Atmospheric CO2 - a datapoint

Forums › Off topic › Atmospheric CO2 - a datapoint

1 | 2 | 3 | 4

shk292

2853 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1677750 26-Nov-2016 08:08

By tumbleweeds I was purely using the metaphor from Western movie, where an abandoned town (thread) has tumbleweeds blowing around. Interesting point about forests and oxygen though.
Tdgeek, I wouldn't label proponents of either side of this debate as tumbleweeds or anything else. I think it is something that needs to be discussed openly, not shut down by name-calling or citing a bogus consensus

TwoSeven

1624 posts

Uber Geek

Subscriber

#1677768 26-Nov-2016 08:53

I think that it is important to remember when talking about trees is that one of their roles is to reduce soil temperatrure, which also has the effect of increasing ground moisture and as a result to create an oxygen rich environment. In other words they create an ideal ecosystem.

I dont think it is correct to compare a forest to oceanographic algae as they are two entirely different ecosystems. I would suggest that the amount of oxygen produced would directly relate to the amount of water available used to produce it and the amount of plant material capable of performing photosynthesis. While one ecosystem may produce more than the other, the real point is that they both produce it, but the outcome of that production can have different effects on the surrounding environment.

A technique from PR Spin ca be to isolate information so that it cannot be viewed as a whole, then to introduce doubt by picking a non-relevant piece of information and questioning it. The effect of doubt is that people tend to do nothing because of indecision.

To counter spin, it is a good idea to check the source of information, especially if it is repeated information. Most of the meterological sites around the world have good articles that explain things, and many post their data or can give access to instruments in order for people to do their own research. For example, NIWA has good information around climate change I have found.

Software Engineer
(the practice of real science, engineering and management)
A.I. (Automation rebranded)
Gender Neutral
(a person who believes in equality and who does not believe in/use stereotypes. Examples such as gender, binary, nonbinary, male/female etc.)

...they/their/them...

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1677796 26-Nov-2016 10:39

The oxygen produced comes from water not CO2, so yes, water is the key. Im not sure where the trees comments came from, maybe my reference to the Amazon rainforest. Everything that photosynthesises produces oxygen. Trees, plants, and marine plants which is mainly algae, and given the size of the oceans compared to green planted land, its not surprising that ocean produce the most oxygen. Trees respire as do all plant life, but I gather the storing of carbon is released when they die. Same for algae but that sinks so is stored still and not released back. As by dead trees that burn etc. If we use trees to build, surely that does create net gain in oxygen as the carbon is still stored.

In the case of pollution, the carbon from long dead plantlife is being released back by fossil fuel use ALL AT ONCE. This all at once is the issue IMO, rather than never, should the oil an coal not have been mined, or over time should the dead plantlike put the carbon back as they dies, allowing the planet to manage that in real time

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1677797 26-Nov-2016 10:40

shk292: By tumbleweeds I was purely using the metaphor from Western movie, where an abandoned town (thread) has tumbleweeds blowing around. Interesting point about forests and oxygen though.
Tdgeek, I wouldn't label proponents of either side of this debate as tumbleweeds or anything else. I think it is something that needs to be discussed openly, not shut down by name-calling or citing a bogus consensus

Fair call, I took tumbleweeds as referring to any here that disagreed wth you, all good

KiwiME

213 posts

Master Geek

#1678178 27-Nov-2016 11:04

I've been following climate change for years since my physicist dad got me interested before he passed away in 2010. He was a fellow of the UK Royal Society. Frankly, I'm not aware of any plausible dissension among respected scientists not working for the oil industry, as much as I really wish the whole thing was a hoax. You can imagine any scientist would be thrilled to be the one person to find a way out of this mess and win the Nobel Prize, but that hasn't happened yet and I can't see how it ever will. Meanwhile our climate is deteriorating in real time, based on hard, measurable data rather than just computer models. NZ's destiny will be determined entirely by the world's major emitters.

Some key points I've learned, but probably most can be found on the NASA Kids site :)

The earth's long term climate has been essentially bistable, preferring to be only too hot or too cold, but once at those limits it eventually moves the other way. In the past, major events have triggered fast changes, similar to what we are doing today. Humans have only lived in the last gradual shift away from cold, while dinosaurs did survive the hot periods.

Global atmospheric CO2 has been isotope-dated to verify that a portion resulted from "old" carbon, i.e. fossil fuels, and that matches closely what is known to have been burned. Global O2 percent has been verified to match that lost to combustion and gained by the slight greening due to the increased CO2. https://youtu.be/S3KB4U_TJEY?list=PL5W-HwNCNIALJm0x86NmPj-a4DpktOYUO for details, about 25 minutes in but a good lecture throughout.

Global average temperature roughly follows CO2 percent because outgoing radiation follows the fourth power of temperature as needed to push through the greenhouse filtering and balance incoming heat from the sun. 50% of heat is in the ocean and increasing temperature means a sea level rise component due to thermal expansion.

80-90% of released CO2 goes into the ocean and the remaining atmospheric CO2 hangs around for centuries. That total level is an accumulation of all past emissions, exact yearly rates are not that important. Ocean absorption of CO2 will peak at some point in an acidic state and more CO2 will stay in the atmosphere. The acidity has and will damage the ocean's food chain.

No one has figured out any practical technology which can be suitably scaled to remove significant amounts of released CO2, despite that the IPCC's two lower proposed RCP (representative concentration pathways) are relying on some sort of carbon removal. If we can't do that we are in big trouble.

As long as our CO2 levels stay much above 280 ppm the earth's ice sheets will continue to melt, taking perhaps hundreds to a thousand years. Slowly but irreversibly, another component of sea level rise. If that wasn't bad enough, sequestered methane is now being uncovered which will add to the greenhouse effect.

Scientists are all excited about what is happening in the Arctic now. It's super-warm and the expected seasonal ice creation seems to be going haywire. Cold water off melting ice is expected to slow down the Atlantic ocean circulation due to the lower density of diluted salt water. See Jim Hansen's famous video http://bit.ly/1UzeHI1

Even if we stop burning all fossil fuels tomorrow, temperatures will rise for another decade or more (as mentioned above) then stabilise. Polar ice will continue to melt until we can get CO2 under 280 ppm and the earth cools off.

Coincidentally Prof. Guy McPherson is touring NZ right now and has a live cast at 3pm today, Sunday, from Auckland. He summarizes the situation well but doesn't have any answers either. https://guymcpherson.com/coming-events/

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1678205 27-Nov-2016 12:19

That summarises what I as an interested layman have gathered from the many docos I have watched. Concerns are where is the tipping point? As the ocean and air temperature increase, the size of the polar caps decrease, which decreases the reflection of solar energy from the planet, and thereby increasing the absorbed solar energy further, aside from human effects.

Another tipping point is the ocean. They absorb more CO2, acidify, warm up. More ocean temperature leads to less oxygen carrying capability. More warmth reduces the Great Water Tunnel circulation, as the temperature differential between hot and cold reduces. Marine life dies, adds more toxicity as they decay, thereby exacerbating the problem. Nutrients travel around the global water system more slowly, adding to this. I have no idea what the current scientific state is as regards these two tipping points.

But we need to formulate a means to capture CO2. And reduce CO2 emissions. Mechanically? Harness nature?

KiwiME

213 posts

Master Geek

#1678313 27-Nov-2016 15:00

Regarding tipping points, you can be certain that by the time we observe tangible evidence of those happening it will be well past the time where they could be stopped. I think we actually entered that stage in the last decade and evidence will start to show up in leaps and bounds. You are likely right about those showing up in the oceans as well.

As for capturing CO2, it's the lowest energy form of carbon, utterly useless, hard to capture and sequester mechanically on a scale that matches and exceeds all that CO2 we place into the air every day by burning fossil fuels. It would be far, far easier and less costly to declare a world-wide economic emergency, gracefully shut down most of the world's unsustainable industries, plant a vege garden in your backyard, get some chickens, plant lots of trees, install solar panels to replace non-green power generation and simply stop using fossil fuels as much as possible. Basically "sleep mode" for humanity.

Even then it would take a century or more (my guess) to bring the CO2 level back down. But we would survive and thrive. As it is, the wealthier you are the longer you will be able to obtain food and shelter. We are so lucky to live in NZ though, best place to be in the next decade.

One issue I forgot to mention is wet bulb temperature extremes in certain regions, Pakistan, India, the Middle East. This is 36 C, above which humans can't cool off via sweating and need to be in AC. Last year it reached 35 C. Once it exceeds that level there will be huge numbers of climate refugees.

Guy McPherson's entertaining discussion with Paul Henry, in case you missed it.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/world/humans-dont-have-10-years-left-thanks-to-climate-change---scientist-2016112408

Also his live cast from Auckland starts at 3pm Sunday, right now. https://iframe.dacast.com/b/7613/c/426909

GoodSync

GoodSync. Easily back up and sync your files with GoodSync. Simple and secure file backup and synchronisation software will ensure that your files are never lost (affiliate link).

tdgeek

29746 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1678497 27-Nov-2016 20:47

KiwiME:

Regarding tipping points, you can be certain that by the time we observe tangible evidence of those happening it will be well past the time where they could be stopped. I think we actually entered that stage in the last decade and evidence will start to show up in leaps and bounds. You are likely right about those showing up in the oceans as well.

As for capturing CO2, it's the lowest energy form of carbon, utterly useless, hard to capture and sequester mechanically on a scale that matches and exceeds all that CO2 we place into the air every day by burning fossil fuels. It would be far, far easier and less costly to declare a world-wide economic emergency, gracefully shut down most of the world's unsustainable industries, plant a vege garden in your backyard, get some chickens, plant lots of trees, install solar panels to replace non-green power generation and simply stop using fossil fuels as much as possible. Basically "sleep mode" for humanity.

Even then it would take a century or more (my guess) to bring the CO2 level back down. But we would survive and thrive. As it is, the wealthier you are the longer you will be able to obtain food and shelter. We are so lucky to live in NZ though, best place to be in the next decade.

One issue I forgot to mention is wet bulb temperature extremes in certain regions, Pakistan, India, the Middle East. This is 36 C, above which humans can't cool off via sweating and need to be in AC. Last year it reached 35 C. Once it exceeds that level there will be huge numbers of climate refugees.

Guy McPherson's entertaining discussion with Paul Henry, in case you missed it.

http://www.newshub.co.nz/world/humans-dont-have-10-years-left-thanks-to-climate-change---scientist-2016112408

Also his live cast from Auckland starts at 3pm Sunday, right now. https://iframe.dacast.com/b/7613/c/426909

I read that it takes 50 years for the planet to normalise. Maybe more, maybe less. But as per your video link, this is not about us. We will all be fine. Its about our great great grandchildren who will be affected, but are not here to discuss the issue.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4