Donate Bitcoin

Donate Paypal


PeakOil is You

PeakOil is You

CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby Lore » Tue 08 Dec 2015, 16:59:27

pstarr wrote:Yes Lore, only a small percentage of the ocean water is negatively affected by nutrient overloading. The rest benefits with positive plant growth, especially when it takes up excess CO2.


Not sure where your getting this information when the studies point in the opposite direction. I mean you're free to believe what you want, but the actual evidence wouldn't make me feel very comfortable. The oceans are not going to get better by us trying to make a sewer out of them.

How will ocean acidification impact marine life?

A new analysis provides a holistic assessment of the impacts of climate change and ocean acidification on marine organisms including coral, shellfish, sea urchins, and other calcifying species.


Many marine organisms—such as coral, clams, mussels, sea urchins, barnacles, and certain microscopic plankton—rely on equilibrated chemical conditions and pH levels in the ocean to build their calcium-based shells and other structures. A new analysis published in the journal Environmental Science and Technology provides a holistic analysis of how species will be affected worldwide under different climate scenarios.

“Calcifying species are indispensable for ecosystems worldwide: they provide nursery habitats for fish, food for marine predators, and natural defenses for storms and erosion. These species are also particularly vulnerable to ocean acidification triggered by increased fossil fuel emissions,” says IIASA researcher Ligia Azevedo, who led the study.

Just as carbonated soda water is more acidic than flat tap water, higher levels of carbon dioxide (CO2) in the ocean cause the water to become more acidic. And high acidity makes it more difficult for calcifying species to make their calcium structures such as shells, reefs, and exoskeletons.

“Previous studies have shown that marine species were being negatively affected by decreasing ocean pH levels. But until now most studies looked at individual species. This study is one of the first to analyze the impact on the whole community of calcifying species, while also looking at both pH levels and CO2 partial pressure,” says Azevedo.

The study examines the impact of increased ocean acidity on species growth, reproduction, and survival. It used two climate change scenarios from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5): In the low emissions scenario, ocean pH is projected to decrease from 8.1 to 7.95, while in the high emissions scenario, median ocean pH is expected to decrease to 7.80. (Lower pH indicates higher acidity).

The analysis finds that under the high emissions scenario, between 21-32% of calcifying species would be significantly affected, based on a threshold of 10% of a species population being affected. In the low emissions scenario, only 7-12% of species would be affected.

Azevedo notes that while the study is an important new milestone for ocean acidification research, it does not show what level of impact which species population can handle, that is, how much acidification is too much.

“It’s hard to say what the level of impact would mean for different organisms – a 10% rate could be no problem for some species, but for other more sensitive species it could mean one step closer to local extinction,” explains Azevedo.

The study also emphasizes that much uncertainty remains about the level of acidification that would lead to major impacts on calcifying species – in part because of varying experimental results.

The researchers say that the analysis is an important step forward to provide policymakers a better understanding of the big picture of climate impacts on the ocean. Azevedo says, “The main benefit of this study is to provide a new research framework that policymakers could use for climate policy planning, life cycle impact assessment, and environmental risk assessment.”

The study was funded in part by a grant from the European Research Council to explore the balance of carbon, phosphorus, and nitrogen in the environment.

Reference
Azevedo LB, Schryver AD, Hendriks AJ, and Huijbregts MAJ. 2015. Calcifying Species Sensitivity Distributions For Ocean Acidification. Environmental Science and Technology. doi:10.1021/es505485m (Open Access)
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/about/n ... -Acid.html


pstarr wrote:So excess phosphorous, sulphur, and nitrogen from fossil fertilizer extraction counteracts fossil carbon extraction. Just like during the late Devonian-early Carboniferous periods.


This is human supplied and not enough to go around to make the difference in neutralizing CO2 overload. Oh, and then there is the problem of peak phosphorus.

Doomsday: Will Peak Phosphate Get us Before Global Warming?
http://oilprice.com/Metals/Foodstuffs/D ... rming.html
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 kanon » Tue 08 Dec 2015, 17:56:31

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.

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

To have prosperity, I believe people need an energy source. PV/Wind will suffice perfectly well, but not for the current banking cartel / FF industry system. While people may not want to give up their cars, many would if the subsidies were eliminated, and even with the subsidies, the motor vehicle special interests actively suppress any alternative. I have tried to make the point that FF do not necessarily equal "economic well-being." For example, here is a map of the future sacrifice zone of north Texas:
Image
'Alarming' study shows dangerous water along Barnett Shale I have never seen an explanation of how the fracking industry will pay its bills, and the grinding poverty of Appalachia is attributable to the coal industry. I know it is hard to imagine, but people can do perfectly fine with FF use at 5% of today's level. There is a good example in Cuba, where a viable society survived the U.S embargo and FF deprivation. IMHO, the equating of FF and economic well-being is mostly hubris and propaganda.
kanon
Lignite
Lignite
 
Posts: 251
Joined: Fri 24 Oct 2014, 09:04:07

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby Lore » Tue 08 Dec 2015, 21:02:05

pstarr wrote:Lore, if you argue that extraction and release of ancient carbon stores (fossil fuels) affects atmosphere, doesn't it stand to reason that extraction and release of ancient phosphorus, sulfur and nitrogen stores (fossil fertilizers) would have an equally profound affect?

You don't seem to understand the role of peak-phosphorus. It's precisely because we abused the stores of ancient phosphorus (and will have none left for industrial agriculture) that the oceans are now teeming with extra phosphorus, an important nutrient for plant growth. Hence my argument: ocean plants will take up excess carbon.

(by the way, it seems you apparently have confused eutrophication and acidification of the oceans.)


I don't think so. Eutrophication is a natural process that occurs over time. What you're trying to suggest is that we are geoengineering our way out of acidification by introducing natural compounds into the system, along with all the rest of the contaminants of course. What I'm discussing is the result of atmospheric CO2 being absorbed by oceans across the planet which is destroying marine life and the ability to absorb further CO2 as they turn acidic.

Your claim, unless I'm reading you wrong, is that somehow if we can step up throwing fertilizers into the ocean we will cure the problem? I can't find a basis for this, other then from fertilizer companies. If you can point to some study otherwise, I'll look at it.

Counter to your argument there is plenty of research that suggests we are destroying the oceans natural ability to absorb CO2 at an alarming rate.

Oceans Absorb Less Carbon Dioxide as Marine Systems Change

The oceans are by far the largest carbon sink in the world. Some 93 percent of carbon dioxide is stored in algae, vegetation, and coral under the sea.

But oceans are not able to absorb all of the carbon dioxide released from the burning of fossil fuels. In fact, a recent study suggests that the oceans have absorbed a smaller proportion of fossil-fuel emissions, nearly 10 percent less, since 2000.

The study, published in the current issue of Nature, is the first to quantify the perceived trend that oceans are becoming less efficient carbon sinks.
---------------------------------
Currently, between 2 and 7 percent of coastal ecosystems are lost each year, due largely to runoff pollution and coastal development. In addition, fishing activities that trawl and dredge the seafloor often damage seagrass meadows, and aquaculture operations and timber extraction frequently lead to the destruction of mangrove ecosystems.

"We know that marine protected areas are beneficial for biodiversity," Laffoley said. "High levels of protection have carbon mitigation benefits as well."

These ecosystems are significantly understudied, however. Although global maps exist for seagrass meadows and mangroves, the global area covered by tidal sea marshes is unknown.

Khatiwala said that marine ecosystems could play a larger role in improving the oceans' ability to absorb carbon dioxide, but this role will likely remain minor compared to the huge carbon-sink potential of the ocean as a whole.

"Marine ecosystems are quite important. They take up carbon at the surface, and when they die they sink and take the carbon with them into the deep ocean. This is what is called the ‘biological pump,'" he said. "But this pump is still a small fraction of the dissolution of carbon in the ocean."

http://www.worldwatch.org/node/6323
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 dohboi » Tue 08 Dec 2015, 23:45:33

OMG, now poor pstarr is referring to a graph that is decades old and even when new was utterly simplistic.

Sad that this seems to be another person who has basically become a troll, inaccessible to simple reason and science.

This is a totally understandable response to the overwhelming doom and hopelessness that reality presents us with.

Still rather sad to see in one who had been till recently apparently pretty well grounded in reality, in spite of how grim that reality was.

I hope more of you can continue to persevere in looking with me into the abyss without the abyss looking back at you in a too-fatal way, intellectually.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby Keith_McClary » Wed 09 Dec 2015, 12:13:10

... examined nahcolite crystals found in Colorado’s Green River Formation, formed 50 million years old during a hothouse climate. They found that CO2 levels during this time may have been as low as 680 parts per million (ppm), nearly half the 1,125 ppm predicted by previous experiments. The new data suggests that past predictions significantly underestimate the impact of greenhouse warming and that Earth’s climate may be more sensitive to increased carbon dioxide than was once thought,

http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/ ... ought.html
Facebook knows you're a dog.
User avatar
Keith_McClary
Light Sweet Crude
Light Sweet Crude
 
Posts: 7344
Joined: Wed 21 Jul 2004, 03:00:00
Location: Suburban tar sands

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 09 Dec 2015, 12:22:45

The graph is out of date, and it has no uncertainty bars. The further back you go, the less we know for certain about all these things. One thing we do know for certain is that the sun was hotter the further back you go, significantly so when you go back to periods tens of millions of years before present or further.

As KM's article shows (and we could find dozens of others), we are still finding out about what CO2 levels actually were in earlier ages, and the news is mostly not very comforting.

But like all other stripes of denialists, you're not really interested in facts unless they are cherry-picked in such a way to confirm your firmly held beliefs. Good luck with that.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby Tanada » Wed 09 Dec 2015, 12:28:18

Dohboi the sun was about 70 percent of its current output 4.5 Billion years ago, it is getting hotter very very slowly.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby Lore » Wed 09 Dec 2015, 12:37:38

70% is a considerable difference, specially relative to climate sensitivity. As the science reports, even minor fluctuations in solar output have an effect. Just not that much in the short term to override the other variables, as in this case rapid increases in GHGs.
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 Subjectivist » Wed 09 Dec 2015, 13:16:18

Lore wrote:70% is a considerable difference, specially relative to climate sensitivity. As the science reports, even minor fluctuations in solar output have an effect. Just not that much in the short term to override the other variables, as in this case rapid increases in GHGs.


Not to be funny but NASA research indicates Mars, which only gets 75 percent of the solar energy Earth gets and had an ocean of liquid water 3.5 Billion years ago when the sun was much dimmer than today. Clearly having a thick atmosphere back then made a huge difference and we should learn from that.
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: 4700
Joined: Sat 28 Aug 2010, 07:38:26
Location: Northwest Ohio

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 09 Dec 2015, 13:29:43

D'oh!

Yes, T. Thanks. I was typing faster than I was thinking.

The point being that long ago there was less insolation from the sun, so higher CO2 levels would not have had quite the level of gw heating effect as they would have with today's warmer sun.
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 » Wed 09 Dec 2015, 13:35:58

Water vapor is the primary greenhouse gas.
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 Tanada » Wed 09 Dec 2015, 16:33:01

pstarr wrote:
dohboi wrote:But like all other stripes of denialists, you're not really interested in facts unless they are cherry-picked in such a way to confirm your firmly held beliefs. Good luck with that.

It's like arguing with children. I have patience.

I suggested a rather obvious moderation: accelerated plant growth might result from a one-time flush of elevated growth nutrients (CO2/S/P/N from agriculture) into the atmosphere and water. These nutrients had previously been sequestered away by natural geologic forces, in processes not unlike those that created fossil-fuels. I supported this with evidence (see ocean eutrophication)

Furthermore I suggested this would result in elevated sequestration of same nutrients out of the biosphere; sequestration analogous to accelerated plant nutrient uptake during the late Devonian-early Carboniferous periods due to a one-time evolutionary appearance of large forests. My model has been tested experimentally in open-air plant CO2 enhancement trials.

It's actually an interesting theory that I kind of developed myself. And all you guys can do is complain and attack. I thought someone would be interested to hear some good news lol


Hey don't paint everyone who follows the topic of CO2/climate change with one brush. I promise my political viewpoint is vastly different than the average member around here who believes in AGW. I happen to agree with you as far as the CO2 fertilizer effect is concerned, the problem mostly comes from the change in overall weather patterns/ rainfall. So long as you have sufficient rain and temperatures are not over about 40 C then CO2 is a great fertilizing effect on plant growth. Reduce the water supply or any other vital nutrient like Potassium or Phosphorus and you hit the least abundant nutrient limit effect.
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby dohboi » Wed 09 Dec 2015, 18:57:17

I think we've already pretty well expended any benefit of CO2 enhancement. It's downhill from here as endless droughts and bibilical flooding become the norm--hard to grow anything either with no water or under constant inundations.

Do you folks really think that climate freakin scientists don't know anything about how plants take up CO2 and haven't worked that into models? The hubris and Dunning Kruger is very strong in these, indeed!

https://www.skepticalscience.com/co2-plant-food.htm

Really all you guys are doing is (perhaps unconsciously) regurgitating standard denialist memes that, like the others, have been debunked over and over and over and over...again. It really gets tiresome to have to still point out these fallacies after doing so for years here and elsewhere.

But, hell, why not. Here are some choice selections from the above link:

What would be the effects of an increase of CO2 on agriculture and plant growth in general?

1. CO2 enhanced plants will need extra water both to maintain their larger growth as well as to compensate for greater moisture evaporation as the heat increases. Where will it come from? ...

2. Unlike Nature, our way of agriculture does not self-fertilize by recycling all dead plants, animals and their waste. Instead we have to constantly add artificial fertilizers produced by energy-intensive processes mostly fed by hydrocarbons, particularly from natural gas which will eventually be depleted. Increasing the need for such fertilizer competes for supplies of natural gas and oil, creating competition between other needs and the manufacture of fertilizer. This ultimately drives up the price of food.

3. Too high a concentration of CO2 causes a reduction of photosynthesis in certain of plants. There is also evidence from the past of major damage to a wide variety of plants species from a sudden rise in CO2 (See illustrations below). Higher concentrations of CO2 also reduce the nutritional quality of some staples, such as wheat.

4. As is confirmed by long-term experiments, plants with exhorbitant supplies of CO2 run up against limited availability of other nutrients. These long term projects show that while some plants exhibit a brief and promising burst of growth upon initial exposure to C02, effects such as the "nitrogen plateau" soon truncate this benefit

5. Plants raised with enhanced CO2 supplies and strictly isolated from insects behave differently than if the same approach is tried in an otherwise natural setting. For example, when the growth of soybeans is boosted out in the open this creates changes in plant chemistry that makes these specimens more vulnerable to insects...

6. Likely the worst problem is that increasing CO2 will increase temperatures throughout the Earth. This will make deserts and other types of dry land grow. While deserts increase in size, other eco-zones, whether tropical, forest or grassland will try to migrate towards the poles. Unfortunately it does not follow that soil conditions will necessarily favor their growth even at optimum temperatures.

In conclusion, it would be reckless to keep adding CO2 to the atmosphere. Assuming there are any positive impacts on agriculture in the short term, they will be overwhelmed by the negative impacts of climate change.
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 » Wed 09 Dec 2015, 19:06:18

I found this to be the usual case. Not that anyone should ever give up and accept doom as the only answer, but that most rational people will still try to bargain their way out of a bad situation that smacks of inevitability. Chalk it up to human nature.

Image
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 dohboi » Wed 09 Dec 2015, 19:08:24

+1

Exactly right, Lore.

I can't really blame anyone for trying to go back to the 'bargaining' phase. But I kind of thought that maybe certain veteran members on these threads had gotten passed that by now. I guess I was wrong about that.
User avatar
dohboi
Harmless Drudge
Harmless Drudge
 
Posts: 19990
Joined: Mon 05 Dec 2005, 04:00:00

Re: CO2 (non-obsessing) Thread

Unread postby Tanada » Sat 18 Feb 2017, 11:07:19

Giant icebergs play key role in removing CO2 from the atmosphere

Pioneering research from the University of Sheffield’s Department of Geography discovered melting water from giant icebergs, which contains iron and other nutrients, supports hitherto unexpectedly high levels of phytoplankton growth.

This activity, known as carbon sequestration, contributes to the long-term storage of atmospheric carbon dioxide, therefore helping to slow global warming.

During the study, which is the first of its kind on this scale, a team of scientists led by Professor Grant Bigg analysed 175 satellite images of ocean colour - which is an indicator of phytoplankton productivity at the ocean’s surface - from a range of icebergs in the Southern Ocean which were at least 18 km in length.

The images from 2003-2013 showed that enhanced phytoplankton productivity, which has a direct impact on carbon storage in the ocean, extends hundreds of kilometres from giant icebergs, and persists for at least one month after the iceberg passes.

Professor Bigg said: “This new analysis reveals that giant icebergs may play a major role in the Southern Ocean carbon cycle.

“We detected substantially enhanced chlorophyll levels, typically over a radius of at least four-10 times the iceberg’s length.

“The evidence suggests that assuming carbon export increases by a factor of five-10 over the area of influence and up to a fifth of the Southern Ocean’s downward carbon flux originates with giant iceberg fertilisation.

“If giant iceberg calving increases this century as expected, this negative feedback on the carbon cycle may become more important than we previously thought.”

The Southern Ocean plays a significant part in the global carbon cycle, and is responsible for approximately 10 per cent of the ocean’s total carbon sequestration through a mixture of biologically driven and chemical processes, including phytoplankton growth.

Previous studies have suggested that ocean fertilization from icebergs makes relatively minor contributions to phytoplankton uptake of CO2.

However this research, published today (11 January 2016) in Nature Geoscience, shows that melting water from icebergs is responsible for as much as 20 per cent of the carbon sequestered to the depths of the Southern Ocean.


https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/news/nr/gia ... e-1.538818
Alfred Tennyson wrote:We are not now that strength which in old days
Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
One equal temper of heroic hearts,
Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
User avatar
Tanada
Site Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 17048
Joined: Thu 28 Apr 2005, 03:00:00
Location: South West shore Lake Erie, OH, USA

PreviousNext

Return to Environment, Weather & Climate

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 26 guests