Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby kanon » Mon 07 Dec 2015, 20:36:01

pstarr wrote:There is good science on the effects of CO2 enhancement on plant growth. I've linked to the study several times, experiments showing significant increased nutrient intake and plant grow at enhanced CO2 4X atmosphere. Plants were submitted to identical sunlight, soil, temperature, and water. The only variation was CO2, the experimental plants were bathed in 1,200 ppm while the control group remained at atmospheric levels.

So perhaps we won't see accelerated CO2 uptake and planetary plant growth until atmospheric levels are much greater? Why would the Jurassic period show such lush plant growth at 3,000+ ppm and not this upcoming period? Is it necessary to be pessimistic about the outcome? Peak oil and the end of civilization is enough gloom for one day? Do we have to burn the entire planet with our ruminations lol

This thinking does not seem very rigorous. Increasing CO2 in greenhouse situations is a technique to enhance plant growth in a controlled setting. There is no reason to believe it will translate to the environment at large. As you note, temperatures and moisture were controlled. Secondly, I really wonder how accurate a picture of the Jurassic period we have. No one has actually seen the Jurassic period, despite the very clever deductions that are made from the fossil record. I find theories about the geologic past to be fascinating, but if we are to be skeptical of climate science it seems that paleontology is not the best source for contrary evidence. Besides, I recall an article saying the lack of fossils from equatorial regions is because nothing could live there -- it was too hot and dry. So far the thread shows that plant growth is not increasing as much as might be expected from more CO2.
kanon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri 24 Oct 2014, 09:04:07

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby kanon » Mon 07 Dec 2015, 21:51:19

Researchers just discovered a massive body of water under China’s biggest desert
The Tarim basin in Xinjiang, China is a valley the size of Venezuela; bigger than California, New Mexico and Florida put together. On the surface it is home to Taklimakan, China’s biggest desert, but deep beneath lies a hidden ‘ocean’ that is thought to contain up to ten times more water than all the Great Lakes combined, storing more carbon than all the plants on the planet put together. While more water may sound like a good thing, researchers believe that if this carbon were to escape into the atmosphere, we would be in serious, serious trouble.
. . .
The alkaline soil on the surface of the desert helps to dissolve carbon which is carried underground by rainwater, meltwater from the surrounding mountains, and irrigation from farming. Cavernous chambers store the carbon-filled water in an immense underground ‘ocean’ from which it cannot escape, acting as a giant ‘carbon sink’. The combination of the alkaline sands on the surface and saline water deep beneath create the perfect conditions for carbon capture.

This seems relevant to the thread and something I had not heard before.
kanon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri 24 Oct 2014, 09:04:07

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby kiwichick » Mon 07 Dec 2015, 22:51:39

re potential for crops in northern Canada/ Siberia etc

some people seem to have forgotten that the northern areas were mostly subjected to glaciation and therefore soils may somewhat depleted
User avatar
kiwichick
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2267
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby Subjectivist » Tue 08 Dec 2015, 00:11:20

kiwichick wrote:re potential for crops in northern Canada/ Siberia etc

some people seem to have forgotten that the northern areas were mostly subjected to glaciation and therefore soils may somewhat depleted


Minnesota Wisconsin Michigan Ontario were all ground down under a mile of ice, yet when Europeans arrived the forest was so thick it was claimed a squirrel could climb a tree in On the shore by Quebec City and scramble all the way to Sault Ste. Marie without ever leaving the branches.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4701
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby kiwichick » Tue 08 Dec 2015, 00:22:38

@ sub

I guess when I said Northern Canada I meant the far north

like where the permafrost is (or was )

I suspect southern Canada/ northern USA benefitted from soil being transported from more northern areas

I could be very wrong of course............ I've only flown over it!!!!!!!!!
User avatar
kiwichick
Intermediate Crude
Intermediate Crude
 
Posts: 2267
Joined: Sat 02 Aug 2008, 03:00:00
Location: Southland New Zealand

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby clif » Tue 08 Dec 2015, 00:29:15

15-17,000 years ago ....

.... a wee bit of time for top soil to develop before the Europeans invaded the Americas.

Time we do not have for the northern sub arctic to develop the needed humus to grow food for 7-9 billion hungry humans in the next 25-50 years ....
How cathartic it is to give voice to your fury, to wallow in self-righteousness, in helplessness, in self-serving self-pity.
User avatar
clif
Tar Sands
Tar Sands
 
Posts: 620
Joined: Tue 11 Aug 2009, 13:04:10

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby Subjectivist » Tue 08 Dec 2015, 00:42:39

kiwichick wrote:@ sub

I guess when I said Northern Canada I meant the far north

like where the permafrost is (or was )

I suspect southern Canada/ northern USA benefitted from soil being transported from more northern areas

I could be very wrong of course............ I've only flown over it!!!!!!!!!


The land in this corner of northwest Ohio is as flat as if you had run an iron over it from what the ice sheet did to it. Go 50 miles north or south and you run into hills where the glaciers paused and dumped gravel and soil, but around here the majority of farms have just a few feet of soil before you hit bedrock. In fact just north of the border in Michgan the soil is so thin they invented the term 'Michigan basement' because many of the house basements are only 4 feet deep because of the bedrock. My very first apartment was a basement in a four story building, but it was only half a flight down from street level. The windows were all set in the top three feet of the basement walls looking out over the apartment building yard.

Point being the glaciers did funny things, they dug old river valleys into the Great Lakes and pushed all that soil south. The slope for Lake Erie here is so shallow you can wade hundreds of meters out from the shore before you have to start swimming. The US Army Corp of Engineers and the Canadian equivalent have to dredge the ship Chanel from Toledo to Detroit every few years because the silt oozes into it from both sides.
http://www.ohiogreenstrategies.com/images/horizon.jpg
Edited to remove huge picture, link opens normal size picture.
II Chronicles 7:14 if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.
Subjectivist
Volunteer
Volunteer
 
Posts: 4701
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby dohboi » Tue 08 Dec 2015, 04:21:06

Hmm, poor pstarr seems to have gone over fully to the luke-warmer variety of denialism.

For any interested: https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-higher-in-past.htm
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby Lore » Tue 08 Dec 2015, 13:43:30

The oceans are the largest carbon sink with 93% of the down take there. As we are now destroying most of it, don't expect the absorption rate to stay stable in the future.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby Lore » Tue 08 Dec 2015, 14:47:45

pstarr wrote:
Lore wrote:The oceans are the largest carbon sink with 93% of the down take there. As we are now destroying most of it, don't expect the absorption rate to stay stable in the future.

Lore, we are not destroying the ocean, merely polluting it with run off which actually increases absorption.

Nutrient (aka nitrogen and phosphorus) pollution is one of America’s
most widespread, costly and challenging environmental problems.
It is caused by excess nitrogen and phosphorus in the air and water.
Nutrients are chemical elements that all living organisms—plants and
animals—need to grow. When too much nitrogen and phosphorus enter
the environment—usually from a wide range of human activities—the
air and water can become polluted.

The primary sources of nutrient pollution are fertilizer, animal manure,
sewage treatment plant discharge, detergents, stormwater runoff, cars
and power plants, failing septic tanks and pet waste.


You're forgetting about ocean acidification due to increased atmospheric CO2 levels. The oceans can absorb only so much before they become emitters. The runoff you're talking about is creating dead zones and where it does increase phytoplankton it kills off other species. Only a matter of time before all the seas become anoxic.

The oceans cover over two-thirds of the Earth’s surface.
They play a vital role in global biogeochemical cycles,
contribute enormously to the planet’s biodiversity and
provide a livelihood for millions of people.

The oceans are absorbing carbon dioxide (CO2) from the
atmosphere and this is causing chemical changes by
making them more acidic (that is, decreasing the pH of
the oceans). In the past 200 years the oceans have
absorbed approximately half of the CO2 produced by
fossil fuel burning and cement production. Calculations
based on measurements of the surface oceans and our
knowledge of ocean chemistry indicate that this uptake
of CO2 has led to a reduction of the pH of surface
seawater of 0.1 units, equivalent to a 30% increase in the
concentration of hydrogen ions.

If global emissions of CO2 from human activities continue
to rise on current trends then the average pH of the
oceans could fall by 0.5 units (equivalent to a three fold
increase in the concentration of hydrogen ions) by the
year 2100. This pH is probably lower than has been
experienced for hundreds of millennia and, critically, this
rate of change is probably one hundred times greater
than at any time over this period. The scale of the changes
may vary regionally, which will affect the magnitude of
the biological effects.

Ocean acidification is essentially irreversible during our
lifetimes. It will take tens of thousands of years for ocean
chemistry to return to a condition similar to that occurring
at pre-industrial times (about 200 years ago). Our ability
to reduce ocean acidification through artificial methods
such as the addition of chemicals is unproven. These
techniques will at best be effective only at a very local
scale, and could also cause damage to the marine
environment.

Reducing CO2 emissions to the
atmosphere appears to be the only practical way to
minimise the risk of large-scale and long-term
changes to the oceans.

http://www.us-ocb.org/publications/Royal_Soc_OA.pdf
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby ROCKMAN » Tue 08 Dec 2015, 14:50:56

You guys can keep debating the subject. But I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me even if every breathing soul on the planet believed in the damaging effects of GHG why one would expect the vast majority to sacrifice their economic well-being to change the dynamics. Heck, as I've repeatedly pointed out, the world isn't preventing millions of folks being displaced (let alone killed) from their homes today by political conflicts so why would they do anything about such dislocations decades down the road? Back to my standby: the world did nothing to save 500,000+ Rwandans from being slaughtered: so they are going to make economic sacrifices to help coastal residents from having to move many years down the road? Are we expecting some massive change in human DNA in the coming years? Perhaps the world being taken over by some benevolent dictator that will force the necessary changes?

Come on, folks: I'll entertain any plausible idea.
User avatar
ROCKMAN
Expert
Expert
 
Posts: 11397
Joined: Tue 27 May 2008, 03:00:00
Location: TEXAS

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby Lore » Tue 08 Dec 2015, 14:57:01

ROCKMAN wrote:You guys can keep debating the subject. But I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me even if every breathing soul on the planet believed in the damaging effects of GHG why one would expect the vast majority to sacrifice their economic well-being to change the dynamics.


Well, probably because you care more about the environment, all life around you including friends family and future generations. The only legacy worth leaving is their safety and well being.

ROCKMAN wrote:Heck, as I've repeatedly pointed out, the world isn't preventing millions of folks being displaced (let alone killed) from their homes today by political conflicts so why would they do anything about such dislocations decades down the road? Back to my standby: the world did nothing to save 500,000+ Rwandans from being slaughtered: so they are going to make economic sacrifices to help coastal residents from having to move many years down the road? Are we expecting some massive change in human DNA in the coming years? Perhaps the world being taken over by some benevolent dictator that will force the necessary changes?

Come on, folks: I'll entertain any plausible idea.


Oh, I have little hope that we are no more then a failed species, but I would also love to be proven wrong.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby Lore » Tue 08 Dec 2015, 15:33:57

pstarr wrote:Lore, nutrient overloading (from excess phosphorous and nitrogen) is a problem because it cause excess algal growth and dead zones (which is only a problem in enclosed bays such as the Chesapeake and GOM). The net effect is increased plant growth and increased CO2 sequestration . . . so no acidification.


You're talking about a small percentage of the ocean waters while at the same time CO2 absorption is happening over the entirety of the Earth's seas. As all the studies report, ocean acidification is increasing at dramatic rates, so saying "no acidification" is incorrect.
The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life.
... Theodore Roosevelt
User avatar
Lore
Fission
Fission
 
Posts: 9021
Joined: Fri 26 Aug 2005, 03:00:00
Location: Fear Of A Blank Planet

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 63 guests