Climate Change & Global Warming

[ArabiaTerra]

AT your statement on the CO2 cycle is wrong all the gases produced since before the first world war are not up there. Most are absorbed.

 

{diagram omitted to save space}

 

Its methane that will become an issue in the future. CO2 will be controlled there may be years of adverse weather but it will return to normal. the issue is if it get to the point that it releases the methane then it would be harder to reverse.

 

It easier to simplify statements but you will lose your argument over global warming if you make statements like that.

We have put 50% of it back into the biosphere in 250 years. Back into play, so to speak.

Biosphere, Paulb, not atmosphere. Pay attention.

[ArabiaTerra]

http://www.grida.no/publications/vg/climate/page/3066.aspx

we forget that our little planet has dealt with worse things than what man can throw at her. the issue is are we going to be here after she has dealt with us.

This is true, AGW won't cause the extinction of all life, but it (along with man's other environmental impacts) is causing the extinction of species at a faster rate than anything since the asteroid(s) that took out the dinosaurs. And it could also cause a collapse of human civilisation leading to war, mass starvation and death for the majority of the earth's population.

 

We have it in our power to prevent this from happening. Don't you think that would be a good idea?

 

And Khit, I think this covers ozone depletion in far more detail than I ever could.

[ArabiaTerra]

AT your statement on the CO2 cycle is wrong all the gases produced since before the first world war are not up there. Most are absorbed.

Surely it takes a considerable length of time for CO2 to be reabsorbed. An insignificant period of time, on a geological scale, has elapsed since WW1 so why wouldn't those gases still be there? It's being pumped in to the atmosphere faster than nature can deal with it, no?

most gas produced is absorbed in that year. the excess is what is raising the co2 level. Its a problem that needs fixing. But it is not one that cant be fixed if the Co2 was to remain in the atmosphere then we would end up like Venus. this does not happen because of the various transportation methods the earth has for capturing the gas. Hence lots of the rocks have a high level of co2. Volcanoes release large amounts of gas because of the subduction of rich oceanic rocks/seafloor.

About 50 % of fossil fuel emissions is absorbed, the rest collects in the atmosphere. More alarmingly, areas of the ocean are showing signs of becoming saturated with CO2 which will mean less absorption. Also large scale carbon sinks such as the Amazon rainforest are being destroyed to grow crops and are also at increasing risk from drought which reduces their ability to absorb CO2 and also increases the risk of wildfires. If this trend continues, such areas will become net producers of CO2 adding to our problems.

[paulb]

the oceans are a carbon sink has always been will always be. If you don't believe that go and get some limestone and put acid onto it it produces carbon dioxide. the systems of the earth are a lot tougher than we give them credit for.

 

The area that we can quickly change is to prevent and if possable reverse the destruction of woodlands into animal rearing areas..

 

promotion of carbon capture and alternative energy sources will reduce the impact. but remember all the fossil fuels took there co2 content from the environment.

 

Using the total co2 in the biosphere is just nonsense. how does the total of the co2 in all living organisms effect the atmosphere. they are two very different areas of the carbon cycle. most co2 that enters the biosphere becomes trapped so is not effecting the climate.

imply that most of the co2 gas is a result of man is very poor science.

http://www.globalchange.umich.edu/globalchange1/current/lectures/kling/carbon_cycle/carbon_cycle.jpg

4.7 billion metric tons are out of balance sounds a lot until you note that the oceans have 39 trillion tons of carbon in its cycle. most of which will eventually get captured by the plankton etc in the sea.

[Carlos]

It's fine as long as the oceans have the capacity to absorb the extra CO2.

Some evidence suggests that we are nearer those limits than is comfortable.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070517142558.htm

 

You're right though, that it is the balance of the carbon cycle that is the important thing - as in accounting, a billion in and a billion out may be fine, it's just when you tip the "outs" slightly above the "ins" that you head into the red.

 

 

There is also the question of acidification though, where although CO2 may still be getting absorbed, the effects on the ocean chemistry may still cause problems.

[ArabiaTerra]

the oceans are a carbon sink has always been will always be

Wrong. As Carlos posted above, there are worrying signs that the ocean are nearing saturation. Also, ocean acidification reduces the ability of shelled organisms to absorb CO2. Try dissolving salt in a glass of water. There's a limit to how much salt the water can absorb. It is called saturation. We are nearing this point with CO2.

but remember all the fossil fuels took there co2 content from the environment.

And where did this CO2 originate? It came from volcanic out gassing. This is missing from your diagram.

Using the total co2 in the biosphere is just nonsense. how does the total of the co2 in all living organisms effect the atmosphere.

All living things die, then rot, releasing their CO2 back into the atmosphere. Any Carbon which is not locked away underground, in peat bogs or other anaerobic environments or frozen in the permafrost is "in play" and can affect the environment.

most co2 that enters the biosphere becomes trapped so is not effecting the climate

Only 50% of the CO2 from fossil fuels is absorbed, the rest goes on to cause AGW.

(To) imply that most of the co2 gas is a result of man is very poor science.

Which is why I implied no such thing. The natural carbon cycle is in balance, out gassing from volcanoes is balanced by absorption by carbon sinks. It is the extra CO2 from fossil fuels which is upsetting the balance and warming the planet. Not only is it directly warming the planet, it is reducing the ability of the natural carbon sinks to do their jobs (such as the melting of the permafrost which is going on in the arctic). Other human activities such as deforestation and draining peat bogs are also adding to the problem by simultaneously reducing the ability of the sinks to absorb carbon and actually turning them into net emitters of carbon.

4.7 billion metric tons are out of balance sounds a lot until you note that the oceans have 39 trillion tons of carbon in its cycle. most of which will eventually get captured by the plankton etc in the sea.

It won't if ocean acidification stops the plankton doing it's job or if the oceans become saturated with CO2. And that's 4.7 billion tonnes per year, every year. Anyway, even working at top efficiency, the plankton and other carbon sinks only absorb CO2 at a rate fast enough to balance volcanic out gassing, they did not evolve to handle the excess that humans are adding to the mix.

 

Humans are attacking the planet with CO2 from two directions. We are directly injecting CO2 into the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels and we are interfering with the ability of the natural carbon sinks to absorb this excess CO2 by actively destroying these carbon sinks. Both practices need to stop before global warming can be brought under control.

[ArabiaTerra]

Here's some links to check out:

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/05/070517142558.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090216092937.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090417161506.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/02/090218081629.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080901084854.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/09/070911092139.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/04/090417084128.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/03/090317095450.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090511122425.htm

 

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090127163403.htm

 

Enjoy.

[khitajrah]

Thanks paul and AT for the website links. I've only just started following this thread, so let me apologise in advance for asking stupid questions over the next six weeks.

 

Cheers!

[paulb]

http://www.precaution.org/lib/06/ocean_acidification_from_c02_060301.pdf

Acidification mmmm. The pH level may change by up to 0.8 over the next thousand years back to levels seen before. The calculations don't take in the Arctic and antarctic oceans opening up and warming.

Great scaremongering but these assumptions are based on us doing nothing. This is clearly not the case. we will be doing things to reduce co2 emissions.

These changes are big but the earth has had them before and will again. limestone was laid down before and after the last acid ocean event by the way the acid oceans will still be alkaline even the worst case has it still in the level of distilled water.

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

Why all the doom mongering its this and the next few generations that are going to start repairing the damage we are doing.

What would you do then?

[paulb]

Thanks paul and AT for the website links. I've only just started following this thread, so let me apologise in advance for asking stupid questions over the next six weeks.

 

Cheers!

your not asking stupid questions.

[ArabiaTerra]

Thanks paul and AT for the website links. I've only just started following this thread, so let me apologise in advance for asking stupid questions over the next six weeks.

 

Cheers!

Not at all, fire away.

Great scaremongering but these assumptions are based on us doing nothing. This is clearly not the case. we will be doing things to reduce co2 emissions.

Global emissions are still rising at about 3% per year. Things are happening, but they are not happening quickly enough. Current government targets are to reduce CO2 emissions by 30-35% a year by 2020 and by 80% a year by 2050. The trouble is this is only barely enough and the 2020 target looks impossible given current plans. Setting targets is pointless if the investment required to meet those plans is not made.

These changes are big but the earth has had them before and will again. limestone was laid down before and after the last acid ocean event by the way the acid oceans will still be alkaline even the worst case has it still in the level of distilled water.

The problem here is that the change in pH is happening much faster than any natural change, too fast for marine organisms to adapt to the changes. That's why it is so dangerous.

What would you do then?

Oooh, the big question.

 

For Shetland: Build the windfarm then use at least half the profits from it to develop tidal and wave power. If we have a 600MW interconnector we should try to ensure that we are pushing as close to 600MW down it as we can all the time.

 

For the UK: Our nuclear stations are knackered and due to close within the next 10-15 years. The gov is intending to replace them. I would go much further and double the number of nuclear stations and try to have them ready by 2020. This should allow us to begin closing coal stations. I would install a subsea power grid from Shetland right down the East coast of the UK to connect to as many offshore windfarms as possible. This could also tie into tidal and wave power.

 

Ban incandescent light bulbs. Rank all consumer electronics and white goods according to their efficiency and ban the worst ten percent each year. Do the same with vehicles. Start a national program of house refurbishment concentrating on public housing to begin with, completely refitting these homes up to modern standards. It is possible to build carbon neutral homes, so I would make it illegal not to. Start a national program of upgrading all public buildings to the same standard.

 

Scrap the 3rd runway at Heathrow. Electrify all the remaining un-electrified railways. Build new high speed rail links between the major cities and ban air travel for journeys of less than 300 miles where rail links exist as an alternative.

 

Fast track all existing wind farm applications and simplify planning laws for new ones. Start building a network of hydrogen filling stations to take advantage of the new fuel cell cars. Move freight off the roads and back onto the railways and canals.

 

Ban all new oil and gas exploration in UK waters. Ban new open cast coal mines. Start harvesting all the forestry commission woodlands, biochar the wood and plough it into the ground, then replant the woodlands.

 

Farming needs to be reformed so that farms become carbon sinks rather than emitters. The subsidies should be reformed to encourage this.

 

Worldwide, much more action is needed along the same lines as above.

 

There was a recent report published and commented on here which stated that the total amount of fossil fuel based CO2 we can afford to emit is about 1 trillion tonnes. We have already emitted half of that since the beginning of the industrial revolution. At current rates we will use up the remaining allowance in 40 years. This is what needs to be used as the basis for carbon trading. Each country should be allocated a share according to population. If rich countries want to emit more carbon then they should have to buy carbon credits from poorer countries. This money should be used to fund carbon neutral development in the 3rd world.

 

We should be putting measures in place now to ensure we exceed our 2020 targets. This should allow us to limit the temperature rise to 2 degrees C. Go over 2 degrees and all sorts of bad things start to happen to the global carbon sinks and the ice caps. Exceed 2 degrees and global warming could become a self perpetuating runaway cycle as the remaining carbon sinks change from absorbers of carbon to emitters. Exceed 2 degrees and all the bad stuff the scientists have predicted will happen and there will be nothing we can do to stop it. Billions will die and the planet will be changed beyond all recognition.

[captain kirk]

I agree with AT's assessment of what should be done almost entirely.

Carbon neutral homes, absolutely. Scrap the third runway, ban open cast mining, build wind farms, couldn't agree more, yes even on Shetland.

 

But back to nuclear power? Can't get my head around that one. Haven't we got enough to do clearing up after the last time we went down that road? Cost of clean-up £72bn, according to Nuclear Decommissioning Authority figures and £21 bn for building a waste dump. And that's skirting around the generally accepted truth that we do not know what to do with radioactive waste. All the "solutions" are just ways of buying time in the vain hope that our descendents will think of something to do with it in the future.

Perhaps the proposed incinerator at Dounreay has already been discussed elsewhere- if so- apologies. An incinerator costing £5m to burn away low level waste oils etc would undoubtedly be used to burn waste from everywhere else in UK, maybe beyond, especially if new generation of nuclear reactors goes ahead. Scary scenario.

Brushing the waste to one side- nuclear power won't solve anything- even if magically in tandem with renewables. Too long to build, too expensive and 10 new reactors would only reduce carbon emissions by 4% after 2025 (government figures)

So why go back to nuclear? Don't get that one.

Not too sure about biochar either.

[paulb]

AT i agree that what you suggest should be done.Though suggesting that there is no more oil production is a step to far. We are going to need hydrocarbons for the near future. I feel its better that they are produced here and that would save a lot of shipping etc.

What about the new clean coal technology. if they can scrub most of the co2 and sulphur from the waste gas then its worth investing in.

 

What happens when we lose the benefits of the global cooling pollutants.

[Michael]

As I see it nuclear fission is a short term solution before the real saviour is properly developed - nuclear fusion.

 

I can't see a single good reason for not throwing lots of money into fusion research. Only reason I can think of at all is vested interests from oil companies.

 

I agree with the majority of what Arabia Terra says on the issue though.

[Carlos]

What about the new clean coal technology. if they can scrub most of the co2 and sulphur from the waste gas then its worth investing in.

It's nice in theory, but regardless of the proposals to build new coal fired power stations that are "ready" for CO2 capture, the fact remains that nobody has shown any system that works at industrial scales, and if they do get it working it will still use quite a high % of the power generated - 20%+?