It is a pretty funny question. It is a good indication of the contortions of logic that alarmists have found themselves spun into. Since CO2 by itself can't be much of a threat, they are forced to argue that it affects water even though it hasn't been demonstrated to really do what they claim. To me it is like asking how soon will the leprechauns return after we cull the unicorn population. I am just not that convinced that their populations are linked in spite of alarmist claims to the contrary.
It is really sad when self proclaimed climate scientists seem to pretend that temperature is governed solely by CO2 but that is what you get with alarmists.
Exact same answer as I provided to Hey Dook’s question, refer to Hey Dooks's question for the addit info. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;...
Using Hey Dook’s figures then the total amount of CO2 captured by those trees would be very approximately 40 trillion tonnes per year
This is about 1200 times the amount of CO2 that humans release each year, and 13 times the total CO2 content of the atmosphere. On that basis, Hey Dooks’s scenario would have a massive impact on the climate; essentially pretty much all the CO2 would be sequestered from the atmosphere in about a year. The other greenhouse gases would remain so there would still be warming, but on a much reduced scale.
Every second of every day we release about 1,000 tonnes of CO2, as soon as we do it begins the process of dissipation, some of that CO2 will be removed from the atmosphere immediately, but some will remain there for a long time. The average atmospheric residence period of a molecule of CO2 is 115 years.
Once the trees are planted the sequestration process is going to get underway. At the point where they were tiny saplings the amount of CO2 they sequestered would be less than the amount we emit, at this stage the effect would be to slow down the rate of warming.
As the sapling began to grow they would sequester more and more CO2. At a height of 13 metres (40 feet), the rate of CO2 sequestration would equal human output; therefore after five months a balance would be achieved, after that the trees would be pulling CO2 from the atmosphere faster than we released it.
There would be no noticeable lag between CO2 reduction and H2O feedback kicking in and the cooling effect would be immediate.
The effect of all those trees could be described as ‘global cooling’ in so much as this is what would happen, although more accurately it would be a global cooling event – in much the same way as we use the somewhat vague term of ‘global warming’ when referring to the more specific current human induced warming. If the planting of the trees were a deliberate attempt to combat global warming or to influence the climate than the more correct term would be geoengineering or climate engineering.
EDIT: Deleted reference to differntial equations as these formed part of Hey Dooks's question but not yours.
Assumptions used
Diameter of a tree = one thirtieth of the height
Carbon content of tree = 67% of total mass when living
Trees planted at 10m intervals
Volume of tree = length x XSA (no tapering)
Height gain is linear, as much in year 1 as in year 10
Constant human CO2 output (33Gt per year)
About the time that the cows come home. Which, of course, may never happen.
If "ifs" and "ands" were pots and pans, there'd be no need for tinkers.
Dork is busy today trying to ask questions but blocking anyone intelligent enough to answer. So I ask and open it up to the intelligent people also.
