Do Termites produce more CO2 than human's burning of fossil fuels?

Question

If so, considering CO2 to be the main problem in AGW, couldn't we begin a kind of genocide on termites to reduce their carbon footprint?

Answer 1

No.  Mainly because termites produce methane, not CO2.  Furthermore, termites produce less than 15% of the global methane per year:

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v30...

More recent research suggests 15% is an order of magnitude too large:

http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/1998/98...

Termites are important in an ecological sense.  In general it is not a good idea to get rid of a major component like that.  Besides, man is already working to reduce termite methane emissions:

http://www.ghgonline.org/methanetermite....

One last reference for the global importance of termite CH4 emissions:

http://www.epa.gov/methane/sources.html

And the outgassing of methane from hydrates in the arctic permafrost is going to dwarf the termite source.

Answer 2

CO2 is a natural process and the plants are taking care of it. Just like the plants recycle our oxygen they also recycle our fossil fuels. Just like the water cycle ,it is just nature. The plants love the CO2 as much as U need oxygen.

Answer 3

Bob's right.

in simpler terms, the CO2 that is released by termites was CO2 recently and was stored by plants which the termites consumed.

that's very different from our burning coal and oil, and releasing CO2 into the environment that has not been part of the ecosystem for millions of years.

doing in termites would not change the CO2 levels in the atmosphere at all.  stopping burning coal and oil would.

Answer 4

No.

Mankind's contribution to current CO2 levels, and our responsibility for increasing it, is easily measured and monitored via carbon isotope measurements.  Our burning of fossil fuels leaves a unique chemical "signature" in atmospheric CO2.

Answer 5

I'm sick of everyone selectively using science to suit their needs.  Termites, Cows methane, burning fossil fuels, and on and on... have never seen a mathematic model correctly represent nature and in the impacts of current pollution (too many variables). Is pollution bad? of course it is! let's pollute less...consuming less and becoming more efficient at consuming.  However, humans continue to over populating the earth therefore, increased pollution is unavoidable.  Is the climate changing and why?? no difinitive answer exists. But we all can agree humans are over populate...I think we need a plague or something.  Sorry for the rant.

Answer 6

The CO2 produced by termites (or our breath or pretty much anything except burning fossil fuels) doesn't make ANY difference.  It's simple science, taught in high school.

There are a great many natural sources and sinks for carbon dioxide.  But the present global warming is (mostly) the result of man made CO2 from burning fossil fuels.

There is a natural "carbon cycle" that recycles CO2.  But it's a delicate balance and we're messing it up.

Look at this graph.

http://gaw.kishou.go.jp/cgi-bin/wdcgg/qu...

The little squiggles are nature doing its' thing. CO2 falls a bit during summer when plants are active, and rises during the winter. The huge increase is us, burning fossil fuels. The scientists can actually show that the increased CO2 in the air comes from burning fossil fuels by using "isotopic ratios" to identify that CO2.  The natural carbon cycle buried carbon in fossil fuels over a very long time, little bit by little bit. We dig them up and burn them, real fast.  That's a problem.

Man is upsetting the balance of nature.  We need to fix that.