# Climate Change and Global serious errors of design .

## Recommended Posts

( PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I WERE WRONG )
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 .
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 ) .
We have :O2 / CO2 value of country A or A0 = A1 “+” A2

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 .

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 .

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
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 .

Mature grasslands sequester 2400 - 3600 lbsCO2 per acre each year – Technical Assessment of the Carbon Sequestration Potential of Managed Turfgrass in the United State ,Dr . RanajitSahu , 2008 at the request of the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute .
It is estimated that a 50 by 50 foot lawn (2,500 square feet), releases enough oxygen for a family of four, while absorbing carbon dioxide, hydrogen fluoride and perosyacetyle nitrate This means that one square foot of grass will produce approximately half a kilogram of oxygen a day .
Because wild grass / native plants usually grow under the trees so I estimate 2/3 of 260acres are wild grass / native plants .2/3 of 26 acres are wild grass / native plants . It’s meant about 17 acres are wild grass / native plants . 1 acre = 43560 square feet . I will choose lowest CO2 value for wild grass and native plants : 2400 lbs CO2 per acre per year .
In 1 year , 17 acres of wild grass / native plants absorb : 2400 * 17 = 40800 lbs CO2 .

In 1 year , 17 acres of wild grass / native plants produce : 43560 * 0.5 * 17 * 365 = 135144900 kg O2 .
1 kg = 2.2 lbs so 135144900 kg = 135144900 * 2.2 = 297318780 lbs O2 .

The original O2 value of 26 acres before US build NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction are :2028000 + 297318780 =299346780 lbs O2 for creating O2 per year .
The original CO2 value of 26 acres before Us build NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction are :374400 + 40800 = 415200 lbs CO2 for decreasing CO2 per year .

After US build NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction , they choose grassland in front of the building :

If US use best grass type and I choose highest CO2 value according Dr .RanajitSahu : 3600 CO2 lbs per year so the value of CO2 of 26 acres of grassland can absorb of NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction : 26 * 3600 = 93600 lbs CO2 per year .
And the value O2 of 26 acres of grassland :43560 * 0.5 * 365 * 26 = 206692200 kg O2 .
1 kg = 2.2 lbs so 206692200 * 2.2 = 454722840 lbs O2 .

The 26 acres of trees / wild grass / native plants of original of NOAA can absorb 4.42 % CO2 of 800 employees and 800 cars every year when they work or go to NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction .
The 26 acres of grassland in front of NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction ( after US build the building ) can absorb < 1% CO2 of employees and 800 cars every year when they work or go to NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction because 1% of 9397783 = 93977.83 and I estimate CO2 value grassland can absorb is 93600 lbs .We don’t care about O2 . Things really need is how many lbs CO2 we can decrease . The design of NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction area decrease smaller CO2 than the original area of NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction area . It’s not good when CO2 level are increasing everyday .
Next I will calculate the water can absorb by plants between 26 acres original area and 260 acres grassland after they build NOAA . I will choose the wild grass / native plants can absorb half of mas of water the present grass type of NOAA can absorb and in 1 day have 1 time rain .
The average 10,000-square-foot lawn can absorb more than 6,000 gallons of water from a rainfall event, limiting the potential for runoff. (University of Missouri Extension) .

1 acre = 43560 square foot so 26 acres can absorb : ( 43560 / 10000 ) * 26 * 6000 = 4.356 * 26 * 6000 = 679536 gallons water in 1 day have 1 time rain – the is mass of water 26 acres of grassland can absorb in 1 day in front of NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction . The building is a candidate for silver certification by the U.S. Green Building Council’s LEED™ Green Building Rating System ( Source – NOAA ) .

And original area of 26 acres in front of NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction :
Because 17 acres of wild grass and native plant can absorb half of mass of water the present grass type in front of NOAA Center for weather and Climate prediction can absorb so 17 original acres of wild grass and native plant can absorb : ( 43560 / 10000 ) * 17 * 3000 = 4.356 * 17 * 3000 = 222156 gallons water .

According to multi – sources :
American forest organization :http://www.americanforests.org/discover-forests/tree-facts/ .
North Carolina State University : http://www.ncsu.edu/project/treesofstrength/treefact.htm
……….
1 tree can absorb 50 – 100 gallons water per day . date of the black and white picture , base on Google Earth – history image are 23rd April 1989 . And I choose 7800 trees here are adult trees , which 1 tree can absorb 100 gallons water per day . So 7800 adult trees of 26 original acres can absorb : 7800 * 100 = 780000 gallons water .

If 7800 trees are young trees absorb 50 gallons water each tree so total water 7800 trees can absorb : 7800 * 50 = 39000 gallons water .
So the total water the original 26 acres of NOAA Center for Weather and Climate Prediction can absorb in 1 day is :
222156 + 390000 = 612156 gallons water if all the trees are young trees .
222156 + 780000 = 1002156 gallons water if all the trees are mature trees .

When I take a look at this image with the date : 1989 I really think that all trees are mature trees , can absorb 100 gallons water per day per tree . Even if someone estimate 1 acre only have 120 trees , the value of CO2 can absorbed by trees can be 149760 lbs per year and bigger than ….. , this still a really bad design environment .
Generally , about CO2 and water , the design of 26 acres in front of this building is bad .

All the small images in the picture are National Research Council of Canada , five building , five area , how many lbs CO2 can be decreased ? I don’t know . Do they do CO2 research level every day ? Do they have a speech at Climate summit 2013 at Warsaw ? Except all the areas , in the future they will build something , if not they’re really bad area when we think about Climate Change , Rising Sea Water .

Cambridge University on the left and NATO Headquarter on the right have the same problem like NOAA CWCP .

This problem appear all around the world . On my blogspot , I have about 193 building have the same problem , a lot of universities around this world , a lot of industrial area have the same design like NOAA CWCP , a lot of parks …… and more inside my computer . If we fix all the areas have problem , we can raise our head when talk about Climate Change at Climate summit , if not it’s just like a joke when government , scientist talk about Climate , CO2 level , ….. Please do not think too far , look at your position you’re working right now or your home first . How many position on this world can have this problem ?
The US, a country of around 301 million people has around 125 million houses [all housing data come from the American Housing Survey of the United States, published by the US Department of Housing and Urban Development every two years, most recently in August 2006, available here].
So in US , at least more than 1 million positions have this type of problem like NOAA CWCP because all the architecture found a area with trees , destroyed that place , build a house and than place some trees of course will smaller than number of trees original area . I don’t want to talk about this .
All I want to say are all public buildings belong to government , parks , organizations , universities , companies , industrial area ( I found a lot off positions inside my country and outside my country ) , non government organization , buildings , school , college , ……. On my blogspot , I have more than 193 positions belong to many countries , on my PC , I have more than that , ….. Perhaps around this world can have 193 000 position like this or more than that , 1 000 000 position , ……
I really hope all organizations when you have this document will help me officially talk about this problem to help the world fix this problem . When Climate is Changing , and Climate Summit at Warsaw have a amazing result enough to disappoint people , keep silent about this look like a crime when we can fix a lot of positions have this problem . Really huge problem . BECAUSE ABSORB MAXIMUM CO2 / WATER IS NOT A STANDARD OF US GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL . All try to reduce CO2 , not try to absorb maximum CO2 as they can , weakness of our standards . O2 is not as important as CO2 at climate summit . Even I have a better way to calculate but my accuracy belong to data I found . This is my best . If you have a better data , show me but I confirm that NOAA CWCP ‘s environment is a worst design if we think about CO2 / water but good about O2 .

The data I found on Internet . I’m a amateur scientist . I hope someone will tell me I was right or wrong .

Edited by hypervalent_iodine

##### Share on other sites

People remove O2 and produce CO2.

To do that they eat food.

The food was made by plants taking CO2 from the air, and making O2.

Those two processes ballance out.

You have forgotten that people grow a lot of crops.

The problem is not that we breathe, but that we burn fossil fuels.

##### Share on other sites

USGBC is a private organization though. Not sure what you can really gain out of a critique.

IMO underground sequestration is probably more practical.

##### Share on other sites

People remove O2 and produce CO2.

To do that they eat food.

The food was made by plants taking CO2 from the air, and making O2.

Those two processes ballance out.

You have forgotten that people grow a lot of crops.

The problem is not that we breathe, but that we burn fossil fuels.

Yes , when I calculate the CO2 from cars if 800 NOAA CWCP's employees use car ., I think I really focus on CO2 come from fossil fuels .

First I think that decrese CO2 will never solve climate change . If we focus on CO2 we better find a fomular , and I give people : A1 “+” A2 . I think it's easy and understandable . And totally better than " decreasing CO2 " because it give you a better view about how to solve CO2 . Have you ever go to currency exchange table ? , we exchange CO2 of cars / bus / ..... unit into mature tree unit .

Second : " USGBC is a private organization though. Not sure what you can really gain out of a critique . IMO underground sequestration is probably more practical. I think USGBC have a mistake in their standard ". Between 2 environment : before and after we build the building . The " green standard " don't give us the best standard if we focus on CO2 . Really . If they focus on O2 / CO2 / water like me , they will know the estamte value CO2 / O2 / mass of water can be absorb to make environment give higher CO2 / O2 / mass water value .

About NOAA CWCP , I can give you 3 problem I found and I only focus on the environment only :

1st , without knowledge about CO2 / O2 / water come from the the environment , even NOAA CWCP can decrease the value of CO2 / water can be absorbed by plants around the building even they can double O2 can be created from that . All Climate Summit focus CO2 of the atmostphere , not O2 .

2nd USGBC need more 3 standards about CO2 / water can be absorbed and O2 can be created . In your opinion , make a environment absorb less CO2 / water is bad or good in Climate Change age / Rising Sea water is bad or good ? I think's it's bad . If the whole world follow the standards without CO2 / O 2/ water knowledge , they will create a lot of buildings have problem like NOAA CWCP but have a green cerificate , in Canada , they have Canada Green Building .

3rd Choosing grassland area is waste space in Climate Change age . I will update this problem tommorow .

Edited by iRock
##### Share on other sites

When we do research Climate research , we have many results just like the temperature of Earth or many locations , areas increase or decrease , we know how strong a storm , tornado is , the speed of storm ,we know how many storm ….. . We know ocean , plants absorb CO2 / water and create O2 , ….. . We have many data system . It’s really good . I – Huynh Phu Dat really respect your works , scientific work . And than many scientific reports appear on many respective magazine like Nature , ….. . with amazing definition for solving Climate Change : decreasing CO2 will solve Climate Change . I can’t understand why all of you – real scientist - do that . Why tell your governments and human kind a answer like that ? We need focus more on Climate Change and CO2 / water are main problems .

Even how great the data results you have , about Earth , Plants , Ocean , Atmosphere , …. Please realize : the CO2 of atmosphere is increasing because ocean , plants , land , ……..CAN’T ABSORB ALL CO2 , Or :

Value of CO2 pollution of human kind > Value of CO2 that plants , ocean , lands , …………… can absorb . Well done , NOAA CWCP when finished NOAA CWCP building at 2009 . And Value of CO2 pollution of human kind minus Value of CO2 that plants , ocean , lands , …………… can absorb => value of CO2 pollution increased of atmosphere .

If the value of ocean , plants , land , …… totally absorb 1 lbs CO2 every year . And we create 2 lbs CO2 every year . So ocean , plants , land absorb 1 lbs CO2 . 2 – 1 = 1 . 1 lbs is a value that ocean , plants , land , …. can’t absorb . Solving CO2 pollution by decreasing CO2 emission sound great and what is the limit of CO2 that land , ocean , plants can absorb? Can 7 000 000 000 human kind decrease CO2 pollution to the limit of CO2 than land , ocean , plants , ….. can absorb ? Please remember we destroy forest everyday and our population is increasing every day . China is a very polluted 1 billions citizens country , it’s nice to see China now allow family can have more than 1 child , what will happen with polluted 2 600 000 000 citizens country ? What is the limit of China’s population base on China’s area ?

What is the limit of the population the world should have ? Shall the population should keep about 5 or 6 billion . Is it the time we stop increase population ? Is each country base on area , have a limit of population and population of each country should smaller than that because of limit of CO2’s pollution of each country include land , plants , ocean , ….. can absorb .

I don’t believe CO2 pollution of human can decrease equal with value of CO2 that plants , ocean , lands , …………… can absorb at least in next 5 or 10 years .

Perhaps we can’t solve all human pollution , but begin with small part like building , we can have a better hope . I am working with part 2 . I hope I can finish this work in 2 or 3 days .

Edited by iRock
##### Share on other sites

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

##### Share on other sites

Can 7 000 000 000 human kind decrease CO2 pollution to the limit of CO2 than land , ocean , plants , ….. can absorb ? Please remember we destroy forest everyday and our population is increasing every day . China is a very polluted 1 billions citizens country , it’s nice to see China now allow family can have more than 1 child , what will happen with polluted 2 600 000 000 citizens country ? What is the limit of China’s population base on China’s area ?

What is the limit of the population the world should have ? Shall the population should keep about 5 or 6 billion . Is it the time we stop increase population ? Is each country base on area , have a limit of population and population of each country should smaller than that because of limit of CO2’s pollution of each country include land , plants , ocean , ….. can absorb .

I don’t believe CO2 pollution of human can decrease equal with value of CO2 that plants , ocean , lands , …………… can absorb at least in next 5 or 10 years .

Perhaps we can’t solve all human pollution , but begin with small part like building , we can have a better hope . I am working with part 2 . I hope I can finish this work in 2 or 3 days .

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

It's nice when someone reply me But with many questions , I will not answer these questions Sorry , but it will contain a lot of work if I answer these questions . Really sorry .

NOAA CWCP base on 50 acres area . 24 acres for building , 26 acres for grassland .

So first they need to re - create the 26 acres become grassland + ( 300 trees / per acre * 26 )

And because of A0 = A1 " + " A2 . If the Earth only have 1 building create CO2 pollution , so even they we have more 26 acres back to normal ( we must wait about 15 years for all the trees become adult so they can absorb 48 lbs CO2 per year ) , we lost 24 acres for the building , 24 acres never can absorb CO2 / water as the past . So we need more 24 acres of grassland + ( 300 trees * 26 acres .We use area for building , we must have another area with same size for replacement to absorb Co2 /water , create O2 .

And for pollution of 800 cars , we need more area with plants to absorb CO2 of 800 cars . Relly plant more trees or plants , and not base on the original Earth - Original Earth don't have 1 building NOAA CWCP

So how many State of US have a rule : you spent 1 square foot for the building , you must find another 1 square foot don't have trees , plants and then plant trees / plants for replacement 1square foot of building you build .

And the owner / company / org of the building must solve CO2 of cars of employees .

We build a city near a forest and then increase the size of the city , destroy forest , the area of the city ( house , road , buildings , ......... will under cement , stone , .... not asorb CO2 / water anymore ) . We need absorbing source of CO2 / water for replacement . All countries did it , all countries have the same problem !!!!

US EPA Region 5 Cleveland Office:25089 Center Ridge Road Westlake, OH 44145-4170 . EPA Science and Ecological System Support Division 980 College Station Rd Athens, Georgia 30605

. Where is my absorbing source of CO2 / water for replacement when they destroy forest for EPA buildings ? This is what a United States Environmental Protection Agency can do in Climate Change ?

Even CO2 of cars , nucleAR POWER PLANT , Coal power plants , planes , ... become 0 , we still make Climate Change .

Next will be a exercise .

Edited by iRock
##### Share on other sites

iRock you say you do not have the time to reply to my question. Here are some points I advise you to consider.

1. I did not ask a question. I asked you to provide an abstract, a summary of your hypothesis.

2. This is a discussion forum, not a personal blog. You are expected to respond to reasonable questions and requests by other members. Asking for an abstract is a reasonable request.

3. I have no intention at all to read any of your posts until and unless you provide an abstract. I strongly suspect many other members will feel exactly the same. By refusing to provide one you are harming yourself, since few will give your idea any consideration.

Thank you.

##### Share on other sites

" What is the limit of the population the world should have ? Shall the population should keep about 5 or 6 billion . Is it the time we stop increase population ? Is each country base on area , have a limit of population and population of each country should smaller than that because of limit of CO2’s pollution of each country include land , plants , ocean , ….. can absorb . "

I just give you questions because it's time for us think about the sufferance of the land when our population is increasing everyday .

These questions are too difficult to give answers if you don't have time to work . I'm a graphic designer , not a scientist . But let me explain a little :

If the Earth only have 1 position like NOAA CWCP building only . 1 building . If the total area of Earth is 10 of plants - create O2 , absorb CO2 / water , we build the building , that building cost 1 . So : 10 - 1 = 9 . 9 is plants area can asorb CO2 / water , create O2 . because we use 1 for the building , we need 1 replaced area with the size 1 . Why ? the 1 area for NOAA CWCP have plants above . We use 1 , that area with the size 1 doesn't has plants anymore . So even if land under the floor of NOAA CWCP still absorb CO2 , plants of original area with the size 1 are the damage we create when we build 1 building , that's why we need replaced areas . We have the same problem when we buid roads when above the road's surface don't have plants anymore even we plant palnts along the road , ........

I promise I will continue my work , for an abstract . Not limit of population . But only for CO2 and 1 country , US . why , because of good data i can find .

Thank you .

Edited by iRock
##### Share on other sites

The math isn't as simple as comparing trees no trees. You have to take the whole picture into consideration. How much pollution and waste would have been generated had the development been handled differently. Water, heat, light, vehicle traffic, energy expenditures.

NOAA is also involved in preventing worse disasters(waste/pollution) elsewhere. I'd rather they be good at their job and help keep destruction down across the Nation rather than worry about tree planting.

There are also a number of official and de facto government nature preserves. A number of areas have also "gone back to nature" as the economic activity shifted.

Our best bet is to store the CO2 until the point that we are regularly incorporating carbon into permanent useful forms. At that point mining the CO2 reservoirs might even become a big business. Not too far off from some of the present day scrap metal recycling, doing far more for the environment than about everything else we do.

You mainly just don't sound like a citizen and I don't approve of anyone telling another country how they should manage their affairs(not even my own). You can make suggestions but at best they lack the knowledge necessary to represent an informed opinion.

##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

iRock - answering questions is non-negotiable. This is a discussion forum not a blog. Please take some time to go back through the thread and answer those questions that you are able to or explain why the idea does not allow this. Make sure you do this before posting another new long post with new content.

This is part 8 of our rules section on posting:

Preaching and "soap-boxing" (making topics or posts without inviting, or even rejecting, open discussion) are not allowed. This is a discussion forum, not your personal lecture hall. Discuss points, don't just repeat them.

And FYG - almost all modern science is the result of a collaborative process; discussion improves an initial idea and lays the groundwork for that idea to become a scientifically testable hypothesis.

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

##### Share on other sites

If you are a foreign citizen and you do know what you are talking about then feel free. I just don't approve of people railing against my country without having all or even most of the facts.

Edited by Endy0816
##### Share on other sites

!

Moderator Note

iRock - answering questions is non-negotiable. This is a discussion forum not a blog. Please take some time to go back through the thread and answer those questions that you are able to or explain why the idea does not allow this. Make sure you do this before posting another new long post with new content.

This is part 8 of our rules section on posting:

And FYG - almost all modern science is the result of a collaborative process; discussion improves an initial idea and lays the groundwork for that idea to become a scientifically testable hypothesis.

Do not respond to this moderation within the thread.

I will need a little time because it will need some graphic jobs .

" If you are a foreign citizen and you do know what you are talking about then feel free. I just don't approve of people railing against my country without having all or even most of the facts."

You know , I live in Vietnam , even if I bring a story about a building , not 1 building but a lot , about CO2 pollution of people everyday go there by car and the plants in front of the building , tell scientists in Vietnam . They will tell me " crazy , stupid " even Vietnam have a lot of Climate Change's disaster . The story about the building I can post on architectural forum and sciencetific forum . I choose scientific forum because I use scientific data . I search the answers . 100 gigaton CO2 atmostphere . If US emit 50 million tons CO2 , and US intend to reduce 1 lbs CO2 of the atmostphere so lands , sea , plants of US , ..... must absorb 50 millions and 1 lbs CO2 . I don't against any country when I bring a CO2 , O2 formula here . this thing cost a lot of time . I don't against any country if on my blogpost , I use a lot of images of of many building around the world . But because of Google Earth historical image , I only can choose what I can find , most of them only allow me come back to 1994 or 2002 , 2000 even I need to check the original area , before human use this land or that land to confirm they did good or bad . The main architectual rule of almost goverment's buildings will choose grassland in front of building if they have space even CO2 pollution of building's cars is huge . That is feeling , not science at all . And I only focus on buildings .

I only hope 1 person here can understand me . I'm alone . I work with this project because I want to help our scientists .

Lonely , darkness , no one understand me . Am I a stupid man when I pay attention on CO2 of people go to work , of the building everyday ?. I feel sad . really sad day by day . I'm only wish I finish my work .

I will need somedays for an abstract .

Thank you .

P/S : I have a question : when I use Google search for land absorb CO2 . I can't find the land , type , soil , ..... under the cement , the floor , the stone , sidewalk , asphalt , .... or under skyscraper , can them absorb CO2 like before they built every thing above them ? It's not like natural soil , things we can plant every kind of plants . And cement , the floor , the stones , bricks , sidewalk , asphalt , ...... all things we use to create the surface of a city , can it absorb CO2 ? Thank you .

Edited by iRock
##### Share on other sites

When we construct a building and its associated environment (roads, parking, etc) we remove trees and vegetation, both of which are efficient at removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Also, the construction of the building generates more carbon dioxide, as do the workers in the building when they travel to work. This is an imbalance that makes the problem of atmospheric carbon dioxide increase worse and thus increases global warming. More care should be taken in planning, design and construction of buildings to minimise this problem.

##### Share on other sites

When we construct a building and its associated environment (roads, parking, etc) we remove trees and vegetation, both of which are efficient at removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. Also, the construction of the building generates more carbon dioxide, as do the workers in the building when they travel to work. This is an imbalance that makes the problem of atmospheric carbon dioxide increase worse and thus increases global warming. More care should be taken in planning, design and construction of buildings to minimise this problem.

I wish it just simple like your comment . Please give me some day because today I'm working with graphic detail .

##### Share on other sites

P/S : I have a question : when I use Google search for land absorb CO2 . I can't find the land , type , soil , ..... under the cement , the floor , the stone , sidewalk , asphalt , .... or under skyscraper , can them absorb CO2 like before they built every thing above them ? It's not like natural soil , things we can plant every kind of plants . And cement , the floor , the stones , bricks , sidewalk , asphalt , ...... all things we use to create the surface of a city , can it absorb CO2 ? Thank you .

Soils don't automatically "absorb" CO2. Healthy, growing soils (will only "absorb" CO2, as those soils) build up a higher carbon content [in the form of Humic Substances (HS)] when the conditions are right and enough moisture is avialable. But those same soils will lose carbon (as the carbon from HS is metabolized or oxidized or "mineralized" into CO2) if the soil dries out or other conditions degrade the soil.

So it is a good question to wonder about what happens to soils that are paved over. I don't know about research, but I may find some time to look. I often wonder about soils buried under glaciers, so that would be a good place to start.

But more than the few buildings that you are targeting, I expect the vast conversion of agricultural lands into suburban tract homes, streets, and driveways, paved over much more land. Agriculture itself, as parcticed on an industrial scale, also degrades the carbon content of soils. Including the energy intensive resources used in modern agriculture, over 30% of all greenhouse emissions can be linked to that economic sector of the global economy. So you're on the right track, looking at land use for fixing the carbon imbalance problem (as well as many other global socio-economic problems).

~

p.s. To clarify, the soils don't absorb CO2 directly, but they "absorb" or store carbon, which came from the organic matter that plants created by converting CO2 into sugars.

Edited by Essay
##### Share on other sites

My name is Huynh Phu Dat , a graphic designer . This is an abstract about how to solve CO2 by a view of a amateur scientist :

( Please correct me if I was wrong )

( Our forefathers , ancestors should know this truth thousand years ago , ..... sadly )

A Earth before human kind appear is fresh by large amount of plants around the Earth . Human appear( 1 ) . We change the Earth , build house , road , building , airport , stadium , ............ exploit wood ( 2 ) . And we , our cars , bus , plane , gas , oil .....create CO2 ( 3 ) .

Here , just focus on O2 , CO2 , water of area :

( 1 ) This is a environment before human appear :

Plants and roots .

We mainly choose to build society near a place have water , rivers and that place will have plants . Or original Earth , original area have plants . Or original Earth , original area create O2 , absorbs CO2 / water . Than we build our society :

( 2 )

No plants , no roots .

Ex : we use 100 square acres for a building , 50 acres for a building , 50 ACRES FOR GRASSLAND . 100 acres in the past have adult trees , wild grass . So if we restore the environment after build the building , we MUST MAKE 50 ACRES IN PRESENT ABSORB CO2 VALUE = CO2 ABSORBING VALUE OF 100 ACRES OF TREES + WILD GRASS IN THE PAST . It’s meant about value of CO2 , O2 , water , after human use this area , it’s doesn’t change . It’s equal between past and present . Human don’t decrease absorbing CO2 , water , creating O2 value of that area . If after human restore the 50 acres and absorbing CO2 / water , creating O2 value less than 100 acres of the past , so we must find another area and create plants that absorb CO2 / water , create O2 in supply for the absorbing CO2 / water, creating O2 that we need , want . CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 .

Have you ever stand in front of a row of trees ,on the left are some skyscrapers , on the right is a road . Just imagine the environment in the past of area of all building’s size , the floor and the environment of the road . So the question is : The value of absorbing CO2/ water value , creating O2 value will equal with value of absorbing CO2 /water , creating O2 of the area of all skyscrapers ( left area ) add with the area of the row of trees in the past , what was here ( between ) add with value of absorbing CO2 , water , creating O2 of the environment of the road in the past ( right ) . Think about CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 .

We build a lot of roads . And a road go through a wild grass area , bush trees , a forest . Roads decrease of absorbing CO2 , water , creating O2 value of wild grass area , forest , …… We don’t have a CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 .

Have you ever see aairport ? No plants at landing field .If we destroy all plants for airport . We should find a empty place , and plant any kind plants , to make it replace absorbing CO2 , water , creating O2 value = value of absorbing CO2 , water , creating O2 of the airport’s environment ( plants )in the past .

And many things more , ………

All the process is 100 % comparison of absorbing CO2 , water , creating O2 value of the past and the present , for CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 .

All CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 of buildings , roads , house …. Add with CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 of forest we destroy , exploit for wood .

CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 of buildings , roads , house , forests , ….. => CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 of town , city , state , ……. => CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 of country => CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 of Earth’s plants .

After we have CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , O2 of Earth’s plants . ( original Earth )

(3)

We know cars , bus , ship , plane absorb O2 , create CO2 , CO2 of fossil fuel , gas , …….. So we must have area of plants for of absorbing CO2 , creating O2 if we don’t want CO2 from these things are our problem .

The architecture don’t know about CONSERVATION OF CO2 , WATER , no one know it before .

And no one can confirm land , soil in a city , town which under asphalt , rock , boardwalk , …. Will absorb , store CO2 equal with natural land , soil before we build city , town ( plants have root , root make land become good quality , and which asphalt , boardwalk , stone , brick above , no plant’s roots under it )

Just walk into town , city , university , museum , ...... , look around and calculate . Even your city , town design with 70 % for plants and 30 % for building , house , it's not correct .

Even how large average plants size per each person you have , it's not base on CO2 , O2 , water . Plants have different type , some absorb a lot of CO2 , some are just for fun .

So things are not simple .

Edited by iRock
##### Share on other sites

Update Time

The CO2 of atmosphere is increasing because of emitting CO2 value of cars , bus , human , …. Bigger than absorbing CO2 value of plants , lands , ocean , …….

Compare time :

Decreasing CO2 solution until this solution can absorb CO2 of atmosphere : Here only Red go down

Decreasing Co2 and increasing CO2 absorbing at the same time make the absorbing CO2 of atmosphere

Process begin faster .

When both Red move down and Green move up , the process will faster than just only Red go down – or we only choose decreasing CO2 .

This is a present for my friend , Sam A . Mitchell - Essay . Happy Birthday !!!!

Edited by iRock
##### Share on other sites

When both Red move down and Green move up , the process will faster than just only Red go down – or we only choose decreasing CO2 .

Thanks for that. It is nice to see somebody else thinks we need to not only reduce the CO2 emissions, but also increase the absorption (biosequestration) of CO2, to restore stability in temperate-zone climates.

The carbon-richness in soils, which is critical to restoring and maintaining productive soils, comes from CO2 that plants have converted into "root exudates" that then "feed" and help grow the soil.

===

Mostly, high-tech strategies for cutting emissions are being developed and/or implemented. Only a very few emission-cutting strategies employ natural (low-tech) means, and none of these(?) recognize the "carbon negative" potential in some strategies ...such as growing more productive soils!

& the teacher's guide at: http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/pdfs/teachers_guide.pdf

===

The most significant advance toward recognizing the significance of carbon-rich soils (Mollisols & Chernozems) for developing productivity and for stabilizing atmospheric carbon levels, comes from a recent report by the American Society for Microbiology; and there is a description and link to the pdf report at: http://academy.asm.org/index.php/browse-all-reports/800-how-microbes-can-help-feed-the-world ...

The actual report in .pdf format can be found above or searched online under: HOW MICROBES CAN HELP FEED THE WORLD.

It's not about eating microbes, but rather about using microbes to help build and maintain carbon-rich, productive soils.

===

If you want to learn about all the connections between civilization and land use, then some good books to read (or just read summaries of) would be:

Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum ...by Ruddiman

Vestal Fire ...by Pyne

Changes in the Land ...by Cronin

Larding the Lean Earth ...by Stoll

1491 ...by Mann

Thanks again!

~

Edited by Essay
##### Share on other sites

Wow , with a reply like that I think you have another keyboard , right ? And to many books to read , ....

##### Share on other sites

Thanks for that. It is nice to see somebody else thinks we need to not only reduce the CO2 emissions, but also increase the absorption (biosequestration) of CO2, to restore stability in temperate-zone climates.

The carbon-richness in soils, which is critical to restoring and maintaining productive soils, comes from CO2 that plants have converted into "root exudates" that then "feed" and help grow the soil.

===

Mostly, high-tech strategies for cutting emissions are being developed and/or implemented. Only a very few emission-cutting strategies employ natural (low-tech) means, and none of these(?) recognize the "carbon negative" potential in some strategies ...such as growing more productive soils!

& the teacher's guide at: http://cmi.princeton.edu/wedges/pdfs/teachers_guide.pdf

===

The most significant advance toward recognizing the significance of carbon-rich soils (Mollisols & Chernozems) for developing productivity and for stabilizing atmospheric carbon levels, comes from a recent report by the American Society for Microbiology; and there is a description and link to the pdf report at: http://academy.asm.org/index.php/browse-all-reports/800-how-microbes-can-help-feed-the-world ...

The actual report in .pdf format can be found above or searched online under: HOW MICROBES CAN HELP FEED THE WORLD.

It's not about eating microbes, but rather about using microbes to help build and maintain carbon-rich, productive soils.

===

If you want to learn about all the connections between civilization and land use, then some good books to read (or just read summaries of) would be:

Plows, Plagues, and Petroleum ...by Ruddiman

Vestal Fire ...by Pyne

Changes in the Land ...by Cronin

Larding the Lean Earth ...by Stoll

1491 ...by Mann

Thanks again!

~

...Yes, at odd times I can borrow a regular computer. I'll try to fill in that list.

I did find the page numbers, for some key points I've been ranting about since 2011, in that ASM report, "How microbes can help feed the world [2013]."

The significance of evolutionary relationships is highlighted well on page 6-7, especially the first two sentences (of main text) on p.6 ...and the first paragraph on p.7 ...plus the hilarious line ...about the evolution of plants: "How did they [plants] manage to avoid being consumed, especially since they cannot run away?"

There is a fascinating chart on page 9.

And then on page 12, in the last paragraph, is the most significant information (new discovery), which I have been highlighting in one of my slides ...about the rhizosphere.

"It has been estimated that up to 30% of a plant's primary production (that is, the amount of carbon the plant turns into organic matter through photosynthesis) actually leaves the plant as exudate into the soil; the microbes must be making a fairly substantial contribution to earn such a high investment of the plant's resources."

Edited by Essay
##### Share on other sites

I send you a manuscript , and at the end at final part of the manuscript , I confirm protecting environmental law systems , LEED , or any protecting definations help the word decreae absorbing CO2 and decrease creating O2 , base on the buildings , roads , .......... . Too bad if we know about conservation of CO2 , O2 .

I read a lot environmental law systems and I understand that truth . Broken heart , really sad .

##### Share on other sites

• 2 weeks later...

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 for me also. As I've mentioned in our chats, agriculture affects a much larger percentage of the planet's soils. Here are some numbers about the carbon reservoirs, in general; I'll try to find some specifics on agriculture (and forestry too) compared with urban disturbances. I think deforestation itself accounts for over a gigatonne (1Gt) of carbon emissions. Let me know about any questions....

...They don't highlight the small contribution, which the decomposers make naturally, to enriching the soils with stable carbon (the same sort shown by the thin downward pointing arrows coming from the phytoplankton, zooplankton, and fish) in this cartoon.

But that is a newly discovered, significant player in the carbon cycle.

...much of this information below is from this University of New Hampshire, in USA.

Quantities for Carbon (not CO2), [CO2 = C x 3.67; ....so 10Gt of Carbon = 36.7Gt of CO2]
“... a Peta-gram (Pg), also known as a Giga-ton (Gt)....”
[Huynh, sometimes they use tons (2000 pounds) and sometimes metric tonnes (2,200 pounds, or 1000 kilograms (sorry, not 2000 kg.) ...and for these purposes, they are equivalent].
Terrestrial: 1,500 Gt [Huynh, most recent estimates have doubled this number, so maybe up to 3,000 Gt]
...[“Current estimates suggest photosynthesis removes 120 PgC/year from the atmosphere and about 610 PgC is stored in plants at any given time.”]...
Oceans: 38,000 Gt [38,000 Gt Total; but about 1,000 Gt are labile ...quickly/easily exchanged]
Atmosphere: 800 Gt [Huynh, this source says 750 Gt, but it is a few years old. I’ve heard 800 recently]
Crust (sedimentary/geologic): 75 million Gt of carbonates (60 million Gt) and kerogens (15 million Gt)
[kerogens include Fossil Fuels, of which we burn and add about 10 Gt/yr to the atmosphere.]
Fossil fuel geologic reserves including:
Tar Sands: 100 Gt
Peats: 250 Gt
Lignites: 500 Gt
Oils: ~1,000 Gt
Shale Oil: ~4,000 Gt
Coals: ~10,000 Gt
Gases: ~10,000 Gt
...from Killops & Killops, Introduction to Organic Geochemistry; 2005.
Huynh,
These "fuel" reservoirs formed over geologic time, as various carbon-rich "soils" became buried and fossilized, to create these “fossil” fuels.
===

Flux: The rate of exchange between reservoirs.

Soil carbon: Soil is a major component of the terrestrial biosphere pool in the carbon cycle. Organic soil carbon estimates, rather than total soil carbon, are generally quoted. The amount of carbon in the soil is a function of historical vegetative cover and productivity, which in turn is dependent upon climatic variables.

====> This is end of information copied from university webpage cited above. Thanks for studying!

HUYNH, This is key point! Notice how they mentioned the terminology, “Organic soil carbon ...rather than TOTAL soil carbon."
The “organic” is the labile part of soil carbon, and...
the “total” includes the stable part of soil carbon.
Soil carbon is the largest pool of carbon, which we can easily change.
Better land management means we can increase the “stable part” of soil carbon. That is the way to pull CO2 out of the air (via photosynthesis and processing).
Thanks for caring!
~SA
Edited by Essay
##### Share on other sites

Thank you for your work , Essay . For me , you're a good teacher even you never teach at a school .

Thank you again , my friend and teacher . :-)

Let see some examples :

This is Google Earth image of United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division , 980 College Station Road Athens, Georgia 30605-2720 (SESD ).

Left picture use Google data , date 1993 . Right picture , date 2012

Total facility area : 66,201 gross square feet ( GSF ) . To build United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division need 66,201 gross square feet of forest .I use Google and with dense density of forest here , I estimate 1 acre tree here have 300 trees per acre . 1 acre = 43560 square feet . So 66201 gross square feet / 43560 = 1.5 so in the past here we had : 300* 1.5 = 450 trees .

"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

So in 1 year 450 trees of 66,201 gross square feet can absorb CO2 : 48 * 450 = 21600 lbs CO2 .

In 1 year 450 trees here create O2 : 260 * 450 = 117000 lbs O2 .

According to United States Environmental Protection Agency ‘s website ,

http://www.epa.gov/region4/sesd/sesd.html

http://www.epa.gov/oaintrnt/facilities/athens-sesd.htm

And 2011 report of US EPA : http://www.epa.gov/region4/ej/Jacksonville_EJ_FINAL.pdf

United States Environmental Protection Agency doesn’t have a plan to re - plant 450 trees for overcome the environmental damage here in Climate Change . If we think about conservation of absorbing CO2 , and creating O2 , Earth today lost : 21600 lbs CO2 of absorbing and 117000 lbs of creating in Climate Change age , when we really need to increase absorbing CO2 of plants . Or Earth today absorb CO2 smaller than Earth of the past 21600 lbs CO2 and creating O2 smaller Earth of the past 117000 lbs CO2

because of United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 4 Science and Ecosystem Support Division , 980 College Station Road Athens, Georgia 30605-2720 (SESD ).

This is a parking area at United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 , Cleveland Office , 25089 Center Ridge Road Westlake , OH 44145 – 4170 , USA .

Date of left picture is 1994 , right is 2014

I use Google Earth measure the areaand have a result : 108900 gross square feet . To increase the size of parking area , US destroy a 108900 square feet of forest . Forest here has a dense density so I choose 1 acre have 300 trees so 108900 square feet have : 108900 / 43560 = 2.5 so total trees here in 1994 is 750 trees .

So in 1 year 750 trees 108900 square feetcan absorb CO2 : 48 * 750 = 36000 lbs CO2 .

In 1 year 450 trees here create O2 : 260 * 750 = 195000 lbs O2 .

According to United States Environmental Protection Agency’s website :

US EPA Region 5 , Cleveland Office don’t have a plan to re – create 750 trees after they destroy environment of this area to build the parking area . So about conservation of CO2 and O2 , the 2014 Earth absorb CO2 less than the Earth 1994 36000 lbs CO2 and the 2014 Earth create O2 less than the Earth 1994 195000 lbs O2 because of parking area at United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 , Cleveland Office , 25089 Center Ridge Road Westlake , OH 44145 – 4170 , USA . Because I only can choose what Google Earth have and the historical image of Google Earth only can move to the past 1994 , if I can move farer , I can prove the whole truth United States Environmental Protection Agency Region 5 , Cleveland Office , 25089 Center Ridge Road Westlake , OH 44145 – 4170 , USA

Green building – LEED green standard are followed by Argentina Green Building Council , Green Building Council of Australia , Green Building Council Brasil , Peru Green Building Council , Canada Green Building Council Dutch Green Building Council , Emirates Green Building Council , France Green Building Council , German Sustainable Building Council , Indian Green Building Council Italy Green Building Council , Japan Green Building Consortium , Korea Green Building Council , Mexico Green Building Council New Zealand Green Building Council , Green Building Council of South Africa ,Sweden Green Building Council , Taiwan Green Building Council , Romania Green Building Council , United Kingdom Green Building , Council U.S. Green Building Council Vietnam Green Building Council and World Green Building Council , all are correct if we focus on conservation all environmental index ? Because all Climate summit focus on how can we decrease high CO2 level of atmosphere so on this article , we only analyzing absorbing CO2 value , creating O2 value of the environment of the past and the present of some buildings . I will analyze this green standard is good or not .

According to Wikipedia and US Green Building Council :

I will analyze 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 :

I use Google Earth , date of image on the left : 2001 , date on the right : 2013 .

The wild grass area = 14.6 acres .

Mature grasslands sequester 2400 - 3600 lbsCO2 per acre each year – Technical Assessment of the Carbon Sequestration Potential of Managed Turfgrass in the United State ,Dr . RanajitSahu , 2008 at the request of the Outdoor Power Equipment Institute .

It is estimated that a 50 by 50 foot lawn (2,500 square feet), releases enough oxygen for a family of four, while absorbing carbon dioxide, hydrogen fluoride and perosyacetyle nitrate This means that one square foot of grass will produce approximately half a kilogram of oxygen a day .

I choose this type of grassland absorb lowest CO2 value : 2400 lbs CO2 per year . Because wild grass doesn’t cover 100 % percent of this area and I estimate 50 % percent of this area in 2001 cover by wild grass so

In 1 year 14.6 acres with 50% cover by wild grass absorb : 14.6 * 2400 * 50% = 17520 lbs CO2 per year .

In 1 year 14.6 acres with 50% cover by wild grass create : 43560 * 0.5 * 14.6 * 365 * 50% = 58152712 kg O2 .

1 kg = 2.2 lbs so 58152712 kg O2 * 2.2 = 127935966.4 lbs O2 .

University of Texas at Dallas doesn’t have a plan to re –create palnts can absorb 17520 lbs CO2 and create 58152712 lbs O2 . Because of University of Texas at Dallas - LEED Platinum certificate , Earth today lost 17520 lbs of absorbing CO2 , 58152712 lbs O2 of creating O2 .

We build a lot of roads . And a road go through a wild grass area , bush trees , a forests , …. Roads decrease of absorbing CO2 , water , creating O2 value of wild grass area , forest , …… of all countries . And all countries don’t have conservative rule to re – create plants in replace for all plants area turn into roads area .

Have you ever see airport ? A really large area without plants . If we destroy all plants for airport’s area to build airport . We should find a empty place , and plant any kind plants , to make it replace absorbing CO2 , water , creating O2 value = value of absorbing CO2 , water , creating O2 of the airport’s environment ( plants) in the past .

Even your city , town design with 70 % for plants and 30 % for building , house , it's not correct because conservation of CO2 , O2 , water need more 30 % of plants and this area of plants must absorb CO2 , water , create O2 value at least equal with absorb CO2 , water , create O2 value of 30 % of the past .

Before I write this article , none of any architecture know about conservation of CO2 , O2 even they design our city , town , ……. world thousand years ago . So the design problems of conservation of CO2 , O appear some thousand years ago .

According to Wiki : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_building

Reducing environmental impact : Green building practices aim to reduce the environmental impact of building. The first rule is that the greenest building is the building that doesn't get built. Since construction almost always degrades a building site, not building at all is preferable to green building, in terms of reducing environmental impact. The second rule is that every building should be as small as possible. The third rule is not to contribute to sprawl, even if the most energy-efficient, environmentally sound methods are used in design and construction. Urban infill sites are preferable to suburban "greenfield" sites .

The green building standard and our green standard have a serious mistake about conservation of CO2 , O2 because before people build the building , the area for a building usually have plants , trees , bush trees , wild grass , ….

After we build the building , plants , trees , bush trees , wild grass , …. ( which absorb CO2 , water , create O2 ) replace by building ( which doesn’t absorb CO2 , water , create O2 ) . After we build the building , compare between the past and the present , the area of the building lost a value of absorbing CO2 , water and creating O2 . According to conservation of CO2 , O2 , water of the past , for the conservation of the Earth at the present , we must find another area doesn’t have plants , than plant trees or any kind of plants to restore the absorbing CO2 and creating O2 ( in replace for plants of the past of building’s area ) value for the present .

Green building standard are followed by 19 countries around this world don’t force the owners of buildings

re – create the environment of the past to re – archive absorbing CO2 value and creating O2 value after they build the building .

All other protecting environmental definition , law systems don’t talk about conservation of absorbing CO2 , creating O2 :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_architecture

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_design

http://green.wikia.com/wiki/LEED_Certification

International Environmental Law : https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=132294

United States Environmental Protection : http://www2.epa.gov/laws-regulations

Australia: Nabers / Green Star / BASIX (in NSW only)

Brazil: AQUA / LEED Brasil

China: GBAS

Finland: PromisE

France: HQE

Germany: DGNB / CEPHEUS

Hong Kong: BEAM Plus

Japan: CASBEE

Korea, Republic of: Green Building Certification Criteria / Korea Green Building Council

Malaysia: GBI Malaysia

Mexico: LEED Mexico

Netherlands: BREEAM Netherlands

New Zealand: Green Star NZ

Pakistan: Pakistan Green Building Council

Philippines: BERDE / Philippine Green Building Council

Portugal: Lider A / SBToolPT®

Republic of China (Taiwan): Green Building Label

Singapore: Green Mark

South Africa: Green Star SA

Spain: VERDE

Switzerland: Minergie

United Kingdom: BREEAM

United Arab Emirates: Estidama

Turkey : CEDBİK

Thailand : TREES

Vietnam: LOTUS Rating Tools

Czech Republic: SBToolCZ

The protecting environmental laws system , green standard help to decrease absorbing CO2 value and decrease creating O2 value of the Earth today .

Our Earth have Global Serious Errors of Design .

To all members of this forum can read this message , John Cuthber , Endy0816 , Ophiolite , imatfaal , ,...... ..... , all Journalists who are reading this topic :

My name is Huynh Phu Dat , a graphic designer , a amateur scientist . When Climate Change’s disasters attacked my country 3 or 4 years ago and than I knew not only my country but a lot of countries have the same problem , I cried several times . Than I focus on Climate Change . I used to go to park and I ask myself why choose to many grassland areas but not plant as much trees as possible ? Than I focus on buildings and ask myself why after re –create the environment , the environment always worse if compare with environment with the past about CO2 , O , water . Than I have the fomular . In Climate Change , it’s a BURDEN of CONSCIENCE because if I know about the truth and can’t warn people , sin’s complex will follow me until I die . And even when I’m a soul , sin’s complex will never disappear if I can continue to see human kind decreasing CO2 but number of Climate Change ‘s disaster only increase & more direful .

I need to warn 7 billions people and their goverments . I submit some manuscripts to Nature Climate , but they didn’t publish them . I think I have problem about language barrier and the way I explain about Global Serious Errors of design was not good and I don’t have a real scientific language like a scientist . If I re –create my manuscript to warn peole and send to Nature or any scientific magazine , can you help me ?

Can you help me ? I really need help to warn people ? Just 1 manuscript . I don’t ask you for help with a conduct of a graphic designer or scientist , I ask you with a conduct of 1 human being ask others human being for help because all of you and me can feel the pain when your countries and mine , your citizens and mine are attacked by Climate Change’s disasters . I think all of you just want to stop Climate Change , and me too .

I know a little about design and all of you have knowledge and scientific language .

Can some members here help me with my warning manuscript ? I need someone teach me or work with me , if you work with me with this manuscript , you are co – author of this manuscript .

Thank you .

p/s : about plants : many scientists and civil engineers, they all think that any carbon absorbed by the biosphere is just recycled back into the atmosphere within the next year or so ...as that biomass dies and decomposes into methane or carbon dioxide and water. If you think that , I think you're bad at protecting environment . It’s just make me think that all these people protect environment really bad at effect or they’re not at effective at all . If plant 100 trees and 1 tree die after 1 or 2 years or even 10 tens trees die , yes I can accept that but with all 100 trees die or here all scientists and civil engineers think 100 % percent tree die . so fire all people work to keep trees , plants alive when they can’t do their work good , actually , if 30 % plants die is enough to consider about the effect of their work . If we earn money by keeping trees , plants alive , we only can continue our work and earn money if we can keep them alive . Plants have many different type , some are good at against hot weather or cold weather , some can against bugs , some can absorb huge CO2 , value , we should choose the best in our opinions . All kind of plants some day will die . But more day they can live , more CO2 can be absorb . So if we plant more plants , and more plants only alive in 10 years , and in 10 years , it make absorbing CO2 of Earth bigger than emitting CO2 of Earth so that is 10 years we decrease CO2 of atmosphere . And ten years Earth’s weather become stable and 10 years less Climate Change ‘s disasters . Before they die or we should never let they die ( ^ ^ ) , they already absorb a lot of CO2 of atmosphere . And before they die , we have time for a next generation of plants will grow to continue absorb CO2 . And when the plants of this generation die , we need value of next generation plants bigger or can absorb bigger CO2 value than emitting CO2 value of dead plants of this generation . Considering about Earth of the past , perhaps the Climate is stable because even trees , plants still die everyday , but living trees are large enough to absorb all emitting CO2 of dead trees , plants .

Edited by iRock

## Create an account

Register a new account