You are invited to Log in or Register a free Frihost Account!

# Report : Climate change & serious errors of design .

HuynhPhuDat
 Quote: Global warming and the global serious errors of the technology of design The atmosphere of the earth = 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases . The atmosphere of the earth = total atmosphere of all countries so each country basically have to create 78.09% nitrogen, 20.95% oxygen, 0.93% argon, 0.039% carbon dioxide, and small amounts of other gases base on the area of that country . We can call the plant create O2 value and decrease CO2 value base on the area of 1 country is A1 , original O2 /CO2 value of country A without the appearance of citizens of A . When citizens of country A appear , they use O2 and create CO2 so country A have to create O2 value and decrease CO2 value for citizens of A , then citizens of A destroy tree / plant of country A ( build house , build road , .... ) so country A have to restoring O2value and decreasing CO2 value of tree / plant when they destroy tree / plant .I call this is A2 value - O2 / CO2 value of country A must have for the appearance of citizens of country A . So real O2 / CO2 value of country A or A0 = A1 “+” A2 Ex : we have 1 original Earth ( without human kind ) which 1000 plants . Total water of original Earth is 1000 gallons . Here for easiest , I choose 1000 trees . This is a fresh environment , no pollution . And then human kind appear , we destroy environment to build our society , example use trees to make furniture , destroy trees to build a house , here I choose human destroy 500 trees . 1 tree absorb 1 gallon water .Human kind use water , here I choose human use 100 gallons water . North Pole and South Pole , ice is thawing , I choose total water is 100 gallons . Temperature of 1 tree = 21 C degree , 1 human being = 37 C degree . 1 mature tree give O2 enough to 2 human being and here human = 100 persons human use 50 cars , 6 trees can decrease CO2 of 1 car.Earth weight 1000 lbs , every day human use 10 lbs petrol/gas , petrol made from oil , we use petrol /gas meant our engine / house burn petrol/gas . , . So : The total water of Earth ( can make flood , rising sea water ) : 1000 + 500 – 100 + 100 = 1500 gallons water because original Earth have 1000 gallons , destroy 500 meant 500 gallons are not absorbed by trees , 500 gallons water come back to sea , atmosphere , - 100 because human use 100 gallons , + 100 because ice is thawing …. . That’s why sea water is rising . A0 = A1 “+” A2 : to restore fresh environment , our Earth must have : 1000 trees ( original Earth ) + ( 100 trees / 2 ) + ( 50 * 6 )= 1350 trees . Tree here is a representation of O2 / CO2 value . The temperature of the Earth = average temperature of each position of the Earth . So 1 person 37 C degree stand near 1 tree 21 C degree => average temp of this position = (37 + 21 )/2= 29 C degree . So decrease the temperature of each position on this world is really important if we want to decrease the temperature of our hot Earth .Earth is hot , 80% come from sea . 1 day , human burn 10lbs petrol/gas , we decrease weight of Earth everyday , weight of Earth = 1000 – 10 = 9990 lbs . Earth is hot 80% come from sea because weight of Earth is decreased everyday but the core’s temperature of Earth doesn’t change , between water and rock , stone , water is easiest to become hot , that’s why Ocean become hot . THIS IS THE MAIN EXAMPLE I USE TO ANALYZE THE DESIGN OF NOAA’S BUILDING CENTER FOR WEATHER AND CLIMATE PREDICTION . [/b] Sea water is rising . We destroy alot of forest and to many lands become desert. Trees absorbs fresh water . If we call trees are absorbing water sources so when we decrease absorbing water sources , of course sea water is rising a little . And land with living trees will absorb more water than desert . My formula need a lot of trees it's meant trees can absorbs a lot of water . Tree , plant are the connection between sea water and CO2 , we want sea water become lower and decreasing CO2, we need more absorbing water and CO2 sources and trees are the best , plants are the second . Today , structure of CO2 = original CO2 value ( before human kind appear ) and additional CO2 come from oil , coal , gas , …… , human . Oil , coal , … all things are under the ground before human kind appear . The additional CO2 value from oil , gas , coal are the new part of material , add to the original atmosphere of the Earth before human kind appear . North Pole and South Pole , ice is thawing , this is the new part of sea water supply to the original sea water ( before human kind appear ) . Human kind is thing that original Earth don’t have . We have more sea water come from Ice that original Earth don’t have .We have CO2 come from oil , petrol , coal , …. That original Earth don’t have . A2 is a thing that original Earth don’t have but with more sea water and more CO2 value from coal , oil , …. I meant we have more material , the material we use to remove the pollution of human kind from inside the Earth and Ice . ( The CO2 from oil , coal , … is a material to create more O2 ) . It’s a really difficult job but we have a lot of deserts can become absorbing water and CO2 sources . Decreasing CO2 will never solve climate change . Continue to make people and all governments understand about global warming like that is a crime . Continue to solve global warming by decreasing CO2 will make it destroy the whole world .I don’t want to see the world think they are doing good things in NEXT 40 or 50 years but finally have a really bad result .We need to warn the world , at least with decreasing CO2 solution . For 1 country : 1 country need to create the original O2 value of that country + O2 value for activities of citizens of that country . 1 country need to decrease CO2 value just like the original country did and decrease CO2 value of activities of citizens of that country . All of our governments gather in many meeting and talk about “ decreasing CO2 “ but sadly , decreasing CO2 will never can stop climate change . Only restore a environment base on a correct formula of rate of CO2 , O2 , …. just like a atmosphere before human kind appear , land and trees , plants must absorb more water to decrease total water on this Earth , prevent rising sea water . More plants , trees are best for each position on this Earth will help to decrease average temperature of every position on this Earth . A1 , A2 , A0 this formula look like the conversation of mass ( OC , CO2 )when weight of Earth is decreasing every day and weight of atmosphere is increasing every day . Ex : we have 2 area A and B , area A= area B= 4 parts . We plant A only with grass and plant B , 2 parts use grass and 2 parts use very high trees . Of course value of O2 and CO2 of B area > value of O2 and CO2 of A area because high tree always give more O2 and decrease CO2 better than grass . But according to http://members.shaw.ca/tfrisen/is_there_enough_oxygen.htm , mass of O2 of atmosphere = (1.2 x 1018 kg) , we can finish Oxygen in 15 000 years . So here , we can stop focus on Oxygen and pay attention on CO2 – subject of all climate summits When we destroy a forest and use wood to make many things , we leave wild grass and low height tree . But wild grass and low height tree taller a lot than grass we plant in of our building , and value of O2 and CO2 of wild grass and low height tree > O2 and CO2 of grass in front of a building because people usually cut grass every weak . It’s meant grass of building worse than wild grass and low height tree of a destructive forest. When architectures destroy tree/plant and build many famous places such as White House , NATO headquarter , WHO , United Nation , .... , our architectures didn’t compare the value of O2/CO2 of tree / plant they destroy ,this is A1 and O2/CO2 of tree / plant they re – create around the building after they build the building , we call this is A2 . When people work in that building , they and their cars use O2 and create CO2 , I call this is A3 so tree / plant of that area must : A0 = A2 + A3 , A2 must = A1 or O2 / CO2 of plants they re –create must = original O2 / CO2 of plants which they destroyed . I will analyze 1 best building and it’s environment before and after they build the building : NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction , this building finish in 2009 with 50 acres – section and 26 acres for grassland . Google Earth image . This is image of NOAA . Above are original place of NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction , before US build NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction, College Park, Maryland and after they build the building . Sadly , the architecture don’t know about the original O2/CO2 come from this area . 3 buildings , only 1 have a chance to restore the original environment but the architecture don’t take this opportunity for a better environment , they use this for worse environment . This things is a serious errors all around this world when they choose grassland . NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction have 800 employees include staff work inside the building . “ More than 50 percent of the roof surface covered with plants, including chive, sedum, and flowers for better insulation and protection “ ( Credit : NOAA ) I use Google Earth for measuring and I have 26 acres of grassland so I only analyze the 26 acres section to find out did US government protect the environment or not The original place ( A + B + C = 26 acres ) before US government build are 26 acres of trees and wild grass area. With black white image , I estimate 1 acre of tree have 300 mature trees and 2/3 area for grass . "A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs per year- McAliney, Mike. Arguments for Land Conservation: Documentation and Information Sources for Land Resources Protection, Trust for Public Land, Sacramento, CA, December, 1993 On average, one tree produces nearly 260 pounds of oxygen each year. Two mature trees can provide enough oxygen for a family of four. Environment Canada, Canada's national environmental agency I es So 26 acres( A + B + C = 26 acres ) of trees with 300 trees per acre = 26 * 300 = 7800 trees . In 1 year , 26 acres of trees absorb : 7800 *48 = 374400 lbs CO2 . In 1 year , 26 acres of tree produce : 7800 * 260 = 2028000 lbs O2 .

MODERATOR - Copy/Pasted material has been removed and quote tags added. While this is good content, it does break FriHost rules regarding copy/paste and serial posting.

You can read the content of the initial posts in this thread here:
http://www.climate-debate.com/forum/report-climate-change-and-global-serious-errors-of-designing-technology--d6-e283.php
and

— Ankhanu
Bluedoll
It is commendable that you provided such good information on global warming and how trees are a benefit to the earth. Certainly they are. I support your post in agreement however you might also include more systems into your analysis so that the problem can be better understood.

Certainly planting trees is a worthy cause but when we talk about global warming we must also include other important systems. For example, I’ve read that for example South American rain forests, which encompass large tracts of land, do little to change atmosphere levels. Though it is true they absorb co2 they also reverse the process thereby canceling out any change they might produce. They do serve an important role however to help balance other systems. I read that it is water plant life production (algae) that does a better job of controlling atmosphere equilibrium. This is not to say we don’t need trees but to the contraire. However, it is good to look at all the facts so that we can more fully understand our environment.
Bikerman
Ankhanu.
Good content? Hmm....I remain to be convinced. I support your moderation of course, and though this is a clear case of cross-posting, I'm fairly sure that the author here is the original author and since that makes this his own work then I am relaxed about it.
My concerns are more focussed on the content.
Example;
 Quote: "A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs per year- McAliney, Mike. Arguments for Land Conservation: Documentation and Information Sources for Land Resources Protection, Trust for Public Land, Sacramento, CA, December, 1993 On average, one tree produces nearly 260 pounds of oxygen each year. Two mature trees can provide enough oxygen for a family of four. Environment Canada, Canada's national environmental agency I es So 26 acres( A + B + C = 26 acres ) of trees with 300 trees per acre = 26 * 300 = 7800 trees . In 1 year , 26 acres of trees absorb : 7800 *48 = 374400 lbs CO2 . In 1 year , 26 acres of tree produce : 7800 * 260 = 2028000 lbs O2 .

Firstly the author has taken a 'can' and made it into a 'does on average' - very bad science. Secondly there is no direct citation, only a reference to the source - that makes my spideysenses twitch.
Thirdly there is a single dataset being constructed from two disparate sources - very bad practice.
Fourthly there is apparently no attempt to deal with the issue of what contribution the tree makes over a timescale greater than a year or so. Even if we take as a given the figures quoted - and I do NOT - then what happens over the lifetime of the tree? What O2/CO2 cost/benefit is involved in the planting and early growth? What about when the tree dies and decays? Is all the carbon locked-up in the dead wood or does it release CO2, methane and other problematic gasses, thus seriously eroding the presumed beneficial quantities above.
In short, I am not seeing answers to the sort of questions that would be routine for a published piece of science and this makes me twitchy. If the author can provide citations - particularly whether this work has been peer-reviewed - then I might be tempted to relax my scepticism a little. ntil then I think that you are being slightly incautious by calling it 'good content'.
Ankhanu
 Bikerman wrote: Good content? Hmm....I remain to be convinced. ... I think that you are being slightly incautious by calling it 'good content'.

Touche. I was quickly moderating before leaving for work, so spent less time on the content than determining its origin; I only skimmed it looking for key phrases. Most of what I nabbed as I skimmed, however, looked to have some grounding, at least in broad strokes. Your reprimand is warranted

Regarding long term effects, yeah, trees are net carbon sinks; they sequester literal tonnes of carbon from the atmosphere and lock it in their tissues for centuries. Some is released as the tree decays, but much of it is retained for long periods after the tree dies (exact time depends on may biotic and abiotic factors of the ecosystem in which the tree resides, and microhabitat conditions, chemical composition and density of the wood, etc., etc.). Much of the carbon is stored in cellulose, which, as you likely know, is quite difficult (to impossible), and unrewarding, for most decomposers to deal with; the C:N ratio of woody tissues tends to be exceptionally poor, so there is little pressure for organisms to develop means of breaking it down. That carbon tends to stay sequestered for quite some time, even after the main structure of the wood is broken down; it persists in the organic soil horizon.

The author mentions being an "amateur scientist"; which I'm going to assume means that peer-review is unlikely... but ya never know.
Bikerman
And that, folks, is how one disagrees, and resolve said disagreement as adults.
HuynhPhuDat
The post on Climate Debate is mine - Huynh Phu Dat . I hope the mod help me , allow copy and past because this is a project . People need to know about the detail board - O2 , CO2 value .
HuynhPhuDat
Bikerman wrote:
Ankhanu.
Good content? Hmm....I remain to be convinced. I support your moderation of course, and though this is a clear case of cross-posting, I'm fairly sure that the author here is the original author and since that makes this his own work then I am relaxed about it.
My concerns are more focussed on the content.
Example;
 Quote: "A single mature tree can absorb carbon dioxide at a rate of 48 lbs per year- McAliney, Mike. Arguments for Land Conservation: Documentation and Information Sources for Land Resources Protection, Trust for Public Land, Sacramento, CA, December, 1993 On average, one tree produces nearly 260 pounds of oxygen each year. Two mature trees can provide enough oxygen for a family of four. Environment Canada, Canada's national environmental agency I es So 26 acres( A + B + C = 26 acres ) of trees with 300 trees per acre = 26 * 300 = 7800 trees . In 1 year , 26 acres of trees absorb : 7800 *48 = 374400 lbs CO2 . In 1 year , 26 acres of tree produce : 7800 * 260 = 2028000 lbs O2 .

Firstly the author has taken a 'can' and made it into a 'does on average' - very bad science. Secondly there is no direct citation, only a reference to the source - that makes my spideysenses twitch.
Thirdly there is a single dataset being constructed from two disparate sources - very bad practice.
Fourthly there is apparently no attempt to deal with the issue of what contribution the tree makes over a timescale greater than a year or so. Even if we take as a given the figures quoted - and I do NOT - then what happens over the lifetime of the tree? What O2/CO2 cost/benefit is involved in the planting and early growth? What about when the tree dies and decays? Is all the carbon locked-up in the dead wood or does it release CO2, methane and other problematic gasses, thus seriously eroding the presumed beneficial quantities above.
In short, I am not seeing answers to the sort of questions that would be routine for a published piece of science and this makes me twitchy. If the author can provide citations - particularly whether this work has been peer-reviewed - then I might be tempted to relax my scepticism a little. ntil then I think that you are being slightly incautious by calling it 'good content'.

Guys , at least I show you the value of trees /plants this Earth must have to return the original condition of Earth before human appear . Second we burn fossil fuel and trees area is decreasing everyday it's meant total CO2 can absorb is decreasing everyday . Or mass of CO2 is decreasing , supplying to Earth weight is decreasing everyday when weight of Earth is decreasing everyday by burning fossil fuel . Why Earth temperature is increase ? Because if mass of Earth is decreasing , with the same temperature of the core of Earth , it's will become hotter . And the part is easy to become hot is OCEAN . FOCUS ON VALUE OF WATER CAN BE ABORB HELP US PREVENT TOTAL MASS WATER CAN CREATE FLOOD AND RISING SEA WATER . 3rd , at least I can show you we can have a problem about NOAA CWCP even my data is " bad " . Sorry but that's all I can find on Internet . If were wrong , would you please help me correct it ?

I live in Vietnam and I can't confirm how many average trees around NOAA CWCP and how many acre of small wild plants / wild grass under the trees . Unless we ask all environment professors about the date I supply so we can have a correct data
Ankhanu
 HuynhPhuDat wrote: The post on Climate Debate is mine - Huynh Phu Dat . I hope the mod help me , allow copy and past because this is a project . People need to know about the detail board - O2 , CO2 value .

I left links to the original content, so people can read it.
HuynhPhuDat
Ankhanu wrote:
 HuynhPhuDat wrote: The post on Climate Debate is mine - Huynh Phu Dat . I hope the mod help me , allow copy and past because this is a project . People need to know about the detail board - O2 , CO2 value .

I left links to the original content, so people can read it.

You're online right now ? Earth = multi positions of the Earth so if we focus on CO2 / O2 value and temperature of each position on this Earth is a basic way to analyze the Earth . For me I use Google Earth . This is a project create by me .

But I - Huynh Phu Dat officially invite all of you : Do you want to join my project because right now I have a lot of work need to be solve . Data from Google Earth only allow me move to year 1994 or 2002 on average and we need to know we make a society with good environment or not ? Green Building standard of US Green Building Council is good or not if we focus on CO2 and O2 when the pollution of area is increase ?
Ankhanu
Seems that way

Timely information from a new article in Nature concerning the role of individual trees in carbon storage (via growth rate). Seems that compiling data from long-term monitoring projects around the world has unveiled some trends that buck the current understanding of tree growth rates through their lives, and older, larger trees actually increase in growth rate as they age, sequestering more carbon. On the stand level, more research is needed, but the trend may not apply, given that the older the forest, the more likely that a higher proportion of standing trees will be dead, reducing the stand-level sequestration of carbon.

There's a popular explanation on Phys.org, which will likely have to do (along with the abstract) since the actual article is behind a paywall (and Nature tends to limit digital access to the current year's content).

HuynhPhuDat - I'm going to take some time tomorrow to read through what you've compiled and wrap my head around exactly what it is that you're presenting and trying to convey. I'll make some more specific comments after that. There appear to be a couple directions the info is going, and I want to make sure I'm clear on things before really responding.
Bikerman
 HuynhPhuDat wrote: Guys , at least I show you the value of trees /plants this Earth must have to return the original condition of Earth before human appear . Second we burn fossil fuel and trees area is decreasing everyday it's meant total CO2 can absorb is decreasing everyday . Or mass of CO2 is decreasing , supplying to Earth weight is decreasing everyday when weight of Earth is decreasing everyday by burning fossil fuel . Why Earth temperature is increase ? Because if mass of Earth is decreasing , with the same temperature of the core of Earth , it's will become hotter . And the part is easy to become hot is OCEAN . FOCUS ON VALUE OF WATER CAN BE ABORB HELP US PREVENT TOTAL MASS WATER CAN CREATE FLOOD AND RISING SEA WATER . 3rd , at least I can show you we can have a problem about NOAA CWCP even my data is " bad " . Sorry but that's all I can find on Internet . If were wrong , would you please help me correct it ?

a) The Earth's mass is decreasing? Is it?
No. The notion that burning fossil fuel or wood (or anything else) reduces the mass of the Earth is a fallacy. It simply doesn't. Remember basic physics - mass/energy is a conserved quantity. The amount of energy we convert is negligable, nearly all of what we burn is simply chemically converted into other elements and compounds which will weight pretty much the same as the original fuel (actually a bit more, because O2 from the atmosphere will be trapped in the oxidation reaction that is what we generally call fire). The mass of the earth is actually INCREASING because of the dust and cometary material that we continually pick up as we fly through space. It isn't much, on the global scale of things - about 100,000 kg per year, or about the mass of 2 large adults each day.

b) The core of the Earth will mean it gets hotter. Really?
No. Firstly the mass of the Earth is, as explained above, INCREASING, not decreasing, so the basic assumption is wrong. But even if the mass DID decrease, the effect that would have on surface temperature is not a trivial calculation. It might increase - or it might actually decrease. There are many complicating factors such as wavelength emitted and materials absorption spectrums, not to mention the fact that a decrease in mass would make our orbit larger and therefore lower the incident radiation from the Sun....
HuynhPhuDat
Bikerman wrote:
 HuynhPhuDat wrote: Guys , at least I show you the value of trees /plants this Earth must have to return the original condition of Earth before human appear . Second we burn fossil fuel and trees area is decreasing everyday it's meant total CO2 can absorb is decreasing everyday . Or mass of CO2 is decreasing , supplying to Earth weight is decreasing everyday when weight of Earth is decreasing everyday by burning fossil fuel . Why Earth temperature is increase ? Because if mass of Earth is decreasing , with the same temperature of the core of Earth , it's will become hotter . And the part is easy to become hot is OCEAN . FOCUS ON VALUE OF WATER CAN BE ABORB HELP US PREVENT TOTAL MASS WATER CAN CREATE FLOOD AND RISING SEA WATER . 3rd , at least I can show you we can have a problem about NOAA CWCP even my data is " bad " . Sorry but that's all I can find on Internet . If were wrong , would you please help me correct it ?

a) The Earth's mass is decreasing? Is it?
No. The notion that burning fossil fuel or wood (or anything else) reduces the mass of the Earth is a fallacy. It simply doesn't. Remember basic physics - mass/energy is a conserved quantity. The amount of energy we convert is negligable, nearly all of what we burn is simply chemically converted into other elements and compounds which will weight pretty much the same as the original fuel (actually a bit more, because O2 from the atmosphere will be trapped in the oxidation reaction that is what we generally call fire). The mass of the earth is actually INCREASING because of the dust and cometary material that we continually pick up as we fly through space. It isn't much, on the global scale of things - about 100,000 kg per year, or about the mass of 2 large adults each day.

b) The core of the Earth will mean it gets hotter. Really?
No. Firstly the mass of the Earth is, as explained above, INCREASING, not decreasing, so the basic assumption is wrong. But even if the mass DID decrease, the effect that would have on surface temperature is not a trivial calculation. It might increase - or it might actually decrease. There are many complicating factors such as wavelength emitted and materials absorption spectrums, not to mention the fact that a decrease in mass would make our orbit larger and therefore lower the incident radiation from the Sun....

Thank you for explain . I will update my post tomorrow .
Bikerman
No problem. I'm afraid that I can't put any detail to this because I'm an amateur, not a professional physicist.
In fact this is very much the sort of stuff that requires not just a professional physicist but an expert in the specific areas to include (off the top of my head)
• albedo absorption and emission frequency profiles;
• climate modelling - including specifically the systems of heat exchange between crust & atmosphere, crust & ocean, ocean & atmosphere, and maybe even core/mantle & crust for the more far-out hypotheses;
• atmospheric science including radiation profiles for clouds over the range of emission frequencies involved (ie how much ground emitted radiation would be captured at the different em frequencies by atmospheric CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gasses);
and probably a lot more that I am not even aware of.

Funnily enough, we have a bunch of scientists who specialise in ALL of that stuff and, even better, work in this sort of area regularly and therefore have skills and expertise to match their theoretical understanding. Now, what do they call themselves...err...Oh, I remember - CLIMATE SCIENTISTS - those guys and girls who are currently telling us that CO2 and other anthropogenically driven greenhouse emissions are the main issue....I tend to think that since we have to rely on experts to help with these very complex areas of science, it would probably be best to rely on the experts in this particular field - just as we would, for example, seek council with a cosmologist if we wanted to explore solar-system origins, or an evolutionary biologist if we were looking at the development of mammalian species.
HuynhPhuDat
 Bikerman wrote: No problem. I'm afraid that I can't put any detail to this because I'm an amateur, not a professional physicist. In fact this is very much the sort of stuff that requires not just a professional physicist but an expert in the specific areas to include (off the top of my head)albedo absorption and emission frequency profiles;climate modelling - including specifically the systems of heat exchange between crust & atmosphere, crust & ocean, ocean & atmosphere, and maybe even core/mantle & crust for the more far-out hypotheses; atmospheric science including radiation profiles for clouds over the range of emission frequencies involved (ie how much ground emitted radiation would be captured at the different em frequencies by atmospheric CO2 and other 'greenhouse' gasses);and probably a lot more that I am not even aware of. Funnily enough, we have a bunch of scientists who specialise in ALL of that stuff and, even better, work in this sort of area regularly and therefore have skills and expertise to match their theoretical understanding. Now, what do they call themselves...err...Oh, I remember - CLIMATE SCIENTISTS - those guys and girls who are currently telling us that CO2 and other anthropogenically driven greenhouse emissions are the main issue....I tend to think that since we have to rely on experts to help with these very complex areas of science, it would probably be best to rely on the experts in this particular field - just as we would, for example, seek council with a cosmologist if we wanted to explore solar-system origins, or an evolutionary biologist if we were looking at the development of mammalian species.

I have a question : Do US Green Building Council have a standard that how much CO2 must be absorb by the environment around the building ?

For you Bikerman , I have a present .
Prophet MUhammad : God don't have a wife , how can he has a son ?
God create life . Life = cells . Cells create their next generation by absexual reproduction . SO do you think God need wife to have a son ?

God want Mrs Maria become a pregnant for him , and we have Jesus Christ . Today many husband and wife want another woman become a pregnant for them
Ankhanu
 HuynhPhuDat wrote: I have a question : Do US Green Building Council have a standard that how much CO2 must be absorb by the environment around the building ?

No, I do not believe they do.

 HuynhPhuDat wrote: For you Bikerman , I have a present . Prophet MUhammad : God don't have a wife , how can he has a son ? God create life . Life = cells . Cells create their next generation by absexual reproduction . SO do you think God need wife to have a son ? God want Mrs Maria become a pregnant for him , and we have Jesus Christ . Today many husband and wife want another woman become a pregnant for them

Pro-Tip - This is a science forum; if you wish to discuss the unsubstantiated, take it to the Faith forum.
Aside from that, Life ≠ Cells, and not all cells reproduce asexually. You're setting up your premise with lies. I suggest looking into the basics of biology before making silly claims.
HuynhPhuDat
Ankhanu wrote:
 HuynhPhuDat wrote: I have a question : Do US Green Building Council have a standard that how much CO2 must be absorb by the environment around the building ?

No, I do not believe they do.

 HuynhPhuDat wrote: For you Bikerman , I have a present . Prophet MUhammad : God don't have a wife , how can he has a son ? God create life . Life = cells . Cells create their next generation by absexual reproduction . SO do you think God need wife to have a son ? God want Mrs Maria become a pregnant for him , and we have Jesus Christ . Today many husband and wife want another woman become a pregnant for them

Pro-Tip - This is a science forum; if you wish to discuss the unsubstantiated, take it to the Faith forum.
Aside from that, Life ≠ Cells, and not all cells reproduce asexually. You're setting up your premise with lies. I suggest looking into the basics of biology before making silly claims.

Yes , I understand . I need someone confirm CO2 problem and the building . You know , that's all I want . I live in Vietnam and I hope my work can warn people about environmental problem . It's sad that my work never can appear on scientific magazine . I realize we - human - use land very waste , spent money for grass even it will die in winter and almost send CO2 back to air - mainly public area only . I don't use this analyzing for home because kid need grass to play , to run , ...
Thank you for this conversation . All things I can do is posting this work on all scientific forum to warn . That's all I want .
Bikerman
But it isn't science. You are basically posting an uneducated and uninformed opinion and representing it as science. That is NOT what you should be doing.
I'm happy to point out the errors in your hypothesis but since there ARE errors, you really shouldn't be posting it in any other science forums.