cutting down of trees and burning them and also burning coal why doesn't the earth become unbalanced?

Question

these ithems are not replaced

Answer 1

several things are at work:

1) the mass of the trees & coal in any area is comparatively insignificant when contrasted against the mass of the earth

2) conservation of matter (which roughly translates in this instance to conservation of mass): the involved processes are not nuclear in nature

for instance, a pound of coal is taken from the Black Mesa, AZ and burned in New York, NY. in New York, it leaves behind 0.8 ounces of Mercury, 1.2 ounces of carbon black and 0.5 ounces of material retained in the formation of ash: 13.5 ounces were converted to components of exhaust gases -- commonly, carbon dioxide and water.

Now imagine the total mass of the earth is 2000 tons and the average density is 4 g/cm^3 (just over 249.71 lbs/cu ft): the average radius of the earth would then be very slightly less than 15.638 feet (roughly 27,680,013 cu ins).


Without going into the slight deformation of our oblate spheroid, and imagining the pound of coal had an average density of 1.5 g/cm^3, the extracted coal had a volume of roughly 18.453 cu ins.

The distance those 18+ cu ins were moved amounts to just under 93 inches along a great circle route describing a 1179.07-inch circumference (almost 28.387 deg).

Obviously, this is going to have negligible effect on the mass of the overall body, even with it rotating at 1/4 deg per minute (1 revolution per 24 hours).

these gases disperse, and are usually absorbed by various organisms. however, some of these gases are further converted (for instance, lightning can separate water and other compounds into their constituent atoms, and provide the energy for reforming other compounds such as ozone).

for those unfamiliar with it, ozone is the triatomic form of oxygen (which is why i get a kick out of ads like the one for the "ionic breeze" that "converts ozone to oxygen")

the point is that the masses of the constituent elements never changed: they were simply redistributed -- arguably, in a way that mitigates against the creation of even a very slightly unbalanced condition.

Answer 2

All we have done is changed the nature of the material.. It's still there, the atoms and all that but just in a different form.
We're sitting on the planet earth.. There is no more and no less of it.. We can change materials to suit our needs and hopefully as we develop we will become more responsible about it, but who knows?
Cutting down trees and burning coal releases heat... However we get heat every day from the sun to replenish this and this is used for new growth of trees and the slower production of coal.

You don't need to be worried about global warming as a man made issue as it is not. However, you should look at all the arguments for and against and then form your own opininon.

Answer 3

Do you mean physicaly unbalanced, as in wobbly in it's rotation? I may be the one being naive, here, so forgive me if its not what you mean.

Just in case, I'll take a shot on answereing. The totas mass of the coal and the trees burned is so infinitessimaly small compared to the mass of the earth that such a loss could never be felt that way. Just look at the land masses of the Earth, compared to the water. Try to envision how much of that land mass is covered in trees. Not much. Imagine how much of that land mass contains coal. Again, not much. The planet could completely run out of coal. Every tree in the world could be destroyed, and the loss of mass would not be felt.

The environment, however ...

Answer 4

What do you mean by unbalanced? The earth is unbalanced, we've burnt too much, there's too much CO2 in the air, which is why the world is getting hotter.

Answer 5

Trees are too, reproduced. Where have you been?

Answer 6

first law of thermo-dynamics. look it up.