we can solve Climate Change , pls sign it . If people & governemtns deserve to know this issue , pls sign it : https://www.change.org/p/new-york-times-stop-serious-wrong-environmental-standard

 

Thank you .

Edited November 23, 2014 by iRock

[Ophiolite]

Ex : to build a build we have to destroy 100 trees which can absorb 100 lbs CO2 , if we don't replant 100 trees , we lost 100 trees & we decrease CO2 sequestration ability of our country 100lbs .

This makes no sense.

1. What size are you specifying for your average building?

2. On what basis do you claim 100 trees are destroyed? What about the many areas where building takes place on grassland, or semi-desert?

3. Are you seriously saying that one tree absorbs only 1lb of CO₂?

4. You have completely ignored the substantial amount of sequestered CO₂ in the timber used in the construction of many buildings.

 

If you wish to convince people of what is an important issue you need to much clearer in your statements and accurate in your facts.

[iRock]

1 acre of grassland soak 2300 lbs Co2 per year . Tree soak 1 lbs Co2 is for " Example " , for easy & faster to explain . Sorry

[swansont]

!

Moderator Note

Threads merged. One thread per discussion, please.

[Strange]

Tree soak 1 lbs Co2 is for " Example " , for easy & faster to explain . Sorry

 

If your argument is based on made-up numbers, it is not going to be very convincing. Have you done a detailed analysis?

[overtone]

A tree will put on far more than a pound a year, much of the additional many pounds of weight is carbon, and all that carbon comes from the air.

 

One carbon atom sequestered by a tree means more than three times that weight subtracted from the atmospheric CO2 - each one of the Os is heavier than the C, and they are released as O2 molecules rather than CO2 molecules.

[CharonY]

Calculating CO2 sequestration is actually trickier than one would imagine and there have been huge variation in calculations, depending on the parameters being measured (but obviously also dependent on type or age of the forest). Typically value range from 2-60 lbs CO2 per year. In urban settings these value are typically much lower.