Why does reforestation NOT remove carbon from the atmosphere?
397629
i think it does, where does the carbon in the trees come from otherwise? it comes from the carbon dioxide they use in photosynthesis\n\n--\nWell not indefinitely. If you burn the trees the carbon is released again, or if they decompose the carbon is released as carbon dioxide. I think its called the carbon cycle.
72389
Photosynthesis does *not* produce carbon dioxide. Photosynthesis uses energy from the sun to combine CO2 and H2O to make glucose. Respiration breaks down glucose for energy and gives off CO2.
824709
even if the air isnt polluted, there is still carbon dioxide and water vapor in the air.  When carbon dioxide(CO2) and water(H2O) react in air, they form Carbonic Acid (H2CO3).  Since it is an acid, it is acidic
609852
they stabilize dust, control erosion, entrap air polluting gases, conserving water and harboring wildlife. Climate control is obtained by moderating the effects of sun, wind, and rain. Radiant energy from the sun is absorbed or deflected by leaves on deciduous trees in the summer and is filtered by their branches in winter. We are cooler when we stand in the shade of trees and are not exposed to direct sunlight. In winter, we value the sun's radiant energy; Wind speed and direction can be affected by trees.\n\nThere are many and many more , hope i could cover the gist.
287730
CO2 is moved into cells that are not respiring, so that when the stomata are closed, the plant has CO2 available for respiration, and O2 is not lost from the stomata being open.  C4 plants are found in hot and dry environments where losing O2 would be a disadvantage
261200
No photosynthesis. There is a time of course where plants do not photosynthesize. It is normal. But if you are talking prolonged states of no photosynthesis in all plant biomass, the amount of carbondioxide would go up and 1/since there will be a deficieny in oxygen life on earth would be at risk 2/since CO2 is a green house gas, global warming will be accelerated
184572
The question is not clear. Are you refering to ecological sub-systems with the rainforest?\nRainforests are the most complex of ecosystems, both in terms of structural complexity (several vertical layers, etc.) and in terms of interelationships and functions. \nSome of the sub-systems of the rainforest (although there is no clear separation between them) are the canopy, the underbrush, and the leaf litter levels. All of those are disturbed (destroyed, more likely) by deforestation. All the arboreal habitats just disappear, to be replaced (more or less slowly) by secondary-growth forest, which is much thicker and comprises different species (mostly opportunist species that grow rapidly once a clearing opens); and the leaf litter system (comprising most of the detritivore food web) is also destroyed because the ground level is exposed to direct sunlight and evaporation, as well as the erosive effects of rain.
729198
They don't.  They are allotropic forms of carbon.
320955
One reason maybe the pollutants that are in the areas that will be reflooded.  We do not know the impact they will have on the rest of the ecosystem.
357294
The Earth is surrounded by atmosphere, which is made up of many greenhouse gases. The Earths temperature\n      depends on the solar constant.\n      The Earths surface absorbs heat from the sun and re-radiates it back out to space with the help of clouds, snow,\n      atmosphere dust and sea surfaces, the rest is absorbed by other gases and aerosols, examples of these is the\n      gases from power stations and volcanoes which can be liquid or dust, some solar radiation does not reach\n      space this remains trapped in the atmosphere by greenhouse gases. \n      The temperature of the Earth has changed and is continuing to do so with the help of human activity in rising \n      Co2 levels, from 1850-1996 Co2 rose from 285 p.p.m to 360 p.p.m a 0.7ºc rise in surface temperature.\n      We know how trees and plants are vital to us as they convert Co2 into oxygen to help us breathe, but industry\n      will continue to cut and burn down forests allowing more Co2 into the air, with this decrease in vegetation this\n      means more Co2 will remain in the atmosphere and with the burning of fossil fuels we are also producing more \n      Co2, causing the Earths temperature to warm up.\n      Clouds also play a role in the surface temperature; they absorb radiation this increasing the amount of infrared\n      radiation that is emitted by the atmosphere depending on their altitude and thickness, a cloud is formed when\n      water vapor condenses.
1074251
Simple answer: Carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" get caught up in the upper levels of earth's atmosphere. When rays from the sun enter earth's atmosphere they pass through to the earth's surface and are supposed to reflect off the earth back into space but do not because the greenhouse gases trap them in the atmosphere.  This causes the earth to heat up due to the cosmic radiation in these rays.
929873
lol \n\nu would have to figure out, at least, how much CO2 a "common" rainforest tree can remove as they would remove the most CO2 not saying that other foliage would be insignificant. then figure out spacing between those trees. i think from that point you can figure out just how many square meters of rainforest it would take to remove a ton of CO2. \n\nthen, figure out a percent at which the surrounding foliage would assist in the removal of CO2. shrink the total area by that percent to get a more realistic size.
770197
Because there is supposed to be a balance between plants growing (capturing carbon dioxide and relasesing oxygen) and animal population (eating plant, or eating plant eaters, which ceoms to the same thing in the end, and breathing oxygen, and releasing carbon dioxide). \n\nThat said there is an imbalance as we are burning coal and oil that was carbon stored eons ago underground, so that balance is upset right now.
734963
It reconstitutes in the atmosphere as either smog or methane depending on the last meal of the decease. And thus it hastens global warming.
43192
Forest cover tends to create areas of groundwater recharge and generally slows runoff. Trees tend to buffer the speed which rainfall hits the ground and because they often create areas covered with organic material like leaf litter, the ground has more time to absorb rainfall before it runs off. Bare ground will be subject to erosion as well as higher rates of runoff. \n\nThe burning of trees may contribute to CO2, but is probably insignificant because it is a one time event. The removal of the trees is likely to be accompanied by a long term loss of soil organics, which will also contribute CO2 over time. The real change may be through albedo effects and changes in rainfall related to loss of trees may be an even bigger factor. In Brazil,when trees were removed to be replaced with even darker colored soil, the average temperature of the area increased by about 3 degrees C. Most cities have a heat island around them, often 10% warmer, due to changes in albedo. The lack of trees may change the rainfall patterns, and some hypotheses actually predict that even rain drop size may change. A study in Amazonia known as the Large Scale Biosphere-Atmosphere Experiment is investigating these ideas.
141069
"C3 and C4 Plants\n\nAlmost all plant life on Earth can be broken into two categories based on the way they assimilate carbon dioxide into their systems.\n\nC3 plants include more than 95 percent of the plant species on earth. (Trees, for example, are C3 plants.)\n\nC4 plants include such crop plants as sugar cane and corn. They are the second most prevalent photosynthetic type.\n\nDuring the first steps in CO2 assimilation, C3 plants form a pair of three carbon-atom molecules. C4 plants, on the other hand, initially form four carbon-atom molecules.\n\nIt turns out that the important difference between C3 and C4 species for rising CO2 levels is that C3 species continue to increase photosynthesis with rising CO2 , while C4 species do not. So, C3 plants that can respond readily to higher CO2 levels, and C4 plants can make only limited responses.\n\nThus increased CO2 likely will mean that some plant species will be stronger, more prolific, and may overwhelm those less able to benefit. The nature of plant populations in various areas probably will change; more sedges in place of grasses in marshlands, for example, consequences we don't yet know."
727114
Yes, you can split the C and O from CO2, as said above its done by plants all the time.  There are also several other chemical reactions (the lithium based CO2 scrubbers on the space shuttle).  The problem that that poses, is that in an absolutely ideal world (which this isnt) it would require as much energy to break the CO2 as it gave off when you made it.  For example when you burn coal (pure carbon) you combine it with oxygen and it gives off heat (energy) and CO2.  This is because CO2 is at a much lower chemical energy state.  In order to break the CO2 you would have to add in the exact same amount of energy in order to make it Coal and Oxygen again.  And in the real world, you lose on both sides because the reactions are't 100% efficient.