Hacker News Reader

Comment by dozzie | Hacker News Reader

Wasn't Amazon forest deemed net producer of CO2 some time ago?

If we get a direction of such a large processes wrong, how the hell are we so sure that CO2 level is even a source of problem instead of being a result?

View on HN

Just use logical first principles. Wood is basically a bunch lignin and cellulose. Those are just a bunch of C, H, and O in different configurations. The more wood that exists somewhere, the more C, H, and O are sequestered in it. All forests are seasonally more trap or sink. Look at global seasonal CO2 concentration maps (if those haven't been taken down from the EPA website). Forests grow and make leaves during some seasons. They tend to have forest fires during others. Finally, many shed leaves and those rot and release CO2 during other seasons. On the net, though, they trap carbon dioxide, which plants specifically consume in addition to water to make glucose during photosynthesis.

Many, many, many comments on HN use logical first principles and turn out to be wrong.

And many have been right. The burden is on you to provide counter-evidence. If you have reason to believe he's wrong please post it, otherwise your comment is just spreading FUD.

It still produces less CO2. This will of course not be a fact if fire rate increases.

It's a feedback loop. The warmer it gets more CO2 gets produced, not just by humans but by nature. The melting of ice caps will produce about 100 years of human CO2 equivalent methane (CO2 yearly production of 2016, I believe).

Humans are the source of the problem. They can remove themselves from the equation but it requires a less convenient life for most.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com